[matter omitted]
3. Ireland's Application:
When our application came before the Membership Committee of the Council on the 30th July it was supported by 8 of the 11 members of the Council, viz., the American, Brazilian, British, Chinese, Columbian, French and Syrian delegates. The Polish representative stated that he had not yet received instructions from his Government and reserved his right to comment on our application at a future meeting (Poland supported us in 1946). The Australian delegate did not intervene - presumably for the same reason as he abstained when the Vote was taken in August, 1946, i.e., because, in the Australian view, the admission of new members is a matter for the Assembly and not for the Council.¹ The Russian representative indicated that he could not support our application because (i) we have not diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union; (ii) because of our behaviour during the War when, he alleged, we did not help the Allies, had expressed sympathy with the Axis Powers and Franco-Spain and no justification of our behaviour during the War had been produced since the War ended.

When our application came to a Vote in the Security Council on the 18th August, Russia opposed it for the same reasons as she gave in the Membership Committee, Poland abstained from voting and the other nine members (including Australia) voted in favour.

[matter omitted]

5. Taoiseach's Interview to New York Times on 31st July:
After the Russian delegate opposed our application in the Membership Committee on the 30th July the Minister gave an interview to the Dublin correspondent of the New York Times, in which he pointed out how incorrect and hypocritical it was for Russia to accuse Ireland of having helped the Axis during the War. In the course of this interview the Minister stated that 'Ireland's decision to apply for membership was taken by the Irish Government with no little misgiving and only because Ireland wished to play her full part in every effort to secure international co-operation and world peace'. He also stated that 'Russia's action in this matter is clearly an abuse of power and it is obvious that no organisation in which such action is possible will command the people's respect or can long endure'.

6. International re-action to Russian attitude on Ireland's application:
British: When speaking in the House of Lords on the 5th August in a debate on the recent elections in Hungary, Lord Pakenham, Minister in charge of the British Occupation Zones in Germany and Austria, expressed the keen disappointment of the British Government that the Soviet Union should have blocked our application 'on the unreasonable grounds that Ireland was neutral in the War and had no diplomatic relations with Moscow'. He declared that 'it would be a parody of Justice if a democratic country like Ireland continued to be excluded from the United Nations and countries, whose Governments are the kind we have been discussing, were allowed to enter and enjoy full rights.'

Mr. Hector McNeill, Minister of State and Leader of the British delegation to the current Assembly, in a speech, delivered in the Assembly on the 22nd September, stated that no one could possibly justify our rejection as a member of the United Nations. He described the Irish Government as reputable and stable with good and cordial relations with members of the United Nations. 'She is above all a peaceful nation, seeking by legitimate means to improve at all times her relationship with Powers, similarly stable and legal. There is not one argument in equity that can be offered against her admission'.

Mr. Mayhew, British Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, speaking in the Economic Committee of the United Nations on the 29th September á propos of the Polish reference that the Paris Conference was 'by-passing' the United Nations, said that Ireland was one of the countries at Paris but was not at the United Nations Assembly for political reasons and suggested that any action taken by the Polish delegate to remedy this situation would be warmly welcomed.

United States: The United States delegate on the Security Council stated in the Council on the 1st October that America would urge the Assembly to ask the Council to re-consider promptly the applications in respect of Ireland and Italy, Finland, Portugal and Transjordan.

Australia: Dr. Evatt, in a declaration at New York on the 15th September, describing the use of the veto to prevent the admission of members as absurd and contending that the Security Council had usurped the powers of the Assembly in this matter, said that Ireland's exclusion was quite unjustifiable, that Ireland is a democratic Government and that the Irish nation is peace loving and devoted to individual freedom. He held that the overwhelming majority of the United Nations accepted this view and that the veto has been used in the Council to obstruct the will of the majority. He made similar remarks in the Assembly about our exclusion on the 18th September.

The Argentine delegate, on the 25th September, indicated in the Assembly that his country would press for the immediate admission of Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Transjordan.

The French representative in the Security Council when the admission of 'ex-enemy' States was being discussed on the 25th September, regretted that the applications from Ireland and Portugal were not also being discussed.

The Secretary General of the United Nations appealed to the Security Council on the 18th August (when the recommendations were made) to recommend the applications of seven of the applicants, including Ireland, so as to avoid what happened in August, 1946.

7. Action in General Assembly:
In the general debate on the opening of the present Assembly almost all the 39 speakers touched on the question of the veto in the Security Council, the Mexican delegate saying that it was impossible to ignore any longer the outcry against it. Every one of the 39 speakers, with the exception of the Soviet Union, Poland, the Ukraine and Byelorussia, felt that either the provisions in the Charter relating to the veto or the manner in which the veto is exercised must be modified.

The American Government has put forward a proposal for modification of the veto power, which would, inter alia, eliminate its use in connection with applications for membership. As indicated above, the American delegate in the Security Council stated on the 1st October that his Government would request the Assembly to ask the Security Council to consider our and other applications. The Australian delegate, Dr. Evatt, told the Assembly on the 18th September that he would present a new plan for the admission of members - presumably designed to deprive the Security Council of the right to veto an application. The Argentinéan delegate said on the 25th September that he proposed to press for the admission of Ireland, Portugal, Transjordan, Italy and Austria by the General Assembly. He also has a proposal looking to the convocation of a general conference to abolish the veto in its present form by one of two methods. The Swedish delegate, on the 19th September, stressing the universality of the organisation, offered to submit a resolution asking the Security Council to reconsider the admission of new members during the coming session.

It is not clear, however, what success may be expected to attend these various moves. The American proposal would lead to no action until the next Assembly to which the Committee, which the United States wants to see set up, would report. Dr. Evatt, on the other hand, considers that the present Assembly is sufficiently familiar with all the facts of the case to make appropriate recommendations.

8. Demands for withdrawal of our Application:
The 'Irish Independent' has, on about four occasions, during the past fifteen months, suggested that our application should be withdrawn. It is, however, the only organ of the Press which has done so: the 'Irish Times' in a leading article on the 1st August last said that it did not agree with those who advocate our withdrawing our application.

As already mentioned, Deputies Byrne and Cogan asked the Minister last January whether he proposed to withdraw. While some Fine Gael organisations proposed withdrawal at the beginning of the year, Deputy Mulcahy in a statement at the Fine Gael Árd Fheis on the 21st January last, expressed himself as opposed to this suggestion as he contended that our application to join UNO must be regarded as giving expression to the declaration passed by the First Dáil in January 1919.

Although our position as regards admission to UNO was dealt with by the Minister when moving the Department's Vote in June last, it was not suggested in the Debate that the application should be withdrawn. Deputy Norton was, however, reported in the 'Irish Times' of the 16th August as having told a reporter, following on the Russian attitude in the Security Council, that he did not think 'we can continue to put forward applications merely for the purpose of allowing the Russians to show how obstructive and irresponsible they can be'. The implication in this statement that we have applied more than once is, of course, quite erroneous.

9. Question of Withdrawal:
While that would not, of course, be the best reason to let our application stand, it could be contended that for us to withdraw at this stage would give more satisfaction in Moscow than anywhere else. A member of the British Embassy, who called on Mr. Hearne in Ottawa early in September, gave him the impression that the British were anxious that we should not withdraw. There can be little doubt that many States (e.g. Great Britain, USA, Australia, Argentina, France) would be disappointed if we decided not to continue to apply for membership of the United Nations at this juncture. The action of the Russians in blocking our application and that of certain other countries in the Security Council has certainly been to some extent (perhaps to a large extent) responsible for the outcry against the abuse of the veto which has been voiced at the Assembly.