S/PV.776 Security Council

Before we proceed to the adoption of the agenda, 1 should like to pay a tribute to the retiring President of the Council, Mr. Sobolev, the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. He presided with his usual ability and distinction over the important meeting at which the Security Council recommended unanimously the admission of Ghana to the United Nations. I should like, on behalf of the Council, to express to him our sincere thanks. Welcome to the representative of Iraq

It is my great pleasure to welcome to the Council table Mr. Mousa Al-Shabandar as representative of Iraq. Mr. Al-Shabandar will be weIl known to many of us through his distinguished career as a statesman and a diplomatist. He has twice occupied the position of Minister of Foreign Affairs of his country and is nôw, of course, his country's ambassador in Washington. On behalf of aIl of us, 1 bid him a hearty welcome.

1 thank the President very much for his kind words. 1 am very happy to represent my country in this high Council. 1 shall he still more happy if 1 can contribute in any way to a friendly, smooth solution of the problems which we have today. Sue~ Canal (Item 28 of the list of matters of which the Security Council is seized) (8/3817)

The Council will recall that the representative of Egypt was invited to take a place at the Council table during meetings of the Council in October 1956 concerning the question which is again before the Council today. Accordingly, with the consent of the Council, and if there is no objection, 1 shall proceed to invite the representative of Egypt to participate in the deliberations of the Council on this matter. At the invitation ot the President, lvlr. Omar Loutfi, representative ot Egypt, took a place at the COllncil table.

We are now ready to begin discussion of the item on the agenda. The Council has before it a letter from the representative of the United States of America [8/3817/Rev.1], the Declaration of the Government of Egypt on the Suez Canal and the arrangements for its operation [8/3818] and a letter from the Secretary-General to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Egypt [8{3819].

It will be recalled that the Security Councillast met to consider the item before us on 13 October 1956 [743rd meeting], when it unanimously adopted, with the concurrence of Egypt, a resolution [8/3675] enumerating six basic requirements that 'should be met in any Suez Canal settlement. It was also agreed, at the suggestion of the United States [743rd meeting, para. 111], that the Council should remain seized of this important matter. The Council thus has a continuing interest in this subject. 7. For those reasons, and in light of the re-opening of the Suez Canal, the United States believed it appropriate to request a meeting of the Security Council. On its part, the United States wishes to report briefly to the Council its views regarding the régime proposed for the Suez Canal by Egypt. No doubt other members of the Council will also wish to express their views. ln this way, the Council can take note of the situation regarding the Suez Canal. . 8. Late in March 1957, the Egyptian Government transmitted to the United States, among certain other Governments, a memorandum containing a set of proposaIs to govern the operation of the Suez Canal. The Government of Egypt requested the United States to comment on its proposaIs. In response to this request, the United States, without any mandate to represent other users of the Canal, made a number of suggestions to the Egyptian Government. These suggestions were designed to facilitate an effective and generally acceptable international agreement in conformity with the 9. The Declaration of the Egyptian Gover:nment on the Suez Canal has 1l0W been circulated to the members of the Council. Egypt has requested that its Declaration should be registered with the United Nations, and the Secretary-General has done so. 10. The United States has aJ.ready expressed its views in detail to the Government of Egypt regarding the Egyptian Declaration. In our view, the Declaration in its present form does not fully meet the six requirements of the Security Council. A fundamental difficulty lies in the fact that there is no provision for" crganized :lo-operation ", which is the phrase used in the exchange of correspondence between the Secretary- General and the Egyptian Government, of 3 November 1956 [8/3728]. In view of this lack of provision for organized and systematic co-operation between Egypt and the users, there is no assurance that the six requirements will in fact be implemented. 11. Perhaps no final judgement can be made regarding the régime proposed by Egypt until it has been tried out in practice. Therefore, any de facto acquiescence by the United States must be provisional, and we reserve the right to express ourselves further on this matter in the future. 12. Obviously, there remain a number of practical arrangements which will have to be worked out in giving effect to the Egyptian Declaration. The salient practical fact is that the question of whether confidence aming the users of the Canal can be established will depend on the manner in which the Egyptian Declaration is carried out in practice. Pending settlement with the Universal Suez Maritime Canal Company, and in view of the possibility of double jeopardy, United States vessels will be authorized to pay Egypt only under protest, as has been the case since last July. 13. We think that both the interests of Egypt and the interests of the users would be served if the arrangements for the Canal and its operation were such that Governments and private concerns could base their economic and business plans on the assumption that there would in fact be, as there should be, free and non-discriminatory use of the Canal at aIl times by the ships of aIl nations. 14. Finally, we believe that the Council should remain seized of this matter while the system proposed by Egypt is given a trial.

Sorne representatives on the Council have notified me of their desire to speak. It would, however, 1 think, be in accordance with our usual practice if 1 asked the representative of Egypt whether he wishes to make a statement at this stage. 17. My Government also wished to acknowledge with gratitude the efforts of the States and peoples of the world who contributed to the restoration of the Canal, and in particular, of the United Nations, whose exertions made it possible for the Canal to be cleared in a short time. 18. 1 should like to recall the statement made by the Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs before the Council on 8 October 1956 [736th meeting], when he said that Egypt, whkh had consented to the construction the Canal, had sacrificed in that arduous undertaking thousands of its sons, who had lost their lives digging that great sea-lane. Egypt gave security, encourr,gement and money, and, above aIl, gave its pledge to keep the Canal open for international navigation, a pledge which it has scrupulously respected to this day. 19. The Egyptian Government has always made great efforts to ensure freedom of navigation through the Suez Canal and has always respected and complied with the Convention of 1888,1 the purpose of which was to ensure that freedom. Members of the Council will remember that after its nationalization the Canal remained open to shipping as usual and continued to operate without interruption. A record number of ships had passed through it without any complications up to the time of the attack on Egypt. 20. In fact, the .Egyptian Authority which had taken over from the former Canal Company succeeded in ensuring fully the operation of the Canal, despite aIl the obstacles placed in its way, to which 1 see no reason to refer to-day. 21. On 24 April 1957 the Egyptian Government submitted to the international community a Declaration on the Suez Canal and the arrangements for its operation, in the interests of peace, international trade and relations between States. 22. That Declaration, made in fuifilment of the obligations assumed by the Egyptian Government under the Convention of 1888, took into account the resolution adopted by the Security Council on 13 October 1956, in conformity with the interpretation placed on that resolution by the Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs in his statements before the Couneil. So it is in accordance with the provisions of the Convention and of the Security Council resolution - as is clear from my Government's letter to the Secretary-General transmitting the Declaration and requesting its registration - that that document has been published. 24. 1 do not propose to go into aU the details of the Declaration, which has been circulated to members of the Council and which they have had an opportunity to study. 1 shaU simply draw the Council's attention to the main points in tlùs Declaration, which, in execution of the Convention of 1888, is in our opinion in conformity with the principles set forth in the Security Council resolution of 13 October 1956. 25. Paragraph 1 of the Declaration reaffirms the Convention of 1888, and Egypt reaffirms its firm purpose to respect the terms and the spirit of the Convention. In the same line of thought~ in paragraph 3, the Government of Egypt declares that it is more particularly determined " to afford and maintain free and uninterrupted navigation for aU nations within the limits of and in accordance with the provisions of the Constantinople Corrvention of 1888 ". 26. In paragraph 3 (b), the Government of Egypt undertakes that any increase in the current rate of toUs within any twelve months, if it takes place, shall be limited to 1 pel' cent, any increase beyond that level to be the result of negotiations, and, failing agreement, shaH be settled by arbitration according to the procedure set forth in paragraph 7 (b). 27. Thus in a spirit of conciliation Egypt has agreed to have recourse to arbitration, even in the event of a dispute concerning an increase in the rate of toUs. 28. In paragraph 4, the Government of Egypt ~eclares that the Canal will be operated and managed by the autonomous Suez Canal Authority. It also declares, and this 1 must emphasize, that it " would welcome and encourage co-operation between the Suez Canal Authority and representatives of shipping and trade ". 29. Under paragraph 5, the Suez Canal Authority is to establish a Suez Canal Capital and Development Fund into which 25 pel' cent of aU gross receipts are to be paid. That is a greater percentage than was aUocated by the former Suez Canal Company for the development of the Canal. 30. Similarly, in connexion with the Canal Code, which embodies the regulations governing the operation of the Canal, Egypt undertakes to have recourse to arbitration in the event of any alteration in the Code or any dispute. 31. 1 should like to draw attention also to paragraph 7 (b), which provides, inter alia: " Complaints of discrimination or violation of the Canal Code shaU be sought to be resolved by the complaining party by reference to the Suez Canal Authority. In the event that such a reference does 33. 1 would also draw attention to paragraphs 9 (a) and 9 (b). In paragraph 9 (a) we agree that " disputes or disagreements arising in respect of the Constantinople Convention of 1888 or this Declaration shall be settled in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations". ln paragraph 9 (b), the Government of Egypt states that it is prepared to have " differences arising between the parties to the said Convention in respect of the interpretation or the applicability of its provisions... referred to the International Court of Justice ". 34. From the foregoing, and above aIl from the paragraphs to which 1 have drawn attention, it is clear that this Declaration by the Government of Egypt respects the provisions of the Convention of 1888, which will continue to be applied. 35. In our opinion, this Declaration is also in conformity with the Security Council resolution of 13 October 1956, and accordingly with the six principles laid down in that resolution, even with the third principle, the most delicate, which provides that the operation of the Canal should be insulated from the politics of any country. It is common knowledge that during the debates in the Security Council that principle gave rise to difficulties with respect to its interpretation and future methods of application. In fact, the Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs said before the Council on 13 October 1956: " Sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 1 is aimed at providing for what it calls the insulation of the operation of the Canal from the politics of any country. It is my delegation's view that, to begin with, this expression is rather unfortunate as weIl as misleading, and allows scope for various and contradictory interpretations. We believe that the real insulation of the Canal from politics would best be guaranteed by a solemn and internationally binding commitment in the form of a reaffirmation or renewal of the 1888 Convention - either of which, as we have already declared, is acceptable to the Government of Egypt " [742nd meeting, para.44]. 36. It is true that this point, which, as Mr. Dulles said [738th meeting], was the crux of the matter, was bound to raise difficulties of interpretation, the more so since at that time there was agreement on the principles but not on the means of application, as many representatives who took part in the debates in October 1956 stated in the Security Council. 37. Nevertheless the Declaration takes those principles into account, along what we consider very sound lines. That is clear, in the first place, from the attitude of the Egyptian Government, which, following on the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company, handed 38. With regard to the other points in the resolution of 13 October, I think it would be hard to deny that the Declaration of the Egyptian Government has taken them into account. In a spirit of conciliation and in its concern that the Canal should continue to be a public service of which the whole world is free to take full advantage, the Egyptian Government, anxious to contribute to the prosperity of world trade, decided ta make the Declaration you have before you. \Ve made chis decision despite the tragic events which occurred after the Security Council had considered the question and adopted the resolution containing the six principles. Those events and the attack on Egypt have not caused the Egyptian Government to change its attitude. We are still in favour of freedom of navigation through the Canal. We still respect. the provisions of the Convention of 1888. We shall faithfully carry out the Declaration we have just made public. In that Declaration we have tried in aIl good faith to find an answer to the various questions concerning the maintenance and development of the Canal. We are sure that the international community will appreciate the efforts -ove have made to that end and the purpose which we have set ourselves, namely, that the Suez CarraI shaH continue to he an international artery, meeting aIl the demands of trade, international co-operation and peace. We shaH do our best in aH good faith to see that the arrangements for the management of the Canal are fully applied and the details clearly defined. We are confident that with the co-operation of the parties concerned we shall be able to succeed in our task, in the interests of trade and of the international community. 39. 1 reserve the right to reply, if necessary.

I have listened with the closest attention to the account just given by the United States representative of the negotiations which his Government has undertaken in Cairo. We have been follow:ing the negotiations with great interest, and I should like to make the following preliminary comments on behaIf of the French Government on that statement, on the unceasing efforts made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations during the last si>' 'onths, on the Declaration of 24 April 1957 made t ·.r .He Government of Egypt ~oncerning the Suez Canal and the arrangements for It,s ?per~tion, and on the remarks just made by the distmgUlshed representative of Egypt. 42. When, in September 1956, we brollght before the 1 Security Council the question of the situation created by the unilateral action of the Egyptian Government in putting an end to the international administration of the Suez Canal [734th meeting], our object was to bring the Council and the main user countries to take part in negotiations which we hoped would lead to satisfactory international agreement and establish new system giving the users the same safeguards as \Vere provided by the contracts between Egypt and the Universal Suez Maritime Canal Company as confirmed and crystallized in the Convention of 1888. Egypt had upset the equilibrium established under that system by nationalizing the Universal Suez Canal Company. 43. In its resolution of 13 October 1956 [5/3675], the Security laid down the six principles by which, in its opiIùon, any settlement of the Suez question should be governed. Throughout November and December 1956, the Egyptian Government repeatedly expressed its intention to l'esume negotiations on the basis of those six principles. 44. Since the organization charged with clearing the Canal began operations at the beginning of January 1957, more than four months have elapsed which might have been usefully devoted to those negotiations. Let us admit frankly that these four months have been wasted, as far as. any such negotiations are concerned. 45. The system of operation of the Suez Canal, as established under the concession granted to the UniversaI Suez Maritime Canal Company, \Vas confirmed by the Convention of 1888. It ...vas the outcome of international agreements, and hence could be modified only by a new international agreement, not by a unilateral declaration, even one registered with the United Nations. 46. Thus, the equilibrium which prevailed under the former system of operation as a result of the agreements concluded between the Egyptian authorities and an international body has been upset and has not yet been restored. Consequently, the six principles contained in the resolution of 13 October 1956 are not being respected in their entirety, so that the resolution itself has remained inoperative, although under the Charter of the United Nations the decisions of the Security Council are binding on aIl Members of the United Nations. 47. Indeed, with respect to several points - the most important ones as far as the users are concerned - the Egyptian Declaration does not cons"titute a practical implementation of the six principles, as has already been noted by the United States representative. Thus, the principle of freedom of passage through the Canal, which was expressed without any reservation in the 48. Most of the other provisions of the Declaration are so vague that while they can undoubtedly be linked up with the six principles, the most cursory examination makes it clear that in themselves they provide no safeguards whatsoever. 49. If, for example, we consider paragraph 3 (b) of the Declaration, we see that the tolls are not to be increased by more than 1 pel' cent pel' year except as the resu.lt of "negotiations " and that, failing agreement, recourse is to be had to arbitration. But what kind of negotiations are they to be? With whom will they be held - with Governments or private companies? By simple majority, or on the basis of the tonnages represented by the parties? \Vhat points will be covered by arbitration? AlI these questions are highly important, and the answer will determine whether or not the system of tolls conforms to the spirit of the feurth principle of the resolution of 13 October. As the Declaration is worded at present, the provisions of paragraph 3 (b) offer only an apparent guarantee against increases in tolls and charges. 50. Similarly, the wording of paragraph 5 (c) does not provide any clear-cut guarantee in conformity with the letter and spirit of the third and fifth principles, concerning the use of funds for the development of the Canal. 51. The same comment can be made with respect to alterations in the Canal Code dealt with in pangraph 6 of the Declaration. 1 note in particular that this paragraph does not explain by whom - whether States or companies - alterations to the Canal Code can be challenged or complained against. 52. The same comment applies with respect to the expression "complaining party" in paragraph 7 (b). 1'0 what does this refer? Moreover, if the Declaration constituted a definite undertaking, it ought to read: the question " shall ", rather than " may ", be referred to an arbitration tribunal. 54. Paragraph 7 (b) speaks of an arbitration tribunal composed of three members. However, this tribunal is not to be a standing body. It is to be constituted in each instance. No time-limit is prescribed for the various stages of its constitution, and unfortunately, experience shows that unless machinery of this kind is designed to start functioning more or less automatically it is clumsy, cumbersome and ineffective, even if both parties are acting in good faith and have a sincere desire to reach a settlement. As a matter of fact, we nota that Egypt itself has planned, in its Declaration, for further appropriate arrangements in this connexion. 55. 1 now come to the vital provisions of paragraph 9 of the Declaration. By merely stating that disputes arising in respect of the Convention of 1888 shall be settled in accordance with the Charter, paragraph 9 (a) would enable the Egyptian Government at any time to plead its territorial sovereignty over the Canal if any States should invoke the freedom of passage established by the of 1888. The meaning of the text here should be defined more exactly. 56. And what is the exact scope of the following sentence in paragraph 9: cc The Government of Egypt would take the necessary steps in order to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in conformity with the provisions of Article 36 of its Statute?" If the Egyptian Government wishes to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in the cases envisageà in the Declaration, all it has to do is to make a declaration to that effect, as laid down in Article 36 of the Statute of the Court. Is it to be assumed from the words used here - "would take ", a future or a conditional - that Egypt has made such a commitment? Apparently not, since the Secretary- General has not sent us the document stipulated in paragraph 4 of Article 36. Then what is the meaning of this future or conditional commitment? In order to '- . 58. In the light of the preceding facts, it is clear that this Declaration, in its present form, does not furnish any guarantee whatsoever, with respect either to free transit through the Canal for aIl nations in accordance with the Convention of 1888 and the first and third principles of the resolution of 13 October, or to co-operation between Egypt and the users in accordance with the fourth principle, or to the development of the Canal in accordance with the fifth principle, or to the settlelhent of unresolved questions between the Universal Suez Maritime Canal Company and the Egyptian Government in accordance with the sixth principle. The Declaration would therefore have to he amended and expanded before it could be said to be in keeping with the intentions expressed in paragraph 10. '-' 59. What, then, is the real valu; of this Declaratio~ at the present time? We are told that it constitutes an international instrument which will be deposited and registered \Vith the Secretariat of the United Nations: However, a unilateral declaration, even if registerecl, obviously cannot be anything more than a unilateral aet, and we must draw the conclusion from these findings that just as the Declaration was issued unilaterally, it can be amended or annulled in the same manner. .....;. 60. Consequently, where are the guarantees? In our opinion, such guarantees will be forthcoming only if the Council decides to continue negotiations, in a form and under conditions to be determined, for the purpose, to begin with, of settling the provisional operation of the Canal on a contractual basis, and then later of 1efining the system of permanent operation by means of an international instrument. ft is obvious that only sllch an agreement can provide, with due regard for Egyptian sovereignty and the best interests of the 61. Ml'. NUi'rEZ PORTUONDO (Cuba) (translated tram Spanish): The Government of Cuba is giving careful study to the letter dated 24 April 1951 addressed to the Secretary-General by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Egypt transmitting the Declaration of the same date made by the Government of Egypt regarding arrangements for the operation of the Suez Canal. ln view of the importance of the letter, the need for certain clarifications, and the fact that the essential background information had to be obtained - aU this between 24 April and today - we have not been able to reach a definite conclusion regarding the document. 62. At aU events, the Suez Canal is now open to trame; this is a blessing as far as international trade is concerned. It would also seem that the Government of Egypt is more favourably disposed towards an agreement on navigation through the Canal. This, we feel, is important. 63. Cuba has unswervingly maintained that the right -of free passage through the Suez Canal must be guaranteed to vessels of aU nations without any discrimination, open or disguised. Furthermore, in the Security Council, ffiY delegation voted in favour of the six principles, which in our opinion reflect the unanimous opinion of tbis body, since they were approved without a single dissenting vote. My deiegation therefore considers it essential that the desire to reach a peaceful solution which is fair to aIl parties should now be put into action. 64. Having studied the Declaration made by the Government of Egypt, the first thing we note with interest is the proposaI that any problems arising with regard to freedom of passage through the Canal, the manner of operation, or disputes with users of the Canal should be settled by the International Court of Justice or by an arbitration tribunal, aIl parties undertaking beforehand to accept the decision of these bodies. 65. We are of course aware that this Declaration would have to be converted into an international instrument. Declarations made by Governments last only as long as the Governments themselves, whereas treaties, ratified by parliaments in accordance with constitutim;f\l provisions, are obligatory for the entire period specitied in the treaties. 66. In any case, l repeat that we cannot give a final opinion on the question, and l think it would be fair to say that the manner in which the Suez Canal is operated in the future will be the most important factor in determining the Cuban Government's position. 67. Ml'. ROMULO (Philippines): As a Member of the United Nations, and more particularly of the Security Council, the Philippines is interested in a peaceful and equitable solution of the Suez Canal question. 69. When the Council adopted the resolution of 13 October 1956, it was understood that the Secretary- General would continue to encourage further interchanges between the Governments of Egypt, France and the United Kingdom; since the initial ones have been quite fruitful. Indeed, the exploratory talks between the Secretary-General and the Foreign Minister of Egypt were of such a nature that the Secretary- General felt dutY bound to report the result thereof to the members of the Council as " a significant further development in the consideration of the matter" [813728]. Unfortunately, the conversations so auspiciously begun were interrupted for reasons of which we are a,ll aware and which l need not belabour here. The conversations have only recently been renewed. 70. l should like to join those who welcomed the initiative of the United States Government in pursuing further talks in Cairo. My Government also welcomes the readiness with which the Egyptian Government responded. Although the talks apparently did not result in an agreement between the two Governments, they proved useful in the elaboration of certain points in the Egyptian position. The fact that the talks were held is in itself an important step. At best, they indicate that negotiations have not been entirely ruled out. 71. The Philippine Government desires to make the following preliminary remarks on the Egyptian Declaration deposited for registration with the Secretary- General on 24 April 1957, which, in our opinion, is a unique document. 72. My delegation attaches special significance to the covering letter of the Foreign Minister of Egypt, which refers to the Declaration as having been made by the Egyptian Government "in fuifilment of their participation in the Convention of 1888, noting their understanding of the Security Council resolution of 13 October 1956 and in line with their statements relating to it before the Council " [8/3818]. 73. It is recalled that when the Foreign Minister of Egypt accepted the third of the six principles adopted by the Security Council on 13 October 1956, he expressed the belief that "the real insulation of the Canal from 74. Sorne members of the Council have expressed the view that on first examination the Declaration does not seem to meet fully the requirements of the Security Council's resolution of October 1956. An opportunity should be given to the members to study the document more thoroughly and to consult with their Governments so that they may be able to give the Council the benefit of their considered views. My delegation, for one, has not had that opportunity owing to the short time that has elapsed since we received a copy of the Declaration. It is also likely that further clarifications may be forthcoming from the Egyptian Government. 75. Secondly, we should take advantage of aIl the elements that make for a full discussion of any honest difference of opinion that might arise, which is essential before any decision or concensus in the Council can be reached. 76. On the other hand, the Declaration itself indicates the need for further negotiations when it envisages the study of " further appropriate arrangements that ::lould be made for fact-finding, consultation and arbitration on complaints relating to the Canal Code" [5/3818, para. 7 (d)}. So the idea of negotiations in sorne form or other is also implied in the desire of the Egyptian Government for "continued co-operation with the nations of the world in advancing the usefulness of the Canal" [ibid, para. 4]. 77. It may be that prudence would dictate that the arrangement proposed by the Egyptian Government should be regarded merely as de facto or interim measures by the other parties, pending such final or definitive settlement as might be effected with their agreement, but if in practice the rights of the users of the Canal are adequately safeguarded according to the pledges of the Egyptian Government as measured by the yardstick of the six principles enumerated in the Council's resolution of 13 October 1956 [5/3675], it seems to my Government that it really would not matter much by whatever name we caU the present preliminary arrangements. By and large, my delegation is confident that the provision for reference to the International Court of Justice of any differences arising between the parties as to the interpretation or applica- 78. There are, moreover, provisions for compulsory arbitration on such a wide range of subjects as the increase of tolls beyond the level of 1 per cent within any twelve months, any alteration of the Canal Code which affects the principles and commitments of the Declaration and complaints of discrimination or violation of the Canal Code unresolved by the Suez Canal Authority. 79. Apart from the offer made before the Council on 8 and 13 October 1956 [737th and 742nd meetings] that the Egyptian Government would be willing to pay compensation to the shareholders of the former Suez Canal Company according to the average value of the shares during the first five years preceding its nationalization, or if it were so desired, according to the rate in the Paris Bourse on the day before nationalization, there is provision in the Declaration for arbitration according to established international practice on questions of compensation and claims arising out of the nationalization. The obligations assured by the Egyptian Government, if fulfilled in good feith - 1 repeat, if fulfilled in good faith - should provide adequate preliminary safeguards for the former owners and for the users of the Canal. if 1 [, 80. In the view of my delegation, the Egyptian Declaration is a step forward in the right direction. After so much uncertainty and confusion, we are glad to note the orderly resumption of international traffic in the Suez waterway. It is our earnest hope that the Declaration as it now stands, or as it may be revised in the future by itself or through incorporation into a wider instrument, will ultimately provide that peaceful and equitable solution of the Suez Canal question that we aIl so ardently desire. 81. My Government reserves the right to disaiss this matter at greater length on a later occasion. 82. Mr. URRUTIA (Colombia) [translated trom Spanish]: It is very difficult to give a considered opinion on a document which we saw for the first time only two days ago. 1 should like nevertheless to make a few preliminary remarks and comments. First, let me refer to the objection raised here regarding the unilateral character of the document. "'~, \ 83. Unquestionably, a declaration can be changed, and even though it is registered with the United Nations, it can at any time be replaced by another declaration; or a completely different declaration might even be made. 1 believe that this is true regarding the DeGlaration as a whole. 84. There is no doubt that Egypt could amend the Declaration at any time, but, on the other hand, it " 86. 1 believe then that this document contains an irrevocable undertaking. It is quite in order for such commitments to be made by unilateral declarations; indeed they are provided for in the Statute of the Court. Article 36 of the Statute provides that declarations may be made unconditionally by the country concerned and deposited with the Secretary-General. In the present instance we do not have actual compliance, but we do bave an irrevocable undertaking to deposit with the Secretary-General within a few days a declaration of the kind envisaged in Article 36 of the Statute. 87. In view of this undertaking, once Egypt has deposited a declaration in compliance with Article 36 of the Statute, 1 believe that the legal aspect of the matter of free pass'age of all vessels through the Canal will come under the binding jurisdiction of the Court. The wording of paragraph 2 of Article 36 is clear and unequivocal: " The States parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning: " (a) The interpretation of a treaty ..." 88. The Court also has jurisdiction in matters concerning the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation . . ." Some countries were of the opinion that the nationalization of the Suez Canal constituted such a breach. 89. There is an even more interesting aspect to this Article; it is one of the few cases in which conditional compliance is not allowed, or rather, only two conditions are stipulated and therefore recognized by the Court: "The declarations referred to above may be made unconditionally or on condition of reciprocity on the part of several or certain States, or for a certain time ". These are the only conditions stipulated by the Court for compliance with Article 36. Tomorrow Egypt could say, "We shall adhere tG {',rticle 36 for a period of five years, or for a period ùf ten years ". It could also 90. There is one point which does not seem clear: it has been stated here that Egypt, in complying with Article 36, will only accept the Court's jurisdiction as applying either to countries which have accepted the Article or to the signatories of the Convention of 1888. We aIl know that many of the countries which use the Canal today did not sign that Convention. It is my belief - though this is one of the main points which the Court will have to settle at the outset, and therefore it would be improper to discuss it here - that the Convention of 1888 guarantees freedom of passage not only to signatories of the Convention, but to aIl the countries of the world. It seems to me, therefore, that although only a signatory country may bring a complaint before the Court, once a question has been submitted, the regular Court procedure would apply: the Court would first send a letter to aIl Members of the United Nations inquiring whether they are interested parties. Any country replying in the affirmative could appear to make a statement before the Court; the Court would decide whether the statement should be submitted orally or in writing, but in any case that country would have an opportunity of presenting its views. 91. 1 am afraid 1 do not altogether agree with the opinion of the representative of France, that in this document Egypt is arrogating to itself the right to interpret the Convention to suit its own purposes. 1trust 1 am right in interpreting this document as an irrevocable undertaking on Egypt's part to comply with Article 36 of the Statute, and to accept the jurisdiction of the Court in respect questions relating to the interpretation of paragraph 2 (a): the interpretation of a treaty. There is no question of Egypt's right to interpret the Convention" to suit its own pUl-poses ". Once Egypt has accepted Article 36, the Court will interpret the Statute ipso facto, and its decision will be binding on aIl States concerned. Convention accepté le obligatoire "" 92. Another undertaking, which 1 also believe to be irrevocable, is contained in paragraph 8 of the Declaration, on the question of compensation. The paragraph reads: "The question of compensation and claims in connexion with the nationalization of the Suez Canal Ma.ritime Company shall, unless agreed between the parties concerned, be referred to arbitration in accordance with the established international practice." 92. irrévocable, l'indemnisation. réglée indemnités lisation sera soumise à national 93. It seems to me that this paragraph again comprises 93. tout d'un à accord, des Ce recours double ~ twofold undertaking. This is an undertaking to enter mto immediate negotiations to see if agreement can be reached; for if a country states that it will resort to arbitration only if there is no previous agreement, obviously it will firsh be necesSary to take steps to see whether such agreement can be reached. Only if such an agreement is not forthcoming will recourse be had to arbitration. In other words, there is a double 95. That is how 1 interpret the matter, having just heard the Egyptian representative re-read the speech delivered here in October 1956 by the Minister Foreign Afiairs of Egypt, in which he clearly and unequivocally stated that it would eventually be necessary to renew the Convention of 1888 in the form of another international instrument or treaty. Today's speech by the Egyptian representative, in which he read out the quotation from the statement of the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Afiairs, is most reassuring; it seems to indicate, if nothing more, the path that Egypt is treading in regard to future negotiations for the final settlement of the item now before the Council. The examination of that item will he completed by the Council only when the proposed international instrument has been established. The meeting rose at 12.55 p.m, Printed in Franœ PrIee : SU.S. 0,20 ;