S/PV.501 Security Council

The Council had some preliminary discussion yesterday [499th meeting] as ta the best On the other hand, it seems to me that, in accordance with what perhaps l might caU our normal procedure, we might not have two separate discussions on these two draft resolutions [S/1752 and S/1745/ Rev.1], hut rather a general discussion in which it would be in order for any member to refer ta either draft resolution, aiter which the Conncil could take a vote. It may be that the Security Council would wish to reverse the normal order in which we should take the vote on the two draft resolutions, that is, it may wish to take the vote on the United States draft resolution first. We could decide now to take the vote on the United States draft resolution first, or later, before the vote is i:aken. It is for the Security Council to decide, but l hope that there will be general agreement that we should not have two discussions, but rather one general discussion which would cover both draft resolutions. Accordingly, perhaps l could ask my colleagues first whether they agree, at any rate, that· the discussion should cover both drait resolutions, irrespective of the order in which we take a vote. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America) : l am very glad of the chance to continue the remarks which l started last night on this very question, remarks which were interrupted. l think that the parliamentary situation in which we found ourselves, as stated by the President last night, is the situation in which we find ourselves now. Near the end of the meeting the President stated, among other things: ttTherefore, unless l hear any objection l shaH take it that it is the wish of the Council to proceed now with the debate, and to hear anybody who may wish to speak on this point, namely, whether draft resolution S/1752 should have priarity over draft resolution S/1745jRev.1." That was where we were when interrupted, and that is where we are beginning today. l have the floor again, and l desire to state briefly the reason why l consider that the regular order should be interrupted and a different order begun. The question is: ShaH we proceed with the one that :e1ates to fact-finding and. the ascertainment of '\\That support there is for the complaint before we act upon or vote upon the draft resolution which condemns, prejudges, and excludes factsJ reason and everything that the human mind requires in ord~r to come to a judgment?' lution de résolution qui et humain de ils projet à-dire un It is the difference between these two draft resolutions which determines their logical position in voting. If we were ta vote on the draft resolution that was first filed, that iSJ the Soviet Union drait resolutionJ what should we be doing? Just look at this. Without any evidence at allJ without even any prime facie· evidenceJ we would vote (SI1745IRev.1] that: "The Security Co'Uncil~ central lui sujet région à américains des qui lations matériel par de 'Waving consiiiered the communications dated 27 August 1950 and 29 August 1950 addressed to the Security Council by the Central Peoples Government of the People's Republic of China and relating to the violation by the air forces of the United States of America of the Chinese frontiers in the area of the Korean-Manchurian border and the bombing and strafing by United States aircraft of buildings, railway stations and an aerodrome on Chinese territory resulting in loss of life and damage to railway and aerodrome installationsJ railway rolling stock and motor vehic1esJ and "Having heard the explanation of the representative of the United States of America to the United NationsJ "Condemning the above-mentioned illegal acts of the Government of the United States of AmericaJ and placing on the Government of the United States full responsibility for the above-mentioned acts and the whole of the damage caused to the PeopleJs Republic of. China, and also forall the consequences that may anse as the result of such actsJ "Decides to calI upon the Government of the United S.tates of America to prohibit such illegal acts which vlOlate Chinese sovereignty and cause damage to the People's Republic of China and to the peaceful Chinese population." des des actes, République quences d'Amérique portent des à What does that do? Does that convince the mind that an event of that kind occurred? Well, ït may be cûnvincing to one certain mind here at this table, but it ought not to move even his judgment. We should have some facts with which to dea1. We should know the accuracy and the soundness of these charges. What can we do about it? AIl" we have to do is to exercise the privilege, power and dutY that are ours as a parHamentary body and proceed. according to the logk, reason and necessities of this situation, even though that might not be in conformity with the regular order. The rule for regular order was not made to stultify human reason, to make men stand on their heads and turn somersaults and do ridiculous things; this rule i5 meant to aid men in their parliamentary deliberations, not to obstruct them. . Draft resolution S/1752, which was presented on 1 September instead of 31 August, the date of submission of the Soviet Union draft resolution, does the reasonable thing. It Iays the foundation for cOllsidering any such condemnation as the one asked of us in the Soviet Union draft resolution. It provides that: "The Secllrity Cowncil "1. Decides to estab1~sh a Commission to investigate on the spot and report as soon as possible with regard to the allegations contained in documents S/1722 and S/1743. The Commission shaH be composed of two representatives appointed, one by the Government of India, and one by the Government of Sweden; "2. Requests aU Governments and authorities to provide safe conduct and aIl facilities requested by the Commission; "3. Requests the Unified Command to provide to the Conmission upon its request aIl facilities and information, inc1uding access to aIl pertinent records;

As 1 understand it" the representative of the United States has indicated that he would he agreeable ta having the discussion of both dra!t resolutions proceed now, but has 5<l.id that it is his strong opinion, which may \Ven be shared by other members of the Council, that when we come to the vote the United States resolution, document S/1752, should he vuted on first because in a sense it is a prior question. It is argued - and l think speaking as tne UNITED KINGDOM representative, that it is argued with force - that, if we are ta discuss the question intelIigently, we must vote on that particular question first. If we vote on the condemnatory question first, before we have voted on the proposaI to send out a commission, it may he thought by some, including myself as United Kingdom representative, to be iIlogicaI. compris, entendre sion a être le vrait sorte pense, UNI, examiner le voter la sur sur que dérer question de ment aura tion au As PRESIDENT, l suggest that this is a fairly simple point, on which we need. not have a long discussion. Can we agree that the United States draft resolution should have priority when it cornes to the· vote, or should we have à vote on the part.iculat question as to which drait resolution should have priority when it does come ta the, vote? ' Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet SociaIist Republics) (translated trom Russian) : The USSR delegation considers that the arguments advanced by the United States delegation are worthless. The Security Canncil is gaining no time, but on the contrary is wasting time. The lengthy discussion that the United States representative has already caused at stiiIanother 'meeting of.the Security Conncil does nothing to speed up the debàtè on this question or ta help reach a decision on it. On the.contrary, it is delaying and hindering· ~onsideration of lt. tiques) estim~ Unis Conseil au le nière n'accélère sion freine Nor do the arguments on the substance stand up to cri!icism, as the Security Couneil must he strictly gtuded by the rutes of proced'lu"e in considering and deciding upon this question. Under rule 32 of the pros quant critique. former The United States representative, as the representative of a S1<.. è which has long used the mechanism of the. vote grossly to violate and disregard the Charter and the rules of procedure not only in the Security Council but in aU the organs of the United Nations, is trying once again, .by using the same procedure, to violateone of the basic rules of procedure. The prelimina.ry discussion of the procedural question connected with the brutal, aggressive bombing of the territol'Y of China by the United States Air Force shows that the United SLates Government and the United States delegation will boggIe at nothing to attain their purposes: neither at violating the Charter and the rules of procedure nor at distorting the faets. The United States representative aileged only yesterdav, deliberately twisting the facts, that the USSR repré- sentative seized the Security Council of the question of the bombing of the territory of China by the United States armed forces. This statement is not true; it is pure fiction, since the whole world knows that bath these agenda items have been put .before the Security Council by the Government of the People's Republic of China in cablegrams sighed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of that Republic, Ml'. Chou En-lai [S/1722 and S/1743]. Consequently, Ml'. Austin's assertion that the question was presented by the USSR representative is contrary to fact. The Soviet representative of the USSR was President of the Security Council, in accordance with the mIes of procedure, when the telegrams from Ml'. Chou En-lai concerning the invasion of the Chinese Island of Taiwan by United States armed forces and the bombing of Chinese territory by the United States Air Force were received by the Security Council. It is naturally the dutY of any President of the Security Council who receives such a telegram dealing with a threat to peace and security to place these questions on the agenda of the Security Council immediate1y and to bring them to the attention of the Council, as the President of the Security Council did in this case. It can be taken for granted that, if the United States representative had been President of the Council at that time, he would have tried to prevent these questions being considered, although that would have been illegal and unworthy of the President. That is the situation with regard to the inclusion of these questions on the agenda. Mr. Aust;in's statement that the inclusion of these questions on the Security Council's agenda is an attempt And yet the very fact that these questions have arisen and have appeared on the Council's agenda is in itself a clear praof that the Government of the United States is the real aggressor, not only il1 Korea but in China, and not only in Taiwan but in the territory of China bordering on Korea. Not only does the inclusion of these questions not distract world public opinion from the question as to who is the real aggressor in Korea, but on the contrary, it makes it easier for people the world over to see and understand what is really going on in the Far East: that the ruling circ1es of the United States, having provoked a civil war in Korea, having unlawfully intervened in it, and having equally unlawfully extended their aggression to the territory of China by occupying the Island of Taiwan, are now tryingto spread aggression still further by an .armed invasion of China and by provocative and barbarie bombings of the peaceful Chinese population; and that, having prevented the adoption of the proposaI [S/1759] that the representative of the People's Republic of China should be invited to attend the meetings at which the Council considers the question, they are now trying, undet the pretext of "making· an inquiry on the spot", to rush through the Council '- as though the house were on fire - their draft resolution setting up a commission. seulement ment toire la pas est permet voir Extrême-Orient. lieux: avoir être avoir territoire Taïwan, champ Chine teurs Cela des Conseil inviter Chine à au lait création surplace. de tel ticipation dans Le tude missioIls sentement intéressés. de But surely it is obvious that such questions as creating a commission and sending it to some country cannat he decided without the participation of a representative of that country's Government. The United States Government is accustomed to sending its emissaries, its missions and commissions wherever it pleases, without asking the permission of the countries to which !he}" are sent. But it çan only behave in stlch a manner lA: '~aIing with its satellites. The Governments and ~J) .es of free and independent countries cannot per- !lI!t United States gattleiters and scouts to enter their ~rn:ed f~r~es. It was explained politely to these unlUvlted vlSltors that they were unwanted, and the door was slammed in their faces. The United States representative is suggesting to the Security Council that it adopt this cynical United States method by sending a commission to China, without first discussing the matter with a representative of the People's Republic of China or asking for the consent and permission of·the legal Govermnent of that Republic. The United States representative not only urges the adoption of this method, but is trying to force it upon the Security Council in a hasty and irregular manner. If the Seeurity Council is ta avoid finding itself in a ridiculous position, it must not become involved in t~lis iIlegal l1leasure towa~~s which it is bein:; so perslstently pushed by the Umted. States representative. T~e United States representative argues, in favour of hlS proposaI, that neither the Security Council nor the representative of the Soviet Union has any facts about the bombing of Chinese territory by United States aireraft. But who is preventing us from obtaining those facts? The Security Cotmcil has received two telegrams from the Government of the People's Republic of China. The facts are c1early stated in those telegrams and we shaH refer to this again durina the debate. The Security Council hasheard an official ~tate­ ment by Mr. Austin himself in which he admitted that a United States aircraft had violated the aerial territory of China. In that connection Mr. Austin made a number of reservations intended to tone down that faet but. it still rem~ins a fact. He did not deny that a Umted States alreraft had crossed the sacred and inviolable frontiers af China. What further data and facts are necessary? We already have the facts. Who has prevented theSecurity Council from cIarifying these facts. and obtaining further data? Again it is the representative of the United States. He has made every effort to ensure that the representative of the People':; Republic of China should not be invited to the meeting of the Security Council at which this question is being discussed. Consequentiy, Mr. Austin's reference cannot be considered consistent. Indeed. it is absolutely inconsistent. If Mr. Austin had not stood in the way of inviting the representatives of the Peaple's Republic of China, the Security Council would have had the facts and data and would long ago have proceedecl to consider the substance of this question. sition violation d'insinuer sentant sur sécurité, boîtent toute seil résolution ils moins se il sentant résolution tation ait

It really is no good for our Soviet Union colleague ta assert that what has been suggested by the representative of the United States is a violation of the mIes of procedure, and further to make the amiable insinuation that the representative of the United States only has to bang the table and alI the members of the Security Council, other than himself, will dance ta the.United States. AlI this is rcally quite gratuitously offensIve. In the first place, if the Security Council decides ta vote on any draft resolutions other than in the order of their submission, it is not, in my opinion at any rate, a violation of mIe 32, which merely lays down the normal procedure. IncidentaIlYI we have alreadYI at the Soviet Union's instance, decided to vote [497th mee~ing] on the Soviet Union draft resolution concerning Chinese representation first, in spite of its figuring last in the arder of priority. sein ordre lution plus devra façon de l note that there appears to be general agreement. as far as I can understand it, that the debate on item 2 afour agenda should proceed on the basis of both draft resolutions before the Council. Therefore, aIl we have ta decide now is which draft should be voted on first. Unless I hear any objection, I propose to put that ta the vote at once. Je gation rité des plusieurs intérêt lution. ~ir Benegal N. RAu (India): I shall explain very bnefl! the vote l am about to cast. My delegation will abstam on the question of giving priority in voting ta the U:nited States resolution because, as I have already explamed more than once, India might be said ta have an interest in its subject matter. glais) ma autorise, le pour les de de dure de juge approprié ~ahmoud FAWZ~ Bey (Egypt) : I wish, in my turn, ta .gIve an explanatton of my eventual vote, but before damg so, with the President's permission I should like ta. express the hope that our Soviet Union coIIeague WIll not insist on a mechanical interpretation by the Council of the apparently mandatory terms of rule 32 ?f our rules of procedure. The Security CounciI always !s master of its own procedure, and it can, in logic if It so deems fit and proper, take in one order or the °Thther the draft resolutions which are submitted ta it. ere is nothing whatsoever in the spirit of the mIes af procedure, or even in their letter, which can impede As for the discussion. l agree with the sense of the Council that we should discuss the two together, considering they are so related and intertwined that we cannot reaUy separate the one from the other. Mr. CHAUVEL (France) (tra.tLslated trom Freuch) : On 27 August the Secretary-General of the United Nations received a cable from Mr. Chou En-lai containing a complaint against bombings whichs according to the report of the People·s Govemment of North- East China, are supposed to have been carried out by United States planes against objectives on Chinese territory. This cable \Vas circulated on ~8 August as document S/1722. r On 29 August [492nd meeting] the United States representative. referring to this cable, stated that the instructions of the Unified Command in Korea strictly yrohibited pilots under its orders from crossing the Korean frontier into adjacent territory. He added. "No evidence has been received to indicate that these instructions have been violated. The United States, for its part, would we1come an investigation on the spot by a commission appointed by the Security Coun.ci!". The letter of the United States representative was circulated on 29 August as document S/1727. These two communications \Veresubsequently used as a basis for two draft resolutions. The first, dated 31 August, was that presented by the USSR delegation, and is set forth in document S/1745/Rev.1. This draft resolution, after referring to the consideration given to the complaint of China, and to the explanations of the representative of the United States, condemns those acts which it calls illegal and places full responsibility for them on the United States Govemment. The second draft resolution, dated 1 September, is that presented by the United States representative, and is set forth in document S/1752. It takes up, in the form of a Council resolution, the suggestion for setting The United States representative has cxplained the material renSOns why, in his opinion, rule 32 could he waived. Nobody, l believe, is questioning the meaning of rule 32. This rule provides, in perfectly clenr terms, that draft resolutions shaH have precedence in the order of their submission. Nor would anyone, l am sure, think of questioning the Council's right to waive a rule which it has itself established. A rule must be followed unless the Council decides otherwise.WiIl the Council decide otherwise today? raisons tion je stipule! de sentés. contester à suivie disposé. aujourd'.hui? The French .delegation, for its part, considers that there are exceI1ent reasons for doing so. !ts reasons are based on the actual text of the Soviet draft. d'excellentes fournies soviétique. état faits. rapport le affirmation l'objet droit plainte ou même n'a fait en The first paragraph of this draft states that the Security Council has considered a certain number bf faets. The factsare those which Mr. Chou En-lai aUeged in his telegram of 27 August on the basis of the report of the Government of North-East China. The aUegations are not supported by any evidence and have flOt. been checked. Neither in public nor in private law ean a case be considered or decided on the basis sale1y of the complaint. Such a case cannot. be discussed and the present case has not in fact been discussed. When, therefore, the USSR draft resolution refers to the consideration of certain facts, the least that ean be said is that it is begging the question. In the second paragraph, the draft resolution refers ta the explanations of the United States representative. If I am not mistaken, the United States representative has giv. l no explanation of the facts in question. Today, as on the previous occasion, he has merely proposed a method for verifying the facts. explications Si donné s'est poser ces tion et l'Union condamner le du fort The last two paragraphscondemn the acts attributed ta the United States Government and called il1egal. How does the USSR representative think that the Council couId condemncertain acts without discussing them? And how' does he think that the Couneil could diseu~s the acts without knowing them? As the case stands, the USSR draft resolution, as the USSR representative weil knows, is not receivable. The Council's first concern must be to assemble the faets and to investigate the complaint which has been brought before it. This is the purpose of the United States draft resolution. This draft resolution, like any other, can of course he discussed or criticized. !ts principle, however, which is that the matter must he mettre il des projet, principe, jugement sens damnation. l~vestigated before judgment is passed, caX"tlot be questlOned. It is plain common sense that an investigation must precede any condernnation that may be pro- For these reasans the French delegation considers that the provisions of rule 32 should· be waived and that the United States draft resolution shou!d be given priority. Consequent!;}' we shaH support the United States draft reolution unle5s a better method of con" ducting the investigation is proposed. Ml'. TSIANG (China) : In the vote which is ahout ta be taken, my delegation will not participate. l acknowledge the weight of the arguments advanced by the representatives of the United StatesJ Egypt and France. Nevertheless, it appears to me that it does not make any material difference. We should have to vote on the Soviet draft resolution in any case, unless it were withdrawn. l do not see any indication, that it will be withdrawn. In that case, whether l should be called upon to vote .first on this draft resolution or the other draft resolution, the difference would be only a matter of a few minutes. Therefore, my delegation will not participate in this vote. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translatcd from Russian) : The Security Council is of cOUrse master of its procedure, but it should be a good and wise master and use its rights rational1y and not in order ta cover tlp the secret aims of any de1egation. Yet it must be obvious to everyone that yesterday [499th meeting] the United States delegation deliber~ ately ensured the rejection of a decision to the effect that a representative of the People's Rep1!blic of China should be invited, in arder that that representative should not be admitted to the Security Council; and that it is now trying to rush through its proposaI to set up a commission. Does not the use of such a manoeuvre arouse doubts in the mind of any objective person con" ceming the intentions of the United States delegation? It certainly does j anyone who approaches these ques" tions with true objectivity will he unable ta accept the aims and methods of the United States delegation even in this procedural question, let alone in the question of substance. No one forbids any representative ta vote on either draft resolution as he sees fit, or in accordance with his Government's instructions. That is the right of every representative. But that gives no one the least ground for altering the order of consideration of the cIrait resolutions before us. The USSR delegation's proposaI is more reasonable: let us vote on the USSR draft resolution first, and the delegations which do not agree with it can either cast no vote, or abstain, or vote against i1. If the USSR draft resolution is not adopted, we shaH aux devrait-on. les projets justifier sentés proposition Such a course woulel be wiser and wauld be in keepil1g' with the rules of procedure. Why should it he necessary, far purposes of voting, to have this inversion of the order of the draft resolutions submitted? There are no grounds for such a manoeuvre, and a11 the arguments put iorward on the matter fail to justify sneh a proposaI. Accordingly, the USSR delegation insists that the Security Council not violate the rules of procedure, not seek to hide the secret and tendentious intentions of the United States elelegation, but that it abide by mIe 32 of the mIes of procedure, consider the two draft resolutions at the same time, and then put them ta the vote in the order in which they were submitted. pour intérieur, secrètes Unis intérieur, résolution, où tous proposition allons aux dire le puis de

l think that aIl arguments for and against adopting this procedural proposaI have been fully deployed. Accordingly, we shall now vote on the proposaI that we should vote first on document 5/1752, the draft resolution submitted by the 'United States, and then on document S/1745/Rev.1, the draft resolution submitted by the Soviet Union. vège, Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne Nord, lit favol/.r: Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Norway, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ire- land, United States of America. soviétiques. 4.gail1st: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Abstabling: India, Yugoslavia. Not participating in the vote: China. The proposaI was aàopted by 7 votes ta one, with 2 abstentions and one tnember not participating in the vote.

In the circumstances, we shaH proceed to disctlss item 2 on our agenda, and in the course of the debate we shaH discuss both drait resolutions that are before us. When we come to the vote, however, wc shaH vote first on the United States draft resolution anel then on the U55R ·draft resolution. conditions, dit débat, dont au de résolution tiques) reçu gères République 30 dans les frontière Chine et leuse, gares Mr. MALn~ (Union of Soviet S<>cialist Republics) (tralls1ated from R1lssian) : The Security Council has received two telegrams from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Central People's Governme-,t of the People's Republic of China dated 27 August and ?O August 1950. These telegrams, which are set fortIl ln documents 5/1722 and 5}1743, state that aircraft of the United 5tates Air Force violated the integrity of the Chinese frontiers and invaded the aerial territory ?f China in the region of the Korean-Manchurian f!ontler, bombingand strafing buildings, railway statIons and an aerodrome in Chinese territory, with consequent loss of human life and damage to railway (f••• On 27 August military aeroplanes of the forces of United States aggression in Korea invaded the air of the People's Republic of China, flying along the right bank of the Yaltt River and strafed OUT.' buildings, railway stations, railway carriages and people, killing and wounding a .number of them; the situation is ex:- tremely serious. The details of the fact are as follows. At 10.04 on 27 August two United States B-29 bombers flew to the sky above the city of Chi-an and its vicinity to the right of the middle stretch of the Yalu River, circling and reconnoitring for more than ten minutes. "At 10.0S the same day, four United States aeroplanes consisting of three P-Sls and one Mosquito flew to the sky above the area of Lin-chiang city and the nearby railway station of Talî-tzu ta the right of the upper stretch of the Yalu River, strafing the station building at Tali-tzu for two minutes and along the railway tines for another two minutes, damaging one locomotive. At 11.04 another four United States aeroplanes came to the same area and machine-gunned the district around the bridge on the river for eleven minutes, damaging two locomotives, one passenger carriage and one guard carriage, and wounding one locomotive engineer and one inhabitant. At 14.30 the same day, a United States B-29 bomber circ1ed and l'econnoitred over the city of Antung to the fight of the lower stretch of the Yalu River. At 16.40, two United States P-Sl planes came over the Antung airfield and strafed for two minutes, wounding nineteen and kilIing three workers, and damaging two trucks." In the cablegram of .30 August it is stated that at S:4S p.m. on 29 August military aeroplanes of the United States again invaded the air of the People's Republic of China and strafed the territory of China, killing and wounding several persons. The telegram further states that four United States fighters invaded the territory of China above La-Koo-Shao of the K'uan-tien district of China on the right bank of the Yalu River. Afterwards they flew along the right bank of this river to Chang-tien-ho-K'ou, which is about one kiIometre irom La-Koo-Shao, and fired several shots at fishing boats, killing one Chinese fisherman and wounding two others. At 17.50 the same fighters appeared above Ku-Iou-tzu to the north-east of Antung, where they again fired shots at fishing boats, killing three fishermen, severely wounding two, and slightly injuring three others. With reference to these unprovoked attacks of the United States Air Force on the territory of China, the Government of the People's Repubtic of China, in the above-mentioned cablegrams from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Chou En-lai, describes these acts as provocative and atrocious acts of invasion of the air of China by the forces of United States aggresRion in Korea, as a heinous crime, resulting in the violation Mr. Austin, the representative of the United States on the Security Council, did not deny in the Security Council on 31 August 1950 [493rà meeting] the fact that the frontier of China had been violated by United States military aireraft. He stated: tlReparts have nowb~en received which indicate that one F-S1 aireraft of the 67th Fighter-Bomber Squadron may have, by mistake, vialated Chinese territory in Manchuria and strafed an airstrip in the late afternoon of 27 August 1950." Mr. Austin made this statement with the reservation that the report had not been fully confirmed, but admitted that it indicated a possibility that one F-51 aircraft might have attacked an airstrip at Antung in Manchuria, which is approximately five miles from the Korean border. Thus there is no denial of the fact that the integrity of the frontiers of China was violated by the United States Air Force in the area of the Korean-Manchurian border, and that machine-gun attaeks were made on ,Chinese territory, attaeks which, as stated in the Chinese Government's communiqué, caused loss of human life and damage to rai1way installations and an aerodrome, as weIl as to rolling stock and motor transport. That fact may therefore be regarded as firmly established. The very faet of military aircraft of the United States appearing over the territory of the People's Republic of China is not only a gross violation of the frontiers of China, but is also a flagrant violation of the e1ementary standards of international law. The rule that the frontiers of a State are inviolable and, that no one may cross th.em without the permission of the Government concerned, is an indisputable rule of international law, hallowed for centuries in international agreements and by custom. The violation of this rule is nothing ibut a malicious breach of State sovereignty and international law. plique non populaire bombe des doit Etats-Unis responsable ont toutes In the present case, however, the position is aggravated by the faet that United States military aircraft have not only violated the frontier of the People's Republic of China but have also bombed and strafed buildings, railway stations and an aerodrome on Chinese territory, with the resultant loss of human life and rnaterial damage to the People's Republic of China. The Security Council must unquestionably condemn these illegal actions of the United States Gavernment, and must place on the United States Government the entire responsibility for them and for aIl the damage sustained by the People's Republic of China, and also for any consequences which may result from these actions. des The Security Council must caU upon the United States Government not to tolerate these illegal actions, With regard ta the United States draft resolution 1 wish to. state the following: In his statement to the Coundl on 31 August, the United States representative admitted that the United States Air Force had violated the frontiers of the People's RepubIic of China, although he said that only one American aeroplane had been involved. The United States representative therefore admitted that an Ameri~ can aeroplane shelled the territory of China. At the United States representative's request, the Secretary- General of the United Nations, Mr. Trygve Lie, communicated this official statement to the Government of the People's RepubIic of China. Consequently, the tact that the frontiers "vere violated and that' the .air space of China was invaded has been recognizedby the United States Government itself. That heing so, there is no need ta set up any specint commission of investigation, Inasmuch as the United States Government has recognized that it committed a lawless act of aggression when a United States military aeraplane violated the frontiers of China, and as this fact should be heId to he estabIished, there is no need whatsoever for a special investigation of this fact in the manner suggested by the United States. The stubborn opposition of the United States representative to the adoption by the Security Cauncil of the USSR proposaI ta invite a representative of the People's Republic of China ta attend the meetings at which this question is considered, proves that the United States Government is afraid of a thorough and objective consideration of this question by the Coundl, and is trying ta keep it from doing so by setting up some sort of commission of inquiry. What are the United States Government's objectives in this connexion? First, as l have already stated, it is trying to sidetrack the Security Council from the detailed consideration of this question and ta prevent its being discussed in the Security Coundl with the participation of the representative of the Government of the People's Republic of China. Secondly, it is trying, contrary to the Charter, logic and common sense, not to admit the representative of the People's Republic af China to the meetings of the Seu,rity Council to take part in the discussion of'this qUI·g:ion. à membres sonnel exposé, préméditée, tentés remplacer de Conseil affaire mission représentant du: cette provocations autre dans Fourthly, under cover of the commission --'- on its staff if not as members of it - it is trying ta send its own trusted representatives ta make a spying recon" naissance of the situation in China. These faets - and partieularly the persistent attempts of the United States Government to substitute the proposal that a commission of inquiry be formed for the question of inviting a representative of the People's Republie of China to attend the Security Council and participate in the discussion of this question, as well as the hasty way in which the United States representative is trj'ing to force this proposaI on the Council - inevitably give the impression of premeditated provocation. Furthermore, the main figure in this provoca" tian, as in a number of other .provocative actions by the United States in the Far East, ii;; the 1l0tOrious United States ((proconsul" in the Far East, General MacArthur. As for the State Department and the delegation of the United States in the Security Council, they fully support MacArthur's provocative intentions and acts, and merely endeavour to provide sorne kind of diplomatie cover for those provocations. Unis l'attitude ment de The members of the Security Council are well aware of Mr. Austin's propensity to allegory. Ml'. Austin's attention may therefore be drawn to the following allegory: le conditions, sur .A gangster decides to force his way, \'Vith hostile intentions, into a peaceful dtizen's 'house. So as to make it easier for himself to gain entry to the house, he resorts to provocation, throws a bomb through the window of the peaceful citizen's house, kills a few members of the family who are in the house, and causes the house-owner material damage. Then, when the indignant house-owner asks the police to protect him from the gangster's unprovoked attack, the gangster reports to the police, cynically admits that it was he who threw the bomb through the window, and adds, even more cynically: CCI will pay the damages, provided .the injured house-owner first lets anyone 1 choose into the house." Then, when the house-owner asks ta he invited and heard by the police, the gangster, counting on the support of the police, categorically abjects ta the injured man's being admitted and heard. The gangster insists on his point that investigators should be sent to the house of the man he attacked de Afin ster par plusieurs occasionnant matériel. li non commissariat il ajoute, dégâts, la voudrai." mande de écoute l'on procède sans maison, sation, r~gardless of his wishes, and without asking for either hls consent or permission or even discussing the question \Vith him. l'agression grossière la ..This is an accurate description, both in allegory and ln fact, of the flagrant aggression of the United States against China and the no less flagrant attempt on the It is time to expose this vile and inadmissible method of concealing misdeeds behind a mask of benevolence. First, by subjeeting the territory of both Korea and China to barbarous bombing attacks, the United States is committing lawless acts and violating the elementary, generally recognized principles of international law. Secondly, it is committing an aet of aggression, causing material damage, and deliberately murdering the peaceful population. No amount of dollars, Ml'. Austin, can possibly compensate for the lives of the people killed as a result of the barbarous attacks and bombings <:arried out by the United States Air Force over the territory of other States. The people killed as a result of the barbarous bombings cannat be brought back to life for any number of billions of dollars. Ml'. Austin evidently fails to understand this elementary truth, but if he does understand it, and is making his statements deliberately, then his statements are a cynical insult not only to the relatives of those who perîshed as a result of the barbarous United States bombing attacks, but to the whole population of those countries. Is it not obvious that the cynicism of a murderer who offei's to pay in dollars for the crimes he has committed can evoke only indignation, revulsion and eontempt? Cables received by the S'ecur.ity Couneil from various workers', students' and public organizations, as weIl as from Chinese intellectual societies, speak of the profound indignation aroused in the Chinese people by the evil deeds of the United States murderers of the peacefuI Chinese population. I draw the attention of members of the Security Couneil to document S/1761. This document sets forth the texts of two telegrams, addressed ta me by various organizations of North China, to protest the barbarous bombing of Chinese territory by American planes. The first telegram states: "The United States imperialists have, in total disregard of the wishes of the people of the whole world, violated wortd peace and ruthlessly bombed the 'people toute~ The cable is signed: "Federation of Labour Unions of Hangshow, Hangchow Democratie Youth Association, Hangchow Democratie Women's Association, HangcJ:1ow Students' Association." Association Tcheou, Tcheou, The second ·cable reads: provinces coupable tué la Ministre de "With regard to violations of the territorial air of Chinese North-eastern Provinces and killingand injuring of Chinese people by aeroplanes of the United States imperiaIists, we firmly support the solemn protest of Foreign Minister Chou En-lai and request the Security Council, in the interests of justice, to impose sanctions on the United States imperialists for their atrocities." justic~, atrocités." It is signed: "Writers and Artists League of North-eastern China, Sian (Shensi)!' Est, The Security Council received thirty-eight other cables from various people's organizations of China, expressing their indignation and protesting against the brutal bombings of Chinese territory by the United States Air Force and against United States aggression in Korea an.d Taiwan. The Chinese people support the dernand of their Government and expect the Security Council ta take immediate steps to end aggression and to protect the legitimate interests of China and its people. These cables convey the demands of a number of organizations - such as the Teachers' Association, the Coal Miners' Union, the Women's Democratie Federation, the Students' Union, and many other organizations in the Province of Shansi - that the United Nations should take steps to safeguard peace by curbing the provocative actions of the United States Government against China. nouveaux populaires et toire contre l'île de qu'il fin de tout des ouvriers tion et vince Unies réprimer le In a cable dated 4 Septemberl a number of other organizations in North Szechuan write as follows: "Victorious Chinese people will not allow United States lawlessness in China and demand immediate United Nations action against Unit~d States aggression in China and Korea." In a cablegram dated 4 September, the trade union organizations and demo-:ratic federations of youth and women of the town of Kunming, and the Army and Labour Heroes of Yunnan Province, strongly protest against United States air attacks and the killing and wounding of thirty-five Chinese citizens, and demand immediate action. In a cable dated 4 September, the Peace Committee, the Trade Union Council, the Peasants' Association and a number of other organizations in the Province of Kwangtung write as follows: "Three million people in the eastern part of the province of Kwangtung indignant at United States strafing of China. We ask you punish culprits." A number of organizations in Shanghai write as follows: "Youth, students, women East China behind Chou En-Iai's protest United States bombing China. Demand Security CouncH stop United States provocation." In a cable dated 4 September the students and professors of Nanking University state: "After invading Korea, Taiwan and massacring Korean civili2.ns with bombs, United States imperialism again sends planes raid Chinese territory. Request you stop United States aggression in interest world peace." The students of Peking University write in their cable of 4 September: "United States bombing Chinese territory after invading Taiwan is serious act undermining world peace.'l The trade union and democratic organizations of the province of Hunan state: province t1Thirty million Hunan people demand Security Council order United States withdraw its troops from Korea and its Seventh Fleet from Taiwan.u exigent Unis septième Many other organizations in various provinces of China express in telegrams their indignation and \'ehement protest against the United States bombing of Chinese territorv and their demand that the Securitv Council should act swiftly ta. punish the offenders and haIt the United States provocation aimed at spreading aggression. vinces leur contre toire de coupables Etats-Unis, l'agression. ces prenne les de agresseurs. cynique des raillerie ses milieux leurs sentants soumis dollars leur Gouvernement des ont énergiquement Gouvernement livrer étant sion son compensé que populaire son There you have the voice of the Chinese people. Perhaps after hearing these cables the United States representative will understand that no amount of dollars can pay for the crimes and the murder of the peaceful Chinese population committed by the United States aggressors. It is time to put an end to the cynical way in which the United States Government mocks the victims of its aggression with its attempts to buy off and cover up its crimes with dollars. It is time that the ruling circ1es in the United States understood that it may be possible to buy for dollars one or more ).'epresentatives of the ruling circ1es in this or that country which is dependent on the United States, but that no amount of dollars can buy the conscience and honour of freedom-Ioving peoples. It i:; the duty of the Security Council to explain to the. Government of the United States that the peace- Iovmg peoples of the world need peace and security and that they vehemently protest against United States aggression; that the United States Government has no right to commit acts of aggression, and should refrain f;om doing 50, since no country, or people, can in any Clrcumstances he compensated or paid in dollars for the damage caused by United States aggression. The United States representative expressed surprise at t~e announcement of the Minister for Foreign Affam of the People's Republic of China :Mr. Chou En-lai, contained in his cable of 10 Septemb~r fS/1776] that: de tion populaire terait avenues." "S~ottld !he Security Council proceed with the above- Illenttoned Item on the agenda without the attendance and participation in discussion of the representative of the People's Republic of China, al! its resolutions adopted will be ilIegal, and therefore mtll and void." It is impossible not ta agree with the statement made by the Government of the People's Republic of China to which reference was made earlier, since that Government is fully and lega11y entitled ta request that its representative should be invited to attend and be heard at those meetings of the Security Council at which the question of United States aggression against China is discussed. It is obvious that if the Securitv Couneil refuses the request of the People's Republic -of China, the Government of that Republic will he justified in refusing ta abide by a Security Couneil decision reached without the participation of the legal representative of the People's Republic of China. It is surely impossible to consider that the representative of the Kuomintang clique which has been driven out by the Chinese people and is hated by them and who is sitting here illegally, is the lawful representative of China and the Chinese people. By making absurd assertions about the "1egality of the Kuomintang representative", the United States representative has placed himself in a clearly ridiculous position. In view of these facts it is quite obvious that in preventing the Security Council from inviting and hearing the representative of the People's Republic of China, and at the same time in insisting that a special commission should be sent to China, the United States Government is pursuing hidden and hostile objectives and intentions with regard to the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Chinese people. Naturally, to support such a proposaI would be nothing short of supporting the hostile and aggressive intentions of the United States Government towards China and the Chinese people. The USSR delegation categorically objects to such a proposaI and will vote against it. Ml'. AUSTIN (United States of America) : One reason for this last Soviet Union .Qutburst of misrepresentation, including the statement that the United States admitted violation of the frontiers and that it admitted committing anillegal act, is the evil desire of the Soviet Union ruling circ1e to divide this Council, to destroy l'ensemble quer C'est ce "assassin" contre fQnt s'acquitter Unies empêcher ne ne sur pays un rétablir saurais cours d'entendre. genre, rait faut pas Nations sécurité d'une gardiens abusif qui plein sur l'Union Membres mener l'Organisation ira croissant . à sur sion liberté, au soviétique, et sur On les ceux leur cause aveugle, à même, plaindre, Notre tenant, ce de sécurité The GQvermuent Qf the USSR is afraid. tQ face the whole United NatiQns, SQ itattempts to single Qut Qne Member fQr attack. Thus it does nQt hesitate tQ hurl these blQody, opprobrious WQrds Qf Ugangster'\ umurderer", ucriminal", at that country. By SQ doing it brings charges against thQse brave YQung men Qver there, who are sacrificing an they have in the hQnQurable professiQn Qf sQldiers Qf the United NatiQns, who are battling to preserve peaee and tQ prevent the extension Qf war. These yQung men are nQt murderers. l can say that the effects Qf this last Qutburst Qn the fathers and mothers of these sons and daughters cannat he measured by us here. The cQuntries to which these young men owe aUegianee aU have a stake in the peaee which they are seeking to bring about by their gallant conduct over there, and 1 cannot predict the effeet on them of this violent, vitriolic, opprobrious speech that we have had ta listen to here today. If we shQuld permit such tactics as these ta sueceed, who knows but that eaehcountry would be forced to face the Soviet Union individually. We have to pause to consider that. But we will not permit them to sueceed, for the United Nations, and the Security Council in particular, have already ex.ercised great vitality and ability in performing their peace-making funetions. Notwithstanding the frequent misuse of the veto, the freedom-inspired Members of the United Nations have acted voluntarily in giving reality to recommendations agreed upon by them but vetoed by the Soviet Union. The Members that have thus started the great work of the United Nations for peaee and freedom will grow in strength and become more united with each aehievement gained over obstruction, hindranee, delay and abuse. Aggression in Korea will be suppressed. Peace, freedom and rehabilitation, scorned here today by the Soviet Union, will be gained by the people of Korea \Vith the willing help of the United Nations. The attempt to expedite the vote in this matter and on this draft resolution was critieized, in utter oblivion of the stake of the mothers and fathers and sons and daughters of aU who are fighting for peace, who have exposed their lives and eve.ything they have in sacrifice .on the alter of the greatprinciples of the United NatIons. That is blind, more than indifferent, insulting to those who are today and tonight, in fair weather ~nd fouI, out there without complaint ttying to carry lnto effect the peacemaking functions of the United Nations. Ought we not to stand by \:hem, and do it promptly? l say, let us vote tonight aHld give them the encouragement that the Security Couneil of the United Nations is backing them, in spite of this obstruction. l should have said no more on this particular resolution, but l am constrained ta take note of the fact that the representative of the Soviet Union said something about gaflleiters and spies going as uninvited guests to various countries. I do not know if he intended to apply this des<:ription to the representatives of India and Sweden on the proposed commission. If he did, l should like to protest very strongly against the insinuation. We both resent the observation that any of our representatives can be classed as intelligence agents of any country. . Now I shall turn to the Soviet Union draft resolu~ tion. This resolution proposes to condemn, without any preliminary investigation, the Government of the United States :tor alIegcd bombing of Chinese territory in Manchuria. It goes on to suggest to that Government that it should prohibit such iUegal acts. As to the second part of the resolution, we have had a statement by the representative of the United States to the effeet that the instructions under which airerait are operat~ ing under the Unified Command in Korea strictly prohibit them from crossing the Korean frontiers into adjacent territory. Therefore, this part of the draft resolution is unnecessary. The first part of the USSR draft resolution seeks to conde~'n without investigation, and obviously my delegation will have to oppose it. Mr. QUEVEDO (Ecuador) (translated tram Spanish): No one should he judged or condemned before the facts are known. For this reason, my delegation will vote against the USSR draft resolution and in favour of the draft resolution set forth. in document S/1752, providing for· the appointll:J.ent of a commission to in~ vestigate the aUeged facts. These facts should be the subject not of political controversy but of a genuine inquiry into whether, how, when, where and why they. took place,and what damage was done. Once the facts have been established, the Council will, we feel, take just and appropriate decisions. The membership of the commission is a guarantee that. it will inspire confidence in each of the parties concerned, owing to the high ·moral standing, the impartiality and the peaceful international pblicy characteristic of India and Sweden, and to the fact that sentant coup énergie le pas est pourtant sentant lisant un ments syndicats, de tions d'associations Tsin, ming. Chine n'existe d'unions ligues et hérer d'un d'emploi, refuse tion accusée d'appartenir Aucune de librement. télégramme la 30 né je sénateur que D'abord, ma Mr, TSIANG (China): The representative of the Soviet Union took up a great deal of our time and spent much of his super-abundant energy in trying to prave to us that black is white and white is black. It would not have taken me much time ta show that white is still white and black is still black. Indeed, 1 would not have intervened in this debate at aIl if it were not for the fact that the representative of the Soviet Union, by reading a number of telegrams to us, tried to create a picture of the sentiments of the Chinese people, which is indeed aIl upside-down. He has read to us telegrams from so-caIled labour unions, the Democratic Youth Association, the Democratie Women's Association, student associations, writers' and artists' leagues, coal miners' associations, sent from Tientsen, Peiping, Shanghai, Canton and Kunming. Everybody knows that in that part of China under Communist control there is not a single free association, league or union of any kind. AIl these associations, leagues and unions have been organized by the Communists and are controlled by them. If a young boy refuses to join a youth association he will be discriminated against in school attendance and in obtaining a job, and his parents will be punished. If a woman refuses to join the so-called Democratic Women's Association, that woman wiII immediately be accused of having a bourgeois or feudal background, or of having come from the landlord c1ass. There is no free association in that part of China and there is no free member in any of those associations. The representative of the Soviet Union quoted from atelegram which was supposed ta be signed by somebody in the Province of Hunan, speaking on behalf of the 30 million Huanese. 1 was barn and raised in that province of Hunan, and 1 am as proud of Hunan as my good friend Mr. Austin is proud of his Vermont. l think 1 have reason to he proud of Hunan. For one thing, my province, in eight years of war against Japan, contributed to the National Army 1,200,000 soldiers. My own district, for eight years, supplied and fulfilled My province was one of the provinces most hardly fought over in the war. The Japanese Army advanced to the capital of the province three times, and they took it the last time. But before we retreated from the capital of Changsa, the peopleburned it down entirely, not wishing .to leave a single house intact for the Japanese. Towns like Hsiang-t'au-hsien, Hengyang and Poaching were fought over again and again. In those desperate years of struggle against the Japanese, the people of my province knew for certain that it was our United States friends who came to our aid in that desperate struggle. It was the HFlying Tigers" of General Chennault who helped us defend our soil. It was United States trucks which carried ammunition and food to our fighting men on the front. It was United States ammunition which helped us to resist the enemy. That broad fact is weIl known to the people of Hunan. After the war was over, Hunan was one of the most devastated provinces in China. As the Director-General of post-war relief and rehabilitation with the concurrence and agreement of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Association (UNRRA), 1 classified Hunan as one of the most needy of the Provinces. Of the total sum of UNRRA's contribution to the relief of China, amounting to 600 million dollars, my province received supplies the value of which totalled 80 million dollars. In those post-war years, the provision of food and clothing, and the rehabilitation of houses, hospitals and schools were effected with these UNRRA supplies. The people of Hunan know very weIl how much they owe to UNRRA, and they know very weIl that of the UNRRA contribution to the relief and rehabilitation of the Province of Hunan, approximately 70 per cent came from the good people of the United States. J If Mr. Gallup, of the Public Opinion Institute, would go to my province and put certain questions to the Hunan people, for example, the foI1owing question, "What foreign people do you think is most friendly to China?". the Hunan people would probably reply in this way: Fifty per cent would say honestlv and simply, HI do not know"; of the other haH of the people of Hunan - perhaps 80 per cent, 8S per cent or 75 per cent - would say, "Certainly the people and the country that has been most friendly to China is the United States. To tell the Security Council that SO million Hunanese denounce United States imperialism is the biggest of aIl big lies that 1 have heard in this Council. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (trallslated {rom Russian): I wish to reply to the Indian representative. tiques) voudrais représentant la cédés aura convaincu. sentant américains pas fin pour les dirigeants sans guerre peuple à sécurité devantlui, a est lions gation maintien droits qui lent, imprégnés plus blancs agresseurs gens peuple, lancent dans pour ple, mais 1 did not refer in my statement either to India or Sweden. My remarks applied to the practice of the United States, as the Indian representative will see when he reads the record. With regard to the United States representative's demagogic appeal to United States mothers and'fathers who have lost their sons in Korea, there is no doubt that in the end these mothers and fathers will realize that it was the warmongers and aggressors in the ruling circ1es of the United States who sent their sons to Korea to kiIl Koreans, and that their. sons died there to no purpose, as blind tools of those who seek to prevent the people of Korea and of other Asian countries from winning their freedom and independence. l also wish to draw the Security Council's attention ta the fact that racist proverbs should not he used at its meetings. One of the speakers has expatiated on "black and white". That is a racist expression which is insulting to the 14 million Negroes in the United States. The USSR delegation defends justice and fights to strengthen peace and security, to promote equal rights and friendship among nations. Therefore, those who were brought up on theories of racial discrimination and who use such proverbs should be whol!y condemned. History shows that white men may have a black conscience and a black soul. White aggressor·· and warmongers are people with black consciences and black souts. As for people who have been cast out by their nation, who have lost al! contact with their nation, who s!ander their nati~n and make hypothetical computatIOns to please the!r masters - such people merit not Ilnly condemnation, but contempt. maintenant mots injures couvert Membres cipe à la soient efforts

1 think there really are no more speakers now. However, before proceeding to the vote, I should like to say a few words as representative of the UNITED KINGDOM. The insults hurled by the representative of the Soviet Union against the forces and the Governme~ts of the United Nations now engaged in upholding the principle that aggression does not pay may well be resented, and they will be resented. Butit is equal!y possible that they may be interpreted as evidence of the success which is attending the present efforts of the brave defenders of democracy in Korea, and it is Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet S'ocialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : I assUme it is understood, first, that the vote on the two draft resolutions will be considered as a vote on the substance of the question and, secondly, that the Council will vote on the Soviet Union resolution after voting on the United States resolution.

It is my understanding that the vote on both draft resolutions will be a vote of substance. I shall, in faet, proceed to caU for the vote on the second draft resolution, that is, the Soviet Union draft resolution, immediately after the vote on the United States draft resolution. But, of course, it would be in order for any representative, if he sa desired, to explain his vote on the second drait r.esolution before we proceed to take the vote on that draft resolution. , A vote was taken by show of hands, as follows: ln favour: Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Norway, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Against: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Abstaining: India, Yugoslavia. Not participating in the vote: China. There 'lvere 7 votes in fav01w, one against, 2 abstentions, and one member did not participate in the vote. The draft resolution was not adopted, the vote against being that of a permanent member of the Cmtncil.

Unless anyone wishes ta explain his vote on the next draft resolution, the one submitted by the Soviet Union delegation and contained in document S/1745/Rev.l, we shaH proceed to a vote on that draft resolution. A vote was ta·ken by show of hands as follows: In favour: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Against: Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, France, India, N01'- way, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IreJand, United States of America. A bstaining: Yugoslavia. Not participating in the vote: China. The draft resolution was rejected by 8 votes to one, with one abstention and one member of the Council not participating in the vote.

l think the. Council will agree that it is high time we adjourned. The cnly question is,as tiques) le Taiwan ce inviter sécurité serait l'hypothèse utile Chine Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet S'ocialist Republics) (trallslatcd from. Russt'an) : The following question ap~ pears on the Security Council's agenda: "Complaint of armed invasion of Taiwan (Formosa)". The Soviet Union delegation has introduced a draft resolution on this question [S/1732] proposing that the representative of the People's Republic of. China should he invited to attend the meetings of the Security Council at which this question is considered. The USSR delegation considers that, notwithstanding the late hour, it· would be advisable to consider this question and reach a decision on it so that, if an affirmative decision is reached, the Government of the People's Republic of China can he duly informed to that effect and the arrivaI of its representative thus accelerated. I propose that we consider this question immediately. mellement ouvrions propOf: adressée peuple mettre

The motion has been formally made that we shouI~ no,,:, in spite of the late hour, proceed at once to a dIscussIon on whether or not an invitation ShOlllld be extended, in connexion with item 3 to the repr;sentativ~ of the Central People's Govern:nent in Pekmg. l thmk r should put that motion to the vote immediately. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet S'ocialist Republics) (translated from Rmrsian): A point of order. tiques)

May l ask the USSR representative what point of order he wishes to raise? mander cette tiques) une Peut-être tions passe reprendre seil tintte, sécurité de l'île du Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet S'ocialist Republics) (transl4tcd from Russian): The President is rather hasty in putting this question to the vote. There may he s0!lle memhers who would wish to speak before the vote 15 taken. The President is raising the question of resuming our deIiberations. However, there has heen no break in this meeting; it is continuing; it has never been suspended. T~e USSR proposaI is heing made so that we should contmue our work) since the question of Taiwan is next on the agenda. . Mr. TSIANG (China): I move the adjournment of the meeting of the Security CounciI and the scheduling of the next meeting for Mondav afternoon, 18 September 1950. - pose du l'après-midi. saisis mettre

The motion for adjottrnment has been made and must therefore he put to the vote at once. tiques) cette Mr. MALIK. (Union of Soviet SociaIist Republics) (trallslatcd from Russian) : 1s the President putting it to the vote? Abstaining: Egypt, Yugoslavia. The motion for atifournment was atiopted.bY 8 votes to 1, with 2 abstentions.

The Security Council will therefore adjourn until 3 p.m. on Monday, 18 September 1950.