-—‘-—'_———

 

 

A MUL'HP‘LE S—CALOGRAM ANALYSIS OF
UNITED NATIONS VOTING

Thesis far file Deqnec of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Alicia M. Brown y Bendana
1.9-6.2

Tart-rat's”;

 

J

 

LIBR A R Y
Michigan State

L.) University (J

L

 

ABSTRACT

A MULTIPLE SCALOGRAM ANALYSIS OF
UNITED NATIONS VOTING

by Alicia M. Brown y Bendana

Previous studies of bloc politics in the General
Assembly of the United Nations have proceeded in a rationa—
listic though minimally empirical manner. The purpose of this
study was to determine whether results similar to those of
previous studies could be obtained more economically and,
perhaps more precisely by the use of a mathematical—statistical
tool on data provided by voting records in the sessions of
the General Assembly. For this purpose, multiple scalogram
analysis (MSA) was proposed as a useful method for revealing
the nature of national alignments in the Assembly, the
issues around which alignments revolve and the differences
in the degree of cohesion among Assembly caucusing groups.

It was assumed that voting behavior (policies) of countries
could be studied much in the same way that attitudes of
individuals are studies, i.e., by scaling methods.

MSA is a newly developed scaling method which takes

dichotomized data and forms unidimensional scales in an

Alicia M. Brown y Bendafia

empirical manner. The method is capable of quantifying
qualitative aspects of voting data in a meaningful way. Due
to the policies of different countries on general issues,
e.g., self—determination, budget, etc., it is possible to
qualify the agreement or disagreement of countries toward
specific proposals in regard to these issues. MSA quantifies
such qualitative information due to the parameters of order
and kind inherent in the method.

Ninety-three recorded roll—call votes for the
plenary and committee meetings of the General Assembly's
thirteenth session were dichotomized and submitted to MSA
analysis. Sixty—seven of the 81 members of the UN were in
this study. From the scales resulting from the analysis.
countries were grouped into sets according to equivalence
of their scale scores. Each scale was looked at in terms
of the voting blocs, e.g., groups of countries scoring alike
on the scale: and the types of issues in the scale. The
cohesion of caucusing groups was studied by use of the standard
deviation of scale scores for each caucusing group. The
cohesion of a group, relative to the other caucusing groups
was determined by the ranking of groups according to the
sums of their transformed standard deviations over the
seven resultant MSA scales. National alignments within

scales (Lingoes calls his MSA scales dimensions) were

Alicia M. Brown y Bendafia

described by use of a group's modal score, the number of
deviants from this score, and the standard deviation of the
group.

It was concluded that, on the basis of results similar
to those of previous studies, MSA seemed a useful method for
the study of voting behavior in the United Nations General
Assembly. The study further suggested that:

1. MSA scales ordered roll-call votes in a manner that
can be meaningfully and logically interpreted in

terms of general issue type content.

2. The cohesion of caucusing groups, as well as national
alignments can be uncovered by means of MSA.

3. Voting blocs are not equivalent tolg priori determined
caucusing groups, and are dependent upon the issues

with which a scale deals.

A MULTIPLE SCALOGRAM.ANALYSIS OF UNITED NATIONS VOTING

BY

Alicia M. Brown y Bendafia

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1962

'1 j,"
C’V'f’lfJ/IJQ r830" g»?

Oi flu”) fo‘f. agtfi/‘p

\ \.-\.‘

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To Dr. Charles Wrigley, whose interest in the United
Nations and Multiple Scalogram Analysis and to Dr. Alfred
Dietze, whose guidance and patience made possible this thesis,
I would like to express a deep gratitude. To my committee,
friends, and relatives for their understanding and moral
support, I would like to express appreciation.

The Multiple Scalogram analysis was made possible

by MISTIC and the Michigan State Computer Laboratory.

ii

DEDICATI ON

To my parents for their being mine.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. PROBLEM AND METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
III. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
IV. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table

l. Hypothetical Response Matrix for a MSA . .

2. Reflected Response Matrix for a MSA . . . .

3. Result of MSA Analysis of the Hypothetical
Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Results of the MSA Analysis . . . . . . . .

5. Caucusing Group Cohesion: Standard
Deviations of Scale Scores . . . . . .

APPENDIX TABLES

A. Countries Included in the Analysis

B. Absences During Roll—Call Votes . . . . . .
C. Results of the MSA Analysis . . . . . . . .
D. Identification of all Committee and Plenary

Roll-Call Vbtes for the 13th Session of
the General Assembly . . . . . . . .

Page
23

24

26

30

43

63
64

65

88

Chart

LIST OF CHARTS

Membership of Caucusing Groups

Voting Blocs According to
Dimension 1 . . . . .

Voting Blocs According to
Dimension 2 . . . . .

Voting Blocs According to
Dimension 3 . . . . .

Voting Blocs According to
Dimension 4 . . . . .

Voting Blocs According to
Dimension 5 . . . . .

Voting Blocs According to
Dimension 6 . . . . .

Voting Blocs According to
Dimension 7

vi

Scale

Page
. . . . . . . . l4
Scores for
. . . . . . . . 33
Scores for
. . . . . 34
Scores for
. . . . . . 36

40

41

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

This study attempts to demonstrate the usefulness of
a newly developed scaling technique for identifying voting
blocs in the General Assembly of the United Nations, i.e.,
groups of nations that vote together on particular issues,
and to measure the cohesiveness of caucusing groups in terms
of the standard deviation of their scaling errors or deviations
from perfect agreement in the scaling of the group. For this
purpose MSA (multiple scalogram analysis) (Lingoes, 1960)
was applied to the recorded votes of the Thirteenth Session
of the General Assembly. This method will be described in
greater detail in the next chapter. Here will be described
the nature of voting practices in the General Assembly, some
predetermined facts from previous studies within the context
of which the present study was formed, and a synopsis of
caucusing groups as they existed at the time of the thirteenth

session of the Assembly.

Voting Practices in the General Assembly

The General Assembly follows the rule of "qualified"
majority. Passage of important questions requires a majority
of two-thirds of the members present ani voting; other questions
require only a simple majority. This consideration together
with the broadly representative nature of the Assembly and
the limitation of its legislative power to non—binding
resolutions recommending courses of action, has encouraged
the formation of alliances and coalitions. It seems, there-
fore, that bloc politics in the UN came into being immediately
with the organization of the General Assembly.

The phenomenon of bloc politics occurs mainly in "closed
door" sessions of the representatives of groups of countries
that caucus. Here votes are traded and gentlemen's agreements
are reached in order to assure the passage of resolutions of
particular interest to the group by the required majority.

Such groups and even a few of the "Powers" are not above the
use of pressure tactics to acquire the necessary votes for the

passage of a resolution (Ball, 1951; Riggs, 1958).

Previous Studies

As might be supposed, under these conditions it has
become important for practical reasons to know how the various

countries vote and particularly which countries support or

oppose what resolutions. Voting on the floor of the Assembly
is accomplished by a show of hands or by a roll call. UN
documents record show-of—hands votes by giving the number of
countries voting for or against a resolution. For roll-call
votes, however, a record is made oftflmaparticular countries
that vote for, against, or abstain. Published studies of
group voting behavior in the General Assembly rely on data
provided by roll—call records and interviews with diplomats
of the various member nations, as well as on numerous other
UN documents. A few examples of such studies are described
lbelow as illustrations of this methodology. This will be
followed by a general summary of their findings.

Believing that the "spectre of bloc voting has haunted
the United Nations since the Charter was first debated at
San Francisco," M. Margaret Ball (1951) studied the voting
records of countries to see if they formed blocs. A bloc was
defined as any group which consistently votes as a unit on
all or on particular kinds of issues. Groups of states were
hypothesized to vote together because of one or more of the
following reasons: (1) they formally constitute regional
groups within the meaning of the Charter, as e.g., the
Organization of American States and the Arab League; (2) they
are located in the same geographical area, e.g., Asia, Latin

America, or the Middle East; (3) they share a common

ideology, e.g., the Soviet Bloc; (4) they possess a machinery
for consultation in matters of foreign policy, e.g., Benelux,
Scandinavia, and the British Commonwealth. The analysis was
done on the first five sessions of the General Assembly.
Important substantive issues were studied to demonstrate the
action of these a priori determined blocs. The technique was
to look at the roll-call vote outcomes in terms of pro, con,
and abstain within these blocs for the committee of plenary
votes. The resultant alignments or lack of alignments, and
the coalition blocs formed, were then explained for each
particular tqqna of issue in terms of what is known about the
self-interest of these groups. These issues involved the
following topics:

1. Franco Spain
Spanish as a working language
Palestine partition, admission of Israel, internation-
alization of Jerusalem
. Italian colonies
Non—self-governing territories

. South West Africa
East-West issues:

LAN

\lmU'I-h

a. Interim committee

b. Threats to the political independence of territorial
integrity of China

c. Condemnation of war, essentials of peace

d. Korea

e. United action for peace

Soward (1957) talks of the emergence in the United
Nations of the type of group veto in the General Assembly

which may hamper its effective functioning. He thinks the

factors responsible for this are two—thirds majority rule for
the passage of important issues and the increase of membership
by 1957 to 81. From a study of the pattern of voting in

the eleventh session of the General Assembly, Soward thought

it possible to divide the 81 member states into five categories

in terms of "group voting behavior,‘ as follows:
Soviet Bloc

Asian-African

Latin America

Commonwealth

States not belonging to a caucus.

U'I-wal-d

Comparing the pattern of voting in the groups whocaucus and
the four countries (United States, China, Israel, Yugoslavia)
who do not caucus, Soward arrives at certain general
conclusions regarding the voting behavior of these groups on
issues such as the cold war, colonialism, etc.

Hovet's (1960) book, originally prepared as a contri—
bution to the United Nations Project of the Center for Inter-
national Studies is at present the most comprehensive analysis
of the United Nation's General Assembly bloc voting phenomena.
His method was to use roll-call votes in the main committees
and plenary committees of the General Assembly as his primary
data for analysis. Of the 1,908 roll-call votes from the first
to the thirteenth regular sessions of the General Assembly, an
"adjusted gross" of 521 was used to assess the nature and

extent of bloc voting, together with 66 "significant

resolution" roll—calls which were used for assessing the
cohesion and division of blocs and groups. Definitions of
various types of groupings, e.g., blocs, caucusing groups,
geographical distribution groups, regional groups, common
interest groups, and temporary groups, were given. The
voting was analyzed in terms of percentage "in agreement"
with the Assembly majority. These agreement percentages

were tabled or graphed over the range of the 13 sessions
covered for the various groupings in several ways: (1) total
roll calls, irrespective of the subject matter of the
resolution voted upon: (2) type of action required, e.g., to
supply funds, to supply information, referral to other organs,
a general statement, etc.; (3) issues acted upon, especially
in terms of generalized subject categories. The subject
categories determined with the help of other experts

include the following:

Collective measures, including regulation of armaments
Peaceful settlement

Self-determination

Economic cooperation

Social and cultural cooperation

Humanitarian cooperation (i.e., relief and short-term
social cooperation)

. Human rights

Development of international law
9. Administrative, procedural and structural measures.

mtfi-hlulurd

mu

Bailey (1961) examined the General Assembly, emphasiz-

ing procedure and practice rather than politics. His sources

were documents and private conversations outside the formal
UN meetings. The following quotation from his discussion
of the political background of the General Assembly is of
particular interest in the present connection. ". . . The
outstanding fact about the way the states associate in the
General Assembly is the tendency of the Member States to
affiliate differently for different pruposes" (Bailey, p. 28).
In describing the "organized associations" that have developed
in the UN, Bailey used a system of regional classification
based on Resolution 1192(X11). This resolution he claims,
has not only provided representativeness in the General
Assembly, but also has provided for distribution of seats
according to a fixed pattern. According to him, three forms
of associations are recongized, though they may be informal,
and for the most part unofficial. These are:

1. ‘Aguhgg coalitions improvised to deal with a particular
problem. Such coalitions dissolve with the solution of or
the change in character of the proglem, as e.g., the
Spanish speaking delegates, the sixteen states administering
trust or non-self-governing territories.

2. Associations which arise "when States are organized
to meet either regularly or sporadically to exchange ideas on
issues of common concern, though without any commitment to

act in unison,' as e.g., Latin America, Asian-African, the

Commonwealth.
3. Blocs, i.e., groups of states that consult and then

act in unison, as e.g., the Soviet Bloc.

Synopsis of Caucusing Groups

From the writings of the authors cited the following
groupings seem to have emerged. A brief description of their
nature is given.

Hovet's definition of a caucusing group as any group
of member states in the Assembly which has some degree of
formal organization, holds fairly regular meetings, and is
concerned with substantive issues and related procedural
matters before the sessions of the General Assembly suffices
as a brief description of the groupings considered.

African Nation. These countries are mostly new
members of the UN, and are also members of the bigger Asian-
African group. Hovet has observed the highest agreement of
this group with the Assembly majority to be on matters involving
human rights and economic cooperation. There appears to be
little difference in the voting of the majority of these
states from the Assembly majority according to types of
recommendations involved in the voting. Trends considered
here were limited t>the eleventh through the thirteenth

sessions, of the General Assembly, and cohesive forces had not

as yet become evident enough to draw conclusions in regard
to them.

Arab League. Members of this group except for Iraq,
are also members of the Asian—African group. The group meets
almost daily while the Assembly is in session. There is an
office in New York which services and coordinates the
activities of the Group. Meetings are secret and limited to
the heads of delegations. Chairmanship at meetings is
rotated monthly in alphabetical order. Matters considered
at meetings are tactics, and joint policies. They concentrate
on questions related to the Middle East and the application
of the principle of self-determination. The group is not
hard—and—fast since there are varying ties to the "Powers"
and there is a gulf between the people and their governments,
which factors operate as divisive forces of no small conseuqence.
The greatest degree of cohesion in this group is shown in the
support of the financial aspects of the economic development
of underdeveloped countries and on anti-colonial measures.
There is a tendency for neutrality on East—West issues, but
generally there is no discernable pattern for the group.

Iraq is considered as being too pro-British, while Egypt
is the mostinfluential member of the group.
Asian—African Nations. Permanent representatives of

the countries belonging to this group consult throughout the

10

year. The group meets frequently, as needs arise. Meetings
are closed to the press and to non-members. No official
records are kept, procedure is informal, and the chairmanship
is rotated by countries. Effort in these meetings is directed
toward reaching informal concensus, i.e., meetings serve
mainly as sounding boards. The group is never solid since
there are too many differing interests represented as well

as diversity of loyalties and attitudes which are influenced
by associations with Western Powers. The greatest amount of
unity in the group is shown on issues of self-determination,

independence, and apartheid. India and Japan generally act

 

as polar states within the group, with Ceylon, Indonesia,
Burma, and Ghana following India's lead: and Thailand, the
Philippines, and some Middle Eastern states voting as Japan
does. A

Latin America. This group caucuses weekly while the
Assembly is in session and monthly otherwise. The chairman
of the caucus for the year is generally the delegate that
holds an Assembly vice—presidency. The caucus has tended to
become a forum where advocates, upon their own initiative
or at the invitation of the caucus, explain and seek support
for a measure in advance of its presentation to the Assembly.
The group is quite flexible and generally votes with the

Assembly majority. There is a moderate amount of cohesion

11

in its voting. About two—thirds of the group votes alike,
irrespective of the type of issue under consideration. The
extent of the deviation in the group is not great, and there
is not much pattern to this deviation. Generally, Mexico,
Guatemala, Argentina, Bolivia, and Costa Rica, in the given
order, are most likely to deviate from the group. This is
most evident when the group majority is supporting the general
position of the United States and the Western Powers. As a
whole, the group is pro—West, anti-Communist, and normally
responsive to American leadership if tactfully exercised.

The greatest amount of cohesion is shown in regard to securing
representation for the region on committees, councils, or
commissions. There is some solidarity on East-West questions
and while all except Brazil are anti—colonial, there is no
unanimity on dependent area issues.

Non-caucusing Group. These countries belong to no

 

caucus group and are included in the study as a group to
serve as a reference point in the discussion of the cohesive-
ness of groups. It would, however, be hard to ignore the
existence of this group entirely since some of the "Powers"
are to be found here.

Scandinavian Countries. In general, this group is
quite cohesive, the countries cooperating closely and abstaining

rather than voting against each other. Hovet has found the

12

group to behave consistently except for votes on the
representation of China. The most division is seen on pro-
cedural issues, the development of international law, and
human rights. Agreement is greatest on issues of peaceful
settlement, self—determination, and issues of economic, social,
and humanitarian cooperation.

Soviet Bloc. This group is the most cohesive of the
Assembly coalitions. Not much is known about their procedure
in caucusing, except that meetings are frequent. These
countries comprise the only true bloc in the sense that
members vote identically. Any dissension can be attributed
to "mixed signals" brought about by the voting procedure in the
United Nations. The bloc supports issues requiring little or
no bloc commitment and opposes fundamental collective security
measures. Russia is the undisputed leader of the group.
Yugoslavia, while no longer a bloc member, votes much like the
other communist states. On anti—colonial issues, contries
who distrust Western imperialism more than Soviet communism
generally support the bloc.

Western European Nations. Meetings of these nations

 

are held irregularly and without much formality of organization.
The initiative for a meeting may come from any member of
the group that feels a need for a meeting. The representative

from the delegation calling the meeting generally serves as

13

chairman or the discussion leader in an informal manner.
Voting behavior is most identical on economic, social, and
humanitarian issues and least on collective measures.

British Commonwealth Nations. This group has neither

 

geographical nor ideological unity. Its caucuses are very
informal discussions and expositions of points of view on
issues before the Assembly. These meetings are chaired by the
senior British representative, and are held weekly while the
Assembly is in session. The harmonizing rule is followed

at these meetings. The groupalmost never votes as a unit.
Its greatest agreement is reached on procedural, administrative,
and structural issues and on issues of social and cultural
cooperation. Ceylon, India, and Ghana appear to be at odds
with the group. India, and Pakistan appear to have a distinct
tendency to vote with the Arab League on issues wherein the
latter group is particularly solid. All members are anti—
communist, but differ widely on how best to combat it. The
Asian part is anti-colonial while the non-Asian part is very

pro-West.

14

CHART l

MEMBERSHIP OF CAUCUSING GROUPS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Agian-African Commonwealth Scandanavia
Afghanistan Australia Denmark
Burma Canada Norway
Cambodia Ceylon Sweden
Ceylon Ghana
Ethiopia India _

Fed. of Malaya Fed. of Malaya §§%%§£u
Ghana New Zealand lanl?
India Pakistan Eu garia ,
Indonesia United Kingdom ye orUSSla ,
Czechoslovakia

Iran H
Japan Latin America uigagy
Liberia Argentina PO an.
Libya Brazil Rumagla

. Ukraine
Morocco Chile U S S R
Pakistan Colombia ° ' ° °
Philippines Costa Rica
Sudan Cuba Wgsfern European
Thailand Dominican Rep. Fe gium
Tunisia Guatemala rance

. . Italy
Turkey Haltl Netherlands
United Arab Rep. Mexico
Yemen Panama

m gem
Ethiopia Vruguayl
Ghana enezue a
Liberia

. Non-Members
Libya .
Austria
Morocco .
China
Sudan .
. . Finland
TuniSia
Greece

Arab Ireland
Iraq Israel
Libya Portugal
Morocco Spain
Sudan United States
Tunisia Yugoslavia
United Arab Rep.

Yemen
The Benelux group has been left out. With the

elimination of countries due to too many absences, membership

of this group has been reduced to two,

Beligum and the Netherlands.

CHAPTER II
PROBLEM AND METHOD

The Problem

.In the light of the background given in the preceding
chapter the specific problem of the present study may now be
delineated. It may not be amiss to say that the studies
cited proceed in a rationalistic fashion and are minimally
empirical. Can similar results be obtained more economically
and, perhaps, more precisely by applying a mathematical-
statistical tool to data provided by the voting records in
the sessions of the General Assembly? Multiple scalogram
analysis, as described by Lingoes (1960), seems to offer this
possibility. We may ask, therefore, "Given the roll-call
voting record in the plenary and committee meeting of the
:General Assembly of the United Nations, will multiple scalogram
analysis effectively reveal bloc politics in the UN?" It is
hypothesized that, with certain restrictions, this is the case.
Knudsen (1962) used MSA dimension scores derived from 34
plenary roll-call votes in the twelfth session of the General
Assembly to mathematically define voting blocs in the Assembly.

She found a definition so derived adequate in terms of actual

voting behavior.

15

16

She found MSA to be a particularly useful tool because it
allows different blocs to appear as different types of issues
come into consideration. It would seem, therefore, that this
method is useful in revealing the nature of national align—
ments.

Since the voting of blocs, except in the case of the
Soviet bloc, is not always perfectly consistent, the problem
of cohesion in caucusing groups emerges. The method of analysis
employed herein provides a measure of deviation from bloc
voting in terms of‘scale scores." It is here proposed that
the standard deviation of the distribution of dimension scores
of the several blocs provides a means of measuring and
comparing the cohesion of these blocs in terms of their
voting behavior.

The major hypotheses, or points at issue, of this
present study may, therefore, be formally stated as follows:

1. Multiple-scalogram analysis applied to the voting
record of a session of the General Assembly will effectively
reveal the national alignments in the Assembly and the issues
around which they revolve.
2. The dimension scores derived from a multiple-scalogram

analysis of the voting record of a session of the General
Assembly will reveal differences in the degrees of cohesion

among the several groups.

17

Since MSA as a method for the study of voting behavior
is fairly new, this study is of necessity a descriptive,
"look-see" type. Conclusions drawn will be based not so much
on statistical compariSons, as on comparisons with what is
already known about bloc politics from UN documents and other
sources, particularly the aforementioned publications about
bloc voting behavior in the UN. If, using MSA, it is possible
to meaningfully define voting groups and show national
alignments, and to determine the cohesion of caucusing groups,
then MSA may be said to be a useful method for the study of
voting behavior in the UN General Assembly. Or, to generalize
beyond the General Assembly, MSA may provide a useful tool for
analyzing the nature of coalition in the voting of any legis—

lative body.

Rationale

One of the basic assumptions made here with respect
to the voting behavior of countries in the UN General Assembly
is that the policies of countries, like attitudes in the case
of individuals, mediate their behavior. With this in mind, it
seems appropriate to state the scientific bias ascribed to here
in regard to the nature and functioning of attitudes and to
relate it to the functioning of policies in the behavior of

countries. The latter is readily stated by saying that policies

18

of countries serve the same mediating purposes as attitudes
do for individuals, or that policies are in a sense the atti-
tudes of countries. In as much as MSA has been found useful
in the analysis of attitudes the choice of this technique
for a study of UNvoting becomes more understandable.
Attitude is thought of as a latent variable which
mediates or directs the responses of individuals toward
significant objects. It is a hypothetical construct abstracted
from a large number of related acts or responses that have
been observed. Thus it is used to name and explain the
consistency or covariation of many responses to stimuli of
the same general class. These responses are held to be
consistent because they are mediated by the same intervening

variable, viz. attitude.

 

Thus the concept of attitude serves to unify as a set
of data, the observed responses of an individual. The content
of an attitude is, therefore, expressed by the responses
which reveal it. In the measurement of an attitude the set
of behaviors that express it is sampled. The elements of
such a set are responses to specific situations, e.g., state—
ments on a questionnaire. In practice, attitudes are inferred
from a process of measurement involving such responses. Such
measurement assumes attitudes to have, among other things,

the characteristics of specific content and of sign, i.e.,

l9

agreement or disagreement, favor or disfavor, etc. Individuals
vary in their attitude relative to some content in the sense
that they can be placed at a point, or within a limited range,
of a continuum from maximum agreement to maximum disagreement.
In the measurement of attitude by scaling methods the objective
is to assign individuals to numerical positions along a scale
that maps the continuum from extreme approval to extreme
disapproval. Such scale positions relative to total range
of the scale represents the relative degree of favorableness
or unfavorableness of individuals' attitudes. Operationally,
then,an attitude is represented by a score or set of scores
derived from the application of a particular scale or similar
measuring instrument.
For purposes of the present study, countries are

equated to individuals and policies of countries are equated
to the attitudes of individuals. On the basis of this model
it is logical to assume that voting behavior (policies) of
countries can be studied much in the same way that attitudes
of individuals are studied, i.e., by scaling methods. This
implies the following assumptions:

1. A country's policy is a latent variable that summarizes
and explains the consistency or covariation of its behavior
(in the present context voting on resolutions presented in the

UN General Assembly).

20

2. Roll—call votes in plenary and committee meetings of
the General Assembly are samples of voting behavior of the
respective countries that are mediated by their policies
(analogous to the check marks in dictating agreement or
disagreement with statements onzniattitude scale).

3. Countries vary in their policies regarding issues
so that they can be placed (scaled) along a continuum of
agreement—disagreement in regard to a set of issues with which
they are confronted and upon which they vote.

4. A country's score, or its scores on various scales
so concpetualized, represents the position of its policies
relative to other countries who have voted on the particular
question under consideration.

It is believed that the MSA model eminently fits UN
roll-call data. Like Guttman's scalogram analysis from which
it was derived, MSA is deterministic. UN voting is fairly
rigid and predictable due to the positions of countries on
issues dictated by their policies. The method should,
therefore, be capable of quantifying the qualitative aspects
of voting data in a meaningful way. MSA forms unidimensional
scales in an empirical way. Due to the policies of different
countries on general issues, e.g., self—determination, budget,
etc., it is possible to qualify the agreement or disagreement

of countries toward specific proposals in regard to these issues.

21

MSA can quantify such qualitative information due to the
parameters of order and kind inherent in the method. Practical
reasons can also be presented to recommend the method. Thus,
since it is an electronic computer technique, large amounts of
data can be processed by it easily and speedily. Moreover,

it is possible to replicate the method exactly from year to
year, making possible trend analysis since UN resolutions deal

with the same general type of questions from session to session.

Multiple Scalogram Analysis

Since MSA is a relatively new technique, a somewhat
detailed explanation of it is in order. Its particular use
in the present context will follow.

MSA was developed by its author at Michigan State
University for the purpose of extracting from a collection of
data on heterogeneous issues the several scalable dimensions
into which they can be organized. It is thus an extension of
Guttman's scalogram analysis providing a more objective method
for defining the universe of content being sampled than the
earlier method. It was developed as an electronic computer
technique so that large masses of data could be economically
handled. It operates on dichotomous data relative to any
number of issues provided by any number of subjects, as

e.g., the responses of agreement or disagreement of a group

22

of subjects relative to the items of a questionnaire, or, in
the present instance, on the "yes" and "no" votes of members
of a legislative body on the various issues which confront it.
MSA breaks these responses down into one or more Guttman
scales. These scales are formed by throwing into as many
subsets as may be necessary items which are homogeneous in
the Guttman sense of unidimensionality. The underlying
assumption for this procedure is that items belong to the
same common scale if they have more common than unique
characteristics.

Items are brought together into scales using a set
approach. The dichotomous (yes-no) responses of all subjects
toward any given item constitute a set. Thus, in Table 1
below, the responses of 11 subjects to items are shown, with

the digit "1" representing "yes" and zero representing "no.

There are, therefore, 9 sets of "responses,' one each for
item 1 through 9. Each column, accordingly, represents a
set.

The first step in analyzing such a table is to count
the number of 1's in each column and enter the results in a
row of column sums, as has been done in the table.

These sums are next examined for the existence of

any columns whose sum is less than half of the number of

entries in the column. The sums of columns 2, 4 and 8 are such.

23

TABLE 1

HYPOTHETICAL RESPONSE MATRIX FOR A MSA

 

 

 

 

Subject Items

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

A l l 1 l l l l l 0
B l 0 l l 1 l 0 1 0
C l 0 1 l 1 l O O O
D 1 O 1 l l 1 1 0 l
E 1 0 l 0 l 1 l 0 1
F l 0 l 0 l 1 l 0 l
G 0 0 1 O l l l 0 l
H 0 0 l 0 l l 0 0 l
I 0 0 l 0 l O 0 0 l
J 0 0 0 0 l 0 O 0 0
K 0 0 O 0 0 0 l 0 0
Sum 6 l 9 4 10 8 6 2 6

 

Since the method requires that agreement between adjacent
columns be maximized all entries in these columns are reflected
to form Table 2, i.e., 1's are changed into 0's and 0's are
chaged into 1's. In these columns now l's obviously refer to
>"no" and 0's refer to-"yes" responses. A dash is placed over
the column heading to indicate that this has been done, as
may be seen in Table 2. Reflection is carried out throughout
the analysis whenever this will maximize agreement between
adjacent columns.

The first scale is started by selecting as its focus

the column or set with the largest sum. In our example this

24

TABLE 2

REFLECTED RESPONSE MATRIX FOR.A MSA

 

 

 

 

Subject ‘ , Items
1 i 3 Z 5 6 7 § 9
x

A 1 0 l O l l l 0 0
B l 1 l 0 1 l 0 0 0
C l l l 0 l l 0 l 0
D l l 1 0 1 l l l l
E 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 l 1
F 1 l l l 1 l 1 l l
G 0 l l l l l l l l
H 0 l l l 1 1 0 l l
I 0 l 1 1 1 O 0 1 l
J 0 l 0 l 1 0 O l 0
K 0 l 0 1 0 0 l l 0
Sum 6 9 9 7 10 8 6 9 6

 

is item #5. Agreement scores (McQuitty, 1956) between this

~ initial set and all other sets are now calculated, counting as

agreements all identical pairs such as 1,1 and 0,0. The

set which has the highest agreement with the initial set is

selected from the pool of items remaining as the second set

belonging to the scale. In our example item #3 has 10

agreements with #5 and, therefore, becomes the second member

of the scale. .
The second set is now used to find the next item which

will scale. It is the Item which has the highest agreement

score with it provided that the error introduced by this set

does not exceed some predetermined value. An error occurs

25

when there is a reversal of the 1,0 pattern, e.g., the
pattern 1100 is errorless, but 1101 contains two errors
(Lingoes uses Goodenough's method of error count). For our
example the allowable error is set at the value of 2, or 20
per cent of the number of respondents. Items that introduce
more than two errors do not "scale." The above process is
continued until it is no longer possible to add a set to

the scale without exceeding the error parameter.

Left over items now form a reduced pool of items which
are treated like the original pool and may form a second scale.
This is continued until no more scales or dimensions appear.

For our illustrative data the final results turn out
as in Table 3. Only one scale has been formed and items #7
and #9 did not scale. The scores of the several subjects are
the sums of 1's across rows. No errors appear in the table.
Knowing any subject's score and the final ordering of the
items in the scale it is now possible to reproduce his responses
and from a knowledge of each subject's score it is possible
to reproduce the entire response matrix. The reproducibility
of such a matrix may be calculated from.the formula

Sum of errors)
mn

 

R = (l -

where R = reproducitility index, m = the number of items in

the scale, and n = the number of subjects. R for the present

26

TABLE 3

RESULTS OF THE MSA ANALYSIS

 

 

Items

 

 

+ + +
Subject 5 3 6 1 4 8 2 Score Error
A l l l l l l l 7 O
B l l 1 l l l 0 6 0
C l l l l l 0 0 5 0
D l l l l l 0 0 5 0
E l 1 l l 0 0 0 4 0
F l 1 1 l 0 0 0 4 0
G l l l 0 0 0 0 3 0
H l 1 l 0 0 0 0 3 0
I l 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
J l 0 O 0 0 0 O l 0
K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
table is 1.00, i.e., the items included form a perfect scale.

It will be observed, e.g., that agreement with item 2, which
has been reflected and re—reflected in the course of the
analysis, means that the subject agrees with all of the other
items of the scale, while disagreement with item #1 means
disagreement with all the remaining items. The score of a
subject is, consequently, a measure of the subject's position

on the dimension represented by the scale.

Procedures

The Data
The data analyzed in this study came from the proceedings

of the plenary and committee meetings of the General Assembly

27

of the Thirteenth Session of the United Nations. The documents
of these meetings were scrutinized for all roll—call votes.

Of these, 33 dealt with resolutions before the plenary
meetings of the Assembly and 111 were committee deliberations.
Other documents, e.g., Committee Proceedings and the UN
Yearbook, were also consulted to determine the nature of the
resolutions or issues voted on and the allocation of agenda
items. Votes in these documents were recorded by country as:

in favor, against, or abstain.

Dichotomization of Data

MSA operates upon dichtomous data. Delegates were at
times absent and no vote was recorded for the country. These
facts and the abstensions were handled by throwing abstentions
with the minority vote and the absences with the majority so
that a "yes" or a "no" was tabulated for each country on every
item voted upon. The rationale for this procedure was based
on the belief that an abstention denotes dissatisfaction with
the apparent outcome of the vote, or incomplete agreement with
the resolution being voted upon while an absence was indicative
of satisfaction with the apparent outcome, or at least unconcern.

The UN had 82 members in its thirteenth session. Of

these, the delegates of 15 countries were absent more than 20

times out of the 144 roll—call votes. On the assumption

28

that so many absences are sufficient to bias the stability
and representativeness of the voting of these countries if
they are counted in with the majority these 15 countries

were not included in the analysis. Appendix A presents a
list of the member countries of the thirteenth session of the
UN whose voting was analyzed in this study. Appendix B
presents the frequency of absences of the various countries,

including the 15 which were excluded for the present analysis.

Further Delimitations and Deletions

The 144 items of the roll—calls under consideration
are briefly described in Appendix D. Seven of them were
procedural in nature such as a motion to give precedence to
some resolution in voting (#141) or a motion to adjourn
debates. These seven items were analyzed separately from the

other items.

Analysis

The votes on the above 93 important issues, dichotomized
as already described, were subjected to multiple scalogram
analysis using the program prepared by Lingoes and the facilities
of the Michigan State Electronic Computer Laboratory.

From the scales resulting from the two MSA's, countries

were grouped together according to equivalence of scale scores.

29

When there were errors, the closest errorless response pattern
was "consulted" and the erring country grouped with the
countries having the score of the closest response pattern.

A bloc was defined as being a group of countries with equivalent
scale scores on the Same dimension. Each dimension was looked
at in.terms of the voting blocs and the type of issue in the
dimension. The cohesion;of caucusing groups was studied by

use of the standard deviation of scale scores for each
caucusing group. Group variances were computed for each

scale resulting from the analysis where all 93 issues were
collectively analyzed and for the scale resulting from the
analysis of the seven procedural issues. From the spread of
scores within the group, and the group mode, it was believed
feasible to make conclusions as to the "stand" and the cohesion
of these caucusing groups as defined by Hovet. The member—
ship of all caucusing groups as defined by Hovet, excluding

the 15 countries not analyzed for reasons stated, are shown

in Chart 1.

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

The multiple scalogram analysis of the 93 "selected"
roll-calls resulted in seven scales. The number of items in
each scale varied from three to 21. Scale reproductibilities
varied from 0.914 to 0.982, with five of these values well
above 0.940. Six items remained unscaled. There was a
total of 17 reflections. The seven procedural items gave
a scale with a reproductibility of 0.940. Five of the seven
items scaled, the last two being reflected. These results are

summarized in Table 4 below.

TABLE 4

RESULTS OF THE MSA ANALYSIS

 

 

 

 

No. of

Dimension Scale No. of Items Reflections
No. Reproductibility in the Scale in the Scale

1 .982 21 0

2 .954 9 0

3 .951 20 6

4 .932 21 8

5 .914 8 1

6 .970 5 0

7 .970 3 2

"Procedural" .940 5 2

 

3O

31

Appendix C provides full data on all dimensions as
well as the response matrix for the countries included in the
analysis. Since the support and the disagreements within the
"procedural" dimension deal with the individual countries'
interpretation of Charter articles or the General Assembly's
rules of procedure, this separate MSA analysis was not studied
for national alignments or cohesiveness. The data is available

if wanted.

Voting Blocs and Issue Content of Dimensions

Issues that scale within a dimension are ordered along
a continuum that takes into account both the pattern of res—
ponses and the amount of endorsement of items. Essentially,
it is how countries vote on issues that determine voting blocs
as defined by scale scores. It is, therefore, thought necessary
to give the dimensional issue content along with voting bloc
results. Charts 2 to 8 on the following pages give voting
bloc memberships for each dimension. A brief summary of the
dimensional issue content follows or precedes each chart.
The overview of the seven dimensions shows that within the
inconsistency of voting bloc memberships over dimensions,
there are definite trends, or consistencies. There is the
existence of two major types of bloc groupings. The first

type appears on Dimensions 1, 2, 4, and 7. Here, the Soviet

32

Bloc, a number of the Asian-African nations, and a few of the
Latin American Group are the highest scoring and biggest
voting bloc. The United Kingdom, for Dimension 1; Denmark,
Finland, Norway and Sweden for Dimension 2; Australia, Belgium,
Italy, and Portugal for Dimension 4; and a few each of the
Asian-African Nations, the Latin American Group, the Non-
caucusing Group, the British Commonwealth Nations, and the
Western European nations: for Dimension 7 are the lowest
scoring countries. The second type of voting bloc grouping
appears on Dimensions 3, 5, and 6. Here, countries that are
Trust Administrators and a conglomeration of memberships of
caucusing groups are the high scoring countries. The

Soviet Bloc, and a few Asian-African nations are the low
scorers on these three dimensions.

The issues that scaled for the dimension below suggests
its being a "good—will" dimension. General statements and
recommendations are made on issues of economic aid, cessation
of Trusteeship Agreements, social and humanitarian questions,
human rights, and the apartheid policy. Fifty-six of the 67
countries are in agreement with all 21 items of the scale.
Except for New Zealand and the United States, the Colonial
Powers are low scoring in this dimension. China and Finland
are slightly conservative. The Dominican Republic is surprising
in its low scoring on this dimension. The United Kingdom has

the lowest score.

33

CHART 2

VOTING BLOCS ACCORDING TO SCALE SCORES FOR DIMENSION 1

Afghanistan
Albania
Argentina
Austria
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burma
Byelorussia
Cambodia
Canada

Japan
Liberia
Libya
Mexico
Morocco
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Panama
Peru

China

Italy

Finland
Netherlands

France
Portugal

lm

lm

Ceylon

Chile

Colombia

Costa Rica
Cuba
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Ethiopia

Fed. of Malaya
Ghana

Philippines
Poland
Rumania
Sudan
Sweden
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine
USSR

Spain

Belgium
Dominican Rep.

Australia

United Kingdom

Greece
Guatemala
Haiti
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Iran

Iraq
Ireland
Israel

United Arab Rep.
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela

Yemen
Yugoslavia

34

CHART 3

VOTING BLOCS ACCORDING TO SCALE SCORES FOR DIMENSION 2

.2 Afghanistan Cuba Indonesia
Albania Czechoslovakia Iran
Argentina Ethiopia Iraq
Bulgaria Fed. of Malaya Japan
Burma Ghana Liberia
Byelorussia Greece Libya
Cambodia Guatemala Mexico
Ceylon Haiti Morocco
Colombia Hungary Pakistan
Costa Rica India Panama
Peru Yugoslavia
Poland
Rumania
Sudan
Tunisia
Ukraine
USSR
United Arab Rep.

Benezuela
Yemen

.§ Dominican Rep. 2 Australia 1_ Canada
Philippines Belgium Ireland
Thailand France New Zealand

Israel
.1 Brazil Italy
Uruguay Netherlands IQ Denmark
Portugal Finland
‘6 Chile Spain Norway
United Kingdom Sweden
4, Turkey United States
;_ Austria

China

35

Dimension 2, while also a "good-will" dimension is
much more specific in its recommendations. Issues deal
with international law and administration questions; self-
determination and independence questions of certain trust
territories. Only 31 of the original 56 high scorers are
in the first voting bloc. The Dominican Republic, the
Philippines, Thailand, Brazil, Uruguay, and Chile are slightly
less agreeable. Turkey, Austria, and China begin the low
scoring trend. The rest of the countries agree to one or two
items while Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden agree to no
items.

Dimension 3 issues require almost full international
cooperation for resolution recommendation to be effective. It
is essentially a cold-war dimension, dealing with political
and security measures plus a few political colonial issues.
The first voting bloc, comprised of 11 nations and scoring
highest is essentially the low scoring group of the previous
Dimension 2. Finland here is in the low scoring range while
Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are in the middle—of-the-road
range. The Soviet Bloc and most of the Asian and the African
countries agree to very few of the items. See Chart 4 for
these results.

In Dimension 4, the main issues deal with the procedure

of administration of recommendations on self-determination,

Io

IH

IN

IA

Im

|<

36

CHART 4

VOTING BLOCS ACCORDING TO SCALE SCORES FOR DIMENSION 3

Albania
Bulgaria
Byelorussia
Czechoslovakia
Ukraine

USSR

Hungary
Poland
Rumania

Afganistan
Yugoslavia

Ceylon
Finland
India
Indonesia
Iraq
United Arab Rep.
Yemen

Burma
Cambodia
Ghana
Libya
Morocco
Sudan

Ethiopia

Austria
Israel

Liberia
Sweden

Ireland
Mexico
Tunisia

Greece
Denmark
Norway
Portugal

Fed.
Peru

of Malaya

Argentina
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Haiti

Iran
Philippines
venezuela

China

Cuba
Dominican Rep.
Guatemala
Japan
Netherlands
Pakistan
Panama
Uruguay

Australia
Belgium
Canada
France

Italy
New Zealand

Spain

Thailand
Turkey

United Kingdom
United States

37

humanitarian economic aid and development, and organizational
aspects of two UN Councils. The countries which are voting
blocs in the sense of their voting alike on these issues

are seen in Chart 5.

The isSues in Dimension 5, as in Dimension 3 require
international cooperation, but to a lesser degree. The
political and security, and colonial issues cover a lesser
scope; in terms of countries directly involved in the recom-
mendations and in the seriousness of questions debated. More
countries, i.e., 31, are in the highest scoring voting bloc.
The Soviet countries and then the Asian and African nations
are on the low scoring end of this dimension.

For Dimension 6, all issues deal with the financing
of the United Nations Emergency Force. This, in effect, is
the only "pure" dimension in the analysis.

Issues in Dimension 7 are strongly debated questions
of the Law of the Sea and the Cyprian Question. The dimension
is hard to interpret in that Item #l.should scale in either
Dimension 3 or 4 and Items #2 and #3 should scale in
Dimension 2. The latter two items are the committee consider-

ations of the same issue that scaled in Dimension 2.

Io

lq

Im

Im

38

CHART 5

VOTING BLOCS ACCORDING TO SCALE SCORES

Afghanistan
Albania
Bulgaria
Byelorussia
Czechoslovakia
Ghana

Hungary
Indonesia

Iraq

Libya

Costa Rica
Cambodia

Guatemala
Haiti
Iran
Israel
Japan
Mexico
Uruguay
Venezuela

Philippines

Colombia
Cuba
Panama

Argentina
Austria
Chile
Ireland
Pakistan
Thailand

IN

|l—‘

Morocco
Poland
Rumania
Sudan
Ukraine
USSR

United Arab Rep.

Yugoslavia

Yemen

China

Canada
Denmark
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway

Sweden

Turkey

United States

Brazil
Dominican Rep.
Finland

Peru

Spain

United Kingdom

France

Io

FOR DIMENSION 4

Burma
Ceylon
India
Liberia

Tunisia
Ethiopia

Greede
Fed. of Malaya

Australia
Belgium
Italy
Portugal

Io

IH

IN

lw

lb

39

CHART 6

VOTING BLOCS ACCORDING TO SCALE SCORES FOR DIMENSION 5

Albania .é
Bulgaria
Byelorussia
Czechoslovakia
Hungary

Iraq

Poland

Rumania
Ukraine

USSR

|q

Venezuela
Yemen

Im

Afghanistan
Libya

Morocco

United Arab Rep.

Uruguay
Ethiopia
Ghana

Liberia

Guatemala
Tunisia

Cuba

Greece
Philippines

Indonesia
Mexico
Sudan
Yugoslavia

Argentina
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
India
Panama
Peru

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Burma
Cambodia
Canada
Ceylon
China
Costa‘Rica
Denmark

Dominican Rep.
Fed. of Malaya
Finland

France

Haiti

Iran

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Portugal

Spain

Sweden
Thailand
Turkey

United Kingdom

United States

Io

IH

IA

VOTING BLOCS ACCORDING TO SCALE SCORES FOR DIMENSION 6

Afghanistan
Albania
Bulgaria
Byelorussia
Chile

Costa Rica
Cuba
Czechoslovakia
Ethiopia
Guatemala

Greece
Haiti
Mexico
Portugal

China
Dominican Rep.
Venezuela

Libya

Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Burma
Cambodia
Canada
Ceylon
Colombia

Im

40

CHART 7

Hungary Yemen
Iraq

Panama

Philippines

Poland

Rumania

Tunisia

Ukraine

USSR

United Arab Rep.

cont'd

Denmark Italy

Fed. of Malaya Japan
Finland Liberia
France Morocco
Ghana Netherlands
India New Zealand
Indonesia Norway

Iran Pakistan
Ireland Peru

Israel Spain

Sudan

Sweden

Thailand

Turkey

United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Yugoslavia

lw

IN

IH

41

CHART 8

VOTING BLOCS ACCORDING TO SCALE SCORES FOR DIMENSION 7

Albania
Argentina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Byelorussia
Chile

Colombia

Costa Rica
Czechoslovakia
Ethiopia

Yugoslavia

Afghanistan
Burma
Cambodia
Greece

Austria
Ceylon
Guatemala
Haiti
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Spain
Sudan

Finland
Ghana
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Libya
Mexico
Morocco
Panama

Australia
Belgium
Canada

China

Cuba

Denmark
Dominican Rep.
Fed. of Malaya
France

Iran

Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Peru
Poland
Rumania
Tunisia
Ukraine
USSR
United Arab Rep.
Uruguay
Venezuela
Yemen

Israel
Liberia
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Philippines
Portugal
Sweden
Thailand

42
Group Cohesion

To study the cohesion of the caucusing groups, the
standard deviation of the scores of each such group was
computed for each dimension resulting from the MSA analysis.
Since scales varied in the number of scaled items from 3 to 21,
the standard deviation while giving the best measure of
dispersion, does not represent the relative dispersion around
the means of the various groups in comparable terms. The
standard deviation of scales with items less in number than 21
were, therefore, transformed to 21 point scales by multipli-
cation with an appropriate factor (F) as seen at the top of
Table 5. The cohesion of a group, relative to the other
caucusing groups was determined by the ranking of groups
according to the sum of the transformed standard deviations
over the seven dimensions. These results are summed in Table
5 below which shows not only the rank order (R) of cohesive-
ness but also gives a picture of the actual solidarity of the
cohesive groups. Beyond doubt, the Soviet group was the most
cohesive. Scandinavia was a close second followed by the
Western European, Arab, African, Latin American, Asian-

African, NonéMembers, and the Commonwealth Nations.

CAUCUSING GROUP COHESION:

43

TABLE 5

OF SCALE SCORES

STANDARD DEVIATIONS

 

 

DIMENSION NUMBERS

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
CAUCUSING Fa and No. of Items in the Dimension 2 of
GROUP F=1 F=2-1/3 F=1 F=l F=2-l/2 F=4 F=5 S.D.'s
n=21 n=9 n=20 n321 n=8 n=5 n=3

Soviet 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50
Scandinavia 0.00 0.00 1.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.73
western

Europe 3.65 0.00 0.50 1.41 0.00 0.00 3.50 9.06
Arab 0.00 0.00 2.51 2.61 5.35 10.08 5.25 25.80
African 0.00 0.00 2.61 3.31 4.30 9.48 8.75 28.45
Latin

American 3.74 2.36 2.09 2.90 6.70 9.08 8.47 35.34
Asian-

African 0.00 2.54 6.64 6.26 7.85 10.04 9.31 42.64
Non-

Members 5.28 7.30 6.46 6.36 2.70 6.80 8.40 43.30
Common-

wealth 6.84 9.26 7.53 8.21 4.95 0.00 9.10 45.89

aF is the multiplication factor.
bR is the rank order of group cohesion.

44
'National Alignments

For this purpose, the score with frequency greater
than one-half of the caucusing group number is taken as
indicative of the group's alignment on the particular types
of issues within the dimensions. The standard deviation of
the group and the number of deviants from the "modal" score
are also considered in the description of national alignments.

African Nations. For issues that scale in the two

 

good—will dimensions, the African nations give full endorse-
ment and are in perfect agreement in doing so. They are also
in agreement with the Assembly majority in this case. On
issues requiring international cooperation but to a lesser
degree than what has been termed the cold-war issues, the
African nations have no definite common stand, though they
definitely endorse only a few of the scaled items. Cold-war
issues are hesitantly endorsed. Four of the nations agree to
one-fourth of scaled items while the remaining three endorse
approximately half of the items. On Dimension 4, where the
main issues deal with the procedure of administration of
recommendations on self—determination, humanitarian economic
aid and development, four countries endorse the full 21 items,
two endorse l4 and one endorsed 18. The group is quite
cohesive with respect to issues endorsed in Dimension 7. Five

countries endorse all 3 items, and the other two endorse l and

45

none. The group is quite favorable to items on the financing
of the UNEF (United Nations Emergency Force). Four countries
endorse all five items, one 4, and the other two, 0.

Arab League. This group of countries is most cohesive

 

on the good-will dimensions. There is perfect cohesion and
agreement with the majority. Issues on Dimension 7 are next
agreed to in terms of cohesion and endorsement. Six members
agreed to all 3 items and the seventh to only 1. The group
is favorable to issues dealing with the procedure of
administration of recommendations on self—determination,
humanitarian economic aid and development, and organizational
aspects of two UN councils. Five countries endorsed all 21
items, one 20 and the others, 14. For the financing of UNEF,
four countries score O,and the remaining three 4 or 5. On
the remaining two dimensions, i.e., 3 and 5, the group is
low scoring. The cold-war issues and the "weaker" dimension
5 issues requiring international cooperation are neither well
agreed to nor evoke too much agreement in the amount of the low
endorsement given.

Asian-African Nations. The group is solid on good-
will issues in Dimension 1 and almost nearly so for Dimension
2. The countries here are also in agreement with the Assembly

majority. 0n the other dimensions, the group is never solid,

46

in fact generally quite spread-out in scoring. Endorsements
are low on Dimension 3 (cold-war issues), and sort of evenly
split between high and low on the rest of the dimensions.

There is even no pattern to these high-low splits-—so not

much can be said about the national alignments of this group
for issues dealing with: (l) the procedure of administration
of recommendations on self-determination, humanitarian economic
aid and development; (2) the less encompassing cold-war items
of Dimension 5; (3) the financing of UNEF; and (4) the "legal"
questions of Dimension 7.

Latin American Group. The group is not perfectly

 

cohesive on any dimension. The most cohesion is on.the good—
will issues. On Dimension 1 only the Dominican Republic,
with its endorsement of 7 items prevents perfect agreement

in the endorsement of all 21 items. The group is also quite
cohesive on Dimension 2 and in agreement with the Assembly
majority in the endorsement of the 9 scaled items. For
Dimension 7, the Latin American countries are also quite
cohesive and in agreement with the Assembly majority in
endorsing the 3 items. Here ten of the countries scored 3,
two scored 1 and the remaining two scored 0. On cold—war
issues, the group is not too cohesive. While the trend is to
endorse most of the 20 items, seven scored 18, five scored 19

and one scored 11. On less encompassing cold-war issues,

47

there is quite a bit of variability ‘though a.trend to score

7 or 8 and, therefore, remain pretty much in agreement with
the Assembly majority. Much the same results are seen for the
procedural administrative issues of Dimension 4. The greatest
amount of variability is seen on the items dealing with the
financing of UNEF. Here there is a high-low split and a few
in-betweens. Five nations score 5, two scored 3, two score 1,
and five score 0. Generally, i.e., across all dimensions,
about two-thirds of the countries vote alike.

Non-caucusing Group. The group is never perfectly

 

cohesive. While there is a great deal of variability as to
how countries vote, there areless over-all differences in
voting, in this respect than the British Commonwealth Nations.
The greatest degree of similarity in voting is on the less-
encompassing cold-war issues in Dimension 5. Here eight of
the ten nations score 8 and the other two nations, 6 and 5.
There is also some degree of cohesion on the good-will
issues of Dimension 1. Here six countries vote with the
Assembly majority and endorse 21 items while the other four
nations are only half agreeable with their scores of 19, 14,
9, and 8. There is no trend of any stateable sort in the
remaining five dimensions.

Scandinavian Countries. The group is very cohesive

and second in this respect only to the Soviet Bloc. The

48

only dimension there was any disagreement on was Dimension 3.
The group fully endorses the good-will issues on Dimension 1
and in Dimension 2. The "cold-war" Dimension 3 is only half-
way agreed to while the less encompassing similar-type issues
of Dimension 5 are fully agreed to. Three of the 21 items

in the "procedural administrative" Dimension 4 are endorsed.
All five items on the financing of UNEF are agreed to and
none of the items in Dimension 7.

Soviet Bloc. This group of countries is the most

 

cohesive. As with the Scandinavian countries, there is perfect
cohesion except for the cold-war issues. The bloc either
endorses all items in a dimension or none at all. Good-will
issues for both dimensions are fully endorsed. This is also
true for the procedural-administrative Dimension 4 and for
Dimension 7. There is no support given to cold-war items of
either dimension nor to the financing of UNEF.

Western European Nations. There is perfect cohesion
for the good-will issues in Dimension 2, the financing of UNEF,
and the less-encompassing cold—war issues of Dimension 5. There
is almost perfect cohesion for cold-war issues in Dimension 3.
The alignments for these general issue types are; low
agreement (score = 2) for Dimension 2, high agreements for
Dimensions 3 and 5 (scores = to 20 and 8), and high agreement

for Dimension 6. The general trends for the remaining

49

dimensions are: half—agreeable to good—will issues of Dimension
1, almost no support for the procedural-administrative issues
of Dimension 4, and no support for Dimension 7 issues.

British Commonwealth Nations. The group, in terms of

 

its voting behavior seems to split into two subgroups.
Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom vote
alike on four of the seven dimensions. These countries endorse
all the cold-war issues on Dimensions 3 and 5, all the items

on financing UNEF and none of the issues in Dimension 7. The
Asian members of the group are cohesive on both good-will dimensions
and vote as the non—Asian members on financing UNEF. The

two subgroups vote pretty much alike on Dimension 5, Ghana

is the deviant on this dimension by its endorsement of only

2 of the 8 items. 0n Dimension 2, the Asian part scores

high while the four non-Asian members score low; the same

trend is apparent for Dimension 4. In general, the two sub-
groups tend to be on opposite ends of an agreement continuum,
and except for a few dimensions are not completely cohesive

in their opposite stands on general issue types.

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

Comparisons with Outcomes of Previous Studies

African Nations. MSA showed, as Hovet mentioned,

 

that the highest agreement of the group with the Assembly
majority is on human rights and economic cooperation issues.
It was not possible to support or deny the statement that MSA
also showed there was little difference in the voting of the
majority of these nations from the Assembly majority according
to types of recommendations involved in the voting. Except
for Dimensions 1, 2, and 6 it would be hard to determine,
from voting bloc memberships whether there was an Assembly
majority on these types of issues, or not. The majority of
African nations did vote as the Assembly majority did, on
endorsing Dimension 6 items. Except for Dimension 6, MSA
shows the African Nations and the Arab League to be quite

similar in national alignments.

 

Arab League. On the basis of MSA results, I would
venture to qualify the conclusion from previous studies that
there is generally no discernable pattern of voting for the

group. Dimensions 1, 2 and 4 results support previous studies

50

51

in that the greatest amount of cohesion is shown in support

of issues on the financial aspects of the economic development
of under—developed countries and on anti-colonial measures.
The tendency for neutrality on East—West issues is also
evident. MSA further shows perfect cohesion on "good—will"
dimensions and a definite tendency to endorse many procedural-
administrative issues. Cold-war and financial issues are
seldom endorsed and if so, in an irregular manner. If one
accepts the tag of "not-too-cohesive" for caucusing groups
that are in perfect agreement on less than two dimensions,
then the Arab League is not too cohesive.

Asian-African Nations. Contrary to Hovet's conclusions

 

that this group is never solid is the perfect cohesion of the
group on Dimension 1. There is also a high degree of cohesion

on the second good-will dimension. There does not seem to

be much justification, in terms of MSA results for the thirteenth
General Assembly Session to fear the cohesiveness of this group
of nations. On other than "good-will" issues, there is so

very little cohesion shown--there are no alignments common to

the group as a whole.

Latin American Group. This group does generally vote

 

with the Assembly majority, there is a moderate amount of
cohesion in the group with about two—thirds of the group

voting alike irrespective of the type of issue under consideration.

52

Results of Dimension 6 (financing UNEF issues) tend to contra-
dict this statement a bit. The group is generally pro-West
and Anti-Communist. The surprising thing about this group is
the deviant behavior of the Dominican Republic. Voting bloc
results show the tendency of this country to vote as the low-
scoring Western European and non-Asian Commonwealth nations.

Non-caucusing Group. Very little can be said here

 

as to comparisons. Important (like the U.S.) or "key" countries
are in this group. Alignments on general issue categories
as determined by the issue content of dimensions can be
determined for the individual countries in this group, rather
than for the group as a whole. It is interesting to note
that both the Asian-African and the British Commonwealth nations
show less agreement in their voting behavior than this non-
caucusing group. It is also evident that Yugoslavia, while no
longer a member of the Soviet Bloc, still votes pretty much
like the Soviet Bloc does. The United States, except for
Dimension 1 is generally on the same end of the dimension as
the United Kingdom and not too different in its scale score
value.

Scandinavian Countries. These nations seem to be more
cohesive than pictured by previous studies. The group is
consistent except for votes on fiie cold-war dimension. The

Law of the Sea items in Dimension 2 seem to have effectively

53

separated this group from the rest of the nations, reflecting
the quite definite stand taken by these countries on this legal
question.

Soviet Bloc. Results of all previous studies are
supported here. It is the most cohesive group and the bloc
does support issues requiring little or no bloc commitment
and opposes fundamental collective security measures.

Western European Nations. This group is more
cohesive than previous studies indicated. The previous
results of the most identical voting being on economic,
social, and humanitarian issues and the least cohesion being
shown on collective security measures is contradicted by MSA
results. The smallness of the number of countries comprising
the group may have been enough to affect scale score standard
:deviation values this way--or these results maybe peculiar to
this session of the General Assembly. It is suggested that
trend studies, i.e., the same MSA method, over sessions of
the General Assembly be done so that results may be stated
and defended with more conviction.

British Commonwealth Nations. Results of previous

 

studies are fully supported. The group almost never votes
'as a unit. The items on financing UNEF is the only general
issue category wherein the group voted identically. There

is a definite difference in voting behavior of the Asian and

54

non-Asian members. While previous studies suggested this,
it was never clearly stated.

For this particular General Assembly session, the
greatest agreement is not found on procedural, administrative,
structural issues; and issues of social and cultural
cooperation; but on the issue of financing the United Nations
Emergency Force.

What all these results and comparison of results
suggest is thatifluaproposed methodology is useful for the
study of voting bloc cohesion and national alignments. It
would be more meaningful and conclusive to do a trend study
over sessions rather than to study a session by itself.

Also, this might cut down the number of countries that have
to be excluded from the analysis because of too many absences.

It would make interesting speculation and possibly
a future area of study to look at why dimensions like 1 and 2,
3 and 5 that contain similar issue types reverse the degree
of endorsement of their high and low-scoring voting blocs.

At this point, it might be mentioned that error scores
were disregarded in this study and the focus was on the similar-
ity of voting response patterns. It is my belief that UN
roll—call voting is a well structured phenomenon in terms
of voting, and that errors are not real errors but explainable

deviations from the expected "perfect" voting response pattern.

55

As such, if errors are given much weight in the determination

of voting blocs and in the analysis of the cohesion of caucusing
groups, this would distort the interpretation of results rather
than serve to point out "deviations" as they very effectively
do. A look at Dimension 1 may help clarify these statements.

Illustrative Example. On a voluntary basis, all

 

countries agreed to grant economic aid to Somalia. Perfect agree-
ment was also given to resolutions prohibiting slave trade, servi—
tude, and forced or compulsory labor; ceasement of the inforce-
ment of the Trusteeship Agreement approved by the General

Assembly on 13 December 1946, upon the attainment of independence
by Togoland. The following resolution, no longer agreed to
unanimously, dealt with the economic development of under—
developed countries. The parts of this resolution were:
International Cooperation for Economic Development of Under-
developed Countries, UN Capital Development Fund, Promotion

of the Proceedings of the Symposium on the Development of
Petroleum Resources of Asia and the Far East, and Rosters of
Scientific and Technical Personnel of the Less-Developed
Countries. Human Rights issues scaled next. The next issues
dealt with rights to liberty and security, the prevention of

cruel or inhuman treatment, and respect for human rights in a

multi—racial society. Following these were mild reprimands

56

and statements directed at the Union of South West Africa for
its governmental policies. No direct action was advocated,

no threat of any sort made. The majority of member states were
"unhappy" at the conditions within the Union. Member states
were then reminded that their policies should be in conformity
with their obligations as member states of the UN. Scaling
next were various resolutions expressing displeasure at the
apartheid policy, as this lead to race conflict in the Union
of South Africa. An appeal was made to the government of the
Union of South West Africa to enter into negotiations with
Pakistan and India. Communications with respect to the treat-
ment of people of Indian origin in the Union had been left
unanswered. The dimension essentially shows an abundance of
good will.

In regard to the errors in the dimension, Brazil is
responsible for two. It was the contention of this country
that the general tone of the draft resolutions dealing with
the economic development of under-developed countries, and
the possible solutions to particular commodity problems were
too timid for the seriousness of these issues. Canada's
and New Zealand's two errors were for items on the issue
dealing with recollecting previous consideration of race
conflict in the Union of South West Africa. The countries

saw no need to mention this in the draft resolution dealing

57

with race conflict in the Union. Israel's one error was on
the item dealing with human rights to liberty and security.
No specific reason was given. Israel did propose two amendments
that failed to receive the support of the Committee deliberat-
ing the issue. Liberia and Libya erred on the human rights
item dealing with the prevention of cruel or inhuman treatment.
They seemed to be unhappy with the statement of the text
(not the content) that had as its aim the outlawing of criminal
experimentation without hindering legitimate scientific or
medical practices. Italy and the Dominican Republic's two
errors are of a different type. They both agreed on the last
two items in the scale after having reached their thresholds
of agreement several items beforehand. These last two items
were the plenary and committee votes on the resolution
considering the treatment of people of Indian origin in the
Union of South Africa. Apparently, these two countries did
not agree with Australia, Belgium, China, Finland, France, the
Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom's views
that recommendations on this issue would tamper with the
domestic jurisdiction of the nation.

What about national alignments? Assuming a continuum
of endorsement underlying each dimension as evidenced by
the most common scale score of a caucusing group, a note of

warning must be said about the interpretation of scale scores.

58

One must remember reflection of items (reflection is indicated
in Appendix Table C by a - sign before the item number), and
interpret scale scores taking this into account. To make the
meaning of reflection a little clearer, an example might be

in order. Take Afghanistan's score of 2 and Albania's score
of 3 on Dimension 7. If the matter of reflection is forgotten,
one would err in assuming Albania to be more favorable than
Afghanistan is, to the issues in the dimension. Noting that
items #109 and #88 (the first and third items to scaleL this
would mean Albania voted "yes" only to the second scaled item
while Afghanistan "yessed" both the second and the third scaled

items. In other words, while both countries voted no on
the first item (the Iranian draft resolution on the Question
of Cyprus) and both countries agreed to an amendment to
resolution (A/c 6 L. 435) so that the convening of the con-
ference on the Law of the Sea would be delayed, Albania voted
"no" to the entire resolution as amended, and Afghanistan
"yessed" the amended resolution. Therefore, if reflection is

considered, Afghanistan is more favorable to the scaled issues

in Dimension 7 than Albania is.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY

Conclusions

This study suggests that:

1. MSA scales dichotomized roll—call votes in a manner
that can be meaningfully and logically interpreted in terms of
general issue type content.

2. Caucusing group cohesion and stands are obtainable
from MSA scale scores.

3. Error scores may be: disregarded in determining the
voting bloc membership of a country, useful in pointing out
deviant "explainable" voting behavior.

4. Voting blocs are: not equivalent to a_priori
determined caucusing groups, dependent upon the issue content
of a dimension. MSA, therefore, seems to be a useful method
for the study of voting behavior in the United Nations General
Assembly.

There are a few suggestions that can be made as to the
method of using MSA for this purpose. Voting blocs and
caucusing group cohesion could be studied within definite

issue categories instead of letting MSA define issue categories

59

60

by the issue content of a dimension. As an example, take
the following as possible issue categories: political and
security questions, procedural issues, economic and financial
resolutions, self-determination questions. These could be
analyzed separately. Another possibility is to see if the
method can pick out colonial questions from the agenda items
allocated to the First Committee and the Special Political
Committee. While these items are generally assumed to be
mainly political in nature, Riggs considered "colonially"
tinged issues to bias voting of essentially political issues.
He omitted these colonial questions in his study of the United
States influence in the General Assembly. The essence of this
suggestion is the possibility of limiting the subjective
interpretation of dimensional item content. A greater amount
of objectivity is somewhat introduced if categorization, by
say Committee Agenda item allocation, is done before submitting
the data to MSA analysis. This suggestion leaves open the
possibility that it might be more meaningful or empirical
to analyze by MSA all the data and define that as the category,
and the resultant dimensions as sub-categories. Errors could
be effectively employed to pin-point "critical" or atypical
issues.

Assuming that the method is acceptable, there are some

implications as to its utilization. There is a present need

61,

for a method of determining caucusing group cohesion. Many
United Nations members are concerned at the large increase

in membership of certain groups. They believe that the potential
of these groups to carrythe.Assembly majority is a matter to
cause some worry. Information as to the cohesion of voting

or caucusing groups is, therefore, valuable. The standard
deviation of scale scores on single dimensions or over several
dimensions of relevant issues may be very useful this way.
This would be feasible since UN issues are of the same general
type, session after session. This same reason would make
trend studies of scale score defined voting blocs a possi-

bility. The utility of this is no matter of conjecture.

Summary

The main objective of the study was to explore the
acceptability of MSA as a method for studying bloc politics
in the United Nations General Assembly. The data analyzed
were important roll—call votes in the plenary and committee
meetings of the General Assembly's thirteenth regular session.
Results suggested MSA to be useful in "pulling out" voting
blocs, bringing to light national alignments, and providing

a means for the determination of caucusing group cohesion.

APPENDIX

63

TABLE A

COUNTRIES INCLUDED IN THE ANALYSIS

 

 

Afghanistan
Albania
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium

Brazil
Bulgaria

Burma
Byelorussia
Cambodia
Canada

Ceylon

Chile

China

Colombia

Costa Rica
Cuba
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Dominican Republic
Ethiopia
Federation of Malaya

Finland
France
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Haiti
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Iran

Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Liberia
Libya
Mexico
Morocco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway

Pakistan

Panama

Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Rumania

Spain

Sudan

Sweden
Thailand
Tunisia

Turkey

Ukraine
U.S.S.R.
United Arab Republic
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Yemen

Yugoslavia

 

64

TABLE B

ABSENCES DURING ROLL-CALL VOTES

 

 

Country No. of Times Absent

Guinea (admitted on 12 Dec. 1959) 88

Bolivia 83
Nicaragua 63

Laos 58

El Salvador 56

Iceland 49
Luxembourg 43

Nepal 43
Honduras 35
Paraguay 33

Ecuador 29

Lebanon 27

Union of South Africa 26

Jordan 22

Saudi Arabia 21 cutting
Uruguay 19 point
Haiti 15

Sudan 15

Yemen 13

Peru 12

Costa Rica 11

 

Countries above the cutting point were not included
in the analysis.

Item

Item

Item

Item

Item

Item

Dimension 1
Item No.

18

55

28

137

65

TABLE C

RESULTS OF THE MSA ANALYSIS

Unscaled items:

15

53

81

83

84

Consideration of words "for the 24th session" of
the Trusteeship council and "the Trusteeship
Council" in a resolution dealing with the
dissemation of information.

The reparation of refugees.

Consent of individual needed if he is to be sub—
jected to medical or scientific treatment.

Good Offices Committee on South West Africa invited
to renew discussions with the Government.

Reproduction and circulation of verbatim record
of debate on report by Good Offices Committee on
South West Africa.

Debate proceedings on Agenda Item #39, its circu-
lation, reproduction, and the financial implications
of all this.

 

MRP Brief Item Description
1.000 Economic Aid to Somalia.
1.000 Prevention of slavery, slave trade, and

enforced labor.

1.000 Ceasement of trusteeship agreement upon
the independence of French Cameroons.

0.985 Economic development of under-developed
countries.-
0.985 Possible solutions to particular

commodity problems.

TABLE C.--Continued

 

Dimension 1
Item No.

56
54

104

121

122

123

105
106
125
108

124

107

120

130

131

91

MRP

0.970

0.940

0.940

0.925

0.896

0.896

0.896

0.896

0.881

0.866

0.851

0.851

0.821

0.821

0.866

0.866

66

Brief Item Description

 

Rights to liberty and security
Prevention of cruel or inhuman treatment.

Respect for human rights, in a multi_

racial society.

#104 in Plenary.

Union of South Africa's governmental
policies not consistent with pledges of
Member States.

Member states asked to bring policies
into conformity with obligations under
UN Charter.

#122 in Committee.

#123 in Committee.

Race conflict in South West Africa.
#125 in Plenary.

Reprimand for governmental policies
impairing human rights and fundamental
freedoms.

#124 in Committee.

Recollection of previous consideration of
race conflict question in South Africa.

#120 in Committee.

Treatment of people of Indian origin in
the Union of South Africa.

#131 in Committee

TABLE C.—-Continued

67

 

The Response Matrix

Country

Afghanistan
Albania
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burma
Byelorussia
Cambodia
Canada
Ceylon
Chile

China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Dominican Rep.
Ethiopia
Fed. of Malaya
Finland
France
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Haiti
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Iran

Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy

Japan
Liberia
Libya

Matrix

111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111000000000000000
111111111111111111111
111111100000000000000
111001111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111110011
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111100
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111100000000000011
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111110000000
111111111000000000000
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111000011
111111111111111111111
111111011111111111111
111111011111111111111

Score

21
21
21

21

19
21
21
21
21
19
21
21
19
21
21
21
21
21

21
21
14

21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
17
21
20
20

Errors

oooooooooooooooooooeooooooooeooooeoooooo

TABLE C.--Continued

68

 

The Response Matrix

Country

Mexico
Morocco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Panama

Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Rumania

Spain

Sudan

Sweden
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine

USSR

United Arab Rep.
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Yemen
Yugoslavia

Matrix

111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111100000000
111111111111111110011
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111000000000000
111111111111111111111
111111110000000000000
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111110000000000000000
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111

Score

20
20
13
19
21
21
21
21
21
21

21

21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21

21
21
21
21
21

Errors

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOJfi-OOO

TABLE C.—-Continued

 

Dimension 2

Item No.
133

132

59

58

14

74

72

12

11

The Response Matrix

Country

Afghanistan
Albania
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burma
Byelorussia
Cambodia
Canada

MRP

0.925

0.881

0.731

0.701

0.701

0.687

0.701

0.687

0.672

69

Brief Item Description

 

Holding of second conference on the law
of the sea.

Proposed change in date of holding second
conference on law of the sea.

International respect for right of peoples
and nations to self—determination.

The right of peoples and nations to self-
determination.

Effects of the European Economic
Community.

Information asked of administering
authorities.

Economic development of Non-self-
Governing Territories.

Attainment of Independence by Trust
Territories.

Speedy creation of preconditions for
independence.

Matrix Score Errors
111111111 9 0
111111111 9 0
111111111 9 0
110000000 2 0
111000000 3 0
110000000 2 0
111111100 7 0
111111111 9 0
111111111 9 0
111111111 9 0
001111111 7 4
100000000 1 0

TABLE C.—-Continued

 

The Response Matrix

Country

Ceylon
Chile

China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Dominican Rep.
Ethiopia
Fed. of Malaya
Finland
France
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Haiti
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Iran

Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy

Japan
Liberia
Libya
Mexico
Morocco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Panama

Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Rumania
Spain

70

Hairy:

111111111
111111000
111000011
111111111
111111111
111110111
111111111
000000000
111111110
111111111
111111111
000000000
110000000
111111111
111111111
111111111
111111111
111111111
111111111
111111111
111111111
111111111
100000101
110000111
110000000
111011011
111111111
111111111
111111111
111111111
110000000
100000000
000000000
111111111
111111111
111111111
111111110
111111111
110000000
111111111
110000000

Score

wmwmmoowowmoommqwmwmomowomoowooomoommommm

Errors

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOODOO‘fiOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONOOboo

TABLE C.--Continued

 

Response Matrix

Country

Sudan

Sweden
Thailand
Tunisia

Turkey

Ukraine

USSR

United Arab Rep.
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Yemen
Yugoslavia

71

Matrix

 

111111111
000000000
110111110
111111111
111100000
111111111
111111111
111111111
110000000
110000001
111111100
111111111
111111111
111111111

Score

\DkOKOflwNKOKDkOJ-E-KOQOKO

Errors

0

OOOONOOOOOONO

TABLE C.——Continued

 

Dimension 3
Item No.

4

 

30

136

48

112

129

42

139

90

126

95

-97

-127

-113

115

AL”:

0.910

0.851

0.821

0.821

0.731

0.642

0.642

0.642

0.597

0.567

0.552

0.537

0.522

0.552

0.552

72

Brief Item Description

Motion to include in the provisional
agenda of the 14th session the question
of amending the U.N. Charter. This would
be in connection with allowing the in-
crease in membership of the Economic

and Social Council.

French Cameroons to be admitted into
the U.N., upon attainment of independence.

Promotion of the international flow of
private capital.

#136 in Committee.

Include "the situation in Hungary" in
the agenda?

The Korean Question.
#129 in Committee.

Ad hoc committee established to study
peaceful uses of outer space.

See #139 in Committee.
Discontunuance of nuclear weapons testing.

Resolution dealing with ceasement of
nuclear weapons testing.

Reduction of military budgets.

Immediate discontinuance of nuclear
weapons testing.

Amendment to place question of represen-
tation of China on Agenda.

Exclude from the agenda the question of
the representation of China in the U.N.

73

TABLE C.--Continued

Dimension 3

 

Item No. MRP Brief Item Description
117 0.507 The representation of China in the U.N.
116 0.522 The question of the representation of

China to be considered at 13th regular
session of the General Assembly.

-114 0.537 General Assembly will consider proposals
regarding the representation of China
in the U.N.

—89 0.687 USSR and United States asked to cooperate
to facilitate the consideration of the
peaceful uses of outer space.

-47 0.761

The U.N. Capital Development Fund.

The Response Matrix

Country Matrix Score Errors
Afghanistan 11000000000000000000 2 0
Albania 00000000000000000000 0 0
Argentina 11111111111111111100 18 0
Australia 11111111111111111111 20 0
Austria 11111111000000000000 8 0
Belgium 11111111111111111111 20 0
Brazil 10111111111111111100 17 0
Bulgaria 00000000000000000000 0 0
Burma 11111000000000000000 5 0
Byelorussia 00000000000000000000 O 0
Cambodia 11111000000000000000 5 0
Canada 11111111111111111111 20 0
Ceylon 11110000000000000000 4 0
Chile 11111111111111111100 18 0
China lllllllllllllllllllO 19 0
Colombia 11111111111111111100 18 0
Costa Rica 11111111111111111100 18 0
Cuba 11111111111111111110 19 O
Czechoslovakia 00000000000000000000 0 0
Denmark 11111111111110000001 14 0
Dominican Rep. 11111111111111111110 l9 0

TABLE C.-—Continued

74

 

The Response Matrix

Country

Ethiopia
Fed. of Malaya
Finland
France
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Haiti
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Iran

Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy

Japan
Liberia
Libya
Mexico
Morocco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Panama

Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Rumania
Spain

Sudan
Sweden
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine
USSR

United Arab Rep.

United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Yemen

Matrix

11111110000000011100
11111111111101110000
11110000000000000001
11111111100011111111
11111000000000000000
11111111111110000000
11111111111111111110
11111111111111111100
10000000000000000000
11110000000000000000
11110000000000000000
11111111111001111100
11110000000000000000
11111111111000000000
11111111000010000000
11111111111111111111
11111111100101111110
11111111110000011100
11111000000000000000
11001111111000011000
11111000000000000000
11111111111111111110
11111111111100011111
11111111111110000001
11111111111011111110
11111111111011111110
11111111111111110000
11111111111111111100
10000000000000000000
11111111111110000011
10000000000000000000
11111111111111111111
11111000011000000000
11111111110000000001
11111111111111111111
11111111111000000000
11111111111111111111
00000000000000000000
00000000000000000000
11110000000000000000
11111111111111111111
11111111111111111111
11111111111111111110
11111111111111111100
llllOOClOOOOOOOOOflnn

Score

10
15

17

13
19
18

16

11

20
16
13

11

19
l7
14
18
18
16
18

15

20

20
11
20

20
20
19
18

Errors

>OOOOOOOOOONubOOubOOONNNGOObOO‘ONONOOOOOOOOOOO‘NNOW

75

TABLE C.--Continued

 

Dimension 4

 

Item No. MRP Brief Item Description

16 0.881 Dissemation of information.

17 0.940 Study and training facilities offered to
inhabitants of trust territories.

50 0.791 Refugees in Morocco and Tunisia.

119 0.716 Conditions in South West Africa.

82 0.701 #119 in Committee.

13 0.567 Emphasis in tone of draft resolution
directed to Trust Administrators.

73 0.537 Information asked of administering
authorities.

70 0.582 Who to prepare the summary of opinions
on questions of transmission and
examination of information.

71 0.597 Transmission and examination of information.

43 0.567 Governing Council membership to be
selected by General Assembly.

118 0.567 #43 in Plenary.

-44 0.597 Members of Governing Council of Special
Fund to be chosen by Economic and Social
Council.

142 0.552 Question of Algeria.

93 0.582 #142 in Committee.

—l30 0.642 Amend U.N. Charter to increase membership
of Economic and Social Council.

-2 0.642 Preamble of resolution by the Special

Political Committee on the question of
increasing the membership of the Economic
and Social Council.

76

TABLE C.-—Continued

Dimension 4

Item No. MRP
-3 0.642
-5 0.672
-143 0.716
—31 0.687
-l34 0.657

Brief Item Description

 

Increased membership of Council needed
in view of increased membership of the

U.N.

Question of increasing membership of
Economic and Social Council.

Future of the trust territory of the
Cameroons under French administration.

#143 in Committee.

The situation in Hungary.

The Response Matrix

Country

Afghanistan
Albania
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria

Burma
Byelorussia
Cambodia
Canada

Ceylon

Chile

China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Dominican Rep.
Ethiopia

Fed. of Malaya
Finland
France

Matrix

111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
111110011000000000000
001000000000000000000
111110000000000000000
000000000000000000000
110000000110000000000
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111000
111111111111111111111
111111111100001111000
111000000000000000000
111111111111111111001
110110000000000000000
111100000000000000000
111111000000000000000
111111111100000000000
110111000000000000000
111111111111111111111
111000000000000000000
110000011000000000000
111111111111110000001
111110011111100000000
110000000000000000001
100000000000110000000

Score

Errors

bNubN-h-OONOOONNOOOOOQOONI-POO

TABLE C.—-Continued

77

 

The Response Matrix

Country

Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Haiti
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Iran

Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Liberia
Libya
Mexico
Morocco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Panama
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Rumania
Spain
Sudan
Sweden
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine
USSR

United Arab Rep.

United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
venezuela
Yemen
Yugoslavia

Matrix

011111111111111111111
111111111111100000011
110111111000000000000
111111011000000000000
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111001
111111111111111111111
111110111000110000000
111111111111111111111
111110000000100000000
110110011000000000000
010000000000000000000
111111111000000000000
011111111011111111000
111111111111111110111
111111111000000000000
111111111111111110111
111000000000000000000
111000000000000000000
111000000000000000000
111110000000010000000
111111001000000000000
110000100000000000000
111111100000000000000
111111111111111111111
000000000011000000000
111111111111111111111
110000000000000000000
011111111110111111011
111000000000000000000
111110000000000000000
111111111111110000110
111000000000000000000
111111111111111111111
111111111111111111111
011111111111111111111
110000000000000000000
111000000000000000000
111111111000000000000
111111111000000000000
111111111110111111110
111111111111111111111

Score

Ni—‘Nl—‘N PM
l—‘Oi—‘koi—‘(DGJU'IO

M NH
womomxor—‘oxm

M

NH i-‘ N
t-‘OWU'ILUCIJNl—‘NI-‘QWQOWUJW

Nio
P'H

20

Errors

OOOOOONOOOOOO-bOOup-OONNNOOONON-boNubNOihONONN-bw

78

TABLE C.—-Continued

 

Dimension 5

 

Item No. MRP Brief Item Description
52 0.761 The celebration of World Refugee Year.
128 0.687 Financing of the United Nations
Emergency Force.
36 0.701 Plebiscite for Southern Cameroons to
be discussed at 14th session.
144 0.701 The future of the Cameroosn under
British administration.
37 0.701 #144 in Committee.
35 0.567 The details of the plebiscite to be
held in northern British Cameroons.
29 0.597 The elections to be held in French
administered Cameroons.
-86 0.537 Statement that considerable preparatory

The Response Matrix

Country Matrix Score Errors
Afghanistan 10000000 1 0
Albania 00000000 0 0
Argentina 11111110 7 0
Australia 11111111 8 0
Austria 11111011 7 2
Belgium 11111011 7 2
Brazil 11111110 7 2
Bulgaria 00000000 0 0
Burma 01111111 7 2
Byelorussia 00000000 0 0
Cambodia 00111111 6 4
Canada 11111111 8 0
Ceylon 11111111 8 0
Chile 10111110 6 2
China 11111111 8 0
Colombia 11111110 7 0
Costa Rica 11111111 8 0
Cuba 11011001 5 2

 

work is necessary for a successful
conference on the law of the sea.

TABLE C.——Continued

 

The Response Matrix

Country

Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Dominican Rep.
Ethiopia
Fed. of Malaya
Finland
France
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Haiti
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Iran

Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy

Japan
Liberia
Libya
Mexico
Morocco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Panama
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Rumania
Spain

Sudan
Sweden
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine
USSR

79

Harris

00000000
11111111
11111111
11000010
11111111
11111111
11111111
11000000
11111001
11100011
11111011
00000000
01111110
11111100
11111111
00100000
11111111
11111111
11111111
11111111
11000001
10000000
10111100
10000000
11111111
11111111
11111111
11111111
11111010
11111110
10111001
00000000
11111111
00000000
01111111
11111100
11111111
11111111
11100000
11111111
00000000
00000000

Score

OCDCD00G)m(fi\JO)G)O(fl~JO\G)m(DCDFJUIH(»CDODGJmIACDO\OiO~dLn0\k)m(DCDLDODG)O

Errors

C>O<DCDCDOCDBJCJOCDRJOIUCDC>O<DCDKJOIQCDCJOCDBJCDOEOCDKDbIUCDC>O<DhJC>O<D

TABLE C.--Continued

 

Response Matrix

Country

United Arab Rep.
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela

Yemen
Yugoslavia

80

Matrix

10000000
11111111
11111111
10011000
00011000
00000000
11111100

Score

ONONOJCDCDH

Errors

ooebooo

81

TABLE C.-—Continued

Dimension 6

 

Item No. MRP Brief Item Description

101 0.642 Secretary General requested to consult
member states on the financing of the
UNEF in the future.

100 0.612 Special contributions to UNEF and the
1959 assessments.

99 0.642 Rounding off of the amount of the

maximum approportion for UNEF.

102 0.582 Financing the UNEF.

138 0.567 #102 in Plenary.

The Response Matrix

Country Matrix Score Errors
Afghanistan 00000 0 0
Albania 00000 0 0
Argentina 11111 5 0
Australia 11111 5 0
Austria 11111 5 0
Belgium 11111 5 0
Brazil 11111 5 0
Bulgaria 00000 0 0
Burma 11111 5 0
Byelorussia 00000 5 0
Cambodia 11111 5 0
Canada 11111 5 0
Ceylon 11111 5 0
Chile 00000 0 0
China 11100 3 0
Colombia 11111 5 0
Costa Rica 00000 0 0
Cuba 00000 0 0
Czechoslovakia 00000 O 0
Denmark 11111 5 0
Dominican Rep. 11100 3 0
Ethiopia 00000 0 0
Fed. of Malaya 11111 5 0
Finland 01111 4 2
France 11111 5 0

TABLE C.-—Continued

 

The Response Matrix

Country

Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Haiti
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Iran

Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy

Japan
Liberia
Libya
Mexico
Morocco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Panama

Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Rumania
Spain

Sudan
Sweden
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine
USSR
United Arab Rep.
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Yemen
Yugoslavia

Matrix

10111
10000
00000
10000
00000
01111
11111
11111
00000
11111
11111
11111
11111
11111
11110
10000
11111
11111
11111
11111
11111
00000
11111
00000
00000
10000
00000
11111
11111
11111
11111
00000
11111
00000
00000
00000
01111
11111
11111
11100
00100
11111

Score

U1l—‘wU1U'lvbOOOU10UIU'lU‘IU'IOI—‘OOU'IOWUTU‘IU'IUIl"bU‘lU'IU'IU'IU'IOU'IU'erOl-‘Ol-‘rb

Errors

N

ONOOONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

83

TABLE C.-—Continued

 

Dimension 7

 

.Item No. MRP Brief Item Description
—109 0.612 Iranian draft resolution on the Question
of Cyprus.
87 0.522 Delay in the convening of the conference

on the law of the sea.
-88 0.537 Conference on the law of the sea.

» The Response Matrix

Country Matrix Score Errors
Afghanistan 110 2 0
Albania 111 3 0
Argentina 111 3 0
Australia 000 0 0
Austria 100 1 0
Belgium 000 0 0
Brazil 111 0 0
Bulgaria 111 3 0
Burma 110 2 0
Byelorussia 111 3 0
Cambodia 110 2 0
Canada 000 0 0
Ceylon 100 1 0
Chile 111 3 0
China 000 0 0
Colombia 111 3 0
Costa Rica 111 3 0
Cuba 000 0 0
Czechoslovakia 111 3 0
Denmark 000 0 0
Dominican Rep. 000 3 0
Ethiopia 111 3 0
Fed. of Malaya 000 0 0
Finland 111 3 0
France 000 0 0
Ghana 111 3 0
Greece 110 2 0
Guatemala 100 1 0
Haiti 100 l 0
Hungary 111 3 0

84

TABLE C.--Continued

 

The Response Matrix

Country Matrix Score Errors
India 111 3 0
Indonesia 111 3 0
Iran 000 3 0
Iraq 111 3 0
Ireland 100 1 0
Israel 000 0 0
Italy 100 1 0
Japan 100 1 0
Liberia 000 0 0
Libya 011 2 2
Mexico 011 2 2
Morocco 111 3 0
Netherlands 000 0 0
New Zealand 000 0 0
Norway 000 0 0
Pakistan 000 0 0
Panama 111 3 0
Peru 011 2 2
Philippines 000 0 0
Poland 111 3 0
Portugal 000 0 0
Rumania 111 3 0
Spain 100 1 0
Sudan 100 1 0
Sweden 000 0 0
Thailand 000 0 0
Tunisia 111 3 0
Turkey 000 0 0
Ukraine 111 3 0
USSR 111 3 0
United Arab Rep. 111 3 0
United Kingdom 000 0 0
United States 000 0 0
Uruguay 111 3 0
Venezuela 111 3 0
Yemen 111 3 0
Yugoslavia 111 3 0

85

TABLE C.--Continued

For the seven procedural issues, the following results
were obtained: one scale, R equal to 0.940, five scaled items,
two reflections (the last two items). Two items failed to
Scale. These were items 19 and 21. Item 19 was a request
that the four petitioners make further statements and answer
questions with respect to the Trust Territories of the Cameroons.

Item 21 was a request by Mr. Moumie for a hearing before the

General Assembly. A brief overview of the resultant scale is
givenibelow.

DIMENSION 1
Item No. .MRP Brief Item Description
76 .806 Hearings granted Mr.s Kerina and Scott
with respect to Good Offices Committee
report on Question of South West Africa.

 

75 .612 #76 but with respect to report of
Committee on South West Africa.

7 .522 Hearing granted Mr. Kale, an individual
petition from Ruanda-Urundi.

—20 .507 Motion; adjourn debate on future of
Trust Territories of Cameroons till
delegates ready to come to a vote on
the question.

—141 .522 Motion: take separate votes on parts of
resolution dealing with Question of
Algeria.

TABLE C.--Continued

The Response Matrix

Country

Afghanistan
Albania
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burma
Byelorussia
Cambodia
Canada
Ceylon
Chile

China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Dominican Rep.
Ethiopia
Fed. of Malaya
Finland
France
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Haiti
Hungary
India
Indonesia
Iran

Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy'
Japan
Liberia
Libya
Mexico

m

11111
11111
11000
00000
10000
00000
10000
11111
11111
11111
11100
10000
11111
10000
10000
10000
11110
11000
11111
10000
00000
11111
11101
10000
00001
11111
11111
11110
11100
11111
11111
11111
11111
11111
10001
11000
00000
00001
11110
11111
11110

Score

th‘libI—‘ONNUTUIU'IU'IU1w-bU'lU‘IHHibUlOI-‘UTNbHHHmHUJUlmml-‘OHONWU1

Errors

O

OOONONNOOOOOOOOONONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

TABLE C.--Continued

 

The Response Matrix

Country

Morocco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Panama

Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Rumania

Spain

Sudan

Sweden
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
Ukraine

USSR

United Arab Rep.
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela
Yemen
Yugoslavia

Matrix

11111
00000
00000
10000
11001
11000
10000
10110
11111
00000
11111
01000
11111
10000
00000
11011
00011
11111
11111
11111
00000
10000
11100
11110
11111
11111

Score

U‘lLfluPl-‘i-‘OU'lkfimNrD-Ol-‘Uli-‘U'IOU‘ILul-‘NOOI-‘OOU‘I

Errors

OOOOOOOOODN.OOONOOONOOMOOOO

88

TABLE D

IDENTIFICATION OF ALL COMMITTEE AND PLENARY ROLL—CALL

NO.
1*

VOTES FOR THE 13th SESSION OF THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY

(Items 1 to 111 are committee roll-calls,
items 112 to 144 Plenary roll-calls.)

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Amendment to draft resolution regarding formulation
of special policies related to economic development.
Adopted [by roll-call vote of] 28, 25, 14. Annexes,
12, p. 8.

Adoption of preamble of draft resolution (A/SPC/L.29
and Add. 1) by Special Political Committee. The
question of increasing membership of Economic and
Social Council. Adopted [by roll-call vote of]

47, 9, 16. Annexes, 12, p. 13.

O.P.#1 of preceeding resolution. Increase in member-
ship of Council needed in View of increased membership
of United Nations. This to enable Council to preserve
its "expeditious conduct" in its work. Adopted by
roll-call vote of 47, 9, 16. Annexes, 12, p. 13.

O.P.#2 of same resolution.’ Include in provisional
agenda of 14th General Assembly the question of amending
United Nations Charter to allow the increase in
membership of Economic and Social Council. Adopted

by roll—call vote of 66, 0, 6. Annexes, 12, p. 13.

Entire draft resolution (A/SPC/L.29 and Add. 1).
Adopted by roll—call vote of 49, 9, 14. Annexes, 12,
p. 13.

Possible solutions to particular commodity problems.
Second Committee recommendations for the economic
development of under-developed countries.

Adopted, 67, 1, 0. Annexes, 12, p. 19.

 

*
Issue not included in analysis.

NO.

8*

9*

10*

11

12

13

14

15

16

89

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Granting of hearing to Mr. John Kale, an individual
petitioner from the trust territory of Ruanda—Urundi.
Approved, 36, 23, 16. Annexes, 13, p. 6.

U.S.S.R. amendment assuring speedy achievement of
independence within limit of 5 years for Tanganyika
and Ruanda-Urundi. Rejected by roll-call vote of
34, 18, 19. Annexes, 13, p. 7.

Chilean amendment, rewording of a paragraph on the
speedy creation of preconditions for attainment of
independence pursuant to requests of Trusteeship
Council of the General Assembly. .Rejected by roll-
call vote of 33, 26, 12. Annexes, 13, p. 7.

U.S.S.R. amendment to insure achievement of pre—
conditions for independence within a period of no
later than three years. Rejected by roll-call vote
of 31, 22, 18. Annexes, 13, p. 7.

Paragraph on speedy creation of preconditions, without
amendment. Approved, 46, 9, 16. Annexes, 13, p.7.

Entire draft resolution, as revised. The attainment
of independence by Trust Territories. Approved, by
roll-call vote of 47, 18, 6. Annexes, 13, p. 8.

Question of emphasis in draft resolution directed to
Trust Administrators. Approved by roll-call vote of
39, 20, 13. Annexes, 13, p. 8.

Entire draft resolution mentioned in issue #13.
Approved by roll-call vote of 50, 17, 5. Annexes,
13! p. 8.

Words."for the twenty—fourth session of the Trustee-
ship Council" and "the Trusteeship Council" in draft
resolution below. Approved, 29, 1, 41. Annexes,
13, p. 9.

The dissemanation of information on United Nations
and International Trusteeship System in Trust Terri—
tories. Approved, 61, 3, 9. Annexes, 13, p. 9.

 

P . "
Issues categorized as "Procedural.

NO.
17

18

P
19

20

P
21

22*
23*
24*
25*
26*
27*

28

29

90

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Offers by Member States of study and training
facilities for inhabitants of Trust Territories.
Approved, 65, O, 4. Annexes, 13, p. 10.

Economic aid to Somalia. Approved, 67, 0, 0.
Annexes, 13, p. 11.

Four petitioners "invited" to make further statements
and answer questions during general debate of Fourth
Committee, without being retained on the floor;

this in connection with the Future of the Trust
Territories of the Cameroosn under French Administration
and the Cameroosn under United Kingdom Administration.
Approved by roll-call vote of 34, 9, 27. Annexes,

13, p. 12.

Motion to adjourn debate on item of future of Trust
Territories mentioned in issue above until such a
time as delegations were prepared to come to a vote
on resolutions. Rejected by roll-call vote of 34, 29,
9. Annexes, 13, p. 13.

Mr. Felix Roland Moumie, representative from Union
des populations du Cameroun, to be granted hearing.
Approved, 34, 17, 9. Annexes, 13, p. 27.

Proposed revisions in resolution of Fourth Committee
regarding the future of Trust Territory of Cameroons
under French Administration. In order, roll—call
votes are as follows: Rejected, 45, 30, 6.

Annexes, 13, p. 30. Rejected, 42, 28, 11. Annexes,
13, p. 30. Rejected, 47, 27, 7. Annexes, 13, p. 30.
Rejected, 46, 28, 7. Annexes, 13, p. 30. Approved,
58, 11, 12. Annexes, 13, p. 31. Approved, 53, 10,
17. Annexes, 13, p. 31.

Ceasement of Trusteeship Agreement of December 13,
1946 upon independence of Cameroons under French
administration. Approved by roll—call vote of 81, 0,
0. Annexes, 13, p. 31.

O.P.#Z, without revision. Confidence expressed for

elections to be held, soon after independence to form
new Assembly in Cameroons formerly under French .
Administration. Approved by roll—call vote of 48, 0, 33.

NO.
30

31

32*

33*

34*

35

91

ITEM DESCRIPTION

O.P.#3. Recommend admittance to membership in United
Nations, upon independence, of Cameroons under French
administration. Approved by roll-call vote of 71,

0, 10. Annexes, 13, p. 31.

Resolution discussed from item 22 to 30. Approved by
roll—call vote of 56, 9, 16. Annexes, 13, p. 32.

Issues 32 to 37 deal with: The future of the Trust
Territory of the Cameroons under United Kingdom
administration. 32, 33, and 34 are amendments to
manner in which plebiscite will be carried out. 35
and 36 are operative paragraphs of the unrevised
resolution text, 37 the entire draft resolution.

"On the basis of adult human suffrage" to be
inserted in O.P.#2. Rejected by roll-call of 34, 25,
22. Annexes, 13, p. 33.

Deletion of phrase providing for plebiscite to be
conducted on basis of electoral register then being
compiled for elections to the Federal House of
Representatives. Rejected by roll-call vote of 43,
21, 17. Annexes, 33, p. 34.

Redraft 'Are you in favor of deciding the future of
the Northern Cameroons at a later date?‘ to 'Do you
wish to unite with an independent Cameroons?‘
Rejected by roll-call vote of 43, 21, 17. Annexex,
13, p. 34.

O.P.#2. Recommendation that plebiscite in northern
part of territory take place about middle of November,
1959, to be conducted on basis of electoral register
then being prepared. Questions to be asked of people
the ff. (a) Do you wish the Northern Cameroons to be
part of the Northern Region of Nigeria when the
Federation of Nigeria becomes independent? or (b) Are
you in favor of deciding the future of the Northern
Cameroons at a later date? Approved by roll-call
vote of 47, 2, 32. Annexes, 13, p. 34.

 

 

NO.
36

37

42

43

44

45*

46*

47

48

92

ITEM DESCRIPTION

O.P.#4. Alternatives of voting qualifications for
natives in southern part of territory to be considered
at 14th session of General Assembly. Approved by
roll—call vote of 55, 1, 25. Annexes, 13, p. 34.

Entire draft resolution. Approved by roll-call vote
of 67, 0, 11. Annexes, 13, p. 35.

Issues 38 to 41 are respectively issues 2, 3, 4, and
5. These were given in a report of the Special
Political Committee on the third of December, 1958,
in connection with agenda items 21, 22, and 23; which
the General Assembly decided to consider at its

14th session.

The Korean Question. Adopted by roll-call vote of
52, 9, 18. Annexes, 24, p. 6.

Amendment to providetflunzmembers of the Governing
Council of the Special Fund be selected by General
Assembly and not the Economic and Social Council as
suggested by Preparatory Committee. Rejected by
roll-call vote of 46, 29, l. Annexes, 28, p. 3.

Members of the Governing Council to be chosen by
Economic and Social Council. Adopted by roll-call
of 44, 26, 4. Annexes, 28, p. 4.

Amendment to urge the early achievement of conditions
that would make practicable the speedy establishment
of a United Nations Capital Development Fund. Re—
jected by roll-call vote of 47, 8, 21. Annexes,

28, p. 7.

The above to be accomplished "within the framework
of the United Nations." Rejected by roll-call of
43, 16, 17. Annexes, 28, p. 7.

Draft Resolution B dealing with the United Nations
Capital Development Fund. Adopted by roll-call
vote of 58, 0, 18. Annexes, 28, p. 8.

Draft Resolution C dealing with promotion of the
international flow of private capital. .Adopted
by roll-call vote of 53, 9, 3. Annexes, 28, p. 9.

NO.
49*

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

93

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Amendment to resolution on the establishment of an
international administrative service. Assistance

to be provided with regard to improvement of public
administration and not as originally stated "to

perform duties of an executive or operational character
as may be defined by the requesting governments."
Rejected by roll-call vote of 48, 11, 26. The reso-
lution as.later on amended was adopted by a vote of

62, O, 13. fl

Refugees in Morocco and Tunisia, need for more assis-
tance. Adopted by roll-call vote of 57, 2, 15.
Annexes, 31, p. 2.

 

U.S.S.R. amendment to resolution dealing with celebration
of World Refugee Year, stressing the importance of
voluntary reparation of and eliminating use for
diversionist activities of refugees. Rejected by
roll-call vote of 42, 19, 12. Annexes, 31,p. 3.

Resolution dealing with the celebration of World
Refugee Year, focus interest in refugee problem,
encourage solutions. Adopted by roll—call vote of
56, 8, 9. Annexes, 31, p. 4.

Second sentence of article of Draft Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, no one to be subjected to medical
or scientific treatment without his free consent.
Adopted, 39, 0, 29. Annexes, 32, p. 4.

Entire article mentioned above. Prevention of torture
or cruel and inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment. Adopted by roll-call vote of 64, 0, 4.
Annexes, 32, p. 4.

Article 8 of Draft Covenant; prevention of slavery,
slave trade, being held in servitude, required to
perform forced or compulsory labor unless required
by law. Adopted by roll-call vote of 70, 0, 3.
Annexes, 32, p. 5.

Article 9 of Draft Covenant. Insurance of rights to
liberty and security. .Adopted by roll—call vote of
70, 0, 3. Annexes, 32, p. 9.

NO.
57*

58

59

60*

61*

62*

63*

64*

94

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Resolution prepared by Economic and Social Council,
recommendations concerning international respect for
the rights of peoples and nations to self-determination.
Rejected by roll-call vote of 48, 16, 8. Annexes,

33, p. 6.

Subject matter same as above. Vote on preamble of
Draft Resolution I prepared by Commission on Human
Rights as drafted by said commission in 1955.
Adopted by roll-call vote of 50, 16, 5. Annexes,
33, p. 6.

Entirety of resolution mentioned above. Adopted by
roll—call vote of 52, 15, 4. Annexes, 33, p. 7.

Procedural proposal on draft convention of freedom
of information, immediate examination of, to limit
debate. Rejected by roll-call vote of 32, 32, 4.
Annexes, 35, p. 2.

Issues 61 to 64 deal with amendments to draft resolution
of freedom of information.

Soviet oral amendment, insert "accurate and undistorted"
between pharse "the free flow of" and "news and
information." Adopted by roll-call vote of 43, 9,

22. Annexes, 35, p. 3.

Problems of freedom of information to be instead,
problems of providing technical assistance to under-
developed countries in field of information. Adopted
by roll-call vote of 30, 21, 24. Annexes, 35, p. 3.

Insert "accurate" between "free flow of" and "information".

Adopted by roll-call vote of 32, 8, 35. Annexes,
35, p. 4.

Insert "accurate" between "free flow of" and "news
and information." Adopted by roll—call vote of 48, 7,
19. Annexes, 35, p. 4.

 

NO.
65*

66*

67*

68*

69*

70

71

95

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Amendment to draft resolution on future discussion of
draft convention on freedom of information, detailed

discussion of text of draft convention to be at such

time as prospect is substantial for acquiring general
support. This in lieu of proposed discussion at the

14th session of General Assembly. Rejected by roll-

call vote of 49, 14, 10. Annexes, 35, p. 5.

Issues 66 to 69 deal with information from Non- F
Self—Governing Territories transmitted under Article
73e of the Charter. These deal with social and
other conditions in the territories. All issues
here are amendments.

Change in 3rd preamble paragraph, merely a matter of
form. Adopted by roll—call vote of 39, 17, 12.
Annexes, 36, p. 42.

 

a

Call for stronger implementation of resolution 644
(VII). 644 (VII) invites administering authorities

of Non-Self-Governing Territories to abolish discrimin-
atory laws and practices in the territories. Rejected
by roll-call vote of 24, 21, 24. Annexes, 36, p. 42.

Attempt to insure more precision in meaning; payment
of constant attention to resolution 644 (VII).
Adopted by roll-call vote of 38, ll, 20.

Annexes, 36, p. 43.

Addition of a 3rd O.P. asking for inclusion in

annual reports of a special section on measures taken
in implementation of resolution 644 (VII). Adopted
by roll-call vote of 31, 21, 17. Annexes, 36, p. 43.

Amendment to resolution dealing with general questions
relating to transmission and examination of information.
Summary of countries' opinions not to be prepared by
committee of 6 members elected by Fourth Committee

but by Committee on Information from Non-Self—
Governing Territories. Adopted by roll-call vote of

40, 29, 5. Annexes, 36, p. 43.

Resolution above, in entirety, as amended. Adopted
by roll—call vote of 41, 29, 4. Annexes, 36, p. 43.

NO.

72

73

74

75

76

77*

96

ITEM.DESCRIPTION

Issues 70 to 74 still deal with information from
Non-Self-Governing Territories, transmitted under
Article 73e of the Charter.

Economic development of the N—S—G Territories.
Invitation to administrating authorities to consider
advisability of adopting an investment polity that
would bring about a progressive increase in per capita
income in the territories. Adopted by roll—call vote
of 49, 5, 16. Annexes, 36, p. 45.

Consideration of words "with concern" in 3rd preambular
paragraph as administrating authorities had not as

then submitted information on the possible effects

of the European Economic Community on their territories.
Adopted by roll-call vote of 34, 18, 17. Annexes,

36, p. 45.

Entirety of resolution mentioned above. Asks for
information from administrating authorities to be
considered at 14th session. Adopted by roll-call
vote of 48, 16, 5. Annexes, 36, p. 45.

Hearing to be granted to Mr. Mburumba Kerina and Rev.
Michael Scott. This in connection with consideration
by Fourth Committee of Good Offices Committee report
on the question of South West Africa. Adopted by
roll-call vote of 45, 19, 9. Annexes, 39, p. 13.

Same issue but with regards to report of the Committee
on South West Africa. Adopted by roll-call vote of
60, 5, 9. Annexes, 39, p.13.

Issue 77 and those following to 81 deal with the
report of the Good Offices Committee on South West
Africa.

Amendment, O.P.#2. Insert ”mandated" between "the"
and "territory" in (A/C.4/L532). Adopted by roll-
call vote of 71, O, 2. Annexes, 39, p. 15.

NO.

97

ITEM DESCRIPTION

 

78*

79*

80*

81

82

83

84

Chilean amendment to preambular paragraph of resolution
mentioned above. This to call attention to and show
appreciation for accomplishment of difficult task

by Good Offices Committee on its report on South West
Africa. Adopted by roll-call vote of 28, 21, 24.

Not to consider partition and annexation of any part
of South West Africa as a basisto solution of problem.
Adopted by roll—call vote of 57, 0, 16. Annexes,

39, p. 15.

Find means whereby it possible to continue South West
Africa's international status. .Adopted by roll-call
vote of 57, l, 15. Annexes, 39, p. 15.

 

O.P.#2 as amended, i.e., Committee invited to renew i
discussions with Government of the Union of South

Africa. This to find basis for an agreement that would
continue to accord to the mandated territory as a

whole, an international status and which would be in

conformity with purposes and principles of the United

Nations. Adopted by roll-call vote of 52, 9, 12.

Annexes, 39, p. 16.

O.P.#3 of (A/C.4/L533/Rev.l/Add.1 and 2). Expression
of deep concern for the social, economic, and political
situations prevailing in the Territory of South West
Africa. Adopted byxoll-call vote of 46, 2, 18.
Annexes, 39, p. 16

Verbatim record of debate on report of Good Offices
Committee on South West Africa to be mimeographed and
circulated. Adopted by roll-call vote of 30, 17, 21.
Annexes, 39, p. 17.

Proposal by U.S. representative that Fifth Committee's
report to General Assembly on financial implications
of mimeographing and circulation of proceedings in
debates on Agenda item 39 should include: the‘
committee's recommendation against the adoption of the
draft resolution in its present form on administrative
and budgetary grounds. .Rejected by roll—call vote

of 26, 20, 10. Annexes, 39, p. 20.

NO.
85*

86

87.

88

89

90

98

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Scale of assessments for approportionment of the
expenses of the United Nations. France's proposal
that scale be adopted for the years 1959-1960 instead
of 1959, 1960, and 1961. Rejected by roll—call vote
of 32, 17, 14. Annexes, 47, p. 4.

Issues 86 to 88 deal with the convening of a second
U.N. conference on the law of the sea.

Addition of preambular paragraph stating necessity

of considerable preparatory work to insure reasonable
probability of success.. Adopted by roll—call vote of
37, 35, 8. Annexes, 59, p. 7.

Amendment; delay convening conference on the law of
the sea. When to hold to be deliberated on at 14th
session of the General Assembly. Rejected by roll—
call vote of 38, 37, 5. Annexes, 59, p. 7.

Resolution (A/C.6/L.435) as amended. (See issue #86).
Early convening of conference to reach suitable agree-
ment, representatives to be of all State Members of
the United Nations and of the specialized agencies,
etc. Adopted by roll-call vote of 42, 28, 9.

Annexes, 59, p. 7.

Question of the peaceful use of outer space. Resolu-
tion by Burma, India, and United Arab Republic.

Request First Committee to ask U.S. and U.S.S.R.

to consider: urgent need for positive and constructive
steps in field of peaceful uses of outer space,

report to First Committee on an agreed and practical
approach to the problem. Rejected by roll—call vote

of 25, 14, 42. Annexes, 60, p. 8.

Establishment of ad hoc committee to report to 14th
General Assembly on: activities and resources of
U.N. and specialized agencies with regards to peace-
ful use of outer space, area of international co-
operation to be involved and programmes possible,
etc. Adopted by roll-call vote of 51, 9, 21.
Annexes, 60, p. 8.

NO.
91

92*

93

94*

95

96*

97

99

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Treatment of people of Indian origin in the Union
of South Africa. Appeal to Union to negotiate with
Pakistan and India. Adopted by roll—call vote of
62, O, 9. Annexes, 62, p.3.

Question of Algeria. Amendment restating recognition
of right of the Algerian people to independence.
Preambular paragraph #4. Rejected by roll-call vote
of 48, l3, 19. Annexes, 63, p. 3.

Entire draft resolution on the question of Algeria.
Negotiations between parties concerned urged; to
reach solution in conformity with Charter of the
United Nations. Adopted by roll-call vote of 36,
18, 25. Annexes, 63, p. 3.

Issues 94 to 98 deal with Agenda items 64, 70, 72.
These are: Question of Disarmament, The Discontinuance
of Atomic and Hydrogen Weapons Test, The Reduction

of Military Budgets.

Motion by U.S. to give priority in voting to draft
resolution (A/C.l/L.205). Approved by roll-call vote
of 45, 25, 11. Annexes, 64, 70, & 72, p. 26.

Entire draft resolution (A/C.1/L.205). Urge dis-
continuance of nuclear weapons tests while negotiations
in progress. Adopted by roll-call vote of 49, 9, 23.
Annexes, 64, 70, & 72, p. 26.

O.P.#1 of (A/C.1/L.202/Rev.1 and Add. 1 and 2).

Call for immediate discontinuance of atomic and hydrogen
weapons testing until agreement reached by states
concerned in regard to technical arrangements and
necessary controls. Rejected by roll-call vote of

36, 26, 19. Annexes, 64, 70, & 72, p. 26.

U.S.S.R. draft resolution relating to reduction of
military budgets (A/C.1/L 204). Rejected by rolle
call vote of 39, 10, 32. Annexes, 64, 70, & 72, p. 26.

 

NO.
98*

99

100

101

102

100

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Second paragraph of Irish draft resolution (A/C.l/L.206).
Recognition of danger, in existence, that increase

in number of states possessing nuclear weapons may

occur, aggravating international tension and endangering
the hoped for agreement for disarmament. Adopted by
roll-call vote of 37, 0, 44. Annexes, 64, 70, & 72,

p. 27. Withdrawn as no method of dealing with contents
that delegation could offer.

Issues 99 to 102 deal with the United Nations Emergency
Force.

Amendment by U.Su to round maximum of $19,369,000
for the continuing operation of the Force to $19,000,000.
Adopted by roll—call vote of 35, 1, 25. Annexes,65, p. 39.

U.S. amendment that would allow special contributions,
as special assistance by certain countries to 1959
UNEF expenses, to be taken into account in the 1959
assessments. Adopted by roll—call vote of 39, 0, 28.
Annexes, 65, p. 39.

Argentine amendment, add O.P. requesting the Secretary
General to consult with governments of Member States
concerning manner of financing Force in future, and to
submit a report together with replies to General
Assembly at 14th session. Adopted by roll-call vote
of 43, 9, 17. Annexes, 65, p. 39.

Entire draft resolution (A/C.5/L.545) as amended, the
financing of the United Nations Emergency Force.
Adopted by roll-call vote of 38, 9, 22. Annexes,

65, p. 39.

Issues 103 to 108 deal with Agenda item 67: question
of race conflict in South Africa resulting from the
policies of apartheid of the Government of the Union
of South Africa. For the resulting draft resolution
(A/SPC/L.251 Add. 1 and 2), a roll-call vote was taken
on the preamble, each operative paragraph, and the
entire draft resolution.

 

NO.
103

104

105

106

107

108

101

ITEM.DESCRIPTION

Preamble; recalled previous consideration of question
and of calling upon Government of South Africa to
observe its obligations under the Charter. Adopted
by roll—call vote of 65, 5, 7. Annexes, 67, p. 3.

Consideration of O.P.#1. Repetition of declaration
that in a multiracial society harmony and respect

for human rights and freedoms and peaceful development
of a unified community is best assured when patterns
of legislation and of practice are directed toward
ensuring equality before the law of all persons;

and when the economic, social, cultural and political
participation of all racial groups is on a basis of
equality. Adopted by roll-call vote of 73, 0, 4.
Annexes, 67, p. 3.

O.P.#2. Governmental policies not directed toward
goals mentionedin issue #104, are inconsistent with
pledges of members of the U.N. under article 56 of
the Charter. Adopted by roll—call vote of 70, 3, 4.
Annexes, 67, p. 3.

O.P.#3. Call to member states to bring their policies
into conformity with obligations under Charter to
promote observance of human rights and fundamental
freedoms. Adopted by roll-call vote of 70, 2, 5.
Annexes, 67, p. 3.

O.P.#4. Expression of regret and concern that Govern-
ment of the Union of South Africa had not responded

to General Assembly appeals asking reconsideration of
governmental policies imapring right of all racial
groups to enjoy same rights and fundamental freedoms.
AdOpted by roll-call vote of 67, 5, 5. Annexes, 67,

p. 3.

Entire resolution. Adopted by roll-call vote of 68,
5, 4. Annexes, 67, p. 3.

Issues 109 to 111 deal with various draft resolutions
on the Question of Cyprus.

 

NO.
109

110*

111*

112

113

114

102

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Amended Iranian draft resolution. Conference of three
governments concerned and representatives of Cypriots
to discuss interim arrangements for administration of
Cyprus, a final solution to problem, this to be
accomplished according to principles and purposes of
Charter. Adopted by roll—call vote of 31, 22, 28.
Annexes, 68, p. 18.

Colombian draft resolution (A/C.1/L.225). Three
countries to resume and continue negotiations, re—
frain from extending encouragement or support to
violence in Cyprus, . . . set up an observation group
to promote the negotiations, after an on-the—spot
study of the political, social, and economic situation
on the island. If appropirate, observation group to
assume functions of a good offices committee and to
report to General Assembly through Secretary General
on its work. Not adopted due to roll-call vote of
17, 17, 47. Annexes, 68, p. 18.

Belgian draft resolution (A/C.l/L.229). Noting with
concern the continuance of terrorism in Cyprus; calls
upon those concerned to put stop to this. Recommen-
dation to resume continuance of effort in cooperative
spirit to reach solution to problem in accord with
principles and purposes of U.N. Charter. Rejected

by roll-call vote of 22, 11, 48. Annexes, 68, p. 18.

Consideration of whether to include the situation in
Hungary in the Agenda. Adopted by roll-call vote of
61, 10, 0. Plenary, 8, p. 55.

Issues 113 to 117 deal with the question of the
representation of China in the U.N.

Amendment to draft resolution (A/3926) that essentially
would placetfluaquestion of the representation of China
in the U.N. on the Agenda. Rejected by roll-call vote
of 40, 29, 12. Plenary, 8, p. 106.

Amendment that would delete paragraph recommending the
non consideration of any proposal excluding the Chiang
Kaishek government or the seating of representatives
of the Central People's Republic of China, at the 13th
regular session.. Rejected by roll-call vote of 41,

29, 11. Plenary, 8, p. 106.

 

NO.
115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

103

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Consideration of paragraph in draft resolution. The
exclusion of the question of the representation of
China in the U.N. Adopted by roll—call vote of

40, 28, 13. Plenary, 8, p. 106.

Paragraph recommending no proposal to exclude the
Chiang Kaishek government or to seat representatives
of Central People's Republic of China should be
considered at the 13th regular session. Adopted by
roll-call vote of 42, 28, 11. Plenary, 8, p. 106.

Entire draft resolution dealing with representation
of.China in the U.N. Adopted by roll-call vote of
44, 28, 9. Plenary, 8, p. 107.

Amendment providing that election of members of
governing council of the Special Fund are to be chosen
by the General Assembly (See issue #43). Rejected by
roll-call vote of 45, 30, 3. Plenary, 28, p. 387.

Conditions in the Territory of South West Africa.
Expression of deep concern for economic, social, and
political conditions. Adopted by roll-call vote of
59, 2, 18. Plenary, 39, p. 410. (See issue #82).

Issues 120 to 125 are respectively issues 103 to 108.
These are the separate roll-call votes on the resolu-
tion resulting from consideration of the question of
race conflict in South Africa resulting from the
policies of apartheid of the government of the

Union of South Africa.

Preamble. Adopted by roll-call vote of 65, 5, 8.
Plenary, 67, p. 412.

O.P.#1. Adopted by roll—call vote of 72, 0,6.
Plenary, 67, p. 413.

O.P.#2. Adopted by roll-call vote of 70, 3, 5.
Plenary, 67, p. 413.

O.P.#3.. Adopted by roll call vote of 70, 2, 6.
Plenary, 67, p. 413.

O.P.#4., Adopted by roll-call vote of 68, 5, 6.
Plenary, 67, p. 413.

NO.
125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135*

104

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Entire resolution. Adopted by roll-call vote of 70,
5, 4. Plenary, 67, p. 413.

Urge discontinuance of atomic and hydrogen weapons tests
while negotiations in progress. (See issue #95).
Adopted by roll-call vote of 49, 9, 22. Plenary,

64, 70, & 72, p. 430.

Issue #96 essentially. Rejected by roll-call vote of
41, 27, 13. Plenary, 64, 70, & 72. p. 430.

Financing the UNEF, recommendation of cost approportion-
ment among Member States use same scale as applied

for annual contributions of members to U.N. budget.
Adopted by roll-call vote of 51, 9, l7. Plenary,

65, p. 443.

The Korean question, see issue #42. Adopted by roll-
call vote of 54, 9, 17. Plenary, 24, p. 451.

Draft Resolution II from report of the Special Political
Committee. Question of amending U.N. Charter to
increase membership of Economic and Social Council

(see issue #5). Adopted by roll-call vote of 52, 9, 17.
Plenary, 21, 22, 23, and 12, p. 464.

Treatment of people of Indian origin in the Union of
South Africa. (see issue #91). Adopted by roll—call
vote of 69, 0, 10. Plenary, 62, p. 467.

Proposed change in date of holding second conference
on the law of the sea. Later date suggested. Adopted
by roll-call vote of 68, 6, 3. Plenary, 59, p, 478.

Entirety of resolution dealing with the proposed
conference on the law of the sea. Adopted by roll-call
vote of 70, 0, 6. Plenary, 59, p. 478.

The situation in Hungary. Draft resolution (A/L.255).
Adopted by roll—call vote of 54, 10, 15. Plenary,
69! p0 5460

Economic development of under-developed countries and
the U.N. Capital Development Fund. Draft Resolution

B.(see issue #47). Adopted by roll-call vote of 67,

0, 14. Plenary, 28 and 12, p. 565.

NO.

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

105

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Economic development of under—developed countries,

the promotion of international flow of private capital°
Draft Resolution C (see issue #48). Adopted by roll-
call vote of 69, 8, 4. Plenary, 28 and 12, p. 565.

Economic development of under—developed countries,
entirety of Draft Resolution 1, A to E. Adopted by
roll-call vote of 80, l, 0. Plenary, 28 and 12, p.
565.

United Nations Emergency Force, report of the Fifth
Committee. Essentially issue #102. .Adopted by roll-
call vote of 42, 9, 27. Plenary, 65, p. 598.

The peaceful use of outer space Resolution establishing

ad.hoc committee of 18 countries to study and report

on peaceful uses of outer space. Adopted by roll-
call vote of 53, 9, l9. Plenary, 60, p. 621.

Question of Algeria. Seventh preambular paragraph,
"Taking Note of the willingness of the Provisional
Government of the Algerian Republic to enter into
negotiations with the Government of France." Adopted
by roll-call vote of 38, 0, 43. Plenary, 63, p. 623.

Motion that separate votes be taken on draft resolution
dealing with the question of Algeria. Rejected by roll—
call vote of 36, 8, 37. Plenary, 63, p. 627.

Resolution dealing with question of Algeria, minus
7th preambular paragraph. Roll-call vote: 35, 18,
28. Resolution not adopted as lacking the required
two-thirds majority. Plenary, 63, p. 637.

The future of the Trust Territory of the Cameroons
under French administration. See issues #22 to 31.
Adopted by roll-call vote of 56, O, 23. Plenary, 13,
p. 642.

The future of the Trust Territory of the Cameroons
under United Kingdom administration. See issues #32
to 37. Adopted by roll-call vote of 56, 0, 24.
Plenary, 13, p. 642.

 

10.

11.

12.

13.

REFERENCES

AHMAD, M. The United Nations and Pakistan. Karachi:
Times Press, 1955.

BAILEY, S. D. The General Assembly of the United Nations.
New York: Fredrick A. Praeger, Inc., 1961.

BALL, MARGARET M. Bloc voting in the General Assembly.

 

m
International Organization, 1951, 5, 3—31.

COYLE, D. C. The United Nations and How it Works. (2nd Rev.)
New York: The New American Library of World Literature,
Inc., 1960.

CROSS, W., and GREENFIELD, ANITA. When 48 voices speak -
as one. the Asia magazine, 1962, 2 (4), 4-5. 5

D18, G. M. The Arab Bloc in the United Nations. Amsterdam:
International Education Publishing House, 1956.

EDWARDS, A. L. Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction.
New York: Appleton-Century4Crofts, Inc., 1957.

HOVET, T. Bloc Politics in the United Nations. Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1960.

KNUDSEN, KAREL G. A comparison of two methods, multiple
scalogram analysis and factor analysis, for analyzing
United Nations voting behavior. Unpublished Master's
thesis, Mich. State Univ., 1962. ‘

LINGOES, C. J. Multiple scalogram analysis: a generalization
of Guttman's scale analysis. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Mich. State Univ., 1960.

Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirteenth
Session, Annexes. New York, 1959.

Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirteenth Session,
Plenary Meetings. New York, 1959.

RIGGS, R. E. Politics in the United Nations. A Study of the
United States Influence in the General Assembly. Vol. 41.
Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences. Urbana: The
University of Illinois Press, 1958.

106

107

14. SOWARD, F. H. The changing balance of power in the
United Nations. The Political Quarterly, 1957, 28
(4), 316-327.

15. Yearbook of the United Nations, 1958. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1959.

 

 

 

5103i USE ONLY,

 

 

 

 

”71111171111 MM @Iflifliifllflufliflififimm