S/PV.42 Security Council

Since nobody else wishes to speak, we shaIl now take a vote. la 1 shaIl first put to the vote the draft resolution submitted by the representative of Australia, which reads as follows: tion projet conçu de "To- defer the consideration of chapter X of theproposed rules of procedure; and aIso "To request the President of the Security Council to discuss with the President of the General Assembly the best method of ,consulta- tion between the appropriate representatives of th,e General Assembly and the Security Council with a view to bringing about flle. adoption bi both the General Assembly and the Security Council early in September 1946 of ruIes appro- 'priate to each organ regarding the .admission of new Members." à générale consultation générale serait générale début priées l'admission The draft re.rolution was r:ejected, by 10 votes to 1. . 66. United Siates i'6sûliJtion c"ncernang membership applications Mr. STETTINIUS (United States of America): 1 have a brief observation to make on the dra,ft resolution we submitted several days aga. How- ever, before proceeding with that, 1 would like very earnestly ta associate myse1f ,,,ith the state"' ments expressedby our President: and to con- gratulate Dr. Saba of Egypt for the excellent manner in which our provisional rules have been prepared, and aIso to congratulate the other members of our Committee of Experts who have spent so many long hours day and night during recent weeks, completing these rules. Many of you will recall that we started working on them in London last August. The resolution 1 wish briefly to discuss has been distributed as document S/56. It is before each one of you. At an early stage in the framing of the Charter it was recogniZed that sorne pro- vision should' he made, for admitting to, the Organization States .which were not original members of the United Nations, that is, States not included in the number of those which originally signed the United Nations declaration· .or were admitted at the San Francisco Confer- ep.ce. The terms of Article 4 of the Charter embody the decision of the San Francisco Conference on this subject alld lay down in succinct fashion the qualifications for member- ship. If aState is peace-loving; if it accepts the obligations contained in the Charter; if in the judgement of the Organization it is .able and .willing ,.ta carry out these obligations, then it .iseligible for membershipin '.the United Na- tions. It is therole of the Security Council to 'recommend properly qualified States ~o the _General Assembly for admission to the Organi- zation. We feel that is very specific and very c1ear. In the view of my Government, the United Nations cannot function with maximum strength and efficiency unless ..çvery properly qualified State is admitted tQ membership in the Organization withthe least possible delay. This shoul~ be done, as 1 say, as promptly as possible. ' , Many of you will recall that acting on this premise, my Government joined with theUSSR and the United Kingdom at the Conference in Berlin in the summer of 1945 in an undertaking to support applications for membership. in the United Nations of States which iemained neutral during the warand which fulfilled the qualifi- c,ations set forth by the Charter. Thethree Governments specifically stated they would not Naturellement, aucune façon, d'admission Selon ll.a.nt aJopté la procédure suivre qui mois est tudes raient se C'est lution en pesions 1 have, therefore, snbmitted the draft reso- lution that is before each of you, and in order that our mlnds may alI consider the wording, 1 should like ta read it to you now. "The Security Couneil, "Taking into accou,nt the faet that under Article 4 of the Charter, membership in the United Nations is open to alI peace-loving States which accept the obligationsconta.il1ed in the Charter, and, in the judgement of the' Organi- zation, are able and willing ta carry out iliese obligations; and "Taking into account the fact that the Gen- eral Assembly, which acts to admit applicant States to membership on the recomme~dation of the Security Council, will meet for the second part of its fust session on 3 Septe:11ber 1946, "Le c<prenant 4 sie Nations acceptentles obligaiûons de ment remplir "Prenant rale, ont tions de sécurité, sa "Dé.cide "1. parvenues général, sécurité se tiendront en août "Resolves "1. That applications for membership which have been or may be received by the Secretary- General shalI be considered by the Security Council at a meeting or meetings ta beheld in August 1946, for this specifie purpo~e; and further "Resolves "2. That applications for membership which have been or may be received by the Secretary- General not later than 15 July 1946 shalI be referred to a committee composed of a repre- sentative of each of the members of the Secw-ity Council for examination amd report :to the Council not later than 1 August 1946." . "2. parvenues avant un des d'examen 1er You will note that this dTaft resolution is Je résolution articles l'examen nous venons de intérieur latitude l'examen ~tirely consistent with the generaJ. rules govern,;.~ mg the handIing of membership applications that we have just adopted. Designed for permanent use, the ruIes of procedure are flexible, and leavc the Council considerable latitu4e· in determining how it will handIeindividual applications. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom·Russian): 1 should like to ask Mr. Stettinius a question. 1 should like to ask him to ekpl..in·the purpose and pless~. culière seil cas renvoyées comité les ment, rapports soient fournis avant nous dè comité,P9ur ordonnée toutes de Il thodes les cela tes que l'été We assume that it is impossible to predict just what methods the Council '\ViII wish to use in Iater years. That will be for the Council' ta decide, and.it will depend upon circumStances, 1 should think, from year to year; but 1 have made a specifie. suggestion applicable ta the sunnner of 1946, which 1 hope the Council will endorse. Mr. LANGE (Poland): 1 have no basic objec- . M. tian to the resolution propased by the repre-I Je seJlltative of the United States of America. As far contre as 1 see, it amounts to calling a special meet- senter ing in August to consider all' applications for projet, membership. avoir , les There is, however, one point about which 1 Il !eeI somewhat unhappy. The Council is already toute ID possession of one application for membership; d'une that of the People'sRepublic of Albania. At the blique eighteenth meeting of the Security Council in séance London it was decided ta adopt the proposai of décidé Mr. Stettinius, which was as follows: "1 move qui that this item,be kept on our agenda, but that à notre lljsposition he deferred pending further study, sp.jet, untiI the Security Council convenes at the tem- que porary headquarters."l Does this imply no speci';' siège fic date at which we have to disCUSIl it? 1 think position it,implic:s a kin~ of understanaing that we"should pour discuss ltas qUlckly as possible. qu'elle sous-entend que nous tôt 1 Voir Première page The ciraft resolution submitted by the repre- sentative of the United States would mean postponement of consideration of the Albanian application until August..1 should just like make sure that this results merely from cedural convenblce and is not aL rtempt, to speak, to postpone the Albanian application. With this reservation, 1 am ready to support draft resolution submitted by Mr. Stettinius. Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist publics) (translated from Russian),: We have just adopted at our meeting today rules of cedure 55, 56 and 57,1 regulating the consi.dera- tion of applicatioI:1s for the admission of Members to the United Nations. We recognize that the method recommended by the Committee of Experts was in accordance with the spirit the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, and for this reason we adopted procedure. The draft resolution submitted by representative of the United States does not anything new from the point of view of method and the basic rules of procedure. Mr. Stettiniùs said tllat bis resolution did not contradict established rules of procedure. It seems to that the expression "does not contradict rules of procedure that have been adopted" the expression "does not represent a departurc from the rules of procedure that have been adopted" are not altogether suitable in particular case. The fact is, the proposed resolution duplicates the rules of procedure that have been adopted, and for this reason it is unnecll".ssary. The United States representative calculates, apparently, it would be useful to gi... ~ the Press a correspond- ing picture, confirmed by the Security Council, and thus bring to the knowledge of certain countries the fact that they may apply admission to the United Nations. But, in first place, this is known to aH from the Charter; and, in the second place, it follows from the rules of procedure which we have adopted today. Therefore, as far as this purpose is concerned, it can easily be achieved if the Secretary-Gener~ gives the Press the full text of the ruIes of cedure which we have adopt~d. Even without that it is, 1 repeat, quite obvious that any peace- loving State wmch is able to fulfil the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations has rightand the possibility of applying for admis- sion. In view of this, 1 see no need to adopt 1 These ruies were subsequently numbered 58, 59 and It shall report not less than thirty-five days in advance of a regular session of. the General Assembly; mat is, at the beginning of August, a time whlch Mr. Stettinius has in mind. This rule of procedure does not say that any applica- tions already submitted or which may be sub- mitted should be considered, let us say, not later than 15 July. Thus, Ml'. Stettinius' purpose is achieved by the rules of procedure already adop- ted. In view of this, it seems to me there is no need to adopt a resolution of this killd, for the simple reason that its contents and meaning are aIready covered by the corresponding rules of procedure. 1wish my remark to be understood correctIy. 1consider that the adoption of such a resolution would he a useless and unnecessary act for the reasons 1have aIready stated. But if the members of the Security Council consider that usele..<lS and unnecessary resolutions may sometimes be adopted, then in this ;.articular case 1 am prepared to l'aise lio <.Jbjections. . Mr. I-lASLucK (Australia): By th~ adop- ion of certain rules of procedure this morning, the Security Council has assumed th~ primary responsibility for the admission of new Members, and under this draft resolution it is now pro- ceeding to exercise that primary responsibility. Inasmuch as we are a member of this Council, ~e always abide by a majority decision; and m so far a~ this draft resolution is inconformity with the rules of procedure wmch have been adopted, and by wmch we shall abide until such time as they are by due procèss amended, we have no objection to the resolution.Or rather, we feel ourselves in a position where we cannot abject. But a doubt arises in connexion with the faurth paragraph. It seems to me the fourth paragraph does introduce a new element. In effect, it adds to the decision conftained in the :Mf. LANGE (Poland): 1 think the repre- sentative of Australia has made a vaUd point. The third paragraph of the draft resolution introduces onlya procedural matter. The fourth paragraph might possibly, however, be inter- preted as inserting a closing date~ and that woul':! of course be overstepping the powers of the Council and violatillg the provisions of the Charter. 1 think we shouId make it quite clear that that was not intended. Mr. STETTINIUS (United States of America): 1 feel there is an obviousmisunderstanding. It· was not in any way my purpose to make pro- vision for the situation mentioned by Mr. Has- luck in the chaft resolution 1 submitted. The Council would, of course, have to deal with that at its own discretionand in accordance with the ruIes that have been adopted. May 1 direct the attention of the Council to ruIe 57 which we have just adopted this morning. It says: "The Security Council shaU decide whether in its judgement the applicant is a peace-laving State, and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter, and accord- ingly whether to recommend the applicant State for membership. "In order to assure the consideration of its recommendation at the next session of the Gen- eral Assembly following the receipt of the appli;' cation, the Security Council shaU make its :rec- . ommendations not less than twenty-five days in advance of a reguIar session· of the General Assembly, nor less than four days in advance of a special session." T4at is why the c10sing dates are inc1uded in the clraft resolution. Rule 57 ends as follows: "In special circuIIlStances, the Sec~ty COOO- cil may decide to make a recoIIlIllendation to the General Assembly concerning an application Mr. STETTINIUS (United States of America) ~ That amen~ent is perfectly acceptable. FORrY-THIRD MEETING Helq at Hunter College, New York, on Wednesday 22 May 1946, at 11 a.m. President: Mr. A. PAROD! (Fr~ce). Present: The representatives of the folloW:ing countries: A,ustralia, Brazil, China, Egypt, France, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom, United States of America. Présents: Australie, Mexique, Etats-Unis 67. Provisional agenda (document S/65/Rev.2) 67. 1. Adoption of the agenda. 1. Adoption 2. Rapport du , du , sécurité 3. La a) b) 2. Report by the 8ecretary-General to the Pres- ident of the Security Council concerning the credentials of the representative of Mexico on the Security Council (doc ...IDent 8/67). 3. The Ii"anian question: (a) Letter dated 18 March 1946 from the representative of Iran addressed tG the Secretary-General (document S/15).1 Letter dated 18 March 1946 from the representative of Iran addressed to the President of the Security Council (doc- ument S/15 ).1 (b) Letter dated 19 March 1946 from the representative of the Uruon of Soviet Socialist Republics addressed ta the Secretary-General (document S/16) .2 1 Voir Première nexe 2Ibid., Annex 2b.