S/PV.714 Security Council

1 only wish to darify the record in respect of one observation which 1 made to the Security Couucil yesterday. It will he recalled that 1 compIained to the Council of the action of the representative of Syria in describing as Israel violations of the GeneraI Annistice Agreement 1 certain complaints which had nothing but the status of unilateral Syrian complaints. 1 believe Mr. Shukairy had referred to 568 violations, and 1 pointed out [713th meeting, par. 118] that the status of the incidents to which he was referring was that of complaints, which had no support whatever in decisions of the Mixed Armistice Commission. 1 stand by that definition, both of the truth and of bis unfortunate misrepresentation of it. However, in asserting that one-haIl of t.. >se outstanding complaints dealt with fictitious overflights over the tenitory of Syria 1 shouId have been content with saying that that was my own description of those complaints. That particular reference was not a part of General Burns' report. que Conseil. représentant liennes n'est la qué par. réalité mixte tiens erronée Cependant, syriennes 3. Mi'. BRILEJ (Yugoslavia): The Yugoslav dele- gation has followed carefully the discussion which has so far taken place in tl.e Council on the question now on its agenda. In the course of this debate, the generàl consensus of the Council on the elements of its future decision has 'become, in our opinion, even more evident. In this situation it could nonnally have been expected that it would be possible to agree on a generally accep- table text which \\Vould obtain the unanimous approval of the Council. However, contrary to this reasonable expectation, the (:ouncH has before it two draft resolutions, submitted respectively by the USSR [S/3528] and .he ::hree Powers, namely, France, the United Kinr:!op.} and the United States [S/3530/ Rev.2]. 4. 1 am afraid that the existence of these two draft resolutions and, what is even more important, in my opinion, the fallure sa far to reach an agreed text, despite the general consensus of the Council on the evaluation of the case before it, cannot he explained merely by differences in specifie fonnulations. 5. With the President's pennission, 1 shall take up some of the more essential elements in the evaluation of this case. 1 shall do 50 bath in respect of those elements on which there is more 01.' less general agreement~ and in respect of those on which there exist certain differences. . 6. There is, to begin with, no difference at all in regard to the view that the present Israel attack consti- tutes a flagrant violation of the existing agreements and of Israel's obligation under the Charter of the United Nations. The Council is, therefore, unanimQus in its stand that this attack should he condemned. 7. There is, equally, no doubt that this attack has followed upon the earlier Israel actions which the Council bas e~amined and censured. In this connexion, aU members of the Council agree that this attack constitutes a repeated manifestation of a dan- gerous policy. 'Jonsequently, we submit, there is a."oreement mat ISl'éel, on this occasion, should he told in an adequate man.'1er that, in the case of any future repetition of such actiL'l1S, the Council might have to go further in examining other measures required for the maintenance or re-establishm(...t of peace. 8. Finally, the discussion so far has demonstrated clearly that Israel is responsible for the damage callsed by this attack and that Syria is entitled to receive compensation for such damage. In this respect the 10. A further element on which there is more or less generaI agreement is the helpful proposaIs made by the Chief of Staff in his report [S/3516 and Add.J] conceming the measures which should he undeL taken with a view to preventing incidents on La~e T.iherias, and concerning also the release of the prisoners of war in generaI. In our opinion, the Council should indeed give its full support to these proposal!l and should caU upon both parties to co-operate with the Chief of Staff in his endeavours to bdng about a~l improvement in the situation on the Syrian-Israel border. With this same object in view, the CouDcil should, we beüeve, express its conviction that one of the hasic prerequisites for the rea1ization of these and other proposaIs aiming at the re-establishment of a more stable situation in this area consists of a strict observance of the General Armistice Agreement by both sicles. 11. To my delegation it seems that the degree of agreement which exists in regard to the aforemen- tioned points offers an adequate basis for efforts in the direction of finding a generaliy acceptable solution. Such a generally acceptable solution would, we helieve, correspond to a far greater extent not ouly to the desirability but, what is here more important, also to the necessity of the Council's expressing itseif finniy and unanimously a.gainst the policy of retaliation. 12. One of the points on which there still remain differences concerns the linking of the last Israel action with certain frontier incidents in which both parties were engaged. In this connexion my delegation has certain reservations to make which are .based on the following considerations. frontière sujet, 13. The policy of retaliation, in the view of my dele- gation, is in no way permissible. Such a policy should he condemned cIearly and unequivocally and in a manner which leaves no doubt that in no circumstances can it he justified. sailles être qui justifier 11. In one way or another views have been expressed to the effect that the establishment of such a link is possible and, indeed, necessary, provided that the disproportion hetween the Israel attack and the incidents which preceded it is cIearly emphasized. In this connexion, 1 fully agree with the President's state- ment that the consideration of this disproportion is "a criterion which might have been applied to rctali- l'avis incidents conclure ressortir israélienne sujet, portion 15. Furthermore, in regard to the interrelation between the earlier incidents and the case which is on our agenda now, 1 once again agree with the President that "these incidents cannot he rcgarded as falling wthin the Council's jurisdiction hecause, by their nature, they faU within the competence of the Mixed Armistice Commission rather than that of the Council" [Ibid., para. 35]. 16. In addition to these reasons, the linking of the earlier incidents with the attack of 11 to 12 December is inconsistent with the fact that these earlier incident!> -even if such linking were admissible-did not directIy predece tné attack. 17. As regards the incident of 10 Decemher, 1 have already pointed out [711th meeting] that this inci.dent is not fully relevant ta the case which is today before us. We aIl know that the MQced Armistice Commission bas not heen in a position ta examine this incident and establish the respùn..ibility for its occurrence for the simple reason that neither of the parties bas asked it to do 50. Consequentl)·, the Council could not, in my opinion, substitute itself, nor are there enough elements which would permit it to substitute itself, for tl:.e Mixed Armistice Commission for the purpose of evaluating this incident. 18. According to General Burns' report, the action of Il to 12 Decemher was preceded by a relative truce, especially .with regard ID Israel fishing activities. As for the other incidents, General Burns points out that the Mixed Armistice Commission, when it was in the position to examine them, in most cases blamed both sides for the violations of the provisions of the Genera! Armistice Agreement. 19. The linking of these incidents with the action of 11 to 12 December is not possible, therefore, without implying that the responsibility for them rests on one side only. The Council could not do this at all in the light of the decisions adopted by the Mixed Armistice Commission. 20. These considerations show very convincingly, it seems to me, that if the linking of the earlier incidents with the case now hefore us is dispensed with, then there would he no differences of substance which could not relatively easily be bridged over by common formulations. 21. In view of this more or lellS general agreement, the Yugoslav delegation bas appealed to memhers of the Council ta enljg~ their common endeavou!"S in order to reach a unanimous and generaIly acceptable decision. We have done so hecause we were and still are convinced tbat a division of the Council in this particular case might have far-reaching consequences, the more so as the differences and, indeed, the slightest variations of 22. It is, 1 think, hardly necessary to prove that such interpretations, especially in me countries of that unstable region, would he detrimental to the actual fuIfilment of the Council's desire to help create conditions under which cases of this kind will not occur again in the future. In this light, any decision adopted without the support of the Couneil as a whole, instead of he!ping ta bring about a bettel.' atmosphere and a more stabilized situation in th~t part of the world, might actpreciseIy in a reverse direction. 23. One of the dangers inherent in the division of the Couneil in this particlllar case was, in our opinion, rightly pointed out by l.-~e representative of Australia, when he spoke the other day about "a prior calcu- lation oi the likely reaction ûf the members of the Security Council" [712th meeting, para. Il]. Having this danger in mind, one cao imagine that the division in the Council in the present case, because of the spe- cifie nature of the relations in that part of the world, could lend itself to an exploitfl.tion of the disagreement in the Couneil. 24. In this situation 1 ask myself, how is it possible to expect the countries ih i:hat area to come to at least sorne agreement on their complex ,'oblems if this Couneil, primarily responsible for the maintenance of peace and security, fails to agree on such a clearly deter- mined-in fact, by its very nature if not by its conse- quences-and very simple case. 26. The negative consequences of such a development mcmbers of the Couneil, considering the special respon- sibilities which tlley have under the Charter. 26. The negative consequences of such a developpment in the Security Council cannot, in my opinion, be limited only to the aggravation of disputes in the region in qùestion. A result of this could easily intensify the divergencies between the great Powers as weIl. And aIl this, taken together, tends further to give to this whole region the typical characteristics of increased instability and a threat to worId peace. 2i. If 1 have spoken at sorne length on the necessity to have a unanimous decision in the case before us, 1 have done so bearing in mind above aIl the interests of the countries concerned in the dispute. These interests and the peace in that area as weIl, according to our way of thinking, should not be subordinated to any other considerations. The task of the Cauncil, we consider, is to examine the case, to establish the respon- sibility for it and to adopt an adequate deeision in a manner which would leave no room for any arbitrary calculation based on a division of the Counci1. 29. With all this in mind, 1 ask permission to introduce on behalf of the Yugoslav delegation the draft reso- lution [8/3536] which 1 believe i~ already in the hands of the members of the Counci~. 1'Li}e Yugoslav delegation has submitted this draft resolution in the hope that it will render possible a unanimous decision. 1 hope that this draft will he accepted in the same spirit in which it is presented; that is, as a basis for a compromise text. For us it is not, of course, important by whom the draft resolution is submitted, provided that it is accept :ble generaUy. Mv dele- gation could âgree to ar . ~!" text which was' accep- table to the Council as a who.( . 30. Ml'. ABDOH (Iran) (translated from French): ln my previous statement [711th meeting], 1 stressed the fact that the action by Israel's military forces against the Syrian positions was an act of aggression and a flagrant contravention of the United Nations Charter and of the Armistice Agreement concluded between Syria and Israel. 31. 1 also emphasized the gravity of the attack, not only because Israt:l owes its very existence to the United Nations, but aiso on account of the regrettable resu!t~ of that attack, which led to the death of many soldiers and civiIians and caused much material damage. 32. 1 said further that in view of the repeated attacks of this nature by the Governme:nt of Israel (four such attacks were made during the past two years and condemned by the Security Council), the Council should face its responsibilities and do more than issue a mere moral condemnation, which makes no impression at al! on the Government of Israel. 33. In view of aIl those considerations, my delegation 2.ccepted the original drdt resolution sponsored by the tnree Powers [8/3530 and Gorr.1] and proposed amendments to it [8/3532]. 34. In the meantime, my delegation has given much thought to the fact that a resollition is needed which could be adopted unanimously, as it considers that any division in the Council on this question might prove dangerous. 35. On this point we agiee with the representative of Yugoslavia, who thinks that such a division might not only endanger the Council's prestige and weaken its 36. T'hat is why my de!egation ventured to makc contact with the representatives of the three great Powers sponsoring the draft resolution to w~ich we were proposing amencIments, in order to find out whether an agreed compromise solution could be reached, ensuring unanimity in the Council. 37. We are grateful to the representatives of the three great Powers., who have been most understanding and submitted a revised text [8!3530/ Rev.2] in which they have sought to define the scopeijf the fourth paragraph of the preamble of their draft rerolution by adding to the operative part a paragraph to the effect that the Council "HJlds that this interference in no way justifies the Israel action." 38. 1 should like to point out, in that connexion, that my deIegation still thinks that it would not be appro- priate to insert in our draft resolution any reference to interference by the Syrian authorities with Israel acti- vities on Lake Tiberias; not only is there no confimntion of such interference in the reportll of Gener.ll Burns, but it would not be right to treat a iarge-sr..ale attack by Israel in the same way as alleged lnterferences which could have been dealt with by the Mixed Annistice Commission, the, competent organ in such cases. 39. However, as we are anxious to find a solution acceptable to aU, we. have agreed to make further concessions in order to come doser to the point of view of the three Powers. It is in that spirit that we have withdrawn our original amenJments [S/3532] and replaced them by new amendements [S13537]. 40_ My delegaticn ,vas struck by t..~e fact that the fourth paragraph of the preamhle as it stood might prejudice the :fu;hing, navigation, watering and other rights recognized by previous agreements which the Government of Israel is bound to respect under General Assembly resolution 181 (Il). That is why, in our new amendments, we are proposing that the' text of the fourth paragraph of the preamble should he amended to read as follows: .. Noting also, without prejudice to the ultimate rights, claims and positions of the parties, that refe- ïcnce ha~ been made in the reports of the Chief of Staff to interference by the Syrian authorities with Israel activitics on Lake Tiberias, in contravention of the terms of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Syria." 41. Similarly, we are suggesting the insertion, in paragraph 7 of the operative part, of the words 43. It was also my intention te ~ubmit a'1 amendment for the purpose of congratulating the Syrian Gov- ernment on the moderation it had shown in the matter of the attack launched by Israel. However, as it is not customary to insert such a paragraph in the body of resolutions of this kind adopted by the Security Council, 1 have refrained from doingso, for 1 believc that the President will himself wish to make such a statement at the appropriate time on the Council's behalf, since the Council has shown that it ;~ lm:>nil.~""~ on this point. 44. 1 earnestly hope that the sponsors of the joint drait resolution will make a further effort, show a deeper understanding and accept the amendments 1 have submitted. If the amenclments are accepted, my dele- gation ",:-ill note with catisfaction that the Counci! firm!y condemns the aitack ûf Il Decernber 1955 as a flagrant violation of its resolution of 15 July 1948 [8/902], of the tenuS of the General Armistice Agreement bet~een Israel and Syria and of Israel's obligations under the Charter. 45. The faet that in its resolution the Counci! wi!! unequivocally state that should Israel fail to comply with its obligations, it will have to consider what further measures are required to maintain or restore the peace, has also given us some satisfaction. My delegation believes that the only interpretation to be placed upon such a provision is that, if I~rael commits further vio- lations on the same scale, the Council will consider applying Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, as would be normal in such a case. 46. We would certainly have preferred the adoption of a stronger resolution than that with which we shall perhaps end the final phase of our discussion. In order to achieve a compromise, however, my delegation is prepared to support the three-Power draft resolution, while hoping that our amendements will be adopted. 47. The members of the Council cannot fail to have noted that my delegation has abandoned that part of its amendment .n which it suggested that the Security t~ sorne members of the Council. But my delegation would like to point out that that does not mean that wc have any doubts as to the responsibility of the- Government of Israel; we hope that that Government will of its own volition propose the payment of apprc- priate compensation, as the representative of China suggested [ïl2th meeting, para. 8]. 48. In conclusion, 1 should like to appeal to the Government of Israel to shovr more understanding in ils relations with its neighbours and above aIl relinquish its polie)' of resorting to force. 49. FinaUy, 1 think 1 cannot express my thoughts better than by quoting the wise words uttered by the representative of Belgium when he condemned the Government of Israel's use of violence: "The policy of reprisaIs, if continued by Israel, would only have the effçct of building up a wall of hatred around it, and it is open to question whether a smaIl State could continue to survive if such conditions were to persist." [711th meetin~, para. 65]

The discussion of Syria's complaint against Israel in connexion with the attack made bv Israel armed forces on Syrian territory on Il December 1955, which is now before the Council, has shown that aIl the members of the Council have reached the same conclusion, namely, that the Israel armed forces carried out a whoUy unwarranted invasion of Syrian territory and thereby violated the terms both of the United Nations Charter and of the General Armistice Agreement between Syria and Israel. 51. Israel's responsibility for the attack on Syrian territory is also emphasized in the report of the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization [S/3516 and Add.l]. 52. In aceordance with the obligation to mai•.tain peace and security imposed upon it by the Charter, it behoves the Security Council to take a decision in which it not only condemns the actions of Israel, but also issues a serious warning to the Israel G<..vernment that any repetition of such actions could bring about a very grave situation requiring the Security Council to consider the question of the application of Article 39 of the Charter. A number of representatives have pointed out in the Council, in view of the fact tha.. the State of Israel, since the very first days of its existence, has pursued a threatening policy towards its neighbours, the Security Counci! cannot confine itself merely to noting the facts. It must issue a very serious warning in order to prevent the continuation of such a policy. That is essential for the further reason that 53. 1 should like to draw the attention of memhers of the Council to the fact that. in his statement yesterday [713th meeting] the repr~sentative of Israel, Mr. Eban, showed the same tendency to question the decisions taken by the Security Council and thus to detract from their importance. Thi, is the only possible explanation of Mr. Eban's attempt to impute ta the Council and ta certain of its members a jack of objectivity in taking decisions on complaints referred to the Security Council. A statement of this kind should he deplored, in view of the fact that it refers ta an organ which is called upon ta promote ~he maintenance of peace and security in an parts of the world, including the frontiers htween Israel an? the Arab States. We have no doubt that Mr. Eban s statement reflecfs only his personal opinion. 54. As we have already stated, the Soviet delegation considers that not ooly should the attack by Israel armed forces be condemned by the Security Council, but that the decision taken by the Council should contain a warning to the Government of Israel. 55. The draft resolution submitted to the Security Council by Syria and the Soviet Union [813528] contains snch a warning eypressed in clear terms; to he precise, our proposaI does not exclude the possibility that any repetition of such action by Israel will lead to the considêïatiûn of the application of Article 39 of th Charter. We believe that such a warning will help to strengthen peace in that area. 56. We should like to know whether sponsors of the three-Power draft resolution [8135301Rev.2] consider that, in the event that Israel again took action similar to the attack on Syrian territory in the '.ricinity of Lake Tiberias, such action should lead to the consideration by the Security Council of what they describe as "measures... required to maintain or restore the peace", and that these measures should include the possible application of Article 39 of the Charter. If that is the case, and we consider that that is our common point of view, this should be reflected in the Council's resolution. 57. Several representatives have referred in their statements to the restraint shown by the Syrian Government with regard to the incident of Il December. The Syrian Government did not aggravate the clash in the neighbourhood of Lake Tiberias, but submitted its complaints to the Security Council, thus following the course prescribed in the Charter for the settlement of disputes. We consider that this restraint on the part of the Syrian Government should be noted in whatever decision the Security Council adopts. 58. 1 should like to dwell on another important question, that of the payment of compensation to Syria for the damage it sustained as the result of the attack 59. It is true that sorne speakers have referred to the damage and ta the fact that the Security Couneil has technical difficulties involved in determining the damage and to the fact that the Security Council has no appropriate administrative machinery to supervise the payment of compensation. But we are not at present discussing the machinery for the payment of compensation; we are only saying that the Security Council has the right and duty to find that Israel has an obligation ta pay Syria compensation for damage caused by the attack by Israel armed forces on Syrian territory. The Cou.,cil can refer the question of determining the machinery for payment and the procedure for determining the damage ta another organ. It is now concerned with a political decision; it has ta state the principle that compensation must be paid for damage suffered. 60. We consider that the absence of any provision for the payment of compensation is a serious defect of the three-Power draft resolution. 61. 1 must also point out that despite what bas 'leen stated during the discussion, that draft resolution contains a provision which can he interpreted only as an attempt to place on Syria at least a part of the responsibility for the invasion of Syrian territory by Israel armed forces. 62. Is this not borne out by the terms of the fourth paragraph of the preamble? The Security Council is discussing a specific incident-the invasion of Syrian territority by Israel armed forces on Il December. There is therefore absolutely no justification for including in a resolution condemning Israel for the incident of Il December a paragraph noting "interference by the Syrian authorities with Israel activities on Lake Tiberias", or a following paragraph asserting that "this interference in no way justifies the Israel action ". (3. Th\:: ipc1usion in the draft resolution of provisions absolutely unrelated to the attack c.arried out by Israel anned forces on the night of Il ta 12 December is incomprehensible. It is particularly unwarranted in view of the fact that the report of the Chief of Staff cIearly indicates that the responsibility for the incident of Il December rests wholly with Israel. If we consider further that the facts reported in the Chief of Staff's report show that the invasion by Israel armed M, Tht' indusion in tll(' dmft l'l'solution of tll(' Western POWCI'!I of 1\ pnrn/{rnph dt'I,ling with 1'('SPOIllIibility of Syria is cmnplt'tl'Iy inwmprel1l'nsibh., ('(msidl'rinJ{ Ihnt Syria wall ilst'tr the vÎl'IÎm of 1111' nltlu'k, a!! l'llllfirmt'd br thl' fll"11I l'l'pmll·(\. 65, 'Nt' t'annot "Moclatt' omst'lvl'8 with Ihl' ('lforl8 of Ihust' ddt'gations which an' llnxious 10 find SOIIll' way of .. <'OunlerpoL.II(" thl.' lu~ts of Isracl nnd Syrin in l'Onnexion with tht' incidt'nt ~lf t t Decemhl.'r, (i6, l'hl' Soviet delegntion l'llllsidcrs Ihat the drnfl Ilo'solution submittt-d by tlll' United Slnlt's, the Unill'd Kingd(l\1l llnd Fmm~e has Il umnbel' of serious defcl'ts, whkh 1 hnvc just uutlÎnt'd. ln the form in which it is nuw bcfore the Coundl, Ihat drnft cnnnot help to PI't'vl'nt 1\ repclition of 1I11acks by Islï1d nrmed foret's on tht' tl'I'l'itory of Amb cOllntries. This fnct dt,trnnines tilt' nllituùt' l,f our ddq~ntion towards this ùmft resolution. 67. Wc considt'I' thnl. with Ihe additions Pl'Op()~l'd by the Soviet delegatÎon, the pl'Ovisioll!l contained in the Syrian dmft resolution l\r(' in accordance with tht' fact~ and \Vith the Scclll'Îty COllncil's task of lI\ainlaining peacc and srcurity, 68, A dralt resollltion of the YUgOSlllv dl'Iegation [S/3536J was submittcd for the Council's consideration shortly hefore this meeting, and the Soviet delcgation has not yet had an opportunity of studying il. 1 cano say, however, that this proposaI dCllcrves the most serious consideration, as docs the expIanation given by the Yugos1av representative in introducing il. The Soviet delegation rcseryes the right to stail' its position on the Yugos1av draft resolution at a later stage, wlH'n it has had tùl1e to study it. 69. Ml". ALPHAND (France) (translated Irom French): The delegation of the Unitcd States, the United Kingdom and France have been in contact with the !ranian representative, as he has just mentioned. They have listened very carefully to his advice and exp1anations, and they have studied the pro?,sals he bas just put before us. 70. 1 should like to say that we very much appreeiate Mr. Abdoh's efforts to find a fonnula likely to create the greatest possible measure of agreement in the Council. We have ourselves-I am speaking of the three delegations-from the very beginning of the debate, both in drafting our proposaI and in amending it, already tried to present the Council with a text acceptable to aIl. That was our object. Wl' have also tried to do ail in our power to incorporate the fresh suggeuions made by the represel1tative of Iran [Sj.'J5,17]. 1 am glad to he able to say, on behalf of 71. 1 Rhould Iikc now ln l'der in dl,tail to the fourth l'ara/{raph of thr pl'camhlr and paragrnph 7 of thr opl'I'lltivr part of thl' draft rl'Rolution to which MI'. Abcloh would likr 10 makI' ('l'rtain am{'ndrncnts. 72. Thl' 1raninn rqJl'csl'ntatiw's arnendrn('nts in tll(' ftrst placl' intl'oducl' Il r('!ll'I'vation r{'garcling tl1l' rights, daims llnd pORÎtion!l of thr partirs. Paragraph 2 of article 1t qf tll{' Gcnrral Armisticr Agreement mnk('s a spI'cifil' l'rsrl'vatÎon r{'garding thrsc rtghts, c1aims and positionR. ft is trul', morcover, that thr Security (:OIl1ldl, in taking fi decision on violations of the AnnistÎrl' Agreeml'nt, must apply that agreement and has no power to nltrr uny of its provisions. Conse- 'llll'ntly. parngruph 2 of article II !"rtains its full forcI.' in ronnrxion with decisions of th{' COllnril. 7:·t Wc do not think; thrrd(lrc; Lh~t il il: ahllOluff'ly i1I'cl'ssary to introduc(' in a draft J'('solution a l'I~servation which gors without saying. That was why wr did not, in the first place, think of making !luch a rI'sel'vation. Wc arc perfectly ready, however, to acccpt it in principle-I am glad to he ablr to -say thill on l)phalf of thr threr dl'Jrgation!!----in order to mai-" the tei\t more aœeptahle to ail. As a Frenchman has saiel hefore me, what gOl'S withollt saying might p('rhaps go l'ven bctter if it wl'rl' said. 74. But there is one point whirh mURt be made dear. TheR(' ultimate rights, claims ancl positions of the parties arc, in our view, non(' other than .. the rights, daims and posÎtÎonR of eithcr Party hereto in the ultimatl' peaccful settlement of the Palestine question" referred to in articll' II. paragraph 2, of the Israrli- Syrian General Annilltice Agreeml'nt, thl' tenns of which 1 haVI' jURt quoted. J think that is what the rl'pn'sl'ntative of 1l'an has in mind. 7S. The amendment submitted by MI'. Abdoh to the fourth paragraph of the prcamble to the draft resolution contains a second part which, to our great regret, Wl~ arc unahlc to acccpt. The representativc of Iran suggcsts that, instcad of saying that "there has been interference by the' Syrian authorities with braI'! activities on Lake Tiberias ", we should confine ourselves to stating that rcfercnce has been made in Gl~neral Burns' report to interfercncc by the Syrian authorities with Israel activities on Lake Tiberias. 76. Wc do not think that a mcre refcrence to General Burns' report is enough in this connexion. That report has becn submitted to the Security Council for its information and approvaJ. It is on the basis of that report that the Council is condemning Israel and endorsing General Burns' opinion on the quest=..... If, with rrference to Syrian interference, the (;L.,ncil confines itself to noting that there is a reference to it in the report, without endorsing General Burns' opinion, it would seem that, by giving a different treatment to that part of the report, wc are seeking to sorne extent 78. In order to make the matter peIfectly clear, 1 should like to re-read the text we would propose as an addition to the fourth paragraph of the preamble, to take account of the lranian representative's request. We would say: " Noting also, without prejudice to the ultimate rights, daims and positions of the parties, that, according to the reports of the Chief of Staff, there has been interference bv the Svrïan authorities with Israel activities on Lake Tiberlas, in contravention of the terms of the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Syria." 79. In addition, we should be prepared to add to paragraph 7 of the operative part, after the words "Lake Tiberias", the words "without prejudice to the rights, claims and positions of the parties." 80. 1 should like to draw the Council's attention to the concessions which the three Powers are now making in order to bring about unanimous agreement. These concessions are the last we can make with the exception of those which the representative of the United Sates is just about to propose. We must, 1 think, bear in mind the facts which gave rise to the Syrian complaint. We must maintain a fair balance between the parties. Someone said, not long ago, that that balance was not fair. 1 would like to recaIl that in our text we fonnally condemn Israel and that, although we note that there has been interference on Lake Tiherias, at the same time we state that, according to the reports of the Chief of Staff, we consider that there was no justification for Israel's reaction to that interference. 81. 1 would make an appeal to ail who are here. We we have appointed and in whom we have confidence-we promote private interests in the part of the world we are DOW considering, one which is of SUCh importance for the maintenance of peace in generaI. From the facts submitted to us by the Chief of Staff-whom we have appointed and in whom we have confidence-we should draw objective conclusions; we should not make use of them as a convenient springboard for propaganda. 82. Our draft resolution ail it has been amended, thanks to the very helpful contribution of the lranian representative, expresses the essential principles 1 have just set forth, which should guide the Security Counci!. 84-. Of course wc want unanimity because we are after all, "united" nations, but we also want justice, and that is why we have confidence in wbmitting modifications of, and counter-amendments to, the amendments which have been put forward today.

The United States delegation associates itself with the tenor of the remarks made by the representative of France with regard to the !ranian amendments [S/3537] to the fourth paragraph of the preamble and operative paragraph 7 of the three-Power draft resolution. 86. The question of prisoners, wich is raised in the third lJ~ragraph of the Iranian amendments, was one that had not heen discussed earlier by the members of the Council in this debate. The sponsors of the tripartite drait resolution agree, however, that the retention of military prisoners by both parties is bound to lead to further friction and misunderstanding, and we are therefore prepared to accept an addition to this draft resolution and suggest that the wording he modified to read as follows: . " CaUs upon the parties to arrange' with the Chief of Staff for an itï1mediate exchange of aH military prisoners." That changes the proposaI so that it covers both sides.

First, 1 wish to say that 1 associate myself with and agree with the statement just made by the representative of France with regard to the Iranian amendments to the fourth paragraph of the preamble and to paragraph 7 of the three-Power draft resolution, and also with the statement just made by the representative of the United States with regard to the new paragraph which the representative of Iran would like to see added between paragraphs 7 <lnd 8 of the draft resolution. 88. 1 should like to mention one other poi.nt. The representative of the Soviet Union, in hisstatement this afternoon, raised a question on an important paragraph in the three-Power draft resolution. That is paragraph 5, which calls upon the Government of Israel to comply with its obligations, "in defauIt of which the Councii will have to consider what futher measures are required in order to maintain or restore the. peace." 89. According to the note which 1 took of bis remarks titis afternoon, Mr. Sobolev said that he would like to know whether the sponsors of the three-Power draft resolution considered that, in the event of a recurrence of acts on the part of Israel similar to the attack on Syrian territory on the night of 11 to 12 Decemher, this ~. May 1 recr l1 that, in introducing the three- Power draft resolution in its original fonn on 12 January, 1 said" that "if another attack of the same kind were to he launched, a still graver situation than now confronts us would arise" [71Oth meeting, para. 37]. My view as expressed then, and the view which l, naturally, hold no, was that, if the Government of Israel failed to comply with its obligations in the future, the Council would have to consider what further measures were required under the Charter to maintain naturally, hold now, was that, if the Government of 12 January 1 did use the words "under the Charter". 91. That view, which was shared by, 1 think, everybody round this table, was reflected in paragraph 5 of the operative part of our draft resolution. It is true that paragraph 5 does not contain the words "under the Charter", but there is no particular significance in the fact that thos. won.~ :'..ce not included. Naturally, the Ser" :::-:ty ('<luncil would act under the Charter. It can onl" consider such measures as are provided for by the Charter, and of course the possibility of the consideration of the application of Article 39 is in question. It would, 1 submit, he redundant and unnecessary for the sponsors to modify their draft te include any specifie reference to the Charter in this paragraph which, quite clearly and unmistakably, lays clown that the Council, in the eventuality in question, wûuld have tü oonsidei' whàt lurther measures were required ta maintain or restore the peace.

1 should like to make a few remarks in connexion with the statement made by the United Kingdom representative. 93. In clarifying the meaning of operative paragraph 5 or the three-Power draft resolution, Sir Pierson Dixon told us that, by "further measures required to maintain or restore the peace", the sponsors of the draft resolution had in rnind measures provided for in the Charter. If that is 80, and 1 have no reason to doubt what the United Kingdom representative says, the correct course would seem to he to include a statement to that effect in the draft resolution. Paragraph 5 would then read : "Calls upon the Government of Israel to do so in tha future, in default of which the Council will have to consider what further measures provided for in the Charter are required to maintain or restore the peace." 94. 1 consider it important to state this in the draft resolution, for a very simple reason. The three-Power draft resolution refers bath to measures which are provided for in the Charter and to measures which are not provided for in the Charter. It is self-evident that the Charter does not enumerate aIl the measures which the Security Council may we in a given case in order to maintain or restore the peace. 97. It therefore seems ta me that, if the co-sponsors really have in mind measures provided for in the Charter, there is every reasan for them to state this expressIy in their draft resolution. The resolution would then carry much more weight and would become much more definite, since it would give the Security Council instructions for the future; it would indicate how the Council should consider a giyen action or situation in the event of non-observance of this Council decision. 98. 1 would therefore ask the three sponsors of the draft resolution whether they would indicate in their draft that what is meant here is measures provided for in the Charter. 99. Ml'. LODGE (United States of America): Sorne of the reprcsentatives around the table have questioned me conceming the precise. meaning of the language which the three Powers propose concerning the exchange of aIl military prisoners. This word "exchange" does not mean exchange on a one-for-one basis. The language is "exchange of all military prisoners" That means just what the language implies, that all prisoners shall be set free and retumed. It is in that broad and nonnal, non-technical, sense that the language is used. 1 wish to make that statement sa as to set at l'est any doubts as to what we intended.

1 have considered what the representative of the Soviet Union said in his second intervention on the point which he 101. 1 frankly think, as 1 explained before, that it is not necessary, and indeed redundant, to introduce any reference to the Charter, for the reason which 1 gave, which is that the only measures the Security Council can consider in fact are measures under the Charter. 102. 1 am authorized by the two other sponsors, the representatives of the United States and France, to say that we are agreed to add sorne words. We therefore propose to insert the words "under the Charter" in paragraph 5 of the joint draft resolution, hetween the words " measures " and " are required ". The phrase would then read : "...will have to consider what further measures under the Charter are required to maintain or restore the peace."

1 should like to thank the representatives of the three great Powers for accepting sorne of the amendments 1 proposed.. 1 would, of course, have preferred ail of them to he accepted; speaking quite frankly and objectively, 1 still think, as a jurist and without any prejudice, that the Iranian amendment gives a more accurate reflection of the situation with regard ta Lake Tiherias as it emerges from General Burns' report rs/35161 and from the supplementary report [8/3516/Add.1]. 104. 1 consider that neither the report nor the supplementéL.j· report ~+ablishcs t..'J.c fact t..~at the Sl'riaa~ Government has interfered with the activities of the Government of Israel on Lake Tiherias. 1 am honest1y convinced that no such interference took place and 1 should like to hear me opinion of other members of the Council on this subject. 105. Nevertheless, since we are seeking a compromise, 1 should not like to make a definite pronouncement without having time to think, for it would he in the interests of the Council and of peace in the Middle East if we could adopt a draft resolution unanimously. Speaking for myself, 1 shall do everything in my power to achieve such a result. It is with that end in view that 1 would ask the President to adjourn the debate, in order that we may consider the counter-amendments proposed by the three great Powers. These amendments are very important and might alter the structure of the fourth paragraph of the preamble, so that 1 should like to study them at leisure before making any definite statement.

1 understand the representative of Iran to he requesting the adjournment of the meeting. But, from the reasons which he g~ve, 1 received the impression that what he had in mind was a brief suspension. 1 would therefore venture to ask the representative of Iran for how long he wishes the meeting to be suspended.

We now have before us a fonnal proposaI for the adjournment of the meeting until tomorrow. The motion is open for debate. 109. Ml'. LODGE (United States of America): 1 quite understand the desire of some representatives to have a chance to reflect on this afternoon's proceedings, although all the points cO·.1cerned have been before us for sorne time and are therefore points with which we are quite familial'. 110. 1 would suggest that it might be appropriate for us to take a recess now and resume the meeting at 8 o'dock this evening. By that time, the Secretariat can have had aH these changes prepared, we will then he able to deal with the matter very expeditiously and finish it up. 111. Ml'. ABDOH (Iran) (translated Irom French): 1 have no idea how long it will take me to study the counter-a!nendments. 1 should certainly prefer to have until tomorrow te think about them. In any case 1 shaH cornply with the general wish of the Council and, if the majority of the members decide to have another meeting tonight, 1 shaH not oppose such a decision. 1 can, for my part, see no objection to concluding the examination of this question this evening. 112. However, the Council has before it a formaI proposaI made by the Soviet representative. If 1 am not mistaken, according to the mIes of procedure this proposaI should be put to the vote. 1 think this would he the best solution. 113. Ml'. WALKER (Australia): ln view of the willingness of the representative of Iran to make an effort to consider these amendments within the next few hours, 50 that we may be able to meet again this evening, 1 should like to express the view that the Council might accept the suggestion that we recess now and resume our deliberations this e:vening. 1 think it would he very advantageous if we found it possible to complete our consideration of this matter today. 114. Ml'. SOBOLEV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): 1 ~i1ould like to cxplain why 1 consider il advisable t.a adjourn t.he meeting until tomorrow. It must he borne in mind that at today's mef'~.mg, which began at 3 p.m., the sponsors of the. three-Power draft resolution submitted a number of amendments, and that some modifications were proposed to the Iranian representative's amendments. The latter representative has not yet told us whether or not those modifications are acceptable to him. That is the first consideration. 116. Moreover, the Security Council has already been considering this question for a month, and 1 think it would he inadvisable for us to take a hasty decision. There has been an attempt, however, ta bring about such a hasty decision by proposing t.ltat we should hold another meeting today, in a few hours' time. In view of the fact that the Security Council has aIready heen considering this question for a month, a delay of a few more hours, in order to give careful throught to the àecision it has to take, woulà not be excessive. 1 wouid therefore ask the Security Council to adjoum the meeting until 3 p.m. tomorrow.

1 do not wish ta make a formaI proposai, but 1 wonder whether it would not he possible ta find a compromise hetween the position of the representative of Iran and that of tlte representative of the Soviet Unïon-namely, ta hold a meeting tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. 118. The PRES!DENT (translated trom Spanish): The rules of procedure make no provision for amend· ments in such cases, but 1 would ask the representative of tJ1C Soviet Union if he a:cepts the a..-nendment proposed by the Yugoslav representative.

The representative of Yugoslavia is quite in oroer in proposing a compromise of this sort. For myself, 1 would propose that the Council should meet at 10.30 this evening.

ln any case 1 should like the representative of the Soviet Union to tell me whether he wishes his proposaI ta he put ta the vote in its original form, unless there are any other representatives who wish ta speak on the subject.

We aIl, of course, bow to the decision of the majority in such rnatters. 122. 1 would ask the Security Council to give us an opportunity for reflection until 3 p.m. tomorrow, but if this request is not acceptable for any reason, 1 shaH of course have to he satisfied with meeting at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

1 now put to the vote the proposaI of the USSR representative th~!; we meet tomorrow at 3 p.m.

1 shaIl put the other proposais to the vote in the order in which they were submitted. The first is the proposaI of the United States representative, 10 the effect that we meet tonight at 8 o'dock. The United States representative has the floor.

In order to meet the convenience of some members of the 1 Council, 1 would amend my proposaI in the following way: that the Council should meet again at 8.30 this evening.

We shaH now vote' on the proposai that we should meet tonight at 8.30 o'dock. A vote was taken by show of hamIs. In favour: Australia, China, France, united Kingdom of Great Britain and Northem IreIand, United States of America. Against: Union of Soviet Socialiat Republics. 1 slavie. Abstaining: Belgium, Cuba, Iran, Peru, Yugosiavia. The remIt of the vote was 5 in favour, 1 against and 5 abstentions. The proposal WQS not adoptttd, having failed ta obtai", the affirmative votes of seven members.

As the proposaI bas not heen adopted there is no need to vote on the remaining proposais. The meeting is therefore adjoumed until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow. proposition saire nous The meeting rose at 6 p.m. FINLAND - FINLANDE: l<auppa, 2 Keskuakatu, FRANCE : Editions A. Paril V'. GERMANY - AU.EMAGNE Kaisemraae 49, FnaIdurt/MaiD. Buchhandlunl Elwert 101. BerJiD.Schllaebeq. A1eX&Dder Hom. Spielld;aue w. E. Saarhach. G.m.h.H hande!. GereonsUtwe. AVSTlUA - AUTRICHE : Gerold 1: Co•• GrabeD 31. Wi. J. B. WllIIentorll'. Bool< Impon and Subsaiption Apac:)I. Markus Sittikuaatraae 10. Sa1lrJlœz. BnGI1JM - BEt.GJQUE : A;cnœ et Messqeric. de la Preae. S.A.. 14-22 rue du Penil, Braelles. W. IL Smith &: Son, 71-7S bd A1oIphe-Max. lInuI1eL GREECE - GRtCE : Sladion S:reet, Atitem. BOUVIA - BOUVIE: Lihrerla SeJecclones, Ilmpresa Edilora U La R.ez6n"• Cuilla 972. LaPa. GUATEMALA: Soc:iedad Edf. Briz, Do. 2M. 6aAv. City. HAm Max Bouchereau, velle ". Bolle poslale UAZIL - BIl.ÉSIL : LiYl'llria AiÙ'. Rua Mcü:o 98-B. caiu Postal 3291. Rio de J-u.>. D.F.; et à Sio Paulo et Belo Horizonte. HONDURAS : Libreria Fuente. TepclpIpa. e.utBODIA - CAMBODGE : Paoelerie-L brairie IIoUYeUe, Albert Portail. 14 av. Boulloche. hoa-P.... HONG KONG Swindon Road, Kowlooa. CANADA : The R)IClIOn Press. 299 Queen Street Wal, T_. Ontario. ICELAND - ISLANDE Eymundsonnar. Au.tuntteti CEYLON - CEYLAN: Tte Auoc:iated Newspap<:rs of Ceylon, Lld•• Lake HoUlC, P.O. Box ut. ~bo. INDIA - INDE: Orient J\emhy. Maùaa and "'n Slatione:y Company. Sclndla P. Varadachary &: Co., Madru 1. CHlLE - CHILI: Lihreria Ivens. CasiUa 20S Sudqo. Edkoria1 dei Pactfico. Ahumada S7. Saalic~. INDONESIA - INDONtstE gunan, Gunung Sahari aDNA - CHINE : T'ne World Book Co.. Lûl•• !/li. 0IU118 KiIta Roacl. lit Section, 'iajpeh. Taiw&Q. IRAN :" Guily". 482 IRAQ - IRAK : MaekerWe's seDen and Slationers. SIIaqhi. COLOMilIA - COLOMBIE : Librerl& AIIlâica. Sr. Jaime Navano R.. 49-S8 C&IIe SI. MetIeIIbI. Librerta Budtbolz GlI1I:rIa, Av. Jimâlez de Quaada ll-4ll. Bocoti. I.11lftda NadonaI, Ltda•• 20 4e Julio, San Juan s-. 8arnDqdIa. ISRAEL: Blumstein·s Bookstores. Raad. P.O.B. 4154. Tel ITALY - ITAUE: Sanslmi. Via Gino Capponi JA!"AN - JAPON, Maru1l:D Nichome. Nihonbashi, P.O.B. COSTA RICA : Treios Hcnnanos, Apartado 1313. SuJ'" LEBANON - LIBAN: Beyrouth. CZECIIOSLOVAJOA - TCHtCOSLOVAOUIE : Ceü:oI1oveneky Spisovatel, Nlrodnl Trlcla 9. .... CVBA : La Casa Bel... Reœ de Smedt, O'RelUy 4!5eLaJl....... LIBERIA: Mr. Jacob and Front Streeta, MOlJI01'ia. LUXEMI»OURG: I.1"brairle Guillanme. Laxeœbolll'Co DINMAItK - DANEMARK 1 Mean. Einar MlIlIbp.vd, Ltd.. Norrepde 6, KobeDltam. MEXICO - MEXIQUE: IllIlllcio Mllrise«l41. Mexïœ, DOMINICAN REPUBUC - RlPUBUQUE DOMINICAINE: LlDn:rla Dominlc:ana, Calle Men:edls 49. Aparlado 6~6, Ciudad TnjiI1o. NE'I'HERLANDS - PAYS-BAS: Nijholf. Lanae Voorhout NEW ZEALAND - The United Nations Auoeiation G.P.O. 1011. Wellingtoa. KCUADOR - tQUATEUR : Ubrer\r, Cientlfica Bnmo Moria, CuiIIa 362, GuaJqdI et a Qnito. !lGYPT - tGYPTE : I.1"bra1r1e U La Rtmaiuance d'J!Dpte ". 9 Sbaria AdJ)' PuIta, Cairo. NORWAY - NORVtGE Forlq, Kr AuCUSUIrt 7 Orden rom COfIIItr/~$..1tu~ ,ak$ Q6nJU ",-",~ 1101 y~t hem appolnud nuJ7 he $nJt 10 Salai Sec:tM.. EIaapeu 0fJke of the United Nalio.. , Palail ... Na&.. GENEVA. Strilllerland. or S.. and CirallatioD Seetioa. Uni:ad NatioOl NEW YORK. U.S.A. Printed in France Price: :s U. S. 0,25; Ij9 (or equivalent in other