S/PV.504 Security Council

Should the item "Complaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea" figure in fact as item 3 on our provisional agenda, it would be my intention, if and when we come to it, to inquire of the Council whether it would wish, in connexion with this item, first to discuss the draft resolution introduced by the Soviet Union delegation conceming bombing or, on the other hand, whether it would prefer to proceed as suggested by the Chinese representative. That being understood, can we now perhaps adopt the amended provisional agenda consisting of these two substantive items? The agenda as amended was adopted. Mr. MALIY." (Union of Soviet Socialîst Republics) (wans/ated traM Russiatt): As 1 understand it, we have a second substantive item on our agenda: "Complaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea".

That is right. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (tra1f.Slated from Russian): The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is always prepared to express its views on a proposai it has itself tabled and to defend that proposai, whether or not questions have been asked. ln amplification of its statement at yesterday's meeting, the USSR delegation wishes to point out that, in existing circumstances, the question we are discussillg is one of procedure and undoubtedly requires pretiminary consideration before we go on to discuss in substance the question of armed invasion of Taiwan. As is known, the question of armed invasion of Taiwan was brought before the Sc<:urity Council by the Centrai People's Government of the People's Republic of China. This is clear not only from the previous telegrams from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of that Government, Mr. Chou En-lai, but also from a recent telegram of 17 September 1950 set forth in document S/1795. In this telegram Mr. Chou En-lai states: "The United Nations Security Couneil, on 29 August, adopted on its agenda the accusation of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China against the United States armed aggression on Taiwan, the territory of China, and recently decided to begin discussion on 18 September. The Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China, being the sole legal government representing the Chinese people, and at the same time the initiator of the proposaI and the accuser in this case, has the right and necessity to send its delegation to attend and join the United Nations Security Counci!. "On behalf of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China, 1 hereby formally demand of the United Nations Security Counei' that when the Security Council proceeds with the abovementioned item on the agenda, there must be present the representative of thp People's Republic of China to state the case and partieipate in the discussion; this i5 a question which must be settled first on procedure. g<\~ion should stop blocking, in the Security Council, the proposaI to invite representatives of the People's Republic of China to attend the meetings of the Couneil devoted to discussion of the armed invasion of Taiwan. As we aIl know, the United States delegation and the representative of the Kuomintang group have formed a sort of United States-Kuomintang coalition in the Security Couneil and have been obstructing the discussion of this proposaI since the middle of August. The united States delegation has already prevented discussion of it four times, resorting either independently or through its Kuomintang satellite to a variety of procedural artifices. References to Articles 10 and 12 of the Charter, in arder to justify the proposaI to remove this question from the Security Council's agenda, are worthless. Neither of these articles contains any provisions forbidding the simultaneous discussion of one and the same question in the Security Couocil and the General Assembly. There are a nl1mber of precedents in the work of both the Security Council and the General Assembly which show that the same questions have 5 The United States delep-.,tion and the memhers of the Security Council are v. ' weIl aware that this is the crux of the matter, and the sooner the United States-Kuomintang coalition in the Security Council desists from obstructing and impeding a solution of this question, the sooner will the Security Council be able to proceed to an immediate consideration of the question of armed invasion of Taiwan, which is on its agenda. Discussion of this question by the Security Coundl in no way prevents the Genetal Assembly from discussing the question of United States aggression against China. That question has been included in the agenda of the General Assembly and has, as we know, been referred to the First Committee. It is the seventh item on the list of questions referred to that Committee and will be considered by it in due course. On the other hand, this does not prevent the Security Council from considering the question of armed invasion of Taiwan. It is the Council's duty and obligation under the Charter to carry out its functions; what the General Assembly does i5 the General Assembly's concern. The attempt to link up these two questions for the purpose of concealing the intention to withdraw the question of armed invasion of Taiwan from discussion in the Security Coundl is contrary to the Charter. 1'0 withdraw this question from discussion in the Security Council would be a gross violation of the Charter, since no ground or justification for such an action hy the Coundl could be found in any. provision of the Charter. These are the views of the USSR delegation on the question before us. In the light of these facts the USSR delegation urges that the Security Council should, without further delay, take an immediate dedsion to invite a representative of the People's Republic of China to attend the meetings of the Security Couneil, at which the question of armed invasion of Taiwan is disc.ussed.

T suggest tha t at this point we aIl should he weIl advised to try, so far as possible, to confine our remarks to the question which has been raised: whether we wish to maintain this item on our agenda; or whether we wish to strike it off; or whether we wish to postpone it for some considerable time. That is a point, l think, which we ought to decide hy a vote fairly soon, before we get on to the next question, which is whether we should invite the representet situation, In accorciance with my instructions, 1 shan explain our position, reaffirming that the Government of my country, and therefûre the delegation of Ecuador, consider that it should be clearly established that the Security Couneil should not refuse to examine complaints submitted on subjects which are related to the maintenance of intemational peace and security. It should hear the complainants or daimants, and in doing so it should give a broad and favourable interpretation to the Articles of the Charter and the Council's rules of procedure, so that it may consider such complaints or daims and hear complainants or claimants even if the complaints are brought by de facto govemments. Therefore, in the view of my delegation, the Security Coundl should not turn a deaf ear to such complaints, espeeially as it is the guardian of peace and international order. Moreover, viewing the problem from the point of view of aState which, like my own, is not a permanent member of the Council, my delegation feels that such a broad interpretation adeql.lately protects the interests of those nations which are members d the Council only from time to time. /\. few days ago r499th meeting], with regard to the complaint of alleged aerial bombing of Manchuria, 1 abstained from voting on the proposaI discussed by the Coundl to receive or hear the representative of the Peiping Government. 1 did so owing to the nature and background of the case. The representatives of the United States had promised to pay compensation if the 7 The case of the complaint of aggression against Formosa is different, because in the first place the representative of the Chinese Government-that is to say, of the Government which my country still considers to he leg~lly representative of that State in the Council-maintained that there had been no aggression or invasion. On the other hand, it is a fact that the United States authorities have announced t!lat a United States fleet was prepared to act in certain cases and if certain events should take place in relation to Fonno~a. Finally, it is also public knowledge that the Peiping authorities have announced that they would attempt to occupy Formosa, if necessary by force, and that the Nationalist authorities were preparing to defend it. When my delegation agreed [492nd meetingl to the discussion of this complaint of invasion of Formosa by the Council, it was not admitting even indirectly that such an invasion had taken place. That would be a matter to be investigated and proved before it was accepted as a fact. Moreover, the statement of the representative of he Chinese Government in this Council-who is the representative of the Government which is occupying Formosa-categorically denies the accusation. If that factor alone were taken into account for the moment, it would suffice to show that the char!l:c \Vas \vithout foundation. In addition, howevcc, there are the circumstances whieh 1 mentioned previously, name1y, the possibility of attack and defense of Formosa with the intervention of two opposed Chinese armies and a United States fleet. 1f we were to examine the complaint in order to verify whether or not there has been an invasion oi Formosa we wottld necessarily have to elucidate the more complex questions which have been discussecl publicly and which warrant more thorough study. In the first place, the controversial question of the legal status of Formosa. Does Formosa belong to China, to Japan, or should the people of Formosa decide their own fate without any pressure? Are i:he other members of the United Nations bound by the Cairo Declaration? Are the signatories of the Cairo Declaration bound by that declaration before any peace treaties with Japan have becn signed? 1 am not trying to take a decision on this matter nor to prejudge it. 1 want to state that in principle 1 do not believe that 7 million people, such as the Koreans, having the same territorial, racial, linguistie, traditional and economic life, can be disposed of without even being heard. In my juclgment, and with due respect to that of other delegations, the fate of a people This point shows c1early how the complaint has a direct influence upon the ll-'mblem of the representation of China, and that question leads to another, namely, the question as to which China we should hear. Sorne States which are members of the Couneil recognize the Peiping Government while other States, such as mine, consider up to the present tha~ the Nationalist Govemment is the legal representative of China. Foresedng ail these circumstances, 1 stated on 29 August [492nd meeti1lg) that 1 would vote in favour of the inclusion of this item on the 8genda as the situation referred to might bring about a situation or a circurnstance such as that referred to in Articles 34 and 39 of the Charter. In a few words, the fact that there is a situation which could lead to international friction, to conflict, to a breach of the peace, demands that the Cooocii concern itself with it. ln order to examine the situation, therefore, 1 shall confine myself to reiterating that there are international e'lents susceptible to creating a situation which might lead to international friction or thTeaten the maintenance of peace, events ':he consequences of which might involve at least two Member States of the Organization. If in these circumstances, if the Peiping authorities cornplain about such a situation or sucb a controversy, and there is a danger that international peace may be threatened in this new situation, my delegation, in accordance with the explanations already made, considers that the representative of the Peiping Government should he heard at the opportune moment, but not under Article 32 of the Charter, which has been invoked, but in conformity with mie 39 of the Council's roles of procedure. It has been said that in this case Article 32 of the Otarter may be applied, but my delegation cannot accept that c1aim. It considers that the Chinese Govemment is represented in the Cooocii. Furthermore, as c1early explained here sorne days aga, this Article is applicable only to States which are not members of the Couoeil, and China is a member of the Couneil. The draft resolution submitted by the USSR delegation does not contain any phrase or word which suggests that the invitation would be extended in conformity with role 39 of the mies of procedure, which my l:rOvemment considers applicable in this instance. With ail due respect to my colleagues and for their opinions, 1 must state that in our judgment sorne allusion or reference should be made to the fact that that 9 Howcver, wc note another factor in this case. At the request of the USSR de1egation, a complaint of aggression ag-dinst China by the United States of America has been included on the agenda. As has already becn stated, if it is discussed in the Security Council and at the same time in one of the Committecs of the General Assembly, there will be a duplication of work in two organs of the United Nations. No doubt the aforementioned item on the agenda of the Assembly may cover other facts. But that does not prcvent the d;scussion, also, of the question of the alleged invasion of Formosa; consequently there would be a double investigation of the same matter in the same international Organization. It is also certain that the functions and decisions of the two organs could differ, although they wouid both he based upon the same facts and the same investigation. If the complaint of aggression against China had not been induded on the agenda of the Assembly, and if the USSR proposaI had been drafted in such a way as to show that the invitation would be extended in accordance with rule 39 of the rules of procedure and only for discussion in connexion with the complaint of aggression against Formosa, my vote would have had to be affirmative. As 1 have already said, my Government believes that the question of the representation of China should not be finally settled until Members had had the opportunity to state their views, 50 that the decisions of ail the organs of the United Nations would be consistent Similar situations, in which aU delegations should be able to state their points of view on complicated questions such as that of the representation of China, the status of Formosa and aggression against China, will arise as a result of the respective items on the Assembly's agenda. In the Committee concerned, therc will be an opportunity for the members of this international Organization to discuss the facts, to hear whomsoever they wish to hear and should hear, and ta arrange for the appropriate investigations. If a request were made in the appropriate Committee of the Assembly that a hearing should be granted to the representatives of the Peiping Government, 1 think that we would vote in favour. It would be inadmissible for the United Nations not to take account of or to deal with a situation which might jeopardize peace and for it to refuse categorically to hear the complainant. There need be no concern on that point, because, upon the instance of the USSR delegation, which has strongly supported in the Council the request of the Peiping Government, the same question or a comparable one has been incorporated into the agenda of the fi fth session of the General Assembly. Final1y, we feel that in arder ta enable a1l delegations ta vote without reservation, our decision should be taken in such a way that it will not affect the position which each State has taken on the Chinese question. 1 have taken the liberty of making these remarks in order to expIain why we feel that, while the question of an immediate invitation ta the representatives of Peiping appears simple at first glance, it is linked with 50 many other related problems, such as representation of China and the status of Formosa, that we cannat consider it lightly. The delegation of Ecuador has no special political interests ta protect; it is concemed merely that the l'ravisions of the Charter should be applied lo131ly and correctly, and that nothing should he done ta bring about a breach of the peace. For that reason we believe that we cannat remove that very important item from the agenda of the Council. Nothing would be more normal in our view than that we should benefit by an investigation to be carried out br the appropriate Committee of the Assembly in considering this matter. We are not trying ta evade our responsibility in the matter. V-le are merely seekinggrounds for an agreement which may perhaps be accepted by other memhers of the Council, that is, a sol.ution providing that, in not withdrawing this item from the agenda, assurance would be given that the question of aggression against Formosa would be discussed in the Council and that the representatives of the Peiping Government would be invited ta be present at that discussion on a specifie date which the Council considered appropriate, thus leaving lime for the Assembly Committee ta undertake its work. 1 am submitting a draft amendment ta the Chinese proposaI in which 1 mention that date, 1 Deeember, simply hecause J feel that in two months the Assembly Committee will have had time ta investigate ail the facts and ta submit ~ts views. If, however, the members of the Council find that time-Iimit tao long, the delegation of Ecuador would have no hesitation in shortening il. If two months are tao much, there might be a month and a half or a month, on the understanding that at that time we would invite the representatives of the Peiping Government. Let us assume that another situation arises: that the case is submitted ta the First Committee of the GeneraI Assembly and that that Committee should decide by a majority vote not ta invite the representatives of the Peiping Government. In that case we could discuss ~e matter once again in the Security Council, as an Item on OUr agenda, and adopt sorne resolution along those lint'â. 11 This amendment is in no way a manoeuvre. We have set forth our views with complete honesty. If the Council does not agree and prefers ta decide ta defer consideration of this question. until after the Committee of the General Assembly has undertaken its work, the delegation of Ecuador will have to abstain, but it will have set forth its position in regard ta the necessity of the Council's not refusing ta consider complaints and ta hear the complainants. It is in that spirit that 1 am presenting this amendment, and, 1 repeat, 1 shall be prepared ta consider any changes in it which will make it acceptable ta the majority of the Council. The object of the amendment is not to remove the question from the Council's agenda while it is being discussed in the Assembly, and at the same time ta fix a time-Iimit for the invitation to be extended to the representatives of the Peiping Government. 1 am taking the liberty of reading the draft amendment in Spanish. There may be some errors in it because it was drafted very rapidly. Its text is as follows [S/1817/Rev.1] : "The Sewrity Counci!, "Considcring that it is its duty ta investigate any situation Iikely to le3d to international friction or to give rise ta a dispute, in arder to determine whether the continuance of such dispute or situation may endanger international peace and security, and Iikewise to determine the existence of any threat ta peace, "Considering that, in the event of a complaint regarding situations or facts similar ta those mentioned above, the Council may hear the complainants, "Considering that, in view of the divergency of opinion in the Council regarding the representation of China and without prejudice ta this. question, it may, in accordance with mie 39 of the mies of procedure, i.wite representatives of the Central People's Govemment of the People's Republic of China to provide it with information or assist it in the consideration of these matters, "Having noted the declaration of the People's Republic of China regarding the armed invasion of the Island of Taiwan (Formosa), and "Considering further that a complaint submitted by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics regarding aggression against the territory of China by the United States of America has been placed on the agenda of the fifth session of the General Assembly and has been referred for consideration to the First Committee of the Assemhly, 1 beg the indulgence of the President if 1 have not confined myself ta the subjects which 1 indicated, as ail the matters with which 1 have deall: are c10sely related. Mr. TSIANG (China): 1 should like, at the very beginning of my statement, to express my appreciation for the effort made by the representative of Ecuador. Indeed, his country is not directly interested in the question under discussion. He has made his effort, l gladly acknowledge, in the interest of the United Nations as a whole. . The amendment moved by the representative of Ecuador consists of two operative parts. Operative paragraph (a) is "To defer consideration of this question ..." As far as this part is cOl1cerned, I11Y delegation accepts. 1 should, however, suggest a verbal change. It is c1early the intention of the representative of Ecuador that the Security Council should not consider this item while the General Assembly is also considering it. This item on the agenda of the General Assembly is item 70, and it is entitled "Complaint by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics regarding aggression against China by the United States of America". 1 think, in order to express the thought c1early, the language of this paragraph might be amended to read "To defer consideration of this question untH such time as the General Assembly shaH have completed the consideration of item 70 on the agenda of the fifth session." It is the President's wish, as 1 gather from his remarks, that a decision' should be taken on this question before we go on to the other question, namely, an invitation to somebody to come here to participate in our debate. 1 am now ready to adhere to his wishes, but 1 think in the long ron it would save the time of the Council if 1 were permitted to discuss operative paragraph (b) of the draft amendment.

Very weIl. Mr. TSIANG (China): Operative paragraph (b) of the draft amendment deals with the question of the participation of a representative of the puppet regime of Peiping in our de" ~te. It is formally based on role 39 of Our roles of procedure. 1 shall now read that rule: "The Security Council may invite members of the Secretariat or other persons, whom it considers competent for the purpose, to supply it with information ?r to give other assistance in examining matters within Its competence." du question sentant vue règlement Secrétariat qualifiée à relevant The Seventh Fleet is there, and it is there with the consent of my Government. Aside from the Seventh Fleet, there are no other military forces of the United States on the island of Formosa. There are a number of Americans on that island. If the Security Couneil should wish to h.'llOW about those Americans on Formosa 1 could produce that information in the greatest detail. 1 could tell the Security Couneil how man}' United States diplomatie and consular representatives there are in Formosa; 1 could tell the Council what United States military, naval or air attachés there may be on that island; 1 could tell the Couneil the number of United States merchants on that island today, thdr names, their professions, and 1 could tell the number of newspaper reporters on the island and the number of women and children from the United States. My Govemment, and my Government alone, is in the position to fumish aU the possible information that may be desired in regard to the status to date. Furthermore, if the Council should evolve some plan or some solution to this problem, it would require the co-operation of my Government. V"ithout that co-operation no scheme could be executed. My Government is the 001)7 govemment that is in a position to co-operate with the United Nations in order to carry out the recommendations and deeisions of the General Assembty or the Security Couneil. Therefore, under ordinary rules of procedure, rute 39 might be easily and commonly applied. In this particular case 1 think that rule 39 cannot be applied, and if applied, it will be applied in vain. 1 say that because the regime in Peiping is not in a position to give the Security Couneil any authentic information that the Council may wish, and is not in a position or competent to co-operate with the Council in the solution of this problem. Therefore, in the opinion of my delegation it is not correct to base a decision of this kind on rule 39 of our rules of procedure, although the representative of Ecuador was good enough to explain in detail the reasons for applying rule 39 of our rules of procedure and not Article 32 of the Charter. Indeed, the distinction between the two provisions is very, very important. Rule 39 does not imply any limitation or doubt, or reflection, or prejudice on my right of representation in this body; Article 32 does. Nevertheless, in the opinion of my delegation rule 39 does not apply. However, another member-notably the representative of the Soviet Union-has made the same motion by basing himself partly on Article 32 of the Charter and1. This question is not a question of procedure; it is a political question of the greatest substance. What is intended by the representative of the Soviet Union is to solve the problem of China's representation in a new way, since he had failed to solve it to his satisfaction the other way. On former occasions 1 have called the attention of titis Council to the fact that the party making the complaint was not competent to make this particular complaint. 1 have in the past also shown that the party making the complaint had no desire or intention to further the purposes of the Unit.ed Nations. It is working and has been working aga;nst those purposes. l do not need to cover that growld aga!n. 1 should, however, cali the attention of the Council to the latest evidence that the Council has officially received with regard to the intentions of this puppet regime. In the latest report of the Unified Command [Sj1796] there is the following very important passage, which l shall quote from the verbatim record of the 502nd meeting' of the Security Council held on 18 September 19S0: "To date, there has been no confirmation of direct or overt Chinese Communist participation in the Korean conflict; however, they have fumished substantial if not decisive military assistance to North Korea"-. Permit me to read this passage once more: "however, they"-that is, the Chinese Communists-- "have fumished substantial if not decisive military assistance to North Korea by releasing a vast pool of combat-seasoned troops of Korean ethnic origin, which provided the means of expansion of the North Korean Army. This fact, originally established by miscel- Ianeous information emanating from the Manchuria- Korea area during the past four years, is now fully confirmed by numerous prisoner-of-war interrogations since the outbreak of hostilities in Korea. A substantial percentage of ail prisoners of war so far interrogated have received training in Manchuria or have performed active service with the Chinese Communist Army; at least half of the personnel, and particularly tltose officers and non-commissioned officers in the North Korean 5th, 13th, and lSth Divisions and the 766th Independent Unit, have participated in training "Approximately 140,000 Korean troops have participated in training and combat action with the Chinrse Communist forces in one of three categories: (1) the Korean Volunteer Army, which was formed from Koream in Communist-held China and Manrhuria during 1945-1946; (2) USSR-trained Koreans, who were transferred from North Korea and were integrated into the Korean Volunteer Army ûr Chinese Communist Army to gain combat experience; and (3) USSR-trained Koreans, who participated in training at Chiamussu, Manchuria, or attended the officer's candidate school at Lungching'tsun, Manchuria. During the early part of 1947, the Korean Volunteer Army was integrated into the Chinese Communist Army in Manchuria. A great number of these troops have stlbsl'quently fougllt with the Chinese Communist A rmy as far south as Luichou Peninsula in the Hainan rsiand operation"-that is, in the extreme south of China. "After the Communist conquest of Manchuricl during the fall of 1948, KOn'éll1 troops began filtering hack into North Korea. An acceleration of this movenwnt became apparent during the carly part of 1950, and by the mirldle of February 1950, Kon'an troops of the Chinesr Communist 4th Field Army had departed from South China for North Korea. At the time of the outbreak of hostilities in Korea, a probable aggregate of 40,000 to 60,000 Koreans trained by the Chinese Communists had been released and integrated into the North Korean Army to expand the initial divisions and constabulary brigades to a curr!.'nt battle order of thirteen to fifteen divisions, without nll.'ntioning corps troops, !ine of communication troops and sl'rvice clements." These so-callcd Koreans who have been trained and who have fought in China and are now certified by the Unified Command to be fighting at this moment in Northem Korea an~, for the most part, Chinese citizens. They were originally Korean immigrants into Manchuria. During the past two decades, Manchuria has received a large number of such l'migrants. Tn the carly days, it was the poticy of my Government to offer asylum to Korean political refugees, to Koreans who were oppressed by their own Government and who settled in Manchuria. In more recent years, especially during the period of Japanese occupation. the Japanese settled numbers of Koreans in Manchuria. Now, a large number of such Koreans have been or are Chinese citizens. The others, not having adopted Chinese citizenship, have resided on Chinese soil and are subject to Chinese laws. Military service on the part of ~uch people involves the responsibility of the regime which contraIs them. This whole movement to introduce into the United Nations a discussion of a so-caUed armed invasion of \Vith all respect to the represcntative of Ecnador, 1 am fnrced to ohject to operative paragraph (") of his amendment. The PPESlIJEl'T: Tshoulcl Iike at this stage to inquire whether the representative of Ecuador accepts the proposed amendment to operative paragraph (a) of his draft. The proposed amendment is to redraft operative paragraph (a) as fnllnws: "To clefer consideration of this question until such time as the General Assembly shaH have completed the consideration of item 70 on the agenda for the· fifth session." Mr. QUEVEDO (Ecuador) (translated from Spanish): Despite the deep respect whieh 1 feel for the representative of the Chinese Republic present in the COlitwil. T cannot accept his :lnlel1dment to paragraph (a) for the reasons which 1 shall briefly explain. Paragraph (a), taken together with paragraph (b), reprcsents an effort on the part of my delegation to give satisfaction to certain trends of opinion in the Council and at the same ti1llle to discharge the duties imposed by the Charter. Let us assumc that the GeneraI Assembly does not complete its consideration of item 70 on its agenda, and that the appropriate GeneraI Assembly Committee does not wish to grant a hearing to the representatives of the Pf'iping Government. Tf wc were to leave paragraph (a) of the drait resolution as suggested by the representative of China, that would he tantamount to preventing the representatives of the Peiping Government from attending the COtll1cil meetings. A moment ago, ho\Vever, when l \Vas submitting my draft resolution, 1 stated that 1 had set the date of 1 December 1950 because 1 thought that by thel1 the General Assemblv Committee would have had time to complete its work. That was the only purpose in fixing the date. 1 added that, if the maiority of illY collcagues considcred that period too long; they co.uld shorten it and 1 suggested that, if the Council wished, we could fix the date at 15 November or 1 November. que voudra de résolution, Chine, sentants venir j'ai que que compétente terminé que de trop suggéré; désirait, novembre, plus mois sensibles portance. J'amendement Naturally, there would be no point in establishing a shorter time-limit, because it is clear that no Committec could progress very far in studying a matter of such magnitude in less than a month. Conscquently, 1 could not acccpt the amendment proposed by the representative of China, 1 would be pre- For that reason 1 fixed a date which is subject to alteration. Mr. TSIANG (China) : In view of the statement just made by the representativ:e of Ecuador, 1 withdraw my amendment.

That simplifies the procedural situation to sorne extent. 1 should now like, with the consent of the Council, to make certain observations in my capacity as representative of the UNITED KINGDOM. ln our view, the situation is as follows. A complaint of aggression has been made. Many of us may doubt its validity, but it has been made. There is also, as our Ecua(lorian colleague has pointed out, a possible threat to the peace. Threats have indeed actually been uttered. The Security Council is obliged under the Charter to deal with threats to the peace, and it would in our opinion be failing in its dutY if it either decided not to deal with this one or to defer consideration of it inr a long' period. The 1llere fact that the question, or a very similar one, has been placed on the agenda of the General Assembly does not in our view affect the duty of the Security Council at ail. In the first place, the General Assembly, as is weil known, can only make recommendations on such matters and cannot take decisions. In the second place, the Security Council has, under the Charter, primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. The present complaint has been made by a government which is not generally recognized by the Members of the United Nations. NevertheIess, it has been made by a govemment which is in effective control of nearly ail Chinese territory. Whether that govemment has done anything which, as our Chinese colleague suggested, is contrary to the principles of the Charter, is a matter for debate. But it really is not relevant to the matter which we are discussing here. After ail, the Peking Govemment at least accepted the jurisdiction of the Council when it made its complaint, and 1 feel that, if only for that reason, we should be very iIl-advised not to give it a hearing. In any case, r n'Tree \Vith the renresentative of Ecuador that, in 5pite of what our Chinese colleague maintained, any invitation to the Peking Govemment to attend our discussion on the subject should legally be based on rule Speaking as PRESIDENT, 1 should like ta say that 1 have at the moment no other speakers on my list. Perhaps 1 might seize this opportunity for asking the Council whether it would agree with the manner in which 1 propose ta handIe this question. 1 suggest that what we ought ta do first is ta vote on the Ecuadorian draft resolution down ta the end of paragraph (a). Now if that is carried, then clearly we ought next to vote on paragraph (b). If paragraph (a) is not carried, there is clearl.J' no point in voting on paragraph (b) and we ought then immediately ta proceed ta vote on the draft resolution [S/1732J which was placed before the Council on 29 August [492nd meeting] by the Soviet Union delegation and which reads as fol1ows: "The Security CounciJ, "In connexion with the statement of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China regarding armed invasion of the Island of Taiwan (Formosa). "Decides to invite a representative of the Cent;al People's Govemmellt of the People's Republic of ~ina ta attend meetings of the Security Council when thlS question is under consideration." The representative of Egypt is next on my list, but perhaps he would Iike to yield his priority ta the reprelentative of Ecuador, sa that the representative of l'examen de cette nant il Mr. QUEVEDO (Ecuador) (trans/ated ft"Om Spanish): Although 1 respect the President's decision, 1 feel compeUed to say that 1 cannot accept it, and 1 am opposed to the division which has been requested. As the President remarked, the purpose of my draft resolution was precisely to ensure two things: to settle the question after we have been informed of ""hat the Assembly, or at least its Committee, has done, and at the same time not to settle the question in the Council without the presence of the representatives of the Peiping Government. It lms been said that my draft resolution tends ta delay consideration of the question, and would have it discussed in the absence of those representatives. But we have been discussing for a month now whether ta discuss the question, and how ta discuss it, and my purpose \Vas precisely ta see that it \Vas discussed in the presence of those representatives. Accordingly, 1 am not opposed to takinga separate vote on each paragraph of the preamble of 111)' draft resolution, especially since the intention of the author of the resolution will be c1ear from the statement l have made. Dnder the terms of the second paragraph of rule 32 of the Counl'il's rules of procedure, l am opposed to voting separately on the two operative parts of the resolution. That rule states that no proposaI may be voted in parts if the author of the proposaI raises an objection. Thus 1 am not opposed ta a separate yote on each paragraph of the preamble, but l insist that the operative part should be voted upon as a whole, because it constitutes a \\"hole, Mahmoud FA\\'ZI Bey (Egypt) : l share the l'oncern of the President, as expressed in the statement made in his capal'ity as representatiye of the 'L'"nited Kingdom, regarding the action and the competence of the Security Council in connexion with matters relating to worlcl peace and security, T think the COl1llcil shoulc1 not relinquish its responsibilities in this connexion, and l be1ieve the world feels that the Council should express itself more strongly concerning such responsibility. The moment is hardly suitable, then, for the Council to cio anything in a contraIT sense. Like the representative of Ecuador, we ail recognize that this would not be the first time that certain questions have been considered concomitantly bv the Security Council and the General Assembly, or ü: least not the first time the General Assembly has considered a matter remaining on the agenda of the Security CounciI. One of the most recent examples was the General Assembly's consideration last year of the ques- At the same time l recognize the wide competence of the General Assembly to deal, according to Article 10 of the Charter, with matters of peace and security. 1 am quite in favour of that, but this does not and should not mean that at the present moment the Security Council, for its part, should relinquish its responsibilities. l would suggest, particularly to the representative of Ecuador, reconsideration of paragraph (a) of the operative part of his draft resolution so that a better approach might be found-I am sure the representative of Ecuaclor is ql1ite capable of fil1ding one-ta serve the purpose of the Council in the discharge of its duties in connexion with world peace and security. In the meantime l believe the representative of Ecuador is to be commended for agreeing to the various points of the preamble of his draft resolution being voted upon paragraph by paragraph, but his insistence that the operative part should be voted upon as a whole would place· my de1egation in some difficulty, a difficulty which could be avoided if the operative part could be divided and, better still, if consideration coulcl be given ta fll1ding a better approach in connexion with the point contained in paragraph (a) of the operative part. de lui-même répondre représentant

IVould the representative of the Soviet Union agree to have the representative of Ecuador reply brief1y before he speaks to the inquiry made of him by the representative of Egypt? Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) : Yeso tiques) En pensée: l'Assemblée trancherait puyant texte Mr. QUEVEDO (Ecuador) (translated from Spanish): l have clearly expressed my views regarding paragraph (a). It allows the General Assembly Committee to be given a short time to deal with the matter, without prejudice to proceeding with the agenda of the Council, and for the Council after that short period to settle the question in due course with the aid of the investigation carried out by the Assembly. [ should be willing to accept any amendment to the text .of paragraph (a.) which does not change its meanmg. l admit that the draft resolution may contain many ?rafting faults. l should be glad to consider any draftmg change on condition that the substance is not a1terec1. imperfections très le soit If the representative of Egypt should wish to suggest any changes in paragraph (a) l would consider them with the greatest interest. l must, however, insist The PlmsIDENT: When we come to voting on the Ecuadorian draft resolution, 1 suggest that, in accùrdance with rule 32, we vote separately on the various paragraphs of the preamble, because that is the desire of the representative of Ecuador, supported by the representative of Egypt. When we come to the two operative paragraphs, we can vote on them together, hecause the mover of the draft resolution objects ta their being voted upon separately. Unless 1 hear any positive redraft of paragraph (a), 1 shan have ta put it ~o the vote as it stands. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated fram Russian) : ln view of the lateness of the hour 1 shall restrict myself to a few brief remarks in support of the draft resolution submitted by the USSR delegation. Rule 32 of the provisional roles of procedure lays down that: "principal motions and draft resolutions shaU have precedence in the arder of their submission". We are discussing the invitation ta the representative of the Central Govemment of the People's Republic of China. The USSR delegation submitted a draft resolution on that question as early as the end of August, and, in accordance with role 32, this draft should he voted upon lirst. As regards the substance of the draft resolution suhmitted by the representative of Ecuador, if there is no objection from the members of the Council, the USSR delegation would prefer ta speak on this draft resolution at our next meeting.

Of course, it is reailv for the Council ta say whether it wishes ta vote' on the USSR draft resolution first. In my own view, speaking· without commitment as President, it would seem ta he irregular to take that draft resolution first: it was put forward at a previous [492ndJ meeting and defeated, and therefore, 1 imagine, it has lapsed. It is perfectly in order, of course, for the Soviet Union representative ta re-introduce that draft resolution at this meeting, and that is what 1 imagine he is effectively doing. He is doing that, however, at a later stage and after the introduction of the draft resolution submitted bv the representative of Ecuador. • 1 say that without prejudice. 1 may be wrong, but 1 certainly do not want ta start a long procedural Je débat. pas vitueIlement; considérants pour ce mander que notre prochaine séance n'ait pas lieu demain. Il nent ne de la que Mr. QUEVEDO (Ecuador) (translated tram Spanish) : 1 apologize for intervening so often. 1 merely wanted to make it c1ear that 1 did not request that the parts of the preamble should be discussed separately. 1 simply said that, if the Councîl wished to vote on them separate1y, 1 would not object. Wilh regard to the President's suggestion that the Council should meet tomorrow, 1 would prefer that we do not hold a meeting at that time. There are sorne delegations, like my own, which have very few members, and while the Assembly is in session, they have scarcely any tîme available. If the meeting is to be deferred, 1 would ask the President that it should be held on sorne other day, not tomorrow. 1 l'ajournement. faire que division qu'exprime dence peut de positions d'introduire de par fication mon levons de convient. accueillir sous à en pense temps enfant" retombions et a eue mandable, jusqu'à la Mahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt): 1 shall speak mostly in connexion with the question of adjournment. However, before doîng that, 1 should like ta submit, especially to the representative of Ecuador, that 1 am still of the opinion that we should divide the vote on the operative part of his draft resolution. It is obvio\Âs !hat the idea contained in paragraph (a) of the operative part and the idea contained in paragraph (b) are entirely different things. One might agree to one of them and abstain or take qUÏ'le a different position on the other one. As to the modification which l suggested the representative of Ecuador should try to introduce into paragraph (a) of the operative part of his draft resolution, 1 think he paid me an honour by suggesting that 1 make the modification. He passed "the baby". But 1 am quite willing to pass "the baby" back to him. If we adjoum, as 1 hope we shaH, he will have ample time to "doll" it up and present it to us in proper form. My suggestion is that, sa long as he presents it in a manner not leading to the Security Council's relinquishment oi its responsibilities in connexion with peace and security, 1 shall be disposed ta consider it favourably. 1think this will leave ample scope for the represent- ~tive of Ecuador to go ahead with the process of "dollmg up the baby" before our next meeting. As regards the time of adjournment, 1 submit that we should not relapse, as we seemed ta be doing yesterday, and again today, into an old habit of the Couneil which 1 .:onsider to be most uncommendable and inadvisable, name1y, that of working on and on until one is tired beyond the point of human endurance. When one is tired, he usually is not conciliatorv.

With regard ta the "baby", perhaps 1 might just say that for the reasons which 1 have already explained, however much it is "dolled up" 1 am afraid it witl not appeat to my delegation. 1 think it is high time, instead of delaying and delaying-, and in fairness ta the Government of Peking itself, we should take a decision even if it means working slightly longer hours than those to which we are accustomed. 1 quite agree, however, with the representative of Egypt to this extent: that we ought not to work too long. We may even have worked too long this afternoon. The question of adjournment now presents itself. The only real question is: When do we meet again? The representative of Ecuador says he does not want to meet tomorrow. 1 myself would be in favour of meeting' as soon as possible; that is my personal view. It has been suggested to me that while the General Assembly is in session it would be better if the Security Council met during plenary meetings of the Assembly and not during Committee meetings. 1 think that plan might commend itself to members of the CounciI. Of course, there are plenary meetings of the Assembly tomorrow. \\Te could therefore meet tomorrow afternoon. Friday, 1 think, might b~ rather difficult: therc will be Security Council and other elections going on. 1f we do not meet tomorrow afternoon, it looks rather as if we should have to postpone meeting until Monday, which, in my personal view, would be regrettable. That may, however, be the wish of the CounciI. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian) : The questions we are discussing are of course important and we cannot postpone their consideration any longer. 1 should, however, Iike ta add some particulars to what the President said. Experience of past sessions of the General Assemb!y shows that bath in Paris and here in New York plenary sessions of the General Assembly were not normally held at the same time as meetings of the Security Council. That was the procedure. We might perhaps follow the same procedure now, and request the Secretariat lo arrange that there are no plenary sessions at the same time as meetings of the Security Jfr. Qt:EVEDO (Ecuador) (trallslafcd from Spallish): As l do not \Vish to obstruct the work of the (ouncil in any \Vay, l shal1 raise no objection.

l am most grateful to the r~prc­ sentative of Ecuador. We shaH meet tomorrow at 3 p.m. The meeting rose at 7.5 p.m.