S/PV.58 Security Council

We have three items on the agenda ~ (1) the adoption of the agenda; (2) a telegram from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic to the Secretary-General dated 24 August 1946; (3) a statement made by the representative of the Soviet Union at the fifty-seventh meeting of the Security Council. 1 want to remind the Council that at an earlier meeting, item 2 of the agenda was chal- !enged by the representative of the Netherlands. 1 have before me two letters, one from the permanent representative of Greece to the "1 beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 26 August 1946, and in reply 1 have the honour ta request Your Excellency upon directions of the Greek Government ta ! kindly inform the Chairman and the members of the Security Council that, in accordance with Article 31 of the Charter, Greece wishes to participate in the debate which will take place when the Security Council will consider the telegram of the Minister of Foreign Affairs .of the Ukrainian Soviet Soeialist Republic to the Secretary-General dated 24 August, 1946. (signed): Vassili DENDRAMIS, Ambassador, Permanent representative of Greece ta the United Nations." The ather letter also addressed to the Secretary- General and dated 29 August 1946, reads as follows: "1 have the honaur ta inform yau that on the instructions of the Government of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, 1 have arrived in New York today in order to give the Security Cauneil sorne additional information and necessary explanations on the matter of the situation in Greece brought before the Security Council by my Govern. ment. "1 request that you inform the Security Council that 1 will be ready to give these explanations on the matter raised by my Government at any time. 1 have the honour ta be (signed) : D. MANUILSKY, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic."

According to Article 31 of oUr Charter, "Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member ofthe Security Council mayparticipate, without vote, in the discussion of any question brought before the Security Cauncil whenever the latter considers that the interests of that Member are specially affected." We have before us the question whether the letter of the representative of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic shauld be put on our agenda. The reason which was given against putting it on the agenda was that the letter does not contain sufficient information. 1 therefore propose to the Cauneil to invite both the representative of Greece and the representative of the Ukraine to come to the table to give us during the discussion liminaire viter ment semble liser. d'écouter que savent ment gager de seil pour prendre soulevée tion verai l'attention d'entraîner collègues Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : That may be right, although 1 do not know what precedent we have to guide us. 1 should have thought that the discussion on which the Council ~ ~ow about to embark is a discussion of a prelmllnary question, and it is rather in the nature of what we in England would call "private business," wherein the Council is deciding itself whether to investigate the question. You may be right in suggesting that we should calI the representatives of both States directly concerned to the table. The oruy misgiving that l have in that regard is that it seems to me that the proceedings would rather merge and spread. Those of us who have had the experience of listening to speeches by one of the representatives whom it is being proposed to invite to the table know ~hat this representative presents lùs arguments ID a. very lengthy manner. 1 do not think that we should stumble straightway into a discussion of the substantive question, but if the other members of the Council feel that the Council was not qualified to decide on the question raised by Mr. van Kleffens when this question last came up, l would not wish to raise any opposition. 1 only wish to point out what may be the consequence of taking this step, and to ask that my colleagues in tlùs Council think about it. présentant tait pas m'en sion Charte

The representative of the United Kingdom asked whether we have any precedent. Ta my knowledge there is no precedent in this matter-at least, 1 do not remember any. The Charter speaks of discussion of any question. That means that the Charter gives us full freedom. russe): du landais ration curité curité, également contenues ment d'Ukraine logique, .clure du soviétique tionnels de Mr. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated from Russian): At the meeting of the Security Council two days· ago the representatives of the Netherlands and of the United Kingdom asserted that the Ukrainian statement as submitted to the Security Counci1 was unsubstantiated. At yesterday's meeting of the Security Council the representative of the United Kingdom also spoke as if the charges against Greece contained in the statement of the Government of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic were unsubstantiated. The logical conclusion from such pronouncements would seem to be that it is necessary to enquire whether the representative of the Government of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic is in possession of additional facts which would confirm the statement which he addressed to the Security Council. The President's proposai today that the Ukrainian representative should make further pronouncements in connexion with the Ukrainian statement meets with, for one reason or tendant fournir l'appui The representative of the United Kingdom has placed himself in a very difficult position. 1 sympathize with him in that connexion but he alone is responsible for it.

1 think that there is sorne misunderstanding. If 1 understood the representative of the United Kingdom rightly, he expressed sorne doubts as ta the wisdom of this procedure but did not object fundamentally to it. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United IGngdom): That is quite right. 1 expressed sorne doubt. 1 was not sure whether we had a precedent to guide us in this matter. 1 asked you if you couId enlighten me on that point and you very kindly said that you thought there was no precedent. My attention has been drawn, however, to something which is perhaps not an exact precedent but which may afford us some guidance. There is a case which arose during the hearing of the Iranian question. There was a proposal made by the representative of the Soviet Union that the discussion of that question should be postponed for a certain period until a specific date. In the course of the discussion that then arase, the representative of the Soviet Union said, and it can be found in Journal No. 20, page 395, as fol1ows; "1 have asked the Security Council to postpone the discussion of the question raised in the letter by the Iranian Ambassador until 10 April. 1 ask you, Mr. President, how can we possibly invite the representative of Iran to participate in a discussion on the proposal to postpone the discussion of this question?" 1 admit that is not an exact precedent but it does seem ta show in the view of Mr. Gromyko, when the Council was engaged in considering procedural aspects of a question of this kind, that the non-member of the Council directly interested should not attend for that purpose. 1 was only afraid we might be blundering over a previous precedent that had been set. Perhaps you would like me now ta restrict my remarks

l would prefer if you could postpone it. fère tard. l'anglais): vient la certaine ne bats la ment voir l'ordre qui qu'à logue à ment représentant Conseil, a verbal, des la . n'avait des présentées occasion, sement l'Iran parce une veux tout moi-même tant disent ment sentants lité, à Ml'. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands) : The representative of the United Kingdom has just recalled a p1).ase in the discussion of the Iranian question which afforded, he thought, some parallel, although it was not an equivalent. l recall very well that in the discussion here in New York of the Iranian question we, first of all, naturally, had to discuss the question as to whether tms problem was to go on the agenda or not, and l have a very vivid recollection of what happencd then, because l myself proposed that at that phase, the exact parallel phase we are in now with regard to the Ukrainian com- . plaint, the representative of Iran should be invited to the table, which was not done. Ml'. Gromyko said on that occasion-I quote from the record, page 395-that he recalled that in the course of the London discussion of the Iranian case, "the Iranian representative was not invited to participate in the discussions of the various procedural questions which arose in connexion with the subject." Ml'. Gromyko, then, strenuously opposed the hearing of the Iranian representativc at the procedural stage. l only want to recall that because it seems to me that there is a certain parallel here with the Iranian case, but l want to add that l for one wish to remain quite consistent. l suggested myself in that case that the representative of the party who then was en cause, as the French say, should be heard and l certainly will not l'aise any objection to an opportunity being given to the representatives of Greece and the Ukraine to come to the table at this stage. Ml'. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated trom Russian): l wish to point out that there is a contradiction in the statements of Ml'. van Kleffens and Sir Alexander Cadogan. l should like ta remind them that in discussing the matter of procedure in connexion with the consideration by the Security Councilof the Iranian statement, the representative of Iran was invited ta the meeting of the Security Council. Now, on the present occasion, the proposal regarding additional facts cornes from Ml'. van Kleffens and from Sir Alexander Cadogan. It is Ïncomprehensible how they can object to the proposal that a statement of additional facts be heard. russe): tion Kleffens sirerais de men sécurité, siéger présent, tionnels provient précisément et donc position Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): 1 do not wish ta oppose definitely the invitation to these representatives to come ta this table. It is for the Council, of course, ta decide. 1 only ventureto point out that to my mind there had been some doubt about it. The answer that 1 have given, perhaps, shows we have a precedent for it. 1 will quote again in support of what 1 said. If you remember, 1 said earlier that 1 was only afraid that by inviting them to come to the table we would inevitably become involved in a discussion of the question itself. 1 put that badly. Let me quote what Mr. Gromyko said on the occassion of the Iranian question, which was much better: "Furthermore, to invite the representative of Iran to participate in the deliberations of the Security Council at this stage when my proposaI is considered, would constitute the beginning of consideration of the substance of the question."

We have heard the opinions of sorne of the representatives, and 1 do not think that it is very u~eful to prolong the discussion since basic opinions are known to us, and 1 shaH therefore put to a vote my proposaI that the representatives of Greece and of the Ukraine be invited to the table. 1 shaH ask those representatives who favour tbis proposaI of the President to raise their hands.

May 1 interrupt the representative of the Soviet Union for one moment. 1 just want to inform the members of the Council that l have noticed that Dr. Hsia, the Chinese representative, has Idt at 5.30 and his place after 5.30 is taken by Dr. Hsu. Mr. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated from Russian): The abnormal situation wlùch has arisen in the relations between Greece and Albania and the provocative behaviour of the Greek authorities towards Albania, including the provocation of frontier incidents, cannot but influence other regions, as weIl as poison the generaI international political atmosphere. It is particularly essential to consider this at the present time when the Allied Governments are trying, while liquidating the consequences of the second world war, to erect the structure of lasting peace. The state of affairs which has arisen on the Greek-Albanian frontier and in the relations between Greece and Albania generally is capable, unless appropriate measures are taken, of provoking serious complications not only of a local character. Greece and Albania are not in a glass house. The consequences of a dangerous situation created in connexion with such relations between these two countries may seriously affect other countries, particularly the Balkan countries. In examining the Ukrainian statemcnt the Security Council should not take its stand on the consideration of whether the interests of this or that Government represented on the Securlty Council are affected by the case, but on the interests of the maintenance of peace and security. Those are the criteria by which it is necessary to be guided in deciding what attitude is to be adopted towards the statement of the Government of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Ta rny regret, 1 have to note that sorne members 1 consider that it is not necessary ta proceed thus or ta be guided by this consideration. 1 repeat that in this also, the question of the presence of British forces in Greece, we should be guided only by the necessity for maintaining peace and security, improving the position in the Balkans, the promotion of good-neighbourly relations between Governments and the deve1opment of friendly relations between the nations. 1 wish to reply to Mr. Parodi in connexion with his statement that it would be logical first to decide the question of whether the Ukrainian statement should be placed on the agenda or not, and then to invite the Ukrainian representative to take part in the discussion. What has occurred at today's meeting of the Security Council precisely emphasizes the necessity and justification of the proposaI to invite the Ukrainian representative ta participate in the discussion. 1 hope Ml'. Parodi has heard the statement that ta sorne members of the Security Council the Ukrainian statement seems insufficient1y convincing. They are speaking of the form of the statement. It is said not ta be in the propel' form. On considering the remarks made by sorne members of the Council, however, the conclusion is inevitably reached that the talk about form in this case is mere juggling with words. Actually, of course, the question is not one of the farm of the statement but of its substance and of the relation of certain States to it. The statement The statement made by the British representative is very similar ta the statement made by the Netherlands representative in the Council when the question of the withdrawal of British troops from Greece was being discussed. 1 consider it necessary ta note this fact also simply because 1 want to be frank and ta point out the real motives for which the Ukrainian statement is not considered convincing. The representative of Australia .'laid he did not like the Ukrainian statement from the point of view of its language. It is not quite clear ta me what he really had in mind. Apparently he meant that the language of the Ukrainian statement was inordinately sharp. That reminds me of the discussion during the first part of the first session of the General Assembly in London of a question reIating ta trusteeship of territories. The question was whether the local population of trustee territories should have the right to put forward complaints ta the Trusteeship Council about the State which was the administering authority, and in what form such complaints should be submitted ta the Trusteeship Council. The representatives of some Governments, for understandable reasons, were very sensitive to all questions which in any way affected the dependent and non-self-governing countries and territaries. They argued that petitions and cornplaints from the local population must be drafted in proper and polite language. This was introduced as one of the conditions necessary for such petitions ta be considered as suitable, receivable and legal. Of course the General Assembly was not in agreement with such arguments and that proposaI was not accepted. 1 recall this fact by way of analogy, and only by way of analogy. Onlyone conclusion is ta be drawn from th.e Australian representative's remarles, and that 18 that, in a statement containing a charge against a particular State, the Govemment making the statement must not use inordinately rude language, but must use soft language and couch its accusations in fine phrases. However, 1 do not know why and since when the charges ma?e by one country against another must necessaril'y be expressed in language possessing all the qua~­ ties of French politeness. 1 have employed tbis expression "French politeness" in a direct se~se, without any kind of arrière-pensée. 1 should hke ta emphasize that questions of the form, language and style of the Ukraini~ statem~t are of course entirely secondary questlons and lrrelevant to the case. They are artificially exaggerated ~ere. T?e argument of the Australian representatlVe carnes no weight and can convince no one. tendu, au térieure déclaré 'que en Uni. cela. désirerais verbal Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): 1 may have misheard, but 1 thought 1 heard the English translator, in an earlier passage before this last one, interpret Ml'. Gromyko as having said that 1 had said the presence of United Kingdom troops in Greece was a matter for the United Kingdom only. 1 asked Ml'. Gromyko whether he had said that. 1 think the interpreter must have got it wrong. 1 should like to have it corrected so that it will not stand on the record, because it certainly is incorrect. Mr. GROMYKO (Soviet Union): Certainly 1 did not say those words. pose représentants l'Union

1 suggest that the record be given later, both to the representative of Great Britain and the Soviet Union, for inspection. Mr. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated from Russian) : The representative of the United Kingdom speaking at today's meeting expressed the idea that the fact that the Ukrainian statement has been submitted to the Security Council would appear to show that somebody is trying to use the Security Council as it should not he used. 1 state categorically that such an assertion by the British representative is completely un. founded. On what basis does he arrive at such a conclusion? The British representative does not even want to discuss the question raised in the Ukrainian statement. He avoids such examination. How is it possible to arrive at such a conclusion and make the assertion that the presentation of such a statement in the Security Council is an attempt to use the Council in a manner in which it should not be used? russe): tant l'envoi Conseil sonnes qu'il gorique britannique quelles déduction? même la cette cette fait au pour vient? République pas tout kans en raison de l'attitude du Gouvernement grec actuel Des pays, Grèce. Bretagne. vent anormale a Grèce Gouvernement se la et sécurité, du patriote dernier, rapport taires Grèce. 1 must say that it is not only the Government ?f the 1!krainian .Soviet Socialist Republic which lB drawmg attentlOn to a totally abnormal situation existing in the Balkans in connexion with the conduct and policy of the present Greek Government in relation to Albania. Similar voices are raised in other countries, both large and small. Such voices are heard in Greece. Such voices are heard even in Great Britain. Voices are being raised more and more fre. quently to the effect that the situation which has occurred in Greece is abnormal and fraqght with grave consequences. There is a distinct connexion between the political situation in Greece and the foreign policy of the present Greek Govern. ment. Therefore, the facts relating to the political situation inside Greece aIso present gieat interest and deserve the attention of the Security Council in connexion with the external policy of the present Greek Government. 1 want to draw attention to the statement made in May of this year by a compatriot of Sir Alexander Cadogan. The Reuter agency gave to the press on 16 Maya report by Ml'. SoUey, one of three Labour Members of Parliament who had then returned from Greece. The report said: MT. Solley stated in Paris on 17 June: "Vnder cover of democracy, Greece is rapidly becoming a completely fascist country. The last thing the Greek people would want is civil war. If the tendency of present policy is not changed, the democrats will be obliged to· defend themselves. Such is the opinion of a member of the Greek Government, the ex· tremely moderate Mr. Sophoulis, the Greek Prime Minister at the time. Greek civil war will be unavoidable if the return of the King is proclaimed as a result of the plebiscite." The Soviet envoy in Athens received on 3 May 1946, a letter signed by the leaders of a number of Greek democratic parties and organizations, of the Union of left-wing democrats, in particular representatives of the Union of left-liberals, by representatives of the Central Committee of the political coalition of the EAM party, of the Communist Party, of the Peasant Party, of the Radical Democratie Union, the Socialist Party and the Democratie Union. This letter makes the following statement: "The main characteristic feature of tms new wave of terror is the fact that the organs of the authorities play a leading part in the raids and murders. That fact is understood since the incitement cornes from above. This wild terror is explained away by the Minister of Public Order as being due ta post-election intoxication, but the Prime Minister describes it as natura!. In the face of Buch an intolerable position there remains to the murdered and beaten people no other means of protecting their lives than that of self-defence. And at a time when the warnings of the persecuted citi. zens should have directed the Government towards decisions and measures which should put an end to the criminal activities of its organs, it took a directly opposite course At the end of the letter the signatory representatives of the democratic party organizations declared: "We, the undersigned, representatives of the democratic left-wing parties, taking into consideration the ever-worsening situation in the country, desire opportune and effective cooperation on the part of the big Allies for the establishment, finally, of a democratic order in tbis country which has suffered so much. We are unable to conceive that the Greek people, after such sacrifices, imposed on them in the common fight for democracy and liberty, should continue to be imprisoned by traitors and criminals." 1 have read out the statement, not of the Soviet representative, but of the representatives of other countries, of Great Britain and the Greek democratic parties, in which the situation in Greece is characterized. l have touched on this question because there exists, as l have already pointed out, a direct and immediate con~ nexion between that state of affairs in Greece and the policy of the present Greek Government. It may be said that the state of affairs in Greece is an internaI Greek affair. But there is hardly any necessity to put forward long arguments to the effect that the internaI situation is internaI only in so far as it does not cause international complications and does not give rise to threats to the maintenance of peace and security. As soon as an internaI state of affairs causes a serious external complication and gives rise to a threat to peace, the Charter of the United Nations obliges the Security Council to consider the situation even if it arises out of the internal position. In the present case precisely such a situation occurs. The pro-fascist terrorist "X" groups are exercising an eriormous influence on the situation in Greece as a whole. In this connexion it may be mentioned that the former Prime Minister of Greece, Sophoulis, himself confinncd the fact of the enormous influence of fascist "X" clements on the political situation in Greece. Considering the circumstance and the fact that there exists a direct connexion between the foreign policy of the present Greek Government and its aggressive policy towards neighbouring Governments and the situation in Greece itself, arguments to the effect that the Security Council cannot take any interest in or concern itself with the situation in Greece, are unconvincing reasons, and are incorrect in substance. 1 could adduce many facts confirming the mghly negative influence exercised on the entire political situation in Greece and on the foreign palicy of the present Government by the presence of British forces in Greece. On a former occasion, the «;lelegate of the Soviet Union in the Security

Two more representatives have asked for recognition, the representative of the United States and the representative of Mexico. The Secretary-General draws my attention ta the fact that we were very rough on the translators and on the staff of the Secretariat yesterday by keeping them so many hours without interruption, and l think he is right. l would like to avoid similar action on our part today. l wonder whether it would not be desirable to adjourn at this point, either for one hour, to have a later meeting or to have the next meeting after the weekend. l think that primary consideration in tbis matter should be given ta the opinions of those two delegates who have asked for recognition. On my part l have no objection ta meeting tbis evening. The Secretary-General tells me that dinner is prepared for the delegates and 1 would like, therefore, to propose an adjournment for one hour. Mr. JOHNSON (United States): What 1 have to say wbuld take only a very few moments and l think l will say it now.

l think l have the right to speak on behalf of the staff. 1 know there are two speakers more and then discussion. Can we not be praetical human beings now and take three-quarters of an hour as rest? Then Mr. Johnson will be the first speaker after eight o'dock. Mr. JOHNSON (United States): 1 move we adjoum at once until three o'clock Tuesday afternoon. The PRESIDENT: Would tbis be agreeable to the representative of Mexico? WeIl, in that case, since there seems tp beno objection, l shall adjoum the meeting until three o'clockon Tuesday. The meeting is closed. The meeting rose at 7.10 p.m.