S/PV.667 Security Council

In the first place, 1 wish to thank the President for having explained to me at the last meeting what he meant by his use of the word "arder". 1 wish also to thank the representative of Brazil for having been good enough to explain, Ht my request, the essence of his proposaI. As a consequence, 1 can be very brief, particularly as the representative of New Zealand has today expressed views which are very similar to mine. 26. It seems to me that there should be no furthcr difficulty regarding the provisional agenda itself, and 1 doubt very much that there are now any serious diffi": culties in the way of planning the process of examination. If, as suggested by the representative of Brazil, we can, under a general discussion, present the general aspect of the matter - bring in (a), bring in (b), bring in points ii or iii of item 2 (a), and have the right at any time to put forward draft resolutions - it would seem to me that we should have such broad possibilities for discussion that the right which we shaU require if we are to take (iecisions, will appear at the proper time. Only in such light can we, 1 believe, act in accordance with the task which has been assigned to the Security Council by the Charter in the interest of maintaining peace, or of reestablishing peace where war has broken out. Therefore, 1 shall be quite willing to accept the suggestions made by the representative of Brazil if he presents them in the form of a proposaI. 27. Mr. GOUTHIER (Brazil): At the last meeting, the Brazilian de1egation, supported by the Colombian representative, had the honour to make sorne suggestions to the Council regarding the adoption of the agenda and the manner in which we should dispose of its items. 1 was encouraged to see that the ideas 1 ventured to submit met with the approval of a considerable number of representatives on this CounciI. 1 wàs also heartened by the remarks of the representative of Lebanon 1"e- 28. Then fore, pursuing our efforts to narrow even further the gap which 1s dividing the Couneil, we endeavoured to ascertain whether there remained any possibility of overcoming the last difficultiea. We are confident that we have performed our dutY in complete objectivity and detachment an.d to the best of our ability. 29. Let us now survey very briefly the progress which we have made towards our common goal of conciliation since we started this procedural discussion. 30. The Council will recall that at its first meeting on this matter [665th meeting] the representative of the United Kingdom stated that he was prepared to agree "that the provisional agenda before us should bE adopted, on the assumption that, since the two items were interrelated, the Council would consider them as a whole". The representatives of France, the United States and New Zealand endorsed this view. Mr. Malik could not agree with that thesis. He stressed that the Council had before it two sets cf complaints which should be dealt with in an orderly manner, "first disposing of item 2 (a) as it appears on the agenda, hearing bath sides of the issue, and then going to item 2 (b)". 31. These were, as we understood, the main positions on the question. A number of representatives, inc1uding myself, put for~vard other suggestions as to the method of cstablishing the agenda and proceeding with the discussion. Such was the picture when the Brazilian delegation, by way of compromise, tried a new approach ta the problem and presented its formula. We tried a middle-of-the-road solution. On the one hand we favoured a generaJ. debate on the agenda as a whole and, on the other hand, taking into account the views expressed by Mr. Malik, we stated c1early that the Council would not commit itself at this stage as ta the character of any future resolution or resolutions. Thus, the possibility was left open to Mr. Malik to choose for himself the most appropriate n'loment to move that the Council should take a specifie decision on any of the points listed on the agenda. 32. The wid~ acceptance which this formula received shows a considerable improvement upon the previous positions. Both sides have made concessÎons. The representative of the United Kingdom and those who pre- 5 33. Brazil and Colombia realize that this formula cannot give full satisfaction ta our fri~nd, Mr. Malik, but it is also true that it does not give full satisfaction to those who, at our nrst meeting, favoured the views expressed by Sir Pierson Dixon. 1 am also very grateful for the remarks made today in this Council regarding the BraziHan-Colombian suggestion. 1t shows that a clear majority of this Council favours our formula. 34. Therefore, the Brazilian and the Colombian delegarions formally introduce their proposaI reading as follows: "1. The provisional agenda is adopted. "2. A general discu~sion shall be held in which referenc:e may be made to any or aIl of the items of the agenda. "3. The Security Council does not commit itself at this stage as to the separate or joint character of its eventual resolution or resolutions." 35. In the same spirit of conciliation, guided by a sense of t:eality, and aware of the necessity for avoiding any clash that would poison our discussions on the substance of the complaints, we call upon the Council toconsider our motion. At the same rime we wish to make it clear that we will always be ready to endorse any suggestion that, in the opinion of the Council, would be an improvement on our proposaI.

My delegation h~,s listened with great interest to the statement which the representative of Brazil has just made, and 1 can state that it fully shares the views he expressed. 37. 1 should like to repeat what 1 said at the 666th meeting of the Security Council: "Both the delegations of Brazil and of Colombia, which represent the Latin-American regional block on this Council and are therefore not directly concerned with the problems which have recently arisen in the Middle East, are of the opinion that for that very reason we are in an excellent position to make a suggestion which, we think, combines the points of view expressed by the representatives of the various countries members of the Security CounciI." 38. 1 wish to thank the representatives of France, the United Kingdom and New Zealand for the support they have given to the proposaI submitted by our two countries, and also the representarive of Lebanon for having viewed our proposaI with favour, in spite of his remarks to the effect that each item should be discussed separarely. 44. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): The United Nations is a whole separate world. It is a fascinating world. It has its own sense of humour, it has its own ideas, it has its own proprieties and amenities. It has its tacit understandings and, l might add, it has its own tacit m\sunderstandings. l mean that we quite understand each other, and we allow each other to indulge in a little misunderstanding. It is not very harmfu!, since we all have this unconquerable sense of humour which always exhibits itself at the right time. 45. l heard the representative of New Zealand say here that in his view, after a consideration of our .-emarks during the last two meetings, the difference between the various points of view is really very narrow. AU lcan say is that if my distinguished friend and neighbour - and he is my friend and neighbour bath here and elsewhere - should really prove quite objec- 'tively that the difference is very narrow, l assure him that l will jump that difference. l would not want anybody else to jump it; l would jump it myself. But he must really prove that the difference is, as .he put it, very narrow. . 47. l should now like to ask another question, addressed this time to the representative of Brazil. He has circulated a document containing the suggestion he made at the 666th meeting. What the Brazilian representative is putting forward this aftemoon is precisely what he told us at that meeting; there is no change whatsoever in it. He made that kind of suggestion the other day, and now he is putting it fOl'ward as a formaI proposal. 48. l now come to my question, which 1 address to whoever cares to answer it. l hope that somebody answers it; l hope that somebody feels he owes me the elementary politeness of an answer to this question. My question is this: wherein lies the difference between the Brazilian proposai and the United Kingdom propesaI? Thàt is a very simple question: wherein lies the difference between the Brazilian proposaI and the United Kingdom proposai? 49. It is obvious that here we have two attitudes, two points of view. Either they are the same, or they are different. If they are the same, 1 am certain that the representative of the United Kingdom cûuld put forward bis own point of view without the initiative of the representative of Brazil, and l am sure that the representative of Brazil himself would not want to encroach on the freedûm of initiative of the representative of the United Kingdom. If they are different, on the other hand, then l beg the representative of Brazil or the representative of the United Kingdom - or the President, who may help us here - to tell me what the difference is between the Brazilian text and the ideas put forward by Sir Pierson Dixon in his first speech at the first of this series of meetings. Wherein is the difference? This is an important point, because l am sure that the representative of the United Kingdom would not want any proposaI wbich is really his to be adopted under any other name, nor would the representative of Brazil want his own proposaI to be in reality the United Kingdom proposaI. l therefore beg the President or the Council, or wGoever would care to answer this very elementary question, to tell me what the difference is between the United Kingdom proposaI and the Brazilian proposaI. 50. What did Sir Pierson Dixon tell us at that meeting? It will be recalled that it was the representative of the United Kingdom who took the initiative in putting forward ideas conceming the consideration Li" . 8 52. Now, 1 am sure that the representative of the United Kingdom, from the very beginning, felt that he had seven votes with which he could carry the dayand that was his position. 53. I fail to see any difference whatsoever between that position and the proposai submitted to the Council by the representative of Brazil. In the proposaI submitted by the representative of Brazil it is suggested, first, that the provisional agenda be adopted. WeIl, that is what Sir Pierson Dixon suggested. The representative of Brazil proposes, secondly, that a general discussion shaIl be held in which reference may be made to any or aIl of the items of the agenda. VVeIl, that is what Sir Pierson Dixon proposed, that we should have a general discussion. In the third pi3.ce, and this may be what is supposed to he the novel element in the text, the representative of Brazil proposes that the Security Council does not commit itself at this stage as to the separate or joint character of its eventual resolution or resolutions. WeIl, Sir Pierson Dixon did not sav that the Security Council should commit itself at this'point, so this does not contribute anything new. Even if Sir Pierson Dixon had said that, the Council can always determine later whether it will adopt one, two or more resolutions. 54. The whole idea of the representative of the United Kingdom and of those who supported him from the very beginning was to put aside an individual examination of the individual complaints and to hold a general debate on the problem as a whole. Sir Pierson Dixon did not say that at the end of the debate the Security Council should adopt one resolution or two, or twenty. That is left to the rules of procedure. The Council, or any organ of the United Nations, after a general debate can, in the light of that debate, decide whether it will adopt one resolution, two separate resolutions, four separate resolutions, or none at all. Therefore, 1 say, with all respect to my friend, the representative of Brazil, that the third paragraph of his proposaI introduces nothing new whatsoever in the position taken by Sir Pierson Dixon from the very beginning of our consideration of this problem. 55. That is my first question, and 1 beg any member of the Council, including the President, to explain to me where there is any real difference wha.têQ~Yer be- 56. What l want to say is this. This is the third time we have examined this important problem and l claim - and l want this claim to be disproved - we have not moved a single hair's breadth from the initial position taken by the gentlemen who are sure 'i:hey have seven votes in their poeket. If this is true, l beg' Mr. Munro to tell me wherein is the very narrow di!ference which he mentioned at the beginning of our debate this afternoon. l cao show in my last intervention there was a real attempt - a very painful but a very real attempt - on my part to move from my original position. After Mr. Lodge told us that people did at times change their opinions, that ideas could evolve, after l had aecepted this prineiple and put it into practice, l hoped that we would avoid devoting a third meeting to the consideration of this problem without making any progress. 57. As l said at the beginning of my statement, the United Nations is a fascinating world. AIl of us understand this, but when the moment of decision arrives without any progress whatsoever, then we have to call a spade a spade and act accordingly. The representatives of Brazil and Colombia both have said that they appreciated my profound appreciation of their initiative, which l assure the Council is a real appreciation on my part. l am glad the Latin-American world is, stepping into our mêlée, ;:I.nd l hope they will maintain their interest and their initiative, even if their very first step may not be as happy as it looks on the surface. One should never be discouraged if one makes a false step the first time. One should try again and learn from experience. Both the representative of Brazil and the representative of Colombia referred to my statement at our last meeting, a.'ld it is perfectly true tha:r while weIcoming their initiative, l did say it should he Ï;t1- . proved upon. l did think that the representative of '1 Brazil, in quoting those words today, was going to tell us that there ,JI,as an 4nprovement, but l recall the three parts of the proposaI he read for us at the last meeting, before l begged him for an improvement, and l compare them with the document he distributed today, and l find no change whatsoever. Therefore, l still heg for an improvement. l felt that there was a note of hope at the end of the speech of the representative of Brazil when he said that he would still accept suggestions as to how this proposaI might be improved. It is quite true, as they said, that after welcoming their initiative l did beg for a genuine improvement in this matter. 59. There is another point that 1 should like to l'aise in arder to demonstrate that there has been no movement whatsoever away from the' initial position taken by Sir Pierson Dixon and seconded by several other members of the Counci1. 60. In attempting to rationalize and justify the proposaI which he, together with the representative of Brazil, is sponsoring, the representative of Colombia said that we should not revert to the original position. Who, however, is reverting to the original position? The answer 18: the representative of Colombia and the representative of Braiil. Those are the representatives who are reverting to the original position taken by the United Kingdom representative. At the last meeting, l indicated that l was prepared to move away from my initial position, but there has been no indication whatsoever that the opposite side is prepared to do that, also. 61. What are the important issues in this case? There are two important issues. One school of thought - to which l do not belong - says this: "It is quite true that the Security Council has before it separate complaints put forward by Jordan, on the one hand, and Israel, on the other. But the situation in the Near East is so serious from an international point of view"- and here l would say that the Security Council's point of view obviously can be only international- "that, whatever may be the causes of that situation, the matter must be examined as a whole." l respect that point of view. As l shall show in a moment, l share it only ta a certain extent, to what l believe is the proper extent. The representatives who belong to that school of thought conc1ude from their original premise that these separate items should not be examined separately but should be thrown into one pool of a general discussion, that speakers should be allowed to refer to the items in any way they please and that we should then see what results from such a general discussion. 62. The first school of thought, ù'ïen, 1S in favour of a general discussion, without any commitment concerning the results of such a discussion. 1 have already said that 1 do not completely share that point of vi~w. 64. Hence, at the beginning of this discussion, there were two diametrically opposed positions: one in favour of a general debate, and the other in favour of a particular debate on a particular complaint. 65. The United Kingdom representative has not taken a single step away from his position. l, on the other hand, have moved away from my original position, and 1 indicated at the last meeting the direction in which 1 was prepared to move. 1 said that 1 would be prepared to accept a generaI debate, but in its proper place. On the other hand, the United Kingdom representative - and, as 1 have said, until it is proven l.O me that this is not tr1'e, I hold that the United Kingdom representative' is saying that which the representative of Brazil has said here this afternoon - declares: "No, we hold to our original position, and we shall not move away from it at all. We shall have a general debate." Of course, the United Kingdom representative is familiar with the rules of procedure, and he knows that a generaI debate does not prejudge the resolutions which may be adopted; under the rules of procedure, a general debate leads to whatever follows naturally and automatically. 66. Thus, while we have taken a reai step in the direction of a truly objective compromise, I fail to see the slightest evidence - I should welcome such evidence if it did exist - of any movement by the other sidé towards a truly objective compromise. Why, therefore, have we wasted three meetings on this matter? If the other side still has in its pocket the seven or more votes which it had before, if it is going to use those votes immediately to have its position adopted, what has been gained during these two weeks of debate, when l, at least, have really attempted to draw representatives into a real argument about this fundamental proceduraI matter? Absolutely nothing has been gained. So far as any rapprochement is concerned, tIJe three meetings have been absolutely wasted. 67. I am certain that we can do better than L;at, 1 am certain that the infinitely resourceful statesmanship of the Western world can do better than to hold three meetings .and make no progress whatsoever in the direction of agreement and understanding. 1 understand that the representatives of the Western world may be very busy with many other matters. The problems of the Near East, while they are very important to us, may not be the most important problems at present. The minds of those representatives of the Western world may be preoccupied with ail kinds of Qth~r~ infinitely 68. My last remark on this point in this procedurai debate is the following. 1 thought at the tirne of the Brazilian representative's initial intervention at the 665th meeting that he was groping in a fairly fruitfui direction, and 1 would ask him very respectfully what it was that prcvt:nted him from l:ontinuing to grope in that direction, and what made him give up some of those illuminating - as 1 thought - ideas which he had and simply revert to the initial position t(l which the representéltive of Colombia has said that l was reverting. Thus, since Ml'. Gouthier has done m~ the houour of quoting my remarks, 1 shall quote what he said during his intervention at that meeting. Re said: "Logically viewing the agenda, we might divide the issues before us into two main groups: frontier conflicts and armed incidents, on the one hand, and implementation of the machinery of the Armistice Agreement, on the other. 1 The first group would indude the Jordanian and Israeli complaints of the infringement of the General Armistice Agreement. It would deal with aets of hostility, attacks, reta1iation, killings and property damage on one side or the other of the demarcation line, since they are c1early the result of the unfortunate sequence of incidents which are taking place with increasing frequency in that region, and some of them have the character of reprisaIs." 69. Then he went on: "The conflicts referred to in points i and iv of the Israel· complaint could be inc1uded in the second group. Point i refers to Jordan's refusaI to attend the conference convoked by the Secretary-General, and point iv refers to Jordan's refusal to co-operate in the establishment of a special committee componed of representatives of Jordan and Israel, for the purpose of enlarging the scope of the General Armistice Agreement and effecting an improvement inthe application of that Agreement. Those cases are similar in nature." ïO. Then Ml'. Gouthier conc1uded: "Although it seems to my delegation that the matters on the provisional agenda are c10sely related" -- and no. one denies that - "the frontier incidents could perhaps be dealt with jointly and, after that, the Councii could discuss simultaneouslv the other two points, which concern the implementation of the armistice machinery, have a broader scope, and, as I have pointed out, are similar in nature. r 71. It seems ta me that this is an interesting method, and it may be - l am not committing myself but merely making the suggestion - that such a method might provide the improvement to which l referred in my statement from which the representatives of Colombia and Brazil have been kind enough to quote this afternoon. Here is a method that is different from that of the United Kingdom. There is indeed a difference here. But, for the life of me, l find no difference whatsoever - and l want Ml'. Munro to prove to me that such a difference exists - between the tc.xt of the Brazilian- Colombian proposal and the fundamental attitude of the representative of the United Kingdom. 72. Accordingly, in view of the c.xceeding gravitY of the situation and of the decision which the Council may take, l urge members, in aIl sincerity and in aIl truth, not to take a decision which would mean that, after some ten hours of debate on a procedural problem alone, the Council had not moved one step from the original position taken by the representative of the United Kingdom and his supporters. l beg the Council to take a decision indicating some movement from that original United Kingdom position, because it seems to me that we owe it to ourselves - and to the future of the United Nations insofar as our own procedures affect it - to see to it that a debate brings about some progress. l beg the Council to show, in whatever it wants to do, that the ten hours of proceduraI wrangle have not completely failed ta budge some members from their fundamental'position. 73. Ml'. GOUTHIER (Brazil): It was not my intention to speak again on the matter before us. l was under the impression that l had made quite clear to the Council the motives and the exact meaning underlying the joint proposaI of Colombia and Brazil, but l regret that the representative of Lebanon appears to have misunderstood the scope of our suggestion. 74. Ml'. Malik has implied that our proposaI was nothing but a reword.:ng of the proposaI introduced by the United Kingdom "epresentative at the beginning of our discussion. l subnit that anyone who is familial' with the matter under consideration can easily note the difference between tht two proposaIs. 1 may remind the representative of L ~banon that paragraph 3 of our proposaI reads as fol1ows: "[The Security COL 'lcil] does not commit itself at this stage as to the sel arate or joint character of its eventual resolution or lesolutions." What connexion, even by implication, does this have with the United Kingdom proposal? None at aIl. 75. The proposaI submitted by the representative of the United Kingdom clearly implied that the Council would, in due course, have before it a draft resolution on the whole question, and in my statement l made a 77. At the 66Sth meeting l suggested that the issues couid be grouped under two main subjects, namely, frontier conflicts and armed incidents, and implementation of the machinery of the Armistice Agreement. Mr. Malik now indicates some acceptance of that suggestion, although l am not altogether c1ear on this point. l should like to say to Mr. Malik that, even if the motion presented today is approved, l intend later to put forward my previous suggestion - when the time cornes for presenting draft resolutions - to deal first with the subject of frontier conflicts and armed incidents, and then with the implementation of the machinery of the Armistice Agreement. Our first suggestion is not at aH inconsistent with the proposaI formally submitted today by Brazil and Colombia. 78. l can assure the representative of Lebanon that l do not intend to deviate from my previous position. Frontier incidents, as l stated before, have assumed a routine character. l venture to suggest that the Council might in the future explore the possibility of having the Mixed Armistice Commission deal with conflicts that do not appear to be armed incidents, while the Council should deal only with the latter. The grouping of similar sets of complaints would perhaps favour any possible attempt to deal with the general problem of conaicts. 79. l repeat, l do not intend to depart from my previous position. My intention was merely to suggest a sort of compromise, since the Council is faced with a deadlock in procedure. Our ptoposal appeared to meet with the approval of the majority of representatives, and that was the reason why l put it forward.

If no one wishes to speak, l should like to speak as representative of the UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALI5T REPUBLICS. l shaH of course try not to repeat myself, because we have devoted much time ta the question we are discussing today, and we have in a way elucidated some of its aspects. 81. l should like ta recall that l described the attitude of the Soviet Union on this question at the 666th meeting, and the representative of New Zealand has referred to that today. l should nevertheless like to c1arify his reference, because what he said is a rather free translation from the Russian into English. Perhaps what l am saying now will be translated just as freely; but all the same l shall try to make the meaning of my observations c1earer. ~2. At the last meeting l said that two different ques- !Ions should not be combined. It would appear that the Items on our agenda relate to different questions. While they have in common a number of interwoven themes 1 84. We aIl know that the Palestine question is quite a serions one. We all know that the efforts so far to secure the full and just solution which we all desireand 1 believe 1 am not mistaken in saying so - have not yet achieved any positive results. 85. Accordingly the Soviet Union, through me, has taken the following position: since a complaint has been submitted, the Council should consider it and aIl the factual details together with all the specific questions it involves; the Council should not try to bury these spedic and separate questions in a discussion on general, very broad and important political problems. 86. On the other hand, the second complaint should also be dealt with in exactly the same way. Specific cases should be considered without allowing these cases to be examined, in the course of the discussion, in the context of general political problems which would lead to a new impasse and new difficulties, and' consequently hamper the consideration of this question. 1 also said that one cannot, of course, during the discussion of one item disallow any reference to the other, provided that such reference is within reasonable limits, that is, one cannot replace one question by another or by more general and wider political issues. 8ï. At the same time, 1 should like to recall that, unless 1 am mistaken, the representatives of the United Kingdom, the United States and France, as weIl as other representatives - whom with your permission 1 shall not name, not because 1 do not want to name them, but in order to save time - advocated a so-called general discussion on both these complaints. 88. What kind of "general discussion" would it be? To what would it refer? What matters shbuld be dealt with in it? It was simply and openly stated that the debate on these questions should cover aIl aspects of the Palestine problem. 89. That is exactly what the Brazilian representative said, as may be seen from his statement at the 66Sth meeting. 1 have the English text here before me; accarding ta this text Mr. Gouthier said that, in his opi- 90. The words he used were: "A general discussion of the two items U , that is, of these same two complaints. He proceeded to say that-as MI'. Eden had stated in the House of Ccmmons -lùs Government was considering, together with the Governments of France and the United States, the desirability of calling an early meeting of the Security Council to discuss the position or situation. 91. Thus it was supposed that there would be a special Palestine item put forward on the initiative of the British Governrnent by agreement with the Governments of the United States and France. That may be understood and discussed, but that means that there is no need at present to consider the Palestine question in all its aspects in connexion with these two particular complaints. 92. To do so would really be to anticipate events, because the British Governrnent is preparing to place this question on the agenda. It will probably put forward definite proposaIs, and these will probably be preceded by definite communications of sorne kind, by a report on this question which will show what the essence of the situation is, what kind of situation it is, and what steps must be taken. Thus, the Council will be confronted with a series of serious questions; l realize that. When the United Kingdom representative said that his Government intended to bring such an item before the Security Council, it became clearer to me that such an item must not be confused with the items relath,g to the consideration of the Israel complaint against Jordan and the Jordan complaint against Israel. : 96. Our view is that this proposaI would mean driving the disease beneath the surface. It would mean that instead of dealing more or less easily with simple practical issues, we would be dealing with the wider aspect of what 1 believe are very deep political disagreements between the Arab countries and Israel; and we should of course go astray in doing so. There is no doubt that at the present time we are not prepared for this. It seems to me, therefore, that to combine the items cannot facilitate our task. If it is decided to relate our consideration of the Jordan-Lebanon complaillt against Israel and our consideration of the Israel complaint against Jordan to the general Palestine political question, that would of course amount to a completely different .task, a task which would, 1 should say, be to the detriment of our immediate consideration of the complaints which we have before us. 97. Speaking from a strictly legal point of view, l am at a loss to understand how anyone can completely transform a complaint submitted by one or another government, or even attempt to do so. We are asked by the two parties to consider their complaints, and you reply: we shall not consider your complaints as such, but we shall deal with them in the general context of the whole Palestine question. But neither the Arab countries nor Israel have asked us as yet to consider the Palestine question as a whole. So far as 1 understand, neither the United Kingdom, France nor the United States have requested that. On the contrary, the United Kingdom representative, whose statement 1 have just quoted, told us that his Government intended to submit that question at a later date, and that it had already come to an agreement on the subject with the United States and French Governments. What question? The general Palestine question; that is to say, what the Brazilian representative obviously had in mind originally. He even stated that it would be necessary to consider some aspects of the Palestine question as a whole. But that is an entirely different problem, a different task. 98. Turning to the proposaI submitted by the Brazilian representative -and here 1 venture to speak for a few moments as PRESIDENT - 1 feel bound to say that such a proposaI will make things very difficult for me as President in the future conduct of the debate. 101. Let us now tum ta the agenda. It is suggested that we be allowed to refer to any item. That is to say, we may refer to item 2 (a), to the complaint by Jordan and the charges adduced in support of that complaint. And those charges include the breach of article III, paragraph 2, of the General Armistice Agreement by the attack on Nahhalin Village on 28-29 March, the killing of certain persons, the killing of certain other persans and the damages caused ta property. 102. Under the Brazilian representative's proposaI reference may he made to those matters. But to do so would in fact be to refer to the very same complaint. That, of course, would be quite proper, but it does not imply dealing with the general aspect of the matter. That is not the general Palestine question at aIl. That being so, what shall we discuss? 103. Let us tum to the complaint by Israel. Under the proposaI, obviously, we could refer ta any part of the item. Here is item 2 (b), complaint by Ii'rael: violation of article XII of the General Armistice Agreement; armed attack on a bus near Scorpion Pass; acts of hostility inc1uding attacks and raids, etc.; and refusaI by Jordan to carry out her obligations under article VIII of the General Armistice Agreement. That is all. 104. Consequently, it will be permissible to refer to these points. 1 do not know therefore why the representative of Lebanon should object. After all, that is what he wants and what, to my mind, is correct. 105. Do you wish to consider these complaints? These complaints even go somewhat further. 1 think that a number of general questions may even be touched upon. The proposaI itself states that reference may be made to any item. 106. Further. Paragraph 3 states that the Security Council does not commit itself at this stage to the separate or joint character of its eventual resolution or resolutions. But that is elementary. How can the Council commit itself today in respect of sorne resolution or other which does not even yet exist? 107. Consequently, the essence of the matter is: in the first place, as 1 understand the proposaI, we now stop talking about the general Palestine question. We do not propose the discussion of the general Palestine question as a whole, that is, we do not propose any general discussion on the whole Palestine question. Consequently, if we adopt this proposaI, we cai1l1ot, in I ..:..! ~onsideringthe coniplaints of Israel and Jordan, engage ln any general discussion of the Palestine question. 114. Further, in considering the complaint of Lebanon, it may be impossible - that will depend on who is speaking and the ideas he is expressing - not to touch upon matters which to sorne extent go beyond (1 mean, within reasonable limits) the framework of that particular complaint and which may perhaps relate even to the questions which are involved in the general Palestine situation and also in the complaint of Israel. 115. That is our position in prineiple, and it seems to me to be the only position which can ensure fulfilment of the desire by which we aU should, and by which l have no doubt we all are, in this case actuated, the desire to find a way out of the present deadlockor deadlocks. 116. Our first deadlock is due to the faet that we cannot adopt the agenda. We insist on making the adoption of the agenda conditional upon the method of &~aling with the items. This is quite unprecedented, s;nce the items are completely different. 117. It is possible to adopt a particular agenda without any regard to the methods by which the items are to he considered and then - the Couneil decides on each question individually - dedde what methods can most conveniently be employed. That is what gave rise to the first deadlock. 118. The second deadlock is due to the faet that the members of the Council refuse to consider these complaints as complaints - a third deadlock will arise in connexion with the question whether they are to be considered separately or together - but insist on relating them to the general background of what l would calI the Palestine crisis, the Palestine question, with all its political significance. 122. What 1 said on the first occasion when the Council discussed this question [665th meeting], was that my Government Wél.S very seriously concerned indeed with the situation which had developed on the borders between Jordan and Israell and 1 went on to say: "That is why [my Government] attaches such importance to a general consideration of the two items before us." 123. This, l should have thought, was clear in its meaning, but the representative of the Soviet Union has reverted to that very passage again and tended to give it a meaning which, as 1 saYI it does not bear. He did the same thing when we resumed our discussion on 12 April [666th meeting], and in the course of my statement then 1 said that 1 should like to e1aborate what 1 had in mind in order to make my meaning clear. 1 said the following in specific terms - and this refers to the passage which 1 have just read: "It was not my intention to ask the Counci1 to emhark on any discussion which might be rcgarded as an attempt to work out a final solution of the Palestine problem. This goal, unfortunate1y, seems a long way off, and a greatcr degree of confidence than at present exists between the parties concerned must first be established." 124. Finally, at that same meeting, 1 said: ". .. the Council as a who1e will, 1 am sure, wish to consider what the most dangerous features are in the present situation and how it can he1p to reduce the existing state of tension between Jordan and Israel. If it is to do this, it must he allowed to review the existing state of tension on either side of the armistice demarcation lines, with particular reference to the Israel-Jordan border areas, and to do thiEi in as çalm and as objective a manner as possible," 130. If the Brazilian representative cannat or does not intend to give any explanation today, perhaps he might wish to do so at the next meeting. If he does not wish to offer any explanation at aIl, then 1 shaH wish to speak again in order ta emphasize a number of particularly important points which 1 feel require further consideration and clarification. 131. Therefore, the French representative's conclusion that, since no member has asked to speak for the present, there are no more speakers at aH appears to me to be rather hasty. Indeed, that is proved by the fact that the Lebanese representative has just asked to speak. 132. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): If 1 understood the President's remark about the intention of the representative of the United Kingdom and Sir P;erson's reply just now, it seems clear that the representative of the United Kingdom did not intend that we embark upon a debate on every conceivable aspect of the Palestine situation. Therefore, so far as that is concerned, one can only welcome such an assurance on the part of the representative of the United Kingdom, and 1 take it that the President's misunderstanding may have been dispelled to the extent, namely, that he is convinced that the representative of the United Kingdom does not want, as he told us and as he brought out in quotations from his previous remarks, ta open wide the whole Palestine problem. But it follows from the United Kingdom representative's statement that he is in COl••- pIete agreement with the representative of Brazil, his position from the very beginning was identical ta the Brazilian representative's position. Sa 1 again say that what the representative of Brazil has put forward to us this afternoon is identical to the initial position put forwarcl by the representative of the United Kingdom. 133. The President tried to find out whether there was any difference between the position of the representative of the United Kingdom and the position of the representative of Bra;!;il, l am grateful to the United Kingdom 134. If it is the desire of the Security Couneil to make absolutely no progress, no movement whatsoever from the initial position taken by the three 'Western Powers in the present situation, it is up to the Council ta take that decision. For my part, 1 consider it to be a premature and an ul1\vise decision, and one that could he avoided. 1 believe that the Council can do better. 1 beg ~he United Kingdom representative, Sir Pierson Dixon, and his associates who support him to see my position and to tell us if they really be1ieve that the best they can do, after ten hours of debate, is to do what they coulel have donc at the beginning of this debate. Is that the best spectacle we can give to the worIel after our discussions during these three meetings? 135. 1 heard what my friend, Ml'. Gouthier, saiel about my modest remar1':s. 1 am sorry if 1 contributed to any misunderstanding in his mind about my words "admirable attempt". If he understood it to mean that 1 was supporting his proposaI, obviously 1 was not because 1 had already said so. What 1 meant by the \Yards "admirable attempt" - and 1 still repeat itis that 1 think that both he and the representative of Colombia have made and are still making admirable attempts in this affair. But 1 do not mean an "admirable attempt" with respect to the proposaI, because 1 have shown - and, if 1 may use a bold word, 1 have defied anybody to refute me - that the representative of Brazil is reiterating parrotwisc what Sir Pierson Dixon told us during the first five minutes of our debate on this pro?lem. Obviously, therefore,. by "admirable attempt" 1 (lId not mean the text of 111S proposaI. What 1 did mean \Vas that 1 welcomed his initiative, and 1 hope that both Brazil and Colombia will maintain their enthusiasm and their interest and their initiative - their admirable initiative - in trying to approach our problems, ta understand them and to do whatever thev can to help us to solve them. So the phrase "admirable attt'mpt" was not intended at aIl to apply ta the Brazilian representative's proposaI which is, as l have shawn at length, none other than the United Kingdom position. The phrase "admirable attempt" refers only to Mr. Gouthier's initiative, which 1 welcome and which 1 hope will be maintained despite aIl the adversity and aIl the discouragement that he might feel. 136. Again, 1 could not but welcome - and this time 1 choose my words very carefully - the sentence that fell from the lips of the representative of Brazil when he said that he clid not intend in the future to depart from this position. He repeated that at least twice, perhaps more, and he was referring to the idea, wlùch

May 1 once again draw the attention of represer.tatives to the fact that it is now 6.2G p.rn. Since 1 still intend to say a few words and would prefer not to do so today but at another time, in view of the lateness of the hour, 1 will ask members whether they would prefer to continue today's meeting or adjourn, and, if we are to continue, until what hour. 140. If there are no objections to adjourning the meeting, l shall do so after we have agreed on the date of the Security Council's next meeting. Perhaps we might meet tomorrow at 3 p.m.? 141. Mr. MUNRO (New Zealand): 1 understand that there is another engagement which will involve the presence of several members of this Coundl tomorrow, and 1 suggest, in the circumstances, that the Council adjourn until 27 April at 3 p.m. 142. Mr. HOPPENOT (France) (translated trom French) : 1 for my part am in favour of the President's first proposaI, which was that we should meet again tomorrow, Friday, at 3 p.m. Actually, no meeting has been scheduled for tomorrow afternoon, and 1 think the sooner the Council puts an end to the sad spectacle has provided at its last three meetings, the better will be. 144. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): There are two motions as regards the next meeting of the Couneil, one fortomorrow afternoon and one for Tuesday afternoon. l do not lmow what the other members of the Couneil think about this, but l must, in aIl fran1mess, say - and l apologize for it - that l am physically unable to be present tomorrow; however, that does not mean you should not meet as l will have somebody take my place.

Perhaps as a compromise we could meet on Monday?

l am sorry to have to break up a compromise, but unfortunately, due to commitments which are absolutely unbreakable both Ambassador Lodge and l have to be in Washington on Monday. 147. Mr. MUNRO (New Zealand): l do not wish to inconvenience the Couneil. l have commitments tomorrow which, from one point of view, are unbrea1mble. l am not anxious to delay the proceedings of the Couneil on this .matter 'which have a1ready, l know, been inordinately delayed. However, it is important that we should aIl be here and l feel that in the eircumstances an adjournment until Tuesday will be the arrangement most convenient to aIl members of the Couneil and will enable us, l hope, to come to the meeting after due deliberation, and despatch these proceedings. 148. The PRESIDENT (translated trom Russian): In view of the eircumstances l propose to convene the next meeting at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 27 April. If there are no objections, it will he so decided. l t was sa decided. The meeting rose at 6.30 p.m. SALIS AGENTS 'OR UNITID o",osnAI.,S o.s "U.I1C~"ONS fUIICI Editionl A. P.don.. P.ril V. llEEŒ-Cml "CUTIIl-..lmlE ~ditori.1 Sud.m.ric.n. S,~.. Ahin. 500. lu.nol Ai.... lllST.AUl-lllSTUUE H. A. Godd.rd. 255. G.orCJ' St•• Sydn.\,. • nd 90 Qu••n St.. M.lbourn•. M.lbourn. Unlv.rsity P..... C.rlton N.3, Victori•. IEL'•••-IELlIll4IE A,.nc••t M....CJ..i.. d. 1. Pr'll' S.A.. 14-22 ru. du P.rsil. 8rul.II... W. H. Smith & Son, 1'1.75. boul.v.rd Adolph..M.I, 8ru••II'I. IOLlVlA-IOUVIE lib..rl. S.I.ccion.., Cilill. 972. le Pu. IWll-IIUIl .. Liv..ri. A,ir. Rio d. J.n.lro. 5.0 P.ulo end 1.10 Horilonte. WllU !l't...on P...., 299 Qu••n St. WNt. Toronto. Periodic.. Inc.. 4234 d. 1. Roche: Mon. tr••l. 34. CltlOI-CnLAIl Th. Auoc.i.t.d N,wlp.p,,, of Ceylon Ltd.• Lek. Hou... Colombo. 1IILE....CNILI L1l1r.rl. Iv.nl. Mon.d. 822. S.nti.,o. Editori.1 d.1 P.cllleo. Ahum.d. 57. S.nti·CJo. 1I111l-CNIII Th. World Book Co. Ltd.. 99 Chung Kin, Ra.d. ht S.ction. T.ipeh. T.iw.n. Comm..ci.1 P..... 211 Hon.n Rd•• Sh.ng. h.i. COIMlIA- COLOliIIE lib..rl. Letin., C.r.... h.. 13.05. logotl. Li....rl. Amlrlc•• M.d.lIln. Lib..rlG N.cion.1 Ltd... B.rr.nquill•• "EI.fth.roudn~II," tian, Athln.l• A"WU Goub.ud & Cl~. 28. Gu.t.m.l.. IlltI Libr.i,I., "A 1. C.r 111·8. Po....u.Prine 10.IIW librerla P.o.m.rie.n T·CJuclg.lp•• 1101..1.. Th. Swindon Book Kowloon. ICIWI-ISWIE lohv.rs/un Sigfular Austyrstrllti ... lillA-IllE Oxford BOok & St.tion.ry Hou••, N.w D.lhi, C.lcutt•• P. Var.d.eh.ry " St.. Madr.1 1. 1001UIA-IIIOIUII J'i".n p.mb.ngun.n. Di.k.rt•• IlU K.t.b·Kh.n.h D.n nu., T.hron. lW-lUI M.ck.nai.·, Book.hop. ISUIl Blum...in'I Baoksto Ro.d. T.I·Aviv. Illl.'-itALIE <OoHbri S.A.. Vi. UIAIlOI _ L11A1l libroili. Univ....II llIUll J. Mamolu K.m.r llXWOGK librei,i. J. Schummar. llIIICO -11111"1 Edito,ial H.rm•• 41. Ml'ieo. D.F. ImUUlllS -'~n-us N.V. M.rtinu. Nijhoff. ., ·,·Grov.nh'e" IEIII ZfAlA8_IIOIVIlLf.IIUIlIl Unit.d N.llonl Auoel.tlon I.nd. C.P.O. 1011, ...."-IIVRI Joh.n \Srundt T.num ,udlgt. 711. 0110. fAllStAl Thomll & Thom.,. Ro.d. Kar.chl. J. Publllh... United l.ho... Th. P••i".n Cooperotlv. Chltt.,one .nd D.CCI •WU Jal' M.nOnd.r. PI... fAUllAY MorêllO H'(IlI.nOl, COSTA 'ICA- MAoIICA T..jol Herm.nol. Ap.rt.do 1313. Sen Jo.l. 1I1l Le Cil. 1.1,•• O'R.i11y 455. L. H.Nn•• lJKIIOSlOVlIIltClECOSlOVlQlll1 C'lkollov.nI1y Spilov.tel. Nlrodnl Trld. 9. Pr.h. 1. IEDA"- lAIlElAl1 Eider Munklg...d, Ltd.. N.,rag.d. 6- K.b.rIh.vn, K. 1OII11.CAIl IEPIIUt- IItIIlIlIE IOIII~ICAIII lib..,l. Dominio.n.. M.re.d.. 49, Ci~. d.d Trujillo. KlUO'-1..&lCV. lib..,l. Ci.ntlllc.. 6u.y.quiJ .nd Quito. mn-EI.,lE lib..I,i. "L. l.a.ill.nc. d'Evypt.... 9 Sh. Adly P..h•• C.ifQ, Il UlVUO.-SAlV . M.nu.1 Nlv'l y Cf 1•• Av.nid. IlIt 37, S.n S.lv.ao,. m.lll'il-1t1.".1 A,.nc. Ethiopi.nn. d. Publlcitf. lOI 121. Addi,.Ab.b•• flIUItfllUIIl Ak.t..min.n KI,f.k.upp.. 2. K'lkulk.tu. H.llinli. 0nIIn and fnqul,," fnHII CCluntrl.. wh....1tI agent. !KM net Jet ....n .,polllhKl may be ..nt toI Sa'" and C(rcuhltlon SectIon, UnltH NatIonl, New Yorle, U.S.A., Ir SoIII SIctfon, Unllecl NIItloIll OffIce, 'alall cl.. ~ a-v., SwItIW...... Printed in Canada Priee: $U.5. 025; l/9-stg.; (or equivalent in other