S/PV.587 Security Council

Does any other member of the Security Coundl wish to e."q}1~~ his vote? If not, the question arises as to how we should now proceed. A draft resolution has been submitted on the problem before us by the representative of the United States, He bas suggested, and l entirely agree with him, that mem~ bers of the Coundl will \Vaut a little time to read and, indeed, to study this particular draft resolution. l suggest, therefore, as President, that the sensible thing to do, more espeeially in view of the approaching holiday, would be ta adjourn now and to meet again on, l suggest, Monday afternoon.

For the very reason which the President has given, my deleg.ltion would prefer that we meet again on Tuesday, either morning or afternoou, if the Council has no objection. That would giVl: us a little more time ta study the draft resolution i\lnd ta consult our governments.

Is there any objection ta the suggestion that we meet again on Tuesday, in the morning, shaH we say, at 11 o'clock? 28. .Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Soeialist Republics) (translated from Russian): l have not taken the floor in arder ta object ta a meeting on Tuesday; it is a matter .of indifference ta me when the meeting is called. 1 am speaking of this new question raised by the United States de1egation, and of the new clraft resolûtion which it submitted after the failure of its attempt to impose on the Security Cauneil an illegal draft resolution, contrary ta the United Nations Charter, containing a one-sided United States version and without the Council hearing the represe~tatives of the other sicle, that is ta say, the People's Republic of China and the People's Democratie Republic of Korea. The United States delegation is trying to make the best of a bad job when, in submi.· :ng its new draft resolution, it states that it does not insist on an immediate vote on that draft resolution today, in arder, it says, to give the USSR representative an opportunity of studying the draft. We do not need to study this kind of draft. Our position is clear, just and lawful' and conforms strictly to the provisions of the United Nations Charter. We do not need lUuch time to understand the provocative and slanderous character of the United States draft resolutions. 30. The United States delegation and its Government are trying ta force on the Security Council their own American, and not the international, way of considering questions; the United States disregards and tramples on the rights of the other States and peoples taking part in the discussion of .. questions sublllitted to the Security Council for consideration. 31. AU this proves that the United Stai.es represen~ tative was deceitful and hypocritical in hi· handlingof the question of the Geneva Protocol, presented by the USSR delegation, that he was equally deceitful and l!ypocritical during the discussion of the question sub~ mitted by 111S own delegation, and, finaIly, that he is being deceitful and hypocritical now, when his delega~ tion ha,s failed in its attempt ta force on the Secutity Council an illegal resolution by means of its one-sided American, and not the international, method of considering questions. . 32. For the United States representative's information - in case he does not understand or know this - it 1S the practice in the Seeurity Coundl to eonsider the substance of any draft resolution submitted to it and to take a vote on it not earlier than twenty-four hours after its submission.Please do not therefore try to do thè USSR delegation any favours. The United States representative has no right to'demand that a vote be taken on his resolution at once, as that would be contrary to the accepted practice in the Security Council. , He has submitted his draft resolution and he must nON wait twenty-four hours. He cannot insist on a vote ~eing taken until twenty~four hours have elapsed. That IS the accepted practice in the Security CounciI. There is therefore no need to pretend that he is doing some~ body a favour by not insisting on a vote. !le simply has not the rightto insist that his draft resolution be put to the vote. .Unis 33. This leads us to conc!ude that the United States r~presentative continues and will in an probability con-: tIrtue to be deceitfuI. Naturally, nothing can. comepf 34. If the United States delegation wishes to insist on a vote being taken on its draft resolution today, let it do so in spite of the accepted practice in the Security Council in which it commands a majority. The USSR delegation's position "rith regard to such a draft resolution is quite clear. It has already stated that no question and no draft resolution relating to the use of bacterial weapons in Korea by American troops can be either discussed or decided in the absence of the official representatives of the other side. No attenlpts by the United States delegation and its supporters to distort the substance of the matter and slander the USSR delegation can be successful.

I have not heard any positive objection to my suggestion that the Council might now adjourn - until il a.m., let us say, on Tuesday. Can I take it that that is agreed to by the Council? 36. Ml'. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated jro'ln Russian) : Naturally the President was quite correct in saying that there was no objection to calling a meeting of the Security Council for Tuesday morning or Tuesday afternoon at 3 p.m., or in facto for any time, to discuss the new draft resolution tabled by the United States delegation. 37. As to' our further work today, we still have an hour left in which to discuss the important item next in turn on our agenda relating to the admission of new Members. The USSR delegation insists on, and formally proposes, that the Security Council take up this agenda item. l repeat, we still have an hour. l therefore formally propose that the Security Council take up the next item on the agenda, and I ask for the foor in arder to comment briefly on the substance of this question.

I would rather doubt myself whether we are likely, in less thanan hour, to malre much progress on the question of new Members, but, of course, it is for the Council to decide.

l want ta speak ta the motion made by the representative ,d the Soviet Union. I would like ta state the reason for the objection which my delegation has ta the proposal made by the representative of·the .So.viet Union;· When the proposaI was first made by the representative of the Soviet Union - l think it was on 18June - that we take up the membership question following his item regarding the Geneva Protocol [577th meeting], my delegation at that titne pomted out, and l think with sorne support from other members of the Council, that there was an important and 40. In the view of my delegation, we have not completed the discussion of that item. l think it was pointed out by the representative of Brazil, Mr. Muniz, at our [578th] meeting on 20 June, that membership is an important question - all of us would agree ta thatbut the· decision on applications for membership is not within the competence of the Council alone, and Mr. Muniz added, at that time, that whatever action we may ta1œ here, new Members will not be admitted to the Organization until the General As- .sembly, which is to meet four months from now, has acted upon our recommendation. It is not, therefore, that we lack a !1ense of appreciation of the importance of the question which is involved in the membership issue, but that we have a very real sense of the urgency and importance which is to be attached to the pending item, consideration of which has not been completed. 41. l think it is quite dear that the Soviet Union r~presentative cannot really attach the urgency which he pretends he feels towards this item of membership. He did not hil."nself raise the question of niembership before the Secudty Council until 18 June, just a few weeks ago. Surely, if he considered the matter urgent, he would have brought it to the attention of the Council sooner than that. l think there is very little likelihood of making any substantial progress on this question within the small balance of time which remains to us this morning. l urgently request my colleagues to consider that the item which is pending, and upon which l have now circulated a drait resolutionnat as a new item but under the pending itemshauld engage our attention exdusively until it is disposed of. 42. l would like to add, in response to the comments which were made a moment or two aga by the Soviet Union representative in relation to his announcement that he would not participate in this debate, that he has been playing a game of hide and seek with his earphone, which may have resulted in his missing the'· main point of my argument a few moments ago. l did not suggest that we postpone consideration and discussion of my new drait resolution so that the Soviet Union Government would have an opportunity to COfisider it. l think all the members of the Council would waht to have an opportunity to consi<1er that draft resolntiofl, My suggestion, whkh l now repeat, is that I.think ît would be desirable - and from the viewpoint of the people of the Soviet Union themselves - if the Government of the Soviet Union would consider, during the next few days, not this drait resolution alone but more particulariy and more important, the action which it has taken here today in vetoing the draft resolution proposing an impartial investigation.

I recognize the representative of the Soviet Union on a point of order. 45. Ml'. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian) : 1 regret. that we have already wasted nearly fifteen minutes onprocedural discussion, but I am obliged to continue it in connexion with the United States representative?s statement. 46. Apparently, we shall not have time to discuss the question of the admission of new Members to the United Nations. I shall try to be brief. 47. The President interprets my proposaI incorrectly whèn he alleges that I intend to settle the question of the admission of new Me..tnbers to the United Nations in the hour which remains to us. 1 nevel' had any such intention. •This is not my first day in the Security Council and 1 have no such illusions. But in an hour we could hear a short statement by the USSR deIegation on the substance of the question which it has submitted: this would require even less time, since the statement I have with me is only two pages long and would take four or five minutes. Thus, there would be enough time for this; sorne other repl'esentatives might also speak. 48. It would seem, however, that certain delegations, especially the United States delegation, are not inclined to consider the question of the admission of new Members ta the United Nations. The United States representative tried to define his position, but l must say frankly that there is very little logic in his arguments. 49. In the first place, he says that the question which was. discussed today has not beenexhausted. To tbis I would reply 'that the substance is exhausted, since a vote was taken on the draft resolution. After the. draft resolution was rejected, however, a new ciraIt res()lution was submitted·.·on .an absolutely different basis. 50. The United States repl'esentative isnow trying to assert that .. he is .. not insistingon a vote for other reasons. WeB, let us leave that to his own conscience. In.any case, one representative has already stated that he will not even ha.ve enough time tostudy the.· new United Statesdraft adequa.tely by Monday, but that he 51. But that i5 not the question. The important thing is that the Security Council cannat therefore now proceed to consider the new United States draft resolution. It is. therefore quite logical, natural and legitimate, in accordance with the former practice of the Security Council and with precedent, ta proceed ta consider the next item and ta postpone the vote on the new draft resolution until Tuesday. Nothing and nobody would suffer by this. Meanwhile, we could begin to consider the next question on our agenda. 52. But aU these arguments of the. United States representative, all these repetitive references ta an authoritative source, such as ta the Brazilian representative's statement - allegations that in view of certain statements by the Brazilian representative, it is impossible to consider the question of the adllJission of new Members - are unconvincing. . 53. It is quite obvious that the United States representative himself is not prepared ta consider this question. It has long been said in the lobbies of the Security Council that the State Department cannot define its position on the question of the admission of new Members because of the election campaign: it does not know whether it should pursue its policy of stubborn resistance against the admission of the fourteen States to membership in the United Nations or whether it should . modify this policy ta a certain extent; the election campaign is preventing it from defining its position, and the question must therefore be postponeâ.. That is the substance of the matter. The United States and its delegation to the Security Council do not wish to consider the question of the admission of new Members to the United Nations. That is the real reason, and references ta the Brazilian representative's opinion are mea:ningless. It i8 not impossible that this opinion has been imposed on the Brazilian representative hîmself. The United States representative's statement to theeffect that he does not expect any definite results froin the discussion of the question of the admission of new Members was tantamount ta a threat that he would prevent any successful solution of this question if the Council took it up at once. In this way, the United States representative i5 orientating the discussion of the question, in advance. sentant 54. As regards this resolution, l have already said that a votecannot be taken on it today, since that would be illegal, but if he in81sts, let us take a vote. l have no objections. Vote ta your heart's content. 55. Tt is clear from the United States representative's explanation that the draft resolution has been submitted by him for propaganda ,purposes and that it needs time in which the United States Press can give 56. The United States representative stated that there was no rule of procedure concerning the twenty-four hour period for voting. But he cannot deny that there is a firmly established practice and that e1ementary deference should be shown to members of the Security Council, one of whom has already asked to be given until Tuesday to. study tbis draft resolution. But if he wishes ta ignore all this and insists, you can put bis resolution to the vote. 1 repeat that 1 shall make no objection. 57. The United States representative said that he wanted the USSR delegation to have time to reconsider their position. Let me inform the United States representative officially that there is no need for us to reconsider OUï position, wbich is clear, fair, legal and firm1y based on Article 32 of the United Nations Charter and rule. 38 of t11e Security Counci1's rulesof procedure. Controversial questions cannat· be dis-. cussed· in tue Security Council in the presence of only one side, while the other side is forbidden to attend and the daor is closed on it. This is unfair, illegal and contrary t~ the United Nations Charter. 58. 1 again repeat that the United States de1egation is trying ta force the American way of discussing questions in the Security Council and the other organs of the United Nations and that it is ignoring the internationalthe United Nations - way of discussing questions in the presence of the parties concemed. Until. the United States Government and ·its delega.- tian abandon this method of discussion, there will he nothing for the Council ta discuss. If, tberefore, there is need for anyone to reconsider its position, 1 submit that it is for the United States Govert11fientto do sa; let the .United .States Govert11fient reoonsider its position, xenounce its method of consider~ng·controversial questions in the Security Council and adopt the·internationalthe United Nations - way of allowing the other side .topartidpate in the discussion of these questions.·Then, the USSR delegation will have plenty to. say... The·discussion of these. questions would then be in line withthe international, and not the one-sided .A.merican,method. . 59. Until the United States Government reconsiders this method of discussion and gives up ifs coerciv(;, dictatorial method of discussingquestions in··the Securïty Council, it would be senseless to consider thesequestions here atall. A vote was taken by shown. of hands) as follows: In favour: Brazil, China, France, Greece, Netherlands, Pakistan, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Abstaining: Chile, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. " The proposa! was adopted by 9 votes in favour, with "2 abstentions. ' listes adoptée. SALES AGENTS FCI UNITED DEPOSIrAIRES DES PUBliCATIONS AUCE_. RECE "Elofthol'oudekis," tlon. Athanes. AlGEMTlIlA- AlGEMTlNE f:ditoriel Sudemericene S.A" Aillno 500, 8uonol Aire" AUS1UUA - AUSTlAlIE H, A. Godderd. 2SSe George St. Sydney. In'IU"- I~~GIQUE Agenco ot M~..egerie' de le PreSle S...... i4-22 ru~ du l'~rsil. Bnlxell.~ W. H. Smith & Son. 71.75 Bouteverd A:lolphe.MOlI, Bruxellos. IOllYlA -IOUVIE Libr.rlo S~teccione'. Co,ille 'Ii':!. Lo Pel. IIAIIL- IU$IL Livrerie Agir, RUe Mexico 98-0. Rio de Jeneiro. GUATEMALA Goubeud & cre. Gu.teme!e. HAnI libreirie "A le IIl·B. Port~u·Prlnca. NONDUW librerra ·Panomerlcone. FIlent•• teguclgelpa, INbll._INIlE Oxford B,ook Houso. New Delhi. P. Varedechery St•• Medra, 1. CANADA Ryerson Pre,s. 299 Qu.en St. We,t. Toronto. les Presse, Universiteire, lovol, Queb.c. cmOl!-ctYWt The Associolod Newsp.per> of CeylM, ltd.. Loke Hou,e, Colombo. INIIONiSIl-INllOllUIE Jaie,an Pembe.gunen, Piakorta. IllAII Keteb·Klanoll nue, Tohren. IRAQ-IRAK Mockenzin', Bookshop. CR1lE<- CHIll tibrerlo Ivens, Monode 822, Sontiogo. c.iJlllA-CHINE (".emmerel ' ~t4l$S, ltd. 211 Honen Rd. $heoghel. IRELAND-IILANDE Hibernien Gener~1 mercial Building,. COI!lMlIA -COIOIliIIE Ubrel~o Lotine ltde.. Cerre.o ~. 13.os. BogolS. ISIAU Blum,tein', 800btore,. Roed. Tel Av!v. COSTA IICA-COnA.IIU Troios Hermeno,. Apertedo 1313. Sen Jo,6. ITALY-ITALIE CQlibri S...... LElANON-1IIAN libroirle univorselle. UIElIA' J. Momolu Kamera. CUlA le Ce,. Belgo. O'Reilly "55. Lo Hobene. mCllOSlOYlilllA-nHECOS,OVAQUIE Co'ko,lovensky Spi,ovetel. Nerodni Trido 9. Proho 1. DEiIMAIIC- DANiIIAI!! Einer Munbgeard, ltd.. NlItnigede 6, Klllbenhevn. K. IlJXEMSOUIG lIbrairle J. Schummer. MExICO-MWQUE Editoriel Herme, 41. Mâlico. D.F. DO"'NIcv.IE'UIUC-~ DOMINICAINE lib....rlo Dominicen., Mercedes ~9. Ciu~ dedTrujillo, ECIIADOI- EQUA1EUII librerro CientlÏico, Box 3~2. Gueyequi!. NEfllEllANDS - N.V. Merlinu, 's.Gra""nheg•• E;m-E~ Libreirie "la ~eneissônce d'E.T',ne." '1 NEW ZUlANO-IIOI!YELLE.%EWIDe U. N.A..n. of Wellington. ~h. Adly Pe,hc. Ceiro, n W.YADllI-SAL\lADOl Men"ol N~ves y CIe.. le Aveoldo $Ur 37. Sen Salvodor. NlfllAIIIA Dr. Romiro· Ramlrez E1HIDPlA - OHIO'IE Agence Ethiopienne (je .PiJblicité, 8Cll 128, Addis.Ab6!lo. NOIWAY-1I01YE1E Johen Grundt gusttgt. 7.... Oslo. RIUIID_RIllAJGlE ...~t"eminen Kirjokeuppa. 2. Keshlsblu, UKISTAJj Thome, 8: Thom... Roed, Ker.chi. Publishers Unitod ho... ~.r.lnki. - lUIlCE ~iti~A. P&dO/le. 13 ru. SoullJQt,Por!lV. Ordel$ olld inquirieS froirrcount~ wher~ ~Iee agents ltcIft net yet been C1Ppollltl1l1 may be sent tOI Sales and C1rcull2fion~on, United NCllflons, New 'York, U.S.A.; orS#Jes Seclbn, United NatlollSOH/ce, fala/sdes NotiMs,~,.oyo,$~~and. - Priee:20 (pr egui..,."Jent Printed in Canada