S/PV.447 Security Council

In view of the hour, l wonder whether the last speaker would agre~ that the consecutive interpretation of his sp~ech be given at the beginning of our meeting this afternoonif indeed, the· representative of France insists !hat it has to be given at aIl. l think everybody had earphones, and l checked and ascertained that the speech was in fact being interpreted b?th into French andinto English. Therefore, l thmk none of it has been missed. However, our normal procedure would be to have the consecutive interpretation, and l would only suggest that possibly we might .begin the afternoon meeting with that consecutive interpretation. Therefore, if there is no objection, l shall adjourn the meeting and asle the Security Couneil to meet at 3 0'dock this afternoon. Members of the Security Council probably know that there will be a short ceremony for the unveilingof a tablet in memory of Count Bernadotte in the main lobby at 4 D'dock, to which the members of the .Security Couneil have been invited. l would, therefore, propose to interrupt our meeting short1y before 4 0'dock and to resume again immediately after the ceremony is over. l understand that it is expected to last not more than a quarter of an hour. Mr. TSARAPKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): As my statement has already been simultaneously interpreted into English and French, l have no objection to postponing the consecutive interpretation until this afternoon. The meeting rose at 1 p.m. listes cours simultanée aucune cutive .FOUR HUNDRED AND FORTY- SEVENTHMEETING Held at Lake Success, New York, on Friday, 16 September 1949, at 3 p.m. (Royaume-Œli Pres~dent: Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Pre~ent:. The representatives of the following COU.'ltnes: Argentina, Canada, China, Cuba, Argentine; Norvège, kraine, ~gypt, Fr~nce, Norway, Ukrainian Soviet Socialst Repubhc, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 1. Letter dated 29 July 1949 from the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission addressed to the President of the Security Councü (8/1377) (continued)

1 would remind the Couneil that at the end of the 446th m.eeting it was agreed that we should begin this meeting with the consecutive interpretation of the speech made this morning'by the representative of the USSR. As l informed the Couneil this morning, a brief ceremony is due to take place in this building 4 p.m. which the Couneil will attend, and I shall therefore have to adjourn the Couneil at the latest at 3.55 p.m.. If the interpretation takes very long, I shall perhaps have to interrupt the interpreter. The interpretation into English 'l.OOS then given of. the address delivered in Russian at the 446th meeting by the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the official translation of which appears in the verbatim record of that meeting. Ml'. CHAUVEL (France) (translated from French): The French delegation will vote favour of the Canadian draft resolution [S/1386], which it considers would enable the Couneil discharge the only responsibility which it has the matter at present. The Atoniic Energy Commission stated last year1 that it had reached a deadlock and suggested that it should suspend its activity until its permanent members had reported that they had found a basis for agreement on the control of atomic energy and the elimination of atomic weapons which would make it possible to resume the discussion. The General Assembly, while accepting the suggestion concerning the consultation of the permanent members, nevertheless recommendecl to the Commission in resolution 191 (III) of 4 N()vember 1948 that it survey its programme of work in order to determine whether further work would be practicable and useful. The Commission acted accordingly. One of the resolutions which it adopted on 29 July2 states that the situation has no~ changed and that the Commission can serve no usefuI and practical purpose until such time as the six permanent members have found a basis tor agreement. The other resolution is the result of a USSR proposaI [S/1391/Rev.1] reiterating ;\e poi.nt of view which the USSR delegation hac! submltted to the General Assembly last year and which the Assembly had not found possible ta accept. • Set' document AEC/43. The Canadian resolution itself has no other object than to make it possible for the Assembly to know what action has been taken on its own resolution of 4 November 1948. In the absence of such a communication, it is difficult to see how the General Assembly would learn of thàt result. It would therefore seem to be the Counci1's duty to ensure that the result be communicated and to confine itself to this procedural decision at present. It seems obvious that, while the consultations between the six permanent members of the Commission are in progress, a political and technical debate on the substance would serve no useful purpose. This objection seems to me all the more in order beeause one cannot speak with authority of something of which one has no knowledge and because the consultations between the six members have not been, and, until it is otherwise decided, must not be, the subject of any communication. 1 shaH therefore refrain from any discussion and comment on the essentially politieal remarks made to us at the 446th meeting by the representatives of the Ukrainian SSR and the USSR. de essentiellement tées la de situation Je Commission taine droit vail que rendu sion au du de mission. crois très séance la ne la les à 16 As for the draft resolution submitted ta the Counci! by the USSR representative, all 1 need say is that it does not seem to take into account our actual position. 1 repeat that the General Assembly has assigned a certain mission ta the Atomic Energy Commission. As is its right and duty, the Commission has made a report of its work for the Assembly. 1 do not see why the Council should be authorized to withhold that report and to plaœ itself as a screen between the Commission and the Assembly. It is for the Assembly, not for the Council, to give new instructions to the Commission after discussing the report and the problems it raises.

1 do not think there is time for any but the very shortest intervention before we take our agreed short recess at 3.55 p.m. Therefore, unless a member of the Council has s?mething to say, I propose to adjourn the CouncrI now. As 1 have already informed the Council, the ceremony will take place at 4 p.rn., and 1 hope that the rnembers of the Council will aceompany me to it. The meeting was sltspended at 3.55 p.m. and reconvened at 4.30 p.m. The. PRESIDENT: 1 would remind the Security CouncI1 that on the item now before it there are t'Y0 draft resolutions, one presented by the Canadran d~legation [Sj1386], the other by the USSR ~ele&ahOn [S/1391], of which a revised version as J~st been submitted [Sj1391/Rev.1]. 1 calI attenhon to the faet that the revision involves oIily one word. . à de aborder lutions, nada de texte.revisé tion ge111ent l should therefore like to ask the Council to put the Soviet Union proposaI to the vote first. If a vote were taken on the Canadian draft resolution first, the subsequent adoption of the USSR draft resolution-if it were adooted-would place the Council in an awkward situation. In one case, the letter [S113771 wouId be transmitted without any recommendation. In the other, there would be no need ta transmit to the General Assembly the letter from the President of the Atomic Energy Commission ta the President of the Security Council, with the two resolutions attached ta it; it wouId suffice to transmit the resolution proposed .by the representative of the Soviet Union. l wouId merefore request the President to put the USSR draft resolution to the vote first. General McNAUGHTON (Canada): The first paragraph of. ruIe 32 of our rules of nrocedure states: "PrinCipal motions and draft resolutions shall have precedence in the order of their submission. 1J Iam well aware thatamendments to principal motionsmay be made and that they must be considered under one of our other mIes. As l read the draft resolution submitted by the representative of the Soviet Union, it k in no sense an amendment ta the Canadian draft. I would point out that white the draft resolution submitted by the representative of the Soviet Union would have the effect of having the Security Council invite the Atomic Energy Commission to continue with its work, neither the date' of continuance nor the conditions are stated. These are left quite indefinite. AIso, in the Canadian draft resolution there is a matter which' is not coverec1. at aIl in the draft resolution of the Sovièt Union, namely, the communication of information which is so important at this timeto the General Assembly. The Canadian draft resolution provides, through the documents .whiéh it transmits, that in due course the Atomic Energy Commission will resume its work, and in contrast to theUSSR draft, these documents state the basis which ought te;> be fulfilled before the Commission attempts to do so. M''!tC ,'~'"'--,,.,..J''=~~= th~ USSR that l do not think there is a conflict between these two draft resolutions, or that they are mutually exclusive. If the Canadian delegation's draft resolution were put to the vote first, and if the Council approved it, l should see no objection to a vote being taken thereafter on the draft resolution presented by the delegation of the Soviet Union. If no other member of the Security Couneil wishes to express his views on this point, l must say that l feel bound to foHow the provision set fbrth in the rules of procedure, from which we do not usuaHy depart, and from which, in fact, l think we never have departed. l shaH put to the vote first the Canadian draft, which was submitted eight days before the USSR draft, but l repeat that l neither intend nor wish in any way thereby to ex.clude a vote on the latter. When the Canadian draft'resolution has been disposed of, whatever the result, l shaH feel it my duty to put to the vote the Soviet Union draft resolution. However, l do feel that l must .follow the rule which directs that proposaIs must be put to the vote in the order in which they have been submitted; as these two proposaIs, in my view, do not conflict, that is the way in which l propose to proceed. l shaH ask.the Security Council to vote on the Canadian draft resolution, the text of which is to he found in document S/1386. Mr. TSARAPKIN (Union of Soviet Soeialist Republic) (translated trom Russian): l agree with the President'sruling, of course, when he decides that, in accordance with rule 32, the Canadian draft resolution, whicli was submitted to the Security Council on 8 September, should be put to the vote first. l take it, however, that; as the President stated, the Council will vote on the draft resolution submitted by the TJSSR representative immediately after considering and voting on that draft resolution.

Yes, that is my intention. Mr. MANUILSKY (Ukrainian Soviet Soeialist Republic) (translated fram Russian) : l wish to propose an amendment to the Canadian draft resolution. In the second paragraph of this resolution after the w?rds. "Directs the Secretary-General to t~ans~'l1t thIS letter and the accompanying resolutIons , l propose that the following phrase be a~ded: "together with the records of the discussl~n .on ,~js questio~in the Atomic ~nergy CommISSIOn . l shall gIve a copy of thlS àmendment to the Secretariat. UkTh~ .PRESIDENT: The represèntatiye'of the ralDIan SSR has submitted an amendment [S/1392] to the Canadian draft resolution. In accordance with the rules of procedure the atnendment will have to be voted on first. '

The author of the draft resolutionhas accepted the amendment; 1 think, therefore, that we need not proceed to vote separatdy on the amendment. 1 shaH put the draft resolution, with the addition just proposed by the representative of the Ukrainian SSR, to the vote. expect that the members of the Securitv Council 'would not wishto wait to see it in writing. It is a fairly simple and desirable addition. Conse- Quently, if there is no objection, I shaH a~k the Council to vote on the Canadian draft resolution as amended. Tt now reads as follows: "The Secwrity Council, "Havinq reï:eived and examined the letter dated 29 July 1949 from the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, transmitting two resolutions (AECj42 and AECj43) adonted at the 24th meeting of the Commission on 29 July 1949. "Directs the Secretary-General to transmit this letter and the accompànying resolutions. together with the records of the discussion of this question in the Atomic Energy Commission, to the General Assembly and to the Member States of the United Nations." A vote was t.aken by show of hands, as follows: In favozw: Arg-entina, Canada. China. Cuba. Egypt. France, Norway. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Abstaininq: Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Repub- Uc, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The draft resohttion4 was adopted by 9 votes to none, 'l.uith 2 abstentions. T~e PRESIDENT: We now proceed to the draft resolution submitted by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Is there any further discussion on this draft resolution, or may 1 proceed to put it at once to the vote? Mr. TSARAPKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : The resolution we have just adopted is of a purely procedural nature and does not introduce any new .substantive element into the atomic energy question. It does not advance that question. It permits the Atomic Energy Commission to remain inactive, as it has been since July. The USSR delegation considers that the Atomic Energy Commission is not entitled to stop its work, as it was given a· specific mandate. The Atomic Energy Commission has more than once been given definite instructions by the General Assembly in the terms of resolutions 1 (1) of In his speech today, the representative of France referred very briefly ta the draft resolution which l submitted ta the Security Couneil today. He stated that he disagreed with the draft resolution because he felt that the Security Cotlncil should not examine these questions 110W, and that it was not for it ta suggest that the Commission should continue its work. l cannot agree with such an approach ta the question, as the opinion expressed by the French represelltative is complete1y refuted by specifie statements in the resolution. One need only refer to the General Assembly resolution of 24 January 1946. That resolution speaks of the establishment of the Atomic Energy Commission for the purpose of submitting speeific proposaIs ta the Security Couneil: ". . . (c) for the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of aH other major weapons adaptable ta mass destruction;" and also ". . . (b) for control of atomic energy to the extent necessary to ensure its use only for peaceful purposes". That is stated in: the General Assembly resolution of 24 January 1946; it follows that the question of whether the Atomic Energy Commission is or is not functioning is of great interest ta the Security Couneil. Dnder that resolution the Security Council should receive from the Atomic Energy Commission speeific proposaIs on the prohibition ùf atomic weapons and other weapons adaptable to mass destruction. That is our dut\' and we have a c1ear directive from the General Assembly to that effect. Furthermore, let us consider theresolution of 14 December 1946, which states that: "The Geneml Assembly, "Urges the expeditious fulfihnent by the Atomic Energy Commission of hs terms of reference as set forth in section 5 of the General Assembly resolution of 24 January 1946." And further: "R~com1nends that the Security Couneil . • . expedlte consideration of a draft convention or COnVel'ltions for the creation of an international system o~ control and inspection, these conventions to mc1ude the prohibition of atomic and al! other major weapons adaptable now and in the future to mass destruction and the control ?f atomic eneigy ta the extent necessary ta ensure ItS Use only for peaceful purposes." But how can the Council expedite that consideration if the Atomic Energy Commission has stopped its work? It is our duty to constrain it to resume its work. It is our dutYto recommend a continuation of that work and thus to enable the Security Council to implement the directive it received from the General Assembly. There is no other way open to us. If there are any forces hindering the work of the Atomic Energy Commission, we should overcome those forces. That is the Security Council's duty. In order to overcome those opposing forces and oblige the Atomic Energy Commission to resume its work and not remain inactive, the Soviet Union has introduced a draft resolution which requests the Atomic Ellergy Commission to continue its work with a view to fulfilling the tasks entrusted to it by the General Assembly resolutions of 24 January and 14 December 1946. Some members of the Security Council have tried to argue that consultations between the six permanent members of the Atomic Energy Commission are now under way; but that is a completèly unconvincing argument. Why should the Atomic Commission remain inactive while those six States are meeting? Both could work at the same time. The Atomic Energy Commission is the main body, the constitutional body which has been entrusted with drafting and preparin~ :l draft convention or .conventions on the prohibition of atomic weapons and the control of atomic energy. The General Assembly established the Commission precisely to that end and it has no right to remain inactive. .l must repeat still another time that it is because of pressure by the United States that the Commission is remaining inactive. But we cannot follow that path; we have no right to do so. The Commission must work and we must oblige it to do so. That is the purpose of the draft resolution which l introduced for consideration by the Security Council today. Ml'. MANUILSKY (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) (translated trom Rttssian): As the members of the Council will remembe:r, there were attempts to abolish the Atomic Energy Commission's work as early as May 1948. Those attempts, howéver, came to nought. As is known, such an attempt was made in the General Assembly last year. The question of concluding the Atomic Energy Commission's work was placed before the General Assembly, which did not agree to it. May 1 now remind the members of the Council of the General Assembly resolution of 4 November 1948, which states that: "The General Assembly cans upon the Atomic Energy Commission. to resume its sessions ...". Thus, apart from the very important directives of 1946, to which the representative of the USSR has referred, we are also bound by a decision which is often referred to here, namely, the General Assembly resolution of 4 November 1948. But the resolution of 4 November 1948 explicit1y "Requests the six sponsors of the General Assembly resolution of 24 January 1946, which are the permanent members of the Atomic Energy Commission, to meet together and consult ...". In other words, the General Assembly in its resolution of 4 November 1948 did not debar the Atomic Energy Commission from continuing its worIe the meetings and consultations of its sL'C perm~nent members notwithstanding. The President said a short time ago, when the rules of procedure for voting were under discussion, that he invariably upheld the principle of adherence to the mIes of procedure. There was some disagreement between us on this score yesterday [44Sth meeting] because the President failed to uphold the mIes of procedure when we were defending them, but we wi11leave that question aside for the moment. 1 consider, however, that the President and the members of the Security Council should base themselves upon the resolutions of the General Assembly, particularly tnose of 24 January and 14 December 1946, and also 'upon the General Assembly decision of 4 November 1948, which is formally binding and which proposes .a resumption of work by the Atomic Energy Commission and' the simultaneous arrangement of consultations. Consultations have been arranged and it remains to comply with the fourth part of this resolution of 1948, which must not be infringed. For these reasons 1 warmly support the USSR representative's proposaI. Ml'. CHAUVEL (France) (translated tram French) : 1 do not deny that the Atomic Energy Commission should continue its activity. In fact, l am sure that my Government would not see its 'York terminated without misgivings. The positIon l have just outlined is not one of principle, but of common sense. On the one hand, the Commission informs us, for the benefit of the Assembly, that it has come to a deadlock. On the other haI).d, the consultations of the six members, which were laid down by the Assembly in its resolution of. 4 ~ovember 1948, are in progress. 1 do not thmk It would serve any usefulpurpose to urge the Commission to resume its discussions until the six permanent members have reconsidered the bases for agreement. Unlike some of 'our colleagues, Ido nat believe it necessary or even usefuI to saJ;" the same thing twenty-five times, a hundred tlmes or five hundred times over, again ; l do not think the result would be to advance matters. ' '" , ment l'énergie esquissée de gnale, une six, résolution ne sien les examiné nos ni ou pression Ml'..MANUILSKY (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Repubh~) (translated from Russian): 1 cannot agree wIth the objection which the representative of F;ance hasexpressed. 1 cannot understand why It shouldbe contrary to good sense to defend at one and the same time, the General Assembly tique accepter prés~ntant pourquoi fendre l do not know what motives prompted the French delegation to undertake the grave responsibility of proposing resolutionr. of this kind, when we know that there is a very strong tendency in the world today in favour of prohibiting the atomic weapon and· of establishing control of atomic energy. vVhy has France taken upon itself the leading role in the cause of liquidating the· Atomic Energy COrrlmission? Since the representative of France has failed to p:rove in what respect good sense is violatecI in this matter, l strongly oppose his line of argument. l also consider that the activities of the French .delegation in the Atomic Energy Commission are incIeednefarious. This is a fact which tbe champions of pèace will never forget.

If there is no further discussion, l shall put the USSR cIraft resolution [S/ 1391/Rev.1] to the vote. It reads as follows: "The Security Council, , "Having considered the letter dated 29 July 1949 [S/1371] from the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission addressed to the President of the Security Council and the resolutions adopted at the 24th meeting of the Commission and attached to that letter, "Requests the Atomic Energy Commission to continue its work with a view to fulfilling the tasks entrusted to it by the General Assembly resolutions of 24 January and 14 December 1946." A vote was taken by show of hands, as follo'Ws : In favour: Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Sùcialist Republics. Abstaining: Argentina, Canada, China, Cuba, Egypt, France, Norway, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelancI, United States of America. The result of the vote was 2 in favour, with 9 abstentions. The draft resolution was not adopted, having failed to obtain the affirmative votes of seven members. 2. Travelling expenses and suhsistence allowances of aIternate represntatives on Security Conncil Commissions

Ii is rather late, but we have two other items on our agenda, neither of which, I hear no objection to that course, 50 we shaI1 proceed as I have proposed. Tt will be remembered that we had sorne discussion on this question on 27 July 1949 [432nd meetingJ but that we did not reach a conclusion. There seemed at that time to be fairly wide agreement that, for technical reasons, the reference to the first of the Commissions listed in the (lraft resolution submitted in document S/1338 should probably be deleted. On that occasion the Security Couneil did not vote on the matter. The representative of the Ukrainian SSR, who was then in the G:hair, made a suggestion as to procedure. Hè said: "r 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 [5/1355], which raises important juridical considerations in connexion with the proposaI submitted by the four delegations, they think it possible to study that document more carefuI1y and defer the vote until the next meeting ...". The Counci1 agreed to that course and adjourned without proceeding to a vote. The letter on which this item is based [5/1338] was signed by the representatives of Australia, Belgium, Co10mbia, and France. Those signatories requested in that letter that a draft resolution should be placed on the provisional agenda of one of the subsequent meetings of the Security Council. The draft which they suggested reads as follows: "Considerina that in virtue of reso1ution 231 (III), adopted by the Generai Assembly on 8 October 1948, it is a matter for its own decision whether, in the case of commissions of inquiry or investigation instituted by it,· the representative of a Member participating in such commission needs to be assisted by an a1ternate, "Considering that, in cases where this need has been f~und by the Security Council to exist, the Secretary-General is authorized by the same reso- lution to reimburse retroactively to States Mem- bers the travelIi~g and· subsistence expenses.of the alternate of their representatives on the said commissions, "Notes that since the institution of the under- mentioned Commissions the representativesof Members thatare participating or have partici- pated have each had to be assisted byan alternate: "1. The Commission of Inquiry concerning Greek Frontiel' Incidents; "2. The Committee of Good Office~: which has now become the United Nations Commission for Indonesia; "3. The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan." Of the four signatories of that letter onlyone, 1 Mr. MANUILSKY (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) (translated trom Russian) : The dele- ,gation of the Ukrainian SSR asks that this sub- ject should not be discussed today. Two months have passed since it was last dis- cussed. As l was then presiding over the Secur- ity CounciI, l was· fully able to appreciate the point at issue and to familiarize myself with the relevant documentation, but l am sure that other members of the Counci! probably find themselves in a difficult position. A number of important questions of principle are in fact at stalee. The delegations which signed this letter have never apprised' the Security Coun- cil of their desire :to institute the office of alternate. They toole this step entirely on their own initiative and subsequently requested that the United Na- tions should reimbu!'se their expenditure retroac- tively. But l cannot believe that such a procedure would he consiJercd correct even in a private concern. l am sure that'it would not. It is even more incorrect in the United Nations, which is an international organization pursuing definite objectives. Why, for example, should the repre- sentative of Cuba he required to pay because France has decided on her own initiative to send an alternate to a certain commission? He might reasonably ask: "Why should l pay? l must think the matter over first." Theywant to makeus paya considerable sum retroactively-if l am not mistaken, a sum of 250,000 dollars is involved. l am: of the opinion that our expenditure is already heavy enough and that we should in anv casedefer considera- tion of the question, the more so as ]( kno~ that the Secretariat had grave douots as ta the legiti- macy of this expenditure. ThaHs why the Ukrainian de1egation asks the President for deferment of this question. l mn- sider that a legitimate request anrl one which should .be granted, if made by one of the delegations. Perhaps the question should be referred to the Security Council after theelection of its new members; perhaps an .ad hoc meeting for this purpose could be arranged during the General Assembly or before it opens. In any event, how- ever, l wish to propose thi:l.t 'examination of the question should be postponed. General McNAUGHTON (Canada): l asked to speak merely to point out that this draft resolu- tion submitted by the representatives of Austra- lia, Colombia, Belgium and France was very comprehensively discussed at the meeting of the Security Council held on 27 July 1949, and that at that meeting certain important changes in the draft resolution, proposed by thoserepresenta- : . .., ... '.:,' -, _,.,.,..... ,',., . J~_J~~;f.i~f~)~.5i1~~~"~~~,~'~"ç",- JM!!I)/~!@!II,\!!'I';5_11;!i!!ii., 5:1!!1I!.lI,iU.;rj\~,dl~!I,;(Ij).llllJ""~k;,!!"<:=N',: Mr. TSARAPKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian) : I also ask the President for deferment of consideration of this question, because, although we have already had a full discussion of the matter, item 3 and 4 have appeared on today's agenda after an intervaJ of two months or· more. It is some time since we discussed the subiect, which requires study before discussion. I have not even brought with me the papers 1 need for this purpose, as I did not know' that it would be inc1uded in the agenda. We only discovered this on arriving at the meeting. I therefore support the request of the repre- sentative of the Ukrainian SSR that considera- tion of this question should be deferred to a date to befixed at the President's discretion and. that thismeeting should now be closed.

I think it is c1ear that we cannot decid~ on this question now. When I sttg"- gested that the representative of France would sponsor the resolution, I think 1 saw him signify his agreement. He will have heard the suggestion made by the representative of Canada and perhaps, therefore, the representative of France wûüld .~cünsult ~with .the other signatories of this letter and, with them or their assistants, devise a revised draft resolution which could be submitted to a later meeting of the Security Counci!. It is c1ear that we shall have to time that next meeting o~ the Council with great accuracy, be- " cause at the end of July the representative of the Ukrainian SSR asked for more time to study the matter, and today he complains he has had -too much; but l expect we cau accommodate him in some manner. Mr. CHAUVE~ (France) (translated trom French) :.1 shall be very pleased to undertake the work whichthe President has just suggested. I am very glad that· the discussion has been postponed, as 1 do not have my documents with me today. ' l shall be happy to consider, with my colleagues, the form of the draft which I shall submit ta the Council.

The remark made'by the rep- ~esentative of the Soviet Union applies also to Item 4 on our agenda; which we shaH not be able to deal with today. We shaH have to put that off to a later meeting. FRANCE Editions A. Pedone 13. rue SoufRot PARIS, V· GREECE-GRECE "E1eftheroudakis" Librairie intemationale Place de la Constitution ATHÈNES GUATEMALA José Goubaud Goubaud & Cfa. Sucesor 5a Av. Sur No. GUATEMALA HAITI Max Bouchereau Librairie "A la Boîte postale 111-B PORT-AU-PRINCE iCELAND--ISLANDE Bokaverzlun Sigfs..1Slll' Austurstreti 18 REYKJAVIK INDIA-INDE Oxford Book Scindia House NEW DELHI IRAN Bongahe Piaderow 731 Shah Av~nue TEHER".N IRA~IRAK Mackenzie & The BookshQP BAGHDAD LEBANON-UBAN Librairie universelle BEYROUTH LUXEMBOURG Librairie J. Schummer Place Guillaume LUXEMBOURG NETHERLAND5-PAYS-BAS N. V. MartinusNijhoff Lange Voorhout ·S·GRAVENHAGE N~rregade6 K.~BENltAVN DOMINICf\N REPUBLlC- REPUBLIQUE DOMINICAINE NEW ZEALAND- NOUVELLE"ZELANDE C'TOrdon & Gotch. Waring Taylor WELLINGTON Libreri~ Dominicana Calle Mercedes No. 49 Apartado 656 CIUDAD TRUJILLO ECUADOR-EQUATEUR Mufioz Hermanos y Cfa. Nueve de Octubre 703 Casilla 10-24 GUAYAQUIL IiGYPT-EGVPYE Librairie "La Renaissance d'Egypte" 9Sh. Adly Pasha CAIRO &THIOPIA-ETHIOPIE Agence éthiopienne de publicité P. O. Box 8 ADDIS-ABEBA Unit~d Nations NewZealand P. O. 1011. G.P.O. WELLINGTON NICARAGUA Ramiro Ramirez Agencia de PahHnaciones MANAGUA, D. NORWAY-NORVEGE Johan Grundt Kt. Augustgt. OSLO