A/PV.324 General Assembly

Both in the Fifth Committee and in the General Assembly the USSR delegation voted against the draft resolution on the scale of assessments. for 1951 which provides for changes in the' percentage contribution of twenty-three countries. It considers that there is no sufficient justification for making such material changes in the existing scale and increasing the contributions of a number of States, including that of the Soviet Union. 5. In determinin~ the scale of contn"butions on the basis of the national revenue and the per capita.. income, the following two factors are particularly.. ~.. portant: .the .extent of the damages suffered by mdi..., vidual Member States of the United Nations as· a result of the Second World War, and the ability of a given.Member State to procure the foreign currency in which the contributions to the Organization.are made. The Committee on Contributions and the Fifth Committee disregarded both these factors when th~ drew up the scale of assessments for 1951 which the Fifth Committee then submitted to the General Assembly· in a draft resolution. 6. Yet it is a known fact that the USSR suffered great losses in the .war against the Hitlerite bloc. The war against Germany and Japan cost the Soviet Union ~y the Fifth Committee, and supported the USSR amendment which provided that the scale of assessments for 1951 should be maintained at the present level, without any changes. 20. Mr. SHVETSOV (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic) (tra.nslated from Russian) : The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR feels it necessary to explain its vote. 21. The Fifth Committee, in its report on the scale of assessments for the apportionment of the expenses of the Ur£~ted Nations for 1951, proposed an increase in the contributions of fourteen States, including the Byelorussian SSR. 22. The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR voted against that prof'osal becauset in proposing a change in the scale of assessments, neither the Committte on Contributions nor the majorltyin the Fifth Committee had re~rd to me chief criterion for the assessment of conttibutionst namely, the extent of the damage suffered by States during the Second World War and their sacrifices L'1 men and materials in the common struggle against Hitlerite fascism. Appointments to fill vacancies in the membership of subsidiary bodies of the General Assembly: reports of the Fifth Committee (A/1671, AI 1672, A/1673, A/1674 and A/1675) [Agenda item 43] 26. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I put to the vote the draft resolutions contained in the reports of the Fifth Committee [A/1671, A/1672, A/1673, A/1674 and A/1675]. The draft resolutions were adopted unanimously. Status of budgetary authorizations for the finan.. cial year 1950: (d) supplementary estimates for 1950: report of the Fifth Committee (A/1677) [Agenda item 38] 27. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I put to the vote the draft resolution contained in the report of the Fifth Committee [A/1677]. Priority to be accorded to the disci18Sion r;f a particular agenda item

I call upon the representative of Egypt on a point of order. 29. Mahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt): We have, as the eleventh item on our agenda for today, a matter of extreme urgency. With respect to that matter we have a report from the First Committee [A/1717] which deals, among other things, with the draft reso.. ~ution approved by the Committt.'e; the principal aim of that draft is to sect,re a cease-fire in Korea. I do not need to dwell·at length upon this point and upon the urgency of this question. I submitthaf we should give priority to this item before we pass on to deal wi.th any ot~er item. I hope there will be approval of this suggestIOn. . 30. The PRESIDENT (translated fro'hJ French): The representative ('f Egypt proposes that the As- Intervention of the Central People'8 Gavemment of the People's Republic of Chb,~ in Korea: report of the First Committee (A/1717) [Agenda item 76] 32. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I must ask the Assembly whether it wishes to have a discussion on this item of the agenda. It was decided not to discuss the item. 33. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): The First Committee has .submitted an interim r~rt . which contains a draft resolution [A/1717]. Generiilly, I call on members of the Assembly who wish to explain their votes after draft resolutions have been voted u~n. In the present case, however, the question is a very important one. and if delegations wish to explain their votes, I shall caU on them to speak ~ediate1y. 34. I call upon the representative of the Soviet Union for an explanation of his vote. . ~5. Mr. MALIK (Union,of Soviet Socialist Repubbcs) (translated from Russwn) :.The USSR delega.tion deems it essential to make the following statement in explanation of its vote. . 36. As we know, the question of the"alleged interven.. tion of China in Korea, submitted by the delegation of the United States and several other delegations, was _included in the agenda of the First Committee as item 76. f'he Commi~e<:proc;;:eded to consider that question, havmg, on the InSistence. of the Anglo-American .bloc, interrupted its consideration of the question of United States aggression against China, submitted earlier by the USSR delegation. . 37. In the course of the debate,1 several draft resoIu.. tions w~re submitted wi~ regard to th~ question which the Umted States delegation had sublDltted to the First Committee. The delegation of.the Soviet Union, for its part, submitted a draft resolution [A/C.l/MO] recommending the immediate withdrawal of foreign troops from Korea and that the settlement of the Korean question should be left to the Korean people themselves. 38. Having forced the First Committee to engage il· legally in the consideration of this question, the Angto- American bloc then· did its very ut.tnost to obtain priority of consideration for another draft resolution [A/C.1/6,41], in spite of the fact that it had been presented later than the USSR draft" Tesolution calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Korea. 39. The delegation of the Soviet Union.urged.thatita draft resolution should be considered and put to the vote, but owing to the efforts of the Anglo--Americ:an bloc, the First Committee proceeded to approve the d.raft resolution contained in document A/C.l/641. It then interrupted its work and postponed consideration by the First Committee had to be sent to the Genend Assembly for consideration. 40.. The USSR delegation considers this procedure irtegular and takes exception to such a strange method of work. We protest against the consideration by the Genet'.:'l Assembly of the text submitted to it by the First Co1'l.11nittee before that Committee has exam.ined and taken a decision otfthe draft resolution of the Snviet Union and the other draft resolutions which have been submitted to it on the same question. 41. As to the text now before the Assembly, the real purpose of the measure.s proposed in it is to enable the United States armed forces in Korea to continue their armed aggression. This is clear from the statements made by the United States and United Kingdom representatives in the First Comtnittee on 12 December,' when the draft resolution set forth in document A/C.I/ 641 was discussed. 42. The United Kingdom repre3entative, Mr. Younger, speaking of the. SUb.stance of the draft resolution., said that the proposal for a cease-fire contained in the draft was merely a temporary measure strictly limited in scope. He further stated that he supported the draft resolution on that practical, strictly limited basis, which would ensure th~ safety of United States and United Kingdom troops .~n. Korea. The United States representative, Mr. A~tin, took a similar position. 43. .The statements. of the United States and United Kingdom representatives in the First Committee show that they oppose the immediate withdrawal of foreign troops from Korea because they are seeking thereby to continue United States armed intervention in Korea and aggi'ession in the Far East, whereas a proper solution of the Korean question is possible only if foreign troops are withdrawn from Korea and the Koreans themselves are allowed to settle the questions which concern their country. 44. It was precisely on those grounds that the USSR delegation submitted its <haft resolution to the First Committee, recomm~ndil1g·, ~ t have already said, that all foreign troops should be it.'1111ediately withdrawn from Korea.and that the decision~l'l the Korean que.c;- . tion should .be entrusted to the KorC211 peopJ~ themselves. . 45. The delegation of the Soviet Union insists on the ,adoption of tb:..~t draft resolution; it therefore voted in the First Co:cunittee against the draft resolution contained in document A/C.I/M1 and wUlvote against that text .in the General Assembly. 46.. Mr. BARANOVSKY (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) (translated from RUSSia1t) : The delegation of the Ukrainian SSR fully associates itself with the statement of the USSR delegation concerning the ~ p~ocedure which has latelr. been adopted .by UmtedNations organs for the conSIderation of certain qt1estions~ 47. The fact that the General Assembly now has before it the draft resolution which was originally submitted in.the First Committee as document A/C.I/M1 is a consequence of the irregular procedure which the United States delegauonhas shariielessly foisted upon reason, the Assembly has no business to discuss the draft submitted to it. 51. With regard to the substance of that draft, the delegation of the Ukrainian SSR shares the opinion of the USSR delegati9n that the. real purpose of the measures proposed therein is to enable United States armed forces in Korea to continue their armed intervention. 52. For this reason, the delegation of the Ukrainian SSR will vote against the draft resolution before the Assembly. 53. Mr. WIERBLOWSKI (Poland) (translated from Russian) :A few days ago the First Committee decided, in spite of the opp,osition of a number of delegations, to include in its agenda the United States charges concerning the so-called intervention' in Korea of the Central People's Government of the People's N.epublic of China. 54. The purpose of the United States complaint was to relegate to the background another question, a question in which the United States was the accused, namely, the complaint of the Chinese'People's RepUblic that the United States had violated the territonal in- ' tegrity and sovereignty of the Chinese People's Republic, tnat it had carried out barbarous air raids over Chi!1ese territory, and that ith~d commi~ed aggression agamst the People's Democratic Republic of Korea. I must say that the astonishing procedural manoeuvres which we witnessed during the consideration of matters connected with the Far Eastern situation are unparalleled in the history of the United Nations. 55. It all began when the United States submitted the q!1esti.on of F~rf!10sa. for in~lusion in th~ agenda in VIolatIOn of eXIsting InternatIonal declarations and the principles of the Cllarter. Yet when it came to the con- States, according to Mr. Austin, can use that as a powerful propaganda. weapon to mislead the people who are longing for peace; for a cease-fire does not mean the enCting of hostilities, which we have been requesting for. the past six months and whi~h we shall go on requesting. 62., Naturally [ am not surprised at Mr. Austin's aP': proachto the qtte$tion. lalso understand the part played by the Philippines_ It is, however, difficult to under. stand how ~lv.e Asian countries which, by 'rirtue of their geograpmml situation, should have given more Carried away by temporary successes, MacArthurand his henclun.en proceeded to the third stage.. by bombing China and seizing Taiwan. 64~ It was only when the Korean people's anny, regrouped and reinforced by Chinese volunteers, launched" a counter-offensive and inflicted a number of defeats upon the enemy and forced him to retreat-it was only then that the question of a cease-fire was raised. 65., The United States, which bears the responsibility for the aggression in Korea and which has not scrupled to use the most brutal methods, wiping -out Korean towns, destroying Korean industry and dropping thousands of bombs, upon civilian objectives, is now saying that furth.er bloodshed must be prevented. 66. The United States representative listened win, stolid,indifference in the Security Council and in the First Committee to the complaints of the Government of the Korean ,People's Democratic Republic. Those complaints contained descriptions of the immense de.. struction and unbelievable suffering which the air, land and sea forces of the United States had inflicted upon the Korean people. Instances were cited of atrocities connnitted by United States troops and the Syngman Rhee regime against the inhabitants of the occupied territory.At that time the United States repres~ntative said nothing about human sacrifices or devastation, although the American Press was full Tof photogra~hs of shootings, of pnsonersof war being tortured, of battle-fields covered with the bodies of the dead, of Korean towns in ruins. The United States representativeand,incidentally, several other representatives, were completely indifferent to the draft resolution caning for' thecessation of the bombing of towns and civilians.t 67. Now, however, that United Stab~s forces are re-. treating along the entire line and t1mt they need a breathing spell in order -to regroup and continue their aggression, the United States representative speaks of human sacrifices; devastation, etc. 68. I ,do not, question the "sincerity-and good 'inten;. tions of most of the twelve Asian countries which ~n... sored the draft reso~ution of the~irst .Committee_ They , must, however, realtze what use 1$ being made of their initiative, and what plans the United States 8gg1'essors have in connexion with their proposal. - . 69. During the discussions in the First Committee, it was repeatedly emphasized that a dangerous situation had been brought abot;tt in the Far East. It is impo$Slote 70~ There can be no doubt but that it is the duty of the United .Nations, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter, to maintain peace and security and, to that end, to endeavour to resolve conflicts, prevent aggression and seek the peaceful settlement of disputes. 71. The draft resolution which has been submitted to us does not, however, serve that purpose and actually is more likely to help the aggressor by enabling him to bide his guilt and to. encourage hhn to commit further acts of aggression. The Polish delegation therefore win vote against that draft. 72. I should like to add that the Polish delegation has continuously tried to achieve an equitable settlement of the Korean question on the basis of the principle of the self-determination of peoples. That is evidenced by the draft resolution [A/1426] which it submitted a few weeks ago together with four other delegations, which called for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Korea, the cessation of hostilities and the establishment of a unified and democratic Korea. We were guided by the principle that the first step towards the solution of the Korean problem must be t.1}e withdrawal of foreign troops. 73. Six months of fighting in Korea and the developments in the Far East have fully confirmed the soundness of our point of view. Only if foreign troops are , withdrawn can peace be re-established in Korea. Only then will the Korean people be in a position freely to settle their own destiny. 74. Such a settlement of the Korean question would contribute to the maintenance of peace in the Far East. Those principles are enunciated in full in the draft resolution [AjC.lj640] which the USSR delegation submitted to the First Committee. That draft sets out the only correct and constructive approach to the question, and the PC'/lish delegation wholeheartedly supports it. 75. Mr. KISELEV (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic) (translated from Russian): My delegation considers it necessary to make a statement in explanation of its vote on the draft resolution before the Assembly. 76. . In the First Committee, the delegation of the Byelorussian SSR objected to a procedure whereby the General Assembly would consider this draft separately and before other draft resolutions on the same item. But, owing to .the pressure exerted by the Anglo- American bloc, the. majority in the First Committee decided to submit it for the consideration of the Assembly entirely out of·turn; other draft resolutions, including the USSR draft caUing for the immediate withdrawal of foreign troops from Koreal have thus been disregarded. . 77. The representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom., speaking in the First Committee, strongly supported the draft resolution which is now before the Assembly. This draft, which ostensibly calls for a cease-firep is really designed to enable the United ex~se not only for not voting for it but for voting to oppose the attempt to attain a cease..fire in Korea. 91. Let me 'recall that this is not by any means the first time that we have been working for a cease-fire in Kqrea. Since only a few hours after the fighting started there, we have been working for a cease..fire. We even met on a Sunday, the memorable Sunday, 2S June, and w€; adopted a resolution in favour of·a cease..fire in Korea.8 Nobody could then attribute mysterious or partial motives to our action, and I do not think that anybody is now entitled to attribute anything but good motiyes to our action today. 92. What in fact does the draft resolution ask for? It asks that ways and means should be sought to determine the basis on which a satisfactory cessation of hostilities in Korea can be arranged and that recommendations should be made to the General Assen1bly as soon as possible. Could there be anything wrong in that? On the contrary, there would be everything wrong if we failed to do so, if we failed to try to establish a cease..fire in Korea. We are trying to determine the basis on which a satisfactory cease..fire can be arranged. 93. How can anybody, in logic or in fairness, challenge. such a stand? I should like at the same time to point out that when we worked with this objective in view, we did so having in mind our responsibility as Members of the United Nations and not only our interests as peoples living in important countries of the world. r should add to that that my country is.at the cross-roads of the mighty whenever any war takes place. We have, nothing to gain from war, and we have everything to gain from peace. It is almost a sarcasm of fate that the time has come when.one ha.s to point out such a plain fact, to which the man in the street and every other person should unhesitatingly subscribe and accept as the reality. Nobody can gain anything ,from war, neither the victor nor the vanquished, and we who live at the cross..roads of the mighty whenever they disagree and whenever they start war have every right to ask that this madness of successive wars and preparations for wars should be stopped. It is high time to do it. I. alternative to peace alld tranquillity or to the service of ~ the human race. r f 95. We have 5,0 far failed to agree upon so I many matters, including only yesterday the question of ~i.. the control and re<.!t.1ction of armaments, which weigh so heavily upon the economy, the social life and the prosperity of the human race. We shall continue so to fail to agree as long as there are people who are hesitating to work for peace and to build up the structure which is necessary for peace in the world. I hope that those who are hesitating to subscribe to our attempt in favour of peace will realize, and will realize soon, that there is growing and building up, spirallin¥ and snowballing, a world public opinion which detenmneclly refuses to be driven to war. We must pay heed to that public opinion. We must not continue to think of people as cattle who car... be driven to war and to massacre at the whim of tho&e who cannot think of anything else. 96. The world is waiting for our action and I submit ih:lt we should lose no more time. We should insist on ading, and we should act for pe.~ce, and then the time will come when everyone will know who is building up and who is tearing down the st11.1cture of human civilization. 97, The PRESIDENT (translated from French) : So far, I have allowed those who have spoken on this subject to exceed the prescribed time limit of seven minutes. The question is so important, its gravity is such, that I really have not presumed to insist on strict adherence to the rule. I hope, however, that explanations of votes on other items will not take more ,than seven minutes. 98. I shall now.put the draft resolution of the First Committee [A/1717] to the vote. A roll-call vote has been requested. A vote was taken by roll-call. India, having been drawn by lot by the Presidentl was called upon to vote first. Jn favour: India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway" Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United State:s of America, Urugu~y, Venezue~a, Yem~11., Yug~sl~via, Af~h~nistan, Argentina, Austraha, Belgtum, BobVla, Bra:il, Durma, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cubal Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuado:-, Egypt, Et Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland. Against: Poland, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Byeloru6'3ian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia. . Abstaining: China. teenth items on the agenda for this meeting [place of meeting of th!? si:rth session and items 12, 301 67, 591 21(f), 20 and 21]. It was decided -not to discuss those items, Place of meeting of the sixth session of the Gener",} Assembly: report of the Fifth Committee (Aj1714) 101. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): We have before us a draft resolution submitted by Bolivia, Colombia and Peru r...4./1593] and the report of the Fifth Committee [A/1714]. 102. The representative of Pakistan wishes to explain his vote. 103. Sir Mohammad ZAFRULLA KHAN (Pakisstan) : On behalf of Pakistan, I am compelled with great regret to raise a voice against the draft resolution on this item which has been submitted to the General Assembly by Bolivia, Colombia and Peru. 1'04. The draft resolution is brief. It bases its Jl"ecommendation to the effect that the sixth session of the General Assembly should be convened in Europe on two consMerations: first, "that the building intended for the , holding of the General Assembly will not be completed unti11952" and, secondly, "that in these circumstances there may arise technical difficulties liable to impede the normal functioning of the Assembly and the convenience of its deliberations". 105. Any difficulties that are contemplated in the draft resolution cannot be new ones. In previous years, the session had been held at Lake Success and at Flushing. Committees sat at Lake Success and the full Assembly sat at Flushing. We are assured that if the session were held at Headquarters in 1951, Committees could be convened at the Headquarters building in Manhattan, though the Assembly would still have to hold its meetings at Flushing. Surely that will reduce the technical difficulties a:'1d the inconveniences that have hitherto been experienced in that the sessions of the Committees will be held in New York. It will not add to the inconveniences. With regard to the Com.. mittees, two hours' additional work could most certainly be done each day with the journey to and from Lake Success eliminated. 106. Let us compare that. with our experience in 1948 in respect both of the normal functioning of the Assembly and of the convenience of its deliberation.s. I have no right to speak on behalf of other delegations, but I can say with confidence that our own experience was that. with regard to the transaction of the business of the Assembly, we were put to a great deal of inconso efficient as it was at the temporary headquarters, even with the division between Lake Success and Flushing. And the greater part of that inr.:onvenience will disappear next year. 107. In any case, there is one criterion by which we can judge the convenience of the Assembly's deUberations and the efficiency of its functioning. In Paris, we were functioning under the best conditions that could be provided in Europe inasmuch as after a consideration of every other venue, the Secretary-General came to the decision that the most convenient place was Paris. So it was the most convenient place at which the Assembly could have sat in 1948. The very best arrangements were actually made in Paris so that we were working under the most ideal conditions that could be provided in Europe. Yet what was the progress of business? We sat until 12 December. We then had to adjourn until 5 Aeril following, and we had to sit for six weeks in New 'Yark to 'conclude our business. It might be contended that perhaps the agenda was extraordinarily long. I believe it was a. shorter agenda than we had last year and than we have this year. 108. Compare that with working at the temporary headquarters where, as I have said, we have been working under the handicap that the Committees have had to be convened at Lake Success, a distance of about 50 minutes to one hour from New York, which entails a journey in the morning and one in the afternoon back again. Sometimes representatives have had to attend meetings at Lake Success and also at Flushing. A great amount of that will be eliminated altogether when Committees alone are sitting. No journeys outside Manhattan will be necessary. Therefore, from the point of view of the efficiency of working and functioning of the General Assembly and the speed with which we can dispose of our agenda, there will be a saving of at least two hours in respect of every Committee that sits each day and the progress will even be faster. Under the best conditions in Europe, it will be no faster than in 1948 and, owing to certain factors, it may even be slower. 109. With all due respect, we are of the opinion that the two considerations set out in support of the draft resolution do not hold water. On ex.amination they cannot be substantiated. But there is also the question of expenses to consider. The report of the Fifth Committee [A/1714] indicates that if the session is held in Paris, there will be a minimum additional expense of $1,750,000 which all of us, of course, will have to provide. Of course, we do not provide it directly, but we provide it through our contributions. If the session is held in Geneva, there will be an additional expenditure of $1,600,000. 110. That is not the whole story though, because the report, in paragraph 3, states the following: "The Secretary-General in his report drew'attention to the assumptions on which his estimates had been prepared, including, in particular, the assumption that the host govenlroent would provide, without charge to the United· Hations, a General Assembly hall, conference and office space, buildings, maintenance services, utilities, telephonic and telecommunications installations, 115. For all these reasons I ·eamestly submit to the Assembly that it would not be wise, certainly for 1951, to vote for the holding of the session in Europe. It is possible that in 1952, owing to other considerations, in addition to the political advantage that we might then feel would be derived for the session being held elsewhere than in New York, it may be desirable that we should adopt that course. And one of those eonsidera... tions may be that 1952 will be a presidential election year in the United States. But that we shall consider when the 'question has to ,be considered at the next session. wi~th great deliberation. 117. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I call upon the representative of Bolivia on a point of order. 118. Mr. COSTA du RELS (Bolivia) (translated from French): Although the General Assembly decidednot to have a discussion on this question~ the representative '0£ Pakistan has in fact opened the debate. 119. As a sponsor of the draft resolution, I am not entitled, under rule 88 of the rules of procedure, to explain my vote. Nevertheless, with the President'~ pernnssion, I shall ask the Assembly to give me it attention, as I should like to put forward certain arguments. In the Fifth Committee, only the budgetary implications of the question were discussed. It is on the political asp~cts of the qUf~stion that I should like to ~omment here, provided of course that the Assembly is prepared to listen to me. 120. Th~ "DImSIDENT (translated from French): It seems to me that the first comment just made by the representative of Bolivia was justified. The representative of Pakistan C'Annot have understood me when I said that there would be no discussion on the question and that the time allowed each speaker to explain his vote would be 'limited to seven minutes, but it was obviously difficult tor me to interrupt him. 121. As the representative of Bolivia said, rule 88 of our rules of procedure specifies that "the President shall not permit the proposer of a proposal or of an amendment to explain his· vote on his own proposal or amendment". 122. Only one membe!' of the Assembly has requested to speak in explanation of his vote. It is the representative ()f Australia, whose remarks are always very-brief and very rele'Vant. After hearing him, we can proceed to the vote and no discussion of the question will take place in the Assembly. 123. Sir Keith OFFICER (Australia): Like the representative of··Pakistan, my delegation will vote against the joint resolution. We believe that the grounds on which the proposal for holding the session in Europe is put forward, namely, administrative considerations and the difficulty of holding the session·in New York, are ill-founded. . 124. There is apparently no doubt as to the availability of facilities here, next year, at least as adequate as those we have enjoyed at this session. On the contrary, we have no guarantee whatever that if we go to Europe the.facilities: will be anything near as good as they can be here. Apparently, next year, according to the assurance we have obtained, four committee rooms will be a'VaiIable in Manhattan, so that there will be no need to make the journeys to and from'Lake Success. The building at Flushing will be available for p;enary meetings. I can only say that when the question was discussed in the Fifth Committee,· an assurance was 126. Thus we should be faced with this position. We have already thit. year had to increase our budget by $1,500,000. If we go to Europe, we are going to add at least. $1,750,CC0 to that. Can we seriously contemplate doing that in the present situation? Can we take upon ourselves the additional burden of a sum not less than $1,750,000, which might easily, as the representative of Pa1.dstan explained, go up to $2,500,000 or Ir,:ore? 127. Let us think of the other responsibilities we have and which, it has been explained, there has been some difficulty in meeting, such as the need to provide for rehabilitation in Korea, the need to provide for the welfare of children, the need to assist the Palestine refugees and our expanding advisory social services. 128. For that reason my delegation will vote against the joint draft resolution. 129. Mr. DEVINAT (France) (translated from French): The delegations of Bolivia, Colombia and Peru have taken the initiative of presenting a joint draft resolution proposing that the sixth session of the General Assembly should be hei1 in Europe. The French delegation cannot do otherwise than give its unqualified support to that proposal, the wisdom of which, is borne out by important considerations of principle to which considerations of political expediency lend added weight at the present time. 130. Generally speaking, my delegation has always surported the principle that the main organs 0f the United Nations should meet away from Headquarter~, at mare or less frequent intervals. It is not that we attach too little importance to considerations of economy, which favour the holding of most meetings at Headquarters, but that we think that such considerations should not be permitted to obscure the political or moral advantages which, we feel, are involved in a reasonable decentralization of the activities of the United Nations organs. 131. Direct contacts between 'the various principal organs of the United Nations and areas of the world distant from New York cannot but help the United Nations to get a quicker and better grasp of the many local problems. Such contacts also enable the United ~ations to view the world problems before it in a new 11ght. And let us not forget that local public opinion, whi~h so often is poorly or inadequately informed, finds in those contacts and in the presence of our organs an opportunity better to understand our aims and ideals and to acquaint itself with the machinery which serves those aims and ideals. 132. Those reasons have ,already led the French delegation to vote on several occasions in favour of the holding of sessions of the Economic and Social Council in Geneva and, only a few days ago, in favour of the A-40464-Apri11951-3,600 . .~-~~~-------------------------------------- visits to various countries would help the peoples to understand its work, just as they would help the United Nations to understand the peoples and to know their needs. One of those needs stands out particularly: the need for peace and security. The presence of the United Nations General Assembly on a continent where peace of mind is more disturbed than anywhere else could not fail to have some effect. The Assembly should meet in Europe next year. It can serve the cause of peace there too and, moreover, it can work even more effectively for international understanding. 140. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I shall put the draft resolution [A/1593] to the vote. A roll-call has been requested. A vote was taken by roll-call. Saudi Arabia, having been drawn by lot by the President, was called upon to vote first. In favour: Saudi Arabia, Syria, Thailand, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet So-' cialist Republics, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Bolivia, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador: Ethiopia, France, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Iran, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay! Poland. Against.: Sweden, Turkey, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Yemen, Australia, Canada, O.ina, India, Indonesia, Israel; Liberia, Nethezlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan. The meeting rose at 1.5 p.m.