S/PV.204 Security Council

I should like to state the position of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on this whole question, in connexion with the letter addressed to the Security Council by the United States and the Polish representative. We are ready to agree to the admission of . Italy to the United Nations, but only on the condition that all other countries which are in the same position-namely, Bulgaria, Roumania, Hungary and Finland-are also admitted. We consider that it is impossible to make any separate decision on the Italian application, or Jo consider this case separately from other similar cases. As the members of the Council know< the Potsdam Conference of 1945 treated all these countries in the same way, without any discrimination in respect to any of them. The Protocol of the Potsdam Agreement states, concerning Italy: HThe conclusion of such a peace treaty"-that is, a peace treaty with Italy- "with a recognized and democratic Italian Government will make it possible for the three Governments"-the Governments of the United States, of the United Kingdom and of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics-Hto fulfil ,their desire to support an application from Italy for membership of the United Nations." Further, with respect to the other four countries, it is state€! in the Pr0tocol of the PotsC:am Agreemei.t that: "The three Governments have also chat:ged the Council of Foreign Ministers with the I1 est dit encore dans le Protocole des Accords de Potsdam en ce qui concerne les quatre autres pays, que: "Les trois Gouvernements ont egalement charge le Conseil des Ministres des Affaires no~ition of the USSR on this question. The h~sident has contended that the Treaties with ex-enemy states impose an obligation on the Allied and Associated Powers to support the candidacy of the ex-enemy States for membership in the United Nations. The provision to which this interpretation has been given was cited by the President from the Potsdam Agreement. It is also, as the President will recall, a paragraph in the preamble of each Treaty, which, in the case of Hungary, for example, reads as follows: "Whereas the Allied and Associated Powers and Hungary are desirous of concluding a treaty of peace, which, conforming to the principles of justice, will settle questions still'outstanding as a result of the events hereinbefore cited and form the basis of friendly relations between them, thereby enabling the Allied -and Associated Powers to support Hungary's application to become a Member of the United Nations and also to adhere to any convention concluded under the auspices of the United Nations ..." - I wish to invite the attention of the members" of the Council to the ex2.ct language: " enabling the Allied and Associated Powers " and so forth. The admission of these countries at the proper time and under proper conditions was, of course, contemplated in a general way by the' makers of the Treaties. However, the word "enabling" does not express any obligation to support an applicant at a particular time. \The Allied and Associated Powers certainly" did not, by accepting this provision of the Preamble, bind themselves, without any conditions, to support the other parties' applications for member- ?hip, regardless of any circumstances thit might mtervene. For example, .they cannot reasonably be said to have bohnd themselves in advance to support an ?,pplicant which, by its own subsequent behaVIOur, has clearly demonstrated its failure to meet the qualifications set forth in the Charter. The Allied and Associated Powers reserve to themselves, and rightly, the opportunity to judge these applications on their merits. They could not, in the very nature of the case, be expected 'to S!g~ a blank cheque, as the representative of the USSR seems to be contending. The applicants now before us, as States, as Governments; as peoples, are of course entirely responsible for their own individual conduct. They must, by that conduct, meet the qualificaticns of, the Charter, regardless of any Potsdam agreements or any interpretation which may be given to them. They must, as must all other States, give reason to believe that they are peace-loving States, able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter. Those stipulations of the Charter are of overriding authority in all applications, in the opinion of my Government. I do not know exactly what the representative of the USSR, as the President of the Council, has in mind regarding the voting on the applications, but I do feel that my delegation is within its technical rights in asking that these applications be considered individually. I should then .express the views of my Government on each one as that country's case is discussed. If that should not be the case and if the Council should decide to vote on the resolution presented by the representative of Poland-which I can hardly conceive of the Council's doing, because I believe there are others who feel that these applicants must be voted on separately-then I would have to express my opinions 01:\ each one, during the general discussion on that resolution, and again insist that the question of voting on them separately be submitted to the Council for a decision. Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria): The attitude of the Syrian delegation on the question of admission of new applicants to membership in the United Nations is well known. I have had occasion to eXpress it more than once at previous meetings. It is based principally on the idea of universality, and relies on Article 2, paragraph 6, of the Charter. This paragraph begins as follows: "The Organization shall ensure that States which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these principles . . ." of the Charter. In that respect I consider, as I have considered in the past, that States which are Members of the United Nations, would more readily act in accordance with the Charter and principles of the United Nations than States which are not members. The best way to make all non-member States act in accordance with the principles of the Charter is to admit them to membership and' have them work with us in the United Nations. When States meet together in the United Nations, they feel a certain brotherhood, a certain affinity and intimacy with each other, obliging and helping them to work together and to har·, monize their attitudes in matters involving international peace and security. States that are Members of the United Nations are more likely to have this feeling than those that are outside the United Nations. ' On this principle, at previous meetings I have always voted in favour of the admission of applicants, considering that a,s long as these applicants declare and profess that they are peace-loving, I must believe their statements and judge, in the future, as to whether they commit any act of aggression or any other act which is not in accord with the peace-loving principle; we may judge such acts when they occur. Upon examining the agenda adopted by the Council, I find that the items are listed in order of priority. I expected the Council to discuss these items in the order in which they are mentioned in the agenda which was adopted. The first item after the adoption of the agenda is the cable from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Finland. I thought that this would be the fi,rst question to be discussed. The second is the letter from the United States alternate representative, and the third is the letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland. According to the order of the agenda, I think the Council is bound to take up these items one by one, as they stand in the agenda which was adopted, giving priority to the ealllEer items. Furthermore, when the Council reaches item 3, the letters from the United States alternate representative and the Foreign Minister of' Poland, I do not see why it should limit its discussion to the five States mentioned there, eliminating the other five which failed to gain admission recently. All of them should have the same rights. For instance, Transjordan: why should it always be eliminated? If the 1)ames of the five States not mentioned are inserted in the Poland draft resolution, I am ready to vote affirm?-tively for all the applicants, from beginning to end, if they are all put together. However, if all the States are not put together, but are considered separately, according to the procedure previously adopted bv the Security Council, I am ready to vote affil'datively on anyone of them when it is put to a vote. But I believe the principle in the agenda should be adhered to. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : I merely wish to bring out two points. Lorsque des Etats se trouvent reunis au sein de l'Organisation des Nations Unies, ils eprouvent un certain sentiment de fraternite, d'affinite et de familiarite qui leur commande, tout en les y aidant, de travailler ensemble et d'harmoniser leurs vues sur les questions qui interessent la paix et la securite internationales. Les Etats qui sont Membres des Nations Unies se trouvent plus facilement penetres de ce-5entiment que ceux qui sont en dehors de 1'Organisation. C'est en partant de ces premisses que j'a'i. toujours vote, dans le passe, en faveur de l'admission de nouveaux Membres, estimant que si des Etats font profession d'aimer la paix. mon devoir est de leur faire confiance et d~ttendre la suite pour decider s'ils commettent quelque acte d'agression .ou tout autre acte incompatible avec la qualite d'Etat pacifique. Ce n'est qu'au moment ou des actes dece genre--seront commis que nous pourrons nous prononcer. Si j'examine l'ordre du jour adopte par le Conseil, je vois que 1'0n a procede a 1'inscription des points d'apres un certain ordre. Je croyais que le Conseil suivrait cet ordre pour leur discussion. Or le premier point, apres l'adoption de l'ordre du jour, a trait au telegramme du Ministre des Affaires etrangeres de Finlande. Je pensais que l'on commencerait par le discuter; le deuxieme point a trait a la lettre du representant suppleant des Etats-Unis, et le troisieme a la lettre du Ministre des Affaires etrangeres de Pologne. J'estime que le Conseil, s'il veut se conformer a l'ordre du jour, est tenu d'examiner ces points 1'un apres l'autre, dans l'ordre ou. ils figurent sur ledit ordre du jour qui a ete adopte, et de" commencer par ceux qui viennent en premier. De plus, lorsque le Conseil en arrivera au point 3, a savoir les lettres du representant suppleant des Etats-Unis et du Ministre des Affaires etrangeres de Pologne, je ne vois aucune raison qui l'oblige a limiter ses debats aux cinq Etats mentionnes et a en ecarter les cinq autres dont l'admission a ete recemment, refusee. Taus ces Etats devraient avoir les memes droits. En ce qui concerne la Transjordanie, par exemple, pourquoi devrait-eIle toujours se voir ecarter? Si les cinq Etats non mentionnes sont inclus dans la resolution de la Pologne, je suis dispose avoter en faveur de toutes les demandes d'admisslon. Si, au ' contraire, le Conseil decide de 'ne pas examiner a la fois les demandes de tous ces Etats, et les prend, comme il 1'a fait ant<:~rieurement, les unes apres les autres, je suis pret a voter separement en faveur de chacune d'eIles; mais j'estime que le Conseil devrait respecter son ordre du jour. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (Royaume-Uni) (tra-'- duit de l'anglais) : Je voudrais me bornera. deux observations. With regard to the resolution submitted by the representative of Poland for a blanket vote on the ad-mission of Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, and Roumania, I am afraid I must say that I cannot support that, and I should' have thought that the Council itself could not and should not do so. If it did adopt that procedure, it would be, to some extent, evading the duty and obligation laid upon it to examine separately the qualifications of each applicant for admission. The representative of Poland explained that he made this proposal because Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy and Roumania were all in the same position, Peace Treaties with those countries having now come into force. I certainly concede the point that these countries are in the same position from one point of view, and that is that they all suffered from one common disqualification. But the removal of one common disqualification cannot possibly mean that, in all other respects, they are all equally qualified for admission. I do think we are bound to examine their applications separately, examine their merits, and vote on them separately. The President, speaking as the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, has said that his Government would support the application of Italy, provided the applications of the other four Governments would also be accepted. If I may say so, I.do not think that is a very good 'Nay of dealing with the situation. It sounds like something rather commonly and vulgarly known a~ a "horse-trade." I think we ought to consider the applications separately on their merits and take our decision on them according to what we think right. I cannot see how we can arbitrarily link together a number of Governments and say that we must either accept or reject all of them. I do not see the interdependence at all. I do see that a certain En ce qui concerne, d'autre part, la resolution presentee par le representant de la Pologne, tendant a ce qu'il soit vote en bioc sur les demandes d'admission de la Bulgarie, de la Hongrie, de l'Italie, et de la Roumanie, je regrette de devoir declaret: que je ne puis l'appuyer, et j'inclinerais a croire que le Conseil lui-meme ne peut et ne doit pas l'appuyer. Adopter cette fa<;on de proceder equivaudrait pour lui, dans une certaine mesure, ? se derober au devoir et a l'obligation qui IUl incombent d'examiner separement, en ce qui concerne chaque Etat requerant, les titres qui 160nt en faveur de son admission comme Membre de l'Organisation. Le representant de la Pologne a declare qu'il a presente cette proposition parce que la Bulgarie, la Hongrie, l'Italie, et la Rou,nanie SORt tous dans la meme situation, les Traites & paix conclus avec ces pays etant entres en vigueur. Je reconnais certes que ces pays sont dans la meme situation a un point de vue, a savoir qu'ils se sont tous trouves devant le meme obstacle; mais, du fait qu'un obstacle qui leur etait commun n'existe plus, iI ne saurait absolument pas suivre que \ous ces pays reunissent les conditions requises pour etre admis comme Membres de I'Organisation. Ma conviction est que nous sommes tenus d'examiner leurs demandes separement, d'apres leurs titres individuels, et voter sur chacune d'eUes. Le President, parIant en qualite de representant de I'Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques, a declare que son Gouvernement appuierait la demande d'admission de l'Italie a condition que les demandes des quatre autres pays re<;oivent aussi l'approbation du Conseil. Puis-je me permettre de dire que je. ne crois pas que cette fa<;on de regler la question soit bonne. Elle evoque ce que 1'0n designe assez communement et vulgairement par le mot de "maquignonnage". Je crois vraiment que nous devrions examiner les demandes d'admission separement, d'apres les titres des Etats qui les ont presentees, et prendre aleur sujet la decision que nous estimons juste. Je ne vois pas comment nous pouirions rassembler arbitrairement les demandes de pltisieurs Gouvernements et declarer que nous devon9 Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot vote for the Polish proposal. Mr. 'TSIANG (China): First I should like to speak briefly on the procedure that, in the opinion of my delegation, we should adopt here. The President has referred to certain agreements which he thought were relevant to the consideration of this question. As my Government has not been a party to those agreements, we can only keep in mind, in considering the problem, the relevant Article of the Charter and the relevant rules of our rules of procedure. The Charter requires us to put certain questions to applicants: first, is the applicant a peaceloving State; secondly, is the applicant willing and able to fulfil the obligations·of membership? The nature of those questions is essential.Iy individual. We can never judge whether a block of States is willing or able to fulfil tlfe obligations of membership. We must put these questions to. each applicant and answer these questions in relation to each applicant. Heretofore the practice of the Security Council has been to treat each application individually. In the opinion of my delegation, that is the only possible procedure to adopt in relation to these five applications which have been placed before us. / We should lik~ to see the rules of procedure observed in connexion with these five applications. It is my understanding that, whenever a new application reaches the Security Council, the first step is to refer that application to our Committee on the Admission of New Members, unless for some exceptional reason the members of the Council should agree to waive that step. When we considered the application of Pakistan, I remember that the President put the specific question to the members of the Council as to whether the step of preliminary investigation and report by our Committee on the Admission of New Members could be waived. We agreed to thatl . Nous aimerions egalement VOIr le Conseil de i securite observer le reglement interieur dans l'examen de ces cinq demandes d'admission. Si je ne me trompe, le Conseil de securite doit, lorsqu'il est saisi d'une nouvelle demande, la renvoyer d'abord au Comite des demandes d'admission de nouveaux Membres, a moins que, pour des raisons exceptionnelles, les membres du Conseil decident de ne pas suivre cette procedure. Je me souviens que, lors de l'examen de la de-· mande d'admission du Pakistan, le President a .demande aux membres du Conseil s'il y avait lieu de deroger a la disposition concernant l'examen preliminaire de la demande par le Comite d'admission de nOUveaux Membres et le rapport de celui-ci. Le Conseil a repondu par l'affirmative1. Sur les cinq demandes d'admission dont nous sommes saisis aujourd'hui, une-celle de la Finlande-nous est presentee pour la premiere fois. La possibilite de la soumettre a l'examen du Comitl des demandes d'admission de nouveaux Membres ne nous a pas ete donnee. J'insisterai done pour que nous nous en tenions a la procedure habitueIle. Voila pour ce qui est de la procedure.. Of the five applications before us today, the case of Finland comes before US for the first time. We have not had the opportunity to submit it for examination bv the Committee on the Admission of New Members. Therefore, I would insist that the usual procedure be observed here. So much for the procedural side of the question before us.

I wish to draw the attention of the Council to the fact that we must not overestimate the importance of procedure. No matter which procedure is adopted, from among those suggested by different members of the Council, we shall probably have the same result. It was suggested by the representative of Poland-and I supported the proposal-that we should discuss, and take si!1].ultaneous decisionson, all the applications. This proposal met with objections. When the representatives of Australia and Belgium have spoken, I shall ask the Council to take a vote on whether we shall discuss all the applications and take one and the same vote on them, or disouss each application separately and take a separate decision on each. - Colonel HODGSON (Australia): The other day the President was good enough to read to us a portion of an interpretative agreement made at San Francisco between the permanent members of the Security Council. My delegation objected, on the ground that it did not bind the non-permanent members and had nothing to do with the Charter or the rules of procedure under which this Council is working2• Today the Presid.ent has quoted the Potsdam Agreement, and I ask myself how that is binding on this Security Council. But even if it were binding, the President's interpretation of that agreement is wrong..I am quite conversant with the relevant portion of the preamble of the Peace Treaty which follows that Potsdam Agreement,. an.d the words it uses are: et••• thereby The President states that he is ready to admit Italy, and therefore he admits that Italy is a peace-loving State, able and wiIIingtto carry out the principles of the Charter. Then he immediately proceeds to do what we consider a gross injustice to Italy because, in contradiction to the Charter, he goes outside it and makes his vote conditional on something else: that is, that we admit other members. The President knows that some of these States " received only one vote. That was three weeks I ago. Now he tries to impbse a condition which, to my mind, to speak frankly, savours of blackmail. We are asked to vote for all the otliers so that we can admit, say, Italy, or othe~s which come within the provisions of the Charter. We object to having to vote in globo, to giving a blanket attthority. It is contrary to the practice of this Council. We think we are within our, rights' in taking this resolution which the President correctly says is the only resolution before us, and in asking that it be voted upon portion by portion; that is, that each country be taken separately. I would ask for a vote to be taken in that manner, in accordance with everything we have done in the past. / Mr. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgium) (translated from French): The draft resolution submitted by the representative of Poland raises a question of principle on which I should like to express the opinion of the Belgian delegation. , . It is a question of determining whether it is 1ll order for the Council to give a collective Clecision on the admission of a number of States. The Belgian delegation is of the opinion that such a mode of procedure would not be in conformity with Article 4 of the Charter. To give a collective decision would, in fact, amount to making the admission of one State dependent on the admission of one or more other States, and there is no provision for this in Article 4 of the Charter. It woul@ mean adding' to the conditions laid down in Article 4. The Council however, cannot add to the conditions laid dow~ in t~e Charter; and any addition, whether by makmg a collective decision or in any other manner, would be illegal. Mr. LANGE (Poland) : On the question of procedure, I should like to state that I have no objection to the vote being taken separately, that is, that each country be dealt with separately. But after that, I shall ask the President to submit the whole resolution to a vote. I should like also to explain briefly why the Polish delegation has included all these countries in one resolution. It is because we think that the countries mentioned here, being the former so-called Axis satellites, do constitute one common group. Pf course we have certain criteria for acceptance laid down by Article 4 of the Charter. I, for my part, think that these criteria are satisfied by each of these countries, but I should, also like to mention what was mentioned by Mr. Modzelewski when he spoke here a while ago, namely that, in addition, the signatories of the Peace Treaties have undertaken a moral obligation to help these countries become Members of the United Nations. I do not'see any reason why any of the~e. countries should not be accepted. I understand that certain MemberStak:; of the United Nations may not like the policies of certain countries., For instance, they may not like the fact that a country has changed its prime minister, but most respectfully I must submit that this is no reason for the exclusion of that country. Of course every representative has the right to vote as he wishes. The PRF;SIDENT:, The majority of the Security Council is definitely in favour of discussing and taking a decision on ~ach of the' applications separately. Therefore, I shall not ask the Council today to vote on this procedural point. As the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, I wish to repeat that it is impossible for the Security Council to make any positive decision on the applications if we take separate decisions on them without taking a decision nou~ pourrions tenir compte pour chacune d'elles des elements que pourrait degager la discussion, et ceci independamment des raisons qui viennent d'etre avancees. J'insiste donc dans ce sens, me reservant d'intervenir ulterieurement a nouveau sur le fond meme de la question. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de IJanglais) : Il nous faut prendre une decision sur un point de procedure, afin 'de savoir de quelle maniere nous allons proceder a la discussion et prendre une decision sur le fond de la question qui nous occupe. M. LANGE (Pologne) (tr(!duit de l'anglais) : En ce qui concerne la procedure, je tiens a declarer que je ne vois pas d'objection a ce 'que le Conseil procede a des votes distincts, c'est-a-dire qu'il examine separement le cas de ehaque pays. Mais, cela fait, je demanderai au President de mettre aux vojx la resolution dans son ensemble. Je voudrais egalement expliquer brievement pourquoi la delegation polonaise a propose dans une meme resolution l'admission en bloc de tous les pays en question: c'est parce que ces pays, en tant qu'ex-satellites de l'Axe, constituent un seul groupe. Il est vrai que l'Article 4 de la Charte stipule certains conditions relatives a l'admission de nouveaux Membres. A mon avis, chacun des pays en question satisfait aces con- ,ditions; mais je voudrais en outre souligner une remarque qu'a faite tout a l'heure M. Modzelewski, a savoir que les Puissances signataires des Traites de paix ont assume l'obligation morale d'aider ces pays a devenir Membres des Nations Dnies. Je ne vois aucune raison de refuser a l'un quelconque de ces pays l'acces a l'Organisation, Je comprende que certains des Etats Membres des Nations Unies peuvent ne pas approuver la politique de certains de ces pays. Par exemple, ils peuvent ne pas aimer le fait qu'un pays a change de premierministre; mais je dois faire respectueusement remarquer que ce n'est pas une raison suffisante pour justifier le refus d'admettre lesdits pays au sein de l'Organisation. Bien entendu, chaque representant est libre de voter comme il l'enterid. ' Le PRESIDENT (traduit de I'anglais): La' majorite du Conseil de securite est nettement favorable a une discussion et a une decision separee pour chaque cas. Je ne mettrai donc pas aux voix ce point de procedure; mais, en ma qualite de representant de l'URSS, je persiste a declarer que le Conseil de securite ne pourra ,prendre aucune decision positive a propos ties demandes d'admission, si, au lieu de decider d'admettre en bloc les cinq pays au sein de l'Organisation, noUS

Speaking as the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, I wish to say that it makes no difference to me in what order we discuss these applications, but I think it would be logical to discuss them in the order in which they were !'iubmitted to the Security Council. I repeat, I do not mind discussing Finland's application first, but it was received later than the applications from Hungary; Italy, Roumania and Bulg.lria. As President, therefore, I would prefer tu use the regular order generally adopted in these cases, if this is agreeable to the Council. If that is accepted, the .discussion of the application ,received from Hungary will begin. ApPLICATION OF HUNGA'RY ~ Mr. PAROD! (France) (translated fram French): I have already indicated the position we would take with regard to one of the applications, that of Italy, and I shall not speak about it again until we deal with the case of that country. With regard to the first of the other countries the applications of which we are examining, I should like to make a few observations which will clarify our position with regard to some, at least, of those included in the list. In the question with which we are now dealing, we consider the two following general considerations as fundamental. First, that of the universality of the United Nations, of which we have been reminded in"the course of this meeting by the representative of Syria. We should look forward to the time when all the States of the world will, be Members of the Organization. Only on that day will the United Nations have truly completed its organization. DEMANDE D'ADMISSION DE LA HONGRIE M. PAROD! (France): J'ai deja indique tout a l'heure la position que nous prendrions en ce qui conceme l'une des candidatures, celle de l'Italie, et je n'y reviendrai pas lorsque nous en arriverons au cas de ce pays. Je desire presenter, au sujet du premier d~s autres pays' dont nous examinons la candidature, quelques observations qui dCtermineront notre position pour un certain nombre au moins de ceux figurant sur la liste. Nous considerons comme fondamentales, dans la question dont nous sommes actuellement saisis, les deux considerations generales suivantes. D'abord, celle de l'universalite des Nations Unies, qui a ete rappelee au cours de cette meme seance par le representant de la Syrie. Nous devons tendre vers le moment ou tous les Etats du monde feront partie de l'Organisation. Ce jour-la seulement, les Nations Unies auront vraiment paracheve leur Organisation. With regard to the countries the applications of. which are now being considered, we are ,not unaware of the difficulties which some of those applications may raise. They are due to the doubts that may be entertained regarding the real independence of these States, and also to the misgivings which their infernal political situation may justify. But in view of the points and general considerations to which I have just drawn attention -the universality of the United Nations and the place therein Which Europe should occupy-we are disposed not to insist 'Upon these objections and to declare ourselves in favour of the admis- .sion of the variou~tates the applications of which 'are submitted. ' The remarks which I have just made apply to Hungary, since that is the country the application of which we are now discussing. They will -apply equally to Finland and Roumania. With regard to Bulgaria's application, our position will, on the contrary, be different, and I reserve ,th~ right to justify it when the sequence of ·the debate brings us to that point. Mais, en raison des elements et des considera- . tions generales que je viens de rappeler-l'universaIite de I'Organisation des Nations Unies et la place que l'Europe doit y occuper, nous sommes disposes a. ne pas nous arreter a ces objections et a nous prononcer en faveur de l'admission des differents Etats dont la candidatures nous est soumise. Les observations que je viens de presenter s'appliquent a la Hongrie, puisque c'est de la candidature de ce pays que nous discutons actuellement. Elles seront egalement valables ,en ce qui concerne la Finlande et la Roumanie. Notre position sera, au contraire diffcrente quant a. la candidature de la Bulgarie et je me reserve de la justifier lorsque l'ordre de la discussion nous amenera a. ce point. Les observations que j'ai faites expliquent pourquoi je me prononce en faveur de la candidature de la Hongfie. Si j'ai anticipe en ce qui concerne deux des autres Etats, c'est pour n'avoir pas a -redemander la parole dans un instant. Je la jedemanderai, au contraire, lorsque nous en .arnverons au cas de la Bulgarie. The remarks which I have made explain, therefore, why I support the application of Hungary. If I have anticipated the discussion with regard to two of the other States, it was in order to avoid having to ask permission again after a short interval. I shall, on the other hand, ask leave. to speak again when we come to the case of Bulgaria. Mr. ]OHNSON (United States of America): In the opinion of the United States delegation, the developments which have taken place in Hungary in recent months give rise to grave doubts concerning the ability and wiIlingness of the present Hungarian Government to carry out the obligations contaIned in the Charter of the United Nations. - M. ]OHNSON (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais): De l'avis de ma delegation, les evenements qui se sont deroules en, Hongrie au· cours de ces derniers mois, inspirent des' doutes se:oieux quant a la capacite et au desir du Gouvernement hongrois actuel de remplir les obligations prevues par la Charte des Nations Unies. Les premieres elections nationales qui ont eu lieu en Hongrie en automne 1945, an lendemain de la guerre, ont ete libres de toutes entraves. Pourtant, les efforts tendant a maintenir et a developper les procedes democratiques, ainsi qu'a garantir les clroits et les Iibertes du peuple hongrois, ont ete systematiquement sapes par une The first'national elections in Hungary at the end of the war, in the autumn of 1945, were free and unfettered. However, the effort to maintain and develop democratic processes and to . safeguard the rights and liberties of the Hungarian people has been systematically undermined by a minority party, which has utilized the police in the service of party power as an instrument of coercion rather than in defense of the rights and freedom of all the people. . ._ minorite qui a, pour imposer la domination d'un parti, utilise la police comme moyen de coercitioll au lieu de la faire servir a. la defense des droits et de la liberte du peuple. The substance of democratic processes has been vitiated, even if the form. has been observed in some" instances. The organized political opposition has been threatened, harassed, and driven from its meeting-places. Several of the opposition leaders have been brutally assaulted, and many have been intimidated or coerced into silence or exile. The parliamentary elections which were held recently were marked by such flagrant irregularities that even parties in the Government coalition have protested in bitter indignation. Meanwhile continued repression, of political liberty is grimly.foreshadowed in threats by the Government against the leader of one of the principal opposition parties. These persistent violations of human rights, which show no sigil of abatement, are in clear violation of the Treaty of Peace which has now entered into force and which constitutes the main basis of Hungary's relations with a number of Members of the United Nations. In these cfrcumstanc:es, my Government does not believe that the Hungarian Government is either able or willing tn carry out the obligations of the Charter. The PRESIDENT (translated from Russian): The delegation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics supports Hungary's application for admission to the United Nations because it considers that that country satisfies the requirements demanded by the Charter of .countries wishing to enter the Organization. That is my first point. Secondly, in supporting the Hungarian Government's request to be admitted to the United Nations, the Government of the USSR is acting in accordance with the Potsdam Agreement, in which it is indicated, as I have already pointed out to the Security Council, that the three Allied, Powers-the United States, the United Kingdom. and the Union of Soviet SoCialist Republics -w~ll support the Hungarian application for admIssion to the United Nations, in the same way as the applications of other countries with . which Peace Treaties are concluded. / . The USSR is accustomed to fulfilling its obligations. On this occasion,· also, it will endeavour to see that the obligations accepted by the three Powers in. the Potsdam Agreement are strictly fulfilled. The United States representative has raised several objections.against admitting Hungary to the UnIted NatIons. He alleged that events were taking place in Hung-a!"'j which gave "'n Le representant des Etats-Unis a eleve des objections contre l'admission de la Hongrie au sein de rOrganisation des Natjons Unies. A son avis, les evenements qui ont lieu en Hongrie nous Hence, the arguments used by the United States representative are unfounded and we must not be guided by them in deciding whether or not Hungary deserves to be admitted to the United Nations. I repeat: the USSR Government and the USSR delegation to the Security Council consider that Hungary fully satisfies the requirements demanded of it and of other countries wishing to be admitted to the United Nations. For these reasons, I support the Hungarian Government's application for admission to the United Nations. The President then continued in English: It is obvious that we are not in a position to complete discussion of these applications now, and if no other member wishes to address this meeting, the Security Council will adjourn and meet again next Monday. Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine whet.her the meeting will take place at 10.30 a.m. or at 3 p.m., but I hope that tomorrow I shall be able to find out, taking into account the schedule of meetings of Committees of the General Assembly. I shall then advise the members accordingly. The meeting rose at 1.20 p.m. tendand~uses et qu'elles defonnent la situation. qui existe dans ce pays. Je repete, e1les sont tendancieuses et deforment la situation qui existe en Hongrie. ~ - Par consequent, leg arguments dont use id le representant des Etats-Unis sont denues de fondement et nous ne saurions en tenir compte pour decider si la Hongrie merite ou non d'etre admise dans l'Organisation des Nations Unies.. Je repete, le Gouvernement de l'URSS et l~ delegation de l'URSS au Conseil de securite estiment que la Hongrie remplit entierement les conditions qu'on exige d'ene, ainsi que de tout Etat desireux d'entrer dans l'Organisation des Nations Unies. C'est pourquoi j'appuie la demande d'admission adressee par le Gouvernement de la Hongrie a l'Organisation des Nations Unies. Le President poursuit en anglais: Nous ne pouvons manifestement pas en finir aujourd'hui avec l'examen de ces demandes d'ad~ mission et si aucun autre representant ne demande la parole, le Conseil de securite levera la seance pour se reunir cl nouveau lundi prochain. Malheureusement, il est difficile de dire si la seance aura lieu cl 10 heures 30 ou cl 15 heures, inais j'espere pouvoir etre fixe demain cl ce sujet d'apres le programme des seances prevues pour les Commissions de l'Assemblee generale. J'avi- I serai alors en consequence les membres du Conseil. La seance est levee a13 h. 20. FRANCE Editions A. Pedone 13, rue SouiRot PARIS, Ve GREECE-GRECE "Eleftheroudakis" Librairie intemati'Jnale Place de la Constitution ATHENES . GUATEMALA Jos£ Gouhaud Gouhaud & Cia. Ltda. Sucesor Sa Av. Sur No. 6 y 9a C. P. GUATEMALA HAITI Max Bouchereau Librairie "A la Caravelle" BOlte postale 11l-B PORT-A,u·PmNcE ICELAND-ISLANDE Bokaverzlun Sigfusar Eymundsonnar Austurstreti 18 REYKJAVIK INDIA-INDE Oxford Book & Stationery Company Scindia House NEWDELID IRAN Bongahe Piaderow 731 Shah Avenue TEHERAN IRAQ-IRAK Mackenzie & Mackenzie The llookshop BAGHDAD LEBANON-LlBAN Librairie universelle BEYROUTH LUXEMBOURG Librairie J. Schummer Place Guillaume LUXEMBOURG NETHERLANDS-i'AVS-BAS N. V. Martinus NijholI Lange Voorhout 9 'S-GRAVENHAGE NEW ZEAlAND- NOUVELLE-ZELANDE Gordon & Gotch, Ltd. Waring Taylor Street WELLINGTON United Nations Association of New Zealand P. O. 1011, G.P.O. WELLINGTON NICARAGUA Ramiro Ramirez V. Agenda de PuhIicaciones MANAGUA, D. N. NORWAY-NORVEGE Johan Grundt Tanum Forlag Kr. Augustgt. 7A OSLO PHILIPPINES D. P. Perez Co. 132 Riverside SAN JUAN, RIZAL POLAND-POLOGNE Spotdzielna Wydawnicza "CzyteInik" 38 Poznanska WARSZAWA SWEDEN-SUEDE A.-B. C. E. Fritzes Kungl. Hofbokhandel Fredsgatan 2 STOCKHOLM SWITZERLAND-SUISSE Lihrairie Payot S. A. LAUSANNE, GENEVE, VEVEY, MONTREUX, NEUCH.hEL, BERNE, BASEL Hans Raunhardt Kirchgasse 17 ZumcH I SYRIA-SYRIE Librairie universelle DAMAS TURKEY-TURQUIE Librairie Hachette 469 Istiklal Caddesi BEYOGLU·!STANBUL UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA;... UNION SUD-AFRICAINE Central News Agency Commissioner & Rissik Sts. JOHANNESBURG and at CAPETOW and DURBAN UNITED KINGDOM- ROYAUME-UNI H. M. Stationery Office P. O. Box 569 LONDON, S.E. 1 and at H.M.S.O. Shops in LONDON, EDINBURGH, MANCHEST CARDIFF, BELFAST, BIRMINGHAM and BmsTOL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ETATS-UNIS D'AMERIQUE Intemational Documents Service Columbia University Press 2960 Broadway NEW YORK 27, N. Y. URUGUAY Oficina de Representaci6n de Editoriales Av. 18 de Julio 1333 Esc. 1 MONTEVIDEO VENEZUELA Escritoria Perez Machado Conde a Pifiango 11 CARACAS YUGOSLAVIA-YOUGOSLAVIE Drzavno Preduzece Jugoslovenska Knjiga Moskovska U1. 36 BEOGRAD