S/PV.206 Security Council

The members of the Council will remember that, at an earlier meeting,!, we agreed to proceed by discussing separately and in chronological order the various applications before us, and thereafter to proceed to a vote on each one of those applications. The discussion has already progressed to a certain degree. At the two hundred and fifth meeting2, there was some discussion on the application of Roumania, but I think it was concluded. If there are no further speakers on the application of Roumania, I shall open the discussion on the application of Bulgaria. . ApPLICATION OF BULGARIA Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America) : In its desire to conclude a peace treaty with Bulgaria, the United States of America had hoped that, by· forming a basis of friendly relations between Bulgaria and all the Allied and Associated Powers, it would be enabled to support Bulgar.ia's application for membership in the United Nations. However, during the past year Bulgaria has clearly demonstrated that it still does not wish 371. Adoption de I'ordre du jour 372. Suite du nouvel examen des de- mandes d'admission it I'Organisation des Nations Unie!S emanant de la Bulgal'ie, de la Hongrie, de I'Italie et de la Roumanie et examen de la demande d'admission de la Finlande Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais) : Les mem- bres du Conseil se rappelleront que, au cours d'une seance precedente!, il a ete convenu d'exa- miner separement et, par ordre chronologique, les diverses demandes d'admission dont le Conseil etait saisi, puis de mettre aux voix chacune de ces demandes. Les travaux ont deja progresse dans une certaine mesure. Au caurs de la deux- cent-cinquieme seance2, nous avons quelque peu discute la demande d'admission de la Roumanie, et je crcis que nOllS a,vons epuise la question. Si personne ne desire prendre la parole au sujet de l'admission de la Roumanie, j'ouvrirai la discus- sion sur la demande de la Bulgarie. DEMANDE D'ADMISSION DE LA BULGARIE M. AUSTIN (Etats-Unis' d'Amerique) (tra- duit de l'anglais) : Desirant conclure un traite de pai?C avec la Bulgarie, les Etats-Unb d'Amerique esperaient qu'en jetant les bases de rela.tions ami- cales entre la Bulgarie et toutes les Puissances alliees et associees, ils pourraient appuyer la de- mande d'admission de ce pays aux Nations Unies. Toutefois, au cours de l'annee derniere, la Bul- garie a prouve c1airement qu'elle ne desire tou- 1 Voir Proces-verbaux officiels du Conseil de securite, In accordance with its agreement with its two Allies at Yalta, and in order to prevent the im- position of such a police State on the people of Bulgaria, my Government has vafnlyendeavoured over the past three years to assist them in attain- ing at least a modicum of l'epresentative govern- ment. The United States had hoped, through those efforts, that the Bulgarian Fatherland Front Gov- ernment would be widened to include members , of other political parties more truly representa- tive of the Bulgarian people themselves. The elec- tions held in 1946 were anything but free and un- trammeled, but at least provision was made for the seating in the Bulgarian Parliament of a num- ber of opposition deputies. Since that time, the Government has systematically eliminated these deputies from political life and, in so doing, has entirely disregarded the human rights provisiom, of the Treaty of Peace which it signed in Febru- ary 1947. I matiquement elimine ces deputes de la vie poli- tique, et, en agissant ainsi, a totalement meconnu les dispositions relatives aux droits de l'homme qui se trouvaient inscrites dans le Traite de paix signe en fevrier 1947. La vague d'arrestations politiques qui a de£erle sur les chefs de l'opposition, ainsi que le pioces et I'execution de Nikola Petkov, ant frappe de stupeur la conscience d'u monde civilise. Ces ar- restations continuent. Par la dissolution arbi- train; du Parti d'union agraire, l'Assembtee a virtueIlement reduit au silence toutes les voix qui s'etaient elevees en Eulgarie contre la dictature d'une petite minorite communiste. Ces mesures de repression constituent une violation des clauses du Traite de paix relatives aux droits de l'homme. Avec un tel dossier, le Gouvemement bulgare ne peut etre considere comme remplissant les conditions prevues cl l'Article 4 de la Charte, pour l'admission de Membres cl l'Organisation des Na- tions Unies. Ce dossier ne permet pas cl la Bul- garie d'etre honnetement qualifiee d'Etat pacifi- que, et son attitude cl l'egard des obligations in- ternationales nous oblige cl entretenir des doutes serieux sur son desir de s'acquitter des obliga- tions qui decoulent de la Charte, doutes qui se sont encore recemment accrus quand le Gouver- nement b'ulgare n'a pas fourni de reponse nette cl la Premiere Commission de l'Assemblee gene- The wave of political arrests of the opposition leaders and the trial and execution of Nikola Pet- kov have shocked the civilized world. These ar- r~sts art" continuing. With the arbitrary dissolu- tion of the Agrarian Union Party by the Assem- bly, virtually every voice which had been raised against the dictatorship of the small Communist minority in Bulgaria has been stilled. These re- pressive measures are in violation of the human rights provisions of the Treaty of Peace. In the light of this record, the present Bulgari- an Government cannot be considered to meet the qualifications for memb~rship set forth in Article 4of .the Charter. It cannot, -on its record, be fairly c?nsldercd to be a peace-loving State, and its at- titude !owards international obligations must cre- ate serlOUS doubt as to its willingness to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter. Further- It!0re, the failure of the Bulgarian Government to ~ve a .fcrthright reply to the request of the First ommlttee of the General Assembly as to whether that Government was ready to apply the princi- ples ,and rules of the Charter in settlement of the Mr. PARODI (France) (t'Yanslated from French): The French delegation has expressed support for the various applications which are be- fore us. I have already pointed out that we were making an exception in the case of Bulgaria. Unfortunately, an extremely regrettable event recently occurred in that country to which the United Nations cannot remain indifferent. By virtue of the letter of the Charter, and not only of the letter, we are the guardians of certain principles and basic rules of international law and public law in general. The event to which I allude-the execution which has taken place in Bulgaria-deeply offends our consciousness of these basic rules. The French delegation considers that this event precludes, in the present circumstances, Bulgaria's admission to membership in the United Nations. I should merely like to add that it is our hope that, in more propitious circumstances, at some other point in Bulgaria's history, we may be able to reconsider her application more favourably. Mr. KATZ-SUCHY (Poland) : The Polish dele- gation supports the application of Bulgaria for admission to the United Nations. We belIeve, once again, that Bulgaria is in the same position as the four other former satellites of the Axis and that, by virtue of the signature of the Peace Treaties and their entry into force, as well as by virtue of the present regimes -in those five countries, they are eligible for membership in the United Nations within the meaning of the terms laid down by the Charter. . My delegation believes that, after many years of dictatorship and many years of existence under a reactionary regime, Bulgaria for the first time is on the road to democracy. Several allegations have been made here against Bulgaria. It is very difficult to discuss or to deny those allegations, in view of the fact that none of them have been supported here by any facts. The allegation has been made that the Govern- ment of Bulgaria is composed of a Communist minority and that opposition parties are being threatened and deprived of their rights. Let us see what the composition of the Government real- ly is. At the moment there is a Government which is composed of nine representatives of the Com- munist Party, five representatives of the Agrarian Party, two representattves of the Social Dem- ocratic Party, two representatives of the Zveno Party and one independent non-party member. I cannot find in this composition any Communist majority or Communist-dominated Government. The question as to whether the Bulgarian people have or have not decided to include some parties favoured by some of the great Powers cannot in- fluence the members of the Security Council in M. :'?ARODI (France): La'delegation fran<;aise s'est prononaee en faveur des differentes candi· datures qui nous sont soumises. J'ai deja indique que nous faisions une exception pour le cas de' la Bulgarie. 11 s'est malheureusement produit, a une date recente, dans ce pays, un evenement extreme- ment regrettable qui ne peut laisser l'Organisa- tion des Nations Unies indifferente. I Nous sommes les gardiens, seIon la lettre, et par dela la lettre de la Charte, d'un certain nom- bre de regles et de principes fondamentaux de d:mit international et de droit public en general. L'evenement auqueI je fais allusion, l'execu- tion qui a eu lieu en BUlgarie, blesse profonde- ment la conscience que nous avons de ces regles fondamentales. La delegation de la France consi- den:: que cet evenement rend impossible, dans les circonstances actuelles, l'admission parmi nous de la Bulgarie. J'ajoute simplement le voeu que nous puissions, dans d'autres circonstances plus propices, dans une autre periode de l'histoire de la Bulgarie, reprendre l'examen de sa candidrtture plus favo- rablement. M. KATZ-SUCHY (Pologne) (traduit de ~Jan­ glwis): La delegation de la Pologne appuie la demande d'admission de la Bulgarie a l'Organi- sation des Nations Unies. Une fois de plus nous estimons que la Bulgarie se trouve dans la -neme situation que les quatre autres pays qui furent les satellites des Puissances de l'Axe, et que ceux- ci sont qualifies, ta,nt par leur ratification des traitc~s de paix, traites entres en vigueur, que par la nature des regimes qu'ils connaissent actuelle- ment, a etre admis a l'Organisation des Nations Unies, au sens meme des dispositions de la Charte. Ma delegation estime qu'apres avoir connu de nombreuses annees de dictature et vecu pendant de nombreuses annees sous un regime reaction- naire, la Bulgarie, pour la premiere fois dans son histoire, s'est engagee aur la voie de la demo- cratie. Plusieurs accusations oilt ete portees ici contre la Bulgarie. Il est tres difficile de les discuter ou de les refuter, etant donne qu'elles ne sont etayees par aucun fait. On a pretendu que le Gouvernement est, en Bulgarie, aux mains d'une minorite communiste, et que les partis de l'opposition sont l'objet de menaces et se trouventprives de leurs droits. Voyons quelle est, en realite, la composition dl1 Gouvernement. En ce moment, ce dernier corn- prend neuf representants du parti communist;, cinq representants du parti agrarien, deux repr~­ sentants du parti social democrate, deux repre- sentants du parti Zveno et un membre indepe~­ dant n'appartenant a aucun parti. Je ne VOIS pas comment l'on peut dire qu'il s'agit la d'un Gouvernement a majorite communiste ou do- mine par les communistes. Que le peuple bul~a:e ait, ou n'a~4- pas, decide d'inclure certains partis qui jouissaient de la faveur de certaines grande~ Puissances,. cela ne peut peser sur l'a~~udeA Let us remember another thing, namely, that on 8 September 1944, Bulgaria declared war on the Axis and that Bulgarian troops participated in the fighting in Austria. There are two more points which I should like to mention. One is that the United States rep- resentative cites Bulgaria's attitude towards Greece and the Commission of Investigation as one of the reasons for barring the entry of Bul- garia into the United Nations. It is worth remind- ing the members of the Council that, during the Peace Conference in Paris, it was Greece which .claimed territory from Bulgaria and not Bulgaria which claimed any territory from Greece. It is worth noting that the nations assembled at the Peace Cpnference in Paris rejected that demand of Greece. The question as to whether Bulgaria is helping the partisans in Greece is still being discussed by the First Committee. V.Je know the terms in which the report of the Commission of Investiga- tion was worded. Without going into my attitude towards the report as a whole, I wish to point out that even that part which deals with the aid al- legedly given by the Bulgarian Government to the partisC}11s ~nd to the democratic army of Greece IS worded very vaguely; the Commission indicates that it was able to find very little evidence to that effect1• As I bave already said, we are still discussing the question in the First Committee, and we do i Voir les Proces-verbau% officiels du Conseil de secu- rite, Deuxieme Annee, Supplement special No 2, docu- ment S/360. I believe that, if we wish to act in the spirit of the Charter, we cannot accept the reasons which have been give:l here by the representative of the United States and that we must vote in favour of the application of Bulgaria for membership in the United Nations. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Re- publics) (translated from Russian): The USSR delegation supports the Bulgarian Government's request that Bulgaria should be admitted to mem- bership in the United Nations. In so doing my delegation bases itself on the obligations assumed by the Governm.ent of the Union of Soviet Social- ist Republics under the Potsdam Agreement as well as under the Peace Treaty concluded with Bulgaria, which has now come into force. I must draw the Council's attention to the fact that the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and also France are violating the obligations they assumed under the Peace Treaties. In the preambles to the Peace Treaties it is pOInted out that the signatory States shall support the applications of these countries for ad- rriission to membership in the United Nations. The Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States, as I have had occasion to point out in the discussion of other applications and also in the general debate on all the applications, are crassly violating the obligations they assumed under the Potsdam Agreement; and we have the situation that the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom sign agreements with one hand and violate them with the other. Under the Potsdam Agreement, the USSR, the United Kingdom and the United States have to support the applications for admission to the United Nations of the countries with which peace treaties are concluded, to wit, Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, Italy and Roumania. Now, in objecting to the admission of theE": ·ountries, or of most of them, the United States and the United Kingdom are violating. the obligations they have assumed. This is not the first time they have violated obli- gations which they have assumed; nevertheless I reel I must point out that they are doing so here again, in connexion with the consideration of the M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques soda- listes sovietiques) (traduit du russe) : Lfl. dele- gation de l'URSS appuie la demande d'admission presentee a 1'Organisation des Nations Unies par le Gouvernement de la Bulgarie. Ce faisant, ma delegation se conforme aux obligations que le Gou- vernement de l'Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques avait assumees en signant l'Accord de Potsdam et le Traite de paix avec la Bulgarie qui vient d'entrer en vigueur. . Je dois faire remarquer que les Gouvernements des Etats-Unis, du Royaume-Uni et de la France violent les obligations qu'ils avaient assumees en signant les Traites de paix. D'apres les pream- bules de ces Traites, les Etats signataires doi- vent appuyer les demandes d'admission que ces pays adressent cl l'Organisation des Nations Unies. Comme je l'ai deja indique lors de l'exa- men des autres demandes et lors de la discussion generale au sujet de toutes les candidatures, les Gouvernements du Royaume-Uni et des Etats- Unis -violent grossierement les obligations qu'ils ont assumees en signant l'Accord de Potsdam; en d'autres termes, ces deux Gouvernements n'hesitent pas cl violer des Accords, qu'ils ont eux-memes conc1us. Par l'Accord de Potsdam, l'URSS, le Roy- aume-Uni et les Etats-Unis sont tenus d'ap- puyer les demandes d'admission des Etats avec lesquels des traites de paix seraient signes; it s'agit de la Bulgarie, de la Finlande, de la Hongrie, de l'Italie et de la Roumanie. En s'opposant maintenant cl l'admission de ces pays, ou de la plupart d'entre eux, les Etats-Unis et le Royaume- Uni violent les obligations qu'its ont assumee~. Ce n'est pas la premiere fois qu'its le font, malS neanmoins j'estime necessaire de le relever u?e fois de plus, cl l'occasion des debats sur l'admls-· sion de ces cinq pays au sein de l'orga~:::~ Quand le representant des Etats-Unis affirme que la Bulgarie est responsable des mauvaises relations qui existent entre ce pays et la Grece, il ne fait que deformer les faits veritables, comme .le font aussi les autres representants des Etats- Unis a rOrganisation des Nations Unies. Les avis, je 1~ repete, different au sujet de la question dite "grecque", et l'opinion du Gouvernemeni de l'URSS et de son representant se distingue radi- calement de celle du Gouvernement des Etats- Unis sur la question de savoir qui a raison et qui a tort dans ceUe affaire. Le representant des Etats-Ullis a mentionne certains faits se rapportant au domaine de la vie interieure de la BulgaJ:ie. Sa declaration ne per- met pas de douter que le Gouvernement des Etats- Unis estime toujours qu'il est normal de s'ingerer dans les affaires interieures des autres Etats, y compris les Etats avec lesquels des Traites de paix ont ete conclus. Les faits mentionnes sont du domaine interieur de la Bulgarie. C'est a la Bulgarie et au peuple bulgare qu'il appartient d'organiser leurs affaires interieurcs comme bon leur semble. La Bulgarie est un Etat pacifique qui desire cooperer avec les autres pays et avec l'Organisation des Nations Unies afin de consoli- del' la paix internationale et de developper les relations amicales entre Etats. La Bulgarie a deja montre qu'elle est parfaitement capable de regler le sort des criminels de guerre, qui ont ete la cause de beaucoup de souffrances pour le peu- pleb1tlgare; elle a ainsi donne un exemple dont d'autres Etats devraient s'inspirer, y compris certains Etats allies. 11 ne serait pas mauvais que certains autres Etats suivissent l'exemple de la Bulgarie. Quant a telIes autres questions concernant la situation au Parlement bulgare, l'evolution inte- rieure et l'activite des partis politiques en Bul- garie, il faut dire qu~il n'appartient pas aux Etats-Unis d'Amerique, ni a aucun autre pays, de dicter a la Bulgarie et au penple bulgare la politique qu'ils doivent suivre, ni de determiner les relations qu'ils doivent etablir entre les partis politiques, ni de decider de queUe fac;on ils doi- vent organiser la vie politique et economique du pays. Le peuple bulgare a montre qu'il-n'a pas int~rnal affairs of other countries, including countries with which Peace Treaties have been concluded. The facts referred to relate to the in- ternal affairs of Bulgaria. It is for Bulgaria and the Bulgarian people to arrange their internal af- fairs as they wish.' Bulgaria is a peace-loving country which desires to collaborate with other States and with the United Nations, in the in- terests of strengthening international peace and developing friendly relations between nations. Bulgaria has already demonstrated that it knows quite well how to settle matters with war crimi- nals who have brought so much misery to the Bulgarian people, and in that respect it has set an example to certain other States, including some Allied States. It would not be a bad idea if certain other States were to follow that ex- ample. As regards various other matters relating to the situation in the Bulgarian Parliament and to party life and the activities of political parties in BUlgaria, it is the business ileither of the United States nor of any other country-to dictate to Bul- garia and the Bulgarian people how they are to solve their political problems, what relations they should establish between various political parties a.n~ how they should organize the national, po- htlcal and economic life of that country. The ~1,eOf Bulgaria have shown that they stand in Le PRESIDENT (traduit de lJanglais) : Je desire dire quelques mots en ma qualite de representant du ROYAUME-UNI. Je n'avais pas pense que je serais appele de nouveau cl repousser et a. refuter l'accusation por- tee contre mon Gouvernement et d'autres Gou- vernements, d'avoir vioie tant la Declaration de Potsdam que les Traites de paix. Le representant de l'URSS n'a cite exaete- ment ni les termes de la Declaration de Potsdam, ni ceux des Traites de paix. La Declaration de Potsdam prevoit que la conclusion d'un Traite de paix avec l'Italie permettra aux signataires de cette Declaration d'appuyer la demande d'admis- sion de l'Italie a. l'Organisation des Nations Unies. En ce qui concerne les autres pays, i1 est dit que les traites de paix donneraient aux signa- taires la possibilite d'appuyer les demandes de ces pays. Mr. Gromyko said that under the Potsdam M. Gromyko a dit qu'aux termes de la Dec1a- Declaration we promised tha.~ we "shall support" ration de Potsdam, nous sommes "tenus d'ap- the applications for admission, and he said that puyer", et i1 a dit que, d'apres les preambules aUX in the preambles to the Peace Trf'.aties we "have traites de paix, "les Etats signataires doivent to support" them. I have in front of me the text appuyel''' les demandes d'admission. J'ai sous les of the preamble ,to the Peace Treaty with Bul- yeux le textedu Traite ( e paix avec la Bulga~e, garia, which says: "Whereas the Allid and As- dans lequel il est dit: "Considerant que les PUlS- sociated Powers and Bulgaria are desirous of sances A1liees et Associees et la Bulgarie so~.t concluding a treaty of peace which ... will . .. desireuses de conclure un traite de paix qui, .. form the basis of friendly relations be~~~:~~:~~:_,~__ ,~:~:~~_l~~base de relations amicale~ .e~~:::..&1

I should like to say a few words as representative of the UNITED KINGDOM. I had not thought that I should be called upon again to repudiate and refute the allegation which has been made, namely, that my Government, with other Governments, has violated both the Potsdam Declaration and the Treaties of Peace. The representative of the USSR has not quoted exactly the terms either of the Potsdam Declaration or of the Treaties of Peace. The Potsdam Declaration stated that the ;onc1usion of a treaty of peace with Italy would enable the signatories of that Declaration to support the admission of Italy to the United Nations. In regard to the other countries, it stated that the peace treaties would make is possible for the signatories to support the applications of those countries. La delegation de l'URSS appuie la demande d'admission que la Bulgarie a presentee cl l'Organisation des Nations Unies paree qu'elle estime que la Bulgarie est certes en mesure de satisfaire aux obligations exigees de tout Etat qui devient membre de l'Organisation. After the peace treaty had been drafted, ev~nts occurred in Bulgaria which certainly would justify us in considering its case on its merits, as it presents itself to us now. We are under no obligatlon w~atever to support Bulgaria's admission. In the view of my Government, there is grievous reason to doubt the eligibility of. Bulgaria, if only because of that country's behaviour in respect of the Greek question. In particular, I would mention the manner in which Bulgaria has flouted and obstructed the work and the authority , of the Council as far as the activities of the Subsidiary Group in Greece are concerned. Moreover, as other representatives have already pointed out, recent acts of the Bulgarian Government, especially the execution of Mr. Petkov, who was formerly imprisoned by the Nazis as a Bulgarian patriot, are clearly incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter, and in particular with the human rights and fundamental freedoms which Bulgaria undertook to observe in the Treaty of Peace to which Mr. Gromyko makes reference. In these circumstances, my Government opposes the application of Bulgaria for admission to the United Nations. Mr. TSIANG (Chid): I am sure the Council does not wish that this discussion should be protracted unduly. I shall state, very simply and briefly, the stand of my delegation on theadmission of Bulgaria. ' M. TSIANG (Chine) (traduit de l'anglUJis) : Je suis sur que le ConseiI ne desire pas que la dis- . cussion se prolonge par trap. J'exposerai tres simplement et brievement l'attitude de ma delegation en ce qui concerne 1'admission de la Bulgarie. \ Je suis en faveur du principe de l'universalite, de£endu avec tant de: competence ici p~r le repre- ,sentant de la Syrie, mais nous ne pou~ons qu'essayer de nous rapprocher de l'l.1niversalite. L'universalite mecanique et mathematique n'est pas possible, ~t d'aill~urs e1le n'avait jamais ete prevue par les auteurs de la Charte, comme en temoigne le fait que la Charte prevoit tant des conditions d'admission a l'Org'cinisation que des causes d'expulsion de celle-ci. Cependant, j'estime que nous devons nous montrer liberaux et objectifs dans l'application des Articles qui se rapportent a cette question. Lorsqu'il y a place, Iegitimement, pour le doute, iI faudrait en accor~er le benefice a l'Etat qui sollicite,son admission. En ce qui concerne les conditions requises pour' l'admission, iI en est une sur laquelle j'estip1e que nous deV'ons insister: l'Etat doit etre' pacifique, I favour the principle of universality so'ably advocated here by the representative of Syria, but we can try obly to approach universality. A mechanical and mathematical universality is .not possible and was never intended by the authors of the Charter, as is evidenced by the fact that the Charter lays down conditions for admission to as well as conditions for expulsion from the United Nations. However, it is my belief that, in applying the r~levant Articles, we should be liberal and objective. Where there is a legitimate ground for doubt, the benefit of the doubt:' should be given to the applicant. In regard to the conditions for membership, the;re is one upon which I think we must Insist. On that ground, therefore, and on that ground alone, my delegation finds it impossible to support the admission of Bulgaria to the United Nations. Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria): I am not going to deny the accusations that have been made against the Government of Bulgaria by the representative of the United States, nor shall I deny the justification and defence of Bulgaria made by the representatives of Poland and the USSR. I shall discuss this matter from another angle. I suppose that there are certain ways of remedying a situation by not adhering very strictly to formalism in explaining and interpreting the requirements of the Charter. The conditions for membership ,,.hich are laid down in the Charter may be divided into two categories. The first is that the State should be peace-loving; that means, as I uuderstand it, that the State should be devoted to the maintenance of international peace .and security. The other requirement is that the State should be willing and able to fulfil the requirements of the Charter; that would mean adherence to the principles and purposes of the Charter, especially those concerning human rights and the various freedoms-freedom of speech, of assembly, of religion and any other kind of freedom which ought to be respected by all the Members of the United Nations and by those who wish to be admitted to membership in the United Nations. I consider that any violation of these fundamental rights is a serious crime and should be remedied in some way. We have to find measures by which such evils may be remedied or corrected and readjusted. We should ask ourselves whether to leave a' nonmember State out of the Organization of the United Nations is a better way to correct its position and defects than to admit it to membership in the United Nations and have it correct its faults within the Organization. If the governing party of a State were molesting the freedom and rights of the opposition party, and if that State remained outside the United Nations, there would be no way to have the complaint remedied and no way to make an accusation. If the State were a Member of the United Nations, there would be some way t-o correct such abuse. There are evils of humanity which should be taken into consideration; and I consider that the United Nations is required to find some way to correct these , evils. M. EL-KEOURI (Syrie) (traduit de l)anglais): Je ne vais pas contester les accusations portees contre le Gouvernement bulgare par le representant des Etats-Unis, pas plus que je ne contesterai les arguments presentes par les representants de la Pologne et de l'URSS pour la justification et la defense de la Bulgarie. J'aborderai la discussion de la question sous un autre angle. Je suppose que l'on peut par certains moyens remedier a une situation, en ne s'en tenant pas a un formalisme trop strict, quand il s'agit d'expIiquer et d'interpreter les prescriptions de la Charte. On peut classer en deux categorit:s les conditions d'admission posees dans la Charte. La premiere condition est que l'Etat soit pacifique; cela signifie - c'est ainsi que je le comprends - que l'Etat doit etre desireux d'assurer le maintien de la paix et de la securite internationales. L'autre condition est que l'Etat soit desireux et capable d'assumer les obligations de la Charte; cela implique l'adhesion aux principes et buts de la Charte, en particulier a ceux qui ont trait aux droits de l'homme et aux diverses libertes: liberte de parole, de reunion, de religion et toute autre liberte, qui doivent etre respectees par tous les Membres de 1'0rganisation des Nations Unies et par ceux qui desirent le devenir. Je consid~re que toute violation de ces droits fondamentaux est un delit grave et qu'il convient d'y porter remede d'une maniere ou d'une autre. Nous devons trouver des moyens permettant de remedier aces maux ou d'en corriger et d'en attenuer les effets. Nous devons nous demander si, pour permettre a un Etat non Membre de mOdifier son attitude et de s'amender, i1 vaut mietIX le laisser en dehors de 1'0rganisation des Nations Unies, ou au contraire l'y admettre et lui faire corriger ses defauts au sein de l'Organisation. Si le parti a la tete du gouvernement d'tm Etat violait la liberte et les droits de l'opoosition et que cet Etat restait en dehors de 1'0rganisation, it n'y aurait aucun moyen de redresser la situation incriminee et i1 n'y aurait aucun moyen de porter une accusation. Si l'Etat etait Membre de l'Organisation, il y aurait que1que moyen de remedier aces abu3. L'humanite est affligee de certains maux qu'il faut prendre en consid~ra­ tion; et j'estime que 1'0rganisation des Nations Unies a pour devoir de trouver quelque m~yen de remedier aces maux. . , En supposant que tous les defauts att~~~ If I look at the question from that point of view, I think I can convince myself of the correctness of the principle of universality. I do not adhere to strict formalism in interpreting the requirements for membership. The object and goal of all our work is to eliminate evils and injustices fro111 the world as far as possible; and I consider that the admission of any State into the Organization of the United Nations would facilitate the work and prepare the ground to enable us to attain that end. For these reasons, the Syrian delegation still adheres to the principle of universality. M. KATZ-S'UCHY (Pologne) (traduit de 1'00- glaJis) : Je serai tn~s bref. Je constate que personne d'autre ne desire prendre la parole, ~ous pouvons done aller de l'avant. . Rien de reellement nouveau n'a ete dit par les representants qui s'opposent a l'admission de la Bulgarie. Cependant UP.. point m'intrigue, apres avoir entendu la declaration faite ici par le representant des Etats-Unis d'Amerique. Cet apresmidi, le Secretaire d'Etat par interim des Etats- Unis a annonce que son Gouvernement avait noue des relations diplomatiques avec la Bulgarie et avait accn§dite un representant dans ce pays. J'estime que les relations diplomatiques sont aussi importantes que l'admission a l'Organisa~ion des Nations Unies, et qu'en nouant des relations diplomatiques, les Etats-Unis ont reconnu la necessite d'une collaboration avec la Bulgarie; aussi pourraient-ils, selon nous, appuyer pleinement devant le Conseil la demande d'admission de la Bulgarie. Mr. KATZ-SUCHY (Poland): I shall be very brief. I ~ee that there is no one else who wishes to speak, and we can proceed. Nothing really new was said by those representatives who oppose the admission of Bulgaria. However, one point strikes me as puzzling, in view of the statement which has been made here by the representative of the United States of America. This afternoon the Acting Secretary of State of the United States announced that his Government was entering into diplomatic relations with, and appointing a diplomatic representative to Bulgaria. I believe that diplomatic relation~ are as important as membership in the United Nations and that, by entering into diplomatic relations, the United States has recognized the necessity for collaboration with Bulgaria; it could therefore fully support the application of Bulgaria before this Council. - DEMANDE D'ADMISSION DE LA FINLANDE ApPLICATION FROM FINLAND

As no other member wishes to speak on the Bulgarian application, the discussion on that application is closed. • The next application before the Council is that on behalf of Finland. Before I open the discussion on that application, I ought perhap~ to remind the Coundl that at the two hundred and fourth meeting1, the question was :caised as to whether, in the ordinary course of affairs, that application should not first be referred-as the others were and as this one has not been-to the Committee on the Admission of New Members. But I think the sense of the Council was then, and I hope it is now, that that formality could Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Aucun membre ne demandant plus la parole au sujet de la demande. d'admission de la Bulgarie, je declare la discussion close. La demande d'admission suivante dont le Conseil est saisi est celle de la Finlande. Avant d'ouvrir la discussion sur cette demande, je devrais peut-etre rappeler au Conseil qu'au cours de la deux-cent-quatrieme seancet, on avait sou- Ieve la question de savoir si, comme cle coutume, il n'y aurait pas lieu que la demande fut d'abord remise au Comite cl'admission des nouveaux membres, comme Pont ete les autres et comme celle-ci ne l'a pas ete. Mais je crois que le Conseil avait ale c' estime, et j'espere qu'il estime encore, que l'on pourrait peut-etre se dispenser de cette formalite. Sauf avis contraire, je tiendrai pour acquis que le ConseiI de securite est cl'avis que' .-rous pouvons immediatement entamer la discuspe:h~ps be dispensed with. Unless I hear any OPUllon to the contrary, I shall assume that the Council thinks we can at once initiate a discussion here on the Finnish application without going As there is no objection to the procedure I proposed, I now open the discussion on the Finnish application. ' Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America) : The United States Government is pkased that Finland's application for membership in the United Nations has been received. It believes that Finland meets fully the qualifications for membership set forth in Article 4 of the Charter. . l . Finland has satisfactorily fulfilled its obligations under the Armistice and its general international obligations. Since the Armistice of September 1944, Finland has participated in meetings of the International Labour Organiz1J.tion and other international gatherings, with the approval of many nations. Finland has been interested in, extending its friendly contacts with other nations and has renewed diplomatic relations with numerous countries. Evidence since the date of the signing of the Armistice indicates that Finland has 'firmly adopted a policy of peace with its neighbours and with all Members of the Un'ited Nations. The recent ratification of the Finnish Treaty of Peace terminated the state of war which existed between Finland and certain Members of the United Nations. Finland's ,entry into the United Nations, desired by the Government and people of Finland, will be an appropriate completion of Finland's integration into peaceful internationallife. In the light of these considerations, my Government .favours the admission of Finland into the United Nations. . I should like to take this opportunity to note, for the record, that although the Council is not now reconsidering the applications of Austria, Ireland, Portugal and Transjordan, my Government continues to feel that these nations, as well as Italy, are qualified for admission to the United Nations. l. It is to be hoped that the General Assembly will take some action to secure proper reconsideration of these applications. Mr. TSIANG (China): I wish simply to state that my Government would welcome the admission of Finland to the United Nations. Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria): I am delighted ,to hear it stated that Finland has the qualifications for admission to membership in the United Na- M. AUSTIN (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglatis) : Le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis se felicite que l'on ait re<;u la demande d'admission de la Finlande cl I'Organisation des Nations Unies. I1 estime que la Finlande remplit pleinement les conditions requises pour l'admission, telles qu'elles sont enoncees cl l'Article 4 de la Charte. La Finlande ?. execute d'une maniere satisfaisante ses obligations aux termes de l'armistice, et ses obligations internationales de portee generale. Depuis l'armistice du mois de septembre 1944, la Finlande a participe a. des reunions de I'Organisation internationale du Travail et a. d'autres reunions internationales, avec l'approbation d'un grand nombre de nations. Elle a cherche a. etendre ses contacts amicaux avec les autres nations et a renoue des 'relations diplomatiques avec de nombreux pays. De nombreux faits survenus depuis la date de la signature de l'armistice font ressortir que la Finlande suit fermement une politique de paix avec ses voisins et avec tous les Membres de I'Organisation des Nations Unies. La ratification recente du Traite de paix avec la Finlande a mis fin a. l'etat de guer,re qui existait entre la Finlande et un certain nombre d'Etats Membres des Nations Unies. L'admissiQn de la Finlande a. I'Organisation des Nations Unies, conformement au desir du Gouvernement et du peuple finlandais, couronnera d'une mani(~re appropriee le retour de ce pays dans la vie internationale pacifique. Eu egard aux considerations ci-dessus, man Gouvernement appuie la demande d'admission de la Finlande a. l'Organisation des Nations Unies. Je desirerais profiter de cette o,ccasion pour noter, afin qu'il en soit fait mention au procesverbal, que, si le Conseil ne procede pas actuellement a. un nouvel examen des demandes d'admission de l'Autriche, de I'Irlande, du Portugal et de la Transjordanie, mon Gouvernement, cependant, estime toujours que ces nations, ainsi que l'Italie, remplissent les conditions requises pour etre admises comme Membres de I'Organisation des Nations Unies. I1 faut esperer que l'Assemblee generale fera en sorte que ces demandes soient dtiment soumises a. un nouvel examen. M. TSIANG (Chine) (traduit de l'anglais) : Je desire simplement declarer que mon Gouvernement se rejouira de voir la Finlande admise c~m­ me Membre de I'Organisation des Nations Umes. . \ M. EL-KHOURI (Syrie) (traduit de l'anglai~): Je suis tres heureux d'entendre dire que la F~n­ lande reunit tous les titres requis pour etre adnuse .. od The Syrian delegation will vote for a resolution containing the recommendation that Finland should be admitted to membership in the United Nations. Mr. KATZ-SUCHY (Poland) : In proposing the admission of the five former satellites, my Government was motivated by a desire to wipe out the consequences of the war, which left those five States outside the Organization of the United Nations. We considered that those five satellites fell within one group, a grot,J.p bound together by a common fate in the past war and now returning to normal life and normal relatiohs with all the Members or the United Nations. We considered it to be the duty of the Security Council to facilitate the admission of those five States and to enable them to maintain close relations with the United Nations and to enjoy the benefits which membership in this Organization confers. At the two hundred and fifth meetingJ., when speaking on the application of Italy, I unfortunately had to point out that the intention of the 'Polish Government was being misunderstood here, and that the Polish draft resolution was being misused for the purpose of dividing nations into various groups. I do not think the Council has the duty or the right to divide nations or to group them into camps and to treat some with favour and others with disfavour. In this situation, I am afraid the Polish delegation is not in a position to support the application of Finland. We repeat that we submitted a draft resolution for the admission of Finland. Poland is the member of the Security Council which asked that the five States with which Peace Treaties have been ratified and have entered into force should be admitted. The people of Finland know the attitude which the Government of Poland and the people of Poland have towards Finland and its people. Soon after the signing of the Armistice and the normalization of conditions inside Finland, Poland established normal diplomatic relations and trade relations with Finland. The Finnish people still remember who their friends are. The experience of the years 1940 and 1941 has shown the Finnish p~ople who their friends are and how badly ad- VIsed they were by those who tried to use Finland as a tool for their own purposes. We do not want arepetition of that period. That is why we .shall vote for the acceptance of the five.States, hut we ~nnot, in a separate vote, support the application of Finland. Mr. MUNIZ (Brazil): The Brazilian delegation supports the admission of Finland. The record of that country and of the present government fully satisfies the principles set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and qualifies the Finnish State' for admission as a Member of the United Nations. I wish to call the attention of the Council to the fact that the Brazilian delegation also would favour reconsideration by the Security Council . of the' admission of Austria, Ireland, Portugal and Transjordan, countries which we think are equally qualified for admission. In the case of Portugal, the Brazilian delegation thinks that the refusal to admit into our Organization one of the oldest historical peoples of Europe, a peace-loving people if ever there was one, constitutes a gross injustice to which I cannot fail to call the attention of the Council.

As the representative of the UNITED KINGDOM, I should just like to say that my Government supports this application and hopes to be able to welcome Finland into the United Nations. Speaking now as President, I would say that, since there are no other speakers, we have now concluded the discussion on these five applications. In accordance with the procedure already agreed upon, we should proceed to vote on them separately in the order in which they were discussed, namely, Hungary, Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria and Finland. Mr. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgium) (transla.ted from French): Divergent views have been expressed during our last two meetings as to the' method by which the Council should decide on the five applications suhmitted to it. Before we proceed to vote on them in the order the President has Just mentiorted, I think the implication of these votes should b~ made clear. I therefore have the honour to su1-)mit the following proposal to the Security Council: M. MUNIZ (Bresil) (trad,uit de l'anglais) ; La delegation du Bresil appuie la demande d'admission de la Finlande. La farson dont cette nation s'est comportee et 1'attitude de son Gouvernement actuel repondent entierement aux principes fixes par la Charte des Nations Unies, et elles donnent a 1'Etat finlandais les titres voulus pour son admission comme Membre de l'Organisation des Nations Unies. Je tiens a signaler au Conseil que la delegation du Bresil serait egalement favorable a ce que le Conseil de securite reprenne l'examen de la question de l''ldmission de l'Autriche, de l'Irlande, du Portugal et de la Transjordanie, pays qui, a notre avis, remplissent egalement les conditions voulues pour devenir Membres de l'Organisation des Nations Unies.. En ce qui concerne le Portugal, la delegation du Bresil estime que le refus d'admettre au sein de l'Organisation l'un des peuples d'Europe dont l'histoire est la plus ancienne, un peuple pacifique s'il en est un, constitue une injustice grossiere sur laquelle je me dois d'attirer l'attention du Conseil. Le PRESIDENT (tradwit de lJanglai-s): En ma qualite de representant du ROYAUME-UNI, je desire seulement declarer que m.on Gouvernement appuie la demande d'admission de la Finlande, et qu'il espere pouvoir accueillir la Finlande au sein de 1'0rganisation des Nations Unies. En ma qualite de President, je declare que, puisqu'il n'y a plus d'orateurs inserits, la discussion est close en ce qui concerne les cinq demandes d'admission en, question. Conformement a la procedure que nous avons adoptee, nous devons maintenant voter separement sur ces demandes, dans l'ordre ou elles ont ete discutees: Hongrie, ItaJie, Roumanie, Bulgarie et Finlande. M. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgique): Des vues divergentes ont ete exprimees au cours de nos deux dernieres seances sur la methode suivant laquelle le Conseil doit statuer sur ~es cinq demandes d'admission soumises a ses deliberations. 11 importe, me semble-t-il, qu'avant de proceder aux votes successifs dont le President vient de parler, la portee de ces votes ait ete c1airement precisee. C'est pourquoi j'ai l'hbnneur de ~ou· mettre au Conseil de securite la proposition suivante: 4 Nevertheless, at the two hundred and fourth meeting of the Council, the Polish delegation submitted a draft resoltItion covering the collective admission of the five States1 ; that draft constitutes a whole and I cannot see any possibility of dividing it into five separate parts. The Council is seized of that draft resolution. Every member of the Council has the right to submit a draft resolution, whether or not it is later accepted by the majority. I cannot agree with the procedure suggested at the two hundred and fifth meeting of the Council by the representative of the United Kingdom, namely, that a vote should be taken to decide as to whether or not we should vote on the draft resolution. Such a procedure would make it impossible for a draft resolution to be submitted to the Council by a minority, no matter which States may constitute the minority now or may constitute the minority in the future, because the proportion is not permanent, but may change later. At the moment, however, understanding. what the difficulties are, I should like to suggest a procedure 'Yhich I think the members of the Council can easily accept. I propose that we should take a vote on the Polish draft resolution as a ·whole, as a complete and separate resolution. If that resolution is n0t passed, I propos~ that we then proceed to vote on the five applications separately. The voting would not be on any resolution, but on each of the applications; and the result of each vote would be a reply to that application. In other words, let us first dispose of the Polish draft resolution. I fully agree that we should then proceed to vote on each application separately. I believe that procedure could be accepted by all the members of the Council and I really do not see how it could cause any difficulties. I therefore ask the representative of Belgium to withdraw his proposal, so that the Council may vote on the Polish draft resolution. Mr. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgium) (translated from French) : I regret that I cannot withdraw my proposal. On several earlier occasions I explained that I considered the collective admission of several States as not in conformity with the Charter. M. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgique) : Je regrette de ne pas pouvoir retirer ma proposition. J'ai deja eu l'occasion, a plusieurs reprises, d'expliquer que je considerais que l'admission en bloc de plusieurs Etats n'etait pas conforme a la Charte. Mr. PAROD! (France) (translated from French) : I see no great difference in the way in which the voting takes place, whether we vote first on the various applications separately and then on the Polish draft resolution, or vice versa. But I would recall, as the President has just done, that we have already taken a decision on this point: we decided to discuss and vote separately on the various applications for membership. I must say I had taken that decision to mean that we were to discuss and vote on each case one by one. At the last meeting, a different-and quite admissible-interpretation was accepted, namely, that we should discuss all the applications separately, one after another, and thereupon vote on them, likewise separately and successively. That decision was taken by the Security Council and I see no reason to alter it. I think, therefore, that we sh0uld abide by it. In these circumstances, we should consider the proposal submitted by the Belgian representative and decide on it. In practice, I say once again, all this will not affect the result and I do not s~e' any point in this discussion. If -we vote separately on each application and after that on the Polish draft resolution, our vote on the latter will be the consequence of our earlier decision on each separate case. If we follow the other procedure, we should, first, be taking a decision on the Polish draft resolution and then separate decisions on each application. I repeat, all that seems to me to amount to the S<l,me thing. I urge that we adhere to the decision already taken by the Security Council. Mr. KATZ-SUCHY (Poland): When I sug- .gested a voting procedure today, I took into consideration the special difficulties which certain represe~ltatives poi~ted out at our last meeting. I urtderstood that the Polish draft resolution would in any case be put to the vote and I felt that, after certain applications had been rejected or accepted, it would be very difficult to proceed to a vote on the draft as a whole. That is why I proposed today that we should vote first on the whole draft resolution. Precedents for such a procedure have already been established; draft resolutions have already' been submitted to the Council for the collective admission of several States. One was introduced last year in our dis- M. PAROD! (France): Je ne vois pas une tres grande difference q1.lant a la fa~on dont les votes interviendront, soit que nous votions d'abord sur les differentes' candidatures separement, pJ.!is sur le projet de resolution de lat>Pologne, ou inversement. Mais je rappelle, comme le President vient de le faire, que nous avons deja pris une decision sur ce point: nous avons decide de discuter et de voter separement sur les differentes' demandes d'admission. D'apres cette decision, j'avais compris, je dois le dire, que nous aurions discute et vote cas par cas. Au cours de la derniere seance, une interpretation differente, d'ailleurs tout a fait correcte et possible, a ete admise. C'est que nous discutions separement et successivement toutes les candidatures et qu'ensuite nous procedions au vote sur celles-ci, egalement de fa~on separee et successive. Cette decision a ete prise par le Conseil de securite. Je ne vois aucune raison de la modifier.Je pense done qu'il faut s:en tenir la. Dans ces conditions, la proposition presentee par le representant de la Belgique doit etre examinee par nous. Nous devons prendre parti sur sa proposition. Pratiquement, encore une fois, tout ce1a ne changera pas le resultat. Je ne vois pas bien l'interet de cette discussion. Si nous votons separement sur chaque candidature et si, ensuite, nous nous pronon~ons sur le projet de resolution de la Pologne, le vote que nous emettrons sur celui-ci sera la consequence· de ce qui aura ete decide d'abord separement. Dans l'autre cas, nous serions ~menes a prendre une premiere decision sur le projet de resolution de la Pologne et ensuite des decisions distinctes sur chaque candidature. Encore une fois, tout cela me parait revenir au meme. ],insiste pour que nous nous en tenions a la decision deja prise par le Conseil de securite. M. KATZ-SUCHY (Pologne) (traduit de l'ooglais) : Lorsque j'ai propose aujourd'hui une procedure de vote, j'ai pris en consideration les difficultes speciales que certains representants ont soulignees a notre derniere seance. ]'ai presume que le projet de resolution de la Pologne devait, de toute fa~on , etre mis aux voix, et il m'a semble qu'il serait tres difficile de proceder a un scrutin sur l'ensemble du projet apres que certaines demandes auraient ete rejetees ou acceptees. C'est pourquoi j'ai propose aujourd'hui que nous votions d'abord sur l'ensemble du projet. I1 existe des precedents: des projets df> resolutions ont deja ete presentes au Conseil, tendant a admettre conjointement plusieurs Etats, notam-....... M. EL-KHOURI (Syrie) (traduit de lJanglais) : J'appuie la proposition presentee par le representant de la Belgique. Je ne suis pas d'accord avec le representant de la Pologne sur la procedure qu'il propose. Je sais qu'il existe un principe general selon lequel les parties d'un tout tombent avec l~. Si, en reunissant les demandes des Etats requerants, nous entendions qu'il y a entre ceux-ci une unite de destin ou une unite ·de principe, nous pourrions examiner leurs cas ensemble et voter sur leurs demandes "en bloc". Mais il n'y a pas de correlation entre les uns et les autres. Si nous votons sur leurs demandes et si le' Conseil de securite les rejette, on ne manquera pas de nous objecter que nous avons vote contre les differentes parties de ce projet de resolution et que nous n'avons plus le droit de voter sur elles cl nouveau. Je ne veux pas que le Conseil de securite s'expose cl elntendre des observations de cet ordre. La question est absolument cIaire; si le projet de resolution de la Pologne est mis aux voix, je voterai contre ce projet. Je le ferai, non pas que je m'ecarte du principe de l'universalite qui est le mien, mais parce que je suis persuade, en ce qui concerne la procedure et le vote, qu'il est plus regulier de proceder comme le propose le representant de la Belgique, sans mettre aux voix le projet de .resolution de la Pologne. Le projet de resol~tion de la Pologne est contraire aux regles. I1 est impossible de lier le sort de tant d'Etats differents, de lier la bonne et la mauvaise fortune, bomie attitude et mauvaise, alors qu'il n'existe aucune relation entre eux. Ces Etats sont distincts et separes les uns des autres; ils ne peuvent etre lies par la meme fortune et le meme destin; il faut done voter separement 'pour chacun d'eux.. Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria): I support the proposal submitted by the representative of Belgium. I do not 'agree with the representative of Poland on the procedure which he suggested. I know there is a general principle according to which, when the whole is rejected, its com.panent parts are rejected with it. If we took it that, by associating the applications of the States concerned, there was a unity of destiny or a unity of principle' between the applicants, we could consider and vote on their applications en bloc. But there is no relation between them. If a vote is taken on their applications, and if these are, rejected by the Security Council, we shall not fail to hear objections to the effect that parts of this draft resolution have been rejected and that we have no right to vote on them again. I do not want the Security Council to be exposed to such objections. The matter is quite clear. If the Polish draft resolution is put t6 the vote, I shall vote against it. I shall do so not because I have abandoned my principle of universality but because, as a method of voting and as a matter of procedure, I believe it would be sounder to proceed in accordance with the proposal of thf Belgian representative, without taking any vote on the Polish draft. The Polish draft resolution is irregular. It cannot be permitted that so many States should have to share the same fate, a fate linking good fortune with bad, a good attitude with a bad one, when there is no relation at all between them. The States are separate and distinct one .from another; they cannot be bound by the same fortune and destiny. Their applications should therefore be voted upon separately. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (tr(Jf11,slated from Russian) : The Polish draft resolution is before the Security Council and as it has not been withdrawn it should, like , any other, be put to the vote. The question arises as to when this resolution is to be voted upon, whether at the beginning, before the vote on each separate application, or at the end, after the vote ?n each separate application. It seems to me that It would be more logical if we first put to the vote the more general proposal, namely, the Polish draft resolution, and if we then voted on the ap-' plication of each country separately. I repeat, the practical result, it seems to me, would be the same, but from the point of view of order and procedure it would appear more correct and logical to vote first on the Polish maft resolution. M. GROMYKO (Union des Repv.bliques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe) : Le Conseil de securite est saisi du projet de resolution de la Pologne et puisqu'il n'a pas ete retire, il doit etre mis aux voix, comme tout autre. Une question se pose: cl quel moment ce vote·doit-il etre effectue? Estce au debut, avant que chaque demande ne SO!t mis aux voix separement, ou a la fin, c'est-a-dire apres le vote distinct sur chaque demande? I1 me parait plus logique de mettre tout d'abord aux voix le projet de resolution de la Pologne, puisqu'il a une portee plus generale, et de voter ensuite sur chacune des demandes presentees par les divers pays. En pratique, je le repete, les resultats seraient les memes, mais du point de vue de la marche cl suivre, il serait plus juste et plus logique de mettre d'abord aux voix le projet de resolution de la Pologne. Je dois dire cl ce propos que je ne vois pas tres Incidentally, I am not quite clear as to the Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): I want to refer to what the record shows on this matter. It is a record that we cannot disregard without being perfectly unreasonable and, in my opinion, unlawful. There are certain fundamental rights in any parliamentary body, and one of them is the right to express oneself by a vote.. If there is anything . which is regarded as precious and necessary to protect, it is this sovereign equality of every State, whether great or. small, to express its choice, especially in a matter of this kind where we are considering the admission of new Members to this very important Organization. What does the record show as to the position of the United States? By its statements in the Council in the course of the discussions of each separate case, even before we reached the voting stage, the Ul1ited States, without threatening to use a veto, without stating whether it would ever use a veto in such a situation, has, nevertheless, made its position clear; as regards three of these countries, the. United States is opposed to their admission on the grounds stated; as regards two others, it is in favour of their admission OH the grounds stated. What would be the effect of putting this Polish draft resolution to a vote? It would be the most absurd thing in the world to force the United States to vote against itself. No matter when it is put to the vote, such a draft resolution, in view of this record, is unlawful and unconstitutional. It is against the rights which every individual Member State here possesses under the Charter, because it would force that Member State to give up one of its rights. If the United States were forced to vote on this draft resolution, it would contradict itself in three cases if it voted for the draft; if it voted against, it would contradict itself in two cases. We cannot be so absurd as to allow any such parliamentary procedure. In this situation, I believe that a point of order raised against this draft resolution would prevail, and lawfully prevail; but I prefer to handle the matter in the way suggested by the representative of Belgium. I shall therefore support the Belgian proposal. Mr. KATZ-SUCHY (Poland): I am really very grateful to the representative of the United States for reminding the Council of certain sovereign rights which exist here, and of the freedom to express one's opinion in the Council. I believe that this right is being denied to the Polish delegation. M. AUSTIN (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de fanglais) : Je voudrais me reporter it l'historique de la question. 11 est impossible de ne pas en tenir compte sans s'ecarter absolument du bon sens et, it mon avis, de la legalite. Toute assemblee parlementaire possede certains droits fondamentaux, dont run est le droit pour cbaque membre d'exprimer son opinion par un vote. S'il est une chose a laquelle on doive attacher du prix et que l'on doive proteger, c'est ce droit egal et souverain de chaque Etat, grand ou petit, d'exprimer son opinion, specialement dans une question de l'ordre de celle que nous discutons, ou il s'agit d'admettre de nouveaux Membres au sein de cette tres importante Organisation. Quelle a ete dans le passe la position des Etats- Unis? Par les declarations qu'ils ont faites devant le Conseil au cours de la discussion de chaque cas separement, avant meme qu'il se soit agi de voter, les Etats-Unis, sans menacer de se servir du veto, sans dire s'ils se serviraient jamais du veto dans une telle situation, ont neanmoins c1airement expose leur position: en ce qui concerne trois des pays en question, les Etats-Unis sont opposes a leur adnlission pour des raisons qu'ils ont fait connaitre. En ce qui concerne deux autres Etats, ils sont favorables a leur admission pour des raisons qu'ils ont egalement fait connaitre. A quoi aboutirait-on si 1'0n mettait aux voix ce projet de resolution de la Pologne? Ce serait la chose la plus absurde au monde que de contraindre les Etats-Unis a voter contre eux-memes. . Quel que soit le moment ou il est mis aux voix, un tel projet de resolution, si 1'0n tient compte de ce que je viens de rappeler, est illegal et anticonstitutionnel. 11 est en opposition avec les droits que tout Etat Membre possede ici en vertu de la Charte, car il contraindrait cet Etat Membre a renoncer a l'un de ces droits. Si 1'0n contraint les Etats-Unis a voter sur ce projet, ils devraient se dementir dans trois cas s'ils votaient .pour la resolution; s'ils votaient contre, ils se dementiraient dans deux cas. Nous ne pouvons pousser l'absurdite au point d'admettre une telle procedure parlementaire. Dans ces conditions, je suis persuade qu'une motion d'ordre contre ce projet de resolution l'emporterait en toute legalite. Je pre£ere toutefois que la question soit traitee de la maniere proposee par le representant de la Belgique. C'est pourquoi j'appuierai la proposition de la Belgique. M. KATZ-SUCHY (Pologne) (traduit de ['anglais): Je suis vraiment tres reconnaissant aU representant des Etats-Unis d'avoil' rappe1e l'existence, au sein du Conseil, de certains droits souverains et de la liberte pour chaque membre d'exprimer son opinion. Je crois que l'on est en voie de denier ce droit a la delegation de la Pologne. \ ' . L'artic1e 32 du reglement provisoire du Co~.::" "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.l" That was a conditional acceptance of the, proposal that the draft resolution should be put to the vote in parts. I must again refer to the record. In the meeting of 29 September, I stated: "The Polish delegation agreed at the last meeting to accept the procedure of separate votes on its resolution only because it wished to reach an agreement; it thought that would help in the deliberations. I now see that that agreement, and our attempt at a compromise, have been misused here as an instrument for discrimination against one or another country. I reserve the right of the Polish delegation to withdraw its agreement that separate votes be taken on the resolution.2" / B~fore the Council, there is only one draft resolution, namely the Polish draft of 2S September. No other draft resolution has been submitted; and we must now proceed, in accordance w~th the provisional rules of procedure, to vote on resolutions in the order in which they were introduced. On behalf of the Polish delegation, I request that the Polish draft resolution should be voted upon in toto and not in parts. , The representative of the United States asks why he should not have the right to express his opinion. I ask the same question ,: why should not the Polish delegation have the right to express its opinion? We expressed our attitude by submitting a draft resolution, the motivation of which was explained in several statements made at three meetings of the Security Council. Our vote for it would he an expression of our opinion; again, a vote against it by the United States delegation would be an expression of the opinion of the United States, namely, that it is opposed to the collective admission of the five applicants for membership and that it considers that the voting should proceed in a different way. I claim the right of the Polish delegation to express its opinion. Le PRESIDENT (tradttit de I'anglais5: Qu'il +ne soit permis de dire deux ou trois mots, dans l'espoir de pouvoir ec1aircir un peu la situation.

I hope I"may be permitted to ~ay one or two words, in the hope that I may clarify the situation a little. All the various procedural proposals of which we have been seized have been put forward by one side or the other in order to maintain its point of view. I was not contradicted when I said today that at a 'previous meeting it was I agreed that we should first of all take separate votes on the several applicants. I think that the idea of the Polish representative then was that his draft resolution should be put to the vote after ~he separate votes. I shall be perfectly frank with the Polish represe!?-tative and tell him that, if we had agreed to that procedure then, after taking the several individual votes, from which we should know exactly what the case was in regard to each of the applicants, I should have declared his draft resolution out of order. For the Polish draft resolution is simply a way of stating that these applications are interdependent and that we must either accept them as a whole or r~ject them all. I do not believe .that that is procedurally correct. I think it is contrary to the Charter. I do not think we can claim that the admission of one State is depc"dent upon the admission of any other applicants. The Polish representative has suggested, in fact, he has demanded, that his draft resolution should be voted on before we proceed to the separate votes on the various applications. I personally should not mind doing that, provided it is quite understood that the rejection of the Polish draft resolution, if that occurred, would not debar us subsequently from electing one or more of the applicants. I thought that the Belgian proposal was perhaps a neater and easier way of achieving the same result, which is, r confess quite frankly, the defeat of the Polish draft resolution. I think that the Polish representative had no right to submit it and that it is contrary' to the Charter. We have not come to it yet, but, as I have told the ,representative of Poland frankly, if we had followed that procedure, I should have given a ruling to that effect. If he disagrees with my ruling, the remedy is open to him. Mr. MUNIZ (Brazil): I wish to call the attention of the representative of Poland to what I think is a misunderstanding on his part in connexion with his draft resolution. It is customary for the Council to vote separately on the different paragraphs of a draft resolution and then to take a final vote on the resolutiqn as a whole; that is in accordance with rule 32 of our provisional rules of procedure. That holds true, however, only in the case of a draft resolutidn which has a certain unity of character, a resolution of which the dif- ~rois pas que nous puissions declarer que l:admission d'un Etat depend de l'admission d'autres candidats. Le representant de la Pologne a suggere, en fait il a exige, que son projet de resolution soit mis aux voix avant que nous passions au vote sur les differentes demandes d'admission. Je n'y verrais personnellement pas d'inconvenient, a conditio~ qu'il soit bien entendu que le rejet du projet de resolution de la Pologne, ~u cas ou celui-ci serait rejete, ne nous ~mpechera pas d'admettre par la suite un ou plusieurs des requerants. J'estimais que la proposition de la Belgique constituait une maniere plus facile et plus adroite de parvenir a ce resultat, resultat qui est, je l'avoue tout a fait franchement, le rejet du projet de la Pologne que, amon avis, le representant de la Pologne n'avait pas le droit de presenter et qui est contraire a la Charte. Nous n'en sommes pas encore la, ,mais, comme je l'ai dit franchement au representant de la Pologne, si nous avions suivi cette procedure, j'aurais pris une decision dans le sen::. que j'ai indique. Si le representant de la Pologne n'accepte pas ma decision, c'est a lui de voir ce qu'il doit faire. M. MUNIZ (Bresil) (traduit de lJanglais): Je desire attirer l'attention du representant de .la . Pologne sur ce que je crois etre un malentendu _.~ sa part, au sujet de son projet de resolution. I1 est de procedure courante au Conseil de voter sur les differents paragraphes d'un projet de resolution et de proceder ensuite a un vote definitif d'ensemble; cette fa<;on de proceder' est conforme a l'artic1e 32 du,reglement interieur provisoire du, C:onseil. Toutefois, cette procedure n'est applicable. que s'il s'agit d'un projet de resolution qui Mr. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgium) (translated !r01n French) : I wish to raise a point of order. I think that this discussion is being needlessly prolonged. It could easily be brought to an end if the Council were to take a decision on the propos1,l.1 I have submitted. The PRESIDENT: There are two speakers who have asked to be heard. After they have spoken, I propose to put the Belgian proposal to a vote in accordance with the point of order which has just been raised. I beg those speakers to ,confine their remarks to the smallest possible compass. M. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgique): Une motion d'ordre. Je crois que cette discussion se prolonge assez inutilement. 11 serait aise d'y mettre un terme en invitant le Conseil a se .prononcer sur la proposition que j'ai soumise. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Deux orateurs ont demande a prendre la parole. Quand nous les aurons entendus, je me propose de mettre aux voix la proposition de la Belgique, conformement a la motion d'ordre qui vient d'etre ·'presentee. Je prie les deux orateurs d'etre aussi brefs que possible. Mr. KATZ-SUCHY (Poland): I shall be ve'ry brief. First of all, I wish to assure the Council that, when I proposed the procedure which I did propose <1 short while ago, it was not my intention to make the deliberations of the Council any more difficult. My delegation understands that time presses and we know how heavy is the agenda of the General Assembly. However, we are tryingto find a way to express our opinion. M. KATZ':'SUCHY (Pologne) (traduit de 1'anglais) : Je serai tres bref. Avant tout, je desire assurer au Conseil qu'en presentant, il y a quelques instants, ma proposition sur la procedure a suivre, mon intention n'etait pas de rendre plus difficiles encore les deliberations du Conseil. Ma' delegation comprend tres bien que le temps presse et sait que l'ordre du jour de l'Assemblee generale est tres charge, mais nous nous effon;ons d'exprirner notre opinion. Je ne puis accepter que l'on mette aux voix la proposition de la Belgique. Je considere que cette proposition n'est pas du tout recevable et qu'clle est contraire aux dispositions de l'article 32 du reglement interieur provisoire. D'apres cet article, l'auteur d'un projet de resolution a le droit de s'opposer au vote par division. Toutefois, pout faciliter les choses et nous permettre de proceder au vote, je suis pret a me conformer a la decision du President. Je me reserve cependant le droit, apres le vote par division, de me prononcer sur la proposition concernant le sort a reserver au projet de resolution de la Pologne. It est entendu que· le vote auquel nous al10ns proceder sur chaque demande d'admission, n'est pas un vote sur le projet de resoll1tiOn de la Po~ogne; il s'agit d'un vote sur les demandes d'admission qui ont. ete presentees, et c'est la reponse donnee, sous forme de vote, a chacun des Etats requerants. I cannot agree that a vote should be taken on the Belgian proposal. I believe that the Belgian proposal is completely out of order and is in violation of rule 32 of the provisional rules of procedure. Under this rule any original mover has the right to object to having his draft resolution voted on in separate parts. To make our position easier, however, and to enable us to proceed to a vote, I am prepared to submit to the President's ruling. But I reserve the right, after the separate votes, to decide as to the proposal on the action to be taken with reg-ard to the Polish draft resolution.· It is understood that the vote on each application for admission is not a vote on the Polish draft resolution; it is a vote on the application and it is a reply, in the form of a vote, to each of the applicants. . Colonel HODGSON (Australia): I withdraw my request for permission to speak, in view of the statement just made by the representative of Poland. , Le colonel HODGSON (A.ustralie) (traduit de l'anglais): J'avais demande la parole, mais, en raison de la declaration que vient de faire le representant de la Pologne, j'y renonce. Mr. PARODI (France) (translated from French): I should like to speak on a point of order. Am I right in believing that the Polish' representative's statements bind him alone and do not imply any decision by the Council on what he has just said? The PRESlDENT: I propose to put to the vote the proposal submitted by the representative of '[ Belgium. ~"_. M. PAROD! (France): Je demande la parole pour une motion d'ordre. Je pense que les declarations que le representant de la Pologne went de faire engagent seulement ce representant et n'impliquent pas, de la part du Conseil, une decision quelcGnque --ur ce qu'il vient de dire? Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais) : Je propose de mettre aux voix la proposition presentee par le representant de la Belgique.

I must say that there will be little point in taking a vote on the Polish draft resolution, as the Belgian proposal states: "The Council resolves to hold a separate and final vote on each application fOr membership." But I never could see myself th~t there would have been much point in the Polish draft resolution. Mr. KATZ-SUCHY (Poland) : I understand that 'it was the President's ruling to take the vote on the separate applications first. I adhered to that ruling. I do not see any reason why we shoulC1 vote on the Belgian proposal which, I believe, is contrary to rule 32. I am prepared to accept a new ruling but I am not prepared to accept a new proposal. With regard to the reservation made by the French representative, I can only answer that there is no question as to who is bound by my declaration. The fact of the matter is that there is a draft resolution before the Council, and that it will still be before the Council after the vote . on the separate applications has been taken. Mr. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgium) (translated from French) : I must disagree with the Polish representative's interpretation of role 32 of the provisional rules of procedure. This rule states: "Parts of a motion or of a draft resolution shall be voted on separately_at the request of any representative. unless the original mover objects." This means that any proposal may be split up, which does not require a decision by the Council unless the original mover objects. But the Council i~ perfectly free to decide to split up the proposal.

The representative of Poland is, of course, entitled to say that he will nQt accept the Belgian proposal and that he will vote against it. But I propose to put the Belgian proposal to a vote now. I do so because the Belgian proposal, in my opinion, governs our procedure and should come first. Mr. KATZ-SUCHY (Poland) : I wish to raise a point of order. It is immaterial to me whether we vote on the Belgian proposal first, in view of the fact that I agreed to accept the President's ruling. At the moment, I intend simply to challenge the opinion expressed by the representative of Belgium, not only in its application to the present draft resolution but also. in its application to any similar case which may come before the Council in the future. I believe that rule 32 of our rules 6f procedure states very' clearly that no draft resolution may be voted on in parts unless the original mover agrees, or, as it is worded: "Parts of a motion or of a dtaft resolution shall be voted on separately at the request of any representative, unless the original mover objects." Le PRESIDENT (traduit de ['anglais) : A mon avis, un vote sur le projet de resolution de la Pologne n'aurait guere de sens puisque la proposition de la Belgique declare: "Le Conseil de securite decide de voter separement et definitivement sur chaque demande d'admission." Personnellement, je n'ai d'ailleurs jamais pu discerner l'interet que presente le projet de',resolution de la Pologne. M. KATZ-SUCHY (Pologne) (traduit de l'anglais) : J'avais cru comprendre que le President avait decide de mettre d'abord aux voix les demandes d'admission et j'avais accepte sa decision. Je ne vois aucune raison de voter sur la proposition de la Belgique qui, a mon avis, est contraire aux dispositions de l'article 32. Je suis dispose a accepter une nouvelle decision mais non une nouvelle proposition. En ce qui concerne la reserve formulee par le representant de la France, je repondrai seulement qu'il n'est pas question de savoir qui ma declaration engage. Le fait est que le Conseil est saisi d'un projet de resolution qui subsistera, lorsque le Conseil aura vote separement sur les demandes d'admission. M. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgique): Je dois contester l'interpretation que le representant de la Pologne donqe de l'article 32 du reglement interieur provisoire. Cet article dit: "La division est de droit si elle est demandee, a mains que l'auteur de la proposition ou du projet de resolution ne s'y oppose." Cela veut d~re que la division est accordee, sans decision du Conseil, si l'auteur de la proposition ne s'y oppose pas. Mais le Canseil peut parfaitement decider la division de la proposition.· . Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglatis) : Le representant de la Pologlle a naturellement le droit de declarer qu'il n'acceptera pas la proposition de la Belgique et qu'il votera contre cette proposition. Mais je vais maintenant la mettre aux voix car, a mon avis, eUe detenninera la procedure que nous suivrons et die doit done avoir la priorite. M. KATZ-SUCHY (Pologne) (traduit de l'anglais): Je desire presenter une motion d'ordre. II m'est indifferent que nous votions d'abord sur la proposition de la Belgique puisque j'ai accepte de me conformer ala decision du President. Pour le moment, je veux simplement m'elever contre l'opinion fonnulee par le representant de la Belgique, pour autant qu'elle s'applique non seulement ala presente resolution mais aussi atout autre cas semblable dont le Conseil pourrait etre saisi plus tard. Je pense que l'article 32 du reglement interieur prevoit nettement que la division n'est permise que si l'auteur de la resolution l'accepte ou pour reprendre les termes memes de cet article,: "La division est de droit si elle est.demandee,.a moins que l'auteur de la proposition ou du projet de resolution ne s'y oppose." .,:",,.~ Mr. PARODI (France), (translated from French) : I should like to make a brie"f observation, with the reservation that I may return to the point at greater length if the discussion should arise again and if further amplification should be necessary. We have two working languages; they are complementary and one serves to clarify the other. The French text of rule 32 is perfectly clear and, in my opinion, allows of no other interpretation than that given by the Belgian representative. The French text says: "La d·ivision est de droit, si elle est demandee, a moins que l'auteur de la proposition . .. ne s'y oppose." That means that, if the mover of a proposal objects, division does not follow. It does not mean that the Council cannot decide to effect it. . M. P'ARODI (France): Je voudrais presenter une breve observation, en me reservant de' revenir sur ce point si la discussion rebondissait et s'il y avait lieu a plus long developpement. Nous avons deux langues de travail; elles se completent et se precisent l'une l'autre. Or, le texte~ fmm;ais de l'article 32 est parfaitement clair et, cl. mon avis, il ne permet pas une interpretation differente de celle qu'a donnee le representant de la Belgique. Ce texte dit en effet: "La division est de droit, si e1le est demandee, amoins que l'auteur de la proposition ... ne s'y oppose." Cela veut dire que, si l'auteur de la proposition s'y oppose, la division cesse d'etre de droit. Cela ne veut pas dire que le Conseil ne peut pas la decider. II y a une garantie pour l'auteur de la proposition: c'est qu'il peut toujours la retirer, s'il prefere la retirer plutot que de la voir divisee. Mais s'il maintient sa proposition, le Conseil est toujours maitre de proceder par division. Je me reserve de revenir eventuellement sur ce point, si c'etait necessaire plus tard. There is one guarantee for the mover of the proposal; he can always withdraw it if he prefers to do so rather than see it divided. But if he maintains his proposal, the Council can always decide to vote on its parts separately. I reserve the right to come back to ttlis point if necessary later' on. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais) : J'invite de nouveau le Conseil a voter sur la proposition de la Belgique. Void le texte de cette proposition: "Le Conseil de securite decide de voter separement et definitivement sur chaque demande d'admissiQn." Le representant de l'URSS demande la parole pour une motion d'ordre.

Again I ask the Council to vote on the Belgian proposal. The text of that proposal is: "The Council resolves to hold a separate and final vote on each application." The representative of the USSR wishes to speak on a point of order. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit d·u russe): Comme je l'ai deja indique, il m'est indifferent a quel moment le projet de resolution de la Pologne sera mis aux voix, puisqu'en pratique les resultats seront les memes; cela revient inevitablement au meme. Mais la proposition de la Belgique exclut tout a fait le vote sur le projet de resolution de la Pologne. J'estime que cela n'est pas justifie. Comment peut-on decider de ne prendre aucune decision au sujet de propositions que nous soumet un representant au Conseil? Ce1a n'a jamais ete fait a ma connaissance. Non seulement ne puis-je accepter l'ordre prew par la proposition de la Belgique - quoique j'aie deja dit qu'il m'etait indifferent a quel moment nous voterions sur le projet de resolution de la Pologne - mais de plus, je ne puis accepter le fait qu'elle exclut lamise aux voix du projet presente par la Pologne. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): As I have already pointed out, it is immaterial to_ me when the Polish proposal is voted on, since the practical result will be the same; it makes no difference and can make no difference. The Belgian proposal, however, would prevent us from voting on the P.olish draft resolution at all. I think that is wrong. How can we decide not to adopt a decision on the proposals submitted by a particular member of the Council? r have never been aware of such a practice. I can agree neither to the procedure suggested in the Belgian proposalalthough, as I have said before, it makes no difference to me when the Polish draft resolution is put to the vote-nor to the fact that it precludes a vote on the Polish draft resolution. , Le PRESIDENT (tradu.it del l'a.nglds): Je decide de mettre aux voix immediatement la proposition de la Belgique. Les membres du Conseil sont libres de contester cette decision, s'ils croient devoir le faire.

I rule that we should vote Upon the Belgian proposal forthwith. If any member wishes to challenge that ruling, the way is open to him to do so. Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria): I move an amendment to the Polish draft resolution whereby it would read as follows: "The Secur.ity Council, "Having received and examined the application for membership in the United Nations submitted by Hungary, Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria and Finland, "Recommends to the General AssemBly that' these countries be admitted collectively and jointly as Members of the United Nations." The amendment adds the words "collectively and jointly". Thus the rejection of that draft resolution would not mean that the' applications could not be submitted and voted upon separately. In this way, we should avoid the results which I mentioned before. As the representative of the United States has pointed out, since he expressed approval of the admission of one -or two applicants, he cannot reject the Polish draft resolution while these two are included in it. However, he may reject the draft resolution if it contains the phrase "collectively an~ jointly"; then we could vote separately on each application. Moreover, if the draft as amended is rejected, it would mean that the applications of all these States could not be decided upon by a single vote.

It seems to me that the amendment proposed by the Syrian representative would make the Polish draft resolution much clearer but not, in my view, any better. With regard to the last remarks made by the representative of Poland, I did not understand that there was a proposal to divide his draft resolution. The situation is that the Council has before it separate applications, in some cases submitted separately, from a' number of applicants. A very large part of the Security Council membership seems to be anxious to deal with those applications separately and to reach a decision on each of them separately. The PoHsh delegation, on the other hand, submitted an omnibus resolution; it proposed that we should deal with all the applicants together Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): It me semble que l'amendement propose par le representant de la Syrie rendrait le projet de resolution de la Pologne beaucoup plus clair, mais, cl mon sens, it ne l'ameliorerait pas. A propos des dernieres observations du representant de la Polognt::, je declare que je n'avais pas compris que nous etions saisis d'une proposition visant cl la division du projet de resolution. La situation est la suivante: le Conseil est saisi par plusieurs Etats de demandes d'admission dont certaines ont ete p~sentees individuellement. Une tres grande partie des membres du Conseil semblent desireux d'examiner ces demandes ~~­ parement et de se prononcer separement su~· chacune d'elles. . D'autre part, la delegation de la Polo.gne.a presente une resolution "omnibus"; e1le a demande que nous examinions tout~s les demandes May we not vote on the Belgian proposal? M. KATz-SUCHY (Pologne) (traduit de l'anglais) : Pour parler franchement, je ne comprends guere la situation devant laquelle se trouve maintenant le Conseil. Tout d'abord, je crois que l'amendement de la Syrie mele une question de procedure avec une question de fond; elle essaye de resoudre une question de procedure en modifiant le fond. Si je desirais rendre la situation plus compliquee encore, j'accepterais tout simplement l'amendement propose par le representant de la Syrie et le Conserl se trouverait toujours devant.la meme situation. • Je ne vois pas ou reside la difficulte. Le President a dit, en dernier lieu, que certains membres du Conseil pr6ferent voter separement sur chacune des demandes d'admission. Je suis tout a fait d'accord sur ce point. Mais le President a constate, d'autre part, que le Conseil etait saisi d'un projet de resolution de la Pologne qu'il a bien voulu qualifier de resolution "omnibus", et <;eci est tout autre chose. . Je suis tout dispose a accepter la decision du President. Je crois avoir dit aplusieurs reprises que nous sommes saisis d'une proposition de la Belgique, tendant a ce que les demandes d'admission soient mises aux v:oix separement et d'un projet de resolution de la Pologne visant a ce que le vote porte sur les cinq demandes en meme temps. Nous sommes disposes a accepter que 1'on vote ci'abord sur la proposition de la Belgique tendant a v,Aer separement sur chaque demande, apres quoi nous deciderons ce que nous ferons de notre propre projet de resolution. Peut-etre demanderons-nous qu'il soit mis aux voix; peut-etre le retirerons-nous. Mr. KATZ-SUCHY (Poland): To be frank, I have ~. little difficulty in grasping the situation which has developed here. I believe, first of all, that the Syrian amendment mixes procedure with substance; it tries to settle a question of procedure by changing the substance. If I wished to make the situation more difficult, I should simply accept the Syrian amendment and the Council would be facing the same situation it faced previously. I do not know where the djfficulty is now. In his last remarks, the President stated that there are certain members of the Council who prefer to vote upon each application separately, and I quite agree with that. On the other hand, the President noted that there was a Polish draft resolution, which he was kind enough to describe as an omnibus resolution, which is quite a different thing. I quite agree with the President's ruling. I believe I have repeatedly stated that there is a Belgian proposal to vote on the applications separately and that there is a Polish draft resolution to vote on the five applications together. We are willing that the Belgian proposal, to the effect that .each application should be voted upon separately, should be put to the vote first; we shall decide what to do regarding our draft resolution after that voting is completed. Perhaps we shall ask for a vote on our draft resolution, or perhaps we shall withdraw it.

We shall now vote on the Belgian proposal. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais) : Je mets aux 'voix la proposition de la Belgique. Il est procede m~ vote cl 1nain levee. Par 9 voi:c contre 2, la resolution est adoptee. A vote was taken by show of hands, and the proposal was adopted by 9 votes to 2. Votes for: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, China, Colombia, France, Syria, United Kingdom, United States of America. Votent pour: Australie, Belgique, BresiI, Chine, Colombie, France, Syrie, Royaume-Uni, Etats-Unis d'Amerique. Votes against: Poland, Union of Soviet So- . cialist Republics. Votent contre: Pologne, Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques. .. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais) : Nous voterons maintenant separement sur ch!" une des demandes d'admission. La premiere eEl celle de la Hongrie. It est procUe au vote ,', main levee. It y a 5 voi:c pour et 6 abstentions. N'ayant pas obtenu le vote affinnatif de sept membres, la denWtnde d'admission n'est pas acceptee.

We shall now proceed to vote separately on each of the applications. The first application on which we have to vote is that of Hungary. /! vote was taken by show <of harnds. There were 5 votes in favour and 6 abstentions. The ap,Plication was not accepted~ having failed to obtaLn the affirmative votes of seven members. Votes for: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, China, Colombia, France, Syria, United Kingdom, United States of America. Votes against: Poland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The next application is that of Roumania. A vote was taken by show of hands. There were 4 votes in favour and 7 abstentions. The application was not accepted, having failed to obtain the affirmative votes of seven members. Votes for: China, Colombia, France, Syria. Abstentions: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Poland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, United States of America.

We shall vote next on the application et. Bulgaria. A vote was taken by show of hands. There was one vote in favour, 3 against and 7 absentions. The application was not accepted, having failed to obtain the affirmative votes of seven members. Votes for: Syria. Votes against: Belgium, France, United Kingdom. Abstentions: Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Poland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America.

We shall now vote on the application of Finland. A vote was taken by show of hands. There were 9 vates in favour and 2 against. The application was not accepted, one of the votes against being that of a permanent member of the Council. Votes for: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, China, Colombia, France, Syria, United Kingdom, United States of America. Votes against: Poland, Union of Soviet sOcialist Republics. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : In the discussions at previous meetings of the Council, as well as at the present meeting, the USSR delegation has stated its position with regard to the admission to the United Nations of these five countries. The USSR delegation supports the applications of all these States for membership in the 1l est pr.ocede au vote 4 main levee. 1l y (1J 9 voiz pour et 2 contre. L'une des voiz contre etant celle d'u-n metnbre permanent d2t Conseil, la demande d'admission n'est pas acceptee. Votent pour: Australie, Belgique, Bresil, Chine, Colombie, France, Syrie, Royaume-Uni, Etats-Unis d'Amerique. Votent -contre: Pologne, Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Nous passons maintenant au vote sur la demande d'admission de la Roumanie. II est proceae au vote amain levee. II y a 4 voiz pour et 7 abstentions. N'ayant pas obtenu le vote affirmatif de sept membres, la demande d'admission n!est pas accept~e. Votent pour: Chine, Colombie, Fnince, Syrie. S'abstiennent: Australie, Belgique, Bresil, Pologne, Union des Republiques socialisfes sovietiques, Royaume-Uni, Etats-Unis d'Amerique. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): La demande d'admission suivante est celle de la Bulgarie. 1l est proceae att vote amain levee. II y a une voiz pour, 3 contre et 7 abstentions. N'ayant pas obtemt le vote affirmatif de sept membres, la demande d'admissim't n'est pas acceptee. Vote pour: la Syrie. Votent contre: Belgique, France, Royaume- Uni. S'abstiennent: Australie, Bresil, Chine, Colombie, Pologne, Union des Republiques sodalistes sovietiques, Etats-Unis d'Amerique. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais) : Je mets maintenant aux voix la demande d'admission de la Finlande. - • 1l est p;oceae au vote amain levee. 1l y a 9 voiz pour et 2 contre. L'une des voiz contre etant celle d'un men2bre permanent du Conseil, la demande d'ad1nission n'est pas acceptee. Votent pour: Australie, Belgique, Bresil, Chine, Colombie, France, Syrie, Royaume-Upi, Etats-Unis d'Amerique. Votent contre: Pologne, Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques sodalistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe) : Au cours des seances precedentes et aujourd'hui meme, la delegation de l'URSS a precise son attitude a? sujet de l'admission de ces cinq Etats it l'Organtsation des Nations Unies. Nous ne vouk'ns pas partidper aux mesquines manoeuvres politiques qui ont lieu a l'occasion de 1'examen des demandes d'admission presentees par ces pays. Nous estimons que leurs demandes doivent ,etre traitees comme un seul probleme et que les decisions sur l'admission de chacun de ces pays a l'Organisation des Nations Unies doi-· vent etre prises simultanement. Que ce soit au Conseil de securite ou al'AssembIee generale, au cas ou l'Assemblee serait app~lee a examiner cette 'question a la suite d'une decision du Conseil a cet effet, la delegation de l'URSS appuiera a n'importe que1 moment la proposition d'admettre simultanement ces pays a 1'Organisation. Si 1'on examine separement la question d'admettre l'un quelconque des pays de ce groupe, il n'est pas possible de la trancher dans un sens favorable. I1 s'agit d'un probleme indivisible et on ne peut le resoudre qu'en tenant compte simultanement de toutes les demandes d'admission. Mr. KATZ-SUCHY (Poland): The Polish delegation voted in favour of the application of Hungary. After that application was rejected, however, we abstained from voting or opposed the other applications. The non-admission of Hungary has made a complete change in our original intention, which was to admit five States which are returning to normal conditions and. normal diplomatic relations with all other nations. M. KATZ-SUCHY (Pologne) (traduit de l'angla:is) : La delegation de la Pologne a vote en faveur de l'admission de la Hongrie. Toutefois, apres que cette demande d'admission eut ete repoussee, e1le s'est abstenue, ou e1le a vote contre les demandes presentees par les autres pays. Le refu's oppose ala demande de la Hongrie a amene un changement total dans nos intentions premieres, qui etaient d'admettre dnq Etats qui reviennent actuellement a une situation normale et reprennent des relations diplomatiques normales avec tous les autres pays. Je dois rappeler au Conseil que c'est le representant de la Republique de Pologne qui a presente une proposition dans ce sens et qui, le premier, a preconise l'admission des dits Etats des que les traites de paix auraient ete ratifies et mis en vigueur. , Cela suffit a expliquer pourquoi nous avons du, dans les conditions presentes, voter contre l'admission de l'Italie et de la Finlande. Je l'ai deja dit, les peuples italien et finlandais connaissent parfaitement nos sentiments a leur egard et savent quel sens il convient de donner anotre vote. Au cours des debats, la delegation de la Pologne, preoccupee des resultats du scrutin, a propose que les cinq membres permanents du Conseil de securite se reunissent et dccident entre eux des moyens a employer pour resoudre certains difficultes1 • A son regret et a sa surprise - surprise qu'ont certainement partagee tous ceux qui ont eu connaissance de cette affaire - trois des membres permanents du Conseil ont refuse d'essayer meme d'arriver a une solution quelconque. C'est la la preuve que la discussion qui a eu lieu ici ne ten- I must remind the Council that it was the representative of the Government of the Republic of Poland who introduced a proposal to that effect and first expressed interest in the admission of those States as soon as the peace treaties had been ratified and had entered into force. . I have given a sufficient explanation of why we had to vote in this case~ against the applications of Italy and Finland. 'As I stated before, the peoples of Italy and Finland know our attitude towards them and know how to understand our vote. During the discussion, the Polish delegation, concerned about the results of the voting, made· a proposal that the five permanent members of the Council should meet and decide among themselves how certain difficulties could be overcome1 • :ro our regret and surprise-no doubt the surpnse was shared by everyone who heard of itthree of the permanent members refused even to attempt to reach some solution. That is proof ~hat the question which has been discussed here IS not a question of admitting one or another coun- That situation, the seriousness of which has been demonstrated so many times before the Council and before the General Assembly, is of great concern to everyone who looks upon the United Nations as an Organization for future peace. We must remember that the Organization of the United Nations is not an idea which originated in the head of a politician. The United Nations was brought into being by the struggle of the people and was built on their blood. Therefore the peoples whose suffering and toil helped to build the United Nations are greatly concerned that such attempts are being made. I am glad that this attitude of certain delegations within the United Nations and within the Security Council has been observed and noticed in the United States of America and elsewhere. Referring to another point, a well-known American publicist discussed a certain article published in the quarterly journal, Foreign Affairs, and article signed by a certain Mr. X., who apparently plays an important part in the foreign policy of the United States. The publicist to whom I am referring is Mr. WaIter Lippman, whose book on the war aims of the United States of America was so carefully studied in Europe during the years of occupation. I wish to quote from his article in the New York H craid Tribune of 30 September 1947.

I regret to inten::upt the representative of Poland, but there is nothing on the agenda at this moment except the admission of new Members to the United Nations. The first part of his remarks-although I think some of them were superfluous-related in some way to this subject, but I cannot see that the ground he is now traversing relates to this subject in any way. Mr. KATZ-SUCHY (Poland) : I believe it is my right to explain why the Polish delegation adopted the attitude it did in voting on these applications. I must state that what I am saying is closely connected with the subject and needs to be said in order that the Council may understand our attitude, the explanation of which I was about to finish when I was interrupted by the President.

The representative of Poland has not been denied repeated opportunities today and on. previous occasions to state his attitude in regard to this question; and he has taken advantage of those opportunities. He has again repeated a great deal of what he had previously said. I do not think he should now proceed to read extracts from authors, however eminent, unless they are directly relevant to the question of the admission of new Members. I rule, therefore, that his remarks are out of order, unless he can show that Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'arnglais): Je regrette de devoir interrompre le representant de la Pologne, mais la seule question qui figure a l'ordre du jour en ce moment est l'admission de nouveaux Etats comme Membres des Nations Unies. Le debut de sa declaration - encore qu'une partie m'en ait paru superfIue - se rapportait plus ou moins au sujet qui nous occupe, mais je ne vois pas le moindre lien entre ses dernieres observations et l'admission de nouveaux Membres. M. KATZ-SUCHY (Pologne) (traduit de l'angl~is) : Je crois avoir le droit d'exposer les raisons qui ont determine l'attitude de la delegation de la Pologne en ce qui concerne ces demande~. Ce que je m'appretais a dire a un rapport etro~t avec la question qui nous occupe, et doit etre dlt pour que soit comprise notre attitude, dont j'allais finir d'exposer les raisons lorsque le President m'a interrompu. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais) : L'occasion a ete donnee maintes fois au representant de la Pologne, tant aujourd'hui qu'au cours des reunions anterieures, d'exposer son point de vue sur la question des demandes d'admission, et il a profite de ces occasions. Une grande partie de la declaration qu'il vient de faire n'est constituee que de redites. Je crois qu'il ne doit pas nous d?r;n~r maintenant lecture de passages d'ouvrages, SI e1TIl.- nents qu'en soient les auteurs, a moins que ces passages n'aient directement trait a la question de . Mr. KATz-SUCHY (Poland): I wish to state that the passage I wanted to read is much briefer than the words that have been exchanged between the President and myself over my right to speak.. This passage is directly connected with the attitude of Poland in voting\ on the acceptance of new Members. .

In that case the quotation will be in order. Mr. KATZ-SUCHY (Poland): I quote: "Judging by the speeches in the Greek affair of the British and American delegates, Sir Alexander Cadogan and Mr. Hersche1 Johnson appear to be acting on instructions which treat the United Nations as expendable in our conflict with Russia. It isa great pity. Nothing is being accomplished to win the conflict, to assuage it, or to settle it. But the United Nations, which should be preserved as the last best hope of mankind that the conflict can be settled and a peace achieved, is being chewed up. The seed corn is being devoured." I thank the President for his patience in listening to the passage.

I regret that the representative of Poland should have taken advantage of the latitude I allowed him to read something which appears to me to be totally irrelevant. We shall have to close our business in regard to the admission of new Members. We have voted and the results are known. I shall see to it that a report of our proceedings on this matter this afternoon is made to the President of the Assembly. I feel that, in view of the hour, it will be impossible to go very far with the Indonesian question tonight. We, shall have to put off consideration of that matter until our next meeting. The date of that meeting cannot be fixed immediately, owing to the difficulty of fitting it in with the meetings of the Committees of the General Assembly. Members of the Council and others interested will be informed as soon as possible when the next meeting of the Security Council is ~o take place. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist. Republics) (translated from Russian): Regarding the next meeting of the Council to be devoted to the Indonesian question, I think such a meeting should. be convened within the next few days because, according to information received from that area, including official communiques, the s!tuation there is abnormal and military operatIons are continuing. TherefoJe we should not defer this meeting of the Counc61 indefinitely. We must arrange with the Secretariat to fix a suitable M. KATZ-SUCHY (PoIogne) (traduit de l'anglais) : Je tiens a faire observer que le passage dont je vouIais donner lecture contient moins de mots que nous venons d'en echanger, le President et moi, pour savoir si j'ai le droit de poursuivre mon intervention, et qu'il a un rapport direct avec I'attitude adoptee par la Pologne en ce qui concerne I'admission de nouveaux Membres. Le' PRESIDENT (traduit de l/anglais): En ce cas, ce passage rentre dans le cadre de la discussion. M. KATZ-SUCHY (Pologne) (traduit de l'anglais)\: Le voici: "Si I'on en juge par les discours prononces au coul's de la discussion de l'affaire de Grece par If; representants du Royaume-Uni et des Etats-Unis, il semble que Sir Alexander Cadogan et M. Hersche1 Johnson agissent d'apres des instructions qui sacrifient Ies Nations Unies anotre conflit avec la Russie. CeIa est adeplorer. Rien n'est fait pour triompher de ce desaccord, pour l'apaiser ou pour le regIer; mais on est en train de mettre en pieces I'Organisation des Nations Unies, que 1'0n devrait s'efforcer de preserver comme le seul espoir qu'ait l'humanite de voir le desaccord regIe et la paix etablie. On est en train de manger le bIe en herbe." Je remercie le President de I'attention qu'il a bien voulu m'accorder. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): Je regrette que le representant de la Pologne ait profite de ce que je I'ai laisse poursuivre son intervention pour donner lecture d'un texte qui, la mon avis, est sans aucun rapport avec la question 0 en discussion. Nous alIons devoir clare Ies debats concemant I'admission de nouveaux Membres. Nous avons vote et Ies resultats du scrutin sont connus. Je veillerai a ce qu'un rapport sur les debats de cet .apres-midi soit communique au President de l'AssembIee. I1 me semble qu'etant donne 1'heure tardive, nous ne pourrons avancer beaucoup ce soil' dans la discussion de la question d'Indonesie. I1 'la nous falIoir en remettre l'examen a la prochaine seance. I1 n'est pas possible de fixer iminediatement la, date de celIe-ci, qu'il est difficile de faire cadrer avec les reunions des Commissions de l'Assernblee generale. Les membres du Conseil et les autres personnes interessees seront avises ausl3itot que possible de la date qui aura ete fixee. M. GROMYKO (Union des Republiques socialistes sovietiques) (traduit du russe) : A ce propos, il me semble que 1'on devrait tenil' une seance du Conseil consacree a la question indonesienne dans les jours qui suivent car, selon les renseignements qui nous parviennent d'Indonesie et selon les communications officielIes, la situation y est anormale et les operations militaires continuent. C'est pourquoi nous ne devons pas ajourner la seance du Conseil a une date indeterminee. I1 faudl'ait se mettre d'accord avec le Secretariat 373. Announcements pertaining to the Indonesian question Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): I wish to inform the President and the members of the Security Council of the decision recorded in the following communication dated 1 October 1947 and contained in document S/571 : "The United States representative at the Seat of the United Nations presents his compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and has the honour to advise that the President of the United States of America _has appointed the Honourable Frank Porter Graham as the United States representative on the Committee of the Security Council established to exercise the good offices of the Security Council in the dispute between the Republic of Indonesia and the Netherlands Government. The credentials follow."

I am sure that all the members of the Council were interested in hearing the statement just made by the representative of the United States of America. In view of the_statement just read by the representative of the United States of America, I shall read to the Council a letter on the same subject which I have .received from the head of the Australian delegation. This communication, which is dated 26 September 1947 and is contained in document S/569, reads as follows: "I have the honour to inform you that the Australian Government has appointed Mr. Justice-Kirby, a judge of the Australian Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, as Australian representative on the Committee established as a result of the resolution1 on the Indonesian question adopted by the Security Council on 25 August 1947...." Mr. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgium) (translated from French) : I should like to add, in connexion with the communications which have just been made to the Council, that the Belgian Government, some twelve days ago, appointed Mr. Paul van Zeeland, Senator and former Prime Minister, as its representative.2 The meeting y()se at 7 p.m. 1 Voir les Proces-~Ierbau.,. officiels du COllseil de secu- . rite, Deuxieme Annee, No 83, 194eme seance. 2 The preceding· communications, pertaining to the composition of the Committee of Good Offices, were pursuant to the nominations recorded in documents 5/537, S/545, S/564, S/558, of'which the texts follow: 373. Communications relatives it la question indonesienne M. AUSTIN (Etats-Unis d'Amerique) (traduit de l'anglais) : Je voudrais faire part au President et aux membres du Conseil de securite d'une decision qui fait l'objet de la communication suivante, en date du 1er octobre 1947, et qui figure au document S/571 : • "Le representant des Etats-Unis aupres de 1'0rganisation des Nations Unies presente ses compliments a M. le Secretaire general et a l'honneur de lui faire connaitre que le President des Etats-Unis d'Amerique a designe I'Honorable Frank Porter Graham comme representant des Etats-Unis a la Commission du Conseil de securite creee pour apporter les bons offices du Conseil dans le differend survenu entre la Republique d'Indonesie et le Gouvernement des Pays- Bas. Les pouvoirs de M. Graham suivl'ont incessamment." Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l)anglais): Je suis certain que tous les membres du Conseil ont ecoute avec interet la communication que vient de lire le representant des Etats-Unis cl'Amerique. A ce propos, je donnerai lecture au Conseil d'une lettre, en date ~u 26 septembre 1947, qui m'a ete adressee sur le meme sujet par le chef de la delegation de l'Australie. Cette communication figure au document S/569. En voici le texte: "J'ai l'honneur de vous informer que le Gouvernement austr.alien a charge M. Kirby, ]uge a la Coul' de conciliation et d'arbitrage du Commonwealth d'Australie, de representer l'Australie ala Commission creee aux tel'mes de la l'esolution1 relative a la question indonesienne, adoptee par le Conseil de securite le 25 aout 1947." M. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgique): Pour completer les informations qui viennent d'etre donnees au Conseil, je desire ajouter que, il y a une douzaine de jours deja, le Gouvernement beIge a designe comme son representant, M. Paul van Zeeland, Senateur, ancien Premier Ministre2• La seance est levee a19 heures. 2 Les communications qui precedent, relatives a. la composition de la Commission dei' bons offices, font suite aux designations qui figurent aux documents S/537, S/545, S/554 et S/558, dont void le texte: No 810 J'ai l'honneur de vous faire connaitre, d'ordre de mon Gouvernement, que, sans cesser de consid~rer que le Consp.il de securite n'a pas competence en la matiere, le Gouverne- ment des Pays-Bas estime que la tendance qui se manifeste dans les resolutions adoptees par le Conseil de securite les 25 et 26 aoftt 1947 au sujet de la question indonesienne, est acceptable. Le Gouvernement des Indes neerlandaises donnera aux representants consulaires de carriere des Puissances in- teressees, a Batavia, toutes facilites necessaires a l'accom- plissement de leur tache. Le Gouvernement des Pays-Bas espere etre tres pro- chainement en mesure de faire savoil au Conseil de securite lequel des membres du Conseil a bien voulu accepter son invitation a faire partie de la Commission dont il est question- au deuxieme paragraphe de la reso- lution adoptee par le Conseil sur proposition initiale du representant des Etats-Unis. La declaration par laquelle le Gouvernement des Pays- Bas accepte la tendance des resolutions ci-dessus men- tionnees, est fondee sur la presomption que la Republique d'Indonesie cessera toute manifestation d'hostilite dans ses paroles et dans ses actes. Le Gouvernement des Pays-Bas considere que c'est a lui qu'incombe, en definitive, le maintien de I'ordre et de la paix en Indonesie. I h~.ve the honour to inform you under instructions that the Netherlands Government, while maintaining undimin- ished its point of view regarding the incompetence of the Security Council in the matter, is nevertheless of the opin- ion that the tendency of the resolutions passed by the Se- curity Council on 25 and 26 August 1947 concerning the Indonesian question is acceptable. The Netherlands Indies Government will provide the career consular officials in Batavia of the Powers con- cerned with all facilities necessary to carry out their task. The Netherlands Government hopes very shortly to be able to inform the Security Council which member it has found willing to accept its invitation to participate in the Commission referred to in the second paragraph of the Council's resolution, which was originally proposed by the United States representative. The premise on which the Netherlands Government bases its statement of acceptance of the tendency of the above-mentioned resolutions is that the Indonesian Repub- lie will cease all hostile action in word and in deed. The Netherlands Government maintains its standpoint that it remains ultimately responsible for order and peace in Indonesia. (Signed) J. W. M. SNOUCK HURGRONJE (Signe) J. W. M. SNOUCK HURGRONJE Document S/545 9 September 1947 [Original text: English] LETTER DATED 4 SEPTEMBER 1947 FROM THE NETHERLANDS REPRESENTATIVE TO THE UNITED NATIONS ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARy-GENERAL Document S/545 9 septembre 1947 [Texte original en anglais] LETTRE EN DATE DU 4 SEPTEMBRE 1947, ADRESSEE PAR LE REPRESENTANT DES PAys-BAS it L'ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIEs AU SECRETAIRE GENERAL DES NATIONS UNIES. No. 822 No 822 Me referant ama lettre No 810 du 30 aoftt 1947, relative a I'acceptation par le Gouvernement des Pays-Bas, de la tendance qui se manifeste dans les resolutions adoptees par le Conseil dt; securite, les 25 et 26 aoftt 1947, au sujet de la question indonesielme, j'ai I'honneur de vous in- former d'ordre de mon Gouvernement, que le Gouverne- ment des Pays-Bas a fait une,. demarche aupres du Gou- vernement beige pour I'inviter a faire partie de la Com- mission dont il est question au deuxieme paragraphe de la resolution adoptee par le Conseil sur proposition initiale du representant de~ Etats-Unis et que le Gouvernemelh beige a bien voulu accepter cette invitation. (Signe) J. W. M. SNOUCK HURGRONJE With refel:ence to my letter dated 30 A~gust 1947, No. 810, concermng the acceptance by the Netherlands Gov- ernme,nt of the .tendency of the resolutions passed by the Security Council on 25 and 26 August 1947, relating to the Indonesian question, I have the honour to inform you under instructions from my Government, that the Neth~ erlands ,Government has approached the Belgian Govern- ment With the invitation to participate in tHe Commission ref~rred to in the second paragraph of the Council's reso- lution which was originally proposed by the United States representative, and that the Belgian Government has been good enough to accept the invitation. (Signed) J. W. M. SNOUCK HURGRONJE Document S/564 23 September 1947 [Original text: English] LETTER DATED 18 SEPTEMBER FROM THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REpUBLIC OF INDONESIA ADDRESSED TO THE PRESI- DENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL I hav~ the honour to infGrm you that the Republic of Ip.clones!;! has selected the Government of Australia to Document S/564 23 ~eptembre 1947 [Te.''Cte original en anglais] LETTRE EN DATE DU 18 SEPTEMBRE 1947, ADRESSEE PAR LE REPRESENTANT DE LA REPUBLIQUE D'INDONESIE AU PRE- SIDENT DU CONSEIL DE SECURITE. J'ai l'honneur de vous faire connaitre que la Republique d'Indonesie a choisi le Gouvernement de l'Australie pour represente:~ l'Indonesie a la Commission du Conseil de securite qui offre ses bons offices pour resoudre le diffe- rend surveml entre l'Indonesie et les Pays-Bas. (Signe) SOETAN SIAHRIR r~p.res~nt Inqonesia on the Security Council Committee which IS maklllg available its good offices in an attempt to solve the Indonesian-Netherlands dispute. (Signed) SOETAN SJAHRIR Document S/558 18 September 1947 [Original te:'Ct: French] LETTER DATED 18 SEPTEMBER 1947 FROM THE REPRESENTA- Tl\T:', OF AUSTRALIA AND BELG~UM ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL The Security. Council's resolution dated 25 August 1947 O? the IndoneSian question provides for the appointment Of tah goCod o~ces committee consisting of three members o e ouncl!. ,Australia and Belgium, the two ,!11embers of this com- mIttee selected by each of the parties respectively were empowered to designate the third. ' th ~e have the honour to inform the Security Council wi~h t~h G?v:ernment of the United States, in compliance G e J0111t request of the Australian and Belgian m?tvternments, has agreed to be a member of this com- lee. Document S/558 18 septembre 1947 [Texte original en fran~ais] LETTRE EN DATE DU 18 SEPTEMBRE 1947, ADRESSEE PAR LES REPRESENTANTS DE L'AuSTRALIE ET DE LA BELGIQUE AU PRESIDENT DU CONSEIL DE 'iftcURITE La resolution du Conseil de securite en date du 25 aoftt 1947, relative a la question indonesienne, prevoit la cons- titution d'une commission de bons offices composee de trois membres du Consei!. Les deux membres de cette commission, I'Australie et la Belgique, respectivement designes par chacune des parties, avaient a pourvoir a la designation du troisieme. Nous avons I'honneur d'informer le Conseil de securite Que le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis, deferant a la de- mande commune des Gouvernements australien et beige, a bien voulu accepter d'etre membre de la commission. FRANCE Editions A. Pedone 13, rue SoufHot PARIS, Ve GREECE--GRECE "Eleftheroudakis" Lihrairie iuternationale Place de la Constitution ATHENES GUATEMALA Jose Gouhaud Gouhaud & Cia. Ltda. Sucesor Sa Av. Sur No. 6 y 9a C. P. GUATEMALA HAITI Max Bouchereau Lihrairie "A la Caravelle" Boite postale 111-B PORT-AU-PRINCE ICEL,\ND-ISLANDE Bokaverzlun Sigfusllr Eymundrronnar Austurstreti 18 REYKJAVIK INDIA-INDE Oxford Book & Stationery Company Scmdia House NEW DELHI IRAN Bongahe Piaderow 731 Shah Avenue TEHERAN IRAQ-IRAK Mackenzie & Mackenzie The Bookshop BAGHDAD LEBANON-LlBAN Lihrairie uuiverselle BEYROUTH LUXEMBOURG Lihrairie J. Schummer Place Guillaume LUXEMBOURG NETHERLANDS-PAYS-BAS N. V. Martinus Nijhoff Lange VOGrhout 9 'S-GRAVENHAGE N~rregade6 KJi$BENHAVN DOMINICAN REPUBLIC--. REPUBLlQUE DOMINICAINE Lihreria Dominicana Calle Mercedes No. 49 Apartado 656 CWDAD TRUJILLO ECUADOR-EQUATEUR Mufioz Hermanos y Cia. Nueve de Octuhre 703 Casilla 10·24 GUAYAQUIL EGYPT-EGYPTE Lihrairie "La Renaissance d'Egypte" 9 Sh. Adly Pasha CAmo ETHiOPIA-ETH'OPIE Agence ethiopienne de puhlicite P. O. Box 8 ADDIS-ABEBA NEW ZEALAND- NOUVELLE-Z~LANDE Gordon & Gotch; Ltd. Waring Taylor Street WELLINGTON Unitea Nations Association of New Zealand P. O. 1011, G.P.O. WELLINGTON NICARAGUA Ramiro Ramirez V. Agencia de Puhlicaciones MANAGI;4., D. N. NORWAY-NORVEGE Johan Grundt Tanum Forlag Kr. Augustgt. 7A OSLO PHILIPPINES D. P. Perez Co. 132 Riverside SAN JUAN, RIZAL POLAND-POLOGNE Spotdzi'elna Wydawnicza "Czytelnik" . 38 Poznanska WARSZAWA SWEDEN-SUEDE A.-B. C. E. Fritzes Kungl. Hofbokhandel Fredsgatan 2 STOCKHOLM SW!TZERLAND-SUISSE Lihrairie Payot 8. A. LAUSANNE, GENEVE, VEVEY, MONTREUX, NEUCHATEL, BERNE, BASEL Hans Raunhardt Kirchgasse 17 ZURICH I SYRIA-SYRIE Lihrairie universelle DAMAs TURKEY-TURQUIE Lihrairie Hachette 469 Istiklal Caddesi BEYOGLU-IsTANBUL UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA- UNION SUD-AFRICAINE Central News Agency Commissioner & Rissik 8ts. JOHANNESBURG and at CAPETOWN 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, MANCHESTER, CARDIFF, BELFAST, BmMINGHAM and BRISTOL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA- ETATS-UNiS D'AMERIQUE International Documents Service Columhia University Press 2960 Broadway NEW YORK 27, N. Y. URUGUAY Oficina de Representaci6n de Editoriales Av. 18 de Julio 1333 Esc. I MONTEVIDEO VENEZUELA Escritoria Perez Machado Conde a Piiiango 11 CARACAS YUGOSLAVIA-YOUGOSLAVIE Drzavno Preduzece Jugoslovenska Knjiga Moskovska Ul. 36 BEOGRAD [4981J