GENE-RAL A!AC.35/SR.126 13 June 1955 ASSEMBLY

NAr/O',Ns' ,Distr" GENERAL " GENE-RAL A!AC.35/SR.126 13 June 1955 ASSEMBLY . .. .' .~~..tL. OID:GIl'1AL:, ENGLISH "'

: . ," "

COMMI'rrEE OF INVOEMA.TION FROM NON-SEL~-GO~BNING TERRITORIES .: ' . :. Sixth Session- ... ' . . , . " SUMMARY !meow .~F '!'HE HUlIDRED,AM) ·.TWENrY-SIXTH MEMbM£HTS 'Held at'Headqu!lJ'te:rs,1l'ewYol:k," INDEX UNit MASTER on Tuesday", 10 MaY·~95~i 'at 2,45 p.:m. JUN 21'19$$' .' /' ....

" I .' ..... CONTENre , . COmIn\U1ication by the Netherland~"Govermnent relati~ to the cessation of the transmission of into;rn1at~on under,1\:rtic-le 73 e of'the Charter in respect of the Netherlands Antilles ana Surinam (A/AC.35/L.206) (continued), '.. '.. ,

..' . ,

, ' "

.' ~ I

. 55-14108 .

."" ....-,.. i', ''',. ;'0' ,.'.~•. 'O:~,;<,.<...~."",.",,,'?',.:~!.~...... •... . It" ~', , ',. A!AC.35IsR,,126 ,', . '-'.,;._. English 'j<,,, Page 2

PRESENT: %. ,. Cha:t:nnan: Mr" SCOTT New Zealand • Rttpporteur~ Mr. cfAJPAL (India.) Members': Mr. LQOMES Australia Mr. FRAZAO Brazil U HLA. AUNG Burma. Mr" LIU YU-WAN China.

. ' J~~ ~Uj ~.~' . Mr.BARGUES. ., France '" ,•• I-'A,. l'i M~" to f . ,I; '. t,', :". .' " ., ;ti~~ '~" , '. " '~ t f'~ JZ • .. . T'.1 " .. ; .. "! -,' . >f"' .,1, -' Mr, ARENALES -Guatemala ," ' Mr. SliIVA RAO India Mr" K:8'ALIDY Iraq Mr.. SCBU:BMANN) Mr. GOBSIBA ) Netherlands Mr. POS' ) :Mr. CALIE y CALtE Peru Mr. GIDDEN United Kingdom. of,Great Britain and Northern Ireland Mr. SEARS United states of America.' ~epresentatives of specialized agencies: . . . _', 7 _ __ Mr. GAVIN International Labour Organisation Secretaria.t: Mr .. COHEN Under-Secretary 14 Mr. KUNST Secretary of the Committee ·it •• ' A/AO~,;5Isa.~6 , English " , ", n ~ . ~, , ,,;:age J

.I. , i , '. 4: ~ • . !. ." .. ' . , ' cOMMUNI<1ATION BY THE NETHERLANDS ,GO~~lmLATI.I9n, TQ 'TH1~:;;CESSATI0N OF ..THE TRANSMISSION, vF INFORMATION UNDER Jl..RTICLE 73 e, OF THE CHARTER IN RESPECT OF , THE NETHERLANDS 'Af'JTILLES~ AND SURINAM (A/A;C.35/L.2Q6)' (contiriu~dj ',' '\ '" , i' _.. ;.' '. . .. ~ ''''J ' ••

Mr. ARENALES (Guatemala) wished to, make it clear that nothing he had satcf/;nor a.ny' Pli:':~se or form of' W'oJ;'ds he' had us~d" should be c~nstrued"as

implying' a 'decision'.cn'· the substanceot tlie matter.' .. 'I • ,t' ;,fue main I-oint that interested' his del~gatioh was' to what extent 'Stitinam ':' ;,. and the Antilles were on a. footing of' equality with the Netherlands :Jtroper. ~e question of'the relative size of the populations must undoubtedly be taken into consideration" "but the question was rather of a :Political' and juridical ':' na.ture and was based on the con'stitutionaltexts::tHat"had been sUbmitted~ , .. L., .,' 'H~'~ had not cleariy tulder:stood the reply ~iven to' the Brazilian .' \' .: .':- representative at the previous' meeting with regard. to the powers, duties and'· ; respdnsibiiiti'es of the GovernOr" as laid down in"article 2 of the Charter ... '~,'

.for the Kingdom of the Netherla.nds.· Some' confusion seemed to have 'arisen .r-rom'. ,': i the idea ,that' ~he Governor miglltbe a kind' of' Prime MiIrl.ster=. As hi", '. ,'; 1'.; t:' , delegatibn unde:i-stood 'the positibn, the GOvernor' was ,nbt a' Prime Minister but " : a representative of the Queen of' the 'Whale '~K1ngdom 'bf:' the' 'Netherlands" " ,:" including the Netherlands kt1111~s·'e.nd'Su.rinam.:.·~;;;':Wiia;tf wa~; not clear was 'W11a determined th~ ltowers of that representative." His ihipression was that: they' , ,. ltere laid down by o:rdin~nce" in the' same maIiner"B;'s' any provisions concerning' ·the·..·,', wholEii'K1hgdom; he asked ;"hetl1el" that'was 'correbt. ;.".:: :, :' ; ,,'.:

,..~ .~'.; i, l' I 'I- f. • • ..f , " Mr. GORSlRA (Netherlands) replied that the Governor wa.s designated by, the; tJovermnent of the 'Kingdom ili accordance w:i.th 'the proyi~sionS 9f! the ..... ,...... CJi'a'rtet.' The Governor, ba.d' two constitutional functions: 'firstly,,' he 'was the":":,:':,'; representative of ~he Quee:I:l',' wh6se 'functions itt'connexibn ldtb internal: ~ .,; ;. ,}:. governme'nt ~ere ~1zniiar to tliose of any oth~r constitutional mbnarch'j "secondly;'; he was 'th\7 repres'entattve ofthe'exeeutive' power of, the l(ingdoril,,'He'was' ..... re8:po"'~ible to:- the GQve'rtJInent of the' Kingdom tor everythiI1g loThich 'coticerned,tke

~., general interests of the' Kingdom. His position 'Wss therefore comparable in some respects with that of a Prime Min.:t:ster.;but it was not, however, a political but an administrative and representative post.

Mr. ARENALEs (Guatell1ale.) asked why article 50 of the Charter provided for different measures with regaX'd to SUrinam.and the Netherlands Antilles'on the one hand and to the Netherland$ proper on the other.

Mr. ,POS (Netherlands) repl;ted that there was indeed a difference between the status of the Netheriands proper ahd that of the Netherlands Antilles and Surinam.. The aOverliment of the Kingdom" subject to various safeguards, reated With the Parl:f,ament of the Netherlands. If the Netherlands Antilles and Surinam were to be represented in the states-General, their . . . . smaller popula.tions would naturally allow·them fewer represente.tivesthan the Netherlands proper and they would' thus' tend alway.s to' be outvoted•. To SUe:rd against that danger, the Minister Plenipotentiary who represented hi~country in the Government 'Of the Kingdom had certain rights, which were defined in . . article 1.2 of' the Charter for the Kingdom. . . Whenever possible the provisions of the Constitution of the Netherlands had been left unchanged and had become a.pplicable to the whole Kingdom. Article 5 was a case in point. Generally speaking, the principle had been to ~hange as little as poasibleand to see how the system workea, introducing later any modifications that proved necessary in the light or exPerience.

Mr•.ARENALES (Guatemala), referring to the explanatory memorandum annexed to the Charter in the Secretariat document (A!AC.35!L.206, 'annex II), in ~hich it 'Was stated that the new constitutional structure for the Kingdom of t~e Netherlands was based on the desire of Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles not for independence but for maintenan~e of their ~elationship with the Crown and with the Netherland~, asked whether that 'Wish could not haVe been expressed by means of a referendum. . ,,~\ k " ,":." ,0: ", •• v ~ /;,,( " ' .. • i\, .A/Ad~}'I$I.126D ~l:tsb. Page 5

~ .Mr•. h~ • . ., PasI; (Netbe2:1enda) r«!p11ed.. that. the fact.. that the Charter 'been adopted unen1mous~ by the Parli~ntotSu:r1n$tDlwh1chhad been elected,· by universal sutf)'age, showed tbe,i; no 1Jpportant body of op1n1on had been against th~. Chatter. Atter the Chart~~ had been adopted, an election h;a.d bf!e~ held. . ttbe Oppos:J.tion party bad beell v1cto11.ous, w1th the result that a '. . . . -~, ...... new Gove:mment bad come 1r:lto power in which none ot the old M1n:Lsters took ., " part. Nevertheless there had been no serious suggestion Of ~ changes m the Ch~%". . It therefore see~CJr \U).l~e1y that aDY large part ot the population,was oPPQsed to the Chart~r; :tn,deea., had that been so, the Charter , . wO~i.ld. not have worked. in praotice.

Mr.,.AR'El,fALES (Gua.t~a), reterr:1ng to the fourth paragraph on ; L . page 4 Of the explanatory memoraudum, aE\ked wh~ther be was right 1ntbink1ng . .. . "". . '.. .. - ., that t1+e request that the h:l:ghest ju.<11e1al offic~rs. shc.n!ld be appointed 'by . the highest. organ of the Kingdom, the K:lng, had b~~n subm1tted by the !lelegates " . .. who had negotiated the agreement with. the Government ot the Netherlands.

. . -, . Mr. GOBSIRA(Netherlands) repl.ied .that, during the deliberations the ; 4 1 .• .. .', .., .. '. ••.•• • representat1ve~, o~ the,Nether~~ Ju:!.:tt~l~~.I"a~:.al~.o.it~oee of Sur1neJD, interp:-eting the wishes ot the peopl~ they represented" ha4 stipulated, that JUdges shou.J..d be des:lgnated by the.Goverzunent Of the ~dom. It had been , agree~ t~at such a prov:Lsion would promote dePlQQr,aey end encourage,.the , . , ' evolutiotl. of self-government." .,, " . ,

. ~ . " .. ',: Mr,_ ~~(Gq.ateme.la)" ret:~rr1ng to Mr. Pos" statement at th~ , .,' .. .previous meeting with regard to the statutes of th~, It,1.,ngdom,, and in particular.. • ,t ,." ( ... ', .• to the proV1sio~ that the Second Chamber could X19t adopt abY proposal , to , which the Minister Plenipotentia1W ot Sur1rlam or. the .Netherlands Antille$wss OPPOS~d unleSS Vith' a ~jor1V ot at l.as:t;' ~e~7~:tnbs Of the ~umber Of." v~tes, " cast; .asked whether tha~ same, p:ro~st1on 8ppl~e~ ~~ ..the NetherlaJ1ds proper.

, ~ f', . ,I j. •

" ' , ,

, , . • " . # Mr....~os (Netherlands)repliea that the Sta.tutes·were bUteting .on the whole Kingdom;' a law for the Netherlands proper could not be binding on'

Surinam or'the Aniiilles. There. were.' -''Several kinds.' . of laws:-'laws for·the' , Netherlands" laws for the Antilles,. la"1s· for Su.r:tna:m and laws for, the whole'· , Kingdom. A law for the Nether1arJda p~Jter' woUld J3.ot be binding on SUrinam and the P.ntilles.. " .. ", ~

M-r••,.ggRS~ (Netherlands)' expla.:tned thS.t the stipulation regard1i1g" the three...fifths major:f.-'G7 had been ap;roved with particular J;'egard to the ' . Nethe:r."lands Parli'amen:'c, end not to those of SUr1nam and the Antilles. .

Mr. A..T{EN.ArJES (Guaterna:.a) -observed that ~his sta.tement 'a.t the •••A ; previous meeting Mr. Kos had said that 'for the pUrpose of the enactment of statutes of the Kingdom the Netherlands Parliament ~cted as Parliament of the Kingdom, and had deecribed the procedure by whic~ the representatives of SuriJ:lam and the Netherlands Antilles participated ~ the ~..ffairs of the Kingdom. He wished to know whether the representatives of Surinam. and the Antilles had the right to vote and whether those countries. couid send an indefinite number of representatives to Parlia1hent or whether the number was limited, and if sO to what.

Mr. FOS (Netherlands) drew attention to article 17, 'l?aragraph2, of i the Cb.~te:t' for the Kingdom, which said that oue or more special delegates might be designated· to attend the debates and furnish information. . There was no fixed limit for their number. 'The important, point was that no d.ratt could be adopted rlthout·a three..flftlls' majority. , .

Mr. GORSIRA (Nethariands)' expla.:I.ned that considera.tion 'had -been given to a. system bY-Which the Netherlands Antt1.les and Surinam wouJ.d appoint'

X'epresentati'Ves to the Netherlands Parliament. t Owing, ho't1e~..er,to the llluch'

smaller poplJ.lation of the two countl"iesI they wO~lld obviously not haye been able to impose th~ir ,Wishes on the Parliament. In vieW' of that fact ana of the . small number of.quest.ions which had to be settled jointly, it had. been felt that the system which had been finally adopted would be tttore practical. ~~. ~~~.,' ,#",' 4 ~'~'.~ ~ .:. ~ '''' ' . A/AO'."/fJR.la6. . ,', English '/' . ': ' .' Page 7 "

Mre' ~~, (o,J.ateniala) seid tlia.t,t.:in' the :11ght of therepl1es that bad been 'given it was 'clear ,that:;thEi people )clf;' SUrlnam and the Netherlands Antille~ were 'Mly self~gov~ri1ing:1n:tfi~:'~oci~al, ;ecoI1oniic and educational fields," as also 'in regard",to '!ocaI":a.dJil1tiis'tration, "to, the judiciarY except : , , ' , in the matter ot the appoinUnent"of: just±c'es ,of ithe Supreme Court, and to executive and. 'legislative' powers.;, "',' ,;", ., ,,:.. ' H~ would 'like' to touch ~on two 'furtlier'problema: the first wa~ the possibil:i.t~r of 'the 'cessation o'f the transmission of information; ',the second was the rela'tive self-go'vfartl1Ilent of"the Territol'ies. The two problems were conneeted; "it might be Ba"gtied that the 'obi1gation to transmit information ~der Article 73 e of the charter did not lose its force until'full'self- government had'been attained. It m1ght ~ther bE:! maintained tbat self-government mean~ independence or self-government on afoot111S of entire equality. It would a.ppear that in v:l:ew of the degree oif selt-government t~a1i had'been ~ttained by the 'Netherlands .A..!ltiiles and Surinam. it niight be diffieult"for the Netherlands to subm.i.t further information conceX'ning them. He wondered.' whether it could not be concluded that the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which was 'anew entity comPrising the'NetherlandS prope~, the Netherlands. Antilles and Surmam, should be' responsible for transmitting 'such information.

Mr. POS (Netherlandsl :replied that the Kingdom at the NetheJ:ilends' was , , not an Adm1n1stering Power, but a. Kingdom ha,nng three parts. In principle, ...... I equ.~l those three parts were and. indeed every endeavour, ha.d been made to make them as nearlY' equal as possible, despite the great differences in the size of their populations. , He was unable to see how one of the three equal parts of 'the Kingdom could'submit information concerning the other'two parts.

U HLA AUNG (l3urml.) 'Wondered. whether the l>roeedure, described in J;lax'ag:raphs 1 and 2 of e,rt1cle 12 COUld. be said to retlect;equality of ~a:rtnership. He asked how the'M1ri:istel:s Plenipotef):tiary'ltere appointed•

•• f • " !J:"~ ·PO§. (Netherlands). explained ~hat the Council of Ministers could not take a decision on any question to. whiCh objections were raised b~ the Minister Plenipotentiary of either Surinam or. the Netherlands Ant11l~s.The matter was further clarifiE:!d by paragraphs :3 and 4 .0£ the same article, 'tolhich . . . explained tha.t the deliberati.onsreferred. .to· in paragraph 2 were conducted by the Prime Minister and two Ministers on the one hand and :the Minister Plenipotentiary and the Minister pr. special representative appoi:ated b;y the I . Government concerned on the other. The.tb,ree t9 two ratio in favour of.the metropolitan ~ountry was based on the fact that·the ~e1!herlandsproper.was more densely'populated tht;Ul either,'Surinatnor the Netherlands Ant£lles. Ministers'Plenipotentia~we~e appo1~ted'by their respective Governments, which were responsible to Parliament.

U RLA 'AUNG (Burma) ask~d 1\7h,ethe:l;' the Charter con~ained. any provisions : , . which would allow either SUX'inam or'the Netherlands Antil;l.es to amend their . . constitutions and secede from the Kingdom.

Mr •. ~ (Netherlands~ replied that both Suri~am and the Netherlands Antilles' coulrl initiate the amendment procedure'described in axticle 55, but that any smendment had to be approved by all three Parliaments., ' The Queen had recently sta~ed, however, that no political partnership could endure unless it were based on thet free acceptance of the majority of the people; it would therefore be .contrary to established policy to, prevent any one of the partners from leaving the Kingdom if it wished to do so.

Mr. SEARS (United States of .Ameri.ca)' congratulated the representatives of the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles and Suril1a.tn on their clear explanation of the new constituticnalarrangements for, the t~ee countries. His Govermnent accepted in principle the decision of the NetherXands to cease ,I . I , reporting on the latter two countries ~ Moreove1", the infon;nation presented to . the Committee left no doubt that they were ful1yself~governing. The legislatures of both Surinam and the Netherlands. Antilles had voted unaniJl'lously in favour of the. new constitutional arrangements. Hence it lYSS clear'. tl1at the form of self-government was in ~rdance with the wishes of the people. A!AC.35!SIt.le6 English '. . \ ~': . ~ ...... , "-- Pas~ 9,> .:,. (~. Sears, USA)

Accordingly, his delegation was convinced that' ·the· provisions "'of chapter XI of the' United Nations· Chart.:er ,were' :n6 J~~ilger appli'c'aol~ "in' ;tbei:i:: ~as'e4t '

.. ' .:'. .. ~ • t I .. t.: I' . '.: ., ,- j 1&:. 'LOOMEs (Australia)' said' tJ.1at':tne Netherlands decision to cease • . Jp... ' the tran:smi~sion 'of infbrma:t10n tdth .respe'ct' t'o'Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles had been based on recent conSt1tu~1onal changes and had been'~taken in the exercise of sole competence on the pat't of the Netberl~\l1ds Govern:ment to take such' a. decision. . ':, ' The doxmnit~ee sho1Jld take note 'of that decision. ~e Netht:~rlanas' 1. '. ',,, \' ., .' . .,..'" ' . I • '. . ~ Governttlent had more 'than ''fUlfilled. its' J:egal obliGations 'for' i't had

.. .'. 0. , ..... •. r. .' .' ~ .. " .• " ., .' : • f. : .• ~ •• voluntarily provided the Coxmnitt'ee 'With'much' material: ot a con:;;titutional an~

~.. 4 .." .. ' ':t. •.. '0 ~ .of ~ • • • • . .• politicsl charact'er Vlhich showe'd clearly''that the new constittiti,onal ' , "

" 0 " ',.,... l" .• , ". • arrangement was 'fUlly in' acicordanc'~'Wlth the. Wishe~ :of the people' of S~inam and. :th~' 'Netherlands Antiiies, ~hi~h were equ~l partners in the kingdom. .It ~ 'Wets . obvious,: th~r'efore 1 that the' transmissiort of informa.tion under 'Article 73 e . should cease; any other decision would deny th~ 'fulfilment of the" freely expressed 'Wishes of ,the people concerned.' ~ ,1 He: thank~d. the Netherlands Government for its wholehearted co-operation . , with the Committee and commended it on the efficiency:~of'its administr~tion'end , .. its benevolent' guidance 'of the peo:Qles of Surinazn and the NetherlandS' Antilles1 who 'Were to b~' congratulated on' th~ attairiment':of their n~w''status. '

Mr. BARGUES (France)' saia that'there cauid :b~ no doUbt that"Suririaxn and. the Netherlands 'Anti;Lles w~r~' fuily self-governing.. That ;as clear froIll, the'sta'bement ~ade by Mr. Pes at the" preViou~' mee'\iing, \\1hen he had said that' .,. 'the Ncitii~~land~ 'Was no longer the' Admiriisteri~gPower in. respect of' surinam and the Netherlands Aritilles but ,an equa~ partner i~ th~ aSSO~iatiqn; and-that therefor~ the Nethe~lands'had ~either the right ~or the :power to sUbUJit ',', ' informs;ti6h on them. " .. In that cpnne~tion, it 'Would be interesting to know· in what, c~paci ty 1 . " '..' ',. I.'" ... ' .... MJ.... Pos and Mr. Gorsira were attend.;i.ng the, Coiml:tt-cee f smeetings. ,, The meeting wa.s sUSl>ended a~ ;.,5,5p.m, and resumed aF 4.30 p.m. . . . ." .

. " ~ .

. '"

. ' A/AC·.. ~'/sa.,:w~' English " .". Page 10 .

Mr., scr.ifUBM.I\.'t.m (~et1;ler lands).:, replying to.,the .Fre.c.~h repl.~esentative t s ...... ' .... . ", '" . , , ' question, exp~ained that the:eivexn~s,.of t~~ Nethe:rlands d~.legation had ~ '. . " ~ ~ ...... ,. . been,appointed as equals by the Govermnent of the Kingdom. ,~,. Poa and Mr. Gorsira represen).;d their individual. countries ,within the Kingdo~ but . ' "'-.. ',".' . they had spOken for the Kingd,om as a.whole. '.", .

, . . ~S sa+~ Mr. g (Guatemala) that, as, he had ex,plainadat the, . . - -...... "', ..... previous meeting, his delegati6n"would be obliged to siJ13tain in any vote on . . . the substance .of the question at the pr~se~t tim.e,.for it was still. awaiting instructions fr'om its, Gove~~nt'~ ~hi~h ~~ st~dying 'all the doeumenta~ion' and information pro'V'ided during the ~~bB:teE!. O~he~ delegati~s.might be in • .' I • I the same posi"\iion. He suggestedtbat, in orq.er to avoid an u..nnec~s,sary " . "'. . ' ..... ' .. ' .. :: numbe!" qf abt?te~tions, a decision nd@l:tbe postp0J?ed and the, question referred .. . . , to the General Assembly or to an extraordinary session of the Committee to be ,...... ". . . held before the General Assembly conyened.

Mr~ SHIVA RAO (India) support.ed that sugges-tion. His. de~egation, too" was ~waiting inst1'Uctions from its .Government~

Mr_ ,FRAZAO {Brazi,l}, appreoiated the difficulties involved. The . " Brazilian delegation1s position on the generalc;luestion of cessation of the

,j • .' transmi~sion of information 'Was well known: it considered that ~ach individual' case m~st be. decided on its own :merits. Unfo;rtunately, the Netherlands Government had been unable to t:r;ansmi"t the text of the Charter e'arlier and the study of all dQcuments. and s'urnmary records relating to the ques:cion required t1m~. G~ne:L"al It was true that. Assembly..resolution 747 (VIII) invited the, Committee to report on the cessation, . of information on Surinam and the Netherlands Antilles. It would be bette:r, however" both f".rom the procedural :point of view . '. ~.. \. ' sndfor reasons of prestige, if tlle Committee adjourned further ·discussio1;l ?f the question and. reCOnvened to consider it a short time before the ten:bh session . ' ,of the General Assemb~.

Mr. SEARS (United States or' America.) 'said that his delegation would ha.ve no objection to a pos-bponement of the decision if that 'Was considered to be the most practical course. A/Ae" ;5/Slt~:'J.26;, English . Page 11

,(Netherlan~} Gov~rnmet\t I' Mr•.SCJiU.RMANl! felt that'tbe NetherlandS should not be blamed .for a postJilon~~ent of a d~cision on the item, . for' it had'cione~ts • ~. j ," ...>

ut!Jl0~'!i to provide the <;,o¥JInit~ee w1th a.ll thE;! J;lecessary information ,t at the .' ',' earl,iest possible date.. :: Indeed, ,wh11,eGeneral.Assembly rellolution 222 (IlI) , requested Admip.istering Members to c9mmu.nicate 1nforma:t;ion on ~ changes in the constitutiOt;laJ. position and statt.;~ o~ S1JY Territory within a maximump~riod, , ' of six mont1;ts, the Nether;1.e!:.d.~ Govermnen't had done so within ;;:gree months ,of, 29 D~ce~ber 1954" when the rel~vant,;Legis~ation had come into force" . It' the Comm.ittee came to no decision op., the question and simply, refe~d , , it back to the Fourth, Committee" it vTould not only be showing a lack of,. 'courtesy but wou;td' ,be aating in violation of Genraral Assembly reso~ution 747 (w.I). Re appreciated th~ difficulties ",otso~ l-epresentativ.es, however, and, '. , ' rather ,than press for an· iImnediate ·d,eo1sioU'j. which'woUld entail a certain number' of abstentions; he wo~d prefer :pos'bponementt6 So later date, when he -was :':,' . cont'identthat a favourable resolu'i:iion would be. adopted unanimously.

0\, ~ f

, ~.; , ' ",Mr. RHALlDX, (Ira.q) ,congratulated the Netherlands representatives on

their able presenta:tion of'·their case. ,- .', ' ,c•.

The Netherlands delegation had obViously done everything possible t9' j,,~ .... submit all the necessa:t'y information a.t the earliest possible da.te. Nevertheless, he thought it'would be 'ill advised to'press for a hastydec~sion. A n~ber of delegations. were still 'tiithout instructions and "rould be obliged to. abstain. AdecisiOlJ, by'sueh a :small Coxmnittee with such a. large, nuInber of abstentions wou.ld undoubtedly be :regarded with suspi~ion by the Fourth Commitifee.· Again,' to postpone the ques'tion and then take a decision a.linost " immediately before the opening of the General Assembly would cxo-eate a bad impression in the Fourth Committee. While he had no strong feel.ings on the SUbject, he felt that -the best ~eourse might be to refer the matter b'a~k ,'\jo the General Assembly. Deapite the Netherlanas representative's· apprehensions.. he did·

not think ·that that 'Pro~edUre would 'damage 'the NetJierlands f case or that it 'would haV'e any adverse effect' ~ the Fourth Committee.

'.. t' " Mr'. FRAZAq {BratiJ.} agreed that ~heNeth~l'land,s Governmel,lt bad .do~e its best,to ttansniit the information ·to' the ·Secretary-General a~. ea:rlyas . :possible. The fact remained, howevs:r; that the ' inform.ra.tion had not been. rece;i.ved : , f '.. • • - until 1. April' 1955 and :many delegations liad. not had t1.m.E; to stU~it thoroughly~ report to tbeir'C)ove:rnments and receive 'instructions. 'The question of the , . ' cessation of the transmission of information 6n the Netherolands Antilles and . Surinam was, complex and important; 'it' had been before the General Assembly for' five, years. It woUld 7!lot, therefore, be sutficientfor the Committee ~rely to note the Administering Member"s' decision. 'Un<1er resolution 747' (VIi!) 'the Co1IlIIlfttee must report to the Assembly it' it W~' not to iay itself' opeo to the accusation of being afraid'to discha.i-ge' itsdutie~. 'tn two or three months' time, delegations would be"in~a 'bett-er posit:l,on,'to giW·their views-"The Committ~eIS decision couJ.d. take the fOrm ,of a. resoltition ,or ofa specialsecti()n,' in its report. ' , '

V.&r. BARGUES (France) said that his delegation's views on the cee,sation of the transmission of information were well known. It believed that there

. should be no discussion of the Nethe~landsGoveI'nment, f s comxnunicat10n end, ,a fortiori, no report •.

. Mr. L1U YU-WAN (China) could not agree with the Iraqi representative that' .it wouJii create a bad impression in the Fourth Committee if ,the Cp_ttee postponed further discussion for the time being and then, ~ter one or two days' . intense discussion, took action and reported to the General As,sernbly; onthe contrary, the Assembly would be' impressed by the fact that the CoIDIDittee had' ./ a.cted only after due consideration.', \

Mr. ARENAIES (Gtiateniala.) wished to make it qUite' cle.ar, that no one . -. . -. !:', was/accusing the Netherlands ·Gpvermnent of tardiness in transmitting the , ,.- information. The fact that certain delegations .had not had time to consider . the informa.tion and receive instructions'was the fault neithe:r of· those ' • I, • .. delegations nor of the Netberlands' Government. It might be· in the intere"",ts of all'concerned to bow to the facts and to postpone atlY decision .until.the, /.'_ ...',

t"~->, AlAe .3,/8a.126 !) ~~gli~h ' Page 13 (Mr. ,&~na1es, ;GuateJ!1B.la)

members of the Connn;ttee wer~ p~~e.red to vote deiiniteJ,y ont Way or another. The Fourth Committee' would ttot b'e ::r:ua1'xnsd"by the Commltteets taking a stondj on the contxoaX'Y; such a stand 'Was 11Ia.tl.dato;ry l1Ilder Ge,~eral Assembly reso'lution747 (VIII). On s\lQh an iulportant ,is$ue the Coznmittee's decision should take th$ fO:r:m of, a. resolution~:

Mr. CALIE y CALIE (Peru) $a.id that the members' of the Committ~e ; obviously needed more time to consider the me.tterand obtain instructions, it they \-Tere to take a s'libstant1ve de'ciaion ~ -,~ bis view, however, the Committee. wa.s not competent to take duch a decision: only the GeneraJ. Assembly could pass judgment" on the. substance 'of the ~~tberlatld$ communication. As far as resolution 747' (VIII) wasJ concerned; 'the COD1m1ttee bad examined '~be documents and it could report on the facts 01' the c$se, tne'.statements made and the arguments s.d.vanced. It would eveu be within ' its competence in expressing a. tep-tat!ve opinion on the cessation of the transmission of information without, howev~r, implying any judgment on constitutional and other substantive matters, which were . '. withih the sole -competence of the General Assembly. He would agree to postponing furthe~ ~onsideration of the item-and the drafting of that section ot

the report I provided that there 'was no'questton of·postponing a decision vthich theGommittee was not in fact competent -to take•

Mr. 'lOOMEs' (Australia), said' tha.~, 'although his d~legation was qUite prepared to come,. to an immediate decision, it fully rea1i~~d th~ difficu;t.ties confronting other-delegations and w~uld'not Object to postponing further consideration of the it'em. On th~ ether hand it would be discourteous to the Netherland$.Government fo~ the Committee to refuse to tak~ any decision ,whatsoever, when that Gove~mnent had provided ample intorma.tibn on which such a. decision could be based. He agr~ed 'with muchtJ:l,at the Iraqi r~presentative hed sa.id, but not with the contention that it l'1ouJ,d make;.?o bad irlipress:i.on on the . . , Fourth Committee were the Committ~~ to resume an~ co~clude its disc\lssion Jus:t . r" , . betore theaeneraJ. Assembly convened. If the Coumdttee was to be of ~sistSJ;lce, to the Fourth Committee, it'must report On the quest:i~n. , ' , :After an exchange Ofty:ie~St'ithe C?~~t~e) d7c~ded, by 7 vt?tes to Eone'i~t~ 2ab~t~ntions,. to po.stpone furthe~ a~bst2Ptive consideration of the ite. during , ~' ( 4 • . t . ,_ ,[I • ~ . ~ . i i, f I, _ _ • .;" •__ "; i - -,. , _ - - •- - , . , _ '( !he current session'~ 4 , _. _ 4 T I, I . ,-~ .. -.,. " , ~', A/AC.3S/SR.126 , •...... , . ". English fiJ~ Page 14 , '.,.'

. ~; :' Mr. BARGUES(Fl-'ance} ·explained that·'ss',a·matter of princip~e he would a. J. .... have votea aga.inst the postponement of turtber' sUbstantive ',considerations,; out of, coUrtesy to other dele$a.tions; he hSa. abstained." .. Mr. SCIItJ:RMAml (Netherlands) said that 'he had absta.i:ned on the strict z 1 understanding that the question was not closed and that the Committee would take

" f - • • _ . ,t. li , ,• it up aga.in' befo:t'e the tenth session- ot 'the General. Assembly.. , .1,. ... ,". , Mr. LIU ytT-WAN (China) said that he had voted in favour of postponement ...... ; on tne same' understanding. • ' .. Mr. :'ABENAIES (GUatemala.) explained'tha.t 'it waS not because he bad no ',' • TZ01GII .' instructions that' he had' vot~d. :in fa.vour of postponement but because postponement might enabl~ the Committee 'to tSke its' final decision ~ith a minimum of

t .,' abstentions • . '" ~: COHEN (Under-Secretary) -drew 'the Committee's attent-ion'·io the fact' tha.t there would 'be 'serious 'technica.l" difficuities' in:servicing a'"'spec1al, meeting t between the end of the curr~tit'session and .the o.pening· of the General AsserilblY.· . I - Full interpretation services could be provided onlY between 1 and 5 Augus"t" _. and: even that would necessitate considerable administrative rearrangement • or during the f:i..r~~' week~f ~he Assembly • Moreover, Gehe.ral·'As~embly resolution 332 (nr) provided that t~e Committee 'should complete' its work not, later than: one week -. befor~ .the AS'Setnb~ c~~ye~ed. . If' 'th~ :Committ~~ '''wished to meet during ·the first '; . . ..• ~. ~.. ~. .~, ." 1...... ; 'Week of the Assembly it 'Would ha.ve to decide to set aside that resolution in view .~'... ~. • .1' 0- • "J . .' ••• of the special na.ture of' the lneeting. . , ; • , ':' ~ ,C, •:" • r I .. , •I•••• · ,'¥r ·'Lrti 'Yu~WAN' ('china)' and ih-.' FRAzAo (Brazii) pointed outt'ba;t the.' -Cottllll1ttee would not neea' :t~, meet for as l~ng as a. ~eek. '~hey hoped the Sedretary.. • ~ ; ~ I • .' ~ 1'11' .. I• ,r. • G~~ral'would find it possible to provide the necessSry f'a.cilities~' \" ~ • '" .. .. r .. , .: \ ,'. ' .. . . , .' .... • t

Mr. LOOMPiS (Australia) ~uggestv~ tha.t the re~umedses~ion should b'~'" , "* ...... ~ . . ...•."~ l", • f" .f convened as', near' as possible to the openi~g of the General Assembly •. The' eiect

" , ,~,... .' .,.. '"t d .' , .4 • J,. • '. • ..' t ~ -, .• ." ,, . " 4._ : " date' could be left to' the Chairman to-decide, in consultation 'With the Secretar~l"· General. :~ 'c,:., ' , ...':.'.> /.,1",,,.1;'.' .' . ' . ,

,'; , ,'. (:~ •.•....•. A/AC~;5JSR.126 ,';P' •.• • l: :,.~~: ,".: English Page 15

Mr. GIDDEN (United Kingdom), supported by Mr •. FRAZAO. , (Bl-azil) and Mr. ABENALES (Gua.temala.), agreed to that suggestion on the understanding that the -date would in any case be in September.

The cHA.IRMAw sa.14 that ~1.f there were no objections, the Australian ~ - » suggestion, as modified by 'bohe UIi.4J.ted Kingdom. represents,.tiv:e, .would be adopted- It was so' decided.