S/PV.657 Security Council

Before we pass ta the ordinary business of the Council, it gives me great pleasure to e.xpress the Council's thanks to the President for the month of January, the representative of Lebanon. His qualities, his scholarship, his high sense of principle are known to us aIl. 1 should like ta pay tribute ta him for his scrupulous conduct of the functions of the presidency. 2. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): 1 thank the President for what he has just said. 1 should only like to say that the chief source of pleasure 1 had in my presidency d~ring the month of January was that 1 had the honour of turning my duties over to Mr. Munro. Adoption of the agenda

We have before us the proposed agenda, document SIAgenda/ 657. We also have an explanatory memorandum [SI 3168/Add. 1] submitted by the delegation of Israel, and, in document S/3172, dated 3 February 1954, we have a letter from the representative of Egypt. In this letter, the representative of Egypt requests that another item be placed on the agenda for urgent consideration, that is, the complaint by Egypt against Israel concerning "violations by Israel of the Egyptian-Israeli General Armistice Agreement at the demilitarized zone of El Auja". The representative of Egypt then draws attention to certain alleged violations, stating what they are, but not, 1 understand, when they occurred. In this letter, the representative of Egypt states that these acts "constitute a flagrant violation of the General 4. My delegation, for its part, would certainly not he against placing on our agenda an item drawn up in the terms suggested by the representative of Egypt. We should certainly say that any nation which believes there has been sorne violation of the Armistice Agreement has the right, and perhaps even the duty, to draw the attention of the Council to that alleged violation; but what 1 do say, and 1 hope that my colleagues will agree, is that this letter from Ml'. Abdelrazek is dated only 3 February, and I saw it for the first time only this morning. I note that no explanatory memorandum accompanied it. 5. Though it is true that Ml'. Abdelrazek states that the matter is urgent, 1 understand that it refers to certain alleged violations which took place a considerable time ago, many months ago, unless 1 am wrong. 1 myself have a slight doubt, among other things, as to whether the matters to which he refers in his letter are not actually sub jttdice, so to speak, in the Special Committee provided for by the Armistice Agreement. That may or may not be so; 1 do not say that that is necessarily so. However, if there is anything in the rumour to that effect which 1 have heard, then the matter of whether or not this is s!tb jtedice ought particularly to be gone into and examined in an explanatory memorandum, which should be circulated in the normal way to all members of the Council. After having read this memorandum, we could then have another meeting - a special meeting, if necessary, or, alternatively, our next meeting - and determine whether it shoùld be put on the agenda, and if so, in what form. 6. At that stage, we should also consider whether this additional allegation of a violation of the Armistice Agreement by Israel should become item 2 on our existing agenda, or whether, on the other hand, it might suitably form a basis for another separate agenda for the Security Council. 7. 1 am sure that this matter can be argued bothways. However, it is very difficult to come to any decision until we know what this is really about as a result of studying the explanatory memorandum. 8. Therefore, my simple proDOsal is that we approve the agenda which we have before us in document SjAgendaj657; ask the representative of Egypt to circulate as soon as possible an explanatory memorandum in regard to his proposed item; and when we have the explanatory memorandum, meet as soon as possible to d~ide whether that additional item should be put on our agenda, and if 50, how. 9. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): If things were perfectly normal when Palestine problems are being cûnsidered, 1 would have gladly accepted the argument which we have just heard from the representative of the United Kingdom. But wc all know that, especially when it comes to the treatment of these questions in organs of the United Nations, and in particular in the Security Council, things all of a sudden take on a phase 13. The representative of the United Kingdom probably had in mind rule 8 of the mIes of procedure, which provides, in effect, that in order to be considered by the Security Council, an item should be submitted three days before the meeting. This is quite true, and nobody denies it. But 1 would remark, in the first place, that this matter is designated as urgent by Egypt, and that it is not up to any Member to deny the right of any other Member to consider as urgent whatever it wishes. Certainly the Council may not put this item on its agenda; but at the same time Egypt regards it as urgent. 14. In the second place, what is this question? It is but. one facet of a total problem, namely the complex and, 1 might add, dangerous problem of the re1ationship between Egypt and Israel. Israel has seen fit to l'aise one issue of that very complex situation in its memorandum. Egypt is perfectly entitled to l'aise another facet o~ the same general complex situation. Since we will treat that particular Israeli-Egyptian problem in some form, ~t is eminently reasonable to treat it not from one side only, but from the side of the other party, Egypt, as well. 15. Egypt may have other things to tell us later on, but so far it has put befare us only document S/3172 to be taken up in conjunction with the item which is now going to be examined by the Security Council. Therefore, this point is important, and 1 would beg Sir Gladwyn Jebb to consider it: we are going to treat ~he Israeli-Egyptian situation in one farm, under one aspect; therefore it is only fair - and 1 know that the representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States want to be fair, because to be fair in aU these matters is a part of their total political philosophy - to allow the Egyptians to present on the same agenda their own side of the complex Israeli-Egyptian problem. 17. It will of course be asked at this point: Why did not Egypt press this matter before? If a country has behaved decently, do you penalize it when it presses its point at the moment when its opponent is also pressing his point? Is that a fair way of treating nations in this àugust body? Certainly Egypt has had this matter before us in these documents for four months now. Therefore, if Egypt chose to bring this matter to our attention only after Israel had raised its own point, 1 would say it is only right and proper that we should accede to Egypt's desire to put this item on the agenda together with the complaint by Israel. 18. Consequently, 1 formally move that the provisional agenda before us, document S/Agenda/657, be amended to include as sub-title (c) the cornplaint by Egypt found in document S/3172.

The Couneil has before it two proposaIs. The first is that of the representative of the United Kingdom that the Couneil should adopt the agenda for today as circulated in document S/Agenda/ 657, and ask the representative of Egypt to eirculate an explanatory memorandum on his item on the basis of which the Couneil would decide whether to put the matter on its agenda. 1 think 1 am correctly setting forth the proposaI of the representative of the United Kingdom. 20. The second proposaI, which has been put forward since by the representative of Lebanon, is, as 1 u.nderstand it, that the provisional agenda should be amended by the addition of the item set forth in the letter dated 3 February 1954 from the permanent representative of Egypt addressed to the President of the Security Couneil (S/3172).

1 certainly do not want to be unreasonable in any way in this matter. 1 quite agree that it would be possible for the Council, if it so wished, to amend the present provisional agenda in the way desired by the representative of Lebanon, and 1 may say that if the Couneil did so jecide there would be no hard feelings on my part. It wmlld be quite in arder if the Council desired to do that, and we should not bear any grudge whatever. But 1 do think that, simply in the interests of good procedure, we ought really to act as 1 proposed just now. 22. 1 must say that 1 am not convinced at the moment that there is any very great urgency abcut the matter ·nowbrought to our attention by the 'representative of .Egypt. It has been examined for a long period of time; 23. Having said that, I do protest slightly at having it imputed to me that I was guilty of any abnormal, irregular or arbitrary behaviour on the last occasion in invoking one of our rules of procedure. If it is such an inherently reprehensible thing to invoke a rule of procedure of the Security Council, then obviously that rule of procedure is wrong, and we should abolish it and have another. But if that is the rule, and if I, on behalf of my two colleagues, thought fit to invoke it, then that is our right, and I do not feel that anybody is justified in protesting, or in charging us with any abnormal or arbitrary beha:viour. 1 say that because I think it is up to us to defend our own rules of procedure and not indirectly to attack them. 24. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): There are many things which I want to say, but I should like now to reply ta what has just been said by Sir Gladwyn Jebb about my reference ta him in my previous statement. I do not remember using the words "irregular" or "illegal" at all. In faet, 1 am sure that I did not use them, and this cano be proved by listening ta the sound recording. The ward I did use was "abnormal", but the word "abnormal" is different from both the words "illegal" and "irregular". What do 1 mean by "abnormal"? By "abnormal" I mean that, prior to last week, it was the normal procedure of the Counci1 without a single exception that whenever a request was made that a proposaI shou1d be voted upon in parts, that request was acceded to. 25. For the first time in the history of the Security Council a request to that effect, made in good order two weeks aga and agreed ta very tentatively at the time by the representative of the United Kingdom, was denied to me the following day [656th meeting]. Certainly that may properly be termed "abnorma:l". It is not irregular in the sense of being contrary to the rules of procedure, and certainly it is not iIIega1 in any sense whatever, but it is certainly abnormal. And sirice it occurs for the first time in connexion with Palestine - in regard to which question 1 can enumerate for the President, whose memory Oï assistants may perhaps help him in this matter, about twenty abnormalities which have occurred during the last eight years, during aU of which I have been connected with it - for me to caU it "abnormal" in the circumstances seems to me ta be a very normal thing. 26. I come now to the point at issue. I really think that we can p'roceed with the substantive discussion of this matter immediately, and th~t we can aU agree to 5 27. Consequently, my simple proposaI is that we add a, small sub-item (c) to our present agenda, that it be perfectly understood that we need not always discuss aU these three things at the same meeting, and that the members of the Council'are at liberty to choose sub-item (a) and discuss it alonp today; or they could choose sub-item (b) or (c). But we should have the total Egyptian-Israel problem before us on the same agenda. The members of the Council may pick and choose as they please so far as the discussion is concerned. 28. Concerning the explanatory note which Sir Gladwyn has asked for, 1 can assure him that he can use the two documents 1 referred to previously [Sj3101 and Sj3103] as such an explanatory note. If he insists on a further explanation of the situation, 1 can assure him that a note will be forthcoming in the near future. 1 can assure him that it will certainly be in his hands before he is prepared ta talk about sub-item (c). 29. 1 therefore request the President that we begih this very difficult matter in sorne sense of harmony on this very simple procedural question. 1 do hope that we can all agree, without taking a vote, to put this sub-item (c) on the agenda, in the perfect understanding that it need not be discussed at the same time or at the same meeting at which we discuss the complaint by Israel. As soon as we have an documenta.tion before us, we will then be at liberty to range over the entire field of Israeli-Egyptian relations. 1 hope that with this explanation of mine and in this understanding we can aU come to a unanimous tacit agreement on this matter.

1 hope that we will be able to come to a speedy decision on this matter without any prolonged discussion, of alleged abnormalities.

1 should like to add a few brief comments to those made by Sir Gladwyn Jebb, with which in principle 1 entirely agree. 32. MI'. Malik has said that when the Security Council is dealing with Palestine problems - 1 quote the interpretation - "Abnormality is the rule". This is rather an unjust, indeed hurtful, accusation against the Council, which 1 for one feel very keenly. 1 do not think that the Council can be accused of proceeding abnormaUy on every occasion when Palestine questions are on its agenda. l, certainly, have not been aware during the two years in which 1 have been following these problems in the Security Council that it has furnished any justification for such a charge. 33. In my view Sir Gladwyn Jebb commented very pertinently on theexample of abnormality given by MI'. Malik. 1 think that MI'. Malik is confusing the abnormal with the unusual; the two are not quite the same thing. It is possible that the United Kingdom representative's refusaI to agree to a paragraph by paragraph vote on a draft resolution of which he was 35. On the other hand l think that it wouId he quite irregular ta include it in the agenda of this meeting; irregular as a matter of fact, because we 1mow full well that we shall not discuss the item today, and irregular as a matter of law, because the item before us today is a complaint by Israel against Egypt which has been presented to us in the form of two sub-paragraphs, (a) and (b); and l do not see how in this agenda, even if we make another sub-paragraph (c), we could inc1ude under the item "Complaint by Ismel against Egypt", another question entitled "Complaint by Egypt against Israel". 36. Furthermore, the complaint raised by Israel is concerned with certain definitive points i.e., the enforcement by Egypt of restrictions on the passage of ships trading with Israel through the Suez Canal, and interference by Egypt with shipping proceeding to the Israeli port of Elath on the Gulf of Aqaba. Those points raise a number of very complex and delicate legal and factual questions, which are not new to th, Security Council and ta which we shaH certainly havL tJ devote our attention.and our thought. ;~ i i 37. The complaint by Egypt against Israel concerns quite a different order of facts, and l think that it would be extremely unwise procedure on the part of the Security Councila procedure unusual if not abnormalto combine discussion of these two types of question at the same meeting. Just as, a few months ago, we were unwilling ta discuss the question of work by Israel on the west bank of the River Jordan and the Qibya question together on the same plane, it seems to me that we should not today inc1ude in a single agenda, which would as it were come up for discussion automatically at each meeting, the question of freedom of navigation through the Suez Canal and in the Gulf of Aqaba, and the question of frontier incidents between Egypt and Israel. 38. l think we should make it quite clear today that we have no intention of combining these two types of question - though admittedly they ;:.re part of a certain

1 reaiize only too weIl that the President is anxious to avoid a lengthy debate on this procedural question. 1 shall therefore be very brief. 41. From the technical point of view, there is much to be said in favour of the suggestion made by the United Kingdom representative. Nevertheless, 1 think it would be politically wiser for the Security Council to accept the amendment proposed by the representative of Lebanon. 42. It goes without saying that. in connexion with the Palestine question, the Security Council must be impartial and fair; it is not necessary for me to stress that. VVhat 1 should like to stress at this moment is that, in aIl matters connected with the Palestine question, the Security Council must take every precaution and make every effort to avoid the appearance of partiality or unfairness. 1 think that the agenda suggested by the representative of Lebanon would give that appearance of absolute impartiality and fairness. 1 therefore urge the Security Council to accept the amendment proposed by the representative of Lebanon. 43. 1 have an additional reason for the suggestion· T have made. If we think this matter through, we shaH •ealize that the difference is more nominal than rea1. If we accept the suggestion made by the United Kingdom representa:tive, the result may he ~11:lt the-re will be a lengthy debate on the adoption of the agenda. The adoption of the agenda is supposed to be a proceduraI question, but members of the Council will manage to make it as substantive as possible. Hence, in my view, it would be preferable to have that substantive debate after, rather than in connexion with, the adoption of the agenda. 44. MT. LODGE (United States of America): 1 should like to state the position of the United States delegation in .connexion with the question now before the Council. 45. As a matter of normal cûmity, the United States delegatio"1 supports the motiGn to include the Egyptian item in the agenda - even in the agenda for today's meeting, if the sponsors desire. We feel, however, that the items proposed by Israel, on the one hand, and by Egypt, on the other, should be disc~lssed in turn and not simultaneously. ~-6. 1 wou!d therefore propose that, in document SI Age.nda/657, the first line under the words "The Palestine question" should be: " (a) Complaint by Israel against Egypt concerning...", and that the 48. As 1 understood the representative of Lebanon, he proposed the addition of this item to the agenda and said that he ôid not request that it be considered today, and aIso as l understood him - he wiIi correct me if 1 am wrang - he said that the matter which he wished added wouId be debated as a separate item. 49. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): Before l come to' the final formulation of what I believe we can aIl agree upon, I should like to say one or t",o words about what the representative of France said. He quoted me as saying that abnormality was the rule in the Security Couneil: "l'anormalité serait la règle". 1 ce.rtainly did not say that sentence at aIl. There must have beeu a mistransIation from English, which I was speaking, into French, to which the representative of France was probably listening. I did say that abnormalities abound. 1 did not ascribe abnormality ta the Council as such. My ascription of such behaviour was ta distinct members of the Council, and I described such behaviour as abnormal in the sense wI-Jch I gave to that term. Furthermore,- in this very sense, I could enumerate many instances which appeared to us very strange and which can fairly he termed abnormalinstances on the part of individual members of the Couneil, or of individual members of certain other organs of the United Nations, -rather than on the part of the organs themselves. 50. Moreover, the representative of France drew some kind of analogy between the refusaI of the Couneil to put on the same agenda the complaint with respect to the Qibya ineident and the complaint with respect to the work by Israel on the west bank of the River Jordan, on the one hand, and the present situation involving the complaint of Israel agaj....st Egypt and the complaint of Egypt against Israel, on the other. Tt is c1ear that this analogy does not hold, that it is an unsound analogy. First of aIl, the complainants in connexion with the Qibya incident were the three Western Powers, whereas the complainant in connexion with the diversion of 'the waters of the Jordan was Syria. There we we1'e dealing with two different sources of complaints affecting two different Arab countries in their relations with Israel. In the present situation, however, we are dealing with preeise1y one and the same bilateral relationship between Israel and one and the same Arab State. Therefore, if we can draw any analogy from fr ~ 53. As regards the substance of this procedurai debate, 1 must say that it seems to me that, from the point of view of the rules of procedure, it wouId be most unusual - 1 will not say ul1sound, but unsuitable - to place two different questions, two different complaints on the agenda of the same meeting. 54. The French delegation believes that as the matter is absolutely without political implications, what it believes to be the normal praetice and the normal interpretation of our rules of procedure should be respeeted. It will be unable to vote for the inclusion of a second question, different from the one now before us, in the agenda of this meeting. 55. Mr. VYCHINSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian).: Sir Gladwyn Jebb and, following him, Mr. Hoppenot have spoken against the acceptance of the Egyptian representative's request for the inclusion of an additional item in the agenda - the Egyptian Government's complaint concerning aets committed by the Israel Government, the complaint by Egypt against Israel concerning violations by Israel of the Egyptian-Israel General Armistice Agreement at the demilitarized zone of El Auja. 56. What arguments were advanced in support of their opposition? On what is it based? If 1 understood him rightly, Sir Gladwyn Jebb's objections are based on the view that the item Egypt is now proposing is not urgent. To begin with, however, Egypt regards the questiçm as urgent; and if Egypt regards it as urgent, it must he considered in that light. The Security Council may not share that view, but it seems to me that the right to decide whether or not a proposaI should be classed as urgent is primarily one for its authors and sponsors. 57. "Vhy is this question not urgent? Sir Gladwyn and, as 1 understood him, Mr. E'ppenot aIso, argue that it has been submitted in contraventilln of l"ule 8, 58. Whether or not a question is urgent is detflrmined by its substance. Before hearing what is involved, we cannot say that the question b not urgent. That being 50, we must aet in accordance with the opinion of those who have a special interest in the question. 59. Moreover, rule 8 also provides that an item may be communicated simultaneously with the notice of the meeting if the Council considers this necessary. The rule states that this may he done if the Secretary- General and the Council consider it necessary. The mIes thus uphold the principle that an item may be included at any time as a matter of urgency in the provisional agenda which has already been circulated. 60. From the standpoint of the rules of procedure, it seems to me that there can be no obstacle to our regarding the proposaI as being in order. 61. But I should like to draw attention to a point whir:1,. Mr. Malik has already made in a slightly different context. Re reminded us of Egypt's two letters of 2 and 6 October 1953 [S/3101 and S/3103] , giving fuller details of the complaints Egypt is proposing to bring against Israel. Sir Gladwyn has said that we have no explanatory memorandum ; that we need an explanatory memorandum in order to understand the issues involved. 63. et senté sur examiner où seil ment portée 64. jour de 62. The last sentence of the letter of 2 October states, for example, that "the delegation of Egypt . . . reserves its right to pursue this matter further in the light of future developments". The Egyptian representative therefore envisaged the possibility that he would at sorne stage have ta request the Security Council to consider these letters in the context of a complaint, and not merely as a communication. The Egyptian representative believes that that stage has now been reached; what he ccnsidered on 2 October 1953 as a possibility he now considers a necessity. 63. Why is the proposaI of this item by Egypt a matter of urgency? As I understand it, it is urgent because of the action Israel has now taken. Rad there been no complaint by Israel against Egypt, Egypt could probably have waited and refrained from pressing its complaint. But since Israel has submitted a comp!aint, the Egyptian representative, if I understand him rightly, considers it expedient, in accordance with his letter of 2 October, for his question to be ~onsidered at the same time as the Israel complaint. There is therefore every justification for consideration of the question raised by Egypt simultaneously with the question raised by Israel - the complaint against action taken by Egypt. 64. One last point. Today's agenda includes "The Palestine question". I ask you, does not Egypt's complaint against Israel, the details of which are given in 65. According to Mr. Hoppenot, we cannot agree to the inclusion of two different complaints ttnder the same item - that would be eontrary to the rules of procedure. 1 see nothing unusual, much less abnormal, in inc1uding two complaints under the same item, or even n!ore than two, provided that they relate to one and the same problem. The second item on today's agenda is "The Palestine que~tion: complaint by Israel against Egypt ...". But the Palestine question also includes or can include the complaint of Egypt against Israel. 66. 1 agree with the opinion e..'tpressed here by another speaker, that simultaneous consideration of both these complaints will ensure far greater objectivity and freedom of action in their evaluation; will ensure that we weigh not only such circumstances, facts and data as may be relevant or may be adduced during consideration of the complaint brought by one side, but also those connected with the complaint submitted by the other side. 67. It seems to me that we might usefully recall in this connexion the analogy of the normal civil procedure, in which the complainant's c1aim is met by the respondent's counter-c1aim. 68. Of course, the circmnstances here are slightly different. We have before us two parties involved in one and the same dispute, although the first party advances one set of faets and the second party another. But this is always the case with any dispute; one party puts forward his facts to substantiate his complaint, while the other party advances other facts to substantiate his complaint. Why cannot we consider both at the same time? 69. It seems to me that Mr. Hoppenot himself is not convinced that this is impossible; he is not opposed in principle to a decision by the Security Council to include Egypt's complaint in the Council's agenda at a later stage, but he wants it to be inc1uded not in the document we have before us but in another to be issued in a few days' time.. But this in faet is evading the issue. Given agreement to consideration of these complaints side by side, simultaneously, the question of the order in which they are to be examined is anQther matter. After one complaint has been considered the other can be taken up, or what you will. 70. 1 would emphasize that for me the order in which the complaints are considered is a separate question. But 1 do not believe that a complaint by one party on a question which has already been included in our agenda as a result of a complaint by the other party should be excluded. To refuse the second party's request would in m)' view be completel)' illogicaI. 71. To make my delegation's position c1ear, 1 must therefore state that 1 am prepared ta support the Egyptian representative's request for inclusion of his complaint in the agenda together with the. eomplaint 73. I therefore support the United States representative's proposaI that the Egyptian complaint should be placed on the agenda, but that it should be examined separately from that submitted by Israel. 74. The PRESIDENT: There are two other representatives upon whom ï am about to call, and I trust that after the Council has heard them we shaH be able to proceed to the vote. 75. Mr. BORBERG (Denmark): I feel that I must state that I disagree with what has been said by the representative of the Soviet Union with regard to urgency. Mr. Vyshinsky thought that the question of urgency was one which should be decided by the sponsor -' as his remarks were interpreted - which means, in this case, Egypt. To my mind it is very important that the Security Council should always maintain that it alone has the right to take this decision. The evaluation of urgency is one that must depend upon the decision of the Council. 76. It is a decision which is very difficult for one who has not taken part in the examination of this problem previously, but I feel that nothing contained in the documents received proves that such urgency exists. Thus, I can see no real reason for not waiting until we have the explanatory memorandum, and no reason, therefore, for departing from the rules of procedure in this matter. 77. Furthermore, the question whether the case is sll.b j1~dice - and I have not been able to examine this because I have not had the time at my disposalis one which, theoreticaHy.at least, might lead the Council not to place the item upon its agenda. That possibility will be excluded if we accept the proposaI of the United States delegation. 78. But if that proposaI is accepted it seems to me that it is very important that everyone here should be agreed .that the two questions be dea]t with separately. If the two questions were dealt with in a "wider context" - which is the phrase that is usually used - that would mean that we should really change the agenda altogether and deal with the relations between Egypt and Israel, not with the two specific complaints. 76. pas une les question donc d'avoir que 77. devant étudier ment, du tions 78. que deux les "cadre ralement ordre et lières 79. l'amendement membres mentation un d'étudier nous et l'examiner en 79. Much to my regret, therefore, I shaH be compelled to abstain on the question of the United States amendment and to leave it to the nther members of the Council to decide whether they can, on the basis of the matel"Ïal at our disposaI, decide that this question is one of urgency. I imagine that if 1 had time to examine the question, I should come to the conclusion that we should put it on our agenda and deal with it at the appropriate time. 80. Ml'. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): ~ wish to rnake just one remark. Ml'. Hoppenot seems to be anxious to ascribe to me the phrase which he repeated twice and which l'an, as he said it, "abnormality is the rule" 80. glais): penot paraît fort désireux répétée ~hat eve\"y time questions connected with Palestine were discussed, ahnormality \Vas the rule in the Security Council. There is a very wide difference between the categorical statement which he attributes to me but which 1 did not make, and the statement referring to certain circumstances which 1 thought 1 heard. 82. To refer for the last time to the substance of the question, 1 should like to make the foIlowing comment. If the Security Counci! accepts the proposaI of the United States representative. supported. with slight va'"iations, by the representatives of the Soviet Union, Lebanon and Brazil, we shaIl today include in our agenda both the complaint by Israel against Egypt and the complaint by Egypt against Israel. These two items, the complaint by Israel against Egypt and the complaint by Egypt against Israel, wiII appear in our agenda at aIl our meetings on this subject in the immediate future. 1 should like to know what guarantees we have that, as the United States representative assures us, the two questions wiII oot be confused, and that a speech on the problem of the Suez Canal wiII not be countered hy a speech on the problem of incidents on the Egypt- Palestine border. 83. It seemed to me that everybody was in agre~ment in wishing to have the two questions discussed alternately and not simultaneously. 1 should like to know what assurances the President can give us, or what suggestions any member of the Council can make, 50 that the inclusion of both these questions in the agenda may not provide every member of the Council with an opportunity to confuse them and to discuss them together. 1 must repeat that that would seem to me confusion absolutely at variance with the traditions the Security Council. 84. The PRESIDENT: Before we proceed to the vote, 1 shaIl set out the situation as 1 see it. 85. First of aIl, we have a proposaI by the representative of the United Kingdom. That proposaI is that the Council should adopt the agenda for today as circulated in document SjAgendaj657 and ask the representative of Egypt to circulate an explanatory memorandum on his item on the basis of which the Council would decide whether to put that item on the agenda. 86. We have had a proposaI by the representative Lebanon, but it has been withdrawn in favour of the proposaI by the representative of the United States, which 1 shaIl treat as an amendment. The representative of the United States proposes that the agenda be amended in the foIlowing manner: first of aIl, insert "(a)" before the word "Complaint"; then, after the two sub-paragraphs (a) and (b ), which wiII become (i) and (ii), insert' a new paragraph as follows : "(b) Complaint by Egypt against Israel concerning violations by Israel nf the Egyptian-Israeli 89. approuve des du 90. prononcera fier 91. t'anglais): contribuera que qu'il voter. 92. Unis, comme proposition qui séparément - et non se prononceront en cette Liban, qu'il 93. poser aurons que obligé, orateur du point 94. réponse si, Conseil le 95. glais): appelle, de tout aucun Président 96. garderai avec que

This is a point of order which is also, I think, Cl point of clarification before we vote, because I think that it is rather important to know exactly what it is we are voting on. 92. As I understand it, •~e representative of the United States, in submitting what is now an amendment, said that he did so on the assumption that the two items, (a) and (b), would be discussed separate1y - that is to say, presumably consecutively and not simultaneously. I do not know whether the people who will vote for this proposition in view of their statements would agree with that definition. Perhaps they would not. I have had no assurance on the part of the representative of Lebanon, for instance, that he agrees with that definition at aIl. 93. Therefore, what l'should like to--ask the President before we vote is: having voted on this proposaI and on the assumption which 1 have stated, when we come ta the debate, would the President feel obliged to call to order any orator who touched on item (b) when discussing item (a), or vice versa?

In reply to the United Kingdom representative, I would say this: If, during the Council's discussion of item 2 (a), a member proceeded ta discuss item 2 (b), I should call him to order. 95. Ml'. Charles MALIK (Lebanon) :.My only observation on what the President has just said is this: If, during the Council's discussion of item 2 (a) (i), either the representative of Israel or any other representative refers to matters having nothing to do with the Suez Canal, 1 hope that the President will caB that representative to order also. 96. The PRESIDENT: 1 do not wish to peer into the future, but 1 would say, with gre:at respect, that if any member of the Council or any representative entitled to address the Council went beyond what I humbly regarded as the limits of relevance, 1 should caII him to order. 97. Ml'. VYSlUNSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : 1 am taking the 100. We are fully aware of our obligations and the President, 1 am sure, very well knows what is expected of him as President, as each of us does when it is his turn to occupy the Chair. It seems to me, therefore, quite sup~rfluous to require the President to give an undertaking that he will act in accordance with his duties as President. We should take it for granted that he will. 101. 1 should like to add that it seems to me quite possible that when we are discussing the first item, the complaint by Israel, we shall touch upon general issues which might have sorne relation to the second item, the complaint by Egypt. Surely we are not to he prohibited from referring to· them too? If, in clarifying one question, we find it necessary to introduce certain matters which are relevant - and necessarily relevant - to the discussion of the other, are we for that reason to keep silent? 102. If that is so, we must first draw up a special set of rules of procedure for the discussion of the Palestine question. I think that any declaration or assurance by the President would be out of place in the Security Council, which must act in accordance with its existing rules of procedure and with its established practice. 103. Therefore, and I say it again, I fail completely to understand why we are wasting our time in discussing how the President should conduct proceedings when he is in the Chair. I consider this an unnecessary and unprofitable occupation for the Security Council. 104. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): If it is the President's intention to put this matter to the vote now, 1 shall not speak, but if there are to be other speakers l)efore the vote is taken, 1 shall reconsider my position. 105. Sir Gladwyn JEBB (United Kingdom): Relying on what l, at any rate, regard as the assurances given just now by the President in connexion wÏi:h calling representatives to order, and hoping that the proposaI I am about to make will not be considered abnormal by anyone, 1 beg leave to withdraw my original motion.

There is now only one proposaI before us: the amendment moved by the repœsentative of the United States.

1 think that the Security Council has received satisfactory assurances from the President. He has told 108. As I have fuU' confidence in the President's assurances and as the purpose which seems to me most essential, that is, to prevent confusion of ~~e two problems and of the debates on them, has been achieved, I shaH vote in favour of the amendment submitted by the United States representative. '. 109. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): I said a few 'moments ago that I was not going to speak, but that I would reconsider my position if others spoke. I now think it is important for me to make a statement at this time. 110. The first point I want to make is this: Reference has been made to the authority of the President. l am very sure that the President would be the first to agree that each of us must abide by the rules of procedure, whether he be the President or a member of the Council, and, of course, I am certain that aU of us here will do so. Consequently, I take it that there is a desire on the part of every member of the Council to abide by the rules of procedure and not to depart from tî!em. It would be interesting in this connexion for aIl of us to study the rules of procedure - I shaU not make that study now - so far as their relevance to the point now under discussion is concerned. 111. The second point I should like ta make is that, since the representatives of the United Kingdom and France have spoken about this matter in the way in which they have, l would only refer again ta what I said before: that the impartiality expected of the President will certainly, I am sure, be applied aIl around, and not only in one direction. I do not want to preJict the future, because I am no prophet, but I can refer to the past and to a certain memorable point in a certain debate when the representative of Israel brought before us here a treatise of forty-eight pages, most of which, in my opinion - and I could demonstrate this objectively - had no re1evance to the point under discussion. I here use the word "relevance" in precisely the sense in which Sir Gladwyn Jebb would like it ta be used. I adduce this example from the past not because I am predicting anything specifie about the future, but only to try ta clàrify this point, because we may find ourselves in difficulty in the future if we are not aIl going ta be as fair and impartial as possible ta aU parties concerned.

Before. ~ put the matter to the vote, I wish to assure the representative of Lebanon that naturaUy I shaU endeavour to be strictly impartial. If there is any matter about which I have any doubt, I shall submit it to the judgment of the Couneil.

Those who have had no time to communicate with their governments may find it an advantage to have long discussions about procedure, because an entire meeting of the Couneil may be taken up in that way. One of my difficulties was that I had no possibility of communicating with my Government or of examining the second question, the. complaint brought by Egypt. However, as weshall

If there is no objection to the adoption of the agenda as amended by the representative of the United States, I shall declare the agenda duly adopted. The ageflda, as amended, was adopted. 115. The PRESIDENT: We have now arrived at a fairly late hour after an interesting and, I hope, profitable discussion, and I doubt whether at this late stage in the da)' we should proceed any further in the matter. I presume that it will also suit the convenience of the representatives oÎ Israel and Egypt if we adjoum Mtil three o'clock tomorrow aftemoon. Accordingly, if I hear no objections, the Couneil will stand àdjoumed until 3 p.m. tomorrow. The meeting rose at 5.20 p.m. Printed in Canada 18 Priee: $U.5. 0.20; 1/6 (or equivalmt in