A/5/PV.318 General Assembly

The Swedish delegation heartily welcomes the in,ti~tivt:; taken by the delegation of El Salvador, although we do not find ourselves in a position to be able to vote in favottr of the draft resolution which it has submitted [A/1S851. Through the initiative taken by the delegation of El Salvador, attention has again been drawn to the question of admission of new Members. All efforts on the part of the General Assembly to arrive at a fair and reasonable solution of this problem have so far failed. By 'ia fair and reasonable solution", we understand an arrangement which would not exclude from the right to membership sovereign States wishing to become Members and possessing the necessary qualifications for membership in accordance with the provisions of our Charter. 2. We all know why the General Assembly has failed. States which have indicated their desire to obtain membership have not been accepted into membership because of the absence of a favourable recommendation on the part of the Security Council as provided for in Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Charter. Those States which have obtained a majority vote for a favourable recommendation have failed to obtain membership because of the veto; on the other hand, those States ag~inst which no veto has been cast have not succeeded in obtaining the necessary majority for a favourable recommendation. 3. Ever since its own admission into the United Nations, Sweden has made known, over and over again, the reasons why it favours a generous attitude to the question of the admission of new Members. I am not going to repeat our arguments all over again, but I beg leave to ask whether it is not high time that the Security Council should take the necessary steps to bring about a change in a state ef !J:ffairs which has become almost untenable? Monday, 4 December 1950, ft' !J p.... 4. Quite apart from the substantive arguments, which speak loudly for a prompt and satisfactory solution of this impasse, I should like to mention a psychological argument. The whole world is looking fora break in the deadlock between the great Powers. It seems to me that we have here a matter of disagreement be- tween East and West which could easily be approached and solved and which, if settled, could-at least' in some degree-contribute to the easing of the tension in the world today. 5. I cannot sum up our position in this vital matter better and more ek.quently than by quoting. from a recently published book written by a prominent mem- ber of the United States delegation. Speaking about the problem we are now discussing-~ the author ,ex- presses his personal opinion in the foHowing terms: "I have now come to believe th~t the United- Na- o tions will best serve the cause of llf;ac,~ if its Assembly is representative of what the world actually is, and not merely representative of the parts which we like. Therefore, we ought to be willing that all the nations should be Members without attempting to appraise closely those which are 'good' and those 'Ivhich are 'bad'. Already that distinction is obliterated by the present membership of the United Nations.''l 6. The Swedish d~leg-ation invites the Members of the Genera! Assembly to vot,~ in favour of the draft resolution of which Sweden is one of the five spGnsors [A/1S?1]. 7. Mr. LAPOINTE (Canada): My governtnent has studied with great care the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice [A/1353]. This opinion confirms the interpretation of the Charter to which the United Nations had previously conformed and to which my government had subscribed. In view of this opinion, it is clear that no step can be taken by the General Assembly to admit new Members in the absence of a recommendation by the Security Council. 1 See Dulles, J. F., War or PeaceJ New 'y",rk, The llltlnilIu Co., 1950, page 190. en~e to the relationship between Article 4 and the desire for unive~sality of membership. 10. With these considerations in mind, in C'ompany ~>jth the de1~~tic!ls of Brazil, the Phi11pplrtt:J, Sweden and Syria, m)" delegation has sponsored the draft resolution stibmiti:ed in documt::nt A/1571. This draft resolution accepts the situation in which the General Assembly finds itself in the absence of any recommenda- tions from the Security Council. It also reaffirms the positive recommendations which were made a year ago by the General Assembly [296 (IV) j in :~egard to the member8hip of certain States, recomnienJations upon which the Security Council, unhappily, has been unable to act. I do not see how th~ General Assembiy could tJvssibly do less this year than to reaffirm these recom- mendations. 11. This draft resolution also reaffirms the request by the General Assembly to the Security Council tQ keep under review the a::;plications of all States whicll have indicated a desire for membership. You will notice, therefore, that the five-Power re~{)lution includes the request to the Security Council contained in the Soviet Union draft resolution [A/1S77] for a review of all applications, but it also reaffirms previous recommenda- tions of the General Assembly which is not done in the Sovkf Union draft resolution; am! it includes the application of Korea, which has been omitted from the list given in the draft submitted by the USSR. 12. -As for the draft resolution submitted last Satur- day, 2 December 1950, by the delegation of El Salvador, my delegation considers that this involves important changes in the structure of the United Nations which should not be ~Ji>ted hastily. We are by no means certain that th~ J>roposals contained in the operative par~s of that draft are compatible with the Charter and we would not,wish, therefore, to support these proposals. 13. We are not at all sure, furthermore, that the sug- gestion of observer status for the applicant countries is compatible with their dignity or in any sense ade- quate for sovereign States and we have doubts, there- fore, .whether the proposal would be acceptable tc the cou:ltries whose interests it is intended to aerve. My 15. Faris EL-KHOlTRI Bey (Syria): As my dele- gation is a co-sponsor of one of the draft resolutions which are now before the General Assembly for dis- cussion, I should like to make a few remarks on the subject in connexion with a principle which I have advocated ever since I represented my country in the Security Council, namely, the principle of universality. 16. My o~;'nion is that the United Nations was estab- lished for the purpose of comprising all the nations of the world. If there are some objections to the admission of one country or another, these objections should be surmounted. For instance, I believe the Security Coun- cil now has fourteen applications for membership wait- ing for its recommendat ;rHl of admission. Of these four- teen applications eight ~4ave obtained seven affirmative votes, but because of the Soviet Union use of the veto, the Council has been unablt: to adopt a favqurable decision. It appears that the fourteen applications ca,n be divided intu two sections, one comprising eight States which are friends or adhcents of the westerr.t bloc, the other five friends or adherents of the eastern bloc, the Soviet Union and hs allies. 17. We understand from the Soviet Union that it will never consent to admission of anyone of the other eight applicants unless the five whicp. they su ~port are also admitted. Th, Soviet Union advocates ~he adop- tion of one resolution covering the admis!:iion of all fourteen applicants, which would mean that it would be impossible to admit Italy, Ireland, Portugal, Austria, Finland, the Hashimite Kingdom of the Jordan, Ceylon 2.11d Ncoal unless we admitted at the same time Albania, the Mongolian People's Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary. In other words, the admission of the former group of nations would depend on the admission of the latter. 18. Some members of the General Assembly, whose view I did not share, thought that we should be able to find a way out which would enable us to admit appli- cants which obtained seven votes in the Security Coun- cil if we sought a legal opinion from the International Court of Justice. The International Court of Justice was asked whether, if a majority of any seven votes in the Security Council was obtained in favour of recom- mending the admission of an applicant, the General Assembly could take a stand and decide to admit the applicant despite the absence of a normal recommenda- tion by the Security Council owing to the imposition of the veto by one of the permanent me..rnbers. 19. We M-le received the reply of the International Court of Justice, which has been distributed to all Members, and I have a copy here. Unfortelately, the Court does not confirm the hopes of those who spon- sored the transmission of the question to it, but says, "N0, so long as the Security Council doe~ not agree to make the recommendation by seven votes, including the concurring affirmative votes of the permanent mem- bers, the General Assembly can do nothing".. "The Organization shall ensure that States which are not Members of the United Nations act in ac- cordance with these Principles ..." 22. Thus it is our duty to try to make States which are not members of the United Nations act in ac- cordance with the principles of the Charter. Would it not be much easier to do this if those States were here with us as Members instead of being applicants whose requests for membership have been rejected? This is a matter which touches upon the dignity of the States whic.h h.ave been awaiting an affirmative reply to their applications. 23. You all know what the effect would be if one of you were to ask to be admitted to the membership of a certain club, and you had to wait for a reply fo!' a month or two or even longer. What would your posi- tion be in such circumstances? What would you feel like? Yo~ would undoubtedly consider it an insult. 24. There are now fourteen States which have applied for membership; they have waited months and years and no reply has even been given to them except a negative reply. That certainly must have hurt their feelings, anrJ may even have made them enemies in- ~tead of friends of the Organization. That kind of thing IS ~ikely to increase animosity and hostility amongst nations. 25. We are here to establish and strengthen friendly relations among the peoples of the world and between nation~. Why sI\QuId we erect barriers in order to crea~e ellatni~s? j~ ~o not see any sense or any justi- ficatIOn for the attitude we are taking. By doing so, ~e are not serving the principles of the United Nations In any way; we are just going against the principles agend~ of the Security Council whose duty it is to consider th~m. It narrows the request from the Gen- eral Asserr~~ly to the Security Council to those eight or nine applications, while alienating the others. 27. The draft resolution submitted by El Salvador also attempts to do the same thing. It confines the re- quest or the recommendation of the General Assembly to those eight or nine States who adhere to the prin- ciples of the Western Powers, and it excludes the others. 28. But my dear friends, what is the result of that? Suppose the General Assembly were now to ask the Security Council, or any member in the Security Coun- cil, to place these applic::ttions on the agenda and have them voted upon. The result would be to add eight or nine vetoes to the vetoes which already exist and have been exercised by the Soviet Union. One applica- tion after the other would be vetoed, vetoed, vetoed. Thus, the nine applications would be vetoed. There- fore, instead of forty vetoes, there would be forty-nine vetoes. What would be the result? Nothing. We w01,11d be in the same position. 29. The only way out of this situation is to have the permanent members of the Security Council adopt the principle of universality. Let us admit all these appli- cants. We have fourteen applicants now; they should be recommended for membership by the Security Coun- cil all together. 30. Let this General Assembly, at this session, before we adjourn, finish with this sub;~ct. After that, let the Security Council meet tomorr~w and do as I have suggested, if they wish peace and harmony'for the world. They would soften, they would attenuate the present tension. This would be a step .which would certainly postpone this tension, at le8st for a consider.. able period of time. 31. We should not be obstinate. We should be toler- ant. We should take a step forward. What harm would there be in that? 32. What have Romania an<Jl ~. .garia done for which they can be blamed? These two countries were op- pressed by Hitler. They were attacked and came under Nazi domination. Now,' they have adopted the com- munist doctrine; they are communist States. What harm is there in that? Why should we t~ot allow tt.em to have the form of government which they want? But let us admit them into the United Nations. . 33. What difference can it make to the Western Powers? At present, the Eastern bloc has five votes. If we were to admit these five othet States, that would make ten votes. The other side now has fifty-five 'Votes. 34. The Assembly resorted to req?esting an opinion of the International Court of JustIce. We were de- feated there too. The Court told US, uNo, yo." cannot effect the admission of a State to membership of !he United Nations in the absence of a recommendation by the Security Council. You must abide by the rule of the Charter. You must do nothing until you ~ave a recommendation from the five permanent memDers of the Security Counci1." What can we do? Are we to ignore the Charter and the opinion of the Interna- tio~l Court of Justice? It is true that the~e "~aS a minority of two judges in the Court who said, Yes, the General Assembly cat.t do something"! an~ .that they presented argum~nts In support of their opinion? This minority, however, represented two out of four- teen judges. The other twelve agreed on the c0!ltrary opinion. The two judges presented their revolutIOnary idea as a minority opinion, ~u~ the Gener~l Assembly certainly cannot a~opt the oplmon of two Ju~ges when the contrary opinIOn has been expressed oy twelve judges. \fter all, the General Assemb;y established the International Court of Justice, and It ca~r~(.\t now reject its opinions. The Court is our consultative body, and we should follow its advice. The Assembly is, therefore condemned to do nothing unless the perma- nent me~bers of the S\~curity Council agree on a com- promiSt1 solution. 35. Another matter which is similar to but not exactly the same as the c..1.se I have been discussing concerns the recognition of the new Government of China. We must be realistic. Who can maintain that the present Government of China does not exercise de facto author- ity over the whole of China, with the except of the Island of Formosa? The status of Formosa has not yet been determined; we do not know whether it is Chinese or international territory. Authority over the bulk of Chinah however, is exercised by a certain gov- ernment, which has proved its capacity to carry out its international obligations. It is taking ac!ion .iu~t like any other government. At the present ttm~ It IS attacking in Korea. If that government were With us in the United Nations, however, the General Assembly could judge its actions. If we were to admit that gov- ernment and allow it to take a seat in the General Assembly, we could deal with its actions. If they are 38. Perhaps I have gone too far, but I think the S!t~­ ation compels me, you and everybody to tackle thiS matter. We cannot be silent now; we cannot be quiet and listen to what is being said, to get our news from here and there, and from the Press. We have to deal with the matter and find a remedy for it. All the aspira- tions and hopes of the world are directed here. An the pl<oples hope that this great Organization of t~e United Nations will be able to secure peace and aVOId a ge1"eral world war. If we cannot do that, why are we sitting here? Is it simply to make speeches .and adopt resolutions? It is shameful for us to contmue to make speeches and declarations for the movies, tele- vision and radio. We do not want to speak, we do not want our figures shown on television and our voices heard on the radio or anywhere, if we are not able to produce results. What would be the use of that? 39. I apol~gize to the President. I have gone too far on the subject, but I think he will pardo~ me. 43. The General Assembly has already passed its judgment toncerning several applicants and expressed the opinion that they should be admitted to the United Nations. In the light of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, it seems to my delega- tion that we can do no more than to ask the Security Council to reconsider its obligations. Accordingly, we have sponsored a proposal in this respect together with four other delegations. Let us hope that these new reconsiderations by the Security Council may, at least, bear some satisfactory results. 44. The delegation of El Salvador deemed it fitting to submit to the General Assembly a new proposal, the aim of which, as we see it, is to give some satis- faction to those applicants which have received seven or more votes in the Security Council. We fully realize the motives behind this proposal, and we appreciate the reasons which prompted the delegation of El Salvador to introduce it in the General Assembly. Although we have no fundamental \lbjection to its adoption, the Brazilian delegation is not prepared to g!~e its support to that proposal. It seems to us that the practice which has been foHowed by the General Assembly in the dis- cussion of questions involving the interests of coun- tries which are not members of the Unitea Nations fully covers the point expressed in paragraph 2 of the draft resolution. A permanent invitation extended by the Secretary-General would add very little, if any- thing, to our established practice. 4.;. For these reasons, the Brazilian delegation in- tends to abstain when the draft resolution of El Sal- vador is put to the vote.

I proposeY to deal briefly with the three draft resolutions which are now before the General Assembly. The United Kingdom delegation has consistently held the view, now confirmed by the International Court of Justice, that each new admission should be considered separately on its own merits and on the basis of the crH:eria of membership described in Article 4 of the Charter. Of the three araft resolutions now befo:-e the General Assembly,. the draft resolution presented by Brazil, Canada, the Philippines, Sweden and Syria [A/15?1] ~eems to do is to confer a sort of half-way United Nations status on certain countries. Would this be acceptable to those countries? I confess that at this moment I cannot say, and I must at least feel considerable doubt. For these reasons, my delegation feels impelled to vote against paragraph 2 of the operative part of the draft resolution of El Salvador and against paragraph 4 of the preamble. 49. While at first sight we have no objection.to the remainder of the draft resolution, it must be admitted that without the parts I have mentioned it loses most of its force. If, therefore, these parts are voted down, my delegation hopes that the delegation of El Salvador will see its way to withdraw the rest of the draft resolution. 50. To sum up, therefore, my del~gation fully supports only the joint draft resolution presented by Brazil and the four other co-sponsoring delegations. We hope that, if this is adopted, the Security Council will be able not only to reconsider each existing application for membership, but also to make positive recommendations to this General Assembly in respect of those States which fulfil the requirements of the Charter but which. so far, have been unable t"o assume their right and duties as Members because of the veto. 51. lVlahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt) : The delegations present will recall that this question has been before the General Assembly since 1946. At that date, even the right of the General Assembly to deal in the way m which it dealt with the question of-applications for membership in the United Nations later on was challenged. Some delegations, fortunately very few of them, thought that all the General Assembly could do in the absence of a recommendation from the Security Council to accept an application for membership was simply to take note of that. If I recall rightly-and I am not saying this with any sense of self-justification-roy deJegation was the first to oppose such an assertion. It was the first to uphold the right of the General Assembly to scrutinize ~S.; On those occasions it was obvious that the inspiring factor was not the object before us, it was not the interest of peace, it was not the Charter of the United Nations and its dictates, but quite different things derived from the self-interest of one or more countries, and not from the interest of world peace and security. 56. 1\1y delegation wishes to trust that when the applications for membership come before the Security Council for reconsideration, tht~ Council and its members wiiI consider them and act 'upon them in conformity with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice which, in this respect, has given what we believe to be the correct opinion and which, in the view of my delegation and other delegations-with the exception of a few-represents the real sense and intent of the Charter. $7. Indeed we are entitled to expect that the Security Coundl and its members will consider all applications for membership in the United Nations, inspired not by opportunism and not with the idea of striking' a bargain, but objectively, according to the merits of each application and keeping in mind the idea of universality of the United Nations. '58.· By universality we do not mean the indiscriminate or wholesale admission to the United Nations of all applicants, even though they may be unworthy of membership in the United Nations. We mean, h~wever. that each and every applicant who, humanly and relatively speaking, is worthy of membership, according to the yardstick of the Charter, s:'.luld be admitted. 8 See Official Rec,;,-ds of the General Assembly. second part '{)f the first sp.ssion, First Committee, annex 6c. 67. The opponents of these principles did not rest after their frontal attack against the principles of the Charter was defeated, and they endeavoured to drag the International Court of Justice into the case, with the obvious intention of exploiting its authority to buttress their own efforts, in defiance of the Charter, to exclude the Security Council from the solution of such questions as the admission of new Members to the United Nations. 68. As a result, they succeeded in obtaininl{ the adoption at the last session of the General Assembly of a resolution which placed the following question before the International Court of Justice: "Can the admission of a State to membership in the United Nations~ pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Charter, be effected by a decision of the 'General Assembly when the Security Council has made no recommendation for admission bv reason of the candidate failing to obtain the requisite majority or of the negative vote of a permanent Ivlember upon a resolution so to recommend?" 69. This question makes it obvious that its authors do not clearly understand Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Charter. A glance at this text, however, will show that the paragraph contains a perfectly clear and unequivocal provision which leaves no room for doubt or alternative interpretation. It states: "the admission of any such State to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a derision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council". I am quoting from the Charter. 70. Hence, the answer to the question placed before the Court can only be in the negative. 71. In view of the wholly unequivocal character of Article '4, paragraph 2, of the Charter, the USSR delegation, at the fourth session of the General Assem- ~ly [252nd meeting], opposed the proposal to refer the question to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion, and pointed out that the provisions of the Charter relating to the admission of new Members were perfectly clear and required no interpretation. 72. It was pointed out that the interpretati,)l',J. o~ the Charter in general could not be the subject of examination and of an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, whose terms of reference in this regard are defined in Article 65 of the Statute of the Court, which states that the Court may give an advisory opinion on legal questions only. The same thing is stated in Article 96 of the Charter which states that the General Assembly ". . . may request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question". 73. These Articles of the Charter and the Statute of the Court make it clear that no question relatinl{ to the procedure for the admission of new Members to the United Nations can be the object of scrutiny by the International Court, inasmuch as that question is political in character, as can be seen from the discussions which have taken place in the General Assembly. ,.., . 78. The Court has explained its opinion in detail. It states, with regard to Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Charter, that: "The Court has no doubt as to the meaninJ{ of this text. 1t requires two things to effect admi$sion: a 'recommendation' of the Security Council and a 'decision' of the General Assembly. It is in the nature of things that the recommendation should come before the decision. The 'Word 'recommendation', and the word 'upon' preceding it, imply the idea that the recommendation is the foundation of the decision to admit, and that the latter rests upon the recommendation. Both these acts are indispensable to form the judgment of the Organization to which the previous paragraph of Article 4 refers. The text under consideration me(\ns that the General Assembly can only decide to admit upon the recommendation, of the Security Council; it determines the respective roles of the two organs whose combined action is required before adn1~ssion can be effected: in other words, the recommendation of the Security Council is the condition precedent to the decision of the Assembly by which the admission is effected." 79. Such is the conclusion of the I11temational Court of Justice. The Court lays particular stress upon the fact that the text of Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Charter is fully confirmed by the structure of the Charter, and particularly, by the relation~ established GIbid., Second Session, First Committee, annex 14j. 6 See Competence of Assembly rega1'dmg admission to the United Nations, Adviso1'Y Opinion: l.G.!. Reports 1950, page 10. \ c-The General Assembly and the Security Council are both principal organs of the United NaHons. The Charter does not place the Security Coundl in a subordinate position. Article 24 confers 'upon it 'primary responsibility for the maintenance oi international peace and security'." 80. In support of its argument that the Charter does not subordinate the Security Council to the General Assembly, the Court concludes this section of its advisory opinion with the following words: HTo hold that the General Assembly has power to admit a State to membership in the absence of a recommendation of the Security Council would be to deprive the Security Council of an important power which has been entrusted to it by the Charter. It would almost n""iIify the role of the Security Council in the exercise of 01:1e of the essential functions of the Organization. It would mean that the Security Council would have merely to study the case, present a report, give advice, and express an opinion.. This i~, not what Article 4, paragraph 2, says." 81. The Court also rejected the false alle/{ation of a number of governments, to the effect that the General Assembly could treat the absence of a recommendation as equivalent to an unfavourable recommendation. 82. This utterly ba.seless and absurd allegation served the purpose of those who wish to minimize the role of the Security Council. They triea to argue on the basis of this allegation, that a decision of the Security Council to recommend to the General Assemb'Ly the admission of a State to membership in the United Nations meant that the General Assembly received from the Security Council a favourable recommendation; but if th{;: SecU\·- ity Council failed to reach agreement or h> take ~. decision, and consequently did not submit ~l1Y recorn·· mendation to the General Assembly, this should he regarded as an unfavourable recommendation of tae Security Council but nevertheless a recommendation. 83. Thus it appears th8t in either t::ase there has been a Security Council recommendation and that the nrQvisiolD of Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Charteroc haw~ apparently been complied with and that consequently the General Assembly can, on its own initiative, take a. decision on the admission of a Member to the United Natio7!s. 84. In communicating their y!ews trthe International Court of Justice some gov~rnments tried to j!.!stify thi~ faIlacitiuS assertio:i by referring-and I might add incorrectly-to th'~ preparatory work on the text of the TJnited Nation'; Charter. In this connexion the International Court of Justice pointed out the following: "Some of the written stat~ments submitted to the Court have invited it to investigate the travauz prcl'1t.lra~m~e.~ 0f the Charter. Having regartJ, howev,~r, to the considel·~t1onsabove stated, the Court is of the opinion that it i~ not permissible, in this case, to resc.rt to t,-avauz preparf1!oires." 85. The Court also nl,J1t~d further on that: "Reference has also been made to 2\. document of the San Francisco Conference, in order to put the possible case of an unfavourable recommendation being vated by the Se- "Nowhere has the General Assembly received the power to change, to the \loint of revising, the mean.. ing of et. vote of the Security Council. In consequence, it is impossible to admit that the General Assembly has the power to attribute to a vote of the Security Council the character of a recommendation when the Council itself considers that no such recommendation has been made." 87. For these reasons, and in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Charter, the Court is of the opinio'.'.t that ~ "The admission of a State to membership in the Unitec'. Nations, pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 4 of thf; l' harter, cannot be effected by a decision of the Gen(~ral Assembly when the Security Council has mac'.e no recommendation for admission, by reason of the candidate failing to obtain the requisitp majority or (If the negative vote of a permanent Member upon a resolution so to recommend." 88. lhus, in its advisory opinion of 3 March 1950, the Court literally reproduces Rll the arguments repeatedly put forward by the USSR delegation in its defence of the principles of the Charter. 89. Such was the ignominious end of the attempt to use the authority of the International Court of Justice in order to bolster positions which are based on an obvious misinterpretation of the provisions of the Charter. 90. The attempt to by-pass the Secu:-ity Council ID the matter of the admission of new Members, and thus openly to violate the provisions of the Charter ha~ met with complete failure. It follows that the question of the admission of new Members can and must be <1ecid\~ only in strict accordance with the United Nations Charter and in the manner laid down therein. 91. Item 19 of the Geflleral Assembly's agenda refers not only to the advisor::. opinion of the Intt;rnatiunal Co~!rt of Justice, but c..'so to the question of the admi~sion of new Members. 92. On this qU€sti01i w,.; have before us for considera.. tion a draft resolution submitted by the Soviet Union delegation, which proposes that the General Assembly should recommend the Security Council to re~lew the applications for admission to membership of the United Nations submitted by thirteen States, namely: Albania, the Mongolian People's Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Finland, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, the Hashi.. mite Kingdom of the Jord9.n, Auc;tria, Ceylon and Nepal. 93. There is also a joint draft resoiution submitted by the delegations of Brazil, Canada, the Philippines, Syda, ~J.nd Sweden. It should be noted that this draft resc1ution is devoid of content and represents an attempt to avoid a decision on the question by leaving matters in their present unsatisfactory state. This draft refers to il1cluded even the South Korean puppet of the United Stat(~s, the blood·ostained anti-democratic re~me of Syngman Rhee. 94. On the question of the admission of new Members there is :1180 a draft resolution submitted by the delegation of El Salvador. With regard to this draft, it should be stated that the proposal it contains-that the States not members of the United Nations should send representatives to sessions of the General Assembly-is so entirely in conflict with the Charter and so openly leads to a flagrant violation of the Charter that it is unnecessary to demonstrate its harmful nature. Even the representative of Canada has been unable to agree to this proposal of El Salvador. That in itself is sufficient comment. 95. The delegation of the Soviet Union will, of course, vote against the draft resolution submitted by the delegation of Ei Salvador. 96. The substance of the joint draft rescttJtion and that of the draft resolution submitted by El Salvador pr,..- 7de evidence that an attempt is being made also at .lIS session of the General Assembly to continue the policy of favouritism, the policy of discriminating in favour of some States which have applied for membership in the United Nations and of discriminating against other States which have made similar applications. 97. The delegation of the Soviet Union pointed out at the last session of the General Assembly that such proposals were not likely to facilitate a solution of the problem of the admission of new Members to the United Nations. As is known, the Security Council has before it thirteen applications for membership. Nevertheless, the sponsors of the joint draft resolution and the delegation of El Salvador have picked out merely eight States from this list and are urging their admission to the United Nations. I disregarded the ninth nomination, since it concerns the South Korean puppet regime of Syngmau Rhee~ 98. The delegation of the Soviet Union cannot agree to this approach to the question of the admission of new Members. It is an approach which cannot ~ive any positive res'..11b.:, any more tnan it has been able to do in the past, a.nd it will not help to solve the problem of the admission of new Members. 99. .For these reasons the delegation of the Soviet Union will vote against both the joint draft resolution and the draft i'esolution submitted by El Sal'lador. 100. The USSR delegation has pointed out both at previons sessions of the General Assembly and in the Security Council that discrit.Jination in the question of the admission of new Members is inadmissible, artd that the United Nations must be guided on this question e..~clusively by Article 4 of the Charter, which states that: "Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving States which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.'" thirt~en States which have applled for mit:mbcrship in the United Nations should be admitted simultaneously, Hence, the Soviet Union is by no means to blame for the fact that these thirteen States have not been admitted to membership in the United Nations, and the references to the Soviet Union veto which have been made in this Assembly by the representative of the United Kingdom, and the references which have been made here by ~he representative of Canada, to the fact that the question of the admission of new Members remains unsolved because of the attitude adopted by the USSR, are slanderous assertions designed to lead public opinion astray and to misrepresent the real state of affairs. 102. When submitting its proposal for the admission of all thirteen States to the United Nations, the delegation of the Soviet Union pointed out that the USSR had serious grounds for opposing the admission tOI the United Nations of a number of those thirteen States: in order, however, to facilitate a solution of the problemthe Soviet Union was prepared to withdraw its opposi: tion to the admission of those countries, provided, of course, that there would be no discrimination against Albania, the Mongolian People's Republic, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, which had every qualification for admission to the United Nations, since they met all the requirements of the United Nations Charter. 103. The delegation of tht: Soviet Union continues to adhere to this position on the question of the admission of new Members and is convh~ced that if the United Nations acted in this way it would easily find its way out of the impasse into which it h~!; been. led by the policy of the United States and the Un~ted Kingdom on this question. 104. Statements have already been made' in this Assembly by a number of represp.ntatives who have pointed out precisely this aspect of the problem, namely, that the General Assembly can easily find a way out of its present difficult position on the question of the admission of new Members, provided tha.t no discrimi.. nation is practised and that aU thirfteen States are admitted to the United Nations. 105. The delegation of the Soviet Union wishes trl bring these views to the notice of the delrgations of the United States and the United Kingdom, so that they should not ignore and disregard them, and should _cease to insist on the position which they have mainta.ined hitherto, namely, selective admission to the United ,Na'" tJ10ns, whereby only those States which enjoyed the protectivn of the United States and the United King.. dom would be admitted to the United Nations, and whereby the People's Democracies would not be ad.. mitted. This position has le:d the United Nations into an impasse from which it -, ~11 not escape until the United States and the Unite~ Kingdom renounce this policy which is har'11ful to the cause of the United Nations. 106. With a view to resolving this deadlock on the admission of new Members, the delegation of the Soviet Union has submitted a draft resolution designed to 111. The sponsors of that resolution received a clear answer. The Court had no doubts that under Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Charter two things are required to effect admission: a recommendation of the Security Council and a decision of the General Assembly. More~ over, the provision requires combined action by the two bodies: the recommendation must precede the decision; it must form the foundation of the decision. By twelve votes to two-those of Judges Alvarez and Azevedo-- the Court was of the opinion that the admission of a State to membership of the United Nations cOl1ld not be effected by a decision of the General Assembly in the absence of a recommendation for admission from the Security Council. 112. Now that the wording of the Charter has been made clear to those who voted for putting the question to the International Court of Justice, it would be logical fot them to base themselves on the Charter and the interests of the United Nations and to abandon their policy of discrimination. 113. On 9 September 1949, the Soviet Union sub~ mitted a draft resolution demandingthe admission of all the States applying for membership.' This circumstance in itself proves that the Soviet Union did not and does not exercise discrimination toward any State, 1.14. This year,. the USS.R reaffirms its recommenda. tIon .to t,he Secunty C~uncI1 and asks for a review of the appl~catlOns of. Alba111a, the Mongolian People's Re. publIc, BulgarIa, Hungary, Romania Finland It I Portugal, Ire~al1d~ the Hashimite Kingdom'of ~6~ Jordan, Austna, Ceylon and Nepal. Further we ha befor~ us ~ shor:t dra.ft resolution which merel~ reque~~ the ~ecur~ty S:ounct! to keep. the applications under con.slderatIOn, In accordance WIth last year's resolution whIch was also unacceptable to our delegation. 115.. Th~ draft re.sol~ti9n presented by El Salvador fits III WIth the dlscr1lmnatory methods which have taken root here in previous years. El Salvador wishes to pla~ host to observers of one category of States, cxcll1dl1~g others, co~trar'y to the le~te~ ~nd the spirit of the Charter, and, In thIS way, prejudICIng their invitation at any given time at the request of one of the bodies of the United Nations or by decision of the General Assembly following upon a recommendation of the Security Council. It must be rejected. 116. The S:zechosl?vak delegation is of the opinion that the Umted NatlOns should be fully representative of all countries, regardless of their social, political or economic structures. That majority which treats .the ~rovisions of th~ Charter in accordance with its polio tIcal and vested Interests, of course, favours States in the measure of their adaptability. Those States not capable of enlarging the artificial majority in this Assembly and, because of this, not fitting in with the political calculations of the United States and its supporters, are barred from the Organization. But no one can succeed in convincing world public opinion that those countries which stand in the full strength of the worlel peace movement are not peace-loving- States or are not willing and able to carry out the obligations of the Charter. 117. Last year, from this same rostrum, I stated: "Why the United States decided stubbornly not to admit five People's Democracies and, by this political attitude, prevent the admission of such important States as, for instance, Italy into the union of the United Nations remains the secret of the American under-developed foreign policy".8 118. I think, and I heard today that I am not the only one, that the voting balance in this Assembly would not be greatly changed by the addition of new Members. But we note that the balance of world power has been· greatly upset by the historic events of the past year, and I think it is in complete accord with Mr. Albert Einstein's theory if we say that, during the ever accelerating speed of developments, certain. bi~ phrases are losing their weight. It is now up to the In~lvldual representatives and the majority in the SecurIty CouncIl to change their views. 119. The Czechoslovak delegation has n.ot cha~ged its attitude and is always ready to reaffirm It. It WIll support the Soviet Union proposal. 120. Mr. CASTRO (El Salvador) (translated fro,!, Spanish) : It seems that special circumstances make It Soviet Unbn-Albania, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and the Peop~e's Republic of Mongolia-are not accepted, it will never consent to the admission of, or to a favourable r,,~comt11endation by the Securit'.f Council, concerning Italy, Austria, Portugal, Ireland, the Hashimite Kingdom of the Jordan and other States which the General Assembly ~las declared fulfil all the requirements of the Chart'~r of the United Nations for mem.. bership in the Orgtmization. . 123. It was the Government of El Salvador which requested that the item concerning the admission of new Members should 'be included in the agenda of this session of the General Assembly. This of course shows the interest taken by the Government of El Salvador in this subject; it has constantly upheld the opinion that the excessi~e use of the veto in the Security Council, by one of its permanent members, in order to prevent the admission to membership in the United Nations of several peace-Iovi~g States willing to respect their international obligations, is a deplorable event in the history of the Organization. 124. The delegation of El Salvador has prepar~~d a draft resolution [A/1585] which has been distributed to all delegations and which is concerned exclt1sively with the admission of nine States which have made known their desire to be Members of the United Nations and which in the opinion of the 'General Assembly, as expressed in nine resolutions [294 (IV)] adopted on 22 November 1949, are peace-loving States, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter, and are able a.nd willing to carry out the obligations of Members of the United Nations and hence qualified to be admitted. 125. These States ~re : Austria, Ceylon, Finland, Italy, Ireland; the Hashimite Kin~dom of the Jordan, Portugal, the Republic of Korea and Nepal. 126. In the voting in the Security Council, the application for admission of each of these States obtained nine 'votes in favour and only one against, which was cast by the Union of S.oviet Socialist R:"publics. Because the USSR is a permanent member of the Security Council and because its opposition const'itutes a veto on the admission of these States to =,",p,mbershh) in the Organization, the Security Council has been prevented bania, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and the People's Republic of 1vfongolia. . . 131. . However, the General Assembly has already considered a request of this kind and has decided that it could not recommend that the Security Council should admit any of those five States. What were the'reasons for this? The reasons are clearly seen in the attitude those States have adopted in international affairs. 132. Among the resolutions adopted by the General' Assembly in 191~9, we find resolution 288 (IV) en. titled "threats to the political independence and terri.. torial integrIty of Greece". Two short paragraphs in the preamble of that resolution read as follows: " (i) Albania and Bulgaria have continued to give moral and material assistance to th~ Greek guerrilla movement, Albania being the p:dncipal source of material assistance; . " (ii) There has beeen an in\:rease in the support afforded to the guerrillas from certain States not Lordering upon Greece, particularly Romania." . 133. Can you tell me that against this oackground we . can really recommend the reconsideration of ~be ~pp1ica. tions for admission of Albania, Bulgaria/and Romania, which have made it quite clear that far from being. peace-loving, they arp. actively interverJing in an attempt to stir up civil war in Greece? 134. My delegation regrets that it would be ~nable to join with Brazil and the other countries proposing that all the ttpplicatious for admission should be reconsidered, because the General Assembly itself, for the. reas0!1s which I have indicated, has repeatedly decided that It cannot recommend the requests for aJmission . of Albania, Bulgaria and Romania. 135. Apart from this, at the fourth session of the General Assembly and at the p:oeserlt session, there ha-V& J 136. Thus, these censures have been expressed, and if one of the -principal duties of the General Assembly is to promote fundamental human rights, how can it recommend the reconsideration of the applications for membership of Albania, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary? The delegation of El Salvador opposes any recommendation for the reconsideration of these applications for admission by the Security Council. It is therefore unable to vote in favour of the proposal submitted by Brazil, Sweden, Syria and two other States. 137. The proposal submitted by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is very similar to the draft resolution submitted by Brazil, Syria, Sweden and two other COtl1ltries, since it recommends that the Security Council should reconsider all applications fQr admission, with the exception of one, that of the Republic of Korea. This is the only real difference between the proposal submitted by the Soviet Union and that of Brazil, Sweden, Syria and two other States. In substance they are the same: they recommend the reconsideration by the Security Council of all applications for admission, without taking into practical account the substantial difference between the applicants and their conduct in international affairs. 138. I should like to urge representatives to take into nccount this substantial difference when voting on the various proposals. 139. The proposal of the delegation of El Salvador is only in favour of Austria, Ceylon, Finland, Italy, Ireland, the Hashimite Kingdom of the Jordan, Portugal, the Republic of Kt rea and Nepal. I say again that these nine States have obtained in every vote in the Security Council during the past year, nine favourable votes and only one adverse vote, that of the Soviet Union. 140. Here in this Gener2i.1 Assembly in previous years we have recommended that the Security Council should reconsider the applications for admission of these States, but until today we have never recommended reconsidera.tion of the requests of Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and the Republic of Mongolia. 141. 11owever, the proposal of El Salvador goes still further, since it cannot be regarded as right or in accordance with the purposes of the United Nations that Sta:tes which, in the opinion of the General Assembly, fulfil all the requirements needed for membership in the Organization, should be denied all possibility of cooperating with the United Nations and that this should only be so because of the opposing vote of ~ sin~le 01?-e (!f the permanent members of the Secunty Councd. 142. An internatiC',al organization like ours, the purpose of which is-here I quote from the Chartflr-"to maintain international peace and security", cannot close its doors to States which fulfil all the requirem/~nts for membership in the OrganIzation. 144. The isolation which exists between our Organization and non-member States is complete. Even the letters and documents from the governments of these States which are sent to the Secretary-General for our information are never circulated. The only "Nay in which they can be circulated in special cases is for one of the delegations of the Member States formally to request that a particular document transmitted by the govern.. ment of a State which is not a member of t11e United Nation~ shouid be circulated. And all of you realize that in many instances our delegations find it a practical impossibility to request the circulation of ;rnportant official documents transmitted by non-rnembe.l States because it: is not even known that those documents have reached the Secretary-Gtneral. 145. Sometimes it OCC'Llrs to me that we are being treatf.d like small chiitiren who are not allowed to read cert~dn books. Please do not think that I am exag.. geral;ing. I tried to obtain a copy of a cablegram in which the government of an Asian nation sou~ht the aid nf the United Nations for the purpose of settling by p~acd'i11 negotiation its differences with another gov-· e;mment, differences which had led to an act of aggression against its territory. It was only after several weeks of effort that I succeeded in obtaining a copy of this important message which I had to have in order to carry out a task my government had entrusted to me. I later asked that the text of the cablegram to which I refer should bt: circulated to all the delegations of the General Assembly and I have been assured that it is being circulated :mw. I trust that this is so. 146. I hasten to say that I am not by any meaQs lodging a complaint against the Secretariat of the United Nations which is merely applying a measure of censorship to all correspondence which does not come from States Members of the Organization. This measure is, of course, presumably the result of a resolution adopted by a group of administrative officers or recommended by some particular committee which deemed to have special competence in the matter. 147. l\tly only purpose is to show how sadly our Genu eral Assembly is isolated even from those States which the General Assembly itself has stated to be peaceloving nations and whi<:h meet all the conditions laid down for membership in our Organization. 148, It is to rectify this state of affairs in so far as those nine States are concerned, that our draft resolution suggests that any documents and letters sent by these nine States to the Se<:retary-General for the information of the United N?tions should be distributed to the delegations to the General Assembly or, if the Assembly is not in session, to the foreign offices of Member States and th~ permanent delegations to the United Nations. 149. I cannof believe that there is anyone of us here who is not prepared even in this modest way to break that icy wall which separates our Organization from the nine peace-loving States; Austria, Ceylon, Finland, Italy, Ireland, PIJrtugal, the Hashimite Kingdom of the Jordan, Nepal and the Republic of Korea. 156. The requests ostensibly puttil1g all these States as on an equal footing are at odds with previous resolutions of the General Assembly. which were only in favour of the nine States I have mentioned so many times. 157. In addition to the fact that, under my proposal, the voice of these States will be heard in the General Assembly, this measure also represents a cordial J{esture of rapprochement which is not prohibited by the United Natiolls Charter despite the doubts which the representative of the United Kingdom mentioned here. 158. Recently 10 we adopted an extremely important resolution entitled "Uniting for Peace" [A/14811. And yet today, we are told that the very modest proposal activiti\~s of the United Nations and to keep their govof the Members of the United Nations? It is clear that ernmenb'· informed. In order to attend our meetings in extending the invitation, the recipient States will be they need a courtesy pass which is of course freely interested in appointing observers when the matters to issued to them by the Secretary-General. be dealt with by the General Assembly or its Committees 163. Bearing this in mind, do you think that the are of special interest to them. If these matters are of Governments of Italy and of 1the Republic of Korea interest to them, they will certainly apppoint observers would be displeased if the' Gel1leral Assembly were to and if they ar~ not interested they will obviously not extend a similar invitation to their observers to attend <1:0 so. This makes it plain that my delegation is proposour meetings and also to ~:xpress their views if ing that the nine States should be granted a right and consulted?, does not in any way compel them to accept obligations. 164. Now, when we are debating questions which 17~1. I believe that my words fully express the intenendanger the peace of the world, do you think these tion.' of the delegation of El Salvador in submitting the nine States to which I am referring would scorn at an draft resolution which is to be debated and then put to opportunity to come and be heard here and to answer a the vote and the object of which is to obtain for the general appeal to collaborate towards the prevention of United Nations the valuable co-operation of nine peace:- a war which seems imminent? Surely not. They would loving States. So that each delegation, by its vote, may sit with us, they would take part in our debates and support the degree of co-operation in the work of the they would give us the benefit of their opinions. General Assembly which they are prepared to offer the nine States to which I have referred, that is to say, 165. No one can deny that the participation we offer Au.:tria, Ceylou, Finland, Italy, Ireland, Portu~al, the ,to the nine States is limited, but, at the same time, that Hashimite Killgdom of the Jordan, Nepal and the participation indicates the true measure of all that the Republic of Korea, I now ask the President to take a General Assembly can 9ffer at this time. vote in the customary way, by a show of hands, on the 166. And if our Organization offers everything which proposal which I have the honour of submittin~, with is within its power to give, can it be said that it must the exception of the two final paragraphs of the operado more? The General Ass~mbly has limitations which tive part, relating to the appointment of observers and we all recognize. These limitations have been made the distribution of information from the nine States, on very clear by the advisory opinion of the Court, an which I ask for a roll-call vote. vpinion which is !I0t shared by many of the delegations 172. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): here. We recogmz~ these f~cts. There is no ~oubt that I have three more names on my Hst of speakers. I am our offer would give the mne States to which I have hopeful that we may be able to conclude the discussion been referring eloquent proof of the fact that the General of this item tonight. Assembly will continue to support their right to become ,I 173 Mr SPARKMAN (U 't d St t fA')' Members of the United Nations until the difficulties 11 . .. n~ e a es ? m~F1ca. which we find in our way today have been overcome. The UOlted States has Co?slstently bebeve~ 10 and . worked for the goal of umversal membership of the 167. The delegation of El Salvador feels that the United Nations. We have believed and we continue to p0'Yer of ~~pointing observers to the United. Na.t~o~s is bel~eye that the C?rganization will not reach its complete a high prlvdege. So far we have granted thiS prtvtlege frUIbon or effectiveness until all the States of the world to the Organ!zation of American States and to t~e Arab beco~e Members. Our efforts in the Security Council League and lIt should be noted that the latter mcludes and m the General Assembly have been directed con- 'I some States which are not members of the United sistently towards this aim. Unf0l1unately, however, we Nations. have witnessed year after year the spectacle of States 168. In any event there is no argument which can believed b:y the overwhelm.ing majority of t~is .A:ssembly convince us that we are trying to offer somethingpaltry to be quahfied .and deserv10g of m~mbe~shlp be10g kept to the nine States whose co-operation in international out by the arbltra~ and, ~o our m1Od, unproper use of affairs would be most valuable. At least, we do not the veto by the Soviet Umono think that the governments of those nine States will feel 174. On the other side of the coin, may I recall statethat what w/e are offering them is of so little importance ments made in the past by my go~ernment to the effect that it is not: worth considering. that it d.oes not intend to permit its privilep:ed vote to 169. Nor does the last argument against our proposal prev:ent the admission ?f any applicant Stat~ which h~s carry great weight. It is said that by inviting the nine received seyen affirmabve votes m the Securtty Coun~tl. States to appoint observers we are placing upon them Indeed, thiS Assembly. last year passed a resolution a cert~r.in moral obligation to do so. Nothing is further [296 K (IV)] request10g t~e permllnent members of from the truth than this. The invitation which my !he Secur~ty C<?unctl to refr~1O fro~ t~e use of the veto delegation iis submitting to the General Assembly is a m conneXl0n With membershtp ~pphcatl(~ns. Many statestanding invitation, which means that the States conments of. s~pp~rt fo~ the Umted Nattons have been cerned win be able to appoint observers as well as made durm.g thiS sessIOn ?f the ~eneral A~sem~ly. The withdraw them and appoint other observers when it ~epresentat~ve.of the Soviet UOlon.has saId thIS. !fete suits them, IS an opportUnity for a small act which would contrtbute ',. .'.. materially to the success of our Organization. If the 170. Oncle a~atu, do yo~ thmk that tu the present state Soviet Union would agree, as my government has, not of world affatrs these mne States would not hasten to to use its privileged vote to block the admission of 175. Unfortunately, other applicants are, by their own actions, continuing to prevent their own admission. In previous years, th~ majority of members in the Security Council and General Assembly, including the United States, have not been able to support the admis~ion of Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Outer Mongolia. This position has been taken on Charter R'rot\nds. I believe that other representatives will agree that these applicants have done nothing during the past year' to improve their qualifications; their conduct has even increased the doubts about their qualifications. All of these candidates have been rendering at least moral support to aggression in Korea. Some of them, at this very moment, are waging a war of nerves aR's.inst a State seated in this hall, Yugoslavia. The attitude of thlee of them can be judged by the fact that they have flouted the recommendations of this Assembly with respect to violations of peace treaty obligations of human rights, and have disregarded the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on their peaceful settlement obligations under these same treaties. One applicant, Outer Mongolia, has never demonstrated that it has the capacity to play the normal role of a State in the international community. I could cite further examples of this sorry record. My government cannot, therefore, at this time, support the admission of Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Outer MonR'olia. 176. I express again, on behalf of my government, the hope that these States will alter their policies and their actions so as to permit my gQ'\,-ernment and others to vote for their admission. The sooner this happens, the more pleased and satisfied we shall be. l77. Under present conditions it seems to us that there is no action which the Assembly can take this year, other than to reaffirm the past resolutions which express the overwhelming sentiment here, that Austria, Italy, thl': Hashimite Kingdom of the Jordan, Finland, Ceylon, Portugal, Irebmd, Nepal and the Repubiic of Korea are all qualified for membership and are deserving of admission. We support the resolution before the Assembly in this sense presented by Brazil, Canada, th~ Philippines, Sweden and Syria [A/15i1]. and hope that conditions wotlld make it possible for the Security COl ,ncil to forward, in due course, afl5rmative recomffi_cldations on fae!:),::, States, as well as others if by their conduct HtC:Y demonstrate their worthiness. 178. A dt'aft resolution has been presented by the Soviet Union [Af1577]. It has one glaring defect and two other defects of lesser import. Its glarinR' defect is its omission of the Republic of Korea. It is really unnecessary t() sS,y mor~. Another serious defect is the omission of a provision relC2ting to the elimination of the veto in cor.nexion with questions of membership of the Uni~cd Nations. A third reason for not adopting the USSR draft resolution !s that the re,view of the other 'applications is covered by the joint. draft resolution before the Assembly. 179. My delegation will therefore oppose the Soviet Union draft resolution. 181. My delegation questions the desirability ,of adopt~ ing para,graph 2 of the operative part, providling for a formal observer status on the spur of the moment and without more car~ful study. While we undentand and sympathi~e ·v'dl.n the spirit underlying the st1~gestion, we feel that it has many implications which should first be considered. For instance, is it netes~ary? ~rany nonmember States have observers following the pJ'oceedings of the United Nations. Furthermore, the practice has been established of inviting non-tnember States to the table of the United Nations when cases in which they are directly interested are under discussion. Also, we wonder whether the applicants themselves would find the proposal attractive. The nine States mentioned are all qualified for and deserve full membership. Would anything short of full membership be acceptable to them? My delegation would therefore oppose paragraph 2 of the operative part, as well as paragraph 4 of the preamble which relates thereto, although we aR'l'ee com~ pletely with the sentiment expressed in that paragraph of the preamble. 182. Paragraph 1 of the operative part of the draft resolution, if slightly redrafted, would not be obiection~ able. It seems to us, however, to be redund~nt, since its objective is provided for in the joint draft resolution which my delegation supports. Hence, my delegation will abstain from voting on that paragraph. 183. Similarly, there is no objection to paraR'raph 3 of the operative part of the draft resolution. My delegation will vote for it although we are not con~aced that it is really necessary. 184. In conclusion, I should like once again to express my conviction that a satisfactory solution to the problem of membership could be achieved today if all of the permanent members of the Security Council would abandon the use of the veto in connexion with appli{:a~ Hons for membership.

The question of the admission of new Members to the United Nations reappears on the agenda of every session of the Genteral Assembly with monotonous regoularity. Year after year, it becomes more and more evident that for a number of States to re" main outside the Organization creates a situation which is both. abnormal and harmful. Yet, all attempts to solve that question remain of no avail because of the attitude adopted by the United States and several countries which follow in its steps. Political machinations,a policy of discrimination against countries whose political and social structure is not to the liking of the United States, the violation of obligations flowing from international agreements and a prejudiced and twisted interpretation of the Charter-such are the basic elements of the policy consistently pursued by the United States in this matter. The result of this policy is that the United Nations now has in its files thirteen applications. for admission to membership in the Organization, which have not received the majority provided for in the Charter. ber~hip. At the same time, however, we are firmly oppo~ed to the repeated attempts made to admit only a few S"'~tes including the favourites of whom the Unit~1 States f~els sufficiently sure that they would obediently follow its policy in the Organization anc1 that they would increase still further the organized mechanical majority of votes and blocs. We have been witnessing such attempts for four years already. While blindly and unreserved'y advocating the admission of nine States, the United States at the same time is relentlessly doing its utmost to reject the applications of other countries. 187. The question of the admission of Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria into the United Nat~ons is a particular glaring example of the way in which the Anglo-American Powers flout international obliJ{ations. The Peace Treaties concluded with those countries and signed by the United States and the United Kingdom, as well as the Potsdam Agreement, contain perfectly dear and unambiguous provisions regarding the support to be given to their applications for membership in the United Nations. Consequently, voting against their admission or even abstention can only be reg-arded as a gross violation of freely assumed obligations. 188. The same applies to Albania, a country which heroically resisted the fascist invaders and whose C011- tribution to the common struggle by far exceeded its strength. The United States and the United Kingdom, however, resorted to the harshest methods and referred the case to the International Court of Justice.ll It was in this particular case that Albania displayed the maximum good will as regards respect for international institutions and international law. 189. Lastly, in the case of the Mongolian People's Republic, when even the most captious could not find fault with anything, they advanced the laughable argument that a considerable number of Member States had not yet established diplomatic relations with that country. 190. The follfJ" ll!ng fact illustrates the cynical attitude adopted by the Anglo-American States: while thus opposing the admission of five countries which are restoring.their economy by means of tremendous efforts and doing' their utmost to promote and maintain frlp.ndly relations with their neig-hbours, the United States and the United Kingdom tried at the same time to have the so-called Republic of Korea admitted into the United Nations. I shall not cite facts to show what this artificial so-called State and its g-overnment really were, because we have all been able to form an opinion on that during the debate on the Korean question at this session of the General Assembly. 191. Duringthe last three years, all sorts of political and legal mareuvres have been used to prevent the adoption of a just decision on the question of memherdecid(~d to repf~at its manreuvre at last year's session of the G~neral Assembly. Disre~arding both the rules oi procedure of the Security Council and the decisions taken aLt San Frandsco, the General Assembly again decided to refer the case to the International Court of Justice. This time the question put to the Court was worded. in such a manner as to invite an opinion which would be contradictory to the Charter. However, the question was so patently absurd and illegal tha.t, as might l1ave been expected, the conclusion of the Court was qwite clear and was adopted by a crushing majority. That opinion is correct, but it is utterly superfluot1s because it only confirms that white is white, and that, under the Charter, the General Assembly cannot hke decisions regarding the admission of new Members without a recommendation by the Security Council and that such a recnmmendation c~!!not b~ made wit:aout the con-::urring vote of thf> five great Powe.is. 192. There is always an outcry when the Sovit.'t Union vetoes the admission of a new Iv.Iember. At the same time, shame-faced silence is maintained abUi:t c1U the completely unjustified vetoes repeatedly exercised by the United States, the United Kingdom, France and their friends, in order not to admit five countries which undoubtedly deserve to be Members of the United Nations. A shame-faced silence is maintained over a fact which dearly shows who really supports the principle of the universality of the United Nations: it was, in fact, the ~30viet Union which in 1949 submitted a draft resolutioa12 proposing the admission of all the thirteen States which had been vainly seeking admission to the Unite.d Nations for a number of years. 193. That resolution was rejected [252nd meeting] anc. a gross collective veto slammed th~ door in the face of tho~~ thirteen States. The responsibility rests wholly on those who flout their obligations, violate the Charter and do harm to the Organization by blindly indulging i~ unbridled discrimination ag-ainst countries which do not obey their orders, which freely settle their own way of life and which refuse to be exploited. 194. In these circumstances, how can we speak of obstructionism by one Power, as the representative of the United States did today? It was precisely the Soviet Union which submitted a conciliatory and compromise proposal to admit all the thirteen States into membership. If there is any obstructionism, it comes from the Anglo-American bloc which refuses all compromise and agreement and continues to reject the applications of those States in a categorical and unjust manner. allowi~~g discrimination and iniquity to prevail. In its endeavours to reach a compromise solution, the Soviet Union closed its eyes to the fact that some of the favourites of the United States did not possess all the necessary qualifications for membership. The application of South Korea obviously constituted too glaring a violation of the Charter to be accepted, but the Soviet Union did agree to the admission of eight other countries sponsored by the United States. 196. Consequently, tb(~ re~!lonsibility for the absence of any positive decision on the question now on our agenda and the failure to settle a number of other questions, in short, the responsi~i1ity for the impasse in which we now find ourselves falls squarely on those who, because of selfish considerations, narrow doctrines and extreme prejudice, refuse to agree to a compromise solution of international problems. The policy of the United States is responsible for the absence of thirteen States whose participation wou!d undoubtedly have contributed to the develtJpmellt :md strengthening of the United Nations. 197. The draft resolution submitted by El Salvador is imbued with the same spirit which characterized all the s~t, 'Jents made on behalf of the Anglo-American bloc last year. It sets forth the same principle of discrimination against some Stat("~ seekingadmission to the United Nations and tries to obtain special privileges for nine States, includingthe so-called Republic of Korea. Furthermore, that draft resolution represents an illegal attempt, and one that is in contradiction with the Court's opinion, to impose upon the Security Council a decision regarding these nine States. Lastly, the draft resolution provides for ,ome new form of membership for these nine States-I would say a kind of semimembership-which not only contradicts both the spirit and the letter of the Charter but also defies elementary common sense. It is nothingelse but a manceuvre designed to drag American favourites into the United Nations through the back door. 198. Consequently the draft re8olution submitted by El Salvador should be rejected as being both irregular and illegal. 199. On the other hand, we have before: us a draft resolution submitted by the Soviet Union recommending that the Security Council should I~onsider the applications submitted by thirteen States for admission into the United Nations. Thus the USSR is once again giving proot of its determination to admit an countries into the United Nations irrespective of their political stru~ture and without any discrimination whatever. 200. The Polish delegation considers that this is the only draft resolution which is correct in substance and consistent with the Charter and the interests of the United Nations. We shall, therefore, vote in favour of it. 201. Mr. KHOMUSKO (Byelorussian Soviet Soc!alist Republic) (translated from. Russian) : The question of the admission of new Members to the United Nations has been on the agenda of the Security Council and the General Assembly for several years and still remains.unsolved. The reason for this abnormal situation lies in the policy of the Anglo-American bloc, which 202. The representatives of the Anglo-American bloc have made every effort to oppose the admission of these States to the United Nations, merely because the reactionary circles of the Anglo-American b:,~oc do not approve of the political systtm in those cotmtries. The purpose of these tactics is pei"tectly obvious: it is to add to the Members of the U&iited Nations only those States which are favoured hy the Anglo-American bloc. 203. As we know, on 22 November 1949 the fourth session of the G~!1er;l.1 Assembly adopted a resolution [296 J (IV j] sponsored by the Argentine delegation, recommending that the International Court of Justice should be asked for another advisory opinion. Th, Inter~ational Court of Justice was asked the following questIOn: "Can the admission of a State to membership in the United Nations, pursuant to Article 4, 'paragraph 2, of the Charter, be affected by a decisi.~n of the General Assembly when t~la Security Council ha~ made no recommendation fc admission by reason of the candidate failing to obtain the requisite majority' or of the negative vote of a perlT~nent member upon a resolution so to recommend?U 204. In reality, there was no reason to apply to the International Court of Justice for an answer to that question, since the criteria for the admission of States to membership in the United Nations are clearly set forth in Article 4 of the United Nations Charter. 205. As we know, the International Court of Justice submitted its advisory opinion on 3 March 1950. The Court pointed out in its opinion that the text of Article 4, paragraph 2, of the United Nations Charter meant that the Assembly could only decide to admit upon the r,~commendation of the Security Council. The recomm,endation of the Security Council was thus the condi.. tion precedent to the decision of the General Assembly on the admission of States to membership in the United Nations. 206. The Argentine representative to the International Court of Justice stated, on behalf of his government. that, in the first place, the Security Council was obliged, under Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Charter to give either a fa.vourable or an unfavourable recommendation, which had received 7 'Votes, and, in the second place, that the General Assembly had the right either to agree or disagree with the recommendation of.the Security CouncU; even in the event of the Assembly~s disagreement with an unfavourable recommendation of the Security Council, the Assembly could admit a State to the United Nations. submittin~ conclusions and opinions on candidates for membership in the United Nations. 211. In the opinion of the Court, the assertion that the ~bsenceof a recommendation by the Security Council should be regarded as an "unfavourable recommenda- Honu would le?d the General Assembly to take upon itself. the powe'l' to change, to th~ point of reversing, the meaning o~ a 'Vote of the Security Council. 212.: In the oI>~nion of the International Court of Justice, Article 4, paragraph. 2, of the United Nations Charter, envisages a favourable recommendation and that only. That paragraph does not provide for a "negative recommendation". The Court concludes its opinion with the following categorical statement: . "The, Court,. "By twelve votes to two, HIs ot the opinion that the admission of a State to 'membership in the United Nations, pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Charter, cannot be effected by a decision of the General Assembly when the Security Council has made no recommendation for admission, by reason of the candidate failing to obtain the requisite majority or of the ne~ative vote of a permanent Member upon a resolution so to recommend". 213. Judges Alvarez and Azevedo voted ag-ainst the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and submitted dissenting opinions to the Court. The dissenting opinions of judges Alvarez and Azevedo do not call for extensive comment. Both judges oppose the use of the so-called rule of veto with regard to the ad..mission of new Members to the United Nations and regard this as an 'labuse of right". The An~lo-American 1;>loc stubbornly opposed the admission to membership in the United Nations of democratic countries, whose peoples took an active part in the struggle against the armies of Hitler and Mussolini. As is known, Albania conducted a long and unr.elenting struggle against fasciaH~i R~publics) (translated from Russian): The speeches of the representatives of the USSR" Poland and the Byelorussian SSR, w~th which my de1eg-ation is in complete agreement, have covered what the delegation of the Ukrainian SSR was proposing to :,ay on the quelltion of the admission of new Members ;to the United Natiolls. I will therefore be brief in statil1g my delegation's position. 222. In the first pla.~e, the delegation of the Ukrainian SSR would like to point out that the decision takc:~n by the General Assembly at its fourth session to refer the question of the admission of new Members to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion was a violation of the United Nations Cha.rter. At the plenary meeting of the General Assembly on 22 No~em­ ber 1949 [251st meeting], at which,that illegal resolution was adopted, the delegation of the Ukrainian SSR pointed out that neither the Charter as a whole nor its ~everal Articles can be or are subject to interpretation by the Court, because that power is not conferred on the Court by its Statute and because every organ of the United Nations is entitled, where necessary, to interpret those Articles of the Charterto which its operations give effect. 223. The procedure for the admission of new Members, as had been said, is laid down in Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Charter, under which admission must be recommended by the Security Council before the- General Assembly can proceed to l~onsider the matter. This provision of the Charter is so explicit that it calls for no further elucidation or interpretation. The resolution adopted at the fourth session of the General Assembly by which the question of the admission of new Members was referred to the Court for an advisory opinion was therefore uncalled for and directly contrary to the Charter. 224. The question of the admission of new Members has been discussed at every regular session of the General Assembly since 1947. The question had been 017 the Security Council's agenda throughout that period. The discussion of this question both in the Security Council and in the General Assembly has clearly indicated that the admission of new Members to the United Nations is a political question. The Court, which is required to confine itself to legal matters, was accordingly not competent to express an opinion on that question. 225. The efforts which the delegations of the United States and of certain other countries have exerted and are still exerting to prevent the admission to the United Nations of democratic States such as Albania, Hungary, ~ul~~ria, Romania and the Mongolian People's Repubbc IS a particularly clear indication of the political nature of the question. 226..In his statement today, the United States repre~ sentattve has confirmed that the United States will continue to oppose the admission to the United Nations of .t~e People's Democracies because it finds their pobtlcal str~cture and economic system unacceptable. 22(. The El Salvadorean delegation's draft resolution whIch has been submitted for the consideration of the "The Court . . . is of the npinion that the admi~.. sion of a State to membership in the United Nations, pursuant to paragraph 2 ('If 'Article 4 of the Charter, cannot be effected by a decision of the General Assembly when the Security Council has made no recommendation for admission, by reason of the candidate failing to obtain the requisite majority or of the negative vote ot a permanent member upon a resolution so to recommend." 229. The Intt.~rnational Court of Justice has thus upheld the only possible interpretation of Article 4, paragraph 2 of the United Nations Charter, and its conclusion is a complete rebuttal of the incorrect position and unwarranted demands of the delegations of the United States and the United Kingdom, who have set themselves against one of the most important Articles of the United Nations Charter. 230. The Court's conclusion also reaffirms the indisputable fact that great-Power unanimity, which has been under fire from the Anglo-American bloc for some years, is unquestionably required for the adoption of decisions on the admission of new Members to the United Nations. 231. I need hardly say that the Court's opinion adds. nothing new to the interpretation of the Charter. Confining itself to the question referred to it, the Court merely confirmed the correctness \)f the position taken· by the delegations of the USSR, the Ukrainian SSR, the Byelorussian SSR ~d the People's Democracies at previous sessions of the General Assembly on the question of the admission of new Members. . 232. According to Article 4, paragraph 1 of the United Nations Charter, membership in the United Nations is open to all peace-loving States which accept the obligations contained in the Charter. Contrary to the assertions of the United States representative, Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and the MonJ'{olian People's Republic are unquestionably peace-loving States and are undeniably entitled to membership in the United Nations. 233. It would, therefore, be improper to adopt the El Salvadorean draft resolution, which singlEtS out from the applicants for membership in the Uni\:ed Nations only those States which the United States and El Salvador, its mouthpiece, cottnt on as partners and supporters, while the question of admitting the People's Democracies remains undecided. 234. For this reason we shall vote against the El Salvadorean draft resolution and against the draft resolution submitted by Brazil and four other delega... tions. The delegation of the Ukrainian SSR whole... - heartedly supports the draft resolution of the USSR on resolution is designed to ensure that the overwhelming majo!~:ty of States are simuitaneously admitted to mr,mhership in the United Nations. 235. The delegation of the Ukrainian SSR will accordingly vote in favour of a General Assembly recommendation to the Security Council to review the applications of Albania, the Mongolian People's Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Finland, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, the Hashimite Kingdom of the J ord~n, Austria, Celyon and Nepal for membership in the United Nations. 236. Mr.ORDONNEAU (France) (translated from French) : The French delegation has no new arguments to put forward on this subject, which has already been debated at length at three previous sessions of the Assembly. All the', possible arguments have been exhausted. We cow;ider that it was pointless to reopen a question to which no practical solution can apparently be found at the present time. We can only do what.th~ joint draft resolution of Brazil, Canada, the Philippines, Sweden and Syria invites us to do, namely, recall the previous resolutions of the Assembly and request the Security Council to reconsider pending applications in accordance with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. 237. The French delegation will therefore vote for the five-Power joint draft resolution. It cannot, however, vote for the Soviet Union draft resolution, which has a similar purpose but ignores the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly at its 1949 session. With regard to the draft resolution submitted by El Salvador, which we were unfortunately unable to study properly because it did not reach us in sufficient time before the meeting, we shall be compelled to vote against paragraph 2. 238. We do not, as a matter of fact, believe that a decision of such magnitude can be taken lightly. Less perhaps in its wording tha!1 by implication, the El Salvadorean draft resolution contains an important and entirely new proposal that we cannot accept without thorough study. 239. Moreover, we are by no means certain that an invitation to certain countries to send observers to the General Assembly and the Interim Committee will be welcomed by aH those to whom it is addressed. In any event, non-member States already have the right to accredit observers to the United Nations. Some of them have made use of that right. Are we not justified in assuming that all those desiring to make use of that right have already done so? 240. The theoretical position taken in this matter by the French delegation does not imply that we relinquish the views we have so far upheld with respect to the applications pending before the Security Cc,JDcil. Onethird of Europe is absent from our deliberations. For five years we have deprived ourselves of the invaluable contribution that could have been made by those peoplec;, whose culture has had so great an influence on world civilization. ~~43. The International Court of Justice has, on two Heparate occasions, been requested to give an advisory opinion on the general question of admission. It J{ave its first opinion on 28 May 194818 when, by a majority cf nine to six, the judges held that, under Article 4 of the Charter, admission could not juridically be made dependeI~t on conditions not expressly stipulated in that Article. The Court held, in particular, that the admission of a State could not be made contingent on the admission of ~nother State. 244. The second opinion of the Court, J{iven Oit 3 March 1950, deals with another generai question of admission. The point was first raised by the delegation of Argentina at the fourth session of the General Assembly. Although our original proposaP' was subsequently amended by the Ad Hoc Political Committee, the purpose of the request made to the Court was clearly to clarify two basic points. The isst:f~ was the scope of the term "recommendation" in Article 4, that is to say the function of the General Assembly, the organ which decides upon admission, as against the part played by the Security Council, which has recommending powers. 245. The Court failed tG ~p.ply to this first part of the request, possibly on accmmt of the term.s in which the General Assembly's resolution [296 (IV)] was drafted, although we feel that the records of the debates which were transmitted to the Court should clearly have shown the doubts which a number of delegations entertained concerning the scope of the word "recommendation" in Article 4. 246. With respect to the ~econd, important part of the request-that relating to the voting procedure when the Security Council is dealing with recommendations nader Article 4--the Court, by a majority of twelve to two, held that the admission of a State to membership in the United Nations cannot be effected by a decision of the General Assembly when the Security Council has made no recommendation for admission, by reason of the candidate's failure to obtain the requisite majority or by reason of the nr.:gative vote of a permanent member. 247. In other words, the majority of the Court, as the opinion expressly states, proceeded on the assumption that, as the question put by the General Assembly . implied, there is no recomm(~ndation if one permanent member of the Council casts a m.'gative vote. 248. Those of us who participated in the debates of the Ad Hoc Political Committeelll at the previous 249. !1.S the opinion is of such strictly limited application, no light could be shed on the important arg-uments a{~vanced during the debate on the question, which is so complex as to defy an over~implified solution. We feel tnat in a problem such as this no rigid formula can l~revaiI eit1Jer in the interpretation of the Charter or of ,:he resolutions of the General Assembly. ~\50. We do not intend to restate our attitude in detail hilt we do wish to emphasize 01'.1r belief that it ',vas not the purpose of the Charter to e:;tabIish a system which, in the final anaylsts, makes the admission of a State dependent on the will of one single Member State and that this is possihle even if objections were raised that are bol,sed 011 con~iderations other than those precise!y stated in Article 4. 251. Our objectlLln to such a system of interpretation is based on reasons of principle which apply to the present si~uation as they do to situations which might arise in t he future. 252. We accept the right of veto as a temporary solution, in view of the prevailing political reality. We further agtee that the Security Council should have special powers for the purpose of maintaining peace. 253. Both cases, however, represent a departure from the· overriding principle of the sovereign equality of all Member States as laid down in the Charter. The exception, or pri\Tilege, should be express and whenever doubts are enterta~ned as to its existence or iegality it must be regarded as non-existent. 254. We have not thought it desirable, during the present session of the G€neral Assembly, to take any further action toward a finai solution of the problem, because we, like others, reaHze the gravity of the international situation. But we reserve our right to return to this delicate question o:rthe admission of new Members, at a more suitable time. 255. Now with reference to the draft resolution submitted at this session of the Assembly, I wish to explain the attitude of my delegation with respect to those proposals. 256. The USSR proposal simply recommends to the Security Council to reconsider the applications for admission of all countries which have applied so far, with the excepti'on of the Republic of Korea. In the draft resolution [A/1079] which it submitted at the last session of the General Assembly, the Soviet Union included a paragraph referring to the existence in the Assembly of a general feeling in favour of the admission of all the States mentioned in that proposal. The present USSR draft resolution [AI1S77] does not mention Such a feeling, and we shaH therefore vote in favour of fiv~-Power proposal, [A/1S71] refers to resolution 296 (IV) adopted by the General Assembly, which stated that Austria, Ceylon, Finland, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, the Hashimite Kingdom of the Jordan, the Republic of Korea and Nepal should be admitted to membership in the United· Nations, and which accordingly requested the Security Council to reconsider the applications of these countries. We cannot oppose this reconsideration requested in the five-Power draft resolution, and we shaH .the?:'efore vote in favour of it also. 258. Nevt~rtheless, we wish to make it clear that although w.e shall vote in favour of these two draft resolutions, we hd.ve very little hope that they will solve the problem. If our doubts are confirmed, and we do not achieve even a partial solution of the problem during the coming year, then, clearly, the Assembly will have to seek other means of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion to the affair. 259. The problem is steadily becoming more political in character, and we must solve it by applying political standards; but our solution must not be allowed to involve permanent refusal of membership to certain countries merely because we disagree with the political ideas of other States which also desire membership. If universality of membership is not considered sufficient in itself-and we admit that it is not an absolute principle-it will have to be resorted to in the end, as the only remedy for this intolerable situation. 260. The Argentine Government believes that it has made a contribution to the task of finding a solution of the problem. We have tried to demonstrate that this Assembly is the final authority in decisions relating to the admission of new Members. The opposite point of view has prevailed, and the opinion of the Court unquestionably strengthens the attitude taken thus far by the majority of the delegations. The efforts of some delegations can in no way alter that opinion, any more than the hrilliant minority opinions of judges A1varez and Azevedo were able to alter the course of events. But the fact that we respect the will of the majority does not mean that we abandon our convictions. How much longer we can allow the present situation to continue is a question which we cannot answer at the moment. What we do know is that the situation may continue indefinitely, and that accordingly several delegations have done their best to find a means whereby at least to a certain extent the countries which have not yet obtained admission to membership of the United Nations can be enabled to collaborate so that a closer relationship between those countries and the United nations may emerge to the advantage of our work. 261. That we think is the reason behind the proposal C submitted by ~he delegation of El Salvador as presented in document A/1585. Under the terms of this proposal, the Governments of Austria, Ceylon, Finland, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, the Hashimite Kingdom of the Jordan, tht: Republic of Korea and Nepal would each be invited to send an observer to attend sessions ofthe t..rab League [299th meeting]. 263. It is, moreover, the practice for representatives of the specialized agencies to attend meetings of the General Assembly's Committees, and also of t~e Economic and Social Council and the TrusteeshIp Council. As can be seen, the General Assembly is liberally extenJing the right to send observers to groups other than States. 264. A generous policy has always been followed in so far as the States are concerned, so that when a nonmember State is especially interested in any item under discussion it is invited to take part in the debates of the main Committees and sub-committees. In practice the sole difference between a Member State and a nonmember State invited to attend meetings is in the voting rights. 265. In the draft resolution submitted by El Salvador, the right to take part in discussions is granted to States which the General Assembly considers should be ~embers of the United Nations. Even if the majority of the General Assembly do not feel qualified to de~ide. to admit those countries as Members of the Orgamzatton, there is no reason to admit those countries as Membersof the Organization, there is no reason why they should not·be entitled to be represented and to take part in the discu~sions. What the .~eneral Assembly can do in the partIcular cases to whIch I have referred -the Org'c.J.nization of .I\medcan States and the Arab League-it can also apply generally. 266. The Charter does not make provision for any of the:;e cases. These are cases in which the General Assembly is ~ompetent, under Article 21 of the Charter, to make its own rules of procedure. These remarks describe the powers of the General Assembly and the prevailing practice. 267. As regards the position of the States referred to in the draft resolutif\n of El Salvador, we do not consider that this is a question of Members with a lower status. Although Article 19 of the Charter mentions at· least one case whete a Member ha~ no. vote-:- the case of arrears in the p~ymeIit of contrlbutlOns--lt is clear that the draft r ~solution of El Salvador does not aim at the creation of a spedal category of Members. On the contrary, we understand that the draft in question has nothing to do with membership, for those States cannot become Members until the General Aesembly so decides. In the meantime, if ~he draft ~ub­ mitted to us is adopted, those States ,-1111 be entttled to take part in. the Jiscussions, without the right to vote, whenever they wish. to do so. lG See document A/C.6/L.113. welcom~ as fellow Members a number of countries, such as Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Ceylon, and so on, which have all the qualifications required by Article 4 of the Charter. 270. 11y delegation is not very sure that, if we decide to renew our request to the Security Council for reconsideration of this matter, we will have a better chance this year, in view of the attitude adopted by a certain country with regard to those applications. However, my delegation will support the draft resolution submitted by Brazil, Canada, the Philippines, Sweden and Syria. 271. We also have greater sympathy for the draft resolution submitted by the representative of El Salvador because, in our opinion, it tends to afford an opportunity to the States whose membership in the United Nations has been preve.l.lted from participation in our work solely by the veto in the Security Council. Some doubt has however been expressed as to the desirability of adopting paragraph 2 of the operative part of that draft, which requests the Secretary-General to invite the governments concerned to send an observer to the sessions of the General As&embly and its Committees. It is feared that such an invitation might not be accepted. 272. In this connexion, I wonder whether a slight modification of wording would not render the paragraph more acceptable. Therefore, I would venture to propose an amendment, so that the paragraph would read: "That, pending admission to membership each of the governments of the States to which this resolution applies be allowed an opportunity to send an observer to sessions of the General Assembly and its Committees, including the Interim Committt':e, in order to express their views and furnish information whenever consulted by the delegatiofll (ri1f any ~.,\' rmber State; and".

The debate is closed. 274. We shall now vote on the various draft resoIn·· tions before us. When we come to the draft resoiution presented by the delegation of El Salvador, I shall ask the repr.esentative of El Salvador whether or not he accepts the amendment submitted by the delegation of Thailand; if so, the amendment will be considered as part of the original proposal; if not, we shall vote on the amendment separately. 275. I now put to the vote the draft resolution presented by the delegations of Brazil, Canada, the Philippines, Sweden and Syria [A/lS7l]. Paragraph 2 of the preamble was adopted by 15 votes to 7, with 22 ab'stentions. Paragraph 3 of the preamble was adopted by 14 fJotes to 10, with 19 abstentions. Paragraph 4 of the IfJrea:mble was rejected by·ZO fJotes to 7, with 22 tlbstentions. 286. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): We shall now vote, paragraph by paragraph, on the three paragraphs of the operative part of the draft resolution. Paragraph 1 of the operative part was adopted b, 16 votes to 6, with 25 abstentions. 287. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): A roll-call vote on paragraph 2 of the operative part has been requested by the El Salvadorcan delegation. A vote was taken by roll-call. Denmark, having been drawn by lot by the Presiclenfl was called upon to vote first. In favour: Egypt, El Salvador, Greece, Panama, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela, Argen- tina, Burma, Cuba. Against: Denmark, France, Iceland, India, Iran, Israel, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Poland, Sweden, Ukrain- ian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Yugoslavia, Australia, Belgium, Byelo- russian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Chile, Czechoslovakia. Abstaining: Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, New Zealand, Peru, Philip- pines, Syria, Turkey, Afghanistan, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Colombia. Paragraph 2 of the operative part was rejected by 27 votes to 11, with 16 absten.tions. 288. The PRESIDENT (t'ranslated from French): We shall now vote, by roll-call, on paragraph 3 of the operative part of the draft resolution. A vote was taken by roll-call. Belgium, having been drawn by lot by the President, was called ·upon to vote first. In favour: Bolivia, Burma, Colombia, Cuba, Domini- can Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Greece, Iran, Pan- ama, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Argentina. ~-~----:------------_._-------------------~ The draft resolution as a whole was rejected by 19 'Votes to 13, with 19 abstentions.

I will remind the Assembly that, in two resolutions adopted on 1 and 2 December [314th and 315th meet~ ings], and concerning, respectively, relief and rehabili.. tation for Korea [A/1595] and relief for Palestine refugees [A/1603] the Assembly entrusted to the President the appointment of a negotiating committee. 292. I have appointed the fonowing States to this Committee: Canada, Egypt, France, India, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America, and Uruguay. I request the members of this Committee to meet as soon as possible to begin their consultations. The mee~ing rose at 6.55 p.m.