S/PV.496 Security Council

The incident 1S closed. clos. GRANDE-BRETAG1\TE Conseil cette étrange s'accordent être Conseil d'une soviétique dont passer égard, In my capacity as representative of the UNITED KINGOOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN lRELAND, if the Council will aIlow me to say a few words in that capacity, 1 should say that, strange to say, the representative of the United Kingdom agrees with the President of the Security Council in helieving that almost everything that couId he said as regards aU three draft resolutions now in front of the Council has been said, and that, subject perhaps to some new formulation of the Soviet Union draft resolution of 4 August [S/1668], part of which has already been decided by the Coundl [494th meeting], aIl that now remains in practice for the Council to do is to vote. In case there is any doubt C.l this ,oint, 1 might perhaps add that the United Kingdom delegation will vote in favour of the United States draft resolution and against the others. Speaking now as PRESIDENT, 1 suggest that the Council proceed at once to vote on the first draft resolution before it, namely, the draft resolution of the United State3 [S/1653J. premier le Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (!ranslated from Russian) : l agree with the President's Vlew that the first two draft resolutions should he voted Upon a!ter the end of the debate. As to the third draft viétiques) miers dès distincte, elle pris soviétique, après été d'examiner ainsi. gation resol~t1on [S/1679] , this is an entirely independent question and the USSR delegation, which submitted that draft! :ese~ves the right to explain its motives for s~bmltttng It. My delegation has not yet spoken on thls ;trlatter: If 1 am allowed the time, 1 shall state the SovIet Umon delegation's point of view either now Or later, after the first two draft resolutions have been voted upon. It ~as agreed at yesterday's meeting of the ::'t.::,..;tv Codunctl that we should discuss draft resolutions in the or er of th . b" A to ta . elr su mISSIon. s there are no objections 1ktng a vote on the first two draft resolutions we coud d d ' 1 procee to 0 so. As regards the third draft ~~so u~on, the USSR delegation, as its author, intends ma e a statement on the question and has the right, ce~d to the vote now on the first draft resolution hefore it - t.lJ.at is to say, the United States draft - it will he perfectly in order for any member to make a statement explaining his vote on the other two draft resolutions before the vote is taken. . 1 understand from what the USSR representative has said that he wishes to make an explanatory statement in regard to the third draft resolution, that is to say, the one connected with bombing. There may, however, he other members who wish to make explanatory statements regarding their votes on the second draft resolution. What 1 would suggest, therefore, for the consideration of the Council, in view of the circumstances, is that we proceed now to vote on the first draft resolution, namely, that of the United States, and then perhaps consider whether it would not be advisable for us to adjourn. However, if the motion for adjcumment is opposed, we can of course continue. Ml'. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): 1 think it would be advisable, if we are proceeding to the vote, to vote today on the United States draft resolution and on the first USSR draft resolution as the discussion has shown that most of the representatives have referred mainly to those two drafts. ln arder, therefore, to complete the first stage of our work in the discussion of this question, we should vote on both the United States draft resolution and on the first USSR draft resolution, since we have already discussed them. As to the second draft - on the question of barbarous bombing - this should be discussed later.

1 shaH then propose that we vote first of aIl on the first draft resolution, that submitted by the United States. 1 would then propose that we vote this evening in any case on the second draft. That second vote may have ta be preceded by a statement explaining his vote by at least one member of the Councilnot the Soviet Union representative but another member. At that stage, having taken a vote on the second draft resolution, it would be in order for the USSR representative, if he so desired, to move the adjournment and we could then see if the Couneil wished to adjourn or not. If it wished to adjourn, we should have to continue tomorrow and if it did not so wish we should have to go on now. Ml'. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : 1 do not intend to move an adjournment. That is for the Couneil to deeide.

We can now proceed to the vote on the draft resolution submitted by the United States, containcd in document S/1653.

In that case we shall hear only two quotations from the representative of the USSR. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russùm) : The Ecuadoran representative's speech contained two remarks bordering on slander about the Soviet Union and the Soviet people. He alleged, in the first place, that the USSR was intolerant of the philosophical and political systems of other peoples and, in the second place, that it treated small countries and peoples with contempt. Although such remarks sound like gross slander, 1 do not propose, for the time being, to ascribe to the representative of Ecuador any slanderous intentions against my country and my people. 1 consider that his remarks are to be explained bya lack of adequate information concerning the fads resulting, first, from the great distance separating his country and mine and, secondly, from the fact that the Ecuadoran representative, like the Ecuadoran people, is obliged to live and work under the constant and deafening pressure of propaganda hostile to the Soviet Union, propaganda emanating from the United States through the medium of. the notorious "Voice of America". In view of this, 1 should like, for purposes of information, to make two quotations from statements by the President of the Conneil of Ministers of the USSR, Mr. J. V. Stalin, concerning the attitude of the Government and people of the Soviet Union towards the systems of other peoples, and concerning USSR policy towards small countries and peoples. 'In an interview with a prominent member of the Republican Party of the United States, Harold Stassen, in the spring of 1947, Generalissimo Stalin made the following statement: "... We should not engage in critieism of one anot?er's systems. Every people adheres to the system it wlshes and to which it can adhere. History will show which system is the best. We must respect the systems chasen and approved by the people. Whether or not the s1stem of the United States of America is a good one IS a matter for the American people. It is not essential to co-operation that the peoples concerned should have the same system. The system approved by the ... 'ople must be respected. Co-operation is feasible only on that condition." . As regards the second question, Generalissimo Stalin made. the following statement in April 1948 on the occasIon of the signing of a treaty between the USSR and Finland: This is the attitude of the USSR Government towards the systems of other nations and peoples and towards smalt' nations and peoples. Mr, QUEVEDO (Ecuador): First of all. 1 wish to thank the representative of the Soviet Union for his clarification. Secondly, T should like to say that, when he reads the verhatim record of my speech in English, he \\;11 completely understand the scope of that speech. 1 have always said that we respect others' opinions. but we like to have our o\Vn opinions respected. My delegation strongly resents the fact that, \Vhenever it casts a vote in accordance \Vith instructions of its Govemment, it finds itself included in statements to the effect that countries backing certain resolutions are simply satellites, puppets or slaves. 1 am very glad that Generalissimo Stalin has a deep respect for small countries' ideas and organizations. 1 ardently hope that whenever my delegation casts a vote. the Soviet Union representative will respect that vote and believe that it is due to a sincere conviction. We also believe that different systems of life may live together at peace. That is e.'Cactly why we are here: to ask that the small Korean nation - small in comparison with its neighbour - should he absolutely free to choose its own system of social and political life. The PRESlDEST: History will indeed decide, whether Generalissimo Stalin is right as regards the USSR eJOvemment's attitude towards small nations, or rather the representative of Ecuador. However, the point, though important, is not immediately relevant, and 1 suggest that the Council should now proceed to vote on the United States draft resolution, S/1653, which was submitted on 31 July 1950, A t'ote was takeu by sh(Y'<lJ of hands, as follO'l{'s: In favour: China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, France, India, N'orway, 'Cnited Kingdom of Great Britain and ~orthern Ire1and, 'Cnited States of America. Against: 'Cnion of Soviet Socialist Republics. Abstaining: Yugoslavia. th~ Council, document S/l668, submitted by the USSR on 4 August 1950, entitled "Peaceful settlement of the Korean question", l propose to put it to the vote. However, if it is put to the vote in its present form, the Council must apply the samc procedure it adopted when a similar draft resolution [S/1751] regarding the representation of the Korean people was presented to it by the Soviet Union representative. In other words, if this draft resolution is rejected, it must be on the understanding that nothing in its rejection prejudices the right of the representative of the Korean Republic to be pres~nt at this table during the discussion of item 2 011 our present agenda. Alternative1y, it would be possible, of course, to amend the draft resolution by simply omitting the words "and also to hear representatives of the Korean people". Those words might be omitted on the ground that a decision on that point has already been taken by the Council [494th meeting]. It is really for the representative of the Soviet Union to say. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : The USSR delegation has already stated its point of view at our last meeting during the discussion of a similar question, and it maintains that view, considering that the decision of 25 June to invite only a representative of South Korea was adopted illegally. As regards the draft resolution under discussion, the USSR de1egation insists on its being voted upon in the form of words in which it was submitted by the delegation of the Soviet Union. The PRESIDENT: lt is my understanding that it is the wish of the Soviet Union delegation to have this draft resolution voted on in the form in which it is now before the Council. That being so, l would propose to put it to the vote on the assumption that my ruling which was made in respect of the USSR draft resolution, the text of which is document S/1751, of 1 September, applies equally to the present draft resolution. ~ahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt): Rad the representatlve of. the Soviet Union accepted the suggestion of the President, l should not have spoken before we pI'Oceeded to the vote 0n this draft resolution. However, now .that he has not accepted the suggestion of the PreSIdent, l find myself meeting the same difficulties a~ at,previous meetings in connexion with the expres- SIOn and also to hear representatives of the Korean p~ople". l hope that the representative of the USSR wIll agree that we vote p"ragraph by paragraph on his draft resolution and that this part be voted upon separately. In any case, l shall endeavour not to cause more complexities and delay in the work of the Council, but l want it to be very dearly undeTstood that l am Do 1 understand rightly that the Egyptian representative wishes the vote to he taken :. two parts? Mahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt): My preference is that we divide the voting and vote on the other parts separately f"om that part connected with the representation of the people of Korea, as it is put in this draft resolution. May 1 add that we have to have the agreement of the representative of the Soviet Union on this, or at least a lack of opposition on his part.

Would the lJSSR representative object to the vote being taken in two parts? Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian): 1 assume that the difficulties with which the Egyptian representative is faced could be overcome by a reservation which he could make .during the voting. The usuai procedure is as follows: representatives vote for or against, or they abstain, or they do not vote at aB; they reserve their position regarding the parts of the draft resolution to which they are opposed either before or after the vote. Mahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt): 1 am very giad ta be able to oblige the representative of the Soviet Union. He asked whether 1 had any reservations to make. 1 should like to say that as regards the part of the USSR drait resolution which reads "and also to hear representatives of the Korean people", 1 want it to be put into the record that my abstention in the vote should be taken as a non-participation in the vote. This would be in accordance with my previous decision in this connexion, for which 1 have already explained my motives.

The explanation of the attitude of the representative of Egypt being on the record, would he now agree that we could vote on the Soviet Union draft resolution as a whole? Mahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt): Yeso

In that case we can now proceed to vote on the USSR draft resoiution, contained in document S/1668, entitled "Peaceful settlement of the Korean quest10n", on the same assumption we made A vote was taken by a show of hands, as follows: In favour: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Against: China, Cuba, Ecuador, France, India, Norway, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Abstai1;ing: Egypt, Yugoslavia. The draft resolution was rejected by 8 votes to one, with 2 abstentions. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): Unless there is something pressing which 1 do not know about, 1 should like to move that the Cauneil adjourn until 11 a.m. tomorrow, 7 September. The PRESIDENT: The suggestion has been made that the Council should adjourn until 11 a.m. tomorrow. 1 take it that if the Couneil meets tomorrow at Il a.m., it could also meet at 3 p.rn. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): Yes, 1 understand that. It is for the purpose of gaining time and performing our work that 1 have asked to have the adjournment until tomorrow morning instead of the afternoon. The PRESIDENT: If there is no objection on the part of any member of the Security Council, we shall adjourn the meeting until Il a.m. tomorrow, 7 September, on the assumption that there will be a further meeting at 3 p.m. The meeting rose at 6.30 p.m. r