« ÎnapoiContinuați »
of Czechoslovakia had thus been violated by threat of the use of force by the U.S.S.R. in contravention of paragraph 4, article 2, of the Charter. Mr. Papanek requested investigation by the Security Council of a situation which he held to fall within the terms of article 34 of the Charter.
On March 12, 1948, the Permanent Representative of Chile to the United Nations requested the Secretary-General to refer the question raised by Mr. Papanek to the Security Council and to communicate to the Council his petition that Chile be invited to participate in the discussion of the matter when it should be brought before the Security Council.
The Security Council placed the Chilean complaint on its agenda at its 268th meeting held on March 17, 1948, and considered it at nine meetings.
Mr. Papanek, who was invited to address the Council, confirmed and amplified his written charges regarding Soviet intervention in connection with the coup. The Representatives of the Soviet Union and the Ukrainian S.S.R. declared that the charges against the former country were “utter fiction” and that their submission had been motivated by the desire to divert world attenti8n from alleged interference by the United States and the United Kingdom in the internal affairs of Czechoslovakia ; the change of government which had taken place there was, according to these statements, effected through constitutional means and as a consequence of a freely taken decision of the Czechoslovak people.
The Representative of Chile, who had been invited to take part in the discussions, maintained on the contrary that the statements made by Mr. Papanek were prima facie well founded and that they justified investigations under article 34 for the purpose of discovering whether they were indeed accurate. The Representative of the United States, after rejecting the Soviet and Ukrainian countercharges, emphasized the similarity between facts of the developments in Czechoslovakia, which were a matter of common knowledge, and developments which had taken place elsewhere throughout eastern and central Europe; while details varied, the general pattern was the same. All the facts in this case were not readily apparent and could not be alleged in advance, but the seriousness of the allegations already made was such that the Security Council was bound to make every effort to get the facts. The Representatives of the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Argentina, Syria, China, and Canada assumed positions similar to that taken by the Representative of the United States.
A draft resolution was presented by Chile to provide for a subcommittee of the Security Council to hear witnesses and obtain further information relevant to the Czechoslovak case for the Council's consideration. While the Representative of the United States argued that the resolution was clearly procedural in that it sought a decision to establish a subsidiary organ under article 29 of the Charter, which is one of the five articles grouped under the title “Procedure” in chapter V dealing with the Security Council, the Representative of the Soviet Union contended that this was not the case and that the resolution in effect provided for an investigation which was subject to the veto.
Relying upon paragraph 2, part II, of the San Francisco Four Power statement, which provides that the decision as to whether or not a matter not specially provided for is procedural must be taken by a vote of seven members of the Security Council, including the concurring votes of the permanent members, the Representative of the U.S.S.R. demanded and secured a vote upon this question. He himself cast a negative vote, thereby vetoing the thesis that the matter was procedural although this was upheld by the votes of eight states. When the vote on the Chilean resolution, now considered as not being procedural, was taken, he again cast a negative vote constituting a second veto, despite the favorable votes of nine states.
By this exercise of the so-called "double veto” he thwarted the purpose of nine states to allow the Council to secure, through its own initiative, further information on the case which would enable it to reach a decision on the substance. The Representative of the United States declared that this opposition to the establishment of a factfinding subcommittee, plus the refusal of the new Czechoslovak regime to appear at the Council table as requested, had certainly in no way contributed toward dispelling the grave implications arising out of the charges of foreign interference in the affairs of Czechoslovakia, as alleged in the original complaint and in the course of the Security Council's proceedings. The Representatives of the United States, Great Britain, and France announced that their Governments would complete the Council's records by supplying statements on the circumstances of the case from politically prominent Czechoslovak nationals, generally respected in their country, who had escaped from Czecho-. slovakia since the coup d'état.
Under article 23 and annex 11 of the treaty of peace, Italy renounced all right and title to her African colonies–Libya, Eritrea, and Italian Somaliland. The treaty provided that final disposition of these pos
sessions was to be determined jointly by the Governments of the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, and France within one year of the treaty's coming into force on September 15, 1947. The Deputies of the Foreign Ministers considered the question until August 31, 1948, taking into account the reports of a Commission of Investigation which visited all the former colonies, and the views of other interested governments. In September 1948, the Council of Foreign Ministers met in Paris but failed to agree on the disposition of the colonies. In accordance, therefore, with the treaty, the Four Powers referred the matter to the General Assembly of the United Nations for its recommendation. Under the treaty, the Four Powers have agreed to accept such a recommendation and to take appropriate measures to put it into effect.
Because of its crowded agenda, the General Assembly at its Third Session in Paris was unable to consider this item and decided to carry the matter over to the April 1949 session of the Assembly in New York. Pending their final disposal, in accordance with the provisions of the treaty, these territories remain under their present administration, which is British for all the territories except the Fezzan in Libya, which is under French military administration. Treatment of Indians in South Africa; Spain
The matter of the treatment of Indians in the Union of South Africa, which had been considered by the General Assembly during the course of its meetings in 1946 and 1947, was placed on the agenda of the Third Session at the request of the Government of India. Renewed discussion of the question of Spain at the Third Session was suggested by the Government of Poland. With the pressure of other problems which came before the Paris meeting, neither of these questions reached the stage of active consideration, and both were deferred until the Second Part of the Session.
The Security Council made brief reference to the Spanish question on June 25, 1948, after the Secretary-General had transmitted to it the 1947 General Assembly resolution. The votes necessary to place the question on the agenda were not cast. The Representatives of the Soviet Union and the Ukrainian S.S.R. voted in favor of such action, the Representative of Argentina opposed it, and the remaining eight representatives on the Council abstained.
CONTINUATION OF INTERIM COMMITTEE
General Assembly resolution 111 (II) of November 13, 1947, established the Interim Committee for one year over the opposition of the Soviet Union and five other similar-minded Members. This resolution directed the Committee, along with its other duties, to report to the next regular session on the advisability of establishing a permanent committee of the General Assembly to perform the duties of the Interim Committee with any changes considered desirable in the light of experience.
With six members, including the Soviets, not participating, the Interim Committee began the study of this question in April 1948. After surveying the various possible fields of activity of such a committee, it decided that at least the present scope of activity should be maintained. A considerable amount of opinion favored vesting budgetary and administrative functions in the Committee as well, and this question was left to the General Assembly by the Interim Committee without recommendation.
It was agreed that the Interim Committee had shown itself useful and should be continued. It was also agreed that the Committee's existing powers and functions should be maintained and that, in addition, it should be authorized to request advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice on legal questions arising within the scope of its activities. Paragraph 2(c) of the resolution, which authorized the Committee to study and report on methods for implementing the general principles of the maintenance of international peace and security and for promoting international cooperation in the political field, was strengthened to take account of the work in this field accomplished during the past year by the Committee. Finally, it was recommended that in appropriate instances the General Assembly by resolution authorize ad hoc committees and commissions of the General Assembly to seek advice from the Interim Committee or authorize the Interim Committee to assist in the implementation of General Assembly resolutions. Differences of opinion led the Interim Committee to leave to the General Assembly, without recommendation, the decision as to the period of time for which the Committee would be continued. The report of the Interim Committee, embodying these conclusions, was referred by the General Assembly to its Ad Hoc Political Committee.
Largely as a result of the thorough consideration already given to the subject by the Interim Committee itself, the Ad Hoc Political
Committee was able to come to its conclusions quickly. The debates made it clear that a large majority considered that the Interim Committee had accomplished useful work and should be continued. In view, however, of the fact that Member States had not made use of one of the Interim Committee's most important functions—the preliminary consideration of disputes and situations for action by the General Assembly itself-of the necessarily short experience of the Interim Committee in its other functions, and of the continuing search for the most effective means of organizing the Assembly's work, the Ad Hoc Political Committee decided, with little opposition, to continue the Interim Committee experimentally for another year before reaching a decision as to its permanence.
On November 20, 1948, the Ad Hoc Political Committee adopted with only slight changes the draft resolution proposed by the Interim Committee. The Assembly on December 3, 1948, adopted the resolution by 40 to 6, with 1 abstention. Throughout the discussions, the six members of the Soviet group stated their objections to the Interim Committee in much the same terms as had been used the preceding year.
In its resolutions relating to Greece and Korea, the General Assembly authorized the two Commissions entrusted with the main responsibility on these problems—the United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans and the Temporary Commission on Korea—to consult with the Interim Committee with respect to the performance of their functions in the light of developments.
VOTING IN SECURITY COUNCIL
In November 1947 at the close of its consideration of the problem of voting in the Security Council, the Second Session of the General Assembly instructed the Interim Committee to study this problem, to consult with any committee which the Council might designate to cooperate in the study, and to report with its conclusions to the Third Session of the General Assembly. The General Assembly also requested the permanent members of the Security Council to consult with one another on this question in order to secure agreement among them on measures which would insure the prompt and effective exercise by the Security Council of its functions. Results of Interim Committee Study
In response to this instruction, the Interim Committee undertook a comprehensive objective analysis of the problem based on a list of