S/PV.480 Security Council

1 declare the 480th meeting of the Security Council open. 1 presume that, in accordance with our customary procedure, we shall have consecutive interpretation; but since sorne delegations have expressed a wish for simultaneous as weIl as consecut~ve interpretation, 1 think we shaH comply with their wishes and have simultaneous interpretation followed by consecutive interpretation. If there are no comments, we shaH consider this method of interpretation adopted. 2. Representation of China: President's ruling

Before we proceed to the consideration of the agenda 1 wish, as President, to make a ruling that the representative of the Kuomintang group seated in the Security Council does not represent China and cannot therefore take part in the meetings of the Security Couneil. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America) : 1 am not certain that the Security Council is in a position, in a parliamentary sense, ta give any validity at aIl to a ruling by the President of the Security Council. 1 do not care, however, to discuss that question. My purpose in requesting ta speak is ta challenge the authority of any President of the Security Council-I am not

Are there any more speakers on this matter? Does silence mean consent? des Dois-je consentement? Sir Gladwyn JEBB (United Kingdom) : 1 am afraid that 1 must also challenge the President's ruling on this point. It does not seem ta us ta be in arder for the President ta give any such ruling as he has now given. Rule 17 of the ï .lIes ')f procedure, which 1 would calI ta the attentio' of the President, reads as follows: l'anglais): décision qu'il une L'article rais "Any representative on the Security Council, ta whose credentials objection has been made within the Security Council, shall continue to sit with the same rights as other representatives until the Security CouP _;i ilas decided the matter." pouvoirs sécurité les sécurité 1 \Vhatever may be the feelings of the President or 'f any other member on the subject, the fact remains that the Security Couneil has not decided that the credentials of the representative of China ê.t this table are not in arder. Consequently it seems to us that an effort by the President ta mIe that the representative of China should he exc1uded is an effort, if 1 may say sa, to overcome what is, at the moment at any rate, the majority view in regard ta the representative of China on the Sceurity Council. autre moins les table il prendre le à majorité Chine Consequently it seems ta us that it is essential for this body ta challenge the President's rulii1g. l therefore associate myself with the representative of the {:nited States in challenging the ruling and ask the President ta take a vote on whether or not his ruling is upheld. Ccnseil conséquence, Unis demande la décision. Mr. CHAUVEL (France) (translated from French) : A few minutes aga the President asked whether silence meant consent. But consent ta what? 1 do not think there can be any irnplicit consent in questions of this kind. For my part, 1 agree with my United States and 'Cnited Kingdom colleagues for the reasons they have given and 1 think that the easiest way to see the position clearly would indeed be ta take a vote. tout Un des consentement mêmes collègues crois nous

If there are no more speakers, 1 shall address the Council as representative of the UNION OF SOVIET SocrALIST REPUBLICS. représentants en représentant LISTES du Conseil ne dérer chinois. The USSR delegation wishes to state that the representative of the Kuomintang group who is present at the meeting of the Security Council of the United Nations does not represent China and cannat be regarded as the representative of China and of the Chinese people. The question of the representation of China in the United Nations is, in substance, a matter of ohservance of and respect for the Charter, for which the Soviet Union has alw:;l.ys contended and for which it is contending now. The Soviet Union is consistently pursuing a policy of peace and regards the United Nations as an instrument of peace and not as a weapon of war, into which the new pretenders tl) world domination-the governing circles of the United Statesare trying to transform this international organization. It is they and their representatives on the Security Council who have blocked the normal and timely settlement of -.the question of the representation ùf China ;n the United Nations, as a result of which that question has not been settled up to th1s moment. It is generally known and apparent that an abnormal situation has arisen in the United Nations as a result of the fact that the lawful representative of the People's Republic of China, as the representative o{ a Member State of the Dniter! Nations, is deliberately and in violation of the United Nations Charter being prevented from taking part in the work of the Security Council by the opponents of China, the enemies of China and the enemies of the Chinese people. It is a well-known fact that as a result of the circumstances, the so-called representative of the Kuomintang group was in the Security Council at the time of the establishment in China of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China and that he ilIegally usurped China's seat with the protection of United. States ruling circIes. These circ!es endeavour to base their whole policy towards other peoples on dictates, domination and compulsion, which they camouflage with hypocritical references to "democracy" and the "free nations"; by "democracy" they mean the all-powerful and unlimited rule of a smalI, cruel and power-Ioving handful of multi-millionaires, and by the "free nations", they mean the governments of certain countries, which submissively and obsequiously bend the knee to the ruling circles of the United States. Such, in substance, is the concept of "democracy" and "free nations" as held by the ruling circles of the United States. It is precisely in accordance with this concept that the notorious group of Kuomintang reactionaries, overthrown and expelled by the Chinese people, has also been classed by the United States ruling circles in the category of "free nations" and has been put on the payroll of the United States Government. The head of the United States Government has shown by his recent order to the Kuomintang group that the United States Government treats that group like one of its own regular subordinate Departments, Is it not c1ear that snch a group does not and cannot represent China and the Chinese people either in the Security Couneil or the United Nations and cannot __ l ask him to reflect that provisional mie 17 does not appl)' to the question under discussion and consequentl}' cannat be invoked. The references to it are not valid 1 and haye no basis. Indeed, rule 17 reads: 1 "Any representative on the Security Couî1cil. ta ",hose credentials objection has heen made within the Securitv Council, shaH continue ta sit with the same rights .as other representatives until the Security Cotmcil has decided the matter." It is c1ear from the wording of this rule that it refers to the representation in the Security Council of aState Member of the United Nations. The rule applies to plenipotentiary representatives of Member States of the United Nations-member St:l.tes of the Securitv Council--who have been dulv accredited to the 'Council in accordapce with ruIe 13 of its rules of procedure. In the event of objections being raised to the credentials of such a representative-~n accredited representative--rule 17 is of course applicable. The question we are considerirg has, however, no bearing on that rule. We are not here concerned with the accredited representative cf a Member State of the United Nations in the Security Council but with an impostor, with a representative ill quota~ion n.'arks, with the representative of a group which in fact represents no one but itself. That 1S the position as regards rule 17. It therefore goes wÎLhout saying that rule 17 of the provisional mies of procedure of the Security Couneil has no bearing whatsoever on this question nor on this gentleman, who represents no one. References to it are invalid and can only testify to the fact that those who make them have no cogent, convincing or legitimate arguments to put forward. Their onl)" purpose is ta prevent the adoption of a solution of this question, which would he just and in conformity with the Charter. The representative of the United States began by saying that he was not sure whether the President had the right to make such a ruling. As PRESIDENT of the Securitv Council. l wish to dispel the doubts of the United' States representative and to state that, in accordance with the established practice of the Security Council and other organs of the "United Nations, rule 17 in this instance cannot in any cIegree limit the rights of the President. Under the rules of procedure, the President has the right to rule on any question, and unless the Security Council decicIes otherwise, that ruling remains :n force. Thus, the representative of the United States has no reason to doubt whether the President has a rigl'~ to make a ruling, in particular on a question which does not affect a lawful, plenipotentiary representative duly accreditecI to the Security Council or another organ of the United Nations, but a private individual, the Sir Benegal N. Rm (India): 1 should like very briefly to explain the vote which 1 am about to cast. The question that has now been raised before the Council has divided the United Nations since January last. Unless it is resolved in a satisfactory manner very soon, it may disrupt the Organization. This is a pussibility fraught with the gravest consequences to worId peace. TherefGre, in discussing the question, we must bear in mind the very grave issues involved, and we need not be swayed by mere points of procedure. Let me assume for the sake of argument that the President's ruling does involve ~ departure from mIe 17 of our provisional ruies t.;. procedure. Procedure is a good servant, but a bad master. We must beware of becoming slaves of mere procedure. After alI, the provisional rules of procedure of this Council are of our own making and, if we see any compelling reason, we can, in my view, depart from them in any particular case. If, for example, we are satisfied that a literaI adherence to the existing provisional rules might result in the disruption of the United Nations as a world Organization, that, l submit, would be a compelling reason for departing from the l'ules. 1 shaH therefore cast my vote on the merits of the ruling apart from any considerations of procedure. Ever since India recognized the new Government in China. towards the end of last year, we have consistently followed the logical consequences of that step. 1 shall therefore vote for the President's ruling. Ml'. SUNDE (Norway): The President seems completely to misunderstand the situation. What has heen challenged is the preliminary question, namely, whether the President has the right to rule on a question of this kind. and nothing else. 1 should like to calI the President's attention to rule 30 of the provisicnal rules of procedure, wherein it is stated that, if the President's ruling is challenged, "the President shall submit his ruling to the Security Council for immediate decision and it shall stand unless overruled".

1 presume that the Security Council wiII duly appreciate the Norwegian representative's profound knowledge of the rules of procedure. This is not surprising because Mr. SUNDE (Norway): 1 am afraid that it i.s perhaps a little late now to euforee th -uling. But it is a question for the President's disc! ion. crains cette Président.

1 note that the representative of Norway is evading the question which 1 have c1early and precisely formulated. le qUf~stion glais): qu'une que séance Président toujours ce ment occupé A Mais intéressée, moment, donner l'embarras d'autres Mahmoud FAWZl Bey (Egypt) : The Egyptian delegation has always maintained that a question of the natu:'e and importance of the one which the President raised at the beginning of this meeting cannot be disposed of by a mere ruling of the President, of any President of the Security Council. This hal' been Egypt's position constantly. It was expressed on previous occasions, among which was the subject dealt with by the Council at its 330th meeting on 7 July, 1948. Egypt was not then a member of the Council. But Egypt participated in that meeting as an interested party, interested in the question dealt with at the time, and 1 merely refer to this, without making any specifie mention, in order to save some who are present here ",nd some others who are not present here from embarrassment. qu'une celle par du Je le rité je We maintained then, and 1 eljually maintain now, that a question of the nature and importance of the one which the President has raised cannot be disposed of by a mere ruling of the President-and 1 repeatof any President of the Security Council. 1 most respectft1lly submit, therefore, that the ruling made by the President was one by which he went beyond the proper limits of his authority as Pres1dent of the Security Council, and 1 shall consequently vote against it. délégation le questions delltielIe, uniquement textuellement séances" - l'autorise quelle que d'ordre, du Mr. ALVAREZ (Cuba) (translated jrom Spanish): My delegation will vote against the President's ruling because it considers that the President cannot, as he has just claimed, rule on all questions, but only on questions of procedure in accordance with the express provision of rule 30 of the rules of procedure. Furthermore, rule 19 provides that the President "shaH preside over the meetings"; 1 repeat, "shan preside over the meetings"; it does not authorize him to rule on any question. It i5 only unc1er rule 30 that the President may state his rulings on questions of procedure, which he then submits to the CounciI. In voting in this way 1 do not broach the questionbecause it is not relevant now-of who is entitled to represent China. taking all the details and the scope of the problem into accoant. The representative of the Soviet Union says that the representative of China here present represents no one, but many Members of the United Nations think otherwise. May ! add simpl}' that this vote should not divide members into friends ami enemies of the Chinese people. 1 do not believe that there are any enemies of the Chinese people here; at al! events, there are none in my country, aS was proved by Ecuador on a solemn occasion, many years ago, in another international organization, when the Chinese people was suffering a foreign invasion. Mr. BEBLER (Vugoslavia) (trmzslated tram French): In our opinion, the question of Chinese representation is of the utmost importance. On many occasions since the month of January, and even before that time, 1 have spoken in favour of the admission of the representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations. Indeed, we consider their admission essential for the future of the United NatÏ::'l1s. In accordance with that consistent attitude of the Government of Yugoslavia, l shall vote in favour of the President's ruling.

Ail the members of the Security Council have now stated their views on this grave question. As President, 1 have SOrne information to give briefly to the representatives of Egypt, Cuba and Ecuador. The representative of Egypt stated that the President 'eded his powers in this matter. The President -not agree with sucn a statement by the representative of Egypt, for the simple reason that in the du dirige ne aucune J'incline présidait son Président, les représentant n'a jugement, Il article prononcer Président immédiate. The represent?tive of Cuba referred to rule 19 to the effect that the President of the Secnrity Council must preside over the Council. That is correét. It does not mean, howevel', that the President has to be a dummy and mav Ilot ha\'e his own views on any of the suhjects considered by the Security Council. Î am inclined to belieye that when the replesentative of Cuba was President. he also stated his yiews and drew conclusions in his capacity as President, and did not merely preside o\'er the Council. 1:. is impossible to accept the view of the representative of Cuba that the President is not entitled to have his own opinion or to hand down his ruling on any given question. This is provided for in rule 30 of the rules of procedure, which gives the President the right to state his ruling; and if that ruling is challenged, it must be submitted to the Security Council for immediate decision. l must say that there are sorne differences of opinion between the representative of Norway and myself. The representative of Norway interprets this rule to mean that the President must immediately put his ruling to the vote. l am inclined to think that this would be a dictatorial rather than a democratic \Vay of conducting a meeting. l understand this rule to mean that the President's submission of his ruling for consideration by the Council does not signify that it must be considered in silence. for l do not see how the Council can consider anything in silence. Every representative in the Security Council should express his views "'n the question under discussion. If the President does not give the representatives on the Security Council an opportunity of expressing their views on a ruling, there will be no meeting or consideration of the question, The rules of procedure require the President to submit his ruling to the Security Council for its consideration. avec article diatement que cratique signifie l'examen silencieux; examiner représentant opinion ne leur examen intérieur, l'examen Thus the question has been raised, everyone has spoken and we can proceed to the vote. gations passer précisions sentant sur Membre peuvent par que l'Equateur. rence, Nations avait par représentant Unies et infraction But first l wish to enlighten the representative of Ecuador on a smaIl point. His argument \Vas based entirely on the assumption that the credentials of a representative of aState Member of the United Nations cannot be questioned. doubted or revoked by a ruling of the President. That is how l understood the representative of Ecuador. Let me explain once again, however, that in this case there is no accredited representative of aState Member of the United Nations. Rad the President of the Securitv Counci! raised that question at the Council table and -ruled that an accredited representative of aState l\femher of the Vnited Nations hac! no righ~ to be here and take part in the meeting, that woulc! have been to exceed the powers of the President. In this case, however, we are concerned with a private individual who has usurped the lawful pla.:e of aState Member of the United Nations There is, therefore, no breach of the rules of procedure or of the Charter, since the credentials which are questioned are those of a private individual and not of a representative of aState Member of the United Xations, and it was concerning that private individual that the rule was made. This is the essential-1ifference to which 1 wished to draw the attention of l... ~ representative of Ecuador. 1f no one else wishes to speak on this matter, l shall put the question of my ruling to the vote. A vote was taken by show of hmu1s, as follows: In faz'our of overrttling the Presidellt's decision: China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Norway, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Against o<!errulÏ1lg the Presidetlt's decision: India, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Yugoslavia.

The results of the voting are as follows: seven against the President's ruling and three in favour of the ruling. 1 am not countingthe vote of the representative of the Kuomintang group. Mr. AUSTIN (United Sta~es of America): 1 challenge that ruling. It was abvious to us aIl that there were eight votes against the ruling of the Chair, and therefore the President's statement is incorrect and I challenge it.

The representative of the United States presented his challenge too quickly. I stated that seven members of the Security Council voted against the President's ruling and that the eighth vote v:as cast by the representative of the Kuomintang group, who was the object of the discussion. Three members of the Security Council voted in favour. I see no grounds for a challenge. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): It is precisely that element of the President's ruling that is challenged. 1 ask the President if he will not please conform to rule 30 and put this to a vote, instead of taking the floor as he did the other time.

I consider this question disposed of. On behalf of the delegation of the UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS 1 declare that the decision adopted by the Security Council is illegal because the person concerned is the representative of a group which represents no one, and not the representative of a State. I declare this as the representative of the Soviet Union, and 1 do not consider the decision adopted to he legal. parole

1 recognized the representative of the United States. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America) : 1 do not want the floor. 1 insist upon the President presiding, if he is going ta try ta do that. A challenge has been made and there is a rule ta folIow; it is up ta the President ta carry out the rules. The President of the Securitv Council is not a dictator. lJnder our Charter and our system of government in the Urited Nations and in the Security Couneil the officers of the Security Council are regarded as the agents of the members. It is not within the privileges or the powers of the President of the Security Couneil ta change the rules, ta make arbitrary rulings, and ta refuse to obey rule 30. It is strictly the dutY of the President ta put this question ta the vote. A challenge has been made, and rule 30 commands the President ta put it ta the vote immediately. ['anglais) que a Président èu notre et Conseil nom sécurité les refuser est Il Président tement.

1 would ask the representative of the United States ta explain what his concrete proposaI is. sentant qu'il l'anglais) seil manière mensongère, ee Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): 1 insist that the President, or the Security Council by vote, should record the result of the raising of hands truthfully and as it was in fact, and not falsely. That is what 1 require. les Unis sentant

1 protest against expressions such as those which the representative of the United States has applied ta the President, and calI the representative of the United States to order. From my announcement as President it follows that eight votes were cast against the President's "ruling", including thp. vote of the representative of the Kuomintang group, who has been the object of discussion here and whase credentials have been under consideration. Three members of the Security Council have voted for the President's ruling. As is known, seven plus one have always made eigh. If the representative of the United States abjects ta this and challenges my ruling, 1 shall put this question ta the vote. qualité présidentielle sentant tion Trois leur sait, teste VOIX. :Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): Since the President has corrected his statement ta eight votes, 1 do not require anything now. l'anglais): au dère le il pris tango The PRESIDENT \ translated tram Russian): Yes, I repeat what 1 have stated: eight votes, including the vote of the representative of the Kuomintang group. Mr. TSIANG (China): 1 shall explain my vote on this question. After the President rendered his ruling, the representative of the United States and 1 raised our hands at the same time. The President chos.: to recognize the representative of the United States. acquiesced because the representative of the United States did raise his hand at the same time 1 rais€d mine. 1 did not ask for the floor later because tr.e representative of the United States made the chaIlerlge which 1 was about to make. 1 should like to protest strongly against the language the President has used throughout the proceedings in relation to me. 1 protest because the language of the President is inaccurate. 1 forgive the President partly because he probably used that language as a result of ignorance. The word "Kuomintang" is the name of one of the political parties of China. That word means "the peoples' party". That word is inappropriate when applied to me because 1 personally am not a member of that party. It is inaccurate when applied to my Government because my Government today is a coalition government. The substance of this debate has been before the Security Council several times. In January 1950, in connexion with a similar proposaI which the President made then as the representative of the Soviet Union r45Qtlz mcctingl, wc had a lengthy discussion on this very subject. 1 set forth the standpoint of my delegation then [460th meetingJ; since the vote has already been taken, it is unnecessary to repeat all that 1 said. s l T voted against the ruling of the President this afternoon on two grounds. In the first place, it is beyond the power of the President to make a ruling of that kind. In the second place, even if any President of the Security Council has the power to make a ruling on such a subject as this, the ruling which the President actually made was both unjust and unfair. :l. 1 1 represent the only Chinese Government which is based on a Constitution, drafted and passed by the representatives of the Chinese people. 1 represent the only Chinese Government at the head of which is a President elected by the representatives of the Chinese people. There is no other government set up in China with the consent and approval of the Chinese people. My right to be here is beyond any dispute. i. e e

There is nothing in the rules of procedure to the effect that a President may not have his own views regardless of the Security Council's decision and of whether a ruling has been overruled or not. The President is e tl e~titled to his ~ews. This ;s· my answer to the dlscourteous remarks made by the preceding speaker. . ~ .. e .- Speaking as the representative of the UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, 1 declare the decision rai~('d l1l'rc. l wish to state on beha1f of the delegation oi the ~l1\'il't l'nilm tint. in conseljuence of the hi~tllric en~nb which haye takcn place in China, the Chinese IX'ople has achieH'd a grcat yictory in the long and ardunus strugglc against domestic re;ll,tinll ami against forcign imperialist oppres~ion, As a result of this great histonc "ictory of the Chinese people in the cause of its liberation and national in<iepen<il'nù', the reactionary Kuoll1intang groupwhich l am calling a group and not a party. and anYl)ne who is not entirdy ignorant under~tand~ the ditterencc hl't\H'en a party and a grnup--nn longer represents China l)r the Chinese pt'ople. The Kuomintang group and its leaders are not an dected government. hut an ejectl'd one. That is a distinction of principle, The Chinese people has expellel! this group and no longer regards it as a gO\'emment, hut as the Kuollt;ntang group, which. ma~querading under the name "Ku()mintang", is in rcality not the repre!'entative of the Chinese people hut its betrayer. This also has a suhstantial significance. In raising the question of the recogmtlOn of the lawful representatiyt' of the People's Republic of China as a represcntatin' memlX'r of the Security Council-a question which it \yill continue to raise·- the l'.sSR delegati'1l1 dt'cIaït's that it does not recognize the reprt'sentatin' of the Kuomintang group in the St>curity Council and other organs ot the United X ations. and does not regard that group as the representatiH's l,f China and the Chinese people. no matter what 2drh the.. assume or by what name the,' cali ili~~~. . . . 3. Adoption of the agenda Tht' F'REslDEXT 1tmns/atcd f1"<1111 Rltssiall) : Let us pas" on to the nt'xt item, \\'hich is the adoptIon of the ag-enda. If there are no l)h~er\'ati(ll1s, we shal1 consider tlle agenda adopted. ~fr. .\l-STIX (l-nited States of .\merica): l wish ta make some comments, and l have a question or two about the pro\'isional agenda which the President has circulated for today's meeting, In the first place. l note that this prO\'isional agenda does not contain the agenda item which the Security Council was discu~sing at its meeting yesterday afternoon [479t17 meeting] and which is unfinished business required by the rules to he on the agenda. That item was "Complaint of aggression upon the Repuhlic of Korea", It is the item which has commanned the attention of the Council at all the meetings during the past fi\'e weeks. which haYe not been graced by the presence of the cur'rent President. 1 suggest, therefore, that item 2 on our agenda for today shoulti read; "Complaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea". This suggestion is not based primarily on the technical grounds which 1 raised in the beginning. The United Xations has devoted great efforts throughout the past five weeks to halting the Korth Korean aggressors and restoring peace in Korea. The United Nations has put an army into the field against the5e aggressors. It is engaged in mobilizing the strength of the free world in support of such forces. The response of the Members of the l'nited Xations ta the request of the Security Council for assistance ta the Republic of Korea has been overwhelming and is increasing daily. )'Iany problems face the Security Couneil in carrying out the great tasks ta which it has dedieated it5elf. It is of the utmost importance to the Cnited Xations and ta the maintenance of international peace and security that these efforts of the L"nited Nations and of the Security Council should go forward without delay or diversion. The draft resolution which 1 submitted yesterday suggests steps which could contribute directly to ending the breach of the peace, Consideration of such steps and others which would lead ta the same objective should have priority over all other matters. Action to remove threats to the peace is the most solemn obligation of the Members of this Org:mization. The creators of the United Nations ~mphasized this obligation by embodying it in paragra~ 1 of Article 1 of the Charter. Every peace-Ioving State must recognize that its paramount concern must be to end the breach of the peace in Korea. So long as aggression continues. aIl other issues are secondarv. \Ve cannot agree that there is currently any issue so· urgent as the fact that war is being waged against the C nited Nations. The United Nations should establish firmly the c1ear principle that the question of Chinese representation is not linkecl in any way with the Korean aggression. The firm opposition of the United Nations against the barbaric use of force has given strength and encouragement to aIl free peoples. We cannot risk the disillusionment that would flow from consideration by the United Nations under this duress of such a matter as representation. \"e are strongly opposed to any action of the Couneil which might leave the impression that the question of the termination of the aggression from North Korea can be contingent in any way upon the determination of the question of Clinese representation. The acceptance of the provisional agenda in the form in which it appears hefore us would undoubtedly create exactly that impression. malencontreusement ment tions nos The fad of aggression cannot be obscured by unrelated issues. The overwhelming majority of the Members of the United Nations are pooling their resources in the common cause of peace. Consideration of the issue of Chinese representation in any relationship whatever to Korea would divert and detract from the great collective effort of the United Nations. At a time when the United Nations is faced with an overt nct of defiance of its authority, it is pertinent to recall offieial statements made by the régime which the USSR representative would like to have seated in the Security Couneil. That régime has denounced the United Nations action as "armed aggression", as "intervention in the internaI affairs of Korea" and as a "violation of world peace". It would be particularly unwise to consider the seating of a régime that has officially condémned the efforts of the United Nations to haIt aggression in Korea. These and other statements amount to giving assistance and encouragement to the régime against which the United Nations is taking preventive action. To consider at this time the seating of a. declared opponent to the United Nations efforts to r<~pulse aggression wouId subvert the brave men of the United Nations at the front and would weaken our entire peace-making endeavour. The merits of the Chinese representation issue have been considered by the Conncil and by almost all the other organs of the United Nations at various times during the past seven months. AlI of us have had many opportunities to explain our attitude on that question. 1 do not wish to suggest that it is not within the right of any member of the Security Council to raise tris question. My Government does feel strongly, however, that the question of China's representation should he It is quite clear that the representative of the Soviet Union or any other representative can make any proposaIs with regard to the Korean question which he sees fit under the agenda item which the Couneil is still considering. But any implication from the wording of the suggested agenda item that the USSR is the only nation interested in the peaceful settlement of the Korean question must he bluntly rejected by the Council. VVe have become accustomed, in this and other organs of the United Nations, to agenda items worded primarily with a view to their propaganda value. However, it is our long-standing practice to keep our agenda items very general and simple, and we believe that we should stick to that practice in the present instance. We shaH aIl be glad to hear what the representative of the Soviet Union ma)' ha',e to sayon the Korean question. l am confident thé' c thf' iJ,esent wording of the agenda item on Korea will not limit the scope of his remarks in any way. l believe it would be a mistake, however, to change the procedural arrangements under which we have been working on this subject for the past five weeks during his absence. l suggest, therefore, that the sole item of business on our agenda for this meeting should be the question of aggression upon the Republic of Korea. l feel that, under that item, the first order of business \'l'ould of course be a discussion and a decision on the draft resolution which l presented yesterday. Any other proposaIs submitted by other members of the Council could then be considered according to the rules. l move, therefore, that the item following "Adoption of the agenda" should he "Complaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea". l request that the Council should vote separately with regard to the other two items. l shall vote against approving either of them.

l must' ask the public to remain silent. The question referred to by the representative of the United States was not included in the provisional agenda which l circulated because l was not present at the Security Council's meeting yesterday, for reasons The agenda consists of two items, included on the proposaI of the USSR delegation : first, the recognition of the representative of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China as the representative of China: secondly, the peaceful settlement of the Korean question. The representative of the United States is submitting a third item; he suggests that the Council should continue the consideration of the question which was discussed at the last meeting, although, as is weil known, for the reasons 1 have stated, this question was discussed in the absence of two of the permanent members of the Security Council-China and the Soviet Union. Since the representative of the United States is submitting his item for inclusion in the agenda and for continued consideration, it can be placed on today's agenda as a third item. In that way, we shall be able to discuss bath the two items proposed by the USSR delegation ~nd that submitted by the United States delegation. The Chair believes that this would be the most rational, sensible and just decision, since the peaceful settlement of the Korean question is the most important international problem facing the Security Council today. We should therefore begin with the consideration of that problem. This being 50, 1 repeat, it is essential to begin, promptly and \vithout delay, with the discussion on the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, an item which must be called by its proper name. Speaking as the representative of the UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, 1 wish to say that my delegation is instructed by its Government to place on the agenda the question of the peaceful settlement of the Korean question. The Government of the Soviet Union, which is consistently and unswervingly pursuing a policy of peace, regards the United Nations as an instrument for peace. Steadily pursuing a policy of peace, the Soviet Vnion regards the Security Council as the organ whose dutY it is ta begin, promptly and without delay, consideration of the peaceful settlement of the Korean question-not of the continuation of military operations, as the United States representative is proposing. It is not by chance that he fears the words "peace" and "peaceful settlement". He has no arguments against the proposaI for the peaceful settlement of the Korean question. The only argument-a wellworn. 1 might ('ven say a hackr.eyed, one-which the United States representatives have used ever since the creation of the United Nations, is the word "propaganda". Let me ask the 'United States representative: I~ t a crime ta make propaganda for peace? Is pr"r,aganda for the peaceful settlement of the Korean The USSR believes that any proposaI for a peaceful settlement of an international conflict-a conflict fraught with grave consequences, which constitute a threat ta peace and security-demands the immediate adoption by the Security Council of measures to put an end ta that conflict and ta reach a peaceful settlement. That is the position of the Government of the Soviet Union and of the USSR delegation in the Security Council. 1t is quite clear from the United States representative's statement, which we have just heard, that the United States Government holds a different view. This is reflected in the draft resolution submitted to the Security Council by the United States delegation. The effect of that resolution is, in substance, ta continue the war, ta continue aggression by the United Statesand not, as the United States representative has tried ta imply, by the United Nations; ta continue the clumsy, undisguised, illegal and completely unjustifIed attack laur.ched by the ruling circles of the United States against the people of Korea. The resolution submitted by the United States representative is aimed at continuing and intensifying that aggression and extending its scope. Having launched this aggression, having turned from prepari:1g' aggression ta direct acts of aggression, the United States Government is now making every effort ta extend its scope, ta wage war on an increasingly large scale, ta drag as many other Governments as possible into this war not only against the people of Korea but also against the other peoples of Asia; against the people of China, of Vietnam and the Philippines. That is the aim of the United States Government and its representative in the Security Council in submitting draft resolutions of this nature. Mr. Austin has spoken of diversionary tactics. It must be clear, though, to everyone that the submission by him of this very draft resolution, and the attempt ta reject the proposaIs of the USSR delegation for t.he peaceful settlement of the Korean question, submitted on the instructions of the USSR Government, are direct and blatant acts of diversionism on the part of the United States dclegation and the United States Government. The purpose of these diversionary tactics is also clear and comprehensible ta everyone. Mr. Austin stated it today, in the heat of the argument: he is afraid that it might look as though the Soviet Union were the champion of a peaceful settlement of the Korean question. That is what frightens Mr. Austin. It is true that the Soviet Union and its Government, un~er the leadership of the great StaIin, is pursuing a pohcy of peace, a policy of friendship among nations. 1 We ail know that the Prime Minister of India dispatched a message ta the Governments of the Soviet Union and the United States. The USSR Government, which unswervingly and consistently pursues a policy of peace and friendship among the peoples of the world, is in favour of a peaceful settlement of the Korean question. The endeavours of India's Prime Minister on hehalf of peace met with a prompt and unhesit~ting respon::; on the part of the Government of the Soviet Union and of its leader, Generalissimo Stalin. It is common knowledge that on 15 July, Mr. Nehru sent his message to Mr. Stalin, President of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, calling for the localization of the Korean conflict and for collaboration in its prompt and peaceful settlement by ending the existing impasse in the Security Council sa that the representative of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China might take his place in the Couneil. Generalissimo Stalin sent the following reply to Mr. Nehru's message: "1 welcome your endeavours on behalf of peace and fully share your views regarding the expediency of a peaceful settlement of the Korean question through the Security Council subject ta the participation of the five great Powers, including the People's Govemment of China. l believe that the prompt settlement of the Korean question would be promoted by granting a hearing in the Security Council to the representatives of the Korean people." This reply by Generalissimo Stalin met with a very wide respanse in aIl the countries of the world and was welcomed as a magnificent act of peace by the peoples of aIl the world, by aIl progressive men and The answer given to Prime Minister Nehru's message by MI'. Acheson, United States Secretary of State, on behalf of the United States Government, wa~ the exact opposite. Mr. Acheson, on behalf of the United States Government, refused to accept Mr. Nehru's proposaI for a peaceful settlement of the Korean question through the Security Council constituted in legal form, that is, with the participation of the representative of the People's Republic of China. This reply by the Government of the United States once again demonstrated te the peoples of the world that the policy of the ruling circles of the United States is based not on peace but on war and aggression. Mr. Acheson's reply fully reveals why the United States is blocking a seUlement of the question of China's representation in the United Nations and why it does not wish to permit the Security Council ta function in its full legal membership and to resume its work on the basis of the United Nations Charter. The ruling eircles of the United States have chosen the path of aggression against the Korean people. the)' have chosen to unleash war; henre they are afraid that, if the Security Council were to operate with its full legal membership, they would not succeed in transforming it into their obedient tool of aggression against the Korean people, for doaking new acts of aggression and unleashing war. The documents l have mentioned have served, like Iitmus paper, as a reagent to determine who is for peace and the cessation of aggression in Korea and who is for aggression and the continuation of war in Korea. Mr. Austin referred to the tragic fate of Korean victims of wr..r. It is appropriate to ask the representative of the United States who is to blame for the tragic fa.te of many thousands of Korean mothers, children and old people, who have lost their nearest and dearest. The culprits are the ruling circles of the United States. The whole world and the United Nations are no\\< confronted with the faet of ~ross and ove"! aggression on the part of the United States Government against the Korean people. Having provoked. on 25 June, an armed assault by their South Korean puppets against the frontier areas of the Democratic People's Repl1blic of Korea, the ruling circles of the United :;tatt's have used this armed provocation to justify their longplanned and long-prepared armed aggre3sion in Korea against the Korean p~ople, and in the Far East and Asia as a whole against several other nations: against the Chinese, by the seizure and the virtual occupation That is wh)' the representatÎ\'e of the lTnited States in the Security Council has 50 stubbornly opposed the consideration of the question of the recognition of the representative of the People's Republic of China as the n'presentati\'e of China and the adoption of a decis;on on that question. The Korean question and that of the representation of China in the l'nited Nations are inseparably linked together. Settlement of the Korean question through the Security Council. as of any other question affecting peace. is the normal. rational and equitable course. But that requires th..t the Security Council should begin to function nornlally. \Vith its lawful composition: and that is impossihlt' without the participation of China and the SO\·iet l'nion in its work. The Securitv Council is not the Security C'"luncÎI when it fails t~ act in strict conformity with the Charter and, in particular, with Article 27 of the Charter; when it acts in the absence of two of the five permanent members of the Security Council ",hose participation and unanimity are an essential prerequisite for the legality of the Couucil's decisions. The rejection by \Vashington of 1\1r. Nehru's appeal. and the proposaI suhmitted today by the l'nited States representati\'e for the rejection of the l'SSR proposaI that the agenda should include both the question of the recognition of the representative of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China as the representative of China and the question of the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, shew that the ruling circles of the l·nited States aim at seizing Korea, and do not even want ta hear of the cessation of aggression of putting an end ta armed intervention. and of the termination of hostilities. Rv these acts. they proclaim ta the world their intentio~ ta pursue the armed struggle, ta continue their intervention. ta maintain their aggression against the Koreans and other Asian peoples. That is the real situation. As ta who it was that linked up the Korean and Chinese questions. it \Vas the President of the l'nited States who did it. In ordering his armed forces ta open hostilities, ta launch their aggressive operations against the people of Korea and to begin armed intervention in Korea's domestic affairs. the President of the United States also decided. in passing, ta seize the Chinese islanà of Formosa by ordering the L~nited States Seventh Fleet virtually to occupy that island. \Vhat grounds, then, has the ""Cnited States representative for asserting now that these are two absolutely distinct questions? There is no logic in such a staterr.ent. Mr. Austin apparently does not agree with the decision of the President of the e nited States. Those who attempt through diversion to p!"èvent the discussion of th"se questions and by a variety of manoeuvres divert the attention of the world anti of the United Nations from the peaceful settlement of the Korean question reveal themselves to be enemies of the peaceful settlement of that question, and announce for ail to hear their intention to continue hostilities in Korea. to intensify their aggression against the people of Korea and to extend the scope of the war they have unleashed. Naturally the USSR delegation vehemently objects to such diversion and manoeuvres on the part of the United States delegation, and will vote against the proposaI to discuss as the first and only item of the agenda the United States draft resolution aimed at intensifying aggression. As President of the Council l can agree to the item submitted by the United States delegation being inc1uded as item 3, to be discussed in due course. The USSR delegation, however, insists that the items which it has submitted on the representation of China and the peaceful sett1ement of the Korean question should be urgently considered by the Security CounciI. It is the Security Council's duty to take immediate steps to settle the Korean question, to save the peoples of Asia from the aggression with which they are threatened by the ruling circles of the United States, which have decided on the course of aggression and armed intervention against the Korean people and are trying to intensify that aggression, that war, and to draw into it the Governments of other countries. Speaking as PRESIDENT, l draw the attention of members to the fact that it is past 6 p.m. If the representative of France has no objection, we might postpone the French interpretation tilI our next meeting. We could adjourn now after deciding on the date of our next meeting.

The French representative has no objection. Are there any The l'RESWEi'T (tl"llllslat.·d [rom NIlssiaIl ): "nl' tl1l're an)' nwre ft'marks? Then a meeting of tilt' ~ecurity L'ouncil is called for tomorrow at 3 p.m. Th t' IIII'I'till9 roSt' lit 0.15 l'."'.