Security 64.

1. Gromyko was absent and no further information additional to the
Iranian Ambassador's letter of 6th May [1] had been received when
the Security Council met this afternoon. The United States
immediately presented a resolution stating that as insufficient
information had been received, the Council should request the
Iranian Government to report before 20th May on actual conditions
regarding withdrawal of troops and that in the light of
information received Council should then decide what measures to
adopt. In the meantime, the item would remain on the Agenda.

2. Australian representative [2], while expressing support for the
resolution, pointed out that the Council's decision of 4th April
[3] had also required information from the Soviet Government but
its request had been ignored. In conformity with instructions, the
Australian representative also spoke firmly regarding the absence
of the Soviet representative from the Meeting. [4] He stated that
absence from one Meeting might have been regarded simply as a
protest but when this action was repeated, the Security Council
should inquire carefully whether or not there was a risk that a
dangerous precedent was being established. The action of the
Soviet Union affected not only the position of one member but the
whole question of the way in which the Security Council should
function. Did this absence mean that the Soviet representative had
voluntarily surrendered for the time being his rights as a member
of the Council? There was nothing in the Charter which accorded
special powers and responsibilities to any member of the Council
apart from his actual participation in the work of the Council and
if he ceased to participate in the Council's work, it might be
argued that he abandoned his special powers as a Council member.

Moreover, any member of the Council, whether enjoying his position
by virtue of election by the other members or by virtue of the
consent of other members given by their signature of the Charter,
acted in a representative capacity on behalf of all members of the
United Nations and it was not for any single Government to decide
when and in what particular cases it would act or refuse to act as
a representative. In this regard the case of a permanent member
was no different from that of a non-permanent member. As regards
the work of the Council itself, the absence of the Soviet
representative required most serious considerations regarding the
extent of the capacity of the Council to take action. At a
previous Meeting there had been hints that the view was held in
some quarters that the absence of a permanent member might make it
impossible for the Council to take a vote. The Australian
representative did not admit that any veto could be exercised in
this manner nor could the Australian Delegation accept any
procedural interpretation of the Charter to the effect that a
single member by refusing to participate in discussion on a
particular question could stultify the Council. Such a procedure
would extend the veto into regions beyond those which the present
voting procedures covered and would make the whole business of the
Council subject to the will of any one of its permanent members.

Having regard to these two propositions, both of which the
Australian representative contested, namely that a member could
itself decide when it would exercise its representative function
and that a member could veto Council action by absenting itself,
it was suggested that the Council was really in the presence of an
attempt at a de facto amendment of the Charter. This was a most
serious matter and the position should be cleared up as early as
possible. The Australian representative recognised that it would
be impossible to reach a definite conclusion at the present
Meeting on all the matters which he had raised and he suggested
that as a start the Council had a right to expect from the absent
member some clear indication of what the absent member claimed to
be the effect of his absence so that the Council might itself
pronounce clearly on the subject, either refuting or accepting the
Soviet claims, or alternatively if it found that impossible, refer
them for examination to some other organ of the United Nations.

3. Cadogan supported the United States resolution. Regarding the
statement made by the Australian representative, he said that he
thought the Australian representative had exaggerated the
difficult situation in which the Council had been placed by the
absence of the Soviet representative. Although it was true that
each representative on the Council was representing the United
Nations as a whole and although absence from the Council amounted
to an evasion of responsibility, this was a matter which any
absent Delegate would have to solve in his own conscience. He
considered that the absence of any member did not affect the
ability of the Council to work, absence being equivalent merely to
abstention. He concluded by saying that there was no necessity to
immediately consider the problem raised by the Soviet
representative's absence but that a solution would have to be
found in the future.

4. Van Kleffens agreed that the points raised by the Australian
representative were of a most serious nature but some of the
questions need not be decided at the moment. The Council, however,
must decide by its action whether it could adopt a resolution in
the absence of a member. On a previous occasion it had passed a
resolution on a procedural matter when a member was absent and he
believed that it was fully competent for it to do so and that the
United States resolution, if passed, would be completely
constitutional. He reserved the opinion of his Delegation on
whether the Council could take a decision on a matter of substance
in the absence of a permanent member.

5. There was no further discussion and the resolution was adopted.

We did not think it necessary at this stage to press for any
detailed consideration by the Council of the points which we had
made but believe that the protest has served a good purpose-
(a) In announcing clearly the serious view which we take of Soviet
action in its effect on the Council procedures, and
(b) In laying the groundwork for the inevitable debate which must
take place in the near future on the general question of voting in
the Security Council.