S/PV.568 Security Council

Before calling on the representatives of the United Kingdom and of France, who have asked ta speak the proposaI which has just been made by the representative of the USSR, 1 feel that it is my duty, as President of the CouncilJ ta explain why, uuder mIe 7 of the of procedure, l approved the provisional agenda present form. 7. l felt that it was right ancl proper that if we obliged to consider the General Assembly decision regarding Italy - and we were obliged to consider we should also place on the agenda the other General Assembly resollltion which is still in force and pending, resolution 495 CV) of 4 December 1950. 8. l thol1ght that it was proper, if we were to be to c1iscuss the admission of Italy to the United Nations, which is desirecl by the great majority of the Members of the United Nations, that. we should also give members of the Council who might w1sh to do opportnnity - l repeat, an opportunity - of raising question of the admission of new Members in this of the United Nations. The other question to be decidec1 was the order in which the items shonld appear provisional agenda. Obviously, if we had been merely by chronological order, the item which appears as item 3 should have come first, that is, as item l felt that there were sound reasons for taking opposite view. 9. The first reason is the nature of the resolution approved by the General Assembly on 7 December 1951 1 , 1t is an urgent resolution, adopted for 1 The following is the text of the letter (S/2435) 10 December 1951 addressed to the President of the Security Cottncil from the Secretary-General, transmitling the the resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 7 Decell1ber 1951 : "1 bave the honour to transmit herewith the text resolution adopted by the General Assembly at its plenary meeting on 7 December 1951 on the question of participation of Haly in the work of the Trusteeship Council: (The General Assembly, 'Beating in mimi resolution 310 (VIII) of the Trusteeship Council concerning the position of Ita1y, (Noting that Italy has been charged by the United with the administration of the Trust Ten·itory of Somaliland, and that it is al. present exercising its responsibilities the United Nations as an Administering Authority are defined in Chapters XII ancl XIII of the Charter, (Considering that HOlly should be enabled ta exercise responsibilities with complete effectiveness, 'BeillD of the opinion, therelore, thOlt it is necessary Italy ta become a member of the Trusteeship Council that purpose to be admitted to the United Nations, baving regard to the fact that Italy satisfies the conditions prescribed in Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Charter membership in the United Nations, 'Recommends the Security Council to give urgent sideration to the present resolutioll with a view to mending the immediate admission of Italy tomembership the United Nations.' "(Siglled) Trygve Secretary-General" : ihant èlllandée rancction que 'ois qu'il Conseil, ilions de 10. Let us consider the terms of the resolution December 1950. It is one of the series of resolutions that the General !,-ssembly has passed at intervals 1947 recommend11lg that the Secnrity Council reconsider the question, which has now reached impasse, of the admission of new Members. ~ l'ordre xaminer 11. The res0.1ution of 4 December 1950 in faet reca11s resolutton 296 (IV) of the fourth session General Assembly,· notes that the Assembly received recomll1endations for the admission applicants, and requests the Security Council the applications under consideration in accordance the terms of the resoll1tions referred to. :i~ion de jmte et ne antre nIable ;':,olutioll dmis5ioll i1llliS5ioll dc l'Or- "Il'> aux l's..i1Jililé XatimH [tI1l1m:s. wlIcerne \nlre du 12. In the first place, the resolution of 4 December 1950 makes no mention of urgency. The Council not urged to consider the matter immediate1y. second place, we a11 know that throughollt 1951 not deal with the resolution, which proves that the rîty Council did not regard it as urgent, whereas resolution regarding Italy has been adopted as of urgency. 'II étions , auriom ,int 2, le nais des lllm!. 13. Accordingly the President felt that these ations were more important than the date of of the two resolutions, and advised placing the the provisional agenda in the order in which they appear. 1 mil/fi.' l..plée le ll~lopl~e 14. l considered it my dutY to explain to the the reasons which led me to adopt this conrse, l think the President has triec1 to take a fair partial attitude to these matters. ~6:('mbrf ;Ir le Se- ~i!:111 ad-;,p.. txte èe la 15. It therefore rests with the COl1ncil to give on the proposai made by the representative USSR. Naturally, as representative of ECUADOR, l sha11 not be able to vote {or his proposaI. .:i J5!èree ;~~ fr.::e~tlC-:1 r,;.y..ux !l. 16. Sir Gladwyn ]EBB (United Kingdom): resentative of the Soviet Union has suggested provisional agenda should be modifJed and that should become item 2, with item 2, consequently, coming item 3, and l think l am ri,ght in s:J;ying only substantial argument he has lt1voked 111 support this proposaI is that itel~l 3 relates ta a letter 6 December 1950 and Item 2 to a letter December 1951. It is, therefore, sa to spcak, chronological grounds that hc has, as l understal1d based his request for the reversai of the order items on our present provisional agenda. ; t"d~> C, ~u:l~Jie tI e~ :i:'~~ n~· :li-:!1 ttl~:i !;ï (bn~ e ,l"t:ttfœr :,,~trant t::t r,;,rd~rJp~:t ~'~tc adrnli~ ~ .l'urgtf,re (~~ rti\:·mfemhrt dt. 17 The President has most ably, in my opinion, fo;th the reasons in favour of the existing order fQ'g\'t L!!' "t g,,:"';r~r ~'", 19. As regards the resolution which, as we should hope, would come up for consideration by us under item 3, it is, perhaps, just worth saying that although it was adopted by the Assembly over a year ago it not, so far as l know, come up for the Council's consideration ulltîl now, and this is not very sl,uprising it merely requested the Security Council to kcep varions applications under consideration. That it asked us to do. And, as we all know also, the representative of the Soviet Union spoke against and against that resolution at the time when it was adopted in 1950. 2 Therefore, until the Soviet Union delegation has given some indication of a change of attitude towards this resolution there does not, in the opinion of delegation at any rate, seem to ue much likelihood the Council's making any headway on the strength Of course, if the Soviet Union representative's apparent anxiety to take item 3 before item 2 signifies any change of attitude, no one would be more pleased at this development than we should be, and we shaH ail hope that will be possible to make some progress on the resolution when it is discussed uy us. ~. re à de i~. 011 : a 011 du de tel ire eut llIS de les ar- 5si, t-il :Ue lie. 23. The general question of the admission of Members is undeniably of earlier date. l shall not this cOllnexion cite the principle applied in some official c1epart111ents, where it is heId that a question on which action is deferred loses any claim to urgency. Nevertheless it is quite clear that, however much we may the contrary had been the case, no new facts have arisen which 111ake it likely that our discussion on this will lead to any more rapid results. 24. On the other hand, the admission of Italy to bership in the United Nations was submitted by General Assembly as an urgent question, the recommendation before us calling for the immediate admission of Italy to 111embership in the United Nations. For reason, the French delegation believes, the special tion of Italy ought to be given priority over the general question of the admission of new Members. 25. Tt is unnecessary to advert here to any reasons which we might have for dealing with the question Italy at once, independently of the general question. Those reasons are statec1 in the actual text of Assembly's rec0111mendation. ~ il ~jà seil Au Ises am iûl1 ons

l, shall vote in favour of the adoption of the provisional agenda submitted by the President, although l some doubt that item 3 should have ng1,lred in provisional agenda at ail. It seems to me that there no reason either in logic or in principle why the general membership question should be raised whenever a application is befoi'e the Secürity Coüncil for consideration. l do not agree with the point which l understood the Soviet Union representative was making -namely, that the Italian questibn now before us as the result a General Assembly reco111mendation is an aspect some other question. It is a problem in itself and entitled to urgent and respectful treatment as a question put to uS by the General Assembly. 11fit~ It du ooint !e lie e cd alür, :~rne 27. In that connexion, there see111S to me to be considerable significance in the fact that in the resolution 28. Finally, another reason which impels me the provisional agenda as submitted by the President that l think the argument advanced by the Soviet failed on another ground. This is an argument apparently, is brought fOl'ward or not brought according to the whim of the Soviet Union tative at a particular moment. l make this statement the following reason. \iVhen the IndGnesian application for mcmbership was before the Security Council September 1950 [S03rd meeting], no suggestion made by any member that the general membership question should be cliscussed as part of or in relation the Ine!onesian application. This is all interesting in view of the fact that at that there was outstane!ing a General Assembly adoptee! in 1949 [296 (IV)], which recommended the Security Coutlcil should .recotlsider certain applications for membership in the United Despite the existence of that General Assembly tian, neither the Soviet Union representative - indeed any other representative in the Security - suggested in September 1950 that any application membership except the Ine!onesian application be clealt with. As members will recaH with gratification, the Ine!onesial1 application was voted upon favourably at that time by the Security Council. 29. For these reasons, l shaH support the provisional agenda in its present fortu, although l do have doubt whether item 3 should have figurecl on sional agenda at aIl.

l have listenec1 tively ta the President's explanation of the which guie!ec1 him in laying down precisely provisional agenda and in submitting the questions,· for consideration by the Security Council, in the which they appear in the provisional agenda has presented to this meeting of the Council. 31. The President has brought up the question urgency, but that is· a relative conception. If sider item 3 first and decide to admit ail the States which have submitted applications for to the United Nations, then we shall by process the more rapidly solve the problem admission of Italy to the United Nations' consider the question of the admission of' Italy reach no agreement, and take no deeision the will not have been expedited at ail. ' 32. The.refore, in the in~erests of urgency and aU t!le thlrteen S!at~s wlllch have applied to the N attOl"ls for admlsslOll shall in fact qe admittecl/ 3.3. As ;)oth these q~lestions a~e included in the provis1011al agenda, the d1fference 111 the urgency of their treatment may be reckoned, in the most favourable cir- Cl~mstances, in terms of minutes. The element of urgency w~ll therefore ?ot .be di:,regarded; on the contrary, both Ulge~lcy and Justice w111 be respected if we decide adl111t all t~le ::,tates desirous of becoming Members the Orgal11ZatlOn - and there are thirteen of themta membership in the United Nations. 34. The President's reference to the faet that he acted .unc1er ru~e 7 ?f the mIes of procedure of Secunty CounC1l, whlch states that "only items which have heen br~ught to the attention of the representatives on the Sectmty Council in accordance with rule 6 may.be inc1uded in the provisional agenda", has an equal beanng upon resolution 495 (V) of the fifth session the General Assembly, which l am proposing to consider first. ' 35. The attention of the Security Council and of members has also been drawn to this resolution, and cannat agree with those who consider that, as the Security Council has not yet examined the question, it is urgent. For those States who applied to the United Nations for admission ta the Organization the question is urgent, although, for causes which are well known - the obstructionist policy and the policy of discrimination and favouritism practised by the United States with support of the United Kingdom -c the question has sa far been solved; but this does not mean that it is urgent. For those States who wish to become Members of the United Nations it \Vas and remains urgent, it is the duty of the Security Cauncil to settle it. 36. With regard to the observations of the United Kingdom representative, l should like to draw his attention to the faet that ml reasons for wishing to discuss item 3 before item 2 are based not only on chronological considerations. That is indeed only one of my motives. Of course, the matter of chronological order is a motive, because the resolution referred toil1 item of the provisional agenda is' one to which the Security Council's attention was drawn a yem ago. But, this i5 only one of the motives; a more important n;ot~ve is the importance of the whole problem of the admlsSlOn of new Members to the United Nations. 1f 37. This problem is ripe for consideration and should have been solved long ago. On our side we are putting forth aIl our efforts to settle the matter. Neverthe1ess, for reasons weIl known to a11, it is still unsolved. 38. As l have already observed, the Security Council has thirteell applications before h, induding that 39. The fact, however, thatItaly is the Administering Authority for a Trust Territory does not some special priority must be given to the study question of the admission of ltaly to membershlp. cannot serve as a justification for any such ordinary procedure. 40. Attention has been directed here to the whether the proposai of the USSR delegation sider item 3 before item 2 signifies a change the position of the USSR delegation in respect year's General Assembly resolution. l can only that there is no need for the USSR delcgation its attitude. It was and remains a just attitude, fOHnded anc1 completely in accord with the Nations Charter. 41. The Soviet Union delegation does not attitude of favouritism toward some States applied for admissi,on to Membership in the Nations and of discrimination toward others. strictly to the provisions of the Charter and that all these States be admitted as Members United Nations without favouritism or discrimination. That has been the position of the USSR delegation the past and that is its position today, and there need for the USSR delegation to change its as it is fully in accord with the United Nations 42. The reference of the representative of the States to the case of Indonesia is wholly irre1evant. Everybody knew that the question of the admission Indonesia was a special one. But there is no for isolating Italy as a special question because existence of obligations towards that country, part of the States which have signed the Peace with it to the effect that they would recOl11mend acceptance into the United Nations, llnless position is taken towards other countries which the same situation as Italy during' the Second War. The provision to the effect that the United the United Kingdom, France and the Soviet would support an application for membership United Nations is to be found not in the Italian Treaty alone. A similar provision exists in the Treatie~ with other ~ountries: Bulgaria, Hungary Ron~at1la. What basls is there for putting Italy specIal category while disregarding the applications the other cOlt11tries l have indicated, especially latt~r countries applied for. me:11bership in the Natlons at a conslderably earher date - aboüt earlier - than Haly? 43. That is h?w matters stand on this question therefore there. IS no re~son whatsoever ta adduce ments concerlllng the Clrcumstances in which Indonesia wa,s admitted. at a certain time, into the United :talie est certains xaminer the.admissi~n of new Members, other than Umted .NatlOns. 1 wouId ask the Security note thlS faet. 1 ascribe great significance ment.. It means that the policy of the United ! rOrgalions ne ~lOW allned at closing this question and placing m the way of admitting new Members, other to the United Nations. [Joint de l'Union ,point 2 :te dété· ;e gêné- éJlondre l hC5ûin et COIlahle et utc des 45. The delegation of the Soviet Union cannot that po~ition. 1t sees no reason for according of special treatment to Italy while disregarding remaining applications, and for dec1aring that interested in the admission of new Members United Nations. (lle pas ~ Etats l'Organe alti- Sïusrh." elle ion des inalion. 46. The USSR delegation insists that Council should consider all the applications - referring to the applications of the thirteen have applied to the United Nations for admission 11lembership - and should admit all of these 47. The USSR delegation and the Government USSR regards this question as important as one that has Long been ripe for solution. delegation urges that it should be solved. 1 so...·ié- etudie: !wsoin ~,nlle il 48. The USSR delegation, 1 reiterate, cannot with the position taken by the delegation of States, which does not consider it aelvisable the question of the admission of new Members United Nations. 49. The PRESIDENT (translated frOl11, Before calling upon the representatives of lands, Y ugoslavia and India, 1 should like President that 1 sha11 close the discussion posai of the representative of the Soviet Union as possible, with due c1eference to any members Council who wish to speak. 1 wonld theref.ore 11lembers of the Conncil who may wish to proceduraI discussion to place their names as soon as possible. t,;-Unis rt ;H;ec , savait lait 1111 i'lit de li' l'ad- Ine Cl' rl'com- ~aliolls même \'l'~. au même I:m:> le lis()i.)sil'.:\mé- 'i(~tique li:,;llion i.!.,'urent .'autres Oucl1e 50. Ml". VON BALLUSECK (Netherlands): should like to associate myse1f with what was now by the representative of the United he referred to the example 'Of the Indonesian it came before the Conncil last year. This a special case as the representative of the Soviet has said. When, after the transfer of sovereignty was reached in common agreement between lands and Indonesia with the assistance of Nations this new State presented itself, there haps a ~pecial reason to de~l with this matter tionsly. But 1 have t~1e feehng that the case also a special case Slnce we have charged special responsibilities as the Administering Qf the,Tntst Territory of Somalilancl, and since ~cial à al1trc~ 'liftant ion dt';-;' nt que )rgani~ t pourquelles ,isation "The Court. .. is of the opinion that a the United Nations which is called upon, Article 4 of the Charter, to pronounce itself vote, either in the Security Council or in the Assembly, on the admission of aState to membership in the United Nations, is not juridically make its consent to the admission depenc1ent conditions not expressly provided by paragraph the said Article; "And that, in particular, a Member of ization cannot, while it recognizes the conditions forth in that provision to be fulfilled by concerned, subject its affirmative vote to tional condition that other States be admitted membership in the United Nations together State." 52. We therefore consider that what should c1etermine our views on the approval or disapproval the provisional agenda before us is the question the case of Italy is a special case. 1 think that l think that the reasons have been fully explained in the resolution of the General which was cOI11Inunicated to us in document that Italy has been charged by the United Nations the administration of the Trust Territory of Somaliland, and that the General Assembly considers that be enabled ta exercise those responsibilities plete effectiveness. It is also of the opinion necessarydor Italy ta become a l11ember of the ship Council and for that purpose to be admitted United Nations". 53. l think that these reasons are sufficient ta take up the case of Italy as a special case. reason l shall support the provisional agenda by the President. 54. Mr. BEBLER (Yugoslavia) (translated French~: As the Yllgos1~v de1egation sees it, c<;tn easI1y be advanced 111 favour of bath the Vlews, ~5, On the 0!1e hand, Italy is undeniably Important call~lc1ate. In. population, Italy is of the countnes applY1l1g for the admission United Nations. A glance at the figures shows Italian population is equal to haH the total inhabitants of the thirteen other applicant ~og~ther. T;1oreo,:er Italy plays the most important 111 mternatlOnal hfe, both politically and economically. There can therefore be no doubt, in our view, 3 See IC,J .Reports: .c0nditi~ns of AdmiSsion of Mel1~bershlp ~Il.the Umted Natwns (Article 4 of the Adv~sory OpUl10tf of 28 May 1948. . 57. Let us take Europe, a continent which has playecl and still plays an extremely important part in international life. The situation in Europe is as follows: twenty-two European States, ten are not Me1l1bel's our Organization. Obviously that situation is anomalous. That state of affairs largely accounts for the tion in which my OWl1 country finds itself. Of YlIgoslavia's seven nelghbours, only one is a Member of United Nations. The other six are among the applicants. l, n:, 58. For aU these reasons, I wotlld stlggest that we discussing which aspect is the most important or urgent and which the least important or least urgent. Let us have only one item on our agenda, the admission of new Members, with a sl1b-paragraph (a) and a paragraph (b) referring to the documents relating the general question of the admission of new Members, and let us decide ta discuss bath cases or both documents. l feel this procedure wonlc1 enable us ta make some headway. Each representative could present argnmentsin favour of what he thought the Security Council shonld do in the matter general1y and the votes taken woulcl decide what we are able ta do. ~r 11 st 1- ,il a IT le le il :c Il 59. Sir Benegal N. RAU (India): The representative of Yugoslavia has almost anticipatecl me, since l about ta make the same suggestion. The admission Italy is, undoubteclly, a matter of urgency, but that not to say that the admission of ather applicants is also a matter of tll"gency. Sorne of them have been waiting for years through no fault of their own- Ceylon, to mention a dose neighbour of India and member of the Commonwealth. The longer they kept waiting the more urgent becomes the question their aclmission, and for this reason l shoulcl like endorse the suggestion made by the representative Yugoslavia. il , T S T 1 é· l- 60. Ml'. GROSS (United States of America): reason for my second intervention is ta make certain that the misinterpretation which has been placed upon 1l1y CDmments by the representative of the Soviet Union shaH not stand in the record. 61. What l said was that there was no reason, in view of my delegation, why the general question admissions ta membership should be brought up whenever a single application was under consideration. submit that to interpret that statement as indicating that the Unitèd States Government is not interested the admission ta the United Nations of new Mel11bers other than Italy is ta twist and torture the c1e.:1.rest language. On the contrary, the United States Government - as l hope the representative of the Soviet Union 62. Seeking to avoid ~he force of the. analogy - which, l SUb1111t, does show how the Soviet Union has been with regard of dealing with single applicants when suited it - the USSR representative referred contractual obligations llnder the peace suppose that the inference to be c1rawn that Italy and the Eastern European which peace treaties were concluded must together. However, that this is merely brought in to suit the occasion is, l think, by the fad that at this very session of Assembly the Soviet Union, through its representatives, has inc1uded the Mongolian People's Republic of the applicants whose admission it favours, there is no question but that contractüal under a peace treaty have no connexion the Mongolian People's Republic. 63. One more point. The representative Union has referred to the General Assembly of December 1950 as if it involved action sembJy with regard to the thirteen appJicants. that ail members of the Council will resolution 495 (V) of the General Asse111bly December 1950 refers not to thirteen applications for membership in the Unitec1 , that even there the 'Ûnly request which has to the Security Council has been that it those nine applications under consideration ance with the tenns of the resolution referred reso.1ution of 4 December 1950 itself. 64. Finally, with regard to the suggestion representative of Yugoslavia and enc10rsed resentative of India, T respectfu\1y submit are considering at this meeting, as a matter priority and for reasons which have been explicitly by the General Assembly, is the the admission of Italy. If it were sought question of the admission of Italy llnder circu111stances, and in view of the unique proble111 which Italy presents, to the discussion applications, s?me of which my Government endorses, l thl11k that wOllld he to do violence clear intent~on of the General Assembly, reasons whlch the Assembly assigned for sideration of Italy anc1 to lead us into confusion upon the false - in 111y submission - conception ~he ql~esti01~ of t~e .application of one single 111 loglc or 111 pnnclple, be related to the applications other States. , 6? Mr. ?ARPE~ (Turkey): l do not cltsagree wI.th the vlews expressec1 by the representattve as regards the question of of new Members. Actually, l agree with princip1e on which his ideas are based. As fad, there are a number of other countries te du l1eon- :e qui ission :epré- i eOnppose urope lIlclus arguile en t que, Jnion pté la "Recommends the Security Couneil to give consideration to the present resolution with to recommending the immediate admission ,. of to l11embership in the United Nations." i dont : qu'il populéeol1- That is the resolntion with which we must now 67. Therefore, the only remark made by the Union representative with which l cannot agree sOllle sort of discrimination is being shown in favotll' Italy or against the other candidates awaiting admission to membership. After we have considered the Assembly resolution before us and have taken appropriate measures to carry out the desire so expressed by the General Assembly, l hope we in a position to take up the matter of the admission other candidates to membership in the United Nations, natl1rally considering every request on its own as has been said by the representative of the lands. Jnion \oplée me si mblée leur IS que Ite du ~is de ations seule- ~r ces enlies du 4 68. For the reasons l have given, my de1egation snpport the provisional agenda sl1bmitted President. 69. Mr. TSIANG (China): As the present debate pm'ely procedural, my intervention will be very 1faite .ée le ~ c'r-st linons b (lui mhlée 70. In my clelegation's opini01~, the Security at this moment should be gl11cled by the resolutlOn adopted by the General Ass~mb~y on 7 December At all the stages through whlch lt passed, that resolutlon hacl the heartiest support of my delegation. l the resolution has established beyond any doubt Italy, from the point of :view of admission to ll1.embership in the U nitee! NatlOns, c~oe~ have a. specla.l prior c1aim. The reasol1 for thls IS statec1 111. detal1 conclusively in the General Assembly resolu~lOl1, there is no question. but that. the Counc~l would, justified in giving thls resolutlOl1 the earhest consideration. 11~':lon cn115i· ,lllème lOll1is- \ ~l1U' rè (le 1:é11é- lur1les icu1ier a C(lll- Ile+il t doit: lande,) 71. The doctrine of the universality of .nllemlb,ersd~ip has again been.advancecl ~n c0.nnexion Wlt 1 • cnssion to justtfy a modIficatIOn. of the ptOvlslOI,1al agenda placed before us by the President. l do at this moment to discuss in an abstract way doctrine of universality of membership, l would submit that even if the United N ati01IS were the doctrill~" its. application certainly' should l!t1is) : l~ "üir i COll- .i dire, 'nt ses existe

l wish to say the following in connexion with the procedural matter before with reference to the arguments put forward representative of the Soviet Union. 73. The Security Council is bound to consider matter in the light of the position takell by the Assembly. 'vVe have beiore us two General Assembly resolutiolls. One, adopted a year ago, asks us applications for admission under consideration; other, adopted only a few days ago, singles out Italy separate treatment in view of SOlUe special, important circumstances which cali for the urgent consideration of that country's ac1mission to the United Nations. cannot disregard the reasons advanced by t11e Assembly. 74. The rule of interpretation under which resolution modifies a previous one is well known. this particular case, the General Assembly has very clear its intention to give separate consideration to Haly's application, and the Security Council is to accept the Ilew ground upon which the Assembly placed this whole question of adnùssion. 75. For the reasons which l have stated, the Brazilian delegation cannot accept the position taken Soviet Union clelegation. We also cannot accept sugg'estion made by the representatives of Yllgoslavia and India, since it does not take into account reasons for which the General Assembly has callecl a separate consideration of Italy's application.

The disCl\Ssion is closed. 77. We have two proposaIs to a,mend the provisional agenda. In my opinion, by analogy with the provisions oi rule 36 of the rules of procedure, the proposaI by the representative of Yugoslavia and Inclia be put to the vote first because it is furthest removecl from the original text of the agenda. 78. l shaH therefore put that proposaI to the vote. it is not approvecl a vote will be taken on the proposaI made by the representative of the Soviet Union. 79. That is my ruling as President. Natnrally challenged l shaH l)\Ü my mling to the vote in ance with rule 30. 80. ML MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist lics) (translated frOll! Russian): l do not altogether agree with the President's interpretation of mIe the mies of procedure. The second sentence of reads: "Ordinarily, the Security Council shaH first ·on the amendment furthest removed in substarlce the original proposaI .. ;". As it happens, my proposaI 81. The representative of Yugoslavia has proposecl that these two items should be combined under the general heading "Admission of new Members", that they shoulc1 be listed as "(a)" and "(b) JJ and they should be taken up together. 82. Consequently, l cannot altogether agree with the President's interpretation. In the present case rule 36 does not apply, but l am not objecting: vote first on the y ugoslav proposaI.

l th~nk the representative of the USSR. Before procee~mg to the vote, l should merely like to say that my ruhng was based on the last part of mie 36 which states that "when an amendment adds to or deletes from the text of a motion or draft resolution, that amendment shaH be voted on first". 84. The Yugoslav and Indian amendment adds the words "Admission of new Members" to the text of the agenda. Therefore l shaH first put to the vote the amendment submttted by Yugoslavia and India. In favour: India, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, y ugoslavia. Against: Brazil, France, Netherlands, Turkey, United Kingdbm of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Abstaining: China, Ecuador. The amendment was rejected by 6 votes ta 3, with ê abstentions.

. vVe shal1 now vote on the amendment proposed by the representative of the Soviet Union. In favo'ur: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Against: Brazil, China, France, Netherlands, Turkey, United Kingclom of Great Britain and Northern Irelancl, United States of America. Abstai1~ing: Ecuador, India, Yugoslavia. The amendment was rejected by 7 votes ta l, with 3 abstentions.

As there appear to be no more observations regarding the provisional agenda submittec1 by the President, l take it that the provisional agenda is adoptec1.

l request a vote.

We could begin the general debate immediately. ever, l have the following speakers on my representatives of France, Brazil, Ecuador Netherlands. l should like to ask the Council it would prefer to rise now and to continue at 3 this afternoon or whether it would prefer to the discussion now. l am entirely at the Council's disposaI. 90. l am informed by the Secretariat that the facilities required to continue the debate - interpretation facilities - would he available for the Council afternoon. 91. Ml'. GROSS (United States of America): Inasmuch as my name is not on the list of those President read out, l wish to add it and also opportunity of suggesting that we meet this afternoon at 3 o'dock rather than continue now, because likely that the debate will last, l should think, for than an hour. l therefore propose that we meeting this afternoon, and l ask the President my name to the list of speakers. 92. ML MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist lics) (translated jrom R~tssian): The faet is agenda of the Ad I-Ioc Political Committee has been drawn up and it will meet at 3 p.l11. l have in attendance for consideration of a very important question in that Committee, and l am obligcd to l hope the Chairman of the Committee will calI as my name is down on the list of speakers. 93. l think it would be advisable to convene meeting tomorrow, either in the morning or at 3 in the afternoon, for the reasons l have just given. 94. l suggest that, in spite of the urgency of the tion, a haH clay will not be decisive. 95. Ml'. GROSS (United States of America): l made my suggestion a few moments ago l that the choice was between continuing now meeting this afternoon, In view of what has been

The Secretariat infonns me that it will make an effort to provide the necessary facilities for us to meet tomorrow; l shall therefore close the meeting and the Security Council will meet tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. 97. l see that the representative of the United Kingdom, who is always in the nick of time and brings up important things at the last moment, wishes to speak.

Far be it fTom me to delay our proceedings but l see from my copy of the Journal that a meeting of the Ad Hoc Political Committee is scheduled for tomorrow morning, and it seems only tao likely that the USSR representative and l will want to he present at that meeting. There is no meeting of the Ad fIoc Political Committee in the afternoon, so l wonder whether we could not meet tomorrow afternoon. 99. ML SARPER (Turkey); l wishecl to say exactly what has now been said by the representative of the United Kingdom. Our Committee has a meeting in the morning and none in the afternoon, so that it would be very convenient for everyone if the Security Council were to meet in the afternoon. 100. The PRESIDENT (translated from Spa11ish) ; In view of the observations made regarding the morning meeting tomorrow and the fact that there are objections ta an afternoon meeting today, l shaH close the meeting and convene the Council for tomorrow at 3 p.m. sharp. The meeting rose at 1 p.m. ~~~~~Ii~~.ulevar' ope· a, Il\~~.a28 BOLlvrA _ SOLIvlE HAITl Lib",la Clor,tifica y Literaria, Avenlda M.. Bouchereau, 16 d' Julio 216, C.sill. 'i72, La Paz v,lIe." BRAZIL _ BRESIL Prince. Ll<t'I'ia Agir, Rila ~k<ico 99·8, Calxa HONDURAS Postai 3291 Rio dc Jcnniro. Libreria CANADA ~CMJI\OI\ Fu.nt., The Ryel',on Pm", 299 (lueen Streét ICELAND YI..t, loronto. Bokaverzlun CEVL01J - CEYLAN , Austurstretl The Assoclat,rl N.wspapers 01 C,ylon, INDIA - Lld" Lake House, Colombo. O~ford CHILE _ CHILI flouse, Llbrerfa Iv.ns, Calle Moneda 822, INDONESIA Sanliaoo.. JaJasan CHINA- CHINE M, Djakarta. The Commercial Prm, Ud., 211 Honan IRAQ - Raad, Shanghai. Macken,Ie's COLOMBIA - COLOMBIE Stationers, Llbr,rla Latina Ltda., Apartado Aérco IRAN 4011, Bagata. Ketab-Khaneh coSTA RICA - COSTA-RICA AVenu., Tre10s Hermanos, Apartado 1313, San IRELAND José. Hlbernian CUBA cial Buildings, ta Casa Belga, René de Smedt, O'Rellly ISRAEL 455, La Habana. Leo Biumstejn, CZECHOSLOvAKIA _ 35 Allenby TCHECOSLOVAO.UŒ ITALY _ Ceskoslovensky Splc"vatel Narodnf T'frda Colibri ~, Praha 1. LEBANON DENMARK - DANEMARK Librairie Einar Munksgaard, Nprregade 6, LIBERIA K~benhavn. J. Momolu DOMImCIIN RrpUBLIC - Streets, RE~UBLIQU.E DOMINiCAINE LUXEMBOURG L1bre..a DominlCana, ~alle Mer~.edes No. Librairie 49, Apartado 656, Ciudad TrUJillo. Luxembourg. ECUADDR ,....EQUATEUR MEXICO Mui\oz Hermanos y Cia., Piaza dei Edltol'Ial Tealro, Quito. cal 41, EGYP': - EGYPTE· NETHERLANDS Librairie "La Renaissance d'Egypte," N.V, Martlnu, ~ SH. Adly Pasha, Calro. 'l, 's·Grav.nha~e. EL SALVADOR- SALVADOR NEW Manuel Navas y Ciao "La Casa dei L1bro NOUVELLE.ZELANDE Barato" la Avenlda SUr nUm. 37, San United Salvador. land, ETHIOPIA - ETHIOPIE NICARAGUA Agon" Ethiopienne de Publicité, Box 8, Dr. R.mlro Addis-Abeba. Publicaciones, AUSTRIA B. Wüllerstorfl, Salzburg. United Nallans publicallons con lurlher be 'rom Ihe lollowlng booksellers: GERMANV - ALLEMAG~JE Buchhandlung Elwert & Meul'er, Haupt.' strasse, 101, Ber1in·$c;-'Uneberg. W. E. Saarbach, Fl'ù.nkenstl'assc, 14, Kiiln·Jenkmdorf. JIIPAN Alexandcr f-1orn, Spicgelgi\ssct 9, Maruzen Wiesbaden. Nlh.nbashi, Orders and inq"lrieclroln countries where ,alos ha,v. not yet heon appoint.cl ",ay be s.nt ta: Circblation Section, Unitod t~"tions. New Yor:,. or Sales S.clion, United l-jations Omce, Pul"is Na lions, Genev., Swift.,I"nd. Printed in Canada Priee: (or ;:quivalent