S/PV.499 Security Council

In regard to item 3 of the agenda, 1 wish to draw the attention of my colleagues to document S/1776. which has just been distributed and is ce des ~Ir. TSIANG (China) : On 31 August [4931'd meC'titlg] , when the Cotltlcil debated the question of whether the present itl'm slwuld he put on thl.' ag-l'nda or not, l made a stateml'nt at some length. Therefore 1 (onsider it unnecessar)' to makI.' a longstateuwnt this afternoon. '!'~le draft l'l'solution of the representath'e of the Soviet Union [S/lï591 is to thc effect that some representative of the Chinese communists should he invited to the Council duringthe discussion of this item. l am opposcdto this proposaI. TheCouncil \vill l'l'caU that on 1 August [480th tIIcefitlgl, the representative of the USSR, exercising the powers of the President. rcndered an arbitrary roling that the Chinese communÎSts should take China's seat ln the Security Council. Since that move failed, the representath'e of the Soviet 1.1nion is seeldng aU opportunities to snmggle in the Chinese communists. The purpose hehind this is obyious. In the first place. the LTSSR would like to have its voice in this Coundl doubled. If some representative of the Chinesc communists should be here, the net result would be no more and no less than the doubling of the voice and the .vote of the Soviet Union. In the second place. if the USSR representative succeeded in his act of smuggling, he and his Government-as weIl as their puppets throughout the Far East-could proclaim to the peoples of the worId, particularly to the peoples of Asia, that the Soviet Union is almig-hty in this world. This move is calculated to enhance the prestige of the USSR in the Far East. The present pronosal is made on the strength of Article 32 of the Charter. At a previous meetingthe representative of the Soviet rnion told the Council that Article 32 (lf the Charter made it obligatory for the Security Council to issue such an invitation. Article 32 of the Charter reads in part as fo11ows: "Anv Mcmber of the United Nations \vhich is not a member of the Security Council or 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, sha11 he invited to participate. without vote, in the discussion relating to the dispute." This is the first case of the United Nations trying to suppress a breach ·of the peace. Several Members of the United Nations have responded to its caU to suppress a breach of the peace. In the course of the execution of such a mission, a mistake was made. Was it a deliberate mistake, an intentional mistake, an act of provocation? Not at aU. If the Secu.rity Council should place unnecessary burdens and obstacles in the path of States performing duties entrusted ta them by this Organization we should make the Charter unworkable; we should make it dangerous if not impossible for any State Member hereafter to accept missions so imposed. This is the first instance of this kind. and nobody can tell if it wi1l be the last instance. In the nature of modern warfare such mistakes are bound to recur. For the sake of the proper development of the United Nations, such an incident should not be given the dignity in the Security Council of being caUed a dispute. , "l Certainly a party which has proclaimed its sympathies \Vith an aggressor and which would create difficulties for the United Nations in the execution of its duties, should not be given any hearing. j : ~~ .~ "? . , 1 Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (trallslated front R1tssian): The question under disc?ssion is of great importance for the further discus- SIon of the communications received by the Security Council from the Central Government of the People's Republic of China. 1 am referring to items 2 and 3 of our agenda--complaint of bombing by air forces of 1 1", This is the basic rule in the work of the Security Council; it is provided for in Article 32 of the United Nations Charter, as weIl as in rule 39 of the rules of procedure of the Security Cottncil. It is wrong to assert that Article 32 essentially provides·that invitations sht)uld be extended ta Members of the United Nations which are not memhers of the Security Council, or to States which are not Members of the United Nations. This is not the whole substance of Artùcle 32, and those who try to stress only the one point: are deliherately .distorting the meaning of the Article. Article 32 essentially provides that when international disputes are under consideration by the Security Couneil, both parties must he invited to be heard at its meetings. Only then, having heard the views of both parties, will the Security Couneil he in a position ta take the appropriate decision. Only then will it have the opportunity to hear the views of both parties to the question under consideration. Otherwise, if ouly one party is present at the meeting of the Security Council, ouly one side of the story will be heard, and the Security Coundl may make a serious error in adopting a decision on the question under discussion. Thus there are no grounds for reducing the significance of whether the State involved is a Member of the United Nations or of the Security Council or not a member of either. 1 wish to stress once more that the main sense of Article 32 is that hoth parties to a dispute must be represented in the Security Council and duly heard. This is just and in accordance with the Charter, the roles of procedure, existing precedent, and the previous practice of the Security Council, as 1 mentioned at the 497th meeting. In addition to aH this, however, there is also rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council, which reads: The representativc of South Korea-although illegally-was invited precisely on the basis of this rule, as the Indian representative, who was then President of the Security Council, formally statec1 on 25 June [473rd meeting]. What grounds are there for not applying this rule in the present case? Have we the right, even if only on the basis of rule 39. not to invite the representative of the People's Republic of China? Is the representative of the People's Republic oI China, who will come here if the Security Council invites him, unable to give assistance to the Security Council in examining this matter? 1s he unable to supply the Security Council with valuable information which may assist the Council in the consideration of the complaint of bombing by United States air forces of the territory of China? He undoubtedly can and must do so; he has every right to do so, and the Security Council must invite him to the meetings at which it considers this question. The objections raised at previous meetings, on the pretext that some members of the Security Councilhave no diplomatie relations \Vith the People's Republic oi China, are also inconsistent. The position of .some members of the Security Council, who attempt to take shelter behind this objection, is untenable, sinœ Article 32 of the Charter and rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure oblige the members of the Security Council and the Governments of States members of the Security Council ta vote in favour of inviting the representatives of both parties to the dispute, so that bath parties may he represented and heard and so that the .Council may at last have a complete picture of the situation. In view of aIl this. it is the sacred dutY of every member of the Security Council to refrain from objecting to inviting a party to the dispute hefore the Security Council, and aiso ta refrain from referring to the absence of diplomatie relations. It is common knowledge that the .diplomatic relations of any one member of the Security Council with either of the parties to the dispute has nothing to do with the matter. The relations of each separate member of the Security Council with a party to the dispute is an individual matter which concerns the State member of the Security Council alone. Indeed, when an international confliet is considered by the Security Council, members of the Council speak as members of an international body, whieh is the principal organ of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace and security and for the settlement of international disputes and conflicts, and aIl considerations of an individual charde ,AU sorts of slanderous statements are being' made in this connexion. statemcnts to the effect that the Soviet enion insists on inyiting' the reprcsentative of the People's Republic of China in arder ta raise its prestige \Vith the peoples of Asia. l wish to assure the Security Coundi in the name of my Government that the prestige of the "CSSR and of its leader, the great Stalin, \Vith the peoples of Asia is extremely high and that the Soviet Union does not need to have recourse to such a proposaI in order to raise it. That is not what determines the attitude of the USSR; that is not the consideration motivating the submission by the delegation of the Soviet Union of a proposaI for inviting the representative of the People's Republic .of China and its insistence that that proposaI should he adopted. The USSR and its Government are guided by considerations of peace and security, by the provisions of the Charter, and by the previous practice of the Security Council ; they are guided by considerations of justice. These are the basic motives of their conduct in this matter. :Moreover. it ûlOuld be noted that United States propaganda 'is not consistent on this question; some assert that the Soviet "Cnion wishes to inyite the representative of the People's Republic of China in order to enhance its o\\'n prestige-but, as l have already pointed out, the USSR has no need of this-others, on the other hand, are asserting that the Soviet Union is mere1y making this proposaI, but does not actually wish the representative of the People's Republic of China to be invited. For example, such an absurd allegation was recently made by the Amel:Îcan jourllalist, "Valter Lippmal1. Thus in the system of United States propa.gal1da and in its methods of spreading calumny on this point there is a complete lack of harmony. Draft resolutions have already been submitted in connexion with the two questions we are discussingthe complaint of bombing by air forces of the territory of China and the complaint of armed invasion of Taiwan (Formosa). They must be: considered and discussed. In particular, the United States delegation has submitted a draft resolution [Sj1752] calling for the establishment of a fact-finding commission. But it may legitimate1y he asked whether the Security Coundi may discuss any of these drait resolutions, and in particular the proposaI for the establishment of a commission, in the absence of the representative of the country which has submitted the complaînt to the Security Council, that is, the representative of the Central People's Government. It cannot, either on the basis of common sense, the Charter, or past precedents. 1 should like to remind the Council of the time when the Security Council was examining the question of the appoilltment of a mediator on the Kashmir questian. The Council's resolution on that question [S/1469] specifically stated that the mediator must be appointed with the consent of both parties. The Security Council did not feel justified in imposing a mediator upon the two parties-India and Pakistanoù nomination La à teur L~ un Pakistan, aux que pour devaient Conseil compte leur telle qu'à ses ~vithout their consent or without their participation m the discussion of the question, .in particular the question of transferring the functions of the previously established United Nations Commission for Indta and Pakistan ta a mediator. Thus there are certain precedents in the work of the Security Council which show that, in deciding the question of setting up a given commission or of appointing a mediator, the Council takes into account the views of the parties concerned, seeks their consent and only then takes a decision on the matter. The argument that the delegation of the Soviet Union is insisting on a representative of the People's Republic of China being invited merely to double its vote is without foundation. It is absurdo The representative of the People's Republic of China would be invited to take part in the consideration of this question without the right to vote. How can this be considered as doubling the vote? Only those who have no other arguments to put forward could resort to such base ones. The worthlessness of such arguments is quite obvious. At our [49211dl meeting on 29 August, when the delegation of the Soviet Union submitted its proposal [S/1732] for inviting a representative of the People's Republic of China, a number of delegations, and in particular the United States and French delegations, announced that they thought it premature to considcl" this question. The USSR delegation could not agree with that point of view. It argued reasonably that there was an enormous distance between Lake Success and Peking and that the representative of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China would require a certain amount of time~three or four or five days, or even longer~to reach Lake Success in order to take part in the consideration of these two questions. However, a number of delegations disagreed; they said that it was premature to deci.de that question. Mr. Austin, in particular, said that in his view it would be premature to consider if at that particular meeting, adding: "We are not indicating in the least degree what our choice would be with regard to the consideration of the.subject at its proper time." A number of other delegations took a similar stand. The representative of. France, in particular, stated that the French delegation would abstain from voting on the question of the invitation. However, he declared that this abstention would in no way prejudge the vote of the French delegation when the question was raised again, "in usuai and normal circumstances". From the standpoint of those two delegations, it was premature ta deal with this question on 29 August. , In these circumstances, the USSR delegation considers that it is the dutY of the Security Council ta invite the representative of the People's Republic of China as aState which has brought a complaint before the Security Cûuneil and has asked it for aid and assistance ~gainst aggression. estime que représentant donné de l'agression. To the people who assert that this proposaI is being made for sorne ulterior motives on the part of an individual government, or with a view to increasing the prestige of such a govemment, 1 wish to say that in the present case the prestige of the Security Couneil is at stake. When questions. of this kind are under discussion the members of the Security Council must consider above all-the prestige of the Security Council, and that can only suifer if the Council follows apolicy of violating the Cha.rter and of discriminating against Il people of 475 millions and its government. de duelles renforcer répondre l'autorité questions soucier avant tout de des l'encontre du peu~ In view of thesc' considerations, the USSR delegation hopes that the Security Council will take the àppropriate and just deeision to invite the representative of the People's Republic of China and to hear him during the consideration of the twoquestions on its agenda. . espère équitable République et qui Mr. AUSTIN (United States of Americà): The representative of China made a statement which stems \0. describe the situation qui~e correctly, namely, that fatlure to seat the Chinese communists in the Security Council in Aùgust last' has been followed by repeated attempts to smugglesuch a representative into the Security Council under any guise. l'anglais): déclaration de tentative aux eu sentant par a dti donnée gique comme verse aux donnée de entendues, sentée Toda)' the represimt~tive ~f the Soviet Union discU,ssed together item~ 2 and 3 of the agenda. He made the ~tatel11ent-that is, accotding to the interpreter's verslon-that he decisively insists that Article 32 shall '\ '.-1. ;~ '1 ;'1 il ;i ?C 50 interpreted that both parties to any controversies lU the .Security Council shall.be present in the Security Councll. My understanding of the interpreter's version \Vas that he said, ,"the true meaning of Article 32 is that b.oth parties must be heard, whereas, only one party IS present here". 1 wonder to whom he referred. ~, ~; ,; ·f ;1 NT?is \Vas but a repetitiol1 of the affront to the United ahans which has been made right along, attempting à "Any IVIember of the 1.:nited Nations which is not a member of the Security Council or any State which !s not a :Member of the 1.:nited Nations, if it is a party ta . a dispute under consideration by the Seeurity Çouncil) shaH be invited to participate, without vote, on the discussi~n re1ating ta the dispute..• '~ Is' 'that not the end of the matter? Apparently not. Today our attention has heen drawn ta a cablegram, dated lOSeptember 1950, from the Minister for Foreign Affairs.of the Central Feoplc's Government of the People's Republic of China, addressed to the pre~identof the Security Cauneil and ta the Secretary- General, éoncerning the complaint of bombing by air forces of the territory of China (S/1776). It is my recollection th~t not before the reeeipt of this cablegram has a repœsentative of thi5 communist Chinese régime ever asked to be brought to the Security Council. Perhaps the representative. of the Soviet Union has a different memor)', but the record will show it. There is no douht that in this communication which has been placed before the Security Couneil today, the application is that they should be made a party to the Secl'rity Couneil. It is ta "join" the Security Cauneil. Let me read one sentence of this cablegram: "The Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China, heing the sole legal government representing the Chinese people, and at the same time initiator of the proposaI and accuser in this case, has the right and neœssity ta send its delegation to attend and join the United Nations Security Council." 'WlTIat results is that we are caned upon, by this kind of application, to pass upon the question of who represents China. This is the attempt thèlt is heing made here in this particular instance. Who made this chl:~rge? Who has made these daims hefore? Whom do they sound like? What language is this? We are aU familiar with it and recognize the identity of the originator of the idea. The United States has helieved from thebeginning that the represcntative of the Soviet Union has placed this complaint on the agenda of the Security Council in ~n attempt to discredit the United Nations forces performing a peace-making function in Korea. This is a trick of accusation to shift world attention from the real aggressors in Korea. Mr. MaHk's speech today shows that the .USSR is on the defensive in the Security Couneil. It aims at shifting responsibility onto the United States and away from the United Nations The Secretary~GeneraI has also reccived today this cablegram from Mr. Chou En~lai, claiming that the Security Council has no authority-that should be remembered, no authority-to consider this question without Chinese communist participation. Mr. Chou En-lai even asserts a right to caU Security Council action "nuU and void" unless it should accede ta his wisItes. l shaH now read from document S/1776 in arder ta show how accurate that statement is. The last sentence of the cablegram reads às .follows: "Should the Security Council proceed with the above-mentioned item on the agenda without the attcndance and participation in discussion of the repre~ sentative of the People's Republic o.f China, aU its resolutions adopted wm he illegal, and therefore nuU and void!' . . Whose language is that? Who said that? Is there , not a familiar tone? Is·that not identical in ·substance and form with something we have 'been listening to throughout the month of Augtist? Does not that cablegram itself justify the belief which the Government of the United States has expressed here, that the Soviet Union representative placed this complaint on the Security Council agenda in an attempt to discredit the enited Nations forces performing a peace-making function of the United Nations? The United States, showing good faith, has declared that it would welcome United Nations consideration of this complaint, and it has suggested a suitably expe~ ditious method of handling the matter. \\Te have even 'expressed our readiness to deposit with the United Nations a sum of money for United Nations payment ta any persons who may he found to have suffered loss by reasûn of the action of United Nations forces supplied by the United States. However, we must oppose most strongly any attempt to turn the matter ioto propaganda or ta use it as an excuse to enter the Security Couneil by the back daor. The question of who represents China ought not to he decided on a collateral issue. Moreover, it does not h~ve to he decided in order to give the complainant hls day in court. The hearing of the complainantand the accused is a verv ancient custom in the United States and al! other freedom-Ioving countries, and one does not have to stretch the interpretation of Article 32 of the Charter of the United Nations in order to see that aIl parties have an appropirate day in court and have their chance to he heard. l.f Mr. Chou En-lai and his group are sincere in !hel~ st.atement, and if they truly desire to sec that JustIce IS Gone to all4Y persons who may have suffered loss~ they, like my Government, will welcome a United NatIons investigation to ascertain the facts. Thus far, 1 may add the obvious point that my Government has no desire to prevent the Chinese communist group from' presenting its point of view to the United Nations. As the members of this Council know) my Governmen"i: has always maintained such right in previous cases. In this instance we have taken the initiative in proposing the establishment of. an investigating commiss~on composed of two of· the most reliable, reputable and impartial members of the Council, to which the Chinese communists can pre:>ent whatever evidence they care to advance. No comp1aint can be made that they do not have their day in court: early enough, or at an appropriat~time, or in an appropriate tribunal. In such a commission ever.yone may be assured that such evidence will be weighed with care and justice and without propaganda obstructions. After. the commission has' submitt~d its. findi~gs' it will he open to the Security Council then ta dedde whether ~t wishes to invite the Peiping representatives, under rule 39 of the rules of procedure, to give' the Coupcil such information or àssistance as the latter may :require in considering the commission's. report. It seems to.us that this confonns to the practice of aU gove.rnments that preserve the blessings of liberty by giving a11 pàrties' an oppor.tunitY.to b~ heàrd and.by takirrg the evidence of a11 witnesses who know the fu~ . . Ml'. SUNDE (Norway): My delegation is going to votè for the Soviet Union proposaI to the effe'ct that the represe'ntative of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China should he invited to participate in the meetings of the Secl;1Ï"ity Coùncil during its consideration of the agenda item "Comp1aint of bombing by air forces of the territory of China". The extension of such an invitation would seem to be natural and reasoi:lable and ln conformity with the practice which was adopted on 25 June in connèxion with the consideration by. the Coundl of the complaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea. 1 should like to stress, however, that 1 am unable ta agree with the contention that such an 'invitation is obligatory under Article 32 of the Charter. In accordance with its cJear wording, Article 32 applies only The United States Governm'ent bas further taken a fair and' reasonable position' in. proposing that an investigation commiss.ion should he dispatched to the spot without delay in order to make an objective investiga#on of the charges, and has, %poreover, declared itself willing to make payment of such damages as the èommission might find fair a~d equitable. The establishment of such a commission is proposed in the "Gnited States draft resolution, document ,5/1752. The questions which arise in connexion with the establishment of such a commission do..not relate ta the merits of the complaint under consideration, and there is no dispute before us at the present time. ' , The controlling consideration in' connexion with the proposaI for establishing an i~vestigation'commission is, of course, that it sMuId be con'stituted and dispatched t<;> the spot as soo.n ,as possi~le. The longer the delay, the' more difficult it will"he, of course, for the commission to ascertain the truè fiels. "Vhile ·the Norw,egian delegation feels that it wot:lld he an advantage for the Security Council to have a representative of the Central People's Government present during 'the discussion of the' United States draft resolution, it does. not .agree that it would he necessary or expedient ta defer the establishment of the proposed commission until after the arrivaI of this represen~ative. ~he commission, in·our opinion, should he estabhshed wlthottt furthèr'de1ay, :: .:, . l trust that the Centràl People's Govern~ent o~ the People's Republic of China, on furtl).er consideration of. this questiqn, will find it possible to change the attitude it has taken. in its cablegram' of 10 September, document S/1776, and will. re~pop.d, to the United States proposaI in the conciliatory spirit in which it has been made. l hope this explanation will exclude any doubt in regard to the sig-nificance -ôf the Norwegian vote in St1pport of. the Soviet Union proposai. for invitinga repr~~entat1ve of the People's' Repttbhc of China to partlclpate during the Council's consideration of the co~plaint oi bombing by air forces of the territory of Chma. " Un~ted States has not only not rejected the claim outright,. ~ut .has shown that it is prepared to pay indemmt!es If the fact~ and damages are impartially ascertal11ed. The Umted States representative made those statements at the 493rd and 497th meetings of 3.1 August and 7 Septe~l1ber last. My delegation con- SI?e~S, ther~fore.··that If, through an impartial commISSIon, or 111 any other way, the Council should obtain accurate information concerning the actual events' if there should he any disagreement as to whether those events in fact occurred and, if sa, the nature thereof, or as to t~e damages.or inde.O?nities ta be paid, then the Councll would be Jl1 a pOSItion to consider whether it ~h~>uld or sh<;>t!ld not invite the representative of the PeIpmg authontles ta be present.during the discussion of this matter. . I~ i~ th~IS the view of m1 d~legation that such an mVltatlOll IS premature and It WIll therefore abstain in the vote. Ml'. CHAUVEL (France) (trallslated trom French) : !he Council decided ?ll 31 August last, ta place on ItS agenda the complamt of bomhing by air forces of the territory of China. As we know, that complaint had been introduced in a telegram dater! 28 August 1950 from Ml'. Chou En-lai addressed to the Secretary- General of the United Nations fS/1722]. My delegation" considers that, whatever the' legal considerations which hav~ beenadvanced here, the terms of Article 32 of the Charter apply to the particular case we are discussing. For that reason 1 shaH vote in favour of inviting a representative of Peking and of asking him to particip'ate, under the terms of .Article 32-that is,. wi~hout the r~ght to vote"-in the discus~ion on the complaint of àerial .bOmbillg of the teqit~ry of China. . ...' ..,. '., . 1 might add that, with that clarificab~n;'the status of that representative would he iri no way ambiguous. It would be .that of a lawyerauthorized to plead the cause' of the plaintiff in a specifie case; it would not be' that of a member·of the court which was to hear that case. . ·Mr. BLANCO (Cuba) (transla.fqd from Spanish): The 'Cuban delegation, as on 'other occasions when this question w?-s discussed, will 'vote against -the d'raft resolt;ttion submitted by the delegation of the Soviet l!nion and contaîned':in document S/1759. . . With regard to th~' item of .the agendâ l1nder discussion, headed"Conipl1;lint cif. bom1:>ing by air for,ces of the territory of China", it is the view of the Cuban delëgation that Article 32 of the Charter is not applicable in this case because the issue canriot be charac~ terized a dispute.. Cdnfronted with the claims made by the Peiping communist régime; the Government of the United States did not deny the charge; on the contrary, it recognized the possibility that an aeroplane belonging to the air forces operating in Korea in pursuance of the United Nations decision to take coercive action against the North Korean aggressors might have flown over Chinese territory and dropped bombs on it, by a mistake that can easily he. explained. In the circumstances, we consider that there is no ground for stating that there is a dispute within the exact meaning of Article 32 of the Charter. For that reason' we do not consider that the -invitation calIed for in the USSR draft resolution should be extended. On the other hand, the Security Council clearly is in no position, at the present time, to undertake consideration of this item of its agenda because it does not know the background of the situation and has no data on the matter. So long as it does not have a basis for forming an opinion. a basis whichcan be furriished only by means of a complete, detailed and impartial investigation of the facts, it will not be in a position to consider the substance of the question. In the cil'- cumstances, we feel that there is a preliminary question which' the Council must settle, namely, the form or the procedure required to inquire into the facts and to obtain objective, complete and impartial information which will enable the Council to take action with full knowledge. of the facts. Mr. :BEBLER (Yugoslavia) (translated trom French) : 1 shaH vote in favour of the draft resolution which provides that a representative of the Government of the People's Republic of China shan participate in the discussion of the item of the agenda with which we are dealing. 1 shall do so because, as the members know, the Yugoslav Government considers, in the first place, that China is badly represented in the Council. In our view, the o.nly government qualified to represent the Chinese people in international relations is that of Peking; that government should also he represented in the Security Council. Furthermore, in connexion with the question we are considering today, there are still other reasons why a representative of the Government of the People's Republic of China should he present here and take part in our discussions. In this particular case with which we are dealing, it is heyond question that even the representatives of those governments which hold that the Peking g()vernment is .merely a de facto government must concede that it ought to he represented, if only as a de facto government, in the Council. The incidents mentioned in the complaint be"fore us occurred in a territory over which. that government exercises ~on~rol, and one of the draft resolutions submitted to us requests that a commission should be sent to in~ vestigate them on the spot. But are we in a position to consider those incidents which occurred on a territory over which, 1 repeat, a government exercises de facto control, and are we in' a position to send a commission, withou~ taking the trouble to consult that government? The easiest way to consult it is to invite it to send representatives to participate in our discussion.- . . Those are the considerations on which 1 shan base my vote. If the' Go:v~rp.mel).t of th~ People's Repubtic of China wer,e not invited, 1 should be forced to act in. consequence: as 1 have' already said, 1 should be unable, for example, to vote in favour of sending a èomm~ssion into the territory of a government, of a sovereign State..which had not heen consulted about the matter. It is even more obvious that 1 should not beable to vote in favour of a draft resolution which cans upon US, as does the text submitted by the Soviet Union, to take a decision on the substance of the question. Sir Benegal N. RA~ (India): My delegation will vote for inviting a rcpresentative of the Chinese People's Republic. Even' for those members which regard Article 32 of the Charter inapplicable, there is rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure of this Council. That rule, as has already been pointed out, empowers the Council to invite any person "whom it considers competent for the purpose, to supply it with information To prevent any misunderstanding, l should like to make it dear that, with respect to the draft resolution for the appointment of a commission, since it might be alleged that the Government of India might have an interest, however slight, in the matter-one of the proposed commissioners heing a representative of India-my de1egation will abstain from voting on it.

Does any other member of the Council wish to speak on this point before we proceed ta the vote? . As no other member wishes to speak, l shaH make sorne observations on behalf of the UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IR~LAND. My delegation will vote in favour of the draft resolution contained in document S/1759, dated 5 September, subrnitted by the Soviet Union delegation. l shaH explain very briefly why we shall do this. In the first place, we do not daim that the legal reasons in favour of inviting a representative of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China are absolutely watertight, at any rate for as long as the Security Council has not, by a majority vote, decided that a change should be made in the present representation of China. So long as the Security Council in fact holds the view that the Central People's Government should not represent China at this table, it seems to us that Article 32 of the Charter cannat he invoked with full effect in the present case. Neither, with aU respect to my Indian colleague, does mIe 39 of the rules of procedure seem to us to oblige the Council to invite a representative of the Central People's Government, though it certainly provides a The real question is: does the Council desire ta invite the representative of the Central People's Government on this occasion? If it does, there will not, in our view, be any overriding legal objection ta its dQing so. Now as ta that, we feel that there is no very practical reason why the Central People's Government should insist in the present case on sending a representative here before we decide, as l hope we shall decide, ta send out a commission ta the spot. This because it is obvious that the sooner such a commission is sent out the better, and it does not appear that, as regards the details of the incident, as opposed ta its broad lines, much will be g~ined by hearing a representative of the Central People's Government in the Couneil when that Government's detailed evidence might better he presented ta a commission on the spot. We feel even more strongly that if, by any chance, the Council should not endorse the views of those members, such as the United Kingdom, which favour acknowle.dging the right of the Central People's Government ta be present if it sa desires, it would he mast unfortunate if that government decided-as seems ta he its intention, judging from the telegram received from Mr. Chou En-lai, ta which l drew attention at the beginning of this meeting-not ta co-operate with the United Nations at aIl. Having saidall this, we have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that in equity-as opposed ta law-the right of the Central Pe9ple's Government ta submit its views to this Council, if it so wishes, is undoubted. Whether it is recognized by the majority of the members of this Council, or not; whether its representative might take the opportunity to make a propaganda speech if he came, or not; whether its attitude towards the action which the United Nations is taking in Korea is entire1y satisfactory, or not; aIl this is not-in the view of the United Kingdom de1egation-strictly relevant to the question at issue. The question at issue-the central issue--is surely this: the government which is admittedly in de facto control of a very large and populous area has made a formaI complaint which affects aIl those States which have supported and are supporting the present action in Korea. This government wishes ta make known its point of view ta the Security Council. We may-most of us-think that it will be weIl advised not ta insist on this, in view of the entirely fair and, indeed, very generous proposaI which the United States has made. But if it does insist, my delegation thinks that we ought not ta reject its request. Speaking as PRESIDENT, l think l am in order now in proceeding ta the vote. The question is: does the

As l understand the situation, there are two draft resolutions hefore the Security Couneil, since we have disposed of the draft resolution contained in dQcument S/1759. The Security Couneil has before it the draft resolution contained in document Sj1745/Rev.l, submitted by the Soviet Union delegation on 31 August, and the draft resolution contained in document S/1752, suhmitted hy the United States delegation on 1 September. As l understand it, the representative of the United States is suggesting that the Security Council should consider that second draft resolutionbefore the one to which l referred just now. la maintenant a S;1759. document délégati8n lution 1er comprends que avant Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): Yeso

l am quite prepared to proceed to an examination of that drait resolution if the Council would first of an decide that it should he discussed before the draft resolution contained in document S/1745/Rev.l, submitted by the delegation of the Soviet Union. disposé lution, l'examiner le de Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from RtMsian): The USSR delegation does not think that it would serve ar.y useful purpose to vote on the United States drait resolution for a numbet of reasons. . tiques) estime vote pour First, today's meeting has been devoted to the discussion of a procedural question and only one representative, the representative of the United States, taking advantage of the fact that he had the floor, has spoken on the substance of his draft resolution. Other delegations, however, do not appear to have touched à l'examen sentant, avait fond Les le d'autres 011 the substance of that draft. A number of other delegations, it seems, and among them the delegation My second reason is more weighty. It is that the draft resolution of the Soviet Union, contained in document S/1745jRev.1, was submitted first. Rule 32 of the Security Council's rules of procedure lays down that "principal motions and draft resolutions sha11 have precedence in the arder of their submission". The United States delegation, disregarding the universally recognized and accepted practice in the Security Council, and in violation of that rule, insists that its draft resolution, which was submitted later, should be voted upon first. There are no grounds for thlS, especially in view of the fact that the United States delegation \Vas so firmly opposed ta inviting the representative of the People's Republic of China ta take part in the consideration of this question, although a number of delegations had contended with good reason that such an invitation was necessary, desirable and legal. In the light of these considerations, l think it would be inadvisable to open this question now, since it would take up a whole meeting. A number of delegations will speak on it and express their views, and it is only then that we sha11 be able to vote on the two draft resolutions before us, in the order of their submission. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America) : Of course we are aware that principal motions and draft resolutions sha11 have precedence in the order of their submission. That is so because of the necessity of expe-' diting business and getting the work of the Security Council forward. Without such reason we should not have that rule. It is evident from the experience of the Council in August, however. that the rule is not sacrosanct. The Soviet Union delegation succeeded in voiding it throughout the month of August simply because its representative acted both as representative of his Government and as President of the Council. Moreover, although we are in favour of the regular order, we have recognized that sometimes we depart from it as a matter of chaice. It is within the competence of the Security Council to do so, as it did in the case of the USSR draft resolution on which the Council has just voted, which was taken out of the regular order. It was filed on 5 September 1950, long auer the draft resolutions now before the Council were filed. l mention that only in passing in arder to clear the decks and get down to reality. If there is a good reason for the Security Council ta change the order, it does SQ. The United States draft resolution contained In document S/1752 is simple and factual. It reads as follows: "1. Decides to establish a Commission to investi- gate... "2. Requests aU govemments and authorities..." tiques) ~Ir. MALIK (Union of Soviet Social RepubHcs): Point of order. de une cède-t-il

The USSR representative has raised a point of order. Does the representative of the t"nited States yield? )''1r. AUSTIN (United States of America): 1 yie1d to that. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (trallslated trom Rttssian) : Point of order. The rep- resentative of the United States .is speaking on the substance of the question. He is explaining the con- tent of his draft resolution, giving the reasons why he is submitting it, and analysing it point by point. In other words, he is already embarking on a discus- sion of the substance of the question. tiques) sentant Il l'analyse déjà l feel that this is contrary to the ru~(es of procedure. Wc must first decide the question whether or not we shaH continue our meeting today. If we do, then, in accorclance with rule 32 of the rules of procedure, we must take up first the USSR draft resolution and. after that, the United States draft resolution. After a discussion of substance, we shall put the draft resolu- ûons to the vote in the order in which they were sub- mitted. In the meantime, however, we must not touch Upon the substance of the question as we are now discussing only the procedural aspect of the question dure. si l'affirmative, règlement projet passer portera résolution sont une qu'examiner à Telle vaudrait vation, trop expose 21 ~hether or not we shaH continue today's meeting. That 1S the question under discussion.

l think it would be preferable, if I,may say so, if the representative of the United States dld not go too deeply into the question of substance at this particular point, but merely told the Council II'hy he thought it was better to continue the discus-

If 1 may interrupt at this point, may 1 say that of course that would be perfectlv in arder, but l do think that the Council should express its agreement first of aIl on whether it should now adjoum or whether it woulel prefer ta continue with a view to deciding which of the draft resolutions should have priority. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): Very weIl; 1 did not know that was the parliamentary situation. 1 thought that 1 had the floor and was interrupted only by a point of arder, but if the President wishes ta take me off the floor for the purpose of letting someone move the adjournment, 1 shalI not oppose it.

1 am, of course, the servant of the CounciI. AlI 1 would say is that if 1 hear no objection, it would be perfectly in arder for the representative of the United States ta explain why, in his opinion, one draft resolution should have priority over the other. 1 might say, perhaps, in that connexion, t11at unless the Council does decide ta reverse the arder, 1 shall naturally have ta be bound by rule 32. That, 1 am sure, is understood. Therefore, unless 1 hear an.,. objection, 1 shaH take it that it is the \Vish of the Council to proceed now with the debate, and ta hear anybody who may wish ta speak on this point, namely, whether draft resolutian S/1752 should have priority over draft resolution S/1745/Rev.1. The only question that is before 11S now is this: do we wish ta go on debating this question, or do wc want to adjourn? Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) L__(t~ansta::d"fram. Rnss!a,,): 1 understOO~,tl,"~~e22~~~~~)e~~~:,~:~~~,~, The PR,ESIDENT: With aU due respect, my sugges~ tion at 6.05 p.m. was not a formaI motion for adjoUlm~ ment; it was mere1y a suggestion, and 1 am sure that is how the representative of the United States und~r~ stoodit. A formaI motion for adjournment has now been made by the Soviet Union representative. Unless any~ one wishes to speak with respect ta that, 1 shaH put it at once ta the vote. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist RepubIics) (tratlslated from Russian): 1 did not make a formaI proposaI; l thought that the President had done so. If that is not sa, l shaH not insist on it either. If the United States delegation wishes ta speak today, let us sit until midnight. l am readY-. tiques) présenté pensais, S'il qu'une Etats~Unis sié.ger SUlS

Then there is no motion for adjournment; that question is withdrawn and, conse~ quently, unless l hear any objection, 1 shaH take it that the Couneil does wish now to proceed to a dis~ cussion on the question whether the one draft resolution should have priority over the other. Unless l he~r any objection, that discussion will now proceed. propose. retirée. je la doit objection, ce Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated frorm Russian): l ask that that proposaI should he put to the vote. tiques) proposition

If the representative of the Soviet Union wants to have it put that way, l am quite prepared to put it that way. Will those who wish now to proceed to a discussion of priority for these two draft resolutions please raise their hands. sentant la à discuter résolution? In favour: Norway. United States of America. Abstaining: China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, France, India, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia. France, tiques, du The resu!t of the '<'ote 'Was 2 in fa,}our and 9 absten- liol/s. T!le proposaI was not adopted, !zavillg failed to SfCllre tlte affirmati'i'e 'ilotes of seVen members. The PRESIDENTS In spite of the fact that no one ll'ishes to make a suggestion for adjournment. or tilat no one is prepared to support any suggestion for membre séance cet tenant ~djournment, l suppose the only thing we can do 110W 15 to adjourn. Ml'. AUSTIN (United States of America) : l suggest that we meet as saon as possible; that, in my opinion, would be tomorrow afternoon.

As that suggestion seems to meet with general approval, we shaH meet in open session tomorrow, 12 September, at 3 p.m. The meeting rose at 6.35 p.m. Printed in U.S.A. Priee in the United