S/PV.597 Security Council

The provisional agenda bcing the same as the one adopted at our previous meeting, we might consider it adopted, subject to the same reservations that have previously been expressed. Admission of new Members: (a) Adoption of a recommendation to the General Assembly con· cerning the simultaneous admission to memher. ship in the United Nations of aIl fourteen States wmch have appIied for sucb admission (S/2664) (concluded) Admission ~. The PRESIDENT: Speaking as the representa- tive of BRAZIL, I shall state the reasons which prompt the Brazilian delegation to oppose the adoption of the Soviet Union draft resolution set forth in document S/2664. 3. We should like, first of aIl, to point out that that draft resolution faUs far short of its proposed objective, namely, the admission of aU the States which have appHed for admission to the United Nations. The docu- ments under consideration clearly indicate a dis- 2. qualité les s'oppose soviétique 3. ce qu'il qui Nations Unies. 6. The International Court of Justice has been quite explicit in it.s opinion that a Member which recognizes that the conditions set forth in the above-mentioned Article 4 are fulfilled by an applicant State cannot subject its affirmative vote to the additional condition that other States be admitted to membership in the United Nations together with that State. 1 The Soviet Union draft resolution under consideration strikes us as particularly objectionable in this connexion, inasmuch as it emphasizes the simultaneity of admis- sion of fourtee!l States. On this question of simul- taneity of :recommendations, we could èlchieve a little more precision. vVe do not deny that a single resolu- tion ai the Security Council might contain a recom- mendation for the admission of various applicants, pro- vÎl~ed that it was clear that no special emphasis'should beplaced on "simultaneous admission" and that the General Assembly should be free to exercise its own judgn1ent and discrf'fÏon in the matter. "Simultaneity" in this instance would be a mere circumstance of fact. Itis not the procedural point of having one resolution or more than'one resolution which is important. What we fiud objectionable in the Soviet Union draft is that it clearly links and interconnects different indi'vidual applications for admission; in direct violation, of Article 4 and disregarding the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice. 7. Such inter);onnexion was made clear by the references made a few days ago [5.94th meeting] by the Soviet Union.delegation as regards the,admission of Portugal, IreIand, Italy and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.. ' We. must take strong objections to the statement aimed at those peace-loving States and, without trying to single out a particular case, we should sa:y'thàtthetefen::nee wade to aState like, Portugal,. 1 See Advisory Opinion on Admission of New Members (A1,ticle 4 of the Cha1'ter) , I.C.!., Reports 1948, page 63. 8. The Brazilian delegation is perfectly aware of the urgent necessity for the Council and for the United Nation5 to find a common ground for the approach to this question of pararnount importance to the future of our Organization. We have fully co-operated in seeking a solution to this prohlem and we are still determined to make every possible effort toeircumvent the present difficulties. But we do not feel that the adoption of the Soviet Union draft resolution would serve the interests of the United Nations and the friendly relations arnong Memher States. 9. Speaking in my capaeity as PRESIDENT, 1 shall try to indicate briefly the present parliarnentary situa- tion before proceeding to the vote. 10. The Soviet Union has presented a draft resolu- tion, document S/2664, recommending the simultaneous admission of fourteen .:Jtates to membership in the Unite~ Nations; narne1y, Albania, Mongolian People's Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Finland, Italy, Portugal, Ire1and, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Austria, Ceylon, Nepal and Libya. The representative of China has requested that each of the fourteen ap- plicants narned in the Soviet Union draft resolution be put to the vote separately [595th meeting]. The matter falls under fuIe 32 of our rules of. procedure, which reads as follows : "Parts of a motion or of a draft resolution shaH he voted on separately at the request of any repre- sentative, unless the original mover objects." 11. Accordingly, 1 shall ask the Soviet Union repre- sentative to state whether he concurs with the request ll1ad~ by the representative of Chinn.

1 could cùl:lfine myself to the single brief word, "No", and that w0111dbe quite sufneient; for it is perfectly ohvious that a member of the Security Couneil who submits a proposaI is protected bythe spirit, the sense and the. text of the rtùes of procedure from attempts of the kind to which the Kuomintang agent in the ,Seèurity Couneil-'- not of his own .·free will, of course-,- is. resorting. 13:'That is' the meaning of rule 32, a very wise ll1eaning' which is undoubtedly the result of careful study. No one can. he allowed to mutilate or distort a draft resolution that. has beensubmitted to the Coundl inanyway that its opponents wish. Inaccordance with the generally accepted meaning of rule 32 of.the· rules of Pl'ocedure andwith the working practice which has 15. The sense of our draft resolution does not provide any basis for the submission of a proposaI for a separate vùte on each of the fourteen applications or States. That,Mr. President, is the V/hole sense of our proposaI; and· as a matter of fad in your very last speec~ you mentioned. ~s, i.e., that we are proposing the slmultaneous admlsslOn of the fourteen applicants, the fou~e~ States whichh.av~ submitted applications for adffi1ssH?n to membership lU the United Nations. Why? We liave already explained the reasons. Because your American friends, your North American friends those whom you. in utin America calI the octopu-s dei Norte, consider that the United Nations must be conver.ted ~to an,aggressiv~ appendage to the policy of the ruhng clrcles m.the Umted States of America and that only those should be admitted as Members of this O!ga.nization. who are already in military alliances Wlth the Umted States or who give reason to expect that they will be. That is the "criterion" for admission. 16. The reqJ.1irements and t.lte provisions of Article 4 of the Charter have been cast aside. Those who command in the United Nations, those who hold the majority of votes in the United Nations in their hands .- in t~eir fist~ l should say - havealready long since cast aSlde Article 4 of the Charter and its provisions: Those who command the majority are not interested wheth~r...~ State is peace-I0:rïng or not peace-Ioving; de~oc~aLlc or not demoerattc; able to carry out its obh~a~ons or unable to carry them out; willing or unwl1h:tg .to ~o so. AIl that has been cast aside. Only one cnterlOn 1? needed: the State must be a military ally of the .Dmted States or showlhat it may become one. That ts.the only rule and the only requirement. 17... We must therefore insist that aIl fourteen States should he admitted to the United Nations simultaneo?sly, for, the position we support is not that the Umted. Natt0llS ShoLi1d be an aggressive appendage ta 19. In view of the above circumstances, the delegation of the Soviet Union is fully justified in insisting that the drait resolution it submitted should be voted on in the f~rm in which it was submitted, irrespective of whether tts contents and substance are to the liking of the opponents of the resolution or not. 20. .The PRESIDENT: The Soviet Union representative has indicated that he strongly objects to the request made by the representative of China. Therefore, I am unable to comply with the request of the representative of China under the terms of role 32 of our provisional roles of procedure. 21. Mr. TSIANG (China): The President has already made a roling on this particular question. Although l do not think that rulïng is fully justified, I do not challenge it; I accept the President's roling. The President may recall that, when l made my request, l stated my views very c1early. I said that under rule 32 it was open to any member of this Council to request a se'pa~te v?te on parts of any proposaI submttted ta the ~ollnctl. I myself went on to say it was also open to the original mover of the proposition to object. I was fully cognizant of that. What should the Council do with such an objection? That is a question that this Council could consider. 22. The representative of the Soviet Union just stated that my request was iUegal and unprecedented. The records of the Security Council show a large numbe~ o! such precedents. Let us take this question of admtsslOn of new Members. Some members of this Council may recall what happened at the 444th meeting of this Council when, faced with a similar proposaI of the simultaneous admission of a number of applicants, the representative of the United States moved that a separate vote be taken. The Soviet Union representative then,as now, pronounced such a proposaI to be illegal, and on that occasion he formaUy moved that the United ~tates proposaI was out of order. The President on that occasion put that motiC:>n 23. 1 do not insist on a separate vote, not because 1 am convinced that the President's interpretation of rule 32 is final, but because 1 think that to resort to a long procedural wrangle here would, in the end, bri.ng no good results. In other words,. it has no practical meaning whatever. But, 1 must add, as 1 stated on a previous occasion, that the statement of the Soviet Union representative renders his proposai aIl the more unacceptable. 1 said that the refusai to have a separate vote on such a draft resolution, in my opinion, makes that resolution ullconstitutional. My delegation certainly finds his statement to be one more reason for voting against his proposaI. 24. Finally, 1 .must protest against the type of language the Soviet Union representative has used in personal reference to myself. That language is a language of the gutter. It is unwort..hy of the Security Conncil. In making t1,.is proposaI for a separate VOte, 1 followed the orders of my Government and the orders of nobody else. 1 am here to represent the Chinese people according to the orders of my Government, and my rightin this Couneil, my dignity in this Couneil and my status in this Council is 110t inferior to that of any other member. 25. The PRESIDENT: 1 wish to explain to the representative of China that the President· did not state a ruling on the matter. 1 limited myself to a mere statement of fact with respect to IUle 32 of the rules of procedure. On the other hand, 1 did not say anything to the effect that the Chinese motion VlTas illegal. Any member has the right, to request tha.t any draft resvlution should be voted upon in parts. The original moyer has the right to object. 26. But since the representative of China does not insist on his previous motion, 1 shall now put to the vote the Soviet Union draft resoltition" document S/2664. ' A vote was taken by show of hands. In favour: Pakistan, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Against: Brazil, China, Greece, Netherlands, United States of America. . Abstaining: C~il~, France, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Bntalll and Northern Ireland. The draft resolution was rejected by 5 votes to 2 with 4 abstentions. ' 27. ; Mr..KYROU (Gre~ce): 1 voted against th~ SOVIet Druon draft resolutlOn for the reasonswhich 1 enumerated .at the 595th meeting, and also, from a Pllre1y negabve angle, on the basis of the 100 per cent I~accurate and. false ~rgume~tation of the representabve of the SOVIet Druon durlllg our last meeting. This whole· argumentation of Mr. Malik was based on the purposeful confusion between the separate examination of the qualifica~ons .of the applicant States and a separate. admission without any examination. of their qualifications at.aIl. The case of Libya is characteristic. The representative of the Soviet Union stated that its candidacy was examined in the Security Council in 29. But there is an old Greek proverb about the Sophists: "You will never' persuade me even if you persuade me". Our Soviet Union colleague - and this is precise1y the tragedy of his case - is not permitted to let himself be persuaded even by the clearest and most decisive arguments. That is why any discussion with him becomes futile, and that is whyany effort on our part to persuade him not only is condemned beforehand to complete failure but even 'provides him with new stamina for new speeches addressed to someone beyond,these walls.,The President, may have observed. this himself some minutes ago when, instead of giving a c1ear-cut "no" to a c1ear-cut proceduralquestion by the President, Mr. Malik started a new propaganda speech. 30.. The last one among the Council's members who would dream of trying to persuade Mr. Malik is, of course, the representative of Greece. My mere presence here appears to provoke the ire of Mr. Malik. It reminds him of the absence cf so independent and freedom-,loving a State as Byelorussia, which, as we aIl know, was given the right by the Constitution of the Soviet Union even to secede, when. it so wishes, from the Soviet Union. 31. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated fram Russian) : l should like to reply briefly to the observation of the Greek representative. In the first place, as he knows, there is no great difference between the position of the Pakistan representative on this matter and the position of the USSR representative. It would appear that we voted together in February and are now votingfor the admission of all fourteen States, inc1uding Libya. That is for the Greek representative's .information. 32. With regard to the Greekrepresentative's statement that he "cannot be persuaded even though he is persuaded", l should like to remind him that the General Assembly, had already. attempted to persuade him about'a score of times that, Greece was illegally c1aiming a place in the Security Counci1. There were . about.a score .of ,,"otes taken, on this subject in Paris, but 'the Greek representative, eveti though persuaded that he was acting illegally, stili c1aimed a place in the Security Counci1. That Greek, saying he adduced is therefore fullyapplicable ta him. The General Assembly was unable to persuade him, and, thanks to the efforts 33. As to the question which State may secede from what, and which State may not secede, Greece, apparently, is not in a position to secede from the aggressive bloc, because in Greece it is 1.1ot the Greek peopie and the Greek Government which mIe; a foreign gauleiter is in command for the Greek Government has been deprived of the power of acting independently. Tho:,;:; facts are common knowledge.

l think the Security Council has everything to gain if its menlbers limit their observations to the matter unde:..- discussion. Admissioli of new Member§: (b) Consideration of resolution 506 (VI) of the Geneoral Assembly

l wish to caU the attention of the.members of the Security Council to paragraph 2 of section A of document S/2524, wherein the General Assembly: "Recommends that the Security Council reconsider an pending applications for the ô.Jmission of new Members ;that in this reconsideration, as weIl as in the consideration of an future applications, the members.of the Council take into account such facts and eviùence as States applicants for membership . may present; and that the Security Council base its action exclusively on the conditions contained in the Cl.arter and on the facts establishing the existence of these conditions." 36. The woding of this recommendation 1s wide enough ta a1low the consideration or reconsideration of any pending applications. However, as a result of the decision taken by the Council at its [595th] meeting of four days ago, l would suggest that we forego any action ort the applications of Vietnam, Libya, Cambodia and Laos until we come to sub-item (c) of the agenda so as to provide the Counci! with an opportunity for a detailed study of each of those applications. Furthermore, under paragraph 1 of section B, the Security Cauncil is requested "ta report to the General· Assembly at its seventh session on the status of applications still pending". We are under the same obligation by virtue of rule 60 of our provisional rules of procedure. 37. l wOUld suggest that we forego any action on this point until we have completed our proceedings under this sub~item. 38. Tf there are no· objections, l sha11 consider that this course meets with the approval of the members of the Security·Council. 39. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): By rejecting the "Considering that, according to the Advisory Opinion of tht: International Court of Justice of 28 May 1948, a Member of the United Nations voting on the application of a State for membership in the United Nations is not juridically entitled to make its consent to admission dependent on conditions not expressly provided by paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Charter; and that this opinion excludes the possibility that, consistently with the letter and spirit of the Charter, Members can base their votes on motives which are outside the scope of Article 4 of the Charter,". 41. My s'Jggestion would be that this paragraph of resolution 506 (VI) could justify the representative of China asking the Security Council to rule out of arder the Soviet Union draft proposaI upon which it has Just voted. - 42, The PRESIDENT: The conside:ration of resolution 506 (VI) of the General Assembly has been placed on our agenda. The members of the Security Couneil wish to comment on this matter. That is why 1 have outlined this procedure. If l do not hear any objections to it, l shall consider it as adopted. 43. Ml'. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : We all know that the International Court of Justice does not lay down the law for the United Nations and the Security Council. We also know how the reference to the International Court came to be included in the resolution. We kn0w full well how the International Court came to give its so-called opinion. Mr. Vyshinsky, the head of the Soviet Union delegation at two sessions of the General Assembly, repudiated in detail the competence of the International Court to give an advisory opinion in this kind of question, and pointed to the use1essness of such an opinion since essentially it is not an opinion of the International Court which is involved, but only the opinion of sorne of its members, who do not com- 1'~:3e ;). majority of the COI1rt. 44. It is in the interests of the Ametican-British bloc to refer to .such an opinion, but everyone knows that the International Court has no competence to interpret the United Nations Charter and to lay down the law for the Security Couneil of the United Nations. The Security Couneil establishes its own laws and rules of 45. vVe do not know the intention of those who introduced this item into the agenda, nor what preposaIs they intend to submit in connexion ~>Îth it. Only after those intentions have beo..n explained w:11 it be possible to decide whethet' to postpone the consideration of this item or proceed to the next. 46. Those who urged the inclusion of this sub-item in the agenda have said nothing definite about it. I·et them explain what their intentions are, what they are preparing to do anci. what proposaIs they will submit after rejecting the proposaI of the Soviet Union for the simultaneous admission of fourteen States to membership in the United Nations. vVhat else is there ta say about thisagenda item? 47. In _order ta be able ta judge whether we should prôceed immediately to consider this agenda item or ta postpone it for a Îew days - perhaps till the Greek kalends ~ we should know. the ;t}tentions of those who wer~ responsible for the inclusion of this item in the Security Council's agenda. 48. We are not used to proceeding blind1y in the Security Counçil. 49. The PRESIDENT: The point raised by the representative of the Soviet Union was settled when the Council adopted its agenda today. Resolution 506 (VI) of the General Assetr.';.,{y is before the Cot1J.'1cil, and in this resolution the General Assembly reco'11- mends that the· Security Council reconsider all pending applkationsforadmission of new Members. Som~ of the applicants were includedin the Soviet Union draft resolution which wasnotad<)pted and sorne others were not induded. Therefor~, it 1s perfectly clear why we are nowdiscussing sub-item 2 (b) of the agenda. , "CO SO.Mr.3A.:NTA CRUZ (Chile) (translated. from S}an~çh.): When at.the 591st meeting, on 9 July 1952, theColmcil undertook . t..he stndy ottl1e question.of the admission of .new Members, my delegatibn joined with the delegation·of Palristan inprtisenting a draft resolu- ·tion··[S/2694J requesting thefive·permanent members of the·Security.Council·to .confer with Qne .another on the question with a view to. assisting the Council tocome tonew and positive recominendations. 51. .ortthafbccasionTstatedtha.t resolution 506 (VI) ofthe GeneralAssembly, .ofwhich wehave nowbegun thestudy, both requ€sted the Cauneil to reconsidet aU pendingapplications •• and· recommended... that the •.·.five pe!'m~nent members.of .. the Security Council· should confer ..•withone. another. .. The .General· ••. Assembly realizedthat .the impasse whichhas .• c?!Ïsted foryears 52. The Council did not adopt the draft resl)lution of Pakistan and Chile but, in accordance with aur suggestion, the five Powers in question consulted together recentIy. The result of that consultation was e.,'{plained ta us by the United States representative [594th meeting]. No progress whateve.r was made because the various delegations maintailled their previous positions. 53. No"" during the present debate, the prospect does not seem very promising. In compliance with the General Assembly's resolution to reconsider aU pendi~g applications, we have undertaken this debate, but even before its inception we are confronted with a de facto s;tuation which foreshadows the failure of the reconsideration requested by the General Assembly. On the one hand, the USSR representative has told us very clearly that unless his proposal for admitting fourteen countries en bloc-leaving aside seven applicants - is adopted, he will veto any resolution for the bdividual admission of countries sùch as Italy, Austria, Libya, Portugal, Finland, Ceylon, Ireland, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Nepal, which are included in his proposaI. On the other hanc'. the representative of China has indicated that he will veto the adl'I1ission of Albania, the Mongolian People's Repub~ lie, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. For its part the United States, which rightly wieldsgreat moral influence in the Council, has told us that it has serious obJections to the admission of these latter States, and that it will abstain from supporting resolutions submitted in their favour. 54. Thus it is obvious that this discussion is useless, and above all that the intervention of countrieswithout the right of veto is useless in finding a way out of the impasse. I· believe that the only thing we can do is to stress·a number of considerations which we have already.set forth on other occasions with a. view to Cl'eàtitig favour~bk~onditions for a future change in ~hesitt.lation,which might assume sucl- 1. serious aspect ln the General Assembly that the per~<1anent members of the Councilmight weIl he convinced. The truth is that a maj()rity of the Mempers of the United Nations strongly and sincerely \vish .the Organization to .be strengiPened by the admi~sionofnew States which for yearshaye.been awaiting admission, and that . the principleof universality is increasingly favoured by a1mos~.aIl States .at the present·time. 56. It has been said of someof the applicants that they do not respect fuudamental human rights. Tme, that is one of the principles of the Charter. Yet, how many Member States are there in the United Nations where these nghts are not observed to the extent laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where they are defined? Unfortunately there are many. In some Member States political freedoms are not respected;' in others, religious freedoms, and in still others there is discrimination on grounds of sex, or race or denial of econotr.ic and social rights. Unfortunately the United Nations is not an association of peoples ruled by completely demQcratic governments with . ~~olutë re~p'ect for humaq rights. That.is ilie i~eal ~"flve are stnvmg for, but sb far, the Umted Nattons hasbeen an association of A:ountries imperfect at best, both in their internaI sy~tetn of government and in theirinternational eonduet, but whieh are resolved to work for peace, social and eeonomic progress and the freedom of nations, through the United Nations, or which at least believe that the United Nations is, or may become, useful for' these purposes, or at least for some of them. 57. Moreover, it is clear that ta isolate a country from the community of nations where the banner of individual freedom and of, respect for human rights is constantly, flying will do nothing to help such nations towards a better li:fe. 58. ,Anothei' objection raised ta the admission of some States also seems ta us ta be 'lacking in force in view of, certain circumstances and realities. It has been said, for example, that a particular applicant State is not altogether independellt, that it is'a mere tool of other States 'which dominate it' through, colonial or economic ties. The, same criterion applieshere as in the,' case of respect for, human rights ; the presence of ~dence. For example, We believe that it would he doing a disservice to Libya not to admit it, after that State's independence bas been decreed by the United Nations. The United ~Tations bears an unescapable responsibility for the future of that country. Libya bas many social and economic problems which the United Nations must help to solve in view of the origin of that country's independence. So long as Libya îs not present at our discussions, it can only ask indirectly for the fulfi1J;nent of ~e moral commitments entered into by the Umted Nations. 59. l repeat what l said in July. We do not think that there can be any seriouf progress towards a solution of this impasse without an effort on the part of the five great Powers. They bear the primary responsibility, and they must honour it. The absence of 50 many States deprives us of their useful co-operation for peace and the other objeètives of the Charter, while depriving those countries which remain outside the United Nations of a sure safeguard, of a safeguard against danger from without and even against dang~r from within. The truth is that their presence in the U.lited Nations frequently obliges govemments to maintain an attitude in conformity with the ideals of the world community, or at least not too far removed from those ideals. Their presence in the United Nations aIso makes it easier for them to take measures for the economic and social well-being of their peoples. 60. For these reasons we once again appeal to the permanent members of the Security Council to seek sorne formula of agreement on the plane of political negotiation, on which they have placed the question. Until these conversations bring some results there seems to he little point in continuing our debate. In spite of this belief, my delegation would not object ta ail pending applications beingre-examined if any member of the Security Council so desires.

l have one more speaker on my list. Due to the advanced hour, l suggest that we adjoum now and resume our discussion on this item on Wednesday at 10.30 a.m. " , 1t was so decided. The meeting rose at S.SS' p.m. AIIlllTllU -AHINTINI Editori.! Sud.m.rlc.n. SA. Alsin. 500, lu.~o. Air••• ..UCE-QICE "Elofth.roucl.kl.:· tion, Ath~n AllSTl.UIA - AUstUlIl H. A. Godd.rd. 255. G.org. St., Sydn.y. .n'lllM-lEl'IQUE A,.nc••1M g.rl.. d. 1. Pt.... S.A., 1+22 ru. du P~ i1. Bnlx1Ill... W. H. Smith " Son, 71·75 "ul.v.rd "'~orpha.Mu, Bru••IlNo HUVlA-IllUVlE lilorott. S~I.cclon... Co.m. 9)2. La PI%, IlAIIL- "ESIL livt.ri.....It. Ilu. M...co 'S.I, Rio cl. Janeiro. 1llA1UW.l Goub.ud & Gu.t.mal•• HAin libr.lrla "A 111·B, Port-au.Prince. IItNOlllW librorta P.n.maric.na, Ml.nta. t.gucl!!al IIlb.A-1llIIt Oxford Book H~~ll, N".... p. V.radaeh.ry St. MadrOl CANAltA Ry.""n Pre.., 29' Qua.n St. West, T.ronto. l•• Pt....s Unlverslt.lre. Lav.I, Qu.bec. anON-ClYWl Th......oci.lod N.w.poPirs of Coylon, !,td.. lak. Hou••, Colombo. CllIli-CHIU librert. lvon•• Mon.d. 122, Santl.,o. CHIIU-CHINE Comm.rcial Pro.., ltd., 211 Hon.n Rd. Sh.ngh.i. liIDOHI1lA-IIIIONa!l J.j...n Pomb.n,un.n, Oj.k.rt.. IUN K.t.b·l(h.noh nuo, T.hra.. IUQ-IUIC M.ckanzio', lHWID - IIUNOE Hibornl.. G.noral m.rcial Building.. Ilun Blunut.ln·, &oobtoros. Roacl. Toi Avlv. ctLOMIIA-COlO.IE Ubrart. lotin. ltd... Corr.ra 60. 13.Q5. logot&. ClSTA IICl_ COSTA.IlCA Trotes Horm.nos, "'part.do 1313. S.n Jo.'. _A ITAU-ITADI Colibri SA. lo Cos. Bolg., O'R.iIIy <455. lo Habana. LEIANON - UlAN libralrl. univ.naU CEEaIOUOVAIIA - TCHECOSLOVAQUIE . Co.koslovan.ky Spi.ovat.I, N.rodnl Tricia '. 9. Ptaha 1. LIIII'A' J. Momolu K.mara. IEIlMAIk- UN'MAII Einar. Munb,.ard, Ltd.. Njlrrog.cI. 6. Klllbonh.vn. K. LUXEMIOUlt lIbtlirie J. Schummar. DOMIIlICAIl IIPDlUe- DM. IOMllIlCAINE librerta Dominicon•• M.rc.cI•• <49, C1u~ d.cI Trujillo. ICUIIOIl- EIlIAIIII lIbrorra Clontrhco, lex 362, Guayaquil l'",-IIYPO librairie "l. Ron.i..inc. d'Egypt.:· , Sh. Aclly Po.h., C.i.... MlXICO -1IEX11lIE Editori•• Hormo. <4,. MHlcc>, D.F. III1HEIWIDI_ N.V. M.rtlnu. ·.-Gravonh.g.. NEW ZI.l1AIII"-lItf,VIUI.au..1 , U. N. Assn••f WoUlnife•• IL m'AIOI-IALVAIOI M.nu.l N.va. y Cta" 1. Av.nlcl. IUr 37. S.n s.rv"'or. IIHIIIPI.l-ITNItPIE "',.n.. Ethlopi.nn. cl. -Pub/lelt6. hx 12I,AcldMoAlMbo. IllCAUIV.l Dr. Romlra R.mltlz lIOIW.lY-IIIIIYHI Johan fin..ult gusfItt. 7A, Oslo. " .....-IUlUIIDE A~.teomlnon Kirf.~.uppa. 2. K••w.qtu, H.'dnlà. IUIIII Editlono A. PHan.. 13 ru. S.ulllat. Parl,V. '.lIII1'A11 Th_os & n.m... Rood. Korlch~ Pub/I,h.... Unltod ...... Orclera'and inquirles frêlll countries where sales agents hav. not ~t been ,ppolnted may be sent tOI Sales and 4:'rculatlon Section, United Nations, New Yorte. U.S.A.; et 'ales SectIon, UnIted Nations OHice, 'olals tle. Nations, Geneva, Swltzerl.nd. Printed in Canada Priee: 15 cents (or equivalent in