S/PV.70 Security Council

As the representative of the UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REpUBLICS 1 would like ta say the following in connexion with the statement made by the Secretary-General. (Translated trom Russian): 1 think that Ml'. Lie was right in raising the question of bis rights. It seems to me that in this case, as in all other cases, the Secretary-General must aet. l have no doubt that he will do so in aceordanee with the rights cmd powers of the Secretary-General as defuied in the Charter of the United Nations. que SOCIALISTES qui général. raison Il commç généràl conformément taire des Nations Unies. demandé sion voyée Affaires soviétique (,~.ooketl,in En.glisk) : 1did not reeeive requèsts for ?~on to speak and therefore 1 shall c6nsider that the diseussion on the question raised in the letter sent to the Secretary-General by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic is elosed. 'Ve have now reaehed a stage in our deliberations when the Security Council has to vote on diffe-.rent draft resolutions subrnitted to it by tl1e members of the Security Council. 1 would like to say a ftw words about one of the re.solutions submitted to the Security Coun-' , cil, that of the Australian representative. The resolution reads:"It Î$ resolved that the Security Coùudl pass ta the next item of business." au différents lui des celle tion Conseil l'ordre que de comporte tions mais questions que l'ordre va cussion . sécurité en. It seems to me that there is no necessity for the Securio/ Council to adopt such a resolution because the agenda itself not only lists the items which have to be considered by the Seeurity Co:uncil,but also gives the order of consideration of those items. The item which we are considering iS listed as item 2 on the agenda. It is followed by item 3. It is natmal, 1 hope, when discussion of an item is over, for the Security Councllto go forwardnot backwards. This is why 1 consider that there.is no real necessity for .' adopting the Australian resolution. 1 l'aise fuis question hoping thatthe Australian representa- Mr. HASLUOK (Australia.): 1 think that there is one fallacy in all that you have said and that fallacy lies in the confusion you have made between the word l'consideration", which is used in our rules of procedure, and the word "discussion 2'. 1 think the normal meaning given to "consideration" includes not merely discussion, but also the decision, the taking of a vote and all aspects of the handling of the question br.fore the Secucity Council. The nùe l'~~ads that "any item on the agenda "f the meeting of the Security Council, consideration of which has not been completed at that meeting shall, ~ess the Security Council otherwise decide.s, automatically he inclùded in the agenda of the next meeting". That is rule 10 of our rules of procedure. . 1 think that means that unless we co~plete our consideration-and 1 suggest we can only complete our consideration by a decision-this item is perpetually before us. 1 do not think, Ml'. President, with all due respect, that you have the power to say that the discussion is closed and that we shall now pass to the next item. This Council in its entirety may wish to make a decision even. after the discussion has been closed, and l think it tioes wish to make a decision. . There are fom' possible decisions before us. Three of them have been proposed by other delegations. One of the possible decisions is to moye to the next item of the agenda and remove the item from the cognizance of the Council. That is the sense of my proposal which 1 maintain, and 1 ask for a vote on it.

Naturally, the deci'3Ïon should he made by the Security Counciland 1 raised this question before the Security Council. Over and above this, 1 raised this question hefore the Austra.liar.. representative himself and suggested that maybe, he ",-ould find it possible to withdraw bis proposai. Now it is obvious that he Th not· going ta withdraw it. Then 1 would like to ask the Australian representative whether he would agree to the Secûrity Council voting on bis resolution not belore aU other resolutioIll' are voted on, but after a vote has been taken. QI aIl other resolutions directIy relating to the question under consideration. (At titis point Mr, Dendramis, the Greek representatilJe, and the members of his delegation lett the Council tab!e.) When we come to the point where the Secunty Council has ta takt up the next item on the agenda, we shall decide whether we shall adôpt a specl~l. resolution to that effect or whether it would be sufficient tô have merely a 1 submit that we have ta take a decision, ta dispose of it in some wayor other. Accordingly, 1 still wish my proposal ta be put ta the vote. As to the other suggestion which you have made) namely, that it should not be put ta the vote until a vote has been taken on the other resolutions, 1 am, of course, quite willing to defer ta the will of my colleagues, and facilitate in any way 1 can the working of the Council. If it is its wish ta have an opportunity of voting on the other resolutions :fust, and if the members of :the Council feel that a vote on my resolution :fust would limit their freedom of expression, then 1 will certainly bow to their wish and consent to the Australian resolution being voted on after the other resolutions. In saying this, 1 would however like to make clear the position of our delegation with regard to two of those resoluticns, namely those of the United States and of the Netherlands. It seems ta 113 that they do not dispose of the item and, in the case of the United States resolution, we do not think that it really pertains to the item which is before us. If we had a choice of procedure, we would have much pl'eferred the Council to have decided ta discontinue its consideration of the Ukrainian item and then for the Council, of its own volition or through the good offices of the Secretaty-General or indeed through the action of any of its members, ta take up those broader questions which, in our view, are not at the moment propedy before us. In that respect we coneur to some extent with the views which you, yourseH, have expressed, as representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, casting doubts on a procedure which would enable the Secl~rity Council to enlarge the scope of its interest in the course of its examination of a single item of the agenda. We agree with your general view that it is rather dangerous that, after having proceeded to examine one question affecting the Greek and the United !<ingdom Govenuilents, we should, as a result of something which was heard in the course of that examination, extend our interests ta go'Vernments whieh have not been mentioned and whose views have'not been presented ta us. le la propre~autorité, taire de questions avis, bonne geons dans avez tant tiques procédure particulier Conseil tion. pris Gouvernement de Uni, remarque eussions n'ont nous ont pas été exposées. position, que Conseil fait But having said that in order ta make our position clear, we have no objection to deferring the voting on our reso]ution until after a vote has been taken on the other resolutions. 1 would like to make the following explanation for the purpose of avoiding possible <~onfusion in taking the vote on the first àraft resolution. This resolution of course relates to the substance of the matter under consideration and in our procedure at the Security Council 1 think we should he guided by Article 27 of the Charter, paragraph 3. 1 would like to make yet anollier suggestion: 1 would like to ask the Security Couneil for permission to divide the draft resolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in two parts and to take votes separately on each. The first part contains a desCliption of the situation in Greece and of the foreign policy of the present Greek Government; the second part of the resolution contains practical, concrete recommendations submitted for the approval of the Security Council. If it is agreeable, 1 will read separately the first part of the resolution and then the second part. If there is no objection, then 1 will read the text of the first part of the resolution. "The Security Council establishes the fact '''l'hat on the Greek-Albanian border, there has been of late a constant increase in the number of frontier incidents provoked by aggressive Greek monarchist elements, who are striving by this means to bring about an armed conflict oetween Greece and Albania for the purpose of detaching Southern Albania for the benefit of Greece; "That the persecution of national minorities in Greece by the Greek Govemment, by provoking nati.:mal strife, is straining relations between Greece and her other neighbours; "That the unbridled propaganda of the aggressive Greek monarchist elements demanding the annexation of territories belonging to these neighbours, threatens to complicate the situation in the Balkans, where for the first time as the result of the victory gained by the armed forces of the United Nations, the foundation has been laid for the democratic deve10pment of the Balkan countries, and for their close collaboration in the cause of establishing a firm and lasting peace; "That in their policy of aggression, these Greek monarchist elements are striving to ex- "That aIl these circumstances create a situation envisaged by Article 34 of the Charter of the United Nations and endanger peace and security." A vote was then taken. Votes for: Poland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Votes against: Australia, Brazil, China, Egypt, France, Mexico, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States of America. n'est soumette de l'Union Conseil lire maintenant:

The text is not approved. Now Iwould like to suggest voting separately on each of the points in the second half of the draft resolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. If there is no objection, 1 will ask the Council to vote on the first point which 1 will read now: "For the above-mentioned reasons, the Security C"ouncil resolves: "Firstly, to call upon the Greek Government to take measures in accordance with Articl€< 2, paragraph 4 of the Charter of the United Nations for the immediate cessation of the provocative activities of the aggressive monarchist elements on the Greek-Albanian frontier;" Votes for: Poland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. . Votes against: Australia, Brazil, China, Egypt, France, Mexico, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States of America. n'est n'est pas point:

The text is not appr~~ed. 1 will read the second point: "Secondly, to call upon the Greek Government to put an end to· the agitation regarding the state of war which is said to exist between Greece and Albania, in spite of the fact that Albania is endeavouring to establish normal peaceful relations with Greece;" Votes for: Poland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Votes against: Australia, Brazil, China, Egypt, France, Mexico, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States of America. The PRESIDENT: The text is not adopted. 1 will read the text of the third point: "Thirdly, to terminate the persecution of national minorities in Greece, as contrary to Article 1, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Charter of the United Nations;" "Fourthly, to :retain on the agenda of the Security Couneil the question of the menacing situation brought about as the result of the activities of the Greek Government, so long as the latter fails to carry out the recommendations proposed to it by the Security Couneil;" 1 wish to make an explanation. Since the above-listed points were not adopted, the text of the last point 3hould read as follows: "Founhly, to retain on the agenda of the Security Couneil the question of the menacing situation brought about as the result of the activities of the Greek Government," the remaining text being deleted~ Votes for: Poland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Votes against: Australia, Brazil, China, Egypt, France, Mexico, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Uniteç! States of America. The PRESIDENT: The text is not adopted. We will now take a vote on the next draft resolution submitted by the representative of the Netherlands. As 1 understood him, the words "on the one hand" and aIso the mention of "Yugoslavia and Bulgaria on the other hand" are omitted from the text. Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): 1 desire to make it quite clear that 1 specifically wanted Albania to be mentioned in this part of the resolution.

1 will read the text as directed, submitted by the Netherlands representative. "The Security Council, having been informed that a number of frontier incidents have taken place on the frontier between Greece and Albania, invites the Secretary- General to notify the Governments of the said countries on behalf of the Security Council, that the Council, without pronouncing any opinion on the question of responsibility, eamestly hopes that these Governments, each in so far as it is concerned, will do their utmost, inasmuch as that should still be necessary, to stop thase regrettable incidents by giving appropriate instructions to their national authorities, and by making sure that these instructions are rigid1y enforced." Of course, there is no necessity for me to remind members of the Council that this resolution relates aIso to the substance of the matter, and we should be guided by the procedure we find in Article 27 of the Charter, paragraph 3. Votes for: Brazil, China, Mexico, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States of America. .,.9tes against: Egypt, Poland, Union of ~ vote is, the one submitted by the representative of the United States. As in the two pre'\ious resolutioD.s, this one aIso relatt:s to the substance of the matter; accordingly we should he guided by the rame procedure of voting. As there is ne> suggestion of dividing it into separate parts, 1 will read the text of the resolution as a whole. Mr. PARODI (France) (translated from French): 1 wish to· make an observation on a point of order. This observation relates to the suggestion which the President has just made with regard to the description of the motion on which we are voting. ThiS motion, the intention of which is merely to estabEsh a committee of investigation, is not a motion of substance, but rallier of procedure. Permit me to add that, in my opinion, this motion comes under the provisions of Article 29 of the Charter which ïs worded thus: "The Security Couneil may establish such subsidiary organs as il deems necessary for the performance of its functions". This Article appears in Chapter V "Security Couneil" under the heading "Procedures". The PRESIDENT: 1 wish to say a few words as the representative of the UNION OF SOVIET 80- CIALIST REpUBLICS. . (Traarlated from Russian): 1 consider that the United States resolution is one which relates to the substance of the question and not ta procedure. It is not a resolution of a procedural nature. It is a resolution that recommends to the Security Council to take measures which relate to the substance of the question under consideration. 1 wish ta remind Mr. Parodi and perhaps aIsn some other members of the Security Council that, 50 far as the representatives of France, China, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are concerned, they assumed as far back as the San Francisco Conference a definite obligation to regard such questions, including all proposaIs relating to investigation, as questions of substance and not of procedure. 1 admit that Mr. Parodi may not know the details at the present time or may have forgotten them. 1 do not know which is actually the case, but 1 merely take the opportunity to make this clarification in the hope that the representativè of France will not insist on his proposai, otherwise we shall find ourselves in a difficult position, and anyway no decision can he taken ta the effect that this resolution is one of procedure. A decision can be taken only when the resolution is a substantive one. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): 1 think there is no doubt from the text of the statement made at San Francisco by the four sponsoring Govemments onvoting procedure in ~

1 wotdd like to ask the French representative if he would find it possible not to insist on bis suggestion, after the explanations made by the representative of the United States and by the Chair. Mr. PARODI (France) (translated tram French): In order to facilitate the conduct of our debates, 1 do not insist on this point. The observations 1 made will appear in the record of the meeting. The PRESIDENT: Certainly, they will be reproduced in the records. But even if we do look at that document, we find in its second paragraph, which deals with the items which may be ~overed by procedural vote, the words: ". . . establish such bodies or agencies as it may deem necessary for the performance of its functions". 1 submit that it is Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): 1 am sorry that 1 did not have an opportunity of speaking before the French representative, because it seems to the Australian delegation that here a question of fact is involved. The French representative OliginalIy alluded to Article 29, which refers to the establishment of subsidiary organs and which clearly appears in a section of the Charter dealing with procedure. It is quite plain that the Charter must have procedure a-<l if, as a matter of fact, this body which it is p:roposed to establish is a subsidiary organ, then there is not the least doubt that a procedural vote must govem its establishment. Sorne reference has been made to a document which appears to have gained sorne currency at San Francisco. But of course that document has no binding force on this Council or on any other part of the United Nations. It is apparently an arrangement that was entered into by a group of Members. It is always intercsting to hear it quoted, but of course it is never a convincing argument for this Coancil.

1 thank the French representative for not pressing his point. Any way by which we can save time will certainly facilitate the reaching of a decision on this question. li 1 am not mistaken, it is the general feeling of the Securitv Council that this resolution relates to the stibstance of the matter and 1 will concede that it is one relating to the substance of the matter until 1 receive a formal motion to the contrary. Before taking a vote, 1 wish to read the text of the United States' resolution: "Resolved, "That the Security Council, acting under Article 34 of the Charter, establish a commission of three individuals to be nonùnated by the Secretary-General, to represent the Security Council on the basis of their competence and impartiality, and to be confirmed by the Security Council; "That the Security Council instruct the commission: (1) To investigate the facts relating to the border incidents along the frontier between Greece on the one hand and Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia on the ether; (2) To exanùne the statements submitted to the Security Council concerning these incidents and such further information from other sources as it deems necessary; and (3) To submit to the Security Council as soon as practicable a report on the facts disclosed by its investigation; "That the commission shall have anthority to conduct its investigation in the area and to calI upon Albar.J.a, Bulgaria, Grèece and Yugoslavia for information relevant to its investigation: ''That the Security Council request the Secretary-General to communicate with appropriate authorities in the countries invulved, in order to obtain permission for the commission to conduct its investigation in these countries." Votes for: Brazil, China, Egypt, France, Mexicc, Netherlands, United Kingdorn, United States of America. Votes against: Poland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Abstention: Australia. The PRESIDENT: The resolution is 1l0t adopted. Mr. LANGE (Poland): We have voted on three resolutions. We have still before us the resolution of the representative of Australia which is simply a motion of a declaratory character that we pass to the next item of business. Wiili this in mind, 1 should like to propose a resolution which is very modest in content but which, 1 hope, may nevertheless be accepted by this Council. The resolution reads as follows: "The Security Councit, having considered the situation brought to its attention by the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic decides to keep the situation under observation and to retain it on the list of thp alatters with which the Council is seized." 1 w~nt to rec~11 to the Counr;l one precedent when we had great difficulty in reaching an agreement. It was the case of the situation in Spain. Yet we reached an agreement on one point: Wl" considered that the situation was of sufficient ...nportance to be placed under the further observation of the Council, and that we be seized with it. 1 think there is a certain similarity between the two cases, for we are aIl reaUy agreed that this situation is also of importance. The resolution of the Union of Soviet Sacialist Republics, in the same way as the resolutions of the United States and of the Netherlands, testifies to the fact that their representatives consider the matter of sufficient importance to request the Council to take sorne action. If we count the entire number of votes which were given for these resolutions, we find that aIl the members of the Council voted for one or the other of the resolutions. Th,;: ,n "n, TrI1nd t",. 10h 10 th ~. ,. rt~' .1 --~, _...., ..<~. , Su~,'Vs • a. er... l8 ...e allliY agreement on one point, namely, that the question is of sorne importance and that it deserves to he kept under the observation of the Cauncil and should remain one of the matters with which we are seized. In presenting this resolution, l want to point out one thing. It might be thought at fust that by the resolution of the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, on which we voted in sections, we have in a way passed judgment on the subject. The last section stipulates that the Conncil decides ta retain on the agenda of the Security Council the question of the menacing situation brought about as a result of the activities of the Greek Government. < 1 think that what 1 propose is something new, Ïn so far as this resolution does not contain cer- Mr. !IASLUCK (Australia): The Australian delegation respects the wish for lmanimity, and the spirit in which the representative of Poland has spoken. But it does seem ta us a little odd to be talking of unanimity in this vein. Throughout eleven meetings we have listened to charges of an extremely grave nature made, if 1 may say so, in an extremely bad spirit. And now, after a majority of the Council, a very large majority of this Council, has by its vote on the resolution which you have had the honour ta propose, indicated very clearly what it thinks of those charges, we are now asked, in the interest of unanimity, not ta express an opinion, not to do anything iurther, but to let everything pass and to keep this matter before us and regard it as being of sorne importance. qu'une vous pas mais tenir tance. ait était gravité Je cessaire jour g' prendre d'une attirer l'attention sur une question donnée. aux taire en des question marches· nécessaires Conseil. C'est pourquoi l'argument suivant lequel nous jour paraît ment saisis It seemed ta me that the ooly valid argument that was put forward ta justify this action, was that a situation in the Balkans existed, which was of such gravity that it should be kept under observation. In answer ta that, however, 1 would point out that it is not necessary to retain an item on the agenda in order to keep it under observation. l~~ere are numerous ways open to this Council. It can, of its own volition, at any time take up a matter. Any member of this Council can draw att~ntion to a matter. We have the good offices and the undoubted powers of the Secretary-General to keep the matter under observation. Moreover, any of the goveroments dirëctly concerned in the question can also take steps to bring it promptly before the Council. So the argl'ment that we must retain it in order to keep it under observation does not seem ta be a very strong one. 1 also recall that the real item before us is a letter from the representative of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Re- L:hliC, and 1 tlUnk it is on thot letter, which is .' the item of the agenda, that the Security Council ."~"S~",""":c·,·;···.· •• 5""W'" As a matter of faet, by the votes already given on the resolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, this Council has decided by nine votes.to two not to retain the item on its agenda. Now, in the interests of unanimity, it is suggested that the nine should make an about turn and join the two, that they should reverse their former deeision and keep this item before us. Frankly, that seems to our delegatiol1 to be rather fantastic. We value unanimity and we respect the opinions of others, but there are limits to the sacrifices that have to be made for that ward. Our delegation still has a resolution before the Council and we would like an expression of opinion from our colleagues on the Council on the terms of that resolution. Its sense is to dismiss the Ukrainian letter from' the agenda of the Security Council. In a sense, it may seem as though we are duplicating the decisions that have aIready been taken by nine votes to two~ but it seems to us that it would he a neat, precise and necessary end to a twelve-day debate if we were tG decide !hat we should formally remove this item from our agenda. So, regretfully, wc cannot see our way clear to aecept the resolution proposed by the representative of Poland, and we would still wish our resolution to come to a vote.

1 would like to ask tÎle members of the Security Cauncil to express their opinions on the new draft resolution submitted by the Polish representative. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : You have asked for views on the draft just presented by the Polish representative. 1 am bound to say that 1 cannot accept this resolution. 1 recognize that it has been put forward in good faith and with good intentions by the Polish representative, in the hope of achieving unanîmity. We have already heard one delegation say they could not accept it. 1 must say one ward as to why 1 cannot accept it. It reads that the Security Council, having considered. the situation brought to its attention by the Ukraillian Soviet Socialist Republic, decides to keep the situa.tion under observation. If we remember what the letter of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic contained, itisnotto he expected for one moment that 1 could possibly keep that under observation. We have had a number of votes here this afternoon. It is quite clear th.at the majority we have here--eight or nine-has been un.·' -e: to express itself eHectively in favour of ~Lything oVviï."1g to the mechanics of our voting system. But it really is quite clear what the general view is, and in the course of this long discussion, which has la.sted 1

Does any other member of the Council wish to speak? 1 would like to say a few words as the representative of the UNION OF SoVIET SOCIALIST REpUBLICS. (Translated tram RussZan): Undoubtedly the resolution submitted by the representative of Poland is the weakest and, 1 shaIl say, the most toothless resolution that could be Ï;magined in connexion with the consideration of the question raised in the Ukrainian statement. If this resolution were adopted, it would lead û~e Security Council to do no more than take the elementary action of following the situation which has arisen in the relations between Greece and Albania. 1t seems to me that this is the very least that could be accepted in the light of the situation which has arisen in the Security Council, now that the resolution which 1 have submitted as representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and which contained concrete recommendations for action, hasbeen rejeeted. Supposing the Security Council does not agree with the Polish representative's proposal, what will public opinion think? It will appear as if the situation that has arisen in connexion with the èlefinite aggressive policy of the Greek monarchists in regard to Albania is quite a normal one. However, a great number of facts have been brought before us here, proving that acts of provocation are taking place systematicaIly, and that people are being killed or wounded as a result of those provocative acts. Even if we leave aside the other accusations contained in the Ukrainian statement-the condition of national minorities and other points-and if we limit our consideration to the frontier incidents, even then it would appear that the Security Council should continue to take an interest in this question. In the text submitted by the Polish representative, there is not even a hint that these incidents are being provoked by Greece. This is one of the reasons why 1 caIled this resolution weak and altogether toothless. Such a resolution, which would mereIy oblige the Security Council to take an interest in the étuation, is unacceptable to other members of the Council. 1 consider this resolution a bad one, one which in no way " meets the situatior. that has arisen in the region of Greece and Albania. But it seems to me that proposition par à male. qui tématiques conséquence nous dans tion points les Conseil cette question. présentant de que 8'est que à mande à autres sidère ne For this reason and for this reason aIone, with a number of reservations, 1 am prepared to support the text of the resolution submitted by the representative of Poland. The PRESIDENT: The Polish representative forma1ly submitted the text of bis resolution. As President, 1 naturally accepted it since it relates to the substance of the question under consideration, and will put it to a vote. 1 ihall read the text of the resolution: "The Security Council, having considered the situation brought to its attention by the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, decides to keep the situation under observation and to retain it on the list of the matters \Vith which the Council is seized." Votes for: Poland, Union of Soviet Sodalist Republics. . Votes against: Australia, Brazil, China, Egypt, France, Mexico, Netherlands, United Kingdom, United States of America. The resolution was rejected by nine votes to two. The PRESIDENT: 1 do not have any proposaIs IlOW relating to the substance of the question raised in the Ukrainian statement. 1 have only a resolution submitted by the Australian rèpresentative which reads: "It is resolved that the Security Council pass to the next item of business'·. Again '1 ask the Security Council whether it is really necessary to adopt a resolution of tbis kind in arder to pass on to the next item of bu...~ess, since the agenda itself obliges the Secrrity Council to pass on to the next item on the agenda; if that is not sufficient, l, as President, may also confirm this by saying that the Security Council is now ready to take up the next item on the agenda, since it does not have at its disposa! any proposais relating to the questions raised in the Ukrainian statement. 1 would like to ask the opinion of the Council on this subject. Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): 1 return to the point 1 made earlier in this meeting. It is necessary for this Council to take sorne formai decision in order ta remove an item from its agenda; this resolution is intended to have the effect of a formai decision to that effect. 1 would recall, as a matter of history, that it is quite sorne rime since the Australian de1egation proposed tbis resolution. It was the fust resoiution of which the Council was given notice. We did not submit it formally because, at that rime, we did not want to obstruct the debate or prevent any colleague on the Council front having full opportunity of expressing bis point of view. In due course, however, when the discussion appeared to he nearing its close, we did mbmit it as a formai resolution and it was Mr. HSIA (China): The Australian representative has, of ~01.IrSe, a perlect right to press bis original motion wmch was tabled severa! days ago, or bis modified resolution, but 1 would plead with my Australian colleague to reconsider bis decision, and withdraw this resolution. 1 do so for two reasons: in the fust place, 1 think we have divided this Council often enough for one afternoon, here is a chance where we might acmeve unanimity if·we accept the President's ruling or bis interpretation of the decision. There is another reason wmch is a little more complicated. If the Council regards the resolution as one oi substance, as it may, and let us suppose a certain country votes against it, then the situation will remain unsolvéd and undecided; therefore the President may once again pronounce the same ruling. In these conditions, we will have wasted the next half hour for nothing. For these reasons, 1 plead with my Australian colleague to t leave the matter as it is and accept the President's interpretation of the situation.

1 would like to ask other members of the Council for their opinions. Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): 1 do not know whether it is stricdy necessary that we should vote on the Australian resolution in order that the case may disappear from the agenda. It has perhaps already disappeared from the agenda. But 1 th.ink that the Australian representative has a perlect right, if he sees iit to do so, to press for tbis draft resolution being put to a vote. 1 do not see how we can prevent it. Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): On behaIf of the Australian Goyernment, 1 ask for a vote on the resolution we have moved. Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): Mr. President, you héwe made three points and 1will endeavour to reply ta them in the order in which they were made. The first was a kind of metaphysical point, that if this motion failed, thereby we shall not have decided to pass on to the next item and would he prevented from doing sa. In the first place, l suggest that we wait until the motion is rejected before we face that problem, and in the second place, 1 am quite willing to meet that problem in advance by altering the words 50 that they should read, "remove this item from the agenda", and submit the resolution in that forma The second point you made struck me as being exceedin.gly nove!. It seemed te suggest that, if required, you, as President, 0 would rule that this resolution was subject to the voting procedures described in Article 27, paragraph 3 and was thereby subject to what is known as the "veto." During the course of this debate the Australian delegation has not attempted to disguise its thoughts; it does not attempt to disguise them now. The thought behind this re5Olution is to remove the item from the agenda, because it is unsubstantiated. What we are asking the Council to adopt is not just a statement we have made, or any thought that was in our minds' we are asking the Council to adopt a form of words which is clearly procedural. The proposal is the removal of an item from the agenda, and 1 think it is indisputable that if we admit items The third point you made possibly points to the one solution of the present difficulty which the Australian delegation would be willing to accept in lieu of the passage of this resolution. You have said that this matter has aIready been decided, by a vote of nine to two, rejecting the fourth point of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' resolution and, by a vote of nine to two, rejecting the Polish resolution. If we understand from the Chair that those two prior votes are a decision by nine votes to two, dismissing this item from the agenda of the Security Council, we see no need to press this motion, but short of that clear understanding, we feel compelled to press it.. seule solution de rait l'adoption que rejetant point de socialistes neuf le votes par faire nous que si née, que puisque résolution, été aux à puisque de dehors il l'ordre Conseil de sécurité décision, indiquée. glais): n'ai

1\..8 Presidf'nt, 1 wish to state the following ruling: in view of the negative vote on the fourth point of my draft resolution and in view of the negative vote taken on the Polish resolution, there is no need to take a vote on the proposal to retain the matter on the agenda or to exclude the matter frorit tlle agenda. Further, since the Security Council has no other proposal on the substance of the matter, beside those which have already been voted upon, the Security Council is rleady to pass on to the next item on the agenda. 1 made this formal statementabout the ruling, and since the Security Council does not overrule myruling, 1 willask the Council to follow the procedure described. Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): Mr. President, firstly,I could not quite understand the sense of your last remark about making a formal ruling AB to the statement you made of the position which the Council has now reached, there is only mie phrase in it to which 1 would like to draw attention. You used a sentence, 1 think, to the effect that in view of what had already been done, there was no need to take a vote on the Australian resolution. Do 1 understand that the words, "there is no need to take a vote", mean a recognition that this item has already been removed from the agenda?

1 think 1 made a statement which I consider very clear. 1 do not think 1 have to give any additional explanations of the position. li the Australian Fepresentative challenges the ruling stated by me as President, then naturaUy 1 shall be obliged to ask the Council either to reject my ruling or to agree with it. Mr. l!ASLUCK (Australia): In the circumstances, 1 will ask that a vote he taken, on the Australian resolution that the Security Conneil remove tbis item. from its agenda. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): Mr. President, may 1 ask if you would care to ask the Secretary-General for bis opinion regarding the suggestion just discussed that you should make the ruling. If you did this and if it were accepted, would that mean that the Secretary- General would list this case on the matters of which the Council remains seized in that periodic paper which he circulates to the Council? The answer to that question would be of interest.

1 will ask the Secretary- GeneraI to give this additional explana.tion, but 1 wish again to remind the representative of the United States that the Polish resolution contained a sentence which was read as foilows( 1 do not quote exactly): the Security Council decides to retain this item on the list of the matters with which the Council is seized. AB you will remember, the Security Council did not take a positive decision on this question, and 1 do "not think that any additional explanations are really necessary, but since you believe that it would he desirable to have such an additional explanation, 1 ask the Secretary-General to give bis opinion on this procedure.

If the Security Council follows the ruling of the President, in my opinion, the Council is no longer seized with this case and it will automatically be taken off the agenda. . . We had a case which was simiIar in London;

1 think that my statement, together with the statements made by the Secretary~ral, and the French representative are clear and se1f-explanatory. Mr. HAsLUCK (Australia): 1 agree that the colIlbination of the three statements makes it clear that this Council, by a vote of nine to two, bas removed the Ukrainian item from its agenda, and since there is apparently no dissent to this opinion but agreement with it, 1 withdraw my resolution.

The statement made by the Australian representative will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting, as well as all other atatements. i suggest that the Council meet on Monday at S p.m. for consideration of the third item on the agenda. If there is no objection, 1 shall conaider this suggestion as approved. The meeting rose at 7.13 p.m.