S/PV.506 Security Council

ln connexion with the complaint of armed invasion of Taiwan (Formosa), the members of the Council are now in possession of two new documents, S/1822 and S/1823/Corr. 1. 1 think that the representative of Yugoslavia would like to have the f100r with regard to the first document, S/1822. Mr. BEBLER (Yugoslavia) (translated Iram French) : 1 shall not dwell on the question of procedure we discussed yesterday evening [SOSth meeting], although 1 shall probably have a few words to sayon the subject if other delegations touch on the substance of it later. For the moment 1 think that the best thing l can do is to put my draft resolution aside in view of the faet that we have before us the draft resolution Mr. QUEVEDO (Ecuador) (translatcd from Spanish) : In view of the situation which arose at yesterday's meeting, 1 do not think it would be out of order for me ta resubmit the draft resolution proposed by my deIegation [Sj1817jRev.l] in the form in which it was put ta the vote. Only the title has been changed, be- L'ause it can no longer be considered to be an amendment to the proposai submitted by the Chinese delegation, as that proposaI nc longer exists. My proposai is thus reintroduced, but not as an amendment. 1 have submitted the text in the form in which it was put to the vote, but 1 would be prepared to agree that it should be voted on in parts. 1 suggest that first a vote should be taken on all the paragraphs of the preamble, except the final one, together with the operative part. Then a separate vote should be taken on that final paragraph of the preamble, which was not adopted by the Council yesterday. 1 could not agree that the vote should be taken on the operative part only, as the USSR representative suggested yesterday. If that were done, it would appear to imply that the other parts of.; the preamble, which were approved yesterday, had not in fact been accepted. Thus, if the vote were divided as 1 am suggesting, the result would he precisely that the whole of the draft resolution, with the exception of the final paragraph of the preamble, would have been approved. It goes without saying, of course, that the members of the Council enjoy complete freedom of opinion and action in choosing the manner in which they wish ta vote. After the intcrpretatioll into French of the foregoi,zg re-marks, Mr. QUC'l.'edo added the following statement: 1 have made this suggestion in arder to save time, but 1 recall that the delegations were not in agreement in their voting on the preamble. Perhaps they prefer the procedure adopted yesterday, namely, ta vote on the preamble paragraph by paragraph, and then ta vote on the operative part as a whole. 1 would have no objection to such a procedure. 1 do not know whether 1 am making myself understood. In brief, the voting procedure used yesterday could be adopted again today.

1 was just about to make that suggestion from the Chair, and 1 do hope that the members of the Council will agree to it. It seems ta me that if we proceed in any way other than that of repeating the exact voting method that was used yesterday, we are likely ta get into even further procedural tangles. Therefore, unless 1 hear any objection, 1 shall put the reintroduced proposaI of Ecuador ta the vote now, calling for separate votes on each paragraph of the preamble, and having one vote on paragraphs (a) and (b) of the operative part, taken together. 1 shall then put the entire proposai ta the vote. In the opinion of my de1egation, the second operative paragraph of the proposaI is a question of substance, and not a question of procedure. 1 have already heard a difference of opinion expressed on that Jloint in the Council: the representative of the Soviet Un:on ancl the representative of the United States haye stated that, in their opinion, this is a question of procedure. It is obvious that there is a difference of opinion. Part II of the San Francisco Declaration of 19451 provided precisely for a contingency of this kind-that is. for a situation in which a difference of opinion exists. That provision is clear: in case of a difference of opinion, the preliminary question must he determined first ...

1 hope the representative of China w:1l allow me to interrupt him on a point of order. 1 do not think that it is in order for him to raise this question now, for reasons that 1 can explain. 1 think it would be entirely in order for him to raise it afterwards. We still do not know what the result of this vote is going to be. Sorne other representative may vote differently this time; that is quite possible. If it is necessary, we shall have to have this very important discussion on what the vote means after the vote is taken. If 1 may, therefore, 1 shaH now put the draft resoluton rS/1823/Corr.1] to a vote paragraph by paragraph, beginning with the first paragraph of the preamble, which reads: "TIze Sccttrity Council, . "Considering that it is its dutY ta investigate any situation Iikely ta lead ta international friction or to give rise ta a dispute, in order ta determine whether the continuance of such dispute or situation may endanger international peace and security, and likewise to determine the existence of any threat ta peace". contre Norvège, Royaume-Uni Nord, A t'ote was taken by show of hands, as follows: In fm/our: Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, France, India, :.J'orway, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia, Abstaining: China, United States of America. The paragraph was adopted by 9 votes in favour, with 2 abstentions. adoP~ê.

We shaH now vote on the second paragraph of the preamble, which reads: mamtenant 1 See Documents of the United Nations Conference on Inter- IIational Organisation, San Francisco, 1945, document 852, urll/37(1), 3 l'orgallisafim, III/l/37(1 Abstaillillg: China, Cuba. United States of America. The pamgraph fU/as adopted by 8 votes ill fm.'oll/·, '(..'Îth 3 abstcntimls. The ,PRESIDENT: We shaH now vote on the thirù paragraph of the preamble, which reads as follows: "Cotlsidcritlg that, in view of the divergency of opinion in the Council regarding the representation of China and without prejudice to this question, it ma)', in acl'ordance with mie 39 of the rules of procedure, invite representatives of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China to provide it with iniormation or assist it in the consideration of these matters" A vote 'lt'as taken by show oj hands, as fo/lmt's,' [" favour: Ecuador, France, India, Norway, Union oi Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia. ,-lgaillst: China, Cuba. .1bstai,li"g: Egypt, United States of America. 'l'Ile paragraph 'l(W adoptcd by 7 'l'otes ta 2, 'Z(';tll 2 abstentions.

\Ve shaH now vote on the fourth paragraph of the preamble, which reads: ..IIwLting floted the declaration of the People's Republic of China regarding the amlecl imusion of the fslatHI (Jf Taiwan (Formosa)". A '(..'Ote '(ms taken by show of hallds as fo/lows,' fn fm'ol/r: E<:uador, France, Imlia. Norway. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia. Aga;'lst: China. Abstai'';/Ig: Cuba. Egypt, United States of :\merka. The paragrapll '(('(~s adopted by 7 '('O/I'S te olle. wt't1l 3 abste"tions. The PRF.SIDF.!'\T: \Ve shall now vote on the last parag-raph of the preamble, which reads: "-Considering fllrther that a complaint submitted by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics regarding agg-ression against the territory of China by the United States of America has heen placed on the agenda of the fifth session of the General Assembly and has been referred for consideration to the First Committee of the Asscmbly". A 'Vot. tIiW' tJaIum by sho'w of hauds, as follo'Zvs: In favoNr: Ecuador, Yugoslavia. AgaittSt: India, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. AbstoàflÏJlg: China, Cuba, Egypt, France, Norway, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ire- land, United States of America. The paragraph was rcjertcd b~l 2 'Votrs to 2, 'U>Ïth 7 abstentioru. The PRBsmENT: The Council will now vote on the operative paragraphs (0.) and (b) of the draft resolu- tion, which read as follows : "Decid.s: "(a) To dé consideration of this question until the first meeting of the Council held after IS November 1950; "(b) To invite a representative of the said Govern- ment to attend the meetings of the Security Couneil held after 15 November 1950 during the discussion of that Government's declaration regarding an armed in- vasion of the Ialand of Taiwan (Formosa)." A 'VOte tIW' tvkft by show of hands, as follows: In fat/Our: Ecuador, France, India, Nonvay, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia. Agai7Ut: China, Cuba, Egypt, United States of America. The opn'tJliw paragraphs 'were adoptcd by 7 'Votes to 4. The PREsIDE.NT: The Couoeil will now vote on the draft 'resolution as a whole as amended, that is to say, omitting the Iast paragraph of the preamble. A 'Vote UW' token by show of hands, as follows: In ftW016,.: Ecuador, France, India, Norway, Union of Soviet Socialist RepubIics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. AgaiJJSt: China, Cuba, United States of America. Abstaitti"g: Egypt. The PlmslDENT: ln my opinion, the resolutioo is adopted. There were 7 votes in favour, 3 against and one abstention. Mr. TSIANG (China) : 1 think that the opinion of the President is Il mistake. The votes against the draft resolution inc1uded my vote. Since, in the opinion of my deIegation, operative paragraph (b) of the draft resolution is a question of substance, my opposition to the draft resolution should he considered as a veto. On this question there always appears to be a dif- ference of opinion. It is for this very contingency that 5 ln discussing this question yesterday, 1 called the attention of the Council to the Council's action at its 303rd meeting in considering the Czechoslovak ques- tion. ln the history of the Security Council, to the hest of my recollection, there have been three occasions on which the "double veto" was cast. The first occasion was at the 49th meeting on 26 June 1946, in connexion with the Spanish question. At that meeting the President of the Council was the representative of Mexico. The representative of Aus- tralia, Mr. Evatt, presented a draft resolution on he- half of a drafting committee which had been appointed by the Council. The draft resolution was to the effect that the Security Council should keep the situation in Spain under continuous observation, and should main- tain it upon the list of matters of which it was seized. That was the question at issue. When the draft resolution was declared adopted by the President, fol1owing the casting of nine affirmative votes, Mr. Gromyko stated that the President had made a mistake. According to him, the resolut:on failed to be adopted hecause one of the permanent members of the Security Council had voted against it. The Presi- dent admitted that, in order to determine whether the question was one of substance or of procedure, it would he necessary to have the affirmative votes of the five permanent memhers. During that discussion there \Vere sorne very im- portant statements made by variolts representatives. For example, on that occasion Mr. Gromyko said : "If there should he any objection to this statemellt ... "-that it was one of substance-"I should ask the Security Council to decide whether this is a question of substance or a question of procedure. On the deci- sion ... which will he given will depend the subsequent solution of the question and the subsequent procedure." The representative of the Netherlands, Mr. van Kief· fens, a noted authority on the Charter and international law, admitted that Ml'. Gromyko was legally correct. On the occasion, the President, the representative of Mexico, ruled that the resolution had been adopted. Mr. Gromyko challenged that ruling and it was put to a vote. The result of the vote was as fol1ows: there were eight votes in favour of the President's ruling, two against and one abstention. What did the President on that occasion decide after that vote? He decided that his ruling was over-ruled by the Council, in spite of the fact that it received eight affirmative votes to two against. That is a precedent which the Council must consider. There is a second occasion on which the "double veto" was cast, and that was in connexion with the ln reply to the statement of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Gro- myko made the following statement. 1 quote from the record: "As President of the Security Couneil, 1 have ta say that whether the question is one of procedure or of substance is not subject to the ruling of any President. The Security Couneil has to take a special decision on tbis question. At the appropriate moment 1 shall make an additional explanation on this point." Mr. Gromyko later made that additional statement, and 1 quote: "We cannot take a vote on the United States reso- lution without knowing what we are taking a deeision on, whether on a question of substance or on a question of procedure. 1 have already said that 1 did not make a ruling on this question as to whether the United States resolution is one of a procedural character or one of substance. 1 expressed my opinion as the Presi- dent. The United States representative and some other representatives did not agree with my opinion. 1 aI- ready stated that the question as to whether any pro- posai is one of a procedural character or one of sub- stance is not subje!'t to a ruling of any President of the Security Couneil. Th", ?resident cao only make a rul- ing on a point of order. The President cannot decide that the question is one of substance or procedure. On that occasion again, in spite of the fact that the large majority of the Couneil considered the matter to he a question of procedure, the vote of Mr Gromyko alone made it a question of substance, and it was so treated on the second vote. ln the hititory of the Security Couneil, the delegation of the Soviet Union has cast more than forty vetoes. Does the Couneil consider that my c1aim to veto this proposai is less justified than the forty vetoes cast by the Soviet Union? 1 c1aim and insist that because of the lack of my concurrence in the vote, this resolution bu not been adopted. The PusmENT: 1 think that the important state- ment made by our Chinese colleague mUlt now he de- 7 ((ConsideritJg that, in view of the divergency of opin- ion in the Council regarding the representation of China and without prejudice to this question, it may in ac- cordance with rule 39 of the rules of procedure, invite representatives of the Central People's Govemment of the People's Republic of China ta provide it with in- formation or assist it in the consideration of these matters". In other words, the invitation does not involve any decision as ta which of the two Governments claiming to represen't China is the one entitled to representation. That point is to be left undecided. It will be noted that under rule 39: "The Security Council may invite members of the Secretariat or other persans . . . to supply it with information . . ." An in- vitation under this rule does not therefore involve anv political decisions. It is on the same footing as an invita- tion ta any member of our Secretariat. No one will, 1 hope, contend that an invitation to a member of our Secretariat is a non-procedural matter. For all these reasons, my delegation is clearly of the view that the matter in question is procedural and, as such, not sübject to the veto of any ef the permanent members. Mr. CHAUVEL (France) (translated fram French) : The French delegation has no intention of questioning the San Francisco Declaration, to which it subscribed, but it does not think that the resolution we have just voted on iG iîl f~ct a question of substance. The resolu- tion dea!s w:.h problems which merely follow upon the incluPlon of ik~ügenda of the "Complaint of armed in- vasion of Taiwan (Formosa)". It therefore appears that a question of substance could have been raised in relation to the question of whether that complaint was admissible. Such a question was not raised, and the present occasion seems to me to be both late and hardly suitable for it. 8 Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Somalist Republics) (tra1J~lated jram Rl/ssian) :. The exampl.es of the ~p­ plicatiOn of the San FranCISco Declaration, to whlch the representative of the Kuomintang group has re- ferred, have no hearing whatsoever on the question we are considering, and cannot he taken into account. They are invalid. AU the cases he has quoted had, in fact, a direct bearing on questions of substance and Ilot on questions of procedure. The resolution on the Spanish question which he mentioned in referring to the San Francisco Declara- tion dealt with the substance of the question. A pro- posai was made that the Security Geuncil should decide ta refer the question to the General Assembly, and the draft resolution outlined a programme of action by the General Assembly on the question. In other words, a question of substance was involved. It is quite obvious that, in the event of the resolution being adopted by the Council, the question was a question of substance for a delegation which did not approve of this pro- gramme of action which the Security Council had laid down in advance. In my opinion, it would not occur to aoyone to regard a question of this kind as a procedural question, since the draft resolution contained a pro- gramme which was advocated by the Security Council by stating its views on the substanre of the question and by requesting the General Assembly to consider the substance of the question on the lines the Security Council regarded as desirable. How can a proposai of titis kind be treated as a question of procedure? There are absolutely no grounds for sa treating it, either in law or from the standpoint of the provisions of the Charter. References ta this case are therefore com- pletely irrelevant. The second case which the representative of the Kuomintang group quoted was the Greek question. This case occurred at the meeting of the Security Coun- cil on 15 September 1947. There was a United States draft resolution proposing that the General Assembly should consider the dispute in Greece. Here, again, the substance of the question was involved. The draft reso- lution, which was submitted for the Security Council's consideration. laid down in advance the lines on which The attempt to quote the case of the Czechoslovak question is also irrelevant. For what took place when the Czechoslovak question was under discussion? A group of States, hostile to the Czechoslovak people and the people's democracy which has been set up in Czecho- slovakia, decided without any justification and in vi.o- lation of Article 2, paragraph 7 of the Charter-which prohibits intervention in the domestic matters of a State-to subnùt to the Security Council a proposai for the establishment of a commission with broad powers to be sent to Czechoslovakia, that is to a sovereign State, and there to do as it wished: investigate, inspect or explore. Has anything of the kind been seen or heard before: What standards of international law or what Articles of the Charter permit the Security Couneil to adopt such decisions, namely, that the Security Council, at the wi~ of a group which commands a majority under certain conditions, may force upon the Couneil a deei- sion to send a specially selected and arbitrarily estab- lished commission to any State, granting it the broadest powers and authorizing it to examine State documents, interfere in domestic affairs, study anything it may please or, more correctly, anything which may please those who have sent it. 1 ask, since when have such questions been regardeù as procedural matters? If we were ta adopt this point of view, we might find tomorrow that a group of States, united in some political or military bloc or other in the Security Council, could adopt as a procedural matter decisions to set up commissions to be sent to any coun- try in the world with broad powers, even including interference in the constitutional affairs of the State. Since when have such questions become procedural? If we were to consider the substance of the question, we should see how unfounded is the attempt of the representative of the Kuomintang group to regard this case as a question of procedure and to quote it in order to justify his attempt to prevent the legitimate repre- sentatives of the People's Repnblic of China from at- tending here in order to state their complaint of armed aggression against China. There is absolutely no foun- dation for this. ln the light of the foregoing, the attempt of the rep- resentative of the Kuomintang group to have his vote against the resolution submitted by the Ecuadoriàn delegation aceepted as a veto, is without the least ad- missible basis. The reference to the fact that the USSR representa- tive in the Security Couneil bas used the veto fortY times is also unfounded. In ail those instances the veto was used in regard to questions of substance. It was A group of members of the Security Council, united in a military-political alliance, as 1 mentioned at t~e beginning of my statement today, has prevented t.hlS. This is a clear violation of the Charter of the Umted Nations and of the precedents and ptactice of the Se- curity Council, according to which, when the Security Council's agenda indudes international disputes or situations which might lead to friction, or give tise to a dispute likely to endanger the maintenance of inter- national peace and security, bath sides (or several sides if there are several parties to the dispute) must be heard in the Security Council. Thus, the position of the USSR Government and the USSR delegation in regard to aIl the questions to which reference has been made here has been correct, just and fully in accordance with the Charter. Those precedents therefore provide no justification for barring the legal representative of the legal Government of China from being heatd here in t.he Security Council on the question which that Government has brought before the Col1ncil: the armed invasion of Taiwan. The Security Council has taken that question under consideration, and it is the Council's dutYto cons:der it in strict conformity with the Charter, with the roles of procedure, with precedents and practice. That is, its duty is to hear bath parties. One of these parties-the United States of America, against which the complaint bas been made, is here at this table; the other p:;,ty, which lodged the complaint, the Govetrlment of the People's Republic of China, must he invited and must be given the right to he heard here, at this table, in ac- cordance with the Charter and with the accepted staud- ards of international law. This is how matters actually stand. With the support of a number of his patrons, the representative of the Kuomintang group has illegaIly usurped China's right to occupy its legitimate place at the Security Coundl table, and is continuing to occupy that place iilegaUy. While occupying that place, he is abusing it; he lS guided not by the Charter, the rules of procedure, the Security Council's normal practice and precedents, but solely by hostiiity towards the Gov- Pt~ptej:; Republic of Çhina cofttrol~ the biggest~t~te in the wOl'ldj one havmg a populatton of 475 lt1lll1on people. What l'ight has any member of th~ S~curity Coundl to debal' that Govel'nment frorh send1l1g Its legal repre- s~tative here to state its complaint befort! the Securîty Council concerning the question which has alteady beel1 included in the Council's agenda at the request of that Govel'nment, and which the Council has agreed to col1- r' 1er? In view of these considerations the USSR delegatioll is of the opinion that there a!e no grounds f';Jr the daim made by the l'cpresentatlve of the Kuommtang group that, th~oughmaking references t? the San Fran- cisco Declaration, the iegaJ representatlve of the Peo- ple's Republic of China can bedebarred from coming here to attend meetings at which that question will be discussed. The representati.e of India has explained in detail that the question of representation is not involved. but merely that of attendance at meetings at whi€h the question will be discussed. Consequently, under the present circumstances, this question is a procedural one and the decÎsion taken hy the majority of the Security Council is legal. On the hasis. of this decision a representative of the Centr.al People's Government of 'i.ile People's Republic of China must he invite.d and granted a hearing when the sub- stance of the question of armed invasion of Taiwan is heing di8Cussed. Mr. GROSS (United States of America) : In spite of the fact that my dele.gation is strongly opposed to this motion and voted against. it, 1 believe that it would he a most undesirable precedent for the Security Coundl to accept the proposition that an invitation to an out- side {larty ta attend Security Coundl meetings is a substantive matter which is subjt!ct to the great Power veto. In our opinio!", this resolution involves clearly a prooedural question. The Charter of the United Nations and the Four Powet Declaration of Sail Francisco and the prece- dents of the Securïty Coundl themselves seem ta us soHdty to support th~ cOl1cltisiotl th3t a motion of this kind is ptooedüral. 111 the fil'5t place, rule'.19 of the Security Cm!~cil's provisional tules of procedure pro- vides for .s~èh iliUnVita~ion; and this i8 by its natUre pf~UfllL Rule 3? itself Was .of èqUfse adopted ul1der Àfticlê 30 of the Chill'œf. Att~lë 30 of the Chartet is 12 In the Indonesian case, when Mr. EI-Khouri of Syria was President [181st meeting], the Council vote<!. to invite the representative of the Indonesian Republic to participate in the discussion. France and the United Kingdom voted against this resolution, and the Presi- dent of the Council stated: "1 consider this to he a procedural point and 1 therefor~ declare the proposaI adopted." There were eight votes in favour. Furthermore, the San Francisco Four-Power Decla- ration, to which referenœ has been made by my Chinese colleague, explicitly provides in part l, paragraph 2, thal decisions to adopt or alter the rules of procedure shall he procedural questions, as weil as decisions under Article 32 of the Charter, with which we are not here conœrned. The United States bas always taken the position that part II of the San Francisco Declaration cannot he taken as altering or rendering ilIusory part 1 of that statement. Decisions whieh part 1 states are procedural cannot, we think, properly he labelled substantive by action of a permanent member of the Set:urity Couneil under part Il. Any sueh resort to the San Francisco Declaration would, in the opinion of my Government, he inappropriate. Fina1ly, the General Assembly itself bas considered the question before us and bas given its opinion in reaolution 267 (III) that decisions in application of the rult"5 of procedure of the Security Couneil, and in particul..~, decisions under rule 39 of the roles of pro- cedure, are procedural in their nature. The C~neral ASflembly recommended, as the members of the Coun- eil will recall, that the members of the Security Coun- cil consider questions of this nature procedural and, quoting from the General Assembly resolution, "that the members of the Security Council conduet their busi- ness accordingly". It is in accordance with that recom- mendation oi the Couneil that my delegation is acting here toda)'. The representative of China has made reference to the string of Soviet Union vetoes which have so abused the prineiple and objective of unanimity upon which the so-called grœt Power veto is based. But we ail know that it was precisely this Soviet Union abuse of the veto in this organ, including particularly the Soviet Almost aU delegations represented here agreed to anù supported the recommendations contained in that resolution. 1 recall, with particular pride, that the Chi- nese delegation not only supported that resolution but joined with the United States in sponsormg the draft resolut:on in the General Assembly. The General As- sembly adopted the resolution bya very large majority, as we aU will recall, and my Government continues to support the position which it took in sponsoring and voLing in favour of that resolution. . My delegation - as 1 need hardly repeat - voted against the motion to which 1 am now addressing myself. We do not think, for the reasons which 1 have stated, that it is appropriate at this time to invite the Chillese communist representatives to this forum for the purpose envisaged in the resolution. But despite our feel.ng in that regard, we believe firnlly that the majority of the Couneil has the right under the Charter and the precedents to take that decision as a proceduralmatter.

It is 1 o'dock, and 1 shol1ld like to consult the Council as to what it thinks we should now do. In my opinion as President, it is really essential for us to finish today with this agenda item "Complaint of armed invasion of Taiwan (Formosa)"-in any case, with the preliminary question whether or not the Government of the People's Republic of China should be invited. If we put it off for a few more days, to next Monday or Tuesday or whenever it is, there ma)' bel do not say that there will be, but it is possibie that there may be-grave political consequences. 1 think the Council should show a proper sense of responsibility and should make every effort to deal and finish with the procedural difficulties which up to now have prevented us from arriving at a propel' decision in the matter. It so happens, 1 am informed, that t.here will be another plenary meeting of the Generaî Assembly this afternoon. That means that the scheduled meeting of the First Committee has been cancelled and that therefore, if we sa desire, we can go on with this discussion this afternoon. 1 would therefore suggest to my coUeagues that we now have an interval for lunch and that we meet again th's afternoon whenever it is thought proper-I should hope by 2.30. 1 should think that within an hour we cLuld deal with the question of whether this proposaI is substantive or procedural. After that, there are a few statements to be made explaining the votes that have been cast. That might take another quarter of an hour or hali-hour. 1 should think that by 4 o'dock, if that procedure is adopted, we could really reach a final decision on this pretiminary matter. • There is, of course. anoth\~r question on our agenda which we could thttà take up and which we shall take Mahmoud FAWZI Bey (Eg-ypt): 1 am equally in agreement with the procedure the President has just proposed, but 1 would request that we meet either earlier than 2.30 or, if that ie; not possible, at 2.30 precisely, and actually begin our work at that hour.

It would suit me even better to meet at 2.15 p.m. However, 1 hear an objection, and accordingly the Couneil will meet again punctually at 2.30. Prlnt~d in U.S.A. Priee in the United