It may be recalled that when we found the question of admission of new members "had reached a deadlock, we realized that the deadlock was in the Security Council, particularly among the five permanent members of the Security Council. The task of the Committee of Good Offices was to consult with the members of the Security Council with the object of exploring the possibilities of reaching an agreed solution of the problem of admission of new members in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter. The relations of the committee of Good Offices with my delegation have been throughout its two years of existence cordial and sincere. We have had periodic consultations and I personally have been hopeful that the Committee might succeed in finding an agreed solution. It seems to me only proper that the General Assembly should acknowledge its debt to the three members of the Committee of Good Offices.
The present proposals put before this Committee have come not by way of preliminary consultation. So far as my delegation is concerned, we knew nothing of the proposals until they were ready for presentation to the Assembly. My delegation therefore approaches the present proposals without any commitment of any kind to anybody. We join with other members of this Committee to study the problem of admission of new members all over again. It is now my duty to put before this Committee the general considerations which guide the action of my delegation in this matter.
Throughout all these years whenever we discussed the problem of admission of new members, a number of delegations have advocated the principle of universality. The first time that I stated my attitude towards this principle was in the Security Council at its 206th meeting held on October 1, 1947. At that time the venerable Representative of Syria, Mr. El Khouri, in the course of a debate on the admission of new members, advocated the principle of universality. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will quote a single paragraph from my statement on that occasion
"I favor the principle of universality so ably advocated here by the Representative of Syria, but we can try only to approach universality. A mechanical and mathematical universality is not possible and was never intended by the authors of the Charter as is evidenced by the fact the Charter lays down conditions for ad mission to as well as conditions for expulsion from, the United Nations. However, it is my belief that in applying relevant Articles, we should be liberal and objective. Where there is legitimate ground for doubt, the benefit of doubt should be given to the applicant."
Sir, that statement which I made in the fall of 1947 stands today. My delegation is ready to cooperate with other delegations in approaching universality of membership. In applying the Charter tests to applicants for membership, my delegation would wish to be both liberal and objective.
A few delegations have tried to exploit the principle of universality to justify package deals. I am glad to observe that there are a goodly number of delegations which, while believing in the principle of universality, reject the package deal. The distinguished Representative of Greece speaking before the Ad Hoc Political Committee in the fall of 1949, had this to say:
"Although his delegation considered that the United Nations should become universal, it nevertheless believed that each applicant for membership should be considered separately and on its merits." (Official Record, p. 134).
On that same occasion the distinguished Representative of Norway stated to this Committee:
"The Norwegian Delegation had said at the preceding session of the General Assembly, and wish to repeat, that the United Nations should be as universal as possible; but it felt that the provisions of the Charter should be strictly applied, and that each case should be examined separately." (Official Record, pp. 136-137)
The British Delegation, with Sir Alexander Cadogan as its spokesman, put the matter very simply and conclusively:
"Such a proposal could only be characterized as blackmail. The United Kingdom could not accept the procedure of bloc voting which it would entail. It continued to adhere to the view that each application for membership should be judged separately on its merits, by reference to the conditions laid down in Article 4. The principle of universality of the United Nations could not be distorted to mean the automatic admission of states to membership in the Organization." (Official Record, p. 121)
It is clear to my delegation that the thesis of automatic universality in membership in the United Nations is contrary to the Charter, and that this principle cannot be used to justify package deals. I do not think it necessary to take up the time of the Committee in further argumentation on this point.
The history of package deals on the admission of new member may be divided into two periods. The first period was one of confusion. During that period a small number of delegations wavered between support and opposition. Then on May 28, 1948, came the historic advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. I quote the pertinent section of the Court's advisory opinion:
"A member of the United Nations which is called upon, in virtue of Article 4 of the Charter to pronounce itself by its, vote, either in the Security Councilor in the General Assembly, on admission of a State to membership in the United Nations, is non-juridically entitled to make its consent to the admission depending on conditions not expressly provided by paragraph 1 of the said Article." and that,
"In particular, a member of the Organization cannot, while it recognizes the condition's set forth in that provision to be fulfilled by the State concerned, subject its affirmative vote to the additional condition that other states be admitted to membership in the United Nations together with that state."
Sir. I call the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice an epoch-making opinion. With that opinion the United Nations entered upon its, second period in discussion of the package deal. Whereas in the first part there was confusion and sometimes even contradiction; after the Court rendered its opinion, there has been neither confusion nor contradiction. Since that time all delegations, with the exception of the Soviet bloc, have held any package deal to be unconstitutional. Since that time the package deal has been the exclusive property of the Soviet bloc.
Canada, I am glad to say, has taken a prominent part in the consideration of this questions as of many other questions in the United Nations. We have on record a number of statements made by Canadian representatives on the package deal. In 1948 the Official Record of the Ad Hoc Political Committee on page 74 carries this statement by the Canadian spokesman:
"Certain states had in the past attempted to resort to what has been called 'horse trading' in the matter of membership. The Canadian Delegation viewed with utmost concern that type of dealing in this all important matter of membership applications. It was deplorable, and should not be associated with the name of any member in good standing of the United Nations."
In 1949, also before the Ad Hoc Political Committee, General MacNaughton of Canada, speakin6 about a Soviet proposal for the simultaneous admission of thirteen states, reminded us all that
"Such method, were incompatible with the nature of the United Nations, which was a moral authority."
The stand against the package deal has been shared by the overwhelming majority of delegations from all parts of the world.
In 1948 the distinguished Representative of Iraq told this Committee:
"The General Assembly and the Security Council are to take into account the advisory opinion of the International Court, according to which the fate of one state must not be linked to that of other states or other conditions demanded than those provided by the Charter." (Official Record, p. 106)
The Representative of France likewise stated his position to this Committee in unmistakable terms:
"The linking of the admission of one state with that of another constituted an abuse of power and should be condemned, since it was foreign 10 the spirit of the Charter," (Official Record, p. 118)
Let me come to more recent years. In 1952 the Delegation of Poland put before this Committee a proposal for another package deal. On that occasion the distinguished Representative of Peru, none other than our respected friend and colleague, Dr. Belaunde, stated:
"The Peruvian Representative considered that the adoption of the Polish draft resolution was accepting an illegal bargain concerning the ·admission of new members." (Official Record, p. 268)
On the same occasion Sir Gladwyn Jebb of the British Delegation told this Committee:
"that the United Kingdom's attitude towards the Polish draft resolution remains (exactly as it had been towards all package proposals for the admission of several new members. The United Kingdom considers that any proposal which made the admission of one country or a number of countries conditional upon the admission of another country was contrary to the provisions of the Charter and to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice." (Official Record, p. 276)
In 1953 Mr. Byrnes, speaking for the United States, told this Committee:
"that the package proposal would mean the United Nations would have to abandon the principles and provisions of Article 4." (Official Record, p. 15)
In that same year Sir Cladwyn Jebb told this Committee that
"his delegation was not prepared to sup port any suggestion that the United Kingdom Representative on the Security Council should vote in favor of some or all of the candidates supported by the Soviet Union in return for a Soviet Union vote in favor of some or all other candidates." (Official Record, p. 16)
In that same year, 1953, before this Committee, the distinguished Representative of Brazil added the weight of his delegation against pack age deals. He said:
" ..... qualifications could not be examined if states were admitted en bloc. The fact that careful scrutiny was essential had been understood Com the outset, as was shown in the report of Committee 1/2 to Commission I at San Francisco. At that time and afterwards the U.S.S.R. had completely agreed as Mr. Gromyko had made clear in his statement at the 55th meeting of the Security Council on 28 August 1946. The Brazilian Delegation still stood by the position then taken by the U.S.S.R., that every application should be the subject of careful study." (Official Record, p. 38)
Mr. Chairman, I could continue to quote from the Records of the United Nations. I have limited myself to a small number of quotations from the Records of this Committee. I consider these quotations to be sufficient to show that since the International Court of Justice rendered its advisory opinion in 1948, the delegations to the United Nations, whether in the Assembly or in the Security Council, have been unanimous in condemning the package deal, with exception of the delegations from the Soviet bloc. Now even if some of the other delegations should change their stand on this matter, which I hope is not the case, my delegation finds it right and necessary to remain steadfast in its opposition to any package deal in any form.
The advocates of the package deal today frankly admit that the package deal is a violation of the principles of the Charter, as well as being contrary to the advisory opinion of the Inter national Court of Justice. Many of them frankly by that of the applicants, included in the present package, are several whom they dislike. The present-day advocates of the package deal fall back on one justification and one alone: that is, expediency. Sir, I have grave doubts about the political wisdom or expediency of the present package.
In the first place, I note that the present package, by its formula as set forth in the joint draft resolution placed before this Committee excludes the Republic of Korea, Sir, my delegation it firmly convinced that the exclusion of the Republic of Korea is unjustified. Let me remind this Committee of the terms of a resolution passed by the General Assembly on December 12, 1948:
"The General Assembly declares that there has been established a lawful government (the Government of the Republic of Korea) having effective control and jurisdiction over that part of Korea where the Temporary Commission was able to observe and consult and in which the great majority of the people of all Korea reside; that this government is based on elections which were a valid expression of the free will of the electorate of that part of Korea and which were observed by the Temporary Commission; and that this is the only such government in Korea."
This government, "the only such government in Korea", applied for membership in the United Nations in 1949. Sir, I would like to say that no government established in the postwar period has a better claim to membership in the United Nations than the Government of the Republic of Korea. I deplore deeply that this Government is expressly excluded by the proposal before this Committee.
I also note that the present package excludes Vietnam. My delegation likewise regrets such exclusion.
Secondly, let us look at the applicants included in the proposal before us. I assume that the sponsors of the joint draft resolution would include Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rou mania. Hitherto four out of the five permanent members of the Security Council have opposed the admission of these four satellite states on grounds of not being peace-loving of not being truly independent sovereign states, and of not having fulfilled treaty obligations to observe human rights. Most of the non-permanent members of the Security Council have done likewise. The factual situation, so far as I know, has not changed. The grounds for opposing the admission of those four applicants are as valid today as in any previous year.
I had an occasion to speak at length on the application of these four satellite state at the 595th meeting of the Security Council held on 3 September 1952. I do not wish to take up the time of this Committee to repeat what I said on that occasion. I wish only to say that every word I said on that occasion remains true today. In summarizing the situation in these Eastern European states I quoted from an article written by a distinguished journalist and a valiant fighter for human freedom. I mean Mr. Leland Stowe. In a despatch published in a large number of papers in the United States on July 28, 1952, he had this to say about Eastern Europe, and I took this quotation from the Washington Post of that day.
"What have the Soviet accomplished in Eastern Europe?
"They have made the eastern European countries prisoners of the Kremlin, Their resources are directed solely to the building up of Soviet power.
"They have controlled the life of every individual—from infants to great grand-parents from workers to women from bankers to beggars, from peasants to poets, from teachers to preachers, from contraltos to coffin makers.
"They have suppressed the independence of churches of ever creed. They are subverting religious organizations to the political objectives of the Kremlin.
"They have placed more than one million eastern Europeans in prisons and slave-labour camps. They are expanding these accommodations toward a goal of several million more slaves.
"They have destroyed all political opposition. They are embarked upon liquidation of the upper and middle classes, through slow starvation, mass deportations and death sentence 'justice'.
"They have perverted education. They are russianizing the cultures, history, literature, science, arts and traditions of the east European countries.
"They are well-advanced toward communizing the younger generation, nearly 20 million young people below the age of twenty-one.
"In reality Soviet Russia extends today to Berlin and Vienna. The red Russians hold and rule more of Europe than the imperial Turks at the peak of their power."
Since the summer of 1952, the situation in these captive countries has not changed in the least.
The peoples of Albania. Bulgaria, Hungary, and Roumania, so far as I know, have not accepted the enslavement of their countries. They are struggling for their freedom. The United Nations for reasons of prudence have closed its eyes and shut its ears to the cries for freedom from the millions in Eastern Europe. Should the United Nations for the sake of expediency help inter national Communism in making the chains of enslavement stronger and heavier? This is a question that all delegations must answer before casting their votes.
Some delegations assure us that their support of the applications of these states for membership does not imply their approval of the governments of these countries. They even expressly state that they do not approve these governments, but they go on to say that for the sake of getting membership for other deserving states, they are willing to stomach these captive nations. The trouble with this approach to the problem is that the Communist regimes in these countries have absolute control of all media of public information. What reservations delegations make here will not be known to the peoples within the Iron Curtain. Admission of these states will be exploited in Communist propaganda. Admission will be made to mean that the free world, the entire world, accepts and approves the established governments in these countries. And Communist propagandists will elaborate on this theme and go on to draw the conclusion that any opposition to the established order is vain and useless.
Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, my delegation is not prepared to share in the responsibility for admitting these states to the United Nations and thereby casting an halo of approval on them. I wish that the United Nations may have some message of encouragement or some form of aid to send to the peoples in these captive countries. I regret that the United Nations is not ready to make such a positive contribution to freedom. I have hoped however that at least the United Nations would not add to the difficulties of the captive people. In admitting these four satellite states to the United Nations, Mr. Chairman. I have no doubt that the United Nations will have dealt a heavy blow to the aspirations of these peoples.
The Soviet draft amendment to the joint draft resolution specifies the inclusion of Outer Mongolia in the present package. Mr. Chairman, Outer Mongolia is in many respects similar to the four satellite states of Eastern Europe. The people of Outer Mongolia have no freedom. They also are hoping and struggling for free dom. Outer Mongolia as an independent sovereign country exists only in Soviet propaganda. But there are also some differences between Outer Mongolia and the four European satellite states. Albania. Bulgaria, Hungary and Rou mania had had several decades of independent existence before their countries were taken over by the Soviet Union. They were historical entities. The independence of Outer Mongolia was created by the Soviet Union as a camouflage for Soviet colonization. There was no independence in Outer Mongolia before Soviet subversion and aggression began. It was part of my country. Chinese sovereignty over Outer Mongolia was publicly acknowledged by the Soviet Union. Since it became according to Soviet terminology, "independent". Outer Mongolia has not, in fact, a shred of independence. The claim of independence has neither historical foundation nor present-day actuality. Outer Mongolia is a Soviet colony, exploited for Soviet purposes.
In 1947 the Soviet Union instigated the so-called Outer Mongolian Government to invade my country. At the time when the aggression took place. I called the attention of the Security Council to the seriousness of the situation. At the 186th meeting of the Security Council held on 18 August 1947 I reported to the Security Council that Mongolian troops bad invaded the territory of my country up to a place called Peitaishan, which is well over 100 kilometers inside the boundary line. That aggression could not be simply explained as an expression of the nomadic instinct because it was accompanied by a certain number of airplanes.
In the course of the War of Korea, troops from Outer Mongolia fought side by side with Korean and Chinese Communists against the United Nations. The aggressors took pains to conceal the identity of Outer Mongolian troops and to back out all news about their participation. Nevertheless, the world press managed to furnish some information. For example, a UP despatch carrying dateline Seoul, November 27, 1950, told the world:
"The 89th Division of the Soviet Army was moving towards the northeastern border of Korea; with them, there are two divisions of Mongolian troops,"
The Sin Tao Daily News of Hongkong, on August 23, 1952, published the following item:
"It has been reported that the Mongolian cavalry appeared on' the front in Korea. It is ascertained now that Outer Mongolia has formally mobilized its troops to march into North Korea to participate as part of the Chinese Volunteer Army. The total number mobilized is estimated to be 80,000. The first batch has arrived at the battlefield in Korea, consisting of 20,000 cavalry, the rest being airforce and artillery force."
Among the 14,000 prisoners of war repatriated to Taiwan, more than 5,000 fought side by side with or saw Mongolian troops in action against the United Nations. According to their testimony, several facts have been established. First, the anti-aircraft guns on both banks of the Yalu River were manned by Mongolian crews. All the U.N. aircraft shot down along the Yalu were victims of Outer Mongolian troops. Second, Outer Mongolian cavalry units were stationed at Sinhing, Heisuitung and Pyonyang. They were often assigned to clear up operations on the hills. Third fact, as Mount Sinkao, Outer Mongolian armoured units were stationed, and at Tusan was an armoured unit converted from cavalry. Fourth fact, many Outer Mongolians wore same uniforms of North Koreans but had distinct insignia on their caps. Fifth fact, at least two Outer Mongolian cavalry regiments were engaged in action in Korean.
My Government would welcome a commission of investigation from the U.N. to interview these prisoners of war in Taiwan, or, if the U.N. so desires, may Government will be prepared to send here any number of witnesses to appear before this Committee, or some other committee, for questioning.
Among these witnesses would be Mr. Galungashu, an Outer. Mongolian, born and brought up in Tasuiyuan, in Central Outer Mongolia. He served among the Outer Mongolian air pilots as interpreter of Mongolian and Russian languages and was decorated by the Soviet Government for his so-called heroic work in Korea. (His decoration is today in the custody of the U.N. Command). This man, if brought here, can tell the United Nations the extent of Outer Mongolian participation in the aggression in Korea.
The members of the Committee should furthermore keep in mind that the Mongolians, as a people, is divided, just at the Koreans and Vietnamese are today, unfortunately, divided. Of the three million Mongols, only one million, in fact, a little less than one million, live in Northern, that is, Outer Mongolia, two million live in Southern, that is, Inner Mongolia.
Sir, the situation in Outer Mongolia can be summarized in a few words, Outer Mongolia was a part of China. It was seized by the Soviet Union, given a cloak of independence by the Soviet Union, and, then exploited by tile Soviet Union for further aggression against China and Korea. Is such a regime entitled to membership in the United Nations?
I have, Mr. Chairman, explained the attitude of my delegation towards the principle, of universality. I have set forth the legal, political, and moral considerations against any package deal, mostly in worlds used by delegates whose voice should carry weight with us. I have completed the examination of the contents of the present package put before us, both as regards what it contains and as regards what is left out. In conclusion, I like to ask, what has driven the United Nations to its present plight in this matter of admission of new members? Why have delegations made such a turn-about of this question? The answer is plain: the Soviet abuse of the veto power in the Security Council. According to my calculation, the Soviet delegation has cast 25 vetoes against applicant states. This is blackmail. The United Nations, after all these years of struggle, is asked by the joint draft resolution to pay the blackmail demanded by the Soviet Union. I call this step unconditional surrender of the United Nations to the Soviet Union.
The plea of expediency is based on the fact that the present proposal would make possible the admission of 13 free states. When the Security Council on various occasions considered the thirteen qualified and deserving applicants, including Japan, Ceylon, Jordan, Portugal, Italy, and Austria, to mention only a few, China had on each occasion voted for their admission the United Nations. In the case of Spain, my Foreign Minister declared before the Plenary Session of this Assembly as early as September 28 that the Chinese Delegation will support Spain's admission. In fact, my delegation has done everything possible to bring about their admission. But if you were to admit them simultaneously with the other five who, in our judgment, are not entitled to membership in the United Nations, we would be weakening the foundations of the United Nations, although, I admit, we would be enlarging its super-structure. It would be a tragedy if we destroy the United Nations in an effort to expand its super-structure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*This is the text of a statement made before the Ad Hoc Political Committee of the 10th General Assemble of the United Nations on December 2, 1955
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Can't Be Players
Though the most be playsrs, some must be spectators