S/PV.82 Security Council

We have hefore us the provisional agenda for this meeting. Is there any objection to ~e adoption of the agenda? Mr. GROMYK~ (Union of Soviet,Socialist Republics) (tran.slated trom R~sS!an): 1. pr0I!0~e that the questlOn of the admission of Sl&"11 m"o the United Nations should not be included in today's agenda of the Security Couneil. 1 should .like ta study this questio~ more fully, and 1 am not yet ready to participate in the discussion on the substance of this qll'estion at the present meeting.' The PRESIDENT: Before calling for a fllrther discussion on this point, I should like ta make one observation to the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic!'. 'I have been infàrmed that the representatives of Siam who have preselited this application ta the United Nations, and who are in New York, have stated that their Government is desirous of having the application of Siam presented to the present session of the. Ge..Tleral Assembly with the recommendation of the Security Council. I therefore would enquire of the representative of the SovÏet Union if he would care to give any indication as to the length of the postponement which he desires, so that the Secretary- General and 1 can be guided in preparing the provisional agenda for the next meeting of the Council. ,l'ajournement Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) ('translated tram Russian): In order ta decide for how long the examination of Siam's application should be postponed, 1 shall have ta study this question more fully. Mr. PARODI (France) -(translated trom French): The French Government wishes ta support Siam's application ta become a Member of the United Nations. As you know, a àispute which arose between my country and Siam has just been settled, not only by peaceful means compatible with the interests of both countries, but also under cO~J.di­ tions which are undoubtedlyin keeping with the spirit of the Charter 3lld with the rules which we should enforce.1 The settlementarrived at is, to our mind, a factor which should be taken into account, and suffices ta show that' Siam fùlfils the conditions req,*ed by the Charter, moreparticwarly as regards her desire for peace and international justice. I shouldhave liked the matter to be discussed Nevertheless, 1 shc;mld like ta endorse whàt you, Mr. President, have said ta Mr. Gromyko, and 1 toowould urge him to consider the matter at the earIiest possible moment. 1 would suggest that this item remain on our agenda, following the procedure already adopted in the past with regard to other items. MT. LANGE (Poland): Our usuaI procedure about admissions is that the Committee on the Admission of New :Members presents us with a report. The Siam case was in the Cùmm;ttee, but we have no report yet because its application was withdrawn. Maybe l am "'Tong-if so, then please correct m~but 1 wonder whether the simplest solution would be not to adopt it now on the agenda, but ta decide to request the Committee to present us with a report within the very next few days. Then we could consider the case here.

The representative of Poland, 1 believe, is mistaken in thinking that no report· has been rendered on Siam. If he ~ifill refer to document 8/133, which waS the report of'the Committee on the Admission .of New Members, he will find t11ere the report of the Sub-Committee on Siam} . .1 should doubt the utility of sending this application back to the Committee.. 1 think the representative of the Soviet Union is entirely within his rights in asking fo!, a postponement of this application. If he does not feel that he has studied sufficiently the information available and is not yet .able to make a decision, 1 think that he is entitled to havehis wishes respected. 1 shoul~ like to s~ggestto the represeutative of the Soviet Union for his consideration because he has made 'a proposaI that we adopt this item on the agenda' and that we .thenimmediately move to. place it on the list of matters of which the COUIicilisseized. The matter can then he 'brought'upat any meeting of' the Counc~, and again postponed. without dàmage to the interested parties. 1 would like toask therepresentativeof the Soviet Union if he would accept that; otherwise 1 will put his motion to'a vote. MI...•GROMYKO (Union of Soviet SociaIist Republics) (translated. trom .Russian): 1 pro•. posed that the question of the examination of Siam'sapplication should notbe included in the agenda of the Security Council for the 1 See Official Rec()rds()f the.' Security Councit; First Year, Sec()nd Series, . Supplement N(). 4, Annex' .1, page.75. . If there 18 no further discussion, wè will proceed. Lord INVERCHAPEL (United Kingdom): l should like ta express sorne regret that this matter is ta be postponed today, because, on behalf of my Government, 1 want ta say and make it quite clear that we support the application of Siam for membership of the United Nations, and we shall certainly vote for it when the time cornes. But, if the matter is postponed more or less indefinitely, Siam will miss the chance of joining the United Nations. during this session of the Assembly. 1 think that would be regrettable. 1 should like to see the matter brought up at the . earli,~st stage of our next meeting of the Security CQuncil.

Speaking as the representative of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 1 must say that the United States also warmly; supports the application of Siam. In deference ta the ":Ïews expressed by the representative of the United Kingdom and the representative of France, and in conformity with my own views as representative of the United States, 1 have therefore informed the Council that 1 intend ta put 'this matter on the provisional agenda of the next session of the Council. Whether that item is adopted at the next meeting of the Council, and therefore can be sent ta the present session of the General Assembly, is a matter for the Council ta decide. That decision Will be affected in the light of the agreement which we may be able ta reach at that time. Mr..Quo Tai-chi (China): 1 juSt want ta say a few words on behalf of the Chînese Governrr.ent, ta support the application of Siam for membership. It will be recalled that Siam, together with a number of other States, applied for admission sorne time aga; its application, together with those of other States, was considered' by a Sub-Committee of this Council. But at the last moment, Siam withdrew its application in a· spirit of conciliation, owing ta the existence at that time of its dispute with France. Accordingly, its withdrawal was made in arder not ta embarrass the Council. It can 'parce objections été qu'il lui prouvé mer tion l'A'lSemblée générale, une ment. prove~ its willingness ta fulfil its obligations under the Charter, and proved that it was peace-Ioving. l express the hope .,that wc shall be able ta deal with this question before this present session of the General Assembly' adjourns, so as to be able ta act on this applicati~n before the adjournment. l'anglais) tiendrai,> Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlan'ds):, During the 'l:erm 0': this debate l shall, of courSe, refrain from g01L\g into the merits of the .Siamese case for admission. l only want to say that 'ive have given consideration to it, and that when the time comes, we shall support SiaIil's application. dem~nde seulement que nous moment glais): débat que nous que son relationS la sein Mr. HASLUCK (l·lStralia:): As we arè hav~ ing the. debate which we have aIready adjourned, l fcel that it is necessary for the Australian delegation ta indicate that it, too, nowhas friendly relations with Siam, and will support the proposai for i~ admission to the United Nations. Mr. DE SOUZA GOMES tBrazil) (translated 'trom French): l wish to support the demand for adInission :made by Siam. The Brazilian Government has always stood for the principle simplement sion principe As for the attitude of the Egyptian Government, we reserve the right to give our opinion when the matter comes up for discussion. Mr. Quo Tai~chi (China): 1 should };re to make one slight correction to my remarks. 1 said there were omv three Members of the United Nations from Asia. 1 a.m sorry 1 omitted to mention Mghanistan, which was admitted during a recent. meeting of the General Assembly. Actually, there' are' only four Me~ber States from Asia.

It is evident from the discussion at this table that the majority of the memben; of the Council desire L.;at the application of Si2.m for membership of the United Nations should figure on the agenda of the Council at such a time as would enabb the recommendation, if given, to go to the Assembly during its present session. As 1 have previously indicated, 1 will place this same item on the provisional agenda of the next meeting, and will hope that the Council may find it possible to reach agreement. There remains on the provisional agenda only one itt-m, number 3. If there is no objection, it will be adopted on the agenda for today. Is there anyobjection? The agenda was adopted with the, omission of item 2. 94. Discussion of the Greek complaint cO"'4:erning the situation in northern Greecel

It is unnecessary for me, as President of the Council, to remind you that this is the third time .in less than eleven months that the Security Council has been called upon to considera matter in which the Greek Governmènt is. involved and iri which it, has a deep and intimatè concern. 1 do not propose to recall in detail the manner in which the Council dealt with. the previous cases.Il The salient facts and the dispositibn made in each case by the Council are well known to all of you. During the above remarks~ Mr. Parodi~ rep- resentative of France, left the Council table and was replaced by Mr. de la Tournelle. The PRES~ENT: Before the discussior" of tlùs item is opened, 1 should like ta raise a prelimin- ary question of procedure. The question poses'it- self as ta how the Council would like ta proceed in connexion with the requests by certain Gov- ernments for the right ta he heard before the Council in this matter. 1 assume,in the first place, that since the Greek Government has brought tlùs matter to our attention, the Council will wish ta invite the representative of Greece ta the Council table to participate in the discussion without a vote as it has in similar cases in the pasto If there is no objection, 1 shall ask the representative of Greece ta take his seat at the table, as soon as we settle tlùs preliminary question. Is there any objection? ment sont par concerne, tion lorsque vernement tique A manda l'Article tifs Conseil nais, siéger senter le représentant de de vVe have also before us letters from the Gov- ernments of Yugoslavia, Albania and Bulgaria, requesting that the Council invite them to be present and to give them an opportunity to be heard. In the fust place, 1 assume that under Article 31 of the Charter the Council would wish to ex- tend an invitation to the Yugoslav:,Government, as a Member of the United Nations, to partici- pate without vote in a discussion of this question on the ground that its interests are especially affected. The Albanian Government and the Bulgarian Government are not Members of the United Nations. It will therefore be necessary to deal with them on a different basis. The Council will recall that this question arose last September, when the complaint of the Gov- ernment of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Re- public against the Greek Government was being considered. At that time, the Albanian Govern- ment requested that the Council, acting under Article 32, permit it to rnake a factual statement in connexion with that case.1 Mter sorne discus- sion, the Council decided ta invite the Albanian Government, through its representative, to take a seat at the Council table for the sole purpose of makinga factual st2tp.ment'to the Council.2 Première l would suggest to the Council that we fol~ low this precedent and decide now that, at an appropriate stage in the proceedings, the Al- banian and Bulgarian Governments should be invited to the Cmmcil table to present any facts bearmg {n the issues before the Coundl. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist R;;- publics) (translated from Russian): Mr. Presi~ dent, it seems to me that before we proceed to discuss the question raised by Greece, it is es~ sential to invite the representatives of the coun~ tries affected by the Greek statement, namely, the representatives of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania. Without the presence of the representa~ tives of these countries, it is impossible for us to begin the discussion of the question raised by the Greek Government. It seems to me that yom: reference to a pre- cedent is not altogether a happy one. When the Ukra.W.an statement was considered by the Se- curity Council sorne time ago, both parties were invited. Then the parties weie the Ukraine and Greece; now the parties are Greece on the one hand and Yugoslavia, Albania and Bulgaria on the other. Prccisely from the point of view of precedent, if need be, we should act as we did before, that is to say, before we proc~ed to dis- cuss this question, we should invite the repre- sentatives of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania, and only after that has been done should we begin to discuss the substance of the question. listes le l'examen la nous déclaration la sentants l'examen de ter, vous de sécurité a les C'étaient d'hui Grèce, Bulgarie. nous ravant: question, de et la la Secrétaire sécurité, pour le de ainsi à au This is the first problem we have to settle. In the event of an affirmative decision, it will be necessary for the Secretary-General or the Presi- dent of the Security Council, in accordance with the praper procedure for bodies and organs such as the Security Council, to notify the Govern- ments of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania and' their representatives that they are invited to par- ticipate in the discussion of the question raised by the Greek Government. glais): l'Australie Mr. I!ASLUCK (Australia.): Mr. President, the Australian delegation supports the procedure which you have outlin~d, namely, that the repre- sentatives of Greecc and Yugoslaviâ, who are Members of the United Nations, should be in- vited to'participate without vote during the dis- cussion of the subject, and that the representa~ tives of Bulgaria and Albania should be asked, at this stage, to attend for the purpose of making a factual statement. In supporting that procedure, however, we would like to say'something about what seem to us to be the immediate points for the Security Council's consideration in this matter. It seems to us that the fust concern before the Security Councilis not to reach the final determination d'indi'll.u_~!', Grèce des sans tion, de pour faire façon dire quelques mots devoir de semble AIl Council members will remember that on some previous occasions when we have had the assistance of other Members of the United Nations, we have P.I1gaged in very long exchanges bacl'Wàrds and forwards across this table, with one side bringing the charge and the other side denying it, then the other side denying the charge that was made in denying the previùus charge and so on. We have gone on for days and days without ever coming to grips with the situation. It seems to us that the procedure you have, outlined is acceptable, provided that in inviting the participation of these States directIy con- cerned, their parti.:ipation for the moment - and 1 stress, for the moment - should be linùted to an attempt to pla€e squarely before us the information which seeme; t-o be relevant so that we can make that fust decision, whether or not there is a substantial cause for setting up an investigation under Article 34. For that purpose, it would seem to us that if we could encourage these parties to submit written state- ments, as has been done by·the representative of Greece, our work might ""dvance more quickly. We cannot share the view put forward by the representanve of the Soviet Union that, having decided to invite them, we should appar- ently then adjourn for a time in order that they mayattend. It seems to us that we have enough before us to go ahead immediate1y and try to les ~dduce sufficient facts that will enable us to take the firSt decision: whether or not to con~ duct an investigation. Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): 1 think that this question fmds a very cIear answer in the Charter. We are bound by the Charter, and whether we like· its provisions or not we have to apply them. . 1 think there can be no doubt that. the interests of Gretee are speciaHy affected in this HASSAN Pasha (Egypt): Our delegation will discuss this question and limit the discussion to the legal viewpoint. In this respect, 1 wish to express similar vews to those, expressed by the President regarding the participation of all the parties concerned. I heard our eminent colleague from the Netherlands discussing some Articles of the Charter which would eventually exc1ude sorne of the countries irilplicated in the charges made by the- Greek ,Government. At the moment, 1 do not want to discuss the ment of these Articles; but it would seem logical to me if, in. the interest of justice and in the interest of obtaining the true facts of the case, our Council esteemed it necessary to hear the representatives of the Albanian and the Bulgarian Govemments. I suppose our colleague from the NetherlaJs would not object to our hearing bqth c.ountries on the ground thàt they might furnish evidence which would help us to decide whether or not ta .investigate the matter. which has been put forward by .the Greek Government. Thàt Le;; One question is raised at tbis moment con- cerning the invitation to be addressed ta the other Governments which are implicated in the matter. 1 do not know if the Greek Govem- me.'lt notified the other Governments concerned, but 1 suppose it did. However, any lack of notification, it seems to me, would be covered by the fact that the Governments concerned have addressed letters to the President himsell stating that they are implicated in this question and would like to be heard.1 Thus, if a matter ot procedure bas been omitted iutentional1y or unintentiona!ly, this point has already been covered by the action of the Governments con- cerned; that is to say by Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. Consequently, 1 do not feel that it is necessary for the Council to address any invitation to these Governments. They are already implicated in the question and have requested the Chair to be heard on it. Consequently, our del~gation, while sharing the point of view of the President, as ex- plained on preceding matters, would be willing to let the Greek representative come to this Council and explain the case which he has pre- sented in writing. Mr. PADILLA NERVO (Mexicoy:. Before mak- ing th~ observations that 1 intended to make when 1 reqtiested the right to speak, 1 will make two observations referring to what thè repre- sentative of Egypt has just stated. 1 believe that h~ did not interpret accurately the statemeilt just made by the representative of the Netherlands when he attributed ta that representative the statement that those States, namely Bulgaria and Albania, should not be heard in this Couneil. 1 believe that what the representative of the' Netherlands said is that those two States should not be invited to take part in th~ discussion without a vote at this stage, but that he did not oppose those two States being heard. The other observation, also concerning the statement just made by the representative of Egypt, concerns his explanation that there is no necessity for this Council ta issue an invitation to those States which have requested to be heard. ~'Iember of the United Nations the right to par· ticipate in the discussions of this Council when any question is being considered that the Council deems ta he of interest to that State. That is Article 31. Article 32 relates to the right of a Member of the United Nations, and also of aState which is not a member of the United Nations, to partici- pate, without vote, in the discussions relating to 1 a dispute to which it is a party. 1 believe that Article 32 was a great victory for the small na- tions at San Frô.Ilcisco; it is what really guaran- tees the right of any nation to be heard in this Council. The reprtSentative of the Netherlands has stated that onIy parties to a dispute may be in- vited to take part in the discussion, and that, therefore, in this case-which in the letter ad- dressed to tbis Council by the representative of Greece is called a situation and not a dispute- the representatives of Albania and Bulgaria may not be called upon until this Council decides whether this is a dispute or a situation. In London 1 stated that it would be unfair to any State if this Council intended to decide the secondary question of whether there was a dis- pute or a situation solely on the basis of the complaint or letter sent by the complaimng State, which would be at liberty to call, the case a situation, thereby eliminating the possibility of the other State's being heard in accordance with Article 32.1 • My idea is that those States shouId be heard. If, after they have been heard, tbis Council de- cides that tbis is Just a situation and that, there- fore, those States shouId not take part without vote in the discussion, that is another matter. But 1 believe that we cannot decide the sec- ondary question of whether or not this is a dis- pute. For that reason, if we consider the state- ment presented by the representative of Greece, 1 see that the same charges made against BuI- :garia and Albania are made against the Govern- ment of Yugoslavia, and 1 see the same charges that. were made whentheUkrainian Govern- ment presented to tbis Council a complaint against the Greek Government. At that time, it was stated that technically a state of war existed between Greece and Albania. . MI'. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Re- publics) (translated [rom Russian): MI'. Presi- dent, if you insist, as Pres~dent, on the order of discussion wmch you proposed originaIly, 1 am still unable ta agree with that order, as 1 con- sider it to he incorrect and not in. accordance with the Charter. Articie 32 of the Charter says: "Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Sècurity Council or any State wmch is not a member of the United Na- tions,"-I repeat these wards "or any State wmch is not a member of the United Nations" -"if it is a party to a dispute under col1SÎdera- tion by the Security Council, shan he invited to participate, without vote, in the discussion relat- ing to the dispute. The Security Couneil shaIl lay down such conditions as it deems just for the participation of aState which is not a member of the United Nations." AS we know, the question of these conditions .. of the Security Corineil has not yet been elabor- ated, Just as severa! other questions relating to the organization and to the working procedure of the Security Council have not been elaborated. Thus, Article 32 envisages the participation, the obligatory .participation, of both the contending parties in the discussion of 'their dispute. .Some members of the Couneil who have spoken here are inclinedto tliink. that it is enough to invite Albania and Bulgaria orny at some of the later stages of the discussion of this question. Why .should s0111e countries concerned in the question raised by Greece participate. in the ex- amination of this question from the beginning, while other countries may orny participate in the discUssion at sorne later stage? Where are the grounds for such a. statement of the situation? Nosuch'grounds are to be found in the Charter. Where is it stateq. in the Charter that one party may not participate fully in the discussion, but orny in part? The Cha.tter contains no such suggestion,. eithel' directly or indirectly. The very opposite.is suggested by the Charter. There are provisions in the Charter which relate in an equal degree, without any exception or diScrim- ination, toaIl the parties involved in a dispute. We have no grounds and no right, from the point of view ofth~ Charter, to deprive Bulgaria and Albania of the right to partioipate in the discus- sion of the question raised in the Security Coun- cilby the Greek Govemment., There are no such . grounds. If we are to decide thatthîs isnot'a situation, but.a ~pute, it may be necessary to deç:idéthisqllestion also':But J. feel o~lige? to say that we should appro~ch this..questiol1'm 'a' Just manner. s~ntative that this is a situation. We cannat ad- mit that since the 'Greek representative,has stated that this, is a situation, the Security Council is necessarilv obliged ta agrèe that this is a situa- tion~ and' should only invite the representative of Greece to participate. ' 1 do not think that it would be appropriate for us to follow the example'of one of the charac- ters of the French writer Dumas. This personage wanted ta eat meat on a day in Lent and killed a chicken. He roasted it and ate it, but before doing sa, he bàptized it and called it fish. Of course, the chicken did not become a fish as a result of this, nor will a'dispute become a situa- tion because the Greek representative calls it a situation. In his speech just now the representative of Egypt tried ta prove that it would not be. ex- pedient ta invite the representatives of Albania and Bulgaria ta participate in the discussion' of this question at present, at the very beginning of the deliberations. He holds the view that the representatives of these countries might partici- pate in the discussion at sorne latcr stage. 1 should like to reminÇ! t..lJ.e representative of Egypt that there were times when he requested that we should invite the representatives of certain States which had submitted staternents to the Security Council, even though we were only considering wht:ther the matters raised by them should or should not be include.1on the agenda. 1 should like to àsk: where is the logic and consistency in this? ' In deciding this qUëstion we must be just. If the decision proposed to us by the President and supported by, certain other representatives is called justice, then l,do not know what may be called injustice. Clearly, justice and injustice should change places. Sorne' members of the Couneil wish to close their ears, at any rate at thebeginning of the discussion of this question, ta what the representatives of"Bulgaria and ,Al- bania have to say. We a,re not in the Security Council in order to liSten to the representatives of sorne countries and to close our ears when other countries" which are equally involved in â matter, wish to tell us something; Mr. LANGE (Poland): ln solving the ques- tion before us, we have to be guided -by the Charter, and in interpreting the Charter we . have to he .guided by common sense and a sense of justice. The answer depends to a œr- tain extent on whether we classify the issue as a situation or as a dispute. It hàs been pre- sented to us by the Greek Government as a situation. There may be sorne good reasons for the Council to ree1assify it as a dispute, but it is probably tao early at tbis moment to make such a' reclassification, because we would proh- ably want to hear something more about the case. Therefore, for the môment, 1 shall assume that we have before us a situation. ln my opinïon, there is no question that aIl the three Governments which are mentioned in the 'Greek charges, namely, Yugoslavia, Bul- garia, and Albania, have the right to hear every- thing that is brought out against them in the ~orm of charges and have the right ta answer .these charges, and that the Security Council has the right to question them as well as the Greek representative whenever the Council or any member of the Council deems it advisable. The Governments of Yugoslavia and Greece have an additional right, namely the right of' pârticipating in the discussion, wbich, of course, is a right or a privilege which is limited to Members of our organization. This privilege, in addition to the right of hearing the debates, of answering charges and counter..;charges and of ,being questioned, contains the right ofexpres- . sing opinions on measures to be taken, and,as Accordingly, assuming always that we have before us a situation and not a dispute, 1 should like to make the following proposal: that we invite to the table immediately the representa- tive's of Greece, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania, with the understanding that the latter two representatives are at the table in order to hear any charges which may be made against them, during the discussion, in order to .answer such charges, make counter-charges if they have any, and answer questions, at any moment, which any of the members of our Council might want to ask. The representatives of Greece and Yugo- shvia, who are representatives of Member States, have,. of course; the additional right of full participation in the discussion, which includes _the expression of opinion on measures to be taken and the right to submit proposaIs and draft resolutions. 1 think that this would be a fair solution, which is fully in conformity with the Charter and which should aIso satîsfy our common sense and sense of justice. Mr. Quo Tai-chi (China): On the whole, 1 am glad to be able to agree with what our Polish colleague has just said, but there is one point on which 1 should like to have sorne clari- fication. He said that we assume the case to be a situation; then, at the same time, he proposes that the representatives of Albania and Bulgaria be invited to sit at the table, in accordance with Article 32, which clearly states that representa- tives of non-member States of the United Nations who are involved in disputes shall be invited to participate. , It seems to me, as our Netherlands colleague observed earlier, that you have to establish the fact of the dispute before the representatives' of the non-member States can be so invited. Even after that, Article 32 goes on to say that: "The Security, Council shall lay down such conditions as it deems just for the participation of aState which is not a member of the United Nations." It would seem to me that either we have to recognize the questionfrom the start. as a dispute-and in tha;t case the invitation to the representatives of Albania and Bulgaria would be in conformity with this provision of Article 32-or that if not, we would be acting not quite in strict conformity with Article 32, So, it seems to me that there are two cases under discussion, which are clearly covered by Articles 31 and 32. There is the case of Greece, -tians, aux dès de poser si ment représentants se Ml'. PADILLA NERVO (Mexico): 1 agiee with what has been said by the representàtive of China only ta the following extent:. 1 think it is an error to state here that the representatives-üf Greece and Yugoslavia are going ta be called to this Council on the grounds of Article 31. Article 31 rëlates' tothe chapter on procedure, to the section on procedure relating to the fUIlctions and powers of the Security Council. In my opinion, that·Article envisages an entirely differ· ent situation, most typical o! which would be, for instance, the one wc had when the repre- sentative of Canada was called ta tbis Council .when wewere dealing with the question of pro- cedure for the Atomic Energy Commission. If any other Member of the United Nations is inter- ested in any question that is heing dealt with by the Security Council, it could he called. l'anglais): certain la déclarer de en du chapitre du vise l'exemple tion représentant Conseil tion mission des raient le présentée fonde l'Article ne se dernier différend de' sécurité "Etant vemement, de sécurité But we must not forget that the complaint brought forward by the representative of Greece is founded on Chapter VI and on Article 34 in particular..And, although the Greek Govern- ment does not mention Article 33.·in fact, it uses the wording of Article 33. Articl~ 33 says: "The parties to any.dispute, the continuance of which is like1y to endanger the maintenance of interna- tional peace and security ..." The Greek Gov- ernment states: "By reason of the fact ... in the '.opinion. of my Government, tbis situation, is like1y to endanger the maintenance of L'1tema- tional peaœ and security." 1 do not agree with the representative of Po- land that we must assume that this is a situa- tion. 1 think this Council must not assume any- thing. This Couneil could act objective1y orny after hearing the facts, and we cannot hear the facts if the parties concerned are not called to this table. We might call·fust the·representative of Yugo- slavia and the representative of Greece and deal only with that part of the complaint. But when it cames to the charges of the Greek Govern- ment against the Bulgarian Government and later against the Albanian Government, then their representatives should be heard here. After we have heard their facts objective1y, we cOuld decide tl:!at there is a dispute or per- haps that there is not a dispute, but 1 do not see any reason why we should establish here a third category of "situation". The Charter does not provide for that half- way JPeasure of inviting a representative af a Government to make a statement and then have him withdraw from this Council table; 1 do not see any provision' in the'Charter to that effect. 1 Either Article 32 applies or it does not apply. If it applies, it applies in full, and the represen- tative of a Government who is called hete has the right to participate in the dispute without vote, and not orny tostate his case and withdraw. That would be a situation that. is not, ta my knowledge, envisaged in any Article of the Charter. In my opinion, therefore, we may decide one of ~wo things. We maydecide that the Greek Government is going to present the three com- plaints at the same time, in which case the three representatives cOJ;lcerned ought to be here.' Or, the Greek Governmerit could be requested fust to state its case against the Yugoslav Governmer..t, in which case we could wait and call the reprè- sentatives of Bulgaria and Albania when their cases are being discussed here. 1 do not see any reason or any authorization whatsoever in the Charter for inviting representatives of those two States merely to make statements and then with- draw from this table. Ml'. LANGE, (Paland): 1 orny want to make it cIear that myproposal was not that the repre- sentatives of Bulgaria or Albania should come ta make a statement and leave the table. .My pro- Of course, the Council may wish ta treat the matter as a dispute, in order ta give the represen- tatives of Albania and Bulgaria the opportunity not only ta tC1ke part in the factual side of our procedure, but also to express their views on measures tobe taken~ If·the Council makes snch a decision, 1 shaH not object to it. - Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Re- publics) (translated trom Russian): It s~ems ta me that from the point of view of today's meet- ing of the Security Council, the question whether we are dealing with a dispute or a situation is immaterial. 1 cannot agree with those repre- sentatives on the Council who ~e of the opinion that li we are dealing with a situation we should not invite the. representativesof Albania and Bulgaria. This conclusion is incorrect and erroneous. ·'à l should like ta remind you that when the Greek qu~on was. examined by the Secutity Council in London, no one expressed any doubt as·ta the necessity of inviting the representative of Greece ta participate from the beginning in the discussions at the meetings of the Council when the question was under consideration. Why is this question raisednow? If it is a dispute, we may still think the matter over and agree on an invitation; if it is a situation, it is impossible, apparendy, to invite the representatives of Al- bania and Bulgaria. Ta put the issue in this way is wrong. . It seems ta me that itis also too early at this stage to 'reac,h a conclusion as ta whether the representatives of Albania and Bulgaria shou1d be given.the right ta i,ubmit proposaIs during the examination of this question in the Security Council, or whethertheir rights should be limited only to participation in the discussion. 1 think . that if the representative of a countryparticipate~ in the discussion ôf a question in which that country is cancemed, :it would.be wrong to de;,. prive him of the right to submitproposaIs. A dis- The question has been raised whether we could not examine the Greek Government's com- plaint against Yugoslavia separately from the Greek Government's complaint against Bulgaria, and against Albania. The fact is that the Greek Government submitted the question of its claims against aU three countries, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania, simultaneously in the same docu- ment. How can we separate thesethree problems in the course of the discussion and decide, let us say, first to invite the representatives of Yugo- slavia, hear and discuss th~ complaints of Greece against Yugoslavia, and then invite the represen- tatives of Bulgaria or Albania? In my opinion this procedure is far-fetchèd, artificial and in- correèt. The question might he considered in this ma.'Uler only if the Gree~ Government had submitted to the Security Council a statement concen1ÎIlg Yugoslavia alone and subsequently, after this question had been examined, if the Grcek GOVfu"Tillîent had subrr-.J.tted to the Secu...rity Council a separate statement conccming Bul- garia or Albania. But t1:is is not the case. AlI the questio"!'1 were submitted simultaneously. How qm w... separate these questions artificiaUy and in a far-fetched '.nanner? l repeat that an)' 1 decision on the pal" f the Security Council not 1 to invite the representatives of aU three countries from the very beginning would be unjust, and 1 feel th,at the Security Council ought not to take this COlLl'Se, for it would lead us in the wrong direction. même questions 1 particularly bring this to the notice of the' representatives of those countries which, during the discussion of other questions in the Security Council, contjnually emphasized the necessity of inviting to the Security Council table the repre- seritatives of aU the countries concemed in state- ments submitted to the Security Cou~cil. Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): 1 won- der whether there is nat a sufficient measure of agreement in the Council to enable us to terminate this debate on procedure. 1 think it very important that we should not be bogged .down in procedure, but should proceed as early as possible to a consideration of the substance and merits of the case. r think two points are involved: First, 1 be- lieve that wè are. all agreed that Greece and Yugoslavia should both take part from now on in the discussion-of course, without vote. Sec- ond, 1 hope that we can also agree on theposi- tion of Albania and Bulgaria. I point out t~ my colleagues, that they them- selves have asked for no more th.an that in their letter of admission. Ta hear them is not con- trary ta the Charter; it could not be, because, as several representatives have pointed out, justice demands it. 1 quite agree with that point of view. SA let Albania and Bulgaria be heard, and lét the.tIl be heard sitting at this table! 1 believe we owe that ta them as a matter of deference, because we aIl r~cognize them bath as being sovereign States. Ta invite these two States ta sit at the table would be the fust phase, and if we decide later that the matter is a situation and not a dispute, there would not be any othèr ph~e. But should we decide later on that the matter is a dispute, then under Article 32 there is for Albania and Bùlgaria a second phase. In this phase, we should admit bath of them ta full participation in the debate with aIl the rights which thê rules of procedure give; we should admit them to take part in the debate, even if they have no right of vote. That is my proposal. Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): NormaIly, the Australian delegation would think that the sub- ject on which we have been speaking for some time would not warrant sa much attention, but having regard to the variety Qf constitutional .points that have been raised and the fact that we are still at an early formative stage in the working out of the practices and procedures for this body, we feel that the discussion has been useful. It is desirable 'that we should straighten out our ideas on this subject before taking a decision. 1t seems ta us that the two cardinal points ta be kept in mind are: that the purpose of inviting non-mt..abers of this Council ta participate is partIy .to assist the Council in its work, and primarily ta be completely fair and just ta any States whose interests are speciaIly affected. In carrying out those purposes, however, we do have ta work in a way that is consistent with the Charter. Article 31 makes the' position of Members of the United Nations perfectIy clear. Sa long as their interests are speciclly affected by any ques- tiQR,-they have the right ta expect that they will . be invited ta participate in the work of this Council, without vote. We do not share the view expressed by the. representative of Mexico regarding the funitatioil on Article 31. .1t seems ta us that the phrase "any question," used in Article 31, refers not only ta matters such a'S 1t seems to us that under Article 31 there can be no possible doubt that Greece and Yugoslavia should bath be invited to participate in the dis- cussion of this question before this Counci! from beginning ta end. By participation) we under- stand that they will have the right to speak whenever recognized by the President, that they will have the right to move resolutions and will even have the greatest privilege of all members of this Council, to rrose points of order. Every- one in this Council seems to be agreed on this point; the only difference of opinion is in relation to Albania and Bulgmia. It seems to us that the Charter is quite c1ear that a non-member of the United Nations can participate--and 1 stress the word "participate') -only if it is a p2lJ.'ty to a dispute. That status of "party to a dispute" is not simply a descrip- tion of a condition; it is a status that carries obli- gations. If aState is described as a "party ta a dispute", it means that that State may be called upon by this Council to take certain action under Article 33. That State may also be expectcd ta receive and cûnsider most earnestly any reCOln:- mendations made under Article 36. A party ta a dispute accepts obligations by accepting that status. As regards non-members of the Unite<i Na- tions, 1 partîcularly draw attention to the last .~~~tence of Articie 32, wIDch requires that: "The Security Council shall lay down such conditions .as it deems just for the participation of aState which is not a member of the United Nations/' If we described dther Albania or Bulgaria as a party to a dispute, it would- meanthat we should lay down conditions which, one assumes, would indude the acceptance of the obligations com- mon ta Members of this Organization. Those would include the obligation ta pay regard ta the action that the Counci! may take under Articles 33 and 36. We agree with those speakers who ha\Te said that at this stage) befo.re we have entered upon the consideration of the facts, we cannot de- termine whether this is a (ljspute or a situation. It is too early to decide that point.. Because of that fact, under Article 32, we cannat take action to invite Albania and Bulgaria ta partici- pate as parties to the dispute. But what wecan do, and on what there seemsto be general agree- ment that we should do, is to ask them to make statements ta us, to ask thenl ta be heard. The only difference between various views that have been expressed in reg~ ï to Albania and Bul- garia seems to be.that :3\Jme members think that ther shouldmake that statement at the request of the Council, sitting at the Counci1 table, pouvons ou ner raison, l'Article à au l'accord der se diverses de· l'Albanie selon :Mr. PADILLA NERVO (Mexico): 1 beg your pardon, :Mr. President, for intervening again in this matter. 1 consider it very unfortunate that this long debate about this question of procedure might have given the impression that we are opposed to giving the fullest possibility ta an accused State to defend itself. When 1 mention Article 31, it is not in order to limit it to the example 1 gave in the case of Canada, but because 1 consider it unjust that we calI Yugoslavia and Greece to this table on the basis of Article 31, which then gives us some appearance of reason for not accepting Albania and Bulgaria, which cannot be accepted under .this same Article 31. Undoubtedly, the Charter should be illtel'preted in such a way as not to prejudice or damage the rights of any State, and not any other way. The Charter has two different Articles (32 as weIl as 31) referring to Members of the United Nations because two different situations were envisaged;'otherwise, it would be sufficient to have Article 31 for Mem- bers of the United Nations and Article 32 for those who are not members of the United Na- tions.. But Article 32 refers to both Members and non-members, and refers to disputes. If 1 men- tioned beforc that it would be neither wise nor reasonableto try ta settle the preliminary ques- tion of whether the matter is a dispute or a situation, and if 1 requested that alI the States concerned be called here. it is because the mo- ment that they sit down'here, the Council will know that this is a dispute. If there is a dis-' tinction between a dispute and a situation, it is not mentioned in Article 32. It is mentioned in Article 34, which states the right of the Council to investigate disputes or situations. It is men- tioned aIso in Article 35, which refers to the ,.right of an)' Member of the United Nations which might bring a dispute or a 'situation to the attention of this Council. But, with regard to the rights of States that are not merhbers of the United Nations, this question of a situation should not be brought in, and the only condi- tion that may be made with regard to those States is already set forth in Article 35 para- graph 2. This says that any State which is not a member of the United Nations even has the right to bring to the attention of this Council any dispute ta· which it is a party, provided it accepts in advance! for the purposes of the dis-

:;:he discussion this afternoon has, .1 agree, been usdul. It has allowed the members of the Council to make known, in a precise form, their views regarding the measures and ways of justice which this Council should extend to the parties involved. It has also placed in relief once again some of the imprecisions of the Charter. 1 do not think it is necessary ta say anything about the Council's position in relation to Greece . and Yugoslavia. It is clear that, under the Charter and the rilles of procedure, those two countries, as Members of the United Nations, are entitled to have their representatives called to this Council table. We come now ta the two countries about which there are differences of opinion because those countries are not members of the United Nations. 1 should like ta state very emphatically, both as President of the Council and as representative of the United States of America, that 1 do not believe that there is a single country represented at this table which does not wish justice applied, on an entireiy impartial basis, in the case befor>--this Council whether or not the countries invôlvedare Members of the Unitëd Nations. /Disagreement lies only in tJ.te field of how thatf justice is to be applied. 1 think, therefore, th~t whatever decision the Council takes shoilld ~e taken in the spirit of the Charter. 1 am certain t~at it will be in the spirit of the Charter, in accord~nce with the desire ta give such measure of justi~e as the Council is capable of arriving at, ta àl1 the parties involved in disputes before it. The Council may decide now, if it wishes, whether this matter before us is a situation or a dispute. 1 pcrsonally think that it would be useful not ta reach that decision at this moment. Certain charges have been brought by the Government of Greece, but what the Government of Greece has asked fol' is not that the Security.Council should adjudicate thOS€ charges b'!lt that the Security Council should send out a commission of investigation to determine the facts for itself and whether the Greek case is well substantiated. We cannot decide, until we have heard the full statement and exposé of the representative of Greece and the replies which ma'l be made by the three countries which are joined together in these charges, whether there is a situation or a dispute. 1 would prefer that we rely on the general powers of the Council itself, 'of whièh one might mention Article 30, to reach a decision in this case. If the Security Coundl has the right, under the Charter, to formulate its rules of procedure, it sureIy has the right to fonnulate a· rule for a: particulai situation not covered by the rules of· procedure. 1 do not believe that any injustice will be done to Albania or Bulgaria if they are not invited ta come to this table immediately. The sessions of the Security Council are ôpen. It must be presumed that representatives of Bulgaria and Albania are listening to the proceedings of this Council. Thev will be invited to come to the table at an ~ppropriate moment during the course of the discussions. And if the course of the discussion causes the Council to declare it a dispute, they ma:y be invited to the· table with the rights and with the obligations which are imposed by Article 32. The representative of the Netherlanc1s has put before me a resolutioh which 1 believe fills the needs of justice. Before putting that resolution ta a vote, however, 1 should like to ask the representative of the Soviet Union-inhis first declaJ:ation to the Council, he made a proposalif he would mind repeating that proposaI, and if he would state whether he wants it voted upon as a resolution or as a motion. au sa une cette mise motion. Ml'. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated /rom Rûssian) : My proposaI is a very simple one: 1 propose that the Security Council invite the representatives of Greece, Yugoslavia, Albania and Bulgaria to participate in the ~amination of the question râised .in the statement of .the Greek Government; that the Security Council invite the replistes position le de à fait grec;

1 would ask the representative of the Soviet Union if he is formulating that aS a motion, or as a proposal? Ml'. GRO:M:YKO (Uroion of Soviet Socialist Republics): You may regard it as a motion or a proposaI. 1 said that the Security Council should invite the representatives of the Governments concemed. Such an invitation, of course, can be sent either to the Governrnents or to their representatives here hi. New Yo:rk. 1 am informed that the representatives of Albania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria are here in New York.

Is there any discussÎon on this motion? Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherhinds): 1 presented a draft resolution in writing. May 1 ask that it be read?

1 should like to remark, that if my recollection is correct, the proposaI which the renresentative of the SoViet Union has just made in the,form of a motion waS made before this one; it is for that reasoll that 1 askedhim to state it with precision. Under my interpretation of the mIes, if it is to be voted upon~ a votewould be taken on it before we vote on the resolution of the Netherlands representative. , 1 would ask the Assistant Secretary-General to' be good enough to read the resoluti<;>n presenteq by the representative of the Netherlands. Mr. SOBOLEV (Assi$tfui.t Secretary-General): "The Security Council resolves: "1. That the representatives of Greece and of Yugoslavia are invited to participate in the discussion without vote; "2. That the representatives of Albania

'We have therefore two motions before us, expressing in a general Wày the divergency of views that has been exposed in the Council this afternoon regarding the conditions under which non-member States may be . invited to the Council table. Speaking as the representative of the United States, 1 would suggest that to the last paragraph of the second part of his resolution which reads: "Should the Security Council find out at a later stage that the matter under consideration is a dispute, the representatives of Albania and Bulgaria will be invited to participate in the discussion without vote", the representative of the Netherlands might consider adding sorne reference to the stipulation of Article 32 that they must accept the conditions laid down by the Council for such participation. Perhaps it is not necessary since this resolution, if adopted, would not derogate from the authority of that Article of the Charter. Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): The Chartersays in a mandatory way that the Security Council shall lay down S" ch conditions as it deems just for the participation of aState which is not a member of the United Nations. Therefore, it clearly seems to me unnecessary to add a special sentence to that end. 4 is no objection, 1 shall put the motion of the representative of the Soviet Union to a vote, requesting the Secretary.. General to read it, or 1 shall ask the representative of the Soviet Union to read it.

If there Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): 1 have not got this proposaI in writing, but 1 can repeat it as briefly as possible': UThe Security Council resolves: "1. To invite the represen~ativesof Greece, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania to participate in the examination of the question raised by the Greek Government; "2. To invite the répresentatives of these countries without delay, for which purpose the President and the Secretary-General shall notify the reprêsentatives of these Governments, in their respective order, of the action of the Security Council." HASSAN Pa.sha(Egypt): 1 wonder if our Soviet colleague would be satisfied with a kiIid " of compromise statement which, if you do not ., object, 1 would just read asa draff. 1 wrote it tout(;;, sentée vue plus l'égalité accordées opinions sécurité, ment d'un pourrons nir réserve l'affaire. seulement

Does the repr~entative of the Soviet Union wish to make any observation? présentant remarque listes la nous suis saire quatre question Mf. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom RussianJ: 1 agree with the fust part of the resolution proposed by the representative of Egypt, and it gives me satisfaction to know that the representative of Egypt considers it necessary and right to invite the representatives of aIl four countries to participate in the discussion of this question front the very beginning. As regards the second part of the resolution submitted by the Egyptian representative, 1 think it complicates the issue. In point of fact, it proposes that the, Security Council should decide here and now the question of the further participation of the representatives of Bulgaria and Albania in t..'he examination of this question. 1 consider that regardless of whether the question raised by the Greek representative is a dispute or a situation, the representatives of aIl four countries have every right ta participate présentée time en dès ultérieure l'Albanie ment tion, pays HASSAN Pasha (Egypt): 1 am sorry that my proposaI did notmeet with the agreement of my colleague. 1 do not feel that 1 have the right . to disjoint it, for it is a single entity embodying two different ideas. 1 therefore withdraw the proposaI, since it does not meet with the agreement of the Couneil. . Mr. GROMYKO (Union .of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated lrom Russian): 1 proposed Mr. LAWFORD (United Kingdom): Thus far, the delegation of the United Kingdom has not entered into this discussion to any great extent. 1 have listened withgreat interest, as 1 know ,Lord Inverchapel listened with me, ta the speeches which have· been made, but they have taken a great deal of time. 1 am very glad that the representative of Egypt has withdrawn bis proposaI because 1 think ttJ,e firSt: part was contrary to the Charter. In my view, the resolution proposed· by Mr. Gromyko is· alSo contrary to the Charter. But 1 s40uld like to' say straight away that that does not mean that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom has any desire to prevent the Bulgarians and the Albanians from stating their points of view. AIl 1 say is that since the Charter is written, it is contrary ta the Charter to say that Bulgaria and Albania can particip~te straight away in. the discussion. r should like ta ask: is this case brought by Yugosla\ia, Albania, or Bulgaria, or is it brought by Greece?' Greece is a Member of the United Nations and surely it cannot. be treated in exactly the same way as Albania and Bulgada in this case. Let me repeat that 1 have still absolutely no objection to Albania and Bulgaria being allowed ta say' what they like at the proper time, but 1 do not think we can decide now ta let them participate until we have heard the Greek representative makehis c~e. 1 do not quite see how the Security Council can justify itself in the eyes of public opinion for giVing the representatives of some countries an opportunity to e."press their full opinion on this question and state· their case, and for not givwg to therepresentatives of other countries a similar opportunity, that is to say, an opportunity to participate in this discussion andto submit the relevant facts. Hùw can the Security Coundl explain .and justify this attitude before public opinion? 1 do not know how it can be done, but 1 think it will ,be very difficult. We cannot listen to the representatives of Greece and not gi'l'e the representatives of other countries, agaimt wmch Greece has lodged a complaint in the ~ecurity Council, an opportunity to state their·case. . tinction Mr. PADILLA NERva (Mexico): 1 believe that tbis question is getting complicated wiiliout any reason whatsoever. 1 do not see the need for a formai resolution on this matter. We have decided similar questions prevlously without any formai resolutions. We took similar decisions severaI times both here and in London. We decided, by a large majority of votes whether or not the interested parties should he called to the table, and the President has correctly said . that those representatives go farther than théir rights alIow in requesting $at they be alIowed to remain here. But 1 do not agree that a question that was discussed in London, when it was not thought convçnient, in so far as an interpretation of the Charter was concerned, should become the cause of a discussion as it is implied here in the third paragraph of the Netherlands resolution-that is, whether the queStion is a dispute or a situation. If the Committee of Experts of the Security Council has not been able to tackle that question, 1 couM not agree that we should now commit ourselves by makirig a formai resolution on a subject ·that has aIready been discussed as the matter of the States direcdy concerned, in Article 76 which refers to thel Trusteeship Cauncil. 1 beliève that the oruy way to decide this matter is to calI for a vote asking which members are in favour of having alI three of the accused States come to the Council and answerthose charges. That is a very simple matter. We cannat make any distinction because some of them are Members of the United Nations ~d others are non-members. It is not long smce we had a discussion in tOO Chamber when we accepted: certain conditions regarding the Now we should he consistent, and ~imply accept those States coming here and ~:.swering the charges. :They are charges SlIP.:tar to those made against a Member of the United Nations. That seems to me the most equitable~ fair and juSî. decision. 1 propose that no formal resolution be debated on tlùs question.

Are the representatives of the Soviet Union and of the Netherlands willing to withdraw their resolutions and to accept the proposal of the representative of Mexko that the Council indicate-I suggest by a simple show of hands-whether or not it wishes to invite to this table all of the three States joined in the Greek charges, or whether it will invite Yugoslavia and Greece to tlùs table, as Members of the United Nations, and calI the others later, at an appropriate time in the course of the proceedings? Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated tram Russian): Mr. President, 1 agree with the f:ocedure wmch is proposed. But the formula which you have put forward contains two proposaIs: one is that we invite the representatives of alI four countries; the other proposai· is of â. restrictive nature, namely, that at the bet.nr.ing we invite only the representatives of Yugoslavia and Greece. If these' proposaIs are put to the vote separately, such a procedure would, of course, be accephble. Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): AlI 1 want is claritv. 1 want to know where we stand and how we stpud. If you can formulate all the questions at issue in such a way that we know exactly what we are .lOting upon, 1 will be only too glad to withdraw my resolution. The only reason for which 1 have presented it was that 1 thought it was at least a proposai that ena}-ll",:d us to know exactly what we v::;re vo~ 'ng upou. Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): As far as our deIegation is concemed, we would prefer to vote on the written text in front of us rather than to leave itperhaps a little vague.. And it seems to us that the points which you have attempted to make are precisely the points which the representative of the ..Netherlands has made in bis resolution. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): I have already said that l agree with the procedure proposed by the representative of Mexico. This procedure may be followed, but in my opinion \';e should vote first on the wider question of inviting the representatives of ail four countries to participate in the discussion from the very beginning. Having dealt with that issue, we can then vote on the proposaI to invite the representatives of two of these countries. Otherwise, if we adopt the rever.se order and fir~t vote on the 1 proposal to invite the representàtlVes of YU&Oslavia and Greece, those members of the Secunty 1 Couneil who think it proper to invite aIl four 1 countries will be placedin a very difficult position, an artificiaily c:ea!ed. one, since they are ?ot opposed to the lDVltatio~ of the representativ~s of Greece. an~. YugoslaVla, and ~ey a:e also ~n ravour of ~Vl~g th~ representauves ?f Bulg~na and ~ba.Dla. For this reason, the entirely ~ogtcal and o~y correc~ course~ouldhe to vote frrst on th~ w~der question, that.lS to say, on the proposal to lDVlte all four countnes.

My view inclines towards the one 'of thosè two resolutions which is more precise. It was in the light of the suggestion made by the representative of Mexico that l 'suggested the possibility of another procedure. l think that this discussion has gone on as long as is useful. Thei'e is no doubt, from the debate in this Cauncil, that every member is in favour of inviting the representativesof Greece and of Yugoslavia to participate in the discussion without a vote. Where the divergence of bpin,;; ion lies is in whether the other States, the two States whic:h are not Members of the United Nations, should be iD.vited to participate immediately and on thesame terms as .tlte represen- 1 think that the two resolutions we have before us, that oÎ the Soviet Union and that of the representative of the Netherlands, st'ate with clarity and precision the differe...'1ces in these two points of vi.~w. Unless there is objection, 1 shall cali the discussion closed and ask for a vote on these t'wo resolutions, first on the resolution of the ~'eprescntative of the Soviet Union, and second, on that proposal by the representative of the Netherlands. Js there any objection? Mr. LANGE (Poland): 1 just wantcd ta explain that actually 1 think there were more than two points of view expressed here. The Soviet resolution is quite acceptable to our delegation, with the understanding that there is no prejudice in the exact procedure ta the different delegations, but Wi: are definitely in favour of inviting all four countries at once.

The first resolution, presented by the represeutative of the Soviet Union, reads as folIows: "The Security Coundl resolves: "To invite the representatives of Greece, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Albania to participate in the consideration of.the question raised by the Greek Government." Will all those in favour of this resolution please indicate it by raising their hands. The resolution has faileè. to get a majority. Now we come ta the second resolution submitted by the representati.ve of the Netherlands. Mr. LANGE (Poland): 1 want to ask the representative of the Netherlands whether .he. would bewilling to make a slight verbal modifi. cation to bis resolution. 1 suggest that the second point, instead of stating that "The representatives of Albania and Bulgaria will he invited to enable ..." etc., ~ght read "are invited to sit at the table to enable the Security Council ..." This would make it simultaneously, and add what more or less corresponds to what he said in bis speech. Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): Mr. President, 1 would prefer'to leave to your discretion the question of inviting these gentlemen simultaneously or not. To me it is a matter of courtesy-as, no doubt, it' is ta you-and it séems to me that it goes without saying that these gentlemen shouid be invited to take their seats simultaneously.

The rb;olution submitted b.y the i'epresentative of the Netherlands reads as follows:- Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socia Iist Republics) (translated [rom Russian): Mr. President, the representative of the Netherlands said he agreed that if you have no objection, the representatives of aU four countries should be invited simultaneously; in other words, he considers that you can, to sorne ex.tent, decide this question in advance. You did not reply ta this n:mark of the representativt. of the Netherlands. If you and the other members of the Council indeed agree that the representatives of all fo..l counmes should be invited simultaneously ta partiCipate in ilie dllicussion of this question, then there is no disagreement among us. But in that case, there is an apparent contradiction between paragraphs one and three of the resolution proposed by the representative of the Netherlands, because paragraph 3 states that Albania and Bulgaria will participate in the discussion ouly if the Secul'ity Council finds that we are dealing with a dispute, and not \Vith a situation. Consequently, it will be necessary fust of all to decide whether we are dealing with a dispute or a situation, and only then will paragraphs 1 and 3 be consistent. If on the other hand we omit paragraph 3 and accordihgly insert the necessary corrections in paragraph 1; that is to say, if we added Bulgaria and Albania, or if, without altering this paragraph, we agree tllat the representativt'.:' of ail four countries should be invited simultaneously, then there will he no disagreement among us. listes le déclaré sentants des temps, ment certaine tion. tion autres d'accord pays à vue,; entre posée le pourront Conseil différend décider différend suite et que qué, l'Albanie, acceptons soient divergence pas le soviétique. sion Bas lution du nements table Bas j'invite l'Albanie Conseilles au moment opportun,

1 did not understancl t.h.e representative of the Netherlands in the sense indicated by the representative of ilie Soviet Union. 1 shall not prolong this discussion by asking therepresemative of the Netherlands ta repeat what he said, but if this resolutl0.u is passed, as President of the Couneil, 1 shall not invite all four Governments to CO:qle immediately ta the table and participate in the discussion. . What 1 understood the representative of the Netherlands to mean was that the Cou,neil would approve my inviting, at the appropriate moment, the ·representatives of Albania and Bulgaria to make such declarations before the Council as they may wish to make at the appro- .priate moment in the proceedings.· l should like to close this discussion·now and put the Nether1~nds motion to a vote. et Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): Mr; listes

Is there any discussion on this proposed amendment? ~Ir. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): 1 have no objection. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated· trom Russian): 1 support the amendment proposed by the representative of Poland. Furthermore, 1 suggest that we vote on the resolution of the representative of the Netherlands paragraph by paragraph, becaUf~ it contains certain paragraphs which can accept and others which 1 cannot accept. . HASSAN Pasha (Egypt) : VVe are voting for the Netherlands delegation proposaI with the clear understanding that the other two countries shall be invited. That is why we have no objection to the amendment proposed by the Polish representative, and accepted by the Netherlands representative.

1 shall therefore put this resolution to a vote now, paragraph by paragraph, as requested by the represe!ltative of the Soviet Union. The first paragraph re~ds: "The representatives of Greece and of Yugoslavia are invited to participate in the discussion without vote." Will all in favour of that paragraph please raise their hands? The fust paragraph is accepted unaniinously. The second paragraph reads as follows: "Tb.e representatives of Aibania and BuIgaria are invited to enable the 8ecurity Council to .hear s~ ::h declarations as they may wish to mrake." Will all those in favour of the paragraph just read please raise their hands? The second paragraph of the Netherlands resolution is accepted unanimously. The third paragraph of the resolutioll submitted by the represenjative of the Netherlands reads as follows: "Should the Security Couneil find at later stage that the matter under consideration is a dispute, the representatives of Al· bania and Bulgaria will be invited to participate in the discussion without vote." faire des contient 1.pation moins primer mon examiner, reprendre la Unless there is any further business, 1 think the Council may adjoum the disc'..lSSÎon until three o'dock on Thursday afternoon. l'anglais): me de j'ai déjà en le pour Mr. PADILLA NERVO (Mexico): 1 just want to make the declaràtion that 1 abstained'from voting on the third point of the Netherlands resolution for the reasons that 1 have stated previously, and because 1 believe that this question is a dispute, and that it is enough to read the document presented by the Greek Government to decide that it is a dispute.