S/PV.484 Security Council

Before resuming consideration of the question under discussion, 1 should like to draw attention to certain documents, in particular to one which was addressed to the President of the 5ecurity Couneil and which is of a very urgent nature - 1 would say even of a pressing nature. 1am referring to a telegram addressed to the President of the 5ecurity Couneil by the Govemment of the People's Democratie Republic of Korea in Pyongyang. This te1egram was received on 7 August and was issued as document 5/1674 on the same day. It reads as followsl : du GU du démocratique Président Ministre mocratique du Corée tion demande pour américaine saires du Conseil." 1 1 Document 8/1674 also includes a letter, dated 7 August 1950, from the President of the SeclIrity Council ta the Secretary- General, transmitting a communication from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the People's Democratie Republic of Korea. The text of the letter is as follows: "1 am sending you herewith a telegram received by me as President of the Security Council from Pak Ren Nen, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Korean People's Democratie Republic. The telegram cantains a protest by the Government of the Korean People's Democratie Republic against the savage b0t.Ubing by the United States Air Force of the peaceful population in Korea and a request to the Security Council to take urll'ent steps to put an end to these monstrous crimes which are bemg committed by the United States armed forces in Korea. "1 would request you, Mr. Secretary-General, to take urgent steps to have this telegram distributed to the members of the Security Council and to have it issued as a Security Council document." "·.tîë American Air Force is engaging in barbarous attacks on oodefended Korean towns and industrial centres where there never were and are not now any military objectives, destroying houses and leaving people without a roof over their heads, destroying schools, hospitals and other cultural institutions; it is slaughtering peaceful inhabitants, o!d people, women and children and dcstroying their prCiperty. "For example, when the American Air Force bombed Pyongyang between 29 June and 2 August, American planes dropped. a large number of bombs on the residential parts of the town, repeated1y bombarded the town with cannons and machine-guns. In particular, American airerait machine-gunned and bombed the peaceful inhabitants of Pyongyang.during the attacks of 30 June, 3,4, 5, 20 and 23 July, and 2 August. On 4 July, American airerait, having sudden1y appeared over Pyongyang, machine-gunned a crowd of people near the building of the People's Municipal Committee when they were dashing to the shelters. The airerait flew several times over the main streets of the town firing along them with machine-guns. This bombing and machine-gunning of Pyongyang destroyed more than 200 dwe1ling houses, heavily damaged Many dwelling houses and destroyed the people's hospital and a number of buildings of the Polytèchnical Institute. As a result of the raids on Pyongyang, some 700 inhabitants were killed and more than 500 persons were wounded. "In July, the American Air Force dropped hundreds of tons of bombs and repeated1y machine-gunned the town. For instance, after the mass raid on Wonsan on 13 July. the rice warehouse caught tire. After the raid, the inhabitants of the town gathered at the burning warehouse and dragged the rice aw~y in an attempt to save it from the tire. Two American fighters then appeared over the town, machine-gunned the crowd, and then returned again several times and continued to macbine-gun the fleeing inhabitants. As a result of the air raids, a large part of the town of Wonsan was com- • The spelling of the place-names mentioned in tbis communication is identical with tbat used in the mimeographed document. "During repeated air raids on the town of Nampkho, American planes dropped a large number of bombs on residential districts and fired on them with cannons and machine-guns. Some 400 persans were killed or wounded as a result of these raids on Nampkho; more than 500 dwe1ling houses, public and cultural buildings were destroyed. "The town of Chynnatt1 was subjected to barbarous bombing. As a result of the American Air Force ma&S raids on Chynnam on 30 July, 2 a."'1d 3 August, the town was ccmpletely destroyed. The American Air Force is systematically bombing and machine-gunning the town of Seoul, causing great damage to the residenti~l areas. The nnmber of casualties among the population of Seaul is about 7.000. "A ~;.rge nthüœr of small towns and villages of South and North Korea, containing no military targets o!' industrial undertakings of any kind, have frequently been subjected to orotal bombing by American airerait and many of them have bœn entirely or a1most entirely destroyed. For example. the district capital, Vondzhyu.. in Sout.'It Kanvon Provinœ, has been destroyed; the village of Denpkho, Kengi Province; the town of Khonchon, South Kanvon Province; the town of Phkentkhok, Kengi Province; and the village of Yangak, South Pyongyang. "There are nÙtnerous instances of American aeroplanes firing on peasants working in the fields, passenger trains and steamers. For example, on 3 July, four American aireraft shot at peasants of the village of Ponsan, Khuankhe Province. who were working in the fields; as a result of the firing 15 persons were killed and 8 wounded. On 4 July, six American aireraft four times machine-gunned peasants of Munari village, South Pyongyang Province, who were engaged in weeding the fields; as a result, 15 peasant'S were killed, one of them Kim, a peasant wornan, with her infant to whom she was giving the breast among the rice paddies. On 3 July, at.Sookho station, an American plane shot at a mail train travelling between Pyongyang and Nadin; the conductor and severa1 passengers were seriously wounded. On 4 J uly, American aireraft several times shot at passenger steamers travelling from Nampkho to Khvankhe, as a result of which 33 passengers were killed or injured. On 5 July, American planes machine-gunned women who were washing clothes in the Senchengan river, near KltarQkhyn, and children who were bâthing in the riv~; as a result of the 6.ring 12 persons were killed and 14 injured. ."Having set itseif the task of destroying Korean industry and of creating a disastrous situation for the Korean people, the American Air Force is carrying out systematic attacks on industJjal centres, destroying concerns which have no connexion whatsoeverwith war industry. During an attack on Pyongyang, for example, a starch factory, two soya ùean mills, a garment factQry, a ~osiery factory, a mbber footwear factory and a grain mill were destroyed. During raids on Namphko, an 3 .:"An tltese crimeS reeresent P.QliCe-.âction came40ttt m the name of the United Nations. Tbe comm"nUJ~s ËSSued byMacArthttf'S' l1eadquarters dai}y reporttlte drOpping of hundreds of tons .of hoi?JbS. on ~ot:~ towns and viUages. ancl representaltt!ûs With'cannib8Ustic cynicism as a great boon for the Korean people.. •'Li1..-e honest people all over ilie wortd, the Kcrean people is incensed at the barbarie.ads of the American· interventionists in Korea. In bringing the' abQve facts w'tite-imowledge-of the Sectttïty Omncil, the Govem~ ment of the Korean People's DèIDocratic- Republic, whüe making no refercnce in the present instance tothe general !luestion of. the illegality of United States inte"- valtion in Koren. in regard to "-:lich the Government of the People's Democratie Republie has already indicated its position in a statement sent by it to the Secretary- General of the United Nations on 28 June 1950. fSllS21]~ enters a categorical protest.and demands that urgent steps he taken to stop the above-mentioned IDonstrous crimes which are being commitled by United .States anned forces iD. Korea. The Government of the .1Coreaa People's Democratie Republic considers that, in the ~t of the Security Council tefusing to take steps 10 atop"the criminal acts of United States interventionists in Korea. the responsübility for these crimina1 deeds will full not only..on .the United' States interventionists but aIso,on the States members of the Security.Council who .bave prevented those steps being taken. "(Signed) PAX IhN NEN "Minmer for Eoreign Affairs of the People's Democratie Republic of Korea:' 1 shaUask the Assistant Secretary-General to read the second dOctUDent [5/1616]. which W;lS received fJ:om the United Nations Commission on Korea. as there is no Russian.text of that document. Mt; TsI.ÀNG(China): 1 wish to raise ~ point of ord~' Today. as, on Friday last [483rd.meeting]•.the ~dent began to transact· business. without having i11vitèd the representative of the Republic of Korea ~o ~ bis pIace at the Council table. On Friday last,after .~ adoption of the ~dà,tl:te.•. President '. gave the ftO()rtothe'iepreseIitativ'e dÎthe: Saviet UniOn 50' that ~~4prèSêritacb:aft~lù.,tioitfS/1668]. T~y, -~"'tht·a~bPti<ri,l'cn~e"3gêtJ~.tk.ë 'Ptesi4~t.pro- . .. ètecJedro reâd us a lOIig,propagantiistiê telegràril. With- çUt:bàviilginvited the i'epresehtati"\fe of the Republie'of. K'oftâ'to mkehispJaœ.···· .'... ". .... . •. ....: .. ' '•.... ',' - ", . ,~.:"'.: ' .,' "....... , ~. Ill.ny ~iriion?thenormal proœdJ11'e.will ~.ta continue OLU' di~SSlon and to reaclt, a definlte deaslon. As tegards the documents rèceived by the Security ,qQuncll, theydonot, aswe lcnow.have.any:direct bea:rijîgQrithè'question of t..lteinvitatiol?. I~is the dutyof ~.lreSi(leritof the Setmity Coùncil tri aèquaint memberS of thè.Couneil and no one e1se with these docu- 111eIJ,~.ItW'as with this that -began our.work today. In'view of the fact that the t, t of the tirsi: document - wu' in RUSsian, i rood it out. Drawing attenqon to the , "fà~Hhat-tbèrew~n6 R~ t~ûfthe seeond dûC'"û- , ri,tent, 1œve requested the Assistant Secretary-General . to read thetext of that document. -r ,}terbap$,sincè the other documents art: of a routine ~etér;'W~ shallnot read them bu~ mereJy take note ·9f'thêln.'i\ftef that we shall'continue our discussion of tlle. qtieStionwhich we were unablê to cOmplete àt our tast.tI1eetiDg•.A11.this is in order and in accordance with ' tb.e'usual .~. followed in the Security Couneil ànd th~is no need for hurry. '.•Çonsequ,ently the President ca'Ulot come to a hurried ~cll1sion and refusé the f100r to speakers who have ~ for it in order to state their views on the question , tuidet discuSsion - a question which we began to con- , sider at out last meeting and are continuing to consider tOday. 1 should he delighted if we ~ompletedthe discussi()ll today and came io a definite decision.. Isball now ask the Assistant Seeteb1ry-Genera1 to read the document 1 have mentioned. " ..' Mr. Tsu:NG (China): Point of order. A point of OJ.'der is not a point of opinion; it is a point in the law of procedure. l, request. that the President should apply rule30properly. That rule requires that "the President ~l inunediately state bis ruling". Ml'. SUNDE (Norway) : ln connexion with the point of ordexraised by the representative of China, 1 jus!' wmtto state tbat it is never premature for the President. ta discharge bis dulies and observe the rules of pt,èk:êdure.. ThePusmENT (mmslatell yam RflSsian): The . ,fle!it is acting,in strict ~rdancewith the .United o---Ctiarterand,the rulèsŒ prpcedure.The Presi- '... .,. ..Ùldiè:a,ted tbat tlte question arose at the pre- WS~ôfthe S(a1I'ÏtjCouncil of inviting W~ ~dJJ1CemedJn theinterna1 confIict in KQrea .in .~give bath tbose partiesahearïng at the Counci1 . ~".':&t' ~tarose on tbat question. Some deleg.ttiOD.o; soUghtlO nWntain tbat, th.é, representatiye of Accordingly, the PSSR delegaâon raised the question of inyj.ting both parties, considering that the question of inviting interested p:uiies is raised afresh at every meeting of the Security Couneil and that on every occasion the President invites the representatives of the interested parties to the Council· table unless 'any objectionis raised. . But the President could not invite,' either at· the iast meeting or at the present meeting, a representative against whom a delegation had raisro an objection. Con-: sequently the President flnds himself in a position in which he cannot annollace his final conclusions on the question until the discussion ôf this question, started ai: the previousmeeting, is concluded. The President intend~ to adhere strictly to the. Charter and to.give anyone wismng to express his opinion on the .question under· dif,cussion an opportunity lof doing so. This is the nomlal course_and the normal pro- ~st sèil les Conseil, cédentc, contre Le il tant cette auX qui sui l'examen - 'Conseil question, connaître leurs male, tuelleinent suivante cette Conseil cet clusion motion l'interprète ~: se Le saires tion dent, dents. orateurs, ced~re for the discussion'lf this question. The President therefore concludes that the Seeurity Couodrmust continue its discussion of this questio.n, particularly as he has speakers on his list who wish ü> express their views on this qup.stion. This will he the normal course of action, correspondîng to the procedure laid down for our work. . The President's conclusion regarding the point of order which bas b~en submitted is, theN[ore, that the question shQWd· be discussed in order that a· definite decision ~f be reached as a result of that discussion. The President cannot announce the conclusion whic:h is desired by the person who has raised the' point of order. . , The President is not màking a final ruling but i~ merely summing up the·position whic:h has arisén~ The President· has, àS yét; no basis··for a .definite til1ùlg 00: the question: under discussion. Consequently, in spite ofthe persistent demands 9f the tw~ preceding speakers, the Presidentcan.not at thispoint announce his' con- clusion. .. . condusion~ Mr. AUl)TlIti (United States of America): 1 chal- lenge the rulingof:the President. This i~ ~e in coin- lete support of thepdnt of arder made by therepre-

It is the right of the President, as it is of every member of the Security Council, to make corrections during the interpretation. When the term "ruling" was use<! during the interpretation - 1 did not use the term in Russian - 1 pointed out that no final ruling had been made, as the President was not in a position to make one. Mr. TSIANG (China): i\lthough technically the President has avoided making a ruling, he bas actually made the ruling because he is proceeding to conduct the business of the Security Council without inviting the representative of Korea to this table. That conduct is in itself a ruling. In fact it is a ruling in execution, not only a ruling on paper. In refusing to reverse bis procedure and to give my question an answer, the President bas violated rule 30. 1 demand an immediate ruling in'accordaDce with rule 30. The PlŒSIDENT (translated trom Russian): As representative of the UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST RE- PUBLICS, 1 wish to speak on the point of order. Mr. TSIANG (China): Point of order. After a point of order is raised, the President must render a ruling without giving the Boor to any other representative.

As representative of the UNION OF SOVIET SÔCIALIST RE- PUBl.ICS, 1 shall speak on the point of order. The USSR delegation has the same right as other delegations to state its views. The Security Counci1 bas heen obliged to waste a second meeting on the discussion of the Soviet Union proposai that repi"~entativ~of the people of Korea should he invited to attend a meeting of the Council because the United States delegation and the representative of the Kuomintang group object to this proposaI. It is perfectly clear that, since we are discussing the cessation of hostilities, it is essential to invite and hear both sides in the debate on the Korean question. To. invite both sides would he proof of the Security Council's rea1 ~'P.sire to assist in the cessation of hostilities in Korea. Having provoked the attack on Ndrth Korea by the puppet forces of South Korea, and taking advantage of the fact that two permanent members - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Chinese People's Republic - were not participating in the work of the Security Council, Umted States ruling circles began on 2S June ta introduce this illegal practice of takïng illegal and unilateral decisions in the Security Council itself. , The USSR delegation considers· that, before'taking a decision on the Korean Question, the Security Council should hear representatives of the Korean people, i.e., representapves of bath parties, of the North Koreans and of the South Koreans, in order to avoid being :m1Sled and taking a decision based on a one-sided version. The representative of the United States and a number of other representatives state that they are opposed to the granting by the Counci1 of a hearing to representatives of North Korea during the discussion of the Korean question, and press for the invitation of represent2tives of South Korea only. Such an attitude is It is clear even from this resolution that this "government", set up as a result of +he manipulated elections carried out by United States Lrillitary authorities, was set up in South Korea oo1y and in that sense was and is "the only such government in Korea". In order that there should be no doubt whatever that· tbis South Korean puppet govemment had nothing to do with North Korea, even the Anglo-American authors of that resolution were forced to point out in its wording that that "govemment" was set up in one part of Korea only, that is, in South Korea. It is common k,owledge that full legal authority in North Korea is exercised by the Supreme Popular Assembly of the People's Democratic Republic of Korea, elected by the people of the whole of Korea-in North Korea on the basis of free,. universal, direct and equal elections by secret ballot, and in South Korea on the basis of similar elections but under illegal conditions, since the Syngman Rhee clique did not permit free elections. Thus, if we compare the United States representative's assertion that the South Korean puppet régime is the only representative of the Korean people with the fact .,;nd with the wording of the resolutions adopted by the General ASl'embly and the Security Council, AlI Members of the United Nations are very well aware that when the Korean question, on the insistenc:e of the Government of the United States and its vassals, was illegally put forward for discussion for the first rime at the second session of the General Assembly in 1947, the Anglo-American bloc, headed by the United States, w01Jld not permit representative5 of the North Korean authorities to he present at that session. That occurred at the very beginning of the discussion of the question, long before the notorious United Nations Commission on Korea was established. These are facts of common knowledge. Hence it was not the Government of the People's Democratie Republie of Korea which first embarked on the course of declining to have anything to do with the United Nations and its Commission; it was, on the con1:mIY, the Anglo- American bloc in the United Nations which ficst prevented the Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Korea from attending the meetings of the Assembly and forced through its own one-sided, unjust and illegal resolutions, with which the United States representative is now attempting not only to cloak the illegal action and discrimination which the United States Government and its vassals have heen perpetrating against North Korea since 1947, bu\: also to cloak and justify the direct aggression of the United States upon the Korean people and its legal representative, the Government of the Korean People's Democratie Republic. Ts it not obvious that al1 talk of the South Korean régime being the sole representative of the Korean people is absurd and contrary not onty to common sense but to the elementary principles of democratic government? How can the Security Counci1 recognize the South Korean puppet régime of Syngman Rhee as the sole repres.entative of the Korean people while the overwhelming proportion of the Km'ean people have no relations whatsoever with that régime? The United States representative's assertion that the North Korean authorities had not submitted to the United Nations is also without foundation or substance. On doser scrutiny it turns out, first, that no legal decision has been taken by the United Nations. There was therefore nothing for the Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Korea to submit to. Secondly, the resolutions dictated by the United States ~vernment were illegal inasl11uch as they were adopted ID gross violation of the Charter, and are not binding upon anyone,inc1uding the Govemment of the People's Democratic Republic of Korea. Thirdly, and finally, they are not binding on the Government of the People's Democratie R' ublic of North Korea for the further reason that tb ~ who adopted these illegal resolutions United States representatives, and in particular Mr. Austin, love to discourse on "fairness" and "democracy". But where is this famous "fairness" and "democracy" when a group of members of the Security Council, in the absence of two of the Council's members-the USSR and China-adopt at United States dictation illegal and scandalous resolutions directed against one of the parties to a domestic conflict, a civil war between the people of Korea, without even having heard that party? This is a most flagrant violation of Article 32 of the Charter. Of course it is easier for the United States Government to condemn the victim of its aggression ünheard and to force through illegal resolutions directed against the victims of the aggression. What does aU this denote, however? It denotes that the United States Government is forcing upon the Security Couneil its one-sided and false version of the beginning and spread of events in Korea, fearin~ open international discussion of the Korean question in the Security Council with the participation of the representatives of the Korean people---that is, with the participation of bath sides, north and south. The United States representative is trying to make the Security Council believe that this is a "democr.atic" and "fair" way of international discussion of disputes in an international body such as the Security Council and tÎle United Nations, the purpose of which is the maintenance of peace and pacific settlement. It is clear to every sensible and unbiased person, however, that sucb a method is not democracy but gangsterism. We are confronted with a crying picture of monstrous international injustice and lawlessness which the United States Government and its vassals are trying to force upon the Security Couneil and to pass off as the opinion of the United Nations. When it is a question of giving the representatives of the Government of the Korean People's Democratic Republic a hearing in the Seeurity Council, the United States Government demands that the Council should not recognize that government as one of the parties to the dispute. When. however, the United States Government is trying to find a justification for its aggression against the Korean people and for its armed intervention in the internaI afiairs of that people, the United States delegation does not hesitate to reco~ize, in the official wording of its proposals, the reality and the existence of the "North Korean authorities"; it seeks to condenm-though without the slightest legal justification-the action of those authorities, and even-again The USSR delegation has accordingly put forward a proposaI that represerltatives of the Korean people, . by which it means representatives bOth of North Korea and of South Korea, should he heard by the Security Council. The United States representative and a numher of representatives who follow his lead object to this proposal. It is however quite obvious from the facts outlined by the delegation of the Soviet Union that such objections have no basis or substance in the rules and provisions of international law, the United Nations Charter, Security Council practice, reality or common sense. These objections are motivated on the one hand by the United States Govemment's fear of having the representatives of the Govemment of the People's Democratie Republic of Korea admitted to the Security Council and given an opportunity of telling the Couneil the truth about the events in Korea, and, on the other hand, by its desire to continue and intensify its aggression in Korea. The United States Govemment and its de1egation in the Security Couneil fear truth like the plague. They are therefore exerting every effort to exc1ude representatives of the North Korean authorities and do not hesitate to distort facts, grossly violate the Charter and even to apply the method of open pressure upon some me..rnbers Qf the Security Couneil. di~ussion of the "Korean question. Disagreement with représentants thlS proposaI can be interpreted only as unwillingness Corée Mr. TSIANG (China): 1 mRin~.lli my point of order and request the President to give a ruling. Now that the President of the Securîty Council has had the benefit of the wisdom of the representative of the Soviet Union, he e"10uld he in a position to give the ruling.

1 request the last speaker to state exactly what he proposes. Mr. TSUNG (China): In my first intervention this afternoon 1 repeated my point of order. I repeat it DOW for the third time. It is this : does the President consider it obligatory upon him to carry out the decision of the Securîty Council of 25 June [473rd mee,,5ng] by inviting the representative of the Republic of Korea tei take bis seat at the Security Council table?

As I understand the last speaker's proposaI he is insisting that a representative of the South Korean authorities should he granted permission to attend today's meeting of the Security Council in aœordance with the decision adopted at the meeting of 25 June. Do I understand the previons speaker's proposaI correctIy? Mr. TSIANG (China) : The President'sinterpretation is not quite right. My point is: does the President feel that he should invite the representative of Korea to the Seci.trity Council table or not?

In the cireumstances which have arlseIl, the President cannot give a ruling on this question. . So far as the USSR delegation is concerned, the USSR delegation arrives, ·from the discussion of this question, at the conclusion that an objection to inviting the representative of the South Korean authorities bas been raised by the USSR delegation. That delegation does not regard the decision adopted on 25 Junewhich, to he more accurate, was not a· decision but mere1y permission granted to the representative of the South Korean authorities to attend the Security Council meeting-as valid for the pl'esent meeting, since there was no special Securïty Counci1 decision on this question; the Council's decision on this question was not clearly formulated and was taken in consequence of a ruling by the President, who stated: "It is open to us to permit this under rule 39 of the Security Council rules if there is no objection•••" (as the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics I lay suess on this) ".•. if there is no objection I propose that we grant the neœssary permission. Since there is no objection, 1 invite the representative of the Government of the Republic of Korea to take bis place at the table." The USSR delegation isaccordingly introducing a proposai which reads as follows: "To put to the vote the question wliether the permission granted to the representative of the South Korean authorities to attend the meeting of the Security Counci1 of 25 June is valid for today's meeting also." " Sucb ls the proposal'of the de1egation of the Soviet Union. glais) de majorité sireuse Corée délai. que tenant, , et sera qualité pour sentants metlt Then. we Ci.ZJ. have a debate on that, and wecan vote on it. And it is clearly on sucb a motiolll as this Jast one la tbat the iong speech wmch the President has just decette Iivered would he in order. If the President insiststhat vient the question should he put in such a way as tohe, Quite dans irankly, in a form to which he may apply his veto, then, que in my opinion at any rate, he is not only clearly diSrepuisse. . garding rule 30 of the ndes of proced.ttre, ·,ta which veto, reference has heen made, but he is also tryingto'avoid- . -rnent' the issue which, .as 1 have already said, is perfectly térieur clear. . d'éluder parfaitement It is true, 1 think, that we cannotactually force our President ta admit that he bas made a ~ which he le says he has not made, or to make a ru1jng which he question· alors Sir Gladwyn JEBB (United .Kingdom): Whatever the exact legal position ma; he, the simple fact is that a very large majority of '.he memhers of theSecurity C{)uncil wish the repres entative of the Republic of Korea .to take bis place at this table without further dclay. When:this bas been done and, with all respect, it should he done now, unless the President ndes to the contrary, and his ruling ls sustamed, it will he quite in order, l believe, for the President, in his capacity as representative of the Soviet Union, or for any other representative, to propose that repreSentatives of the North Korean authorities should also he invited. .., If my appeal is not heeded by the President,.l cannot myself see any other course than for us to adJourn for consultation.

The United Kingdom representatiye has very rightly pointe? out that the Security Councl1 cannot force the PreSldent to make a ruling regardless of all considerations. If the President cannat malce and announce a ruling, he is perfectly within his rights in not doing so. Nevertheless the representative of the United States and the repres~ntative of the Kuomintang group intend to bring pressure to bear on the President to make a ruling regardless of aU considerations. The President announces that he i.s unable to make a ruling because of the situation which has arisen. Secondly, l should like to correct the United Kin~­ dom representative's statement. He says that the Presldent can use the "veto". It is well known, however, that the President does not enjoy the right of "veto"; the right of "veto" is enjoyed only by the .represent~­ tives of the permanent members of the Secunty Councll. The President of the Security Council, as such, does not have the right of "veto", but l, as representative of the USSR have the right. This is correct. In regard to the situation which has arisen, and in view of the argument regarding the invitation to ~he representative of South Korea, the USSR delegatlOn proposes that the question whether the permission granted to the representative of South Korea-of the South Korean authorities-to attend the meeting of the Securïty Council of 25 June is valid for today's meeting also should be put to the vote. This is a concrete, useful and very clear proposaI. Why should we not vote on it? If the Council so desires, the President can put this proposaI to the vote. If some representatives are unable to vote at once and suggest, as does the United Kingdom representative, that we adjourn, then, as the Council knows, such a proposal-a proposaI for adjournment -takes precedence. Ml'. AusTIN (United States of America) : It is desirable, is it not, to adopt at the earliest moment a resolution of the Security Council whicll has a practical chance of helping to bring about peace and, in the meantime, confining the war to the area of Korea? Is it not true that that is the great objective before us, and that all tllis manœuvrïng, cunning and device by which the President hinders and obstructs procedure in the Security Council, does not tend tovvard peace? It is true, is it not, that it does 110t tend towards limiting the area of combat? \V!lcn the President as such, or as the representative of the Soviet Union-it makes no difference which hat he w(~ars while he is doing it-undertakes ta persuade this great audience here present, and aIl the world outde le à que en quelles ment Coréens par Qui ganisation cinquante-trois a vasion de Charte paix? des blique de Conseil du et pression que projet s'inspire venir mission tians dans ni tant règlement de de expresse represen p cette sicl(~, that the United States is an aggressor in Korea, r should Iike to ask whose troops are attacking deep in the coulltry of somehody else? The North Koreans. \~hosc country is 1Jeing oven'un by an invading army? The Hepuhlic of Korea. Who is assisting the Repu1Jlic of Korea ta defend itseIf? The United Nations, with the sllpport of fifty-three out of fifty-nine Members. \-"ho has the influence and the power to calI off the invading North Korean army? The Soviet Union. Who thclI is supporting the United Nations Charter and workincr for peace? The fifty-three Members of the Unite« Nations which are assisting the Repu1Jlic of j" Knrea. Js the USSR one of the fifty-three? No. What mell\hl~r 0 f thiR Security Council is assisting the invaders in the Secnrity Conucil? The Soviet Union. Ail these performances that have occurred here, creating a very bad impression, l am sure, uJ?on al.l peace- 10'\:ing' Hal ions, just delay the clay of c~nsldel'atlO1;1- of a clraft rt'solution before ns that bas a sll1cer~ 1110tlve of pence and of nssist~l1ce ta tl~ose who are tr~1l1g to c.arry out Ihe lH,';\ce-making fnncttons of the U:mted NatIOns. Wc have nllw been strnggling for a week ln a procedural qungl11ire. l t l1l~lst. he aPl?arent to aIl o~ 11S and to th~ wor!el that the SovIet UnIOn representatIve. who, undei our rules of procedure, is acting. as PresI~ent of the Securitv Cnu\1ciI this month, WIl! not abI~e by o~r rules o'f procedure or by the expressed WIll of tIns COtlllcÎl. The record shows that he has made ev~ry effort ~o stop Dur work and keep us ~rom o~lr busll1es~. If hls camp'dgn of obstruction continues, Jt cau lead to onl~ OI1(~ c'onseque!1ce: the Sectlr.ity Counci~ will be stalle on deal! centre for the rema1l1der of this month, unable ta discharge its responsibility under the Charter of keeJling the peace. This is the challenge we must meet. ~urité dans de C'est During this interval, l suggest that t~e other delegations should consult together to determme wh~t st~ps we shan take to assert the authority of the Secunty Council in the event that the USSR Government continues its campaign to prevent the President from acting. ., l definite1y move that we should adJourn untIl 3 p.m. on Thursday, 10 August.

T.he public is invited to attend meetings of .the Seclfrlty Council but is not entitled to express Its emotIons. These may be varied, violent and noisy, but they impede the work of the Security CounciL l therefore request those who are not able to restrain their emotions to leave the Council chamber. If they do not wish to do so, l request them to sit quietly and not to impede the Council's work. As representative of tl!e UNION OF SOVIE~ SOCIALIST REPUBLICS l shall confine myself to a bnef reply to the United States representative's speech. With his characteristic originality, he is attempting to shift the blamc from the guilty to the innocent. He has .done so in the past ; he is doing so .at p:esent and, smc~ the habit has become so deeply mgramed, he seems ltke1y to do so in the future also. The United States delegation and its faithful vassal, the representative of the Kuomintang group, are engaging in obstructionism. It was they who secured the rejectioll of the USSR delegation's proposaI for the discussion of the question of the peaceful settlement of the Korean problem immediately, because war and not peace enters into the calculations of the United States Government. Billions upon billions are being appropriated for war. The ruling circ1es of the United States do not want peace. Berein lies the main cause. The Security Council has wasted three days-three meetings -in attempting to persuade the United States delegation to concern itself with the peaceful settlement of the Korean question. Relying on its military and political allies in the Security Council and upon one of its most active supporters-the Kuomintang representative-the United States delegation secured the rejedion of that proposaI. Who is to blame? The United States delegation is to blame for the fact that the Security Council has been obliged to devote three meetings to this question. The USSR delegation is at present striving, in strict accordance with the 01arter, for a just solution of the question whether both parties to the conflict in Korea should be invited to the Security Council, whether both tbe belligerents in Korea should have an opportunity of stating their views before the Security CounciL Who is preventing this? The United States representative and his loyal servant, the representative of the Kuomintang group. This is how matters stand in reality. "localization~'., That delegat:ion dec1ares to theSeeurity Council and-to the public opinion -of the' world that the United States draft resolution isintended to, ex-· tend thescale of the. United States Govemment's aggression against the Kor~people, to exterminate the Korean people3 Korean industry, ancient Korean monuments, monuments of-ancient Korean eu1tW'e, which cao never be restored. United States troops are trampling ripon Korean fields, United States airmen in United States planes are murdering, shooting and firing upon the peaceful population. . - Oo1y tooay we have read a telegram from the Governrnent of the Korean People's' Democratic Republic regarding the brutalities, evïl deedsand crimes whicb United States airmen have perpetrated on the Korean people.. Who is the aggressor? Who is waging war in Korea? The GovernmeIit of the United States. And the United States representative \Vill notsucceedin concealing this ftom -the public opinion of the world by any of bis honeyed speeches. Sucb is the position. . The USSR delegation bas beeri insttucted by its Government to strive resolutely and fight actively. for the cause of peace and the peaceful settlement of the Korean question. It has mstructions from its Govemment to fight for a just consideration of the question of thepeaceful settlement of the Korean question in the Security Council. By a. just-considèration, it means the .m.Vîtatiort--ûffioth -parties' and the invitation -of -a .representative of the Chinese People's Republic. The United States delegation and its satellites objectto tbis and are using obstructionist methods. The question is clear. If the United States de1egation' nee<ls tiine to delve once more inta the co.mplexities of a procedural manœuvre to which the United States representative often bas recourse in the Securïty Council, with the support of hismilitary and political allies- -and not in the Security Counal anly, but in aU the organs ~f the United Nations, in the attett1pt to stifle justice, to iJJ1pose bis will and to dictate bis terms-if the Unite4 States -representative needs to consult with bis satellites,-ta bri.ngpressure tobear ,upon them and ' to compel them to vote as the United St'ates representative wis1l.es, let us gï"e him two days-until Thursday. The USSR delegation does not require that time. It is prepared to dïscuss end vote upon the qUestiLtlS on . the Seqtrity. Cout191's _~da at-one-" but on one condition~ w:hiCh is that fi United States de1egation shall stop itsobstructiopism, stopmaking a moc:kery of the Charter an~~ee to examine the Korean question in the Sècurity Council with the participation of both sides, in a manuer which shall-he-fair and in accordance with the Charter. Throughout the week, the United, States. delegation has been consistently obstructive, and that is preventing the Security Council from·proceeding immediately to consider the peaceful settlement of the Korean problem. The USSR delegation considers it necessaI} to call a meeting of the Security Cound1 as saon as possible because of the complaint received today from the Government of the People's Democratie Republic of Korea. On that complaint the USSR delegation is submitting a draft resolution which it suggests that the Secùrity Council should consider without delay. This. draft resolution [S/1679] reads as follows: "PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE INHUMAN, BARBAROUS BOMBING BY THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE OF THE PEACEFUL POPULATION, TOWNS AND POPULATED AREAS IN KOREA "Ha'VÎng considered the protest of the Government of the People's Democratie Republic of Korea against the inhuman,barbarous bombing of the peacef.ù popu- lation and of peaceful towns and populated areas which is being carried out by the United States Air Force in Korea, "Recognizing that the bombing by the United States armed forces of Korean towns and villages, involving the destruction· and' mass annihilation of the peaceful civilian 'population, is a gross violation of the univer- sally accepted rules of international law, "To cali upon the Government of the United States of America to cease and not permit in "future the bombing by the Air Force or by other means of towns and populated areas and also the shooting up from the air of the peaceful population of Korea; "To instruct the Secretary-General of the United Nations to bring this decision of the Security Council to the very urgent notice of the Govemment of the United States of America." In submitting this draft resolution, the USSR dele- gation suggests that the Security Council should con- sider it tomorrow, at 3 p.m. Before calling on the representative of Reuador, l should like, as PRESIDENT, ta remind the Council that there have been two proposals for the adjoumment of the meeting until tomorrow. We shall first take a vote on the United States rep- resentative's proposaI for an adjoumment until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 10 August. We shall then vote on the USSR representative's proposaI for an adjournment until3 p.m. tomorrow, 9 August. If there are no proposals to the contrary, l propose that we should now vote on these two proposais. Does the representative of Ecuador wish to speak on tms matter? For a long time, at the [482tul!ltul 483rd] meetings of 3 and 4 August, and again today, 1 have taken no part in the discussion. 1 bave not asked for any clari- fication. neither bave 1 raised a point of arder. because 1 wished to see if we could reach any conclusion. The long dialogue hetween the President of the Couneil and the representative of the Soviet Unio:u bas taken up Most of the time, but if the USSR representative thinks now that he can once again violate the rules of prO'- cedure by opening the debate when there is a motion for the suspension. 1 shall ask, as representative of Eeuador. ta be placed first on the list of speakers for the beginning of the next meeting. 1 repeat that there has been a violation of the rules of procedure, because it is a fact ta be deduced from the record of our [473rd] meeting of 25 June and from the statements of the members of the Couneil who pre- sided during the months of June and July, that the Couneil took a decision. Moreover, in accordance with rule 30 of the roles of procedure, the President bas heen asked to take a decision. He bas not done so, thus violating the rules of procedure. Accordingly, since the representative of the Soviet Union is violating the rules in this way. 1 should like, on behalf of my country, to express the views on which 1 shall base my vote. If, therefore, there is to be discussion regarding the sus- pension of. the meeting, 1 wish to·request, as of now, that 1 should he placed on the list of speakers for the next meeting of the Couneil. vote. sentant jeudi Inde, d'Irlande viétiques.

We will DOW proceed ta the vote. We have two proposais before us. The United States representative's proposal is fot'" an adjournment untir 3 p.m. on Thursday, 10 August. A 'Vote was taken by a show of hands. as follows: In favour: China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, France, India, Norway, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northem Irelalld, United States of America. Against: Union of Soviet Socialist Repuhlics. Abstaining; Yugoslavia. contre en heures. août,

There was one vote against, one abstention and the others in favour of an adjoumment until 7hursday, 10 August, at 3 p.m. The next meeting of the Security Couneil will accordingly he he1d on Thursday, 10 August, at 3p.m. The meeting-,.ose œt 7.05 p.m.