Page:United Nations Security Council Meeting 3.pdf/7

28 I would urge the Security Council not to take it up until some general procedure is worked out so that whatever procedure we follow in this particular case will also be followed in other cases. This will show the orderly way in which the Security Council seeks to deal with applications in general.

Therefore, when you put the question to the vote, to me it is a matter of principle that I voted for insertion on the agenda. But if you should take a vote in the second part, I understood in the sense I have just explained, that both vote for it also, because it seems to me that I would be very useful and very practical and would lead to consideration.

Let me add one more word. Inclusion in the agenda in no way commits the Council or any member as to the position each delegation may take; it simply puts the question on the agenda and leaves it to the Security Council to decide when to take it up and how to take it up.

(Poland) (translated from French): The question of procedure has been raised. With regard to this subject, I should like to remind all the members that the Security Council sits permanently. The fact of fixing the agenda of the Security Council today does not mean that we must exhaust the agenda today. The General Assembly will probably end in February, but the Security Council will continue to sit. It will therefore be able to continue dealing with the questions proposed during the present session of the Assembly. Besides, the Security Council will have a number of questions to settle between the two General Assemblies. That is why I voted against the proposal of the representative of the United States of America.

I voted in favor of discussing the Albanian application in order not to discourage other States not Members of the United Nations who may wish to make similar applications.

(Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): It seems to me that if we accept the proposal made by Mr. Stettinius, certain complications may arise in discussing the question of the admission of new Members to the United Nations.

This proposal is to the effect that we should not discuss single applications, but should wait until several have been made. On the one hand, it is not stated how many such applications would be deemed sufficient for the matter to receive consideration. How many should there be: two, three, or five? On the other hand, it is not certain that a sufficient number of these applications would be filed by the date fixed for discussion of the matter.

And again, in Article 4 of the Charter, which deals with the question of admission of new Members, there is nothing which precludes the consideration of single applications. There is nothing in the Charter to support Mr. Stettinius' proposal. I would even be inclined to think that