S/PV.1389 Security Council

Despite the various contentious issues which had been raised before the Council, the discussion so far of the item on our agenda has in the view of my delegation revealed one simple but important point of common ground, namely, the degree of seriousness which is attached to the rising state ,of tension in the Korean area. The Puebb incident has been a serious spurce of exacerbation of this tension. I was impressed in listening to the statement of the representative of the Soviet Union that, while he differed profoundly as to the cause of the tension and as to the best means of reducing it, he readily admitted that tensions had been growing especially in the last few months as reflected in a growing number of incidents in the Korean area, In this sense he seems to be at one with the representative of the United States. 40. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a peaceful State which makes no war preparations. It does not send its ships into the other corners of the globe, and as it was put by a newspaper comment which appeared in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in recent days: “What we have arrested is not an American fishing vessel fishing in the Gulf of Mexico, but criminals who took it upon themselves to intrude into our territorial waters and who undertook actions of provocation against our country.” 41. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is conscious of the threats directed against it by the United States of America and its South Korean puppets. But the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea also knows that in resisting aggressive designs on its sovereignty it is not alone. It is a member of the family of socialist nations and enjoys the sympathy of many other nations of the world. Thus there is no point in trying to intimidate the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and it would be well for everyone to remember that. 46. When I spoke about the importance of inscribing the item before us and fproceeding promptly with its consideration I stressed the gravity of the situation in justification of the Security Council’s taking up this matter with a view to bringing the influence of diplomacy to bear. This is the main issue before the Council. I made a suggestion to you, Mr. President, yesterday, as to what could be done to help reduce tension and deal with the immediate problem of the Pueblo. 42. Reference was made in the letter of the representative of the United States to conditions in South Korea. Without wishing to go into details, I cannot fail to state that it is in the continuing American occupation of South Korea, in the servile dependence of its rulers on the United States and in the deep economic crisis which does not guarantee a decent life to the South Korean people, that reasons should be found for the unrest in that country and for resistance to the ruling clique, 47. I feel sure that other members of the Council may have ideas or suggestions, having regard to the interests of those directly concerned as well as to the extreme urgency of the matter. 48. I believe that progress would now best be achieved by urgent consultations which might commence without delay and take place over the week-end among members of the Council before we meet again, I hope on Monday, 43. Social forces are as much at work in South Korea as elsewhere, and no foreign intervention.can change that fact. It should be stated clearly that tension all over the world is mainly caused by and linked to the presence of United

There are no other speakers on my list for this morning, but the representatives of the United States and of the Soviet Union have asked to be allowed to speak in the exercise of their right of reply. 51, The representative of Hungary, our colleague Ambassador Csatorday, having voted against inscription yesterday, today reverses his course and has spent considerable time in arguing that there is grave danger to’the peace in the area. I agree with his conclusion, but I certainly disagree with the type of reasoning by which he arrived at it. He has argued at length, as he argued in the First Committee and in the General Assembly, that all of the danger in the area arises from the actions of the Government of the Republic of Korea and that the authorities in North Korea have not engaged in any provocative or dangerous action, that they merely desire to live in peace and that they are without any aggressive designs and intentions. 52. But my colleagues on the Council, I am sure, will want to examine the evidence a little more carefully than this conclusion and examine the evidence coming from themand perhaps not from other sources. Yesterday in the course of my discussion I pointed to the aggressive and dangerous activities in violation of the Armistice Agreement by the North Korean authorities. Yesterday I also pointed to evidence out of the mouth of North Korea as to the location of the ship Pueblo. 53. Let me turn to the first subject. I referred yesterday to the latest incident-very grave and portentous in its character-of armed assassins being sent by the authorities in North Korea across the demilitarized zone, with the design of storming the capital, Seoul, and the presidential palace with the object of assassinating the President of the Republic of Korea. We do not have to rely upon extrinsic evidence in support of that. We have the proof from the very mouths of the North Korean authorities: “On 22 January a loudspeaker broadcast by the North Koreans in the demilitarized zone boasted that ‘the North Korean combat unit advanced from Kwuhg-Bok to Sudae-Mun’ “-these are both in South Korea-(‘ ‘The unit killed a Korean national policeman and the-chief of Police and destroyed four military trucks , . . , The combat unit escaped from Park’s clique and continued their mission’ “,2 This was a loudspeaker broadcast by the North Koreans, Who broadcast over the demilitarized zone daily. The other relevant facts are set forth for the information of the Council in this same document. 2 official Records of the Security Council, Twenty-third Year, Supplement for January, February and March 1968, document S/8366. 55. Today, this very day, a Soviet vessel is operating in this area, as I indicated yesterday. For the information of the Hungarian representative, the vessel is the T-48 class submarine ship Gidrolog. Ambassador Morozov will correct me if my pronunciation is wrong, This ship is roughly the same size as the Pueblo. It is even larger than the standard Soviet trawler used for these purposes. It is an 840 ton ship, 220 foot over-all length, 30 foot beam, 20 knot speed, diesel engined twin-screw ship. 56. It may be of interest to the members of the Council to know that such ships of the Soviet Navy in the Sea of Japan frequently sail closer than twelve miles to the shores of neighbouring States in the area. 57. A final word. At our meeting yesterday Ambassador Morozov complained that the United States in its presentation had concentrated too much on the matter of the Pueblo, in which he said he had found it difficult to interest himself, and not enough on another major aspect of the threat to the peace in Korea, namely, the violations of the Korean Armistice Agreement and the consequent deterioration of that Agreement as an instrument of peace and tranquillity in the area. Perhaps after reviewing the provisional verbatim record of yesterday’s proceedings /1388th meeting/ Ambassador Morozov will notice that in fact I did discuss in some detail the gross infractions of the Armistice Agreement by North Korean infiltrators, leading up to the particularly outrageous attack on the city of Seoul this past week with, as I have said, the admitted aim-fortunately not achieved-of assassinating the President of the Repub. lit. There is much more to that story, and we are given the details of the latest incident in the report which I have just referred to [S/8366/. 58, I think that Lord Caradon has helped us very much in this area by pointing up the fact that all members of the Council should support the strict enforcement of the Armistice Agreement. It is precisely because the North Korean authorities are not respecting the Armistice Agreement but are violating it that a very grave threat to the peace has occurred. Part of the difficulty has been that the 6 i 59. Specifically and in line with their past performance, 4he North Korean side at these meetings continues to refuse to act in any way on complaints which are made to it, to agree to investigations by the joint observer teams-the best way to determine the accuracy of these complaints that are lodged before the Armistice Commission-or indeed to make any use of the Panmunjom meetings, except for the most violent and intemperate propaganda tirades. 60. It is our very sincere hope that out of this current meeting of the Council will come a strong reaffirmation of what I am sure is the will of the membership of the United Nations, manifested by General Assembly decisions throughout the years, that the Armistice Agreement be scrupulously adhered to and that the machinery of the Armistice Agreement be utilized in order to preserve peace in the area.

I now give the floor to the representative of the Soviet Union in the exercise of the right of reply.

In view of the statements made by certain members of the Council at this meeting, I do not think there is any need to explain why, despite the detailed presentation of all the factual material on, the question which we gave in our statement yesterday to the Council [138&h meeting/, we shall have to devote some time to replying to the ever-increasing number of unfounded and repetitive assertions that are being made in contradiction of the facts of the case. These assertions are apparently intended, by their very number, to give at least some semblance of conviction to the one-sided version which the United States is continuing to propogate intensively in its appraisal of the situation in the Korean peninsula, and particularly in its appraisal of the special incident involving the detention in Korean territorial waters of a vessel of the United States Navy, the Pueblo. 63. We have already noted in our statement to the Council, and we wish to affirm once again, that the intrusion of this vessel into the territorial waters of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a typical example of the many provocations, whose number runs into the hundreds and thousands, included in the 52,000 violations of the Armistice Agreement committed by the American militarists in the years since it came into force. These provocations have of late been growing very noticeably in number and importance. The spy ship Pueblo was, we repeat, detained by the competent authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, since it was carrying out illegal and hostile activities against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the territorial waters of that sovereign State. “Equipped with various kinds of intilligence apparatus, the specially armed spy ship Pueblo, on the instructions of the United States Central Intelligence Agency, intruded deep into the territorial waters of our country and was carrying out reconnaissance into a number of such military or state secret matters as the location of military equipment, armed forces and industrial undertakings in the ports and coastal regions of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; but it was detained on 23 January of this year by vessels of the nav$ forces of the Korean People’s Army in the East Korea Gulf, in the territorial waters of our country, at latitude 39” 17’ 4” North and longitude 127’ 46’ Y’ East.” This is the exact point which we expected would be indicated while we were waiting yesterday as we listened patiently in the Council to the lecture given with such an array of so-called visual aids by the representative of the United States. 65. The statement of the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea goes on to point out: “The provocative acts of the American imperialists’ armed spy ship Plceblo constitute a Further flagrant violation of the Korean Armistice Agreement, and an open aggression directed against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It is an integral part of the wilful schemes of the United States imperialists to launch a new war in Korea, and a serious threat to peace in the Far East and throughout the world.” 66. The statement stresses that: “The defence of the security and sovereignty of its homeland against the encroachments of the enemy is the sacred right of every independent State and its own internal affair, which no one may infringe.” 67. Today, the representative of the United Kingdom attempted, by adding his unsubstantiated assertions to the unfounded contentions of the United States representative, to arrive at certain arithmetical results. I must say that, on the basis of the terminology used in the four rules of arithmetic, the multiplication of nought by nought, according to all the arithmetic primers, always equalled nought. This was the brilliant result achieved today by my United Kingdom colleague with his characteristic skill. 68. Today the representative of the United States continued to quote various excerpts from intercepted radio broadcasts which are alleged-and I stress the last word-to have fallen into the hands of the United States authorities concerned. This assertion is certainly no more convincing 69. Nothing has been added today in this way to what was said yesterday about the factual side of the matter. Today I should like to add something to what we said yesterday about the totally unfounded nature of the one-sided American version concerning the actual events of 23 January in territorial, waters when the Pueblo was detained. I wish to refer to details published today in The New York i%nes, in a special article dealing with the question which we are now discussing in this Council. According to the article, in answer to questions put by members of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee of the United States as to whether it was possible for the United States Secretary of State to assert categorically that, at the moment of its detainment, the Pueblo was on the high seas, the Secretary of State, Mr. Rusk, replied as indicated in the following paragraph: “When pressed on this point within the Committee, Mr. Rusk was said to have explained that he could not be categorical because the Pueblo, until the time of her seizure, was maintaining radio silence and was not reporting her position. But he was said to have emphasized that the ship was under strict orders not to come any closer than thirteen miles from the North Korean shore. North Korea claims a twelve-mile territorial sea.“3 70. In Russian, this amounts to the following: “When Mr. Rusk was asked to clarify this question (and I myself would add here-the question of the co-ordinates of the ship’s position at the moment of its detention), he replied that he could not make a categorical affirmation because the Pueblo, up to the time it was detained, was not carrying out any radio broadcasts and had given no information on its position. He stressed, however, that the vessel was under strict instructions at the time not to approach closer than thirteen miles from the Korean coast, as North Korean territorial waters extend twelve miles from the coast.” 71. I would ask the United States representative how he explains the remarks he made yesterday and today, which contradict the a,sertions made by the United States Secretary of State. In this case it would seem that the customary references to the freedom of the press in the United States and to the fact that American newspapers can write anything they like will be of no avail, because then he would have to make an accusation against the publishers of that material of having deliberately distorted what occurred in the Senate Committee. It is hardly likely that such a responsible and respected United States newspaper, which enjoys a considerable reputation in this country, should take it upon itself to make such a distorted statement. 72. We repeat, therefore, that the intrusion of the American military vessel Pueblo into the territorial waters of the 3 Quoted in English by the speaker. 73. I should like to draw the Council’s attention to one further point. Yesterday, en passant as they say in French, the United States representative made a reference to the courses followed by Soviet vessels on the high seas. He may be better informed than I about these courses and the matters relating to them, but I should not like to say anything at this time concerning the courses followed by United States military vessels, aircraft, and the rest, because if I began a discussion on this subject I should be helping my colleague, the United States Ambassador, to shift the centre of gravity of the discussion to an area which has nothing to do with the item before us, an item which was raised and formulated within the limits to be found in the letter addressed to you, Mr. President, by the United States representative. 74. It must be said that the arguments and evidence advanced by the United States representative are in a bad state if he has to have recourse to such manoeuvres and justify or prove what he has called here the legal character of activities and experiments such as those carried out on the naval intelligence vessel Pueblo by making excursions into a field that has nothing at all to do with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which detained a United States vessel for having made a hostile intrusion into North Korean territorial waters, nor with the accusations levelled by the United States representative. I venture to decline the temptation to assist the United States representative in this connexion and shall confine my remarks to the lengthy exposition, quite irrelevant to the matter in hand, made by the United States representative yesterday and again, in greater detail, today. 75. Once again we deem it necessary to stress that the chief cause of tension in Korea is the continued presence of American and other foreign troops in South Korea. The chief cause of tension continues to be the aggressive acts committed by the United States of America and its South Korean puppets against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. We have repeated over and again that the occupation troops must be withdrawn immediately from South Korea. That is the real way to peace in Korea. 76. We reject as unfounded the accusation levelled here against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by the United States of America and its supporters. In connexion with today’s remark in the statement made by the United States representative, we should like to state that the struggle for the withdrawal of foreign occupiers and against the puppet regime is being waged by the South Korean people itself, we repeat, by the South Korean people itself. We condemn the repressions and reprisals which the South Korean authorities, whose existence is due solely to the presence of the bayonets of the American armed forces in that area, are carrying out against the patriots in South Korea itself. We stress these circumstances, and reject as utterly unfounded the assertions that we have just heard in the statements of the United States representative. a 78. Those points warrant the most serious attention of the members of the Security Council. 79. In this connexion, it is appropriate to mention that the statement published on 27 January in Pyongyang by the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, some parts of which I have aiready referred to, included the following: 85. The representative of the United States has taken many words from my statement and added some other words of his own, to put it jn a context of his own choice, and on this pretext he has tried to accuse another country of the same illegal actions that the United States is committing. The main point that I raised was not that ships are moving around on the high seas; the question was where those ships were moving around. We should take as our point of departure in considering this problem the universally accepted rules of international law, including the Charter of the United Nations; and on the basis of those rules, no one has the right to violate the territorial waters of other countries. That is the issue we are seized of. I do not believe that the United States representative, Ambassador Goldberg, could make the accusation that naval units of the Soviet Union are violating territorial waters of the United States. If he had such an example, he would certainly have cited it to us. What I was wondering about and what I failed to hear was why the Ambassador of the United States was not willing to commit the United States to a policy of respecting the sovereign rights of other countries, of respecting the territorial integrity of other countries and not undertaking any action that might violate their territorial sovereignty. “The heroic Korean People’s Army and the whole Korean people are in full readiness to resist any provocation or intrusion on the part of the American imperialists, and will deliver crushing blows to the enemy if he dares to attack us.” 80. In conclusion, we should like to stress that all the commotion and war hysteria that are being whipped up in the United States of America in no way help to reach a solution of the question in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. We should like to say that emotions should not be given free rein. All those who seek to strengthen international peace and security should now display a high sense of responsibility and not permit the creation of a new hotbed of war in the Far East.

The representative of I-Iungary has also asked to be allowed to exercise his right of reply, and I now call on him.

I shall take only a few minutes of the Council’s time, The representative of the United States, Ambassador Goldberg, referred to several points in the statement that I made this morning. I was partially gratified that he ,did not attempt to refute the series of facts I mentioned, and that can be considered as a sort of recognition of the validity of my statement that the United States is conducting a policy of violating the sovereign territories of other countries, thereby deplorably violating the charter as well. But he mentioned some alleged facts. For instance, he stated that the seizure of the ship Pueblo occurred at a location that was beyond the territorial waters of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, whose Government, he said, had recognized this fact in its statement. 86. The policy that every day, even every hour, risks international conflict by violating the sovereignty of other countries can lead only to further international tension and to ominous consequences. My delegation is of the opinion that we should raise our voices here and everywhere else, whether in the Security Council, the General Assembly or the First Committee, in defence of the sovereignty of all States. It is only in this way that we can really pursue a policy of peace and preserve peaceful relations. 87. We hope that the United States will recognize the validity of this rule and the applicability of international law in this matter, and that it will abide by the provisions of the Charter. 83. I do not want to dwell at length on this question. The representative of the Soviet Union already quoted from the statement of the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, I also have the text of that statement and I could quote the same data, which clearly prove that the North Korean authorities never said that the seizure took place beyond the territorial waters of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

The representative of the United States has again asked to exercise his right of reply, and I now call upon him.

I am very glad that our colleague, Ambassador Morozov, is such an assiduous reader of The New York Times and I am glad that he shares my high regard for that eminent and 84. Ambassador Goldberg also stated that the broadcasting station of the Democratic People’s Republic of 90. Starting at page 1, and if you wish to have the record complete, you will start with the article which refers to the Soviet intelligence ship I referred to in the course of my remarks, and you will read that into the record. I shall read only a few paragraphs, since it is a very comprehensive account, of the article appearing on page 1 of The New York Times of today, 27 January: “Defense Department officials said tonight that a Soviet intelligence-gathering vessel was shadowing the nuclear aircraft carrier Bzterprise off the coast of South Korea. “The Soviet vessel, identified as the Gidrolog, was said to be sailing in the midst of the Enterprise’s task force, which includes a guided-missile ship and several destroyers. “The trawler is on essentially the same sort of mission as the Pueblo was engaged in when she was seized by the North Koreans on Tuesday, the officials said.” I have referred to this specific article, and it illustrates that by picking selected excerpts you can come to one conclusion, but when you read the whole article, then, as it appears, you arrive at another conclusion. 91. In the first place, I am sure that there was some mistake, perhaps in the interpretation that I heard. At the end of the other article, there is no assertion by our Secretary of State that North Korea claims a twenty-mile territorial sea, which is what I heard in the interpretation. In that article, continued on page 7 of today’s New York Times, I read: “But he”-the Secretary of State-“was said to have emphasized that the ship was undsr strict orders not to come any closer than thirteen miles from the North Korean shore. North Korea claims a twelve-mile territorial sea.” Therefore, I think that there was perhaps some mistake in the interpretation or in what Ambassador Morozov received from his briefing-paper. 92. That statement too, I think, should answer Ambassador Csatorday. We adhere strictly to international law and do not intrude or seek to intrude upon the sovereign right of other countries, even though our own conception of international law is different from theirs and we adhere to a three-mile limit, not a t-velve-mile limit, as I said yesterday, 93. There were certain omissions in what Ambassador Morozov said about what Secretary of State Rusk was reported to have said to the United States Senate Committee. One of the things he omitted was that: “The Rusk briefing was understood to have put to rest the suspicions of some committee members that before 94. Now, I wish to be very frank with this Council because this is a very grave incident. The Secretary of State and I have been in constant communication; we have been constantly meeting and in touch with each other at all times and we have revealed to the Council, in the interests of informing it, the indications that we have. As youI saw, we revealed them to the Council quite specifically. 95. I come now to the radio silence of the ship. The report I gave yesterday indicated very specifically that the North Koreans were not preserving radio silence-and the dis. patches which I gave were from North Korean sources, I also gave some from the Pueblo, which broke its radio silence at the time of the incident in question. Therefore, what the Secretary of State said and what 1 said yesterday are entirely compatible and do not represent any cont.radic. tion in the statements which I have furnished to the Council. 96. But there is something in addition to that which is very important. I wish to add that from the time at >which submarine chaser No. 35 first reported contact with the Pueblo at 11.10 a.m. Korean time, until the Pucbk~ was boarded in international waters and taker; to v.‘onsan we have monitored at least a dozen position reports from the North Koreans which place the activity outside the twelvcmile limit. Weshave the exact co-ordinates reported at that time, all outside the twelve-mile limit. This is entitled to far more credibility than this fabricated co-ordinate published after the event by the North Korean authorities. Their own naval forces on the spot reported in a series of messag,es the exact location of the ship outside the twelve-mile limit.

First of all, I should like to express the conviction that step by step-since we have been drawn into consideration of this question-members of the Council will feel more and more their high responsibility for the fate of international pcacls and security, and that those emotional feelings which llnv~c bee11 aroused by the desire to impose at all costs a one-sided version of the events which we are now investigating will diminish hourly and will give way to sober reason guided by feelings of the high responsibility of the council for its duty, incumbent upon it under the Charter, to m&ntain international peace and security. That is why I shall confine myself to a brief reply to the further lengthy cluotatioas and digressions which the United States representative has made once again, for the fourth or fifth time, in an ai;tcmpt to give the semblance of some kind of conviction t.o that one-sided and unfounded version which the United States delegation SO persistently continues to put forward, 98. I am, of course, ready to read the first, second and third pages of The New York Times, I did so as soon as tile 99. Justice Goldberg knows full well that. after a witness has given evidence in a high court, he undergoes his worst moment: the practice adopted in criminal court procedure in all the countries of the world, known as cross-examination. Its purpose is not merely to hear what the witness has to say, but to give the parties and the judge the right to ask clarifying questions. With his great legal experience, the United States representative cannot fail to know that often, after the evidence given by witnesses seems so convincing as to leave no doubt whatsoever as to what actually happened, the replies to the questions put for purposes of elucidation in the course of the procedure I have just mentioned are what determine the significance of, or even sometimes destroy, that evidence. 103. That is why, when we have had political experiences of this kind and when more and more attempts are being made to justify actions by prejudiced and one-sided versions of the events, we are hevitably bound to ask what the intentions underlying suc11 attempts and assertions are. Do those intentions coincide with what has been stated here by the United States representative as to his country’s desire and efforts to achieve a peaceful solution of the matter? 100. 1 took the liberty, in respect of the key element of dialogue which occurred at the highest level in this country, to refer to the part which has a direct bearing on the reply to that clarifying questian. I do not intend to try the patience of the Council by reading the text again, I read it in English to avoid any mistake. I did not hear it said here that such a question had not been put in the course of the procedure which I have just mentioned, or that, if the question was put, some answer was given other than the one to which the fresh pages of today’s issue of The New York Times bear witness, the answer, I would emphasize, to the said question asking for clarification, 104. Permit me to conclude by stressing once again the heavy responsibility which rests upon the members of the Council for the fate of peace.

There are no more names on my list of speakers. 106. We have heard full statements from the representatives of the United States and the Soviet Union setting forth their respective versions of the situation confronting the Security Council, and the other members of the Council have also expressed certain views and ideas. The time has now come for the Council to consider how it should proceed to meet the situation facing it. 101. With regard to the continued references to the one-sided American version concerning the co-ordinates for the location of the Pueblo on 23 January at the time it was detained by the North Korean authorities, I should like to add the following to what we said before. When mention is made of a one-sided version, the meaning is exactly what the word “one-sided” implies. One-sided means a version which is controlled and presented by that party which is interested, for one reason or another, in presenting the facts in a light favourable to itself. For that reason, it is called, in all languages in the world, “one-sided”, and a one-sided version has never been accepted as sound or solid evidence. 107. The representative of Canada has proposed that the members of the Council utilize the weekend to enter into consultations. Therefore, as there is not objection, I now propose to adjourn the Council until Monday afternoon in order to permit consultations among the members. The rneehg rose at 1.35 pm HOW TO OlTAlN UNITED NATIONS PlJ8LlCATlONS United Notions publications,moy be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations, Sales Section, New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUt3llCATlONS DES NATIONS UNIES Les publications des Nations Unies sont en vente danr les librairier et les agencer depotitaires du monde entier. Informez-vous oupres de votre librairie ou adrerrez-vous b: Nations Unles, Section des venter, New York ou GenBve, COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciones de las Naciones Unidar estan en venta en librerlas y ca~as dirtribuidoror en lodes parter del mundo. Consulte a su librero o dirtjare a: Nacioner Unidas, Section de yentas, Nueva York o Ginebra. Litho in U.N. Price: $U.S. 0.50 (or equivalent in other currencies) 35203~-January 1971-2,100