S/PV.596 Security Council

Since the provisional agenda is the same as thatadopted at the last meeting of the Council, we might consider it as adopted \Vith the same reservatiùns wmcb were made at that time. A€fuù8sion of new Members: (a) Adoption of g recommendation to the General' Aësembly. con- cerning the slmultaneous admission to mem- herswp in the United Nations ot aIl fourteen States wmch have applied. for su~h admission (S/26~),(continued) Z. Mr. HOPPE~OT (France) (transk1ted from Fre!tch) :. Ap~rt trom some differenc~s in drafting, the USSR delegatiôn's draft resolution [S/26.64], on whicl1 the Security Cauncil isasked to vote, is the same àS the draft resolution on which the Councii voted in Februal""j' [S/2449/Rev.l]. At the time, the French delegation made the reasons for· its attitude known at the Coundl's [573rd]ti1eeting· 006 February. Nothing h~s happ~ned outside sinc::e then to make us.change tbe V1eWs wftlch l .had the honour to set forth. Not' have l found in Mr. Malik's long 'statement of 2 September [594th meeting] any new. argument in favour of the draft resolution wmchhis delegation has submitfed once more. As we·.know from longèXperience, our USSR 3. A number d the speakers who. pr.eteded me have pointed out some of the more striking distortions and inconsistencies in which the 'USSR representative's last statement abounded. Whatever hernay say,'a'negative" vote b)t one" of· the ·five p~rmanent members of,t!.è Security : Cpuncil is not in' itself a ,veto,' bût only becomes one if alone it is enough to defeat a 'm:i:jüiity' decision. No serîous jurists wùuld, argue this point. It would seem that Mr. Malik, realizing the moral censure,~tt~ched tohi~ delègation's'abuse 'Of th'~véto, wanted :~th!=I"s, .tô 'Sh9J:ethè ,blame ,with~hi~" and ta accusethose (}f.tht';, permanent membérs \'\ThO" 'citst a nega~y(;~ot~ with .the,majority,in.the, Coï,tttcil'of usîng the véto, a.1so. Tl#s attempt, 10 use 6nêofllis"fàvourit~ exprêssions,will deceive ntione. The facts arêi'foo obvious to be denied; to my knowledg~,. tiot .a:::iirigle one of the' applications s:ubiriitfëd': by States spéJnsçm~d bythe USSR'delegati6n has·oeeri :rèjected'as ~he':resült of a United'S,tates,Unifed Kingdom,' Y:;hinese or. French veto~ On the iOther ,hand, 1ôtakê, thé most recentand memorable exa.tliple.. Mr. ·Malik, while supporting \Vith one hand the application of ltaly, which he had includ~d in the famous(1)ackage' 'deal", totpêdoeditwith 'the other bye his· single' but all-po~l7erfül rtegativè vote in opposition to th~ terivotes in favour [573rd meeting]. 6. The French delegation, on the contrary, and a number of others,respect those principles and criteria and count them more important than their desire, however great, to admit the States l have named, particutarly Italy. We do r>..0t accept the bargain; we shaH not pay for the admission of these States to the United Nations by abandoning a single one of the principles on which the United Nations is based. That is our open and clearly definedposition. l calI upon any impartial person to sayon which side the lying and. hypocrisy are ta be found. 7. During the discussion, much was said about simultaneous and individual admissions. Ta avoid aIl ambiguity, l think it would be advlsable to define the meaning of those words more closely. l gladly grant Mr.Malik that there is nothing in the Charter ta ..,.pt'event the Security Council from· recommending to the Assemb1y the simultaneous admission of several Mem- bers, and that there is notbing to prevent sucha recom- me~dation being thesubject of a single resolution: on one condition, however - that the application of each of 'the Members irtcluded in such a single text should haye been considered in the manner provided for under Article 4 of the Charter, and thateachof the States sht:Juld have been recQgnized by the majority of 'the Council as satisfying the criteria laid down in that A...'iicle. 8,! That, however,. is not the purport of the 'USSR <ir-aft resolu#on: what it proposes is not so much the "~imultaneous" admission of thê fourteeG: States, in so far as theextent or idea of simultaneity:mplies only ~ concept' of cbronological coinddenct", but their Icollec'CÏve" admission,. in a manner whkh would make t~e fourteen applications interçlependent and the admis- Sion bf any one· of themcondiâonal, upon .thatof the others. What the USSR delegatioq says to us is not: 1 shaH, vote simu1taneously for ~he admission, for 9. 'vVe are today in exactly the same situation as in February, in the same impasse, blocked solely by the will of the USSR delegation. Among the applications before the Security Council, there are some on which thel'e is general agreement, which are inc1uded in the list of Soviet U niol1 proposaIs and in -favour of which the majority of the Council has already voted. If the Soviet Union delegation were sineere in its pro- testations of devotion ta the Charter and to the idea of universality, it would vote with us for the admission of those States, sinee at least haH the time it recognizes that they fulfil the requirements for admission contained in Article 4. Such a decision would relax the tension and clear the air of these debates, and the goodwill it showed would certainly be matched by similar goodwill on the part of many de1egations in the subsequent consideration of other pending applications. 10. Unfortunate1y, there is no reason ta think that the USSR delegation will depart from its entirely negative attitude of the last few years. Mr. Malik has told us, more emphatically than ever, that he will use his veto as long as is necessal'Y to prevent what he caUs violation of the Charter; in other l'lords, he will continue to misuse that right to prevent the unequivocal provisions of Article 4 of the Charter from being fulfilled. "VIe can only take note of his statements, as will a11 free and peace-loving peoples who knock at the door of the United Nations- and ta whom the great majority of the United Nations would like to open the door. They at least will know which Power is leaning against the door with all its weight to keep it c1osed.

l regret that l cannot promise a short speech. My eight opponents - there seem to be eight of them, if l am not mistaken, who spoke at the previous meeting and today - said so many things which l'lere far-fetched and not in accordance with the truth, they introduced so much obscurity into this perfectly clear question, that the situation has ta be clarified. 12. l do not intend to deal with the French representative's statement and with his dialectic and sophistry. 1 See Advisory Opinion 01/ Admission of New Mcmbe·rs (Article 4 of fhe Charter), I.C.!., Reporfs 1948, page 63. Gobse~.:. des 13. relative intéressés d'avant-hier, aux 13. The day before yesterday, during the whole ofa long meeting, the opponents of the USSR delegation's proposaI for the simultaneous admission of fourteen States to membership in the United Nations attempted to justify their attitude and te attack the USSR proposaI. 111ey eJ..-pended many word:; and much mort to conceal and disguise their i'efusal to admit to the United Nations five cOlP1tries be10nging to the peopks' democracÏes whose poIitical structure is not to the Iiking of United States ruling circ1es. 14. The United States representative ev('n aitempted to theorize on his country's attitude onthis matter. As we know, however, theorizing is not his strong point and thus his "theories" cannot even serve as a cloak for the illegal position - moreover, contrary ta the Charter - of tIe United States on this matter. toute 15. AU the joint "globa:1" efforts of the American- British bloc, however, have come to nothing. None of the opponents of the USSR proposaI was able to tefute any of the facts cited in the stateraent made by the USSR delegation [594th meeting] in support of its proposaI and in order to reveal the worthless and illegal position of the United States, and the Anlerican-Britieh bloc ~hich supports it, on the admission of n,ew Members.. 16. The Turkish and Greek representatives, who have long si1'lceearned dùubtful fame as the IUost zea10us and vociferous of the A'11erican Don Quixote's arm0l1rbearers, tried hardest of aU to prove that the USSR delegation formerly favùured the separate consideration of each individual application for membership in the Tlnited Nations, but apparently now proposes the simultaneous admission of the fourteen Statês. These Greco-Turkish inventions, repeated today by the French representativ.e, have nothing to do with the facts. They ~~,werethought up to please their United States masters. In an excess ofzeal which went he'Yond theii capacities, both these representatives clear.1y and dcliber~tely distorted the substance of the matter. They extracted jl-om the records of the Security Councilphrases and· wordswhich they thought would "confinn" their slanderous 'affirmations, '. and they carefully avoided statem~nts which· refuted their slander. By this means they· dlstorted the essence of the USSR delegation's .position. 17. The. essence ()I thetItâtter is as follows. In 1946, when·the United States representative proposed [Mth meeting] in one of bis draft resolutions theindis- ~im.inate admission of several States, n,.ot one.of whose ~ppltcations .had yet 1;leen considered by the Security ';ouncil, the USSR delegation expressedthe view that lt would. be prop~l' .first. to consider each· application 18. Scorning no means of fu1l1Iling their role as defenders of the United States position, and without troubling about accuracy, the Turkish and Greek representatives have distorted the substance of the matter, attempting without any kind of justification to ascribe to the USSR delegation a stand which it had never taken. Meanwhile, now as then, the USSR delegation strictly maintains the position that each application for admission to the United Nations should first be considered individual1y. The USSR delegation never objected to the individual consideration of each application for admission six years ago, and it does not object to individual consideration now. 19. In the light of these well-known facts, which are noted in the verbatim records, it is clear that aIl the American-British bloc's "warlike" efforts directed against the USSR more closely resemble Don Quixote's tilting at windmills than a serious discussion of the problem of how the fourteen States are to be admitted to the United Nations. The United States representative and his Turkish and Greek colleagues began by inventing an imaginary "discrepancy" in the USSR delegation's position and then, hiding behind this invention, launched their attack on the USSR proposaI. This merely proves their lack of scruple in the choice of weapons. They are not interested in the facts or substance of the question; their main aim is to conceal and distort one and the other. AIl they want is a great deal of noise, the more the better, in order to confuse the issue, to stir up the waters and to find some sort of excuse and defence of the United States position. 20. 1 am compelled, however, to disappoint these gentlemen and to inform them that the USSR delegation has never objeeted, and does not now object, to the consideration of each inc\ividual application for membership of the United Nations separately. It has never had, and does not have now, any intention of substituting for individual admission collective adnussion without prior consideration of each individual application. 21.' In the light of the USSR delegation's position on tbis matter, which is fully in accordance with the Charter, let 11S turn to the applications of the fourteen States whose admission is now proposed by the USSR delegation. Let the American-British opponents of this proposaI give a straightforward and clear reply to the USSR delegation's question as to whether the application of the fourteen States have been considered in the Security Council or whether they are now before the Council for the first time. Let them tell us whether the Security Council has considered each of these applications in detail, repeatedly and separately, or whether they are before the Council for the first time today. The reply to this question will determine how the USSR proposaI for the simultaneous admission of the fourteen States should be approached. ~..omania, Bulgaria, Albania and the Mongolian People's Reouolic - had been.eon5idercd by the Coundl not once, but tl::..ee times.; it also gave the exact dates when this was done. The USSR delegation also drew attention to the fact that the a~plications of the other nine States, supported by the United States, were examined aï least twice 0''' three times separate1y, or, as the representatives of the United States and tbe A..merican- British bloc say, "individually". 23. The USSR delegation did nOI; give the f",xact dates when these seven applications w('re examined, but this gap c'?l easily be·.fiUed. l would remind the Security Councl1, or rather, t~ "forgetful" representatives of the United. States, Turkey and Greece, of the exact day, month and year when each of thesenine applications was examined individually and separately by·the Secu- ritY Council. l have the time-table with me, but l dD not wish to take up the Securit.y Council's time. l shaH hand it ta the Secretariat for inclusion in the record. 2 24. Let me merely point out that Finland's application was examined twice, Italy's fiye times, Portugal's three times, .Ireland's three times, Transjordan's (JordaI),'s) three times, Austria's twice, Ceylon's twice, ann Nepal's once. 25. As regards Libya, the question of its applicatîon was considered careful1y and at length, first in· one of the Main Co~mittees of the Getieral Assembly, and subsequently 111 plenary meeting of tue General Assembly,. with the participation of representatives of aU countnes memhers of the Security CoundL Subse- quently,. it was examined in the Se~~udty Council· in February 1952 [5731'd meeting] , when the USSR delegation submitted a draft resolution for the admission of Libya to membership in the UnitEd Nations and pressed for its admission; the open andhidden veto and direct opposition of the American~British bloc, which • 2 The following is the table, submitted by Mr. Malik for mclusioll .in the record, of the dates of examinaticn· by the &curit;y- Counci~ of applications for admission to membmhip in the Ul1Ited Nations: "mission Application of Finlll1zd: Examined twice: l October 1947 13 September 1949. . " . , APPlication of Ital~l: Exam1ned five times: 21 August 1947, lOctober 1947, 10 April 1948, ~~ September 1949, 6 February 195AZ. . PPlicapio1z oi Portugal: Examined three times: 29 August 1946,. 18 Aug:.tst 1947, 13 September.1949.. .' .... Application of lreland: Examincd three times: 29 August 1946, 18 August 1947, 13 September 1949. .Applicati01z of Transjordan(Jordan}; Examined three tlmes:. 29 August 1946, 18 August 1947.13Septemœr 1949. fois: APPlication of Austria: Examined twice: 21 August 1947 13 September 1949. ' '1. 13 1 APPlication of Ce:Jllc1Z: Examined twice: 18 August 1948, 3· September 1949. l APPlication of Nep(:}: Examined once time:7 September 1949. 1 26. AM these generally known faets and {:oncrete data give the lie to the unfounded and obviously mendacious assertions of those who try to concea! their objection to the. USSR proposa! behind hypocritical talk about the so-ca11ed need to exal11Îne these fourteen applications "individually". How many more times? How many times do the United States represeritative and his ,henchmen think that an application must be examined by the Security Council before the State submitting it ca.'1. be admitted to the United Nations - two, three, ten, twenty timt:$? Tt suffices to put that question in Grder ta sec the absurdity of the arguments on the score of "individua! consideration." 27. Placed as they are in an absurd position on this question, the United States representative and his colleagueshypocritica1ly and sanctimoniously speak about the Charter, swear by the Charter and even go sa far as to say that the USSR proposa! for admission of aU fourteen States is contrary to the Charter, which they do not wish to violate. 28. Such remarks are false and slanderous. The USSR delegation's position is that every one of the applications has repeatedly been C.<'l:amined by the Security Council, and that the time ha., come at las· to take a decision on the .admission of aIl fourteen States to membership in the United 'Nations. No one, not even the United States representative, will dare ta deny, in the face of fuese well-known facts, that the Security Council has repeatedly' examined the applications of each of the fourteen States, from two to live times each. Cons~·' quently it would now be not only useless, but senseless .av.d absurd, once again to start to considereach of theseapplications "individually" from the begiüning. 29;'·~This i5 the core of the problem. Here lies the difference hetween the situation in 1946 and the present situation.'· 30. Then, the United States, in an attempt to sneak in its favourites,objected to each application being examinedindividually, and proposed that the countnes should be· admitted wholesale without consideration of individual. applications. It was onl:1 natural that. the USSR de1egation· shouldhave protested against such wholesale consideration. 1 can assure the opponents of theUSSR proposaI that theUSSR delegation would stiU .object to the wholesale admission of States whose applications have Dot beenexamined once inclividually by the Security Council. That 15 not the·case at present. Each of the applications of the fourteen. States whose admission we propose has been exafi1ined individua!ly and morethan once, and now the.time has come to admit all these States simultal1eouslyto membership in the United Nations, and that is what we ask. 32. The United States, in an endeavour to distort the facts and the essence of the matter, not only mobilized all its partisans in the Security Council, but also brought the major organs of the American monopolistic Press. including the leading organ, the New York Times, into the fight against the USSR proposaI. On inquiry, however, it becomes apparent that the United States representative, his henchmen in the Council and the United States Press deliberately mutilate the facts, dis- tort the truth and confuse American !eaders. 33. According to a recent admission by one of the United States politicians, hypocrisy, falsehood, slander and indiscriminate use of all kinds of methods ano. reck- less verbal demagogy are the basic instruments which political opponents in the United States ,use against each other in the ruthless electoral contest. To describe people who, in the e1ectoral contest, resort to falsehood, hypocrisy, slander and the indiscriminate use of dl possible methods and promises for the purpose (If achieving their aims, they use an old and hardly translatable English word, "snolligosters". Experience .in the United Nations, and in particular the discussion of the, question of the admission of new Members, pave revealed to everyone the complete falseness and hypo- crisy of the United States position on this question. :;:11 this matter, the ruling circles of the United States act and continue to act like the most genuine Americàn "snoIligosters", that is, hypocrites and slanderers who disdain no means of achieving their ends. 34. What lessons are tn be derived from the consider- ation of the question of the admission flf new Members in the United Nations? 35. First of aH, it has become plain to everyone that in this matter 'tr,è United States is guided, not by the ?rovisions of the Unit<:d Nations Charter or bv the '''principle of universality". on which the representatives of the American-British bloc are so fond of expatiating frequentiy and at length, but by considerations which are the lowest and most inadmissible in international relations -a policy of favouritism towards one grot'p of States which have submitted applications for admis- sion, and a policy of hatred, discrimination and diktat towards another group. That is the fundamental "rule" by which the United States 15 guided. None of Ml". Austin's hypocritical references to the Charter and the mIes of procedure will enable him to conceal this now generally known facto 36. l can assure the Security CouncH that if, contrary ta expectatkms, the USSR delegatiùn-' and we shaH never, of course, allow ourselves to do this - adopted such a position, we would be abIè to find sufficient ~rot1nds for advancing objections, not contrived ones, like Ml". Austin's, but serious and well founded ones, 37. This, Mr. Hoppenot, is not a Gobseck or a haggling approach; we are proposing a solution of this question not in the spirit of a merchant, but in the spirit of a broad politieal approach. We are prepared to withdraw our objection to the favourites of the American-British bloc, in spite of the fact that.we are legally entitled under the Charter ta maintain those objections and oppose the admission to the United Nations of some of the States whose admission is heing urged Ly the United States, the United Kingdom and certain other countries. This is our proposaI. which we feel provides a basis for agreement. 38. Some may wonder why we have chosen this position and urged its adoption. The past six years, since the creation of the United Nations, have shown the United States' attitude towards the United Nations. lt has become quite clear that it is the principal aim of the United States ruling circ1es to turn the United Nations into a blind and obedient instrument of their aggressive policy, so that they may put in'î:o effect the fantastic and illusory plans of American monopolistic capital in order to attain so-called world leadership- in other wordE world domination ,by United States monopolies - and turn the entire world into their own patrimony, to order at will the fate of people in every corner of the globe and to dispose of their wealth as the United States monopolists pleaseand see fit. 40. How hal . attitude of the United States towards the United NatlOns affected the question of the admis- sion of new Members? It is obvious and generally lmown that the United States is scppordng and urging the admission te- the United Nations of nations which are alreaJy eitiler members oi the aggressive military bloc which it supports or which it hopes to have as its future fellow~travellers or satellites, or regards as potential collaborators, in its aggre~sive military alliances or bl.ocs.It is quite clear to everyone that the United States is trying to broaden tbe United Nations, but only at the cost of admitting its minions, its present or future military allies, or its obedient satellites and fellow-travellers. 41. Guided by these selfish and aggressive aims and motives, which are illegal and contrary to the Charter and inconsistent with the elementary standards of inter- national law, the tTnited States bars from admission to the United Nations aIl the States which it cannot be sure will participate in the international brigandage which the United States ruling circles are planning and already carrying out in some parts of the world. That is the heart of the matter. That is the l.ause of the deadlock over the question of admission of new Members. 42. That is the situation. Let us see which States the United States rtiling cirdes are prepared to admit to membership in the United Nations immediately and unconditionally. Above all, they are prepared to accept two participants in the aggressive North Atlantic bloc at the head of which they stand - ltaly and Portugal. These two States are already in the tenacious and ruthless grip of the United States imperialists and aggrp.s!':ors. They have become involved in the aggressive :veb of United States warmongers. They have entered lI!-to treaty obli~tions to ~o-op~rate .with the rul~ng .clrc1es of the ,umted States 10 thelr pohcy of a,ggresslOn ~nd preparation for a new world war. Conllequently, ln the opinion of United States ruling circles, tb'èse two States are "fully worthy" to he in the United Nations. Furthermore, Mr. Austin has stated that the United ~ations actually "needs them". But it "as already long Stnce become a habit with Mr. Austin to identify the requirementsof United States aggressive policy with the requirements of the United Nations. That;s not 44. Mr. Acheson gave this aggressive alliance a title which is somewhat artificial even in English· termino- logy - the title ANZUS. Previously, as is well known, the United .States ruling circ1es had with the same purpose in view established the so-called North Atlantic aggressive alliance, inc1uding within it even SUch "North Atlantic" countries as Greece and Turkey, and calling this military alliance NATO. It is not only the Charter of the United Nations which the United States aggressors ignore and undermine. They are ignoring and violating even the principles of elementary geo- graphy for the sake of their aggressive and predatory purposes. At the present time, together with Churt:hill, theyare directing all their efforts towards the. estab- lishment of a third military aggressive alliance ;n the Near and Middle East, an alliance for which-although, for reasons beyond their control, it has not yet been created- they have devised and appropriated a title which is just as portentously clever - the title MEDO, which, according ta their usual deceitful affirmations in such cases, should signify "MiddIe"-East Defence Organization". 45~ Whom do they inc1ude in this Middle Eastern' organization? As participants in this new bloc such "middle-eastern" countries are proposed as the United States, Australia, New Zealand and other:::. To whom is it not c1ear by now that the United States aggressors are carrying on this dangerous game of undermining the United Nations Charter and violating geography not for the purpose' of strengthening peace, but for the purpose of creating military aggressive blocs subservient to thefr wishes, for the purpose of preparing and unleashing a l1~W world war? In the light of these and many other factsregardingthe aggressive policy of the 46. They even say now tllat the United States ruling circles, and in particular, Truman, Acheson and Eisenhower, would have been prepared to conc1ude a military aggressive alliance with The Devi! himself if that had been possible and on the sole condition that such a "partuer" barked as loudly as possible at those against whom they are preparing their military alliances and their campaign. We shall leave the question as to what title such an alliance would have borne in that "hypothetical" case to the consideration of the United States lovers of military aggressive blocs and alliances. 47. One thing is now beyond doubt: the United States considers every application for admission to membership in the United Nations throughthe prism of its poEcy of aggression and preparation for a neVI world war. It is not the provisions of the Charte~, not the rules of procedure, but considerations of ar;gression which are its maincriterion in dealing with this question. 48. Actuated thus by aggressive motives and ideas, the United States does not shrink from actual violations of its international obligations. It flagrantly violates the obligations it assumed at Tehcran, Potsda.:n and under the peace treaties. Under the peace treaties, the United States and the United Kingdom assumed definite and direct obligations tl' support the applications. for admission to membership in the United Nations of five States - Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, FinIand and Italy. The current attempts of the United States and United Kingdom representatives to deny these respon- sibilities are utterly useless. None of· their hurriedly. improvised statemeIits and expiànations can conceal the fact that the United States and the United Kingdom are grossly violating their international obligations under the peace treaties. 49. While supporting the applications of Italy and Finland, they keep .Hungary, Bulgatia and Romania out of the United Nations. It is clear to everyone . ·~t this is anoutright and flagrant violation of internatic " obligations.It is also c1ear that Italy is regarded by the United States as a military ally, while Finland is being observed and courted as a potential fol1ower and satellitewhich mightbe turned into a tool of United States aggressive policy and used as a military .basis and source of cannon fodder, just as· under its former 50. In the case of Bulgarian, Hungary and Romania, the United States ruling circles have abviously now lost aIl hope of turning thase cauntries inta a tool. of their palicy. This explains Eisenhower's furious wrath and enmity towards those countries. And not only Eisenhower's. 51. This is why the United States supports ~be applications for admission ta the United Nations of only two out of the five countries, although it not only promised them, .but assumed under the international peace treaties the same obligation in respect of each, to support their applications for admission ta the United Nations. 52. The representatives of the American-British bloc and, in particular, the United Kingdom representative, have spoken a great deal about the principle of universality. Yet it is perfectly obvious from the facts 1 cited earlier that their understanding of "universality" is rather one-sided. In their opinion, the United Nations will he a universal organization only if aIl the favourites of the United States are admitted ta it while the States which value their freedom, independence and sovereignty above the favours of the United States are kept out. But this would be no iûnger universality, but Americanism pure and simple. 53. The United States ruling circles no longer make it a secret that in their opinion every State applying for admission ta membership in the United Natians m.ust first be'a member of the aggressive military bloc formed by the United States, that is, it must be a member of such organizations as NATO, ANZUS, MEDO, or at leasc give promise of future membership. Only then is the United States prepared ta support its application for admission ta the United Natiom-,. 54. According ta this way of fhinking any country which is a member of a. United States aggressive military bloc may be a Member of the United Nations. l'hisis the only qualification required for States ta become Members of the United Nations. Mr. Austin, .the United States representative, spoke about the proper qualifications· for membership in the United Nations. Iii the Ïight of the f<lets cited,. it is quite cIear that in the eyes of the United States, a State's membership in the United Statesaggressive. military bloc, or its suitability, in the opinion of the United States, for such membership in the future, is the only "criterian" and the only properqualification to be taken into account in determining.whether. or not such aState shauld beadmitted ta membership in the United Nations. 55. l am not even mentioning another "qualification" . which the United States requires of .it§_sateIIitesin orderto keep them notonly in the United Nations, but 56. Mr. Austin held forth ta us here about respect for the Charter and the rules of procedure. If you have not lost aIl sense of reality, Mr. Austin, take a look at the Kuomintang agent, opposite you, from the Chinese island of Formosa which was seized by United States forces. Take a look also at the Greek representative opposite you, whom you dragged into the Security Council in gross violation of the Charter. This should be a silent reproach ta you and others, and a graphic example of how you and your Government grossly and cavalierly c1.isregard and fiout the United Nations Charter and internationally insult the great Chinese people. 57. You told Ils that the United States always approaches aU United Nations problems in a con- structive and not a destructive spirit. However, everyone who sees the Kuomintang agent in the Security Council and· hears his irresponsible chatter, and everyone whc sees the Greek representative, will quickly realize that there is nota grain of truth in Mr. Austin's staten1ent. Tt is false and hypocritical from beginning ta end. 58. Mr. Austin is trying to hide behind references to a "majority", and even tells ,..!:; that the United States allegedly respects the views and opinions of the majority in the Security Council and the General Assembly. That is just such another deceitful and hypocritical statement. At the sixth session of the General Assembly in Paris, a majority in the First Committee and atthe plenary meetings of the Assembly voted for the USSR proposaI for the simultaneous admission of all fourteen St:;~es, including Italy and Libya. S The United States, however, not only failed to respect that opinion of the majority of the General Assembly, but exerted all its efforts, mobilized aIl its satellites to ensure that the resolution, which was adopted by a majority, should not be regarded as adopted. In the light of that well- known fact, it is surely obvious that Mr. Austin is speaking fa!sely and hypoc:ritical1y when he makes such statements here about respect for the 111aJotity. 59, As pefore, as always, he boasts that the United States has not once used the veto. l have adduced fàcts to show thatthe United States has voted six times 61. That, Mr. Austin, is why you do not need openly and.honestly to apply the veto in the Security Council. You act by means of the wmp, you apply the whip instead OI the veto. Your vote against proposaIs unacceptable to the United States, in conjunction with the contrary. votes of the other participants in the American-British bloc, and your abstention from voting in conjun€tion with them for the purpose of preventing the.necessary se'len votes from being obtained, con- .stlttites a' constant, systematically organized and deliberate application by yourseli of the hidden veto. l shaH also recallhow you yourself, Mr. Austin, threatened at a meeting of the Security Council to apply the veto if the Council did not support your creature for appointmentto the post of Secretary-General of the United Nations. Everybody knows and remembers this. While expatiating on your·non-use of the veto, you never renounced your right to use it. You are saving it for a rainy day. You may he assured that such a day will come. It is not over the hills and far away. 62. In'.the light of these facts, .the falseness and hypocrisy of your references to "respect for the views of the majority" and "refraining from using the veto" are perfectly.obvious. 63. None of the United Statesrepresentative's hypo- criticaland deceitful references to the Ch~rter of the United Nations and the Security Councïl's rules of procedure are in place here. It is long' ago since the rclirig__l'ir"'es in tI.1e United States and you yourself, MT. Austin, set•foot on thepath Of flagrant and cynical violation and Bouting of the Charter. They swear by the Charter and by its provisions in the same way as during the presidential elections the United States poiiticians Swear by their.PQlitical "pJatforms" and e ~!l!~.!!!I;!).",~ ~ ;;;;;;;;;~=mttm:MI,!!Hlî 66. The Soviet Union urges that the Security Council should recommend to the GeTJ.eral Assembly the' admission to membership in the United Nations of aU fourteen States, irrespectiveof their internal structure and irrespective of whether thesecountries and their internaI structure is to the likingof one or another of the permanent or non-permanent members of the Security Council. 67. The Soviet Union objects in the strongest possible manner to the·action of ruling circles in the United States in attempting to convert the United Nations from a world organization into. an American organiza- tion of like-thinking aggressive States. 68. The Soviet Union supports the position that the United Nations should be an international organization of free and sovereign' States with different political structures, different ideologies and different ways of life, ,but 'united in one noble idea and desire-to live in peace together and jointly to fight for the str.engthening of international peace and security on -rhebàsis offll:eandequalreL=ttions. 6? Guided by these principles, which are in -the hlghest degree humane, just and fully in accordance 71. Mr. lV:ALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Repub- lies) (translàted from Russian): Perhaps we could adjourn until 3 p.m. on Monday?

There are still names on my list of representatives wishing to speak, and l think we Ghouldgain time by listening to those representatives today. If,the Soviet Union representative proposes an adjournment l shall put his motion to the vote. 73. Ml'. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republies) (translated from Russian): Before making a formaI proposaI l should like to hear the views of the representatives whose names are still on the list of speakers. Are they particularly anxious to speak today or .could they do so as weIl at three o'dock on Monday afternoon? . 74; Mr. SANTA CRUZ (Chile) (translated fram Spanish): My,delegation would prefer that the next meeting should be he1d on Monday. 75. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): l agree with the President's original plan ta have our consideration of tbis question advance our work in two meetings today. l think that it is well founded, and affords an opportunity for, us, if we finish a large part of the work this' afternoon, to gain a little time on Monday. We do not necessarily have to hold a meeting on Monclay if we finish this afternoon; and l much prefer to have our adjournment go over until Tuesday morning. My view about the matter is that we ought to carry out the proposaI of the President, which was assented to without any opposition whatever, and finish our business this afternoon, just as planned, at 3 p.m.

In reply to the question put bythe Soviet Union representative, l would say that my oWn nameis on the list; but l shall nût insiston speaking today if the majority of the members of, the COU!lcil prefer to adjourn untilMonday or Tuesday, as proposed by the United States representative. l should like to know the views of thé Council. _.f' 77. Mr. MALIK (Dnionof Soviet Socialist Republies) ((ranslated, fram Russian): l hav~ ':0.0 desire to spoilthe fun of thereptesentâti:ves who wish particu~ 7~. As to the question of submitting a formaI proposal, 1 feel that after the United States representative's statement there would be no sense in my moving a. formai proposai on such a procedural question; there is every reason to assume that it would not obtain a majority. 1 shan therefore not move it.

Since fuere is no formai proposai for an adjournment we shall, if there is no objection, meet this afternoon at three o'clock. SO. Ml'. SARPER (Turkey): This is another case where the representative of the Soviet Union il; mistaken. 1 would urge that we meet on Monday as he himself has proposed. That would be more convenient for my delegation for several reasons. It would enab1e us to study the speeches, and so on. But, as no objection has been raised 50 far, 1 do not want ta make ? formaI proposaI. 81. Ml'. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): 1 fee! that the best way for the Turkish representative to prove that 1 was wrong would be for him to submit a formaI proposaI and carry it through in the Security Couneil. 82. Ml'. SARPER (Turkey): It i5 a good feelin:g ta have the support of the Soviet Union or its representative for once at least. l therefore accept Ml'. Malik'i; suggestion and propose formally that thE' Couneil should meet on Monday instead of this afternoon.. 83. Ml'. SANTA CRUZ (Cli!je) (translated from Spanish): 1 support the Turkish representative's proposaI. S4. The Chilean delegation, for \"eighty reasons, prefers next Monday ta this aftemoon. S5. The PRESIDENT: The question arises as tû whether we should meet in the morning or in the afternoon. 86. Ml'. SANTA CRUZ (Chile) (translated from Spt'.nish): ln the afternoon. 87. The PRESIDENT: 1 believe it is the desir~ of the Council that we should adjourn until Monday afternoon at 3 o'dock. 1t was so decided. The" '<ting rose at 1.5 p.m. _INTiMA - AI'INTINI Editori.1 Sud.moric.n. S.A.. AI.ln. 500. lIuono. Airo•• .110-"(1 ..EI.fth.roud.kl.... tion. Athlnos. AUiTlALIA-AUSTlAlll H. A _add.rd, 255. G.org. St. Syan.y. lit".-IlLIIIIIII Agone. ot M....llori.. do 1. PraSlo S.A., 14-22 ru. du P.rsil, Bru.oll... W. H. Smith -le Son, 71·75 Boul.vorsl AoIolpho·Mù, Iruxell... IILIYIA-IiLlYII lIbrorr. S,loccion.., Ca.iII. 972. la Pu. IUlIIL-.UIL lIvrarill Agir, Ru. MexIco ,.... Rie de J.noiro. . UNltA HAYiMALl Goubeuol " cr•• ~••tamel•• NAm libreiri...... 1. Cat.v.n 111.1. 7.rIoau.Princ lIIlMIIlJ librerr. P.n.morlc.... 11I••t.. T.guclg.l,.. ....-1!lII o.r"", loe~ le Hou... No", D.lhl• P. V.rad.ch.ry " St. M.dr•• 1. Ryorson Pr.... 299 Quo." St. W.st. Toronto. les Pro.... Univ.rsit.ir•• Lov.l. Qu.b.c. anON-aYllN Th. A..oci.t.d Nowsp.p... of c.ylen. ltol" loko Heu... Colamlto. llIIlOllISIA-llIIOIIUII J.j•••n Pomb.ngun.n. Di·l.rt•• lIlN Ket.b·Kh•••h D.n nue. T.hran.. lili-lUI Mockonlio'. loouhop. . Ollll- GlIU l.lbrerl.. Iv.n., Mon.d. 822, S.nll.,o. CKiiIA-CIlINI Commorci.1 Pra.., lId•• 211 Honu Rd. Sh.ngh.i. alO"'" -COL"IE libr.rr. lalin. lId... C.rror. 6e. 13.05. logal'. IllllND -1ILlNI1 Hiborni.n Gon.r.l morci.1 lulldin,.. lSun Blum.loin·. BaoUtoro.. R...cl. T.I Aviv. COSTA RlCA-COITA·IICA Troia. Horm.no......p.rt.do 1313, San Jo.'. liALY-ITAlIl Colibrl S.A.. Vi. (ll~ la Ca,. S.lg•• C'Reilly 451. b H....... 1I1l11ON-UUN Ubreiria univ.rs.n•• UlU...• J. Mam.lu Kom.re. WCIIII10YlIIA - TCllECOI1\lYAIUII Ceslo.lovon.ky Spi.ovetel. Nerodnl Tride 9. Preh. 1. HIlMAa"lC-IOIMlll Einer Munhg••"'. Llo!.. Nlfrrog.cl. .. KlIbenhavn, K. LU"OUH lIbr.lri• .J. Schummor, IGM""ClN IIPUlllC- DM. IUHIlCllIIII librerr. Domlnican•• Morc.de. 49. C1.-. d.d Trujillo. MUIW-MWQUI E.:litoti.1 "orm•• 'II, Misieo. O.F. .CUDOI -llIiIAYlUI llbrerr. Clontr~co. B"" 362, Gu.y.qull. i.YPT-18ml lIbr.iri. "l. Renol..incc d·Egypt.... 9 Sh. "'<llv P••h., Coir•• ft IALYADOI-IAlLYllil M.nu.l N.vas y Cra.. 1. Av••ld. IUr U. S.n S.lv.cIor. NI!IIIIllNII- 'AYSoiAI N.V. M.rtlnu, Nilboit. ',.Grev.nh.go. NIW ZIlWll-IIOIIYILlI.DWlII U. N. A"". of N.w W.lllngta,n. IIIClUHA Dr. R.mlra R.mlre. .""OPIA-ITNI"II IlOIWAY-llIIYItrl Joh.n 6ru.cIt T.num gU'''9t. 71\, Oslo. A~onc. Ethiopi.nne Clo .p~bllci". lu 128. ~ddi,,"'b.ba. F1MWlD-FltJWIDE Ak.t.amlnon Kirj.k.upp.. 2, 1Cot...k.tu, H.I.lnki. IUNCI Edition. A Poelon•• 13 ru' soumot. P.rlsV. 'A~srlN Thom•• " Th.r",.. Ro.d. Kor••hi. 3. PubU.h... Unlt.d ho... Order. and lnqulrlo. from countrl.. wh•• sai.. allonls havo Ilot yot bun appolnt.d llIay bo Hnt tOI S.l!fl and CirculatIon Soctlon, United Natlonl, New Vork, U.S..... or SalOll Section, Unlt.d Nalion. Offlco, Pcalal. cr.. Nc:dkln., Genova, Swlf&6rlond. Printed in Canada Priee: 25 cents (or equivalent in other