Question of Palestine home || Permalink || About UNISPAL || Search

English (pdf) ||Arabic||Chinese||Français||Русский||Español||

See also: UN DPI Multimedia
Follow UNISPAL Twitter RSS


        Security Council
20 November 1967



1381st MEETING: 20 NOVEMBER 1967


Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/1381)........................................... 1

Adoption of the agenda....................................................... 1

The situation in the Middle East:
Letter dated 7 November 1967 from the Permanent Representative
of the United Arab Republic addressed to the President
of the Security Council (S/82260)...................................... 1


Held in New York on Monday, 20 November 1967, at 3.30 p.m.


President: Mr. Mamadou Boucabar KANTE (Mali).

Present: The representatives of the following States: Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, India, Japan, Mali, Nigeria, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America.
Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/1381)

1. Adoption of the agenda.

2. The situation in the Middle East:
Adoption of the agenda

The agenda was adopted.

The situation in the Middle East

Letter dated 7 November 1967 from the Permanent Representative of the United Arab Republic addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/8226)

1. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): In accordance with the decisions taken by the Council at its 1373rd meeting on 9 November and at its 1375th meeting on 13 November, I propose with the consent of the Council to invite the representatives of the United Arab Republic, Israel, Jordan and Syria to take places at the Council table and to participate without vote in the discussion.

At the invitation of the President, Mr. Mahmoud Riad (United Arab Republic), Mr. A. Eban (Israel), Mr. A. M. Rifa'i (Jordan) and Mr. G. J. Tomeh (Syria) took places at the Council table.

2. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): The Council will now resume its examination of the item before it. The first speaker on my list is the representative of Jordan, and I now call upon him.

3. Mr. RIFA'I (Jordan): I have just received a cable from my Government transmitting to me the following information which I would like to put before the Council:

4. Mr. KUZENETSOV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): The Soviet delegation has already emphasized that the situation in the Middle East remains extremely dangerous. As long as Israel troops occupy the Arab territories they have seized, as long as no stop is put to the colonialist appropriations of these lands by the aggressor, and as long as he is not forced to leave them, there will be, and there can be, no peace in the Middle East. In a situation where the troops of both sides are facing one another, armed conflict in the Middle East may break out again at any moment and no one can tell what dangerous international consequences such a development might have. The information just provided by the Foreign Minister of Jordan is a further illustration of the fact.

5. However, it should be noted at the same time that favourable conditions have recently been created for a political settlement of the problem of eliminating the consequences of Israel aggression. The Arab States have clearly demonstrated their interest in a political settlement, and their readiness to seek ways and means to establish lasting peace in the Middle East. It is our understanding that most States members of the Security Council sincerely wish to take advantage of this favourable climate to reach a constructive political settlement. The Soviet Union, for its part, has a vital interest in the establishment of lasting peace in the Middle East region.

6. During Security Council debates, the Soviet delegation has repeatedly drawn attention of all members of the Security Council to the fact that the key question, the crux of the problem in the Middle East is the question of the withdrawal of Israel troops from all the Arab territories they have occupied, i.e., the question of removing the main consequence of, the Israel aggression against the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan in June 1967. The statements, of a number of Council members have shown that this view is widely shared in the Security Council. It cannot be denied that only the withdrawal of the aggressor's troops from the territories he has seized, from all the territories he has seized, can pave the way for a lasting and just peace in the Middle East. Any other assertion would be opposed to the most elementary rules governing relations among States, rules which must be respected if there is to be peace in the world. The aggressor has come into foreign lands; the aggressor must leave those lands. That is just as incontestable as the fact that someone who has taken something which does not belong to him must give it back.

7. In the situation which has now developed, the Soviet Government considers it its duty to renew its efforts to find a just and effective political settlement in the Middle East. Guided by this belief, the Soviet Government has decided to take a new initiative and has instructed the Soviet delegation to submit the following draft resolution for consideration by the Security Council:

"The Security Council,

That is the text of the Soviet draft resolution. I understand that the text is now being translated from Russian and will shortly be circulated to the members of the Security Council.

8. The draft resolution submitted by the Soviet Union contains all the key elements for a political settlement. The view that such a settlement must be achieved is shared by the overwhelming majority of States Members of the United Nations. It was expressed both at the fifth emergency special session and at the twenty-second session of the General Assembly, and also during recent debates in the Security Council.

9. Our draft resolution contains a clear clause on the key question, namely, the withdrawal of Israel troops from all occupied territories of the Arab States to the positions that they held prior to 5 June 1967. We should like to draw special attention to the fact that in our draft resolution the clause on the withdrawal of Israel troops is so worded as to ensure that this measure is carried out without delay. This is, in our view, the approach best suited to the needs of this problem.

10. Furthermore, the Soviet Government has repeatedly expressed its support of the recognition of the inalienable right of all Middle East States, including Israel, to an independent national existence. Support for the independence, freedom and territorial integrity of States, wherever they may be situated, and the inadmissibility and containment of aggression, whoever the aggressor may be, are a basic concept of the Soviet Union's policy, including its Middle East policy. This also is reflected in our draft resolution.

11. The Soviet Union is in favour of a peaceful and just settlement of the problem of the Arab refugees, based their lawful, rights and interests. The Soviet Government supports the innocent passage of vessels of all nations through international waterways with due respect for the sovereign rights and territorial integrity of the States through whose territory those waters flow. Provisions to that effect are contained in our draft resolution.

12. We would, of course, also welcome a curtailment of the arms race in the Middle East and a settlement of this problem by the elimination of the consequences of Israel aggression. This point is dealt with in paragraph 4 of our draft. However, attention must be drawn to the fact that renewed deliveries of American arms to Israel, a country which has committed and continues to commit aggression against the Arab States, is hardly likely to facilitate a settlement of the Middle East question or to make Israel leaders take a realistic view of the situation. It is more likely merely to give further encouragement to Israel's aggressive aspirations.

13. We also think it should be noted that the Soviet draft resolution is based on proposals on which many States at the fifth emergency special session of the General Assembly were in agreement, including the United States Government, and which were submitted by them. In particular the subsequent assertions concerning the unchanging attitude of the United States to the withdrawal of Israel troops from occupied Arab territory were taken into account. We should like to express the hope that this will facilitate the adoption by the Council of the proposals contained in the Soviet draft resolution.

14. In conclusion, the Soviet delegation reaffirms that the Soviet Government has been prompted to submit this draft resolution by the need for the immediate elimination of the consequences of the aggression committed by Israel against the Arab States, by the need to restore peace and first and foremost to settle the urgent, fundamental problem, namely, the withdrawal of Israel troops from the territories of the Arab States which they have occupied.

15. That is our consistent policy, which is based on the general principles whereby the Soviet Union supports peoples fighting to assert their freedom and independence and to protect their territorial integrity.

16. The Soviet delegation calls on all members of the Security Council to give due attention to the draft resolution which it has submitted and to help the Security Council to take the decision which is expected by the peoples of the world and which will be in the interests of peace and international security. Naturally, we realize that the members of the Security Council will, as usually happens in such cases, need some time to study the resolution we have submitted, especially as we are dealing with such an important and complex question.

17. Lord CARADON (United Kingdom): I think it may be well to remind ourselves this afternoon of the stage we had reached--the final stage we had hoped--last Friday as we adjourned the 1380th meeting of the Council and we had reluctantly to endure yet another delay.

18. I shall reaffirm the policy of my Government throughout the past six months since we came to this Council last May. I shall refer to the long processes which brought us last week to the time for a final decision. I shall emphasize, if that is necessary, both the dangers of the situation and the crying need for urgent action. And the kind of report we have just heard from the representative of Jordan must surely emphasize in all our minds both the dangers and the urgency of action. I shall remind the Council of the wide measure of agreement we have reached.

19. First, on the policy of my Government in the questions at issue, I have no hesitation in reaffirming what has been said by my Foreign Secretary and by myself on behalf of my Government. Those statements are on the record. Our policy has been consistent and clear throughout. We have spoken and we have voted in the Assembly and in this Council on all the issues on the need for withdrawal and equally on the necessity for a permanent peace, and on the refugees and on Jerusalem. We stand by our votes and we stand by our declarations.

20. If I had to sum up the policy which has been repeatedly stated by my Government, I would go back to the words used by my Foreign Secretary in the General Assembly less than a month ago. These were his words:

21. I now turn to the action we have taken in the United Nations. On the deliberations in the United Nations, I shall not go back to the bad days and nights when this Council failed to act. I shall not go over the negative proceedings in the summer when the good lead given to us all by the Latin Americans was opposed. Let me say here that many of us have admired the clear lead which the Latin American Governments have given to all of us throughout. They have insisted on fairness, on the basic principle of equal obligation. They have resisted all attempts to destroy the balance of their proposals. They have been criticized for their efforts. But they have throughout maintained a record of courageous consistency and a refusal to be intimidated, a refusal to abandon the principles which they stated and which, to their lasting credit, they have not betrayed. So we have had the advantage of a good lead from the Latin Americans from the beginning.

22. We also had the advantage of a wide measure of growing agreement. Let me say very respectfully that every member of this Council has made a contribution to the search for common ground on which we could go forward. Basing ourselves on the principles which the Latin American delegations had declared, we went to both sides-to the Arabs and to the Israelis. We sought to understand their needs, their interests, the national requirements which they put uppermost in their legitimate aims and aspirations.

24. There are some who have said: let us take each clause, each word and endeavour to dictate how it will be translated into subsequent action. They say that we cannot advance at all until we have looked forward to consider how the United Nations special representative and the parties with him will face and deal with each aspect of the many complicated problems they have to tackle. They say that we should consider and pronounce on every detail in advance. This, I feel sure, would be a mistake. The perfectionist can often be the opponent of practical action.

25. Let me say this on this attitude, which might be called the attitude of over-definition in advance.

26. My Government has always attached the greatest importance to the task of the United Nations special representative who is to work in the Middle East. I shall not attempt now to discuss the draft resolution which has been today read to us and put forward by the Deputy Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union. I said when I welcomed him ten days ago that I confidently trusted that he had come to New York not to spread discord but to seek for a lasting settlement. My trust in his motive remains. I do not propose now to comment on his speech; the only comment I would now make on his draft resolution is that I was very surprised to see no reference in it to the appointment of a United Nations special representative to go to the Middle East. But this is our chief purpose. This is the one main matter on which, so I have understood, we are all fully agreed without any reservations whatsoever.

27. We have long been anxious to see the special representative appointed to make contact with both sides and to start working for a durable peace. We have not wished to restrict him as to the means and methods which he employs, but we have all thought that he should be guided by certain principles. Those principles we have sought to set out in our draft resolution of 16 November [S/8247]. We believe that it would be a mistake and, indeed, a disservice to the special representative to endeavour in advance to specify exactly and in detail how those principles are to be applied. If we attempted to do so in advance, we would make his task much more difficult--indeed, worse than that we might never agree amongst ourselves on the detailed instructions to be given to him.

28. We have all along had in mind that there should be two stages. The first stage is the statement of principles and the appointment of the special representative. The second stage is the work which he is to undertake in the Middle East. We are concerned now with the necessity to take the first vital step in this direction. It would be wrong if in effect we endeavoured to do the work of the special representative before he is even appointed.

29. The second, and equally important, consideration which I wish to put to you is in this. As I said last week, we have made a genuine attempt to set out a draft resolution which takes account of the basic interests of both sides. It is our strong view that these do not conflict. We sought to set out a conclusion in the form of a draft resolution which was both fair and clear, and we believe that the wording used is perfectly plain.

30. Since, then I have been strongly pressed by both sides--I emphasize, by both sides--to make changes, particularly in the provisions regarding withdrawal. But I came to the conclusion that to make variations under pressure from one side or the other at this stage would destroy the equal balance which we had endeavoured to achieve, and would also destroy the confidence which we hoped to build on our effort to be just and impartial.

31. In our resolution we stated the principle of the "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" and in the preamble we emphasized "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". In our view, the wording of those provisions is clear. We believe that it would be a serious error to attempt at this stage to vary or add to them. Nor are we prepared to alter the wording of the remainder of the resolution, including that concerning the necessity of securing a lasting peace, which, I emphasize again, was prepared with the greatest care after listening long and patiently to the views put to us by those directly concerned.

32. I understand the intense feelings which are aroused not only by issues but also by words. Yet again I say that I am convinced that it would be wrong, under pressure from either side, to detract from or add to the balanced formulation which we have endeavoured to make both fair and clear. If we start trying to pull out a brick here and a brick there, the whole carefully constructed edifice will come tumbling down.

33. Bear with me, I beg you, while I repeat what I said last week.

34. We wanted to work with others to devise a resolution which would take full account of the essential interests of both sides as they have stated them and which would also give the United Nations special representative the best hope of success in carrying out his mandate.

35. We went to both sides. We know and respect their intense feelings. We well realize that the future security and progress and happiness of their peoples depend on what we do here. It is entirely understandable, therefore, that to each point, indeed to each word, they should attach the utmost importance. Nevertheless, the representatives of both sides have been ready to consider with the greatest
patience and care the representations which we have put to them. In the long discussions with the representatives of Arab countries they have made it clear that they seek no more than justice. The central issue of the recovery and the
restoration of their territories is naturally uppermost in their minds. The issue of withdrawal is all important to them, and of course they seek a just settlement to end the long suffering of the refugees.

36. The Israelis, on the other hand, tell us that withdrawal must never be to insecurity and hostility. The action to be taken must be within the framework of a permanent peace, and withdrawal must be to secure boundaries. There be an end to the use and threat and fear of violence and hostility.

37. I have said before that those aims do not conflict; they are equal; they are both essential; they are interdependent. There must be adequate provision in any resolution to meet them both, since to attempt to pursue one without the other would be futile.

38. So we have been guided by all the earlier work which has been done and by the eloquent statements which have been made by both sides, and we have endeavoured, with the help of our brother members of the Council, to set out in a draft resolution what I believe will be recognized as a sincere attempt both to meet the just claims of both sides and also to discharge the high responsibilities of this Council.

39. I cannot maintain that the resolution which we have prepared by these means will be accepted in full by either side. Naturally, they will have their doubts and differences on wording, formulation, presentation and emphasis, but I trust that both sides, as well as all members of this Council, will recognize that the resolution which I have presented to the Council is indeed balanced and is indeed just.

40. We do not claim that the resolution which we have put forward is perfect. We do not even claim that it is our own. Every delegation in this Council would write a different resolution if it were a matter only of stating a national position. Every delegation is entitled, indeed is expected, to state the separate and distinct policy of the Government it represents. But this resolution which stands in our name is the work of us all. It draws on the ideas and formulations of others. It seeks to bring them all together in a balanced whole. It represents above all an endeavour to be fair, to be just and to be impartial.

41. More important even than that, I am fully convinced that the resolution which we present offers the best and indeed the only basis on which the practical co-operation of both sides can be won. Surely that is of supreme importance. Again I say that what we want is not a mere voting victory what we want is a success on the ground. That is the overriding test we apply.

42. I am assured that the Deputy Foreign Minister does not wish to delay. None of us does. When I listened to his draft resolution just now the words I liked best were the repeated words "without delay". Those words coming from the representative of the Soviet Union are music in our ears indeed. It is on the understanding that the outcome of our long discussion will be no less favourable when the vote comes than it is now that it is reluctantly agreed that we should have one more, I pray, short postponement. I confidently hope that we can go forward with a due sense of urgency to take a step of the utmost importance. By so doing we shall, I trust, place the full weight of the Council behind a new, united and determined effort to take effective action to bring peace with justice to the peoples of Middle East.

43. Mr. GOLDBERG (United States of America): The States, although adhering to the views expressed in its draft resolution of 7 November [S/8229], will vote in favour of the United Kingdom draft resolution for two principal and prevailing reasons. First, the United Kingdom resolution commands, in our opinion, a substantial con-sensus in the Council and is entirely consistent with the policy of my Government as set forth by President Johnson in his statement of 19 June and as stated by me in the several interventions I have made in the Council, I reaffirm that policy without any reservation today. Secondly, the draft resolution is non-prejudicial to and sufficiently mindful of the legitimate and vital interests of all parties to the recent conflict, so that they should be able to receive and co-operate with the United Nations special representative as he starts out on his difficult and historic peace-making mission. Co-operation with the special representative under a non-prejudicial mandate embracing the essential elements of a just, dignified and durable peace--that has been the very cornerstone of United States policy during the entire consideration of this gave matter by the United Nations.

44. In my statement last Wednesday I very consciously stressed that "pride of authorship has no place in the serious business at hand" [1377th meeting, para. 59]. I wish to reaffirm that point now in words and in action. The important consideration in our minds is not, and never has been, whether any action by this Council is based upon the precise words of our draft resolution, whether it is of United States origin or has a United States label. The important consideration has rather been whether the proposal would speed the process of peace-making in which both sides could and would in honour participate.

45. In every statement made by the United States since last June, and even before then, in May, there has been a sense of urgency, for we have said from the very beginning that time is not on the side of peace unless we use time to move towards peace.

46. The adoption of the United Kingdom draft resolution--and I hope and trust it will be adopted--can only be the beginning of the peace-making process. Whether or not it will culminate in what we all fervently hope for, peace in the area, will depend ultimately upon the parties themselves. With goodwill and a will to peace on both sides, and with a mutual willingness to extend co-operation to the United Nations special representative, the action which I hope we shall take in adopting the United Kingdom draft resolution could mean a new beginning in relations among the States in the area, a new beginning that could help to bring to all the peoples in the area the peace, security and well-being that have been elusive for so long and which, I am confident, they all, hope for. It is our hope, too, that with that new beginning will come a new climate in which neighbours will be able to live with one another, in co-operative effort, to the benefit of the entire Middle East.

47. All of that can come to pass, and the United Nations special representative can help it come to pass, but he will be able to help only if he receives the co-operation of the parties. We urge now and shall continue to urge that all parties should be forthcoming in their response. But the special representative is not only entitled to co-operation from the parties. He is entitled to the full support of the members of this Council, permanent and elected, and of the entire membership of the United Nations.

48. On behalf of my Government I now pledge to this Council and to the parties concerned, as I did in submitting to the United States draft resolution, that our diplomatic and political influence will be exerted, under the United Kingdom draft, in support of the efforts of the United Nations special representative to achieve a fair and equitable settlement so that all in the area may live in peace, security and tranquillity. As Lord Caradon has indicated, the United Kingdom draft resolution now before us is the product not only of recent discussions but, in fact, of more than five months of intensive consultations among the members of the Assembly, this Council and the parties concerned. It draws inspiration and guidance from all of those and from the various suggestions and draft resolutions which have been proposed, but particularly, as its balance shows, from the ideas and concepts put forward by the Latin American countries during the fifth emergency special session of the General Assembly. The result is a balanced draft resolution, but it is balanced now on a razor's edge. We must avoid any move now, we must avert any prospect of delay, which might upset this delicate balance--a balance which absolutely must be retained if this Council is to take, as we believe it should and must, the first essential step toward the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

49. The Soviet draft resolution, I regret to say, is not an even-handed non-prejudicial draft resolution. It does not meet the test of exact balance, acquiescence by the parties and workability. Its belated introduction should not and must not impede the consensus which has developed in support of the United Kingdom draft resolution.

50. I shall not object to a short delay for additional consultations, but I should like in all candour to say that the time for consultations is at an end; the time for action has arrived. Our responsibility before world opinion is very heavy and we must not let this opportunity pass, as earlier opportunities have been allowed to pass. There is, through the efforts of the United Kingdom delegation, assisted by the parties, by all members of the Council and by many other Members of the United Nations that have made constructive contributions, a carefully balanced draft resolution before the Council. We shall vote for it, and we urge our fellow members of the Council to vote on it favourably.

51. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I call on the representative of Israel.

52. Mr. EBAN (Israel): I did not intend to seek to address the Security Council today but since some new material has been brought to the table I should like to make a few brief comments. The representative of Jordan opened today's Security Council proceedings with a completely tendentious and unconfirmed report about alleged incidents on the Israel-Jordan cease-fire line. That cease-fire line has been consistently violated by Jordanian armed forces in recent weeks. Today at 1330 hours, an attack from Jordan by land mines against Israel command car was launched. The patrol which investigated this incident was then subjected to heavy and concentrated fire from Jordanian positions installed in the village of Karameh. Fire was returned in order to rescue the patrol and to silence the aggressive assault. We thus have another link in the long chain of violent assaults from Jordan in recent days on which my delegation has kept the Security Council constantly informed. Therefore, the report communicated by the representative of Jordan is false in respect both of the origins and consequences of the latest Jordanian assault.

53. I should like to reserve the right to comment on the other new text at a later stage. Now I will only say that the reasons for which we reject the Soviet Union's draft resolution emerge very clearly from the statements I have made in the Security Council and elsewhere. It is a backward-looking resolution. It seeks to restore the juridical ambiguity and the territorial vulnerability of the shattered armistice régime. This we shall never do. Our policy is to ensure that the cease-fire be totally maintained until and unless it is succeeded by peace treaties between Israel and the Arab States ending the state of war, establishing agreed, recognized and secured territorial boundaries, guaranteeing free navigation for all shipping, including that of Israel, in international waterways, and ensuring a stable and mutually guaranteed security. This is our policy. It has not changed. It will not change. It is in the light of that policy that we shall comment on any text that is submitted for our attention, and it is in the light of that policy that we shall determine our attitude to any diplomatic action that may be envisaged by the Security Council.

54. Mr. TARABANOV (Bulgaria) (translated from French): The question now before the Security Council is a matter of the most importance and one which, as you know, has caused a stir in foreign ministries throughout the world. We have certainly waited long enough. For more than a month there have been consultations and discussions among the non-permanent members of the Security Council and within the Council itself. Meanwhile, only a few moments ago the Soviet Union delegation submitted a new draft resolution on the Middle East crisis in an attempt to help to solve the problem now before the Council.

55. If you remember, at the conclusion of the consultations among the non-permanent members of the Security Council, some expressed misgivings, fearing that in view of the stage reached in the consultations an open debate in the Security Council might prevent later consultations. In order to dispel these fears it was emphasized at the time that new discussions or any proposals which might be submitted would not be likely to put a stop to the consultations already started: on the contrary, the new discussions in the Council and the proposals made there might help in reaching agreement on the problems.

56. The Council and its members must now make an effort to define certain points in the agreement we are all anxious to reach so as to put an end to occurrences such as those described by the Foreign Minister of Jordan at the beginning of this meeting. However, in order to do so, we must find and draft sufficient clear phraseology on certain questions, in particular concerning the withdrawal of troops.

57. the new draft resolution submitted by the Soviet Union [S/8253], and the explanations given by some delegations today indicating why they will vote for a draft which is not their own, suggest that we ought to have a little more time to try to reach agreement or settle the question now before us; this would moreover be fully in keeping with the views expressed by the United States representative moments ago.

58. At the meeting of 9 November, speaking at the beginning of the debate, he said:

59. In that spirit, and in accordance with article 33 of the provisional rules of procedure, I therefore propose--and I believe I am expressing the views of some other delegations as well--that the meeting be adjourned until Wednesday so that further consultations may be held and a final decision can be reached then.

60. Lord CARADON (United Kingdom): As a matter of courtesy and respect, and in accordance with the traditions and customs of this Council, I am sure that we will accept and respond to the request for some further time. We would particularly wish to provide that further time when a new draft resolution has just been presented to us by the Deputy Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union. I am sure that we would join together in accepting that proposal, but I would say that I am also sure that all of us share a very great urgency. We are all of us, I believe, prepared to pronounce after the long debate which we have embarked upon. As I say, I believe there is a very wide measure of agreement between us. The need that we should take action before any new development takes place and in order that immediately the full force of this Council can be put behind effective action in the Middle East--these necessities are in our minds. So while we readily and willingly agree to the request that has been put to us, I would greatly hope that we would delay no longer than is absolutely necessary.

61. And if it is necessary to postpone our next meeting until Wednesday, then I would greatly hope that the members of the Council would keep themselves, as they do, in readiness to meet earlier if it is found after consultation that it is possible to do so and to proceed to the vote.

62. I also wish to suggest, although I do not need to propose it formally, that when we do reassemble, having completed our long debate, we should be ready to proceed to the final vote.

63. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): There representative of the People's Republic of Bulgaria has proposed that the Council adjourn until Wednesday, 22 November, at 3.30 p.m., so that the consultations may be continued. In the absence of any objection, I shall consider the proposal adopted.

It was so decided.

The meeting rose at 5.5 p.m.


1/ Subsequently circulated as document S/8253.

2/ Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-second Session, Plenary Meetings, 1567th meeting, para. 91.

Follow UNISPAL RSS Twitter