Suchergebnisse

Meeting at the request of the representatives of Canada and Denmark, the Security Council discussed the situation in the Middle East at its 1341st-1361st meetings, held on May 24-June 14, 1967.Opening the debate on the adoption of the agenda, Nikolai T. Fedorenko (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) declared that his delegation did not believe there were sufficient grounds for a hasty convening of the Security Council in what he termed an artificially dramatic climate fostered by the representatives of certain Western powers. He observed that two members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), rather than any of the parties directly concerned, had asked for a meeting of the Council. To his delegation this indicated a desire to interfere in the affairs of other countries rather than a true concern for the peace and security of the Middle East.

During its 1180th meeting held on December 18, 1964, the Security Council had before it the report by the Secretary-General on the UN peacekeeping operation in Cyprus for the period September 10–December 12, 1964. The object of the meeting was to determine, on the basis of the report, whether or not it was desirable to extend the mandate of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) beyond its expected date of expiration on December 25, 1964. At the President's invitation, Spyros Kyprianou, Foreign Minister of Cyprus; Orhan Eralp (Turkey); and Dimitri S. Bitsios (Greece) took places at the Security Council table.

Regimes are harder to establish in the security area than they are in the economic realm because of the inherently competitive cast of many security concerns, the unforgiving nature of the problems, and the difficulty in determining how much security the state has or needs. Nevertheless, there is at least one example of a functioning security regime—the Concert of Europe. Under the Concert the great powers sharply moderated their individualistic and competitive policies and exercised restraint in the expectation that others would reciprocate. The self-interest that they followed was broader and longer-run than usual. The Balance of Power, however, is a regime only if the restraints are internal, as Kaplan implies, as contrasted with Waltz's formulation in which states restrain each other. Current superpower relations should not be considered a regime because the principles, rules, and norms have little autonomy but instead can be best understood as quite direct reflections of the states' power and interests.

The Security Council met on October 24, 1967, in its 1369th meeting at the request of the United Arab Republic1 and Israel to discuss the situation in the Middle East. The question was debated at the 1369th–137ist meetings, October 24–25. Representatives of the United Arab Republic, Israel, Jordan, and Syria were invited to take part in the discussions without the right to vote.

Between May 3 and July 26, 1965, the Security Council devoted 30 meetings to consideration of the situation in the Dominican Republic. The Council placed this item on its agenda at the request of Nikolai Fedorenko (Soviet Union) who in a letter of May I had called for an urgent meeting of the Council to consider the question of the armed intervention of the United States in the domestic affairs of the Dominican Republic.

The Security Council convened on July 25, 1966, to consider this question following a request contained in a letter dated July 21, 1966, from the permanent representative of Syria. A letter dated July 22, 1966, was subsequently received from the permanent representative of Israel. The Council devoted its 1288th–1295th meetings, held on July 25–August 3, to this matter. At the invitation of the President representatives of Iraq, Israel, and Syria were invited to take places at the Council table.

The Security Council held two meetings (1140th and 1141st) on August 5 and 7, 1964, to discuss a complaint of the United States government against the government of North Vietnam, which was expressed in a letter dated August 4, 1964, from the permanent representative of the United States addressed to the President of the Security Council. At the outset of the 1140th meeting on August 5, 1964, Mr. Morozov (Soviet Union) explained that he had requested the postponement of the meeting until August 6 to permit his delegation to receive necessary instructions from its government. With regard to this request, Mr. Stevenson (United States) pointed out that the UN Charter explicitly called for immediate reporting to the Council of measures taken by Members in the exercise of their right of self-defense. If the Council wished to adjourn after hearing the statement of the United States delegation, Mr. Stevenson had no objection. Mr. Hajek (Czechoslovakia) also opposed convening the meeting on August 5 on the grounds that Council members did not possess all the facts and views of the parties. To deliberate on the question on the basis of one version would not, he felt, serve the interests of the Council. Moreover, he did not feel that the circumstances constituted an emergency: The United States did not appear to be immediately threatened.

The Security Council convened on November 16, 1964, at the request of Syria and Israel to consider the outbreak of hostilities the border between the two countries on November 13. The Council devoted its 1162nd, 1164th-! 169th, 1179th, and 1182nd meetings, held on November 16, November 27-December 8, December 17, and December 21, 1964, respectively, to the discussion of this question. The Council also had before it a letter of November 14, 1964, from the representative of Israel describing the border clash.2 At the invitation of the President, Michael S. Comay (Israel) and Rafik Asha (Syria) took places at the Council table to participate without vote in the Council's deliberations.

At the initiative of the President of the Council, Arthur J. Goldberg (United States), the Security Council met on September 4, 1965, to consider the India-Pakistan question. Mr. Goldberg explained that, following consultations with the Secretary-General, he had decided to call a meeting of the Council because of the gravity of the military news from Kashmir and because it appeared that the UN observers there were being prevented from carrying out their functions freely. He also informed the Council that on September 1 the Secretary-General had sent to the Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan an appeal for a cease-fire. Although objections of a procedural nature were raised by the representative of the Soviet Union, the Council decided to consider the question. At the invitation of the President representatives of India and Pakistan took seats at the Council table.