1. Council voted first on new Soviet amendment to Australian- Chinese resolution providing for establishment of Commission composed of the States Members of the Security Council to supervise fulfilment of the decision of the Security Council of 1st August.  The amendment was supported by U.S.S.R., Australia, Poland, Syria, U.S., Colombia and Brazil, but was vetoed by France. Belgium also voted against, the U.K. and China abstained.
2. We gathered from Parodi that he would have to veto any proposal for the establishment of a Security Council Commission in view of the importance attached by France to the maintenance of Article 2(7). We therefore supported the Australian-Chinese Resolution (our 784 , paragraph 1) which was passed by seven votes with U.K., U.S.S.R., Poland and Colombia abstaining. In any case, China refused to withdraw the joint Australian-Chinese resolution but we made it clear that if not passed as we fully expected it would not be, we would introduce immediately our original resolution  which was not withdrawn but only reserved.
3. Proposals for settlement of dispute were then put to a vote.
Polish proposal for mediation and arbitration by Council Commission of 11  was defeated, receiving votes only of U.S.S.R., Poland and Syria. Our own resolution (784 paragraph ) was also defeated, being supported only by Syria and Colombia.
U.S. Resolution (our 784 paragraph 3) was carried by 8 to 0, U.S.S.R., Poland and Syria abstaining.
4. The Belgian Resolution in reference to I.C.J. (U.N. 784 paragraph 3) was then taken up but debate was adjourned till to- morrow morning.
5. On the whole we consider position quite satisfactory. Group of Consular Observers has very wide general powers (to which the U.K.
objected) it can function immediately and will not be frustrated by Soviet obstruction and will report direct to the Council.