« ÎnapoiContinuați »
national peace and security, although not an existing threat to the peace within the meaning of chapter VII of the Charter. It recommended that its report be transmitted to the General Assembly with the recommendation of the Council that unless the Franco regime was withdrawn and certain conditions of political freedom fully satisfied, a resolution be passed by the General Assembly recommending the severance of diplomatic relations with the Franco regime by each Member of the United Nations. The United States voted in favor of this recommendation after proposing, in order not to prejudge the action the Assembly should take, that the resolution should alternatively provide for such other action as the General Assembly deemed appropriate and effective under the circumstances prevailing at the time. This resolution was consistent with the principle of political freedom inside Spain contained in the declaration made by the United Kingdom, France, and the United States on March 4, 1946, and it was based on the subcommittee's finding that there did not exist a threat to the peace warranting Sécurity Council action under chapter VII of the Charter. In voting for the resolution, the United States Representative reserved the position which his Government might later take on the matter in the Assembly. The resolution, however, failed of adoption because of the negative vote of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, but it was agreed that the Spanish situation should remain upon the list of matters of which the Council was seized.
During the meeting of the General Assembly in October, the Council unanimously decided to drop the matter from the list of matters before it so that the bar contained in article 12 of the Charter would not prevent the Assembly from making recommendations in respect of the case.*
6. SOVIET PROPOSAL CONCERNING MILITARY FORCES
OF UNITED NATIONS MEMBERS
On August 29, 1946 the Soviet Representative in an oral statement to the Council asserted that the presence of allied troops in a number of Member nations and other non-enemy states “cannot fail to give rise to a quite natural uneasiness in the peoples of those countries”, and that “world public opinion ... follows with unconcealed anxiety the situation” which had been created in these countries. He proposed that the Council require Members to submit information to the Council as to the location and quantity of such troops, the location of naval and air bases, and the size of the garrisons of such
See chap. I, General Assembly.
bases located on the territories of other Members or on non-enemy territories.
The Soviet statement was later submitted in writing, and the Council devoted two meetings to the discussion of whether it should be placed on its agenda.
In these discussions the United States Representative took the position that there was no basis in the Charter for the Council to consider a situation described simply as one creating anxiety and uneasiness. The Soviet statement did not amount to an allegation of a situation likely to endanger international peace and security, which was necessary to bring the matter under chapter VI of the Charter, nor was it the equivalent of an allegation of threats to the peace or acts of aggression which would bring it within chapter VII.
Seven members voted against the inclusion of the Soviet proposal on the agenda, two members voted for its inclusion, and two members abstained from voting. The proposal was therefore not placed on the agenda of the Security Council."
Security Council Recommendations on the Admission of
New Members to the United Nations Admission to the United Nations pursuant to article 4 of the Charter is effected by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The first application, that of Albania, was received on January 26, during the First Part of the First Session of the General Assembly. On January 30, 1946 the United States Representative in the Security Council took the position, which was in effect accepted, that consideration of this application should be deferred and that it, together with all others which might be received, should be dealt with at some time prior to the fall meeting of the General Assembly. On May 17, at the suggestion of the United States, the Council established a committee consisting of representatives of all its members to examine and report to the Council on such applications as had been or might be received. This committee, meeting between July 31 and August 20, examined nine applications, those of Afghanistan, Albania, Eire, Iceland, Outer Mongolia, Portugal, Siam, Sweden, and Trans-Jordan, and reported to the Council on August 25. The Siamese application was withdrawn prior to consideration by the Council of the eight other applications.
In the Security Council, in an effort to promote universality of membership in the United Nations to every extent consistent with the Charter, the United States, waiving certain doubts entertained with respect to whether Albania and the Mongolian People's Republic met the requisite qualifications, proposed that all eight applicants be admitted en bloc. When this proposal failed of acceptance and it became evident that exercise of the veto would prevent the admission of certain states which we believed better qualified for membership than Albania and Outer Mongolia, the United States voted against those two 'states which received, respectively, five and six affirmative votes. The result of the voting was that the Security Council recommended only three of the eight applicants, Iceland, Sweden, and Afghanistan. These were unanimously approved by the General Assembly on November 9. Siam subsequently resubmitted its application, was recommended for membership by the Security Council, and its admission approved by the General Assembly December 15.
*For the history of the proposal on the same subject which the Soviet Delegation placed on the agenda of the General Assembly in October, see chap. I.
Rules. of Procedure of the Council Article 30 of the United Nations Charter provides: "The Security Council shall adopt its own rules of procedure, including the method of selecting its President.” Under the interim arrangements agreed upon by the United Nations in San Francisco in 1945, the Executive Committee of the Preparatory Commission worked out 34 rules of procedure which were provisionally adopted by the Security Council at its first meeting in London. The Council then established a Committee of Experts to be composed of a representative of each member of the Council to give further consideration to the rules.
The members of the Committee of Experts early in their deliberations reached an understanding that it would be preferable for all rules of procedure that it might recommend to the Council to have as nearly unanimous support of the Committee as possible, even at the risk of some delays.
Under this arrangement the Committee of Experts recommended, and the Council agreed upon, 60 provisional rules of procedure. All were recommended unanimously with the exception of three rules relating to membership on which Australia dissented.
In the effort to achieve substantial unanimity on rules, the consideration of some of the more controversial matters was postponed, particularly the rules relating to the voting procedures of the Council. However, it is believed that even in their present stage the provisional rules of the Security Council mark a considerable advạnce in making provision for procedures not hitherto available in international practice.
Continuance of the work of the Committee of Experts is considered necessary both because the Council requires additional rules of procedure on topics not now covered, and because it will be necessary and desirable from time to time to review the present provisional rules in order to perfect them in accordance with the development of the Council's operations.
Military Staff Committee Article 47 of the United Nations Charter provides that a Military Staff Committee, consisting of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council or their representatives, shall be established “to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the Security Council's military requirements for the maintenance of international peace and security, the employment and command of forces placed at its disposal, the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament.” Accordingly, the Security Council on January 25, 1946 adopted and issued a directive establishing the Military Staff Committee.
The Committee began its meetings in London on February 4, 1946 and proceeded at once to organize itself in accordance with the Security Council directive. At its third meeting on February 14, the Committee approved and submitted to the Security Council a draft statute outlining the Committee's functions and prescribing the form of its organization. Draft rules of procedure were also submitted. Pending their final approval, the Security Council has authorized the Committee to operate provisionally on the basis of these documents.
After its third meeting in London the Military Staff Committee adjourned and reconvened on March 25 in New York. During the year 25 meetings have been held, all of which have been private. As in the case of the Security Council, the members of the Committee have maintained representatives constantly at the place of meeting.
Since the establishment of the Military Staff Committee in London the United States Chiefs of Staff have been represented by Admiral R. K. Turner, senior United States member from October 1, 1946 through the remainder of the year; by Lieutenant General M. B. Ridgeway, and, until October, when he assumed command duties with the United States Air Forces, by General G. C. Kenney. General Kenney, former senior member, was succeeded by Lieutenant General H. L. George, who resigned shortly thereafter. Pending the appointment of his successor the Commanding General, Army Air Forces, was represented by Brigadier General C. P. Cabell.
The appointment of Gen. Joseph T. McNarney, Army Air Forces, was announced Jan. 6, 1947; upon assumption of his duties he will become senior U. S. member.
At the time of its adjournment in London the Security Council directed the Committee to undertake an examination of article 43 of the United Nations Charter from the military point of view and to report to the Security Council in due course. Article 43 provides that the Security Council and the Members of the United Nations as soon as possible shall conclude special agreements by which the Members will make available to the Security Council armed forces, assistance, and facilities for the maintenance of international peace and security. The responsibility for initiating negotiation of these agreements is placed by the Charter upon the Security Council.
As the first step in carrying out the Security Council's instruction, the Military Staff Committee has attempted to reach agreement on the basic principles which should govern the organization of the forces to be made available to the Security Council in accordance with article 43. The decision of the Committee to approach its assignment in this way was taken on the initiative of the representatives of the United States Chiefs of Staff. Draft statements of basic principles were introduced promptly in early April, 1946 by the representatives of the Chiefs of Staff of Great Britain, France, and China, as well as the United States. The Soviet Representatives did not introduce any proposals until September. Toward the end of the year the Military Staff Committee's work on these basic principles was resumed. However, this part of the assignment given the Committee by the Security Council still remains to be completed.
The Military Staff Committee is also working on a standard form of agreement to be used in negotiations between the Security Council and Members of the United Nations for the provision of armed forces, facilities, and assistance, including rights of passage, pursuant to article 43 of the Charter. The idea of a standard form for these special agreements was also proposed by the representatives of the United States Chiefs of Staff. This proposal was made in the belief that the process of negotiation between the Security Council and the Members would be facilitated and the Council would thus be able to discharge its Charter responsibility, of negotiating these agreements "as soon as possible". Substantial progress has been made on the terms of such a standard form of agreement, but unanimity among all of the members of the Military Staff Committee has not yet been reached.
Progress of the Military Staff Committee in this difficult and hitherto unexplored field of international cooperation has been disappointingly slow during this past year, but there are already signs of greater speed and it is hoped that the pace of the Committee's work will continue to accelerate. When that occurs and the Com