S/PV.1660 Security Council

Members of the Council will recall that the meeting yesterday was adjourned following the adoption of a motion presented by the representative of the Sudan. We shall therefore now continue the discussion of the item on our agenda. 7, ‘The PRESIDENT (inzteqxetaatio!~ from French): I should now like to make a statement in my capacity as the representative of BELGIUM. As the Belgian representative in the Committee on the Admission of New Members stated at i,ts meeting of 11 August, Belgium favours the admission of Bangladesh to the United Nations. My Government recognized that new State severat months ago. It has given it considerable assistance and will continue to do so in order that that young country can rehabilitate itself and build its future on a sound basis. 2. Mr, BOYD (Panama) (interpretation from Spanish): Since I have been absent for severai weeks this is the first time that I have had an opportunity to welcome most cordially the representative of Guinea, Ambassador Jeanne Martin CissB. For the same reason I have not yet been able to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency for the month of August, 9. My country takes pleasure in the participation of the new State in the work of the specialized agencies; indeed we sponsored the entry of Bangladesh into the World Health Organization. This participation will make it possible also to increase the assistance of the international community to Bangladesh, , ,’ 10, Hence Belgium will vote in favour of the draft resolution contained in document S/10771 and introduced by India, the United Kingdom, the USSR and Yugoslavia. 11. Indeed, after having considered the candidacy of Bangladesh, my Government came to the conclusion that the country fulfils the five conditions laid down in paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Charter. Furthermore, we maintain the view that the enumeration of the five conditions is exhaustive and not given simply as an example. In other words, it shares the advisory opinion issued on 28 May 1948 by the International Court of Justice1 to the effect that a Member of the United Nations which is called upon, in virtue of Article 4 of the Charter, to pronounce itself by its vote either in the Security Council or in the General Assembly on the admission of a State to membership of the United Nations is not juridically entitled to make its consent to the admission dependent on conditions not expressly provided by paragraph 1 of the said Article. Hence, my delegation will not be in a position to support the draft resolution introduced by the representative of China. 12. However, this position of principle does not exclude an assessment of certain factual circumstances which are involved in an examination of the candidacy of a new State, 13. !Vlth regard to Bangladesh my delegation would have preferred the Council to have some time for reflection so that it could have all the information necessary to enable it to render a more valid judgement on this question, We would have hoped-and we have not concealed this-that the new State could enter with the unanimous support of the 15 members of the Council and the support of Pakistan, In particular, my country attaches very great importance to the objective laid down by the founders of the United Nations when they drafted Article 27 of the Charter, In the Security Council, the organ bearing primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, this rule of the unanimity of the five permanent members has the purpose of avoiding any confrontation and hence of promoting settlement by conciliation, i4. Furthermore, my Government would have hoped that on the eve of the introduction of the candidacy of Bangladesh for membership in the United Nations outstanding questions stemming from the events of December last could be settled to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned, 1 Conditions uf Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Cllarter), Advisory Opirzion, I.C.J. Reports 1948, p, 5 7. 16. Before I go on to explain the vote of my delegation or to let the Council know what further course of action my delegation will propose, let me mention an aspect of yesterday’s procedural debate which I consider to have been unfortunate. 17. It was implied during the course of the procedurd discussion on an adjournment that those who spoke in favour of it were necessarily opposed to the admission of Bangladesh. That was certainly not the case with my delegation. The adjournment was quite properly called for by the representative of the Sudan, It was requested to enable delegations to reflect upon some of the important statements that had been made, to consult with each other where appropriate and to communicate with their Govern. ments, as is expected of them when dealing with a question that is both delicate and controversial. 18. When this Council met on 11 August [16.5&h meet. ijzg] to consider the application of Bangladesh, I pointed out that had ‘the issue been a straightforward one there would have been no difficulty in my delegation pronounc. ing itself in one way or the other. But it has become quite evident from the debate that has ensured both in this Council and ;n the Committee on the Admission of Nejv Members that there are widely opposed viewpoints-not so much on the admission of Balgladesh per se as 011 the timing and conditions under which it should join the United Nations. In those circumstances it seems only right and proper that the Council should proceed with great circumspection and without undue haste. 19. My delegation has studied carefully the arguments pot forward by both sides. It has also made it own independent study of the situation. We maintain that because of the rigid positions taken within this Council the two draft resolutions as they now stand would, like the main characters of a Shakespearean tragedy, both end up lying dead on the table before us. However, since the majority of members appear to be bent upon staging the kind of scene I have envisaged, I shall state my delegation’s position on the two drafts. 20. With regard to the draft resulutiLan presented by the delegation of China, while my delegation agrees in principle to a further postponement of the consideration of the application of Bangladesh, it does not consider it equitable to make it a condition that the application should be considered only after all the provisions of Security Council resolution 307 (1971) have been fully implemented. 21. We hold that view because a great many of the provisions of that draft resolution are directed solely towards relations between India and Pakistan. It is true that the Simla Agreement, which my Government has warnlIY 25. While some States may argue that the Charter is binding only on the contracting parties, States not Members of the Organization which prefer to ignore its provisions OI decisions which flow from them have been made to understand in other cases that they do so at their own risk. The case of Bangladesh cannot be an exception. The authority of the Security Council is of course seriously undermined when decisions of the Council on matters of international peace and security are ignored. Certainly, to approve the application of Bangladesh without reference to the letter and spirit of resolution 307 (1971) would be doing a disservice to the world Organization. One is compelled to ask whether any other Member State has sought membership of the United Nations while holding in its custody, directly or indirectly, 90,000 prisoners of war and civilian internees of another nation, and particularly of a Member State of this Organization. Where is the precedent for an applicant State coming to this Organization seeking membership and yet holding in custody 80,000 troops and 10,000 civilian internees, contrary to a Security Council resolution? Never in the history of this Organization have we been faced with such a situation and, as 1 said yesterday, we have to treat each case on its merits, 22. 011 the second draft resolution /S/10771j, namely, the four power draft resolution submitted by the Soviet Union, India, the United Kingdom and Yugoslavia-my delegation will also abstain if it is pllt to the Vote in its Present form. Admittedly there is IIIUC~I substance to the case that has been made by a majority of members of this ccullcil for the early admission of Bangladesh and their Position is supported by precedents, by the fact that Bangladesh has satisfied certain criteria-not all, certainlyand by reference to certain realities. These realities, which are recognjzed by my Government, include the principle of universality, the fact that Bangladesh has established itself as a viable State of 75 million people, the fact that it is recognized by more than 86 States and the fact that it has already been admitted to membership of many of the specialized agencies, 23, But there is another set of realities which have been put forward and which cannot be dismissed as if they did not exist or had no relevance at all to the question. It has been pointed out, and with justice, by those who arc opposed to the immediate approval of Bangladesh’s request for membership of the United Nations that Bangladesh has still to comply with certain prol+ions of Security Council resolution 307 (1971) relating to the conflict which overtook the Asian subcontinent last winter and to which it was a party. Among the provisions of that resolution was a demand for the release of all prisoners of war and other civilian internees and detainees. My delegation was glad to note from fhe communication submitted to this Council yesterday by the Chargi d’affaires of the Embassy of Bangladesh in Washington /S/l 07741 that his Government had complied faithfully with regard to the protection of all ethnic and linguistic minorities in Balgtadesh, for whose safety considerable concern has been expressed both in this Council and outside. But that same communication unfortunately made no mention whatsoever of the 80,000 Pakistani prisoners of war and the 10,000 civilian internees, iacluding many women and children, whose release and repatriation are subject to the approval of the Government of Bangladesh. 26. This is a delicate and very highly political situation not easily dismissed by referring to the very general terms that are outlined in Article 4 of the Charter. We must look to the letter and to the spirit of Article 4 and to the system of international law that has flowed from it. 27. Finally, it is difficult for my delegation to see what purpose will be served by pushing forward a draft resolution which seems destined to be defeated, when with more time and more diplomacy exerted both inside and outside the United Nations and with the exercise of more perseverance and goodwill by all those actively concerned in this delicate situation, an outcome favourable to Bangladesh could be obtained. 28. The two sets of realities maintained respectively by those who support immediate approval and those who would postpone approval of Bangladesh’s application are not irreconcilable. It is well within the bounds of political possibility that a climate which is highly favourable to the admission of Bangladesh can be created* Such a climate would ensure that Bangladesh’s accession to membership of the United Nations-surely a unique and significant event in its national life-would not be clouded ‘:.y controversy and rejection. 24. NOW the context in which we are being asked to recognize a direct relationship hetwccn resolution 307 (1971) and the application of Bangladesh for United Nations mcnibership is that of the concern freclucntly and widelY expressed for the authority of the Security C’ouncil. It would be quite proper and appropriate to ask: what is the basis and the authority of resolution 307 (1971)‘! the reso1ution certainly did not arise or spring up in a vacuum. It is based on the purposes and principles of the Charter. It derives its authority from the Charter. The Charter of the United Nations presupposes in Article 2, pilragrapll 6, that 29. My delegation greatly regrets that neither of the draft resolutions before the Council would lead to this happy outcome and that it would therefore be obliged to abstain on both draft resolutions in their present fonn. In order to give expression to the viewpoints that have been expressed by my delegation in the course of this debate and also by the delegations of Guinea and the Sudan, 1 have the honour of 30. If that amendment is accepted by the sponsors of the draft resolution, my delegation-and 1 am sure the delegations of Guinea and the Sudan-would have no difficulty in rethinking our position and voting in favour of the draft resolution. 31. Mrs. CISSI? (Guinea) [intevpvetntion from FuenchJ: Members of the Security Council will recall that from the very beginning of the debates on the application of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh for membership in the United Nations my delegation has emphasized the need to give more time to the parties to the conflict to carry out and complete negotiations that would enable both sides to implement the relevant United Nations resolutions and thereby arrive at a normalization of relations in that part of the South Asian subcontinent [16.58th meeting/, We suggested then sending a mission which would inquire into the situation prevailing in that area and report back to the Council. After many consultations we had to renounce the idea of sending that mission. 32. The position of my Government is governed by respect for the principles to which all Members of the United Nations have subscribed: respect for the Charter and therefore the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and of the Security Council. 33. Guinea is not against the admission of Bangladesh to the United NatiofiS. My delegation in the course of the work of the Committee on the Admission of New Members has at all tiriles reaffirmed this position. Out attitude in no way means any hostility or any discrimination towards the People’s Republic, of Bangladesh. Since we ourselves are a developing country, we understand the legitimate aspirations of the people of Bangladesh, but we wish to be consistent. We know the dramatic circumstances in which the People’s Republic of Bangladesh came into being, and this i9 why tie continue to affirm that its admission cannot be dissociated from the implementation of resolution 307 (1971). 34. My delegation has always sought to encourage all attempts to negotiate and we have always been against hasty solutiohs, which, in our opinion, instead of assisting in the progress of negotiations, would hamper them. It is for these reasons that my delegation would have no difficulty in voting in favour of the draft resolution submitted by China. 3 5. For the reasons I have just explained, we have proposed, together with the two other African States, an amendment to the four-Power draft resolution. We believe that, were this amendment accepted, it would give us time and would meet the purposes of my delegation. In the

I have no more speakers on my list. If no other representative wisher to speak at this time, I shall take it that the Council is prepared to proceed to the vote.

Mr. President, I do not wish to speak on the substance of the proposals before us, particularly if you have ruled that we are about to begin to vote, but I should like to know what procedure we are to follow. An amendment has been proposed to our draft resolution. I believe it is a formal amendment. If that amendment is to be voted upon in the process of our voting on the different texts, I should like to comment on that amendment now rather than later, but it is entirely for you to decide when I should speak. 39. The PRESII?ENT (interpretation from French): I shall now inform members how we are going to proceed, and explanations of positions on the amendment can then be made. 40. As I stated yesterday at the beginning of the meeting, two draft resolutions have been submitted to the Security Council: the first, in document S/1076X and Corr.1 by China; and the second, in document S/10771, by India, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and Yugdslavia. Since then, in the course of this meeting, an amendment has bee11 submitted to the latter draft resolution by Guinea, Somalia and the Sudan and distributed as document S/l0775 In accordance with rule 32 of the provisional rules of procedure, I intend to put to the vote first the draft resolution submitted by China, then the draft amendment submitted by the three African countries and finally the four-Power draft resolution.

It is the understanding of my delegation that the representative of Somalia introduced an amendment and put a question: he abLed what the positioll of the sponsors of the four-Power draft resolution would be with regard to that amendment; he asked whether or not the sponsors of that draft resolution are ready to accept the amendment. So, before we proceed to a vote, I think it would be very helpful to all the members of this couflC& and particularly my delegation, to know exactly what tile position of the sponsors is. Finally, we do not have before us the text of the amendment. It might be helpful also to all delegations to have the text in front of them before we take a final decision, after having heard the views of tile sponsors of the four-Power draft resolution.

Quite obviously, I cannot speak for all four sponsors of the draft resolution. So, in the present position, Mr, President, I would suggest, with your permission, that alI sponsors have liberty of action on this amendment-in other words, each one may express his views on the amendment and, after that has been done, it is entirely up to each one to vote as he wishes. 44. It was because of this complication that I suggested that I should comment on the proposed amendment of the Somali delegation before it was put to the vote, but you, Mr, President, said that we should do that after the vote. But now the situation has again changed, so, on behalf of the Indian delegation, I shall proceed to comment on the amendment, presented by Somali on behalf of the three African delegations, 49. Now we come to a special case. Bangladesh is a State. We are asked: how can it come here and not release the prisoners of war ? Yesterday the Ambassador of the Sudan used the words “blackmail” and “humiliation”. First, I do not like the word “blackmail” anywhere, not even in detective novels, and certainly not in the Council. But never mind the word, We do not want anybody to be humiliated; we do not want anyone to be blackmailed. Time and a&ain a large number of problems which stnnd between Bangladesh and Pakistan have been mentioned. The representative of the Sudan mentioned some; I could mention many more. But the fact of the matter is that all these problems can be solved-at least negotiated and it is to be hoped solved-if there is negotiation on the basis of equality. And it is because this fundamental principle of international law or international behaviour that two countries, two States, two parties must always meet as equals has not been accepted that all these troubles have started. Again, I say that this has nothing to do with the admission of Bangladesh, 45. I have just been told that all the sponsors will agree to whatever I may say. Whether that is due to crystal-gazing or some kind of unity of thought, I do not know. However, the representative of Somalia, our friend and colleague Ambassador Farah, very eloquently-as usual-argued his case both for delay-for not acting in haste-and for the obligations of Bangladesh; he referred to precedents and also to the general principle of upholding the Charter in both letter and spirit. 46. Let us take each one separately. First, I believe that no single delegation, however faithful to the Charter, can claim superiority to the International Court of Justice, which is an organ of the United Nations and the custodian of all that is good and noble in our Charter. Time and again, delegation after delegation-including your own, Sir, the Belgian delegation-has drawn the attention of the Council to the judgement which the International Court of Justice has given on this matter: that no external circumstances, no additional conditions, no irrelevant matters should be brought up on the question of admission. Whether Bangladesh is as good as Pakistan or as good as India or as good as any of us seated around the table is a different matter. What we are discussing is the limited question of the admission of Bangladesh and there we are limited also by the interpretation of the Charter as given by the international Court of Justice that is clear and categoric and admits of no doubt. $0. May I just read out a sentence from the letter which Mr. Rarim, the ChargB d’affaires of the Embassy of Bangladesh in Washington, wrote to you, Sir, two days ago. “Bangladesh , . . is prepared to settle all its outstanding problems”-not that of the prisoners of war alone, not that of the war criminals alone, not that of the civilian internees alone, not that of the 30,000 or 40,000 Bengali soldiers in Pakistan alone, not that of the 10,000 civil servants in Pakistan alone, but a host of other problems-“with Pakistan on the basis of the sovereign equality of States, national dignity, respect for territorial integrity and noninterference in each other’s affairs.” 51. Now, I cannot expect that any self-respecting State seated around this table or anywhere else would ask for anything less for negotiations. But, as I said, this has nothing to do with admission. 47. Secondly, regarding the question of haste, this point has been brought up again and again. There are two reasons for this haste. Since last night I have made a tabulation regarding the admission of all new Members since 1965, I have tabulated how long it took between the time the applications were made and the time the Council reached a decision. In no case, excepting that of Oman, has there been any significant delay. The case of Oman was a very special case, The Arab League was meeting, and we waited for its decision. 52. Therefore, in view of those considerations we would categorically reject the amendment suggested. May I aIso say that, with the addition of that amendment, there is very little difference in substance between the Chinese draft resolution and ours.

In order to bolster the submission I have made that the amendment I proposed on behalf of the three African delegations should be considered favourably, I should like to direct the attention of the Security Council to the text of a statement issued yesterday evening by the International Commission of 48. Without wishing to bore the Council too much, I shall quickly give the list. 1965: Gambia, 20 days; Maldives, 18 days; Singapore, 17 days; Barbados, 5 days. 1966: “The lntclirational Commission of Jurists has urged the Indian Government to take immediately all necessary steps ill order to liberate and repatriate the Pakistani prisoners of war detained in India. The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 provides clearly that conclusion of a peace treaty or an armistice is not required between the parties to a conflict but that prisoners of war must be repatriated without delay after cessation of hostilities. There cannot be any dispute that active hostilities have in fact ceased in view of the cease-fire, the aCtLId cessation of fighting and above all the Simla Agreement.” 54. This is the kind of concern to which I drew attention and which exists not only within but also outside the United Nations 55. With regard to the relevance of resolution 307 (1971) or the question of the criteria laid down in Article 4 of the Charter, it is interesting to note the following extract from the International Court of Justice Reports concerning the 1948 advisory opinion of the Court on Me interpretation of Article 4 of the Charter. It reads as follows: “While the Court considers the conditions laid down in Article 4 to be exhaustive, it did not exclude the right to take into account any factors, including political factors, which it is possible reasonably and in good faith to connect with the conditions laid down in that Article,” 56. I submit that the amendment which has been proposed for the Council by the three African States is made in good faith to connect this very delicate political problem of prisoners of war to Article 4; and this requirement is not contrary to international law or to the norms which we have established in pursuince of international law. 57. There is another very interesting extract from the International Court of Justice Reports, as follows: “Quite aside from the convincing argumentation contained in the well-documented joint dissenting opinion of the British, Canadian, French and Polish Judges of the Court, even the Chilean Judge who voted with the majority of the International Court of Justice admits in his favourable individual opinion that ‘even if the conditions of admission are fulfilled by an applicant, admission may be refused on important political grounds and in cases in which the admission of a State is liable to disturb the international situation’.” I am not saying that the admission of Bangladesh would disturb the international situation-far from it. What I am saying is that when we are considering the admission of IBangladesh to membership of this Organization, we should take into account whether it has complied at least with the elementary obligation to act in conformity with the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. 58. I see that the sponsors of the draft resolution are not happy about the amendment we have propQsed, but I hope

My delegation is a sponsor of the draft resolution, but on previous occasiol\s, before it became a sponsor, it had expressed its poiat of view against postponement and against linking the admjs. sion of Bangladesh with other questions or developments external to it. I shall therefore be very brief. 60. We take this attitude not because we are unsylnpa. thetic to or unmindful of the urgent need for furtIler progress in the settlement of outstanding issues between India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, in the best interests of all. But is it not true that whatever important posilive breakthroughs have been made recently in international relations, especially between great Powers but also in otlur areas, have been made precisely because everything has not been linked to everything else and “the best has not been made an enemy of the good”? Whatever progress has been made anywhere has been achieved by introducing a positive ingredient, a dynamic incentive, into the situation and not by waiting until everything else has been settled first to introduce it. 61. That is why we think that the admission of Bangladesh into the United Nations would have a beneficial influence on the over-all situation and would be a dynamic inceniive; and that is why we maintain that a further delay would be not only unjust but also unjustified. 62. The argument is being used that delaying considera. tion of a country’s application is not new in the life and practice of our Organization; that in numerous individual or collective cases applicant States had to wait, for various reasons, for years and months. That is true; we all know that; and we all know and remember the reasons for it. And that is precisely why we hope that we have outgrown that unhappy dark stage in international life, in the life aad development of our Organization. We want to believe fhaf we are making at least some progress and that nation States do not have to wait, as in the worst days of the cold war, to exercise their right to enter the world Organization. 63. The proposed amendment would delay the solution of this problem and link it with other problems and developments and, therefore, as a sponsor of the draft resolution we will vote against it.

In the Security Council meeting yesterday my delegation asked that the voting be postponed to this meeting. I am indebted ta YOU, Mr. President, and the other Council members for grp ciously acceding to my request. Although partly motivated by a desire to get fresh instructions, the move was also designed to help all the representatives on the Council to reconsider their positions and to seek conciliation and agreement. Above all, the delay was motivated by Our concern for our friends on the South Asian subcontinent, including the new nation of Bangladesh. 6.5. At the last meeting it was unmistakably evident to all assembled around this table what the result of a vote would 66. The annals of this august body are replete with precedents of a similar nature. Indeed, in recent years the Council has developed the practice of operating on a consensus basis whenever possible. The evolution of the practice has merited a scholarly study entitled Consultation and Consensus in the Security Council, by F. Y. Chaiz . Our move yesterday was in keeping with that tradition. 67. I have striven to stress the agony my delegation felt at having to arbitrate between friends, that is, between Bengalis and Pakistanis. On the one hand, we uphold the principle that Security Council resolutions should be respected and given effect; on the other, we uphold the right of Bangladesh to be admitted to membership of the United Nations. By supporting the four-Power draft resolution, as amended by the African delegations, we believe we would be striking a happy compromise between the two aspects of the problem. Again, by asking for a postpone* ment of the vote at the last meeting, we thought we had saved the day for Bangladesh, of all the parties concerned. It is Bangladesh and only Bangladesh that would have suffered if the outcome of the vote had been a rebuff to its application. Against; India, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Yugoslavia. Abstaining: Argentina, Belgium, France, Italy, Japan, Panama, Somalia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, The results of the vote was 3 in favour, 3 against and 9 abstentions. ‘The proposal was not adopted, having Jtiiled to ob tuin the affirmative votes of nine members. 68. We, are fully cognizant of the realities of the situation on the subcontinent. The difficulties encountered by Bangladesh are known and appreciated by us. Similarly the legitimate desire of Pakistan to obtain the release of its prisoners of war is taken into account. More importantly, one should not be oblivious to the cumulative effects of negotiations held between the parties involved and their expected fruition. Only today, 25 August, The New York Times reports:

I call on the representative of China in explanation of vote; after the vote.

In defence of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the implementation of the relevant resolutions which gave. expression to the will of the overwhelming majority of the countries of the world and the fundamental interests of the entire people on the South Asian subcontinent, the Chinese delegation has put forward a right and reasonable draft resolution on the application of “Bangladesh” for membership in the United Nations. However, as the result of the strenuous obstruction and sabotage by the Soviet and Indian delegations, such a draft resolution, which is in full accord with the principles of the Charter, could not be adopted in the Security Council. The Chinese delegation cannot but express its utmost regret. “both Pakistan and Bangladesh would compromise and evolve a formula to begin talks. The Pakistani National Assembly was expected to recognize Bangladesh when it convened 10 days ago. President Bhutto had carefully prepared the groundwork for recognition to avoid serious domestic repercussions.” 69. Given this encouraging set of facts it would be a pity if those siding with the admission of Bangladesh should insist on having its hopes shattered and its application for membership rejected by pressing for a vote on the two draft resolutions at hand. We submit that things are improving on the subcontinent at such a pace that a short day would probably suffice to settle all residual disputes. According to 7%e New York Times report, which I just cited, it could be said that such conciliation is already overdue and its achievement by the parties concerned should not take anyone by surprise. It is therefore on that basis that my 73. In order to prevent the Security Council from adopting this entirely just draft resolution of the Chinese delegation, so as to drag into the United Nations “Bangladesh”, which has violated the principles of the Charter and the relevant resolutions and is therefore not qualified at all to be admitted into the United Nations, the delegations of the Soviet Union and India, have not hesitated to distort the principles of the Charter and its relevant provisions and have tried hard to separate consideration of the application 2 United Nations Institute for Training and Research, New York, 1971, IO. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): Since no one wishes to speak at this time we shall proceed to the vote on the first draft resolution. I put to the vote the draft resolution submitted by China and contained in document S/l 0768 and Corr. 1. A vote was taken by show of hands. In favour: China, Guinea, Sudan. ‘74. Taking into consideration the specific conditions and situation in which “Bangladesh” came into being, it is quite obvious that the question of the application of “Bangladesh” for membership in the United Nations can in no way be examined without taking note of the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council concerning last year’s war of aggression on the South Asian subcontinent. 75. What do the relevant United Nations resolutions say? Security Council resolution 307 (1971) referred in explicit terms to “all those concerned”, which naturally include lndia and Pakistan as well as the authorities of “Bangladesh” now applying for membership in the United Nations. General Assembly resolution 3793 (XXVI) called upon them to “take forthwith all measures for , . , withdrawal of their armed forces on the territory of the other . . .“, 76. Paragraph 1 of Security Council resolution 307 (1971) demanded the withdrawal of all armed forces to their respective territories as soon as practicable. Paragraph 3 called upon “all those concerned” to observe the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which stipulate in cIear-cut terms that ‘%isoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities”. 77. The former called for “taking forthwith all measures” and “withdrawal as soon as practicable”, and the other said “without delay”. More than eight months have now elapsed since the adoption of the two resolutions; yet the Indian Government has not yet withdrawn all its troops to its own territory. In his speech the Indian representative tried to deny the presence of Indian troops in “Bangladesh”, However, as far as we know, Indian troops have not been completely withdrawn from there. Verbal denial by the Indian representative and the “Bangladesh” authorities does not count. Therefore, tile Chinese delegation is of the opjnion that the Secretary-General should present a report to the Security Council on the full implementation of the two resolutions. The Indian Government has now detained more than 90,000 Pakistani prisoners of war and civilians. One of the pretexts used by the Indian Government for doing so is that “Bangladesh” does not agree to the release and repatriation of these prisoners of war, “Bangladesh” even insists on their trial. Article 4 of Charter II of the United Nations Charter, on membership, states in clear-cut terms that applicants for ,membesship in the United Nations must llot only declare their readiness to “accept the obligations contained in the present Charter” but also “in the judgement of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations” before they will be qualified, “in the judgement of the Organization”, to be admitted as a Member of the United Nations. By what they have done, the Indian Government has not shown the slightest respect for the principles of the Charter and the relevant United Nations resolutions. How can the ‘“Bangladesh” authorities which have shown open contempt for the principles of the Charter and refused to comply with the relevant resolutions expect the Security Council to shut their eyes and made a 78. The Soviet Government supported the Indian Govere merit in launching a war of aggression against Pakistan, This in itself constituted a most grave violation of the Charter, Yet they are now trying to pin the “anti-constitutiona)” label on others. They have indeed stopped at nothing in confounding black with white and reversing right and wrong, reaching the height of truculence, One may still recall that on 7 December last year the General Assembly adopted by 104 votes resolution 2793 (XXVI) the above. mentioned act of aggression by the Soviet Union and India, This resolution mentioned, in particular, in its fifth preambular paragraph : ‘fMi~~o%E of the provisions of the Charter, in particular of Article 2, paragraph 4”, which stipulates: “All Members shall refrain in their international reIations from the threat of use of force against tile territarial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations”. As everyone is aware, it is precisely the Soviet and Indian Governments that have committed aggression against another country by the use of force as mentioned in this connexion. It is again they who are trying to impose “Bangladesh” upon the United Nations by forced aygman~s in wilful distortion of the Charter. The facts are clear: the “anti-constitutional” label can only be placed on the Soviet and Indian Governments. 79. If we give deeper thought to -the matter, we will understand that the Soviet and Indian Governments simply harbour ulterior motives in obstinately opposing a postponement of the consideration of “l3angladesh’s” appIication for membership and insisting on dragging “BangI* desh” into the United Nations before the serious in@. mentation of the relevant United Nations resolutions. Are the Soviet and Indian Governments really concerned about the application of “Bangladesh” for membership in the United Nations? To be frank, what reahy concerns them is not whether “Bangladesh” will be admitted into the united Nations, nor the vital interests of the people on the South Asian subcontinent who ardently desire peace and develop. ment, They zre deliberately taking advantage of the consequences of the war of aggression and refuse tc withdraw all the Indian troops of aggression and are detaining the more than 90,000 prisoners of war and civilians as hostages, for the purpose of blackmailing Pakistan and pressuring the United Nations. Indian Prime 81. In short, the controversial issue before us is an extremely important question of principle. The Chinese delegation definitely cannot agree to the Security Council considering “Bangladesh’s” application for membership in the United Nations in the present circumstances in contravention of the principles of the Charter and in disregard of the relevant United Nations resolutions whichgave expression to the will of the overwhelming majority of the countries of the world. All States Members have formally declared their support of the Charter. Many countries have voted in favour of the relevant United Nations resolutions. Whether recognition has been accorded to “Bangladesh” or not, first of all the Members of the United Nations are under the unshirkable obligation to urge the full implementation of these resolutions and to urge India, Pakistan and “Bangladesh” to reach agreement through consultations on an equal footing for a reasonable settlement of the issues between them, before the application of “Bangladesh” can be considered. Therefore the Security Council should in no way submit to the unreasonable demands of the Soviet and Indian delegations. If they are to have their way, the Security Council will repeat its serious mistakes of violating the Charter, and that will mean the Council killing its own resolutions with its own hands, thus discrediting the United Nations and the Council, which will forfeit the trust of the people of the world. 80. It is necessary to point out here that in recent years Soviet social-imperialism has played and is still playing a most insidious role in the development of the situation on the South Asian subcontinent. Last August the Soviet Government concluded with the Indian Government a so+4led treaty of peace, friendship and co-operation, which is in essence an aggressive treaty of military alliance, whereby the Indian Government has finally and openly stripped off its cloak of “non-alignment”. Subsequently, the Soviet Government directly instigated and supported India inlaunching a war of aggression against Pakistan. After the cease-fire, it has worked hard to obstruct a reasonable solution to the relationship between the parties concerned on the South Asian subcontinent in an attempt to aggravate their division and antagonism. The sole purpose of Soviet social-imperialism in so doing is to utilize the contradictions it has created single-handedly to further control India Bnd “Bangladesh” and infiltrate into the regions of the Indian Ocean and the South Asian subcontinent so as to expand its spheres of influence and contend for hegemony. The aggressive design of social-imperialism knows no bounds. Today it can bully Pakistan at will, and the next day it can use its old trick against other countries of the subcontinent. Such talk as devotion to the “normalization” of the situation on the South Asian subcontinent and “relations of co-operation” and fostering “a brotherly atmosphere” are a sheer hoax. In so obstinately refusing to postpone the consideration of and so hastily pressing for a vote by the Security Council on “Bangladesh’s” application and forcing the Chinese delegation to vote against it, they are merely using “Bangladesh” as a pawn to take the chestnuts out of the fire for them. Anyone with a sober mind has seen through their manoeuvre. Today they push their “secure boundaries” to the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean, and the next day they can press further into the Pacific and the Atlantic. It is known to all what they have done to some of their “allies”, and we will not dwell on it here. In recent years, with honey in mouth and dagger in heart, they Izave committed aggression, subversion, control and interference in the name of support and assistance against a 82. Since the Soviet Union and India, clinging to their obdurate course, have now unreasonably opposed the reasonable proposal of the Chinese delegation and pressed for the Security Council’s approval of the admission of “Bangladesh” into the United Nations, we, as one of the permanent members of the Council and in defence of the principles of the Charter and the interests of the people of the South Asian subcontinent and the whole world, will be compelled to fulfil determinedly our sacred duty and vote firmly against the unreasonable demand of the Soviet Union and Indian delegations, so as to defend the prestige and authority of the United Nations and the Council. 83., In this connexion, the Chinese delegation deems it necessary to state that we are firmly opposed to the aggressive policies and unreasonable demands of the Soviet and Indian Governments. But we are friendly to the people of those countries and the entire people of the whole South Asian subcontinent. No one can destroy such friendly relations, which will certainly grow in the course of our common struggle in the future. A vote was taken by show of hands. In favour; Guinea, Somalia, Sudan, United States of America, Against: India, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia. Abstaining: Argentina, Belgium, China, France, Italy, Japan, Panama. The result of the vote was 4 in favour, 4 against, ‘with 7 abstentions, The proposal was not adopted, having failed to obtaitz the affirmative vote of nine members. 8.5. The PRESIDENT (interpretation Jrrom French): The Council will now proceed to vote on the four-Power draft resolution [S/l 0771/. A vote was ta/Len by show of hands. In favour: Argentina, Belgium, France, India, Italy, Japan, Panama, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of r-reat Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of Amel ica, Yugoslavia. Against: China. Abstaining: Guinea, Somalia, Sudan. The result of the vote was 11 in favour, 1 against, with 3 abstentions. The draft resolution was not adopted, the negative vote being that of a permanent member of the Council.

I shall now cdl on those representatives who wish to explain their votes after the vote.

My delegation regrets that this Council had been unable to agree on a recommendation for the admission of Bangladesh to the United Nations. We also regret that it was not possible to agree upon a further but limited postponement which might have made possible a resolution of the underlying problems which have contributed to the impasse we face, 88. AS the record makes clear, we shullid have been gratified to see the entry into the United Iuations of the People’s Republic of BangIadesh. The United States recog nized Bangladesh on 4 April of this year and established formal diplomatic relations on I8 May. Previously the United States had maintained an official mission in Dacca since 1949 and over the years many Americans, in both official and private capacities, have derived much satisfaction from 90. We sincerely hope that progress will continue towards the normalization of relations between the nations of 111~ subcontinent. Such progress, we believe, can best be advanced by full and speedy implementation of all the provisions of resolution 307 (1971) adopted by the Sect. rity Council last December, In particular, we strongly believe that the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war should be implemented as soon as possible. 91. Mr. President, may I comment briefly on the voteof the United States on the amendment proposed by the delegation of Somalia. In this connexion, we real& Mr. President, that in voting for this amendment which was not carried, the effect of this language would have been debatable given the ruling of the International Court of Justice and the provisions of the Charter. But we regarded the resolution as a recommendation of the Council for admission of Bangladesh none the less. We voted for t11e language contained in the proposed amendment because of the great importance the United States attaches to tile release of prisoners of war. 92. The peoples of the lndian subcontinent have rich and ancient cultures which have contributed much to the knowledge and enrichment of mankind everywhere. Unfortunately, these same peoples have in recent times been the victims of great suffering and sorrow. It is our earnest hope that progress towards amelioration of these conditions cm be advanced. For our part we are prepared to co-operate fully with the United Nations and with all the peoples of the region to this end.

I should like to explain very briefly the vote of my delegation in connexion with the amendment submitted by the delegations of Guinea, Somalia and the Sudan. 94. In the substantive statement I made yesterday Iwished to make clear two fundamental elements which were at tile basis of the position of the Republic of Argentina on this subject: first, that our attitude was based solely 011 legal considerations, and, secondly, that within the context We felt that no conditions could be set for the admission of a State to the United Nations unless these conditions were specifically covered in Article 4 of the Charter, however just, reasonable and desirable such conditions might appear to be or even be in fact. 95. Therefore, in order to be logical and consistent I cduld not vote in favour of the amendment.

I should like to explain our vote briefly and also comment, with your permission, Mr, President, on some of the matters covered in our discussion, 98. Despite many different attempts, for many different reasons, to prevent the Council from coming to a decision, we have at long last been able to vote on the draft resolutions before us. We have already discussed at length why there was so much reluctance in the Council to come to a point of decision. It is not necessary for me to go into them again. Essentially, many members felt that faced with a veto some other way should be found. What do our decisions show? The draft resolution contained in document S/10768 and Corr.1 has not been acceptable to the majority of the Council. The considerations contained in it for linking the application of Bangladesh with extraneous preconditions have been repudiated by the same vast majority, on the basis of the Charter. 1, is clear that the inadmissibility of the arguments advanced by the supporters of that draft resolution has been affirmed by the Council’s decision on it. 103. Listening to the representative of China, I felt that his was probably the longest explanation of vote I had ever heard in the Council or in the General Assembly, Ta put it colloquially, I think he never had it so good. However, India is fortunately not accountable for its actions or the facts to the Chinese delegation, just as that delegation is not accountable for its manners or the methods of its presentation. I think we can easily leave it to history and the men and women of the world to decide what has happened and what is happening. 104. I shall conclude by simply saying that we are extremely fortunate that, although there were four sponsors of the draft resolution, India and the Soviet Union attracted the special attention of the Chinese delegation. 105. Finally, may I just point out a common feature of the two resolutions to which so many references have been made. They simply say: “CalZs upon all Member States to refrain from any action which may aggravate the situation in the subcontinent or endanger international peace”. 99. However, the draft resolution contained in document S/1077 1 received affirmative voles from 11 of the 15 members of the Council. It was not adopted only because a single permanent member voted against it. Even though it was not adopted, the decision clearly shows that the vast tnajority of the Council is in favour of the admission of Bangladesh and believes that Bangladesh satisfies the requirements of the Charter, This view is indeed shared by the vast majority of the members of the General Assembly which have already recognized Bangladesh.

In its statement yesterday on the four-Power draft resolution, the Soviet delegation appealed to all members of the Security Council, and particularly to its permanent members, to show understanding of the needs and interests of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and to vote in favour of the four-Power draft resolution. 100. Although the Council is at present unable to make the necessary positive recommendation to the General Assembly, it is our hope that the objection will be withdrawn even before the Assembly meets on 19 September. 107. Yesterday, when the representative of the Sudan proposed that the meeting should be adjourned for one day, we reiterated the wish that that day should be used to enable the Security Council to adopt unanimously a resolution recommending the admission of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh to the United Nations. However, our appeal, which was supported by a majority of members of the Security Council, met with no understanding from one representative. And now, as we ourselves have seen, as a result of the veto exercised by the delegation of China, the four-Power draft resolution, which received the support of 11 members of the Council has not been adopted. Thus, through the obstructionist attitude of the delegatiorl of China, the request of the Government of Bangladesh for the admission of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh to the United Nations cannot at present be granted. 101. The sponsors of the draft resolution contained in document S/10771 would wish to express their appreciation to the delegations which supported it, This support, which was never in doubt, affirms the adherence of those delegations to the principles of the Charter, to the universality of the United Nations and to the cause of peace and justice. As for the delegations which did not vote for our draft resolution-in fact, only one voted against-we have nothing to say. We leave it to the Members of the United Nations and, indeed, to history to draw their own inferences and conclusions. 102. It is for the People’s Republic of Bangladesh alone to express its views about the Council’s decision on its application for admission to the United Nations, in so far as it is concerned. However, in so far as the interests of that region are concerned, we are one of the three States of the 108. What has the consideration of this question in the Security Council and in the Committee on the Admission of New Members shown? First and foremost that an 109. In his statement in explanation of vote, the representative of China as usual resorted to all kinds of fabrications and anti-Soviet attacks for the sole purpose of concealing the true reason for the Chinese delegation’s vote against the draft resolution recommending the admission of Bangladesh to the United Nations. We do not intend to follow the course suggested by the representative of China and engage in polemics with him on questions which have no connexion with the admission of Bangladesh to the United Nations, We do not wish to engage in polemics with him because the fabrications directed against the Soviet Union which were contained in his speech are completely unsubstantiated and groundless. We consider that his statement demonstrates lack of respect not ody for the people and the Government of Bangladesh, which have applied for admission to the United Nations, but for the United Nations itself, the Security Council of which is meeting to consider not Soviet-Chinese relations, but the question of the admission of Bangladesh to the United Nations. 110. The stateglient of the representative of China was not original. He saw everywhere the “hand of Moscow” and, as has been correctly pointed out by the representative of India, on a question on which 11 delegations voted in favour of the f,lur-Power draft resolution, he referred only to the Soviet I! lion and India. The “hand of Moscow” has been seen in ev&s throughout the world during the entire existence of the Soviet Socialist State by all the enemies of the Soviet Union, i‘rom the time of the October Revolution. That well-known anti-Soviet figure, John Foster Dulles, even saw the “hand of Moscow” in the Chinese revolution and the formation of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. Today the representative of China is repeating that approach used by the enemies of the Soviet Union. I congratulate him. 1 Il. Everything that has been said today by the rcpresentative of China points to but one thing. The statement by the Chinese representative bears witness to the complete bankruptcy and untenable nature of the position of the delegation of China and the absence of any serious arguments or justification for that position, which has been rejected by 1 I members OF the Security Council and has failed to obtain the support of three more. 112. The representative of China has asked us to give deeper thought to the matter. Certainly, let us give deeper thought to what has happened here. What basically is demonstrated by the stand taken by the Chirlt:se delegation against the admission of the People’s Repel _: I,: of Bangladesh to the United Nations? 113. First, it signifies a stand against the interests of the national liberation movement of oppressed peoples in general, and the national liberation movement of the people of East Bengal in particular. It is a well-known fact that the formation of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh was a 114. Chinese representatives in United Nations organs and elsewhere have spoken many fine words about Peking’s support for the national liberation movement of oppressed peoples, trying to present the People’s Republic of China as the principal defender and protector of the national liberation movement. However, when it became a questian of concrete support, who actually supported the national liberation movement-the Soviet Union or the Peopb’s Republic of China? I do not think that I need say any more. 11.5. it is paradoxical that a State which calls itself the People’s Republic of China has made every effort, including the use of the veto, to obstruct the admission to the United Nations of another people’s republic-the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. 116. Secondly, the stand taken by the Chinese delegation against the admission of Bangladesh to the United Nations represents a stand against the developing countries in general and against the interests of the developing State of Bangladesh in particular. 117. It is well known that the people of Bangladesh have experienced truly unprecedented privations and suffering, Following the natural disasters, the people suffered the burden of an armed struggle for their independence and then the destructive consequences of thos!: military opera, tions. Like the peoples of a dozen other developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, the people of Bangladesh inherited a legacy from the past which presented serious problems and difficulties for their economic and social development. The people of this young developing State are making efforts-let us be blunt, heroic efforts-to overcome the difficulties and to reconstruct and develop Bangladesh. They need solidarity, all-round assistance and support from all States and peoples; they need the support of the United Nations; they have appealed to the United Nations, through their representatives, for support, for our co-operation and for the solidarity of the Organization. For that reason, the stand taken by the delegation of China against the admission of the new and developing State of Bangladesh to the United Nations can only signify an attempt to deprive the people of Bangladesh of support from the United Nations, to isolate them and to leave them alone with the problems they face. At the same time, that stand represents an attempt to set certain developing States against others: certain conditions for admission to the United Nations are set for some States, while no such conditions are set for others. We are opposed to such at’ approach to developing States. 119, It is quite obvious that anyone who genuinely supports the complete restoration of normal relations between India, Pakistan and Bangladesh will not create obstacles to the admission of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh to the United Nations. And, conversely, anyone who opposes the admission of 13anglndesh to the United Nations is interested in arousing distrust, enmity and hatred among the countries of the subcontinent. 124. Fifthly, the stand taken by the delegation of China against the admission of Bangladesh to the United Nations represents a stand against the Charter of the United Nations, which clearly and unequivocally lays down the conditions for the admission of new Members to the Organization. Throughout the 27 years of its history, the Organization has always unswervingly been guided by Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations in considering the admission of new Members to the Organization. Now attempts are being made to foist arbitrarily on the Security Council certain new conditions which are contrary to the Charter. The delegation of China is attempting to arrogate to itself the right to teach the Organization how to conduct its affairs, how to admit new Members, on what conditions and so on. During the debate on the guestion of the admission of Bangladesh to the United Nations, we had several opportunities to observe the representatives of’ China declaring the work of a whole committee unlawful, declaring a vote unlawful, or declaring the actions of a chairman unlawful. Those who like to broadcast and to use for their own propagandist and demagogical purposes the “theory” of the struggle against “super-Powers’“, are in fact attempting to arrogate to themselves the right to conduct themselves in the United Nations as some sort of “supersuper-Power”, as a mentor to all countries and all peoples. In his statement,at today’s meeting of the Security Council, the representative of China even tried to give lessons to the peoples of the world, attempting to present matters as if the opinicm of the delegation of China was the ultimate truth. 120. The Soviet Union maintains good relations with all the countries of the subcontinent. I need only mention that durhlg 1971 and 1972 the Soviet Union has been visited by the Prime Minister of hdia, Indira Gandhi, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Mujibur Rahmnn, and President Bhutto of Pakistan. AS a result of talks between the Soviet leaders and the leaders of those countries, important agreements were concluded which arc aimed at extending co-operation with those countries in all fields. The Soviet Union, unlike the People’s Republic of China, is not pursuing a policy of favouritism in the Indian subcontinent. It is seeking good relations with all countries, and our actions confirm our words. 121. Fourthly, the stand taken by the delegation of China against the admission of Bangladesh to the United Nations represents a stand against the principle of the universality of the ‘United Nations. Many representatives have already spoken of that here. One of the most popu1ous countries in the world, Bangladesh, has requested admission into the Organization. It would he in the interests not only of the young developing State, but also of the United Nations itself to grant that request, lt would lead to a further strengthening of the principle of the universality of the United Nations and to a further reduction in the Ilumber of States which, because of the obstructiorlist policies of a number of Powers, cannot enter this international Organization. 125. Finally, the Soviet delegation considers that the stand taken by the delegation of China against the admission of Bangladesh to the United Nations is a stand against the idea of co.operation among sovereign States Members of the United Nations, which lies at the very foundation of all the Organization’s activities and is one of the most important principles embodied in the Charter. 122. The Soviet delegation hopes that in the near future a favourable solution will be found to the problem of the admission not only of Bangladesh but also of the two German States-the German I)emocratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Ciermany-and a number of socialist States which are at the moment outside the Organization. 126. lf we are to take up the Chinese representative’s suggestion to think deeply about the matter, it will be seen that a]] this is the true reason, the true nlotivatioll for the position of the Chinese delegation. 127. For that reason, the clumsy manoeuvres and cmde anti-Sovietism to which the Chinese delegation resorted in justifying its position in opposition to the interests of the 123. The Chinese delegation, however, has obstructed the admission of Bangladesh to the United Nations. The irony 128. The position of the Soviet Union on this matter, as on others, is one of principle. It is not subject to any considerations of expediency. Our position was one of principle on the question of the restoration of the lawful rights of the People’s Republic of China over a period of 22 years before the question was satisfactorily solved. As a matter of principle we are in favour of the admission of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh to the United Nations. We have no need to change our position. The representative of China will have to change his, because the People’s Republic of Bangladesh will be admitted to the United Nations. The Soviet delegation is certain that that will happen in the near future, that Bangladesh will participate in the work of the Organization and that its representatives will take part also in the work of the Security Council. 129. The Soviet delegation will welcome the representatives of the people of Bangladesh, whose legitimate and just struggle the Soviet Union has supported and continues to support firmly and consistently. 130, Mr. VINCI (Italy): I do not think it will take me much time to explain the vote of my delegation. From the statements made by the Italian delegation in the Committee on the Admission of New Members and at yesterday’s meeting of the Security Council I think it is clear why we voted in favour of the four-Power draft resolution and were not in a position to support the draft resolution introduced by the People’s Republic of China. 1 think that the reasons given on those occasions indicate why we were not in a position to support the amendment introduced by the representative of Somalia on behalf of his own delegation and those of Guinea and the Sudan-although I must say that we were sympathetic with the concern for the humanitarian problem reflected in the text of that amendment. 131. I sl~ould now like to say just a few words sbout our position and vote on the motion for adjournment for 24 hours introduced yesterday by the representative of the Sudan. We had followed with great attention the many arguments from one side or the other in favour of or against this proposal. My delegation voted in favour of the 24-hour adjournment for two reasons. First, we thought we would still be in a position to act today within the time-limit of3.5 days established by rule 59 of the provisional rules of procedure or, if my calculations are wrong, which is likely since my mathematics are not very good, we would have had no difficulty-as we have had so many times in the past-in waiving that limit. Secondly, we felt there were no reasons not to follow the usual practice, which is to enable members of rhe Council to seek further instructions after having heard the statements made in the Council itself-in this case, the statements made yesterday, In fact, we thought that, however unlikely it was, there was no reason to rule out any possibility of changes of position, even in such a short time. It has happened before; why could it not have happened again? 133. May I add a few comments of a more genera1 nature. It had been stated yesterday that each Member is entitled to protect its own interests. Let me make one point clear. My delegation has no interests to defend or protect in this case. Even if it had, it would always place the interests of the main party concerned, the People’s Repubtic of Bangladesh, the interests as we see them, rightly or wrongly, of the other two countries in the Asian subcon. tinent, and the interests of the United Nations as a whole above our own interests. This, I believe, is a widely shared opinion around this table. I wish to add that this has been our position from the very beginning of the tragedy which the proud population of Bangladesh has had to live through. 134. In conclusion, what we were aiming at was first the immediate admission of Bangladesh into the United Nations for the reasons I indicated in my statement yesterday, If this solution was unattainable-as it has been shown to be-our second aim was and still is the membership of Bangladesh at the earliest possible stage during the next session of the General Assembly. 135. My delegation cannot but voice its deep regret at seeing that what we had feared has occurred, namely, the rejection of the four-Power resolution, a result whicll amounts to a postponement of Bangladesh’s application for some time, perhaps a long time-exactly the opposite of what we had wished. I sincerely hope, however, that the situation in the Asian subcontinent may evolve in the spirit, if I may say so, of the Simla Agreement towards an atmosphere of reconciliation and co-operation between all those countries in that important area so as to make it possible for the Council to reconsider Bangladesh’s application at an early date.

As it announced yesterday in giving the reasons for its attitude, the delegation of France abstained on the vote on the draft resolution submitted by China ad voted in favour of the text sponsored by India, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and YugcS. lavia. For the same reasons we abstained on the draft amendment proposed by Guinea, Somalia and the Sudan. 137. Yesterday I said that we were in favour of the implementation of Security Council resolution 307 (1971). Nor are we less in favour of course of the strict observance of the Geneva Conventions. Having said this, however, We do not believe that when considering the application for membership before us we should consider anything other than the conditions to be found in the Charter itself. 138. On observing the results of the votes we have just taken the French delegation deeply regrets that it was not 139. The French Government, for its part, has already embarked on this undertaking. We are prepared to lend our assistance to any attempt that may be inade to open the way to negotiation, to conciliation and to the settlement of the outstanding problems. We should like to hope that the efforts of the parties, encouraged by the international community, will in as near a future as possible, result in a more favourable situation and that the Council will be able to recommend to the General Assembly the admission of a State which in our opinion is already entitled to be here at the United Nations. y 140. Mr. HUANG Hua (China) (translation from Chinese): Since the outset of its participation in the work of the United Nations, the Chinese delegation has always been very serious and cautious on the use of the veto. Proceeding from the desire of defending the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the implementation of the relevant United Nations resolutions which gave expression to the will of the overwhelming majority of the countries of the world as well as the fundamental interests of the entire people on the South Asian subcontinent and of facilitating the relaxation of tension on the subcontinent, the Chinese delegation maintains, in regard to “Bangladesh’s” application for membership in the United Nations, that pending the true implementation of the relevant General Assembly and Security Council resolutions and a reasonable settlement of the issues between India and Pakistan and between Pakistan and “Bangladesh”, the Security Council should not consider the application, that is, it should postpone its consideration until the above-mentioned resolutions have been fully implemented, so as to create conditions for a reasonable settlement of the issues on the South Asian subcontinent, This is a very reasonable and just proposal. However, in total disregard of the Charter and the relevant resolutions as well as the desire of many delegations for a postponement, the Soviet delegation in collaboration with the Indian delegation has clung to its obdurate course, pressed hard and tried to force the Council to adopt a decision for admitting “Bangladesh” in the present circumstances. This involves an important question of principle: do they have regard for the purposes and principles of the Charter? Should the Charter obligations be carried out? And should the relevant United Nations resolutions be respected? Since China has taken part in the work of the United Nations, China must act according to principles. 143. There exists a profound friendship between the Chinese people and the entire people of the South Asian subcontinent, which no one on earth can destroy and which will surely continue to grow in the just struggles against their common enemies. 144. The people of the whole world are clearly aware that the Chinese people has consistently and firmly supported the just struggles of the oppressed nations and people of the world and firmly opposed imperialist schemes of aggression, interference, control and subversion.‘This is a fact which cannot be altered by any sophistry of social-imperialism. The Soviet social-imperialists have been carrying out aggression, interference, control and subversion against other countries on the South Asian subcontinent and other parts of the world. The facts in this respect are too many to be enumerated. I have only mentioned a few instances in my previous statement. These are iron-clad facts which are clear to all to see and which no amount of fine words can possibly deny;kf

Naturally my delegation would have gone along wit]! this draft resolution sponsored and supported by some of our best friends. We do not doubt their good intentions or question their platform. Further, our attitude towards Bangladesh is basically the attitude of a sympathizer and a well-wisher. We are sure that, when the differences are amicably straightened out in the subcontinent, they will find in our country and people a staunch friend that does not abandon its friends in time of need or betray a principle for a material benefit. Needless to say, my delegation would have found it more expedient to ride the wave and court the approval of our Bangladesh brothers, humouring their strong supporters who are also dear to us. That would have been sheer hypocrisy and opportunism-a game we can never be good at. However, regardless of the position we have taken on the issue at hand, my delegation would like to make this 141, We can never compromise on important questions of principle. Based on this principled stand, and after very serious and careful consideration, the Chinese delegation has made the firm decision to use the veto in defence of the 146. My delegation has already explained why it has opted for postponement of admission until certain conditions have been fulfilled; without such a fulfilment this Council would not be justified in any way in considering the issue of admission. My delegation, therefore, thinks that its position on this matter not only is principled, disinterested and highly motivated but also takes note of the realities in the region and the provisions of Security Council resolution 307 (1971), without by any means prejudicing the de facto or even the de jure existence or status of Bangladesh. 147. It was not possible for my delegation to vote against the draft resolution contained in document S/10771, because of the many considerations it has touched upon, the most outstanding of which is that it has never been our intention to block the way to Bangladesh now that its fearful trip is done. Equally it was not possible for my delegation to vote for that draft resolution, because of the many considerations we touched upon in our statement at the 1659th meeting. Therefore my delegation was left with only one option: that is, to abstain. It is our hope, nevertheless, that the differences among the kith and kin in the subcontinent will be reconciled soon by the peoples of the region themselves in the best spirit of brotherhood and a desire for peace and amicable coexistence, 148. I should like to say one last word. We have constantly warned against such a stalemate as the one we are facing now, which could never be described as being in the best interests of Bangladesh or of the countries of the subcontinent at large. Perhaps some parties deliberately hunt for such unhappy situations so that they may unleash their verbiage and exhibit the superiority of their muscles over those of the weak and the deprived and then gloat under their self-made laurels. My delegation finds this exercise most regrettable and self-defeating.

In connexion with the statement made by the representative OF China, I should like to draw his attention to the indisputable fact that the Chinese draft resolution was opposed not by two delegations, those of the Soviet Union and India, which were the only ones he referred to, but by 11 delegations. That draft resolution failed to obtain the support of 14 delegations out of 15, but nevertheless, the representative of China sees no one except the Soviet and Indian delegations. 150. The Soviet delegation is, of course, flattered by the Chinese delegation’s special attention to us, but where is the truth of which the Chinese delegation is the alleged champion? Its conduct reminds me of a lieutenant in a story from a Russian classic who believed that the entire regiment was marching out of step, and that he alone was in step. 151. Labels, nicknames and crude attacks have never convinced anyone of anything except, perhaps, of one thing: that the person responsible for such attacks has no 152. The fact that the Chinese representative attempted all kinds of justification for China’s veto in two statements shows better than anything else that China used theveto for unjust ends. Just ends do not need justification and explanations.

After having resisted all appeals for provocation, I simply want to say that not only did we not hope or work for the Chinese veto but even at this llloment we should be very happy if China withdrew its veto,

My delegation is most concerned at the outcome of this debate on the application of Bangladesh. There would indeed have been no need for the situation to have developed in the first place had certain delegations within this Council not pushed their views to the point of a vote. 155. But we should not indulge in recriminations nor should we apportion blame, since it became quite evidcat as early as 11 August how this tragedy would end, The IWO draft resolutions are as dead as door najls. 15G. The purpose and perhaps the advantage of tllis debate have been that it has given prominence to an aspect which is closely related to the question, that is, thematter of prisoners of war and civilian internees. I must confess that my delegation was disappointed, to say the least, to see the voting pattern on the amendment introduced by the three African delegations. Eight months have elapsed since those prisoners were taken into custody, and there has been no demand from this Council, under any guise, for their release. 157. The Security Council resolution 307 (1971) “Culls tlpon all those concerned to take all measures necessary to preserve human life and for the observance of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and to apply in full their provisions as regards the protection of the wounded and sick, prisoners of war and civilian population.” Now, in order to bind not only India and Pakistan but also Bangladesh to the observance df the Geneva Conventions, the resolution deliberately used the phrase “all those concerned”. One of these Conventions, relating to prisoners of war, enjoins the detaining Power-in this case we are told that there is a joint responsibility of the Government Of India and that of Bangladesh-under article 118 to release and repatriate all prisoners of war immediately on cessstloa of active hostilities. Now, this obligation is, in tJle view of my delegation, unequivocal, unilateral and unconditional, 158. We still hope that with the Council’s wise guidance we shall now devote our efforts in the future towards creating the climate to bring the parties closer SC: that wlleI1 the application of Bangladesh next comes before this. Council it will meet with a unanimous vote of approval. 165. In paragraph 2, after the words “11 votes”, the names of the countries that cast those votes should be inserted in parenthesis to bring the text into line with what follows-“3 members (Guinea, Somalia and the Sudan)“, The text will thus be more balanced.

As there are no other names on the list of speakers, I should like in my capacity as representative of BELGIUM to explain the vote of my delegation. 166. In paragraph 4, the phrase “certain United Nations resolutions” should be replaced by “General Assembly resoIution 2793 (XXVI) and Security Council resolution 307 (1971)“. 161. My delegation was not able to support the amendment submitted by the delegations of Guinea, Somalia and the Sudan. Indeed, as I have indicated according to the advisary opinion of the International Court of Justice, Article 4 of the Charter is limitative in character and sets forth restrictively the five conditions which States wishing to become Members of our Organization must fulfil. Nevertheless, I believe it useful to quote the appropriate text of the advisory opinion of the Court, 167. In paragraph 6, after the words “9 votes”, the names of the countries that cast those nine votes should be inserted 168. In paragraph 8, the names of the countries that abstained should be inserted after the words “9 abstentions”. 169. In paragraph 9, the names of the countries that cast the eleven favourable votes should be inserted. Also in paragraph 9 of t.he French text, the words “et 7abstentions” have been omitted after the word “Yugoslavia”. Furthermore, the names of the countries that abstained should be inserted in all language versions. “It does not, however, follow from the exhaustive character of paragraph 1 of Article 4 that an appreciation is precluded of such circumstances of fact as would enable the existence of the requisite conditions to be verified.” Hence, the abstention of my delegation is to be interpreted as the expression of the serious concern of the 3elgian Government at the fact that 80,000 prisoners of war and 10,000 Pakistani officials are still in camps aImost nine months after the cessation of hostilities and have not been liberated nor repatriated. This regrettable state of affairs is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Furthermore, as a founding Member of the United Nations, Belgium cannot accept: that human lives be used as hostages for purely political purposes and negotiations, 170. Finally, the first words of paragraph 10 should be changed to read as follows: “Accordingly the Security Council does not recommend the applicant State for membership, and it decided , . .“, the rest of the paragraph remaining unchanged. This formulation is more in keeping with rule 60 of the provisional rules of procedure.

The sponsors of the amendment would like a descriptive passage to be inserted in paragraph 7 concerning the nature of that amendment so as to follow the pattern regarding other draft resolutions which were before the Council. In this respect I would suggest that after the document number of the draft resolution, “(S/10771)“, in paragraph 7, the following words be added: 162. Speaking as PRESIDENT of the Council, I wish to say that since none of the draft resolutions before it today have been adopted, the Security Council must report to the General Assembly in accordance with rule 60 of the provisional rules of procedure. Paragraph 3 of rule 60 reads as follows: “which would have made the recommendation contained in the draft resolution subject to the immediate implementation of the provisions of the Geneva Convention relating to prisoners of war”. “If the Security Council does not recommend the applicant State for membership or postpones the consideration of the application, it shall submit a special report to the General Assembly with a complete record of the discussion.” 172. Mr, SEN (India): It is Mr. Farah’s own amendment and he can formulate it in any way he likes. But 1 think that if we are going to say “the Geneva Convention”, it is better to say “the Geneva Convention of 1949” rather than “relating to prisoners of war” because the title of the Convention is somewhat different, 163. We have before us a draft special report which is to be submitted to the General Assembly. It seems, however, that that draft report has been distributed in English only. That being so, I shall suspend the meeting for approximately 10 minutes, in order to allow for distribution in all the languages of the Organization.

All that I askis that we follow the text of our amendment, If I remember correctly we said ditho in United Nations, New York Price: $U.S. 1.00 (or equivalent in other currencies) 72-82181-November 1975-I,5 125