S/PV.591 Security Council

The answcr which the President, speaking as representative of the United Kingdom, gave this moming to the questions which l put to the five permanent members of the Security Council was very clear. He said that as yet there had been no meeting of the five permanent members of the Council as recommended in paragraph 3 of General Assembly resolution 506 (VI), and that no measures have as yet been taken for the holding of such meetings. 2. The USSR representative confirmed this, although he put a different interpretation on this situation. 3. In the circumstances, we think that it would be very difficult for the Security Council to discuss the question of the admission of new Members in such a way as to achieve really astisfaetory results, and by satisfactory results we mean a recommendation by the Security Council that one or more of the counmes which have been waiting - sorne of them for yearsfor admission t6 the United Nations should he admitted. Our delegation fully shares the belief in which paragraph 3 of General Assembly resolution 506 ·(VI) was drafted, namely, that no progress can be achieved on tms question .without a special effort on the part of the.permanent membersof the Security Council. 5. We therefore maintain the position which led us to vote, in the General Assembly, for paragraph 3 of resolution 506. (VI). We consider it essential tt'lat the five above-mentioned Powers should consult with one anqthe.r in a serio,,"s effort to satisfy a wish which the President of the United States seems to hold in cqmmQn with the Government of the USSR, as the SQ:ri.et Vnion t'epreseutative's. statement, this morning s~tmled to ~n<Uçate. Indeed, the latter quoted from the Presiden..t's report to the United States Congress a .r.~w words which showed that there was an inereasingly widespread desire to seek a new way out of the existing impasse, and the USSR representative seemed to agree with him on that point. 6. We think that these consultations and meetings are thetilore essential as there has not as yet been a single proposaI aimed at fu1ding this new way. On the one band, the USSR proposaI [5/2664] cannot be regarded asa. new way out of the impasse. It is not a new proposaI. It was submitted on previous occasions and rejected by the majority of the Counci!. On the other hand, there is no indication that the countries which p.EP0s.e,d this proposal may have changed their position. \lYè therefore b~eve thatby direct consultations based on a broad 'and rea1isticapproach to the problem, bearing in mind the over-riding interests·of péace and of .the world in general, the fivè Powers would find a new way of breakinl, "'ms deadlock. 7. l thi,1lk tÀat this will show that we are inclined to beUeve that ,the Councilwill be in abetter position to Qi~cus,s t;.he question of the. admission of new Members when it bas wh;;l.tthe General Assembly called the a_~sj.stQ.!Jce of the :live permanent mew..hers in coming to PQstti.ve recQlJWlell<.iations in regard to the pending applications for membership. &' Qn~heoth~r hand, we do not ,"ish to prevent atlY f1~;Ç~, J~rge orsmall, irom discussing any item 01l' ,Q~r.!'lge~a.wheneverthat country considers it fLP- . l?r~p.riat~, .~V;en,thpugh·we might feel that that might gWer,1:~ to ·bask and seri.ous difficulty, which" at ~~~mt,_ wedo· not tNrtk would .he the. case. 2.. Fqr;lil1e~e' l'easo1;1s, mydeleg~tion cannat support ~pe . QFt!ek'fep~{l$~n~tive's motion for adjournment [59!)t.hme~#ng]. ]10. •. Ml'. KYROU .(Greece): . My proposaI is' of a purely procedurat character. For nothing in the world would l try to touch upon the substance ''Jf the question 11. Mr. Malik. must he a much better expert on United States domestic palicy than I, or even than Mt". Gross, if he knows, as he seemed to know, that the conventions of the two major American political parties will not \Vind up in Chicago at the end of July but will continue their work through August. I should like to assuré the representativ~ of the Soviet Union that I did 110t think for a moment to draw a parallel or to make any comparison between the fourteen States enl1merated in his drait resolution and the other applicants, and more especially with regard to the contents and the extent of their respective. sovereignty. Mr. Malik appears rather in doubt about the full sovereignty of North Korea and Vietminh. For my part, I am quite ready to accept his doubts and bis way of thinking about the two applicants. However, I should like to remind him that it is not up to me, or even to him, to decide upon that but only to the Security Couneil itself when it takes up the 'consideratian of their app~cations. sition je même 13. 573ème Conseil position était ment Etats ganisation. majorité à insistant la même proposition sans M. quatorze d'ajournement, qu'au l'Assemblée horizons candidats 12. This morning the representative of the Soviet Union promoted me to the rank of a permanent member - a permanent member, it ~'3 t'"Ue, of the mechanical majority, as he puts it. I am delighted ta accept tIùs distinction, as the so-called mechanical majority normally consists of all the members of the Security Couneil with the exception of only the representative of the Soviet,Union. What I really wish to beon a permanent basis - at least to try to be - is a member whoalways approaches the questions before the Security Council in a constructive spirit. This spirit guided me when I tabled myproposal for postponement. And I da~e say that I very much doubt that Ml". Malik, tao, is approaching this question in a constructive way. 13. The representative of Chile has reminded us that an absolutely identical Soviet Union proposaI [S/2449/ Rev.l] for the simultaneous admission of the fourteen countries enumerated in document S/2664 had been discussed and rejeeted by the Security Council at its 573rd meeting held in Paris on 6 February. Tt \Vas rejected because the majority of the members of this Couneil considered the proposaI to be contrary'to the letter and to the spirit of Article 4 of the Charter. Ml". Malik, by again insisting on the discussion of this same proposaI without a vote being taken on it, is really rendering a very bad service to tbe fourteeen applicants. My proposaI for a postponement, in con-' junction eventually with the implementation of paragraph 3 of General Assembly resolution 506 (VI), could ultimately open new horizons for the applicants ta be judged on their respective merits. On the other hand, 'we sha.ll comply with the two parts of resolutiort 506 (VI) of the General A!isembly and he in a position to report to the seventh session of the. General Assembly on an pendin~ applications. nou~ résolution 15.· Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republies) (translated tram Ru.ssian): 1 shaU he brief and· shaU confine myself to making a few remarks. . 16. 1 wish only to explùn to the Greek representative that 1 have no doubts whatsoever about the sO'vereignty of the Government of the People's Democratie Republic of Korea. The country which 1 represent has diplomatie relations with that Government. Nevertheless, in view of the position iu Korea, Ishall not at present insist on the consideration of the application of the People's Democratic Republic of Korea and shaU set tms qup.~tion aside and propose that we first decide the question of the admission of the fourteen States for the time bflng without touching on the Korean problem. 1 believe that this is a sensible proposaI and if you do not agree with it, that is your own affair. . 17. The same may be said of the application that has been received .from Vietnam. If you have any other considerations, you can be guided by them. But 1 consider that these fiJur applications can he set aside for the time be!llg.. As regards the iourteeen States referred to in the USSR draft resolutior., the Soviet Union delegation proposes that the question of their admission should· be considered immediately. If the Greek representative considers that proposa!·to be unacceptable, let that be on his OWn conscience. 1 do not ~n~c'J.d to impose my pro!"Jsal on him. 18. As for the Greek representative's remarks concerning the length of time that the conventions at Chicago a~'e likely to continue, 1 can only say that this is.a matter of no interest to me - it can continue until August, September, or October - that is no concem of mine. 1 have tried to stress the particular fact that the· Security .Council should not be concerned with the internaI affairs of the country in which it sits, but shouM go its international way and settle its problems irrespective of events which are taking place in that country. If the Greek representative did not understand me, 1 do not lntend to waste the Security Council's time in expiaining these elementary truths to him. 19. With regard to a "constructive approach", it is t.4e USSR delegation which is proposing a constructive approach, that of the immediate settlement of the question of admitting aU fourteen States to the United Na- 20. Ta the questic.n whether or not the USSR proposaI is new, we would reply as foI1ows: it is not new, but it is correct, just, legitimate and well-founded. The USSR delegation makes no claims ta novelty. but ta justice, legitimacy and solid grounds. We have stated our position and propose the simultaneous admission of aIl fourteen States to the United Nations. The opponents of this proposaI caqnot find any convincing or serious ohjections, but are trying ta approach the matter in a roundabout way. One of these roundabout arguments is the proposaI to postpone the consideralion of the question. We cannat agree to this. 21.. 1do not regard as sufficiently convincing theChilean representative's remark that it will be difficult todiscuss this matter without consultaôbIi between the five permanent members ofthe Security Councit..If we were to ~gree today or in the near future in the Security Council on the admission of aIl the fourteen States referred ta in in the USSR draft resolution, there would be no need to postpone the considetration of the question until a special meeting of the five peraanent members of the Security Council is convened. 1 consider that there is amore direct way of settling this problem. The Chilean representative's mind seems' to be set, however, on the necessity of a meeting between the permanent members of the Seeurity Couneil. But if we were ta come to an understanding on this matter now, there would be no need for sueh a meeting. If none of the permanent members of the Seeurity Couneil objects to the admission of aU fourteen States, and we have as yet heard no ~~pen objection, the necessity of meeting to discuss the question will no longer arise. The course proposed by us for the solution of this question is correct, legitimate and is based on the United Nations Charter. 22. It is impossible to agree with the Chilean representative's allegation that' no one has submitted a proposaI to lead us out of the impasse in which we find ourselves in regard to the question of the admission of new Members. That is incorrect. The USSR de1egation, on behalf of the Government of the USSR, has submitted such a proposaI, which is before you. It has been submitted ta the Security Council for their consideration. This is a way out of the situation.We consider that the simultaneous admission of 'aIl fourteen States to membership in the United Nations is, in view of aIl the' circumstances connected with this question, the best, the most equitable and the most acceptable way out of the situation. 1 cannot agree with the Chilean representative that no one has proposed a way out of thissituation. That is incorrect. We are proposing such a way out and; ifyou support us, the way will he found. But if you wait until one of the permanent membets of the Security Couneil gives' the green Iight, formulé l'impasse concerne Membres. soviétique, a Cette proposition aux: l'impasse. à compte solution table. du inex:act. appuyez, au 24. As representatives know, my de1egatiotl, in the past and also in the present, has been and is in favour of an early consideration of the pending applications, and voted accordingly in the General Assembly. Therefore, representatives will appreciate that if we agree to the Greek proposaI, it is not because we are in the siightest degree interested in shelving this issue. On the contrary, we are most anxious that positive, constructive steps should he taken towards resolving the dead10ck t.hat i5 holding up this question. Therefore, although .we agrèe with the representative of Greece that the matter &hould be postponed, we should like to satisfy ourselves a little further as to what we expecto to happen between now and 1 September. What we had expected to happen was that the five permanent membet:s of the Council should, as requested by the General Assembly, confer with one anothel" in order to resolve this issue. We have been told by you, Mr. President, as representative of one of the permanent members, that such a meeting has not yet come about. The intervention of the representative of the Soviet Union was not quite c1ear as to whether he regarded it as unforfunate that such a conference should not have taken place, but l presume that, since he has baseç! bis stand very much on resolution 506 (VI) of the General Assembly, he is actually in accord with the request made by the General Assembly in that resolution. ~5. Consequently my delegation would support the proposaI of the' Greek delegation for the reasons which l have given. Neverthe1ess, it would like to urge once more the five permanent members of the CounciUo pay heed to the request contained in the General Assembly resolution. For that purpose my delegation, with the permission of the President, proposes th~ fol1owing draft resolution [S/2694]: "The Security Council, , "RecaUing paragraph 3 of resôlution 506 (VI) of the General Assembly, which requested the permanent membets of the Security Council to confer with one another on the subject of the pending applications for membership of the United Nations, "1. Considers that the fulfilment of this request wî11 be of great assistance to the Security Council in coming to positive recommendations on this subject; "2. Urges thf'five permanent members of the Security Council to give their earnest attention to the above-iilentioned request of the General Assembly!' ' 26.1 shaH hand the text ofthis draft resolution to the Secretariat in a fewmoments. In the meantime, l am permitted to state that therepresentative. of Chile will associate. himselfin proposing this draft resolution.

l agree, but 1 intend to speak about the point of procedure which the President has just raised. . 30. Mr. BOKHARI (Pakistan): 1 only wanted to speak on the point raised by the President. 31. The President is, of course, perfectly right in what he has said, name1y, that the Greek proposaI would take precedence normally. But it is also clear, considering the nature of the draft reso1ution that now stands in my name and that of the representative of Chile, that it wou1d he possible 1 think, and perhaps easy for the Counci1 to agree to a reversaI of the voting. If, however, the President feels that it would strain the rules too much - or strain the Council too much - lhen, as soon as the text of the Greek proposaI is available, perhaps the President would permit me to present Illy proposaI as an amendment to his. 32, Mr. SANTA CRUZ (Chile) (translated from Spanish): 1 entire1y agree wit!'). the. representative of P~istan, and find it logical that tbis proposai should be considered an amendment since it is not only compatible with the Greek representative's proposaI, but even supplements it. The Greek representative proposed that the debate on this question should be postponed and the Pakistan-Chilean proposaI implicitly accepts that postponement but asks the permanent members of the Security Council meanwhile to assist the Coundl to adopt a resolution in ·fulfi1ment of the ~ ~idering our draft resolution, we would find ourselves in the position of having ta continue dealing with the substance of the matter and ta examine the USSR representative's draft resolution, which was submitted before ours. I repeat, I hope the Council will find a formula for combining these complementary ideas. 34. That is what I have to sayon procedure. As to the substance of the question raised by the represeritative of Greece, I would Iike ta refer to what the USSR representative had ta say about my remarks. 35. I beIi~:;~'tha.tth.e difference of opinion between the USSR representative and myself arises from our different ideas of what constitutes the impasse. I said that no new formula has been submitted that would bringus out of the impasse. For him the impasse has been bl:Ought about by the failure of the Security Council ta adopt his proposaI ta accept the fourteeen countries e~. bloc as Members of the United Nations. But tha~ is' orny one part of the impasse; the other part is :.lie persistent refusai of the USSR delegation ta agree ta any way other than the one it proposes, i.e. the acceptance of the fourteen countries en bloc, and its persistent denial of separate. admission ta sorne States in the group of fourteen which, in the view of most of the members of the Security Couneil, meet the requirements of the Charter for membership in the Organization. Those are the two factors which constitute the impasse. 36. .\\11at is the reaI situation? It is that, in spite of the recommendations of the Generai Assembly, in spite (lf the report of the International Court of Justice ta the effect that tIlls question of the admission of new Members must be decided in accordance with individual qualifications and the requirements of the Charter,! the'question has been placed on the level of politicaI negotiations. That is the true situation. An impasse has been reached in those negotiations, an impasse that even achild could recognize. And it is that impasse which impelled the Generai Assembly ta ask the five permanent Members ta consult with each other as a means of assisting the Council in finding a solution. Ta my mind this is perfectly clear. 37. l agree with the USSR representative that the Counci1 can diseuss and solve this problem without suro consultation because the Council is competent to do so and because a solution without previous consultation is withinthe realm of possibility - anything is possible. However, it is obvious that previous agreement among the five great Powers would ensure the adoption of positive recommendations by the Security Council. Aœordingly, my delegation is very happy to join \;'ith the delegation of Pakistan in proposing, as gently and discreetly as possible, that the General Assembly's recommendatioI'i shouldbe carried out. In that connexion, permit me to draw the Council's atten- 1 See ICJ. Reports; Condition.sof Admission of aState to Membership in the United Nation.s.{Arlicle 4 of the ChGr~r): Advisory Optnion of 28 May 1948. "The following. motions shall have precedence in the order named over a11 principal motions and draft resolutions ... ". 1 It would, of course, be possible for the representative oI Greece, if he so desired, to amend his own proposaI provided it was still 8ubstantially a proposaI to postpone the discussion to a date named. But I feel that l, myself, cannot regard the Pakistan-Chilean proposaI as an amendment which would therefore have to be voted on first. I maintain that the Greek proposaI must be voted on first. 39. Ml'. KYROU (Greece): Perhaps it could help our pr<lceedings if I would be permitted to put a question ta the President. I am ready ta vote for the substance of the proposaI oI the representatives of Chile and Pakistan because I have already said that the spirit which prompted me to move my proposaI for postponement was to see that the Security Council complied with the whole of resolution 506 (VI). However, I find it procedurally difficult ta marry my proposaI, which I regard as purely procedural, ta the proposaI of our two co11eagues which I regard as substantive. I cannot see taking one vote on bath of them. My proposaI, as a purely procedural one, would come under Article 27, paragraph 2, of the Charter; that is to say, it could be adopted by seven affirmative -votes. If the proposaI of Chile and Pakistan is a substantive one, as I regard it, then it falls under Article 27, paragraph 3; that is to say, the seven votes must contain the five concurrent votes of the permanent members. That is why I would very respectfully ask the President to give us his point of view ai; to whether he regards the proposâl of the representatives of Chile and Pakistan as a suhstantive one. -doit

I am handicapped by not having the text of the joint Pakistan-Chilean draft resolution in front of me. Without the text, l find it very difficult to say whether, as President, I should regard it as procedural or substantive. On the face· of it, I.thinkthere would he quite a case forregarding it âs procedural. However, I maintain that whether it is procedural or substantive is notthe point immediately before the Council. It is whether we have to regard the Greek proposaI or.the- Greek projx>sal as amended as a proposal-· havingpriqr~ty which. shouldbe votéd on 41. The representative of France has a point of order which l thinkhewishes to develop at mis point. 42. Mt.' HOPPENOT (France) (flra'Y'.slated from Ftench) : This is a very delicate question with which we are dealing, and the way speakers are crossing and recrossing each other is causing some confusion. Fur- 'thermore, we do not yet have the texts we have to discuss before us, and the votes of sorne delegations will depend to a large extent on how they are drawn up or combined. l would therefore ask the President to suspend the meeting for a quarter of an hour or haH aI' hourso·that·we can think over·the question, receive the texts, and resume the debate with a better kn,owledge of what we are doing. 43.. The PRESIDENT:' In this roaze of procedure, one thing at least is c1ear: that is, that any motion for the· suspension of a meeting must be decided without debate. The motion is to suspend the meeting for one halfhour., . A vote Was taken by show of hands, as follows: . In. favour: Brazil, China, France, Greece, Netherlands, Pakistan, Ti.lrkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northem Ireland. Abstaining: Chile, Union of Soviet Sodalist Republies, United States of America. The motion was adopted by 8 votes in favour, with 3 abstentions. . The meeting was suspended at 4.45 p.m. mu], resumed at 5:20 p.1'#t.. 44. Mr.GROSS (United States of America): What Iproposed to say when l had .the Roor before the recess, and what l should stilllike to bring out for the consideration of the'Council, is· that l respectfuUy submit to the Council that no problem exists here as far as my delegation can see.As has been pointed out, General Assembly resolution 506 (VI), which has been referred' to repeated1y in our debates this afternoon, .does caU upon the .permanent members of the Security Council to consttit with eachother in order toacbieve sorne accommodation, if'possible, and make recommendations to the General Assembly. 45. It hasalways been the position of my own Gov- ~mment that we are prepared to hold such consultations. The Iact of the matter is that the General AsseIlibly resolution to wbich l have referredis far from unique. There has been a series of 'resolutions, in several·sessions of the General Assembly, which have called .upon the -permanent members of the 'Security COUIlcil, either for specifit or forgen~ral purposes, to consU1twith e2":ll other whenever feasible,appropriate otdesirable. l have before me a resolution adopted as long ago as the·third session of the General Assembly; itis· resolution 267 (III) entitled "the problem of voting in theSecurity Council"; Among <>ther things, it :recomm.ends the permanent members of the Security Conncî1 to· t<Jnsult together whetever·feasible .upon important decisions to .betaken .by the Security· Council. ltalso calls upôn theIIl to COJlsult together wherever feasilile before' a vote istaken if their unanimity is 46. Actually,. therefore, the policy of consultation is neither new nor unique, as r mentioned before, and speaking for my own Government, we have been and remain prepared to consult on all matters, induding the particular matter in hand. l think the difficulty which has arisen here is that on 18 June, sorne four and a haH months after the adoption of the General Assembly resolution on the subject of membership, the Soviet Union representative - after the lapse of that long period - suddenly put this problem on our agenda without any intimation beforehand that that was his intention and without any suggestion for consultation. 47. l think, thel'efore, that the situation with which we are now contl'onted is a perfectly simple one. l repeat, as far as my own Government is concerned, we have been and remain p!"epared to consult o~ this question. There is no doubt that an impasse has existed, and l do not intend to go into the substance of. the question of the underlying reasons for that impasse at this time, but is perfectly c1ear that the reason no action has been taken on these applications for, membership is that, on the one hand, the Soviet Union Government, by the exercise of :its veto power, has prec1uded a recorilmendation by the Security Council with respect ta certain of the applicants and that, on the other hand, other applicants have failed to receive the. requisite constitutional majority which would qualify them for consideration by the General Assembly. 48. l do not think, if l may say so respectfully, that the draft resolution proposed by the representatives. of Pakistan and Chile is at aIl necessary. It adds nothing ta the moralvigour of, or to the policy underlying, the General A3sembly resolution on memben.hip to which l have reterred; neither does it add anytil..ng to the general policy of other General Assembly resolutions regarding consultation among' the permanent members. 49. l therefore conclude by expressing the readiness of my Government to consult prior ta the further consideration of this question by the Security Council, assuming that the Greek proposaI for the adjournment of this question is adopted by the Council, and l would respectfully suggest that in those circumstances we can rely upon the force and effect of. the General Assembly resolution and that no further resolutions of the Secu- "ity Coundl are necessary to accomplish the purpose of the Gener&! Assembly resolution to which l have referred. 50. Mr. KYROU (Greece): l feel that we are trying to break through an open door. The President, in his 51. On the other hand, during the Council's recess, 1 gave more careful thought to this question, and 1 must maintain m)' .position; that is to say, my proposaI is pure1y procedu. _. " while that submitted by the de1egations of ChUe and Paki&(an is a proposal of substance. In these drcumstances, 1 repeat, I hope that the representatives of Chile and Pakistan win withdraw their proposaI. If not, 1 would ask the President ta put to the vote at once my pure1y procedural PI'OPOSal. If it is not carried, then the proposal submitted by the delegations. of Chile and Pakistan am be cono;;idered.. 52. Mr. TSIANG (China): In the first dace, I should like to say a, few words with regard to the proposal made by the representative of Greece. 1 support this proposal. 53. At the beginning of February this year the representative of the Soviet Union pnt before the' Council a proposaI identical in substance to the present one. On that occasion my 1elegation spoke against it and voted against it. r have not found any reason for changing my stand. Tt seems to me that a discussion at this time would not produce results. A deJ~:T may help aIl of us to explore the field and to bring forward newsuggestio_ls which may finally help us to solve this problem. It is forthat reason that 1 favonr the proposaI of the representative of Greece. 54,. l should like to say a few words with regard to the draft resolution of the representatives of Chile and Pakistan. I have aIl along bt:en aware of the moral obligation arising from paragraph 3 of resolution 506 (VI) ... The, rea30n why my delegation has not tried to do. anything under that paragraph is that my delegacion has found it not useful, in the sense of not produ:cin~. those resu.lts.which the General i\ssembly, lU adopttng thaï l"esolution, expected the consultations tO) produce. The representative~of Chile and Pakistan havé put. forth this new proposaI. I appreciate their m~tives.. l r~spectthr. opinions of these two representatIves. Durmg the recess 1. hao. an opport .mity to speak' to Mr.Bokhétri and I told him that, so far as l,am concemed, his statement here and the fact tha" ~e andMr.S~ta Crui have fut fOI'jard tL':s proposaI p:lve alrea<1y,. produced t~t moral .effect which they mtended.the.formal adoptiol! of' the proposaI would pro.duce; therefore, .I hoped' that .they wou!d withdraw thelr preposaI. The moral effect of the proposaI has be~n produced, and persistence in trying to get it through the Council would i only complicate our procedure. . . ' 56. Consequently, what grounds are there for not discussing or voting on the USSR draft: resolution? I have heard no objections to the USSR proposal from the United Kingdom representative, the United States representative or the Fre..."1ch representative, but meanwhile the Greek representative and the Chilean representative are becoming anxious and ate proposing one resolution after another about the necessity of calling a meeting of the permanent members of the Security Council of postponing the consideration of thequestioll of the admission of new Members. 57. I have already expressed my views on this matter in one of my previous statements, to the cifect that, if none of the permanent members of the Security Counci! objects to the Security Council recommending the simultaneous admission of the fourteen States refern:d ta in the USSR draft resolution, there is no reason to postpone this question and make the adoption of this decision dependent on a compulsory consultation among the permanent members. of the Security Councit. There are no grounds for this. 58. In view of the official situation which has arisen at this meeting, the USSR delegation insists fuat its draft resolution should he considered and voted on in accordance with the usual practice in the Security Council and in accordance with its rules of procedure. I repeat that· there are no grounds for postponing consideration of this question. 59. The Greek repr~sentative's proposaI is unfounded. If the repres~tatives to whom l have r . ~rred j .the permanent memb~rs of the Security Councü, nad raised .official objections to tP.:: TJSSR draft resolution, their position would he clear, but l.~:~v are silent and it 1S the non-permanent members of thè Security Council who areexpressing nenrousness. \Vhat grounds have they for this? The only grounds cati ~e that.theyhave sorne sort of lobby information and that lobbying is·going on, but therehasnot· yet .heenany .official actil.'n· and. it would seem that no official statem~:lt has yet been 60. As regards the Greek representative's propl"\sal, 1 have 11lready spoken against it, since it would delay the consideration and decisîon of the question for no reason. The USSR delegation abjects ta this proposaI, considers it unaeèeptable and will vote against it. There is no need to postpone the question, as the intet'l?reter put it, "until the eleventh hour". It can be declded at a qitarter t\) six; there is no need to postpolle it untU th~ eve of the seventh session of the General Assembly. 61. As for the Pakistan-Chilean proposaI, for reazcns r have already given, it is also unfounded in the absence of objections~Tom the permanent members of the Securîty Councll. \Vithout touching on the substance of this proposai, l only ",;'sh to say that it is not procedural and that we have no grounds for creating the precedent of regarding suc..'l proposaIs as procedural. 62. The United States representative's remark that the S()'\.>iet Union suhmited its proposal for the admission of the fourteen States to the United Nations without consulting the United States tioes not even deserve critidsm. \Ve are not obliged to consult the Ulùted States on this matter. Every memter of the Securlty Council, whether permanent or non-permanent, is entitled ta submit any proposaI which it may consider necessary. We considered it quite in arder ta submit tlùs proposaI. 63. 1 have aIready said tllat General Assembly resolution 506 (VI) does not stipulate that tlle question of the adnlission of new Members must first he discussed by the permanent members of the Sect.lrity Council. The General Assembly merely ~-pressed a wish; first it "recommends that the Security Couucil reconsider aIl pending applications" and then it urequests the permanent membcrs Qf the Security Council to confer with one another". Thus, from the formal point oi view, the United States representative has no gro\mds for accusing us of v-iola,ting the resolution. On the contrary, we hased our position on the iact that, if there were no objections from the permanent members of the Security Counci1 ta our proposai, consultation is not compulsory. \Ve continue ta hold this view and we have not yet heard .any objections. M. As regards the United States representative's :reference ta the USSR veto, that 15 an old song. 1t has been dinned into our ears, it is unconvincing and it :cannot be nsed as· an· argument. 1ts worthlessness is nnîversally known. It is not theUSSR vetothat i5 . preventing the admission of the fourteen States, but the co1lective veto of the United S1:a:tesbloc which cornmands ~ majority in the Security' Council. This is now nnderstood Dy the 'VI-"Ï101e world. 66. This is a simple and dear explanation, which is known to the whole worId, and none of the United States representative's attempts to distract the attention of public opinion from this universally known fact and to hide behind references to the USSR veto will have any success. 67. During the discussion of the question of the admission of 'Jew Members, we adduced many examples of how the United States voted "against" or with the United Kingdom, or with two non-permanent members of the Security Council, while other States of the United States bloc abstained. This resulted in the artificial creation of R situation in which seven votes were not ças't for the admission of the States ta whose internaI systems the United States objects. By regulating the mechanics of voting, it s'lcceeded in creating a situation in which the necessary number of votes could not be obtained, but now the United States representative invokes the fact that these States did not obtain sufficient votes. The clue to this is simple: the applications of those States did not obtain the necessary number of votes merely because the United States made every effort ta prevent their admission to membership in the United Nations. 68. These are the concrete and universallv known facts. Every member of the Security Council aud every representative ta the United Nations knows these facts, of which world public opinion is fully aware. There is therefore no reason for the United States representative to play hide and seek and ta hide behind references to USSR veto. 69. The USSR veto, if we have to speak of it, serves to protect not only the interests of the Soviet Union, but also the interests of States whose rights and interests the United States is trying il) infringe. The USSR veto is protecting these States against discrimination and dictation by the United States. The USSR veto has never been used, is not being used, and nevel" will be used in an unjust cause. When we use the veto, we use it for just causes, on thebasis of the United Nations Charter and on legal grounds. 70. The United States delegation often vaunts the fact that the Uniteti States has not used the veto. But it has no need to use the yeto: it always has the collective veto in its pocket, and it can defeat any proposaI by, usir.g this collective veto. It has the majority ; pas : sa ' 71. But when the question of the veto as such arises, the United States will never renounee its right ta the veto. 72. l should like ta recall the time when General MacArthul"s case was being eonsidered in Congress. Ml'. Marshall stressed the fact that United States had never renoùnced and did not ranounce the right ta the veto. l should Hke ta recall an episode in the history of the United Nations when the United States made every effort to impose its minion in the post of Secretary- General of the United Nations, when Ml'. Austin, the United States representative ta the Security Couneil, threatened to use the veto and stated that if any other candidate were prop03ed and if the majority of the members of the Security Couneil voted for such a carididate, and not for the candidate of the United States, he, Ml'. Austin, the official representative of the United States ID' the Seèurity Couneil, would use the veto. 73. These are the facts. When the interests of the United States are directIy affected, it threatens ta use the veto, and does not renounce its right ta use it. What grounds are there,' then, to refer ta the USSR veto, which is used ta protect the legitimate rights of the Soviet Union and the legitimate rights and interests of the States against which the United States is conducting a policy of discrimination, a policy of ignoring the legitimate rights and interests of other States, a policy of non-admission to the United Nations? 74: That is the situation with regard ta the USSR veto, and the' rea1 reason why the question of the admission'of new .Members has nei yet been decided. The attempts of the United States representative to cast the blame on others are unfounded. The principal fault for the situation which has arizen with regard to the question of the admission of new Members lies with the United States of America. The sooner it renounces it5 policy of favouritism towards sorne of the fourteen States referred to in the USSR draft resolution and of discrimination against the others, the sooner the question will be settled. Before the interpretation into French of Mr. Malik's statement was given, Mr. Malik made the following proposal (translated from Russian): 75. It is already nearly seven o'dock. Perhaps we couId adjourn the meeting and hear the interpretation of my speech into French ~ome oilier time.

With aU due respect, l do not think it is in order officially to propose adjournment when most of the members are out of the room and we are in the course of an interpretation. If you do not mind, Ml'. Malik, the interpretationcan be ended and then you can raise the' question of adjo1!rnment.

I do not ins~sl: on a vote on my proposaI. I was only making a suggestion. If the members of the Security Council wish to CO.ltinue the meeting, I am prepared to sit tiU tomorrow.

Thank you very much. My impression certainly is that the majority of the members wish to go on. Perhaps the question of adjournment will he raised 1ater.

The representative of the United States, in his last intervention - which was to us a very welcome'one - explained quite clearly in his own words wh~t he thought the difficulty was. He said· that this item had been placed on the agenda by the representative of the Soviet Unio!! without previous consultation with any other permanent member of the Counci!. Tt was exactly this situation which we tried to highlight by the draft resolution which stands in the name of my delegation and that of Chile. Tt was presented in order to underline the fact that there was not mnch point in the Security Council's discussing this question unless the five permanent members had at least made a serious and earnest attempt to confer on the question. The basic reason, 1 think, why a postponement seems to be generally acceptable is that such a consu1tation has not taken place. Therefore we thought that, since the matter had been brought before the Council by the representative of the Soviet Union, before postponing it again as it were, we should try to elicit a discussion here on the real reasons for the delay and the real reasons for the first stage of the impasse, and to record our request to the permanent mertibers, endorsing the request of the General Assembly. 82. When my delegation last spoke on the Greek proposaI, we said that we would support 1t. At that time we were under the honest impression that our proposaI would be generally acceptable and that, in spite of minor procedural difficulties, in the light of the main pUrpose of our draft resolution the Council would find it possible and, in fact, easy to vote on our draft resolution and, indeed, to accept it inspite of the Greek proposai. During the recess it was pointed out to us very c1early by our friends that the Greek proposaI, being a proposaI for postponement, takes precedence, and that, 83. As far as our proposaI is concemed, we think that a way cou1d have been found for regarding it as a procedural motion after due amendments had been made; in fact, so far as we are concemed, ·we shou1d not .have been afraid to regard it, in the end, as substantive. We think that the Counci1 wou1d have been competent to hand1e it, even if it had been a substantive motion, but we believed that, if it was desirab1e that it shou1d faU within the purview of procedure, there was a way out. That was not aœepted. The on1y thing for us to do, it seems, is to let ou,r draft reso1ution remain 2.S it is, as at 1east a vestige of an attempt on our part to get ta the heart of the matter.

l greatly regret that l cannat accept the suggestions of the Greek and Chinese representatives that we should withdraw our proposaI.. l still consider it fair and practical, for the reasons which the Pakistan representative has just given and which l am not going torepeat. 85. Nevertheless, the Greek representative has decide.d to maintain his proposaI, and in accordance with the President's ruling, it will have to be voted upon first. Furthermore, the President has ruled that our proposaI cannot be considered an amendment or submitted as such. l do not quite agree with this point of view, but l am not going ta press my '(iew on this matter. 86. Final1y, with reference ta the Greek represe~­ tative'sstatement, which the USSR representative repeated, that our proposaI is substantive, l must add that we shaH challenge any Presidential ruling ta that effect. We cannat agree, without open1y contesting it, ta .the further .extension, by an interpretation of this kind, of the present scope of the five-Power unanimity princip1e as set forth in Article 27 of the Charter.

l hasten to assure the representative of Chile that, so far as Iam aware, l have made no ruling throughout the day. l was carefu1 to say that l was expressing my presidential opinion, but l didnot actually rule. On two occasions I have given it as my opinion as President that, according to the 88. As regards the point whether the Chile~Pakistan draft resolution is or is not procedural, 1 think, myself, that that is a very debatable point. 1 think there is a considerable case for suggesting that it would be procedural, but 1 also suggest that that is not a point which we need take up now, seeing that it is not now disputed any longer that we ought to take the Greek motion first and vote on it, as 1 should hope, now. Unless 1 hear to the contrary, 1 shaH assume that we are now in a position to vote on the proposaI of the representative of Greece.

1 had understood the situation to' be as the President explained it. But 1 wished to make my delegation's position on this point quite clear. 90. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republies) (translated from Russian) : As far as 1 understood from tr.'le interpretation, the President stated that he had some doubt whether the Chile-Pakistan proposaI was procedural. Then he said in very vague language that possibly the proposaI was procedural. 1 would.like to see a more precise formulation and 1 hope his statement \VaS· not a precedent to which he might refer later. 91. If the Chilean representative insists that this is a procedural proposaI, that question should be debated. It will take sorne time because the road down which the Chilean representative is trying to lead us is not the kind of road that the Security Council should follow in such questions. 92. Hitherto such questions have not raised any doubts. This is a question of substance and not of procedure, and there is no reason to change the state of affairs that has existed up till now.

Before calling upon the representative of Turkey on a point of order, 1 should like to make entirely clear, for the benefit of the representative of the Soviet Union, what 1 mysdf said. It was, in the first place, that 1 personal1y did not know whether this proposaI of the representatives of Chile and Pakistan was proœdural or substantive. 1 had not made up my mind on that point. But 1 also said, equally clearly 1 hope, that it would be quite wrong to have a debate on that subject now.

On a point of order. We were about ta take a vote on the Greek proposaI, and 1 think that it would be quite in order to do so. If there is any doubt as to whether the Chile-Pakistan draft resolution is a matter of substance or of J?{Qç~d;I,1,r,e~

With reference to the comments of the Turkish :md USSR representatives, I wish to make it quite clear that 1 did not c1aim that this point should be debated and did-,lOt ask· the Council ta decide it. The Greek and USSR representatives stated that they cOllsidered our proposaI substantive, without giving allY reasons, and 1 felt it necessary to put our position corref:t1y by making a statement contrary to theirs.

As I understand it, we should'now vote Oil the proposaI of the representative of Greece \vhich reads: "The Security Council resolves to postpone consideration of the question of the admission of new Members uritil 2 September 1952" A vote was taken by show of hands, as foUows: In favour: Braûl, China, France, Greece, Netherlands, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Against: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Abstaining: Chile, Pakistan. The propos.al was adopted by 8 votes to 1, with 2 abstentions.

Since we cannot continue with the question of the admission of new Members, we have I10w e:xhausted our present agenda. I suggest that the Council should leave it to me ta decide the date of our next meeting, although, of course, if any member wishes to have a meeting of the Council, he will sa inform me. 98. Since there is no objection, t.1le Council is adjourned sine die. The meeting rose at 6.45 p.nt. SALES AGENTS FOR' UNITED DEPOSIlAIRES DES PUBLICATIONS GREECE - GRECE "Eleftheroud.kis''' PI.ce foon, Athènas, lISENTlNA -ARGENTINE Editori.1 Sud.meric.na S.A.. Alsina 500. Buent.Js "ires& llUATOOLl Gou!>.ud & C!•• Ltd Guetemal•• AUSTRALIA - AUSTRAliE H. A. Godd.rd, 255. George St.. S~ci"·.'I· InCiIUMeELGIQUE Agence et M.ss.g.ri.s d. 1. Presse S.A.. 14-22 ru. du P.rsil. Bruxell.s. W. H, Smith '& Son. 71·75 Boul.vard Adolph••M.... BruxeU.s. IOllVlA.- IDlIVIE IJbrerla S.I.ceion.s, Casill. 912. le Pa.. IWI1-IIESIL livr.ri. Agir. Ru. Mexico 98·B, Rio de J,aneÎro. NA!TI libre;,i. "A 1. C.r.v.lle," 111·8.. P.\I'f..au..Prir.é:e... HONDURAS libr.r!. Pen.meric.na. Fuent., tegucig.lpe. INbIA-INDl Oxford Book & St.tionery Hous., New Delhi. P. V.r.d.ch.ry & Co SI.. Madras 1. CANADA Ryerson Pr.ss, 299 Qu.en St. West, Toronto. L.s Pr.ss.s Universitaires L.v.l. Qu.bee. INDONESIA -INDDNESIE Jaie",n Pemb.ngun.n, CEnON - CEYLAN Th.......oci.t.d N.wsp.pers of C.ylon. Ltd.. L,,~. House. Colombo. Di·~.rte. IRAN K.tab·Kheneh Dan.sh. nue. Tehran.. CHILE-CIlRI lib•.,1. Iven;, Monod. 822. S.ntiego. IRAQ-IRAK Mackenzie's Bookshop, CHINA-CHINE Commerci.1 Press. l.td. 211 Hon.n Rd.. Sh.ngh.i. IRELlND _IRLANDE Hib.rni.n G.ner.1 m.rci.1 Buildings, D.m. COlOMBIA - COleMSIE lib.rerre Letina ltd... C.rrer. 6... 13-05. Bogot6. ISWL Blumst.in·s Bookstores. Ro.d. T.I "'viv. COSTA RItA - COSTA·RICA Treios Harmenos. Ap.rt.do 1313, Son José. !TALY-ITAliE Colibri S.A.. VI. Chicssetto CUlA le C.s. Belg., O'Reillv 455, le H.b.n•• LEJANDIl- LIBAN libr.irie univ.rselle, aECHDSLOVAICIA- TCHECOSlOVAQUIE C.skoslovonsky Spisovetel. N.rodni Tride 9, Pr.he 1. LIIERIA' J. Momolu Kamara. DENMARK- DANEMARK Ein.r Munksge.rd, ltd., NJlrreg.d. 6. KJlbenhevn. K. LUXEMBDURG Librairi. J. Schummer. MEXICO - MEXIQUE Editori.1 Herm•• ~A.. 41. México. 0.1'. DOffllNICAH REPUBLIC - REPUB. DDMINICAINE Librerfe Dominicona, Mercedes 49. Ciu'... d.cl Trujillo. NETRERLANDS - fAYS·BAS N.V. M.rtinus Nijhoff. ·s·Gr.v.nhago. EWADDR - EQUATEUR libreri. Ci.ntlnc., Box 362. Guey.quil. EGYPT - EGll'TE librairie "La Ren8iss~nce d'Egypie," 9 Sh. Adlv P.sh•• C.iro. HEWZEALAND- NDUVELLE·ZELlNDE U. N. Assn., of N.w Ze.l.nd,·C.P.O. Wellington. EL SALVADOR - SALVADOR M.nual N.v.s y cr•., le "'venid. $\lr 37, Sen S.lv.dor. NIClIAGUlt Dr. R.miro R.mlrez ETRIOPIA - !THIOPIE Agenc. Ethiopi.nne de ·Publieité, Box 128, Addis·Abeb•• NORWAY - NORVEGE Joh.n Grundt r.num gustsgt. 7A. Oslo. nllLAND - FINLANDE Ak.to.minen Kiri.k.uPl'e. 2, Ke.kusl.tu, Helsinki. PAKISTAN Thomas & Thom.,. Roed. Kerechi. 3. Publishers Unit.d ltd hore. fIlANCE Editions .... P.done, 13 rue soumot. î'arisV. Orders and Inquirias from countries where sales agents have not yet been appointed may be sent ta: Sales and Circulalion Section, United Nalions, New York, U.S.A.; or Sales Section, United Nations Office, Palal, des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland. Priee: 25 cents (or equivalent in other Printed in Canada