S/PV.488 Security Council

Before resuming our work 1 wish to make a brief statement in my capacity as President. There has been an informal exchange of views among the memhers of the Security Council conceming questions which had arisen at the Council's previous meetings. It was decided that it would be useful to continue in the future to hold informal meetings on those questions. 4. Complaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea (continued) caractère du République dans Mr. ALVAREZ (CuLa) (translated trom Spanish): In view of the course which the discussion bas taken, we should like to present some general comments and observations, as other members of the Council have done, since the non-participation of the representative of the Republic of Korea in our deliberations bas prevented us from considering the substance of the question appearing on our agenda. No one is unaware that the deplorable situation which bas prevailed in the Council since 1 August can he asciihed to the President, because, although he insists that he bas not made a ruling, 1 consider that he bas done sa implicitly, but that the influence of the distinguished representative of the Soviet Union on the tion depuis affirme part, que exerce les ~resident. bas caused the President to deny the truth of faets. . ~rties to he heard. The delegation of. the Soviet Union canvoice these feigned protests of faithful obedience of the law, and can continue to invoke provisions of the Charter which are inapplicable; but it will never he able to remove from the records of this Council the proof of its faIse ,position. · At the 272nd meeting, the Council was seized of the ·coup d'état provoked by the Soviet Union in Czechoslovakia in March 1948 and invited Mr. Papanek, rep- 'resentative of that country in the United Nations, to participate in the discussion. In opposing 'and voting ·against that invitation, Mr. Gromyko, who was then ·the representativc of the Soviet Union, stated the following: "... it would he a mistake to give the former Czechoslovak representative to the United Nations the oppor- -tunity of appearing before the Security Councit to make his completely unfounded and slande.rous.statements against his own people and bis own country. Such .assertions and statements should not only not he encouraged; they should on the contrary he condemned by the Security Council, whenever and i>y whomsoever they are made. "1 therefore protest most energetically against the proposaI of Chile, Argentina ~~ Canada to invi!e the ·former O~echoslovak representative to take part ID the discussion of this question in the Securi~ Council." The delegation of the Soviet Union should not have expected us to forget tbat very recent historical precedent which 50 clearl)' reveals the duplicity and the ·demagogic purposes of its present conduct. The qualification "demagogic" aIso applies to the President's repeated declarations that the decisions of 2 irréconciliab~e du comment mette son positions nents. fin ;:. avait Conseil sumer combait au à règlement tion Membres et que connaissance dont pouvoir effet, en tion." Article,' représentant qui représentant Conseil devait qu'il du fonction? le à cle Nations l'attitude ganisation pu commises s'est - a Nations Conseil But there is more to it than that. At the end of our last [487th] meeting, the President surprised us by stating that the USSR delegation had interrupted its long absence and had returned to the Security Couneil because it considered itself obliged to exereise the functions of the Prflsidency which feU to it during the rnonth of August. It must he asked, in this connexion, what provision of the Charter or of the rules of procedure of the CouDeil draws a distinction between the obligations oi Member States with regard to the Presidency of this Couneil and their other duties. The only one of which we have any knowledge in this connexîon is Article 28 o~ the Glarter, parag!"aph 1 of wbich states: "The Security Couneil shaU be sa organized as to be able to function continuously. Each member of the Security Couneil shall, for this purpose, he represented at all times at the seat of the Organization." Tbis is not the place ta interpret the scope of that Article, but if we take its Jetter for guidance, does not the representative of the USSR think tbat a member which has not considered itself under the obligation to he represented at aU times at the seat of the Organization, so that the Security Couneil is able ta function continuously, ought equaUy not to have appealed to that obligation when it intended, under pretext of fulfiUing it, to take advantage of the privileges of the Presidency? (turthermore, can we conclude from the President's statement of Il August [486th meeting] that the Soviet Union will renew its boycott of the United Nations on 1 September by means of such a restrictive interpretatian of Article 28? It is much to he regretted that the somewhat unscruIr ulous behaviour of a Member of the United Nations should have drawn the attention cf public opinion to certain mistakes which were made at San Francisco. The USSR delegation bas not confined itself to the use and abuse of the veto - having emploled it about forty times - but bas reached a culminating point in irresponsibility towards the United Nations hyassum- ~ the Presidency of tbis Couneil at a time when peace 18 seriously threatened, with the deliberate intention 3 . On bis retum to. the Security Council the 'representative of the USSR announced that bis delegation was bringing with it a. peace plan. But what kind o~ peaceful solution bas the representative of the USSR offered us? That it would exercise its influence with the North Korean authorities to cease hostilities and retum to the 38th parallel in accoro.mce with what the Security Co~cil bas decided? No. VJhat it has asked rather is the withdrawal of the forces of the United Nations, which are making ht>.avy sacrifices to aid the Korean people to recover its freedom and to preserve its democratic way of life. An the peaceloving peoples in the world are watching with the deepest concem the case of Korea and the peace formula which th.:: Soviet Union is offenng. We are faced with the itnminP.nt possibility of fresh aggression in an those countries' which have their own 38th para11el created by the minorities of international, communism which, under the.guise of democrats, are acting as new: fifth columns to destroy by violence the genuine democratic way of life which these countries have freely ~~ed. . 1 think it is time1y to remind the Council that the twenty-one American republics stated at the Conference oi Bogotâ that the politica1 activities of international communism or of any other form of totalitarianism are, owing to their anti-democratic character and aggressive tendencies, incompatible with the American concept of freedcm, which rests upo~ two incontestable assumptions: the dignity of man as a person aud the sovereignty of the nation as State. Thedebate which bas developed on 'the Korean question bas had thè virtue of showing complete1y that the USSR delegation bas retumed to the S(:CUrity Couneil with the sole purposc of aiding the cause of the aggressors by setting itself up as the defence counsel of thase 'Who have violated peace in Korea and by thus being remiss in the duties laid upon it by the Charter asa Member of the United Nations, particularly the duty set forth in Articl~ 2, paragraph 5 of the Charter. Finally, the members of this Counci~ and public opinion will have beenable to see what 1S. the nature of the peace plan which the USSR delegation bas offered us. It 1s not a peaceful settlement in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations; it is a peace in the image and likeness of Moscow. To take an historica1 paralle1, it is in reality a Pas S01.1Ïetica. MI'. AUSTIN (United States of America): 1 endorse the able effort of Mr. Alvarez, the representative of Cuba, to achieve progress in the Security Ç~uncil. It is apparent tbat because the regular ordf'r lB the surest ana quickest way ta attain .the aims of the United We thank him for those words. My Govemment welcomes the belief of Sir Bfmegal Rau that now as weIl as in the future, we must tum these problems over and examine them thorough1y. We hope that other representatîves will give us the henefit of their thoughts on these matters so that the United Nations will he able to act with wisdom and assurance'. This exchange of views should contribute to the objective stated by the representative of India. The United Nations is engaged i!\ a struggle to give a smaU nation the right to live in 1J.'rty and independence, free from political pressure trom any side. United Nations forces are not fighting in Korea and mobiHzing their resources aU over the world in order to further the political or military i.,terests \lf any other country. They are doing so hecause they believe that if they protect one small country, they are protecting all countries, great and small, from political oppression and military invasion. The United States, like almost every other Member of the United Nations, wishes to live in peace, in tolerance and in productive co-operation with its neighbOl.lrs in the world community. The United States is determined to support the efforts of the United Nations to ensure that·al! countries, small and great, may he free from aggression. The United States be1ieves that, if aggression is stopped in Korea, it i5 less like1y to break out elsewhere. The United States believes that the restoration of peace in Korea by the United Nations will strengthen peace in the whole world. The United States has no designs on Korea as a military base, as bas been asserted. EveZlts have proved that. Wc hope some clay to see it agreed that no great Power will try to dominate a unified Korea. There would he no United States troops - no forces of any of the other United Nations - in Korea tooay if the North Korean authorities had exereised that restraint which the Soviet Union ms in a position to suggest ta them. If now the Soviet Union would exereise its influence, the breach of the peace would he ended forthwith. If 5 But the fighting in Korea i5 a reality. It continues. The United Nations effort to repel the attack, however, grows sironger and stronger. New forces are being pledged and shortly will be transported to the scene. Thailand, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines thus far have offered ground forces for service in Korea, which services have been accepted. In aIl, nearly 30,000 fuUy equipped ground troops have thus far been pledged to support the forces of the United Ltes and the Republic of Korea now in action unde. the flag of the United Nations. The naval forces of Australia, Canada, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom have joined those of the United Stltes in Korean waters. The air forces of Austra.lia and Canada have joined in the operation, and contributions from Belgîum, Greece, and the Union of South Africa have been pledged. Many other types of assistance are being offered by many other nations. Thus, it becomes apparent to all that the United Nations is not the feeble body that some have tried to make il. Yet, even while the cannons roar, we must consider the aims for which the United Nations is fighting. We must ask ourselves questions regarding the kind of peace that the outcome of th~ conflict should bring. We must ask if there is anything we can do now to assure that the purposes for which we pray and fight may he more quickly achieved. , The Security Council and the General Assembly have built already a firm basis for any future action which might be decided upon to fulfil the objectives for which the United Nations is now fighting. The Security Council. has set as its first objective the ending of the breach of the peace. This objective must be pursued in such a manner that no opportunity is provided for another attempt at invasion. Another objective is to provide a demonstratiotl of United Nations acmevement with regard to Korea that will deter and prevent aggression anywhere. The General Assembly for three years bas sought the establishment by the Korean people of a free, unified and independent nation. The United Nations must see that the people of Korea attain complete individual and political freedom. Those are three great objectives ta which the United Nations i5 committed. The General Assembly bas decided that fair and free elections should be held throughout the whole of the Korean peninsl,la and has directed the United Nations Commission on Korea to perform that task. Thus far, it bas been preventedfrom functioning in the area contro11ed by the North Korean régime. But surely this objective of holding free elections throughout aIl of Korea under the supervision of the United Nations must be maintained. As arder 1s brought out of chaos, s'ome United Nations body should be on the spot to lend all practicable .assistance to the Republic in establishing democratic government in the reunited Korea. Such a body might be effective in helping to dispel suspicion and might materiaUy aid the tmnsition from war to a sound peace., 1 am not, of course, making any specifie suggestion for action. 1 an1 only turning over idp.asup to this point, seven ideas. After more mature consideration, the United Nations, through the S~"Urity Council or the General Assembly, will have the responsibility to accept or reject. Also, w~ cannot forget that the General Assembly bas stated the objective of achieving the admission of Korea to the United Nations as early as possible. These are oqr six great objectives over which there should he no controversy. These are long-range ends. But we should Dot lose sight of t.hem, even in the tumult of fighting. The United Nations has undertaken a mighty task. 1 believe that aIl fifty-three nations associated in this effort to stop aggression will remain steadfast in their support of the principles of 'i:he United Nations and of its peace-making functions. There is a reservoir of wisdom that exists in this Security Council and other bodies of the United Nations, and 1 feel we should aU do our bit to contribute ideas to a discussion that is of such vital interest to aIl the world. Sorne things we have to take on trust. We are less trustful, however, when our original trust bas been betrayed. 1 think that very few countries t.oday will vi~w with confidence the attitude of groups of countrIes that have committeed or supported aggression. But much responsibility rests ~pon the Soviet Union - representative and his Government. Will they forsake suspicion and isolation and jûil~ in a free and frank exchange of ideas with the rest of the world? Will mey believe that no country desires ta threaten them in Korea or anywhere else around their vast perlmeter? Will the Soviet Union Govemment join in the effort to build the United Nations as the major safegua:d against attack by any State on any other State? Does the Soviet Union Govemment wish peace in Korea? Jt cao have peace. Does the Soviet Union Government wish ta end the fighting? It cao end the fighting. Dœsthe 5o"iet Union Government feel the need for sorne assurance from the United Nations that a free and independent Korea will not in any way threaten the sccurity of the Soviet Union? 1 have no doubt that that assurance cao he obtained. Can aU of us accept the principles'contained in the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly on 14 Novemher 1947, 12 December 1948 and 21 October 1949? . Can ail of us agree that the United Nation~ I)ught ta have free and unhampered access to, and full freedom ta traveI within, an parts of Korea? Can ail of us support free elections, supervised by the United Nations in sucb a manner as ta ensure their being carried out by secret ballot, without fraud, and free from intimidation? If the answers ta these questions should he in the affirmative, many of the issues which trouble us now would he on the road ta solution. What seems ta he needed is good faith and the will to act upen that faith. The opportunity i5 here. The place is here. The tinteis at !-.at'd. OntY the wC/rd and the deed are bcking. We are waiting. And white we wait, the strength of the United Nations increases. Its resolutian will neither Bag nor fail. Mt". TSIANG (China): For the last two weeks, we have been taken by the President for a ride on a merrygo-round, or rather on a misery-ga-round. He bas in the words of my colleague of Ecuador, vetoed our rules of procedure. By an arbitrary decision of bis own, he bas pronounced illegal our decisions of the latter part of June. In fact, he bas treated the Security Council as if it were the Politbureau of the Boishevik Party of R,iSSia with himse1f playing the role of Generalissimo Stalin. Without going into the history of European ~­ perialism in Asia, it is perhaps useful for this Counci1 to be reminded' that many European countries participated in the imperialistic exploiv,tion of Asia. The imperialists came to Asia by two routes: one country came over land, while all the others came over the seas. We in China divide these imperialists into two categories: the so-ea1led ocean devils and the land devils. Among the Powers wmch came over the seas were, in the first place, Spain and Portugal; then came the Netherlands, Great Britain, and France; stil! later came Germany and ltaly. The one country which came to exploit and conquer Asia over land was Russia. The imperial Powers had a variety of politics and economies. From the hisrory of Asia's suffering from imperialism during the last four centuries, one must he driven to the conclusion that every kind of political structure and every kind of social and economic régime is capable of the crime of imperialism. Moreover, ii we study closely the politics and economics of these The proposition that only cap:talism cao he the motive force of imperialism is belied by the history of Europe and Asia during the last four centuries. In this brief survey of the past, 1 have used the term "European imperialism", because the United States of America did not participate. The United Smtes won its independence only in the third quarter of the eighteenth century. It was only at the end. of the nineteenth century that the United States went into the Philippines, and then oo1y for a brief period of fifty years, after which it voluntarily liquidated its control and restored freedom ta the Philippine people, ta the mutual satisfaction of the peoples of the Philippines and the United States. As regards Korea and China, the United States, during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, championed the political independence and the territorial integrity of these countries. The policy of the United States in the Far East was based on sound United Nations princip!es fifty years before these prinicples wert. embodied in the Charter of the United Nations. The people of Korea and China know very weIl from the record of the past the disinterested and friendly nature of United States policy. If Korea and Qùna should bave any complaint against the United States in all these years, the complaint would he ta the effect that the United States championed the principles only with its moral prestige and occasronatly with sorne diplomatie effort. As to imperialism in the Far East, the United States is notLb1e for being the bright exception ta the general rule. During the recent war against Japanese aggressïon in the Far East, the United Stat~ gave ta my country more sub3tantial aid than any of the other Allies. At the end of the war, the Uni1ed States did not ask of China any port, railway or mine concession whatsoever. The United States troops simply said good-bye to us and returned to their homes in New York, Texas or whatever their homes mi~ht be. If that should be imperialism, 1 wish the Soviet Union would !ollow the example of the United States. The one country that penetrated Asia overland was Russia, and Ll.:lsia, as shown even in elementary school text books. got the lion's share in Central Asia and 10 How did Russia obtain such a vast domain without war? Russia obtained it by appearing in China in the disguise of a friend. Ignatief, the representative of Russia, went to Peking and enlarged tl) his Chinese listeners on the iniquity of Anglo-French imperialism. He, as a friend of China, offered his services of mediation. Expoiting the ignorance of the Manchu rulers of that time, he succeeded in his diplomatic trickery. The same manoeuvre was repeated towards the end of the nineteenth century. Exploiting China's hatred of Japan, Russia obtained from China Port Arthur and Dair.en and Manchurian railways. Russia, the friend of China, obtained more from China than Japan the enemy did. Unless the ~ples of Asia should repeat today the mistakes that the Manchu Empire made in 1860 and from 1895 to 1900, the game of the Soviet Union now cannot he repeated, no matter how eloquent the representative of the USSR might he in Lake Success and no matter how loud the radio stations of puppet North Korea and puppet Peiping may be in repeating the slogans issued to them by Moscow. It is nevertheless surprising that Moscow should try to repeat in 1950 what had happened in 1860 and 1900. Ali the European imperial Powers which went to Asia over the seas have liquidated their empires, or are about to liquidate them. Spain and Portugal long ago gave up their ·conquests. The United Kingdom bas handsomely agreed to the independenée of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon. The Netherlands bas agreed to the establishment of the Repttblic of Indonesia. France has offered to the people of Indochina freedom within the French Union. At this juncture, the peoples of Asia have the right to look forward to a In my statement hefore the First Committee of the General Assembly, on 25 November 1949, 1 set forth in detail the imperialism of the Soviet Union in Asia in recent years. It is unnecessary for me to repeat what 1 said on that occasion. However, 1 should like to refresh the memories of my colleagues in regard to the final result as 1 pictured it on 25 November of last year. Inviting the members of the First Committee to look at the map of Asia and to note carefully how the Soviet Union had advanced its empire in the recent years, 1 said:1 "Before the Second World War, the Soviet Union had no influence or interest of any kind in Korea. Today, North Korea, from 43rd parallel to 38th parallel, lies within the Soviet sphere." (That, of course. applies to 25 Novemher of last year.) "In the midst of the Second World War, the Soviet Union sold for cash its railway interests in Manchuria to Japan. With that sale, it liquidated aIl influence and interest which the Czars bequeathed to the Soviets. Today, the Soviet Union is back in Manchuria, with a part share of the tnmk railway and part share of the two great ports of Dairen and Port Arthur. In addition, the Soviet Union bas acquired and will acquire many industrial, mining, and aviation concessions from the Chinese Communists on the pattern of the so-called joint ownership and operation. The Soviet boundary bas moved from the Amur River to the tip of the Liaotung Peninsula, that is, from the 54th parallel to the 38th parallel. "After the Bolshevik Revolution. Outer Mongolia and Tannu Tuva were for a brief period free from Russian domination. Today, both these areas, whatever the formaI aspect of the mattell" might he, are admitted by aIl to he provinces of the Soviet Union. In this sector of Asia, the imperial boundary of Russia bas moved from the 54th parallel to the 43rd. "In Central Asia, using a combination of economic, politica1, and military penetration and intrigue, the Soviet Union has fastened its grip on the Chinese province of Sinkiang and pushed its power to the borders of India and Pakistan. In Central Asià, the Soviet Empiie bas rnoved its boundary from the 49th parallel to the 34th parallel. "Even at the height of the nineteenth century imperialism, no movement of imperial expansion cau he compared to what Soviet Russia has aclhieved in Asia in recent years. Stalin bas surpassed all the 'Ivans', 'Peters', 'Alexanders', and 'Nicholases' of Russian bistory." 3. du sentation cette ignorance ment laquelle Corée, nombreuses tique reste. dans nissons peuples de prise D'un permet étranger. puiser fiques qui vreté société Asia is at the cross-roads of histoiy. On the one band, there is the road of the United Nations, the rood of the continued emancipation from foreign imperialism. Along this road, Asia tan draw freely upon the spiritucl, scientific and technological resources of the whole world, resources which will enable the peopies of Asia to overcome the traditional poverty of the old continent and to build a new society, better than any in the' long centuries which have rolled by. These same resources and the free and friendly intercourse with the Western world will also enable Asia ta develop the peculiar genius of its peoples along lines which will enrich the tife of the whole world. exi~té ainsi entretiendra outre de monde tous, 13 On the other band, there is the road of .Soviet Union imperialistic domination. If aU of us knew, as we should know, the type of life in the Soviet Union and its satellite States, none of us would have the heart to say to any people in Asia, "Accept it". If we knew a11 about the pJ;tysica1 and spiritual sufferlngs of the peoples in Eastern Europe, we would be bath inhuman and short-sighted to advocate appeasement, acceptance of the fait accompli, and surrender for any of the peoples of Asia. In this Korean question, the distinction between big and small Powers does not exist. Of the fifty-three nations which have c-"Cpressed "heir approval _of the action of the Security Council, none, big or small, is interested in any expansionist scheme in Korea. AIl, big and small, are interested and deeply interested in stopping the aggression and in making the United Nations fulfil the· purposes for which it was created. ,If a distinction should he drawn, l lluid say that the smaller countries have a bigger sœke in Korea than the big Powers have. This is, however, ooly relative. After aU, the freedom of Karea is a vital factor to the freedom of Asia, and the freedom of Asia is a vital factor to the freedom of the world. 1 1 Mr. BEBLmt (Yugoslavia): The Yugos1?v de!egation basrefrained from taking part in the recent debates of this Council. It bas 6!!e 50 in accordanœ with the general attitude of the Yugoslav Govennnent. which consists in net taking sicles in the Korean conflict.. This. does net IDem, however, that YugosJavia. does not sbare the desire of aIl those who, throughout the world. sinœrely seek a solution of the Korean problem. Nor does it Mean that we fail to partake of the profound anxiety aroused, both within and outside this CounciI" by the impasse wbich our proceedings have. dearly reached and wbi~ is itself an ominous refiection of the mounting tensions in the world today. Still les does it signify a lack of awareness on our pa..-t of the vital urgency of seeking a way out of the impasse. l baYe felt persona11y, however - and this feeling bas grown as l bave watched the încreasing bitterness of our deliberations - that a way out could he foun" only along new lines, along such lines as wou1d con- . stitute a bold departure from the vicious circle in which we seem to bave been moving. The suggestion put forth at our Jast meeting by the representative of India does, in the opinion of my delegation, provide such a way outo bccause there is, l tbink.. reasonable ground to expert that the efforts of the non-permanent members of this Counci1, whiclt bave no direct stake in and, therefore. a greater measure of detacbment towards, the whole matter, would lead to the constructive ap~ for which the gravity of the hour and the cemplexity of the problem·imperative1y caU. My delegation, therefore, warmly welcomes the initiative of the Indian delegation. Mr. SUNDE (Norway): In bis short reply ta my statement at the previous meeting. the President expressed sorne. d~ubt ~ to thesînœrity and eamestness of ou..r concem OVe!" bis refusai to abide by our rules of procedure. He based bis d01.l.~ts on my complicity in an alleg.ed violation of Article 3Z of the Charter of the United Nations. The same accusation haSe been made by the President many times before. notably during our [484th] meeting on 8 August, when he rebulted the majority of the Couneil for having adopted resQlutions against the North Korean authorities without granting a hearing to their representative. He called this "an aet of discrimination" and "a gross violation of Article 32 of the Charter". l sbvuld have preferred ta wS\."'Uss themerits of tbi~ contention at a later st~e. in connexion with the ~ SQviet Union proposaI to hear representatives !tom bQth North and South Korea. A$ we all know, hQw~ve(, th~ Counc.il is stiU impaled on a preliminary prQÇ~u.ral question wmch prevents us from proceeding to a, prQ~r coustderation of this. proposaI or, indeed, o.f..~."1 .o.f.. th.e., .o.ther proposa.ls 1>efore ~ Witb his \\ijd~mi/.ble ta.ctical skiU, t~ President bas. chosen to cQtld~ bis. cQll~es for their previous attitude to tbi.s iS$.ue rather tlian to facilitate its orderly recon- 14 ~estion. There is no dispute befote us. The forces of North KOfeA have crossed the 38th parallel in an armed aggression upon the Republic of Korea and have failed te heed tms Couneil's order to cease hostilities and withdraw. Let me try te illustmte the important distinction 1 have in mind. Suppose two neighbours quarreled about sorne question of law, say, for instance, the locution of the borderline between them, and that one of them brought the matter to court. No fair judge would attempt te adjudicate the issue without hearing both parties. But suppose that, one day, one of the neighbours cornes breath1ess te the police and begs for heJp in subduing and ejecting the man next doo!" who, this rime, in a fit of anger, has broken into his house and is going beserk. Would one expect the police officer on duty to lean back in his chair and say that he would have te hear both of the parties before taking any action? Surely not. The law authorities would, of course, force the intruder te W' thdraw before they would he willing to listen to any of his arguments of justification. This is the Security Council's position today in the Korean case. There will come a time, of course, when it will hecome necessary for this Couneil to face the important task of bringing about a settlement of the conflicting viewpoints and interests which may he at the root of the present hostilities in Korea, and then it will be desirable to hear both the-parties to the st "fe. In this connexion, however, we must remember tl lt the North Korean authorities have consistently ref! ..sed to have anY dea1- ings with the United Nations Co..nmissions which have 'been in -Korea for more than two and a half years charged with su('.h a task. At present, the Security Council i5 engaged solely in a police action with the purpose of repelling the unIawful attack. The formulation of the Charler makes the distinction perfectly clear. Artic.'e 32 of the Cba..-ter, on wbich the President bas based bis arguments in this connexion, provides that aState wbich is party to a dispute under consideration by the Security Council shall he invited to partieipate in the _discussion re1ating to that dispute. But the Charter cEstinguishes very c1early between the Couneil's handling of disputes, which is covered in its Chapter VI, and ifs action with respect to threai.: to the peaœ, breaches of the pesee, and acts of aggression, whiCh are covered in Chapter VII, and it is cIearly panuant to the provisions of the latter Chapter only fondé partie curité à très seil, Conseil la Chapitre ment

My 1ist of speakers is exhauSted. As representative of the UNION OF SOVIET SOC1AUST REPUBLICS, 1 should like to make a brief reply to certain statements made in the speech of the representative of the United States, while reserving the right to return to this matter·in greater detail at a Iater stage of the discussion of the Korean question if the USSR de1egation 'finds it necessary to do so. I tried to detect something new in the speech of the representative of the United States, but there was notbing new in il. New WOrds, new phrases, but the substance remains as of old. The representative of the United States is evading a generally known fact-the fact of aggression by the Government of the United. States against the Korean people. The representative of the United States did not reply to a single one of the facts adduced iil the statements of the USSR delegation; he did not refute a single one of the arguments put forward by the USSR delegation. The representative of the United States began to expatiate on the prospects for the development of the Korean· question. The purpose of an this ta1k about the prospects is c1f;ar. It·is ID· diyett the attention of the Security Council, of the United Nations, and of world public opinion from the real events that. are taking place in Korea, from the substance of the question. . In Korea, as we all know, the blood of the Korean people is being shed. Women, old men and children are being killed. Valuable property is being destroyed by the barbarous bombardments infficted by United States aviation on peaceful towns and villages. . Thousands of United States soldiers are dying in Korea. According to the latest information which appeared today in the Press of the United States, these dead number tens of thousands. They die without knowing what theyare fighting for. That is admitted even by the Press itself. The United States representative, however, evades a11 these questions and the rea1 situation, and dwe11s at length on the prospects of the settlement of the Korean question. At the saDIe time, wittingly or unwiUingly, he betrays bis rea1 intentions. He enumerates onçe &gain the countries which have sent troops or intend to send them to Korea; he recites their ~ as he bas done several times before. Once again we hear .O,f t~ United Kingdom and the Anglo-Saxon dominions-Australia. New Zea1and. Canada; another suchdominion add«i today. the Union of South Africa. There· is nothing new in that. Once again we hear of Françe and the Netherlands-always the saDIe colonial Powers wbich are aiding the United States Govemment i6· How is it possible ta talk about the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, about the prospects of solving the Korean problem, about elections, freedom, independence and sucb things, without having heard the opinions of bath sides taking part in the confl.ict, without having heard both participants· in the .civil war in Korea, the representatives of both govemment camps engaged in an armed struggle in Korea? Every sensible and impartial person 'will undoubtedly comè to the conclusion that it is necessary ta hear bath sides, and to hear them not only in accordance with the principles of ancient Roman law, as the representative of Norway remarked here, but in accordance with the dictates of common sense and, lastly, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. The delegation of the United States abjects ta this, and introduces its aggressive proposais, calculated ta extend and intensify the aggression in Korea, to ex:- pand the scale of the war, and boasts before the Security Couneil that more and more thousands and thousands of soldiers will be sent ta the Korean slaughter house---to be killed. More and more thousands of soldiers, fiot only United States soldiers, but United Kingdom, French and Netherlands soldiers, wi:ll perish in Korea without knowing for what they are dying. They are dying mere1y because such is the wish and policy of the ruling circ1es of the United States, and ta cover their aggressive intentions, their 17 As the USSR delegation offieially stated at the Security Couneil's [486th] meeting of Il August, the Soviet Union "is prepared ta take an active part in the peaceful settlement of the Korean question through the Security Couneil and to use its influence for this worthy purpose". Neverthe1ess, the United States Govemment and its delegatiol'l in the Security Cauneil, by wrecking the USSR proposaI concerning the peaceful settlement of the Korean question and by blocking the legal ~nd just USSR proposaI (hat the Security Couneil should hear bath sides, are preventing the Security Couneil from discussing the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, white at the same time enlarging upon "the influence of the Soviet Union". Once again, let me say that the Soviet Union is ready to take an active part in the peaceful settlement of the Korean question in the Security Couneil. It is, 1 repeat, ready to use its influence through the Security Council for the peaceful settlement of tbis question. But the United States delegation and the United States GoV( -nment are opposed to this because the United States Government has p1aced its stakes on the expansion of the war and not on peaceful settlement, on the continuation of war and not on peace. Tbis is how the matter stands today; these are facts known t, .JI. The United States representative talks of the Security Couneil as a "reservoir of wisdom". Yes, the Council should be so, and it would be so, and it bas every reason to be a resel'Voir of wisdom, on the one condition only that the ruling eirc1es of the United States do not attempt to transform it into a reservoir of oppression and of violence, into a tool of aggressive policy of those circles, who have shown themselves to be the violators of peace. Under the United Nations Charter, the Security Council is the principal international organ for the maintenance of peace and for the peaceful settlement of c:onflicts. On the instructions of its Government the USSR delegation appeals to the Security Couneil to fulfi! its main, noble and sacred task and to prcceed to the peaceful settlement of the Korean question. As 1 have said before, however, this proposaI meets with a blank wall of opposition on the part of the United States Government, the United States delegation, and those delegations which follow in its wake. This is the real situation; these are the facts. Speakïng now' as PRESIDENT, 1 should like to announce that the list of speakers is exhausted. By the dock on my right band, by the clotk on my left band anû by my own watch, it is 6.25 p.m. It is late. We have been working today since 2 p.m. The question arises whether, if the members of the Security Council have no objection, it would not perhaps be better to adjourn the meeting. As there are no observations or objections, we shall adjourn the meeting. In accordancewith the request of severa! representatives and by common consent of the members of the Security Council, the next meeting will he held on T!1esday, 22 August, at 3 p.m. signale qui gauche 25. heures. seil de sécurité n'y voient pas d'objection, séance nùus d'hui. tions la heures. 1 1