S/PV.41 Security Council

1 amgoing to put the draft resolution submitted by the representative of the United States ta a 'ote. The 'Iesolunon was adopted without objection. The PRESIDENT: We shalI adjoum to a date which will be fixed later. The meeting 'Iose al 3.50 p.m. FORTY-FIRST MEETING Held at Hunter College, New York, on Thursday, 16 May 1946 at 11 a.m. President: AFIFI Pasba (Egypt). Present: The representatives of the fol1owing countries:Australia, BraziI, China, Egypt, 1. Adoption of the agenda. 2. Report of the Chairman of the Committee of Experts regarding the work of the Committee on the rules of procedure of the Security Council (document 8/57).1 3. Letter dated 10 May 1946 fl'om the representative of the United 8tates of Amedca addressed to the Secretary-GeneraI concerning the consideration of applications for membership of the United Nations (document S/56).2 58. Adoption of the agenda 59. Report of the Committee of Experts on the rules of proceçlure of the Security Counc;1 (document 5/57) 59.

We have before us the reJh)rt of the Committee of Experts, Can 1 conside:' it as read? ln that case the members may read and discuss the proposed rules of procedure. 1 think it might be useftJJ if we asked the Chairman of the Committee of Experts to take bis seat at this table so that he can assist in the examination of the recommendations of the Committee. This procedure would be in accordance with rule 25 of our ex.'sting rules of procedure. Is this agreeable tothe representatives? avons perts. Conseil nous pouvons passer du serait utile d'e.'eperts prêter son concours recommandations proposées procédure notre Conseil dent du At the invitation of the President~ Mr. Saba, Chairman of the Committee of Experts, took his seat at the Council table. The PRESIDENT: 1should like to ask Mr. 8aba whether, in addition to bis report, he has any other observations to make before we proceed to examine the proposed rules of procedure. Mr. SABA (Chairman of the Committee of Experts) (translated from French): 1 greatly ap~ preciate the honour the members of the Council are doing me in inviting me to take a.seat at the Cauneil table. Sînce the thirty-first' meeting of the Council on 9 April last, the Committee of Experts has been engaged in studying the remaining chapters of the promonaI rules of procedure which nad not been dealt with in its last report. The Committee has drawn up newtexts in respect of these chapters and recommends them for the Council's adoption.,. It has not however cornpletedthe task entrusted to it by the Security Couneil. New chapters regulating the Couneil's activity in its various d'aborder posé, observations Je grand prendre unième procédé ment pas établi recommande la sécurité. Première nex.e Apart from the problems already referred to in its report, the Committee has, for example, considered the adoption of a l'ule governing the question of the presidency in cases where the President may he prevented from acting or feels that he should not act in that capacity during the consideration of a particular question. At yesterday's meeting, the Committee of Experts also considered the question of thé powers and functions of the Secretary-General in bis relations with the Security Couneil. The Committee of Experts unanimously agreed that a new rule should be inserted in the chapter of the rules of procedure dealing with the Secretariat, providing that the Secretary-GeneraI is, in principle, entitled to make oral or written statements to the Security Couneil concerning any question under consideration by it. The Committee proposes to draft suitable provisions for that purpose at its forthcoming meetings; such draft texts will be submitted to the Security Council without delay. The report submitted to you now contains numerous observations on the rules recommended for your adoption, and at this pre1iminary. stage of consideration by the Council 1 think 1need not add to them. But 1 am entirely at the Council's disposal, and 1 shalI be happy to give it any further explanations itmay ask for during the discussion of the texts.

1 should like to thank Ml'. Saba for bis report. Now we may proceed to eX3.J.ïlÎne the chapters of the rules of procedure proposed by the Committee of Experts. 1 shalI ask Ml'. Sobolev, Assistant Secretary-General, to read the text of the proposed rules. We shall begin with chapter VI dealing with the conduct of l>usiness. Mr. Sobolev, Assistant Secretary-General in charge of Security Council affairs, read rules 24 to 36 recommended by the Committee of Experts to constitute chapter VI of the provisional rules of procedure in place of the existing rules 24 to 35 (document S/57).

Has any member of this Council any observations to make? Ml'. STETTINIUS (United States of America): 1 have a brief comment on rule 30. 1 should be gladto make this comment now if there is no comment on any rulespreceding rule 30. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : If ~he President is taking the rulesin order, 1 wish to mûe a comment on rule 25: "The Security

Have the members any observations? Can we aciopt the addition proposed by the representative of the United Kingdom? Le membre servations? proposé La Sir (traduit présenter des secondaire projets fond" prin<:ipales pas si chose,· nous·devrions identique. sions sais ne exacte signent une M. L'article pales" propositions s'agit la qui et proprement dites. est savoir soumis férable cipales" principales dites. l'anglais) propos lequel principales etles projets de résolution dans l'ordre de droit The United Kingdom proposal 'was adopted. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): May l, then, make another observation in regard ta rules 28 and 29. This again is not very important, but rule 28 refers to "proposed resolutions" and "substantive motions". Rule 29 refers ta "principal motions and draft resolutions". 1 do not think it matters a bit, but if these two articles we are referring to meanthe same thing, we ought ta use the same words. 1 do not know what difference there is in the Frenchtext. 1 do not know if there is any difference; 1 am not quite Aure 1 know what aIiy of those words mean, but if they do mean the same thing in both rules, 1 feel we ought ta use the same words. Mr. SABA (Chairman of the Committee of Experts) (translatedfrom'French): Rule 29 speaks of·"principal motions" and this term covers both substantive motions and amendm€Ilt~. This expression fits into the context better sinee it enables a distinction to be made between prindpal motions and draft resolutions, on the one hand, and motions on points of or~er proper, on the other hand. It is quite true that there is a divergence in th.e terminology, but as the point to be decided is the order in which motions are to be put to the vote, we thought it preferable to use the expression "principal motions" so'as to bring out more clearly the distinction between principal motions and motions on a point ofol'der proper. . Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands)v: 1 should like to raise a question concerning' the .second paragraph of rule 29. It says that "parts of a motion or of a draft resolution shall be voted on separately if any represerttativerequests that the rnotion 01' draft res0lution he divided". Now that rnay be good, orit may he not so good. lam

May 1 ask the United Kingdom representative if he is satisfied with the planation of the ChairInan of the Committee Experts. - Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): 1 am very grateful ta the Chairman of the Committee of Experts for bis explanation, but might 1ask him whether it excludes the use of the woids "principal motions" in rule 28 instead of "substantive motions". Could we not have "principal motions" there, and then it would be in bath rules? 1 was not quite SUi'e about that. Mr. SABA (Chairman of the Committee of Experts) (translated [rom French): Personally have no objections ta this terminology, which would have the advantage of bringing about certain unity. 1 should, however, point out that the various rules were studied in a specified arder, and the proposaIs submitted were aIso couched a particular language, but on second thought 1have nothing against the proposal of the United Kingdom representative. Mr. LANGE (Poland): Just one remarkïn addition ta what has been said by the representative of the Netherlands. 1 think there is something' in what he said, namely that the proponent of resolution may have good reason ta abject ta resolution's being divided into parts. He may, for example, want the Council ta go on record'either as accepting the whole resolution he wants ta put fonvard or as rejecting it, and it may be against bis wishes that certain parts of it he taken'out and accepted and others be rejected. 1 think that this is a very valid point which the representative of the Netherlands has made; and 1 think it can be taken care of very easily if we just add ta rule 29 the words, "unless the propanent of the motion or draft resol.ution abjects". Would this satisfy the Netherlands :representative? Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): May replyto the statement made,by the representative of Polahd. 1 tbink it will bea considerableimprovement. 1 am notsure that it takes care of the

Is the Australian representative going to speak on the point which Sir Alexander Cadogan has raised? MI'. HASLUCK (Australia): Yeso ! am not quite clear what has happened regardùig rules 28 and 29 as a result of the suggestion from the representative of the United Kingdom. But if the term "substantive motions" in rule 28 has been changed to read "principal motions", l think the sense of the rule has been altered. l'anglais): pas articles représentant crois si principales" As 1 understand it rule 28 means this: an attempt is made to list all the inatters wmch might formally come before the Council in order to insist that those matters should be placed before it in writing. For that purpose the rule lists in order proposed resolutions, amendments and substantive motions. 1 think' the meaning of "sub- 'stantive motions" is motions wmch deal with matters of substance in contrast with proposed resolutions which might deal with any question. However, when we come to rule 29, the phrase "principal motions" is intended in my opinion to refer to principal motions in contrast to amendments to principal motions. The purpose of using the phrase "principal motions" there is to decide on the precedence in which motions shall be submitted. No precedence is determined with regard to the submission of amendments since that is not covered by this rule. The only question is precedence as between principal motions, that is, motions moved origh"1ally before any amendment is offered, and draft resolutions. If we alter "principal motions" to read "substantive motions" 1 think we shall have lost that distinction. If on the other hand, in rule 28 we alter "substantive motions" to read "principal motions", 1 think we shall have introduced a term .which does not convey the sense of rule 28, because the purpose of rule 28 is simply to list all the sorts of matters which might come before the Council and to require that those matters be introduced In writing. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): 1 am very grateful ta the Australian representative for his explanation. l confess that 1 had not understood the thing. 1 think 1 do now. 1 shall no!, therefore, press for any alterationin the text as It stands. This discussion will be on record, and 1think that will explain the apparent conflict of terminology in the future. . vante: susceptibles Conseil par projets propositions tion questions de fond, peut dans proposition principale" priorité soumises. ce ce seul ordre de priorité établi s'applique aux projets de cell~s antérieurement nous les tions les tions nous a toutes au par (traduit sentant de de texte, discussion figurera à l'avenir le qui sentées

Reg~ding rule 29.and the remarks of the representatives of the Netherlan,ds and of Poland, 1 now have the Polish representa- Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): C9uld we put in the word "mover". In the Eng- lish text we can use the word "mover" instead of "proponènt". Mr. Quo Tai-chi (China): There is a ques- tion as to the wording of the second part of rule 29. It may be an improvement if we say that the different parts of a resolution shall be votèd separate1y if any representative so requests, unless the original mover objects. Of course it not important; it is only a matter of wording. It would read like this: "Parts (lf a motion or a drait resolution shall be voted on separately the request of any representative, unless the orig- inal mover objects." It is only a matter wording. '

Do the members of the Council accept the proposal of the representative China? Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): May point out for the record that 1 do not think that takes care of the whole difficulty as 1 thought when 1 last talked about this point. 1 can very weIl imagine a situation in which a member the Council who is not the mover of a resolution or of a motion or motion is in favour of some , part of that resolution or motion and nevertheless fee1s constrained to vote against it because he abjects ta the cutting up of that draft resolution or motion. That is not covered by this l''l.lle it now stands, even after the Polish improvement. 1 do not know whether we should take care that, but it seems to me that in practice it could present a real difficulty. 1 wonder whether would be worthwhile to refer the question back to the Committee of Experts because it seems me a somewhat intricate m.atter which we cannot very welI·settle here in an offhand manner. seemsto me to require further study. Mr. STETTlNIUS (United States of Am~rica): 1 have 1'.0 objection to the procedure just suggested by the representative of the Netherlands. However, 1tI:rlnk we should all keep in mind that these rules we now have before us are provisional ,rr...tles. They are not being adopted finally and finitely forever and a day, and 1 wonder if Mr.: van Kleffens, now that he has made his reservation, would permit the Council to adopt the rules' on a provisional basis, it being understood that' the Committee of Experts will continue to study themand eventually bring back recommendations along the lines he suggests.

1 am going ta propose that the Council approve the text of rule 29 with the addition of the proposai made by the representative of Poland ~ "unless the mover of the motion or draft resolution objects". Do you agree ta this? Mr. LANGE (Poland): 1 think the representative ?f China has proposed some other change.

Here is the proposaI of the representative of China: "Parts of a motion or of a draft resolution shall he voted on separately at the request of aily representative, unlessthe originaI mover objects.)' That is the final proposaI to be examined by the Council. Do the members of the Council accept it? Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): May 1 reply ta the question put to me by the representative of the United States? It was whether 1 agree to accept this as one of the provisional rules of procedure, with the understanding that the question would be further studied by the Committee of Experts. With regard to whatthe representative of the USSR has just said, 1 only want to observe that 1 made no specific proposaI with regard to this point. 1only drew attention to what seeUlS to me a very reaI potentiaI difficulty. 1shall he very glad to adopt this rule as amended by the Polish and Chinese representatives as a provisional mIe of procedure, on the understanding that the question is not considered as settled but will be further studied by the Committee ,of Experts, as suggested by Mr. Stettinius. The text of rule 29, as amended by the representatives of Poland and of China, was adopted. Mr. STETTINIUS (United. State.'" ofiLmerica): We had hoped that it would be pC8:lybïe to inCOI'- . porate withinru1e 30 suitable provisions relating 1wish the Council to know that 1shall approve rule 30 as it is presented, as well as the rest chapter VI as it now stands. However, we hope that the Committee of Experts will be able resume its consideration of this question of closure of debate at aI: early dat~ and that it will be able to arrive at a formula agreeable to ail the Council memhers and that this formula will eventuaUy be submitted to the Council. Mr. SABA (Chairman r ..e Committeeof Ex- perts) (translated from j.. ~;l,ch): The represen- t~tive of the United Kingdom proposed an amcndment to rule 25 but 1 do not think an actual text was· put forward. 1 do not know whetherthe :cembers of the Security Council are familiar with the exact terms of rule 25. he1ieve the representative of the United Kingdom asked that a provision should he mcluded in this text to the effect that the Security Council may appoint a commission or committee and not anl)" a rapporteur for a specified question.

1 think that was adopted. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): Yes, it was, but 1 understood that the Chairman of the Conm1Ïttee of Experts wanted to know what the exact text was to he. 1think it would be quite simple;· if .the Council approves, 1 would suggest that rote 25 should read: "The Security Council may appointa commissiC'n or committee or a rapporteur for a specified question." Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): 1 have no objection to Sir Alexander Cadogan's amend": ment. 1 merely wish to draw attentiDn to the fact that whether such a'rule of nrocedure includeci or not, a~cordingto the UIÎited Nations Charter tY.;c Security Council already has the r.;ght to set up any subsidiary organs such as commi<'Sions, committees, sub-comm1ssions and sub· committees, so that suet êi..l'1. amendment does not add a.""'lything to the rights to whïch the Security Council is entitled under the Charter. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United IGngdom): 1 quite agree with the representative of me USSR. He may re('~il that when 1 first raised thi~ question, 1 expressed some doubt myself as to whetkthis rule-was reaUy required. 1 think it is required simply in 'connexion with ruie 26, which concerns the <iuestion.of precedence. That is why it is put in here. Of coume, the Council is Chapter VII was adopted. The PRESIDENT: Now we pass to chapterVIII. Has any m~ber aJ.'lY observations to make concerning this chaptl'.:' Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): Oh behalf of the AustraIian de1egation, 1 wish to make, in passing, an observation on what we understand the rules in this chapter to mean in regard to the holding of private meetings. As we understand it, private meetings will be the exception and, one mightsay, the rare exception. We a1::o understand that the decision whether or not a private meeting is to he held will be taken at a public meeting. In other words, a private meeting will not be caIIed either by the President of the Council or any officer of the Couneil, but the decision to liold a private meeting will be reached by the Coundl itself at a public meeting. At the close of one public meèting the Council may decide that its next meeting will he in private or, having commenced a meeting in public, it may decide to go into private session. 1 wish to make that statement in order to make the position of our delegation quite clear with regard to the holding of private meetings. clairememlapo&tiondema~M~tionàl'~ard des séances privées• . We are aIso assuming ,that the reference in rule 53, regarding access to the records of the private meetings, will be interpreted very liberally by the Council. Chapter IX was adopted. The PRESIDENT: Now we come to chapter X, whieh deals with the admission of new Members. Does any member have any remarks? 0.."1 permettantl'accès aux procès-verbaux privées. passons l'admission du Mr. HAsLUCK (AustraliCi): The Australian representative on the Committee of Ex.perts opl'anglais): posed the adoption of rules 55 to 57 and expressIy sein du Comité d'experts s'est opposé à l'adoption reserved the position of the Australian Govem- 1des articles 55, 56 menton this matter. During the course of f l'attitude ~8rk of the Committee of Experts and also sir.t matière. Durant le tf1!s report was drafted, we have been in touch depuis With our Minister of ForeignAffairs, Mr. Evatt3 somme" ~d our instructions still are to oppose the adopaffaires tion of this section of the report. des à l'adoption de The second observation that 1 should like ta make is that membership in. the United Nations involves obligations far wider than those affecting security, and hencc,fitness for membershipis judged not simply bytheacceptance of obligations relating to security, but acceptanceof obligations contained in the Charter asa whole. The General Assembly, before it makes its decision tl) ~dmita candidate to membership, has ta satisfy Itselfthat the candidate is notonly able to carry outitsobligations inrespecttosec~rity~butisable and willing tocarry out L~e obligations contained in all parts of the Charter. . But, after receiving such a recommendation from the Security Couneil, the qeneral AssembIy' is not bound ta admit the applicant. The General. Assembly is still obliged to weigh the merits of the ' case and to judge the fitness of the candidate, not only in reapect to security, but in respect to aIl other aspects of the Charter and the ilVork of the. Organization. Although it is qu.ite true that it· cannot admit an applicant without receiving the. Security Couneil's recommendation, it is possible that in spite of such recommendation it could reject an applic'ltion for membership on other grounds. Because of these three pre1iminary observa-' tions, we suggest that very careful consideration, must he given not only to the powers of the Secur- ; ity Couneil in relationship to the admission of! Members, but also to the powers exercised by; other organs. ' The central feature of Article 4 of the Charter: is that it is the United Nations, and not any single; organ of the United Nations, w'hich admits a; Member and to which a Member is admitted.! The application for admission and the actofi admission are matters wmch concem the Organization as a whole. Yet if we examine the rules in this chapter carefully, we find that the Security Couneil now proposes to establish a procedure which is not· simply a procedure for tl~e Security Conneil: aIone, but which is a procedure for thewhole of' the Organization. These mIes of procedure in chapter X do not say simply what the Security Council should do with an application. They aIso attempt to establish the route along which an application shall travel before it reaches' t.lte Security Council. They aIsû· attempt to establish the route along which an application shall travel: after it leaves the Security Council. These rüles· ~re an attempt to lay clown the way an application shaH come ta the General Assembly. Furthermore, it seems to us that the whole drafting of this chapter is based on a wrong conception of the nature of membership in the United Nations. It seems to us, and in fact statements of this kind have been made in discussions of this subject, to be based on an analogy between the United Nations and a club. We all know the procedure in a club. Briefly it is that the executive committee receives the applications in privateand decides whether or not the candidate is a cad an acceptable person and then adroits him. But 1 would suggest in the fmt place that the United Nations is not a club. It is a realistic politicaI organization composed of equally sovereign States for the purpose of doing certain defined tasks which are laid down in the Charter and, moreover, 1 would aIso suggestthat ·the Security Couneil is not in any sense the executive committee of the Organization. It is not the executive committee of t.he A.ClSembly. It is not the exeeutive committee on membership of the United Nations. The Security Council is a body with defined powers which has been given the primary responsibility in a certain field of intetnational conduct, and so far as our delegation concemed we would resist most strongly at any and every ·time anything that might suggest that this.Council U'ildertake the functions of an (',xecutive committee of the United Nations, except the oneparticular field for wbich it has been given executive authority and very wide powers. N()w, mygeneral thesisisthis, thatthere part of chapter X of the provisional rules wbich is admissible to discussion as being properly within the province of the Security Couneil. That is the part of the'rules which concerns the internal workin~ of the Security Couneil. There is part In regard to the last sentence of rule 56 concerning the period of notice which is required sujet before this recornmendation is made, ~.'e w.ould concerne le stress that inasmuch as the admission of Members mandation. is a corporate act to be performed by bodl the sion Security Couneil and the General Assembly on ! morale behalf of the Organization as a whole, it would et be desirable for that corporate act ta be carried sation out at the same time and in the same place. We cet can ..see. no practicai obstacle to reaching deci· de temps et de lieu. sions on applicatiolJS for membership during the d'obstacle course of a special session or at a regular annuai d'admission session. extraordinaire ordinaire. To crystallize 0\11' views on the whole matter, we should suggest that a more appropriate protion, cedure for the admi"Sion of Members would be Membres, as follows: the applicant would address a comsuivre munication to the Secretary-Generalt and the adresserait Secretary-Genexal would immediate1y L'lform aIl Celui-ci en informerait aussitôt tous les Members of the United Nations, or if the Gendes eraI Assembly was in session at the rime, would ment immediately transmit the application ta the Presigénérale, dent of the General Assembly. The General Assemblée sembly, which in our view is the only organ enorgane iitled to speak on this matter for all Members, Membres would then decide whcther the application y should he entertained, and having made that remettrait decision, it would immediately remit it to the avoir Security Council. The Security Couneil would l'exa.riùnerait immediate1y consider it and prepare its report on rapport the admissibility of the applicant. The General L'Assemblée Assembly would immediately give consideration le te such a report, and, in the light ofthat report, lumière de tous les autres facteurs and in the light of other factors which ~t might à have to weigh, would decide whether or not to ou admit the applicant. In our view there would he no obstacle to completing this corporate act on bchalf of the à Organization during one session of the General ganisation, Assembly. And if, in fact, the differences within sion the Organization were so strong as to lead to sus- étaient Let the report of the Committee of Experts. 0:;1 this question go forward as the view which the majority cf the members of the Security Council hold at ~ent. But before it is adopted as a provisional rule of procedure of the Security Council, let there he consultation with the General Assembly. May 1 remind you that although the general .As;embly is now adjoumed, there is in existenc~ a body representative of the General Assembly which is competent ta deal with this matter. wouId recalI that by a resolution of the Assembly of Il January 1946" the rules of procedure of the GeneraI Assembly were remitted ta the Sixth Committee for examination. The Sixth Committee has set up a permanent sub-committee consisting of representatives from Australia, Cuba, China, Ecuador, France, Lebanon~ Mexico, Norway, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, the United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia., This sub-committee is still in existence. It is still capable of being calIed into session at any time. And it would seem ta us, subject to what views the President of the General Assembly might hold, ta be quite appropriate for, these rules to be immediately referred ta that organ of the General Assembly so that they may be studied and so that the General Assembly may hav~before it as soon as it reassembles in September a definite recommendation from its own committee on this subject. And then, with perfect co-operation betwéen thetwo organs concemedin this matter" we would get rules satisfactory to both. If we do not adopt sucha procedure, it seems to me that we shalI adopt a chapter of rules affecting the procedures of another organ without having consulted that organ. , 1 See R~$olutions adopted by the Genef'alAssembly durbig the first part of its first session, page 7.

1 want to propœe that this meeting should adjourn, and if the Council has no objection we shalI meet tomorrow moming to continue the discussion on the rules of procedure and to examine the next item on the agenda for today, which is a letter from the representative of the United States of .America. Tomorrow, Mr. Parodi, the representative of France, will take my place, and 1 wish him good luck. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): Refore we adjoum may 1 take il: upon myse1f to sayon behalf of aIl my coU~~ues how sorry we are to reflect that this is thêiast occasion for some time to come on which we shall find the .l:epresentative of Egypt in the Chair and work under him. During the month that he has presided over the Council, we have had a number of meetings, sorne of them very imp;:>rtant, and h~ has always conducted the business efficiently and with the utmost courtesy, and he has shown great patience with all of us. 1 hope that we have not behaved too badly. We 3.!'e extremely sorry to see him go, and 1 am sure that 1 would be supported 1?y aIl my colleagues in offering him our heartiest thanks for the manner in which he has conducted the meetings in these fourweeks. rémercie Royaume-Uni vient sans Conseil l'Egvpte, peuples, nous la monde - 60. Address of the outgoing President The PRESIDENT: 1 am more than grateful for the generous remarks of the representative of the United Kingdom, and it is with mixed feelings that 1 relinquish the Presidency of the Security Council. On the one hand, 1 consider it a great honour to Egypt, the country wmch 1 represent, to have presided over this great international body on which the eyes of the entÎYe world are turned in the fervent hope that it will become the pivot and pillar of an everlasting peace among pe.oples, races and nations. On the other hand, 1 am somewhat depr~ed because 1feel that during the month of my chairmanship, we have not succeeded in fully accom,,: plishing the task that walS entrusted to us by the United Nations, 1 believe that the peacè~loving people of the .world - and 1 am convinced that the great masses iIlhabiting this planet are aIl. peace-loving - that this great mass of humariity is· disappointed with the state of affairs t."lat prevails in the world awhole year after VE Day, 1 shudder when 1 hear people talk. of a third world war. 1 refuse to believe that differences between nations, be they territorial, politic'a1 or economic, cannot be settled amicably or by arbitratiàn. 1 refuse to believe that greed is an inherent part of human nature. War can be prevented. D~erences can be settled amicably. The great bulk of the people of this earth are not greedy. AlI they ask for is a decent standard of life that will assure them three square meals a day, a comfortable home to live in, and ·the four freedoms so emphatically propounded by one of the great leaders of this country in which we meet, Fra11klin D. Roosevelt. This good earth that we inhabit, if properly and abcwe ail justly exploited, is, 1 am sure, capable of providing all the amenities required by the dwellers of every continent:. Allow me as a member of this Council, especially in my position as a representative of a small nation,.to appeal to you with all the sincerity and fervour that a human body and soul can muster to do your utmost and not to leave a stone unturned, to make this Council the true and real instrument of .aJ,l everlasting peace among the peoples, nations and races of the earth. The balance between war and its horrors, its misery and suffering, and the possible annihilation of·civilization on the one hand :imd, on the other, peace and happiness for the men, women and children all over this globe has .been en,. trusted to us. Let us endeavour to prove to the w:orld ·that fuis trust has not been misplaced. 1 would like to say a word to the public here and everywhere. Do not be disappointed, do not he discouraged, and do not despair of the Security Council. Please remember that this body is still in its infancy and that growing pains are inevitable. 1 am sure that all of my colleagues and the Governments they represent join me in promising. you that no effort will be spared to make this body \he greatest instrument for the maintenance of peace on earth. FORTY-5ECOND MEETING Held at Hunter CollegeJ New YorkJ on FridaYJ 17 May 1946J at Il a.m. President: Mr. A PAROD! (France). Present: The representatives of the following countries: Australia, Brazil, China, Egypt,' France, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, United States of America. 61. Provisional ag.enda (document 5/60) 1. Adoption of the agenda. 2. Report by the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Couneil concerning the credentials of the French r~presentativeon the Security Council (document 8/59). 3. Report of the Chairman of the Committee of Experts regarding the work of the Committee on the rules of procedure of the 8ecurity Council (document S/57).1 4. Letter dated 10 .May 1946 from the representative of the United 8tates of America addressed to the 8ecretary-General concerning the consideration of applications for membership of the United Nations (document 8/56). 62. Address by the incoming President The PRESIDENT (translated tram French): 1 cannot take the chair in the Security Council without first thanking my predecessor, Afifi Pasha, very sincerely on behalf of aIl the members of the Council for the authoritative, competent and courteous manner in which he has discharged the duties which 1 am about to assume. 1 cannot forget that he represents here a country which has witnessed the enemy j~":::tder's advance to the very gates of its capitG'.·" ",.ad that it was on Egyptian soil that the armll:;' 'imch ultimately liberated the continent of Mrica were assembled. Speaking with the auth<?rity attaching to bis person and to his function, my predecessor yesterday voiced the serious difficulties confronting the United Nations; then, answering hisown misgivings, he expressed his hopes for the future of the United Nations. 1 myself do not ~fail to appreciate the weight of our responsibilities. In a world barely emerging ftom a terribl~ war and .painfully endeavourii1.g to reçovà its .balance, our Organizat5on's task is bound to be arduous. ,'See D.fficial Records of the Security Council, FiISt Year, Flrst Senes, Supplement No. 2, Annex Id.