S/PV.668 Security Council

l should like to recapitulate briefly the position in 1Nhich the Security Couneil finds itself today. 2. At the meeting on 22 April [667th meeting], the Brazilian representative formally introduced, on his own behalf and on that of the Colombian representative, a proposaI which has been distributed and is· knoW'n to aIl the members. l do not think that l need lose any time recalling the contents of that proposaI. 3. A number of representatives stated subsequently that they had no objection to the Brazilian proposaI. That was evident from the statements made by the representatives of Denmark, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The French representative then proposed that the proposaI should be put to the vote. Nevertheless, the vote was not taken on that day, 22 April, because it was not clear whether there were any other speakers who wished to state their views on the matter. 4: l should also like to remind you that at that meeting, as in previous meetings of the Security Couneil, the Lebanese representative, Mr. Malik, continued to object t9 the Brazilian proposaI and to maintain his point of view. He pointed out, in particular, that there was no apparent difference between the original position of the United Kingdom representative and the proposaI submitted to the Security Couneil by the BraziHan repres~ntative. But there was no furth~r· debate on that day and the meeting was adjourned until today. Does anyone wish to speak now on this matter?

l understand that important conversations on this matter are now going on and that they have not yet been conc1uded. In the hope that they may have a happy outcome, l suggest that the Couneil should take a recess of half an hour. Accordingly, l make that proposaI. The meeting was suspen.ded at 3.15 p.m. and was resumed at 4.5 p.m. é. Sir Pierson DIXON (United Kingdom): l should like to make a suggestion in a constructive spirit, in the hope that it play help us towards adopting our agenda and proceeding with the discussion. The suggestion is that we should a:dd to item 2 a third subparagraph (c) to our provisional agenda in document SIAgenda/668. It would read as follows: 12. The two difficulties are the foÎlowing: first, if we include 2 (c) as a third item, when will it be discussed? Are we not back where we were regarding the priority of the examination of these matters? Would item 2 (c) he discussed in the third place, in the second place, or just when? When would item 2 (a) be discussed? Is it intended that item 2 (c) should be discussed before items 2 (a) and 2 (b) according to this general formulation? AIl of that is left open, and 1 think wisely so, hecause, as the President stâted, we have to refiect upon these questions as responsibly and as leisurely as we possibly can. 1 am simply suggesting that this is a difficulty. 13. The second difficulty, so far as I am concernedand 1 am sure that if the representative of Israel were at the Council table at this moment he himself wodd have a corresponding difficulty of his own - relates to my sincere feeling that the Nahhalin case is in a class hy itself, and 1 certainly do not want to prejudge this matter. The Council will have to examine and judge this case on its own merits, and 1 would be the last person to take part in any action that would prejudge the question. However, 1 state frankly that I feel that the Nahhalin case is in a cIass by itself. Therefore, unless this distinctive character of the Nahhalin incident is somehow reflected in the formulation of the agenda to show that it must be specially dealt with and considered on its own merits, without any prejudgment of the case, it will be very difficult for me, at least at the present time, without the benefit of further reflection and leisurely think:ing on the matter, to accept this formulation. However, should the representative of the United Kingdom want item 2 (c) to be debated in the third place, 1 would accept his suggestion. We could 14. l find myseIf still confronted by these two difficulties: first, the order in which these three items will be debated and disposed of, and secûndly, if it is the intention of the representative of the United Kingdom or the Security Council to treat the proposed item'2 (c) as a theme around which we are ta weave our arguments, and to put aside the other two series of complaints. it would be very -difficult for me on the spnr of the moment - l have not yet given the matter suffident thought - in faet, it would be weU nigh impossible for me ta accept this formulation, unless some special reference is made ta the Nahhalin incident, which, in our opinion - and l dare say it will be shawn ta be so in itself objectively - stands in a class by itseif.

Mr. Malik, with his usual clarity and frankness, has just put the question in very clear terms. We should be grateful to him, for in my opinion nothing wOl1ld be more unfortunate than ta start considering the problem befofe us on the basis of an ambiguity or a misunderstânding. 16. Ta the question Mr. Malik has just put ta us namely in what order the two sub-paragraphs under point 2 on the agenda, toget.'J.er with the sub-paragraph suggested by the United Kingdom -delegation, should be discussed, my delegation's reply is that the new sub-paragraph suggested by the United Kingdv.n should he discussed first, because it embraces and covers all the questions 1aised by items 2 (a) and 2 (b). 17. l must say l fully share Mr. Malik's view of the importance of the Nahhalin incident. l do not wish ta draw any conclusions, before the discussion, as ta where the responsibility lies in this incident, but l think that the whole world will agree that the heavy loss in human life that this incident has entailed makes it the most important question that the Council has ta consider. 18. That being sa, if the item lohe United Kingdom delegation has just proposed becomes - as l think it should become - item 2 (a) ai our agenda, nothing need prevent auy speaker from attaching to the Nahhalin incident aU the necessary importance and devoting as much time ta its study ..nd discussion as he wishes and as the item deserves. ,19. If the Council as a whole shares these two points of view, we should aIl, in my opinion, gratefully accept the effort at conciliation and compromise that the United Kingdom delegation has made and should adopt the agenda on the grounds l have just outlined.

If we examine the provisional agenda ot this meeting, it willbe noticed that item 2 (a!, contains a complaint of a ç'fl.agrant 4 21. Consequently, I believe that the proposaI formulated by the representative of the United Kingdom, which reads: "Compliance with and enforcement of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan", is a matter which, in my humble opinion, should find a place somewhere in a draft resolution, and not in the agenda of this Couneil. Perhaps if further explanations of the intention of the author of this proposaI can be given, I may Of' second thought change my view about that, but aSe... • )poal now stands, this formulation 1s a matter which should be or couId be induded in a draft resolution, but which cannot, again in my view, form a part of any agenda. 22. So far as I am conœrned, I would prefer to vote in favour of the proposaI submitted by the representatives of Brazil and Colombia, since this is deare!' in my mind. proj~t du sition cations, de actuel peut mais 22. la Colombie, 23. la quelle soudaine impossible nous quent, ment, du séance, communiquer les position de 24. glais): France lorsque tant. admis que tion. 25. pouvait Royaume-Uni France m'a Ne tion, toutes une le Royaume-Uni, 23. Furthermore, last minute consultations and last minute deeisions change the whole situation in the Security Couneil so suddenly that not only is it impossible to follow our instructions, but we have no instructions ta follow. Consequently, although I should dislike proposing any delay or any postponement, if the representative of the United Kingdom is pressing bis proposaI, I think the meeting should be adjourned ·so that the delegations might have sufficient time to refer the matter to their Governments and to receive the necessary instructions which will empower them to take up their positions in connexion with the new situation. 24. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): I am grateful ta the representative of France for his interpretation of :nhat I mea!! when I say that the Nahhalin incident is Important; l am also grateful to him for agreeing with me that the ineident is important and that we should not in any way prejudge the matter. 25. I should Iike to say, in aIl trankness, that if the su~stance of what the representative of France has just sa1d were induded in the text of the United Kingdom proposaI, that would considerably alter my impression of ~hat text. Would it not be possible - and here, agam, I am merely reaching out in ail directions for any means of achieving a positive result in this connexion -: to include in the general text proposed by the United Kingdom representative the substance of the statement made this afternoon by the representative of France? If that were done, we might, upon further reflection, 26. Is it completely beyond the ingenuity of man to inc1ude in a formai text what he says informally? If that can be done, if the informaI can be formalized, 1 think that a way out of this problem may be found. 27. 1 may be t~o naive in supposing that, at any moment, the informai need be formalized. 1 am making my present suggestion without committing myself as regards the general principle that every informaI matter should be formaIized. 1 am stating only that if this particular informaI interpretation of the representative of France could he formaIized in the United Kingdom proposal, the matter would, in my opinion, take on a different aspect. 28. 1 would assure the representative of France that my suggestion is not aimed at prejudging any issue. AlI of us, however, have agreed informally - statements in this connexion by representatives are on the record - that the incident in question is important. but the incident has not been mentioned in the title of the item. 1 should not be in favour of mentioning the incid~nt - and, 1 repeat, we have all agreed that it is important - in the title if that were toprejudge our examination of the matter. 1 do not, however, see how the absolute detachment and objectivity with which the Council would examine the matter would be endangered merely by mentioning an incident such as that at Nahhalin, without in any way committing ourselve~ as to whether any judgment concerning ,that incident should be made in conjunction with other matters or separately, and so forth. 29. Renee, what 1 am saying is that 1 hope that we are approaching ~ agreement, but that 1 know enough about the United Nations to realize how illusory these things can be. At the same time, 1 am saying that if the substance of what seems to be the position of the representative of France and, so far as 1 know, the position of every representative here - all representatives has spoken on this matter - could be incorporated in the United Kingdora text, 1 might then see my way clear to going along with the Security Council on this matter.

1 have no speakers on my list. Does anyone wish to speak, or can we accept as a formaI proposaI the informaI proposaI made by Mr. Sarper, who said that such questions cannot be decided in a hurry, that we must ref1ect on them carefully ~nd that we must also L obtain instructions from our Governments. This proposaI should be treated as a proposaI to adjourn the 35. propose-t-il 36. ['anglais): l'heure 37. glais): 39. 37. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon) : 1 have no objection ta adjourning, but 1 should like ta suggest that, if it is agreeable to the Council, we might adjourn until Monday, 3 May, at 3 p.m.

Does anyone wisp. ta speak on this point? Is this proposaI acceptable to Sir Pierson? 39. Sir Pierson DIXON (United Kingdom): 1 have quite an open mind about the actual date. 1 certainly would not want to make an issue of it, and either Friday or Monday would be perfectly acceptable to me.

I must point out tp.at by Monday, 3 May, there will be a new President of the Security Council, if 1 am not mistaken, Sir Pierson Dixon. If he agrees, we can take it that, with the agreement of the new President of the Security Council, the meeting is fixed for Monday, 3 May. The meeting rose at 4.50 p.m. FIANCE Editions A. Peris V. mECE - GIECE "Eloftheroudakis," tion, Ath/lnes. AlGENTlNA - UGENTolNE Editoriel Sudemericeno S.i'I.. Alrlna 500. Buenos Aires. AUSTRALIA - AUSTRALIE 'H. A. Godderd, 2SSa George St.. Sydney, end 90 Queen St.. Melbourne. M.lbourne University Press. Carlton N,3. SUATEMALA Goubaud & 28, Guatemala. Vietoria~ IELGIUM -IELGIQUE Agence et Messageries de le Presse S.A.. 1'!-22 rue du Persil, Brux.lles. W. H. Smith & Son, 1'1.75, boul.vard Adolphe.Mex, Bruxelles. IOllYIA-BOLlYIE librer!a Selecciones. Casilla 972, La Paz. HAITI Libreirie' "A III·B, Port·eu-Prince. HONOUIAS Librerle Penomericene, Celle Tegucigelpa. HONG·KONG The Swindon Kowloon. ICELAND.., ISLANDE Bokoverzlun BRAlIL -IIESIL Livraria Agir, Rio de Jeneiro. Sao Paulo and Belo Horizonte. CWDA Ryerson Press, 299 Queen St. West, Toronto. Periodice, Inc.. 4234 de la Roche: Mon· treel. 34. CmON - CEYLAN The Associeted Newspepers of Ceylan Ltd.. Leke House, Colombo. Aust~rstreeti INDIA-IHDE Oxford Book House, New Caloutte. P. Veredechery St.. Medres eHILE - CHILI librerle Ivens, Moneda 822, Sentiago. Editorial dei Peclfico. Ahuineda 57. Sentiego. INOONESIA -INOONESIE Jejesen Pembangunen, Diekerte. IIAN Keteb.Kheneh nue, Tehran. IIAQ-IIAK Meckenzie's CHINA - CHINE The World Book Co. Ltd., 99 Chu,.g King Roed. 1st Section, Taipeh, TeiWlln. Commerr.ial Press. 211 Honen Rd•• Sheng. hei. ISRAEL Blumstein's Rbad, Tel·Aviv. COLOMBlA - COLOMBIE Librerl" Letine. Cerrere 6a.. 13·05. Bo'3o!6. Librerle Américe, Medeilln. librerIe Necionel Ltde.. Berrenquille. ITALY -ITALIE Golibri S.A.. LEBAHON -liBAN Librairie Universelle. LIBEllA J. Momolu COSTA IICA - COSTA·IICA Treios Hermenos. Apertedo 1313, Sen Jo.é. CUlA Le Ca.e Belge. O'Reilly 455, Le Hebene. LUXEMBOURG Libreirie J. UECHOSLOYAlIA _ TCNECOSLOYAQUIE MEXICO - MEXIQUE Editorial Hermes 41, México, Ceskosloven.~y Spisovetel. N6rodnl Trlde 9, Prehe 1. DEHMAIK _ DANEMAU Einar Munksgeerd, Ltd.. N~rregede 6. K..benhevn. K. HETHERLANDS - N.V. Mertinus ·s-Gravenhcge DOMINICAH REPUBLIC -IEPUBlIQUE DOMINICAINE librerle Dominicano, Mercedes 49, Ciu. ded Truiillo. ECUADOI- EQU.\TEUI librerIe Cientlfice. Gueyequil end Quito. NEW ZEAWD - 'United Netions lend, C.P.O. NOIWAY - NOYEGE Johen Grundt guslsgt. 7A, EGYPT - EGYPTE libreirie "Le Reneissence d'Egypte," 9 Sh. Adly Peshe, Ceiro. PAKISTAN Thomes & Thomes, Roed. Kerachi, Publishers Lehore. The Pekisten Chittegong EL SALYADOI- SALYADOI Monuel Neves y cre.. le. Avenide sur 37. Sen Selvedor. ETHIOPIA - ETNIOPIE Agence Ethiopienne de Publicité, Box 128, Addis·Abebe. FINUND - FINLANDE Aketeeminen Kirjekeuppe, 2. Keskusketu, Helsinki. PANAMA José Menéndez. PARAGUAY Morono He(manos. Ordars and inquiries from countries where sales agents have not yet been appointed may be sent to: Sales Circulation Section, United Nations, New York, U.S.A.; or Sales Sectic:" United Nations Office, Palais ~"ÎI";·,'" Geneva, Switzerland. Priee: $U.S. 0.10; (or equivalent Printed in Canada