S/PV.580 Security Council

As the Council is aware, during the discussion at our last meeting of the item previously included in the Couricil's agenda on the proposaI of the USSR delegation, the United States representative formally proposed that the Security Council should consider the question of including in tae agenda the item proposed by the United States delegation. 2. In view of the fad that the Council'~ previous meeting lasted so long that even the French consecutive interpretation of the Chilean representative's statement was not given, and taking into account the United States representative's urgent request that we should consider the question of inc1uding his proposaI in the agenda, the Security Council has beenconvened today todiscuss the question of including the United States proposaI in the Council's agenda. a. Ras anyone any cqmments ta make? 4. Mr. GROSS (United States of America) : l move the adoption of the agenda as set' forth in document S/Agenda 580. ' . ~. Thë PRESIDENT (translared from Russian): The delegation of the UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALISTREPUBLICS agrees ta the inclusion in the Council's agenda of the item proposed by the U,nited Stàres delegatioll. The USSR delegation considers, however, that this item cannot be discussed without the participation of representatives of the People'sRepublic {lf China and the People's Democratie Republic of Korea. 6. .The' USSR delegation accordingly urgesthat an invitation be issued to representatives of the PeOple's Republic of China and the People's Democr~ticRepub- 7. The importance of participation by representatives of China al1d Korea in the discussion of this item is quite obviotts. There is no need to dwell on this in detail while we are discussing the procedural aspects of this procedural question - while we are considering whether to include the United States proposal in the agenda. The question of issuing an invitation must be decided simultaneously with that of inc1uding the United States proposaI in the agenda. It would, from every point of view, he absurd and unjust to discuss such a question without the participation of official representat~ves of the States in whose territory the events referred to in the United States proposaI and draft resolution [S/2671] occurred. There are two parties to every disputed question included in the agenda of, and considered by, the Security Council. The views of bath parties must beheard if we are to be able to discuss the matter objectively and adopt a decision onit. 8. l do not intend ta dwell in detail at this rime 01. a practice which has latterly been employed by thE' United States and the group of States which are, in varying degree, politically, militarily or economieally dependent upon the United States. This is by no means a new practice. It was introduced by the United States and the Anglo-American bloc in the Security Council as early as the outset of events in Korea, soon after the launching of United States aggression against the Korean people. As members of the Council must recal!, even ,at that early date the United States delegation and its supporting delegations began the practi\~e of considering questions in the Security Council on the basis of a one-sided United States version. The members of theCouncil will reca1l that at that time the USSR delegation proposed that bath parties, a representative of the PeOple's Democratie Republic of Korcà and a representative of South Korea, .should be inVited to take part in the discussion of the question. 9. The ,United States delegation' and its 'sùpporting del~?ons,prindpally the niembers.of the aggressive Atlanti,: .bloc, .r~jected th~ USSR delegation's just and.legttimate proposaI which was basedentirely upon !he.provisions o~ the Unite? Nations Charter. They mmted merely a rep,..esentative of South Korea, heard the .faIse South Korean'version of' events in Korea mixed if with United 'Statés slander, and let it 9'0 at that . '" 11. The whole world is witness to the injustice and illegality of such an approach to the discuasion of questions by the Security CounciI. The USSR delegation drew attention to this a long time ago. Now the inadmissibility and illegality of such a position have become obvious to the whole world. 12. The discussion of the proposaI submitted by thirteen Asian and Arab States for the inclusion of the Tunisian question in the agenda of the Securlty Cauncil [S/2574-S/2584] also demonstrated that this practice of listening only to a one-sided version is still being fol1owed in the Security CounciI. As a resnlt one party in the Security Council had an opportunity t,") state its views and position on the questiotF,while the other party has not been given such an opportunity. 13. Of course, the question of the use of bacterial weapons by United States forces in Korea and China is an important international problem, and in examining the question the Conncil should hear the representatives of the Korean and Chinese peoples. It would be illegal'and unfairto base consideration of this question in the Security Council on the version and findings of one side only, that is, of the United States side. If the Council is to have a comprebensive and objective idea of what has really happened and is still taking place in Korea and China, it is essential that it should also hear the other side, the representative of the People's Democratie Republic of Korea and the representative of the People's Republic of China. Only then will the Security Council have before it the full information submitted by bath sides, and on that information it can base its conclusions or take specific decisions. 14. For the above reasons, and because we believe that itwould be impossible to discuss the United States de1egation's proposaI in.the absence of the representatives of the People's Republic of China and the People's Democratic Repubiîc of Korea, ·the Soviet Union. delegation has submitted itsproposal to the effect that, in deciding to include the United States proposaI in its agenda, theCouncil should also decide to invite the representatives of the Pecple's Republic.of China antl. the, People's Democratic Republic of Korea to attend. Only thus would the Security Councilbe able tçapproach this matter objectively. Otherwise it. 'W0u1d be considering the United States side ofthe question alone. Such a procedure would be one-sided, unfair and contraryto the United Nations Charter. ,--,"--~~~~~.!l!PilJ;~~~,:,~· rf!•••••••••••••••••••••• 17. One reason for the President's statement and reasoning is his misunderstanding of what happel1ed in the very case ta which he referred, the TUIlisian case. There, no request was made to sit with the Couneil prior ta the adoption of the agenda. It was not thought by any member of t..'Je Council that it would be appropriate for non-members to sit with it to observe, ta cOtIlment on or in any way ta take part in its deliberations regarding the adoption of an agenda item. The same'thing has been true in every case which has come before the Council in which the question of whether non-members of the Council, persons, authorities or others might be invited ta sit with the Couneil after the adoption of the agenda. 18. This very same problem which the President raises toqay was raised in 1950 in connexion with the complaint which was made at that time by the Soviet Union representative concerning the alleged bombin~s by United Nations forces beyond the Yalu River. The President may well recaII that it was suggested at that timehe, himself, was the one who was guilty of making .this suggestion - that the Chinese communists and the North Korean authorities shoulcf be invited 'ta the ,Couneil in connexion with the proposaI my delegation made.to inyestigate the charges and ta determine tlleir falsity, if false they were, as we knew they were. 19.. We are now faced today with preeisely the same situation. The problem, as we see it, is first ta adopt 'our agenda, then to discover what sort of matter we f1j.ce and" then to consider any proposaIs which any member may make regarding the desirability of inviting others .ta join.with the Couneil. The clearest proof of the c0tnmon sense of my statement is found in the very .practice and actions taken by the So .~t Union representativè in the Disarmament Commission. There, the Soviet Union representative will recaU, he made charges not once but. repeatedly of germ warfare in Korea. He did not suggest at that time that North l,{orean or Chinese communist authorities should be ,present. He spake for them.. It was undoubtedly his rightto do so. Butta say that because they were not present in the Disarmament Commission made it a one- .sided 'argument is'only haH the truth. 1 think that·the very practice"which was. followed in the Disarmament .Commission. br the Soviet Union representative shows 20. My delegation has made a motion to adopt the provisional agenda befQre the Couneil. I think that motion should be voted upon. It is entitled ta be voted upon now. If the Council adopts the agenda, my delegation should be enabled ta state the reasons why it has proposed this item, why it fee1s that this investigation should be conducted and, if the Soviet Union representative persists at that time in raising the question of inviting others to the Council table, why such action is improper and unnecessary. 21. One of the things that we are proposing, and which is the essence of our proposaI, is that we conduct an investigation. We do not think that false charges can be disposed of by debates here, in the Disarmament Commission or elsewhere. We wish ta have the Council initiate an investigation through the International Committee of the Red Cross. We do not think that debates here will establish either the truth or the falsity of the Soviet Union charges. As a part of suçh an on-the-spot investigation, full opportunity can he given to this impartial agency ta discuss its problems and its mission with any authorities or individuals concerned, including those mentioned by the Soviet Union representative. 22. These are matters which 1 am sur~ the Council will take into account when 1 have had an opportunity to explain the nature of the case which my de1egation 1 has placed before the Council. I think that the only orderly procedure at this time is to put ta a vote the motion for the adoption of the agenda and then ta enable the Cauncil to find out exactly whaf this case 1s aIl about.

If there are no other speakers, the de1egation of the UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS considers it necessary to give a few more detailed exp.lanations in arder to dissipate the fog in which the Umted States representative is trying to wrap the substance of the question. 24. The United States representative considers as unusual the USSR delegation's proposaI tû settle the question of inviting representatives of Korc:a and China before adopting the agenda of the Council. That is not, however, what the USSR delegation is proposing. Rence the premise on which the United States representative bases h~s ~:::icism of the USSR proposaI is dél~gation Les conh'e prémisses untru~ and false. 26. The United States representative's basic emphasis is on an investigation and on inducing the Security Council to ascertain the substance of the question introduced by him on the sole basis of what the United States delegation tells the Council. This is the kind of one-sided decision, the kind of one-sided presentation of the question to the Council which l spoke about in my first statement. The United States representative's remarks fully confirm what l said. This tendency to present its one-sided version to the Council characterizes the position of the United States delegation in the Security Council. According ta that position, no one else is needed, no one else shall be admitted to the Security Council; the United States delegation sits in the Council and gives its version of the story, and a11 decisions must be based on that version. 27. That, however, i5 not a decision based on equality nor an international decision. It is flagrantly arbitrary, a diktat. We are told: Listen to my version, hold your tongue, and take a decision on the basis of what l say. Members of the Council of the North Atlantic bloc may ad thus, but not the members of the United Nations Security Council. In the Council of the North Atlantic bloc certain representatives may dictate their terms because the United States plays the principal raIe there, because the United States Is the leader, the financier, the supplier of arms and the seeker of cannon fodder. But the. Security Council is an international organ and sovereign States. participate on an equal basis in its work. And it is the practice of the Security Council. that bath sides shall be heard when an international dispute is being examined. 28. A special Article of the Charter, Article 32, is devotedto this matter. This Article provides that: "Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council or any State which is not a Member of the Fnited. Nations, if it is a , party. to a dispute under consideration by' the Security Council, shaH be invited t6 participate, without vote, in the discussion relating to the dispute;" 29. This is a provision of the Charter and the fact that this provision has been violated by the United StateS and the Anglo-American bloc since June 1950 byno means signifies that such violation has already bêcome the rule. TheUSSR and its delegation in the Seeurity Council have mûst resolutely opposed, and W'ill continue to oppose, such arbitrary procedures, 30. This is required by logic, by the provisions of the Charter, by the rules of procedure of the Security Council, by tradition, and by the Security Council's own experience ever since its institution. The United States representative's logic is just the reverse. He must be heard and then a decision must be taken. There is no need to hear anyone else. As soon as he has made a statement, the question will become clear to the Security Council. This is almost verbatim what the United States representative said. 31. Since when have the statements of one side sufficed fully to clarify the substance of a question? Where is such a procedure followed? In what court - even the most primitive court - do judges listen to one side only? Yet in the case under discussion the Security Council is called upon to play the part of a judge in a dispute between two parties. 1 am all the more surprised because,.were Ml'. Gross to enter an action against a United States citizen and were the case of the United States taken to court, he would certainly not make the following stipulation to the judge: "Listen to me only and then pronounce judgment and do not ·dan· even to admit the person against whom 1 have entered the action into the courtroom". 1 am sure that even an American judge would laugh Ml'. Gross' proposaI to scorn amI would rule it unlawful. 32. Why then shouldthe United States Government and its de1egation consider it proper ta make such unlawful proposaIs here and to take, in the Security Council, a position which is illegal and contrary to the Charter? No defence, no explanations. The oruy explanation - dictation and arbitrary action. 33. The United States representative has already announced, even in the early procedural stages of the discussion on the inclusion of his proposaI in the agenda, that the accusations were "false". That remains to be proved. 1 would ask Ml'. Gross why the Security Coundl must believe him âild his' Government, when they say that the accusations 'are false, without eV,en hearing the Chinese side or the Korean side. He is forcing on the Security Council his own one-sided version, asserting that ali the accusations made against his side, his Government and his military leaders are false '~nd ' demaridiilg 'that a' decisîoJ;1' be' taken. ',T1Jis ' is , ,!llàgiëal. It is illèga:I a~d" contrary to' the Ch~rter and Its mbst elementary provisions:"..' , ' " ' 34. It cannot, after aIl, be assumed that the statements of the United States in the Security Cauneil are legal and that everybody. is obliged unplicitlyand silently to accept them. Apparently" if the. United 35. But how are we to deeide? How can the Security .Council determine with any certainty whether or not the charges are faIse? The best and only course is to invite those plaintiffs who have appealed to the United Narions in official statements on this matter to come before the Security Council, to give them a hearing atld, having heard both sides, to take a definite decision or to investigate the question further or to find sorne other solution. Yet the United States representative sets aside the normal, generally accepted and legitimate procedure for the examination of questions. The American way of examining questions in the United Nations 1s: "listen to me and to no one else". 36. It may be that sorne representatives in the Couneil would accept that approach of the United States delegation. It may be that they have grown used to sucha procedure in the organizations where they have to work with United States representatives, but in the Security Couneil such a procedure is inadmissible. 37. The USSR delegation objects most decidedly to such methods of the United States in the Security Couneil and to the intentions of the United States to prevent the invitation of Chinese and Korean representatives. The USSR delegation believes, as it has aIready pointed -out, that the question cannot he discussed in theCouncil in the absence of the representatives of the People's RepubHc of China and the People's Democratie Republic of Korea. The Soviet Unionagrees to the inclusion of that question in the agenda and its discussion provided that bath sides are heard, in order to obtain. a complète. picture of what was and is happening in Korea and China. The Soviet Unionrecommends .that the Council should take the same position. 38. The. USSR does not admit that the Security Council should take a dedsion on thé basis of a onesided United States presentation of the facts when dealing. with suèh an important. international question, a question of such serious significance to the preservation of. international peace and security. Furthermore, the USSR delegationmainiains that its position on the question of .including the United. States proposaI in the age,nda -will depend on the decision taken with regard tq itiviting. the, official repr.e,sentati.ves _of the People's R.ep~1)lic. of _.Çhinë( and. of~ thé People's Democratie RepuBliê of Koréa.Only if,b()th quêstions are settled simpltanec>usly will· the,re he any assurance thaï these rêpresentatives will -be invited.Without such an a~st1rà.n<;e, we cannot agree to discussion of the question. 39..Wehave leamed. from-.hitterexperience that the United States, supported. by the·Anglo-American bloc, imposes any decision it-pleases_ in orgânS of the United Natkms in .violationof·the rightsof other Member 41. That 1S how matters stand. To sum .uP, I wish to state that we agree to the inclusion of the item proposed by the United States delegation in the Security Council's agenda, but we consider that this question cannot be discussed without the participation of reprebèntatives of the People's Republic of China and the People's Democratie Republie of Korea. 42. Attention must be drawn to the fact that the draft resolution submitted by the United States delegation contains references to certain governments and authorities. Why did the United States delegation need such a bashful or cowardly form of words? The whole world knows which governments and authorities are meant. It is dear and well-known to all that what are meant are not "certain" governments and authorities, but definite, existing governments, elected, supported and regarded as authoritative by their own peoplesthe Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China and the People's Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Korea, and the corresponding Chinese and Korean authorities. 43. It is precisely these Governments which have addressed official statements and protests to the United Nations concerning the use of bacterial weapons by the Unitèd States forces against the Korean andChinese peoples. 1 The United Nations has a number of documents which have been received from China and Korea in recent months. Here are a few of these documents: (1) Protest by Mr. Pak Hen En, Minister' of Foreign Affairsof the People's 'Democratic Republic of KQrea, dated 22 February 1952, against the use by Unitéd States forces of· baeterial weapons in K-orea'; (2) Statement by Mr. Chou En-lai, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, dated 24 February 1952, supporting the protest by Pat<: Hen En in the above-mentioned statement of 22 February 1952; 45. However, whenever the United States Govemment, the State· Department, the United States delegation in the Security Couhcil, or aU of them, consider it necessary, for propaganda purposes, to make sorne false, slan.derous statement against the Soviet Union, they do not hesitate to mention the USSR. This very draft resolution slanderou.'-ily alleges that the Soviet Union ·has put forward and repeated the charges in organs of the United Nations. By inc1uding this clause in its draft resolution, the United States delegation is distorting t;!:le sul;>stance of the question from the very outset. For the information of the United States delegation .and the members of the Security Council, 1 muststate that the USSR delegation is not repeating the facts set out in the statements 1 have mentioned, but is drawi~g the attention of the United Nations to them. This. is the core of the matter. We are not being repetitious, we are drawing attention to faetsset out in official documents addressed to and received by the United Nations from the Chinese and Korean Governments. That is how matters really stand. tIJ.JfIi!!':ldJiIISifBIli~lgl·I;alnl-:ï.tIJ~::lm;~].~SI:c~~~...:,!;!!!,~.C~,;~_.U~:~~::=';:j:~;:;::es'e,::I:~~u:,: 50. Despite the seventeen meetings to which l have referred, the proposaI was not adopted. This experience, among others" teaches us that the United States is not to be trusted and that a decision must therefore be adopted simultaneously on questions of this kind. That is why we are linking these two questions togetherthe question of inc1uding the United States proposaI in the Security Council's agenda and that of inviting official representatives of China and Korea to participate in the discussion of that proposaI. 51. Before the events in Korea one rule wasalways observed in Security Council practice. This rule was the same for aIl. \iVhatever dispute was under consideni.tion, the Council always invited bath parties. It does not matter whether that decision was taken before, during or after the adoption of the agenda. What matters is the substance of the question. 52. When the Security Council examined the Indonesian question, both parties to the dispute - Indonesia and the Nethèrlands ~ were invited. When the Security Council examined .the Kashmir question, Pakistan and India - the two parties concernedattended é:.~~ meetings. When the Security Council examined the Palestine question, both parties participated in its discussions, the Arabs on one side, and Israel on the other. Furthermore, on the Arab side the Arab League, that is, a non-governmental organization which does not represent a government or State, was also represented. 54-. The US.3R has for some years been waming the United Nations and its Members about the ascendancy of. the Anglo-American bloc in the United Nations and its organs, about the ascendancy of the aggressive nu.~leus headed by the United States in the United Nations and its organs, about the conversion of thé United Nations ioto an instrument of United States aggressive policy. The ascendancy and arbitr...riness of the United States and the bloc led by it in the Security Couneil are nov' .universally recognized. Although United States pr(\, ganda has until . recently sometimes succeeded in masking this ascendancy alLd arbitrary behaviour in the organs of tlie United Nations aild in the Security Council by slandering the USSR, the mask has been removed completely since the discussion of the Tunisian question, artd. the asceadancy and arbitrary behaviour of the United States and the bloc it leads in the Security Council have been revealed to the world in all their repulsivenakedness. 55.' The'example of the Tunisian question has enabled the world to see with its own eyes that the United Nations is an organization which acts at the behest of the United States aggressors and their military allies. Wl ,eas previO'usly the United 3tates endeavour~d.h.. o.:onceal this fact.by means of false accusations against the USSR.. the whole world .nowrealizes th'lt tlli$isIiôfthe questionàt issue and thatthe infirmi1:) and the'impotence 'of the United Nations and its organs are dueentirely to the fact that the Organizationhas been converted into an instrument of United ..States policy~ ..' 56., .. I .• inight"refer to. an,authoritative statement .11;1ade ·1-<Y·..tlt~.:Ministe.r' .of F:::'re!6' .Mairs of Pakistan on JS'Aprjtwhichwa.s .notreported ~at Jeast, I ..did. not see it:-;-h1 ~:single United Stated newspaper-in the Unitèd States Press. Sir Mohammad.Zafrulla Kh:m,. Minist~r' f()r ForeignAJfcirs, stated th~t the essence .of .•.tue' .matter is that .. the,§ta.tç~, which. are .. united in 'the North Atl~ric'Alliance;, ~~ ·pr~setlt 'è~1J1mfli1d .!. 1'llajol"ily in'the SecuritYC:où~nciI.. 1;1;1i5js Why<tbis qne~ti?n,\Va:s'not 1!l~lg~ef(lin, the. a~en4a ~nçl.~hy tWêlvel1ièmbers'of tbe.DP1tedNati()ns we!"e deprlved oft4e;'opportullityof stating.iheirrespectivepositions inthe.SêHtrityCQuncil. . ••.... '.. .. .. ,. . .• . S7;,,\Ve.now. haveh~foreus asec<Jnd,. no .less l'eveal- ".~g; in~tifuceof'W'~y vn~ should neye~.lend credence,to •. t1t~Vniteâ S,t~tes\representatiye' s staternt~l1t[" but. ~hol.tnseta.r.()u,t .the. a\foption ofpractical, dL':Ïsions. ' ..\r1cl just"stIçfia .'. pr~cticardeci~ion. is called for Î11,. the 58. In the light of the above considerations and in view of the importance of the question raised in the United States proposaI, the USSR delegation urges the adoption of its proposaI to invite the representatives of the People's Rcpublic of China and the People's Democratie Republic of Korea to take part in the discussion of this question simultaneously with the decision to inclde the United States proposaI in the agenda. 59. The USSR dclegation consider'S its proposaI fully founded, IegaI, fair and capable of ensl1rîng a comprehensive analysis of the question. It will help the Security Council to consider the question ~ot only on the basis of the one-sided, tendentious United States version, but taking into account the views' of the other side. 60. Only with such infcrmation from aH sides, subrnitted by bath ?arties, can the Security Council take a decision without prejudging Le question of what that decision shaH be. During the interpretation of the foregoing speech, ti.e President made the following statement (translated from Russian) : 61. l propose to interrupt the interpretation unti! the representatives have finished their conference. \

l think the position in which we find ourselves in perfectly dear. The delegation of the United States has formally moved the adoption of the agenda in the farm in which it was circulated by the President of the Security Council iil document SIAgenda 580, namely: "Qup.stion of a request for investigation of alleged bacterial warfare". The only issue before the Council at this stage of its proceedings is whether we should or should not adopt an agenda the first and only item of which is entitled: "Question of a request for investigation of alleged bactérial warfare". This agenda item which l have now read twice refers to no specifie countries. It refers to no specifie actions. It refers to nothing except the bare subject which l have indieated. 63. The Soviet Union representative, taking advantàge of the fact tha.t until 30 June; midnight, he is President of the Security Council, has seen fit to evade the United States l'equest for a decision by theSecuritv Coundl on the question of the adoption of the agenda. ~he Soviet. Union r~presentative, :,itting as the Pre- SIdent of the Secunty Council, has. confused.,..:.- and l think :ntentionally and wilfully confused - two'issues which are distinct,separateô;nd unrelated. The first 64. l think that it should be clear ta everybody that if the Security Council should accept the imposition of conditions upon the adoption of the agenda, we could be faced with a situation which could render it impossible for us ta carry out our responsibilities and our duties. As l said before, it has never in the history of the Security Council been decided by the Council to adopt an agenda with any conditions attached, conditions precedent, conditions simultaneous, conditions subsequent or any other type of conditions. Such is the simple, clear question before the Council. 65. l think that we cannat help recollef:ting August of 1950. The Security Council has yet another week in which the Soviet Union representative will sit as President. He may watch the clock and the calendar very clèsely, but time is running against him and his: Govemment". and it will not· be possible to delay action which we believe every member of this Council, except one, agrees is necessary to prove the falsity of charges which have been made. The heart of the matter with which we are dealing is the Soviet Union campaign of charges. There is nothing in the agenda item which refers ta charges by the Soviet Union Government or by any other government or authority. But the heart of the matter, as l shall make clear when l make a statement on the subject of our draft resolution, is the Soviet Union campaign of charges. Thefacts which call for investigation are the faets which the Soviet Union Government itself supplies. The record is perfectly clear, sa clear that the Soviet .Union Government seeks to substitute debate here for fact-finding where t1J.e faets can be found. , 66: There'is no substitutè; for' truth.· The trtith will J1et·beascerlainedât this table, whether' the Soviet Union'scol1eagues in' aggression are present here or n91,. 'flle SovietUnionrepresentative, has . seen fit, sitting as· President of the Security Cauncil, to ignore 'tnYrformal request that theCouncil shouldvote· upon theproposalto adopt the agenda. But at the Hme the Soviet Union representative is taking that position here a!1d is seeking to .avaid °a discussion here aimed attlle;.establishmèht Qf an impartial investigation~ at 67. l think we aIl realize that is is within the power of the President to obstruct the proceedil1gs of the Security Council. We witnessed it for a month in August 1950 - an infamous montb. l hope we are not on the threshhold of an infamous week. But whether that he so or not, l think that aIl decent opinion in the world will not fail to realize the significance of the abuse of the office of the President of the Security Council. 68. It is, after all, a very simple proposal which the United States Government has circulated to the Security Counci1. It is a proposaI that the International Committee of the Red Cross conduct an investigation of allegations which have been made. The Soviet Union representàtive does not deny that those allegations have been made. On the contrary, t.he Soviet Union representative has repeated those allegations in organs of the United Nations, notably in the Disarmarnent Commission. There is no question that the aIlegations have been made. There is no question but that they are false. But whether they are false or not, the International Cornmittee of the Red Cross is the appropriate agency to conduct an investigation and to let us know what its findings are. 69. ' l do not propose aï tbis time - and l am considerable self-restraint - to L~plain in d.etail, which the situation may indeed require, why l.he United States delegation has circulated the dra\ft resolution, nor shall l elaborate at this momeni: on the campaign of lies, its origin and its nature. l think that the sooner the President of the Security Couneil calls the Soviet Union representative to order and applies role 9 of the rules ·of procedure of the Council, the saoner the true interests of the great Russian people will be served.

A few days ago when we were discussing a related matter, the. President saId, unless l got it wrong - but l have the record here - in referring to .the accusations of the use of germ warfare in Koreathat that is "... a special question". If the United States delegation intends ta discuss that matter in the Security Council, let it submit a proposaI. If such a question is submitted, we shall say what we have to say about it." [577th meeting]. Now, what happens in respondîng to wtiat was in effect the invitatiœi of the .President? The United States delegation submits a proposaI in unobjectionable language. The President, in point of fact, .by. his conduct makes it impossible for that T'roPosal .to be discussed, or very nearly so. That is w1.at seeÎns to me to be happening at this moment. ' 71. At the sarri~ rime, in another forum -namelY. the' Disarmament Commission - as I. think: has alreàdy beelT pointedout, the President was· only tooready to discuss these fouI and shameIess aècusations which 72. What is the subject? It has been put down by the United States delegation as a "Question of a request ·for investigation of aIleged bacterial warfare". Of course, that is a general subject. What is the precise subject? We do not know precisely what it is. We know what the general subject is but until and unless we hear the United States representative develop his case we cannat say exactly what the precise subject is. We do not have any idea of it at the moment. Ml'. President, you, yourself,' have no idea as to what exactly the United States case will be until you have. 'beard the United States representati'.7e. Only in the !:ght of .what he will shortly say, 1 hope, can we decide properly whether this is a matter on which we ought ta hear the representatives of the People's Government of Peking and the representatives of the North Korean· authorities. At that moment, no. doubt you will make your suggestion. Then, the Council will debate it and take a vote on it at an early date. instan~e, .the suggestion was actualIy made that repres'entatives of cOHntries !nvolved in a dispute should actuil1ly come and help the Council decide on the ~dopt~o~ of its own agenda. The Cound1, of course, .:==:'~::::=:~~:: 7S. During our [577th] meeting last Wednesday, you were careful to distinguish between the question of regulating or eliminating bacterial weapons on the one hand and, on the other, specific charges that these weapons have been or are being used in Korea i)r elsewhere. This distinction is one with which we fully agree, and my delegation, anyway, thinks it a pity that you yourself have not observed it more scrupulously in the Disarmament Commission. Then, you protested very vehemently when your references ta the specific charges were ruled out of order in the Commission, and you have not failed to repeat your protest on many occasions when you have àttempted ta disregard this ruling, and indeed you even had to be reminded of it, l regret to say. 76. The impression, Mr. President, which you have sought ta l:onvey is that the countries that are resisting aggression in Korea, and especially the United States, are afraid ta face these accusations and indeed have no answer ta them. This is simply the reverse of the truth. It is chiefly for this reason that l urge the President that the whole matter be now taken up by the Security Council. You will observe that l am arguing in favour of the placing of this matter on the agenda at the present time. The Council is œrtainly the proper forum in which this should be done, 'just as the Commission is the proper forum in which the Geneva Protocol and the generai question of the regulation of bacterial and other weapons of ma,ss destruction .should be discussed. ?7. l assume that when we get to the actual question It~elf, the President will have no objection ta repeating hlS, charges here - that is, ,the accusations that hé has already made - and l suppose that we shaH again have the advantage,of hearing also about the yellow leaves, spiders, park, crows' and goose feathers, aIl 78. l have already had occasion in the past ta calI the attention of the Security Couneil ta the strange, upside-down Alice in Wonderland quality of Soviet Union utterances. Witha system based on double talk and indeed on double think, l have no doubt that proving that black is white ts merely a juvenile exereise at the Marxist-l ~ninist Institute of Dialectical Materialism. PerhaJJs it is not surprising thàt minds nurtured on propaganda should find no great difficulty in accepting these fantastic stories about germ warfare in KQrea. There is, however, an essential difference between these charges and the ordinary run of Soviet Union misrepresentation about the Western Powers. Much of what they say is of a general or even metaphorical character. Thus the North Atlantic Treaty ,Organization Powers are always accused of "aggressive intentions". This, of course, is untrue, but motives or intentions are notoriously not susceptible of material or. flactual proof,; 79. The leaders of the Western world are also frequently, if indeed not roundly, described as hyenas or carmibals. But even Soviet Union propaganda would scarcely go sa far as ta maintain that they actually feed on human flesh or are equipped with claws in place of nails. This sort of propaganda is therefore repeated continuously by the Soviet Union representative and, although it is as continuously denied by us,. in ordtr ta refute it, we must :rely basically on the good sense of the people whose minds are not enslaved, by communismto judge between our good faith .and Soviet Union misrepresentations. It is not much· good, in fact, for à leader of the Western world ta repeat, "Please, l am. not a cannibal.· l really do not eat babies for breakfast". This kind of attitude only encourages the coinmunists to think that. they havegot somewhere with '~eir propaganda. SO.Now l have every confidence, that we cau rely on thegood sense of 'niarikind· as .a whole, but.in the present case the Soviet Unionhaspresented us with an. even more. formidable weapon..Theil'. accusations about germ warfar:ejn.Korea arematters" wmch 81. Perhaps I can express the idea even more vividly by the following illustration. Supposing that there were this summer a particttlarly virulent virus epidemic in Long Island and supposing that the United States Government, having discovered a paper bag containing two Reas and some rotten pork near Glen Cove, had accused the Soviet Union representative of starting this epidemic, would not you, Ml'. President, demand that there be some inquiry into such wlld accusations and that such an inquiry should not be conducted only by persons who were virtually nominated by Ml'. Gross? 82. In every civilized country, citizens are protected by law against slander ancl libel. If a man be accused of murder or embezzlement, he can bring suit against his accuser and the onus is on the latter to prove the truth of his charges. If he fails to do so, he will be liable for damages and he may lay himself open to criminal prosecution. This is the situation we now have in the international sphere. The accusiitions being made against the United Nations Command by the Soviet Union constitute, under any'civilized standard of law, the most serious slander and libel unless they can be proved to be true. The onus of proof rests on the Soviet Union which has made these accusations. It is now the Soviet Union and not the United States which is in the dock before world opinion. For these reasons, 1 ~;:ge that we now put this matier on our agenda and discuss it at once. 33 The PRESIDENT (translated from Russian): As President of the Security Council, 1 consider it necessary to draw attention to the tactless conduct of the Vnited States representative. He has alleged that the President of the Security Council is being obstructive and is preventing the item proposed by the United States delegation from being inc1uded in the agenda. 84. 1 categorically deny this. It is a wholJy unjustified assertion. On the contrary, as, President of the Security >Council l have met: the United States representative half-way. I called a special meeting of the Council today a~ the request of the United States delegation- ~ 85. As for the remark about the USSR delegation, there Can he no doubt that the USSR delegation would have submitted its proposaI and defended its position irrespective of whether its representattve was occupying the Chair. No one. therefore, inclucling the United States representative, is justified in connecting the USSR delegation's proposaI and its position with the faet that its representative: is acting as President. 86. 1. consider it necessary to clarify this question. so as t~ dissipate the fog in which the United States representative is wrapping a clear issue. The United States representative's statement malœs it cIear that he asked for a special meeting to he convened at 3 p.m. today, a request with which l have complied. Furthermore, he said: "1 request the acting Secretary-General and the President to pl.ace this new item directly after the item which deals with the Geneva Protocol of 1925. if action on that item has not been completed prior ,to the Monday afternoon meeting." 87. A special meeting was convened today to discuss the inclusion of this item in the agenda and then to continue the Council's work. Thus the' President, for hi$ part, "has made every effort to meet the United States delegation half-way, The United States delegation responds with base ingratitude. We take note of this. • 88. l consider it necessary to give this' explanation so as to clarify the issue. 89. As for the USSR delegation's position, it would have been the same irrespective of whether the' delegation were sitting in this seat or in that of the United .States representative. 90. Mr. KYROU (Greece): A point of order.

1. recognize the representative of·Greece on a point 'of order. 92. Mr. KYROU (Greece): The Bresident has just indicated that there is no reaSOll whatsoever to Hnk the Soviet Union proposaI to the fact that he is sitting in the Chair. My delegation was extremely happy· to hear this. statement. .l shouId Hke to give the President the occasion to prove his statement at .once. I· request him to put to the vote the adoption of the pmvisional àgenda, taking a vote separately Bn item 2 and the Soviet .Union proposaI.

l'''Jul<ibeonly too happy to· comply with the Greek representative'~~ .request,. ppt l still have five speakers pn. tnY .list.:Under our .mles of procedure and the es~aplishedpractice in the .• Securit} Council, Icann9t l?l1ft1iêproposaljust tapJed to the vote until l have 94. The second point is that it is past six o'c1ock and there are still five speakers on my list. "Vhat are the Council's views on this point? 95. The Chairman of the United Nations Disarmament Commission has called a meeting for tomorrow morning. He has asked me not to call a meeting of the Security -Council for tomorrow, as he is shortly flying to France and would therefore like to call a meeting of the Commission tomorrow. As there has heen sucb a request, l see' no reason why it should not he taken into account in deciding on the date of the Security Council's next meeting. 96. Furthermore, there are two items on the Council's agenda yet ta he discussed in addition to the one which we have heen discussing 'and have a1most completed. There are still five speakers wishing to speak on this question, after which we shall inc1ude this item on our agenda in accordance .with the United States repres'Ontative's request. 97. This is how things stand at present. There is tll.:;efore a proposai to caU a meeting of the Security Council for the morning of the day after tomorrow, on the understanding that, should we be unable to complete the consideratkm of this question at that meeting, we wiU hald an afternaan meeting, thus devoting the entire day to the discussion of the item on' the Council's agenda. - 98. l submit this proposai for the Council's consideration. . 99. The Netherlands representative's name is on two lists - one ta speak on the item under discussion and on the other, l presume, to speak on my last remark. l therefOlc give him the floor.

If l tmderstood the President correctly, he would be willing to put the two proposais now before us ta the vote if it were not for the fact thaï. he had five speakers on his list, of which l am one. In that case, l would gladty waive my right ta speak this evening and urge the President to proceed ta the vote immediately. 101. The PRESIDENT' (translated from Ruulan', ' This does not solve the proe~, since l have n04 one but five speakers on my list. 102. Mr. HOPPENQT (France) (translated from French): l am one of the fourspeakel's on the list. In.order ta help ta solve the problem and in the hope of. bringing this procedural debate - which has really gone on too long ~ to a rapid end, l shall also give up my turn ta speak. 103. The PRESIDENT (translated from Russian) : 19raw the Security Council's attention to. the question whether the ,problem would be solved if two or three representatives were to take their names off the list. .Inany case it is nowpast six o'c1ock. Would we he ahlè to continue our work and decide theprocedural nou~

I shall most certainly wish to speak as USSR representative and l shan explain why. The United Kingdom representative made a comprehensive statement in which he told us a great number of English tales connected with the substance of the. question, so he said. The USSR representative considers it ïrnperative to reply to the English tales and to some of the United States representative's remarks. This is clearly the USSR delegation's legitimate right.

I shalI waive my right to speak thisafternoon if the President will put the adoption of the agenda to .the vote. ' lOS. The PRESIDENT (translated jrom Russian) : This is a,·conditional waiving of the right to speak, it .is eVe!J something of an· ultimatum. Since there are two .more speakers {ln my list, in addition to the Brazilian representative, there seems to be no point in excluding his name from the list of speakers. 109. lt has thus been suggested that a meeting of the Security' Council should be calIed for the day after tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. Are there any objections? 110. Mr. HO:R.PENOT (France) (translated trom French) : l shùuld like to point out tn the President that, contrary to what he said, Mr. Jules Moch, Chairman·· of the Disarmament Cflmmission, did not ask for the whole of tornorrow to be reserved for him, but .on1y .either the morning or the afternoon, which would leavethe other part of the day free for the Security Counci1: IlL The·PRESIDENT (translated frqm.:E?1J,.Çsian) : AlI the better.We can meet toriiorrow at 3 p.m. 112.SirGlad-wyn JEBB (United Kingdom): l am afraidthatpel'sonalIy it JVolJlgpe verYl;lwkward and difficultforme to attend.a;~meeting tômorr9"v afternoOn. lregretthis very tp;uêh, l wouldgreatly prefer if tl1~ r~preseIltative ofj1'rance would agree to a meeting onWednesday mornjng at 10.30. .113.l\fl".IIOPPEI\tQt· (Frallce) .(translated from .French):· 1· have n&/ .0bjectio11, ta. our meeting. on -=~.nesday. T·. mere1j .intervened in order .to make it quit~ dear~if l may. say·sowhat Mr. Jules Moch wanted. But if the Cotincil wisnes tosit on <: Wedtiesday, insteadof tomorrow, l see no objection toit. ..... ." .".. "." . . 114. .The PRESIDENT (translated from Russian) : In. that çase, the.· Security Council wi11meet again at lŒ30a,1l1. on. Wednesday. Th,emeeting rosea.t 6.15p.m. "" (