S/PV.57 Security Council

We have under discussion the application for membership of the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan. During this discussion, a somewhat different problem was brought up concerning the interpretation of the abstention of a permanent member from voting and the legal consequences of such abstention. 1 think the question is interesting and important. However, if 1 may express my views as President, 1 think that it might be desirable not to go into the details of this question now unless, by our practical voting, it really cames up as one having direct practical bearing upon the proceedings of this meeting. Before l ask the representative of Brazil to speak, 1 should repeat my request of this morning, namely, the request for brevity in view of the time limit under which we are working today. Mr. VELLOSO (Brazil) (translated trom French): 1 should merely like to state that my Government is fully in agreement with the statement made by the United States representative regarding the argument put forward by the representative of the Soviet Union; namely, that the absence of diplomatie relations is a reason for not aecepting a country's application for membership in the United Nations. The Brazilian representative in the Com- Ml'. HASLUCK (Australia): Our delegation has listened with very close interest to the various statements that have been made sinee we raised this issue. 1 do not want to comment on some of the surrounding questions which have been associated with the central one, but to confine my comments to what is, after all, a very simple situation, namely, the situation arising from the statement of one of our colleagues to the effect that he will not support a partieulaI' application because his country is not in normal diplomatie relations with the applicant country. It has been suggested that normally we do not enquire tao deeply into the reasons which motivate our colleagues on the Council. That is true. 1 suppose normally we recognize and even welcome that a Member may do the right thing for the wrong reasons. We may deplore, occasionally, a colleague who may do the wrong thing for the right reasons. But this situation seems ta us ta be a particular one, a special one, that is much narrower than what might occur in the normal working of this Council. As we see the posItIOn, the situation with whieh we are dealing in our agenda today is governed completely by Article 4 of the Charter. Article 4 of the Charter says: "Membership in the United Nations is open ta aH 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 out these obligations." The second paragraph of that Article also places on the Security Council the responsibility of making a recommendation on whether or not a candidate does meet those conditions. 1 Our understalllding of Article 4, and it seems ta us to be the only possible interpretation that can be put upon a clear text, is that if an applicant State does satisfy those three conditions, membership is open to that State. Consequently, the only reasons that can be brought forward for denying membership ta a State are reasons related to those conditions set out in Article 4, and what we object ta, and still will abject to, is that another condition should have been introduced, that a member of this Council should have said that, for a reason lying entirely outside Article 4, he proposes to withhold his support from an applicant. We hoped the words used might have been qualified, explained, or amplified in some way or another in order'to indieate that perhaps, when saying that Faced with that position, we can only reassert our view that that is an inadmissible rea· son for denying membership in the United Nations ta an applicant State. Obviously, at this time when we are not called upon to vote, we cannot take the matter much further, but our delegation feels sure that if it should be necessary for this Council to report ta the General Assembly that membership in the United Nations has been denied ta an applicant State for some reason which lies entirely outside the Charter of the United Nations, that is a matter to which the General Assembly must give the very closest and the most carcful consideration. Ml'. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): We all know that the Australian delegation takes the view that the procedure adopted by the Security Couneil in regard to the admission of new Members is incorrect, and that applications should be dealt with, in the first instance, by the General Assembly. l do not want to go into that question. But l do want to reserve for my Government the right to l'aise, in the Assembly, when the time cornes, the question of whether an application for membership is rightly or wrongly excluded by the Council, when in our view the deeision to exclude that application has been wrongly taken.

We are still discussing the application of Transjordan, and l want to lmow whether there are any members who want to make any further observations. Hnot, l just want to say a few words in my capacity as the representative of Poland. The Polish delegation has asked for postpone. ment of this application for one year, and in Appendix 16 1 you find a detailed account of the reasons. l do not want to go into these reasons in detail now. l only want to point out that we think there are certain legal obstacles; namely, that the Charter of the United Nations i8 to be taken, in our opinion of course, within the framework of existing international law, and under no circumstances to be understood as overthrowing the general 1egal obligations, and particularly as overthrowing legal obligations which were undertaken under the Covenant of the League of Nations, to which we now are the legal successor. Wc have no objection whatever to the emancipation of dependent countries, and their becoming independent. We have no such objection with regard to the Kingdom of Transjordan. However, we feel that in the evolution Accordingly, we have asked for a postponement of the adoption of Transjordan's application until the legal doubts are cleared up. These legal doubts are not only our own, but 1 finc1 they are also shared by the Government of the United States of America. On 23 April 1946, Secretary of State Ml'. Byrnes stated: "h wouId be premature for the United States Government ta take any decision with respect ta the question of recognition of Transjordan as an independent State." 1 think that the same legal doubts which we shaf(~ were in his mind. There is a further legal difficulty, as we see h; namely, that Transjordan was part of joint mandate with Palestine. The question Palestine, which 1 do not want ta prcjudge, is very difficult and, as we know today, troublesorne question. We wouId not want again take steps which would in any way prejudice the settlement of the Palestine problem. In view of that, our delegation believes that the application of Transjordan should be postponed for one year. Once more, 1 would like point out that this in no way means that we oppose the emancipation of the mandated countries. Just the reverse. We have full sympathy for any such acts, provided they are taken under provisions of international law. Also, particulaI', we have sympathy for the Arab people of Transjordan. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): 1 do not want ta re-open a discussion which has been thrashed out pretty weIl in the Committee, but sinee you have put forward one point view, 1 do feel bound in one or two sentences put forward the other, if 1 may. Vou expressed a doubt as ta the status of Transjordan, in view of the fact that it was formerly under mandate. You said that the United Nations inherited certain rights and responsibilities in the matter of mandates from the League of Nations. That is quite true. The League of Nations recently, on its deathbed, formally declared Transjordan free from the mandate. Therefore on the question of whether the legal formalities have been sufficiently complied with, 1 fail see in what way those formalities have not been fulfilled in the case of Transjordan as much they have been fulfilled in regard ta two other States which have been accepted without question as Members of the United Nations. IRELAND The PRESIDENT: We have next before us the application for admission to membership of Ire· land. This application was made on 2 August 1946. Mr. PARODI (France) (translated trom French): 1 only wish to say that the French delegation wishes to support the application of Ireland. Mr. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated (rom Russian): For the same reasons for which the Soviet Government was unable to support the proposaI for the admission of Transjordan into the United Nations, it is unable to support the proposaI for the admission of Ireland ta the Organization. l do not think there is any need for me to repeat the reasons that l have already given. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): l only wish to say that the attitude of my Gov· ernment has already been expressed at the Committee, and the views of my Government are weIl known. 1 do not need ta repeat them; indeed, it wouid be useless in view of the declaration which has just been made by the representative of the Soviet Union.

l would like to say a few words in my capaeity as the representative of Poland. In the report before you (document 5/133), you read on page 72 that the repre· sentative of Poland reserved nis right to speak on the application when he received his Gov· ernment's instructions.1 l would like to communicate to this Council that Poland is ready to support Ireland's application for membership. We understand that sorne members may have great doubts about this question in view of the absence of regularized international relations between Ireland and certain States. However, in principle, unless there are very strong objections on our part, we do not want to bar entrance ta the United Nations to any country which in our opinion is peace.loving and satisfies other conditions, though doubts by other States may exist. And l should also like ta express my partîcular satisfaction that we are able to support Ireland's application for membership because the people of Poland have always, throughout the whole history of the nineteenth and twentieth een- Ml'. HSIA (China): I have no speech to make, and to follow Y0uf intention to be brief, I wish to support Ireland's application for membership. PORTUGAL

We consider now the application for membership of Portugal, which was presented on 2 August 1946. Mr. VELLOSO (Brazil) (translated fram French): It goes without saying that the Government of Brazil wholeheartedly supports Portugal's application. Ml'. HSIA (China): China heartily supports the application of Portugal because of the long historical relations between our two countries. Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): I also want to support warmly the candidacy of Portugal. The same applies to Ireland although I did not say that expressly at the moment. I think it would be an injustice if these two nations which, at different periods of history, have made signal contributions to our common fund of civilization, were deprived of the opportunity of joining the United Nations. MT. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated trom Russian): For the same reason for which the Soviet Government was unable to support the proposaIs for the admission of Transjordan and Ireland into the United Nations, it is unable to support the proposaI for the admission of Portugal to the' Organization. Once again I do not think there is any need for me to give any supplementary explanations for the elucidation of this position. Ml'. PARODI (France) (translated from French) : I should like, in turn, to support Portugal's application. If it is a pleasure to welcome into the United Nations sorne young States as they appear newly in internationallife, it is with even more pleasure that we would we1come a As regards Portugal, 1 feel 1 ought to remind you that that country was very helpfu1 ta the cause of the Allies during the war, and that Portugal received men from my country who, after crossing Spanish territory, frequently in conditions of the greatest hardship, found, in contrast, facilities on Portuguese sail which France will never forget. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom); 1 shall probab1y not be regarded as an impartial witness on this occasion, representing as 1 do, a Government which has been in alliance with the GovernmenLof Portugal for longer, 1 think, than any other country has ever been. But 1 do want to say that my Govemment is supporting wholeheartedly the application of the Government of Portugal, not only on the grounds of Portugal's great contribution to the culture and civilization of Europe, but also on the ground that during the war in particular, she rendered services ta the Allied nations of the utmost importance as we ourselves know and as 1 think the United States of America also knows. 1 think aU the Allied nations are in her debt for what she did in very difficult circumstances during those ycars. Ml'. JOHNSON (United States of America); The attitude of the United States of America towards the application of Portugal was set out c1early and unequivocally at the meeting of the Committee on the Admission of New Members. 1 woulcl like ta add, howevcr, that the United States warmly and gladly supports thc application of Portugal for mcmbership, and in this connection 1 wouldlike ta assodate myself fully with the remarks made by the representatives of Brazil and the United Kingdom, bath of whom have particular reasons for supporting Portugal with which the United States has great sympathy. As one of the Allies fighting the nazi tyranny in Europe, the United States has particular reason to be grateful ta Portugal for the material assistance which her attitude rendered the cause of the Allied nations fighting against Germany. Portugal's actions represented a considerable risk to her security, and a violation, perhaps, of Portllguese neutrality, certainly according ta the Axis interpretation, at any rate. AlI of us who were associated together in fighting to destroy and remove the nazi tyranny from Europe were the direct and indirect beneficiaries of Portuguese sympathy and assistance. Our friends and allies, the Russians, in my view, were likewise the recipients of those benefits to an equal degree with ourselves. One cannot define the degl'ee of benefit receivecl by one ally, and compare it with the degree of benefit received by another ally as the result of concurrence and assistance from a neutral country. We aU benefit. Furthermore, at Potsdam, the Soviet Union, Great Britain and the United States of f\meric~, aIter ~nalysing many difficulties, trymg to fmd solutions, trying to evolve and formu- Among the decisions which they reached, in what we thought was agreement, was an attitude toward membership of other countries in the United Nations. With your permission, l would like ta read an extract from the report on the Tripartite Conference in Berlin, published on 2 August 1945: "As regards the admission of other States into the United Nations Organization, Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations dedares: 1. Membership in the United Nations is open to aU other peaceful States which accept the obligations contained in the • present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations. 2. The admission of any such State to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General As· sembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The three Governments, so far as they are concerned, will support applications for membership from those States which have remained neutral during the war and which fulfil the qualifications set out above." Another paragraph follows in which the three Governments feIt bound to make it clear that they could not favour any application put forward by the present Spanish Government. That was the only country which was excepted. In response to suggestions from various members of the Council indicating they would be grateful for some elucidations of his reasons for voting against Portugal and the two other States, the representative of the Soviet Union has replied that what he had said was perfectly clear and that he has nothing to add. The representative of the Soviet Union has the right to make that statement. 1 think what he said was perfectly clear too, and if my understanding of what has bcen said in the Council is correct, no one has challenged the clarity of his statement. l think it speaks for itself and l think l may daim the privilege of applying his own method by saying that in my opinion, what 1 have just stated from the records of the Potsdam Conference, and what l have always believed ta be the attitude of th'e Soviet Union at that time, and what stipulations of the Charter are regarding criteria for membership, and what the Soviet representative has said here, seemed to me, takcn together sufficiently clear for uS all to draw the conclusions which are obvious. Ml'. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated tram Russian): In the course of his statement the representative of the United States of America touched upon the help given by Portugal to the United Nations. Leaving aside the question 1 consider it necessary to remind the United States representative of this because, in referring to Portugal, he apparently failed to mention this essential circumstance in connection with the applications which we discussed a few ho.urs ago. As regards the Potsdam Conference and its .decisions, 1 must make the following observations. After reading the decision of the Potsdam Conference, which was a correct decision, the United States representative gave it an incorrect and erroneous interpretation. As a matter of fact, it was stated, in the decisions of the Potsdam Conference, tbat neutral nations that fuUi! the requirements laid down for States wishing to enter the United Nations, might be admitted ta the Organization (three Governments expressed their opinion at the Conference) , in accordance with the Charter of the Organization. The question, therefore, whether any particular neutral State should be admitted, should be decided by the Security Council, and it is for each Government represented in the Security Council to draw its own conclusion whether any particular State deservcs ta be admitted or not. It is not obligatory that an opinion expressed by one Government should be shared by another Government represented in the Security Council. It is for each Government to determine whether it considers that any particular country fulfils the requirements laid down for those who wish ta be admitted. Ml'. JOHNSON (United States of America): Thcre is little in what the representative of the Soviet Union bas just said with which 1 could not agree. 1 would also pay warm tribute to the assistance, in w1latever degree it might be established by the facts, which the brave Al· banian resistance forces and any other rcsistance forces gave when they fought the enemy. The United States of America is not voting for Portugal because of the indirect assistance given ta our war effort. It is bccause of this assistance that we use the term of warm support for Portugal, but we are voting for Portugal simply because we believe thatP6rtugal is able to fulfil l quite agree with the representative of the Soviet Union that, in voting on these matters, it is the right of each individual State to formulate its own decisions. l think, however, that because fifty-one nations have agreed on a Charter and have agreed on criteria for membership that, as a matter of courtesy, fifty nations are entitled to know the reasons and the l<rationalization" for a negative vote on membership. The Soviet Union has a right to vote in any way it judges proper, but the Soviet Union has accepted the Charter. There are certain criteria for membership set up in the Charter. The reason for the negative vote on Portugal given by the Soviet Union is entirely within the right of the Soviet Union, but it is not a reason taken from the Charter; it is a Russian reason. Ml'. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated jram Russian): It seems ta me that Ml'. Johnson was confused in his analysis of the decision of the Potsdam Conference and the Charter of the United Nations. In expounding the decision of the Potsdam Conference, he gave an incorrect interpretation. It foUowed from his interpretation that aU neutral countries, regardless of whether or not they fulfilled the requirements laid down by the Charter, should be admitted into the United Nations, that is to say, all neutral countries that have submitted applications. The decision of the Potsdam Conference, however, speaks of something different. It has in view and directly refers to neutral countries that fulfil the requirements laid down for Governments wishing ta enter the Organization. How is it possible to give the decision of the Potsdam Conference an interpretation that has nothing in common with the sense or the letter of that decision? It is for each Government, under the Charter of the Organization, to detennine its attitude toward each application for admission to the Organization, and not to bunch aU the applications together and treat them wholesale, as was suggested by the United States representative yesterday, as though countries were things that could be packed ioto a suitcase and deaIt with as a whole. But each application should be treated separately in the light of aU the data and circumstances relating to it. It is for each Government to draw the conclusion which it considers right, and no Government, no country that is a Member of the Organization has an exclusive right in determining whether this or that country is suitable for admission to the. Organization or is not suitable. No country has such an exclusive right under the Charter of the United Nations. The United States representative tries to repl'esent the matter as though the objection raised against the admission of certain countries were not in accordance with the Charter of the Ml'. Johnson may utter another fine phrase, perhaps two or three, particularly in the course of two or three speeches. It is not a difficult thing to do, but you cannat cover up the mean· ing of the Charter of the United Nations with fine words. It happens, however, that preciscly an attempt is being made to caver up the real meaning of the Charter of the United Nations with fine words and phrases and ta represent the matter as though it were precisely the United States representative who is defending the Charter, while the representative of the Soviet Union is trying ta violate the Charter of the United Nations. Ml'. FAWZI (Egypt): 1 did not want ta pralong, even by one minute, this already very long discussion, but 1 feel that we are facing a very serious and basic solution. l am wondering whether we are now in the face of a situation whcre wc feel that the Charter is being somehow rewrittcn, that certain additions are being made to it. We have, for example, certain re· quirements; 1 think there arc three requisites ta decide whether an applicant is qualified for membership or not. It seems that there is somehow an opinion ta add a fourth requisite, which is that this applicant will be agreeable ta the Members of the United Nations in a vague way without saying precisely how it could be agreeable. l feel that we. are also facing certain exemp~ tians from the Charter; that some of us can be free ta follow strictly or otherwise the rules of the Charter when we apply them ta applications for membership. 1 think this is very serious. We feel that even the most convinced and most ardent supporters of having certain powers exercised by sorne Members of the United Nations under the Charter would not like those special powers ta be exercised arbitrarily. On the contrary, they would like them to be exercised judiciously. 1 trust, at the same time, that every member of the Council and every Member of the United Nations will be in favour of those powers being exercised most judiciously and strictly. 1 want to add a few words. In bis remarks the representative of the United States of Ameri. ca mentioned that as a matter of courtesy the other members would be qualified ta know the

1 would like, in my capacity as the representative of Poland, ta explain the attitude of the Polish delegation on the admission . of Portugal. 1 fully share the great admiration for the historie and cultural achievements of the Portuguese people which was expressed here by the representatives of Brazil and France. 1 want to associate myself with these words of admiration and assure that the Polish nation always has felt, and continues ta feel, a sentiment of cultural affinity with all the Latin people. However, we have doubts, very grave doubts, whether in her present political condition Portugal q ualifics as a country which is able and willing ta carry out the obligations of the Charter required for admission under paragraph 1, Article 4, of the Charter. 1 want ta draw the attention of this Council to the close association between the Government of Portugal and Franco's fascist dictatorship in Spain. This association was shown in the great aid which the Government of Portugal gave ta the fascist rebellion directed against the legitimate Government of the Spanish Republic, and is shown in continuous co-operation, as weIl as ideological affinity between the Government of Portugal and the fascist Government of General Franco. This Council, as weIl as the General Assembly, has made it very clear that they consider Franco's fascist Government as unable to qualify as able and willing to carry out the obligations of the Charter of the United Nations. 1 want ta submit ta the consideration of this Council the question of whether a Government which has given such prominent aid and co,operation to that Government can be qualified as satisfying the conditions of admission stipulated in the Charter. For these reasons 1 say that the Polish delegatian feels very grave doubts about the admission of Portugal and it would wish that the admission of Portugal be delayed to some further time when the question will be cleared up. In the meantime we are unable ta support the application, with great regret, because we have the greatest admiration for the people of Portugal., Mr. VELLOSO (Brazil) (translated trom French): 1 was anxious ta be the first to sup- If 1 may recall an historieal faet, 1 would add that Portugal has a fine old tradition of resistance to tyranny. The Portuguese Government, in 1808, set a precedent which was fallowed by various Governments in the last war, by leaving the country in order to avoid coming - under pressure from an invader. l regret to have to say, Mr. President, that 1 entirely disagree with the reasons on which you base your refusaI to accept the Portuguese application. It should be added that we are here dealing with a very ancient nation which has played a, very important part in the history of our civilization ever since the Renaissance. 1 think, and this view is certainly shared by most of the members of the Council, that the United Nations, could only derive advantage, from several points, of view, from the admission of Portugal to membership. ICELAND

We now have before us the application for admission ta membership of the Mr. PARODI (France) (translated trom Fren.ch).: The French de1egation supports the applicatlon of Iceland.

1 should like to mention that, reading the report, 1 see that in the case, of ~celand, there was not a single member opposmg t~at admission. 1 would like to pass this mformatIOn on to the Council. Mr. ~OHNSON (United States of America): The Umted States of America warmly supports the candidacy of Iceland. Mr. G~OMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated trom Russzan): The Soviet Government is prepared to support the candidature of Iceland which desires to enter the United Nations Or~ ganization. SWEDEN .Th~ PRESIDENT: We have before us the ap- plIcatIOn for admission ta membership of Sweden. The application was made on 9 August 194-6. Ml'. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): 1 want to say that my Government very warmly sup- ports the candidacy of Sweden. It seems to us that if there is any State among these candidates who completely satisfies the requirements set forth in the Charter, it is Sweden, and it is in view of the very cordial relations that exist between Sweden and my own country that want to say specifically that we warmly support Sweden's admission. . Ml'. PARODI (France) (translated trom French): 1 fully associate myself with what has been said by the representative of the Nether- lands. Swedcn is not only a country with an old civilization, but one of those countries where democratic institutions are most firmly estab- lished. It is also one of the countries which have put into effect, particularly in the social sphere, the most interesting legislative experiments, and 1 think therc is not a country in the world which cannot look to Sweden for sorne example in that field. The French delegation is therefore par- ticularly happy to support Sweden's application. 1 am convinced that the presence of a represen- tative of the Swedish Government within the United Nations would be a great acquisition for Our Organization. Ml'. HSIA (China): 1 wish to associate myself with what has been said by the representative of the N etherlands and the representative of France. Our delegation heartily endorses the application of Sweden. Ml'. JOHNSON (l!nited Sta~es of ~erica): 1 associate rnyself wüh enthuslasm wüh the re- marks made by my colleagues on the application of Sweden. Sweden is a country where 1 had Mr. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated trom Russian): The Soviet Government sup- ports the proposaI for the admission of Sweden to the United Nations. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): As is weIl known, my Government supports this application. 1 am convinced that Sweden could make the most valuable contribution to the work of the United Nations, and that we shall have reason to congratulate ourselves if she is ad- mitted. Mr. FAWZI (Egypt): Our country has always had excellent relations with Sweden. We con- sider Sweden highly qualified for membership in the United Nations, and would like to support tbis application. Mr. VELLOSO (Brazil) (translated trom French): 1 should aIso like to support warmly Sweden's application to the United Nations.

1 should like to say a few words in my capacity as the representative of Poland. It has bcen made known already to the Committee that Poland supports Sweden's application for membership in the United Nations. l think that it may be of sorne interest to this Council, and later to the General Assembly, to k:U1W the following fact: Poland and Swedcn arc neighbours. 1 would like to stress the fact that relations between Sweden and Poland both before the war and during the war, when Poland suffered under the German occupation, and after the war, when Poland regaincd her indcpendence, can be considercd as a model of good ncighbourly relations. 1 also know that other States which are ncighbours of Swedcn have had the same cxperience. 1 think that ihis is a {act which particularly qualifies Sweden for admission to membcrship under the Charter. As has alrcady been pointed out by other representatives, we all know the great contributions which the Swedish nation has made to international relations and to the progress of humanity. Therefore, l think that there are few States as well qualified as Sweden for membership in the United Nations. 1 would like to welcome very much the unanimity with which the members of this Council have expressed themselves on Sweden's application for membership. l\Ir. JOHNSON (United States of America): l suggest consideration of a recess for fifteen minutes.

If the members of the Council are agreeable to it, l would be glad to suspend the meeting. Ml'. GROMYKO (Soviet Union): May l ask the American representative to give the reason for the recess? Just to l'est or for sorne other purpose?

The representative of the Soviet Union wants to know the reason. Ml'. JOHNSON (United States of America) : To l'est. Mr. PADILLA NERVa (Mexico): l would like to say a few words, and I think that what l will say, if you, Ml'. President, give me permission, and the members of this Council accept, will give another reason why we should accept a recess at this moment.

Please go ahead. Mr. PADILLA NERVa (Mexico): We are going to make a very important decision, a grave decision, and before doing it, l want to say this. At the beginning of our consideration of the eight applications for admission to the, United Nations, the United States representative presented a proposaI in favour of rccommending the admission of aIl the applicants. The representatives in this Council who opposed the proposai gave only one, in my opinion, valid reason: namely, that notwithstanding the examination of the problem in the Committec on the Admission of New Members it was necessary, and advisable, for the Counci! to examine openly and scparately each particular application because the circumstances in each case were different, they have characteristics of their own and, should not be considered as if the eight applications constituted one single case. It was also stated that the General Assembly might wish to look into the whole question of admission and examine the facts and the statements debated in this Council in respect to each one of the applicants. In the course of our discussion wc have examined, one by one, each application. In sorne cases the examination lasted scareely two minutes, induding the translation, but it may be said, at this stage, that aIl the members of the Security Council, as weIl as public opinion aIl over the world, know the position of the various members in respect to each application and also know the reasons for that position. l daim, and l hope that the members of the Council will agree with me, that in the course ~' arnong several other members, had satIsfaction of supporting the United States prop~sal and l was glad to see that it coincided Wlt~ ?ur general view on the question of membershlp and with the position we have taken this ITlatter. That proposaI was not voted upon because it "Was withdrawn. l therefore consider that 1 have the right to submit the following proposaI ta the Council: "The Security Council, having received and considered the report submitted by the Committee on the Admission of New Members regarding application for membership in the United Nations presented by the People's Republic of Albania, the Mongolian People's Republic, Afghanistan, the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, Ireland, Portugal, the Republic of land, Siam., and Sweden, having considered in the course of its bates each one of the above-mentioned appli:- cations, and having taken due notice of the statements of opinions of the members of Security Council in regard to those applications, Reconnuends ta the General Assembly that it adn1Ït ta membership in the United N a tians the following applicants: Albania, the Mongolian People's Republic, Afghanistan, Transjordan, Ireland, Portugal, land and Sweden." We, the members of the Security Council, the Governrnents, and the peoples of the applicant States, as well as each one of the Members of the United Nations, and public opinion large know that not one single objection been Inade to any of the applicants that, spirit of justice and fairness, could be qualified as insunnountable. No "rationalization" has been made against the admission of any applicant such fundamental character as to prove beyond doubt that the applicant is not eligible. l ask where it is not proved that an applicant St~te i8 unqualified under the Charter obtain a favourable recommendation from Council i5 it just that the opinion of one member or ~everalmembers,no matter how sincere and respectable, could in practice debar applicant from mem~ership? :U?doubtedly, ny State i5 master of lts own opmlOn and a right ta express it and to vote as it likes. t~ere is such a thing as moral duties and hon- 1 ask, could the interpretation of Article could the interpretation of the discussion and records of the San Francisco Conference where that Article was framed, could the spirit of the C~a:ter be interpreted as meaning that the opmlOn of one member, whether well founded or not, is decisive in branding an applicant State as an enemy of the peace, untrustworthy, and unqualified for membership? 1 ask, who composes the Organization, the fifty-one Members of the United Nations, or five, or one of the permanent members of the Sec~rity Council? What is the purpose, then, of Article 4? What is the meaning of the letter and the spirit of the precept which grants ta ~he United Nations the exclusive right ta pass ]udg;nent on the ability and willingness of an apphcant to carry out the obligations of the Charter? The only justification of a permanent member in blocking an application for admission is the fairness and the weight of his objections and his reasons. Nobody wants to admit an applicant in violation of the Charter, but no State should be precluded from membership on other grounds. Today the prestige of the Security Council is on trial before the world. The result of our deliberations may mean a forward, constructive step, or may spread serious doubts as to the real possibilities of success of the Council under its present structure. l hope that the members of this Council will exercise their powers in the interests of the United Nations. l request that the proposaI l have made be placed before the Council.

The meeting is recessed. The meeting was recessed at 5.03 p.rn. and reconvened at 5.40 p.m. The PRESIDENT: We have completed our discussion of applications for membership and we shaH now take a vote. The representative of Mexico has presented a resolution which reads as fol1ows: "The Security Council, having received and considered the report submitted by the Committee on the Admission of New Members regarding the applications for membership in the United Nations presented by Albania, the Mongolian PeopIe's Republic, Afghanistan, Transjordan, Ireland, Portugal, Iceland and Sweden, having considered in the course of its debates each one of the above-named applications, And having taken due notice of the statements of opinions of the members of the Security Council in regard to those applications, Ml'. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated from Russian): The Mexican proposaI was made about thirty minutes aga. But there were other proposaIs that were tabled earlier. 1 would point out that 1 put forward a proposaI that aIl the applications should be considered individually and that the decisions of the Couneil should be takenafter separate consideration of each application. 1 would ask therefore that a decision on my proposaI be made first.

1 just want to state that 1 remember and 1 keep in mind that such a resolution was prçsented yesterday by the representative of the Soviet Union. Mr. JOHNSON: (United States of America): ML President, may 1 recall to Y0uf memory that 1 had made a motion to the effect that voting on Albania and Outer Mongolia be postponed until the next occasion when the Security Council shall have to consider applications for membership in the United Nations. 1 suppose, ML President, that you would rule on the order of the voting, but my preliminary thought would be that my motion would have the priority in the voting.

l want to say that l remember that. Mr. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated from Russian) : The United States proposaI put forward yesterday in regard to Albania was made eight months after the proposaI for the admission of Albania to the Organization. The proposaI for admission was made in January 1946. It is to be found in written form in a document submitted at the time by the Yugoslav Government and in the form of a proposaI in writing received from the Soviet representative in January. Therefore, if we are to carry out the rules of procedure, and l considcr that since wc approved them, we should observe them, we should vote on the proposaIs in the order in which they werc received; that is, we shoulù vote first on the proposaI for the admission of Albania into the United Nations, and not on the United States proposaI which was tabled yesterday. As regards the proposaI concerning the Mongolian People's Republic, again the United States proposaI is a month late, even more than a month in comparison with the proposaI for the admission of the Mongolian Pcople's Republic to the Organization. Consequently, the Mongolian proposaI should be put to the vote before the United States proposaI. Ml'. HASLUCK (Australia): Of course, it will be for you, Ml'. President, to give a ruling It seems to me to be the simple common sense of the situation that if the United States wishes to put to the test whether or not the vote should be taken, that question obviously must be decided before we proceed to take the vote. We cannot decide it after taking the vote. Mr. PAROD! (France) (translated tram Freneh): l also think we cannot vote. on the various proposaIs taken in chronological order, for we should l'un the risk of confusion in the voting. We must vote in logical sequence. It therefore appears to me that we should first take the widest proposaI, which is that of the representative of Mexico. If it is defeated, we can consider the applicants one by one; and, for the reasons given by Ml'. Hasluck, which seem to imply such a procedure, .we have to decide on the postponement of discussion before making any other decision. That is the logical order. Ml'. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): 1 want to go bacl, to our rules of procedure. l believe under rule 33 that a motion which postpones the discussion of a question to a certain day or indefinitely, has precedence over a draft resolution or a principal motion. If the mere motion to postpone discussion has precedence, l certainly feel sure that a motion to postpone voting has pl'ecedence. Ml'. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated tram Russian): The rule of procedure which Mr. van Klef1ens has just referred to is altogether inapplicable to the present case. This l'ule of procedure covers the postponement of the discussion of a particular case. But in this case, l would remind Mr. van Kleffens that the discussion has already been concIuded. We are now concerned with making a decision. How can two entirely diffcrent situations be confused? Ml'. JOHNSON (United States of America): There are one or two minor questions in this situation which are not clear to me and on which 1 would appreciate your ruling or your elucidation. l do not see what bearing the date of the application for membership has on our question. That is not a motion before the Council. It is merely a part of a scale which the Com~ mittee has adopted for consideration of appli~ It seerns ta me that the representative of Australia and others have said what l had in mind tao weil 'for me to attempt to repeat it. But if we are going to vote seriatim on ail eight applications before us, in the event that the motion made by the Mexican representative fails, then, before the vote is taken on Albania and Outer Mongolia, it is not unreasonable for me ta request that the Council pronounce itself on my suggestion for a postponement of the voting on Albania and Outer Mongolia. It obviously cornes first. Mr. PARODI (France) (translated tram French): l do not agree with what Ml'. Gromyko said just now concerning the interpretation of rule 33 which provides that motions to postpone discussion of a question to a certain date or indefinitely shall have precedence. l do not see the difference between postponing the discussion of the question and postponing the question itself; when a question is postponed, it is obvious that the discussion of that question will be resumed at sorne later date. Hence, l think that Ml'. Gromyko's objection is not valid, and that the text of rule 33 (e) applies to this case.

l have heard the opinion of a major part of the members and l should like to state my own opinion as President; but if the representative of Mexico wants to say something first, l will be glad to hear him. Ml'. PADILLA NERVO (Mexico): Regarding the proposition of the representative of the United States on which several opinions have been expressed, in order to determine the moment to vote on that proposition, l want to refer only to my own proposaI. There are various general principles that we have adopted in this Council and in other meetings of the various organs and committees of the United Nations. One of these is that every mçmber has a right to express a direct opinion on any proposai that he submits to a body. There are also questions that we cànsider previous questions, and that have to be decided first. There is a difference between what the representative of the Soviet Union calls his proposai and my proposaI. He refers ta the order in which the vote should be taken on each application. My proposaI l'eferred ta the substance of the matter. l propose that ail

1 should now Iike to state my opinion as the President. We have here two -questions which should be kept separately. We have, first, a resolution by the representative of Mexico which, as he explains ta us, recommends the admission of aIl States which have applied for admission, the emphasis being on the admission of aH States together. It seems ta me clear by logic that this resolution must be voted upon beIore we decide whether to proceed ta vote on the particular members which we want or do not want to admit. The other question is that if we should vote on applicants separately, we have, in two cases, a motion ta postpone action. It seems again clear by logic that the motion ta postpone a vote must come before the vote itself. l am not quite clear about the ward used by the representative of the United States of America. Does he mean simply to postpone voting? In that case, we would have ta be somewhat more precise and postpone voting for sorne length of time. If action, that is, voting, is not postponed, of course we proceed to take a vote. There is one point to which l wanted ta draw the attention of the representative of Mexico. Since by logical procedure, his resolution cornes first for voting, l wanted ta mention that the identical resolution was presented yesterday by the representative of the United States, who later did not insist upon the resolution and withdrew it. In view of this, l want ta know whether the representative of Mexico is ready ta do the same, or insists that his resolution be voted on. Mr. PADILLA NERVO (Mexico): When the proposaI of the representative of the United States was withdrawn, certain arguments were made ta the effect that at that time each one of the applications had not been discussed one by one by the Security CounciI. l supported the proposaI of the United States representative. At that time, according ta the pDsitiDn. savDir parément mDn résultat cDnque 1 do not see any reason for withdrawing my proposaI. We have a new clement; that is, that the Council has now considered, one by one, cach of the applications. It is rriy opinion that because of that consideration, it does not follow that the Council should exclude any of the applicants. tous dans vois 1 favour the admission of aIl, and for thilt reason and with that purpose 1 have put forward my proposaI. 1 do not see any reason why 1 should withdraw it at this stage. russe): mots représentant tant bloc avaient sa sagesse Mr. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated trom Russian): First, a fcw words on the sub~ stance of the Mexican represcntative's statement. Yesterday the representative of the United States proposed the wholesale admission of the eight countries to the United Nations Organization. However, when he realized that his proposaI could not be adopted, he acted reasonably in withdrawing it. Today, however, this proposaI is again submitted in the form of a paraphrase by the Mexican representative instead of the United States representative. Naturally, no new rea- SDns have been brought forward, nor can there be any. The only reason is that the Mexican Government would like the whole of the eight countries ta be admitted to the OrganizatiDn simultaneously. This is the same old reason that we spoke about yesterday. phrase non de fournit en drait seule la 1 was hoping that we had already abandDned, at least as far as voting is concerned, the system of lumping all eight countries together in the same bloc and considering them as a whole. Apparently this system has not yet been abandoned, in spite Df the fact that it is clear today, as it was yesterday, that this proposaI cannot be adopted and that this is an eIementary truth. How, indeed, can it be adopted? Sorne members of the Council are in favour of aclmitting all eight countries; others agree to the admission of sorne countries and do not agree to the admission of sorne Dther countries to the Organization. How can the proposaI in which all eight countries are mixed up together be adopted by the Security Council? It is clear that it cannot be adopted. If you have at !cast a grain of logic, simple elementary logic, you cannot help reaching the conclusion that to accept such a proposaI and ta proceed ta vote on such a proposaI would be to commit an error, an error of substance, an error of procedure, an error of method, a serious error. If the Security Council considers that it can act in this way, that is another matter. 1 consider it should not be done. ce ce pays n'en proposition élémentaire. proposition sont tandis que rait-il ces sera pour et erreur; méthDde, Si céder qu~nt amSI. Mr. PADILLA NERVa (Mexico): 1 refer to , l a tant wh~t has ~een said by the representative of the SovIet Villon, namcly that in withdrawing his proposaI the representative of the United States 1 see all the faults of the reasoning of the representative of the Soviet Union regarding logic. There are many other things in this world besides logic, and some others are more valid. It is truc that a permanent member might consider that because another permanent member can veto a proposition, that proposition is condemned not to be carried, but there are conclusions to he drawn from a proposaI that has been defeated. Wc, as one of the small nations of the Security Council and as a non-permanent member, cherish and appreciate very much the moral value of certain determinations and decisions of the Security Council, whether or not they are carried. Mexico has expressed on many occasions its ::Jpinion regarding the use of the veto. It does not discuss the right to use the veto in accord· ance with the Charter, but we have objected several times to the way the veto is used. It is of great importance and very valuable ta know the opinion of the majority in this Council. The vote that 1 wish the Council to take on my proposaI would only have a moral value, but 1 believe in moral values. représentant résolution de du le d'autres résolution parce de The idea of accepting the applicant countries en bloc was raised yesterday. A number of qui representatives expressed their views in favour. Certains Other representatives, for instance, like myself, favorable, in the capacity of representative of Poland, exexemple, pressed themselves against the acceptance at 1 Pologne, present, in any case, of certain applicant States lement which means, by implication, that they are implique against the acceptance of the resolution admit· accepter ting them en bloc. Consequently, 1 have the impression that rcally all arguments for the acceptance of such a resolution or its rejection have already been made, an,d since we are working under a time limit, 1 think that nothing will be gained by further discussion on the substance of this resolution. l, therefore, want to present it to a vote unless there is sorne objection~

The representative of Mexico has statcd that he demands that his resolution be voted upon. The representative of the Soviet Union and latel' the representative of Mexico have made a few remarks on the substance of this resolution. 1 believe that further rcmarks on the substance of the Mexican resolution are not needed, because they actually have bcen made during the discussion. les sition disposons nous sion je mise (traduit avant voudrais faire fait le l'avait tenant Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): If you will allow me, and if you are going to put this resolution to a vote, 1 would like to say something before you do so to explain my position, something which 1 should have said yesterday if it had been put to a vote, but which 1 did not say because the resolution was withdrawn by its first mover, the representative of the United States. It has now been put sition sentant mettions concerne parfaitement Comité ici cères candidats. que que J'espère froissera pêcher presque douter marchandage. que sujet peut-être nous très tion; l'admission Etats sérieux que seul ou 1 think the Council is wel1 aware of the reluctance which my Government feels to block by its single vote an overwhelming decision by the rest of the Council, and if it had been ap~ parent or even likely that the Council would have been of one mind on this thing, 1 would, perhaps, have obtained the reconsideration of my Government's attitude. But ta ask us now to recommend two candidates whom we cannot honestly recommend, without obtaining anything in exchange, because 1 understand the situation today is exactly the same as it was yesterday, is rather more than 1 think 1 can do, and, therefore, 1 cannot vote for this resolution. 1 hope my position will be understood. , Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): The Australian de1egation stated its objections to a similar pro~ posaI yesterday and 1 do not want ta go over the reasons again. But in the course of present~ ing this resolution ta us again, the Mexican representative suggested that eircumstances had changed and it might now be possible for those who objected to the resolution in its previous farm to accept it now. Because of that remark, 1 want ta make it quite clear that our objection ta the previous resolution and our objection to this resolution is fundamentally a matter of principle. It is not a matter that is related soldy to the individual examination by this Cauneil of applications.

1 had hoped that we could vote without further discussion, but 1 see that two representatives have asked for recognition: the representative of the Netherlands, and the representative of Ohina. First, the representative of the Netherlands. Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): 1 think that little can be gained by prolonging this debate. 1 think we know exactly how the vote, if taken, would proceed. Therefore, 1 wouId ask my Mexican colleague whether he would accept that no vote be taken unless a majority of the Cauneil demand it.

1 shaII ask the representauve of China whether he is agreeable to that. Mr. HSIA (China): 1 agree. 1 want to make an earnest appeal to our Mexican coIIeague to withdraw. 1 make this in the most humble and respectful spirit, because if it were put to vote, it might create certain embarrassment. We do not want ta divide the house too often for no profitable reason. Secondly, there is another Mr. PADILLA NERva (Mexico): 1 wanted ta continue ta the last minute my effort in favour of the admission of every one of the applicant States. 1 think that my insistence in putting my proposaI ta a vote has served a useful purpose. It has put together the expressions made by various members of the Council at the beginning of our discussion and the ones made now by others. At this moment, 1 myself, and pub. lie opinion have a general. cognizance of the opinion of the CounciI. 1 want ta say that when 1 insisted that this proposaI be put ta a vote, 1 never at any moment doubted the sincerity of any of the members of this Council in the objections they made ta certain applicants. 1 simply was not convinced that those obstacles COllld not be surmoUnted. 1 have heard the opinions of sorne of the members that this vote will not help in the general solution of our problem, and that in fact, as the representative of China has said, it will cause unnecessary embarrassment ta sorne members. 1 do not want to do that. As representative of Mexico 1 have had as my main purpose ta try ta co-operate in the difftcultics, try ta help in solving the differences between the members of this Couneil as far as possible, and as far as it is in my power. Therefore, 1 withdraw my proposaI.

The Mexican resolution is withdrawn. Consequently, we shall proceed ta vote upon the various applications separately, giving due regard ta demands for postponement which may arise from the different countries, 1 propose that we use the same 6lank form as the resolution on the recommendation for admission, and our vote will be about the countries included in that resolution, The resolution says: "The Security Council, having received and considered the report submitted by the Committee on the Admission of New Members regarding application for membership in the United Nations presented by , . " having considered in the course of its debates each one of the above-mentioned applications, and having taken due notice of the statements of opinions of the members of the Security Council in regard ta those applications, recommends ta the General Assembly that it admit ta membership in the United Nations the following applicants...." What 1 propose now is that we take, unless there is any objection, this form of resolution and then put in the countries which we have . Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): May 1 ask a question, Mr. President? Does this mean that before we vote on Albania and Outer Mongolia, we shall vote on my proposaI to postpone the voting on those two States? The PRESIDENT~ Yes, that is my desire. However, 1 would like ta ask the representative of the United States ta explain the exact meaning of postponing the vote. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): My meaning was that we defer our action on Albania and Outer Mongolia i.ll1til the next occasion, that is, next year, when the Council will be convened ta consider applications for membership.

Yes, that is quite clear. Mr. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated fram Russian) : 1 object ta priority in voting being given to the proposaI of the United States representative. This proposaI was tabled yesterday. The proposaI for the admission of Albania to the Organization was made eight months ago. 1 would like to explain to the United States representative that when 1 say that the proposaI was made eight months ago, 1 refer not only to the application from Albania but aIso to the proposaIs in writing from various States, including the proposaI in the Security Council for the admission of Albania to the United Nations. l have ruade this observation because in one of his statements the United States representative seemed to think that in speaking of the previously received proposaI for the admission of Albania to the Organization, 1 merely referred to Albania's application. This is not the case. 1 referred to the proposaIs including the Soviet proposaI, that were made several months ago. Therefore, in voting first on the United States proposaI, we would infringe the rules of procedure by which we should be guided.

1 should like to have the reaction of the representative of the United States on the remark of the representative of the Soviet Union. 1 would like to point out that it is true that the application of Albania was presented, 1 think, by the Soviet Union, unless it was Yugoslavia. Was it a former resolution before the Council? There is one further question which cornes to my mind now, namely, the effect of the rejection of the proposaI to recommend applica- 1 would like to add that 1 see the difference thus: In case we reject the application of a country, that country has to re-apply later, for example, next year. If we postpone the vote, th!lt means we do not vote on the application, and the same application is pending until its consideration at some later date. 1 think that is the difference, and unless the representative of the United States wants to say something 1 shall not put my question any more. The situation is as follows: We have an application of the People's Republic of Albania for membership. This application was presented at the London session of the Security Council, was reported upon finally, and we have to vote upon it. The representative of the United States requests that the vote be postponed until the next occasion when admissions will be considered. This means that the application remains before the Council and no new application has to be made. lt seems logical that the question of postponement of a vote has to be decided before the vote is taken. 1 think that the representative of the Soviet Union disagreed and l want to know w?ethe~ he wants to challenge this ruling of mme; lU that case, 1 shall subrnit it to the Council. Mr. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated fror;z. Russian): Mr. President, l maintain my posItIOn and have no intention of cbanging it. 1. have a question to put to you. Do you conrusse): attitude J'ai que vote ment Il constitue de l'Organisation dès demander opinion? ~lder that th: vote on die question of postpon- ~g th: vote 18 not an action but merely a deci- SIon, fi accordance with which the action is postponed? lt seems to me that the decision regarding postponement is indeed an action. 1t means that a decision is taken not to admit ~bania i?t~ ~he Organization at the present tIme. This IS mdeed an action. The PRESIDENT: May 1 ask the Secretary- General to express an opinion?

This question about Albania was raised in London too and Mr. Stettinius made the final Propos~l: ' glazs): à av~;t du d'un "1 move that this item be kept on our ~genda, but that disposition be deferred pendmg further study until the Security Council convenes at the temporary headquarters." C~nsell raIre." "1 submit the resolution as proposed by the representative of the United States. As it is procedural matter, 1 would indicate that it cornes under Article 27, paragraph 2, in regard to voting, under which seven members must vote in the affirmative. Will members who are supporting this resolution raise their right hands?" And there were more than seven votes. think Mr. Vishinsky voted against, 1 don't remember, but it was a procedural matter. There was no doubt. The PRESIDENT: 1 do not doubt that the question is a question of procedure, and though the President is not bound by the rulings of the former President, 1 think it is wise not ta change them unless there is very good reason. However, 1 would like to put one question ta the representative of the United States. Though there is a dear-cut procedural difference between a vote against admission and a vote for postponernent, the practical facts, with the exception of the small procedural details in the case where a new application has been presented, are the same. In terms of the creation of further precedents, 1 think it is more desirable that when we have applications for membership, we try honestly to say whether we are for or against thern, rather than ta avoid taking decisions by postponement. In view of this, 1 would like to ask the representative for the United States if he wishes to maintain his request for a postponement. Ml'. JOI-INSON (United States of America): 1 am not able to share your view that there is so little difference between the two hypothetical situations which you mentioned. 1 think there is a very great difference, both material and moral. By withdrawing my suggestion for postponement of the vote on Albania, 1 would have to cast a negative vote. That would not please my Government, and it would not please me. The United States and 1 personally, have the most friendly sentiments toward the Albanian people. We hope and we expect to see them in the United Nations. There is no reason to negate and destroy by an adverse vote the application they have made. We have sincere doubts about the qualifications of Albania at the present moment under the terms of the Charter. We hope that those doubts may be removed by positive actions on the part of the Albanian Government within the near future. No one will be happier than we to see Albania received into this Organization. 1 think there is a very great difference between simply postponing action on something that you hope ta be able to act favourably on, and a completely negative action which requires the applicant to begin aIl over again. Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): May 1 raise a point of order? It is a simple point. The members will recall that at yesterday's meeting we decided to invite the representatives of Greece and Yugoslavia to participate in our discussion of Albania. When this discussion started we cxpected an early vote, but now it has reaIly turned into a discussion of the question of Albania, and r raise the point whether they should not be asked to take their seats at the Council table.

The discussion on Albania has already been closed, that is, the discussion of the substance of the question, and aIl we discuss now are matters of voting. Mr. FAWZI (Egypt): 1 wonder if the postponement will necessarily have to be for one year as the representative of the United States seemed to imply in one of his previous statements. 1 am looking now at the third paragraph of rule 60, of the rules of procedure, which reads as fol1ows: "In special circumstances, the Security Council may decide to make a recommendation to the General Assembly concerning an application for membership subsequent to the expiration of the time limits set forth in the preceding paragraph." 1 submit for consideration whether it would be possible during the time between now and the meeting of the General Assembly to make our recommendations, if the special circumstances arise to which reference was made in the third paragraph of rule 60 of the rules of procedure.

In that case, 1 would like to submit to a vote the motion of the representative of the United States to postpone voting on the Albanian case. ML GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated trom Russian): 1 made a proposaI for the admission of Albania to the Organization; this proposaI was received earlier, and had no relation to the United States proposaI for postponement. Moreover, the decision ta postpone making a decision on Albania's application constitutes an action. It is a decision not to admit Albania to the Organization at present, but this action is put forward, at least sorne members try to put it forward, in the guise of a procedural decision. 1 admit that perhaps sorne mem· bers of the Council do not wish to .vote against the admission of Albania ta the Organization for certain reasons. However, we should be guided not by considerations of the convenience or inconvenience of the voting procedure for this or that member of the Council, but by the Ml'. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated trom Russian): Ml'. President, 1 wish to ask a question. When are we going to decide whether this is a question of procedure or not? ls the proposaI of the United States representative of a procedural nature or not? 1 consider that it is not a proposaI of a procedural nature. Ml'. Trygve Lie has given an explanation, but 1 think it is not quite accurate. lt was in fact decided in London to postpone consideration of Albania's application, but we are now dealing not with the question of postponing consideration of Albania's application, but with the postponement of Albania's admission to the United Nations Organization.

Before the representative of the Netherlands speaks, 1 think the question of whether this is a procedural matter or not can be discussed somewhat later. 1 think the best thing would be first to take a vote on the motion to postpone voting and then, if there is any need, to discuss whether it is procedural or not. Ml'. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): Mr. President, 1 am quite ready to act according to your wishes. 1 shall have to make my point on that when that question is taken up, or rather before we vote on the question of whether it is procedure or not procedure.

In that case, 1 shall ask those mernbers who are in favour of postponement of voting on the Albanian application to l'aise their hands. Just a minute, 1 am sorry. There was the question to be settled which goes first. 1 would like to ask those who believe that the American resolution for postponement should be voted first to l'aise their hands. A vote was taken with the following results: In favour: Australia Brazil China Egypt France Mexico Netherlands Poland United Kingdom United States of America Against: Soviet Union Abstention: None Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): Mr. President, a little while aga when this question first arose, 1 heard you say that in your opinion, it was a question of procedure. 1 take that to be your ruling as President. Rule 30 of the rules of procedure says that if such a ruling is challenged, and it has been challenged by the representative of the Soviet Union, the President shall submit ms ruling to the Security Council for immediate decision, and it shall stand, unless overruled. So 1 suggest that all we have to do ls ta vote.

We have heard the arguments raised before that it is a matter of procedure. You aIso have heard the argument of the representative of the Soviet Union which expressed the opposite view. First, 1 shall ask all those who believe it is a matter of procedure ta l'aise their hands. Mr. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated jrom Russian): Tms question cannat be settled quite so easily as Mr. van Kleffens thinks. If it couId, it would not be hard for ,us to find a way out of the clifficult situation with wmch we are faced. ,1 would like to remind the members of the Security Council that a decision on the question whether any particular proposaI is a matter of procedure or substance can only be made as a positive decision, if there are seven votes of the members of the Security Council in favour of it, including all the votes of the permanent members. 1 would like to remind the Security Council of the declaration by the Five Powers at the San Francisco Conference to the effect that the representatives of all the States who are permanent members of the Security Council cannot fail to agree that if any one of the permanent members of the Security Council objects to any particular proposaI being regarded as procedural, no positive decision can be made. 1 repeat, no positive decision can be made. 1 realize that my statement may not please sorne of the members of the Security Council, but we have rules by which we should be governed. 1 too have, above all, ta be governed by the rules of procedure and the Charter of the Organization in determining my attitude toward any particular proposaI. 1 consider that the decision that is being made is certainly not a matter of procedure. The essence of this decision is to postpone the making of a decision regarding the admission of Albania

1 want to state that there i8 in my mind no question that, in view of the fact that the representative of the Soviet Union has questioned the vote, in order ta decide whether something is a matter of procedure or not, the concurrent vote of aIl the permanent members is necessary. The Charter is quite cIear in that respect, as is the San Francisco commentary on this point by the original sponsOl'ing powers. However, 1 do Rot want to discuss this at the moment, in order ta speed up the proceedings. 1 still have on my list the representatives of China and the Netherlands, who wish ta be recognized. After that 1 should like to make a statement, not as the President, but as the representative of Poland. 1 hope that perhaps this proposaI may solve Our problem without going into any more legalistic questions. Ml'. HSIA (China): If the question as to whether the United States proposed resolution is a procedural question or not is to be put to a vote, 1 am afraid our delegation will have to consider that this is not a procedural vote. It seems to me plain that if you postpone a discussion, or the manner of a discussion, that is nota matter of procedure. We are asked to take action or delay action. Delaying action is a negative action. They belong to the same category, as 1 understand it. Therefore, this is not a procedural matter. Of course, there may be other cases; such as, for instance, where it is proposed to postpone taking a vote for twenty-four hours. In such a case, the Council may agree that this is procedurai. But this is postponing action for a year; the time element has something ta do with it. In this case, we are either taking action or delaying action. To delay action i8 to take no action, which to my mind is action in a negative Ml'. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): 1 want to clear up a misunderstanding. 1 did not sayat aIl that this was a question of procedure. 1 only stated that 1 had heard you say it, and 1 took that to be your ruling. In such a case, there must be a vote taken as to whether your ruling is right or wrong, since it has been questioned by one of the representatives of the Council. That rcpresentative, in order to overrule your ruling, must, if it is a question of substance, have the five concurrent votes of the permanent members of this Council. That is the position as 1 sec it.

1 want to say that 1 fully agree with what was said by the representative of the Netherlands, and 1 aIso want to explain that my ruling that it is a matter of procedure was takcn in order to maintain the continuity of presidential rulings, and a ruling on this question was made in London. In vicw of that, 1 would like aIl those who believe that it is a matter of procedure to raise thcir hands. A vote was taken witlt the following results: In favour: Australia Brazil Netherlands Poland United States of America Against: China France Soviet Union United Kingdom Abstentions: Egypt Mexico

In arder to declare that it is a matter of procedure, it requires the concurring votes of aIl the permanent members. ~r. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): No, Ml'. PresIdent, your ruling is that it is a matter of procedure. In or~er to be overruled, the person or the representative who moves that it is not a ~atter of procedure must have the five concurfll;g votes of the permanent members, and 1 submIt that he has not got them. Ml'. G~OMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated trom Russtan): 1 thmk that Ml'. van Kleffens is merely confusing the situation. The situation it seems to me, is clear. In order to make a decision that any particular question is procedural seven votes are necessary, including the five v~tes of the pe;manent members of the Security Council. That 18 the rule. This rule is derived from the Mr. van Kleffens considers that there is a contradiction between the rules of procedure and the San Francisco declaration and the obligation assumed by the Five Powers. This contradiction does not exist in reality. Moreover, 1 would like to draw the attention of the members of the Security Council to the precedents that have already occurred in the practical work of the Council, which confiml the conclusion 1 have just drawn. 1 need hardly mention that in all circumstances, for a decision to be adopted, as Mr. van Kleffens should know, seven votes are required, whereas in the present case there are only five. Therefore, even if one takes no account of the nature of these votes, the mere number of the votes cast is insufficient for the present question to be regarded as procedural. Surely it is not necessary for me to explain elementary truths. It seems to me that this should be clear to everybody, as it is a matter of arithmetic that goes as far as the figure ten. tion la les d'autre réellement. tion qui qui viens saurait pas qui traction votent, que procédure. cette le d'une dix sire au une affirmatifs négatifs nents. décision n'ai 'bres Je adoptée rer sur non l'anglais): ne que certains votre firmatifs votes décision. et autrement. Le demande tinuer représentant du à ce qui,

1 should like to make the fol1owing statement. The question which the Council was asked was whether it supports my mling that this is a matter of procedure. There were five votes in favour, and four against. These four against are ail permanent members. Under that condition, it seems clear that my ruling has not been supported and adopted. 1 have not asked for the opposite question. Four permanent rnembers voted against the ruling. Consequently, 1 regret the ruling has not been adopted by the Council, and we shal1 have to treat the resolution asking to postpone the voting on Albania as a matter of substance, not of procedure. Ml'. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): Mr. President, 1 am afraid that 1 cannot agrec. 1 want to remark that if this is a question of substance, as has been said by sorne of the representatives, in order that your ruling be overruled, you must have the five concurrent affirmative votes of the permanent members. These five concurrent votes were not cast in favour of overruling your ruling. Therefore, the ruling, in my opinion, stands. 1 cannot see it otherwise.

1 wonder whether there is any use in continuing this discussion. 1 see that aIready the representatives of Australia and the United Kingdom wish to speak, as weIl as the representative of France, who will probably overmIe me again. 1 certainly take due notice of the opinion of Mr. van Kleffens, but 1 have formuglais): nion me tenant déclaré que Ml'. HASLUCK (Australia): The Australian delegation endorses the view expressed by the representative of the Netherlands. It seems ta us that the particular point with which we are now dealing is governed by rule 30, which, after stating that the President gives the ruling, proceeds: "... If it is challenged, the President sha11 submit his ruling to the Security Council for immediate decision and it sha11 stand, unless overruled." The plain meaning of those words seems to be that unless there is a sufficient majority against the ruling, the ruling stands, and the figures, as yon have announced them, are five supporting the ruling, and only four ta overrule. Therefore, our reading of rule 30 is that your ruling stands. moins contre et cinq contre, est que séquent, mander moindre , Nous

1 think wc should avoid getting into confusion in this matter, which is very simple. Therefore, in order ta keep the issue quite clear, 1 shall fonnulate it in the fon11 of a ruling and ask for challenges and a vote sa that there will be no doubt whatever. 1 shall fonnulate it in the following form. According ta my interpretation of the results of the vote just taken, 1 shaH hoId to the opinion that this is not ta bc considered a mattcr of procedure, and 1 woulcl like those members of the Couneil who sa desire to challenge this ruling. 1 will take a vote immediately and 1 think that will close the issue without getting us into further confusion. Ml'. JOHNSON (United States of America): Ml'. President, my original motion is the cause of the situation in which we now find ourselves. ln orcIer ta shorten the discussion and get on with the substance of the business we have in hand 1 am quite prepared to accept YOUf ruling with2 out, however, committing myself or my Government ta any final stand on this important matter of principle. For ad hoc pUI'poses, 1 accept your rulmg on that question.

1 thank the representative of ~he Unit~d States for his acceptance of this rnlmg, not Just bccause 1 am anxious to have my rulings acceptecI, 1 am always rcady to submIt ta the rulings of the majority of the Council during my presidency, but simply because it will avoid confusion. 1 remember that we had one' such meeting where we got into all kinds of dif~ ficult procedures and 1 think it would be better Ml'. HASLUCK (Australia): ln the circumstances, it is quite clear that we could not obtain a vote upsetting your latest ruling, but the Australian delegation would like to go on record as emphatical1y disagreeing with it.

1 take notice of the statement of the Australian representative. Ml'. PARODI (France) (translated fram French): In order not to make your aIready difficult task more complicated, Ml'. President, and because you were good enough to say that whatever we decided tonight would not create a precedent, 1 shal1 not make the observations which 1 should have liked ta make. 1 feel bound, however, ta add that 1 should like to put in a reservation regarding the interpretation which Ml'. Gromyko placed on the San Francisco declaration. He may be l'ight, 1 am not sure; in any case 1 should like it to be understood that 1 fully reserve my attitude. Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands) 1 assodate myself with the declaration made by the representative of Australia. The PRESIDENT: 1 shall take full notice of the statement of the representative of the Netherlands. 1 would like to add now that 1 am acting today only in the interests of avoiding confusion and getting unnecessarily into very complicated problems of procedure, which might be dealt with by the Committee of Experts. 1 think wc are now ready to take a vote on the motion of the representative of the United States to postpone the consideration of the voting on Albania's application until the next occasion when applications will again be considered. Will those representatives who are in favour of the American representative's motion l'aise their hands?

Three against. Two permanent members against. Consequently, it is not adopted. Ml'. JOHNSON (United States of America): A point of arder. If we take the actual count of votes pro and con, l would like to be quite sure that ail the votes are counted. l thought l saw more than three against. If we are going to takc the count at ail, it should be taken accurately and we shollid know who abstains.

Yes, l am fully in accord. For purposes of an accurate count, in case l have made an error, which may be possible, l shaH ask thbse who are in favour to raise their hands once more. A vote was taken with the following results: In favour: Brazil France Mexico Poland Soviet Union Against: Netherlands United Kingdom United States of Amcrica Abstentions: Australia China Egypt Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): Ml'. President, l shoulcl like to ask your permission to make a statement regarding the Australian abstention. Ml'. FAWZI (Egypt): Vou may remember that previously l requested that l be allowed to make a brief statement in connection with voting on the Albanian application. As l promised, l shall be very brief. Vous mandé la drai intérêt mande Nations arguments ou longue pays que mentionnée demande obstacles avenir abstenons The Egyptian delegation has listened with great interest to the statements made in connec- ~ion with Albania's application for membership III the United Nations and taken into serious consideration the arguments and material presented for and against her application. Our country has a long and continued tradition of close friendship with all the countries concerned in this matter, and it is our earnest hope that the situation mentioned by some delegations to cxplain their opposition to the admission of Albania be clarified, overcome or eliminated in the very near future. In the meantime we are abstaining from voting. Ml'. HASLUCK (Australia): Because of the view of the Australian Government regarding the correct procedure for the admission of new Members, l am instructed notto declare our attitude towards any application at this stage. We shall therefore abstain from voting on the question of whether or not any particulaI' State should be recommended for membership. This abstention is made for reasons relating to procedure and not for l'casons relating to the merits of any application. glais): ment recte Membres, nement notre mande abstiendrons de fondée et vernement il qui candidatures Transjordanie, Cette opportun demandes 1 am also instructed by my Government that on the information at present available to us, we, would be prepared, at what we consider the proper time, to support the applications of Ireland, Sweden, Transjordan, Afghanistan, and Iceland. This statement should not be taken as an indication that at the proper time Australia will nat support the application of any or all of the other applicant States.

l am sure that the Coul1cil will take notice of the instructions and the position of the representative of Australia. certain instructions présentant mandation laire We vote next on the recommendation to admit to membership the Mangolian People's RJepublic. Ml'. JOHNSON (United States of America): In view of what has happened in the case of Albania 1 am prepared to withdraw my motion far postponement of the voting on the Mongolian People's Republic, for it would obvlously have an adverse result, and be a waste of time. duit passé retirer sujet rencontrerait une passerons

Then we shaH proceed with the vating. Je tion, Ml'. FAWZI (Egypt): l am sorry to make another statement, but it is going to be briefer than that made on Albania, and l think l shaH The Egyptian cfèlegation considers that until now they have not at their disposaI sufficient information concerning the Mongolian People's Republic, and its qualifications for membership in the United Nations. 1 shall therefore abstain from voting.

1 shall ask the members who are in favour of the recommendation to admit ta membership the Mongolian People's Republic to raise their hands. A vote was taken with the following results: In favour: Brazil China France Mexico Poland Soviet Union Against: Netherlands United Kingdom United States of America Abstentions: Egypt Australia

The motion is not camed since there are two permanent members among those who have voted against. We shall now vote on Afghanistan's application. The vote was taken with the following results: In favour: Brazil China Egypt France Mexico Netherlands Poland Soviet Union United Kingdom United States of America Against: None Abstention: Australia The PRESIDENT: The rccommendation for the admission of Afghanistan is adopted. The next is Transjordan. In this connection 1 wanted to make a statement as representative of Poland. The representative of Poland has asked to postpone consideration of the applicatian for admission of Transjordan for one year until certain questions are settled. In view of the lact that we had some earlier demands for postponements in a similar spirit which later were not adopted, 1 do not put my demand for postponement to a vote. 1 also want to state that when wc vote against the recommendation, ail we reaily want to achieve is a postponement of a question and nothing more. A vote was taken with the following results: In favour: Brazil China Egypt France Mexico Netherlands United Kingdom United States of America Against: Poland Soviet Union Abstention: Australia The PRESIDENT: The recommendation is not carried. The next is Ireland. A vote was taken with the following results: In favour: Brazil China Egypt France Mexico Netherlands Poland United Kingdom United States of America Against: Soviet Union Abstention: Australia The PRESIDENT: The recommendation of Ireland is not carried. The next country is Portugal. Will those members who are in favour of recommending the admission of Portugal l'aise their hands? A vote was taken with the following results: In favour: Brazil China Egypt France Mexico Netherlands United Kingdom United States of America Against: Poland Soviet Union Abstention: Australia The PRESIDENT: Not carried. The next country is Iceland. Will those rnembers who are in favour of recommending the A vote was taken with the following results: In favour: Brazil China Egypt France Mexico Netherlands Poland Soviet Union United Kingdom United States of America Against: None Abstention: Australia

IceIand is recommended for membership. The ncxt country is Sweden. Will those members who are in favour of recommending the admission of Sweden raise their hands? A vote was taken with the following results: In favour: Brazil China Egypt France Mexico Netherlands Poland Soviet Union United Kingdom United States of America Against: None Abstention: Australia

Sweden is recommended to membership. l shaH sum up the results of our vote. We have decided to recommend for membership in the United Nations Afghanistan, Iceland, and Sweden. l should like to make a statement. l think l express the views of this Council when l make it quite clear that if certain of the applying States were not recommended in today's voting for admission to membership, this does not mean that the Council is not ready to recommend them in the future. l think that it is the desire of aIl of us, as well as of aIl the United Nations, that finaily aIl nations of the earth become Members of the United Nations. l know that it will take sorne time, that sorne of the nations will become Members sooner, some later. But l have no doubt that the day will come when ail nations will be Members of our Organization. Ml'. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated trom Russian): In connection with the war of the United Nations against the common enemy, Hitlerite Germany and militaristic Japan, the troops of certain Powers, Members of the United Nations, were introduced into the territory of several countries of the United Nations and of certain States that did not take part in the war, for the purpose of driving out the German and Japanese occupation forces or of preventing invasion by the troops of the Axis Powers. After these tasks had been fulfilled and the war had ended, and Germany and Japan were placed under the control of Allied occupation forces, sorne of the Allied forces were withdrawn from sorne of the above-mentioned territories. However, according to available information, Allied troops continue to remain in the territories of a number of Members of the United Nations and other States not comprised among the former enemy territories. The presence of Allied troops for a prolonged period after the end of the war, a presence which is not called for by military necessity, cannot fail to give rise to a quite natural uneasiness in the peoples of those countries in which foreign troops continue to be stationed. Moreover, world public opinion, which is concerned with the establishment of peace as soon as possible and the maintenance of general security, follows with unconcealed anxiety the situation wmch has been created in the above-mentioned countries. In view of the above, the Security Council should study the question of the presence of Allied troops at the present time in the territories of Members of the United Nations and of other States, with the exception of former enemy territories. The Security ·Council, however, has not at its disposaI information as to where precisely and in what number on the territories of Members of the United Nations and other States, with the exception of former enemy territories, troops of other Members of the United Nations still continue to remain.. However, in view of the obligations placed upon the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council should b~ informed of the locations and numbers of the armed forces of Members of the United Nations in the territories in question. Accordingly, under instructions from the Soviet Government, l make the proposaI that the Security Council should adopt a resolution requiring States Members of the United Nations to submit the following information to the Security Council within two weeks: 1. At what points on the territory of Members of the United Nations or other States, with the exception of former enemy territories, and in what number, are armed 3. The information to be provided under paragraphs 1 and 2 should refer ta the situation as it existed on the first of August, 1946. Mr. President, 1 place the text of my statement at your disposaI.

1 shall take this written statement and give it due consideration. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : The representative of the Soviet Union has just made a statement on a very large and important subject, and he has even made certain proposaIs in connection therewith. That subject does not appear on our agenda for today, though it might be said that it is perhaps, in sorne way, related ta item 3 on our agenda which has been the sub· ject of sorne discussion and which we have not yet admitted formally ta our agenda at all. However, if the Soviet representative wishes to raise. the question, there are ways, of course, that are open to him. Nobody can stop him. 1 suppose nobody wouId. want ta stop him. But there is a regular procedure for doing so, quite clearly set forth in rules 6, 7, and 8, of our rules of procedure. 1submit that the statement which the Soviet representative has made this evening is completely out of order at our present proceedings.

The statement really is not on the agenda, and 1 think the proper course would be to have it submitted first in writing, and then put it on the agenda. Since it is not on the agenda, 1 shall ask the representatives to refrain from further discussion. 1 also wish ta announce that 1 will put it on the next meeting's agenda, so that we will have the full possibility of discussing it Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): The matter to which 1 wish to refer is quite a small one. It is really a question regarding the next stage in our procedure in dealing with the admission of new Members. Perhaps J could put it most clearly by asking a question. Are we right in assuming that as a result of the decisions made this afternoon, the next step will be that the Security Couneil will transmit to the General Assembly a report which will include both the three favorable recommendations, and an account of the other five applications, and the results of the voting on them?

1 should like to reply .10 the question of the representative of Australia, that the proper procedure is that the recommenda- MT. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated trom Russian): 1 have already made a statement, which is at the disposaI of the Security Council, and 1 am sure that the President and the Secretary-General will deal with it in the appropriate way. There is no need for me ta point out that any mernber of the Security Council may make any statements that he considers necessary. 1 shall bc fully satisfied if the statement is put down for discussion, not necessarily today, but at the next meeting of the Security :::louncil. russe): Conseil, le comporte. tout ration ment nécessairement crite Conseil. le corderai qu'elle sera portée

1 want to assure the representative of the Soviet Union that 1 shall give due thought to his statement and put it on the agenda. mer d'être tion avons conditions alors Mr. PARODI (France) (translated tram French): 1 feel obliged to voice a regret regarding the statement which has just been made. It is not normal for a statement unrelated to the questions we have been considering this afternoon ta be made in circumstances such as those in which it was made, at 9 o'clock at night, and although it docs not appear on the agenda. In the intcrests of efficiency, we may express the wish that, in future, only such questions will be dealt with as previously appear on the agenda. pouvons tions d'abord (traduit une de désirerais légère l'Union la du séance ou Conseil térieur question ment Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : 1 was going to say what the French representative has said, but there was one other point 1 wanted to make. 1 wanted to correct a slight inaccuracy on the part of the representative of the Soviet Union when he seemed to anticipate that this question which he announces he is going to put on the Council's agenda, would be discussed at the next sitting of the Council. 1 do not know whether it will be, or not. It depends on when the Couneil meets. You can see by rule 8 of the rules of procedure that it cannot be discussed for three days. 1 just wanted to correct any possible misunderstanding. l'anglais): du séances au tenir Mais ces de Mr. VAN KLEFFENS CNetherlands): Assuming that tbis matter will go on the agenda for the next meeting or one of our next meetings, 1 have every wish to oblige the President, and 1 shaH certainly seek to obtain instructions from my Government. But it depends a little bit on when this matter will be discussed, assuming that it will be discussed, whether 1 shall have instruc- . tions or not at that time. crois est qui claration ment. remarque. chaine

1 think that the feeling of the representative of the Netherlands may be shared by sorne of the other representatives who want time to study the statement and also to consult their Governments, and 1 certainly shall take account of this. 1 should like to take up th,e matter of our next "meeting. As you know, in our provisional Ml'. JOHNSON (United States of America): Ml'. President, tomorrow is Friday, Saturday is a holiday, Sunday, of course, and Monday this year is also aholiday, Labor Day. The Secretariat will be closed. There is very little that we could accomplish in a short session tomorrow afternoon. May 1 suggest in the form of a question: why cannot we have the meeting on Tuesday? It does not matter if Ml'. Manuilsky stays here till then without coming before this Council. He can have a good l'est. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom): Ml'. President, 1 think in the course of your earlier remarks it was suggested that the Council, at its next meeting, might take up the matter. 1 want to be quite clear what taking up the matter means. So far as 1 remember, we left this matter yesterday without a decision as to whether it was formally included in the agenda or not. Therefore, the first matter to be discussed would be whether it is to be included in the agenda.

Yes. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : On that point, 1 have no objection to Ml'. Manuilsky's presence, of course.

1 want to inform the representative of the United Kingdom that by taking up the matter 1 also meant to include the question of whether it should be on the agenda or not. Ml'. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated trom Russian): As far as 1 know, Ml'. Manuilsky has already rested and is ready to take part in the work of the Security Council at three o'clock tomorrow. 1 cdnsider that it would be extremely desirable, nay, necessary that we begin the examination of this question tomorrow. The question raised by the Ukrainian Government is a serious one and we cannot postpone the examination of this question for several days. 1 would remind certain members of the Security Council that in other cases they counted not only the weeks but the days and even the hours when certain other questions were to be dis~ cussed. But now it appears that a postponement for sev<;r~l days is of no importance. 1 consider that th18 18 the wrong approach. 1 will put forward the proposaI that we begin tomorrow the Ml'. HSJA (China): 1 am afraid that what 1 am going to say is just opposite from what Ml'. Gromyko suggested. l think we aH realize that these last two days we have had pretty exhaustive ~essions, and 1 think this also applies to the staff and, probably, also to the audience. 1 do not know whether it might not be much better if we had a little l'est and came back with more strength and a more sane outlook, shaH we say. EspeciaHy in this country, they make a great deal of Labor Day, and probably really begin to leave the city tomorrow afternoon. With that unsettled mind, 1 do not know whether it is wise to take up such important matters. Ml'. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated from Russian): ln connection with the remarks of the Chinese representative, 1 should like to ask how long a time is nonnally required by members of the Security Council to l'est. In my opinion, eight to ten hours would be sufficient. Before 3 o'dock tomorrow afternoon we have eighteen hours. 1 think it is possible to re~t in that time. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : 1 really do not think that there is anything so urgent about this. Assuming that the Council agrees to put this on its agenda, we have before us a request from the Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs, who asked for a number of days in order to get the proper representative to take part in the discussions.

There is a new telegram. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdo~) : 1 only have the letter before me, and it seemed to me in any case that we should have to wait for a few days. If that has been superseded, that is a different matter.

We have a new telegram from the Greek Foreign Minister, saying that he is not able to come and that he has authorized the Greek Ambassador to represent Greece in the new case.

1 would very strongly urge the Council not to postpone this next meeting for several reasons. First of aH, because 1 think it is a matter of courtesy on the.part of the Council to the Foreign Minister of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic who has come especially from Paris and has left the Peace Conference in which he was very active. It is true that the discussion will not be finished tomorrow and will drag over into the next week. However, at least one day of discussion will be saved. 1 personally would favour meeting tomorrow, not in the afternoon, as suggested by the representative of the Soviet Union, but tomorrow morning at 11 o'dock. The Secretary-General says that there is a rcqucst of the Greek Government for ten days' postponement. The request is dated 28 AUg'ust. 'fhat means yesterday. 1 think it is a matter for the Council to decide when we place an added issue on the agenda. 1 think we have to decide first whether the issue should be on the agenda at an, because this has been challenged by the reprcsentative of the Netherlands. Then if we decide this positive1y, we have to decide whether to discuss the substance immediately, or whether to postpone it for ten days as requested by the representative of Greece. In view of this, 1 would very strongly favour ùur meeting tomorrow, at least to decide the preliminary issue, its adoption on the agenda, and sccondly, whether to grant the Greek request for postponement. Ml'. GROMYKO (Soviet Union) (translated from Russian): It seems to me that today we ought not to limit the tasks of tomorrow's meeting. How can we say today that at tbmorrow's meeting we may only diseuss the question whether the Ukrainian statement i~ to be placed on the agenda? Why should we limit our tasks for tomorrow beforehand? Perhaps we shall be able ta discuss this question for an hour or an hour and a haU and we shall have the time and the desire to continue the discussion on the substance of the Ukrainian statement. Therefore it seems to me, Ml'. President, that it would be better not to decide beforehand what point we shall dwell upon tomorrow, but simply proceed to discuss and examine the Ukrainian statement. When the Council decides that the meeting may be concluded tomolTow, it can take the appropriate decision regarding interruption of the discussion. With regard to the postponement of the question for ten days, 1 gather from the Secretary- General that the telcgram received yesterday from the Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding postponement has aIready been superscded by another telegram from the same Minister today, stating that the Greek Ambassador here has been authorlzed to represent the Greek Government. The SECRETARY·GEN'ERAL: May 1 offer a correction? The Secretariat has been bombarded with telegrams from Greece and many other countries during the last few days. We have circulated the te1egrams to the members of the "With reference ta the representations made by Mr. Dendramis, permanent representative of Grecce ta the United Nations, he has been authorized to represent Greece in the Security Couneil in connection with the question of the admission of Albania and the Ukranian statement. We have the honour ta request you, in the name of the Greek Government, ta be good enough to grant a postponement of ten days for discussion of the Ukranian statement, and in particular our reply thereto." When 1 said the Greek Foreign Minister would com~ herc, that was what 1 read in the papers. But we received a new telegram this afternoon: "1 beg ta acknowledge receipt of your letter of 26 August, and in reply 1 have the honour to request your Excellency, upon the direction of the Greek Government, to kindly inform the President and the members of the Security Council that in accordance with Article 31 of the Charter, Greece wishes ta participate in the debate wmch will take place when the Security Council considers the telegram from the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Ukrainian Government to the Secretary-General, dated 24 August 1946." That is the last telegram we have received.

1 would like to say that 1 think the representative of the Soviet Union misunderstood me. 1 said we can at least consider these two questions, but not that we should limit ourselves. 1 mentioned these questions as an argument for not losing time. Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : 1 only wish ta point out that neither of these telegrams that have been quoted made any reference ta the possibility of the attendance or the non-attendance of the Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs. In bath telegrams they named the Ambassador as their representative, and in the first telegram they say: "With reference ta the representations made by Ambassador Dendramis, who has been authorized ta represent Greece in the Security Council in connection with this question..." They then go on to request ten days' delay, and 1 think if we get a request like that from a Government that has been subject to wild accusations, we really must consider complying with it. Tomorrow, 1 don't mind, we could continue discussion and decide whether we shall admit this matter ta the agenda. Perhaps we shall admit it, and perhaps not. That will depend on the attitude of Mr. Manuilsky. Mr. HASLUCK (Australia): The question before us as far as we can understand is the fixing {Jf a date for the next meeting. On that, we are Sir Alexander CADOGAN (United Kingdom) : Ml'. President, l move we hold our next meeting on Tuesday next. Will you put that to the vote? There cannot be much more ta be said on the subject one way or the other. Ml'. GROMYKO (Soviet Union): (translated from Russian): 1 think there are no serious justifications for postponing consideration of the Ukrainian statement. The Ukrainian Government attaches serious importancè to the question which it has brought before the Security Council. Sir Alexander Cadogan regards the accusations contained in the Ukrainian statement as "wild accusations". Then why does he not try to begin the examination of the statement and try to refute what he regards as an unfounded accusation? Why is he attempting to postpone tms discussion? l repeat that we have no serious grounds for postponing the discussion. There is no need for me to remind the Council a second time what energy was displayed by certain members of the Council in discussing other questions when there was talk of postponing the discussion for a few days. The Australian representative even went sa far as ta display a paternal solicitude for the Secretariat lest it be overburdened with work, although 1 have not heard either the Secretary-General or any other representative say that the overburdening of the Secretariat prevented the examination of the Ukrainian statement. We cannot take this seriously. Serious questions cannot be dealt with so lightly in the Security Council. Ml'. PARODI (France) (translated tram French): Apart from the question of the date, 1 am a little perturbed by the fad that we may be in a difficult position tomorrow or on Tuesday, and 1 put the question to you in order that we should have sOlne time to think it over. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Ukraine has arrived. This fact should be borne in mind and careful attention should be paid to the requirements of courtesy. But as we had not expected his arrivaI, wc may perhaps find ourselves in a difficult position because Greece has, quite justifiably, asked for a postponement. We may perhaps get out of the difficulty by asking the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Ukraine to prepare certain written material which seemed to us to be lacking in his documentation. 1 thought 1 ought to point out this difficulty sa that sorne consideration could be given to it. M. la l'embarras trouver, question réfléchir. Le l'Ukraine de grande n'avions trouver tenant tout serait étrangères documents Jans cette Le sire que qu'il ment. Je pour de la être la séance

1 want to inform the representative of France that 1 am fully conscious of. the problems he has raised and shall keep them in mind, and give them full consideration. 1 want to thank all the members of this Council for the great patience shown today, ?ecause 1 think it was one of our longest meetmgs on record. 1 declare the meeting closed.