S/PV.71 Security Council

We have two questions on the agenda. l'he second question is on the provisional agenda; the Security Council has therefore to consider the question of whether or net to inc1ude it on the agenda for the purpose of considering its substance. As Soviet representative to the Security Council, I"ask the Council to inc1ude this question on the agenda for the purpose of considering its :Jubstance. l ask the merilbers of the Security CQUD,- cil to express their opinion onthis subject. socialistes question des août des en Républiques Conseil La traite termes sécurité Gouvernement, question. Conseil propositions l'Union désirable dès le d'abord sécurité demande la Sir Alexander ·CADOGAN (United Kingdom): Mr. President, 1thank you for your explanation, which certailliy clarifies the position and gives it a rather different aspect, 1 think, from your earlier statement. If you had been raising this (traduit vous cit donne dédaration précédente. affaire termes auriez chapitre, et angle Gouvernement troupes.étrangères titue 1 matter in the Council by mue of Chapter VII of the Charter, it is conceivable that you might have been referring to a certain part of that chapter which would have put the matter in a rather ~erent light. You .have ,made it plain that your Govemment considers that the presence of these foreign troops in certàÎn territories creates a dangerous trles~ and appears anxious concerning the situation thus created. The proper course for the Ulùon of Soviet Socialist Republies to have followed~ in our view, would have been to approach His Majesty's Government in thé United Kingdom directly in the first îmtance. But there has never been any complaint from the Government of the USSR, either through diplomatic channels or by any of the customary methods in use by Allied governments. Article 33 of the Charter clearly shows, 1 think, that. that would be the procedure to be followed in a casè such as tlùs. The Charter implies that there would be negotiations bet\....een friendly governments. There have been none in tlùs case. My Government, therefore, regards the Soviet proposaI as a piece of pure prcipagani~.. It considers it another typicaI and irresponsible paliticaI manoeuvre of the kind which tends to damage the prestige of the Security Counci~ itself. My Government has made clear to the ~"bole world the policy it is pursuing in the COuntril~S affected by the Soviet proposaI. Why should i·: be haled before the Security Council ta justify its policy when there is no point in the world where British troops are endangering peace aqd security? My Government resents these tacties, which brmgthe Security Council into disrepute and which disregard the practices and normal courtesies between nations. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom refuses to do business in this way with the USSR, and 1 am confident that the world,will see through tlùs transparent politica! manoeuvre. . l think 1 have explained sufficiently why 1 oppose the inclusion of this item on the' agenda of the Security. Co~cil.

Does any other member of ~e Security. Council wish to speak? . , . . . . Ml'. HA.SLlJCK (Australia): The question of the admission.of an item to the agenda is purely a procedural question, andnormally is .only subject ta arguments dealing with procedure. . The views which 1 shallexpress on b~half of the AustrallanGovernment 'are views connected with procedure.' It seems tousthat the starting point for the consideration of this matter is to be Jound in Article 24,paragraph 2,' dealing with the. functians and powers of· the Security Council. The last sentence of that. p~agraph says thatthe specific P9w~rs granted ta the A situation of the kind described in Article 34 seems to us to bea particular situation, not a general world situation or even a continental situation. If.the representative of the USSR has in mind a situation which willlead to international friction or give rise to .a dispute, 1think, before we. qm make up our mincis as tothe ~dmissionofthe item, we shoul,d get some fairly precise indication as to the whereabouts of that situation. .By "precise indication", 1 do not suggest>-at fuis stage that we should go into the merits of the case, but rather that we should be· told exactly what·spot the representative· of the USSR has in mind which constitutes a da:nger .to peace or a p.ossiblecause of friction. l'hen, .an4 .then onty, can this Councildecide p;rocedurlÛJy whemer ornot ther:e is something which :needs tobèexamiq.ed at gr..eate,r lengt..Il.. . exactem~t l'URSS paix alors du non longuement. .~. '.. -.' '. ,'..' .- . -, . 1 would suggest, therefore, that before we can take a ded~io!1 on this matter,'we do need sorne precise indicatlon as to where this alleged danger to the peace exists. Ml'. JOHNSON (United States of America): In the opinion of my Government, there is nothing in the 29 August statement of the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that would justify its consideration by the Security Council. Instead, we feel that the Council is presented here with a statement, the real purpose of which is unclear and the tendency of which is to lower the prestige of the Council. Nor does it appear to be in keeping with the responsibilities and dignity of this body. My Government sees no similarity between allegations properly brought under Chapter VI and the allegations contained in the Soviet statement. The Government of the USSR, in presenting its request to the Council, alleges that the presence of Allied troops in certain areas of the worId gives rise, and 1 quote, "to a quite natural uneasiness in the peoples of those countries in which foreign troops are stationed". The Soviet statement goes on to assert that worId opinion follows with "unconcealed anxiety the situation which has been created in the abovementioned countries". The statements of the "unconcealed anxiety of worId opinion" and of the "natural uneasiness" cannat, in our view, conceivably establish a basis for considering the matter as a dispute or situation under Chapter VI. Uneasiness and anxiety undoubtedly exist in the world today. .1, deny, however, that the presence of American troops on the sail of friendly nations has given rise ta such uneasiness and anxiety either in whole or in part. In any case, where American troops are so stationed, they are there on the basis of agreements and friendly understanding ~ith the governments concerned. The primary function of this Council, as 1 'see it, is to considersituations and disputes likely Moreover, the original statement of the representative of the USSR refers vaguely to a situation which has allegedly been created in a number of countries without namin,g the countries and without defining the nature of the situâtion as one likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security. These particular points just mentioned have been likewise referred ta by the representative of the United_ Kingdom and the representative of Australia. Does thè representative of the USSR, in bis original statement where he refers to Chapter VII of the Charter, contend that the information he requests in bis statement would a..c;sist the Security Couneil in the preparation of special military agreements under Article 43, or in the determination of available contingents ror urgent military measures under Article 45, or in the making of plans for the application of armed force pursuant to Article 46? If this is the contention of the" representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, we. do not see what relationship this has to the alleviation of the 3nxiety and uneasiness referred to in bis statement of 29 August. My Government is unable to see any practical reason for which the Council should consider the Soviet proposal at the present time. We are certain that it has no obligation to do so, and indeed we can find no passage in the Charter authorizing the Council to consider a situation described simply as "creating uneailiness and anxiety". Being unable to discover any sound reason for the Soviet proposal in connexion with the duties of the Council, my Govemment has inevitably wondered what other basis there might be for this req~est. We are reIuctant to believe that it was submitted for propaganda purposes. However, if this is the case, there is aIl the more reason not to admit. the matter to' the agenda. To do so would not increase the prestige of the Council. It would tend to weaken international organization for peace, and to impair the friendly relations among Members of the 1Jnited Nations. For the reasons 1 have given, and under in~ ~tructions from my Government, 1 shall vote against the inclusion of the statement made by the Soviet representative on 29 August, as an item on the agenda of the Security CoUllcil. Mr~ LANGE (Poland): 1 do not want ta enter into'the merits of the'proposaIs which constitute :item2 of ourprovisional agenda. The question ln the view of the Polish delegation, the question of the adoption of an item on the agenda is not a matter of passing judgement on the merits of the case, but is simply an. expression of the view that the item is of sufficient importance to be considered by the Council. 1 would contend that the very fact that a govern..'llent which is a Member of the United Nations brings an item to our attention) indicates that it ;,S of sufficient importance to be considered. The government may be right or wrong; that is a different matter. But l think it is a natural privilegeof any government whieh is a Member of t4e United Nations to he able to bring matters to the attention of the Couneil. 1 think, therefore, that the question of whether or not we should adopt it on the agenda is not a problem, but that it is a simple duty of the Council to place on the agenda items whieh are brought before it by Members of the United Nations. It is a normal privilege of membership in the United Nations to be able to bring items to the attention of the Council. If Members of the United Nations do not have this privilege, then 1 really do not know what are the advantages and meaning of membership in this OrganÎ2ation. If we adopt the course we followed in the preceding case of spending severa! days in discussing the question of whether or not the item deserves to be admitted to the agenda, we create of necessity a situation where aIl the merits of the case are brought forward during preliminary discussion, becatise under such a procedure the govemment whieh wants to place an item on the agenda has to prove that it deserves to be considered. In order to prove that it deserves to he considered, the government must enter into all the merits of the case; this was the situation in connexion with the Greek question which was recently before us, For this reason, 1 want to'appeal to the Conncil not to lose time in debating the question whetber or not the item should be admitted to the agenda, but'simply to admit it and to discuss the merits of the case after the item is properlY'on the agenda. Mr. GROMYK6 (Ulùon of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian) : The representatives of the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States of America have pointed out that the Soviet statement is of a general character. They, and especially the representative of Australia, have also pointed out that it is not clear from the Soviet statement where a situation exists such as may involve a dueat to peace and security and lead to international friction. The representative of Australia pointed out that no concrete references to countries were made in the Soviet statement. Naturally, the first statement made by me on 29 August was of a general character. 1 therefore wish to make a supplementary explanation and to indicate definitely to the representatives of the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Australia situations which may involve a threat to peace and security and lead to international friction. 1 will also mention the countries if certain members of the Security Council so desire. In the statement which 1 made-on behaIf of the Government of the USSR at the meeting of the Security Council on 29 August last, a very important question was raised. In that statement, 1 included a proposai to the effect that the Security Council should call upon the States Members of the United Nations to subuùt to the Council the following information within two weeks: 1. At what points on the territory of Members of the United Nations or other States, with the exception of former enemy territories, and in what number are armed forces of other Members of the United Nations stationed? 2. At what points on the above-mentioned territories are air and naval bases situated, and what is the size of their garrisons belonging to ti.e armed forces of otber Member States of the United Nations? In my statement, 1_have aIready given MIe reasons why 1 consider it necessary to submit the foregoing information to the Security Council. At the present meeting, 1 think it necessary ta state certain additional considerations in connexion with the discussion as to whether the Soviet statement should be placed on the Security Conncil agenda for investigation in substance. - The question of the presence of the forces of certain States in the territory of a number of countries belonging to the United Nations, and of certain other States which did not participate in the second worId war, is deserving of serious study. _During the waragainst nazi Germany and nùlitarist Japan, the presence of the forces of thé Allied Powers on the territory of States Members of the United Nations and ofcert~n States which didnot participate fu the war,.was ..... \ Voices .are being raised more and more fr~­ quently protesting against the continued presence of foreign forces on the territories ofthese countnes. Protesting vaices are being raised by political parties, civic organizations, press organs, prominent political and trade union leaders, scholars and journalists. They are being heard in China, Egypt, Iraq, Greece, Indonesia, Iceland, certain Latin-American States and in other countries. These protests manifest the growing alann of the peoples of those countries at the continued presence of foreign troops on their territories. The presence of foreign forces on these territories is leading to international and internaI complications in these countries, as the foreign forces concerned often intervene in the internal afi'airs of those States and support anti-demù- cratic forces there. As an example of the alann which can be caused ta the inhabitant'3 of these countries by the continued presence of foreign troops on their territories after the end of the war, it is impossible not ta mention China. The events taking place there show that the continued presence of American troops in China deserves most serious consideration. In speaking of the presence of Amerlcan troops in China, it is necessary ta remind the Security Council that this question has already been the snbject of discussion at a meeting of the representatives of the Allied Powers. The communiqué issued in regard ta the meeting in Mascow of the Foreign Ministers of the Union of Soviet SocialÎst Republics, the United States of . America and the United Kingdom respectively, which was published on 28 December 1945, stated: "MI'. Byrnes pointea out that American forces were in North China at the request of the Chinese Goverm,lwL ~md referred aIso ta In the memorandum from the United States of America concerning the presence of American forces in CPlna, banded to the Foreign Minister. of the Union of Seviet Socialist Republics, ]YIr. Molotov, and to the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, Ml'. Bevin, by the United States Secretary of State, Ml'. Bymes, the continued presence of United States forces in China was also stated ta be il':e ta the disarmament and removal of the J: lese forces in China. That was also emphasi... . by President Truman at a press conference on 13 Decembel' 1945. What is the situation now? On 19 August 1J46 the official liaison bureau attached to the present Japanese Government 'published in the newspaper .Maini.chi Shimbun a report from which it was evident that the rea patriation of Japanese forces in China had been almast concluded by the end cf June of this year. According to that report, in the whole of China, not including Manchuria, there remained ouly 41,760 Japanese not yet repatriated. About three mcnths have passed since then. It may be supposed that the disarmament and repatriation of the Japanese troops have already been concIuded. At aIl events it could already have been done long aga if desiren. It has thus become obvious to everybody that previous references to the pre..,-:('Jlce of Japanese forces in. China in justification of the continued presence of United States forces in China are without foundation. It is precisely for that reason that rumours è:U'e. spreading \:0 an increasing extent that the conversations which are at present being conducted in regard to the necessity for the disarmament and expulsion of Japanese forces from China nierely serve to conceal the other real aims behind the presence of foreign troops in that country. In the world press, and more particularly in tlle American press, quite a few reports have bee~ published showing what hasbeen the out- çome of the continued presence of American forces in China. According to these reports, it has Ied to thegrant of active support for one of the two factions fighting in China, and to in+ervention in the interna.} affairs of China. The prl"'3ence of American forces in China·is .Ùllju",tifieciin present circumstances, and their interfcrence in the internaI affairs of .China has aroused a waveof protest. The most varied clements of Chffiese oociety are protestîng. Workèrs, scholars) politicians, civic, cultural and Of late, there have been an inerea",ingly large number of stat~ments by American politicians, labour union officiais and journalists regarding the presence of American troops in China and 'the intervention by the United States of Atllerica in the internaI affairs of China. Thus, for example, the retired .American Brigadier- General Evans Carlson, who had led raids by American forces against the Japanese, stated on 24"July: "1 urge the American people to read Madame SlE'S statement carefully, be:causc 1 know from long experience th?t she speaks from intimate and accurate knowledge of the facts." That statement was published by the NationaI Committee to Win the Peace. On 24 April last, the United Press agency published a resoiütion at the convention of the United Public Workers of America which called for the "removaI of American armed forces from China, France, Japan, Greece, Belgium, Indonesia and the Philippines". On 5 August, the Assodated Press agency published a statement by Senator Butler which said: "We have no business in China. . .. We are not at war with China or any faction there, and 1 wish someone could explain why our troops are there." Even the, United States Secretary of State, Mr. Bymes, acknowledged at the meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Decem~ ber 1945, that the presence of American forces in China was a,source of wholly understandable worry to the .American public. AIl these points should be heeded. It is im~ possible to ignorethem. They affecta quèstion which does not concem only (a and the United States of America. The, presence of AIDerican forces in Ice1and has given rise to not a few protests. As is ·"'ell known, in July 1941 Iceland agreed to make bases avai1able on its territory ta, the United States of America on the condition that the American/forces were withdrawn from Iceland tinuent taires fait dans l'agence M. gères dans ce troupes le du dans de lienne. début dant d'Amérique aériennes inquiétée en intérieures fait sécurité. d'Egypte diale Although the war is over, foreign troops are still stationed in sorne countries of the Western hemisphere, for example, in Panama, Bram and others, and the former rnilitary bases established there are still being retained. Naturally, that cannot fail to provoke concem in these countries. For example, on 1 September the United Press agency published a report from Panama regarding a note from the Minister of Foreign Mairs oi Panama, Ricardo Alfaro, addressed to the United States Minister in Panama, in which the question of foreign forces and bases in the territory of Panama was raised. According to reports from Brazil, the continued presence of American forces there is beginning to alarm increasingly wîde circles among the Brazilian people. At the beginning of April of this year, a number of labour union leaders made statements demanding the withdrawal of the armed forces ofthe United States of America and the liquidation of their air and naval bases . in Brazilian temtôry. Throughout the world, public attention is repeatedlybeing drawn to the presence of British forces in Greece, and to therr intervention in the internal affairs of Greece. This question has aIready been the subject of investigation by the Security Council. The question of the withdrawal of British forcesfrom Egypt has also been cûmmanding tJIe .attention of world pub!ic 0pinion for sorne considerabletime. . "The 1936 treaty granted the United Kingdom the right to maintain 10,000 troops in Egypt, the evacuatioll of which would require only a few hours. We are not responsible for the fact that the United Kingdom has not demobilized the forccs which were stationed in Egypt during the war. But the fact that more than a year aIter the conclusion of the war, these forccs have not been demobilized shows that the United Kingdom has no good intentions." The Egyptian people are demanding the withdrawal of British troops from Egypt. Reports frequently appear in the press concerning mass demonstrations in Egypt œwhich tens of thousands of the population participate, demanding the evacuation of British troops. According to press reports, 70,000 persons gathered on 21 Februai'y in one of the public squares of Cairo, crying: "British soldiers, get out of Egypt! . . . Get out at once or die!" According to the Ullofficial figures, ten demonstrators were killed and twenty were wounded on that day in a clash at the British barracks. The United Press reported that '!he demonstrators carried with them the bleeding corpses of the victims and passed through the central streets of the city to the royal palace, where they again presented to King Farouk their demands for the withdrawal of British forces. Altogether, between 100,000 and 150,000 persons have participated in the Cairo demonstrations, including some 70,000 who gathered on the square in front of the Abadan. Palace to demand the evacuation of the British forces. They declared: "Englishmen ... stop insulting us. Your stupid communiqués only irritate us. You talk of evacuation and you merely transfer troops from one city to another inside Egypt. Your evacuation from the Caïro Citadel docs not impress us, nor have we rejoice.d over your last communiqué. We .shall rejoice orùy when the last English soldier leaves our country." At the request of the Governments of Syria and Lebanon, the Security Council has already investigated the question of the presence of foreign troops on the territory of these States. . The appeal by these States to the Security Coun,cil is a protest by countries on whose territory foreign troops are still stationed without any legal justification. Here are the facts characterizing the situation in yet another country, Iraq, on whose territory British forces are stationed: The Baghdad radiô stated on. 9 August: "The people' of Iraq demand the withdrawal of British forces from the territory of The Iraq paper Saut-al-Ahali of 5 August 1946 wrote: "Britain considers Iraq as a nùlitary base whieh can perhaps he utilized by her when she considers fit, and she semis there as many troops as she likes in any circumstances. . • • The I;:-:l.q people protests against these acts of Great ,;}ritain and considers these activities a violation of its rights and interests, which jeoparclize its sovereignty and independence, threaten its national aspirations, and also contravene the most elementary international rights which are customary in relations between nations." 1 tlùnk the members of the Security Council are aware of the statements and pronouncements made by politicians, official bodies and sections of the press in Iran, wmch testify to the alarm caused in Iran by the presence and the increasing number of British troops in Basrah, in the territory of Iraq, because that movement cannot but be considered as being a threat to the independence of Iran. Not so very long ago, the attention of world public opinion was focused on the situation which had amen in Indonesia in connexion with the presence of foreign troops there, and in connexion with the use of Japanese enemy forces against the local Indonesian population. The Security Council already considered this matter at the beginning of this year. - In the course of the discussion in the Seeurity Council, facts were disclQsed regarding .the unwarrantable and unjustifiable use of Japanese forces against the peaeeful population. The situation has not ehanged sinee then. Reports coming from Indonesia bear witness to the faet that the tension in this part of the globe has in no way been relaxed and that fighting, involving considerable loss of life9 is still going on there. 1 should like . the representative of the Netherlands to read what is quoted in my statemeilt. The examples mentioned could be supplemented by others, not only in regard to the countries referred to, but aIso in connexion with many other countries and territories. 1946 rité connaissent mes ganes l'inquiétude et sorah, voir chose qu'une menace à l'indépendance l'opinion qu'avaient gères naises Le /tion Conseil que absolument contre n'a tions tion tendue, qui humaines, Pays-tias entendît bien déclaration. logues, tionnés The facts wmch 1 have adduced demonstrate the alarm which is rife among the peuples of those countrieS of the United Nations, as well as in certain other countries wllich did not take part in the war and on whose territories troops of the Allied Powers are still stationed. The events which have taken place in these countries confirm that the continued presence ofAllied forces on their territories has not·on1y aggravated still farther theintern,al situation in t..1tese colÎntries, but can ,.also exercise· an· ev'en more detrimental influence on the international situation. tude Membn:.:" n'ont desqueb partenant événements troupes pour mais fâcheuse The Security Council must payserious attention to situations which may lead to international friction. Moreover, the ~ecurity Council must be informed of the facts and circumstances which relate ta such situations and which tend to provoke international friction. It is precisely with suc.h information that the Soviet statement deals. The Council must be fully informed in arder to take the requisite steps, in case of necessity, in the interests of international peace. Article 24 of the Charter, which the representative of Australia mentioned in his speech, imposes on the [ecurity Couneil the main responsibility for the mabtl;aance of international peace and security, and eonstrains the Couneil to act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. The proposaIs contained in the USSR statement are in complete conformity with those purposes and principles. The representatives of the United States of America and of the United Kingdom have tried to demonstrate, in their speeches, tllat the presentation of this question. before the Seeurity Oouncil is incompatible with the Council's reputation and amounts to mere propaganda. These speeches bear the marks of the old strategem which is employed with automatic regularity every time a question is raised which to a greater or lesser degree affects ~ritish interests, whether directly, or indirectly. It isevident that the representative of th~ United States of America has decided to take the same course. ' These allegations of propaganda and these stereotyped phrases can be repeated a hundred times,yet neither the representative of the United Kingdom "nor the representative of the United States will emerge from that situation any more favoura:bly in the eyes of world public opinion. Ml'. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): As representative of a country on part of whose tenitory there is still a small and decreasing number of foreign troops, 1 should like to make a few observations in order to examine the preljminary question as to whether a sufficient prima fade case has been made to justify placing this matter on the Council's agenda. In sa far as the correct interpretation of the Charter is concerned, I should like to adhere to the remarkS of the representatives of Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. In addition, 1 should like to say this: In my view, the cardinal questionis whether foreign troops are in a country with the free consent of the government of·that country or without that consent. In order to give a foundation to bis case, the representative of the USSR does not say, in bis introductory statement, that the people of thase friendly countries where foreign troops are stationed actually refuse to have them on their territories. He mercly saysthey are uneasy, and that world opinion is anxious. Quite apart from the question as to whetheruneasiness and anxiety can be construed as being good and valid reasons tobring a matter before this Oouncil, 1 can onlysay that, having l'ead many reports from the countriesconcerned, 1 am not aware of that upeasiness and anxiety.Ifthese governments are.uneasy, why don't t1tey come forward themselves? This is precisely the course. that Iran a.dopted when Soviet tIi.IOOOps were .on her. territory, so why should oth~r Gov~ents not act Ïp. the same way? If th~ unexpressed contèlltion is that·they dare not raise their voices; then let us briç!ly look ~t the si~~tionin some ofthese countries. 1 , . i 1 do not wish tospe~ aboutforeign troops ïnChina or in Egypt, 'out of courtesy to our Chïnese arldEgyptian colleagues, whohavenot complained. 1 onlyw~t ta ask whether they are the. accredited spok,eslllen. of the. Chùlese seH-appointe~-advocates. .- Icannot· possiblyse~'hi)~ internàtionafp'eace arid security c~·be disturbed inthecirtunistances. Silice, às .•~ we1IImoWI1; 1 am against placing on the agenda whàt jg ,quiteobviously an unreal «:ase, 1 shaIl vote against the inclusion of this case on the agenda in the interest of ,a correct"application of the Ch~rter and· of'the dignity· ~d -st~ding of this ·Counëil. .- MT. '.. Y~I.LOSO (Brazil).. (translatt1d .trom French): I. should like first of aIl to define very déclaration nous Conseil. soviétique très souvent. que grecque par cussions dernier. socialistes l'opinion la est s'intéresse, en persuadée quelques Nations de des s'opposer menace leurs à ces droitqu demander l'inclusion du contesté tant moi-même, l'ordre savoir placée lire socialistes que qu'accentuer tère .tion, américaines je qu'il TI toire The representative of the United Kingdom and the representative of the United States are quite right to 'resist thé view that the presence of troopsof their countries on the territories where they are stationed at the request of the respective governments of such territories represents a threat to peace. The representative of Poland has spoken here in defence of the right pf Council members to requ.est the inclusion of a matter on the Cotincil's agenda. This right has never been questioned by anybody. Vve all; the, representative of Poland, the representative of Australia, and myself, have the same right ta submit matters for the agenda. But it is for the Council ta decide whether or-not such a matter deserves to b~ placed on the agenda. . - 1 now come ta the statement which the representative of the Union of Sov?~', SJcialist Republics ha$ just read. 1 am lI": cry"'') say that this document has only strengthenLr~ che impression which 1 held that'bis original proposalwas of a political nature. The representative of the USSR iD. his statement referred to the presence of American troops in Brazil. If that is what is troubling him, 1 can set his mind at rest by saying that there are no American troops in Brazil. There is not a single American soldier on Brazilian territory while 1 am speaking to you. We aU know the history of how B:çazilian bases were used by American air forces during the war; it is sufficiently well known;it is even one of the finer episodes of the war, for itm.l.de possible the conquest of Arrica and the invr.sion of Italy, and it greatly assisted in the liberation of EUl;"ope. Th~re has never been a shadow ofa bases caines c'estmême une des elle de l'Europe. Brazil, as a memb~ country,of the Pan-Ameri- Can Union, belongs to a regional system recog-: nized by the Charter. Let us assume for the sake of argument that there àctuaIIy was a body of American troops in Brazil and that Brazil had insisted on this occupation. According to the Charter, if a dispute had arisen as a result of this, it would have been for·the American countries to deal with the matter in the first instance, and only in the event of their not arriving at a solution would the Security Council have become CoIllpetent. That is all 1 wish to say. The PRESIDENT: 1have severa! names on the list of speakers. 1 would like to ask the members of the Security.Council whether we should continue the~discussion, which we will not be able to :finish this afternoon, or. whether we shouId adjoum until tomorrow at 3 p.m. 1 would like ta suggestthat we adjourn. until 3p.m. tomorrow. Hthere is no objection, then 1 shall consider thè suggC$tion as approved. The meeting is. adjourned until 3 p.m. tomorrow.