S/PV.1846 Security Council

In accordance with the decision ‘taken previously [1842nd-1845th meetings], I invite the ,representatives of Algeria, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dahomey, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, India, Laos, Madagascar, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambiqie, Poland, Romania, Senegal, Sri Lanka, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and Yugoslavia to participate in the discussion without the right to vote, according to Article 31 of the Charter and the relevant provisions of the provisional rules of procedure. I invite the representatives to whom I have just referred to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Rahal (Algeria), Mr. Ghelev (Bulgaria), Mr. Sarin Chhak (Cambodia), Mr. Alarcbn (Cuba), Mr. Vejvoda (Czechoslovakia), Mr. Adjibadt? (Dahomey). Mr. Florin (German Democratic Republic), Mr. Hollai (Hungary), Mr. Jaipal (India), Mr. Sipraseuth (Laos), Mr. Tiandraza (Madagascar), Mr. Garcia Robles (Mexico), Mr. Puntsagnorov (Mongolia), Mr. Chissano(Mozambique), Mr. Jaroszek(Poland), Mr. Datcu (Romania), Mr. Fall (Senegal), Mr. Amerasinghe (Sri Lanka), ,Mr. Shevel (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) and Mr. Petri6 (Yugoslavia) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber.

Before continuing our discussion this afternoon, I should like to inform members of the Council that I have received a letter from the Permanent Observer fqr the Republic of South Viet-Nam, dated 30 September 1975, which I shall read out: “I have the. honour to request you to be kind enough to authorize me to address the Council on the question of the admission of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam and of the Republic of South Viet-Nam to the United Nations.” 3. I should also like to inform members of the Council that I have received a letter from the representatives of Guyana, Iraq, the United Republic of Cameroon and the United Republic of Tanzania requesting that, during the present discus&on held by the Council in accordance with General Assembly resolution 3366 (XXX), an opportunity be afforded to the Permanent Observers for the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam and the Republic of South Viet-Nam to present their views on the question under discussion. 4. It is my intention to request the Observer for the Republic of South Viet-Nam to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement after the vote is taken, if there is no objection. It was so decided. 5. The Council will now continue its consideration of the item on its agenda, and, with the Council’s permission, speaking as the representative of MAURITANIA, I shall make a brief statement. 6. The correctness of the position taken by the majority of the members of the Security Council during the meeting of 6 August last 11834th meeting] was strikingly confirmed by the General Assembly. In resolution 3366 (XXX), the General Assembly recommended that the Council immediately and favourably reconsider the requests for admission of the two Viet-Nams. Undoubtedly then Assembly thereby 7. The General Assemblv. which is sovereign as far as the admission of a new Member.is conceried, has recognized, for its part, that the two Viet-Nams fulfil the conditions laid down by the Charter for becoming Members of the United Nations. Hence we cannot but regret that the United States has seen fit, by a practice which we believed was a thing of the past, to link the admission of the two Viet-Nams to that of South Korea. 8. Destiny perhaps intends that the Vietnamese. people, having scored a victory. on the ‘battlefield, should continue their struggle in the diplomatic sphere. But what we are sure’of is that the,,Vietnamese people, thanks to their determination and strengthened by the soundness of their cause and, the unanimous support of the international community, will finally once again prevail. Already the resolution of the General Assembly, which I referred to just now, constitutes a valuable support to them and an undeniable victory.over the refusal their applications have met with. 9. True the United ‘States has put forward certain arguments, to justify its attitude. As for the .linked admission of two States, while such a practice was used in the past and in .a well-known international political context, we do not believe that it can be justified today. We thought that the progressive disappearance of the cold war and ‘of the mistrust which was a characteristic of it was going to mean that small countries would not be the .subject of con- ,frontations which appeared to us to be obsolete and which have been condemned many times. At any rate, to link the question of Korea with the-question of the two Viet-Nams .can only be’ reminiscent of the unfortunate methods used during that era. : ” 10. The Korean question, by its origin; its peculiarities, its political’ implications and the controversies which it has engendered and continues to engender in the Organization; is surely not: a question that should be politically or legally linked with the request for admission of the two Viet-Nams. The Korean question is still one ,of the major preoccupations of the United Nations because ,of the commitments that the Organization was obliged to assume’after the signing of the Armistice Agreement of, 27 July 1953.’ 11. The General Assembly, which is the supreme body of the Organization, must bear the main responsibility in seeking a solution of the Korean question, because every State Member of the United Nations is concerned over the situation prevailing at present in the Korean peninsula. The various resolutions adopted in recent years by the General Assembly, 12. In speaking’ of -Korea, one fact should be emphasized: it is that both parts of Korea have frequently, expressed their will to do everything in their power to bring about the peaceful reunification of their country. Such a desire would a priori exclude any resort to force ‘or violence and should therefore be encouraged. The joint communique of 4 July 1972,* in which both North and South Korea pledged themselves to continue the dialogue that had already been initiated, should be supported and encouraged: 13. To try’to force the entry. of either of the two parts of Korea into the United Nations is an attempt to perpetuate the division of Korea. If such a step were adopted by the Organization, we would have the heavy responsibility of having created an irreversible situation that : contradicts the deep aspirations and the higher interests of the ‘Korean’ nation. 14. The basic role incumbent on the United Nations is to encourage’ everything which brings peoples together and which further .strengthens the unity of nations. It is in the name of that principle and in the evident interest of the Korean people as a ,whole that my delegation felt it its duty to oppose the inclusion in the agenda of the request for admission of the southern part of Korea to the United Nations. We shall be entirely prepared to support the request for admission of Korea when both parts together have jointly. expressed their ‘desire to make -that request. It is in that way, moreover, that the United Nations, and particularly the Security Council, has had to resolve the cases of divided nations that have come to request admission to the Grganization. 15.’ The admission of the two, Viet-Nams ‘cannot be connected with the question of .Korea. Furthermore, the Vietnamese peoples deserve special. treatment because -they are peoples that have made enormous sacrifices in order to reconquer their liberty and their dignity. Such sacrifices, imposed on ‘them by a ‘war unprecedented in our history, deserve our gratitude and our admiration. 16. Despite the passive attitude, adopted by the Organization throughout the entire period of the Vietnamese tragedy, the Vietnamese peoples have, with- ! 17. And now,. in .my capacity as PRESIDENT, I call on the next speaker, the representative of Mozambique, to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. 22. We are surprised to see that the *United States and the United States alone refuses to admit that the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam and the Republic of South Viet-Nam are entitled to be independent and to be represented among us. This isolated attitude causes my” delegation and my people to feel some doubt about the sincerity of the United States in its relations with countries such as my own and its desire to consolidate peace in Indo-China. Would not the United States stand to gain more by way of privilege’ and esteem, by demonstrating through its goodwill to the people of Viet-Nam that the massacres, the heavy bombing and the humiliations inflicted on it throughout ,many years are now part of history? Why should, military aggression against Vi&-Nam be turned into diplomatic and moral aggression?

It is .a great honour for me as the representative of a country which has recently become a Member of the Organization, to be able directly to greet the members of the Security Council, this body which is so important for the life of the United Nations. I wish to extend by greetings to .you, in particular Mr. President, as the representative of Mauritania, a country which has done its duty inside and outside the United Nations, both in its own capacity and in co-operation with other members of the Organization of African Unity, for the liberation of my country and other .countries which were under Portuguese colonial domination. 23. Does not the United States want complete peace? Must.,the rage of the people of Viet-Nam against the United States, be perpetuated? Or is this a continuation of the cold war? If so, let us not talk about detente,; let us not fool each other. We in Mozambique, like the people of Viet-Nam, are independent, and we have struggled to become so. We and other countries like us suffer more from the consequences of the cold war between the major Powers. .That is why’ we struggled and still struggle to continue to get rid of the &auses of cold war. That is why we are wedded to our independence. 19.. It is for that reason, Sir, that my delegation is extremely gratified to see you presiding over these meetings of the Security Council, instructed, as it is, by the overwhelming majority of the members of the General Assembly favourably to reconsider .-the requests received from the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam and the Republic of South Viet-Nam for admission to membership in the ,United Nations. 20. The people. of Mozambique carried on for 10 years an armed struggle against Portuguese colonialism. Our people was subjected to massacres and torture, and our country was devastated. During that period of struggle Portugal was our enemy and all those countries which supported. Portugal were also our enemies. But, since ours was a struggle for peace and to create conditions which would make it possible for us to initiate friendly relations with all peoples and States throughout the world, today we are in the United .Nations working side by side ,with Portugal and with the.United States, for example, building a new world, one in which there is harmony and greater security. 24, My delegation believes it is completely wrong to judge the merits of a country for admission to membership in the United Nations on the basis of the merits of other countries. We noted that the delegation of the United States made a statement during these meetings in order to discuss another matter which was, not on. the agenda. Korea is not Viet-Nam. The Council decided that the question of the admission of‘the Republic of Korea would not be discussed during these meetings. Why, then, are we discussing it? . 25. Mozambique, Cape Verde, and Sao Tome and Principe were admitted, yet the Republic of Korea was not. The United States says it is not against the admission of the two Vi&-Nams. In that case let their actions match their words. Let us admit 21. We believe that the United States of America is as pleased at this fact as are all the other members of the international community. Despite the distance separating us, we struggled side by side 26. My delegation entirely agrees with those who have already stated that admission of the two Vietnamese States to the United Nations would be a guarantee that the principle of universality would be realized. But universality is not the only valid criterion for the admission of Members; therefore in all cases we have to weigh the question of the admission of a particular country on its own merits. Otherwise the existence of the bodies and committees of the United Nations which study ,and recommend the admission of new Members .:would be unjustifiable. .I 27. My delegation believes that the J admission of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam and the Republic of South Viet-Nam should be decided by unanimity among,the Members of the United Nations and that it was only in order to act in accordance with normal procedures that this problem was referred back to the Security Council for immediate and favourable consideration. My delegation cannot see why the report of the Council should still be a negative one, since there are not, nor can there be, any fresh arguments to lay before the General Assembly. 28. It would not spell defeat for thenUnited States were it to reconsider its position, because it is only a question of reconsidering an opinion in order to bring it more closely into harmony with the process of history and the sacred goals of the United Nations.

I now invite the representative of, Mexico to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. President, may I begin by expressing my delegation’s pleasure at seeing you in the presidential chair of the Security Council at this time and thanking you and all the members of the Council for having granted our request to speak in this debate. On the agenda of the meeting is a very specific item-the letter dated 19 September 1975 from the President of the General Assembly to the President of the Security Council. In that letter, the President of the Assembly informed the President of the Council that at its 2354th plenary meeting, on 19 September, the General Assembly adopted its resolution 3366 (XXX), the op.erative paragraphs of which are very short. In paragraph 1, the Assembly “Considers that the ‘Democratic Republic of Viet- Nam and the Republic of South Viet-Nam should be admitted to membership in the United Nations”. In paragraph 2, the Assembly “Accordingly reques?s the Security Council to reconsider immediately and favourably their applications in strict conformity with Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Charter of the United Nations”. 32. It is our hope, I repeat, that the result will be different from last time. That hope is chiefly based on three reasons. The first is the fact that General Assembly resolution 3366 (XXX), which is selfexplanatory and whose operative’ paragraphs I have just read out, was adopted by an overwhelming majority. There were only a few abstentions and there were no opposing votes. 33. The second reason is one which I have already stated in the plenary meeting when I explained our vote there, on 19 September, but now I should like to expand on that explanation. The second reason is that we believe, as I then stated: “that if there is any people in the world which should indeed occupy a place-a place of honour, I would say-in the United Nations, it is the people of Viet-Nam. Throughout history there is no people who have struggled with greater heroism and at the cost of greater suffering in winning their full rights to independence and self-determination.“3 The third reason stems from our conviction that: “any permanent member of the Council who attempts to impede entrance to the United Nations of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam and the Republic of South Viet-Nam would be seriously violating commitments which those members explicitly undertook at the United Nations Conference on International Organization, held at San Francisco in 1945.“3 34. I shall now very briefly recall those commitments. For this purpose I shall quote a few paragraphs which I wrote in 1945, following that Conference, when the memory of my participation in the work of the committee of the Conference dealing with the Security Council was still fresh in my mind. .This, then, is what I said on the subject: “In order to clarify the rather cryptic Yalta text which is incorporated in the Dumbarton Oaks draft, and accepting the invitation extended by the inviting Powers at that time to shorten the discussions in the committee, those delegations that “For more than two weeks, from 22 May to 7 June, representatives of the four inviting countries” -at that time France was not yet a Member of the United Nations-” worked tirelessly to try to arrive at an agreement as to the replies they were to give to the aforementioned questionnaire. 37. Another reason for taking this commitment very seriously is that, as all those who took part in the San Francisco Conference will recall, this declaration was a decisive element in ending the crisis which was endangering the very outcome of the San Francisco Conference. “Finally, on 8 June, we distributed to the members of the committee the text of a joint statement by the sponsoring Powers4 whereby those Powers, without specifically replying to each one of the 23 questions put to them, defined their ‘general attitude’ with regard to the veto. 38. In the/same way, it is appropriate to recall the advisory..‘opinion handed down in 1948 by the International Court of Justices to the effect that when a request for admission is discussed the permanent members of the Security Council do not have the right to base themselves on another State’s support or rejection of another applicant. We jurists 1 certainly sometimes allow ourselves too much freedom in the manner in which we interpret texts, but in this case, even if we used not only the greatest freedom, but even licence, it would not be possible to change themeaning of the advisory opinion of the court. ” “The text of the first paragraph of that statement, which was included in an annex to the report of the committee, reads as follows: “ ‘Specific questions covering the voting procedure in the Security Council have been submitted by a sub-committee of the Conference Committee on Structure and Procedures. of the Security Council to the delegations of the four Governments sponsoring the Conference-the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of China. In dealing with those questions, the four delegations desire to make the following statement, of their general attitude towards the whole question of unanimity of permanent members in the decisions of the Security Council. ,Z 94 39. That text, the text which the advisory opinion itself says is the genuine, authentic text, is the French text. In order to avoid any possibility of doubt, I think it might be usefulto conclude this statement by reading the authentic text, the French text. ., “The Court, . . . is of opinion 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 in 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; 35. The rest of the statement was by and large devoted to an explanation of the reasons why the .matters contained in what would become Chapters VI, VII and VIII of the Charter had to be subject to the rule of unanimity of the permanent members of the Security Council. Those reasons in the last instance were that, as was stated in paragraph 4 of the four- Power statement to which I have referred, the decisions and measures which the Security Council would adopt in implementation of those Chapters might have “major political consequences” which might initiate “a chain of events which might, in the end, require the Council under its responsibilities to invoke measures of enforcement”.4 “and that, in particular, a Member of the Organization cannot, while it recognizes the conditions set forth in that provision to be fulfilled by the State concerned, subject its affirmative vote to the additional condition that other States be admitted to membership in the United Nations together with that State.“* . . 40. These are the three main reasons why my delegation, even at this.late hour in our debate and, not forgetting a statement made here two or three days ago, is still hopeful that this time the Council will be able to adopt draft resolutions S/ 11832 and S/ 11833. 36. Obviously, the decisions of the Council which have to do with the admission of new Members are not included in that category of decisions, and therefore the commitment entered into by the permanent members of the Security Council in their statement of 8 June 1945 is doubly applicable to those decisions. In paragraph 8 of that statement; they said that:

If no other representative wishes to speak at this stage to explain his vote before the vote, I shall take it that the Council is prepared to proceed imme- * Quoted in French by the speaker. A vote was taken by show of hands. In favour: Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, China, Costa Rica, France, Guyana, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Mauritania, Sweden, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great ‘,,Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of @neroon, United Republic of Tanzania. Against: United States of America. The result of the vote was 14 in favour and I against. The draft resolution was not adopted’Rt/ze negative vote being that at a permanent member ofthe Council. :< 42. I shall now put to the vote the second draft resolution, which appears in document S/l 1833. A vote was taken by show of hands.. -.I In favour: Byelorrusian Soviet Socialist Republic, China, Costa Rica, France, Guyana, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Mauritania, Sweden, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic <of Cameroon, United Republic of Tanzania. Against: United States of America: ; ., The result of the vote was 14 in favour and I against. The draft resolution was not adopted, the negative vote being that of a permanent member of the Council.

Several representatives have asked to explain their vote after the vote, and I shall now call on them.

In disregard of the Charter of the United Nations and the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the Member States as expressed in General Assembly resolution 3366 (XXX)., the United States representatives has once again vetoed the applications of the Democratic Republic of VietlNam and the Republic of ‘South Viet-Nam. The Chinese delegation considers that such a practice of the United States is completely unjustifiable. We cannot but express deep regret at it. 45. We believe that obstructionists are bound to fail and that the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam and the Republic of South Viet-Nam will ultimately obtain their legitimate seats and rights in the United Nations. The Chinese ,delegation will continue to work together with all justice-upholding Member States for the attainment of the full rights of the Vietnamese .people in the Unite,d Nations. 47. In this era of dialogue, which was underlined so distinctly during the recent seventh special, session of the General Assembly, the United States, cannot accept that the admission -of a fully qualified .applicant should be dependent on the wishes of a non-Member State. 48: The Republic of Korea, with a population of over 35 miilion persons, has been duly constituted as a State since 15,August 1948. It has had observer status in the United Nations since 1949. It enjoys diplomatic relations with over 90 ‘States which are Members of the United Nations. The Republic of Korea has repeated its assurances ,that its admission to the United Nations would in no way dilute its hopes for peaceful reunification on the Korean peninsula. Indeed, membership in the United Nations, with its dedication to peace and harmony, should promote unification, not set it back. 49. The United States favours the admission of all qualified States desiring membership, including, I repeat, the Viet-Nams. The United States hopes that the parties directly concerned in this impasse will discuss the question urgently so that it may be resolved. 50. I should like to conclude, Mr. President, with a statement of personal, and if I may say so professional, admiration for the dignity and graciousness with which you have guided us through. this difficult if unavailing exercise.

Since no other member of the Council has asked to speak in explanation ‘of his vote, I invite the Observer ,for the Republic of South- Viet-Nam to take a seat at the Council table, in accordance with the decision which the Council took a short time ago, and to make his statement.

On behalf of Mr. Nguyen Van Luu, Permanent Observer for the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, and on my own behalf I should like first of all, Mr. President, to thank most heartily you and the members of the Security Council who were kind enough to invite me to participate in this discussion. We should like also to congratulate you warmly on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council, an important office in which you have demonstrated the full measure of your competence and authority. We are particularly gratified at seeing you occupy that post, since your country, the Islamic Republic of Mauri- 57. So far as we are concerned, the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Viet-Nam and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam will continue to work, as they have in the past, with all the forces for progress, to ensure the defence of peace and security throughout the world, the independence and freeddm of peoples and the development of relations of friendship and co-operation among nations. 53. Once again defying the majority opinion of the General Assembly, clearly expressed in its resolution 3366 (XXX) and adopted by almost all the members of the Security Council, the United States has wrongly imposed a veto on the admission to the United Nations of the Republic of South Viet- Nam and the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam. The tendentious allegations of the American Government regarding universality and representivity can deceive no one, as has been quite properly shown by the many delegations which have taken part in this discussion. 58. Once again we express our deep gratitude to the socialist .countries, to the non-aligned countries and to all the other peace-loving and justice-loving countries that agreed with and supported the admission to the United Nations of the- Republic of South Viet-Nam and the Democratic Republic of Viet- Nam. The adoption of resolution 3366 (XXX) by the General ‘Assembly, which constitutes a victory for the Vietnamese people and the forces of progress, is a severe condemnation of the retrogressive policy and obstinate attitude of the United States. 54. Quite obviously, the United States is deliberately pursuing a policy of hostility, which it has stubbornly practised for decades, against the Vietnamese people, now preventing that people from occupying its proper’ place and making its voice heard within the United Nations, just as previously it sought by all means in its power to oppose the basic, national rights and the right to self-determination of the people of Viet-Nam. 59. Finally, we should like warmly to thank the 14 members bf the Security Council that have just voted in favour of the draft resolutions recommending the admission of the Republic of South Viet-Nam and the Democratic Republic of Viet- Nam, as well as, the many delegations that were kind enough to speak during the discussion in order forcefully to support the just cause of the Vietnamese people. 55. This abuse of its powers by the United States is part and parcel of the manceuvres undertaken to perpetuate the division of Korea. Thus the constantly manifested goodwill of the Provisional Revolutionary Government. of the’ Republic of South Viet-Nam and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, which have frequently stated their readiness’ to establish normal relations with the American Government on the basis of the Paris Accords on Viet-Nam,6 has been answered by the United States by .the use, four times, of the veto, by an embargo and even by a refusal to allow American organiiations to send humanitarian assistance to the people of Viet-Nam. Such a policy is quite obviously contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, to the will of the peoples and even the legitimate interests of the American people. Does this not constitute the sole reason for the deadlock on other problems existing between Viet-Nam and ‘the United States, problems which could be solved now that peace has returned? 60. There can be no doubt that the United States cannot in any way prevent the Vietnamese people from playing their legitimate part and raising their just voice for the common cause of all peoples: peace, independence, democracy and progress in the. world.

I thank the Observer for the Republic of South Viet-Nam for the friendly words he has addressed to Mauritania and to me personally. I would assuie the Observers for the two Viet-Nams that they can count on the active solidarity and unfailing support of the Government. and people of Mauritania. 62. As no other member of the Council wishes ‘to speak; we shall now consider the ,Council’s report to the General Assembly. In conformity with the third paragraph of rule 60 of its provisional rules of procedure, “if the Security Council does not recommend the *applicant State for membership.. . it shall submit a special report to the General Assembly, with a complete record of the discussion”. Following my request, the Secretariat has prepared a draft special report. Memb~ers of the Council have before them, in all the working languages,. a provisional text of the draft special report of the Security Coun- 56. We are convinced that, following the veto thus used for the second time against the admission of the Republic of South Viet-Nam and ,the Democratic Republic .of Viet-Nani, many ‘voices will be raised to denounce this erroneous policy and demand that the United States finally act in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and the will of almost all the States Members of the United Nations as 63. I would draw the attention of members of the Council to paragraph 7 [subsequently paragraph 81 of the draft report, which contains a number of blanks that must be filled in with the results of the votes that have just taken place on draft resolutions S/11832 and S/11833. Those blanks will be filled in by the Secretariat before the report is submitted to the General Assembly. Moreover, the Yfollowing paragraph must be inserted after the present paragraph 5 of the draft report: “In accordance with a decision taken at the 1846th meeting pursuant to a request of the representatives of Guyana, Iraq, the United Republic of Cameroon and the United Republic of Tanzania the Council agreed without objection to invite the representative of the Republic of South Viet-Nam to present his point of view on the question included in the agenda.” 64. Are there any representatives who wish to comment on the draft report? The representative of Iraq has the floor.

My delegation would suggest that in paragraph 8 [subsequently paragraph 91 of the draft report the phrase “As the Security Council therefore does not recommend” be replaced by the phrase “As the Security Council therefore was unable to recommend”.

Are there any objections to the amendment just suggested by the representative of Iraq?

I agree with the amendment suggested by the representative of Iraq. I would simply say that it is my understanding that

I have no objection to the amendments that have just been put forward. However, as now drafted the beginning of paragraph 8 would read: “As the Security Council therefore was unable to recommend any of the applicant States”. We propose that the word “any” should be deleted, and that it should be stated specifically that “the Security Council... was unable to recommend the admission of the Republic of South Viet-Nam and the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam to membership in the United Nations”.

As there are no objections to the various amendments that have been proposed, I declare the amendments approved. If no member of the Council wishes to make any comments on the draft special report, and if there are no objections, I shall declare the draft report approved as amended. It was so decided.’ The meeting rose at 4.40 p.m. Notes ‘: ’ Ibid., Thtrtieth Session, Plenary Meetings, 2354th meeting. 4 United Nations Conference on International Omanization, 111/l/37. s Admission of a State to the United Nations (Charter, Art. 4). Advisorv Ooinion: I.C.J. Reoorts 1948. D. 57. 6 Uniied’Nations, Treaty Series. vol: $35. ’ OJkial Records-.of the General Assembly, Thirfieth Session, Annexes, agenda item 22, document A/10273. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS United Nations publications may be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations, Sales Section, New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES & Les publications des Nations Unies sont en vente dans les librairies et les agences depositaires du . monde entier. Informez-vous auprits de votre libraire ou adressez-vous a : Nations Unies, Section des ventes, New York ou Gentve. , KAK IIO;IY’IMTb H3&4HIIII OPI’AHH 3&f&i OE-bEARHEHHbiX HAIWH Ws~aHwx OpraXmaqxx 06~e~~xeHHbIx Haqwk MOXHO ~ymwb B KHH)KHLIX ?&w-a- 3x~ax x ar-t?HTCTBax BO xcex pafiOHaX Mupa. HaBOnHTe cnpaemi 06 H3AaxxRX e BameM KHH~HOM Mara3HHe unw nmmme no anpecy: OpraHH3aLtHR 06-beAxHeHHbIx Haquii. Ce~qm no npofiame m~axwk, HMO-Fiop~ wnki XCeHeaa. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidas estan en venta en librerias y casas distribuidoras en todas partes de1 mundo. Cons&e a su librero o dirljase a: Naciones Unidas, Seccibn de Ventas, Nueva York o Ginebra.