A/5/PV.316 General Assembly

We shall continue to hear the representatives who wish to explain their votes on the Eritrean question. 2. Mr. ICHASO (Cuba) (franslated from Spanish): I should like very briefly to explain why the Cuban delegation very firmly maintains the position that it took in the Ad Hoc Political Committee on the question of Eritrea. 3. My delegation considers that in such delicate and complex problems as those affecting a people's future, the resolutions which are adopted should not be peremptory in character but should take the form of recommendations. 4. We cannot conceive of federation between an independent State and a non...independent State. We understand by an agreement of federation an instrument in which each party is fully conscious of its feelings, its Saturday, 2 December 1950, at 3 p.m. ideas and its convictions. We are ardent defenders of the principle of the self-determination of peoples..We also consider that the United Nations should assist all colonial territories to obtain their independence sooner or later, as circumstances may require. S. The draft resoluti"napproved by . the Ad Hoc Political Committee, which provides for federation, closes all roads to Eritrean inaependence,. whereas the proposal for independence presented by the delegation of Pakistan, which we supported, does not close the road to federation, but simply 16:i.ves that matter to the free determination of the Eritrean people. 6. A particular political systein must not be imposed on a people, even a former colonial people. They must be given the opportunity to choose freely, by a vote, the system they consider most appropriate to their tra- ditions,ideology, requirements and interests. 7. I feel that to give independence to Libya and So- maliland and not to give the same treatment.to Eritrea constitutes ·an act of discrimil1ation in the solution of the problem of the former Italian colonies. We are not convinced t~y the argwn"ent th,M Eritrea is econo~cally under-developed..If Erltrea 1S not prepared for lnde.- pendence, the logical procedure Vlould be for the United Nations to prepare it for indepttlldence by means of the Trusteeship System provided for in the Charter, and we voted for it in the Committee. 9. Our desire is to promote conditions conducive to freedom in north-east Africa, not to spread chaos. Vie hope that we are mistaken in this case. and that the plan for federation will work out well and will bring prosperity to the people of Eritrea and peace to that part of the world. But we do not wish to assume respon- sibility for the consequences of the fact that we are closing the road to independence for a country where a great number of the inhabitants have that legitimate aspiration. 10. Mr. VAVRICKA (Czechoslovakia) (wanslatcd from. French) : The Czechoslovak delegation's approach to the question of the future of Eritrea and its people is llased on the view that all peoples have a right to freedom and independence. To deprive the people of Eritrea of that right is not only a flagrant violation of the Charter but discrimination against a country strug- gling for its freedom. 11. The question of Eritrean independence is, in reality, only part of a much larger problem. The process of liquidating the colonial system is continuing suc- (~ssfully throughout the world and finds expression in file struggle for national liberation. Oppressed peoples are rebelling against colonial e..~ploitation and insist- ently demanding freedom and independence, which are the fundamental conditions for econow..ic development and the achievement of a higher standard of living. The Czechoslovak delegation believes that one of the princi- pal duties of the United Nations is to help oppressed peoples to obtain the right to se1f-determination, as well as freedom and independence. 12.. The draft resolution approved by the ~d Hoc Political Committee is contrary to the SI)irit and letter of the Charter, and presents a false and tu"1;ust solution. It deprives the people of Eritrea of the fundamental and inalienable right freely to decide their own future. It imposes on them a solution which is not in accordance with the national interests of Eritrea and which is opposed by the majority of the population. . 13. The General Assembly has no right to deny the people of Eritrea the independence for which so many Eritrean fighters for freedom ha"le risked their lives. The federation with Ethiopia proposed in the draft reso- lution is a violatiNl of the Charter, wh1ch admits of no other solutions thqn independence 01· trusteeship in territories which do not yet enjoy self-govCl"r'u-nent. But is it really federation that ha.c; been proposed as a solu- tion in the case of Eritrea? Have two sovereign States adopted this form of government 'freely and without having been subjected to pressure? 14. The federal form of government which would thus be imposed on Eritrea is not based on the free: spon- "The citizens of Eritrea shall participate in the executhl'e and judicial branches, and shall be repre- sented in the legislative branch of the federal govern- ment in accordance with law and in the proportion that the population pf Eritrea bears to the population of the feficration." 16. What influence can the representaHves of the people of Eritrea - a country of only one million in- b.abltants - bave in legisla.tive bodies where the repre- sentatives of Ethiopia will speak for 16 million in.. habitants? How will the Eritrean people's right to free developmehtbe .saf~guarded in such a federation and undor such cO:'1ditions? 17. The gr,ant of independence to Eritrea is the onl)' solution of tt~~ problem which is in confonnity with the letter and s~idt..·of the Charter. That is why my delega- tion wlU'n~y supports the USSR draft resolution [A/1570], which proposes that Eritrea should be granted immediate independence, that the British occu- pation troops shoould be withdrawn within three months, and that Ethiopia should be guaranteed access to the sea, a measure required by its economic interests. This draft is in accordance with the national interests of the people of Eritrea, and with the principles of the Charter which guarantee the right of all peoples to self- determination. 18. For substantially the same reasons, my delegation will vote for the Polish draft resolution [A/1564 and Corr.1] if the draft resolution submitted by the Soviet Union is not adopted. 19. The Czechoslovak delegation will never be a party to intrigues against the freedom of peoples. The Czecho- slovak people have experienced occupation by nazi Germany and can well appreciate what it means to lose freedom and national independence. They therefore sup. port the legitimate struggle of any nation for its free- dom and independence. 20. The draft resolution recommended to the General Assembly by the Ad Hoc Political Committee would deprive the ~~eople of Eritrea of their freedom. ~ontrary to the fundamental purposes of the Charter, It would Jeny the people of Eritrea the right to self-determina- tion and impose on them a federation with Ethiopia which the great majo:"it..cr oppose. Instead of'maintainIng peace in that nart of t!he world, the resolution would foster civil war and discord. Instead of assisting an oppressed and exploited p'eople to achieve freedom and independence, it would attempt to cover up the annexa" tion of a small State by a larger State. 21. The Czechoslovak delegation categorically refuses to be a 'party to such a flagrant injustice to the people of Eritrea, an injustice committed for the sake of colonial Powers and other interested States. For the reasons I have stated, my delegation will vote for the USSR draft resolution. 22. Mr. GARCIA BAUER (Guatemala) (translated from Spanish): My country took part in the work of Commi~ee! we are convinced that the majority of the population of Eritrea favour independence. Moreover we submitted statistics, and our own experience, as well as the results of our investigations into the economic conditions of the territory, prove that Eritrea could be.. come economically independent in a relatively short time. 25. In the circumstances, therefore, the Guatemalan delegation wishes to endorse the idea of independence for Eritrea within a specified time. We cannot, how- ever, support immediate independence for the terri- tory because we are convinced that immediate in.. dependence would result in chaos. For that reason, we shall vote against the USSR draft resolution, as we did in the Ad Hoc Political Committee. We shall also vote against the part of the Soviet Union draft relating to the cession of some Eritrean territory to Ethiopia, be.. cause we are convinced that access to the sea through the port of Assab would not satisfy the requirements of Ethiopia and that the cession of that part of the ter.. ritory would be contrary to the wishes of the popula.. tion concerned. 26. In view of these considerations, we shall also vote against the Polish draft resolution, which em- bodies the same stipulations as the USSR draft resolu.. tion. However, we shall support the first paragraph of the Polish draft, whicli envisages the grant of in.. dependence to Eritrea at the end of three years. We feel that such a provision can be carried onto 27. We cannot support the proposal for' a so-called federation approved by the Ad Hoc Political Com- mittee. We advanced sufficient reasons, in that Com- mittee, to show that such federation would not be a true federation, and that, in view of the serious ine.. quality between Erltrea and Ethiopia, it would, in practice, be impossible to establish a federation as that term is understood in law. 28. After the Ad Hoc Political Committee had ap~ proved this plan for so-called federation, we were ad.. vised of the position tak~n on the question by the Eritrean Independence Bloc. The letter addressed by the representative of the Independence Bloc to the President of the General Assembly stated, among other , 1 See documents AIAC.18/SR.39 to A/AC.18/SR.45 inclusive. 2 See Offic;al Records of the General Assembly,Fifth Session, Ad Hoc Political Committee, 37th to 40th and 48th to 56th meetings inclusive. trary to the wishes of the people, who were confident of their maturity and their right to complete inde.. pendence. 29. During our travels in Eritrea, we were able to see how important were the parties which fonn the Inde- pendence Bloc, and that experi -nce convinced us that the great majority of the population oppose the idea of federatiOh which the Ad Hoc Political Committee ~proved. . 30. Nor can my delegation agree that this plan for so.. called federation recommended by the Ad Hac Political Committee can. be considered a compromise solution, or a well-balanced solution, as it has been called; but it is not up to us to reply to that argu- ment. Time will answer those who .make that asser- tion. 31. In accordance with the views I have just ex.. pressed, the delegation of Guatemala will vote against the draft resolution submitted by the Ad H DC Political Committee. 32. Mr. CASTRO (El Salvador) (translated from Spanish) ; I wish to make a short statement, on behalf of my delegation, simply to explain the vote it proposes to cast. 33. The delegation of El Salvador has the greatest friendship for the peoples of Eritrea and Ethiopia. Ethiopia is a nation which has suffered the tragedy of a long occupation, and its aspirations deserve our respect. We have the greatest sympathy for the aspira- tions of Ethiopia, which has taken an active part in the 'PJork of the United Nations. 34. The compromise solution submitted by the Ad Hoc PoliH~1 Committee takes account of the question of minorit!es,which is, of course, a matter of the great.. est importance in .settling this problem. El Salvador apprecw.tes the efforts which have been made to solve the prtJblems of established minorities in Eritrea. 35. All for its position On the draft resolution sub- mitted hy the Ad H ()c Political Committee, the delega- tion of El Salvador wishes to say that the instructions it has rec:eived from its government, which are based on the uaditional policy of El Salvador, namely, respect for the right of self..det~rmination of peoples, make it impossible for it to vote in favour of that draft, which predetermines the future political structure of Eritrea and provides for a federation between Eritrea and Ethiopia. It is clear .that it has been impossible to consult the people of Eritrea in order to firid out their wishes; it is true that a commission visited the coun- try, but that is not the way to solve a problem affect.. ing the entire population. To determine whether the people of Eritrea really wanted federation there would have had to be a plebiscite, and a plebiscite was not held. The delegation of El Salvador feels that the opinion of the whole population of Eritrea has not really been sought. Therefore, when a particular polit- ical structure is decided for Eritrea, be it federation or confederation, monarchy or republic, we consider that the. United Nations is attemp~ng to so~ve a prob.. lem which only the people of ,Entrea themselves can properly solve. ~~7. My delegation agrees with the draft resolutions submitted by the Soviet Union and Poland only in so far as they envisage political independence for Eritrea. They go much further, however, and have other aspects which we do not accept and are unable, therefore, to support. 38.. ¥r. SKO~OBOGATY (Byelorussian Soviet Soclabst Republic) (translated from R'l-essian): The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR also considers it necessary to explain its vote. 39. The discussion in the Ad Hoc Political Commit- tee of the question of the fate of the former Italian colony of Eritrea has revealed the existence of two different points of view-two different trends-among delegations. Some delegations take the view that Eritrea shuuld be granted independence and its people given an opportunity of deciding their own fate; others oppose the grant of independence to Eritrea and are attempt.. ing to th1tUSt upon the Eritrean people a form of government which has nothing in common with that people's wishes and desires. 40. The draft resolutions on the question of Eritrea which. have been submitted for the General Assembly's consideration also reflect those two points of view. 4.1. The ?raft resolution submitted by fourteen delega- tions, which was approved by the Ad Hoc Political Committee and submitted for the General Assembly's consideration, proposes that Eritrea should be federated with Ethiopia; it thereby precludes the grant of in- dependence to Eritrea and imposes on the Eritrean people a particular policy favoured by certain Mem- bers of the United Nations. Such a decision on the . fate of a country with a population of over a million ca:nnot be r~garded :,-S just. Nor is. it in conformity With the United Nations Charter wh1(~h recognizes the right of all peoples to national independence and self- determination. u 42.. Unless Eritr~a. is officially granted independence an~ un1~ss the Entrean people are allowed to express theIr WIll by free and democratic processes, a federa.. tion between Eritrea and Ethiopia cannot be regarded as a voluntary association. If the United Nations is prepared to envisage the possibility of such a solution of the q!1est~on of the fate of ~ritrea, it must begin by granting mdependence to ErItrea and by giving its people an opportunity of choosing between federation with E~hiopia and the creation of an independent, self- governmg State. That would be the only democratic and equitable decision for the United Nations to take' it. wouldenabl~ the Eritrean people to express thei; wtll freely and Independently. 43. In proposing to Eritrea that it should enter into a federation with Ethiopia, '(he draft resolution-even in.that part of·the draft which deals with the condi.. ~ons of such a fed~r~t~on-again disregards the prin- C1~le of self-determmatton. The people of Eritrea are bemg offered federal status, the terms of which have been worked out without their participation. In other words, certain conditions are being imposed upon them regardless of whether those conditIons meet their demands and wishes. It is obvious that such an ap- ~reate ~ source of serious danger to peace and security In Africa. 46. The delegation of the Byelort!ssian SSR con.. siders that the only just and equitable solution of the Eritrean problem is to grant Eritrea national inde- pendence. It cannot therefore concur in the proposals contained in the draft resolution submitted by the Ad Hoc Politic;ll Committee and will vote against it. 47. A practical solution of the problem is provided in the USSR draft resolution [A/1570] J which pro.. poses that Eritrea should be granted independencf. That draft resolution proposes that Eritrea should be granted independence immediately. Such a decision would give great satisfaction to the people of Eritrea. 48. That draft resolution also proposes the with- drawal of the British occupation forces .within three months of the day on which the decision is adopted by the General Assembly. That condition is essential, since Eritrea cannot be regarded as independent while for.. eign occupation forces are in the country. 49. The draft resolution of the Soviet Union also of- fer~ an equitable solution of the problem of Ethiopia's c1auns for an outlet to the sea. It proposes that Ethiopia should be ceded that part of the territory of Eritrea which is necessary to secure Ethiopia's access to the sea through the port of Assab. 50. Such a solution of the Eritrean problem would preclude any possibility of internal disturbances in Eritrea, since the people, having acquired their in- dep,endence, would have every opportunity of deciding the.Ir own future as they themsefves ~aw fit. Any justifi- . catIon or pretext for mterventIon In the domestic af.. fairs of Eritrea by other States would thus be removed and the peac~ and security of the nations would thereby be strengthened. The delegation of the Byelofussian SSR will therefote vote with pleasure for the draft resolution submitted by the USSR. 51. If ~hat draft resolution fails to obtain the neces- sary majority in the General Assembly, we shall sup-

My delegation made a number of reservations when the draft resolution proposing the establishment of a federation between Ethiopia and Eritrea was under consideration in the Committee. It nevertheless voted for the draft because the results of the inquiry conducted on the spot by the United Nations convinced it that the federal solution corresponded to the wishes of the populations concerned, would best promote their interests and welfare and would consequently contribute to the realization of the principle of self-determination of peoples. 53. Today, my delegation will vote for the draft resolution, its conviction strengthened by the significant words spoken this morning [315th meeting] on behalf of his government by Mr. Aklilou, in his capacity as Minister for Foreign Affairs and representative of Ethiopia in the General Assembly. My delegation associates itself with others in commending Ethiopia for that statement. It regards that statement not only as a Qolitical programme which gives us a complete assurance as to the spirit in which the resolution to ~e adopted by General Assembly will be carried into effect, but also as an act of faith by a statesman worthy of the name and by a government which has given so many proofs of its devotion to the cause of justice and freedom -in other. words, an act of faith in the noblest principles and ideals of the United Nations Charter. 54. In voting for the draft resolution before us, I greet the new federal State on behalf of my governmez;t, in the conviction (hat, as the representative of Ethiopia said in this Assembly, it will follow the tradition of a country which has been illustrious since the earliest t1mes. 55. Mr. Tsune-chi YU (China): My delegation will vote in favour of the fourteen-Power draft resolution which was approved by the Ad Hoc Political Committee and submitted by that Committee to the Assembly. ~6. The attitude of my government regarding the whole question of the final disposal of the former Italian colonies has been constantly and consistently guided by the principles and provisions of the Charter of the Ul1ited Nations, especially by the spirit of international harmonization, international conciliation, international co-operation and international justice, which find expressions in the four paragraphs of Article 1. of Chapter I of that doc:ument. In all the discussions tat in the Assembly. 57. It behoves 11S to confess that the problem Qf searching for an equitable solution to the problem of Eritrea was difficult. We had to weigh "Various principles, and their application did not appear, at times, to be very easy, either because of lack of definite Information or because of the apparently conflicting results ensuing from the strict and simultaneous application of all those principles. 58. The Ad Hoc Political Committee, however, should be congratulated on the logical proposal it has made. Although the draft resolution before us is not based purely and absolutely on the principles of in- . dependence and self-determination-ehiefly because the necessary facts and figures could not be ascertained and agreed upon by the Chairman and the members of the Commission for Eritrea-the very fundamental principle of harmonization, that is, the principle that the United Nations should serve as a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of the purposes and principles of the United Nations, is eloquently upheld. It is.true that the draft resolution is the result of a compromise, as some have mentioned, but it is not one of appeasement; it is the handiwork of those who have striven to uphold the spirit of the Charter rather than a result made possible by intimidation, threats or coercion from any party. 59. Furthermore, my delegation is happy to support the draft resolution because it meets a particular consideration of which we should not lose sight. My delegation maintains-fis it has always maintained-· that any solution of this knotty problem of Eritrea must be based not only on the observance of the principles which I have just enumerated, but also on their acceptance by the two major parties vitally concerned, nanlely, democratic Italy and Ethiopia-for which my country has the deepest sympathy and with which we maintain the best of relations. The fact that the draft resolution before·the Assembly is acceptable to both these countries is an additional consideration leading my deleg;ation to vote for it. 60. Despite these observations, however, my delegation does not feel that the prov.isions of the draft resolution are by any means entirely adequate or absolutely perfect. For instance, it would be more satisfactoryand probably a great number of representatives would be happier-if the Eritrean people, through their elected assembly, were given an opportunity to choose their own form of government and their own destiny, after, say, five or ten years. The chances are that the Eritrean people would probably choose to continue the federation with Ethiopia. If, however, they should want to be united with Ethiopia or to be independent, they should be allowed to make that choice. The fact that there is no such provision in the draft resolution is responsible for the regrettable circumstance that some members of the Assembly cannot support it. But the absence ?f s!!ch a provision cannot deter my =!~egatiOll from voting 111 favour of the draft resolution. sponsors do not aim at true independence ior the Eritrean people; their real aim seems to be the creation of chaos in East Africa, as they have amply demonstrated to the world !?y what they are attempting to do in my country and Korea. 62. As the Assembly is about to vote on the draft resolutions before it, I wish to voice my cielegation's satisfaction with and appreciation of the conciliatory remarks made by the Foreign Minister of Ethiopia this morning [315th meeting]. I am sure that we should have heard similar words of conciliation and co-operation from the Foreign Minister of democratic Italy, had he been with us today. In the light of such assurances, my delegation-and I am sure all the other delegations to this Assembly--ean rest at ease that the government of the new federated State, which has the blessing of the United Nations, will enjoy internal tranquillity and prosperity, that all its inhabitants will enjoy equality, and that the new and greater Ethiopi~n State wi1l~ as a !esult of its membership of the United Nations, contribute its part towards the building up uf peace and security, not only in the eastern part'mapf Africa, but also in the whole world. .. 63. Mr. GETMANETZ (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (translated from Russian): The delegation of the Ukrainian SSR is one of those which, basing their position on the principles of the United Nations Charter concerning the self-determination of kleoples, and taking into account the interests of indIgenous populations, have always urged that independence should be granted to the peoples of all the former Italian colonies, namely, Libya, Somaliland and Eritrea. 64. Those peoples' right to national self-determination is a natural and inalienable one. That means that each nation must freely decide its own fate without any interference from other nations in its internal political, economic and cultural life. 65. Only the representatives of the colonial Powers are against the self-determination of the peoples of dependent territories; they are trying by all possible means to perpetuate the present status of those oppressed countries in order to continue their exploitation and plundering. 66. The delegation of the Ukrainian SSR believes that the Eritrean people should be guaranteed the exercise of the right to self-determination on the same basis as the people of Libya, who are soon to establish their independent State. This demand is based first of all on the fact that the people of Eritrea indisputably form a nation with all the characteristics of a nation. They constitute a well established and stable society of people based on a common language, culture, economic life and mental outlook, which are reflected in a common culture. 67. During the discussion of the question of Eritrea in the Ad Hoc Political Committee, the representatives of certain countries made statements in support of selfdetermination and independence for Eritrea, but during the voting on various draft resolutions-those submitted by the USSR, Poland, Pakistan and Iraq-it became evident that they in fact supported and pursued a policy of colonial oppression. ~ives of the peoples .qemocracies! in their statements In the Ad H QC Political CommIttee, resolutely supported the granting of immediate independence to Eritrea. They also called for the withdrawal of British occupation troops frc-m Eritrea within three months and the cession to Ethiopia of that part of the territory whica Ethiopia requires in order to have access to the sea through the port of Assab. 70. The voting in the Committee showed that, as a result of a private understanding between the delegations of the colonial Powers and the delegation of the United States, and of the direct pressure exerted by those delegations on other members of the Committee) they succeeded once again in violating the principles of the Charter and in foisting u!Jon the Committee a draft resolution which did not correspond to the interests of the Eritrean people or satisfy their aspirations to independence. 71. The fourteen-Power draft resolution on the socalled federation between Ethiopia and Eritrea which has now been submitted to the General Assembly, represents only the interests of the colonial Powers and is directed against the Eritrean people. This draft uses the authority of the United Nations to cloak the imperialist designs of the colonial Powers on Eritrea and deludes international public opinion. 72. It is very significant that this extremely long draft resolution does not so much as mention the right of the Eritrean people to self-determination, a right which is proclaimed as one of the basic principles of the Charter of the United Nations. 73. The delegation of the Ukrainian SSR believes that the draft resolution on Eritrea submitted by the Ad H DC Political Committee is both unsatisfactory and unacceptable because it does not ensure Eritrea the independence to which that country is certainly entitled. 74. The delegation of the Ukrainian SSR-a country where national oppression and its causes have long been abolished and where no national discrimination is possible-urges that independence should be granted to Eritrea immediately and that the national and politicai oppression of that country by the colonizers, in whatever form it may assume, should be brought to a stop forthwith. 75. Consequently the delegation of the Ukrainian SSR supports the USSR draft resolution [A/1570] on the Eritrean que.tion and will vote for it.

Last year, when the sub-committee which studied the future of the former Italian colonies was discussing the future of Eritrea, three solutions· were suggested-independence, annexation or partition. My delegation had the honour at that time to state there was a fourth solution-federation

The vote on paragraph 6 (d) will be taken in two parts. In the first place, I put to the vote the first sentence, which ends with the words Iffederal laws". Th, flmaind", of paragraph 6 (d) was adopted by 44 votes to 7" with 5abstentions.

I put to the vote the beginning of paragraph 7, and the fil lst sentence of sub-paragraph (a). Th, b,ginning of paragraph 7 and the first sentence of sub-pcwagraph (a) were adopted by 45 votes to nonc1 with 11 abstentio~.

I put to the vote the remainder of paragraph 7 (a). The retnainder of paragraph 7 (a) was adopted by 42 votes to 0" with8 abstentions.

Separate votes have not been requested on the remainder of the draft resolution. I therefore put to the vote the remainder of the draft resolution, beginning with paragraph 7 (b). The remainder of the draft rresolution was adopted by 43votes to 7, with 5 abstentions. 90. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): We shall now vote by roll-call on the draft resolution as a whole [A/1561]. A flote was taken by roll-call. ChiM1 having been drarzvn by lot by the Presidentl U}(J,S called upon to vote first. In favour: China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, France. Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexi(Co~ Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippi!les, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern lteland, United States of America, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bofjvi~, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chile. Against; Cuba,. Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Pakistan, Poland, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic. Abstaining: Israel, Saudi Arabia" Sweden, Uruguay. The draft resolution as a whole was adopted by 46 votes to 10, with 4 abstentions. 97. The PRESIDENT (translated from French) : I must now ask the Assembly to vote on the second draft resolution submitted by the Ad Hoc Political Committee in its additional report [A/1561/Add.1]. 98~ Before putting this text to the vote, I would ask the Rapporteur of the Ad Hoc Political Committee for an explanation. Is it intentionally 1?-rovided that if members of the proposed committee fad to agree on the nomination of one candidate, they should nominate three candidates? Is.three a maximum figure? Did the authors of the draft resolution mean that the committee could nomD late eithertwo or three candidates? 100. However. if it is the intention of the General Assembly that this choice should be limited to either two or three, then I believe that it. should be explicitly so stated in the draft resolution. It might therefore be s1.1ggestccl thn~ n small drafting chnt'1ge should be in... troduced so that the draft resolution would rend Utwo or three cancUdntes for the post of United Nntions Commissioner for Eritrenu•

I thank the Rapporteur for hi, explanation. I think the cotnnlittee should be left free to nomillnte two or three candidates. The committee mny not be able to fil'ld three persons whom it considers fully qualified. 102. I therefore support the last suggestion made by the Rapporteur, and 1 propose, accordingly, that the amendment he has just submitted should be adopted. Tho anlfmdnecnt was adopted. 103. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): We shall now vote 011 the draft resolution, with the amendment which has just been adopted. The draft rosoEutsonl (J$ amltaded, was adopted by 45 votes to 51 with 6 abstentions.

We shall now vote on the draft resolution of the Soviet Union [A/1570]. A vote by division has been requested. I therefore invite the Assembly to vote 011 each of the three paragraphs of the draft resolution in turn. The first paragraph 'lvas rejected by 32 votes to 13, with 8 abstentions. The second paragraph was "cjected by 34 votes to 9~ with 10 abstlnnons. The third paragraph was rejected by 38 votes to 5~ with 14 abstentions.

{\s. all three paragraphs have been r~jected separatels. It 1& unnecessary to vote on the draft resolution as a. whole. 106. I now ask the Assemblyto vote on the Polish draft resolution [A/ 'I (64 and C0".1] . 107. Mr. GARCIA BAUER (Guatemala) (translatld from Spanish) : I request that paragraph 1 should be voted upon separately and by roll..call. 108. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): A roll-call vote is in order. The Assembly will there.. fore proceed to vote on paragrap~' 1. A vote was taken by fall-call. Bra...~ll having been drawn by lot by the President, was called upon to vote first. In favour: Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic. Cuba, Czechoslovakia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Paki- ',Me..~ioo, Netherlands, New Zta1an~,. N!earag1!8., .Norway, 1".an3.1\1a, Paraguay. Peru, Phdlp.pmes, T.haitand. Turh."e)!') Union of South Africa) Dmted Kingdom of Great Britnitt and Northern Ireland, United States of Anteri<:a) Ven~zuela) Yugoslavia, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia. A.~staittiftg: COI0tt'l.biQ, Dominiean. Republic, Emt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanou. Sweden, Syna, Uruguay, "\emen. Afgbanistallt Argentina. Par",ra.ph 1 tMS "jedtd b, 36 'f)()t,s to 10J ttJitl. 14 4bst~Hh(ms.

I shall 1\0\'" put to the vote, in turn, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the draft resolutt{)n submitted liy the delegation of Poland. Paragrafl!t 2 tt-m ,ejected by 3'1 votes to 5" ttlith 13 <WstlfHtioflS. Ptlr4!Jrll/llt 3 ttlQS r~jettcd by 34 tlotes to 8" with 11 abSM"t~OHS. Pa/f'agraph 4- ttWrfijected b, 35 fJotes to 5) with 11 abstttttic)fls.

Since nIl the paragraphs of the Polish draft resolution have been rejected separately) there is no need to vote on the draft resolution as a whole. Postponentent of the consideration of the que-st~on of du~ admission of new Members to the U~tl~d Nations 111.'I'be PRESIDENT (translated from French): The next item on the agenda is the admission of new Members to the United Nations. and the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. A draft resolution on this item has jU$t been submitted by the delegation of El Salvador [A/1585]. Since delegations have perllap5 not bad sufficient time to study the te..x:t, we shall postpone the discussion of the question until :Monday, if there are no objections. Report of the Trusteeship Councll: report of the Fourth Conunittee (A/l546) [Aget'da item 13] },{r. Ankcr (Norway), Rapporteur, presented, the report 01 the Fourth Committee ana the accompanying draft resolutions [A/1546]. 112. The PRESIDENT (traff.Slated from French): I intend to put to the vote separately each of the eleven draft resolutiorls contained in the Fourth Committee's report. 113. Air. BARTOS .(Yugoslavia) (traff.Slated from Frencl1,) : As regards draft resolution I, we have asked that each of the paragraphs should be 'Voted on separately. 114. The PRESIDENT (1rI1M$laf,d from P'-IHC'h): We shall vote sutcessively on paragraphs 1,2 and 3 of >draft resolution I. Par«gmph 3 ttl(Z.$ adopted b, 45 flot,s to none" Men 6 abstentions.

I now put 4raft resolution I as a whole to the vote. 116. The PRESIDENT (translated from French) ~ We shall now vote on draft resolution 11. Ui.Mr. ICHASO (Cuba) (translated from Spa,." ish) : I request a vote by roll-call. . 118. The PRESIDENT (translated from FrmcA) : The representative of Cuba certainly has the right to request a roU-call vote, but I would draw his attention to the fact that we still have ten draft resolutions be... fore us. If we have to vote by roll-call on each of them, we shall still be here in January. . . A vote was taken by roll-call. China, having bee'1S dr~Jfl, b, lot by the President, was called upon tOf)ote first. In favour: China, C\")lombia,. Cuba, Czechoslovakia. Denmark, Egypt, El Salvador, Ett.\iopia, Greece. Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, lra:q, Lebanon, Liberia1 Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan. Panama, l?araguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet So" cialist Republics. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Argen- tina. Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Byelo... russian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Chile.

I shall now put to the vote draft resolution Ill. .. 120. 1fr. PEREZ CISNEROS (Cuba): (translated fro,n Spani.sh) : I am afraid that the procedure my dele.. gation is going to request will delay. the Assembly a little. However, since a two~thirds majority is required for the adoption of proposals. on matters affecting trusteeship, my delegation especially reguests a roll-call vote on draft resolutions Ill, IV. V, VI and X. I prefer to make this request now, for all the draft resolutions I have mentioned, so as not to interrupt the voting each tUne. . 121. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): We shall therefore vote by roll-call on draft reSOlutions HI, IV, V, VI and X. The United States representative has the floor to explain his vote. 122. Mr. COOPER (United States of America): The United States delegation requests that a.separate vote should be taken on the third recital of draft resolution Ill. A vote was taken by roll-call. Turkey, having been drawn by lot by the President, was called upon to vote first. In favour: Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, U.ion of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay, Yemen, Against: Union of South Africa, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Burma, Denmark, France, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealanc1, Norway, Sweden, Thailand. Abstaining: Turkey, Venezuela, Argentina, Canada, Chile, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Greece, Iran, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru. The result of the vote was 25 in favour, 16 against and 14 abstentions.

Under rule 84 of the rules of procedure, decisions on questions relating to the operation of the Trusteeship System must be made by a two-thirds majority. Abstaining: Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zea- land, Paraguay, Union of South Africa, United King- dom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Domin.ican Republic, France. Draft resolution IV was' adopted by 41 votes to none, with 14 abstentions.

We now come to draft resolution V.

I wish to re- 9.,uest a separate vote on the fifth recital of draft resolutlOn V. My delegation would vote against this recital because we cannot accept the suggestion that there is such a thing as an anonymous petition. There may, of course, be anonymous communications and, in the Fourth Committee, my delegation voted in favour of an amendment which would have introduced this concept. 137. However, having regard for the present wording of this recital, and bearing in mind that there is no reference to anonymous petitions or even to anonymous communications in the operative part of this draft resolution, my delegation feels that this recital is out of place in the present draft resolution. If it is deleted, my delegation will vote in favour of the draft resolution, although it must also point out that, in its view, the words referring to the right of petition as one of the fundamental human rights are also out of place in view of the discussions which have been going on in the Third Committee on the proposed covenant of human rights.

I now put the fifth recital of draft resolution V to the vote. The fifth recital of draft resolution V was rejected by 24 votes !o 17, with 7 abstentions.

I now put to the vote draft resolution V as a whole, excluding the fifth recital, which has just been rejected. The Cuban delegation has requested a roll-caIl vote.

I put draft resolution VI to the vote. A roll-call vote has been requested. In favour: Brazil, Burma, Byelorussian Soviet So- cialist Republic, China, Colombia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, .Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Mexico, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Thailand, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Argentina. Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Lux- embourg, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Abstaining: Bolivia, Chile, Denmark, Dominican Re- public, Ethiopia, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Netherlands, Peru, Turkey, Venezuela. 141. Th,,: PRESIDENT (translated from French): I put draft resolution X to the vote. A roll-call has been requested. .

As you know, the delegations of Bolivia, Colombia and Perit have submitted a draft resolution [A/1593] asking that, for technical reasons, the sixth session of the General Assembly should be held in Europe. 182. If there are no objections, this draft resolution will be referred to the Fifth Committee for consideration. It was so decided. The meeting rose at 6 p.m. -,-------_._-----_.......:-----::: A-40464-February 1951-3,600