S/PV.505 Security Council

Perhaps 1 might make a preliminary statement in regard to a matter of procedure. There seemed to be sorne doubt 10 the minds of the representatives yesterday [504th meeting] whether it would be better first to take the draft resolution submitted by the delegation of Ecuador [S/1817/Rev.l] and concurred in by the representative of China, or alternatively, first to take the motion on the same subject reintroduced by the representaHve of the Soviet Union [S/17321. After consulting the rules of procedure, it would, in my opinion, be better to take the Ecuadorean proposaI first, seeing that rule 33 of the rules of procedure says the following: Is that generally agreeable? Mr. TSIANG (China): 1 have no objection to the pncedure that the President has just outlined, but 1 u.nderstood him to say in his brief remarks that 1 concurred in the Ecuadorean proposaI. 1 would say that it would be more accurate to state that 1 heartily concur in that proposaI.

1 am sœ'ry; that is quite right. What the representative of China did, 1 think, was to withdraw his own proposaI in favour of paragraph (a) oi the operative part of the Ecuadorean draft resolution. That is understood. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (trans/atcd jrom Russian) : 1 shall refer to the President's viev..s on the order of the voting a little later. For the moment, 1 should like to make a few remarks on the substance of the draft resolution tabled by the representative of Ecuador. The USSR delegation sees no justification for the Council to delay long in considering the question of anned invasion of Taiwan, which is before it and which, as we know, was submitted by the Government of the People's Republic of China. That question constitutes a situation capable of leading to international friction and complications, and its continued existence may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. Under the terms of the Charter the Security Council, as the principal organ of the United Nations charged with the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, is bound by Artkle 24 of the Charter to take prompt and effective action to deal with a situation of this kind. It will otherwise fail to discharge the obligations which devolve upon it as a result of this responsibility, and will thus violate the United Nations Charter. Under Article 34 ...f the Charter the Security Council may investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endauger the maintenance of international peace and security. Consequently, according to the letter and spirit 01 the Charter, the Security Council should take immediate In the preamble to his draft resolution the representative of Ecuador admitted this responsibility and dutY of the Security Council to investigate any situation likely to lead to international friction, to give rise to a dispute. He suggested in the operative part of his draft resolution, however, that the consideration of this situation, which has arisen as a direct result of the virtual seizure of the Chinese island of Taiwan, by United States armed forces, should be postponed. It suffices ta compare the preamble with the operative part clearly to see the discrepancy between the beginning and the end of this draft resolution. Likewise, the fact that the question of United States aggression against China is included in the agenda of the General Assembly has no bearing on the question. In its statement at yesterday's meeting of the Security Couneil, which 1 do not propose to repeat, the USSR delegation set forth its point of view on this matter in detai1. I shaH merely point out that consideration by the General Assemhly of the question of United States aggression against China cannat and must not in any way affect consideration by the Security Council of the question of the armed invasion of the island of Taiwan. Moreover, in the interest of international peace and security, it wouid be desirable and most important that the Security Council should consider this question before the General Assembly considers the question of United States aggression against China. The USSR delegation notes and supports the Ecuadorean representative's statement that the Security Council should be free to invite the parties to a dispute. The USSR delegation cannot, however, agree with the contention that there is some doubt as to whether a dispute exists on the question of Taiwan and whether there has been aggression against China or not. If we approach this question objectively, we cannot fail to concJude that the United States Government has committed an act of aggression in the form of the invasion of the island of Taiwan by United States armed forces, thereby intervening in the domestic affairs of China. That island is an inalienable part of Chinese territory and was rccognized as such by the Cairo Agreement of 1 December 1943 between three great Powers, the United States of America, the United Kingdom and China. On orders issuecl by Mr. Truman on 27 June, United States naval forces are patrolling the Taiwan Strait \Vith obviously hostile intentions towards the Government of the People's Republic of China, and the United ~tates Air Force has illegally invaded the Chinese Island of Taiwan and established bases on it. Under a ?efinition of aggression which is widely accepted in International relations and which was, in its funda- 3 According to the same definition of aggression, a State which institutes a naval blockade of the coast or ports of another State is recognized to be the attacking party. Pursuing c1early aggressive designs, the United States Government has established a naval blockade of the coast and ports of the Chinese island of Taiwan by using armed forces ta prevent the legal Government of China and its armed forces from having access to the island. This action by the United States Government is aggression, and the United States Government is the attacking party, the aggressor. We need only imagine the reaction of the United States Government if a for.eign Power had ordered its navy to patrol between the Hawaiian Islands, a United States possession, and United States territory in order to prevent United States armed forces from having access to Hawaii, in order to appreciate that United States action against the Chinese island of Taiwan is an act of overt and blatant aggression. However, if the representative of Ecuador is assailed by the slightest doubt regarding this question, the best way to dispel it is to take steps to enable the Security Council to take up the consideration of this question without delay an.d to hear the representative of the People's Republic of China at a meeting of the Security Council. The representative of Ecuador told us here that the Security Couneil should take the trouble to ascertain the views of the people of Taiwan, who number 8 million. However, the month-Iong discussion of the question of the invitation to a representative of the People's Republic of China to attend the meetings of the Security Council devoted to the discussion of the question of the armed invasion of Taiwan, has shown that a number of representatives, and first among them the representative of the United States, ignore the views and legitimate demands of the 475 million people of China, of the Chinese nation, and of its only legitimate govc"nment - the Central Government of the People's Republic of China - which demands that its representative should be admitted to the Security Council to take part in the discussion of this question. This attitude of some of the members of the Security Council is not only wrong and illegal but is blatantly discriminatory against the Government and people of China. Similarly, we cannot agree with the contention that the status of Taiwan has not yet been defined. Such a In the light of the above facts and in accordance with the actual state of affairs, it is not the function of ~he Security Council and of the United Nations to consider the question of Taiwan, as this question is not open to discussion and, under the terms of Article 107 of the Charter, cannot be the :3ubject of consideration in the United Nations. The Security Council is required by the Charter to consider Lb? question of the armed invasion of that island by iûreign armed forces. That means that the Security Council must consider the question of United States aggression against China. Although the draft resolution submitted by the representative of Ecuador contains sorne acceptable provisions regarding the need for the presence of the representative of the Government of the People's Republic of China at meetings of the Security CoundI at which that government's complaint of the armed invasion of Taiwan is discussed, nevertheless it proposes an unnecessary and unwarranted delay in the consideration of this question. In view of these facts, the USSR de1egation insists on a vote being taken on its draft resolution, which provides for an immediate invitation to a representative of the People's Repuhlic of China to attend the meetings of the Security Council, on the assumption that the Couneil will take up the consideration of this question without delay. The USSR delegation tabled its draft resolution at the end of August r492nd meeting] and, when the Security Council did not accept it, submitted it again three times. So far it has not been voted upon. In particular the USSR delegation presented this draft resolution again at the meeting the day before yesterday [S03rd meeting], before the submission of the other proposaIs. Under mIe 32 of the mIes of procedure this draft resolution should therefore be giv~n priority and should be voted upon first. The USSR delegation insists on its proposaI being voted upon first. Its final position, both in regard to the draft resolution submitted by the representative of Ecuador and to amendments thereto, will depend on the outcome of that vote. Furthermore, the proposaI to vote first on a draft resolution tabled at a later stage is sometimes based on the argument that the draft resolution in question mIes 5 Mr. BLANCO (Cuba) (trans/ated from Spanish): 1Il its statement the other day [SD3rd meeting], the delegation of Cuba indicated that it did not cOllsider this the appropriate moment for the Council to begin consideration of the item concerning the compiaint of armed invasion of Taiwan (Formosa), in view of the fact that the item wouId he discussed by the General Assembly. 1 also stated that the discussion in the General Assembly would undoubtedly shed light on the matter and would facilitate consideration of it uv the Councii at a later date. . The Cuban delegation would like to make clear that it was not its intention to remove the item from the Coundl's agenda. It merely wished to suspend consideration of it because it is going to Le discussed in the Assembly. That procedure would in no way affect or violate the functions and powers assigned to the Security Coundl under the Charter with regard to matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security. We do not believe that the Coundl will he failing to discharge those powers and responsibilities by deferring consideration of this item. It is clear that the primary responsibility of the Council is to maintain international peace and security. It is no less clear, however, that sorne of its members, the permanent members, have the most powerfui weapon with which to obstruct and paralyse an action to that effect. With regard to Formosa and the related question of inviting a representative of Peiping to attend the Council's discussion of the matter, my delegation thinks that the Council must first decide whether or not to defer consideration of it. If the Council should decide not to postpone the discussion and should take up the q"~stion, it must then adopt a dedsion regarding the invitation to be extended to the Peiping regime. If, on the other hand, it should decide to postpone consideration of this matter, my delegation understands that the question of inviting the Peiping regime must also be postponed. Mr. GROSS (United States of America): In view of the fact that we appear to be approaching a vote on the three propositions which 1 understand to be before us, 1 should like to explain the position of my govermnent both in regard to the order in which they should be considered and in regard to the substance of the items. The thrée items to which 1 refer, are, of course, the proposaI made by the representative of China at the S03rd meeting, which suggests that we cease consideration of the question; s2condly, the proposaI in the form of an amendment, which has been submitted by the representative of Ecuador, and which suggests that we should derer consideration of the matter to a certain date and also caUs for action regarding an invitation to be extended to the representatives of the Peiping regime; and thirdly, the Soviet Union proposaI to invite the representatives of the Peiping regime to the Council table forthwith, to lJe heard while the Council considers the Formosa complaint. At the outset, let me say that it seems to us to be perfectly ciear that the rule to which the President has referred, rule 33, paragraph 5, wouId caU for a vote upon the two motions to defer before a vote can be taken upon the motion to invite the Peiping representatives here. Not onll by the force of the rule itself, but in logic, it would seem obvious and desirable to decide first whether to defer the matter before deciding to discuss the matter and its substance. Now 1 would like to refer to the substance of the items. As 1 said in the Council two days ago [S03rd meeiill[l], my government voted in favour of placing the item "Complaint of invasion of Taiwan (Formosa)" llpon the agenda of the Security CoundI. We did so despite the fact that the complaint was filed by a government which my government does not recognize, despite the fact that the complaint which was filed by that regime obviously contained absurd falsehoods, despïte the f<lct that the representative of China, whom my government recognizes as the only representative of China, denied that there had been an invasion. Despite aIl these facts, we voted in favour of placing the item on the agenda. We did so on the simple ground that we welcomed a hearing and an investigation - a prompt investigation - of those charges. We felt that they should be aired and objectively evaluated by this international Organization. \\Te still feel that way. We realize that, once a complaint has been filed with this Organization and we have decided to hear it, then it should be swiftly disposed of. We have no doubts ollrselves as ID what the disposition will be. The other day [503rd meeting] 1 ventured to ask the Soviet Union representativ~ certain questions concerning the intention of the Gov~rnment of the USSR in pladng 7 , regret to say, and 1 think 1 am correct in saying, thar the only reply made hy the representative of the Soviet Union was to the eff"ct that 1 àad addressed my question to the wrong person and that 1 should have asked the Peiping reprrsentative. With ail respect, 1 think that is hardly an answer. It was the Soviet Union which put the itelll on the ~gendas of hoth hodies. 1 donht very rnuch ii the Soviet Union representative intrndrd to suggef;r that we should ask the Peiping regime about the intention of the Soviet Union Government in placing the item on IJOth agendas. In any event, illY queslion remains unanswered. \Ve have wIIsidered the matter very carefully and, again in the interest of having an orderly and prompt hearing of the complaint, however reckless, we believe thal the Sccurity Council should consider the matter silllultaneously \Vith the (~el1eral Assembly, if it 50 desires, and we have no objection to that course. 1 intend to avoid as scrupulously as possihle any rl'f('rence to the substance of the matter, despite the fact that the Soviet Union representative dealt with the qllestions involved ill the slIhstance of the complaint of invasion at 80111e length. 1 shall Iimit myself to saying that, in connexion \Vith the discussion of the merits of the case - if the Council decicles ta proceed with the discnssion - illY delcgation will, of course, he prepared 10 answcr any allcgations made and to answer them :,qllarely and on their merits. It is only in deference to the other memhers of the Security Couneil that 1 reirain irom doing so today. However, 1 feel 1 owe it to illY government simply to enter a most emphatic deniat and to reserve the full explanations which justify that denial to a iater date. 1 think those explanations are knowtl not only to the members of this Council, but to e\'er\'one ever\'where who has considered the matte:- in an objective fashion. It is our view, as was stated bv the United States representative on an earlier occasion, that there is a method of dealing \Vith this complaint, and 1 may say \Vith this type of complaint, which has not as yet, at least, been suggested by others who have spoken on this matter in the Council. 1 refer to the possibility of the establishment of a committee or commission of this Council. Such a committee or commission coutd be 8 It is not unlikely that a similar proposaI r'.1ight indeed be made in the General Assembly in connexion with the consideration of the item on its agenda. Perhaps, indeed - we do not know, since the Soviet Union representative does not explain the situation to us-- this might he a suggestion which the USSR delegation might have had in mind in placing the matter on the agenda of the General Assembl)'; we simply do not know. In opposing the invitation to the Chinese Communist regime, however, at the present time, my gm'ernment has no desire to den)' the complaining party an appropriate hearing and an opportunity to present evidence, however reckless its charges may he. We do, nevertheless, oppose an invitation to ht:ar the Peiping regime in this forum at this stage. A debate on the merits, with the Chinese Communist regime seated here and without any prior asccrtainment of the. facts, would, we feeI. he bound to lead to the result which 1 have described hefore : that is, the employment - 1 might say the subversion - of the Security Council as a forum for purposes of propaganda. Yesterday, the representative of China pointed out that he represents a government which, whatever may he said about it by anyone at this table, is in control of the island alleged to have been attacked. Aiter the facts have been ascertained - as distinguished from speeches in this Council which would he macle, or which might \VeIt be made, by representatives of those who have no basis for knowing the facts. who have no access to the information, so far as we are aware - after the charges have been sifted and in the light of the facts and the prevailing circumstances at the time, the question should then certainly he considered whether the Peiping regime should be heard in the Security Coundl under role 39, before the Council itself takes action. This seems to us to he the most sensible and effective method of applying rule 39. It is entirely consistent with the principles of due process and with the fundamental concem which the Government and people of the United States have traditionally felt for the principles of order·· If the Security Council \Vere to utilize a committee or commission in this situation, it would only be following the procedure customarily adopted by the General Assembly in dealing \Vith similar situations. The General Assembly normally gives a hearing to interested parties through one of its main Committees, or even sub-cotn1l1ittee of a main Committee. In concluding, l must repeat that the United States Government, as the party against which complaint has been made, is ready and willing, as has always been, ta have the charges against it heard bath in the Security Couneil and in the General Assembly. We think they should be heard speedily, either or both places, depending entirely upon the (Jf other representatives. It is for that reason that government wil1not support the motion either to clefer indefinite1y - as has been suggestecl b:y the representatÎve of China - or ta clefer ta a certa1l1 clate - as been suggestecl in the amendment proposed by the .resentative of Ecuador. \Ve simply feel that we would 'welcome the judgment of other representatives, and 1I:hink that nothing should be put in the way of a speedy determination and decision by this body or by the General Assembly or, indeed, by both, clepending entirely upon the will of other members.

l believe the Council i5 now proaching the moment when it must consider the manner in which it is going to take the vote on this matter. Thcre are three draft proposaIs before the Council. first draft proposaI was submitted [SD3rd meeting] the representative of China and it reads in eHect the Security Coundl should cease ta consider this c1uring the consideration of this item by the General Assembly. Then, there are the Ecuadorean and Soviet Union draft resolutions, the original text of latter of whieh appears in the record of the Council's [492nd] meeting of 29 August 1950. There is no doubt, l believe, that ail the members of the Council can accept the following procedure: der the rules of procedure the Chinese item to which have already referrecl should be voted on first, because that is a simple proposaI to cease consideration of item during its consideration by the General Assembly. There is doubt, however, as to whether, after that has been taken, the Coundl shoulcl then proceed to fir8t on the draft resolution submitted by the Ecuaclorean clelegation or first on the Soviet Union draft resolution. As l already pointed out at the beginning of meeting, it is true that paragraph 5 of rule 33 of rules of procedure would seem to suggest that the Ecuadorean draft resolution shoulcl be voted on first. However, my Dwn suggestion was not, of course, a final suggestion or inc1e'ed a ruling on my part. l believe this is a matter for debate, because Ecuadorean ciraft resolution is partly a resolution defer consideration and partly a substantive resolution which would result, if it was adopted, in an important political decision: namely, a decision to invite a representative of the Central People's Government of l "ho11111 likc ln add t",o pnints, 1 hdil'\'c 1 alrcady slal('d that paragTaph (il) of thc E"U;l\!lln':\Il dmft n'sntut i"l1 rl'l'1'('s('lI(l'd an impnrtallt suhstantive dcdsinn. Il 1'('l"laiuh' is importanl; 1\\)",c'rcl", 1 used thc wont "sllhslanli\'c" in a gcncml ralher than a tedmical scnse. ,\"(l1ally I11Y ']('Iq,:-ation regards i!, thnugh \'ery importan!, as a jl1'llccdural de('isinn. III 111l' sl'('ond 1'Ia('(" 1 \\'ish to (Ira\\' the atl<'ntion of Ihe l'epn'scnlati\'cs tn 1111' f:lct that Ihc So\'iet Union n'lHTsl'ntati\'l' has aln'ady said, 1 hdie\'e, that his \'ote lm Ihe 1':cl1adol'ean drafi l'esohllion ",nuhl he larg-dy g"m'cnte<1 hy I1w fatc of his o\\'n drafl 1'('SI)llltillll, if his draf! l'eso!tlti(ll1 \\'cl'e ~l1b111iltcd to the \'otc hefore the ECll:\\lol'ean ciraft t'{'snllltion, 1n that case, 1 shall ask thc l'cpl'esentati\'{'s to indkale hy raising- Iheir hands wheth{'r t11l'\' arc in favnur of the ~n\'ict llnion draft rrsnlntÎnn Il(~ingpul (n the "ot!' hdnl't' the ECll:ldorcan draft I"esolution. ~ll', MALI K (Union of So\'iet Socialist Republics) (fP'tlllsla/cd fl"01ll RlIssùw) : r Ihink that, in acconlancc \\'ith the rules of pr(~{'dlll'e, it wOllld be logical tl) vole inulle<1iateh' lin ",hclhcl" to vote I1rst on the <lraft rcsnlulinns which wcre pl'esenteci Iast. l'Ill' USSR ,Irafi l'esollltion. Il('ing thc lirs! to be sllbmitte<1, has priority and shllllhi he put to the \'ote Ilt'st, Imt a {lm- ]ll1s:.1 has 11l'('n 111:111(' tn "'ltt' til'st on ,Irait rcsoluttons sIIh111ilted laler, \\'c sI 10111(\ tlwl'dol'e \'I)te inullediatclv on whethcr wc sholll<1 voIr lirst on cil'aft reso\utions j)resentcd sec- Illld. Sllch a "oll' wllul<l be fully in accordancc with the rllles ni prnredllrc anci ",ith the prartice oi the Secul'ity l'ollncil, Thel'r is no dnubt that the USSR (Iraft t'l'solution. :IS the til'sl ln Il{' :ml11l1itt('(\, sholllci he \'ott'd on firs!. But, as ther!' is a pmposal to ,'o!e on later drait resolll- 1ions li l'st, W(' ml1st \'01<' on that pl'Oposal first oi aIL Th(' f'RESl1lET'\T: 'Vith ail respect, ] do n01 fcd 111\'S('1i Ihat it is self-evident that the So\'ict Union draft r('snl Il1ion should han' priority lIver the Ecuadorean draft l'esolution iol' tht, l'casons which ] have explained, l'casons connech'c1 ",ith rnl(' 33, 1 think it is a ùouhtful l'as('; ] bc!ievl' tht'\'(' is a l'cal case to he made out ior the So\'ict Union':; propllsal ha"ing priority, bllt it is Ilot self-c\'ident. What ] think is illt'\'itahl t' is that the Chin«se clraft l't'solution shoulci hc put first, in accordance with paragraph .5 oi mIe 33, for it is a simple proposaI for postponc11Icnt oi consideration Of the matter before us, A vote 7.uas takl'lI by a show of hatlds, as fol/ours: In Javoltr: China, Cuba, Ecuador, United States of America. Against: Egypt, India, Nonvay, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia. Abstaining: France. The proposaI 7.t'as rejecfed by 6 votes to 4, with oJ/e abstention.

In accordance with the vote, we shaH vote on the Chinese proposaI first, the Soviet Union's proposaI second, and the Ecuadorean proposaI third. Since there are no more speakers on my list, before the vote, 1 should like, in my capacity as UNITED KINGDO~{ representative, to ask the representative of Ecuador one question, or possibly two. Would he agree to substitute for the date, 1 December, in paragraph (a) of: the substantive part of his draft resolution and again iu (b), the date 1 November? And would he agree that if that were accepted, although we should ail no doubt believe that the General Assembly could, if it so desired, discuss this matter before that date, we should be able to take action under his proposaI, even although by 1 November the General Assembly had not discussed the item? Mr. QUEVEDO (Ecuador) (translated Jrom Spanish) : 1'1 the first place, 1 should like to know whether the President deems it appropriate for me to make some comments concerning remarks made in the Council yesterday regarding my proposaI. 1 shaH conclude my comments by replying to the President, or, rather, by putting a question myself.

1 think it most desirable that the representative of Ecuador should explain once again his draft resolution before the vote is taken. 1 hope that he will answer the questions 1 have pui to him in the course of his speech, and 1 shall try to reply to any questions which he will put to me. Mr. QUEVEDO (Ecuador) (translated Jrom Spanish) : 1 merely wanted to comment on certain observations made on our draft resolution. In the first place, our object in paragraph (a) is to defer consideration of the matter in order to allow time for the Assembly Committee to study and investigate il. For that reason, 1 could find no better form in which to express our idea and 1 could not accept the suggestion made to the Couneil yesterday by the representative of Egypt. We are not insisting that our drait On 29 August [492nd meeting], when it was proposed to invite a representative of the Peiping Government in connexion with the complaint of an alleged invasion of the island of Formosa, we voted against it because the proposaI was worded. in Sllch a way - the text referred to Article 32 - that our approval of it might have been misinterpreted to mean that we were changing our position with regard to recognition of the Chinese Nationalist Government. Our position has therefore heen completely consistent, and we feel that the preamble of our draft resolutian is consistent with the operative part. The President, speaking as representative of the United Kingdom, said yesterday that he could not agree with our draft resolution because, although he agreed with the deleg.i.tion of Ecuador in believing that a representative of the Peiping Government should be given a hearing, he did not believe that the same question could not he discussed in the Couneil while it was being discussed by the Assembly. That is to say, he did not agrtc with us that the Couneil could not discuss the question while it was being discussed in the Assembly. That, however, has not been our point of view. We have maintained that it seems proper to us for the Couneil to benefit by the investigation of the same facts which the Assembly would undertake. We quite understand that countries which have recognized the Peiping Government have a special interest in seeing that a representative of that government should he present during discussions of the matter, and during the consideration of the problem of representation of nlina in the United Nations. But we, for our part, have not recognized the Peiping Government and continue to lt'ecognize the Nationalist Government. We hope that the others will also quite understand that we are perfectly entitled not to view the question in the same light as they do, in view of the fact that it is very closely related with two problems : the problem of the representation of China and the problem of the status of Formosa. Another of the argume'lts which might have been used or might still be used is that the urgency of the situation does not allow of postponement of the discussion on it. 1 doubt that the matter is so urgent. The situation relating to Formosa has been pending more or less since the end of June. There is no reason why it should not remain pending for two months more while a Committee of the Assembly assists us to investigate the facts. Thus we consider that no time would be lost by postponing consideration of it. It will be recalled that we have spent exactly one month discussing when the matter should be discussed, ho.w it should be discussed, which of the proposaIs relating to it should be discussed first, and whether or not a representative of the Peiping Govemment should be invited. Vve are trying very simply, very humbly, technically imperfectly perhaps, but in aIl sincerity, to have the Council set a date right now for discussion of the item which will enable it to take advantage of a parallel study carried out by the Assembly. By fixing the date for that discussion, the Council would agree, as of now, to hear a representative of Peiping. When we suggest that a representative of the Peiping Government should be heard, it does not follow that we are trying to settle the question of the repr-.::sentation of China one way or the other. My goyernment is Neither do 1 wish to say that we admit that the alleged invasion of Formosa has actually taken place, particularly in view of the statement made by the Chinese Government through its representative in this Council. That representative has stated that there was no such invasion. We believe, nevertheless, that the Council should dearly establish the precedent of dealing with complaints and hearing the complainants. This attitude, as will he readily understood by my colleagues, is natural for a country such as mine which is not permanently represented in the Security COt~ncil but is merely present from time to time. Governments which have been recognized by the other States, or de facto governments, should have temporary access to the Council and should he heard when events which affect them occur. This is our only motive in taking the position which we have adopted in this matter. Furthermore, as 1 have no desire to conceal my thoughts on this matter, 1 wish to state that it is of particular interest to us to know what our mandatories, the fifty-nine Members of the United Nations, think of the question of aggression against Formosa and of the question of Formosa itse!f. In fact, there is a special circumstance involved in this case: the countries represented in this Couacil which have recognized the Peiping Government are almost equal in number to the countries which continue to recognize the Nationalist Government. On the other hand, in the General Assembly the proportion is different. If 1 am not mistaken, a few days ago it was stated that forty-three countries continue to recognize the Nationalist Government. Why then, should we, the mandatories and Member States of the United Nations empowered to ensure t)le maintenance of peace, not wait for a few weeks to ascertain what the fifty-nine nations of the General Assembly think about this subject? It seems to me that this is an attitude which cannot violate the Charter, and which is just and equitable. Does the Council bear responsibility for the maintenance of peace according to the Charter? We are aIl familial' with Article 34 and the other articles which refer to that responsibility. Should the Council take steps immediately to remedy the situation and not postpone such measures? It should take them immediately, whenever possible, and when the situation requires it. The fact is, however, that the Council, especially during the month of August, \Vas unable to take those steps for reasons whichi-ve all know. In the circumstances 1 think we can wait a little until we know what views have been expressed in the Committees which will deal with this questi.m. We feel that there is no inconsistency between recognizing the need for the Council to be an open chamber in which complaints can be brought and the complainants heard, and believing that it would be appropriate, though not ln making that suggestion 1 am not trying to compel the Council not to deal with the matter so long as its discussion bas not been completed in the Assembly. My intention is merely that we should study the matter once we have been informed of the views expressed on it in the First Committee. With that explanation, 1 should like a reply from the President so that l may give a final opinion on this question. 1 apologize to the Couneil for my lengthy remarks. The PRESmENT: 1 wish 1 were a soothsayer, but 1 am not. Nor can 1 be said to be an expert on General Assembly procedure, 1 should say, in regard to the precise question ~ut to me by the representative of Ecuador, that it was anybody's guess and, although 1 hope my words will not be quoted against me by the representative of Ecuador in six weeks' time, 1 should say it was possible tbat the General Assembly might have begun discussion of this item by 1 November, but more probably it will lmve done so by 15 November. But 1 think we must put a date of sorne kind in here, and if the representative of Ecuador has any qualms about 1 NOYember, 1 would acquiesce myself perhaps in 15 Novemoor.

May l just say, before calling on the representative of the USSR, that since l did make that suggestion, l now consider the Ecuadorean draft resolution as amended to that effect. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Soeialist Republics) (translated from Russian): l should like to ask the representative of Ecuador whether he would not agree either to delete the last paragraph of the preamble to his resolution, which bcgins with the words "Considering further that a complaint submitted. . . ", or ta the taking of a separate vote on that paragraph. Mr. QUEVEDO (Ecuador) (translated from Spanish) : 1 could not agree ta the deletion of the last paragraph of the preamble, as that explains our position. But at yesterday's meeting l stated, and reaffirm now, that l would agree ta the paragraphs in the preambte being voted upon one by one and the operative part being voted upon as a whole. Thus, if the members of the Couneil did not approve the last part of the preamble, the resolution would still include the remaining parts of the preambIe, in the event of their being adopted. l hope that this statement makes my position dear.

l hope l can now, without further ado, put these three draft resolutions ta the vote. Mr. TSI:\NG (China): Before the draft resolutions are put to the vote, l should like ta state that the proposaIs of the Soviet Union and Ecuador are, in the opinion of my delegation, matters of substance and not matters of mere procedure. In case of a dispute on this question, it is not subject ta a ruling of the President; such a question can only be deeided by a vote of the CouneiI, according ta the San Francisco Declaration of the Sponsoring Powers of June 1945.1

l can only say that that is not m)' view - not my personal view, at any rate. l think we must take the vote and then, after we have taken it, we can argue this question out as ta whether the vote is valid or not. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Soeialist Republics) (translated from Russian): If account is taken of the circumstances surrounding this question - namely, that a number of members of the Security Council consicler the presence here of the Kuomintang r~presenta­ tive to be illegal and recognize the Government of the People's Republic of China - and if account is taken 1 See Documents of the United Nations Conference on InterlIa/iona1 Organization, San Francisco, 1945, document 852, III/ 1/37(1). •• I wish to make the following addition to the statement I made yesterday. Article 2 of the Yalta Agreement on voting procedure provides that the Security Council will invite any State to participate in the discussion when it is a party to a dispute being considered by the Council. Mr. TSIANG (China): I was willing to abide by the President's suggestion that we postpone this debate until after the voting, but since the discussion has begun I think it would be weIl for me to answer the argument now. It is true that the San Francisco Declaration has two parts. Part l, paragraph 2, does list certain matters which it considers procedur.al.. It is only in part II that it states that, should a difference of opinion arise, a decision required in the preliminary question as to whether or not such a matter is procedural must be taken by a vote of seven members of the Security Council, including the concurrent votes of the permanent members. In the past members have differed in the interpretation of that statement. Some members have stressed the importance of part l, paragraph 2; other members have stressed the importance of part II, paragraph 2. Now what is the practice of the Security Council? The first part of the San Francisco Declaration contains an enumeration of the matters which the four sponsoring States considered to be procedural. Among the matters enumerated in that paragraph is this item: "Establish such bodies or agencies as it may deem. necessary for the performance of its functions". That is one of the items which the four sponsoring Powers considered to be procedural. However, in connexion with the Czechoslovak question, that part was not interpreted in that manner. That question was discussed at the 303rd meeting of the Security Council held on 24 May 1948. At that meeting the representative of Argentina proposed that a committee should be set up to hear evidence and report to the Security Council. There is an instance of the Security Council attempting to set up an organ for the performance of its functions. On that occasion, in spite of this specific mention in paragraph 2 of the San Francisco Agreement, the representative of the Soviet Union claimed that it was a matter of substance. The President, on that occasion, was the representative of France, who accepted the point of view of the Soviet Union representative .'nd decided that it was a matter of substance. In connexion with the question before the Council, there are in f3.Ct two matters involved. One matter is Furthermore, l should like to caU the attention of the Council to the proceedings of its 483rd meeting, held on 4 August 1950, which is very recent. At that meeting we \Vere discussing the question of whether to extend an invitation to the representatîves of North Korea and South Korea. On that occasion the representative oi the Soviet Union who is now present made a statement to the Counci1. l take this statement from the record of the 483rd meeting held on 4 August 1950. On that occasion Mr. Malik said the foUowing: "UsuaIly, too, the President of the Security Council, with the permission of the Council - \Vith the permission of aU its members - invites the countries concerned, as weil as the parties to the conflict which is being discussed by the Council to attend the Council's meetings. In the event of any objections, the Security Coundl duly considers the matter and comes to a de:' cision upon it. "The Soviet Union delegation considers this a question of substance and not of procedure, since it concerns peace and war." There \ve have a question of the invitation to be extended to North and South Korea. The very representative of the Soviet Union who is with us today contended on that occasion that it was a question of substance and not of procedure. Here the Council has the question of inviting a second representative from the same country, which touches upon the right of representation in the Security Council. My contention that this is a que::;tion of substance is certainly more justified than the Soviet Union contention of 4 August. l therefore request that the procedure to he adopted on this occasion should be in accordance with the San Francisco Declaration; in other \Vords, this question, whether one of substance or procedure, should be put to the vote of the Counci1. The PRESIDE~T: l wouId beg my coUeagues to agree with me in one thing only - that is, that this debate, very important and highly interesting though it is, is entirely out of place. 1t may weil be that none of the draft resolutions before us will be accepted. They may ail be rejected and, if that is 50, then, if we go on with this discussion, we should perhaps benefit research students, but ail our eloquence would otherwise be entirely wasted. With aU respect to everyone concerned, l do think that we should proceed with the vote and that, if one of the draft resolutions should he carried, the important question as to whether it is carried by a devrons Mahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt): It is not despite, but because of, the late hour 1 wished to say exactly what the President has just said, and if our col!~agues are in agreement, 1 have nothing more to say. 1 sug'gest that we proceed to a vote. The PRESIDEXT: Great minds think alike. Mr. GROSS (United States of America): 1 am sorry to put myself into a different fraternity, but 1 do think it necessary to make a statement of perhaps tbree sentences. We consider the proposaI now before us to be a procedural proposaI. 1 shall vote in the negative, on that understanding. If, subsequently, the Council should hold that the motion is substantive rather than procedural and that, hence, my negative vote constituted a veto, 1 would reserve the right to change my neTcltive vote to an abstention. Mahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt): 1 am sorry to delay the voting, but 1 wish to say one or two words for the record in connexion with the statement of the representative of the United States. I am not quite sure that the representative of the United States can reserve for his delegation the right which he wishes to reserve. I waut to make quite sure that this is a proper procedure and a proper interpretation of the wav in which the Council's work should be carried out. i know of no precedents for voting in one way and reserving for one's delegation the right to change the vote. 1 am not sure of this, and I, in tum, reserve my delegation's right to disagree with the possibility of such a procedure being used. I want to be sure of this facto J

Could we not also try to disentangle that particular point when we come to it, if and when the question arises? 1 quite agree with the representative of Egypt that it is a dubious point - and indeed an important one. 'rVe can now proceed to the vote. The first draft resolutiOl., as I understand it, is the one submitted by the reprf ;entative of China. It reads as follows: 1 1 "The Security Council shall cease consideration of the complaint of armed invasion of Taiwan (Formosa) during the consideration of this item by the General Assembly." A vote was taken by a show (ii ha.llds, as follows: /11 favouy: China, Cuba.

1 shaH now put to the vote the draft resolution submitted by the delegation of the Soviet Union, w~ich reads as follows: "The Security Council, "In connexion with the statement of the Central People's Government of the People's Repubiic of China regarding armed invasion of the island of Taiwan (Formosa), "Decides to invite a representative of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China ta attend meetings of the Security Council when this question is under consideration." A vote was taken by a show of 1tands, as follows: In fm/our: France, Indîa, Norway, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern 1reland, Yugoslavia. Against: China, Cuba, United States of America. Abstaining: Egypt, Ecuador. There were 6 'lJotes in favour, 3 against, and 2 abstel/tions. The draft resolution was not adopted, having fai/ed to obtain the affirmative votes of seven members.

We now come to the draft resoh!- tian, set forth in document S/1817/Rev.l, submitted by the delegation of Ecuador. In accordance with what has been decided, 1 propose to put the preamble of this draft resolution to the vote paragraph by paragraph. The first paragraph of the preamble reads: "The Security COlmcil, "Consideri1lg that it is its dutY to investigate any situation likely to lead to international friction or to give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of such dispute or shuation mayendanger international peace and security, and likewise ta determine the existence of any threat to peace," A vote was taken bv a show of hands, as follows: In fmJoltr: Cuba, Ècuador, Egypt, France, India, Norway, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia. Abstaillin.g: China, United States of America. The paragraph was adopted b" 9 votes in favour, with 2 abstentions.

The next paragraph reads: "C01:sidering that, in the event of a complaint regarding situations or facts similar to those mentioned above, the Council may hear the complainants," A vote 'uras taken by a show of hands, as follows: ln favour: Ecuador, Egypt, France, India, Norway, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia. Abstaining: China, Cuba, United States of America. "Consideritlg that, in view of the divergency of opinion ill the Council regarding the representation of China and without prejudice ta this question, it may, in accordance with rule 39 of the rules of procedure, invite representatives of the Central People's GOt'ernment of the People's Republic of China to provide it with information or assist it in the consideration of these matters," A 't'ote 'was takc" bv a .l'lunu of ha"ds, as fol/ows: lu fa't'oltr: Ecuador, France, India, Norway, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia. Agaitlst: China, Cuba. Abstaitlitlg: Egypt, United States of America. Tlle paragratlz 'lms adopted by 7 '<'otes to 2, 'LC'itlz 2 absft'ntso"s. The PRESIDEKT : The next paragraph reads: "Havi"g 110ted the dec1aration of the People's Republic of China regarding the armed invasion of the island of Taiwan (Formosa)," A 'l'ote 'lt'as takL'n by a s!low of !lands, as jol/mus: lu fa'llollr: Ecuador, France, India, Nonvay, Union of Soviet Socb.list Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia. Abstainillg: China, Cuba, Egypt, United States of America. Tize taragratll '1('(/.1' attat/cd by 7 'l'a/es in fa'Z.'OIlr, 'lOitli 4 abstentions. The PRESIDEKT: vVe shaH now vote on the next paragraph, which reads as foHows: . "Cotlsiderin[i further that a complaint submitted by the Union of Soviet Socialists 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 Assembly;" .4. 'l'ote 'lms takm by a show of !lands, as fvllmc·s: ln lavolC,.: Ecuador. .-[gainst: India, Norway, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. .-[bstaining: China, Cuba. Egypt, France, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ire1and, United States of America, Yugoslavia. Tite paragraph n'as rejl!cfl!d by J 't'otcs to 011/', '<c'i/Ir 7 abstentions.

We now come ta the operative part of the draft resolution, and in accordance with the t1esire of the representative of Ecuador, we shaH vote un it as a whole. It reads as follows: "Deddes.· .. (a) To defer consideration of this question until the first meeting of the Council held after December 1950 ; 22 A vote 'was takcn b:!o' a sllo'W of liaIll/S, as follo'Ws: III fm'oltr: ECllador, France, Itlflia. Norway. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Hritain and Northern Ireland. Against: China, Cuba, Egypt, United States of America. Abstaining: Yugoslavia. 'Fllare ~Vj~rc 6 votes in fat'oltr, 4 agai1lst, a·nd one abstrtltioll. Tlle opcmti'l'e paragraphs 'luere not adopted, hm,jng failj~d to obtain thr affir"'Jtive 'l/otes of Sr1'j'tl t/Irlllbers.

As the operative part of the draft n'solution has not hcen adopted, there is no point in my Jllltting the draft resollltion as a whole to the vote. ~lr. MAI.IK (Union of Soviet Socialist Repuhlics) (tra/lslatrd jrom Rllssùm): The USSR dl'lcgation considers it necessary to make the following statement on the outcome of the vote on the proposaI to invite a fl'pTl'scntative of the Pcople's Republic of China. The attempt of the United States representative in the Sccurity Council to prcvent an invitation being extcnded to the representative of the People's Republic of China to attend the meetings of the Security Council and participate in the discussion of the armed invasion of Taiwan, the procedural complications he has raised in that connexion, as well as the United States de1egation's proposaI to refer the question of arnled invasion to a non-existent committee, prove that the United States Government is afraid to have this question discussed in the COllncil with the participation of the representative of the People's Republic of China, and that it also fears the statements which might he made hy that representative at Council meetin{;s devoted to the discussion of this question. The USSR delegation considers these actions of the rllit('d States delegation iIIegal, contrary to the Charter an<\ insuIting to the people and Government of China: the Central Governmcnt of the People's Repuhlic of China. These actions provc that the United States GO\'t'rnment is continuing its policy of discrimination, cnlllity and aggrcssion against the Peoplc's Republic of China, thercby violating the Charter of the United Nations and the universally accepted basic principles of international law which govern the relations betwecn so\'('reign States.

T understand the representative of Yugoslavia would Iike to explain his vote. Mr. BEBLER (Yugoslavia) (translated from French) : 1 a1Jstained in the vote on the operative part of the draft resolution because 1 \Vas by no means convinced of the need to delay the invitation to ';he Government of the People's Republic of China for a month and a half. However, in view of the result of the voting, and

This raises, of course, a knotty point which the Couneil took up ta sorne extent when the representative of Egypt made sorne observations regarding the proposed vote or non-vote of the United States representative. 1 do not know whether it is for the Council ta deeide. 1 should think that it would be in arder for the Couneil - if it desires, naturally - ta allow any representative ta change his vote, more especially if it happens immediate1y - within a minute or two - after he has voted, and ta say that, for the purpose of the vote, the representative of Yugoslavia has changed his mind and does in fact now vote for the item. Unless any representative wishes ta say anything ta the contrary, 1 shall assume that that procedure will be acceptable. Mahmond FAWZI Bey (Egypt): As if the Couneil did not already have enough matters ta worry about, the representatives of the United States and Yugoslavia are adding matters ta our cares. 1 know that they do it in aIl good faith; 1 have no doubt about that. 1 cannat help expressing great doubt, at least, of their theses. Although they are variants of a similar matter, 1 really could not accept it off-hand. It is a very serious and weighty matter, and it can have extremely important cons~quences. The members of the Council know that we are still in the precedent-creating years of the United Nations. The Couneil has ta be careful in what it does. With aU due respect ta the representatives of the United States and Yugoslavia, 1 wish ta say that the Council must proceed with the voting and not indulge in voting acrobaties. 1 have already spoken in connexion with the statement made by the representative of the United States; however, 1 do not believe that any delegation, after the vote, has the right ta say, "W~Jl, considering the count of votes, 1 am going to change my vote and give a different description to my vote." The least 1 can say about this procedure is that 1 have great doubt about it. 1 think the Council should apply the brakes for the moment and consider what to do next.

Before calling on the representative of the United States, perhaps 1 should say that the Assistant Secretary-General has informed me that there is to sorne extent a precedent in the General Assembly. Apparently, two or three days ago a representative voted and then said that he had voted in the wrong way, and the President allowed him ta change his vote. 1 do not say that we should follow that precedent, but it is a precedent whier might conceivably be taken into consideration. However, if that is not considered ta justify the Yugoslav representative in changing his vote, then 1 should imagine that the Couneil will probably agree, Mr. GROSS (United States of America): 1 just wanted to say briefly that 1 think the procedure of revoting seems to be admirably suited to meet the problem as the President suggests. In view of the comment originaUy made by the representative of Egypt with respect to my reservation, 1 would like to point out that it i5 after aU a little bit different in the situation with which the Council is now confronted. The problem of being cast into a vetoing position is one which, my delegation believed, justified a reservation of our position. l would point out that in reserving 111Y position in those rather striking and, 1 think, unique circumstances, it is not necessarily creating a precedent for the general process of the changing of votes or the changing of minds. ~Ir. QUEVEDO (Ecuador) (translated from Spanish ): If it will facilitate the work of the Council, 1 am ready to reintroduce my draft resolution in the terms in which it was first submitted to the vote. 1 should then ask that the vote be taken in two parts: one vote on the whole draft resolution except for the paragraph of the preamble which was not adopted, and the other vote on that paragraph. nIr. BEBLER (Yugoslavia) (translated from French) : l \Vas intending to make exact!y the same proposaI as the one the representative of Ecuador has just made. That is, 1 was prepared to reintroduce the draft reso- Itttion approximately in the same terms as those in which it had been introduced by the representative of Ecuador. If 111Y understanding is correct, the draft resolution has been submitted again. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): A question arises in connexion with voting on the operative part of the draft resolution. It would be advisable to take a vote on that part alone, since it is actuaUy the subject of discussion in the present instance. It would be advisable to put to the vote that part of the resolution which we are discttssing 110W. }I:ahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt): 1 am 110t chaUenging at aU the right of the delegation of the United States or, for that matter, of any other delegation, to reserve whatever it wants to reserve for the future. But 1 do sav that it is for the Council to consider whether or not th~t so-called right is actually reserved, whether it accepts the thesis of the delegation that makes such a reservation. In connexion with the position taken by the representative of Yugoslavia, 1 must say again that 1 am not happy about the approach he is taking in regard to his 25 1 do not like it. vVhen 1 say so, as \vhen l spoke a short while ago, 1 am speaking almost exclusively in my capacity as a member of the Security Council representing the whole of the United }Jations, and not as the representative of my own country. 1 was not in the sIightest degree weighing whether this would be usefu! or harmful to Egypt. 1 was looking into the procedure we were following, and 1 was feeling great concern over it and fearing that we were starting procedures which might he very bac!, incleecl. If, after reflection, 1 should prO\:c to be right, we should avoid such a thing: if, after reflection, l should prove to he wrong, l shaH defer to the opinion of the Council. But we should he allowed sufficient time to think about this important matter. 1 submit that we must he careful about these things, and l shall object strongly to the reintroduction of the draft resolution at this meeting. Because of the late hour, and because of other considerations more important than the late hour or even our own health and comfort, 1 think we had hetter A '(.Iote owas taken by a show of hands, as follo'Ws: 11. favour: China, Cuba, Egypt, France, United States of America. Against: Norway, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia. Abstai1ling: Ecuador, India. There 'Were 5 votes in fa~'oll1' to 4 against, with 2 abstentions. The motion 'was not adopted, lza~'i'lg failed to obtain the affirmati~le 'iJotes of sc'ven membcrs.

ln vie\\' of the yotc, 1 think 1 must now, since we are rather presscd for time, simply put ta the vote the question whether or not it would be in arder for the Ecuadorean representative to reintroduce his proposaI. Objection has been taken to that procedure by the representative of Egypt, who has fully explained his views. We are, 1 think, all conscious of the pros and cons, and l ",ould ask the Council to vote on that subject without further delay. \ViIl those in favonr of the Ecuadorean representative being allowed ta reintroduce his proposaI will pIease raise their h:mds? A 'vote 'Was ta/'.'en by a show of lzands, as follows: In fœl/oUl': India, Norway, Union of Soyiet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northem Ireland, YugoslaYia. Against: China, Cuba, Egypt. Abstaining: Ecuador, United States of America, :.Vot participating in the vote: France. There were 5 votes in favour to 3 against, with 2 abstentions and one member not participa.ting in the vote. The proposal was not adopted, hamng fai/ed to obtain the ajJirma.fi'lle votes of seven memoc,·s.

1 cali upon the representatiye of the Soviet Union on a point of order. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): The USSR delegation made the proposaI, which 1 understood received the President's support, that the vote should be confined ta the operative part of the draft resolution, since this part is the subject of dispute. 1 made this proposal immediately after the representative of Ecuador proposed that a vote should be taken on the draft resolution as a whole; 1 ask that my proposaI should be considered and that only the operative part of the draft resolution 5hould be put ta the yote.

The trouble is, 1 think, that we cannot really proceed ta the vote unless the draft resolution is reintroduced. It was that question which 1 was putting to members of the Council : whether or not they wanted the draft resolution to he reintroduced. 27 la pas présenté posée Mr. QUEVEDO (Ecuador) (translated from Spanish) : 1 merely want to make dear that 1 had not yet reintroduced my draft reso!ution. 1 had merely said that if the Council considered it proper, 1 might reintroduce it. Thus the draft reso!ution has not yet been reintrodl1ced. 1 want ta reiterate the proposa! 1 made: if the Council 50 dcsires, 1 am prepared to reintroduce il: it has not yet, howt.'ver, been reintroduced. The PRJ<:SIDEKT: 1 of course interpreted the Council's vote as meaning that it did not want the draft reslIlution to be reintroduced hy anybody. It need not necessarîly be the rcpresentative of Ecuador. Actually, 1 think anybody could reintrodl1ce the draft resolution, from the partiamentary point of view, if he wanted to, and make it his OWIl. But l think that the Council did not want it to be reintroduced hv anvbodv - at this meeting, presumably. ... Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated frolll Rus.dan): We voted on the President's proposaI that the representative of Ecuador should reintroduce his entire draft resolution as it appears in document S/1817/Rev.1. The USSR delegatian. however, suggested that only the operative part nf this drait resnlution shou1d he voted upon again. To the lwst of my knowledge - 1 cannat be sure at the moment - such precedents exist. In voting upon the resolution point by point the Security Council may take a fresh vote on allY one point. 1 cannot for the moment quote such a precedent, hut 1 betieve there is such; this means that in the present case we need take a fresh vote on the operative part only. This witt not affect the intention of the representative of Ecuador to reintroduce his draft reso!ution as a whole, nor \Viti it affect the decision just adopted, hut will merely make it possihle for us to take a vote on this part of the clraft resolution cml.,"-

1 am sorn', hut 1 do not think 1 can agree ta that. The questioil of how we vote, if we do vote again, is one question: hut whether we vote at all Îs another question still. 'Vhat 1 understood the Council to clecide \Vas that it did not want another vote. Anyhow. I think we can now go home and think how ta get out of this sad mess and we can meet again tomorrow. ~[r. BEHLER (Yugoslavia) (trans/atcd fro/ll French) : 1 shoulcI like to o,ter another alternative, namelv to submit a new operative part reading almost exactly the same as the operative part of the Ecuadorean draft resolution which did not obtain the necessary seven votes, but with a slight change in date, substituting 12 November for 15 November. 1 suggest we adjourn until tomorrow afternoon at 3 p.m. Mr. QUEVEDO (Ecuador): 1 have ta be present at the meeting of the First Committee, and thus 1 cannot come to the Security Council tomorrow afternoon.

Might 1 suggest a morning meeting? Perhaps we can have just a half hour's meeting; 1 should like that myself. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : The USSR delegatlon considers it necessary to state that the manoeuvres of the Yugoslav representative have prevented the Security Council from taking a just decision at the present meeting on the invitation to a representative of the People's Republic of China. Mr. SUNDE (Norway): 1 think it remains for the President to give a ruling as to whether he accepts or does not accept the change of vote by the representative of Yugoslavia.

If the Council will forgive me, 1 very greatiy hesitate to go into that now. 1 can see at least an hour's debate on any ruling 1 might give on that point. 1 should have thought that we might leave it that he will reintroduce the draft resolution and then we can have another vote. Mahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt): 1 do want to make it clear that 1 am not against reintroducing the draft resolution. In point of fact in this very meeting 1 did not object to the Soviet Union's introduction of its old draft resolution. But for the reasons 1 have already given, 1 did not think it proper ta reintroduce right now, at this meeting, the draft resolution of Ecuador. Otherwise, 1 would only say that, as 1 mentioned yesterday, when the hour is late we are unconciliatory. This is obvious to me and 1 think we must adjourn. ciliation. devons,

Let us go on another half-hour in arder to he conciliatory, if you like, but on the whole 1think we should adjourn now. We shall adjourn and meet again tomorrow morning at Il o'dock. rions ner le bien chaine