When the sub-committee on Veto commenced work to-day the advantage we had gained at the previous meeting  was lost when Wellington Koo (China) introduced a revised proposal of his own  and pleaded for its acceptance on grounds of conciliation. Text which is contained in our Assembly 332 is unacceptable to us but was immediately seized upon by Vyshinsky who withdrew the Soviet proposal and accepted Chinese proposal subject to deletion of the word 'permanent' before members in the second paragraph and deletion of reference to special voting rights in the same paragraph. Vyshinsky made a great show of conciliation and began to attract waverers including France with prospect of unanimity.
2. Australia immediately made it clear that the revised Chinese proposal was unacceptable and asked for return of our resolution from Committee One along with other resolutions.
3. United Kingdom formally moved for return of all proposals to committee for voting and we believe they will stand firm but we are less confident regarding United States which may be persuaded to accept Chinese text or something like it. We are working hard to maintain support but composition of sub-committee, which was handicapped by Manuilsky, and weakness of Danish Chairman renders our task difficult. We intend to press for the return of our resolution to Committee One for voting although running the risk of losing some of our support, particularly as the Chinese text is plausible.