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 appropriate 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 question 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, 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 condition 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 Tesponsibility 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 positivesolution 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 oneanticipating, as l 'am oqliged ta do, these deve10pments in the hypothetical case of the adoption of the agendafear that such barren discussions not only would not make for the consolidation of the Security 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- 10. I therefore invite the representatives of Afghanistan, 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 prediction - 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 impatience 1S motivated by the lack - in their viewof any progress in the direction charted by ·resolution 612 (VII), adopted by the General Assembly on 19 December 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. 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 govemments 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 representarive 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. completely share the feeling of the distinguished representative of France that, in these matters, it is not 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 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 gentleman 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 'Statement. 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. , , 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 Secretariat, 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."''-' '

My delegation 'resents very strongly the remarks made hy the representative 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 Chairman 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. 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 information 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 Governments, 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 prindpIes 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. 56. At the meetings of the Security Council on 26 and 27 August [619th and 620th meetings] the representatives 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 representatives 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 Interna.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 Protectoratel has retained its personality as a State in internationallaw; and "that the characteristic of the status of Morocco, as resulting from the General Act of AIgeciras of April 7th, 1906, is respect for the three principles 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 international 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 questions 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 America in Morocco, Judgment of August 27th, 1952: I.C.!., ,-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''''~. 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 question 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 even~s which they justly regard as.a threat to its peac~ and security. 76.. In view 'Of all.these facts thèdelegation of the Suviet Union supports the demand.of the fifteen States for~e inclusion of the Moroccan question in the agenda of the Security Council. 77. The delegation of the Soviet Union considers that the M.eroc€a."l question mayand .should he.inc1uded in the .agenda of. the.Security Collncil,. and should be reviewed by the Counci1. - _.~),S'cthLd~~~atiQI:t9f th~cSovietUnion also sùpports. the demand of thethirteen""States·wIiiChare nof mem':- bers of the Security Council for permission to take part in the discussion at the relevant stage [Sj3088] ~t.~e stage when the Council -discusses the proposaI to inc1ude the Moroccan question hLtlIe agenda. 79. The United Kingdom representative, Sir Gladwyn Jehb,has opposed this demand by the thirteen States on ,. the ground that in iliepractice of the. Security Council non-members of the Councilchave been invited oilly after a question has ~lready been inc1uded in the agenda. Thatis, Si1' Gladwyn Jebb implied that non-memb~rsen of the Security'Council would be im-ited to take part only ihthediscussion of the substance of the question. '. . . SO. rtitliis connexion it would he opportuné to remind Sir .Gladwyn Jebb that in the Ira,nian questiçm in t94?5 the facts were somewhat different. It is wellknown 'i:hat on,that occasion -the Irania~ representative tookpart i~ 'the discussio~ of the. question of. procedure before the Council passed to a review. of the substance of theqtiesfion Iraniancomplaint. However thatmay he, the Security Councilhas .always poss~ssedand l10w possess.es· the right to create precedents, regardless of how it acted earlier. 81. The ,delegation of the Soviet Union considers that the question of invitingrepresentatives of the thirteen 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 statement 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:ative 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 remains, 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.- 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. Nationality 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 indepen'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 hehind 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, consideration 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 consideration 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 Kingdom, who was one of the principals in thaf debate, deielldedthevery ~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 question 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 submit 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 suceessor. 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 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 dismissed 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 promotion 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 contributing 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 Member 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 compeJence. 97. l now revert to the second request: that representatives of thirteen States be given a hearing on the adoption 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- 98. Professor Bokhari, speaking before _the Couneil as the representative of Pakistan, asked the Council [576th meeting, para. 44] not 1:0 deny the representatives 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 rule 37. My delegation is of the opinion that rule 3,7 cannot 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 thatcommunicationthey 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 Lebanon and Pakistan have spoken freely and, l would add, e10quently for the sponsors. Other speakers, 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 sacrifieing 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 a position to support the proposil of the representative of Lebanon. 100. Speaking now as President of the Security Councft 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 DEPOSnAIRES DES PUBLICATIONS FIANCE Editions A. Pedone, Paris V. GREECE-GREeE "I:leftheroudakis," Place tion. Atbènes. SUATElIALA Goubaud & Cla. Ltda:,· 28. Guatemala. HAITI • Librairie' "A la Caravelle," III·B, Port·au·Prince. HONOUIAS Librerla Panamerieano, Colle Tegucigalpa. HONSoIONG The Swindon Book Co" 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 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 House. New Delhi. Calcutta. P. Varadachary & !=o., St•• Madras 1. IHOONESIA-INDONESIE Jaia'.n Pembangunan, Dj'karta. IRAN Ketab.Kh.neh Danesh, nue, Tehr.n. IUQ-IUI Mackenzie's Booksho!". ISRAEL Blumstein's Bookstoras Raad. Tel·Aviv. ITALY -ITALIE Colibri S.A.. Via Mercalli LElANON _ L11," Librairie Universelle. L1IERIA J. Momolu Kamaro. lOXElIIOUIG Librairie J. Sehummer. 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 41, México. D.F. NETHElLAHDS - PAY~·iAS N.V. Martinus Niihoff. '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 land. C.P.O. 1011. Wellington. NQIWAY - NOVEGE Johan Grundt Tanum guslsgt. 7A. Oslo. PAKISTAN Thom.s & Thomas, Road. Karachi, 3. Publishers 'United Lahore. The Pakist.n Cooperative Chittagong and Dacca PAlIAiA JOsé Menilnde•• PlaIe do Arango. 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; (or equivalent in