S/PV.621 Security Council

The provisional agenda for the 621st meeting of the Security Council is before the Council in document S/Agenda/621. Since there is sorne objection to the adoption of the agelfda, the Council. will continue its discussion on that item. 2. Mr. KYROU éGreece): l shalllimit my remarks strictly to it~m 1 of the provisional agenda, that is, the ,adoption of the agenda. l do not propose td deal in any 'way with the question of the competence of the Security , Council to take up the case submitted to it by the fifteen delegations [5/3085]. Even less do l intend to go into the substance of the matter. 3. My Government unreservedlychampions the principle of the "open door". The United Nations should, in our opinion, be willing to consider ~ny problem within the pUi'view of its purposes and activi~ iies provided, of course, that it does not run counter to the relevant articles of the Charter. The dutY of aU Member States is to undertake the consideration of such a problem with a view to working out the mdst appro- priate solution iri the given circumstances. This is why in the General Assembly we generaï1y support with our vote the inclusion in the agenda of the questions whose chances of 'settlement can he improved by open discussion. More particularly, with regard to the ques- tion of Morocco, we.did not oppose its inclusion in the agenda of the seventh session of the General Assembly. In the same line of thought, the Greek delegation at the forthcoming eighth session wiU approacl1 with a completely open mind the request of the same fifteen, Président: M. T. F. TSIANG (Chine). Présents.. Les représentants des pays suivants : Chili, Chine, Colombie, Danemark, France, Grèce, Liban, Pakistan" Union des Républiques socialistes soviétiques, Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord, Etats-Unis d'Amérique. Ordre du jour provisoire (SIAgenda/621) 1. Adoption de l'ordre du jour. 2. Lettre adressée au Président du Conseil de sécurité, le 21 août 1953, par les représentants Ge l'Afgha- nistan, de l'Arabie saoudite; de la Birmanie, -:le l'Egypte, de l'Inde, de l'Indonésie, de l'Irak, de l'Iran, du Liban, du Libéria, du Paldstan, des Philippines, de la Syrie, de la Thaïlande et du Yémen, concernant les événements du Maroc (S/3085). Adoption de l'ordre du jo~ ~. Le PRESIDENT (trad1lit de l'angkù1s) : Le Con- :seil de sécurité a devant lui l'ordre du,jo'lr provisoire de sa 621ème séance (S/Agenda/621).Puisqu'il y a des obj~ctions touchant l'adoption de l'ordre d!1d9Ur, j'invite le Conseil à poursuivre la discussion de cette question. 2. M. KYROU (Grèce) (traduit de l'anglais): Je limiterai mes observations au premier point de l'prdre du jour provisoire, c'est-à-dire à la question·de savoir si nous devons adopter l'ordre du jour. Je ne me propose nullement d'étudier si le Conseil de sécurité a compétence ou non pour' se saisir de l'affaire que lui ont soumise les quinze délégations, dans leur communi- cation [5/3085]. Je n'ai pas nbnplus rintention de traiter l'affaire quant au fond. 3. Mon gouvernement appuie sans réserve le principe de la "porte ouverte". A son avis, l'Organisation des Nations Unies devnût être disposée. à exanllner tout problème qui entre dans le cadre de ses objectifs et de ses activités, à condition, cela va sans dire, que, ce fai- sant, elle n'aille pas à l'encontre des dispositions perti- nentes de la Charte. Tous les Etats Membres ont le devoir d'entreprel1dre'l'examen d'un problème de ce genre en vue de parvenir à la meilleure solution possible dans la situation donnée. C'est pourquoi, à l'Asse'lnb1ée générale, nous appuyons en principe l'inscription à l'ol'dre du jour de toute question dont le règlement peut être facilité par une libre discussion. C'est pourquoi, en particulier, nous ne nous sommes pas opposés à l'ins- cription de la question du Maroc à l'ordre du jour de la'septième session de l'Assemblée générale. De même, à la huitième session, la délégation grecque examinera en, tbute objectivité la demande' de ces quinze mêmes 5. Our suppQrt for this principle - and l need nQt conceal it - stems also from our felling that by doing 50 we uphold the special interests Qf Greece. If we try to keep the doors of the United Nations open, we preserve the possibilityof eventuaUy bringing before the General Assembly ~s a last resort a cause dear to every Greek heart, a cause which, however, we always hope cau be easily settled through friendly negotiations between the parties directly concerned. 6: Yet the open-door prînciple implies a corollary and is ~ontinget\t upon a condition sine qua non. That con- dition is a reasonable e..'q)ectation that '".e application of the principle ta a particular case in è. par#cular set Qf circumstances will prove beneficial ta the case the consideration of which has been requested. In this respect, whether we like it or not, the sad experience of these lasi years has taught us ta draw a dear distinc- .tion between the two political organs of the United Nations. We have been taught - and not without justice-that the Security Councirs primary Tesponsi- bility for the maintenance of international peace and secarity does not necessadly mean that the Councirs intervention is at all times, in aU circumstances and in aU cases the best way to a solution. 7. Thus, with regard to the concrete case before us, we have already listened ta views squarely in opposition to the opinion held by the fifteen delegationsr which state in their 'letter [Sj3085] that we are faced with "international friction and [a] danger to international peace and security". We can therefore certainly expect that, were the Moroccan case ta be placed on our agenda, the tone of the discussions regarding the Security Council's competence w{)uld reach such a high pitch as to preclude the possibility of àchieving a posi- tivesolution in the iollowing stage of our procedure. What is more, the·altercations and recriminations to which any substantive discussion of the Moroccan case w<lUld unavoidably give 'rise would ultimately be blocked by virtue of the special voting powers provided for in Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter. 8.. Could such treatment result in any benefit tothe cause so eloquently defended byMr. Malik and Mr. Hamdani? One can hardly believe that it would.I, for one- anticipating, as l 'am oqliged ta do, these deve10pments in the hypothetical case of the adoption of the agenda- fear that such barren discussions not only would not make for the consolidation of the Secur- ity Council's prestige and authority, but would, on the. cOlltrary, weigh·heavily againstthe chance of eventually oonducting our deliberations constructively in the more .'" ·--far' more-serene atmosphere. of the General Assembly, the eighth session of which is, as we lmow, scheduled to open in a fortnight. 9. Furthermore, were the Security Çouncil, despite the drawbacks and pitfalls that l have 'attempted to describe, to place on its agenda the item concerning the events in Morocco, those who -like us - are open- 9. En outre, si le Conseil de sécurité, en dépit des inconvénients et :des écueils. que je me suis efforcé d'indiquer, inscrivait à son ordre du jour la question relative aux: événements ~du Maroc,. ceux: qui, comme 10. I therefore invite the representatives of Afghanis- tan, Burma, Egypt, Illdia, Indonesia, Iran, Ilaq, Lebanon, Liberia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Syria" Thailand and Yemen to reReet on the possibility that they may, unintentionaUy, hermetically close the doors of the General Assembly ta the Moroccan item by their endeavours to have that item placed on the Security Council's agenda. 11. Let us for a moment suppose that the request is granted. Let us suppose that a majority of the Security Council expresses itself favourably on the question of ~OI1"'''''etence. Let us suppose that the Security Council enS-,5es in a discussion of the substance of the matter - and the participants in su('h a' discussion would, I fear, bring more heat than light to the debates. Even if we assume - at the risk of ignoring the safest predic- tion - that a <iecision is reached in this Council, after long and paintful meetings, sorne time must be allowed for the implementation of the decision. By that time, the General Assernbly, which is scheduled to convene on 15 September, may have completed its work. 12. .To put it' in other words, the application .of the open4ioor principle to the present case in the Security Council, while not hringing the case an inch nearer to a settlement, definitely compromises the chances of applying the same princ.ip1e to the same case under the more promising auspices of the General Assembly. 13. I have, it is true, heard some representatives of the group of fifteen delegations e..'lCplain that their impa- tience 1S motivated by the lack - in their view- of any progress in the direction charted by ·resolution 612 (VII), adopted by the General Assembly on 19 Decem- ber 1952, during the course of the first part of its ~eventh session. I think, however, that it would be rather unfair to pass hasty judgment on the policies carried out in Morocco by the country of Marshal Lyautey - faced as that country is by contradictory, if not warring, indigenous movements, the intensity of which has not heen fully appraised. Why should we not bear in mind the fact that 70 per cent of the total Moroccan population consists of Berber elements, whose chieftains are fiot - to say the least - always of the same opinion in matters of allegiance as the population in the plains and the cities? If progress has been slow, that is not necessarily attributable.to•i1l will on the part of any ofthe parties concerned. So far, France has never, during its long and glorious history, forfeited the trust placed in it by humanity. 14. To suh1 np, my delegation, for all the above- :nentioned .reasons, although - or, xather, because- It is a champion of the open~oor principle, will abstain from voting on the question of placing the Moroccan item on the Security Council's agenda. intéressé~s. Jusqu'à présent, la france n'a jamais, au cours de sa longue et glorieuse h:stoire, trahi la confiance que l'humanité a mise en elle. 14. Pour me réstttner, ma délégation, pour toutes les raisons que j'ai exposées, et bien qu'elle défende, ou plutôt parce qu'elle défend le principe de la porte ouverte, s'abstiendra de voter sur l'inscription à l'ordre du' jour de la question du Maroc. 16. Ml'. HOPPENOT (France) (translated from French): When, eighteen months aga, the Security Council transferred itself to this Council Chamber from Flushing Meadow and Lake Sucœss, a rule was established "'bat this enclosure should be exclusive1v re'lerved for members of delegations and staff of the Secretariat. If you remember, even journalists, who ,. ere allowed easier access to us at Flushing Meadow and Lake Success, were exduded. 17. l have been informed that the general secretary of the Istiqlal, Ml'. Balafrej, is present, not in the section reserved for the public and the Press but in this enclosure, a few yards from our de1egation. l personally have nothing against Mi. Balafrej and my remarks are in no way addressed ·to him personally; l am prepared on aIl occasions to treat 'him personally with that courtesy which France always observes towards her fair and sincere opponents. This, however, is a matter of principle. In my opinion it is the duty of the Presi- . dent ta exdude from this enclosure outsi'de persons belonging ne1therto a delegation nor to the staff of the United Nations, although it would be quite proper for them to·si.tin the Press section if they 1"epresented a, newspaper, or in the p11blic seats. It is aIl the more necessary ta uphold this principle since, if we did not do sa, nothing would prevent certain delegations at a later date or in other circumstances from bringing to this enclosure ta accompany or assist them persons representing. certain factions or· even certain govem- ments which have not been recognized; and that would produce results much more harmful to the good conduet of the Cûuncil~s business and its debates. 18. In drawing your attention te this position l would ask you, Ml'. President, in the use of your powers to make a polite raquest to Ml'. Balafrej, general secretary of the Istiqlal, not to sit here with us in this enclosure. Thank you.

l recognize the representa- rive of Lebanon on this point of order. 20. Ml'. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): We should certainly he most grateful to our distinguished French colleagu~for calling our attention ta any of these things about which he spc1:e an4, under the guidance of the President, we should certâirtly do our utmost to abide by the mIes and the precedents of the Couricil. l completely share the feeling of the distinguished repre- sentative of France that, in these matters, it is not a question of personal feeling at ... aIl or anything of. the kind but only of abiding by rulés and· preèedèfits .that have been established, and. we should try our bast to do so. . 21.' In the first plate, however,.l do not know whether the United Nations....gt:!:irds have scrutinized every person sitting in this enc10sùre in arder to detennine whether they belong to one or otherof the delegations here. l am not raising that question at this point. But Uni~s, puissent trouver place dans cette enceinte alors qu'il serait normal qu'elles s'asseyent soit dans les rangs de la presse si ell~s représentent un journal, soit dans les rangs du public. Il est d'autant plus nécessaire de maintenir ce principe que, si nous n'agiSlSions pas en conséquence, 'rien n'empêcherait, demain ou dans d'autres circonstances, certaines délégations de se faire accompagner ou assister, cdansc-ette· enceinte même, par ·des personnes représentant certaines factions ou même certains gouvernements non reconnus, ce qui aurait encore des résultats bea.ucoup plus désagréables pour la bonne tenue de· ce Conseil et de ses débat~. 18. Après vous avoir signalé cette situation, je vous demande donc, Monsieur le Président, d'user de vos pouvoirs pour prier, avec toute la courtoisie nécessaire, M. Balafrej, secrétaire général de l'Istiqla:l, de ne pas siéger en même temps que nous dans cette enceinte. Je vous en remercie. 19. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de. l'a.nglais): Je donne la parole au représentant du Liban pour une question d'ordre. 'ZO. M. Charles MALIK (Liban) (traduit de l'an- glais) : Nous devons, certes, être reconnaissants envers notre distingué collègu~ de la Fl"ance d'avoir porté ces questions à notre atterttion; il est bien entendu que, sous la direction du Président, nous ne devons épargner aucun effort pour respecter le règlement du Conseil et nous ..conformer aux précédents. Je suis entièrement d'accord avec le représentant de la France lorsqu'il 'déclare ·que Ilousdevons faire abstraction de nos senti- '1llentspersorrnelp dans des questions de ce genrë ètne nous laisser guider que par les! règles et les 'précédents que nous avons. établis; nous devrionscertainèment nOus efforcer de le faire dans le cas présent. 21. Cependant,. je voudrais, tout d'abord, faire observer que j'ignore si les gardes de l'Organisation des Nations Unies se sont assurés que les personnes qui se trouvent .d~ng cette·enceinte appartien.nent bien à l'une ou l'autre des délégations qui siègent à cette table. Je 23. Then, there is another remark which l should like to make. Such things happen when there are natioÎlalist parties that are persecuted &t home, that cannat have a base in their own country from, which they can work and that are not absorbed into the political and social dynamics of their own country and thus ab1., tQ argue and debate back and forth with the authorities. In such cases you often have people like this honourable gentle- man Y"lO do attach themselves to other de1egations which are sympathetic ta tnem. l daresay that, in the history of France, this thing has happened many times, when people who were fighting for their independence did find shelter, protection and encouragement from the French Government. And there is hothing wrong or dishonourable in that. 24. Therefore, from the procedural point of vicw, for the reference ta which l deeply thank my dear friend Mr. Hoppenot, l can put his mind completely at ease by assuring mm that the gentleman possesses, so far as l know, a card to the effectthat he is a full member of the Pakistan delegation - and therepfeseritative of Pakistan nods his head to me by way of assuring me that what l am saying is true,- and is therefore fully entitled to sit here. .

l fully confirm the information given by my colleague from Lebanon thaf Mr. Balafrej is a Pakistan national, that he holds a Pakistan passport and that he is a member of the Pakistan delegation, of which fact Mr. Hoppenot might have been aware but l a~ sorry ta note :hat he was not.

l should like to thank the representatives of Lebanon and Pakistan fortheir courteous replies to me. , Tt is har-dly necessary ta say that l do notfindtheir explanations at all satisfactory. 27. Mr. Malik suggests that there may be other persans sitting behind or around us in ree1 arm-chairs whose identity has not been checked by theguards and who have no tight to be here. l will only say that the reason must be that the guart:; have failed in their cluty, because they should check,the identity of everyperson in this enclosure andhis right to be here. 28. T'hen the Lebanesf: representafi've informe-d. us that Mr. Balafrej is a memberof the Pakistan delagation, and the P:>ldstan representative confinned his 'State- ment. The Pakistan representative went 50 far as ta add that Mr.Balafrej is a Pakistan subject. Iliavehere the latest list of delegations ta the United Nations,. which itic1udes the seven members of the Pakistan ,de1egation, and l cannat ,find Mr. Balafrej's name amongstthem. 25. M. HAMDANI (Pakistan) (traduitfJel'an- glais) : Je confirme entièrement les renseignements que l110n collègue :du Liban a donnés au Conseil: M. Balao frej est ressortissant du Pakisfun, il,possède un passe- port pakistanais et., il est membre de la délégation du. Pakistin. M. Hoppenot aurait p'.1 en être informé: je regrette qu'il ne 1'ait pas été. 26. M. HOPPENOT (Franœ)-:'iJe remercie les représentants du Liban et du Pakistan de la courtoisie avec laquelle ils m'ont répondu. Inutile de aire que leurs éclaircissements sont loin de me satisfaire. 27. M. Malik insinue que, parmi les pers<;runes qui siègent derrière ou autour de nous sur des fauteuils rouges,il en est peut-être d'autres qui n'ont pas le droit d'être là et dont les gardes n'ont 'pas vérifié l'identi~. Mais je me bornerai à lui répondre que c'est parce que les gardes ne font pas leur devoir, car ces derniers dlivraient en'effet vérifier l'identité et'la validité de la présence de toutes ies personnes qui se trouvent dans cette enceinte. 2KEn second fieu, le représentant du Liban, appuyé par 'celui du Pakistan, nous apprend que ,'M. Ba1z:~ej est membre de'la délégation pakistanaise. Ler~résen­ tàntdu ,Pakist~n a même ajoutéqù'il étaîtsujet pakis- tartais. J'ai là la dernière liste des délégations auprès de l'Organisation des Nations Unies; j'y vois la liste des membres de la délégation pakistanaise; ils sont au 110m- bre de sept et je n'y trouve point le nom de M. BalafreJ. , , 32. 1 do not want to prolong discussion of this inciderit indefinitely, but 1 should like ta ask you, Mr. President, to request the Secretariat to verify between thisand our next meeting the circumstances in which Mr. Bala~rej has been dec1ared a member of the Pakistan delegation and the validîty of that.dèclaration, to discover whether it hasbeen accepted by the Secretariat, and ta report on the matter at our next meeting. 33. When 1 have heard the statements of the Secreta- riat, which may or may not assume the respOl1sibility of recognizing Mr. Balafrej, who is the general secretary of' the Istiqlal. and was admitted to the United States with a ]MÇ>roccan pas$port, as a member of the Pakistan delegation, 1 reserve the right to draw the conclusions for which the circumstances may calI. 34. The PRE':;IDENT: 1· hope that the members of the Coundl will permit me to declare this incident çlosed, without spending more time,on it. The matter of principle raised by the represeriJ:,a.tive ofF:r:ance lS, oi course, correct. We have regulations in regard ta seating inthis chamber. Those regùlations are common to us aIl, and itis obligatory upon us all toobserve them."''-' ' 30. M. Malik a bien voulu apitoyer le Conseil et l'assistance sur le sort des réfugiés politiques qui ne pouvaient pas exercer leurs activités dans leur pays et qui devaient chercher asile dans des pays étrangers. Je me hâte de dire que je ne verrais aucune objection à ce que M. Balafrej aille chercher asile au Pakistan - j'en serai" au contraire très heureux - mais enfin ce n'est pas au Pakistan qu'il est, c'est aux Etats-Unis, et, à ma connaissance, il n'a même jamais mis 'les pieds, tout au moins récemment, dans le pays qui lui a accordé si généreusement sa naturalisation. A ma connaissance 1 encore - et si je me trompe, je serai heureux que l'on me rectifie - M. Balafrej est arrivé ici il y a un an ou un an et demi avec un passeport marocain portant visa américain. Il paraît que, dans l'intervalle, par je ne sais quelle opération-je n'ose dire du Saint-Esprit-ce passeport marocain s'est transformé en passeport pakis- tanais contenant reconnaissance de 'la nationalité pakis- tanaise ou accordant 'celle-ci et, du même coup, M. Balafrej a eu vocation d'appartenir à la délégation du Pakistan dont on nous annonce qu'il est membre dans les conditions assez obscures que j'ai indiquées. 31. J'ajouterai encore; pqur l'édification de M. Malik, que si la France, en effet, a généreusement et tradition- nellement accordé son asile à un grand nombre de réfu~ giés de différents pays, si elle est prête à ie faire, si même les circonstances peuvent faire un jour qu'elle' l'accorde à des réfugiés pakistanais ou libanais, jamais elle n'en a affecté aucun, à ma connaissance, à une mission diplomatique ni n'en a fait siéger, par je ne sais quel subterfuge que je me réserve de qualifier, à une table où étaient discutées des questions intéressant directement le pays que ces réfugiés avaient fui. Il Ya 'là en quelque sorte une question de courtoisie et même de décence' politique. 32. Je ne veux pas, Monsieur le Président, prolonger indéfiniment cet incident, mais je vous demanderai de , bien vouloir prier le Secrétariat de vérifier, entre cette séance et notre prochaine réunion, dans quelles condi- tions M.Balafrej a été déclaré membre de la délégation pakistanaise, de bien vouloir contrôler 'la validité de 'Cette déclaration, reohercher si elle a été reconnue par le Secrétariat et nous fa:lre rapport à notre prochaine séance. 33. Suivant les déclarations du Secrétariat qui , prendra ou he prendra pas la responsabilité derecon- naître M. Balafrej, secrétaire général de' l'Istiqlal venu aux Etats-Unis avec un passeport marocain, comme membre de la délégation du Pakistan, je me réserve de tirer les conclusions qui s'imposeront. 34. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais) : J'espère que les membres du Conseil me permettront de déclt>rer l'incident dos, sans .s'y attarder davantage. Sur le plan , des .principes, il va de soi que le représentant de la· France a raison: Il existe des règles en ce. qui concerne l'admission dans cette enceinte. Nous les connaissons 'bien et nous so~rnes tous tenus de les observer.

My delegation 'resents very strongly the remarks made hy the repre- sentative of France. Mr. Hoppenot seems to rorget that we are a sovereign nation and cao appoint any Pakistan national we please to our delegation here or in any ether international conference. We do not "eek the advice of another. State before .Pakistan nationality is conferred on anyone. Do we question who are or who are not the nationals of France? 37. l question Mr. Hoppenot's request tf) the Chair- man and dec1are that it not only is irregular but ought to be expungedJ{rom the Council'srecords. 38. Mr. HOP,BENOT (France)' (tr'anslated from French) : l shouldlike to.assure-myPakistan colleague that l never challenged the right of Pakistan to naturalize anyone it wants to. 1 never challenged its !ight to inc1ude in its delegation anyone it wants to if it feels that he will enhance the delegation's prestige or standing. l simply pointed out, in reply to Mr. Malik, that it was not the custom of France to do so with refilgees who sought shelter in France. Consequently l cannat for one moment imagine that' the remarks l made in this connexion can, contrary ta aIl precedent, he strickenfrom the record. inst,~nt que les cr~arques que j'ai faites à ce sujet puissent· être supprimées du procès-verbal, contraire- ment à tous les précédents. 39. Au sujet de ce que vous avez dit, Monsieur le Président, je comprends bien que la seule déclaration du chef de la'délégation du Pakistan ne suffit pas, n'a pas autorité auprès du Conseil pour l'assurer que telle ou telle personne est membre de cette délégation. C'est le Secrétariat, et non pas le Gonse11, qui est seul à même d'apprécier la. validité des démarches, entreprises à cet effet pour notifier ladésignation en qualité de mem- bre d'une délégation. Ce que je veux demander, c'est que, d'ici la prochaine séance, le Secrétariat veuille bien vérifier si les formalités ont été régulièrement accomplies et s'il accepte M. Balafrej, sous sa responsabilité, comme membre de la délégation pakistanaise. J'espère que dans ce cas, pour éviter à l'avenir d'autres erreurs, M. Bala- frej figurera officiellement sur toutes les listes, à la disposition du public américain et même, éventuelle- ment, du public marocain: 40. M. HAMDANI (Pakistan,) (tr(U1uit de' ·l'an- glais) : Pour l'information du représentant de la France, je voudrais lire un extrait d'une lettre que nous avons reçue <:lu Secrétariat de l'Organisation d~s Nations Unies: 'T2i J'honneur de me référer à votre lettre. du•.. adressét:. au Secrétaire géneral, ainsi qu'à ma lettre du ... concernant M. Ahmed Abdessalam Balafrej, qui est devenu ressortissant clU Pakistan et qui fait désormais partie, en qualité. de conseiller, de la mission du Pakistan auprès de l'Orgamsationdes Nations Unies." 7 39. In connexion with what you said, Mr. President, l am quite aware that a statement by the head of the Pakistan delegation is not alone sufficient, has 110 authority, to satisfy the Council that a given person is a member of that delegation.. The Secretariat, not the .Çouncil, is the only body competent to àSsess the validity of steps taken to notify the appointment of a member of a delegation. May 1 ask the Secretariat, before the next méeting, to he goo~ enough to verify whether the forma1ities have been duly complied Wlth and whether it takes the responsihility ofaccepting Mr. Balafrej as a mèmber of· the PaLkistan delegation? If it does Ihope that, in order to avoid further mistakes, Mr. Balafrej will appear offidally on aH the lists availahle to the American public, and perhaps even to the Moroccan public. '

For the informa- tion of the representative of France l should like ta read out an èxtract from.a letter received from the Secretariat of the United Nations: "1 hàve the honour to fêfer ta your letter of ... addressed ta the Secretary-Gep,eral, as weIl as ta my letter of ... in respect of Mr~ Ahrned Abdessalam Balafrej, who becamea Pakistani national and joined the Pakistani Mission to the United Nations as an adviser." 42. Mr. HOPPENOT (France) (tmnslated fram Fret~ch): l am quite willing to agree that the lette! which the Pakistan representative has just read settles the matter, since it notes the Secretariat's recognition of Mr. Balafrej as a member and adviser of the Pakis- ,tan delegation. In these circumstances the problem arising from his presence here takes on a different aspect: it ceases to be a delegation problem and becomes a problem for the Pakistan and the French Govern- ments, if they wish to raise the issue. l personally consider that the incident is closed. 43. The PRESIDENT: We shall now resume our debate on the adoption of the agenda. Adoption of the agenda (contifiued)

On 21 August 1953 the representatives of fifteen States, Afghanistan, Burma, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Thailand and Yemen, requested the Security Couneil, under Article 35, paragraph 1, of the United Nations Charter, to call an urgent meeting of the Council to discuss the situation in Morocco [Sj3085].\ 45. In their letter to the President of the Security Council the tepresentatives of -those countries dre\v attention to the unlawful intervention of France in Morocco and the resulting international friction and the danger to international peace and security. 46. Thirteen of the fifteen States are not members of the Security Council, and they forrilally requested the Council [Sj3088] to allow them to participate in the discussion of the questions whether or not their request should be included in the Council's agenda, so that they could e:kplain the scope of the question -they have raised regarding the situation in Morocco and why it shouId be inc1uded in the Couneil's agenda. 47. At this juncture, therefore, the Council must decide these two questions, the first of which concerns the invitation. 48. In ,that connexion the Soviet Union delegation feels it necessary ta make a few brief comments. 49. As you aIl know, the question of the situation' in Morocco was raised in the United Nations as earlyas 1951, when six Arab countries proposed that the que~­ tion of the French violation in' Morocco of the prind- pIes of the United Nations Charter and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sho'uld he placed on the agenda of the sixth session of the General Assêmbly. 1 Sessi01~, Anne~es, agenda item 7, documents A/1894, A/1898, ,Al1904, A/1908, A/1909 and A/1918. 43. Le PRESIDENT (tradttit de l'anglais): Nous allons à présent reprendre le débat sur l'adoption de l'ordre du jour. Adoption de l'ordre du jour (suite) 44. M. TSARAPKINE (Union des Républiques socialistes soviétiques) (tradttit d~t msse) : Le 21 août 1953, les représentants de quinzè Etats -l'Afghanistan, l'Arabie saoudite, la Birmanie, l'Egypte, l'Inde, l'Indo- nésie, l'Irak, l'Iran, le Liban, le Libéria, le Pakistan, les Philippines, la Syrie, la Thaïlande et le Yémen- ont demandé au Conseil, en vertu du paragraphe 1 de l'Article 35 de la Charte desN~tions Unies, d'examiner d'urgence la question de la situation qui existe au :rvIaroc [Sj 3085] .. 45. Dans la lettre qu'ils ont adressée au Président du Conseil de sécurité, les représentants de ces pays ont relevé l'intervention illégale de la France au Maroc, ainsi que le désaccord entre nations et la menace au maintien de la paix et de la sécurité internationales provoqués par cette intervention. 46. Treize des pays susmentionnés, qui ne sont pas membres du Conseil de sécurité, ont formellement demandé au Conseil de sécurité [Sj3088] de les admettre au débat relatif à l'inscription de leur demande à l'ordre du jour du Conseil et de leur permet- tre de préciser la portée de la question dont ils propo- ~ent l'inscription aÎnsi que les raisons p01~r lesquelles il convient d'inscrire cette question ~ l' dre du jour du Conseil de sécurité. ' 47. Le Conseil doit donc, au stade actuel de la discus- sion, statuer sur ces deux questions et avant tout sur la question de l'invitation à adresser aux treize Etats. 48. La délégation de l'Union soviétique juge indispen- sable à ce sujet de formuler quelques brèves observa- tions. 49; .Comme on le sait, la question de la situation au Maroc a été soumise à l'Organisation des Nations Unies dès 1951; six pays arabes avaient alors proposé d'inscrire à l'ordre du iour de la sixième session de l'Assemblée générale la question de la violation par la France au Maroc des principes de la Charte des Nations Unies et de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme 1. 1 Voir Documents officiels de l'Assemblée générale, si.rième session, Anne~es, point 7 de l'ordre du jour, documents A/1894, A/1898, A/1904, A/1909 et A/1918. 8 56. At the meetings of the Security Council on 26 and 27 August [619th and 620th meetings] the represen- tatives of France, the Uniteù States of America and the United Kingdom objected to the consideration of the Moroccan question by the Security Council, and stated that they wo~ld vote against its inclusion in the Cauncil's agenda. The United Kingdom representative further stated that he was against inviting at this time thirteen States not members of the Sec1.1rity Council to give tb.eir reasons why the Moroccanquestion should be inc1uded in the agenda. 57. At previous meetings of the Security Council three members of the Council- France, the United States of America and the, United Kingdom~opposed the inclusion of the Moroccan question in the Council's agenda on the grourrd thàt it was an internaI matter between France and Moiocco and hence that the United Nations, and consequently the Security Council, were nat competent to consider it. Apparently, therefore, the French, United States and United Kingdom represen- tatives consider that the situation in Morocco does not endanger international peace and security and thai there is therefore no reason why it should be considered by the Security Council. ,58. The French representative based bis objections ta consideration of the Moroccan question by the Cou!fcil mainly on the argument that the grave events takitig place in Morocco were French internaI affairs, and that in any case the question came within the sphere of French-Moroccan relations, wmch were govemed hy the Treaty of Fez of 1912 establishing the French protectorate over Morocco. In that connexion the French representative tried to maintain [619th meeting, para. 25] that "by the terms of the Treaty no dispute 61. The same position with regard to recognition of Moroccan sovereignty has been upheld by the Inter- na.tional Court of Justice, which stated in its judgment of 27 August 1952 2 that it is not disputed by the French Government that Morocco, even under the Protecto- ratel has retained its personality as a State in interna- tionallaw; and "that the characteristic of the status of Morocco, as resulting from the General Act of AIge- ciras of April 7th, 1906, is respect for the three prin- ciples stated in the Preambule of the Act, namely: the sovereignty and independence of His Ma:jesty the Sultan, the integrity of his domains, and economic liberty without any inequality". 62. When speaking of the status of Morocco in inter- national law it should not be forgotten that the Act of Aigeciras, which is still in forcel defines the status of Morocco not only in relation ta France and Spain, as the French representatlve has tried to arguel but in relation,to a number of ol:her countries as well. 63. It may' be weIl to recall that the Act of Algeciras was signed by ten other countries in addition to France and Spain, inc1uding the United Kingdoml the United States, Russia, Sweden and Belgium. Hence the Act of Algeciras of 1906 is a very important, multilateral international agreement directly binding Merocco not only to France but also to a number of other States signatories te the Act; it does not deprive Morocco of sovereignty, and consequently does not prevent the United Nations from considering the situation there. 64. The right of the United Nations to consider ques- tions connected' with the situation in Morocco aIse 'derives from Chapter XI of the United Nations Chz,'ter. That chapter states [Article 73] that "Members of the United Nations which have... responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self~government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and seèurity established by the... Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end: a. to ensuJe their political, economic (and) social ... advancement ; b. ta develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspiration of the peoples ... " 2 Case concerning rights of nationals of the United States of 2 Affaire relative auz droits des ressortissants des EtlJts- America in Morocco, Judgment of August 27th, 1952: I.C.!., Unis d'Amérique au Maroc, Arrêt du 27 août 1952: C.U., ,-RePM" 195~P~17: ~:: .:.,~1~02.::~R:,e'0c::uè",e,~il~1~1,s9i,51:2\:',~P"".~1'f.:76~.~·:.3t[L.!i"?1!'2'_=.ê.~:,:,::,:"~~,'.'.,:,,:,,:!;,,,~~t''''~. elles-mêmes,~econnaissent le principe de la primauté des intérêts dès habitants de ces territoires. Ils accep- tent comme une mission sacrée l'obligation de favoriser dans toute la mesure du possible leur prospérité, dans le cadre du système de paix et de sécurité internati<p nales établi par la... Charte et, à cette fin: a. d'assurer ... leur progrès politique, économique et social. .. ; b. de <;1évelopper leur capacité de s'administrer elles- mêmes, de tenir compte des aspirations politiques des , populations..." 66. Consequently there is absolutely no ground for the attempts of the United States, United Kingdom and French representatives to depi<:t the Moroccan question as an internaI French affair outsidethe competence of the United Nations. As you all know, similar attempts by the same countries at the seventh session of the General Assembly met with no success. As has been said earlier, the General Assembly induded the Moroccan question in its agenda, considered that ques- tion in substance, and adopted a resolution [612 (VII)] calling on both sides, that is to· say. France and Morocco, "to conduct their relations... to settle their disputes in accordance with the spirit of the Charter, thus refraining from any acts or measures likely to aggravate the present tension". disqu~eted by the' 'development in that territory of des événements dans ce pays, y voyant à juste titre une even~s which they justly regard as.a threat to its peac~ menace pour le maintien de la paix et de la sécurité and security. dans cette région. 76.. In view 'Of all.these facts thèdelegation of the 76. En raison de.s considérations qui précèdent, la Suviet Union supports the demand.of the fifteen States délégation de l'Union soviétique appuie la demande des for~e inclusion of the Moroccan question in the agenda quinze Etats tendant à l'inscription de la question maro- of the Security Council. caine à l'ordre du jour du Conseil de sécurité. 77. The delegation of the Soviet Union considers that 77. La délégation de l'Union soviétique estime que la the M.eroc€a."l question mayand .should he.inc1uded in question marocaine peut et doit être inscrite à l'ordre the .agenda of. the.Security Collncil,. and should be 'dû .. j011! du Conseil··de .sécurité, .. qui peut et doit- reviewed by the Counci1. -i'êXaminet;-··- - _.~),S'cthLd~~~atiQI:t9f th~cSovietUnion also sùpports. . 78. La délégation de l'Union soviétique appuie égale- the demand of thethirteen""States·wIiiChare nof mem':- -ment·la-detmmdec.des··tFeize~Etatsnon."membr~esqtL bers of the Security Council for permission to take part Conseil de sécurité [Sj3088] qui désirent prendre part in the discussion at the relevant stage [Sj3088] ~t.~e au débat, à son stade actuel, c'est-à-dire au moment où stage when the Council -discusses the proposaI to inc1ude le Conseil délibère s'il doit inscrire la question mara- the Moroccan question hLtlIe agenda. caine à'son ordre du jour. . 79. The United Kingdom representative, Sir Gladwyn 79. Le représentant du Rôyaume-Uni, sir Gladwyn Jehb,has opposed this demand by the thirteen States on ,. <Jebb, s'est opposé à cette -demande des treize Etats, en the ground that in iliepractice of the. Security Council se fondant sur le fait que la pratique du Conseil a été non-members of the Councilchave been invited oilly de n'inviter les Etats. non membres qu'après l'inscrip~ after a question has ~lready been inc1uded in the agenda. tian à l'ordre du jour de la question qui les intéressait j Thatis, Si1' Gladwyn Jebb implied that non-memb~rsen d'autres termes, d'après sir Gladwyn Jebb, les Etats of the Security'Council would be im-ited to take part non membres du Conseil de sécurité n'étaient invités only ihthediscussion of the substance of the question. qu'à prendre part à l'examen de la question quant au '. . . fond. SO. rtitliis connexion it would he opportuné to remind 80. A ce propos, il serait opportun de rappeler à sir Sir .Gladwyn Jebb that in the Ira,nian questiçm in t94?5 Gladwyn Jebb qu'en ce qui concerne l'affaire iranienne, the facts were somewhat different. It is wellknown 'i:hat en 1946, la question se présentait d'une fâçon quelque- on,that occasion -the Irania~ representative tookpart i~ peu difiérente. Dans cette·affaire, comme oh le sait, le 'the discussio~ of the. question of. procedure before the représentant de l'Iran·a pris part à la discussion d'une Council passed to a review. of the substance of theqtiesfion de procédure avant que le COl1seiln'eût abdrd~ Iraniancomplaint. However thatmay he, the Security l'èxaniende la plainte iranienne quant au fond. Qum Councilhas .always poss~ssedand l10w possess.es· the •qu'il en soit, le Conseil de sécurité a toujours eu et a right to create precedents, regardless of how it acted toujours le droit d'établir des précédents, indépendâm- earlier. ment de ses décisions passées. 81. The ,delegation of the Soviet Union considers that 81. La délégation de l'iURSS estime qu'il convient de the question of invitingrepresentatives of the thirteen trancher par l'affirmative la question de savoir s'il faut - ·. 82. Therefore, according to rule 37 of the rules of procedure of the Security Council, the Council ought at once to hearthe explanations of these countries. 83. The endeavour by France, the United States of America and the United Kingdom to prevent discussion of the Moroccan question in the Security Councii will undoubtedly be regarded by world public opinion as an action contrary to the Charter of the United Nations. Their attitude on this question is evidence that the colonial Powers fear an open discussion of colonial problems in the United Nations. 84. We consider that the Securi:ty Council will not fulfil its task as the organ principally responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security if it fails to give attention to a legitimate demand of fifteen States Members of the United Na:tions and avoids debate on the substance of the Moroccan question.

l wish now to make a state- ment in my capacity as representative of China. 86. , The Security Council has before it a request from fifteen Member States (Sj3085] that the question of Morocco be included in the Council's agenda as'a matter of urgency. In addition, it has another request (Sj3088] from thirteen Member Statesthat their representatives _ .... begiven.a -hearipgin th~,:Pl'eliminary.depate.ollthe 1 adoption of the agenda. This second rei:iuest has beéri •. formal.ly m.ov.ed Th tue'Cotincîl by~the ~represe1fta.tiVeot Lebanon. l shan try to deal with bath questions in one .--§tatement~'- 87. IFiL,t, should or should not the Security Council proceed ta inquire into the events in Morocco? My answer is : "yes", and my delegation will vote in favour of placing this item on the'agenda of the Council. 8R.At the 619vh meeting of the Council, held on 26 August, the representative of France argued against the inclusion of the item on 'the ground that the Security Council.wasnot competent to deal with this question since it was, in his opinion, srrictly within ~he domestic jurisdiction of France~'In this contention the represenf:a- tive of Fl.'ance ha:d been supported ]:>y the representative of the United Kingdom. This question of competence is very complicated. l am not ready ta deny the validi,ty·of the arguments usedbythe representanv,es of France and rhe United Kingdom.· On the other hand, l do not believe that their arguments are conclusive. There re- mains, in my opinion, legitimate doubt on this point. The broad fact remains that the troubles in Morocco concern the relations between France and ,Morocco.. Whatever the treatylimitations on the lSovereignty of Morocco maybe, the.broad faet remains that these rela.- tions are treatyrelations. When we say "treaty rela.- tequêi:ê~a"ete~offièie1iemënt présëhtêè"aù"Con~il'par'ae ":représentantdu Liban. Je vais essayer de traiter à la fois ces deux questions dans ma déclaration. 87. 'En ptemrer lieu, le Conseil de sécurité doit"-ilou ne doit-il pas ouvrir une enquête au sujet des événe- ments du Maroc? Je réponds à cette question par l'affir- mative et je déclare que ma délégation votera en faveur de l'inscription de la question à l'ordre'du joùr du Con- seil. 88. A la 619ème séance du Conseil, le 26·aoi1t. le représentant de la France s'est prononçécoritre l'ins- cription de la question à l'ordre du jour; il a déclaré. à cette occasion, que le Conseil de sécurité n'était pas compétent pour en coIinaître étant donné' qu'il s'agis- sait. à son avis, d'une affait-erelevant uniquï::ment de la cOIlJpétencenationale de la France. Le représentant du Royaume-Uni a appuyé, sur ce point, la thèse du repré- sentant de la France. Or, cette question de compétence êst e: A'11ement délicate. Je ne me hasarderai 'pas. à nier- lavaIeur des arguments invoqués'par les représ~n- .... tap,ts de la France et çlu Royaume-Uni, mais je n'a.ffi.r.." meraipas davantage qu'ils soient concluants. A mon avis, le doute est perm1s sur ce point..Il est indéniable que.les troubles qui se.sont produits au Maroc'intéres- sent les relations. entre la France.et le Maroc. Il est également indéniable que, quelles que soient les limites imposées par traité à .la souvel;ainere du Maroc,çes 89. Morocco is at the present time, of course, not a completelyindependent and equal member in the family of nations. On the other hand, the Moroccan people is not a part of the French people. From the point of view of nationality Mor'Jcco is distinct from Fram:e. Nation- ality or nationalism is, in fact, one of thé: principal driving forces in the modern world. Conflicts arising .Dut of the struggle for national self-government or inde- pen'Cience have caused as many wars as conflicts between rival independent States. 1 think the Security Council would he sacrificing the spirit tothe letter if it were ta rule out this question of Morocco by taking shelter he- hind technicali·ties, as the represent-ative of Pakistan phrased it. 90. 1 do not conten'Ci that the legal considerations put before us by the representative of Franee and, in a less emphatic manner, by the representative of the United Kingdom, are not worth our considering. 1 ouly contend that the extra-legal, but by no means illegal, considera- tion of nationality should be given equal consideration by the Coun,cil. The view of my delegation is that this item should be included in the agenda without prejudice ta the question of competence. That question is in itself complicated. 'It isonlyafter a moi-e detailed considera- tion that we .can decide finaUy whether thisCouncil is competent or not. 91. Members of the Council will remember that, in cOüfiêXÏon with thedeh"te On the Ane:lo-Iranian on Company case,:'!:he representative, of the United King- dom, who was one of the principals in thaf debate, de- ielldedthevery ~v-iew L'lat l a.tnndvocating now. lquote fromthe o:fficial record of the .iS9th m.eetill,g, held -on 1 October 1951. This is what Sir Gladwyn Jebb said on that occasion [559th meeting, para. 14]: "1 ·think we should aU agree that the question of competence can, if necessary, he decided latex and that if any representative should have doubts on the ques- tion of competence __ that is to say the competence of the Security Council to discuss this question -- that need not necessarily in i1:self be any reason for bis voting against the inclusion of this item in the agenda." 1 think that Sir Gladwyn Jebb e:iç:pressed this point even more c1early than l haye beenable to express it. 1 sub- mit that we can weU apply his statement ta the present debate. 92. The representative of France has put forward a ' second argument, namely, that the recent events ~n 'Morocco'are doubly domestic in the sense that they are largely the work of different groups of the,Moroœa.n people. l do notknow the actual circumstances of the deposing of the Sultan and the installation of a sucees- sor. 1 am not in a position to fix the responsibility on any particular party. However, we know in a general way the measure and degree of French influence and "Nous devons tous admettre, je pense, que l'on pourra trancher plus tard la question de compétence et que, si l'Ul:l des membres du Conseil a des doutes à cet égard - c'est-à-dïre à d'égard de la compétence que le Conseil de sécurité peut avoir pour examiner cette question - cela ne constitue pas nécessairement une raison suffisante pour l'amener à. voter contre l'inscription de la question à l'ordre du jour." A mon avis, sir Gladwyn Jebb s'est exprimé beaucoup plus clairement que je n'ai pu le faire moi-même. J'estime que sa déclaration peut très bien s'appliquer au débat actuel. 92. Le représentant de la France a présenté un deuxième argument, à savoir que les événements qui ont eu lieu récemment au Maroc ont un caractère doublement intérieur, étant donné qu'ils résultent de l'action de divers groupes marocains. Je ne connais pas les conditions exactes Pa,ns, lesquelles le Sultan a été déposé et son successeur porté au trône du Maroc. Je ne suis pas en mesure de fixer la ret )onsabilité des uns ·ou des aut~es; Toutefois, je canna '3, d'une manière 94. There is also the contention that the Security Cauneil cannot do anything about Morocco. Last year, sorne memhers of this Couneil 'said that we could do nothing about Tunisia. If question after question is dis- missed by the Security ,Couneil on the ground that the Couneil cannat do anytl1ing about them, the world may get the impression that the Secudty Council and, indeed, the entire United Nations can do nothing for the pro- motion of peace among the peoples of the world. 95. This is a dangerous impression. Already there are people who think that the United Nations is worse than useless. The Security Couneil should refrain from con- tributing to that impression. l am not in a position to indicate in what way l think the Security Council may he helpful in the question of Morocco. The fifteen Mem- ber States which have requested the inclusion of this item in the agenda undoubtedly have something in mind. I should like ta hear from them how th.oey think the Security Council might be helpful. That is an additional reason for my favouringthe inclusion of this item. 96. To sum up, l favour the inclusion of this item, without prejudice ta the question of the Council's com- peJence. 97. l now revert to the second request: that represen- tatives of thirteen States be given a hearing on the adop- tion of the agenda. The request is based on ruie 3i of our rules of procedure. Members of the Council will recall that a similar request was. made when the Couneil debated the adoption of the agenda in connexion with the question of Tunisia. On that occasion, the sponsors of the request put forward an additional reason - that is, in addition ta rule 3-7 - namely, that they wished to reply ta certain remarks of the representative of France which they considered ta be unfair ta them. This is how the representatives of the ten sponsoring States put the matter in their official letter to the President of, the Security Couneil [575th meeting, para. 1] : "In his statement to the Security Council on 4 April 1952 [574th meeting] 'the representative' of France made certain allegations and imputations conceming the intentions and motives of the. delegations which had sponsored the case of Tunisia in the Couneil. Among other things, the representative of France charged the s;,:>onsoring delegations with disregarding realities, with giving currency ta 'inexact and tenden- 97. Je·reviens maintenanriia-c1ewcièmë-1cqüêre, celle des représentants des treize. Etats qui désirent être entendus sur l'adoption de l'ordre du jour. Cette requête se fonde sur l'article 37 de notre règlement intérieur. Les membres du Conseil se souviendront qu'une re- quête semblable a été faite lors du débat consacré à l'adoption de l'ordre du jour à propos de la question de la Tunisie. A cette' occasion, les'auteurs de la de- mande ont fait valoir, outre l'argument tiré de l'article 37, qu'ils désiraient répondre à certaines observations du représentant -de la France, considérées comme injustes à leur égard. Voiei comment les représentants des dix Etats en question présentaient leur thèse, dans la lettre adressée au Président du Conseil de sécurité [575ème séance, par. 1] : , , "Dans la déclara-tion qu'il a faite au Conseil de sécurité le 4 avri11952 [574ème séance], ·le représen- tant de·la France a émis certaines allégations et fait certaines insinuations au sujet des intentions et des motifs auxquels ont obéi les délégations qui ont saisi le Conseil de l'affaire de la Tunisie. Le représentant de la France a, notamment, accusé ces délégations de "négliger la réalité", de diffuser -des déclarations 98. Professor Bokhari, speaking before _the Couneil as the representative of Pakistan, asked the Council [576th meeting, para. 44] not 1:0 deny the representa- tives of ten countries what he called the "inalienable right of reply". Qn that oc;casion, my delegation reserved its attitude on the applidibility of rule 37 but supported the request of the ten States on the ground of the right of reply. Thistime the request is based exc1usive1y on rule 37. My delegation is of the opinion that rule 3,7 can- not 00 interpreted to mean participation in a procedural debate such as the present one. 99. In connexion with the present case, l do not 00- lieve that the Couneil would in any w:'~y be doing the sponsoring States a gross injustice if it should refuse to I~ake an exception to the rule. The sponsoring States sent to the Security Cauneil a formaI communication requesting that this item be inc1uded. In thatcom- municationthey indicated their purpose and the scope of the question which they had in mind. In the debate on the adoption of the agenda, the representatives of Lebanon and Pakistan have spoken freely and, l would add, e10quently for the sponsors. Other speakers, if invited to this table, might indeed supplement those speeches, but l think the representative of Lebanon and Pakistan have suhstantially covered the ground, and they will have an opportunity to supplement the speeches they have already macle. l do not feel justified in sacri- fieing rule 37, which is very useful to the work of the Security Council, for an objective which in Tact has been partI}' achieved and which can be achieved without violation oi that rule. Therefore, my delegation is not in a position to support the proposil of the representative of Lebanon. 100. Speaking now as President of the Security Coun- cft l undel'stand that the representative of Colombia, who will he President of the Conncil during the month --Of Septe11'lber, is agreeable to having a meeting tomorrow afternoon. The Council will therefore meet tomorrow at 3 p.m. The meeting rose at 5.35 p.m. SALES AGENTS FOR UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS DEPOSnAIRES DES PUBLICATIONS DES NArrONS UNIES FIANCE Editions A. Pedone, 13, tue soumot, Paris V. GREECE-GREeE "I:leftheroudakis," Place de la Constitu. tion. Atbènes. SUATElIALA Goubaud & Cla. Ltda:,·Sa. Avenide SUt 28. Guatemala. HAITI • Librairie' "A la Caravelle," 80lte postale III·B, Port·au·Prince. HONOUIAS Librerla Panamerieano, Colle de 10 Fuente, Tegucigalpa. HONSoIONG The Swindon Book Co" 25 Nathon Raad. Kowloon. ARGENTINA - ARGENTINE Editorial Sudamericana S.À.. Ailina 500, Buenos Aires. AUSTRALlA- AUSTRALIE 'H. A~ Goddard. 255a George St•• Sydney. and 90 Queen St.• Melbourne. Melbourne Univer3ity Press. Cerlton N.3. Vido,rill. IElGIUM - IELGIQUE Agence et Messageries de la Presse S.A.. 14-22 rue du Persil. Bruxelles. W. H. Smith & Son. 1"1.75. boulevard Adolphe.Max. Bruxelle.. IOlIVIA - IOLlVIE Librerle Selecciones, Casilla 972, La Pli%> IlAZIL -IlESIL .- Livraria Agir. Rio de Jeneiro. Sao Paulo and Belo Horizonte. ICELAND-: ISIA~DE Bokavenlun Sigfus.r Eymondssohar H. F" CANADA Ryerson Press, 299 Queen St. West. Toronto. Periodiea. Inc.. 4234 de la Roche: Mon. treol, 34. Aust~rstraeti 18. Reykiavik. INDIA-INDE Oxford Book & Stetionery Co., Seindip' House. New Delhi. and 17 Park Street. Calcutta. P. Varadachary & !=o., 8 Ling1lï .Chetty St•• Madras 1. IHOONESIA-INDONESIE Jaia'.n Pembangunan, Gunung Saheri B4. Dj'karta. IRAN Ketab.Kh.neh Danesh, 293 S.edl Ave. nue, Tehr.n. IUQ-IUI Mackenzie's Booksho!". Baghdad.' ISRAEL Blumstein's Bookstoras Ltd.. 35 ÀlIenby Raad. Tel·Aviv. ITALY -ITALIE Colibri S.A.. Via Mercalli 36. Milano. LElANON _ L11," Librairie Universelle. Beyrouth. L1IERIA J. Momolu Kamaro. Monrovio. lOXElIIOUIG Librairie J. Sehummer. Lu.embourg. CEYLaN - CEYLAN The Associotad Newspopefl of Ceylor. Ltd.. Lake Hous.. COlombo. tHILE-CHllI Librerla Ivens. Moneda' 822, Santiago. Editorial dei Paclfieo. Ahuineda 57. Santiago. CHINA - CHINE The World Book Co. Ltd.. 99 Chung King Road. !st Section. Taipeh, Taiwan. Commercial Pre... 2i 1 Honan Rd.. Shang. hai. COLOMIIA - COLOMIIE Librerla Latina. Cerrera 6... 13.05. BogoM. Librerla Amériea. Medeliln. Librerla Nacionol Ltda.. Barrenquilla. COSTA RICA- COSTA·IICA 'Treios Hermanos, Apartodo 1313. San José. CUlA L. Casa Belgo. O'Reillv 455, Le Habana. CZEeHOSLOVAKIA - TCHEeOSLOVAQUIE Ceskoslovensky Spisovatel, N~rodnf Trlde 9. Pr.he 1. MEXICO - MEXIQUE . Editorial Her",es S.A.. Ignacio Mariseal 41, México. D.F. NETHElLAHDS - PAY~·iAS N.V. Martinus Niihoff. Longe Voorhout 9. 's..Grovenhllgo. DENMARI - DANEHAlI Einar Munk,gaard. Ltd.. Nerregade 6, Kebenhavn. K. DOMINICAN IEPUlLlC - RE/UILIQUE OOMINICAINE Librerla Dominieane. Mercedes 49. Ciu. dad Trujillo. NEW ZEAUND - NOUVELlE·IELANDE Unitad Nations Association of New Zea. land. C.P.O. 1011. Wellington. NQIWAY - NOVEGE Johan Grundt Tanum Forlag. Kr. Au. guslsgt. 7A. Oslo. PAKISTAN Thom.s & Thomas, 'Fort M.nsion. Frere Road. Karachi, 3. Publishers 'United Ltd., 176 Anarkali, Lahore. The Pakist.n Cooperative Book Sociaty. Chittagong and Dacca (E.st p.kistan.) PAlIAiA JOsé Menilnde•• PlaIe do Arango. Panamé. PAlA6UAY , Moreno He(manos. Asunci6n. ECUAOOR - EQUATEUI Librerla Cientlfiea, Guavaquilond Quito. EGYPT - EGYPTE Librairie "Le Renaissa.ea d·Egypte." 9 Sh. Adly Pasha, Càiro. EL SALVADOI-SALVAOOR Manuel Navas y Cla., la. Avenida sur 37. San Salvador. ETHIOPIA- ETHIOPIE Agence Ethiopienne de Publicité, Box 128, Addis-Abeba. FINLAND- FINLANDE Akateeminen Kirjakauppa. 2, Keskuskatu, Helsinki. Orders and inql/iries from cOl/ntries where sales agents have not yet b'8en appointed may be sent tOI Sales and eifcl/latlon Section, United Nations, New Yorle, U.S.A.; or Sales Section, United Nations Office, Palais des t:latio~, Geneva, Switzerland. Printed in Canada Priee: $U.S. 0.15; 1/-stg.; Sw. fr. 0.50 (or equivalent in other currencies) mu-mOl! Librerle lnternacional dei Per6, S,A.. Lima, and Arequipa. PHILIPPINES Alemar'.' Book Store. 7't9 Rizal Avenue, Manila. paRTUGAL LivrariaRodrigues. 186 Rua Auree, Lisl:oa. SINGAPORE- SINGAPOUI The City' Book Store, Ltd.. Winchester House. Collyer Quey. SWEDEN - SUÉOE C. E. Fritze's Kungl. Hovbokhandel A.B. Fredsgatan 2. Stockholm. 1WlnERLAND- SUISSE librairie Payot S.A.. Lausenne, Genève. Hans Raunhardt. Kirchgasse 17. Zurich 1. SUlA -.SYIIE Lil:Ïrairie Universelle, Damas. TNAILAHD - THAILANDE Pramuan Mit Ltd., 55 Chakrbwat Road, Wa~ Tuk, Bangtok. TURIEY - TUIQUIE . Librairie Hachette, 469 Istiklal Caddesi, Beyoglu, Istanbul. UNION OF SOUTH AFIICA - UHlaN SUo-AFIICAINE Van Schaik's 800kstore (Pty.). Ltd•• Box 724. Pret"ria. UNITeO NINGOOM-IOYAUME-UNI H.M. Stationery Office, P.O. Box 569. London. S.E. 1 (and at H.M.S.O. Shops). UNITED STATES OF AlIEIICA - ETATS-UNIS D·~EI. Infl Documents Service, Columbie Univ. Press, 2960 Bl'oadway. New York 27. N.Y. UIUGUAY Representacion de Editoriales. Prof. H. D·Ella. Av. 18 de Julio 1333, Montevideo. VENEZUElA Distribuidora Escolar S.A.. end Didribui. dora Continental, Ferrenquln a Cruz de C.ndelaria 178, Caracas. VIET-liAlI Papeterie·Librairie Nouvolle Albert Por. t.ail. Bofte p6stale Z83, Sargon. YUGOSLAYIA - YOUGOSLAVIE Onavno Preduzece. Jugoslovenska Knjiga. Terazije 27.11. Beograd. United Nalion. publication. CO" "Iso b. obtoi"ed trom the following fimu: le. pu!>llcations de. Nalion. U"le. pouv...,' é{jal.m.nt être ob""u" aux ad....... ci, d.ssous: AUSTRIA- AUTIICHE B. Wüllerstorfl. Waagplatz. 4. Salzburg. Gerold & Co.. 1. Greben 31. Wien. GEiIolANY -ALLEJJAliNE Elwert & Meurer. Hauplslrasse iOI. Berlin -Sehoneberg. W.E. S.arb.ch, Gereonstr.sse 25·29. Këln (22c). Alex. Horn, Spiegelgesse 9, Wiesbaden. JArAN - JAPON Maruzen Company. Ltd.. b Tori·Niehome. Nihonbeshi, Tokyo. SPAIN·ESPAGNE Librerla Bosch. Il Ronda U"iversidad. Bareelona. Les commandes et demandes de renseignements émanant de pays où il n'existe pas encore de dépositaires peINent être adreuées à la Section des ventes et de la distn'bl/- tion, Organisation des Nations Unies, New-York (Etats- Unis d'Atilériql/e) 01/, à la Section des ventes, Organisa. tion des NatiollS Unies, Palais des Nations, Genève (Suisse). (53&2) Q-4681-April 1954-1,600