S/PV.507 Security Council

1 do not wish to say very much on behalf of my delegation, as representative of the UNITED KINGDOM. In fact, 1 do not think 1 could Having said that, it would be my intention ta put to the Council the qaestion whether this is a proce- .. dur~J matter or not, whether in its view it believes that it ÎJ a pî'ocedural matter. However, 1 believe that before 1 put that particular point to the vote, the representative of China wishes to say a few words. Mr. TSTANG (China): 1 should like to reply ta certak points that were made by sorne of the represeJ''.:d.tiyeso The representative of France thought, if 1 understood him correctly, that the question would be substantive if taken from the angle of the receivability of this complaint. If 1 were to put it on that ground, namely, that the complainant does not have the qualities ta complain, that would indeed be substance. Howevel', the representative of France went on to say that such a question should have been raised at the time the question was placed on the Security Council's agenda and that it is now too late ta raise it. On 29 and 31 August 1950 [4921Jd and 493rd meetings] when this question was about ta be placed on the agenda, 1 made the very point that the French representative thought that 1 should have made. The statements 1 made on those occasions were mainly based on the fact that the party making the complaint had neither the juridical nor the factual right ta make that complaint. 1 went on ta say that the origin and character of the puppet régime was such that it could not possibly represent China in any way. On that occasion 1 did not even attempt to use my right of veto, because it is my understanding that the placing of an item on the agenda is not subject ta veto. The statement made by the representative of the Soviet Union [S06th meeting] touched upon many matters which are not under debate here at aIl. He purposely dragged in certain matters ta confuse the issue. For example, in regard ta Spain he described the serious political consequences of that question. Well, that is not the point under discussion. 1 already made the point that Mr. Gromyko's veto was exereised [49th meeting] on thë question of 1J\Thether that question should remain on the agenda of the Security Cauneil. That was the point on which the veto was exercised. Then, in regard to the Czechoslovak situation, he again brought in many other issues. But the question at stake, the question on which the veto was cast [303rd meeting] was a simple one, namely, whether the Security Couneil should or should not create a committee to gather evidence. The proposaI was not that a commission should be sent ta Czechoslovakia but that a committee should be created to gather such evidence from such persons as were available ta the committee. In regard to Korea, the representative of the Soviet Unbn talked about the great Asian's war and peace. Yes, the Korean question is undoubtedly of extreme importance. But the statement made in the Security Council by the representative of the Soviet Union on 4 August 1950 [483rd meeting] was to the effect that the invitation to be extended to the representatives of North and South Korea was a question of substance and not of procedure. That is the point under discussion. In regard to the statement made by the representative of the United States [S06th meeting] 1 sha11 only make a brief reference to one point. He brought up the recommendations of the General Assemblyl in regard to the restraint which one was to exercise in the use of the veto. 1 acknowledge that· that has great importance in our discussion. However, 1 sbould like to kIlOW whether the recommendations of the General Assembly have been accepted by a11 of the five permanent members of the Security Councit and whether the Couneil can count upon those recommendations being acted upon henceforth by a11 the five permanent members of the Security Council? In the General Assembly and in the Interim Committee my delegation undoubtedly did try to promote a restraint in the use of the veto. However, a deeision of that kind, if applied at a11, should be applied to a11 five permanent members. If it is not applied by a11, then it cannot be applied by any particular party. 1 would not arbitrarily say that the opinions of a11 my colleagues are ipso facto wrong, just because they differ from mine. After listening to this debate, however, 1 am convinced that 1 am entitled to veto section (b) of the operative part of this resolution, and 1 insist that a preliminary vote on that question should be taken now.

1 think we have now heard the arguments on both sides and that they have been fully expounded. In my view, the next thing for me to do is ta put to the Council the question whether, in its opinion, the vote which we took this morning on the Ecuadorean resolution is procedural or substantive. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (:rn.nslated trom Russian) : Before we proceed to the vote, in reply to the last remark of the representative of the Kuomintang group, 1 should like to point out that the Charter does not provide for a case in which the representative of a political group overthrown by aState Member of the United Nations c1aims to reFesent that people and country, usurping the place of the lawful representative of that people and country and preventing the represen+ative of that country Irom being heard düring the discussion of a question which it has submitted to the Security Council. The actions of the representative of the Kuomintang group are therefore arbitrary and contrary to the Charter. Furthermore, there is no provision in the Charter for the situation ta which he tried to refer. His actions therefore are contrary to ~nd a gross violation of the Charter. The Security Council must take this into consideration in deciding this question. A party to a dispute which is under consideration by the Council, and which is bound up with the question of peace and security, cannot be deprived of an opportunity of being heard by the Council. In view of the circumstances which have been stated here, the situation to which the representative of the KUûlilintang group is attempting ta refet' i5 particularly inapplicable in the present instance.

1 should like to say, with respect, that l do not believe the question of China's representation in the Couneil is in any way relevant to the question on which we are about to take a vote. The question of China's representation is for the Couneil to settle. 1 earnestly hope that we shall not have any further speeches on that particular subject. The Cauncil will now vote on whether it regards the vote taken this morning on fIe Ecuadorean resolution as procedural. A vote was taken by show of hands. a.ç follows: In javour: Ecuador, Egypt, France, India, Norway, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom

The proposaI is therefore adopted; there were 9 votes in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention. Mr. TSIANG (China): The San Francisco Declaration regulates a vote of this kind. The relevant statement reads as follows: "... the deeision regarding 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 concurring votes of the permanenl: members". The vote just taken did not have the concurring vote of my delegation, and therefore the proposaI that the matter is proceduraI was not adopted.

The position is that a vote which is regarded as procedural by no less than nine members of the Security Couneil, for what seems to me, and, 1 suggest, to all reasonable people, to be patently valid reasons, !s pronounced as substantive by one of our permanent members. 1 think that if ~uch a situation as this is allowed ta stand, a very grave precedent will have been created which may well impede the whole functioning of the .United Nations in the future. 1 do not believe, therefore. that in the general interests of all of us it should be allowed to stand, and 1 consequently rule as President that, notwithstanding the objection ofour Chinese c-olleague, the vote which the Canneil took this morning on the Ecuadorean resolution is procedural. Mr. TSIANG (China): 1 have a point of order. 1 think the ruling of the President i5 ultra vires. In the history of the Council, votes of this kind have taken place several times. On the Spanish question, in spite of the fact that eight members thought it was procedural and two members, the representatives of the Soviet Union and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, thought it was substantive, the President had to declare that it was a question of substance. 1 do not wish to argue this business any further; but in the first place, 1 want to protest against the arbitrary ruling of the President. In the second place, 1 offer to the Security Couneil a proper and legal way of settling the question by sending it to the International Court of Justice and asking that body for an advisory opinion. 1 would put this question to the International Court of Justice: in view of the statement of 7 June 1945 by delegations of four sponsoring governments on vot- 1 promise this Conndl in advance that my ~overn­ ment anr! my r1cle~ation will accept the aclvisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, In making titis offer, 1 hope tl-,~.t the memhers of the Council will notice ~he great concession on the part of my g'overnment. Accordingto the a~reement, the veto is not subject to any jtl(licial review. 1 offer this Council the possihility of a juclicial review, and 1 cio not insist that the precerlent set by me torlay should be follower! by the other permanent membcrs of the Council; 1 propose that the Council shoulr! solve this question itself. In the interests of the proper institutional clevelopment of this hody, 1 should think that this ma~nanimous offer on my part would he acccpted by the Sccurity Coundl. 1 shoulcl like to point out that my offer is nnt a manœuvre or a matter of tactics hecause, since this resolution does r:ot come into operation until 15 November 1950, there remains timc to ohtain an aclvisory opinion from the International Court of Justice hefore that date. There L; no intention on our part to perpetrate a manœuvre or tactic on a matter of this kind. In the participation of my de1egation in the work of aIl of the or~ans of the Uniterl Nations, it has never once tried to win a substantiaI advantage hy any tactical manœuvre. Therefore. 1 hope that the members of the Council will appredate hoth the real import and the value of this offer that 1 am making.

As 1 understanrl it, the Presiclent's ruling has not heen challenger!. though it has hecn qualified as arhitrary. We may therefore take it that the ruling stands. The question of the reference to the International Court of Justice b, 1 think, a separatc matter on which no doubt the Council woulcl wish to have a short time for reflertion. T suggcst. t.hat wc postpone consideration of that matter, unless it is ~he desire of the Council to consider it now. Mr. TSTANG (China): There is an element of misunderstanding which 1 shoulrl Iike to clear up first of ail. When I offcrerl to suhmit this question to the International Court of Justice, it was ohvious that 1 could not agree that the present ruling shoulrl stand. The lluestion to be suhmitted to the International Court of Justice is precisely that ruling. The Council therefore l'an rcject or aceept my offer; that is up te it. However, if the Council deems it worth while to accept my offer, it must be accepter! on the condition that the question remains in suspense until the Court has rendered its advisory opinion. 1 am surprisecl that the President of the Security Council could tell us that an offer to submit a question For an organ of the lTnited Nations ta refuse ta t"('~sort to the Court and to insist on abiding by a decision which Olle of its members considers arbitraI\" and in vie\\' of the fact that snch sl:bmission ta the Court does not in the meantimc hamper the due process of work -- sneh an attitude is unworthy of this great institution of ours.

In that case 1 am afraid 1 can only intc'rpret the Chinese representative's rel11arks as a chal1cn~e to m)' ruling. As the representatives know. ru1c 30 of the provisional rules of procedure reads as follo\\'s: "1f a reprcsentative l'aises a point of order, the Presidcnt shall il11mediately state his ruting. If it is challenged. the President shaH snbmit his ruling to the Securitv Couneil for il11mediate deeision and it shaH stand llnless overruled." The President's ruling has been challenged and must stand unless it is overrllled. Therefore, subjeet ta whatever the Chinese representative or any other representativc wishes to state, 1 shall put that challenge ta the vote. The representative of China wishes to speak on a poÎl~t of order. Mr. TSIANG (China): The President and the other representa~ives in the Coundl Imow very weU that a matter of this kind is not subieet to a Presidential ruling. The President and the' other representatives klloW full well that the devIce of a President.ial ruling is a c1ever but unsound manœuvre, because the President knows be has seven votes to upbold his ruling. l think such tactics are unworthy of the great responsibility which rests on this body. The PRESIDEKT: -y,re ma)" aIl have our own views as to what eonstitutes a manœuvre, and likewise we may all have our own views as to what constitutes actIon which is in the best interest of the United Nations. 1 shall therefore put ta the vote the challenge ta my ruling and ask those members who are in favour of overruling m}' deeision ta please mise their hands. A t '<'ote b'Jl sho~c' of hands was taken as follows: hl favour: None. Against: None. Abstainitlg: None.

All 1 can say is that the views of the representative of China in regard to the arbitrariness and illegality of my action are well known; but they do not seem to th: iihared by anybody else. Mr. GROSS (United Shi.tes of America): 1 think it may be appropriate that l should explain the position of my delegation on this matter. It falls to our lot to discuss this question involving, as the President very correctly pointed out, a matter of great importance to the future orderly processes of the United Nations, with regard to a case wherein, on the merits, the United States delegation feels very strongly that the action which has been taken by the Council at this time in inviting the Chinese Communists to take seats at the Couneil table during the consideration of the Formosa complaint is neither an appropriate nor a desirable action. It would have been a happier process to have discussed the policy questions involved in the problem now before the Council-that is, the double veto-in a different context. 1 think 1 may he forgiven fcr saying that, precisely because the attitude of my delegation toward the veto in connexion with the question with wmch the Couneil has dealt earlier today, with regard to the invitation to the Chinese Communists to attend the meetings of the Council, is well known, the 'Views of any delegation with regard to the matter of the double veto we are dealing with at this time are entitled to whatever weight the other representatives may wish to give to them as objective and disinterested. Without further preface, 1 should like to explain my own participation in the vote just taken which upheld the mling of the President that the motion on which the Council had voted was procedural. In taking that position, as 1 remarked earlier today, my delegation is acting in accordance with the recommendation of the General Assembly made a year ago. A year ago, following careful study by the Interim Committee, the General Assembly adopted a resolution, to which 1 have referred earlier, and which dealt with this matter. As the representative of China said a little while ago, it is quite obvious that it is assumed that the recommendation of the General Assembly wilî be complied with by aIl the members of the Council. That being so, and precisely for that reason, my delegàtion is anxious to comply with that recommendation and give it the weight to which we think it is entitled. The recommendation, we submit, must be taken in connexion with the San Francisco Declaration and with rule 39 ,of our own rules of procedure. As 1 remarked earlier on, the resolution of the General Assembly deals 8 Reference to the report of the Interim Committee will indicate that the words 1 have just quoted-that the members of the Security Couneil should conduct their business accordingly, that is, in accordance with the recommendations of the resolution-were intended to apply to the positions taken by membets of the Security Council on the questiol'J. whether or not any 'Of these items i~ procedural, in case this question is raised; to the manner in which any member of the Security Council, when acting as President, interprets the result of a vote on such a qu~stion; and, final1y, to the manner in which the memher~ of the Couneil vote if the ruling made by the President is chaUenged. 1 think that each of these three e1ements is present here, and 1 think that each has found compliance on the part of my delegation this afternoon. The United States believes that the words contained in the General Assembly resolution "that the members of the Security Couneil conduct their business accordingly" were intended as a recommendation to individual members of the Couneil to prevent any effort of a permanent member by use of the double veto to exercise a veto on a matter about which there is no reasonable doubt th:i.t it falls within one of the thirty-five categories of deeisions which are listed in the General Assemhly resolution. Since in our opinion there is no room for any reasonable doubt, my delegation has conducted itse1f in accordance with the General Assembly resolution. The United States Government helieves that paragraph 1 of General Assembly resolution 267 (III) properly recommends a procedure whereby seven members of the Security Council can exereise the power to take a decision on matters falling within these thirtyfive procedural categories, as the Charter intended that they should he able to do, and that ït"'prevents the attempted use of the double veto with respect to these items. My government helieves that the General Assembly resolution, in recommending this use of the power of the majodty, should he interpreted as implying that it should be used with discretion and should not itselfhe abused; the United States is prepared to conduct itself in a way likely to accomplish that objective. As the United States delegation has previously indicated in this Cauneil, we feel that the course of action which the General Assembly has recommended to the members of the Council is consistent with the Charter and with the Four Power Declaration of San Francisco. Section II, paragraph 2 of the San Francisco Declaration was never intended, and cannot properly be construed, as giving the five permanent memhers of the Security Council the right to use the device of the double veto to determine unilaterally as non-procedural, h(~cn our vicw that in the long run the proper functinning of the t'nitrd Nations is much more important to any of the permanent members than the pnwer ta ohstruct the proper ftlnctioning of the Sectlrity CDundl. The results of applying the law of the Charter, as 1 sairl at the outset of my remarks, in the pn:sent instance, where it is ag-ainst (lllr own intf'rests, is not plcasant, Imt if wc rio not applv that law now in the!le drcum:-.tances, we cannot expert others to apply it when it is nnt in thdr interf'st.'l to rIo 50. In the present state 0 f the worlrl. it is not rlifficult to sec that the tlnlimited power of the veto and the rlouble veto in the Security Coundl woulrl he r1angerotls to security. My ddegation has thcrdore r1ecmed it appropriate to state its position with regarcl to the ruling and the rc;\sons for whirh we helieve the President's rlllingwas prnpcrly uphehl by the Council.

As representative of the l.!NITF.O KINGDOM 1 shoulel Iike to associate myself fully and immediate1y with what the representative of the United States has sa admirahly said. The spectacle of a great Power willingly suhscrihing ta a ruling of the President in a matter concerninghe veto, even thou~h hy sa doing it is in its own helief J{oing against its own immediate interest.!l, is at once heartening' and inspiring. Pt'!rhaps, it may even prove to he what in Latin is called auspicium me/ioris aevi. Mahmoud FAW7.I Bey (Egypt): Althouf~h 1 entertain sorne douhts that the matter IIpon whirh the PresirIent has g-iven a rl1ling' was of a nature to makc it suhject to a rlecision throllg'h a mere rllling h)' him, [ dirl not want and [ thoug'ht it proper Ilot to challenge his ruling-. This is in linc with the position of my delegation taken today in favour of considering the matter as procdural. ft is also in line with the position taken hy my rlelcg'ation in connexion with the greatest pO!lsible restriction of the exercise of the so-callerl rig'ht of veto, aceording ta Article 27, paragraph 3 of the Charter. This has heen and still is the position of my delegation and my government. Having said that, I leave it tn the President either ta let me continue to explain my other vote in connexion with the Ecuarlorcan rcsolution, or ta let me makc my statcmcnt later when the President sees fit. ])oes any representative wish ta comment on my ruling-? 1f not, the representative of Egypt will give an explanation of his vote on the Ecuadorean draft resolution. Mahnwl1d FA\\·?] Hry (Egypt): \\ïth regard ta the resolution whkh the Council adopted today upon the proposaI of the reprcsentative of Ecuador. 1 voted against Ihe oper:ltive part. which is composed of sections ta) and (b). 1 pleaded several times with the rcpresentative of Ecuador ta agree to have separate votes taken on the two parts of the operative portion of the resolution. Had he heeded my request, 1 would still h:wC:' voted agctÏnst section (a) of the operative part, and 1 shou1d have abstained on section (b). l ahst<lined on the resolution as a ",hale in view of conflictin~' consiclerations and in deferenee ta what appearrd'later to he the preponderant opinion in the COlmeil and. lasth'. in view of the consideration that in the opinion oi my delegation. and spealdng in tenns Qf the Charter. the Council cannot. even if it sa desires. rclinquish ior· even one day-even for one hour-itS responsibilitics undcr the Charter of t'he rnited Nations. 1 am sure we alI ~<TTee that the Council can take up ane\\' th(' matter to which section (a) of the operative part of the E,uadorean resolution refers, even if it does so hefore the date specified. name1y, 15 November 1950. T repeat that in my understanding, and also in the light of sorne oi the explanations given yesterday, the Council ,.an at auy moment, ar,d in spite of the rcsolution adopted today. take up the matter referred to in section (a) of the operative part of the resolution. The CounciI. of course, can even reverse this Tesolution or can modif}' it. 1 think that this explains my vote adequately. 1 maintain that it is always open to the Council to take up the matter. even hefore 15 Kovember, if it considers that ta he necessary and proper, MI'. CHAF\'EL (France) (translatcd tram French) : At the close of this discussion my delegation thinks fit to indicate that it bas fOl:9wed it quite objectively. The French Government did not take part in drafting the Cairo Declaration of 26 Kovember ]943 nor was it representeà at Potsdam on 26 June 1945. 50 far as it is concerned. the problem of the disposaI of Formosa is thererore open and remains to be decided solely by the future peace treaty. "VVith regard to the title of the item on our agenda. l must add that my government i" in no wav convinced that there has been an invasion of Taiwân (Fonnosa). The information at its disposa] leads it ta believe that there has not been any. Finally, m)' government has not recognized the Govemment of the People's Republic of China. More recently, the Council has heen seized of several drafts. Two questions arose in that connexion. The first was whether the question of Formosa would be considered by the Council now or later. The reason we were given for delaying its consideration was that the Assembly was seized of the same question. The fact that the Assembly is seized of a question does not appear to he sufficient reason for the Council not to he seized of it. Moreover, if the matter is considered urgent, there is certainly no reason for the Council not to he seized of it. However, there was no reason for the French delegation to consider that the matter was urgent. Up to now there was in fact, 1 repeat, no reason to declare that there had been an "armed invasion" of the Island of Taiwan (Formosa). 1t still remains to he proved there there has been such an invasion. The French delegation therefore had no views as to the desirability of considering the complaint of armed invasion of the Island of Taiwan (Formosa), either now or later. The second question concerned the invitation to be extended to a representative of the Peiping Authorities. The French delegation is in favour of sending an invitation to the Government of the People's Republic of China to send a representative to the Security Cou!1cil's discussions on the complaint of armed invasion of Formosa by the United States forces, brought by that government. The French delegation considers that no doubt existed regarding the admissibility of that complaint. From the moment, however, that the Council decided to consider, not a matter concerning Formosa and China, but a complaint regarding Formosa submitted by the Peiping Authorities, it is natural that a representative of those authorities should be permitted to expound that complaint to the Council. It is also natural that he should be given the opportunity to reply to the questions which the Council may deem it appropriate to put to him on the subject introduced by the authorities he represents. Finally, if it is agreed that anyone, including the complainant, may raise objections to the results of the inquiry, it is natural that the complainant should be granted a hearing, not only in connexion with the results of the inquiry, but also regarding the conditions in which the inquiry should he undertaken and carried out. In view of the fact that no provision of the Charter or of the Council's rules of procedure applies speci- Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated tram Russian): The USSR delegation is not entirely satisfied with the decision taken on the Ecuadorean delegation's proposaI, having regard to the fact that consideration of the question of armed invasion of Taiwan is thereby delayed for a considerable period. As the Security Council is aware, the USSR delegation made every effort to ensure a satisfactory solution of the question of inviting a representative of the People's Republic of China and to ensure that the Council took the just decision in issuing an immediate invitation to a representative of the People's Republic of China so that the latter might be given a hearing at the meetings of the Security Couneil when the question of armed invasion of Taiwan was considered. When, however, the resolution introduced by the USSR delegation [Sj1732] proposing the immediate invitation of a representative of the People's Republic of China was twice rejected [SOSth meeting], the USSR delegation thought it desirable to vote in favour of the Ecuadorean draft resolution, which provides for the invitation of a representative of the People's Republic of China to the meeting of 15 November 1950 and to meetings held after that date when the question of armed invasion of Taiwan is discussed. It did so with particular regard to the fact that that decision was adopted by seven votes, and that its adoption thus to a large extent depended upon the vote of the USSR delegation, which felt it necessary under the circumstances, to support and vote for this proposaI, in order to ensure that the representative of the legal Government of the People's Republic of China should have an opportunity of attending meetings of the S~curity Council at which the question of armed invasion of Taiwan is discussed; that question, as you know, was referred to the Security Couneil by the Central Government of the People's Republic of China. As regard the very lengthy statement made here by the United States representative today, the USSR delegation is of the view that the United States representative's statement went far beyond the question under discussion here today. ln view of this, the delegation of the Soviet Union reserves the right to express its views on the United States representative's statement after it has had an opportunity of studying it more thoroughly in the verbatim record of the Security Council. Of course we consider that any interpretation regarding the power or responsibility in respect of voting in the Security Council applies equally to aIl permanent members of the Council or it applies to none. 1 wanted to make that statement so as to leave no doubt in anyone's mind regarding the significance of the statement which 1 made earlier.

If there are no other speakers, 1 shaH attempt to explain the vote of the United Kingdom delegation. As the Council knows, the delegation of the UNITED KINGDOM, for its part, would have greatly preferred the acceptance by the Council of the Soviet Union draft resolution, which simply invited the representatives of the Chinese People's Republic to attend the debates of the Council on this question. However, that draft resolution was not accepted. It was only when it was defe<:.ted that my delegation decided to vote for the Ecuadorean resolution, which, admirable though it is in many ways, was from our point of view certainly second best. We also voted for it chiefly because it does contain a definite invitation to the Central People's Government to send a representative at a certain time. 1 might say that in the view of my delegation we interpret the Security Council resolution as meaning that the Security Council is bound to invite the representative of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China to comL to New York and take part in the debates of the Security Council at any time after 15 November 1950; Wc also believe that the President of the Security Council is morally bound to summon a meeting very soon after that date in order to consider this matter. On the other hand, we do not fully share what we understood to be the view of the Egyptian delegation: that the Council can now and at any time before 15 November 1950 reconsider this matter. We believe that, since the Security Council has adopted the Ectladorean resolution, it could only reconsider the matter had it decided' to reject that resolution, and 1 think that in the circumstances this is highly unlike1y in view of the fact that the necessary seven votes would not be forthcoming. That is all 1 wish to state in connexion with the United Kingdom delegation's attitude. Mahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt) : 1 do not think there is any difference at all between the view of the President and my own in connexion with the right of the Council to take this matter up before 15 November 1950. The President expressed it in one way, and 1 expressed it in another way; but 1 am sure we are in agreement on the acceptable meaning. Ml'. MALIK (Union of Soviet SoeiaIist Republics) (translated from Russian) : If l have understood you correctly in translation, Ml'. President, you began by saying that we can obviously not take up the discussion of item 3 of our agenda at this time. This statement is somewhat strange and l can see no grounds for it. Why can we not? It is now 4.25 p.m. We can go on working till at least 5.30 p.m. as we started our meeting half an hour earlier. l consider that we can and must take up the consideration of the next question. As l pointed out, at our last meeting, new facts regarding this question and fresh information on the continued barbarous bombings of the peaceful population and populated areas in Korea by the United States Air Force have come to light. This is an urgent question. It is a matter of the life or death of hundreds of thousands of people. There is therefore no justification for again postponing and prolonging its consideration, as was done at one of our former meetings. In view of this, and as we still have time, the USSR delegation urges the Security Council to continue its work and to proceed to the consideration of item 3 of the agenda. Mahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt) : 1 have no contempt whatsoever for the sIightest suffering of the smallest human being on earth. But ii; is abundantly clear that, if the Couneil proceeds to ta:œ up item 3 on its agenda now, it could never reach the end of its consideration of this matter or take a decision on it today. In addition, l should Iike to point out that we have been working here since this morning, and l venture to say that we worked long before coming here. We worked in between the two meetings. May l add that a plenary meeting of the General Assembly is now taking place which most OF us, if not aIl, are very anxious to attend. With aIl due respect to the argument advanced by the representative of the Soviet Union, l venture to submit that the Couneil should adjourn this meeting and meet again at the earliest possible date. l shall certainly agree to that procedure.

A motion of adjournment has been made and must be decided without a debate. We shall now vote on the motion to adjourn. A vote was taken by show of hands, as follows: In favour: China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, France, India, Norway, United Kingdom of Grer:t Britain and Northern Ireland. Against: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Abstaining: United States of America, Yugoslavia. 15 As you know, there will be a new President of the Security Council on Monday. If it is the desire of the Council to meet tomorrow and if the Secretariat can arrange it, we could meet tomorrow. The Secretariat informs me that there are two meetings of the First Committee tomorrow and that we could not meet. 1 suppose that we will not meet on Sunday. 1 should like to rectify my previous statement. The Secretariat did not say of course that we could not meet; everything is possible. If we are going to meet tomorrow, it would have to be after some discussion with the Chairman of the First Committee. Mr. MALiK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated trom Russian) : ln view of the importance and urgency of this question and of its very great human significance, the USSR delegation is of the opinion that the Security Council should consider it at the earliest possible moment. The USSR delegation regards the Security Council's decision to adjourn today as unjust and illegal. ln the interests of so vital and human a cause it would have been possible to work for another hour or perhaps another two hours, and 1 feel sure that an extra hour's work today wouId have had no effects on the precious health of members of the Security Coundl, inc1uding the representative of Egypt. ln view of this, the USSR delegation urges that a meeting of the Security Council should be held tomorrow morning or, at the latest, tomorrow afternoon.

Although it is technically difficult, it may be possible ta meet tomorrow. The Secretariat would have considerable difficulty in organizing the meeting. If the meeting is to take place, it would, of course, have to take place at Lake Success. In those circumstances and with knowledge of the difriculties, 1 must put ta the Council now the following question: Does it decide to meet tomorrow morning? The Secretariat now points out that not only the First Committee but the A.d Hoc Political Committee is going ta meet tomorrow morning. However, if in the face of aIl these difficulties the Council definitely decides to meet tomorrow morning, we would have to do our best. The question is: Do they wish to meet tomorrow morning? Mahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt): ln order to know how to cast my vote on this matter of meeting tomorrow or ta express my opinion, 1 must be sure that we would not meet concurrently with any of the two political Committees, the First Committee and the 1 am willing to meet in order to satisfy not only the representative of the Soviet Union but myself, and 1 believe everyone here takes his work seriously. We all do take it, 1 am sure, very seriously indeed. 1 am willing to meet even in the evening at late hours, so long as this is humanly possible.

The position is that the First Committee is meeting tomorrow moming, and 1 very much doubt whether at this late hour we could persuade the Chairman of the First Committee to cancel his meeting, more especialll since he is about to attack the problem of Korea, WhlCh is a matter which it is suggested we attaclc here. 1 think myself it is very doubtful whether we could meet tomorrow morning in the circumstances, but it is for the Council to decide. We shaU now vote on whether to meet tomorrow morning. A vote m'JJ' taken by show of 1umds, as foUO'Ws: ln favou,.: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Against: China, Ecoador, Egypt, India, United States of America. Abstaining: Cuba, France, Norway, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia. The P,.oposal was rejected by 5 votes to 1, witn 5 abstentions.

The proposai is lost. There was one vote in favour, five against and five abstentions. 1 think, perhaps having decided that, we ought to put the further question to the vote, since the representative of the Soviet Union is very keen on having a meeting tomorrow, namely, would the Council wish to meet tomorrow afternoon? 1 understand it is not quite clear as yet whether the First Committee is meeting tomorrow afternoon or not. However, if they are not meeting, 1 suppose it would he possible for us to have a meeting then at Lake Success. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (traftSlated from Russian): If there is no objection, we could decide this without taking a vote.

Does any member of the Council have any objection? As there appears to he no objection, we shall meet tomorrow afternoon at Lake Success at 3 p.m. The meeting rose at 4.45 p.m.