S/PV.432 Security Council

Thank you. You have facilitated my task considerably, as I am more familiar with Russian than with the other official languages. Does anyone wi~h to speak on this question? If there are no speakers, I should like to make a few remarks on the subject myself, as representative of the UKRAINIAN SOVIET- SOCIALIST REpUBUC. The position of my delegation was made clear by the representative of the Ukrainian SSR at the meeting of the Committee of Experts. He set forth the reasons why it doubted the wisdom of the expediency of approving the proposal that Liechtenstein should becoine a Party to the Statute of the International Court. I shaH not dwell too long upon these reasons, but I should like to make a few comments. The position of the delegation of the Ukrainian SSR is that, from the point of view of principle, we have .always taken the stand that a State, however small, has the same rights as .a large State in the matter of joining the United Nations or becoming a Party to 'the Statute of the Inter- -national Court. The question of whether a given State has a large territory or a small one, of whether it has a. .considerable population or not, is of no conse': quence to us. That is our posttion in principle. But at the same time, experience has shown that doubtful state-like organizations are often formed artificially and· tp-,t bigger Powers subsequently se-;k to introduce them into the United Nations or induce them to becomes Parties to the Statute of the· IntC''''i1<'!.tio!lal Court. Que le territoire d'un Etat soit grand ou petit, que le nombre de ses habitants soit eleve ou non, cela n'a pas d'importance a nos yeux. Telle est notre attitude de principe. Cependant, l'experience montre que l'on a souvent cree artificiellement des entites politiques qui ne sont pas de vrais Etats, et que des pays plus importants ont cherche, par la suite, ales faire admettre dans l'Organisationdes Nations Unies ou ales faire reconnaitre comme parties au Statut de la Cour internationale de Justice, Cette fal;on de procedersouleve naturellement certaines questions de principe. En effet, on cree ainsi, d'une fal;on :;trtificielle, ul1e majorite numerique qui servira au moment des votes, lorsqu'il s'agira de regler telle ou telle question; or, cl mon avis, ce procede n'est conforme ni a la Chartedes Nations Unies, ni a nos methodes de travail. Under such conditions, some doubts, based once again on principle, naturally arise. These doubts centre in the fact that a numerical majority is thus artificially created when a vote or a decision is taken on a particular question; and that, it seems to :J:I.e,. eau be reconciled neither with the Charter of the United Nations nor with the .conduct of our work. . Etant donne que le rapport du Comite resume les debats qui se sont deroules pendant l'examen de cette question et cite les arguments invoques par les representants des differentes delegations, je me b6rnerai a renvoyer le Conseil a ce rapport,ainsi qu'au compte rendu de la seance que le Comite d'experts a tenue le 16 juin [S/C.1/SR.112]. Si je mentionne cet exemple, ce n'est pas que la Societe des Nations fasse autorite a nos yeux. Loin de la; je sais fort bien que les decisions de la Societe des Nations, entacnees de de£auts, ne sauraient servir de precedents. Cependant, il n'est pas douteux que cette decision particuliere etait fondee sur certaines considerations pertinentes qui militaient contre l'accession du Liechtenstein au Statut de la Cour permanente de Justice internationale. Il faut signaler egalement que le Liechtenstein, en tant qu'Etat, n'a pas d'armee propre f~t qu'il ~ contie a la Suisse le soin de le representer a l'etranger. Les relations qui existent entre le Liechtenstein et la Suisse ne nous paraissent pas claires du tout. Nous savons qu'il existe, entre ces deux pays, une union douaniere et une union postale; mais nous ignorons pour quell~s raisons . le Liechtenstein a confie a·la Suisse l'unedes prerogatives de sa souverainete nationale, c'esta-dire le soin de le representer a l'etranger. . On the basis of those considerations, the delegation of the Ukrainian SSR feels there is a danger that such a precedent might be interpreted in.the future in such a way as to make possible the adherence to the Statute of the International Court of Justice of the United Nations of States which do not have an existence of their own and which add nothing to the cause of strengthening the authority of the United Nations. La delegation de la RSS d'Ukraine craint donc que ce precedent ne soit interprete par la suite comme encourageant l'accession au Statut de la Cour internationale de Justice des Nations Unies d'Etats qui ne sont pas viables et qui ne contribuent nullement a renforcer l'autorite de l'Organisation des Nations Unies. Mahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypte) (traduit de l'anglais) : Je n'avais pas l'intention de prendre 'la parole a. propos de cette question, car je suis favorable a l'adoption du rapport du Comite d'experts, lequel est redige en termes tres clairs. Cependant, puisque le President a souleve certains doutes quant a l'opportunite de recommander l'admission du Liechtenstein comme partie au Statut de la COUT internationale de Justice, j'aimerais faire une breve declaration. Les membres du Conseil savent qu'aux termes de l'Article 93 de la Charte, un Etatqui n'est pas membre de l'Organisation des Nations Dnies peut devenir partie au Statut de la Cour internationale de Justice aux conditions a determiner par l'AssembIee generale, sur recommandatiorr du Conseil de securite. A la lumiere de cet Article. ma delegation a appuye au sein du Comite d'experts le projet de recommandation que nous examinons actuellement. La principale objection qui ait ete soulevee contre l'admission du Liechtenstein comme partie au Statut de la Cour internationale de Justice, c'est qu'il n'est pas un Etat souverain au sens de l'Article 93 de la Charte. Cette question a ete Mahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt): I had no intention of making a statement on this question, since I was rather in favour of our adopting the clearly worded report of the Committee of Experts. However, since the President raised some doubt about the advisability of recommending the acceptance of Liechtenstein to become a Party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, I should like to make a brief statement. As 'the members of the Council are aware, under Article 93 of the Charter. a State which is not a Member of the United Nations may become a Party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice on conditions to be determined by the General Assembly, upon the recommendation of the Security Council. In the light of this Article, my delegation supported the draft recommendation which we are disctissing now in the Committee of Experts. The main objection raised against accepting - Liechtenstein as a Party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice is that it is not 1!-"overeign State within the meaning of Article 93 of the Charter. This question was fully discussed b ....-........"""'.............., ~~~..,.."..,~~.s ••_~_s ..._. For these reasons my delegation feels that Liechtenstein is a State in the sense of international law and is entitled to become a Party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice. It seems advisable to my delegation that the same conditions and the same wording which have been'used in the case of the application of SwitzerIai'ld should also apply in the .case of Liechtenstein. My delegation has always supported the contention that membership in the United Nations should be mad~ as universal as posElible in the sense that it should include as many worthy applicants as possihie within the limi~ations and the stipulations of Article 4 of the Charter, and my delegation feels that accession to the Statute of 'the International Court of Justice should also be open to all worthy applicants which fulfil the requirements of Article 93 of the Charter. The fact that Liechtenstein is a small State, dB was mentioned by some delegations, is, in our view, still another reason for accepting its application. We all know that the protection of law is especially useful for small States. For those reasons we support the draft s-ecommendation which was submitted to the Council by the Chairman of the Committee of Experts. The President has referred to the precedents established by the League of Nations and he rightly said that we do not have to follow those precedents. He mentioned that Liechtenstein had applied for membership' in the Permanent Court of International Justice. I doubt that that yvas actually the case. In 1938 Liechtenstein, if I remember rightly, having some difference with Hung-ary, declared its adherence to the rules of the Permanent Court of International Justice. But Liechtenstein made another application in· connexion with the League of Nations: an application· for membership in the, League itself. That application was not. accepted for reasons which ,seem to us, presently, to be quite unacceptable and which might, on the contrary, be taken in favour of its admission. One reason, for instance, is that Liechtenstein is a small State.· As long as it is a State, small or large, it should be admitted. Ma delegation a toujours soutenu qu'on devrait favoriser une representation aussi universelle que possible des Etats au sein de l'Organisation des Nations Unies~ en ce sens que cette Organisation devrait accueilIir le plus grand nombre possible de candidats dignes d'etre admis, dans les Iimites et conditions stipulees a I'Artic1e 4 de la Charte; ma delegation estime que I'acccssion au Statut 'de la Cour internationale de Justice doit egalement Cire ouvertea tousles candidats ,qui en sont dignes et qui remplissent les condl, :ons prevues par I'·Article 93 de la Charte. Le fait que le Liechtenstein soit un petit Etat, comme 1'0nt mentionne certaines delegations, constitue a notre avis une raison de plus pOt1r recevoir sa demande. Nous savons tous que la protection de la loi est particulierement utile aux petits Etats. Ponr ces diverses raisons, nous appuyons le projet de recommandation presente au Conseil par le President du Comite d'experts. Le President du Conseil a evpque les precedents etablis par la Societe des Nations et il a dit, a juste titre, que nous n'avions pas'a nous y conformer. I1 a indiqu que le Liechtenstein avait demande a etre admis comme membre de la Cour permanente de Justice internationale. Je ne crois pas que ce fUt effectivement le cas. Si mes souvenirs sontexacts, en 1938,le Liechtenstein, etant en Iitige avec la Hongrie, a declare qu'il se confarmerait aux. decisions de la Cour permanente de Justice internationale. Le Liechtenstein a bien presente une demande a la Societe des Nations mais eIle etait d'un autre genre: c'etait une demande d'admission 'comme Membre de la Societe des Nations eIle-meme. Cette demande n'a pas ete acceptee pour des raisons qui nous semblent, actueIlement, parfaitement inadmissibles et qui pourraient, au .contraire, etre interpretees comme militant en faveur de son admission. Par exemple, I'une de ces raisons etait que le Liechtenstein n'est qu'un petit Etat. Du moment que c'est un Etat, qu'il soit petit ou grand, il devrait etre admis. Looking through the report submitted today by the Committee of Experts, I find .the wording for the conditions under which Liechtenst{'~n would be admitted to the Court to be quite satisfactory, and I submit that the Security Council should adopt that same wording in its recommendation to the General Assembly. M. TSARAPKINE (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe) : Je ne presenterai que quelques breves observations,-car la delegation de l'URSS a deja defini son attitude a. ce sujet d'une falSon assez precise, au cours des seances du Comite d'experts. Le representant de l'Rgypte vient de dire au Conseil qu'il fallait considerer le Liechtenstein comme un Etat souverain puisqu'il possede tous les attributs de la souverain"ete politique, c'esta-dire un territoire, une population, une constitution; je dais dire toutefois qu'il estdifficile de reconnaitre que le Liechtenstein est un Etat souverain, sans aller a l'encontre du droit l1'iternational et du concept de la souverainete. 11 existe en dIet cinq facteurs fort importants qui ne permettent pas de considerer le Liechtenstein comme un Etat souverain... ,En premier lieu, il.yale facteur que chacun de nous id a deja. note, c'est que le Liechtenstein n'est pas en mesured'assurer ses relations exterieures de falSc~.' independante et ne les entretient que p~ l'intermediaire de laSuisse. En deuxieme lieu, le Liechtenstein a concIu une union -::; ,uaniere avec la Suisse. Au, point de vue Mr. TSARAPKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Ru,ssian): I shall have a few short comments to make since the position of the USSR delegation on this questionhas already been -adequately set forth in the meetings of the Committee of Experts. The representative of Egypt has just told us that Liechtenstein ought to be considered a sovereign State inasmuch as it has all the necessary attributes of state sovereignty, including territory, population and a Constitution. But I must point out that it is difficult to recognize Liechtenstein as a sovereign State without entering into conflict with the concepts of international law and sovereignty. In point of fact there are five very real considerations which do not permit us to consider Liechtenstein a sovereign State. The first consideration, which all of us here have already noted, is that Liechtenstein cannot conduct its forgein affairs independently, but does so only through Switzerland. The second consideration is that Liechtenstein is a member of a customs union with Switzerland, That means that in the matter of customs also it is not an autonomous State and is, so to speak, a member of the Swiss Confederation, within a customs union with Switzerland. The third consideration is that Liechtenstein does not have its own currency: Only Swiss ,::urrency circulates in Liechtenstein. The fourth consideration is that Liechtenstein does not have a postal organization; that is in the hands of Switzerland, which administers the posts. douah~~r, 40nc, i1 n'est pas non plus un Etat independant; ayantconclu une union douaniere avec la Confederation helvetique, it en fait," ainsi dire, partie. En troisieme lieu, le Liechtenstein n'a :> momlaie qui lui soit propre; seules -les , suisses ant cours dans ce pays. En quatrieme lieu, le Liechtenstein ne possMe pas de service des postes ; la direction de ce servi·.:e est egalement assuree par la Suisse. En cinquieme lieu, le service des telegraphes est assure, luiaussi, par la Suisse. The fifth consideration is that the administration of the telegraphs is also in the hands of Switzerland. iIIlIIoo- Those are the brief comments that I wished to make on the subiect of Liechtenstein. " The PREsID'ENT (translated from Russian): There areno more speakers on my list. We can ~fiowtake~a-vote on the prop6sa.I Imide by the Committee of Experts.

No. M. AUSTIN (Etats-Unis dlAmerique) (traduit de I'anglais) : Je voudrais presenter une motion d'ordre, tendant a. etablir que la resolution ne saurait s'appliquer a cette Commission. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): As a point of orderl I submit that it does not come within the terms of the resolution.

I shall ask the representative of the Secretariat to reply to the question put by the representative of the United States. Le PRESIDENT (traduit du msse) : Je demande au representant du Secretariat de repondre a. la question que vient de poser le representant des Etats-Unis. Mr. PRICE (A.ct;ng Secretary-General): We have received no iiiIormation in the Secretariat regarding the withdrawal of any part of this proposal. With respect to the question raised concerning the retroactive payment to the Commission of Inquiry concerning Greek Frontier Incidents, the resolution of the General Assembly specifically relates to existing commissions. I take it that that means any commission existing at the time the resolution was. adopted. It certainly is our opini611 in the Secretariat that the first Commission which was sent to the Balkans and which passed entirely out of existence before the resolution was adopted by the General Assembly, could not possibly be covered under that resolution unless the next General Assembly wants to amend the resolution and pass a new rule on the subject. M. PRICE (Secretaire general par interim) (traduit de 1'anglais) : Le Secretariat n'a aucunement ete informe du retrait d'une partie quelconque de cette proposition. En ~e qui concerne la question soulevee au sujet du remboursement retroactif a. la C011Ul1ission d'enquete sur les incidents survenus le long de la frontiere grecque, il convient de noter que la resolution de 1'Assemblee generale vise expressem.ent les commissions e..xistantes.. Cela signifie, a. mon sens, toute Commission existant au -moment ou la resolution a ete adoptee. Le Secretariat estime assuremen'i: que la resolution de l'Assemblee generale ne saurait s'appliquera. la premiere Commission envoyee aux Balkans et dont :'existence avait entierement cesse avant que la resolutionffrt adoptee par l'Assembleegen,erale, a. moins qu'une nouvelle decision ne soit prise a. cet egard par la prochaine Asseinbleegenerale, au cas ou ceUe-ci·desirerait amender la resolution en question. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (Royaume-Uni) (traduit d.e l'anglais) : Mon Gouvernement serait favorable a. des paiements retroactifs qui se justificL·aient. It lui semble que les gouvernements ne devraient pas etre exposes personnellement a. des depenses indues, alorsqu'en.realite ilsne Tcmtc qu'apporter leur concours a. l'executiond'obligations qui sontcelles des Na.tion:; Uniescon": siderees dans leur ensemble. Je pensequ'il est difficile de contester :.'opinion que vient de nous donner le Secretaire general par interim, selon laquelle la resolution de l'Assemblee generale, si on la prend dans son sens.litteral, ne s'applique pas Sir Alexander CADOCAN (United Kingdom): My Government would be in favour of making retroactive payment where that 1S correct. It seems to my Government that individual Governments should not be put to undue expense wtlen theyar-ereally only joining in carrying out the duties.of the United Nations as a whok. I think iti5 difficult to contest the opinion just given to us by the Acting Secretary-General that the General .Assembly resolution, if one takes it literally, does not apply to that Commission of Investigation which was in existence between January and September 1947..Therefore, 1 supn Mr. PE LA TOuRNELLE (France) (transiated from French): The question of the payment of allowauc::s and reimbursement of expenses of members of commissions of inquiry or conciliation has for three years given rise to a number of debates and various resolutions among which . is the proposal submitted by the Australian, Belgian, CQlombian and French delegations. On several occasions since 1945, the Security Council and the General Assembly have been called upon to decide on the setting up either of a commission of inquiry or of a commission of conciliation or good offices, to deal with a given situation. They de$ignated a limited number of countries as parti.cipllUlts in those commissions, and the representatives of those countries were thus entrusted with a mission fat the Assembly ut the· Security CounCiL The Assembly, which holds financial control, has usually included in the resolution establishing . the body concerned the requisite measures to ensure that the expenses incurred by members of the commissions would be paid by the United Nations.• The Council had been unable to do this, and the Secretary-General, in the absence of definite provisions, had taken no action. The draft of a general directive submitted by Belgium during the second session of the Assembly wC' - referred to the Advisory Committee on Budgetary and Administrative Questionsfof its opinion and was examined again during the third session of the General Assembly. After a comparatively brief .. discussion, the Assembly adopted resolution 231 (m), to which reference is made in the firet paragraph of the paper before the Council. Paragraph 2 of that resolution expressly stipu- . Le paragraphe 2 de cette resolution stipule lates that the travellinga.nd subsistence expenses expressement que sont a l~_charge du budget des shall be payable out of United Nations funds to Nations Uniesles frais de vi:>:yage~et les indemnione representative ufany Member State particites de subsistance d'un representant de tout Etat pating in a commission of inquiry or conciliation Membre participant it. une commission d'enquete instituted by the General Assembly or by the ou de conciliation instituee par 1'AssembIee ge~ Security Council.· . nerale ou le Conseil de securite. Paragraph 2 goes on to say-in rather poor Le paragraphe 2 ajoute, dans une redaction French~"subject to the proviso that an exception franc;aise d'ailleurs mediocre: "sous reserve to this rule may be permitted on the decision qu'une e:lCception acette reglepourra etre admise of the organ concerned that an alternate for each sur decision de 1'organe interesse stipulant la . Member 'snect.\ssary>1. .. -. . l1ecessite<¥un~uppIeatJ.t pourchaqueMenlbre", Th~t phr,?lse obvio11sly means that the travel Cette disposition signifie evidemment que les and sub$istence al1Ywances for ·alternates shall be frais de Voyage et les indemnites.·de .sttbsistanc,e payable V.\'': ofFtlit~d Nations . funis. if the des suppleants sontniises ala charge de 1'0rgan~­ Assembly or th~ (;c;mcil acknoWledges that such sation,·si l'Assemblee, ou le Conseil, reconnalt alternates are re>.1\ured ll~ the. case of a given pour une commission determinee la necessite d~ M. DE LA TouRNELLE (France): La question du paiement d'indemnites aux membres des com~ missions d'enquete ou de conciliation, et du remboursement de leurs frais, a donne lieu depuis trois ans it. diverses resolutions et a plusieurs debats dont le projet presente au ConseiI par les delegations <1ustralienne, beIge, colombienne et fran~aise est un des aboutissements. Le Conseil de securite et l'Assemblee ont eu a plusieurs reprises, depuis 1945, 1'0ccasion de decider, pour une affaire determinee, la creation, soit d'une commission d'enquete, soit d'une commission de conciliation ou de bans offices; its ant, POilT faire partie de ces commissions, designe un nombre restreint de pays dont les representants se sont, de ce fait, trouves investis d'une mission de l'Assemblee ou du Conseil de·securite. L'Assemblee, qui detient le pouvoir financier, a en general pris, dans la resolution meme qui creait l'organisme en cause, les dispositions necessaires pour assurer le paiement par I'Organisation des depenses afferentes aux. membres des commissions. Le Conseil n'a pu le faire, et le Secretaire general, en l'absence de dispositions precises, s'est derobe. Un projet de reglementation generale ace sujet, depose par la Belgique au cours de la deuxieme se8sion de l'AssembIee, fut renvoye pour avis au Comite consultatif pour les questions administratives et budgetaires. et examine au cours de la troisieme sessIon de I'Assemb1<~e generale. Celle-ci adopta, apres un assez court debat,la resolution 231 (HI), que le projet actuellement soumisau Conseil vise dans son premier paragraphe. 2. Pour la Commission de bons officest devenue Commission des Nations Unies pOUf l'Indonesie; 2. On the Committee of Good Offices, which has since become the United Nations Commission for Indonesia j 3. Pour la Commission des Nations Unies pour l'Inde et le Pakistan. Le delegation fran<;aise n'a aucun doute sur la valeur du principe general. I1 est juste que le budget de 1'0rganisation des Nations Unies supporte les frais des representants principaux participant aux commissions d'enquete ou de conciliation. Ces representants tiennent leur mandat du Conseil ou de l'Assemblee, dont ils executent les ordres et a qui ils font rapport. Ce Sont des representants de l'Organisation. Bien plus, une solution differente creerait une inegalite choquante entre les Membres de l'Organisation des Nations Unies. Ceux a qui l'Organisation d~manderait l'effort de participer aux travaux d'une!'ommission devraient en plus supporter, .pour ce faiTe, de lourdes depenses. Cela conduirait tres vite les pays petits ou pauvres a se refuser a participer a l'ceuvre com!l1u~e, par craint~,de ne pouvoir en supporter-les lncldences.-fi-nancleres;- 3. On the United Nations Commission tor India and Pakistan. The French delegation has no doubt about the merits of the general principle. It is right that the' United Nations budget should bear the expenses of the principal representatives participating in commissions of inquiry or conciliation. These representatives are delegated by the Council or the Assembly; they carry out their orders and report to them. They are representatives of the United Nations. Even more, any other solution would create a glaring inequality between Members of the United Nations. Those whom the United Nations would request to make the additional effort of participating in the work of a commission would have to bear heavy expenses in order to comply with such a request . That would soon result in the smaller or poorer countries refusing to participate in common tasks for fe:-l.r of being tmable to bear the u.l1ancial llr1pli.; cations. The General Assembly has in fact decided that the representatives serving on the following Commissions should be paid by the United Nations: United Nations Special Committee on Palestine; United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans; United Nations Temporary Commission on Korea; United Nations Palestine Commission. L'Assemblee generale a, en fait, decide que les representants aux Commissions suivantes seraient payes par l'Organisation: Commission speciale des Nations Unies pour la Palestine; . Commission les Balkans; Commission temporaire pour la Coree; Commission des Nations Unies pour la PaleG~ tine. In the particular cases envisaged in the draft Dans les cas particuliers que vise le projet de resolution submitted to the Council, we see that resoltttitl11 soumis au COriseil, nous voyons que ces the same reasons also apply in so far as the ,raisons sont valables aussi pour les suppleants. alternates are concerned. The three United Les trois Commissions des Nations Unies pour la Nations Commissions for Greece, Indonesia and Grece, pour l'Indonesie et pour l'Inde et le Pakis-.. India and Pakistan have been in existence or are tan ont siege (>u sont appelees a sieger longtemps" called upon to be in existence for a very con- ElIes ant assllme une charge tres lourde et comsiderable period. They have taken upon their plexe qu'un representant principal, 1s01e, n'aurait, shoulders a very heavy and complex burden which en fait, pas pu ou ne pourrait accomplir. Ce sont a single principal representative might not or la vraiment des cas ou la necessite metne du bon would not in fact have been able to bear by fonctionnement de chaque Commissionexige la himself. These ne truly cases in which alterpresence de suppleants. C'est done avec confiance nates are neeessary for the proper functioning of que nous demandons au Conseilde prendre la each Commission. It is therefore with confidence .decision qu'ilest en fait habilite a prendre par that we are asking the Council to take a decision la resolution 231 (Ill) de l'Assemb1ee generale. which it is in fact authorized to take under reso- I lution 231 (Ill) of the General Assembly. ····We l11usti however,·dr::tw-the·Council'satten.. tion to one point about which we entertain some doubt-Whereas the French text of paragraph 3 of resolution 231 (HI) authorizes the Secretary- 1. se.e.. Official Ri!cords of the Seclwity Cou1tcil, fil",s,t-\ Lyear, second series, No. 28, 87th meeting. sptkiale des Nations Unies pOUf ! des Nations Unies NouSfehorisceperidanf a· signaieruh-Foirif·qui~--·· nous par~it douteux. Alors que le texte fran<;ais du paragraphe 3 de la resolution 231 (HI) autorise le Secretaire generalaremboutser, atitre Mr. ARCE (Argentina) (translated from Spanish) : It is a general principl~ that work of any kind deserves remuneration and, a fortio1'i, that a person should not have to Dear e..--epenses in doing work which is not paid for in the end. Moreo.ver, there is another principle which states that no one may benefit from the work of a third party. These are general prhlciples of a human and social order which should also be respected bv the United Nations. Fortunately, they have been, and the only thing I find surprising is that is should be necessary for certain Memjers of the Organization, I will not say to claim reimbursement, but to draw the Security Council's attention to this point. I thought that such reimbursements were made as a regular thing, without States Members needing to draw attention to the situation. The Argentine 'delegation will, therefore, vote in-- favour of the sums which -the Secretariat deems should be paid, either as travelling expenses or 8.S subsistence allowantes. But perhaps in order to clear up the situation finally, and in vi(:;w of what the President has·pointed out to us, we might invite Mr. Lebeau, representative of the permanent Belgian delegation, who is here in the Council Chamber and who is moreover an e..--epert, to explain some of these matters to us and give the other members of the Security Council who are not fully acquainted with the subject the necessary information to enable us to vote with a clear conscience. I should like to make a request ,to that effect.

I have still one speaker on my list; the representative of Canada has asked for the floor. But it has been suggested that the representative of Belgium should be invited to speak. I trust that the representative of Argentina will not object if I give the floor first to the representative of Canada, and then to the representative of Belgium. Mr. IGNATIEFF (Canada): I do not intend to detain the Council long. All I wish to say is that 1he Canadian delegation is quite prepare.; .,; SllP~ port the proposal that has been brt)w~h;,''''' the Council by the four delegations, with i.,.:, e,1{tep· tion of the proposal to reimburse the ;;i~N·f!.'t(,;,; who took part in the Commission of lr:,~:: Cj concerning .. Greek. FrontJer ...lncidents-for._the 'reasons which have already been brought out during the discussion-tmless the representative of Belgium should adduce arguments or bring to our attention some new points which have not yet come to .light in the discussion. En con.sequence, la delegation del'Argentine voteru pour l'oCIToi des credits que le Secretariat esHme devoir affecter a ce remboursement, que ce soit au titre de frais de transport ou d'indemnites de subsistance. Cependant, pour elucider definitivement la question, nous pourrions, etant donne ce que le President nous a fait remarquer, inviter M. Lebeau, representant de la delegation permimente de la Belgiqlle et. au~surplus, expert en la matiere - lequel se trouve actue1lement. dans cette enceinte - a nous exposer quelques aspects de la question et a donner aux autres membres du Conseil de securite Qui ne seraient pas familiarises avec le sujet les informations necessaires pour qu'ils puissent voter en totlte tranquiIlite. Je presente une suggestion en ce sens. Le PRESIDEN~r (trad~tit d~£ russe) : II y a encore un orateur inscrit sur ma Hste; le representant du Canada a demande la parole. Mais on a propose d~ donneraussi la parole au representant d~ la Belgique. Je pense que le representant de l'Argentine ne s'opposera pas a ce que je donne tout d'abord la parole au representant du Canada et ensuite a celui de la Be1gique. M. IGNATIEFF (Canada) (traduit de l'angla.is) : Je n'entends pas retenir longtemps l'attentiondu ConseiLJe tiens seulement a dire qUe la delegation du Canada est parfaitement disposee adouner ; son appui a la proposition presentee au' Conseil par les quatre delegations, sauf en ce qui concerne le remboursement des frais des suppleants qui ont participea la Commissiond'enquete surlesinci.. dents survenus.le long de la frontiere grecque - cela pour les raisons deja invoqueesau I::ours de la discussion "'- a mains que le represeuta.'1t de le Belgique n'apporte d'autres arguments ou n'appelle notre attention sur des points nouveaux qui n'auraient pas encore ete mis elll lumiere au cours du debat. . For these reasons the Canadian delegation will support the proposal that the Security Council authorize through the proper channels, repayment and reimbursement to the Governments concerned.

It has been proposed that the representative of Belgium should be heard. Is there any objection? I therefore invite the representative of Belgium to take a seat at the Council table and to state his point of view. Mr. LEBEAU (Belgium) (translated from French) : I thank the Secnrity Council for giving the Belgian delegation an opportunity to explain its position in this matter. I also thank the representative of Argentina who.took the initia- tive and finally the various representatives who . have already supported in principle the draft resolution proposed by .the Belgian delegation and th"" three other delegations; I have very little to add to the excellent state- ment just made by the representative of France. First of all I should like to say that after what has been said here with regard to the Commission of Inquiry concerning Greek Frontier Incidents, the first commission mentioned in the draft reso- lution of .he four delegations, we,for our part,. would agree to having that Commission omitted from the draft resolution. Since we hope the Security Council is going to arrive at a fair decision, we should, in fact, have preferred to have that fair decision apply equally to all cases in which this question has arisen•. Nevertheless, we admit that, in view of the differ~nce arising in the texts of resolution 231 (lII) of the Ge.neral Assembly to which the rep- resentativeof France has just drawn attention, it might perhaps be considered that that reso- lution does not apply to the first Commission which was sent to Greece. Accordingly, if the Toutefois, considerant les taches multiples, difficiles et onereuses qui ont ete imposees a la Commission des Nations Unies pour l'Indonesie et a i~ Commission des Nations Unies pour l'Inde et le Pakistan, et tenant compte de toutes les conditions qui affectent l'execution de leurs man- d1'J.ts, la delegation du Canada estime que, pour ces deux Commissions, la presence de suppleants a ete et demeure essentielle a leur bon fonctionne- ment. C'est ,ourquoi la delegation du Canada appuiera la proposition tendant a ce que le Conseit de securite autorise, par les voies appropriees, le remboursement aux gouvernements interesses des frais encourus. Le PRESP''l:NT :!-a..-proposition aete £aite d'en- tendre le represeiitant de la Belgique. Il.n'ya pas cl'opposition? J'invite done le representant de la Belgique a prendre place a la table du Conseit et a exposer son point de vue. M. LEBEAu (Belgique): Je remercie le Conseit de securite de donner a la delegation beIge l'occa- sion d'exposer son opiniori, dans cette affaire. Je remercie egalement le representant de l'Argentine qui a pris l'lnitiative de cette invitation, et enfin les different~ representants qui ont deja appuye dans son principe le projet de resolution pI'ese:nt~ par la delegation beIge et les trois autie. '~1,~· gations. Apres l'excellent expose qui vient d'etre fait par le representant de la France, je n'aipas' grand-chose a ajouter. Je voudrais dire d'abord que, en ce qui concerne la Commission d'enquete sur les incidents survenus le long de la frontiere grecque, la premiere meu>tionnee dans le projet de resolution desquatre delegations, nous accep- terons pour notre part, apres ce qui a ete dit id, que cette Commissionsoit eliminee du projet de resolution. A dire vrai, nous aurions prMere, puisque le Conseil de secttrite va, nous l'esperons, prendre une decision eqt~;ta.ble~ que cette decision equi- tabie s'applique <le maniereegale a taus les cas dans t~squels cettequestion s'est pos_ee. _ Neanmoins, nous reconnaissons que, etant donne la difference des textes de la resolution 231 (Ill) de l'Assemblee generaleque le repre- sentant de la. France a exposee tout cl l'heure,on peut, peut-etre, considerer que cette resolution ne s'applique pas a la. premiere Commission envoyee en Grece. Par consequent, sitelle est la It should be r'~':l1embered that originally in the case' of the Cordmission for Indonesia as in the case of the Commission for India and Pakistan it seemed possible that those organs would remain in existence for a relatively brief period. In fact, the Commission for Indonesia has been function- ing for two years practically without interruption and the Commission for India and Pakistan will be assigned very important work by the Security Council which will undoubtedly extend over a considerable period of time. One single represen- tative unaccompanied by an alternate cannot be expected to accomplish that work under favour- able conditions. Moreover, these CQmmissions have not met in one single place; they have met iti a number of places, they have split up, they have set up subsidiary organs, they have carried out missions on the spot. All that cannot be done by one man. The member~ of these Commissions have con- stantly needed a person not only to assist or advise them but to replace them if'necessary. It is possible that in certain small delegations the full representative has not always had someone to, replace him; but that is certainly partly due to the fact that his Government had in mind the considerable expense which would have been involved, so that the absence of an alternate for a given time would not be an argument against gran,ting that alternate reimbursement of the expenses covered by resolution 231 (Ill) of the General Assembly. Th~re is another argument to which the repre- sentat1v.e of France just referred. When the General Assembly in four specific cases set up commissions which were completely similar to the Commission for Indonesia and the Commis- sion for India and Pakistan, namely, the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine set up at the first special session in roe spring of 1947; the United Nations Special Commiitee on the Balkans' the United Nations Temporary Com- mission' on Korea and the short-lived United Nations!' Palestine Commission-the last three . ".being set· up.at the second session of"the General Assembly in 19472-the General Assembly form- allyAecided that the travening expenses and subsistence allowances of an alternate!,would be ::J'n .fa;t. les membres de ces Commissions ant eu com:.tamment besoin d'une personne, non seulement pour les assister ou les conseiller, mais pour les remplacer au be'soin. Il se peut que, dans certaines pt'tites delegations, le representant titu- laire n'ait pas toujours eu quelqu'un pour le remplacer; mais cela'tient certainement en partie au fait que son gouvernement avait en vue les frais considerables que cela aurait entraine, de sorte que I'absence d'un suppleant, pendant un certain temps, ne serait pas' un argument contre 1'application a. ce suppleant dJ remboursement des frais prevus par la resolution 231 (HI) de l'Assemblee generale. Il y a un autre argument, auquelle representant de la France'a d'ailleurs 'fait allusion tout cl ,l'heure. Lorsque' 3.'Assemblee generale a cree des commissions tout cl fait analogues a. la Commis- sionpour l'Indonesie et cl la Commission pour l'Inde et le Pakistan, et elle l'a fait dans quatre cas particuliers, cl savoir: pour la Commission speciale des Nations Unies pour la Palestine, creee cl la l)remiere session extraordinaire au printemps de 1947; pour la Commission specia.le des Nations Unies pour les Balkans; pour la Commission tem- poraire des Nations Vnies pour la Coree; et pour la Commission, a-vtaid,ire e,Phemere, de,S, N,'atio,ns Unies pour la Palestine - ces trois dernieres !;'r,eees cl la deuxieme session de l'Assemblee en 19472 --- l'Assemblee generale' a formellement We therefore ask the following question: why should there be two different systems? Why should Governments participating in commissions set up by the Security Council be subject to a system which is dearly less favourable than the system applied tu the Governments participating in commissions set up by the General Assembly? That difference of treatment seems to us unjust, and in order to correct that inequality and rem,edy that injustice we have presented the draft reso- lution now before the Council. . On behalf of the Belgian Government, I should like to quote some figures. The Belgian Government has participated and is participating in the three Commissions mentioned in the reso- lution: the first Commision sent to Greece, the Commission for Indonesia and the Commission for India and Pakistan. To date the Belgian Government has spent almost one hundred thou- sand doUars for its own expenses;·for the Belgian Government that is a considerable sum; it is our opinion that that sum is large and ,that it is gradually becoming too large. We think that some Governments may be of the same opinion either because they are in a similar position to onrs or because in the future they might be asked to take part in similar com- missions. If this discriminatory proceJure in connexion with commissions .set up by the Security Council continues to be applied system- atically, we run the risk of finding that some Governments will be reluctant to participate in commissions set up by the Security Council. Those are the main reasons which prompted my Government to take the initiative it has taken along with three other deleganons. We hope that the Security Council will be in a position to adopt the proposal. We agree, although with reluctance, to the deletion from the resolution of the refer- ence to the first Commission sent to Greece.

Speaking as the representative of the UKRAINIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC, I should like to say a few words in connexion with the proposal submitted by the delegations of Australia, Belgium, Colombia and France. . The delegation of the Ukrainian SSR cannot but express its great astonishment at the completely unfounded claim made in the proposal. On what do these· four States base their request for reimbursement of the expenses entailed in conne.'{ion with the sending of commissions? They invoke resolution 231 (Ill) of80ctober 1948. But a reading of that resolution will show that its purpose is to dampen the enthusiasm of individual States in the matter of sending alternates. The resolution says that expenses may be r;imbursed only in the case of official repres~nta­ byes. In exceptional cases a decision is required by the responsible body each time whether or not Nous pOSt..I1S done la question suivante: pourquoi faudrait-il deux poids et deux mesures? Pourquoi faudrait-il que les gouvernements siegeant dans des commissions constituees par le Conseil de securite se voient appliqcler an regime nettement moins favorable que les gouvernements qui participent a des commissions constituees par l'Assemblee generale? Cette difference de regime nous parait inequitable et c'esl: pour corriger cette'inegalite et cette injustice que nous avons presente le projet de resolutiondont le Conseil est maintenant saisi. Je voudrais, aa nom du Gouvernement beIge, citeI' quelques chiffres. Le Gouvernement beIge a participe et participe aux trois Commissions men:.. tionnees dans la resolution: la premiere Commission envoyee en Grece, la Commission d'Indonesie et la Commission de l'Inde et du Pakistan. Jusqu'a present, le Gouvemement beige a debourse, pour ses propres frais, une somme de pres de cent mille dollars; pour lui, c'est une somme considerable; nous estimons que cette somme est forte et que, peu a peu, eUe devient trop forte. Nous pensons que' certains gouvernements peuvent en juger de meme, soit parce qu'ils se trouvent dans la meme situation que nous, soit parce qu'Hs pourraient·etreinvitesdansl'avelUTa participera des commissions analogues. Si ce regime de discrimination a I'egard des commissions creees par le Conseil de securite continue a etre systematiquement applique, nous risquons de nous trouver devant une repugnance de certains, gouvernements 11 prendre part aux commissions instituees par le Conseil desecurite. Ce sont la essentiellement les motifs qui ont provoque, de la part de mon Gouvernement, l'initiative qu'il a prise avec trois autres delegations. Nous esperons qqe le Conseil de securite poutra adopter la proposition; nous, acceptons _. quoique sans emp.ressement - la suppression danscette resolution de la mention de la premiere Commission envoyee on Grece. Le PRESIDENT (traduit dte rUlSse): En qualite de representant de la REpUBLIQUE SOCIALISTE SOVIETIQUE n'UKRAINE, je voudrais presenter quelques observations au sujet de la proposition dont les representant:; de l'Australie, de la. Be1gique, de la Colombie et de la France ont saisi le Conseil. La delegation de la RSSd'Ukraine tient [ declarer aue les demartdes entierement irtjustifiees exposees -dans cette proposition l'ont fortement surprise. A quel titreces quatre Etatsdemandentils lerelnboursement des frais qu'a entraines pour eux l'envoi de certaines commissions? lIs invoquentace proposcIa l'esQluti{ln431-c(TX!j~=c=,c 8 octobre 1948. Or, si on lit attentivement cette resolution, on verra qu'elle tend precisemellt a limiter le. desir que pourraient avoir certains Etats d'envoyerdes suppleants sur les lieux. Aux termesde cette resglution, onrie petit engagerd~ frais que lorsqu'il s'agit de representants offiCfels; c'est seulem<'nt a titreexceptionnel -- et dans First of all, from a juridical point of view, the resolution provides no foundation for the claims advanced by Australia, Belgium, Colombia and France. . Secondly, if we study the resolution to which t am referring, we see that the body concerned ", . 'must take a decision each time there is a question of reimbursing alternates' expenses. 'What are these four States doing? They are placing the United Nations before a fait accompli. But who authorized them to do this and who gave them permission to send alternates? I do not know of any such decision. There was none. On "what grounds did they send their alternates without any decision having been taken in that respect, and then present the bills and require the United Nations to pay these expenses? . Thev acted in violation of the resolution. Had they wished to raise this question" they should have done so when the questions of Indonesia, Greece and India-Pakistan arose; "hey should have come to the meeting of the Sect .Ity Council each time with a formal request and stated that the conditions of work were such as to require them to send alternates. The Security Council, hearing such a statement, would have discussed the pros and cons and reached a decision. Then the question would have been settled. But they sent their alternates without asking the Security Council, or even the Secretariat and now come forward and say: "Pay us our expenses." But why should Ethiopia, or Egypt or any other small State, which may at the present time be in difficult straits, pay the expenses of such States,as France, which is a permanent member of the Security Council, or Belgium, which plays an important role in every pact and now complains to us that: "We had to participate in three commissions." I should like to point out that they had a perfect right to decline to participate if they felt that it was not necessary for them to do so. But if they accepted that obligation they should be willing to shoulder the financial burden of such an honour and not lay it on the Ukrainians .?,nd askthem to pay their expenses. We suffered lllorethan they did during the war. The representative of Belgium declares that his country is taking part in three commissions. If there had been an intelligent distribution of work, I can assure you that we could have found other States which could have participated and which Its ont agi contrairement aux dispositions de la resolution. S'ils voulaient poser la question, ils auraient du, chaque fois, dans le cas de l'Indonesie, de la Grece et de l)nde-Pakistan, declarer officieUement au Conseil de secm-ite que les conditions de( travail etaient telles, qu'ils etaient obliges d'envoyer des b..;ppleants sur les lieux. Le Coriseil de securite aurait entendu cette declaration, l'aurait examinee et aurait pris une decis:on en consequence apres avoir pese le pour et le contre. Ainsi, la question aurait ete reglee. Or, au lieu d'agir ainsi, ces Etats ont envoye des suppleants sans consulter le Conseil de securite, ni meme le Secretariat, et ils viennent maintenant reclamer au Conseille remboursement de leurs depenses. Mais pourquoi veulent-ils que l'Ethiopie, l'Egypte ou tel autre ,petit Etat qui eprouve actuellement de grandes difficultes, paient les depenses d'Etats comme la France, qui est l'un des membres permanents du Conseil de securite, ou comme la Belgique qui, en tant que signataire de nombreux pactes, joue un role important sur le' plan international, mais vient maintenant se plaindre qu'elle a ete obligee de participer aux travaux de trois commissions. Le voudrais faire remarquer que, ces Etats etaient parfaitement libres de refuser de participer it ces commissions s'its ne le jugeaient pas utile. Mais puisqu'ils ont accepte cette oblig:;.tion, its devraient se charger du paiement des depenses qu'entraine cet honneur et ne pas demander aux Ukrainiens de payer leurs frais. Pendant la guerre, nos souffiances ont ete plus grandes que les leurs. Le representant de la Belgique declare que son pays a participe aux travaux de trois commissions. Si l'on avait etabli une division rationnelle du travail, je vous assure que le Conseil aurait pu trouver d'autres Etats qui auraient, participe ..~~~ In the first place, those iour States have violated the resolution. They did not come here and explain why alternates were needed. And now, immediately after these three cases, when some States sent alternates, they ask us to lay the money on the table. In my opinion,this is completely unjustified. It is disloyal towards the Security Council and I believe that we cannot agree to such a point of view. In the first place it should be shown why, for example, Belgium had to send its representative to Pakistan. Belgium has a representative there. Why was it necessary to send an alternate as well? Let this be explained to us. I say to you with full justification that I doubt whether it was necessary, for I know that there are many posts in the United Nations whj.ch may be considered to be sinecures. Note that for these four alternates concerned neither more nor less than $218,000 is being requested. Can the United Nations throw its money about in this' way? I see no justification for it. As the representative of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic I therefore object categorically to such completely groundless claims. Mr. TSIANG (China): The proposal placed before us is related to three Commissions. Of the three, the first one, the Commission of Inquiry concerning Greek Frontier Incidents, has been withdrawn by two of the sponsors. In regard to that matter, it is the opinion of my delegation that this item, while not technically correct, is substantially justified. However, we do not need to discuss that item further since it has been withdrawn. I shall confi,nemy remarks to the two other Commissions, the Commission on Indoaesia and the Commission for India-Pakistan. In the judgmenc .'i my delegation, reimbursement for the expenses of alternates on those Commissions is justified. There has been a failure which has resulted in the present complications. T acknowledge that it is the Security Council's failure and for it I openly acknowledge my own share. . These Commissions have Geen entrusted with important work. It is evident that therepresentatives should have alternates. In establishing these Commissions, the Security Council should have provided the representatives with alternates. The failure resulted from negligence; we did not take the· trouhIe to t..~ink through the tasks entrusted to the Commissions. It was a failure of omission. I am glad that these representatives have put the proposal before the Security Council so that we can remedy the mistake that we made in the past. J'estime qu'une telle methode est absolument injustifiable. C'est la. un manque de loyaute envers le Conseil de securite, et nous ne pouvons, a. mon avis, accepter un tel procede. Tout d'abord, que l'on veui11e bien nous demontrer pour quelles raisons la Belgique, par exem.ple, devait envoyer un representant au Pakistan. ElIe disposait deja d'un representant sur place. Pourquoi done lui fallait-il aussi envoyer un suppleant? Qu'elle nous le prouve. Etait-ce bien necessaire? J'en doute fort, car je sais pertinemment qu'il existe, dans l'Organisation des Nations Unies, bon nombre de pastes qui sont de veritables sinecures. A noter que la somme demanaee pour ces quatre suppIeants est de 218.000 dollars, ni plus ni moins. L'Organisation des Nations Unies peutelle se permettre de jeter1'argent par les fenetres? Je ne vois, pour ma part, aucune raison de le faire. ' C'est pourquoi, en ma qualite de representa.nt de la Republique socialiste sovietique d'Ukraine, je m'eleve energiquement contre ces demandes tout a. fait injustifiees. M. TSIANG (Chine) (traduit de l'anglais) : La proposition qui nous est soumise interesse trois Commission!;. La premiere de celles-ci, la Commission d'enquetl: sur les incidents survenus le long de la frontiere grecque, a ete ecartee par deux des auteurs de la proposition. A cet egard, ma deIegati"n estime que, sans etre correcte du point de vue technique, l'inclusion de ce point se justifiait quant au fond. Mais nous n'avons pas a. discuter plus longtemps ce pointpl,lisqu'il a ete retire. Je bornerai mes observations aux deux autres Commissions, la Commission pour l'Indonesie et la Commission pour l'Inde et le Pakistan. De l'avis de ma delegation, le remboursement des frais afferents aux suppIeartts a. ces Commissions est legitime. Une erreur a ete faite, d'oa resultent les complications actuelles. Jereconnais que l'erreur a ete commise par le Conseit de securite, et je conviens ouvertement que j'en porte ma part de responsabiIite. Une tache importante a ete confiee a. ces Commissions. I1 est evident que les representants a. ces Commissions devraient avoir des suppleants. En instituant ces Commissions, le Conseil de securite aurait du prevoil" ces suppleants. L'erreur provient d'une negligence; nous ne nous sommes pasdonnela peme deconsidererpleine..rnentles_ tckhes que nous avions confiees aux Commissions. Nous avons pecne par omission.. Jesuis heureux que cette proposition ait ete sOfullise au C-enseilde securite, afin que nous puissions remedier a. l'errellr que nous avions faite anterieurement. Mr. TSARAPKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): Paragraph 2 of the resolution to which the representatives of Australia, Belgium, Colombia and France refer in their letter states that: "The General Assembly "Decides that travelHng and subsistence expenses shall be payable out of United Nations funds to one representative of any Me'.nber participating in a commission of inquiry or conciliation instituted by the General Assembly or by the Security Council, subject to the proviso that an exception to this rule may be permitted' on the decision of the organ concerned that an alternate for each Member is necessary." It is clear from this resolution that 'as a rule only representatives will be paid and that only in exceptional cases and in accordance with a specific decision of the organ concerned will alternates be paid. In the letter of the four representatives, which we are considering today, claims are made which go far beyond the provisions of the resolution and do not in any case correspond with its letter and spirit. As a result, claims are being presented for the payment by the United Nations of $200,- 000 for what are virtually illegal expenses since only $18,000 represents legal expenditure for which provision was made in the budget for 1949. I take it that such groundless claims '.by States whose alternates took part in the work of commissions cannot be considered or, at any rate, cannot be met. Moreover, budgetary considerations are not the only ones involved here. We know that we now have to •fight for every hundred or every thousand dollars, and yet we are asked to make a retroactive payment of $200,000 for unwarranted claims. We must also take account of the spirit of the resolution. I again draw the attention of members of the Council to the fact that resoiution 231 (HI) of 8 October 1948 states that, as a rule, only one representative will be paid and alternates will be paid only in exceptional cases. An attempt is now b~ing made to seta precedent whereby, as a rule, two representatives from each. country shall be paid,bne being the member of the commission who participates in its work, and the other his alternate. securii.\~ poursuit sa deliberation et je donne la parole au repre~entant de l'Union sovietique. M. TSARAPKINE (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe) : Le paragraphe 2 de la resolution de l'Assemblee genemle, qu'invoquent dans leur lettre les representants de l'Australie, de la France, de la Be1gique et de la Colombie, est ainsi conlSu: "L'Assemblee generale "Decide que lesfrais de voyage et les indemuires de subsistance doivent etre a la charge de l'Organisation des Nations Unies lorsqu'il s'agit d'un representant de tout Etat Membre participantaune commission d'enquete ou de conciliation instituee par l'Assemblee generale ou par le Conseil de securite, sous reserve qu'une exception a cette regIe pourra etre admise sur decision de l'organe interesse stipulant la necessite d'un suppleant pour chaque Membre." 11 ressort de cette resolution que, en regIe generale, l'Organisation n'assume que les frais d'envoi de representants et que c'est seulement a titre exceptionnel et en vertu d'une decision speciale prise par l'organe interesse que 1'Organisation pourra prendre a sa charge les frais des suppleants. . Or, la lettre des qtl~'.tre representants, que le Conseil est en train d'examiner, contient des demandes qui vont beaucoup plus loin que les dispositions de cette resolution et qui sont, en tout cas, contraires a l'esf'rit et a la lettre de ce texte. Ainsi donc, on reclame a l'Organisation le remboursement de 200.000 dollars de dellenses qui sont, en somme, illegitimes, car 18.000 dollars seulement de ces frais sont legitimement prevus pour l'exercice 1949. Des demandes aussi injusti:l1ees soumises par des Etats dont les representants et les suppleants ont participe aux travaux de certaines commissions nesemhlent pas recevables ~ton ne saurait, en tout cas, y donner suite. D'ailleurs les considerations d'ordre budgetilire ne .sont pas les seulesqtii jouent ici. Certes, nous devdns lutter pour chitque millier, et meme pOllr chaque centaine de dollars du budget, et voila que l'on vient nous r~c1amer sans raison le versement d'une somme de 200.000 'dollars a titre retroactif; Le Conseil doit egalement tenir compte de l'esprit meme de la resolution. Je signale tine fois de plus aux membres du Conseil que la resolution 231 (HI) dn 8 octobre 1948 declare expressement que, d'une fa<;on generale, l'Organisation n'assurrie les frais que lorsqu'll s'agit du representant d'un Etat, e'.:que c'est seulement atitre exceptionnelqu'ellepourra prendre a sa charge lesfrais occasionnes ~ar l'env-:>i d'un suppfeant. Or on nOus propose mamterMnt de creer Un precedent et·d'adopter .comme regIe generale. que J'Organisation preridra a sa charge l'envoi de deux representants pour chaque pays, a savoir. un membre de la commission reconnaitr~ que cette demande est injustifiee et decider qu'il ne peut y donner suite. Le PR.,';SIDENT (traduit du russe): 11 n'y a plus d'orateul' inscrit sur ma liste. Je voudrais demander aux membres du Conseil de securite s'ils tiennent ace que cette question Suit mise aux voix.des aujourd'hui ou si, enraison de la '-lote communiquee par le Secretariat, au sujet de la proposition soumise par les quatre delegations, note qui souleve des considerations juridiques importantes, ils pensent qu'il serait preferable d'exatnmer plus attentivement ce document et ne proceder au vote que 10rs de la prochaine seance, laquelle sera vraisemblablement ~iesidee par mon successeur. A mon avis,il conviendrait que les membres du CGnseil, y cGmpris moi-meme, aient la possibilite d'etudier ce document du Secretariat, fonde sur des considerations juridiques serieuses, avant de procecler a un vote. Si le Conseil 0~ securite accepte cette demantle, je leverai la seance.

I have no other speaker.on my list. I should like to ask members of the Security Council whether they feel that we should vote on this question today or whether, in view of the memorandum we have received from the Secretariat, which raises important juridical considerations in cpnnexion with the proposal submitted by the four delegations, they think it possible to study that document more carefully and defer the vote until the next meeting, at which I shall probably not preside, but my successor will. I should like to ask that members of the Council, and I myself in particular, should be given the opportunity to study this document, submitted by the. Secretariat and based on weighty legal considerations and only then to proceed to· a vote. If the Security Council agrees to that request, I shall adjourn the meeting. La seance est levee cl 17 h. 50.