S/PV.69 Security Council

1 suggest that we use the same procedure we used before: nameIy, continue consideration of item 2 of the agenda and leave item 3 for further consderation. It will remain on the provisional agenda. If there is no objection, 1 shaII consider my suggestion as approved. 60. Discussion of the Ukrainian complaint against Gi'eece (continued)

In accordance with the decision of the Security Council, 1 ask the repre- • See Supplement No. 5, Ami.ex 8, of the Security CounciI Officiai Records, First Year, Second Series. 2 Se~ Supp~ement No. 5,. Annex 9, of the Security Councii OffiCIaI Records, Flrst Year, Second Series.

l have two speakers on the liste First, 1 recognizl: the representative of the United States of America. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): In the previous statement, which 1 made during the early discussion of the present case before the Council, 1 made clear the general position of my Government in regard to the charges brought by the Ukrainian represent~tive against the Gî'eek and British Governments. It is apparent by now that many other members of the Security Cooocil hold similar views. The representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has now placed before us a formaI motion in which he asks the Council to dec1are that most of these charges have been proved to be true and to calI ,upon the Greek Government to take certain measures to put an end to its alleged policy of aggression. Vnder instructions from my Government, 1 shall vote against this motion, since we reject without qualification the contention that these charges have been established. ln· fact, 1 welcome the opportunity which has been presented· to the Council to clear the British and Greek Governments of the serious accnsations levelled against them. 1 hope and expect that the Council will reject this motion by a large majority. 8uch a decision of the Council does not, however, necessarily dispose of this case. In the course of our debate, there has been brought Jorward by both sides an issue which, in our view, warrants special notice. The Council has heard a series of accusations with respect to frontier incidents occurring alI along the northern borders of Greece. The Ukrainian represeIitative and the Albanian representative have supplied us with information to support their accusations, and the Greek Government has supplied us with information to support its accusations. There are aIso allegations that these border incidents are complicated by the problem of national minorities on both sides of the border. My Government feeIs that aIl the evidence at its disposal unquestionably indicates that there is .along the northern frontiers of Greece an unsettled and disquieting situation. There clearly have been incidents along these borders which . are a source of friction. The information submitted ta the Council by the representatives of the Ukraine, of Greece and of Albania makes it apparent that this unsettled situation affects the relations between.Greece and aIl three of its nortbern neighbours: Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. There are fortYother Members of the United Nations not prtsent at this table who look to the Council to act on their behalf to maintain international peace and security, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter. We are entrusted with that responsibility and are, in a very real sense, the trustees .fo:r this purpose of aIl the United Nations. It seems to my Government, therefore, that we must ask ourselves what course we should follow to fulfil our responsibility in connexion with the trG..lbled situation along the northern border of Greece. The representative of the Netherlands two or three days ago made a proposal, not in the form of a resolution but for the consideration of the Couneil. In it, he suggested that the Security Council should notify "the Governments concemed through the intermediary of the Secretary-General that the Council . . . very earnestly hopes they will do their utmost, in so far as that should still be necessary, to put a stop to these regrettable incidents by giving appropriate instructions and by making sure that these instructions are rigidly enforced". The representative of the Netherlands suggested that "individual Powers maintaining diplomatic relations with these Governments could do a very great deal by adding the weight of their influence ta that of the Security Council . . ." There is no doubt that if the suggestion of the representative of the Netherlands were faithfully and loyally carried out there would be a decided amelioration in conditions along L~e frontier of Greece.· l intend to make another proposal to the Couneil which would go somewhat further than the one made by the representative of the Netherlands. But his proposaI, in my view, is in no way conflicting with the one that l shall shortly outline to you and that would have my Govemment's support. My Government inclines to the view that the Council should not, without further examiIrlng the facts in connexion with the alleged border difficulties, attempt to make a final decision in regard to them. l should think, therefore, that the Council ought to consider making a further examination of the border difficulties between Greece and her. northern neighbours, not overlooking the problem of national minorities in that area, inso far as that latter problem may 1 correct the word "Western".; it is "Eastern" in the actual text of the Polish representative. Thisis not,the time nor the place for a discussion of Poland's western frontier. For the ' sake of the record,however, Ishould like to quote the relevant portions of Mr. Bymes'recent speech ,at Stuttgart on this' subject. The Secretaryof Stat~ said inter alia as follows: "With regard to Silesia and other e3stern German areas, the assignment to Poland by "However, as the protocol of the Potsdam Conference makes clear, the heads of Govemments did not agree to support at the peace settlement the cession of this particular area. "':.ne Soviets and the Poles suffered greatly at the hands of Hitler's invading armies. As a result of an agr~ement at Yalta, Poland ceded to the USSR territory east of the Curzon Li.lle. Because of this, Poland asked for a revision of her northern and western frontiers. The" United StateS will support a revision of these frontiers in Poland's favour. However, Ù1.e "extent of the area to be ceded to Poland must be determined when the final settlement isagreed upon." This statement of the Ur...itedStates Secret3.A1 ' of State was based directly on the Potsdam Agreement, which 1 shalI now quote: "The following agreement was reached on the western frontier of Poland. In conformity with the agreement on Poland reached at the Crimea Conference, the three heads of Goveroment have sought the opinion of the Polish Provisional Government of National "Unity in regard to the cession of terl'itory in the north and west which Poland should receive. The President of tlle National Council of Poland and members of the Polish Provisional Government of National Unity have"been received at the Conference and have fully presented their views. The three heads of Government reaffirmed their opinion that the final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland should await the peace settlement." It seems to me that it is going rather far to suggest that Secretary of State Bymes, because he referred to these clear understandings, should have in mind an appeasement of Germany and a rebuilding of nazi Germany for the purposes of aggression. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): Mr. President, towards the close of a very long debate, 1 hesitate to ask ,you to alIow me to. take up more time in the Council, and 1 shalI be grateful to the Council for giving me directions as to how 1 should proceed. It seemed to me that we were lately in danger of getting involved in an exchange of detailed and often irrelevant arguments and, in our lighter moments, of r'leasantries spiced occasion- 1 might try to elucidate what is the parallel behveen the present situation and whatthe Polish representative may mean by "Munich," but 1 do not think that that would be very profitable. "Ve should have to recast the l'oIes, and 1 am not sure whether thel'ole of Hitler should be allotted to Ml'. Tsaldaris or Ml'. Attlee. Without any reflection on either of them, 1 cannot think that either is suited to ilie part. Anyhow, though 1 have no direct experience of the theatrical profession, 1 understand that such discussions are apt to lead to delicate and unprofitable controversy. 1 maintain that the basis of the main Ukrainian charge is patently absurdo We have heard, and we know it to be true, that the forces of Greece in relation to those of her 'neighbours are in the proportion of one to five. Hel' material condition is probably considerably worse. This country, gallant little Greece, is threatening the whole world. The Ukraine, her not very immediate neighbour, sees herself immediately menaced by the advancing flood of Greek aggression. Ml'. Manuilsky, like a modem King Canute, had· to fly across the Atlantic, leaving behind him much importmt work in Paris, in order to try and stem this flood. Mr. Mmuilsky assured the press on bis arrival that he had brought with him three bags full cf evidence to prove bis case. 1 wish he could have emptied them aï once on the Council table so that we éùuld see what the case was, or indeed whether there really was a·case. What a gesture Ml'. Manuilsky could have made of that! But that is not bis technique. Out of )::- bags, he picks sorne scraps and seme phl.iographs and.some bits of newspaper. He then taunts me the next daywi~ being unable •to produce a defailed. factual reply to the tittle-tattle which he has. chosen at random. Listening to M~. Mimuilsky's successive speeches, which have contained a fresh batch of accusations and allegatlons eachjÏme, one is reinindedofthe kind of serial· story one used to read· ID exciting' magazines which always ended with the admonition, "Don't miss; our next horrifying instalment". ThIs· particularmethod may. be very goodasa technique'of advertisement, but. 1.'doubtwhether "When on 24 August the Government of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic sent its declaration to the Security Council, the head of the present Greek Government, Mr. TsaIdaris, made a declaration to press representatives in Paris to the effect that the question raised by the Ukraine is not a dispute between the Ukraine and Greece but Ï3 a dispute between Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Such a declaration, coming from the lips of Mr. Tsaldaris, is quite a comprehensible one. It is convenient for Mr. TsaIdaris to avoid the responsibility for all that has been done in Greece by the Greek monarchist clements and to lay all the responsibility upon the British. authorities. It is aIso convenient for Mr. Tsaldaris, who aims at political division, to try to aggravate relations between the USSR and Great Britain." But 1 must remind Mr. Manuilsky that it was he, not Mr. TsaIdaris, who put this matter on the agenda. Mr. Manuilsky went on: "But what is not clear to us is why the representative of Great Britain fell under the influence of Mr. Tsaldaris and appeared in the raIe of alter ego of the Greek monarchist elements, thus persuading the delegation of the Government of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic to argue not only with the Greek delegation, but aIso with Sir Alexander Cadogan. Such tactics from a representative of the United Kingdom will harclly contribute to that spirit of co-operation which is essential to the success of the work of the Paris Peace Conference." ButMr. Manuilsky quite forgets what was the original charge that he made. 1 quoted it before, but 1 must quote it again. In the original paper which he submitted te the Security Council, after recounting all the horrors in the Greek situation, he said: - "The principal factor conducive to tl-.<> situation in the Balkans as cre~ted by this r'ûlicy .of the present Greek Gcvernment is the presence of British troops in Greece, with the direct intervention of the British military into the internaI affairs of fuis allied country on behalf of aggressive monarchist elements." That is a direCt accusation against niy Goveroment.. Does Mr. Manuilsky really suppose that 1 cocld not have come into this argument in defence of my couritry and in refutation of his charges? What is all this talk about "tactics"? Mr. President, 1 cau assure you that 1 made enquiries. This i~ the matter on which 1·wish t~o .·.consult the COBDCil. 1 made enquiries, and 1 receivédinformation about all of Mr. Manuilln the first place, no sooner have 1 answered a number of Mr. Manuilsky's points than he dips into bis bags for a few more without, 1 suspect, looking at them very carefully beforehand. Where is this going ta end? This is really not a game in which Mr. Manuilsky's abject is ta score off me as often as he can, and in which my endeavour should be ta retufIl the compliment as saon as possible. We are considering whether Greece, if you please, is threatening the peace of the world. That would be serious if it were not ridiculous, and 1 suppose we should endeavour ta take it seriously. But 1 think Mr. Manuilsky ought ta have brought forward some st".rious evidence in support of bis charge. 1 daim that he has not done that. My second reason for questioning the utility of tbis procedure is that, whenever 1 reply, Mr. Manuilsky either ignores or distorts my reply, generally the latter. Let me give anly two examples: in regard ta the question of the admission of Albania ta the United Nations, Mr. Manuilsky said yesterday, 1 think, as follows: UThe representative of Great Britain, in explaining bis vote against the admission of Albania into the United NatIons, found no 'other argument than the fact that the Italian . invaders were trying ta drag Albania into the war with Greece." In arder ta prove .that that is entirely untrue, let me read what 1 did say ta tbis Council on 11 September, This is what 1 said: "It was not on account of Albania's war .record that Ivoted against her admission. My principal reason was not that Albania had not' played her part in the war; it was that she did not seem ta know how ta conduct herself iüternationaIly in peace." And again, in regard ta the "heroine" Irene Jini, Mr. Manuilsky said yesterday: "We were told that her two brothers were 'connected with Bulgaria. But is ~ a sufficient ground on which ta execute their sister?" No, of course it is not. 1 never said it was. Mr. Manuilsky went on: "Theyreferred ta the ~act that she was a Bulgarian. Does this afford a ground for shooting her todeath?"· Of course it does not; Inever said it did.What ldid say was that she was suspected oftomplicity in the murder of two bret~ers at Edessa; she carried arms and c~'1:ainlytook part in' murders, attacks on posts, etc. .She was arrested on 8 July of this yearin a clash'between thegendarm~rie and an NOF'band when she.was wearing male bandit's 1 have done my best, but what is the use of my answering if my answers are ta be subject to such dishonest perversion? 1 have answers to most of the rather insubstantial points which have recently been raised by Ml'. Manuilsky, but 1 hesitate to take up the time of the Council by reciting them. The points themselves were trivial, and my replies would only be distorted by Mr. Manuilsky. Everyone will, of course, see through that, but 1 submit that it wastes time. Let me, if 1 may, bring the Council back again to the point: Greece is thre,atening the peace of the world; she is planning an attack on her five-fold stronger neighbours who are standing over against her in arms. This would simply be a jol J if it did !lot recall the technique of which we all have a very vivid and recent memory, and which brought untold disaster on this unhappy world, disaster from which Greece has suffered perhaps more than any other one country. 1 repeat, 1 am at the disposal of the Council. If the Council wishes me to take up more of its time in refuting frivolous and irrelevant charges, 1 will, of course, conform, but 1 suggest that would be a waste of time. We have heard this aftemoon a suggestion made by the representative of the United States, who preceded me. He suggested, without making a formal proposai, that after having rejected the accusations against His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and after having rejected many of the accusations against Greece,. the residual part of all these charges which he described as being the disturbed situation on the frontier and perhaps, though .1 am not qtiite sure 1 shan go with mm as far as this, sorne aspects of the minorities question, if they p~oyed, may have Llscredited and disarmed the Council and reduced its fitnt",ss ta bear the enormous responsibility wmch has been placed upon it. Ml'. HASLUCK (Australia): The Australian deJ.egation at the present moment is chiefly conscions of the fact that we have now spent ten meetings on this subject. Without wishing to detract either from the impQrtance of the subject or the consideration being given to it by the Council, 1 would suggest ta my colleagues that perhaps the mue has come now to pass the final stage· of our work on this matter. During the last three or four of the ten meetings we have been listening, not wholly but mainly, to assertions on the one side an~ de- It is because we value the respéct of our Polish colleague and our other colleagues on this Council that we should like to make it quite clear, both by our categorical statement and by the re-statement of. our reasons, that we have not abandoned our position in regard to the pr~ciple of investigation, and that the position which we are now taking is not a position dictated by political opportunism, but is a position which is dictated by our view regarding the principles of the Charter and the working of the Security Couneil. The reasons why, on this occasion, we would not be in favour of the suggestion for an investigation, are of three kinds. 1 Will state the two leàst important groups of reasons first. The first one might be called general constitutional reasollii. When we ask ourselves what is the question before us, 1 think the answer has .to be that the question before us is the Ukrainian letter in its entirety. ,In spite of the remarks made by several delegations, including the Australian delegation at this table, when the admission of that letter to the agenda was under consideration, its complaints were not narrowed down to any particular question but the letter was admitted in its entirety. That letter covers a great number of matters and adds up to ageneral accusation that there is a threat to the peace and a spirit of aggression on the part of two Governments. That is the core of the Ukrainian letter. That seems to us ta be'the matter which tbis Council has decided to take into consideration. It is quite true that, in the course of our discussions on this letter, we have touched on numerous other matters. We have not touched only on the questions which came into our own minds or which were' put forward by the Ukrainian representative in the development of bis main theme. In making the suggestion that we should investigate the border incidents, the representative of the United States used the words: "We should not make a final decision on the border incidents without investigation." As we see the position, we are not required at this moment in this place to make a final decision 'on the border incidents.' The matter before us is the Ukrainian letter in its entirety, and although itwould certainly be within the Council's competence to select a particularphase of that letter for attention, we would submit that the Couneil Should not commitsuch an· act of selection unless there. were '.overpoweringreasôns for doingso; rather that it sliould continue to regard the letterin itsentirety. . What makes the whole process more disturbing is that, throughout the debate, we have been face to face with fairly clear indications that the whole reason for bringing thiS case before us was to bring about precisely the effect which 1 have described. 'Ihere seems to be no intention of trying to remove a threat to the peace or to remove a cause of friction. It does seem, and 1 say this deliberately, there does seem to be an intention of making things awk- . ward for the Greek Government; there does seem to have been an intention of dividing the Greek people; there does seem to bavé been an inten~on of embarrassing the British Government. Is that the sort of use to which this Council should aIlow itself to be put? 1 would suggest to my colleagues that if, to' ijllY extent, they share our views as to the way this case has proceeded and the way this case has beenbrought, there is only, one course open tQ them. That course is to have nothing more to .do' with the case, to dismiss it, to prevent this .Co$cil from being continuously used in tbjsmanner for purposes which are not within the sense of Chapter Vl, and whièh if contmqècJ would certainly màke'italmost impossible fÇ)r this Council to .continue to carry out the very soleron functions which have been entrusted to it 1Jndèr Çhapter. VI of the Charter. ln' our view, the processes of Chapter VI of the Charter are conciliatory processes and quasijudicia! processes. Investigation, as provided for in Chaptèr VI, is one of severa! steps in carrying oùtthe functionsof the Council, and on previous .occasions··the Austialian Goverl1JllÇllt has .favoured investigation because investigation was'being proposed asoric of the steps in a quasi..j~dicial process.. B~t ~w:e seeit n.ow, the' Pl'oposalJorinvestigatiQn.is being put forward, nots,o m.llcb: ~~step toward a. final judicial Briefly, our arguments come to this: because of the way this complaint has been brought, because of the way the matters of l'eal substance have been mixed up with extraneous matters, and especially because we be1ieve that this Council has the need to protect itself from misuse and to prevent Chapter VI from being distorted, we on principle oppose the proposal for investigation. . 1 apologize for having dealt at SUCll length with this matter, but the motives of the Australian Governmenî: have been called into question and it has aIso been suggested that on·this occasion we are following a line of conduct which is different from the line of conduct which we have followed on other occasions. So, on behalf of my Government, 1 have gone to sorne pains to try to make it clear that the action we are taking on t~ occasion is an action that is based on principle and on our view of the way in which this Council should work. Therefàre, as far .as our de1egation is concerned, we shall stand by the resolution that we have already moved, that the Council pass on to the next item on the agendâ. Ml'. PARODI (France) (translated from French): Ml'. President, 1 think, like the representative of AustraIia, we may take it that we have now reached the final stage of the lengthy discussion which has taken place, covering several meetings. As, however, 1 have not yet explained the point of view of the French de1egation, 1 should like to be allowed to do so in outline, even if this involves a certain amount of repetition, .but 1 can assure the representative of Australia that 1 shall be as' brief as possible. Before submitting these observations, 1 should like to associate the French de1egation with the tribute which has aIready been paid by several delegations to the great' courage and valour o~ the Greek people durfug the last war. 1 am aware that this is merely a repetition of what has already been said, but the courage displayed by the Greek people is deserving <?f repeated tributes. For my part, 1 cannot forget this period in the history of Europe when most nations of - that continent were subjected to slavery and plunged into the depths of despair. 1 remember the resistance of the Greek people seemecl to us like a bright ray of hope and a sign that there was still room in the world for freedom. One of the chief points in the observations made în support of the Ukrainian Government's compléPnt conc;erns the presence of British troops in Greece. This question has already been examined atlength by the SecUrity Counciland 1 visa~le for us to devote any furtlrer time to it. 1 also note that, in the proposal submitted to us by the representative of the USSR, this question appears solely in the preamble, and not in the resolution proper. Mr. Manuilsky dwelt chiefly on a series of incidents connected With the internal situation in Greece. Some of those incidents are, 1 admit, highly regrettable but, 1 repeat, since they are connected with the Greek internal situation, they do not seem to me to come within our province. 1 should now like to say a few words about the argument put forward yesterday by the representative of Poland, drawing an analogy between the case now before us and the Spanish question. The difference between the two seems to me quite considerable. In Greece, two popular votes were held at a few months' in:. terval, one under international supervision, in which. big Powers whos~ democratic spirit cannot be questioned, took part. If, as the outcoIIle of our discussions on the Spanish question, tw() such votes had been held in Spain, the Security Council would, 1 think-and no doubt Mr. Lange will agree with IIle-have achieved appreciable results. The two situations therefore seem to me to be of an entirely different nature and there can be no proper analogy between theII1. There 'remains the question of the frontier incidents. In this connexion, my duty is very clear: 1 do not thinkthat aggressive intentions on .the part of Greecehave in any way. béen established. 1note that no mention was made in -the statements we have heard of any plan of campaign against A1bania,norwas it alIegedby anyonethat troop conceIltrations had taken place or amm.unition· dumps been built up. Neither Was' there any other evitlence to show aggressive intentions on the part of a country. On this point, 1 fully agree with what Sir Alexander Cadogan said jus! now-. If,we take into .account the general situation of Greece compared .with the situation ofher neighbours, and the state .of affairs prevailing in that part of· the world, it is utterly absurd to speak ofaggressive intentions· being harboured by the GreekGovernment. 1 do not,ofcourse,go so In many respects, these incidents are, 1 think, purely localized, aIthough they are none the less disturbing, because they reveaI the existence of an unheaIthy state of affairs in that part of the world. 1 think therefore that it is the duty of the Security Council to keep this question before it and to investigate it. It is better ta reach some positive conclusion on the matter than simply to turn ta the next item on the ag~da. 1 am therefore prepared to associate myself with the proposais that have emerged from today's discussion. If 1 have rightly understood what has been said, one proposai is to submit a resolution or recommendation to the two Governments concerned. Such a' recommendation seems to me all the more justifiable because the Greek Government has assured us, through its representative, of its peaceful intentions and attitude, and 1 have no reason to doubt that Albania harbours sîmilar intentions. A few days ago, 1 voted for the admission of Albania to the United Nations because 1 had no doubt of her intention ta settle by peaceful means any disputes to which she may be a party. 1 think, therefore, that we can take sorne positive action in the matter. The other proposai was submitted to the Council by the United States representative. It goes further and contemplates the setting up of a committee ,of enquiry~ This proposai seems to me an extremely interesting one; it possibly deserves more careful consideration than any of us may have been·able ta give ta it since this meeting began. 1 have one suggestion to make, though it is oruy· a suggestion. Might it not be a good idea to appoint a small committee from among the members of the ,Secu."Ïty Council to study this proposai and possibly to redraft it without delay in a more concrete form? These, then, are the few observations 1 wished to make. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): 1 had not intended ta speak again: on the question raised in the Ukrainian statement. However, 1 have decided to make two or three remarks in connexion with the speeches made by sorne members of the Security Council in the course of the past few days. The iè,{":,; has already been mentioned in the speech i:JY Mr. van Kleffens that the SecurityCouncil should a.pproach both the Greek and the AJbanian Governments and call them toorder. SUdl was .the sense of This idea, expressed by the representative of the Netherlands, has been developed further today in the speech made by the represcntative of t.lte United States of America. He proposed appointing a wmm.i:;sim: and organizing further investigation into questions arising outside of the framework of Greek-Albanian relations and also into questions concerning the relations between Greece and Yugoslavia and between Greece and Bulgaria. In that way, th,:, conflict between Greece and Albania is alr ,iy being shüted into the background. _ ln listening to the spet;t.l1 by the representative of the United States, it might be thought that we are discussing not the frontier incidents on the Greek-Albanian frontier, and not the àggress.ive poli:y of th~ Greek monarchist circles which ar~ in power, but sorne other matters connected with the relations between Greece and Yugoslavia and between Greece and Bulgaria. , 1 consider this statement by the representative of the United States to be a tactical manœuvre, the pu.rp6se of which is to divert attention from the substance of the question raised fi the Ukrainian statement and to draw attention to mattcrs which have no relation to 'the substance of the question under consideration by the Security Cauncil. The representativc of the United States is apparently following the rule that the br.st means of defence is attack. As is well known, this device is a popular one' in the art of war, but it appears that it is not only being appIied to the art of war,but aIse to diplomacy. 1 must protest most emphatically against such devices and tactics, the purpose of which, as 1 have alr~ady pointed out. is to divert attention from. the questions which are being discussed in the Coun~il' and to draw attention to invented and non-e.."cistent questions. Some people~ it seems, cannot sleep calmly for t.hinking about the Balkail countries, but by no means about those countries which are the surject of discussion here. 1 would ask why this question is touched upon, not only at the Pari'! PeaCé Conference where .it is perhaps relevant since questions of peace treaties With the Balkan countries are being decided there, out a]so at the meeting, of the Security Council? ln the Balkans, for tht first time in decaùes, conèitions conducive tü th~ peaceful existence and rle"lelopment of these countries have been created. The peoples of a number of Balkan countnes have' broken with the former regimes which plunged those countries into war. The peoples of these countries are now thirsting, for peace.. At ·the,same time, they make no secret We .nust not forget that in the BalkaP..s, there are not orny oil wells, fertile fields and navigable rivers, but there are also the peoples of the Balkan countries whose interests we have no right to ignore. 1 thought it necessary to rlwell on this only on account of the proposal by the United States representative. We have no reasons for appointing any kind of commission to investigate more fully any matters outside of the framework of the general problem raised in the Ukrainian statement. 1 reiterate that l consider sucb a proposal ~o be a definite tactical manœuvre designed to 'bury the Ukrainian statement in some way and t6 evade all the more easily the charges made in that state- :nent against the present Greek Government. In bis speech, Sir Alexander Cadogan has again sought to present the matter as though al1 the charges brought in the Ukrainian statement against Greece were still unsubstantiated. He added a substantial dose of humour to bis speech. But 1 must say that humour is a very poor substitute for facts and logic, even though it may amuse sorne of his listeners. As a matter of fact, Sir Alexander Cadogan has even tried to deal ironical1y with the fact that Mr. Mfuillilsky has a great deal of facts and material at bis disposaI regarding the aggressive policy of the Greek Govemment. . Yes, very many facts and documents. But it is a matter of common sense that the possession of many facts, documents and other material means that the position ofthe Ukrainian representative is a strong one. The representative of the United Kingdom apparently takesa different view: Heconsiders that the fewer facts and material there are to strengthen the position of the United Kingdom representative in this matter, the more convincing and well-founded that position is. 1 do not think that Sir Alexander Cadogan, who has chosen to adopt an ironical attitude toward the facts adduced by the Ukrainian representative, has thereby done anyth.ing to strengthen bis position in this matter. There is no basis for any such assumption. The United Kingdom representative, in trying in every way to make light of the danger of the aggresSive policy pursued by the f"-reek monarch.ist Govemment, pointed out t the forces of Greece (apparently he had in millu the·armed forces in Greece) are too small to present a threat to peace in the Balkans. He' even ~­ fcrree! to the proportion of Greek armed forces ctlmpared with the armed forces of some. of the countries neighbouring on Greece. He pointed .out that the relation betweën the forces of Greece SirAlexand';l' Cadogan has spoken about the 1 "t.echnique" of the Ukrainian Govemment, but al! that is irrelevant to the substance of the matter, just as the question of the language and the terms of the Ukrainian statement and such things, are irrelevant ta the substance of the matter. 1 have considered it necessary to make these remarks in view of the speeches delivered by some members of the Security Council in the courn~ of the.Iast few meetings. In conclusion, 1 w:mt ta state the following in regard ta commissions about which there has been so much talk here. Whatever commission of enquiry we might discuss, whether it has to deal with the wide problems, ta which the representative of the United States has referred, or with na.'TOW problems, we have no right to disregard the fact that the 1 situation which has arisen in Greece and the aggressive policy of the Greek monarchist Govemment is, in a large measure the result of foreign intervention in the i!lternal affairs of Greece. This policy of the Greek Govemment is, in a large measure, due to foreign intervention in the affairs of Greece. Consequently, is it possible to speak of an investigation without beginning by investigating those factors which lie at the root of the situation that has arisen in Greece? If the investigations are to be serious, then of course it is necessary to begin by investigatîng the fundamental reasons which have brought about such a state of affairs in Greece and in relations between Greece and Albania Therefore, when we sp~ak of commissions of enquiry in connexion With the Ukrainian statement, we must not lose sight of those fundamental reasons and fundamental factors which are responsible for the unhappy development of the situation in the Balkans in connexion with the aggressive policy of the Greek monarchists. Furthel1Ilore, 1 take the opportunity of rerninding the members of the Security Council that in' the past, when proposaIs have been made to appoint such commîssioD..Cl a.l1d ta conductinvestigations, such proposaIs and corresponding decisions have ns-ùall<> been followed by unfortunate results an'" the l'en! substance of the questions has been lost ~,ght fjf.A"''t.. '\'...e :1.c~ con- 1 thir.tk that some members of the Security Couneil are bringing the matter to that point. 1 should also like to refresh the memories of the members of the Security Couneil about one recent case. A short while back the Council appointed a commission for further study of the situation in connexion with the enquiry into the question of the Franco fascist regime in Spain. The commission actually collected some good and convincing material, incrinù.J,:;,ting the E'ranco' fascist regime. However, neither the comnùssion nor the Security O)uneil was sufflciently resolute to draw the pro?er conclusions from this investigation and from that material. The substance of the question was, in faet, buried. 1 should like to express the hope that it is orny temporarily buried. 1 will confine myself ta the foregoing remarks. Mr. HSIA (China): The Chinese people desire to be just and fair, especially to our former allies who have borne the brunt of the terrible war and have suffered as we ourse1ves have suffered. The Greek people have our admiration for their heroic resistance and our sympathy in their attempt to establish a free and democratic l;overnment. The Chinese delegation observed at a meeting of the Security Cauneil in London, when the situation in Greece was under examination, that China's interest was to uphold the Charter and to promote good-will and understanding between the nations. It is these same considerations that prompt me to say what 1 have to say. When we voted for the inclusion of the telegram from the Ukrainian Foreign Minister in t..~e agenda, we took pains to explain that our vote was not ta be interpreted as our approval of the substance or purposc of the complaint or even of the form in which it was presented, though we were in favour of a full andJrank discussion of the Ukrainian communication. We think it was a wise decision. ' We have heard both sides of the cas.e -regarding Greek-Albanian border incidents. We 'have heard the Ukrainian charge of persecu- ·tion by the Greek Govemment of national :minorïties and of a falsified plebiscite, as weU .as the statements by delegations that were rep- 'Te&entedon the allied commission to (Jbserve the 'Greek elections. We have noted the èharges 'that the presence of Bri~h troopsis a principal :factor responsible for thè situation in Greece, ,as weIl as the replies given by" the United King- .dom and Greek representatives. In addition to the two fO!'Inal resolutions, we have before us two suggestions, one by the delegation of the Netherlands and one by the delegation ·of the United States. 1 wish to say at the outset that the Chînese delegation welcomes in principle any proposal or suggestion that aims at the amelioration of certain aspects of the situation which are amenable to treatment by this Coundl. We are thinking in particular of the border situation between Greece and her northern neighbours. We, however" wish to study these proposais and make sure that whatever rneasure fuis Council takes is poRtically wise and effective and will not be likely to complicate the situation further. Mr. JOHNSON (United Statt>,s of America): Mr. President, 1 hope that you will not object ta my making an endeavoul" to co:rrect what 1 think was a misapprehension on your part as to the purposes and nature. ot the suggestion 1 made in the $ort statement before the Council earlier today. The purpose of the United States in suggesting that there remains demonstrated, or with tangible evidence to support the view, a situation àlong the entire length of the Greek frontier which is disquieting and which calls for the attention and consideration of the Council, has, 1 think, been made evident. That situation is .separate from the chargesbrought by the representative of the Ukraine. The United States has rejected the charges brought by the representative of the Ukraine as unfounded. It is not, therefore, to divert attention from the charges made by the representfttive of the Ukraine, which we have rejected, ihat we express our opinion that the Council should watch carefullyand consider measures to remedy the situation on the {rontiers of Greece. The latter is quite separatç. Furthermore, our suggestion for a committee.was the result of considerable discussion during which we have considered. the possibility. of proposing a commission of enquiry to be.chosert by· the Council and responsible to the Council, which might go out on the spot 1 therefore wish to reject the idea that the United States is trying in any way to evade taking a decision on the charges brought by the representative of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. 1 must also. refer ta an implication along similar !ines which was made by the representative of AU'stralia: that the suggestion·for a committee of fmquiry was made in arder to find a way out. 1 equally reject that. The United States, for its part, has found its way out. We reject these charges as unfounded, but we believe that a situation dangerous and tending ta create friction exists on the borders of Greece. We aIso believe from dle evidence we have that that situation extends along the entire frontier. One of the arguments ta prove that Greece has aggressive intentions. was that she is de- We must go further than to claim that countries have aggressive intentions mere1y because they demand rectifications of their frontiers. If Yugoslavia and Bulgaria go no further in ad- ,vancing their c1aims for. Macedonia and Thrace than to put those claims before the Paris Peace Conference, they will have gone no further than Greece has gone. Greece has used the democratic method and placed her c1aim, which she believes is founded on right, before the Paris Peace Conference. 1 stated in my first statement to this Council that 1 did not believe we had any evidence to show that if the decision against Greece is adverse that decision would not be aécepted. Perhaps it is also true in the case of Bulgaria that she will peacefully accept an adverse decision on the acquisition of Thrace and that Yugoslavia will be forever quiet when her daims to Macedonia are rejected. . 1 do nOtWlsh to engage in any further argument about these matters. 1 really only want ta make the position of my Govemmep.t clear. The Council itseH, not the United States or any country, will decide what disposition to make of this case, and what disposition to make of the motions before it. In closing, 1 would likç ta suggest that the representative of France, Ml'. ~arodi, has put forward a suggestioll which might be profitably comüdered by the Council. 1 do not think that we can drop this case from the procedural point of view as if there were no substance, in what has been brought out about the border situation. The Council, therefore, might wish to consider how it wishes to hand1e this matter, or if at aIl. If a vote on the Australian motion comes up, 1 shall vote in the affirmative. But 1 reseTVe the right to bringforward, at any latertime, a positive resolution before this Council for its consideration. This will invite the Council to set up machinery to consider· ways and means to deal with the situationon the Greek border. Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): 1 think it is not necessary for me to say againthat'1 think that. the Ukrainian Govemment has not succeeded in substantiating its case. Therefore, 1 should like to say a fcw words with regard ta the suggesti~nthat has been put forwanf by the representative of the United States. 1 want to make it quite c1earthat 1 do not look at that sugg~on as resulting directly from the Ukraînian' complaint, which so far as 1 am· concemed 1 regard as virtually'disposed of,.but from those lists of incidents wmch have been 'presented 'to Ml'. Johnson has suggested that a committee of enquiry be set up in order to establish the facts. If we can reach agrçement at once. on this suggestion l shaIl be glad to co-operate. If not, we might weIl follow the suggestion of the French representative and have the subject studied by a COlIDCil sub-committee. But let us be quite clear in our minds that if a committee of whatever kind is set up, we would be dealing only with the symptoIDs of the case and not with its cause. It therefore seems to me that, if it were decided to. set up a committee of enquiry of any sort, it would still be useful to send to aIl the Governments concemed a notification such as 1 had the honour to suggest the day beiore yesterday. For such a notification would reach the organs which are responsible for stopping the incidents we should like to see come to a stop. . ln view of what the representative of the USSR has said, let me say that there is no question of calling Greece and Albania to order. 1 said quite explicitly the other day that 1 wanted it stated expressly that the Council, in sending such a notification, does not thereby wish to go· into the question of guilt or responsibility. And supposing for a moment, pUl'dy for argument's .sake, that Greece had been responsible for froutier incidents, 1 ask the repl'esentative of the USSR whether he thinks that the Council then should take action, but that as soon as Albania is said to have caused border clashes the Council should refrain from action. There is no question here of a tactical manœuvre. We have heard a great deal of these border' incidents. We believe they may he, in the light of painful experience, incendiary matters. 1 ask whether in such a case the Council would resort to a tactical manœuvre if it carried out its obligations under the Charter. Bothbecause of the support which the suggestion 1 had the honour to make yesterday has received in this Council and because of the light which has been placed 'On it by the representative of the USSR, 1 shaIl make of it a formal p:oposal to be put to a vote, extending it to cover all the northem neighbours of Greece and Greece herself. Let every member of the Counci!. t~.ke bis responsibility with regard to this idea, the only one presented so far which goes to the source of the trouble without delay.

The list of speakers is exhausted. Does any representative wish to speak? • Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): 1 should like to make brief comment on two statements that have been made since 1 last spoke. As regards the concluding statement of the representative of the United States, 1 would say that it is quite within the sense of the instructions which 1 have from my Government that passing on from this item at the present time would not, in our mind, in any way exclude the possibility of the Council's taking action or deciding ta make an investigation at sorne future date. Our objection is to considering that investigation on this particular agenda item, name1y, the Ukrainian letter. It would seem to be quite within the competence of this Council, even in a matter of days, of its own volition and without any prompting from any other source, to take cognizance of such a situation and ta· proceed to such action as it might think fit. Therefore, in our sense, the passage of the resolution which we had proposed would not exclude once and for. an the possibility of the investigation. As regards the new resolution which has been put forward by the representative of the Nether,· lands, 1 would say quite plainly that we would have no difficulty in 'sùpporting that at the· same timeas we supported our own resolution. .It would seetn to us, rather, tn<l.t even if the Netherlands' proposaI were carried, it would still .be neceSsary for the Council ta act on the agenda item which. is before it. And it would still be possible, without any conflict, then ta consider the Australian resolution which deals

1 would like to remind the United States representative, when. we :;JDSidmthat, that, we still do not have hi.s formai proposai before the Council. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): 1 have made no formai proposai before the Couneil. 1 have made a suggestion which 1 thought the Council might wi.sh to consider. After further consultation wïth other members of the Council, however, if it should seem to he the general desire of the majority of the membcrs of the Council, 1 would be quite . ,- .rÇ..~.rly to propose a formaI resolution. It was for that reason that 1 stated, when stating my intention to vote affirmatively for the Australian motion if it should come up, that 1 would reserve the right to propose a resolution for the Council's consideration which would look toward positive action at a later time. . 1 therefore have no formal resolution on the table at the present rime.

We have three draft resolutions submitted to the Security Council and probably one potential resolution. It is now hali-past six; 1 think we shall not be able to complete our work today. If the Council does not have any objection, we shall adjourn the meeting until three o'clock tomorrow, if it is -eonvenient for the members of the Council. Mr. !IAsLuCK (Australia): If the members of the Conneil were prepared to devote another quarter of an hour to taking a vote, perhaps we could avoid the necessity for another meeting.

1 doubt that we shall be able to complete the consideration of the <;Iraft resolutions, one of which was $,.tbüütted just a few minutes ago. Taking inte..- ,jr-':,;rot experience in the consideration of draf~ resolutions, 1 think it would be better to adjOl.lm until three o'dock tomorrow. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): It would seem probable that this particular item on our agenda may be disposed of, at least temporarlly, in one more meeting. We have these three resolutions before us now. May 1 suggest a meeting on Friday instead of tomorrow? It would give us a little more time to think about what is the wisest thing to do and to have consultations. 1 submit the opinion; with respect to the Chair, that it is not necessary to push this debate every day and that it might be more useful to ha....e an intervening day between meetings. Mr. PARODI (France) (translated from French): It would certainly be wise to postpone the decisionuntil Friday. We need to think over these proposaIs and 1, for my part, should be very glad to have time to do 50.

li" there is no objection, then, the next meeting will take place on Friday at 3 o'cloèk. The meeting is adjourned. The meeting rose at 6.35 p.m.