S/PV.489 Security Council

There are two speakers on the list: the representative of the USSR and the representative of the United Kingdom. As representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, l should like ta reply to a number of points touched upon in the speech of the representative of the United States and in the speeches of a number of other representatives at the last [488th] meeting of the Security Counei1. Among the very important questions touched upon were the prospects of the development of the Korean affair, colonial problems and a number of others. The delegation of the Soviet Union considers it necessary to reply ta these questions and explain its point of view with regard to them. The discussion of the Korean question in the Security Council quite cIearly shows that the representatives of the United States bloc do not desire a peaceful settlement of the Koreau question, and raise objections against Soviet Union proposais intended to secure a peaceful settlement of the matter. Immediately after the submission of the USSR proposais for the peaceful sett1ement of the Korean question, the representatives of that bloc prevented the discussion of them by raising the question of inviting only the representatives of Syngman Rhee's South Korean puppet regime, and by refusing to invite the representative of North Korea. It is now quite c1ear AU this shows perfectly c1early that the representatives of the United States bloc, and chiefly the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom, are attempting ta achieve not a peaceful settlement of the Korean question, but a broadening the United States aggression against the Korean people and the conversion of the United Nations an obedient instrument of the aggressive policy sued by United States ruling circ1es. In his lengthy speech at the last meeting of Security Council the representative of the United States said a great deal about the prospects of development of the Korean question. He spoke about anything and everything, except about ending the military activities in Korea or about withdrawing foreign troops from Korea or about settling Korean question by peaceful means. He also entirely failed to mention the barbarous bombing of peaceful cities and populated places by the United States Force, or the colossal destruction which United States armed intervention has inflicted and is inflicting upon the whole of Korea and the whole Korean people. also passed over in silence the protest addressed to Security Council by the Government of the Korean People's Democratic RepubEc [5/1674] against the cruel, impermissible, illegal and barbarous bombing of the peaceful population of Korea by the United States Air Force. AU these important and urgent questions, which are before the Security Council, which it must consider, and upon whieh it must take decisions without delay, were deliberately passed over silence by the representative of the United States. He vainly attempted to prove that it is not United States forces but "United Nations forces" which waging war against the Korean peopl~. Even smaU children cannot believe this at the present stage. whole world knows that armed intervention in internaI affairs of the Korean people, armed aggression in Korea, is being carried out by United States forces on the personal orders of President Truman and under the command of the United States general, MacArthur. No labels or inscriptions of "United Nations", United Nations tlags, no matter how many are sent Mr. Trygve Lie to General MacArthur, can disguise the flagrant, barbarie, imperialistic armed aggression of the United States Government against the people of Korea. No illegai resolutions can veil or justify aggression. But it i~ wt'Il-known tlw,t a number of basic principles of international Iaw, which govern the foreign political relations Iwtwl'en ~tates, uni';ersally agree upon the principle 0 f non-intervention of foreign countries in the domestic affairs of aState. According to contemporary international law, interference in the domestic aitairs of a State in the form of an attack by one State on another,-that is, aggressionis regarded as a most serious international crime. International law draws a def1nite line between, on the one hand, domestic conrlicts, civil W1.rs and international connicts, wars between States, on the other hand, The conception of agRTession has been firmly established in international law as an attack by one State (the aggressor) upou another State (the victim of aggression), and it has never occu-red to any one to regard as an aggression an intern~11 struggle within a , State, an internaI conrl:ct within ~1 pt'ople, a ciyil war in progress upon the territory of one and the same State, upon territory inhabited by one and the same people. bdween two g0vernment camps of this people. On the contrary. the intervention of foreign States in an internaI conrlict, in a civil war in anv ~tate, has always bet'n described in international law'as a typical manifestation of aggrt'ssion. The conception of aggression is not apDlicable to civil war. Xeither international law nor international practice has l'ver applied the conception of aggression to int~rnal conflicts or civil wars, inasl11uch as these are waged r.ot between t\\"o States bnt het\\'een two sections cf the people of one and the same country. This is vrecisely the case in Korea. \\"here a civil war is in progress bet\\"een the North Koreans and the South Koreans. between two sections of the Korean people, \\"hich is temporarily split into two gOYernment camps. The sole aggressors in Kon'a are those States which are maintaining their forces on the territon' of Korea and are intervening in the struggle betwe~n Xorth and South Korea, thu~ extt'nding the scope of military operations. 1; internationale. drnit vai:-es national We are faced with a gross violation of one of the basic principles of international law and international practice. ::\either those \\"ho know nothing about matters of international law, nor designing politicians with their intentional distortions of international law, wil.l stlcceed in concealing the fact that the military action takcn bv the CO\'ernment of the Cnited States a.gainst the Kon:an people is an act ai armed aggresn:ilit~irt's l' amlée que Corée arbitrairement cipes fameuse s~on and that the \\'hole respflnsibility for the aggression in Korea and its consequences rests upon the Governmcnt of the L'nited States. . The ruling circles of the l'nited States are attemptmg arbitrarily and illegally to replace the generally acceptecl principles of international la w bv the notori· ous "Truman Doctrine", which is e~sentiaIly an Speaking of the so-called "peaceful ;ntentions" of the Government of the Cnited States and of the "need for peace", the representative of the Lnited States at the same time choked with glee at the thought that the raling circles of the Cnited States haw succeeded in forcing the G0vernments oi two orthree colonial Powers and the Governments r,f a nu.rnber of colonial and =~arshallized countries dependent upon the 1...'nited States to promise to send a few thousands of their delttded soldiers to die in the interests of the United States mvnopolies in Korea. Concealiug himself behind a lot of talk about peace, the representative 0 f the L'nited States Batly declares that the fighting in Korea is continuing, that military action there is becoming increasingly intense. that MacArthur is asking for fresh troops, that soon additional armed forces will be sent tnere, and that the United :3tates Beet will be supported in its piratical u.ctiviries in Korean and Far Eastern waters bv the néival forces of three more colonial Powers ~ the United Kingdol1l with its Dominions, and France and the ~etherlands. Lastly, he says that assistance to lOnited ~tates aggression in Korea has also been promiseJ by the Illonarcho-tascist clique in Greece, w hieh. a,; is weil known, has long heen maintained by the C;overnmcnt 0 f the L'niteJ ~tates and is completdy at its disposaI. The representative (Jf the l'nited ~tates attempts to rq)n:s~'llt ail this as a kiml of o'l'nited )Jations crusade again"t \;orth Kon'an aggressioll"o l~ut ta \vhom is it Ilut \."Iear that all this talk about the '0 LOnited )Jatiuns anm',1 ior~"t''''' is 1\U Il'Ure thal1 the btest example ai the lbIlai intt'l'llatiul1al biulf!' tu \\ hich the rl1ling cirdes uf t11l 0 l'nltcJ :'-t,lllO" ha\ e, ui latc, su olleil lJeen obliged tu ha\ c rClOVur"c 0 \\ l' Ill~lo\' hu\\~Over, hl' 'Iuitc l\lIllldcIlt lhat the t;(lV- \Ollllllloill ,Ji th~' ll1itL:d ~';lk'; alld ib dekgatiul1 in the déclarations. diennement qu'il déjà n'est sen"ice Ho""t'\t'r, nobody any longer believes this, Even the inhahitants of the l'nited States. deafened bv the dail)' thundcr of monopolistic, militaristic propag;nda, no longer helie\"e the assurances of President Truman that the war in Korea, for which o\'er 10 billion dollars han' been assigned. is not a war, but a sort of "police action in support of the Cnited ::\ations", It shauld he mentioncd that ~xperience in the Cnited Nations has shown that when l ';lited States representati\"es nm out of arg-:Ülol'I1tS '11 deience of their GoverIlment's aggressi\"e 'poliey or of the position of that (~o\"ert1ment's hlatant \"iolation of the l-nited Nations Charter and the uni\'er~ally aceepted r-..:1es of intemafonal 1a\\", the\" lwgin te l'der to the so-called "majonty" in the l-nited ~ations. This is thi~ improper manœUHe ta \\'hich the l-nited States represel1tati\"e in the ~l'curit\" Council has been oblig-ed to resort sinct' the :Ktlreàn question has been under'consideration. ::\ations lorsquïh ment Gouvemement Gom"ernement ::\ations droit C0mmencent au ce l.- lors délégation l'agression et des lking m,ahle tel dispro\"e the arguments put forward by the l-SSR delcg-ation regarding the undisputed fact of gTI1SS l-llited States ag-g-ression in Ko,ea and the illegal nature (li the resoi~tions on the Kor~an question impnsL'd by the Cnited States delegation Uprlll the Security Council. the l-nited States representati"e keeps on repeatil:g his same fi~re of fifty-tnree. He hopes tn prl'\"e ôereh\" that it is not the l-nittd Stat':"s and t\\'o or three colonial Po\'"ers which are partieipating in ag~e~sio!1 against the Korëan people. but fifty-three States. C':' des cinquante-troi cipent pas niales, ;'agression l-nis unique Dominion;; The fact~ 5110"',. howe\'er. that the aggression oi the Unitcli 5t:Hes Go\"ernment in Korea i;: ~ecei\"ing anin SUpport {,nly an,:1 primarily from one colonial po'.Yerthe l-nited Kinf;dom and its :\nglo-Saxon Dominions. Together \,"i;h the l"nited Kincd'om. the l"nited States is attemptinf; 10 c(lmpel the Go\"ernments ai certain other countries. whieh are dependem upon Them. to send their soldiers as cannl)n iodder tfJ proteet the colonial interests of the wealthy monopolie;: of the United States and the t'nited' Kingdom in Korea. Asia and the Far East. and to combat the national liberatiol1 mOYements oi the peoples oi Asia. J\.o~"aume-l-ni yemements d·eux. l'Jur le~ L":lis momements L\sie. Thus, under the guidance of ruling circles of the United States and Wall Street, a sort of reactionary imperialist alliance of colonial Powers is being formed in the middle of the twentieth century for the purpose of forcibly suppressing national liberation movements among the colonial peoples and securing their fttrther subjugation. That is the basic meaning and substance of the events now taking place in the wide expanses of Asia fram. the coasts of Korea and Japan to the territory of VIetnam and Malay Peninsula. Tt is impossible to conceal o.r change the substance and meaning of these events, el.ther for ou,r ~ontemporaries or for history, by any kmd of phansmcal phrases illegal resolutions or ambiguous figures. ' It .is weil known tha~ the ruling eircles of the colo~tal P~wers regard wIth fierce hatred the slightest mamfestatlOns of a national liberation movement amongst the people of Asia and the Far East. I~ is also generally. known that for an extremely long penod the monopohes of the United States and of ot~er colonial Po~ers have harshly exploited the populat1?n of the colomes and have extracted for their own ennchment the. lion's sh~re of the resources of dependent and colomal coulltnes and peoples. In particular merely as a result of deliberately increasing the price~ of. manufactured goods and deliberately reducing the pnces of raw m.aterials imported from colonial and dependent ~ountnes, the monopolies ancl ruling circles of the Umted States and of the European colonial Po\ver~ have taken ancl continue to take from these countnes vast resources for their Own enrichment. TI;is is officially recognized and confirmed by data puhhsh~d by tl:e D~partment of Economie Affairs of tl;e Un~ted NatIOns m its handbook entitled The relat.IVe P:,ICCS of .exports and import in 7t1fder-developed C?1tJl/11.CS. ~t lS clear from Just a few of the data gl:,en lt1 tl11S handbook that in the period of over tlmty years, from 1913 to 1947 inclusive. the so-called under-devel?ped cou~tries, i.e., the colonial and de endent countnes of ASla, the Far-East and other poP ri developed regions of the world, suffered an al11~u!r 10ss of 2.5 to 3 thotlsand million dollars, due solely expl(1it;~ti(1n, are tIlt' material hasis 11pon \\"hich "'l'stern European and l'nited ~tates imperialism has gro\\"n and dl'\'e1oped. l)n thl' other hand. this is the main reason fnr the arrl'st and dec1ine in the dc\"elopment of the pe·0]11l's nf the coul1tries of :\sia and Africa. The \"el~' lifc bh'od llf the people and the wealth of their l'nuntncs \\"erl' used to de\'e1op and extend the coloni;<j l'mn'rs. while t!lese people themseh'es gre\\" l'ver poorl'r and. to\\'ards the middle of the twentieth ccntnf\', their countries found tl1('msel\"es c1assed amoni the "nn<ic':--de\"l'\,)ped" countries. Only recl'ntly in ,Tuly 1950 a l'nitell States expert on colonial countril's, Harold Isaacs. \\'rote the following about th(' situation in these cOllntries in The AnnoIs ,1t t11(" Am("1'ican A(odCI1!i' of PoHtù:a1 and Social ....-("icn((': . , "Aiter one, two or threc centuries under \\'estern colonial rule. this Imge mass oi people is a horde of poverty-stricken hutl1:lnity condemned to li\'e in animai-like deg-radation. ~1any Americans who went ta Asia for the l1r5t time during the recent war saw this p(\\'erty and refused to bt'lie\'e their senses:' Such is the end result of the protracted colonial domination of the \Yester ;1 Powers 0\'e1 the peoples of Asia. A!Zainst the backg-round of this misenand shameless 'exploitation of 'the colonial peoples of Asia, there is the striking c0ntrast of the df'\'e1opment of the former c;,)lonial horderlands of Tsarist Russia, which the gt"eat (\:~toher Reyolution of 1917 freed fram the yoke 0i Tsarism and from f('udal and capitalist domination. In reply to the base insinllations 1eyelled against the USSR regarding this question 1 will quote se\'eral facts concerning the economic, po1itica1 and cultural developme!1t of ~~)e Republics of SO\-iet Central Asia. as these faets can best e"'T'ose certain persons who specialize in libelling the Soviet l."nion in the S~curity Counci1. Let us take. for example, l."zbekistan. once a backward colonial area and now the l"zbek 50yiet 50cialist Repllblic. In the twenty-fjye \'ears oi its existence this Repuhlic has become a éountry with a highly developed socialist indusu:•. In l'zbekistan there was no machine-building inc1ustry, l?uring the years oi the Stalinist Fin-Year Plans. ~he l zbek Sû\'iet SociCtlist Republic has become an Important centre ai machine manufacture Ch"er 900 large C'oncerm haye been p1aced in (Iperation and abrlUl 7 thollsand million rouÏJles haYé' been inyested in inc1ustr)', The produrrio:l 01 heayy indusuy ha~ i:1C-ré'élSé·d 2~5 timcs b~' comparison with· 1913. an"d its l'ercentage ot the C'l'C'I1(lmy 01 tht J\epuulic ,,\'a~ 42.3 per cent in 1948, \\ htH'as l.here was te> aIl intents a:ld T'urposes no hea\'y ir:.-]ustry iD l-z1:Jekistan l,eiore t'Jt J\nolution. Other one-time colonial borderlands of old Tsarist Rt:ssia. for example, Turkmenistan, have followed a similarly striking course of development during the years of Soviet power. In Turkmenistan 352 major industrial concerns \Vere huilt or entirely reconstructcd. New branches of industry \Vere created-oil processing, chemical, building material, textile, glass, <J'arment, hosiery and printing industries, and so forth. Before the October Revolution it \Vould have been impossible to find a single literate person among a hundred Turkomans. In the current vear the task of introducing universal seven-year education is being solved in practice in this Republic. Over 200,000 children are studying in 1,230 primary and secondary schools. Before the Revolution, on the other hand, only a few hundred children of the important feudal lords, the Beys, studied in eleven schools in the whole of Turkmenistan. Now approximately 10,000 boys and girls are studying in six higher educational and in thirty special secondary establishments. In the recent past a country of darkness and ignorance, the Turkomen SSR has now become a completely literate country with a highly developed culture. Before the Revolution, no books, newspapers or periodicals \Vere published in the Turkoman language. Ten periodicals and sixty-five newspapers are now published with a circulation of 250,000 copies. Such are the diametrically opposed lines of deve1opment pursued ami levels attained during the last twenty-five to thirty years by the degraded colonial countries of Asia under the rule of \Vestern colonial Powers, on the one hand, and, on the other, by the former colonial areas of Tsarist Russia which, after the great October Socialist Revolution, became free and independent national republics, ant! have since made splendid advances along the pat.ii of economic and cultural deve10pment and progress. i\either the most zealous apologists of Anglo- American imperialism, nor the basest slanderers of the Soviet Lnion will ever succeed in concealing these strikingexamples from the peoples of the world or from the peoples of Asia. In our time::. the peoples of ail colonial and dependent countries, inspired by the great historical example of the p~oples of Russia and by the heroic struggle of the Chinese people for nationalliberation, have started their active campaign for freedom and national indeopera~ion~ in K~rea and the Far East an appearance of bemg mternatlOnal, and even to lend it a "coloured" tinge by involving in this sordid affair "coloured nationalities" such as the Siamese and the Filipinos, whom the proud Anglo-American racists scorn and despise. Sorne of the colonial slaves anti "Marshallized" lackeys of the United States will of course be obliged to comply with the orders issued by Washington and to carry out the wish of their masters. This does not, however, in any way alter the essential nature of UIl!ted States aggression in Korea and the Far East. ThIs aggression is and remains gross, imperialist and coloni~l; it is aimed at preventing the establishment of an mdependent Korean State and attempts to stifle the national liberation movement in other countries of Asia. To t~ose colonial slaves, who are fllrthering the ccmmise Gnis en la cie grand Lénine: a~gression of United States ruling circles in Asia, designed ta protect the capital investments of United ~tates monopolie~ in Korea ~nd to prolong the dominatIon of the. colonial Powers over the peoples of Asia, the. follO\\"lng \Yords by the great founder of the Sonet Statl" Vladimir Ilyitch Lenin. may !Je applit:cl: "\"o ont' is tn hbme for heing born a slave. but the slave who, br {rom aspiring to his o\\'n freedom, qui, State~ representative that, when the LTnited States Government speaks of peace, it has the extension of the war in mimi ami is preparing to intensify its ag-gression with the aid of othcr colonial Powers and of their colonial and "l\lar~hal1ized"vassals. The falsity and hypocrisy of such "peace-loving" statements by the l7nitt'd States representative are only too apparent. We arc faced with a glaring rontraùiction between word~ and deeds on the part of the United States Government. The Fnited States representative, speaking of peace but thinking of war and the widening of hostilities, asks himself: Why is this war being fought in Korea and what kind of peace will end it? Answering this himself, he again explains why the United States Government hegan its policy of colonial adventure in Korea. He onl'e again refers to the il1egal Gcneral Assemblv resolutions on the Korean question, whidl werc forced upon that body by the United States Government with the support of the United States bloc. He is silent, howcver, about the Moscow decision of the three Foreign Ministers which is, as is known, the historie, legal, international hasis for the creation of a single, independent, democratic Statc of Korea, the establishment of which \Vas and still is heing prevented by the l'nit -cl States Government. The l'nited States representative is again trying to assert. in spite of the well-known fact, that .. iree ekctions" were hdd in South Korea and that the puppet regime of Syngman Rhee, which is hated bv the Korean people, was not forciblv creatt'd Ily (Tnited States monopolies. However, th~ entire world knows that, as a result of the free hand \Vhich Cnited States monopolies and their puppcts have had in South Korca for a periocl of tive years, that country became a colony of l'nitl'd States monojJolies, while its population has heen turned into colonial slaves with no rights, and is ruled oyer by .clau!citers and the l'nited States overSt'ers disi-,'1tised as military, political. ecollomic and other "advisors" and agents of \ Vall Street. And the attempt has been made to hic1e ail this behind the il1egal resolutions 0 i the (~eneral Assem!.>ly. Everyhody knows that after the defeat of the Japanese Armv bv the victorious USSR armed forces in August 1(j-~5: and the Iiberation 0 f Korea from Japanese colonial domination, the two parts of Korea, which hac! been temporarily divided by an agreed line along the 38tl~ ;:aral1cl, fol1owed diametrical1y opposed lines of devt';,ipmellÎ. North Korea went forward with giant strides towards truc national democratic deve10pl11ent. In a1l sections oi the population true peDple's organs of façon réseau rieur. par le plus les millions n'y dans dement tuels la plus formés. Présidium Réjltlhliqne Doo versaire oppression de truire richesses peuple pagné autrement. The cultural level of the Korean people rose immeasurahh-. The country \\"as covered hy an extensive network ;)f Sd100ls and institutions oi higl1l'r education. The Ilumller of secondar)' SdlOOls increased 22 times in cOI11Jlarison \\'ith 1944 am\ the lltl1l1ber of students by more than 23 times. On'r 2 million chihlren attended schoo\ last vear. Before the liberation of Korea th~re \Vas not a s~ng\e institutiotl of higher education in the northern part of the country, wllt'reas tl1l're are now sixteen. There came into being rapidly a national intelligentsia to give kadership in the organization (lf a ~tate apparatus and (lf industrial production, and. in the various scientific fields. young scholars \\'ere trained. The President of the l'rl'siclium of the ~upreme National i\ssemhly of the Peopk's Democratie Repuhlic of Korea, Kim Doo Bong, reeently wrote as follo\\'s in an article devoted to the liith anni\'l'rsanof the liberatioll of Korea: . "For the first tinw after fort)' years of enslavement and of humiliating national oppression, our people has obtained freedom to use its national language, the right tll each its own children, full opportunity to use its rich cultural heritagc. \Vith tIlt' development of its culture, the prosperity of the people of the northern part of the Hepublic has steadily increased." The statl' of affairs in South Korea presents a direct wntrast. américaines, les Coré Le démocratiQucs. tous publiques monstrueux assassins sous ont The clique of Syngman Rhee, which came ta power witl. the aid of United States hayonds, hegan to pnrsue lîOIll the outset a policy of converting South Korea into a colony of "United Statrs impl'rialism. The people were deprived of aIl democratic rights and lilwrtics. AlI del110cratic political parties and puhlie organizatiol1s were hanned and driven underground. A I11onstrous terrorist rl'ginll' of militar~' police \\'as estahlished. More 150.000 Korean patrio!s have heen killed h)' torture hy Syngman Hhee's assassins, and ahout 500,000 cast into prison. The l Tnited States Illonopolies. \\'hich had long coveted the \\'ealth oi the countrv, have estahlished a t;uJy ·colonial rl'gillle in South ·Korea. The United States firtn of l\forgan has taken the place of the Japanesl' colonial cOlllpanil's. \Volfram deposits in Sangdon, \\'hich is one of the \\'orld's most important sources of this valuabk orl' have heen tran.;ferreet to a United States firtn. The Thomas Boume :t\.ssociates o!. \Vashington have leasecl ancl begull to exploit the Klmpo Airport near Seou\. The K,.ea Oil Storage Company of New York has been granted the sole lonr.temps du caine niales possession sont précieux Rourlll' l'aérodrome a The "Cnited States "economic advisor" ta Syngman Rhee, Harold Lady has made the following statement: "One of Korea's richest sources of wealth is often passl'd over. Korea pos;;esses the cheapest manpower in the world. If I must say something about this, it is that that ~ituation will n:main unchanged." The l'nited State~ monopolies have thus become the "irtual ma~tl'r~ 0 f South Karea. They ha\'e obtained po~session 0 f almo~t a11 the chief inciustrial concerns and are cynically pumping out the country's mineraI ra\\" materiab, pillaging its mineraI wealth and mercilessly exploiting its population. As in ail other countries which have become depenc1ent upun the United States monopolies, they have carried out a policy of de-industrializing South Korea with the abject of converting the country into an agrarian appendage and purveyor of raw materials for the United States. For that very purpose the United States forced a one-sided economic agreement upon South Korea in December 1948. Machine works, textile and ather forms of manufacturing inclustr)' were ruined. This made it possible for Cnited States monopolies ta ship ail their surplus stocks ta Korea, at immense profit. There \Vas no land reform in Sonth Korea. Immense tract;; of land formerl)' owned by the Japanese colonizers were sold through the so-called \Vestcrn Land Company ta the Korean landowners. The A.mericans respomible for this illegal speculati\'e operation made immense profits. Approximately 80 per cent of the peasants in South Korea remain landless or own only very smail scraps of land. The peasants ha\'e been exploited even more mercilessly than under the Japanese domination. The agricultural economy of South Korea is in full decline. The inhabitants live in hunger and poverty, though thousands of tons of rice have been forcibly taken from the peasants and shipped to ]apan. The number of schools in South Korea has declined from year ta year. Most of the population remains illiterate as in the pasto The people's richest and most ancient culture has been stifled and destroyed, That is the reality of the rule of United States monopolie,; and their puppet Syngman Rhee in South Korea. The terrorist regime of Syngman Rhee, the instrument of obscurantisl11, is a far cry from the picture which the United States representative has tried to paint here in long, demagogic speeches about "freedom" and the "reign of light" in South Korea. The predatory rule of the United States occupation authorities and their Syngman Rhee puppets has reduced the economy of South Korea ta a state of èeep depression. lJnemployment and poverty have reô.\..lled immense proportions. The United States professor George McCume stated in his book "Korea Today" that, according ta the The predatory policy of the United States imperialists, and the regime of terror which they have established in South Korea, have been unable, however, to break the wiII of the people to unite the country. The wiII of •he entire Korean people and of the democratic parties of both the South and the North, expressed itself in universal eIections which led to the creation of the Pecple's Supreme Assembly of the People's Democratie Republic of Korea. The Syngman Rhee clique in South Korea, detested by the people and representing no one but the United States usurpers, has found itself isolated. Its attempts to improve its position by a provocative attack upon North Korea has also come to naught. The people of South Korea have not followed or supported the Syngman Rhee clique. The civil war, which this clique has forced upon the Korean people, became from the outset a Korean people's war of liberation against the United States interventionists, who have interfered in their internaI affairs. This war has become an all-Korean people's war for freedom and unity, for the independence of Korea. On the appeal of the Government of the People's DemocratÎo::: Republic of Korea the whole Korean people joined in this sacred war. According to the latest reports, ahnost 800,000 young Korean patriots have voll1nteered ta go to the front to battle against the foreign interventionists for the honour, freedom and independence of their native land. Such is the answer of the Korean people, both of the South Koreans and of the North Koreans, to the United States interv(:ntionists' intention to intensify their aggressioïl in Korea and to enlarge the scope of the war under cover of hypocritical talk of "Iocalizing the conflict". de qui plus tions 1s it not c1ear that in these circumstances any further continuation of military operations in Korea will lead not to "localization", as the United States representative has vainly attempted to persuade the rr.embers of the Security Council, but will inevitably lead to an extension of the conflict, an extens' - fraught with grave consequences, for which the UmLed States Government and its delegation in the Security Council wiII he wholly responsible? nouvelle conduire représentant convaincre tira de incombera délégation As we know, the United States Government has thr?ughout attempted ta conceal the domination of Umted States monopolies installed in South Korea hy the Syngman Rhee clique under iIIegal constamment américains Syngman It follows from al1 this that the United States monopolies have no intention of renouncing their desire to take possession of Korea as a colony and to continue their rapacious administration, to which of course the freedom-Ioving Korean people will never consent, as no other freedom-Ioving people would. But this would inevitably lead to the further aj:?;gravation of the Korean question. From this point of view it is the dutY of the Security Council to take urgent measures to put an end to hostilities in Korea and to proceed immediately to the peaceful settlement of the Korean question. Habit, the saying goes, i::. second nature. The United States ruling circles have plainly acquired a taste for masking their colonial activities in South Korea by illegal resolmions of the General Assembly, adopted by the Anglo-American aggressive bloc under pressure from the United States against the will and interests of the Korean people. Such a practice is beginning to become a habit with them. The United St:ües Government is now attempting to mask its armed aggression in Korea by illegal resolutions of the Security Council, creating an international bluff to the effect that it is not the forces of the United States aggressors and colonizers who are fighting in Korea but the "international forces of the United Nation~". It is the dl1ty of the Security Council to end this bluff and to calI to order the aggressor, whose aggression has reached an adv?nced stage. to compel him to end his intervention in the domestic affairs of the Korean people, to terminate hostilities in Korea, and to withdraw foreign troops from the country. The Security Council must give the Korean people an opportunity to decide its o\\'n fate without the guardians and overseers of Wall Street. For t'1is pl1r- It is common knowledge that the States and populations which cover almost haH the world-the USSR, China, the countries of the people's democracies and a number of other countries-not only do not support the aggression of the United States Government in Korea and China, but definitely protest against that aggression. 1t is also weIl known that the broad masses of the population in those countries, as in other European and non-European countries, definitely condemn the United States Government's aggression against the Korean people and against the people of Asia. An immense number of letters and telegrams are received daily by the Security Council from aIl over the world protesting against the United States aggression in Korea and demanding its cessation, as well as the cess~ tion of the barbarous bombing of the peace-Ioving population of Korea. This is the true voice and will of the peoples of the world, in whose ears all references to the figure fifty-three, which is intended to deceive world public opinion and to conceal the aggression of the United States Government in Korea, sound pitiful and futile. In conclusion, the United States representative is proposing to re-inflict upon the Korean people the same Is it not clear from aU this that until the United States Government renounces its aggressive actions against the Korean people and the other peoples of Asia, aU talk of prospects of peace, of freedom and inclependence for smaU and oppressed peoples, is nothing but hypocritical and pharisaical phrases intended to conceal and justify the aggressive colonial policy of the United State~ ruling circles and of their partners in colonial robbery and pillage? It is the duty of the Security Council to proceed immediately to the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, after terminating hostilities in Korea and demanding the immediate withdrawal of aU foreign troops from the country. Only these measures can bring to an end the bloody colonial aggression of the United States Government in Korea and pave the way for a peaceful settlement of the Korean question. Sir Gladwyn JEBB (United Kingdom) : 1 should like to raise a point of order. 1 was going to ask whether, since the President had spoken first-it was his privilege, 1 admit, but other countries had their names down too-since the President had taken his position as President as authorizing him to speak first at great length, and since at least two other de1egations wished to speak before 6 o'clock, it wouId be possible for my coUeagues and the President to agree to postponing the consecutive interpretation of his speech until the end of the meeting or until the next meeting, since we have aU heard it simultaneously interpreted.

The United Kingdom representative's proposaI is unusual, but if he is determined to speak today, the USSR representative's statement can be interpreted into English, and its interpretation into French can be postponed if the French representative does not object. Sir Gladwyn JEBB (United Kingdom): 1 have no objection myself, of course, but it is really for my French coUeague to say. So far as 1 am concerned, 1 am quite willing to dispense even with the English translation. Mr. CHAUVEL (France) (translated tram French) : 1 should like to understand exactly what the situation would be. Would aU translations of speeches made during this meeting be deferred until a later meeting?

This is in connexion with the United Kingdom's unusual proposaI. Sir Gladwyn JEBB (United Kingdom) : The unusual proposaI of the United Kingdom representative arose

We shaH first hear the interpretation into English, after which we shaH decide what to do. Sir Gladwyn JEBB (United Kingdom): Does the French representative have any reservations with respect to that? Mr. CHAUVEL (France) (trallslated from French) : l must say that l attach some importance t0 hearing the President's speech interpreted in my own language; that would enable me better to appreciate an the aspects of it. We might consider whether we shaH hear it now or later. But l do not see just how we are gaing to proceed.

l suggest the foHowing: that the USSR representative's statement should be interpreted into English, after whieh the United Kingdom representative should be given an opportunity to speak. \\Te shaU then hear the interpretation into French, or if there 1S not enough time, we shaH postpone the interpretation until tomortaw or until our next meeting. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America) : l believe the President has my name on the list for a speech, has he not?

Yes. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): Did he give that any consideration at aU in his ruling about interpretations?

Yes, l have it in mind, and l assume that if necessary we shaU remain for an extra half hour or forty minutes, and shaU give the United States representative an opportunity to speak. l think we have sufficient time for that.

It is unfortunate that the interpretation has taken almost twice as long as the statement itself. Therefore, if the representative of France has no observations or objections, l will caU upon the United Kingdom representative, and after him the United States representa-

There cannot be any disagreement with the opinion of the representative of France. The alternative would be to end today's meeting, and to have the interpretation and hear the representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States at the next meeting, if they have no objection. Sir Gladwyn JEBB (United Kingdom) : 1 understand that the representative of France has agreed to hear now my speech and the speech of the representative of the United States, and 1 hope that the Presic1ent will abide by that, if possible.

1 have no reason to object, if that is what the representative of France wants. But, if 1 understand him correctly, he considers it quite exceptional that the whole of the next meeting should be given ove!;" to interpretation of aIl three statements into French. He stated that he would find it somewhat inconvenient. If the representative of the United Kingdom does not wish to take this aspect into account, 1 do not abject ta giving the floor to him and the representative of the United States. Mr. CHAUVEL (France) (translated fram French) : 1 repeat that 1 have no objection in principle to having that procedure foIlowed. It is abnormal; obviously it cannot set a precedent; it has certain disadvantages. If, however, my coIleagues from the United Kingdom and the United States wish ta speak today, 1 think that this extraordinary procedure is the only procedure which makes it possible ta take into consideration an extraordinary situation for which the President is ta sorne extent responsible.

Does the representative of the United Kingdom insist on his proposaI? Sir Gladwyn JEBB (United Kingdom): Yeso

1 caU upon the representative of the United Kingdom. Sir Gladwyn JEBB (United Kingdom): After twenty-one days of the President's tenure of office and nine days of debate, during which, <1ccording to my calculations at any rate, no less than seventy-six pages in the English text of the verbatim record have been filled by the President-what the score is now 1 am afraid 1 do not know-twenty-five pages by the representative of the United States, sixteen by the representative of China and, 1 regret ta say, twentyone pages by me, it is still uncertain-1 repeat, it is The immediate reason for the impasse, of course, is the President's refusaI to agree to the presence at this table of the representative of the victim, the Republic of Korea, or more aceurately perhaps, the President's refusaI to agree to his presence unless there is a simultaneous appearance of the representative of those who let loose the \Var, namely, the Communist authorities of North Korea. What is still not generally understood, l think, is the immense importance of this attitude of the President's whieh is not, of course, shared, and is indeed bitterly opposed, by no less than nine of his eolleagues on the Seeurity Couneil. Behind the dreary debate which we have had on procedure there looms, indeed, a question of vast signifieanee, and one which, as might have been expected, has brought the proceedings in this body to a complete, if only temporary, stop. Let me explain. The President's whole thesis, which, as he has so obligingly and at such length explained, and to whieh his latest effort has eontributed absolutely nothing, is as foUows: First, the forces of the Republic of Korea. headed by Mr. Dulles, attacked North Korea at the instance of the United States and other "imperialist" Powers. 1 1 Secondly, nevertheless and to sorne extent despite, this argument, the \Var in Korea is a "civil war" in which, whatever the Charter may say, the United Nations should not intervene. Thirdly, however that may be, the whole thing is a "dispute" to which there are two sides, and the obvious thing is to get representatives of both sides together in arder that the Security Couneil, by exercising mediatian, should arran[',e for what is described as a "peacefuI settlement" of the whole affair. Fourthly, by "peaceful settlement" is meant sorne arrangement whereby the fighting stops, the United Nations forces retire, and the Communists are, by ..me means or another, left in ultimate pc:session of the field. . Fifthly, all that is required, therefore, to achieve peace in the first instance, is for a representative of the Communist authorities in North Korea to he invited ta this table, along with a representative of the Korean Republic. As regards the second point-the "civil war"-I have already said what 1 feel about this in my speech of Il August r486t1l meetingl, ami 1 conclurled my remarks hy saying: "1 do honestly hope that, for the reasons given, ,ve shall hear no more of this 'civil war' argument from the mouth of th~ Soviet ""Cnion spokesman." \Ye have iust hearcl sorne more. and unfortunatdv \\-e still "continue to hear about it: and in default' apparentl}' of other support, no less a persan than l'roiessor Krylov, Soviet l-nion Jurlge on the Permanent Court of International Justice at the Hague, has. 1 see, been mohiIized to reinforce the Polithuro's thesis \vhich bas been sa ahly expressed by the President. 1 will not now go into the question whether an intL rnational juclge \Vith a proper sense of his duty shoultl plunge into political controversy in this way. Astonishing though it may appear, Professor Krylov relies large1y in his argumentation on Article 2, paragraph i, of the Charter, \Vhich, the Council mav rememher, 1 l"J.uoted in full in my speech on thls st~bject. But Professor Krylov does not even quote it in full, merely saying-unless Press reports are inaccurate -that it provides that "nothing in the Charter shaH authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction Quite apart from thi:" however, the "civil \Var" argument simply does not make sense on generô.l ground~. First of ail, you divide aState into two, then vou organize a special Government in one pnrt nf it, ilOt allowing anybody else ta see how this GO\'ernment is farmed or what it is doing. You give it full governmental po\\"ers and you recognize it, even though ma:,t ~tates have recognized the other Government. Then the Government organized in this \Vay, possessing de faclo authority over half the territory, attacks the lawiul Gm'ernment of the other haH which l1as been set up under the international protection of the lTnited Nations. ~ooocly, however, is allowed to interfere with thi:, prnce~s on the grounds that it is a "civil \var". The result. of course, is that, in defiance of international authority, you get control of the whole country and you get what you want. It is quite easy ta think of other ca~es in which this interesting, if rather sinister. theory might be applied. Thi~ bring ml' ta the third point, the argument of the "two side~", as l shall call it. Here l believe that. in contradi~tinction ta the case of the first two argl1ment~ l mentioned, a certain impres~ion has been made h\' \\'hat our President has said. There :l:re indeed <1 Humber of fair-minded persons in the free world who have been hrought up in the great traditions of Roman and English jurisprudence and who consequentl)' believe that "both sides should be heard". No\\" this would be periectl)' correct if the Council \Vere no\V dealing with the case as a dispute, but, as l think my Norwegian colleague has already pointed out [488tlz meetillg], we are dealing on the contrary \Vith a violent attack by one party on another, in which the Security COl1ncil has already found the attacker to be in the wrong. Transferring this to the field of common la\\", it would mean that there should be no question of hearing a man who has committed a violent crime until he has either surrenc1ered to the police or the police have caught him. \Vhen he has surrendered, he shoulcl indeed he gi\"l'n a fair trial, and it is then, no doubt, that he can state his own case and explain what were the pathological reasons which lay behind his action. or l'ven, conceivahly, who inspired it. But until then, a "hearing" of the party concerned in this particular instance \\"ould be, broadly speaking, equivalent to going and asking the criminal for a statement of his views when he was still actively en€":Jged in prosecuting the crime. If we conc1ude that the third argument is also completely speciou5. therefore we are left with point four, which simpl)' means that we must have a "peaceful settlement" at ail costs. This, of course, is also begging Thcn:fore 1 might perhaps say a few wonls now on the general sllbjed of peace, a sllbject which, inCÎ- dentally, \Vas not exc1lH!ell, 1 think, from the President's last statement. For wdl over a year now the Soviet l'nina propaganda machine has heen harping on onc theme, namely, that the world is liivided into two camps, the camp of "imperialism and aggression" led bv the Western countries and notably by the tTnited States, and the camp of "democracy and peace", led by the Soviet Union with the help of the Communist Parties ail over the world. Now, of course, the various catch-terms which are employed by the Soviet Union propaganda machine have, as 1 think 1 have suggested before, a real meaning which is the reverse of the actual meaning, and if this simple test is applied, then of course one will observe that what the Soviet Union propaganda machine is saying is that the world is divided into two camps, the camp of democracy and peace, led by the Western nations-and notably by the United Statesand the camp of imperialism and aggression led, of course, by the Soviet Union with the help of the various Communist Parties of the world, But it is perhaps no good for me jllst to assert this, since, though many would be1icve it, some also would be misIed by the wonderful propaganda device of calling white, black and l'vil, good. Ta these, therefore, it may bc of some interest to know that it is a fundamental article of communist belief that the aims of the Party can, in the long run, only he achieved by force. "'vVe are living not mere!y in aState, hut in a systcm of States, and thc existence of the Soviet Repl1hlic side hy side with imperialist States for a long time is unthinkahle. \Ve or the other must tril1mph in the end, and hefore that end Sl1pervcnes, a series oi frightf111 mllisions between the Soviet Repl1blie and the hourgeois States will he inevitahle. " This was originally said hy Lenin in 1919 and is qlloted in Stalin's essay O/l thc ProblclIls of LCIlÎ/lism (!irst pl1hlishe<1 in 192fi). Hl1t if we want something rather latl'r, we necd only turn to the leading periodical of the Communist Party of the lTSSR, Rolsllc7'ik. In Jul)' 1948, this magazine said: "Communism teaches that the violent overthrow of the exploiting classes and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a general law of the socialist revolution." ''There are two kinds of war: "( a) Just wars, wars that are not wars of conquest but wars of liheration, waged ta defcnd the people from foreign attack and from attempts to ~nslave them. or ta liherate the people irom capitalist slaver)", or, lastly. ta liberate colonies and dependent countries from the yoke of imperialism; and "( /;) Fnjust \Var. wars of conquest, waged to conquer and cnslave foreign countries and foreign nations." Whether the Government of the USSR approves or disapproves of a particular war depends, therefore, 011 which ai these categories it dl'cides fits the war in questioll. The decision is ludicrously simple. Any war in which it or its clients are en~aged must he a just War of liheration. whereas any war in which the noncomnmllist countries are engaged must he an unjust war of conquest. As the \Vestern countries cannot possibly engage in a just war, it is logical to demand their disarmament or. at the verv least. to prevent their llsing the one weapon with règard ta which they But one would have thought that almost anybody could sel' that the period of European, as opposed ta E.LIssian, expansion is now over, the last physical manifestation of it being perhaps the bursting out of the Germans uncler Hitler, which incidentallv the West/~rn Powers. now describl"d as imperialists, did quite as much as the USSR ta resist. Any Government, indeed, which is not about forty years behincl the times, and thus cut off from modern thought and developments, could presumably sel' that, for instance. those nations of Asia which \Vere placecl in an unequal position by their lack of the necessary techniques have now h... gely acquin-d thl'l11. and that the old system, which was essential1y hasecl on the iclea of teacher and pupil, has now been changecl into one 01 co-operation and partnership. if indeed the original raies are not eventually reverseù. Though there may he some continuing stresses and strains resu1ting from this vast change in human re1ationships, the fact dol's still emerge that what was denounced by Marx in Vi48 as "imperialism" now no longer exists, except as a bogey hy the use of which certain despotic oligarchies are enabled to hep themselves in power. A ppliecl to such bodies as the British Labour Govermnent or the Unite(l States Aclministration, it woulcl inclel'd be fLInny, if it were not sa sad; and how even Marx wottlcl explain why the Stock Market goes clown, when there are rumours of the conflict spreading, and up when it is thought it wil! be localized, is perhaps only explicable after a !ife-long study of the communist classics. In short, ail this stuff about "imperialism" which pours out from the Moscow Ami 50 1 resume my thought on the l'l'al reasons wh" our unfortunate impasse has been reached timing the' month ai August-I repeat, during the month ai Aug-u5t-as foIl0\\'5: peace propaganda, whether it tak~s the fonn of signatures for an ambiguous dedaratian or of proposais for getting "both sides" to agrec on a "peaceful solution" in Korea, is essl"ltially only a means for securing aggression and mak.ng it even more successiul in the future. Peace propaganda, in fact, is itself part of the \'t'l'y preparation for aggression. It is principally designed to prevent or at least ta hinder other people from coming to the victim's ait!. In the otTicial So,'iet J-listor}1 of Diplvlllac.\', these tactics are analysed with great darity and shrewd:ll'ss. In volume II there is a discussion about \Vhat the book calls "the concealment of preclatory ends behind noble principles". Among the ways of doing this are listed "the exploitation of disarmaml'nt and pacit'ist propaganda ior one's o\\'n purposes". The book goes on ta say "From time immemorial the idea of disarmament has been olle of the most popular ways of <1issimt1- lating the true motives and plans of aggressive governmt'nts." An interesting side-light is a statement of the Communist Minister of Defence in Hungary, Farkas, who wrote on 12 April last: "A certain pncilism has made itself felt within the ranks of our Party particularly lately. Slogans like 'we wallt no more \vars' are very significant of this pacifism. First of ail, therefore, \ve have to overcome this feeling of pacifism \vithin our own Party in order tu IX' able ta fight it down in the masses, .. A considerable feeling of pacilism is reigning among our people, particularly among our ",omen amI peasants..." That 1S ",hat the Ilungarian Minister of Defence said. In any case, the Sm'iet l'nion mlers have always had some peculiar views ahout aggression, no douht owing to the strict application of the outmoded doctrines to which they persistently adhere. Stalin himself, it wiII be recaneel, said on 29 December 1939: "It \Vas not Germany who attacked France and Britain, but France and Hritain who attacked German)', thus assuming responsibility for the present \Var. The ruling circ1es of Britain and France rudely declined both Germany's peace proposaIs and the attempts of The truth is that unless these mad deterministic ideas are abandoned, peace cannot be final and the possibility of war must always be there. The ideas need not, of course, be explicitly abandoned, but perhaps they can, in practice, not be appIiec1. Perhaps we can draw, at any rate, one conclusion. If the fifty-three nations on which the President, POUiS so much scorn can remain together, these ideas will not be applied in practice because, in practice, it "vill be impossible for the Government of the Soviet Union to achieve by violence, direct or indirect, those ends which at the moment it seems determined to secure. This, l suggest, is the plain truth and the root of the matter. Mr. AUSTIN {l'niteù States of America) : Some of the proceedings of this Council under the Presidency of the Soviet LTnion representative must certainly have filled with misgivings the hearts of people aIl over the world who be1ieve in the "United Nations and look to it as their best hope for preventing another worId war. With the eyes of the world upon us, the actions of the Soviet Union representative in subverting the Presidency of the Security Council have obstructed even the commonplace and regular procedures historically recognized as necessary for substantive decisions. l shaH not recount those actions. l shaH only observe that there can now be no doubt who it is amongst us that seeks every opportunity to frustrate the hopes of peaceloving people. The statement made to us by the Soviet Union representative at our last meeting has dispeHed all doubt. There are a fl'w aspects of the recent statements to this Council by the representative of the Soviet Union to which l shaH refer. Before doing so, l refer to the repeated efforts of the Soviet Union representative to imply that evl'ryone who fails to agree with hint is, ipso facto, a satellite of the Vnited States. l can understand how difficult it must be for the Soviet Union representative to comprehend that not aH big nations browbeat aH smaHer nations whenever amI wherl'ver the opportunity arises. It is a natural conclusion to be drawn from a knowledge of Soviet Union foreign poliey. Apparently, the Soviet Union representative can conceive of relationships between nations only in terms of power, in terms of the stronger dominating the weaker. Therefore. whenever he sees ot:ler countries support the same principles the United States supports, he concludes my Government has enmeshed them in sorne brutish stratagem. This is a philosophy worthy If the Soviet Union representative understood these things, we might then l,ave an end to his futile efforts to make black, white, and white, black. vVe might he spared more of the fantastîc version of l'vents with which the Soviet LTnion representative has sought to catch the unwary and confuse the uninformed. The most persistent distortion has been the Soviet Union representative's insistence that a peaceful settlement of the Korean issue would be advanced if the representatives of the North Korean aggressors \Vere to be seated at this Council table. This, in fact, appears ta be the major Soviet l'nion proposaI for "peaceful settlement". It is like arguing that an assassin should be allowed to justify his act while still plunging his knife into the body of his victim. Such a "peaceful" proposaI l'an lead only ta the peace of the graveyard. We are told we should place the invader, who has an unbroken record of deliance of the lTnited Nations, before us on an l'quaI footing with the Republic of Korea, which \Vas established with the help of the United Nations and which the General Assembly has found to be the only lawful Government in Korea. vVe are told to invite the malefactor to this table while he continues to deiy our authority and denounce our deeisions. The course of action proposed br the Soviet Union representative would place a premlum on aggression. Whether or not that is the Soviet l'nion's purpose, that would be its effect. The North Koreans are presented ta us by the Soviet Union representative as a party to a dispute. This, he tells us, is "the fact". This is not a dispute. Even the Soviet l'nion representative must be aware that Iiftv-three Members of the United Nations are in agreeme'nt that North Korea is an aggressor-and that this is a breach of the pea('e. Therefore, we can have no thougllt of hearing the aggressor so long as he continues his defiance. The Soviet Union representative has read to this Counci! copies of the falsehoods being spread all over Contempt for the intelligence of men and women lies behind l'very propaganda device which is not based on truth. A number of such devices are clearly discernible in the recent statements made to this Council by the Soviet Union representative. Today, 1 deal with only three of them: the "false label" trick, the trick of "concealing guilt by accusation", and finally, the trick now generally known as the technique of the "Big Lie". Let us consider first th~ "false label" trick. Here falsehood is presented as fact. Accordingly, the propa, gandist keeps saying "This is an irrefutable fact", or begins the falsehood with the phrase, "as is weIl known .. ,". Of course, nothing of the sort is weIl known, or the Soviet Union representative would not waste the time by repeating distortions of the record and trying to sell them as facts. There is a simple way to expose the "faIse label" trick. When the housewife cans her fruits and vegetables in the fall, she puts a label on each jar before storing it away. If she puts the label "peaches" on a jar containing applesauce, the label does not magically change the contents. One can quickly test the label by opening the jar and sampling the real thing inside. Let us examine the jar placed before the Security CouDcil by the representative of the Soviet Union. He said that no United Nations tags or flags sent by Mr. Lie to General MacArthur could hide the stark fact of United States aggression. He said that today. The Soviet Union representative told the Council, in a speech which he made before this one [486th meet- 1:ng]: "After provoking this conflict, and seeing that the politieal regime of Syngman Rhee was collapsing, the United States Government resorted to open intervention .. ,". Now, here cornes the label trick: "Such are the irrefutable facts, and the United States representative is not in a position to deny them". 1 am in a position to open that falsely labelled jar and let the worid see what is inside-applesauce. 1 welcome the opportunity, in answer, to give wider circulation to the report of the United Nations Commission on Korea, contained in its cablegram of 26 June 1950 [S/1505/Nc1.•.1J. The report 3aicl in part: "For the past two years the North Korean regime has by violently abusive propaganda, by threatening gestures aJong the 38th paraIIel and by encouraging and supporting subversive activities in the territory of the Republic of Karen, pursued tactics designed to weaken and destroy the Govern- Does the President know of any more independent, unbiased witness? . The message from these official observers of the -r."nited Nations goes on to describe the elections of 30 May 1950, which were "successfully conducted in an atmosphere of law and order", with an parties except the underground Communist Party participating. The Commission reports: "There have been distinct signs of improvement in recent months in both economic ~nd political stability of the country". The 30 May 1950 elections produced a new National Assembly '\vith sorne 130 Independents out of a total of 210 members". That is more than halL The party which received a majority in 1948 lost its majority to other parties. It is true that in those States controlled by the Governme.,t of the Soviet l"nion, the political party which directs the police force never loses the election. Perhaps that is the difficulty-the inability of the Soviet Union representative to conceive of an election going against the party which it assumes must control the police. The President charged in the Se,urity Council today that United States gall!citers and monopolists imposed a Government on South Korea. But, let me remind the President, in the free world any party may win an election. Perhaps the Soviet Union representative is also confused by the fact that the people of Korea-I repeat, the people of Korea-were offered a choice of political parties for which they might vote. But, let me remind the President, in the free world that does happen. The secret ballot, cast without fear or intimidation, and counted fairly, gives every man a voice in his own destin)'. Could it be that this is the thought the Soviet t:nion representative has in mind when he refers. as he so often doe~, to the "ruling circles" of the l"nited States? There are ruling circles in the United States different from those to which the President refers: There is a total. according to the last census, of over 150 million "ruling circles". 1 fear, however, that in the Soviet Union there is but one "ruling circIe". If the d:lV should arrive that the people of the Soviet U~ion -are free to vote for more than one party, we mlght he able to refer to the "ruling circles" of the Soviet Fnion. If that day should arrive, we might be able to say that the Soviet l'nion had made a striking advance taward the democracy already achieved within the Republic of Korea. . The facts, far from showing the collapse of the politIcal regime in the Republic of Korea, demonstrate the opposite. In spite of the tactics of the Communists to weaken and destroy the Republic from within, the new Republic, by democratic methods, strengthened Another declaration boldlv labelled as a "fact" is the Soviet Union claim heré that the North Koreans have only the armaments sold to them by the Soviet L'nion Government when the Red Army withdraw. This so-called "fact" should be tested against such eviclence as the plainly labellecl Soviet shell marked "1950" whi<:h L'nited Nations forces have uncovered. This shell did not explode on the battlefieid. It explodes in the Security Council. 1 think we might properly calI it a misguided missile. Of course, 1 recognize that this may be just another case of false Soviet labelling. :No\\" let us consider the trick of concealing guilt through accusation. The classic example of this trick, of course, is that of the thief who, in running away from the policemen, cries "stop thief" at the honest men ahead of him in order to confuse the pursuers. This is the type of trick that has been employed in an effort to prave that the North Korean invaders merely have been defending themselves from an attack by the Republic of Korea. ln using this technique. the Soviet Union representative forgets that the record of every aggressor in recent times is fresh in people's minds. Let us cite only two examples from the record of the master aggressor. Hitler, on 1 September 1939, having concluded his Pact of Friendship with the Soviet Union and a secret protocol agreeing to the division of Poland with the Soviet Union, declared that "the Polish State has rejected a peaceful solution . f the problem of neighbourly relations with Germany", and that "force must be ;net by force". "The battle," declared Hitler, "will be fought in defence of German territory and honour". The Nazi dictator employed the same old thiefcalling "stop thiet' technique when he launched his dastardly attack on the Soviet Lnion in 1941. On 22 June 1941, in justifying the Nazi march against the Soviet l'nion, Hitler said: "During the night of 17 June to 18 June, Russian patrols again penetrated into the Reich's territory and could only be driven back by prolonged firing. This has brought us to the hour ",hen it is neressary for us to take steps against this 1Jlot ùe\'ised by the Jewish Anglo-Saxon war- This same trick of covering one's own guilt by accusing others of the crime is employed in the recurring statement that the fight in Korea is nothing tüt an extension of United States imperialism. For example, the Soviet Union representative told us the ather day [486th meeting] that "United States ruling circ1es are now attempting to pervert the whole of the Vnited Nations into a weapon for the defence of Cnited States capital investments". We have heard him repeat that charge in other language today. Indeed, he says that we have draped the flag of the United Nations over the United States in order to hide the aggression by the Vnited States. Our learned Chinese colleague on 17 August [488th meeting1 expounded the nature of Soviet Union imperialism in Asia as it is today. It is the revival and ex..ension of ancient Czarist imperialism which has developed human exploitation to the high degree represented in the systematic looting of Manchuria and the absorption of Outer Mongolia. What are the facts concerning Korea? Of course, we have never been permitted to obtain knowledge of the economic relationship between the North Korean "zombie" regime and the Soviet Union. Therefore, it remains for us to ask: \-Vhat are the diabolical United States investments which the USSR representative says the "ruling circ1es" of the United States are protecting? Who are the monopolists about which Mr. Malik makes the accusation today-an accusation made for a purpose. It is true that for decades United States citizens have been making "investments" in Korea. These investments are of a very speci~l kind. They are investments in churches, schools, hospitals and clinics. They are investments in the uplifting of the Korean people, ministering to the hungry, the sick and the heavy laden. Missionaries, teachers, doctors, and nurses are the "monopolists" and "ruling circ1es" about which the President is talking. Aside from these investments of mucy, let us see what the facts are concerning those investments to which the President referred today by name. Gilbert Associates, which the President mentioned, i~ in Korea to conduct an electric power survey deslgned ta increase the amount of electric power available to the people of Korea. It is not a construction Concern. Its primar)' purpose is to help South Korea n'place the electric power which former1y came from Nor~h K.o~ea but whi~h was cut off arbitrarily by the Soviet L mon occupatIOn forces. In 1948 at the time o~ the elections, the Soviet l'nion occupation forces in ::\orth Korea sought (0 terrorize the people in the Let us look at the Tungsten Associates to whid, the representative of the Soviet Union referred. It is owned by the Republic of Korea. It sells tungsten to aIl buyers, including buyers from countries other than the Cnited States. Thô.: is the truth in that case. The Kan'an Oil Storage Company is a warehouse and distribution operation. It is not a "monopoly". Competitive opportunities are unrestricted. The learned "ruling circlc" of the Soviet "L"nion can use this as one of its "biggest lies". At Kimpo Airfield a concern named Boume Associates has been employed to reconstruct the field for the benet1t of the Koreans. It owned no part of the field. At the same time of the invasion it was temporarily operating the tower of the field and performing other services at the request of the Korean authorities. The criterion of any investment is whether or not it produces profits, is it not? Can the representative of the Soviet l"nion prove that any of the operations he mentioned has ever resulted in dollar remittances out of Korea? He Lan not. The l~nited States has T)ut millions ')f doUars into Korea for the assistance' of the peopk of Korea. That is the facto Here is one final example of the technique of accusing the innocent in order to conceal guilt. One-fourth of a recent speech [486tlz meeting1 by the representative of the Soviet l'nion was devoted to efforts to discredit the objective testimony of the United ~ations Commission on Korea. He asserted that the "composition of the Commission is in no way a guarantee of its objectivity" and referred to "fabricated reports of the Commission dictated by MacArthur". This is an insult ta the seven nations represented on this Commission. namelv. Australia, China, El Salvador, France, India, the Philippines and Turkey, and to the majority of the General Assembly which established and is supporting that Commission, and \\'hich still supports that Commission. l'ne represeL:.ative of the Soviet Cnion reiects the unanimou5 judgment of these seven men frôm these seven countries, based on on-the-spot observations, that North Koreans launched an unprovoked attack. If one does not accept the '-vord of the United Nations Commission, whose ward can he take? The Soviet Union wams us to take its word on who started itbut it daims that its representatives were not even there. Hitler spread the theory that if a propagandist will not tire of repeating an assertion. no matter how preposterous. he can make it stick in many minds. That is easier ta do if no one is allowed ta contradict the prop<tgandist and confront him \\'ith farts. But here in the Cnited Nations we can confront him with facts. In his speech at the last meeting of this Council the representative of the Soviet Cnion referred several times ta "the aggression of which the United States is gnilty against the Korean people". This statement has been repeated over and over through every Soviet Cnioll-inspired channel on earth. We have had it telegraphed ta us by others, and we have heard it again toda)'. It is a lie. It is a "Big Lie". Toda" MI'. Malik asked \\'hat MI'. Austin was proposing.. And he ans\vered his o\\'n question. First, he said, the representative of the l.'nited States was proposing a continuation of the war and increasing the scope of aggression; and secondly, a return ta the General Assembly resolutions on Korea. The representative of the "Cnited States, he said, would like ta adopt resolutions which would mean a return ta the Syngman Rhee regime. This also meant that not only South Korea but the whole of Korea was to become a United States colony, under United States monopolies ad gauleiters. Th;s is a beautiful example of the "Big Lie". Only in the weird world of Soviet propaganda is there any doubt concerning the origin of the aggression in Korea. The aggressor is the regime established in Pyongyang when the Soviet Union was in military occupation of North Korea. The aggressoX" is the North Korean regime which was established in direct defiance of the United Nations, and which has continued ta defy both the Security Council and the General Assembly. 'Cnited States forces did not start the aggression in Korea. l'nited States forces came tü Korea only in support of Seeurity Couneil action to repel North Korean aggression. Ta caU the action of those Governments who are seeking ta support the resolutions of the Security Council an act of aggression. is a falsehood sa grotesque that even the technique of the "Big Lie" cannat disguise it. These are the facts. The Securitv Council acted on Sunday 25 June [4i3/'d meeting1. caUing for immediate cessation of hostilities and withdrawal of the ~orth Korean forces f?rth\\'ith, That same rl'solution [5/15011 adopted by nme yotes ta none, called upon "ail l\lembers ta render even' assistance ta the l."nitecl Nations in ',he execution 'of this resolution and to refrain from giving assistance ta tht' North Korean authorities". Let us nol forget that last phrase in the resolutioll, "ta This attempt ta turn black into white hy saying black is white can be exposed by two simple questions. Did the Soviet Union bring to the Sl'l'urity Council on 25th June a complaint that the United States had made an armed attack on North Korea? Did the Soviet Union bring to the Security Councii a complaint that the Republic of Korea had invaded North Korea? No, The ruling circle at Moscow had ample time in which ta do that. !ts failure is consistent onl" with the fact that the aggressors were the North Ko;'eans. We have heard many dec1arations from the representative of the Soviet Vnion to the effect that the Soviet Union desires a peaceful settlement in Korea. No douht we will hear more such declarations. lTnfortunately, our experience to date causes us ta treat this statement with reserVl' until we find evidence that the 50viet Union will act for peace as weil as talk for peace. My country is sacrificingthe lives of manv of its youngmen in arder to bringreal peace to' Kon'a. Other Memhers of the lTnitl'd Nations are makingor are preparing to make similar sacrifices. \Ve therefore have urgent reason for taking action, compatible with the l'nite<1 Nations ohjectives, ta attain peace in Korea. The representative of the Soviet Union spoke to us at the 488th meetingof the int1uence of his (;O\'ertlment and how able it is to l'xert influence :n international afTairs. Whv not let us sec that inl1uence employed in the cause of peace? \Ve kno\\' that if the Soviet Vnion Government wanted the fig-hting stopprd in Korea, it could he stoppcd toda)'. Therefore, 1 hope the Soviet lTnion representative will understand if there is disgust at his apparent disposition ta regard peace only as an item of conversation, My Government is working for peace, sacrifiring for peace. So are fifty-two other Mcmbers of the ITnited Nations. Our words are backed up by deecls. 1 think 1 need say no more today concerning the propaganda tricks employed by the representative of the Soviet Union. Tite l'RE.SIDENT (trans/atcd from Russia'l): The statements, which the rcpresentatives of the United Stall's alltl the United Kingùom were sa anxious to make tOllay, have ent\ell. The dclcgation of the USSH. has only two or threc ouservations tu makc on those statements, especially on that made by Sir Gladwyn Jebb. ML CHAUVEL (France) (translatcd Jrom Frl'nclz): A point of order. 1 agreed a short time ago to have the interpretation of these speeches postponeù to the next mL'Cting. 1 would not agree to have the interprctation of an achlitit?Ilal spl:ech po~tponeù to the next meeting. If the PreSIdent Wlslll's, elther we shaH hear the translation of his speech ami the other speeches this evening, or we shall hear nothing clse at ail. The l'RESIDENT (trcmslated jrom Rz,ssiml): ln acconlalll'e with the rules of procedure, members of the Seçnrity Coullcil make observations at the end of the l1lt'cting. 1 can assure the representative of France that illY bricf Cümments will be interpreted in French. Sir (;ladwYIl JEUll (l'nitell Kingdom): Point of onler. 1 move the adjournment of the meeting. The PRESI[)ENT (trallslatcd irom RtCssian): In acconlanl'e with the mies of procedure, a proposaI to a<!jDUrtl the meeting has precedence over everything. It has priority, especial1y when one of the members of the Secllrity COllncil is afraid to hear comments. Sir Gladwyn JEBB (Vnited Kingdom): 1 do move the adjountment of this meeting; 1 should like to have this motion pllt to the vote now. 1 Î The PIŒslm:NT (transla.tcd tram Rltssian): There is a proposaI to acljourn the meeting. If there are no observatiuns, we shall adjourn, Are there any proposaIs about our next meeting? The next meeting will be at 3 p.m. on Friday, 25 August.