ly called on our Executive to forswear our use of the veto in all questions involving the admission of new members. In 1949 the executive branch undertook to do just that. And so it is no small matter for us that we have felt forced to break with our practice of 30 years. . . .

...

What in the end changed our mind was the decisions of the Council taken at its 1834th meeting on August 6, 1975. It became absolutely clear on that occasion that the Security Council, far from being prepared to support the principle of universal membership, was denying to one applicant even the right to have its case considered. Never before has the Council gone so far as to refuse even to consider the application of an entity so widely regarded as a state as to have been accepted as a member of numerous specialized agencies, and also, on four separate occasions in the past, to have been proposed for membership by a clear majority of this same Security Council.

... the United States had made clear that we were prepared to vote for the admission of each and all of the three applicants then before us, which is to say the United States would have voted for the admission of the Republic of South Korea, the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, and the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Viet-Nam. And I would like to take this occasion to welcome the representatives of those countries to this Council chamber.

a State Department spokesman had indicated that the United States would be equally willing to vote for the admission of North Korea as well. We would have done so in plain pursuit of the principle of universality. But... we will have nothing to do with selective universality, a principle which in practice admits only new members acceptable to the totalitarian states.

The United Nations should be as near as possible to universal in membership. As new nations are formed, they should be seen as having a presumed right to membership, given their fealty to the charter.

...

See U.N. Doc. S/PV.1834, Aug. 6, 1975; U.N. Doc. S/PV.1835 and U.N. Doc. S/ PV.1836, Aug. 11, 1975. See also Press Release USUN-82(75), Aug. 6, 1975; Press Release USUN-83(75), Aug. 11, 1975; Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXIII, No. 1890, Sept. 15, 1975, pp. 421-422.

The General Assembly of the United Nations, on September 19, 1975, adopted by a vote of 123 to 0, with 9 abstentions (U.S.), a resolution (A/RES/3366 (XXX)) requesting the Security Council "to reconsider immediately and favorably" the applications of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam and the Republic of South VietNam for admission to membership in the United Nations. Ambassador Moynihan made a statement in plenary in which he reiterated the readiness of the United States for the admission of all

qualified states to the United Nations, and pointed out that the United States was prepared to agree to the admission of the two Vietnamese states, but not as part of a practice of selective admission by which the Republic of Korea is excluded.

On September 26, 1975, the Security Council approved by a vote of 14 to 0, with 1 abstention (U.S.), the inclusion on the agenda of a letter from the Secretary-General transmitting General Assembly Resolution 3366 (XXX). The inclusion of the application of the Republic of Korea on the agenda did not obtain the nine votes required, the vote being 7 (U.S.) in favor, 7 against, with 1 abstention. Ambassador Moynihan reminded the Council that in 1948 the United States had sought a ruling from the International Court of Justice on the propriety of "linkage" of applications for membership in the United Nations, and that the reply of the Court had made clear that "package deals" were not in order. He pointed out that the Security Council had nevertheless linked the eligibility of the Republic of Korea to the case of North Korea, which had chosen to stay out of the United Nations, and that in the United States view, universality was not divisible. He insisted that the two Viet-Nams and the Republic of Korea should be treated equally as applicants for U.N. membership.

On September 30, 1975, the Council voted on the draft resolutions to admit South Viet-Nam and North Viet-Nam, and the United States repeated its veto of admission of the two states. The vote was 14 in favor and 1 against. Ambassador Moynihan made a statement regarding the United States veto, in which he said, in part:

The Security Council has again declined to consider the application of the Republic of Korea, a state fully qualified for membership in the United Nations. The United States has accordingly vetoed the membership applications of the Republic of South Viet-Nam and of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam. In this era of dialogue, which was underlined so distinctly during the Seventh Special Session of the General Assembly, the United States cannot accept that the admission of a fully qualified applicant should be dependent on the wishes of a nonmember state. The Republic of Korea with a population of over 35 million persons has been duly constituted as a state since August 15, 1948. It has been a United Nations observer since 1949. It enjoys diplomatic relations with over 90 states which are members of the United Nations. The Republic of Korea has repeated its assurances that its admission to the United Nations would in no way dilute its hopes for peaceful reunification on the Korean Peninsula. Indeed, membership in the U.N. with its dedication to peace and harmony should promote unification, not set it back. The United States favors admission of all qualified states desiring membership, including,

I repeat, the Viet-Nams. The United States hopes that the parties directly concerned in this impasse will discuss this question urgently so that it may be resolved.

For the texts of Ambassador Moynihan's statements of Sept. 19, 26, and 30, 1975, see Dept. of State Bulletin, Vol. LXXIII, No. 1895, Oct. 20, 1975, pp. 596-599. For the Security Council vote of Sept. 30, 1975, and the statements by various member countries, including the United States, see U.N. Doc. S/PV.1846, Sept. 30, 1975. For the Special Report of the Security Council on the matter, see U.N. Doc. A/10273, Sept. 30, 1975.

On August 18, 1975, the Security Council of the United Nations voted unanimously to accept the membership applications of the Republic of Cape Verde, the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, and the People's Republic of Mozambique. Following the vote, Ambassador W. Tapley Bennett, Jr., Deputy United States Representative to the United Nations, made a statement regarding its support of the three applications, excerpts from which follow:

The United States Delegation welcomes the prospect that this year there will be three new African members of the United Nations: the Republic of Cape Verde, the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe and the People's Republic of Mozambique..

Their admission is another step toward the development of a worldwide organization in which we hope all those nations that desire membership, and are willing and able to carry out their obligations, will be represented.

The General Assembly of the United Nations on September 16, 1975, adopted by acclamation Resolutions 3363 (XXX), 3364 (XXX), and 3365 (XXX) admitting Cape Verde, Sao Tome and Principe, and Mozambique to membership.

See U.N. Doc. S/PV.1838, Aug. 18, 1975; U.N. Journal, No. 6271, Sept. 17, 1975. For the full text of Ambassador Bennett's statement, see also Press Release USUN-84(75), Aug. 18, 1975.

The United States supported the admission of the newly independent state of Papua New Guinea to membership in the United Nations, joining in the unanimous vote of the United Nations Security Council on Resolution 375 (1975) on September 22, 1975, which recommended that Papua New Guinea be admitted, and General Assembly Resolution 3368 (XXX) on October 10, 1975, approving such admission. On both occasions, Ambassador W. Tapley Bennett, Jr., Deputy United States Representative to the United Nations, spoke in support of Papua New Guinea's admis

sion and paid tribute to Australia for the way it had handled its U.N. trusteeship responsibilities.

Press Release USUN-101(75), Sept. 22, 1975, and USUN-115, Oct. 10, 1975.

On November 12, 1975, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted without vote Resolution 3385 (XXX) “reaffirming the necessity of respecting the unity and territorial integrity of the Comoro Archipelago composed of the islands of Anjouan, Grande-Comore, Mayotte and Moheli," and admitting the Comoros to membership. France, the former administering state, did not oppose the membership, but did not participate in the consensus, explaining that two-thirds of the people on one of the islands in the archipelago had voted against independence in 1974 and the French Parliament had called for another referendum which had not taken place. The United States, as host country, made a welcoming statement.

The Security Council, by Res. 376 (1975) of Oct. 17, 1975, had recommended admission of the Comoros.

On December 4, 1975, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 3413 (XXX), cosponsored by the United States, admitting Surinam to membership in the United Nations. The Security Council had voted on December 1 to recommend Surinam for admission (Resolution 382 (1975)).

International Labor Organization

The United States gave formal notice of its intention to withdraw from the International Labor Organization (ILO) in a letter dated November 5, 1975, from Secretary of State Kissinger to Francis Blanchard, Director General of the ILO. In accordance with Article 1, paragraph 5, of the Constitution of the International Labor Organization, as amended (TIAS 1868; 62 Stat. 3485; 4 Bevans 188; 15 UNTS 35), the withdrawal becomes effective two years after the date of its receipt, subject to fulfillment of financial obligations. The Secretary's letter emphasized the determination of the United States to assist in creating conditions that would obviate the necessity for the United States actually to leave the ILO. He outlined four principal causes for the United States action: the erosion of tripartite representation in the ILO, the selective concern for human rights evidenced in the ILO Conference, the disregard of due process in dealing with allegations of human rights violations, and the increasing politicization of the ILO. The text of Secretary Kissinger's letter to Mr. Blanchard follows:

This letter constitutes notice of the intention of the United States to withdraw from the International Labor Organization. It is transmitted pursuant to Article 1, paragraph 5, of the Constitution of the Organization, which provides that a member may withdraw provided that a notice of intention to withdraw has been given two years earlier to the Director General and subject to the member having at that time fulfilled all financial obligations arising out of its membership.

Rather than express regret at this action, I would prefer to express confidence in what will be its ultimate outcome. The United States does not desire to leave the ILO. The United States does not expect to do so. But we do intend to make every possible effort to promote the conditions which will facilitate our continued participation. If this should prove impossible, we are in fact prepared to depart.

American relations with the ILO are older, and perhaps deeper, than with any other international organization. It is a very special relationship, such that only extraordinary developments could ever have brought us to this point. The American labor movement back into the nineteenth century was associated with the international movement to establish a world organization which would advance the interests of workers through collective bargaining and social legislation. Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor, was Chairman of the commission which drafted the ILO Constitution at the Paris Peace Conference. The first meeting of the International Labor Conference took place in Washington that same year. In 1934 the United States joined the ILO, the first and only of the League of Nations organizations which it did join. The Declaration of Philadelphia in 1944 reaffirmed the Organization's fundamental principles and reformulated its aims and objectives in order to guide its role in the post-war period. Two Americans have served with distinction as Directors-General. Many Americans have contributed to the work of the Organization. Most particularly, the ILO has been the object of sustained attention and support by three generations of representatives of American workers and American employers. In recent years, support has given way to increasing concern. I would emphasize that this concern has been most intense on the part of precisely those groups which would generally be regarded in the United States as the most progressive and forward-looking in matters of social policy. It has been precisely those groups most desirous that the United States and other nations should move forward in social matters, which have been most concerned that the ILO-incredible as it may seem-has been falling back. With no pretense to comprehensiveness, I should like to present four matters of fundamental concern.

1. The erosion of tripartite representation

The ILO exists as an organization in which representatives of workers, employers, and governments may come together to further mutual interests. The Constitution of the ILO is predicated on the existence within member states of relatively inde