S/PV.408 Security Council

Does any other representative wish to speak? . Before I call upon the representative of the Ukrainian SSR, CDuM he tell me how long his speech wiil last, so that I may arrange do timetable? Mr. TARASENICQ (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) (traltSlated from Russian): I do not think I slJall need more than ten or fifteen minutes. It mllst be noted OTtce again that, as on many previous occasions, the USSR proposals, designed to strengthen peace, have met with a hostile receptiOll from the United States delegation. In the course of the last few years, world public opinion has been witnessing a rather interesting phenomenon. The official propaganda of the United States and of some other countries is describing the many and varied military measures taken by the United States Government "and some other Gov~ emments whose foreign policy is determined by it -and they are measures of an exclusively aggressive and provocative character-ns designed to establish peace and security. In the meantime, USSR proposals which aim at establishing true peace and security among the nations are branded by that very same propaganda as dnllgerous to peace and security. That was the case with the proposals for the reduction of armaments, prohibition of the use of atomic energy for military purposes, the curbing of warmongers, aml many other proposals designed effectively to establish peace and to achieve conditions propitiolls to a peaceful settlement of all the disputes and misunderstandings now rife in the world, Such proposals are branded as dangerotls. Dangerous to whom? The answer is obviollS. They are most likely to be dangerous to warmongers, to industrialists and to those financial interests that are connected with war industry and war preparations. At the previous meeting of the Security Coun· cil, the United States representative blamed the USSR resolution for containing· "something about 'propaganda of a new war' and 'warmongers', which are old, old ideas". Together with the delegations of the Ukrainian SSR and several countries of the new democracy, the USSR clelegation has long been advocating measures to end warmongering and to curb the warmongers and 11as made many other proposals to which I have just referred. Le PREsIDENT. (trr.duit de /'GJtlglais): Un autre representant desire-t-il prendrt la p.aro1e? Le representant de la Republique soeia1iste sovietique d'Ukraine pDurrait-il me dire combien de temps durera son intervention, de manihe que je puisse regler I'horaire de la seance? M. TAR!\.SSENXO (Republique sDcia1iste sDvietiq.ue) (t~aduit du russe): le pense que dix a qUlnze mmutes me suffimnt. ]e suis oblige de cOl1stater une fois de plus que la delegation des Etats-Unis demeure, comme par le passe, hostile aux: propositions de l'Union sovietique; qui visent arenforcer la paix clans le monde. Depuis un certain nombre d'annees, le monde assiste a un spectacle assez curieux. Le Gouvernement eles Etats-Vni~ et certaf,ns autres Gouvemements, qui le suivent en matiohe de politique etrangere, ont pris u~ gmnd nomhre de mesures militaires :l. senle fin d'inciter aI'agression; or, a en croire la propagande offieidle des Etats~Unis et de cemins autres Etats, ces mesures seraient destinees a etablir la paix et la securite internationales. Quant aux propositions du Gouvemement de l'URSS qui visent a assurer aux peuples du monde la paix et la securite veritab1es, cette nH~me propagande les qualifie de dangereuses pour la paix et la securite. 11 en a ete ainsi de la proposition relative a la reduction des armements; i1 en a ete cle meme de la proposition telldanta interclire l'utilisation de l'energie atomique a des fins militaires; il en a egalement ete de m~me de la proposition visant a mettre ala raison les fauteurs de guerre, ainsi que de nOll1breuses autres propositions, dont le but est d'etabtir une paix veritable et de creer n~ellement des conditions propres a contribuer au reglement paeifique des differends et des conflits qui surgissent ent~ les Etats. Tou~ tes ces propositions, on les declare clangereuses. Mais pour qni le seraient-elles? La reponse s'impose d'elle-m~me. Elles sont manifestement dangereuses pour ceux qui inciten.t it la. gtterre, dangereuses pour les indu~triels, pour 1es brasscurs d'affaires dont les inter~ts sont li~s aux industries de guerre; et it la preparation d'une nouvelle guerre. A la derniere seance clu Conseil de s~curite, le representant des Etats-Unis a critiql1e le projet de resolution sOl1mis par I'URSS, en disant que cclui-ci "mentionne que1que chose apropos d<: "la propagande en favellr d'une nouvelle g'.terre" et de "bellieistes"; ce sont la" - a-t-il dit - "ele tres vieilles idees". La ddegation de l'URSS et celle de la RSS d'Ukraine, ainsi que d'autres pays de la democratie nouvelle, ont soumis depui.'l fort longtemps des projets de resolution visant a mettre fin 11 la propagande en favetlr cl'une nouvelle guerre et it rappe1er al'ordre les fauteurs de guerre; dies ant egalement presente de nombreuses autres propositions que je viens de mentionner. The question is not whether these proposals are old or new, but whether they door do not matter to the peoples of the world. today. ~nyo~e interested in peace and internatlonal secunty WIll say that the reduction of. armaments, the prohibition of the use of atomIC energy for war purposes and the cnrbing of warmongers are burning and pressing proposals of the moment whic~ can be used for one end only-to promote mternational peace and security. The delegation of the United States was displeased because the USSR draft resolution con~ tains a whole series of statements which, though perhaps not to the liking of the delegation, do not affect the substance of the USSR proposal. Indeed the preamble notes "the increasing activity developing among the aggressive circles of certain Powers, and their policy of unleashing a new war". That is, after all, a fact: an unpalatable one to the representative of the United States, but a fact all the same. The preamble notes what is really happening at present. It says too that this activity "is accompanied by an nnjustified increase in armaments of all kinds, a gross ini1ation of military budgets and an evergrowing burden of taxation and other material hardships upon wide sections of the people in these States", That, too, is a fact. Figures speak for themselves. According to the plan submitted to Congress, defence expenditure in the United States will have increased almost two and a half times between 30 July 1948 and 30 July 1953. And these' are not the full figures; many items of expenditure are camouflaged. All the same, these figures do show that the expenditure of the United States-and the same can be said of other States hitched to the United States political wagon-is to be two and half times as large. The resolution notes this fact, and a fact it remains, though not a very pleasant one, perhaps, to some of the delegations. The Press of the United States and of other countries publishes daily all kinds of fantastic and absurd assertior.s about an imaginary danger threatening the United St.ates, about attacks, threat!': tn WeMern European countries and so on and so forth-incredible, fantastic assertions. That Press has tens of mil1i.ons of readers and it must be assumed that some proportion of these asserticns i8 believed. This obviously c:~tes tension and spread!': panic amI war hysteria. Why not put an end to this state of affairs? . Many otl:er statements of the USSR resolution reflect the real events and trends of today, and for sor.te reason or other it is this aspect of the question which has particularly aroused the indignation of the United States representative. Indignation should be directed at facts and actions and not at references to those facts or their mention in any document. The Unitr.::d Stak:; representative has said thnt the aim of the USSR draft resolution is to delay or obstruct any progress towards the creatlon of conditions propitious to peace. The Ukrainian delegation cannot agree with that point of view. A glance at the first paragraph of the operative part of the USSR resoh1tior. is suffic:ent to dispose of tlmt £accusation. Indeed, we read that ,<-he Security Council resolves "to instnlct thl': Commission for Conventional Armaments, 13-5 a firsl step, to prep£are a plan, to be submitted to the Security Coundl by 1 June 1949, for t11{' reduction '.>y o:1e-third of the armaments and armed forces of the five permanent members of the Security Contleil no later than 1 Ma:'ch 1950". Is there any reason w~y this reduction by onethird of the armed forces of the leading Powe.rs sr.ould not be a first step toward8 the creation of condifons favottrable to peace? Yet the tepre R sentat:ve of the United States argues tJJat this is a diversior. frolll the real problem. Where is the logic in all thi8? The legit: of the United States representative is that if the United States increased its armaments fivefold or in my other proportion by 1952, that WOllld be a step towards peaCe. If on the other lnnd the leading States reduced their armaments and ~rmeu forces by one-third by 1 March 1950, that would take us furthe7 away from peace. ""hat kinc of reasoning is this? The second paragraph of thc USSR resolution proposes "to instruct f1e Atomic Energy ~om~ mission to submit to the Security Col1tlCll by 1 June 1949 both the draft of a co:wention on the prohibition nf atomic vreapo:1S and .the draft of a CQI1\,(:ntion for the control of atomIC energy, lhen d'autres passages du pruje: tle reliolution de I'URSS refletent des fvenemer.ts reels et des tendances qui existentel: fait; ce ~ont Justement ces aspects de la qtlestio:l qui ont prOV0qUe 1'in· dignation du representant des Etats-Unis. Or, ce sont des faits, des actes qui devra:ent provoquer rindignation, et non la mention qu'on peut en faire ou l'expose qu'on peut en pnblier dans un dOcUMent. D'llpl'eS le representant nes Rtats-Unis, le projet de resolutio:J presente par i'URSS vise adifferer, et meme it empecher toute merure susceptible de faeiliter l'Qvenernent de la paix, La delegation de l'Ukraine ne peut accepter ces VIles. Le ?uragraphe premier du dispositif de la proposition dc l'URSS suffit :, rHuter cette accusation du representant des E!2ts·Unis. Nous y lisons que le Conseil de secu:ite decide "de charger la Commission des armemen:s de type c1assique d'etabIir, a titre de llre:lliere mesure. un plan tendant a reduire d'un ders, pour le 1er mars 1950, les armements et les forces armees des dnq Etats membres pennanents du Conseil de securite. Le plan slls·mentionne devra etre presente ou Conseil de securite ou plus lard de ler juin 1949." Cette proposition relative a la reduction d'un tiers des iorce5 armees des granuEs Pt1~ssances ne con5~itl\erait-elIe pas un progres propre a favoriser l'etablissement de la paix? Or, le representant des Etats-Unis pretend que, en procedant ainsi. le Conseil s'ecarterait du dmnin qui mene a ce but. Mais ou est donc :a logique? Void le ralsopnement qui sel::tble logiqu(;': au representant des ~tats-l!nis: s:, en 1952, ,les Etats-Unis ont qUlntu:;Jle leurs forces armees, ils auront accompli un progn~s sust:eptibte de hater I'etablissement de la paix. Si les principaux Etals reduisent d'un :iers leurs ilrr.lemtnls et leurs forces armees pour le ler mars 1950, l'ave~ nement de la paix s'en trot.vera reta:de. Qtt'advient-il de la logiqtle dans tout cela? Examinons maintena::tt le deuxieme paragraphe du dispositif de ia proposition de IJURSS q:.ti recommande "de charger la Commission de l'cner~ gie oatomique de presenter au ~nseil de secu~U~, pou: le ler juin 1949, et un pr<:Jet de convenh?n tencant .i jnttrdire l'annc aloml1lue, et un pl'OJct Does not that take us a step, perhaps even a whole mile, forwal·d on the road to peace and security? Surely it cannot be believed that the daily production of atom bombs and the enormous allocations of funds for enlarging the atomic war industry can lead mankind towards peace. If we are to reason thus, then we must indeed agree that something fantastic has happened to the logic of the human mind. The Ukrainian delegation considers, therefore, that the USSR draft resolution is appropriate and should be examined by the Security Council. It supports the proposal of the USSR representative that the Security Council should examine the USSR dreft resolution together with the General' Assembly resolution and the other proposaLs and observations which will be made in the Council, and that they' should all be referred to the Commission for Conventional Armaments amI the Atomic Energy Commission. Only such a business-like approach can help us to solve the problem of maintaining peace and security. The United States representative has spoken at length on this problem at the last meeting, but the deeds of his delegation and Government show that they are seeking exactly the opposite, namely, to divert the SCl:;urity Council from these tasks.

I W0l1ld ask the representative of France whether he would agree to a postponement to the next meeting of the French interpretation of the remarks of the representative of the Ukrainian SSR. Mr. DE TOURNELLE (France) (translated from French) : I shaH make a concession to my amiable colleague frOIT] Argentina. I shall, as far as I am concerned, waive the interpretation into French.

I shall now put to the vote the USSR draft resolution. Mr. MALrl< (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from RHssian): In view of the fact that the majority of members of the Security Council have not spoken on the draft resolution I submitted, I must conclude tl1at a number of members of the Security Council do ~ot wish to discuss it. Consequently, the resolu- 110n has not been discussed. I therefore. move that the USSR delegation's draft. resolutlon and the proposals contained therem should be referred, together with the General Assembly resolution, to the Corrunission for Conventional Armaments and the Atomic Energy Commission for their consideration. Cette proposition ne constitue-t-elle pas un progres, voire un progres tl'es considerable su-r la voie _qui mene a la paix et a la securite? Le. production quotidienne de bombes atomiques et l'affectation d'enormes credits en vue de developper l'industrie de guerre atomique sont~elles veritablement des mesures propres a hiter l'avenement de la paix pour l'humanite? S'il se trouve quelqu'un pour l'affirmer, c'est que la faculte de raisonnement logique de l'etre hlllnain a subi une transformation incroyable. Pour ces raisons, la delegation de l'Ukraine estime que le projet de resolution soumis par la delegation de l'URSS est opportun. Le Conseil de secutite doit l'examiner et le discuter. LL delegation de l'Ukraine appuie la proposition du representant de l'URSS selon laquelle le Conseil de securite doit examiner le projet de resolution de l'URSS ainsi que la Resolution de l'Assemblee generale et les 2utres propositions et observations qui pourront etre formulees au Conseil. Tous ces textes devront etre communiques a la Commission des armements de type classique et ala Commission de I'energie atomique. Seule cette fa~on realiste d'aborder la question petit contribuer a reS0l1dre le probleme du maintien de la paix et de la securite; le representant des Etats-Unis s'est arrete longnement sur ce sujet lors de la derniereseance, mais les nctes de sa delegation et de son Gouvernement temoignent, helas, d'une tendance contraire qui vise a ecarter le Conscil de securite de l'examen de ces problemes. Le PRESIDENT (traddit de l'anglais): Le representant de la France acc.epterait-il de voir remettre it la prochaine seance l'interpretation en fram;ais des paroles du representant de IG Re.publique socialiste sovietique cl'Ukraine? M. DE LA TOURNELLE (France): Je vais hire une concession amon aimablc collegue de l'Argentine; je renonce, pour mon compte, a l'interpretation en fran~ais. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): .le vais maintenant mettre aux voix le projet de resolution de ['Union des Republiqnes socialistes sovietiques. M. MAL-m (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (iraduit!in nuse): E1ant donne que la majorite des membres du Conseil de securite ne se sont pas prononees sur man projet de resolution, je dois en condure que certains d'entre eux desirent eviter la discussion de tette question. La resolution n'a pas ete examinee corome elle aurait dfi l'etre. Je propose donc que le projet de resolution presente par la delegation de l'URSS' soit transmis, conformemenl 'lUX dispositions qu'il con· tient, d'une part, a la Commission des armements de type classique, en meme temps que la resolution de l'Assemblee genera1e, et, d'autre part, a la Commission de l'energie atomique. "Rosolves that the resobtion proposed hv the USSR ·delegation. during the discussion on the Secretary-General's letter of 14 January 1949 cQminunicating the resolution adopted by the General Assembly at its O:le hundred and sixty- thire: meeting on 19 November 1948 concerning prohibition ot the atomic weapon and reductiu!: by one-third of the annaments and armed forces of the Perrr.anent Members of the Sect1rity Council (S/1216) be transmitted, together with the ahove-mentioned reso:ution of the General Assembly, to the Cnrnmission for Conventional Annaments and, separtltely, to the United Nations Atonic Energy Commission." The PUESIDENT: In view of this draft resolu- tion with regard to procedllre which has just been submitted by the representative of the USSR, do the members wish to proceed to a vote or do they wish to have further time fo~ comideratton? Sir Ale:.o:ander C.UIOG_<\.N (Royaume-Uni) (tra- duit de J'anglais): ?uis-je demander an President queUes sent seE intentions en ce qui nnceme l'ordre dans lequel ccs resolutions devraient itre mises au voix? Je presume, naturellement; que, suivant la suggestioll faih: pal' le Presi;lcllt tl.U debut de la seance, on procedera. au vote sur la resolution presentee par la delegation de l'URSS anotre derniere seance [5/1246J, avant de pnsser au vote sur le projet de resolution des Etats, Unis [Sj1248] relatif a L. lettre du Secretaire general concernant la resolu:ion adoptee par l'As- semblee generale en novembre demier [SJ1216]. Sir Alex<tnder CADOGAN (United Kingdom): May I ask the President's intention in regard to the order in which these resolutions should be voted upon? I would assume, of ~ttrse, that the resolution Sllhmitted at the last meeting by the USSR delegation [S/1246jRev.1] would be voted upon first, as the President suggested at the beginning of this meeting; ane that then the United States resolution [S/1248] dealing wib the letter from tllt S~cretary~GenerQ[concerning the Gtll~rdl Assembly resolution of November last [S/1216J would be voted upon. Is that the President's proposal? Personnelle:nent, je suis dispose avoter imme- diatement. .So far as I am concerned, 1 shoul<: be ready to ]Jass to a vote immediately. Le PRESIDEN'l' (traduit de l'anglais): Void 1110n point de vue; le representant de l'URSS :nous demande de trnnsmettrc SOn projet de resolution aIn Com:niss~ol1 des armerr.ents de type c1asslque ainsi CJu'~ la Commission pour l'energie atomirJuc, sans que le ConsE';it a:t procede au vote sur cc projet. Sa proposition prend Qinsi le caractere d'une motion de procMure, Te demande done ntl Conseil s'il desire mettre 2.U~ -VOIX cette motion dc procedure [S/1249], otl s';l pre£ere s'acccrder un delai pour l'etudier.

My understanding is the fol~ lowing: the representative of the USSR is asking us to tmnsn:it his draft resolution to the ComA miBsion for Conventional ArTlutment,:; :mrl to th Atomic Ene,gy Commission without voting on that resohltion bere. His resolution, therefore, becomes a procedural res,olution. I ask therefore whether the Council wishes to vote on this procedural resolution [5/1249J or whether it wishes mo:e time to consider it. Sir Alexander CAtlOGAN (Royaume-Uni) (tradu,it de I'all!flais): 11 me par2,it pour le moins etrange que le Conseil de securite llJette aux voix cette pretendue motion de procedu~e dont I'effet serait, si je compn-:nds bien, de renvc.yer ala Commission des armements de type dassique et ala Commission des armt'ments'de type classique et a la Commission de t'erlergic atumique, au meme titre, semble-:-il, la l'csolution de l'Assembl~e gem~­ rale et le r:rojet de resolution de l'URSS, a propos duqud [e Conseil de securite n'a pas encore pris de decision. Uue tellc procedure me semble extraordinaire. Je me denande d'otl vient cette idee que le Conseil de securite n'est pas enCOrt! pret ase prononcer S11r la resolution de l'URSS, Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): It would seem ,to me a rather curious pro,~edure for thc S~curjty Council to vote on this so-("alled proccdpr,al motion, the effect of wbch, as I :.tnderstand it, would be that the Security Council would iClllit to the Commission for Conventioml Arma~ melts and:o the Atomic Energy Commission, appar.ently on an equal basis, the General Assembly 'iesclution ar.d the USSR draft resolution OIl which :he Security Council has not yet pronounced: That wO'_dd seem to me to be an extraordinary p:ocedure. Ido not know where the idea arose that the Security Cocncil is not prepared to proi'lol1llCe itself on the USSR resolution. So far as I am concerned, I am perfectly "Decide que la resolution presentee par le dele- gue de l'Cnior. des Republic;ues socialistes sOl'ie- tiques durant la discussion sur la lett~e du Secre- taire general en date du 14 janvier 1949, com- munk;uant la resobtion adoptee par l'Assemblee gencrale asa cent-soixa:1te-t~oisiemeseance tenue le 19 nm'cmbrc 1948, concernant :'interdiction de l'arme atomique et la reduction d'un fers des armements et des forces armees des membres permanents cl:.! Conseil de se.curite (5/1210), sait transmise d'une part, accompagnee de la resoh:tion de l'Assemblee gberale ci-dcssus men- tiormee, a [a Commission des armements de type c1assique, et d'autre part, separement, a la Com- mission de l'energie <ltomique des Nntions Unies." Le PRESIDEN'l' (traduit de l'anglais): Les membres du CUrJsti1 desirc:l(-il.s passeI' an vote sur le projet de re$olution re1atif i tine question de procedure que vient de soumettre le represen~ tant de l'URSS, GU prfferent·ils se reserver le temps d'etudier ce projet ? Est~ce bien li la proposition du President? I think that we ought to proceed to a vote. If the Security Council does not accept the USSR resolution, I cannot quite see on wl1at ground it can be claimcd that the text should be sent to the Commissions. It seems to me that the resolution would become void altogether.

The representative of the United Kingdom has raised an objection of substance. The draft resolution submitted by the reprcsentative of the USSR, in regard to the transmittd of his resolution, is in strict accordance with our rules of procedure. Since he has put forward that resolution, it is now before the Security Council. The Council now has to take action on two procedural resolutions, and in that case I shall first put to the vote the United States draft resolution [Sjl248]. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): r do not think that there has been any violation of the rules of procedure, and the USSR delegation has been following those rules strictly. During the Council's discussion of the General Assembly resolution, the USSR delegation submitted its proposals relating to that resolution. The USSR proposals submitted in the Security ~o\1neil are ill strict conformity with the decisIons of the General Assembly and the Council, a.ncl their purpose is to faciJitate the implementatlOn of thosc important decisions of the United Nations. The USSR deJegation had assumed that other dele~ations would also submit their proposals dunng the discussion of the question. It IS only natural that the Council should transmit such proposals to the Commission for Conventional Armamcnts. If, in that connexion, there were. any proposals concerning questions of atomIC energy, they should be transmitted to the Atomic. Energy Commission. There is nothing cor.tradlctory to the rules of procedure in that. Consequen~ly, as the substance of the proposals was not conSIdered by the Security Council the USSR. delegation proposes that they should be t~ansnlltted to both the Commission for Conventl~n~l Armaments and the Atomic Energy CommISSIOn. Moreover, as the USSR proposals were submitted first, they should be voted upon first. Why should we now proceed to consider the United States draft resolution without having reached Q decision on the USSR proposals? As a proccdural proposal has been made with rega:d to the USSR proposals, the Council must consider that question first and then go on to a vo~e on the United States delegation's draft resoM lutlOn. I therefore object to having the United States draft resolution put to the vote at this time and I maintain that the question of the USSR' proposals must be settled first. I1 me semble que nous devrions proceder au vote. Si le Conseil de securite n'accepte pas la resolution de l'URSS, je ne vois pas bien sur queUes raisons on se fonderait pour pretendre que ce document soit adresse aux Commissions. A mon avis, une fois rejetee par le Conseil, la resolution perdrQit, de ce fait, toute signification. Le PRESIDENT (trarlllit de l'anglais) : Le repreM sentant du Royaume~Uni a souleve une objection quant au fond. La proposition du representant de l'URSS, tendant au renvoi du projet de resolution presente par sa delegation, est strictement confonne au reglement interieur. Des l'instant que cette proposition a ete soumise, le Conseil de securite s'en trouve regulierement saisi. Mais ainsi, le Conseil a it se prononcer maintenant sur deux motions de procedure; clans ce cas, je rnettrais d'abord aux voix le projet de resolution des Etats- Un;, [Sj1248]. M. MALIK (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du r11sse): II me semble qu'j( n'y a aucune vioLation du reg1cment inte~ rieur; en dIet, la detegation de l'URSS s'y confonne strictement Au cours de l'examen de la resolution de l'As~ semblee generale presentee au Conseil de securite, la delegation de rURSS a presente des propositions relatives aceUe resolution. Les propositions que l'URSS presente au Conseil de securite sont strictement conformes aux importantes decisions de l'Assemblee generale et du Conseil de secu~ rite, et ont pour but d'en faciliter l'application. La delt'igation de l'URSS avait pensc que d'autres delegations presenteraient egalement leurs propositions au cours de la discussion de cette question. I1 est naturel que le Conseil de securite renvoie l'examen de ces propositions a la Commission des armements de type classique. Si des propositions relatives au probleme rl~ l'energie atomique etaient presentees, e1les de~ vraient etre transmises a la Commission de l'energie atomique. Tout cela est parfaitement compa~ tible avec le reglement interieur. Etant donne que les propositions presentees n'ont pas ete examinees quant au fond par le Conseil de securite, la delegation de l'URSS· pro~ pose de les transmettre, d'une part, <l la Commission eles armements de type c1assique, et, d'au- Ire part, a la Commission de l'energie atomique. Les propositions de I'URSS ayant ele presentees en premier lieu, c'est sur ces propositions que le Conseil de slkurite doit d'abord se prononcer. Pourquoi devrions-nous passer maintenant al'examen du projet de resolution des Etats-Unis sans avir pris de decision au sujet des propositions de l'URSS? Etant donne que le Conseil de securite a ete saisi d'une proposition de procedure relative aux propositions de l'URSS, n doit en premier lieu examiner cette question; ce Il'est qu'ensuite qu'il doit passer au vote sur le projet de resolution presente par la deMgntion des Etats~Unis. C'est pourquoi je m'oppose a ce que le projet de resolution des Etats-Unis soit, des maintenant, mis aux voix, et j'insistc pour que la question des propositions de l'URSS soit resolue avant ce vote. Mc MAUK (Union at Soviet Socialist Republics) (tmJlslated .from Russian): I do 110t intend to ch,Jlel1ge tll( m1ing of the President. I Irerely wish to point out th'.t these two p'ocedura1 proposals have been made with regard to d'fferent questions. The representative of the United States of Aluerica made a procedttral proposal with regard to the Secretary-Genera1's letter, where<l.s the USSR cleleg;l.tioll mace a Pl'Ocedllral proposal eOllccrning its own draft resolution. Tbat is the difference. I should have thoilgllt, therefore, th<lt it wotlld be more appropriate to consider the USSR proccdma1 proposal a~ the same time as a decision was taken on the USSR (lel~gatjon's draft resoll1tiOll, in view of the fact that it was sllblllitted before the United States de1eg-ation's proposal. I believe that that order wotlld have been thc more con'eet and in accordance with the wles of procedure. The PRESlPENT: We will now vote on the United St..1tes draft I"e"olution [S/1248]. A vote was tahcl1 bJ a show of Amid.;, as follows: In !(l'UQ1w: Argentina, Canada, China, Cnha. Egypt, France, Norway, United Ki:1gdol11, United States of Ame:·ica. Abstainillq: Ukra:nian Soviet Sodali~t RCj)ublie, Union of Soviet Socialist ].cpublic::;. The United State.! draft resoh£ticn wa~' adopted by 9 votes to. none, with 2 abstentims. The PI,ESIDZNT: We will now vote on the :JSSR draft resolution [S/12491· A 'vote was taken by a J·,how oi hands, as follows: I1t favour: Egypt, Ukrain:an Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Repub1i::s. Abstaining: Argentina, Canada. China, Cuba, France, Korway, United Kingdom, Unitecl States o ( America. The result (Jj the vote was 3i,! ja'Z,our, ltOnc a,qains!, alld 8 avs/m/ions. The USSR draft resolution wa,J not adopted, having tailed to o:'>I(lin the affi,.m~fi2't' vofi!S of seven members. Mr. MALT!< (Union of Soviet Soci-alist Republics) (translate,i f1'cm Rilssian): In view of the fact that the USSR procedul"<tl pr:1posal for M. MALIIC (Union des Republiques sClcialistes sovietiqms) (tradttit du. ntsse): Je n'ai pas l'in~ tellt:on de contester kl. decision du President. Je vOl.ldrais dire seulement c;ue ees del1x propositions rela:ives a la pl'ocec1urt ::l11t bl.it a des questiolls differentes. Le representant des Etats-Unis a [ail lille propositicn de procedure re1atlve i la lettre d11 Secretaire general, <tlors qlle la delegation de l'URSS a (ait une ?rop05itiol1 de procedure relative a son projet de resolution. C'est la la diffe~ l"Pl1rC fJll'il Y a entre e:les. J'esthne done (]u'il vaudrait mieux ex<'.mincr la .propo3ition de pro~ cedure fdte IXr la C:ilegation c.e I'URSS en rnerne tel1l?s 'lee son pro;et de resolution, car il a ete soumis all Conseil avant :a proposifon de la delegation des Etats-(Jnis. J'estimc que eeUe fac;on de ?roceder serait plus juste et l:erait conforme au reglement interieuL Le PRESIDENT ;traduit de l'm:glais): Nel1s al1011s maintenant prod~der au vote SLl!' le projet de resobtiol1 des Etats-Unis [S/1248]. 11 est prodde G'I Ziot~ cl 11Wil~ levee. Votent 1'0101: Argentine, Cma{];J., Chine, Cuba. Egypte, France, Norvcge, Royaunc-Ulli, Etats· Unis d'Amerique. S'abst-ienneat: Repl1h:iqtte sociaJiste sovietlquc d'Ukraine, Union des Republiq~es socialistes sovietiques. Par 9 voi,t contre zero, avec 2 abstentions} le prcjet de resolution des EtatJ-Unis esi adopte. Le PREsIDENT (tradttit de l'rmglair): N0115 a11011s maintenant proceder au vote sur le projet de resO:utiOIl de l'URSS [S/1249J. Il est pJ"ocede tilt 1!ote amain levee. Volent pour: Egypte., ReplIhlifJue s?c1alistc ~o­ vietique d'Ukraine, Ul110n des Repttbh.:;ues SOClalis:es sovietiques. S'abstiennwt: Argentine, Canada, Cbille, Cl1b~, Fmnce, Norvege, Royaume-Uni, Etats-Ul.l1s d'Alll.eriquc. II y a 3 voi:r pour, zero contff: et 8 abstentions. N'a.yant pas obtetllt l~ vot~ aff!rma!if de sep/ mtmbrfS, le /wojet de resoltltwn 1/ est pas adopto. M. MALIK (Union des RepllJJ~iql.1e.'> socialiste~ sovietiques) (traduit du, rllsse J : .Eta,nt donl1~ que la propo3ition de procedure \'elatlve 3 la trRns The PIlESIPENT: We shalt now vote upon the USSR draft l'eSOllltioll [S/IZ46/Rev.1J wh'ch is before the Council. In favour: Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Reptlb- lie, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Abstaining: Argentlna, Canada, China, Cuba, Egypt, France, Norway, United Kingdom, United States of America. The result of the: 1:0/e was 2 in favo.II1', none aga.inst, and 9 a.bsten/ions. Mr. 11'[ALIK (Union of Scyiet Soci,alist Re- publics) (translated tram Russian): Tile USSR delegation reserVes the right to submit tlJe pro~ posals coqtained In the d:'aft resolution for the consideration of the Commission for CO:1Ven~ tional Armaments am: the Atomic Energy Com~ mission. The 1/"lN(ing ros~ at 6.22 p.m. Le P1d:SIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Nous allons mettre aux voix le proj€'t df' re_~olt1fil')n dont le Conseil a ete sai3i par la delegation de l'URSS [S/1246J. II est procUe at~ vote () main le'li'ee. Volent pOllr: Repullique .socialiste sovietique d'Ukrail1e, Union des Republiques wcialistes 50- vietiques. S'abstiennent: Argentine, Canada, Chine, Cuba, Egypte, France, Norvege, Royaume-Uni, Etats- Unis d'Amerique. Il y a 2 VDi.':; pottr et 9 a.,tentions. M. MALIK (Union des Republiques soci"listes sovietiques) (tradltf;t du russe): La delegation de I'URSS se reserve le droit de soumetlre les pro- positions cont:mues dans ce projet de resolution a l'examen de la Commission des <..rme::nents de type classiqul" et de la Commi5sioI1 de l'energie atomique. La slattc< est levee cl 18 It. 22.