S/PV.690 Security Council

The hostilities in progress along the coast of the Chinese mainland have long been a source of grave concern. The representative of New Zealand referred to them this morning. The situation now existing in that area of the world is particularly complex; however, we are not called upon to consider any of its aspects at present. We first have to include it in our agenda, to show that it has duly been referred to the Security Council. 45. In the proposaI submitted by the representative of New Zealand the item is defined as the question of hostilities in the area of certain islands off the coast of the mainland of China. This is a strictly objective title. In including the question in its agenda in this form the Couneil would prf"~lldge nothing and would in no way affect the positions of the parties. We shaH then have to take a decision on the proposaI made by the representative of New Zealand, regarding an invitation to the 4;. In any event 1 support the United Kingdom representative's proposaI that our discussion should be so arranged that we do not embark on the second item until our examination of the first has been completed. lt is on that condition that the Belgian delegation will vote for the adoption of the agenda as provisionally submitted. .d. Mr, BELAUNDE (Peru) (translatedfrom Spallish): There are times when a threat to the peace is not obvious, but caUs for investigation or inquiry by an international organ responsible for the maintenance of peace. The case before us is not of that kind. 49. There is a virtually unanimous agreement on the danger of the situation so objectively described by the representative of New Zealand. It may be said that an awareness has grown up in an countries, so that we may say that mankind is aware that we are going through a period of serious threats to world peace which constrain the United Nations to act immediately, urgently and with aIl possible effect. New Zealand, therefore, not only prompted by its direct interest in the maintenance of peace in the East but as a member ofthe Security Council, of which its representative is now President, has done weIl to reflect this awareness of mankind that peace is in danger of destruction and that effective measures must , he adopted to maintain it. 50. We are now discussing only the approval of the agenda, and it is not for me to embark on an examination of the causes, importance and nature of this danger. 1 am not in a position to express my opinion as to whether this danger is the result of a conflict which has heen dragging on for four years or whether it arises out of events which have occurred or come to light recently. 51. Whatever the case may he, whatever the position adopted on this subject, it is curious that bath parties should agree on the existence of a danger and on the competence of the United Nations to deal with the matter and to dispel that danger. 53. At the same time, the USSR delcgation has submitted another item, concerning which the delcgations of the Unitcd States, the United Kingdom, Brazil and Belgium have ail put forward important objections and comments. 54. In view of the trndition which we have maintained herc and of the wish of the United States to have this qucstion debatcd as l'ully as possible, in keeping with its right and its tradition, my delegation will also vote for the inclusion of this item on the agenda. But the delegation of Peru will vote on one condition: it is understood that the effcctivencss ofour work and the most elementary principles oflogie require that the first item. that proposed by New Zealand, shall first he debated l'ully until decision is reached. As soon as we have donc that, we can go on to the second item. 55. With respect to the proposaI connected with the first item, namely, the invitation to the Government of the People's Republic of China, my de!egation will give its opinion at the appropriate time. 56. Ml'. SARPER (Turkey): 1 shaH be extremely brief. Indeed, my remarks will he in the nature of an explanation ofvote. 57. My delegation will vote in favour of the inscription on the agenda of the item proposed by New Zealand. We shaH not oppose the inscription of the item proposed by the Soviet Union, but that does not mean that we agree with the wording of the item. If such words as .. acts of aggression by the United States against the People's Republic of China" are not designed to confuse the issue, they are certainly absurd-or perhaps they are OOth. 58. Wc, of course, reserve the right to speak at a later stage in order to give the Turkish delegation's views on the substance of the question under consideration. 59. Ml'. ENTEZAM (Iran) (trans/ated lrom French): should like briefly to explain my delegation's attitude to the two items which have been proposed for inclusion in the Security Council's agenda. 60. We are in favour of including the item proposed by the New Zealand delegation, which seeks a peaceful and practical way of eliminating the dangerous situation in the Straits of Taiwan. 61. With regard to the item proposed by the Soviet Union delegation, although we feel that there is no justification for the accusations against the United States and are convinced that the United States has no aggressive intentions, we are not opposed to the inclusion of that item in the agenda, as the United States representative himself bas told us that his delegation will vote for il.

The Soviet delegation would like to make a few remarks about the statements which have been made at this meeting. 65. In the first place, 1 should like to draw attention to the statement made by Mr. Lodge. He stated today that the United States admits that there exists a threat to peace in the Far East. He has also told us that tbis threat can be removed by a cease-fire. But the representative of the United States did not tell us how to bring about a ceasefire, or how hostilities can be brought to an end if the causes of these hostilities are not removed. He attempted to say nothing about the removal of those causes which create these hostilities in the Far East. 66. Where are these hostilities, referred to by Mr. Lodge, taking place? Is it not a fact that the hostilities to which Mr. Lodge referred are taking place on Chinese territory, on coastal islands belonging to China? And if these hostilities are taking place on Chinese territory, then it is appropriate to ask who is conducting them on Chinese territory. Who is the other side in these hostilities and what country is supporting the other side with its armed forces? The anS'Ner to these questions is clear. 67. Mr. Lodge will scarcely he able to deny that the armed forces of the United States are supporting the Kuomintang bands which have seized Chinese islands . and that this support is taking increasingly larger proportions, contributing to an extension of hostilities in this area. In the United States plans for the employment of substantial numbers of United States armed forces in these and other Chinese territories are already openly under discussion. This being so, thl~ mere cessation of hostilities can hardly lead to the desired result referred to by the Unitl::d States representative: the removal of the threat of war in the Far East. 68. In order to remove this threat, the sources of this threat must he removed, namely the intervention of the United States in the internaI affairs of China, the presence of the United States armed forces on Chinese territory, and hostilities conducted by United States armed forces against the People's Republic ofChina. As long as United States armed forces reroain on Chinese territory, there can of course he no question of eliminating the threat oÎ war by a cease-fire. 71. The question has also been raised of giving priority to the discussion of one of the two items on the Security Council's provisional agenda, namely to the item proposed by New Zealand. In my opinion it would be more correct to consider this issue after the Council has decided whether or not to inc1ude each item on its agenda. If we are now approaching the stage of discussing the order of the items under consideration, 1 should like to say that the USSR delegation will propose the examination of the items on our agenda in a different order from that suggested, for instance, by the representative ofthe United Kingdom and other representatives. We propose to consider first the question of United States acts of aggression against the Chinese People's Republic, for the simple reason that the New Zealand proposaI is fundamentally inadequate in that it does not touch upon the real reasons which have led to an embitterrnent of relations in the Far East and raised a threat of war, and of the creation ofa new theatre of war in the Far East. 72. At the same time we believe that a purely superfieial consideration of the question, without taking ioto account the reasons of the present threat of war, cannot lead to those positive results which the peoples of our countries are expecting. Therefore, 1 reserve the right, when the time comes for discussing the order of consideration of the items, to propose a different order from that which has just been suggested.

We now appear to have reached an end of the debate on the question of the adoption of the agenda. Before we conc1ude it, 1 wish to say as representative of NEW ZEALAND that 1 associate myself completely with the remarks made by the representative of the United Kingdom on the Soviet Union item which, in the vicw of my delegation, is stale and unprofitable.

1 should like to make a motion on the related questions of the adoption of the agenda and the priority of consideration to he given to the two items on the provisional agenda. This motion, which 1 will offer in a moment, is designed to give effect to the opinion 1 offered in my earlier intervention that it would be right for the Council to adopt both the items on its agenda and first take up the New Zealand item and reach a conclusion on il. 1 am emboldened in making this motion by the degree of support which this opinion appeared to have received around this 75. The motion is as follows: .. 1. That the Council vote first on the question whether to inscribe the New Zealand item; .. 2. That the Council vote second on the question whethcr to conc1ude its consideration of the New Zealand item before taking up the Soviet Union item, if that is adopted on the agenda; and cc 3. That the Council vote third on the question whether to Ïïlscribe the Soviet Union item." 76. Ml'. SOBOLEV (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translatedfrom Russiall): The procedure the United Kingdom representative has just proposed is an unusual procedure, which up to now has not been followed in the Security Council. The Council's normal procedure is first to decide on the items to be included in its agenda and afterwards to consider the order in which these items are to be examined. 77. What is the United Kingdom representative now proposing? He is proposing that we should forthwith, in our first vote, not merely take a decision on the items to be included in the agenda but also determine in advance which of these items should be considered first, and then after this has been settled, to decide whether or not the second item should be included. 1 do not understand the purpose of this unusual procedure. Perhaps the United Kingdom representative is reluctant to come ioto the open and state that bis delegation does not wisb to discuss the Soviet Union's proposaI and has devised a procedural method of evading its discussion? There is no other way of understanding the proposaI submitted by the representative of the United Kingdom. ?8. 1 have made a proposai, and 1 insist that the normal procedure be observed, namely, that to hegin with we vote on the inclusion in the agenda of each of the items which are on the provisional agenda. After that, the Security Council shol41d discuss and decide which of the questions on the agenda should he examined first. After it has decided which of the questions it will discuss first, it can and should go on to examine the substance of that question. This is the normal, customary order of procedure, and 1 see no reason for departing from il.

1must admit that 1do not quite understand the scope and purpose of the United Kingdom representative's motion. 1 am myself entirely in favour of giving priority to the item proposed by New Zealand, and will vote for it 80. Moreover, as the various statements made indicate that the Council is almost unanimously in favour of giving priority to the discussion of the item proposed by New Zealand, 1 cannot understand why we should seek to achieve this result by roundabout methods rather than by the regular procedure.

1 do not think that this is a very vitally important matter. However. let me say that this is one time when 1 am not in complete agreement with the representative of France. J usually do agree with him on procedural questions. 82. In this case, it does not seem to me that we are planning to establish a priority over another question which is not before us. What the United Kingdom representative's motion asks us to do is merely to dcclare that we shall conc1ude the New Zealand item first, which is really not quite the same thing. It does not seem to me that the motion of the representative of the United Kingdom is revolutionary or very novel. 83. This Council is the master ofits own procedure. We can decide what we shaH take up first, what we shaH take up second and what we shaH take up third. It is the kind of thing that every legislative body does every day. 84. It seems to me that the motion of the representative of the United Kingdom has certain very great merits. In the first place notbing could be more chaotic and tend more to defeat the purposes of the Charter than to consider these two items together. The adoption of the United Kingdom motion, therefore, is very definitely in the interests of orderly procedure. 85. Then 1 believe that most of us here exc1ude the possibility of considering the Soviet Union item first. It is obviously a "cold-war" item that was offered at the last moment. It is a propaganda item which was taken up at the 1ast session of the General Assembly. It is a manœuvre. Consequently, it should not be taken up first. The motion of the representative of the United Kingdom takes care of that. 86. The motion is worded in such a way as to take into account the interests of every member here. It is not a package deal or a global proposaI. It specifically enumerates aIl the different alternatives and gives every repre-

Before 1call upon the representative of the Soviet Union, 1 wish to state that 1 have before me, as President, a fomlal motion which 1 am bound to put to the Council.

The Security Council is of course absolutely free to determine the procedure it shall follow in organizing its work. We have as a guide our rules of procedure, which lay down the manner in which our work should be organized. 90. The first item on every agenda is the adoption of the agenda; and the first item on today's provisional agenda is accordingly the item " Adoption of the agenda ". 91. Consequently the first matter before the Council is to adopt its agenda. So far we hsve not done so; we have not yet adopted our agenda or decided what items to include in it. The adoption of the agenda takes piace in two stages: the first being a decision on the items to be included, and the second a decision on the order in which these items will be considered. 92. The motion submitted by the United Kingdom representative reverses this normal order of procedure and, as 1 have already pointed out, proposes that the Council should depart from the procedure it has hitherto followed for reasons which 1 must frankly admit 1 do not understand. 93. 1 propose that the Security Council should follow the normal procedure, and 1 request the President to ensure that the normal procedure for the adoption of the agenda is followed.

A formaI motion has been presented. As the servant of the Council, 1 am bound to put that motion to the Council for its decision. 1 therefore propose that representatives should now vote on the United Kingdom motion.

Since 1 note that there appears to he some difficulty about my motion, which 1 presented in an effort to be helpful, 1 could perhaps ease the position if 1 modified the motion somewhat. 1 should like to say that my sole object in making the motion was to facilitate the adoption of the agenda and an orderly discussion. There was no other, hidden purpose at all. 96. 1 think that 1 am fully entitled to propose a revision of my motion. The revised wording which 1 suggest is as fol1ows: "1. That the Couneil vote first on the question whether to inscribe the New Zealand item; .. 2. That the Council vote second on the question whether to inscribe the Soviet Union item;

1 ooly want to say that the new text of the United Kingdom motion mereiy me':"'s Lhat, as 1 had already proposed, \": c::houid follow the procedure which we have always fol',owed ID such cases. 1therefore support it fully. 100. 1 shall take this opportunity to add that my delegation will vote against the amendment which tl..e USSR representative has proposed.

The Council has now to consider a revised motion submitted hy th~ representative ofthe United Kingdom. 102. There is as well an amendment put forward by the representative of the USSR, which is an amendment to paragraph 3 of the motion. 103. According to regular procedure, we shall vote first on the amendment submitted by the representative of the Soviet Union.

1 should like the President to state whether 1 am right in assuming that the question of inc1uding or not including in the agenda the item proposed by New Zealand, and also the item proposed by the USSR, will be put to the vote separately?

1 am prepared to do that if there is no objection on the part of any memher of the Council.

1 only want to point out that if the Council votes on the USSR amendment first, as is customary, we shall he faced with an absolutely illogical decision of having to establish an order of priority between two items, without knowing whether both will he adopted. 107. Accordingly 1 wish to state here and now that, for this and other reasons, 1 shall have to vote against that amendment.

Before calling upon the representative of the USSR, 1 would like to state tbt 1 do not think that we should reopen the debate now. What 1 propose to do is to ask the Council to vote first on the

1 understand the surprise of the Belgian representative. We have unfortunately adopted an unusual procedure, that of deciding the order in which items are to be discussed before inc1uding them in our agenda. It is precisely this unusual procedure which accounts for my amendment. Nevertheless, 1 would point out that, by the time my amendment is put to the vote, the Council will have taken a decision to include or reject the two items contained in the provisional agenda. It will thus be in a position, legitimately and in accordance with the rules of procedure, to decide on the arder in which it wishes to consider the items.

We sha11 now proceed to the vote. Ill. The first matter that 1 shall put to the vote is paragraph 1 of the motion of the representative of the United Kingdom [para. 96]. A vote was taken by show of hamJs. In favour: Belgium, Brazil, France, Iran, New Zealand, Peru, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Against: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Abstaining: China. The paragraph was adopted by 9 votes to J, with one abstention.

Now lask the Couneil to vote on paragraph 2 of the motion of the representative of the United Kingdom. A vote was taken by show ofhanl/s. In favour: Belgium, Brazil, France, Iran, New Zealand, .Peru, Turkey, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Against: Chinz The paragraph was adopted by io votes to one.

1 shall now put to the vote the amendment of the representative of the Soviet Union [para. 98] to paragraph 3 of the motion of the representative of the United Kingdom. A vote was taken by show of hanlJs. In favour: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Against: Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Iran, New Zealand, Peru, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Against: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Letter dated 28 January 1955 from the rcprcsentative of New Zealand to the Presideut of the Security Council concerning the question ot' hostilitics in the area of certain islands off the coast of the mainland of China (Sj3354)

ln my opening speech when we discussed the adoption of the agenda [689th meeting] as representative of New Zealand, 1 indicated my intention to ask the Council's agreement on the extension of an invitation to the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China to be represented in the Council during the discussion of the New Zealand item. A number of other representatives gave that proposaI their emphatic support. 116. Therefore, 1 would DOW formally ask for the Council's concurrence in the proposaI to invite a representative of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China .0 participate in the discussion ofthe New Zealand item, and to ask the Secretary-General to convey this invitation to the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China.

1 listened very attentively this morning to what the President, as representative of New Zealand, had to say with regard to the rèasons which had led his Government to place before the Security Council the situation prevailing off the coast of China and the threat which it constitutes to the maintenance of international peace and security. In taking this step the New Zealand Government could rest assured of the approval of aH to whom that situation is a source of concern and who think that the United Nations has a duty under the Charter to consider methods whereby the dangers presented by such a situation may he averted. That means that it has the support of the French Government, and that the French delegation will collaborate fully in such an examination. 118. For several months there has been a recrudescence of hostilities in the area of Formosa between the forces of the Peking and the Taipei regimes. This new phase of the conftict in which for over twenty years two factions of the Chinese people have been involved is taking place in an international context which we may by no means ignore. We are not called upon to pass judgment on the 119, The Securily Council must embark on this task with aU the calm. self-control and objectivity for which ils international responsibilities caU. We must forearm ourselves against any rash action. any hurried procedure, any spectacular enterprise lightly undertaken and of necessity doomed to failure. AIl our efforts must be directed to the graduaI decrease oftension in that troubled area. and on the other hand to avoid anything which might harden the hostile feeling of the opposing parties. We shall advance along this road of peaceful settlement only step by step, without trying to break a speed record. 120. The first objective which the Council must set itself, the only objective which it can adopt at this time is to arrange, by means of a cease-fire, the suspension of the present hostilities. Such a measure does not prejudice the rights ofeither party ncr endanger any of theil' claims, but will simply, for its duration, avert the undeniable dangers to which world peace is subjected by the continuation of hostile acts in and on both sides of a great international shipping route. 121. Furthermore, as 1 have already said, the conflict between Peking and Taipei cannot be divorced from its international background, or considered apart from the diplomatic, political and strategie positions taken in direct connexion with it by various Powers. It is not for the Council to make a statement today on the legitimacy of those positions, nor is it competent to do so. The fact that they exist on both sides is enough to increase considerably the dangers of an extension, perhaps a general extension, of the dispute beyond its present boundaries as a result of an incident provoked by those hostilities. We must accordingly try and put an end to the threat ofan extension of such hostilities and to their possible origin as well. It is not yet a question of pouring water on the powder-barrel, but simply of putting out the fuse which may at any moment set off an explosion. 122. A cease-fire can neither be proclaimed nor imposed urJlaterally. It cannot be instituted without agreement and supervision. Whatever may be the forros of that agreement, it must of necessity include a line of demarcation which both parties undertake not to cross. The Security Council is not without experience in tbis matter. lt was under such conditions that cease-fires \Vere proclaimed in both Palestine and Kashmir. AllY discussion in the Security Council designed to bring about a cease-fire in the arÇa of Taiwan (Formosa) would presuppose participation by aIl parties concerned; and the French delegation can only give its full agreement to theproposai of the representative of New Zealand that the Government of the People's Republic of China should be invited to send a representative to New York for the purpose. The success of our debates will depend partly on bis participation, wbich will imply no change in the respective political or legal positions, nor renunciation of any 124. The invitation addressed to the Government of the People's Republic ofChina will be transllÙtted through the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The tenns of reference given to the Secretary-General should leave him the sole judge of the ways and m.eans which he may deem most approprIate to ensure the success of his task. Ml'. Dag Hammarskjold recently carried through, in a manner which does him the greatest honour, his first mission to the Government of Peking, and if more rapid results are not being achieved, he is not to blame. The persona! contact which he established with the Prime Minister of the Chinese People's Republic, and the confidence which he succeeded in inspiring in those with whom he spoke, are so many happy and positive factors which he can place at the service of the United Nations and of peace. 1have no doubt that they will help him to convey to Ml'. Chou En-lai, in the manner which he may deem most effective, the implications of our invitation, the meaning which we attach to it, and our desire to see the successful progress of our debates rendered possible by ms participation in them. 125. For the time being, my delegation will limit its intervention in the debate on the second item on our agenda to these brief comments. Time is short indeed. The situation in the Formosa area is deteriorating rapidly, and we must ail subject ourselves to the discipline which the President has recommended to us in order not to obstruct the first move towards relaxation of international tension which the whole world is expecting l'rom the Security Council. 126. My delegation, however, reserves the right to intervene in this debate again if its developments warrant il. 127. Ml'. TSIANG (China): 1 am opposed to the proposai to invite the Communists in my country to participate in the debate in the Security Council on the New Zealand item, or on any item of business. The Communist regime at Peking was solemnly condemned by the United Nations as an aggressor in Korea. That condemnation remains 011 our books. lt is morally wrong and politically foolish to invite aggressors to participate in our debates. 128. My fellow countrymen regard the Communists as tools of international Communism and oppressors of the people. If the people of my country had the freedom to 129. What the United Nations can do to help my people to regain its freedom is a question worthy of the consideration of this Council, but 1 do not propose to go into that. The principles of the Charter at least compel us not to add to the burdens and difficulties of the Chinese people in their struggle for freedom. 130. The Council must realize that an invitation of this kind adds to the prestige of the Communists in my country and in all Asia. In the winter of 1950 the Security Council, in spite of my opposition, did invite a representative of the Communists. The man who came here. Wu Hsiu-chuan by name, let loose on all of us a barrage of abuse and propaganda. Both the manner and the substance of his statements dealt severe blows to the cause of freedom and peace and to the very dignity of the Security Council. 131. 1 request that the President put his own proposai submitt~d as representative of New Zealand to the vote. 1 shall vote against il.

The President in bis capacity as representative of New Zealand has submitted for the Security Council'5 consideration a very important proposai concerning the invitation of a representative from the People's Republic of China. The Council must' take a decision on this proposaI, but 1 do not see it in writing. A resolution of such importance is usually, in accordance with rule 31 of the rules of procedure, submitted in writing. 1 should like to have this proposaI in writing in order to give it thoughtful consideration and determine my position. 133. It would also, 1 think, be in accordance with our normal procedure if we were given time to think about , this proposaI after it has been placed before us. 134. 1 would ask you, Mr. Presiderit, to respect the requirements ofrule 31 ofthe ruies of procedure regarding the submission of proposais in writing, and enable members of the Security Council to receive this proposai in written form.

1 shaH now reply to the representative of the Soviet Union in my capacity as the representative of NEW ZEALAND. 136. The representative of the Soviet Union will know, of course, that normally 1 would like to suit his convenience. However, we are dealing now with a very urgent matter. In my opinion, it is necessary that tbis invitation should he extended and sbould he f)xtended immediatey. 138. In addition, this is not a substantive motion as defined by rule 31 of the rules of procedure whieh states: ., Proposed reso!utions. amendments and substantive motions shall normally he placed before the representatives in writing." J ask r~presentatives to note the word " normally ". It does not mean "obligatory ". The matter before us is an urgent one. In any event, this not a substantive proposai; it is a procedural proposaI. 139. In pursuance of that, 1 am putting beforc the Council, as the representative of New Zealand, the proposai that we do now invite a representative of the People's Republic of China. 1urge that we deal with this expeditiously.

The United States agrees that the Security Council 'should invite the Chinese Communist regime to send a representative to be present at the Council's discussion of the Nt:w Zealand item. 141. We believe that in any efforts to end an armed conflict to which the Cbinese Communist regime is party, it is useful for this regime to be present. This was our attitude in 1953 concerning the Korean Politieal Conference. It is also the case here and now. 142. Our support for this motion has no bearing whatever on the question of our opposition to the representation of China by the Chinese Communists in the United Nations or in any body thereof. Nor does our support ofthis motion imply any change in our established attitude against recognition of the Chinese Communist regime.

1 now propose to put formally to the vote of the Security Council the proposai that the Cl,luncil invite a representative of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic ofChina to partieipate in the discussion ofthis item, and that the Secretary- General be requested to convey this invitation to the Central People's Government of the People's Repuhlic of China. A vote was taken by show of hands. ln favour: Belgium, Brazil. France, Iran, New Zealand, Peru, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Against: China. Abstaining: Union of Soviet Soçialist Republics. The propo.val K'as adopted hy 9 votes to one, with one abstention. 145. The USSR delegation has abstained fl'om voting on this proposaI. It has abstained because, as we have alrcady pointed out, the New Zealand delegation's proposul, which appears as item 2 on the agenda does not really serve the purpose of reducing international tension and ofeliminating the threat of a new war in the Far East. 146. The USSR delegation submitted its own proposai [5/3356] to the Security Council, which wps that a representative of the People's Republic of China should be invited to participate in the discussIOn of the item concerning United States acts of aggression against the People's Republic of China and insists on this proposai which dearly rcflects our attitude to the question as a whole. Since the USSR delegation voted against the inclusion of the New Zealand item in the agenda, it obviously could not support the propo"al which has just been put to the vote.

The proposai of the New Zealand delegation has been adopted, and 1 shaH rcquest the Secretary-General to convey the invitation accordingly. In doing so, the Secretary-General will no doubt take into account the views expresseâ. by representatives as to the desirability of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China accepting this invitation. 148. MI'. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgium) (translated /rom French): The Security Council, after the decision which it has just taken, will certainly see fit to postpone further discussion of the question until a later date. Vou, MI'. President, in your capacity as representative of New Zealand, suggested this morning [689th meeting, para. 39] that before opening the debate on the substance it would he necessary to adjourn in order to aUow adequate time for the invitation to be conveyed and for a reply to be received. 1 hereby submit a formai motion to that effect. '149. The PRESIDENT: Under rule 33 of the rules of procedure 1am bound to put to the vote the motion of the representative of Belgium, which is a simple motion for adjournment, which must be put to the vote without a debate. A l'ote \l'as taken by show of hands. ln favour: Belgium, Brazi1, France, Iran, New Zea1and, Peru, Turkey, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ire1and, United States of America. Against: China. The motion was adopted by JO votes to one. The meeting rose at 6.25 p.m. ARGENTiNA Sudamericana a- Air-. FINLAND - FINLANDE: kauppa, 2 Keskuskatu, AUSTRAUA - AlISTRALIE : H. A. Goddard Ply.• Lld•• 25~a Georae Street, Sydnpy, N.S.W. Melbourne Unh'crsity Press. Carlton N. .1 (Victoria). FRANCE : Editions Paris V·, • AUSTRIA - AUTRICHE : Gerold li<. Cil.. 1. Graben 31, WieD 1. B. Wl1llel1llQrlr, Book Import and Subl'Cription Apncy. Markus Sillikusstrasse 10, Sallbul'll. GERMAN\' - ALLEMAGNE: Elwert &. Meure,', Sebllnebera. W. E. Saarbach, handel, Gereonstrasse, Alexander Hom, BELGIUM - BELGIQUE : Alilen~-e et Mcssalleries de la Presse S. A., 14-22 rue du Persil, Bruxell... W. H. Smith &. Son, 71·75 hd Adolphe-Max, 8nD.ell... GREECE - GRfi:CE Stadion Streel, Atbett BOUVIA - BOLIVIE: Lihrerla Sele.:cioll0:5. EmpI'ClSa Editora "la Razùn", Casilla 972, LaPaI. HAIT! : Max Boucbereau, ,'Clic ". Boite postale HONDURAS: Librerla Fuenlc, TellllCiRalpa. aRAZlL - BRtslL : LiYTllria Aair, Rua Mel\ico 98.8, Cain Postal 3291, Rio dP Janeiro, D.F. HONG KONG: Swindon Road, Kowlooo. CAMBODIA - C.-\MBODGE : Papeteric·Librairie nouwlle, Albert Portlli.. 14 av. Iloulloche, Paoa-Peab. ICELAND - ISLANDE: Eymundsonnar. Austurstreti CANADA : The R)'erson Pres... 299 Queen St....,t West, Torooto. Ontario. Periodiça, 5112 av. Papineau. Montréal 34. INDIA - INDE: .t.Company, St.:india P. Varadacbary li<. Madrall. CEYLON - CEYLAN: The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon, Lld., Lake House, Colombo. INDONESIA - INDONtslE aunan, Gununa Sahari 84, CHlLE - CHILI: Librerla Ivens, Calle Moneda 822" SU\iaaO. Editorial dei Pacifico, Ahumada 57. SaDtlqo. IRAN : Kelab Khaneb Teheran. CHINA - CHINE: The World Ilook Co., Ltd., 99. CbUll& Kina Raad, Ist Section, Taipab, Taiwan. The Commercial Press. ltd.• 110 Liu Li Cbans, P.... IRAQ - IRAK: Mackenzle's sellers and Stationers, ISRAEL: 81umstein's Road, P.O.B. 4154, COLUMBIA - COLOMBIE : Libreria Nacional, Ltda., 20 de Julio. San Juan·Jesus, Baraoqullia. Ubreria Buchholz Galerlll, A,.. Jimenez de Quesada 8-40. Boaotl. Ubrerla América, Sr. Jaime Navarro R.•49·58 Calle 51. MedalliL rrALY - ITALIE: Sansoni. Via Gino Capponi JAPAN - JAPON: Nichome. Nibonbasbi. P.O.B. LIBAN: LEBANON Beyroutb. COSTA RICA: Treios Hermanos, Apartado 1313, SU Jeaé. LIBERIA: Mr. Jacob and Front Streets, CUBA : La Casa Bel,p. Rene de SMCdI, O'ReiUy 455.LaH...... LUXEMBOURG: Librairie Guillaume, Luxembolll'll. CZECHOSJ OVAKlA - TCHtCOSLOVAQUIE : CeIkoslovensk)' Spisovatel, Nàrodni Trida 9, PnIIa 1. MEXICO - MEXIQUE lanacio Mariseal 41, DENMAIlK - DANEMARK: Messrs. Einar Munkspard, Ltd., Nôrrepde 6. K6beobarn. NETHERLANDS - Niiboff, Lanae Yoorhout DOMINICAN REPUBUC - IU:PUBLIQUE DOMINICAINE: Libreria Dominicana, Calle Meroedell 49, Apanado 656, Cindad TrujiUo. NEW ZEALAND - The United Nations G.P.O. 1011, WelÜDl:too. ECUADOR - ~QUATEUR: Ubreria Cienlifica Bnmo Moritz, CasiUa 362, GayaquiL NICARAGUA: Dr. de Publicaciones, Manqua EGYPT - iGYPTE : Ubrairie .. La Renaissance d~te ", 9 Sbaria Adly Pasha, Cairo. NORWAY - NORVfi:GE Forlag, Kr Augustsst --------------------------- Or.r. tr;)lft cOUlllrl~s II/MU! sales tIIlents ~ IlOt yet been appoÜlled 1fUJy be sem to s.a. Sediea. EInpeu Of&œ of tbe United Nationl. PaIaia .. NUÎOBI. GENEVA (SwitRr1aDcl) or SalaI .. CiI'CII1atioII Sec:tioa, Ullited Natïoa. 1II"EW YORK (U.S.A.) Priee: iV.S. 0.25; (or equivalent PriDtcd in France