S/PV.595 Security Council

The provisional agenda being the same as the one adopted at yesterday's meeting, we might consider it as adopted today with the same reservations as those which were made y'esterday. Admission of new Mambers: (a) Adoption of a recommendation to the General Assembly con- cerning the simultaneous admission to member- ship in the United Nations of all·fourteen States which . have applied for such Gdmission (8/2664) (continued) .2. Mr. VON BALLUSECK (Netherlands): Once again we are confronted with the old and difficult qUès- tion of the admiss~on of new Members to the United Nations. The Security Council is faced anew with proposais .of different kinds. We are asked to recom- mend the admission of a number of applicants simul- taneously, and there arealso before us a number of individual applications which, in the opinion of many of us, we should examine individually. Between those two methods lies the ground on which so far we have been unable to build up general agreement. 3. It is clear from the many discussions on the subject of the admission of new Members which have tsken Président: M. J. MUNIZ (Brésil). Présents: Les représentants des pays suivants: Brésil, Chili, Chine, France, Grèce, Pays-Bas, Pakis- tan, Turquie, Union des Républiques socialistes sovié- tiques, Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord, Etats-Unis d'Amérique. Ordre du jour provisoire (S/Agenda 595) 1. Adoption de l'ordre du jour. 2.· Admission de nouveaux Membres: a) Adoption d'une recommandation à l'Assemblée générale tendant à l'admission simultanée à l'Organisation des Nations Unies des quatorze Etats qui ont présenté des demandes à cet effet (S/2664); b) Examen de la résolution 506 (VI) de l'As- semblée générale; c) Nouvelles demandes d'admission (S/2446, S/2466, S/2467, S/2672, S/2673 et S/2706). Adoption de l'ordre du jour 1. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais): L'ordre du jour provisoire étant le même que celui qui a été adopté à la séance d'hier, nous pourrions le considérer comme adopté avec les réserves qui ont été formulées hier. L'ordre du jour est adopté. Admission de nouveaux Membres: a) Adoption (Pune recommandation à l'Assemblée générale tend.ant à l'admission sinmltanée à l'Organisa.. '~on des Nations Unies deIJ quatorze Etats qui ont présenté des demandes à cet eftet (S/26M) (suite) 2. M. VON BALLUSECK (Pays-Bas) (traduit de l'anglais): Nous devons une fois de plus examiner cette question ancienne et difficile de l'admission de nouveaux Membres à l'Organisation des Nations Unies. Le Conseil de sécurité est à nouveau saisi de diverses propositions. On nous demande de recommander l'admission simultanée d'un certain nombre de~andi­ dats, et nous avons également devant nous un certain nombre de demandes individuelles qui, de l'avis de beaucoup d'entre nous, devraient être examinées sépa- rément. Jusqu'à présent, nous n'avons pu parvenir à trouver un terrain d'entente entre ces deux méthodes. 3. .Il ressort clairement des nombreuses discussions dont la question de .l'admission de nouveaux Membres 5. In less formal language, this simply means that one cannat make the admission of a State candidate conditional upon the admission of another. 6. During the sixth session of the General Assembly, the question of the admission of new Members was extensively debated and discussed. General Assembly resolutipn 506. (VI) reaffirmed that the judgment of the United Nations on the admission of new Members ought not to be based on -conditions outside the scope of Article 4 of the Charter. The resolution 2,lso requested the Security Council to report to the General Assembly, at its seventh session, on the status of applications still pending, and decided ta direct that the item "Admission of new Members" should be included in the provisional agenda of the seventh session of the General Assembly. Finally, it decided that a draft resolution submitted to the sixth -session of the General Assembly by the delegations of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Gùatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua, contained in çlocument A/C.1j708. 2 requesting the International Court of Justice ta give a further adv~sory opinion on this.matter, shouldbe fully considered in aIl aspects and should be referred for consideration to the seventh session of the General Assembly. 7. It follows, in our opinion, that the sixth session of the General Assembly felt that the whole problem of admission of new Members -should once again be thoroughly examined -by the seventh session of the General Assembly, that is, by all the Memhers of our Organization. My Government is of the opinion that tms would indeed be the wisest course ta take. 8.- TheSecurity Councii has, up to now, been unable ta come to· agenÈ'i"al agreement _on the applications pending. The five permanent members of the Security ,. .: . . - 1 V~ir Avis cOlwlltatif relatif à l'admission deflouveaus Membres (Article 4 de la Charte), C.LI., Recueil 1948, p.57. 2 Voir les Doc1lments officiels de l'Assemblée générale, sisième session, Anneses, point 60 de l'ordre du jour. mom~t, the gap between the opposing points of view has not been closed and continues to e..xist, and that the five-Power meeting, in consequenceJ has not been able to assist the Security Council to come to positive recommendations. 9. Under these circumstances, it seems to my Govern- ment that little progress can be e.'\:pected of further discussions in the Security Council at this time on the question of the admission of new Members, This is fo\" us an additional reason for favouring a postponement of further discussions in the Security Council until the next session of the General Assembly will have had an opportunity to review the situation once again. 10. The statement which therepresentative of the Soviet Union made yesterday in the Security Council has confirmed the opinion of my delegation that the debate in the Council is not likely to find a way out of the impasse which has frustrated a jnstified and healthy growth of OHr membership for a number of years. We have once again heard aU the old arguments, embellished with aU kinds of vehement accusations about the sinister aims of those who happen to disagree with the Soviet Union point of view. Vve have also heard that use of the Soviet Union veto will persist as on past occasions in this connexion. Therefore, we might save time and prevent a further sterile repetition of irreconcilable views if the Security Council did not pronounce itself at fuis stage in a substantial manner, so as to leave the General Assembly. without any fresh prejudicial in- fluence from this Council when it e.'\:amines the problem anew in the light of new suggestions and ideas. An indication of those ideas was already given during the debates in the sixth session of the General Assembly. 11. If 1 may be aUowed to sum up briefiy the situation with which we have to deal, we find the foUowing facts. ~2. The United Nations began with fifty-one Members ln 1S!45. Since then fifteen new 'lpplications for mem- bership have on various occasions been discussed in the General Assemblyand in the Security Council. Nine countries obtained seven or more favourable votes in t!te' Security. Council, but no favourable recommenda- tions couldbe made on account of a Soviet Union veto. Fiv:e. other countries did not obtain the required 13. Conceming a fifteenth applicant, the State of Libya, the General Assembly resolution 289 (IV) rec~"':!mended "that upon its establishment as an independent State, Libya shaH be admitted to the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter". But the chances of Libya entering our Organization have been jeopardized by the controversy between the method of the so-caUed "package deal" on the one hand, and the methodof individual consideration on the other hand, as was also the case with most, if not an, of the other pending applications. 14. If 1 am not mistaken, the total number of applications for membership in the Unit~d Nations has now risen to twenty-one. It is obvious that the United Nations must make a serious effort to break the dead- lock which thus far has prevented a n~ber of States, whiéh in the eyes of many of our Members conform to the requirement of paragraph 1 of Article 4, from joining our ranks. But it is also obvious that it seems to be ::;J.possible, for the moment, to obtaina substantial change in the positions thus far taken by the permanent members of the Security Council and perhaps others. 15. For aIl these reasons,my Govemment would be inclined to postpone further consideration of this matter until the next session of the General Assembly will have given us a clearer picture of the views of the total membership of our Organizatbn on this issue. We could report ta the seventh session of the General Assembly in thatsense. 16.. However, in case the Security Council should decideto pronounce itself now on the various proposaIs before it, my Government would feel obliged to reaffirm the position which it has maintained up to now, namely, thaï we should judge èach individual app'kant on the basis of the requiret!1ents mentioned in Article 4, paragraph l, of the Charter, and that in accordance with; the Advisory Opinion of the International Court ot Justice of 28 May 1948, we should not make our recûmmendàtion of a particular applicant State con- ditional upon the simultaneous admission of one or more other applicant States; 17. It may betrue, as Mr. Malik has said, if 1 under- stood him correctly yesterday, that Article 4 of the Charter mentions nothing which would forbid a recom- mendation for admission of more than one candidate in .one and the same proposaI. Of course one can list various States candidates at the same time, provided their cases are exam.ined individuaIly. But Article 4 of.the Charter does. not contain any stipulation which .would require a· State candidate to become a Member together with other specific candidates. There is no such requirement if!. ,,'\..t1:iclè 4. In that connexion· the word "simultaneotis" is just a little too much, as the 18. For these reasons, my delegation would feel itself obliged to vote against the Soviet Union proposaI as contained in document S/2664, which is now before us, in case this should be put to the vote. 19. Mr. SARPER (Turkey): The Security Couneil has before it today five draft resolutions. In their chronological order, these draft resolutions were pre- sented as follows: one by the Union of Soviet Soeialist Republics [S/2664], one by the United States of America [S/2754], and three by France [S/2758, Sj2759, S/2760]. 20. The draft resolution submitted by the USSR de1egation calls for the simultaneous admission of four- teen countries, namely, Albania, the Mongolian People's Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Finland, Italy, Portugal, Iretand, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Austria, Ceylan, Nepal and Libya. The four other draftresolùtions, presented by the United States of America and France, call for the admission, respectively, of Japan, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. . 21. The proposaI for the simultaneous admission of candidate countries ta membership of the United Nations appears periodicallyin the Security Council's agenda. On previous occasions, we have had an opportunity to express our hope and desire that most of thecountries concerned should take their rightful places among us here. . " 22. The rule governing admission to the United Nations is clearly laid down in Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Charter. That is the only criterion for the admis- sion of new Members which we should apply in our deliberations in this Couneil. Departing from this role can lead us only into an impasse from which no quick or easy way out can be found. 23. Departing from this rule, the representative of tÎîe Soviet·Un:îbri has again insisted on the simuJtaneous admission of fourteen countries. In his statement yesterday, he saw fit, in comparing the qualifications for admission of some of the candidates, to allege that Jordan was a country which had "expansionist aims" and presented "constant threats to its neighbours", that Portugal had "along with .Franco Spain collaborated \Vith hitlerite Germany", that Ireland had "sympathized with Hitler" and that Italy had "again embarked on a course of aggression as a partner in the aggressive North Atlantic bloc". In the sarne statement, the Soviet Union representative went on to say that these facts fully exposed the falsity of the United States and United Kingdom positions. 24. Tt is not my intention to rise in defence of the United States and United Kingdom delegations. How- ever, if the representative of the Soviet Union actually be!ieves in what he says, we aU must be somewhat sur- prlsed that his delegation proposes the same countries for admissi~n to membership of this Organization. In other words, he questions their eligibility on the" one 22. La règle régissant l'admission à l'Organisation des Nations Unies est clairement énoncée au para- graphe 1 de l'Article 4 de la Charte. C'est là le seul texte dont nous devons tenir compte au Conseil pour nous prononcer sur l'admission de nouveaux Membr~s. A nous en écarter, nous risquerions d'aboutir à ùne impasse d'où il nous serait difficile de sortir rapide- m@at. " 23. S'écartant de cette règle, le représentant de l'Union soviétique a, une fois encore, demandé avec insistance que le Conseil admette simultanément quatorze Etats. D?.!1s la déclaration qu'il a faite hier, il a jugé bonde comparer les différents Etats candi- dats, d'affirmer que la Jordanie était un pays qui avait des "tendances expànsionnistes" et qui. faisait peser des "menaces constantes sur ses voisins", que le Portugal, "comme l'Espagne franquiste, [était] passé dans le camp de.l'Allemagne hitlérienne", que l'Irlande avàit "réservé. sa .sympathie à Hitler" et que l'Italie s'était "engagée de nouveau dans la voie d'une poli- tique d'agression", s'étant assoeiée au "pacte agressif de l'Atlantique Nord". Et M. Malik de poursuivre en déclarant que ces faits font pleinement ressortir .le caractère hypocrite de l'attitude adoptée par les Etats:' Unis et le Royaume-Uni. 24. Je n'ai pas l'intention de prendre la défense des délégations des Etats-Unis et du Royaume-Uni. Cependant, si le représentant de· J'Union soviétique croit vraiment cequ~il nous dit, nous ne pouvons·tous qu'éprouver une certaine surprise en constatant que Sa délégation propose d'admettre ces mêmes pays à notre Organisation. En effet, le représentant de l'URSS 25. Of course, my delegation strongly opposes the views of the Soviet Union delegation relating ta these eùutltries so unjustly attacked by the representative of the Soviet Union. Since the beginning of the consider- ation of this item both by the Security Council and by the General Assembly, my delegation has, on several occasions, expressed the opinion that the question oi the·admission of each country should - in accordance with the Charter as weIl as with the at\visory opinion of the Intemationar Court of Justice-' he examined individually, and that consent to the admission of any one applicant cannot be made dependent upon condi- tions not expressly provided by paragraph l of Article 4 . Q~tlie€harter. 26. Take, for instance, the case of Ital)". This peace- 10ving and democratic country, whose people represent one of the oldest cultures of the world, has been pre- vented from bringing its invaluable contribution to the United Nations as the result of the improper procedure adopted by one delegation. We are quite ready ta support the admission of most of the countries enumerated in the Soviet Union draft resolution, provided that each candidacy is examined separately. . 27. The representative of the Soviet Union, in his speech at our preceding meeting, contended further that there was not a single provision in the Charter which was contrary to the simultaneous admission of a îiuniber ofcountries, and to back his argument he men- tioned the case of a draft resolution submitted by Mr. Johnson, the representative of the United States, at the 54th meeting of the Security Council on 28 August 1946. He was generous enough ta. add that he mentioned these "facts" for the benefit of the Turkish represelltative. May 1 remind the representative .of the Soviet Union that, first of aU, the draft resolution then presented by the United States representative, Mr~ Johnson, although it contained the naItles ofeight coul1tries, .' made no r~ference whatsoever to their simuitaneùus admission. As a matter of fact, no one should .make conditions other than those existing. in the Charter - not even the representative of the Soviet Union. 28.. May 1 take t1:.. opportunity to draw the attention of the representative of the Soviet Union to another and more interesting fact? At the 55th meeting of the SecurityCou~cil, which was held in the afternoan of 28 August 1946,Mr. Gromyko addressed the Council and made the· following statement in connexion with the United States draft resolution: ... "Ieannot ay,ree that we should adopt resolutions for the wholesale admission te.'the Organization of 28. Je me permettrai, à cette oc<:asion, d'attirer l'attention du représentant de l'Union soviétique sur un autre fait encore plus. intéressant. A la 55ème séance du Conseil de sécurité, tenue dans l'après-midi du 28 août 1946, M. Gromyko a pris la parole et, commentant le projet de résolution des EtatsMUnis, il a fait la déclaration suivante: "Je ne puis accepter que nous décidions d'admet- tre indistinctement dans l'Organisation tous les 32. The Soviet Union delegation will now probably contend that the applications. have already been indivi- duaIly exarnined and that now the whole question boil~ down toa wholesaleadmission. But we cannât byanj stretch .of imagination interpret the provision con- ce:rning. individual examinatioll of appl~cants.as some- thing ·different· from meaning individuai admission as weil. . 33. For the above-mentioned reasons and inal1 sin- cerity, my delegation suggests that we act' in harmony with the provisions of the Charter, and with the spirit of the Charter, by consi,dering the admission of each country separately,' and take a decision on the merits of each individual case. 34..Mr. KYROU (Greece): l do not know whether it is the intention of the representative of the Nether- lands to move formally his suggestion to refer the whole question before us to the next session Of the General Assembly. If he submits silch a proposaI, my delegation, for one, would.be ready to vote for it, for exactly the same reasons so eloquently exptessed by Mr. von Balluseck....- but,. of course, with one condition: that t.ltere be submitted to the General Assemblya detailed report such as is implied in paragraph 2 of resolution 506 A (VI)adopted at the sixth session of the General Assembly. . 35.Mv delegation. as is true ofalmostevery other deleg,!~ion'in the Security Council, hasvery oftencome' ta grips \Vith our Soviet Union colleague. That, how- ever,has' never hindered us from paying due respect !ohis .abilities and from feeling sony novi at his . unpendmg departure. We knew, of course, that 29. M. Gromyko a ajouté: uC'estpvurquoi on ne peut ciécider d'un seul coup d'admettre les hl':dt pays pris ensemble sans examiner séparément. chacune des ..demandes." 30. A notre avis, cette déclaration de M. GromYkO, exacte en elle-même, n'était même pas n~essaire, puisqùe la proposition des Etats-Unis ne faisait aucune allusion à une' admisêion simultanPê et en bioc. 31. C'est en ces t~mes que la dé1ég'ation de l'Union soviétique a exprimé; en 1946, son opinion sur la ques- tion de l'admission en bloc de nouveaux Membres, bien que la délégation des Etats-Unis n'ait nullement demandé l'admission simultanée des huit Etats. Je regrette vivement que la' délégation de. l'Union, sovié- tique. ait mah"ltenant modifié sa position .à l'igard de ce même problème, car ce changement de pooition empêche notre Organisation de bénéficier de la contri- bution qu'un grand nombre de ces pays poutr:;lient lui apporte'r.· , 32. La. délégation d~ l'Unions~viétique va probable- ment nous dire. maintenant que les demandes d'adtnis- sion ont déw. 'faIt 1'ohjetd'un examen individuel et qu'il ne s'agit' plus à présent que. d'une.adU1ission .collective. M:ais auçuneffo!"t G.al'i.üaginatioti né pourra 'IlOUS anlener à-interpréter les dispositions relatives à l'examen individuel des candidatures comme signifiant autre chose qu'une admission individuelle. 33.Pdur les raisons que je viens d'exposer, ma délé- gationestimè; en toute sincérité; que nous devons agir conformement· aux,dispositiotis de la Charte et dans l'esprit de la Charte, én examinant séparément la candidature de' chaque pays et en prenant, dans chaque cas, une décision.entièrement indépendante. 34. M. KYROU (Grèce)' (tradu.it. de l'anglais): J'ignore si le représentant des Pays-Bas. a l'intention, de saisir formellement le Conseil de sa proposition' tendant à 'renvoyer à la prochaine sessioll de J'Assem- blée générale l'ensemble de laqu~stion. S'il pr~sent§jt une telle proposition, ma'·délégation l'appuieràit préd- sémentpour les raisons exposées avec tant d'éloquence par M. von Bal!useck. mais, évidemment, à une. condi- tion : que l'Assemblée générale soit, saisie.d'un rapport détaillé comme. celui. auquel fait allusion le paragraphe 2 du dispositif. de larét\olution 506 A (VI) adoptée par l'Assemblée-générale à sa .sixième session. . 35. Ma délégation,'comme presque tout~~Jes déléga- 'tions représentées au Conseik.de sécurité, a bien souvent eu maille à . partir avec ..•notre,•collègue de l'Union soviétique, ce qui ne nous a cependant jamais empêchés de rendre dûment hommage à son habileté, ni de regretter son départ imminent. Certes, nous 36. Ml'. Malik attacked other members of the Secur- ity Council as inconsistent in their policy towards the question of the admission of new Members. It seems that he regards himself as being very conatant in this questi(\n - as constant, to repeat the words of Shake- speare, "as the northem star, of whose true-fuc.'d and resting quality there is no fellow in the firmament". 37. May 1 give sorne proofs of this constancy. Ml', Sarper has just reminded us that our Soviet Union colleague, in bis statement yesterday, attacked Jordan as a country with "expansionist aims and constant threats to its neighbours". He attacked Portugal as having· "collaborated with hitlerite Germany". He atta<:ked Ire1and as having "sympathized with Hitler" rather than with those who fought against his tyranny. He attacved ltaly, saying that dter "baving bare1y recovered from the catastrophe which overtook it as a re"-llt of the irresponsible aggressive policy of ltalian fâ....:ism, it is again embarked·on a course of 'aggres- sion". And yet, as the representative of Turkey has just pointed out,these four States - with their "expan- sionist", "aggressive" a~d ~'hitlerite" aims - are pre- sented by the ·same Ml'. Malik for admission to the United Nations inhis omnibus proposaI S/2664. Furthermore, our Soviet Union colleague, true to his consistent policy, finished his statement yesterday by. threaténingagaioto. veto these same four States if their .applications were taken up separately in con- formity with Article 4 of the Charter. 38.. Mr. Malikadvised us. yesterday to ponder the proceedings· of the Security CouncWs 53r': meetL: l, of 16 August 194<l, wben the fepresen:ative of the Ul1ited States,atthat time Mr..Herschel Johnson, -submitted aproposal.recommending to ·the General Assembly that it . admit ·eight countries. to membership. namely, Afgbanistan~ Albania, Iceland, Ir.eland, the: Monogolian "~x.pansionniste", "agressive" et "prohitlérienne". D'autre part, fidèle à sa politique traditionnelle, notre collègue de l'Union soviétique a terminé sa déclaration d'hier en menaçant d'opposer son veto à l'admission de ces quatre Etats au cas où leurs demandes seraient examinées séparément, ainsi que le prévoit l'A.Jcle 4_de la Charte. :\8,- Hier, M. Malik nous n. invités à méditer sur les -iébats quise sont déroulés à la 53ème séance du Conseil de sécurité, tenue le 16 août- 1946, au moment ou le représentant des Etats-Unis, qui était alors M. Herschel Johnson, a. soumis.· une proposition recommandant à l'Assemblée générale d'admettre à l'Organisation huit pays, à savoir l'Afghanistan, "We believe that one of the important constructive acts of the coming Assembly meetings should be the logical ne.."<.t step; the expansion of membership to include aIl presently eligible applicants" - 1 repeat the word "eligible". "The Organization cannot afford to function any longer than is absolutely necessary with0ut the co-operation'of evcry qualified State" - 1 repeat the word "qualified". 39. 1 saw in the records of the 55th meeting of the Security Council of 28 August 1946, that Mr. Johnson was "agreeable to accepting the suggestion of the repre- sentative of the Soviet Uniol'l to withdraw" bis motion. The representative of the United States added the Iollowing words: "1 am particularly ready and willing toaccept that suggestion because it cornes from him" - that is, Mr. Gromyko - "and it is quite evident that it would be the vote of the Soviet Union which woufd black the passage of this resolution ..." 40. But at this same 55th meeting of 28 August 1946, the best arguments were advanced, some six years ago, against the Soviet Union drél..f't proposaI which is now under consideration. They were advanced by the representative of the Soviet Union, Mr. Gromyko, in such an excellent way that 1 would ask permission to quote them if they had not already been quoted by Mr. Sarper. Let me add that the representative of the Soviet Union at this time tnok such a strong stand in defence of Artkle 4 of the Charter, while the applications of the eight countries in question had been thoroughly examined by the Security Council's Committee on the Admission of New Members, under the Chairmanship of the Polish alternate representative, Mr. Michalowski. The representative of Pakistan, in his quiet manner, reminded us yesterday, at the outset of our meeting, that at least one of the fourteen States enumerated in the Soviet Union proposaI, that is, Libya, has never had a chance of seeing its qualifications for admission examined separately. 41. What 'can a modest representative of a small cou.ntry say further, in defence of Article 4, after this brilliant exposé by, Mr. Gromyko? .42. The Soviet Union proposal is presented to GS as being based on the principle of universality. That principle is indeed the very cornerstone of the United ~.ations and, consequently, all our, efforts should be directed towards tha.t .end. But' the USSR draft esolution starts out from a,false interpretation of the 43. True, the idea of univ.ersality is implicit in the Charter, but at the same time the Charter takes care ta specify in precise terms that the principle can be applied only subject to certain conditions, and that the candidat~s for admission must satisfy certain requirements. To set aside those conditions by admitting candidates en bloc, when some of them are, to say the least, not qua1ified for admission, would be a flagrant violation of the principles of the Charter, inc1uding the principle of universality. .. 44. The principle of universality implies that there shall be no discrimination and that the standards laid down in Article 4 shall be applied to all with equal impartiality .and objectivity. In domestic law, the prin,ciple of. universality finds its expression in equality -before the law,; the equa)ity of burdens as well as of rights.. Thus, in the countries where military service is compulsory for all, the' recruiting boards eliminate all those who are not suitable for service in the armed forces, bût that of course does not rrtean that they break the rul~_ of equality of burden. In the'democratic coun- tries, a'l citizens, on the' other hand, can apply for a post in the administration. That does· net mean, -_ howeveJ;'~ that once you are a candidate you are bound ta be admitted ._or that a selection of the best qualified violates the principle of equal rights. 45. The representative of the Soviet Union is well .aware of the defects of his proposaI. That is perhaps why· he dropped from an absolutely identical proposai, submitted by him .to the Security Council in Paris .and yotéd dewn at the 573rd meeting of 16 February 1952, the preanible statirig that the Security Council had examined the applications for admission. The' representative of the Sovîet Union realized indeed that the real meaning of bis proposaI is precisely that the applications shàll not he examirted at all. For the same reasons, perhaps, Ml'. Malik tried yesterday to persuade us that .the five people's democrades, included of course in his proposaI, were qualified for admission under Article 4, being "peace-loving States which accept the obligations contained in the Charter and wbich, in the judgment of.the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations". 46. That is his contention,- My modest contention is a\;solutely the opposite. Ta give only one example, when Mr. Malik tried yesterday topersuade us that the Romanian People's Republic is a peace,.loving country where human rights are applied in toto, and where not a single discriminatory act is put into effect , against national, political or econo.rnÎc. minorities, Icould .answer him by dwelling on the decree of the Bucharest Government published in Supplement No. 9 of- the Official Bulletin. of 16 Fe1;lruary of this year and providing the base and directives for the forcible 47. 1 could enumerate thousands of analogous cases of the application of human rights in the five people's democracies proposed for admission by Mr. Malik, or 1 could give the Security Council sorne specimens demonstrating their peace-Ioving charader. 1 shaH not do so, because that would be tny own contention, and 1 would never dream, as Mr. Malik does, of the Security Council's adopting a resolution on the ques- tion of the admission of new Members on the ba~is of one '.telegation's contention. 48. There is, however, a point in the Soviet Union represelltative's argumentation on which l should like to insist before concluding. Mr. Malik argues that the opposition to the admission of Albania, Bulgaria, Hun- gary, Romania and the Mongolian People's Republic is due only to the internaI structure of these countries. That, of course, does not correspond to the fads. Yugoslavia is a communist State, also, but that does not prevent my own country and aU other non- communist Member nations of this Organization from having peaceful and friendly relations with it. 49. My delegation will vote against the Soviet Union draft resolution for the reasons which 1 have explained, although we should readily vote for the admission to the United Nations of nine States enumerated in theproposal-that is, Finland, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Austria, .Ceylon, Nepal and Libya. The Greek people feel extremely sorry that the Soviet Union veto is keeping these countries out of the United Nations, where they could be of such value. We consider that theyare fully eîigible for membership on the basis of Article 4 of the Charter. That is yët another reason why we cannet vote for their adnlission - not because they have not the qualifications for membership, but because they would be unwilling partners in a horse trade. 51. My delegation is opposed to that proposaI. My delegation has three reasons for taking that stand. 52. My first reason is that the fourteen States urged ~pon ~s for simultaneous admission to the United Nations do not include the Republic of Korea. 1s it necessary for me to remind the members of the Council that the Government of the Republic of Korea was the result of free and fair popular electi.ons certified to us by a United Nations Commission to be free and fair? Is it necessary for me ta remind the members of the Council that certain governments of a number of those States included were not based on free and fair popular elections? The standard of inclusion and exclusion in the Soviet Union proposition is biased and unfair and cannot be justified. As the represen- tative of the Republic of China, 1 must put this reason at the forefrontbecause we Chinese regard the people of Korea as our brothers. For haH a century we have helped the Korean people, in whatever way we could, ta become independent. 1 feel that the right of the Republic of Korea to be admitted to the United Nations is not inferior to that of any other applicant. That is my first reason. 53. My second reason i5 that admission to the United Nations must be by indhidual State. That is' the Charter requirement. The Charter sets certain condi- tions for membership. Those condi.tions and qualifica- tions are the conditions and qualifications of individual States. They cannot be the conditions and qualifications of a g-roup of States. How Article 4 of the Charter should he interpreted has been authoritatively stated' by the International Court. We cannot expect a more authoritative interpretation of that Article. There the Advisory Opinion of the Court tells us that we cannot condition the admission of any State by the . admission of other States. That is definite. The speakers who have preceded me, particularly the repre- sentatives of Turkey and Gr,- ~e, have called our attention to the argument of the Soviet Union representative mi a similar occasion in 1946. Then Mr. Gromykoheld an opinion in strict conformity with the Charter, and it tumed out to be in conformity with the Advisory Opinion of the Court. For this reason - that the Charter requires us toadmit Members only one by one - 1 formally request the President to put the fourteen names in the Soviet Union draft· resolution to a vote separately. 1 make thatrequest in accordance' with artic1e32 of our rules of procedure. 1 am. aware that -that rule regarding 54-. What are we going to do if the original mover should object to a separate vote? Here is a case where a verbal, a literaI adherence ta the words of the rule, forces the Security Council to violate the Charter. That is what we are faced ,vith. The Charter, as interpreted by the International Court of Justice, requires that we admit applicants one by one. vVe must adhere to that. Vve cannot, by slavishly adhering to the words of the rule, violate the Charter. Under your presidency, Mr. President, l hope the Security Council would not be the organ, to violate the Charter. It is naturally open to the mover of this proposition to raise objections or to agree to a separate vote. If he should agree, l will say his draft resolution in its fomml aspects - l would not saYi in the sub- stanti<.tl aspects - if he should agree to a separate vote on each one of the fourteen names - his draft resolu- tion would, in this formaI aspect, be in conform_~ywith the Charter. If he should object to a separate vote on each one of the fourteen names, his draft resolution, even in its formaI aspects, would be in contradiction to the Charter and, in my humble opinion, such a draft resolution should be ruled as being out of order. 55. That is my second reason for objecting to the Soviet Union draft resolution, name1y it asks for admission by package, not admission by individual States. We can meet the occasion by adhering to the Charter and acting in conformity with the Charter- that· is, by debating and acting on each of the fourteen names separately. As far as my delegation is concemed, l consider that the Charter leaves us no a\ternative. If we should be forced to a vote on the draft resolution as a whole without a preliminary separate vote, l will vote against the draft resolution. That is my second reason. 56. l have a third reason. Frankly, this draft reso- lution includes certain States which in my opinion are not qualified to he Members of the United Nations. Yes- terday the representative of the Soviet Union spoke here for about fifty minutes. The mimeographed verbatim record of his speech OCCUP;f;S twenty pages. Out of twenty pages he devoted seven pages, more than one- third of the speech, to a glorification of the so-called people's democracies. He would have us believe that those so-called people's democracies have· made enûrmous progress - politically, economically and socially- and that otherStates, whose admission is advocated by the other members here, have lagged behind and are shamefully expansionist or reactionary. ctcelebration competitions". 60. Let us talœ Hungary, for example. Let us see :what kind of celebrations they had in the nine mOi1ths starting with August 1950 and ending with April 1951 - celeorations in which the working class wassupposed to make additional sacrifices. First of aU, the first week of August· was called Korean Week. The working men were urged to work extra hour~ and. to work harder for the glory of Korea. Secondly, .there was a competiti0n to commemorate the day of the Hungarian Constittltion. That period of·.competition was set for the second and third weeks of August 1950. Thirdly, there was a competition to commemorate the tenth , anniversary of· the day wh()n Mateos Ra.kosi left his Hungarian .prison. That 'compe~ition was set for the first part of September 1950. Fourthly, there wasa competition to celebrate the thirty~thil'd anni- versary of the Bolshevik Revolution. That competition was set for the second part of September 1950. Fifthly, there was a competition in honour of the elections to the Hungarian.local soviets. That competition covered the month. of October 1950. Sixthly, there was a competition.to accomplish the Plan for the Year 1950 before the expiration of the year. That cavered October, November and December of 1950. Seventhly, there was a competition in honourof Comrade Stalin's . birthday. Thatalso covered part of December 1950. Eighthly,there was a competition in honour of the Secol1d Congress of the Hungarian Workers' Party. That wassetfor January and February 1951. Ninthly, there was acompetitionto celebrate "Liberation Day", which is supoosed··to be on 4 April. That covered the month ... of March 1951.. Tenthly, there was .a competition.to celebiate the first day of May. That competition co'vered· themonth of April 1951. 63. l Gannot understand how anyone can regard such conditions as heavenly even though such conditions should be labelled communist. The Soviet Union representative talks a great d.~d.l about progress in the so-called people's democracies. Let me tell you some- thing about progress in Hungary. If you compare the purchasing power of the workman's wage in 1938 with 1952, this question can be asked: how much could the workman's monthly wage buy in 1938 and and agaiti in 1952? A workman's monthly wage in 1938 could buy 1,275 eggs; in 1952 it could buy 350 eggs. In 1938 that monthly wage could buy 930 kil0grammes of potatoes; in 1952 it could b1,1y 175 kilogrammes of potatœs. In 1938 that wage could buy 450 kilogrammes of spinach; in 1952 it could buy 105 kilogrammes of spinach. l will read one more statistic in regard to nood1es. In 1938 the monthly . wage would buy 102 kilogammes of noodles; in 1952 that monthly wage would b~y only 43 kilogrammes of noodles. These are the facts about progress in the so-called people's democracies. l have only cited the lot.of the normal man, the accepted normal man. 64. How about those classes and groups which have been discriminated against, which have been dishonoured and considered as dishonourable by the present régime? Of .course, they have been liquidated, they have been deported. and they have been kept under tock and key by. the police. That is the fate of those classes which are not considered to be honourable by the so- called people's democracies. 65. We heard a great deal about progress and welfare 65. On nous a beaucoup pàrlé des progrès' accomplis in these east European States. l have before me a dans ces Etats de l'Europe orientale et du bien-être summary of present conditions in Eastern Europe qui y règne. J'ai sous les yeux un artide résumant written by a well-knowll journalist, Leland Stowe. la situation actuèlle dans ces pays; l'auttur est un This. .summary was published on 28 July 1952 jn a journaliste bien connu, Leland Stowe. Cet article a number of newpapers in this country. There was a paru le 28 juillet 1952 dans un certain nombre de series of articles, but l shall read to the Council only journaux américains. M. Stowe a consacré une série from Mr~ Stowe'ssummary of the present state of d'articles à la question, mais je me bornerai à donner Eastern Europe which appeared in the Washington lecture aux membres du Conseil de quelques passages L. Post: . . de l'article portant sur la situation ?ctuelle de l'Europe "\Vhat have the Soviets accomplished in eastern Europe? "They have made the eastern European countries prisoners of the Kremlin. Their resources are directed solely to the building-up of Soviet power. "They have controlled the life of every individual - from infants to great grand-parents, from workers to women, from bankers to beggars, from peasants to' poets, from teachers to preachers, from contraltos to coffin makers. "They have suppressed theindependence of chur- ches of every creed. They are subverting religious organizations to the political objectives of the Kremlin. "They have placed more than one mïllion eastern Europeans in prisons and slave-labour camps. They are expanding these accommodations toward a goal of several million more slaves. "They have destroyed .all political opposition. They are embarked upon liquidation of the upper and' l't).Ïddle classes, through slow starvation, mass deport;Ltions and death sentence 'justice'. "They have perverted education. . They are russianizing the cultures, history, literature, science, arts and traditions of the east European countries. "They are well-advanced toward communizing the younger gen~ration, nearly' 20 million young people bell;)\V the age of twenty-one. "In reality Soviet Russia extends today to Berlin and VieIina. The red Russians hold and rule more of Europe than theimperial Turksat the peak of their power". 66. We heard also about the removal of foreign capital. exploitation from these east European coun- tries. We were told yesterday thatRomania, Bulgaria and Hungary werenow much happier because they did nof have to pay tribute any longer to' the monopo- listic capitalists of the United States and the United Kingdom.. But c they have in these countries a new institution. called J'jointcompanies" - joint companies for thee.xploitation Of naturalresources, for transporta- tion, for aviation and for a multitude of ~JUrposes. 1 shall not take the trouble to detai'lhere tile practical contractual .relationsbetweetl the partners, wmch are the.. Soviet. ,Union,..on the one·, side, and' the other State-it may beBulgaria, Romania or Albania- on the other.• l would simply say this. If the Anglo- Iranian Oil Company could obtain from Iran the same. terms of .co-operation that the Soviet Union bas obtainedin R6mania, BulgariaorHungary, 1 think the stockholder~. of that company. and the British Govermnent would be more than thankfu!. 67.' Privatecompacles have been liquidated :.intheir place we haveag:iganticgovernment taking the form of commercial companies going abroad to exploit the "Ils ont· enfermé plus d'un million de persormes de l'Europe orientale dans des prisons et des camps d'esclavage. Ila agrandissent ces installations en vue d'y enfermer plusieurs millions d'esclaves. "Ils ont détruit toute opposition politique. Ils ont entrepris de liquider les classes supérieures et moyennes, en les soumettant au régime de la mort lente, à des déportations en masse et à une "justice" faisant grand usage de la peine de mort. "Ils ont perverti l'enseignement. Ils russifient la culture, l'histoire, la littérature, la science, les arts et les traditions des pays de l'Europe orientale. "Ils ont entrepris de communiser la jeune géné- ration, soit près de 20 millions de jeunes gens âgés de moins de 21 ans, et cette opération est en bonne voie. "En réalité, l'Union soviétique s'étend aujourd'hui jusqu'à Vienne et jusqu'à Berlin. En Europe, la Russie rouge possède et d""nine un territoire plus étendu que celui qui éta: )lmtis à la Turquie impériale au faîte de sa pUIssance." 66. On a déclaré que les pays dl" l'Europe orientale avaient été libérés de l'exploitation des capitalistes étrangers. On nous a dit hier que la Roumlie, la Bulgarie et la Hongrie mènent actuellement L ~ vie infiniment plus heureuse parce qu'elles n'ont 1- us à verser de tribut aux capitalistes et aux monopoles des Etats-Unis et du Royaume-Uni. Mais ces pays possè- dent maintenant de nouvelles institutions connues sous le nom de "compagnies mixtes" -compagnies mixtes d'exploitation des ressources naturelles, des transports, de l'aviation et de nombreuses autres activités. Je ne prendrai pas la peine d'exposer en détailles relations contractuelles qui existent dans la pratique entre les associés, à savoir, d'une part, l'Union soviétique, et, d'autre part, l'autre Etat, que ce soit la Bulgarie, la Hongrie ou l'Albanie. Je me bornerai à dire que, si l'Anglo-Iranian Oil Company pouvait obtenir de l'Iran les conditions de collaboration que l'Union soviétique a obtenues en Roumanie, en Hongrie ou en Bulgarie, je suis certain que les actionnaires de cette compagnie et. le Gouvernement britannique seraient plus que satisfaits. 67. Les 'sociétés privées ont été supprimées. A leur place, se trouve une adrninistratior: gigantesque qui prend la forme de sociétésc()mmerciales qui vont 69. l believe that in order to he admitted to t.h.e United Nations, nations must meet certain minimum conditions which are not set down in writing in the Charter. \iVhy were these conditions not set down in writing? The framers of the Charter did not think it necessary to put them in writing because they thought the conditions coU'ld be taken for· granted. But, to the surprise of aIl of us, we' have in recent years seen political phenomena of which the framers of the Charter never dreamed iIi 1945. 70. 'What are sorne of the conditions which Ithink should be honoured by all of us,' even though they are unwritten? 71. First, to he a Member of the United Nations a State must be independant. Do any of us believe that the Mongolian People's Republic, Albania, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary are independant today? Dictation from the Kremlin is as automatic aspush- button action. That condition of independence is one of the unwritten Iaws of this Organization. l believe . we have the right and the obligation to honour that unwritten ,article of our Charter. 72. Secondly, no government desiring membership in the United Nations should mIe by murder. That is another unwritten artide of the Charter which l believe We' should honour. l believe we are morally obliged to exclude from our Organization govern- ments which mIe by murde!. 73. It is because the five States do not meet these minimum standards which civilized society takes for granted that my delegation can in no. circumstances agree to their admission to the United Nations. 74.. The United Nations is faced with the question of admission. We must .admit, a,nd my del~tion would be glad to vote for the admission of, a large number . 75. But there is another question, in addition to that of admission, before this body. l refer to the question of expulsion. Should we not expe~ Members which do not live up ta the elementary conditions which are unwritten in our Charter, namely, that States should be independent and governments should not mIe by murder?: 76. For the three reasons which I have given, my delegation feels obliged to vote against the Soviet Union draft resolution. I would repeat my request to the President that each of the fourteen countries list- edin the draft resolution should be put to the vote separately. 77. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): The Soviet Union ciraft resolution shows clearly on its face the theory., that a certain grou\) of applicants for admission selected by the Soviet Utiion should be simuitaneously recommended for admission. Repeat- edl: the Soviet Union representative has referred to this group as "aIl the fourteen States". Yet, as the members of the Security Cauneil are aware~ there .are considerably more than fourteen applications before us. 78. The United S~ates cannot accept this Soviet. Union draft resolutil,)n as if it were accordance with the Charter and with the first paragraph of mIe 60 of the Security Couneil's rules of procedure. The United States believes that each applicant for member- ship is entitled to separate consideration of its appli- cation tested by· the criteria contained in Article 4 of the Charter. There are certain applicants contained in the Soviet Union omnibus ciraft resolution which my Government deems are not qUaJlified for member- ship.There are others, which in thejudgment 'Of my' Government, have the strongest claim for membership and which,are needed by the Organization. There are still others such as the Republic of Korea, to mention one example, which the Soviet Union does not include in the group it hasselected. We are opposed to the adoption, ,of a draft resolution simultaneously recommendingsuch a group of applicants, some with sound and sorne with un,sound qualifications for membership. 79,' 'SpP..:ifically, ,the United States has confidence thatAustria, Ceylon, Finland, Ireland, ltaly, Jordan, Liby~, Nepaland Portugal are fully qualified and should' he, admitted to membership. 80; •On the other hand, we have serious objections based- on our considered judgment that the following candidates do ngt fulfill the conditionsrequired by Article 4 of the Charter: Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary2 Outer Mongoliaand Romania.. In connexion with Outer Mongolia we continue ta see no' facts in the 81. The representative of the Soviet Union has come forward with sorne evidence which he thinks bears on the candidatures of Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. There are facts with which we are prepared to come forward on the question of the lack of fitness of these candidates for membership. We are prepared to discuss these, as aIl candidatures, separately and on their merits and have the Couneil weigh the evidence and reach its deeisions accordingly. 82. With an adequate majority of the present Members of the United Nations, the United States has long hoped for the admission of Anstria, Ceylon, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Libya, Nepal and Portugal. Thus we have our own opinion - and we have expressed it - on whether or not each applicant for membership meets the requirements of the Charter. 83. We respect the views of the majority of the Security Couneil and of the General Assembly. There has been no instance in which ::'. drait resolution dealing with the question of membership, or with any other question, has failed of adoption in the Security Couneil because of the negative vote of the United States. In other words, the United States has never vetoed a draft resolution of the Security CouÏ1eil. Of course, we have voted against meinber- ship applications which we felt did not measure up to the requirements of the Charter, but in no instance have these applications received seven affirma- tive votes, so that in no case .has the United States vote alone prevented a recommendation by the Council. 84. To argue that any ne",aative vote of a permanent member of the Security Couneil is a "veto" is simply to playon words. A negative vote becomes a veto only when it thwarts the will of the majority. That is wha\: the Soviet Union has done repeatedly; It has vetoed and thereby thwarted the majority will on membership twenty-three times. To take one example, the applica- tion of Italy, this has been before the Security Couneil on five .seperate occasions. On five separate occasions the Soviet Union has prevented a favourable recom- rnendatiCin of Italy by casting a negative vote. In February of 1952 the vote in the SecurityCouncil was ten in favour, the Soviet Union opposed. 85. We deplore this Soviet Union policy of using its negative vote in the Sec\lt'ity Cauneil to frustrate action by the Couridl. The Soviet Union represen- tative tells us, in effect~ that it i5 he alone who determines what is legal and illegal under the· Charter and that the question. of membership can. be. settled only on his terms. Yesterday he brandished the veto over the heads'of this Couneil to try to force the majority to submit to his vièws. 8i At a later stage in our discussion, under snb-item 2 (c) of the agenda, l shaH have something to say about fue so~called new applications for membership, and in that connexion 1 shaH tht', speak on the United Statesdraft resolution [Sj2754] in support of Japan's just daim ta sitamong us. However, there is one applicant·· for membership,.~not hcluded b. the list contained in the Soviet. Union: !'esoltitiol1, which has a peculiarly close connexion with the United Nations. 1 refer, of .course, ta the Republic of Korea, where United Nations forces have been freeing the Republic of Korea from invasion since June of 1950, in the face ofaggressicn which issupportedby the very State which would exc1ùde it from the United Nations. The United States will not forget the just daim of the Repubiic of Korea to membership in this Organi- zation. :). Finally, .L.~e United States· has no ultimatum to present to the Security Couneil, such as: solve the membershipquestion .incJhisparticular way, Jr it can nevetbe solved. Ourposition, as wehave ~aid before, isthat there isnever a last wod or a final -ehapter in the work of a living organization capable ofgrowth and. adjustment to .changed çirçumstances. We shaH continue toseek. a wayby which the States cçmforming ... io the requirernents of the Charter, in the opinion of the appropriate organs. can·~ invited to ceme in and joïn us. g9.. !·For. tfiese reasons .tlle tirlited States will not support .the. Soviet Uniondraft. resolution. 90.. MT•. COULSON ·(United Kîngdom).:r do not pt9pose .•to •goint'J an ofthè' points. which. were made yésterday bytherepr~sentative cf the .Sqvi~t Union ..'~n bis .very long..§~~ch. These. points have~';dl. been .raisedfreqnent1ybe1o~and the. rea! fact$ are penectl! wê1!knQ",nt?us'aIL l refet, for instance. ta hisstrarl~e andun"'arrantedcont~titil)n.tflatany .negative vote '·'or apermanentfi~mber i~ re'Jll).~;yeto. '<.tVe have 91. There is, however, one point which has not cropped up sa recently and which 1 would like to mention. During his statement, the representative of the Soviet lTnion ~\'Iid that the United States and the United Kingdom were flagrantly violating their en- gagements under international treaties. He alleged that under the Potsdam Agreement and the terms of the Peace Treaties with Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary, the United Kingdom and United States Governments had assumed obligations to support the admission of these three countrief. to the United Nations, This is an srgument which we have heard before and it is again necessary ior me to point out that it is unfol1nded. tr-cl~tés d'appuyer la demande d'admission de certains pays, dont la Hongrie, la Roumanie et la Bulgarie. Le préambule des traités de,paix auquel le représe~tant de l'Union soviétique a fait allusion contient la clause spivanie: " .' permettantalnsi aux Puissances alliées et ass.ociées d'appuyer les demandes que. '.. présentera pour devenir Membre de l'Organisation des Nations Unies". Il est claii" que cette clause qui figure dans l'Accord de Potsdam, aussi bien que dans les traités de paix, ne fait que conférer un pouvoir et qu'elle n'a aucune force obligatoire. Elle ne constitue pas une obligation, elle énonce simplement un fait: les signataires auraient pouvoir d'appuyer ;) demandes. 93. Je tiens à préciser ce fait, car' la théoriè qu'a reprise ici M. Malik risque de donner une impression entièrement fausse, à savoir que nous sommes tenus dans tous les cas d'appuyer les demandes d'admission de ces pays. 94. Je passe maintenant à l'attitude adoptée par Je Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni enf;:e qui concerne le principal point de notre ordre du Jour relatif à rad~ ministration de nouveaux Membres. Au début de l'année, nous avens longuement exposé cette attitude, tant à l'Assemblée générale qu'au Conseil'de sécurité. Je ne vais donc pas m'attarder aujourd'hui sur les motifs qui ont. déte1'miné cette attitude, et je me bor- nerai à en,rappeler très brièvement l'essentiel. 95. Le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni attache une ,grande importance à l'élargissement de la base même de l'Organisation des Nations Unies, et nousregrettons vivement que tant 'de pays si dignes'.d'être Membres en soientactuelleitlent exclus. Le cas de l'Italie, dont ont parlé plusieurs orateurs précédents est patent; ,il faut l'e:x:aminerséparément, car ce pays s'est vu confier l'administration d'un, Territ9ire sous' tutelle. Il' y a d'autres Etats encore qui peuvent apporter un concours très précieux'au bon fonctionnement, de notre' Org2l.- nisation, Ceylan", paT. exemple, .dont le Royaume-Uni continue à appuyer énergiquement la demande. 95. The United Kingdom Govermnerit attaches great importance ta the broadening 6f the ha:;c: of the United Nati'ons, and we very much regret that so many . highly tneritoriaus countries,.are now being e:xc1ude~. An' obvious case, referred to by many other speakers" isthe candidature of, Italy, which must be treated asa spècial case becausetheadministration of a. Trust Territory nasbeen confided ta it. But there areother &a.ndidates which are also outstandinglyqualified to con,tribute to thisOrganization's ,work - for example, Cêylon, the application 'of whiclnhe U!'lte.d Kingdom GovebU11ent tontinues strongly to sUPP9trt. s~on de ces trois Etats dans l'Organisation. C'est là ua argument que nous avons déjà entendu, et, une fois de plus, je dois souligner qu'il ne repose sur aticuil fondement. 92. La déclaration de Potsdam prévoit que la conclu- ~ion de traités de paix permettra aux signataires des 97. In viewing the applications of the conntries named in the Soviet Union draft resolution from this stancipoint, we feel that most of the countries are fully qualified for membership, but there are sorne which can hardly at present be said to fulfil the co.nditions of Article 4ûf the Charter, even given the most liberal interpretation of that Article. Spani.~h): With the permission of the President, and grwl;'T7-Avec votre permission, Monsieur le Président, with the kind permission, of the representative of the et si le représentant de l'Union soviétique n'y voit pas Soviet. Union, l shall continue the brief remarks I. d'inconvénient, je vais poursuivre ma brève interv~n~ wish to make. " ,tion, , 104. At the sixth session of the General Assem1;>ly 104. A la sixième session de l'Assembiéegénérale et and at meetings of the Secilrity Couneil heldinParis, au cours des séances que le Conseil de sécurité a tenues my' delegation had an opportunity to state its views à Paris, ma délégatiûn a déjà eu l'occasion de se pro- Ï11connexion •with a similar draftresolution submitted noncer sur un projet de résolution de l'URSS,analogue by thé USSR. The Chilean deleg~tion abstained from à celui dont le Conseil est saisi aujourd'hui. La votingon that occasion and gave the .reasons for it~ délégation du Chili s'est abstenue lorsque ce projet attitude sothat Lthinkft is unnece~sary totepeat those de résolution a été mis' aux voix, et elle a exposé les reasonsnow. With regard to the;general problem ,of raisoiis~de~son attitude. J'estim€1 donc inutile de répé-

I still have two names on my list of representatives who have requested permis- sion ta speak. I suggest that we meet again on Friday morning and Friday aftemoon since there are several meetings of other United Nations bodies scheduled for tomorrow. If there is no objection, the next meet- ing of the Security Council will take place on Friday at 10.30 a.m. 106. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated jram Russian): I should like to confine myself to a short observation on the Chilean representative's speech. Experience of our work shows that abstention from voting in the Council does not help to solve the question we are discussing. Absten- tion is a we1!-tried method of the Anglo-American bloc, used in the Security Council for the purpose of frustrating proposaIs calculated to lead to a settle- ment of this question of admission of new Members. 107. Mr. SANTA CRUZ (Chile) (translated fr01n Spanish): I thank the represelltative of the USSR for the interest he takes in our attitude, an interest which he has not as yet demonstrated in the attitudes of· the great Powe.'s whieh have spoken so far in this debate. 1 must ask him to be a little patient, ta wait for the eomments which we shall make with regard ta the admission of new Members and not to give his own interpretation of our intentions in advance.

I can assure the Chilean representative that the Russian people and its representative have enough patience. They have never borrowed patience from anyone. 109. The PRESIDENT: The next meeting wil[ be held on Friday morning at 1O.JO a.m. The meeting rose at 6.10 p.m. 106. M. MALIK (Union des Républiques socialistes soviétiques) (traduit du. russe) : Je me bornerai à une brève observation à propos de la déclaration du repré- sentant du Chili. L'expérience de nos travaux montre qu'en s'abstenant lors du vote au Conseil on ne contribue nullement à régler la question dont nous sommes saisis. L'abstention est la méthode habituelle ~ùnt se sert le bloc anglo-américain pour faire échouer au Conseil de sécurité les propositions tendant à régler la question de l'admission de nouveaux Membres. 107. M. SANTA CRUZ (Chili) (trad1dt de l"espa- gnol): Je remercie le représentant de l'URSS de l'intérêt qu'il porte à notre attitude; il n'a pas fait preuve du même intérêt à l'égard de l'attitude des grandes Puissances dont les représentants sont inter- venus jusqu'ici dans le débat. Je lui demande de patienter un peu, d'attendre les observations que nous allons formuler au sujet de l'admission de nouveaux Membres et de se garder d'interpréter nos intentions à l'avance. 108. M:. MALIK (Union des Républiques socialistes soviétiques) (traduit du russe): Je puis donner au représentant du Chili l'assurance que le peuple russe et ses représentants ne manquent nulleItlent de patience et qu'il n'ont jamais eu besoin d'en emprunter. 109. Le PRESIDENT (traduit de l'anglais):. La prochaine séance a1.lra lieu vendredimatirt à 10 h. 30. La séanu est levéé à 18 h. 10. SALIS AGINU POil UNITiD NATIONS PUBLICATIONS DIPOSrrA'''iS DIS PUllICArlONS DIS NATIONS UNIfS IlEICI-.1CI "El.fth.rouclUiI." Pl.e. d. 1. CaMtl... lloA. AthAlIll. "1lIllIA-AIIIII1IllI 1ll1i••ill Sudlmlncanl S.A.. AlsI.. 100. hl.'. Ai.... MIlIALIA-AlII1UlII H. A.....c/lrd. USI.1"" St~ Sv4.e'f' ""-IftIl_ A'Me. et MN","nl. "a la ,_ lA. '4-n .ya d. '~rall........... W. H. Smith Il Su. 1'.fS rd ""-,,Ite·Mat, han... 1KIII'-HU'iII lArerr. S,llCcla.... Ca.lIIA ,ft. La ,... 1IIIIl-"''' Uv••ri. A,lr. Itu. Muleo ,.... Rio cla J••li.... ...., ltya".. l'...~ 2" Qu.aft St. Wwt. T.,ont•• b. P._. Unlvl"itli... lavII. "".He.. UtlIN-CIYWI T11\1 Ano.lllod NI"'p,p", .f Coyle.. Lt::.- ll~. Hou••• Colom... ClfiI-CIIlU Ultr.,r. Iv~." M.nedl lU. SI.Il.,.. .IIIA-CIIIIlI Comm.rci.1 Pc.u. !.!d. 211 H•••n Rtl. Sltulllrli. ClIlIMI/l-Cll11M111 U....rl lati.1 ttd•• Carroro 6a., 1.... ....". 11II, IlCA-IIIT'''ICA T,., H""""na,, Apt.., .., 1111. ilia J..a. IlIA L. C••• '"1,•• O'lt.IKy 411. la H .. ......UIYAIlA-yatlllKl'l...... Coo!<o.lov•••ky S,laov.tol. N•.-dlil Trfd. •,'..,Ir.I. 1I1lMlJII-IlNiMAlK Ei••, Mu.kt,urel. ln!.. N,rr.,.d. " Kllb.nh.v•• K. HMINleAN 1II.UlllC-I.PUJ. NMlIIlc.- lI.ro.r. pominie.n•• M.rc••l.. 4'. ~ d." Truillf.. ICUAIOI-ltUARlII lIb.e,r. Ci.ntlÏie.. B.. 362. Su.y.qull. IIY"- 15"11 Ub,.irie "l" R,n.l..one...'Egypt.... , Sir; Adly P••h•• C.l,•• 1lA11MAI.A "uDoud .. Cr•• ltd... 5 AvoAI~••u, U • • u.lomo!a. lIllI1 liltr.lri. "A r. Car.vol!.." laite poat.te III.'. '.rkII.,rift... llIlMIAS U...rr. P'N_"U". e.lb ... fa FII••t., t.....r..lpa. IIlIHA-HIIE QUorel Booi Il Stotl...ry c... "10H11. HlllII., NIlW Delhi. Po V.red.oll.ry le ~ • L1n"'l ehetty St.. M.d... 1. llIItllUlA-I_1I J.l...n P.mbtn,uft'•••UIUfti I.h.ri ... lIllI lC.t.b-Kh.ft.h D.ft"". 291 s... AVI' RU., T.hr.... 1Il1-IUIC M.ei...i.·. Bo..bho•• B.""'.d.· Dj.~.rt.. ..uNO-11IWII1 Hlb.",I.ft 6 •••••1 A,.nev lof".. CoM, ",orcl.1 'ulldingl. D.m. St,oot. Dulllift. IIUII. Ilum.t.ln·, •••bto.... lotd.. 15 AR.,ftlly ltood. T,l Aof'N. ItAlT-1T11II CIlI.ri S.A.. Vi. ChlOll.tto 14. MII.!le. UWIOlI-llhll L'l".lri. univorun•• "V.euth. &IIIIIA' J. Mamolu K.mor•• Mon~. m.... lIlor.lri. J. Sehumm.,. Lu••mlteu.ç. IIIIlIlCO-MmtÙI EdiT..,i.1 H.rmo. S.A.. Ign.er. Merile.1 41. M6lieo. D.F. IlmIlIUNIS-PlYS·Il$ N.V. M."iftu. Nijholf. llnlle Vo",h.ut ~. ·s.s••venh·II·. IIIW %ElllNl-1I0UVEllE.HWIII U. N. Aun. of New Z••I.nd, 'C.!'.6. 1011, W.llin,foft. IL. U1VAIOI-rA1VAIOI M.nu.1 N.v•• y CI... 1. Av.nld. III' 17, S.n S.lv.dor. ITHID/l-01111.11 A,_.u- ilti.i~"ttiri.. d. -Publlclt6. le. ID, Addf••~.b•• flllUlll_ RIUlIRII .....t••.iI••nl(ltI.~.uppl. 2, K..b1.hfu. HclGlnlri. " IftCllllUA Dr. R.mlro R.ml... V.. Mano,u•• D.N. NI.WAI-IIHYIII Jeh.ft .runc/t r.num Forl." K~. Au· .......t. 7A. C.I•• PAIIITl» T1t_.. le Th....., Fo" M.naien, Fra.. · Ilo.d. K.,••hl, 3. ,.bIlah.rs Unit.d liai., 176 Anorhll. b. he,•• IUJlCE Edition. A;P~•••• 13 rue Soulll.t. ,.".V. Oràol'$ ancllnllulrtes from counm. wh.r. saliS "lIents hllV' not l'ot bien ÇIIppolniod lIIay ft ..nt tOI Sales ,ncl ClrcuJ.tionSfttl.n, Unltlll Nallona, New Yorfc. U.S.A.; or Sales hcllen, Unltlll N....... 0HIft, '.I..Is 115i NIdIoN,.Gontv.. ·~ Printed in Canada: -----------------_....._~---......_-----..-----_.. Priee: 25 eents (U.S.~ (or equivalentin other eur,,,: ,'-'il; PllllMA Jc»' M.n6nd~ ~!=ci. A,,~ hwaM6. PltU-'IIOU Ub...r. '.Io,••el••11 alel Peff. s.A.. Ci- .iII. 1417. Um•• !'IIlll"INlS D. P. Péret Co.• 1" ltivortl.... Sen Juan. POITlIIM llv.eri.ll.dn,u••• 'U Ru. AM.... U...... mlIN-1V11I C. E. Frilh·. Kung!. H.v..........llI A·'. Ft.dlg.t.n 2. Sloekholnl. swmnllNl-SIISSI lib,ai.ie P.vot S.A.. lauI.nft•• tl.W" Hans Rau.h.reIt. Kirch!il"o. 17, %ilrioh 1. SYlIA-IYlII Lib,eiri. Univenell., D.m.... IHllllllD-1Hl11lNlll P••mu.n Mit ltd.. 55 Ch.k••w.t ltulÎ, Wet Tuk, B.ngktlr. ~y - tvIfIUll L1!;••i,i. H.ch."....., l.flkl.1 Cedd..l. Ioyoglu. nt.nbul. lIllIDN or IOUTH AnJCl-'. IUI-A"I~lllI Van Seh.li·. 800i,le•• (Ply.). :.td•• BOl 714. Pcetori•• l/IIITID IIN'''M-iViiGi.lllIl H.M;--Station.'Y' 0Ili~0. P.O. '.l 569. Londod. S.E. 1 [.nd et H.M.S.O. Sho,.)• lL 1. IF AMIIICl- nAII;uIIII 1'UIIItlII I.t'I Documoftta S.rvleo. CoIuMWe U...,. " .... 29éO ....cIw.y. New Ve", 27. N. V. UlllUAY Il.p,•••ftt.ei6n cl. Edlterl.,,". 'ref. ~. D'EII•• Av. Il i. Juil. In3. M."'evld... VllmVIll Dlatribuid~,. Eaeol.r S.A.. M.miuCl 0 ferr••quin 133. C•••e~•• "'101U.~lA - YlIIIIDSUVlI Drnvno , ..dlllle•• Jutat/......lk. Knllgo, Meml" nt. 23.11. leogred. U. N. 1'"&IùafIo...... au ..."alnlcf IfI'" ih. lellewl.. fi""" t.. ,,"'lIolioM cf.. Neilonl U.~ pluvlnl ",.homoni "ce ,,"lanuft fir. "i,.,..s ci· deu.w. AustIll- All'lllIClll B. Wall.ntorff. Waagplatz, ., S.lzbu.g Ge,old & Co•• 1. Gr.b.n 31. Wl.n 1. IWWlY-A1UMlIHE E1w." te MlllIror, H.llplat,...o 101. Borlin- Seho.,borg. W. E. SII,beeh. Ftank.nstlllSe 14. Këln- Junio..dorf. AI••• Horn. S"i'9.19"'" 9. Wl..b.den. UPAN-.lAPOH M.ru••• Com".riy, lId•• 6 Tori.Nlehom" Nlho.b••hl. Toi<v<i. l'llH-II.AIHI Lib..,fa Io.eh. Il Rond. Unlv.nldlcl, '.re.lonl. (5211) LIS eommllncfes et demandes dl r'Melonemlnts 'manant d. pays ci Il n'eJdsta pas encore d" d6po:italres peuvent . 'tr. "clreuHs ~ la Section dISV'"tIS et d. la dlslrl&u. tlon, OrllClnisatfoll .IS NClllons Unies. New·York (Etata. Unli d'Amfiiqu.) ou ~ la Slctlon diS yetes, OF;;q;,lilio tion dœ~ Natienl Unies, Pelala dos Nations, Gel,we (Sulu.). 72701-JanuaJrY 1953-2100