S/PV.584 Security Council

As ~s the usual practice and with the permission of the members of the Coundl, the speeches of members of the Council will recetve both simultaneous and consecutive interpretations. Statement by the President

Before proceeding to the question of the agenda, l ~hould like to pay the customary tribute to the outgoing President, the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Perhaps l cannot myself congratulate Mr. Malik on his every action as President during June, since there were occasions when it seemed to me raiher c1ear that he was, sha11 l say, slightly out of sympathy with most of the members of the Coundl except, of course, with the Soviet Union representative. Nevertheless, we were enabled to proceed with the consideration of matters before the Coundl and, in. this respect, last month's achievement, l think, was a happier and less frustrating one ,than the record of some earlier months in the Coundl'" history, of which perhaps l l1eed only mention Augu~t 1950. Adoption of the agenda

A provisional agenda is hefore the Council in document SIAgenda 584. Since items 2 and 3 on the provisional agenda were adopted ~ppeared at our earlier meetings. But, as members of the Couneil are aware, the representative of the United States made it dear at ou; S81st meeting that, when the time came, he would ask for item 3 to be considered before item 2. 1 th:nk it was agreed at our last. meeting, held on 26 June, that this question should be decided today, and sa 1 think it is th~ one which we should now take up. It is, of course, a matter of procedure, and 1 sincerely hope we shaH be able ta sc.~tle it without any long debate. Slnce the United States represf:'Jltative has given notice that he wishes the arder of the items ta be changed, 1 will now give him the floor ta explain his point of view. 4. The representative of the Soviet Union has asked for the floor in arder ta speak on a point of order. 5. Ml'. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated tram Russian): Under the rules of procedure of the Security Couneil, ta which the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom have repeatedly drawn attention, the first item is the adoption of the agenda. After the agenda has been adopted, the question of the arder of dealing with the various items can he considered. It wauld therefore be advlsable first ta settle the question of the adoption of the agenda proposed for today's meeting, and then proceed ta discuss the question of the arder of consideration of the various items. 6. The PRESIDENT: The debate is certainly open on the question of the adoption of the agenda, alld I caU upon the 1'epresentative of the United States to express his point of view on the question of the adoption of the agenda. 7. Ml'. GROSS (United States of Amedca): 1 will forbear irom making a lengthy statement because the matter is self-explanatory. The position of my Government, as has been repeatedly stated in the Council at our recent meetings, is that there are two matters wlùch are directly connected. One is the false issue which has been disposed of in the Security Council wmch involved the abortive attempt on tlle part of the- Soviet Union representative to obtain action by the Council with regard ta the Geneva ProtocoL That, I tlùnk it is clear. ta aU, was inseparably counecte!! with a campaign earried on by the Soviet Union Govemment and certain other governmental authorities outside the Security Council throughout the worId. 8• .c It is the viewpoint of my Government that the actions and the statements of the Soviet Union representative himse1f in the Security Council in recent days h~ve shown, as well as any evidence can, that the charges of getm warfare being made by his Government .are, in fact and in deed, seriously poisoning the relations between. States. They are obstructing and obscuring the significallce of the United Nations action in repelling aggression in Korea, and we feel certain that the time has comf.; for an impartial investigation of these charges. 13. 1. therefore formally move that the provisional agenda be amended so that we may proceed at Oilce to a discussion of the item entitled: "Question of a request for investigation of alleged bacterial warfaire."

The question of the order of the items of the agenda should be governed, as far as possible, by the connexion existingbetween the subject matter of the items. Items having co-related subject matter should be dealt with consecutively, and should not be separated from each other by the discussion of other items of an altogether different 11ature. Not only does this order correspond to the tendency in our minds - we seek always to associate co-related ideas - but it also facilitates the cOfiîprehension of the aspects of the co-relaied subjects and therefore contributes to intelligent deliberations and decisioris. 15. V.,re cannot' deny the intimate connexion between the item discussed last week and item 3 on the provisional agenda of today. The most tangible proof of this interrelationship lies in the fact that since we started the debate. on the appeal for the ratificqtion of ~he •. G~ne'Ya Pl:otocol, the que~tion of the request for ~nvest1gat1on of alleged bacterIaI warfare was brought mto the discussion in stiCn él. way that it was difficult t? separata in our statements.referetlces to one ques- . hon irom references to the othe!.' question. The President of the Security Coundli then the representative

The President was quite right in recognizing the United States representative and pointing out that he had asl{ed to speak on the provisiol1al agenda. . 17. It is now obvious, however, that the United States representative has not touched at aU on the provisio~al agenda. He spoke as if his item bl:ld not .yet b:...-en inch.lcl~d in the provisional agenda. He was .just forcing h~s w~y through an open door. His item has actua1ly been induded in the p).'ovisional agenth. He did not act in accordance with rule 9 of the rules Qfprocedure, which. provides that the first item of the provisional agenda for each meeting is the adoption of the agenda. The United States representative has dealt \-vith the substance of the item he has submitted, and has hrought up the new question of the order in which the items included in the agenda should he considered. That, however, is for the following stage. 18. l reserve the right to speak on the United Siates reFesentative's arguments when we dîscuss the order in which the items includeil. in the egenda should be considered. r am not dealing wit..l! that question now, however. The'·.first question is the adoption of the agellda";;tnd l iQ:rmally move the adoption of the agenda. After that we may proceed todiscuss the question of the o$."der· in. which the items of the agenda should be considered.

The question now bdo:re the St:curity Council is the adoption of the agenda. Rule 9 of the rules of procedure states: ('The first item of the provisional agenda for each meeting Qf the Security Council shall be the adoption of the agenda." . 20. But wnat is the adoption of the agenda? The adoption of the agenda means adecision on what we âre going to talk about. A decision on what we are going ta talkabout involves also the order of the items to be discussed. Logically we cannot really· separate the two. It would be possible, l suppose, first of all to vote on the provisional. agenda now before us, in which case~ l imagine, those who. sympathize with the viewpoint of our Brazilian and United States colleagues would aU vote against the adoption of the agenda. Then we Cottld have another vote On another agenda containing .a reversaI of.the present items 2 and 3, It ,would be possible to do that, but it really is a formality which seems to me to be unnecessary and not suitable to the circumstances. What we have·.to dedde now, in fétct, is whether ornot to reverse the order of items 2 and 3. Thât is really theonlyques"ion we

The practice of the Security Council avd its rules of procedure show that the adoption of the agenda and the question of the order in whichthe items included by the Coundl in the agenda and therefore adopted by it for consideration, are not one and the same thing. They are two distinct questions. 22. l formally ntove the adoption of tlre provisionaI agenda. We must decide this question first, and can then proceed to discuss the question of the order in which the items inçluded in the agenda should be considered. l urge the Council to acœpt rny proposaI :for the adoption of the agenda.

l am informed-I hope this is right - that there are, in fact, many precedents for the Council's deciding on the order of the items on' the agenda belore adopting the agenda; but that is, in a sense, neither here nor. there. The Soviet Union representative has made a formaI proposaI. for the provisional agenda drawn up in its present order ta be adopted, and unless any other representative wishes to speak, l shall first of all put that motion to the vote, and.if it is rejected, l shaH put ta the vote the adoption of the agenda which con.tains a reversaI of the present items' 2 and 3.

l think the point of view of the representative of the Soviet Union was that the adlJption of the, agenda and the arder of the items within the agenda were two different quest~ons. Therefore, as far as l have been able ta understand mm, his proposaI does not involve the present or any other. order. 25. Mr. SANTA CRUZ (Chile) (translated .from Spanish): l understood the proposai of the representative of the Soviet Union in the same way as the Pakistan representative and, even though l agree with the President's interpretation of what constitutes the adoption of the agenda, . l think that, in the present case, it is pointless to prolong a procedural discussion sinee we shall arrive at the same result. 26. The PRESIDENT: Itseems to .me to be a formality of no particular importance, but'if that is the view of the representatives, let us now.adopt the agenda, without prejudice, of course, to the order, which we shall then proceed to .debate.

The suggestion made by the'President is quite agreeable to me, but in arder ta avoid confusion l'should like to point out that l, myself, had made a formaI motion for the. adoption of an agenda which listed, first, the question .of the investigation of bacterial warfare. It was quite as formaI as the motion made by thé l'epresentative of the Soviet Union. It had the additional advàn:. ~ tage ·of being prior to bis, ·but.r do not see the neces~ ~ri1y by proceeding ~o a vote upon his motion, 1 will withdraw mine. But~ of course, as the President said, it must be completely without preiudice ta the right of my delegation ta raise the questton of the order of the items. and 1 sh~l1 insist that that ol:der he as 1 indicated in my formaI motion, which 1 f.CW withdraw - at least temporarily.

Although the way in which the President will put this question tQ the Council on the present occasion will make no material difference, l should like ta submit that, as a matter of procedure and as a matter of the institutional develop.ment of the Security Council, the proper procedure and the better procedure would be ta put to the vote a proposaI to change the provisio~a1 agei:lda. When that change bas been voted upon, the next vote would be on the adoption of the agenda with cr without the changes proposed. For the proper institutional devclopment of this body, 1 thinkthat procedure would be the better onè.

It would be better, in my view -llbviously because it was my origir..?'l sug~es­ tion - but other representatives on the Counci1 feel differently. Also. in my view. the quesHon is largeiy immaterial and purely formaJistic, and if, as 1 rather think, the. majorityof the Conneil does not share the view of the representative of China and myself, let them have thei! way; let us adopt the agenda and then proceed to discuss the order. 30. Ml'. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from RU$sian): There is on1y one proposaI beforeus> thit submitted by the USSR delegation; the other proposals have been withdrawn. 1 insist on a vote being b....ken, or else on the adoption of the agenda without a vote. The USSR delegation accepts the provisional agenda with the· reservations which it made at an earlier [580thJ meeting. It feele that item 3 on the agenda cannot be discussed without the official participation of the representatives of tht People's Republic of China and of the People's Democratie Republic of Kore,i.· With this reservation, the USSR delegationproposes that the Council should first adopt today's provistonal agenda and thell discuss the order in which the items on the agenda should be taken up, in accordance·withthe estab1ishedproc~dure.

l rather hope that the representative of China. will aUow me, against our joint better judgments, to dec1are that wîthout prejudice to the order of discussion, the provisional ag~da is adopted. 32. IvIr.TSIANG (China): 1. do not protest against the President's dec1aration that the agenda is adopted. 33. Furthermore, I should like to place \he following stateroent in the record. Rad the President put te a vote the provisional ag'i2nda as it stands - and we always vote on a document as it stands - 1 should have abstained from the vote.

I may say that, in those circtunstances, I, too, shoulcl have abstained from the vote. 35. l think l am now in order in declaring, with the joint consent of 111embers of the Council, tnat without prejudke to the arder of discussiù!1 the provisional agenda has beel1 adopted. The agenda was adopted without prejudice to the discussion. 36. Bath the United States representative and the SJviet Unionrepresentativ-e wish to raise points of order. The United States tepresentative made bis request before the Soviet Union representative, and 1 shaH therefore caU on hi111 first. Before doing so, however, r should like to say that, as 1 tmderstand it, the subject now U1'~der discussion is the order in which wc shaH discuss items 2 and 3 of the agenda.

l Iee1 entitled to ask to. speak on a point of order because.of the procedure which has been followed in this case. r wish to Rssocia.te my tlelegation with the comments made by the repl'esentatïve of China. 38. Furthermore, îit view of the fact thaï: the agenda has now been adoptedin the circu111stances and with the reservations to which the President refert'ed - r wish 110W formally to move that the Security Council should proceed to discuss forthwith the item entitled "Question o~ a request for investigation of alleged bacterial warfare." 39. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republies) (t1'anslated front Russian): The President has jumped to conclusions and is continuing our wQrk without giving the USSR delegation an opportunity to speak on the question of the order of busil1~SS after the statement made by the representative of the Kuomintang group, whose presence here the USSR delegationconsiders illegal. 1 had intended to say that, if that statement had been made by a legitimate representative in the Security Council, l shoul~ have insisted on my proposai for the adoption of the agenda being put to the vote, rather than adopting the agenda without comment and without a vote. 40. Since the President ànd, aiter hïm, the United States representative, supported the views expressed bY. the repre:sentative of the Kuor..Jintang group, l formally ask that my proposaI for the adoption of the agenda be put to the vote, without exc1udin:;;- the possibiliry that other members of th~ Council may take the· same position as the United States and United Kingdom representatives. We should thus take a formaI

On a point of order,' l wish to protest against the language used by the representative of the Soviet Union in his reference to me. l am the representative of China. l do not repres::l'1t ,'my particular political party. The party name which he mentioned, the Kuomintang, is an honourable name of an honourable pawbut it is inaccurate to say that l represent any politic : party. 42. Th~ PRESIDENT: In my view the protest of the representative oÏ China is justified. As regards t.'le ... 43. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Sociaiist Republics): Pomt of order" 44. The PRESIDENT: The representative of the Soviet Union may raise his point of order when l have finished speaking. 45.. Ml'. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republies): l wish to speak with regard to the declaratiori' of the represent~tive of the Kuomintang and the approbation wmch the President has expressed.

Very well, l calI upon the representative of the Soviet Union on a point of order. 47. Mr. MAI;IK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): l will correct myself. If the Kuomintang representative does not consider himself the representative of the Kuomintang group, then he is the representative of a group of politicai bankn,pts who do not represent anybody, and the USSR delegation therefore considers his pre3ence here illegal, as has been stated repeatedly. 48. The PRESIDENT: The convictions of the representative of the Soviet Union are, in my opinion, his ownaffair. What is true is that we shan not get much further forward if we hur1 insu1ts across this table, and 1 should like the r~presentative of the Soviet Union todesist from this practice. 49. l think that we maygo on to the principal question before us, which is how to deal with the proposaI of ., the representative of the Soviet Union that we shouîdnow take a vote on the adoption of the agenda after l have myself declared the agenda adopted. I am afrai<tthat,~ê--President, I take the .view .that. in these drc1l1l1stances 'the agenda is adopted, and if the representatiire oithe Soviet Union wishes to press his proposaI for a vote I shall take it as a vote to have no confidence in myruling that the agenda is now adopted.' 50.Mr. ~ALIK (Union of Soviet SociaE:t Republics) (t'ranslatêd trom Russian) :.Tt was not the USSR representative ~ho disputed the President's ruling, but the· representative of the Kuomintang group, and the

In sp;~e of the fact that some of us would like this kind of sport ta go on forever or indefinitely, I suggest that we try ta bring it ta an end. 1 have already declared that iD my view as President the agenda has already been adopted. Howevex', I do not wish to abuse my presidential powers ln any way, and 1 shaH therefore put the view of the President, that the agenda has already been adopted, to the vote. A vote was taÎten by show of hands, as follows: In favour: Brazil, Cbile, France, Greece, Netherlands, Pakistan, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Abstaining: China, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 52. The PRESIDENT: Nine members of the Council are in fa,vour of the presidentia~ view that the agenda has been adopted and no members have opposed that proposition, but two abstained. 1 therefore once again assert that the agenda is adopted. The agenda was adopCild. Order of discussion 0,( the items of the agenda

We shall now proceed ta the second ouestion before us, the question of the arder. On that question the Couneil has already heard the views of the representatives of Brazil and the United States. Does any member of. the Couneil wish to address the Cnunei! on that point?

The agend&, in the form in which the Pn:sident dedared it adopted, was discussed in a most mundabout procedural fashion by the President and hI::; followers. Only thereafter did So. The United States representative is crying to a$Sert tha.t the tTSSR rroposal {S/2663] to appeal to States to a~le tl.l nU( ratify the Geneva Protocol of lQJS whkh pt\lh1bit$ b,\cterial warfare is closelv linked t~, the questi\)u sl1bmitted by the United States· deleRUtÎQu f(.lf inclttsh\u in the Coundl's agenda. The United States reprtst'utt\tive harped on that note throu~hout the discl1ssi\)ll ,of the item submitt~d by the USSR delt"gati\)u. Thh~ is l1mlerst:mdnble sinc~ it accords with the politkal iuterests of tTnited States ruling clrcles. The USSR ddegatkln has officiallv stllted, repeatedly and From the very beginning ()f the discussion of the qUe'stN,\ll suhmitted by it concerning the Geneva Proto- \X)I. tha.t :t was interested in tmlv one formaI question: aCl.'essi(m. to and ratification of the Geneva Protocol, regardless 'llf the United States representative'~ views 'l)n the matter. Si. It is difficult ta convince the United States repre- ~I~nta.tive Qf this. He stubboml~ maintains the opposite view. though it has nothing whatever ta do with rtatity. His first at'gUment, that the question of accession te and ratificatiQn of the Geneva Protocol is wnnected with the question he submitted of the use of ba.c~p.rial wellpons in Korea and China, is not in accorda.nee with the truth. The United States representative maintains that his delegation's item is urgent and most important. To this the USSR delegation can only 3.?swe!" affinnatively that it is a very important question $Inœ It involves ~aœ and the security of the peoples and threatens milliQns of people whose lives mny be nt stake as a result of the use of bacterial weapons bv the armed forces of the United States. • &~ As regards the "urgtmcy" Qf the question, if th~ Vnite-d States l'iQvermnent l'eaU" thinlts it urgent. wh" did it not bring it before the COlmeil l~\st February? . 59. . The CQuucil has documents at its disposa! IS/1684]: the cablegram of 22 February from Pak Heu En, the Minister for Foreign Affaira of the People's Democratie Republic of I{Qrea and the cable-- granl$ of 24 Februaxy and 8 MaTeh from Chou En"lai. the Minister for }<"oreign Affair!; of the People's Repub" 1~ of China, as well as the cablegrams and docun<.::uts rn)1ll .,·arklUs international demQcratic organizations IS/,,?0t.\'4jAdd.11· 60. AU this material which has heen issued in Security Council documents and is nt the disposai of members of the Council bear:, witness that hacterial weapons have lleell use<! by the United States armed forces. Why did l~rntic Ht'lluhlil' (If KorC'u? At thnt time the Department (lf Httlte <lr thl' United Htntt'll did not conllider the qUC'lltioll "nrKt'ut", But in mid-httll', nfter the USSR hll<1 lluhmitt'" tu the. Hecurity Cotlllcil the item on an 111>1>elll hy th~ Council tu ~tnteH ta accede to and ratify the tleneva Pratol'ol prohibiting hacterinl wnrfare, without COlltll'ctillg thiH question with the mlf.~ of bacterial wellpons ln I{tlren and China 1>y United States force!!, thl!1l tht' 1)epnrtment of Stnte chl\t1ged its mincI and suhmittcd itH llrolxlsnl in arder to distrnct the IIttention of world puh ie opinion und of the Security CO\tllcil from the questioll concerning the Geneva ProtQ1:ol. 61. Thnt ill the real situntion, Thcrefore, refercnces to the urp;ency of the quelltîon su1>mitted 1>y the United States delegatiol1 are inc.'onsistent. It i5 perfectly clenr tlmt this question has become urgent in order to enable the United States to distmct world nttention from the question of why the Unitecl States has not ratified the Genevn Protocol and why it incites othe!.' States not to ratify or observe it, 62, In the light of thesCi well-lmown faets, the United StG.tes representative's refel'ence to the urgency of the qt~estiou submitted by hhn is utterly worthiess. No one, will <leuy the importance and urgency of the question of the admission of new Mel.l1bers to the United Nations. 63. Behind the scelles of the Security Conneil, it is beillg' stlg'~ested that it would he better ta postpone consideratlon of the question of the admission of new Members to the United Nations. The United States reprcsentative today even referred to the Brazilian representative's statement that this question should not be discusscd until after the opening of the next regular session of the General Assembly. This, however, is a procedural novelty. There has been nothing of this kind in Security Council practice up to the present. The Cott11cil has never deferred consideration of the question of the admission of new Members until the opening of the regular session of the Gener&l Assembly. On the contrary, it has unfailingly discussed this question each year in the interval between the close of one session and the opening of the next. The Security Council has never awaited the opening of the next regular session of the General Assembly before discussing the question of the admission of new Members. That is a ridiculous approach to the question. 64. Henee the considerations advanced by the United States and United Kingdom representatives in favour of deferring the question of the admission of new Members are utterly worthless. 65. For a number of. years now, fourteen States and .many teilS of millions of people living in those States have been awaiting a decision by the Security Council to recommend that the General Assembly should admit the said fourteel1 Statp.s to membership in the United Nations. 66. What justification is there for postponing this question indefillitely? It must be settled. The First Committee of the Genel'al Assembly at the sixth A vote was iaken by show of hands as follows: In favour: Br'iZil, Chile, China, France, Greece, Net.herlands, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.· .Against: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Abstaining: Pakistan. The proposal was adopted by 9 votes to 1, with 1 ah#ention. 69. The PRESIDENT: The order having been adopted, the Couneil will therefore consider first the item entitled "Question n1 a. requestfor investigation oLalleged bacterial warfare". Question of a E"equest for investigation of alleged bacteriai 'warfare 70. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Soeialist Republies) (translated from R1fSsian): Mr. President,you have overlooked one other important fact. As you know, at a previous meeting, on 25 June [581st meeting] , .the USSR de1egation subrpitted a draft resolution inviting the rèpresentatives of the People's Republic of China and of the People's Democratie' Republic of Korea to the meetings of the Security Council at which the item submittedby the United States delegation tS discussed. This draft resolution ,iscontained in document S/2674/Rev.1. The USSR delegation insists that this draft resolutioll should he considered and put to the vote before the Security Co.uncil takes up the substance of the item submitted by the United States delegation, since iteontinues to feel that this important international question cannot be discussed with the participation of only one of the parties concerned. The USSR delegatiol1 insists that the other party should be 71. 1 do not wish to draw out the discussion on this point. 1 therefore mere1y wish to remind you briefly of what happened before, and ask you to put t..1ùs question to the vote. 72. The PRESIDENT: It was certainly not my intention to ignore the Soviet Union draft resolution contained in document S/2674/Rev.1, to which the representative of the Soviet Union has rightly drawn my attention. Still less would 1 wish to suggest that this is an unimportant question. On the contrary, 1 think it is higp.ty important for the Council to decide on this matter of whether, in regard to this question, it should invite the representatives of the People's Republie of China and of the People's Democratie Republic of Korea, as suggested by the representativ~ of the Soviet Union. But what 1 maintained when ~,peaking as representative of the United Kingdom at a previous meeting - on 23 June, 1 think [580th meeting] - was that before a discussion is started on the question of the invitation to representatives of other authorities and countries to participate in the debate, it would be best to hear the substantive case deve10ped by the representative of the country introducing the question. It is only in the light of the case as developed that the Security Council can really take a decision on the quesdon of the invitations. 73. That still seems to me to be a reasonable position to take. up, and, in faet, 1 do take up that position as President. It may be that the Council does not share my view, though it seems to me personally to be reasonable. 1 do not wish to impose my view in this matter on the Council, but 1 hope it will share my view that the correct course is for us now to listen to the representative of the United States developing his case and, immediately after that, tG have a debate on the proposaI put forward by the representative of the Soviet Union that Y:e should invite the representatives of the countries and authorities he has mentioned. That, therefore, is my proposaI and Ihope that the Council will agree with it. . 74.· Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): You refer to the statements which you made in your capacity as United Kingdom representative. Butthat is no precedent for a ruling to be given by the President of the Security CounciI. You also referred to the meeting of 23 .June, in the course of which you ~aid, and l quote exact1y [580th meeting] :. (-That i5 not to say that my delegation would • disagree, if it is a question of dispute, that in generaI the representatives of both sides should come and give evidence. But that is another matter that is to be decided on its own merits and, of course, after the adoption of the agenda." 75.' That 1s a quotation from yourspeech as United Kingdom representative. Daes that mean that you, as President, have already prejudged the question, that you 1;J.avedécided not to adhere to _the principle iliat bath sides should he invited when any disputed· matter 76. As United King'dom representative, you also made a statement on 23 June to the effect that the question of the invitation to the Securitv Council must necessarily he decided after the adoption~of the agenda. The agenda has now been adopted) and the USRR delegation insists that this question should be decided after the adoption of the agenda, as hM been the custom hitherto. 77. It has been estàhlished in the practice of the Security Council that when, in accordance· with Article 32 of the Charter, the question of inviting the parties concerned arises) that question is uStlally decided before the party which submitted the item to the Security Council makes its official and main statement on the matter. Deviation from that order of procedure would he a gross violation of the procedure and established praçtice of the Security Council. That would he the United States way of considering questions in the Security Councll, not the international way. When seated at the Security Council table) the United States representatives. want to carry on as if in their own homes. 1 stress that this is not the international method of dist::ussing questions) but a United States method which is in flagrant contradiction of the Charter and the established working practice of the Security Council. . 78. In order to consider questions at issue at its meetings in accordance with the United Nations Olarter and international practice, the Security Council must decide the question of inviting the other party before it proceeds to consider the substance of the matter. That would he a fair procedure; in accordance with the Charter of the- United Nations and nùt a unilateral) pure1y Atnerican method of work. 79. The USSR de1egation insists that the draft resolu- OOn it has submitted·should be considered and voted on before the United States representative is called upon to make bis general and principal statement on the .. substance of the item he has submitted. 8o~-.. The United Kingdom representative's reft~ence ta the ~aueness of the item submitted by the United States de1egation is open to criticism, to say the least. We al1 know what it is about. We have aU read the draft resolution wbich the United States representative submitted a few daysago [Sj2671]. The document is fatniliar ta us-we have it here in black and white. What is •• the point of the United .Kingdom representative playing at bide and seek? Let us cast aside .these empty argmnents, because we aIl know what it is abOut and what the United States wants. It wants to imposf; upon us itsarbitrary version and itsarbitrary draft resolution on the use of bacteria1 weapons in Kore., and Chiriaand ta prevent the admission to the Security Counci1of the representatives of the People's Democratie Republic of. Korea and the People's Republic of Clûna in arder to participate in its deliberations. If tbis is not sa, prove that l am wrong. Put my draft resolutien. ta the.vote·and· adopt it..Then l would be prePare! to admit that l was mistaken. 82. Eefore calling on the representative of Chile on this point, l should like to make my point of view, as President, entirely denr for the benefit of the Council. l gather that the Soviet Union representative regards what l said previously as representative of the United Kingdom as not evidence - and perhaps that is lucky for me since, in those circumstances, clear1y he cannat quote what l said lièfore as evidence - of any inoonsistency. But as President, 1 do now repeat that it seems to me that there is a strong case - 1 would say no more than that, but certainly a strûng -case - for hearing the case developed before we discuss and take a decision on the question of invitations. It seems to me that until one hears the case developed, and indeed, unless one hears the case developed.- it is difficult for any representative on the Council to take an objective view and reach a right decision on the question of whether an invitation ta anybody else, in the circumstances, is justified or not. 83. That is my view as President, but again l say that ! do not wish ta abuse my presidential powers. Havir.g said that that ls what my feeling iSI l will, when we c~me ta the end of this procedural debate, put the suggestlon to a vote of the Council for decision. 84. ~r. SANTA CRUZ (Chile) (translated from Spamsh) : l feel obliged to speak because there is one aspect of this point of arder on whi.ch l already spoke on a previous occasion. 85. At the [581st] meetitig on 25 June when we started ta discuss item 2 of the agenda, the USSR re~ presentative submitted his draft resolution and, in his capacity as President, he intended ta put it to the vote. l drl'lw the President's attention ta the faet that there was no precedent for the discussion of such a motion when the item was not yet under consideration, and l added that it was true that similar proposaIs concerning invitations had at times been discussed and voted on at the beginning of the discussion on the agenda item ta which they related and befo:e the substance of the matter was considered. The USSR representative stated distinctly that, in view of this elucidation, he would withdraw his proposaI for the moment and would not press his request for a vote until the item was included in the agenda. And no delegation made any comment in that connexioll. ju~'e whether tlie invitation is or is not necéssary. l think that those representatives who do not feel that they have at the moment sufficîent previous knowledge of the lua.tter to reach a decision should abstain or vote 8gainst such a 1110t10n. nut l do not feel that the USSR represétltathte can be denied the right to request a discussion l\1l.d a V()te on his motion, which is in order and in k-eeping with precedents estahlished in the Security Coundl. 87. The PRES!DENT ~ l quite agree with the repre- ~elttative of Chile in numy respects. l think this is a lnatter in whkh it is possible to have two views; l do not dispure that. It it werE: a case) perhaps, of an ordinarjt dispute, a case of aUeged aggressiotl 01' something of the oort) it might w~Jl be that the Security Coundl would decide tJ'J take up the question of invitation hefore discussing the substan~e of the matter; that 1h~ht well be a reasonable thing for the Council to do. In the present case, however, it seems to me that the issue ls 1'I.ot so c1ear, that a great dcal does depend on how the United States representative develops his case, and that it would therefore he reasonable for the Council to henr hùn develop his case before taking a. decision on the invitation. But, again, that is only my persona! view; it may not he shared by all members (lf the Counci1. 88. W11at l propose to do now is toput to the vote n'ly view that the Council should allow the United States representative to deve10p his case and, immediately aiter that, proceed to debate Ml'. Malik's motion. . 89. Both the representative of the United States and the representative of the Soviet Union have asked for permission to speak on a poiüt of order. l shall caU fiïst on .Ml'. Gross and then on Ml'. Malik. 9O.:M1'. GROSS (United States of America): l had :asked fur permission to speak Qn a point of arder because l understood that the Council was discussing Yr. Malik's previous point of order. l wished to say that while l appreciated the teasons wmch the President had advanced· ta justify the course he had suggestedthat is. to do me the honour of hearing my statement which, 1 be1ieve, does cast light upon the very motion which Ml'. Malik is sa a'ù..'X'Ïous ta have voted npon now-l woUld have thought that had the representative of the Soviet Union had comolete confidence in bis proposai he wùuld have welcomêd the opportunity 10 listen to my statement because, as 1 say, 1 think that itdoes shed light on the problem which he raîses..But in view of the fact that he prefers that a vote should he taken upon ms proposaInow, 1 would 1ike ta explain to the Council that l have no objection whatever. The whole of. the statement wbich l propose to make as soon as 1 cau regain the 11001' will he in the nature of ~~l~H{).nofthevote which 1 shall cast against the Soviet UmonproposaI if it is now put ta the vote. ItwiIl he clear from my statement that Mr. M~'s proposaI isunnecéssary andimproper, and that it 92. l wish, therefore, to make l11Y position dear. It is that, white l appreciate the President's analysis of the rensons why it would be more orderly and more logical to vote upon the Soviet Union proposaI after l had had the opportunity to make my statement, if the Soviet Union representative believes that my statement will delo:act from his argument l have no objection ta a vote being taken upon his proposaI hnmediately.

It is now almost one o'c1ock. Do you intend, Mr. President, ta continue this discussion or are we ta continue it at our next meeting? If you intend ta pralong the meeting, l shaIl make a statement.

l should have thought that it would have been more satisfactory ta settle this smaII .point of arder before lunch if possible, but l am in the hands of the Conncil, and l do not know, for instance, for how long Mr. Malik intends ta speak 95. ly.fr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republie) (t1'anslated from Hussian) : l intend ta speak for no more than five minutes. With the interpretation this will take some fifteen minutes. Depending upen the results of the vote, however, l intend to maIœ a statement explaining my vote, which will take some eight ta ten minutes in all. 96. The PRESIDENT :We cannot guarantee in advanct? that the outcome of the vote will be favourable to our Soviet Union colleague and that we could thus be spared his exphl.l1ation. In these circumstances l think that we would be weil advised to adjourn now and resume at 3 p.m., unless l hear anything to the contrary. 1.~ IALIt AG.NII .01 UNI'. DlPOI"AIIIIS DU, PIIIUCAflONI ....et-... "SI.lth.tGUd.ki"" l'l.oe ....lItIllA-AHllltllll IcIllOtt_' ~Udall\itI4ail' s.A" Aillil. 100. luëll"Alm. AlII1lIAUA- A",mUt H. A. lIlll!datt!. ma .ill~i Sl~ SydiliY. httll*-.Ili*t MliI':' ..1M'Uat;liil" d. t. hèH. s.AQ lm Ill' du PenO. lltllltlllt&. Wl .... ~M\tlIa Soill 11.1$ 8oll16\'étt! AdOIpll••MàlC. IlIU~iill... ~-..mtl \JbI'iltta $.1"410ill'. 1:4*'11, 9Va, !.li l',.. Màllt-..... I.Mâtl, AlIlt. kba MIIIlI40 9'.1. 1\10 d. Jal\'llto< UIIAtl l{yetsl>tI Pt&u. 299 QvWl\ SI. WeIl. TOtOillo. 1." PtelltS Uilt~llliltatlfiLaval. Qu.bée. unOM-ClfiAli Thil l\uoclalètl Nêwspapal'$ of CAylon. "Id.. Lak HOUI" Cololilbo. èllId"'WU lIbrlrl. lVilil$, MôMt/1I922. SanllaUô. CllllII-ClIiMl COh\IiI.ll:tlll Pmt. Ud.. 211 \olonan ltd. $h.n9h\\l. tkln.ÀtII.~... ïtlÂftlWA $Gu"-uel , CI•• ttllà., S Q~Ii",6Ifi•. ""1ft lIbrelt'é "A le (:.t'\'$II•• 111.8, l'btMlu.Pt\rIll" llOtliIllMl lIbrertli Pâftill1lerto6.e. lluent.. rliOuollllilpa. ._-1llII Odott! lltiIIk te Slallôn.ty HIliUSé. NliW Dalhl. P. Varedachary Pi Co., SI•• Madras 1. IlItIONIlIA_lllIIIlIUlï Jllilltllll'!'lil1lblinl}Utloll. éunun~ Dlii!atla. IUM K~b.Khall.h l}an6lh, nUI!< tollran. 'lIAQ-..... Mac"iIIlll'$B~bhol), B.t;lhdlltl.· Il.WII-llWllil Hlbarnlall Sênéta' A\l,ncv marclal Bulldlllt;lS, Dèlne ~~oMI~-(O!.~ llblêtlillatlna L1d••• Ca"é'" 6••• 13.05. lloC;lOI6. (OSTl .1CA-costa·lllCA r...iol l-lètlilan01. Aparlal!o 1313. San J016. tIllA " la Casa Ilitga, O'll.el1ly -tSS. la Habana. atCIlOS\OVAlllAtallalSLOVAQlIll tIb!t Illum$léin's Bookslortl. Road. Tél/wfl. lTAl.Y-ITAUI Collbtl s.A•• VI' ehlos'etlô UIAllClt-I'IAN llbf.lrtll uniVllt$.lIé. BO'irculh. \lUlI' J. MoillChi Kllm.l'Il. MlilIfOII1&. C:lI~slovonsk\l Splsovalèl, Nalodnl Trlda "l,Ptah.'. IIm...lt-hMlMAIlC Ein.r Munks90ord. Lld.. l'Ilfrralladll. b, LUXIMIOlIH Llbrelrtll J. S~humlllllt. K,banha~. 1<. \IOMlMICAM .II'ùlLl(_RIPlll.llOM'MlCAINI Llbrerl. OOlili~'can., Mllr<iedll 49. (;iu" dad Truil\lo. ICVADDll-tQIIATlIlll lIbrerta CionllffC4. Ir"" 362. GuayaC\Uil. 1I1PT-UYfIlt . libr.ln. .., a R.naiuènç. d·Egypl.... 9 Sh. Mly Pnsh., Celro. EL UWAlIOIt_ULVADOI' Manuel Nav•• ycr••• la "'vllnld. lur :47. S4n S4lvedor. 1tll\OPIl-C1lIIGPIE Aginea ah:"~\enn.. da ,Publi~t'. Box 128. Addit....b.~. ...._IIMWl\IE Ableamlll8ll ·l<iri.~uppa. 2. I{.m.sk.tv. Helsinki. MUI(O-.UIQUI Edllôti.l HemlG\\ S.A.. 4'. M~lco, D.F. lldIt....-.ln.us N.V. Marlinus Nljhoft. ·,.GrIYllnhage. NtWWWlll-NOlMUl.lhAllIll U. N.Assn. of N... Z•• Wolnn<jton. MteAU"'" Dr. R.miro Romlto1 V MOIWl'l-IlOIVIOI Joh.n Grundt T.num gustsgt.7A. Oslo. ,AltlSfIll Thom(\$ & Thom.s, Forl ROlId. Ko••ehi. 3. Publisho.. Unllad lfd hore. lUllCI EdffioMA.PedOll.. 13 rua Squmot. PansV. ~ and Inquiries from covntries where salés agt3lS15 have notyetbee., (IppoimeG may be sent to;Salès and . OcutationSec!itln. United NatIOlU. NIlYI York. U.S."": or •Sales Sedfon. Uniîtd Nations Office. Palais des ~ Gene'4a.~. Printed in Canada Priee: 20 cents (or equivalent in· other .curreneies)