S/PV.599 Security Council

The provisional agenda, the te."Ü of which is before the Coundf in document S/Agenda 599, has been drawn up in conformity wJ.th ruIe la of our ...ovisional rules of procedure. Unless 1 hear any objection l shall consider it adopted, subject ta the reservations made at previous meetings.

1 should like to inquire why sub-item 2 (a) remains on the provisional agenda. At our previous meeting we agreed that it was unnecessaryand superfluous, as the Netherlands representative had pointed out in his statements and explanatory remarks and proposaIs. 3. If the sub-paragr.aph is superfluous and unnecessary, why include it in the agenda? At our last meeting we proceeded to discuss sub-item 2 (b) because we considered sub-item 2 (a) to he·superfluous. There is therefore no justification for inc1uâing this .sub-item in the agenda. 4. The l?RESIDENT: !ri reply to the Soviet Union representative, 1 would point out that it is ooly natura! that sub-item 2 (a), "Consideration of resolution 506 (VI) ot the Gé:neral Assembly", should he inc1uded in our provisio11aI agenda: we have not yet disposedof the item. Members, of· the Security Council will recaU that at our last meeting wedecided-mer.elytecpass---unto sub-item 2 (b) , "New applications formembership". 5. Furthermore, we havenot yetconsidered paragraph lof part B ofresolution 506 (VI). In. that paragraph 6. Ml". MALIK (Union of SO"liet Socialist Republics) (translated fram Russian):' This is becoming somewhat confused. At our last meeting, the Netherlands representative proposed that we should not discuss this sub-itern as being, to use his own wards, "superfluousn • Tnday this sub-item ha!' l':?:appeared on the provisional agenda. Someone, it would appear, wishes and intends to continue ju~glin1: with these sub-items, but this represents a lack OL sedousness in the attitude of. the Security Council's members to their own decisions. 7. Inasmuch as the Council decided that this sub-item was superfluous, in accordance with the Netherlands represelltative's proposaI, there was no need ta place it on today's agenda. The fact that it h~s been placed on the agenda means that sorne confusion exists and this confusion must be cleared up. VVllat are we going to discuss today? 8. You bave, if 1 have correctly understood you from the interpretation, referred ta the latter part of resolution 506 (VI), to part B. This resolution, however, envi~ages the review of "applications still pending", tbat is to say, applications already considered by tl1.e Security Couneil. As the USSR delegation has aIready pointed out, it interprets the resolution as referring to the applications already considered by the Couneil on severaI occasions in the past, and not to Iiew applicatbns only recently received. The four applications discussed at our last meeting, and to which the ,United States representative referred in bis speech, were received in June and August. 1 am referring to the applications of Japanand the three Indo-Chinese so-called States. The General Assembly resollltion has nothing whatever to do with these n!=w applications. Libya, as already stated, is in a specb,l category and its application has aiready been considered. , 9. The crux of resolution 506 (VI) is the question of a meeting between the five permanent members of the Security Council to try to find a way out of the deadlock on the question of the admission of new Members..They met, but did not find a way out and reaffinned their former positions. Thatconstituted the entirety of their co-operation on tbis question. What then are we going to saY,with referéilce to resolutiori 506 (VI)? 10. The interpr€ta.tion of the words "applications still pending"is still apparentlyobscure. In my view, it is very clearly stated in the Assembly resolution that the applications in question are those wmch were previously considered, but on which no final· decision was taken. The General Assembly expressed a wish that the Security Couneil should reconsider those.applications, since. it could not instruct the Cauneil toconsider all the new applications, hecause it dicl not and could not know exactly what applications would be received; and confined itself, as the Pakistan representative pointed out at our last meeting, to generd details concerning Il. l urge that this matter be cleared up and the confusion dissipated; the Security Couneil should discuss sub-item Z (b) of the agenda and not sub-item 2 (a), since, as we have alreacly agreed, the latter is superfluous and there is no room for it on the agenda. 12. The PRESIDENT: l do not agree with the interpretaticih given by the representative of the Soviet Union. The sub-itemwas not disposed of 'at our ~ast meeting. It was made very dear by the interventions of the representatives of the Netherlands and Greece that the Security Council was passing ta the consideration of the next sub-item on the agenda; but there remained the question of part B of General Assernbly resolution 506 (VI) wherein a report by the Security Council is requested on the status of applications still pending. However, l shaH accept the reservations made by the Sov~et Union representative and request them to be put in the record. 13. Mr. BüKHARI (Pakistan): 1 do not know ta what extent our Soviet Union colleagui~ will be content with the President's last comment to put his, reservation in the record and then to proceed to a discussion of sub-item 2 (b) of the agenda. However, l woul:d like to make the position of my delegation somewhat cl{,,'l.rer than it might otherwise be on the procedural position \Vith which we are faced. 14. The main question with which we started this aiternoon's meeting wa.<: raised by my Soviet Union colleague, his question being whether the consideration of sub-item 2 (a) of the agenda at this stage is superfluotts or vaUd. He referred to the comments made by our Netherlands colleague aï the lait meeting that a great ,deal of the matter contained within General Assembly resolution 506 (VI) had been dealt within one form or another. WHh thatbbservation my delegation, so far as my rec':>llection goes, agreed fully at OUr lÇl.st meeting. 15: This afternoon the President has very pertinently Niised 'the question of part B of that resolution and has drawn our attention to the fact that we have one clause ofiliat part of the resolution on WÎ1ich still to act, nan1èly, to comply with th~ request of the General Assembly" that we should report ta it at its seventh 16. Obviously, we know that the discussions of the resolution in the General Assembly started much earlier than the final date on which that resolution wa~ adopted Dy the plenary body according ta the L,sua! procedure. 1t is very difficult, therefore, to say what was in the minds of the sponsors of that resolution at the time when they proposed this draft resolution and put it hefore the General Assembly. vVe have nothing to go by except the date on which that ïesolution was adopted. That date is given as 1 Feoruary 1952. It '''''ould, therefore, seem to my delegati(ln ta he within the bounds of propriety if we took "pending applications" ta mean aU mose applications which had been submitted to the Seçretary-General before 1 February 1952. 17. On that question, however, and when we look at the applications in that light, we realize that, if the President's interpretation is correct, and aU those applications which had been received by 1 February may b~ regarded as pending withill the meailing of this resolution, then aU of them have not yet been considered. Three of them,the applications of Vietnam, the Democratie Republic of Vietnam, and the United Kingdom of Libya, were received 'in December 1951. One may feelperfectly within one's right to regard those three applications aspending applications within the meaning of t'his resolution. In that case it is perfectly obvious that we cannat fulfil the requirements of this resolution anà cannot prepare our report, until we have considt';red sub-item2 (b), where aU these three application:s appear. IB"qn the other hand, in part A, paragraph 2 of the srlmei~sDlütion" resolution 506 (VI)~ the General Asse.'l1bly has put down its wishes as: follO'ws: uRecommends that the Security Council reèonsider aU pending applications for the ,admission of new , Members; that in this reconsideration, as weIl as ,.in the consideration of aIl future applications .. :' From .the words "reconsider" and "reconsiderahon" 'which are both ttsed in that section, it would appear that the General Assembly then had in mind notall the applications. received by1 February'but those3;pplications received prior to that date which hadbeen considered. Otherwise,my deleg-ationfinds it difficult to appreciate why the word "reconsideration" .should have been .used. 19. 'If thatis the ~terpretation that the President inight be pleased to put 'on this~,then .we ,. shouldbe ready now to·prepare a report in accordance with paragràph l of part B of,that 'resolution.. If,however, the President thinks that aU those applications are pending, then we obviously cannot prepare the report until we have·exhausted the. consideration of sub-item 2 (b}. 20; The second point which we might find lttisefûi to decide would be the form.. that the report take~. It would appear to rily delegahon thatonly two actlons 21. To turn back to the point l made earlier in my intervention, if we think that "pending applicationsH means all those applications which have already been consitiered, then we should beprepated to make the report and draft it in the form which l have suggested now and here. That will completely dispose of sub-item 2 Ca) and .we cau without any further procedural wrangle proceed to sub-item 2 (b). If, however, w'e think that "pending applications" within the meaning of the resolution comprise certain. applications which have not yet been considered, it is perfectly obvious that sub-item 2 (a) should be retained on the agenda until we have exhausted or come to' a conclusion one \Vay or the other on sub-item 2 (b). . 22: Therefore, l do not request the President for a ruling at this stage, but l would be grateful to hear from hirtl what his inclination would be with regard to the interpretation of the words "pending applications" in the !ight of the ward "reconsideration" used in parag,;aph 2 of part A of the resolution. 23•. With the President's p~miission, perhaps certàin of my other colleagues might like to express their views on.this subject.

In fl'ply ta the representative of Pakistan, 1 wish to say that l have in mind the observation he has just made. 25. l think that the best procedure to foliow in this instance is to pass immediately to the consideration of sub-item 2 (b) of the agenda and th('n, after we have finished with it, to consider the question raised by the representative of Pakistan in connexiun witht..'u: report. However, in order to do this, first of,all we have to adopt the agend~. as it is, inclûding $ub-item 2 (a).

l should stili' like you to specify what action we are to take on snb.:.item 2 (a). If we do not exclude it and merely postpone consideration of it, what action are. we proposing to takeon it? This isnot clear. You havenot answered the Pakistan representative'squestîonas to w11Îch applications - in your opinion - come under "l"eso- Iution 506· (VI), which applications the General .Assembly had inmind wheu it adopted this resolutipn and assigned the Security Council the t::tsk of examining the applications. .:' . 27. If we are strictly lcigîcal it seems tome that we must interpret.tht: resolution as referring to the appli- ..~,cations which have' already heeu considered, of which [rthere seem ta he fifteen in aIL AlI the others, which 28. The General Assembly suggested that the Security ,Council should' review the previous applications~ the '''pending applications" which have already been consi- 'dered, and included as the chief provision of ifs resolunon,. a provision to the effect that the permanent members of the Security Councii should confer with one another on th~ matter. Logically and in the iight of the actual state of affairs, it l:leems obvious thatit is these applications which are involved. There are fifteen of them: fourteen were inc1uded in the USSR draft resolution [S/2664] which, as we know, was recently rejected, the other being the application of the South Korean puppet régime, which was not mentioned. 29. But since the permanent members of the Council h~Ie already conferred,positions remain unchanged. At the present stage the question is therefore exhausted. Anel 50 the matter is exhaùsted.What grounds are there, it may be asked, for retainir\.gthis sub-item on our agenda? l shoulà-like to kn,ow.IWe,t11Ust know the reason why beforetàking a ç,ecisionbecausethedecision taken at our previous m;-eting was extremely confused and unclear. ' 3o..,You refer to the Greek representative's statement. But l will naw quote from the verbatim record. The Greek representative began his statement> [598th meeting] with the words: "1 may''be wron.g".Butthe Security Cauncii cannat take a deçision on the basis of S'lch a statement, when the representative. himself is nQt .certain of· what he said. The S(;urity. Council is treating WS statement as a resolution., whereas it is just chit-chatand not'a serious resolution of the Security CounciL A decision of the Secu:rity Couilcil cannot be based on a,st."'Itement on the lines of: "1 may bewrong".If,the Greek representative is,"wrong'~,. the Security ,Çouncî1,ÎS,al&.Q ·':wm.ng". But the Security COUncil is notpennitted ta be "wrong" on such a clear issue. • 31. , In the lig1:lt ofthese facts, l consider that there isnoreason to inc1ude sub-item 2 Ca) ln the Security Coun~s~~&. ' 32: 'Itsou insist, that is y~>uraffair. Retain itin the agendaf:eveÏltill thebeginning or end of the seventh session\'lof the General·' Assembly. Let ·it remain there if ~u l~ke. although l cannotbut ask why, l should 1ikethis matter· ta he .clea1'ed up. dur~, the provisiona. .5'enda for today's meeting inc1udes ail matters ilOt disposed of at the previous meeting. Sub-item 2 (a), as l have already explained twice, was not disposed of, since the question of the reportwhich the Security Council is to present to the General -Assembly on the st~tus of pending applications is still before us. A few minutes ago, the represcntative of Pakistan brought the question of thisreport into the discussion. But how can we disCl1SS the report if w~ do not retain sub-item 2 (a) in the agenda? 34. At any rate, if there is objection to the adoptior: of the provisional agenda, l shall put the question to the vote. . 35. Ml'. TSIANG (China): l do not wish'to prolong this procedural discussion. However, l should lilke to caU' the attention of my colleagues to resolution 506 (VI). Tt will be noted that that resolution has two uarts, headed A and B, respectively. Obli~tions arising {rom one part are as binding upon us, as oblig-ations arising from theother. We k"l1üW that in faet thetwo paItshad' independent origins, and the language was not consistent throughout. The final putting together of the two parts was rather artificial. Nevertheless, the obligations arlsing from both parts are equally binding upon us. 36.. Under paragraph 1 of part B. we have an oblig-....tion which is expressed in this language: . . '(The General Assentbly clDecides "1. To request the Secuiity C:>Ullcil to report to the General Assembly at its seventh session on the status of applications still pending". 37. ',' l assume that the report requested therein is a special report, and not the general report which the Security Council transmits every year to the General ,paragl'aph.~t111l:apport ASS~diy. If l am not mietaken, that paragraphputs upon the Security Council the' obligation to draft and agree upona special report covering.the subject'of the adthission of new Members" and to transmit that report to the General Assembly at its seventh session.Up to the present moment, the obligation arising. from that pa:ragraph has not been fulfilled. That obligation remains to he fulfiIl~d. Thatis. the firstpoint l wish to make. 38., Second!)r, l, calI' attention to the differenc~,in language betweenthe two, sections. The representaûve of Pakistan has referred toparagraph 2 of part A.On the basis of that language, he conduded that it was e~ote reasonable to say.that the General Assembly had .mmind,theapplications whkh had'ortce been'considel'ed'" - that is to say, only those applicationswhich needed reconsideration.Howeverj thelangt1~ge in paragraph 1 of part Bis not consistent withthe lartguage in para- ~aph 2 of part A. In part B,paragraph lreads: ", .. to report to,the 'General,Assèmbly atits' seventh _l'~ssemblée. se~sion Qn the status ofapplicatim"-s stillpending." 41. Practically, l accept the suggestion which the President originally put befor~ the Council, namely, that we pass on to discussiOI~ of sub-item 2 (b) and, later, come back to see v/hat should be done with sub-item 2 (a). Howeve:;:, since objections have been raised to this procedurt::, l think it would be advisable tù put an end to the discussion by putting the adoption of the agenda to a vote.

AU the points wmch ha.ve geen discussed until now will be dealt with when the Couneil is considering the report referred ta under part B of resolution 506 (VI) of the General Assembly. The important thing at the present moment is ta adopt the agenda. Therefore, l would request representatives to limit.their remarks to the matter of the adoption of the agenda. 43. Mr. KYROU (Greece): I shall vote for the adoption of the agenda, and l shall do so foï' very clear, sÙ!1ple reasons. ' 44. You, Mr. President,' have referred to ace of my interventiôns at the last meeting of the Couneil and, \vith your permission, l shall quote from my own statement: , "However, l wonder whether we are not wasting tim~and whether it would not be advisable ta proceed at once to the examination of sub-item 2 (b), leaving open for the time being the question under.sub-item 2 (a). We could return ta the latter afterhaving deaJt with sub-item 2 (b)". 45. The. representative of the Soviet Union took .èXcèption te the words "1 may be wrong", with whkh l began my intêrventio1.1. l am not suiprised at that. The 'W0rds, "Imay bt wrong", will never be found in a statement bfMr; Malik.Mr. Malik is alwàys right, c!ike:-,~41WiglJ.ty. But,as a matter of fact, l was not ~WroIïg7'·I~"Wai.rig1lE-r·-s}liti-;"~~~ c .•... •... . •.•.....••_ "1 maybe wrong, but l am mider the impression-' .' that when thè General Assembly, ai: its sixth session, ·di~cussed the question of néw Members, other appli- "., •••.• ,.' èàtiOt.is}o!'1J1embershiphad already been submitted "·inaddition· to tlle tbtlrteCtl"applications e1;l11ll1erated ":in the Soviet Union proposa!." .. . , :-''; ~'1 • • . 46,-Re?olutiQn ·5Ùçj' (VI) was adopted by the General AsséJ,riblyon l February 1952. At that time,in addition to',.thé t0.!-1rteenapplic~tioJ;1s enut:nerated in the Soviet 'tlnion. prpp<?s.al"'-not ~d:op~ed by the Securit'j'. Couneil ':., the}o~o:wing~pJ?~~!ions for ?Iemb,~rshiph~dalr~ady 'Been submttted : the Government of Vtetp.<ltn,submttteq on 19 December 1951 [5/2446] ;the Rejmtilic ofKorea,

The President stated that sub~item 2 (a) must be inc1uded in the agenda for the purpose of compiling the report. Our Pakistan colleagtte has eh"'Pressed his views on one form the report might take. Instead, therefore, of postponing the discussion of this sub-item, it would be better to finish with it. If a report is needed, it must he "ubmitted ta the General Assembly. What kind of report is needed? According to rule 60 of the rules of procedure, which states that uIf the Security Council does not recommend the applicant State for membership . . . it shan submit a special report ta the General Assembly with a complete record of the discussion", it would be a very simple report. 48. The permanent members of the Security Council have conferred. The situation is unchanged. It is therefore :necessary ta submit a brief report on this subject to the General Assembly, attaching the records of the discussions in the Security Council. 49. It is hardly appropriate to postpone the matter on this account. That, however, is your affair, the affair of your majority. Do as you please. l onlyexpressed the view that "ne decision was adopted the day before yesterday an" a completely different one today. I consider that an incorrect approach to a solution of the prablem. 50. With regard to the Greek representative's observation, l must tdl him that in order not to make a mistake he merely has to base his statements on faets. But that observation of )Tours to which I refer is not based on the fac's. You are again combiIlJng two ideas : whether the Security Council has considered a given app1icatio~ or not, and the date when the application was submltted. They are not one and the same thing. 51. You mentioned the dates on which the :applications • 1 ~_~S()uth Korea were submitted. It is true that· those appllcatîons .were .submitteàa long tit11eago=first in 1949 and thep. again in December 1951. But have ffiose applications be~n con.sidered? They have been con- 31dered several tlmes. Can they be regarded as new? No. And.the General' Assembly ·recommended the Security C9~ndl .to reconsider, not to begin cOrisidering applieatlOns again. These are gènerally known and obvious faets.· . ?2. ,yOtt enitmerated a ~umber of otheiapplications, lucluding that of the People's. De-llli)cratie-R.epublic of· Korea. As ii; apparent from theCrecords, the American- 53. Thus, what criterion shall we take as a basis for our deision? Shall we take as the basis the dates on which applications were submitted, or the question as to whether they have been considered in the Security Council ? I prefer to take as a basic criterion the question of considemtion, that is, whether the Security Council has considered a given application or not. Applications whieh the Security Coundl has considered are old applications and General Assembly resolution 506 (VI) instructs us to reconsider them. We have reviewed them and reached no agreement. The question is exhausted. 54. Now we are gaing on to the new applications. In what sense are they "new"? Notfrom the point of . view of the date of submissioh as you affirm. The point is not whether these applications were submitted in December 1951 or on 1 Februal'Y 1952, before the end of the sixth session, but rathel', that the Security Council has not once considered them and that not once, either in the General Assembly or in its Committees~ has anyone mentioned Bao Dai's Vietnam or the Democratie Republic of Vietnam because, .for the (!,eneral Assembly at itssixth session,tA9se applica.tiolls d not exist. Formally and legally, they were not there; ,te AssemblY:',llew nothing about them. The Security Council did know about them because the)' had been submi.tted . to.. the . Coundl, but the Coundl did nnt c,pnsid~them. Thus;they-a.re-newbothior the~~c,~rity CounC11 and for the. General Assembly. The Assembry' _ ...'could not give the Security Council any recommendation as to how to deal with them, because it did not kno'" about them. . 55. In the Security Coundl now the representatives are showing a definite desire to throw aIl these appli- ---_ca~~~)nt2-a hc;ap -:-:.~!~ .applications and .new applil..ënluns,appITaitlë1t1S;,-:tna~-,:-ha-~--..bee!L~-Q~~de~dand.. ap ..Plicati.ons that. hav.e n.C?t oéèn .conside.ïed.-.atî.•à-.fo -1-1~lJnt~fii1s::-.~té.-rl1~ apply to aIl ofthem the s1tl~le eptthet"pcndmg". ~~~:.iQ~~;;ng .I~':':. t1~:r~~i":J confuse mattersl pIease go on doing 50. Il vote was taken oy sho't.': of hands. In fâvour: Braz!l, Chile, China, France, Greece, Netherlands, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain &!le! Northern Ireland, United States of America. AIJstaining: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Admission

There were 9 votes in favour, none against, and 1 abstention. The representative of Pakist~n was absent. The agenda was adopted. Admission of new Members: (b) New appUcaûons for membership (8/2446, 8/:'.466, 8/2467, 8/2672, 8/2673 and 8/2706) (continued) résolution la concernant mement, bodge. 61. Mr, TSIANG (China): The point under discus- 61. sion now seems to be the question whether these applime cations should he referred to our Committee on the question de savoir s'il y a lieu Admission of New Members or not. 50 I would like au to 11lake a brief statement in answer to that question, pourquoi The question, in faet, embraces a number of questions. - Should all these new applications be referred to the C01111l1itteeon the Admission of New Members?Or au should some of them be referred to that Committee faut-il and sorne not? If so, which ones should we send ta the Committeeand which ones should we keep here? 62. Thenthere 15 the question of the timelimit. Rule 59 oftheprovi::;ional rttles,of procedure, which proyidas for the Commjttee on the Admission of ,New Members, stipttlates that the report of the Committee should he submitted ~ot less tban thirty-five days in advance ·uf a t'egulal' session of the General.Assembly. That is

1 suggest that, in conformity with the procedure adof>ted at our last meeting, we should resume our discussion of sub-item 2 (b), "New applications for membership". 60. Five draft resolutions have been submitted under .sub-item 2 (b): first, S/2483, concerning Libya, submitted by Pakistan; secono.ly, S/2754, concerning Japan, submitted by the United States; thirdly, -5/2758, concerning Vietnam, submitted by France; fourthly, S/2759, concerning Laos, submitted by France; an,d fifthly, S/276O; concerning Cambodia, submitted by France. _.QQs.$ible ùnde~_'pre;.ent ~irctit!istj:l.nces. Th~refore, 4rüay referetl~'tj:r:!ne-'t.0mmtttee.'hf!. !!Lage•.sliould the Securi~y Council, or-'s11?U~d it iIot, re9u~re:1I1art~T '~Q~n~'t~~ C01U111lttee should su.bml~ ItS report wlthl':l ten day~ r or two weeks ta be lU tlme for the Secunty Counct! " · -=X Il appli~d. We know very weIl that there have been cases of applications acted upon by the Council without any reference to the Committee on the Admission of New Members. 64. What is the purpose of that rule? Why should we have a committee on membership? It is very clear that the purpose of the Committee on the Admission of New Members is to secure for the members of this Council such additional information as may be needed to determine the recommendation. In a case where a majority of the members do not possess sufficient information to make that decision, it would be proper and wise to refer such an application to the Committee. Of course, there are other ways of getting information, but reference to the Committee seems to be as convenient a way of getting that information as any other '.vay. That is the purpose of that committee on membership. 65. The point which îs being made by my delegation is this: Do 1 need further information in regard to any one of these new applications ?WhereI feel a need, l would favour reference to the Committee on the Admil)sioll of New Members. Where 1 do not feel the need for àdditional information, 1 would not favour a reference to the Committee on the Admission of New Members. We examine this list. We find, first of all~ Libya. Libya is geographically rather distant from my country. 1 must admit the knowledge we had in previous years had been rather scanty. But the General Assembly has devoted COf, •derable discussion to the province of Libya. 1 do not :hink any member on this Security Council could daIm that he does not possess enot'gh information on Libya to come to a decision on this reconimendation. That is the stand we take in regard to Libya. vVe think it is unnecessary to refer the application of Libya to the commîttee on membership. ....• .. ·ô6.''''1'hatis1îkewisê ou~positiQp,wjthl'Ëgard to Japan. Japan, so far as China is concerned, is gèographtealiy and culturally very close to my country. We Imow Japan probably as weIl as' we know any other foreign country andprobably better than most other countries of the world. l'canfi6t daim that we need a committee to investigate Japan beÎore my delegation could come to adecisiononthat application. So, as far as Japan is concerned, lfeel thatit is useless, unnecessary and superfluous ,to refer that application to the Committee t'theAdmission oiNew Members., Japan's world 67. Then we come down to Vietnam, Laos and Camhoclia. In re~rd to these three applications, my delegation finds ltself suffidently informed to act upon the applications now without reference to the Committee on the Admission of New Members. They are close neighbours of my country. We have had long relations with them. lt wou~rl be false ta daim that 1 need additional information on these coumries in order to Rct on their applications. 68. However, there may be members of this Coundl from other regions of the world more distant from Vietnam and Cambodia who may find additional information necessary. l would suggest, in that case, that we might get this additional information by putting questions to the representative in our midst who is sponsoring the applications of these three countries. 1refer to the representative of France. Or we might ask that the representatives of Vietnam,' Laos and Cambodia be available for the purpose of giving information to this Coundl, and we might put to them sueh questions as any member of this Coundl desires ta put to them. 69. What 1 wish.to say is this: in case any member of the Security Council should find it necessary to seeure additional information, we can get that information without reference to the Committee on the Admission of New Members. We can ask questions of the French representative here who is sponsoring these applications. We may ask the representatives of these States to appear at the Council table and put questions to them. Of course, we can also resort to the Committee on the Admission of New Members. In that case, 1 would suggest that any reference of the application of any one of these three countries - Vietnam; Laos and Cambodia - to that Committee should be with ~ time limitation; in other words, the Committee on the Admission of New Members must report back to the Council, let us say, in two weeks. In short, that is the stand of my delegation in regard to the question of reference to the Conullittee on the Admission of New Members. 70. There is another application.which 1 have not covered, the application contained in document S/2466, which purports to come from Vietminh. That, of course, is a group of Communists who are rebelling against their dwn Government. In the mind of my delegation, wa find that group lacldng' the elementary bases, both moral and physica1, of statehood. It is the view of my --<lele~tiGn.that t..hat application does not deserve any conSideration at aIl. --.

The French delegation considers that, although the Security Council isa1ways the master ofits p~ocedure, it should disregard or reverse the requirel1le~ts of its provisional rules on1y for pertinent and serlOUS reasons. otherwis~l" and consider these applications directly. 1 73. My delegation does. not intend to object to the àpplication of the normal procedure set. forth in' role 59 to all of these applications, provided, however, that this procedure applies to all of the applications now submitted for our consideration. It will not object Ùecause it has no reason to fear the submission of the three applications which it. has recommended for approval by the Council tl) the usual procedure. The 9,ualifications of Vietnam, cambodia and Laos to belong to the United Nations are firmly based and obvious enough to arouse ..no fear of detai1~d consideration. Ml'. Malik's il1nueridos on t'1at point do not trouble us an.y more than his facil~'larcasm about the uncertaintîes in the mind of membei"s of the Council about the géographic location of thase States. Unfortunately, ~t i8 easier today ta locate on a map Vietnam, cambodia and Laos, summoned to independence by France, than fi> find a number of other States stricken from the list of free nations by the will 'Jf the_USSR Governmept. ~uch daims. 7'5. Wouldit, according ta him, have been enough for him to have deigned to make Libya one of the elements in the bargain he proposed to us and which we refused, ta render it impossible for us now to study the qualifications of that StÇl.te in themselves and apart.from. aIl othèrs? Canthe arbitrary choice he has made of fourteen of the applications presented, proposing their admission en'bloc, serve to tie ourhands with regard to each of those States individually,particularlyin the case of a State,which,as our Chilean colleague pertinently noted af the last meeting, has never had its qualifications considered'by the Council and which therefore from all poin~sofview i5 a new applicant? Because we' have tefused to link the admission of Libya to the admission of 'other States rejeetedearlierby a majority of the Gouncil, have we ;sacrificed' the riglit to consider its _~_ ~p1Ï€ation-jn ~rC'Qr.Jia1Jce.Wit!I the rules and criteri",. of the Charter? " - ,conformément-aux 76. l c.m understand that it is more embarrassing for the USSR delegation to veto the admission of Libya than, for example, the admission of Portugal. Regardless, however, of our desire to takeits wishes into 81. The United States representative was at pains to mention precedents, but named only one - Indonesia. But this is an exception and not a rule. And weare aIl well aware that from 1946 to the present day the Security Council has recommended nine States for membership in the United Nations since the establish.. ment of the,· .Qrganization.;-77',Ar~hanistan, Burma, y I '>6 emen, srael, Indonesia, Ic.eland, Pakistan, Siam and S dOl f th . 1" h f we en. n y one 0 ese mne app lcattons - t at 0 Indonesia - was considered by !he Council direct1y and twas not ref~rred to the Commlttee. $2... This is how the matter reaIly stands. This is the history of the Conneil and its work in that field. The 84<) It is, of course, impossible to concur in such a Hrie of argument and in such an approach to the matter. 85. Realizing the wealmess' of his arguments and the difficulty of getting round rule' 59 - and there is no fustification for that - the United States representative has resorted to a numberof further arguments, which are however just as unsound as his original or, so to .speak, main argument. 87. The USSR delegation is in favour of observing, not of infringing, violating and ·disregarding the rules of procedure. But this is precisely the course into which the United States representative is steering us. 88. The United States representative is also attempting to prave that, because applications already considered have been included in the Security Councirs agenda, the Council must examine them. Nothing of the sort. Under its rules of procedure, the Security Council receives applications, includes thel11 in its agenda a.nd refers them to a Committee for examination. That is the correct course and O!1e which would be fully in accordance with the rules of procedure and established practke. 89. In no circumstances can the case of' Indonesia serve as a precedent. At our last meeting l explained why, exceptionally, Indonesia's application was dealt with by the Security Council directly and not through the Committee on the Admissionof New Members. It is cornillon knowledgethat the Council has been dealing with Indonesia for a number of years and there would have beenno point in referring the matter to the Coinmittee.· . 90. AIl this goes to show that the United States representative and those .who support him have no justification for referring applications already considered to the Committee - and that is why they have to invent arguments. 91. The French representative. proceeded more cautiously. He is not "for" and he is not "against". He is not against the mIes of procedure and is for referring the applic~tioni'l to the Committee, but with reservations. Thatisa half-way position, althoughthere is absolutely no justification for· k Therefore ... 92. Mr. HOPPENOT (France) (translated tram French) : l wotildaskthe USSR representative not to make statements about what he has not heard. If he had been present at the beginning of my statement, he would have realized that l clearly and unequivocally took a position in favour of referring al1applications to the Committee on the Admission of New Members, not for the same reasons as he, but solely out of re~pect for orderly procedure. 93. Mr.MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated tram Rv,ssian):. l welcome the French representative's respect for the Council'srules of procedure. .. ' 94. The United States representative tried toallege that someone intencj.eJi.to protract the consideration of these applications.,J1hat statement is àbsolutely without foundation. Itrn~telyshow.s .'.that ,the United States representative 1acks well-founded arguments': . 97. l adV=.se-~y.ott, Mr. Hoppenot, to read the application from one of the States whose admission to membership'in .the United Nations you rcC'ommend, the application of BaC> Dai's Vietnam, in document A/2168. In the last paragraphbuttwo on page 3 of the mimeographed English text of that application, we read that: "It is only by reason of circtÙnstances beyond 'Ïts control, to wit the state of disturbance still prevailing in certain parts of its territory", that Bao Dai's government "has' not yet· Men able to set up representative assemblies, as it would have wished". 98. What does aIl this mean? It means that the so-cal1ed government of Bao Dai's Vietnam does nût know its own geography and is unaware of 'fhat is going on in Vietnam territory. It is not in a position to exercise control over the territory of which it claims 'to he the government. That is a concrete example of why it is necessary to study in the Committee the cases of States thus created at random by the French interver:+ionists in Indo-Cmna and their protectors from over the ocean. 99. Applications and assertions must be based on facts.When it expresseddoubtsas towhether aIl the memhers of' the Security Council were sufficientIy weIl acqtiajnted . with .the geographical situation of these States, the USSR delegation was basing its remarks on that very memorandum from this.so-called govemmetlt, which is itself ignorant of its'own geography and its own territory and is not in a position to exercise controlover that territory. 102. At the last meeting it was stated that no formaI proposaI has been 8ubmitted on the matter. The USSR delegation is prepared to submit a formaI proposaI, but considers that it is an elementary truth, an elementary rule, that the- Security Council should automatieally refer consideration of new applications for admission to the Committee on the Admission of New Members, without superfluous discussion and \vithout.proh:acting the debate on this subject.

l shall try to summarize the present procedural situation. 104. The Sovi,~t Union representative,vdthout introdudng any formaI motion to this effect, contends' that the new applications for membership should be referred to the Committee on the Admission of New Members, in conformity with rule 59 of our provisibnal rulesof procedure. He argues that that is th~ normal procedure to follow and, moreover, a cproced'i1l'ç wJ:üch should be followed auiomatically. l shaH not dispute the accuracy of that statement, since l, myself" raised the point at our last meeting.. l must point out, however, that objections have been raised to our following tms course: at our last meeting, by the United States representative; and at today's meeting, by the representa:tive of China. l do not feel that the President has the power to refer applications' to the' Committ~e on the Admission of New Members without a c1ear decision on the matter by the Security Couneil it3elf. 105, Rule 59 indicates the ustial J:'iocedure· to be followed, unless the Security Couneil decides otherwise. To my mind, it is thus quite c1ear tiJat the Council should have an opportunity to pronounce itself on'tms matter. This pronouncement is often tacitly implied when no objections are raised to the President's announcement that he ts ïeferring'an application to the . ". Gmmùttee,o~;theAdmiasionofNew.,Mem,bers. In _the. pafilcular instance, however,. objections havebeen iaîsed by two delegations to refèrring these.applications to the. Coinmittee. . - lOS. l think. that the best andmost .logical way to settle the problem, without wastirlg further tiine on this procèdural debate, wotild be for me to formulatè the question for the Security Council's·decision. '1 shaH 107. Ml'. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Reptiblics) (translated from Rusû-an): With aU due respect for the President's conclusions and deductions and for his desire for an early end (\t this procedural discussion, l cannot concur in his proposal, which is contrary to the rules of procedure. The rules of proce~ dure lay down that the President shaU refer these applications to the Committee of the Secul'ity Council, unless the Council decides otherwise. . 108. The proposaI we should put to the vote is not, therefore, whether the Security Council is prepared to refer these applications to the Committee on the Admission of New Members, but precisely the opposite proposaI, namely, whether the Cou.llcil is prepared to make an exception and not to refer these applications ta the Committee. This is how the proposal should be made. Those who are pressing for the applications to be considered directly in the Security Council are submittingan e..xceptional proposaI, which is contrary ta the rules. The main point of rule 59 of the rules of procedure is that any new application reaching the Security Council should be referred by the President to the Committee, uniess the Couneil decides otherwise. 109. In the present instance the United States representative and those who always support him have expresstd themselves in favour of the Security Counci1's making such an exception and considering these applications itsclf. To them, the geographical situation with regard to these.so-caUed States is clear, the history and internaI situation are clear - everything is clear to them. But there has been a difference of opinion here. Thmtgh everything is clear to those who created these puppet States, there is much that is not cIear to those who have to decide the question of their admittance ta membership in the United Nations. And that is why, adhering strictly to mIe 59 of the ru1es of procedure, we must l'efer these applications tothe Committee. 110.. Those, therefore, who submit a proposaI suggesting that an exception should be made must submit their proposaI, and not the ru1es of procedure, to the voJe. The rules of procedure are not voted on, they are observed. 1'n. l therefore consider that it wouldbe·correct to express the pl"oposal as follows : 1s the Security Council itself prepareâ to consider these applications - directly, without feferring them to the Committee? 112. The proposed exception is an extraordinary one, ' one which' has only once been made in.the history of the Security Council. If there is such an ardent desire to make an exception in favour of these so~called States - although, as is perfectly clear,there is absolutely no justification fm: doing so - let this proposaI for an exception be put to the vote, and not the rule itself. Irepeat: a,rule is not voted on, itis complied wîth. If we were to vote on every rule, wè shouid be violating .the rules· of procedure Df the Security CoundI. The 113. Mr. BüKHARI (Pakistan) : A certain difference of opinion in the Security Couneil has become obvious on the question of whether these applications should or should not he referred to a committee. Basing himself on that difference of opinion, as it has appeared, the President bas felt bounr! to formulate his proposaI to the Security Couneil as he has worded it. My delegation has grave doubt::; as ta whether the :President need feel the obligation that he has deelared he does feeI. For the sake of good arder, therefore, my de1egation would like to point out most respectfully to the President that the rule, as it stands, says: "Unless the Secur:ty Couneil decides otherwise, the application shan he referred by the President ..." The ward "shaUn, to my mind, is one of the most mandatory words in the English language. And the proviso in the beginning says: "Unless the Security Council decides otherwise n It does not say: "Unless there is no objection n 114. The President has ruled or pnLcticaIly ruled that, because there are certain objections, he is therefore prevented from being bound by the obligations of the word "shann. With that, my delegation most respectfuny disagrees. Our view is that, in spite Qf the objections, the President is bound to refer these applications to a committee, unless one of the objectors puts it forward as a formaI proposaI and the Council subsequently accepts that formaI proposaI. Sincè that situation has not arisen, my delegation reserves its position on the implied rulin"" in the formulation of the President's proposaI. 115. Out of deference ta the P~'esident and realizing that this IP\'l.st b~ his wen-considered view, we shall not challenge che ruling that is implied, but in order to indicate that my delegation does not think that the formulation is within the rules or necessitated by the mIes in the manner in which the President has put it, my delegation will abstain in the vote on the issue as it has been formulated by the President. 116. We shan abstain in the vote on that formulation ' '..-hichever of the new applicantsthat formulation may cover. But in order to indicate that mydelegation regards Libya as a very special case, in spite of the objections that mydelegation has tù:d to put on record we shaH participate in the vote with regard to Libyd., provided the President accedes to the request of mv delegation that in the formulation as he proposes ta put it to the Council, Libya shouldbe voted upon separately. ' 1}7. We shaH make an exception in the caSe of Libya because:'my de,l,egation sttongly holds :that, although there mày be many"applicants in the totallist of twentyone,applicants"w~b'se case niay be as' strong as Libya's, and pc::rhaps trom '~he poiht of'vie"i,(r ot'sorne Members, stronger, there is 'no' âpplicant whose case is dearer. In fact, in this particular case, considering that the General Assembly has for three sucçessive years pronounced itself cIearly on the question of the desirability 118. Therefore, even though we disagree that the formu'lation as the President has proposed it is in conformity with the ntles, we shaH make an exception in the voting in the case of Libya, if the President would be so kind as ta put Libya to the vote separate1y, in order to indicate our belief that Libya need not be subjected unèier any circumstances to consideration by a c0111mittee, although we feel absolutely certain that by being considered by the Committee on the Admission of New Members Libya has nothing to 10se. But we think that for the sake of our dignity as the United Nations and in order to respect the decision taken by ourselves and by many other Members of the United Nations in the General Assembly, we should not expose Libya to this procedure. 119. The PRESIDENT: The representative of the Soviet Union contends that the procedure l outlinedwithout, of cou.se, giving any ruling on 'the matteris not the proper one. He contends that mIe S9 should apply automatiçally and, if the Council is to be consulted on the matter, the questionshould be put before it in the following manner: Does the Security Council wish to consider.the applications directly? 120. The representative of Pakistan made similar objections to the formulation of the President. In fhis connexion, may l recall the precedents of the Security Council. At the 409th meeting of the Security Council on IS F~bruary 1949 the President announced that, actording to the usual procedure of the Security Council, the application of the Republic of Korea wou!d be referreà to the Cornmittee on the Admission of New Members. On that occasion, he ,'5tated: "If there is no objection to following the usualprocedure, it will he handIed in that manner". The representative of the Soviet Union objected to the transmission of the item to the Committee for consideration. The President felt called upon to put the matter to the vote after the complicated 'debate, and he statel'" . . .."As .. thereare Ilo furth\=r ,'3peakers on this item., l'shâll'pûf to"the 'vote the proposâl ta .l'der the appli- ' cation of the Republic of Korea to the Committee on the Admission of New Members." 121. Ml". HOPPENOT (France) (translated from French) : My delegation is in full agreement with the first part of the statement of therepresentative of Pakistan pertaining to the form in which the proposa1 we are to vote on should be put; it considers that it ' 123. Ml'..MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translatcd !r01n Russian) : The President was very unfortunate in his choice of a precedent, for the one he chose does not strengthen his position. He read a statement by the President of the Security Couocil to the effect that according.to the ordinary procedure new applications are referred to the Committee. That is what 1 and some other representatives' have already been trying to prove in the course of two meetingsthat that is the ordinary procedure in accordance with rule 59. The President has merely confirmed by bis quotation that we are right. It only remains for me, therefore, to thank him for referring to a precedent which fully confirms our position with regard to the necessity for obse~'ving rule 59. 124. So far as concerns the second part of the Pre.. sident's statement, he is not quite accurate. 1 was the representative of the Soviet Union at t'hat meeting, and 1 voted as 1 did not because 1 objected to the reference of the applications mentioned by you to the Committee, but because 1 objected to the who1e idea of considering, in any circums~ances whatever, this application from the puppet Government of South Korea, which had been created at that time by the United States military authorities. The position of the USSR delegation was thus quite clear and obvious: we never objected to the reference of applications to the Committee. Such reference is the law, it is what the ru]:s of procedure require. What justification could there be for objecting? The USSR delegation objected to the whole idea of considering the application mentioned by you, because there was no justification for considering it, whether in the Committee, the Security Council, or in any other organ of the United Nations. 125. That is the heart of the matter. \iVhen, therefore, the President referred to this precedent,' he cbnflrmed, in the first part of his statement, the position which we support, and in the second part he was guilty of an ina~curacy. That is why 1decided to clarify the question. At that time we were prepared to support the reference of applications to.the Committee, and we are in favour of so' referring them now; but at that time wè were against the wholè idea of c:onsidering the application mentioned by you,and we now take the same attitude towards thm: proposaI. 127. In the President's last intervention, he tried to meet the objections raised by my Soviet Union colleague and myself. Nevertheless, in trying to meet those o'bjections, he relied, so far as 1 could understand, upon what he considered to be an inconsistency in the stand taken by the Soviet Union delegation on two different occasions. The representative of the Soviet Union has tried ta convince the President that there was no inconsistency. l have nat the te..'\.t before me, and 1 cannot pronoutlce on the subject. But, even if there was an inconsistency in the Soviet Union's attitude, 1 do not think that that would be enough to satisfy me that 1 was wrong. 1 am sure that my Soviet Union colleague would himself be the last to try to perst~",de you, Mr. President, to visit his sins on me. 1 have c:nough sins of my own to look alter.

In reply to the representatives of the Soviet Union and Pakistan, let me say that, as 1 stated in my formulation of the procedural situation, 1 did not make any ruling on the matter. It is up to the Security Council ta decide which course of action it wishes to follow. 1 merely outlined the procedure that has in its favour more.than one precedent. Nothing in our precedents or in our record appeared to endorse the contention that applications should almost automaticaUv he referred to the Committee on the Admission of New Members. That the Council is expected to pronounce itself on the course to be followed is shown quite dearly by the verbatim record of the 410th meeting of the Council, held on 16 February 1949. At that meeting the Soviet Union representative, Mr. Malik, submitted to the Security Council a draft resolution [S/1259} worded as foUows: "The Security Council, "Having considered the application of the Govemment of the Democratie People's Republic of Korea for membership in the United Nation, "Resolves to refer this application to the Comnùttee on the Admission of New Members." 129. For our particular case, "Ilhat is important is not the outc:ome of the vote on such a draft resolution. The importa11\: point is that Mr. Malik thought it necessarj to submit a draft resolution calling for referetice of the application to the Committee. In my opinion, Mr. Mamc's action at that time was tantamount to a recognition of the fact that the Council is entirely free to adopt any course in this connexion. 130. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russ!an) : 1 must express my gratitude ta the Pakistan representative for not wishing to attribute his sins to me. To judge by what the President is· doing, he is attempting to attribute so many sins to me that 1 can scarcely bear the burden of them aU. , 131. 'The point however is that aU the attempts which the President is making to attribute sins to me are 133. The President was therefore incorrect in saying that there is no need to mention the results of the vote. They must be mentioned and a beginning must be made with them. because they are the key to' the whole substance of the question. If they are not mentioned, there will be confusion and the whole question will he unclear. 134. In this matter an attempt has been made to cast me in the role of a sinner. In reality. however. where this question is concerned, 1 am a righteous man inasmuch as 1 defended a righteous cause. 1 defended the interests of a State and the interests of a Government which was legally e1ected by the people, and which applied to the United Nations for admission to membership. But your colleagues in the Anglo-American bloc were unwilling not only to admit it to membership in the United Nations, but even to consider its application. 135. That was why 1 was compelled to submit the draft resolution you cited. That precedent has no bearing on the case we are at present discussing. and in consequence you have again missed your aim. 136. AU this is borne out by ;.1- e clear, unequivocal and definite word "shall" in 59, which, as the Pakistan representative has air ~Y pointed out, implies obligation. The Cotmcil must .h ~refore refer new applications ta the Committee for consideration unless it decides otherwise as a Special exception. But no one has submitted a proposaI to maire any such exception. 137. The United States representative has stated that he is in favour of cOl1sidering immediately the appli-. cations from Japan and the puppet States of Indo China, but has submitted no forntal proposaI. His 146. 1 wonder whether the President could not request the Council ta proceed ta a prior vote ta indicate on which of these two proposaIs it wishes to vote. 147. The PRESIDENT: That is just what 1 had suggested ta the Security Counci1. In the absence of anv formaI motion one way or the other 1 suggested a èertain course of action and asked the Council ta pronounce upon it. That is my position as President. 1 did not give any ruling at all but invited the Cotmcil to decide whether it wished ta refer the matter ta the Committee on the Admission of New Members or ta deal with it directly itself.

1 was going to speak on the suggestion ta adjourn the present meeting. While admiring the desire of the representative of Greece for peace, 1 was wondering if it was 110t too much ta meditate for an entire week-end to resolve a procedural situation which seems very simple.

It is of course a great honour for the USSR delegation to have a whole rule of the Security Council's rules of procedure attributed to it, as the French representative has done. But we decline this honour with thanks, since the rule is not ours. This is a common provision of the Security Council's mIes of procedure and we are bound to observe it. It is one of the articles of the Security Council's constitution Let us comply with it. Vve lay no claim ta the authorship in connexion with this rule. It is a common rule; it is a compulsory rule for aIl members of the Security Council, and we must be governed by it. It should not therefore be put to the vote, but should be carried into effect. And we insist on the observance of this ru!e of procedure. 150. 1 cannot therefûre concur in the President's proposa! to put to the vote the question whether the - Security Counci! wishes to refer applications to the Committee. The Counci! has no option in the matter. In accordance with therules of procedure it is obliged to refer. these applications to the Committee, unless it decides otherwise. But there are no grounds for such a decision and no one has submitted a proposaI to that effect.· 151. Let this then be our decision. There are no .formaI propùsals that the Counci! shou1dnot act in conformity with .this rule.Bythis very fact, therefore,, the applications are referrea to the Committee for consideration. 152. In my opinion, this is the most appropriate procedure and one completely in 1ine with the Chilean representative'sremark that it is not "grand" enough

It is unfortunate for me that the French representative's support of my suggestion should have heen sa short lived. 1 am sure he will apprecinte t.~at.his la~t suggestion was completely contrary to the first agreement with my point of view which he had heen kind enough ta express. If, therefore, we are going ta spend the week-end in contemplation, it would be most useful if the representative of France would aIso contemplate the question whether, finally, he is in agreement with the President or with me. 154. Since we are to ponder this matter, 1 should like to· put it very simp~y. My delegation consE.:1ers, from its reading and interpretation of the Tule, that no e.xplicit vote at aIl is.required jn order ta referthis ma.tter to a committee; that, furthermore, seven positive votes are required in arder not ta refer the matter ta a Committee. When, therefore, we are trying ta decide how ta interpret the., rules,. we should, 1 thïnk, he guilty of ignoring the rules if we put the proposaI in sucb a way that referring the matter to a committee would require seven positive votes. 155. Mr. SANTA CRUZ (Chile) (translated from Spanish): The President has said that he has not taken any decision on this procedural situation and, on the other hand, the fact is that the representatives of France,· Pakistan and the Soviet Union have expressed their points of view in the matter, suggesting a definite interpretation of the provisions of th~ rules under consideration. 1 have not heard any delegation object to that interpretation and l believe that, in the eircumstances, it might be possible for the President to take a decision along the lines suggested by th( representatives of France, Pakistan and the .Soviet Uidon, whose opinion l also fully share. 156. It must he takeninto consideration that ruIe 59 of the mIes· of procedure places.. responsibility .in this matter on the President, which makes it difficult for the Council to decide by a vote. In effect, rule 59 does not state that .the applications shall be referred to the Committee by th.e Council, but that, unless the Security Couneil decides .otherwise, tJ1e application shaH be referred by the President to the Committee. The obligation therefore rests with the President and 1 b~lieve that it should be cal'-l'ied out unless a contrary âecision is taken by the Council on the proposaI of OI:le of its members. 157. III addition, 1 be1ieve that, in accordance with a precise and strict interpretation of the rule, the President V/ould not even need ta refer to the Council intaking a decisioli of thiskind and it would be sufficient for him tàbe informed of an application, ta notify the membersof. the· Council of it and if, within a .specified period, no request werereceived for a meeting of the Council toconsider· the application directly, he would refer it to the Coinmittee. l believe that ordy in. th.at waycould the provisions of rule 59 be strictly observed. J58., The' :PRESIDENT: In .. reply to the r·epre- .,.. .séntatiye. of .Chile, .l regret not to agree with him ,his - -:,~.tntequ:~t~!!~n. There'are. no pr~cedents in the,Security ....

l should like first and foremost to allay the fears. of our colleague trom Pakistan and assur,e .him that l remain in full agreement with him on the thesis he so brilliantly defended. l should also like to tell him that the pertinent arguments with which he supported that thesis have not, in my opinion, lost any of their force or their value. 160. Unfortunately, those arguments do not seem to have convinced the President any more than mine or those ot our colleaguefrom Chile. Since, in anyevent, we cannot remain here aIl evening, and perhaps aIl of next week, repeating our position on this point, my proposaI was intended solely to seek to bridge the gap between us. Moreover, l do not believe that that proposai corresponds· exact1y .to the President's: he said that he would ask us whether we were in favour of teference to the Committee, in' accordance with the rules of procedure. There are three or four representatives here who believe that the following question should be put to us: "Are you in favour of making an exception to the rule?" 161. Therefore,there is a difference of opinionbetween thePresident'spoint of view, at least as 1 under.stand it, and ours regarding the form in.which the question should be put to the members of the Council. And, as therepresentative of .Pakistan very rightly pointed out, the form is extremely important because the manner hi which the' question is put, whether positively or negatively, willdetermine the number of votes required for acceptance or rejection of the proposaI. 162. Accordfngly, l suggèsted that a vote shouldbe ta:ken on that difference of opinion between the President

It would be strange and unprecedented if a proposaI asking whether the Council does not consider it necessary to make an exception ta rule $9 were submitted by the representative who advocates the observance of that mIe. It 'Nould appear that there never was such a case in the practice of the Security CounciI. Let the one who objects to the rule submit the proposaI. 165. But the French representative is for the rule. Why should he make and submit this proposaI? Let the one who is against the ruie and who urges that an exception be made submit the proposaI. 166. Why should the one who i8 in favour of the observance of the rule have to make such a proposaI? As he asserted, he is for the observance ôfthe fuie. 167. Mr. SANTA CRUZ (Chile) (t1'anslated fram Spanish): l regret having made the second part of my statement because the President referred solely to that second part and made rio reference to the arguments l presentedin the first part. In reality l presented the second argument as a further consideration, without requesting the.adoption of the strict interpretation of rule 59 as l expressed it. 168. l did, however, make anappeal to-the President and l think that l aï' Ieast have the right to a reply. l said that four delegations had expressed a view to the effect that the President should put to the vote the e..xception,"that is, a proposaI to consider the applications in question directly. I·added that l had heard no opinion to the contrary and that· the President himself had hastened to say that he hadnot taken a decision in the matter and, in view of that, l appealed ta him to see whether he'could take a dec.i.sion·in accordance with the wishes expressed by "the delegations which had stated views on the subject. 169. The PRESIDENT: If l correctly interpret the intervention of the representative of Chile, he suggested that the question should be put to the Security Council in the fcllowing form: "Does the. Security Council wish to consider the six applications without referring them to the Committee On the Admission of New Members?" 170. If thereare no objections, l shall put that question to the CounciI. 171. Mr. SANTA CRUZ (Chile) (translated fram Spanish): l .believe that l am entitled to explain my suggestion, since the President has, interpreted it. My positiol;l is .as .fqll.ows,: that. the President shou!dl':efer theapplicâtions to the C()mmittee m:iiess,bn th~ request of· one of.its members, the Council decides to deal with thèm di~ectly. 172.. The PRESIDENT: Iput to the l;onsideration of the Security Council the motion of the· representative of· Chile.

W'e are faced with a formaI motion for adjournment. Thé. representati:ve of the Soviet Union has asked nle to put it to the vote. Tb.e adjournment would be to Tuesday, 16 September 1952, at 3 p.nt. . A votewas taken by show of hands. In favour: China, Grèece, Netherlands, Tu-key, United Kingdomof Great Britain and Northem Ireland, United States of America, Abstaining: Brazil, Chile, France, Pakistan, Union of Soviet Soéialist Republics. There 'were 6 votes in favour, with 5 abstentions. The motion was not adopted, having failed to obtain the affirmative votes of seven members. ' 179, Mr.BÜKHARI (Pakistan) : My de1egation has made it clear and it would,. with the permissibn of ·the President, like to reiterate that in its opinion, according to the rules as it understands them, reference to the Committee Sh9u1d.not require seven votes •. butthat direct dealing by the Secutity Cou,ucil with applications .without reference ta the Comtnittee should. Thereforé -, the last formulation whicheame from the President as •.an expression ·of .opinion on oUr part .is not. one which my. delegation. thinks is in accordance with. the 180. Acting upon that premise, my delegation makes the formaI proposaI that the application of Libya for member.'f:lÎp shouid be dealt ,dth directly without refe- ~ence to the Committee. If the President thinks that . this is acceptable, l suggest to him that we should adopt a similar procedure with regard ta the other applications, if there are delegations which wish to have those applications dealt with directly here.

Vve are faced with a formaI proposaI from the de1egation of Pakistan to the effect that the application of Libya be considered by the Security Council without reference to the Cammittee on the Admission al New Members. A vote was taken by show of hands. In favour: Brazil, China, Greece, Netherlands, Pakistan, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. United States of America. Against: Chile. Abstaining: France, Union of Soviet SodaIist Republics. The prop(Jsal was adopted by 8 votes to l, with 2 abstentions. 182. Mr. SANTA CRUZ (Chile) (translated from Spanish): l should like ta'explain my "lote ,., the question of Libya. l voted as l did because of my feeling that. if tb~ matter were discussed in the Committee. Libya would stand 2. better chance of being admitted t<"\ the United Nations than if the case were considereli directly. i83. l stated in my intervention the daybefore yesterday (598th meeting] that if l were certain that .. Libya would be admitted on the basis of a direct .discussion in the Security Coundl, in which no objection was raised, l should be the first ta request that the Council should consider this case direct1y because l believe that Libya fu!fib thè requirements necessary for admission. These ve!'] considerations will impel me not to support any œquest for .direc': consideration of anyof the .pending applications. 184..' Mr. AUSTIN (United States of .~merica): vVithollt prejudice to what I consider the correct pmctic.e•and without changing the opinion that l have already stated to the effect that l should certainly vote ,against a. proposaI made to. submit theapp1icatior; of Jap~nor any.otb,er one of the>applicants for membership, toc theÇommittee_~on7ctheccAdmissionofNew .Memberswhich l regard as a motion to reopen a p~cviousdecisionat1d a tactic to delay consideration of those al,)plications -- l .moye that ..the application• of Japan he considered forthwith by the Security Cquncil. b~ fat/our: Brazil, China, Greece, Netherlands, Pakistan, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northem Ireland, United States of America. ..tgninst: Union of Soviet Sccialist Republics. AZ,staining: Chile; France. The proposai 'lt.'as adopted bJ! 8 votes ta 1, with 2 abstentions. 186. Mr. HOPPENOT (France) (translated Jrom French): After the two votes whieh have just been taken, and without in any way abandoning the position of principle 1 have taken, the only possibility open to the French delegation is to submit a forma] proposaI to the effect that the applications of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos shou1d not b~ referred ta the special Committee but examined directly by the Security Council. 1do not believe that there cau be a double standard and that one of the applicants can be excused the written examination while the others are required ta submit to both \Vritte~ and oral examinations, so to speak. 1 therefore request the President to put a proposaI to that effect ta the vote. 187. The PRESIDENT: The Security Council is seized of a formaI ptoposal presented by the represent<j.tive of France ta the effect that the applicatiùns of Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam should be considered directlyby the Security Council, without reference ta the Committee on the Admission of New Members. 1 shan now put that proposaI ta the vote. A vote was taken byshow of hands. In favour: Brazil, China, France, Greece, Netherlands, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Against: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Abstaining: Chile, Pakistan. The proposal was adopted by 8 votes ta 1) with 2 abstentions. . 188. The PRESIDENT: As we have no farinaI motion before the Couneil, 1 suggest that we aJjoum. 189. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Repub- Iics) _(translated fr01n Russian): The President is not consistent: there is still one application on the Security Council's -l.genda.. What is your decision with :egard to this application? 190. The PRESIDENT: WCp're notseized of any proposaI on behalf of the Democratie Republie of Vietnam. If the representative of. the Soviet Union wi~l.make a proposaI, 1 will put it to the vote.

(translatl!d from Russian): There is rule59. 1 urge that the application of the Democratie Republic of Vietnam be dealt with in accordance with rule 59 of the mIes of procedure. 194. As regards the application of the Government of the Democratie Republic of Vietnam, we know that that Government is the only legal government of the people of Vietnam and that it was established as a result of widely held election!:l in which the overwhelming majority of the population took part. There are therefore no grounds for accepting the proposaI of the Kuomintang agent, a proposaI which by its nature is hostile ta the Vietnam people and the Government of the Democratie Republic of Vietnam. 195. The Securitv Council and its President must be govemed by mIe 59 of the mIes of procedure in regard to this applkation, which must be referred to the Committee on the Admission of New Members. Let the Committee consider the application and reach a conclusion on it. 196. Ml'. HOPPENOT (France) (translated jrom French)·: The French delegation fully supports the proposaI of the Chinese representative; it does so not only for formaI reasons - for it seems that the application of the so-called State of Vietminh has not been supported by any draft resolution and therefore cannot be considered - but also for substantive l'easons; for, in view of the fact that the Vietminh authorities cannat be considered as forming a government or representing aState, we consider that that application should be rejected because it is inane. 197. Ml'. MALIK (Union of Soviet Sotialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : A proposaI is being submitted here to take a decision of substance on this. application. There is no justification for doing this; the question has not been discussed. 198. The USSR de1egation reserves the right to speak on this question and insists upon being given an opportunity to do so. l have a thirty-five minute statement to make on the question and request to begiven an opportunity of expressing my views. We cannot take a decision on the substance of the question without first discussing it, merely on the basis of the wishes of the Kuomintang agent in the matter. 199. We have so far taken Qecisions of a procedural character. A proposaI is .now being submitted to take ;? decision of substance. This must be discussed. 200. The USSR delegation asks for an opportunity to express its viewson the question. 20L The PRESIDENT: l suggest, in view of the declaration by the representative of the Soviet Union, that theCouncil shotildadjol!rn now and consider the question at its nextmecting on Tuesday, 16 September, at ~ p.m. . . The meeting rose at 7.35 p.nt. ' / SALES AGENTS FOI DEPOSITAIRES DES PUBLICATIONS AHEllTlIlA -AHENTIRI Editorial Sudamericana S.A.. Aisine 500, Buenos Ai",s. oaUel-IIUI "EI.ftheroudaki lion. Athènes. AUStlAlIA - AUStlAlIE H. A. Goddard, 255a Georgo St., Sydney. InSIUM_ InSIQUE Agence ot Messageries de le Presse S.A.. 14-22 rue du P4...iI. Bnlxelles. W. H. Smlth & Son, 71.75 Boulevard Adolphe.MIli, Bruxelles. SUATlMALl Goubaud Gu.temala. HAm Librairie "/\ 11I.a, Port-au.Prince. ItOHIIUIAS Librerl. Foent•• toguclgalpa. INllIA-IHIlI Oxford Book House, New P. Vareclachory St. Madr.. 'OLIVIA- IOLlVla Ub",rlo S4lecciones. Casille 9i12. La Pa.. IW!l-IRISll Livrario Agir, ~Uo MllJCico 9B·B, Rio de Janeiro. WIAl\l Rye...on Press. 299 Queen St. Wast, Toronto. Les Presses Univo...itoifC$ Lavol, Queboc. cm.ON-CEYlAN The Associated Newsp.pe... of Caylon. LId.. Loke House, Colombo. OIllE-CHILI Ubrerlo Ivens, Manado 822, Sanliogo. IIIIlOHESIA-IH1IOHESIE Jojasen Pembangunon. Ojokorla. IUH Ketab·Khoneh nue. Tehran. IIAQ_llAIC Muckenzle's CHINA - OIINE Commereial P",ss, Lk '1 Honcn Rd. Shonghai. IRELAND-IRLANDE Hibemlan m.rei.1 Buildings, ISWL Blumstein's Road, Tel AvN. COlOMBIA - COLOMIIE Librsr!a Latina Llda.. Carroro 60.. 13-ll5. Bogots. COSTA RICA - COSTA.RICA Tr.jos Hormonas, Ap.rlado 1313, Son Jo,5. ITALY -ITAU~ Colibri SA, CUlA Lo Co,o Bolgo. O'Reilly 455, Lo H.bono. LESANON-lIIAN librairie unive lIlEllAt CZEOIOSlOVAKIA- TOIECOSlOVAOUIE Ce,ko,loven,ky Spisovoler, Norodni Trldo 9. Praha 1. DEHMARK- DANEMARK Einar Munhg.ard, Ltd.. NJilr",gado 6, KllIbenhavn. K. J. Momolu LUXEMIOUIG LIbrairie J. DOMINICAN REPUBUC- REPUB. DOMINICAINE Librerla Dominicana. Mercodes 49, Ciu~ d.d Trujillo. MEXICO-MlXIQUE Eclitorial Hermes 41. México. ECUADOR- EQUATEUI Lib,erle CientÛica, Box 362, Gueyaquil. NETHERLANDS N.V. Marlinus 's.Gravenhega. EGYPT- EGYPTE Librairie "Le Ren.iss';nce d'Egypte." 9 Sh. Adly P.,h., C.iro. NEW ZEALAND- U. N. Assn. of Wellinglon. EL SI.LVADOR - SALVADOR M.nuel N~v., y Cl... 1. Av.nida sur 37, Sen Selvador. t1ICAlAGUA Dr. Ramiro Ramlr.z ETNIOPIA - ETHIOPIE Agence Ethiopienne <le ·Publicité, Box 128, Addis.Abebo. HORWAY- NOIVEGE Joh.n Grundt gustsgt. 7A. FlNLAND - FINLANDE Akoteeminen Kirjekaupp•• 2, Keskusk.fu. Helsinki. PAKISTAN Thom.s & Thomas, Raad. Karachi. Publishers United hore. FRANCE Editions A. Pedone. 13 rue soumot, ParisV. Orders and inquiries from counfties where sales agents have not yet been appointed moy be sent ta: Sales Circul':ltion Section, United Natio. New York. U.S.A.; or Sales Section, United Nations Office, Palais Nations, Geneva, Switzerland. Printed in Canada Price: 30 (or equivalent in