ntie items-in-political-security council affairs (psca
TRANSCRIPT
UN Secretariat Item Scan - Barcode - Record Title PageDateTime
1317/05/20063:35:45 PM
S-0881-0007-04-00001
Expanded Number S-0881 -0007-04-00001
ntie items-in-Political-Security Council Affairs (PSCA) Analysis -membership in the UN - cases where status of applicant is indispute
Date Created 16/06/1969
Record Type Archival Item
Container s-0881 -0007: Peace-Keeping Operations Files of the Secretary-General: U Thant - PSCAAnalysis (Political-Security Council Affairs)
Print Name of Person Submit Image Signature of Person Submit
ROUTING SLIP FICHE DE TRANSMISSION
T0' 5.Gr.AsFOR ACTIONFOR APPROVAL
FOR SIGNATUREPREPARE DRAFT
FOR COMMENTS
MAY WE CONFER?
YOUR ATTENTION
AS DISCUSSED
AS REQUESTED
NOTE AND FILE
NOTE AND RETURN
FOR INFORMATION
POUR SUITE A DONNERPOUR APPROBATION
POUR SIGNATUREPROJET A REDIGER
POUR OBSERVATIONS
POURRIONS-NOUS EN PARLER?
VOTRE ATTENTION
COMME CONVENU
SUITE A VOTRE DEMANDE
NOTER ET CLASSER
NOTER ET RETOURNER
POUR INFORMATION
Date:
CR. 13 (11-64)
FROM:DE:
A-L4 ,1 . c
Unofficial translation from French
AFP-072 '
Bern, 16 June AFP
Mr. Willy Spuehler, Head of the Swiss Political Department, announced, during
a debate in the National Council (Bouse of Deputies) that the problem of Switzerland's
entry into the United Nations "had become a topical issue" and that, if it came about,
it "would enable the Swiss people to be more closely associated with world events,
which is what it wishes".
Believing that continued neutrality should not constitute an obstacle, ¥r. Spuehler
indicated that, in his view, Swiss participation in the collective actions of the
UN should be optional: "In many cases, however", he said, "Switzerland would be happy
to contribute to the maintenance of peace".
"World policy is made at the United Nations", concluded the head of Swiss
diplomacy: "Can we stand aside for ever?".
Mr. Willy Spuehler justified his plea for ST\Q.SS entry into the United Cations
on the grounds that the international Organization "is becoming more and more
universal".
"Everything thus depends on the evolution of the UN itself, which has already
changed a great deal in the last 20 years", he concluded. "If the UN abandons its
police role in order to devote itself entirely to peace-keeping, it would be hard
to say that its policy is incompatible with our own".
Switzerland, which was formerly a member of the League of Nations, stated in
1945 that it could not join the UN. The provisions of the Charter concerning the
application of sanctions were considered incompatible with the requirements of
neutrality.
CONFIDENTIAL
AD 232/1:-. January 1969
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
All Under-Secretaries-General andAssistant Secretaries-General
oThe Secretary-General
Circulation of communications from non-members
1. For your information and guidance, I am sending copies of
a letter (with its annex) which the Legal Counsel sent to the
Permanent Representative 01? the Union of the Soviet Socialist
Republics on 21 December 1968. This letter and its annex deal with
the question of the circulation of communications from non-members.
2. I should like you to bring this matter to the attention
of the officials responsible for preparing and submitting the
documentation of United Nations organs.
-2-
21 December 1968
Dear Sir,
Last November, during our conversation relating to the manner ofcirculation of a statement by the German Democratic Republic, you agreedto maintain the existing status quo regarding the circulation of thatcommunication. The existing status quo was defined in the attached noteon consultations I/ which I had with Mr. Hasinovsky and Dr. Yankov inDecember 196?•
I/ ' Those consultations were intended, in the interests of all concerned,to arrive at agreed provisional procedures which would not necessitatenegotiations every time the question of. a communication from the GermanDemocratic Republic arises. I proposed that an option be left to theMember State transmitting the communication in question to decide if'circulation in document form or under cover of a note verbale shouldbe requested. If document form was desired, the communication from theGerman Democratic Republic should be incorporated in the actual text ofthe letter from the Member State requesting circulation. The suggestedprocedures are described more fully in paragraph 8 of the attachednote, where attention is drawn also to the fact that circulation indocument form of communications of the nature here concerned oftengives rise to a proliferation of documents in the form of protests andcounter protests. Such a proliferation has usually been avoided whenthe procedure of circulation under cover of a note verbale is followed.
His ExcellencyMr. Lev Isaakovich MendelevichAmbassador Extraordinary and PlenipotentiaryPermanent Representative of the Union ofSoviet Socialist Republics to the United Nations
156 East 6?th StreetNew York, N. Y. 10021
-3-
You stated in our conversation that your agreement to maintainthe status quo was based on the assumption that equal treatment wouldbe accorded to communications from one or the other parts of the dividedStates. I explained that certain differences of treatment alreadyexisted, by virtue of the fact that principal deliberative organs haverecognized certain of the divided States and not others. However, Igave my assurances that no further differences of treatment would beintroduced by the Secretariat and, on my own initiative, undertook towrite to you to clarify further the existing status quo and to renew myassurances. The status quo is, to the best of my knowledge, as describedin the paragraphs which follow.
As a general principle, the Secretariat will not.circulate indocument form communications submitted by non-members (whether or notone of the divided States), unless one or other of the followingconditions is met:
(a) This is called for by the Charter (e.g., Articles 11, para. 2,35j para. 2, etc.), or in the rules of procedure or by arelevant resolution or other decision;
(b) The non-member concerned has an immediate and direct interestin a particular item on the agenda, in the sense that it isone of the immediate parties in interest, such as theDemocratic People's Republic of Korea in the Korean question; 2/
(c) The officer presiding over a particular organ instructs theSecretariat on his own initiative to circulate thecommunication in question; 3/
(d) A Member State submits a communication directly incorporatingthe letter from the non-member concerned.
Communications from non-members, as a general principle, which do not complywith one or the other of the foregoing criteria will be circulated undercover of a note vertaale, provided a Member State so requests in writing,and a press release will be issued if a Member State so asks.
2/ In the cases described in this sub-paragraph, circulation in documentform is normally authorized even if the communication in questionemanates directly from the entity concerned and has not been transmittedas part of or under cover of a communication from a Member State.
3/ On at least two occasions, Presidents of the General Assembly haveinstructed that replies received directly from the Federal Republic ofGermany to criticisms of its policy in statements from the GermanDemocratic Republic should be circulated in document form without arequest from a Member State (see A/699 and Corr.l, and A/C.l/98o).
J+-The general principles just described are subject to the conditions
laid down by the Secretary-General at the 1258th plenary meeting of theGeneral Assembly, on 18 November 1963- On that occasion he said that hecould "implement /an 'all States1 or an 'any State* formula in a resolutionadopted by a principal deliberative organ^ only if the General Assemblyprovided /him/ with the complete list of the States coming within thatformula, other than those which are Members of the United Nations or thespecialized agencies, or parties to the Statute of the International Courtof Justice", h/
To elaborate on the implementation of the above principles in respectof the circulation of comments from non-members:
(a) Where a resolution of a deliberative organ calls for commentsfrom Member States only, the circulation of such comments indocument form is restricted to Member States.
(b) If a resolution, as is often the case, refers to "States Membersof the United Nations, State members of the specialized agencies,or States parties to the Statute of the International Court ofJustice" circulation in document form of comments received fromnon-members coming within that formula is also authorized, thisbeing the evident intention of the deliberative organ concerned.
(c) In some instances, resolutions refer to "all States" or to "anyState". In such cases, the Secretary-General has circulated theresolution to Member States and, in certain instances, also tonon-members which are members of the specialized agencies orparties to the Statute of the International Court of Justicewith requests for their direct comments for incorporation indocument form. These latter instances are based upon the policyof the Secretary-General described in the preceding paragraph.
I trust that the foregoing explanations, together with the attachednote of 18 January 19 8, will serve to clarify for you the existing status quo.I realize that in the view of a number of Member States, certain differencesdescribed above which are accorded to communications from non-members whichare members of the specialized agencies or parties to the Statute of theInternational Court of Justice ar.d to communications from other non-rnembersare not desirable. I am sure, however, that you will understand that theSecretary-General has no alternative, in cases of this nature, but to followand to be guided by the policies defined by the majority of the members ofthe principal deliberative organs of the United Nations.
Accept, Sir, the assurances of my highest consideration.
Constantin A. StavropoulosLegal Counsel
hj It was for this reason that the Secretary-General was unable, on hisown initiative, to circulate the application from the German DemocraticRepublic for membership in the United Nations (see para. 6 (a) of theattached note).
-5-
Annex
15 January 1968
NOTE FOR THE RECORD ON THE CIRCULATIONOF COMMUNICATIONS EMANATING FROM THE
GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
CONTENTS
Paragraphs
I. Introduction 1-2
II. Prevailing policy 5 -
III. Exceptions to prevailing policy 5-7
IV. Possible courses of action 8-10
-6-
I. Introduction
1. On 5 December 19 7, a meeting was arranged between Mr. K. Nasinovsky,
Legal Adviser to the Permanent Mission of the USSR to the United Nations,
Dr. A. Yankov, Legal Adviser to the Permanent Mission of Bulgaria, and
Mr. C. A. Stavropoulos, United Nations Legal Counsel. The purpose of the
meeting was to discuss the question of the form of circulation to be given
to communications emanating from the German Democratic Republic, which had
most recently arisen as the result of the receipt of a letter from the
German Democratic Republic concerning agenda items 23 and 2h of the
twenty-second regular session of the General Assembly.* This letter had been
originally submitted under cover of a communication from the Permanent Mission
of Bulgaria requesting circulation as an official document of the General
Assembly. Subsequently, the letter and covering communication were withdrawn
and were resubmitted on 21 November 19&7 in "the form of a communication from
Bulgaria which directly incorporated the same text. The President of the
General Assembly instructed the Secretariat to issue this latter communication
as a document of the Assembly, but agreed that circulation be postponed in
order to permit the Secretariat to negotiate with interested delegations a
uniform policy on the circulation of communications emanating from the
German Democratic Republic.
2. At the outset of the meeting on 5 December 19o7, the Legal Counsel
explained that it had been convened in order to review existing policy in
an endeavour to arrive at an agreed procedural policy which would, constitute
a stable modus vivendi, under present circumstances. Unless new procedures
could be so agreed, the Bulgarian communication would be circulated on the
basis of the existing instructions of the President.
II. Prevailing policy
3- The Legal Counsel then described the policy which had so far prevailed
regarding the circulation of communications from non-members:
* Agenda item 23: "implementation of the Declaration on the Granting ofIndependence to Colonial Countries and Peoples"; agenda item 2k :"Activities of foreign economic and other interests which are impedingthe implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independencebo Colonial Countries and Peoples in Southern Rhodesia, South WestAfrica and territories under Portuguese domination and in all etherterritories under colonial domination and efforts to eliminate colonialism,apartheid and racial discrimination in southern Africa".
-7-
(a) Where a resolution of the General Assembly called for comments
from Member States only, the circulation of such comments in document form
was restricted to such Member States.
(b) However, if a resolution, as was often the case, referred to
"States Members of the United Nations, States members of the specialized
agencies .or States parties to the Statute of the International Court of
Justice" circulation in document form of comments from non-members coming
within that formula was also authorized, this being the evident intention
of the General Assembly.
(c) In a few instances resolutions of the Assembly referred to "all
States" or "any State". In such cases the Secretary-General circulated
the resolution to Member States and, in some instances, also to members of
the specialized agencies or parties to the Statute of the International
Court of Justice. This was done on the basis of the policy which the
Secretary-General had outlined at the 1258th plenary meeting of the Assembly,
on 18 November 1963- On that occasion he said that he could "implement
/sen. 'all States' or 'any State' formula/ only if the General Assembly
provided /him/ with the complete list of the States coming within that
formula, other than those which are Members of the United Nations or the
specialized agencies, or parties to the Statute of the International
Court of Justice".
h. The Legal Counsel went on to describe the policy which had been pursued
by Presidents of the General Assembly and by the Secretary-General regarding
communications from entities other than those coming within the formula
"States Members of the United Nations, members of the specialized agencies
or parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice".
(a) Such communications were circulated as documents of the General
Assembly or its Main Committees only when those entities had an immediate
and direct interest in a particular item on the agenda, in the sense that
they were one of the immediate parties in interest, such as the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea in the Korean question. In these particular
cases circulation in document form was authorized even if the communications
in question emanated directly from the entity concerned and were not
transmitted under cover of a communication from a Member State.
-8-
(b) In the case of all other communications from such entities, -where
the immediate and direct interest in the sense just explained did not exist,
it was the policy to bring them to the attention of Member States under cover
of a note verbale, rather than in document form, provided a written request
to this effect from a /United Nations/ Member State accompanied the
communication. Furthermore, if so requested, a press release giving the
text of the covering letter and communication would also be issued.
III. Exceptions to prevailing policy
5. The Legal Counsel indicated that very few exceptions to the foregoing
policy had occurred in recent years.
(a) One of these took place in I960, when a letter of 23 September of
that year from Czechoslovakia, annexing a communication from the German
Democratic Republic relating to general and complete disarmament, was
circulated as document A/k^Ok.
(b) Another occurred on 14 October 1963, when a letter from
Czechoslovakia transmitting a communication from the German Democratic Republic
relating to the principles of international law concerning friendly relations
and co-operation among States was circulated as document A/C.6/L.530.
Both of these exceptions were the result of an oversight by the Secretariat
officials concerned and were not deliberate.
6. Deliberate exceptions, the Legal Counsel said, were likewise rare.
(a) By a letter of 28 February 1966, addressed to the Secretary-General,
the German Democratic Republic applied for admission to membership in the
United Nations. As the relevant Charter provisions and rules of procedure
referred to an application for membership from a "State", the Secretary-
General could not circulate this application on his own initiative in view
of his belief that he himself was not in a position to determine whether this
particular application emanated from a "State". After consultation with
interested delegations, it was decided that a Member State should request
circulation of the application in document form, and this was done by a
letter of 10 March 1966 from Bulgaria. The Secretary-General then agreed to
the circulation of the covering note and attached application in document
form, having in mind that the communication from the German Democratic
Republic was one in which that Government could be said to have an immediate
and direct interest, namely, the question of its own membership in the
United Nations. The covering note and application were then issued as
documents A/6283 and S/7192.
o
AUSS/-*'
-10-
uador cover of a note verbale and not in document form. These three
communications, one transmitted by Poland on 20 October 19&7 > one ^y
Czechoslovakia on 8 November 1967, and one by the USSR on 16 November
had related, respectively, to the question of the punishment of war
criminals, to the principles of international law concerning friendly
relations and co-operation among States, and to the law of treaties.
Press releases were also issued.
IV. Possible courses of action
8. The Legal Counsel stated that, in the light of the developments just
described, he believed that it was essential to seek to define a policy
which would be agreed upon and which would avoid discussion of the matter
every time it arose. Under existing conditions, there appeared to be two
alternatives with respect to communications emanating from the German
D'jiv.ocratic Republic in respect of items in which it did not have the
immediate and direct interest described in paragraph h above.
(a) The first was to maintain the previous policy of circulation of
communications of the nature here concerned under cover of a note verbale,
at the request of a Member State, with an accompanying press release.
This policy had not provoked written protests and counter protests in the
past.
(b) The second alternative was to follow the exception set at the
fifth emergency special session, where a communication from a Member State
directly incorporating comments from the German Democratic Republic would
be circulated in document form. In this eventuality, it would also be
necessary to circulate in document form the letters of protest which were
bound to be received from three of the permanent members of the Security
Council, and, in line with the precedent established, any reply received
directly from the Federal Republic of Germany, in so far as this related to
points of criticism of the Federal Republic contained in the communication
from the German Democratic Republic.
The Legal Counsel concluded by saying that, in view of the precedents, it
was, of course, for the Member States involved to exercise the choice they
preferred between these two alternatives, the first one presenting the
-11-
advantage that it had not led to protests and counter protests, with
consequent proliferation of documentation, which would occur if the second
alternative were followed. Such a proliferation of documentation was
inevitable under the second alternative, as was evidenced by the practice
followed in the Economic and Social Council (see, for example, document
E/L.1188).
9- Mr. Nasinovsky and Dr. YankovJ indicated that they strongly favoured
a system by which all comments from the German Democratic Republic and
other non-members would be circulated directly as documents of the General
Assembly, without a request from a Member State. Failing that, and for the
time being, they would prefer to retain a discretion on which of the two
alternatives described in paragraph 8 above their Governments should follow
in each individual case. In some instances they might prefer one to the
other, being fully aware of the resulting action. 3o far as the Bulgarian
communication referred to in paragraph 2 above was concerned, they wished
to follow the second course and have it distributed in document form.
Mr. Nasinovsky stated that he could not agree that replies from the
Federal Republic f Germany to communications from the German Democratic
Republic should be circulated in document form without sponsorship by a
Member State. If, nevertheless, such a practice were persisted in, the
German Democratic Republic should be accorded a similar right of direct
reply to any comments made by the Federal Republic of Germany which
contained criticisms of that Government. The Legal Counsel responded that
he could see that Mr. Nasinovsky had an argument in this respect. However,
this latter question of the treatment to be accorded to possible replies
from the German Democratic Republic would have to be the subject of further
study, if and when it arose.
10. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Legal Counsel assured
Mr. Nasinovsky and Dr. Yankov that the Bulgarian communication of
21 November 196?, incorporating the statement of the German Democratic
Republic, would be circulated immediately in document form and that in the
-12-
future it would be left to the discretion of Member States submitting
communications from the German Democratic Republic to choose which of
the two alternative methods of circulation they preferred. The
communication from Bulgaria was issued on 5 December 19&7 i-n document
A/69 -1. A subsequent protest from France, the United Kingdom and the
United States, dated 11 December 1967, appeared in document A/6985- A
reply dated 12 December 1967 from the Federal Republic of Germany to
criticisms of its policy in:its statement was issued in documents
A/699 and Corr.l, and a further letter from Bulgaria dated 18 December 1967,
responding to the three-Power protest, was circulated in document A/7030.
Similar letters from the USSR, dated 11 January 1968, and from the
Byelorussian SSR and the Ukrainian SSR, both dated 12 January 1968, were
issued in documents A/7036, A/7037 and A/7038.
ROUTING SLIP FICHE DE TRANSMISSION
TOi* As Monsieur Lemieux
FOR ACTION
FOR APPROVAL
FOR SIGNATURE
PREPARE DRAFT
FOR COMMENTS
MAY WE CONFER?
YOUR ATTENTION
AS DISCUSSED
AS REQUESTED
NOTE AND FILE
NOTE AND RETURN
FOR INFORMATION
X
POUR SUITE A DONNER
POUR APPROBATION
POUR SIGNATURE
PROJET A REDIGER
POUR OBSERVATIONS
POURRIONS-NOUS EN PARLER?
VOTRE ATTENTION
COMME CONVENU
SUITE A VOTRE DEMANDE
NOTER ET CLASSER S.v.p.
NOTER ET RETOURNER
POUR INFORMATION
Date:
Le 10 fevrierCR. 13 (13-64)
FROM:DE:
Jean Gazarian
CONFIDENTIAL
AD 222/4 6 February 1970
To: All Under-Secretaries-General andAssistant Secretaries-General
From: The Secretary-General
Circulation of communications from non-members
1. By memorandum of 14 January 1969, I submitted for
your information and guidance a letter (with its annex)
which the Legal Counsel sent to the Deputy Permanent
Representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
on 21 December 1968. The letter and its annex dealt with
the question of the circulation of communications from
non-members.
2. I now wish to inform you that, after further
consultations with the Permanent Mission of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, the policies described in the
annex to my previous memorandum have been modified to the
extent that circulation is now authorized in document form,
at the express request of a Member State, of letters or
notes verbales incorporating or annexing statements on
matters before United Nations organs (i.e. on the agenda
or provisional agenda) from entities other than those which
- 2 -
come within the formula "States Members of the United
Nations, States members of the specialized agencies or
parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice".
3. This change in policy of permitting circulation of
statements annexed to requests from Member States was put
into effect during the twenty-fourth regular session of the
General Assembly and is to be continued until further
notice. I would be grateful if you could bring this change
to the attention of the officials responsible for preparing
and submitting the documentation of United Nations organs.
TO:A:
THROUGH:S/C DE:
FROM:DE:
U N I T E D N A T I O N S
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
U ThantThe Secretary-General
C. A. StavropoulosThe Legal Counsel
SUBJECT:OBJET:
N A T I O N S U N I E S
MEMORANDUM JNTERIEUR
"All States" formula
18 November 1969
REFERENCE:
1. Yesterday afternoon the Sixth Committee voted upon proposals for
the final clauses of the draft Convention on Special Missions. An "all
States" formula advanced by the USSR received 39 votes in favour, with 46
against and 25 abstentions. That part of the "Vienna formula", submitted
by France, the United Kingdom and the United States, which proposed to open
the draft Convention "to States Members of the United Nations, or of any of
the specialized agencies or Parties to the Statute of the International
Court of Justice, or any other State invited by the General Assembly" was
put to a separate vote, and received 68 votes in favour, with 26 against
and 16 abstentions. As a whole, the Vienna formula was adopted by 71 votes
to 9, with 30 abstentions.
2. There was no request made for me to explain the Secretariat policy
on "all States", as the USSR draft proposed to deposit the Convention on
Special Missions with several Governments, rather than with the Secretary-
General. Consequently no question of the interpretation of an "all States"
formula by the Secretariat would have arisen had that proposal been adopted.
3. On Wednesday a new "all States" question will arise in the Sixth
Committee, in connexion with the question of extending invitations to States
not members of the United Nations or of any of the specialized agencies or
parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice to become parties
to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. One of the draft resolutions
before the Committee on this subject, document A/C.6/L.768, sponsored by
Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Mali, Mongolia, Poland,
Romania,"Southern Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, UAR and Zambia
would have the effect, if adopted, of calling upon the Secretariat to interpret
- 2 -
an "all States" formula without any precise indication of the
entities coming within that formula. However, I do not expect
that this will be put to the vote. There is an agreement
between the Great Powers (in which the Federal Republic of Germany
concurs) that the issue of invitations to the Convention on the
Law of Treaties be postponed until next year. This is being done
in view of the current signs of a change so far as the German
question is concerned.
cc: Mr.Mr*Mr. X&sieux
PMT Mr, tail,
tiaaft
•feo
of tJaae
y tfee «se of tfeie tsars
t&e tern "Saoiocieatiie Bepfelle of
ay %® '&& first la«ta(i««» Iftwltte
consulted tM Legal Counsel ©f tli®
of tfe« Meafears of tha
OB the". 1
vhotte vishes
Bus t^jf^stha first of
state
Hill, Jr*;«
c*100 MaiylaM
YKPASHCbKOI HAPOflHbOl PECnYGfllKI/i B EK3MJ1IGOVERNMENT OF THE . GOUVERNEMHNT DE LA COVF.nNO DH.l.A
UKRASNIAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC REPUBLIQUE DEMOCRATIQUE UKRAINIENNE REPUBRLICA DEMOCRATICA UCRAINAIN EXILE EN EXIL IN ESILIO
Foreign Affairs: Via Nemorense 100, 00199 Roma, llaly, Tel.: 8300949
His Excellency
U Thant,
Gecretary General,
United nations II»Q»
Lrow YorkjlT.Y., U.S.A.
"JAugust 22,1969
C ...' I i
\L\A l'<./y . "'"'A -
\._ •• /x
I -have received your letter dated August 11 th,signed "by the Legal
Councel,in reply to our application for membership in the Organisation
of the United I!ationa»
In order that 1 may bettor understand the content of your reply,! nhall
appreciate your courtesy if you v/ould kindly refer to the second para-
graph: "In the above connection,it must be recalled...".Hay 1 ack(in re-
ference to"it must bo recalled") who does tho recalling?Is thia recalling
being done by Tlis Excellency U Thant or by Ilr.Stavropoloc or is it being
done in the name of,and on behalf of,the Member States of the United ITa-
tions?
The second sentence of your second paragraph reads:"...the credentials of
\vhich have nover been challenged in any deliberative organ" ,1.1 ay 1 ask Your
Ibccellency to indicate for me Tdiich"I3eliberative Organ"shoiild or could liavechallenged the credentials of this original member of the united nations,should there have been any reason to do no.Please accept my thanks for your attention.
Host respectfully yours.
"v'asyl l;'e do rone suit
Minister of Foreign Affairs
JFS/yr
11 Au,-unt 1969
by the Secret nrjMSeporal to acknowledge
tlie rocflipt of jou3? latter of ?0 July 19$? » in. which you
stato i T t r r i l i r i , th&te
"Tho Os^emsient of the Ukrainian DemocrstloIn Exil® wiehee to pj-eoent its application
for membership in tho organisation of the Unit 04TCatlomj.
app2ieation coneista of a declarationin a formal instrument in. which the GoirciTOnjsnt of theiJkrainlfttt Bsiaoeratio Republic! In Ksilo aocs-pta theobligations contained in the Chart ca?*"
In the above connexion, it must be r Baal let! that th®U5r.ralnian Soviet EoaiaHst Wopublio is an criminal Kof the Ualtnd Nations* Since the Orf^aiisation ^ait has "beers 3ccp'ps!tosnt®d in the United Kationa tj a (tho credgritialB of which have nsvor Tjeea cballea^ed i
org-rm. It la therefore not poo Bible, In, for us to teJce any further aotion on ycua?
latter » bsyond the preaont repljo
Const^>tin A.ffca itegal
100Kome, HALT
\
t •
U N I T E D N A T I O N S
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:A:
THROUGH:S/C DE:
FROM:DE:
SUBJECT:OBJET:
Chef cie Cabine
J. --.. jtsvropoulosThe Le;ral Counsel
N A T I O N S U N I E S
MEMORANDUM 1NTERIEUR
R E F E R E N C E :
Letter of 20 July 1969 i'ror.: the "Government of the _i..ixr:a.nic.nUe;rocrstic Republic in '.'!xilel!
1. You ha.ve asked for rr.y advice as to the lines on vjr.i
a reoly may be sent to th-a above-mentioned letter, which is in the
forra of an application for membership in the United Nations v/ith
an accompanying formal declaration that the ''Government of the
Ukrainian Democratic Republic in Exile accept(s) the obligations
contained in the Charter."
2. It would, appear to me thrt the proper approach for us to
adopt is to acknowledge receipt of the communication, and to
indicate that, as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic is an
original member of the United Kations end already represented in
the Organization by a Government the credentials of which have
never been challenged in any United Na.tions deliberative organ,
we cannot ta;-e any further action on the communication.
3. In sending our reoly, vie should omit in the address any
reference to the titles claimed by the signatories (e.g. "Prime
1-iinister", and "Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign
Affairs."
4. The reply, a draft of which is attached, might be signed
by you as Chef de Cabinet, or by me as Legal Counsel.
1 ^I /. pr-v
/
Dear Sirs,
J Mr directed hy the -ecrotarv-Generril to r.cknow.l edre
the receipt of your letter of 20 July 1969, in which you
state inter alia that:
"The Government of the Ukrainian Democraticli.epubl.ic in Exile wishes to present its application
' for membership in the organization of the UnitedNations.
"This application consists of a declaration madein s. formal instrument in which the Government ofthe Ukrainian uemocratic Republic in Exile acceptsthe obligations contained in the Charter,"
In the above connexion, it rr.ust be reca.lled that the
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic is an orifi.ncl i1.ember
of the united Nations. Since the Organization was founded,
it has been represented in the United Nations by a
Government the credentials of which have never been
challenged in any deliberative organ. It is therefore not
possible, in such circumstances, for us to take any
further action on your letter, bevond the present reply.
Yours sincerely,
Messrs. Spyrydon Dowhal andWasyl Fedoronczuk
Via Nemorense 10000199 Rome, ITALY
« »<Lg»A-
GOVEnflMEHT OF THE GOUVERMEMENT DE LAUKRAINIAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC RePUBLJQUE DtMOCRATIQUE UKRAINIENNE
(N EXILE EN EXIL
GOVEP.NO DGLLAREPUBHLICA DEMOCriATICA UCRAINA
IN ESILIO
Foreign Affairs: Via Nemorense 100, 00199 Roma, Italy, Tel.: 83BB949
July 20, 1969
His ExcellencyU Tliant ,Secretary General,United Nations II. Q.New York, N.Y., U.S.A.
Excellency:
The Government of the Ukrainian Democratic Republic in
Exile wishes to present its application for membership in
the organization of the United Nations.
This application consists of a declaration made in a formal
instrument in which the Government of the Ukrainian Democratic
Republic in Exile accepts the obligations contained in the
Chartor.
This application for membership in the United Nations is
undersigned by the President of the Republic, by the Prime
Minister, by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and by the
President of the House of Parliament of the applying Government
This application has the consent of the various organs of the
Ukrainian Communities residing in the following countries:
France, Canada, Luxemburg, Australia, Italy, Brazil, Great
Britain, Argentina, Austria and the United States of America,
contained in formal instruments signed by these respective
"organs" and authenticated by a Notary Public of each of the
countries indicated.
Most respectfully yours,
Spyrydon DowhalPrime Minister-
Wasyl FedoronczukVice Prime Minister andMinister of Foreign Affairs
yPli/4 yKFAIHCbKOI HAPOflHbOl PECffyB/lIKH B LK3MJ1IGOVERNMENT OF THE eouYEnwFivirNT RE LA oovrnno UFLLA
UKRAINIAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC REPUBLIQUE DEMGCnATIQUE UKRAINIENNE REPUDDLICA Dr.MQCRATICA UCRAINAIN EXILE ' EM EXIL IN ESILIO
Foreign Affairs: Via Nemorense 100, 00199 Roma, Italy, Tel.: 8308949
His ExcellencyU Tli ail t,Secretary General,United Nations H.Q.New York, N.Y., U.S.A.
July 20, 1969
Excellency:
Wo, the undersigned, respectfully request admission to
the United Nations of the Government of the Ukrainian
Democratic Republic in Exile, which we represent.
accept all the obligations contained in the Charter.
Most respectfully yours,
ykola LiwickiPresident of the Republic
Spyryd.on Dowlial ^/T^ T> -i tii r* KT T -KI *J <r< H- s~t T-* ^Prime Minister
Wasyl Fedoronc2ukVice Prime Minister andMinister of Foreign Affairs
L i <,( iJ * ri€t&-?>- &efa 'C/Jakiw Makoweckyj /'*President of the House of Parliament
GOVERNMENT OF THE GOUVERNEMENT DE LA GOVrPNO DF! LAUKRAINIAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC RtPUBLIQUE DEMOCRATIQUE UKRAIN1ENNE REPUDDLICA Df MQCRATICA UCRAINA
IN EXILE EN EXIL IN ES1L1O
Foreign Affairs: Via Nemorense 100, Q01S9 Roma, italy, Tel.: 83 CB 9 49
INFORMATION SHEET
The Government of the Ukrainian Democratic Republic in Exile isthe lawful successor of the last legal Government of the UkrainianDemocratic Republic, independent from 1918 to 1921. It is to lie regard-ed as the solo legitimate representative of the Ukrainian people, sinceit was endowed with full authority by tho Ukrainian parliaments electedin 1918 and 1919-
The Ukraine proclaimed its independence on 22 January 1918. Priorto this 5 in March 191?, with the revolution which overthrew the TsaristEmpire, there was established the Ukrainian Central Rada, constitutingthe first Ukrainian revolutionary parliament and affirming the Ukrai-nian people's right to self-determination.
The Ukrainian Democratic Republic was recognized do jure or dofacto by several states, including France, Great Britain, Turkey,Poland, Argentina, Finland and the Vatican. Delegations and diplomaticmissions' were dispatched to most world capitals. Soviet Russia alsorecognized the independent Ukrainian Republic but, despite this, onDecember 4, 191? prepared aggression against it.
In 1921, after three years of war, tho territory of the Ukrainewas entirely occupied by the Red Army. In place of the UkrainianDemocratic Republic there was established the Ukrainian Soviet SocialistRepublic which was, and continues to be, under the total domination ofthe Moscow central government.
The national Government of the Ukrainian Democratic Republic leftthe Ukraine in 1921 and, in exile since that date, has continued itsstruggle for the re- establishment of Ukrainian independence andsovereign.ity, thereby reflecting the aspirations of the entire Ukrainiannation, in tho Ukraine and in exile.
Since tho 1921 occupation there have been no free elections in theUkraine. Conquered militarily, the Ukraine was stripped of all herrights by the cunning ruses of the Constitution. The Constitution oftho USSR, while recognizing the theoretical right of the federatedrepublics to secede from the Union, does not stipulate the procedurefor exercizing this right. On the contrary, it deprives the federatedrepublics of even the most elementary attributes of autonomy.
The Ukrainian people has struggled against this thraldom, cease-lessly, fiercely and in. all possible ways.
The Soviet Union was constituted not through the free choice ofits members but by the use of brute force. The UkraJJio, Bolorusaiaand the Caucasian and Turkestan republics wore engulfed followingmilitary conquests in the 'twenties»
The Government of the Ukrainian Democratic Republic has alwa}rsprotested and solemnly protests still against this * usurpation of theUkrainian nation's sovereign rights and liberties and declares thatneither tho Government of the USSR nor the Soviet Ukrainian Governmentrepresent the Ukrainian people.