The attitude of the Canadian delegation towards admission of new members to the United Nations is based on Article 4 of the Charter. Applicants should be considered on their merits. Their qualifications should be judged on the principles defined in the Charter. The applicant must be a peace-loving state, it must accept the obligations of the Charter and it must be able and willing to carry out these obligations. This basis of judgment was approved by the General Assembly itself in a resolution of November 19, 1946, which states that each application must be examined on its merits "as measured by the yardstick of the charter in accordance with Article 4". We therefore reject any considerations extraneous to the Charter, such as whether or not the applicant state is in diplomatic relations with certain members of the United Nations.

This delegation also recognizes that a decision of the General Assembly with regard to the admission of any state membership requires under Article 4, a recommendation of the Security Council. I say that after listening carefully to the argument of the representative of Argentina, who contends that the General Assembly can admit new members without a recommendation of the Security Council. We do not think that that is correct. We think that the recommendation of the Security Council required by Article 4 involves a decision to make such a recommendation, and that such decision is governed by the provisions of Article 27 of the Charter and requires the concurrent vote of the permanent members. Whether that legal contention is correct or not, if a state of co-operation is to exist between the General Assembly and the Security Council, the General Assembly should certainly secure the recommendation of the Security Council before attempting to admit new members itself. The question arises: What is the Assembly to do about applications for admission of states which fail to secure the necessary approval in the Security Council?

Confronted by this situation, we could take up each rejected application and consider its qualifications in the light of the criteria established in Article 4 and come to a decision in the Assembly recommending that the Security Council reexamine the applications of those states which have been favourably considered by the General Assembly. We feel, however, that them is no use in adopting this procedure if the conclusions which we reach here in the Assembly are to be judged in the Security Council and altered on the basis of an entirely different set of considerations. I think that we might very well reach agreement by an overwhelming majority that the Security Council was not justified in rejecting the application of certain states which have applied for membership. Indeed, this delegation would favour the admission of a number of new states, and I think that the Assembly might well find itself in agreement on quite a comprehensive list. As matters stand, however, we may be certain that no matter how impressive a majority may be recorded here in the Assembly, some or all of the applicants we may favour will continue to be vetoed in the Security Council.

Now we recognize, Mr. Chairman, that there is a real difficulty in determining in some cases as to whether in fact an applicant qualifies under the criteria of Article 4, particularly whether the applicant can be regarded as "able and willing to carry out" the obligations of the Charter. This difficulty exists even if the most objective judgment is applied in determining each case. Discussions in the Security Council as well as in this Committee at the last session, as well as today, amply demonstrate that such a difficulty exists. But surely this is exactly where the discussion of individual applications in the Assembly is particularly relevant in making a proper determination of whether a state is eligible for membership under Article 4 or not. Where, after full discussion of the relevant facts, an overwhelming majority of the members of this organization have stated as their judgment that an applicant is a peace-loving state and able and willing to carry out the obligations of the Charter, and should therefore he admitted to membership, this would be a fairly solid basis for a proper determination of the case, a basis, I submit, which would justify favourable consideration being given to an application by the Security Council.

On the other hand, if after a favourable determination with respect to any application by the General Assembly the application is to be vetoed in the Security Council, then, in the opinion of the Canadian delegation, action on the subject of membership by this Committee or the Assembly serves little or no useful purpose. The Canadian delegation therefore believes that consideration of each application rejected by the Security Council on the part of the Assembly can be justified only if all the members of the Security Council will agree not to use their veto to prevent the admission of a state which has been approved by two-thirds of the General Assembly as having qualified under the conditions of Article 4, paragraph 1.

If the permanent members of the Security Council were to give such an assurance, the Canadian delegation would be happy to state its position with regard to each applicant mentioned in the resolutions before us and to participate in a vote in order to record a decision of the Assembly recommending the Security Council to reconsider the particular cases in question. In the absence of such an assurance, the Canadian delegation considers that it would be futile to go through the process once again of expressing opinions on the eligibility of various applicants and unless the discussion brings out more points which we have missed in our consideration of the matter, we would be disposed to abstain from voting.

⁴⁶Voir Le Canada et les Nations Unies 1947, pp. 228-230.
See Canada at the United Nations 1947, pp. 217-9.