Security 151.

1. In two sessions lasting from 10.30 a.m. until nearly 10 p.m.

Council today recommended Afghanistan, Sweden and Iceland for
admission. Albania and Mongolia were vetoed by United Kingdom and
United States while Transjordan, Ireland and Portugal were vetoed
by Soviet.

2. Early in morning meeting Council agreed to defer voting until
discussion on all applicants had been complete. Each country was
discussed in turn mainly along lines followed in Membership
Committee. Soviet stated that it was unable to support Transjordan
because it did not have normal diplomatic relations with Soviet.

Australia immediately asked on what foundation this objection
rested. Charter defined conditions for admission and diplomatic
relations with Soviet was not one of these conditions.

3. Netherlands, United States, Egypt, France, United Kingdom
supported our view with growing emphasis and accordingly Australia
made second and stronger statement asserting that question
concerned whole procedure of admission and conditions of
membership. Soviet as permanent member had power to reject any
applicant and apparently proposed to do so on grounds not
contained in Charter. [1] entitled to some explanation. Council
members including Soviet had been charged with precise duties in
regard to admission and exercised this responsibility on behalf of
whole organisation. Precise conditions had been laid down for
admission and meaning of Article 4 was that membership was open to
any state who satisfied these conditions. Soviet proposed to
exclude applicants for reasons of its own invention.

4. China introduced side issue by asking whether permanent members
could abstain from voting and thus avoid veto but eventually
discussion returned to our main point. Netherlands suggested
perhaps advisory opinion of court might be sought on whether a
permanent member could veto an application from a state which
fulfilled requirements of Article 4 but later dropped suggestion.

5. Soviet refused to explain its position merely stating that its
declaration was clear and there was nothing to add.

6. Brazil supported our view and further and stronger statements
were made by United States.

Action appeared possible and having obtained clear support for our
view from majority of Council we concluded with statement that if
the Security Council were to make a report to General Assembly
indicating that applications had been rejected for reasons
completely outside Charter, General Assembly might be expected to
examine case most closely. Netherlands also reserved right to
raise issue in Assembly.

7. Soviet made similar objections to Ireland and Portugal. In
latter case there was Soviet-American brush, Johnson recalling
Potsdam Declaration on Neutrals and declaring that Soviet having
accepted Charter must comply with Charter.

8. When time came to vote Mexico reviewed United States proposal
of yesterday for admitting all applicants en bloc and United
States made new proposal that no action be taken at present on
Albania and Mongolia. Soviet opposed both proposals. After long
argument on order of submission of resolutions it was agreed to
submit Mexico first. United Kingdom and Australia both restated
their objections to admission of members en bloc. Soviet said it
would veto and eventually after wasting nearly two hours Mexico
withdrew proposal.

9. On United States proposal to postpone action on Albania, Soviet
argued that postponement was itself action as it was tantamount to
a decision not [to] admit applicant. Long argument followed on
whether proposal was substantial or procedural matter. Chairman
following lead in London when consideration of Albanian
application was deferred, declared it was procedural and action
under Rule 30 [2] to which Netherlands drew attention invited
Soviet to challenge his ruling. Soviet tried to introduce separate
motion to decide whether question was procedural or substantial
but Netherlands and Australia held to Rule 30 and Chairman put
question accordingly. Five members including United States and
Australia voted to uphold ruling and United Kingdom, China, France
and Soviet against three first-mentioned taking honest view that
postponing action was in this case equivalent to action.

10. Chairman then yielded after long argument with Soviet and
ruled that his own previous ruling had NOT been upheld.

Netherlands and Australia quoted Rule 30 against this view and
Chairman then said that he would give new ruling namely that his
interpretation of the vote cast was that the question was held to
be one of substance and invited members to challenge this ruling.

As United States now deserted us we had no hope of successful
challenge and Australia and Netherlands contented themselves with
statements disagreeing with Chairman's interpretation of vote.

11. As anticipated, United States proposal for postponement which
had only been introduced in the hope that United States might
avoid voting against Albania was rejected by Soviet veto.

12. Series of votes on each applicant was then taken which results
indicated in paragraph 1 above. At commencement Australia made
statement along lines of last section of our reservation to
Committee's report and we abstained from votes on applicants.