S/PV.72 Security Council

If there is no objection, 1 would like to suggest that we continue the discussion that we started ~'ester.day. 1 shall recognize the first speaker v;ho requested permission to speak. 1 recognize thé representative of Egypt. Mr. FAWZI (Egypt): ln connexion with the declaration of the r\~presentative of the USSR concenrlng the statiorung of Allied armed forces Mr. PARODI (France) (translated Irom French): 1 should Iike to make two observations on the statement which you have set before us in the name of the delegation of the USSR. First of aIl, 1 should Iike to caU your attention, as certain of our colleagues have aIready done, ta the fact that, in the text which you subrnitted to us in writing, for the first time three weeks ago, the delegation of the USSR was not basing its statement on any specifie article of the Charter. Sorne of us wondered, at any rate l, for my part wondered, as did my Govemment, what particular juridical grounds the delegation of the -qSSR had for raising the question. Although you did not, at that moment, quote a specific Article of the Charter, you seemed to be referring to a number of articles as a whol€; for one passage of your written statement referred to Chapter VII of the Charter. This chapter comprises a number of provisions, sorne of which concern an act of aggression, a breach of the peace or a threat to the peace, others the military measures, particularly the preventative .measures, which the Security Council is caIled upon to take in order to assure the maintenance of peace in the world. My Govemme:lt wondered if your written statement did not refer to these last provisions. You have aIready been asked to give some explanations fi this regard; this request was made of you, in the course of yesterday's meet- .ing, by the representative of the United Kingdom. You were kind enough to give an explanation; but, to tell the truth, your explanatidn shifts the juridical grounds on which we thought -at least 1 thought-you had at first based your position. The exphinations given yesterday indicate that the delegation of the USSR meant to refel, not to Chapter VII, but to Article 34 of the Charter which appears in Chapter VI; they have modified and transposed the grounds on which we thought we stood. In view of this change in the juridicàl basis, the reflections which we had been able to make on the USSR statement referring to Chapter VII of the Charter have been rendered unnecessary. In reality we have since yesterday. been confronted by a question which appears'in a different light from that which we, " or l, had anticipated according to the written la tenant ticle pitre posé trouver. ment faire portant rendues sommes apparatt 1 must say straight away that, in my opinion, the question at issue does not for this reason fail ta come under the terms of Article 34. 1 do not think that this Article ought to be understood onIy in the sense of a yery definite and specific situation concerning a given country. It seems to me that a 'situation', in the sense of Article ~4, may he a state of affairs which extends, as in, the case before us, ta several countries; or, sha:J. we say, that it is not because the ~uestion raised by the USSR delegation is broader in scope than those which we usually examine, that it does Ilot, for that reason, constitlite a 'situation' and that, if it threatens the peace of the world, we ought to abstain from dealing with it. An exceSsivelynarrow interpretation of the Charter in regard to this matter would involve a dangerous limitation of the powers of the Security Couneil and would not in reality correspond to tlle duties incumbent upon us according to the terms of the 'Charter. ln the observations submitted yesterday by certain members of the Security Council, and in the explanations which they gave, 1 notice a numher of points which, to tell the truth, struck me as rather disquieting. Concerning these 1 wish to make certain reservations. It has been saià that the USSR statement ought to he dismissed because ït is of a political nature. Indeed, wè are a political body and the questions of which we have to take cognizance are essentially questions of this nature. It is our task to consider them according to certain ruIes which are essentially rules of procedure designed to enable us to consider them objective1y, with due concem for justice and the maintenance of peace. But the fact still remains that the questions with which we are dealing a.~e definïte1y of a political nature. 1 am somewhat disturbed aIso by what has been said concerning the propagaridist character attributed to th.e USSR statement. 1 realize that some questions set before us may be submitted solely in the interest of propaganda. We should, 1 think, be very' cautious in the interpretation we give, from this point of view, to the questions set before us. The prejudgrnent of the reasons for which a question ~ brought before the Security Council is certainly a very delicate matter. In the case with which we are concerned at present, the Mere fact that the troops are stationed in certain foreign countries with the consent of the governments of these countries does not, in my opinion, constitnte a reason for summarily dismissing the examination of the question raised by the statem{:nt of the representative of the USSR. 1 recall that in the case of the Iraman affair, to which the representative of the Netherlands referred, the Security Council, if 1 renl(:mber rightly, took precisely this stand: certain situations may deserve to continue to be examined by the Council, even whe..t'l the country which lodged the complaint in the fust place has withdrawn its complaint. In that affair, the representative of France was of a different opinion. 1 think that if 1 had had .the honour of sitting in the Security Council at that time, 1 sh'Juld have shared bis point of view. But in the case before ~1S, which constitutes a 'situation' in the very broad sense of the term, 1 think that the consent of the Governments on whose territory the troops are stationed cannot, à priori and in every case, suffice to ruIe out the examination of the situation in question. Still another reason for dismissing the statement submitted by the USSR delegation, a reason which was given yesterday, is that the situation in question would not involve a threat to the peace. This is a basic question and in my opinion it would not justify, à priori, the dismissal of the examination of the question. Only after studying it thoI'Oughly should we be able to say whether or not it constituted a threat to the peace. . 1 think .that the question before us ought then, by its nature, to come under those with which the Security Council may have to deal, according to the terms of Article 34 of the Charter. sommes cadre avoir' Charte. ment qu'elle nous sommes . un terrain de l'Article en demande j'étais délégation VII; demande questions n'en en elle It seenlS to me that the question which has thus been raised, precisely because it is extreme1y broad in scope and because it is different, in the exact sense of the term, from those with which we have been dealing until now, sets before us a problem which is really new. This question, considered in the light of Article 34, cannot be regarded merdy as a request for information. That is how 1 was tempted to regard it when you referred to Chapter VII; one might have thought that it concerned questions such as those coming within the competence of the Military Staff. .The question before us is, in reality, one of extreme importance. ·It is c1ose!y connected with the liquidati<?n of the consequences of the war. wodd~ and a cause of UD~asiness and anxiety. At the present time, most international problems are necessarily affected by the fact that no final settlement has been reached regarding the peace treaties. Every question that has been brought to the attention of the Security Couneil since it was estabIished last January, has been affected by this facto This circumstance, perhapll, accounts· for the inability of the Council to r~a:ch constructive decisions in such cases, as it is difficult to envisage any agreement in the Secunty Council, while no agreement has been reached among the great Powe~ on other leveis. The Security Council will be unable, in my opinion, to deal with a case like the one now before us exclusively on its own merits, as if it were a case unrelated to the main international issues being debated at the Peace Conference in P~, and among the Foreign Ministers of the great Powers. Not.until agreement is reached among the Allies, not until alI peace treaties are legally concluded, and the probleIns of the transitional period between war and peace have been overcome, can one conceive that the Security Council will find itself in a position to deal with a question without reIating it to the discussion of the issues of said transitional period. The Security Council was really meant to .function with unimpaired efficiency, not durhg a period preceding peace, but alter. Otherwise, it would be extremely difficult, as our experience of nine months of not very successful debate shows, to avoid that certain questions be brought to the attention of this Council with the purpose of furthering national points of view in relation to the peace settlement:J and that the debates of such questions might be used to that end. It ;S d.oubtful whether the Security Council has been so far a centre of harmony, and whether it has contributed fI) avoid or ta solve situations of international friction. As long as the great Powers are unable toagree on the main international post-war problems, the Security Couneil, in discussin':{' certain questions, may not succeed in perfotming its functions, but, 1 am afraid, will contribute to emphasize and accentuate the dift'erences among said Powers, and without harmony and co-operation among them, the United Nations cannot suceeed in its highest and paramount purpose of maintaining peace and security. uneasin~and anxiety of the world todaYJ which, as 1 have said have as a main cause the Jack of a complete accord among the great Powers. For these reasons, 1 believe that this is not an opportune moment for the Councii ta approve the request for information which has been placr.;d before us. Mr. HSIA (Cm..lla): The Chïnese delegation is opposed ta the inclusion of this matter on the agenda of the Security Council for severa! reasons. These reasons can he simply ccated. In the first place, we linderstand that the representative of the USSR sought ta place the matter on the Ceuncil agenda under Articles 34 and 35 of Chapter VI of the Charter, which authorize the Security Counci1 to investigate any dispute or any situation which might !ead te i..'lJ.ternational friction. ft has been shown that the presence of British and American troops in the severa! countries is for legitimate purposes and has the consent of the countries concerned and has not heen a matter of mystery or international friction or complaint. In the second place, our delegation fails to see the purpose of the proposed enquiry and still Jess the usefuIness of a discussion of it by the Security Council. We feel certain that the Go'\'- emment of the USSR or any other member of the Council would have no illfficulty in ùbtaining the desired information through diplomatie and other numerous channe1s hetween AIlied Govemments. For these reasons, the Chïnese delegation thinks it wise and prudent for the Couneil not to take up the matter. It is not my purpose to enter into the substance of the proposaI, but since the representative of the USSR has made reference, in bis statement yesterday, to the presence of United States troops in China, the Chinese delegation is constrained to make a few general remarks on the subject. The presence of American troops in North China is ta carry out certain missions and to assist the Chfuese Govemment in the discharge of certain responsibilities towards the defeated t:nemy; for example, ta restore lines of communication and to help disarm and repatriate large numbers of enemy soldiers and nationaIs. Whether or when the small contingent of American troops has completed its mission is a matter entirely for D'Ày Government and the United States Govemment to decide. The Cmnese delegation, in passing: denies any allegation that the presence of American troops .constitutes a situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute. The Ml'. LANGE (Poland): As was to be expected, the discussion on whether the item should be included on the agenda or not turned into a discussion of the merits of the case. It is quite clear that when a member of the Council brings a point on the agenda, and doubts exist among the other members whether the point is of sufficient importance to be includcd on the agenda, he must enter into the merits of the case. It is rather more surprising to hear the members who said that the question shot,ùd not be included on the agenda and consequently not discussed before the Council, go themselves, sometimes in great detail, into the merits of the case which, in their opinion, should not be discussed. My Government has certain views on the very proposais which are before us, but 1 shall not present them at this stage because 1 believe that what we do discuss, or in any case should discuss, is the question of the inclusion of the item on the agenda. The question before us seems to us a very important one, because it is the question of the very right of a Member of the United Nations to approach this Council and to be heard by this Council. This is a fundamental righi:, in our opinion, of a Mcmber of the United Nations, and not a question of political convenience, not a question as to whether it is politically advisable todiscuss this question now or not. As to the question of political convenience, our views may differ and are bound to differ, as in any political body. Therefore, the question of the rightof a Member State to be heard by the Council cannot be left to considerations of political cOllvenience. 1 only want to point out the consequence to which such an attitllde would lead. The consequence is this: the minority of five members of the Council, (and there are eleven in the Council, the minority of five members of the Council) may thus prevent a Member State from having its case heard before the Council. 1 think that this would be a very dangerous consequence which woulG undermine the confidence of the United Nations in the Security Council. FinaIly, if it should happen that aIl the five permanent members get together and make up \'heir minds not to aIlow a case to be heard before the Couneil, discussion can he prevented. Where would the smaller.nations stand then? It is reaIly a mast dangerous practice which is being proposed here by some of the members of the Security Couneil. This danger can be avoided only if we recognize the fundamental right of every Member nation to be heard before the Couneil. Such a right is actuaIly stipulated by the Charter, namely, by Article 35 which says, "Any Member of the United Nations may bring any dispute or any 'situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, to the attention of the Security Council orthe General Assembly". Whether something is a 'situation', as referred to in Article 34 or not, has to be decided after an adoption of the agenda, in discussing the merits of the case. It has been argued that the proposaI before us stems from politicaJ motives or that it presents an argument brought before us' for purposes of propaganda. 1 would want to 8uggest that this is one of the very, very old arguments which has been used against free speech wherever there were attempts to deny freedom of speech. It was said, "Oh, they want to use this freedom for propaganda or for political ,purposes." 1 feel that the same argument is being used, or rather misused, now hefore this Council in order to undermine the, freedom of Member nations to come to this Council whenever they deem it necessary to be heard by this Council. 1 would, therefore, want to urge this Council very much and very strongly not to take any steps which will deny the freedom of a Member nation to be heard by us. If q;rtain big Powers, which at the moment, happen to be able to marshal a majority in the Council, deny to Member nations the right to come to this Council whenever a matter is politically inconvenient for them, then die Security Council will not be able to fulfil its functions, namely, to watch over the maintenance of international peace and security. If the freedom to be heard by the Couneil is denied, particularly the smaIler nations will be boul'ld to lose confidence in the Council because they will have no guarantee that they will be able to he heard whenever itis not convenient to some of the big Powers who just temporarily happen to have a majority. For the smaller nations the Security Council will be rather a misnomer and it will be for them a Council of insr-curity. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): 1 do not intend to make a long statement, norbad The at~tude of the United States Govemment, from the inception of this Organization, has been to favour placing as·few technical impediments as possibl~ in the way of access to this Couneil. 1 think, if our record in the consideration of every case which. has been before this Couneil is carefully examined, it will he found that we were guided by that principle. We continue ta adhere ta that prirciple. In doing sa, however, Wei do not think that it.is necessary ta admit that every case or every proposition which is put before this COUij.eil by a Membt-.r Qf the United Nations is necessarily one which the Couneil is morally oound to admit for discussion; nor can we admit that because the repre- . sentative of Poland finds himself representing a minority view, the representatives of the larger Powers who are opposed ta him are for that reason exerting pressure on representatives of the countries which do not have the technicai right of \Teta'· under the Charter. 1 do not want ta argue this point, but 1 w.cmt simply to stai~ flatly that the United States representative on the Security Couneil has not attempted ta inuflence in any mannner whatsoever, directIyor fudirectly, the view8 expressed by auy memher of this Council on the subject at issue. Two of the representatives at fuis table have mentioned,speci4.cally, United States troops which are now stationed or haye been stationed in their countries. 1 did not have the slightest idea what the representatives of those countries were going to say before they said it; nor had 1 discussed t.1lls matter with either olle of them. That is a plain statcment of facto 1 got the expression of their views at the same time and in the same way in which the other members of this Couneil received them at this table. Yesterday, following the initia. 0 statement which 1 made on behalf of my Government and in which 1 gave our views regarding this particular proposal, the represeIitative of the USSR followed with a very lengthy statement which was in effect, a complete change from the pro{Josal in the original paper before us. He made it clear that 1lis Govermnent believes that the presen<:e of United States troops in various countries, of which he named ooly four, constituted a situation which was likely to create international friction and to endanger the maintenance of peace within the meaning of Articles 34 and 35 of the Charter. He made a similar charge with respect to British troops in certain countries. Tl10se charges were not set fortb in the original USSR statement of 29 August, which is the paper we DOW have under discussion to determine whether or not it should he placèd on the agenda. < 1 shaIl not he able to vote to admit to the agenda this statement of 29 Au~"1: as it is now before the Council becawe it d:oes not establish the particular clauses of the Charter under wlùch a situation said to endanger the peace is brought; nor does it ~pecifi.cally state, in any particular, the countries where foreign troops are statione.d, the countrles wlùch sent those troops, ~or the reasons why those troops in that country are a menace to international peace. Basica1ly, 1 have nothing to add to the statement which 1 made yesterday. l would like to say, however, that in point of fact, regarding the American troops now stationed outside of the territorial limits of thé United States, the United States Government has nothing to lùde. A careful check by an individual accustomed to ,cull inforniation from the ~ewspapers would, 1 think, be able to bring together aIl of the facts in regard to American troops abroad. There ru no secret about it whatever. Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): On behalf of the Australian delegation, 1 spoke briefly yesterday, largely to ask for a more precise definition of this question. 1 should now like to indicate briefly the views of the Australian Government regarding the admission of the item to the agenda. On previous occasions, when the admission of an item to the agenda has come before the Council, the Australian delegation has" always tried to discuss the matter simply as one concemed with the procedures of the Council. One of the criteria which we have applied on previous occasions, and one which we seek to apply now in assisting us to reach a cnnclusion, is to ask ourselves whether or not the item proposed for the agenda falls within the scope of the powers and functions of the Council. The functions and opowers of the Council are of course laid down in the Charter and 1 think it is beyond dispute that, no matter what any individual mer "~er of the Council may think about it, it is beyond our competence as a Council to act, except in accordance with the definite powers laiddown in the Charter to be exerçised in accordance with definite conditions. Itis not enough that wë think a matter is important and not enough eventhat Developing the .theme on the presence of .unerican troops in China, the rêpresentative of the USSR referred ta two aspects of that question. He referred firstly to certain misunderstandings which appear to have arisen at a meeting of the Ministers of Foreign MIairs of three countries; But it is not clear, nor do 1 think the representative of the USSR has established the fact, that there is actually international friction between these three countries of the kind described in Article 34 or that he is asking the Security Council to take up a possible dispute "between the three countries who are members of the Council of Foreign Ministers, or to investigate a situation arising out of the meetings of the Council of Foreign Ministers in ôrder to determine whether or not the operations of the ,Council of Foreign Ministers are likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security. What he has said about that asl?ect of the Chïnese case leaves the Austl'alian delegation still without clear and tangible evidence regard- .ing the nature of the situation which the Security Council is asked to consider. Another part of bis statement on the Chinesé situation referred to protests both from within If. wc take the second aspect of the case, the public protests by Amel'Ïca:."l pusonalities, we again say that th.erc cannat he international friction in the sense of .Article 34 as between the United States Government and political personalities in American iife and there cannŒ be international friction betweèIl the Chinese Government and those political personalities. Upon further examination of all that has been said, we still fail to find that any description has been given of a situation which is even remotely of the character requireq by Article 34. A certain aspect of our earlier statement appears to have been slightiy misundcrstood, if 1 may say so, by our French colleague. It is not the multiplicity of so-called situations to which we found our chief objection. It was the lack of definition witl'tin the fairly narrow terms of Article 34 and 1 hope that I have now managed to make that point fairly clear. For the reasons 1 have indicated, the Australian delegation will be unable to vote for the inclusion of this item on the agenda. As Amtralia is not one of the nations mentioned in the allegations and as we regard the question of adnùtting an item to the agenda as purely a procedural question, we have expressed no opinion whatever on the charges which the Soviet representative has made, but we feel that we must note as relevant to the present discussion the fact that sorne of these charges have already been denied by Governments qualified to speak. That is all we wish ta .'layas regards the question of the admission of the item to the agenda. But, there is one other matter which was raised incidentally during the course of the discussion, to wmch 1 should like to refer on behalf of the Australian Government. This is the claim, which the representative of the: USSR appears to apply Ït""l this Council, that he has sorne sort of office to speak on behalf of the peoples of Var"S countries other than his own. We noticed W~d regret during the course of the last case before this Council that this tendency was apparent, but it has become even more marked during the present case. We feel that the protest which was voiced on this subject by the representative of the NetherIands yesterday was a very timely protest and we should like ta associate ourselves with it. . The representative of the ÙSSR based his case, or a large part of his case, on such statements as ceThere is a wave of protest," or the The position becomes even more marked when we consider that sorne of the States to which he has referred are members of this Council, sitting with us, and presumably able to give immediate statements, as sorne of them have ènne, on the state of opinion in their own country. In the opinion of the Australian Government there is no occasion and no warrant for any (':JOvernment to go beyond the constitutional government of another State and attempt to speak on behalf of the peoples of that State. We feel, ourselves, not the slightest doubt that the Governments of Brazil, China, Egypt, Greece, Iraq, Iceland and Panama are fully capable of drawing the attention of the Security Council to any danger to peace and security or to any possible cause of international friction in their respective countries as a result of the presence of foreign troops. The fact that they have not so acted confirms us in the view that the judgment we have reached on purely procedural grounds not to admit this item to the agenda will not, in fact, mean any negligence by the Security Council to take cognizance of a threat to peace or any situation endangering the peace. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): Sorne of the members of the Security Council who spoke yesterday, particularly the representative ôf the United Kingdom and the representative of Australia, said that the Soviet statement of 29 August was unduly general and insufficiently specifie. In the speeches of several members of the Security Council delivered at today's meeting there were hints that the Soviet statement submitted yesterday was too concrete, since it specified particular ~ountries and gave a short summary of the situations in those countries. . What is the general content of the USSR proposals? The proposals contemplate the presentation ta the Security Council of information as to the numbers and disposition of the forces of Allied Powers and the location of military bases on the territory of the countries indicated. That is aIl that is contemplated by the Soviet proposals. The Soviet proposals contain nothing more or less than this. 1 wish to emphasize this idea particularly for the benefit of the representative of the United States of America. Here the question arises as to whether such proposals are legitimate. There is no reason to doubt that these proposals are legitimate, that they are well-founded, and that the Security Council has every right to demand such information. The duties and obligations of the Security Council are quitc cïearly defined in the Charter of the Unll:ed Nations, and they include the obligations imposed on the Council by Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. In view of the rights and obligations provided for in qhapter VII, is the Security Council not able to demand such information? Of course, Jt is fully entitled to do so. This is also substantiated by Article 24 of the United Nations Charter which reads: 1. In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf. 2. In discharging these duties the Security Council shaIl act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. The specifie powers granted to the Security Council for the discharge of these duties are laid . Yesterday Mr. van Kleffens expressed sorne surprise that this question had been raised by the Government of the USSR, and not by the Government of sorne other country. But is it really necessary now to enter into a dispute with Mr. van Kleffens, and to argue that any government or any Member State of the United Nations can bring before the Security Council 811Y question which in its opinion deseives examination by the Council? If the idea expressed by Mr. van ~ \ "' " ~~_",~""-'~_~""",""",,,"::::<?'r.~,-,;-,,:-_,,::,:~-'rc"""""."' < ~~;';:","'.!'Y"e'<"-,,'j=, >'-"""''i.'''''_?:''':~'''''_.,!':"'':'''':~;;!~'''' Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): 1 suppose that the specifie matter brought before us'is now c1osed. But perhaps 1 may he permitted to say that 1 am wondering whether 1 am the only one in whose mind a question remains unan~ swered and a doubt undispelled. That question and that doubt is whether ourproced1Ître and the rules governing it are really as good as they should he. We have the rule that a question does not automatically go on the agenda but has to he admitted to it. That non-automatic admission is, no doubt, a very necessary institution, if Memhers of the United Nations are to be protected against unwarranted charges. On the other hand, 1 can sympathize with aState that wishes to bring a charge in what it believes to he a genuine case and then sees it barred from the agenda, perhaps by a minority of five. It seems to me that in this respect our procedure is still a little too crude and too undeveloped. It will he remembered by my colleagues that sOme days ago 1 suggested the establishment, in each case, of a Committee of three rapporteurs who would report, in a provisional way, to the Council on each case submitted to the Council, the Council, and not the rapporteurs, deciding whether the case would go on the agenda or not. This would not entirely dispose of the difficulty--I am weil aware of that-but would, 1 submit, go a long.way towards solving it. 1 venture to repeat that suggestion today. 1 think this matter has shawn that sorne such measure would he very useful and very desirable. Moreover, 1 should like ta add a second suggestion ta complement the first. It is that States wishing the Council ta go into a case submitted br them should not confine themselves ta presentÏPg a more or less short note or telegram, butshould present a considelI'abiy more detailed and thorough exposé in arder that the Couneil or the ,rapporteurs, if that idea were adopted, might be able ta form a sound opinion as ta whether the case in question deserves ta be considered by the Couneil and' admitted to the agenda. The meeting adjourned at 6 p.m. SEVENTY-THIRD MEETING Held at 610 Fifth Avenue, New YQ.~k, on Thursday, 26 September !946. President: Mr. A. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) . 69. Official communiqué The following communiqué was issued by the Security Council after the meeting: "The Security Council held a private meeting today for further consideration of the final draft of the report by the Security Council to the General Assembly before its next meeting. "The report on the activities of the Security Council for the period 17 February ta 15 JuIy 1946 was unanimously approved a'ld will be made public after its circulation to the Members of the United Nations." 5EVENTY-fOURTH MEETING Held at 610 Fifth Avenue, New York, on Monday, 7 .... :tober 1946, at JO.30 a.m. President: Mr.'\.. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socïalist Republics). 70. Official communiqué The following communiqué was issued by the Security Council after the meeting: "The Security Council in a private meeting considered the draft of the special report by the Security Council to the General Assembly on the admission of new Members. Certain amendments were suggested for insertion in the second draft wmch will be prepared by the Secretariat. The revised text of the report will be considered at the next private meeting of the Council. The final text of the report will be circuIated to the Members of the United Nations after it has been approved by the Security Council."