S/PV.569 Security Council

The Brazilian delegation will give its unreserved and unequivoca! support to draft resolution, calling for the admission of Italy the United Nations, which has just been submitted the representative of France. Vve sha1l do this for simple reason that Italy qualifies l111der Article 4 of Charter adopted at San Francisco as a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in Charter and is able and willing ta carry out these obligations, We respectfully submit that this reason aJone, directIy stel1lming from the very letter of United Nations Charter, is sufficiently strong and forcefu! not to a1low of any discretion or subterfuge inspired by considerations of politkal and bargaining expecliency. H L\ d (~ ;t, :le Ile tte le m: lU, le; :Ul ';;1 ~ji k ".;;. 12. The fact that Italy has been charged by the United Nations with the administration of the Trust Territory of Somaliland and that it is at present exercising its responsibilities towards the United Nations as an Administering Authority is, of course, important and relevant - but only in so far as it emphasizes the urgency of Italy's admission. In a word, l taly is entitled ta admission because, as has been recognized by fiftyfour Members of the United Nations, it satisfies the conditions prescribed in Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Charter, and not because it has been entrusted with the administration of Somaliland. Now that we are bound to act upon the General Assembly resolution of December 1951, it is imperative ta clarify this point, lest the Security Council's intentions and attitude towards the more general problem of the admission new Members should be misinterpreted. Although we are called upon to consider "that Italy should be enabled to exercise (its present) responsibilities with complete effectiveness" and, for that purpose, should be admitted to the United Nations, our action upon the General Assembly's recommendation should not convey the impression that the majority of Security Council members are not fully aware of the anomalous and unclesirable situation arising from the arbitrary use of the so-called right of veto whieh has barred several other peace-loving States from the participation to which they are entitled under Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Charter. 13. We therefore wish to repeat that the present responsibilities of Italy do emphasize the need for urgent action on the part of the Security Council, but cannot be construed as motivating the recommendation for its admission ta the United Nations. Haly is eligible as peace-loving nation, not as an Administering Authority acting under the auspices of the United Nations. The necessity of Italy's full participation in the Trusteeship Council explains the urgency of the recommendation, not the recomtnendation itself. 14. Those who oppose Italy's admissioli. do not argue that Italy does not satisfy the requirements and conditions of Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Charter. At the 279th meeting of the Security Council, held on 10 April 1948, the Soviet Union representative stated that the Soviet Union Government was favourahle - l repeat, was fav?urable - to the admission of Italy, but refused ta cons1d~r ltaly's case on its own merits and quali-:- 15. l could do no better in this connexion than recall the opinion set forth, on 28 May 1948, by International Court of Justice 2, which gave an emphatÎc "no" to the two following questions submitted ta General Assembly resolution 113 B (III) of November 1947: "Is a Member of the United Nations which called upon, in virtue of Article 4 of the Charter, pronOt111ce itself by its vote, either in the Security Council or in the General Assembly, on the f1.dmission of aState to membership in the United Nations, juridically entitled to make its consent to the admission depenc1ent on conditions not express1y provided paragraph 1 of the said Article? In particular, such a Member, while it recognizes the conditions forth in that provision to be fulfilled by the concerned, subject its affirmative vote to the tianal condition that other States he admitted memhership in the United Nations together with State ?" ~ e t s t s e e e s e 1 s :t e 16. Without entering into the Vl?xata quaestio of validity of a negative vote cast in sil11ilar cîrcumstances and inspired by· such reasons of political expediency, we find no reason why we should not discuss the tion of its legitimacy. We feel that the arbitrary of the so-called right of veto is juridically inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter, which clearly sets forth in Article 4, paragraph 1, - "Membership in the United Nations is open to other peace-Ioving States which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing ta carry these obligations." K t a 17. We wish ta stress once again that the principle unanimity recognized in Article 27, paragraph 3, could not be meant ta confer UpOI1 the permanent members the Security Cotmcil an untrammelled and unrestricted power ta ad in direct opposition ta the Purposes Principles of the Charter. When, in San Francisco, reluctantly agreed ta entrust the five big Powers a very special position and responsibility on matters affecting international peace and security, we did with the hope and the understanding that those Powers wouId use the so-cal!ed right of veto with the utmost restraint and moderation. Much has been said about the right of veto but, unfortunately, tao little about dutY which is incumbent upon the permanent members of the Security Council to exercise their prerogatives on behalf of al! Member States in the interestsof international peace and security and not in the prosecution of their own selfish political objectives. s e s n 1. n n e I- I a - Ie lS e. 10 a i, 'il et 2 See ICI Reports: Conditions of Admission of aState !vIembership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter) Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1948. 19. There is nothing which strikes as much raots of al! international co-operation as the an arbitrary attitude on matters on which ment based on objective and legal criteria should This arbitrary use of the veto, which deprives and historical people, heir to one of the richest monies of civilization, from the right to valuable contribution to the worle of the United constitutes one of the severest blows against of this Organization. 20. l do not wish to conclude this brief without expressing the strong feelings of my ment towards this legitimate aspiration of which should long ago have been at our side, the benefit of its political judgment and experience of the creative powers of its culture, and in the common task of advancing the cause of security. l cannot but hope that the flimsy and arguments that have stood in the way of Italy's sion to the United Nations will llOW give more reasonable anc1 constructive approach ticular question on the part of the Soviet ernment, from which the Members of this Organization demandl repeat, demandan attitude sistent with the Purposes and Principles of and with the universal hopes and ideals which the creation of the United Nations in San Francisco.

accordance with the list of representatives expressed a wish to speak in this discussion, in accordance with that list, l should like statement as representative of ECUADOR. 22. There is no need for me ta point out that Italy possesses the qualifications requirec1 4 of the Charter for membership in the United because, as has been repeatedly c1emonstrated Council and in the General Assembly, Italy satisfies a11 the conditions laid clown. What that great nation has recent1y received a notable and genuine moral satisfaction in the Fourth and in the General Assembly from the welcome by the COl11tnittee to the French proposaI Assembly to the draft resolution submitted Committee. 23. The immense majority of the :M;enibers United Nations have pai<i a tribute ta, expr.essed their wish that Italy should aclmltted. Whatever the final outcome of 25. vVhen this matter was c1iscnssed in the Fourth Conunittee, l stated some of the reasons for vvhich Government would warmly support - as in fact it support - the admission of Italv to the United Nations. l then said that Ecuac\or is ~ loyal member of Organization of American States, a vigorous organization made· necessary by geographical and economic factors and developed by a sixty-year-old and everexpanding experiment in co-operation. As a member the family of Latin American States Ecuador also strong links with States of Latin origin, snch as Italy, France, Spain and Portugal. Our language, our traclitions, onr culture, our ic1eals and our basic philosophy of life seem, at least in part, to be in harmony those of the European States l mentioned. 26. Not only has Italy greatly inf1nenced our civilization, but in the Latin Ameriean haH of our continent,· there are many family links with the Italian nation. 27. l remember reading that the representative France in the Security Council once said that the United Nations was incomplete withont Italy. l fully share that view. 28. Moreover, Italy is not only a peace-loving COl111- try, which accepts the obligations contained in 01arter and is able and willing ta carry them out, the United Nations, as l have already saidand is a point that must bc stressed - has repeatedly in various ways expressec\ its w1sh that Italy should ac1mitted to the Organization. One vote only paralysed the wish expressed by 90 per cent of Members of the Organization. 29. At the 190th meeting of the Securïty Council held on 21 August 1947, there were nine votes in favour, one against and one abstention, on the Australian proposaI that Italy should be admitted ta membership such time anc\ under such conditions as the General Assembly might deem appropriate. 30. The admission of Italy was subsequently put the vote at the 206th meeting held on 1 October 1947, at the 279th meeting he1d on 10 April 1948, ancl at 443rd meeting held on 13 September 1949. On each occasion there were nine votes in favour, one against t e 32. The General Assembly, for its part, has expressed similar wishes. We a11 remember 113 (II), and more particularly resolution 113 of 17 November 1947, resolution 197 (III), particularly 197 A (III) of 8 Decel1lber resolution 296 (IV) and more specifical1y 296 of 22 Novelllber 1949. 33. But that is not a11. In resolution 495 General Assembly, recalling its resolution 296 requested the Security Council to keep the applications for admission under consideration in accordance the terms of the resolution mentioned. Moreover aspiration of the United Nations to universality implicit or exp1icit in a11 the Assembly's resolutions. That aspiration is evident in each and every decisions, anc\ with no more restrictions or than those laid clown in Article 4, paragraph Charter. Resolution 197 B (III) specifica11y General Assembly has notec\ the general sentiment favour of the universality of the United Nations. 34. In resolution 296 A (IV), the General states that it deems it important to the deve10pment the United Nations that a11 applicant States possess the qualifications for membership set Article 4 of the Glarter should be admitted. say, that resolution also reaffirllls the desire universality. 35. The consistently expressed desire of the Nations for universality is also shown by the the applications of Austria, Finland, Ireland, Jordan (Transjordan) and Portugal received able recommendation from the General Assembly 1947; 1948 and 1949, the application of Ceylon and 1949 and the applications of Nepal and 1949. In other words, of the fourteen States applications were pending in 1949, the Assemblv recommended the admission of nine, and on one occasion has recommended the admission special tenns. 36. The delegation of Ecuador considers obvio~s that the maintenance of international secnnty through the United Nations would be facilitated if a11 pe.ace~loving St~tes a?le and willing to comply the obltgatlons conta1l1ed 111 the Charter were to the Organization. 37. Th~ so-ca11ed. sm~ller Pmvers might perhaps form a sIgnal serVIce If they co-operated with le n~unl l' linne de n nOtml ~ts de Se mife~té il \'0115 teus III et en e 19~ï, la l, at1e-ptée \1\'1, en ·Tt' 19-+9. ·N::' (Vl. :?'1îÎ) (l\'), ;arnen des i',~ r,(~.-..iticlru ~ ~~e.; rf~;r • r1~ faç'~:1 ·.7{~inn dt~ :~,;,;n~nt:~;1 Ith:'~ frL'~r:· :a fbm, ;\. ·':mt~it f "~\•..·f:'11f ~:: ~"rÜt~~l. ~.~ tra ,~,,; /l"' r:-l; -~. ~.~*··";,7·.t-_:~'~ 'l,~ ::"1 e FH "is of the opinion that the admission of membership in the United Nations, paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Charter, effectecl by a decision of the General Assembly the Security Council has made no r~com1l1e~~ahon for admission, by reason of the candIdate obtain the requisite majority or of the negatlve of a permanent member upon a resolution recomll1end." ~:: ~ç,'t~:-;! t~~t~ ~~'~~~ lr::t:· 3 See ICJ Reports: Competence of th~ Gellera! the /ldmission of aState to the Umted Nallons: Opiniol1 of 3 March 1950, pp. 22-34. 4lbid., p. 10. "The Request for an Opinion envisages case in which the Security Couneil, having upon a recommendation, has concluded from that the recommendation was not adopted because failed to obtain the requisite majority or because the negative vote of a permanent member. Request refers to the case in which the Assembly is confronted with the absence of mendation from the Security Council." l repeat, "the absence of a recommendation Secnrity Council". The Court continues: "It is not the object of the Request to how the Security Council should apply governing its voting procedure in regard sions or, in particular, that the Court should whether the negative vote of a permanent member effective to defeat a recommendation which obtained seven or more votes. The question. . formulated, assumes in such a case the non-existence of a recOlumendation." "The Court is, therefore, called upon solely whether the General Assembly can decision to admit aState when the Security has transmitted no recommendation to it." 42. The paragraphs l have just read are very cant and increase the uncertainty of the interpretation, an uncertainty which has been expressed in the a number of delegations to the United Nations. 43. What opinion, l wonder, wOltld the Court given if it had been consulted on the question - l quote the Court's own words - as to "how rity Council should apply the rules governing procedure in regard to admissions or, in particular, whether the negative vote of a permanent is effective to defeat a recommendation which obtained seven or more votes"? Who can tell the Court might have replied to a request drawn such terms? 44. Furthermore, two very interesting votes, ] ndges Azevedo and Alvarez a, were registered the resolutive part of the opinion which the rendered on 3 March 1950. 45. In addition there are other opinions by authorities expressing a similar view or leading same conclusion as that reached by ] udge Azevedo. 46. In view of the complexity of the matter and situation which may arise later, it is better cIraft resolution submitted by the representative France should be considered calmly, sa that - is the wish which my delegation once more repeatsit may be unanimously adopted. 5 Ibid., p. 7. 6 Ibid., pp. 12-21. 49. But all this is a matter for subsequent discussion. Let us fint eonsider the case of Italy, which is a special case of pril11ary importance, and let liS study the means by which that great and friendly nation may admitted. 50. Mr. VON BALLUSECK (Netherlands): In light of the constant policy pursued by the Netherlallds in respect of the question of membership in this Organization since the fOllndation of the United Nations will, l feel sure, not come as a surprise to members this Council that my delegation again warmly supports the proposaI to admit Italy as a full Member. After the many statements made by Netherlands representatives on previous occasions when Italy's application for membership was being discussed - statements which contained arguments as to why the Italy of today fuIfils all the conditions of membership which, to mind, were incontestable and which, l may add, were never contested in substance - l shall refrain from enumerating those arguments once more. They have, moreover, been very brilliantly stated today by representative of France and by other representatives who have spoken before me. 51. In this respect l shall recall only that, during general debate at this very session of the General Assembly, the Netherlands Minister for Foreign Affairs expressed his regr~t that Haly,in spite of th.e views by the large majonty of the ~iIembers o~ thlS Org~l1l~a­ tion, was still obliged to cont111ue ta walt for adnll~slOn to the United Nations. This statement by Ml'. Stlkker was but the reaffi.mation on views which, as l have before, have been repeatedly voicec1 by the Netherlands ancl \vhich in the case of Italy, go back to the SUl11mer of 1947 wilen that country's application was first sented. Since then we have seen every year the repetltion of the procedure which, on the strength - rather, on the weakness - of arguments wholly foreign ta merits of the case, has prevented the admission of to our ranles. 53. From these general remarks of mine it will, be abttndantly clear that if, in the normal course events, the question of the admission of Ita1y have come before this Council once again my ment would have vateel in favour of Italy's admission wholeheartedly and without hesitation. Today, ever, we arefaced with a new and very important namely, the opinion expressed by the General that l ta1y shou1d become a full member of the ship COllncil. Indeed, the implications of this are such that this Council cannot fail, in our recognize the consequences thereof. Under the there is no other logical way fully to associate member State with the work of one of the main of the Organization but to admit that State membership. vVhat, indeed, wou1d be the situation Italy should fail to gain admittance to the Nations but shou1d still be expected to fu1fil the of a trustee of the United Nations? Then we hct have created in the Trusteeship Council categories of members - those with rights and anel those with duties only. Could it be logically ceived that we shou1d expect this State, Italy, the burden of a responsible Power in a Trust Territory but without enjoying the basic right of being cast its vote when decisions affecting that Territory were being taken? l submit that such a situation both illogical and unjust, and l may point to wording of the relevant General Assembly resolution o{ 7 December 1951 where it states that "Italy be enabled to exercise those responsibilities complete effectiveness", and that, therefore, "it sury for Italy ta become a member of the Trusteeship Counci1 and for that purpose to be admitted United Nations". 54. Finally, let us look at the question {rom another angle. As l have just recalled, the only on which both the recommendation o{ this Council the decision of the General Assembly in respect spec~al responslblhtles over a non-self-governing people. l thmk t1~at from whatever point of view we consic1er the que~tlOn unc1el~ discussion we cannot escape the only loglcal C?nclUSlOn - adoption by this Conncil of recol11mendatlOn for the immediate admittance of Italy ta the Unitec1 Nations. 55. The representative of France has submitted for this purpo~e what is ta my mind a very clear and simple !ext; to WhlCh we feel, on the face of it, sympathetically ll1c1111~d. l therefore express the earnest hope that the negatlve vote of one of the permanent members of this Conl1cil will. 110t again prevent ns -hom making recoml11endatlOll so entirely within the spirit and the letter of the Charter and thus sustaining the decision ta ~ntrlls~ Italy with a responsibility which has as one of lts basIc objectives - as is written in Article 76 of the Charter in the Chapter on the International Tl'l1steeship System - "to further international peace and security". 56. Sir Benegal N. RAU (India): In view of the statements which have already been made, l shall be very brief. 57. My Goverument's views on the general question of admission of new Members have Leen stated more than once. The criteria for ac1mission are prescribed Article 4, paragraph l,of the Charter; l neednot reac1 that text again, Lecause it has been reac1 several times dl1ring the course of these discussions. There are several States - Ceylon and N epal, ta mention only India's immediate neighbours - which, in the judgment of my Government, satisfy these tests and are therefore qualified for admission. They should all be admitted: that is my Government's position. Without prejudice ta that general position, however, we warmly support the General Assembly's special resolution of 7 December 1951 in favour of Italy's admission, on the additional grollnc1s mentionec1 in that resolution. l say "additional grounds" because the primary qualifications for admission are those set out in Article 4, paragraph of the Charter. In my Government's view, Italy possesses these qualifications. The additional grounds are not, strictly speaking, essential for admission, but they make it a matter of special urgency. 58. My delegation wilJ therefore vote in favour .of the c1raft resolution submltted by the representatlve France. 59. The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): wish to inform the members of the Council that the representatives of ChÎ1;a, the .U?ited King:dom, Tmkey and the Union of Sovlet SOC1allst Repubhcs have been put on the list of speakers in that or~er. l am sure that some me111bers of the Councll have other

hesitate ta strike any contrary note, if that accordance with the will of the Security Persona11y, however, l must say l fee1 there are only four speakers left we might, rate, go on and hear them. l should think be finishec1 by 6 p.m., which isour normal adjourning. For my part, l shoulc1not see any to going on until then and hearing the four tatives on the list of speakers. l, myself, sha11 for only about three or four minutes.

l consic1er President's proposaI expedient for the fo11owing 63. The list of speakers contains the names representatives who wish ta express their the question uncler c1iscussion. Three speakers listed before me who will perhaps speak for four each, as the United Kingdom representative proposed, but that will nevertheless take up twe1ve minutes. A further twelve minutes will for interpretation, so that twenty-four minutes will be needed. It is a1reac1y 5.28 p.111. and be Httle time left for my statement after those three speakers precec1ing me. In view of the l sha11 speak in Russian, two interpretations neccssary. 'vVe shall have ta remain after 6 difficulties may arise because of the lateness of 64. For these reasons, l consider the proposaI a usefu1 one.

see that there is a difference of opinion, so it to the vote whether the meeting should be or not. However, the representative of the United has asked ta speak. 66. Ml'. GRqSS (United States of America): not quarrel wlth the remarks mac1e by the tative of the Soviet Union concerning the time but l submit that there is something more involvec1 a reac1ing of the dock. l am not yet on speakers, ~nd if l do speak, as l wish to, l am afrald, take more than three minutes. suppose, in view of the history of this matter past l'ears and the decisive role which the representative of the Soviet ~ni.on h~s played in frustrating expressed .maJonty ~111 of the General Assembly the Secul'lty CouncJ1, that members of the would be entitled to consider the matter on o! a firm and definite decision which we have nght to eXllect from the Soviet Union Speaking for my delegation and giving full the urgency of the problem before us l should reserve. my ri~ht to speak, preferably at our today, 111 the hght of such comments as may '1e tII na rce à lia le re 'al 67, .The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): l smd a moment ago, and in view of the different (opinions expressecl in the Council, l shall put 'Vote the question whether or not this mceting 'Security Cot111cil should be continued this First, however, l shall call upon the representative the United States, who wishes 1.0 speak on a orcier.

point of order, l should like 1.0 make the position lllY clelegation perfectly clear. If the representative the Soviet Union is not now prepared ta :statement on this matter l woulcl certainly not the adjourt1ment. If the representative of the Union is prepared 1.0 make a statement today, l :Iike ta reserve the right of my delegation 1.0 make 'C01l1ments which it considers appropriate in the 'of such statements and other statements which been made. In that event l should very much appreciate an opportunity to do so at this meeting. l trust clarifies the position of l11y delegation. es ililS re )n ,i ; Ile en ze ra ne [ln i! Ile i,· 15=. lui Ire

l am l1attered bythe United States representative's considerat.ion for my statements, but for my own part like 1.0 hear the statements of the three speakers put their names clown before me. If, as l have pointed out, they speak 11rst and then I, l am aft'aicl lllY statement will take longer than four minutes. over, two interpretations will be necessary. The States representative will speak after me, which have 1.0 be followed by an interpretation, so meeting may well carry on until 7 p.m. ne Jl' ne ,n5 t,- ti., du 'lU lue la J.c OIS 70. l therefore repeat that l support the Preside~t's proposaI. vVe sha11 be able 1.0 resume tOl110rrOW or at any time, so as 1.0 enable all representatlves speak in the orclinary way. For my own part, prepared 1.0 speak at any time.- today, tomorrow the day aHer, whenever convenlent. ~~15 t'b 'ié- ent ,. 71. The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish)f: far as concerns myse1f as President, l have tlnclerstoocl the position of. every de1ega~ion, and clelegation will have su[~clen~ opportt~111ty not explain its Government s ,1)01111. of Vlew, but consider what has been satd by the ~ther delega~l?ns. That, incidental1y, is in accordance wlth the tradlttons of the Security Council when matters of su~stance being discussed. ~~ee ks la \-li· .:l~· a[~. 'me «re In favour: Ecuador, France, India, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Against: China, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Abstain'ing: Brazil, Netherlands, Turkey, Yugoslavia.

must interpret the Council's voting as meaning that wishes ta continue the meeting tonight. l shall therefore call upon the representative of China. Before l do so, however, the representative of the Union Soviet SociaHst Republics wishes to speak on a point of order.

In view of indefinite result of the vote, l think it would advisable to ta1ce a vote to determine who is in favour continuing the present meeting.

think that WQuld· be to repeat the same idea and waste a few minutes more of our time. Perhaps we couId, the Council sa desires, now hear one or two more speakers. l see it is now 5.43 p.m., so that if representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics submitted a formai motion for the suspension or adjournment of the meeting, l shoulcl have to that proposai to the vote; but as President l do think l can submit such a motion myself.

As the President wishes. 78. Mt. TSIANG (China): l shall be very brief. The .representative of France, in putting before us draft resolution, began his statement by reminding members of the Council of the great contributions which Italy has made to European civilization. Chinese civilization has had an origin and a development independent of that of Europe. l t would, therefore, be of place for me to elaborate on that part of the statement of the representative of France. Nevertheless, l should like to maketwo simple comments. 79. In the nrst· place it appears to me that when representative of France speaks about the contributions Of Italy to European civilization, his voice is that high authority, for incleed France itself has made important contributions to European civilization. The seoond comment l wish to make is this. Europe European civilization, in spite of present-day difficulties, doubts, criticislll irom outside and self-criticism from inside, remainvital factors in the life of the world. 80. In addition to all this, l would add that it obvious that Italy has fulfilled and does fulfil all requirements of membership as set forth in our Charter. We are about to ask Italy to be the Administering Authority in Somaliland. My delegation regards trust as of great importance and we should like people of Somaliland to think that the United Nations regards that trust as of great importance. For the of Somaliland, and for the sake of the smooth effective operation of that trusteeship, this Organization shol1ld confer on Italy membership as early as possible. 81. For these reasons my delegation will vote for cli'aft resolution presented by the delegation of France.

l would only wish at this late hour very briefly to associate myself with all the tributes which have been paic1 to l talian nation by aU the members of the Secl1rity Council who have spoken so far this afternoon. So long l taly is not present among us, we shall ail experience a real sense of frustration and of loss - a feeling, other words, that much that could be contributed to common cause by one of the fountainheads of civilization is not being contributed. The new Italy, which sa worthily purged itself of the evil influences fascism, would indeed be a welcome recruit to our ra1ù<s. l am sure that if we are unanimous in any one thing, it is in regard to our desire that this event should place as soon as possible. l think that, in principle, we are unanimous as regards that. 83. As we ail know, however, the fact that Italy not already taken its seat in the United Nations is ta very different factors, which have nothing whatever to do with the merits or demerits of Italy itself. 84. There are, of course, quite a 11tl111ber of countries which, in the opinion of my Government any rate, have jyst as good a c1aÎ1? t? membership the United NatlOns as Italy. In smglmg out the of Italy, l must by no means be construed as weaker~ing the daims of those countries. On the present oceaslOn, however we are as we all know, considering a General Assembly resoh;tion which has ch'a~n .our attention the special reasons for the early ad1111sslOn of Italy. 85. The chain of argument is extremely simpl~. has been entrusted by the Gene:al Assembly ':"'1th adnlinistration of the Trust Terntory of Somahland. 86. During al! the previous discussions of this qnestion, the Soviet Union representatives and their supporters have raised no objection ta l talian membership as such. They have, insteacl, indicated varions conditions which, in the view of my Government, they have no right whatcver to lay clown. 1 hope that the Soviet Union representative will not abject to my saying that this is not the way in which we thin1c international trust and confidence can be achieved. 87. What can he said in favour of perpetuating a situation in which a great, a highly civilizedand an efficient and constructive country such as Italy is !cept out of the United Nations because of a consideration which, as l have said, has nothing to do with Italy at all? liVhy should a country which is in a position to contribute greatly to the building up of world peace and prosperity as a Member of the United Nations be arbitrarily excluded from our society? l can see no argument on this soore which can stand the light of day. Nor is my delegation alone in this view: Italy's claim ta membership in the United Nations has been recognized again and again by the maj 0 rity of this Council and recently, as we a11 1cnow, by an overwhelming majority of the General Assembly. 88. 50 let us solve this question once and for aU by a unanimous vote here in favour of Italy's admission. vVe know that if we do so, the General Assembly will be only too happy to follow suit.

The General Assembly has recommended in its resolution of 7 December 1951 that the Security Council shonld give urgent consideration to that resoluüon "with a view to recommending the iml11ediate admission of Italy to membership in the United Nations". . 90. The question of the admission of new Members has been sa thoroughly and exhaustively discussed in various organs of the United J\ations in the past that delegations' views on the question have become crystallized and are well Icnown. In fact, the problem has been recnrring for the last four years, both in the Security Council and in the General Assembly, and has even been referred to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion. l wish, however, briefiy ta indicate the n~ain Enes of our own attitude towards the general questIOn. 91. In our opinionas, indeed, in the opinion of an overwhelming majority of the United Nations - the issue is simple and clear. Article 4,paragraph 1, of the Charter sets [orth the conditions for the admission of a llew Member·to the United Nations. These conclitions are the following: (1) to be a peace-Ioving State, (2) to accei)t the obligations contained in the Charter, and (3) to be able and willing to carry out those 9.2. 'lve therefore have to consider whether a parttcular applicant fll1fils the conditions enumerated in Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Charter. The only latitude left t? Member States in reaching a decision on the questIOn of the admission of a new Mell1ber is ta use thei~ political discretion as to whether a particll1ar appltcant cloes or does not fulfil these conditions. That is the responsibility of Mell1ber States and or their clelegations. In an organization such as the United 1'1a.ti.ons, Lased Ol~ dell10cratic principles, such a responslbllt.ty can be chscharged only if each application conslclered separately and on its own ll1erits. To do otherwise would be not to give each individual case the serious consideration which is due to it. 93. After this short description of our attitude towards the general question, let me now tUrl1 to the General Assembly resolution which we are at present considering, and examine it - again briefly - in the light of the general prineiples which l have just enunciated. 94. The General Assembly has rec01l11l1encled that the Secllrity Council should "give urgent consideration ta the present resolution with a view to recommending the immediate admission of Italy to membership in the United Nations". Of course, the question of Italy's admissioù to membership in the United Nations is not new; it has been raisecl several times in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. In the General Assembly, my delegation has on every occasion favoured the admission of Italy ta ll1embership. We voted for al! proposaIs made to that effect, becausc we believecl that Italy was a peace-loving State, was able and willing ta carry out the obligations contained in the Charter and hacl declarecl its acceptance of these obligations; therefore, l taly fulfilled aIl the conditions for membership set forth in Article 4 of the Charter. Our attitude towards the question has not changed. 'l'le continue believe that Italy fulfiJs all these conditions and fully deserves to be ad1l1itted to membership in this Organization. In addition, Italy has actually demonstrated that it is admirably well qualified for 1l1embership. 1 " 95. In fact, all that is required t111cler the Charter of an applicant for 1:1el11ber~hip, in addition t.o being a peaceloving State, IS that I~ Sh01.tld declare lts acceptance the obligations cor~ta1l1ed 111 the Charter .anc~ that should be in the Judgment of the OrgalllzatlOn, able and willil;g to carry out these obligations. In. !he case of Haly, we have actual proof that the~e conditions ar~ fulfilled. Italy has not only cleclared lts acce.ptance these obligations, but has also ~ssumed Important responsibilities under the Charter. 111 undertak111~ the administration of the Trust Terntory of Somahland. i', 97. Consistently with our attitude in the Assemb1y, we are of the opinion that the Cound1 should recommend the admission membership in the United Nations. Consequently, sha11 wholeheartedly snpport the c1raft reso1ution mittec1 by the delegation of France, or any other or draft reso1ution to that effect. Mr. Malil~ (Union of Soviet Socialist spol?e. For the translation into English, 110-150. 98. The PRESIDENT (translated from l shon1d like to ask the members of the Counci1 the representative of the USSR, who has statement, whether in view of the lateness they consider that we should now hear "pretations of Ml'. Malik's speech or 1eave another meeting.

This is not that can be discussed. We bave agreed to continue meeting of the Security Council, and I gave good time that I wou1d speak in Russian and \Vould be required for the two interpretations. therefore not a little astonished at the way this matter is raised. l request the President the interpreters ta interpret my statement, and continue 'Our worle 100. The PRESIDENT (translated from The Security Council's decision, when l consulted the matter, was not to adjonrn the meeting; have heen occasions in the Conncil on which, speech has ended at a late hour, the meeting adjourned with the consent of the representative made the speech, on the understanding that meeting shou1d begin with the interpretations. ever, in this case the representative of the any observations to make on this point, Counci1 does not decide to the contrary, the for his part will raise no objections.

prepared either ta stay here now or to return resumption of the meeting this evening if that convenient ta members of the Council. I shou1d, event, like to have an opportunity to speak on that have been raised, and particularly on references which have been made to certain ceived and distorted policies and actions of 103. l therefore request an interpretation of my statement, the more so since the representative of the United States wishes to speak after me in connexion with my statement. There is no precedent in the Security Council for representatives speaking in reply to statements before hem'ing the interpretation of them. 104. LE the United States representative insists in speaking in reply to my statement, then l shaH insist 011 an interpretation of my statement and on continuing onr work today. 105. Ml'. CHAUVEL (France) (translated from French): l merely wish to say that at the stage we have reached l would prefer that we continue now. For my part, l have engagements this evening and would find it very difficult to come here after dinner.

l for my part as President of the Council should say that l have an official engagement: l have accepted an invitatÎJn from His Exce11ency the President of the N ationnl Assembly and fmm the President of the Council of the Republic. In any case, however, if the Council clecides not to adjollrn the meeting, l sha11 considel' it 111Y dllty to remain in the Chair. 107. l would therefore ask the interpreters to proceed \Vith their interpretations. 108. Ml'. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republies) (translated from R~tssian): By way of exception, l would like to ask that the English interpretation should, if possible, be given first, so that l can check the accuracy of the translation. Lü9. The PRESIDENT (translated from Spanish): By way of exception we sha11 adopt that course. Will the interpreters kindly begin. 110. Ml'. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Repub- lics) (translated from Kussian): The General.Assembly resolution of 7 December 1951 on the question of tl;e full participation of Italy in the w.ork of the Trustees~lp Couneil which has been submltted to the Secunty Counei{ for its consideration, testifies ta the fact that on the question of the admission of new Members attempts are still being made.to depart from ~he n~rmal procedure for considering th1s matter provlded 111 the relevant provisions of the Charter and in the rules of procedure laid clown for the consideration of the question of the admission of nèw Members. 112. We are a11 familiar with the previous moves and manŒuvres of aIl kinds ta achieve this purpose. It is ,sufficient ta recall the applications to the International Court of J llstice, the numerous attempts to violate the Charter, ta by-pass the Security Council on the question of the admission of new Members, and so forth. 113. As members of the Conneil are aware, aH these attempts failed completely, but this has not brought to their senses those who are in favour of violating the Charter, and attempts to find new evasive methods are still being made. lt is a characteristic and particularly noteworthy fact that the draft resolution before us was submitted in the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly, although it is a matter of common knowledge that this Committee has nothing to do with, and never has had anything ta do with, the question of the admis- sion of new Members ta the United Nations. The Fourth Committee is not entitled ta deal with a ques- tion of this kincl. Its fllnctions and competence are confined ta questions relating to Trusteeship Agree- ments, as laid down in Chapters XII and XIII of the United Nations Charter. 114. The question of the admiss~on of new Mernbers does not lie within the Fourth Committee's con1.petence and the Fourth Committee is not empowered to examine or propose any resolutions or recommendations on this question. This question falls within the scope of the First Committee and should have been transmitted to it for consideration. Those who are in favour of violating th,e established procedure for the admission of new Members were in such a hurry that they did not even bother to apply to the First COllunittee, which is entitled and competent to examine this important ques- tion. Instead, they toole a devious route via the Fourth Committee. 115. The fact that the question of Italy's admission to membership in the United Nati01ls was raised not in the First Committee, which is competent to examine it, but in the Fourth, and was camouflaged under the title of "Question of the full participation of Italy in the work of the Trusteeship Council" wholly unmasles those who have sponsored this attempt and graphically reveals their endeavours to achieve their ends by roundabout methods. 116. lt can be seen {rom the text of this resolution that its purpose is ta justify the request that only the appli- cation of Italy for admission to mcmbership in the United Nations shoulcl be considerecl by the argument that Italy is responsible for the administration of the Trust Territory of Somaliland. The baseless and arti- ficial nature of this argument is obvious, as the admis- sion of new Memhers is not governed by the consid- eration that if a given State is an Administering Authority of a Trust Territory, it must ipso facto be admitted to membership in the United Nations. s S .1 e e 118. The General Assembly cannot dictate its to the Security Counci1. ,~ ,-, it :5 :e ,e x le 119. In considering the question of Italy's admission to membership in the United Nations it must not overlooked that the question fonus part of the general question of the admission of new Members. Tt must borne in mind that the Securitv Council has received applications not only from Italy, but also from twelve ather States, several of which - for example, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Finland - were during war, and have been since the conclusion of peace treaties vvith them, in exactly the same position as Italy regards their admission to membership in the United Nations. These States are just as entitled as Italy the present time to be Members of the United Nations. There can be no question here of secondary motives references to special services performed by Italy. There is no need to praise Italy's services to civilization. are ail familial' with them. To praise them, howevcr, and to set them above those of other States in connexion with the question' of the admission of new Members the United Nations is to insult those States which likewise applied for membership in the United Nations. vVe can hm'c1ly agree to such an appl'Oach, which do little to develop friendly relations among nations to strengthen international confidence and peace. 1-51 :!f. i- l :5 1; ;5,- III ~f ;f, :n ;5 f:, le > ;e ~1 f- a, le le a5 te liS et". rs t- 120. The argument was also advanced that Italy a large population. That is, however, an entirely novel argument. If this kind of reasoning is pursued further, it may lead to the conclusion that only the States aclmitted first to the United Nations should be having a large population. That consideration is, ever, quite unrelated to the question of the admission new Members to the United Nations. States with populations and small are and may be equally Members of the United Nations. I· de d- st la ttt 121. It should also be notcd in particular that a number of States made their applications for admission to United Nations at a substantially earlier stage Italy. Thus Albania made its application on 25 January 1946, the Mongolian People's Repub1ic on 24 1946, Transjordan on 8 July 1946, Ireland and Portugal ll~ le ri· Ctl 1 'ti. 123. ConseeluentIy, what lies behind the. eJ.Camination, ont of its tllrn, of the question of the admiSSIOn of Italy is not the Charter, nor is it the desire 1'0 extend reinforce the Organization in the interests ?f. ;peace 1'0 raise its prestige, but the military and poh~lcal consid- erations of the United States, the United K1l1gdol11 France. No purpose is to be served by ,d~s.sel11bling, nor is there any reason ta conceal the mlhtary political considerations of two or three governme~ts behind the cloale of principles of the Charter anc\ pnn- ciples of the United Nations. The said considerations have nothing in common with the principles objectives of the United Nations. 124. If, therefore, this question is approached objec- tively, justly and dispassionate1y, it is quit~ clear there i5 no reason whatever for the Secunty Council ta give exceptional priority to the admission o~ 1taly to the United Nations and to consider that question a different basis from the question of the admission other States which had already filed their applications for admission ta the United Nations a year previously. 125. Justice demands that the question of the admis- sion of new Members should he given immediate thorough consideration by the SeCtlrity Council in its aspects, and that the Council should decide in what manner the whole question might be positively consid- ered without discriminating against certain countries and favouring others. 126. The USSR de1egation considers that the admis- sion of ail the thirteen States which have made applica" tian for membership in the United Nations shollid place in a jllst and impartial manner. Italy is one those States, and therefore the admission of 1taly be assured. 127. We have more than once heard the objections the representative of the States of the Anglo-American bloc to the proposaI by the Soviet Union that all thirteen States shonld be admitted ta membership the United Nations at one time. The substance of those objections is that such a solution to the question impossible because it is necessary 1'0 decide on candidature on its merits. Such an objection at present stage, however, when each application admission has been considered individually both by Security Council and by the General Assembly, alreac1y been found to be untenable. These objections represent in fact nothing more than convenient disgllises for the application of the policy of discrimination 12~. .That cannot, however, serve as a valid basis obJe.ctlO11 t~ the admission of these States to the United Nah?lls. 1he Charter of the United Naüons does pro,vlde that al~ .States should necessarily have the same social ancl polthcal structure as the United States ord~r to he adl1;itted ~o membership in the United N ahons. There IS nothl11g of the kind in the Charter and yet, as l shall l~ter demonstrate, that is precisely what .the repre~entatlVe of the United States on Secllnty ~oun,etl demands. These motives are present wlth hUll. 129; In pnrsuing such tactics the United States, U11lted KI11gd0111 and France declare in words \Visl~ ta adn~it Italy to membership in the United· Nahons, but 111 fact t~le~ vote on every occasion against prOl?Osals for the a~mlsslon ta membership in the United N ahons of the tlurteen States incllldinO' Italy which have applied for membership it; the Orga~lizatio~. the UnIted S~ates, ~he United Kingdom and France ad~pted . an Imparhal, just and non-discriminating attItude 111 regard ta the question of admission of certain States, without favouritism towarc!s other States, woulcl long since have been a Me111her of the United Nations. 130. Tt is fitting to recall in this connexion that as back .as 24 Septembe: 1947 [203rd meetÎ11g] Poland sulJ111ltted a proposaI 111 the Security Council for sid~ration ~f the application for membership in U11ltec~ N ahons ?f Hungary, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria and Fmland, or 111 other words, of al! those States 'vvhich treaties of peace had been concluded and to the signatories of those treaties, including the Soviet Union, the United States and the United Kingdom, given the assurance that they woulcl support applications for admission to the United Nations. 131. As a result, however, ,of the discriminatory of the United States ancl the countries sllpporting towards three of the five cOt111tries referred ta, were, as l have pointed out, equally situated as regards their admission ta membership in the United Nations, the Security Council was unable at the time to make recom111endation for the admission of those five to me111bership in the United Nations and it has not been able ta do anything in the matter. l, '.: 132. Thus, if the United States, the United Kingdom and France had aclopted an objective and just attitude the Security Council on the basis of the provisions Charter and not actecl from selfish motives, l taly and other States would already have been admitted United Nations four years ago. 133. It should also be pointed out that in 194? Soviet Union submitted both in the Security Councll in the General Assembly a proposaI that a11 the thirte~n States which had applied for admission to membershlp 135. That policy has met with utter failure, impossible not to realize that adherence to such cannat afford any positive results as regards the sion of new Mernbers. It should have been abandoned long aga. 136. The attempt of the Anglo-American bloc to the substance of the question and to present light that admission to membership in the Nations of States that had made application effect, intel' aria} Italy, has been obstructed by the application of the so-called veto, deceives nobody,· for sucb a version is not in accordance with the 137. It is a known fact that the Soviet Union has usecl, nor is it rlow using, a veto against the of Italy to membership in the United Nations terms with ail other States having a legal admission. If Italv has so far not been admitted membership in the- United Nations the fault with the United States, the United Kingdom France, which have adoptee! an entirely attitude towarc!s the admission of new Members. 138. If the United States, the United Kingc!om France adopt, as regards the admission of new bers, a just and impartial attitude without discrimination towards some States and without favouritism others, l taly can and will be admitted to the Nations without delay, equally with other States have made application for admission. 139. In accordance with the position as stated, delegation of the Soviet Union submits the draft resolution ta the Security Council [5/24491; "Having examinedthe applications of Albania, Mongolian People's Republic, Bulga!'ia, Hungary, Finlanc!, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, the mite Kingdom of Jordan, Austria, Ceylon and admission to membership in the United Nations, "ReC01n1!te1uls the General Assembly to admit afore-menttoned States to membership in the Nati.ons." 141. The United Kingdom representative today ex- pressed dissatisfaction that Italy is not among ns, tInt it is not yet a Member of the United Nations. It is appropriate ta ask the United Kingd0111 representative in this connexion whether he did not feel dissatisfied that the other twelve States which have applied for 111embership in the United Nations and which wish to be Members are not yet in the Organization. The USSR delegation does feel snch dissatisfaction and considers that the best means of overcoming that lln- pleasant feeling of dissatisfaction and obtaining a feeling of satisfaction wOllld be ta admit into the United Nations al! thirteen States, inclllding Italy, becanse of the absence of which the United Kingd0111 represen- tative has snch a great feeling of dissatisfaction. 142. l appeal to the members of the Security Council to be guided by the Charter of the United Nations- to which a11 those who have spoken before me have referred in their careful enllmeration of al! criteria to be applied llnder the Charter - and ta consider the fol!owing question: How is it possible to take seriotisly the statement of the representative of the United States who, at the [429thl meeting of the Secllrity COllncil held on 24 June 1949 objected ta the admission ta the United Nations of a nllmber of States for the following reason - 1 qnote his statement: "Certain policies which these States" - i.e., Albania, the Mongolian People's Repnblic, Hungary, Romania .and Bul~aria.- :'a,re now following .... render them, 111 our Vlew, l11ehglble for membership. But 1 want this clear; the United States of America wonld be very pleased to support t~e admission of these applicants if they would change thelr policies in question .... " ? 143 That is the monstrous criterion advanced by the United States representative as é1; necessary cond.iti~n of his non-objection to the admissIOn to membershlp 111 the United Nations of States desiring to become IVlem- bers of the Organizatiori.. "Change. your dor;1estic .sys- tem" the United States representatlVe says dlctatonal!y . to H~mgary, Romania, Bnlgar.ia, Albania, Mong~lia and other States - to a11 those 111 fact whose SOCial and political system offends the ruling circles of the United States - "and we sha11 support your admission to the Unitecl Nations". 144. What is the origin of such a criteri~n? What Article of the Charter contains such a reqturemen~ as that .advanced by the representative of the Umtec! States? 146. In addition, we have the comments of the French and British Press 'on the position at present adopted the United States delegation in this matter at the sixth session of the General Assemhly. It is quite clear from those comments that in the matter of the admission new Members to the United Nations the United States delegation is guided exclusively by considerations the domestic policy of its own country. Thus, for examp1e, in a Reuter's Agency communication of November 1951 from Paris it is said that, according the statements of United States representatives, the United States delegation could not support the admis- sion of Bnlgaria, Hnngary and ROl11ania at the present time, in view of the consequences which snch a step lTIight have on American domestic policy. l am quoting from this communication of Reuter's Agency from the French newspaper C01'nbaf of 16 November 1951. 147. It is of course obvious that such action by the United States in the matter of the admission of new Members to the United Nations is incompatible with the Charter. 148. If, in dealing with the matter of the admission new Members, every representative on the Security Council were gnided not by the provisions of the United Nations Charter, but by consideration of his country's domestic policy, and asked for the admission ta the United Nations only of those States the domestic policy of which was in accordance with his own coun- try's domestic policy, then it wouId be pointless to talle about the aclmission of new Members, becallse it would bequite clear from such an attitude that the United States wanted ta have as Member States of the United Nations only those States with the same kind domestic system as is to be found in the United States. 149. But that is contradictory ta the Charter. No such conditions for the admission of new Members wereever aclvanced either by the original authors of the Charter or by the United Nations at any period of its existence. Even withollt such a condition the United Nations has in effect fallen uuder the control of the United States as a result of the creation of aggressive military alliances and of various other measures. But to require that every State applying for membel·ship in the United Nations should alter its poliey in accordance with the dictates of the United States, as demancled by the repre- 1sa. That is the position with regard ta the admission of new Members to the United Nations. The USSR de1egation considers that the on1y way out. of the situation which has arisen must he along the path which it has proposed, nameiy, hy admitting to membership in the United Nations all the thirteen States which have applied for admission.

shou1d like to express 111Y sincere regret if the situation which has arisen has caused inconvenience to colleaglles in this Council who have made other arrangements. l should also like to say that at the time when the President proposed an adjollrtll11ent my name was not then on the list of speakers, and the purpose of my intervention was to advise the Council that l did wish to speak, if atall possible, at the same meeting as that at which the representative of the Soviet Union made his statement. l did not lmow whether that statement would be made today or not. In any event, with the obvious respect which is due to the serious problem which is before us, l do feel, as 1 did at the moment of 111Y intervention earlier, that l have an obligation to speak 'On this matter, and with your permission l shaH proceed to do so now as briefly as possible, taking into account some of the comments which have been made by the representativeof the Soviet Union. l wish it were earlier and l am sarry if members are inconvenienced. 152. l shall, of course, address myself ta the case presented by the question of the admission of Italv to the United Nations although there are other applic-;ll1ts whose admission my Government warmly supports. According to the Charter as we understand it, each applicant for membership is entitled to have its application considered in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. Article 4 of the Charter entitles each applicant to receive the judgl11ent of the Organization; several speakers who have preceded me at this meeting have macle that point amply clear and 1 feel it needs no repetition on my part. The General Assemb1y, in several resolutions, has expressed its judgment that Italy is a peace-loving State withil1 the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter and that it is able and willing ta carry out the obligations of the Charter. The General Assembly therefore considers that Italy should be admitted to membership in the United Nations. 153. In the view of I11Y delegation the Security Council sh'Ottld pay the greatest deference and respect to the solemn judgment of the General Assembly - a judg~ ment which has, time and again, commanded the widest support. To characterize that judgment, as the Soviet Union representative has done at our meeting today, as a "dictate to the Security Council" is, l think, simply another way of saying that the dearly expressed wish of the majority is entitled ta no weight and ta no respect. Moreover the General Assemb1y's most recent resolution points out to this Council that Italy now has unique and special qualifications based on its trusteeship 154. We think it is an aet of utter irresponsibility any member of the Security Council to ignore reject the repeated expressions of opinion question by such a large majority in the Assembly. The United States Government Italy is entitled to a favourable recommendation the Security Council and to its seat in the Nations on the basis of its own unique 111erits an inescapable legal foundation under the Charter. 155. The United States Government is in favour separate consideration of applications for membership. We feel that Italy's application - and indeed any application - should not be placed together with applications, some of which may have very sound others very illusory claims for membership Organization. To operate upon any other theory that each application should beconsidered separately wouId, in our judgement, be to deny careful eration of the merits of each application. 156. The representative of the Soviet Union to acknowledge the existence of Article 4 of the and therefore misunderstands what the representative of the United States obviously had in mind in to the policies of certain applicants, a change of policies in our judgment would be needed to them to qualify for admission under Article 4. ignoring of Article 4 which l think has led the Union representative astray and has led him construe the statements made by responsible representatives of my Goverl1lnent with regard to the necessity for a change of policy in order to enable sorne applicants to qualify for membership. We thiilk the representative of the Soviet Union ignores Article 4 of the Charter in this respect but the language of the International Court of Justice opinion of 28 May 1948. 157. l should like to quote a few sentences from opinion sa that there may be no doubt in anyone's coml~l~te liberty within the .sc~pe of the prescribed condlttons. Such a demand lS mcompatible with the letter and spirit of Article 4 of the Charter." 15~. In that same opinion of 28 May 1948, the InternatIOnal Court of Justice went on to say 7 that it was of the opinion " ... that in particular a Member of the Organization cannot, while it recognizes the conditions set forth in that provision to be fnlfilled by the State concerned, subject its affirmative vote ta the additional condition that ather States be admitted ta membership in the United Nations together with that State".. 159. The illegal canduct to which the Court points sllbjecting an affirmative vote to the condition that other States be admitted. l have restated the exact phrase which the Court used. Now let us look at what the representative of the Soviet Union proposes. Yesterday he said [568th meetingJ: "The Security Council has thirteen applications before it, inclueling that of Italy. The Soviet Union delegation proposes that all these applications, including that of Italy, be considered and that a resolution to admit all the thirteen States to the United Nations be adopted". He had stated earlier: "If we consider the question of the admission of Italy first, reach no agreement ancl talee no decision, the matter willnot be expedited at ail". He has made clear in his statement at today's meeting preeisely what he meant yesterday. ~ l, 160. In short, as we understand it, his point as he stated it yesterday and restated it again today is that thil'teen applicants must be considered together and the SCCtlrity Couneil should admit those thirteen applicants or else the Soviet Union will vote against the admission of Italy. This we thinle is a public confession of a policy and a position flatly contrary ta the opinion of the International Court of Tustice. It is an open admission that the Soviet Union is not willing to let each applicant for membership state its own case and that it will use the veto to prevent this from happening. What the United States Govermnent asles is that every application for mcmbel'ship be judged on its ow~ merits, and tha~ ",hat Article 4 of the Charter reqmres for every appltcation for membership. This is not a mIe laid clown the United States Government; it is a rule of law of the Charter .which has been affirmed by the International Court of Justice. 7 See ICI Reports: .Conditio.ns of A~mission of aState. Me1ll/Jership in tlze Un1ted Nabons (Ari1cle 4 of the Chartel). Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1948, p. 65. 162. Yesterday 1 referred to the application of Indonesia which was considered by itself on 26 September 1950 [S03rd meeting]. The representative of the Soviet Union at yesterday's meeting took the position, without explaining it further, that the Indonesian case was wholly irrelevant because the question, as he said, was a special one - if l understood his words correctlybut that the application of Italy could not be isolated as a special question. The law of the Charter and of the International Court of Justice is that every application for membership is a special case in the sense that it is entitled to separate examination and a vote on hs own l11erits - to use the exact words of the International Court of Justice. 163.. As has been so weIl said here today, the basic fact is that the United Nations needs Haly and its contribution to this Organization. Italy is entitled to take its place among us on its own merits. The special circumstances arising out of Italy's trusteeship of Somaliland make it a special case. That is why it is before us today. The United States delegation has always supported the right of Italy to membership both by its voice and by its votes. Both here and in the General Assembly 1 think l11Y Government has made this quite clear, and as often as the United States representative has raised his hand in the Security Cotlncil in support of that application, so often has the Soviet Union vetoed it. How is it possible to record a vote against Italy's application except as a simple and clear demonstration of lack of faith in the Italian people?

The USSR representative has asked to speak for two minutes in order ta clarify his position. l give him the floor on that ground, as the French representative had requested to speak before him. 167. Whenever the Soviet Union submitted that posaI, the Anglo-American bloc, headed by the United States, voted against it. Consequently, Italy and people, like the twelve States l have mentioned and peoples of those States, is not yet within the family the United Nations. 168. The Ttalian people and the peoples of the other twelve countries are very weIl aware of that faet. ;ion ~Ile­ , la le a Ldode , et, talie cas :our Lque

l wish simply ta say that wc have before new draft resolution sl1bmitted by the USSR representative, that this cIraft resolution raises problems bath procedure and of substance and that c1early the settlement of such problems, by their very nature, reql1ires certain amount of time and consideration. l therefore propose the adjournment. il 170. The PRESIDENT (translated from S panish) Members of the Council are aware that the issue uneler consideration comes witbin the scope of l'nIe 33, paragraph 5, of the rules of procedure, namely, postpanement of discussion of a question indefinitely. In accordance with that rule, l shaH put the motion to the immediate1y without discussion. t1 ce vote J)'cr tice. It le des Ition . ses 171. l am infonnec1 by the Secretariat that in absence of any comment, it might 110t be neccssarv put the motion to the vote. In that case, l take it the intention and wish of the Couneil to postpone discussion of this question indefinitely. ~ lOUS. ,sion 1 cas ,aisis lUrs, t de It au gou· tude, Unis le la ue.a ! YOIf :hose lance ~, '·,:', l, The meeting rose at 8.15 p.m. :Le endre ~lque, la lui nandi Uni/cd Nallons publfcaflons Can furtIJer he obfa/ned Irom the /ol/ow/ng hooksellen; GERMANY - ALLEMAGNE AUSTRIA - AUTRICHE Buchhandlung Elwert 6< Meurer, Haupt.' 8. WOlierslor!!, strasse, 101, Berlln-Scheneberg. Salzburg. W. E. Saarbach, Franlœnstrass.. 14. l<iiln·Junkersdorf. JAPAN - JAPOfll Alexander Horn, Spieaelgassc, 9, Maruzen Co., Lld.,6 Wiesbaden. NIhonbashl, Tokyo OrdMS and lnquirlas Trom countries where sal.s· aganfs "ava not yet been appolnted may be sent fo: Sai.. and CirculatIon Section, United Nations, N..w York. U.S.A.; cr Sales SectIon, United Nation. Office, PalaIs des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland. Printed in Canada Priee: 30 (or equivalent