Evening star., 1946-04-17
u. NJ.
Continued From First Page J

opposition to Russia, and the memo.
randum is not believed likely to
prevent the defeat of Soviet Am
bassador Andrei Gromyko, who pre-
sented Russia's demands. Those who
spoke yesterday clearly indicated
they did not intend to be influenced
by Mr.. Lies legalistic argument.
The Iranian question may be
brought to the Council floor for con-
sideration again tomorrow or Fri
day. If the Council decides not to
meet Friday because it is Good
Friday, the case may go over until
next week
There is growing feeling among
members of the Council that not
only did Russia exert pressure CT
Iran to obtain concessions while So.
Wet troops remained in Iran, but
that extreme pressure was brought
to bear on Prime Minister Qavan
to instruct his representative te
withdraw Trans case from the Ccun.
Gil. This. they insist, is not within
the spirit of the United Nations
Charter.
Van Kleffens States Views.
DR.. E. N. Van Kleffens, the Meth.
erlands delegate, clearly expressed
the views of himself and other men,
bers who are opposed to accedlng
to the Russian demand.
Reduced to its simplest terms,
he said, the issue seems to me to be
this. Who Is master of the Coun-
ellis agenda; the Council or states
who are parties to a dispute or a
situation? Simple logic, it seems to
me, is enough to give the answer
1t could only be the Council who
determines what is and what is not
on the agenda. Not the parties but
the Council admits question to the
agenda; not the party but the Coun-
Gil alone can strike it Off
This is borne out and reinforced
by the Charter, which clearly gives
several organs of the United Ma
tions duties and powers independ-
ent of the will of the parties to a
dispute. The assembly has such
powers and duties, the Council has
them and the secretary general has
them.
1T has been said that this adop-
ton impairs the sovereignty of the
member states. I share Mr.. Stet-
tinius view that it does not. The
members are not more than the
Council. Members have their rights
and duties and the Council has its
rights and duties.
Question Who is Judge.
"Finally-now I want to lift the
argument again on the level of con-
sideration of a general nature, quite
apart from the Iranian case-I think
it is my duty to point out how dan
gerous is the opinion in its impIi-
cations that the parties are sole
judges as to whether or not a mat
ter stays or does not stay on the
agenda.
II am afraid that if that interpre-
tation were accepted, the door
would henceforth be wide open to
abuse, for in cases between great
powers, cases between smaller pow
ers and especially in matters divid-
ing greater from smaller powers,
there would then be every incentive
to bring diplomatic pressure to bear,
in order that the question placed
before the Council be withdrawn
from the agenda by the parties who
requested it to be placed on the
agenda. Surely that is not the spirit
Of the Charter.
ut may be argued that such pres
sure can just as we'll be brought to
bear in a previous phase-the phase
before a matter comes before the
Security Council, in order to pre-
vent its being submitted to the
Council. That may be so, although
I am positive that it is generally
held that no unfriendly act may
ever be implied in the submission
Of a matter to the Council. But
however this may be. We do not
want to see the door open for more
undue application of diplomatic
force than is unavoidable.
THE Interpretation which I ad-
vocate is the only one which seems
10 me to be in accord with the
letter and spirit of the Charter and
with plain logic"
DR.. Van Kleffens made his state
ment to the Council after the Lie
had been read.