S/PV.483 Security Council

The Security Council has before it the provision:al agenda, which consists of two items: 1. Adoption of the agenda; 2. Complaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea. Are ther~ any comments on the agenda? The items on the provisional agenda have been included in the form in which L'ley were adopted at the Security Council's last [48200] meeting. If there are no comments, we shall consider the agenda adopted. 3. CompJaint of aggression upon th", aepuh- lic of Korea (continued) 3. le représentant SOVIÉTIQUES, de Une va seil, préparer pacifique

Before going on to the substance of the question 1 should like, as representative of the UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, to draw attention to a draft resolution which is being submitted by the Soviet Union delegation. A provisional translation of this draft will be circulated at once to members of the Security Council and 1 shaH ask the Secretariat to prepare· an official translation. The draft resolution [S/1668], which aims at the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, reads as follows: "The Security Council "Decides ."(a) To consider it necessary, in the course of the discussion of the Korean question, to invite the reprel'examen Mr. TSIANG (China): It has been the practice in the Council, when considering the question of Korea, to invite the representative of the Republic of Korea to take a seat at the Council table. l think that practice should be continued by the Council. Mahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt): With the permission of the Presid~nt and the members of the Council, l wish to say that l am not going to speak as much on this point as in connexion with this point. We have a standing decision, adopted by the Security Council on 25 June [473rd meeting], to invite the representative of the Republic of Korea to participate in our meetings. Before proceeding to anything e1se, as long as we have already started to discuss the question of Korea, l think we must invite the representative of the Republic of Korea ta sit at the Council table in the light of the decision ta which l have referred and which still stands.

Speaking as the representative of the UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REpUBLICS, l shall set forth the point of view of my de1egation. In the course of the discussion on questions of procedure regarding the inclusion of the Korean question in the' Security Council's agenda, the Soviet Union delegation stated its position on the character of the events in Korea and made it c1ear that it regarded those events as a domestic conflict between two govemment camps, as a civil war. Accordingly, in submitting its draft resolution to the Security Council and proposing in that draft that representatives of the Korean people should be heard in the course of the discussion of the Korean question, the USSR de1egation wished to emphasize the necessity - since the question before us is to ensure the termination of military operations - of inviting both of the parties which are engaged in these military operations. When considering questions of peaceful settlement, it is the practice of the Seeurity Council as a rule to invite both parties involved in the hOstilities to participate in the consideration and discussion of such questions. That is the tradition and the practice established in the Security Council. It was followed by the Security Council in the consideration of the Palestine question, the question of Indonesia and a number of other questions. Moreover, as is known, both parties were invited regardless of whether or not they were Members of the United Nations and whether or not they had been recognized by all the members of the Security Council, such recognition consisting in the establishment of, diplomatie relations. There have been cases where representatives of what l would say were neither govemments nor States were invited to participate in the considerations of such questions; l have in mind This position is further justified by the fact that, for example, the draft resolution submitted by the United States de1egation [S/1653] contains a paragraph directed against the "North Korean authorities". In the view of. the USSR delegation, it would he unfair and indeed inadmissible for the Security Council, if it really wishes to be an international organ designed to ensure the .peaceful settlement of disputes, the termination of hostilities and the re-establislupent, the strengthening and the maintenance of peace, not to give a due hearing ta the accused party. Renee the USSR delegation considers that bath parties-the representatives of South Korea and those of North Korea-that is, the representatives of the two govemment camps which are waging an armed struggle against each other, should be heard at the meetings of the Security Council. Accordingly, the delegation of the Soviet Union insists that the representatives of the People's Democratic Republic of Korea should be invited to parti~pate in the consideration of the Korean question. A numher of. States have established diplomatie relations with that republic, which is referred to as the "North Korean authorities" in the official language of the Security Council and even in the draft resolution of the United States de1egation, whose Govemment is engaged in an armed struggle against this republic. It would be wrong if, when it was a question of sending armies, bombing towns and villages, and killing the peaceful population, it was claimed that the war was being waged against . the "North Korean authorities", but that when the question of the peaceful settlement of that war was discussed at the meetings ofthe Security Couneil, the rep-. resentatives of those authorities were· not admitted to the meetings of the Council to state their case. In view 'of aU the foregoing, the USSR de1egation therefore insists that both parties should be invited to the meetings of the Security Council. It is. in accordance with established practice for t.lJ.e representatives of bath parties, as well as the representatives of the States conèerned who wish to participate in the consideration of the item on the agenda, to be invited to a particular meeting provi<.1ed there are no objections or observations on the part of the members of the Council ta such an invitation being extended. Usually, too, the President of the Security Couneil, with the permission of the Council-with the permission of all its memhersinvites the parties ~oncemed as weIl as the parties to the confliet which is being discussed by the Couneil to attend the Couneil's meetings. In the event of any objections, the Security Council duly considers the matter and cornes to a decision upon it. The Soviet Union delegation considers this a question of substance and not of procedure, since it concerns peace and war; it is a question of whether the Security Council will take steps to settle the matter peacefully or whether, as a result of its decisions, hostilities will continue.. To consider, therefore, that these questions are not questions of substance, and that they ~ he settled s'agit pas de de quement déci"ion 3 These are the brief remarks which the USSR de1egation fee1s bound to address to the Security Counci1 in order to make clear its point of view on the question of inviting both parties to the Korean conflict ta attend the meetings of the Security Council. Mr. TSIANG (China) : What the representative of the Soviet Union thinks about this question is one side of the matter. It is open to him to hold such opinions as he wishes, just as it is open to the rest of us to hold sncb views as we may wish. The parliamentary situation is this: The Counci1 has made a decision to invite the representative of the Republic of Korea to participate in the debate. 1 request that the President, in conformity wîth that decision, should issue the invitation. As ta the other part of the question, it bas now been put before the Council; in due course, the Counci1 will act upon the draft resolution that has been submitted in that connexion. Before the Council acts on that draft resolution, however, there is no reason why an eartier decision of the Council should not be carried out. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): The United States delegation thinks that the regular order should be foIlowed in this case as in aIl cases, and that we ought not to be confronted every little while with some deviation from it, some novelty. The draft resolution of the USSR delegation [SI1668] , which has been submitted under the heading "Peaceful settlement of the Korean question", reads: "The Security Council "Decides . "(ClI) To consider it necessary, in the course of the discussion of the Korean queii~ion, to invite the representative of the People's Republic of China and also to hear representatives of the Korean people; "(b) To put an end to the hostilities in Korea and at the same time ta withdraw foreign troops from Korea." That draft resolution is entirely beyond the agenda and the business that is now confronting the Security Council. A decision was made on 25 June [473rd meeting] that throughout the hearing of this item, which is on the agenda after three days of trouble in getting it there and which is entitled "Complaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea", the representative of the Republic of Korea should sit at this table. That is a constitutional privilege that he now has, since the Security Council has passed on it. It is an action taken under the Charter of the United Nations. Article 32 of the Charter entities the representative of the Republic of Korea to sit here because he represents a State and because that State is having trouble that is heing considered in the Security Council. The decision to have him sit here has been made. Therefore the very first business in the regu1ar order is to invite him to the Of course, if the President insists on this irregular conduct, insists on interposing draft resolutions ahead of the regular order, we shall undertake, if we can, to raise a point of order. But we now ask the President of the Security Council to attend to the firstbusiness first and to ask this representative to come to the table, beql.use it has been settled by this Council that he should come throughout the hearing of this item of the agenda. 1 have a little more to say which 1 think ought to go on record now. The General Assembly, when it established the United Nations Commission on Korea, by its resolution 195 (III), created the means whereby the North Korean régime could make itse1f heard. 1 pause to caU attention to the following language used in the draft resolution presented by the Soviet Union: "~d also to hear representatives of the Korean people". \oVell, who represents the Korean people? We decided that at a meeting of. the General Assemblyl and at two meetings of the Security CounciI. That unit, that governmental body, is the Republic of Korea, which has been declared by the General As!';embly, in its resolution 195 (III), to he the only govemment which represents the Korean people. In its report to the fourth session of the General Assembly2, the United Nations Commission on Korea stated that all its efforts to obtain access to the north had met with failure and that there had been no response to the attempts of the Commission to contact the north. The Commiesion mentioned that, for this purpose, it had sought to obtain the good offices of the Soviet Union. In considering the Korean question, the General Assembly, at each session, has declined to seat the representative of the North Korean régime, on the very ground that that régime had not availed itse1f of the United Nations Commission. 1 would also recall that, when an application for membership of the United Nations was put forward by that régime [409th meeting], the Security Council did not even refer the application to its Committee on Membership [410th meeting], in the light of the facts of which 1 have just spoken. AIl that took place before the act of aggression of 25 June. The North Korean régime not only is now acting in contempt of the General Assembly resolution, but also is defying Security Council decisions and i5 engaged in hostiHties 'against the forces which, under the Security Council's authority, are seeking to enforce those vèry dedsions. Motions which, in substance, S See Official RecOf'ds of the fourlh session of the General As- sembl"y, Supplement No. 9. Now, who is to decide that question? The rules of procedure tells us who. Rule 39 says: "The Security Council may invite members of the Secretariat or other persons, whom it considers com- petent for the purpose, to supply it with information or to give other assistance in examining matters within its competence." If is not the President of the S~-urity Co...... -1 but the Security Couneil which halO the responsibility and the authority to decide.

The representative of the United States bas been a little hasty hï bis conclusions and generalizations. The fact is that the President of the Security Council bas not yet made any conclusions, observations or generalizations, nor bas he taken any decisions ; in other words, he bas made no ruling. 1 therefore consider that the speech which the representative of the United States has made against the President of the Council was a little hasty, and that, as the debates of the past few days have shown, it is characteristic of the representative of the United States to draw hasty deductions and conclusions. The President bas not yet taken any decision. The Soviet Union delegation bas put forward a proposaI. It has outlined its point of view on this question; it has Qutlined it in the mannèr wbich it deemed appropriate. It is for the President to hear the opinions of representatives and to request members of the Security Council T:I express their views on the question raised. It would therefore have been wiser for the representative of the United States to include in bis speech arguments against the position of the USSR delegation and not against the position of the President. The President bas no intention of deeiding questions or taking dedsions on behalf of the Security Couneil. When one of the representatives in the Security Council makes a proposaI, it is the President's duty to hear that proposaI and submit it to the Council for consideration.' 1 believe that, if the United States representative were President, he too would have given the delegation of the Soviet Union the opportunity to state its view and defend its position, and would not have prevented him from speaking. The l."'SSR delegation has submitted a draft resolution under which both parties to the Korean conftict would he invited. It proposes that the Security Couneil, in the course of t4e discussion of the Korean question, should give a fair and objective hearing to the representatives of bath parties. But that is the proposaI of the USSR delegation, not of the President. If the United States representative does not agree with the vi~w of the delegation of the Soviet Union, he should ·take issilewith that delegation, al1d not with the PI"'..si- -dent,:since thePi"esident has made no mling. Tbis is what 1 wished tosay in clarification of the situation 'which has arisen in the' Couneil. Sir Gladwyn JEBB (United Kingdom): 1 can assure Mr. Malik that 1 am now addressing him in his capacity as USSR representative and not in his capacity as Presiglais) m'adresse sentant Il d'esprit le possible soviétique, de Corée, d'autre j'ose laisse terai distinctes aux à est courant tion à sujet dire ayant le les Corée. qu'il ne au à audit d'agir ver Conseil d'une la proposition Etats-Unis sentant soit l'exa.onen position par dence: donnions time poser soit Corée je aucun ptécédëni. je deux 7 d~t. Sometimes, it is true, it may he an occasion for sorne mental agility to distinguish hetween the President's two capacities, but in this case it is certainly possible. In the President's capacity as representative of the Soviet Union, he has now linked the two questions of the representation of the Republic of Korea at this table, . and the representation of the Northern Korean authorities, and he has de...-e1oped with his customary skill, if 1 may say so, what neverthe1ess 1 fear is a rather specious argument in favonr of this course. Still, 1 would suggest that the two questions are separate and should he taken separate1y and voted on separate1y. The position with regard to the appearance at this table of the representative of the Repuplic of Korea is, 1 suggest, quite clear. 1 be1ieve it is the normal practice of the Coundl to reoeat the invitation to a reoresentative to come to the tablè at each meeting at whiclÎ the subject with which he is concerned is to be discussed. 1 do not suggest, however, that the representative of the Korean Republic, once invited, has the automatic right to take his place at the table at all subsequent meetings on the subject of Korea. But the Council has followed the practice that, once it bas decided at one meeting to invite a representatnve to the table, thereafter at meetings on the same subjr.ct it never disputes the President's suggestion at the opening of one of those subsequent meetings that the representative concemed shoulé he invited. That certainly bas been the precedent up to now. 1 think it may also be pointed out that, when it was originally proposed, at the 473rd meeting, that the representative of the Republic of Korea should he invit~~ to the Counci1 table, the proposaI which was submitted by tbe representative of the United States stated the following:."That the representative of the Gove''1l!I1ent of the Repuhlic of Korea he pennitted to sit at the Counci1 table during consideration of this case". The United States proposaI was, as the President may he aware, adopted by the President at that time, who said: "If there is no objection, 1 propose that we grant the necessary permission." Therefore 1 believe that on more than one ground there -can he no suggestion that the representative of the Republic of Korea should not now he invited to take his place here. When we come to the question Qf the representatioIi here at the ~e time of the representative of the North Korean authorities, 1 think the position is very differer.t. Here there is no preceâent at ait It is quite irue, as the President stated, 1 think, that up to now bath parties to a dispute have nonnally been represeuted at this table In any case, to revert to my first point, 1 suggest that two votes are undoubtedly now necessary: first on whether we should invite the representative of the Korean Republic; and, secondly, on whether we should invite the representative of the North Korean authorities.

The representative of the United Kingdom has suggested that we should vote on these two proposaIs separately: the proposai to invite a representative of North Korea and the proposai to invite a representative of South Korea. Naturally the President has no comments on tbis question. As to· the United Kingdom representative's other remarks, 1 must point out that his reference to a former decision of the President of the Secu.rity Council merely bears out that 1 am following the same course as my predecessor, who said: "If there are no objections ...". 1 should have followed bis example, had there been no objections to inviting a representative of South Korea. However, an objection has heen raised by the USSR delegation. It is therefore my duty -ta place this question before the Security Couneil for discussion and it is the Security Council's duty ta discuss the matter and ta come ta a decision. 1 am therefore taking the course which has been followed 50 far by all our Presidents. Mr. CHAUVEL (France) (translated tram French): :The :United Kingdom representative said just now, when speaking of the question of the representation of North Korea, that there was no precedent. 1 do not tbink that isquite correct. , During our [473rd] meeting of 25 June, at which it was decided to invite the representative of the Republic of Korea to take a seat at the Council table for the duration of our discussions, the Yugoslav delegation submitted a draft resolution [S11500] proposing that the representative of North Korea shoutd be admitted. At the end of the meeting, when the vote was taken, the <Irait resoiution submitted by the Yugosiav de1egation \vas rejected by six votes to one, witli three abstentions. 1 challenge that ruling. It is the view of my delegation that the representative of the Republic of Korea should .be invited automatically, in view of the decision of the Security Couneil of 25 June. That decision cannot be put to the vote again. The question bas been decided. The only question now is that we should request the President to carry out that decision. With regard to the proposaI that an invitation should he issued to a representative of North Korea, it appears to me that since that question was raised in the Council on 25 lune and a decision taken, it ought not to be raised again. Any raising of that question within such a short time SeenlS to me to he trifling with the decisions of the Security Coundl. Nevertheless, from a parliamentary viewpoint, it is permissible for a delegation to raise that question again. Therefore 1 challenge that part of the ruling of the President that would have us vote again today on the invitation to the' representative of the Republic of Korea to sit at the Couneil table.

As Presitime aucune sentée. mais, cision. celle deux sentants Sud. soviétique. sentant ce distinct, la Corée représentants pooitions. ses matière. . précédent den~ 1 feel 1 should make a clarification. 1 wish to say again that the President has made no ruling on the proposaIs submitted. That does not excIude the possibility that he may do 50; but he has not yet made a ruling. Two proposaIs have heen submitted: one, by the USSR delegation, to the effect that invitations should he extended to both the parties involved in the Korean conflict-that is, a representative of the North Koreans and a representative of the South Koreans. That is the proposaI of the delegation of the Soviet Union. The second proposaI, submitted by the 'Qnited Kingdom delegation, is that these two questions should he voted upon separatelY' in other words, that the proposaI for the inVl"tation of the representative of South Korea should he voted upon first and the proposaI for the invitation of the representative of North Korea second. The President has noted that twa such proposais have been submitted to the Chair. He has made a Dote of them. The President's functions have so far heen confined to that. There is no ruling. Consequently the last spœker's challenge was forcing an open daor. MahmolJd FAWZI Bey (Egypt): If the challenge ,"de by the representative of China still stands, there would be no pnrpose in my continuing this interve.. .')Il. If, however, in view of the President's statement that he has made no niling, the challenge does not stand, then 1 shaH ask the President's indulgence while 1 request sorne clarification as to the drait resolution which .he bas submitted in his capacity as representative of the Soviet Union. glais) tester poursuivre que sion, demanderàu projet représentant 9 This is the view upon which the USSR de1egation insists: The written draft of the Soviet Union resolution contains a proposaI to the effect that representatives of the Korean people should be heard. Sub-paragraph (a) of the USSR draft, which was submitted and distributed to the delegations today, implies that the representatives of both sides should be invited and heard by the Security Council. Since the question of an invitation arose earlier, before a decision and vote on the draft resolution submitted by the delegation of the Soviet Union, it is natura! that that delegation should maintain its position that it is essential to invite both sides and not just one. Mr. SUNDE (Norway): 1 do not wish to prolong this rather protracted discussion, and 1 shall therefore not object to a vote on the question of inviting the representative of the Republic of Korea. However, 1 simply want to state that l completely. agree with the representative of China that the question was definitely dealt with in our meeting of 25 June, and during my presidency 1 acted accordingly: 1 never asked the opinion of the Couneil, 1 simply invited the representative of the Republic of Korea.

1 can assure the representative of Norway that 1 have no desire to protract or lengthen the discussion of this question either in my capaeity as President of the Security Council or in my capaeity as representative of the Soviet Union. 1 should, however, like to put a question to my distinguished predecesso~, the representative of Norway.· If a member of the Security Couneil had at any of the subsequent meetings objected to inviting a representative of South Korea, would the representative of Norway, as President, have submitted that question for discussion by the Security Council or not? 1 personally consider that it is the duty of every President of the Security Couneil to submit for the Council's consideration any proposal put forward by a member of the Council. obj~tion, ~ propose t:hat we ~t the !1~sary permiSSIon. SInce there IS no .0bJection, 1 InVite the representative of the Government of the Republic of Korea to take his placeat the table." Of course, it is open to us now, if we choose ta do so, to undo the decision which we arrived at on that day. B:-t, if we do not undo it, that decision stands. Therefore the question to be put in this connexion is not rea1ly whether the representative of the Republic of Korea should be invited, but rather the reverse question, namely, whether the invitation which we decided to extend to him on that day should now be cancelled. It is 00- doubtedly open to us to decide that question today, but it will have to he presented in the form which 1 have just mentioned. The other question relates to inviting "representa- ûves of the Korean people". Here the question has to he in a slightly different form. The question to he put to the Couneil is whether such an invitation should he made. Here it is not to be put in the reverse form, but in the direct form: whether the invitation should he made. \ ln voting on this question, 1 find myself in sorne difficulty. If the expression "Korean people" means the same thing as "North Korean authorities", we shall be inviting representatives of those whom the Council bas already hel~ to he guilty of aggression and against whom military operations are now inprogress ooder resolutions which India has supported or accepted. If, on the other hand, the expression "Korean people" means somebody else, the question arises as to how their representatives are to be selected. By whom are they to he accredited? The proposai therefore involves important and difficult questions, and 1 shall not he free to vote on this matter without first asking for my Government's ins~ructions. If the matter is pressed to a vote at once, 1 shall not participate in the voting. Mr. SUNDE (Norway): The representative of India bas, in my opinion, aIready answered the President's question. It is obvious that any member of the Council can at any meeting suggest that we should change our 4ecision of 25 June. For such a change, however, a majority of seven votes will he necessary. avis, question du nous cette moins. The problem the President has put before the Council is still vague, so far as l am concerned. 1 am sure that the President is quite capable of explaining to me and to anyone else who fee1s as 1 do thè portènt of this problem. 1 am at a 10ss to find out exactly what he means by the "representatives of the Korean peoplè". In what form should they be invited? 1 can understand one part of it: the part concerning the representative of the Republic of Korea, which happens to be the only Government so far mentioned and recognized by the United Nations. This Government has been recognized in the General Assembly resolution or resolutions as the only legal government in Korea. Now, with regard to inviting the represen~tivesof the people living in North Korea, 1 would ask in what form they are to he invited. 1 should be very grateful if t.'le President would enlighten me on this point. . As for inviting the representative of what is termed in the Soviet Union draft resolution "the People's Republic of China", 1 should like to say that, so far as Egypt is concerned, the on1y Government it recognizes is the Nationalist Government of China. 1 shall therefore not:he able to vote for a proposai for tlle invitation of the representative of a government--or a so-ealled government-which my Government does not recognize. 1 am still waiting for sorne clarification from the President as to the capacity and the formula under which we should invite people from Korea other than those representing the Republic of Korea. . Sir Gladwyn J EBB (United Kingdom): 1 just wish to say that, in my previous intervention, 1 did say that 1 thought what was necessary was to have two votes: the first on the question of South Korean representation here, and the second on the question of North Korean representation. 1 still adhere to that in principle but, after hearing the powerful arguments of the representatives of India and Norway, 1 am now persuaded that their proposaI as to how the first vote should take place -that is to say, their proposaI that it should take place on a reversaI of the previous decision of this Councilis the correct oné, and 1 therefore amend my previous suggestion to that effect. Sir Gladwyn JEBB (United Kingdom): 1 withdraw my original suggestion. des présenté entende du tant d'inviter représentant représentant au il fait, le de du fois et comme mesure mettre aux sur l'invitation de matiques Chine. indispensable entretienne autre Etat séances qui cet les n'entretiennent entre Conseil diplomatique le points fait juridiques, aient

1 shall give an explanation to the representative of Egypt. At the beginning of the present meeting, the USSR de1egation put forward a proposaI that representatives of the Korean people should be heard in the debate on the Korean question. As the representative of the Soviet Union, 1 have already explained that it is a question of inviting and hearing both sides-both the representative of the South Korean authorities and the representative of the North Korean authorities. . The representative of Egypt is trouble1 by the fact that while authorities exist in the south, they do not oost, according to him, in the north. In" reality that is not 50. On 2S June, when the Security Council began its consideration of the Korean question, the address of the North Korean authorities was discovered and the Secretary-General has repeatedly communicated with those authorities; he has sent them telegrams and bas rcceived answers. Thus authorities do exist both in South and in North Korea, capable of sending accredited representatives to attend meetings of the Security Council and to give answers on the problem ur.der consideration to the questions which the Security Council may consider it necessary to put to them. The representative of Egypt touched upon the question of inviting the representative of the People's Republic of China and réferred to the absence of diplomatie relations between Egypt and the People's Republic of China. This caUs for an explanation. It is not obligatory on a member of the Security Council to have diplomatie relations with a given country, with the govemment of a given country, 01" with a person invited to the Security Council's meetings during the consideration of an item on the agenda. Thus no difficulty seems to arise in this regard. Not aU the members of the Security Couneil whose representatives are seated around this table maintain diplomatie relations with each other, yet their representatives aU meet and discuss various matters. Consequently the question of diplomatie recognition and the question of an invitation to meetings of the Security Council for participation in the consideration of questions on the agenda are two entirely different matters. No legal difficulties seem to have heen eneountered in this respect so far. Mahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt): 1 am gratefu1 for the ciarification which the Presiâent bas been gooâ gEais): enough to give in connexion' with the question 1 had donner posed. ' At the same rime, for the sake of the record at posée. The FUSIDENT (translated from Rttssian): 1 shall answer the representative of Egypt in my capacity as representative of the UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST RE- PUBLICS. In putting forward its proposaI that representatives of the Korean people should he invited so that they might be given a hearing at a meeting of the Security Council during the discussion of the Korean question, the USSR de1egation is basing itself upon the actual state of affairs. There are in Korea two government camps, the North and the South-the authorities of North Korea and the authorities of South Korea. Some of the Member States of the United Nations describe the authorities of South Korea as the Government of the Republic of Korea, while others disagree with this. Where the authorities of North Korea are concerned, some of the Member and non-member States of the United Nations describe these authorities as the Govemment of the People's Democratie Republic of Korea, while others disagree withthis and describe them differently. In the present instance the representative of the United States simply describes these authorities in his draft resolution as "the North Korean authorities." It is not, however, so much a question of description or of how particular authorities are described, but of the fact that the Korean people is one and the same OOth in the North and in the South. An interna! struggle and civil war has divided it into two warring and opposing camps, government camps. One govemment camp is headed by Syngman Rhee and the other by Kim Il Sung. It is for the Security .counci1 to decide on th~ form of the invitations to the representatives of the northem authorities and the representatives of the southern authorities. It is important that, in accordance with the United Nations Charter and established practice, the Security Council should invite the representatives of ooth sides so that it may, as an objective international tribwlal and an objective and fair international body, set up to settie conflicts and disputes which might endanger international pea.ce and security, hear both sides and take a, decision. As regards the statements of the representatives of India and Norway, the de1egation of the Soviet Union considers that the decision of 25 June did not apply to all subsequent meetings. It was not meant to be of permànent va:lidity. The question whether the representatives of such and such a country concerned with the discussion of a question on the agenda should be invited arises at every meeting of the Security Couneil-the question whether to invite or not to invite representatives of States not Members of the United Nations. This question is decided at each meeting, and as a matter of routine at each meeting-1 do not recollect any exception to this rule-the President announces: "There is a proposaI that the representatives of such and such countries should be invited. Are there any objections? If there are none, 1 invite ...". This is the usuaI, common form used at each meeting of the Security Council, and the Council deeides whether to invite the sides or representatives of States not members of the Security Council; or, in accordance with role 39 of its rules of pro- . cedure, the Security Couneil decides in each separate case at each separate meeting whether to invite "members of the Secretariat or other persons". Had there not been such a role, this accepted form of words would not have existed. In accordance with accepted procedure, the President of the Security Council announces at the beginning of a meeting that if there is no objection he will invite the representatives of such and such States; if objections are raised by any delegation, the Couneil discusses the matter and takes the necessary decision. Therefore, as the representative of the Soviet Union, 1 cannot agree with my distinguished colleagues who preceded me' as Presidents in June and July that the Security Council's deeision of 25 June is of permanent validity; the fact that the President, at every meeting of the Security Council, raises this question by saying that he will invite representatives of such and such countries if there are no objections, speaks for itself. It proves that this question is confirmed afresh at each meeting. It should be confirmed at today's meeting as well. But at today's meeting the USSR delegation has raised objections to inviting only the representatives of the South Korean authorities, because it considers that to do so would be unjust. ,To invite only the representatives of Syngman Rhee would be to continue an illegai practice established in the Security Council when the Councû itself was not fully constituted-that is, when it was not constituted in accordance with the Charter, lacking the participation of two permanent members of the Security Couneil. Thus the Security Council itself considered this question while it was illegally constituted from the stand- ~tter. The decisions adopted were illegal and unjust also because omy one side was heard. No hearing was granted to the other side. The USSR delegation is entitled to mise the question of granting a hearing to the other side as well, ,and is doing so at the present meeting. It should he noted that the Soviet Union delegation's position is that fairness should be observed in respect of bath the opposing sides in Korea. We should invite bath the representatives of Syngman Rhee and the representatives of Kim Il Sung - both the representatives of the northern authorities and those of the southern authorities" regardless of their designation. They must he invited and heard, and the Securîty Council, having heard them, will adopt the approprmte decision. For the Sccurity Co~cil is concerned with discussmg the question of putting &Il end to hostili:ties and achieving' a peaceful sett1ement of au armed conftict which may have far-reaclûng consequences. The Security Council cannot allow prejudice and partiality ta prevail in its treatment of such matters. Allegations have been made here' that the North Korean .authorities have refused to comply with the Unit,"\i Nations decision. In the opinion of theUSSR de1egation, such an assertion is invalid, as there was no legal decision ,by the UrJred Nations. The· decisions adopted on the Korean question were not in accordance with die Charter and cannot he regarded as legcl decisions by the Securîty Council and the United Nations. The North Korean authorities regarded and continue to reg:.:a:d these decisions in that way. Thatis evideilt, from the letter dated 29 June 1950 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the People's Democratie Govern:' ment,of Korea to Mr; TrygveLie [S/1527]. There is~oonsequentlyno reason to accuse them of "disrespect fQI' the UilitEd Nations". 'Furthermore, the North Kpl'ean authorities have still another aud extremely important lega1 argument, namely, that they havenot so far been heard here at the Sëcurity Council table, and that ,attempts are now being made by certain delegations to OOIltinue to keep them fromthis table and not to hear tb.dr views on the question of '\:Vhat is going on in Korea and who is the aggressor there. . , ~~: :d~el~ofd~~:~~Y~~ûn~ COutlcll invited bath the parties'ta the cimftict in Korea -reptesentatives of the North K..reans and representa- Having, r;;gard to these two factors, 1 consider that it would be wiser to conc1ude today's meeting at this point, sinee we shall hardly be in a position to proceed to a discussion of the substanèe of the question on our agenda in view of the latenes~ of the h?ur. 1 therefo~e propose that we should conc1ude our discussion of thlS question at the next meeting. Two wishes have been expressed in regard to the next meeting: one, that the meeting should he held at 3 p.m. on Monday, 7 August, and the other that it should be held on Tuesday, 8 August. If members of the Security Council have no objection, we shall meet again on Tuesday, 8 August, at 3 p.m. The meeting r(Jse at 5.35 p.m.