S/PV.49 Security Council

As the Council may recall, we appointed a drafting committee at the last meeting, and.! call uponl.ir. Evattwho was the Rapporteur, to present the report. Mr. EVATT (Australia) :At the last meeting, at the suggestion of the representative of Poland, a drafting committee was appointed to examine the draft resolution that the Polish representative was· then presenting and to see whether a."'l QUAIU\NTE.NEUVIEME SEANCE Tenue aHunter College, New-York, le mercredi 26 jitin 1946, a15 heures. President: M. CASTI}:.LO NAJERA (Mexique). Presents: Les representants des pays suivants: Australie, Bresil, Chine,· Egypte, France, Mexique, Pays-Bas, Pologne, Union des Republiques socialistes .sovietiques: Royaume-Uv.i, Etats-Unis d'Amerique. 93. Ordre d" iour provisoire (document S/94) 94.- Adoption de I'ordre du iour L'ordre du jour est adopte•. 95. Suite de la discussion sur la question . espagnole· Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Les membres du Conseil se souviendront sans doute qu'au cours de la derniere seance, nous avons nomme un comite de redaction, dont j'invite le rapporteur, M. Evatt, apresenter le rapport. M. EVATT (Australie). (traduit de l'anglais): Sur la proposition du representant de la.Pologne, nous avons, au cours de la derniere seance, nomme un comite de redaction charge'd'examiner le projet de resolution qu'il venait de presenter, se~ants n'ont pu se mettre d'accord sur le texte a soumettre au Conseil. Le representant de la Pologne ne l'approuvant pas, je presente, au nom de la majorite du Comite de redaction, le texte d'une resolution, que je proposerai comme amendement a la resolution qui nOllS a ete soumise. Tout d'abord, je vais donner lecture du texte modifie: "Attendu que le Conseil de securite a institue, le 29 avril 1946, un Sous-Comite charge de proceder a une enquete sur la situation en Espagne; "Attendu que l'enquete du Sous-Comite a pleinement confirme les faits qui ont conduit a la condamnation du regime de Franco par les Conferences de Potsdaml et de San-Francisc02, par l'Assemblee generale, ala premiere partie de sa pre:miere session3, et par le Conseil de securite dans sa resolution en date du 29 avriI 1946.f; et "Whereas the investigation of the Sub-Committee has fully confirmed the facts which led to the condemnation of the Franco regime by the Potsdam1 and San Francisco Conferences,2 by the General Assembly at the first part of its first session3 and by the Security Council.by resolution of the date above-mentioned4 ; and "Whereas the Sub-Committee was of the opinion that the situation in Spain is one the continuance of which is likely to .endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, "The Security Council decidesthat without prejudice to the rights of the General Assembly under the Charter, "the Council shall keep the situation in Spain under continuous observation and shall maintain it upon the list of matters of which it is seized, in order that it will be at all times ready to take such measures as may become n.ecessary to maintain international peace and security. 'Any member of the Security Council may bring up the matter for consideration by the Council at any time." "Attendu que le Sous-Comite a estime que la prolongation de la situation en Espagne est de nature a menacer le maintien de la paix et de la securite internationales, "Le Conseil de" securite decides sans prejudice des pouvoirs conferes arAssemblee generale par la Charte, de continuer a surveiHer la situation en Espagne, de mani?7e permanente et de maintenir cette question sur la :tiste des sujets dont il saisi,afin d'etre pret a tout momentaprendre telles. mesures qui pourraient etre necessaires au maintien de la paix et de la securite internationales. Tout membre du Comeil de securite a le droit de presenter a tout moment la-question devant le Conseil aux fins de discussion:' I have read the complete text and I shall now point out the differences between that text and the text before the _Council at its last meeting. Tel est "le texte integral. .le vais maintenant vous indiquer les differences qu'il y a entre ce texte et celui qui a ete presente au Conseil lors de sa derniere seance. The first paragraph of the resolution is simply fannal. The second, referring to the results of the investigation of the Sub-Committee in the light of previous decisions of the United Nations at the General Assembly and the San Francisco Conference, repeats the sense of the Polish text. The next paragraph substitutes the actual results of the investigation by the Sub-Committee for the Polish text. Here we refer to the opinion of the Sub-Committee as to the situation in Spain. The Polish text before the Council at the Jast meeting departed from that and the majority of the present drafting committee could not accept the position that we should depart in any way from the finding or decision of the Sub- Le premier paragraphe de la resolution est de pure forme. Le deuxieme, evoquant les conclusions de l'enquete du Sous-Comiteala lumiere des decisions prises anterieurement par les Nations Unies lors de I'Assemplee generale et de la Conference de San-Francisco, reprend le texte propose par la Pologne. Dansle paragraphe suivant, le texte propose par la Pologne est remplace par ~es conclusions de l'etude du· Sous- Comite. Iei, nous faisons allusion a·!'avis du Sous-Comite sur la situation regnant en Espagne. Le texte que le representant de la Polognea soumis au Conseil au cours de la derniere seance ne concorde pas avec ces conclusions. -Estimant qu'il ne faUait en aucune maniere s'ecarter des • Voir lesProces-verbaux officiels du Comeil de securiti, Premiere Annee,· Premiere Serie, supplement special," edition revue et corrigee, page 75. "Ibid. • Ibid., page 77. , Ibid. "Ibid. "Ibid., page! 77. 'Ibid. The essence of the resolution is the same as that of the Polish delegation in that it does keep the situation in Spain on·the agenda of the Council; it keeps the situation under continous observation and maintains the question on the list of matters of which the Council is seized. The purpose of that is stated in the resolution: that the Council ~'will be at all times ready to take such measures as may become necessary to maintain international ileace and security". Notre resolution a la meme teneur gen&ale que la proposition de la Pologne: e1le a pour objet de maintenir la question espagnole a I'ordre du jour du Conseil, de soumettre la situation qui regne en Espagne a une surveillance cons- \ tante et de maintenir la question sur ia liste· des questions dont le Conseil est saisi. Le but qu'on se propose; aiIl,si est stipule dans la resolution: il y est illt que le Conseil pourra "prendre a tout moment les mesures qui s'avereraient necessaires au maintie.n de la paix et de la securite internationales". This resolution differs from the Polish one of Ce texte differe de ceIui qu'a presente le the. last meeting because the Polish resolution representant de la Pologne a la derniere seance fixed 1 September 1946 as the date before I et qui indiquait que le Conseil devait reprendre which the matter must come up for consideration ! l'examen de la question avant le ler septembre l!>y the Council. Some of us felt atthe last Council 1946. Au rours de la derniere seance du Conseil, meeting that this might preclude the General certains d'entre nous ont pense que 'cette me- Assembly from exercising its full right to discuss sure empecherait peut.;.etre l'AssembIee g{'llerale and recommend in relation to this situation. d'exercer pleinement son droit de ·discuter cette Therefore, in ,the proposal now before the Counsituation et de presenter des recommandations ell, the words "without prejudice to the rights of a ce sujet. G'est pourquoi, dans la proposition the General Assembly under the Charter. " dont le Conseil est actueUement saisi, nous avons are added. ajoute les mots suivants: "sans prejudice des pouvoirs conferes a. I'AssembIee generale par la Charte". . .. These words are not inserted so as to alter the -legal powers of the Assembly or the legal powers of the Security Council. They have been put in as a reminder that this matter will inevitably come before the General Assembly, and therefQrethat, at the proper time, the Security Council should, and we believe it undoubtedly will, reniove the matter from its 'agenda so that the General Assembly can not only discuss the question, which it could do in any event, but also make. any recommendation in relation to it: There is a legal difficulty in stating in advance what the Security Council will do, but that is the intention of.the words "without prejudice to the rights of the General Assembly". The other difference is that no time limit is fixed before which the Security Council must discuss this matter again. The reason is that any member-of the Security Council may at any time bring up the· matter for consideration by the Council. In the opinion of the majority of the drafting committee, it is not 'unreasonable to ask that, before this matter is discussed again and practical proposals are put before us, some notice should be giyen if a member of the Security Council should ask that this course be taken. . Looking back on the position, it seems to 'be this: The first Polish draft resolution· was originally submitted to the Council before the investigating Sub-Committee was appointed.! This Sub- . 1 See thirty-fourth meeting. 1 Voir la trente-quatrieme seance. , Ces mots ne visent.pas a modifier les pouvoirs juridiques de I'Assemblee ou du, Conseilde securite, mais a rappeIer que cette question sera inevitablement portee devant I'AssembIee generale et que, de ce fait, le Conseil de secucite devrait, en temps opportun, ce qu'il fera sUrement, ·la retirer de son ordre du jour afin que I'Assemblee generale puisse, non seulement discuter la question, mais, comme eUe en a toujours eu le droit, presenter des recommandations sur ce point. Indiquer d'ava,nce ce que fera le Conseil de securite souleve une difficulte juridique; mais c'est I'intention qu'irnpliquent ces mots. II existe encore une difference: notre resolution ne· fixe aucune lirnite de temps p0ur la reprise de la question, de maniere que·chaque membre du Conseil de securite puisse la porter a l'examen du Conseil a tout moment. La majorite du Comite de .redaction estime· que le Conseil est en droit d'etre averti en temps uttle lorsqu'un membre demande une discussion de la question et se propose de lui soumettre des mesures. . .- , j II semble que le dilemme se soit presente de la maniere suivante: ,Le premier ·projet de resolution de la Pologne1 a ete presente au Conseil de securitc avant la creation du Sous-Comite gen'~rale, furent approuvees par une majorite ~onsiderable du Conseil de securite; dIes allaient eL: ~ adoptees si I'un des membres permanents ne ,'y etait oppose. C'est alars que le represer:"ant de la Pologne presenta de nouveau sa premiere proposition; le Conseil la rejeta2, I'estimant incompatible avec le rapport du Sous- Comite. . Nous devons maintenant decider si nous allons maintenir la question a l'ordre du jour. Notre resolution tend al'y maintenir, non de la meme maniere que la nouvelle resolution de la Pologne, mais, je pense, en restant parfaitement d'accord avec les conclusions et constatations du Sous- Comite. De plus, elle se presente de fa.~on que le Conseil de securite, le moment venu, mette l'Assemblee generale a meme, non seulement d'examiner' et de. discuter la question espagnole librement, mais encore de presenter des recom" mandations pertinentes. We are now at the stage when we must decide whether to keep this matter on the agenda or not. This resolution does so; not in the way the latest Polish resolution proposes, but in a way which, ill my opinion, is perfectly consistent with the findings and investigations of the Sub-Committee. It does so also in a way which indicates that, at the proper time, the General Assembly will be enabled by the Security COllncil to take up the matter without restriction and discuss the . Spanish situation, and not merely discuss it, but make relevant recommendations. For these reasons, I hope that;this proposal put before the Council, on behalf of the majority of the drafting committee, will be adopted by the Security Council today. . C'est pourquoi j'espere que le Conseil de securite adoptera aujourd'hui la proposition que je lui ai soumise au nom de In. majorite du Comite de redaction. Mr. LANGE (Poland): First of all, I wan~ to thank Mr. Evatt for his efforts in helping us all to bring about some generally acceptable result. As Mr. Evatt has explained to you, there is still considerable disagreement between the majority of the drafting committee, which was repre!:ehtcd by Mr. Evatt and Sir Alexander Cadogan, MAd the Iuinority, consisting of myself. Mr. Evatt mdicated the character of the disagreement and I waIit to make a few comments about these differences. . M. LANGE (Pologne) (traduit de fanglais): Tout d'abord, je remercie M. Evatt pour les efforts qu'il a faits en vue d'obtenir une solution acceptable pour tous. Ainsi qu'il l'a explique, il existe encore une nette divergence de vues entre la majorite du Comite de redacnon, representee par M. Evatt et Sir Alexander Cadogan, et la minorite, constituee par moi-meme. Maintenant que M. Evatt a montreen quoi consiste ce desaccord, je voudrais presenter quelques observations'a ce sujeL SeIon. moi, il y a deux differ~ces essentielles. 11 y a d'abord le passage que la majorite du Comite de rCdaction a fait figurer au troisieme paragraphe de la proposition, et qui reprend certaines conclusions du rapport du Sous-Comite charge de la question espagnole. Vous vous souviendrez que j'ai signe ce rapport sous .res::rve qu'en appuyant ses recommandations, nous n'en adoptions pa!; necessairement la these juridique,l'inteGpretationl et ainsi de suite. Jecrains qu'ici l'accord soit plus difficile a realiser, car il s'agit de voter, non seulement surcertaines mesures a prendre, mais encore sur certaines interpretations de la situation existant en E~pagne. There are two essential differences, as I see them. One is the passage in the third paragraph of the resolution proposed by the majority of the draftirig c.. 'mittee, which repeats certain conclusions of the report of the investigating Sub-Committee.ls you will remember, I signed the investigating Sub-Committee's report with certain reservations and made it very dear that in supporting the recomIIl,endations we would not necessarily vote on the different legal arguments, interpretations, and so on, of the report. I am afraid that in the text we now have before us we are actually asked to vote not only on certain steps to be taken, but also on certain interpreta'; tions of the actual situation in Spm, which makes agreement more difficult. The other difference, which I belive to be more important, is thi':! ~ in my resolution there is the following passage: "The Security Council. '-•. resolves •.• to take ll.pthe .matter again IJ.ot La seconde difference - et je crois que c'est la plus importante - porte sur cette phrase de ma r~solution: "Le Conseil de securite .•• decide . .. de reprendre la question le ler sep- 1 Voir la quarante-septieme seance. 1 See forty-seventh m~ting. This special provision, which the majority of Cette disposition particuliere que la majorite the drafting committee has dropped, is, in my du Comite de redaction a supprimee, est, a man , opinion, exceedingly important. It is important avis, extremement importante. Elle est imporbecause it places the Spanish people under an tante parce qu'elle impose au peuple espagnol obligation, so to speak. It sets a time-limit before une obligation, pour ainsi dire. Eile lui impose un which they are to rid themselve.s of the Franco delai limite dans lequel il doit se debarrasser regime. It also states quite clearly that if the du regime de Franco. Elle declare aussi tout a Franco regime is not removed by a certain date, fait nettement que, si le regime franquiste n'est then this Council will take certain steps and will pas supprime a une certaine date, le Conseil de again consider the matter in order to determine securite prendra certaines mesures et examinera what appropriate practical measures should be a nouveau l'affaire afin de determiner quelles taken. Without this, I am afraid the resolution mesures pratiques approprieer devraient Stre proposed by Mr. Evatt is exceedingly weak and prises. Sans cela, la resolution de M. Evatt me does not contain much except a decision to parait extremement faible: elle ne tend gum: keep the matter on the agenda, and an analysis qu'a decider de maintenir la question a 1'0rdre of the situation which I find rather questionable. du jour, et, ce qui me parait contestable, That was the basis of my disagreement. d'etudier la situation. Tel1e est la raison iondamentale de mon objection. Now in order to explain my position, I should like to repeat what I said last time, that it is not my intention in any way to keep the General Assembly from discussing the problem or even frem making recommendations, and in this respect I think that my text and that of the majority of the drafting committee do not differ as to the legal effects. The question is on the agenda of this Council, and if the Council should so desire it m~y at any time, by simple majority vote, remove it from the agenda.to make it possible for the General Assembly to take whatever action it may deem fit. I have no intention of preventing the General Assembly from taking action, _but I want to protect fully the rights of the S.ecurity Council. I think the whole past record of our delegation in handling the Spanish question indicated very clearly that we were very desirous of having this Council act wlanimously. In acting upon this desire of ours, we were very frequently prepared to make concessions in stressing our own views on the subject, which were very clear and definite, and to concur with such decisions as would be likely to gain the universal acceptance of this Council, provided that such decisions would still provide some positive and definite action. Iri order to rn:ake it easier for the majority to accept my, resolution, I have submitted to you a ,re-typed text which divides it into two separate parts. I' should like to ask the President, in submitting my resolution to the vote, to take each part separately so that certain members who object to the wording of the second part will find it possible to vote for the first part, "d that,still other members who will find certain sentences in the first part objectionable may be able to vote on the second part. This would still achieve the purpo:;e of maintaining the matter on the agenda. It also contains, an obligation under which the Spanish people are to be placed, Je tiens a preciser, comme je I'ai fait au cours de la derniere seance, que je n'ai pas du tout l'intention d'empecher I'Assemblee generaJe de discuter le probleme ou meme de faire des recommandations et je crois que, sous ce rapport, mon textc et celui de la majorite du Comite de redacuon ont la mSnle portee juridique. La question est a'l'ordre du jour, et, s'il le desire, le Conseil peut l'en retirer a tout moment par un vote pris ala simple majorite afin de permettre ~ l'AssembIee gen6rale de prendre les mesures qui lui paraitraient necessaires. Je n'ai pas 1'41- tention de porter atteinte aux droits de l'AssembIee generale, mais je desire proteu:;r ceux du Conseil de securite. . Je pense que, au cours de toute la discussion de l'affaire espagnole, notre delegation a clairement montre combien elle desire voir le Conseil 'prendre une decision' unanime; c'est ainsi que, tres souvent, nous avons ete portes a faire des concessions sans insister sur nos propres points de vue qui etaient pourtant tres nets, et a accepter des decisions qui semblaient devoir rallier l'unanimite au Conseil, a la condition qu'elles prevoient des mesures concretes et precises. Pour faciliter une decision, j'ai presente ma resolution sous une nouveUe forme. Ayant divise le texte en deux parties, je prie le President de mettre les deux parties aux voix separement, afin depermettre aux representant qui verraient des objections a la seconde partie de voter pour l'autre, et de permettre a d'autres 'representants qui n'accepteraient pas la premiere partie de voter pour la seconde. Cela servirait aussi amaintenir la question a I'ordre du jour. Elle contieIlt l'ultimatum an peuple espagnol:, se debarrasser du regime franquisteavant le 1er septemhretoute 'autre. date me conviendrait - sinon, le Conseil de securite reprendra l'examen de la M. GROMYKO (Union des Repubiiques socialistes sovi6ti.ques) (traduit du Tusse): n y a certainement lieu de constater avec regret que le Comite de redaction n'a pas su aboutir a. une decision concertee, ni soumettre un projet concerte a. l'approbation du Conseil de securite. Les raisons en sont parfaitement comprehensibles. Elles avaient deja. ete exposes au debut de l'exa- .nen de la question espagnole par le Conseil. Ainsi nous trouvons-nous aujourd'hui en presence de deux projets de resolution: l'un, depose par M. Lange, et l'autre, par Sir Alexander Cadogan et M. Evatt, c'est-a.-dire par la majorite de ce comite. J'estime que la resolution presentee par M. Evatt et Sir Alexander Cadogan est insuffisaute quant a son contenu et 5!.UX mesmes qu'elle recoIl1Il1.ahde et ne merite pas d'@tre approuvee par le Conscil de securite. Examinons a titre d'exemple le point de la resolution qui <lit que la situa.tion existant en Espagne est seulement "de nature a menacer le maintien de la paix et de la securite intemationales". Cette these est indubitablement fausse. le ne m'etendrai nas sur cette question, qui a deja. etediscutee, et je me bomerai a. souligner que la these est fausse. Elle a dtja. ete presentee par le Sous-Comite constitue au debut de l'examen de la questionespagnole, mais n'apas ete ~pprouvee par le Conseil. Affirmer que la situation esp~anole est tel1e qu'elle est seulement "de nature a. menacerla paix et la securite internationales", c'est ne pas terrir compte de la gravite de la situation qui eYiste deja en Espagne, c'est sous-estimer les consequences que peut entrainer l'existence en Espagne du regime fasciste de Franco. Considerons ensuite le point de la resolution selon lequel le Conseil de stkurite maintient la question espagnole a. l'ordre du jour, alors que l'Asse11J.bIee generale conserve integralement .son droit d'examiner cette question, apparemment au cours de sa prochainesession ordinair-e; De deux chases l'une. S'il s'agit des droits de I'Assemblee generale tels qu'ils· sont definis dans la Charte, il n'y a pas lieu alors de les mentionner it nouveau.L'AssembIee generale a le droit d'examiner cette question aussi bien que d'autres, a condition qu'elle ne fasse pas en rri&ne temps_ l'objet de l'examen du Conseil de securite, ou a. condition que ce dernier decide de soumettre la question a. I'Assembiee' generale. Ainsi, s'il s'agit ici des droits de l'AssembIee, tels qu'ils sont definis dans la Charte, il est inutile que la . resolution les·reaffirme, .car elle ne saurait le faire en des termes meiUeurs que ceux de la Charte. Consequently, I am unfortunately unable to agree with this part of the resolution either. I should be prepared to agree with the last point of this resolution on condition that the text should be supplemented with a statement to the effect that the Security Council, while retaining the Spanish question on its agenda, would consider this question again not later than 1 September 1946. But this point, if thus worded, would coincide with the second part of the· resolution submitted by Mr. Lange. I repeat, I am prepared to agree with such an amendment to this point; however, it would then coincide both in content and meaning with the second part of Mr. Lange's proposal, which is more clearly worded. With respect to the second paragraph, relative to the resolution of the Potsdam Conference, the San Francisco Conference and the first session of the General Assembly, this point serves no pUl'pQSe when taken separately. No doubt, when combined with other points and statements, there may be some sense in referring to the subject, but in itself this point serves no purpose other than as a recapitulation of the historr of the consideration of the Spanish question. There may be, I repeat, some sense in referring to the subject, but in mat case it would be necessary to add to it. It would be necessary to add the statement contained in the Polish resolution to the effect that the situation in Spain constitutes a threat to peace and security. Then these two statements would form a single whole. The second part would be a development of the first part, which contains a reference to the previous resolutions on the Spanish question adopted at the Potsdam Conference. the San Francisco Conference and the first session of the·General Assembly. I shall conclude by stating that I do not find Je conclus en declarant ne pas pouvoir accepter it possible to agree witht.'te resolutiensubmitted la resolution de Sir Alexailder Cadugwl et de by Sir Ale:t:ander Cadogan and Mr. Evatt in the M. Evatt, dans la forme sous laquelle elle est form in which it is presented. presentee. Mr. EVATT (Australia): I take it there is no M. EVATT (Au~tralie) (traduit de l'anglais): other representative who wishes to speak. If 11 me semble qu'aucun autre representant ne there Is, I should like: to defer my remarks in desire prendre la parole. Si je me trompe, je la lui reply. I intend now to reply to the observations ced~rai avant de repondre aux observations du of therepreseIitatives of Poland and of the USSR. .representant de la Pologn~ et durepresentant de I shall not be long. rURSS. Je serai bref. Mr. Gromyko says, quite truly, that these com- M. Gromyko constate avec rai30n que les deux peting resolutions indicate how difficult it has resolutions concurrentes demontrent combien il been to get unanimity in dealing with the Spanish est difficile d'arriver a une decision unanime sur question in this Council. They do illustrate that. la question espagnole. When the first substantive resolution dealing I Lorsque la premiere res~lution formelleau with Spain came before the Council at its forty-/ sujet de l'Espagne a et.e examinee par le Conseil seventh meeting, nine members proposed positive . lors de sa quarante-septieme seance, neuf memo 5 ! .. iolllW'· "' tt' r* 406 ------ -- ~------ C'est pourquoi je regrette de ne pouvoir approuver cette partie de la resolution. Je serais pret a approuver la deuxieme partie de cette resolution, a condition qu'on y ajoute une clause stipulant que le Conseil de securite, apres avoir maintenu la question espagnole a son ordre du jour, en reprendra l'examen le ler septembre au plus tard. Mais sous cette forme, la clause coinciderait avec le deuxieme paragraphe ou la deuxiem.e partie de la resolution presentee par M. Lange. Encore une fois, je suis pret a accepter un tel amendement a ce point, mais, par son contenu et son sens, il coinciderait alors avec la deuxieme partie de la proposition de M. Lange, dent les termes sont toutefois plus precis. Quant au deuxieme paragraphe qui cite les resolutions de la ·Conference dePotsdam, de la Conference de San-Francisco et de la premiere session de I'AssembIee generale si 1'011 tient compte des autrp·q points de la r-'llolution, les citations ci-dessus ont un certain sens, mais, par lui-m&ne, le paragraphe ne sert a rien, sinon a rappeler I'histoire de l'examen de la question espagnole. Je repete: il y a peut-etre lieu de faire cea citations, mais il faut y ajouter quelque chose; il faut ajouter ce qui est dit clans la resolution de la Pologne, c'est-a-dire que la situation en Espagne constitue une menace contre la paix et la securite.Les deux parties formeraient alors un tout. La deuxieme partie serait en quelque sorte le developpement de la premiere, qui se refere aux decisions precedentes sur la question espagnole, presentees a la Conference de Potsdam, ala Conference de San-Francisco et ala premiere session de l'Assemblee generale. That also explains why the resolution may be criticized as "weak", the phrase used, curiously enough, by both the Polish representative and Mr. Gromyko. Of course it is weak; it involves no action. When positive action was recommended by an overwhelming majority of the Council, that action was blocked by Mr. Gromyko's dissent. And you cannot get unanimity under those circumstances, except on the terms of agreeing to the dissenter, and that the Council was not prepared to do. And that did not end the matter; it came up again, and Mr. Gromyko's second point shows clearly his attitude towards an attempt to get unanimous action'in accordance with the spirit of the Charter. He criticizes the present resolution because he says it is not adequate to say that the situation in Spain is one, "the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security". Those worqs are taken from Chapter VI of the Charter, and from the report of the special investigating Sub- Committee. Mr. Gromyko does not agree with that finding. He was not on the Sub-Committee, but the Sub-Committee found those facts. He wants to alter it so as to get a finding of a different character which would permit action under Chapter VII. Action of that kind was proposed in the Council and was not accepted. Cc n'est pas tout. En developpant son second point, M. Gromyko a incHque nettement quelle unanimite, conforme a resprit de la Charte, il cherche aobtenir. Il critique la presente resolution parce qu'il ne suffit pas de dire, pense-t-il: "La prolongatiort de la situation en Espagne est de nature a menacer le maintien de la paix et de la securite internationales." Ces mots sont tires du Chapitre VI de la Charte et du rapport du Sous-Comite. M. Gromvko n'a pas fait partie du Sous-Comite, mais il n'accepte pas les conclusions de SOlI enquete. Il desire arriver a une conclusion differente qui nous permettrait d'agir en vertu du' Chapitre VII de la Charte. Mais on a deja propos~ des mesures de ce genre au Conseil de securite~ qui les a rejetees. I think it is important that the Council should remember that we cannot, by sidling and indirection, go back on decisions which have been taken by a dl."mocratic majority or by an effectual minority. That is the importa"'lce of this matter.. Il est important, je pense, qu~ le Conseil se rappelle que nous ne pouvons, par des moyens detournes, revenir sur des decisions qui ant ete prises par une majorite democratique ou une minorite qui emporte la decision. Voila ce qui danne son importance a cette question. La seule question a resoudre est de savoir si nous alIons maintenir la question espagnole a l'ordre du jour du Conseil de securite. Ncus le .desirons taus, mais, quand se presente une reso- .lution dont on a critique les termes fort injuste- 'ment, >', mon sens, vu les circonsta.'lces, on s'y oppose ~ussi. Je ne veux pas convenir avec M. Gromyk.> de faire abstraction des droits de l'Assemb16e generale. Je crains que, si nous maintenions cette question a l'ordre du jour jusqu'en septembre, nous n'empechions l'AssembIee generale de l'examiner en toute liberte. Je reconnais que nous ne pouvons, trois mois a l'avance, obliger le Conseil de securite a agir d'une certaiD. fa~on au a s'abstenir d'agir, mais nous voulons indiquer que l'AssembIee g611erale conserve son entiere liberte ,d'action. The only question is whether or ~ot to keep the matter on the agenda of the Security Council. Well, everybody has agreed that we should. But when a resolution is put forward, the terms of which have been criticized, I think quite m'.~ fairly, in t.he circumstances I have narrated, then there is also objection to'that. I do not agree with Mr. Gromyko that we should not refer to the rights of the General Assembly. I fear that if this matter is retained on the Security Council's agenda in September, it may prevent d'le Assembly from dealing. fully with this case. I quite agree we cannot compel the Security COl1llcil three months ahead to take a particular course of action or to abstain from any course of action, but we do indicate, as the . SeCJ.:trity Councii, that the General Assembly should be permitted to take it up freely. That is ,the SI' ,il.tion, and the real difficulty of the whole position is, in my opinion, the fact that there has got to be more respect in the Voila ce qui en est, et, a mon avis, nous devolllll, avant tout, chercher a mieuxfaire respecter les decisions du Conseil de securite lorsqu'elles At any rate, I am not prepared to agree to any resolution which, in my opinion, is opposed to the fa.:ts. Australia, the country I represent, stood for an investigation of the facts, and we are prepared to stand by the findings of the Sub- Committee which investigated those facts. I am not prepared to agree to any resolution which sidetracks those findings and endeavours to insert a finding which is not in accordance with the precise :findings of the Sub-Committee. The resolution in substantive form is not in es...~..nce different from that which has been proposed. Curiously enough, Mr. Gromyko aiso objects to what he calls the historical facts; about the investigation having confirmed facts leading to the previous condemnation of the Franco regime. What can be done? They' are in the Polish resolution too, and are identical with it. True, the historical facts are not followed by the next finding, or the next statement made in the Polish resolution, but the words are taken from the Polish resolution. I hope what: has happened will.be perfectly understood when this matter is reviewed in the future, and it will be seen that the steps taken by the Council have been in accordance with justice and with the words and spirit of the Charter. Before acting we appointed a Sub-Committee to investigate the facts. We got a unanimous finding from the Sub-Committee. We built up a recommendation based on the findings of -the Sub-Committee, and after much argument and debate we asked that those recommendations be adopted by the Security Council. They were defeated l":lder circumstances I have already mentioned, that is to say, not by the democratic majority here, but by. the exercise of the veto power. Then, in the forty-eighth meeting, another proposal was put forward, which, in the view of the majority of the Council, was likewise unacceptable. Tne only point ieit now is whether or not to keep this matter on the agenda of the Security Council, so that if the situation in Spain does deteriorate, does alter or requires review, the question can be re-examined. This resolution does that and is in accordance with the spirit of the Sub-Comrnittee's report, aIid with the . pt:evious decisions of the Council. It should be adopted, and I hope the Council will adopt it. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): In referring to the first so-called "historical" part of the resolution submitted by Sir Alexander Cadogan and Mr..Evatt, I did not say that I rejected it. The translation of what I saidwas not quite accurate. Je ne suis pas dispose a. adopter une resolution qui me parait en contradiction avec les faits. Le pays que je represente, l'Australie, a demande qu'on etablisse les faits, et nous sommes disposes a. appuyer les conclusions du Sous-ComiteS qui les a etudies. Je ne suis pas dispose a accepter une resolution qui negligerait les conclusions du Sous-Comite, pou:!' leur en substituer d'autres. La resolution ne differe pas, quant au fond, de la prececlente. nest curieux que M. Gromyko s'oppose aussi a ce qu'il appelle I'historique des faits qui confirme le bien-fonde de la condamnation anteneure du regime franquiste. Que peuton faire? Les faits se trc;uvent aussi dans la resolution de la Pologn~ et sont identiques. Si nous avons supprime la declaration ou la conclusion qui suivait l'expose des faits, nous avons bien emprunte celui-ci a la resolution de la Pologne. ]'espere que, iorsqu'on reprendra i'examen de' la question, on se rendra parfaitement compte de la situation et du fait que le Conseil a agi dans un esprit de justice, et conformement a la lettre et a l'esprit de la Charte. Avant d'agir, nous avons nomme un Sous-Comite charge d'etudier les faits; il nous a presente des conclusions unanimes, sur lesquelles nous avons fonde nos recommandations. Apres de longues discussions, nous avons demande au Conseil de securite de les ·adopter. Elles ont ete rejetees dans les circonstances que j'ai evoquees tout a l'heure, non par le jeu de la regIe democratique, mais par l'exercice du droit de veto. C'est alors, c'est-a-dire au cours de la quarante-huitieme seance, que la majorite du Conseil a re}ete a son tour une nouvelle proposition. Le seme question qui reste mal."1te.,&,t est de decider si nous allons maintenir.la question a l'ordre du jour du Conseil de securite, de maniere que, si la situation existant en Espagne empire ou change, nous puissions l'examiner a nouveau. La resolution que nous presentons permettrait de prendre les dispositions utiles et est conforme al'esprit du rapport du Sous-Comite et des decisions precedentes du Conseil. Le Conseil devrait l'adopter; fespere qu'ille fera. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe) : En parlant de la premiere partie, que l'on pourrait appeler "historique", de cette resolution presentee par Sir Alexander Cadogan et M. Evatt, je n'ai pas dit que je l'ai repoussee. L'interpretation de mes fa~on organique a quelque autre clause de la resolution. Mais que constate-t-on actuellement? Le point qui suit 'touche a une question de fond; il y est dit que la situation qui regne en ElIpagne ne constitue qu'une menace virtuelle contre la paix. C'est pourtant 13. une qut".stion que nous avons deja discutee et qui, eu fait, a ete mise au voix, sans que l'unanimite ait ete realisee. Le point suivant, qui est le dernier, touche egalement a une question de fond. Le sens de la proposition est d'accorder a l'Assemblee la possibilite d'examiner le probleme espagnol, qu'il fasse ou non l'objet de l'examen du Consei1 de securite. En d'autres termes, il s'agit d'une question qui a deja ete exaJllinee par le Conseil et qui a donne lieu a un vote. Par consequent, maintenant comme auparavant, ces deux points ne sauraient etre acceptes ni approuves par le Consei1. Ne s'agit-il pas de que.stions que nous avons deja discutees et sur lesquelles nous avons deja vote? En fin de compte, il ne resterait plus dans'la resolution que la reference aux decisions precedentes, prises a la Conference' de Potsdam, a la Comerfulce de ·S'm-Francisco et -a,-<-la prcITJer-e session de l'Assemblee generale. P In the subsequent and last point the question of substance is likewise touched upon, that of making it possible for the General Assembly to examine the Spanish question whether or not it is under consideration in the Security Council. Such is the meaning of the proposal. I repeat, this point has already been examined by the Security Council and has been voted upon. Consequently, neither of these points can now be accepted by the Council. They 'Cannot be approved. They are old questions which we have discussed and voted upon. As a result, there remains in the resolution a mere reference to previous resolutions adopted at the Potsdam and San Francisco Conferences and at the first s\;Ssion of the General Assembly. It would be a resolution both empty and ridiculous. Mr. EVATT (Australia): I shall only take two minutes. It is quite true that the resolution states historical factS, but they are all connected with the final resolution and the connecting point is the in-:- vestigating Sub-Committee. What Mr. Gromyko wishes to substitute for that which is historically a fact and historically true is a finding on the situation in Spain which has not been substantiated by the Sub-Committee and which, if it were placed on record, would, in my opinion, be false. I think it is preferable to have a resolution based on the facts of the case - the proved facts of the case - rather than to interpolate something which not only fails to be supported by the facts but which,' in the opinion of the majority of the Council, was disproved by those facts. I do not wish to say anything more becau.se I think it is quite clear that there is a substantial area of disagreement. I am sure Mr. Gromykd with his understanding of the situation, and having himself freely exerc~ed the right to say "No", will not object to others' exercising the same right. The PRESIDENT: We have' before us the text of the proposal referred to the drafting committee and the amendment presented by the committee. As I stated when this committee was appointed, the problem was not merely one of drafting; there were also different expressions of opinion '11 est exact que cette resolution rappelle une serie de faits historiques, mais le Sous-Comite d'etude a etabli le rapport avec la resolution definitive. M. Gromyko voudrait remplacer une vente historique par des conclusions que l'etude du Sous-Comite ne justifie pas et que, pour ma part, je considere comme fausses. Je prefere qu'une resolution soit etayee par les faits perti.. nents; ,ce1a vaut mieux que de formuler des conclusions qui, non seulement ne se fondent pas sur les faits, mais encore, de l'avis de la majorite du Conseil, sont dementies par ces faits. Le resultat serait une resolution a la fois vide et ridicule. M. EVATT (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais) : Mon intervention ne durera que deux minutes. Je ne desire rien ajouter, car il est clair, je crois, qu'il existe un desaccord d'une portee considerable. Je suis sur que M. Gromyko, qui comprend la situation et qui a liberalement use de son droit de veto, comprendra qued'autres adoptent la meme attitude. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Le Conseil est maintenant saisi du texte de la nroposition renvoyee au Comite de reaaction et de l'amendement presente par ce Comite. J'ai deja dit, lorsque nous avons constitue ce Comite, qu'il ne s'agissait pas ~eulement de remanier la ~. GROMYKO '(Union of Soviet Socialist Re- M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques sodapublics) (translated from Russian): I should listes sovietiques) (traduit du russe) : Je voudrais like the President to decide which of the proposals que le President precise queUe est la proposition will be voted upon first. It appeaJ1; to me that qui sera mise aux voix la premiere? Il me semble Mr. Lange's proposal should be voted upon que ce devrait etre la proposition de M. Lange, first, as it was submitted first. The proposal subcar c'est eIIe qui a ete presentee d'abord. Ce n'est mitted by Sir Alexander Cadogan and Mr. Evatt qu'ensuite qu'on devrait voter sur la proposition .. should be voted upon subsequently. de M. Evatt et de Sir Alexander Cadogan. The PRESIDENI:: I stated clearly at our last Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais) : Au cours meeting that Sir Alexander Cadogan's proposal de notre derniere seance, j'ai declare nettement was an amendment to the latest proposal subque la proposition de Sir Alex3...Tlder Cadogan mitted by the representative of Poland. So I am constitue un amendement a la derniere proposigoing to submit both draft resolutions, with the tion du representant de la Pologne. Je me proone submitted by the majority of the drafting pose donc de mettre les deux projets de resolucounrJttee as an amendment to the oniwal tioD aux voix, en considerant comme un amendeproposal. mentala proposition originale le texte que nous a presente la majonte du Comite de redaction. Mr. LANOE (Poland): As I see the question, M. LANOE (Pologne) (traduit de l'ang1ais): it is whether the resolup.on pre&ented by the draft- A mon aW!, il s'agit de savoir si la resolution que ing committee is an amendment or a separate presente le Comitede redaction est un amender~olution. That is the question which will determent ou une resolution distincte. Etant donne mine the order of the vote, since we vote upon que 1'on met les amendements aux voix en amendments first. premier lieu, la decision qui interviendra a ce sujet determinera l'ordre du vote. At the last meeting, Sir Alexander Cadogan Lors de la derniere seance, Sir Alexander proposed an amendment to my resolution and Cadogan a propose de modifier ma resolution, et I hoped that the drafting committee would take j'esperais que le Comite de redaction la prendrait my resolution as the basis and consider what comme base et envisagerait les amendements qu'iI amendments had to be made to it. The drafting y aurait lieu d'y apporter. Au lieu de cela, it, conUnittee has presented ns, instead, with quite nous ,a presente un texte tout a fait distinct et

I have decided it is an amendment and shall put it to vote first. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I should like the ..:1...ssistant Secreta.ry-General to explain this question. What have the rules of procedure to say on this score? Perhaps it 'Would help the Council to find its way out of a difficult situation. Mr. SOBOLEV (Assistant Secretary-General in charge of Security Council Affairs}: The rules of procedure state quite dearly that the different drafts of a resolution should be put to the vote in order of their presentation: The rules also state quite clearly that if there is an amendment to the original resolution, this amendment ought to be put to the vote first. If there are two or more amendments, the President shall rule the order in which these amendments should be put to the vote. If there are disagreements with the ruling of ~he President, the Council shall decide which amendment or draft resolution shall be put to the ·vote first. Mr, EVATT (Australia): Does the President wish t() have any further discussion on the subject? The PRESIDENT: I do not. I shall ask the Council if it considers this to be an amendment or not, in order to satisfy Mr. Gromyko. Mr. GRO:MYKO (Upion of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I merely wish to state that I do not agree to consider the proposal submitted by Sir Alexander Cadogan and Mr. Evatt to be an amendment to Mr. Lange's resolution. I consider that it is an independent proposal in which there is little left of Mr. Lange's proposal.

I think it is an amendment but I do not want to impose my oWn personal opin~0n. I should like it discussed in order to find. out·whether the Council decides that my ruling should be put to a vote. Mr. LANGE (Poland): If the Council Wishes to consider this to be an amendment, I think it can be done, but it would have to be reworded Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): J'ai decide qu'il s'agit bien d'un amendement et vais mettre ce texte aux voix en premier lieu. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Je serais oblige a M.le Secretaire general adjoint de bien irouioir eclaircir cette question, asavoir: Qu'est-il dit a -ce sujet dans le reglement interieut? Ce1a nous aiderait 'Peut-etre atrouver une issue acette situation difficile. M. SOBOLEV (Secretaire general adjoint charge du Departement des affaires du Conseil de securite) (traduit de l'anglais) : Le reglement interieUl' indique tres c1airement que lesdiff~rents projets de-resolution doivent etre mis aux voix dans l'ordre de leur presentation. Il prevoit aussi que, lorsqu'une resolutton originale fait l'objet d'un amendement, ce1Ui-ci doit etre mis aux voix le premier et que, si e1le fait l'objet de deux ou plusieurs amendements, le President determinera l'ordre dans lequel Us seront mis aux voix. Si la decision du President n'est pas acceptee, le Conseil decide de l'ordre aadopter. M. EVATT (Austl'alie) (traduit de l'anglais) : Le President desire-t-:il poursuivre la discussion sur ce sujet? Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Certes non. Afin de donner satisfaction a. M. Gromyko, je me propose de demander au Conseil s'il considere ce texte comme un amendement. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Je me bornerai a declarer que je ne peux considerer la proposition de Sir Alexander Cadogan et de M. Evatt comme un amendement ala resolution de M. Lange. l'estime qu'eIle constitue. ur... proposition independante oid! ne subsiste pas grandchose du contenu de la proposition de M. Lange. Le PRESIDENT (traduit del'anglais): j'estime qu'il s'agit d/un amendement, mais je ne veux pas imposer mon opinion personneIle. J'aimerais voir le Conseil discuter la question, puis decider si ma decision doit faire l'objet d'un vote. M. LANGE (Pologne) (traduit del'anglais): Si le Conseil desire considerer le texte comme un amendement, ce serait possiblei mais il faudrait There is also an amendment to the fifth paragraph of the original draft resolution asking the Council to bring the matter up before 1 September; in his explanation, the author of the proposal said he would accept another date such as, for instance, 25 August. Therefore, in my C?pinion, it is an amendment, but I repeat I do not want to i!npose my personal point of view. I am going to ask the Council to decide whether it considers the draft resolution of the drafting committee to be an amendment to the original motion presented by the Polish representative. Mr. EVATT (Australia): There is just one point which I should like to make. It is implied in what the President has said, but I think it has got to be borne in mind, that at the last meeting there was a proposal, as thePresi· dent pointed out, followed by Sir· Alexander Cadogan's amendment. Then the mover of the original proposal, the representative of Poland, asked for a drafting committee to see if an· amended proposal could be brought before the Council. An amended proposal has, in fact, been brought forward on the. recommendation of the majority of the drafting committee and Mr. Lange quite frankly admits ,that if we put it in a different form - this part omitted, this part added - it would be revealed as an amendment. However, I take it that under rule 29 of the rules of proi..:edure, to which the Assistant Secretary-General made reference, it says: "H a representative raises a point of order" - and Mr. Gromyko raised it - "the President shall immediately state his ruling. If it is challenged, the Prp-<:ident shall submit bis ruling to the Security Council for immediate decision and it shall stand unless overruled." j~ repete que je ne desire pas imposer mon point de vue personnel. Je vais demander au Conseil de decider s'il considere le projet de resolution du Comite de redaction comme un amendement au projet de resolution presentea l'origine par le representant de la Pologne. M. EVATT (Australie) (traduit de l'angIais): Je tiens a souligner un sew point, que contient implicitement la declaration que le President vient de faire; je crois~ en efIet, que nous devons nous rappeler, comme le President l'a signale, qu'a la demiere seance, on nous a presente une proposition, suivie de l'amendement de Sir Alexander Cadogan. C'est alors que l'auteur de la proposition primitive, c'est-a-dire le representant de la Pologne, nous a demande de charger tin Comite de redaction de voir s'il etait possible de presenter au Conseil un texte modifie. La majorite du Comite de redaction a effectivement . presente un te! texte, et M. Lange admet tres franchement qu'il pourrait le considerer comme un amendement si I'on en modifiait la forme par voie de retranchement et d'addition.' L'artic1e 29 du reglement interieur qu'a mentionne le Secretaire general adjoint renferme en .note: "Si un representant souleve une question d'ordre - et c'est ce' que M. Gromyko vient de faire -le President se prononce immediaternent sur ce point. S'il y a contestation, le Pre.'lident en refere au Conseil de securite pour decision immediate et la regIe qu'il a proposee est maintenue, a moins qu'elle n~· soit annulee."

I am going to submit to the vote the amended proposal as produced by the majority of the drafting committee. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): This must be put to the vote. The President is right. I only wish to say the following: Mr. Evatt did not define quite correctly the tasks allotted to the drafting committee. The committee was not created for the purpose of examining Sir Alexander Cadogan's arnendment, but rather to dec~de on the submission by Sir Alexander Cadogan of his amendment. It was created for the purpose of preparing, if possible, a coordinated text of the resolution. That was the task that was set before the drafting committee. The PRESIDENT: I think ~ has nothing to do with the discussion. I am now going to ask the Council whether it considers the majority proposal to be an amendment. A vote was taken by show' of hands~ as follows: In favour: Australia, Brazil, China, Egypt, France, Mexico, Netherlands, United Kitigdom, United States of America. Against: Poland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The PRESIDENT: It is therefore considered to be an amendment and I shall now submit the text to the vote. A vote was taken by show of hands, as follows: ; In favour: .-Austratia, Brazil, China,.5" Egypt, F'rance, Mexico, Net;herlapds, United~Kingdom, .1 J1 Votent pour: Australie, Bresil, Chine, Egypte, France, Mexique, Pays-Bas, Royaume-Uni, Etats- Unis d'Amerique. Votent contre: Pologne, Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques.- Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l~anglais): Il s'agit donc d'un amendement; fen mets le texteaux voix. Il est procUe au vote amain levee. Votent pour: Australie, Bresil, Chine, Egypte, France, Mexique, Pays-Bas, Royaume-Uni, Etats- Unis d'Amerique. Votent contrs: Pologne, Union des RepubIiques socialistes sovietiques. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l~anglais): Le projet de resolution ainsi amende est adopte: M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques sodalistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): La declaration du President selon laquelle -la resolution auraitete adoptee me semble ~tre la consequence d'un malentendu. La resolution n'a pas ete adoptee, car l'un des membres perinanents du Conseil a vote contre. Un des membres non perffiarrents a egalement vote contre. Cette resolution ne concerne pas l~ procedUre. Elle touche a des questions de fond, _qui, je le souligne, ont deja donne lieu aun vote. Certains membres du Conseil de securite ont tenu a poser de nouveau des questions sur lesquelles on avait deja vote. C'est leur affaire. !Is ont pleinement le droit d'agir ainsi. Mais poser les questions une . deuxieme fois ne suffit pas aen faire des questions Unite~ Stat~ of ~erica. _ /" Against: Poland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. ( The PRESIDENT: The amended draft resolution is carried. Mr. GROMYKO' (Union of Soviet Socialist ~epublics ) (translated from Russian): I consider the President's statement that the resolution was adopted to be the result of a misunderstanding. The resolution failed to be adopted because one of the permanent members of the Security Council voted against it. One of the non-permanent members also voted against it. This resolution is not of a procedural charac- .ter. It concerns questions of substance which- I stress the point-have already been voted upon once. Some members of the Council wished to raise once again old questions which. had already been voted upon. That is their affair. They have a perfect light to do so. But it does not follow that because these questions are Mr. LANGE (Poland): I think that the question as to whether this is a matter of substance or procedure is it very complicated one, and I must say that for my own part, without further study, I should not be able to express an opinion.. I think it might be. advisable to ask the Secretary-General to express an opinion, because I do not· think we should decide this problem without thoroughly investigating it.. Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): I think that Mr. Gromyko is perfectly entitled to have a vote on the question as· to whether this is a matter of procedure or of substance. If I may state my own opinion, it seems to me that there can hardly be any doubt at all that this is a question of procedure. The resolution has been admirably drafted by the drafting committee, and it falls into two sections. The first gives a sort of preamble, or a foreword which simply states facts. It states no opinion, but records that which exists and which is incontrovertible. First it states that the Security Council appointed a Sub-Committee. Secondly it states that the investigation of the Sub-CoffiI!littee fully confirmed the facts. Thirdly it states that the Sub-Committee was of a certain opinion, which nobody can call into question, because the report is before us and that is exactly what it states. nen there is the second section, "Therefore resolves • .." And whatis resolved? It is resolved that certain things, without prejudice to certain rights, may be done at any time. I think there is no question that this touches on matters of substance; it remains entirely on the surface of the question and does not go into the core of it at all. on~ of procedure or of substance - the decision membres du Conseil de securite, y compris les regarding that question must be taken by a voix des membres permanents. vote of seven members of the Security Council, including the concurring votes of the permanent ~~~. i We have just voted by a majority, which Nous.venons devoter, aune majorite qui peutperhaps is not operative - but that is not the etre n'emporte pas la decision, mais la n'est pas ' question - that this is a thing of procedure. la question, qu'il s'agit d'un point de procedure. I If this veto is exercised, we come to the ex- Si l'on use du droit de veto, nous en arrivons a l traordiaary position that a vast majority of the cette situation extraordinaire o~, bien qu'une I' COun';';ll says this is a matter of procedure, but majorite considerable du Conseil ait affirme qu'il • it is not a matter of procedure, because one s'agit d'une question de procedure, on ne peut la member votes against it. We saw last week considerer. ainsi parce qu'un seulmembr.e s'y that another permanent member felt constrained, oppose. La semaIne denrlere, un autre membre no doubt for extremely respectable reasons, to permanent s'est cru oblige, pollides raisons sans vote against his own point of view when the aucun doute tres respectables, de voter contre matter which we all remember was before us. son proprepcint de vue, voulant ainsi - je crois He said it was done in defiance, if I quote le citer correctement - s'eIever contre la majorihim correctly, of the majority to which he te a laquelle il appartenait lui-meme. himself belonged owing to that vote. I, think, and I believe that is the importance J'estime que toute cette discussion montre a of this question, that this whole discussion only quelle situation impossible nous conduit le droit goes to show into what impossible situations de veto, et c'est, a mon avis, cequi domle de this veto right leads us. I shall not go into it l'importan{;e a,la questio:L. Je ne m'etendrai pas further, but I think it is well worth pondering plus longtemps sur ce sujet, mais je pense que whether; as experience leads us along and shows nous ferions bien de nous demander, l'experience us how this system works, it should not be nous ayant indique COII'l.ment ce systeme foncrevised, at some future time perhaps, if we tionne, s'il ne conviendrait pas de le reviser plus can gain still more experience. I shall not say tard. Je n'ai rien a, ajouter en ce m~ment. . more about it at this stage. Mr. EVATT (Australia): This is a very im- M. EVATT (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais) : portant turn in the discussion. The first point, Nous arrivons maintenant a un tournant imporas Mr. van Kleffens pointed out, is whether tant de ces debats. Comme l'a indique M.vaIl ~ proposalnow approved by nine votes, with Kleffens, il s'agit d'abord de savoir si letexte qui two dissenting, one a permanent member, is a ete approuve par neuf VOnt contre deux, dont a procedqral vote. That is the first point. celle d'un membre permanent, concerne une Normally the President would rule on that, question de procedure. Normalement, le' Presiand I entirely agree with Mr. van Kleffens; dent devrait se prononcer sur ce point, et je. suis I do not think it is arguable that -this is a. entierement d'accord avec M. vap. Kleffens; je decision other than a question of procedure crois qu'il est indiscutable qu'il s'agitseulement alone. All the preliminary statements leading d'une question de procedure. Toutes les indicaup to the operative part of the resolution axe tions preliminaires servant d'introduction a la merely recitals, and then comes the operative partie contenant la decision ne sont qu'un expose part which keeps the situation in Spain on des faits, et ens~itevient l~ clause essentielle qui the list of matters before the Council. There maintient la questionespagnole sur la liste des can .be no better illustration of·a procedural questions dont le Conseil est saisi. Il ne saurait y 1 See Documents of the United Nation! Conference OlS International Organization, volume 11, Commission IU, Security Council, pages 711·714. 1 Voir les Documents de la Conference des Natio!l! Unie! sur l'Organisation internationale, volume 11, Commission nI, CODlleil de 5e<;urite, pages 754-757. prob~bly remain on the agenda of the SeC!l.lrity a.1'01;c ~ du jour du Conseil de secunte, mais je Council, but I suggest th&t we should fil'St suis d-avis que nous, membres du Conseil, votions vote as a Council on the correctness of the sur le bien-fonde, indiscutable, selon moi, de la President's ruling, -;,\'hich "eems 1.... me demondecision du Pi'esident. strably correct. Mr. GaOMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I believe that ~..{r. van Kleffens is sincere in;saying that, in principle, he does not like the provision regarding unanimity of the permanent members of the Security Council. I believe this statement "is sincere. But what is the use of discussing today the question of who likes some provisions of the Charter of the Oragnization and who does not? Perhaps I,too, do not quite 'like -, I, J M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socia- !istes sovietiques) (traduit du russe) : Je ne doute pas de la sincerite de M. van Kleffens, lorsqu'il declare qu'en principe, il n'est pas enfaveuf de la disposition qui exige l'unanimite des membres permanents du Conseil. Je ne doute pas de la sincerite de cette declaration, mais· je ne vois pas l'utilite de discuter aujourd'hui. des sympathies ou antipathies que certains peuvent ~prouver al'egard de telle ou telle disposition de In stating that the question on which VIe have just voted is one of procedure, the President said that the main point in the resolution is that of leaving on the agenda the question of the situation in Spain. If that is so, let us isolate this question. from the resolution and vote upon it separately. I shall have no objections to regarding the vote on the question of retaining the Polish representative's statement as a vote on the question of procedure. But this is not the only question in the resolution. There are a number of other points which cannot in any way be regarded as procedurdl. If we isolate the question of retaining the Polish representative's statement on the _agenda and vote upon it separately, I think we shall be able to find a way out of th<: situation. I shall. then, however, be obliged to put forward an amendment to this part of the last point of the resolution submitted by Sir Alexander Cadl)gan and Mr. Evatt, an amendment to the effect that the Security Council shall return to the examination of the ~panish question before 1 September, and I shall then agree with this point. At present, all the points are mixed together. How can one mix procedural questions with non-procedural questions and then declare th~ resolution to be one of procedure? Such a method will not lead us to a correct and unanimous decision. Je repete que si le Pr€sidentet d'autres membres du Conseil de securite inffistent pour que cette resolution soit consideree comme ayant trait a la procedure, et si ma proposition de disjoindre cette question du reste de la resolution n'est pas acceptee, j'insisterai pour qu'on vote sur la question de savoir si la resolution a trait ou non ala procedure. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais) : Le representa'.lt de I'URSS connmt parfaitement la position de mon pays a l'egard de la question espagnole. Nous avons peut-etre fait plus qu'aucun a11tre pays, et c'est au Mexique'que s'est installe le -r-,Juvernement legal de l'Espagne, mais ce n'est pas exchisivement par sympathie person~' nelle ou en vertu des liens qui nous attachent au peuple tspagnol que j'in.siste pour que nous fassions quelque chose pour lui. Au cours d'une seance precedente, nous nous sommes c1airement expliques sur la question que nous discutons et sur le rapport du Sous-Cnmite. J'ai dit que j'acceptais la resolution parce que je tenais a ce~ que nous parvenions a l'unanimite et a ce que nous fassioP5 quelque chose pour le peuple espagnol. I repeat, if the President and other members of the Security Council insist that this resolution is to be regarded as one of procedure, if my proposal to separate th!s question and the resolution is not adopted, I shall insist that a vote be taken as to whether the resolution is to be regarded as procedural or non-procedural.

The representative of the USSR knows what the particular position of my country is in the Spanish. ".2Se. We have perhaps done more than any. other country. The legal Spanish Government has been established in Mexico. But it is not only because of any -individual sympathy or links that we have with the Spanish people that I am insistent on doing something for them. At a previous meeting I made very clear what our decision was in the matter we are discussing, and also as to the Sub-Committee's report. I said that I accepted the resolution because we wanted to have unanimity. I have accepted this >resolution because I am anxious that something should be done in favour of the Spanish people. The assertion that no statement had been made before the vote to the effect that this question could not be regarded as one of procedure does not alter the situation, because no statement to the contrary was made either. Nobody made a statement to the effect that this question should be considered to be one of procedure. No such statement was made. I repeat, there was no statement to the effect that this question is oae of procedure. Consequently, the President's argument fails to carry any Ilarticular weight and, in the present case~ does not alter the situation. Furthermore, I have already stated that if the President and other members of the Council insist upon considering this resolution to be a question of procedure, then I shall ask for a vote to be taken on my proposal that the question be decided as to whether this resolution .is .a procedural or. a non-procedural question . affecting the substance of the matter. That is the proposal I put forward at least some twenty or thirty minutes ago before th~ President's last statement. Actually, that statement likewise raises the question. But I submitted my proposal first. I ask, therefore, that a vote be taken on my proposal as to whether the resolution in question· is to be regarded as procedural or as a resolution affecting. questions of substance. I ask that my proposal be put to the vote. I should like the President to take into account another cu-cwnstance of which no mention was made in·his statement. I submitted .a concrete proposal. which, if accepted, would in my opinion help US to get out of the difficult situation which has arisen. H -it is considered that the AVaIlt de proceder a!'exan'en de la nouvel1e proposition de M. Gromyko, en ma qualite de President du Conseil, je tiens amettre aux voix la decision du President. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socia.. Iistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe) : Je respecte entierement les droits du President, mais je demande que les droits des membres du Conseil soient eux aussi respectes. On pent affirmer qu'aucune declaration n'a ete faite avant le vote, seIon laqueIle la question ne peut etre consideree comme ayant trait a la procedure, mais ceIa ne change ri~n ala situation car on n'a pas non plus declare le contraire. Je le repete,il n'a pas ete dit que la question relevait de la procedure. Par consequent, l'argu.. ment du President n'a pas beaucoup de poids, et, .dans le cas present, il ne change rien a la situation. En outre, j'ai deja dit que, si le President et les autres membres du Conseilinsistent pour que cette resolution soit consideree comme ayant trait a la procedure, je demanderai que soit mise ~.·d voix ma proposition visant adecider si la r&olution releve de la procedure ou a trait au fond. Telle est la proposition que j'ai presentee, vingt a trente minutesau moins avantla derniere 'declaration du President. En fait, sa declaration souleve egalement la question. Toutefois, j'ai presente ma proposition auparavant. . C'est pourquoi je demande qu'on mette aux voix ma proposition, qui vise a decider si la resolution releve de la procedure ou si el1e a trait au fond. .. Je· voudrais que le President tienne aussi ;~ompte d'une circonstance qui n'a pas ete mentionnee dans sa declaration. l'ai fait une proposi- ·,tion precise qui, amon avis, si e1Je etait adoptee, ,nous aiderait a. sortir de la situation difficile Oll .nOllS nollS trouvons. Si l'on considere que le qUestiOl~, they may get the resolution adopted in its present fonn, characterizing it as a procedural one. . I beg to draw the President's attention to the observation and proposal which I made in my statement. For some r.eason, he has not dwelt on these questions. However, if he is really guided solely by the desire to find a correct solution, why does he not support that part of the proposal which precisely corresponds to the idea that he hitherto pursued, namely, to consider that the question of retaining 'on the agenda the statement of the Polish representative on the situation in Spain should be considered to be a question of procedure? The PRESIDENT: At the beginning of the. discussion, I anticipated that it might be pos- ..sible that both the amendment and the original proposal would be rejected, or not carried, and that then I should put them aside in ord~r to vote only on the point of retaining or withdrawing the Spanish question from the agenda. I do not want to give Mr. Gromyko the impression that r have any personal interest in this, but when I declared that the resolution had been accepted, it was naturally because I thought it was a matter of procedure that he had voted against. But I am· going to please Mr. Gromy!co by asking the Council whether it considers this to be a question of substance or one of procedure. Is that his suggestion? Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : Yes, whether it is a question of substance or one oi procedure. 'The PRESIDENT: To make it clear, I am going to ask Mr. Gromyko if he thinks the whole resolution is a question of procedure or one of substarlce, or merely the part on whether to take out or retain the .item on the agenda. Mr.. GROMyltO (Union of ·Soviet Sociali.q Republics) (translated from Russian): I shall Je soutiendrai cette resolution, tout en proposant, comme je viens de le dire, un amendement aux termes duqueI le Conseil de securite devra examiner a. nouveau la question espagnole avant le 1er septernbre 1946. Mais je vois bien que ma proposition, qui pourrait nous aider a sortir de l'impasse, est inacceptable pour certains membres du Conseil. Ce n'est pas un hasard: Us voudraient que l'on confonde !es questions qui reIevent de la procedure avec celles qui n'en relevent pas, afin de faire adopter, tant hien que mal, dans les formes qui s'appliquent awe Questions qui n'ont pas trait a. la procedure, le texte actuel de la resolution, tout en la deCr.;vant comme une resolution concernant la procedure. Je voudrais attirer l'attention du President sur les propositions que j'ai faites au cours de mes interventions precedentes. 11 n'a pas cru devoir s'y arreter. Pourtant, s'il ne s'inspire que d\: desk de"trouverla bonne solution, pourquoi done ne soutient-il pas cette partie de la proposition qui repand exactement au point de vue qui jusqu'a present etait le sien et seIon lequeI le maintien al'ordre du jour de la cOIn.'Ilunication du representant de la Pologne concernant la situation espagnole doit etre consideree comme une question de procedure? Le PRESIDENT (traduit de f a'ttglais): Au debut de la discussion, j'ai prevu que, au cas OU l'on rejetterait, ou n'adopterait pas, et l'amendement, et la proposition originale, je ne inettrais aux voix que la question du maintien de l'affaire espagnole a l'ordre du jour. Je ne tiens pas a donner a. M. Gromyko l'impression que j'ai un interet personnel en la matiere, mais, quand j'ai declare que la resolution etait accept~e, il "est evident que je la consid6rais comme adoptee; il me semblait que c'etait contre une question de procedure qu'il avait vote. Mais je cederai a. M. Gromyko en demandant aux membres du· Conseil s'ils considerent qu'il s'agit d'unequestion de procedure ou de fond. Est-ce bien la ce que propose M. Gromyko? M. GROMYKO (Union des RepubliquC5 socialiites sovietiques) (traduit du rUj·se): Oui, s'il s'agit d'une question de fond ou d'une question de procedure. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de I'anglais): Pour que la situation soit tout a fait claire, je de.. manderai aM. Gromyko s'il estime que tOl1te la resolution porte sur une question de procedure ou de fond ou si c'est lleulement la partie traitaut du maintien de la question a l'ordre du jour. M. GROMYKO (Union.des RepubliquC5 socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Voici ma

I agree that I have separated the point about the retention or withdrawal of the Spanish question from the agenda. A resolution has been submitted to the vote and has been accepted by nine members and rejected by two, one of them a permanent member. I cannot put the same resolution to the vote again, even if it is divided, but I have anticipateq the question of retaining the items separately. I am not going to discuss the matter further as it does not work. I cannot .. put the same resolution again to the vote as it has been rejected, although it was accepted by nine mei-. bers of the Council. There is a propo~al by the Australian repre;. sentative that the opinion of the Council be asked as to whether the resolution is a question of procedure or not. 1 was going to put that to the vote when the representative of the USSR said that he had submitted an amendment first. But, as I see it, he referred to di\'iding ·the·resolution into two parts. I thought he only wanted to .change the terms of my proposal which was: "Th(l.~ in favour of the ruling by the President that it is a question ofprocedili:e", into: "Those who consider that it is.2 qllestion of substance". But now I find that he wants to c,ome back to a resolution Puisque je n'accepte pas ces points et puisqu'ils touchent ades questions de fond dont nons avons deja discute et sur lesquelles nous avons deja vote, ne vaudrait-il pas mieux saisir l'occasion de prendre une decision juste et concertee, si tant est que le President. considere que la question dont il s'agit a la :fin de cette resolution est la question principale? Je suit pret a. admettre que c'cst, en efIet, la question principale; mais ce n'est pomtant pas la seule question. Le PRESIDENT (traduit 'de l'anglais): Je conviens que j'ai separe le point concemant le maintien ou le retrait de la question espagnole. Une resolution a ete mise aux voix: neuf membres l'ont acceptee, deux, dont un membre permanent, l'ont rejetee. Je ne puis remettre aux voix la meme resolution, meme si elle est divisee, mais j'ai prevu la necessite de tenir les deux points separes. Je ne poursuivrai pas la discussion, cela n'aboutirait arien. Je ne puis remettre la meme resolution aux voix, car elle a ete rejetee, bien que neuf membres du Conseill'aient approuvee. Une proposition du representant de l'Australie tend ademander au Conseil de securite s'U s'agit d'une question de procedureou de fond. Je me proposais de consulter les membres du Conseil de securite sur ce point lorsque le representant de l'URSS a declare qu'il avait anterietirement presente un amendement. Mais il me semble qu'il parlait de la division de la resolution en deux parties. Je· pensais qu'il desirait seulement remplacer les termes de ma proposition, qui etaiertt= "Les membres qui sont en faveu!' de Ja decision du President selon laquelle il s'agit d'une question.de procedure", par: "Les ~embres qui estimentqu'il s'agit d'une question de fond". According to the rules of this COlmcil, my ruling is going to b~ voted on and it is necessary to have the concurring vote of the five permanent members. I am going to propose that because I find that the resolution has been accepted by nine members against the vote of two, but one of them,a permanent member, had the right of veto and e."{ercised it. I still want to know whether the resolution is a question of procedure or one of substance. There is a doubt, and the decision must be accepted by the five permanent members. We flhall also have to put to the vote, or discuss, the maintenance of the item on the agenda, 3:l"ld then will come the time for Mr. Gromyko to make the amendment he wants. I think I have explained myself very clearly. Mr. EVATT (Australia): Is the President going to put to the Council, u1].der rule 29 of the provisional rules of procedure, the question of whether his ruling is rigl-,t or not? The PRESIDENT: Yes. Mr. EVATT (Australia):. It is impossible to consider amendments. The ClueStion is whether our ruling is effective or 'not; whether our decision is one of procedure. As rule 29 says, when a point of order is raised, the President shall immediately state the ruling. If it is challenged, as Ml". Gromyko has challenged it, the President shall submit this ruling to the Security Council for immediate decision and it shall stand, unless overruled.

I made all these explanations to Mr. Gromyko for his information, and in accordance with rule 29 we can immediately take a vote. Those who are in favour of the ruling that this is a question of procedure, please raise their hands. . A. vote was taken by show of hands, as follows: In favour: Austr~lia, Bra£d, China,E'gy,pt, Mexico, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States of America. . Against: France, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Abstaining: Poland. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): What conclusion does the President draw from this vote? I The PR;ESIDENT: The conclusionthat I draw Le PRESIDENT (traduitde l'anglais): Je is that in accordance with the present circum- ~unclus, de l'etat de choses actuel, qu'une deci-· stances, if it is to be decided whether a question sion sur le point de savoir s'il s'agit ou non d'une I· is one of procedure or substance, it is necessary question de procedure ou de fond doit etre prise ! to accept one or another alternative by seven par un vote affirmatif de septmembres,. y compris ! . votes, but. the five permanent members must les voix des cinq 'membres permanents. Dans le Lconcur. Here wc have two of the -:21= present, deri>< des membr<s p~anents se .. I M. EVATT (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais) : Le President va-t-il mettre sa decision aux voix conformement a l'article 29 du reglement inteneur provisoire? Le PRESIDENT (traduit de I'anglais ~ Oui. M. EVATT (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais) : 11 est impossible d'examiner des amendements. 11 faut savoir· si .notre decision est acceptee, s'il s'agit bien d'une question de procedure. L'article 29 stipule que, lorsqu'on souleve une question d'ordre, le President se prononce imInediatement sur ce point. S'il y a des objections, comme ce1le de M. Gromyko, le President en refere au Conseil de securite pour decision immediate et la regIe qu'il a proposee est maintenue a.moins qu'e1le ne soit annulee. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): J'ai explique tout cela a M. Gromyko, et, conformement a l'article 29, nous pouvons proceder au vote immediatement. Ceux qui. confirment ma decision, se10n laquelle il s'agit d'une question de procedure, sont pries de lever la main. II est procede au vote amain levee. Votent pour: Australie, Bresil, Chine, Egypte, Mcxique, Pays-Bas, Royaume-Uni, Etats-Unis d'Amerique. Votent contre: France, Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques. S'abstient: la Pologne. M, GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe) : Que1leest la conclusion que le President tirera de ce vote? I should like to say how sorry I am that today's meeting has reached its present stage. I think that those fighting for the freedom of Spain will certainly have less reason to be pleased with it than will General Franco. As regards the question. of procedure which we are now considering, namely whether the resolution contains.matters of procedure only or matters of substance, I should have liked Mr. Gromyko, when he spoke a few minutes ago, to explain what he meant by questions of procedure and questions of substance' in this connexion. As for myself, I shall now explain the vote I cast a moment ago. I am of the opinion that, in so far as this resolution records that the inquiry made by the Sub-Committee confirms certain facts, it represents a decision of substance on a de facto situation and that therefore this part of the resolution deals with a point which is not a point of procedure. On the other hand the decision to keep the question on the list of subjects under consideration appears to rile to be a question of procedure; when the resolution says, "in order that it will be at all tiIp.es ready to take such measures as may become necessary to maintain international peace and security", it is merely'explaining what went before and thus represents a question of procedure. The last part of the resolution which says that "Any member of the Security Council may bring the matter up for consideration by the Council at any time" is ~ewise a question of procedure. I apologize for not giving this explanation at a time when it would have been more helpful. Mr. VAN 'Kr.EFF~NS (Netherlands}: The President has just given a :ruling'to the effect that when a question is to be decided as to whether a matter is one of procedure or substance, the affirmative votes of the five permanent members of the Security Council are required~ I wish to observe, and I refer to what Mr. Evatt and myself said a little while ago, that this is not a matter which rests upon the Charter itself. It is a matter which we have seen expressed in a very weighty document emanating from the five Powers having perma~ nentseats on this Council, but it is not a matter which ,finds its source and foundation in the Charter. 1 think the position is a little difficult because this statement was made in Je veux dire combien je regrette que ,,"otre seance d'aujourd'hui soit parvenue au point OU elIe en est. Je pense que ceux qui luttent pour la liberte de rEspagne auront certainement moins a s'en feliciter que le general Franco. En ce qui concerne la question de procedure que nous examinons en ce moment et qui est celle de savoir si la resolution contient seulement des matiex-es de procedure ou des matiex-es essentielles, j'aurais desire tout a l'heure que M. Gromyko nous expliquftt exactement ce qu'il entendait par procedure et par question de fond, dans cette affaire. Pour ma part, j'explique ainsi le vote que je viens d'emettre. Je considex-e que tout ce qui, dans cette resolution, prend acte du fait que l'enquete conduite par le Sous-Comite confirme certains ac~es, represente un jugement de fond sur une situation de fait et, par consequent, que cette partie de la resolution· concerne un point qui n'est pas un point de procedure. Je considere, au contraire,' que la decision de maintenir la question sur la liste des sujets en cours d'examen est une question de'procedure, que l'indication "afin d'etre pret atout moment a prendre telles mesures qui pourraient etre necessaires au maintien de la paix et de la securite internationales" n'est qu'une explication de ce qui precede et constitue par consequent une question de procedure. La derniex-e partie de la resolution "Tout membre du Conseil de securite a le droit de presenter a tout moment la question devant le Conseil aux :fins de discussion" est egalemellt une question de procedure. Je m'excuse de n'avoir pas donne cette explication au moment ou e1le aurait ete plus utile. M. VAN KLEFFENS (Pays-Bas) (traduit de l'anglais): Le President a une decision se10n laquelle la question de savoir s'il, s'agit d~un point de procedure on de fond doit etre trancMe par un vote OU les voix des'cinq membres.permanents sont necessaires. . Je voudrais fake observer - et je rappelle a. ce sujet ce que M. Evatt et moi-meme avons dit il y a que1ques instants - que cette question ne trouve pas son fondement dans la Charte seule, ,mais dans un document tres important qui emane des cinq Puissances detenant des sieges permanents an Conseil. Je crois la situation quelque peu difficile, car cette qeclaration a ete faite a. San-Francisco, et tO,ut ce que nous pouvons en dire, bien que certains d'entre, nous puissent. It seems to me that it is very easy for us to air differences of opinion. But as I see it, and I am sure every member of this Council will agree with me, our first duty ,is to try and find as large an. area of agreement as possible. If Mr. Gromyko's proposal is simply to ignore the preamble which says that the Security Council keeps the situation in Spain under continuous observation, that might help us further.. I know that Mr. Gromyko qas also offered an amendment on that simple statement because he wants us to say that the Council must take the matter up before 1 September. I should like to declare here and now .that I am not going to vote for that amendment. I do not like, in matters . . .

That is not up for discussion now, Mr. van Kleffens. . Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): I shall not go into that now, but if there is occasion to go into it later, I hope I shall be allowed' to discuss it. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I shall divide my present statement into two parts: . in the first part, I shall try to answer .the rather belated question put by Mr. Parodi; in the second part, I shall deal with the conclusion which the President drew as to the result of the vote. Mr. Parodi asks what there is of a nonprocedural character in thisresoluoon. I shall recapitulate what there is of a non-procedural character: first, the statement that the situation in Spain is one that is merely likely t6 endanger peace in the future, that is to say that it may lead to the danger of war, is of a non-procedural character. This thesis is contrary to the position adopted by the USSR delegation and some other delegations, which maintain that the situation in Spain constitutes a threat to peace at the present time. What is there of a' procedural character in this? Secondly, the beginning of the last paragraph contains the statement· that the retention of the Spanish question on the agenda of the Security Council does not affect the rig~tsof the General Assembly to examine this question, referring apparently to the next session of the General Assembly. Moreover, this statement is Il me parait tres facile de montrer au grand jour les divergences de vues qui nous separent, mais je crois que chacun reconnaitra que notre premier devoir est d'aboutir a. l'accord le plus complet possible. n nollS serait peut-etre uti;le de savcasi M. Gromyko se propose simplement d'ecarter le preambule qui declare que le Conseil de securite continue a. surveiller la situation existant en Espagne de maniere permanente, etc. Je sais que M. Gromyko nollS a egalement offert de modifier cette simple declaration, parce qu'il veut que nous decidions que le Conseil examine la question avant le ler septembre. Je declare d'ores et deja que je ne puis accepter cet amendement. Je n'aime pas, a..l'egard de certains suje~ ... Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Nous ne discutons pas cette question en ce moment. M. VAN KLEFFENS (Pays-Bas) (traduit de l'anglais): Je ne la souleverai pas maintenant, mais, si l'occasion se presente, j'espere qu'il me sera permis d'y revenir. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques soda- !istes sovietiques) (traduit du russe) : La declaration que je vais faire se composera de deux parties: dans la premiere, je tacherai de repondre a la question que M. Parodi a posee avec un certain retard; dans la deuxieme, je toucherai a la conclusion que le President a faite ala suite du vote. M.Parodi demande ce qu'il ya dans cette resolution qui ne releve pas de la procedure? Je vais enumerer les points qui n'ont pas trait a. la procedure. Premierement, il y.a l'affirmationque que la situation espagnole ne constitue qu'une menace virtuelle contre la paix, c·est-a.-dire qu'elle est de nature a menacer la paix. Cette these est inconciliable avec le point de vue qu'ont adopte la delegation de I'URSS et qtielques autres delegations, a savoir que la situation regnant en Espagne constitue des maintenant une menace contre la paix. Qu'y a-t-il la.-dedans qui conceme la procedure? Deuxiemement,il est dit, au debut du dernier paragraphe, que le maintien de la question espagnole a l'ordre du jour du Conseil de securite ne porte pas atteinte au droit qu'a l'AssembIee generale d'examiner cette question;il s'agit, semble-t-il, de laprochaine session ordinaire. de l'Assemblee. En· outre, seIon I'interpretatioiJ. .que I consider that the· President's conclusion corresponds, of course, -to the result of the vote. The resolution was not adopted as a result of my objection, supported by anoilier member of the Security Council. As is known, all the permanent members of the Security Council are bound by the Declaration of the Four Powers at San Francisco, to which France adhered. Consequently, the five permanent members of the Security Council plus a nonpermanent member, Mr. Lange, consider and cannot fail to consider that this resolution war. not adopted, because, I repeat, all the permanent members are bound by the above-mentioned Declaration. Thus,evcn if we assume that a simple majority is required for adoption-' which is riot so in fact, a qualified majority being required for this purpose - nevertheless, out of eleven members minus five permanent members of the Security Council and one non-permanent member, that is to say, minus six, there remain only five memberS of the Security Council who can juridically vote for the approval of the resolution as a procedural one. I proceed on the assumption that all five would vote for it, Therefore, there is no juridical basis for the adoption of the resolution, and the President's conclusion is, of courae, correct. The resolution was not adopted. Mr. EVATT (Australia): As I understand it the position is this. In spite of the decision to adopt this proposal recommended by the Sub- Committee by nine votes to two, in spite of the fact that the President's ruling that it was a 'procedural matter was upheld by the Council with only two dissenting votes, the President now rules, as a result. of those two dissenting votes, that it is not a question of procedure. I understand that. the President takes Mr. Gromyko's decision as binding the .Council be~ cause he dissents from the President's ruling, affimied by the majority of the Co.uncil, that it. is a question of procedure. I do not think thissituationshould be allowedto pass unnoticed, an.d:Mr. van Kleffens has already expressed sentiments about it, with which I entirely agree. Vo~ci comment je comprends la situation. Bien que neuf membres contre deux aient decide d'adopter la proposition recommandee par le Sous-Comite, bien que le Conseil, a l'exception de .deux membres, ait confirme la decision du President etablissant qu'il s'agissai~ d'une question de procedure, le President estime que ces deux votes suffisent a la renverser. SeIonle President, la decision de M. Gromyko engage le Conseil parce qu'elle s'oppose a celle ~u President, qui a ete confirmee par la majorite. . Je cr-ois qu'on ne devrait pas passer cette situationsous silence. M. van Kleffens'a deja exprime a ce sujet une opinion que je partage entierement. Je pense qu'il n'est pas opportun de continuer le debat sur l'interpretation du vote cet apres-midi, The position will have to be reviewed. I understood the President to say ·that he regarded this matter as still being before the Security Council, and it might be that ,this ruling will become important. I am not going to enter into the merits of the qu~tion, whether it is procedural or not. The overwhelming majority of the members of this Council think it is a question of procedure. Mr. van Kleffens has expressed the view, with which I entirely agree, that if you look at ·the real essence of the proposal to see if it alters any rights, or whether it simply decides how the Security Council is to approach the question in the future - the method of proceeding - then this resolution does not. But it is no use having an overwhelming majority with you if any representative of a permanent member, simply by saying that he thinks that the interpretation is different, can make his view prevail. If that is the Charter, it does not matter if the permanent court says the opposite; even the judgement of the Court would not bind the permanent member. The judges of the permanent Court might say: "That . "b th IS wrong, ut e permanent member, according to that ruling, can say, not only "I can veto thedecision of the Council", but, "I can determine the question which I will veto." That, of course, is a very significant and' important thing, if it is so. . I think the important thing is ·to come back to the situation mentioned by the representative of France. Is it· possible, omitting the three recitals or statements of events leading up to the resolution itself, to agree upon the substantive resolution? Mr. Gromyko will agree that that could be adopted, because a great deal of his objection was concentrated on one of 'the statements before the operative part of the resolution. But if, by exercii'~g his privilege, he .is going not merely to destroy the overwhelming opinion of the· overwhelming majority of the Council but to tear up the agreed resolution, to ignore the position of the Assembly, which is very significant in my pointof view and J'estime que ladecision prise par le President cet apres-midi est de premiere importance. Nous ne parvenons pas a avancer, parce que M. Gromyko, depuis que cette question a ete decidee voici une heure et demie ou davantage, s'est oppose d'une maniere ou de l'autre a la decision du Conseil. Aussi, le moment n'est pas venu . d'examiner ses amendements a la proposition. TI Iaudra reprendre l'examen de la question. Le Presiden~ ~ dit que le Consei1 de securite reste saisi de l'affaire et il se peut que cette decision prenne une certaine importance. Je ne vais pas examiner la question au fond. La majorite ecrasante des membres du Consei1 pense qu'il s'agit d'une question de procedure. M. van Kleffens estime, et je partage son avis, que si l'on examine la nature ree1le de la proposition pour voir si elle ne porte atteinte a un droit quelconque ou si elle se borne a decider de la fa~on dont le Conseil abordera la question a l'avenir, c'est-a-dire la maniere de proceder, on s'aper~oit que la resolution n'en fait rien. Mais il est imitile de rallier une tres forte majorite, si un representant quelconque d'un membre permanent peut faire triompher son point de vue par le seul fait qu'il conteste l'interpretation. Si te! est le sens de la Charte, la decision de la Cour permanente importe peu; sonjugement.n'engage pas un membre permanent qui s'y oppose. Les juges de la Cour permanentepeuvenf bien de~ clarer inadmissible l'avis d'un membre perma;' nent; celui-ci conformement a la regIe du jeu, peut, non seulement Qpposer son veto aux decisions, mais determiner queUes sont ceUes auxque~es il decide de 1'0pposer. S'il en est ainsi, voila qui est evidemment tres important, et lourd de consequences. Je crois qu'il importe surtout de revenir a la situation que vient d'exposer le representant de la France. Est-il possible, en omettant les trois de~ darations prellininaires qui exposent les faits et qui precedent la resolution meme, de se mettn: d'acco:td sur le fond de ceUe-ci? M. Gromyko reconnaitra que nouspourrions J'adopter, car le plus grand nombre de ses objections portent sur un expose qui precede la partie de la resolution contenant la decision. Mais si, usant de son privilege, il a l'intention, non seulement de rendre nulles les decisions de l'immeIlf majorite du COz:1seil, mais d'annuler la resolution qui a ete adoptee et de ne pas tenir compte de la position de l'AssembIee, qui, a mon avis, est ttes impor~ Que reproche-t-on a la derniere proposition? M. Gromyko s'oppose a la derniere disposition en vertu de laquelle chaque membre a le droit de soulever la question devant le Conseil. TIest vrai qu'elle a trait ala procedure, mais pourquoi VOtlloir la supJ>rimer? 11 me semble que, si un membre nousa empeches de trancher la question que nottS examinons, c'est parce que le President, conformement au reglement, a voulu la trancher. C'etait bien son droit, mais je lui conseille de supprimer les trois premiers paragraphes de .la resolution, afin de preparer la voie a une decision rapide sur le fond et la partie de la resolution contenant les mesures a prendre. C'est, je crois, ce que desirent le President et le representant de la France. What is wrong with the last proposal? Mr. Gromyko' objects to the statement that any member may bring it up for consideration. It is true it is procedural, but why not allow it to stay in? I would suggest that one representative has held up the decision on the ques1.c:: now before us, because the President made a ruling upon it and he has a legal right to do so. But I suggest that, by taking out these first three paragraphs of the resolution, .he may now clear the way for a quick decision as to the substantive and operative part of the resolution.I understand that would be the President's wish and in accordance with the wish of the representative of France.

I want to bring the dis,;, Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais); Je cussion back to the amendment to the draft voudrais ramener la discussion a 1'amendement resolution which was not carried. Mr. Gromyko au projet de resolution qui n'.a 'pas ete adopte. objects to what he thinks is a matter of substance M. Gromykos'oppose au troisieme paragraphe, in the third paragraph. It is useless. to discuss estimant qu'il contient une question de fond. it since, if it is put to. a vote separately,'this nest inutile de le di~cuter, car, s'il est mis aux paragraph will be rejected by'Mr. Gromyko. voix isolement, M. Gromyko le rejettera. Now in. the resolution itseH, it says, "The 11 s'est .oppose egalement a l'adoption de la Security Council decides that without prejudice phrase qui marque le debut du quatrieme parato·the .rights of the General. Assembly under graphe et qui est ainsicongue: "Sans prejudice the Charter. . .". This sentence ·has likewise des pouvoirs conferes a 1'Assemblee generale"; been objected to by Mr. Grornyko,so we must supprimons-Ia done. Je nesais si M. Gromyko strike it out because it would not be accepted. consenfl"ait a maintenir les deux premiers para.- ldo not know if Mr. Gromyko.wouldfind it graphes. Comme il ne lui est pas possible d'acacceptable to i>~eserve . the first and~econd '-:e!' 'l" la pI~rase que je viens de citer, je propose para~raphs. .As 1t is not possible for him to ! 'dlcrjj, Jiscut"'; 1e texte suivant: "Le Conseil de accept 'this phrase, "without prejudice to the ! i.'f.:crite itfdde ... de, continuer a surveiller la But this proposal coincides with the fifth paragraph of the Polish representative's proposal. 'rhe only difference is that that contains a proposal that the Spanish question should be examined by the Security Council before 1 September. There is nothing about this here. But I already said, when I proposed that the question of the last paragraph should be decided, that I would submit an addition to the effect that the question of the situation in Spain should be considered once again by the Security Council before 1 September. . Consequently, 'this modified paragraph" with my addition coincides with the last proposal made by Mr. Lange. Therefore I should now prefer to vote not on this text but on Mr. Lange's text. I conclude my remarks by asking the President when we shall discuss Mr. Lange's text and vote upon it. At this meeting of the Council or at the next? - Sir Alexand~r C',DOGAN (United Kingdom) : I shall certainly I.h all I can to try and reach a unanimous decision. I understand that the USSR repre.~e)l1tative'~ chief objection to the Je demande aussi a M. Gromyko s'il insiste toujours sur l'amendement qu'il vOulait proposer lorsque nous sommes passes a la discussion de cette partie de la resolution" M. GRO,MYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Le President et M. Svatt font une proposition que j'ai deja presentee une heure plus tot. TIs n'ont pas accepte ma proposition parce que ie l'ai faite apres qu'on eut vote sur la resolution. Maintenant le President me propose la meme choseapres qu'on a deja vote deux fOO sur la resolution. Neanmoins je comprends: puisque la resolution n'a pas ete adoptee, il s'agit de savoir ,comment tourner la difficulte et abeutir a une decision unanime sur cette question de proc€dure qu'est le: inah'1tien. a l'C'rdre du jour de la corn,. munication du representant de la Pologne concernant la situation qriiregne en,Esp~one. Rien de plus naturel que de prendre le dernier paragraphe de la resolution, d'en supprimer les deux premieres lignes en sorte qu'il commence par les mots: uLe Conseil de securite decide de continuer de surveiller ..." et cela jusqu'a la fin; puis d'adopter ce paragraphe. C'est la une resolution qui se presente tout naturellement a l'esprit. Mais le texte ,propose coincide avec le deuxiemeparagrapbe de la proposition du representant de la Pologne. La seule difference est que, selO1!1 la proposition de la Pologne, le Conseil de securite devrait examiner la qu~tion espagnole avant le ler septembre. C'est la un point que nous ne retrouvons pas. C'est pourquoi, lorsque j'ai propose de prendre une decision concernant le dernier paragraphe, je me suis reserve le droit d'ajouter une· clause stipwant que la question espagnole doit faire l'objet cl'un nouvel examen du Conseil de securite avant le ler septembre. Par consequent, ce paragraphe,. COlllpte tenu de' mon amendement, coIncide avec'la demi.ere proposition de M. Lange. Je prefererais done maintenant que ce soit, non sur ce texte, ma~d' sur celui de M. Lange que nous. votions. P, finir, j'ai une question aposerau Presid' Quand discuterons-nous et mettrons-nou8 "' voiXle texte de M. Lange? A la presente. 5eanc du Conseil ou a la suivailte? Sir Alexander CADOGAN (RoyalUlle-Uni) (traduit de l'anglais) : Je ferai certainement tout mon possible pour aider le ConseiI de securite a parvenir aune solution unanime. 11 semble que I am quite inclined to accept that suggestion. I d..., not mind doing that because it is quite true that the last paragraph is the only one that prescribes anything. The first three paragraphs report only things that are incontrovertible. So it is not necessary to keep them. But I really must protest when Mr. Gromyko says that he v ts to make an amendment to the last parCl[, h. 'Wfiat is that amendment? We had originauy a Polish resolution containing a paragraph about -the conditions on which this matter should be kept on the Council agenda. That was not acceptable to everyh.Qdy, and it w~'i therefore submitted to a draftiug tlommittee to produce this report which was brought up this afternoon. It was accepted by an overwhelming m~jority. Mr. Grcmyko, by his contrary vote" prevented this from coming intoiorce. Then he makes another proposal. Not only will he prevent it from coming into force but he will, if I may be allowed to use a· vulgar te.rm, "put across" us a pal·a~ph of the original Polish resolution which' is not acceptable to most people. That is a most fantastic way of doing things. Mais, vraiment, je proteste lorsque M. Gromyko declare qu'il veut modifier le demier paragraphe. Quel est'son ameridement? Nous avons d'abord ete saisis d'une resolution presentee par le representant de la Pologne et qui contient le paragraphe sur les conditions dans lesquelles cette question devrait ctre maintenue a l'ordre du jour du Conseil. Tout le monde ne pouvait l'accepter, et c'est pourquoi nous avons renvoye le texte a.un·comite de redaction que nous chargions de nous soumettre un rapport. Ce rapport, que le Comite de redaction nous a presente cet apres-midi, a Cte approuve par la tres grande majorite des membres. M. Gromyko lui opposant son veto, ne nous a pas permis de lui donner suite.' Sur ce, il nous presente une autre px:oposition. Il ne se contente pas d'en empccher l'adoption, mais il veut) si vous me permettez d'employer une expression un peu vulgaire, nouS faire "avaler" un paragraphe de la resolution de ia Pologne, resolution que la majorite des me:qlbres ne peut accepter. C'est la une maniere de proceder extraordinairement bizarre. !should be prepared myseH, although I Bien que je n'aie pas discute la question avec have :not discussed it with the other members les autres membresdu Comite de redaction) facof the drafting committee, to accept the division c~pterais qu'on divisat la resolution du Comite de of the draftinp: committee's resolution and vote. redaction et qu'on votat sur le demer'paragraphe on the last paragraph as it stands. But if I sous sa forme actuelle, mais je n'accepteraipas am asked to transform that last pa:ragraph into de remplacer ce paragraphe par celui de Mr. Lange's paragraph, I shall not do it. M. liange. Mr., EVATT (Australia): The representative 'M. EVA'JT (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais): of the United Kingdom has stated the present Le representant du Royaume-Uni a expo~e netteptlSition precisely. I' think the words "without ment la situation actuelle. Je pense qu'on devrait prejudice to the rights of the General Assembly retenir le.s mots "sans. prejudice des pouvoirs under the Charter" must be retained, and I conferesa .i.'AssembIee.par la Charte" et je voterai shall vote against any proposal which seeks to contre toute proposition qui viserait ales eliminate them. eliminer. But Mr. Gromykogoes further. He wants to Ma.is M. Gromyko va plus loin. Il veut ajouter add to the last sentence the. other portion d a!a derniere phrase l'autrepartie de la resolution th.ePoIish. res ...•.. olU.tion. w.. hien fixes a date'}..'.J:;'~ Ide laPologne. qui. fi.xe, b.ien. inutileme . nt d'ailleurs, unnecessarily, thus prejudicing tile business .;f une date limite, de nature a nuire aux futurs the Cou!'dLfor the future, and' by that fl1c3.'1" I tnvaux du Conseil et a transformer une resCllu- .. transformi1'lg the re..~luti()ll that nine out.</ the i t~Dn que neuf des ,onze membres du Conseil ant eleven of us have accepted into a resol1itibIl that, adoptee, en une resolution qu'ils ont impliciteby impJic~tioll,nine out of eleven of $ have ment rejetee. Je nesuis pas dispose asuivre cette rejectefl.lamnot prepared to do it.:~.. voie. . Mr. Gr9myko will have tounderstand that hi& M. Gromykodevracomprendre que son "IlOn" "No"ca:imotbe exercised ·against.proposcl after .ne peut s'apposer a. toutes lr..spropositions jusqu'a , -~.'JIiIIIS IIW·JWJ"lO..__IIIIlillo"""""_.....· _....."'...M....'_*""....' _y;...:.4!.l2~8~._....--i..-............._.;.....,_,~__••__"_,•. .:J_._J_M~."""""'_.4 Mr. GROMYltO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): Sir Alexander Cadogan e."Cpresscd the fear that if my amendment were ~ot adopted, I should not give my consent to the rest of the text. Mr. Evatt expresed the same fear, repeating what Sh· Alexander Cadogan had said. I think that this is a misunderstanding. Sir Alexander Cadogan and Mr. Evatt are beating against an open door. The fact is that if my amendment is not adopted, it dOes not mean that by withholding my consent to the rest of the text, I may now allow its adoption. We have already been saying for an hour that this part of the resolution is of a procf.:dural character. What then are the grounds far these fears? It is a misunderstanding. It seems to me tha:t it should now he clear to Sir AlexanderCadogan and Mr. Evatt that if I submit an amendment and it is not adopted, and ifin regard to the rest of the text the requisitc majority is obtained - since the question is one of procedurethen the text is adoptecL Possibly the conclusion drawn by Sir Alexander Cadogan and Mr. Evatt is the result of the length of this meeting. In that case, it is comprehensible to me. 11 devrait etre tout a fait clair, me semble-t-il, pour Sir AleXander Cadogan aussi bien que pour M. Evatt, que, si mon amendement n'estpas adoptc, tandis que le reste du texte est approu"lc par la majorite requise, le texte est adopte, puisqu'il s'agit d'une qu~stion de procedure. Peutetre les conclusions de M. Evatt et de Sir Alexander Cadogan sont-oUes le resultat d'une seance trop longue. C'est ainsi que je peux me les explique'. Mais j'ai pose une deuxieme question. Le'dernier paragraphe de la proposition de la Pologne, compte tenu de mon amendement, coincide avec le texte en question. Puisqu'il en est ainsi, ne vaudrait-il .pas mieux mettre aux voix la premiere et la deuxieme parties de la proposItion de la Pologne? Ne vaudrait-il pas mieux examiner cettc question, ainsi que ceUe de la_ date;: du 1er septcmbre en meme temps que la proposition de laPolognc? Les membres du Conseil de securite qui ne veulent pas qu'il y ait, dans la resolution, une c1ause~tiPu!ant ~ue. la question. espagnole doit faire l'ohjet d'un nouve1 eXaIIlen du Conscil avant le ler sl~ptembre, peuvent presenter un amendement supprimant ce~te clause, dans la resolution de M. Lange. On.aura obtenu le meme resultat, tout en gagnant du temps, <;ar il s'agit toujours de la meme question. Lorsquc nous examinerons la resolution de M. Lange., nous pOurrons discuter egalement la question de la date du Ier septembre. Mr. EVA'J;'T (,t\ustralia): I shall take only two M. EVATT (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais): minutes·on this .•point of procedure.· This resollk" Jc ne parlerai que deux minutes.sur cettc' question .has been presented. by .the..drafting com- .tion de procedure. Le Comite de redaction nons tnittee,.·and .h~ been agreed to by .thelIlajority a· prC$ente la, res.olution. qu,e la· majorite du Conbut itis ineffecti,;e. Aqd ~I take it, as a result seil a a:pprouvee, mais eUe est sans effet. 11 me. of tlie President's Intervention, we are nowlooksemble que, a lasuite de l'intervention duPre- But I raised a second question. The last paragraph of the Polish proposal coincides with this text plus my amendment. Would it not be better therefore to vote on the first and second part of the Polish proposai? Would it not be better to consider this question and that of the date of . I September in connexion with the consideration of the Polish resolution? The members of .the Security Council who do not agree th~t there should be any mention in the resolution of the .Council returning to the exar·mation of the Spanish question not later than 1 September, may submit an amendment to omit the relevant part from Mr. Lange's resolution. The result will be the same~ We shall simply save time, as it is the same 'qtlcstion. When. we consider Mr. Lange's resolution:, we c~ alSo consider the question of the date of I September. in~, in tbr"flrsti:llace, ,at ~heJ~t paragraph of stdent, nous allons d'abo~d examiner le dernier

At the beginning, I proposed to put to the vote the amendments submitted by the representative of the USSR, and then the text as it was originally presented. However, everyone wanted to speak, and I cannot refuse the right of speech. I still have two speakers ·to be heard: first, Mr. van Kleffens of the Netherlands, and then the United States representative. Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): I shall only take up one minute of the.Council's time. What I wanted to say has been said probably much better by Mr. Evatt, and I therefore shall limit myself to endorsing his suggestions. I think we should now pmceed to vote on the amendrr:ents of the representative of the USSR. M. VAN KLEFFENS (Pays-Bas) (traduit de E'anglais) : Mon intervention sera breve. Comme M. Evatt vient d'exprimer, et mieux que je ne le ferais, ce que je desirais VOllS communiquer, je ne puis done qu'abonder dans le meIne sens. Je pense que nom; devrions maintenant proc&ler au vote sur les amendements du representant de l'URSS. M. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'angEais): Je partage entierement l'avis de M. Evatt a l'egard de cette resolution et de l'amendement. Je dois iralormer le Conseil que je ne puis appuyer un amendement qui aurait pour efIet d'empecher l'AssembIee generaIe de presenter, au sujet de I'affaire espagnole, les recommandations qu'elle jugerait utiles. M., GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du Tusse): L'intervention du representant des Etats-Unis et, en partie, celle de M. Evatt, me font penser qu'ils ont. l'intention de maintenir integralement le texte dece paragraphe dans la resolution de Sir Alexander Cadogan et de M. Evatt, y compris les deux premieres lignes concemant l'AssembIee generale. Pourtant, j'ai deja declare que, a mon avis, ce point, relatif a l'Assemblee, n'a pas trait a la ,procedure. Il s'agit d'une question de fond. Lorsque 1'ai vote (-ontre l'i..'1terpretation selon 'laquelle la resolution a trait a. la procedure, j'avais en vue, entre autres, ce point la. For this reason, if it is interpreted in the sense Aussi, si l'on veut que la question du Dlaintien that the question of retaining the communication a l'ordre du jour de la communication durepreof the.Polish representative on the agenda should sentant de la Pologne depende de la. clause conbe linked with the passage relating to the rights cer~ 'nt les droits de l'AssembIee .generale,tout of the General Assembly, bearing in mind iha.ten ;'l1terpretant ces droits d'une fa~on teIleque these rights are interpreted as meaning that the l'Assemblee puisse examiner la question espagnole General Assembly shall have the right to examine et ;,leck~r des mesures a prendre" queUe que soit the Spanish question and take action whether Ila decision du Consil quant· a la ttansm~rQnde Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): I should like to express my general concurrence with Mr. .Evatt's stand on this resolution and its revision. I must state to the Council that I cannot support any revision of this resolution which would operate to preclude the General Assembly from making any recommendations on .the ~p~llish situation which it saw fit. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (tTan::lat~d frorn Russian): The remarks of the representative of the United States and in part those of Mr. Evatt made me think that they apparently contemplate retaining in its entirety the text of this par.agraph of the resolution presented by Sir Alexander Cadogan and Mr. Evatt,including the first two lines referring to th.e General Assembly. I have already saidthat I do not consider the passage referring to the General Assembly to be of a procedural character. It is.a substantive question. When I voted against regarding this resolution as one of procedure, I also had this· point in mind. Let us first vote on the text on which we are Votons d'abord le texte sur lequel nous sommes all agreed, and then vote on the other parts of tous d'accord, et mettons ensuite aux voix les this paragraph, if there is any need to vote at autres points de ce paragraphe, si tant est qu'il all, because I consider that the vote which has nous faill.e voter. (jar, en effet, j'estime que le already taken place decided the fate of the . vote qui a deja ea lieu a decide du sort de la passage referring to the rights of the General clause concemant les pouvoirs de l'AssembIee Assembly. But if it is desired to take anomer vote genetale. Cependant, si ron veut voter de nouon this, it may be voted on separately. But let veau sur cette question, on peut la mettre aux us begin with the text with which we are all in voix separement. Mais commen~ons 'Par le texte agreement. sur lequel nous sommes tous d'accord. The PRESIDENT: We have arrived at the same Le P~EsmENT (traduit de l'anglais): Nous en question..I pointed out at the beginning that the sommes revenus a la meme question. Au debut phrase "without prejudice to the rights of the de la djgcus~on, j'ai signale que le membre de General Assembly under the Charter" is not, phrase: "sans prejudice des pouvoirs conf&es in my opinion, a question of substam.ce, because a l'Assemblee generale par ~a Charte" ne souleit only establishes the fact that the General vait pas, a !110n avis, une question de fond, etant Assembly under the Charterh;ls some irghts and donne qu'il se bOrne a .etablir que l'Assemblee we do not want to prejudice them. Naturally, ge..'1&ale possede des droits definis par la Charte the interpretation is once again to be submitted et que nous ne voulons pas en genu l'exercice. to a vote and as Mr. Gromyko has said he is Nature11ement, nous devrons de nouveau voter going to.vote against it, I do not know if the sur l'interpre'tation, mais, comme M. Gromyko Coun.cil thinks it would be useful to use up I a dit qu'il voterait contre, j.e me demande si le more time in taking a vote. . Conscil juge utile de perdte son temps a voter. We agree only that the question must be kept Le seul point sur lequel nous paraissons d'acon the agenda by the Council, and there is still cord est celui du maintien a l'ordre du jour de the difference of whether it is to be without la question espagl1Dle, quoiqu'il existe encore une limitation or limited to 1 September. divergence de vues sur la question de la date limite du ler septembre. J'ai remarque que M. Grolcyko m'a souvent demande quand je comptais mettre la propoA sition du representant de la Pologne aux voix. S'agit-il de,la premiere proposition, presentee lors d'une seance precedente? Que11e resolution le representant de I'lJRSS a-t-il en vue? M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): 1'ai dit que, a mon avis, il valait mieux que·lllo question de maintenir la communication du representant de la Pologne a l'ordre du jour du Conseil soit tranchee aI'occasion de l'examen de la resolution de la Pologne. Mais·si M. Lange, I have noticed that ¥r. Gromyko has asked me many times when I am going to put the proposal of.the Polish representative to the vote. Is· he referring to the :first proposal which was presented at a previous meeting? Which resolu-· tion is he referring to? Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : I said that, inmy opinion, itwouId be better to decide th(; question of retaining· the Polish communication on the ~gendaof the Council in connexion with the consideration.of the Polish resoluti0I1.Bnt if Mr. Lange,as the authm' of this resolution,;~.;;;, n()t insist upon this question being examinf{~ Hr connexionwith,theconsiderationof his re.~t;b.­ tion, I am prepared. to~)Camine this questiun i.n. co~exi()n ·with the•examination·of the last. point ofthis.resoluti()[l which was not adopted, it being understood ~a't the ~;rt.will begin with the wQtds:. ,,~'The Security Council resolves to keep the situation .in Spain u,ndercontinuous observa- '£,'l.!\~ur de cette resolution n'insiste pas, je suis p;(~t a examiner cette question en meme temps I.j:ue le demier point de la resolution qui n'a pas &e adoptee; etant entendu que le texte comrnencera par le mot: "Le Conseil de securite decide de continuer.a surveiller de fa~on permanente la situation en Espagne...", et que la clause cencerriant l'AssembIee generale sera exclue de la That is what my proposal amounts to. Here attempts are again beiri.g made to mix up questions which we agreed were procedural with other questions which we did not agree were non-procedural. So .we cannot reach agreement. But these, after all, are artificial attempts which only complicate the situation. They are artificial attempts to unite two different statt"ments, the statement which we agreed was non-procedural, with the other which we did not agree was procedural. It is plain then that such a presentation of the question merely complicates the situation. The PRESIDENT: I shall ask Mr. Gromyko to read the proposal. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Je lis le texte: . Mr. GROMYKO (Union of SovIet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I shall read the text: "The Security Council decides to keep the situation in Spain under continuous observation and maintain it upon the list of matters of which it is seized, in order that it will be at all times ready to take such measures as may become necessary to maintain international peace and security. Any member of the Security Council may bring the matter up for consideration by the Council at any time." "Le Conseil de securiti decide de continuer a surveiller de fa~on permanente la situation en Espagne et de maintenir la question sur la Iiste des sujets dont il est saisi, afin d~etre pret a tout moment a prendre les mesures qui pourraient etre necessaires au maintien de la pm et de la securite intema~onales. Tout membre du Conseil de securite a le droit de presenter a tout moment la question aux fins de discussion devant le Conseil." Besides·this, I wish to add here an amendment to the effect that the Security Council shall resume consideration of the Spanish question before 1 September.

As I see it, this is not the Polish proposal but is merely an effort· to keep the draft resolution of ·the drafting committee, only striking out the phrase which we have insisted upon and adding the question of bringing up the matter to the Council before 1 September. Am I right? Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist RepUblics) .(translated from Russian) : Yes. To ~elete·the first two lines of this paragraph I'elating to the General Assembly and add my amendment.

Does the representative of the USSR mind if the first two "whereas" paragraphs are retained? Mr. GROMYK.O (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) ~ Wlrlclt ones?

The two "whereas" paragraphs of the first draft, in order to present it as a resolution. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Je prie M. Gromyko de nous donner lecture de la proposition. En outre je voudrais y ajouter un amendement, indiquant que le Comeil de securite examinera a nouveau la question espagnole avant le premier septembre. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l~anglais): Si je comprends hien, il ne s'agit pas de la proposition de la Pologne, mais simplement· d'une tentati\;e de conserver le projet de resolution presente par . le Comite de redaction, en supprimant unique~ ment le membre de phrase sur lequel nous aV',N . insiste et en fixant au premier septembre r examen de la question espagnole au Conseil de securite. Est-ce exact? M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiqu.es socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du 7usse): Oui. Supprimer dans ce paragraphe Ies deux premieres lignes qui concement r AssembIee generale, et ajouter mon amendement. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'a1~glais): Le representant de rURSS s'oppose~t-ilau maintien desdeu.'< "attendus"? M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit·du russe): Lf(S" quels? Le PRESIDENT ·Uraduit de l'anglais): Les deux "attendus" du premierprojet, de maniere a le presenter comme une resolution. I can now read the full text of my proposal. I have now the text which I Wish to propose and to read from beginning to end, incorporating my amendment: "Whereas the Security Council on 29 April 1946, appointed a Sub-Committee to investigate the situation in Spain, and "Whereas the investigation of the Sub-Committee has fully confirmed'the facts which led to the condemnation of the Franco regime by the Potsdam and San Francisco Conferences, by the General Assembly at the first part of its first session and by the Security Council by resolution of the date a,bove-mentioned, "The Security Council decides to keep the situation in Spain under continuous observation and maintains it apon the list of matters of which it is seized in order that it will be at all times ready to take such meas~es as may become necessary to maintain intemational pet+ce and security. The Security Council will take up the matter again not later than 1 September 1946, in order to determine what appropria.te practical measures provided by the Charter should be taken. Any member of the Security Council may, bring the matter up for consideration by the Council at any time before the date mentioned." I shall now read separately the text of my Ct."TIendment: "The Security Council will take up the matter again not later than 1 September 1946, in order to determine what appropriate practical measures provided by the Charter should be taken." Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): This Security Council can neither add to nor detract from the rights of the General Assembly. The rights ofthe Assembly are defined in t.1}e Chart~r and in the Charter alone. On the nnehand, in spite of his explanations, D'une pa.rt, je ne vois pas tres bien pourquoi, I do not quite und~rstand why Mr. Gromyko malgre ses explications, M. Gromyko peut s'opcan .see any objection to the wordS, "Without poser aux mots: "Sans prejudice des pouvoirs prejudice to the rights of the General Assembly", conferes al'Assemblee generale"; d'autre part, effet~ au debut, les autres points ayant ete rejetes, il ne restait plus que ce texte-Ia-" qui se rapporte ades decisions anterieures. Si le Conseil estime n'ecessaire ou desirable de maintenir le premier et le deuxieme paragraphes qui finissent par les mots: "sa resolution en date du 29 avril 1946", je ne m'opposerai 'pas ace qu'on les maintienne et qu'on mette aux voix l'ensemble du texte, en faisant commencer le dernier paragraphe par les mots: "Le Conseil de securite decide de continuer asurveiller de fa~on permanente...". Je vais pouvoir lire tout de suite le texte complet de ma proposition. Je dispose maintenant du texte et je veux le proposer et le lire d'un bout a l'autre, y compris ma correction: "Attendu que le Conseil de securite a institue le 29 avril 1946 un Sous-Comite charge de proceder aune enquete sur la situation en Espagne, "Attendu que l'enquete du Sous-Comite a pleincment confllIIle les faits qui ont conduit ala condamp.ation du regime de Franco par les Conferences de Potsdam et de San-Francisco. par l'Assemblee generale ala premiere parti~ de sa premiere session et par le COD\Seil de securite dans sa ~resolution en date du 29 avril 1946, "Le Conseil de securite decide de continuer a surveiller la situation en Espagne de fa~on permanente et de maintenir la question sur la fulte des sujets dont le Consell est saisi, afin d'etre pret atout lI~Ornei.'t aprendre tcUes mesures qui pourraient· etre necessaires 'au maintien de la paix et de la securite intemationales. Le Conseil de securite reprendra l'examen de la question le ler septembre 1946 au plus tard, afin de determiner queUes .mesures pratiques appropriees doivent etre prises, qui sont prevu<>.s par la Charte. Tout membredu Conseil de securite a le droit de presenter la question atout moment devant le Conseil aux fins de discussion." Maintenant, je vais lire separement le texte de mon amendement: "Le Conseil de securite reprendra l'examen de la question le 1er septembre 1946 au plus tard, afin de determiner queUes mesures pratiques .appropriees doivent etre prises, qui sont prevues par la Charte." 'M. VAN KLEFFENS (Pays-Bas) (traduit de l'anglais) : Le Conseil de securite ne peut pas plus ajouter que retrancher aux droits de I'AsselnbIee generale. La Charte, seule, les definit. Mr. EVATT (Australia): I understood previously that what the President was proposing to do was to take Mr. Gromyko's amendments one by one. I also understood that all of the first three paragraphs could be paSsed over so as to come to the operative paragraph. But the President's recent question to the representative of the USSR and the latter's answer rather suggested that he will propose an amendment with regard to one of these. I do -not think that is very important, because those who spoke for the resolution are quite agreeable to omitting any portion or the portion objected to in the first paragraphs, before we come to the operative part of the resolution. - I take it then that the President will put to the Council Mr. Gromyko's proposed alteration of this draft separately on each question. The first one, when we come to the operative part, is "without prejudice to the rights of the General Assembly". This has been discussed, and I do not want to go into it at any length~ except to say, in answer to Mr. van Kleffens, that it was put there for the deliberate purpose of remim!ing the Security Council and all concerned of its desire tha.t the General Assembly should take up this question. I quite admit, and I admitted at the beginning, that it is not the legal effect of this that matters. Ido not think it has 'il. definite legal operation, but that argument, as Mr. van Kleffens says, might be put, I think, with greater force to Mr. Gromyko than to the rest of ·us. Therefore, I shall vote against its omission, and I shall vote against the fixing of a precise date, for the reasons I previously mentioned. I hope that these votes will be taken separately. I undmtand they will. if they are, then I take it Mr. Gromyko willnot exercise the veto when the final resolution is put. Mr. PARODI (France) (t,"nslated . from French): If I understand Mr. Gromyko's train of thought correctly, the problem as to whether M. EVATT (Australie) (trilduit de l'anglais) : J'avais precedemment compris que le President se proposait de mettre aux voix les an:;~udements de M. Gromyko un a un. J'avais egalement compris que, supprimant les trois premiers paragraphes, nous passerions directement ala partie du tex:te, contenant la decision. Neanmoms, la derniere question que le President vient de poser au representant de l'URSS et la reponse de M. Gromyko laissent plutot ente..'1dre que ce dernierproposera d'en modifier un. Cela n'aurait d'ailleurs pas une importance considerable, puisque ceux qui ant defendu la resolution sont tout disposes a supprimer une partie quelconque des premiers paragraphes au celle qui a ete contestee, avant d'en arriver a la partie de la resolution contenant ~a decision. Je crois comprendre que le President se propose d"appeler le Conseil a voter separement sur les modifications au texte de la resolutionpre,. sentees par M. Gromyko. La premiere porte sur la partie de la proposition contenant la decision: "Sans prejudice des pouvoirs conferes a l'AssembIee generale". On a discute ce point et je ne desire pas lIn'etendre Ia-dessus, si ce n'est pour dire, en reponse a M. van Kleffens, qu'il a ete fonnuM de propos delibere, afin de rappeler au Conseil de slecurite: et a taus ceux que la chose interesse~ SOl1 desir que l'Assemblee generale examine la question. Je reconnais, comme je I'ai fait au debut, que l'essentiel de la question n'est pas son aspect juridique, qui n'est dtlc reste pas precis. Mais, comme l'a <lit M. van. !)leffens, il se peut que M. Gromyko y attache plus d'importance que les autres meIllPl:esde l'Assemblee. C'est pourquoi je voteraicontre la suppressipn de cette phrase, ainsi que contre l'amendement fixant une date limite. J'espere que ces votes seront pris s6parement. S'ils le sont, je crois queM. Gromyko n'exercera pas son droit de veto lorsque 13 resolution definitive sera mise aux voix. i j j j M. PARODI (France): Si je comprends .~ien la pensee de M. Gl'omyko, la question de savo~si la question espagnole sera maintenuea l'ordre du I do not think it is necessary for me to restate Est-il besoin de rappeler l'attitude des Etatsthe attitude of the United Stati~ toward the Unis a regard du Gouvernement de Franco? Franco Government. I have no explanation or Aucune explication ni, excuse ne me parait neces:. apologies to make when I say that, in order to saire parce que j'annonce que, afin de permettre keep the field or the way open for the General a l'Assemblee, generale de discuter la situation Assembly to discuSs and to recommencl any , et de recommander les mesures qu'elle estime measures it sees fit on this situation, I should be appropriees, j'accepterais volontiers que le Conquite willing, to have the Council drop the seil retirat la question espagnole lorsqu'ille jugera Spanish question from its agenda, whenever'suitapropos ou necessaire; , able or necessary, to permit the Assembly to take the matter over. But the 'Nording of the revised resolution, as proposed by 'the representative of the USSR, might result in the blocking of that freedom of action for the Assembly which I desire. to see assured. The PRESIDENT: I think we have the right· to vote on the amendment submitted by the representative of the USSR. This amendment has the same· wording as·the one presented by. the Sub-CoIlli"llittee 'mill the second paragraph. The. second paragraph finishes, "the date ~bove­ mentioned". Then we have the operative part starting with tue sentence, "The Security Council deddes". It is this sentence wmch is to be voted on, ending with the words, "peace and security", together with the third sentence, "The Security Council-shall take up the matter again not later than 1 September," downto, "should be taken". And then the last senteuce, "Any member of the Security Coun<:il may bring up the matter . . ." In· this way, we can accept thf.' different ques- Or les termes de la resolution modifiee que nous a proposee le representant de l'URSS POUIraient avoir pour resultat d'entl"aver cette liberte d'action de l'Assemblee que je desire voir assuree. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Je pense que nOllS avons,le droit de inettre aux voix l'amendement que vient de soumettre le representant de l'URSS. Le deuxieme paragraphe de cet amendement qui se terminea: "en date.du 29 avril 1946" correspond au texte que le Sous- Comite nOUSa presente. Suit la partie de la resolution contenant la decision, dont la premiere phrase va de: "Le Comeil de securitedecide", a "la paix et la securite intcrnationales". C'est sur cette phrase et sur les deux suivantes, a savoir: "Le Conseil de securite reprendra la question au plus tard le 1er septembre", jusqu'a: "doivent etre prises; qui sont prevues·par la Charte"et celle qui commence par les mots: "Tout membre du Conseil de securite a le droit de presenter la Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I do not quite understand what is being put to the vote~ The text of my amendment? Is ;;4 understanding cOlTect? Mr. EVATT (Australia): There are three amendments. The PRESIDENT: There are many amendments, but they are on the same paper, so I am submitting the first 'Words until thll phrase "above-mentioned". Really they are not amendments; they are the same as the Sub-Committee's resolution so there are no objections. It is the same in both texts. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of .Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): This constitutes two paragraphs, in the form in which they stand, does it not? T'ae PRESIDENT: Yes, if there is no objection. Mr. EVATT (Australia): Thet:e can be no objection to that. The PRESIDENT: The representative of the USSR proposed it; he cannot object. If there is no objection, I shall consider the text as adopted. The first two paragraphs were adopted.

There is a second question involved. "The Security Council decides to keep .the situation in Spain under continuous observation and maintain it upon the list of matters of which it is seized, in order that it will be at all times ready to take such measures as may become necessary to maintain international peace and security." It is virtually the same as the majority's text. Mr. EVATT (Austra',l.;"'.J = Yes, but with a sentence omitted. That k J" ': 2';il:tence we wantin.

Mterwards it will be the Australian representative's turn. Now it is Mr. Gromyko's. Mr. EVATT (Australia): With great respect to the President, this text is an amendment of the proposal before it, and what should be put, I submit, is: .Are the words, "without prejudice" et cetera, omitted or no~? We all agree to that, provided those words are added. M. EVATT (AustraIie) (traduit de ['anglais): n y a trois amendements. . Le PRESIDENT (traduit de ['anglais): n y a un grand nombre d'amendements. lIs figurent cependant dans le meme texte, de sorte que je mets aux voix les premieres phrases jusqu'a: "en date du 29 avril 1946". En reaIite, il ne s'agit pas d'amendements; ces termes correspondent a ceux de la resolution du Sous-Comite. Il ne pourrait donc se presenter d'objection, puisque les deux textes sont indentiques. M. GROMYKO (Union 'des R6pubIiques socialistes SQvietiques) (traduit durusse): Les deux paragraphes tels qu'ils sont? Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais) : Oui, s'il n'y a pas d'objection. M. EVATT (AustraIie) (traduit de I'anglais): On ne saurait s'y opposer. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Le representant de I'URSS l'a propose, i1 ne peut pas s'y opposer. S'il n'y a pas d'objection, je considererai le texte comme adopte. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de I'anglais): Nous devons envisager un deuxieme point. "Le Con- seil de securite decide de continuer a surveiller la situation en Espagne de fa~on ·permanente et de maintenir la question sur la liste des sujets. dont· il est saisi afin d'etre pret a tout moment a· prendre telles mesures qui pourraient etreneces- saires au maintien de la paix et de la seturite internationales." Ce texte est, a peu de choses pres, celui de la proposition de la majorite. M. EVATT (AustraIie) (traduit de l'anglais) : Oui, mais on en a supprime une phrase que nous desirons y voir figurer. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais) :Le tour du representant de l'AustJralie viendra apres. Nous examinons, pour le moment, la proposition de M. Gromyko. M. EVATT (AustraIie) (traduit de I'anglais): Avec tout le respect que je dois au President, je tiens a faire remarquer que ce texte est un amendement a la proposition qui l'a precede. J'estime que nous devons nous prononcer sur la question suivante: supprime-t..on, oui ou non, les mots: "sans prejudice des pouvoirs conferes a l'AssembIee generale par la Charte"? Nous acceptons tous le texte, a condition que .ce membre de .phrase soit ajoute.

I cannot propose that for practical reasons. Mr. Gromyko has already stated that the inclusion of that sentence is a question of stubstance for him; so we should only have one more vote and one more veto. That waS the reason why I put it the other wilY as I thought.the difference, after all the expl~tions we had, was whether the matter was kept on the agenda without limit, or limited to 1 September. We knew that Mr. Gromyko was not going to accept the phrase which has been included in the draft resolution already presented. Mr. EVATT (Australia): Would the President be willing to put the words "without prejudice" separately after he puts this? I have not seen any indication of what Mr. Gromyko might do afterwards. I am not sure.whether he will veto the adoption or not; he has not ben clear on that point. The .PRESIDENT: Mr. Gromyko has clearly stated that he will we his right of 'Veto. Mr. EVATT (Australia): I am not sure about that. I want him to take the responsibility of doing it, not of threatening to do it. I should like the vote taken in a fo~ which gives the Council the opportunity of retaining those words in ·the resolution, unless the Council feels that at a later stage it might amend the resolution. I am not prepared to yield to pressure of this kind when I think it is a matter of principle, and I am notprepared to yield to the method of centinuity of suggest,on in order to get a result by vetoing every other suggestion, and yet that is exactly what is happening. Therefore, whatever course the President takes, I am sure he.will protect our rights as well as the rights of the minority. The majority is not necessarily wrong. I hope the President will give us an opportunity of again voting-if h~ is splitting this resolution up - for the phrase "without prejudice~', about· wlic:h the United States representative has spoken and to which he attaches great importance. Ce:n:afuly I do, too. Mr. PARODX (France) (translated from French): If we start by voting on a sentence it will then be too late.to' take a decision on pre.. serving the rights of the General Assembly. Hence if we are to vote first on the sentence which says that, HThe Security Council decides to keep the situation in Spain upon the lost of matters of which it is seized" without adding that this is to be "without prejudice to the rights of the General Assembly", I shall vote against the sentence because it would mean that the Assembly is deprived of the right to consider it. Le PaESlIJENT (traduit de l'anglais): Mais, dan& ma d,crniereproposition, je n'ai pas Inen- . tionne la phrase qui va de: "Le Conseil· de securite • . ." a "la paix et lasecurite intemationales". Nousvoterons ensuite sur le paragraphe suivant, 011 est mentionnee la date limite du ler septembre, et nous obtiendrons enfin un textc' correspondant a la resolution du Comite de redacuon: "Tout membre du Conseil de securite . . .". Autrement, je ne vois pas eomiIlent nous poul'rions presenter l'amendement.

But I have proposed this without mentioning the phrase commencing, "The Security Council" until !"intemational peace and security". We shall then put to the vote the next paragraph which embodies the rmitation to 1 Septen\ber, and, 6ventuaby,~ that, will coincide with the original drafting co~ttee resolution~ "Any member of the Security Council . 0 ." Otherwise I do not see how we can present the amendment> and this is the only way to vote oni.t.· Mr. PARODX (France) (translated from ~I. PAROOI (France): CJe qtle j'ai dit tout French): What I said just now was simply an , al'heure est sirnplemcnt lrJl,e explication de mon explanation of my vote. vote. . Mr. EVATT (Australia) ~ That is a very serious position for the representative of France because as he will not be able, by the President's tuling, to associate tIlls decision with the rights of the Assembly, he is forced to vote against keeping this question on the list of matters before the Security CouieD. I am sure that the President i~ endeavouring, to the best of his ability, to effect the corrert vote, I mean the vote of the w..ajority in this Council. But by taking the course he has taken, he is making it impossible for those who wish to make reference to the rights of the Assembly to do so. I have. suggested a way out by adding to this formula, which is not an amendment but a restatement of the whole thing, the words, "without prejudice to the rights of the General Assembly under the Charter". . The President cannot, I submit, put to the Security Council the alternative between ignoring those rights in the resolution and adopting something which we are all infavoul' of under those rights. The PRESIDEN'l": But the question is this: whether the Sub-ComMittee's report is. really what Mr. Gromyko proposes to amend, and I cannot add anything that he will reject. Wha.t his amendment consists of is the suppression of M. PARODI (France): Si noDS conunen~ons par voter sur une phrase, it sera trop tard ensuite pour nous 'prononcer en ce qui concerue le main", tien des droits de l'Assemblee generale. Par consequent, si l'on no~ amene a voter d'abord sur la phrase disant que a le "Conseil de securite decide de maintenir cette question sur la liste des sujets dont il est saisi", sans ajouter que c'est sous la reserve des droits de l'Assemblee, je voterai contre cette phrase, parce qu'elle signifiera que l'AssembIee en est dessaisie. C~est la seule maniere de procedera un vote. M .. EVATT (Australie) (traduit de l"anglais): Le representant de la France ·se trouve dans one situation fort grave, car, ne pouvan~acause de la decision du President, preserver Ies droits de l'Assemblee tout en se pronon~ant pour la proposition, il se verra oblige de voter contre le maintien'de la: question a l'ordre du jour du Conseil de··securlte. Je suis sar que le President fait tout son possible pour faire va.1oir les droits de la majorite, a l'occasion de ce scrutin. Mais sa maniere de proceder .. empeche' ceux qui voudraient le faire, dtaffinner les· pouvoirs de l'Assemblee generate. rai propose une sGlution, consistant a aj'outer les tennes: "Sans pl'ejudice des pouvoirs con- £eres3. l'Assemb1ee generale par la Charte", a cette fOrmtlle qui n'est pas un amcndement~mais une nouvelle maniere de presenter la question~ Le. President ne peutpas, se10n moi, obliger le Consei1 de securite a. choisir entre deux solutions, dont l'uneconsisterait a ecarter les droits de l'AssembIee generale et l'autre aadopter des. dispositions que nollS approuvons tous, en vertu de ces memcs droits-. Le PltESlDENT (traduit de l'anglais) ~ Mais il s'agit de savoir si le rapport du Sous-Cotnit~est bien ce1ui queM. Gromyko propose de modifier; je ne puis ajouter ason amendement un tnembre de phrase qu'il rejettera, puisque cet amende.,

I think Mr. Evatt knows naw why I have acted in this way; because Mr. Gromyko'g amendment consists of the suppression of that part of the phrase. Mr. EVATT (Australia): I take it that, not- M. EVATT (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais) : withstanding what 1Vlr. Gromyko says, the Presi- Je crois comprendre que, lnalgre l'avi!5 de dent will give the Council an opportunity of M. Gromyko, le President perm~ttra au Conseil, voting at some stage on a form of wording such aun moment donne, de voter sur une :phrase qui as, "That nothing in this resolution shall prejudice affirmerait que cette resolution ne .porte atteinte the rights of the General Assembly under the en a~cune mar.iere aux pouvoirs conferes a Charter". That vote could be taken after iliis I l'AssembJ.ee gene~ale par la Charte. Nous pourone. I do not want those who wish to keep this " nons proceder a ce vote apres celui-ci. Je ne matter on the agenda to be entrapped into voting tienspas ace que ceux qui desirent maintenir la against something which they think ""-ill be unquestion al'ordre du jour, soient forces de voter conditional. I give notice that when these amendcontre certain texte parce que ce texte ne comments are dealt with, I shall propose that. porte aucune re~erve. J'informe le Comeil que je presenterai cette proposition. 1£ Mr. Grornyko vetoes it he takes the ~e... sponsibility, but I did not understand from him that because a,.phrase concerning the protection of the rights of' the Assembly is added, he would veto the whole resolution. Perhaps the President will allow me to put this after the vote is ta1:en on the present amendment and the next one relative to 1 September,

That is just wlhat I proposed: to vote on these different parts of Mr. Gromyko's text and at the end, after the result of that vote, to suggest that we vote on Mr. Evatt's special phrase. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from RussUm): Perhaps Mr. Evatt will agree to saying in the resolution that in considering the Spanish question the Security Council will act in accordance with the rights and powers conferred on it by the Charter of the United Nations. That is tantamount to stating that the Security Council will not interfere with the rights and powers of other organs of the Organization, including the General Assembly. The question of the General Assembly, as presented here.with the interpretation given it, has been artificially dragged in. Mr. EVATT (Australia): Mt'. Gromyko is now arguing whether those words should be added. We voted before, and I do not wish to say anything r.n.ore except that the majority of the members of this Council, by the previous vote, attached importance to 'that reference. Therefore, I will take advantage of the President's ruling Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais) : Je pense qt,e M. Evatt sait que j'agis de la sorte parce que l'amendement de M. Gromyko cdnsiste a supprhner ce membre de phrase. Si 11. Gromyko y oppose son droit de veto, il assumera toutes se.s respo;nsabilites, rnai.s II ne m'a pas laisse entendre qu~il s'opposerait a la resolution tout entiere, si on y ajoutait une phrase concernant la protecti.~ltt des droits de l'AssembIee. Peut-8tre me se,ta-t-il pemlis de presenter cette proposition apres le vote sur le present amendement et sur le prochain, qui conceme la date Iimite du ler septembre. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): C'est justement ee que je proposais de fake: voter d'abord sur les differentes parties du texte de M. Gromyko et, ensuite, voter sur la phrase particuliere de M, Evatt. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Peut-etre M. Evatt acceptera-t-il de dire dans sa resolution que, en examinant la question espagnole~ le Conseil de securite agira confonnement aux droits et pouvoirs qui lui sont accordes par la :Jharte des Nations tTnies. Cela voudrait dire en mcme temps que le Conseil n'empietera pas sur les droits et pouvoirs des autres organes des Nations Unies, y compris l'AssembIee generale. Quant a la question de l'AssembIee elle-meme, telle qu'elle est posee et interpretee ici, eIle a ete introduite artificiellement. M. EVATT (Australie) (traduit de l'anglais) : M. Gromyko discute maintenant de l'inclusion de ces mots. Nous avoils deja vote,. et je ne desire pllS m'etendre plus longuement sur ce sujet, si ce n'e.~t pour dire que, par un vote .precedent, la majorit"e des membres de ce Conseil ont affirme l'importance qu'ils attachent a ces termes. En security.'~ securite internationales." Mr. GROMYKO ('Union of Soviet Socialist Re- M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques ~cia.. publics) (translated from Russian) : What about lliltes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Que demy amendment to this text? I have an amendvient mon amendement? Car j'ai present~ un ment. That amendment should be put to the amendement qu'il faut mettre aux vom en vote first. premier lieu. The PRESIDENT: It is the first ,draft the repre.. Le PRESIDENT (tradu';t de l'anglais): C'est le sentative of the USSR presentled. It was an premier projet du representant de l'URSS. J'avais amendment, I thought, about what he wanted cru comprendre que le texte etait un amendeto introduce in the portion referring to the ment que le representant de l'URSS desirait Council. May I ask if it is an (~mendment to apporter au passage concemant le Conseil. Puis,.je an amendment? l demander s'il s'agit d'un sous-arnendement? Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Re.. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socia~! pubHcs) (translated from Russiafl,): According listes sovietiques) (traduii du russe): Ccnformeto the rules of procedure, it i~ first nec1essary to ment au rcglement interieur, il faut voter un vote on the amendments and then on the 'text. MIen.dement avant le texte auquel il se rapporte. But in the case il1 point, perhaps an exception Mais, dans le cas dont it s~agit, on pourrait may be made. I agree to a vote on the phrases peut-etre s'ecarter du reglement 1'i4ccepte de in the. order in which they occur in the text jtlst voter les phrases dans l'ordre Oll elles se troUVGl1t distributed to the members of the Sel~uritYJ dans le texte qui vient d'etre distribue alUI; m.ern~ Council. bres du Conseil de securite. The paragraph was adopted. Le paragraphe est adoptee The PRESIDENT: It is agreed then that the Le PREsIDnNT (traduit de l'anglais): Il -:st Coundl should take up now the part relative to done entenduquc le Conseil eXapline In&intenant international peace and security. la partie de la proposition concemant la paix et la securite internationales. Voici le tcxte que M. Gromyko a propose a titre d'amendement: "Le Conseil de securite reprendra l'e~amen de . la question au plus tard le ler. septembre 1946., afin de determiner queUes mesurespratiques doivent etre prises qui sont prevues dans la .Charte." Ce paragraphe ayant ete conteste, je vais le mettre aux voix. Il est procede au vote amain levee. Votent pour: Mexique, Pologne, Union des Republiques ~ocialistes sovietiques. Votent CGmtre: Australie, Bresil, Chine, Egypte, The sentence which is .the amendment pro.. posed by Mr. Gromyko is as fo~~ows: "The Security Council shall ,take up the matter again not later than 1 September 1946 in order { ' to determine what appropriate practical nleasures provided by the Charter should be taken." As it is a question on which we are not agreed, I am going to put it to the vote. A vote was taken by show of hands, as follows: In favour: Mexico, Poland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Against: Australia, Brazil, China, Egypt, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United SLates of A"nerica. Abstaining: France. The amen,dment was rejected by 7 votes to 3, with 1 abddnt2on. The PRESIDENT: Now the last sentence: Pays~Bas, Royaume..Uni, Etats-Unis d'Amerique. S'abstz"ent.. la France. Par 7 voix contre 3, avec urte abstention, l'amendement est rejete. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Passons maintenant a la derniere phrase: "Tout membre du Conseil de securit6 a le droit: de presenter' a. tout mom.ent la question devant; le Conseil, aux fins de discussion, avant la dare ci..dessus.n "Any member of the Security Council may bring the matter up for consideration by the Council at any time before the date mentioned.n ~Q.tters has already been voted on; that was the Nous avons deja vote sur une de ces deux quesfixing of the September date. It was rejected W dons. Nous avons, eneffet, rejete celle qui there is only. the other point left. concerne la date limite clu 1er septembre. II ne nous reste done qu'un seu! point a examiner. The PUSIDEN'r: The other point is to include the phrase tEwithout prejudice to the rights of the General P.~eI1lbly under the Charter". Mr. EVATT (Australia): in order to meet the situation, whether Mr. Gromyko vetoes it or not, I want to put for'ward a separate resolution, so that even if he does veto it, it will not have any effect upon what we have. carried. I will move that in ~,e opinion of the Security Council the decision in the resolution which has just been adopted - I take it that it has been adoptedto keep the situation ID Spain upon the list of matters et cetera, is to be regarded to be without prejudice to the rights of the General Assembly under the Charter. I It is a separate resolution and, therefore, if it shOJ.ud be supported by a majority hut lost beca~~e of a veto, then the fact that it was not carried will not affect what we have already done. I do not want, by the exercise of the veto, to tear up the decision that has already been made, and therefore I would ask permission to put it as a separate resolution; namely, that the decision we have come to in relation to keeping the matter on the agenda shall be regat"ded as being without prejudice to the rights of the General Assembly ul1der the Charter. I do not want to arg&~e now; I think it is important to pass it. If l\i.[r. Gromyko vetoes it, Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Ge demier point consiste a inclure· le membre de phrase: "Sans prejudice des pouvoirs conferes a l'Assemb1ee generale par la Charte." M. EVATT (Australie) (traduit de l'ang1ais) : Afin deresoudre la question, je voudrais presenter une resolution distincte, qui ri'aura aucun efIet sur ce que nous avons deja adopte, mcme si M. Gromykc y oppose son droit de veto. Je propose que, de ravis du ConseiI de securite, la decision que represente la resolution qu'on vient d'adopter~ du mains iI me semble, et selon laquelle la question espagnole. est maintentte sur la Iiste des affaires dont le Conseil est saisi, ne porte pas atteinte auxpouvoirs conferes a1'.AssembIee generale par la Charte. C'est une -resolution distincte et c'est pourquoi, si, apres avoir ete approuvee par la majorite, eUe etait rejetee en vertu du droit de veto, cela ne changerait en rien nos decisions anterieures. Je ne voudrais pas que l'usage .du droit de veto annul~t la decision qui a deja ete prise. Je vous demande done de me permettre de proposer, a titre de resolution distincte, que la decision de maintenir la question espagnole al'ordre du jour ne porte pas atteinte aux pouvoirs conferes a l'AssembIee generale par la Charte. Je ne tiens pas adiscuter maintenant9j'estime qu'il import£ d'adopter cctte motion. Si M. Mr; GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republks) (translated from Rttssian): I consider that there is no necessity for adopting any sort of distinct supplementary resolution. The rights of the General Assembly are very clearly and concisely set forth in the Charter: in any event, we shall not give better expression or more accurate definition to the rights of the General Assembly. Why complicate this question? Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): I was only going to ask why we do not vote on Mr. Gromyko's other proposal, to delete the words "without prejudice to the rights of the General Assembly under the Charter". That was one of his amendments. Can we not vote on that? maJl~der pourquoi nous ne votons passurrJl'autre proposition de M. Gromyko, tendant asu!?primer les mots: "Sans prejudice des pouvoirs conferles a l'Assemblee generate par la Chart~".- C~etait la un de ses alnendements. PCJuvons-nous le mettre aux voix? Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Nom avons deja. discute de l'inc1usion deces ttlots"mais il en existe maintenant une nouvelle interpretation. ;M:. Evatt veuten faire un paragraphe distinct et le presenter de telle mamere que nons ne le ,confondions pas avec ceux que nous avons deja adoptes. M. EVATT (Australie) (traduitde l'anglais): Lorsque j'ai demande de lefaire,il y a quelque temps, le President a decide que cela n~etait pas possible, que l'on ne pouvait donner aux moUl le sena que je desirais l~ur attrlbuer .et qtt~iJs ,'avaient daus la resolution orlginale. Ens'tlite, n a con.sidere Que la r~,;;oiation dont nous avons retranch6 la'"mentio~ du lei'l :septembre ewt I The PRESIDENT: There Vias a discussion as to whether we should include that phrase, but tit:tere is a new interpretation of it. Mr. Evatt Wat"'1ts to make the paragraph separate and to put it in such a way that it will not interfere with the others that have been already approved. Mr. EVATT (Australia) ~ When I asked if that could be done some time ago, the President decid~d that it could not; that those words could 110t be treated in the way in which I wished, and in which the original ii'esolution demilD.d.ed. He then treated this resolution with the HwJssion of the reference to the 1 September mt~eting as ba'tring beencamed. I am now faced with this position. Th~ resolution, a., I understand it, is carried by the Security Council; it is 2 accomplished faet. If, in spite of that, the President will allow us to go back and add those words it ",ill be a different situation, but I am prepared to put fily new resolution separately for the purpose I ha':le.mentioned. If it is carried by the Council, as I 'believe it will be, we have got something exactly to the same effect as the original resolution. Therefore, I put it separately for tlJ.~ very purpose of facing the situation that resulted from the President's ruling that the question be put in this way. I should have prefen~d the various proposals to be considered as separate amendments, including the deletion of those words, but the President ruled, notwithstanding my intervention at the time, that that was not the way it should be done. Therefore, in answer to what Sir Alexander Cadogan said...I suggest we should carry a substantive or supplementary resolution tQ this effect, and I hope that course will not be objectedlo. Mr. JOH~SON (United States of America): I must confess that this situation, from a proble~ generale sont clairement et nettement definis dans la Charte; nous ne ferons r~ mieux ici et ne donnerons pas unc definition plus precise d~ droits de l'AssembIee. Pourquoi donc compliquer laqt.'estion? Sir Alexander CADOGAN (Royaurne-Uni) (traduit de l'anglais): Je voulais seulement de-- adopte~ " .Te me ttouve maintenat~t devant la situation suivante. Je croiscomprendre que le Comei1 de securite a adopte la resolution;c'est un fait accompli. Si, en depit de cela, i! nQns est permis de revenir enarriere pOUf ajouter ces termcs, la situation sera dift'erente. Ma.is je suis dispose a pr~enter manouvelle resolution separement,. aux £iris que j'ai dejaexposees. Si.le Consei!l'adopte -- et je crois qu'll le feri'=-' noUB obtiendrons un texte ayant exactement la memeporteeque la resolution originale. Je la presenteseparement, precisement afin de me conformei;~la decision du President, qui demandait que la question lOt presentee de cette maniere. l'aurais prefere que l'on considerit Ies diverses propositions» y compris la suppression det:es mots, comme de~amendements distincts, mais le President, Malgre mon· intervention, a decide que noUB ne devrions pas proceder ainsi. C'est pourq,uoi, en reponsea Sir Alexander Cadog~, je deman'de que nous adoptions une resolution suppIetnentaite dans ce sens, enesperant'que l'on ne s'y opposera pas. M. JOHNSON (Etats..Unis d·Am.erique) (traduit de l'anglais): J'avoue que la situation

Yes, we are taking it sentence by sentence. It is under review at pl'esent, paragraph. 'by paragraph. . Mr. JOHNSON' (United States of Ameri<:a): In that.nr.e th~ suggestion just made by Mr. Evatt, in my view;' ought to be incorporated in this resolution and then the revised resolution voted on as a whole. Because if the revision for securing the rights of the A~embly is v~ted as a separate resolution, and that is defeate'd, this resolution stands without it and that is contrary to what we want. Such a procedure is contrary to what I thought was being done. I was under the conviction that this resoiution would be voted on as a whole after it had been voted on in detail. Mr. EVATT (Australia): Is it clear that we ('an add my resolution to the original text? The PRESmEN'l~: Yes,ln accordance with rule 31, which reads, "Parts of a motion or of a draft resolution shall be voted on separately at the request of any representative, unless the original moVer objects/) It was done in accordance ·with this rule. As the representative of the United States has pointed out, the two points of difference are: First, the limit of 1 September, which is a point of procedure, and secondly, the inclusion of the reference to the Assembly which, in the opirdon of the USSR repr~entative~ is a question of substance, on which he says he is going to exercise the right of veto. Now Mr. Evatt presents a new resolution, a separate one, and it is under consideration for cfucussion. It reads: "That in the opinion of the Security Council the carrying of the resolution on the Spanish question dated 26 June, does not in any way prejudice the rights of the General Assembly under the Charter." Perhaps, in order to get on with the discussion, we should ask Mr. Gromyko if he considers this a matter of substance or not. We can then submit it to the vote and conclude this discussion we have been having for five hours. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I haw already said that I do not cOlliJider it necessary for any other resolution to be adopted by the Security Council. I also do nQtconsider it --'~~\Y to adopt an. amendtnent, on the lines of :M.~" \\~vatt's proposal, to tlje (text which has ~iure, et ensuite sur' le maintien des mots relatifs a l'Assemblee, que le representant de l'URSR tonsidere comme une question de fond, r~latiV'e.. ment alaquelle il exercera son droit de V',tto. Maintenant M. Evatt presente unenouvelle resolution distincte, dont void l,e texte: , 1~ "Le Conseil de securite estin;1e que l'adoption de la resolution sur la question espagnole en date du 26 juin ne porte aucunernent atteinte aux pouvoirs conferes a l'AssembIee generale par la Charte." Mais, avant de poursuivre la discu~,on, nous ferions peut-etre bien de demander a M·. Grornyko s'il considere q!J~ cette resolution a triir, S'tU fonti. Nous pourrons alors !a mettre aux voix et terminer cette' discussion qui a deja dure cinq heures. ;, M. GRQMYI{O (Union des Republlqur"s socia- L~$tes SQvietiques) (traduit du russe): rai deja , d1t qu'il n'etait pas necessaire, a mon avis, que le Conseil de securite adopte une autre resolution$ queUe qu'elle sait. Je ne per,se pas non plus qu'il faille amender, dans le.sens de la proposition de M. Evatt, le te);je qui a ete adopte par le Conseil. Notte tache consiste aremplir avec exactitude les fonctiof,ls cOJ!fie~ au Conseil de securiti). Je nesuis paset/jnne <le l'4"1Sistance avec laqhelle M. Evattetcertainsautres membres du Consell s'efforcen1<-d'incIure, dans la resolution, une clause concernant les droits et pouvoirs de l'Assemblee generale apropos d~ la question espagnole. Cette insistance ne me semble pas etre l'effet du has~d. L'intention est, pr-obablement, de fair/e plus tard usage decette cIa.use pOUf soumettre la question espagnole a I'exaro,en de l'AssembIee generale, meme au cas ou 1~ Conseil de securite n'en aurait paS decide amsi. En diet, s'ilen etaitautrement . et si l'on acceptait le principe q1,1e l'Assemblee, confotmement a ses droitfJ, ne peut examiner la, question que dans ~e cas ou le COl.~ei1 ilIa lui soumettait, la proposition sur laquelle'/'insilste M. Evatt n'aurait pas de sens. Il s'agit d'une disposition de la Charte. i!!.~. provision of the Charter. " I end on the note on which I began. I con- SIder that any attempts by the Sect~rity Council, in cOnnf'.xiOJll with the examination ot~e Spanish question, to give a more accurate definition of the functions and rights of the General Assembly are entirely vain. They cannot lead to any positive results. If Mr. Evatt and Sir Alexander Cadogan have any doubts as to whether the Security Council, in examining the Spanish questiOD$ will act in strict confonnity with the duties and functions assigned to the Courlcll by the Charter, then let us incorporate in the resolution a point to the effect that in connexion with the examination of the Spanish question the Security Council will act in accordance with the powers Je finirai la ou j'ai corruneIlce. J'estime que toute tentative d'inciter le Conseil de s~curlt6a .donner, al'occasion de,l'examen de la question espagnole, une definition phm .precise des fonc.. tions et des droits de l'Assembleegenerale, est absolumentinutile. ElIe ne peut aboutira aucun resultat positif. Si M.Evatt et Sir Alexander Cadogan craignent que le Conseil de securite, en exarrdnant la questionespagnole, ,Pourraitne pas ,se cqnformer rigoureusement aux prescriptions de la Charte, il suffira d'inclure pans la resolution un point precisant que le Conseil de securite, au cours de l'examen de la question es- , pagnole, agira en stricte conformite df-s droits et pouvoirs qui lui sonta.ccordes par 1a Charte. C'est, en effct, au point de vue du Conseil qiie nous devonsnous placer, nous quis6mmes les membres du Conseil de. securite. Mais, je le repete, iln'y a IIlernepas besoin d'une clause de ce genre, .puisque les fonctions du Conseil sont definies avec la plusgrantie' pre~9n dans la Charte des Nations Unies. ' \) ~.nd rights assigned to it by the Charter. Let us say that, as coming from the Security Council. We are, after all, members of the Security Council. But, I repeat, there is no necessity even for that point, because the functions of the Security Council are also defined with extreme clarity and conciseness in the Charter of the Organization. The PltESIDENT ~ I be'leve that it is useless to pursue this discussion any further. We all know perfectly well what the position is. I think it was very wise of Mr~Evatt to present his resolution separately, and I propose now to put the matter to the vote, well knowing in advance what its fate will. be. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Je crois qU'il est inutile de poursuivre la discussidn. Nous savans tous parfaiteIIlent bien ou nous en sommes. Je crois que M. Evatt a fait preuve de beaucoup de prudence en presentant sa resolution separement. Je me propose done de soumettre ce projet aux voix, bien que je connaisse deja le sort qui l'attend. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socia.. !istes sov-ietiques) (traduit du russe): Jedeclare avoir deja vote contre cette clause, qui .6gurait sous une forme quelque peu differente dans le texte de la resolution presentee par M. Evatt et Sir Alexander Cadogan. C'est pourquoi je vais Mr. GaOMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): l state that I have already voted once before againstthis statement formulated somewhat differently in the text of the resolution submitted by Mr• Evatt and Sir Alexandet Cadogan. Therefore, I shall !i1r. JOHNSON (United States of America): I regret that I am under the necessity of sr,ying anything more, or adding t~ this long disc,"JSSion, but in my opinion the remarks which have been made by the representative of the USSR in regard to the text which is now before us call for some commtmt. It is not a question 01 d~fiiili!e the duties and privileges and rights of the General Assembly. I know that they are described in the Charte.,. and that it is not the function of the Council to define them. My object is to prevent the Assembly from being blocked by action of this Council from considering a matter which it would otherwise have. the right to consider; my approval of the text of this resolution as it stands now was contingent, in the beginning, upon the understanding expressed by Mr. Evatt; that it was the sense of the Council and of the Sub-Committee, which put that resolution forward, that the Assembly would be free, or would be freed, if necessary, by action of the Council, in order to take this matter l1p. I do not care if we drop this Spanish proposal I! me serait egal de voir retirer l'affaire espafrom the agenda right now:! provided that the gnole de rordre du jour des maintenant, pourvu way is left open for the. General Assembly to que l'AssembIee generaIe reste entierem~nt libre ~ discuss it and make positive recommendatiorul de discuter la question et de ,pr.esenter des recom" 1 if it so desires. I do .not see why 3J.~yone should mandations concretes, si eUe le desire. Je ne coml~ be afraid of free discu~on on this subject in prends pas pourquoi quiconque devrait craindre •.. the General Assembly, which represents all the une discussion libre sur ce sujet, au sem de l'Asfifty-one United Nations. sembIee generale, qui repres\~nte les cinquante1 I et une Nations- Unies. Mr. EVATT (Australia): I entir<:iy agree 'With M. EVATT (Australie) (traduit de 1'l1nglais): I.'~.' Mr. ]ohnson, and that is why at one stage or: Je partage entierement l'opinion du representant another I have been ~nsisting on this all afternoon. der4 Etats-Unis, et c'est pourquoi je I'ai appuyee au (.~urs de tout cet apres~midi..11 .. Le hESIDE~~T (traduit de l'anglais): Je :mets I aux voix le prajet de resolution de M. Evatt.

The question is now put to the vote. A vote was t1aken by show of hands, as follows: In favour: Australia, Br&zil, China, Egypt, France, Mexico, Netherlands, tJnited Kingdom, United States of America. Against: Poland, Umon of Soviet Socialist Republics. The resolution was not adopted, having failed to obtain the affirmativd' vote of one jJermanent member of the Counci!. . The meeting rose at 9 p.m. tc~te qui nous est actuellementsoumis appellent, a!l),on sens, quelques observations. . 11.1'e s'agit pas a~ definir les fonctions, privileges et droits de l'AssembIee generale. Je sais qu'ils sont etablis dans la Charte et qu'il n'ap- ,partient pas au Conseil de les definir. Mon ·but est d'eviter que le Conseil ne prenne des decisions qui empecheraient I'AssembIee generale d'exa... 1 miner une question qu'elle aurait, sans cela, le 1 droit d~etudier; aussi, au debut~ ne voulais~je ~ ~ approuver le texte actuel de la resolution qu'a la i condition, comme: l'adit?vI. Evatt, que le Conseil i et le Sous··Comite qui l'a presente estiment que I l'AssembIee pourrait examiner cette question en I toute liberte ou que le ConseiI prendrait des : nlesures pour Iui perrnettre de le fau-e, si nece!" saire. 11 est procede au vote amain levee. Votent pour: Australie~ Bresil, Chine, Egypte, France, Mexique, Pays-Bas, Royaume-Uni, Etats~Unis d'Amerique. Votent contre: Pologne, Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques. It y a 9 voix pour et 2 contre. LJune des voix contre etant celle d'un membre permanent du Conseillaresolution n'est pas adoptee. La seance eSt levee. a21 heures. FRANCE Editions A. Pedone ,. '13, rue Soufi!ct p,a.m;s, Ve. GREECE-GRECE "EIefthel'Qudakist~ Librairie ,intemationale Place dc{la Cv~stitution. ATHENES , GUATEMALA, JoeC?'Goubaud Goubaud & Cia. Ltda. Sucesor 5a Av. Sur N~,_ 6y 9a C. P. GUA.TEMALA 14.:?~ rue du Persil BnuXELLEs BOLiVIA......BOUViE· Libreria Cientifica y Literaria Avenida16,de JOOo, 216 CasilIa972 LA PAZ CANADA 'The llye't'son Press 299 Queen Street West TmtClluQ HAITI Max Bouchereal1 Librairie "A la CaraveUe" Boite postale 111-B PORT-AU-PRINCE ~ttDL~IiILI EdmundoPizan'o _ Merceu 846 <'8 ':~j;~~TIAGO CHINA-CHINE The Commercial Press Ltd. 211 Honan li~~ad SH.A.NGHAI -COLOMBIA--COLOMBIE LibreriaLatinaLtda. Aps,rtado Aeroo 4011 BOGOTA ICELAND-ISLANDE BokaverzIun Sigfusar Eymund80nnar .AtlStU1'8ueti 18 REYKSAVO' INDIA-INDE Oxford Book & Stationery C()n~pany Scindia HOtllSe NEW DELHI IRAN Bongahe Piaderow 731 Shah Arenue TEHERAN IRAQ-IR/AK Mackenzie & Mackenzie The B()okshop BAGUJ)AD ~Q.ST~ ,~,~~-COS"A-RICA Tl'eJOB ~".;,;:,.nanos A 't' '",;~., '1j'i'll13 ' pIU ~"'"\: ,I,~ , SAN 1~i'J . CUBA· La CasaBelga Rene de Smedt . _, O'Reilly 455 c:LA lIAnANA CZECHOSLOVAKIA-- TCHECOSLOVAQUIE F. Topic Narodni Trida 9 PRAHA 1 DENMARK-DANEMARK Einar Munksgaard N$6rregade6 LEBANON-LIBAN Librairie universelle BEYROUTH llJXEMBOURG Librairie J. Schummer Place Guillaume LUXEMBOURG NETHERLANDS-PAYS-BAS N. V. Martinus Nijhoff Lange Voc~hout9 'g·GRAVENHl\GE K~B:£NHAVN DOMINI/CAN REPUBliC- REPUBL~QUE DOMINICAINE Libreria Domfuicana CalIe Mercedes No. 49 Apartstlo 656 CWDAD Tnu,J:I1.Lo ECUADOR--EQUATEUR Muiioz Henn~s y Cia. NEW ZEALAND-- NOUVELLE-ZELANDE Cordon &Gotch, Ltd. Waring TaIlor Street WELLINGTON United Nations Association of New Zealand . P. O. 1011, C.P.O. W:E:LLINGTON NICARAGUA Ramil'o Ramirez V.' Agencia de Publicaciones ~./Nueye de Oc(~~)re 703 'Casilla 10-24 )1\ GVAYAQUJL i), ~ EGYPT;;;...EGYPTS(! "Libxame "La Renaissance d'Eg,ypte" 9 Sh. Adly Pasha CAIRO _,~THIOPIA-.ETHIOPIE . Agence ethiopienne de publicilfa P. 0, Box 8. ADDXS·.!BOA MA~AG,(]A. D. N. 'NORWA'7=-NORVEGE Johan cndt Tanun1 Forlag Kr. Augustgt. 'TA OSLO Spotdzi~lna Wydawnicza '~Czyte1nik" 38 Poznanska WAItSZAWA. SWEDEN-SUEDE A.-B. C. E(Fritzes K~gL Hofbokhandel Fredsgatan 2 STOC!OloLM SWITZERLAND-SUISSE Librame Payot S. A. LAUSANNE, GENiv£, VEVBY, MONTRE~ NEUCHATEL, BERNE, BA5EJ. Hans Raunhardt Kirchgasse 17 ZURICH I SYRIA-SYRI! Librairie universeUe DAllAS TURKEY-TURQUIE Librairie Hachette 469 Istiklal Caddesi BE¥OGLU·IsTANBUL . UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA- UNIONSUD-AFRICAINE Central News Agency Commissioner & Riasik Sts. JOHANNEsBunC and at CAPETOWN and DmmAN UNITED KINGDOM- ROYAUME-UNI H. :M. Stationery Office P. O. Box 569 LO~DON, S.E. 1 and at H.M.S.O. Shops in LO~DON, EDINBt1RGU, MA~cHESTm~, CAltDWE, BELFAST, B~GI!AM ~\ and B~TOL -, '! UNITED STATES OF AMERICA- ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE International Documents Service Columbia University Pres$ 2960 Broadway NEW YORK 27, N. Y. URUGUAY . Oficmade Representaci6n de Editoriales Av. 18 de Julio 1333 Esc. 1 MONTEVm:E:O VENEZUELA Escritoria Perez Machado . Conde a Pifiango 11 CARACAS ' YUGOSLAVIA-YOUGOSLAViE Drzavno Preduzece Jl1gosIovenska Knjiga Moskovska'UI.36 B:E:oGBAD