S/PV.687 Security Council

Before proceeding to the adoption of today's agenda, 1 wish to express, on behalf of the Council, deep appreciation to Mr. Charles Malik, representative of Lebanon, who was President of the Council in December 1954. Since that was aIso the last month of Lebanon'8 term on the Security Council, it is fitting that 1 should pay tribute both to Mr. Malik's distinguished conduet of the presidency in December, and ~o the wisdom and understanding w~ch he bas contributed to the debates of the Council during the past two years. 8. .1 may expftSS a similar ~ntiment about the representative of Iran, Mr. Entemm, who also has been associated v.ith the United Nations sinœ the ,-cry belinning. Mr. Enteam's distinguished carcer scan:ely Nq1Bœs teeapitulation by me. He has held several C&biDet posts in the Iranian Govemment, including the Ministty for Foreign AfI'airs. and he is now the Amlnssaclor of his country to the United States of America. He bas presided as cliainnan of committees of the General Assembly on more than one occasion, ud bis lair in this field was nowhere better demonstrated than during bis presidency of the General Assembly al its fifth session. The Council will he the richer for his presenœ. 9. The ~tal1.ve of Pero, Mr. BelafJnde, as leamed ÙlplùlosophY$ law ~ud bistory as he is e~eliced in c1iplomacy, equaDy needS no introduction to the Council. Helepeœrated Pero al the San Francisco Conference and. bcfore that, al the u.:cwe of Nations. In the Geac:nlADembly he, 100, basSenedas chairman ofmore 1haD Olle c:ommittee,and bis dOquenœ and his perspic:Iàty have !illide him one of the best known and most d::IlpeL1eIJ lipreSin the United Nations. We welcome him as an oId fiiend and as a valued coDeague. a 0J/idIl~ q • ·GaenIl Â1IaI61J'. NiIIIlI Sa:rioII, FinI Cc -.. 754da 1'IIClCiIiaa. 11. It was hardly necessary to recall these constitutional commonplaceB in order to bring out the fact that the responsibilities weighing upon the States which the General Assembly has chosen are heavy. My country is.the more aware of these responsibilities in that this is, as the President has been kind enough to remind us, the second timeit has been called upon to exercise them. 12. ' 1 shou1d like to express my deep gratitude to the President for the kind words with wbich he has welcomed the representatives of Belgium. to the Couneil table. 1 particularly appreciated them, comiog as they did from Sir Leslie Munro, the representative ofNew Zealand, a country with wbich B.,lgium maintains the Most friendly relations.

1 am Most gratefu1 to the President for bis kind welcome to my country. Iran highly appreciates the honour the General Assembly has done it in electing it a meplber of the Security Council. It is weil aware of the responsibilities entailed by that election. It will not evade thein and will do all that it can to deserve the trust in it wmch the General Assembly has shown. 14.· 1 believe that the non-pê,rmanent members of the Security Couneil have a twofold duty: to defend their own Govemments' points of view and to defend the interests of the region they represent. But beyond this two-fold duty there is a higher duty, to represent the United Nations as a whole, for, according to the Charter -as the representative of Belgiuni has rightly reminded us-the Security Council does not act solely on behalf of the States which are members of. it but ratheron behalf of aU the States Members of the United Nations. The representatives ofIran who sit on the Security Couneil will bear this duty constantly in mind. pays 15. 1 should now like to associate myself with the President in paying a tribute to Lebanon and to its eminent representative, Mr. Charles Malik. The part which Mr. Malik and bis country have played, bath in the Economie and Social Council and in the Security Council, is tao weU known for me to need to expatiate on il. 1 am very weU aware how bard it ie to replace so distinguished an outgoing member. t shall, however, do my best to follow hjs exampl~. 16. 1 &hall say nothing ofthe unmerited praise bestowed on me personally. 1admit to no merit save tha:t of hein. a devoted servant of the United Nations. 'bo~"è ....-4 ~h to elÇhasir.e this ~ulad~t-by my tô\l\\ti1~ j~ tndition and its tèrwnt àdherence to ~ United N"atio1\S Chaner) tô ils principlèS and to 1ft ~ al\d by ils bellef that the Charttr COllstltùtes tht \t\le hope of peaœ fur manklnd. .~ l: wistl, to assoclate ~twith the well-deserved \ti~tè 'WhÏ\~ the PMident Ms paid to the representatives ••\it endeci tlleif $eNièe on the Council, to our \'W\\lÎ'lèft.\ èO\~ the ~tative of Lebanon; to ttvt ._ntati~ of llenmarkt who has woriœd so wen ln the callftcll; :aoo to the ~rœentative of Colombiat ~ t M\'è theltoM~r to .'fèPlaœand whOse aètivities ~ ~ o~Ming bottt in the Counâl and in the ~Ny, ~\... l ùso 'WÎ$h ~ to èxpress my thanks to dtè~tfut the ,eneroùs WOIds whicll he addressed ~ tilt deleIâttoft of Pènl. 1 beUe~ those WOMS wenf ~ by dtë ~, ~tb.y wIlich ÀaS èxis~ ~lttè~tstt~the ~tati\'eofNeW.Zealan~ ut4 \Ile ~t.t1~ of Pau, and by the bOnds 0 ~ ~et\\ the l'«'O (Ountr1es. n. lla~ th~ onœ qam, expressed my. conviction .114 ~ ~ l:should lib to assùre the 8ecnrity Counâl dia\ l ....teady and. willing to wott withenthusiasm for t\tlôftyidèaIsorlM United NatiGns. n. Sir .~ DLXON (U1Iifed ICmgdom); The '......-bfor aD of us in the tribute he bas paid .., die ttp:estfttaÛ\leS Œ the retiting memben of the ~ Olkn~ DentDatk and Lebano~and in dit '4W!lcome1te bas ~ to the tqnSe11tatives of die~ mem~ Be1&iwn, Iran and Pau. ~. I~~ to'0'" you,Sir .~ my warm ~. on belJaIf of the UBitedKinadom ~ on dJit .bMGur œnfenedupon yeu at the Mer; Year tJy t'heQaeen wbom we both serve. '25. 'DIe~:; r $boD1d lite to express to my .fIieDi :ua ~ Sir .Pienon. Dixo~ the United Ki'.kIm~me,my ~ tIwlb fOr the " .œmIIlb he ms made amcc:ming the Ilonaur which bas ~~ 0Il:me bjr Ik~. Other mcmbers d'1liis0muriJ laawÙJO~.~aud 1 shoa1d. tiR to !lÙC diis "ftJOdiiiiÙl.1 to 1IJulk 1hem pubticIy. Th", Palestine question Co~plaint br .Israel agaiDst Egypt coneemÎilg ~ (G) ePl~~t by Emt of ftdrietionson .the JNCH88e of lIlhi~ trading 'wiih hrael through the. Suez Caa!!l (8/3296, S/3291 and Corr.l, S/3298, S/3300, S/3302, S/3309, S/3310, 8/3311, S/3315, S/3323, S/3325, 8/3326, S/3333, S/SS35) At the {nvitatlon of the President, Mr. Loutfi, representatlve ofEgypt, anà Mr. Eban, representative ~f IJrael, took places at the Councll table.

This meeting has betn called at th: request of the representa~ive of Isracl, a~d 1would therefore ask thatrepresentative whether ho desires to address the Council now.

, If it meets the Security COuncil's convènience, 1 should prefer to postpone my obserVations until members of the Couneil have had an opportunity of expt~Jsing themselves on thi~ is8ue.

The other pàrty to this case is the State of Egypt. 1 tberefore ask the representative of Egypt whethet he wishes to address the Couneil now.

1 should like to thank the President for allowing me to speak once again on the Bat Galim affair. 1 shan be brief, for ~he facts are too weB known for me to dwell on them.. 30. The present situation May be summarized as foUows. 31. My delcgation informed the Security Council, on 4 Decernber 1954 [8/3326], of its intention to release the Bat Galim's,crew, in view of the fact that the Egyptian judicial authorities had foundthat there was not sufficient -evidence ta bring the accused before the criminal courts on the basis of the charges against them. Today, the members ofthe eI'ew areat liberty; they were taken te the Israel-Egyptian demarcation line on 1January ofthisy.ear.'1 . 32. We should have preferred it hada reptesentativ~ of General Burns becn present at the time when the crcw was set atliberty, but, for r~sons which 1 consider it unnecessary to discuss here,. our sugg~tion was rejected, and we can only express our regret. Similarly, the Israel delegation to the Mixed Armistice Conunissiondid not see fit to tend its co-operation in connexion with the release of the cr~. 33. The Egyptian Governmentis still ready to band over the Bat Galim's catgo; it might, for instance, be plaœd aboard a neutral vessel hoURd for Haïfa. s 37. At our 682nd meeti'1g, on 14 October 1954, the members ofthe CounciJ r" ~eed that, before proceeding iùrther, it would he a\AVlSauleto ~vç before them a report on the Bat Galim incident by the Egyptian-Israel Mixed Armistice Commission. At our 683rd, 684th and 685th meetings. early in November, we were primarily concemed with the delays that had oeçm'red inconsidering the incident in the Mixed Armistice .C;ommission. Dy the end of November. the case had been heard in the Mixed Armistice Commission and a report had been sent to the Secretary-General by the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization [8/3323]. But, when we met for our 686th meeting, on 7 December 1954, we had' not, as it seemed to me, had quite enough time to consider the implications of the letter. dated 4 Deœmber 1954, from the representative of Egypt [8/3326]. In that document, it was stated that the Egyptian judicial authorities had set aside, owing to insufficient evidence, the very serious charges brought against the members of the crew of the Bat Galim, that the seamen would be released as soon as the necessary formaIities had been concluded, and that the Egyptian Government was prepared to release the seized cargo immediately. Nothing was said in that letter about the l'elesse of the sbip, but, as 1 remarked at the time. the developments reported by the representative of Egypt were we1come, so far as they went, and ~t seemed desirable that we should have a little more time to reflect on what we should do next [686th meeting, paras. 149 and 150]. 38. 50 much for the past history of this question, so far as the Security Council is concemed. Now that the COl.lncil is meeting again, for the sixth time, on this question, Ithink thatthe time bas come when 1 must set forth, quite briefly, the position of my Government in regard to certain basic principles involvecil in this regrettable incident. 39. In the fust place, of COill'SC, my Goveminent attaches the highest degree ofimportance to the principle of fteedom of navigation through the Suez Canal, as set forth in the Convention respecting the free naviga- .tion of the Suez Maritime Canal, signed' in Constan- 40. Now, the Egyptia.'l Government has, of course, repeatedly, bath here in this Council and elsewhere, declared its intention of abiding in the strictest way by the Convention of Constantinople and has maintained that the restrictions wJUch it has imposed on traffic thTough the Canal with Israel do not conflict with the terms of that convention. My Government welcomes the. clear stand taken -by Egypt on the question. of the continuing validity of the Convention of Constantinople, which is ofsuch importance to all the nations ofthe world. Unhappily, however, my Government has not felt able to accept the interpretation which the Govemment of Eg-ypt places on the relevant sections of the Convention in this particular context. That is one reason why the present dispute between Egypt and Israel over the use of the' Canal is of particular interest to my country, as one of the great trading nations of the world. 41. .The second reason for the concern which my Govemment feels over this dispute is of a different kind As we an know,. in 1951 the Security Council considered the dispute in great detail, and on 1 September of that year the O)uncil passeda. resolution [S/2322] which calle<! upon Egypt to terminate the restrictions on the passage of international commercial shipping and goods wherever bound, and to cease all interferènce with sue:. shipping beyond that essential to the sC2fety of shippiIl6 in the Canal itself and to the observance of the international conventi~ns Jn force. 42. At our meetings in the autumn of 1954, the repre- .sentative of Egypt told us that the picture drawn by the representative of Israel of increased restrictions on the use of the Canal was exaggerated, and even false. He said that, since March 1954, Egypt had refrained from restrictions on the passage of shipping to or from Israel through the Canal. That statement was, i fee! sure, we1come to members of the Council. Any alleviation of the situation must he welcome to us. ft is no use seeing things in terms of black ...nd white ooly. But the fact remains-and it is surely an undisputed fact·-that the Government of Egypt has not yet seen its way ta complying fully with the Council's resolution of 195J. That fact is, to my mind, not ooly regrettable, b1!~ ;;;Vf.n dangerous. • Foi' an English translation, see Sir Edward Hertslet, cd., A Complete Collection of the Treaties and Conventions..•between Great Britain and Foreign Powers... , London, Butterworths, 1893, vol. XVIII, p. 369. . 45. 1 now come for a moment te the incident itself. The dispatch of the Bat Galim from the Red Sea to the Cana1~ flyins the Israel flag and bound for Israel, was, 1 suppose, intended as a test case. The Government Israel was, of course, within its rights in so doins. Whether or not it wu expedïent to make tbis test case wu a matter for the Governmcnt of Israel to decide. Bere in the Security Council we are, 1 think, only concerned with the results. They have been unfortunate aIl'round. 46. The only encouragins element in the situation, my view at least, is that the very grave charges brought against the members ofthe crew, ofan attack on unarmed Egyptian fishing vessels, were franldy withdrawn when they could not be substantiated. That was something to the good. and reflects credit on the course of justice in Egypt and on the good faith of the Egyptian Government. 1 should, however, have hoped that the Egyptian Govemment could thcreafter have seen its 'way letting the sbip proceed on its course through the Canal, under such security restrictions as seemed appropriate in the circ:umstances. Though it would, of course, have left aU the questions of principle untouched, this wouldat least have settled the adventures oftbis particular ship in a more or less satisfactory manner. 47. The representative of Egypt will, 1 hope, not take it amiss if1 say that 1 regret very much that this course was not followed. As it is, at least the crew bas been sent back to Israel, and today we have just heard the representative of Egypt, if 1 understood him correctly, say that bis Govemmentwould not o~jectto theestablishment of a sub-committee of the Mixed Armistice Commission to consider the question of the sbip. 1 am not clear as to the scope of this suggestion, and we have yet to learn wbat view the Govemment of Israel would take upon it. But it strikes me at least as an interesting suggestion. 1 would hope that somethins useful can he made of it, 50. The crew of the Israel vessel seized at the entrance to the Canal on 28 September 1954 was released on 1 January 1955 and set free at Gaza. The Egyptian Govemment has offered to retum the cargo and the vessel itself to consignees agreed upon by Israel. Sueh return seems, however, to be subject to the condition that the vessel itself shaH not sail through the Canal. 51. Nevertheless, we have just heard the Egyptian representative suggest that the exact manner of the delivery could be determine4 by a sub-committee of the Mixed Armistice Commission. 1 must say that we do not yet see clearly the consequences of lhis suggestion, It is clear that it can be put into effect onIy with the agreement of the two parties and the Mixed Armistice Commission itself. My delegation therefore reserves the right to revert to the suggestion when the scope of tins procedure and the details of its implementation have been more clearly explained. 52. In any case, the suggestion would seem to mean that the Egyptian Government maintains its claim that it is entitled to forbid passage through the Suez Canal to any vessel fiying the Israel fiag and manned by an Israel crew. 53~ ln his statements to the Sec11l'Îty Couneil, the representative cf Egypt based this position of the Egyptian Government on article X of the Constantinople Convention. Under that article, .. the provisions of articles IV, V, VII and VIII shaH not interfere with the measures which [the Egyptian Government] might find it necessary to take for securing by lits] own forces the defence of Egypt and the maintenance of p\&blic order", 54. 1 shall confine myself to pointing out, as the French delegation has already done in the Couneil on several occasions, that in our view article XI ofthe same Constantinople Convention seems to us to settle the question in a sense opposed to the Egyptian argument. Article XI, in fact, says: .. The measures which shaH he taken in th.e cases provided for by articles IX and X of the present Treaty shaH not interfere with the free use of the Canal..... 55. The provisions to which 1 have referred contain·no limitation on such free use. It is permissible, therefore, to conclude that the measures in question must not interfere with any free use of the Canal, even by the warships of a Power tbat is an enemy of Egypt; a priori 57. Furthermore. by definition, breaches of these armistice agreements may endanger peace in the Middle East. There is no doubt in our minds that the exercise by one of the parties, on the high seas, of the right of visit, search and seizure of vessels of the other party, would constitute a serious breach of the arntistice agreements; it would, in fact, mean the exercise, by that party, of the right of a belligerent, a right denied to the parties by the very fact that they have signed the armistice agreements. It will no doubt he said that the Suez Canal cannot be considered to be the high seas. But it has one attribute of the high seas, in that it may be freely used. by ail. That attribute is the consequence of an international treaty freely signed. by Egypt. We thus return to the Constantinople Convention of 1888. The Council is competent to supervise its application in this case in view of the special situation created between Egypt and Israel under the General Armistice Agreement of 1949. 58. These, in short, are the principles which we continue to uphold and which have becn stated on various occasions, and the Security Council put them into effcct in its resolution of 1 September 1951 [S/2322]. The general scope of the Council's decision of that date cannot be questioned. On 1 September 1951, the Council asked Egypt to terminate the restrictions on the passage of "international commercial shipping". 59. We ask that Egypt should abide by the Council's decision. 60. We must certainly note that considerable progress has becn made sinœ 1951, in the sense that the regulation of the Suez Canal has been relaxed. It appears from the statement made by the representative of Egypt that his country does not intend to prevent the passage through the Canal of Israel-bound cargoes, provided that they do not constitute contraband of war and that they are carried in neutral bottoms. 1 am. glad to note this important step towards the restoration of a normal situation in that part of the world. 61. But the Egyptian Government's action in this regard cannot he fully commended so long as it stops half way. 1 do not think tIlat Egypt stands to profit or to gain any security from the stand il is now taking towards Israel ships alone. We hope that, fully aware of the .responsibilities attendant upon the exercise of full so'Vereignty over its entire territory, Egypt will give a liberal Interpretation to its obligations under the international agreements which it has signed.

The case of the Bat Galim is one of a long series of cases considered by this Council in connexion with the Palestine question. It must he looked at in the perspective of the hostilities hetween Israel and the Arab States that were at their height less than seven years ago, of the efforts of this Couneil to bring about a cessation of those hostilities, and ofthe eventual establishme!:t ofarmistice agreements between Israel and its neighbours as a result of United Nations mediation. It must also he looked at in the perspective of the inevitable dislocations and equally ·inevttable adjustments that always follow armed conflict between States. 65. One had a right to expect, however, in the United Nations, that these years would show greater progress towards the establishment of that general pesce endorsed by the Governments of Egypt and Israel in signing the General Armistice Agreement hetween them. The progress that should have occurred has been arrested by ill-considered actions on the side of one or the other of the parties to the various armistice agreements between Israel and the Arab States. There have been times during this period when such actions have threatened to re-open hostilities. These incidents have caused the United ~ations great concern. 66. In the face of the danger of new hostilities, a series of resolutions have been adopted which have c9me to make up United Nations jurisprudence on' the Palestine question. Each of these resolutions, together with the general armistice agreements, has become an essential link in the slow pr.ocess of building enduring peaceful relations between the countries of the Near East. None ef them can he disregarded without imperilling the validity and the enforcement of the others. Respect for each of them is essential if the tensions that continue to divide the peoples of the ares are finally to he removed and the substantial benefits which each of the peoples concemed would obtain from a pesce settlement are to he enjoyed. . (,7. The sole ~~ire of the .united States is to see a just and equitable seUlement of the outstanding pi'oblems 69. This bèing said, ~ must also take aocount of the faet that Egypt MS responded in recent months to such expressions of \Iiew by rneMbèl's of the 8ecurity Council ina positive and constructive manner in a number importantmpects. 1be late lamented MI'. Azmi stated on 140Ctober 1954 that, sinœ Maroh 1954, when the Security Council had previously debated this question, Egypt had l'êfrained from CI any interference with vessels i:Onveyinggoods to Israel or coming from Israel ports and passing through the Suez Canal" [682nd meeting, para. 146]. Egypt has hereshown a spirit of conciliation that wemust commend and encourage. Further action togive full effect to the declsion of 1 September 1951, tO aDow the passage of the &t Goiim, an Israel sbip, to Israel, and to cease interfeftlnce with Israel shipping as well aswith neutral shipping carrying goods to and from lsrael, will conftrm our respect for Egypt as the legitimate custodian of the Suez Canal, only recently reaSSèrtedby Egypt's historie agreement with the United Kingdom. Anything less than this will not be consistent with the spirit and intent ofthe resolution of 1 September t9-S1"t nor, in our o.pinion, with its express terms. 70. 1 should like to conclude on a note of optimism and hope that both Israel and Egypt will take further steps to reduce tensions, to settle their differences 8ecordanec with the spirit and intent of the decisions of the United Nations, and thereby to establish the conditions for a peace tbat can only he beneficial toboth. 1 believe it is fair to say that during the past twelve months there has been a lessening of the tensions surrounding the Palestine question. Egypt has eontrib1ned ·to that rault. Israelhas shown forbearance and restraint in the'conduet of its case here. Israel mightweU have 'shawn impatience and resentment that it was not granted immediate satisfaetïon in luch a çase as thfts, where :the majority of .the membèrs of the Councll have shown 'ihat they'believeci the right tobèon Israel's side. ':(JJJid/Il 'Rectmls 01 tire Smmty Corme", Fourl1r Year, SpeCÙlI !tappImtntt''No. 3.

The Brazilian delegation would fint of all lite to express its satisfaction at the release of, the crew of the SS Bat Gallm on 1 January. Aœording to a oommunication to the United Nations [SI3335l, the Egyptian Govemment is also prepared to retum the vessel concemed, together with its cargo, to the Israel authorities. This decision. and the statements the Egyptian representative has just madep are certainly encouraging. 72. .Nevertheless, we cannot but regret that the Egyptian Government has not gone further along this path of moderation by allowing the Bat Galim to sail to its destination through the Suez canal with its crew and its cargo. In any event, wc think it undeniable that, in the midat of a whole series of incidents which make it ever more difticu1t to carry out the terms of the General Armistice Agreement signed with the State of Israel, the Egyptian Government lîas committed an act which could be considered questiooable, as indced it bas so oobly admitted in public. . 73. In his letter of4 December 1954 [SI3326], Mr. Loutfi, the representative of Egypt, informed,the President of the Council that the Egyptian judieial authorities had founèl insuffieient evidence to justify the charges of murder, attempted murder and unlawful carrying of weapons whieh had been brought apinst the members of the crew of the Bat GoIim. Those were the reasons which led to the release of the crew and :the decision to free the vessel and its cargo. 74. .Clearly, however, this decisioo docs not completely make amenda for the error committed or for the depri~ vation of liberty sutrered by the members of the crew through being held in custody for months; nor can it compensate the material damage caused by the seizure of the vessel and its cargo. 7~. The lesson we should leam from this unfortunate -episode i5 veryclear, in ouropinion. Itcan he su~ in a few worda: it is one more stone, one more stumblingblack on the already too rocky road whieh wc must travel to achicve the establishment of a lasting peace between th6 parties to the Rhodes agreement. The causes underlying this now incident are the same as the cauSes of the tension which has srown up between Egypt and the State oflsrael. This latentcrisisthus bccamè appaRnt once apin in a breach of the General Armistice Agreement signed in 1949, ,in an act which was not compatiblewith the resolution adopted by this Couneil on 1 Septcmber 1951 (Sj2322] and which vioiatG!l the stipulations of the Constantinople Convention. 1 1 76. ID its 1951 resolution, thè SecurityCouncil pointed out that the armistice régime was ofa permanentcharactët' lDd empbaaized the stipulations ofthe Rhod"lagrecments wbich prohibit partiea ftom invokinc' the lj~tus Qf cc The Suez Maritime Canal shaH always be free and open, in time of war as in time of peRce, to every vessel of commerce or of war, without distinction of ilag. c, Consequently, the High Contracting Parties agree not in any way to interfere with the free use of the Canal, in time of war as in time of peace. cc The Canal shall never he subjected to the exercise of the right of blockade ". 78. Free navigation' in the Canal is also explicitly guaranteed by article IV of that Convention, which safeguards its use by ships of war of helligerents even in time of war. 79. It is precisely the difficulties placed b the way of the free use of the Suez Canal and its closing to the vessels and cargoes consigned to the State of Israel which are at the bottom of these continuai incidents. 80. The Brazilian delegation helieves that the ooly way ofapproaching a final solution ofthe problems disturbing relations between the State of Israel and the Arab States is to a'Void, at ail costs and with the effective collaboration of the Powers directly concerned, aU incidents which impede the execution of the armistice agreements. The present disputes require a solution which goes to the root of the problem. Such a solution cannot even he contemplated so long as the present tension lasts. It is to be feared that, if further progress is made along this false path, further misunderstandings, further confusion, further incidents will take place which May well wipe out the initial results of the peace-making action of the United Nations. . ' 81. In any case we cannot accept a breacb of the Constantinople Convention, any more than we can pass over in silence the fact that a Security Couneil resolution is being ignored. 82., The Egyptian Govemment has just displayed moderation and a spirit of conciliation. Its attitude leads us to hope that it will thoroughly weigh the importail~ which the Cree nations of the world would attach to a far-reaçhing gesture on its part, a gesture which would not only complete the steps a1ready taken, but which would also be consistent with the principle of free navigation in the CanaI. 83. On the ~hold of a new year, which is heginning under the auspicious sign of the release of the crew of the Israel vessel, we hope that thè Egyptian and Israel Govemments will display their firm determination to settle the dift"erences between them. 84. The free world, exposed as it is today to a thousand dangers, would certain1y find its security compromised,

1 should like to ask the Council's indulgence. The new memOOrs have scarcely had time to familiarize themselves with tbis very involved question, and 1 myself would 00 very glad to have a few days to study it. 86. 1 would therefore ask the President kindly to OOar this in mind when setting the date of the next meeting.

1 am sure that the memOOrs of the Couneil will agree that we should ail have time to consider the matters which have been raised tbis aftemoon-not only the memOOrs o{the Council, but also the representatives of the two parties who have taken their seats at tbis table. It would seem to me convenient if the Cauncil now adjoumed until a day next week, but 1 think it would 00 inconvenient to fix that date; now, and, if the Council will agree, 1 will call the Council together next week on a day which 1 can fix after consultation with the delegations. That, 1 tbink, would best suit the business of this body. ARGENTINA Sudarnerlcana B""nos Aires. s. ARGENTINE A., Calle Editorial Abina 500, EL SALVADOR: Casa del SlUI Salvador. FINLAND - kauppa, 2 AUSTkALIA - AUSTRALIE : H. A. Goddard Ply., Ltd., 255a Oeorlle Street, Sydney, N.s.W. Melboarne University Press, Carlton N. 3 (Victoria). FRANCE: Editions Parls V·. " AUSTRIA - AUTRlCHE : Oerold & Co., 1. Graben 3I, Wien I. B. WilUerstorfi', Book Import and Subscription Agency, Markus Sittikusstrnsse 10, Salzburg. GERMANY Elwert & Scb6lleberg. W. E. Suarbach, handel, Gereonstr Alexander BELGIUM - BELGIQUE : Agence et Messageries de la Presse S. A., 14-22 rue du Persi!, UruxeU... W. H. Smith & Son, 71·75 bd Adolphe-Max, Bruxelles. GREECE - Stadion Street, BOLIVIA - BOLIVIE: Libreria Selecciones. Empres" Editora "La Rtuon", Casilla 972, LaPaz. HAITI : Max velle ", Bolte postale HONDURAS Foente, Teguciga/pa. BRAZIL - BR£sIL : LivrarJn AgIr, Rua Mexico 98·B, Cuxa Postal 3291, Rio de Janeiro, D.F. HONG KONG: Road, Kowloon. CAMBODIA - CAMBODGE : Papeterie-Librnirie nouveUe, Albert Portul, 14 av. BouUoche, Pl1Om-Pellb. ICELAND - Eymundsonnar, CANADA : The Ryerson Fress, 299 Queen Street Wesl, Toronto, Dntnrlo. Periodlca, 5112 av. Papineau, Montreal 34. INDIA - INDE: Company, P. Varadachary Madras I. CEYLON- CEYLAN, The As.ociated Newspapers of Ceylon, Lld., Lake House, Colombo. INDONESIA gunan, Gununs CIULE - CIllLI : Librerla Ivens, CaUe Moneda 822, SlUItiago. Editorial del Paclfico, Ahumada 57, Snntlago. IRAN : Ketab Teheran. CHINA - CHINE : The World Book Co., Ltd., 99, Chung King Road, 1st Section, Taipeh, Taiwan. The Commercial Press, Lld.• 170 Liu Li Cbang, Peking. IRAQ - IRAK sellers and Stationers, ISRAEL : Blumstein's Road, P.O.B. COLOMBIA - COLOMBIE : Librer!a NacionaI, Llda., 20 de JuIio. San Juan-Jesus, BaranquilIa. Librerla Buchholz Galerla, Av. JIrnenez de Que,ada 8·40, Bogotr.. LIbrerla America, Sr. Jaime Navarro R., 49-58 Calle 5I, Medollln. ITALY - ITALIE: Sansonl, Via JAPAN - JAPON Nichome, Nihonbasbi, LEBANON - Beyrouth. COSTA. RICA: Trejos Hermanos, AplUtado 1313, SliIl JI>lO. LIBERIA: Mr. and Front Streets, CUBA: La Casa Belga, Rene de Smedt, O'Reilly 455, La HablUl&. LUXEMBOURG: Ouiliaume, Luxembourg. CZECHOSLOVAKIA - TCHECOSLOVAQUIE : CeskoJlovensky Spbovatel, Nurodnl Trlda 9, Pralua I. MEXICO - MEXlQUE Ignacio Mariscai41, DENMARK - DANEMARK: Messrs. Einar Munksgaard, Ltd., Norregade 6, K6beobavn. NETHERLANDS Nijhoff, Lange DOMINICAN REPUBLIC - RJ1PUBLIQUE DOMINlCAlNE: Libreria Dominlcana, Calle Mereed... 49, Apartado 656, Ciudad Trujillo. NEW ZEALAND The United O.P.D. lOll, ECUADOR - EQUATEUR , Librerla Cienllfica Brono Moritz, Casilla 362, Guayaquil. NICARAGUA: de Publicacion EGYPT - ll:GYPrn : Librairie .. La Renal'SlUlce d'Ellypte ",9 Sbarlll Adly Pa.ba, Cairo. NORWAY - Forlas, Kr AuguslSgt SlIle. Section, Europe8ll Office of tbe United Nations, Palail des Nlltion., GENEVA (Switzerland) or SlIles and Circulation Section, United Nations, NEW YORK (U.S.A.) Printed in France Price: $U.S. (or equivalent