S/PV.56 Security Council

In conformity with the decisions we have adopted yesterday, 1 move that we adopt item 2 of the agenda; namely, the report on the admission of new Members, and that item 3 be kept on the provisional agenda, the question of its final adoption being de1ayed until the matter of the admission of new Members is finished. Item 2 of the agenda was adopted. 25. Report of the Security Council's Committee on the Admission of New Members (document S/133) ALBANIA

Yesterday we heard the representative for Greece express his views on the question of the admission of Albania to membership. l now ask the representative for Yugoslavia ta present ms case. ML LuKIN (Yugaslavia): l am grateful to this high body for giving my country, the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia, an opportunity to present her views on the question of Albània's admittance to the United Nations. The admission of Albania to the United Nations has been thoroughly discussed in the Committee on the Admission of New Members. The Albanian representative has aiso fumished us with ample information about his country. Ncverthe1ess, l want to emphasize sorne of the essential reasons as to why Albania should be admitted to the circ1e of the United Nations. Albania was the first victim of Italian fascism in Europe. Overwhe1ming Italian forces accupied her on 7 April 1939, having overcome her resistance and, in the initial battles, having suffered considerable losses. The Albanian patriots resisted valiantly neal' Durazzo, Valona, Saranda and Shengjin. Disarmament of the Albanian people succeeded the victory of the Italian forces. However, the Albanian people continued fighting the Italian invader by committing sabotage, holding demonstrations and in various other ways. The occupation forces tried in vain to kill the fighting spirit of the Albanian people by persecuting, deporting and killing Albanian patriots. Since the landing of Italian forces in Albania on 7 April 1939, until the liberation of the country, and even after the liberation, Albanian armed forces fought on, grouping themse1ves into liberation detachments and finally reaching the formation of the Albanian Army of Liberation. When the Italian invader, continuing his conquests in the Balkans, attacked their neighbour, Greece, the Albanains forcibly mobilized by the fascist Government and sent ta fight the Greek people, re[used to fight and thereby he1ped the Greek people vanquish the aggressor. From Mussolini's letter to Hitler, which is to be found among the documents collected by the Corn· mittee, it is evident that the defeat of the Italians in Greece is partly ta be attributed to the mutinous attitude of the Albanians in the Italian Army. When it is asserted that in the Italian army there were incorporated six battalions of Al· banian soldiers and then nothing further is said about it, orny a half-truth is known. The whole truth can be seen if one considers the fact that After liberating their own country the AIbanian people continued to fight the enemy of the United Nations, pursuing it beyond the Irontiers of their country. The third and fifth brigades of the Albanian National Liberation Army helped the operations of the Yugoslav National Liberation Army near Prizren where enormous losses were inflicted on the enemy. Two divisions of the Albanian National Liberation Army fought alongside the Yugoslav National Liberation Army, on Yugoslav territory, in a bitter struggle against the enemy from November 1944 to February 1945. The Albanian units particularly distinguished themselves for gallantry and self-sacrifice in the liberation of the Yugoslav cities of Prijepolje, Bijelopolje, Podgorica and Visegrad. At Visegrad, the lone fourth Albanian division kîlled several thousands of Germans in a battle lasting from 19 January to 5 February 1945. . Those striving to prevent the admission of Albania to the United Nations neglect these facts and constantly underline the declaration of war on Grecce by the puppet Government of Verlazzi. The puppet Government of Verlazzi was imposed upon the people of Albania, and the declaration of war on Greece by that Government can in no way be considered a valid international act of an authorized Albanian government. Violence never creates righteousness. Italy's annexation of Albania was never recognized by the Allied Governments and the quisling Albanian Government could therefore never create obligations in the name of the Albanian people. On the one side you have the war efforts of the Albanian people, who liberated their own country and gave more than twenty-eîght thousand lives of their best sons and daughters for the common Allied cause, while on the other side you have a declaration of war by a puppet quisling government. It is up to you, members of the Security Council, to evaluate which of the two deserves greater consideration. The phenomenon of the quislîngs was common in all invaded countries. There are, however, few countries where a greater abyss existed between the quislings and the people than in Albania. For example, in Hitler's crusade against Sacrifices of the Albanian people, given in the struggle for the common cause of the United Nations, deserve recognition. Among the people who shed their blood against the violent enemy of peace-loving humanity, the Albanian people need not be ashamed of their contribution. The universality of the United Nations requires that aU peace-loving nations become Members of this Organization. Before Italian fascism destroyed Albania's independence, she was a member of the international community. Now, when, through the efforts of an freedomloving peoples of the world, fascism, which obliged Albania to withdraw from the international community by force, has been destroyed, there can be no obstacle ta prevent the Albanian people from again being introduced into the international community. It is insufficient to destroy only the aggressor, it is equally imperative to destroy the consequences of aggression. Outside the United Nations there remain mainly aggressor countries. Albania is not an aggressor but, as a matter of fact; a victim of aggrcssion. She was the first victim of Italian fascism in Europe. Is it correct to compare Albania with those countries whose victim she has been? Could aggressors and those attacked be subject to the same procedure? Certain circles attempt to question the Albanian people's love of peace, emphasizing that incidents continue to occur on the Greek-Albanian frontier. The Albanian representative asserted that these incidents are incited by Greece and are directed against the people of Albania. It is therefore difficult to say who is right. 1 must, however, mention that the Yugoslav- Albanian frontier is four times the length of the Greek-Albanian frontier and that absolute peace reigns throughout. It is necessary to bear in mind that the People's Republic of Albania has made no territorial daim on Greece while, on the other hand, Greece has made territorial demands on Albania. Under these circumstances it is questionable whether the frontier incidents should be attributed to Albania. The internaI constitution of Albania guarantees her a peaceful development. Thanks to the people's Government formed during the struggle for national liberation and social and political refonns which rescued the country from the feudaI system that had been the source of foreign influence, thanks also ta the full independence of the country and the liberation from fascist influence, the people's democracy is enabled ta achieve a complete development which, in its essence, cano be only peace-Ioving. Albania is a small country, with little more than a million inhabitants, and is entirely dedicated to the task of rehabilitating and reconstructing herself. She cannot achieve rehabilitation and reconstruction in war and destruction, she can find it only in common democratic peace. The only logical conclusion therefore is that the Albanian People's Republic is worthy of becoming a Member of the United Nations and that the Republic is able and willing to perform all the obligations deriving from membership in the United Nations.

We have heard the basic presentations of the cases by the representatives for Greece and Yugoslavia. Before we continue further discussion, l should like to draw ta the attention of the members of the Council that we are working on a time limit and that we have to finish the whole business of admission today. l therefore ask themall to be as concise and short in their statements as possible. faites Yougoslavie. voudrais notre finir demandes de brèves la savoir pour puissent nous votre l'épargner. Yougoslavie dum à The repr~sentative for Greece has asked a moment aga for recognition. 1 wonder whether it would be agreeable to him to wait for a while sa that we can first hear the opinions of the different members of the Council on this case. Ml'. DENDRAMIS (Greece) (translated {rom the French): 1 know how valuable your time is, and 1 am anxious to save it. Everything that the representative for Yugoslavia has said has been refuted in the Greek memorandum. There remains only one point to eIear up. "The Yugoslav Government und7rstan~ the rcasons which have prompted His MaJesty's Govcrnment, at a time whe~ t~e United Nations have taken the offenSIVe. m the Mediterrancan, to make a dec1~ratlOn recognising Albanian independence, m the hope of bringing about resistance to the Italians in Albania too."

Does the Yugoslav representative wish to make a comment? If so, 1 would ask for it now. Mr. LUKIN (Yugoslavia): 1 am not in a position to be able to answer imm~diately. because 1 do not know the document m questlOn. 1 would like ta have time to study that document.

1 want to say in my capacity as dclegate for Poland that our delegation supports the Albanian appli.cat~on for reasons which have been repeatedly mdIcated. There has been, 1 think, a formaI motion by the representative of the United States of America presented yesterday, that the taking of the vote he postponed. Was that your motion? Mt'. JOHNSON (United States of America): l movcd that the Council not take action at this time on the application of Albania and Outer Mongolia but defer action until the next occasion at which the Council has applications for membership under consideration. 1 would be willing to separate that motion so that a vote on Outer Mongolia would not have to he taken now, but at the time when the Council ha.~ considered that application in the due course of the procedure we have adopted. Mr. PADILLA NERVO (Mexico): 1 would like to suggest ta the Council an action that 1 believe could be decided upon before we consider the proposai or suggestion, made by the delegate for the United States of America. 1 would like to propose that the Council does not take any vote on the question of Albania at this moment. 1 consider that it will be wiser for this Council to study aIl other applications, to have a debate on them as we have decided here in the Council, and to reserve the vote on whether or not the Council is going to recommend to the Assembly the admission of each one of these applicants to the end of our discussion. If this proposal, or suggestion, meets with the approval of the Council, then that moment at the end of our debate would be the cime 'lS has been proposed by the United States, that action should not be deferred. If the Council :hen decides not to defer action, then we will :ake the vote on Albania and Outer Mongolia md on all the other six appliéants. Mr. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated tram Rwsian): It seems to me there are no reasons why the proposai of the United States delegate should be put to the vote before the proposai for the admission of Albania to membership in the United Nations. The proposai for the admission of Albania was made eight months ago. The proposai of the United States delegate was made only yesterday. Article 32 :lf the rules of procedure states: "Principal motions and draft resolutions shaB have precedence in arder of their submission." This means that the vote on the proposai for the admission of Albania to the Organization should be taken first, and afterward, according to the result of the vote on this proposai, it will be clear whether or not there is any need to vote on the proposai submitted by the delegate of the United States. Accordingly, it seems ta me that the rules of procedure give us no justification for voting first on the proposai submitted by the United States delegate. As regards the question whether the vote on the proposai for the admission of Albania should be taken after we conclude the discussion on the Albanian application, or whether the vote should be taken after we have discussed the other applications as weB, it does not seem to me to make much difference, and 1 would have no objection to the proposai of the delegate of Mexico that we take a separate vote on each application after we have finished discussing aB the applications. Although, at the sarne time, 1 would prefer to have the vote taken on the individual applications after each application has been discussed. I have already stated that we can also adopt the alternative solution and agree to the vote being taken on each application after aIl applications have been discussed. The PRESIDENT: 1 would like to ask the Couneil whether it would be agreeable to follow the proposai of the delegate for Mexico; name- Iy, ta finish first the· discussion of all the countries and then vote country after country. If that is agreeable, then we could postpone the discussion of the point which the delegate for the Soviet Union has taken up, and which is a very important point, ta that stage. THE MONGOLIAN PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC

The next country on our list is the Mongolian People's Republic, which Ml'. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated trom Russian): The Soviet Government supports the application of the Government of the Mongolian People's Republic for admission to the United Nations. The Soviet Government is convinced that the Mongolian People's Republic is a peace-Ioving State, capable of contributing according to its capacity to the common cause in the struggle of the peace-Ioving peoples for a durable peace and security. The Soviet Government is convinced that the Mongolian People's Republic is capable of carrying out the obligations laid by the Charter of the United Nations upon countries admitted to membership in the Organization. The Mongolian People's Republic is a relatively young State. But during the brief period of its independent existence, it has already been able to make a valuable contribution to the eommon cause in the struggle of the peaceloving peoples against aggression. The Mongolian people gave active support to the Soviet people and i18 Red Army in the struggle against fascism and aggression. This participation of the Mongolian people in the common efforts of the peoplcs of the United Nations was shown not only by the fact that it took the side of the United Nations politically but also by the fact that it gave all the economic help within i18 power, in particular to the Red Army in i18 s~ruggle against the fascist aggressors. The help glven to the cause of the United Nations by the Mongolian People's Republic was also shown ~y the fact that the Mongolian People's Repubhc ~ent. to the str~ggle against the Japanese ;lflnleS ID Manchuna an army of 80,000 men which fought together with the valiant forces of the Red Anny against the so-called Kwantung Japanese Army. In the battles against the latter the troops of the Mongolian People's Republic fought courageously against the Japanese mvaders and he1ped the allied States in defeating Japanese militarism. l consider it necessary to reeall that the Mongoli~n People's ~epublic and its army were engaged m combat wlth the Japanese militarists long. bdore Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. For mstance, in 1939 military uni18 of the Mongolian People's Republic, together with units of the Red Army, took part in the struggle against the Japanese armed forces which had invaded t~e .territory of the Mongolian People's Republie ID the area of Khalkhin-Gol. As the whole wor~d now knows, this attack by Japan on the terntor~ of the Mongolian People's Republic was devlsed by the Japanese militarists in order to try out the strength of the Red Army. Everybody knows also how sadly this experiment ended f.or Japan. Thus the Mongolian People's Repubhc made a definite contribution to the ~u~e of the struggle against the Japanese mil- ~tans18 long before the formaI entry of Japan lnto the Second World War. I consider it necessary to recaU that the Mon- ~ar~icipation of the Mongolian People's Repub- Ile ln the common cause of the freedom-Ioving peoples in their struggle against fascism during 'the years of the Second World War. In taking part in the struggle against the J apanese forces, the Mongolian army fought way for about a thousand kilometres and par- ~icipated in the liberation from the J apanese :t.nvaders of a number of regions of Inner Mongolia, in particular, Chahar and Jehol. As the result of the fighting with the Japanese forces, the military units of the Mongolian People's Republic sustained losses. The number of killed, "Vounded and missing amounted to 2,039 men. The material damage suffered by the Mongolian army alone is estimated at about $50,000,000. The Mongolian People's Republic and G-overnment, having taken a direct part in the struggle against the Japanese aggressor, fully a ppreciates the significance of the joint efforts of the peace-Ioving peoples for the establish· :rT1ent of a durable peace. It is natural, therefore, that the Government of the Mongolian People's Republic, in expressing the interests the whole people of the Republic, decided to req uest the United Nations to admit the Mongolian Republic to membership in the OrgatÙzation. There can be no doubt that in taking this step, the Government of the Mongolian people's Republic takes full account of the nature of the obligations which are laid upon the Republic by its entry into this Organîzation. 10. recognizing this, it has expressed its complete readiness to take upon itself these obligations, tO carry them out and thus to make its contribotion to the common cause for the establish- ;r:o.cnt of durable peace and security for the pcoples. Mr. HSJA (Ohina): 1 wish to make a nume r of observations on the reply of the repre- Deotative for the Mongolian People's Republic. 1:J'1.e document is now before the Oouneil. The l:Jject, as we recall, of sending thi~ questio~- o 9-ire, or what the Chinese delegatlon had ID rJ. i:nd was to seek information on behalf of the if'-om.'nïttee. Now we have received these re- Oies. .As far as the Ohinese delegation is conp!:('ned we are satisfied, for the present purpose, ce d w~ are prepared to support the application ...~ ~e ever come to voting. We do not know ~pat is going to happen in the next few hours. Another fact 1 wish to point out is that in one passage entitled "1915" they say a certain agreement was reached establishing an autonomous form of government for the country of Mongolia, while retaining dependence under China. Another passage speaks of proclaiming the independence of MongoIia in September 1921. Soviet Russia recognized the Mongolian People's Republic in 1921. Yet another says that on 5 January 1946 the Chînese Government officially recognized the independence of the Mongolian People's Republie. It is very difficult ta write history of this kind. 1 think it is rather over-simplified history which is not acceptable ta us. My Government has the right to make further observations when the appropriate occasion arises. That is aIl 1 want ta sayat present. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): In general, in discussing these several applications, 1 do not intend, here in the Council, ta repeat what has already been said on behalf of my Government in the Committee. Those statements have already been published in the Committee's report. In the case of Outer Mongolia, however, there has been one development since the Committee finishcd its sittings. That is to say, the receipt yesterday of the replies from Outer Mongolia to the Committee's questionnaire which was addrcssed ta them by it sorne time ago. So therefore 1 fcel l should say a word on the conclusions which 1 have reached after such study as 1 have been able to give to the document. They are quite short, to the effect that the answers given by the Outer Mongolian Government do not change the attitude of my Govern· ment. It will be seen from the answcr ta one of the questions, that, in faet, the Government of Outer Mongolia has been in diplomatie relations with only two other countries. That may not be their fault, but surely it does show that they have not yet gained experience in international affairs sufficiently to equip them ta play a proper part in the international work of the United Nations. We may all hope that in course of time, the Outer Mongolian Republic will he able ta remedy that and fit itself for taking its place in the United Nations. But 1 do feel, at the present time, that their admission would be premature Ml'. JOHNSON (United States of America): The views of my Government were given in the meeting of the Committee on the Admission of New Members with respect to this application, and the information receivcd subsequent to the submission of the report of the Committee from the Mongolian Peoples' Republic does not scem ta us to produce any additional facts which would cause us to change our view, or to remove any of the doubts which wc have at present regarding the suitability of Outer Mongolia for membership in the United Nations. AFGHANISTAN

The next State on our list of applicants is Afghanistan, which applied for membership on 2 July 1946. Ml'. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated trom Russian): 1 merely wish to say that the Soviet Government supports the proposaI for the admission of Afghanistan to the United Nations Organization. MI'. FAWZI (Egypt): 1 am glad to support the application of Afghanistan for membership in the United Nations.

1 should like to indicate that in looking over the report of the Committce 1 find that in the case of Afghanistan, not a single member of the Committee expresses an objection to its admission. TRANS]ORDAN

We have now on our list of applicants the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, which applied for admission to membership on 8 July 1946. Ml'. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated trom Russian): The Soviet Government is not able to support the proposaI for the admission of !ransjordan ta membership in the United NatlO?s. Transjordan does not have normal diplomatlc relations with the Soviet Union. For this reason, the Soviet Government cannot cons~der that at the present time, after the conclu- SlOn of the war, a country which does not have normal relations with the Soviet Union satisfies ~he requirements demanded of countries applymg for admission to the United Nations. It is true that at the San Francisco Conference, when the foundations of the United Nati?ns Organization were being laid, sorne countnes participated which likewise did not have Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): 1 do not wish ta comment so much on the merits of the Transjordan application, as ta comment on one aspect of the remarIes that have just been made by the representative for the Soviet Union. As 1 understood his remarks, it seems that he, on his own authority, c1aimed that the existence of what are termed normal diplomatie relations with the Soviet Union are to become a condition of membership in the United Nations. Now of course, no other member of the Couneil is obliged ta accept that statement, but it is of sorne significanee to the Council if one of its members and, in particular, one of its mernbers who, by reason of the voting procedure, exercises a determining voiee in any reeommendations made by this Couneil, does make this daim, and it is of some concern ta the other members of this Council ta know whether that is an admissible principle, and on what foundation it rests. So far as our understanding of the Charter goes, we can find nothing either in the Charter itself or in any of the surrounding documents which suggests that one of the conditions of membership in the United Nations is that State must have normal diplomatie relations with the Soviet Union. If that is a condition, we should like ta discover the principle on which it rests. It seems ta us that it is a matter of concem to this Council ta know on what founda~ tion one of the permanent members makes that daim. Mr. Van KLEFFENS (Netherlands): 1 just wlsh ta say that we cannat accept the proposition that any clement extraneous ta the Charter can be admitted as a condition for the acceptance or non-acceptance of candidates for membership in the United Nations. If an adverse vote were based on a condition which is not ta be found in the Charter at aIl, we would consider that vote as ta have been wrongly cast. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): The delegate for the Soviet Union, during the course of our discussions yesterday when he disagreed with the position taken by the United States of America, made a remark to the effect that the United States had the right ta have its opinions and ta express those opinions, but did not have the right to expect others ta share them. 1 am going ta ask the indulgence of the repre- Ml'. FAWZI (Egypt): l share the views that have been expressed by the delegates for Australia, the Netherlands, and the United States of America in connexion with the reason given by the delegate for the Soviet Union for not being able to support the application of Transjordan for membership in the United Nations. l would like to add ta the words used that l also have misgivings in allowing a principle to be expressed in such a vague way, in such a sweeping manner, as to obstruct the admission of an applicant ta the United Nations. l think this a very serious matter and l repeat again that l have real misgivings. Ml'. PARODI (France) (translated from the French): l should also like ta makc reservations in regard to the objections voiced by the delegate of the Soviet Union. l may add that l do not understand very well the reason he gives. l advanced the hypothesis yesterday that his objections were bound up with the idea of insufficient information. As a matter of fact, that explanation is probably not a good one, especially after the inquiry made by the Committee on the Admission of New Members. Another possible explanation is that the Soviet delegate considers that if diplomatie relations do not exist between any country and bis own, there is perhaps sorne sort of presumption that normal international relations are not adequately established. l have been struck by what was said just now concerning the case of a young State, Outer Mongolia, namely that it has relations with only two countries. l do not very weIl understand how under such conditions, we can deduce from Ml'. 'Gromyko's arguments a rule of a basic and objective character which would be acceptable to the Security Council. 1 would add that 1 am instructed by my Government to support the application of Transjordan, but 1 do not wish here, now, to go over all the arguments that have been used in the Committee of the Security Council. seil Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): The Australian delegation feels that this is a matter mueh more serious than something that can simply be covered by reservations on the part of the other dclegations. In my opening remarks, which 1 think were very mild, 1 said that it was a matter of concern to us and 1 expressed the hope that our Soviet colleague would perhaps enlarge a little on his original statement in order to give us the benefit of knowing on what he based his daim that the existence of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union is one of the conditions of ll1embership. Up to the present, that response has not been given, and 1 think this Counci1 has to face the matter quite frankly, not having regard only to the merits of the Transjordan application which we might leave aside for the moment, but having regard to the general question of the admission of Members and the qualifications for membership in the United Nations. The position on this particular application is: The rcpresentative for the Soviet Union is a pernlanent member and has announced that he will not support the application; the application of Transjordan, thercfore, will fail. It will fail on the showing at present before us simply because Transjordan is not in what is described as normal diplomatie relations with the Soviet Union. 1 repeat, wc can find no justification in any of the doc~mlents of the .United Nations to support the V1ew that that 1S one of the conditions of membership of the United Nations. It is also the view of our Gov~rnment that when any mcmber of the Secunty Conncil exercises his vote, that vote is not exercised solely on behalf of th~ Government which he represents. It is exerc1scd on behalf of the United Nations. This Security Council is composed of a restricted number of Members of the United Nations but it sable d~~ves its authority from, and it has a r~sponsi­ b1üty to, ail MCl11bers of the United Nations. For those reasons 1 feel that this Council cannot pass on from this point, without either having heard an explanation from our Soviet co11eague, in arder to justify the remark he has made or, alternatively, having takcn sorne action in order to clear up this issue. Ml'. HSIA (China): Just now the delegate for Australia said that if the delegate for the Soviet Union opposed this nomination, Transjordan cannot be admitted. That seems to be the assumption that everybody has taken. Referring to Article 27: "The decision of the Security Council on a11 other matters sha11 be made by an affirmative vote of seven members including the concurring . . ." 1 do not know whether this particular Article rea11y had this problem in mind when it was drafted. We had this same difficulty in the Committee on the Admission of New Members. There is one country we know so little about that we do not intend to vote against it and h~ve a temptation to abstain. Now, we are told that abstention means a negative vote. Here is a legal point. Is tbis a correct interpretation of the Charter, in other words, that the permanent members are bound to vote one way or the other, that one cannat take a neutral position? Is it possible to interpret the Charter so that in this particular case, in the admission of new Members, we are allowed to abstain and that abstention counts as a ncutral vote? 1 do not know whether tbis Council is able to settle that question. 1 do not know what MT. Gromyko's own interpretation on the subject is. He may agree with the other members, then that is the end of it. However, therc is a different interpretation here. We raise quite an important and interesting question. Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): 1 think that the representative for China has raised a very difficult, legal question of very wide îm- The only question l ask myself, especially with regard to that second problem, namely, whether aState has the right ta vote against the acceptance of an application for membership of a given State which fulfils the requirements of the Charter, is whether, if a proposition were made to submit that question to the Court, the representative for the Soviet Union could feel himself obliged to vote against it. If that were so, wc would have here a new and very striking manifestation of the impossible rules of voting which bind this CounciI. Ml'. PADILLA NERva (Mexico): l made a proposaI that was acccpted by the Council that the vote on every concrete case should be deferred to the end. l thought in that way, we would have at the end, a picture which would be on record. The public opinion of the world will know what were the arguments, the statements, the reasons given by each one of the members of this Council in regard to each application. Judgment will be passed, of· course, by public opinion and by the General Assembly on the attitude of the Security Council. l had the intention of making some remarks at the end in regard to each one of the applications. But since practieally every member of this Council has spolcen rcgarding this issue, and since one of the reasons given by one of the members for not remaining silent was that it might be considered that he agreed to a certain principle, l want to say in that respect that l do not consider that any member of this Council accepts any of the views of the other members, even by voting in a certain way, or in the same sense as that member does. UsuaIly, each mcmber explains the reasons for his own vote. My position regarding the two problems that were summarized by the delegate for the Netherlands was reaIly made in the statement that l made at the beginning of our discussion. l had said that the collective interest of the United Nations should be paramount in the Council's decisions and not exclusively the national interests of the eleven countries here represented, and much less the interest of any member, whether permanent or non-permanent. l also said that in passing judgment on the ability and willingness of an applicant State to carry out obligations under the Charter, neither an individual member, nor the Council as an Now one question was asked by the delegate for the Netherlands, and was first put forward as a problem by the de1egate for China: Has a member the right ta vote against an application that fulfils the requirements of the Charter? l do not think we need to go ta the International Court ta have an answer ta that question. The answer is no. Every member here has the right, andnot only the right, has the obligation a.nd has the dutYta vote in favor of the applicatIon of any State that fulfils the requirements of the Charter. But the problem is how arc we going ta determine if aState fulfils the requirements of the Charter. Who is going ta judge that? 1t is for the Organization to judge, it is the Organizatian that is to judge if aState fulfils the requirements of the Charter. The answer that the International Court will give us is obvious because it cannat give any other answer. Ta return ta the first question. 1. have assumed in discussions in this Council that when a member of this Council expresses support or nonsupport of an application, he is not setting a principle and is not even advancing the position he is going ta take in regard ta the vote. l would even have the hope that if a member has said that he has misgivings, or that he does not favour, or that he does not support an application, that is not his final position until the vote is taken. 1 always admit the possibility of an embarrassing position to each one of the members of this Council regarding another State. l consider it is difficult to say in respect of any State that it is not peace-loving, that it is not able to comply with the obligations, that it is not trustworthy, even if those were some of the reasons given in the secret meetings of the Committee on the Admission of New Members. A way ta express misgivings might be to say, as the dclegate for the Soviet Union has chosen, that he does not support the application. On many occasions 1 have not agreed in my own mind with the reasons given by other mcmbers for their acts, for their votes in the Security Council. 1 would think that no principle is established here by the declaration of any member. The vote, the final position taken by every member in regard to each case will tell whether the positions previously taken in the general discussion and in the concrete discussion of each case are final, whether at that moment they vote or give new reasons in accordance with the requirements of the Charter for their vote and their final position, or whether they do not do it and let stand in the records the position taken in the Council and in the Committee. The meeting adjourned at 1.12 p.m. FIFTY-SEVENTH MEETING Held al Lake Success, New York, on Thursday, 29 August 1946 al 2.30 p.rn. President: Mr. Oscar LANGE (Poland). 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. 26. Report of the Security Council's Committee on Admission of N'ew Members (document S/133) (continued) TRANSJORDAN

We have under discussion the application for membership of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan. During this discussion, a somewhat different problem was brought up concerning the interpretation of the abstention of a permanent member from voting and the legal consequences of such abstention. 1 think the question is interesting and important. However, if 1 may express my views as President, 1 think that it might be desirable not to go into the details of this question now unless, by our practical voting, it really cames up as one having direct practical bearing upon the proceedings of this meeting. Before l ask the representative of Brazil to speak, 1 should repeat my request of this morning, namely, the request for brevity in view of the time limit under which we are working today. Mr. VELLOSO (Brazil) (translated trom French): 1 should merely like to state that my Government is fully in agreement with the statement made by the United States representative regarding the argument put forward by the representative of the Soviet Union; namely, that the absence of diplomatie relations is a reason for not aecepting a country's application for membership in the United Nations. The Brazilian representative in the Com-