S/PV.328 Security Council

There are no more speakers on the list. 1 should like ta sum up the situation which has emerged from the debate. que ment être soumises des écrit. ma de avant remédier May 1 firstpoint out that aIl proposals made under rule 35 of the -mIes of prucedure must be submitted in writing? Unfortunately not one of the speakers did submit his proposals in this way. As President, 1 C;;ln make allowances in this case hecause the President's dutY is ta sum up the debate and find a solution for this situation. The gist of the first prop03aI submitted by the Chinese representative is that the President of the Security Council should ,request the Chairman of the Committee of Good Offices, as it is called, for the working paper drawn up by Australia and supported by the United States, so as to acquaint the Security Council with it. This proposaI has been supported by the Syrian representative. The gist of the second proposaI-submitted by Canada-is that the duty of the Security Council, and, in this case, of the President, is to see that there should be no violation of the present armistice in Indonesia while it is in force. In the event of such a violation, he is to take measures, that is to say, he is ta call a meeting of the Security Council to discuss the situation. , The only other proposaI was that of the AustraIian representative, who supported the Indian proposaI which, in effect, expressed a generaI wish that the Security Council should request the Committee of Good Offices to act in such a way as to bring about an agreement. But according to rule 38 of the rules of procedure, that proposaI ffi'aY be put to a vote only at the request of a repres\~ntative on the Security Council; so if no .member supports the proposai, I cannat put it to the vote. Consequently, we have two proposaIs.before us. Frankly speaking, they seem to me rather weak in that, for example, the President may take a decision on the question of requesting any working papers for the Security Council's information without putting it to the vote. But as the Chinese repreesntativesaid that he had made reservations on that question last time, and as he is now pressing that point, I shall put it to the vote. Thus I shall put two proposaIs to the vote. The Chinese proposaI was received first. The.gist of it is that the President of the Security Council should asle the Chairman of the Committee of Good Offices to send, for the information of the "Security Council, the working paper prepared by Australia and the United States. That is how I understand the proposaI of the·Chinese representative. Ml'. TSIANG (China): I did not submit a formaI resolution on the matter because I thought my request ta the President, if accepted by him, would be sufficient in itself without a resolution or a vote. However, since my humble suggestion has met with a formaI objection by the representative of Be1gium, it might be necessary to put it to a vote. situation 1submit that it would indeed be a very strange situation if the Security Council were ta remain very long without official knowledge of that docum ment. It has been called an informal document, a working paper. Whatever that may mean, there Can he no doubt that the document has been an important one. The Comnrittee of Good Offices is an instrument of this Council. This Council is the power behind that Committee of Good Offices. 1 see no reason why the Committee of Good Offices should keep secret from this Council any important document for any length of time. Such a procedure would,. 1 submit, be a very, very unusual one and very unhelpful. de important. When we created the Committee of Good Offices for Indonesia, there was objection on the ground that such a committee would not be representative of the Security Council, as well as on the further ground that such a committee would" only be a nominallnstrument of this Council and really an instrument of the policy of individual Governments. At that juncture, in view of the complicated situation in Indonesia, my delegation. favoured the present constitution of the Committee of Good Offices. 1 feIt that such a constitution had many advantages. But, if we are going to keep the pommittee of Good Offices apart from the Security Council, 1 would submit that in future the Security Council should not make use of a similar instrument. Thè Security Council, not the Committee of Good Offices, is responsible to the United Nations and to the peoples of the. world for the future peace and security'of that part of the world. 1 think that politically and morally it is only right that this Council should acquire early knowledge of that document. Therefore, 1 humbly submit a request that the representative of Belgium reconsider his stand in view of what 1 have said to the effect that 1 did not intend to exercise good offices here or to enlarge the competence of the Committe, or ta change the nature of the Committee. Ml'. JESSUP (United States of America): 1 have listened with·particular interest to the discussion' on the question which the President has st~ted he will put to the Council first, namely, wnether it is desirable that he, as President of the Secvrity Council, should be requested by the Council to ask the Chairman of the Committee of Good Offices to transmit to us this working paper which has been the subject of a good deal of attention here today as weil as at our previous hav~ been.expressed concérning the reason why it would be desirable for the Security Council to request this document. l confess that l'view the task of theCommittee of Good Offices and its relation to the Security Council somewhat differently from the representative of China in bis analysis of the Committee's position. Itdoes not seem to me that we have 'here any.question of keeping a document secret-detracting from the ultimate responsibility of the ~eturity.Council to the United Nations. In my view, the question is essentially this: WQ:.lld it help the negotiatio~going on in Indonesia if we asked the Committee of Good Offices to send us this document, and if we received it and had it here? That is the test of Security Council' action at this stage of the negotiations which the delegation of the United States indicated in the statelnents which it made at the last two discussions 'of the Indonesian queStion [323rd and 326th meetings]. ,It seems to, me it isthe touchstone of any proposal for action by the Security Council in this matter at this time. Would it help the negotiations? 1 am sUre that it would not be the desire, of the Security Councl1 to do anything which would be injurious to .the course of the negotiations mere- Iy for the purpose of our own sa~faction in studying an interesting dôcument. Clearly, we should want ~o study the document only if we thought. that our study of it might assist in the negotiations in Indonesia. The next question which comes to my mind is: who is the best judge of whether the requesting and sending of this document would aid the negotiations? Are the members around this table the best judges of whetherÏt would be actually help- . ful in the negotiations, or is the Committee of Good Offices the best judge? My m'Vn thought is that the Committee on the spot is bestable to judge. 1 am not sure that it has not aIready indicated its opinion. On 18 June the President of the Security Council, in accordance with the express desire of the Council, sent the Committee of Good Offices a telegram in which he requested the Committee to furnish the Council, at its discretion, with infortnation pertaining to suspeti.~ion. of negotiations, including its cause ànd eventual duration. The text ofthat telegram was reported to the Security Council by the Assistant Secretary- General and is contained in the record of the 326th meeting. That was an indication, coupled withthe transmission of the report of the 1believe that as we look back at the record of the Committee of Good Offices, we note what the representative of Syria pointed out this aftemoon, that it has accomplished much to its credit. It did succeed in arranging the truce; it did succeed in securing the "Renville" Agreement. Subsequent ta that time, the Committee, composed of Mr. Du Bois, the representative of the United States, and the representatives of Australia and Belgium, has continued unremittingly the effort ta promote a.:final settlement. My Gélvernment views with justifiable pride the contribution which Mr. Du Bois has made to the work of the Committ~e. We deeply regret that the very strenuous nature of the effort made by sa able and conscientious a man as Mr. Du Bois, has resulted in a breakdown of ms health, which has made it necessary for him, under the strict orders of his physician, ta return by ship ta the United States. Lest there be the slightest chance of misunderstanding or of misrepresentatian, 1 want to say very frankly ta the Security Council that this is no question of a diplomatie illness. My Government fully supports the efforts wmch Mr. Du Bois has made as a member of the Committee of Good Offices, ~d regrets most deeply that his health has been sacrificed to this work and that he is no longer able ta carry on with it. But' the Committee of Good Offices is more than the three individuals who compose it at any given time. It isan institution; it is an institution of the United Nations, of this Security .Council, created for the purpose of exercising good offices and mediatory functions in an effort ta bring about a settlement in Indonesia. My Government retains and maintains its confidence in this institution. At the very earliest possible moment; the United States will designate its new member of the Committee of Good Offices, and that Committee will uttquestionably continue its efforts. est l'Organisation pleine vernement des représentant suivra The delegation of the United States has not la sécurité séances]. dernier ~tered the position which it stated in the Security Council on 17 and 23 June [323rd and 326th meetings]. In spite of the statement contained in the last paragraph of the cablegramsent by Therefore, it seems to me that we are still in the position of applying the test; or of asking the question, which 1 stated at the outsetof my remarks: will the request for this document, and the sending of this document to the Security Council, assistin the negotiations between t..11e parties in Indonesia? My Government would be very hesitant to take a position whic1;J. might seem, to members of the Security Council not represented on the Committee of Good Offices, to be an attemptto keep from those members ôf the Security Council a document'transmitted to the parties ;n an unofficial and informal manner by two members of the Committee of Good Offices, of who.ùl one Was the representative of the, United States. However, applying the test which 1 have suggested, and asking myself the question' which 1 have posed, the conclusion which 1reach is that at the present time there is no indication that the Committee ofGood Offices feels that it would assist them in their work to send us tne text of this document, and 1 am still willing to trust to that Committee to use its judgment in determining when it will be helpful to transmit it, or to send' us a report of another character, asking us to take sorne action. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): 1 agree , with the Presidentthat we have come up against procedural difficulties, inasmuch as the proposaIs have not been submitted in writing and it is therefore difficult to put the question. to the... vote. However, one of these proposaIs' deserves to be examined at this meeting. 1 am referring to the proposal which, if 1 am not mistaken, was first submitted by the Chinese representative at our last meçting, thoughin a somewhat timid and vague form. However, he'has re-stated it more clearly at this ~eeting. 1 am referring to the proposal that the Australian-United States document submitted to the Committee of Three [Committee of Good Offices] should be sent to the Security Council. That document was discussed for a relatively long time. It had been mentioned at the preceding meetings, and today aImost every speaker has referred to it. Only a few of us, by the way, know the nature of this document. No doubt its contents are familiar to therepresentatives of the United States and Australia and, of course, to the The Security Council is fully entitled not only to request, butalso to demand, this document from the Committee of Three. ThiÏs step is justified by the course of the discussion on the Indonesian question. If we take the view thÇl.t there is some sense in theSecurity Council's discussing the Indonesian question-and we do take that view by virtue of the fact that we are dealing with'that question-the Security Council is fully entitled to demand that document. I must admit that when I first heard of it, I was not very interested, but as time went on, it hegan to intrigue me more and more. My interest grew as the representatives of the countries responsihle for the proposaIs exprèssed in that document began to object with ever-increasing 'détermination to the Security Council's being acquainted with it. We cannot accept the view that various proposaIs should be prepared and examined and certain decisions taken behind the backs of the Security Council and of the United Nations on a question of which the Council is seized.. Such a situaticn would be quite intolerable. In hiÏs statement today, the United States representative said that the Committee of Three was an organ of the United Nations. This is undoubteclly the case, aIthough it is only an appendage of the Security Council and is, in fact, working with a great degree of indep.endence. If wc start with the premise that the Committee is an organ of the United Nations, as the United States representative has pointed out, how can the latter object to the Security Council-an organ of the United Nations-asking for a document at . the disposai ofthe Committee? It would he useless to look for any logic in this attitude. 1 might even say that that attitude is somewhat improper. A document is submitted to the Committ~e of Three-a committee which is supposed to work under instructions from the Security Councilwhile attempts are made to prove that the Security Council has no claim or reason to demand ·that document for examination. The argument is advanced that an examination of the document by the Security Council might prejudice the examination of those proposals by the Committee of Three. 1 know of nothing more ludicrous than the assertion that if the Security Council discusses the document,and even becomes acquainted with it-that might ~rejudice the settlement of the 1ndonesian question. If the Security Council were to be deprived of the possibility of receiving that document, its That is why 1 am astonished at the objections raised against an entirely correct and sound proposaI that <;he Seè'urity Councilshould receive the Australian-United States proposaIs and should examine them, particularly as we have learned from .the latest documents received from the Committee of Three that the Netherlands Government has rejected those proposaIs. We do not know their nature, whether they are good or bad, but the Netherlands has rejected them. That means that the situation in th.e Committee has grown even more complicated. Consequently, it is the, Security.Council's duty to examine the question.

If there is no objection, the President will, on the basis of this exchange of views, send an appropriate request to the Chairman of the Committee of Good Offiœ:; to forward the Australian-United States document for the Security Council's information. 1 repeat that 1 shall do this if there is no objection. Th(l President continued in French. It ID my impression that the representative of Belgium is opposed to this procedure. 1 shall therefore put the. 'question to a vote. Is that acceptable to the Belgian representative? Mr. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgium) (translated from French) : Yes, Mr. President. The PRESIDENT (translated from Russian): .As there is sorne objection, 1 must put this question to the vote. 1 ask those who are in favour of the Chinese'delegation's proposaI, which 1 have already formulated, to raise their hands; 1 mean those w'ùoare in favour ofsending a telegram to the Chairman of the Committee of Good Offices asking him to forward the Australian-United States working ~'\per for the Security Covncil's i:.Jorma(on. . Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russirzn): If t..1te statement of the Presidenfis to be regaided as a ruling, then 1 think, it would be more logical to vote on who is in favour of reversing the President's ruling, ratherthan on who is in favourof the· Chineseproposal. 1 think that would be morelogicaI, in so far as the President's statel}1ent constitutes a rtiling. In - that case, it goes Withoutsaying that shoLJd there

The representative of the USSR is indeed not mistaken, but 1 know from experience that procedural questions can take more time than questions of substance. Consequently, as it is. getting late, unless there are an)' objections, 1 think 1 shall adjoum the meeting, the more so as the United Kingdom and Syrian representatives still wish to speak. What is the opinion of the Security Councilshould we wind up the question today or not? MI'. EL-KHOURI (Syria): 1 th1nk we may finish it today, and not necessarily go ta another day. MI'. LAWFORD (United Ki"'lgdom): 1 asked to speak before the representative of Syria, but 1 agree with what he has said. 1 think we can ter- , minate the question at once by voting on it, but 1 object to the suggestion of the representative of the USSR that this is a point of arder falling under rule 30. It is not a question of a point of arder atall. Whether it is a question of procedure, is another point. MI'. EL-KHOURI (Syria): 1 was going to say the same thing. The matter does not come under rule 30 of the rules of procedure, because ruIe 30 states that if a representative raises a point of order, the President should immediately state his ruling on the point of order, and that ruling may be overruled or confirmed by a vote of the members of the Council. However, this is not the case here. We have a suggestion or proposaI made by one representative and it should be voted upon. Ido not' wish that such a thing should constitute a precedent, so that future Presidents may apply the same ruling to other matt~rs, and that any statementmade by a President may be co:m;idered as a ruling and proceeded upon iD. that way. MI'. JESSUP (United States of America): r should just like to support the position taken by the representatives of Syria and the United Kingdom, and to recall that a few moments ago-not very long ago in our discussion-the President su~?rized the preceding discussion in the Se- Curlty Council thiS afternoon and said that the ~st question which he would put to the Counc!1 was ~~ suggestion made by the representa- ~v~ oftAhina. That seerns to me very,clearly to rndicate that the President was correct in saying, a moment ago, that this was a proposition which ~ouldnow be put to the vote, and it very clearly lSnot a question of procedure to be'disposed of by a PresidentiaI ruling. . Ml'. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): 1 think the President can best settle that question. 1 have tried ta interpret his statement. If it is to be regarded as a ruling given by the President, then the procedure should of course be as 1 have already said: seven votes would be necessary to reject it. If it is not to be regarded as a ruling, then of course we must resort to the usual procedure and first ascertain by voting who supports the Chinese proposai. However, 1 c~lnot agree that this is a nonprocedural question. The United Kingdom and United States representatives are arguing that a request to the Committee for documents is a non- 'procedural matter. They have been demonstrating for a long time that the setting up of an investigation committee-in connexion with the socalled Czechoslovakian question, for example- 'was a procedural question. But a request for documents from the Committee of Three is not a question of procedure, but a question of substance. Here, too, 1 fail to see the logic. Mr. JESSUP (United State[i ofAmerica)': 1 just wish to reassure the representative of the USSR and make it clear that he and 1 have not completely changed places, in view of the fact that he is supporting the extension of the procedural categories. 1 wanted to assure him that 1 am not trying ta safeguard the veto on t.'Ie matter before us. When 1 referred to the procedural aspect ofthis question, 1 was thinking in terms of a point of order under l'me 30 and not in terms of that other issue which has sometimes involved us here.

1 think it i5 time to wind up this procedure. We are not now di'lcussing the veto; we have to settle today a practical question which we have been discussing. 1 shall therefore put to the vote the proposal of the representative of China. A vote was takan by a show of hands, as follows': In favour: Canada, China, Colombia, Syrla, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist -Republic, Union of Sovie~ Socialist Republics. ~bstain!ng: Argentina, Belgium, France, Umted Kingdom, United States of America. The result of the vote was 6 in favour, with 5 abstentions. . maintenant chaine A~~TR~'~~I~~.ÀU~"~~·fi~. 'FI~L~/' ~ '~~!JDE~,':", H.A(~c:'d~ar4ieft~j~td. .Akat. ,enIGt~ik8,upn!'à 255a/GêÔ}:'gè.~treetl • 2Kè~skatu,.,' SYA.f4~Yl N:/~;·W.,'. , .\ ':';1"'EL5INii' : ", ••,{ ,". .~~:'~'~;',:,-~,~ " ," • ," '1 • BELqn,J~EL~~QlIE ' ", " Ageiiéeet~essa.:geries de la; .Pr.ëss~, S. A.":.r ' ' 14.22 rùeduPei~l '.{. BRUXELLES.:; FRANCE Editions A., Pedone 13, rue Soufilot PAroS. v,& GRjEC~GRECE "Eleftheroudakis" Librairie internationale BOLlVIA~sOi;VIE , "',; , Librerla Cientifica Y'LiteraÏia AveIiida 16 de Jùlio,216 . Oasilla972 '1..\PAi Pla~e de la Constitution ATH~S GUATEMALA José Goubaud Goubaud & Cfa. Sucesor . Sa Av. Sur ~o. 6 GUATEMALA. ' CANADA n. The, RyersonPres~,' 299 Queen Street West TORONT~ CHILÉ-CHIU ,Œdûl1in(Io ,Pizarro Mèïced '846 HAITI . Max Bouchereau. Librairie"4 la Caravelle" ·Boîtep9stall;lJlJo.B ·IS.t~\l1A~o .' . cHi~i:~HINE .-.' . the~ommerchil Press Ltd:, PORT.AU~PJiINcE ~,.~ ..1j.,~G~.natt,.R .. o~î' ~ '.' J? ", ~. COL:OMBIA--JCOI.OMalE .'~l,' '., ",ï1fhreria-Latina Ltda. r i\!ti~do Aél"eo~OU. BOGOTA, ',-~" 1 - .' ":~" èZECHOSLOVAKIA"":: TCHECOS(o'lAQVjE ".• FTopic' ·.'I ,Nkodiii 'trida:9 PÎiÀB'Al' ... ..P."~RIé--6~'E4!~IlIè:· :L.'.. _~Eiila:r: Munskg~lJ~dë ::.:~ '" )" Norregade:6 .. ;'" . "~ c.· K;rOBENHAVN .' ~'-._~_.- ." .- -.' - - ' .DOMIN!CAN REPtlBI.I REPUBLlQUErJOMÎN,C' Libreria·nifuinicaBl,l.; . Calle,Mercedes. No.··· 49 Âllartad665ij ,. ., CIUDADTRU.nLLO ." -.- 'l'-L.- ECUÂDdR';;~'aUArEUR -MuiiQZ"IIerm;mOif'Ciao N1\evedeOetubre703 ..,Casilla 10-24 NICARA~UA- Ramfro Ramfrez·V. Ag(meia;..de'·. Pü6licadone~ .MANAGUA, D. • :r~teain theU.S.AfPrice