S/PV.594 Security Council

l am sure that the members of the Security Council will join me in expressing to our distinguished colleague, the Honourable Warren Austin. our appreciation for the ability and wisdom with which he presided over our proceedings during the last month. By his great learning and experience, byhis indefatigable devotion to the ideals of the United Nations and his steadfast work for the promotion of those ideals, and by his unfailing courtesy and friendliness, Mr. Austin has won our admiration and affection. 2. l consider it aS a great responsibility to receive the gave! from his able and experienced hand. Statementby the representative of the United States of Amèrica

As the Council is aware, the permanent members of the Security Council held a meeting on 21 .August, in accordance with the General Assemblyresolution 506 A (VI) of 1 February 1952. with a view to assisting the Counci1 to come to positive reconnrtendations in regard ta pending applications for ,metnbership. l understand that Mr. Austin. the ~resident of the Security Council during the last month, 15 prepared to address the Council on'this matter. 4. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of ~tnerica): If the Presidént will permit me l should Iike to say. before responding to the question forwhich·I have been called 5. As regards the question before us, this gives notice ta an the non-permanent members of the Security Council tOOt a meeting of the permanent members of the Security Coundl was held on 21 Auçust 1952 to give the permanent members an opportumty to confel' on the pe.'1ding applications for membership in the United Natio:1s. A.11 effort was made to nad a basis for agreement. Agreement was not possible. The permanent members have not changed their positions. An announcement of the holding of that meeting was made ta the Press on 21 August 1952. Adoption of the agenda

The provisional agenda which has been circulated and ~s contained in document S/A~enda 594 was drafted in confortnity with the decislOU adopted by the Securlty Council at its 591st meeting, held on 9 July 1952, to postpone the consideration of the quel'tion of the admission of new Members until 2 September 1952, '1. The first two suh-items of the provisional agenda under the general heading "Admission of new Members" are the same as were contained in the agenda a<1opted by the Security Couneil at the aforementioned meeting, namely: "(a) Adoption of a recommendation to the General Assembly concerning the simultaneous admission ta membership in the United Nations of aU fourteen States which have applied for such admission (S/2664); "(b) Consideration of resolution 506 (VI) of the General A'SSembly!' 8. Althoùgh it i5 qtlÎte clear in my mind that under suh-item Cb), cCConsideration of resolution 506 (VI) of the General Assembly", we may consider any pending application for the admission of new Members, I felt it to be advisable to add a third sub-item, sub-item (c), ccNew applications for melIlbership", so th~t the Council may have an opportunity to consider under such a heading the applications on which the Couneil bas not yetreported to the General·Assembly and which have not been considered by the Council on an individual basis. 9. 1t will be noted that under paragraph 1 of General Asseœbly resolution 506 B (VI), the Council is requested to report to the General Assembly at its seventhsession on the status of applications still pending. The inclusion of sub-item (c) might thus provide us with a more 10gica1 framework for the conduct of oUf' proceedings under this item. ~o. Mt"•. MALIK (Union?f Soviet Sociallst Republies) (tt-~1Z$lq,ted jrQm· RusS'.an) ~ As we aU know, the first two sub-items of our provisional agenda,namely, sub-item 2 (a) <cAdoption of a reconunendation to the General Assembly concetning the. simultaneous admis.., sion tomembership in the trnited Nations of all fourteen Stat~ wWch haveappliéd for such admission, and sub-item 2 (b), "Consideration of resolution 506 (VI) of the General Assembly", Wt;r~ pIaced on 12. Jud~'Înb by the numbers of the dOCl.:.-m~.nts listed under this sub-iten-t, it concerns six new applk.<i.'!:Îons for membership in the U~ited Nations, including th.nse of Japan [S/2673], Laos [S/2706],Cambodia [S/26721, Vietnam [S/2446, S12466] and Libya [S12467]. 13. Consideration of. this question, consid(~tion of the applications listed under the third poillt - in particular the applications of Japan, Laos, Cambodia and Bao Dai's Vietuam - would not he oppc..rtune. The USSR delegation does not consider it opportune ta e:smine the applications of the four. candidates l have mentioned. The reasons are weIl lmown ta aU; the USSR delegation has already explained them at length in the Security Council in July of this year [590th and 591s1 meeting..;] during the consideration of the question of admission of new Members ta the United Nations, and there is no need to dweIl on themndw in connexion with the procedural question of the agellda. It is perfectly c1ear that it is inopportune to consider these four applications. 14. There is no need ta inc1ude Libya's application under ,the proposedsub-item 2 (c) because it ,has already been considered by the Security Council and the General Assembly. Moreover we all know that Libya's application and the proposaI that that country be admitted ta membership .in the United Natiuns are covered by the draft resolution proposing the admission of fOllrteen Statès, inc1uding Libya, which the USSR delegation has submitted [SI2664] and the adoptIon of which it urges. Furthermore, Libya's application and the question of its admission are inc1udp.d, by impliication, :ilso under sub-item 2 (b), that is, in th(~ sub-itt'm which refers to "Consideration of resolution 506 (VI) of the General Assembly". After aIl, that General Assembly resolution covers Libya also, as itsapplication was considered at its sixth session and ai: the subsequent meetings of the Security Cound!. Consequently, tl:u~re is no need to inc1ude Libya's application under sub-item 2 (c) as the question of its admission is covered in the USSR proposaI for the admission of the fourteen States andalso, by implication, under sub.,.item 2 (b) which dealswith the consideration of resolution 506 (VI) of the General Assembly. 15. In view of this, the USSR delegation requests the President ta take a vote on the nrst two sub-items .on the agenda., that is to say 2 (a) and 2 (b), or to adopt them without a vote, since they apparently give rise ta no objection or comment, as theY'already appear in the agenda for 'the Security Councll'sprevious meetings. it~s as included. l t was so decided. 17. Mr. BOKHARI (Pakistan) : I only wish to raise one point for the purpose of receiving a clarification. As I look at the provisional agenda, I see that in some cases what are included are the actual appHcations for membership; in other cases it is not the applications wmch are included in the agenda, but a draft resolution submitted by a de1egation. If 1 am wrong, I should like to he corrected. 1 should like also to understand what the general procedure is with regard to including the enumerations of various· documents in the agenda on 'the admission of new Members. 18. The PRESIDENT: 1 shall ask Mr. Protitch to explain the l>ituation. 19. Mr. PROTITCH (Secretariat): The provisional agenda was drawn up under the direction of the President in the following way. Under sub-item 2 (a) there W'clS a USSR request, together with a draft resolution [S/26M], that this item be included in the agenda in the proceedings of the Couneil before the ad.journment of the discussion of this question. When sub-it~.m 2 (c) was introduced as a new item, we only enumerated the numbers of the documents of the application3 but not of the draft resolutions, because at that time we did not have any draft resolution on that question except the draft resolution of Pakistan on Ubya [Sj2483] , which was pending from Paris last January.

I am very grateful ta Mr. Protitch for his kind explanation. From what he said l understand the position ta be as follows: with regard to Qne of the applications which are inc1uded under. sub-itou 2 (c) of the provisional agenda, there is a draft r~solution submitted by my delegation. I admit that l have not pressed for the consideration of that draft resolution at this stage. Am I correct in my un~krstanding that that is the reason why it has not been included and thatsub-item 2 (a) has been inc1u<!p1, because of the desire on the part of our Soviet Uni.. colleague that it should be inc1uded? If that is the situation, then, I think l understood Mr. Protitch correctly. 21. The PRESIDENT: The interpretation of the representative of Pakistan is correct.

Î do not wish to raise an objection to the adoption of the provisiona1. agenda. "Adoption of a recommendation to the Genera~ Assembly concenling the simultaneous admission to membership in the United Nations ... ". 23. l think that the word "simultàneous", as used in that sub-item, is not in harmony with - indeed, goes counter to - the spirit of the Chartel". One of the reasons is that a simultaneous admission would mean that the admission of aU the eligible applicants would depend upon the admission, for example, of one single country, which does not fùlfil the conditions laid clown in Article 4 of the Charter. To make the admission of the other applicants dependent upon a theoretically impossible admission of one singleapplicant is clearly unfair and unjustifiable. Another reason is that, according to Article 4 of the Charter, the case of eacl1 applicant and' the question of whether it fulfils the conditions laid down in the Charter ought ta be considered on its own individual merits. 24. l should like to draw the attentiollof the Coundl to what 1 am afraid l must ca1l the mistake we are making in adopting an agenda which inc1udes the idea or the principle of the simultaneous admission of a number ofcountries. It is un':air, l repeat, to make the admission of a number of applicants dependent upon the admission of a particular applicant which cannot be admitted. Theoretically, at least, we areobliged' to ' consider the matter in that light. 25. The PRESIDENT: In reply to the point raised by the' representativeof Turkey, l should like to state that at its last [591st] meeting the SecurityCouncil adopted that item as part of the agenda, following the wording of the draft resolution of the Soviet Union. The question of the propriety or impropriety of simultaneous admission will no doubt come up during the discussiun of the draft resolutioll. 26. l shall now put to the vote the question of whether to inc1ude sub-item (c) in the agenda. A vote was taken by show of hands. ln favour: Brazil, Chile, China, France, Greece, Netherlands, Pakistan, Turkey, United Kbgdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. , Abstaining: Union of Soviet Soeialist Republics. The inclusion in the agenda of $ub-item 2, (c) was adopted by 10 votes in favour, 'with l' abstention. The agenda was adopted. Admission of newMembel's: (a) A.doption of a recommendation to th~ General Assembly con· cerning the simultaneous admission to mem· hership in the United Nations. of all fourteen States which have applied for' such admission (S/2664) , 27. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republies) (trans1ated from Russian}:As you are aware, in June of this year the USSR delegation submitted ta theSecurity Couneil the draft resolution, to whichyou have already drawn the Couneil's attention, concerning 29. This meeting took place in accordance with the resolution adopted on 1 February 1952, at the sixth session of the <;ieneral Assembly, requesting the permanent members of the Security Council to confer with one another with a view to assisting the Council to come to positive recommendations in regard to the pending applications for membership. The USS~ de1egation in the General Assembly voted in favour of this part 01' the resolution. The USSR representative took part in the meeting to which 1 have referred. 30. The United States representative began that meeting with his usual allegation that no concerted decision on the question of the admission of new members to the United Nations had yet been achieved because of the so-called Soviet Union "veto'''' After making this slanderous assertion, he tried to create the impression that the United States Government was demonstrating readiness to discuss the question of new Members with a view to its positive solution. In the same breath, he declared that the United States Government still opposed the USSR proposaI for the simultaneous admission of the aforementioned fourteen States tQ membership in the United Nations and maintained its former attitude on the question of the admission of new Members. 31. Inasmuch as the United States representative did not eXplain what the "former attitude" was, the USSR representative was obliged to c1arify the matter to some extent. 32. The United States representative tried as usual to throw on the USSR the responsibility for the dead- 10ck which had arisen in.' the United Nations on the question ofthe admission of new Members. The USSR representative was therefore.obliged to recall that the real feason .for the deadlock on this question is not the position taken by the USSR, which proposes that all foUTteen States should he admitted to membership. in .d'up. ~7. The case of, the ab,ste~tion on .the Tupisian ques, tion by the United State~. [S76th "1'~etingl and a,few other members of the Anglo-Atnerican bloc in tbe Se::curity CounciI has shown allmemberl'> of the United ~~tions and the world at large that such "abstention" 1S Il?- fact nothing but a vote "against" since it prevents, or mter:fere~ with, th~' ~dQpti9n .of,,a .décision. by' .the Sec,urity CoUncil· on a gïvèn'. question: .Tliià is by. now. krtown· ta <lilt . , . . . 38.. In view of an tbis it is cIear to everyone th~t it i5 flot the USSR veto whichis the cause of the deadlock on the question of admission ofnew Members, but the open and hidden veto used by the United States in the Security Couneil. ~ 1 , rité. ; . 39. l must remind you of these facts in arder to expose .cornpletely the continuous at1;t.mpts of theUnited~States represeatatives to slander, and ta shüt the burden of 40. The United Nations Chartel" strictly prohibits any interference whatever in ilie internaI affairs of States. The United States and a few of its docile followa's flagrantly violate thi~ most important provision of the Charter and prevent the admission of the people's democracies to membership in the United Nations for the sole reason that the internai structure of those countries is not to the liking of the ruling circles of the United States and the United Kingdom. 41. The United Kingdom and French representatives wholeheartedly supported the United States' position at the meeting of the perma:1ent members of the Security Council; and that was the end of the meeting of the representatives of four permanent members of tlle Security Counc.il. 42. The United States, the United Kingdom and French representatives tried to show that each .of the fourteen applications for admission ta membership in the United Nations should be examined "individually". They also tried to link the examinationof these fourteen applications. ta the examin.~tion of the applications recently submitted ta the Security Council by Japan and the Franco-American puppets in Indo-China - Bao Dai's Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. 43. It is easy to see that these flimsy "motives" were given for the specifie purpose of preventing an agreed decision on the admission of the fourteen States. 44, The fol1owing verycharacteristic episode prO'ves that the United States representative had neither the wish nor the intention to arrive at an agreed dedsion. After the USSR representative's proposaI for the admission of the fourteen states to membership in the United Nations had been rejected by the United States, United Kingdom and French l'epresentatives, a1"(d after they had announced that they still maintained their oP.-losition to the admission to membership in the United Nations of Hungàry, Romania, Bulgatia, Albal1ia and the People's Republic of Mongolia, the United Stat@s representative began to read a communiqué which had been previously preparèd by him and typed before the meeting, which stated that no agreement had been reached between the permanent members of the Security Cound!. This little touch very clearly brings out the fact that the United States representative9 while nttending a meeting of the permanent members of the Secarity Council apparently in order to reach agreement on the admission of new Members ta the United Natinng, hael.prepared in advance a communiqué stating 45. This, once again, confirms the fact that the United States and its supporters, the United Kingdom and France, had and have no intention of reaching agreement on the admission of the fourteen States to membership in the United Nations. 46. The ruling circ1es in these countnes and in the United States in particular are maintaining their old -position on the question of the admission of new Members - a position of favouritism towards one group of applicants and of discrimination and pressure against another group of applicants, whose internaI régime is not to their liking. The United States representative and ms United Kingdom and French colleagues are continuing to make every effort to unearth every possible kind of pretext and tû slander the people's democracies, so as to concea! the United States' policy of hostility towards those countries and their peoples and thereby prevent their admission to membership in the United Nations. . miques 47. To demonstrate once again the completely untenable nature of the United States' position on this question, let us consider the facts. 48. Let us take, fcr example, the case of Romania. On 23 August 1952, the Romanian People's Republic celebra.ted the eighth anniversary of its liberation by th~ Soviet Army from th~ fascist rég=.me and Hitlerite occupation. Since that thne the Rcmanian People's Republic has resolutely and unswervingly followed the path of economic progress and broad democratic development. The volume of industrial production in Romania is almost three times what it was before the \Var. By the end of 1951 the country's economy was aIready more than 50 pel' cent industrialized. In the eight years since the war, the Romanian People's Republic has been transIormed from a backward àgrarian count1'y !nto an industrially highly developed country. Previously its industry was almost entirely dependent on the trusts and monopolies of the imperialist States, which relentlessly and rapaciously plundered and destroyed the country's economic resources. Now industry is in the hands of the people's Stat~ and is public1y mvned. Agricultural output too, has lDcreased as compared with 1938. 49. There is no more national and racial discrimination in the new Romania. National minorities have ac';<eved complete equality and the material basis for the ac~!eve­ \TIent of their rights. The Romanian People's Republic 18 a peace-Ioving State. Its foreign policy, which, according to the Press, was set forth by the Deputy President of the Council of Ministers of the Romanian 50. If there i8 any need for proof of the pence-Ioving charncter of the Romanian People's Republic and its foreign policy, such proof is plentiful. It is sufficient to point out that Il milliC'n adult members of the population of Romania have categoricatly and firmly stated their views on and voted in favour of the conclusion of a peace pact between the five great Powers. These 11 million members of the Romanian population have signed an appeal for the conclusion of such a peace pact. 51. Such indications of the true peace-loving character of the Romanian people and country cannot, of course, convince the rept'esentativ~s of the countries of the Anglo-American bloc, p,nd in particular the representatives of the United SMtes, the ruling circ1es of which are intoxicated and bliuded by the immense profits they a.re making' by the armaments race and the provision of military equipment, the policy of ag~ression and the preparation for a new world war. This is not surprising', as the United States and United Kingdom ruling cirdes fear such indications, fear the voices and the many million signatures of the peoples of the peace-loving countries who demand that peace he strengthened. Anglo-American politicians who have embarked on this policy of aggression and of preparation for a new world war are frightened by such faets and documents, as by a nightmare. For the peac~-­ 10ving peoples of the world, however, this is the most convincing proof that Romania is a truly peace-Iovîng t~untry ~d that its policy is 'in cOP'lplete accor<.1ance w1th Art1cle 4- of the Charter. Romania is a, pence- !oving country. Tt has assumed the o1?ligations ~t forth 1n the Charter and is prepared to fulfil them. The Romanian People's Republîc therefore fully meets the requirements of Article 4 of the Charter and can be a?m~tt~~ ,t~. tl,'1e~?~rsh~~ i\l, t~e United N:atiQns., " 52. ' 'Thé sàro~ f~lly applie; to aU the oth~,r ~~untries of the people's democracr., the admission of which to membership in the Umted Nations has now for many years been hhldered by the Anglo·American bloc, and chiefly by the ruling circ1cs of the United States. l have in mind such cottntries as Afl)ania, Bulgaria, Hungary and the Mongolian People's Republic. , 53. In opposing the admission of these countries, the United States and the United Kingdom al."e flagrantly 54. These obligations assumed by the three Powers at the Berlin conference were repeated and confirmed in the Treaties of Peace with aU three countries- Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. In each of those treaties, signed by the Allied and Associateù Powers \Vith Bttlgaria, Hungary and Romania, the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom assumed international oblir'1l.tions to support the applications of Bulgaria, liungary and Romania for admission to membership in the United Nations, and also to support the accession of those countries to any convention concluded as a result of action initiated by the United Nations. 55. It may also be recalled that even before tht:n, nt the Tehran Conference in November-December 1943, the three Powers - the USSR, the United States and the United Kingdom - solemnly proc1aimed, in the part of the Agreemet t conc1uded between them which deals with arrangemebcs for the future, that the Governments of the USSR, United States and United Kingdom would we1come the admission to the world family of democratic nations ail peoples, great and small, which devoted themselves to the task of removing tyranny, slavery, oppression and intolerance. The countries of the people's democracy which have submitted applications to the United Nations have fully carried out these provisions of the Tehran Conference. The people's governments of those countries have carried out·that task to the end. Strictly in accordance with the peace treaties they signed, the fascist elements which involved them in war against the Allied and Associated Powers and on the side of Hitlerite Germany and fascist Italy have been' removed from power. 9enuinely democratic people's régimes have been estab- Itshed. Far-reaching àgrarian reforms have been e~ecte?, as a result of wnich many millions of peasants \VIth httle or no land have received land. Enormous ~uccesses have been aéhieved in the de"elopment of tndustry. Industrial production has increased' two or three, timès :and more by cômparison \Vith the pre-war level. Nct one of the countries whose· applicatIons for admission to membership in the United Nations are actively supported by the United States and the United Kingdom can even dream of such industrial development iuso short a time. 56. Simultaneouly with the growth and strengthening of the economy of the countries of the people's democracy, the material welfare and cultural attainments of 57. There is a similarrapid growth in other countties of the people's democracy. At the pres1eut time those countries are free, independent and sovereign States. Like free and independent States, they are advancing confidently along the path of economic progress and democratic development. In Albania, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, there is no unemployment, but Italy, which has fallen victim to United States monopolies as a result of the "Marshall Plan" foisted upon it, has over 2 million unemployed, even according to the United States Press. These faets the United States representative prefers to pass over in silence. 58. The wide'democratic basis of the State in the people's dernocracies is shown by the faet that many thousands of the new men of the people - workers, peasants and inteUectuals - have gone into the organs of govemment. Fifty thousand persons, for examplethe best in' the country - have been elected to the people's co~ncils of Bulgaria. 59. The establishment of people's councib ;,:'\s been a great step forward in the democratization of the 3tate. The following facts indicate the extent of the mea,'ul'eS earried out by the Government of the Bulgarian Peop~ls Republie to raise the standard of living and {mprove cultural conditions. 60. During the eight post-war yèars in Sofia alone, fue capital of ,Bulgaria, eleven times as many houses were built as during the sixtYyears before the country was liberated. Let the United States representatf.ve give the figures of houl5ing construction during \he post-war period in the countries whose admission to membership in the United Nations he so aetively supports. After aU, this is a basic indication of whether aState, apart from its dec1arations, is eoncretely ensuring the weU-being of its people. 61. As a result of the structure of the people's democracies of Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and Albania, education and culture are within the reach of the masses. Albania, for example, now has general elementary education. In 1950 the number of persons enrolled in elementary schools was three times, and in secondary schools four times, as high as in 1938; in addition the first institufœ of highereducation, the Pedagogie InsHtute, was opened. Thirteen newspapers are published, ii2. These :tacts, which show the genuine democratic development of these countries after the war and their pacific policies, decisively refute the United States and United Kingdom representatives' assertions that the people's democracies of Albania, Hungary, Bt11garia and Romania are not peace-loving and that they do 1lot meet the requirements of Article 4 of the Charter and consequently cannot be admitted to membership in the . United Nations. Such assertions are nothing but hostile slander, fabricated by the Anglo-American imperialists in an effort to mask their own policy of hostility and hatred towards the Romanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian and Albanian peoples. 63. The falseness and hypocrisy of the United States and United Kingdom representatives' statements become abundantly dear when one considers what States are regarded by the ruling circ1es of the United States as "peace loving" and accordingly recommended ior admission to membership in the 'United Nations. 64. Countries thus considered as "peace-loving" are Transjordan {Jordan), with its expansionist aims and constant threats to its neighbours; Portugal, which along with Franco Spain collaborated with Hitlerite Germany; Ireland, which symp<!.thized with Hitler rather. than with those who fought against his tyranny; and lastly, Italy. Italy, having barely recovered from the catastrophe which overtook it as a result of the irresponsible aggressive policy of Italian fascistïl, is again embarked on a course of aggression as a partner in the aggressive North Atlantic bloc, which, by the admission and statements of its Anglo-American organizers, is aimed against the USSR and the people's democracies. 05. .A comparison of the peacefultruly peacefulpolicy of Bulgaria, Hungary, Romani&, Albania and the Mongolian People's Republic with the policy of the above-mentioned favourites of th~ United States and the United Kingdom and of members of the aggressive blocs rèveals the insincerity and hypocrisy of the ruling circ1es of the United States and the United Kingdom, which are trying to concea! their hostility towards and hatred of the people's democrades behind sland.erous talk about the allegedly non peace-loving nature of these countries. It is dear to everyone now that this slander, invented by the Anglo-Ameti'call bloc against the countriesof the people's democra:cies, is without any foundation whatsoever and that its sole purpose is to conceal the nolicy of ho&tility and hatred pursued by the ruling cil'des of the United States and the United Kingdom against the countries of the people's detnocracies. 66. . A comparison of the extensive democratic reforms which have been carried out in the people's democracies \Vith the domestic situation in a number of countries towards which the United States and the 'United Kingdom are friendly, leaves no doubt that whUe the 67. When the ruling circ1es of the United States and the United Kingdom maintain that there is democracy in Portugala country of fascist dietatorship - they reveal themselvescompletely as supporters of outright opponents' of the anti-democratic régimes and truly democratic structure of the countries of the people's democracies. It has become c1ear to everyone that the hostile propaganda of the United States and the United Kingdom in respect of the internaI structure of the people's democracies is nothingmore than an expression of the monstrous ill will, enmity and hatred of the Anglo-American monopolies for countries which are free, independent and sovereign in the true sense of the word, which have freed themselves forever from the domination of foreign capital, and whieh have c10sed forever their n"30urces to the predatcry foreign monopolies which are socovetous of alien property. 68. These are the base motives of the United States representative· when he states, with the cynicism of an extortioner and blackmailer, that' the United States Government could support the applications for admission to membership in the United Nations of Albania, Hungary and the Mongolian People's Republic only if those countries changed their policy and gave proof of their desire firmly to support the United Nations Charter. 69. This statement by the United States representative reveals the real issue involved. The ruling circ1es of the United States hate the internaI structure of these States, and,that' is why they oppose their admissio!' to member~hip in, the United Nations and with cynical frC'.:ilkness try to exert pressure bn thém and to force thenî to èhange their internaI system of governt'nent. 70. That these are the objectives: of'the ruliI.g· cï'~c1es of the United States is no longer a secret to anyone. Sufficeit to recall the infamous 1951 law passed by the United States Congress for the purpose of organizing se~tion, sa;1?otage. and. hostile anti-popular a,cts aga!nst. the· people's democraCles and the USSR. The Umted States Governmertt has allocated $100 million for these hostile purposes, which have no precedent in the normal diplomatie relations between States in times of peace. The money of the American people, of the Ameriean taxpayer,' is used by the United States Governtitent Treasury ta pay the ,1?loody anti-popular executioners arid eriemies6f the' Hungarian, Romanian,Bulgarian, Albanian and other peoples. It is this policy ofhostility and hatred on the part of the ruling circ1es of the United Stàtes that is the reason for the United States' stubborn oppositiont6 'the admission of Albania, Hungary, 71. However much United States ruling circ1es may contrive ta refer to the United Nations Clml't<::r, they will not thereby be able to conceal their true aims and purposes, which are those of hostilit)'. hatred and aggression towards those countries; and tllat, as is by now generally known, i5 the principal reason for the opposition of the ruling circ1es of the United States to the admission of those countries to membership in the United Nations. Such a position on the part of the United States is not only a gro§s violation of the international obligations it assumed at Tehran, Potsdam and under the Peace Treaties with Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary, but also directly contrary to the United Nations Charter. 72. Althnugh the representativeE' of the United States and the United Kingdom outdo themselves in their slanderous remarks about the people's democracies, to the effect that..the poliey of those countries is not in accordance with the Charter, they cannot produce a shred of evidence in corroboration of their slanderous and hostile statements. The United Nations Charter requires the development of friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. The policy and internaI structure of the people's democracies fully conform to this principle. The Charter requires the promotion and encouragement of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as ta race, sex, language or religion. The policy and internaI structure of the people's democracies fully conform to these principles too. As a result of the widespread democratic re-education carried out in these countries, their peoples enjoy full democratic rights without any racial discrimination or distinction as to race, sex, language or religion, which is more than can be said for the United States of America and the British Empire. It is enough to recall the condition of the Negroes in the United States. 73. In the light of these universally known facts it is therefore clear that it is not the people's democracies ' whose actions are contrary to the Charter, but the policy and practices of the United States and the United Kingdom. It is precisely these two countries which, in gross violation of the Charter, are disregarding one of its basic principles by interfering in the domestic affairs of other States. They try in every way to meddle in the domestic affairs of the people's democracies, going so far as. to demand chll.nges in the internaI structure of those States, naturally in order to meet the needs and requirements of the Anglo-American monopolies while completely disregarding the interests of the peoples. 74. It goes without saying that only persons blinded by forious enmity and hatred and therefore deprived of aU common sense, can be guided in their approach to the question of the admission of new Members to the United Natiol.'ls in such an absurdly foolish and illegal manner, which, moreover, is contrary to the Charter. N~tions. The application of sucb a "formula" to the fourteen States whose simultaneous admission is proposed by the Soviet Union is absolutely devoid of sense, however, and has no justification whatsoever. No one, not even the Turkish representative, will deny the genera!ly known fact that every one of the· applications of aIl these fourteen States has already been considered by the Security Council not less than two or three times. 76. .Let us turn to the facts. The application of Albania for admission to membership in the United Nations was considered on 29 August 1946, on 18 August 1947 and on 15 September 1949; the application of the Mongolian People's Republic was considered on 29 August 1946, on 18 August 1947 and on 15 September 1949; the application of Hungary was consideted on 21 August 1947, on 1 October 1947 and on 15 September 1949; the application of Romania was considered on 21 August 1947, on 1 October 1947 and on 15 September 1949; and the application of Bulgaria was considered on 21 August 1947, on 1 October 1947 and on 15 September 1949. 77. The app~cations of every one of those countries whose admission is now urged by the United States and the United Kingdom, namely, Ire1and, Portugal, Transjoràan (Jordan), ltaly, etc., have also been considered not less than two or three tÎmes. 78. Consèquently the proposaI of the United States and United Kingdom representatives that all those fourteen applications should again be considered "individua!ly" is nothing more than a contrived pretext, designed first to concea! their OppGsition to the admission of the countries of the people's democracy to membership in the United Nations, and, secondly, to prqvoke a series of new votes by the USSR delegation against the Anglo-American solicitations, which are illegal and contrary to the Charter, designed, in other words, to provoke the next regular series of the so-called USSR "vetoes" in order to increase the total and serve the purposes of United States propaganda. 79. It is quite obvious, if l may be allowed to say so, that the basis of such a position is nothing other than a policy of hostility and provocation, an attempt to prevent the admission of the countries of the people's dêmocracy to membership in the United Nations and at the same time to obtain a few new USSR "vetoes" for propagandist and slanderouspurposes. Such hostile and provocative devices on the part of the Anglo- American bloc will not, however, succeed in frightening us, If, in the interest of justice and in defence of the legal right of those States which the United States and the United Kingdom are preventing from becoming Members of the United Nations, a further Soviet Union veto·isneces-sary, we shall undoubtedly apply it, and we shall apply it as often as may be necessary for that lawful, just and noble purpose. 80. We declare before the whole world that the Soviet Unionnever applied, is not applying and never will 82. As regards the Security Council, we shall not tolerate the adoption of such illegal resolutions here on the basis of the right granted us by the United Nations Charter. l have in mind the principle of unanimity between the five permanent members of the Security Council. Since this principle is being grossly and cynically violated by the United States and the United Kingdom, we categorically protest against such violation and strive, and will continue to strive with aH the rights and powers at our disposaI, ~o prevent the violation and defiance of the Charter. 83. The problem of the admission of new Members, as has been repeatedly pointedout, has 'now reached such dimensions that it can only be solved in the way suggested by the Soviet Union, namely by admitting sitnultaneouly to the United Nations aH the fourteen States which have applied for membership. The unconvincing reference· ta the fact that the fourteen applications must be considered individuaHy does not bear criticism. Each of these applications has been considered more than once in the Security Council and thetime has now come to admit aIl these States to membership in the United Nations. 84. Realizing the wortWessness of its argument, the Anglo-American bloc, which opposes the admission of the people's democracies to the United Nations, is ~ying to -put forward yet another reason - the alleged Impossibility of simultaneously admitting a number of 85. 1 refer in particular to the precedent established by the United States representative in the pasto At the [54th] meeting of the Security Council on 28 August 1946, Mr. Johnson, the United States represelltative, submitted the following official draft resolution: '''The Security Council, "Having received appliœtions for membership submitted to the Organization by Albania, the Mongolian People's Republic, Afghanistan, Transjordan, Ireland, Portugal, Iceland and Sweden; ... "Recommends to the General Assembly that it admit to membership the following applicants : Afghanistan, Albania, Iceland, Ireland, the Mongolian People's Republic, Portugal, Sweden and Transjordan." that is to say, aIl the eight States which had submitted applications and been included in the United States draft resolution; and the United States representative recommended the General Assembly to admit those States to membership in the United Nations. 86. Who will deny that this United States draft resolntion, officially submitted to the Security Council, is anything other than a. proposaI for the simultaneous admission of eight States to membership in the United 88. To this United States proposaI ·~he Secretary- General of the United Nations, who was present at that same meeting, added that as Secretary-General of th~ United Nations, he wished to support an acceptable solution in relation to ail those States which had appeared that day as candidates. 89. This United States proposaI was also supported by the representatives of Mexico and Egypt, who were members of the Security Council at that time, and by the representatives of Brazil and China.' 90. If the United States proposai for the simultaneous admission to membership in the United Nations of the eight States in 1946 was, according ta that same representative of the United States, compatible with the provisions of Article 4 of the Charter, and in a spirit of justice towards ail those States, why is the United States unwilling to act in a sirnilar spirit of justice ard in accordance with the Charter now, when a proposai for the simultaneous admission of fourteen States is submitted by the Soviet Union? 91. It would appear !ogical that the United States, which in 1946 proposed the simultaneous· admission of eight States, should now support the USSR initiative· and the USSR draft resolqtion on the admission of fourteen States in 1952. It is the same method that is being advocated now as was advocated then, and .there i5 no threat to the Charter of the United Nations, no shaking of the United Nations to its foundations. There was no such threat in 1946 and there is none now in 1952, however much those who have always danced to the American tune may try to prove there ls. 92. Such are the facts and the precedents. It is precisely in accordance with t: e precedents and in view, first of the faet that the applications of the fourteen States have already been cO!.lsidered by the Council repeatedly, and, secol1dly, of the situation that has al'Îsen at the present time with regard to the question of the adm~ssion of new Members as a result of the attitude adopted by the United States and the Unite<.t Kingdom, that the Soviet Union considers that the m0o( reasonabie and just solution, a solution fully in accordance with the Charter and the precedents created hr the Security Council's previous work, would be the sl::aultaneous admission to membership in the United" liations .. of .aU the fourteen States in question. The . delegation of the Soviet Union strongly urges this. 93.• The PRESIDENT: The namesof severalrt:pre- Sentatives are on the list of speakers. These represen- 93. It was sa decided, 94. The PRESIDENT: Since some' work is to be done on the mural in the Security Council chamber, tomorrow's me~ting will be held in the Trusteeship Council chamber. The 'meeting rose at 6.45 p.m. "IECE-IIECE ..EI.fth.roudaki.... lion. Athènes. AHENTlNA-AHENTlNE Editorial Sudomoricono S.A" AI.ino 500. Buono. Aires. AVSlULiA- AUSTRALIE H. 1\. Goddard, 2550 G.orgo St. Sydnoy. II/ARMALA Go"boud & CI•• Guot.mola. InGl1IM - IUIlQUE Agonco .t Mossogorios d. la Presse s.A., 14-22 ruo du P~"II, Bnlxoll... W. H. Smith 8< Son. 71.75 Boul.vord Adolphe·Moi. Bru.oll... IL\ITI lib.oiri. "A 1. C.r.vall.... III.B. PorNu·Prince. HONDURAS L1b""rl. P.n.mericene. FIl.nt., t.gucIgelpo. IILIVIA- .OLlYlE librerlo S4loccione.. Co~llI. 912. Le Poz. PUIL-IIESIL lIvr.rio Agir. ~uo Mulco '18·8. Rio cM J.noiro. 11Ib1A-IIIDE Oxford Book & Hous•• N.w Delhi. P. Vorodochery WlADA Rye"cn Press. 299 Qu••n St. WHt. Toronto. Las Pr....s Univ.rslt.ir.s Lov.l. Qu.bec. UnON-ŒYWI Th. Assocl.t.d N.wsp'p.rs of Ceylon. St~ Modras 1. ilIOONESlA-IIIDOIIESII Jol.,.n Pembongun.n. Djokart•• IUH K.t.b·Kban.h D.nesh, nu•• T.hr... Ltcl~ Lek. HoUl'. Colombo. Gllu-onu libr.rlo Ivons. Monad. 822. Sontl.go. GlINA-GlINE Comm.rciol Press. Ltd~ 211 Hon.n Rd. Shongh.l. llAQ· ··iRA\K Modenzi.'s Bookshop. IRElAND-IWNIlE Hi~.mion G.nerol merciol Buildings, COLOMlIA - COLOMIIE Ubr.rla Lotina Ltd.~ Correra 60. 13'()5. Bcgot6. ISRJlI1 Blumst.ln's Booutore.. Raad, Tel Avw. COSTA RICA-COSTA..ICA Tr'llls H.rm.nos. Apart.do 1313. S.n Jos6. au Le Cos. B.lgo, O'R.my 455, la H.ban., ITALY-ITAUE Colibri SA. Via lDANON-UIl!! libr.l.i. uoiv.".II CZECIIOSLOYAIIA - TCIlECOSLOVAQUIE Ceskoslovonsky Spisov.tel. N.rodnl Trld. LIIUIA I ~. Prtlha 1. BENMAlI-DAHUIAIIC Einar Munksg••rd. ltd~ Njfrreg.d. 6- K,benh.vn. K. J. Momolu Kem.r•• LUXEMIOUH lib.alri. J. Schumm MEllCO -IIEllIOUE Editorlel H.nn.s 41, Mbico. D.F. DOMlNlCAI'l REPUlLIC-IEP\II. DOIUIllWNE libr.rlo Domlnlc.n•• M.rc.des 49. Ciu·. dod Trujillo. NETNUlANDS - PAYSoIAS N.V. Mortinus Nilho'. 's-Grovonhego. ECUADOI- ~~l'EUII Llbr.ria Cionlllico. l>ox 362. Gu.yaqull. IlIm-EIYP1I Libralri. "La Ren.lsSlÎnc. d'Egyph." 9 Sh. Adlv P.sh•• Coiro. IL SALYAIlCII-ULVADOI Menuel Navas " Cie.. 1. Av''',rl~ ~, 37. San Salvador. lIEW ZUWlD -IIOUYEW·ZIWliIE U. N.Assn. of New Wellington. N1CAD1l1A Ct. Roml.o Remi 1lH10PtA- ETNIO'IE A9.nc. Ethiopl.nne d. -PubliciM, Boa 126. Addl1·Abebo. NOIWAY- NOIVIR J""on Enundtgustsgt. 7A. Oslo. flllL1llll ,,-IlIlLlllllE Aketollllinen Klrfebupp'. 2. KOIMbtu. Helslnld. PIlIUTAil ThOlllIS & Tho"",.. Rood. Kor.chl, Publish.rs United ho!-.. lIAIlCI editions A. Padon.. 13 ru. Soumot. PariaV. OrdolS and inqulrlos frOlll countrles wh«e sales agents bave not yet boen appolnted may be I8l1t to: Sales and Clrculailol1 $ectICln, United Nations. New York. U.S.A.; or Sales Section, Unlied Nations CHiee, Palais des Nations, Glinova, SwltHrland. Priee: 25 cents (or equivalent in Printed in Canada