S/PV.445 Security Council

If any member of the Security Council finns the system of simultaneous interpretation unsuitable or inconvenient, I think that probably we shaH have ta revert to the system consecutive interpretation. I do not think it is matter we can put to the vote. 1 think that if oBe member of the Security Council requests a change, we cannat put the matter to the vote. 1 would, however, ask the representative of France if would agree to the compromise which has been employed h~fore whereby, if a speech is made

If any member of the Security Council finns the system of simultaneous interpretation unsuitable or inconvenient, I think that probably we shall have to revert to the system consecutive interpretation. I do not think it is matter we can put to the vote. I think that if OBe member of the Security Council requests a change, we .cannot put the matter to the vote. I would, however, ask the representative of France if would agree to the compromise which has been employed h~fore whereby, if a speech is made a language other than one ('f the two official languages, there might perhaps be simultaneous interpretation into English while the speaker speaking, a.lld then conse,.~·tive interpretation into the other ollicial !'nguage, French.. That would save a certain amount of time, since we v/ould not have the double interpretation, butit would slow down the tempo oiour discussion. il. language other than one (' f the two official languages, there might perhaps be simultaneous interpretation into English while the speaker speaking, a...lld then conse~·tive interpretation into the other official !'nguage, French.. That would save a certain amount of time, since we v/ould not have the double interpretation, butit would slow down the tempo of our discussion. Mr. C:a:AUVEL (France) (translated from French): I agree to the procedure suggested, and that the consecutive interpretation should made into English, so as to take into account the nationality of the President; but I do so .with the·same reservations as those I expressed this morning, that is,-_on tbe clear understanding that no precedent should be established. Mr. C:a:AUVEL (France) (translated from French): 1 agree to the procedure suggested, and that the consecutiveinterpretation should made' into English, so as to take into account the nationality of the President; but I do so with the'same reservations as those I expressed this morning, that is,~on tbe clear understanding that no precedent should be established. reas~ns of prestige, t~e !rench repres~tative prestige, insists on an interpretatlOn lOto French, I, 10 turn, faveur also insist on simultaneous interpretation inte ma Russian. tions Mr. TSARAPKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics): I support that position. listes cette Mr. TSARAPKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics): l support that position. listes cette ne desire declare teme d'interpretation employe actuellement. matin, de le ne désire déclaré tème d'interprétation employé actuellement. matin, de le

I am not quite sure that I understand the request of the representative of the Ukrainian SSR. He 'Said that he wished the present system of inte-:pretation to go on. This morning we had sim:uranecus interpretation of all speeches. Is that ~'hat the representative of the Ukrainian SSR would. prefer?

l am not quite sure that l understand the requf'st of the representative of the Ukrainian SSR. He'Said that he wished the present system of inte":"pretation to go on. This morning we had sim:t1ranecus interpretation of ail speeches. Is that ~'hat the representative of the Ukrainian SSR would. prefer? tique qu'i! Mr. MANUILSKY (Ukrainian Spviet Socialist Republic) (translated from Rltssian): I prefer that there should be simultaneous translation into Russian. tique qu'il Mr. MANUILSKY (Ukrainian Spviet Socialist Republic) (trans!ated from Rt!ssian): l prefer that there should be simultaneous translation into Russian. listes me mettrait en representant discours Mr. TSARA.PKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated fmm Russian) : I understand that the method proposed would provide consecutive interpretation into English and French, in compliance with the French representative's request. My request is t..l-tat when a speech is made in English or interpreted ft om French into English, it be interpreted simultaneously into Russian, listes me mettrait en représentant discours français en Mr. TSARA.PKIN (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated {mm Russian) : l understand that the method proposed wouJd provide consecutive interpretation into English and French, in compliance with the French representative's request. My request i5 t.l-tat when a speech is made in English or interpreted flom French into English, it be interpreted simultaneously into Russian, fran~ais en que m'a cours seront interpretes aurons l'autre nonces

I think that could be arranged easily. The Secretary has in:f()rmeG. me that it is possible. Thus, speeches delivered in French or English will have simultaneous interpretation into Russian and consecutive interpretation into the other working .language. In the same way, speeches delivered in any language other than the two working langup,ges will have simultaneous interpretation into French and consecutive interpretation into English.

l think that could be arranged easily. The Secretary has in:fbrmeti me that it is possible. Thus, speeches delivered in French or English will have simultaneous interpretation into Russian and consecutive interpretation into the other working .language. In the same way, speeches delivered in any language other than !he two worldng langup.ges will have simultaneous Interpretation into French and consecutive interpretation into English. que m'a 2. Admission of new Members .(continued) .2. 2. Admission of new Memhers ,(continued) .

We continue the discussion on which we were engaged this morning. There was before the Secui"ity Council a draft resolution submitted by the Soviet Union delegation [S/ 1340/Rev.2] for the admission en bloc <;>f a !lumber .of applicants-in fact, of all the cxi,sting apphcants. A motion was made by the United

We continue the discussion on whicli we Were engaged this morning. There was before the Secui"Ïty Council a draft resolution submitted by the Soviet Union delegation [SI 1340IRev.2] for the admission en bloc çJf a number .of applicants-in fact, of aIl the cxi,sting apphcants. A motion was made by the United Stat~s representative [428th meeting] that the Stat~s representative [428th meeting] that the app~lcants should be voted on separately. That app~lcants should be voted on separately. That m~tlOn was carried, and we were coming to the pomt where We were about to vote on the applicants, as was stipulated in the United States moti01:, .in the order in which·they were listed in the Ort~tnalresolution [S/1340] submitted by the delegation of the USSR. Therefore the Council should first vote on whether it recommends to the m~t1on was carried, and we were coming to the pomt where We were about to vote on the applican~s, a~ was stipulated in the United States motto~, .10 theorder in which they were listed in the ort~tnalresolution [SI1340] submitted by the delegatlon of the USSR. Therefore the Council should first vote on whether it recommends to the Gen~ral Assembly to admit Albania to the United NatIons. . . . 1IIfra - Gen~ral Assemblyto admit Albal'l.ia to the United Nattons. . , . I have already voted [443rd meeting] in favour of the applications of Portugal, Jordan, Italy, Finlcmd, Ireland, Austria and Ceylon. The Norwegian delegation is satisfied that these countries fulfil the requirements of Article 4 of the Charter, and voted accordingly. l have aIready voted [443rd meeting] in favour of the applications of Portugal, Jordan, Italy, Finlémd, Ireland, Austria and Ceylon. The Norwegian delegation is satisfied that these countries fulfil the requirements of Article 4 of the Charter, and voted accordingly. In regard to the applications of Albania, Mongolian People's Republic, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, the Norwegian delegation entertains serious doubts. In regard to the applications of Albania, the Mongoiian People's Republic, Hungary, Romania and Bnlgaria, the Norwegian delegation entertains serious douti:s. As we all know, the Albanian and Bulgarian Governments have failed to dear themselves the very serious charges which have been brought against them for supporting the guerrilla fight against the Greek: Government and for hampering the activity of the United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans. As we all know, the Albanian and Bulgarian Governments have failed to dear themselves the very serious charges which have been hrought against them for supporting the guerrilla fight against the Greek: Government and for hampering the activity of the United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans. The Bulgarian Government has also been accused of violations of the recent Peace Treaty, and similar charges have been brought against the Hungarian and Romanian Governments. The Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States have invoked. the procedures laid down in the respective tFeaties in order determine whether or not the provisions guaranteeing the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms have in fact been violated. The Bulgarian Government has also been accused of violations of the recent Peace Treaty, and similar charges have been brought against the Hungarian and Romanian Governments. The Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States have invoked. the procedures laid down in the respective tFeaties in order determine whether or not the provisions guaranteeing the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms have in fact been violated. . Pending the settlement of these disputes, the Norwegian delegation finds it impossible to give an affirmative answer to the question as whether -these three applicants can properly considered as being willing and able to carry out the obligations of the Charter. .Pending the settlement of these disputes, the Norwegian delegation finds it impossible to give an affirmativeanswer ta the question as whether ·these three applicants can properly considered as being willing and able to carry out the obligations of the Charter. As far as the Mongolian People's Republic concerned, my delegation finds the available information insufficient and inconclusive. In these circumstances, and in view of the fact that the eligibility of these five countries cannot as yet be considered to be satisfactorily estab- Hshed, the Norwegian delegation has reluctantly decided to abstain from voting on these applications. As far as the Mongolian People's Republic éoncerned, my Jelegation finds the available information insufficient and inconc1usive. In these circumstances, and in view of the fact that the eligibility of these five countries cannat as yet be considered to be satisfactorily estab- Hshed, the Norwegian delegation has re1uctantly decided to abstain from voting on these applications. In conclusion, I should like to add, however, that we hope the doubtful points may soon cleared up and that those of these five countries, which may not be eligible today, may soon become admissible under Article 4 of the Charter. In conclusion, l should like to add, however, that we hope the doubtfuJ points may soon cleared up and thaï those of these five countries, which may not be eligible today, may soon become admissible under Article 4 of the Charter. Mr. RIBAS (Cuba) (translated from Spanish): The delegation of Cuba, representing one of the new members of the Security Council, had the opportunity at the [428th] meeting, held on 21 June 1949, of expressing its views to the Council in connexion with the applications for the admission of new Members. We stated that we considered it highly desirable that all countries which fulfil· the requirements laid' down in Article 4 of the Charter should form part of our Organi?:ation. Mr. RrBAS (Cuba) (translated trom Spanish): The delegation of Cuba, representing one of the new members of the Security Council, had the opportunityat the [428th] meeting, held on June 1949, of expressing its views to the Council in conn.exion with the applicatioris for trie admission of new Memhers. We stated that we considered it highly desirable that aIl countries which fulfil· the requirements laid' down in Article 4 the Charter should form pattof our Organi?:ation. Unies en droits pour langue Cuba, One of the purposes of the United Nations .being the achievement of international co-operation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion, my delegation, in accordance with the instructions of its Government, will not vote for the admission of Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania so long as this situation is not completely clarified. re~ues les Bulgarie situation it plusieurs pation pendance Grece fait sa preoccupations conclusions Ba1kans ticulierement, assistance attitude principes In connexion with the application of Albania, it is to be noted that the General Assembly has repeatedly considered with deep anxiety the thr~at to the political independence and territorial integrity of Greece and to peace in the Balkans; it has especially expressed its concern in its resolution 193 (Ill) of 27 November 1948, and in the conclusions of the Special Committee on the Balkans1 to the effect that Greek guerrillas have continued to receive aid from Bulgaria, and more particularly from Albania, and that the conduct of these States is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. faveur In these circumstances, the delegation of Cuba cannot vote for the admission of Albania. tique pas Nous phtsieurs contre savoir Bu1garie, J fond, aurait qui Mr. MANUILSKY (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) (translated from Russian) : I am not clear what we are discussing just now. The representatives of various countries are taking the floor here and objecting to a whole group of countries. -the Mongolian People's Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary fJ,nd Albania. I do not wish to touch on the substance of their arguments. It could of course be analysed, but the result would be most embarrassing to the propounders of such arguments. vote nant, bloc; We were originally asked to vote. separately on ea:h application, and now apparently we are be~ng asked to vote en bloc, that is, what was rejected. interieur ce obtenir enumeres On simple This is yet another violation: it is avio1ati~n of our rules of procedure and of the decision taken by a majority this morning. We strove for the admission of all the thirteen members enum.. erated in the USSR resolution. We were told t~at that could not possibly be done for the SImple reason that it would mean accepting and

Our procedure at present that :Vc are going to vO,te separately on the various cand~dates and are not going to vote on a bloc candld~~es. ~efore th~ v?te is taken, if any representatIve wIshes to mdicate the reasons for his attitude and for his vote, I shall give him the floor, That has already been agreed. If it sho:ks Mr. Manuilsky or anyone else 'that representatives should, in one intervention, indicate the reasons for all the votes they are going to cast on the separate applications I could ask them ~o split up their ~tatements, ;lthough I do not thInk we should gam very much time or any very great advantage from that. Mr. Manuilsky must remember that there are three members of the Security Council who have been members for only a comparatively short time. As representative of the UNITED KINGDOM sh~~ take up hardly any of the Council's ti~e !hl~ ~fte~noon.in .explaini~g my votes on these·. mdivldua. apphcatlOns, bec~use my deleg-ation has had the opportunity on repeated occasions to state its views in detail, and I would not waste the time of the Council by repeating those views now. I sho~1d merely s~y that the reasons for my attitude, If anybody IS curious enough to seek them can ~e found .in innumerable records of past meetings of, varIOUs committees and of the Security Council itself. Speaking ag~in as PRESIDENT· there are as have said, three members of th~ Council ~hich ha,:e n?t had so m~ny opportunities to express theIr .vlews.. I :onslder that they are entitled to explam theIr VIews, perhaps at greater length. For .my part, I cannot see any objection to their puttm~ ~h:ir explan,ations in regard to each of these mdlvldual·apphcations into one statement.· I do not see why they should be asked to make separate interventions and separate statements before each applicant is voted on. Mr. MANUILSKY (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) (translated from RUssian): Although I was present. at the 'preceding meetings, I do not ~ecall our.havmgdeclded to proceed.in the manner Just outlmed .by the President, that is, to caU upon only three delegations duringthe discussion of the. applications. Why exclude the other delegations? Should the Ukrainian SSR wish to say a few ~ords in ?efence of these applicants, why should It be depnved of that right? This seems to me to be a!!' absolutely arbitrary way of conducting the meetmg. We have not decided this question.. I therefore ask the President to reconsider this _procedure. 'The PRESIDENT: 1 might. caU the attention of the representative of the Ukrainian SSR to the record of our [443rd] meeting held on theaftetnoon of Tuesday, 13 September 1949. At one w .. . I replied: HI do not think that I can deny the representative of the USSR that right, but I should have thought that after all these days of discussion his point of view had been pretty well stated." That was what I had in mind, and Mr. Tsarapkin was enabled to explain his vote. I consider that that is the proper procedu-re. Mahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt): I have said practically all I wished to say in connexion with the procedural difficulty with which we have been confronted. I only wish to be clear as to exactly what we are voting upon. Is it something outside the text of the Soviet Union draft resolution, and, if so, what form is it in? If it is based on the text of the Soviet Union draft resolution, we may have a slight difficulty to overcome since it would read: "Having considered.the applications of Albania." I think the President may be able to help us out of this difficultv. With regard to what was said by the President a moment ago concerning explanations of votes, I think it is the sense of. the Council that such explanations may be made either before or after voting.

I thought, really, that we had overcome this morning that particular difficulty mentioned by the representative of Egypt. I propose to conduct matters in this way, following the precedent set in October 1947, when-and I am sorry to have to repeat all this-a Belgian proposal, exactly similar for all practical purposes to the present United States motion, was carried [206th meeting]. There was a Polish draft resolution before the Security Council proposing the admission of a bloc of States. The Belgian proposal was: "The Security Council resolves to hold a separate and final vote on each application for membership.". That proposal was adopted by 9 votes to 2, whereupon the President said: HWe shall now pmceed to vote separately on each of the applications. The first application on which we have to vote is that of Hungary." In our present case, the United States having proposed that we vote. separately on the applications in the order in which they appeared in the Soviet Union draft resolution, the first application will be that. of Albania. . In the former case, in 1947, the vote was taken ImrfIediately.. The Council then went on to the next application and that was dealt with. No one raised any objection or difficulty at all. I propose to follmlir that same procedure, that is, to ask the Security Council to vote whether it wishes to recommend to the General Assembly the admission of Albania to the United Nations; That is what I propose to put to the vote. . qu'elles i Mr., MANUILSKY (Ukr?"inian Soviet Socialist Republic) (transla.ted fr'om Russian) : I am satis- ... However-, I should like to indicate to the President that,reIying on rule 31 of the rules of pro-' cedure, the Ukrainian delegation wishes to have the written text of what it is to vote on. Rule 31 states that "proposed resolutions, amendments arid substantive motions shall normillly be placed before the repr-:.:sentatives in writing".· This is a right of every member of the Security Council under the provisions of the rules of procedure. If the President intends to violate this rule, as he has violated rule 32, let him say so directly. We should like to know what we are about to vote on, and we request that we be given the written text. So far I have no idea whether I am to vote on the Mongolian People's Republic, on Albania, on Bulgaria, on Hungary or on Romania. I am in the dark. I was, and still am, opposed to the President's entire· procedure and insist on the rules of procedure being observed. I insist upon having the written text of what is to be voted on. Mr. TSARAPK~N (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : It is clear from what the President has just said about .the method to· be used in voting on the USSR draft resolution, that he is taking a couJ;.se opposite to that we have previously followed and that he wishes to put another re-solution to the vote. The point at issue, at this moment, is the vote on the Soviet Union draft reSOlution, and nothing else. .~What the President now proposes to put to the vote is not the draft resolution submitted by our. delegation, but something Quite new and different. The essence of the matter, however, is that the draft resolution of the USSR must be put to th~ vote. .The Council acted arbitrarily and took a majority .•decision· whij:h violates rule 32 of the rules of procedure. Despite the objections stated by the Soviet Union•delegation, it decided to vote on the USSR. draft resolution· in parts. This being the case, thec;oundl should at least be so good as to vote on .that draft resolution. The President, however, is calling for a vote on something altogether different, something that has nothing to do with and comprises no part of that draft resolution, Heis proposing that something quite new be put to the vote. I therefore. fully· support the proposal of the Ukrainian •.SSR. I ask· that we be provided the writtenfextof whatis to be voted on, and be told what parts or dat1ses of the draft resolution are to bept1t to the vote. 'the President has.jllsf pr~sentedan absolutely neVV.pr(jposaL Task that he put this new proposal Qeforeusand give~usits specific wo.rding. Actude seil, mulees et croire que depasse. proposition adoptee,

Before calling on the next speaker, I wish to reply to the remarks made by the representative of the Ukrainian SSR and the representative of the Soviet Union. I cannot believe that those two members are really unable to understand what I am doing. That passes my comprehension. For the tenth time, I must explain that the United States motion which was adopted is as follows: que, [5/1340] divisions demandes dont afin puisse des "I move, as a procedural matter, that the action of the Security Council on this draft resolution [S/1340] be taken up by separate consideration and a separate vote taken on the different applications made by the countries named U;1 the draft resolution, so that each member of the Security Ccuncil may reflect the attitude of his country on each applicant." conformement identique, obje-..'i:ion. sentant voix declare: sur ci l'une a That having been adopted, I propose to follow the exact precedent set in 1947, to which no exception was taken. I suppose tha~ I must repeat it. A similar motion put by the representative of Belgium was adopted by 9 votes to 2. Thereupon, the President said: "We shall now proceed to vote separately on each of the applications." The applications were put to the vote separately, in a series, and voted upon. No exception whatever was taken. composition exactement· la l'avantage delegation les parfaitement brusquement, gale, employer au Of course it is true, I remember now, that the composition of the Council was not then exactly the same, as at that time we did not have the advantage of having the co-operation of the delegation of the Ukrainian SSR. However, all the -members at that time accepted that procedure·as ~eing quite normal. I do not know why suddenly It sh.ould be considered to be illegal, arbitrary or fabncated, to use some of the expressions that have been used in this debate. le de paree nous mande. le voix declarer The representative of the USSR said that the President ~ d.snot putting his draft resolution to the vote. I. am not doing so, at the moment, because there is the previous motion which requests that the applications therein should be vo!ed on separately. I never said that I am not gomg to put the Soviet Union draft resolution to the vote as a whole. I have not heard anyone say that this should not be done. rentes Conseil ihdiquer donner, je J'ai M. quoi membre It is my intention to proceed to the vote on the several applications. If any member of the Council wishes, either before 'or after the vote, to indicate briefly the reasons for his vote and to explain his vote, I think· that I am bound to grant him that opportunity. I granted it the ?ther day [443rd meeting] to Mr; Tsarapkin, and If I granted it to him, I do not see why I should M;~il~t it to any other member of the Security J\s regards tile reference by the representative of the Ukrainian SSR to rule 31, which he quoted, I should like to say that, as I understand the matter, what we have before us is the draft resolution proposed by the representative of the United States, which has been adopted. It is not a new motion. It merely settles the procedure which we are to· foIlow in dealing with the draft resolution proposed by the representative of the Soviet Union. This is a situation identical with that which occurred in the Security Council before, and the President is proposing to adopt the solution which gave satisfaction to all concerned at that time. The Canadian delegation fuIly supports the President in the stand he is taking. Mr. MANUILSKY (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) (translated from R~tssian) : By virtue of rule 31 of the rules of procedure, which provides that resolutions, amendments and substan- ! tive motions should be submitted in writing, the delegation of the Ukrainian SSR requests the President of the Security Council to place before it in writing what is about to be put to the vote. That is all which is involved.

If the representative of the Ukrainian SSRinsists, .there would, of course, be no difficulty in writing out now and copying-, in ten minutes, I suppose, a number of written proposals. There would be· about ten words in each, I think. If he finds difficulty in bearing those words in mind and would like to have them in writing. before him, I could oblige him,although, as pointed out by the representative of Canada, I do not think this is a new proposal. We are acting now as we acted two years ago, as a· result of a similar motion. .It is simply a procedural motion as to the particular treatment of the Soviet Union draft resolution.. If, however, the representative of the· Ukrainian SSR . insists, and if no other member of the'Security Council has any objection, I. would propose to recess for' a quarter of an hour. The representative of the Ukrainian SSR will then have the words in front of him and can be under. no misunderstanding as to what it is that he is asked to· vote upon. Since. there is .!() ohjection, I propose to recess now and have the Security Council meet again at 4.30 p.m. The meeting was suspended at 4 p.m. and reconvened at 4.30 p.m.

The members of the Council have before them five papers in which I have attempted to define dearly what I am asking the ..Council to vote on; I trust that. this will clarify The President is diverting the attention of the Security Council from the USSR resolution, and is substituting his own proposals for it. The President of course has the right to make his 'own proposals and to put them to the vote, but no one has the right to'refuse to put the Soviet Union draft resolution to the vote. That resolution stands. If the President insists, we must of course vDte on these five proposals, but then we must proceed immediately to vote on L"ie USSR draft resolution. I submitted that resolution and insist that it shall be voted' upon. . . With.regard to the proposals of the President, It should be noted in the record that they were put to the vote as the PJ;~sident's proposals. But I rc:peat they are not the proposals of the Soviet Umon, but those of the President.

I must say .that I do not accept anything at all that the representative of the Soviet Union has said. If we had followed precedent, as I wished to do, and as I still think We .should have done, we should have gone straIght ahead and voted successively on the applicants. But, in deference to both the repre.;, sentative of the Ukrainian SSR and the representative of the USSR, who pretended that they could not understand what they were being asked to vote upon, I have attempted to clarify the matter. The representatives of the USSR and of the Ukrainian SSR continue to'iafiore the fact that • b a motIon was adopted in this Council to vote separately on separate applicants. I am bound to. take account of that, and I am bound to put thIS to the vote. This is what I am going to do, but now the representative of the Soviet Union ha~ said that he insists on having his draft reso~. lutlon voted upon as a Whole. I have never said ....s; l am.no.t. gO.ing. to put it to the vote as a Whole. I propose to do so, and I do not mind Mr. TSARAPK N (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): I hope the President will forgive me for asking to speak once more, but before the vote is taken I wish to state formally for the record that we are about to vote on the proposals of the President. This is not the draft resolution of the Soviet Union, and we shall refer to these proposals accordingly. We regard these proposals as the proposals of the President.

I ask the members of the Council to proceed to the first vote. Will those members of the CotL'1cil who are in favour of recommending. to the General Assembly that Albania be admitted to the United Nations please raise their hands? A vote was taken by show of hands, as follows: In favOlw: Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Against: Canada. Abstaining: Argentina, China, Cuba, Egypt, France, Norway, .United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. The result of the vote was 2 in favour, 1 against, and 8 al)Stentions.

I ask the Security Council to pass to the next vote. Will those members of the Council who are in favour of recommending to the General Assembly that the Mongolian People's Republic· be admitted to the United Nations please raise their hands? A vote was taken by show of hands, as follows: In favour: Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Against: Canada, China. Abstaining: Argentina, Cuba, Egypt, France, Norway, United Kingdom of Great Britain and N orthem Ireland, United States of America. The result of the vote was 2 in favour, 2 against, and 7 abstentions. .

I ask the Council to proceed to the next vote. Will those members of the Council who are in favour of recommending to the General Assembly that Buigaria be admitted to the United Nations please raise their hands? Against: Canada. Abstaining: Argentina, China, Cuba, France, Norway, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Norvege, d'Irlande The result of the vote was 3 in favour, 1 against, and 7 abstentions.' 'Y!'~~mbres,

I ask the Council to proceed. to the next vote. Will those members who are 'm favour of recommending to the General Assembly that Romania be admitted to the United Nations please raise their hands? demande proposition qui generale Unies

None of the votes was favourable. The representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has intimated already that he insists on a vote being taken on his draft resolution in its original form, document S/1340/ Rev. 2, as a whole. It might seem cudous to vote on this as a whole, since it relates to thirteen applicants, on every one of which a separate vote has been taken; but I quite recognize, and the representative of the Soviet Union has made no secret of it, that of course the draft resolution which he has submitted is meant to embody the principle which he holds, according to which one can, as it were, make a compromi<;e i'1 this matter and say: "If you vote for the candidates I favour, I will vote for the candidates you favour". The delegation of the UNITED KINGDOM thinks that tltat is entirely wrong, contrary to the Chart, and contrary to the opinion of the Internation&l CQurt of Justice, which I had occasion to read out today.2 Therefore, we are opposed to ::c .it. It is not that we wish to deny admission to the United Nations to all of the thirteen States listed therein. It is well-known that in the past my delegation has supported a number of them. Others, it is true, we have opposed,-and when we ~~~~~"'l)pp()~edtlrem;cwe~nave . always giVeh reasons, publicly, which. we considered to be perfectly good reasons and which, unless circumstances change, we will continue to maintain. I want to make it clear that, in opposing this resolution myself, I am opposing the principle which undeTlies it, namely, that of making the admission of certain States dependent and conditional upon the admission of certain others. It is that that we vote against. It is that that we condemn and. think. wrong. I know it will be said, and perhaps that is partly the reason. for the submission of this resolution, that we have opposed-or, as it will be put, vetoed-the adulission . of a number of-"'States, in fact, all of them. -. That is no douptpartly the purpose of this draftl'esolution. . .~--. As. PRESIDENT I cannot deny the right of the USSR Government to insist on the Council cOming to a vote. Therefore, I am preparedl:o put it toa vote. Mr. CHAUVEL (France) (translated from French): I agree with the President that the proposal to put the Soviet Union re;alution tothe vote •.•is .·bothprocedumlly correct..and leg?n,.,:tt., in substanc.e. It is legitimatein substance be(~'l:ljGr.­ to adopt a definite position on each of the (-(k:t;;1:i candidatures is•.(lne .thing, but. to tnk'" .1i:;}. cl positioficagamst theprlncipleof grouping tlli;sf; thirteen candidatures iIlto a single .resolutlur;.ls ~ndther; - - 1I Se~ 4dmiss-iofffJ'f, c, State to tire United 1Vations; (Cliartei, Micle 4), Advisory opinicmt InterI!ational Court of Justice Reports,1948, page 6C. The French delegation will therefore vote against the USSR proposal, but not necessarily against the candidatures. As regards the latter, the position of the French d~legation wa<:; made clear the day before yest~rday [441st meeting1. yesterday [443rd meeting] and again today. It will vote not against the candidatures, but against the procedure whereby they would an be combined into a single resolution, a procedure which is contrary to the Charter. mah~ celle~~-d est de cl. dans par de Unies. comme la semblee bres y nant lution dont inspirer Cour gation de ce je entierement de l'Italie, et gation ces l'ArticIe Nations que demandes General McNAUGHTON (Canada): Before the vote is taken, I must say again that the Canadian delegation regards the draft resolution which the delegation of the USSR has p~t before this Council as a serious violation of the spirit and terms of the Charter of the United Nation.,;. Also, we regard it as contrary to the advisory opinion expressed by the International' Court of Justice, which the General Assembly has brought to the attention of the members of this Council with a recommendation that we should act in accordance therewith [Sj1170/Add.1]. I submit that, in voting on the draft resolution before us, we should base our action on this authoritative opinion and advice of the International Court of Justice. Accordingly, the Canadian delegation will vote against the rlraft resolution submitted by the USSR. But, in so doing, I wish to reaffirm again, as I did this morning, that Cwada continues to support fully the applications of Jordan, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Austria, Finland, Ceylon and Nepal. In conclusion, I wish to say that the Canadian delegation is convinced that each of these States is fully qualified under' Article 4 of the Charter for membership in the United Nations. W~ will continue, on all proper occasions, to support their applications for membership. l\1r. AUSTIN (United States of America) : The Un~ted States delegation intends to abstain from de votmg not only for the reason that abstention l'intention seems to be the clearest expression of the position qu'il taken .at several different times during the debate tude on thIS draft resolution, but·most emphatically adoptee au.: ~ecause we regard .the draft.!es?lution,. as -yve ~ lave stated several tIm~s, as beIng m confhct WIth nous .tenons the Charter· of the Umted Nations and in disre-- nous ~ard o~the a~visory opinion of the International \ a ourt of JustIce. con.stiltatIf Mr..TSARAPKIN (Union of Soviet ·Socialist Re~ubhcs) (translated from Russian): The listes U~lt~d ~tates and United Kingdom policy of distique cpn:llnatIon against some countries and favouri- Unis. ,t~m.t~wardsothe1,'s has brought the question of pays ~. 11l1S5lOn of new Members of the UriitedNations d. o a dead end. une veaux Unies. At the same time, the United States and the United Kingdom are blocking the admission Albania, the Mongolian People's Republic, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, whose democratic regime and independent policy they dislike. That is the reason for the policy of discrimination which the United States and the United Kingdom are carrying out in the Security Council against the above-mentioned States. For several years they have, under various absurd and artificial prete."\.ts, opposed the admission of those States into the United Nations. All thtdegal 'arguments just used by speakers to explain their vote against the USSR draft resolution represent an attempt to cover up their policy of discriminatioil against the countries the people's democracy and the Mongolian People's Republic and to justify this policy whatthey pretend are juridical reasons. Obviously this will mislead no one for the reference to legal considerations, to wit, the findings of the International Court of Justice, is unfounded, as parts of those so-called findings did not obtain majority. The reference to legal considerations by the United States and United Kingdom designed only to ~amouflage their attitude of dis- CC~C~"~7cttimjnatiQ!l ~gainst-A1bania,. HungarYt Romania, Bulgaria and the Mongolian I>eople's Republic, on the one hand, and of outright patronage and favouritism towards the remaining eight countries beginning with Portugal, on the·other. As is well known, the attitude of the Soviet Union towards the admission of new, Members is firmly based on the provisions of Article 4 the Charter. There is not a shadow offavouritism or discrimination in its policy. In order to facilitate the solution of the question of admission new Members to the United Nations, and bring it out of the impasse into which it has· come, the USSR. delegation has submitted the draft resolution on which the Council is about to vote. With- Out any· parti~ty, favouritism or discrimination, that draft resolution proposes, in a completely objective manner,·the admission of all the thirteen States into the United Nations. Isha.lllist them. We propose to admit both the States whose admission is opposed by the United States and the United Kingdom, and the States they patronize. We propose the admission into the United Nations of Albania, the Mon'"':. golian People's Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, . Hungary,Fil1L~d, Italy, Portugal, Irela.'1d, Jor- . dan, Austria, Cey~()n an~{[Nepal. f .•.•.It is·comman l<.t1owledg~thattheSoviet Union 11advariou5 seriousmisgrvings and objectioll3. to several ofth~Stakspat.'ohized by the. United States and .the· United .:~~g:dot>.'" .We have. repeatedtyexpressed:our views.in the matter, both in the Secm:ity Council and iilthe GeneralAssem- _1I t.kl!l!li!lill'.illlllll.-,!lilll!!lll_IllIIdIlllilll__ tions a qui ou reussira propos sente ques tains Conseil tique montrera l'avenir force tique des objective qui l'Organisation. The vote now about to tak~ place will decide whether the policy of discrimination regarding the admission of new Members into the United Nations is to continue still further in the Security Council, or whether the Security Council will come out of the impasse into which it has come ,by accepting this resolution. _T~~t is ho,:" the matter stands at present. No jurIdIcal conSIderations, no so-called legal arguments expounded by some speakers, can conceal the fact that a discriminatory policy has been followed here until now. The, vote which will now take place will show whether that policy is to continue in the future or whether the Security Council will find the strength in itself to reject a policy which is harmful to the work of the United Nations, and to take an objective and just attitude towards all the countries which have applied for membership. That is the meaning of the vote which is about to be taken on the USSR draft resolution. The legal references, which some use to cloak their attitude, do not deceive anyone and it will be clear from the vote on the USSR draft resolution whether the Anglo-American bloc in the Security Council continues to maintain an attitude of discrimination or whether the Council can take a just and objective decision. That is how the question stands a.t present. va Quant tains muler personne. resolution rite a bien objective se

No other representative has expressed a desire to speak and I therefore now -put the Soviet Union draft resolution [S/1340/ Rev.2] to the vote. The terms of this resolution have already been read, and I think it unnecessary to read them again. autre la de l'Union du de ; A vote was taken by show of hands, as follows: r In fdvozt,r: lJkrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, d'Ukraine, sovietiques. , Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. , ;'1gainst:, Canada, France, Norway, United Ktngdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Royaume-Uni du Abstaining: China, Cuba, Egypt, United States of America._ d'Amerique. The dr,dft resolution was rejected by 4 votes to 2, 'With 4 abstentions. One member afthe C02,ncil did not vote. ' listes de le Ainsi du' de ",Mr.. TSARAPI<IN (Union of Soviet Socialist ~epub!ics) ,(translated from Russian) : The de- CISIOn Just taken by the Security Council to reject ~he Soviet Unioll draft resolution proves once more.that the representatives, ,of the Anglo- A.mer~can ploe )lave again imposed upon the rtty Council a decision which shows that the The. responsibility for the situation which thus arises in the Security Council in the matter the admission of new Members, lies entirely with the United States and the United :::3ngdom. is they who prevent those thhteen countries from becoming Members of the United Nations.

It will be seen from the record of our discussion that 1 had already correctly forecast the line which the Soviet Union representative would take on the matter, but I do not think that it will deceive many people. I have now to consult the Security Council to whether, at this rather late hour, it would wish to· deal vv-ith the next item on the agenda, item 3, "Letter dated 29 July 1949 from the Chairman of the Atomic· Energy Commission the President of the· Security Council" [S/1377]. That is a matter which may give rise to some discussion. For my part, I was wondering whether it would be wise to embark on it now, but I am ·.ready to listen to any different opinion. General McNAUGHTON (Canada): In view the approaching session of the General Assembly and the very little time the Council has in which to dispose of the work before it, I think it would be well to proceed with this matter. I do not believe it will take very much of the Council's time. The. draft resolution [S/1386] stands my name, and I would be very glad to speak' 'cbriefly-on.it. . The PRESIDENT: Unless I hear any objection, we can begin the consideration of this item. Mf.-MANUILSKY (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) (translated from Russian) : I think would be more reasoriable to postpone consideration of this question, because I am sure that the question of atomic energy requires detailed discussion. It would therefore not be reasonable open the debate on it today. . Consequently, I support the President's suggestion.

I admit that it is rather asI said myself. I do not wish to divld(~ tr~,~ Council on this question, or to have a long delMt~ on procedure, and I certainly should like to at'oi·l -a·vote on this. Would· the representa.tive ot the Ukrainian SSRagree.t1lat .VIle. should continue to consider this item until 6 o'clock? Mr. MANVILSKY (Ukrainian SovjetSocialist Republic) (transla1edfrom Russian): I shall not Qbject ifsqme wish to speak until 6 o'clock, but a dire, tion l' pagne t~ the last item which we have now finished, that a re~()rt of the proceedings, accompanied by the records of the discussions which we have had here will be submitted to the General Assembly in the usual manner. 3. Letter dated 29 July 1949 from the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission to the President of the Security Council (8/1377) 3. General McNAUGHTON (Canada): It seems to the Canadian delegation that the action which the Security Council should appropriately take on this matter at this time is to transmit to the General Assembly the two resolutions of the Atomic Energy Commission which have been forwarded to the Security Council under cover of Mr. Tsiang's letter dated 29 July 1949. atomique 1949. These resolution,s represent the conclusions reached by the Atomic Energy Commission after conducting studies in response to the instructions given by the General Assembly in its resolution 191 (Ill) of 4 November 1948. queUes parvenu avaient 1'Assemblee generale du The Commission has reported that, in the light of the situation which exists, it would be well to conjoncture, refrain from further discussion in that body amples until the sponsoring Powers have m~t, as they se were requested to do in the General Assembly resolution of last November, and, have reported that there exists a basis for agreement. qu'il As is well known, the sponsoring Powers, which are the five permanent members of the Security les Council and Canada, have begun to hold their meetings in pursuance of the directions of the se General Assembly. Seven meetings have already semblee been held, and an eighth is arranged to be held et next week. prochaine. In these circumstances, it does not seem useful t~at we should engage in any prolonged discusnous sI~ns ?f these matters in the Security Council at discussion thIS tIme; we should merely take note .of the resolutions of the Atomic Energy Commission prendre and .transmit them to. the General Assembly for .the mformation of that body, in which they can ?e taken into consideration when the siX'spoIlsor- I11g Powers make their report. I propose therefore that the Security Council sh~uld adopt the :following procedural draft resoter !utIon, which I now move, and which is contained tion ~i.~hch:eb~en5/d1.I.3st8r6I'b'udteadtedto 8allSmePetmembebregr, 1f9ige' C ~ Ul septembre ounci!. This document reads: 29"JHaving received and ezamined the letter dated . . uly 1949 from the Chairman of the Atomic 29 IliA;Co:m;SSion, t.~~~:~itting ~~.:~~~~~~~~:~~~:~:~.~~i~:_~~.l'~.~::i:c

Does any other member wish to speak? I am an optimist, but even I cannot believe that we have exhausted the debate and, moreover, the representative of the Ukrainian SSR has already asked me to include his name the list of speakers at our next meeting. Therefore, if nobody else is ready to speak, we shall have to adjourn this meeting and continue the discussion at our next meeting, which, I suggest, should be tomorrow morning at 10.30; there also the possibility of continuing the meeting the afternoon. As the representative of Canada has just reminded us, and as I have reminded the Council before, there is still a certain amount of work ahead of us which it would be very desirable complete' before the meeting of the General Assembly, because we know that we have difficulties in organizing meetings during the General Assembly session. Therefore, I hope that the Security Council will agree to have two meetings tomorrow, one at 10.30 a.m. and one at 3 p.m. Since I hear no objectiop., the meeting adJournedT ~ . FRANCE Editions A. Pedone . 13, rue Souffiot PJLRIS: ye GREECE-GRECE "Eleftheroudakis" Lihrairie internationale Place de la Constitution ATHENES GUATEMALA Jose Gouhaud Gouhaud & Cfa.Ltda. Sucesor 5a Av. Sur No. GUATEMALA HAITI Max Bouchereau Lihrairie "A la Boite postale PORT-A.U-PRINCE ICELAND-ISLANDE Bokaverzlun Austurstreti 18 REYKJAVIK INDIA.-INDE Oxford Book Scindia House . NiwDiim···· IRAN Bongahe Piaderow 731 Shah .Avenue .. TEHERAN IRAQ-IRAK Mackenzie & The Bookshop BAGHDAD LEBANON-L1BAN Librairie universelle BEYROUTH ' ,LUXEMBOURG Librairie J. Schummer Place Guillaume LUXEMBOURG NETHERLAND5---PAYS·BAS N. V. Martinus Lange Voorhout 'S-GRAVENHAGE NEW 7EALAND- NOUVELLE-ZELANDE Gordon & Gotch, Waling Taylor WELLiNGTON United Nations New Zealand P. O. 1011, G.P.O. WELLINGTON NICARAGUA Ramtro Ramfrez .Agencia de ..Pt.blicaciones MANAGUA, D. NORWAY-NORVEGE Johan Grundt Kr. Augustgt. OSLO