S/PV.573 Security Council

A great figure has just died, great in his dignity, his modesty and his human simplidty, great in his unfaltering devotion to public duty, great in the infinite tact and wisdom with which he exercîsed his royal powers, a:lways quietly and unostentatiously, great, too, in the courage with which, during recent years, he bore the sufferings of a terrible disease. 2. 1 am sure that the merilbers of the Security Council wholeheartedly ~hare the immense sorrow of. Hel' Majesty Queen Elizabeth, of the entire British Royal Family, of the people of the United Kingdom and of aU the peoples of the Commonwealth who lavished upon the late King their respect and their boundless devotion. In token of the grief we feel, I ask my colleagues to rise and observe a minute's sÏ'1ence in memory of the late King George VI;

1 was indeed profùundly touched by the remarks of the Presidènt. The entire British people has been shocked al1d· moved to learn today of the untimely death of its belovedSovereign, King George VI. By his conduct, .his dem~anour and his great popular appeal, King

On hehalf of the Government of Pakistan :;: wish to convey to our British colleague, and through him to the Royal Fami~v, the Government and the people of Great Britain, our deep(;,:,i: sympathy in the 10ss they have suffered by the sad and untimely passing of the late King George VI. This is a loss not on1y to the people of England but ta the entire Commonwealth, and he will be mourned by millions outside the country over which he reigned and by ail those who came into contact with his gracious personaIity, because he was a great and a good man. We ,'equest our British coUeague to convey our sentiments to the members of the Government and to assure them that we feel with them in their great 10ss and bere(\.vement. Trihute to Mr. Chauvel, the. representaûve of France, an~ welcome to his 8uccessor

Before turning to the provisional agenda oÏ today's meeting, l take pleasure in paying a sincere and friendly tribute to my predecessor as President of the Security Cound'1. 1 am 5ure that lam expressing the feelings of aIl members of the Council in conveying our thanks to the gentleman who presided ·over our discussions during January with such ability al'ld impartiality, tolerance and competence. Mr. Chauvel's great qualities are known to us aU. By his wide experience, his exceptional tact, his personal charm and the steady faith br which he has been guided in the performance of bis duties as permanent representative of France, he readily earned the sympathy, esteem and respect of aU bis coUeagues. Called now to take charge of the French Embassy in Switzerland, Mr. Chauvel leaves us with memories which time cannat efface. 6. Our regret can onlybe counterbalanced by the confidence we have in the merits of his successor. Mr. Hoppenot is, of course, a newcomer to the United Nations, but his reputation·has preceded him. His career has taken him to many continents and he has brought back a very broad experience of international aftairs.His collaboration will, l am sure, be valuable and profitable to us. On hehalf of aU the members of the Council 1 co:rdially welcoll''= Ambassador Hoppenot.

M:r. President, the words of welcotne which Y9U have been kind enough to address me, both on your own behalf and on that ot our colleagues in the Secudty Council, have touched me deeply. l thank you sincerely. 8. You ma}" be certnin that, drawing inspiration from the ej(atrtple of 111y two predecessors, l shaH endeavOtlr to collaboratè as wholeheartedly and l1s effectively as r possibly can in our common task. The fesportsibiHties assnmed by our Council are commensnrate with the mission assigned ta i1. Our dutYis defined and dictated by the provisions of the United Nations Charter from which wc derive our existence, by the confidence of our governments which have appointed us their representatives, and by the hope placed in us by all the peoples in their yearning for peace and freedom. So far a::; 1 am concerned, 1 shall do my very best to discharge that duty. Adoption of the agenda Letter dated 10 December 1951 addressed to the President of the 8ecuri!y CouneU from the Secretsry-General, li'ansmitting the text of a resolu.tion, eoncerning the admission of ItaIy to membership in the United Nations, adopted by the General A8Bembly at ilS 352nl p~enary meeting (8/2435)

The COUl1dl will retnel11ber that it consldered this same itelrt at its [569th] meeting of 19 Der.:ember 1951, and if 1 am correct, was ready to vote on the two draft resolutions before it, the F!:~nch draft resC'lution [-.5'/2443] and the USSR draft resolution [5/2449]. AIl the members of the Council had taken the floor, either to speak on tl,e two draft resolutions or to corn.,. ment on only the one which had been submitted :first, that is to say, the French draft resolution. If 111embers of the Coundl have no objection, 1 shall give the .floor to those who wish to express their views. If they w1s1-.. ta speak on the two draft resc.lutions, they may do so immediately. If they wish to speak only on the draft resolution which will be put to the vote second, the USSR text, 1 shall ask them to do 50 after the vote has been taken On the first text, the French draft resolution.

Tt isnot quite clear ta me why the President has made his remark about members of the Security Council limiting their statements, and referring only to the French draft resolution and notmentioning the USSR draft resolution. 11. Such a limitation is incomprehensible and unprecedented. 12.. '. Every member of the Security Coundl is entitled ta refer to the draft resolutions which have been sub- Ulitted to the Couudl; especially i11 view of the fact that .both these draft resolutiohs relate to .the sari:1e quêstion.

l am very much ail'aiel that the USSR representative has not entirely uncIerstood my observation. l statecI explicitly that any speaker who might wish ta speak on the two cIraft resolutions at the saUle time coulcI certainly elo 50, but if there happened ta be a speaker who hacI already spoken on the French cIraft resolution at the meeting of 19 Dece111ber 1951 and wishecI now to confine himself ta c0l11111enting Upon the USSR cIraft resolution, l woulcI acIvise him, simply in orcIer ta save time, to cIo so after the vote has been taken on the French draft resolution. Certainly the USSR representative is perfectly at liberty to speak on the two draft resolutions, before or after the vote.

l am very much ail'aiel that the USSR representative has not entirely uncIerstood my observation. l statecI explicitly that any speaker who might wish ta speak on the two cIraft resolutions at the saUle time coulcI certainly elo 50, but if there happened ta be a speaker who hacI already spoken on the French cIraft resolution at the meeting of 19 Dece111ber 1951 and wishecI now to confine himself ta c0l11111enting Upon the USSR cIraft resolution, l woulcI acIvise him, simply in orcIer ta save time, to cIo so after the vote has been taken on the French draft resolution. Certainly the USSR representative is perfectly at liberty to speak on the two draft resolutions, before or after the vote. 15. l give the floor ta the representative of the 'Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on a point of order. 15. l give the floor ta the representative of the 'Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on a point of order.

It might be preferable to ask the Secretariat to let us have simultaneous interpretation, in orcIer to avoicl any misunderstanc1ings as our work proceeds.

It might be preferable to ask the Secretariat to let us have simultaneous interpretation, in orcIer to avoicl any misunderstanc1ings as our work proceeds.

The Secretariat has informecI us that that is quite impossible. For simultaneous interpretation eleven more persons woltlcI be requirecI and the Secretariat cannot find them for us.

The Secretariat has informecI us that that is quite impossible. For simultaneous interpretation eleven more persons woltlcI be requirecI and the Secretariat cannot find them for us. 18. If no one wishes to speak, l should like to cIo so in my capacity as representative of GREECE. 18. If no one wishes to speak, l should like to cIo so in my capacity as representative of GREECE. 19. In that capacity, then, l state that l shall vote for the clraft resolution submitted by the French cIelegatioll -",;and that, on the other hancI, l shall not vote for the USSR cIraft resolution. 19. In that capacity, then, l state that l shall vote for the clraft resolution submitted by the French cIelegatioll -",;and that, on the other hancI, l shall not vote for the USSR cIraft resolution. 20. The' Greek de1egation unreserveclly supports the French proposai for the very simple, perfectly valid and sufficient reason that Italy entirely fulfils the conditions prescribed inparagraph 1 of Article 4 of the Charter. Italy is most certainly a peace-Ioving State, it accepts the obligations of the Charter and, in the judgment of our Organization, is capable of fulfil1ing them and willing to do so. 20. The' Greek de1egation unreserveclly supports the French proposai for the very simple, perfectly valid and sufficient reason that Italy entirely fulfils the conditions prescribed inparagraph 1 of Article 4 of the Charter. Italy is most certainly a peace-Ioving State, it accepts the obligations of the Charter and, in the judgment of our Organization, is capable of fulfil1ing them and willing to do so. 21. Our Organization has a:lready pronounced its verdict in this matter. It did so categorically, in a manner that was al1110st equivalent to a reversaI of the chronological order in which the opinions of the two competent organs are required ta be given under paragraph 2 of Article 4. 21. Our Organization has a:lready pronounced its verdict in this matter. It did so categorically, in a manner that was al1110st equivalent to a reversaI of the chronological order in which the opinions of the two competent organs are required ta be given under paragraph 2 of Article 4. 22. In resolution 550 (VI) adopted on 7 December 1951, by the overwhelming 111ajority of 50 votes to 5, the General Asse111bly affirmed that Italv fülfilled the conditions necessary for membership iii the United 22. In resolution 550 (VI) adopted on 7 December 1951, by the overwhelming 111ajority of 50 votes to 5, the General Asse111bly affirmed that Italv fülfilled the conditions necessary for membership iii the United ~a~ions. In other worcIs, the General Assembly has mvIted us to rec0111mend that the Organization admit Italy to rnenlbership. ~a~ions. In other worcIs, the General Assembly has mvIted us to rec0111mend that the Organization admit Italy to rnenlbership. 23. That procedure is not, of course' abnorma'l not above ail, is it unconstitutional, since the Gener~l As~ :>embly's clecision will ,cnly he taken last, on the 23. That procedure is not, of course' abnorma'l not above ail, is it unconstitutional, since the Gener~l As~ :>embly's clecision will ,cnly he taken last, on the 24. On -1- Veœmher 1950 at ilS fifth session. the G~neral As:.;embly ndopted in pleuary tlleetïug, without prior reference tn ft Committee, resolution 495 (V) reljuesting the Security Coulldl to keep under coll!lidetM ation application:! for admissinn. indudiug that of Italy, iu accordarlce with the ternls of the re:301utiol1S 1 hmc just emU11era!cd. AlI t1~ese resolutions, 1 repent, Were adopted practlcally u11a11lmously hy the AEl'iembly. They were, 1110reover, coufirmed, nRY, reinforced, hy reso1uM tiolls 550 (VI) of 7 December 1951 and 506 A (Vl) and 506 il (V1) of 1 February 1952, 25. The Greek deleg1ttion voted for cach of these t'esdlutiOllS iu turn. As oue of Italy's neighbouts and, liIœ that country, facîng the l\lediterr!1nean, Greece is, l think, ohe of the Me111ber States uf the Uhited NatiClU!:l uest qualified ta express an opinion. Our relations with the ueighbouritlg pellinsula, which date back ta the dawll of history, made it possible for us tu note, shortly after the end of hostilities, that the Italian people, whose historie l'ole none ca11 gaillsay, thtew off very quickly thepernidous. inflltences of fasdstn al)d regàÎtled its political balahce in h denlocratit: Iiberalis111 that is Îll har1110ny with its deepest traditions. We were thu8 among the first ta establish relations of trust and. friende.hip with the new Italy. Greece cOllsiders that Italy's absence from our Organization is tlhjust, and, conseqtlentlYI regrettable. 1 will l'Ven go 50 far aB to Bay that the absence of a nation with one of tLe richest cultural heritages can on1y do harm to our Organizatiol1, the moral unity of whîch is based 011 a very wide diversity of contribution. Again, the mm-participation of lta1y in the United Natious, and consequently hl the Trusteeship Coutlcil, is out of keeping with the mission we have entrusted to it of leading Somalîlal1d towards independence. 26. The clearly expressed wHl of nineMtenths of the Members of our Organi ;ation is paralysed by a single -vote in the Security Counci!. On four occasions, unl11ely, on 21 August 1947 [190th meeting], 1 October 1947 [206th meeting], 10 April 1948 [279th meeting] aud 13 Septe111ber 1949 [443rd meeting], the Soviet Duion thwarted the large majority of the Security Counci!. . 27, 1t îs ta be noted that only on the first occasion, tha.t· is ta say, 011 21 August 1947, was it possible to fiud sorne justification in Article 4 for the Soviet Dtlion veto. The USSR delegation then maintained that c011sideration of the candidatures of ex-enemy States should be delayed until the peace treaties had come into force. On 29 August of that same yea., that is to say, eight days after that statement, the Soviet Union' ratified the peace treaties which came into f0rce sorne days later. 29. The Clrcek de](>gatioll will yote against that draft rcsnllltion bl'cause, ill nur opiniull, it lll1derllliucs the v~r'y ioumlatiolls nf unr Charter ami might open the \\'Rr tn cndless allllsl'. 1t illlplics cUllIplete cnntl'tIlpt nf nl1 tlll' c1earlr ddinl'cl precautions with which Article -1- of the Charter sllllght to sl1l'1\Iund the :Illtnission of llCW :\lclllilcrs. The l.·SSR rirait resul11tiOlI deliheratelv ove nide,; thuse precalltions. • 30. It has aln'ad\' hcen said in the First CnlllllJittce that this prnpl.lsalls eqtliralellt t(1 a Ilargain, a hargaill idclltical in all n'sl'l'cts to the rather shady lIlalHtIl\'I"eS 1(1101Y11 in English as horse-trading. The il111llorality of that ll:tl'g-aill is more lhall IIh"illll);, ior it abides hy the most catL~gnrical provisi(lns ni th,~ Charter only Ily Cil'Cllll1VClltillg tltl'lII. \Vhilc the pre<lmllle oi the dmft l'<.'solution states tllat the Securitv Cuuncil has .. L':-ialllilled" the applicatillns fnr ,1lhilÎ);sinn, tlle l'cal menuing of the USSl{ prupu~al is rn'ccis,'l)' that the applications shaH llut he l'xalllilH:c1 at aIL .ll. Titis very stl'ang(' pl'(I(1(1~al is prescnted to us as heing hasl;r! lin tllL' prillcipil: ni tlnÎ"ersality. As wc <lll Imll\\', t1re pllrpusl' .. "f that prillcipie is tu cxtencl the <lpplicatinn of tlll' Chartl'r tu the whnle wodd and tu hringal! (H'uples ui the world \\'ithin lIm Organizatiotl. That princip1e is the vcry corllerstone uf the United :\'atinlls and consequently ail nul' d'furts shoulc1 1)(' dirccterl lowan!s that l'Ill!. Hllt ld Ils lllake no lllistrlke; the CSSR tlraft resllllltioll stans out {rom [aIse intcrpret:ttitlll IIf the prillciplc oi Ilniwrsality, ILS its adll[Jlillll wmtld 1ead tn a purcly autnlllatie and Illedlallical Sy.stl'Ill uj admission, \\'hich is categnrically prohihitcll by .\rtide ·k Tme, t1u' idl':L Ilf universality i:, implkit in t!Je Chartt'r, liut, at the S:lIlll' time, the Ch;trter t,ll,('s can~ III specify in Jlt'l.'cise terms that the principlc l'an iiI' applil'd onl)' slIbject to certain c:onditiolls and t\mt the candidates fnr ac!lnission mllst :'iatbfv ct'rtain rl'I/Uil"l.'llll'l1t.S. Tl) ,~l't aside tllOSl' conditjolls'lry ad1llitting canclic.1ates l'II Moe, Wh('11 sOllle of [hem an', to say the kast, Ilot <jualtlied for admission, w011111 bt~ a Ilag-rallt viulatioll ni the principl!'s of the Chart(~r, inc\udillg tlze principle uf lllli\'et·sality. 32. The princÎple of univcrsality il11plies that there slmll he 110 di.sCrilllillat;OIl ,llJd that tlle standards laid (\OlVtl in Artide -1- shall hl' applied to a11 with l'quaI il1llxu'tialitr and ,,1Jjeclll·ity. III d01l1estic J:lII', the }lrinciple of 11l1iwrsality Gnlls its expression in eqnality lJdorc the law, tl1(~ eqnality ni hurdens as \Vell as of rigbts. J3. Tht1s, in the l'oulltries where militar)' service is <':ol!lpllisory ior a11, the recruiting boards e1i1l1inate ail tllOS(~ who are Ilot snitahle fnr service in the armec1 iorcf.~s, hut thal cloc:; !lot l1lean that tlley hreak the ntleof eqllnlity of lntr<lens. III th(~ c1c1l1ocratÎl: cOllntrie~J ,aU citizL:lls call appl)' ior a post in the ar!ll1illistmtion, That does nnt 1Ill':tn, h\l\\'l'ver, that once YOll are a candidate you arc lllHllHl ln hl' ndmitted or that a sell~ction of the best qualilied \'iolalcs the principle of ('([nal rights. 36. Whèll, îtl 1949, and thet1 in 1950,the applicâtiCilts uf lsraèl and Indtlnesia \vere exmiliner1, the USSR delegàtiol1 ~îd. not opp.os~ ..their. admission il1}~e t1a.t1!l' uf the pr111clple tlf untversahty. 111 explal11trig lm fnv(\urable. attitude on the Tmionesiul1 appllcntidl1 at the Sèc\.U'ity CounCÎ'1 meeting of 19 Decelliher 1951 t569tlt nteeti1'lg), the Soviet Union reptesentative stlid qulte .sÎll1ply i:hat that \\Tas fi. special case. 1. ttiust t~111phâSlz~ th~t . 111Y rel1mrks do .not in llilY way cmlcern the . qU.âltficat~.o~s cf t~ese.t.\\!O countrt~s to heCOt1.le Mt!111bers:-ther qttaltfÎèatl0l1s have tft fr\ct Beert tetogrtized - httt l umsÎ111ply spealdl1g of thé So-viet UHiul1'S "tight " to decide, in ],Jurely arbitrary fnshiot1 !111q tegrtrdlessof ~he democratlc tule (lf t!1e 111ajo~1ty, Whlth àre the s11e<.èlal cases. It reset\res to Itself â rfght it refUsè3 to the ovel·whe1tning 111ajority of Me111bers bath Hl the Security Cot111cii and in the Assel11bly. Like Ibsen;!! n Enèlùy .of the People H it iJfOclâÏ111s th~t. thê ttuljtJrity, l 1111ght evensay the ahnost ttl1al1fmoUs tJpll1ftln; isalways wl:'ongal1d tha.t theSoviét Ul1it311 Is always tlght. 37. SOl11e of us, il1 the hopèoi ûl1cHng a \Vay out of the deâdlockcreated by the tJSSR veto, thought ft expecllel.j.t to accept as a pis-aller. the meèhanical; autmn.atlc lhethod of wholesa.le adli1issious. Expedîency 15 a lligh priee topay, in faet too high, for the bargaÎl1 lnvohœd in·thàt so-called exit irom the deadltlck not only ",iolatés Article 4 aud.other oblIgations.whiéh \Ve âtcepted when vve .. siglled the Charter, but. more esp~cially deals. a ..dire"t .,blow .at the provisions. of .Arttc1e 2l paragraph 6, W"'tlch says that "the Organtzat10tl shall ensure that States which are not Membêfs of .the United Nations id in aecordartce with th&e Prindples 50 far as may be necessary for tht' maifltenante of internàtional peace and securityll. Ifis mdeed qttestionab'le .how that dause cotùd be applié<f i~ prattice bY.3on organizatiol.1 whose dom·s were \Vide open éveIl ta those who set Httle store by the principles aitnitW at the. l11aintenance of international peace and seeutlty. 38. Moreover, 'ry a<:eepting the solutioti proposed to !t51 we should be going counter to Article 6, which 39. For aU these reasons, the Soviei. Union proposaI seems to us untenable, discriminatory and exceedingly dangerous for the future of our Organization. Its adoption would deal the Organization an irreparable hlow. 40. The USSR representative alleged during the debates in the First Committee that the "Anglo- American bloc" was 2.-:'tacking the principle of the unanimity of the Great Powers. l should like to point out that it is the Soviet Union that isundermining the unanimity rule laid.down in Article 27, paragraph 3, by placing upon that principle an interpretation that is as faIse as it is arbitrary and by setting it in direct opposition to the Purposes and Principles of the Charter. 41. It is an axiom of psychology - one that of course applies to the Members of this Organization - that a condition of marasmus or stasis is often fl)llowed by dang;erously violent reactions. Between Scylla on the one side, .as represented by the present state of stagnation caused by the USSR veto, and Charybdis on the other, in which, ta borrow a simile used by Sir Gladwyn· Jebb in the Political Committee, a great majority of the United Nations may one day find themselves engulfed, we can ir,.agine, not without distress, the fate that lies before our Organization. 42. Neverthe1ess, the Greek delegation, realizing the value set by the Soviet Union on the United Nations, strongly hopes that these two formidable pedls may eventually be avoided. 43. We have not lost hope that the Soviet Union delegation will withdraw its illegal and discriminatory draft resolution, even at this eleventh hour, and thus enab1e the Council.to put forward the recommendation so fervt:ntly desired by nearly every nation represented in the Assembly. 44. Ml'. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republies) (translaied fro'1n Russian): The Soviet Union delegation has aIready stated, frequently and fairly fully, both· in the Security Council and in the General Assembly, its views on the question of the admission of new Members to the United Naticns. 45. The Security Council now bas to consider the applications üf fourtc::en States: Albania, the Mongolian People's Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Finland, Ital)', Portugal, Ireland, Jordan, Austria, Ceylon, Nepal and Libya. Many· of these States submitted their applications for membership in the United Nations five or six years ago. As we know, Albania submitted its application on 25 January 1946, the Mongolian People's Republic applied on 24 June 1946, Jordan on 8 July 1946, Ireland and Portugal on 2 August 1946, HUhb 3.ry on 22 April 1947, Italy on 7 May 1947 and so forth. 47. The simultaneous admission of all the fourteen countdes which have applieè for membership in the United Nations would be an equitable and objet::tive approach. 48. The recent debate on the question of the admission of new Members in the First Committee and at pienary meetings of the General Assembly has shown that a majority of the Members of the United Nations who took part in the voting on the USSR draft resolution, 1 recommending that the Security Council should reconsicler the applications of thirteen States and should consider Libya's application for its admission to membership in the United Nations, spoke !p favour of the simultaneous admission to membershii.J in the United Nations of an the fourteen States enumerated in the proposaI of the USSR delegation. 49. It is known that this proposaI of the Soviet Union delegation was adopted by :-he First Committee. 2 The adoption of this proposaI showed that the position of the United States, which is not permitting the admission of an fourteen States to membership in the United Nations, is evoking increasing dissatisfaction and c1iscontent. As has already been pointed out, this dissatisfaction is fdt not Qnly.by the countries whose admission to membership in the United Nations has been hindered by the United States for many years, but also by many Member States of the United Nations, especial1y by those of them who do not blindly follow United States policy in this connexion. 50.• On t?e other hand,. the position taken by the SovIet Umon on the question of the admission of new Monbers is being more and more widelv supported by Member States of the United Nations and an those who sincerely wish to solve that problem. S~.. T?e Soviet Union proposaI concerning the aun~llsslOn o~ an fourteen States to meinbership in Umted NatlOns has been widely publicized in the world Press. l could quote· many extracts from statements in the American,. Italian, British and French Press, but l shall confine myself to quoting .from a Britishnewspaper. For example a London newspaper, The Timesof 24 January 1952. c1early stated tha~. "There is a growing tendency to believe that a deCISlOn can be reached only in accordance with the ~ussian proposa!. " 53. The representative of the United States continues to adduce aU manner of unfounded and far-fetched ohjections, quite ullconnected with the United Nations Charter, ~ainst admitting these States ta the United Nations. Tllere is no need ta dwell on aU this) since hath the Soviet Union del~ation and ather delegations haye already given a suttlciently convincing allswer ta aU {hese far~fetched objections raised by the United States delegation. 54. It is quite abvious that the stanà tal\:en bv the United States is t'ontrarv both ta the United Nations Olarter and to the pritidple vf equalitv as between States. The United States, by barrhlg thëse five Stat~s from United Nations membership, is thereby abo preventing the admission of nine other States, ta' whose mcmbership it d()es not formaUy abject, or atany rate prett::nds it does not obJect. The fact that, in the First Cotl1m~ttee, the .majorit)' of delegatibns supported the resolutlon subnlltted by the USSR, which advocated the admission of aU fourteen States ta United Nations membership, means that the United States of America, which opposed tht.. USSR proposaI, suffered a dedsive defeat. It was defeated on this question aso in the plenary me("~ng Qf the General Assembly,3 where there were twenty-two votes in favour of the Soviet' Union 'liraft resolution and twent)'-one against, i.e., a majority in favour. 55. .Nevertheless, the United States delegatioll SU(:ceeded, by using various procedural tricks and e.xerting pressure, as usual, on countries dependent on it, in preventing the formal adoption of this resolution by the Assembly on procedura:l grounds. 56. According to information available, the United States del~aation,after the failure of its efforts to prevent the adoption of the Soviet Union proposaI in the First Committee. conducted a feverish cal "ass amongst the deiegations, trying to collect a larger majoritv 9f votes against the USSR draft resolution. • Si. ~-pite this, the Soviet Union proposaI received an even larger number of votes at the plenary meeting of the General Assembly than in the First Committee; but, although the USSR proposaI received a majority of the votes, it was ouly the procedural manœuvres of the United States delegation and its group of fol1owers 1."hich prevented its formaI adoption. 58. 1t is important ta reca11 aIl these facts, in arder ta show the members of the Security Councü that 59. The majority of members both in th~ First Committee and in the General Assembly voted for the Soviet Union proposaI. The only obstacle preventing an equitable and speedv solution of the question is, as before, the stand taken by the United States, which, for its own selfish purposes, is still opposing the admission of aIl fourteen States. 60. Ite may be of interest to cite the following concrete example. Investigation shows that the delegations which either supported or did not oppose the Soviet Union proposaI for the simultaneous admission to the United Nations of aU fourteen States represent an overwhehning majority of the el1tire world population, 1 and not merely a majority of the populations of 1'Ifember States of the United Nations. If we take the population of aU sixtY Member States of the 'United Nations to be 100 per cent, and then reckon the size of the populations of the countries whose delegations at the sixth session of the General Assemblv voted for or abstained from voting on the Soviet Union proposal to admit aIl fourteen States to the United Nations, we und that 83 per cent of the total population of Member States spoke and voted in favour of that resolution or· abstained from voting, i.e., did not oppose it. 61. That is the genuine majority of the United Nations, and not the fictitious "majority" consisting of the countries obedient to the United States - including principally the Latin-American countrieswith whose help the United States very frequently prevents the adoption by the United Nations and its subsidiary bodies of proposaIs which." are just and acceptable to the peoples of the whole world. 62. Various insinuations were made against the Soviet Union, earlier, and today the Greek representative has made similar remarks to the effeet that the attitude of the Soviet Union is preventing the admission of Italy to membership in the United Nations. It is scarcely necessary to dwell at length upon this question, since the attitude of the Soviet Union with regard to the admission of Italy has frequently been made clear, and only people who do not wish to face faets could state that the Soviet Union is preventing the admission of Italy to the United Nations. 63. l would remind the Council that quite recently the S?viet Union ~overnment, in its note of 25 January of thlS year, replymg to the note of the Italian Government of 8 December 1951, once agaîn explained to the Italian Government that the S0vi~~ Union never has objeeted and does not object to ',;he admission of Italy to membership Î1~ t!;~ United Nations onan equal footing with other States qua:lifying for admission. The Soviet Union Government's note points out that Italy has not thus far been admitted to membership in the United Nations only through the fault of the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and France, wpose attitude in the! tter of the admission of Italy to the United Natioil:> is at 64. Aiming as it does at an immcdiate and equitable solution of the problem of the admission of the fourtcen applicant States to the United Nations, and taking account of the wish of the majority of delegations to the sixth session of the General Assembly, and also of the desire of the overwhelming majority of the peoples of the worId to solve this problem as soon as possible, the Soviet Union delegatiol1 has made the following additions to its draft resolution Rubmitted to the Security Cotlncil on 19 December 1951 [SI2449]: , (a) To the list of States enumerated in the Soviet Union draft resolution, add "Libya"; (b) ln the operative part of the draft resolution, insert the word ., simultaneously ". 65. This will meet the wishes expressed in the statements made and the votes cast by the majority of delegations in the plenary meeting of the sixth session of the General Assembly and in the meetings of its First Committee. . 66. "Vith the above additions the Soviet Union draft res01ution will read as follows: "The Secllrity C.ouncil, "Hav;ng examined the applications of Albania, the Mongolian People's Republic, Bu:lgaria, Romania, Hungaty, Finland, Italy, Portugal, Ire1and, Jordan, Austria, Ceylan, Nepal and Libya for admission to membership of the United Nations, "Reco111mends the General Assembly to admit those States simultaneously to membership in the United Nations." . 67. The adoption of this druft resolution bv the SecurityCouncil will pl'.t an end to the long drawn-out dispute on the admission of new Members and solve in a positive sense the problem of the Security Council's recommending the General Assembly to admit simu1taneouslv a11 the fourteen States enumerated. in the Soviet Union draftresolution. 68. \iVith regard to the Greek representative's first speech today, his "debut", so to speak, in the arena of opposition to the admission of the fourteen States ta membership of the United Nations, it was indeed. impossible· to expect. from him anything either new or original in this matter. He has merely. painsta).cingly repeated what the United States representatives said here and has, in particular, repeated practically literally a11 their attacks on the Soviet Union. . 69. This is quite understandab!~. Greece was elected to me.mbership of the Security Council by the efforts of the United States in gross violation of the United Nations Charter and of the London agreement, precisely in order that its delegation should repeat in the Council ward for word what the United States representative says here. . 72. Everyone knows that the applications of thirteen States have already been examined several times by the Security Council, albeit without the participation of the Greek representative. 73. \Vith regard to the examination of the Libyan application, it does not require special examination or special study by the Committee on the Admission of New Members. The issue is clear: the Security Council may recommend the admission of Libya to membership in the United Nations at the same time as the other thirteen States which submitted their applications earlier. There have already been such precedents in the Security Council's practice. 74. In the light of all the foregoing, the Soviet Union delegation submits these additions to its original drait resolution and recommends them to the Security Council's attention, and witI insist that this Soviet Union draft resolution be put to the vote, 50 that the voting may show who is genuinely in favour of the admission of aU fourteen States to membership in the United Nations, who is genuinely anxious to see the United Nations open its ranks to fourteen new Members, thus bringing into the family of nations joined together in the United Nations more than a hundred million human beings - which would undoubtedly represent a big step forward and a substantial contribution to peace and to the development of friendly relations between countries. 75. The vote will aIso show who is preventingthe admission of these States to JJ;lembership in the United Nations and obstructing a solution of this long drawnout problem. . 76. The PRESIDENT (translated from French.) : The revised text of the Soviet Union draft resolution, S/2449/Rev.1, referred to by the USSR representative, has just been.circulated. 77. Mr. SANTA CRUZ (Chile) (translated from Spanish) : The delegation of Chile, which did not have an opportunity of taking. part in the early stages of the Security Council's debate on the admission of new Members, has studied with great interest the discussions in the records of the Security Council's 568th and 5691h meetings. 78. We have observed that the discussion cer' "ed around -two drait resolutions: that concerning " . submitted by the French delegation in compliance \Vith a specifie recommendationof the General Assembly, and a USSR drait resolution asking the Security Council to recommend the admission of fourteen States which have sent in applications. 80. Chile shares most of the ideas expressed on those occasions. It believes that· the democratic Italy of today possesses ail the requireme1~ts. laid. dO'Nn in Article 4 of the Charter for the acInusslOn 01 a country to the United Nations. It also shares the conviction expressed by other speakers that the reasons ac1c1nced by the representative of the USSR against the taking of a separate decision in the case of Italy are not consistent either with the spirit or with the letter of the Charter, as interpreted by the International Court of Justice. 1 do not think that the arguments repeated a few minutes ago by the USSR representative can demolish the firmly grounded argumentation put forward by Ml'. Quevedo, for example, at the 569th meeting and by the President toc!ay, which, in my opinion, there is no neecl to repeat. The USSR representative has just statec! that a small majority of the nrembers of the General Assembly were in favour of reconsic!ering - that is to say, considering againthe applications of the fourteen States mentionecl in the USSR draft resolntion. This does not mean a recommendation that those countries shoulcl be admitted; 1 repeat that it is simply a recommenc!ation that the applicatiohs should be consic!erec! anew. That is the only logical interpretation, if we believe that. the General Assembly was also logical to some extent, because a resolution'I adopted almost at the same time (and by 43 votes to 8, with 7 abstentions)" recommended that the Secnrity Couneil shoulcl again consider aU pendingapplications and, 1 qnote: . "...that in this reconsideration as weil as in the consideration of ail future applications, the members of the Council take into account snch facts and evidence as States applicants for l11embership l11ay present; and that the Security Council base its action exclusively on the conditions contained in the Charter and on the facts establishing the existence of these conditions ". 81. Thus, forty-three countries - and if one thinks of the sunr total of their population, it can be said that they l~lImber several hundred .miIlio.n hU111an beingswer~ .111. favour of fresh c0.ns1deratlO~ of the pending appl.lcatlOns by the Secunty Counctl, but on their ments. and after e~ch application had been examined. That 1S where, 1 tl;111k, the arguments advanced by the U SSR repres~ntat1ve seem weak, for he continues to opp~se ~he· ta~(lllg. of a separate decision on each of the aPP.lI~atI01:s, 111 clrc~lmstances in which an individual -'_" deC1S1~111 .1S the loglc~l consequence of the separate ~Xél1~1l11atl?n.of each of them. The USSR representative I~ sttll reslstl11g the sep~rate admission of Italy, entirely 1egardless of tl~e qnestlO.n whether or not that country possesses suffic1ent qualIfications for admission to the : Ib~d., Resolutions, r~solution 506 A (VI). IbId., Plenary Meetmus, 369th meeting. 82. The Chilean delegatiou has votcd in the General Assetnbly for ail the recol1111ll'ndatiol15 made by the Al'lsembly over a nU11lber of years in favour of Italy's admission to the United Nations 011 the ground tha.t it fulftls the requireml'l1ts laid clown in Article 4 of the Charter. 1t also votl'd for rl'solution SSO (VI) of 7 December 1951 which gave rise to the French draft resolution we are no\\' discussing. Thus tny delegation has no alternative hut to vote for the French represen~ tative's proposaI. We shaH he particularlv glad to do 50 because of the intimate bonds of friendship that l'xist betweell Italy and my country, bonds strengtheneù by the apprcciabll' contribution ma'J.;: to Chile by thou~a11ds of Italiaus i11 l'very branch of cOllstructive alttivity - science, politics, the arts, industry and trade - and hecnusl' of the admiration in which wc hold a civilized and noble people that has succeeded in building a democracy, which will, wc are sure, contribute to the progress and peace of the wortd. . . 83. The Chileau t.Jeople, like other Latin-A111erica11 peoples, is deeplr dtsturhed by the impediments raised ta Italy's l'ntry mto the United Nations, impedimeuts which are not based, as l have said,on any principle l'lltablished by the Charter. We harbour the hope that the USSR delegation will change ils position and that it .will uot use the privilege of the veto 011 this occasion, 'Ne hope that even if it 111aintains its opposition, it may base its statld on c011::liderations in tine with the letter and the spirit of Article 4 of the Chatter, so that we can discuss them here freely and fully. l agree with the G1'eek represelltative in believing that to adhere to a rigid position of maldng the admission of one country contingent on the admission of another is to endanger the stability of the United Nations. 84. 1 think that the USSR representative may he ~=cAlutethatlUl1this case he takes up a position consistent with the Charter he will ouly be strengthening a position held ge11erally by the Security Couneil in this connexion. In other words, he will be making certain that all' the pending appeals shaH be examined and considered by aU the members of the Council without discrimination and stl'ktiy 011 their merits in relation ta the requirements of Article 4, that is, solely from the point of view~of the country's ability and willingness to comply with the obligations of the Charter and to serve the cause of peace. Our position with regard to the USSR proposalcan be deduced from what 1 have. just said. We cannot vote fôr it, although we are prepared to take part in the. discussion of all pending applications'on sorne 'tater OCCasi011, including thoseenumerated in the USSR tlraft resolution,.and that position we shaH take up in confotmity with the General Assembly's recommendatian of 1 February 1952. . 86. As has been said on a number of occasions in the Genera:! Assembly, the Govermnent of the United Kingdom attaches great importance to the broadening of the base of the United Nations. In holding this view we have two points particularly in mind. VVe are concerned that a country like, for instance, Ceylon, which is a member of the Commonwealth and is, in our view, incontestably qualified for admission, should be debarred any longer from membership in the Organization. We also have in mind the many applicant States from Europe. l have on previous occasions referred to the case of Italy and,' of course, for the reasons which l gave when the matter was previously under discussion in this Council. we shall vote in favour ofthe French draft resolution which is before us today. But there are many other European States, of which l need mention only the Republic of Ire1and and Portugal, which certainly ought ta be Members of the United Nations. Considering the position which Europe hoIds in the world l thipk l can say, without giving offence to anybody, that Europe as a whole is cortsiderably under-represented in the United Nations today. . 87. We are also influenced by the concept of universality, as it is called, ta which l know a considerable number of Members of the Organization attach a great importance. To give effect to this idea of umversality it is clearly essential, as we see it, that the United Nations should include countries with different ideologies and different systems of government. We are entirely in favour of this since, in our view at any rate, the greatest value of the 'United Nations is that it should be a meeting place in which views cau he exchanged and the differences between countries or groups of countries, however serious they may be, can be hammered out and, if possible, reconciled. We would not, therefore, wish to exc1ude any applicant State simply because itsinternal structuré or the position of its Govenunent in regard to foreign affairs is different from our own. We should~ in fact, like to seethe United Nations contain as many States ofthe world as possible, but we cannot accept what l might calI the extreme thesis of uni-yersality, namely that an applicant only has to be a State in arder ta secure more orless automatic admission ta the United Nations. 88. We cannot, we think, disregard or - still more-:- tèar up·Article 4 of the Charter and we must there:ore, in accordance with the Opinion of the International Court of Justice, 6 be satisfied that each applicant meets the conditions which are laid down. in that Article of the Charter.. We .are quite prepared to take what·l think has been describea by some speakel's as a 89. On the other hand, since we feel that it is both important and urgent that the existing deadlock on this question should be broken and that, as l have already said, the basis of the United Nations should as far as possible be broadened, it is for that reason that we shall not vote against the Soviet Union draft resolution, but on the contrary shall abstain. Vve do not wish to influence the views of other members of this Council, an1 it is quite possible that there may be s.ome ~ho genUl~e1YT fe~l that all the a;pplicant States listed m the Sov1et Umon draft resol.'.1tion cau be said ta fu1fi1 the conditiDns laid down in Article 4. In such a case, anybody who so feels will no doubt vote in favour of the draft resolution and we should not wish for our part, to try to dissuade them from so doing. ' 90. Final1y, since the Soviet Union -draft resolution was introduced in Decetnber, tbe name of Libya has been added, as we kJ:10w, to the nu~ber of applicants which the representative of the SOVlet Union has seen fit ta p~ac~ togethe~. We, for our part, fully support the apph~ation o~ L1bya, as my colleagues will know from the V1ews "Yh1ch we expressed in the General Assembly when the Item on Libya was under discussion there. We have welcomed the achievement of independence by t~e I>eople of Libya and we believe that Libva fully qualIfies for membership in the United Nations. . 91. l h.ave just explaine? the reasons why l propose to abstam when the Sov1et Union draft resolution is put to the. vot~i but ~ ,,:ish to make it quite clear, as regards L1bya s apphcatlOn, that this abstention does not d~~o!e:: any s~cond thoughts on our pari: about the ehg1b1hty of L1bya. Our abstention will be on the general grounds which l have described and it does not .the!efore represent our view on the particular .applicatlOn of Libya which, when it is considered in . d~le course, will receive our wholehearted support. In Vle~ of the huge majority in the General Assembly wh:ch share.d our view on Libya's admission to the Umted NatlOns, we hope that when the time cornes th.ere will be no question an? that Libya's application WIll b.e recommended unalllmously by the Security Councl1. 92. The ~RESIDENT (translated from French): l h~ve been :nform~d that sorne members of the Council will be obhged to leave Paris tomorrow morning. As Ihop~ we shall be able to .finish in an hour we will if . there 1S no objection, continue sitting until 7 D'clock. 94. The PRESIDENT (t~'atlslated-!rom· French}: The USSR representative objects ta our contilluing this meeting ttntil 7 o'dock l sha11 therefore put the question to the Couneil. 95. Ml'. MALIK (Union of Soviet Soeialist Republies) (it'attslatt'd fl'c~ Russian): l do not propose that the quest\on be put to a vote. l am only stating my oWl!- views. If everyone agrees to adjoum the meeting unttl tomorrow, we shaH do so, If, however, anyone has a strollg' desire to prolong today's meeting until 111idnig!.lt, l shaH not object. It is aIl the same to me. But from the stan9point of common sense and. since we are 110t leaving and the Security Council is not going to New York tomorrow, but will stay here until 15 February, it would be reasonable ta consider that we œ.n continue the discussion of this question tomorrow ll10rning at 10.30, instead of staying here today until 1.30 or 8.30 tlùs evetùng. Those are merely the reaSOllS l advRllce, but l shaIl not insist and if anyone wishes ta prolong the meeting, let us do so. The e.xperience of tlle meeting held on 19 December 1951 showed that when the USSR delegation made the sensible proposaI to adjourn the meeting until the ne..'<.t day. certain de1egatiolls.absolutely insisted on continuing on that same day. 'Ve sat l.mtil nine or ten o'dock quite unnet.'esSarily. %. 1 state this view in ord'~r not ta repeat the same unfortunate ê..""\.-perience today, but Id,) not insist. If anybody V?ishes ta continue the meeting until midnight, 1 shall sit here \Vith aH the others.

l tbank the Soviet Union representative for not insisting on hisproposal. For my part, l promise him ta adjoum at ·seven o'clock. 98.. l.Ir. GROSS (United States of America); l should like to rec;;ervethe right of my de1egation ta speak, and ta "peak today, in explanation of its Note. Even if we have to go on for a few minutes beyond :seven o'dock l would Iike ta reserve the right of my delegation. ta make an e..xp1anation of its vote. The Soiiet Union representative has wasted a1most ten minutes of the Counci1's time 'without making a formaI

In order to cut short this discussion, l hasten to caU upon the representative of BraziL

l have already had occasion to express the point of view of the Brazilian delegation on the French draft resolution, and l shan limit myself today to some brief observations on the' draft resolution submitted by the Soviet Union delegation. In my opinion that draft is based on a false ~onception of universality which does not take int'Û ~onsideration the conditions set forth in Article 4 of the Charter. The Charter' does not establish that an States shaU be Members of the United Nations, but only those States which meet the requirements of Article 4. The concept of universality can only mean that aU States which satisfy certain conditions set fort!. in Article 4 shaU be admissible to the United Nations. Inother words, the Charter combines the critedon of selection with that of universality. On previous occasions in the Security Council the: Brazilian delegation has expressed the opinion that States whkh do not respect the principles of the Charter, such as respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms, or which dû not conduct themselves in international relations in accord- ;:mce withthe standards established by the Charter, lack the requirements for admission.We still hold that same opinion. 102. Despite the fact that the draft resolution submitted by the Soviet Union delegation inc1udes States such as Italy, Portugal, Finland, and others, whose rights to :dmission have been abundantly established and who should have been ad11litted long ago but for the· abuse of the veto, we cann0L accept the principl~ on which the Soviet Union draft resolution is based. That draft resolution nullifies '.altogether paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Charter and places the question of admission exc1usively on the oasis of power . politics. Such was not the intention of the framers of the Charter, who clearly andexpressly establ~shed a system according ta which the admission of Membcrs shan be governed by certain Ile.xible criteria, both juridical and political, on the basisof' equality of' rights. The Charter' expresslywishes to place the matter of admission, which is so vital to States, beyond arbitrary decision, and to subject it to the rule oUaw. Progress in international re.lations can be made only if we strive for reason and for the rule of law without 103. For the reasond 1 have given, the Brazilian delegat.ion will vote against the Soviet Union draft reSOll\tlOn. 104. The PRESIDENT (trcnslated jram Frellch): The list of speakers is exhausted. The Securil.y Conncil will therefore proceed to vote on the draft resolution submitted b~' the French delegation [S/24.,t3], as follows: "Tht St'tllrit), Council, "Consfdfril~g the resolution of the General Assembly dated 7 December 1951, "Takcs into account the arguments adduced in this resolution; "Notes thnt Ita1y is a peace-loving S~ate which fulfils the, conditions laid down in Article 4· of the Charter, and cousequently; "Reccmultcnds the admission of Italy to membership in the United Nations, JI lOS. Mr. MALIK ~Unioll of SoV':et Socialist Republies): There is no precedent in the history of the Securitv Council for voting in sueh a hurry. First there should •he e:'\.planations of votes, and then the vote should takeplace. A vO\,'e it't'lS fakcn b),' sho'w of hat/ds, as follo'lvs: In fa'l'üur: Brazil, Chile, China, France, Gre ::ce, Netherlands, Pakistan, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of Atneri,ca. Against: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. ",-T~a'tm."lû 'iJûti!S in favour to one against. The draft resolution 'was not adopted, the vote agaillst bet'flg that of a permanent mcmber of the Coltllcil. 106. . The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I am œady to give the fioor for explanations ofvote.

l would ask the President to. put to the vote the USSR draft ,resolution,which bas been discussed and on which members of the -Security Counetl have given their views. 108, .The PRESIDENT (translated from French): Cèrtainly. we shall also vote on the draft resolution . submitted hv the USSR. But l have to take mto .account the'i'rerich representative's request to speak œtween thevoting on the two draft resolutions, 109, 1 caJl uponthe representative of France. :UO.M:r.HOPPENOT (France) (tran$lated tram French):By 'once more vetoing the recommendation submitted. hy France for the admission of ltaly to the . United Nations. the. USSR representativc: "s reàSsertaf ms·. fixed detennination to link that eotmtifs admission,.wbichcj&..tlQ. lessdesirab:e than 112. Other speakers have already appositely and authoritatively drawn attention to the vast difference between the principle of ttniversality, which remains our Organization's ideal, and the automatic procedure in which, according to sorne delegations, that principle should result. Although aU countries feel the same caU to become Members of the United Nations, each remains individuaUy suhject to that Organization's verdict on its qualifica~ions ar.\d intentions, and no connexion whatever can be lY:cde out either in law or in fact between the merits and claims of the different candidates. By using his veto to prevent Italy's aàmission except on conditions set arbitrarily by himself, the USSRrepresentative seems to me to be guilty of a real abuse of power, a doubly serious abuse in that it may shatter the moral foundations of the right of which he is thus inordinate1y making use, and in that he was exercising it against a country whose clain.s to he a Member of the United Nations are not contested by anyonenot by himse1f; to begin with. 113. What makes the ostracism of Italy especiaUy outrageous is that it affects a nation whose qualifications are incontestable and are not contested, one whose prolonged absence deprives us of the immense and fruitftil co-operation which that country, with its continuing heritage of one of the most ancient civilizations, could contribute to our common task. The particl:.:1ar genius of the Italian people has in the past enriched aU branches of man's patrimony; during the recent war it was able, at the cost of bloody sacrifice and lacera.tion, to rejoin the camp of freedom; it did not throw off its former yoke only to fall under that ùf another totalitarianism; It has given in the past seven years an example of political and social progress pursued without the least restriction upon the functioning of democratic institutions. T 0 bar the doors of the 1J.nited Nations to the Italian Republic on the pretext that it may only cross the threshold in the company of twelve or thirteen other States, the list of which the USSR delegation has been pleased to draw up, and even with certain restrictions, is not only to vitiate the normal working of the procedure applicable to the admission of new Members under the Charter, hut to vitiate it to the detriment of aState whose admission, there can be no doubt, almost every Member . of the United Nations would we1come giadly, and one which, by the will of a single Member, is now placed . in the position that resembles less that of an outlaw than that of a hostage. 114. These are the reflections suggested to the French delegation by the veto with which the.USSRdelegation mu&~ be added to the many other reasons why Italy should be admitted without de1ay to mernbership in the United Nations. 117. The sole factor which has on several occasions prevented Italy from entering the United Nations has been the vetc cast by the Soviet Union. Yet another Soviet Union veto against Italy has now been cast, and. l have no doubt that the significance of this will not be lost on the people of Italy. 118. The PRESIDENT (translated jro1'n French): l think that th'e Council can now proceed to vote on the l! Soviet Union proposal. 119. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet,SociaHst Republies) (translated trom Russian): l be1ieve that the United States representative intended to explain bis vote. My name was included in the list after his. If he does not speak, l would askfor the floor. 121. 1 therefore calI on the representative of the Soviet Union.

1 have listened carefuUy ta the French representative's statement. His feelings are ul1derstandable. He wanted, contrary to accepted practice, to the mIes of procedure and, 1 would say, ta elementary common sense, ta admit Italy ta membership in the United Nations as soon as possible, out of its turn, under an extraordinary procedure, and to shelve the appiications of aU the other States which applied for admission to membership in the United Nations much earlier than Italy and have still not been admitted, owing to the stand taken by his country, France, together with the United States and the United Kingdom. 123. But the French representative and the French Government need Italy in the United Nations not sa much as a Member State, but as a comrade-in-arms, a coUaborator in preparing a new wOl;ld war and as a member of the aggressive Atlantic bloc, which in the eyes of the whole world is conducting a frenzied armaments race and preparing plans for a new world war. 124. It is no secret for anyone now at whom the plans of the aggressive Atlantic bloc are aimed. Public figures in the United States, France and the United Kingdom openly avow that these plans are directed ,against the Soviet Union and the peQple's democracies. 125. The represèntative of France, like the United States representative, is basing himself on military and strategical considerations, not on general political or peaceful considerations, when he insists on a special and exceptional procedure for the admission of Italy to membership in the United Nations; if he were influenced by the United Nations Charter and by general political considerations directed towards strengthening the cause of peace and deve10ping friendly relations among nations, he would support the admission of aU the fourteen States which have been knocking for a 'long time at the doors of the United Nations. 126. He has taken a different stand by opening the doors to Italy as a participant of the aggressive Atlantic bloc and by closing themfirmly against aU the others. 127. It is impossible to agree with stt<~h' a stand. It is incompatible with the Charter and does not serve the cause· of peace aild international security. 128. It has been alleged here that the nine countries . whose àdmission to the United Nations is supported by . the· United States, the United Kingdom anù France comply so perfectly with the requirements of the Charter that they have not the least Httle blemish and should . On . aU grounds he admitted to fuembership in the United Nations. 130. The Soviet Union delegation in the plenary meetings of the General Assembly has already said that, if the Soviet Union had taken up a different stand on a problem as important as the admission of new Members, which is preoccupying the attention of the world, if, for instance, ithad taken up the same stand as the United States - l can assure the representatives of France and the representatives who are taking the same stand - the Soviet Union would have more than sufficient justification for finding appropriate provisions in Article 4 and, by applying them, for objecting ta the admission of any of those nine States and especially ta that of Italy. In the latter connexion reference must be made ta. the Soviet Union Government's note ta the Italian Government dated 2S January 1952, which was communicated by Mr. Gromyko, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, ta the Italian Ambassador in Moscow. 131. The note. stated that the Soviet Union, as everyoneknew, had never objected :.\nd does not object ta Italy being admitted ta the United Nations on ,an equal footing with other States which have a legal right ta be sa admitted. 132. l would especially draw the French representative's attention ta the following statement in the USSR .note: "... on an equal footing with other States legally so entitled ". 133. The French representative has argued that Italy fought, they say, on the side of the Allies towards the end of the Second Vvorld War. :.'iut if the French representative were consistent he would pursue this theory further. Italy was not the only one ta take part in the war on the side of the Allies. Did Romania not fight' on the Allies' side at the end of the war? Did it not contribute to the cause of the Allies' victory over the forces of fascism and aggression? Did Hungary not take a similar part? Did Bulgaria not fight on the Allies' side? It played an active part. It sacrificed many of its soldiers and officers i,:1 the stmggle for tte common cause, the struggle against fascism and aggression. Why, then, does the French representative use one yardstick for Italy and quite a different one for Bulgaria, Romania. and Hungary? What grounds has he 'ror doing this? If he pursues his theory and his ar.gurnents further, he will inevitably come to the conclusion that Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Finland --=- all these five States - were in an absolutely identical position during the Second WorId vVar and have an equal right to admission to the United Nations. 134.. They all fought against the Soviet Union and other Alliêd and Associated countries during the Second World War, thongh mainly against the Soviet Union. This is a well known fact. They fought only symbolically against the United States, the United Kingdom and France. Their whole military strength, the whole 135. They all fell out of the war before it ended and turned their weapons against German fascism. Therefore, they helped the Allied and AssociatedPowers to hasten the end of the Second vVorld War. Therefore, both at the beginning and end of the Second World ~'ar, they were in the same position as Italy. That fact was taken into consideration by the Allied Powers. 136. Perhaps the French representative has forgotten -,-- but l will remind him - that in the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria there is a preamble signed by the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States of A..'11erica, Australia, the Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, India, New Zealand, the Ukrainian SSR, the Union of South Africa, Greece and Yugoslavia. The preamble to the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria reads as follows: "Whereas the Allied and Associatèd Powers and Bulgaria are desirous of concluding a treaty of peace, which, conforming to the principles of justice, will settle questions still outstanding as a result of the events hereinbefore recited, and form the basis of friendly relations between them, thereby enabling the Allied and Associateu Powers ta support Bulgaria's applicatio1J. to become a Member of the United Nations and also to adhere to any C0!1vention concluded under the auspices of the United Nations". 137. There is also a similar, ahnost identical, preamble in the peace treaties with Hungary, Romania and Italy. Why, therefore, is the French representative supporting the admission of Italy to the United Nations and bbjecting to the admission of the other three - Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary? There is, of course, no reason at aIl for this. 138. That is the position as regards '~principles". We considered that aIl these States, which were in .an ideritical situation during the first part of the war, and in an identical situation at the .end of the war, State~ with which more or less identical peace treaties were concluded,involving identical obligations on the part of the Allied and Associated Powers which participated in the war against Italian fascism and German nazism - obligations to support the applicatic ns of these States - we consider that all these States should be admitted on an equal footing. 139. That is what we are asking - neither more nor less.We are against discrimination. We are against picking or arbitrarily snatching one State - Italy - out of the total number, and shelving the applications of the others. 140. That is how the matter stands with regard ta the admission of Italy. The position of the Soviet Union with regard to the matteris one of principle, an equitable position which is ft'Ily in accordance withthe Charter. 142. That is, however, unacceptable. 143. Take again the case of Italy. As aU are aware, Italy is a member of the aggressive Atlantic bloc. In the Soviet Union Government's note of 25 January, to which l have already referred, the Italian Government's attention was drawn to this facto The note states that in this connexion (i.e., in connexion with the admission of Italy to the United Nations) the Soviet Union Government "considers it necessary to draw the Italian Government's attention to the fact that the participation of Italy in the Atlantic bloc and in the military mer.3ures which that bloc is taking in Europe, are entirely at variance with the requirements mdde upon aState desirous of becoming a Member of the United Nations, particularly in view of the fact that Italy participated in the \Var on the side of Hitlerite ,Germany. The entry of Ita1y into the Atlantic bloc creates serious additional difficulties in settling the question of Italy's admission ta t.lJ.e United Nations". 144. Is that not a weighty enough reason for objecting to the admission of Italy to the United Nations? Italy has taken the path of war, the path of preparing for \Var by joining the aggressive Atlantic bloc, although in'its peace treaty it promised to pursue a peaceful policy and not to join l!!!Y aggressive blocs directed against those States against which it had fought during the Second World War and with which it signed the Treaty. 145. Therefore, the participation of Italy in the Atlantiç bloc i5 a serious additional obstacle to solving the problem of its admission to membership in the United Nations. 146. That is the situation with regard to Italy. 147. But ltaly is not the only State involved. Portugal, after all, is also a member of theaggressive Atlantic bloc. 148. It is possible to find legitimate grounds for objection on the basis of Article 4 of the Charter also in the case of the other countries sponsored by the United States. AlI those objections have been, on various occasions, explained in detail by the Soviet Union representatives during discussions in United Nations bodies from 1946 onwards, in 1947, 1948, î949 and so on. 149. Thé position now is that the Security Council has fourteen applications for admission before it. Up ta the present fourteen Stat(.s have not been admitted to memhership of the United Nations. 151. The Soviet Union is gu!ded in this matter by thè principle of equality, the plmciple of the equality of rights of all States, the principle of equaI treatment of aU States. 152. The Soviet Union considers that all the farfetched pretexts and objections put forward by the United States and its satellites against such peace-Ioving and democratic countries as Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Aibania and the Mongolian People's Republic are entirely baseless and im,aginary. Ali these far-fetched objections have nothing in common with the Charter or with Article 4 of the Charter. 153. The Brazilian representative today again repeated the old and hackneyed United States objections to the admission of these countries and referred in particular to the matter of the so-called respect for human rights in those countries. 154. Does the represcntative of Brazil alZree that to object in the plenary meetings of the Gener~l Assembly to a proposaI to recognize the right of peoples to selfdetermination, and to vote against it, means that he objeèts ta human rights? Yet, this proposaI was opposed bynone others than thé United States, the United Kingdom and, l think, France. This ~onstitutes a gross violation of the Charter, since Article 1 of the Charter states that Members of the United Nations shaH respect the principle of equa:l rights and self-determination of peoples. 155. But when this provision of the Charter was embodied in a draft resolution 7 for approval by the plenary meeting of the Assembly - a resolution upon which we voted only yesterday; S everyone recalls it, it is fresh in everyone's memory - the United Kingdom, the United States and France voted against it. 156. What does this mean? This means that the United States, the United Kingdom and France are speaking and voting against the inclusion in the draft Covenant on Human Rights of an article stating that "all peoples shall have the right of self-determination". . 157. Here is a criterion for determining who disregards and violates not only human rights but the rights of peoples also. The Brazilian representative repeats the American fairy tales, volubly affirming that in Hurigary, Bulgaria and Romania hu-r!lat1 rights are, he dai..'11s, not being respected, This is a maIicious American invention. NCI violations of human rights are being committed in 158. It is time to drop this slanderous talk of alleged non-observance of human rights, since anyone who voted at the sixth session of the General Assembly against the right of peoples to self-determiuation has no right to open his mouth to accuse anyone whomsoever of violating human rights. The hypocrisy and demagogy of these slanderers in opposing the granting of the right to self-determination to all the peoples of the world, and at the same time posing as "defenders" of human rights, have now finally been unmasked, and the unmasking hasbeen done by the slanderers themselves. 159. What could be more ridiculous? It would indeed be ridiculous, were it not tragic. But tragic it is, that three great Powers -the United' States, the United Kingdom and France - have done their utmost to prevent the adoption by the sixth session of the General Assembly of a resolution to include in the draft Covenant on Ruman Rights an article which would read that: "Allpeoples shall have the right of selfdeter!pinat!on." 160. So -rouch.for the question of .the observance and violation of human rights and the right of peoples. 161. 1s it not clear that the objections to the admil:>sion to the United. Nations of Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria on the pretext that human rights are not observed tl.1ere are invented by the American enemies' of these countries to prevent their being admitted to membership in the United Nations? And yet a number .of other delegations repeat, parrot-fashion, this American fiction. 162. It is, however, weIl known that the question of hum~ rights has nothing to do with admission to membership in the United Nations. Article 4 of the Charter does not mention it and many 'delegations pointed this out in the plenary meeting and in the First Committee. For. example, the representative of Syria, "Mr. El Khouri, speaking on this subject, stated that the question of human rights has nothing to do with the admission of a given State to membership in the United Nations. 9. Everyone understands this but still the United Sfates:representatives and their supporters keep onrepeating the same groundless arguments for three or four years on end. They do this because they have no sound basis tor their objections to the admission of Hungary, Bulgariaand Romania to the United Nations. 163: 'l'he French representative referred here to "democracy". But how can a country, which opposes and votes against granting the right of self-deter-: mination to aIl peoples, calI itself. democratic and free? 165. By voting against granting the right of selfdetermination to aIl peoples; the United St&.tes, the United Kingdom and France have shown very clearly \Vhat their policy real'ly amounts to. The policy of these countries consists of not giving the peoples of the world the right to self-determination, freedom and an independent existence. Who indeed can take seriously the French representative's declaration that he represents the "democratic world" wheu he objects to, and votes against, the right of aIl peoples to self-determination? Is it not obvious that such a declaration sounds false and hypocritical? 166. Yet another "criterion" has been put forward in respect of Italyit was referred to here by the representatives of the United Kingdom and France - its "ancient civilization". Of course, this is very important, and mankind owes a great deal to the ancient civilization of Rome, but this cannot serve as a criterion for admission to membership in the United Nations. Article 4 of the United Nations Charter does not say that only States with ancient civilizations should be admitted to the United Nations. However, if we begin to argue about who, and about which civilization, is older, we can pGrhaps find among t.~e fourteen States awaiting admission countries which are older than Italy. That is not Ïl;npossible either. Incidehtal1y, the civilization of Chinà is much older than the civilization of Italy. So, at least, historians unequivocally tell us. Yet, the United States, France and the United Kingdom have still not admitted a representative of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations, but are illegally retaining the Kuomintang agent in the United Nations. So much for the ancient civilization argument. 167. The United Kingdom rep.-esentative concluded his remarks by saying, if l understood him correctly, that the Italian people will note the meaning of the USSR "veto". l think that the Italian people will remember that the United States and its delegation, with the participation of the United Kingdom delegation, have today provoked the USSR "veto" and that this is the whole purpose of today's meeting - to provoke the USSR ,"veto". This is neither new nor original. The Anglo-American group in the Security Council has already often provoked the USSR veto. Everyone knows, though, that the purpose has been to' provoke this veto and not to attempt to reach a just and equitable solution of problems. Everyone knows that the Anglo- American bloc in the Security Council wants to mark up yet another USSRveto in its saints' calendar. WeIl, the. bloc has got it today. Everyone understands that aU oftoday's machimtions have had that particular end in view and were not aimed at settling the question of Italy's admission. If the Anglo-American bloc really had Italy's admission to the United Nations atheart, it would not obj.ect ta admitting the other States to the. United Nations. 169. I should like to draw attention to the statement made by the Chilean representative. Re tried to prove what was meant in the General Assembly resolutions hy individual reconsideration of applications. He is right to some extentof course, but only on one assumption: if those applications from thirteen States had never been considered by the Security Council. Each of them, however, has been considered three or four times. There is therefore no need to reconsider them . and againrefer them to the Committee on Admission of New Hembers. Remarks ca...'1 only be made with regard ·to Libya, because Libya's application was made recently. But the ques.tion with -ega;.d tJ'l Ubya is c1ear and, in the Soviet Union delegation's vîew, there isno need to refer Libya's application to th: Committee on Admission of New Members. II\: would be quite enough to ador' the draft reso1ution submitted hy the Soviet Union delegation' recommending the fourteen States, including Libya, which applied for admission to meMbership in the United Nations. That would:-1:le--- the speediestand most correct b()llution of the problem. 170. It has been rightly stated here that Eùrope is not represented in the United Nations. That is true. It was noted· in the First Commitltee during the dis- CUSSi0l1 of the question of the admission, of ne~ Mem- 171. That is the situation with regard to this long. drawn-out problem, and it is the dutY of the Security Council to find a solution. The USSR draft resolution indiœtes how 1!his could be done in the way which is most accepta:bie, most equitable and most compatible with the Cha.i:er, the one based on the principle of treating aIl f( .urteen States equally. If the Security Council were \'0 adopt this cimft resQlution, t1).e question would be settled. Ali fourteen States would' be recorumended for membership in the United Nations. 172. The PRESIDE:NT (translated from French): l put to the vote the revised draft resolution of the UnIon of Soviet SociaJist Republics [S/2449/Rev.1] . A vote was taken by show of hands, as follows " In favolw:' Pakistan, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Against: Brazil, China, Greece, Netherlands, Turkey, United States of America. ,Abstaining: Chile, France, United Kingdom of .Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The revised draft resolution was rejected by 6 votes to 2, with 3 abstentions.

l think that tomorrow a great many people in the wol"1d will he asking why Italy is not a Memher of the United Nations. We all know that Italy is qualified and aU ofus, inc1uding the representative of the Soviet Union, agree that It~y is qualified uuder the United Nations Charter. 'fihen, we want to know, why is Italy not among us? Italy is not a Menrber of the United Na- . tiens for the plilÏn reason th8-t its.admission has been consistently and unjusHy thwarted .by the Soviet Union. Again .today, for thefifth time, the representative of the Soviet Union has said."No" to the Italian people. He has again arbitrarily. used his veto to keep out a State whose admission is.wholeheartedly supported by the great majority of the Members of the United Nations. Can the representative of the Soviet 'Gnion explain his arbitrar)' vote in any reasonable vvay? DQes he reaIly' believe, and does the Government of the Soviet Union really believe, that Italy should he put 174. The United States Government believes that Italy ful[y m~ts' the requirements for membership set forth in Article 4,uf the Charter. Since the ed of the War the Italian Government and peQple hàY€' d.;monstrated not only their wiUingness but also fueir œpaeity ta 'assume the obligations of United Nations member- "~,ship and to enter once .more into' the community of peace·.}oving nations. 1 believe that the Italian Government and the Italîan people will hardly he gratified at this renewed effort to make their admission a matter - 'ûf horse trading, nor will they be flattered by being put on the same level with a shadow State like Outer 'Mongolia or \Vith States which have shown neither the wIilingncss nor the àbility to assume the obligations of United Nations membership. Vve believe that the Soviet -UïiÏOn' approach 1S inconsistent with Article 4 of the Charter. That Article reqtûres us to determine that efj.ù applicant is willing and able to assume the obligationsof membership.For our part, we cannot accept tlie Soviet Union thesis that applicants should be treated so as ta equate the qualified with the unqualified. . 175. Several of the applicants naroed in the USSR draft resolution are guilty. of conduct which c1early violates the provisions of the United Nations Charter. We sha11 not do violence to Article 4 of the Charter . -<1Y d~aringJ'b.atthese applicants are peace-Ioving when their èonduct shows that theYare HOt. 1 think it is aœutate and tair to say that there is not one single mem.ber of this Council who accepts the unqualified principleof universality of membership of the United Nations. The Soviet Union clearly and obviously does not accept that principle. It omits from its. list of àpplicants .wNè it, i5 proper to admit, the Republic of Korea'and'car.eful1y omits in the statements made hefé evena l'eference to that applicant, preferring to l~ave thejmptession that all appliœnts'- 1 t!hink that is the p~e usedrepeated1y by thé Soviet "Union repre~en­ tative-are includedin the US.~R draft resolutlon. .'',Â'Hthe l'est of themembers of ,the CQuncil have doubts;' ; ,perhaps 'of different sorts, regarding ce.rtain of thea~­ •~, "'--plicarits in this list. Is there any member of the,Cc:mcil, <~ otherthal1 the Soviet Union representathT~for example, '<whobeneveE that the Korean Democratic.l:-eople's ~. ""~epuhlic:-if that is the correct name of North Kprea ;.... ' '-- is qpalified for adtnission? ~:::,; 177. Finally, 1 think it fair to say that the new Stat~ barn whi1e we have been in session here, the State which is in a very special sense the creation of the United Nations, has bcen, in a sense, subjected to the same treatment, on the basis of the same distortion of the Charter, that has heen the fate of Italy by reason of the Soviet Union position. The General Assemb1y recommended that Libya he made an independent State an.rl the United Nations Representative and United Nations Counci1 for Libya have assisted the Libyan people to establish the foundation" of this State. My Government helieves that the foundations have been well established and that this' ne"'~st independent State in the world is ready and willing to assume the obligations of United Nations membership. The Secretary of State of ûle United States announced on the clay of Libya's independence that the United States would "take the first opportunity of 1.1 sîng that immediate action he taken to admit Ubya to membership in the United Natioils." The Soviet Union has announced that it will veto the application of Libya urrless it is br'cl.cketed w:ith other States and made part of a general membership deal. For reasons which 1 haveexp1ained, my Government regrets that a situation has arisen in which the Chmter cannot he applied and in whiêh the veto is, persisv-..ntly abused to frustrate the c1éar majority will of the United Nations membership.

Just n;"few words in explanation of my votes today. 179. We voted for the French draft resolution requesting us to adnùt Italy to the United Nations. We did so for reasons which my de1egation ha§. aJready exp1ained at previous meetings, and l;\~"Q forrèasons which the President stated in his sp__ ,'h today and with whièh we entirely'agree,as wellas for reasons adduced by other delegations. 180. We were compelled, however, to vote against the draft. resolution submitted by the USSR. We didsa because' we believe that the admission of new Mem.- berscannot he considered either by the Security Coun- 181. These conditions are weU knowl1. The State under consideration must of course he peace-Iovîng, must accept the obligations of the Charter and mt!st he able and williug, in the judgment (li the United Nations, to fulfil those obligations. It seems to us that when we bave to judge the position of aState with regard to the conditions it must fulfil, that State's making' a declaration that it accepts the conditions is not enough to oblige us to decide that it has in fact accepted the obligations of the Oharter and is willing to comply with them. "vVe think that it is more important to investigate, as it is incumLent upon us to do, the behaviour and eonduct of States to see if their deeds are really consistent with their words. 182. If ,ve do 50 - as the United Kingdom represcntative has already pointed out today - we are led tu divide the States listed in the USSR draft resolution into .three categories. 183. First, there is a category of States which, in our view, genuine1y fulfil the requirements laid down by the Charter: ltaly, Portugal, Jordan, Libya and others, to mention only a few. There are many of them on this list and in· other circumstances we should vote for them \\ithout hesitation. We. shaH even try to make an opportunity for doing so and, when it comes, we shaH do all we <:an tu see that those States are admitted into t'he United Nations: 184. Secondly, in this list in the USSR proposaI there are some States about which we have ou. doubts and in whose case we should normally al)stain. 185. Thirdly, there is a category of States -luckily not manywhose behaviour, we are constrained to pœ.nt out, is incompatible with the principles and reqnirementS of the Charter. \Vè cannot say that those are peacc-loving States; we cannot say that tJ1ey fulfil the œnditions laid down by the Charter and that they are behaving in confonnîty with the principles set forth therein. 186.- If we had voted for the USSR draft resolution, weshould have feàred that our vote .might be misinterpreted and that it might some day be he1d against us as itnplying approval of the conduct of thesè States·, 187. Furthennore, and above all, there is a new factor in the USSR ·draft resolntion, about which much has been said here. That is the factor extemal to the Charter upon which the USSR de1egatioll would seem to.hema1clng the admission of neW Memhen, contingent. That factor is a bargaining process whereby the admis- ..siOllOfanJ'State into the UpJted Nations is to he con- :fiÎlgent· upon the admission of another State, and the

The Sovîet Union representative, in explaining his attitude, did his oost to suggest that the attitude of my own delegatiou, and the votes 1 cast, 1 think, were mixed up in some way with our attitude towards human rights. In spite of the late hour 1 feel 1 must, just in self-defence, and in order, if pOssible, to catch up on these allegations, say a very few words with the object of countering them. 189. It is quite true that my delegation voted against the proposaI in the General Assemblr that the so-called right of self-determination should be inserted in the dr~ft Covenant on H uman R,ights. Of course, we fully accept the principle of self-determination as laid dowl.! in the Charter, but we voted against the inclusion of such an article in the Covenant because st'lf-determination is not, in our view, an individual human right, but if it can be accurately defined at all, it is the collective political right of a people. But, in order to give legal effect to any such right, it is necessary, as we all know, to define the word "people" itself. This is not the sort of point, of course, which can he expected to appeal to our Soviet Union colleague, who is enly out to represent our action in opposing the attempt to insert a vague aspiration into a legal document as a typical action <;>f imperialists, agg'ressors and so on. In point of fact, if there is any country where the :.. ~~ht of self-determination has not been applied it is in the Soviet Union. The unfortunate peoples of Uzbekistan, Armenia, Georgia and Latvia never had any genuine opportunity of expressing their free opinion as to v1thether they want to he an integral part of the Soviet Union and directly govemed from Moscow. Perhaps, before he attacks others, the representative of the Soviet Union had better direct his gaze a little nearer home.

With r~ardto the familiar slanderous attacks on the Soviet Union and the poople's democracies by the United States and United Kingdùin representatives, 1 might remind the United States representativè that in his cO]1ntry it has been officiaHy acknowledged that the entry of the . Soviet Union into the war against Japan, during the Second World War, saved over a million American lives. 191. Simultaneously with the Soviet Union, the Mongolian People's Republic also took part inthat war; its heroie cavalry covered approximately 2,000 kilometres fighting the Japanese invaders in Iuner Mongolia and Manchuria. This force of Mongolian 192. If o11ly out of gratitude for this, the United States representatives shou1d cease slandering the Mongolian People's Republic and its heroic people, which made its own glocious contribution to the general cause of the struggle against fascism and aggression and saved many American soldiers and officers from destructlpn by sacrificing the lives of its own soldiers and officers. That is a historica1 fact, and the United States repr~ sentative cannot blink it. 193. Let the United States representative tell me which of the countries which he proposes for admission to membership in the United Nations joined the Powers fighting against German-Italian-Japanese aggression and how many soldiers they supplied. Did Ireland, Portugal, Ceylon, Nepa1 or Jordan take part in the struggle against aggression in the Second World War, and how many lives of American so1diers and officers did they save? l shou1d like to have the answer. The United States representative asked me a question about the Mongolian People's Republic and l am answering him. Let him give me an answer to my question. He cannot say anything to that. 194. He asks whether the Mongolian People's Republic cau be admitted to membership in the United Nations together with Italy. Yes it can and shou1d be admitted' because the Mongolian Peop1e's Republic has eamed with the blood of its sons the right to become a Member of the United Nations, by helping us and the United States in the fight against Japanese m.ilitarism and Japanese aggression. It has therefore a better right to be in the United Nations than tnanY of those whom the United States representative is supporting. 195. So much for the question of the admission of the Mong61ian People's Republic as aState which has made its contribution to the general cause of the United Nations. ' 196. The fact that we ,-onsider it possible to admit the Mongolian People's Republic to membership in the United Nations, together with Ceylon, Nepal, J'Ordan, Italy 'and others, is confirmed'hy' our proposaI that a11 fûurteen States should be admitted. The United States voted against and rejeetèd our proposal.. .197. The.question is dear cut : Who is in favour of - "----. adnUtting Italy, t~eth~r ~ithallthe_other.Stat~~),. _~d who isagàinst. the admission of bath Italy and a11 the rest? - 199. So much for the admission of Libya. 200. But the United States is violating not only the Genera! Assembly resolution on Libya. In voting against the admission of Htmgary, Bulgaria and Romania it is thereby violating the peace treaties with Bulgaria, Romatùaand Hungary, signed by the United States Government,.under which it a.g'"'eed to support applications from those States if they asked to become Members of the United Nations. This means that the United States is vioiating not only a General Assembly resolution but also international agreements, and l~ot only in this case but in several others, as T,vas specifically stated at the General Assembly's sixth session. 201. S.o much for the question of who is violating international agreements and obligations and who is observing them. 202. With regard to southern Korea, which the United States representative, evidently by a mlsta.1<e, ca:lled the Democratic Repnblic of Korea, we are for the admission to the United Nations of the People's Democratie Republic of Korea, but we are against adnùssion of the puppet "guvernment" which the United States set up in southern Korea and which no longer exists, because aU 'its armed forces and administ"ation have been handed <?ver, to MacArthur - officit:\l documentation on this point exists in the archives of the Security Councii: Syngman Rhee handed over his whole "army" first to General MacArthur's command and then to General Ridgw2Y's and does everything that he is told by the United S\'ates command.·fIence, there is no government or state in southern Korea. How then can the United· Statp.srepresentative propose to discuss the' ,question of a non-existent puppet government ?Besides, the United States. delegation has done its best. to burke: discussion of the Korean probleol by the United Nations. It is inconsistent; it contradîcts itself. On the one·hand, it protests against any discussion of thé Karean problem in the United Nations and, on the other hand,it offers to discussthe Korean.question, the questionof admitting to the United ~ations a puppet gov- 203. Now as to the.oft-repeated boast that the United States does not apply the veto. It is sufficient to say that so far it has no need even to apply the veto. It has plenty of opportunities to apply ~ collective veto. I have already quoted in the First Comnùttee examples of how the United States voted against the adtrJssion of Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania either with a partner or along with other States, or as a group of three. That was nothing less than a joint veto; it cannat be otherwise described. When the United States has the right of veto,ànd votes ~crainst a resolution, it is applying . the veto, irrespective of whether anyone e1se is voting with it. It has vetoed our proposaIs just as often as we have vetoed its. Ta say that it bas never ·used the veto is cheap demagogy; it will convince no one. As regardE the right to use the veto, the United States has never renounced it. In the Senate Commissions, during the hearing of the MacArthur affair, Marshall again repeated that the United States would not give up the veto,and in 1950, when the question was being discussed ofse1ecting atlother candidate and not the United States .nominee, Trjgve Lie, for the post of Secretary- Generàl, Ml'. Austin directly and openly threatened that the United States "rould apply the veto. 204. So the United States does not renounce the veto, ~d neither do·we. It is our right, and we use it in accordance with our right to defend not only our own interests but those of the numerous States against which the United States applies the principle of discrimination ànd pursues a hostile policy. 205. As to the slanderous attacks of the United Kingdom representative concerning the application of the right ta self-determination in the Soviet Union; 1 must say that 1.can only describe them as either ignorant or as flagrantly slander,ous.. Ignorant, since he must know that thisright i~ cont~ned in the basic law of the Soviet Union, the Stalinist Constitution. Article 17 of the Constitution states: "To every Union Republic is reservedthe rightto: secede freely from the USSR". The United Kingdomrepre~entative referred to the Caucasian peoples and the Baltie peoples. The peoples of the -USSR have. the right of self-determination. The Republics have this right even up ta the point cl seces·· sion. But they use it to we1dthemselvesever more dosely int~ a single united family-of free Soviet peoflles. This isthe guarantee of·their strength and invincibi'.ity. They remember the experience of the Civil War :.0 Russia when the British imperialists tried lX) seize the Caucasus and turn its peoples into colonial slaves. The. English imperialist plunde~ers tried to subjugatethemand to do with them what they did with Iran, Egypt and IDeii: ollier sUbject cOuntries. - ----~~.··,""'~•,·:·,.,~~IR_~~_~~~~~ 206. The Armenian people, the Georgian people, the Azerbaijan people and aU the other peoples of the Caueasus do not want to be the slaves of the British imperialists but to be free citizens of the Soviet Union and belong to the great and free family of Soviet peoples. 207. The United Kingdom representative knows all this, and therefore he is simply uttering slander and is most blatantly distorting the facts. 208. He is also uttering slanderous statements about the Baltic Republics. A national referendum, conducted on a broad democratic basis in those Republics, showed that the peoples of those Republics want to helong ta the family of Soviet peoples, and do not want to be subjected to the Anglo-American imperialists. 209. These are the facts, and he cannat possibly evade them. 210. Sa much for the principle of the self-determinatian of peoples in the Soviet Union, and none of the United Kingdom representative's slanders can eitheralter it or conceal it f~om world public opinion. 21L The PRESIDENT (translated trom French): We owe a debt of gratitude ta fue interpreters and other members of the Secretariat whom we have subjectèdto a really superhuman trial for the last five and a half hours. During these five and a half hours we have talked not only about the admission of new Members but also de omni re scibili et quibusdam cliis. The meeting rose at 8.45 p.m. SALES AGENTS FOR UNITm DEPOSITAIRES DES PUBliCATIONS DGENTINl-liGENTINE Edilorl.1 Sudomericono SA., Alslne 500. 8uenos Aires. AUSTRlllA- AUSTRALIE H. A. Goddord. 2550 Goorge SI•• Sydfil\l. InGIUM-IELGIQUE I\gonce el Mess.geries de le Pross. S...... 1+22 rue du p~rsil, Bruxellos. W. H. Smilh & Son. 71·75 Boullly.rd Adolph.·M.lI, Bru.ollo.. iiIOliVIA-IQllYlE Librerlo S4!ec.ion... Cosillo 972. La l'oz. IlAXll-IiESll livrorio Agir. Ruo Mexico 98·B. Rio de Janeiro.. ClNlDA Ryerson Pross. 299 OUeen SI. West, Toronto. Los Prossos Universitoires levol. Ouebec. anOi/-CEYLAN Tho Associotod Newsp.para of Caylon, Lld.. Loke Housa. Colombo. CIllLE-CNlli ....." librerlo Iyens, Monedo 822. Sontiogo. CHIHl-CllINE Commerciol Press. lId". 211 Honon Rd.. Shonghoi. GREECE - GRECE "Elaftharoudokis," P".~e tion, Ath.nos. GUATEMAlA Gouboud 8< CIo. lido., 5 Avenid. Guoternalo. llllTl libroirie "A 10 Ceroy.U.... 111·a. Port-llu·Prlnee. HONDURAS libratlo Ponomericon., Fùent., tagucigalpo. lIlIIlA-INDE Oxf".d Book & Stononery Housa, Now Delhi. P. Vorodochory & Co., St.. Modros 1. lNDOIlfSIA-INDONESIE Jojoson PembonguMn, Djokorta. IUN KatoQ·Khanoh Donesh. nue, Tehran.. IUQ-IUK Mockenzie's Bookshop. I.ElAND -IRLANDE Hibernion Gen.rol Agency mercial Buildings, D.me COLOMBIA- COLOMBIE libror!o lotlno lldo.. Correro 60•• 13.05, B09016. ISRilEL Blumstein's Bookslores. Rood. Toi Aviv. COSTA RICA- COSTA·~ICA Trejos Herm.nos, Aportodo 1313. Son José. liALY-lTAUE Colibri SA., Vio Chioss.tto CUBA i.o Coso Bolgo, O'Reilly '!~5. lo Hobano. lEUNON- LIBAN libroirie universelle. Beyrouth. aECHOSLOVAKI4 - TCHECOSLOVAQUIE Ceskoslovensky Spisovot.!. Norodni Trido 9. Proha 1. L1RERIA' J. Mamelu Komaro. Monrovio. 'ENMARK- DANÉMA~K Einor Munksgoord, lId.. NjIlrregode 6. Klllbonhovn, K. LUXEMBOURG libroirie J. Schummer. IOMlNlCAN REPUBUC- ~EPUB. DOMINICAINE librerlo Dominicono, Mercedes 49. Ciu'· dod Trujillo. ' MEXICO - MEXIQUE , Editoriol Hermas S.A" 41. México, D.F. ECUADO~- EQUATEUR librerIo Cienlfr.eo. Bo. 362. Guayoquil. NETHE~LANDS _~AYS·BAS N.V. Morlinus Nijhoff,· ·s.Gravenhage. EGYPt- EGYPTE Librairie "l8 Renaissonce d'Egypte, U 9 Sh. Adly Posho, Coiro. NEW ZEALAND - NOUVELlE·ZELANDE U.l>t. Assn. of New Ze.land, 'C.P.O. Wellington. EL SALVADOR-SA1VADO" Monuel Navo. y cr•., la Avenido 5ur 37, Son S.lvodor. ETHIOPlA- EmlOPIE Agence Ethlopi.nne de ·Publicité. Box 12B. Addis·Abebb. NICA.....GUA Dr. Ramiro Rom!re. V HO~WAY-NO~VEGE Johan Grundt Tanum gumg!. 7,0., Oslo. F1HLAND.,... FINLANDE Akoteeminen Kirjokouppo. 2, Keskus~lu. Helsinki. PAKISTAN Thoma. 8< Thomas, ~ort Road, Karochi, 3. Publisher. Uni~~d ltd hore. nANCE Editions A. Pedone, 13 rue soumot. ParisV. Orders and.inquiries from countriss where sales agents .have not yetbeert ÇlPpointed Ill(lY besent tOI Sales and Circulation$ection, United Nations, New York, U.S.A.; or Sales Sedion, United Nations Office, Palais des Nations, GÈmeva, Switzerland. Priee: 40 cents (or equivalent in other Printed in Canada