Text of the Speech made by Mr. Ramani (Malaysia) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1237 held on 4 September 1965

 Text of the Speech made by Mr. Ramani (Malaysia) in the Security Council Meeting No. 1237 held on 4 September 1965

I should like to occupy a little of the Council's time on the very interesting discussion to which we have listened with regard to the interpretation of rules 1 and 2. For the present purpose one may ignore rule 3.

Before doing so I should like to state at the outset that I hesitate before trying to controvert the elucidation given to the Council by such a member of the Council as the Soviet Union, which undoubtedly has had perhaps the longest experience of any of us gathered here with regard to the interpretation of the rules. I should like to say also that, having once been a President and not hoping to be a President at any future time, I may claim to be unhampered by any suggestion of having a vested interest in the activities and authority of the President.

Mr. President, because of your juridical background and you come to us with the authority of a Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States-I hope it will not be thought that, as a mere lawyer, I am too ready to be deferential to a judge. However, I am bound to say that I agree with the interpretation given by you, and I do so not as representing the Malaysian delegation or as a politician but as one who has served some apprenticeship in the profession of the law.

I understand that the basic contention of the Soviet representative is that rule 1 and rule 2 are not mutually exclusive, that the one impinges on the other, that rule 1 should be construed in the context of rule 2 and that rule 2 only enables rule 1 to be applicable. That would mean that the phrase "at any time" which is used in rule I means, according to him, at any time in terms of chronology-whether it is to be today, tomorrow or the day after. Unfortunately, I have only the English text and I am not educated in the Russian language, so that I do not quite know what that text contains. However, in the text before me, it is stated that: "Meetings of the Security Council shall... be held at the call of the President at any time he deems necessary". The word "necessary" in the English language, I take leave to point out, is indeed appropriate to the calling of the meeting and not to the timing of the meeting. Where it says that meetings of the Security Council shall be held at the call of the President at any time he deems necessary, it means at any time he deems a meeting necessary. Indeed, it does not say: at any time the President deems necessary, provided a member of the Security Council has made the request under rule 2.

Therefore, quite clearly, rule 1 and rule 2, in my sub mission, are mutually exclusive. Rule 1 gives the authority and the power to the President; provided only he deems it necessary to convoke a meeting of the Security Council, he shall be at liberty to do so. Undoubtedly, Mr. President, your experience may be even shorter than mine, but I do not believe that any President would want to call a meeting just on his own fiat; when he finds it necessary, that necessity would undoubtedly have to be fortified by opinions he would have collected from his ten other colleagues.

Now, going on to rule 2, it says: "The President shall call a meeting of the Security Council at the request of any member of the Security Council." It does not go on to say "the date and time of the meeting being at the discretion of the President under rule 1".Therefore, rule 1 provides for the authority of the President which is inherent in his duty as President, and rule 2 provides for the calling of a meeting by any member of the Security Council. I should therefore think, with the utmost deference to the representative of the Soviet Union, that purely as a matter of interpretation of the English language in the two rules appearing side by side, they are incapable of the interpretation put upon them by him.