S/PV.81 Security Council

.Eefore we pass to item 3 of the agenda, 1 should like to draw the Council's. attention to two papers that we have on the table before us. These are copies of two letters received by the ,Secretary-General from the French and Sîamese Governments respective1y, advising the Secretary-General that the dispute betweenthese two countries, which was brought to the attention of the Security Council by the Minister hrForeign Affairs of Siam in a telegram dated 11 JuIy 1946, has been settled by negotiations between them. The letter addressed to the Secretary-General by Mr. Parodi on 28 November 1946, reads as follows: "1 have the honour to inform you that the negotiations l,mdertak-en at Washington· betw.een the representatives of ~e F:wench and Siamese Govermnents respectively, with a view to re-establishing the traditional peacefuI and. friendly relations between FFance ..and Siam, resuIted in the' conclusion, on 17 November 1946, of.a Se~ementAgreemellt and a Protocol, the too of which 1 send yeiu herewitli, so that these instruments may be registered and published by the Secretariat. • "1 am confident that these agreements which, by fulfilling the purposes for which they were concluded, areintended to provide a firm foundation for the development of close co-operation between the two countries in the spirit of the United Nations Charter, will meet with the approval of the Secretary- General. . "As a token of its sentimen.ts in thiS respect, and in accordance with the provisions of article II of the Settlement Agreement of 17 November, .the French Government has instructed me to request YOll to inform the Security Council that France is in favour of the admissionofSiamto the UnitecI Nations."1 >ThelettètiddresseCl tothe'SecretarY~Géneral by His Royal Highness Prince Wan Waithayakon, representative of Siam, dated 28 November 1946, reads as follows: "~y a letter qated 15 JuIy 1946, the Siamese Chargé. d'Affaires in Washington forwarded to Your Excellency a communication from the Minister for ForeignAffairs of Siam, under the date of Il Juiy 1946, in which the Siamese Government brought tothe attention of the Security Coun.cil the dispute between France and Siam concerning the unfortunate state of affairs on the Indochinese-Siamese frontiers as weIl' as •the territorial problems Mr. Quo Tai-Chi (China): 1 should like to associate myself with the deep satisfactionwhich the Chair has expressed over· this happy settIe- ,ment of the âispute between France and,Siam. 1. Document S/199. For text of Settlement .Agreement and PrQtocol see Securit'Y Council Official R,,,;;.,.ds,First Year, Second Series, Supplement No. 9, Annex14. As has been pointed out~ the negotiations and settlement were concluded in the spirit of the Charter, and the -Chinese Government is always interested in $e mainte:.J.ance of harmonious and good neighbourly relations in that part of ourworld, and is indeed happy. We want to extend our hearty congratulations to the reptesentative of France and t6 Siam. As has been pointed out, the complaint was brought before , the Council but never put on the agenda. Therefore we may infer that the mere existence of the Security Council was most instrumental in b""Ïnging about this happy conclusion of the negotiations. Ml'; LAWFORD (United Kingdom): Before we pass to the next item on ~e agenda, 1 wo~d like to enquire whether you have any views as to the present position of the application of Siam for membership to the United Nations. Is it before the Security Council? 1 note that when the Security Council dis- 'cussed tn;s matter in August last, the Siamese representative .:~quested that the consideration of the application of Siam be adjoumed until se~ement of the present ·territoIial· .dispute'·-between Siam and France. As 1 understand the happy outcome of these negotiations, the territorial dispute is now settled. Is, therefore, the application of Siam before the Security Council? The' PRESIDENT: The Assistant Secretary- General informs me that the previous application of Siam for membership of the United Nations was suspènded at the requestof Siam, and he has just this moment receivedan official letter from the accredited representative of Siam requesting that this application he again put beforethe Security Council. That letter will be circulated immediately to the m,enibers of the Council .and should figure on the provisional agenda for the next meeting of the Council. ,', 90. Letter frem the Sacretcrf~GenarGI tG the President of the Security Council forwciiding a resolution of the General Assembly·concerning re-examina'ion ~f applications for membership(document 5/197> The PRE§>IDENT: .We will now proceed to consideration of item ~ on the agenda, wmch is a letter from· the Secretary.General a:ddressed to me, forwarding a resolution of the Generai Assembly concerning re-examination ofapplica-. tions for membership. This lctter is dated 25 November and reads as follows: "At itE fvrt'jomnth plenary meetinghe1don 19 Novemher 1946, the General Assembly , adopted the following resolution:· "Sînce membership in the United Nations is open to aIl peace-Ioving States which ac~ept the obligations contained in the Charter and which in the judgment of the Organization are able and willing to carry out th~ 01>1:.- gations, as stated in Article 4, therefore, "THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY porter Conseil de sécurité." "RECOMMENDS that the Security Council re-examine.the applications for membersmp in. the United Nations of the '1bove-mentioned States on their respective merits as measured by the yardstick of the Charter, in accordance with Article 4. "1 have the honour to request you to be 50 good as to bring this resolution tu the attentil'n of the Security Council." glais): d'adopter l'Assemblée figure qu'elle tant Mr. 1IÀSLUCK (Australia): 1 should like to propose that this Council adopt the recommendation wmch it has received from the GenereÙ Assembly. Thatrecommendation is contained in the last paragraph of the resolution received from the General Assembly, and by its adoption 1 understand that this Council would commit .itseH to re-examine those applications, and in that re-examination to apply to t.hem the yardstick of the Charter, to use the language of this re--.olution. It seems to me that the recommendation which we received from the General Assembly is a reasonable one. It is a recommendation which the General Assembly is undoubtedly competent ta make. And having regard to al1 the circumstances, l would submit thatthis Security Council owes sufficient respect to the General Assembly to adopt the recommendation. But assuming we do adopt it, that does not, of course, dispose of that matter. The adoption of this recommenda'ion commits us ta re-examine it. We would ;:~ have'tQ consider the methods and means of re-examination. It is quite obvious ta anypracti.:al person tha~ we couldnot hope, in a' plenary meeting ai ilie Council in public this aftemoon, to conduct that re-examination. We will have to consider some mcasul'es for doing the work,assmirlng ti.at we adopt the recommendation. And it would seem to me that, as we have in existence a body alrcady, a Committee for the 4dmission of .New Members, wmch assisted the Co~cil on a previous occasion, if we do adopt this recommendation we should immediately transmit it to that Committee .in arder that the Committee' may commence the re-examination ta which the recommendation refers. 1 therefore,propose. that the Council adopt the Assembly recommendation .and refer, the v~ati examen, termes vient L'Assemblée faire. suis l'Assemblée adopter sa recommandation. . tion tion céder à céder. que vel tenue songer le mandation. déjà déjà recommandation, immédiatement mençât recommandation. ter ~ submit that so long as that uncertainty persists, it is very difficult for us t~ resume the consideration of applications for membership. The~ only thing which is known ta us as a .certainty is that the General Assembly 1s not altogether satisfied with the method followed so far by the Security Council. But, 1 believe that that point should be settled before we proceed with item 3 on the agenda, beyond adopting the principle that these applications will be re-examined. HASSAN Pasha (Egypt): 1 should like to express similar views to those expressed by our colleague of Australia. 1 think, however, that the question raised by the Netherlands representative is very reasonable in so far as we have first to · consider the question of the recommendation of the General Assembly. The Egyptian delegation wants ta express the view that while it considers that the General Assembly is in no way a body of appeal, however, owing to its full jurisdiction over all matters, 1 do not believe there is any · doubt th~.t it could recommend the re-examination of the candidates which have been previously presented to this Council. . 1 believe that we should not at all resent this rec9mmendation of the General Assembly pecause it is our main objective to have all the countries of the· world work in harmony, and because of the principle of the universalityof accession to this body for all peace-Ioving countries. Consequentl}', and aIso because· there may have been new factors which have a( ~n meanwhile, which we inay take into consiaer.ation in reviewing the situation and in admitting as Members countries which we have previously rejected for some reas<:m,or another, it is the view of the Egyptian delegation mat we should accept the recommendation of the GeneralAssembly. So far as the examination. of the candidates is concernf~d, we have lio special interest in whether this question should be. retaine~ today or postpOlled for later consideration. Mr. PADILLA NERVO (Mexico): Mexico, as everybody in this Council knows, was always·in ·favour of the admission of the five nations whose applicatior.cS were not recommended by. the Secùrity Council to the Assembly. 1 also.consider \ signaler . First, we want to make it clear that we do not con..~ider that the .Security Couneil is legally bound to adopt the· reconariendation of the General Assembly because, as one of the. representatives has alrèady stated, the General Assembly is in no way an institution of appeal for the decisions of -the Security Council. If we vote for adoption of that, we do it as a free decW.on bocause Wé think that such a decision is politically advisable and wise. Wc have a high esteem for the moral authority of the General Assembly and believe that it is desirable to have the best co-operation between the different organs of the United Nations. It is on' the basis of this belief that we want to vote for adoption of the recommendation of the General Assembly. Second, in voting for adoption of the recom- ~endation of the General Assembly, 1 w~t to stress quite emphatically that by no means do we concede that in maJdug the decision o:p the admission of new Members; the SecUl'Îty Council has àcted in'contravention of Article 4 of the Charter. We believe that everyrepresentative in the· Security Couneil, wh'atever ms position was, acted a,ccording ,to the best dictates of his conscience in fulfilling bis duties of interpreting Article 4 of the Charter. We do not question the . motives and the good faith of any representative, and accordingly, •we also do Îlot question the good faith of the Security Cotincil as a body, when it has taken its decision. Wc think that the SecurityCounC,il.aIone has the right to interpret the Charter in the fulfilment of its There can be no shadow of doubt that it is our duty to accept the General Assembly's recommendation. AlI the members of the Security Couneil he1ped to draw up this recommendation, and voted for its adoption. 1 therefore fail to see how the Security Council can rejeet it now. Moreover, 1 feel that nearly all the members of the Council share this ,iew. As the rèpresentative of Polandpôinted out, we may not be legally bound to acèept the recommendation, but it is our moral duty to do sa. The next thing to be decided is whether we shoilld go ahead immediately or adopt sorne s:lowe:r procedure. In this connexion 1 endorse the suggestion made by the Netherland's representative, and supported and ampIified by the representative of China. Only a short tin:: ~ has e1apsed sinee the Security Council gave its decision last summer on the applications referred to in the document DOW before m. As the representative of China pertinently observed, nothinghas sinee occurred which might lead us to hope for any change in the attitude of the illeIubers of .the Security 'Couneil. Caution is therefore advisable, .espe~ ciallYl:l..s.we are obviously somewhat perplexedas is only natural, since this is the first time such ,a case has arisen-about the procedure to be fol1owed to implement the General Assembly's recommendation. \;"'lCamin~ the applications for membership of the United Nations. Therefore it is natura! that the representatives who have spoken in the Security Couneil on the subject should have dealt almost exclusively with the procedural aspect of the question. Some of the speakers aIso touched ï:lcidentally on other questions: for instance, they touched on the principle of univel'Sality and other questions not relating to procedure. It seems to me that if we widen the scope of questions, we shall be carried far beyond the task which we have before us today. But the task we have before' us today is a very simple one, as 1 understand it: it is to agree to the re-examination by the Security Couneil of applications for membership. That, ,then, is what we are in a position ta do today, and it seems to me that on the· ground of me speeches which have been made, we should be able ta reach unanimous agreement. As regards the question whether the Security Couneil should reconsider applicaticns for membership before the Committee of Experts has submitted a relevant proposai on the procedure for the examination of applications, or after the Committee of Experts has submitted its proposais on this subject, it· appears ta me that there is no connexion between these two questions, As a matter of fact, the Security Council has aIready examined applications for membership and experienced no difficulties owing to the absence of any supplementary rules of procedure, about which nobody has been able.to say anything explicit whether in the General Assembly or here atthe meetÏI.1g today. What are these supplementary rules of procedure which are bei.'1g talked of? Nobody knows. The Security Council experienced, 1 repeat, no difficulties in the past in examining applications for membership, and 1 think there is no d4"ect connexion between these two questions. The Security Council. can, if it 50 decides, examine applications for membershipeven without the preparation of any supplementary rules of procedure. _.. 1 amanxious that my statement on this question should not be construed as meaning that 1·am opposed to the examination of these applications after relevant proposais have been prepared by the Committee of Experts. If the Council considers that it would be better to examine the applications after the Comtnittee of Experts has prepared some proposaIs on procedure, 1 am prepared to agree. 1 should only like to stress thatit seems to me there is no direct connexion between these two questions. 1 will conc1ude with the point with which 1·began: it seems to me that wecould save time today by taking a simple .decision,· which suggests itself, that is, that we could agree that the Security That resolution siniply has two points in it. The first one is the adoption of the recommendation, and every speaker up to date is in favour of adoption. There seems to be no contention regarding the first proposition in our resolution. . The second part of the resolution siroply says "and remits the question to the Committee for the Admission of New Members". Perhaps 'a happier draftiIig of that would be "and refers" the question to the Committee for the Admission of New Members. It would seem to us that that is the first action that could be taken by this Council and that a great deal of the discussion which has already taken, place in this Counci1 would, in the sense of our motion, take place more expeditiously in the Committee for the Admission'of New Members. Many of the considerations which have beèn raised here this aftemoon are consic;leràtions which have to be tak~n into account in the course of re-examination. And wc. thought that il. we were to.adopt the recommendation to refer the matter to the Committee for the Admission of. New Members, we would save the time of this Council andcould proceed ta examine the particular difficulties and the particular nature.of tl!eproble:n with which we' are now faceâ by the adoption' of the Assembly's recommendation. That was the thought behind our motion and that isthe point which·1 put to this Council. If the Council does want to proceed immediately toa,discussion and re-examination, we are quite,prepared to do 5o.We thought though, .thatthatfurther discussion andthat re-examination could more'properly take place in the Committe for the Admission of New Members whiéh was set up for, purposes of that kind. 1 would eamest1yask'Il1embersof the Council to look agaïn. at the actual textof this motion, substituting for the worcl "remit" the word "refer", and te-ree.owhether ornotth~ybeli~ve'thatwecould .save the time of this Oouncil by adopting, this resolution as it now stands, committing ourselves only to re-examination, and to refer the qUe&- tionirl itswidest implications ta theCommittee for the'Admission of New Members for further ,discussion. .Mr. LAWFORD (United Kingdom): In the first ,place, 1 should Iike to say;, on behaIf,of the ,ici l'Assemblée. que diatement nous serait . examen sion aux sur le texte même verbe d'avis ., tei11pS dans &eulement Comité l'examen ,tian. Àpart from anything eIse, 1 think we should otherwise risk delaying the re-examination of these live applications, and 1 think it would hardIy be consonant with the good relations which we all hope exist between' the General Assembly and the Security Council if we were to delay action on this recommendation for an unIimited period. For this reason, my natural inclination would be to vote in favour of the Australian proposal just circulated. The onIy alternative 1 can think of would be te set a time Iimit on the discussiôn between the Committee .-of Experts' and the committee on procedurt_<: ....+.ich we have agreed to underitem 2 of our agenda, but 1 am not sure that is a very g.:lod idea. 1 suppose we cannot decide that here and now without the agreement of the Gene~'alAssembly itself. ~n all the circurnstances, 1 should prefer to adopt the Australian proposaI which seems ta me to be completely reasonable. MI'. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): It seems to me that there is èonsiderable agreement on the first part of the resolution proposed by the representative of Australia, namely, that part which reads, as he submitted it, "the Security Council adopts therecommendation of the General Assembly·communicated in a letter of the Secretary·General dated Novembèr 1946, docu':' ment S/197". . 1 am. not sure that 'Ye agree as to the rest. Now, look atour rul~ number 32 which says that parts of. a motion or draft resolution shall be voted, on separatelyat the request of any representative unIess the original mover objects. I beg. leave to ask the representative of Australia whether he consents to our voting first separately onthose words from bis resolution which I have just read. . Mr.HAsLucK (Australia): I· am willing to agree. Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (NetherIands): 1 thank the representativeof i\ustralia, and 1 beg'leave to give notice that. l, for my part, shall table a second part of thisresolution, to follow. the wotds 1 have just. quoted~ which reads as follows:· "....and .will decide .•.", thatis, the SecurityCouncil, " ... the question when. the application. for membership 'of the Hashemite Kingdom ofTI'ansjordan, Irelllnd, the MongoIian'People's·Republic, the People's RepubIic of AIbania'.andPon:ugal will .bere-examined after\the question of the preparation ofrules governingthe admissionofnew Members acceptable bo~h to the Security Council'and tathe General Assembly hasbeen settIe~!' , . que If we decide on new. rules, it will bé because we think them better than the old ones and con- ~ider thatthey .will afford greater guarantees, bath ta theapplicant States, as regards their ad,. mission, and to the United Nations itself, as regards its smoothworking. InbOth cases it seems preferable and more normal for. the applicants and the United' Nations ta have the be~efit cif these additional guarantees when requests for admission are l.mder consideration. There may be sorne difficuIty in establishing agreement between the General Assembly and the Security Couneil. 1 do not anticipate any hitch, but such an eventuality is not inconceivable. If, therefore, the.consideration of these new rules of procedure were ta involve tao much delay, we might then decide that it was better, in . the interest of the applicant States themselvess not ta wait for the new text. 1 am sarry, buts as you see, my position is rather complicate4. To SUIn up, 1 think we shouId wait until the new rules of procedure are adopted before reexamining the applications for admission, but it might possibly be unwise for us ta eommit ourselves ta such a rigid tex! as that submitted by the NetherIands' representative, and 1 should like us ta have the option of making a decision before the new rules are adopted in case they take too long to draft. That is all 1 wished ta say. Ml'. LA..~GE (Poland): 1 have the same diffieuIties as the representative of France has with the last part of the text submitted by the representative of the Netherlands. 1 am afraid that it might be interpreted that we have ta wait until the General Assembly meets again and approves the ruIes of admission, beeause it says "after the quèstion of the preparation of ruIes governing the admission of new Members acceptable bath ta the Security Council and ta the General Assembly has been settled". How shaH we know that itis acceptable ta' the General Assembly until the General Assembly meets again? 1 thiIik that it might be interpreted in this way. 1 do not think it was the intention of the representative of the Netherlands ta put such an interpretation. on it. And 1 would just suggest that we change the wording a bit from "has been settIed" to "hasbeen considered here";. that is ta say, considered by the Council. Mr. VAN KLEEF.ENS (Netherlands): 1 accept the amendment. The PRESIDENT: Does anyone else have any statements ta make? Mr~ HASLUCK (Australia) : If 1 may, 1 should like ta make one or two comments on the substance of the proposal put forward by the representative of the Netherlands. 1 share the view which has already been expressed by the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist, Republics that there is no direct 1ink between these prospective rules and the question wIDch is now before us. We have existing provisional rules of procedure, and those mIes .are of such a ' character that~eyenablc·us ta proceed with any So 1 do not see that they are necessarily linked ,. . .•'anyway, orthatthefact that we have to discuss rules of procedure in the future bars us from proceeding. Moreover, the wording of the text putfoiward by therepresentative of the Netherlands seems to be slightIy objectionàble. It is tbis,that in a sense it makes thesetwo subjects , contingent, one on the other. 1 know it was not intended in tbis way, but in actual practice it is a sort of indirect warning: Uliless you produce· tbase rules of procedure these people will not b~ re-examined, On the other hand, these questions·are Iinked ~ closclythat it looks aS t4ouglt, unless you reexamine the applications, we cannot producethe ndes of procedure..'Although that, 1 am sure, . was not the intention of the rçpresentative of thcNetherlands,' 1 think it wouldwork fora happiel' optcome of both subjects ü' w~ kept them strictIy apart.If it is the will of the Couneil to, deier the.re-examination, 1 tbink it would bepreferab!e to saysoquite frankly in so mâny words. For our part, our deIegation does not ' Wish to defer the re-examination, but we are willing to discuss. and quite eager to disouss, in the Committee for the AdmisSion of New Mem.; bers" any reasons which may he put forward for deferring .the. re-examination. It. would seem to us to be inore. appropriate t~ discuss these rea- !sons, ifsuchreasons exist, for deferring the reex~ation in the C0mmittee for the Admission of New Members rather than in the· wholc Council.... •... '. '.' ...'. It isfortbese reasons thatwe will uphold our proposal to refer the question back to the Committee for' the 'Admission. of New Membersfor discussion in its'widest aspects. And wc will vote ~gainst .the amendment m.oved by the repre;. sentative.of the Netherlands. . Theref(lre, 1 think that the Secùrity Council might say'that we will postpone the e~amination of this question for one month", two months, a year, or that we postpone it until the General Assembly finishes its work" or any other date, but we should not co~ect both, questions unnecessarilyand give the,false impressionthat the position of the Security Councilmight,change in regard to' these,five applicants in view of the new mies of procedure. The other objection that l was going to make has been made unnecessary by the change ' of wording that has been .accepted by the iepresentative of the Netherlands, to substitute for the word "settled"the word' "considered." Because if the word "settled" were used here it would be tantamount,to "never", or passibly, "never'again considering those applications." For that reason, 1 am not in favour of this text. The PRESIDENT: We have belore us the reso- Iution of the represen~~tiveof Australia and an amendment tothat resolution proposed by the representativeof the Netherlands. The representative 'of' Australia has consented, todiride hiS molution into two parts. The first wouId iilvolve .'the acceptance by the Council 'of the resolutiontransmitted to us' bythe General Assembly. It seems cleax Ii'ôn the discussion that we have had this aftenJt'N;,n that the unanimous opini()tl of .the Council is thatweshould accept the resoluti.on, sent tlB by the General, Assembly. 1 The :first resolution Tegarding rules of procedure, to which an effort has been made at this table.to tie the second part of the resolution of the' representative of A.ustralia, came from the sanIe general discussion iu. the General Assembly,as 1 under.;tand it. It is, however, the remnant cf a tnuch larger resolution which was proposed in the Assembly by therepresentative of Austtaiia and Vl.hich.was· designed to have the Security Cm!:Idl' and the Assemblyaccept entkdy new principles for the· consideration of applications for membership. That part of the oriJnal Austrâlianresolution'was rejeeted. The oneadoptedby the Assembly, the one which we.nowhave b~fore'us,conveys no man- ~atefrom thèAssembly, as 1 understand it. It is merel.,- a-request toconsider new rules of procedure..1 do not see what conneXÎon thishas 'Yith. t1l~ 9th~!jt~ql1est Wreconsider appliç~ti9I1§, th~t_hâye -aIreadybe~before this COUIlciland discussed ir,!etail. Iagree with the representative. ofthe. UniQu of SoyietSocialist Republics, 'the ..reptesentativ«:of Australia. and others that there.. i't norealconnexion. If, bowever, 'the . Council 'should decideto .• #ethe. twotogether asameans for del,aying ~onside.ràtion of the l 'should like to ask the representative of Australia and the representative of the Netherhmds if they will withdraw to the following degree in Qrder to permit me to consult with them and with other members of the Couneil between now and the next meeting of the Couneil: the Australian representative should withdraw the second part of bis motion and the Netherlands l~presentative should withdraw bis amendment. In that way, after a little more thoug~t than ;ove have had time for now~ Wl': may corisider a line of procedure which will give effect to our desire to co-operate with the General Assembly, at the same time presening our own entire right ta freedom of action. ' 1 would ask the representative of l\ustralia and the representative of the Netherla..ds, if they will agree to these proposais. Addressing myseH particularly to the reptt.- sentative of Australia, 1 sh,ould like ta com~ct a staternent which 1 made regarding the original Australian proposal from which this resolution on our table was derived. The correct statemen: would have been "after discussion in the Committce, the Australian delegation withdrew the second part of its proposaI and changed slightly the first part, which is the one we now have before us". That c017êction is for the record and 1 would ask the representative of Australia to accept it. Mr. HASLUCK (Australia.): As to your suggestion regarding the handling of the matter now before us, the Australian delegation is prepared to accept your suggestion. The vie~'" of our dele: gation was that, in remitting dUs matter to us, the General Assembly had two considerations in mind; First, itasked for re-examination in accordance with, t9 quote the resolution, "the yardstick of tbeCharter', and· by the acceptance of the recommendation, 1 think we have looked after that matter about which the Assembly ell:pressed concep1. 1 also think it had in mind that steps. should be takm tosee' that the interests of any applicant State whiçh may have been rejected should he properly protected. Our deleJ!:ation would have been quite ready to proceed "lediately to there~examination. We .are .rü, lcenolIgh, however, to realiZethat an immediate re-exam~ ination nright not iI1 fact serve theinterest. of sorne oftheapplicants, and wethought, when we suggested reference tothe Committee for tlle Admission of New Members, that it might ~eable to solve sorne of these problems. Yourown offer, Mr. President, to use your good offices to Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): Quite apart from the fact that I always want ta he helpful to the Chair if I can, I think that my amendment disappears as the representative of Australia has con:plied with your suggestion.

Thank you. Unless there is another reprerentative who wishes to speak on this matter, and if there is no other business to be discussed, after consultation with the Secretary-General in ascertaining the schedule of the General Assembly and the major committees on which most of therepresentatives at this Counen are fI?',rvÏng, I will send a notification as to the time of the next meeting of the Council. For the' record, l had omitted ta ask the CouneR to indicate if there is any objection to' my declaring the first part of the AustraIian resolution adopted. If there is no objection, it isadopted. . . The meeting rose al 5.55 p.m.