S/PV.722 Security Council

l have only two brief observations to make. One of the speeches made this morning by one of the interested parties contained an appraisal of responsibility for past violations of the general armistice agreements. This appraisal does not accord with objective truth or with the findings of the Mixed Armistice Commission in hundreds of cases. Out of respect for tl:e atmosphere which has prevailed here until this oblique charge was made, l shal1 not go beyond this brief statement on that point. 1. que qu'il parties sabilité qui porté conclusions d'armistice pas accusation plus 2. My second observation is this: In one of the speeches made this morning, a misconception arose as to the character of the general armistice system. There are four armistice agreements, and not one. Each agreement has a separate text and a separate group of signatories. Each agreement is registered separately with the United Nations in a:cordance with Article 102 of the Charter. Each is an international 2. de s'est général. pas est d'elles nisation

Overnight l studied with care and interest the amendments introduced by the delegation of the Soviet Union [8/35ï4] and this morning l listened attentivel)' ta the explanations of the purport of these amendments gi\'en by the representative of the Sm'iet C nion. l am afraid that l am left uncom'ince:l of the merits of tht'se amendments and l would like briefiy to expiain wh)', fo!lowing the order, for convenience, in which Mr. Sobolev dealt with them this morning. 4. The first amendment he mentioned was to delete the words " and in the defensive areas " in paragraph 3 (b) of the draft resolution. l was glad to hear ML Sobolev say that he woule! not press this amendment. 5. The second amendml.nt concerns operati\'e paragraph 3 of the draft resolution which would substitute for the words "after discussion" the words "after concordance ". As the representative of the Soviet Union indicated this morning, any measures to reduce tension must be reached in agreement with the parties to the general armistice agreements, and of course l agree with that. Indeed l made it clear in ml' earlier intervention in the e!ebate on this ite n. Mr. Lodge also mae!e the same point completely clear. The intention is also implicit in the wording of paragraph 3 of the draft resolution. After aIl, in order to reach agreement, a necessary process of discussion is entailed. Where agreement is sought, discussion is essentiaI. 6. The third point was the proposaI that mention should be made of two ear!ier resolutions adopted by the Security Council on the Palestine question. l feel that the United States delegation has been very wise to select only the three more rccent resolutions aclopted by the Security Council as a basis for its draft resolution. These three resolutions were aIl agreed upon unanirnously and aIl contain practical and forwardlooking suggestions for the recluction of tension in the Middle East. The Security Council, of course, has adopted many resolutions during the l'cars when the Palestine question has been bcfore it. But in the present limited and practical context, it seems to ml' delegation unnecessary to refer to any but these three resolutions. They hang together and they form an 8. For aIl these reasons, 1 regret that my delegation is not prepared ta support the amendments advanced bl' the delegation of the Soviet Union.

On the first day of this discussion, the French delegation made a statement setting forth the basic reasons impcIIing it to vote for the draft resolution before us [S/3562 and Carro 1]. We have listened with the greatest interest and attention to the speeches made since, both by the members of the Council and by the parties concerned, but they have not changed our way of thinking. In particular, we believe that the amendments proposed by the representative of the Soviet Union [S/3574] are not needed either ta elucidate or to supplement the very c1ear text which is submitted ta our vote and which we hope will be adopted. These amendments reflect a suspicion and distrust which in our opinion are not consistent with the atmosphere of harmony and détente which has prevailed during these discussions and which we hope will develop among our countries. 10. 1 should like very briefly to deal with the amendments which ML Sobolev presented this morning in the arder in which he proposed them. 11. First of aIl, 1 think it is quite unnecessary to refer to aIl the resolutions which have been adopted by this CounciI. By citing only the three resolutions adopted on 30 March 1955, 8 september 1955 and 19 January 1956, we refer to three recent resolutions which provide for negotiations through the Chief of Staff and wc give Our Secretary-General an extremely useful programme of action which, as we are perfectly ready to admit, should fit into the framework of the armistice 13. Last1y, 1 should like to mention logic, which is perhaps France's own peculiar province. That is a word which does exist in French, as does also the thing for which it stands. 1 believe, as the President and the United Kingdom representative have said, that it is extremely difficult to put into a French sentence a stipulation requiring the parties to reach agreement on points on which they have already reached agreement with the Secretary-General. 1 believe Mr. Sobolev told us that the President described this amendment as "undesirable", and, as a Frenchman, 1 think that what is illogical is undesirable. That is why 1 do not think 1 can support the USSR representative's last amendment. 14. In the light, then, of the very clear explanations whieh we have heard from the author of the draft resolution, in the light of the statements made in this Council, and by reason of the general context of the draft resolution before us, 1 think that the differonces between the Soviet delegation and other delegations are in reality very slight. 1 would go 50 far as to say that they ha.ve no real existence, and that they are engendered by a spirit of distrust which we should banish. Tt is for that reason that the French delegation will cast its vote, purely and simply, in favour of the draft resolution as presented to us by the delegation of the United Stal~s. 15. Mr. WALKER (Australia) When we first began to debate this question the Australian delegation indieated that it regarded the United States draft resolution [S13562 and Corr. 1] as a valuable initiative, and we were hopeful at that time that it could be adopted quite rapidly as we felt that it was not a controversial one. Although it was addressed towards a very serious and difficult problem, it was our impression that 16. I should like to say a few words regarding the attitude of my delegation on the amendments suggested by the Soviet delegation [S/3574]. I must confess that at first when I found that the United States delegation was proposing to add capitals to certain words in the English text and that the Soviet delegation was proposing to remove the words "and in the defensive areas", I was a little afraid that we were running into a controversy. But, having heard the representative of the Soviet Union explain that the objective of his amendment was a clarification of the situation, an improvement in wording rather than any difference in substance, and having gathered the impression that the Soviet delegation would not be pressing that particular amendment, I feel encouraged to believe that we are moving towards a position of general agreement. • 17. It is the view of my delegation also that the other amendments proposed by the Soviet delegation do not improve the actual wording of the draft resolution. Undoubtedly it is sometimes possible to improve the wording of resolutions that are drafted in one language and that have to be translated and considered in other languages, but it was not the feeling of my delegation that the change in the wording in paragraph 3, for instance, would improve the sense and substance and cIarity of the draft resolution as it stands. Nor would we in any case have favoured introducing a reference to the earlier resolutions, and I feel that the statements made this afternoon rather strengthen the case against amending the draft resolution along these lines. 1 1 18. I rather hope that the Soviet delegation will, in view of the explanations which have been given, find it possible not ta press these particulaI' amendments. That is particularly the case with regard to the amendment to operative paragraph 1. The representative of the Soviet Union suggested that we should take out the words which suggested that Lhe situation was " such that its continuance is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security" and say instead that the situation is "unsatisfactory". My reasons for opposing an amendment of that kind are somewhat similar to those that have been stated very cIearly by the representatives of Pern, France, and the United States in the course of this discussion. I think that an amendment in that direction might have been 19. As 1 said in my previous statement, 1 think it is important that the Council should record this view, and 1 trust that the parties will take due note of the fact that this view is recorded. It is true that these words are taken from a portion of the Charter; they are taken from Article 33 which provides: "The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration ... or other peaceful means of their own choice." ln other words, these words taken from the Charter do serve as the preliminary step, as it were, to conciliation, mediation and negotiation; the draft resolution as a whole does request the Secretary-General to undertake a mission of investigation and conciliation within the framework of the armistice agreements that have been negotiated and accepted in the pasto 20. 1 very much hope that we will not be asked to vote upon this particular amendment presented by the Soviet Union because my delegation would be obliged to vote against it. 1 trust that the Coù.'1cil will be able to adopt the United States draft resolutiol' in its original form.

l should like to say a few words in explanation of my delegation's position on the amendment proposed by the Soviet Union delegation [8/3574]. 22. My delegation is prepared to support the amendment to paragraph 1 of the operative part of the draft resolution. This amendment would appear to bring the paragraph into fuller conformity with the spirit of Chapter VI, and more partieularly of Article 34, of the Charter. It also coincides broadly with the views of my delegation on the situation in the area under consideration. Moreover, in our opinion this amendment has the advantage of dispelling any possible impression that the appraisal of the situation is being prejudged pending the Secretary-General's mission in the theatre. 23. We are not, on the other hand, convinced that the other amendments suggested by Mr. Sobolev are really necessary, after the explanations given by the sponsor of the draft resolution [8/3562] and the correction thereto [8/3562/Corr. 1]. The purpose of the amendments--clarification-appears now to have been 24. We shaIl, therefore, vote in favour of the amendment to paragraph 1 of the operative part of the United States draft resolution, and abstain on the remaining amendments. \Vith regard to the draft resolution itself ml' deIegation wiI!, as 1 have already stated in the course of my previous intervention, vote in favour of it.

1 should like to make a few brief comments in connexion with the French representative's statement. Ml'. Alphand said that, in his view, the USSR delegation's amendments were largely based on unjustified suspicions and that the atmosphere was now such that those suspicions were out of place in the Council. 1 wouId not say that 1 was a particularly suspicious man, but 1 do try to foIlow the course of events. 1 do not go back in history as far as events t!Jat occurred in BibIical times or at the time of the Flood. Only today, however, 1 happened to notice a news report referring to official sources which seems to me to merit sorne attention. The text reads as follows: "At the State Department, Press Officer Lincoln White said the United States is in constant communication with the British Foreign Office on the Middle East question. He also said that the United States, Britain and France are continuing their three-Power discussions on Middle Eastern problems, although the three do not necessarily always meet together. The three-nation consultations were started as an outgrowth of the meeting between British Prime Minister Eden and President Eisenhower !Jere two months aga. The idea \Vas for the three nations to decide on the nature of the action they should take to prevent hostilities in the Middle East. " 1 26. 1 want to stress the words: "The idea was for the three nations to decide on the nature of the action they should take to prevent hostiIities in the Middle East". I~ other words, just when the Security Council is ?lscussing what must be done to improve the situation III the Ncar and Middle East and to ensure that it does not devcIop inta a dangerous situation, the Press reports 1 The paragraph was read in English. 27. 1 presume that the Soviet delegation is not the only one interested in the nature of the action contemplated by the three Pmvers, which incidentally are not Powers of the Middle East. 1 hope that sorne day the French representative, with his customary French logic, will tell us about this action and inform us when the Middle Eastern countries will also be invited to take part in the three-Power discussions of the Middle East question. 28. 1 think therefore that even this smaU item of news directl)' bears out my arguments earlier today on the need for introducing my amendment, based on the premise that the Security Council should not take far-reaching decision defining the situation in the Near and Middle East without having aU the facts at its disposaI.

As no other representative wishes to speak, 1 shall now address the Council as representative of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 30. There is, of course, nothing wrong with the United States Government's communicating with three countries --or with thirty countries-in an effort to keep the peace, and 1 note that the representative of the Soviet Union did· not say that there was anything wrong with it. The proposaI before us today is not a three-nation proposition. We hope it will soon become an eIevennation proposition. 31. In view of the fact that yesterday [720th meeting] 1 gave my arguments against the Soviet Union amendments, and in view of the fact that the objections to these amendments have been very eloquentl;; explained by the representatives of Peru, the United Kingdom, France and Australia, 1 shall not take any more of the Council's time to argue against the amendments further. 32. 1 might perhaps say that the capitalizing of the inital letters of the words "Defensive Areas" is not amendment. It is a typographical rectification. The position of the United States is still in opposition amendments. 33. Now, in my position as PRESIDENT, 1 should like to ask the representative of the Soviet Union whether he wishes to press any of his amendments to a vote.

1 should like ask for a vote on the first three amendments proposed by the Soviet delegation and on the corresponding paragraphs of the United States draft resolution. "In the first paragraph of the preamble, mention also the Security Council's resolutions of 24- November 1953 and 29 March 1955." A vote was taken by show of hands. In favour: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Against: Cuba, Peru. Abstaining: Australia, Belgium, China, France, Iran, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Yugoslavia. The result of the vote is I in favour, 2 against and 8 abstentions. The amendment was not adopted.

We now come to the second Soviet amendment. soviétiques) séparément 38. MI'. SOBOLEV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): 1 should also like to ask for a separate vote on the corresponding paragraph of the United States draft resolution. pas procédure vote de intérieur, aux consente. dispose:

1 not feel that that is the proper procedure. The time-honoured and traditional procedure is to vote on amendments first and then on the draft resolution. Under rule 32 of our rules of procedure, the draft resolution cannot be voted on separately unless the consent of the original mover is obtained. The second paragraph of rule 32 reads: "Parts of a motion or of a draft resolution shall be voted on separately at the request of any representative, unless the original mover objects. " 40. The United States de!egation is the original mover and it objects to a separate vote. It objects because this draft resolution is a whole and should be adopted or rejected as a whole. If individual paragraphs are taken out of it, the balance of the text is obviously destroyed. For that reason, the draft resolution will not be put to a vote paragraph by paragraph. Furthermore, 1 believe it is not good procedure to put simultaneously to a vote a draft resolution and the amendments to it. 40. projet s'y un Si texte projet division. cédure résolution

1 do not dispute the existence of a mie according to which parts of a proposai or a draft resolution may be voted on separately only with the agreement of its sponsor. We have 41. soviétiques) je intérieur résolution l'assentiment compte. qu'un s~ch a rule and 1 am not forgetting it. At the same tune, however, there have been many occasions when we have voted on the separate parts of a draft resolution 42. I shaH not dispute the President's ruling, therefore, l shaH merely malee a request. Could not the President as author of the draft resoJution permit us to vote separately on certain paragraphs of the draft-those paragraphs to which the Soviet Union delegation has proposed amendments?

1 agree that in the past draft resolutions have been treated in bath ways. Sometimes they have been divided and voted on paragraph by paragraph and sometimes they have been voted on as a whole. As far as custom is ooncerned, the draft resolution could be treated either way. The United States, as the mover of the draft resolution, however., feels very strongly that the draft resolution is a very carefully drafted text. The fact that the Council spent five days discussing it indicates the importance of the balance of the document. For that reason, therefore, the United States delegation feels constrained, under rule 32 of the rules of procedure, to object to a separate vote on the paragraphs. 44. We shall now vote on the second Soviet Union amendment, which reads: "In paragraph 1 of the operative part replace the words: ,. such that its continuance is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, ' by the word ' unsatisfactory '." A vote was taken by show of !lands. In fatJour: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Yugoslavia. Against: Australia, Cuba, Peru. Abstaining: Belgium, China, France, Iran, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. The remlt of the vote is 2 in favour, 3 against and 6 abstentions. The amendment was not adopted. 4·5. The PRESIDENT: The third Soviet Union amendment reads as follows: " In paragraph 3 of the operative part, replace the words 'after discussion' by the words 'after concordance '." A vote was taken hy show of !lands. In favour: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Against: Cuba, Peru. Abstaining: Australia, Belgium, China, France, Iran, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Yugoslavia. The result of the vote is 1 in favour, 2 against and 8 abstentions. The amendment was not adopted. 47. Ml'. SOBOLEV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated Irom Russian) : 1 should like briefly ta explain the reasons for my vote. The USSR delegation voted for the United States draft resolution, bearing in mind the fact that this draft-now a resolution-was acceptable to aIl the interested parties. We also took into account the United States representative's explanations, and in particular his statement that aIl the measures provided for in the resolutior! will be carried out within the framework of the armistice agreements and with the agreement of the interested parties and of the Security Council. With that understanding, my delegation was able to vote for the draft resolution as a whole. ;18. Sir Pierson DIXON (United Kingdom): l, too, should like to say a few words in explanation of my vote. My delegation from the outset supported the initiative taken by the United States delegation. Ml'. Lodge exp:ained very fully the objectives of the drait resolution he sponsored and the exact meaning of its different provisions. 1 have always understood the action the Council was bcing asked to take in thl~ sense that Ml'. Lodge has brought out so clearly. That was, 1 think, clear from what 1 said as the United Kingdom representative at the 717th meeting of the Security Council on 26 March. The mission of the Secretary- General is ta be a limited one, but that fact in no way diminishes its importance. 49. The situation in the area is very disquieting. 1 think aIl of us really agree on that. A lessening of existing tensions along the demarcation lines is, therefore, of real urgency. Admitte('ly, the Secretary- General will not be able to n:ake a success of his mission if he does not receive the wholehearted r.o-operation of the governments in that area. It was in the hope that that co-operation would be forthcoming in word and in deed that 1 voted for the draft resolution.

If no other member wishes to explain his vote, it is my privilege to calI upon the Secretary-General.

1 have listened with great attention to the discussion. The grave concern about the problems of the Middle East, which has been reflected in the debate, has prompted a unanimous decision of the Council. 1 share personally this concern and 1 feel that in the circumstances 1 should 52. 1 note that the Count.:I wants me to explore possible ways <)f reducing tension along the demarcation lines. The extent to which such an exploration is possible and likely to yield lasting results depend!' necessarily on the wil!ingness of all the parties concemed to t:o-operate fully with the Secretary-General in a joint effort inspired by mutual confidence. Assuming the task which the Council has desired me to assume, 1 trust that 1 can count on such collaboration. 53. 1 also trust that aIl those who are interested in a successful outcome of the efforts, but who are not parties to the conflict, will assist the parties and me by restraint in word and action, as without this the difficulties would be unnecessarily increased.

Before we adjoum, perhaps the members of the Security Council will forgive me if 1 express my appreciation to them and to the representatives of the parties for the tone which they have aIl given to the debate, for the high level on which this vitally important and delicate matter has been discussed. 55. To be President of the Security Council is one of the great honours that can come to a man, but for me in this particular case it is something more than an honouL It has been a very precious experience indeed to have had the co-operation of aIl of the distinguished men who are seated around this table. 1 shaH always remember it and 1 wish to express my thanks to you aIl for it. 56. Finally, let me say to you, Mr. Secretary-General, and 1 feel sure that 1 speak for everyone present when 1 do so, that as you leave on this mission you carry with you not only our good wishes and our hopes, but also our heartfelt confidence, high regard and great expectations for your success. ~~--~---~~~------------------------- Prioted in France Price: V.S. $ 0.15; 11 (or CQuivalent in