S/PV.494 Security Council

At its 473rd meeting, on 25 June 1950. the Council decided that the representative of the Government of the Republic of Korea should he invited to take his place at the Council table during the consideration of this case. In accordance with that decision, l invite the representative of the Republic of Korea to take his place at the tabie. Mr. John M. Chang, representative of the Republic of Korea, look his place at the Council table. Everyone knows that when the Indonesian question was examined, an act of aggression had been comrnitted by the Government of the Netherlands against Indonesia, so that the Netherlands was the aggressor and the Republic of Indonesia the victim of aggression. Yet no one thought of inviting to the Council table only the victim of aggres3ion and of not inviting the Netherlands. Everyone knows also that both parties to the conflict regarding Kashmir, namely, India and Pakistan, were invited to aU meetings of the Security Council at which that dispute was discussed, a dispute which had assumed the fonn of an armed conflict in which each party was accusing the other of aggression. And fillOl1y, everyone knows that when the Sœurity Couneil co"';dered the Palestine question, bath sides )'h. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) : A point of order. Mr. Malik c01~tintted in Russian: The USSR delegation objects to the President's ruling. for reaSGns which are known to him. l consider th~~, in accordance with the accepted order and roles of procedure, his roling is not vahd until it has been approved by the Security -=:ouncil. For the past month, beginning on l. August. the delegation of the Soviet Union has been demanding a just solution of this question. It submitted a proposaI [483rd meeting] that bath parties to the internaI conflict in Korea <;hould he invited to attend the meetings of the Security Council. The United States delegation. and those who dance to its tune, having no arguments with which to contest the USSR delegation's position regarding the invitation to both parties, have gone as far as openly to misinterpret the Charter, by announcing that Article 32 of the Charter, which lavs down that both or aU parties to a dispute shal1 he invited to participate "without vote, in the discussion relating to the dispute", does not apply to cases of aggression. This is nothing less than a monstrous perversion, not only of the spirit and the letter of the Charter, but also of the generaUy accepted policy which the Security Couneil has fol1owed ev~r since it considered its first dispute and the first acts of aggression. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that it is the United States which is the aggressor in Korea. Its representative sits here in the Security Council, but, with the support of its satellites, the United States does not admit a representative of North Korea ta the Council and, taking advantage of his absence, it is secretly and furtively spreading alI kinds of slander against the Government of the People's Democratie Republic of Korea. Thus the represe!1tativf> of tht aggressor is here, and the representative of the victim of aggression is not, because the aggressor and sorne of his accompli<:es are pfeventing him from it. Is it not clear from the foregoing that the only reason why some members of the Council abject to the USSR proposaI that bath parties concerned should be im·ited ta the Couneil when the Korean question is examined is that the United States delegation has persistently opposed that proposaI? As the U:1Îted States delegation is objecting, it wouId seem that sorne de1egations consider it their bounden dutY ta do likewise, and some of them have already recei ;ed encouraging expressions of gratitude from the United States representative at previous meetings for having done sa. Moreover, sorne representat:ves, like the rt.;presentative of Cuba, in their zeal have obviously overshot the mark; in his vain search for arguments, the Cuban representative was not ashamed to refer ta the case of Papanek, the traitor who betrayed the people of Czechoslovakia. Everyone knows that the Anglo-American bloc needed the presence of that individual at the meetings of the Security Council in order to spread the usual amount of fouI slander and imperialist propaganda against the government and people of a free and democratic republic, making use, to that end, of that traitor to the Czechoslovak people. It should be noted, in this connexion, that the United States has lately become the country to which traitors who have betrayed their countries and their peoples are flowing in a turbid torrent. It is obvious that the USSR representative in the Security Council couId not but object in the most determined manner to such cynical action on the part of the United States delegation. which had dragged to the meetings of the Security ~1J,l1plices laquelle proposition deux question s'oppose (lésaccord, devoir elles des couragements notamment la des au sé:mces anglo-américain basses le démocratique, peuple souligner temps, trahi sentant pas cette qui criminel était patrie ~ouncil a criminai who had sold himself to foreign Imperialism and who was ready to commit any crime against his fatherland and his people. But all this has absolutely no connexion with the question of inviting the representatives of North and South Korea during the:onsideration of the peaceful settlement of the Korean question. de et pacifique ment aucun. [488 impuissance et Si The Cuban representative's reference to this case [488th meetillg] is proof merely of his helplessness and the worthlessness of his arguments. Were the Cuban representative to consider the substance of the For a whole month the USSR de1egation has been active1y directing its efforts towards - and demanding - justice; it has been demanding a decision in accordance with the Charter; it has been demanding that Loth parties should be represented in the Security Council. However, it is about as difficult ta expect justice from the ruling circles of the United States as ta hope in our time that manna should faIl from heaven. The aggressive, cruel, immeasurably greedy and overbearing ruling circles of the United States, in their bid for world domination, are acting in accardance with their policy of aggression, and do not understand the meaning cf justice. That is the reason why the United States delegation is objecting sa fiercely to the proposaI of the S wiet Union that bath the parties c0i1cerned should be invited ta the Security Council during the con~ sideration of the question of the peaceful settlement of the problem of Korea. bien, le représentant de son décision sentant que reçoive cette remarquer je tion inviter Nord. tion, à voix 2 commencer représentant prise sentant 25 considère simplement de du soulevée donc Conseil s'estime de

The representative of the Soviet Union has raised, as 1 see it, t'NO points in his speech. In the first place, he has contested my action in inviting the representative of the Republic of Korea ta the table. In the second place, he has deman':led that an invitation should also be extended to a representative of the North Korean authorities, and he has asked for a vote on that point today. As regards the last point, 1 must point out that on 2S June last [473rd tneeting], unIes:> 1 am in error, the Council decide·l against :l. Yugoslav draft resolution [S/ 1500] pw•. ~ing inter alia that a represenèative of the North Korean authorities should be invited to this table. But 1 myseIf should have no objection, if my colleagues shouJd so ciesire, to our again deciding this point by means of a vote before we get on to the actual consideration of item 2 on our present agenda. However, 1 think that we are bound to deal with the first point first. Here 1 would repeat that the representative of the USSR has protested against the President's action m inviting the representative of the Republic of Korea to the Council table. 1 have already referred to the decision taken by the Council with regard to this question on 2S June. In the light of that decision 1 believe that, as President, 1 am not mere1y justified in inviting, but 1 am obliged to invite, the representative of the Republic of Korea to the Council table. The President's ruling on this point of order raised by the representative of the Soviet Union is therefore as follows: in view of the decision taken by the Security Council at its meeting of 2S June, the President considers that he is obliged to invite the representative of the Republic of Korea ta take his place at the Council table. MI'. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian) : 1 repeat that 1 object to the, President's ruling on the basis of the precedents WhlCh have been established by the Council in the course of its deliberations. In accordance with those precedents, when the President invites a non-member o,f the Security Council to take his place at the CouncI! table, he does so with the reservation "provided there are no objections". No such reservation has been made by the President. There have been instances in the Council's 5 tiques) la dents et table qui réserve genre. 1 come now to my second point. During the month of Augue', the Security Council deyoted three unofficial l1lt:etings to the consideration of the question of inviting representatives of both parties - of North Karea as weil as of South Korea. During th~t month it discussetl that question also at fourteen official meetings. ln the course of the discussions, the United States delegation, and other delr<Tations whkh followed its lead, retuseel to settle tl. question of inviting representatives of 1\orth K01"a. They deliherately hlucked the L'SSR proposai on that question, being solel)' concerned with ensuring an im'itation ta a representative of the Syn~man Rhee regime who was acceptahie tu the L'nited States. "1 he delegatian of the Soviet L"nion took, and is taking, a just lJosition in its demand that both sides should Le invited. The CSSR delegation proposed at an unoftlcial meeting of the Security Council that ways and means should he sought of settling this question. lt stated that the Soviet L'Gion had not changed its position with regard to the resolution of 25 J une, and that it thought it possible for the memhers of the Security Council - without entering into the question oi the valiehty of the resolution of 25 June, sinee it had been exhaustivel)' debated - to come tu an agreement on the im'itation to the representative of South Korea and at the same time on the invitation to the representative of the authorities of North Korea. That was the proposai of the USSR delegation. ln reply to that proposaI, the representative of N"orway, as spokesman for thosè who opposed inviting a representative of .:\orth Korea, made a statement c1eclaring that he and a number of members of the Council on whose behalf he was speaking, namely, the representatives of the Cnited States, the United Kingc1um, France and some other countries. still insisted that only the representative of South Korea "hûulcl he invited to the meeting of the Security Council, in accordanœ with the resolution of 25 June. The (lue"tion oi inviting the representative of 1\o'rth Korea could, he declared - to quote his own words - be IOnsidered at a later stage, together with the proposai il,r tlle "ettlement of the Korean lluestion aiter the "u-called Cnited "ations "lJOlke action" in l'orea hacl IJI:tI1 ["(,mpleted. \Ve ail know whal this "police action" rt.illy is. The L'nited States is waging war on the Ke,rtall j)tul'Ie and, on Truman's orclers, has approl)riated lJver ten thousand million dollars for that war, and i" "encling hUlldred" ui tholls..nds 0 i troops "llj'l,lied with the latt""t weapons. That is c.:.lled the "j,oliee acticJll ui the United "ations". ï hl: fl:l,fbelltati\e lIi the Soviet L'llion <.skeJ the N(,rwl:gian repre:>entativl: to "tatc whcther thu:-.e mem- Ltr" (,f the ll'lIIH'i1 1'11 whc,,,e Lehalf he was spca!·;ing The President of that ulloflicial nll'eting and the dele!!ation of the ~oyiet Union came to the logical con~jusio'1 that the :\orwegian representatiye and those who had authnrized him to Ill' tllt'ir spokesman did not wisll to come to a ,'011crete de,'ision on the matter ai inviting representatives from ~orth Korea, but that they insisted at the same time on im'iting representatives from South Korea. :\s we know, that unot1icial meeting was without result and an announcement was issued for the Press ta the d'fect that. on 21 .\ugust. an unofficial exchange of views had heen held hetween memhers of tÎle Security Council regarding the question of inYiting representatives of :\orth and South Kon'a. and that no agreement had heen reached. Thus the three unofficial and iourteen official meetings of the Security Council failcd to break the deadlock. owing to the obstinacv of the T..Jnited States delegation ~hich hlocked th,,· CSSR proposai for the im'itation of both partie~. 15 it not dear that when the el('yen memllers of {he Securitv Council 'l<lXe failed to reach a definite and concrete decision on the question of an invitation to repr('sentatiyes of the Korean people. the President of the Securitv Council cannot aione and of his own will - if he ois really an objecti\"e President guided by the United Xations Charte:, by precedent and by the accepted practice in the Security Council - decide this question on his own authority? That is the positlOn; that is wh)' the President of the Security Council cannot independently take a decision on the questil.n of inyiting representatives of South Korea onlv. For the foregoing reasons, the CSSR delegation ohjects to the President's ruling and insists that it should he put to the \'ote. de entendu Mes lorsque c'est l'article de proposée du membres est The PRESIDEKT: The representati\'e of the Soviet Union has challenged my ruling, and of course he is entire1y at liberty to do so if he so desires. l am sure that my colleagues will remember that when the ruling of the President has been challenged, as it now has been. mIe 30 of the rules of procedure requires that the President should submit his ruling to the Security Council for an immediate decision and that it should stand unless it is oyerthrown hy a yote of at least seven members. Before taking the vote, 1 would venture to remind the members of the Council of the exact wording of my ruling. which is as fol1ows: A 'l'ote 'll'as taken by show of lzands. as follo1l's: 1n fal'our of O'l.wrllling tlze President's decisioll: C nion of Soviet Socialist Republics. .-lgainst o'~'errztlillg the President's decision: China, Cuba. Ecuador, Egypt, France, India, Norway, United States of .-\merica, Yu&oslavia. Abstaining: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Korthern Ireland. Tize President's ruling «'as IIplzeld b}' 9 <'otes ta Olle, «'ith one abstention.

1f it is the desire of my colleagues. and if the Soviet Union representative would still like it. 1 should he perfectly prepared to have an immediate vote on any proposai that a representative of the Xorth Korean autho!"ities shùuld be invited to sit at the Council table during the consideration of this case. Mr. ~IALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (trans!ated from Russian): The President has not worded my proposaI correctly. I submitted a proposaI at the beginning of August and frequently repeated it; moreover. 1 explained it to those representatives who asked me questions. That proposai was worded as follows: "The Security COlmcil <'Decides that during the discussions of the Korean question it shaIl be necessary to invite and hear at its meetings the representatives of the Korean people, i.e., the representatives of ~orth and South Korea." The proposai was submitted in this form nt the beginning of August, and was defended by the USSR delegation throughout the month. The delegation of the Soviet Union therefore insists that it should be put to the vote in the form in which it was submitted.

The position is that we could vote on a draft resolution in the form suggested by the Soviet Union representative. As 1 under~tand it, although 1 do not have it before me, that draft resolution states that the Security Council decides to im'ite the representatives of the Korean people to the Couneil table. Of course, effective1y, we now have invited the representative of the Repuhlic of Korea to the Council tahle so that what we can now in effect vote upon is whether the representatives of the North Korean authorities, as we calI them at any rate, should also be invited. I am in the hands of the Council in this matter. l should have thought that it was better to make it c1ear in the draft resolution that it is designed to :\lr. STABELL (l\orway): 1 respectfully submit that it is completely impossible for the Security Council, after having sustained the Presiè. ,t's ruling of a moment ago to the effect that the representative of the Republic of Korea should take his place at the Council table. to vote on the USSR proposaI in the form in which it has been submitted. 1f this draft resolution. which as 1 now understand It specifieally refers to a representative both of North Korea and of South Korea - and "South Korea" 1 understand to mean the Republic of Korea - is rejected by the Security Council. we should find ourselves in a completely impossible situation. ~obody woulci know whether the President's ruling of a few moments ago still stood or whether the Council's vote on the proposed draft resolution governed the situation in regard to the representative of the Republic of Korea. 1 should therefore like to raise. as a point of order, the question of whether it is at all proper for the Security Couneil to vote on the Soviet Union proposaI in the form in which it has beep submitted.

1 find it a little diffieult to proceed until 1 have the English text of the USSR proposaI. We know the sense of it, however, and it may be that sorne other member of the Council besides the representative of Norway wants to speak on this particular issue. Does anyone else wish to speak on the question? Mr. MALI K (Union 0 f Soviet Soeialist Republics) (trallslated trom Russian): It is somewhat strange that the translation of the USSR proposaI should be submitted to the President by the United States delegation. 1 imagine that the Secretariat's translation will be more aecurate. 1 have handed the text to a representative of the Secretariat, and the Secretariat can quickly make a translation. \Vith regard to the Norwegian representathr~':; statement, 1 must point out that, under the rules of procedure. the United Nations Charter and the Security Coundi's usual practice, every member of the Security Council is entiÜ~d to submit any proposaI he wishes and to demand that it should be put to the vote, and nobody has the right to object to that proposaI being put to the vote. The second paragraph of rule 32 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Couneil reads: "Parts of a motion or of a draft resolution shall he voted on separately at the request of any representative, unless the original moyer objects." 9 The PRESlDE~T: \Ye shall now resume our lahours. \Vhen we suspended the meeting, 1 had not yet seen the Sm'iet Cnion draft resolution in English. 1 shal1 read it now [Sjlï51j : "The ScclIrit}' CO/l1Icil "Decides that during the discussion of the Korean question it shall be necessary to im"ite and hear at its meetings the representatives of the Korean people, i.e., the representatives of Xorth and South Korea." J1i We now come to the point of order raised by the Xorwegian representative. The Xorwegian representa- tive has pointed out that if by any chance this draft resolution were put ta the vote and were rejected, a great doubt, at any rate, would be cast on our own previous decision, namely, the decision of 25 June last, to cali to this table the representative of the Re- public of Korea during the discussion of this item. 1 am quite sure-speaking not only as President of the CounciI. bu: also as thé Gnited Kingdom rep- resentative-that it would be the strong desire of the majority of the Council to avoid anything of that kind. Therefore, on the lJ.uestion of arder which has now IJeen raised, 1 think that 1 should rule, and 1 do rule, as follows: that if the Soviet L'nion draft resolution is put ta the vote and rejected, nothing in that rejec- tion shall prejudice the right of the representative of the Republic of Korea to oe present at our meetings when this item, which we are now cunsidering, is nnder discussion. That is m)' ruling. ~Ir. ~!ALIK (L'nion of SO\'iet Socialist Republics) (trallslated [rolll kllssiall): ln view of the statement of the President of the Sècurity Council, the USSR delegation deems it necessary to point out that it can- not agree ta such a premature decision on the future course of l'vents. As to the position of m)' delegation regarding the resolutions adopted un Loth the Korean and other questions in the ahsence of the representative of the Soviet Cnion and of the legal representative of the l'eople's Hepublic of China, the L'SSI< clelegation has announ,~'~ more than once that it does not consider those n:~'Jluti()ns of the Security Coun,il Iegal. since the)" were adopted in contravention of the United :\ations Charter. si~ts on a literai and very strict application of rule 30 of the rules of procedure, namely, that such a ruling as the one which he has just made should be voted on immediately. 1f the President permits me, 1 shaH proceed to sp~ak on the matter now hefore us. qther- wise the PresIdent can proceed to the vote: but m that case. 1 shaH not participate--l shaH not l'ven ahstain -J shall not partieipate in the vote. 1 shaH not par- ticipate in the vote, 1 repeat, because the matter before us has not at any time heen considered by my delegation -and is not now considered by it-to he one of which wc can dispose by a merl' ruling of the President of the Security Couneil. bien que sentants, tation formuler jugeront Président, puisque, soviétique n'aurait mettre le du sécurité rejetée la Conseil nous Président: tiques. Président: Norvège, d'Irlande vote. sion

1 fully understand the position of the representative of Egypt. It may be that his point of view is shared by other representatives, but 1 think that J ought to insist on a strict interpretation of rule 30 and, having ventured to rule-whether correctly or not the representatives in the Council l'an judge -1 do insist as President that my ruling should be put ta the vote, having been chal1enged, as 1 understand it, by th'e representative of the Soviet Union. In case it has not been understood, what 1 should put ta the vote would he the fol1owing: if the draft resolution subrnitted by the USSR representative in regard to the representation of the Korean people is put ta the vote in the Security Council and rejected, nothing in such a rejection shaH prejudice the right of the representative of the Republic of Korea to be present at the Security Council table during the discussion of the present item. A 'i'otl' 7i'as takell by s1t07t' of hands, as follows: III fa7'0llr of m'erruling tlte President's decision: l'nion of Soviet Socialist Hepublics. Agaillst 07'erruling tlte PresidC1lt's decision: China, CUÎla, Ecuador. France. India. Norway, United Kingdom of Great 13ritain and Northern Ireland. United States of America. Al>stailling: Yugoslavia. The representati7:e of Egypt did not participate m tire 'iJoti1l.g. T1:e President's ruling u'as upheld by 8 votes to Olle. with one abstention. d'autres le

Unless there is further objection. 1 shaH put the draft resolui " 1I1 of the Soviet Union to the vote at once. May 1 therefore appeal to the USSR representative ta bring us aIl in line with logic and, i.f it is not too difficult for him to do so, to change his draft resolution. 1 would merely suggest sorne changes in his draft resolution, so that it would read as follows: "The Security Couneil decides that during the discussion of the Korean question ... to invite and hear at its meetings the representative of North Korea." !t will be noted that 1 have left the words "the Korean question" as they appear in the text of the Soviet Union proposai; 1 did not want to split hairs and insist on the wording in our agenda, which caUs it "Complaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea". However, this is matter for the Couneil to decide. 1 hope that the representative of the Soviet Union will accept rny appeal and aIlow us to vote on his draft resolution in the terms 1 have now indicated. This, of course, has no bearing whatsoever on the manner which 1 shaH vote. 1 am merely indicating the way which our vote will conform with logic. In previous cases, when 1 saw an illogical proposaI before the Couneil, as 1 did a minute ago, 1 did not partieipate in the vote. 1 thought that it was the right of my delegation, as of any other delegation, not to submit to absurdity. It is my thought that when we work around tbis table we have certain responsibilities, and we must fulfil those responsibilities with dignity and with respect. Last year, for example, the USSR delegation -it is probably a matter of mere coincidence-put the Security Couneil in a similarly absurd position connexion with voting, when it insisted that, in the matter of the admission of new Members, we should take thirteen or fourteen applications wholesale; we had to say whether we accepted aIl thirteen or fourteen applicants or whether we did not accept them. In that case 1 said [429th meetillg] that we should take every application on its merits and that we should be abie to say if we accepted one applicant or rejected it and so on - and not to vote on thirteen or fourteen applications at the same time. At that time the Soviet Union representative did not heed my appeal to follow logic. That took place a little more than a year ago, and 1 do trust that today my USSR colleague will he good enough and helpful enough to heed the appeal that trois absurde. ceront des d'hommes tribuera du les la et sur de la sale. telle absurdité, Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Rep:.Ilblics) (translated tram Russian): We have just witnessed a demonstration of how a speaker, in caIling upon the members of the Security Counci! not to submit to absurdities, bas found himself in an absurd situation. The most absurd, unjust, illogical and discriminatory position is that taken up by sorne representatives who are insisting that the representative of South Korea should be invited, and the representative of North Korea not; This absurd situation has arisen in the Security Coundl during the consideration of the question, and it is the root of the eviI. And if the representative of Egypt had taken this into consideration, he would, 1 think, have helped us to clear up this absurd situation. He has tried, however, to direct our attention elsewhere. The USSR delegation considers that its position is just, logical and in conformity with the Charter. It has deiended and will continùe to defend its proposai for the invitation of both parties, and considers that whoever obje::ts to such a proposai and insists that only one party should be invited is adopting an absurd position. The admission of new Members to the United Nations has no relation whatever to the question we are discussing. If all or a majority of the members of the Security Council had voted for the admission of all thirteen States which submitted their application to the United Nations a year ago, the United Nations would already a year ago have had thirteen more Members than it has now. Additional tens of millions of people would have belonged to the United Nations. Peace and security could only have benefited from this, but sorne representatives took a different, absurd coursethey picked out and admitted one or two or three States to the United Nations and rejected the others. That is utterly absurdo The sooner the members of the Security Council abandon this absurd position, the sooner we shall achieve results. The United Nations would become a larger organization, tens of millions of people of the new nations would join the United Nations and the cause of peace and security and of developing cooperation and friendly relations among nations would be greatly advanced as a resuIt. That would be logical, just and in accordance with the Charter and the desire of the peoples of the worId, and not absurdo The course, however, which sorne repreE ,tatives are now insisting we should take-the admissiA of only three or four States, and the rejection of the others-is indeed absurd. The USSR delegation will not support such an absurdity; it will have no part in it. . Mahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt): 1 wish to ask the mdulgence of the President and the Council white 1 1 may recall that two evenings ago several of us had the pleasure of dining with the representative of the USSR as a result of his invitation in his capacity of President of the Security Council. 1 am sure that the representative of the Soviet Union did not, after we were already sitting at his table, ask whether or not he should invite us. 1 admit that we are not discussing today the matter of membership of the Cnited Nations. However. since the matter has inevitably been brought up- not so much in itself as in connexion with its procedural as- pect-I wish to state for the record and in order to refresh the memory of those who are prone to forget, that my delegation voted last year in favour of twelve applicants for membership. Egypt did not oppose the thirteenth applicant. We did not even vote against the admission of the thirteenth applicant. This indicates that Egypt did not vote against the admission of one single applicant. We voted in favour of the admission of twelve applicants; L, thermore, the thirteenth ap- plicant has a population of less than haIf a million. 1 hope, therefore, that the representative of the Soviet Union would not, as far as Egypt is concerned, refer to this as "impeding hundreds of millions of people"- or whatever way he put it statistically-from participat- ing in the work of the United Nations. This has ab- solutely no basis in fact and 1 merely wanted it to be placed on our record. :VIr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): 1 merely wish to give a brief explanation to the repre..entative of Egypt. 1 am very grateful to the representative of Egypt for having attended my dinner and it gave me pleasure to dine with him. But when 1 invited him 1 was absolutely convinced that no one would have any ob- jection. On the contrary, everyone was glad to he in the company of the representative of Egypt. In the present case the President has invited a person to our Council table against whom sorne objections have heen raised, and we must settle this question by a vote in accordance with the common practice. Ail of which goes to show that analogy is not always proof. The PRESIDEXT: 1 hope that we are approaching the point at which it may he possible to put the Soviet Union draft resolution, not altered but as it is before the CounciI, to the vote. Before doing that, it may be that certain representatives who have not yet spoken will wish to make their points of view c1ear, or, as in the case of myself, as the representatiTe of the United Kingdom. 1 may wish to state briefly, after the vote, It has -been urged that Article 32 of the Charter requires us to invite the North Korean representative. If this contention were correct, not only must the North Korean representative be invited to our füture discussions, but any past proceedings to which he was not invited would stand vitiated as a violation of the Charter. This, to my mind, is a serious matter. Sorne of these past proceedings have been endorsed by India, and it is therefore necessary for me to examine the contention careful1y. l shall proceed to do so even at the risk of being tedious. The relevant portion of Article 32 provides that any State which is not a Member of the United Nations, "if it is a party to a dispute under consideration by the Security Council", must be invited to participate with- out vote in the discussion relating to the dispute. So three conditions must be satisfied if the Article is to apply to the present case: 1'.orth Korea must be a State; so must South Korea' and the Security Council must be considering a disp'lte between the two. But if North Korea and South Korea are separate States, the contention that the conflict between them is a civil war is untenable. That is by the way. There is, how- ever, a more fundamental flaw in the argument: what we are discussing at present with respect to Korea is not a dispute. If l may use a hackneyed analogy of which sorne of the members of the Council may be rather tired, when the police are quelling a riot or the lire brigade i- putting out a fire, they are not consider- ing a dispute; they are taking action to remove a serious danger. So, here, at this moment, we are not investigating or considering a dispute; we are in the midst of en- forcement action to suppress a dangerous breach of the peace. The two things are quite distinct. The Security Council has, in fact, a dual function under the Charter: it investigates disputes under Chapter VI of the Charter, and it takes action with respect to breaches of the peace under Chapter VII. It is only when it is considering disputes that Article 32 of the CI!arter applies. The wording, if l may repeat it, makes t~IS c1ear: "if it is a party to a dispute under con,,:,:!ora- tIon by the Security Council". Of course, when the enforcement action that is now in progress has been concluded. there may supervene Fr9ID time to time, we receive reports from the Unified Command describing the progress of the cam- paign in Korea. I am not a military expert myself but it is conceivable that the contents of these reports, and any discIosures in the course of our discussio.1S upon those reports, might be of value to the enemy. So far as I am aware, no representative of the United Nations is allowed to participate in the discussions conducted by the North Korean authorities on the Korean campaign. Briefly, what we are engaged in at the present moment is not the discussion of the Korean dispute, but, rather of the Korean campaign. In the view of my Government, the question of hearing the representa- tive of the North Korean authorities cannot arise until the campaign is over; that is to say, until at least hostilities have ceased and withdrawal of the North Korean forces has been agreed upon. 1 shall therefore have to vote against the proposaI that their repre- sentative should be invited to the Council table at this stage-and 1 emphasize ~he words Hat this stage". Mr. ALVAREZ (Cuba) (translated from Spanish): The delegation of the Soviet Union has proposed that a representative of the North Korean authorities should be invited to take part in the discussions of the Security Council on the complaint of aggression upon the Re- public of Korea. My delegation will vote against that, not only for the reasons so brilliantly set out by the representative of India, but also because aIl the at- tempts both of the Temporary Commission and of the present Commission on Korea to enter into contact, directly and indirectly, with North Korea were ignored, and subsequently, after the aggression upon the Repub- lie of Korea had taken place, the authorities of North Korea refused to recognize the authority of the Secur- ity Council and failed to comply with its decision [473rd meeting] that hostilities should cease and that the North Koreans should withdraw north of the 38th paralleL Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : It would not be surprising if a person who is not a jurist were to defend lawless- If the Council considers and decides on such meas- ures, then where in Chapter VII or elsewhere is it said that the representative of the party which, rightly or wrongly, legitimately or ilIegitimately, is accused of aggression, has no right to be present at the meetings of the Couneil? Would the jurists show me a sentence, a word, a provision or an Article in the Charter to that effect? There are no such provisions in the Charter, and when questions falling within Chapters VI and VII are discussed, the representative of the party against which charges of aggression have been brought must attend in order that the Council may better clarify the facts of the dispute and take aIl the necessary measures to haIt aggression and to prevent the war from spreading. Was anything done here to that end? No. On 25 June, when the conflict which had arisen in Korea was discussed, no decision was taken as to what Article of the Charter should he applied and on what legal basis action should be taken. The representative of North Korea was not admitted to the meeting. No jurist could have explained, or can explain, on what grounds he was voting against inviting the representa- tive of North Korea; yet when the question of not admitting the representative of North Korea was dis- cussed on 25 June, no dedsion was taken regarding the application of sanctions, even of illegal ones. l am not even speaking about the iIlegal character of that resolu- tian. Any truly objective jurist will be obliged to state that the decisions on the Korean question were taken in violation of the Charter, without the participation of two permanent members of the Security Council who were unable to attend the meeting for reasons which are well known, and at a time when one of the i• q .. ll " ~he permanent members of the Security Council, rely- mg on the support of a group of members of the Coun- eil, was blocking the admission to the Council of the legitimate representative of China. This is common knowledge. 'Yhat happened on 25 June? On that clay the Se- c~~lty Couneil adopted by a majority the illegal de- CISlOn to refuse to admit a representative of North If this question is to he approached from a legal point oi view, where,are the legal grounds for such a decision? There are no grounds and there is no de- fence for such an action. The United States Govern- ment confronted the Security Council, the United Nations and the whole world with the accomplished fact of its aggression in Korea without having any right to commit such an action, as even the illegal reso- lution approved by sorne members of the Security Council on 25 June-illegal because it was taken with- out the participation of two of the permanent members of the Secunty Council-did not give the United States Government any right to make an armed in- tervention in Korea. Ml'. Truman, however, arbitrarily, illegi:uly and without the decision of the Security Coun- cil, ordered his air and naval forces to open military operations in Korea; it was only after that, post factum) that the illegal resolution was forced upon the members of the Security Council. Thus any reference to "legal grounds" is worthless. The historical facts, the development of events and the way in which those illegal decisions were taken, show that from the very outset of the Korean conflict, which was provoked by the Syngman Rhee clique, the United States persistently opposed a hearing of the repre- sentatives of North Korea in the Security Council. From the outset there was injustice and illegality. and when a jurist speaks in defence of such illegality and unfairness, the impression created is very un- iavourable. Is it not a fact that on 27 June, at the Security Council meeting when a second illegal resolution on the Korean question, imposed by the United States dele- gation, was being adopted, the representative of India doubted the justice of the resolution? He apparently did not take part in the voting because, as a jurist, he realized that the United States Government had com- mitted a lawless act by arbitrarily, and without any decisions of the United Nations, launching an armed invasion of a foreign territory and by intervening in the domestic affairs of a foreign people. That is the true state of affairs. No legal formulae or procedl!~al trick~r~ ca.n therefor.e concea~ or justify the iIlegahtles and mJustlces commttted agamst one of the parties to the cûnflict in Korea. Lastly, let us take a document such as the defit:ition of aggression proposed by the USSR delegation as carly as May 1933 in the Committee on Security Ques- tions of the League of Nations and taken by that Committee as a oasis. It contains a specific provision that the fact that a territory has not been recognized as aState cannot be used as a justification for ag- gression against that State. l can cite the exact words of that document. It states that a people's poEtical, eco- nomic or cultural backwardness, or the alleged short- comings of its administration, may not be used to justify any act of aggression. Nor may the fact that a territory has no distinct attributes of statehood or that its possession of such attributes is denied. In the present case, the jurist invokes the argument that since there is no State of North Korea, North Korea does not exist at ail. This, however. is absurdo There is a North Korea which has nine million or more înhabitants, its own authorities, an army-and a very good one at that, as events have shown; for that army has been able to deal not only with the mercenary troops of the Syngman Rhee regime of South Korea, but also with the troops of the United States aggressor who has invaded foreign territory. How then can it be denied that we are dealing with a people and their authorities? What jU1i;;~ will take it upon himself to prove the contrary-that there is nothing and no one there? In any case, the document on the definition of ag- gression, on the basis of which the organs called upon to consider international conflicts must determine who is the aggressor, and who the victim of aggression, states plainiy that the fact that a specific territory is not a State, or lacks the distinguishing signs of a State, cannot be used to justify aggression. Thus no legal tricks will help in this case. There is a North Korea with a population of from nine to ten million, if not more, a government, an army, local and central authorities and legislative organs. What right ~as the Security Council to examine the Korean ques- tion without inviting and heat'Dg the representatives of those authorities? Only because the United States Government wishes it? That is no reason, and cannot ~)e ,u,sed as a legal justification, as a ground for not I11Vltmg the representative of North Korea. . That is the position in regard to the juridical con- slclerations of those who are trying to defend this in-

1 am not sure that one can speak more than four times on the motion in front of us. It is true that freedom of debate is unlimited in a sense. 1 must ask the representative of the Soviet Union whether he believes that if anybody says something in any speech which he disagrees with, he must controvert it. 'vVe shall go on forever if that is his view. He will go on controverting and controverting, point after point, and then someOne will controvert him, and we shall never come to an end at aIl. \Vhat does the USSR representative want to controvert now? Does he wish to make sorne allusions to Mr. Chauvel's speech? Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (transiatcd from Russian): 1 am asking to speak merely to gratify the French representative's curiosity. He seems to have sorne doubts in connexion with my presence in the Security Council today. If the President will allow me, 1 shall reply in one sentence.

1 should be only too delighted to hear a speech of one sentence from the representative of the Soviet Union.

l think that completes the list of speakers for this particular point. r As representative of the UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND l may say that l was going to say a few words regarding the attitu.de of my own delegation towards the question of inviting the representative of the North Korean authorities. But after the brilliant and most lucid intervention of the Indian representative, l find that l have absolutely nothing ta sayon this point, exce)Jt that l agree with e\'ery word of his speech. As PRESIDENT, may l suggest that we proceed te vote on the Soviet Union draft resolution [5/1751] which is before us unamended. A 'i'ote '<.t'as taken by show of hands as follows: hl fa:vour: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Yugoslavia. Agaillst: China, Cuba, Ecuador, France, India, Norway, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Tire representative of Egypt did not parti:ipate in tlze 'i'oting. Tire draft resolution was rejected by 8 votes ta 2. MI'. QUEVEDO (Ecuador) (translatcd from 5panish) : During the month of August, the whole of which we spent in discussing the provisional agend~s submitted by the President of the Council, there was ample opportunity for us to express aIl the arguments for and against the invitation, at this stage, of the representatives of the authorities of North Korea. For my part, 1 do not think l need give any further explanations, for 1 have stated my point of view in a number of speeches; l refer in this connexion to the statement l made at the 487th meeting held on 14 August, when 1 expressed my Government's attitude. ! 1 simply wish to add that the past history of this question has shawn us that it was the United Nations which desired a free and united Korea, which sought a true general election, free from aIl intimidation, which kept trying to establish contact with the people and the authorities of North Korea through the intermediary of an independent international commission, and which. before taking its decision of 27 June [474th meeting] to assist the Republic of Korea after it had been attacked and invaded. complied strictly with the provisions of Article 40 of the Charter by calling upon the aggressor in the first place to withdraw to the 38th parallei. 1 need only add that if the North Korean authorities were now ready to comply with those instructions from the United Nations, the Council woutd be free to discuss the application of rule 39 of the rules of procedure, which would give it ample opportunitywithout entering into legal discussion as to whether there is or is not such a thing as a North Korean State

The moment has come when we normally should adjourn. However, 1 have one speaker on my list on the main question which we shall now proceed to discuss, the substantive item which we have before us-the complaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea. The speaker whose name is on my list is the representative of the Republic of Korea, who has for so long been excluded from our discussions and who would, therefore, like to address us. It is reaUy for the representatives to say whether they wish to hear the representative of Korea now or to adjourn. 1 ask an)" of the representatives who would like to move the adjournment of this meeting to make that motion; we could then vote on it, with the knowledge that the representative of the Republic of Korea still wants to speak. Since no representative has indicated a desire to adjourn, 1 now call on the representative of the Republic of Korea. .Mr. CHANG (Republic of Korea): As the Council is well aware, quite sorne time has elapsed since 1 was last privileged to address this august body. The whole of the free world meantime has had an opportunity to appraise the factual evidence of what has happened in Korea, beginning on 25 June 1950. On that fateful, peaceful Sunday morning a lawless, brutal and unprovoked attack was launched upon the Republic of Korea. This Council met within twentyfour hours and acted without hesitation. It called upon the communist invaders to cease fire immediately and to withdraw their forces. The demand of the United Nations has been treated with callous disregard. The brazen aggressor has continued to Haunt his defiance, not only of the Charter of the United Nations but of the hopes and prayers of the millions of human beings who yearn for peace. Here, in this forum of the United Nations, a spokesman for the aggressor has resorted to every parliamentary device to paralyse the Security Couneil. What should be a repository of the truth has been misused as a forum for falsehood. But the free world knows the true facts of the invasion of the H.epublic of Korea because factual evidence has been furnished in c1ear and unmistakable reports by the United Nations Commission on Korea. That Commission, an unbiased hody composed of We Koreans have a proverb: "He who would drink of the water should first consider the source from which it flows." In this case the source is weIl known; besides, we can see with our own eyes that the water is tao muddy to drink. The present continued defiance of the United Nations decision by the communist group in l\"orth Korea and their masters is a mere repetition of their past acts. l wish to point out that the events in North Korea which have taken place since 194;; dearly reveal that it has been the aim of the Soviet Union to enslave and subjugate the people of Korea. The conduct and the statements of the representatives of the Soviet Union at the conferences of the Joint Commission of the United States and the USSR held in Korea in 1946 and 1947. were eloquent evidenct' of their country's disregard for ~he principles of democracy and its scom of the will of the Korean people to establish their own free government. During those conferences, it became very e\'ident that it was the deliherate plan and design of the Soviet Union ta force the establishment of a communist. dictatorial government in Korea. l wish to pa)' tribute to the United States for its persistent adherence during those meetings to the principles of democracy and for its diligent respect for the will of the Korean people in opposing with vigour the determined efforts of the USSR to commun:ze and enslave the Korean peop\e. It is of course well known that in 1947 the United Xations decided to soh'e the problem of Korea in a peaceful manner. The General Assembly decided. by its resolution 112 (II), which was adopted by an overwhelming majority that general e1ections should be held in Korea so that the people could choose in freedom a government which they preferred" But again the USSR and its puppet communist group in the north defied the United Nations by preventing the holding of ~lections north of the 38th parallel. thus callously denymg the people in that part of our country the right to express their own free will. The e1ections of which l have just spoken were therefore held only south of the 38th parallel where, however. mor~ than two-thirds of the Korean people reside. Those elections were conducted under the supervision of the United Nations Commission on Korea and were certified by the United Nations General Assembl)' in 1948. in its resolution 195 (III), as a valid expression of the free will of the people of that part of Korea. Saon after the elections of Mav 1948. a National Assernbly was constituted and a democ~atic constitution was adopted. The Korean National Assembly resolved to leave one hundred seats in the Assembly vacant, in proportion to the size of the population in the north, and these are to be occupied by representatives duly elected by the free will of our compatriots in that part of our cou~try in an election to he supervised by the United Nattons. In further defiance of the United Nations, the Soviet Union soon created a puppet communist regime in North Korea. The communist group which was put in power by t:le USSR, in ruthless disregard of the will of the people of North Korea, has since completely suppressed them with its vicious ar:l shameless secret police. Individual liherty, which communism fears most, has been the first and major casualty. Our people hl the north have been subjected to a life of fear and terror. The man or woman who expresses his or her will or thoughts soon disappears from society. Christianity remains the arch-enemy of communism. Bishops. pastors. priests and other men of the Christian faith have been imprisoned. Sorne have been tortured to death. There was Bishop Sauer, for example, in Tukwon. in north-east Korea. who was killed by the communists while he was in gaoI. Before he fell victim to the police State, he had spent more than thirty-five years working for the Korean people. And there was the Korean Bishop Hong. who was takcn away from his peaceful pursuits by the communists and has never heen seen or hearcl from since. Again. there was the Korean patriot, an outstanding Presbyterian layman. ~Ir. Cha Man-sik, who was put under house arrest soon after the arrivaI of the Soviets in North Korea. His crime was his refusaI to be subservient to the cruel totalitarianism of his would-be masters. Mr. Cho Man-sik has disappeared in that dread fashion familiar to the victims of communism. The representative of the Soviet Union has referred to elections in the north. They were Soviet-style elections. Two ballot boxes, one white, one black, were provided. Hand-picked candidates were "elected" by ballots cast into the white box. Woe unto the misguided voter who put a ballot in the black box! The "land reform" of which so much has been heard was a measure imposed on the farmers of North Korea by the communist group. The farmers have heen forced to pal' to the police State more than 70 per cent of their yield. Many of them have been unable to maintain a livingunder this cruel regime. No better evidence of the communists' oppressive rule can be found than in the refugees. numbering more than two millions, who f1ed from slavery in North Korea to the sanctuary of freedom and democracy of the Republic in the south. Two million people. more than 20 per cent of the population of the north, left The loss of this population, which, incidentally, represented one of the largest mass migrations in modern history, caused the North Korean puppet and its masters to redouble their predatory plans. Upon those who remained, the police State was ruthlessly imposed. A persistent propaganda was dinned into the ears of the people. Soviet flags and pictures confrolîted them m their streets and m their schools. First, the police State used propaganda as a weapon, with truth as the primary victim; secondly, they employec! infiltration, bribery and other efforts to cause internaI revoIt in our Republic; thirdly, they planned and carried out actual assassination attempts upon the life oi President Rhee; and fourthly-when aIl the foregoing trickery had registered failure-they opened an ail-out armed attack with tanks, heavy artillery and planes. Brute force is now the last resort. And this brute force is regarded within Korea itself as a Russianinspired. Russian-armed, and Russian-directed effort to overthrow the Republic of Korea, and thus extinguish the last vestige of democracy and free government in North-East Asia. The attempted subjugation of my country by communists is further evidence. if such were needed, of the Soviet Union's insatiable appetite to add still another nation to its large bag of captive States. This is the old, familiar pattern of communist conquest. Communist aggressors have violated the peaceof the world. Peace and security must be restored in aIl Korea. In all Korea peace and security can be restored only after the lawless aggressor, the communist gangster, has heen beaten and disarmed. It is more than gratifying to note that fifty-three members of the United Nations have, since 25 June. joined us in our determination to re-establish peace and security in Korea. Brave men from many diverse parts of the world have paid with their lives that this end may he accomplished and so that another global war may be avoided. My country, since 25 June, has been turned into a gigantic charnel house. Many gallant soldiers of the Republic and those of the United Nations forces have died in Korea in defence of human decency and justice. The communist aggressors, masquerading as liberators, and true to their inhuman practice, have caused unspeakable misery to men and women, young and old, committing atrocities in the areas they have overrun. In Seoul, for example, the invaders have searched and Soviet-directed and -supported invading communist forces have engaged in the violation of aH the mIes of civilized warfare. Prison;;rs of war are murdered. Cowardice is added to barbarism in the use of innocent refugees as shields before the bloody advance of the invaders' tanks and troops. AIl this has been hrought about by the northern communists, supported and directed by their masters in the Kremlin. Surely the dead will have died in vain, and the dying will have suffered to no avail. if this criminal assault upon civilization is not halted, and this evil threat is not forever banished. The people of Korea are known for their peaceful inclinations. They yearn for peace. peace which is genuine and lasting. However, the people of Korea will not accept any attempt under the guise of a so-C'alled peaceful settlement which may lead ta a mere compromise, or a concession likely ta be a camouflage for future aggression by the communist gangsters. The time for temporizing has long since passed. The Korean people are in a life-and-death struggle for existence as a free and independent nation. but the freedom-loving nations of the world have come to OUI' assistance, and we shaH triumph over t-yranny and outlawry. To say that the people and the Government of Korea are grateful for the courageous and self-sacrificing support of the free nations which have placed themselves at our side is but a weak way of stating what is in our hearts. We cannot believe that such devotion and such sacrifices will be in vain. \Ve can only believe that they mark the eventual dawning of a new day, when peace and security will be restored to aIl the yearning peoples of the world. On this occasion 1 wish to say that the sorrow our people feel at the present conflict is beyond expression. We are sick in our hearts as we witness the destruction not only of lives but also of property. History will record this suffering and this damage as due to Soviet communist imperialism. However, 1 am sure that the President will agree with me that there is now a tremendous need for relief, and that there will be the problem of rehabilitation and reconstruction in Korea when the United Nations forces have triumphed over the aggressors. Our Government appeals to the United Nations for its diligent and careful consideration of these very serious problems and for its generous assistance to our Republic in its efforts not only to relieve the suffering of the millions of our people now in need of essential necessities for the maintenance of life, but also to effect restoration. ~he conflict, and seeks the restoration of permanent mternational peace and security. The destruction of communism must be decisive and thorough, once and for aU, here and now, so that the free nations need not be caUed upon to make such sacrifices as this again and again. ~ ~ On behalf of the Government of the Republic of Korea, a nation which owes its rightful place in the world to the United Nations recognition of that fact, l have the dutYto ask that the Security Council should take the next step, that i5, to caU upon aU the States no only to refrain from giving aid and encouragement to the aggressors, but to exert further their maximum efforts to subdue completely this evil force which has menaced the peace and security of the world. ~ ~ ~ l ~.' ; .The PRESIDENT: Before the interpretation begins, mlght l say that l have been advised by the Secretariat ~ ~ ~