The Assembly then adopted, without a vote, a resolution cosponsored by 76 states, including nearly all of the African members, that admitted the Comoros to UN membership.

Surinam

Surinam, a South American territory within the Kingdom of the Netherlands enjoying complete domestic autonomy, became independent in agreement with the Netherlands on November 25 and that same day applied for admission to the United Nations.

The Security Council on December 1 referred the application to its Committee on the Admission of New Members. The committee, without discussion, adopted a report to the Council which included a draft resolution recommending Surinam's admission. The Council met again in the afternoon of the same day and by unanimous vote adopted the proposed resolution.

Speaking after the vote, the U.S. Representative, Ambassador Bennett, said, "We warmly support and endorse Surinam's application for membership in the United Nations." He continued:

"Surinam has a long history of democratic traditions, and has enjoyed a large measure of self-government since 1954. Its Legislative Council has been in existence for more than 100 years, 110 years to be exact.

"As in any new country arriving on the world stage today, there will be problems. However, the rich diversity and abilities of Surinam's population and the demonstrated commitment of Surinam's elected leaders to the welfare of their people are cause for optimism about Surinam's future.

"Surinam's rich natural resources, the variety of agricultural production which Surinam's fertile soil makes possible, and Surinam's commitment to liberal trade policies are convincing evidence of Surinam's excellent prospects for continued economic development.

Ambassador Bennett then described the long-standing Surinam-United States relations, noting that the first U.S. Consulate in Parimaribo was established in 1790. He concluded his statement by expressing "our admiration for the exemplary role which the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has played in the emergence of Surinam as an independent state,' " and declaring that "It is the sincere desire of the United States to cooperate cordially and fully with Surinam as a sovereign and independent nation and as a member of the United Nations."

On December 4 the General Assembly adopted without vote a resolution, cosponsored by 75 states, including the Netherlands, the United States, and nearly all Latin American and Caribbean countries, that admitted Surinam to UN membership.

The Viet-Nams and Korea

The Republic of South Viet-Nam and the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam (North Viet-Nam) submitted applications for UN membership on July 15 and 16, respectively. On July 18 both states applied for observer status at the United Nations. These requests were granted by the Secretary General and observer delegations arrived in New York late that month.

On July 30 the Republic of Korea (South Korea), which has periodically tried to join the United Nations since 1949, reactivated its original application. (In 1949, 1955, 1957, and 1958 Korean membership had been vetoed by the U.S.S.R.)

The Security Council met on August 6 to consider a proposed agenda with these three applications on it. On the same day, a Department of State spokesman announced that the United States would not participate in a selective program of universality and therefore, as a permanent member of the Security Council, the United States would veto the two Vietnamese applications unless the Republic of Korea also was admitted.

Later that day the Security Council decided, by identical votes of 14 to 0, with 1 abstention (U.S.), to place the two Vietnamese applications on its agenda for formal consideration. It declined, by a vote of 7 in favor (Costa Rica, France, Italy, Japan, Sweden, U.K., U.S.) to 6 opposed (Byelorussian S.S.R., P.R.C., Iraq, Mauritania, Tanzania, U.S.S.R.) with 2 abstentions (Cameroon, Guyana), to consider the application of the Republic of Korea. Article 27 (2) of the UN Charter provides that nine affirmative votes are required on procedural matters. The Security Council then voted on the adoption of the agenda as a whole, which comprised only the two Vietnamese applications, and approved it by a vote of 13 to 1 (U.S.), with 2 abstentions (Costa Rica, U.K.). (The veto does not apply to procedural matters.)

The applications were referred to the Committee on the Admission of New Members which considered them on August 7 and 8 and forwarded to the Council a report including draft resolutions recommending the admission of the two states. The United States and Costa Rica disassociated themselves from the report.

On August 11, when the Security Council met again to consider the two resolutions proposed by its Membership Committee, the United States vetoed both Vietnamese applications. Each vote was 13 to 1 (U.S.), with

1 abstention (Costa Rica).

The question of Vietnamese membership was raised in the 30th General Assembly which adopted on September 19 by a vote of 123 to 0, with 9 abstentions (U.S.), a resolution sponsored by Algeria and 66 other states. The resolution considered that the two Viet-Nams should be admitted to membership in the United Nations and requested the Security Council to reconsider "immediately and favorably" the two applications. Responding to this request, the Council met five times between September 26 and 30 to consider the applications. Nineteen states in addition to all members of the Council spoke during the debate. When the Council again refused to consider the application of the Republic of Korea, the United States again vetoed the Vietnamese applications.

On November 5 the General Assembly decided, at the request of the Vietnamese, to take no further action on their applications during 1975, but to consider them as a matter of priority at the 31st session in 1976.

PEACEKEEPING GUIDELINES

In 1965 the 19th General Assembly adopted a resolution establishing a Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations to undertake a comprehensive review of peacekeeping operations in all their aspects, including ways of overcoming the financial difficulties of the UN organization. (This referred to the failure of some states to pay assessments for certain peacekeeping operations.) The President of the Assembly appointed 33 states to the Committee.14/ In 1973 the 28th General Assembly requested the Committee and its Working Group15/

14/ The present members are Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Hungary, India, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Mauritania, Mexico, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Sierra Leone, Spain, Thailand, U.S.S.R., United Kingdom, United States, Venezuela, and Yugoslavia.

15/ Members are the 6 officers of the Committee (Chairman-Nigeria; Vice Chairmen--Brazil, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Japan; Rapporteur--Egypt), plus Argentina, France, India, Pakistan, U.S.S.R., United Kingdom, and United States.

to intensify their efforts toward achieving agreed guidelines for carrying out peacekeeping operations in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations. A resolution along the same lines was adopted by the 29th Assembly in 1974.

Peacekeeping Committee

Following the opening meeting of the full Committee on March 14, the Working Group held 15 meetings between March 26 and October 31. There was considerable informal discussion, particularly among the four permanent members of the Security Council in the Working Group, in addition to the formal Working Group meetings. The Working Group examined the introduction and articles 1 through 6 of the principles which it had drafted the previous year. These dealt primarily with the respective roles of the Security Council and the Secretary General in peacekeeping operations and the possible role of a subsidiary body under the Security Council. In addition there was discussion of new formulations put forward in the Working Group.

Although tentative formulas covering a few aspects of guidelines were prepared, in most cases the Working Group was unable to agree on a single formulation or even to reduce the number of alternative texts being considered. Reflecting this lack of tangible results in its report to the Committee, the Working Group expressed its deep regret that it had not been possible to make further progress in the completion of agreed guidelines. It recognized that the fundamental nature of the issues had given rise to certain important differences between some members of the Working Group concerning basic political and institutional problems which needed further substantive negotiations. The Working Group expressed the opinion that more time and greater accommodation were required to overcome existing differences and that efforts toward this end should be continued, having due regard to circumstances likely to lead to further progress. The Working Group believed that it should also devote attention to considering specific questions related to practical implementation of peacekeeping operations.

the

At its second and final meeting on November 17, full Committee noted the Working Group's report and in its own report reiterated the conclusions and recommendations of the Working Group.

General Assembly

The report of the Peacekeeping Committee was considered by the Special Political Committee at five meetings between November 21 and December 5. Only 30 states

took part in the debate, over half of them members of the Peacekeeping Committee or troop contributors to various operations. Many stressed the continued need for establishing agreed guidelines for future peacekeeping operations. In view of the difficulties in reaching such agreement, however, many delegations noted with satisfaction that the report of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations recommended that attention be devoted to specific questions related to the practical implementation of operations, such as standard logistic arrangements and unified training manuals and programs for peacekeeping contingents.

Speaking in the Special Political Committee on November 25, the U.S. Representative, Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr., said that the United States continued to attach high importance to the peacekeeping function of the United Nations in order to prevent the outbreak of hostilities and to provide the opportunity for the peaceful settlement of disputes. He said that, based on the experience of UN peacekeeping forces,

we are convinced that a high degree of flexibility is required to allow the Security Council, the Secretary General, and the peacekeeping force commander to deal with unique circumstances involved in each case. We consequently continue to believe that guidelines must be general in nature. One of the major purposes of generalized guidelines should be to define in broad. but clear terms the division of responsibility between the principal UN organs involved. While the Security Council has primary responsibility for authorizing peacekeeping operations and determining the major directions for any peacekeeping force, it is important that the Secretary General have sufficient authority and flexibility to ensure the effective functioning of these forces. The Security Council could maintain its overall and continuing responsibility by receiving regular reports from the Secretary General, by periodically reviewing the work of the peacekeeping force, and, if it considers it advisable, by establishing an advisory or consultative committee."

In view of the practical successes of various peacekeeping forces, the United States believed the United Nations should not be unduly disheartened by its failure to reach agreement on generalized guidelines. In conclusion, the U.S. Representative said that the experience of the Peacekeeping Committee indicated the need for further reflection on how best to approach the problem, and he suggested considering some hiatus in the drafting efforts of the Committee.

On December 3 Nigeria introduced in the Special Political Committee a draft resolution which was ulti