S/PV.91 Security Council

You are quite in order. Mr. Quo TAl-CHI (China): As you direct me to proceed with the discussion of this draft resolution, Mr. President, I !Should like to point out, as I said at the previous meeting on this question, that, in principle, the Chinese delegation is in hearty support. In the last two lines of the draft resolution before us, inste~d of directing the Secretary~Generalto notify the United States of America, France, the United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of its action, I would suggest now that the words, "Council of Foreign Ministers concerned" should replace the names of the four countries which are to be informed of this action. I think it ~s preferabl~ to substitute this general term for the specific names of the four countries. For one rc~son, I do not think the Council should really limit the number of those who are to be informed of this action. I presume that the Council of Foreign Ministers, after receiving thi" notification of our action, may wish to inform the countries immediately concemed, 'for instance, Yugoslavia and Italy. For another, the Council of Foreign Ministers may also wish to inform the members of the Paris Conference; indeed, it may be that the Council of Foreign Ministers may wish to inform all the Members of the United Nations, in view of the fact that this action is taken by one of the principal or~ans of the United Nations and consequently deserves the attention and interest of all its Members. I do not know whether this amendment is agreeable to the delegation of the United States of America, but this is what I should like to propose. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): I exchanged a few remarks yesterday with the representative of China with. regard to his suggested change. I think the suggestion for changing the last sentence of the resolution is an excellent one; it greatly improves it for record purposes. I gladly accept it, and I am sorry that I did not think of it myself. I should also like to suggest a further revision of my own resolution. The original resolution which you have before you refers to Annexes to the proposed peace treaty with Italy, and I should like to distribute to you now a revised text which lists the specific papers that the Council is called upon to approve. This change suggests itself to me from the useful remarks made yesterday by the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It is merely a clarification and a more precise wording of the resolution. This revised text also contains the change suggested by the representative of China. liThe Security Council, having' received and examined the Annexes to the proposed Peace Treaty with Italy, relating' to the creation and government of the Free Territory of Trieste (including' an arrangement for a Free Port), hereby records its approval of the three fol~ lowing' documents: .. 1. The instrument for the prOVISIOnal regime of the Free Territory of Trieste; 2. The permanent Statute for the Free Territory of Trieste; 3. The instrument for the Free Port of Trieste; and its acceptance of the responsibility devolving upon it under the same. "The Security CO..tncil directs the Secretray-General to notify the Council of Foreign Ministers of its action." Is there any objection to the revisicn being made? Mr. Quo TAl-CHI (China): I am grateful to the representative of the United St. ~s of America for accepting the suggestion I made to him yesterday. I only received a copy of the revised draft resolution today, after I ha.d made my remarks; otherwise I should not have spoken at all. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I have no objections to the alterations introduced into the text of the United States resolution by the repre~ sentative of the United States of America at this meeting. Moreover, it seems to me that these alterations somewhat improve the text and in any case. render it more precise. As regards the amendment submitted by the representative of China, I consider that there is no need for it. Indeed, the deciflion reg'arding Trieste was adopted by the four Powers in the Council of Foreign Ministers. It is completely logical, therefore, that the Security Council should inform these four Powers of its decision. In view of this, I do not think the last sentence of the resolution of the United States of America should be altered. The PRESIDENT: I should like to point out to the Council that there are difficulties, I think, with respect to that last aspect of the resolution; for, as is known j the constitution of the Council of Foreign Ministers varies at the different stages and in regard to the diverse questions which have to be discussed; and the Council of Foreign Ministers discussing one question may not be the same as a Council of Foreign Ministers dealing with another. Thus, I find that in the document that has been forwarded to the Security Council, specific mention is made of the nations which are represented at that particular Council meeting, and it indicates the representatives of the United States of America, of France, of the United Kingdom and of the Union of Soviet Both the USSR representative and you, Mr. President, seem to have misunderstood my original motion. I said that, instead of mentioning the four countries by name, I would suggest that the Secretary-General be directed to notify the members of the Council of Foreign Ministers concerned of its action, which means that I do not intend to smuggle China into that phrase; although China is a member of the Council of Foreign Ministers, she has not taken an ,active part in the drafting of the treaties concerned. It was far from my intention to include China in that phrase. I said: "to the ,Council of Foreign Ministers concerned", referring to the four coun~ tries which were concerned in the chafting of the treaties in question. Thus, I do not think there' CZll be any difference between us on that score. I do, object to naming the countries in this Council, because we should leave it to the Council of Foreign Ministers to. do what it may desire with the infOrIn'iltion we may pass on to it. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): I regret this misunderstan<lmg, and I must say that the fact that it has arisen is of some surprise .tq me. In putting forward this suggested change, I had taken it for granted that the fact that the Secret'll'Y~General is replying to a specific commUllkation, which is the principal document under discussion, would be sufficient indication that the reply would be directed to the specific group which sefit the document to the Council, and that we could leave to the internal regulations of the Secretary-General the way in which this notification would be made. I do not even have any ideas or preferences as to whether or not the reply should be sent to Mr. Bymes, who is no long~r the Chairman of the Council of Foreign Ministers, if for no other reason than that it is not at present in session in New York. I had imagined that it would probably .be sent to the respective Governments of all four coun- Le representant de la Chine desire-t~il prr.ndre la parole? M. Quo TAX-cm (Chine) (traduit de ['anglais): Monsieur le President, j'ai ecoute avec interet les observations que vous et le representant de l'Unien des Republiq1.1eB socialist~ sovietique& avez presentees all sujet de I'amendement que j'ai propose. Je dais avouer que je m'en tiens toujours ama proposition, et que je continue de m'opposeX' a. ce que scient dCsignes par leur nom les pays representes au Conseil des Ministres des Maires etrangeres. Le representant de l'URSS et vous, Monsieur le President, semblez avoir donne tous deux une interpretation erronee de ma premiere motion. Au lieu de mentionner les quatre pays par leur nom, ai-je dit, je propose que l'on charge le Secretaire general d'informer de la decision les membres du Conseil des Ministres des Maires etran.geres qu'elle interesse; en d'autres terines, je ne cherche pas a plaider pour ma paroisse «;n introciuisant cet amendement; bien que la Chine soit membre du Conseil des Ministres des M~ faires etrangeres, elle n'a pris aucune part active a la redactlon des traites en question. Loin de moi l'intention de vouloir comprendre la Chine dans cette phrase. I'ai dit: "au Conseil des Ministres des .J..ffaires etrangeres intlresses." Cela signifie: les quatre' pays interesses a la redaction des traitesen question. Ainsi, je n'ai pas l'imprc ion qu'il puisse exister ~ucune divergence de vues entre nous a ce sujet. Je desapprouve que 1'0n mentionne nommement les pays, car nollS devrions laisser au Conseil des Ministres des Maires etrangeres le .'loin de disposer ason gre des informations que nous lui transmettons. M. JOHNSON (Etats-Unis d~Amerique) (tra- . duit de l'anglais): Je regrette ce 'malentendu et m'etonne qu'il ait pu se produire. En proposant le changement demandi:, je tenais pour admis que le fait pour le Secretaire general de repondre a une commuI,Jication determinee, a savoir, le document dont nous discutons, constituait une indication suffisante que la reponse serait transmise au m~me groupe de personnes qui avait soumis le document a l'attention du Conseil, et que nous pouvions laisser au Secre~ taire general le soin de decider en conformit6 du reglement interieur, de quelle maniere cette com~ munication devait etre faite. Je ne sais meme pas, et cela m'est egal, si la reponse sera envoyee a M. Bymes, qui n'est plus President du Conseil des Ministres des Maires etrangeres, quand ce ne serait que parce que le Conseil ne siege pas actuellement a New~York. J'imaginais qu'elle serait probablement adressee aux Gouvemements respectifsdes quatre pays. PersonneUement, bien qu'il appartienne au The· PRESIDENT: This matter, I think, could be met quite satisfactorily and adequately by just adding one word, which was mentioned by the representative of China, by inserting the word "concerned" after the words, CCCouncil of Foreign Ministers". That possibilitY would meet the situation adequately, because the reply would then be addressed to those Ministers VI'ha were actually concerned. Mr. LANGE (Poland): The representative of China may wish to answer first directly. Mr. Quo TAl-CHI (China): Mr. President, although I do not admit that your objection is valid, that was exactly the word I was going to suggest out of a spirit of conciliation and in order to meet any possible oQjection from you and from the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Mr. LANGE (Poland): I think the point is a purely technical one, and I do not think we should attach any political significa"lce to this discussion. The problem is simply to state the legal status clearly. As I see it, the difficulty concerns the question._whether the Council 3f FO:Leign Ministers at this moment exists as a continuing legal institution, or whether we only have the four Governments which meet from time to time and, during such meetings, name themselves "Council of Foreign Ministers". Now, the letter we have here from Secretary Byrnes mentions the representatives of the United States of America, of :France, of the United Kingdom, and of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics meeting as the Council of Foreign Ministers in New York. And later, it says that "the Ministers for Foreign Affairs have instituted a Committee which will hold itself at the disposal of the Security Council ...". And in the final passage we read: "The Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the United States of America, of France, of the United Kingdom, and of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are desirous that the text submitted ...". Now, I thinlc we could probably adopt two phrases which should prove satisfactory. Either we could use the terminology which is used at th~ ~nd of the letter. and say: cc••• to notify the Mt:·usters for Foretgn Affairs of the United States of America, of France, etc."-that would be one possibl~ phrasing; it is actually ~he one.which is used in Mr. Byrnes' letter-or, if tha~ IS more acceptable to the representative of China, we could use instead a phrasing simila: to the one which the President suggested. I ".' '.thmk a more explicit phrasing would be: C'The ~~=-~--_. Mr. GROl\XYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Rcpublics) (tra1~slated from Russian): I should like to thank the representative of China for the explanation which he has given. It appears that the representative of China also has in view that the Security Council should inform the Governments of the four countries of its decision, namely, the United Kingdonl, Francej the United States of America, an':1 the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. At the same time, the representative of China and the representative of the United States of America are for some reason juggling with general algebraic formulae; they are reluctant to state frankly that the Security Council should inform the Governments concerned. I do not quite understand the sense of this amendment. To say that the Security Council should inform the Council of Foreign Ministers, having in view the Council of Foreign Ministers of the four countries, is tantamount to enumerating these countries. What is the difference? I cannot understand why preference is given to a general formula as against a specific indication of the countries concerned. I wish somebody would explain this matter, the sense of this amendment. Mr. Quo TAl-CHI (China): I am sorry that a small suggestion from me should have raised so much discussion around this table. But I am quite ready to oblige the representative of tht'! Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I will give him the reason why I object to the Security Council's naming the individual States in this resolution. My reason is quite simple. The representatives of the four Powers communicated with the Seurity Council in the name of the Council of Foreign Ministers. It was as a corporate body that they acted, and this Council should reco~­ nize that fact. Instead of communicating with the members of that corporate body individually, we should simply recognize the Council of For- -.ign Ministers as such, as a corporate body, because it is as a corporate body that it has definite function and power; as individual members or States, they have no legal standing before the Security Council. Furthermore, the representatives on the Council of Foreign Ministers may change, while as a corporate body, the Council of Foreign Ministers remains; that is why I object to naming the fClUr different States individually. In order to meet your point, I went so far as to compromise, by suggesting that the word tcconcerned" should be added, which would make the resolution perfectly clear beyond any possibility of a doubt. Je ne comprends pas tres bien le sens de l'amendement en question. Dire que le Conseil de securite doit informer le Conseil des Ministres, qui, on lie sait, se compose de Ministres des quatre Puissances, equivaut tout simplement a enumerer ces Puissances. Du est la difference? Pourquoi choisir une formule generale au lieu d'enumerer les pays interesses? Je voudrais que quelqu'un me fournisse des ec1aircissements ace sujet. M. Quo TAX-CHI (Chine) (traduit de l'ti.nglais) : Je regrette que la suggestion que j'ai faite sur un poin.t de detail ait donne lieu ici a pareille discussion. Mais je suis dispose a acceder au desir du representant de l'Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques et dirai donc pourquoi je m'oppose a ce que, dans cette resolution, le Conseil de securite designe les Etats par leur nom. Le motif que j'invoque est tres simple. Les representants des quatre grandes Puissances se sont mis en relation avec le Conseil de securite au nom du Conseil des Ministres des Affaires etrangeres. C'est en tant que corps constitue qu'ils ont agi, et le Conseil de securite devrait reconnaitre ce fait. Au lieu de communiquer avec chacun des membres de ce corps constituc en particulier, nous devrions simplement reconnaitre le Conseil des Ministres des Afl'aires etrangeres comme un corps constitue, parce que c'est en tant que corps constitue qu'il a des fonctions et des droits bien precis; Membres ou Etats, agissant a titre personnel, n'ont aucun statut juridique devant le Conseil de securite. En outre, les representants du Conseil des Ministres des Affaires etrangeres peuvent changer, alOI'S que le Conseil des Ministres des Affaires etrangeres, corps constitue, n'est soumis a aucun changement. Tels sont les motifs pour lesquels je m'oppose a ce que le Conseil de securite designe les differents Etats par leur nom. . Pour me conformer a votre desir, j'ai mt:me ete jusqu'a accepter un compromis, en proposant d'ajouter le mot "interesses", ce qui rendrait la resolution parfaitement claire et dissiperait tout doute possible. Why? What is the connection between the Foreign Ministers and the first resolution? The resolution is a separate thing; it will be published as a specific document. It must contain all the elements and the reasons for which such a resolution is taken and must indicate at whose request and by whom it must be taken. I think it would certainly be more appropriate if the resolution began in a different form: "The Security Council having received from the Foreign Ministers [enumerating them] a request and a proposal. to approve these documents ..." Then the Security Council approves them and notifies the Foreign Ministers in question. If we read this resnlution separately, as it stands, nobody can know the reason why, and at whose demand, the Security Council has taken this action, unless you connect it with the whole document, and unless one first reads the document and the letter from the Foreign Ministers. In this resolution, there is no mention of the letter of the Foreign Ministers. I think the matter should be set in a better form, which would be more explicit and clearer than it is in its present form.

With a view to reaching some conclusion on this particular aspect, I would ask the representative of the United States of America if he wishes his resolution to remain in the present form, as it has been submitted? Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): In my personal view, the suggestion made by the representative of Syria, while entirely logical, is not D~cessary. I think the provenance of this paper is implicit in the whole record of our proceedings, and I think there is no one who would misunderstand. Furthermore, this resolution would never be used or published by itself for any serious purpose. I have no objection, however, to the insertion, as an amendment to this resolution, of such words as might commend themselves to the acceptance of the: Council, which would indicate precisely where the document came from. If that is the sense of the Coun- Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): Perhaps the representative of China would agree to the following wording in the last part of the resolution. I suggest we say "the Security Council directs the Secretary-General to notify the following countries, members of the Council of Foreign Ministers: the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France and the Union of s@- viet Socialist Republics, of its action." I repeat, ". . . to notify the following countries, members of the Council of Foreign Ministers ..."; then follow the names of the countries. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): If Peut-etre cette proposition sera-t-eUe acceptable au representant de la Chine, aussi bien qu'aux autres membres du Conseil. M. Quo TAI-CHI (Chine) (traduit de I'anglais): J'aimerais me ranger al'avis de M. Gromyko; d'ailleurs, j'aime toujours etre d'accord avec lui, mais je crains que ce1a ne me soit pas possible en ce moment. En premier lieu, il 'mentionne le Conseil des Ministres des Affaires etrangeres et immediatement apres, il cite les noms de tel et tel pays. Mais la Chine est toujours membre du Conseil des Ministres des Affaires etrangeres et, si 1'0n cite les noms des quatre pays sans mentionnercelui de la Chine, on pourrait en conclure que la Chine n'est plus membre du Conseil des Ministres des Affaires etrangeres. En consequence, je tiens a ce que le mot Uinter~sses" soit ajoute. Ainsi, on explique tout, sans designer par leur nom les pays interesses. A mon avis, cette formule est parfaitement claire et logique, et eUe a aussi l'avantage d'etre breve, sans porter prejudice a la Chine en ce qui concerne le Conseil des Ministres des Affaires etrangeres. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques sodalistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Peut-etre, le representant de la Chine pourra-t-il approuver la redaction suivante de la derniere phrase de la resolution: uLe Conseil de securite charge le Secretaire general d'informer de sa decision les pays suivants qui sont membres du Conseil des Ministres: Etats-U?Zis d'Amerique, Royaume- Uni, France et Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques". Nous disons done: Cl••• informer les pays suivants qui sont membres du Conseil des Ministres . . ." et nous enumerons ces pays. That paragI:aph would then read as follows: "The Security Council, having received from the Chairman of the COl,mcil of Foreign Ministers meeting in New York on 12 December 1946 the Annexes to the proposed peace treaty with Italy relating to the creation and government of the Free Territory of Trieste (including an arrangement for a Free Port), aud having examined the same, hereby records its approval of the three following documents ..." May I inquire from the representative of Syria if that slight revision meets the point? Then, further, if I may continue briefly, in order to try to phrase a reading of the last sentence which could obtain the approval of all members of the Council, I suggest the following: crthi1 Security Council directs the Secretary-General to reply to the communication from the Council of Foreign Ministers informing it of its action"-the communication having been referred to in the first paragraph. May I inquire of the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialic;t Republics whether he will agree to that? Mr. El KHOURY (Syria) : Yes, I think the text which' has been read just now by the representative of the United States of America would eliminate the incoherence which existed before and would give full satisfaction to everyone, be- .cause in not naming the four Ministers, it is understood that those who presented the documents to us for our examination would receive the reply. Thus,J am in full agreement. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): It seems to me that the amendments submitted here by the representative of the United States ef America complicate the text. Firstly, as regards the suggestion to include the words crfrom the Chairman" after the words "the Security Council having received", this wording may lead people to draw tlte conclusion that the Council of For- ·eign Ministers has a permanent Chairman. This is not'i:he case. The Council of Foreign Ministers has .no permanent Chairman. It is the Foreign Ministers of the countries represented on the -Council who each take the chair in turn; thus the Chairman varies depending on ,e constitution of the COlmcil of Foreign Ministers and the period at which it meets. It seems to me that the addition of an indication that these documents were received from the Chairman is thus undesirable. . Furthermore, I have not received an answer ",'.. .. :from the representative of China to my last pro- Finally, as regards the last amendment submitted by the representative of the United States of America, it seems to me that the adoption of this last amendment would also complicate the situation, because the difficulty which we encountered in drafting the last part of the resolution would simply be doubled. We have not found a formula for the end of the resolution. At the same time, we must find an analogous formula for the beginning of the resolution. We could, of course, proceed as follows: we could reach a decision on one part of the resolution, and apply this decision to the other part. If we can agree on a formula for the last part of the text, this text could be used to improve the first part of the resolution. However, it seems to me that there is no need to alter the first part of the resolution. I agree with the representative of the United States. I think it is clear to everyonefrom whom this document has been received. No one has expressed any doubt, and no one has asked the question: where did this document come from? These are thus the observations which I thought it necessary to make. I would like particularly to receive an answer from the representative of China to my last proposal regarding the drafting of the last part of the resolution. Mr. Quo TAl-CHI (China): Personally, I really dislike to prolong this discussion, which seems to me rather unimportant. I am afraid my reply to the query from my colleague of the USSR is not what he would like or expect. I am partial to the revised draft resolution proposed by the representative of the United States of America, which would seem to obviate any further discussion concerning the point of difference between us. I think the wording of his revised resolution makes it obvious that there is no permanent Chairman of the Council of Foreign Ministers. I believe it states that the Security Council received a communication from the Chairman of the Council of Foreign Ministers which met in New York on such and such a date. It thus makes it perfectly clear who was there, and who is concerned. At the end, it simply refers the matter to the Secretary-General or directs him to inform the members of the Council of Foreign Ministers concerned. This makes the wording much simpler. If I were to answer your question-I am afraid that you did not quite go far enough to meet my point-I should have to say that the Secretary-General should be directed to inform Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): The representative of the United States of America has very rapidly drafted a number of variants of his original proposal, but I have not yet seen its final version, and it is therefore difficult for me to discuss it, since my knowledge of its content is only derived from what I could hear. It seems to me that the amendments submitted by the United States representative, which take into account the remarks made by the Chinese representative, do not improve the text, but as I have said alrl"ady, they complicate it still further. Thus, if this is acceptable to the other members of the Security Council, I am prepared to agree that the last part of the resolution should state that "the Security Council directs the Secretary- General to notify the countries, members of the Council of Foreign Ministers concerned, of its action". As far as I can gather, this conforms with the wish expressed by the representative of China, not at the beginning of the debate, but at a later stage, when he requested that the word reconcerned" should be added, in view of the fact, and I wish to emphasize this, that in this particular case fOLlr countries are concerned: the United Kingdom, the United States of America, France, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. If we are in agreement on this, as nobody seems to have voiced any objection, but, on the contrary, as this proposal seems to have been supported by everybody, I shall hold no objections to agreeing to such a resolution. The PRESIDENT: I think it might be advisable at this stage to continue with the general discussion and permit the Secretariat to prepare the text of the resolution as proposed by the representative of the United States of America; we shall then have it circulated. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): Inasmuch as I have agreed with the proposal of the representative of China that the last part of the resolution should read "the Security Cpuncil directs the Secretary-General to . ')tify the countries, members of the Council ~ Foreign Ministers concerned", there is no need to add anything more. It seems to me that the additions proposed by the representative of the United States of America automatically become redundant. I do not think that the representative of China has withdrawn his proposal. The PRESIDENT: I still think it would be preferable to await the actual text of the resolution being typed by the Secretariat; then we can return to an active consideration of this particular subject. In the meantime, I suggest that we might proceed with the general discussion on this Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Je pense qu'a ce stade il serait bon de poursuiv:"e la discussion generale et de permettre au Secretariat de preparer le texte de la resolution proposee par le representant des Etats-Unis d'Amerique; nous le ferons alors distribuer. ~. GROMYKO (Union des RepubliquC3 sodalistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe): Etant donne que fai accepte la proposition du representant de la Chine qui etait de dire, a la fin de . la resolution, que "le Conseil de securite charge le Secretaire general d'informer les Puissances interessees, membres du Conseil des Ministres", je ne vois pas la necessite d'y fake d'autres additions. J'ai l'impression que celles que propose le representant des Etats-Unis d'Amerique tombent d'elles-memes. Je crois que le representant de la Chine n'a pas retire sa proposition. Le PRESID;l!:NT (traduit de l'anglais): Je con:' tinue de penser qu'il serait preferable d'attendre que le texte exact de la resolution ait ete tape au Secretariat; nous pourrons alors reprendre la discussion de cepoint particulier. Entre temps, je propose que nous poursuivklllS la discussion The question is not whether a particular situation now existing is of concern to the Security Council, but whether the Security Council has power to act in a certain way ill the future. The political arguments, however real they may be, do not dispose of the constitutional difficulties. The real issue is whether-if there is general competence of the Security Council under Article 24 in respect of matters affecting international peace and security-this competence is of such a character as to cover those precise functions which the Security Council will be required to undertake after the setting up of the Free Territory of Trieste. Let us assume for our present purpose that Article 24 does confer a general responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security .over and above the specific powers listed in Chapters VI, VII, VIII and XII of the Charter. This general authority would not, in our view, authorize .Lhe assumption by the Council of the functions assigned to it in the Trieste Statute. The reasons for taking this view are the following: 1. The functions to be assigned to the Council by the Statute are not necessarily limited to the maintenance of international peace and security. 2. The giving of a categorical guarantee of the integrity and independence of the Free Territory goes farther than is warranted by the purposes and principles of the United Nations, and We submit that this question may affect the peace or the welfare and good government of the Territory without in any sense affecting international peace and security. Regarding the second of these two points, I would recall what we said in our previous statement, that both the Dumbarton Oaks and San Francisco Conferences rejected proposals for the inclusion in the purposes and principles of the United Nations of a guarantee of territorial i~­ tegrity, and chose instead a method by which Members undertook not to use force or threat of force against the integrity or independence of a territory. Furthermore, we do not feel that a satisfactory answer has been given to the question raised as to what countries would be bound by the obligati.ons to ensure the integrity and independence of the Free Territory. As I have already pointed out, there is no obligation on Members, under the Charter, to ensure the integrity and indepedence of any territory, and this omission is deliberate. If the Security Council now, by its own act, &ives such an assurance, on whom will the obligation rest? The representative of the United Kingdom suggested that it would fall upQn the Security Council as an organ and that the responsibility would be shared by those Members of the United Nations who happened to be members of the Security Council at any particular time. Does this mean that the present members of the Council, and in particular the non-permanent members, are now being asked to assume obligations which they themselves may not have to bear in the future and which some other Member of the United Nations which is not participating in the present decision would be required to bear? That would seem to be the En ce qui concerne le premier de ces deux points, la delegation australienne desire souligner que le Statut propose pour le Territoire libre designe le Conseil de securite comme l'autorite administrative et legislative supreme et lui donne de larges pouvoirs, pour assurer non seulement l'int6grite et l'independance du Territoire dans la sphere internationale et dans ses relations intemationales, mais egalement le maintien de la securite et de l'ordre public et une bonne administration de son Gouvernement pour les affaires interieures courantes. Nous estimom que cette question peut affecter la paix, le bien.-etre ou la bonne administration du Territoire sans aucunement affecter la paix et la securite internationales. " En ce qui concerne le second de ces deux points, je rappelle ce que nous avons dit dans notre precedente declaration, a savoir qu'aussi bien la Conference de Dumbarton Oaks que celle de San-Francisco ont rejete les propositions visant a inc1ure dans les buts et principes des Nations Unies la garantie de l'integrite territoriale, et ont, au lieu de cela, arrete leur choix sur une methode par laquelle les Memhres de l'Organisation des Nations Unies se sont engages a ne pas recourir a la force, ni a la menace de la force, contre l'integrite ou l'independance d'un territoire. En outre, nous ne pensons pas qu'une reponse satisfaisante ait etC donnee a la question de savoir a quels pays incomberait l'obligation d'assurer l'integrite et l'independance du Territoire libre. Comme je I'ai deja souligne, la Charte n'impose pas aux Membres l'obligation d'assurer l'inregrite et l'independance d'un territoire quelconque, et cette omission est voulue. Si, maintenant, le Conseil de securite donne, de son propre' gre, une telle assurance, a qui incombera l'obligation? Le representant du Royaume-Uni a propose qu'elle incombe au Conseil de securite en tant qu'organisme, et que la responsabilite soit partagee par ceux des Membres des Nations Unies qui se trouveraient etre membres du Conseil de securite aun moment donne. Cela signifie-t-il que les membres actuels du Conseil, en particulier les membres non permanents, doivent assumer maintenant des obligations qu'ils pourront ne pas avoif a assumer a l'avenir, et que quelque autre Membre des Nations 'Unies, qui ne participe pas a la decision actuelle, devra les assumer? n semble que ce soit la la position puisque la mesure que I should also like to bring forward another argument. The case of Trieste is extremely delicate and intricate. It is one of these cases which are liable to create difficulties and even endanger peace. The case was not referred to us under that aspect, but in connection with the drafting of the peace treaties. We did not draw up these treaties ouselves, but we are nevertheless aware that the question, by its very nature, constitutes a danger to peace. I think we should look at it from this angle. If the question has been brought before us under Chapter VI and, particularly, Chapter VII, we should be invested with extremely wide powers extending even to, these are the very words of Article 42, demonstrations and the use of force. It would be rather extraordinary, if in a case really liable to endanger, if not peace itself, at Je voudrais dire, d'une fa~on plus precise que je ne I'ai fait lors de ma derniere intervention, pourquoi je considere la decision que je vous ai demande de prendre conforme a la Charte. Je serai le plus bref possible, mais voudrais cependant preciser, sur un point particulier, ce que j'ai dit I'autre jour. , J'ai indique que I'Article 24 de la Charte, dont la redaction est tres generale, ne se heurtait, dans le cas qui nous est actuellement soumis, a aucun principe pouvant motiver une interpretation etroite ou limitee de ses termes. Nous ne sommes pas en presence d'un cas ou le principe de la souverainete des Etats, la regIe selon laquelle on ne doit pas intervenir dans les affaires interieures d'un pays, soit en jeu. Ce principe ne peut etre invoque que par les Etats pour lesquels les traites de paix ont deja ete etablis. Or, la mission qui nous est donnee se rapporte precisement a l'examen d'un traite de paix non encore ratifie. Par consequent, nous ne pouvons nous heurter a al,lcune disposition, ou aucun principe de cet ordre. Je voudrais egalement faire valoir un autre argument. Le cas de Trieste est extremement delicat et difficile. 11 est de ceux susceptibles de provoquer des difficultes, et meme, de mettre la paix en danger. Ce cas ne nous a pas ete presente sous cette forme, parce qu'il a e,te soumis en relation avec 1'etablissement des traites de paix. Ce n'est pas nous qui ftablissons ces traites. Nous savons cependallt qu'il s'agit d'une question dangereuse pOUJr la palx, de par sa nature. restime que nous devons l'envisager sous cet anJ:!:le. Si nous avions ete ~aisis de la question au titre du Chapitre VI et notamment du Chapitre VII, nous serions investis de pouvoirs extremement larges pouvant meme aller, ce sont les termes memes de l'Articl(~ 42, jusqu'a comporter des demonstrations et des mesures de force. II serait assez singulier, dans un cas reelIement susceptible de mettre en danger, sinon la paix, I thought it desirable to add these explanations to what had already been said, in order to support the legal observations made at the outset of this meeting. Mr. ]OHNSON (United States of America): In order to reach a. conclusion quickly, and bearing in mind the various points of view which have been expressed at variance with my original resolution, I am going to suggest to the Council that it should take the resolutipn as placed before it originally at today's meeting, and simply eliminate the last sentence, which is entirely unnecessary in substance. Thus, the resolution which the Council would be asked to vote upon would be the text of the revised resolution put before you at the beginning of this meeting, the last paragraph being eliminated. This might, I think, sufficiently meet objections to permit the Council to reach a unanimous decision. If no one objects, Mr. President, I move that the resolution be voted upon in its original form, with the elimination of its last sentence.

Let me read it, then, and I shall see whether it conforms with what is desired by members: "The Security Council, having recei.ved and examined the Annexes to the proposed Peace Treaty with Italy relating to the creation and government of the Free Territory of Trieste (including an arrangement for a Free Port), hereby records its approval of the three following documents: . . 1. The instrument for the provisional regime of the Free Territory of Trieste; 2. The permanent Statute for the Free Territory of Trieste; 3. The instrument for the Free Port of Trieste; and its acceptance of the responsibilities devolving upon it under the same." Mr. PAROD! (France) (translated from French): We have just spent two hours over a debate which, in my opinion-and I believe it is share~ by certain of my colleagues-is of no great Importance. I have had the impression that we were going too deeply into an issue whose substance did not warrant it. The proposal just made by the representative of the United States of America is extremelv simple, and has the advantage of eliminating the problem. The Secretariat would be left free to transmit the information as it would deem fit, without asking the Security Council's opinion. La proposition que vient de faire le representant des Etats-Unis d'Amerique est extremement simple, et a 1'avantage de supprimer le probleme. Le Secretariat.serait laisse libre de faire sa transmission comme il l'entendrait, sans demander pour cela l'avis du Conseil de securite. Ce dernier Mr. GROMYKO (Union of So\iet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): We have various opinions concerning the utility of discussing the last part of the resolution of the United States of America. Mr. Parodi holds an opinion which differs from mine. If the question were unimportant, we should not be discussing it. However, I fully agree with the proposal of the United States representative to delete in its entirety the last paragraph of his resolution, as the question of notifying the Governments concerned, that is to say the Governments of the four great Powers, of the action of the Security Council is settled automatically, since these countries are at the same time members 0_' the Security Council. It is precisely the reason for which I consider that the last paragraph of the resolution may be deleted without any harm, and that the text of the resolution may be left in the amended fonn, as submitted by the representative of the United States of America, without its final paragraph. Evidently, this may also be useful from the point of view of reaching an agreement on this draft resolution. Mr. Quo TAl-CHI (China): I am entirely agreeable to the revised text of the representative of the United States of America. I think that omitting the last paragraph has the merit of simplicity and suppresses the ambiguity which was the main point of difference.

Are there any other members of the Council who wish to offer observations on this particular matter? If not, we shall proceed to a vote . . . I would ask that we wait a moment or two for the representative of Syria. . I shall read the text of the resolution to the Council: "The Security Council, having reached and examined the Annexes to the proposed Peace Treaty with Italy relating to the creation and government of the Free Territory of Trieste (including an arrangement for the Free Port), hereby records its approval of the three following documents: 1. The instrument for the provisional regime of the Free Territory of Trieste; 2. The permanent Statute for the Free Territory of Trieste; 3. The instrument for the Free Port of Trieste; and its acceptance of the responsibilities devolving upon it under the same/' Will all members who support that text of the resolution please raise their hands? M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques soda-. !istes sovietiques) (trad1lit du russe): Les opinions different quant a l'utilite d'une discussion sur la partie finale de la resolution des Etats- Unis d'Arne!ique. M. Parodi soutient une opinion differente de la mienne. Si cette question n'avait pas d'importance, nous ne la discuterions pas. Je suis toutefois entierement d'accord avec le representant des Etats-Unis pour supprimer cOlllPletement le dernier paragraphe de sa resolution. Car la question de faire part de la decision du Conseil de s~curite aux Gouvernements interesses, c'est-a.-dire ceux des quatre grandes Puissances, se resout d'elle-meme, etant donne que ces Puissances sont en meme temps membres du Conseil de securite. C'est precisement pourquoi j'estime que nous pouvons sans inconvenient supprimer le dernier paragraphe de la resolution, et maintenir pour le reste le texte presente par le representant des Etats-Unis d'Amerique, avec les precisions qu'il y a apportees. Non seulement cela n'offrirait aucun inconvenient, mais encore cela nous permettrait de nous entendre sur le texte de la resolution. M. Quo TAl-CHI (Chine) (traduit de l'anglais): Je suis entierement d'accord sur le texte revise du representant des Etats-Unis d'Amerique. J'estime que le fait d'omettre le dernier paragraphe a l'avantage de la simplicite et supprime l'ambiguite qui constituait le principal point de desaccord. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): D'autres membres du Conseil desirent-ils presenter des remarques sur ce point particulier? Dans la negative, nous passerons au vote ... Je vous demanderai d~attendre quelques instants le representant de la Syrie. Je vais donner lecture du texte de la resolution au Conseil: "Le Conseil de securite, ayant re~u et examine les Annexes au futur Traite de paix avec 1'ltalie, relatives ala creation et au gouvernement du Territoire libre de Trieste (y compris les dispositions concernant le Port franc), signifie par la presente son approbation des trois documents ci-apres: 1. Instrument relatif au regime provisoire du Territoire libre de Trieste; 2. Statut pennanent-du Territoire libre de Trieste; 3. Instrument relatif au port franc de Trieste; et son acceptation des responsabilitt~s qui lui incombent aux termes desdits." Que tous les membres qui sont en faveur du texte de la presente resolution veuillent bien lever la main. I a 11 heures ou a 15 heures. L'une ou l'autre de ces heures me conviendra. . Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais) = Si le Conseil se reunit a 11 heures, il pourra decider, a la fin de la seance du matin, s'il desire ou non se reunir l'apres-midi.

If the Council meets at 11 a.m., it can determine, at the conclusion of the morning session, whether or not it wishes to meet in the afternoon. The meeting rose at 5.53 p.m. mar(~i, je ne m'opposerais pas a ce que notre prochaine seance ait lieu mertredi. Je prefererais cependant que le Conseil se reunisse plus tot, c'est~a-dire lundi,ou mardi. Le 1?RESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Je desire preciseI' que j'ai cherche a savoir quelle etait la date qui convenait le mieux aux membres du Conseil en general. Pour repondre a l'objection formulee par le representant de I'URSS, on a propose que le Conseil se rcunisse mercTe~i a 11 heures et, s'il estime alors necessaire de siegeI' une seconde fois ce jour-la, rien ne l'empechera de le faire. Cela fera compensation pour quelques-uns des jours indiques par le representant de l'URSS et pourra contribuer a lui faire accepter la date de mercredi comme la plus commode pour les membres du Conseil. Si personne ne voit cl'objection a ce que le Conseil se reunisse mercredi prochain a 11 heures, nous nous reunirons ce jour-la. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistessovietiques) (traduit de l'anglais): Puisque nous nous reunissons mercredi, il rn'est personnellement indifferent que nous nous reunissions La seance est levee a17 h.93.. Priated in the U. S. A. Price in the United States: 15 cents 24.February -l94t