S/PV.33 Security Council

Now, in regard to item 2, name1y the Iranian question, 1 have just received a,drait resolution from the French representative which, has been circulated and a 'memorandum from the Secretary-General to the President of the C01mcil. 1 shall ask -the interpreter to read these documents: Tkeinterpreter then read the following documents: Draft resolution submitted by the representative of France "The Security Council, "Having again considered at its meetings of 15 and 16 April the question which it had placed - 1 See-Official,Recordsot the Security Council,Firct Year, First Series, Supplement No. 2, Annex 2e. . 'Ibid., Annex 2f. aSee thirty-second meeting. •See OffiCIal Records of the Security Council, First Year, First Series, Supplement No. 2, Annex 8a. 1 Ibid.• Allnex lib. " les les rapport conformément la ordre maintenant retirée, Communication de vue relatives de prise précédent semble désirable de l'envisager avec le plus grand soin tard, exprimé vous "1 submit the views herein expressed to you for such use as you may care to make of them. "On 18 March 1946 the Iranian representa-' tive brought to the attention of the Security Council, pursuant to Article 35, paragraph 1,. of the Charter, a dispute between Iran and the Union of Soviet Socialist·Republics, 'the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and securit,/. On 4 April the Couneil resolved that the Couneil defer further proceedings on the. Iranian appeal until 6 May. On 15 April the Iranian representative. informed the Security Council that the Iranian Government 'withdîJ.ws its complaint from the Security Council'. Previously, the USSR representative had requested 'that the Iranian question should be removed from the agenda of the Security Council'. a formément de l'Union "différend .menacer internationales". d'ajourner iranienne sentant de rité plainte sécurité". l'URSS nienne de sécurité". sécurité maintenu deux soit "The issue considered yesterday irithe Security Council is whet;her the question can properly be retained on the agenda in view of the fact that both parties now have requested that it he removed. "The powers of the Security Council are set forth in Chapter VI of the Charter in the following manner: . dans suivante: , "Under Article 33 the CouneRmay call upon !he ~arties to a dispute to settle it by negotiation, demander par vertu ~qœry, et cetera. Under Article 34it may mvestigate any dispute orsituation which might ., 1 See twenty-sixtb. m/eeting. 2 See thirtieth meeting. •Seethirty-secondmeeti.ng. "It is to he noted that the Security Council can he seized of a dispute or situation in one of three ways: (1) under Article 35 by aState; (2) under Article 34 by the Security Council itself; (3) under Article 99 by the Secretary- General. "In the present case, Article 99 isobvious1y not applicable. The Security Council has taken no action under Article 34, i.e., it has not ordered an investigation, which is thè only action poSsible under that Article. It is therefore not applicable at this time and cannot become applicable until an investigation is ordered. "The Council was originally seized of the dispute under Article ~5, paragraph 1. Now that Iran has withdrawn its complaint, the Council can take no action under Articles 33, 36, 37 or 38, since the necessary conditions for applying these Articles (namely a dispute between two·or more .parties) do not exist. The only Article under which it can act at all is Article· 34. But that Article, as has already been said, can only he invoked by a vote to investigate, which has not been taken or even suggested in this case. "(c) The Council proceeds under Article 36, "It is therefore arguable that following withdrawal by the Iranian representative, the question is automatically removed from the agenda, unless: . "(a) The Security Council votes an investigation under Article 34, or "(0) A Member brings it up as a situàtion or dispute under Article 35, or . par~graph 1, which would appear to require prcliminary finding that a dispute exists under. Article 33, or that there is 'a situatÏon of like nature'. "An argument which may be made against !he view of automatic. l"emoval from the agenda JS that once a .m~tt~r 15 brought to the attention of the Council, It 15 no longer a matter sale1y b~tween the original parties, but one in which the ~ouncil collectively has an interest, as repre-I' senting the whole of the United Nations. This may weil be true; but it would appe~r that the qui général, d'experts Conseil soit, moment que n'avons d'àccord, dum

ln regard to the Secretary- General's memorandum, 1 suggest that it be referred to the Committee of Experts for examination and report before the Council takes any action on it. 1 received it just as 1 came into this room, so the other members have had no chance to study it, nor have I. If it is agreeable to the members, 1 suggest we refer it to the Committee of Experts. socialistes voudrais de l'accomplissement jours question. Mr. GROMYKO' (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): 1 should like to know if the President intends to propose any time limit for the conclusion of this work by the Committ-,<.: of Experts. 1 think that two days would pro\-ide enough time for the Committee to study dris question. d'accord du d'experts

1 think it is agreeable to me, if it is to the rest of the members, that the Committee of Experts should report to the Council, say, by Thursday. . Ifthere is no objection, that suggestion is adopted. sition Now, 1 think we shall continue with the discussion at the point where we left off yesterday. prendre Mr. STETTINIUS (United States of America): The representative of the USSR yesterday questioned the motives of the United States of America in this case. 1 am genuinely sorry he has done this, because 1 feel deeply that membership on this great Council carries with it' a tremendous responsibility. In my view, we should all avoid indulging in accusations against the motives of anyof the Member nations. (traduit l'URSS ment déplore fermement une devrions pecter Nations cette seul par moi, tenus autre tage ·fond Throughout the conduct of this so-called Iran:' ian case, my Government ha~ nad only one motive in mind at any time, and that was to fulfil the purposes or'the Charter of the United Nations. Both Secretary of'.State Byrnes and 1 hll.ve scmpulously refrained from questioning the motives of any Member, and 1 shalltherefore .not pursue this aspect of the matter any forther but shall torn to the merits of the actual question before us. The question before us is the request of the USSR representative that the case be removed 1 délégation à jour que ~ediatelyfrom theCouncil's agenda. 1 should like to point out in.this· connexion that the representative of the USSR continues to maintain the Governm~nt's own standp<>int, first led it bring this.case to this table, has been the actual presence of USSR forces in Iran after the expiration of the Tri-partite Treatyl and against the protest of the Iranian Government. The Council cannot'ignore the fact th~t the sudden reversal by the Iranian GôVernment of t4~ po.sition which it had steadfastly maintained until yesterday occurred while USSR troops were still stationed in Iran. 1 should like to add one more point. The retention of this matter on the agenda as provided by the'resolution of 4 April does not, as sorne members of the Council have implied, constitute any infringement of the sovereign rights independence of Iran, or affect the agreements already reached between the parties. On the contrary, it affords them the opportunity demonstrating to the Council, and to the world, that the confidence placed by the Council the assurances received in this matter is fully justified. 'Procedures set forth in the resolution of 4 April will make it possible on 6 May, or sooner if the withdrawal is completed before that date, for the Council to dispose of this case in conformity with its responsibilities under the Charter. Mr.'GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): 1 wish merely ,to make a few remarks. In my speech yesterday 1 p0Îllted out that it was impossible at one and the saine time to be in favour of In arder to emphasize once more the United States representatives' inconsiotency and lack of logic, 1should like ta point to the fact that during the discussion of the USSR proposal that the Iranian question should not be included on the agenda of the Security Council, the United States representative said that an obstacle to the adoption of that proposal was the fact that the Iranian Government did not approve of it. Mr. Byrnes mentioned t..;is point several rimes. But now the situation has change,d. Now, not only are we faced with the USSR proposai that the Iranian question be removed from the agenda of the Security Council, but the Iranian Government has itself withdrawn its complaint from the Security Council. Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): Reduced to its simplest terms, the issue seems to me to he this. Who is master of the Council's agenda: the Council or the States who are parties ta a dispute or situation? It seems to me that, logically, the Council alone can determine what should and what should not be on the agenda. It is not the parties, but the Council that admits a question to the .agenda; not the parties, but the Council alone that can remove it. This is borne out and supported by the Charter which clearly gives to several organs of the United 'Nations duties and powers independent of the will of the parties to a dispute. The Assemhly has such powers and duties, the Council has them, and. the Secretary-General has them. It has bëen said that the retention of this question impairs the sovereignty of the Member States. 1 share Mr. Stettinius' view that it does not. The Members are not more than the Council. Members Have their rights and duties and the Council has its rights and duties. Finally - and 1 wish now tu raise the argument to a general level quite apart from the Iranian case - 1 think it is myduty to call attention to the dangerous implications involved in the opinion that the parties are sole judges as to whether or net a matter shouldbe retained on the agenda. 1 am' afraid that if that interpretation were accepted thel1c',)), would henceforth be wide open ta abuses, fD! ill cases between great Powers, .cases between smaller Pow,,::rs, and It may he argued that such pressure can just as well he brought to bear at a previous stage, before a matter comes before the Security Coun~ cil, in order to prevent its submission to the Council. That may be so, although 1 am positive that it is generaUy he1d that no unfriendly act may ever he implied. in the submission of a matter to the Council. But however this may be, we do not want to leave the way open for use of more diplomatic force than is unavoidable. The interpretation 1 advocl"te is the only one which seems to me to be ir l.ccordance with the letter and sphit of the C ter and with plain logic. 1 repeat, that not a.. ,.ty, but the Council itself adroits a matter to the Council's agenda. SimiIarly, 1 -titink it is incontrovertible that the Council alone decides whether the request to strike a matter off the agenda of the Council should or should not :'e granted. For these reasoDS, 1 must adhere to theînterpretation which 1 explained yesterday 2..I."ld which 1 havê the honour of sharing with so many of my eminent colleagues. Mr. STETTINIUS (United States of America): In reply to the last remarks made by the r~pre­ sentative of the USSR, 1 should like mere1y to say 1am sure that if he would read the resolution of4 April carefully he would find there were many other reasons set forth than those mentioned by him to support the aetion advocated by the United States delegation. The PRESIDENT: 1think every member·of the Council has expressed bis view concerning the USSR represeatative's reql'est fCil' the removal of the Iranian case from the agenda. As the repre- . sentative of China, 1 shouId like to make a few . brief obscrvatioID1. The suggestion has been made that îf the Iranian case wel'e nat withdrawn from the agenda as requested bythe parties cancerned, it would meal' that.a nation was denied the right to vJithdr-ël.W a complaint which ithad once lodged· before the CO'UIlcil. But this Council is Wll:er an obligation to interest itseH in questions conûng within the scope of the Charter. Parallel with that obligation, this Council has 1 think the right to detetmine the time and manner in. which· to examine .a. problem placed before it . ID. due forro, whether such a problemr. brought up by MembeA' States or taken up by the COUlLll on ittl 0.111 initiative. ln the present case the announcement of an agreemeniby the Govemment of the USSR and by the Iranian·Govemment encourages me, and, 1 think, aIl th~ men:1bers of the Council, to think that by6 May the situation wUl have resolved Mr. LANGE (J?oland): 1 w!.sb to raise a point of orner. Mr. BoNNET (France) (translated trom lFrench): 1 aIso wish to speak on a point of arder. The PRESIDENT: Perhaps before 1 put the USSR representative's motion to a vote, 1 should consult the wishes of the Couneil as to whether we should wait until wc have received the renort from the Committee of Experts'on the memo~an­ dum submitted to me by the Secretary-General. It is for the Council to decide. Mr. BoNNET (France) (translated from French): That is just what 1 wanted tù ask: if we do not adùpt that procedure, 1 do not see the point of the decisbn we took this morning. 1stated my opinion yesterday: 1repeat now, in spite of the arguments to the contrary advanced again this moming, that in my opinion the Council ought not ta keep a question on its agenda when the two parties concemed are agreed to witbdraw it and particularly when it h.as before it a clearly expressed request for withdrawal from the party submitting the cornplaint. l believe it would be dangerous fox the future of the United Nations to institute a new practice in this matter. Cantrary to what t.1}e Netherlands representativ.e said, 1 consider that such a practiœ would he contrary to the spirit of the Charter, and particularly of Article 33; and secondly, the Charter offers us a great variety of ways of placing a question on the agenda; we ought ta keep to one of these ways when we wish a particular question ta be placed or left on the agenda. 1 am absolutely convinced of this, and 1 must say 1 think my view is supported by the memorandum which the Secretary-GeneraI subrnitted this moming; 1 think he is in agreement with me on this. 1 ask b'lerefore that wc await the report of the Committee of Experts which is to study the Secretary-General's memorandum, before defi"· nitely taking our decision on thi~ question. -étudier . Next Thursday,. when we have receiveJ -ls 1 report, 1 shall ask that my resolution be voted . ?pon fust. 1 shall he prepared ta alter it slightly, if neoessary, in the light of the report of the Experts, which will give us theirviews on the legal points raised by our S~cretary-General in The Security Couneil is a body which operates under certain mIes of law which are laid down· in the Charter. Now sorne members of the Couneil may hold the Charter to be imperfect. That is aIl right. Everybody is entitled to such an opinion, and at the earliest General Assembly they may submit their proposais to change certain Articles of the Charter, but until that happens, th~ Charter is law for us, and we cannot make decisions wmch would be contrary to the Charter, and 1 think this li.."nits 'the scope of our actions and decisions. Therefore, 1submit that we do not vote today upon the proposal submitted by the representative of the USSR but that we first hear the report of the Committee of Experts.

1 am quite agreeable to the suggestion that we cannot take a vote upon the USSR representativess motion until we have heard from the Committee of Experts on the examination of the memorandum from the Secretary-General. The reason why 1 proposed that we should take a vote was that yesterday Mr. Gromyko had agreed to have the matter put to a vote. But in view of the further developments and the memorandum submitted by the Secre tary-GeneraI, 1 am quite willing to. have the voting postponed. . ln regard ta my Polish colleague's observation that the Secretary-General is a very imporant official of the Secretariats there is no disagreement on my part. But 1 should like·to point out to him that in Chapter XVs Article 97, it expressly stated that "The Secretary-General shallbe appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. He shall be the chief administrative officer of the Organization.n So whatever observations we may receive from him - and 1 am sure the Council will wic;h to give due weight and due consideration tohis observations - the decision remains with theCoUlncil. l\tfr.·GROMYKO (Union of.Soviet Sodalist Republics) (translated trom Rus.rian) : The President mentioned three points in his. speech. 1 do not think lûsinterpretation. of ':"ny of iliose three .,' My second remark is as follows: To-day wc adopted a decision to refer the Secretary- General's memorandum to the Committee of Experts for discussion. How can we vote, that is to say, take a decision, on the very question ta which the memorandum prepared by the Secretary-Genera1 refers? 1 should not abject to a vote at any time and, consequently, at this meeting of the Security COID.'lcil. But since we have decided that the memora1'ldum prepared by the Secretary-General should be referred to the Committee of Experts, h0'Y can we vote or take a decision? As regards the functions of the Secretary- - Generala question which has a'iisen in passingthese are, of course) more serious and more weighty than was indicated Just now. It 1 is sufficient to recall one Article of the Charter responsabilité to realize the heavy responsibilities incumbent suffit de rappeler upon the Secretary-General. Article 99 states: pour "The Secretarr-General may bri.,.g to the attensabilités tion of 'the Security Councll any matter which in L'Article his opinion may threaten the maintenance of attirer l'attention du Conseil de sécurité sur toute international peace and security." Thus,the affaire qui, Secretary-General has all the more right, and le an even greater obligation, to make statements tionales." on various aspects of the questions considered by général a le the Security Council. des tions soumises à représentant faire ne me ou compte quand vote. compte

The representative of the USSR will allow me ta observj that the only reason for my mistake was th?t 1 had failed to take the Secretary-General's memorandum into consideration when 1 first proposed that a vote should be taken. But then 1 immediately realized my erraI', so 1 was quite ready te postpone the question of voti.ng. 1 disposé But as regards the Iranian withdrawal, that was the first point to' which our attention was le premier point qui . called at yesterday)s meeting, and a discussion tion lors took place on the subject. When you had.. ~greed discussion to have the vote taken, the discussion was already de weIl advanced and it was late in the aftemoon. séance 1 did not forget the fact of the Iranian withpas drawal; the only thing that escaped my mind was iranienne. the memorandum which the Secretary.;General le sub~tted, w1ùch 1 afterwards realized should be fallait~ "studiedbefore taking 11 vote. avant Now 1 think it is agreed that no further discu~ion on the Iranian question can be taken pas until a report is received from theCommittee of avant d'avoir c~or to decide whm we should meet. We have another item on the agenda, th2Lt the Spanish question brought. up by the Pc)1ish Ambassador. 1thinkit is too late to hegin discussion on that, especially since the Council has some other engagements t 1.,is aftemoon. So il weall agree, propose that the meeting should adjoum and the date for tl'le next meeting should he med by the Egyptian representative, who will succeed me as President. Mr. STETTINIUS (United States of America): Inasmuch as this is the Chinese representative's last day as President of the Security Council and the distinguished representative of Egypt will assume the position tomorrow, in accordance with the monthly rotation among the Councll members agreed on by the Council in London, wish at this time to express to the President my appreciation for the service he has rendered the Council as its presiding officer during these diffi· cult days of our first meetings in the United States. We appreciate that in this penod, when the Council has had to function without established rules, we have had a President of such wide and distinguished experience of intemational affairs. His experience and bis judgement aild bis con· scientious devotion to the work of the Council have eamed the affection and respect of all the members. ' . Mr. BoNNET (France) Uranslated trom French): 1 associate myse1f wholeheartedly with what Mr. Stettinius has said, and 1 should like to express to the President my thanks for the greatcourtesy and skill with which he has con· ducted our debates. Coming to the question of the date ot the Council's next meeting, 1· know we are in con tinuous session, but all the smne it is better and more convenierit for each member to know one day in advance when we are to meet. We could settle now when we shall discuss the Polish representative's proposai on Spain. Probably areaJl prepared to begL'l deaJing with that ques· tion tomorrow. L~ it to he in the morning aftemoon? Wecould settle that point atonce; although there has been'a great deal of discussion this moming<on the Council's rights and dunes, Ithink that in doingthat we should not exceed any of our powers or trespass on those of our President of tomorrow. AFIFI Pasha (Egypt): 1 think the President ',now in thechairhas the right to fix thetime ,for tomorro'W's meeting., . As regards forthcoming meetings of the Security Couneil, 1 should like also, if this meets the wish of the majority of the members of the Couneil, to fix the date of the next meeting here and now. For instance, could we not hold the next meeting tomorrow? Furth:ermore, 1 should like to know definitelv whether or not there is to he a meeting of the Security Coundlon Friday, for l have heard that Friday is a holiday. If Fridfl.y is not a convenient day, we might perhaps fix Thursday for hearing the opinion of the Committee of Experts on the Secretary-General's memorandum. If Friday is a convenient day and the Security Couneil can meet on that day to discuss the Iranian question, we should abide by our decision to meet thcn. . Mr. LANGE (Poland): Three represe!1tatives have already anticipated my wish to express thanks to the President. 1therefore confine myself merely to associating myself with their sentiments, and 1 think 1 am expressing the sentiments of all of us'if 1 say that we all deeply appreciate the work he has done and the responsibility he has carried during this past month. As to the next meeting, 1 think it is desirable that we fix a date now for discussion of the case 1submitted in my letter to the Secretary-General, and 1 a.'ll of the opinion that the best time would be tomorrow afternoon. We can meet after that to hear the report of the Committee of Experts. The PRE$IDENT: 1 am more than grateful, 1 assure you, for the generous remarks by Mr. Stettinius and my French, USSR and Polish colleagues. 1 think 1 may properly say that my task as Presidenthas been difficult in this formative stage' of the Security Couneil; but, if 1 leave this post with an ine"itable sense of relief, 1 leave it aIso more sanguine than ever concerning the Council's successful future. Our dis:- eussions have been Frank and open and attimes heated, and it is only right that it·should pe so. We are all inspired by one aim and purpose: to ensure the effective funetionirlg of the United Nations in accordance with its Charter and to build up its prestige· for the. henefit .of an its f'ilembers. We are not actuated by. the narrower concepts of nationalism and self-interest; we are all stri.ving to achieve unitY amid the diversity of the whole world, and in·this endeavour the major Powers bear a special responsibility. THIRTY·FOURiH MEETING HeM at Hunter College, New York, on WJdnesday, 17 April 1946, at 3 p.m. President: AnFI Pasha (Egypt). Present: The representativ~ of the follow..ng countries: Australia, Brazil, China, Egypt, France, Mexi.co, Netherlands, Poland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, United States of Ame.rica. - 32.Provisional agenda (document 5/40) L Adoption of the agenda. 2.. Ca) Letter dated8April 1946 from the representative of Poland addressed to the Secretary-General (document S/32).1 (b) Letter dated 9 April 1946 from the representative of Poland addressed to the Secretary-General (document S/34).2 33. Address ofthè incomingPresident The PRESIDENT: ln addressing our warm .....thanks ta therepresentative of China) Dr. Quo Tai-chi, 1 amsure that 1 am voicing the unanimous sen1:Î1t1ent of the Council. During his period of\office, he presided over ?ur deliberations with grêJlt ability,courtesyan.dpatience. In'succeedîng sucb adistinguishedrepresent~­ tiye of a great Power, .1. fully .appre~ate the 'fiQllour whichhas {allen tomy country and con· ~équentIy tOIl1~.êlf ~therepresentativeof j3gypt. f 1indin th.is.a symbol of·one of the fundamental )Seè ()f/icial Records of theSeêf.lrity Council) First Year. First~ries. Supplement No. 2. Annex Sa. 21bid., Annex lib; .