S/PV.481 Security Council

The representative of the United Kingdom has touched upon every question, but has nût, in point of fact, stated his view on the suggested order of discussion of each of the proposed three items for their separate inclusion in the agenda. It is desirable that the members of the Security Council should state their views on this subject and say whether they intend to discuss the question of the inclusion of the three items in question-that is, the two items proposed by the USSR delegation and that proposed by the United States delegation--separately or together. 1 should like to ask the delegations to take this observation inta account when making their statements. Sir Gladwyn JEBB (United Kingdom): 1 wish to raise a point of order. As 1 understand it, what the President is now proposing is that, when we consider the provisional agenda. we should consider whether we want to debate aU these matters which have been put forward by one person or another for inclusion in the provisional agenda or whether we should discuss them one by one with a view to determining whether they should be included in the agenda. But, in the latter case, what would happen is that we should discuss them in a positive way, as if they were a!ready on the agenda. Whether that is what the President intends, 1 do not know. But, if it is, l suggest that what would be achieved would be that the item which the President wishes to be p~aced on the agenda would be so placed, even should that not be the wish of the majority of the Council. The PRESIDENT (translated from Russialll : \'1-e are concerned with a question of procedure, which is in effect to decide which of the three questions which have been put forward shaH be incIuded in the agenda of the Security Council, or whether all three questions shall be so included. Two questions have been put suh~tance, as the representative of the United Kingdom has donc, it is extremel" difficult for the President to interrupt that represéntative's speech to say: "No. this has no bearing on procedure, but refers to suhstance". The representative of the United Kingdom has moreover outlined his position on ail three questions, Thus, in replying to the question put by the representatiw 0 i the l"nited Kingdom, 1 find myself in the position that. if 1 ;lccepted his point of view, 1 should he compelled to interrupt his spl'ech and say: "Stop speaking, stop your speech, as it has no bearing on the question of procedure". 1 do not propose to do that. li, in the course of discussing the question of procedure. an)' fl'presentatiws wish to justify their position on that qUl'stion by reference to the question of suhstance, 1 do not propose ta interrupt them. This does not mean that we shall discuss the substance of the qlll'stion in the course of discussing the question of pral'l'dure: far from it. This is merely a prdiminary exchang-l' of views and suhstantiation of the procedural positinns taken hy each delegation in defending its standj1l~i!1t on the question of proCl'dure, hut it is in no \Vay a discussion oi suhstance of these questions. 1 prl'Sl1l11e that when we bl'gin to discnss each of these three questions-assuming that they are included in the agenda-each de1egation will be able ta state its position on the suhstance of each question under discussion 1110re fully and in greater detail. At the moment. hO\'.e\'('r, \\"1' are discussing only the procedural aspl'ct oi tl~e matter. that is, \\'hether or not a11 or some oi these questions :-Ire to be included in the ag-enda. Ii ail, then \\"hy? If not aIl. then also \vh)'? This is the question at present under discussion. In order to f:,cilitatl' our ,,'ork I. as President, suhmitted for the SeC\:rity Council's consideration a proposaI that e3ch question should he discussed separately- 11rst the t~rst itl"m suhmitted by the So\'iet rnion-the recognition oi thL' representati\:e of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China as the representati\'e ai China. not its substance, but mere1y whether or not it should be inc1uded in the Securitv Council's agenda: then the next item-the peaceful seulement of the :KorL'an question: after that, the third item as submitted by the 'Cnited States representati\"e. If the arder which 1 am proposing should place sorne representatiws in an awkward position because they haYe perhaps prepared general statements on a11 three items to.!!ether. that is a problem for the members themseh·ës to decide. 1 do not tl-ink that we sha11 make very rigid rules; aIl the same, 1 think it would be more That is why 1 submitteù a proposaI to that effect for the consideration of the Security Council. The United Kingdom representative failed to react to that proposaI, and his subsequent reply also failed to clarify his position in this matter. Mr. QUEVEDO (Ecuador) (translatcd from Spanish) : When the President submitted the provisional agenda to the Council yesterday, he explained fully why he thought that the two items submitted by the President should constitute the agenda and 1 understood that he was opposed to the inclusion of the item proposed by the United States representative, As a matter of procedure-although 1 am not yet very well acquainted with the Council's tradition in procedural questions and 1 hope 1 shaH he forgiven if l make an error-I personaIly believe that we should vote on the provisional agenda submitted by the President as a whole and take a sl."p;1.rate vote on the proposaI of the United States representative. The latter has asked the Council ta continue the discussion of the matters falling within its competence in view of the complaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea, of which it has been seized since 2S June. Althou~h at this stage of the debate we are discussingonly a question of procedure, 1 feel oblig-ed-as did ti1e President in his rapacit)' as representative of the Soviet Union yesterday, and in the exercise of the same right-to explain the reasons which, when the time cornes and in whatl'ver order the Council decides ta vote on the questions before it, wi1l determine my vote. n e t - e - e r Since Ecuaoor obviously has no direct political, military or indced economic inte:ests in the Republic of Korea, ag-ainst which the ag-gression has been directNI, 1 should have preferred not to speak and to confine myseIf to casting my vote at the appropriate time, Indeed, in cases like this, small States like mine have g-enerally on1y one concern-which no doubt is a substantive one-and that is that violence should not be used in the solution of international problems; that the rule of the stronger should not be applied in the settlement of international difficulties; that the principles, objectives, methods and instruments established by the Charter of the United Nations, as weIl as those established by other international organizations and assemhlies, and the principles of international law in general, should govern the conduct of peoples. the aspirations of States and their relations among themselves. But it is common knowll."dg-e that the Charter of the United Nations and the different international instruments ta which the States of the western hemisphere, and among them Ecuador, have subscribed, proc1aim the principle of non-intervention in the internaI affairs of other States, the principle that every people has .\5 a :\Iember of the Fnited :Jations. mv country can do no less than consider what the Securitv Council has decided as valid. especiallv in view of thé affirmatin' vote of the Republic of ·Ecuador. Bv the same token : must consider as valid the decision of the General :\ssemhlv of the Fnited Nations. by its re-')lution 112 (II) of 14 November 1947, ta consider the question of the independence of Korea. That, howcver, is not ail. The Fnited Nations wanted the Korean people to he unified in a single State and wanted a national Government of Korea formed on the basis of a genera! eIection, thus rermitting the withdra\\'al of occupation forces. The proposed procedure wherebv free elections would he held. free from pressuré and frt'e from intimidation. throughout an entire nation, under the supervision of an international commission of the Fnited Xations. so that that nation mÏ!.:;ht set up its own gon-rnment and sa that the occupation forces mig-ht he withdrawn. was one which \\·ê of Ecuador believe ensured to tlte whole Korean people the opnortenity to set up the gO\'ernment of ~ts choice without ag-gression or foreign intervention. The Commissirn desÏ!!I1élted hv the Cnited Nations was not JlO\\'ed, howe\I.;, to ca;ry out its assignment north of the 38th paraUe1 : therefore fair elections were helcl throughout the territo~v south of that parallel, inhahited by a majority of the people of Koreà. If the people living north of the 38th pCJrallel were unable to express their will in those e1ections, those who obstructed the work of the United Nations Commission must bear the responsibility. At the same time, 1 must believe that the e1ections were free because the United Nations Commission said sa. A Government was estab- If the aim really were that the Korean people should have the government of their choice and that aH foreign intervention should be ended. it is the feeling of a nation like mine-whîch is zealously and certainly not without great difficulties seeking to learn to live democratically - that the best possible method to achieve tl-tose fundamental objectives would be a free and generai election throughout the entire territory. rp to this point, then, there is no question of intervention, aggression or oppression of the Korean people. nid the Korean people perhaps set up a government which did not correspond to the aspirations or the mterests of the majority? The answer is obvious. Any error of that kind, h3.d it been made, couId have been righted by new elections and, were it to occur in the future, it could he righted by the same means. Tune 1950 came and we know that it was not the Rèpublic of Korea which invaded the territorv north of the 38th parallel; fully-equipped armies are -coming From the north, crossing the 38th parallel and invading the Republic of Korea which was recognizec1 bv the t"nited Nations. . The an.lies which came from the north were so weB prepared that, had it not been for the support gin'n to the Korean people in pursuance of the Securit)' COllncil's resolutions, the entire Republic of Korea would have been occupied by force within a few days. How can the unarmed party be an aggressor against the armed party? How can the invaded territory be considered an invader? Weak nations like mv own know very weIl that that is impossible because it-would be suicidaI, despite the fact that strong nations ma)" allege the contrary. In the face of that dear aggression. the Unitrd Nations-or rather the Security Council-had to fulfil its hasic functions under the Charter, and that is \yhat it did. "V'le have deep respect for the ideas of others but we are entitled to express our o\\'n view. What did the LTnited Nations calI for? Did it calI for ~nned intervention against the Korean people? Dld It carry on aggression against the Korean people? No. It called upon the invaders to withdraw to the 38th parallel. Once that had been done, it was dear that all Joors remained open for the discussion of any p.roblems or difficulties which might prevent the unificatIon of the Korean people in a single State, without pre.iudice to the principles of the Charter, the moral allthority of the Council and the genuine and free will of the Korean people, provided the latter could ~ lS()3. on which discussion was begun at the meeting t1f 31 .Tnly is still before us. TIy voting against the agenda submitted by the President. can it be said that we are voting in favour of C'ontinlling the military action in progress in Korea or against the peaceful settlement of the Korean question? In no way. AIl the representatives on the Council ha\'e the right to propose whatever formulae or solutions which appear acceptable to them. and their col1eagues are obliged to respect their views even thongh they may not accept them. Hy voting against the provisional agenda. we shall he voting not in favour of war but in support of peace. ~f<'reo\·er. \vhen 1 cast m\' vote in the wav 1 intend to, 1 shall not he attempting-to prevent the LrSSR represcntatiw from proposing any form of peaceful settlement to the CCllmcil. since he will be perfectly entitled ta do that llndcr the heading "Complaint of aggression agail~st the Republic of Korea'·. The ddeg:ltion of Ecuador is certainhdad that the 'C ~~R rer;esentatiw has come ta occupyChis place on the Coune-il and to discuss with the other memhers the problems which are so vital for the maintenance of peace and the progress of worlel cÏ\-ilization. Perhaps. as is t:,e sincere desire of the Ecuadoreans. sorne rav of light ma~' emerg-e from our conwrsations and dis- Cussil,ns \yhich ,,-ill guide us to\\"ards true peace. Anel now 1 should like to say a fe,,' wonis about item 2 of the agenda submittéd bv the President. namel~-. the recognition of the représentatiw of the Central People's C-;owrnment of the People's Re;:lUblic of C'1:na as the rep:-esc:ltatin' of ChÏl~a in the Council. 1 am the renresC'ntative of a snnll countrv and. as sucll. 1 am 111o'St anxions that ewn-O:1e shouid understa'1d our eZtrr:est c1esire that thé authoritv of the 'Cr:ited ~ati<'ns _\s::;c-mbhshould he extended and re::;f)l:C'te,i. The t-;e:~cral :\ssemhhof the l-nited ~a­ tio;;" i::; the true \"orld parliament. \"here all States are c1ell~oC'rati;:ally rerresented 0:;1 a footing of complete eq:la1ity. In our opinion. the question of the representation of China is so important. 50 fundamentally important, that it would be better for the decision to be based on the yie,,-s of all the States Members of the l:nited ~atio7is. both creat anci "man. \\~e theretore think it wou1d he ad"isahle for the question to he considered by the General .\ssembh-. which is due to meet shorth'. so that it could he sC'tt1éd by that democratic organ ~n whic:h éj.ll the ;"Iemher States are represented. As 1 yentured to say yesterday. this is a question on which aIl the !\fembC':,s haw something to say. It is because my Government supports the principle of non-intervention in the internaI affairs of States; because it respects the right of aIl peoples to choose the form of government that they prefer; because it is a loyal upholder of the principle of non-aggression; because both the Charter and American international law condemn the use of violence in the solution of international problems; and because there is nothing to prevent the Council from discussing any steps that may be suggested for the peaceful settlement of the Korean conflict under the heading "Complaint of aggression against the Republic of Korea"-and, indeed, it should discuss aIl such proposals-it is for aU those reasons that l intend to vote against the provîsional agenda submitted by the President. Ml'. CHAUVEL (France) (translated tram French) : \Ve are now considering the agenda and not the substance of the matter. If l understand the situation, the Council has before it a draft provisional agenda submitted bv the President and a United States motion made verbally submitted at our meeting on 31 July. There is no doubt in the mind of the French delegation that, in considering the agenda, the Council must take into account the relative urgency of the various items. The question of China's representation was, if l am 110t mistaken, raised by the USSR delegation as early as December last. By its somewhat spectacular refusaI, on 13 January following [461st meeting], to continue the discussion in this Council, which alone had power to conclude it, the delegation in question has, l think, indicated that the matter could wait. On the other hand, the question of Korea, the aggression against the Republic of Korea. which has been solemnly condemned by the Council and which has formed the subject of solemn and precise injunetions by the Council, is only too topical. The Council's injunctions have been ignored by the North Korean authorities. Aggression is thus continuing, troops are fighting, men are dying, the civiIian population is suffering aIl the horrors of war and is exposed to the extreme consequences of war. With regard to the assistance intended to enable the Republic of Korea to resist aggression, the Council has already ta~en the necessary decisions. Tt will probably have to take others. The decision envisaged in the United States draft resolution [S/1653] is a continuation of the action undertaken here. The representative 01 .lle Soviet Union maintains that the peaceful settlement of the Korean question is what matters. The USSR delegation does not hesitate at times to speak of one thing in connexion with another, totally ul1related matter. It is difficult to see why it should ~ot speak about Korea today in connexion with Korea, m whatever terms that country may be mentioned. More particularly, it is difficult ta see what prevents it If the Government of the USSR \Vishes to act along the lines deeided upon by the Couneil, it can without doubt useful!y do so. If the clelegation of the Soviet Union wishes to inform the Council of its Government's intention to act along those lines, that can be done at any moment. nut \Vhat could he a better preparation for such an action and sueh a statement than to adopt a clear and simple form of words condemning persistence in aggression, recalling the Cotlncil's earlier injunctions to put an end to s11cll aggression and inviting States Members of the United Nations to refrain from abetting the aggressor. There is no doubt that in the present situation the United States (iraft resolntion should be discussed first. A clecision should he reached on that question before any other matters not conneeted with it are disCtlssed. The French de1egation, therefore, in the light of the remarks it has just made, supports the United States delegation's motion and hopes that the United States draft resolntion of 31 ]uly will be diseussec1 first under the heading "Col11plaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea". MI'. ALVAREZ (Cuba) (translatcd trom Spanish): The Cuban delegation wishes to explain its position on the adoption of the provisional agenda which the President has sl1bmittec1 ta the Counci!. The President has proposed two items for the Council to clisctlss-the question of the representation of China and the question of the peaceful settlement of the Korean question-and he considers the two questions to be c10sely and inextricably connected, In the opinion of my Government these questions are different and are in no \Vay connectee! with each othe1', The Couneil sot1~ht in faet to settle the problem by peaeeful means; after the procedures to aehieve that end had been exhaustecl. the Council had no alternative but to carry out tlle provisions of the Charter concerning the disturbance of the peace and acts of aggression. The consideration of this question from the point of view adopted by the representative of the Soviet enion would have no effect other than to divert the attention of the Council to ends totally different from those whieh inspired fifty-two :\Iember States of the Fniterl Nations to support the action taken by this borly. Since 25 June the Security Council has been considering \Vith deep concern the situation which has arisen in Korea and \ve must continue to discuss the :-ame agenda, as that is the only way for us to achieve ol1r common purpose to restore peace in that area. Mr. SUNDE (Norwav) : In vie\\" of the fact that mv Governmcnt has recog~izec1 the Central People's CIÜv"- erument of the People's Republic of China it is, of course, our position that that Government should be representec1 in aH the organs of the United Nations as soon ~s this can be brought about by constitutional and orderly procedures. My Government. however, consiciers it equally important that the question of Chinese reprt'sentation should not be linked with the question of aggression in Korea, which has required our urgent attention during the last weeks and in regard to which further decisions seem to be needed hy this Council. It is imperative. in my opinion. that the Korean issue should not be muddled and confused bv the introduction at this stage of any other question, however important. which does not have aIl\" direct bearin<T on the matter already under consideration. Nothing'"will he achieved by the Council in the coming days ttnless we abide at least by this elementary requirement of orderly procedure. ln conclusion 1 should like to stress that the Norwegian delegation is willing-indeed desirous-of having the question of Chinese representation taken up for discussion and determination as soon as we ~ave a prospect of progressing further from the positIOn which was found to cxist in this respect in the Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): The United States has proposed that the item following "Adoption of the agenda" should be "Complaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea". 1 have put this motion in writing. It is Oil the table in front of everyone herc. There were several reasons for putting this motion in writing in addition to the oral motion which 1 made previously. One reason was in order to make it perfectly clear exactly what the motion is, namely, an amendment proposed to the provisional agenda. The reason why 1 want to make that clear is in order to have a ruling under rule 33 of our provisional rules of procedure, if it becomes necessary to have a ruling. That mIe says: "The fo11owing motions sha11 have precedence in the order named over aIl principal motions and draft resolutions relative to the subject before the meeting"- then come five motions, and the sixth is "to introduce an amendment". Another reason why this was put into writing wa.s to make it perfectly clear that it cannot be confuseil with the items on the provisional agenda which are now numbered 2 and 3. It is distinct and separate from those items. Those items, of course, cannot be voted upon first because the provisional agenda has not been adopted. The ~rovisional agenda cannot be adopted untll we have dlsposed of the proposed amendment. In the argument presented by the President at the beginning of the meeting this afternoon, he made sorne :efere!1ce~ to the filing of the items proposed for mcluslOn m the agenda and to the question as ta which had been submitted to the Council first-the provisional agenda before us or this amendment to the provisional agenda. 1 want to call the Council's attention to the fact that from the 25th day of June to the 31st day of July, which \Vas the date of the last meeting before the representative of the Soviet Union returned to the Security Council, the agenda was the same. Item 1 was "Adoption of the agenda". That is the same on the provisional agenda here. However item 2 differs. Throughout a11 those meetings, item' 2 was "Complaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea". '\Then business is being transacted by the Security Council under an item such as that and it is not brought to its conclusion, what happens? Does the passing of thirty-one days stop the consideration of that item? Does that change the business of the Security Council? No. Rule 10 of the rules of procedure provides as fo11ows: This is mandatory. The rule says "shall". Legal1y, the question we were discussing on 31 July still constitutes an agenda item even though it does not appear on the provisional agenda. The United States filed this motion in order to make sure that that item is there in writing, that everyone understands it, that the record is kept straight and that that item is the item following the first item, entitled "Adoption of the agenda". The United States filed this motion before the provisional agenda which was submitted by the President. 1 shaH not invoke the rule of the rules of procedure which deals with changes in the provisional agenda. Suffice it to say that the business before the Couneil at this moment is the question whether the Council will or will not amend this provisional agenda. There is no option here to vote upon two or more items; there is just one question to which the Council can legally devote its attention at this moment, and that is a procedural question. In view of sorne of the remarks made here, 1 wish to make a brief statement. The act of aggression against the Republic of Korea is the most urgent business before the Security Couneil. Under this agenda item, every member of the Cauneil is completely free to make proposaIs leading tOVlard the termination of the breach of the peace. The language of the item should be noted. It reads "Complaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea". If any representative has proposaIs to make or draft resolutions to submit regarding the breach of the peace in Korea, he can make them within the framework of the agenda item which has been before this Couneil for the last five weeks and which is legally before it now automatically. If there are proposaIs to be made, refusaI to present them within the Council's regular agenda inevitably will cast doubt on their sincerity. As 1 stated yesterday. the United States cannot agree that the question of Chinese representation can take precedence over the fact of armed aggression. Nor can the United States agree that the termination of aggression should be made contingent on other issues. So long as men are dying on the battlefield in defence of the United Nations, this Council will not wish to cheapen their suffering or sully their heroism by seeming to engage in the consideration of deals. The Couneil may wish to consider other issues now or at later meetings. But first, the Couneil should consicler the issue that is legally before it. Not only on these formaI grounds do 1 take this position, but 1 feel that it is clear that today's meeting should proceed ,~ ~ 1 1 !0 i ~ïr. TSTAXG (China): Since this discussion is a proce<1ural one, 1 shaH he brief and limit my remarks f() tIlt' procedural questions involved. The dekg-atil)11 of the t'nited States has placed bet'ore us a motion for the amendment of the provisional agenda. The item listed in the amendment, "Complaint of aggTession upon tht' Repuhlic of Korea", has been the main business of this Council during the past wceks. That business has not been finished. A draft resolution under that item is pending hefore the Council. Bath from the point of \'iew of the parliamentary situation as weil as for fundamental political reasons, the Council must put that item at the forefront of its agenda. ~ d 1 wish now to say a few words with rt'gard to the t""O items on the provisional agenda as put before us hv the President. There is this item of "Peaceful sëttlement of the Korean question". Xo one is against a peaccful settlement of the Korean question. The Council wishes nothing more than the carly restoration of l'l'ace in Korea. That is what it expected when it adopted the resolution of 25 June. If that resolution had been complied with. peace would have reigned in Korea during the past fiw weeks. ! L'1te as it is. we ail should we1come peace; we aU shou!cl he glad to C'onsider a pe3.C't' proposaI. Rut. if ihis CounC'i! is to remain faitl1ful to the prinC'iples of the Charter. we C3.nnot st:ek pea,e hy concioning agl::Tessi()l1 0r hy re:ognizingthe fruits of aggression. That i:" not tht: ro3.ci to pearl': that is tht' road to 3. shall1. There is ar.other item on the provisional agenda, dealing- ,,-ith the so-called recog"nitinn of some puppet régime in China. That question has been discuss~'d hên' senra! tim('s. It ,,-as ciiscussed at len::;1:h yesterday. 3.nd a decision was reached. \\'ould it not he stran~e {or the ~('cl.:rit\' Council on the one lIaCld to mohilize the ll1,'te:-i.;1 and moral re5:ourCes of the free nations to stop agg-ression in Korea and. on the other hand. to C'on!'icier at the same time the recol!nition of the fruits of s:lC'h agg-rc-ssicn in another cOU1~tn'? If the Council were ,0 cfo' ar~~-:hr;g of that kind. it ~\'ould he uncioing with one h"nd ~:'r it is trying to do with the other. l should like to C'aH the attention of the Council to another aspect of this matter. Eyer since the Council tank its tirst actior. to stop aggression by Xonh Korea. the puppet régime in China. through the Press and The PRESIDE~T (translated fram Russian) : By his l'tatement, the representative of the United States has facilitated the President's task. The United States representative's amendment appears to represent an attempt to establish a procedure unprecedented in the historv of the work of the Security Council. Up to the presetlt, as an the members of the Security Council know, the agenda has always been approved by the President in accordance with the rules of procedure and submitted for adoption by the Security Council. Never in the history of the Security Council have any amendments been submitted to the provisional agenda as approved by the President and submitted for adoption by the Security Council. The Security Couneil is free to adopt or to reject the provisional agenda submitted by the President. Any member of the Security Couneil is entitled to propose additional items for inclusion in the provisional agenda approved by the President. But to submit an amendment to the provisional agenda thus approved by the President, as the representative of the United States is trying to do, in violation of the mies of procedure, is to usurp the rights of the President and to do violence to the rules of procedure. If the Vnited States representative, in stressing the urgency and necessity of the speediest possible settlement of events in Korea-of the Korean question-is genttinely anxious not to enter into a "deal", as he says, or to engage in diversionist tactics, as l should cali it, but to secure a truly peaceful settlement of the Korean question, there are no grounds for recourse to such a method of submitting amendments. In accordance with the general1y accepted rules, traditions and order of business to which the Security Council has adhered throughout its existence, the following procedure has been established. The provisional agenda is approved by the President and submitted to the Couneil. The Security Council has the right to accept or reject it in whoîe or in part. Every member of the Conncil has the right to submit an item for inclusion in the provisional agenda, but not to substitute another provisional agenda for the one approved lw the President. The mIes of procedure make no provision for this. The United States representative has referred to rule 10 of the mIes of procedure, \vhich states: "Any item of the agenda of a meeting of the Security Couneil, consideration of which has not ùeen com- This rule, however. does not state that such an item must neeessarily be considered first. In what rule of the rules of procedure has the L"nitcd States representative found that an item which has been carried over from the pre\'Îous meeting must be considered first? Th~re is no such provision in the rules of procedure; but there is a provision to the effect that the provisional agenda shaU be approved by the President and submitted to the Council for adoption. That is how matters really stand. 1 think, therefore, that we sha11 observe the rules of procedure and, when we come to the vote, vote on a11 the items in the order of their submission: first, the first item submitted by the President, then the second item submitted by the President and, thirdly. the item submitted by the representative of the United States. That will be in accordance with the procedure we have followed so far. Yesterday 1 stated, speaking as President, that the rational procedure would be to place the item proposed by the t'nited States representative third on the agenda, af . the t\Vo previous items proposed by the USSR de1egation. That would be logical and fair, and would not create the impression that the United States delegation is resortillg to this method in order ta prevent the inclusion of the Soviet Union's proposaI for the peaceful settlement of the Korean question. For the L"nited States proposaI aims in substance at widening the scope of the conflict. though it does so under coyer of references to the "localization of the conflict". That is a diplomatie term which, in everyday language, means continuing and intensifying the conflict. employing more aireraft, sending jet planes, flying fnrtresses, more artillery, more troùps, thus causing more suffering and more victims. That is what "localization" means in plain language. The USSR delegation has submitted a proposaI for the peaceful settlement of the Korean question. Accordingly, if the Security Councii as an instrument of peace and an organ for the peaceful settlement of conflicts. reaUy desires peace, it must consider the question of a peaceful settlement, not replace it by any other item diametrically opposed in meaning. Subsequent items must be considered in the order of their submission. In the light of these considerations, and to avoid cr~ting the impression that the United States representative is submitting his proposaI \Vith the special intention of preventing consideraticn of the item proposed by the Soviet L-nion concerning the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, it would be of advantage if the United States representative did not press his proposaI, but accepted the President's proposaI that these items should be considered, and their 1 should like ta draw the attention of members of the Coundl to the fact that il is past 6 p.m. 1 still have two speakers on my list who wisb ta express their views on the question under discussion, Shall we continue our work or would it be advisable to adjourn the meeting until tomorrow? Sir Gladwyn JEBB (United Kingdom): 1 \Vas on the point of raising a point of order, but in deference to the President's view, if he would like tn adjourn the meeting now 1 should be ql.ite prepared to accept it to this extent. that he would allow me to r:lise my point of order the tirst thing at our next meeting-. The PRESIDI'NT (tral/slaolcd [rolll NlIssia/l): li the point of order \\'hich the United King-dolll rl'prescntative \Vishes to raise is so urgent and l'xceptional, 1 ,an give him the tloor il11n1l'c1iately. Sir Glaùwyn Jr~Rn (l'nited Kingdom): 1 am only concerned with a matter of historienl accuracy. 1 darc say that if we kncw about this iact, it mig-ilt colour our thinking to sOllle l'xtellt. hllt if the President would prefer to hear me tomorrll\\', 1 do not miml. l'hl' PRES1llENT (Iral/slalc!' trolll Russia.II): If history will not sîlffer thcreby, wc shall dose the meeting at this point. doit de The meeting rose at 6.15 l'.m.