S/PV.490 Security Council

We shaH continue our work. Three of the speeches made at the Security Council's last meeting have still ta be interpreted into French. They are the statements of the USSR, United Kingdom and United States de1egations.

The interpretation of all three speeches is conc1uded. Speaking as representative of the UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, 1 wish to say that at the end of the Security Council's last meeting, of which our meeting today is in fact the continuation, the USSR delegation had intcnded to make a brief statement. 1 shall confine myself to commenting hriefly on the statements of the United States and United Kingdom representatives. In the first place, 1 wish to point out that the facts quoted in the statements made by the USSR delegation were based on official sources. Not a single one of the offi~ial statements 1 have quoted, either those made by Umted States officiaIs or those made by the Syngman In the second place, 1 wish to point out that 1 said that the United States Government had begun armed aggression against the Korean people in the absence of any United Nations resolution, even of an illegal resolution. That fact was corroborated by none other than the United States representative, Mr. Austin. At the 48Sth meeting of the Security Council, on 10 August, he stated that at noon on 27 June the President of the United States had ordered the United States air and naval forces to go to the aid of the Korean Government. The 474th meeting of the Security Council, at which the United States delegation subsequently imposed its illegal resolution for the purpose of concealing its unprovoked aggression in Korea, was convened at 3 p.m. on the same day, 27 June. This is clear from the official records. Consequently it is an undeniable historical fact that the Government of the United States arbitrarily and illegally launched its aggression in Korea several hours before the meeting of the Security Council was called, ___ thus_i<j.~iu.g. J;h~__:United Nations and the entire world . with the fait accompli of its aggression in Korea. Then, several hours later, supported by its- "Marshallized" allies of the aggressive North Atlantic bloc and by the members of the Pan-American Union, the United States Government put through the Security Couneil an illegal resolution in order to justify and cloak its aggression in Korea. That is how this aggression came to be labelled "United Nations". This is an undeniable historical facto The United States Government's reference to the illegal Security Council resolution of 2S June [473rd meeting] is pointless, as that resolution does not provide for any military sanctions and does not authorize anybody to apply such sanctions. The only logical condusion is that the Government of the United States first committed an act of aggression and then trîed to cloak that aggression by label1ing it "United Nations". Now a last point. 1 charge Sir Gladwyn Jebb, the United Kingdom representative, with having grossly distorted the meaning of the quotations he arbitrarily tore from their contexts and introduced into his speech. He referred to volume II of the Soviet History of Diplomacy. There is nothing in volume II which in any way resembles what he said. In volume III of the History of Diplomacy there is a chapter called "The Methods of Bourgeois Diplomacy". In it sorne instructive examples ~>re adduced of how bourgeois diplomacy makes u..~ of pacifist propaganda to mislead its opponews, h "{ ;~ conceals its acquisitive purposes beneath lofty principles and allegedly "disinterested" ideological motives, how it disguises its aggressive plans with anticommunist and anti-USSR propaganda, how, with the The history of the development of the Korean question and of its discussion in the United Nations and the Security Couneil clearly shows that aIl these methods of bourgeois diplomàcy are being used by United States and British diplomats in order to conceal, justify and facilitate United States armed aggression against the Korean people. Soviet diplomacy is based on entirely different principles, on basically new principles. Its main function is ta secure peace for the peoples of the Soviet land and ta create the external political conditions which are essential for their peaceful, creative work. This functian coincides completely with the interests of progressive mankind as a whole. Soviet diplomacy is therefore a most important factor in the international struggle against aggressors, warmongers, and their accompliees-in the struggle for peace, freedom, progress and full democracy. Soviet diplomacy is led by the greatest strategist and diplomat of aIl times and of aIl peoples, the great Stalin. That is the pledge of the success of the great and noble task towards the achievement of which Soviet diplomacy is directecL As regards the quotations from the declarations of Lenin and Stalin adduced by Sir Gladwyn Jebb, not one of them has any bearing whatsoever on the Korean question. The quotations from Lenin relate particularly to the time when Mr. Churchill, warmonger No. 1 and Sir Gladwyn Jebb's compatriot and mentor in aggression, organized the armed intervention of the Entente against Soviet Russia. That was in 1919'-20. Mr. Churchill then organized the armed intervention by the Entente in the domestic affairs of Soviet Russia, as President Truman is now trying to organize armed intervention in the domestic affairs of the Korean people. At that time the British, French, Japanese and United States interventionists invaded the territory of Soviet Russia from the south, north, west and east. Thos~ "civilized" bandits crept up secretly, like thieves, ~nd landed their forces on Russian territory. The Brit- Ish and French landed theîr forces in northern Russia, and occupied Archangel and Murkmansk. The United States and Japanese imperialists ran wild in the Soviet Far East. The hordes of international imperialism invaded Soviet Rllssia, l;ot in order to collaborate and live peacefully side by side with the peoples of Russia, ?ut to strangle and destroy the Soviet land and turn it mto a colony and its people into slaves. There began a desperate struggle, not for existence but for )ife or death, between the first socialist State in the world and a whole gang of capitalist countries-interventionists and aggressors. 1t was then that the Soviet Government and Îts great founders, Lenin and Stalin, dec1ared that As a result of the heroic struggle of the workers and peasants of Soviet Russia under the leadership of the Boishevist Party, the interventionists were defeated, foreign military intervention was beaten off, and the interventionist forces were thrown out of the Soviet land. After the expulsion of the interventionists, Lenin put forward the theory of co-existence, of business relations and peaceful economic rivalry between the Soviet State and capitalist States. The great Stalin developed and strengthened the theory of the co-existence of the t\\'o systems and of peaceful collaboration between them. He said as early as 1934: "If anyone wJ.nts peace and seeks for business connexions with us, he will always find support from us." Sir Gladwyn Jebb, as a typical representative of bourgeois diplomacy, resorts to the well-tried tricks of that diplomacy. He arbitrarily selects sentences, distorts them and then quotes them out of their context in time and space. In this he follows in the footsteps of Bevin, McNeil and Shawcross. Those who have taken part in the sessions of the General Assembly will remember quit· weIl how often those gentlemen also resorted to such tricks of bourgeois diplomacy. Like them, Sir Gladwyn Jebb blatantIy slanders the Soviet Union and its foreign policy, which is one of peace and friendship among the peoples. 1 would point out that the British diplomat is wasting his efforts. History has shown that it was not Soviet Russia which tried, by armed aggression, to destroy capitalist Britain and the capitalist United States; on the contrary, it is Britain and the United States which have more than once, both overtly and covertIy, sought to destroy Soviet Russia. Such are the historical facts. Is it not clear who was-and still is-the aggressor, who repudiates peaceful co-existence and co-operation between the two systems-those of socialism and cap"" italism? Those are the observations which the USSR delegation felt bound ta make in connexion with the statements made by the United States and United Kingdom representatives. 1 consider it my dutY as PRESIDENT to inform members of the Security Council of the heavy stream of letters and telegrams which is reaching the Security Council daily from aIl parts of the world, protesting against United States intervention in Korea, against the inhuman bombing of towns and villages by the United States Air Force, against the bombardment of Korean coastal areas by the Navy and against the other barbarous methods of mass destruction of the peaceful population which the United States forces are using in Korea. From 1 August to the present day not only have letters and telegrams of protest been received from the Govemments of a number of States, such as Poland, Telegrams of protest have been received from organizations such as the World Federation of Trade Unions, representing about 80 million organized workers {rom sixtY countries and territories of the world, the World Federation of Democratic Youth, whose meinbers include about 70 million young men and \vomen, the office of the Permanent Committee of the W orlel Peace Congress, which, as we know, obtained over 273 million signatures ta the historic Stockholm appeal in seventy-five countries of the world, the All- Union Central Council of Trade Unions of the USSR, which represents millions of workers and employees in the Soviet Union, the second Congress of the International Students' Union, which was attended by the representatives of seventy-two couiltries and by the national students' unions of a number of countries, inc1uding the United States, the United Kingdom and France, and the International Women's League for Peace and Freedom, etc. Tt is, of course, the duty of the Security Council, in considering the Korean question, to take into account the desire thus expressed of the broad masses of the people throughout the world who are demanding cessation of aggression, the restoration of peace and the peaceful settlement of the Korean question. AlI these telegrams are in the possession of the Secretariat, and those desiring ta do so may acquaint themselves with their contents. Telegrams frolT1 Governments have been issued as Security Council documents. Today, during the meeting of the Security Cauncil, two documents have been issuecl: document S/1715, a telegram from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, accusing the Government of the United States of cOl11mitting an act of armed aggression against China by the virtual occupation by United States armed forces of the Chinese island of Formosa, and document S/1716, a s,tatement by the representative of the United States in the Security Council designed ta justify the above-mentioned acts of the United States Government with respect ta Formosa, These documents were received after the meeting of the Security Council had begun. The l11embers of the Security Council will need some time to study them, and the Council will probably revert to this question at an early meeting. l have thought it necessary ta give the members of the Security Council this, short account of the doct1- ments received by the Counci1. " At the request of the Secretariat, the Security Council should consider its draft report covering the year which has elapsed-July 1949 to July 1950. 1 believe we could talce up the matter at a closed meeting at 3 p.m. on Monday, 28 August, in accordance with the usual Sinœ t!u're uFpears to be no ohjection, 1 take it that the Council agrees to this proposaI. In that case, in view of the late hour. we might adjourn at this point. 1 call upon the representative of the United States, ~Ir. GROSS (tTnitcd States of America) : In view of the fact that the President has referred ta the communication which has been received from l\Ir. Chuu En-lai [S/1ï 151 and the letter dated 25 August from the representative of the United States addressed to the Secretan'-General concerning Formosa [5/1716], with the indulgence of the President and the menlbers of the Council, and upon instructions from my Govemment, 1 should like to read into the record of the meeting the communication from the United States representative to which 1 have referred: "There has been circulated to members of the Securit)' Council a paper which charges the United States with aggression against FornlOsa. The paper asks the Security Council to eünsider the question of FornlOsa. "The Cnited States Gove:rnment does not intend to discuss at this time this paper or the ridiculous falsehoods which it contains. It does \Vish ta take this occasion ta make a further statement about the Formosan question. "On 2i June [-Iï4th lIIeeting1 the United States representative read ta the Security Council the following statement of the President of the United States: .. 'In Korea the Governmcnt forces, which \Vere arnled ta prevent border raids and ta preserve internai security, were attacked by invading forces from Korth Korea. The Securitv Council of the Cnited Kations called upon the invading troops to cease hostilicies and to withdraw to the 38th paraUel. This they have not done but. on the contrary, have pressed the attack. The Security Coundl called upon al! 11embers of the United Nations ta render every assistance to the Cnited Nations in the execution of this resolution. .. 'ln these circumstances, 1 have ordered United States air and sea forces to give the Korean Government troops cover and support. .. 'The attack upon Korea makes it plain heyond ail douht that communism has 1.Lssed heyond the use of subversicll to conquer independent nations, and will no\\' use armed invasion and war. It has defied the orders of the Secuïity Council of the United Nations, issued to preserve international peace and security. In these circumstances, the occupation of Formosa bv communist forces would be a direct threat to the sécurity uf the Pacific area and ta United States .. '1 have also directed that the United States forces in the Philippines be strengthened and that military assistance ta the Philippine Govemment he accelerated. .. '1 have similarly directed acceleration in the furnishing of military assistance ta the forces of France and the associated States in Indo-China and the dispatch of a military mission to provide close working relations with those forces. .. '1 know that aU Members of the Vnited Nations will camider carefuIly the consequences of this latest ~ggression in Korea in defiance of the Charter of the Lnited Nations. A retum ta the rule of force in international affairs would have far-reaching effects. The United States will continue ta uphold the role of law. .. '1 have instructerl A...nbassador Austin as the representative of the United States to the Security Couneil ta report these steps ta the Couneil.' "Since then, the President of the United States on 19 July made the foUowing declaration in a message to the Congress: .. 'In addition ta the direct mih.ary effort we and other l\1embers of the United Nations are rr:.aking in Korea, the oütbreak of aggression there requires us ta consider its implications for peace throughout the worid. The attack upon the Republic of Korea makes it plain beyond aIl doubt that the international communist movement is prepared to use armed invasion ta rrmqüer independent nations. \Ve must, therefore, recot;nize the possibility that armed aggression may take place in other areas. .. 'In Yiew of this, 1 have already directed that United States forces in support of the Philippines be strengthened and that military assistance be speeded up to the Philippine Government and to the Associated States of Indo-China. and ta the forces of France in Indo-China. 1 have also ordered the United States Seventh Fleet to prevent any attack upon Formosa, and 1 have requested the Chinese Government on Formosa to cease al! air and sea operations against the mainland. These steps were at Jnce reporteJ to the 'Cnited Xations Security Cauncil. .. 'Our action in regard to Fonnosa was a matter of elcmentary security. The peace and stability of the Pacifie area had been violentl)' disturbed by the ...In order that there may be no doubt in any quarter about our intentions regardin~ Fomlosa, 1 wish to state that the United States has no territorial ambitions whatever concerning that island, nor do we seek for ourselves any special position or privilege on Fomlosa. The present military neutr<llization of Fonnosa is without prejudice to political questions affectin~ that island. Our desire is that Formosa should not become embroiled in hostilities disturbing to the peace of the Pacifie and that aU questions affecting Fonnosa he settled by peaceful means as envisaged in the Charter of the United Nations. With peace re-established, even the most complex political questions are susceptible of solution. In the presence of bnttal and unprovoked aggression, however, sorne of these questions may have to he held in abeyance in the interest of the essential security of all.' "These statements and the facts to which they related make perfectly clear certain fundanlental points which the people of the world will have clearly in mind : .. I. The United States has not encroached on the territory of China nor has the United States taken aggressive action against China. "2. The action of the United States in regard to Formosa was taken at a time when that island was the scene of conflict with the mainlanù. More serious conflict \Vas threatened by the public declaration of the Chinese communist authorities. Such conflict would have threatened the security of the United Nations forces operating in Korea under the mandate of the Security Council to repel the aggression on the Republie uf Korea. They threatened to extend the conflict thwugh the Pacific area. "3. The action of the United States was an impartial neutralizillg action addressed both to the forces on For- Illusa and tu thuse on the mainland. It .;as an action ·.le"igned tu keep the peace and 'vas therefore in full accord with the spirit of the Charter of the United Natiuns. As President Trllman has solemnly declared, we h.av~ nu designs un Formosa and our action was not insl,ired by an)' desire ta acquire a special position for the Cnited States. "4, The actiun uf the l'nitel! States was expressly "tated tu he without prejudice to the future political ::ettlt:llIellt uf the "tatus of the island. The actual status ui tl1l' i"land is that it is territury taken from ]apan hy tlie vietvry uf the Allied lorees in the Pacifie. Like other "Ul.:h territurie", il'> legal stat~ls ~'allnut be fixed until Ihere i" illtt:rI1G.tiullal artiull tu deterllline its future. The ('h;lle~e (;lJVCTllllll:nt was asked by the Al!ies to take the "unewlcr ui the Japalle:-.e furces un that island. Th.at i" the rea:'UJ! the Chinese are there now. "5. Tht: Cllitcd Stales hal'; il record thruugh history IIi iriclHbl.q. ft,r the Chine:.e people. \Ve still feel the iriewbhl\' alld ~lllJW that l1IilliollS of Chine, e reciprocate il. \\'c tl,(Jk Ih... lead WltÎ1 ulhers in the lasl United Na- 1l1,11~ (,ult:ral :\ ,,,t:1l11JIr tll ,CUire appruval of a resoluti',li 12Y.! (1 t' JI (JII tlit: illlegrity ui China. Gnly the "7. W e do not believe that the Security Council need be or will be diverted from its consideration of the aggression against the Repllblie of Korea. There was a breach of the peace in Korea. The aggressor attacked, has been condemoed, and the combined forces of the United Nations are now in taule to repel the aggression. Formosa is now at peace and will remain so unless someone resorts to force. If the Secllrity Council wishes to study the question of Formosa we shall support and assist that study. Meanwhile the President of the Security Council shollld discharge the duties of bis office and get on with the item on the agenda which is the 'Complaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea' and, specifical1y, the recognition of the right of the Korean Ambassador to take his seat and the vote on the United States draft resolution [5/1653] for the localization of the Korean conflict."

We shaH now ask the Assistant Secretary-General to read out document S/171s. The ASSISTANT SECRETARY-GENERAL IN CHARGE OF SECURITY COUNCIL AFFAIRS: The cablegram dated 24 August 1950 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China addressed to the President of the Secl1rity COl1ncil reads as follows: "On 27 June this year, President Truman of the United States of America announced the clecision of the Unitecl States Government to prevent with armed forces the liberation of Taiwan [Formosa] by the Chinese people's liberation army. Meanwhile, the United States Seventh Fleet moved towards, the Straits of Taiwan, foHowed by the arrivaI in Taiwan of contingents of the United States Air Force, in open encroachment on the territory of the People's Republic of China. This action on the part of the United States Government is a direct armed aggression on the territory of China, and a total violation of the United Nations Charter. "Taiwan is an integral part of China. This is not only a faet basecl on history, .confirmed by the situation since the surrender of J apan, but it is also stipulated in the Cairo Declaration of 1943 and the Potsdam com- 11Iuniqué of 1945, as binding international agreements which the United States Government has pledgeditself to respect and observe. "The people of China cannot tolerate this action of arl11ed aggression by the United States Government on the territory of China, and are determined ta Iiberate from the tentacles of tneUnited States aggressors' Tai-

Thus the Security Council has heard the views of both the parties involved in this· serious international conflict. There is one more speaker on my list, but before he had time to ask for the floor there wa5 a proposaI for adjournment. ShaH we continue the discussion or shaH we adjourn now? Mr. TSIANG (China): 1 need only one minute to make a statement, and that statement is contained in one sentence. There has been no United St~t~s aggression against the island of Taiwan [Fçmr~a]. • .-

The Security Council will probably discuss this question and determine the substance of the matter. 1 takc it that we may now adjourn. The meeting rose at 6.25 P.III.