GENERAL ASSEMBLY GENERAL ASSEMBLY

r

United Nations

f

GENERAL ASSEMBLY GENERAL

i.

THIRD COMMITTEE

MEETING

United Nations

THIRD COMMITTEE

f ' ,I

~

.)

"~

".l

{ r

r f

f

~r

r r

I' I

SIXTH SESSION Official Record,

386tb

Monday, 14 January 1952, at lO.30a.m.

1 SIXTH SESSION L ASSEMBLY Official Record,

I.

386tb

MEETING

Palais deatChaillot, Paris Monday, 14 January 1952, lO.30a.m. CONTENTS

Refugees and stateless persons (concluded)

Palais de Chaillot, Paris Page, .

Problems ~f a~sistance to CONTENTS refug~es: reports of the International Refugee OrgamzatIon and of the HIgh Commissioner for Refugees (A/1884 Page, 229 VI), persons A/1948,(concluded) A/2D11, A/C.3/563, A/C.3/L.210, A/C.3/ Refugees (chapter and stateless . L.212, A/C.3/L.213, A/C.3/L.214) (concluded) . Problems ~f a~sistance to refug~es: reports of the International Refugee OrgamzatIon and Chairman: of the HIgh Mrs. Commissioner for Refugees 229 Ana FIGUEROA (Chile). (A/1884 (chapter VI), A/l948, A/201l, A/C.3/563, A/C.3/L.210, A/C.3/ L.2l2, A/C.3/L.2l3, A/C.3/L.214) (concluded) . Refugees and stateless persons (concluded) Paragraph 1 (c) was adopted by 32 votes to none, with 4 abstentions. Chairman: Mrs. Ana FIGUEROA (Chile). [Item 30]* Paragraph 1 (d) was adopted by 34 votes to none, with 2 abstentions. Problems to refugees: reports of the Paragraph Refugeesofandassistance stateless persons (concluded) 1 (c) was adopted by 32 votes to none, Paragraph International Refugee Organization and of the Highwith 4 abstentions.2 was adopted by 30 votes to 1, with [Item 30]* (A/1884 (chapter VI), 7 abstentions, Commissioner for Refugees Paragraph 1 (d) was adopted by 34 votes to none, A/1948, A/20ll, A/C.3/S63, A/C.3/J.J.210, A/with 4.2 abstentions. The CHAIRMAN called for a vote on the joint Problems of assistance to refugees:A/C.3/L.214 reports of the(conC.3/L.212, A/C.3/L.213, as a to whole. procedural2 motion (A/C.3/L.214) Paragraph was adopted by 30 votes 1, with International cluded) Refugee Organization and of the High 7 abstentions. The joint procedural motion (A/C.3/L.214), as a (chapter VI), Commissioner for Refugees [Item (A/1884 31]1i< whole, was adopted by 31 votes to none, with 4 ab~ A/1948, A/20ll, A/C.3/S63, A/C.3/L.210, A/ 4. stentions. The CHAIRMAN called for a vote on the joint C.3/L.212, A/C.3/L.213, A/C.3/L.214 (conCOMMENTS ON THE PUBLICATION The Refugee in theprocedural motion (A/C.3/L.214) as a whole. r.luded) 5. joint The procedural CHAIRMAN stated(A/C.3/L.214), that an amendment Post-War World (concluded) The motion as a to the joint procedural motion submitted by the Syrian [Item 31]* whole, was adopted by 31 votes to none, with 4 ab~ 1. The CHAIRMAN called for the vote on the jointstentions. representative in writing had been received too late to Haitian ONandTHELebanese procedural motion in(A/C.3/ be taken into consideration. She ruled that the adopCOMMENTS PUBLICATION The Refugee the The of CHAIRMAN stated thatprecluded an amendment to the L.214) concerning publication The Refugee in the5. tion the procedural motion a vote on Post-War the World (concluded) joint resolutions procedural previously motion submitted by the Syrian Post-War World,1 the Committee having decided at thethe draft submitted. 1. previous The CHAIRMAN for that the vote on first. the joint representative in writing had been received too late to meeting tocalled vote on motion 6. Mr. (Syria) maintained that the it was for the Haitian and Lebanese procedural motion (A/C.3/ be taken intoMUFTI consideration. She ruled that adopnot themotion Chairman, to decide 2, concerning Mr. PAZHWAK (Afghanistan) and Mr. L.2l4) the publication The Refugee in theROYtion Committee, of the procedural precluded a votewhether on the the resolutions should submitted. be put to the vote. He asked (Haiti)World,1 asked that the motion having should decided be put toat the Post-War the Committee the votedraftdraft resolutions previously that that decision should be taken by a roU-call vote. in parts, in view of the fact that certain of its subprevious meeting to vote on that motion first. Mr. MUFTI (Syria) maintained that it was for the paragraphs were similar in substance to the Egyptian6. 7. The not Third Committee to should vote the on the decidealso whether Committee, the Chairman, 2, draft Mr. PAZHWAK (Afghanistan) and Mr. ROY resolution (A/C.3/L.210). Syrian amendment, which, in the his vote. opinion, had been be put to He asked draft resolutions should (Haiti) asked that the motion should be put to the vote submitted at least as be regularly as athe joint Haitian that decision should taken by roll-call vote. and 3. The CHAIRMAN observed that in ofthat of the fact that certain its case sub-eachthat Lebanese in parts, in view motion; the Committee should at any rate of the sub-paragraphs of paragraph 1 would be put to paragraphs were similar in substance to the Egyptian The Third Committee alsoto vote on it.the by a vote whethershould it wished vote on vote separately. She put the joint procedural7. decide drafttheresolution (A/C.3/L.21O). Syrian amendment, which, in his opinion, had been motion submitted by Haiti and Lebanon (A/C.3/L.214) 8. Mr. (Union as of Soviet Socialist Republics) at PAVLOV least as regularly the joint Haitian and submitted 3. to The had agreed that the said that the Third Committee theCHAIRMAN vote in parts.observed that in that case each at any rated~aft Lebanese motion; the Committee should of the sub-paragraphs of paragraph 1 would be put to resolutions not mutually Paragraph 1 (a) \Vas 31 procedural votes to none,decide it wishedexclusive. to vote on The it. adoptlon by a votewere whether the vote separately. She adopted put the byjoint of the procedural motion did not preclude voting on withsubmitted 4 abstentions. motion by Haiti and Lebanon (A/C.3/L.214) 8. the Mr. draft PAVLOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) resolutions. They could be put to the ~ote 1 (b) was adopted by 34 votes to 1, withsaid in that the and Third Committee hadwhich agreed thatadopt~d the d~aftmIght to the Paragraph vote in parts. parts those paragraphs were resolutions were not mutually exclusive. The adoptlon I abstention. be merged with the Haitian and Lebanese motIOn. Paragraph 1 (a) was adopted by 31 votes to none, not preclude voting on of the procedural motion did with 4 abstentions. 9. Mr. BAROODY (Saudi Arabia) said it was true Indicates the item number on the General Assemblythe draft resolutions. They could be put to the ~ote that and the those Committee had which decided thatadopt~d the vote sho?ld Paragraph 1 (b) was adopted by 34 votes to 1, with in parts paragraphs were mIght agenda. be taken first on the procedural motion, but that motIOn 1 abstention. be merged with the Haitian and Lebanese motIOn. 1 Document AIAC.36/6 (Geneva, December 1951). 229Mr. BAROODY (Saudi Arabia) said it was true 9. Indicates the item number on the General Assembly A/C.3/SR.386 sho~ld that the Committee had decided that the vote agenda. be taken first on the procedural motion, but that motIOn 1 Document AIAC.36/6 (Geneva, December 1951). >jo

>jo

229

A/C.3/SR.386

General Assembly-Sixth Session-Third Committee 230: ~_~~~=:=:~ General Assembly-Sixth Session-Third Committee -~~~~--=--:= In favour: Iraq, Liberia, ¥exico,. ~oland, Sau;di 230: ~_~~~==::'--=:""'-~------~-:-:~~---:--::= had not been submitted i~ time for proper ~o~~~d~~; Arabia, Syria,Iraq, Ukrainian S?clahst R.ep~bhc, In favour: Liberia, SOVIet ¥exico,. ~oland, Sau;di d'an t'mformal for proper consideration There had .been agreemen WI Union Syria, of Soviet Socialist RepublIcs, had not been submltte 1~ tme t withasone Arabia, Ukrainian SOVIet S?clallst AfghanIstan, R.ep~bhC, of its sponsors that it should not be re~arded pr~­ tion There had been an mformal agreemen Byelorussian Soviet SocialistRepublIcs, Republic, Chile, CzechoUnion of Soviet Socialist AfghanIstan, the vote the draft unless. of eluding its sponsors that itonshould not beresolutIOns re~arded as pr~­ It Byelorussian slovakia, Egypt. Soviet Socialist Republic, Chile, Czechoexplicit reference ~em .as re1?resen~~g embodied eluding the an vote on the draft to resolutIOns unless. It Against: Egypt.Haiti, Israel, Netherlands, New Zealand, the resultanofexplicit a long and comprehenSIve d~scusslon. reference to ~em .as reJ?resentmg ~ slovakia, embodied Norway, Unite~ Kingdom of G~eat Against: Peru, Haiti, Sweden, Israel, Netherlands, New Zealand. of ofthe procedural motion contamed su~ thetext result a long and comprehenSIve d~scusslon.no Th~ Britain and Northern Ireland, Umted States of Alnenca, reference. It seemed that an attempt was being ma e Norway, Peru, Sweden, Unite~ Kingdom of G~eat text of the procedural motion contamed ,no sue Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, Britain and Northern Ireland, Umted States of Alnenca, to bury the draft resolutions. reference. It seemed that an attempt was bemg made Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, France. Australia. Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, to 10. bury Mr. the ROY draft (Haiti) resolutions. supported the ~hairman's ruling. Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, France. Abstaining: Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, decision the 385ththe meetmg to voteruling. on the 10.TheMr. ROY taken (Haiti)atsupported ~hairman's Lebanon, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Abstaining: Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, been joint Haitian andat the Lebanese motion tofirst The decision taken 385th meetmg votehad on the Thailand,Nicaragua, Turkey, Uruguay, YugoPakistan,VeJ?-e.zuela, Panama, Yemen, Philippines, appmval of such a ruling. tantamount joint Haitian toand Lebanese motion first Furthermore, had been Lebanon, slavia, Argentina, Burma, VeJ?-e.zuela, Dommlcan Yemen, Republic,YugoEcuaThailand, Turkey, Uruguay, by adopting paragraph 2 ?f that ~roposal the Comtantamount to apPf0val of such a ruling. Furthermore, dor, Ethiopia, Greece, Guatemala. slavia, Argentina, Burma, DomlOlcan Republic, Ecuahad paragraph decided to conSider mCidentthe closed. Combymittee adopting 2 ?f thattheI?roposal dor, TtEthiopia, Greece, was decided, by Guatemala. 20 votes to 13, with 22 abstento conSider the mctdent closed. mittee had decided 11. Mr. AZKOUL (Lebanon), Rappo.rteur, observ~d tions, to vote by on20 thevotes draft to resolutions. Tt wasnot decided, 13, with 22 abstenthatMr. the joint procedural motion Rappo.rteur, mer~ly Imposed certaIn tions, not to vote on the draft resolutions. 11. AZKOUL (Lebanon), observ~d on the Rapporteur.; would certaIn not be 17. Mr. MUFTI (Syria) insisted that the Corn mittee obligations that the joint procedural motion mer~lyItImposed decide whether or not it would his amendin the plenary meetmg ?f the G~ner~l discussed MUFTI (Syria) insisted thatvote theonCo:rn mittee obligations on the Rapporteur.; It would not be 17.mustMr. ment to thewhether joint procedural motion (A/C.3/L.214). Assembly.in the The plenary section meetmg of the Third decide or not it would vote on his amenddiscussed ?f theCO?1mlttee G~ner~l s must the refugee a full report on The the PAVLOV joint procedural (A/C.3/L.214). Assembly. section question of the would Third contam CO~llnIttee s ment 18. to Mr. (Unionmotion of Soviet Socialist H.epubincident, with atwould least the substance account thetherefugee question contam a full of 18.lics)Mr. report on of suggested that the Committee would be better able PAVLOV (Union of Soviet Socialist H.epubconcerning it. substance It would conall the ofdraft account the resolutions incident, with at least the of to decide about the Syrian amendment if it knew its text. lies) suggested that the Committee would be better able with an explanation'that no it. vote Ithad been contaken allclude the draft resolutions concerning would decideMr. about the (Haiti) Syrian amendment if it under knew rule its text. on them because the Committee had had adopted pro- to 19. clude with an explanation'that no vote been the taken ROY observed that, 129 no injustice would be motion. theThus, oncedural them because Committee had adopted thedone pro-to 19.of the rules of procedure, it was impossible to vote Mr. ROY (Haiti) observed that, under rule 129on any ofmotion. the delegations concerned. cedural TllUS, no iniustice would be done to ofan once the itproposal to which applied theamendment rules of procedure, was impossible to itvote on of the delegations concerned. any had been adopted. an amendment once the proposal to which it applied 12. Mr. PAVLOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Repubadopted. the rules of procedure lics)Mr. observed that (Union rule 130ofofSoviet 20.been Under rule 122, the decision on the procedural PAVLOV Socialist Repub- had 12. wasobserved clearly applicable: decide 20.motion lics) that rule 130theofCommittee the rules ofshould procedure could if aprocedural two-thirds Under rule be 122,reconsidered the decisiononly on the voteCommittee on the draft resolutions. whether not it would the was clearlyor applicable: should decide motion majority so decided. could be reconsidered only if a two-thirds whether or not it wouldhe vote on the resolutions. so decided. could not draft accept the Haitian majority 13. Furthermore, 21. Mr. PAZHWAK (Afghanistan) asked what was of the representative's interpretation of paragraph 2 earliest time at which the Syrian asked amendment 13. Furthermore, he could not accept the Haitian 21.the Mr. PAZHWAK (Afghanistan) what could was could and 2 would procedural motion; the matter representative's interpretation of paragraph of thebe thehave beentime submitted. earliest at which the Syrian amendment could anew outside the Third Committee, as protaken up motion; procedural the matter could and would be have been submitted. 22. The CHAIRMAN thought that the Syrian reprein the Czechoslovak draft resolution (A/C.3/ posed taken up anew outside the Third Committee, as procould have announced histhe intention subL.213). The CHAIRMAN thought that Syrian of repreposed in the Czechoslovak draft resolution (A/C.3/ 22.sentative mitting the amendment before the vote on the joint sentative could have announced his intention of subL.213). L4. The CHAIRMAN, noting that her ruling had procedural motion had begun. observed thatthat it ber had ruling been had made mitting the amendment before the vote on th~ joint beenThechallenged, 14. CHAIRMAN, noting begun. on theObserved basis ofthat her itunderstanding of the procedural impartially 23. Mr. motion MUFTIhad (Syria) maintained that his ~lTnend­ been challenged, had been made at the previous meeting. Obviously she Chair's ruling ment had at least equal standing with t prothat the his j oja nTl1cndimpartially on the basis of her understanding of the 23. Mr. MUFTI (Syria) maintained have had no mtention burying the draft resolucould ruling cedural first hadwith not the beenj ojsu tted had motion, at leastwhich equal atstanding n bt nli proChair's at the previous of meeting. Obviously she ment since in of anyburying case appear in the Rap- cedural tions,have in writing, .as his had at been. could hadthey no would mtention the draft resolumotion, which first had not been su b nli tted [lortcur's tions, since report. they would in any case appear in the Rap- in 24. writing, his had been. Mr. asAZKOUL (Lebanon), Rapporteur, suggested rorteur's report. the AZKOUL Syrian amendment should be read out a nd the IS. Mr. DE ALBA (Mexico) thought that to vote on 24.thatMr. (Lebanon), Rapporteur, suggested Syrian representative should introduce it before the vote the c!Hlllenge t? tl~e Chai~man's ruling would be that the Syrian amendment should be read out a od the 15. Mr. DE ALBA (Mexico) thought that to vote on was taken on the should questionintroduce of reconsidering the vote joint mIght be mterpreted a rellexion representative it before the c!Hlllenge ast? It tl~e Chai~man's rulingas would be Syrian theundeSirable, procedural so that of the reconsidering Committee could I~pon he~ impartiality. the other hand, delega- was taken onmotion, the question the decide joint undeSirable, as It might On be mterpreted as a the reilexion l~onshe~ which felt that they hadother beenhand, injured every procedural whether itmotion, was suffi.ciently important to warrant reconso that the Committee could decide l~pon impartiality. On the thehad delegato have vote they takenhad on been the draft resolutions and whether sideration of the previous important decision. to warrant reconfightwhich it was sufficiently l~ons felta that injured had every thetaken Committee moral obligation all members of the previous decision. nght to have a of vote on the had draftaresolutions and sideration 25. Mr. ROY (Haiti) would accept that suggestion support them that. alltomembers of theinCommittee had a moral oblig~tion only on ROY the understanding thataccept the Syrian amendment 25. Mr. (Haiti) would that suggestion to support them in that. was onintroduced simply tothat place Committee in a 16. :rhe CHAIRMAN agreed with the Mexican repre- only the understanding the the Syrian amendment better position simply to maketo itsplace decision. sc~tative and withdrew agree? her ruling. SheMexican asked the Com- was introduced the Committee in a 16.. ~11e CHA.IRMAN with the reprel1uttee to by aher roll-call wished better position to make its decision. sc~tatlve anddecide, Withdrew rulIng. vote, She whether asked theit Com26. Mr. PAZHWAK (Afghanistan) submitted a comto vote the draft l1uttee to on decide, by a resolutions. roll-call vote, whether it wished 26.promise proposal. Mr. PAZHWAK (Afghanistan) submitted a comto vote on the A Fote wasdraft takenresolutions. by roll-call. promise proposal. 27. Mr. MUFTI (Syria) and Mr. AZKOUL (Lebanon) A Naiti, Fote was takenbeen by roll-call. having drawn by fot by the Chairman, they (Syria) were and unable accept the Afghan 27.stated Mr.that MUFTI Mr. to AZKOUL (Lebanon) first. was called upon to vote flaiti, having been drawn by fot by the Chairman, proposal. stated that they were unable to accept the Afghan was called upon to vote first. proposal.

231

f

r1 r·

l( }

r

[ f

28. At the invitation of the CHAIRMAN, Mr. 37. The CHAIRMAN put to the vote the proposal STEINIG (Secretary of the Committee) read out the that the Third Committee should reconsider its deci386th Meetfng-141anuary 1952 text of the Syrian amendment to the joint procedural sion with regard to the joint procedural motion231 submotion (A/C.3/L.214), which was as follows: mitted by Haiti and Lebanon (A/C.3/L.214). Under 28. At"Inthetheinvitation of the CHAIRMAN, Mr. joint Haitian and Lebanese procedural 37.ruleThe 122CHAIRMAN of the rules of a two-thirds majoputprocedure, to the vote the proposal STEINIG (Secretary of the Committee) read the out United the motion insert the following: 'Invites ritythewould beCommittee required for that reconsider decision. its decithat Third should text of the Syrian amendment to for the Refugees joint procedural Nations High Commissioner to stop, if sion with therejected joint procedural motion subregard towas The proposal by 26 votes to 14, with motion (A/C.3/L.214), which was as follows: possible, the publication of the final report on the mitted by Haiti and Lebanon (A/C.3/L.214). Under 14 abstentions. "In the injoint Haitian World, and Lebanese refugee the post-war intended procedural to appear in rule 122 of the rules of procedure, a two-thirds majo'Invitesand theto United motion the following: ThebeCHAIRMAN that the decision just required forobserved that decision. 1952, insert or to refuse it his sponsorship consider, rity38.would to the stop,Memif Nations High Commissioner for Refugeesand taken implied that the Syrian amendment would in collaboration with the Secretariat The proposal was rejected by 26 votes to 14, withnot examined. possible, of theconcerned final report thethe 14 be bers of the the publication United Nations and on with abstentions. refugee in theofpost-war intended appear in assistance experts World, approved by thattoOrganization, his vote,justsaid 39. Mr. HESSEL (France), 1952, or to refuse of it his sponsorship consider, CHAIRMAN observedexplaining that the decision the preparation an official reportand on to refugees to be 38.thatThe he had supported the Haitian and Lebanese joint in submitted collaboration with General the Secretariat andofthe implied that the Syrian amendment would not to the Assembly theMemUnited taken procedural motion (A/C.3/L,214), which he thought be examined. Nations concerned and with the bers of the United Nations at its seventh session'." expressed a reasonable and conciliatory point of view. assistance of experts approved by that Organization, (France), explaining his vote. said 29. preparation Mr. MUFTI (Syria) said thatonherefugees had wished the of an official report to be by 39.40.Mr.HeHESSEL regretted that in debating the question that he had supported the Haitian and Lebanese jointthe his amendment to guard against any repetition of the submitted to the General Assembly of the United Third Committee had shown suchwhich a marked lack of procedural motion (A/C.3/L.214), he thought incident. at The suppression of the final report would any sense of proportion. The loudest voices had been Nations its seventh session'." a reasonable and conciliatory point of view. obviously be the best solution, but if the High Commis- expressed those of protest and critlicism, but he hoped they 29.sioner Mr. had MUFTI (Syria) said that he had by no power to countermand it, a wished similar result not be misconstrued as indicating a lack 40.would He regretted that in debating the question the of hiscould amendment to guard any repetition be 0 btained by against the alternative meansofhethehad Third attachment on had the Committee's part to the lack vital ofand Committee shown such a marked of the final report would incident. suppression proposed.TheThe latter course would enable some of the anygenerally principle of freedom of had information proportion. The loudest voices been sense of accepted be which the best but if the High Commisobviously countries hadsolution, been injured to obtain reparation. those and of expression. It would be regrettable if thethey Secreprotest and criticism, but he hoped 110 power was to countermand a similar sioner His had Government prepared toit,supply all result possible would tariatnotconcluded that it was future as authorized indicating ain lack of to be misconstrued alternative means he had attachment could be 0 btained information aboutbythethe situation in Syria. submit toon the the General Assemblypart onlytoofficial documents: Committee's the vital and proposed. The latter course would enable some of the generally and of thefreedom High Commissioner were of information accepted principle 30. Mrs. asked whether the Syrian the Secretary-General injured to obtain reparation. countries whichAFNAN had been(Iraq) free It to would seek the assistance ifof the independent be regrettable Secreandperfectly expression. representative could submit his amendment again at a His Government was prepared to supply all possible tariat and tothat haveit their published, provide~ was findings authorized in future to concluded plenary meeting of the General Assembly, if necessary. experts, information about the situation in Syria. it was made clear that those only experts tookdocuments: full responSIAssembly official submit to the General Mr.AFNAN AZKOUL (Lebanon), Rapporteur, said thatthebility for their reports. Secretary-General and the High Commissioner were 30.31.Mrs. (Iraq) asked whether the Syrian the Syrian representative could submit his amendment free ALBORNOZ to seek the (Ecuador) assistance had of independent representative could submit his amendmen~ again at a perfectly 41. Mr. voted for the at a plenary when the Committee's report wasexperts, and to have their findings published, provide? Assembly, if necessary. plenary meeting meeting of the General joint procedural motion in deference to views. of being discussed. If he was willing. to do so, t~ere it was made clear that those experts took fullthe responSIthose countries which disagreed with the informatIon 31.might Mr. not AZKOUL (Lebanon), that bility for their reports. be any need for the Rapporteur, CommIttee tosaid reconSIder contained in the book The Refugee in the Post~War theitsSyrian representative could submit his amendment decision. Ecuador felt(Ecuador) that stepshadmust taken Mr. ALBORNOZ votedbe for the to at a plenary meeting when the Committee's report was 41.World. 32. discussed. Mr. MENEMENCIOGLU (Turkey) co~ld joint prevent the publication distribution, views. ofthe procedural motion in and deference to the through being If he was willing to do said so, he there support theany first, butfor notthe theCommittee second part the Synanthose United Nations, of disagreed reports with to which the countries which withregard the informatIOn to of reconsider might not be need amendment but since it was not to be debated, wond-contained countries had Refugee not beeninconsulted; at the in concerned the book The the Post~War its decision. ered how lIe c~uld express that by his vote. same tinle Ecuador freedom of expresWorld. Ecuador felt considered that steps that must be taken to 32. Mr. MENEMENCIOGLU (Turkey) said he co~ld prevent fundamental right and fully respecsion was the ~publication andhuman ~istribution, thro~gh the 33. Mr. PAVLOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Rep~b­ support the first, but not the second part of the Synan United of reports With regard to which the Nations, principle. lies) observed jO!!?'t motIon ted that amendment, but, that since neither it was t~e not to be procedural ?ebated, wondcountries concerned not the been consulted; at the!hat nor the Syrian amendment Identified the book concer42. He could nothad accept derogatory remarks ered how he could express that by hIS vote. freedom of expressame time Ecuador considered that ned; anyone who had not attended the debate would had been made about the Rockefeller FoundatIon, was ~had fundamental human rightvaluable and fullycontribution respecof Soviet Rep?b33.have Mr.noPAVLOV idea what(Union the motion was Socialist about. If the vo~esionwhich always made a most principle. and technical projects throughou! the lics)was observed thattheneither jO!!?'t procedural motIon taken on Syrian amell;d~ent, he would submIttedtothat humanitarian nora the Syrian amendment concersub-amendment to it, Identified identifymgthethebook w?rk, as had42. world. The not United Nations owed a debt of ~atItu~e the derogatory remarks !hat He could accept ned; anyone who not attended debate would been done in thehad Czechoslovak drafttheresolutIOn (A/C.3/hadto been the Rockefeller which had also aSSIsted In the Rockefeller Foun~ah?n, made aboutfamily, have no idea what the motion was about. If the vo~e which the had building of made the United permanent Headalways a mostNations valuable contrIbutIOn L.213). was taken on the Syrian amel1;dment, he would submIt to humanitarian quarters in New York. His country also ~ad reason and technical projects throughou! the 34. Mr. AZKOUL a sub-amendment to it, (Lebanon), identifying Rapporteur, the w?rk, asexplained had world. to beThe grateful forNations the help. of the Foun.daMn and of United owed a debt of ~at1tu~e that the text of the procedural mo~on concerned ?nly been done in the Czechoslovak draft resolutIOn (A/C.3/ to IEEC, an organization which had ha~ also carned th~ Founfamily, which aSSIsted In the Rapporteur; it was not a resolutIon to be submItted the Rockefeller L.213). the field of pnvate enterprISe. buildingideals of theinto United Nations permanent Headto the General Assembly. The book would be fullythe dation's in New York. His stated country alsoalthoug~ ~ad reason 34.identified Mr. AZKOUL (Lebanon), Rapporteur, explained quarters 43. Mr. RIBAS (Cuba) .that he had in his report. grateful for the help of the Foun.daMn and of that the text of the procedural mo~on concerned ?nly to be not been present during the voting, he was m favour 35. Mr. ROY (Haiti) observed ~at if the Commit~ee IEEC, an organization which ha~ earned th~ Founthe Rapporteur; it was not a resoluhon to be submItted of the joint motion. to reconsider its decision, It could The book wouldthen be exanu~e fully dation's ideals into the field of pnvate enterpnse. to decided the General Assembly. not only the Syrian amendment .but any others su 44. PAZHWAK (Afghanistan) . h.ad ab~tained identified his whole report.matter would III fact be re-opene .43. Mr.Mr. RIBAS (Cuba) stated .that a1thoug~ he had mitted;inthe from voting on paragraph 1 (a) of the JOInt motIon on been present during the voting, he was m favour hat 35.36.Mr.Mr. ROYPAZHWAK (Haiti) obsen:ed ~at if the Conunit~ee not the round that it was not clear from th~ text v.: (AfghaI;istan) proposed the joint decided to reconsider its decislOn, It could the~ exaD11~e of the wor~ wasmotion. referred to ; it was important to gIve the tItle. of the procedural diSCUSSIOn. notclosure only the Syrian amendment .but any ot ers su the second halfh.ad of that sUb-paraab~tained 44. M Mr. PAZHWAK he thought (Afghanistan). oreover, mitted; matter would ill fact be re-opene . from voting on paragraph 1 (a) of the Jomt motIon on It the was whole sO agreed. 36. Mr. PAZHWAK (AfghaI:istan) proposed the the round that it was not clear from th~ text ",,:hat wor~ was referred to ; it was important to give the btle. closure of the procedural diSCUSSion. M oreover, he thought the second half of that sUb-paraIt was sO agreed.

t?C

./

l·

cl

cl

23~2

General Assembly-Sixth Session-Third Committee

-===--=:':-""":---------~~-------

Headquarters in New York was no reason to refrain graph should be changed to read: "The S,e~r~tar~t aft~ from criticizing a survey paid for by the Rockefel1er the High Commissioner accept responSibilIty r Foundation.Committee General Assembly-Sixth Session-Third 23~2contents", :==-==-:--------------~-51. In conclusion, Mr. was Pavlov requested that the in New York no reason to refrain 45. He had abstained also from voting on paragraphHeadquarters Rapporteur include in paid his report, first the full text of graph should be changed to read: "The S.e~r~tart:r aYt~ from criticizing a survey for by the Rockefel1er 1 (c). It was not enough to prevent the book from the three draft resolutions, submitted respectively by the High Commissioner accept responSlblhty being circulated by the Secretariat and the Offi.ce ofFoundation. Czechoslovakia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, On which no contents". the High Commissioner only, when ~e~e w~re ObVIOusly51. vote In had conclusion, Mr. and Pavlov requested the the been taken' secondly, the fullthat title of other possiblealso channels of dIstnbutIOn. He ha.dRapporteur 45 various He had abstained from voting on paragraph survey, The Refugee in the post-War World, include in his report, first the full with textdetails of abstained 2 a~ well,from as ~ISthe concerning It wasfrom not voting enoughonto paragraph prevent the book 1 Cc). and the circumstances of its prepathree draftauthors resolutions, submitted respectively by delegation entirely satisfied WIth the of HIghCzechoslovakia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, on which no being circulatedwas by not the Secretariat and the Offi;ce other hand" hevoteration. explanation. ~e~ethew~re obvIOusly the Commissioner's High Commissioner only, when On had been taken; and secondly, the full title of the had other voted possible for paragraphs and (c), bothHeofha.d whIchsurvey, various channels1 of(b)dlstnbutIOn. ,52. The Mrs. AFNAN regretted Third Refugee in the(Iraq) post-War World,that with the details abstained fromuseful. voting on paragraph 2 a~ well, as ~IS concerning Committee had used a point of procedure as a pretext he found authors and the circumstances of its prepadelegation not entirely wIthin favour the High for failing to do justice to the amendment proposed by 46. Mc.wasD'SOUZA (India)satisfied had voted of theration. On the other he Commissioner's Syria, especially since, in view of the resulting resentjoint draft resolution, whichhand,. he th~ught, whole of theexplanation. hadinvotcd for paragraphs 1 (b)did andfull(c),justice both to of all whIch Mrs. the AFNAN thatup the Third question(Iraq) might regretted be brought again before the light of the debate, yIews,52. ; ment, Committee had used a point of procedure as a pretext the General Assembly. The Iraqi delegation had, in he found useful. and, though the Syrian amendment s~ould, a~mlttedly, failing do justice to the amendment by of goodto faith, abstained from voting onproposed some parts considered undesuable Mr. bcen D'SOUZA (India) he hadthought voted inItfavour of the tofor all 46. have since, in view of the resulting resenttheespecially joint motion. question so prolong the he discussion rc-open draft a;d resolution, which th~ught,stillSyria, whole of thethejoint the question might be brought up again before in thc light of the debate, did full justice to all yIews ; ment, further. She Assembly. regretted that procedural decision the 53. General The aIraqi delegation had, inhad a~mIttedly, and,47.though the Syrian amendment should, deprived her of the chance for voting for parts Mc. PAVLOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Repub-all good faith, abstained from voting on some partsofof the havelics)been he the thought it undesuable to other three draft resolutions which had been before had considered voted against joint motion, both because the joint motion. question and a~d so prolong rc-open of itsthesubstance because of the the discussion irregular still way in the Committee. The Iraqi delegation's primary 0 bjecfurther. procedural decision had 53. tion Sheto regretted that not a that the book was it contained inaccuracies which it had been foisted on the Committee. her of the chance fortovoting parts of had the to -experience showed that be theforprice that 47. Mr. PAVLOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Repub- deprived deplored in which United Nations,other draft resolutions been before be three paid for freedom of thewhich Press had and expression-but had He votcd againstthe theway joint motion,theboth because lics)48. an substance organization up to defend was, despite Committee. Iraqi delegation's primary bjecit seemedThe to indicate that any person or 0organizaof its andset because of thepeace, irregular way in thethe t~at somefoisted of its on Members, being turned into antiontion efforts to the wasthenotcost that it contained ablebook to bear could have the inaccuracies United Nations which it hadof been the Committee. instrumcnt of aggression. Members had before them a-experience showedand thatbear to be priceresponsibility that had to for print, distribute thethe moral the United Nationsbe paid publishedthe under 48. book He deplored waythe in auspices which theofUnited Nations, for freedomThe of time the Press expression-but any document. spent and in debating the question neither of thewas, General Assembly and reflectingsettheupviews to defend peace, despite the thatwould an organization it seemed indicate anyif person or organizanot to have been that wasted it ensured against the the Economic and Social Council, spreading nor of of some oE its Members, being turnedbutinto an tionr~petition efforts able to bear the cost could have the United of such incidents; and she was gladNations the quespropaganda reminiscentMembers of Goebbels and Rosenberg; had before them a print, instrumcnt of aggression. bear the responsibility tIondistribute had beenand thrashed out moral in connexion with so for comcontained facts-notably aboutNations the admi-any paratively moreover, book publisheditunder the auspices of the United document. harmless The time in debating theThe question a spent work as the survey Refugee of the were com-would of USSR-which the General Assembly andnistrative reflecting organization the views neither not Post-War have beenWorld, wasted if it ensured against the in the of freedom of informa-r~petition of such incidents; and she was glad the quesuntrue. The nor pletely of the Economic and principle Social Council, but spreading not be usedofas Goebbels a cover for fascist propagandatIOn54. tion couldreminiscent ME~IjEMENCIOGLU (Turkey) propaganda and Rosenberg; had ~c. been thrashed out in connexion with so explained comof that itkind, and thefacts-notably Third Committee, the admidefenderparatively that hISharmless delegatIon had voted for the Haitian and Lebacontained aboutasthe moreover, a work as the survey The Refugee of human rights, must takeUSSR-which a definitive stand. of the were com- in the nistrative organization nesePost-War .motion World. ~ecause it seemed to provide the best pletely untrue. The principle of freedom of informapractical solutIOn for a most regrettable incident. He 49. It was not enough merely to stifle the matter as a cover for fascist propaganda tion within could not be used 54. ~r. have ME~EMENCIOGLU (Turkey)draft explained would voted for the Egyptian resolution the Third Committee, and declare the incident of that kin~, and the Third Committee, as the defender that(A/C:.3/L:210) hIS delegatIOn had for the if it voted had been putHaitian to the and vote,Lebabut had !he Sovie~ U:nion delegation, at any rate, could closed. of human nghts, must take a definitive stand. nese .motion ~ecause it seemed to provide the best abstamed In the roll-call vote on the question whether ~ot c?nsIder the mCldent closed; the High Commismost incident. since He he or notsolutIOn to vote for on athe threeregrettable draft resolutions, s stat~ment that merely he had to written It was not enough stiflethe theintroduction matter practical 49. sl~mer would have voted for the Egyptian draft resolution doubted whether they would have added force to the WIthout readmgCommittee, the survey and was no explanation' and the the Third declare the incident within (A/C:.3/L:210) if it had been put to the vote, but had procedural motion that had been adopted unanimously Union delegation could not, therefore, ~ubscribe Soviet closed. 'rhe Sovie~ U:nion delegation, at any rate, could the roll-call on the He question by the In members who vote had voted. wishedwhether however paragraph of the joint procedural motion. ~ot toc?nslder the 2IncIdent closed; the High Commis- abstamed or not to vote on the three draft resolutions, since he to ?~spel any impression that Turkey held' a neutrai sl~mcr s stat~ment that he had written the introduction ~(~' Some part~ of the motion were ambiguous. Para-doubted whether would added force to shared the pOs.ltlon on thethey 1?~tter as a have whole; his delegation the survey was no explanation' and the wIthout readmg gr,lph I (d), for lllstance, appeared to imply that despite en~rely motion that hadof been unanimously the OpInIOnS the adopted delegations which comSoviet Union delegation could not, therefore, ~ubscribe procedural a!l that had been book was to contin~e to beby the members had voted. wished however of plamed of thewho contents as wellHe as of the publication to paragraph 2 of the said, joint the procedural motion. cl:culated. That ~ould be a flagrant violation of th to ?~spel the book. any impression that Turkey held' a neutrai Some of part~ the motion were ambiguous. 50. :v~s~~s., theof Thud Committee, which had Paraseverel;pos.ItlOn on the I?~tter as a whole; his delegation shared ?5. the Mc. opmIOns MUFTI. (Syria) that hewhich had originally to imply that despite graph 1 (d), forthelllstance, CrItIcIzed. work., appeared .The Se~retariat and the Officeen~rely of the stated delcgations commtended to abstam from voting On the Czechoslovak ,~!l ?~ thatthe hadHIgh been ComllussIOner said, the book mIght was todisclaim contin~eresponsibto be plamed of the contents as well as of the publication of Ility. but That the contents of the book remained ~ould be a flagrant violationuncha of th dthe draft cl:culated. book. resolution (A/C.3/L.213) as a whole although he might have voted for paragraphs 1 and' 3 of that 1. (d) appeared which to be ahad trapseverel~ to o~tg~ and of pa.ragraph w~s~~s. the Tlurd Committee, Mr. He MUFTI. stated thatthe he Egyptian had originally would(Syria) have supported (A/e 3/ criticIzed. the CommIttee's work.. .The tacit Se~retariat Office ?5. text. tl~e !hIr~ consent and to itsthe surreptiti~~~ abstam voting On the Czechoslovak L.210)toand Saudi from Arabian (A/C,3/L.212) draft resoiu?~ the HIgh ComnllsslOner mIght disclaimmotion responsib d!stnbutIOn. Moreover, the procedural did notmtended resolution (A/C.3/L.213) as vote. a whole although jf they had been put to the IlIty.gIV~ but t.he the name contents of the bookthat remained of the book; was an unchan unpardonabledrafttions might have voted for paragraphs 1 and' 3 of that and omISSIOn, pa.ragraph Rcf~rence 1. (d) appeared to made, be a trap to the obt~~ had been during deb he 56. the Haitian and Lebanese wouldregard have to supported the Egyptian (A/eproce3/ generoSIty oftacit Mc. consent Rockefeller' f ct ate,text. HeWith, the CommIttee's tl~e to!hlr? to its the surreptitio~~ dural motion, ~e had (A/C.3/L.212) abstained on paragraph 1 (a) llad made available the site for th~ Urn'tad Ntha~ he L.210) and Saudi Arabian draft resoiud!stnbutlOn. Moreover, the procedural motion edid not atIons because he conSIdered that both the High Commissioner glV~ t.he name of the book; that was an unpardonable tions if they had been put to the vote. omISSIOn. Ref~rence had been made, during the debate 56. With. regard to the Haitian and Lebanese proceJhe generosI~y of Mr. Rockefeller: the fact that h' dural motion, ~e had abstained on paragraph 1 (a) la made avaIlable the site for the Uru't ed N atlOns . e because he conSIdered that both the High Commissioner

d

:0

I

r 1

it

T

! I f t sI'

.",

!

..,

'I-

.,,~,:.~

..

~

~.

;;, ~

::;:-:=::=~~~

..:3:8:6t::h~M::ee~t~in!g~1~4~J~a~nu~a~ ~1~95~2~ _ _-..

-,:~~_ _

and the Secretariat were to some ext . the publication of the report. He h~ r~spon~bl~ rOJ co~ld still be .distributed. By adopting the motion, O from voting on paragraph 1 (d), becausea ft s:e~~n~o ~rd CommIttee had taken no substantive decis -=~~::=~=~ the rights of sponso~s set the dangerous precedent of-.:3:8:6t:h~M:e:e~ti~n!g~1~4~J'~an~U~a~~19~5~2~ san t" . f ' an " had, m?reover, violated ~_~_~ RI 233 b d' cloning unsatls ac- draft resolutions. tory p bI' f and the ~ec~etariat extentresponsibility responsiblo f for them. u Ica were Ions toy some Isclaiming still .distributed. By adopting the thought motion, itthe the pubh.catlon the report.didHe al O the b .incid co~ld 65. be Mr. HAJEK (Czechoslovakia) was c 57. Hisofdelegation nothad regard t Third CommIttee had. taken no substantive decisions from votmg On paragraph 1 (d), because ft s~e~~n~o from t.he conte~t of the draft resolution he had submi closed and would refer to it in the General Assem~~y. as m?reover, VIolated thenot rights of object sponsors ofgen set the dangerous precedent of sanct'o . . f ' and had, th~t ~IS delegation could fail to to the tory p bl' t' b d' 1 mng unsatls acdraft Mr, GARlBAL.oI (Uruguay) stated that he had resolutions. ~nnclple of the H~itian and Lebanese procedural m u 58.lca IOns y Isclaiming responsibility for them. not been present dunng the vote On the joint H 65. 'f tion: He also objected to thought the manner which t Mr. HAJEK (Czechoslovakia) it wasinclear 57. His delegation did not regard th e mCl . 'd tWOuI/~lan en as . . and Lebanese motion (A/C.3/L.214) but m?tIon had been. manreuvred through the Third CO from t.he conte~t of the draft resolution he had submitted I av d d case an would refer to It mit the General Assembly. voted. for it ~ecause represented a 'satisfactory co .Hecould had not Intended submit an general amendment th~t: ~IS mlttee. delegation fail totoobject to the promIse solution. (Uruguay) stated that he h d ~nnclple m 58. Mr. GARlBALDI theofmotIon~ but had with surprise thatmothe wri the H~itian andnoted Lebanese procedural not been present during the vote On the joint H 'f a d~aft submltt~d at the beginning of the current mee tion: He also Objected to the manner in which that 59. Mr. NAJ~R (Israel) had voted for the joint and Leba~ese motion. (A/C.3/L.214), would a~~~~that m?tIon the the oralThird proposal made had been.c~nslderab~y manamvred from through COUlp~oced~ral motIOn because he but considered the differed voted. for 1t ~ecause It represented a satisfactory co _unduly. the prec~dlt;lg meeting. He had therefore been mlttee. .He had lOtended to submit an amendment to una promIsediSCUSSion solution. of. the subject had been prolonged m to submit hisnoted amendment in time.that the written theofmotlOn~ but had with surprise He had abstaIned on the question of reconsideration the beginning of thetocurrent meeting 66. Hisatdelegation to submltt?d objected the obvious intenti thatNAJ~R proposal(Israel) becausehadhe voted thought for ittheundesirable joint d!uft 59. Mr. c~nslderab~y from the oral proposal made at dIffered re-open the deba~e when subject had p~oced?ral motIOn because he the considered thatpatently the been of th.e s~onsors of the motion to pass over in silence the prec.edl~g meeting. had therefore unable pU?hcat1o~ by theHe United Nations ofbeen a work which w dIScuSSIon of. the subject prolonged unduly. exhausted.. ~e dl.d had not, been however, agree with the French to submIt his amendment in time. that of the reconsideration Committee had He hadrepresen~atlve absta.1lled on stheview question of delibe- neIther mdependent nor scientific in charac A;lthough ~aragraph of obvious the motion was justif all sense of proportion in discussing rately d~scarded that proposal because he thought it undesirable to 66. His delegation objec.ted1toCc)the intentions c?uld not agree paragraph his deleg~tlOn deba~e when the subject had patently been of the motion to pass over"Yith in silence the 1 ( re-open that the subject. of th.e s~onsors beca~se It United conSidered theof solutIoll proposed ther pU?hcatIo~ by the Nations a work which was ~e dId not, however, agree with the French exhausted.. ~~. Mr: .YU TSUNE-CHI (China) had supported the unsatisfactory. neIther mdependent nor scientific in character. represen~at1ve s view that the Committee had delibeJomt Haitian and Lebanese procedural motion because 1 (c) of the motion was justified, sta A;lthough all harmonize sense of proportion rately d~scarded 67.~aragraph ~r.. AZKOUL (Lebanon), Rapporteur, of discussing the Third Comit .served to the views in that subject. notthe agree with paragraph 1 (cl), his deleg~tlOn that, III c?uld VIew of controversial views that had b mittee. He thought the discussion had served some beca~se expres.sed It conSIdered the solution proposed therein on the refugee report, he was diifident ab attention of the the Secreuseful in drawing ~~. Mr: .YU purpose TSUNE-CHI (China)thehad supported unsatisfactory. assumlllg the sole responsibility for the chapter on t tariat and High Commissioner to the necessity for Jomt HaItIan and th~ Lebanese procedural motion because in the report. 67. ~rsubject .. AZKOUL (Lebanon), Rapporteur, stated careful scrutmy of documents issued Comunder their of the Third it .served to harmonize the all views VIew The of the controversialsuggested views that been pro IU1ttee. auspices. He thought the discussion had served some that, lU 68.