S/PV.2117 Security Council

In accordance with the decisions taken at previous meetings I invite the representatives of Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Cuba, Democratic Kampuchea, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mongolia, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Poland, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber. At the invitation of thePresident, Mr. Anderson (Australia), Mr. Kostov (Bulgaria)), Mr. Barton (Canada). Mr. Roa Kouri (Cuba), Mr. Thiounn Prasith (Democratic Kampuchea), Mr. Florin (German Democratic Republic), Mr. Hollai (Hungary), Mr. Jaipal (lndia), Mr. Anwar Sani (Indonesia), Mr. Abe (Japan), Tan Sri Zaiton Ibrahim (Malaysia), Mr. Dashtseren (Mongolia), Mr. Francis (New Zealand), Mr. Naik (Pakistan), Mr. Yang0 (Philippines), Mr. Jaroszek (Poland). Mr. Koh (Singapore), Mr. Guna-Kasem (Thailand) and Mr. Ha Van LOU (Viet Nam) took the places reservedfor them at the side of the Council chamber.

I should like to inform members of theCouncil that I have received letters from the representatives of Angola, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Yugoslavia in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion. In accordance with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion, without the right to vote, in conformity with, the provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the provisional rules of procedure. At the invitation of the President, Mr. de Figueiredo (Angola), Mr. Sangsomsak (Lao People’s Democratic Republic) and Mr. Komatina (Yugoslavia) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber.

Mr. President, I wish to extend to you the congratulations of the Nigerian delegation on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for the month of February. Your patience, competence and skill as a diplomat have been amply demonstrated by the way in which you have conducted the arduous business of the Council during the last few weeks. I certainly hope that you will conclude some of these subjects before I take over in two days’ time. 4. Naturally I also wish to acknowledge the able manner in which your predecessor, Ambassador Donald Mills of Jamaica, handled the affairs of the Council during the month of January. I hope that he is able to wear his two hats-in the Group of 77 and in the Security Councilwithout becoming a juggler. 5. Once again the Council is preoccupied with the problem of South-East Asia. It was only a few weeks ago that we dealt with the complaint brought before the Council by Democratic Kampuchea, a country where outside forces appeared to have been involved in the overthrow of the Government. Since then, from all indications, the situation in that region of the world has deteriorated. Chinese forces are now in the territory of Viet Nam and the area of conflict has widened. The conflict itself has become more intense in nature and more human lives are being lost. 6. Last month my delegation outlined fundamental principles which we believe must be adhered to in international relations. We continue to reiterate those principles because it is necessary to do so, even though they are well documented in the Charter of the United Nations. Since that time they have become more relevant and more pertinent to the evolution of a durable solution to the crisis in South- East Asia. 7. As enshrined in the Charter, respect for the national independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of States is a cardinal norm in international relations. Noninterference in the internal affairs of States is another, while 8. History is replete with instances of local&d or regional conflicts leading to wider and even global conflagrations. For decades South-East Asia has been a hotbed of crisis. Many conflicts in that region have been resolved but often at a cost of unimaginable sacrifices of both human and material resources, affecting the people of that whole area. Nevertheless, conflicts seem to reappear in one form or the other. There seems to be a continual cycle of violent conflicts in South-East Asia, a region where peace and stability have continued to elude the people. 9. The Council would be failing in its duty if the results of our present deliberations attempted to sweep the problems under the carpet and did not contribute towards peace and stability in South-East Asia. We must all give of our best efforts to evolve a meaningful solution to the problems of South-East Asia. In this connexion, the permanent members of the Council who, by virtue of their privileged positions, dangle before us the power of the veto have to live up to their responsibilities and obligations. 10. Considerations of power politics and historical rivalties should be replaced by the genuine determination of the world Powers to seek peace and stability in that region. In the long run it is in their own interest to do so. The wellbeing of the people who, by reason of factors of history and geography, are compelled to inhabit South-East Asia, must be our preoccupation. The waste in human and material resources can be stopped and those resources should be diverted towards alleviating human suffering and advancing the welfare of the people in that region. Il. As a member of the Council, which Article 24 of the Charter charges with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, we join in the call for a general cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of all foreign forces to within their internationally recognized borders and we urge all parties concerned to move from the battlefield to the negotiating table. In this regard, we acknowledge the offer of the Secretary-General to make his good offices available. As usual, the Nigerian delegation is grateful to him for that sacrifice, in view of his very many preoccupations. 12. In conclusion, I wish to share with the Council the words of an eminent African statesman who said: “The glorious pages of history have been written only in those moments when men have been able to act to prevent impending tragedies”. In our view, now is such a time, and we hope that all those concerned will appreciate that what we tend to regard as brushfires occurring today in South- East Asia could become global conflagrations.

In my statement at the Council meeting held on 23 February /2114th meeting/, I already expounded in a comprehensive way China’s position on the relevant questions under consideration. Now, I should like to make a further statement on some of the questions referred to in the statements of the Soviet and Vietnamese representatives. 15. The Soviet representative is trying hard to pin the label of hegemonism and expansionism on China. Who on earth is really practising hegemonism? 16. The facts are there. In the past year alone-not looking into the distant past-Soviet social-imperialism has taken more hasty, more drastic and more rabid steps than ever before in practising hegemonism and expansionism in various parts of the world, and the means they have employed have been more despicable and truculent. In addition to the ceaseless arms build-up and troop reinforcement in Europe, which pose an ever-increasing direct military threat to the countries in western, northern and southern Europe, the Soviet Union has quickened its pace of aggression in Africa, the Middle East, the Red Sea and the Gulf region, areas flanking Europe. At the same time it has been stepping up its expansionist activities in South- East Asia. In Africa, it deliberately provoked and got directly involved in the armed conflict in the Horn of Africa, using Africans to tight Africans. In so doing it hoped to gain profit and seize a foothold in this area of strategic importance. Subsequently, it flagrantly engineered another mercenary invasion of Zaire, kindling the flame of a second Shaba war. Playing the jackal to the tiger, Soviet-hired hatchetman Cuba has now dispatched over 50,000 military personnel to some countries, playing a role which the Soviet Union cannot play by itself. The Soviet Union is now using foreign mercenaries to pull the chestnuts out of the tire as an important method in its current aggression and expansion abroad. 17. In Africa, the Middle East, the Red Sea and the Gulf region, by military involvement and subversive means, the Soviet Union has sent military personnel and established bases to control the Red Sea lanes, using them as a bridgehead for active expansion in the Arabian peninsula and the Gulf region. To this end, it is whipping up social turmoil and fostering agents and pro-Soviet forces wherever possible, not even hesitating to resort to subversion by means of coups d’etat, assassination and other brutalities. It cannot even tolerate leaders of Asian and African States who show the slightest tendency towards independence. It tries by every possible means to remove them and even annihilate them physically. Such appalling instances are known to all and cannot be denied. Everyone is aware that Soviet intervention is behind the unrest and turmoil in many countries and regions. 18. In pursuit of global hegemonism, the Soviet Union is wilfully trampling upon the independence and sovereignty of other States, threatening international peace and security. Social-imperialism is the most dangerous possible source of a new world war and the most vicious enemy of the independence and security of the world’s people. 20. World opinion has pointed out that the Soviet leadership takes the strategy of the treaties of friendship and cooperation as the core of its long-term global strategy and that the Soviet umbrella of friendship and co-operation treaties conceals the strongholds ranging from South-East Asia to the Middle East and the African continent. A vivid proof is the so-called treaty of friendship and cooperation concluded between the USSR and Viet Nam last November. This treaty has directly abetted and supported the hegemonistic acts of the Cubans of Asia. At the same time, it has turned Viet Nam into an outpost for Soviet expansion and a source of war in South-East Asia. 21. Are not the Vietnamese authorities brazenly and ambitiously clamouring that they are the third strongest military Power next to the Soviet Union and the United States? And the Soviet Union has used the militarism and regional hegemonism on the part of the Vietnamese authorities as a tool for pushing its global hegemonism. In fact, the bloody war of aggression against Democratic Kampuchea launched flagrantly by the Vietnamese authorities and the armed conflicts provoked by them on the Sine-Vietnamese border are dirty wars fought by the Vietnamese with the money and weaponry supplied by the Soviet Union. 22. Soviet social-imperialism is the arch-criminal in all this; its strategic objective is to seize South-East Asia, then to control the strategic lanes of the Pacific and Indian Oceans and the surrounding areas, in co-ordination with its aggression and expansion in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, the Red Sea, the Gulf region and other areas, and finally to achieve world hegemony. 23. In view of the foregoing, is it not crystal clear who is really practising hegemonism and expansionism? This is the very reason why the Soviet Union becomes furious the moment it hears the word “hegemonism” or finds the term “anti-hegemonism” in any document. 24. In his statement, the Soviet representative time and again used the question of the SinoVietnamese border conflict to hurl venomous slanders and abuse at China. His purpose is to divert attention and justify the naked aggression against Democratic Kampuchea committed by the Vietnamese authorities with the support of the Soviet Union. 25. We have repeatedly pointed out that Viet Nam’s aggression against Democratic Kampuchea and the Sino- Vietnamese border conflict are two questions which are entirely different in nature. The massive armed aggression against and military occupation of Democratic Kampuchea by the Vietnamese authorities are an attempt on the part of the Vietnamese authorities to swallow up a sovereign State and annihilate the Kampuchean nation. This is a question 26. Last January the Security Council held urgent meetings to consider the question of Viet Nam’s armed aggression against Kampuchea with Soviet support. The overwhelming majority of the representatives of the Council members spoke in repudiation and condemnation of Viet Nam’s aggression. This was a severe verdict against the Vietnamese aggressors and their boss, Soviet socialimperialism. In the end, the Council, by an overwhelming majority of 13 to 2, called for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Democratic Kampuchea. The draft resolution (S/13027] was arbitrarily vetoed only by the negative vote of the Soviet Union. During the current meetings of the Council, except for the Soviet Union and a few Sovietdirected countries which have tried to whitewash Viet Nam’s crimes of aggression, the representatives of various countries have denounced in varying degrees Viet Nam’s aggression against Kampuchea and demanded the complete, unconditional and immediate withdrawal of its aggressor troops. Their positions are entirely just. 27. With reference to the Sino-Vietnamese border conflict, it is a self-defensive counter-attack which the Chinese frontier troops have been forced to make in defence of the border of their own country after being driven beyond forbearance by the Vietnamese authorities which have been wilfully encroaching upon and nibbling at Chinese territories, making armed provocations, killing and wounding Chinese personnel and creating incidents of bloodshed in the Chinese border areas in disregard of the repeated advice and warnings of the Chinese side. This is a necessary measure that would be taken by any sovereign State in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter. The Soviet representative tries to use the question of the Sino- Vietnamese border conflict to cover up the Vietnamese authorities’ crime of aggression against Democratic Kampuchea. But this only serves to reveal that Soviet socialimperialism is the behind-the-scenes boss of the Vietnamese authorities in this dirty war of aggression. 28. In view of the distortion made by the representative of Viet Nam and the calumnies and slanders heaped on China in his statement, we deem it necessary to make a, few remarks to set forth the facts and put the record straight. As to the so-called private conversation attributed to Chinese leaders as invented by the Vietnamese representative, it is SO preposterous and grotesque that it can only be called a fantastic fairy tale which is beneath refutation. He even quoted an American journalist’s abusive remark about China to justify himself. This only shows that he is desperately short of arguments. 29. First, the representative of Viet Nam asserted that it was China, and .not Viet Nam, that had provoked the Sino-Vietnamese border conflict. Who provoked the border conflict? Let the facts speak. In my last statement I pointed out that the Vietnamese authorities harboured hatred for us simply because we were opposed to their aggression against Kampuchea and their pursuit of regional hegemonism, and I limited myself to citing a few incidents that have occurred since the beginning of this year alone. In 30. Secondly, the Chinese Government and people have always cherished the friendship between the Chinese and Vietnamese peoples. During the Vietnamese people’s wars for national independence, we saved on our own food and clothing to provide at our own expense large quantities of unconditional aid of different kinds to Viet Nam, not flinching from making the greatest national sacrifices in fulfilment of our internationalist duty. After the liberation and reunification of the whole of Viet Nam, we continued to provide Viet Nam with various forms of assistance to help it to heai the war wounds and restore and develop its national economy. However, what pains us is that the Vietnamese authorities have not only shown ingratitude but returned evil for good, “more unkind than winter’s wind”, as the English saying goes. With Soviet encouragement and abetment, they swiftly embarked on the road of external expansion and wanton activities against China. It was only after the Vietnamese authorities had persecuted and driven back to China a large number of Chinese nationals residing in Viet Nam and thus created tremendous financial and material difticulties for us in providing relief and rehabilitation for them that we were compelled to cease the assistance to Viet Nam we had promised during the war. And we feel no qualms about this. The Vietnamese authorities have no right whatsoever to blame us on this score. 31. Thirdly, in order to settle through negotiations the issue of the Chinese residents in Viet Nam, talks were started between the two countries at the vice-foreign minister level on 8 August last year at the proposal of the Chinese Government. During the talks, the Vietnamese authorities continued to create grave incidents in their intensified campaign against China. They had no desire at all to settle the dispute through negotiations, but attempted to turn the talks into a forum for their anti-China propaganda. The Chinese side was not at all responsible for the failure of the talks to reach any agreement or for their forced suspen- 32. Fourthly, the Vietnamese representative has repeatedly referred in his statement, to the question of the Xisha Islands, Chinese territory. In fact, it is the Vietnamese authorities that have made a baseless claim to China’s territories, and they have sent out armed forces for forcible occupation. The Vietnamese Government and the Soviet Government all along recognized publicly that the Xisha Islands and Nansha Islands belonged to China. This was confirmed by Viet Nam’s Premier Pham Van Dong in his official note and by the maps and textbooks formerly published by Viet Nam. It was only after 1974 that Viet Nam went back on its own words, openly made territorial claims to these islands of China and sent troops for forcible occupation of some of the Nansha Islands in encroachment upon China’s territorial sovereignty and in quickened pursuit of national expansionism. 33. Fifthly, in his statement the Vietnamese representative raised a question: Why should Viet Nam want to carry out aggression and expansion abroad when it should have been ready to engage in peaceful reconstruction after experiencing wars over three decades and more? This is a good question. But what is the answer? At the very beginning, we also failed to understand why, following reunification, instead of leading the people of the whole country to rehabilitate and heal the wounds of war and carry out peaceful reconstruction step by step, the Vietnamese authorities should embark on a continued arms build-up and militaristic plans and immediately unleash a war of external expansion? Later, we came to understand that this is partly because the Vietnamese authorities, carried away by their national expansionism and their victories from the war, boasted of being the thiid strongest military Power in the world and thought that the time had come for them to dominate South-East Asia and that they would not let the chance slip. It is also because Viet Nam has received encouragement, abetment and instigation from Soviet socialimperialism in various ways. Working hand in glove with each other, the Soviet Union and Viet Nam, master and lackey, are making havoc in the Asia-Pacific region. It is noteworthy that in his statement the Vietnamese representative no longer denies the presence of Vietnamese forces in Kampuchea and has in fact asserted Viet Nam’s reluctance to withdraw its forces from Kampuchea. With regard to the Sine-Vietnamese border contlict, the Chinese Government has repeatedly made it clear that we do not want an inch of Vietnamese territory and that our frontier troops will return and strictly keep to defending the frontier of our country after fulfilling the task of their forced counter-attack in self-defence. Our words always count. The question now is whether or not the Vietnamese authorities can also commit themselves to withdrawing all their invading forces from Kampuchea. If they refuse to do so, it will be further irrefutable evidence that the real aggressors are ‘the Vietnamese authorities and not anyone else. The Security Council and the people of all countries certainly cannot remain indifferent to this. : 34. In short, it has been the frnn and consistent position of the Chinese Government to uphold the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States and to oppose

In response to some of the comments made in this forum! I should like very briefly to review the United States posmon, starting with our 1 November 1978 letter to the Security Council [S/12911], in which we drew the Council’s attention to the build-up of forces on the Vietnamese-Kampuchean frontier. 36. Prior to and following that letter, my Government publicly and privately expressed its concern that the tensions appeared likely to explode into full-scale conflict unless something was done to defuse the situation. We urged efforts directly between the parties involved, we suggested recourse to the United Nations, the Organization created for precisely this purpose; we urged restraint on all parties. 37. After the Vietnamese attack on Kampuchea, it appeared probable that the fears we had earlier expressed concerning further escalation would prove to be correct. We immediately contacted the Governments directly concerned, urging an end to the Vietnamese attack and calling on others not to become involved. My presentation here on 13 January [2ZZOth meetingl warned of the dangers of wider war and urged restraint on all parties. 44. I am particularly gratified, Sir, to congratulate you sincerely upon your assumption of the oftice of President of the Council for the month of February and to wish you success in carrying out what is perhaps one of the most delicate diplomatic tasks at the present moment. I am convinced that your dedication to the purposes of the United Nations, your tested ability and your experience will enable the Council to fulfil the role assigned to it by the Charter. My pleasure in emphasizing this is all the greater as you represent a country with which Yugoslavia is developing exemplary relations characterized by all-round co-operation and friendship, manifested once again during President Tito’s recent visit to the non-aligned State of Kuwait. 38. On 9 February my Government issued a statement which said in part: “We do not want to see any escalation and we are seriously concerned that continued combat between Kampucheans and Vietnamese will lead to an extended confhct.” The statement concluded: “We would be seriously concerned over a Chinese attack on Viet Nam. We remain seriously concerned over continued Vietnamese attacks on Kampuchea.? 45. I wish also to stress the outstanding role played during the month of January by your predecessor, Ambassador Donald Mills, who made an invaluable contribution towards the adoption by the Council of stands in keeping with the difficulty and gravity of the moment. 39. On 17 February, as the Chinese attack began, my Government appealed for a Chinese withdrawal from Viet Nam, while reiterating its call for a Vietnamese withdrawal from Kampuchea. In my own statement last Friday(2114th meen’ngl I restated that there must be restraint on the part of those involved, and those who could potentially become involved, in this con&t. I urged that the Council should consider actions to slow down the military activities in South-East Asia and to substitute negotiation and mediation for tensions and threats to peace and security there. 46. ,For almost two months the Security Council has been compelled to deal with the crisis in South-East Asia. In its statement of 20 February, my Government adopted a clear position with regard to these developments, proceeding from the premise of their exceptional importance to world peace and security and the need to contribute, for its part, to the search for a peaceful solution and the promotion of co-operation among all the countries of that region, on the basis of the principles of the Charter. The Yugoslav Govemment expressed in that statement its profound regret and concern at the development of the situation in South-East 40. I have reviewed this record because some here have stated that the visit of Vice-Premier Teng Hsiao-ping to the United States served to provide United States consent, if not 41. The attack on Kampuchean territory heightened the tensions in the region, leading to the Chinese attack on Viet Nam. As long as those troops remain in Kampuchea, violating the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the will of the international community, tensions will remain high. We believe that the Vietnamese forces should withdraw from Kampuchea; we also believe that Chinese forces should withdraw from Viet Nam, since their presence further increases tensions in the region and the risk of escalation. In both cases, territorial integrity has been violated and foreign military forces are in the territory of another country. Both steps are vital to the restoration of peace in the area. All parties involved are bound to adhere to their obligations under the Charter, without any linkage, without any qualification.

The next speaker is the representative of Yugoslavia. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

I should like first of all to thank the Council for having given me this opportunity to explain my Government’s views on the extremely serious and complex developments in South-East Asia, which have an adverse effect on international relations in general. 52. Events have again proved that in our interdependent world peace is indivisible and that any use of force or encroachment upon the independence, sovereignty or territorial integrity of any country is bound to give rise to a crisis situation of wide proportions. 47. The escalation of the militarv action of the armed forces of the People’s Republic of China in the territory of Viet Nam and the military action of the armed forces of Viet Nam against Kampuchea clearly show that what is involved is a complex crisis in South-East Asia, which is worsening and posing a direct threat to peace in the region and beyond. That makes it imperative to explore all possibilities for positive action by the United Nations, with the co-operation of all factors involved, with a view to finding a way out of the present situation by means of negotiations. With that purpose in mind, we appeal to all the parties concerned to exert constructive efforts towards that end. ,’ 53. International developments are constantly contirming that a selective application of the fundamental principles governing international relations cannot be accepted and that the violation of those principles cannot be justified in any circumstances or under any pretext. That means also that there exist no reasons justifying any armed intervention, interference in the internal affairs of sovereign States or the determination of their internal development and system. For that reason we urge the withdrawal of Chinese troops from Viet Nam, as we consider that the method of intervention and use of force is inadmissible. We stood up for the same principle.during the Council debate on the military intervention of Viet Nam in Kampuchea. We continue to stand up for that principle now. 48. In this specific case, as well as in its over-all conduct and activity in international relations, Yugoslavia has been guided by the well-known principles of the policy of nonalignment, constantly striving for their consistent implementation. We consider, namely, that lasting solutions to this as well as other problems can be found only on the basis of strict respect for national independence, sovereignty, equality, and the free national and social development of all countries, non-interference in internal affairs, nonintervention, and the inviolability of legally established international borders. We, as well as the other non-aligned countries, have always insisted on the necessity of solving all disputes by peaceful means through negotiations, mediation, good offices and other methods provided by the Charter of the United Nations. 54. Proceeding from those positions of principle, to which Yugoslavia has been adhering constantly, we are convinced that only strict observance of the principles of the Charter and of non-alignment can provide a way out of the present situation, as it is only through a consistent implementation of these principles that it is possible to find lasting solutions to disputes and establish a system of equitable relations among States, a system, ensuring respect for the right of every nation freely to determine its destiny. 55. With regard to all this, the United Nations has an irreplaceable role to play as a forum competent to deal with all major international issues and contribute towards their resolution. 49. All those minciules-which regulate relations amone sovereign Stat& and-constitute the Foundation of intern; tional co-operation based on equal rights-are embodied in, inter alia, the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. 56. As was the case in January, when we dealt with the problem of Kampuchea, we consider, thii time also, that the search for a peaceful solution can be based only on strict respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and countries, without recourse to pressure or any form of the use of force. The immediate cessation of hostilities between the belligerents and withdrawal of all troops from foreign territories should be the first steps taken towards a settlement. 50. The non-aligned countries have been devoting particular attention to all forms of interference in internal atfairs, which they reject energetically, as they reject any attempts to justify foreign interference under any pretext whatsoever from any source. An inseparable part of these principles is the prohibition of the use of force, the struggle against all forms of dependence and subjection of peoples and countries, the withdrawal of foreign military forces and bases from the territories of other States, the overcoming of the division of the world into aritagonistic military-political blocs, the rejection of out&ted doctrines such as “spheres of interest’*, “ balance of terror”, and so on. All these positions and principles have been repeatedly conf3rned at all the gatherings of non-aligned countries, including the last Ministerial Conference of Non-Aligned Countries at Belgrade in July last year and the Ministerial Meeting of the Coordinating Bureau held recently at Maputo. They were also at the forefront of the debate and of the draft resolution submitted at the January series of meetings of the Security Council. 57. With regard to the implementation of these objectives, we are prepared to support every resolution, initiative or action. We appreciate, in particular, the constructive and timely offer of good off%es by the Secretary-General. We expect that the United Nations, as well as all countries, will contribute to a peaceful solution of these conflicts, to the establishment of good-neighbourly relations and normalization of the situation in South-East Asia, a situation whose further exacerbation could have unforeseeable consequences for peace and security in the world. 58. Yugoslavia will contribute towards thii all the more because what is involved is a conflict between two countries with which Yugoslavia maintains friendly relations estab lished at the time of the heroic national liberation struggle waged by the peoples of Viet Nam and Kampuchea against colonialism, imperialism and foreign aggression, a struggle that enjoyed my country’s constant and all-out support. We continue to support the present just struggle of these peo- 51. The foregoing principles have proved their validity and universal importance for the whole international community as the only sound basis ensuring stable relations among States, regardless of their size or level of develop

I thank the representative of Yugoslavia for the warm sentiments he expressed to me, and I respond positively to his reference to the cordial relations that exist between our two countries. 67. What makes the matter all the more distressing and potentially dangerous is the fact that this armed aggression should have been perpetrated by a permanent member of the Security Council, a nation whose own struggle for recognition and entry into the United Nations was supported by the very peoples against which it has turned today. 60. The next speaker is the representative of Angola. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make a statement.

Mr. President, allow me to extend to you the best wishes of my country and my delegation on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for this month. 68. The fact that this armed attack is a violation of the Charter by a permanent member of the Council is all the more reprehensible, and it shakes our confidence in the Council’s espousal of the august doctrines of the Charter, in the ability of the Council to be the guardian of peaceand in the credibility of what is supposed to be a bastion of intemational law. 62. The heroic people of Viet Nam hold a special place in the hearts and minds of the entire third world. For decades they have symboliied unremitting opposition to imperialism and colonialism and have shown the world what dedication to revolutionary principles and an unflagging struggle against alien domination can do even in the face of a super-Power, technological expertise and might and a gigantic military machine. The people of Viet Nam have challenged history and won. They have fought the scourge of colonialism with single-mindedness and courage, with fortitude and determination, and they have overcome vast odds to be the free and united nation that they are today. 69. It is a pity that such counter-productive and shortsighted policies as punitive raids and armed thrusts are being allowed to sabotage the stability of the area.We all need peace, not war, to rebuild our shattered institutions. A great Power like China should not have to depend on armed aggression against a much smaller neighbour to show its muscle in South-East Asia. 70. All the revolutionary militants of the People’s Republic of Angola, led by their vanguard party, the MPLA- Workers’ Party, solemnly pledge support to our comrades in Viet Nam in their struggle to repel the invaders and safeguard their sovereignty from this challenge. We consider it our revolutionary duty to stand by our Vietnamese friends, and in fact it is the duty of all those engaged in liberation struggles, in the fight against imperialism and its ally expansionism, to support the Vietnamese people and strongly to condemn the Chinese invasion. 63. And that is why it is all the more shocking that the nation that has been the symbol of the struggle for liberation, independence and sovereignty, a nation that has made an immense contribution to the cause of liberation from oppression and exploitation, a nation whose people and exploits have given us a new vocabulary for third-world struggle, should now once more be the victim of atrocities, aggression, armed invasion and a blatantly hegemonistic, expansionist policy-only this time not of the same super- Power but of another. 64. The Central Committee of the MPLA-Workers’ Party, the Government of the People’s Republic of Angola and all revolutionary militants in my country condemn the armed aggression by China against the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. This blatant attack, which is still continuing and ’ indeed increasing in strength, is an attack not only against the Vietnamese nation but also against all attempts by the third world to rid itself of all forms of imperialist adventurism and reactionary oppression. 71. At a time when southern Africa is at a crucial stage in its fight against racism, apartheidand minority rule, we need all the support we can get from the international community, from our friends in the third world and, especially, from the group of non-aligned countries. We need to devote our time and energies to constructive work on the issues of independence for Namibia, Zimbabwe, Western Sahara, East Timor, Belii and Palestine and to our continuing tight against Zionism and against apartheidin South Africa. The immediate cessation of China’s hostilities against Viet Nam and the withdrawal of all Chin,ese troops from the territory of Viet Nam will certainly be a major contribution to the ultimate success of genuine liberation struggles being waged in the third world and to the cause of international peace and security. 65. Almost four years have passed since an imperialist Power was driven out in defeat, leaving behind death, destruction and chaos in Viet Nam. The heroic Vietnamese people have painstakingly set about rebuilding their nation. They have emerged in victory, just as they did after the long years of their struggle, as an inspiration to the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America. And now, even as they face enemy guns once more, they continue to inspire us. 72. International peace and security are indivisible. This small planet can no longer sustain military and economic warfare in one part and peace and security in another. What happens in Asia is bound to have repercussions, no matter how indirectly, on Africa and vice versa. Similarly, the struggle for liberation in one part of the globe has to be supported by progressive forces both near and far if we are once and for all to remove from our lives all the vestiges of colonialism and imperialism; And it is in this connexion that 1 wish briefly to refer to the murderous bombing raids 66. The implications of the Chinese invasion of Viet Nam are not limited to that region alone. It is a definite threat to the cause of peace and to the unceasing struggle of the developing nations to move along the path to progress. It is an attack on territorial integrity, national sovereignty, socialism and democracy. This deliberate and planned act of armed aggression by the people of Peking is a serious 74. The international community would do well to ponder the fact that this bombing strike against Angolan territory by an illegal capitalist-supported racist minority regime that possesses neither national nor international legitimacy poses a wider threat to the whole security situation in southern Africa and throughout the world. 75. Until final victory, whether on the borders of Viet Nam or on the frontiers of Angola, the struggle continues.

The next speaker is the representative of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. President, first of all I should like to congratulate you most warmly on your accession to the presidency of the Security Council for the month of February and tell you how much we appreciate the manner in which you have thus far guided the Council’s debates. I am convinced that your wisdom and great skill will assist the Council in finding a just solution of the question that is now before it. I should like to take this opportunity to address to your predecessor, Ambassador Donald Mills of Jamaica, our warmest congratulations for his outstanding presidency of the Council during the month of January. Finally, I should like to express to you and to the other members of the Council our sincere gratitude for having allowed my delegation to take part in the present debate. 78. The Security Council is at present considering the grave situation which prevails in South-East Asia and, more specifically, in Indo-China where a bloody incident occurred on 17 February last between the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam and the People’s Republic of China. The world learned with great anxiety that the Chinese side, combining several divisions of its territorial army, armoured units and artillery with the air force, had launched a large-scale attack against the northern borders of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, which, in the legitimate defence of its territorial integrity, dealt an energetic rebuff. This attack, which infringes on the independence, the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, a State Member of the United Nations, transgresses the Charter and violates the principles of international relations. It constitutes, in fact, an act of deliberate aggression, which gravely threatens peace, security and stability in Indo- China, in South-East Asia and throughout the world. 79. The delegation of the Lao People’s Democratic 86. Republic believes that there is an urgent need for all States For more than a week now, the Chinese delegation, from one day to the next, has been gulling Council members 80. The Lao People’s Democratic Republic, which is an immediate neighbour both of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam and of the People’s Republic of China, keenly regrets this aggression which runs counter to the interests of the Vietnamese people and of the Chinese people, as well as to those of peace-loving peoples throughout the world. 81. On the basis of our consistent position that any dispute between States must bc settled by peaceful means, the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, represented by my humble person, calls upon the two parties to the dispute peacefully and jointly to settle their problem through negotiations on the basis of equality and mutual respect, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations. 82. Meanwhile, so as to create conditions favourable to the opening of such negotiations, it is necessary that all incidents should cease, that Chinese troops should be totally withdrawn from the territory and that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Viet Nam should be respected. 83. The delegation of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic will spare no effort to contribute actively to putting an end to the border conflict between China and Viet Nam so as to safeguard peace and stability in Indochina and in all South-East Asia.

I should like to say a few words in respect of the statement made by the representative of China at today’s meeting. 85. First of all, I would speak about Chinese duplicity. Despite the fact that the present meeting of the Security Council was called because of the Chinese act of aggression planned long in advance against the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, the Chinese delegation has done its utmost to divert the Council’s attention from its priority task, which is to remove a serious threat to peace and international security and to eliminate a situation that is fraught with the danger of involving the whole world in a terrible military tragedy. The Chinese representatives cannot reconcile themselves to the failure of their callous Maoist experiment in Kampuchea. They assiduously continue to encourage the Council to take up discussion on a question that is not within its competence and is exclusively the internal affair of the People’s Republic of Kampuchea. Then they resort to absurd fabrications, unworthy of a great Power, about so-called Vietnamese provocations against China and to transparent attempts to disguise their pitiless military aggression as what they call “a small punitive expedition** undertaken by China in self-defence against Vietnamese attacks on Chinese territory-an expedition which is in no way connected with the so-called Kampuchean question. .“A self-defensive counter-attack”-these were the words used by the representative of China. Chinese leaders in their irresponsible policies, can see from the example of the recent aggression against Viet Nam that they are playing with fire and are being short-sighted. They should remember the peace-makers of Chamberlain’s type who, for their connivance with the Nazis and their shortsighted designs of pitting Hitler against the Soviet Union, soon paid the price, as did their peoples. 87. The duplicity of the tactics of the Chinese delegation at the present meeting of the Council shows clearly that China is banking on using the possible results of this meeting to further step up their aggression. It is time for those who, deliberately or not, play into the hands of the Chinese representatives-those representatives who in their hypocrisy do not call a spade a spade and who virtually equate the victim of the aggression, Viet Nam, with a war criminal-to draw the necessary conclusions from the treacherous tactics of Peking. 93. The Czechoslovak delegation is firmly convinced that the Council should rebuff the criminal actions of China in the interests of all countries and peoples of the world. It should condemn the aggressor and demand the immediate cessation of Chinese aggression and the withdrawal of Chinese troops from Viet Nam. 88. In the light of those Chinese tactics and in the light of to&y’s statement by the Chinese representative, there is something that the authors of the statement submitted by the countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) [S/13106] should think about. Instead of a clearly formulated appeal for the immediate cessation of aggression and the withdrawal of the aggressor’s troops from Vietnamese temitory, the statement makes general provisions. That is the purpose of the Chinese tactics, to seek de facto justification for their aggression against Viet Nam on any pretext, in order to be able to continue their armed attacks on the territories of others and against other countries.

The next speaker on my list is the representative of Viet Nam. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. President, first of all I should like to thank you most sincerely for having called on me for the second time to address this august body. 96. Before providing fresh clarifications in respect of the situation in our region, I should like to express to all representatives of brotherly and friendly countries throughout the world, whether or not they have participated in the deliberations of the Council, our profound gratitude for their support for and their solidarity with our people and our fighters who have gone into battle for the defence of our dear homeland as well as to defend the most elementary norms which should govern relations among peoples and States. 89. In general, all who assert that they are seriously concerned by the aggressive actions of the Chinese military clique should think very carefully about how to act in the light of the Chinese tactics of duplicity. The fact is that it ‘may happen that they will find themselves on the same level as the aggressor. 90. Secondly, not only the content of the majority of the 97. That support and that international solidarity which statements made in the Council but also the facts which constituted one of the important factors of our victory in reach us each day from Viet Nam and the unbridled nature our recent fight against imperialist aggression for our of the ever new demands by the Chinese leaders show national well-being, are proving at present to be indispensaclearly that the Council should adopt an unambiguous ble for our people in their battle against a new enemy: position vis-&is Chinese aggression against Viet Nam. international reactionaries in collusion with imperialists. 91. We have also heard a statement to the effect that the aggressor, after it considers that it has “taught the Vietnamese a lesson”, will be ready to enter into negotiations with the victim of aggression. But surely from the statement made here by the representative of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, Ha Van Lau, we can understand the position of the Vietnamese Government, which is that they cannot agree to any talks with the aggressor while the aggressor’s troops are stationed on sovereign Vietnamese territory. 98. Nevertheless, it is regrettable to note that during the course of these deliberations in the Council, apart from the slanderous and lying allegations of the representative of China and his lackey, which deserve no attention, some statements, whether intentionally or not, are couched in the same terms as theirs concerning the alleged aggression of Viet Nam against Kampuchea. Starting from this mistaken interpretation, or from an as yet incomplete understanding of the true situation, some speakers have called on the Council to solve the burning problem of the Chinese war of aggression against Viet Nam by a “withdrawal of foreign troops from the areas of hostility in Indo-China”, which would mean an exchange between two problems which are essentially different in nature: the withdrawal of Chinese troops from Kampuchea1 Viet Nam and that of Vietnamese troops from - 92. The Chinese aggressor, as we understood from the statement made by the Chinese representative, does not yet consider that that “lesson” is over. He has not yet received the answer that he wanted: has Viet Nam been “punished” sufficiently so as to be tractable in future dealings with Peking7 Furthermore, Peking’s attempts to test the practical significance of the treaty of friendship signed between the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam and the USSR are no less dangerous than the attempts of various more or less intluen- 99. I should like to say a few words on relations between Viet Nam and Kampuchea. -Fist, in order to exercise their colonial and neocolonial domination over the three countries of Indo- China, the colonialist and imperialist Powers practised their traditional policy of “divide and rule”. During the last 30 years+ those Powers utilized Indo-Chinese to tight Indo- Chinese and Asians to fight Asians; they sought to divide the peoples of Viet Nam, Laos and Kampuchea so as to weaken and dominate them, one after the other. In its war of aggression against those three countries of Indochina, imperialism used the puppet troops of South Viet Nam to attack the peoples of Kampuchea and Laos and the troops of certain countries of South-East Asia, those of the Park Chung Hee @ime of South Korea and even soldiers from Oceania to commit aggression against Viet Nam-not to mention the mercenaries recruited in certain countries in the western hemisphere. -Secondly, confronted with this colonialist and impsrialist policy, the peoples of Indochina, in their struggle for national liberation and relying fust and foremost on their own strength, had to, and still have to, unite and give each other mutual assistance from every point of view, while at the same time seeking support and assistance from all revolutionary and progressive forces in the entire world. This militant solidarity and this reciprocal assistance among the three peoples of Indochina constitute one of the important factors, a sine qua non condition for victory in their struggle for national independence and freedom against colonialism and imperialism, the aggressor. This is an objective requirement in the struggle for the liberation of our three peoples of Indo-China, a kind of historical law having the value of a principle in their revolutionary struggle and guaranteeing their common victory over a common enemy, namely, colonialism, imperialism and their lackeys of every kind. -Thirdly, during the second joint resistance of our two peoples against the United States aggressor, from 1970 to 1975, this active solidarity and reciprocal assistance were manifest in each campaign, even in each battle. For example, during the campaigns called Chen La I and Chen La II in 1970 and 1971 in Kampuchea in which units of the American expeditionary corps, the puppet army of Nguyen Van Thieu of South Viet Nam and the puppet troops of Lon No1 took part, at the request of the Kampuchean revolutionary leadership of that time, we gave assistance to the national liberation forces of Kampuchea to combat and repel the aggressors and defend the zones of resistance of the Kampuchean people. To give another example: in their armed struggle to liquidate the Lon No1 regime which was supported and supplied by the United States, it was precisely the leading group of that time, including Pol Pot and Ieng Sary themselves, which cal!ed on us to assist them with munitions, arms, even with heavy artillery units and artillery forces which they lacked in their final offerrive against the last refuge of Lon No1 at Phnom Penh. And that call came in the course of our intense preparations for our general offensive against the puppet regime of Nguyen Van Thieu, an offensive which for us required an important concentration of fire-power. Yet without hesitation we came to their aid. Why did they not then call us “aggressors” as they do now7 On the contrary, they sent us mes- 101. This active solidarity and this mutual assistance among our peoples is of great political and moral signilicance, not only for the peoples of Viet Nam, Laos and Kampuchea, but also for the national liberation movement in Asia, Africa and Latin America. It is precisely on this political and moral basis and in view of the realities of the struggle of peoples for liberation during the course of the last decades that the non-aligned movement adoptedas one of its purposes and objectives “active support, assistance and solidarity without discrimination” in the common struggle against imperialism, expansionism, colonialism, neocolonialism, racism and so on. 102. I turn now to another matter: between Viet Nam and Kampuchea which, then, was the aggressor7 103. During the January meetings of the Council on the problem of Kampuchea, the delegation of Viet Nam and other friendly delegations shed light on the facts of the situation of that country under the bloody Pot Pot-Ieng Sary clique and at the same time gave a true picture of the border war between Viet Nam and Kampuchea. It was made clear that the profound reason for that situation in Kampuchea was to be found in the big-Power expansionist and hegemonistic policy in South-East Asia of the Peking authorities who, through the Pol Pot-Ieng Sary clique, sought to exercise their neocolonial type of domination in Kampuchea, to sow insecurity in the neighbouring countries and, above all, to provoke a border war against Viet Nam. 104. Accordingly, reality and law are there to prove that, in this border war between Viet Nam and Kampuchea, the Pol Pot troops under the command of Chinese “military advisers” are the aggressors, and that Viet Nam, the victim of aggression, has the sacred right of legitimate defence in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. 105. The allegation claiming that Viet Nam is the aggressor in Kampuchea is culled from the slanderous propaganda of the Peking authorities and their Pol Pot-Ieng Sat-y agents and transforms the truth into falsehood so as to insult Viet Nam. Its aim is to hide from the eyes of public opinion the expansionist and hegemonistic policy of the leaders of Peking in Kampuchea and their hostile policy against Viet Nam. The newspaper l%e Christian Science Monitor of 11 January affirmed that it was the Pol Pot troops which attacked us first. Specific proof in our possession shows that the purpose of their offensive in December 1978 was to occupy the province of Tay Ninh and then to march on to Ho Chi Minh City, there to join with the subversive movement of Hoa inside that city. One conclusion can be drawn: since Viet Nam was the victim of aggression, responsibility for the escalation of military operations at the end of December 1978 on the Viet Nam-Kampuchean border falls squarely and definitely on the shoulders of the Pol Pot-Ieng Sary clique and their masters in Peking. 106. I turn now to the aid and assistance given by the people of Viet Nam to the struggling people of Kampuchea. It would seem that one or two delegations have repeated the argument used at the previous series of meetings of the 108. All the slogans of slanderous and insulting propaganda such as “the aggression of Viet Nam against Kampuchea” or “Viet Nam wants to create an Indo-Chinese federation” empioyed by the Pol Pot-Ieng Sary clique when, at the instigation of the Peking leaders, it unleashed a border war of aggression against Viet Nam, have, for the reactionary authorities in Peking as for the colonialists and imperialists of the past, the purpose of dividing the three peoples of Indo-China in order to weaken and subjugate them one by one. 113. We are convinced that we always have the just cause and the progressive law of the Charter and the General Assembly on our side. Thus, the relations between the peoples of Viet Nam and Kampuchea have never been those between an aggressor and the victim of aggression or between a “Power of regional hegemony*’ and the victim of that hegemony, as is claimed by the lying propaganda of Peking. They are relations of militant solidarity and reciprocal assistance between two fraternal combatants in their common task of national emancipation against the policy of big-Power expansionism and hegemony carried out by the Peking authorities. 109. Secondly, the fraternal people of Kampuchea have been the victim of a monstrous policy of genocide by the Pol Pot-Ieng Sary clique, that clique which was the product of the neocolonial r&ime of the Peking authorities, who must bear forever before history the inescapable responsibility of that crime against the people of Kampuchea. Forty per cent of the population of Kampuchea have been massacred in the three years of the rule of the Pol Pot-Ieng Sary regime, the lackeys of Peking. The massacres were committed by medieval methods. Three out of the 7 to 8 million inhabitants of that country, a people proud of its Angkorian civilization, 3 million from all social milieux, from the cities and the countryside, ranging from military revolutionaries to clergy, from peasants to intellectuals, from simple office workers to diplomats-all were victims. As the information of the crimes filtered through the barriers of the Pol Pot- Ieng Sary infernal tigime, the entire world raised a huge cry of indignation and horror. 114. The Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Co-operation which was signed between the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam and the People’s Republic of Kampuchea on 18 February last [WZUOZ] fully reflects the special spirit of solidarity between the peoples of Viet Nam and Kampuchea. The Treaty constitutes a sure guarantee for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Viet Nam and Kampuchea and a source of strength ensuring for each of our two peoples the solid safeguard of their fundamental national rights against the expansionist and hegemonistic policy of the reactionaries in Peking in collusion with the imperialists. The relations of solidarity, friendship and cooperation between the two peoples established in theTreaty will contribute not only to the interests of each people but also to stability and peace in the region. The clauses of the Treaty clearly state that it does not prejudice any third neighbouring State in the region. That is why the signing of the Treaty was received with the warm approval by the forces that love peace and justice throughout the world. Only the authorities in China and the remains of the Pol Pot-Ieng Sary clique, who were seized with fright .have taken refuge in Peking, have done their utmost to slander and debase it. 110. But there is another side to the internal situation of the Pol Pot-Ieng Sary regime, the lackeys of Peking, on which the world has been insufficiently informed. I am referring to the uprising of the people of Kampuchea against the Pol Pot-Ieng Sary regime that has been going on since April 1975, in all ways-economically, politically and by force of arms. How can one humanely think that a people which has heroic traditions of struggle against colonialism and imperialism would remain inactive when confronted by that monstrous regime of Peking’s neo-colony, which could proceed to the massacre,of an entire nation? That would do an injustice to that heroic people which has such a long history. 115. The People’s Revolutionary Council of Kampuchea, the sole authentic and legal representative of the people of Kampuchea, has become and will continue to be the master of the People’s Republic of Kampuchea. Any attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of that country and to weaken it will certainly be doomed to failure. 111. How could one think that, given this heroic, this almost sublime struggle to survive waged by our brothers in arms for so many years, the Vietnamese people would be so heartless as to refuse to support and assist them when they requested it? If it had done so, the people of Viet Nam would no longer be worthy of the sympathy which progressive 116. We apologize for having taken up a little of the Council’s time, but we wanted to furnish additional infor- 117. No man of conscience in the world is unaware that the Peking authorities seek by the vilest means to conceal their true face from the eyes of world public opinion while persisting in their criminal policy towards Viet Nam and South-East Asia. That is why any solution to the problem of the war of aggression of China against Viet Nam that linked this problem to the so-called problem of Kampuchea would be tantamount to legalizing China’s aggression against Viet Nam and encouraging the expansionist and hegemonistic policy of the Peking authorities. 118. As victims over many years of the hostile policy of the Peking leaders and now oftheir open armed aggression, we can affirm that so long as this path is still pursued the error of Munich with regard to Hitlerian fascism will be repeated and that this attitude, 40 years later in history, will have even graver consequences in the face of this new danger for humanity posed by the expansionist and hegemonistic policy of the Peking authorities. 119. That is why once again and in the same spirit that several delegations have evinced we reiterate our urgent request to the Council severely to condemn Chinese aggression against Viet Nam and to demand the immediate cessation of this aggression, the total and unconditional withdrawal of the invading troops from the territory of Viet Nam and absolute respect from China for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Viet Nam.

Ten days have elapsed since the Chinese aggressors invaded the territory of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. The heroic Vietnamese people have valiantly defended their native land and are giving fitting rebuff to the concentrated attacks by the Chinese interventionists. They are sure of victory because they are relying on the support of their true friends, the Soviet Union and other socialist countries and all peace loving States. Throughout the world the movement of protest against the Chinese aggression is growing, a movement of solidarity with the struggle of the Vietnamese people for their freedom and independence. 121. During these deliberations in the Council, many representatives of Member States have decisively condemned the aggressive actions by the Chinese expansionists against Viet Nam and have emphasized the need for the immediate withdrawal of Chinese troops from Viet Nam. They have pointed to the danger to international peace and security posed by the expansionist policy pursued by the Chinese leaders. 122. No attempts by the Chinese aggressors to justify their armed incursion into Viet Nam or to shirk responsibility for that armed incursion can invalidate the patent facts that have been adduced here by the representative of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. The shameless slander resorted to by the Chinese representative will not help, either. 124. The Peking leaders are trying to hide their criminal aims from their neighbours and from world public opinion-indeed, from their own people. They try to conceal their aggression in Viet Nam by alleging that it is merely a “limited military action” which will come to an end in a few days. After extending the deadline from one day to the next, the Peking leaders have finally stated that they will need 33 days, that is, the same amount of time they needed for the attack on India in 1962. The Western press was too hasty in stating that at last a deadline had been set for the withdrawal of Chinese troops from Viet Nam. The Peking leaders immediately made the proviso that this time China might need more time. The Chinese aggressor is obviously trying to drag out the aggression. It does not balk even at stating openly its intention to expropriate a significant part of Vietnamese territory. 125. Indignation throughout the world at Chinese aggression is growing. Ever louder grow the demands that China should immediately withdraw its troops from Viet Nam. But it is obvious that mere appeals cannot have an effect on the aggressor. Decisive measures must be taken. In that respect the Soviet delegation would once again like to draw attention to the draft resolution submitted to the Council by the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia/S/13117]. That draft resolution contains a strong condemnation of the Chinese aggression against Viet Nam. It contains a demand that the People’s Republic of China should withdraw all its troops from Vietnamese territory forthwith. All Member States are called upon to cease all supplies of arms to China as well as the transfer of any technology which may be used for military purposes. The adoption of that draft resolution by the Council would really be an important contribution towards curbing the Chinese aggressors and restoring international peace and security. 126. But the situation in the Council is now such that it is not in a position to take the necessary steps with regard to the Chinese aggression against Viet Nam. The reason is that from the very beginning the Council was set on the wrong track. As the Soviet delegation pointed out, the Council should have dealt directly with the event that made necessary its convening; that is, Chinese aggression. The Soviet delegation pointed out that attempts to link the question of Chinese aggression against Viet Nam with any other problem could only make more diicult the adoption of the necessary decision by the Council and led it to an impasse. But that warning was not heeded. Furthermore, certain representatives-in particular the representatives of the United States and Norway-have proposed that the Council should call for an immediate cease-fire between the parties and for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the territories of Viet Nam and Kampuchea. Thus they are 127. As we have noted earlier, the adoption of such a proposal would merely play into the hands of the aggressor in its attempt to assume the right to “teach a lesson” to another State. Nevertheless, certain persons have spoken in favour of the adoption of such a resolution, addressed to all the States of the region, alleging that this might have an effect on China and might halt Chinese aggression. 128. But yesterday a statement was made in Peking which makes this matter very clear. The statement was made by that selfsame Peking leader who in his travels through various countries doled out threats to “teach a lesson” to Viet Nam because the entire army of 40,000 socalled Chinese specialists had been compelled to leave Kampuchea and China had been deprived of an opportunity to organize provocation against Viet Nam along the western border. That leader stated quite definitely that China would sincerely welcome a resolution of the Council which would call upon China to withdraw its troops from Viet Nam and upon Viet Nam to withdraw its troops from Kampuchea. That statement by the Peking leader shows quite clearly that the link between the Chinese aggression in Viet Nam and the so-called Kampuchean problem merely arouses profound satisfaction among the Chinese aggressors, since it serves their true aims. 129. Thus, it is obvious that various kinds of proposals and ideas that have appeared recently in the Council with regard to general appeals for the withdrawal of foreign troops from foreign territories can, in fact, only serve the ends of the Chinese aggressors in providing justification for their intention to continue their intervention in Viet Nam. This applies equally to the idea of a cease-fire in Viet Nam without a clear-cut condemnation of the Chinese aggression and a demand for the immediate withdrawal of Chinese troops. The adoption of such a resolution could only consolidate the position of the aggressor in the territory it has seized, as has happened in the past, and it would run counter to the resolve of the heroic Vietnamese people to drive the aggressor from their territory. Obviously, only after the complete elimination of the Chinese aggression in Viet Nam can we start talking about providing mediation services. 130. In order to discharge its duties in the maintenance of peace, the, Council should adopt a clear-cut, unambiguous position of condemnation of Chinese aggression, against Viet Nam,. Only by the immediate withdrawal of Chinese . . . . . .

I should like to comment upon the statement just made by the representative of the Soviet Union.. ’ 132. I think the Council should tonight be grateful to the representative of Viet Nam. His was a revealing speech. I listened to it with very great interest. As I understood it, he gave four arguments as to what had happened in Kampuchea. First, that it was a matter of self-defence in relation to border incidents; secondly, that the previous Government was a terrible Government which justified intervention, although, if I may say so, I did not notice Viet Nam in the forefront of those countries that were seeking to raise the matter in the Commission on Human Rights last year; thirdly, that it was a spontaneous uprising of the Kampuchean people; and, fourthly, that it could not be aggression anyway, on legal grounds. It was, as I have said, a useful speech for the Council to consider. 133. But I do want to look at this question of linkage that Ambassador Troyanovsky has just raised. I have listened, I think, to almost every speech that has been made in the whole course of this debate and it does seem to me that the overwhelming feeling among the vast majority of countries that have spoken is that they deplore both actions. They deplore the action of Viet Nam in Kampuchea, and they equally deplore the action of China in Viet Nam. It also seems to me that the overwhelming majority of countries wish there to be a clear call from the Council for the troops that are now in other peoples’ countries in that region to go home. The trouble is that one side wishes to discuss only Kampuchea and the other side wishes to discuss something else. In those circumstances, clearly the Council is going to be in some difliculty in acting, and acting decisively, in this matter. 134. At this stage I would only say that, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, we feel that the Council should at least go on trying to see whether or not it is possible to produce some text which can be agreed upon or which at least the majority of us can clearly agree upon, so as to indicate to the world as a whole that the vast majority of countries in the international community do believe that both should be deplored and that both should go home. 135. And, finally, I would say to Ambassador Troyanovsky in regard to the call for withdrawal that has been made in this debate by the United Kingdom and other countries, including, as I understand it, the ASEAN countries, that in no sense has it been said that withdrawal by one side is to be conditional upon withdrawal by the other side. We want withdrawal from both, not that the withdrawal of one should depend upon the withdrawal of the other. The meeting rose at 10.05 p.m. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONi PUBLICATIONS Unite 1 Nations publications may be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations, Sales Section, New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Les publications des Nations Unies aont en vente dans les librairies et les agences depositaires du monde entier. Informer-vous aupres de votre libraire ou adressea-vous A : Nations Unies. Section des ventes. New York ou Genbve. ZCAIC IIOJIYPHTb H3AAHHSf OPPAHH 3AUHU OB’HEAHHRHHhIX HAHHH EisAaHm Ooranusa~~ OCYbemiHemibrx HawiR noxwo xyn~~b P ~HWWHLIX Maraamfax H aren-reraax so scex patiosax wspa. Hasonare cnpaaxu 06 ~xuumax s ~aruem wmrn~o~ wara3Hme HUH nnmuve no anpecy : Opnrzusaauwt 06meawsreHHbrx Hauufi. C~KUHR no nponazce naztauuA, ?IbIO-ROpm XIIH XCeHesa. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las public&ones de bs Naciones Unidas estan en venta en librerfas y casas distribuidoras en todas partes de1 mundo. Consulte a su librero o dirfjase a: Naciones Unidas. Seccf6n de Ventas. Nueva York o Ginebra. Lftho in United Nations, New York Price: $US. 1.50 79-70002-November 198f-2.250