S/PV.342 Security Council

Since there are no more speakers on my list, we shall proceed to a vote. First, however, as repre.. sentative of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republie, 1 should like to explain the reasons why 1 cannot vote in favour of the Chînese resolutian. It was not my intention to intervene' in this discussion, since 1 fully endorse the views' expressed bythe representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Since, however, we have a resolution before us, 1 find it neces.. sary to explain why, as the representative of a member State, 1 cannot accept the text under consideration. This resolution has all the characterlstic fea.. tures of.what Imight cal! a "rubber resolution". Such a resolution offends no one's self..esteem'; it touches no on~; it says nothing; it is<not directed at anyone in particlÙar; it makes everyone happy; and it leaves the door open to even sharper con.. flicts than have arisen in the pasto Those are the characterlstic features of "rubber, resolutions·'. The text proposed by the deIegation of China is typicaI of this sort of r~lution. Nutnerousquestions, have, been' raised in the telegram of 23 July [8/918]. There is a lètter from the ~Jo·calledCommittee of Good Offices, in which tM Committee declares itse1f powerless,in existing conditibns, to renderany good offices to thg,-tw() parties. ft seemsta me that thisshouldbe a.situation tà' cause concem in the Security C01p1cil. It.sho,uld be the CounciI's duty,to ,say ,.something on the s~bject,to adopt a solution, 01" In the second place, 1have hore a very impor. t-mt telegram addressed to' the President of fr.e Security Couneil, in whkh we are informed th&.t 'the military observers find it impossible to carry out thoir duties owing to the destruction of transport facilities. It is my opinion that this matter should be discusstd by the Security Council. We are asked for a reply, but we have given none, and the telegram has been laid aside. 1 appeal to you, gentlemen, hcw cau this poor Committee be expected to cari')I out its functions? 1 should like to 'read tlùs telegram, which has not yet been quoted by :-.nyone. !t reads as follows: "Chairman Committee Good Offices has honour to communicate following to President Security Couneil. Movement of military assist- ,ants in aU Republican areas has become increasingly restricted as result of serious transport shortage in R_public. Netherlands authorities have not been able to assist. Unless action is taken to provide vehic1es it will be impossible for military assistants to carry out duties required of " them by Committee" [8/929]. '" - ; This appeal for help, sent out by the Committee and its military aides, cornes from an organ of the Security Council and persons nominated by it. Why is this telegram not mentioned? Why has the Council given no reply to the question thè Committee addresses to us? The Security Cpuncil has asked for information regafding existing trade restrictions - caUed, in plain English, .a blockade - imposed by the Netherlands authorities. But when the question was originaUy raised [329th meeting]~ the representative of the United States protestedagainst the use of the word "blockadeu ; wethereforeused !1 more dip!omatic term to describe the situation m In~onesla. We have seen the result;all ou~ information shows clearly that a most inhumanly severe blockade has been imposed by the Netherlands authorities upon the InèlonesianRepublic. . :Ooes the resolution proposed by the represen· 'tative ofOhinaprovidean answer to thë question raised by the Committee?It does not. We evade Further, in spite of my feelings of friendship towards the Indonesian Republic, 1 cannot vote in favour of this resolution because my delega.~ tian and my Government consider the "Renville'~ Agreement as contrary ta the. fundamental interests of the Indonesian people. We feel that this Agreement was drawn up in the interests of the Netherlands. Unfortunat~y1 ean only repeat, in conclusion, by such a reselution we would leave the way open for·an intensification of the conflicts which already exist in Indonesian territpry. These arè my grounds for withholding my support from the resolution subniitted by the Chinese delegation. .

1 am very glad that the President has raised the question of document S/929. 1 was rathçr surprised, when 1 saw iton the table this morning~ that it was not raised at the beginning of our meeting, wmch 1 think wouldhave been the usual pro~ cedure. Documents of this sort, if they concern ~e subject undcr discussion and are oî as great an interest asthis, are usually read Qut by a ~ember of~the Seèretariat. But l' am very glad the President has raised thispoint. 1presume.that as saon as he l"eceived the document he consulted the ASsistant Secretary-Genel'al in arder ta dis~ cuss the possibility of the eighteen jeeps be~g provided byh'le United Nations. 1 am sure the ailier representatives on· the· SecUrlty Council would have supported the President insny action ofthatkind. . .. . ' . .' It is obvious that we cannotfail to support an organ which was created by this Council and which has fulfilled its difficult task not oruy with the approvaI of the Security Council but aIso with the complete or, qualified consent of the parties concerned. The delegation of Argentina will therefore support the draft resolution presented by the representative of China. Its text fulfils the requirement of impartiaIity which is expected ofthe Council. It also fulfils our desire to remove any doubt regarding the authority of the Committee of Good Offices. This measure in no way interferes with the rights claimed by the parties nor does it prejudge the problem of the so-called economic blockade which was recently brought te) the attention of the Security Council. In the political field, 'so closely linked to. the above considerations, we are at the present time witnessing theprogr.essive (lisa,ppearance of coloniz~tion. On various occasions recently, we have learned with great satisfaction that the Govermrient of the Netherlands, displaying the politicaI integrity' which we aIl attribute ta ,it, will not retalrd that process. We make this reference not oru)rbecause of Argentina's interest in the disappearance of colonial regimes on our American cOlntinent and in the' transfer of the respective tfèrritories to their legitimate owners, but aIso because the Republic of Argentina cannot remain indifferent to the emanci:pation of Indonesia and bther nations which are cur- ,rently,subject to restrictions of· their sovereignty. By voting in favour of this draft resolution, we feelthat we are furthering the cause!'~ peace arid'thepacific settlement of the'dispute between the Netherlands and Indonesia. ". , Mr. :e:r.-KHOURI (Syria): 1 had not intended to speak agàin on this subjeet, but after me description which the President has given of the Chinese draft resolution, 1 think it would not he adequate ta leave it without an explanation. The President described the Chinese draft resolution as not including anything of the matter which is before the Councll. Wh~n 1 said 1 would vote for tLe resolution, 1 understood it and interpreted it in the same way as did the rep.l'esenta- , tive of China himself, nameiy, as dc;)ilJIled ta seeure the,free and full implementation of the twe1ve "Renville" political principles and the six addiponal principles. These' priJiciples apply ta trade and trade restrictions, but any regulation of trade should be undertaen with the consent and, mutual agreement of both parties, as is contended and eJi:plained by, the Committee of Good Offices. ~esc: provisions were vioJàted and they should therefore be implemented fully and ,stricdy. This covers the point which' th~ President mentioned, but 1 am afraid that if,the matter stood at 'the explanation given' by him as representative of the Ukrainian SSR, and if the Committee of Good Offices should aIso interpret it ,in the same way,,it would be detrimentaI ta the interests of the Republic of Indonesia. In thepast it was our practièe ta send a copy ofthe verbatim record ta theCommittee of, Good Offices ta enlighten it as te the way a res,olution was adopted. This might be done in the present instance,sothat the Committèe might aIso be made aware of thecomplementary,explanation given by the representative of China. 1 repeat that' 1.d1aU vote infavour orthe draft resolution in view of this interpretation and ·~derstanding. Th.e' PRESID~NT: .That is the right of the Syrian representative.We, shaU now proce~ ta votecntheChinese draft resolution. A vote was taken byshow ofhands,as follows: ln favour: .Argentina, .Belgiwn; Canada, China, Colom.bia, France, Syrîa, United Kingdom, .'United States of ~erica. 4bstained:' UkrainianSovietSocialist Repùblic, •Ilnion of Soviç~ SociaIiStRepublics.

1 should have thought that the United States . representative might, as a matter of international courtesy, have supplied the Security Council with the text of the proposais of the Australian and United States representatives on the Committee. .. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): 1 have submitted no written proposal on this .question because 1 expressed it as a wish in the course of my speech, considering it to be a procedural matter. 1 now propose that the President should request the Committee of Good Offices for the Australian-United States proposais, inasmuch as the Committee of Good Offices is formal1y subordinate to the Security Council and the latter therefore has the right to demand any information in which it is interested• 1 have submitted this proposal 'while paying due regard to the fact that. the Security Council received its mst official notification of .the. Australian-United States proposaI through the telegram of 23 July sent by the Committee of Good Offices itself. . Mr. JESSUp· (United States of America): 1 very much appreciate the explanation given by the representative. of the USSR, because in bis earlier stateinent Ihad undetstood him to say, as he now indicates, that he merely e~pressed a desire that the document should be made available. This, 1 think, was the position taken by the representative of the USSR wh<::n.the Security Co.uncil took a formaI vote on the question· when it was brought up before'. I had nôt understood·that there was a formai proposaI submitted by him for a vote. 1 should·liketosay, and 1 would have added this. if the President had given me. the information .wliich Ihad ·requested on the exact proposaI before us, that it seems to me that there arè·two questions. ' . 1 think there is a very differmt question which we discussed· f~lly when this matter was formally before the Council, namely, wp.ether the Security Couneil itself should intrude into the work.of the Committee of Good Offices by engaging in, a debate on various documents which are in the Committee records 'and which have been the· subject of negotiation. , As 1 ventured ta point out when this matter was formerly befote the Security Council, the: whole purpose and spirit of the relations between the Security Council and the Committee of Good Offices was to entrust the task of negotiation to 'the Committee in the field; 1 also ventured to . point out at that time that the Committee had given no indication that itS'work would be assisted if it transmitted the text of this document for fprma! discussion in the Security' Council. In accordance with the general philosophy of the relationship between the Security Council and the .Committee of Good Offices on'the spot, it seemed to me that it would not be helpful for the Coundl to issue a directive ta the Committee requiring it to_send the document. My delegation still sharesthat view in regard tO'a request or order from the Security Council tQ the Committee of Good Officès for the forma! transmission of the document. But what 1 said before as ta; the situation of individual representàtives on the Council is an entirely different matter, and 1 stand by what 1 said in that regard. Mr. VAN LANGENHOVE (Be1gium) (translated trom French): As the representative of the. United States of America has just pointed out, the question raised by the representative of the. USSR was decided at ,the 328th meeting of the : Security Council, on 1 JuIy 1948, by a negative vote, and 1 see no :reason for reconsidering,that , decision now, after an interval of Jess than four, weeb. . If it were simply a question of satisfying the legitimate wish of the members of. the Security Council tob,e fully informed, nothing <,:ouId he easier.·Thel United States representative has inclicated the proper procedure: the reptesenta-·' tives who are not acquainted with the document, needonly make·a request ta the delegations represented by .the authors of the document. l, am .sure '~hatthese delegations wÇluId>be.pleased to make the 49çpment available ta tljem. Let us leave it to the Committee of Good Offices to judge, when it formulatessuch pro-. posaIs, whether the success of the negotiations requires that the suggestions be communicated to the Security COUlleil in the Committee's periodic reports. Mr. MAUR: (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated [rom R'Ussian): 1 am unable ta agree·with the arguments advanced by the representative of the United States of America to the effect that the Sécurity Council cannot make a request for information of one kind or another ta the Committee of Good Offices, which is officially obliged to work under the Council's instructions and is subordinate to the Couneil. This question arose today in' connexion with the fact that the Security Couneil received a telegram from the Committee of Good Offices, dateii 23 July, containing official notification by the .committee of the existence. of the Australian,.United States proposaIs and of the fact that those proposaIs have been handèd to both sides, i.e., to the Indonesian and Netherlands delegations, and were favotirably received by the Indonesian delegation but rejected by the Netherlands delegation. In conclusion, the Com-, mittee of Good Offices informsthe Security Couneil of a breakdown in the·negotiations. , It follows, therefore, .that the members of the Security Council. should be infôrmed of the substance of the Australian,.United States 'proposaIs. 1 take note of the statement of the United States representative, to the effect .that the document will be handed over to the Secretariat, which will thenplace it at the disposal of members oJ the Seeurity Council,and 1 shall not press for a vote on my proposaI. . The .PRESIDENT (translatf1d from French): The question is therefore exhausted. The. date of the next meeting of the Security Council will be communicated to the members in due course. Mr. TSIANG (China): 1 just want to be clear about the actionwhich the President is to take concerning document· 8/929, <:ontaining the request of the Committee of Gaod Offices for eighteen jeeps and for spare parts. 1 understand that the President will refer the request to 'the Secretariat, .and that if the Secretariat finds any . difliculo/ in supplying th~ equipment, then the The meeting rose at 6 p.m. '\