S/PV.59 Security Council

A number of members of t~e Council have asked for recognition. The first IS the representative of the United States. Ml'. JOHNSON (United St~tes of ~merica): In the discussion in the Council on Fnday o~ ~he particular point at issue: whether the UkraIman complaint in its present form should be pu~ before the Council or not, there was much ~I,:er­ gence as to the. real substance of the UkramIan complaint. l shall not attempt to make an!, ~x­ tensive comment on the Umted States opmIOn concerning the validity and thepurpose of that complaint. . The position of ml'. G~vernmen~ has, conslStently, since the orgamzatlOn of tbis body, been that the Council cannot deny to a Member of the United Nadons who states that a condition exists which is likely to threaten international peace and My Government thinks, without prejudice ta the merits of the complaint or even ta the good faith behind the complaint, that the Council should place a minimum of technical requirements in the way of consideration of situations brought to its attention. 1 therefore think that the Ukrainian complaint should be put on the agenda of the Council. Once the Ukrainian complaint is on the agenda and the representative of the Ukraine has been heard in support of his charges, and the representative of Greece has been heard in reply, it then is the duty of thé Council ta examine the sufIiciency of the charge. In my opinion, the Council will be derelict in its dutYif it does not examine the complaint and aIl that may be said and brought to substantiate the complaint, with the most rigid objeetivity. If, after a conscientious and objective examination, the Council should find that the charges are not substantiated, or that they are motivated by considerations extraneous ta the issue, through ignorance or malice, they should be summarily dismissed without regard ta the feelings or the pride of the eomplainant or any supporter of the complainant. 1 hope that if this case is put on the agenda of the Council, it will be examined in that spirit. 1 would like to take one moment' ta express my approval of a statement which was made in this . Council a few days aga by one of my colleagues, to the effcet that the Security"Council does not represent individually only the States which have representatives on the Council, but represents aIl fifty-one United Nations. It is their agent for carrying out the purposes of the Charter, and sueh directions as the United Nations may give it under the Charter. We, therefore, have no right to use this Council, or to allow it ta be used for furthering any sort of propaganda of a national nature, or ta bring into an issue before the Council any clements whieh do not properly belong there. Mr. PADILLA NERVO (Mexico): 1 requested the right to speak on this question on Friday, because 1 thought that in discussion of point 2 of the agenda a general principle was involved, which is of the greatest interest to the forty-six States Members of the United Nations which are not permanent members of the Security Council. During the discussions in San Francisco when Article 35 was framed, aIl the nations placed very great importance on the fact that any complaint . 1 am very much concerned with that general principle, and without going into the merits of the particular application to be presented to the Council by the Ukrainian representative, 1 want ~o state that Mexico attaches great importance to 1t. We have been consistent about not making the right of a nation dependent upon a question of procedure. 1 do not think that the Security Coun· cil has the right or even the power to decide whether or not ta admit to this table aState that has presented for the consideration of the Council a situation governed by Article 35, with the requisites of Article 34, simply because that complaint does not fi1l certain requirements of form or even hecause the charges made have not been substantiated. 1 think that the Council is free and that it is within its power, once it has heard the complainant State, to dismiss the case, but it has no right ta defer the consideration of that question by invoking requisites of form. 1 think that the President of the Security Council, even according to his own rules of procedure, is obliged to caU a meeting of the Security Council when any dispute or situation is brought to his attention under Article 35, and 1 do not think it would be logical that the Security Council should meet for the very purpose of considering that situation, and not accept the agend~ including that particular case. . 1 would even go further, and say that the question of adopting the provisional agenda in such cases is just a matter of form. In one of the rules of the Security Council, it states that the first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. 1 think that the question of whether or not the Council considers that there has been a case estahlished will come after the Council has heard the complainant State. For that reason, 1 am of the opinion that the representatives of the Ukrainian Government and of the Greek Government should be called before this Counci!.

Four representatives have asked for recognition: the representatives of the Soviet Union, of France, of the Netherlands and of the United,Kingdom. Before 1 ask them to speak, 1 want to remind the Council that the question we are discussing now is a question of procedure; namely, that of admission to the ~genda of the telegram of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Ml'. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated trom Russian): We have heard the statements of the representative of the United Kingdom and the representative of the Netherlands ta the effect that in their opinion the statement of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic is unsubstantiated. Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): A point of order which rnight relieve us of the necessity of listening to the translation. My knowledge of Russian does not exist at all, and 1 have not a perfect knowledge of French, but 1 have followed very carefully the statement made by Ml'. Gromyko and 1 raise the point of order whether it has any rdevance to the item we are now discussing.

Does it mean that the representative of Australia wants the President's opinion on the subject? Ml'. HASLUCK (Australia): 1 do not want to embarrass you. Perhaps 1 could put it this way: we are discussing one particular point; namely, admission ta the agenda of an item which has been placed before us. 1 would seek your ruling as to what are the precise points which are in order in discussing that item, so that in the light of your ruling on that subject perhaps our colleague from the Soviet Union, if he cannot limit now what he has already said, may fix the limits of future speeches.

The problem before us is this. We have a telegram from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republie to the Secretary-General. As President, 1 have proposed that the agenda including this telegram be adopted. The representative of the Netherlands has challenged thisproposal and his challenge was supported by the representative of the United Kingdom, the argument being that the telegram of the Ukrainian Foreign Minister does not contain sufficient substantiation of facts. Now the problem before us is this. In deciding whether to put on the agenda the question mentioned in tms telegram, are we bound to base our decision only on the facts? 1 have counted them; there are seven in number mentioned in this telegram. Shall we act deliberately in ignorance of an other facts on the same subject which other representatives may wish to bring to our attention, or shall we make the decision whether to admit this on the agenda, on the basis of a full knowledge of preliminary facts? Representatives on this Council are free to support the telegram as to its substantiation, a fa~t <l;bout which great doubts were expressed, by brmgmg to the attention of the Council additional f~cts. My opinion of the subject is thatany deci- SlOn we make, even a decision to admit a subject to the agenda, has to be made on the fullest knowledge of the facts. Consequently, ta repeat once more, myopinion is that up ta now the representative of the Soviet Union acted within his rights ta present facts relevant ta our decision, but l would draw his attention to the fact that we are only discussing the question of adopting point 2 of the agenda; we are not entering into the merits of the case. Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): l would like your indulgence ta ask one question arising out of your interpretation which, of course, l have no intention of chaHenging and accept quite readily. The question is, assuming that at the end of tms discussion, the item isadmitted to the agenda, would that mean that the matter before the Council would include aH these additional items which were raised in the discussion and not .merely the items which are mentioned in the telegram from the Ukrainian representative?

According to my interpretation and assuming that the agenda isadopted, our discussion should be based on the matters in the telegram of the Foreign Minister of the Ukrainian Republic. However, it is quite dear that during the discussion, any matters which are connected with it, and this telegram cavers very broad ground, and any additional facts not mentioned in this telegram but generally connected with the subject, of course, can be discussed. That is my interpretation. We will continue the translation. Mr. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated from Russian): Other members of the Security Council have not yet expressed their views and The question brought before the Security Council by the Government of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic is an exceptionally serious one. This is the second time, since the creation of the Security Council, that the situa- tion in Greece has becom~ the subject of discus- sion here. This is no accident. It is cxplained by the fact that the existing situation in Greece is creating uneasiness and alarm in the minds of aIl who are striving to reinforce the peace and security of the peoples. At the present time this situation is fraught with serious consequences and constitutes a martifest threat to the mainte· nance of peace in the Balkans. Precisely for this reason the Gavernment of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic has ad· dressed to the Security Council a statement re- garding the necessity of examining the question of the situation in Greece and the danger con- cealed in the situation existing in that country. In taking this step, the Ukrainian Soviet Social· ist Republic was guided by its eonsciousness of the responsibility which rests upon the Security Couneil for the maintenance of the peace and security of peoples. The peace-Ioving peoples and all real champions of peace will undoubt- edly understand and appreciate the motives of the Ukrainian Government particularly when taking into account the eircumstance that the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic borders upon the Balkan countries, and that for this reason it cannot help manifesting a deep interest in the situation in the Balkans and in the alarm· ing symptoms which are present and which may seriously jeopardize the efforts of the United Nations to construct a durable peace. The Government of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic draws the attention of the Security Council to the aggressive intentions of the ruling circles of Greeee in regard to Albania, and as a result of which the relations between these two countries have become exceedingly strained and are fraught with dangerous pos- sibilities. What in fact is happening in the south of the Balkan peninsula? Extremely dangerous in- cidents are taking place there, in the form of systematic and repeated attacks on Albanian territory by Greek armed detachments. The unprovoked attacks by Greek armed detach- ments on the southern districts of Albania have already caused Albania considerable losses in lives and property. According to official state- ments of the Albanian Government, these pro- l wish that the representative of the United Kingdom and the representative of the Nether- lands would give particularly serious attention to these facts. The irresponsible actions of the Greek authori- ties constitute a dangerous provocation which ~reatens serious consequences in regard to the maintenance of peace in this part of Europe, if the existing situation is not brought to an end. A passive onlooker's attitude on the part of the United Nations can only complicate the situa- tion. In the presence of such an attitude toward these events the Balkan peninsula may become again a breeding ground not only of serious political complications but also the breeding ground of a new war, the prevention of which was the reason for the setting up of the United Nations Organization and the Security Council as an organ called upon to guarantee the maint- enance of peace. The occurrence of frontier incidents between Albania and Greece is confinned not only by the Government of Albania but also by the Govem- ment of Greece. The latter, however, tries to put the blame on Albania and to justify its own ac- tions. However, the ruling circles of Greece will hardly succeed in leading world public opinion astray regarding the cause of the events on the Greco-Albanian frontier. nais Gouvernement tence. responsabilité propres milieux dirigeants de la Grèce puissent induire erreur table albanaise. ls it possible, in view of aIl these circum- stances, to watch unconcernedly the activities of the ruling circles in Greece, the activities of the present Greek Government? Is it possible to be unconcerned about the poliey of the Greek ruling circles in regard to Albania, a policy which may be characterized only as a policy of aggression aiming at the detachment of part of the territory of Albania for the benefit of Greece and actually for the dismemberment of Albania? 1 ask: does this question deserve consideration in the Secu- rity Council or does it not? The more '1 heal' objections on the part of the representative of the United Kingdom and the representative of the Netherlands, and just now of the representative of Australia, against the Ukrainian statement and the facts substantiating it, the more 1 am convinced that the question raised in the Ukrainian statement is a really im- peut-on dirigeants actuel? à qualifier d'une membrement ce discuté Pays-Bas, sentant demande l'étayent, ma l'Ukraine p~rtant and serious one.... Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : May 1 say that is why 1 have asked you to allow me to say a few words later on, if you will. l, tao, have been misinterpreted. Mr. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated trom Russian): We are dealing with various aspects of a policy of aggression and usurpation. The heart and soul of this policy are the pro- fascist monarchist circles of Greece who have set up a ruthless terror within the country and are trying to crush the democratic organizations and a1l the democratic forces of the country. The main efforts of these elements, in particular of the pro-fascist "X" bands are directed towards combating those democratic forces of Greece which bore on their shoulders the weight of the struggle against the German invaders, proved their mettle in this struggle and are now reso- lutely and stubbornly defending the interests of Greek democracy which coincide with the inter- ests of the overwhelming majority of the Greek people. The present Greek Government, relying on the anti-democratic clements in that country, has set up a regime of ruthless terror. Ali the demo- cratic parties ,and organizations are being sub- jected ta ferocious persecution and' ferocious repression. Between 1 April and 23 August of this year, according to the official data, forty-one persans 'W;ere sentenced by military courts to be shot. Of these thirty-seven have already been shot. The rightist bands killed 683 persons, wounded 578, carried off 11a and tortured 1,664. The number of members of the demo- cratic parties and organizations killed by the police and the army as theresult of punitive expeditions is beyond count and in the general estimation amounts to tens of thousands of per- sans and more. ln my statement to the Security Council on 30 August, 1 mentioned a letter addressed on 3 May 1946 to the Soviet Ambassador in Athens and signed by the leaders of a number of demo- cratic parties and organizations. This letter gives a description of the character of the terroristic regime set up in Greece. The letter says, in par- ticular, the following: "The regime which has been set up in Greece and has gradually become a one-party regime, sinee December 1944 has subjected the democratic forces of the country and par- ticularly the champions of theliberation movement to constant persecution as never before. The monarchist-fascist and criminal elements have taken over the commanding positions in the army, the gendarmerie and the police and in the State apparatus in gen- etaI, and in collaboration with a motley array of armed monarchist bands and organizations, The letter also gives examples showing that unbridled terror reigns in Greece and that the fascist elements are lording it with absolute impunity. The length to which the domination of the fascist terrorist groups and organizations Grecce has gone, the length to which the Greek Government has gone in its poliey of crushing aIl the democratic parties and organizations and their activities, is evidenced in particulaI' by the fact that in Greece the activities of the trade unions have been suppressed by methods of ter- rorism and persecution. The whole world bows in admiration before the efforts made by the trade union workers, the workers of the allied States and all the United Nations in the struggle against fascist Germany and its Allies. But Greece, which owes her liberation ta the efforts of the peoples of the allied States, the elementary rights of the trade unions are trampled under- foot. Many of the leaders of the trade unions in Greece are languishing in prison. Three prominent representatives of the British Labour Party and Members of Parliament, Dodds, Tiffany and Sollet, who visited Greece at the beginning of 1946, point out in their re- port on their visit to Greece that in the place the imprisoned trade union leaders the Greek Government had appointed the leaders of the Metaxas trade unions, that is to say, the repre- sentatives of the anti-democratic, pro-fascist groups. According ta the Associated Press of 29 July 1946 the Greek-American Council, in a message addr~sed ta President Truman and Secretary State Bymes, raises the question of the necessity of protcsting against the continuati?n of the ~as­ cist terror in Greece and the necessIty of helpmg to rcstore the freedom of the Greek people and bring about the destruction of faseism in Greec.e in aceordance with the declaration of the Cn~ mean Conference. Pointing out that the latest information in Greece testified ta the presence fascist terror there, the Greek-American Council declarcs that the failure of the United States condemn these fascist excesses is a betrayal of the Greek people and a violation of the declaration of the Crimean Conference. On the other hand, collaborator~ wh~ corn- promised themselves by their conneXlOn wIth the enemy are playing an ever grea~er l'ole ~?der the existing regime in Greece. 1s lt. surpnsmg that these conditions of internaI terronsm and lawless- ness on the part of fascist bar:d~ ?re~te a favour- able sail for provocative actIvItles III regard neighbouring States? The present Greek Go,,:c;r~~ ment has not only failed to check the X groups, but a? the c?ntra:y: ~ actually encourag- mg and inspinng thelr actIvItles. . The Security Council cannot lo?k. on wIth u~­ concern at the rampage of terro~1StIC I?ro-fascISt groups in Greece, because there 18 a drrect con- In April, a number of democratic parties sent a telegram to the allied Governments, pointing According to the Associated Press of 25 June 1946, the Greek-American Council stated: "The continued occupation of Greece by British troops is augmenting the disorder and upholding the forces of reaction. If the attacks in Greece are not stopped, civil war is inevitable and may start a conflagration in the Balkans, which will en- danger international peace and security." The British Members of Parliament, to whom I previously referred, stated in their report: "The presence of British troops in Greece is regarded as an intolerable interference in the internaI affairs of the country. Apart from the monarchists, aU the politieal leaders from Sophoulis ta the Com- munists demand the immediate withdrawal of the British ~roops because their presence is upholding the fasClsts and the terrorists. Ifthey go, the situa- tion will, of course, improve." The American newspaper PM wrote on 27 August: "Britain's policy in the Balkans and the Near East is not only resulting in bloodshed, but discrediting democracy. Greece is a classic ex- ample of British post-war policy. During the Ger- man occupation the Greeks organized a great resistance movement. But tbis movement scared the royalists and right-wing elements, and after an outbreak of civil war, the British marched in with tanks, artillery, rocket-firing guns, bombers and armoured divisions, smashed the EAM, and helped to set up a fascist-royalist dictatorship ... But in Greece, Britain's bloody crushing of the EAM resulted in no arder. In the north there is guerrilla fighting and in the mountains anti- gov- ernment troops are in control." A meeting held on 1 May 1946 in Athens, in which many thousands of persons taok part, sent a protest ta the democratic peoples of the whole world and to the Governments of Great Britain, the USSR, the United States of America and France against the infringements of national independence and the interference and presence in Greece of foreign troops, and against the foist- ing of an anti·democratie and terroristic regime upon the Greek people. In these conditions a plebiscite was arranged ta be held in Greece, a plebiscite which was ta decide the question of the form of government in Greece. Naturally, in such circumstances the possibility There can be no doubt that General Plastiras expressed the opinion of all honest democrats who are fighting against the violence of the fascist clements in Greece. The former Minister of Foreign Affairs inthe Sophoulis cabinet, the head of the Union of Left Republicans, Ml'. Sophianopoulos, stated to a correspondent of the previously mentioned news- paper Katimerini Nea: "A plebiscite carried out in present circumstances willlead to a catas- trophe, the responsibility for which lies upon those foreigners who are pushing Greece into these violent solutions of the Greek problem." 1 could go on quoting the statements of the democratic leaders in Greece and other coun- tries concerning the situation in Greece and the circumstances in which the plebiscite was organi- zed. However, this is hardly necessary. The Greek democrats as weil as democratic party organizations throughout the world are alarmed at the fate of Greece, which finds herself under the control of anti-democratic forces, thanks to foreign intervention. What is happening in. Greece is a flagrant intervention by foreign troops in the internaI affairs of another State. In these circumstances the Greek people are deprived of the possibility of freely deciding the form of government which they prefer ta have,because the conditions which have been brought about in Greece preclude the possibility of the Greek people giving free ex- pression to their will. The ruling monarchist circles in Greece, which came to power with the help and support of the British troops, justify the presence of British troops in Greece, in particular by the necessity of ensuring the proper conduct of the plebiscite that was to take place there.. But since when hasthe necessity arisen for foreign troops in a country which is a Member of the United Na- tions to give "heIp" to the people of that country in deciding the question of the form of govern- ment they prefer to choose? If this is not inter- ference in the internaI affairs of Greece, one cannot heIp asking the question, what then can be called interference? When the question is submitted of the with- drawal of foreign troops from Syria and the Lebanon, there are people who calI this demand propaganda too and the situation in these coun- tries is said ta be a normal one. If the situation which existed and which perhaps still exists in Syria and the Lebanon is a normal one, then one fails to know what to call the gross and unscrupulous violation of the sovereignty of these States, into whose territory foreign troops were introduced in spite of the demands of these . States, sa that it required consideration of the' complaint of Syria and the Lebanon by the Security Council in arder to change the situa- tion to sorne extent. This accusation of "propaganda," which may frequently be heard also in the meetings of the Security Council in connection with the state- ment referred to, is an old worn-out trick which has often been used in order ta divert attention from the real situation in one country or another. tivement de à conséquent la seil circonstances albanaise, ukrainienne semble ment de que des le portée sur des le tions tions cadre de adopté, sons, soumis Kleffens être que, qui trouve dans pas rieuse politique générale, établi. tion. avis, un Le un d'une une d'examiner apporter. question Ml'. van Kleffens is influenced by a consider- ation which l, for my part, understand very weH, name1y, the desire to prevent the Councîl from being drawn, without possibility of verifying the evidence, into the discussion of questions pre- sented without sufficiently serious grounds, or constituting general political manœuvres with no proper foundation. I repeat, I understand his concern. I should like to sayat once that in my opinion there are· other ways of answering it than by refusing to place a queston on the agenda. For instance, the Council might place it upon the agenda, and examine it very cursorily; or it might ap- point a committee or commission to make a rapid examination of the available evidence. In my view, ta adopt the method of declining to place a question on the agenda involves Furthermore, on what grounds can it be de- cided that a complaint is without proper founda- tion? Does it mean that the Council would judge on the basis of its a priori knowledge of the gen- eral political situation? This is possible. It would seem to me, however, somewhat dangerous for the Council to be guided soldy by evidence of this kind, for how is it to assess such evidence? If it does not examine the question thoroughly, it is to be feared that it willbe influenced by general political considerations rather than con- siderations of justice applicable to the particular case put before it. If it is objected that the claim is not properly presented, then judgment is being made purely on a basis of form, which is far from satisfactory. Lastly, if it is alleged that not a shred of evi- dence has been submitted, 1 would point out that the time for bringing forward evidence is not when a complaint is first formulated, but during its discussion. For these various reasons, 1 consider that the solution of refusing to place a question upon the agenda, and 1 am speaking now in very gen- eral terms and not with special reference to the case before us today, would be a most unsatis- factory one. Moreover it involves a consequence which is clearly apparent at the stage we have reached in the present discussion; that is, it inevitably leads to discussing the substance of the question in order to decide whether or not it should be placed on the agenda. In this connection 1 must say that 1 do not think we can consider it wrong that the detailed observations presented to the Council should have been put forward; for, once the validity of the complaint is under discussion, even if this is only to decide whether the complaint is re- ceivable, one cannot but allow this validity to be established. This leads, however, to the very unsatisfactory situation in which we now find ourselves, name1y, that for two meetings we have been discussing the substance of the complaint presented by the Ukrainian Republic without having decided whether it should be placed upon our agenda. That is a rather regrettable state of affairs. At the present juncture, the strongest reason .for not agreeing to place the Ukrainian com- plaint on the agenda, is, perhaps, that we may ask ourselves what will remain to be said when it is placed there. Actually, apart of course from the decision whieh we shall have to take, what will remain will be for us to hear the Ukrainian and Greek representatives. 1 do not know At a previous meeting, in the interests of or· derly procedure, l expressed my disapproval of hearings of this kind. It is the same desire for derly procedure and clarity in our discussion that leads me now to say that l am in favour of putting tbis question on our agenda, and to sug- gest that, having thereby brought our proceed- ings back into the realm of common sense, we should proceed to hear the representatives of the Ukraine and Greece. Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): Like the French representative, 1 shall stick scrupulously to the point at issue. At the risk of seeming repeti- tious, l want to point out again that we do not deny anyone the right to substantiate a proposi- tion. We also do not say in advance that a case is not well·founded. We only object to the form in which it is presented. Above all, we do not want to seem to avoid discussion. Certainly no one wants to avoid any discussion if there is a sufficiently well-presented case. We have just heard from the representative of the Soviet Union a very long statement which, on analysis, seems to me simply an amplification of the Ukrainian act of accusation. We have heard quite a lot of purely subjective apprecia- tions and plenty about aIl sorts of things, terror, pogroms and even about the Greek plebiscite, as if that had anything to do with the matter at is- sue. We even heard things concerning completely extraneous questions. But, and this, it seems to me, is the point: nothing, absolutely nothing, which really deserves the name of evidence. Plenty of statements, but not a letter, not a report, not a map, not a photograph. In short, not one document of an objective nature has been placed on the table for our examination and scrutiny in order to give us some initial evidence. We need such proof. The whole case seems to me to be unsatisfactory. The main complaint, judging from Mr. Man- uilsky's telegram, seems to be about incursions of Greek bands upon Albanian territory. But in aU these days that elapsed since the Ukrainian Gov- ernment fust placed tbis case before us, not one sound has been heard from the country which i& supposed to be so aggrieved; namely Albania, and l submit that Albania, under the Charter, has the {ullest right to enter a complaint and that it would be a good deal more plausible for this Council, had Albania come forth with a complaint rather than the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. socialiste soviétique But now, if we look at this matter quite coolly and dispassionately, 1 believe that the whole dif- ference really boi1~ down to this. Sorne of us l'opinion tion pour pense demande proposition voudrait le ukrainien lui présenter (traduit aviez question et D'ailleurs, quelques compris. la tout exact. dans tion en de souligner dans c'était la forme présentée. discussion suivi. mon discussion. Nations du pense quelque présentent Kleffens, outre 1 think it has been said that 1 wished to bar discussion of the Ukrainian request. Now that is not the case at aIl. My first intervention in this discussion was made in support of a proposai by the representative of the Netherlands, and he, in making his proposai, was careful on more than one occasion ta emphasize that what he found wrong in the request submitted by the representative of the Ukraine was its form. He did not wish to bar discussion and he said so repeatedly. 1 have followed him. 1 also have said repeatedly that my Government does not wish to bar discussion. At the same time, if aIl the Members of the United Nations have a right to draw the attention of the Council to a dispute or a situation, 1 think they aIso have the duty of exercising some moderation in the manner in which they present their requests. 1 endorsed Ml'. van Kleffens' proposal, be- cause 1 felt exact1y the same about it as he did. 13ut 1 have a further reason of my own, as repre- entrer après Grèce, bilité qu'une être ce tion tons veux finir m'empêcher l'allégation appel syndicats casse, autres ment des sentant ajouter avait ou bilité sa faire et 1 have explained before, and 1 am not going into all that again at length now, how after de- picting the horrors of the situation in Greece, Mr. Manuilsky lays themaIl at the door of the British Government. 1 feel that a wild charge of that sort should not be made in a preliminary paper of this kînd. 1 cannot reply to the statement made by Ml'. Gromyko at length, because we are not discuss- ing the substance of the question, and 1 will reserve my right, of course, at sorne later date, to make my position clear. 1 can hardly refrain from commenting, however, on the idea of Ml'. Bevin employing the British army to extirpate trade unions in Greece. It is really so comic that it is difficult to take the other allegations seriously. As the representative of the Nether- lands has said, they are simply allegations. For that reason, may 1 add that aIl this might have been avoided if Ml'. van Kleffens had been listened to on the first day, or if the Ukrainian representative had been good enough to change, in sorne manner, the form of the request which he submitted. He did not see fit to do that and therefore the Council has been delayed and these discussions have been prolonged. maintenir demande Conseil pense approuverait sidère de 1 am afraid, in the present circumstances, 1 still maintain my opposition to the inclusion of the Ukrainian paper in the Council's agenda in its present form because 1 feel that if the Coun- cil did that, it would be giving countenance to a procedure which 1 regard as objectionable and dangerous, ultimately, to the Council itself. . Ml'. FAWZI (Egypt): The Egyptian de1ega- tion fully realizes the weight of the arguments presented by sorne other delegations forexclud- ing point 2 from the agenda. It considers, how- ever, that on general principles, in the light of the Charter and for harmony with the purposes of the United Nations, point 2 of the agenda must be adopted. La poids gations l'ordre les rant égyptienne l'ordre Ml'. HASLUCK (Australia): The Australian delegation regrets very much that the Council should have been brought to its present position. We had hoped at the outset that, as the result of a very simple discussion, it might be possible for this Council to adopt the item on the agenda unanimously. l'anglais): beaucoup trouve ces qu'en ~'ihscrire Jour. It has always been our wish that the right of nations to bring matters before this Council should be unimpaired. Although we saw that there was reason in the point of view which the representative of the Netherlands put forward with the support of the United Kingdom repre- sentative, we had hoped, in fact we fdt confi- dent, that in the course of a little discussion, that le l'attention par représentant justi~iée, confIance cette We also made sorne points of our own. The view which 1 expressed on behalf of the Austral- ian Government was that, as a general rule, provided that an item was presented in the proper form and was duly authorized by a sponsor, and provided it was clearly within the Security Council's competence, there should be no question that it should be admitted to the agenda. The only doubts 1 raised concerned the ex- pectation of the Council that an item so pre- sented sb,ould be presented in good faith and should be presented strictly in accordance with the principles of the Charter. In our view, that implied that there must be sorne reasonable indication that there was a substantial case, and that the item was presented in a manner becom- ing to the Cou.ncil's dignity. It seemed to us that this was particularly important in this present instance because, only a few months ago, some of the subjects which were dealt with in the Ukrainian cornplaint had been considered by the Security Council at its meeting in Lon- don, where, after consideration, the item was removed from the agenda. It seemed to us that in those circumstances, since there was reason to expect that something would be brought for- ward to show that the position had been seriously altered since it was last considered in London, that either sorne new situation or some fact had arisen which would justify our taking up the question again. But 1 feel bound to say that in the ensuing discussion, the doubts which 1 ex- pressed on behalf of my delegation have not been satisfied. As for the particular points which 1 made myself, the only one to which any allusion has been made, was a point of language. 1 merely said that we regretted that the language in the complaint was perhaps a little emotional and oratorical, but we did not consider that an ob- stacle. We would consider the item in spite of our regret on that point. The representative of the Soviet Union took up that point by an analogy which the Australian delegation cannot admit at all. It was an analogy based upon a decision in regard to dependent territories, and so far as our delegation is aware, there is no dependent territory involved in the issue before us. suivi, ma allusion est simplement sionné que la question délégation une tive tant territoires que l t seems to our delegation that that is rather important, because in the course of its work, the Security Council has to take into account aIl provisions of the Charter. Before we admit a situation for examination, we have to have a reasonable certainty that it is not going to in- volve us in any of the difficulties which are raised by Article 2) paragraph 7, relating to interven- tion in m:atters of domestic jurisdiction. We cannot entertain a situation which is one of domestic jurisdiction, and for that reason, and for a number of other reasons) we must have a clear and careful description of the situation which we are expected to consider. Regrettably, we feel that the situation has not been 50 de· scribed. We have heard) as l said, a great deal of a derogatory nature about the policies of various Governments and very little about the actual situation which we are asked to deal with, the concrete issue which is to be placed before us for investigation. For those reasons) if the admission of this item is put ta a·vote, very regretfully, our dele- gation would either have ta abstain or vote against it, and in doing 50 it would certainly' not be our intention to deny the right of any Member of the United Nations to draw atten- tion to the question, nor would it be in any way intended to prevent the Security Council from discussing the situation in the Balkans. It would only be an expression of our opinion that this item has not been presented in strict conformity wtih the requirements of the Charter. Mr. HSIA (China): l think you will admit that we have taken a long time to settle a point of procedure) but since the discussion has taken so long it seems necessary to explain the attitude of the Chinese delegation on this matter; namely, whether this item should be included in the agenda or not. The Chinese delegation.will vote for the inclu- sion of the item on the agenda with the same understanding as stated by the United States rep- resentative; namely, our vote is not to be inter- preted as approval or otherwise, of the substance or purpose of the application, or even the form in which it is presented.

Since there are seven affirmative votes in favour of including this point in the agenda, point 2 of our agenda is adopted. y cette 'point TM meeting rose at 7.15 p.rn.