04091965 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Morozov (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1237 held on 4 September 1965
Text of the Speech made by Mr. Morozov (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1237 held on 4 September 1965
Thank you, Mr. President. By raising this highly important matter, which has a general bearing on the proper organisation of the work of any meeting of the Council, regardless of the specific matter under discussion, you have made my task very much easier.
However, I am bound to say that my expression of gratitude to you for bringing this general question before the Council -a question which is, so to speak, a common denominator of all the matters dealt with by the Council-unfortunately ends at this points, because I do not agree with your decision and interpretation with regard to this important question.
The Security Council is the principal organ of the United Nations bearing exclusive responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security on behalf of the United Nations. For that reason, the question of the methods and rules of procedure in accordance with which this important organ acts is, of course, of more than purely formal or legal significance; in view of the important work of the Council and the tasks which it is called upon to perform, this question inevitably assumes great political significance.
That is why my delegation has always insisted not only on strict observance of the provisions of the Charter in matters relating to the work of the Council but also on strict observance of the rules of procedure, which are based on the Charter and were adopted by the Council, even though, by an irony of fate, these rules have continued for two decades to be referred to as "provisional". This designation does not diminish the significance of the rules. I do not think that any members of the Council would contend that the Council can ignore the rules of procedure in one case and adhere strictly to them in another.
If we were to follow that course, our consideration of extremely important questions affecting the maintenance of international peace and security would be utterly chaotic.
Thus, the first point which I am trying to make is that the Council must conduct its work in strict accordance with the established rules, whether it is considering the question of Kashmir or some other question. I think it would be superfluous to say anything further in support of this point.
Turning to the question of the most unusual procedure if the adjective "unusual" can be applied to the word "procedure"-concerning which you have just reported to the Council, I shall try to use the mildest possible terms in demonstrating that it is essentially a violation of the established rules of procedure for preparing for and announcing a meeting of the Council.
Rules 1, 2 and 3 cannot be considered separately. Rules 2 and 3-I shall not read them out before this well-informed audience-establish the principle that meetings of the Council cannot be called as it were "anonymously". When a meeting of the Council is called, the request for a meeting can originate with a member of the Council, a Member of the United Nations or even, under certain circumstances, a State not a Member of the United Nations, assisted by a Member State. Under certain circumstances, if the General Assembly and here, of course, I am not referring to those resolutions whose illegality has been frequently pointed out by my delegation-addresses itself to the Security Council in the manner prescribed by the Charter, its action may be regarded as a reason for calling a meeting. Finally, a meeting may also be called if the Secretary-General submits a report to the Council under Article 99 of the Charter. These are the safeguards provided by the rules of procedure to ensure that a situation does not arise in which a meeting is called even though no member of the Council, and no one else authorised under the rules of procedure to raise the matter, has in fact requested the meeting.
I need hardly dwell on the fact that the General Assembly and the Security Council, when they adopted the relevant rules, intended that a request for a meeting of the Security Council should imply a certain assumption of political responsibility.
Not only today but on previous occasions we have maintained, when these questions arose in the work of the Security Council, that rule 1, to which you, Mr. President, referred, must be taken in conjunction with rules 2 and 3, if we are not to make the provisions of those two rules meaningless. Thus, the words which you cited from rule 1 to the effect that the President may call a meeting of the Security Council at any time he deems necessary can be interpreted in only one way: it is the President who, by virtue of the discretionary powers vested in him, has in the final analysis the exclusive right to decide the time when a meeting of the Council should be called.
If we take a different position and do not regard rule 1 as dealing solely with the right of the President of the Council to decide the time when the Council should be convened, then rules 2 and 3 lose their significance and we become involved in contradictions from which we will be unable to extricate ourselves.
I shall clarify this with an illustration. If, let us say, delegation A considers that the Security Council should be convened in one hour's time, delegation B considers that it should be convened in one month's time, and delegation C considers that it should be convened in one week's time, then rule 1 indicates the way out of the situation so that the Council can be convened. The rule authorises the President, acting alone on the basis of his discretionary powers, to decide that the Council should be convened at some time other than those requested by delegations A, B and C. His decision may be criticised and various views may be expressed about it, but it cannot be called into question. The President may decide to call a meeting of the Council ten minutes after a request to that effect has been received, or after any other interval of time, hearing in mind but not necessarily following the various proposals put forward. There would be no solution to the problem if the President did not have this power to decide when the Council should be convened. However, that is the extent of the provision. Rule 1 does not grant the President any other powers.
However, it appears, Mr. President, that you yourself are not particularly convinced of this, since you attempted to buttress rule 1 by referring, first of all, to the explanation given by the Chairman of the Committee which drew up the rules of procedure and, secondly, a recent precedent.
Let us start with the precedent to which you referred when you were good enough to mention me as a recent President of the Security Council. This president actually proves nothing, and for a very simple reason. During the period to which you referred, each time that discussion of the Dominican question in the Security Council ended, it was agreed that the would convene the Council whenever circumstances warranted or when any member of the Council so requested.
The very fact that the Council adopted this formula and came to an agreement that the President would call a meeting whenever circumstances warranted is the best possible confirmation that rule 1 does not decide this question.
Council gave its President a free hand in advance on a Moreover, it is quite clear that in the case in question the specific matter, under specific circumstances and in a specific context. The Council authorised the President in advance to act in this way on the Dominican question, which was before the Council. However, the whole point is that no such authorization was given to the President by the Council on the Kashmir question.
When the Council takes a similar decision, at this or any other meeting, and authorises the President to act in this way, then and only then will the President be able to do so.
With regard to your second argument, Mr. President, namely, your reference to the conclusion of the Chairman of the Committee of Experts which drew up the rules of procedure, I am bound to say that, generally speaking, when we have to be guided by as strict and specific a document as a set of rules of procedure, we must follow the provisions of those rules and not some explanation which may have been given after their adoption by one of those who drew them up. Therefore, from a legal point of view, the reference to the statement by the Chairman of the Committee which drafted the rules of procedure neither adds to the rules nor detracts from them. Thus, everything said in this regard remains valid.
There is a further matter on which I should like speak, a matter regarding which, Mr. President, you offered an apology, namely, the fact that the Soviet delegation was not consulted at all, even on the question of when the Council should be convened, when you, as President of the Council, decided-in our view, wrongly-that, despite the fact that no one had requested it, you could call a meeting of this Council under rule 1. I am referring here only to official consultations and leaving aside various circumstances which would take us too far afield, that is to say, matters which were the subject of consultation between delegations, between you and me and other delegations. Referring only to official statements, I must state that at about 10 p.m. yesterday I was informed officially and by your authority that the President requested the Soviet delegation to stand by on Saturday, because on that day he intended to hold consultations regarding the convening of the Security Council. Those consultations were not held until almost midday, and in any event not until you had taken the decision in question.
I am bound to say that those consultations were not held at all before the meeting of the Council was opened. Quite the contrary, since it was at about 12 o'clock-I did not note the exact time that I was informed that the President had decided to call a meeting of the Council for 3 p.m.
I profoundly regret, Mr. President, that as you entered upon your duties as President of the Council, you felt that you could make such a flagrant departure from the accepted procedure for consultations, if only regarding the time for convening the Council, to say nothing of the substance of this question. Your reference to the urgency of the question, to the need for an urgent decision, and your reference to the fact that you had been unable to consult all the delegations have a discriminatory ring about them. As everyone knows, there are eleven delegations in the Council. The number of members of the United States delegation who could have talked to the members of the Council is clearly more than eleven; thus, if you had wished, they could have held consultations on your behalf with all members of the Council for five or ten minutes. I should therefore like to point out that your argument regarding the urgency of the situation proves nothing. Furthermore, it is merely a cover-up for the deplorable fact which you yourself acknowledged and for which you were forced to apologize. For my part, I would have preferred not to hear those apologies but to come to an agreement, at the very outset, that during this month of your Presidency we shall be guaranteed against any repetition of this situation and that you, Mr. President, will follow the practice which was established here long before your arrival and is in keeping with the businesslike methods of communication between the President and the members of the Council which alone can enable you successfully to carry out your duties in conducting our meetings.
I should like to point out that, under the rules of procedure and the Charter of our Organisation, the President has no powers other than those relating to the conduct of our meetings. Outside those meetings, therefore, the President must be very careful not to adopt any course of action which might later necessitate apologies of the kind we have heard here, which only emphasise the completely abnormal atmosphere which has been created in the process of calling this meeting of the Council.
Thus, to sum up, the breaches of and departures from the rules which occurred during the preparations for the present meeting of the Council are intolerable not only in considering this particular question-I do not wish to link this matter with the position which my delegation will take on the substance of the question when the Council comes to discuss it but also because, of course, they greatly complicate the Council's performance of its functions. A repetition of these breaches and departures can only have a most undesirable effect on the future work of the Council. I would therefore request you, Mr. President, not to insist on the thesis which you have tried to defend and justify here.