S/PV.590 Security Council

l nowpropose to say a few words in my capacity as representative of the UNITED KINGDOM. After that the repTesentative of Turkey has asked to explain his vote in advance of the vote, aud thereafter, unless,any other representative wishes to explain his vote ip. advance, we shaH proceed to take the vote and. l hope, dispose of the item now before us. 3, Yesterday our Soviet Union coUeague did his best ta in'pugn the impartiality of the International Committe.'. of the Red Cross and of the WorldH~alth Organization. I do not recaU that this particular argument has been used 'before in the Security Couneil though we'have, of course. listened to precisely the same aUegations in the Disannament Commisl'ion and 4. The crux of the matter, as has been demorstrated by many other spe~ers, ls that the Soviet Uniop is resolutely 'opposed ta any form of impartial inquiry. It is no doubt relqdant to admit this, and it is for this reason thatît has to find excuses, for' rejecting those agencies, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross or the WorId Health Organïzation, which have been proposed for the conduct of such an inquiry. If further proof of this were needed it could be found in t.lJ.e fact. that the rejection of these agencies has not been accompanied by any' suggestion of a meat:'s by which a truly impartial investigation might· be made. It is quite possible to think of alternative ways in which this might bé done. A Commission might be designated, for instance, hy the International Court of Justice, or might be formed frem representatives of countries whose impartiality would he universally al'Cepted; But no such proposaI was put forward· and aU we were offered were reports by the Democratie Lawyers and other such bodies which [Sj2684, S/2684/Add.l] , as we aIl know, are wholly under communist domination. l repeat therefore that the conclusion is inescapable; the Soviet Union rejeets in principle the whole idea of an impartial·investigation on the spot and will trump up accusations and objections against any agency which is proposed to conduct it. 5. Now, on the main subject before us l shall not take up much of the Council's time. All the arguments have 7. My colleagues, this particular aspect of current Soviet Union propaganda is, of course, only one feature of the .tactics employed by the. Governmentof .the 'USSR, and it must, l think, be judged in relation to the whole Soviet system. We have come in recent years to take a1most for granted the extravagances of Soviet Union propaganda, like that of the Nazis berore the war; lùmost every speech made by the Soviet Union representative here contains statements about other countries represented round this table' which, inearlier and supposedly less civilizeddays, would' a1most have sufficed in themse1ves to have brought about a declaration of war. Now we have come ta expect them as a matter of course, and through constant reiteration they have scarcely any power left even'ta cause us surprise or shock. 1 feel, hQwever, that it would be wrong to minirnize the significante of the change which has taken place. It may sometimes be suggested that it is hetter ta say what you mean outrightly and frankly, and mat the language of what 1 might calI traditional diplomacy was insincere and hypocritica1. To some ex:tent this may have been true, but if in the past sovereign States observed sorne measure of restraint and politeness in their communications with each'other, this was surely at leastpartly because they reaIlywished at heart to maintain friendty relations. P~rhaps it is possible thatone daythe problem of the abuse of language, and, so to speak, debasement of the verbal currency, may even be discussed, in the organ which at present sa comical1y refus to itself as the Moscow Literary Gazette. The effect on the' public mind of the word "opponent" invariably being spelt "c-a-n-n-i-b-a-l" might weIl indeed be studied by a 8. However. we must consider things as they are. We are frequently reminded that Premier Stalin has expressed himse1f in favour of the peaceful coexistence of the communist and non-communist systems, and "1"vë have to listen to the most pious sf''1timents about the love of peace which is said to animate the Soviet Union Govemment and which supposedty has dictated their ev~ry move in foreign affairs since the Revolution of 1917. Yet a1most in the same breath the leaders of the democratic cauntries are accused of being murderers, rapists or assass;ns and are vilified with every term of abuse in the quite' extensive Russian ·vocabulary.. How can the Soviet Union leaders possibly maintain that fuis is the way to establish frïendty reiations with other counmes or to reduce the tension which now exists in the world? How cau they expect us to aceept the assurances of their peaceful intentions when they take 50 little trouble to disguise their implacable hostility towards us? 9. How. above al1, cau we rely on any Soviet Union promises <:Ir undertakings when we· have before us not 0I11y the startling contradictions in what they say, but the complete divorce of their words from their actions? If everything which the Govemment of the USSR has done in the last thirty-five years has been promoted entire1v by lOlVe of peace, how can such eveuts as th~ transportation' of whole populations to Siberia, where the bulk of them died in horrible conditions,. t.lte suppression of democracy in Poland, the rape of Czcchoslovak1a, the.Berlin blockade or the encouragement of aggr~ssion in Kotea be explained satisfactorily? There IIlay' he a tortured form Dt logk by which the Soviet Union leade:s can reconcile aIl these manifest contradictions to their own satisfaction, but they rea1ly shouId not try toimpose in this way on our credulity. Peace may be what the operation is caIled; .but what it rea11y is is the perpetuation by one means or another of the ruIe of the Kremlin. 10. It wou1d no doubt he idIe to speculate f'f. the motives which lie behind the intensive Soviet Union propaganda campaign, of which the charges'about the use of germ warfare in Korea form a pa..... Such speculation can scarcely beother than fruitless "\ long as the who1e machinery and operation of the Soviet system of government is deliberately wrapped in such deep obscurity.What can be said, however, is the effect which this campaign must have on the relations ÏJetween the Soviet Union' and countries outside· the Soviet Union bloc and on the whole international situation. Theprinciples embodr.~d in the Charter and the whole system represented hy the United. Nations rest .on the' assumption that, although countries may differ amongst themselves, they do fundamentally desire 11. This is the menace which lies behind the Sovkt ,Union campaign of hate, and it is this which givés the campaign its grim significance. The germ warfare charges in themselves are so ridiculous that, if they stood alone, it would scarcely be necessary to treat them seriously. The weakness nf the Soviet Union case has been demonstrated even more clearly by the discussion in the Security Couneil and by the Soviet Union's refusaI to agree to any form of impartial investigation. Unfortunately, the germ warfare cliarges do not stand alone but are symptomatic of the whole outlook and poIicy which seems to animate the Soviet Union: So long as it persists in its present course.. it is indeed difficult to see how the world can have any assurance of security. And, for so long as there is no sccurity, but hate continues, what is left for us in the free world to do except, unpleasant though this may be, to 'recall the aneient counsel of the Romans, "oderint dum metuant" - their hate is less important than the!r fear? 12. l resume my thought as fol1ows. It is not so much the germ warfare campaign that matters as the hate warfare campaign. AIl hate warfare - and of course it hasnot been in the past, and is not even now entirely confined ta the USSR - is based on a kind of spiritual misery. This may ,be the result of social convulsions, real or apprehended, cr, as the poet says, "of battles long ago", but whatever 'its origin, it reflects a basic weakness in the body potitic. The basic weakness in thé body politic of the Soviet Union is, l suggest, the hideous theory that the end justifies the means. Because the Soviet Union leaders believe tnat a certain type of society is desirable, they conclude thatanything which, in their view, tends in the direction of the achievement of·that type of society is goqd, anything which hinders its establishment is bad.. Thus, nothing is good in itself, or bad in itself: nothing is true in itself or {aIse in itself: good and evil, truth and lies, are purely subjective con-:- cepts, of purely bourgeois significance. To push this horrible theory to its ultimate conclusion: if any conventional· bourgeois crime were for some reason considered by the Soviet Union Government to be useful for the establishment or perpetuation of the Soviet Stat~, that~rime would certainly be encouraged by the SovIet UnlOn Government. No doubt it would be labe~êd something opposite to what it was, but certainly nothmg that the public thought would have any effect u11 the authorities. For the function of the public in the Soviet system is simply to accept and, thereafter, of course, to praise whatever the authorities dec1·ee. 13. For us, therefore, the conclusion is clear. We must continue resolute1y to oppose aggression, whatever the storm of abuse and hate that th1S may bring about our ears: but we must continue ioudly to assert what we all believe, namely, that the Soviet Union itself has not1ùng to fear if it ceases to oppose United Nations princip1es and procedures; and we must trust that the knowledge that this is so will penètrate behind the Iron Curtain and eventually resu1t in the establishment in those unfortunate countries of governments not deaf ta reason, nor blind to morality, nor bent, in pursuit of theîr cold objectives, in shutting,the gates of mercy on mankïild. . 14: Mr. SARPER (Turkey): In ex.plaining very brtefly the vote we are about to cast, may l rerriind the mèmbers of the Security Council that from the very first day, when we were confronted at the United Nations with the charges of the alleged use of bacterial weapons by the United Nations forces in Korea, my de1egation has fully supported aU endeavours aiming to bring out the facts through an investigation being conc1ucted by a competent and impartial intemational body of experts. We have joined in aU efforts directed toward either puttingan end ta these faise accusations in the interestof p~ace or allowing world cpinion to discoveI;' the truth in a scientific and irrefutable way. 15. It is very unfortunate indeed' that aIl these efforts have been thwarted one way or the other. The North Korean anc1 Chinese Communist authorities have refused' to allow an .investigation, and the veto used by theélclegation of the Soviet Union to paralyse any ac'Jon of the Security Council destroyed our hapes of heving such an investigation bring out the truth and the facts. Under suchcircumstances, we have been compelled to draw the cpnclusions which are embodied in the·draft resolution under consideration. 16. The Charter of the United Nations has set the development of frlendly relations among·nations as one of its ailIls.. Thebitternessand the confusion which have.resulted from the campaign .of the .alleged use of bacterial weapons and the. refusaI to allow an impartial iri.v~stigatiDn of these charges are clearly in opposition to thisend, and, as sucb, have caused great concern to us all. For cll these reasons, l shaU vote in favour of the draft resn;udon. presented by thedelegation of the United States. 17. The PRESIDENT: As l have no further speakers on my list,.l shall put ta the vote the draft resolution set.lorth Î1:1. document S/2688 dated.·3 July. As there is no request for a vote on thevariousparagtaphs of the draft resolutiori, l shaH put it ta· the vote as a whole. The. Secretary read thetext of thé draft resolution set forth in documentS/2688. A vote was taken by show of hands, as foUows: In favour: Brazil, Chile,. China,. France, .. Greece, . Netherlat].ds, Tu~~ey, United Kingdom ofGreat Britain and 'Northern Irehnd, United States' of America. . . tique pouvons en Nations prendre défi civilisation, crit .en Admission

l wish ta make just or..e point. Vve thought it right that this draft resolution should be put to a vote despite the fact that the Soviet Union representativt'. had announced in advance his intention to use his. veto power to·frustrate the will of the Council. We thought it right to put the draft resolution to a vote for the reason that we consider - and l think it is cIear that the majority cf the members of the Council consider - that the campaign ai hate and of lies which is being carr1ed on, sponsored and disseminated by the Soviet Union Government, and which it {:ontinues tocarry on with unabated vigour, is direeted against no less than the United Nations itself. . 20. l sa~d at our last meeting that this campaign is a revoIt against the fundamental purpose of the Charter ta deve10p friendly relations among nations and that, as the custodians, as the trustees of' the Charter, we here in· the Security Council cannot afford to ovedook this type of attack· which is designed to c{)nfuse the members of the free worId, to paralyse our wiIJ. and to 50W arilong us the seeds of distrust. l thi.'1k it is cIear from the vote which has just been taken, 111which m~' deleg3.tion was proud to join, that the Security Council, through those who loyally support Hie Charter of the United Nations, has indicated, as l hoped and suggested it would, its firm detennination to watch the progress of this campaign of hate very c10sely in alI its manifestations. 21. It is with a great significance that the Security Council, although frustrated hy the Soviet Union veto, héls mél:de that intention c1ear. We close one chapter today. A campaign of lies and of hate has been exposed for what it is. But unless the Soviet Unico Govem.. ment withdraws and abandons its campaign, we surely cannot forget our responsibiliti~ as custodians and trustees of·the Charter of the United Nations. And it seems to me that we will have te take action that 1S requisite and 'appropriate to meet this challenge to the standards of decency and of civilization which we,allof us, have agreed ta when we signed the Charter of the United Nations. . Admission of new Mentbers: (a) Adoption of a recommendationto the Gen.eral Aasembly con· Ilf'i"uing the simliltaneous admission to mem.· :bership in the United Nation.s ofall fourtee!! States wmch have applied for snch admission; (b) Consideration ofresolution 506 (VI) of· . Ilhê.'General··Assembly . . 22. soviétiques) ~2. .Mi. MALIK :Union o( Soviet Socialist Repub..,. ltcs) (translated fram Russum) :-Iam 'speàking on 24. The applications of these fQ!1rteen States have been several times under consideration in the Security Council and its appropriate organs. The question of their admission has not yet, however, been decided. 25. The USSR de1egation has more than once drawn the Security Council's attention to the fact that it can now consider the question of the admission of these States to membership in the United Nations as a whole and that, in dealing with this matter, the approach to be adopted should be one v~hich would allow the question ta he dealt in its entirety. withOl1t discrimination against or favoritism t{)wards any one of the aforementioried coqntries. 26. The simultaneous admission of aU the fourteen States which have s11bmitted applications for membership in the United Nations will also be a fair and objective decision of this question, which is of such long standing. 27. The discussion of the question of the admission of new Members, which took place in the First Committee and in plenary meetings at the sixth session of the General Assembly in Paris showed that this view, and therefore the draft resolution, was supported by the majority of the Members of the United Nations which took part in the discussion and in the vote on the USSR drait resolution 1 suggesting that the Security Council should recansider the matter and recommend the admis·- sion to the United Nations of aIl fourteen States. ·28. 1t has also been widely supported by most members of the First Committee. In other words, this proposaI by the delegation of the Soviet Union was adopted by a majority of votes in the First Committee. 2 This USSR proposaI for the admission of aIl fourteen States to the United Nations was wide1y we1comedin t.~e world Press. 32. In the desire to achieve a just setilement of the long-standing question of admission of new Members ta the United Nations) the USSR delegation, on instructions from its Govern:nent, proposes that the Security Council should adopt the General Assembly's recommendation for the admission of the fourteen States which' I mentioned earlier and which have applied for membership. 33. In this conne.."<ion the USSR delegatiol1 submits the foUowing draft resolution for the Council's consideration. It has already been circulated to members for study as a Security Council doètL.ïlent. It reads [S/2664] : "The Security Cmtncil "Recommends that the General Assembly should simultaneously admit to membership in the United Nations the foIlowing States which have applîed therefor: Albania, Mongohan People's Republic) Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Finland. Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Hashemite Kingdom of· Jordan, Austria, Ceylon, Nepal and Libya." 34. Ml'. KYRûU (Greece) :-1n its draft resolution set forth in document S/2664, the Soviet Union delegation has referred to resolution 506 A (VI), one of, the n'lO rcsolutions adopted by the General Assembly on 1 February 1952, and more especiaIly ta paragraph 2 of its substantive part, recommending "that the Security Council reconsider aU pending applications for the a?l11ission of new Members... ". Through the Pre- Sident, I should like to ask the representative of the Secretary-General to tell the Council whether the applications of the fourteen States enUl"'1erated in the Soviet Union draft resolution are the onfy applications pending before the Security Council. 36. The SECRETARY: Albania, 25 January 1946;4 Mongolian People's Republic, 24 June 1946 [S/95]; Transjordan (Jordan), 26 June 1946 [S/101];. Portuga~t 2 August 1946 [S/119] ; Ireland, 2 August 1946 [S/116] ; Hungary, 22 April 1947 [S/333]; Italy, 7 May 1947 [S/355]; Austria, 2 Ju!y 1947 [Sj403]; Romania, 10 July 1947 [S/411]; Bulgaria, 26 July 1947 [S/467]; Finland, 19 September 1947 [S/559]; Ceylon, 25 May 1948 [S/820]; Republic of Korea, 19 January1949 [S/1238] ; People's Democratie Republic of Korea, 9 February 1949 [S/1247]; Nepal, 13 FeLruary 1949 [S/1266]; Vietnam, 17 December 1951 [S/2446]; Unii~<i Kingdom of. Libya, 24 December 1951 [A/20, ']; Democratie Reptiblic of Vietnam, 29 December 1951 [S/2466]; and, recently received but not yet before the Council, two appHcations, namely, Cambodia, 15 June 1952 [S/2672]; and Japl'.n, 16 June 1952 [S/2673].

There are ot.'ler applications besides the fourteen enumerated in the Soviet Union proposa!. Therefore, 1 believe that tha Security Council should not comply with the recommendations mentioned by the representative of the Soviet Union, particularly as the General Assembly, during its sixth session, requested the Security Coundl, under resolu": tion 506 B (VI), "to report to the General Assembly at ,its seventh session on the status of applications still penciing;". . 38. I suggest a closeexamin~.tion of all the applicatio1J.s pending before the Security Council at a date closer to the next session of. the General Assembly, these applications to he examined on the basis of the relevant" Article of the Charter, as well as according to rule 59 of our raIes of procedure~ I formaUy move the adjournment of the debate on this question. . 39. The PRESIDENT: I take it that the proposaI of the representative of Greece is to postpone discussion 01 th~ question to a certain day, or indefinitel.v, accordmg to rule 33 of the Council's rules of procedure, and that he is not actually proposing ad3':>umment of the meeting according to item 2 of rule 33. His proposaI comes rather under item 5 of the.rule.

The President is quite right. According to rule 33, item 5, I propose postponement of the discussion of the question of the admi?sion of new Members to a certain day or indefimtely. - . 41: Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated. front Russian): I should like to know precisely what date the Greek representative had in mind. 42. Mr. ,KYROU (Greece): Since it may be taken for granted. that the seventh session of the .General Assembly will be convened on 14 October, 1· believe du et sous 47. explication la 48. Ce mais c?se tIon 49. maintenant proposition 50. gnol):' sition demander SI. semblée tion point l'Union cette procéder d'admission rale bres de elle les liter ·la la les .membres consulter à formuler

From the list read 'out by the Secretary, l observe tbat it contains six more applicants than those enumerated in the drait resolution under consideration and thase which have been dealt with so far. Accor.dtng to the first part of rule 59, ICThe Secretary-General shall immediately place the application for membership before the representatives of the Security Council". May l ask why the Secretary- General has failed to comply with that first sentence of rule 59?

Perhaps we might for a moment interrupt the discussion which l thought was going to begin on the motion proposed by the representative of Greece, and try to settle the point raised by the representative of Turkt"y. In order to settle that point, l think we migLt hea. a statement from the Secretary. 46. The SECRETARY: l think there is some misunderstanding. The Secretary-General did what the roles of procedure require. The application of Cambodia was eirculated to the members of the Security Couneil in document S/2672 on 17 June and the application of Japan, in document S/2673, on the same date. 47. -:rh~ PRESIDENT: Does that satisfy the representative of Turkey? 48. Ml'. SARPER (Turkey): Although those are only two of the six new applicants, 1 ai11 satisfied with the explanation, and l apologize for having failed to notice these documents which had been circulated.

The Council will now re'>ume discussion of the proposaI of the representative of Greece. 50. Mr. SANTA CRUZ (Chile) (translated trom Spanish): l should like to have some clarification in or~er to bebetter able to judge of the Greekrepresentatlve's proposaI. 51. Reference has been made to General Assembly resolution 506 (VI) and, indeed, consideration of this resolution constitutes one of.the two parts of this item on our agenda. As the representatives of the USSR and Greece will recaIl, this resolution invites the Security Couneil to reconsider aIl pending applications for the admission of new Members. The General Assembly was, however, aware of the fact that any one of the permanent memb~rs of the Security Council may prevpnt the admission of a new ).\1ember, and t~lerefore considered that some priar arrangements wouldbe necessary among the permanent members in order that the Council's task might be facilitated. Paragraph 3< of that resolution reads ttRequests the permanent· members of the Security Coullc11 to confer with ohe ariother saon' with a view to assistihg the Council· to .come to positive rerommendations in regard to the pending application.for membership". '

l de not know whether it is in order for me, as the representative of the UNITED KINGDOM, ta endeavour ta reply to the inquiry of the representative of Chile. However, l think l can say witli;:,ut any indiscretion that sa far there has not been a meeting of the rJermanent m~mbers on this point. l am sure thaï all permanent members are fully conseious of the fact that paragraph 3 of the resolution adopted by the General Assembly does request the pern1anent members to confer with one another soon. l imagine that the reason why there has not yet been a meeting of the permanent members is that not one of them thought that there was likely to be any fruitful result if a meeting were held at this particular moment. 54. l am sure, however, that before the General Assembly meets again, at any rate, one or more of the permanent members will make a suggestion to hold a meeting and that it will be held. 55. Mr. SARPER (Turkey): Thinking along the lines of thought expressed by the representative of Chile, and due to the fact that there are six more applicants than those which are enumerated in the draft resolution under consideration, l support the proposaI of the representative of Greece and second his motion for an adjoumme!!-t of the discussion of this question. 56. Mr. KY,ROU (Greece): May l put this proposai of mine in more definite· terms in arder to be absoIutely in complianee with rule 59? My proposaI would be to adjoum discussion on the question of the admission of new Members until 1 September or 2 September. l do not know on what day these will fall. Perhaps one may be a Sunday. That is why l am mentioning two days. l make this proposal in order to give time to the Security Couneil to set up the Committee on the Admission of New Members to consider the applications and for this Committee to report back to the Security Council before the limit of thirty-five days given in rule 59. 57. The PRESIDENT: The 2nd {)f September is a Tuesday. Perhaps that would be the best date to suggest. 58. The proposaI is to adjoum the discussion of this matter until Tuesday, 2 September. 59. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republies) (translated f1'om Russian): The same old game is going on before the eyes of the members of the .Security Couneil, on1y this time the subject is the question of the admission of new Members. At one of the SecurityCouncil's earlier meetings it was pointed out that the United States representative's statements had set the course for the discussion of this questiop. - the postponement of this qcestion. Today we see whére that course has led. 62. As to the remaining four applications mentioned by the representative of the United Nations Secretariat, in view of the existing exéeptional circumstances, circumstances in the countries from which the applications were received, it wauld be hardly appropriate ta insist on their consideration now, simultaneously with the other fourteen. 63. The USSR delegation is proposing the admission to the U:,~ted Nations of the fourteen countries which applied a long time aga, in fact sorne years ago. In regard to the remaining four applications, the Secretariat mentioned an application from the so-called Republic of Korea, on the one hand, and the applicatiO'n of the People's Democratie RepubUc of Korea on the other hand. That is to say that two applications have been received from Korea - one from South and the other from North Korea. We are therefore faced with acontroversial question. Is it therefore feasihle to draw a paralle1 between any of the fourteen Sta1:es, whose admission is urged by the So\-iet Union, and these two applications? Of course not. The sariJ.e applie~ to Vietnam from which twù applications have been received. Tt would be pointless to draw a complete parallel between these two applications and those of the other fourteen States whose admission the Soviet Union urges. mandes rents. demandes l'Union 64. orateurs raison sion demandes 64. In the list of those positive facts, which many speakers have urged us to bear in mind, there would be no justification for the Security Council ta postpone the admission of the fourteen States on account of the four applications referred to or of the other applications only recently received by the United Nations, which sorne members of the Security Council have as yet not even seen or read. There is therefore no doubt of the futiIity of the arguments put forward by the Greek representative, for example, who made a point of stressing the words "all the applications". a1?tr~s r 1 quils que tant sur de 65. quatorze 65. In this given set of circumstances, the' applications froin the fourteen States enumerated in the USSR draft 67. There is always the possibility that by September, f{)rexample, new problems may arise which may require the Council's attention. The question of the ?dmission of new Members will then again be postponed and not considered.. We have now the time at our' disposaI, there are sa far no other items on our agenda to deal with. The question of the -admission of new Members is a standing one and is important. July and Augm1t are freemonths. Then why not take up this item now? ·Why postpone it until Septèmber? There is 1.0 real justification for such. procedure. This argument advanced by the Greek representative therefore also merely shows that what is being attempted here is not to faeilitate thedecision to admit new Members, but on the contrary, to complicate and draw it out because of the int;;mal political considerations of a specfic State. This is a well-known facto 68.. The S~curity Couneil cannot however act to suit the wishes of one State and of one of its members only. The United Nations and its organs are already synchronizing and co-ordinating their work too much and tao often. with the internaI political developments of the country in which the United Nations Headquarters is situated, AccQrding ta the Charter, the United Nations is an international organization and must act independently, follow its own course without stopping -ta see what is going on in Chicago today. 70. There is aIso one more crmsideration. At the present time Members of the United Nations are being asked their views on the calling of a special session of the General Assembly. According to the latest information, twenty-two States appear to have expressed support for the calling of a special session, ten are opposed and the 'others have not yet replied. The possibility is not e.'{cluded that thirty-one Member States of the United Nations will support the calling of a special session of the General Assembly. What is to prevent that special session of the General Assembly - if called - from also considering the question of the admission of new Members? If the Security Couneil decides at this rime to recommend that the General Assembly admit fourteen new Members, how greatly the international prestige of our Organization will be raised. Instead of sixty, there will he seventyfour Members. Many tens of millions of'people ,vill pour into the United Nations. Surely that would be a step forward in strengthening international collaboration. It would undoubtedly be a step forward. 71. Only a few politieians, basing their attitude on their seif-interested narrowly nationalistic interests, are attempting to prevent this international step forward. It is not the business of the United Nations, and it would not be honourable for the United Nations, to pay attention to the ideas of such. home-bred politicians. In support of the need to decide the question of the admission of the "fourteen" l must refer to an official document: l have before. me a recent publicàtion: United States Participation in the United Nations. Report by the President ta the Congress for thé year 1951. This is a l:eport to Congress from the President of the United States of America dealing with United .States participation in the United Nations. This is what we read on page 125 of thiS report on t.~e question of the admission of new Members and on the voting on the USSR proposaI for the admission of fourteen States at the sixth session of the General Assembly: It says here (Mr. MaJik contimted in English) : "The Committee" - i.e., the First Corrimittee of the General. Assembly - "alsà approved the Soviet resolution by a vote of 21 to 12, United States opposed, with 25 abstentions. This vote on the Soviet proposa.l refleded the growing concern of many Members' that some way had to be foun.d to break the continued deadlock on the membership question." 73. As regards the question raised by the Chilean representative, l cannot agree with the answer given by the United Kingdom representativeallLgedly on behaH of the permat;lent members of the Couneil. Sir Gladwyn said that no meeting of the permanent members of the Security Council on the question of the admission of new Members has been called because none of them feels that the time is appropriate for a discussion of this question - at least that is what l gathered from the interpretation of Sir Gladwyn's statement. It .may perhaps ref1ect Sir Gladwyn's own view, and the view of bis United States coUeague or of sorne other representatives, but l cannot agree with sl1ch an interpretation. It does not reflect the attitude of the Soviet Union as a permanent member of the Security Council. 74. We feel that the time is always appropriate for consultation between the permanent members of the Security Coun~il on such questions as the admission of new Members - and for that matter, on other questions. As regards the consultations themselves, there are various ways·in which they could be effected. One wollid' be to hoId consultations before the meeting of the Security Council. There is, however, another way. .There is nothing in the General Assembly resolution which says that the consultations must necessarily be heldbefore the question of the admission of new Members is discussed in the Cauneil. 75. The USSR delegation has made a definite proposaI, and if none of the permanent members of the Security Couneil sees any objection to adopting this proposaI, no consultations will be necessary. 76. If we were ta agree on the a.dmission of aU fourteen States mentioned in the USSR draft !'esolution now or within the next few days in the Security Coullcil, there would be no need to postpone its consideration till a meeting of the permanent members of the Security Council. The USSRdelegation prefers 77. In view of the above considerations, the USSR delegation feels that a decision by the Security Couneil ta postpone consideration of the question of the admission of the fourteen States would be unjust and illegal and contrary to the established practice of the Security Council. 78. Consequently, the USSR delegation objects to a proposal of this kind and urges .the Security Couneil immediately to exàmine the draft resolution submitted by the USSR delegation, and to decide to recommend tù the General Assembly thatthe fourteen Sfates, which long ago applied for membership in the United Nations, should be admitted.

l still have two speakers on my list and l think it is fairly c1ear that we shall have ta have a meeting this afternoon. Before·arriving at a decision on this point, l would suggest, subj(~d. to your approval, that we postpone the French int.erpretation of Mr. Malik's statement and that we have our lunch and come back at 3 p.m.· and start then with the French interpretation of Mr. Malik's statement. 1 SALES AGENTS fOR UNITED DIPOSITAIRES DES PUBI.ICAflONS AHOOINA-Altnmlll &lilori.1 Sud.mericene S.A., Alsine 5OG. Buenos Air.s. AElCE-GREC!: ..El.Eth.rot"'l.ki.... tian, Ath~n... AUStlALlA- AUSl'JAlIE 1-1. A•.Go:lderd. ~55. George .St~ Sydney. In"UM-lElIIQUE Ag.nce el Mess.gedes de 1. Presse S.A.. 14-22 rue du ~rsil. BrIl••II.s. W, H. Smith Be Son. 71·75 Boul.v.rd Adolphe.M.', Bruxelles. 101IYtA-IOLIfIE libre,Ie S.leccione.. C.sille 9n. Le Pe.. IIAZll-IIESIL livreri. Agir. ~uo Mexico 98-B. Rio de JftnoÎro, WllDA Ryorson Press. 299 Queen :Ot. West. Toronto. les P,ess.s Univarsitol,es Level. Ou.bec. anON-CEYlAN The Associ.ted N.wspopers of Ceylon. lid•• Leke House. Colombo. OIllE - ClIILI librerre Ivens, Monode 822. Senti.go. OIINA-ClflHE Commerci.1 Press. lId•• ~" Hon.n Rd. SIt.ngh.i. 8lIAlIMAU Gouheud Be cro. Gu.tem.i•• NAm llbr.irie "A 10 C.r.v.Il 11I.B, Port-au.Prince. HODURAS librerr. Ponomericono, Fuento. tegucigolpo. INbIA-INilE Oxford Book & Hous•• N.w D.lhi. p. V.rcd.ch.ry & St., M.dr.s 1. IHIIC:lESIA-IHllONESIE J.jes.n P.mbongun.n, Di·~·rt•• IRAN K.t.b·Kh.neh Oonesh, nuo. rehren.. IRAQ-iRAit M.ck.nzi.·s Boo"'hop, IIELAND-IRLANilI Hib.mi.n Gena.. m.rci.1 Buildings, C010MIlA -C010.IE lib,.rlo lotina Ude~ C.rrere 6•.• 13.05. Bogot6. ISRAn Blumst.in'. Bookstores. Ro.d, Tel Avr.. COUA llCA- COnA..IeA Troios Harmono.. Aportodo 13i3. Sen José. "AU-trAlIE Colibri S.A.. Vio CUlA Le Coso B.lgo. O'Reilly 455. Le Hobon•• LEUNON-lIUN librolri. univ.rs.lI., CZECJIOlLOVAKIA ~ rcHECOSlOVAllUlE Ceskoslovensky Spisov.t.l. Norodni Trido 9. pr.h. 1. 1I1E1IA' J. Momolu K.mor., DEIlMARIt-IlANEMAU Ein.r Munk;g••rd. lld., NflIrreg.d. 6, lUXEMIOUlO libr.irio J. Schumr.l0r. K~benhe",", !(. DOMINICAN IIPUILIC- lEM. DOMIllI(AINE librerfe Dominicone, M~rcodes 49, Chi. ded Trujillo. MmCO-MEXlQOE Editori.l H."""s 41, México. O.F. ECUADOI-EGUA'lElIII librerr. CientfÏice. Bol 362, Gueyequil. I5JPT-EGJPTE librelria "le ROileiss,;nce d'Egypte," 9 Sh.AdlyP.she, C.iro. n SALYADOR-SA1VADOI Menu.1 Nev.s y Cf••• 1. Avenide sur 37, S.n S.lv.dor. NElHEILAIIDS _ PAYS.IAS N.V. M.rtinus Nijhoff, 's·Grev.nh.g•• NEW UALAll!l- HOUVlllE.:mANilE U. N. Assn. of Now Wellington. NICARAtlI.l Dr. Romiro R.mlroz V mllOPlA - E1IIIOPIE Agence Ethiopienno de .publicité, BOl 128, Addis·Abeba. NORWAY-HOIlVEGE Joh.n Grundt T.num gustsgt. 7A. Oslo. flNLAND - f1NWmE Aket••min.n Kirj.kaupp.. 2, K.skuskatu. Helsinki. PAIISlAH Thom~. & Thomes. Rood. ((er.chi. 3. Pul>lish... Uaited hor•• fWICE Editions A. Padone, 13 rue ZoomO? P.dsV. Orders t'lnd 'nquiries frcm countries where sales agents have not yet "een !Ippoi'lted may be sent fOl Sales and Circulation Seclion, United Nations, New York, U.S.A.; or Sales Section, United Nations Office, Palais des Nation., Geneva, Switzerland. Priee: 20 c~nts (or equivalent in other Printèd in Canada