the hungarian question - united...

THE HUNGARIAN QUESTION 67

cial period from a fiscal to a calendar year basisand that, consequently, the current budgets coveran eighteen-month period from 1 July 1956 to 31December 1957, and that special arrangements forthe audit of funds in this period are being made

with the United Nations Board of Auditors;"12. Requests the Director of the Agency to con-

tinue to submit the reports referred to in paragraph21 of General Assembly resolution 302(IV) of 8December 1949, as modified by paragraph 11 above."

CHAPTER II

T H E H U N G A R I A N Q U E S T I O N

THE SITUATION IN HUNGARY

CONSIDERATION BYSECURITY COUNCIL

On 27 October 1956, France, the United King-dom and the United States requested a meetingof the Security Council to reconsider an itementitled "The Situation in Hungary", pursuantto Article 34 of the Charter. They stated thatforeign military forces in Hungary violentlyrepressed the rights of the Hungarian people,which were secured by the Treaty of Peaceof 1947 to which Hungary and the Allied andAssociated Powers were parties. A number ofother delegations expressed their support forinclusion of the item in the Council's agenda.

On 28 October, the representative of theHungarian People's Republic protested againstconsideration by the Council of the situationin Hungary. The events of 22 October 1956 andthereafter, and the measures taken in the courseof those events, were exclusively within thedomestic jurisdiction of Hungary, he said.

The representative of the USSR, in opposingconsideration of the item, maintained that itsdiscussion by the Council would amount togross interference in the domestic affairs ofHungary and contravention of Article 2(7) ofthe United Nations Charter. Council consider-ation was designed to encourage the armedrebellion which was being conducted by a re-actionary underground movement against thelegal Government. The Hungarian Govern-ment, in taking measures to end the criminalactivities of counter-revolutionary elements, hadbeen acting entirely in accordance with Article4 of the Peace Treaty, which obligated it notto permit the existence and activities of or-ganizations of a fascist type. Article 34 of theCharter, which concerned only disputes orsituations of an international character, was

not relevant, and the Council was not com-petent to examine such questions.

The representative of the United Kingdomcategorically denied the motives ascribed to theGovernments of France, the United Kingdomand the United States by the USSR represent-ative, and declared that the fact that foreigntroops were fighting in Hungary obviously madethe matter one of international concern.

On 28 October, the Council decided, by avote of 9 to 1 (USSR), with 1 abstention(Yugoslavia), to include the question "TheSituation in Hungary" in its agenda. The Coun-cil discussed the question at four meetings heldbetween 28 October and 4 November 1956.At the first of these meetings, the representativeof Hungary was invited to the Council table.

The representative of the United States em-phasized that, in desiring the independence ofthe satellite countries, the United States had nopurpose other than that they should have Gov-ernments of their own free choosing. He gavean account of events in Hungary and said that,according to reports, Soviet tanks and Hun-garian political police had fired on Hungariancitizens, that Soviet military reinforcements hadentered Hungary and that large-scale fightinghad ensued. Along with demonstrations inBudapest, demands had been made for thewithdrawal of Soviet troops from Hungary. TheUnited States representative urged Councilaction to end the repression in Hungary.

The representatives of the United Kingdomand France and other Council members heldthat the evidence showed that foreign troopshad intervened on a massive scale in Hungary,creating a situation of which the Security Coun-cil, acting under Article 34 of the Charter,must take cognizance. Even if Soviet troops

68 POLITICAL AND SECURITY QUESTIONS

were in Hungary under the Warsaw Treatyprovisions, those troops, under article 8 of thatTreaty, could not be used to maintain law andorder. In a broadcast on 28 October, ImreNagy, President of the Council of Ministersof Hungary and acting Foreign Minister, hadstated that recent upheavals in Hungary repre-sented a big national democratic movementand also that his Government was openingnegotiations about the relationship betweenHungary and the Soviet Union, including thequestion of withdrawal of Soviet troops.

The USSR representative said that eventsin Hungary had made it clear that, with theassistance of the United States, a reactionaryunderground movement had been organized inHungary which had exploited the difficultiesand shortcomings in the work of state andparty organs in Hungary in order to misleadcertain sections of the people. He noted thatMr. Nagy's broadcast, to which reference hadbeen made, drew a clear distinction betweenthe democratic movement and the movementof counter-revolutionary elements which hadattached itself to it. Measures for the liqui-dation of the latter had been carried out bythe people's militia and the Hungarian people'sarmy. In response to an appeal by the Hun-garian Government, Soviet military units, lo-cated in Hungary in conformity with the War-saw Treaty, had gone to the help of theHungarian forces and the Hungarian workers.It was well known, he added, that broad dem-ocratic freedoms existed in Hungary and allstatements concerning the so-called violationof those rights were meant to justify the inter-ference by the Western Powers in the domesticaffairs of Hungary.

On 1 November, the President of the Coun-cil of Ministers of the Hungarian People's Re-public informed the Secretary-General thatfurther Soviet units were entering Hungary(A/3251). In his capacity as Minister of For-eign Affairs, he had expressed his strongestprotest to the Soviet Ambassador and de-manded the instant withdrawal of those Sovietforces. He had informed the Soviet Ambassa-dor that the Hungarian Government immedi-ately repudiated the Warsaw Treaty, declaredHungary's neutrality as from 1 November,turned to the United Nations and requestedthe help of the four great Powers in defending

Hungary's neutrality. He requested the Secre-tary-General to put the question of Hungary'sneutrality and the defence of that neutralityby the four great Powers on the agenda of theforthcoming session of the General Assembly.

At the Council meeting of 2 November, anumber of Council members condemned theUSSR's use of force in Hungary. The USSRGovernment statement of 30 October, to theeffect that it had ordered the withdrawal ofits army units from Budapest as soon as theHungarian Government recognized that to benecessary, and that it was willing to enter intonegotiations with Hungary and other partici-pants in the Warsaw Pact concerning thepresence of Soviet troops in Hungary, wascontrasted with the telegram sent to the Sec-retary-General by the Hungarian Government.The plea made by the Hungarian Governmentin that communication could not be ignored.It was obvious, these Council members argued,that foreign intervention had taken place andthat it was continuing in Hungary against thewishes of the people and the Government.There was therefore a flagrant violation ofHungarian sovereignty and independence. Itwas also stated that the Hungarian CommunistParty newspaper had described as an insult tothe people of Budapest the account given ofevents in that city by the USSR Government.

The USSR representative said that thecounter-revolutionary uprising against the peo-ple's regime in Hungary had been suppressedby the action of the Hungarian authorities.He quoted from a USSR statement of 30 Oc-tober to the effect that the Soviet Governmenthad instructed its military command to with-draw Soviet military units from Budapest assoon as that was thought necessary by theHungarian Government. Now that the situa-tion had begun to improve, certain counter-revolutionary elements, with outside assistance,were trying at all costs to disturb the emergingorder. Rumours that the USSR was movingadditional armed forces into Hungarian terri-tory were utterly unfounded, as was the state-ment made by Mr. Nagy. Discussion of thematter in the Council, the Soviet representativesaid, was a manoeuvre by the Western Powersto distract public attention from the Anglo-French aggression in the Middle East.

In a letter of 2 November circulated to the


Council, Mr. Nagy gave further details, basedmainly on military reports, about the arrivalof Soviet reinforcements and Soviet militarymovements in Hungary. On the basis of thosefacts, the Hungarian Government had informedthe USSR Embassy and all the other diplomaticmissions in Budapest about those steps directedagainst the Hungarian people and their Gov-ernment. At the same time, it had forwardedconcrete proposals concerning negotiations forthe withdrawal of Soviet troops stationed inHungary and the termination of the WarsawPact, and had proposed a mixed committeeto prepare the withdrawal of the Soviet troops.Mr. Nagy requested the Secretary-General tocall upon the Great Powers to recognize theneutrality of Hungary and asked the SecurityCouncil to instruct the Soviet and HungarianGovernments to start the negotiations immedi-ately.

On 3 November, the United States repre-sentative submitted a draft resolution wherebythe Security Council, among other things,would: (1) call upon the USSR to desist forth-with from any intervention, particularly armedintervention, in the internal affairs of Hungary;(2) express the hope that the USSR wouldwithdraw its forces from Hungary without de-lay; (3) affirm the right of the Hungarianpeople to a government responsive to its na-tional aspirations and dedicated to its inde-pendence and well-being; (4) request theSecretary-General, in consultation with theheads of appropriate specialized agencies, toexplore on an urgent basis the need of theHungarian people for food, medicine and othersimilar supplies, and to report to the Councilas soon as possible; and (5) request all Mem-bers of the United Nations and invite nationaland international humanitarian organizationsto co-operate in making available such suppliesas might be required by the Hungarian people.

The representative of Hungary informed theCouncil that the leaders of the Hungarian andSoviet armies had met and discussed technicalquestions involved in withdrawing the Soviettroops. They were to meet again that night.According to the Soviet proposal, no moretroops would cross the border until an agree-ment was reached. The representative of theUSSR confirmed that negotiations were goingon concerning Soviet troops in Hungary.

On Sunday, 4 November 1956, the Councilwas urgently summoned to meet at 3 A.M. toconsider reports of a new violent attack bySoviet troops in Budapest and elsewhere inHungary. Various representatives condemnedthat attack, and noted that it had been under-taken at the very time when the Soviet repre-sentative on the Council had confirmed thatnegotiations were taking place about a Sovietwithdrawal in Hungary.

The representative of the USSR stated thathis delegation had no official information onthe reported new developments, and he feltthat, in those circumstances, the more correctcourse would be to postpone consideration ofthe question until reliable information wasavailable.

The Council had before it a revised UnitedStates draft resolution which, among otherthings, called upon the USSR not to introduceadditional armed forces into Hungary and towithdraw without delay all of its forces fromthat country. It received 9 votes in favour to1 against (USSR), and was not adopted owingto the negative vote of a permanent memberof the Council. (At the next meeting the re-presentative of Yugoslavia requested that hisdelegation be recorded as having abstained.)

The United States representative then sub-mitted a draft resolution, adopted by 10 votesto 1, by which the Council decided to call anemergency special session of the General As-sembly, as provided for in General Assemblyresolution 377(V), to consider the situationin Hungary.

The Secretary-General stated that he wishedto put on record that the declaration he hadmade on the duties of the Secretary-Generalat the Council meeting of 31 October 1956(see INTERVENTION BY ISRAEL AND BY FRANCE

AND UNITED KINGDOM IN EGYPT UNDER CHAPTER

I) also applied to the present situation.

CONSIDERATION BY GENERALASSEMBLY AT ITS SECONDEMERGENCY SPECIAL SESSION

When the second emergency special sessionof the Assembly was convened on 4 November1956 to consider the item entitled "The Situa-tion in Hungary", the USSR representativeopposed its inclusion in the agenda on theground that discussion of it was barred by


Article 2(7) of the Charter. The legal Gov-ernment of Hungary, he said, had protestedon 28 October 1956 against discussion of thematter in the United Nations. Mr. Nagy's com-munications to the United Nations were un-constitutional and invalid. The Nagy Govern-ment had in fact collapsed, and a RevolutionaryWorkers' and Peasants' Government had beenformed, including several Ministers of the NagyGovernment. That Government had informedthe Secretary-General that all communicationsfrom Mr. Nagy were invalid and had reiteratedthe Hungarian Government's objections to dis-cussion of the situation in the United Nations.The proposal to include the matter in theagenda was motivated by a desire to aggravatethe situation and to support fascist elementswhich had risen against the Hungarian peopleand its lawful Government.

In support of inclusion of the item, it wasstated that the use of foreign forces to repressrights established by the Treaty of Peace withHungary, of 10 February 1947, was a violationwhich was of concern to the other nations par-ties to that Treaty. Recent events in Hungaryhad clearly demonstrated that, in violation ofArticle 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter, boththe threat of force and force had been em-ployed against the political independence ofHungary.

On 4 November, the General Assembly de-cided to include the item in its agenda by 53votes to 8, with 7 abstentions.

The United States representative submitted adraft resolution which was modified duringthe debate. The General Assembly would, bythe preamble to the revised version: recall theguarantees in the Hungarian Peace Treaty of1947 concerning human rights and fundamentalfreedoms; condemn the use of Soviet militaryforces to suppress the efforts of the Hungarianpeople to reassert their rights; note the USSRdeclaration of 30 October 1956 of its avowedpolicy of non-intervention; note the demandmade on 1 November 1956 by the Governmentof Hungary that the USSR instantly withdrawits forces; note the Hungarian Government'scommunication of 2 November 1956 askingthe Security Council to instruct the Govern-ments of the USSR and Hungary to start nego-tiations immediately on withdrawal of Sovietforces; note that the Soviet intervention in

Hungary had resulted in grave loss of life andwidespread bloodshed among the Hungarianpeople; and take note of the radio appeal ofPrime Minister Nagy of 4 November 1956. Bythe operative part of the draft resolution, theAssembly would: (1) call upon the USSR todesist forthwith from all armed attack on thepeople of Hungary and from any form ofintervention in Hungary; (2) call upon theUSSR to cease the introduction of additionalarmed forces into Hungary and to withdrawtherefrom all of its forces without delay; (3)affirm the Hungarian people's right to a gov-ernment responsive to its national aspirations;(4) request the Secretary-General to investigatethe situation caused by foreign intervention inHungary, to observe the situation directlythrough representatives named by him, and toreport thereon to the General Assembly at theearliest moment, and as soon as possible tosuggest methods to bring to an end the foreignintervention in Hungary in accordance withthe principles of the Charter; (5) call uponthe Governments of Hungary and the USSRto permit observers designated by the Secretary-General to enter the territory of Hungary, totravel freely therein, and to report their findingsto the Secretary-General; (6) call upon allMembers to co-operate with the Secretary-General and his representatives in the execu-tion of his functions; (7) request the Secretary-General, in consultation with the heads of ap-propriate specialized agencies to enquire, on anurgent basis, into the needs of the Hungarianpeople for food, medicine and other similarsupplies, and to report to the General Assemblyas soon as possible; and (8) request all Mem-bers and invite national and international hu-manitarian organizations to co-operate inmaking available such supplies as might berequired by the Hungarian people.

The United States draft resolution, as modi-fied, was adopted on 4 November by a roll-callvote of 50 to 8, with 15 abstentions, as resolu-tion 1004(ES-II).

On 7 November, the Secretary-General in-formed the General Assembly at the conclusionof a meeting on the Middle Eastern questionthat the resolution of 4 November had beenformally called to the attention of the two Gov-ernments most directly concerned and that hewould shortly be in a position to report on

THE HUNGARIAN QUESTION 71further steps in implementation of the resolu-tion. In the meantime, he said, the Office of theUnited Nations High Commissioner for Re-fugees was working with other welfare agenciesto meet the need for food, medicine and othersimilar supplies.

On 8 November, the representative of Hun-gary reiterated the Hungarian Government'sdeclaration of 28 October to the effect thatevents in Hungary and the measures taken inconnection therewith were exclusively the do-mestic concern of the Hungarian People's Re-public. The appeals sent by Mr. Nagy had beendeclared invalid by the new Government ofHungary, and they could not, therefore, beregarded as official.

A number of representatives questionedwhether the representative of Hungary repre-sented either the people or the legitimate Gov-ernment of that country, declaring that theKadar Government had been imposed by force.(The issue was also raised in the CredentialsCommittee, which reported on 8 November thatit had decided to recommend that the As-sembly take no decision on the matter at thattime pending further clarification. On 9 No-vember the Assembly approved the report by68 votes to 0, with 1 abstention.)

The representative of Italy introduced adraft resolution, sponsored also by Cuba, Ire-land, Pakistan and Peru. By this, the GeneralAssembly, noting the continuing violent re-pression by Soviet forces of the Hungarianpeople's efforts to achieve freedom and inde-pendence, would: (1) call again upon theUSSR to withdraw its forces from Hungarywithout any further delay; (2) consider thatfree elections should be held in Hungary underUnited Nations auspices; (3) reaffirm its re-quest to the Secretary-General to investigateand to report on the situation caused by foreignintervention in Hungary; and (4) request theSecretary-General to report on compliance.

At the same meeting, the Secretary-Generaldrew attention to an aide-mémoire he had sentthat day to the Government of Hungary, con-taining the main points of his plan for theimplementation of the resolution of 4 Novem-ber. He had asked whether that Governmentwas willing to admit observers designated bythe Secretary-General into Hungary as soonas possible. He intended to proceed with a

selection of observers on the assumption thatthe Government of Hungary would meet therequest of the General Assembly. The GeneralAssembly had also requested the Secretary-General to investigate the situation caused byforeign intervention in Hungary. He said hehad taken steps for such an investigation onthe basis of available and confirmed material.Finally, the General Assembly had requestedthe Secretary-General to suggest, as soon aspossible, methods to bring an end to the foreignintervention in accordance with the principlesof the Charter. The matter was under activeconsideration within the Secretariat, the Sec-retary-General added. It was obviously notpossible to reach a final result before the endof the investigation previously referred to, norto do so without the co-operation of the Hun-garian Government in the sense he had in-dicated.

On 9 November, the United States submitteda two-part draft resolution concerning humani-tarian aspects of the question and concerningassistance to refugees from Hungary.

By the first part, the General Assembly, con-sidering that the military authorities of theUSSR were interfering with the transportationand distribution of food and medical suppliesurgently needed by the civilian population inHungary, would: (1) call upon the USSR tocease immediately actions against the Hungari-an population which were in violation of theaccepted standards and principles of interna-tional law, justice and morality; (2) call uponthe Hungarian authorities to facilitate, and theUSSR not to interfere with, the receipt anddistribution of food and medical supplies tothe Hungarian people; and (3) urge the USSRand the Hungarian authorities to co-operatefully with the Secretary-General and his dulyappointed representatives in the carrying outof relief tasks.

By the second part of the draft resolution,the Assembly, considering that increasinglylarge numbers of refugees were being obligedto leave Hungary and seek asylum in neigh-bouring countries, as a result of the harshand repressive action of the Soviet armed forces,would: (1) request the Secretary-General tocall upon the United Nations High Commis-sioner for Refugees to consult with other ap-propriate international agencies and interested


Governments with a view to making speedy andeffective arrangements for emergency assistanceto refugees from Hungary; and (2) urge Mem-ber States to make such contributions for thatpurpose.

At the next meeting on the same day, Austriasubmitted a draft resolution under which, asmodified prior to the vote, the General As-sembly would: (1) resolve to provide large-scale and immediate relief aid in the affectedterritories; and (2) call upon all Members toassist such action to the maximum as well asto assist the Secretary-General in implementingthe resolution.

On the same day, joint amendments to theUnited States draft resolution were submittedby Ceylon, India and Indonesia. Those to thefirst part of the draft were intended to delete:the references in the preamble to interferenceby the military authorities of the USSR; theentire first operative paragraph; the referencesin the second operative paragraph to USSRinterference; and the reference in the thirdparagraph to the USSR. It was also proposedto amend the preamble to the second part ofthe resolution so that it would read: "Con-sidering that large numbers of refugees areleaving Hungary", thus deleting the referenceto "harsh and oppressive action" by Sovietarmed forces.

Those speaking in support of the five-Powerjoint draft resolution emphasized that the so-called "Revolutionary Workers' and Peasants'Government" was a Soviet agency imposed onHungary by Soviet soldiers who were massacringthe workers and peasants. Hungary, they urged,must be freed from foreign troops, and itspeople must be given the right to choose itsown Government through free elections.

A number of representatives, including thoseof Hungary and the USSR, opposed this pro-posal. They declared that it represented a fur-ther attempt to falsify the facts in respect ofdevelopments in Hungary in order to justifyfurther interference in Hungary's domestic af-fairs for the purpose of disturbing the progressand consolidation of peaceful development.

In opposition to the five-Power joint draftresolution, it was also observed that the Gen-eral Assembly could not in any circumstances,regardless of whether it considered the actionunder discussion right or wrong, disregard the

sovereign rights of Members. The right of theHungarian people to choose the form of Gov-ernment it desired was inherent in its sover-eignty and membership in the United Nations.The Assembly, it was also argued, could notdeal with the problem in the same way as inthe case of a colonial country, where the peoplehad no representation.

Some representatives, indicating their inten-tion of abstaining in the vote on this proposal,expressed the view that it would serve nopractical purpose, because the mere adoptionof a resolution calling for free elections wouldnot bring them about. The proposal, in theiropinion, was also premature in that it was onlyafter completion of the task assigned to theSecretary-General that the Assembly could getdown to the practical business of what it shoulddo.

Most of those supporting the United Statesdraft resolution opposed the joint amendmentsto it. Apart from the fact that the relevantprovisions of the draft resolution were a precisedescription of what was taking place, the As-sembly should not, they argued, overlook theimpact on public opinion that would result froma decision to omit them. Those supporting theamendments urged that a resolution on human-itarian questions should not contain elementsof a political character. It should be limitedto the requirements of the task envisaged.

On 9 November, the five-Power joint draftresolution was adopted as a whole, by a roll-callvote of 48 to 11, with 16 abstentions, as resolu-tion 1005(ES-II). The three-Power amend-ments to the United States draft resolutionwere rejected by a roll-call vote of 45 to 18,with 12 abstentions. The United States draftresolution was then adopted by a roll-call voteof 53 to 9, with 13 abstentions, as resolution1006(ES-II).

The Austrian draft resolution was adoptedby a roll-call vote of 67 to 0, with 8 abstentions,as resolution 1007(ES-II).

On 10 November the General Assemblyadopted another United States draft resolution,as resolution 1008(ES-II), to place on the pro-visional agenda of its eleventh regular session,as a matter of priority, the question on theagenda of its second emergency special session.The vote for this was 53 votes to 9, with 8abstentions.


CONSIDERATION BYGENERAL ASSEMBLY AT ITSELEVENTH SESSION

In an aide-mémoire to the Government ofHungary, dated 10 November, the Secretary-General noted with disappointment that he hadnot so far received any reply to his aide-memoire of 2 November, although the situa-tion was one of the greatest urgency. He saidhe was requesting a reply without further delay.Should the reply have been held up by a con-sideration of the modalities for a visit by ob-servers of the Secretary-General, he was willingimmediately to arrange for a discussion aboutthe modalities. On the same day, the Secretary-General transmitted a copy of the aide-mémoireto the USSR Government, asking it to supporthis demand to the Government of Hungarythat it permit observers, designated by him,to enter the territory of Hungary, to travelfreely therein and to report their findings.

In a note verbale addressed to the Ministerof Foreign Affairs of Hungary, also on 10November (A/3337), the Secretary-General re-quested information about the needs of theHungarian people for medical supplies, food-stuffs and clothing. Upon receipt of that in-formation, the Secretary-General said he wouldwish to discuss with the Hungarian Governmentthe best means of providing the assistancerequired.

On 12 November, the Secretary-General an-nounced that he had been pursuing discussionsabout the composition of groups for investiga-tion and for the direct observation of the pre-vailing situation as requested in the resolutionof 4 November by the General Assembly. Asof that date, Dr. Alberto Lleras (Colombia)and Judge Oscar Gundersen (Norway) hadagreed to participate.

Also on 12 November, the Acting Ministerof Foreign Affairs of Hungary conveyed to theSecretary-General a statement by the Revolu-tionary Workers' and Peasants' Government ofthe Hungarian People's Republic (A/3341). Inthe past weeks, it said, mass demonstrations hadtaken place in Hungary, the democratic andpatriotic demands of which the RevolutionaryWorkers' and Peasants' Government had ac-cepted as its own. However, organized fascistelements and criminals had gradually taken thelead and had carried off and murdered hun-

dreds of progressive-minded people and mem-bers of their families. In the serious situationwhich had arisen, the Government could re-store law and order only by requesting the aidof Soviet troops. After the complete restorationof law and order, it would immediately beginnegotiations with the Government of the USSRfor the withdrawal of those troops from Hun-gary. On that basis, the Hungarian Governmentemphatically stated that the settlement of thesituation lay exclusively within the internal legalcompetence of the Hungarian State. Any re-solution of the General Assembly concerningthat situation was thus in contradiction withArticle 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter, thestatement added. The Hungarian and USSRGovernments alone had the competence tocarry on negotiations about the withdrawal ofSoviet troops from Hungary. The HungarianGovernment considered that the sending of theSecretary-General's representatives was not war-ranted. The holding of elections in Hungarywas entirely within the competence of theHungarian authorities. As to the refugees, thestatement added, the Hungarian Governmentwould enable those citizens who had fled abroadas a result of the battles to return freely andwithout harm. Hungary was grateful for thehumane resolutions of the Assembly about as-sistance and would facilitate the receipt anddistribution of food and medicine sent for theHungarian people. It was currently co-operatingwith the International Red Cross Committee.The Soviet troops in Hungary did not hinderthe relief work in any way.

On 13 November, the Acting Minister ofForeign Affairs of Hungary gave details of themost urgent relief needs and stated that hisGovernment was prepared to discuss with theSecretary-General the best means of providingthe assistance required as well as how hisrepresentatives might participate in organizingthe assistance on the spot (A/3345).

Replying on 13 November (A/3346), theSecretary-General noted with satisfaction thewillingness of the Hungarian Government toco-operate fully with the agencies of theUnited Nations for the humanitarian ends towhich the resolutions of the General Assemblywere directed. He also noted the views expressedabout the General Assembly resolution of 4November. In his execution of the decision of


the General Assembly, it would not be to thepurpose for him to enter upon a discussion con-cerning that decision. He invited the Govern-ment of Hungary to reconsider its judgementthat the sending of representatives by the Sec-retary-General was not warranted in the lightof the opposite view so widely expressed byMember Governments in the Assembly andreflected in the vote. He invited the HungarianGovernment, as a Member of the United Na-tions, to co-operate with the great majority inthe clarification of the situation which hadgiven rise to such concern in the Assembly.

In a note verbale dated 13 November, thePermanent Mission of the USSR informed theSecretary-General that it maintained the posi-tion it had stated in the General Assembly. Asto the specific question of the dispatch of theUnited Nations observers to Hungary, raisedby the Secretary-General in his aide-mémoireof 10 November, the USSR Government con-sidered that to be a matter falling exclusivelywithin the jurisdiction of the Government ofthe Hungarian People's Republic.

Also on 13 November, in a conversation withthe Foreign Minister of Hungary, the Secretary-General offered to go personally to Budapestduring the journey he was about to make toEgypt in order to establish the basis for UnitedNations humanitarian assistance to Hungary, inaccordance with the General Assembly's re-solutions.

On 13 November, the General Assembly, bya roll-call vote of 62 to 9, with 8 abstentions,decided to include the item "Question con-sidered by the second emergency special sessionof the General Assembly from 4 to 10 Novem-ber 1956" in the agenda of its eleventh regularsession.

On 15 November, the Acting Minister ofForeign Affairs of Hungary informed the Sec-retary-General that representatives of his Gov-ernment would be glad to meet the Secretary-General in Rome and negotiate about the aidoffered by the United Nations as well as toexchange views about the position taken bythe Hungarian Government regarding the re-solutions of the United Nations (A/3358). On16 November, the Secretary-General recalledthat, in view of the value of a broader personalcontact with those directly concerned, he hadmade an oral offer to go to Budapest to discuss

the basis for humanitarian activities by theUnited Nations in Hungary. Under the cir-cumstances, he proposed to discuss the mattersmentioned in the latest message from the Hun-garian Government with its Foreign Minister assoon as possible (A/3362).

On 16 November, the Secretary-General in-formed the General Assembly that he hadappointed Judge Oscar Gundersen (Norway),Mr. Arthur Lall (India) and Dr. AlbertoLleras (Colombia) to constitute a group forinvestigating the situation caused by foreignintervention in Hungary.

The General Assembly resumed discussionof the question on 19 November, when it hadbefore it a revised Cuban draft resolutionwhereby the Assembly would: (1) consider thatinformation received added urgency to thenecessity of prompt compliance with the As-sembly's earlier resolutions calling for the with-drawal of Soviet forces from Hungary and forthe dispatch of observers to Hungary by theSecretary-General; (2) urge the Government ofthe USSR and the Hungarian authorities totake immediate steps to cease the deportationof Hungarian citizens and to return promptlyto their homes those who had been deportedfrom Hungarian territory; and (3) request theSecretary-General to keep the Assembly in-formed as to compliance with this as well aswith previous resolutions.

On the same date, the Permanent Missionof Hungary requested distribution of the textof a communique issued by the HungarianGovernment on 18 November, in which it wasdeclared that none of the persons arrested hadbeen deported from the territory of Hungary.

The General Assembly continued discussionof the matter in the course of six meetings heldbetween 19 and 21 November. In the courseof these meetings additional proposals weresubmitted.

One was a joint draft resolution by Ceylon,India and Indonesia. As revised during thedebate to take account of Belgian amendments,the General Assembly, noting affirmations anddenials by Members regarding forcible deporta-tions of Hungarian nationals, recalling para-graph 5 of its resolution of 4 November, andnoting that the Secretary-General was pursuinghis efforts in that behalf with the HungarianGovernment and that he had urged Hungary,


"as a Member of the United Nations, to co-operate with the great majority in the clarifi-cation of the situation", would thereby: (1)urge Hungary to accede to the request madeby the Secretary-General without prejudice toits sovereignty; and (2) request the Secretary-General to report to the Assembly withoutdelay.

A joint draft resolution was also submittedby Argentina, Belgium, Denmark and theUnited States (A/3374). By this, the GeneralAssembly would: (1) note with appreciationthe action taken by the Secretary-General andthe Office of the High Commissioner; (2) re-quest the Secretary-General and the High Com-missioner to continue those efforts; (3) urgeGovernments and non-governmental organiza-tions to make contributions to the Secretary-General, the High Commissioner or other ap-propriate agencies for the care and resettlementof Hungarian refugees and to co-ordinate theiraid programmes in consultation with the Officeof the High Commissioner; and (4) requestthe Secretary-General and the High Commis-sioner to make an immediate appeal to bothGovernments and non-governmental agenciesto meet the minimum present needs as esti-mated in the report of the Office of the HighCommissioner and authorize them to make sub-sequent appeals on the basis of plans and esti-mates made by the High Commissioner withthe concurrence of his executive committee.

Four amendments to this four-Power draft re-solution were proposed by Hungary (A/L.214).These envisaged, among other things, the ad-dition of a new operative paragraph wherebythe General Assembly, taking note of the de-claration of the Hungarian Government callingupon the refugees to return to their country,would recommend that the Governments of thecountries concerned take urgent measures inorder to secure a speedy return to Hungaryof Hungarian nationals who as a result of thepresent situation had become refugees. Theamendment also proposed revision of operativeparagraph 4, to have the Assembly request theSecretary-General and the High Commissionerto make an appeal to Governments to render thenecessary assistance to the refugees pendingtheir return to Hungary.

The majority of speakers participating inthe debate condemned what was termed "a

reign of terror" in Hungary. There could not,it was argued, be two classes of Member States,one complying with United Nations resolutionswhile the other ignored them with impunity.The fact that deportations from Hungary weretaking place had been recognized by the Buda-pest radio and the press in Hungary. If therewas nothing to hide, why were United Nationsobservers and the Secretary-General not ad-mitted to Hungary?

The representatives of Hungary, the USSRand certain other Members charged that alle-gations of deportation had been fabricated inorder to hinder the efforts of the Hungarianpeople to restore complete peace and order.Another view was that the effectiveness of thenegotiations undertaken by the Secretary-Gen-eral would not be enhanced by the adoption ofthe Cuban draft resolution.

A number of representatives who had ab-stained on resolution 1004(ES-II) of 4 No-vember stated that their Governments viewedwith concern the armed Soviet intervention inthe internal affairs of Hungary. This they con-sidered completely unjustified. They also de-clared that the Soviet troops should withdrawspeedily.

During the debate on 21 November, theSecretary-General reaffirmed his offer to gopersonally to Budapest. He noted that his offerhad originally been made for discussions con-cerning humanitarian activities. However, inlater exchanges, when the Government of Hun-gary had proposed a meeting in Rome, it hadat the same time indicated that it would likethe discussions to extend beyond the sphereof humanitarian activities and cover also aspectsof the General Assembly resolutions in general.The Secretary-General believed it followedfrom the exchanges of views that there was norefusal from the side of Hungary which wouldmake it impossible for him to maintain hisoffer to go personally to Budapest and in thatcontext to discuss not only humanitarian ac-tivities but likewise the wider aspect to whichthe Government of Hungary had referred.

The representative of Hungary stated thathe would vote against the joint draft resolutionproposed by Ceylon, India and Indonesia. HisGovernment and his delegation, he said, wereready to talk about any problems concerningrelief with the Secretary-General and about


the meeting between the latter and represent-atives of the Hungarian Government.

Those against the Hungarian amendmentsmaintained that these must be interpreted inthe light of statements that the refugees werecommon criminals and the remnants of fascistHorthy groups. The fate of such refugeeselecting to return, they said, would clearly beliquidation.

On 21 November, the General Assemblyadopted the Cuban draft resolution, as amend-ed by El Salvador, by a roll-call vote of 55to 10, with 14 abstentions, as resolution 1127(XI). The revised joint draft resolution ofCeylon, India and Indonesia was adopted bya roll-call vote of 57 to 8, with 14 abstentions,as resolution 1128(XI). After rejecting theHungarian amendments, the General Assemblyadopted the four-Power joint draft resolution,also on 21 November, by a roll-call vote of69 to 2, with 8 abstentions, as resolution1129(XI).

On 30 November, the Secretary-General sub-mitted to the General Assembly a report on"aspects of the present situation" (A/3403).By letters of 28 November 1956 to the Chair-men of the delegations of Hungary and theUSSR, the Secretary-General — drawing theattention of those Governments to the GeneralAssembly resolutions of 21 November on thesituation in Hungary — had requested informa-tion on points to be taken into account in aninterim report on implementation of the variousresolutions.

In his reply of 29 November, the Chairmanof the USSR delegation reiterated the positionstated in his note of 13 November and alsostated that, as the USSR had declared in theGeneral Assembly, allegations of the deportationof Hungarian citizens to the USSR were basedon slanderous rumours circulated by certaingroups for the purpose of misleading publicopinion.

No information was available to the Sec-retary-General concerning steps taken in orderto establish compliance with the decisions ofthe General Assembly which referred to a with-drawal of troops or related political matters.

The Secretary-General said in his report thathis efforts had been directed primarily to ob-taining permission from the Hungarian Gov-

ernment for observers, named by him, to enterHungary for the purposes prescribed. So farno such permission had been given. It was hishope that he would be invited to make a per-sonal contact in Budapest. If so, he wouldorganize the visit in order to cover not onlythe humanitarian activities, to which his offerhad originally referred, but also in general theposition taken by the Government of Hungaryregarding the resolutions of the United Nations.While the aims of those resolutions would guidehis efforts in Budapest, it seemed appropriatethat his contact with the Hungarian Govern-ment be considered as based on his positionunder the United Nations Charter, with thewider scope that such a standpoint might giveto his approach.

The group to assist him in fulfilling the in-vestigatory duties mentioned in paragraph 4of the Assembly resolution of 4 November, theSecretary-General's report added, was examin-ing some material at present available to theSecretariat. He had been informed that thatmaterial did not provide a sufficient basis fora report and that the group, moreover, deemedit essential that its work should be supple-mented by direct observation. Since arrange-ments had not been concluded for observationin Hungary, the stage had not yet been reachedwhere it was possible to present a comprehen-sive report. He had previously stated his viewthat the investigation should be based on avail-able and confirmed material. For those criteriato be fulfilled some co-operation of those Mem-ber Governments mainly concerned would benecessary.

In conclusion, the Secretary-General statedthat, by the means and through the channelsavailable to him, he had used his best en-deavours to further compliance with all thevarious decisions of the General Assembly onthe situation in Hungary. The nature of theproblem and insufficient information about someof the basic assumptions for his activities hadcomplicated the task. It had seemed naturalto him to concentrate first of all on the in-vestigatory activities, since progress concerningthose activities was of key significance for asuccessful approach to other points raised bythe General Assembly.

In a cablegram dated 3 December, the Act-

THE HUNGARIAN QUESTION 77ing Minister of Foreign Affairs of Hungary in-formed the Secretary-General that his Govern-ment maintained its position that permissionfor United Nations observers to enter Hungarywould violate its sovereignty and would becontrary to the principles of the Charter. TheHungarian Government remained willing tohave its representative negotiate with the Sec-retary-General in Rome or New York withoutdelay. In order to make it possible for theSecretary-General to conduct direct negotia-tions with the Hungarian Government, it wasready to welcome him in Budapest at a laterdate appropriate for both parties.

On 3 December, the General Assembly con-tinued discussion of the question. It had beforeit a draft resolution submitted jointly on 2December by the following 14 Members: Ar-gentina, Australia, Belgium, Cuba, Denmark,El Salvador, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands,Norway, Pakistan, Sweden, Thailand and theUnited States. By this, the Assembly would:(1) reiterate its call to the USSR Governmentand the Hungarian authorities to comply withits resolutions and to permit United Nationsobservers to enter Hungary to report on thesituation; (2) request the USSR and the Hun-garian authorities to communicate not laterthan 7 December their consent to receive thoseobservers; (3) recommend that in the mean-time the Secretary-General arrange for theimmediate dispatch to Hungary, and othercountries as appropriate, of observers namedby him pursuant to paragraph 4 of resolution1004(ES-II); and (4) request all Members toassist and co-operate with the Secretary-Gen-eral's representatives in the fulfilment of theirresponsibilities.

The discussion of the Secretary-General's re-port and of the 14-Power joint draft resolution,which started on 3 December, continuedthrough six meetings held until 5 December.The majority of speakers drew attention tothe strength of the feeling aroused throughoutthe world by events in Hungary and by theattitude of the USSR Government to the re-solutions adopted by the General Assembly.Various representatives stressed the view thatthe establishment of two standards of behaviourcould lead to a grave crisis in the United Na-tions. The representatives of Hungary and the

USSR, and a number of other representatives,reiterated that there was no foundation fordiscussion of the matter by the General As-sembly and requested it to reject the joint draftresolution and to drop the question from theagenda.

Several representatives, while criticizing theactions of the USSR in Hungary and stressingthe obligation of the Hungarian Governmentto admit the Secretary-General and observersto Hungary, opposed sending observers to neigh-bouring countries and felt that no deadlineshould be set by the joint draft resolution. Ex-ception was also taken to the use of the term"Hungarian authorities".

On the afternoon of 4 December, the repre-sentative of Hungary informed the Assemblythat to implement his Government's invitationto the Secretary-General, he had communicatedhis readiness to meet the Secretary-General todiscuss the settlement of the date and arrange-ments for the visit. On the evening of 4 De-cember, the Secretary-General informed theAssembly he had met with the Foreign Ministerof Hungary following the afternoon meetingto discuss the date and other arrangements forhis visit to Budapest. He suggested that hecould be in Budapest on 16 December and therepresentative of Hungary was suggesting to hisGovernment that the Secretary-General arrivein Budapest on that day. The Secretary-Generalstated that it would be his intention to stayin Budapest on 16, 17 and 18 December. TheGeneral Assembly adopted, by 54 votes to 0,with 23 abstentions, a motion by India thatthe statement by the Secretary-General be ac-cepted.

Prior to this vote, the General Assemblyadopted the 14-Power joint draft resolution by54 votes to 10, with 14 abstentions, as resolu-tion 1130(XI).

On 7 December, the Secretary-General in-formed the General Assembly that as of 6 P.M.that day he had not received any reply to lettersby which he had transmitted the text of resolu-tion 1130(XI) to the two countries directlyconcerned. He had also addressed letters to therepresentatives of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Ro-mania and Yugoslavia concerning the last twoparagraphs of resolution 1130(XI). The Sec-retary-General added that he had not received


any official reaction to his suggestion of 4 De-cember that he visit Budapest on 16 December.If the visit could not be made at the timeproposed, it might be questioned whether itwould be to the purpose, he said.

On 8 December, the representative of Austriainformed the Secretary-General that his Gov-ernment would permit observers named by theSecretary-General to enter Austria. That per-mission was given as a consequence of Austria'smembership in the United Nations and of theprovisions of Article 2(5) of the Charter. HisGovernment felt that United Nations observerswould also be in a position to verify on thespot the situation of the refugees and the in-correctness of some reports concerning the con-ditions of refugees in Austria.

On the same date, the representative ofYugoslavia replied that, as a matter of prin-ciple, his Government was opposed to observersbeing sent to one country for the purpose ofwatching developments in another country. Inthis particular case, it would be liable to extendthe area of tension and thus aggravate thesituation still further. The practical value ofany such observation was also doubtful. Forthese reasons his Government regretted its in-ability to receive observers.

On 9 and 10 December, the representativesof Czechoslovakia, Romania and the USSR re-plied to the effect that their Governments couldnot consent to the entry of observers into theirrespective territories.

The General Assembly continued discussionof the question on 10 December. Before it wasa draft resolution submitted on 9 December byArgentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, Denmark,El Salvador, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands,Norway, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines,Sweden, Thailand, and the United States. Co-lombia, the Dominican Republic, Spain andTurkey subsequently joined in sponsoring thedraft resolution. By the preamble to this, theGeneral Assembly would: (a) express its deepconcern over the tragic events in Hungary;(b) recall those provisions of its previous re-solutions calling upon the Government of theUSSR to desist from its intervention in the in-ternal affairs of Hungary, to withdraw its forcesfrom Hungary, and to cease its repression ofthe Hungarian people; (c) recall those pro-visions calling for permission for United Na-

tions observers to enter the territory of Hungary,to travel freely therein, and to report theirfindings to the Secretary-General; (d) state thatit had received the report of the Secretary-General of 30 November stating that "no in-formation is available to the Secretary-Generalconcerning steps taken in order to establishcompliance with the decisions of the GeneralAssembly which refer to a withdrawal of troopsor related political matters", and the note ofthe Secretary-General of 7 December; (e) notewith grave concern that there had not been areply to the latest appeal of the Assembly forthe admission of United Nations observers toHungary as contained in its resolution of 5December; (f) consider that recent events hadclearly demonstrated the will of the Hungarianpeople to recover their liberty and independ-ence. By the operative part of the draft resolu-tion, the Assembly would: (1) declare that byusing its armed force against the Hungarianpeople, the Government of the USSR wasviolating the political independence of Hun-gary; (2) condemn the violation of the Charterby the Government of the USSR in deprivingHungary of its liberty and independence andthe Hungarian people of the exercise of theirfundamental rights; (3) reiterate its call uponthe Government of the USSR to desist forth-with from any form of intervention in theinternal affairs of Hungary; (4) call upon theGovernment of the USSR to make immediatearrangements for the withdrawal, under UnitedNations observation, of its armed forces fromHungary and to permit the re-establishment ofthe political independence of Hungary.

Amendments to this 20-Power joint draftresolution were submitted jointly on 10 De-cember by Ceylon, India and Indonesia. Theamendments provided for: (1) deletion of thesecond and third paragraphs of the preamble;(2) replacement of the sixth preambular para-graph by a provision noting the overwhelmingdemand of the Hungarian people for the cessa-tion of intervention of foreign armed forcesand the withdrawal of foreign troops; (3) re-placement of operative paragraph 1 by a de-claration that intervention of Soviet armedforces in Hungary should cease and that ar-rangements for their withdrawal should bemade so that violence and non-co-operationwould cease and the restoration of peaceful con-


ditions be rendered possible; (4) replacementof operative paragraph 2 by a provision wherebythe Assembly would urge the Governments ofHungary and the USSR to promote the real-ization of that declaration in accordance withthe purposes of the Charter and the declaredintentions of the two Governments; (5) re-placement of operative paragraph 4 by threenew paragraphs. By the last amendment the As-sembly would: (a) declare that recent eventsin Hungary had shown that the use of forceand violence could not bring about or promotea solution of the grave situation in Hungary,but had aggravated it and imposed severe pri-vations and denials of freedom on the Hungarianpeople; (b ) express its firm conviction thatthe interests and freedom of the Hungarianpeople could only be furthered if there wasneither foreign intervention nor the apprehen-sion of external pressure from any quarter;(c) request the Secretary-General to initiateefforts both with the Hungarian and the SovietGovernments through their representatives atNew York and to consider without delay thequestion of visiting Moscow in addition to theefforts he was making in regard to Budapest,to assist in promoting a speedy solution withthe co-operation of all concerned.

Also on 10 December, a joint draft resolu-tion was submitted by Burma, Ceylon, India,and Indonesia. By the preamble to this draftresolution, the General Assembly would: (a)express deep concern over the tragic situationin Hungary; (b) state that it had received theSecretary-General's report of 30 November andhis note of 7 December; (c) note the over-whelming demand of the Hungarian peoplefor the withdrawal of Soviet troops and thecessation of foreign intervention, (d) note thatthe failure to agree to and arrange for the with-drawal of Soviet forces was responsible for andhad resulted in widespread non-co-operation,particularly by the workers of Hungary, andwas preventing the emergence of peaceful con-ditions; (e) note further the declaration ofthe USSR of 30 October regarding the with-drawal of their forces from Hungary and thatthe United Nations and world opinion hadrepeatedly asked for such withdrawal; (f) re-cognize that any improvement in the presentsituation in Hungary required the urgent initia-tive and co-operation of the Governments of

the USSR and of Hungary. By the operativepart of this four-Power draft resolution, theAssembly would: (1) deplore that no steps hadbeen taken in pursuance of the above-mentionedSoviet declaration and to meet the overwhelm-ing demand of the Hungarian people in re-spect of the withdrawal of Soviet troops andthat, in consequence, there had been a furtherdeterioration of the situation and continuednon-co-operation by the Hungarian people;(2) declare that the intervention of armedforces in Hungary had not only resulted inviolence and bloodshed but had aggravated thesituation and prevented the approach to asolution, that it should cease forthwith, andthat immediate arrangements should be madefor the withdrawal of foreign forces so thatpeaceful conditions could be promoted in Hun-gary; (3) declare that recent events in Hungaryhad conclusively shown that force and violenceprovided no answer to the demands of a peo-ple; (4) express its firm conviction that theinterests of the Hungarian people, of the UnitedNations and of world co-operation would bebest furthered by the cessation of the existingforeign intervention and by the assurance thatthere would be no external intervention orpressures, armed or otherwise, from any quar-ter. The fifth and final paragraph of the opera-tive section of this draft resolution containedprovisions identical to those of the last para-graph of the three-Power amendments listedabove.

On 10 December, the second of the three-Power amendments was incorporated as theseventh preambular paragraph of the 20-Powerjoint draft resolution. On 12 December, thatdraft resolution was further modified by itssponsors to include a new operative paragraph5, under which the Assembly would requestthe Secretary-General to take any initiativethat he deemed helpful in relation to theHungarian problem, in conformity with theprinciples of the Charter and the resolutions ofthe Assembly.

Finally, on 11 December, the representativeof Austria submitted a draft resolution underwhich the Assembly would authorize the Sec-retary-General: (1) immediately to undertaketo achieve a constructive solution of the Hun-garian problem, based on the principles of theCharter; (2) for this purpose to enter into


negotiations with Member States, as it seemedappropriate to him; (3) to report to the As-sembly on the results of his efforts, if possiblebefore the end of the first part of its session.

The General Assembly discussed the aboveproposals in the course of six meetings held on10, 11 and 12 December.

The majority of speakers, supporting the20-Power joint draft resolution, emphasizedthat the Assembly, far from displaying haste,had deliberated at length and had done every-thing in its power to get information. It couldnot defer any further the judgement which itwas incumbent on it to pronounce. All elsehaving failed, it must face the issue of votinga condemnation of the USSR for its actionsagainst the Hungarian people.

A number of representatives, while agreeingwith the majority as to the nature of USSRactions and responsibilities, noted that the posi-tion was that without the effective co-operationand initiative of the USSR no settlement couldbe brought about, and urged acceptance ofthe amendments to the 20-Power joint draftresolution.

The majority of speakers supporting the lattertext either declared themselves unable to sup-port these amendments or else opposed them.Among their arguments were the following:most of the ideas contained in the amendmentshad already been expressed in past resolutions;it was pointless merely to reiterate them atthat stage, apart from the importance of notgiving the appearance of retreating from prin-ciples agreed upon by an overwhelming ma-jority. There were also various specific ob-jections to the phraseology of several of theamendments.

The representative of the USSR, and a num-ber of other representatives, described the 20-Power joint draft resolution as obviously pro-vocative in character. They contended that thecourse of action it envisaged harmed the honourand authority of the United Nations, under-mined its foundations and turned it into anarrow group of States headed by the UnitedStates. Further, despite any resolution thatmight be rubber-stamped by the Assembly, anyattempt to overthrow the popular Governmentof Hungary was doomed to failure.

On 11 December, the representative of Hun-gary said that the delegations of the United

States and of a number of countries influencedby the United States had been making a seriesof attempts to interfere in Hungary's domesticaffairs. His delegation would continue con-sistently to reject such attempts. A number ofdelegations had offended his Government anddelegation in a manner incompatible with Hun-gary's sovereignty and the national honour ofthe Hungarian people. The Hungarian dele-gation would not, therefore, participate in thework of the eleventh session of the GeneralAssembly so long as the discussion of the Hun-garian question did not proceed in the spiritof the Charter.

Both before and after this statement by theHungarian representative, various representa-tives expressed their belief that the KadarGovernment had been imposed by force andthat it represented the USSR rather than theHungarian people. A number of representativeshad urged expulsion of the Hungarian dele-gation from the General Assembly.

On 12 December, the General Assembly,after rejecting the joint amendments, adoptedthe 20-Power draft resolution by a roll-call voteof 55 to 8, with 13 abstentions (resolution1131(XI)).

The sponsors of the four-Power joint draftresolution and of the Austrian draft resolutionthen indicated that they would not press fora vote on their proposals.

In a note verbale dated 12 December to theSecretary-General from the Hungarian Missionto the United Nations, the Hungarian Govern-ment, referring to its expressions of willingnessto conduct negotiations with the Secretary-General and to receive him in Budapest at alater date appropriate for both parties, statedthat the date 16 December, which had beendesignated by the Secretary-General, was notappropriate for the Hungarian Government.The Hungarian Government would, at a laterdate, set forth a proposal on the visit of theSecretary-General (A/3435/Add.6).

In a report to the General Assembly, dated5 January 1957, the Secretary-General includedthe text of a note expressing the views of thegroup of three established on 16 November1956 on the nature of and conditions for theinvestigations with which it had been charged.In that note, it was stated that the Assembly'sresolution of 4 November appeared to envisage


the process of investigation, observation andreporting as a unified one. However, the grouphad looked at available and generally knownmaterial, which did not put it in a position toadd anything significant to what was commonknowledge about the situation in Hungary. Ithad also noted that only one of the countriesrequested to offer facilities for observation hadfound it possible to do so. Until it was possibleto open up further sources of reliable materialthrough observation on the spot in Hungaryand by the co-operation of the Governmentsdirectly concerned, there would be little purposein attempting an assessment of recent events.In those circumstances, the question arose asto whether it was not best for the process ofinvestigation to be suspended for the present.

The Secretary-General declared that underthe circumstances the only source of new anddirect information possibly available might behearings with refugees from Hungary, con-ducted, in the first place, in neighbouring coun-tries. The Government of Austria had declareditself prepared to receive observers for such apurpose. Offers to the United Nations to sendobservers for hearings had been received fromthe United States and Italy. Some additionalpoints of significance might be establishedthrough hearings with refugees in those coun-tries, but, in order to yield results of value,such hearings must be extensive and organizedin a juridically satisfactory form.

The Secretary-General continued, on his part,to try to further the aims of the General As-sembly, pursuant to paragraph 5 of the lastAssembly resolution, 1131(XI), taken on theHungarian question. He felt that it might bethe proper time for a reconsideration of theform to be given to the investigatory activities.The Assembly might now wish to establish aspecial committee which would take over theactivities of the group of investigators estab-lished by the Secretary-General and follow themup under somewhat broader terms of reference.Such a committee should obviously serve as anorgan of the General Assembly for a continuedobservation of developments in relation to Hun-gary in all those respects which might be ofrelevance to the Assembly.

The General Assembly continued discussionof the question in the course of four meetingsheld on 9 and 10 January 1957. It had before

it a draft resolution submitted jointly by Argen-tina, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Colombia, theDominican Republic, El Salvador, France, Ire-land, Italy, Japan, Liberia, the Netherlands,New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, thePhilippines, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey,the United Kingdom and the United States.By the preamble to this draft resolution, asrevised during the debate, the Assembly would:(a) recall its previous resolutions on the pro-blem; (b) reaffirm the objectives containedtherein and the continuing concern of theUnited Nations in the matter; (c) state it hadreceived the Secretary-General's report of 5January 1957; and (d) express its desire toensure that the Assembly and all Memberswould be in possession of the fullest and bestinformation about the situation created by theintervention of the USSR, through its use ofarmed force and other means, in the internalaffairs of Hungary, as well as about develop-ments relating to the recommendations of theAssembly on that subject.

By the operative part, the Assembly would:(1) establish for those purposes a special com-mittee, composed of representatives of Australia,Ceylon, Denmark, Tunisia and Uruguay, toinvestigate, and to establish and maintain directobservation in Hungary and elsewhere, takingtestimony, collecting evidence and receiving in-formation, as appropriate, in order to reportits findings to the Assembly at its present session,and thereafter from time to time to prepareadditional reports for the information of theMembers of the United Nations and of theAssembly if it was in session; (2) call upon theUSSR and Hungary to co-operate in every waywith the special committee and, in particular,to permit the committee and its staff to enterthe territory of Hungary and to travel freelytherein; (3) request all Member States to assistthe committee in any way appropriate in itstask, making available to it relevant informa-tion, including testimony and evidence, whichMembers might possess, and assisting it insecuring such information; (4) invite the Sec-retary-General to render the committee allappropriate assistance and facilities; (5) callupon all Member States promptly to give effectto the Assembly's resolutions on the Hungarianproblem; (6) reaffirm its request that the Sec-retary-General continue to take any initiative


that he deemed helpful in relation to theHungarian problem, in conformity with theprinciples of the Charter and the resolutionsof the Assembly.

On 11 January, the Permanent Mission ofHungary to the United Nations addressed anote verbale to the Secretary-General trans-mitting a statement dated 10 January by theHungarian Government. This protested moststrongly against the 24-Power joint draft re-solution, declaring that it represented an un-precedented gross interference into Hungariandomestic affairs. The Hungarian Governmentconsidered it inadmissible to pass such resolu-tions which violated the sovereignty of theHungarian People's Republic. The note con-cluded that no committee of any kind had theright to conduct investigations into the so-calledHungarian question by collecting testimonyfrom unauthorized and biased persons and toestablish observation in Hungary in order toobtain information. It demanded that the ques-tion be deleted from the agenda of the As-sembly and that the people of Hungary shouldbe enabled, now that law and order had beenrestored, to shape their own destiny to achieveeconomic progress and a free, independent,socialist Hungary.

The joint draft resolution was supported bythe great majority of speakers, who regrettedand condemned the failure of the USSR andthe Kadar Government to comply with theresolutions adopted by the Assembly regardingHungary. A number of representatives deemedit essential that public opinion should have asobjective and as complete information as pos-sible on the revolt in Hungary and on theevolution of the situation in that country. Thefacts could then be contrasted with the versionproclaiming that those events had only been theresult of a counter-revolutionary plot. TheUnited Nations had an imperative duty to con-tinue to concentrate on the problem and todemonstrate that its law applied to all.

The representative of the USSR, supportedby various other representatives, declared thatthe creation by the Assembly of a committeedesigned to intervene in the internal affairs ofa Member State would be a gross violation ofArticle 2(7) of the Charter. Any acts andmeasures of that committee would lack anylegal foundation whatsoever. The Soviet dele-

gation could not fail to express regret about therather unusual step taken by the Secretary-General, who had not confined himself to anexposition of the factual side of things, buthad made a proposal to establish a special in-vestigation committee. Since such a committeewould represent a direct violation of theCharter, it appeared that the Secretary-General,in making that proposal, was acting not asan international official but as a party in adispute among various Members of the UnitedNations.

On 10 January, the Assembly adopted the24-Power joint draft resolution by 59 votes to8, with 10 abstentions, as resolution 1132(XI).

On 15 January, the representative of Hungarytransmitted to the Secretary-General a memo-randum on the question of Hungarian citizenswho had left the country in connection withthe events of 23 October 1956 (A/3504). Com-ments on that memorandum were transmittedto the Secretary-General in a letter dated 22January from the representative of the UnitedKingdom (A/3510). By a letter dated 26 Janu-ary, the representative of Austria transmitteda memorandum on the question of Hungarianrefugees in Austria (A/3513).

On 4 February, the representative of Hungarytransmitted to the Secretary-General a memo-randum on the question of Hungary in con-nection with the events of 23 October 1956and after, in which the Hungarian Governmentregretted that the attitude of the General As-sembly had until then made it impossible forHungary to take part in the work of the eleventhsession of the Assembly as a State with equalrights.

On 13 February 1957, the Credentials Com-mittee reported that on 12 February it hadadopted by 8 votes to 1 a United States motion"that the Committee take no decision regardingthe credentials submitted on behalf of the re-presentatives of Hungary". On 21 February,the General Assembly approved the report ofthe Credentials Committee.

By a note dated 26 March 1957, the repre-sentative of Hungary transmitted to the Sec-retary-General a note verbale concerning thequestion of credentials, in which it was statedthat the Hungarian Government considered thefact that the Assembly had not so far reacheda positive decision on the credentials of the


Hungarian delegation a discriminatory pro-cedure, without precedent in the history of theOrganization, against which it most stronglyprotested.

On 8 March, the General Assembly decidedto adjourn its eleventh session temporarily andto authorize its President, in consultation withthe Secretary-General and the Member States,the representatives of which were serving onthe General Committee, to reconvene the As-sembly as necessary in order to consider furtherthe Middle Eastern and Hungarian items.

INTERIM REPORT OF SPECIALCOMMITTEE ON PROBLEMOF HUNGARY

On 20 February, the Special Committeeestablished by General Assembly resolution1132(XI) submitted an interim report to theAssembly. Among other matters, it was notedin the report that the representative of Hungaryhad informed the Secretary-General that hisGovernment was not in a position to permit themembers of the Committee and its staff to enterinto the territory of Hungary because it heldthat the Committee violated, in its function,the Charter of the United Nations. The Com-mittee stated that it would persevere in itsefforts to fulfil the mandate of the GeneralAssembly to obtain information by direct ob-

servation in Hungary, including securing theco-operation of the Hungarian Government inseeing and talking to Mr. Imre Nagy.

The Committee stated that the central stressof its investigation would be on: the efforts ofthe Hungarian people to reassert their rights;the precise facts about the circumstances of theintervention by the USSR in Hungary throughits armed forces and by other means; and theconsequences of that intervention on the evolu-tion of the constitutional, economic, social andpolitical conditions in Hungary, on its inter-national commitments and on the fulfilment ofthe wishes of its people. The Committee wouldattempt, in particular, to clarify the nature ofthe relations between the USSR and its repre-sentatives in Hungary with the Nagy Govern-ment, the origin and significance of the com-munications addressed by that Government tothe United Nations, as well as the role of theUSSR in the removal of that Government andthe setting up of the existing regime.

The Committee added that it had not beenin a position within the time available to it toformulate any final findings. It was still inthe process of gathering and studying availableinformation and hearing witnesses. It thereforeincluded in the interim report only a brief state-ment of developments in regard to the salientaspects of its enquiry.

DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES

SECURITY COUNCILPLENARY MEETINGS, 746, 752-754.

S/3690. Letter of 27 October 1956 from represent-atives of France, United Kingdom and UnitedStates to President of Security Council requestinginclusion in agenda of Security Council of itementitled "The Situation in Hungary".

S/3691. Letter of 28 October 1956 from represent-ative of Hungarian People's Republic to Secretary-General, transmitting declaration of HungarianGovernment of 28 October.

S/3692, S/3695. Letters of 27 October 1956 fromrepresentatives of Italy and Spain.

S/3693, S/3696-S/3699. Letters of 28 October 1956from representatives of Argentina, Turkey, Austria,Thailand and Ireland.

S/3694. Letter of 28 October 1956 from represent-ative of Hungarian People's Republic.

A/3251. Cablegram of 1 November 1956 to Secre-tary-General from President of Council of Ministersof Hungary.

S/3701-S/3705, S/3709, S/3716, S/3722, S/3724,S/3727. Letters and cables of 29 October 1956

from representatives of Canada, New Zealand, Nor-way, Denmark, Netherlands, Brazil, Guatemala,Venezuela and Haiti, and Minister of ForeignAffairs of Nicaragua.

S/3708, S/3714, S/3715. Letters of 30 October 1956from representatives of Ecuador, Dominican Re-public and Portugal.

S/3717, S/3725, S/3732, S/3734, S/3735, S/3737.Letters of 31 October 1956 from representatives ofPakistan and Bolivia; cables of 2 and 3 November1956 from representatives of Honduras and Co-lombia; letters of 2 and 3 November 1956 fromrepresentatives of Chile and Paraguay.

S/3723. Letter of 2 November 1956 from represent-atives of France, United Kingdom and UnitedStates to President of Security Council.

S/3726. Note of 2 November 1956 from PermanentMission of Hungarian People's Republic to Sec-retary-General transmitting letter of 2 November1956 from President of Council of Ministers andActing Foreign Minister of Hungarian People'sRepublic.

S/3730 and Rev.1. United States draft resolutionand revision. Not carried because of negative vote


by USSR, a permanent member of Council. Thevote was 9 to 1, with 1 abstention.

S/3731. Cable of 3 November 1956 from Chairmanof Council of Ministers of Hungarian People'sRepublic to Secretary-General.

S/3733. Resolution, as orally proposed by UnitedStates, adopted by Council on 4 November 1956,meeting 754, by 10 votes to 1."The Security Council,"Considering that a grave situation has been created

by the use of Soviet military forces to suppress theefforts of the Hungarian people to reassert theirrights;

"Taking into account that because of a lack ofunanimity among its permanent members the Se-curity Council has been unable to exercise its primaryresponsibility for the maintenance of internationalpeace and security;

"Decides to call an emergency special session ofthe General Assembly, as provided in General As-sembly resolution 377(V) in order to make appro-priate recommendations concerning 'The Situationin Hungary'."

GENERAL ASSEMBLY —— 2ND EMERGENCY SPECIAL

SESSIONPLENARY MEETINGS, 564, 568-571, 573.

A/3251. Cable of 1 November 1956 from Presidentof Council of Ministers of Hungarian People'sRepublic to Secretary-General requesting inclusionin agenda of 11th General Assembly session ofitem entitled: "The question of Hungary's neutral-ity and the defence of this neutrality by the fourgreat Powers".

A/3280. Convocation of 2nd emergency special sessionof General Assembly. Letter of 4 November 1956from President of Security Council to Secretary-General.

A/3281. Provisional agenda of 2nd emergency specialsession.

A/3285. Note verbale of 4 November 1956 fromPermanent Mission of Hungarian People's Republicto Secretary-General.

A/3286. United States draft resolution.A/3300. Communications relating to representation

of China.A/3311 (S/3739). Cable of 4 November 1956 from

Prime Minister of Revolutionary Workers' andPeasants' Government of Hungary and from Min-ister of Foreign Affairs to Secretary-General.

A/3321. Report of Credentials Committee. Creden-tials of representatives to first and second emer-gency special session of General Assembly.

RESOLUTION 1004(ES-II), as submitted by UnitedStates, A/3286, and as amended by France, adoptedby Assembly on 4 November 1956, meeting 564,by roll-call vote of 50 to 8, with 15 abstentions, asfollows:In favour: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China,Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, DominicanRepublic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France,

Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland,Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Liberia, Luxembourg,Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua,Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philip-pines, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey,Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, UnitedStates, Uruguay, Venezuela.Against: Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR,Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, Ukrainian SSR,USSR.Abstaining: Afghanistan, Burma, Ceylon, Egypt,Finland, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Libya,Nepal, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Yugoslavia."The General Assembly,"Considering that the United Nations is based on

the principle of the sovereign equality of all itsMembers,

"Recalling that the enjoyment of human rights andof fundamental freedom in Hungary was specificallyguaranteed by the Peace Treaty between Hungaryand the Allied and Associated Powers signed atParis on 10 February 1947, and that the generalprinciple of these rights and this freedom is affirmedfor all peoples in the Charter of the United Nations,

"Convinced that recent events in Hungary manifestclearly the desire of the Hungarian people to exerciseand to enjoy fully their fundamental rights, freedomand independence,

"Condemning the use of Soviet military forces tosuppress the efforts of the Hungarian people to re-assert their rights,

"Noting moreover the declaration of 30 October1956 by the Government of the Union of SovietSocialist Republics of its avowed policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other States,

"Noting the communication of 1 November 1956of the Government of Hungary to the Secretary-General regarding demands made by that Govern-ment to the Government of the Union of SovietSocialist Republics for the instant and immediatewithdrawal of Soviet forces,

"Noting further the communication of 2 November1956 from the Government of Hungary to the Sec-retary-General asking the Security Council to instructthe Government of the Union of Soviet SocialistRepublics and the Government of Hungary to startnegotiations immediately on the withdrawal of Sovietforces,

"Noting that the intervention of Soviet militaryforces in Hungary has resulted in grave loss of lifeand widespread bloodshed among the Hungarianpeople,

"Taking note of the radio appeal of Prime MinisterImre Nagy of 4 November 1956,

"1. Calls upon the Government of the Union ofSoviet Socialist Republics to desist forthwith fromall armed attack on the people of Hungary and fromany form of intervention, in particular armed inter-vention, in the internal affairs of Hungary;

"2. Calls upon the Union of Soviet Socialist Re-publics to cease the introduction of additional armedforces into Hungary and to withdraw all of its forceswithout delay from Hungarian territory;

"3. Affirms the right of the Hungarian people to


a government responsive to its national aspirationsand dedicated to its independence and well-being;

"4. Requests the Secretary-General to investigatethe situation caused by foreign intervention in Hun-gary, to observe the situation directly through repre-sentatives named by him, and to report thereon tothe General Assembly at the earliest moment, and assoon as possible to suggest methods to bring an endto the foreign intervention in Hungary in accordancewith the principles of the Charter of the UnitedNations;

"5. Calls upon the Government of Hungary andthe Government of the Union of Soviet SocialistRepublics to permit observers designated by theSecretary-General to enter the territory of Hungary,to travel freely therein, and to report their findingsto the Secretary-General;

"6. Calls upon all Members of the United Nationsto co-operate with the Secretary-General and hisrepresentatives in the execution of his functions;

"7. Requests the Secretary-General in consultationwith the heads of appropriate specialized agenciesto inquire, on an urgent basis, into the needs of theHungarian people for food, medicine and othersimilar supplies, and to report to the General As-sembly as soon as possible;

"8. Requests all Members of the United Nations,and invites national and international humanitarianorganizations, to co-operate in making available suchsupplies as may be required by the Hungarianpeople."

A/3315. Aide-mémoire of 8 November 1956 fromSecretary-General to Minister of Foreign Affairsof Hungary.

A/3316. Cuba, Ireland, Italy, Pakistan, Peru draftresolution.

RESOLUTION 1005(ES-II), as submitted by five Powers,A/3316, and as amended by sponsors, adopted byAssembly on 9 November 1956, meeting 571, byroll-call vote of 48 to 11, with 16 abstentions,following a series of roll-call votes on separateparagraphs. The roll-call vote on draft resolutionas a whole was as follows:In favour: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia,Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, CostaRica, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecua-dor, El Salvador, France, Greece, Guatemala,Honduras, Iceland, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel,Italy, Laos, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Nether-lands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan,Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal,Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, Union of SouthAfrica, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay,Venezuela.Against: Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR,Czechoslovakia, Hungary, India, Poland, Romania,Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Yugoslavia.Abstaining: Afghanistan, Austria, Burma, Cam-bodia, Ceylon, Egypt, Finland, Haiti, Indonesia,Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Nepal, Saudia Arabia,Syria, Yemen.

"The General Assembly,"Noting with deep concern that the provisions of

its resolution 1004(ES-II) of 4 November 1956 havenot yet been carried out and that the violent re-pression by the Soviet forces of the efforts of theHungarian people to achieve freedom and independ-ence continues,

"Convinced that the recent events in Hungarymanifest clearly the desire of the Hungarian peopleto exercise and to enjoy fully their fundamental rights,freedom and independence,

"Considering that foreign intervention in Hungaryis an intolerable attempt to deny to the Hungarianpeople the exercise and the enjoyment of such rights,freedom and independence, and in particular todeny to the Hungarian people the right to a govern-ment freely elected and representing their nationalaspirations,

"Considering that the repression undertaken bythe Soviet forces in Hungary constitutes a violationof the Charter of the United Nations and of thePeace Treaty between Hungary and the Allied andAssociated Powers,

"Considering that the immediate withdrawal of theSoviet forces from Hungarian territory is necessary,

"1. Calls again upon the Government of theUnion of Soviet Socialist Republics to withdraw itsforces from Hungary without any further delay;

"2. Considers that free elections should be heldin Hungary under United Nations auspices, as soonas law and order have been restored, to enable thepeople of Hungary to determine for themselves theform of government they wish to establish in theircountry;

"3. Reaffirms its request to the Secretary-Generalto continue to investigate, through representativesnamed by him, the situation caused by foreign in-tervention in Hungary and to report at the earliestpossible moment to the General Assembly;

"4. Requests the Secretary-General to report inthe shortest possible time to the General Assemblyon compliance herewith."

A/3318. Letter of 8 November 1956 from Chairmanof delegation of China to President of GeneralAssembly.

A/3319. United States draft resolution.A/3325. Ceylon, India, Indonesia amendments to

United States draft resolution.

RESOLUTION 1006(ES-II), as proposed by UnitedStates, A/3319, adopted by Assembly on 9 Novem-ber 1956, meeting 571, by roll-call vote of 53 to9, with 13 abstentions. (For text and details ofvoting, see below, DOCUMENTARY REFERENCESunder HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO THE HUN-GARIAN PEOPLE.)

A/3324. Austria draft resolution.

RESOLUTION 1007(ES-II), as proposed and amendedby Austria, A/3324, adopted by Assembly on 9November 1956, meeting 571, by roll-call vote


of 67 to 0, with 8 abstentions. (For text anddetails of voting, see below, DOCUMENTARY REFER-ENCES under HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO THEHUNGARIAN PEOPLE.)

A/3330. United States draft resolution.

RESOLUTION 1008(ES-II), as proposed by UnitedStates, A/3330, and as amended by Italy, adoptedby Assembly on 10 November 1956, meeting 573,by 53 votes to 9, with 8 abstentions."The General Assembly,"1. Decides to place on the provisional agenda

of its eleventh regular session, as a matter of priority,the question on the agenda of its second emergencyspecial session;

"2. Refers to its eleventh regular session for con-sideration the records of the meetings and the docu-ments of its second emergency special session;

"3. Decides that, notwithstanding paragraph 1above, the second emergency special session may con-tinue to consider the question, if necessary, prior tothe eleventh regular session of the Assembly."

GENERAL ASSEMBLY —— 11TH SESSION

GENERAL COMMITTEE, meeting 106.PLENARY MEETINGS, 576, 582-587, 604-609, 613-

618, 633-636, 658, 668.

A/3334. Request for inclusion of additional itemin agenda of 11th regular session. Item proposedby 2nd emergency special session of General As-sembly: The situation in Hungary. Resolutionadopted at meeting of 2nd emergency specialsession held on 10 November 1956.

A/3335. Aide-mémoire of 10 November 1956 fromSecretary-General to Government of Hungary, andreply from Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs ofHungary of 10 November 1956.

A/3336. Aide-mémoire of 10 November 1956 fromSecretary-General to Government of USSR.

A/3337. Note verbale of 10 November 1956 fromSecretary-General to Minister of Foreign Affairsof Hungary.

A/3340. Telegram of 11 November 1956 fromDeputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Hungary toSecretary-General.

A/3341, A/3345. Cables of 12 and 13 November1956 from Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs ofHungary to Secretary-General.

A/3346. Gable of 13 November 1956 from Secretary-General to Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs ofHungary.

A/3347. Note verbale of 13 November 1956 fromPermanent Mission of USSR to Secretary-General.

A/3357 and Rev.1 and 2. Cuba draft resolution andrevisions.

A/L.211. El Salvador amendment to revised draftresolution, A/3357/Rev.2.

A/L.212. Philippines amendment to revised draftresolution, A/3357/Rev.2.

RESOLUTION 1127(XI), as submitted by Cuba, A/

3357/Rev.2, and as amended with acceptance bysponsor of El Salvador's amendment, A/L.211,adopted by Assembly on 21 November 1956, meet-ing 587, by roll-call vote of 55 to 10, with 14abstentions, following separate votes, including oneroll-call vote, on various parts of resolution. Theroll-call on draft resolution as a whole was asfollows:In favour: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Canada, Ceylon,Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Den-mark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador,Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Hon-duras, Iceland, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy,Laos, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Nepal, Nether-lands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan,Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal,Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, Union of SouthAfrica, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay,Venezuela.Against: Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR,Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Ukrain-ian SSR, USSR, Yugoslavia.Abstaining: Afghanistan, Egypt, Finland, India,Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, SaudiArabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen."The General Assembly,"Recalling its resolutions 1004(ES-II) of 4 No-

vember 1956 and 1005(ES-II), 1006(ES-II) and1007(ES-II) of 9 November 1956, adopted at thesecond emergency special session,

"Noting that the Secretary-General has been re-quested to report to the General Assembly on com-pliance with resolutions 1004(ES-II) and 1005(ES-II),

"Having received information that the Soviet armyof occupation in Hungary is forcibly deporting Hun-garian men, women and children from their homesto places outside Hungary,

"Recalling the principles of the Charter of theUnited Nations, in particular the principle embodiedin Article 2, paragraph 4, the obligations assumedby all Member States under Articles 55 and 56 ofthe Charter, the principles of the Convention on thePrevention and Punishment of the Crime of Geno-cide, in particular article II (c) and (e), to whichHungary and the Union of Soviet Socialist Re-publics are parties, and the Treaty of Peace withHungary, in particular the provisions of article 2,

"1. Considers that the information received addsurgency to the necessity of prompt compliance withresolutions 1004(ES-II) and 1005(ES-II) of 4 and9 November 1956 calling for the prompt withdrawalof Soviet forces from Hungary and for the dispatchof observers to Hungary by the Secretary-General;

"2. Urges the Government of the Union of SovietSocialist Republics and the Hungarian authorities totake immediate steps to cease the deportation ofHungarian citizens and to return promptly to theirhomes those who have been deported from Hungarianterritory;

"3. Requests the Secretary-General to keep theGeneral Assembly informed as to compliance with

this as well as the above-mentioned resolutions, sothat the Assembly may be in a position to considersuch further action as it may deem necessary."

A/3358. Cable of 15 November 1956 from ActingMinister of Foreign Affairs of Hungary to Sec-retary-General.

A/3359. Communication of 16 November 1956 fromSecretary-General to members of General Assembly.

A/3362. Cable of 16 November 1956 from Secretary-General to Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs ofHungary.

A/3367. Note verbale of 19 November 1956 fromPermanent Mission of Hungary to Secretary-Gen-eral transmitting copy of communique issued byGovernment of Hungary on 18 November 1956.

A/3368 and Rev.2 and 3. Ceylon, India, Indonesiadraft resolution and revisions.

A/L.213. Belgium amendments to joint draft resolu-tion, A/3368.

RESOLUTION 1128(XI), as submitted by Ceylon, Indiaand Indonesia, A/3368/Rev.3, adopted by As-sembly on 21 November 1956, meeting 587, byroll-call vote of 57 to 8, with 14 abstentions, asfollows:In favour: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Aus-tria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia,Canada, Ceylon, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark,Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, France, Greece,Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, In-donesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Laos,Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Luxembourg, Mexico,Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Ni-caragua, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines,Portugal, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Thailand, Tunisia,Turkey, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom,United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.Against: Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR,Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, UkrainianSSR, USSR.Abstaining: Chile, China, Cuba, Dominican Re-public, Egypt, Ethiopia, Jordan, Panama, Paraguay,Poland, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Yugoslavia."The General Assembly,"Noting that certain Member States have affirmed

that Hungarian nationals have been forcibly deportedfrom their country,

"Noting further that certain other Member Stateshave categorically affirmed that no such deportationshave taken place,

"Recalling paragraph 5 of its resolution 1004(ES-II) of 4 November 1956, in which the Govern-ment of Hungary is asked to permit observers desig-nated by the Secretary-General to enter the territoryof Hungary, to travel freely therein, and to reporttheir findings to the Secretary-General,

"Noting that the Secretary-General is pursuing hisefforts in this regard with the Hungarian Government,

"Noting further that the Secretary-General hasurged Hungary as a Member of the United Nationsto co-operate with the great majority in the clarifica-tion of the situation,

87"1. Urges Hungary to accede to the request made

by the Secretary-General without prejudice to itssovereignty;

"2. Requests the Secretary-General to report tothe General Assembly without delay."

A/3373. Cable of 20 November 1956 from ActingMinister of Foreign Affairs of Hungary to Sec-retary-General.

A/3374. Argentina, Belgium, Denmark, United Statesdraft resolution.

A/L.214. Hungary amendments to joint draft re-solution, A/3374.

RESOLUTION 1129(XI), as submitted by four Powers,A/3374, and amended by sponsors, adopted byAssembly on 21 November 1956, meeting 587, byroll-call vote of 69 to 2, with 8 abstentions. (Fortext and details of voting, see below, DOCUMENTARYREFERENCES Under HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO

THE HUNGARIAN PEOPLE.)

A/3390. Note by Secretary-General transmitting com-munication received on 23 November 1956 fromDirector-General of ILO.

A/3403. Report of Secretary-General. Annex: Letterof 29 November 1956 from Chairman of USSRDelegation to Secretary-General.

A/3406, A/3407. Letters of 19 and 20 November1956 from Acting Chairman of Chinese Delegationto President of General Assembly.

A/3413. Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Cuba, Den-mark, El Salvador, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands,Norway, Pakistan, Sweden, Thailand, United Statesdraft resolution.

RESOLUTION 1130(XI), as submitted by 14 Powers,A/3413, adopted by Assembly on 4 December1956, meeting 608, by roll-call vote of 54 to 10,with 14 abstentions, as follows:In favour: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China,Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, DominicanRepublic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France,Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Iran,Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Laos, Lebanon, Li-beria, Libya, Luxembourg, Mexico, Nepal, Nether-lands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan,Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal,Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, United King-dom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.Against: Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR,Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Ukrain-ian SSR, USSR, Yugoslavia.Abstaining: Afghanistan, Burma, Ceylon, Egypt,Finland, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, SaudiArabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen."The General Assembly,"Recalling its resolutions 1004(ES-II) of 4 No-

vember 1956, 1005(ES-II), 1006(ES-II), and 1007(ES-II) of 9 November 1956, and 1127(XI) and1128(XI) of 21 November 1956 relating to thetragic events in Hungary,

"Having received and noted the report of the

THE HUNGARIAN QUESTION


Secretary-General that United Nations observers havenot been permitted to enter Hungary,

"Noting with deep concern that the Governmentof the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has failedto comply with the provisions of the United Nationsresolutions calling upon it to desist from its inter-vention in the internal affairs of Hungary, to ceaseits deportations of Hungarian citizens and to returnpromptly to their homes those it has already de-ported, to withdraw its armed forces from Hungaryand to cease its repression of the Hungarian people,

"1. Reiterates its call upon the Government ofthe Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and theHungarian authorities to comply with the aboveresolutions and to permit United Nations observersto enter the territory of Hungary, to travel freelytherein and to report their findings to the Secretary-General;

"2. Requests the Government of the Union ofSoviet Socialist Republics and the Hungarian authori-ties to communicate to the Secretary-General, notlater than 7 December 1956, their consent to receiveUnited Nations observers;

"3. Recommends that in the meantime the Sec-retary-General arrange for the immediate dispatchto Hungary, and other countries as appropriate, ofobservers named by him pursuant to paragraph 4of General Assembly resolution 1004(ES-II) of 4November 1956;

"4. Requests the Governments of all MemberStates to co-operate with the representatives namedby the Secretary-General by extending such assistanceand providing such facilities as may be necessary forthe effective discharge of their responsibilities."

A/3414. Cable of 3 December 1956 from ActingMinister of Foreign Affairs of Hungary to Sec-retary-General.

A/3435 and Add.1-6. Note by Secretary-General.Annexes: Letters of 8, 9, 10 and 12 December1956 from Permanent Representatives of Austria,Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Romania, fromChairman of Delegation of USSR, and from Per-manent Mission to Hungary.

A/3436 and Add.1, Rev.1, Rev.1/Add.1, Rev.2.Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, Colombia,Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ire-land, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Peru,Philippines, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey,United States draft resolution and revisions.

A/L.216. Ceylon, India, Indonesia amendments to20-Power draft resolution, A/3436 and Add.1.

RESOLUTION 1131(XI), as submitted by 20 Powers,A/3436/Rev.2, and incorporating one of 3-Poweramendments, A/L.216, adopted by Assembly on12 December 1956, meeting 618, after series ofvotes on individual paragraphs, by roll-call vote of55 to 8, with 13 abstentions, as follows:In favour: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Ceylon, Chile,China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark,Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethi-opia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Ice-

land, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Laos,Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Luxembourg, Mexico,Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nor-way, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philip-pines, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Tunisia,Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay,Venezuela.Against: Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR,Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, Ukrainian SSR,USSR.Abstaining: Afghanistan, Cambodia, Egypt, Fin-land, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, SaudiArabia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Yugoslavia."The General Assembly,"Deeply concerned over the tragic events in

Hungary,"Recalling those provisions of its resolutions 1004

(ES-II) of 4 November 1956, 1005(ES-II) of 9November 1956, 1127(XI) of 21 November 1956 and1130(XI) of 4 December 1956, calling upon theGovernment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Re-publics to desist from its intervention in the internalaffairs of Hungary, to withdraw its forces fromHungary and to cease its repression of the Hungarianpeople,

"Recalling also those provisions of its resolutions1004(ES-II) and 1127(XI), calling for permissionfor United Nations observers to enter the territoryof Hungary, to travel freely therein and to reporttheir findings to the Secretary-General,

"Having received the report of the Secretary-Gen-eral of 30 November 1956, stating that no informationis available to the Secretary-General concerning stepstaken in order to establish compliance with thedecisions of the General Assembly which refer to awithdrawal of troops or related political matters, andthe note of the Secretary-General of 7 December1956,

"Noting with grave concern that there has notbeen a reply to the latest appeal of the GeneralAssembly for the admission of United Nations ob-servers to Hungary, as contained in its resolution

"Considering that recent events have clearly de-monstrated the will of the Hungarian people torecover their liberty and independence,

"Noting the overwhelming demand of the Hun-garian people for the cessation of intervention offoreign armed forces and the withdrawal of foreigntroops,

"1. Declares that, by using its armed force againstthe Hungarian people, the Government of the Unionof Soviet Socialist Republics is violating the politicalindependence of Hungary;

"2. Condemns the violation of the Charter ofthe United Nations by the Government of the Unionof Soviet Socialist Republics in depriving Hungaryof its liberty and independence and the Hungarianpeople of the exercise of their fundamental rights;

"3. Reiterates its call upon the Government ofthe Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to desistforthwith from any form of intervention in the in-ternal affairs of Hungary;

"4. Calls upon the Government of the Union of


Soviet Socialist Republics to make immediate ar-rangements for the withdrawal, under United Nationsobservation, of its armed forces from Hungary andto permit the re-establishment of the political in-dependence of Hungary;

"5. Requests the Secretary-General to take anyinitiative that he deems helpful in relation to theHungarian problem, in conformity with the prin-ciples of the Charter and the resolutions of theGeneral Assembly."

A/3437. Burma, Ceylon, India, Indonesia draft re-solution.

A/3441. Austria draft resolution.A/3485. Report of Secretary-General.A/3487 and Rev.1. Argentina, Belgium, Canada,

Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador,France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Netherlands,New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines,Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, United King-dom, United States draft resolution and revision.

RESOLUTION 1132(XI), as submitted by 24 Powers,A/3487/Rev.1, adopted by Assembly on 10 January1957, meeting 636, by roll-call vote of 59 to 8,with 10 abstentions, as follows:In favour: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia, Canada, Ceylon,Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark,Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethi-opia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras,Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel,Italy, Japan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Lu-xembourg, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands,New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Pa-nama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Spain,Sweden, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United King-dom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.Against: Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR,Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, Ukrainian SSR,USSR.Abstaining: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Finland,India, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Yugo-slavia."The General Assembly,"Recalling its previous resolutions on the Hun-

garian problem,"Reaffirming the objectives contained therein and

the continuing concern of the United Nations in thismatter,

"Having received the report of the Secretary-Gen-eral of 5 January 1957,

"Desiring to ensure that the General Assembly andall Member States shall be in possession of the fullestand best available information regarding the situa-tion created by the intervention of the Union ofSoviet Socialist Republics, through its use of armed

force and other means, in the internal affairs ofHungary, as well as regarding developments relatingto the recommendations of the General Assembly onthis subject,

"1. Establishes, for the above-mentioned purposes,a Special Committee, composed of representativesof Australia, Ceylon, Denmark, Tunisia and Uruguay,to investigate, and to establish and maintain directobservation in Hungary and elsewhere, taking testi-mony, collecting evidence and receiving information,as appropriate, in order to report its findings to theGeneral Assembly at its eleventh session, and there-after from time to time to prepare additional reportsfor the information of Member States and of theGeneral Assembly if it is in session;

"2. Calls upon the Union of Soviet Socialist Re-publics and Hungary to co-operate in every waywith the Committee and, in particular, to permitthe Committee and its staff to enter the territory ofHungary and to travel freely therein;

"3. Requests all Member States to assist the Com-mittee in any way appropriate in its task, makingavailable to it relevant information, including testi-mony and evidence, which Members may possess,and assisting it in securing such information;

"4. Invites the Secretary-General to render theCommittee all appropriate assistance and facilities;

"5. Calls upon all Member States promptly togive effect to the present and previous resolutionsof the General Assembly on the Hungarian problem;

"6. Reaffirms its request that the Secretary-Gen-eral continue to take any initiative that he deemshelpful in relation to the Hungarian problem, inconformity with the principles of the Charter of theUnited Nations and the resolutions of the GeneralAssembly."

A/3493. Note verbale of 11 January 1957 from Per-manent Mission of Hungary to Secretary-Generaltransmitting copy of statement by Government ofHungary on 10 January 1957.

A/3504. Letter of 15 January 1957 from PermanentRepresentative of Hungary to Secretary-General.

A/3510. Letter of 22 January 1957 from PermanentRepresentative of United Kingdom to Secretary-General.

A/3513. Letter of 26 January 1957 from represent-ative of Austria to Secretary-General.

A/3521. Letter of 4 February 1957 from PermanentRepresentative of Hungary to Secretary-Generaltransmitting memorandum.

A/3536. Report of Credentials Committee.A/3546. Interim report of Special Committee on

Problem of Hungary.

(See also DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES under HU-MANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO THE HUNGARIAN PEO-

PLE, below.)

HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO THE HUNGARIAN PEOPLE

The urgent needs of the Hungarian peoplefor food, clothing, medicine, and other similarsupplies and the plight of the large numbers of

refugees leaving Hungary in order to seek asy-lum in neighbouring countries came up forconsideration in the General Assembly early in


November 1956 at its second emergency specialsession.

On 9 November, the General Assembly de-cided, by resolution 1007(ES-II), to undertakelarge-scale and immediate aid for alleviatingthe suffering in Hungary. Five days before that,by resolution 1004(ES-II), it called on Mem-ber States and on national and internationalhumanitarian organizations to make availablethe supplies needed by the Hungarian people.At the same time, the Secretary-General wasasked to undertake the necessary measures im-mediately — including an enquiry, in consult-ation with the heads of appropriate specializedagencies, into the needs of the Hungarianpeople.

Also on 9 November and again on 21 No-vember, the Assembly urged Governments andnon-governmental organizations to make con-tributions for the care and resettlement of therefugees (resolutions 1006(ES-II) and 1129(XI)) . The Secretary-General and the UnitedNations High Commissioner for Refugees wereauthorized to make joint appeals for this pur-pose and the High Commissioner was askedto make speedy and effective arrangements foremergency assistance to refugees from Hungaryin consultation with appropriate internationalagencies and interested Governments.

RELIEF TO THE HUNGARIANPEOPLE IN HUNGARY

On 15 November 1956, the Secretary-Gen-eral, following up on General Assembly resolu-tions 1004(ES-II) and 1007(ES-II), issued anurgent appeal to Governments for contributionsfor relief in Hungary. At the same time, heconsulted with the heads of specialized agencies,who expressed readiness to co-operate in ap-propriate ways as and when required.

The Secretary-General considered that hismain functions following this appeal were toenquire into relief needs and to act as a co-ordinating centre, as far as possible, for receiptof contributions, particularly from Governments,or of information and advice on the channel-ling of these contributions. It was not consideredeither practicable or desirable for the UnitedNations itself to set up operational machineryfor the distribution of relief supplies in Hun-gary. For this purpose, the Secretary-Generalundertook urgent negotiations with the Inter-

national Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)which, on 16 November 1956, had concludedan agreement with the Hungarian Red Crossto establish machinery for distributing reliefsupplies from abroad. On 4 December 1956,an agreement was concluded between theUnited Nations and ICRC for the latter tobe the sole agency to carry out the relief pro-gramme on behalf of the United Nations withthe contributions made in response to the re-solutions of the General Assembly.

The following paragraphs briefly describethe relief needs of the Hungarian people, theinternational response to those needs and tothe General Assembly's appeal, and the reliefprogrammes of ICRC.

RELIEF NEEDS

By a note dated 10 November 1956, theSecretary-General asked the Minister of ForeignAffairs of Hungary for information about theneeds of the Hungarian people for medicalsupplies, foodstuffs and clothes from abroad.On 13 November 1956, the Acting Minister ofForeign Affairs cabled a list of supplies mosturgently needed to the Secretary-General.

On 7 December, the International Committeeof the Red Cross (ICRC) informed the Sec-retary-General about the "traditional" emer-gency relief programme it had set up in Hungary,i.e., one involving direct distribution of reliefto the victims of the events in Hungary, andabout the immediate requirements for that pro-gramme. The programme and the needs weredescribed in an interim report of the Secretary-General to the General Assembly on 12 De-cember 1956 (A/3443). ICRC subsequentlyproposed the establishment of an expandedprogramme of emergency relief to cover themore general needs of the Hungarian people.

Early in January 1957, a joint United Na-tions and Food and Agriculture Organizationmission visited Hungary to enquire, in accord-ance with General Assembly resolution 1004(ES-II), into the needs of the Hungarianpeople for food, medicine and other similarrelief supplies. The general findings of thatmission, together with a list of items considerednecessary to ensure an adequate food supplyuntil the next harvest, were submitted to theGeneral Assembly by the Secretary-General(A/3503). Consultations with Governments for


these and other relief requirements were under-taken by the Secretary-General, the Director-General of FAO and ICRC.

INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE

From the contributions received or promisedup to the end of February 1957, it was clearthat the international response to the needsof the Hungarian people and to the appeals ofthe Assembly was a generous one, which helpedto alleviate the suffering of the Hungarianpeople.

In addition to contributions from several Gov-ernments, a very large volume of the aid chan-nelled through ICRC came from national RedGross societies and other voluntary agencies.Many private organizations and individualssent contributions of their own accord. Govern-mental and non-governmental contributions,promised or received either directly by theICRC or channelled through it by the UnitedNations and FAO up to the end of February1957 may be roughly described as follows.

A considerable volume of relief supplies,valued at several millions of dollars, had al-ready been received or promised, and furtheraid was expected. These included foodstuffs,food parcels, clothing and textiles, seed forspring sowing, and other miscellaneous suppliessuch as coal and window glass. A large quantityof medical and health supplies was being pro-vided by national Red Cross societies and byGovernments. In addition, the Executive Boardof UNICEF, on 11 December 1956, had ap-proved a sum of $700,000 for layettes, diapers,blankets, clothing and soap.

Contributions in cash received or promisedbefore the end of February 1957 were expectedto exceed $1 million.

In addition to the supplies provided inter-nationally for distribution by ICRC in Hun-gary, several Governments, according to in-formation they gave to the Secretary-General,provided relief assistance through the HungarianGovernment. This included large quantities offoodstuffs, medical supplies, fuel, building ma-terials and various commodities as well as creditin the form of goods and convertible currency.The national Red Cross societies of some coun-tries also sent assistance direct to Hungary.

A significant part of the contributions ofsome religious organizations was sent direct to

their affiliated organizations or congregationsin Hungary, and one international trade unionorganization sent consignments to Hungarianworkers direct.

INTERNATIONAL RELIEF PROGRAMMES

The resources made available to the Inter-national Committee of the Red Cross weredistributed in Hungary as described below.

Projects initiated by ICRC under its "tradi-tional relief" programme provided for: (1)distribution of powdered milk and cod-liveroil in child-care centres for children betweenthe ages of one and six. Recipients: approxi-mately 173,000 mothers and children; (2)distribution of food for main meal in schoolsfor children. Recipients: approximately 60,000children; (3) distribution of relief packagesmade up in ICRC stores at Budapest fromsupplies from national Red Cross societies anddonor Governments. Recipients: Some 150,000selected from persons whose dwellings weredestroyed or damaged, families who lost theirmeans of support, large families, the disabled,the sick and the aged. Two packages per monthper recipient; (4) distribution of medical sup-plies, blankets and coal to hospitals; (5) de-livery of large stocks of drugs to the HungarianRed Cross Centres for distribution to the needy;(6) distribution of clothing in Hungarian RedCross Centres; (7) delivery to the HungarianRed Cross of medical supplies, pharmaceuticalproducts, instruments, equipment and textilesfor hospitals (medical and social programme).

The process of receiving relief supplies atVienna, forwarding them to Hungary, first byroad and then by rail and water transport, andcontrolling distribution in Hungary requiredthe establishment of a large-scale operationalmachinery. Two delegations were set up forthis, one at Vienna and the other at Budapest,under the control of a general director.

Side by side with these "traditional" reliefactivities of ICRC, several relief operations ofa more general character were undertaken, alsounder ICRC's general supervision. These oper-ations were designed to alleviate some of thefood shortages facing the Hungarian people.They included the provision of a supply offlour for sale to bakeries and of seed for springsowing for sale to individual farmers. Bothflour and seed were to be made available by


Governments for distribution under the auspicesof ICRC, the seed being distributed partlywith the help of technical staff made availableby FAO. The proceeds from the sale of flourand seed were to be paid into a special accountof the Hungarian Red Cross, to be used, inagreement with the ICRC, for the traditionalrelief programmes already described, to defraydistribution costs incurred by the HungarianRed Cross and to help in the re-equipment ofhospitals and the prosthesis programme.

ASSISTANCE TOHUNGARIAN REFUGEES

In pursuance of General Assembly resolu-tions 1006(ES-II) and 1129(XI), the Officeof the United Nations High Commissioner forRefugees assumed over-all responsibility for co-ordinating international action for the Hun-garian refugees.

THE INFLUX OF REFUGEES

The influx of refugees from Hungary intoAustria began on 28 October 1956. On 4 No-vember, the rate of influx increased sharply.By the following day, an estimated 10,000Hungarian refugees had crossed the frontier.The peak of the influx was reached during theweek of 20-26 November, during which morethan 46,000 Hungarian refugees arrived inAustria. By 1 March 1957, the total influx intoAustria had amounted to 170,700 refugees. Ofthese, about 117,400 had gone to other coun-tries of asylum. Hungarian refugees also en-tered Yugoslavia from the end of October 1956,but the influx only assumed large proportionsin the second week of January 1957. By 1 March1957, a total of 17,000 Hungarian refugeeshad entered Yugoslavia, some 240 of whomhad moved on to other countries. As of 1March, the Austrian Government estimatedthat about 53,300 Hungarian refugees remainedin Austria. Of those remaining in Yugoslavia,an estimated 15,600 were in camps or centres.

INTERNATIONAL APPEALS AND RESPONSE

As asked by General Assembly resolution1129(XI) of 21 November 1956, the Secretary-General and the Office of the High Commis-sioner for Refugees issued, on 30 November1956, a joint appeal to Governments and non-governmental organizations for assistance to

Hungarian refugees. A further joint appeal,authorized both by this resolution and by re-solution 1039(XI), of 23 January 1957, wasissued on 11 March 1957. Governments wererequested in these appeals to provide financialassistance and opportunities for resettlement.

Over 40 countries and many private organ-izations offered or provided assistance in oneform or another in response to these appeals.

Considerable financial and material assist-ance was provided by Governments, voluntaryagencies and through individual donations. Thevalue of this aid amounted, by March 1957,to tens of millions of dollars. Financial con-tributions promised or paid to the Secretary-General or the High Commissioner's Officealone at that date came to about $6,052,900;this figure included the estimated value ofcontributions in kind. Bilateral assistance wasprovided, paid or promised directly to theAustrian Government by other Governments,chiefly for the care and maintenance of therefugees in that country. The IntergovernmentalCommittee for European Migration (ICEM)expected to receive about $15 million fromover 25 countries by the end of 1957 for thetransportation of refugees. Meanwhile severalGovernments had paid the full cost of transport-ing refugees to their territory. In addition, largesums were incurred for the reception and in-tegration of refugees in countries of resettle-ment. No over-all figure is available, but thetotal expenditure made or anticipated for thispurpose is known to have reached many millionsof dollars.

Emergency aid supplied by voluntary agen-cies played an essential part in the receptionof refugees, particularly in Austria. Supple-mentary assistance was also given to refugeesboth in camps and in private accommodation.Food, clothing, blankets and medical supplieswere delivered in large quantities at a costbelieved to amount to several million dollars.

CO-ORDINATION OF EMERGENCY AID

At the High Commissioner's initiative, aCo-ordinating Committee was established inGeneva, including representatives of ICEM,the United States Escapee Program Administra-tion, the International Committee of the RedCross, the League of Red Cross Societies andother voluntary agencies working for refugees.


The provision of emergency aid within Austriawas co-ordinated by the High Commissioner'sBranch Office, in conjunction with the AustrianMinistry of the Interior. Within Yugoslavia,the plan was that the distribution of reliefsupplies be carried out by the Yugoslav RedCross under a special co-ordinating committee,including representatives of the Yugoslav Gov-ernment and Yugoslav Red Cross, the HighCommissioner's representative acting as chair-man.

RESETTLEMENT

The resettlement of Hungarian refugees fromAustria was organized by Governments, in mostcases with the help of ICEM. After the HighCommissioner had established a provisionalbranch office in Belgrade, ICEM officials wereauthorized by the Yugoslav Government tooperate in Yugoslavia, within the frameworkof the activities of that branch office.

ICEM estimated that resettlement prospects,as of 1 March 1957, would allow all but 8,000-10,000 Hungarian refugees to leave Austriaby 31 December 1957. The remaining group,it was estimated, would consist largely of re-fugees who wished to stay in Austria or whocould not be resettled in other countries. Itwas also estimated that over 5,000 refugees inYugoslavia who wished to emigrate would becompelled to remain in Yugoslavia unless fur-ther resettlement opportunities were made avail-able to them.

REPATRIATION

Repatriation missions from Hungary, accom-panied by observers from the Office of theHigh Commissioner, visited camps and centresto interview refugees seeking repatriation. Byearly March 1957, approximately 4,000 Hun-garian refugees had been repatriated directlyfrom Austria and about 1,400 from Yugoslavia.In addition, a number of refugees were re-patriated from countries of second asylum.

The High Commissioner had also intercededwith certain governments to facilitate the pay-ment of transportation charges for refugeesdesiring repatriation but without the necessaryfunds to reach the borders of their country oforigin.

CARE AND MAINTENANCE

The responsibility for providing care and

maintenance to the Hungarian refugees inAustria and Yugoslavia was assumed by thetwo Governments concerned.

A notable international contribution wasmade by the League of Red Cross Societies.This organization undertook to provide food,clothing and medical care to the refugees incertain designated camps in Austria. This op-eration, carried out by teams of specialists fromnational Red Cross societies, was progressivelyextended to include all camps with a capacityof more than 500 refugees. Although consider-able financial help was given by the Office ofthe High Commissioner, the majority of theexpense entailed was borne by the League ofRed Cross Societies and national Red Crosssocieties.

In Yugoslavia, the League of Red CrossSocieties, in conjunction with the YugoslavRed Cross, undertook to supply basic foods,clothing and medical supplies for up to 17,000refugees. Responsibility for the distribution ofthese supplies was assumed by the YugoslavRed Cross.

TRACING

The International Committee of the RedCross set up in Geneva a central card indexof Hungarian refugees, on the basis of infor-mation given by the authorities and the RedCross societies of the host countries. This cardindex has enabled refugees who were separatedas a result of events to be put in contact withone another, in some cases making it possibleto reunite scattered families.

LONG-TERM NEEDS

Besides the basic needs for accommodationand care and maintenance, certain other needsof the Hungarian refugees had to be met.Emergency projects were therefore devised toprovide counsellors and case-workers to adviseand assist the refugees and to give scholarshipsfor young refugees; also projected was a pre-liminary study on a housing programme.

Plans for the establishment of a permanentsolutions programme by 1 March 1957 werebeing considered for approval at the fifthsession of the UNREF Executive Committeein June.

(See also below, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUES-TIONS, CHAPTER XI, REFUGEES.)


DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES

GENERAL ASSEMBLY —— 2ND EMERGENCY SPECIAL

SESSION

PLENARY MEETINGS, 564, 571.

A/3286. United States draft resolution.

RESOLUTION 1004(ES-II), as proposed by UnitedStates, A/3286, adopted by Assembly on 4 No-vember 1956, meeting 564, by roll-call vote of50 to 8, with 15 abstentions. (For voting details andtext of resolution see above, DOCUMENTARY REFER-ENCES under THE SITUATION IN HUNGARY.)

A/3319. United States draft resolution.A/3325. Ceylon, India, Indonesia amendments to

United States draft resolution.

RESOLUTION 1006(ES-II), as proposed by UnitedStates, A/3319, adopted by Assembly on 9 Novem-ber 1956, meeting 571, by roll-call vote of 53 to9, with 13 abstentions, as follows:In favour: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia,Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic,Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, France, Greece,Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Iran, Iraq,Ireland, Israel, Italy, Laos, Liberia, Libya, Luxem-bourg, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand,Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay,Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Thai-land, Turkey, Union of South Africa, UnitedKingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.Against: Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR,Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania,Ukrainian SSR, USSR.Abstaining: Afghanistan, Burma, Cambodia, Cey-lon, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon,Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Yugoslavia."The General Assembly,

"Considering that the military authorities of theUnion of Soviet Socialist Republics are interferingwith the transportation and distribution of food andmedical supplies urgently needed by the civilianpopulation in Hungary,

"1. Calls upon the Union of Soviet Socialist Re-publics to cease immediately actions against theHungarian population which are in violation of theaccepted standards and principles of internationallaw, justice and morality;

"2. Calls upon the Hungarian authorities to fa-cilitate, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republicsnot to interfere with, the receipt and distribution offood and medical supplies to the Hungarian peopleand to co-operate fully with the United Nations andits specialized agencies, as well as with other inter-national organizations such as the International RedCross, to provide humanitarian assistance to thepeople of Hungary;

"3. Urges the Union of Soviet Socialist Republicsand the Hungarian authorities to co-operate fully

with the Secretary-General and his duly appointedrepresentatives in the carrying out of the tasks re-ferred to above."

"Considering that, as a result of the harsh and re-pressive action of the Soviet armed forces, increas-ingly large numbers of refugees are being obliged toleave Hungary and to seek asylum in neighbouringcountries,

"1. Requests the Secretary-General to call uponthe United Nations High Commissioner for Refugeesto consult with other appropriate international agen-cies and interested Governments with a view tomaking speedy and effective arrangements for emer-gency assistance to refugees from Hungary;

"2. Urges Member States to make special con-tributions for this purpose."

A/3324. Austria draft resolution.

RESOLUTION 1007(ES-II), as proposed and amendedby Austria, A/3324, adopted by Assembly on 9November 1956, meeting 571, by roll-call vote of67 votes to 0, with 8 abstentions, as follows:In favour: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Aus-tria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia,Canada, Ceylon, Chile, China, Colombia, CostaRica, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecua-dor, Egypt, El Salvador, Finland, France, Greece,Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland,India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy,Jordan, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Luxembourg,Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nica-ragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru,Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Spain,Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, Union of SouthAfrica, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay,Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia.Against: None.Abstaining: Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR,Czechoslovakia, Liberia, Romania, Ukrainian SSR,USSR."The General Assembly,"Considering the extreme suffering to which the

Hungarian people are subjected,"Urgently wishing effectively to eliminate this suf-

fering,"Convinced that humanitarian duties can be ful-

filled most effectively through the international co-operation stipulated in Article 1, paragraph 3, of theCharter of the United Nations,

"1. Resolves to undertake on a large scale im-mediate aid for the affected territories by furnishingmedical supplies, foodstuffs and clothes;

"2. Calls upon all Member States to participateto the greatest extent possible in this relief action;

"3. Requests the Secretary-General to undertakeimmediately the necessary measures;

"4. Urgently appeals to all countries concernedto give full assistance to the Secretary-General inthe implementation of this task."

THE HUNGARIAN QUESTION

GENERAL ASSEMBLY — 11TH SESSIONPLENARY MEETINGS, 582-587, 604-609, 613-618, 633-

636, 658, 668.

A/3337. Note verbale of 10 November 1956 fromSecretary-General to Minister of Foreign Affairsof Hungary.

A/3341, A/3345. Cables of 12 and 13 November1956 from Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs ofHungary to Secretary-General.

A/3346. Cable of 13 November 1956 from Secretary-General to Acting Minister, Deputy Minister ofForeign Affairs of Hungary.

A/3358. Cable of 15 November 1956 from ActingMinister of Foreign Affairs of Hungary to Secre-tary-General.

A/3362. Cable of 16 November 1956 from Secretary-General to Acting Minister, Deputy Minister ofForeign Affairs of Hungary.

A/3371 and Corr.1 and Add.1. Interim report bySecretary-General on refugees from Hungary.

A/3374. Argentina, Belgium, Denmark, United Statesdraft resolution.

A/L.214. Hungary amendments to joint draft re-solution.

RESOLUTION 1129(XI), as submitted by four Powers,A/3374, and as amended by sponsors, adopted byAssembly on 21 November 1956, meeting 587, byroll-call vote of 69 to 2, with 8 abstentions, asfollows:In favour: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Aus-tria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Cambodia,Canada, Ceylon, Chile, China, Colombia, CostaRica, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecua-dor, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France,Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland,India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy,Jordan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Luxem-bourg, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, NewZealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama,Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Saudi Arabia,Spain, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey,Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, UnitedStates, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia.Against: Hungary, Romania.Abstaining: Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR,Czechoslovakia, Poland, Sudan, Ukrainian SSR,USSR."The General Assembly,"Noting the grave situation described in the report

of the Office of the United Nations High Com-missioner for Refugees to the Secretary-General inthe interim report of the Secretary-General on re-fugees from Hungary,

"Considering that the flow of refugees from Hun-gary continues at a high rate,

"Recognizing the urgent need of these tens ofthousands of refugees for care and resettlement,

"1. Takes note with appreciation of the actiontaken by the Secretary-General to determine andhelp to meet the need of the Hungarian refugees,and by the Office of the United Nations HighCommissioner for Refugees to assist these refugees

and to bring about co-ordinated action on their behalfby Governments, intergovernmental agencies andnon-governmental organizations;

"2. Requests the Secretary-General and the UnitedNations High Commissioner for Refugees to con-tinue their efforts;

"3. Urges Governments and non-governmental or-ganizations to make contributions to the Secretary-General, to the United Nations High Commissionerfor Refugees or to other appropriate agencies forthe care and resettlement of Hungarian refugees,and to co-ordinate their aid programmes in con-sultation with the Office of the High Commissioner;

"4. Requests the Secretary-General and the UnitedNations High Commissioner for Refugees to makean immediate appeal to both Governments and non-governmental organizations to meet the minimumpresent needs as estimated in the report of the Officeof the United Nations High Commissioner for Re-fugees to the Secretary-General and authorizes themto make subsequent appeals on the basis of plansand estimates made by the High Commissioner withthe concurrence of his Executive Committee."

A/3403. Report of Secretary-General.A/3405. Note by Secretary-General. Humanitarian

activities to assist Hungarian people. Annex: Letterof 29 November 1956 from Chairman of USSRdelegation to Secretary-General.

A/3443. Interim report of Secretary-General con-taining agreement between United Nations andInternational Committee of Red Cross. Human-itarian activities to assist Hungarian people.

A/3464 and Add.1 and 2. Note by Secretary-General.Humanitarian activities to assist Hungarian people.

A/3503. Report by Secretary-General (on joint mis-sion of United Nations and FAO). Humanitarianactivities to assist Hungarian people.

A/3503/Add.1. Note by Secretary-General transmit-ting report prepared by International Committeeof Red Cross. Humanitarian activities to assistHungarian people.

PLENARY MEETING, 643.

THIRD COMMITTEE, meetings 689-697.

A/C.3/L.507. Statement by Deputy High Commis-sioner for Refugees at 690th meeting of ThirdCommittee.

A/C.3/L.510 and Add.1 and Rev.1. Belgium, Canada,Colombia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, France,Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Turkey, UnitedKingdom, United States draft resolution, adoptedby Third Committee by roll-call vote of 49 to 0,with 19 abstentions.

A/C.3/L.514. Syria amendments to joint draft re-solution, A/C.3/L.510 and Add.1.

A/C.3/L.515. Chile amendment to joint draft re-solution, A/C.3/L.510 and Add.1.

A/3434. Report of Third Committee, draft resolu-tion A.

RESOLUTION 1039 A (XI), as recommended by ThirdCommittee, A/3434, adopted by Assembly on 23

95


January 1957, meeting 643, by 60 votes to 0, with12 abstentions."The General Assembly,

"Bearing in mind the provisions of section II ofGeneral Assembly resolution 1006(ES-II) of 9 No-vember 1956 and General Assembly resolution 1129(XI) of 21 November on the problem of Hungarianrefugees, the appeals of the Government of Austriafor assistance, in dealing with this problem, and theresponse of Governments to these appeals,

"Taking note of the statements of the United Na-tions Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees onthe steps so far taken by the Office to deal with theproblem of Hungarian refugees and on the impactof this problem on the programme of the UnitedNations Refugee Fund,

"1. Expresses its appreciation of the efforts of theUnited Nations Deputy High Commissioner forRefugees . . . to deal with the emergency situationcreated by the problem of Hungarian refugees;

"2. Expresses its appreciation to the Governmentof Austria for the part it has played in receiving

and assisting the refugees who have entered itsterritory;

"4. Requests the High Commissioner, in consulta-tion with the Secretary-General and with the Gov-ernments concerned, to develop a comprehensiveassessment of the needs, both material and financial,of the Hungarian refugees, to be submitted to theUnited Nations Refugee Fund Executive Committeefor its approval at the earliest possible date; . . ."(For full text, see below, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUES-TIONS, DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES to CHAPTER XI.)

UNICEF EXECUTIVE BOARD, meeting 171.

E/ICEF/L.999. Recommendation of Executive Di-rector for assistance to Hungarian children andmothers in Hungary and Austria.

E/2937. UNICEF. Report of Executive Board, 22October—2 November and 11 December 1956, Chap-ter IX, C.

UNREF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, 4th session, meeting32.

CHAPTER III

D I S A R M A M E N T

CONSIDERATION BY SUB-COMMITTEEOF DISARMAMENT COMMISSION

On 16 December 1955, The General Assem-bly urged the States concerned, particularlythose on the Sub-Committee of the Disarma-ment Commission, to continue their endeavoursto reach agreement on a comprehensive dis-armament plan and, as initial steps, to givepriority to early agreement on and implementa-tion of certain definite measures. Resolution914(X) to this effect also suggested that theDisarmament Commission reconvene its Sub-Committee and that both pursue their efforts.

On 23 January 1956, the Disarmament Com-mission reconvened its Sub-Committee, whichheld eighteen meetings in London between 19March and 4 May 1956. The Sub-Committeeadopted its third report to the DisarmamentCommission and decided to make public therecords of its meetings. Annexed to the reportwere the working papers, proposals and de-clarations submitted to it (see DOCUMENTARYREFERENCES below).

CONSIDERATION BYDISARMAMENT COMMISSION

The report of the Sub-Committee was con-

sidered by the Disarmament Commission at11 meetings between 3 and 16 July 1956.

Opening the debate on 3 July, the UnitedKingdom representative pointed out that hisGovernment, together with that of France, hadon 19 March submitted a revision of the Anglo-French plan of 1954 comprising all disarma-ment measures, both conventional and nuclear,which could be effectively controlled. Thesemeasures were spread over three stages to en-able a broad disarmament programme to beginwithout delay and to proceed step by step alongwith the settlement of the major causes ofinternational tension. The new Anglo-Frenchplan was, furthermore, designed to meet criti-cisms by the USSR that previous Western pro-posals had contained too much inspection andtoo little disarmament in their early stages. Itwas also intended as a response to the anxietyof India and other countries for measures todeal with nuclear test explosions.

The new Anglo-French plan, he said, differedfrom the 1954 plan in four respects. First, itdropped the provision for the elimination ofnuclear stockpiles, which was agreed to beunrealizable because it could not be scientificallycontrolled. Secondly, it dealt with the pro-

the hungarian question - united...

Documents