S/PV.676 Security Council

I wish to draw the attention of the members of theSecurity Council to various communications which have been received on the question before us. 2. In particu1ar, we have before us a letter from the representative of Guatemala dated 22 June 1954, document S/3241, requesting an urgent meeting of the Security Council. 3. We also have a letter dated 24 June 1954 from the representative of the Soviet Union, document S/3247, likewise requesting an urgent meeting of the Security Council. 4. We also have before us a cablegram dated 24 June 1954, from the permanent representative of Nicaragua, document S/3249, stating that a fact-finding commission of the Inter-American Peace Committee will be received in Nicaragua, and that, in the opinion of his Government, the matter before the Council should be referred first to the Inter-American regional organization. rit~ au 2. ment laquelle vocation d'urgence 3 laquelle lui rité; 4. à-dire représentant ganisation accueillera américaine ment, soumise interaméricaine. L 5. We have a1so 'received a cablegram from the Ambassador of Honduras, document S/3250, opposing consideration of this question in the Security Counci1 on the ground that the Inter-American Peace Committee is already acting. 5. c'est-à-dire du minée sion 6. un de nisation curité proposé sion 6. And, finally, we have before us a cablegram dated 23 June 1954 from the Chairman of the Inter-American Peace Committee of the Organization of American States, d{)Cument S/3245, informing the Security Counci1 that on 23 June the representative of Nicaragua propo?ed that a commission of inquiry of the Inter- Amencan Peace Committee should be established, to 9. \iVhen he introduced his draft resolution, Mr. Hoppenot made the foilowing statement, which speaks for itself: "1 wi; :1' ta make it as clear as possible that there is nothing ln this step by the French delegation which olfll.can be construed as casting doubt on, or weakening, the competence of the Inter-American Peace Committee or the legitimacy of its action in this matter. On -the contrary: the correctness of resort ta the machinery provided by the statutes of this organization only gains confirmation from the failure of the Security Couneil brought about by the Soviet veto. l wish to make quite certain that no doubt remains in the mind of anyone, and particularly in the minds of our Brazilian and Colombian colleagues." 10. Several other delegations, including Brazil and Co!ombia, when making their explanations of vote concerning the French resolution, did not leave the slightest room for doubt as to the faet that the Organization of American States was not in any way hampered in taking any measure that it might deem adequate and necessary to deal with the situation through its 'Own machinery, which is known to be both efficient and useful. 11. Immediate!y after these events had taken place, it is to be noted !hat Guatemala, which had presented a similar complaint to the Inter-American Peace Committee of the Organization of American States, first askedthe committee to suspend consideration of the case, and, following that, wit'hdrew the complaint. Meanwhi1e, the Republics of Honduras and Nicaragua. wnkh had been directIy accused, expressed the wish to 13. The President of the Inter-American Peace Committee also stated that this proposaI, by unanimous decision of the eommittee, was sent to the Government of Guatemala, and furthermore that "the committee took the liberty of expres:sing its hope that the Guatemalan Government would see fit to agree to the proposed procedure". 14. 1 was informed unofficially that yesterday the Minister for External Relations of Guatemala had, by direct communication with the President of the Inter- American Peace Committee, agrced to receive a faetfinding committee which was to leave tonight for the area of conflict. However, at the last moment the official communication to that effect h~d not been received. If it were not for that fact, a commission composed of both Jiplomats and military men from Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, the United States and Mexico, coulù leave tonight. The Inter-American Peace Committee issued the following statement after yesterday's meeting: "The Inter-American Peace Committee met in special session tonight during which it was unanimously decided that, if the Government of Guatemala should accept the proposaI which the Inter-American Peace Committee officially transmitted to it yesterday, the Inter-American Peace Committee would immediately proceed to authorize the de;>arture for Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua of the facto finding committee provided for in the proposa!." 15. Neverthe1ess, even if the Guatemalan Government does not choose to co-operate with the Inter-American Peace Committee, that organization had already been seized of the matter and was bound to go into it in order to fulfil its obligations. As a matter of fact, the factfinding committee can even now, regardless of any steps taken by Guatemala, go to Nicaragua and Honduras. This could prove very useful since Guatemala has charged these two countries with acts of aggression and has maintained that from the territory of these neighbouring countries planes have been allowed to take off on aggressive missions against Guatemala. Besides this committee of information on the spot, there are several other means provided for in the machinery of the Organization of American States to deal with the problem. 16. This proves that the Organization of American States can and does aet promptly. Their action shows the correctness of our proposaI ta the Security Council and of the stand we took hère on 20 June. The USSR veto only delayed for one or two days the action which otherwise, l feel sure, the Inter-American Peace Committee would have taken at the request of the Security Cound!. Unifortunate1y the Soviet veto prevented the Security Cot,ll1cil from availing itself of the opportunity 17. l \Voulel like to make it dear, in the name of my Government. that in emphasizing the adequacy of the machinery of the Organization of American States and the appropriateness and compete.lce ofa hody recognized llnder the Charter to solve inter-American con- Hicts and disputes, our stand here can by no means be implied as being against Guatemala, Honduras or Nicaragua. 18. l do not want to go into the allegations and counter-3.l1egations that have been made. Brazil has always advocated full respect ror the sovereign rights of every Statenot only of the American States but of any nation - and we never depart from this principle. 19. l \vOtlld like to point out that for more than sixtY years the Organization of American States has been a usdul and efficient instrument for the solution of confli~ts, disagreements and strained situations confrontîr,g the American republics. The organization has adequate machinery in the many organs and procedures established by it ln order to solve snch differences. The long record of achievement of the system of the Organization of American States i5 a flagrant demonstration of its capacity to deal vvith political situations similar to the one which confronts us. In the Organization of American States ail the members have equal rights; whether large or small, each nation has one vote on decisions. and the l1ndemocratic principle of the vete is unlmown. 20. l am very pleased to note here the confidence which the representative of Guatemala shows in the Organiz3.tion of American States, when he said the following [675th meeting]: "We recognize the CI'!ectiveness of that organization; we have the greéüest respect for it and are members of it ... " 21. It is also to be noted that at the Chapultepec conference of American States, the delegation of Guatemala, which counted among its members the statesman who is now the Minister for External Relations of that country, Mr. Toriello Garrido, in a statement made on 27 February 19-t5, expressed the following views: "My Government believes that in connexion with the proposed organization and international cooperation ta preserve peace" - that refers ta the United Nations - "the Pan-American system should l:>e strengthened and the principles of collaboration and continental solidarity should be maintained, as weIl as the consultative procedures and periodic inter- Americanconferences, withOl1t detriment to the establishment of regional organisms, embodying countries linked by special geographic, economic, social and orher interests not incompatible with the \Vorld organism." 22. This viewpoint of Guatemala became part of a specific recommendation of saicl conference and was incorporated into article 2 of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance as follows: L""" "2. The Members of the United Nations entering inta such arrangements or constituting such ageneies shall make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies before referring them to the Security Council. "3. The Security Council shaH encou~'age the development of pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies either on the initiative of the ::Jtates concerned or by reference from the Security Council." 24. 1t is worthwhile to note, in the Charter of the Organization of American States, articles 1 ar,d 4, as follows: "1. The American States establish by this Cha':"ter the international organization that they have developed to achieve an order of peace and justice, to promote their solidarity, to strengthen their col1aboratian, and to defend their sovereignty, their territorial integrity and their independence. Within the United Nations, the Organization of American States is a regional agency." "4. The Orga:1Ïzation of American States, in arder to put into practice the principles on which it is founded and to fulfill its regional obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, proclaims the following essential purposes: "(a) To strengthen the peace and security of the continent; "(b) Ta prevent possible causes of difficulties and to ensure the pacifie settlememt of disputes that may arise among the Member States; "(e) Ta provide for common action on the part of those States in the event of aggression; "(d) To seek the solution of political, juridical and economic problems that may arise among them; and "(e) To promote, by co-operative action, their economi.., social and cultural development." 25. The Inter-American Peace Committee is an ?r;;~nism which is part of the framework of the Organlzatton of American States. Tt is adequate to deal with the matter. The competence of the 1nter-American Peace Committee is stated in articles 6 and 7 of its statutes, adopted 24 May 1950; "6. The Committee, whose sole purpose is to promote the maintenançe of peaçd1,ll and amicable 5 26. Since the adoption of the United Nations Charter, the Inter-American Peace COlllmittee has been requested ta aet within the lilllits of its competence in order to resolve differences arising between American States- Cuba and the Dominican Republic (1948), Haiti and the DOlllinican Republic (19+9), Peru and Cuba (1949). in the Caribbean area (1949), again Cuba and the Dominican Republic (1949 and 1951), and then Colombia and Peru (1953-1954). 27. In view of the action already taken by the Organization of American States, which is acting with commendable expedition, the most reasonable attitude which the Securitv Council can assnme in the matter is tn wait for the report {lf the fact-finding commi.ttee. 'Ve have alreadv received a first communication from the Inter-American Peace Committee and for that reason are bound to receive another one, after the committee has completed its task. Any action by the Security Coul1cil at this.stage Dr even any discussion of the subject iVithout the proper information would nüt be justified and could only introduce confusion lnto the pre::.'el1t situation. For this reason, the Bra7.ilian del~ga­ tion is of the opinion that we should not proceed \Vith such a discussion. 1 would therefore vote against the adoption of the agenda. 28. The PRESIDENT: The Preside..'lt recognizes the repreoeutative of Colombia. 29. ML TSARAPKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics): Point of order.

\Vhat is the point of order?

1 see from the statement wmch bas just been made by the Brazilian representative that the substance of the question is now being diSCU5sed before the Ccmncil has adopted its agenda and that it is sugge::,-ted that the Council should ta1.-e a very serious decision iVithout giving the represeniative of Guatemala, that i5 to say, the representative of the country wmch has been attacked, a chance to participate. l protest against this procedure and request fhat, s1nce the substantive discussion of the question, of a very serious aspect of the question, has already begun, the GnatemaJan representative should he invited to come ID the Counci1 table, as it will be very important for us 10 hear his opinion on this matter. 32. The PRESIDENT: The Chair vv"ÏTI rule on the point of order raised by the representative of the Soviet Union, It is quite true that we are DOW debating the w~ are discussing the adoption of the agenda. That i5 the first point. 33. The second point concerns inviting the representatives of Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras to the C;ouncil table. A_'Cording to the practice that the Council has followed from the beginning, it is not customary to invite non-members of the Security Council ta come to the table until after the agenda has been adopted. 34. The President therefore mies that it i5 not in order to call these representativl':;, ta the table until after the adoption of the agenda. In the meantime, ail debates shoulci remain within the limits of the adoption of the agenda. 35. Mr. TSARAPKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (tmnslated fl~om Russù;:n): Mr. President ... 36. The PRESIDENT: For what purpose does the g-entleman wish ta be recognized? 37. Mr. TSARAPKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated fmm Russian): l am not a "gentleman", l am the representative of the Soviet Union here. That is the first thing. ï

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. 39. MT. TSARAPKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : l wc~ld request the President to address me by my official title. that 1S to say, as representative of the Soviet Union. That is my firs: point. Secondly, l would like to reply ta the President's mling and explain my point of vi.ew on the question for the benefit of the other membeTs of the Council. 40. The PRESIDENT: Arc you challenging my ruling? 41. Mr. TSARAPKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from RttSsian) : YOl1 wi}l know after l have stated byopinion. 42. The PRESIDENT: In that case, l''will put the name of the representative of the Soviet Union on the list of speakers; he is not on my list now. The next speaker on my list is the representative of Colombia, and unless the representative of the Soviet Union desires to challeu.s;t: my ruling - in which case l will put it to a vote·- l intend ta Tecognize the representative of Colombia and then the other speakers on the list. l will put the name of the representative of the Soviet Union on the list. r

Point of arder.

The representative of the Soviet Union will statehis point of arder. 45. Mr. TSARAPKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist ~epublics) (tran..,-lated from Russian) : There can be no Justification anywhere - either in the 'Charter or in the rules of procedure ~ for your objeçti9fi§ tg lPy prop03al 49. I cannot agree that we are now discussing a procedural question. Everyone present realizes that this is not a procedural question, and the Security Council will not, I be1ieve, be prevented from dealing with the Guatemalan question by a procedural ruse, by various procedural manœuvres. I maintain that in the present instante it is our dutY to extend an invitation to the Guatemalan representative. 1 challenge the President's ruling, believing that at this stage of the debate, when the substance of the question is already under discussion, the injured party, which has fallen vidim to aggression and attack, must participate in the discussion of the question.

1 request the floor for a point of order. The French delegation does not agree in the slightest with the view expressed by Mr. Tsarapkin. A few months ago we devoted six or seven meetings - l do not remember exactly how many - ta the question of placing complaints by Jordan and Israel on the Council's agenda. At no stage in that debate were the representatives of Jordan and Israel invited to the Coundl table, although the discussion sometimes touched on, even if it did not go into, the substance. Neither Mr. Tsarapkin nor any other member of the Council at that time submitted any proposaI ta this eftect. 51. 1 therefore consider that the President's assertion is in conformity with aIl the precedents of the Security Counçiland r~hall vote for it if it is challenged.

Oh, no. The representative of the Soviet Union very correctly said a few moments ago that a discussion on the adoption of the agenda has to remain within certain bounds. l am simply citing to him, in turn, the point that he made to me earlier. l shall recognize him for a point of order but not for a speech on the substantive issue. 57. Ml'. TSARAPKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Rttssian): l must again revert to the question of the method of conducting the Council's meeting. Although the President denies that the substance of the question is being discussed, the fact remains that the Brazilian representative's statement relates to the substance and so, l am more than certain, does that of the Colombian representative which is now in preparation. As we are discussing the substance of the question, Article 32 of the Charter which stipulates that the parties to a dispute must be invited to participate in the discussion relating to the dispute is applicable. l would ask the President to be guided by Article 32 of the Charter. If he wants to comply with this Article, he must invite the representative of Guatemala; if he Tefuses to invite the victim of aggression to participate in the discussion of this question he will be violating the Article. 58. l wish once again to draw the attention of the President and of the members of the Security Council to a fact arising out of this procedural discussion of the agenda. In the discussion of the agenda, in which the parties concerned do not participate, it is being proposed that the agenda should not he adopted and that the consideration of the Guatemalan question should therefore be postponed. 59. As a result, the request of the victim of aggression - in this case, Guatemala - that the Security Council should meet at once and take measures to put an end to aggression will not be complied with. Thus, the Security Council wiII not consider the request of a Member State of the United Nations, a country which has been attacked. Thus, the Security Council, one of the principal organs of the United Nations, responsible for the maintenance of peace and security and for 60. This will be the result. Bearing this in mind, 1 ask that the Securitv Council should take no decision for the postponemcnt of the consideration of the Guatemalan question without the participation of the Guatemalan representative. I maintain that the representative of Guatemala must be invited. 61. The PRESIDENT: The Chair will say in reply that after the adoption of the agenda, it will then be in order to invite the representatives of Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua to the table.

I challenge the President's ruling.

The representative of the Soviet Union has challenged my ruling. The ruling is that the Security Council is not involved in a discussion relating to the dispute within the meaning of Article 32 and rule 37 of the Tules of procedure until the agenda is adopted. The representative of the Soviet Union has challenged the ruling of the President. T'hose who are in favour of the challenge by the Soviet representative and opposed to the ruling of the President, pleaseraise their hands. A vote was ta.ken by a sho'w of hatlds. In favour: Vnion of Soviet Socialist Republics. Against: Brazil, China, Colombia, Denmark, France, Lebanon, New Zealand, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. The motion was rejected by 10 votes to one. The President's ruling was maintained. 64. Mr. ECHEVERRI CORTES (Colombia) (translated trom Spanish): The American regional system, wlùch dates back to the hemisphere conference convened by Simon Bolivar and held at Panama in 1824, is the fruit of the mûst continuous efforts of the countries of the continent and represents its best historkal achievements. Ten general conferences - from the conference as Waslùngton in 1889 to the one a~ Caracas in 1954 - four consultative meetings and several special meetings, one of the most important of which was that at Chapultepec in 1945, attest the special and overriding interest which the American countries have placed in the creation, development and perfecting of the regional system. 65. Conference aft.er conference, endeavour after endeavour, fighting against difficulties of many kinds, the edifice of the inter-American systei'll has risen and has become the most perfect international legal body, because it is the most complete, the most democratic and the most advanced in effective service for peace and security. Resolutions VIII and XI of the Cenference on the problems of war and peace which met at Mexico City in 1945 are documents which mark one of 67. Actuated by the same spirit which has achieved the present vitality of the regional system, the American countries have g;ven full support to the United Nations from its foundation. Accordingly, they attended the San Francisco Conference with convinced faith and at that meeting their main endeavours were to ensure that the Charter of the worId organization should harmonize with the intentions defined only a few days previously at Chapultepec in order that their participation in the San Francisco Conference should not impair the success achieved in the regional system and, specifically, that such rules as the unanimity rule concerning decisions of the Security Council should not impede the application of the effective stipulations of reciprocal assistance pledged among the American countries, and thereby put back the international law prevailing in the hemisphere ta a stage which had definitively been superseded. 68. Thanks ta those efforts, very important changes were made in the Dumbarton Oaks proposaIs. Those changes are embodied mainly in Chapters VI, VII and VIII of the United Nations Charter. 69. In Chapter VI, the outstanding differences between the present tèXt and the original proposal are in Article 33, namely the express inclusion of the reference to regional arrangements or regional agencies. 70. .Àmong the procedures which parties must adopt to settle disputes likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, Article 36, paragraph 2, provides that the Security Council should take into consideration any procedures for the settlement of disputes which have already been adopted hy the parties. Among these ,procedures are those adopted by the American States; in this connexion, Article 37 provides that when a dispute endangering peace and security is referred to the Security Council, the Council must decide whether to take action under Article 36 which, as has been stated, contains a reference to regional systems, or whether to use another procedure. 71. There is, however, a fundamental difference in Chapter VII. This 1S Article 51 of the Charter, which does not occur in the Dumbarton Oaks proposaIs, and which establishes the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence. This Article enabled the American States to join the United Nations without turning their backs on their Chapultepec agreements on hemispheric security, and this is the basis of the Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance of Rio de Janeiro. 72. 1 wish DOW to quote two articles from the Treaty of Reciprocal Assist?nce of Rio de Janeiro, which are not widely known: . "Article 1. The High Contracting Parties fo.mally condf'..mn war and undertake in their international relations not to resort to the threat or the use of force 73. The amendment in Glapter VIII consisted of adding paragraph 2 of Article 52 which states categoricaIly that Members of the United Nations entering into regional arrangements or agencies shaUmake every effort ta achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies. The most cursory comparison of the texts of the Dumbarton OaI;:s proposaIs and the United Nations Charter will suffice ta show the value of aU these amendments made by the American States at the San Francisco Conference by dint of efforts which will be viewed with admiration in the history of international relations. 74. IL was owing ta these changes that the United Nations Charter was reconciled, as l have stated, with the progress of the regional system and that it was possible to sign and put into effect Ilot only t-he Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance of Rio de Janeiro but also the Pact of Bogota, the statute of the Organization of American States which guarantees the co-operation of all American States for peace and security and for economic and social progress. l wish in this conne...don ta quote a relevant artic1e of the Pact of Bogota: "Article 29 The High Contracting Parties recognize the obligation to solve international controversies by regional pacific procedures before referring them to the Security Council of the United Nati<~ns." 75. As Americans, we are justly proud of the degree of development attained by inter-American law which is one of the great achievements of our peoples. It is well known that American law is considerably more efficient, more firmly based and more complete than the world system or any other regional system. The most important fact, however, is that it is the law" of the countries themselves, identified with their deepest interests. 76. Therefore, the American States have at all times been careful to ensure that there shall be no encroac.hment on the rule of this law. From the outset, the Latin- American States have given their firm and loyal support to the United Nations and would to nothing which might be detrimental to the prestige of the regional organization. Therefore, when they are endeavouring ta main!ain the effidency, authority and competence of the reglOnal system, they have no trace of any hostile intent towards the universal organization and nowish to create any antagon.ism between one system and the other. On the contrary, they base themselves on the principle that the regiomù systenl forms part of the world system and are convinced that in interi ri 79. The President has before him the communication from the chairman of the Inter-American Peace Committee informing him that this agency of the American system has taken the problem under consideration at the request of Honduras and Nicaragua and that in performance of its functions it will send a fact-finding committee to the scene of the conflict. 80. Tt should also be rel11embered that Guatemala too, initial!y went before this American agency and that it withdrew that request only after the Soviet veto against that system. 1 do not believe that a country would apply to an agency if it had no faith in its impartiality. The Peace Committee is a body composed of representatives of Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Mexico and the United States and has acted with wisdom and a hig-h sense of American interests whenever it has been' entrusted with missions of promoting peace on the continent. AlI .the governments haveacknowledged this, inclr,ding Guatemala, which has applied to this committce in the past. 81. The appointment of another commission by the Security Council would be redundant and, we believe, improper and would imply a disauthorization of an American agency j my delegation could not agree to that. 82. Accordingly, the Colombian delegation conside"'s it its dutY to endeavour to prevent the veto or ai other outside manœuvre from impairing the authority and prestige of the regional system, since such manoeuvres would constitute a most inacceptable intervention in American affairs by totalitarian communism. 88. 1 am bound to say, however, that primOJ fade the situation is one that cannot he dismissed without any investigation, as a purely internal matter. If it were such a matter, it would of course be outside the competence of this Organization. 89. In the view of my Goverrunent, the Security Counci1's position in this matter is clear. As 1 said in my intervention at our meet~ng on 20.June, it is clt;ar that there is a state of affmrs to which the Secu'l"lty Counci1 certainly cannot remain indifferent. That is what l said on that occasion, and this position was reiterated by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the House of Commons on 21 June. 90. For the Security Couneil to divest itself of its ultimate responsibility would be gravely to prejudice the moral authority of the United Nations as the world's supreme organ for the maintenance of international peace and security. 1 think then that it. is c1ear that it is not at the moment open to the Secunty Counci1 to take any further action in this matter with- 92. Now we have learnt that the members of the Inter-American Peace Committe, with military advisers, are ready to leave for the area. l trust that they will leave at once. The Governments of Honduras and Nicaragua have indicated their willing acceptance of this procedure and they will open their territory to the fact-finding committee. 1t is not clear at the moment whether the Government of Guatemala will do the same, but it is very much to be hoped that they will. But even if they did not, in my view, this valuable action by the Organization of American States would be sufficient for the moment. The fact-finding committee could certainly malœ a constructive contribution by observing what is happening in the two countries against which the allegation has been made. f 1· 93. This fact-finding committee should in our view get on with its task, with all dispatch, so that the Security Council may have information as soon as possible. l am glad to note from the statement of the representative of Brazil that it is clearly contemplated that the Security Council will receive such informatbn. Rer ~...iajesty's Gûvernment in the United Kingc'.om considers that the fact-finding committee should be given every possible assistance by the governments concerned. It is a responsible and competent body, part of the Organization of American States, of which the Governments of Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Me..xico and the United States are the members. This organization is a regional organization within the meaning of Chapter VIII of the Charter. Where such an organization takes, of its own initiative, proper and constructive action, it seems to my delegation entirely in accordance with the provisions of the Charter that such action should go on and that the Council should be kept informed. 94. This does not, of course, mean that the Security Council is surrendering its ultimate responsibility in the matter. Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, for the reasons l have given, considers it of the greatest importance that this should not occur. But in fact the Council will remain seized of the matter and will receive information from the Inter-American Peace Committee. 95. It would be contrary to the general attitude of my Government to register a positive objection to a complaint, such as that raised by Guatemala, being received on the Council's agenda. l cannot therefore entirely agreewith the representatives of Brazil and Colombia in their objection to the inscription of this item on the agenda. But l do agree with them in thinking that the Council should be careful not to risk confusing the issue or prejudicing the chances of the valuable initiative taken by the Organization of American States. 96. Furthermore, my delegation would not wish to vote against the representative of Brazil, ~ member 99. In suspending. its actio.n. u~1til it is ~or~ f~lly infornled, the Secunty Counctl IS lU no ~ay Jettison~ng the matter which has been submitted to It. By applymg the procedur~ I.?rovided for by Article .5~ .o~ the ~arter, it is Ilot declmmg any of the responslbtlltIes WhlCh the last paragraph of that ~rticle sol~nmly confers on. it and which governs the mterpretatlOn of the preceding p~oraphs. The Government of Guatenlala can and must trust the Security Council which has already amply proved its readiness to hear it and its wish to re-establish peace on its territory. 100. The French delegation also considers that tlûs debate, wlûcll should proceed without passion in an atmosphere of serenity, should not serve as a pretext, as an opportunity fo:r a pr?paganda enterpnse. :ro introduce, as the repl'esentative of the. SOVIet Umon unfortunate1y did, during the 675th meetIng .on Sun~ay, slanderons unfounded and unproved accusatIons agamst the United States Government, is to divert it from hs object, to try to make our task even harder. We thlfs have everv reason ta :fear that a debate conducted m the Securlty Council before it is in possession of the resuIts of an investigation which. c:I0ne will ~nable the discussion to move towards a pOSItIve conclusl~n would pr{)ceed in the void and wo~ld uselessl:r agItate !he international atmosphere and gIve the SOVIet delegatIon yet another opportunity to fish for propaganda pretexts in the waters which it had itself troubled. l do not think that ta place the. G~atemalan. affair on the agc:nda of {)UT meeting today 15, 111 these Clr~~stances, 10gI~. Aware, hovrever, of the matters of pnnClple that plaC111g 16 101. Mr. Charles MALIK (Lebanon): 1 want to speak purely about procedure without any reference whatsoever to suhstance. 1 address myself, therefore, to document S/Agenda/676 before us and to the first item of that document, which is the question of the adoption of the agenda. 102. My delegation is in favour of the adoption of the agenda and, therefore, we shall vote for its adoption. Our reasons are the following. In the first place, we have a Member State of the United Nations which is asking the Security Council to consider a certain situation which is taking place within and about its territory. We fee! that whenever such a complaint is submitted to the Security Couneil it is the dutY of the Couueil to take it up. From this point of view, my delegation is in full agreement with the similar sentiments, so far as the authority of the Security Couneil is concerned, that have been expre~sed by the representatives of France and the United Kingdom. 103. The second reason is that we have already adopted this agenda. We adopted it at the 675th meeting on 20 June, and nobody objected to its adoption then; and we find no fresh reason roday why a similar agenda should uot he taken up and e.,'{amined by the Security Couneil. 104. For these two basic reasons, which seem to us to be sufficient, we shall vote for the adoption of the agenda. 105. 1 listened with the greatest care to what was said by the representatives of Brazil, Colombia, France and the United Kingdom, and 1 cannot conc1ude from what they said that we should not adopt the agenda. It seems to me that we should be starting a dangerous precedent if, whenever faced with an important and difficult situation with many complications, international and otherwise, we should refuse to examine it. 1 think that the previous speakers have really argued not against the adoption of the agenda, and not even, in my opinion, for abstaining from voting for the adoption of the agenda, although the representatives of France and the United Kingdom have said that they were going to abstain; in my opinion, they seemed to maintain that, after we adopt the agenda and have a preliminary debate on the matter, we should then defer the debate. That is quite proper. In fact if that procedure were adopted, we should have no procedural difficulties at aIl. Many of us, having listened to the arguments that have been put forward by the representatives of Brazil, Colombia, France and the United Kingdom, might have gone ahead at once and voted for the deferment of the debate. 106. 1 am not going to put my position in the farm of a motion; 1 am only suggesting that, from the point of view of sound procedure, from the point of view of the dignity of the Council and the United Nations, it is not very edifying, whenever there arises a difficult issue like this one, or like similar ones in the past ta spend, in some cases, weeks -debating whether the agenda should be adopted. Let the Couneil go ahead and adopt an agen<la. wlwn a complaint cornes before 107. Therèfore, my ddegation will vote for the adoption of the agenda. 108. Ml". DER'INSU (Turkey): In the urgent meeting that the Council held last Sunday, the draft resolution introduced by the Brazilian and Colombian delegations contained a realistic and practical proposaI ta meet the Guatemalan request. This proposaI was ta the effect that the complaint of the Government of Guatemala be referred ta the Organization of American States for urgent consideration and that the Organization of American States be requested to inform the Security Cauneil as soon as possible of the measures it would take in the matter. With the addition of the French amendment, the draft resolution had become more constructive. Tt is still fresh in our merories that ten members of the Security Council voted in favour of that draft resolution. Unfortunately, the draft resolution could not be adopted only because of the veto of our Soviet Union colleague. 109. 1 repeat that the consideration of the Guatemalan complaint by the Organization of American States would be a shortcut to a settlement of the trouble now existing in Guatemala. On numerous important occasions, the Organization of American States has set an example of solidarity that is admitted by aIl. 110. In this troubled world we badly need solidarity. The situation now existing in Guatemala may be likened to a family misunderstanding. And family misunderstandings can often best be solved, first of aIl, by the family's own members. To try to seek other means can only complicate and delay the solution of the problem.

When we met on Sunday afternoon, l supported the draft resolution of Brazil and Colombia. l then stated that the near unanimity of opinion among member States of the Organization of American States was very impressive to me. l further stated that the Security Coundl should give an opportunity to that organization to accumulate fresh prestige in its own field of usefulness. Certainly, l did not see any purpose that could be served by this Organization's trying to undermine that other one. 112. Since that meeting, l have had a chance to study the basic documents of the Organization of American States, and this afternoon l have had the benefit of listening to the two very interesting speeches by my colleagues from Brazil and Colombia. Now l have come to certain conclusions. 113. The first conclusion is that the purposes and procedures of the Organization of American States are in perfect harmony with the principles of the Charter. 114. In the second place, l am convinced that the machinery of that organization is adequate to handle the problem before us. In fact, we might even go further and say that the machinery of the Organization of American States was specifically desigaed to meet such a situation as exists in Guatemala. The record of that organization in handIing similar disputes in recent years has been honourable and successfnl. Are we sure that the Security Council has at its disposaI a machinery as adequate and as experienced as the machinery of that organization? 115. In the third place, after studying the basic documents involved, l cannot escape the conclusion that the members of that organization are obliged - legally obliged - to take their quartels, disputes or controversies, jn the first instance, to that organization and not to the Security Council or to the General Assembly. 116. Finally, that organization has already initiated constructive action. Why should we obstruct? 117. The argument has been advanced that, since we adopted an agendp. at our last meeting, there is no reason why we should not adopt it a second time. It is made to appear that it is improper for the Security Council to refuse to adopt an agenda which has been adopted once. 118. There are sorne complications in the question of the adoption of an agenda. Take, for instance, this present instance. When l came to the meeting of the Security Council on Sunday afternoon, l was in great difficulty. l frankly admit that l did not know enough about the situation in Guatemala to make up rny mind whether there was a case of aggression or not. l was not certain that it was an international war or that it was not a case of Guatemalans fighting against Guatemalans. l say that l did not have enough information to understand the exact nature of the difficulty. But if, when the President asked us on Sunday whether we objected to the adoption of the agenda, l had said that l objected to its adoption, l would in effect have been denying myself an opportunity to obtain that knowledge which might help me to make up my mind. 119. It is in such circumstances during previous controversies, that l have often advocated in this ~ouncil, 19 ••.... ··.···;··0···...··••••·..'>,·· •.•.". ,•."'··F'·" t~'e matter was or was not within the competence of the Council, and I therefore proposed that members should listen to the debate until they had enough information to be able to settle that question. It was on that provisional, tentative basis that the Couneil agreed to the adoption of the agenda. The representative of the United Kingdom agreed to the idea of a tentative adoption of the agenda. I could eite other cases in which I have advocated a similar approach. 120. Therefore, on Sunday afternoon, when the President asked us whether we had any objection to the adoption of the agenda, I felt that 1 should vote for acceptance of the agenda in that tentative spirit. And 1 did listen to a speech by the representative of Guatemala which lasted more than one hour; the Couneil gave him aIl the time he wanted to present his case. 121. There is therefore no reason why the Couneil should not have adopted the agenda in the tentative, provisional way that I have consistently advocated in this Couneil. 122. Now at that same meeting I had another difficulty. When the President asked whether the members of the Couneil had any objection to the agenda, 1 had no idea that the delegations of Brazil and Colombia had a proposaI to submit and. that they were going ta suggest an alternative plan. Since that time, the method of procedure through the Organization of American States has been carefully and accurately explained to me. 123. Today, I feel that the Couneil should not adopt the agenda. I shall vote against the adoption of the agenda. I should like ta point out one fact: that not to adopt the agenda is one question, and the remova! of this item from the agenda is quite another question. By voting against the adoption of the agenda for this particular meeting, we do not eliminate the item from the agenda of the Securi,ty Couneil. 124. This afternoon I shall vote against the adoption of the agenda. Not until 1 am convinced that the Organization of American States has failed in its efforts, will 1 change my stand on that point. 125. Mr. MUNRO (New Zealand): At our 675th meeting, 1 stated my delegation's view that it was fully consistent with its own overriding concern for the maintenance of international peace and security for the Couneil.to refer this problem first ta the Organization of American States and ta ask it to report ta the Couneil at an early date. That is still our position. 126. We welcome the deeision of the Inter-American Peace Committee ta establish a fact-finding committee. 1 needhardly say that we s'hare ta the full the confidence in the committee expressed today by the representative of the United Kingdom. We trust that the committee will proceed as saon as possible ta the area; that the countries concerned, and Guatemala included, l of course, will admit it to their territory and fully co-op~rate in every way ; that a report will he submitted by the committee at an early date; and that the .I1 fi ~ i L i J 138. In the second place, reference has been made here to Article 52 of the Charter. Admittedly, Article 52 provides for the consideration of certain disputes between States in regional organizations. It states precisely, however, that such organizations can examine aH types ~f disputes before theyare referred to the Security Council- 1 would emphasize, before they are referred ta the Security Council. But this question is now before ·the Security -Counci1. On Sunday 20 June , i ~i ~ 141. The reason is quite clear: to achieve by illegal, procedural ruses the result at which the United States has constantly been aiming. It took the present President, who is also the representative of the United States, three days to put the question before the Security Council; he postponed the meeting from 17 to 20 June. Now, that the Security Cotincil is again being asked to discuss the question because its resolution is not being obeyed, because the aggression is continuing, and because the attack on Guatemala has not stopped, the President of the Security Councilwho is also the United States representative - again postponed the meeting for a few days. Today, 25 June, we are holding a meeting, but attempts are being made to remove this question from the agenda for an indefinite period. 142. The question is, Why? Does this not in fact assist aggression? A Member of the United Nations has been the victim of attack. Reports have now been received that Guatemala City, capital of Guatemala, which is a Member of the United Nations, is being bombed. Aircraft are at this moment flying over Guatemala and bombing othis town, and we are sitting here and discussing whether or not to indude the Guatemalan complaint on the agenda. Let us wait for information: they are saying, let us wait for the results of the investigation, let us send a committee and hand this question over to the Organization of American States, that very organization in which, on 10 June, the United States Secretary of State, declared that he earnestly hoped and believed that the organization would help the people of Guatemala rid itself of the evil forces which had taken possession of lt. On 'Mr. Dulles' lips this means that the present gm ernment of Guatemala, the constitutional government éiected by democratic methods, must be overthro'ivn. This is confirmed outright in today's newspapers. The United States is committed to changing the régime - in Guatemala - says the Journal- Atnerican which certainly cannot be accused of communist propaganda. 143. Thus the situation is perfectly clear. In spite of the fact that an act of aggression has been committed, that the aggressor is advancing into Guatemala, that at this moment while 1 am speaking, Guatemala City, the 145. Guatemala has stated in the Security Couneil that it does not agree to such a procedure for settling the dispute. Hence, there is a dear violation of Article 36 of the Charter. In spite of the dear provisions of the Charter and the faet that one of the parties - what is more, the victim of aggression - objects to such a procedure of settling the dispute, attempts are being made to do preeisely that. And this is consequently illegal. 146. Thus we see that account is being taken not of the constitutional provisions of the Articles of the Charter, but only of the ward of one State which is involved - very seriously involved - as a party, or rather as the organizer of this aggression. 147. The representative of France tried to attack the USSR representative, asserting that he was engaging in pro'pagailda and that he was accusing the United States of aggression. Yet Mr. Hoppenot must have read in the newspapers about the demonstrations in support of Guatemala that were organized in the countries of Latin America, suoh as Chile, Cuba, Peru, Honduras even - and in a number of other countries which came out in support of Guatemala because they knew that it was the victim of aggression. Today Guatemala is the victim of aggression. Tomorrow it may be Honduras, and the aay after it may be Colombia, which 'has previously been the victim of aggression. The representative of Colombia will remember how the Republic of Panama came into existence. l am sure he has not forgotten. 148. That is what history tells us, and very recent 'history too, but an attempt has been made here to reproach the Soviet Union with making use of the veto. Thereason why the Soviet Vnio"} voted against the transfer of the question of an act of aggression to the Organization of American States was that it believes that the question of putting a stop to aggression should be dealt with by the Security Council, the body upon which Article 24 of the Charter lays primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security. 1 can read YOU Article 24 of the Charter: "In arder ta ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Couneil primary ,responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Couneil acts on their behalf.u 150. Naturally the Soviet Union could not support the at~mpt ta prevent the Security Council from taking steps ta put an end to aggression. The USSR cannot support these attempts to undermine still further the United Nations and in particular the Security Council, one of its principal organs. 151. l again refer to Article 36 of the Charter, and to the fact that we cannot forcibly adopt a procedure of settlement to which one of the parties objects. Article 36 must be obeyed, and the Security Council should consider, not whether or not to place on the agenda a question which is already there, but what measures it should take to put an end to aggressi<)U in Guatemala. Guatemala does not object to an observation commission being sent to the spot, but it wants the Security Council to send there a commission of inquiry which should submit a report and prop.ose measures for restoring peace and putting an end to aggression. 155. Consequently, it is not a matter of preventing the question from being included in the agenda, or of pushing it on to the Organization of American States which is not competent to deal with it, inasmuch as it has already been submitted to the Security Counci1. Consequently, the Security Council must now deal with the question in accordance with Article 52, paragraph 2, of the Charter. This is my first point. 156. My second point is that Article 52, paragraph 4, of .the Charter stipulates that the Article in no way impairs the application of Articles 34 and 35. Consequently, even in this regard, the provisions of the Charter relating to the prevention of aggression prevail over regional arrangements. 157. Lastly, l must once again draw attention to Article 36. l dwell on this point because, according to Article 36, the Security Council may adopt only such a procedure for the settlement of a dispute as is acceptable to the two parties. Here we have the vktim of aggression, which is really the principal party. We should value its opinion more highly than that of the others; we are· bound to take it into account and to help the victim of aggression by restoring peace and security in that country. 158. This country declared that it did not accept the referral of the dispute to the Organization of American States for consideration, and requested that it should be dealt with by the United Nations through the Security CounciI. From this point of view, therefore, no procedure can be adopted which would prevent the examination of this question by the Security Council, for that would constitute a violation of Article 36 of the Charter. 159. In conclusion, l should like to draw the attention of members of the Council ta the faet that the attempts which have been made under various guises to pass the whole question over to the Organization of American States represents yet another effort to undermine the United Nations Charter and further to diminish the functions and significance of the Security Council as the principal United Nations body concerned with the restoration of peace and the maintenance of peace and security among States Members of the United Nations. 160. For aU these reasons, the Soviet Union delegation is decidedly opposed to the putting to the vote of the question of including and maintaining on the agenda the request received from the Government of Guatemala, which is at present a vidim of aggression. l am opposed to any vote which may aetually prevent the discussion of this question by the Security Counci1. This of course would only serve the aggressor's purpose; it would serve the purpose of those who are 26 J, ?j 1} '~ ~ ~ g 1 "/ l 1 1n 166. Finally, a solution was found in the formula embodied in Articles 51 and 52 of t'Île Charter. Article 51 recognized the inherent Tight of individuals ta collec- 27 167. By that formula, a balance was struck between universality, the effect of which was qualified by the veto power, and regional arrangements. The adoption of that formula pern1itted the Charter of the United Nations to be adopted. \Vithout that formula, there would never 'have been a United Nations. If the United States Senate in 1946 had thought that the United Charter in effect abrogated our inter-American system - and l say this to you as a man with thirteen years' service in the United States Senate - the Charter would not have received the necessary two-thirds vote. In my judgment the American people feel the same way today. 168. Now, for the first time, the United Nations faces the problem ùf translating that formula into reality. The problem is as critical as the one which faced the founders at San Francisco in 1945. Let us not delude ourselves. If it is not now possible to make a reality of the formula which made possible the adoption of the Charter, then the United Nations will have destroyed itself in 1954 as it would have been destroyed stillborn in 1945, had not the present formula been devised prÎ":11arily under the creative effort of the late Senator Vandenberg and the present Secretary of State, i :1. Dulles, working with the Secretary of State at that time, Mr. Stettinius, and other administration leaders. yt was this formula which secured bipartisan support :u the United States in 1946 - and l note that by a completely bipartisan vote, the Senate today dedared that the international communist movement must be kept out of this hemisphere. 169. So much for the United States part in what happened at San Francisco. The great weight of the effort at San Francisco, however, was made by the other American republics, as you have heard Ambassadol' Gouthier and Ambassador Echeverri Cortes say before me. The representatives of the other American republics were determined that the United Nations should be supplementary to and not a substitute for or impairment of the tried and trusted regional relationships of their own. 170. The United States, whose representative took such an active part in drafting the Charter provisions in question, soberly believes that if the United Nations Security Council does not respect the right of the Organization of American States to achieve a pacific settlement of the dispute between Guatemala and its 171. The present Charter provisions were drafted with particular regard for the Organization of American States, which consütutes the oldest, the largest and the most solid regional organization that the world has ever known. The· distinctive relationship of the American States dates back to the early part of the last century. Throughout this period of over 130 years, there has been a steady development of ever-closer relations al110ng the twenty-one American republics. They have achieved a relationship which has preservee. relative peace and security in this hemisphere and a freedom from the type of wars which has so cruelly devastated the peoples of Europe and Asia. 172. The Organization of American States is an organization founded upon the freedom-loving traditions of Bolivar, 'Washington, and Abraham Lincoln. The twenty-one American republics have been bound together by a sense of distinctive destiny and by a determination to prevent the extension to this hemisphere of either the colonial domain of European Powers or the political system of European despotism. They have repeatedly pledged themselves to settle their own disputes among themselves and to oppose the interposition into their l11idst of non-American influences many of which were abhorrent to the ideals which gave birth to the American republics and which sustained them in their determination to find a better international relationship than has yet been achieved at the universal level. 173. There has recently been evidence that international communism, in its lust for world domination, has been seeking to gain control of the political institutions of American States in violation of the basic princip1es which have, from the beginning, i'11spired them freely to achieve their own destiny and mission in the world. It is our belief tl-.at the great bulk of the people of Guatemala are opposed to the imposition upon them of the domination of alien despotism and have manifested their resistance, just as have many other countries which international coml11unism has sought '10 make its victims. 174. The Government of Guatemala daims that the fighting now going on there is the result of aggression by Honduras and Nicaragua. Tt daims that it is a victim; it asks for an investigation. It is entitled to have the facts brought to light; the procedures for doing that are dearly established within the regional Organization of American States. These States have established a permanent Inter-American Peace Committee to handle problems of this nature. Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua all applied to that committee for assistance in resolving this problem. Thecommittee has agreed to send a fact-finding committee to the area of controversy for that purpose. Guatemala has étttempted to interrupt this wholesome process, first, by withdrawing its petition and, second, by withholding its consent for the fact-fi'11ding committee to proceed with its task. Nevertheless, because the members of the 176. We hear today that Guatemala, after years of posing as a member of that organization, now for the first time claims that it is not technically a member thereof. Ta have daimed and exereised all the privileges of membership for a number of years, and then ta disclaim the obligations and responsibilities is an example of duplicity which, surely, t'he Seeurity Council should not condone. Either Guatemala is a member of the Organization of American States and therefore bound by Article 52, paragraph 2 or else it is guilty of duplicity ta such an extent that it cannat come before the Security Council with dean hands. If we adopt the agenda we, in effect, give one State - in this case Guatemala - a veto on the Organization of American States. It is not possible ta do bath. You do one at the e..'Cpense of the other in this case. 177. In any event, the United States is a member of the Organization of American States and, as such, we are clearly bGlUnd by Article 52, paragrap'h 2 of the Charter. The United States is also bound by article 20 of the Charter of the Organization of American States, which provides that: "All international disputes that may arise between Ameriean St<:l.tes shall be submitted to the peaeeful procedures set forth in this Charter, before being referred ta the Security Council of the United Nations." And that has been sa for a long time. 178. The United States does not deny the propriety of this danger to the peace in Guatemala being brought to the attention of the Security Council in accordance with Article 35 of the Charter. That has been done and, as l said, l called the meeting the day after l received the message. The United States js, however, both legally and as a matter of honour. bound by its undertakings contained in Article 52, paragraph 2 of the Charter of the United Nations and in article 20 of the charter of the Organization of American States, ta oppose consideration by the Security Council of this Guatemalan dispute until the matter has first been dealt with by the Organization of American States which, through its regularly 'constituted agencies, is dealing actively withthe problem now. The United States is, in this matter, moved by more than legal or technical considerations; and l recognize that. We do not lightly oppose consideration of any matter by the Security Council. We are, however, convinced that a failure by the Security Council to observe the restraints which were spelled out in the Charter will be a grave blow ta ~ave been made here today, the real question at issue 1S the following: 1s the United Nations to deal with matters relating to the maintenance of peace and security throughout the world, or is it to be debarred from its rights with respect to the world as a whole and are its functions with respect to the struggle against aggression, the termination of aggression and the strengthening of peace to be restricted, at the tnere whim of the United States of America, to Europe and Asia, with perhaps the addition of Africa. 183. That is the issue at stake in the discussion that bas taken place 'oday. That is an undoubted fact, as is 184. That must be obvious and perfectly c1ear to all of us. If we ignore all this propagandist balderdash about international communism and so forth, and look at things as they are, we shall see that what is being done here marks the beginnings of a dangerous effort ta undermine the jurisdiction of the United Nations in matters relating to the maintenance of peace and security. That is the first point. 185. The second point is that the issue here is one of priority, the question being which authority is to be given precedence by the States Members of the United Nations which are situated in the American continent. There are sorne twenty of these States; yet today we have heard that all these Latin-American States should give precedence, in all matters relating to aggression on the American continent, tà the decisio.:J.s not of the United Nations but of the Organization of American States; and that the United Nations, and the Security Council, should be debarred from dealing with the matter. 186. Thus, we are heing told that in matters relating to international peace and security the Latin-American countries - although they are Members of the United Nations - should act in accordance with concepts, procedures a~d methods of settlement of disputes entirely different from thbse governin15 the remaining Members of the United Nations. That is to say that all European States, all Asian States and all African States will be required to act, in matters relating to the maintenance of peace, on the basis of the United Nations Charter; but that the Charter ceases to op~rate i1t1Îl1ediate1y aggression takes place on the American continent. That is the interesting theory we have heard ; and the United States représentative has even threatened the United Nations with collapse if we demand the application of the Charter in its entirety to cases of aggression committed on the American continent also. 187. That is what the United Staks representative has told us today. However we unclerstand - and we are confident that every 1\.::ember of the United Nations understands very c1ear1y - what the real issue is. Either we have a Chart~r which is binding on all Members of the Pnited Nations, or in actual fac!..- if the theory propounded by the United States representative and the United States Senate prevails - t),p United Nations will survive as l1 mo.-i,.ery, :~ indee" its days are not numbered. 188. It is obvious that if the United Nations is to be dealt such serious blows and if entire continents are ta be withdrawn from its jurisdiction, the Organization will he reduced to tlothing. An organization of that kind will have no authority and no force and will become 189. This principle is indivisible: either it is accepted fully in all its parts or it is utterly destroyed so that there remains not a trace of it. 190. l believe that all other members of the Security Council and of the United -Nations must agree with this interpretation as the only true interpretation, for it lies at the basis of our Charter. Either we have a United Nations Charter, which is binding upon aIl Members, or we have no Charter, in which case of course the United States representative and the United States Senate are free to do just what they like. 191. But the United Nations still exists, and therefore this attempt to prevent the Security Council taking steps to put an end to aggression appears to un illogical. We feel obliged to oppose it and fight against it or else, if we make a concession in this direction today, we shall be obliged to make another tomorrow. Tomorrow the United States will feel that the United Nations should not be permitted to take any measures to put _a stop to aggression if it should occur on the American continent. 192. l must repeat once again that what has happened to Guatemala today may happen tomorrow to Honduras, to Costa Rica, to Colombia and to the other States, that there are no limits and no bounds. It is only too c1ear what the results will be if the United States is left to deal with aIl the other Latin-American countries. The results of su.ch aggression will he c1ear to aIl of us. The United States is powerful enough to subdue any country of Latin America. It must be c1ear to everyone that those countries of Latin America, and those which share their view are taking a dangerous, reckless course by rejecting now the help of the United Nations and wanting to be left to deal with the United States individually in the Organization of American States. 193. l think that the situation is sufficiently c1ear ta enable us to choose the right course of action. 194. The Soviet delegation firmly objects to the proposaI not toinc1ude the question in the agenda, and not to consider it and maintains that the question should on the contrary be inc1uded in the agenda and discussed, and that measures shouid be taken to put an end to aggression in Centrai America and in Guatemala. A vote was taken by show of ha.nds. The p'roposal was adopted by 9 votes. The meeting rose at 7.55 p.m. Printed in Canada Priee: $U.S. 0.30; (or equivalent ~n