S/PV.495 Security Council

1 must confess 1 do not see exactly what relation the speech of the representative of the Soviet Union bore to the question of the adoption of the agenda. But 1 assume that, having delivered himself of his statement, he will now have no further objection to the agenda being adopted, and 1 aIso assume, unless 1 hear anything to the contrary, that that is also the view of the other representatives. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America): Last night the United States Government submitted to the Secretary-General of the Vnited Nations for circula- tion among the memuers of the Security Council a communication uased upon reports from United Na- tions forces operating in Korea [S/1758]. This com- munication is as follows: "Un 4 Septemuer lY50, Cnited l';ations ~aval Forces were operating off the west coast of Korea at approximately the 38th parallel on miSSIOns in pursuance of the resolution of the Security Couneil of 27 June 1950 [SI1511]. "At 1329 o'clock, Korea time, a twin-engined bomb- er, identified only by bearing a red star, passed over a screening ship and continued toward the center ai the United Nations formation in a hostile manner. The bomber opened tire upon a United Nations tighter patrol, which returned its fire and shot it down. "A United Nations destroyer succeeded in picking up the body of one member of the bomber crew. Iden- tification papers indicated that the body was that of Lieutenant IVlishin Tennadii Vasilebiu. of the armed forces of the Union of Soviet Soeialist Republics, Seriai No. 25054." At the present time the United States Government has no more information than that contained in this communication. Ali we know is that a member of the armed forces of the Union of Soviet Socialist Re- publics was part of the crew of the twin-engined bomber which fired upon an air patroi operating as part of United Nations forces in Korea and that the bomber was shot down and only the body of one member of the crew rerovered. This incident illustrates the desirability of the im- mediate adoption by the Security Council of a draft resolution submitted hy my delegation [479th meeting] on 31 July 1950, document S/1653, the essential pur- pose of which is to localize the conflict in Korea and ta prevent it from spreading to other areas. l am not going to repeat today my previous expla- nations of the United States draft resolution and the arguments in support of it. These may be found in the verbatim records of the Security Couneil meetings of 1 and 10 August r480th and 485t" meetings]. The first paragraph of that draft resolution reads as follows: "The Se, ity CoU1/.Cil "Condemns the North Korean authorities for their continued defiance of the United Nations." l need only say that the North Korean authorities have continued their defiance of the United Nations for an additional thirty-six days since this resolution was introduced. It is high time for the Security Coun- cil to condemn that defiance. "Cali IlPCF/J ail States to refrain from assisting or encouraging the North Kon'an authorities and to re- frain from action which might bd to the spread of the Korean conflict to other areas and thereby further endanger international peace and security:' This thinl paragraph seeks the objective of localiz- ing the Korean conflict and preventing its spread to other areas. The position of the Security Council and of the :\lembers of the United i\ations who are support- ing action in Korea to hait the aggression is dear. They want to isolate this conflid, to l'l'pel the ggres- sion and to l'l'store peace in the area. However, some of the actions of the Soviet Cnion representati\'e in the coursc of the last week haye raised doubts in our minds whether he supports this objective. The USSR ruling circle seems to have been doing its best to increase tension between the Chinese Communist authorities and those l\lembers of the United Nations who are acting together to l'l'pel aggression in Korea. 1 might note in this connexion that the United States Government has been disturbed recently by reports of substantial rail and road traffic in that area of North Korea which is adjacent to the l\lanchurian froutier. 1 wish to l'l'caU to the :'.Iembers of the Council that in his broadcast report to the nation last week, the President of the Cnited States said in part: "\Ve do not want the fighting in Korea to expand into a general war. It will not spread unless Commu- nist imperialism draws other armies and Governments into the fight of the aggressors against the United ~ations. "We hope in particular that the people of China will not be misled or forced into fighting against the United Nations and against the American people, who have always been and still are their friends. Only the Communist imperialism, which has already started to dismember China, could gain from China's involve- ment in the war. The Communist imperialists are the only ones who can gain if China moves into this fight." The United States has given concrete evidence by its action during this period of a desire to avoid any increase of tension, to settle peacefully, through the United Nations, any disputes which may exist, and thereby to localize the Korean conflict. Here, again, the attitude of the Soviet Union towards this draft

1 have four speakers on my list on this item. Before calling on them 1 should like to consult my colleagues to see whether they would agree with me regarding the manner in which the present debate should develop and the objectives which we should have in view. The Security Council will recall of course that during the last month, for reasons of which we are ail aware, it was not possible in our debates to get technically beyond the question of the adoption of the agenda. But during the debate on the question of the adoption of the agenda it became more and more abundantly ciear that everyone had expressed his views very fully on the question of substance and that in fact a debate had taken place on the question itself - that is to say, "CampIaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea". Furthermore, the dehate did. so to speak, crystallize ta a large extent in the form of three draft resolutions which are now before us. The first is document S/1653, which is the draft resolution submitted by the United States delegation on 31 July 1950; the second is document S/I668, which was suhmitted hy the Soviet Union delegation [483rd meeting] entitled "Peaceful settlement of the Korean question"; the third is also a draft resolution submitted by the Soviet Union [484th meeting] contained in document S/1679, which deals with bombing by the United States Air Force. 1 think that document S/I668 will have to be revised to sorne extent when it is put to the vote because the Security Council at a previous [494th] meeting rejected a draft resolution [S/1751] which was based to sorne extent on this draft resclution. However, that is a matter which can be c1eared up later. ln our present debate - 1 hope it will not continue until tomorrow - 1 suggest that as far as possible we should confine ourselves to arguments for or against the adoption of any one of these three draft resolutions. Then, when the debate is finished, with the permission of the Council 1 sItaH take a vote on ail three draft resolutions, beginning with the United States draft resolution and proceeding to the two subsequent USSR draft resolutions. If the Council agrees that that is the nght procedure, 1 shall follow it; otherwise, perhaps at this point, if any member of the Council disagrees, he .can state why he disagrees, and 1 shaH naturally reVlse my view if that is what my colleagues desire. 11r. SUNUE (~orway): 1 should like to suppor~ the suggestion just made by the represelltative of Egypt. In my opinion, it would he rather impracticable to disl'tlSS simultaneouslv three different draft resoiutions. 1 think the only appropriate way is to deal with and to vote on the United States draft resolution first. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (Jm71s1atcd fram Russia71): 1 should like to draw the attention of members of the Security Council to the fact that there is a radical difference between the United States draft resolution and the USSR draft resolution. While the United States draft resolution is designed to prolong aggression, to justify and conceal this aggression, the USSR drait resolution is designed to deul with the peaceful settlement of the Korean question - immediately and without delay. 1 do not wish to infer from this that any member of the Security Council has not the right to refer ta either draft resolution in the course of his speech. Every member of the Security Council has that right. As regards the third draft resolution on the subject of the barbarous bombing of peaceful towns and populated places of Korea and of the strafing of the peaceful population of Korea by the United States Air Force, it will be recalled that, in introducing its ciraft resolution, the USSR delegation urged that it should be discussed in the first instance, as tbis is an urgent and pressing question, one involving the daily death of hundreds and perhaps thousands of peaceful citizens in South and North Korea as a result of the barbarous bombing of defenceless, peaceful populated places in Korea by the United States Air Force. During the month of August the USSR delegation repeatedly attempted to speed up the consideration of this draft resolutioil but, as has already been observed, it encountered the most obstinate resistance on the part of the United States bloc. Having regard ta what the President bas stated, the USSR delegation would consider it desirable for this question ta be dü,;::ussed in the first instance; the Council could then go on ta the United States and Soviet Union draft resolutions which relate to the substance of the Korean problem. It seems to me tbat this procedure would be more desirable, more humane and more in keeping with the urgent nature of the question, .... ich is dealt with in the draft resolution intro- 1 think, on the whole, that it would he best for us, ail l'leven of us here, ta have one football at a time; that is ta say, let us have one draft resolution at a time. ln what arder we deal with the threl' draft resolutions is a different matter, and, sa far as 1 am concerned, a matter of indifference.

1 see that my colleagues for the most part wouId certainl)' prefer ta take these three draft resolutions one by one, and 1 may say that 1 proposed the alternative procedure only because. as it seemed ta me, all of them in effect have been so exhaustively debated during the whole month that 1 could hardly conceive that anybody would have anything new ta say about any one of them. 1 quite agree that, from the point of view of regular order, it would he better to take them one by one, and if we do take them one by one, it is very important now ta consider, 1 am afraid, the arder in which they are to he taken. As ta that, 1 feel that as President 1 can only be guided by mIe 32 of our mies of procedure, which reads: "Principal motions and draft resolutions shall have precedence in the order of their submission." That seems ta me to be faidy categorical, and if 1 am. therefore, to obey the rules of procedure, 1 suggest 1 can only in those circumstances take first of all the draft resolution submitted by the United States as long aga as 31 July and suggest to the members of the Council that it should be debated in the first instance. 1 hope that my Soviet Union colleague will agree with that. If he does not, we shall have to see what the members of the Council think. 1 suggest we might take a vote, perhaps at once, but 1 tmst that, in view of that particular mIe of procedure, he will no\\" agree that the debate should proceed on the United States drait resolution. Mr. QUEVEDO (Ecuador) (translated from Spanish) : When 1 had occasion at the previous [494th] meeting ta .e:cplain a vote which 1 had cast, 1 expressed the Opllll?n that, in discussing the provisional agendas submltted by the President of the Couneil during the past month, we had the opportunity fully to discuss !he ~atters of substance which were being dealt with ln thls Couneil. 1 therefore believe that the President's l do not know whether or not the majority in this Council is in fa\'our of the President's views, but 1 merely wish to state that 1 agree with him that we can discuss the three draft resolutions at the same time and then vote on each separately. \Ve would thus shorten our debates.

It is very gratifying that the original thought of the President has found at least one supporter; there may conceivably have been even more. 1 do not think that the Council needs to spend much time in discussing this particular issue, which is entirely clear in itself. 1 would therefore ask the Council to vote now on the simple question as to whether it should debate aU three draft resolutions at once or whether 1t should have. in effect, three dehates. first on one, then on the second and then on the third. This vote will be entirely without prejudice to the question of the order in which the three draft resolutions will be considered, in the event that the Council agrees that they should be considered separately. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated fram Russian): 1 doubt if there is any point in putting this question to the vote. We are apparently agreed that the first and second draft resolutions-that is, the United States and the USSR draft resolutions on the Korean question--can be discussed in substance together, and it appears that the majority of speakers will deal with both draft resolutions simultaneously. The third draft resolution, that of the USSR regarding the barbarous bombing of Korea by the United States Air Force, deals with an independent question which it would he desirable to consider separately. There is the protest from the Government of the People's Democratie Republic of Korea [S/1747] and official report No. 1 transmitted in a cablegram from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of that Republic regarding the atrocities perpetrated by the United State~ interventionists and the Syngman Rhee clique in Korea [S/1719]. It would be desirable for this question to be discussed separately. At least this has been the procedure hitherto and there is no need whatsoever to combine everything, to unite aU the questions inscrihed on our agenda into one single question. For this reason it would be desirable to consider the first and second draft resolutions simultaneously. R.very member of the Security Council would thus be able to siJeak and to express his views on the first two draft rê, ..bt1tlns - there is, of course, no reason for restn..':.\l;g these speeches. We could consider the third draft resolution separately. It seems to me that this would be the most desirable solution. For my part, 1 am ready today to speak only on the draft resolution submitted by the United States delegation. 1 am not ready to speak about the two draft resolutions submitted by the delegation of the Soviet Union. However, 1 do not want to he deprived of the opportunity of taking up these two draft resolutions later on. 1 would thus be put in an embarrassil1~ and rather uncomfortable position if l were forced, by a vote of the Couneil, to consider aIl three draft resolutions at the same time. This, in my view, is not a very goocl system of work.

1 am afraid that 1 have come to the conclusion that it is going to take much longer to arrive at sorne kind of order in the debate by means of discussion around this table than it would have taken if l had never raised this matter at aU. l can assure the representative of Egypt that he is only expected to speak today on the question which he has prepared. Undoubtedly the debate will continue tomorrow, and he can make his remarks then when the Council gets to the other point. Mr. CHAUVEL (France) (transÛl.ted from French) : 1had intended to confine my statement to the first draft resolution which 1 thought was to be discussed heré, namely the draft resolution submitted by the United States delegation. 1 wish merely to observe that only today, 5 September, have we been able to resume the normal flow of our work, interrupted since 1 August. The French delegation agrees with the Chair that the very length of that interruption should enable the Council to avoid lengthy statements on the draft resolution before it. The Couneil has been seized of this matter for sorne thirty-six days and the draft itself c?nsists of only six lines. It is quite clear and very Simple. It is,. in the first place, a confirmation of the decisions taken here on 2S [5/1501] and 27 June [SI15ll] 1950. But it is not mere1y a confirmation of the action taken on 25 June, it is a continuation of I · 5 1 l 1 i ~h~t action. It proceeds with that action and completes It III so far as, in its third paragraph, it caUs upou aIl States "to refrain from any action which might lead to the spread of the Korean conflict to other areas and thereby further endanger international peace and security". Mr. SUXDE (Norway): l want to make a short statement concerning the first draft resolution before the Council. It should hardly be necessary for me to inform the Council that the Norwegian delegation is in full agreement with this draft resolution. My delegation supported the Council's resolution of 25 June ca1ling upon the authorities of North Korea to withdraw their armed forces to the 38th paralle1, and also supported the resolution of 27 June, recommending that the Members of the United Nations furnish assistance to the invaded Republic of Korea. The North Koreans, however, have pressed their reckless attack in contemptuous defiance of the Security Council, and have already devastated and occupied a major part of South Korea. The cost in life and blood and property of this criminal aggression is mounting by the hour and the threat to world peace inherent in the conflict is daily becoming more acute. By condemning the North Korean authorities for their continued defiance of the United Nations, the Seeurity Council win only give official and authoritative expression to the indignant reprobation which fins the heart of every peace-Ioving human being. By callu'elle s'est exprimée Iple et claire. Elle a hostilités; elle tend ,ion caractérisée dans ing upon all States to refrain from action. in Korea which might lead to a spread of the confllct and to exert their influence in the interests of peace, the Couneil will only make itself the mouthpiece of that vast majority within the community of nations which abhors war with all its misery and degradation. In the opinion of my delegation the draft resolution before the Council is a natural, and certainly a very timefy, corollary to the Council's previous resolutions of 25 and 27 June. If it had come up for a vote on 1 August-as it properly should have-I think my de1egation might have entertained sorne doubt as to whether it was really necessary to spell out anew what would seem to be c1early implicit in the two basic resolutions concerning the Korean question. Today. however, the situation is different. The letter of September from the United States de1egation, set forth in document 1758, reporting the homber attack on the United Nations naval formation, points up the urgent necessity of enjoining all States, in clear and unmistakable words, from assisting or encouraging the North Korean authorities. The intemperate way in which the Soviet Union delegation denounced the two basic resolutions of this Council on the Korean question during the long month of August also makes my delegation welcome this opportunity of reaffirming its unsk'cen and unaltered position in regard to the brutal attack which is being pressed by the North Korean authorities in reckless defiance of the United Nations. ~ur ont été adressés, oréennes. Elle tend ~s Etats-Unis précise dans les textes anté- du conflit. Rien de plus exactement conons d'après la Charte; lans le cadre du rôle jen non plus qui soit Ott et nous en avons pt;bles de se produire. lembres du Conseil ne lÏre ce qui dépendra du conflit. Je pense : auquel la dél~gation 11 complet appUI. lien deux mots sur le {iétique dont M. Malik ltion française ne peut Djet, distribu~ sous la effet, ne VOlt pas de discussion dont l'objet It état d'une agression " le représentant des I1tant du peuple coréen, r cette affaire au cours lt is highly appropriate that we should have an occasion to reaffirm our conviction on this point today. According to the last news from Korea the fighting seems to have reached a desperate climax. The United Nations forces and their Korean comrades in arms are locked in grim and ferocious battle to hold the beac1:lhead around Pusan against powerful assaults. It is, therefore, more important than ever that we should be able to tell these staunch and courageous soldiers that one month of violent diatribes and artful quibbles here in the Security Council have not managed to change by one iota our faith in and adhcrence to the high principles for which the;; are tighting. ~ation française ne voit ette décision, ni de la u projet soumis par la .ent pas compte de la l~' eil le 25 juin dernier, ,. èrG que cela suffit à le ~'; ~:~je~ed:a;!=2r d!: 1,1 :onseil est saisi. J'ai à , :onseil que la délégation ~'., It à ce projet de ré~ol.u- ~~' ~:~~i~::~é~ ~~ 1;5d::~; , ; armées sur le 38ème 1 Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated t'Yom Russian): In regard to the United States representative's statement, l can only say that is one of the regular provocations of the warmonger MacArthur and the State Department. timed for today's meeting of the Security Council at whic'"J the United States draft resolution, the actual purpose of which is the spread of United States aggression in Korea, and the USSR draft resolution on the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, were to be considered. The sea was chosen as the actuai place V! provocation, for it would then be easier to drown the evidence. Document S/1760, to which our attention has been drawn, proves that what is involved is indeed an attemot to spread aggression in Korea. The French Minister for Foreign Affairs informs the Security Council that his Government is sending an infantry battalion to Korea, to take part, together with the United States armed forces, in the aggression against the Korean ~~a~d~~s~~u~i~e~~;:S ~ nies de prêter assistance ~;, e. pourtant les Coréens ~ ment leurs attaques au ~1 eil de sécurité, et ils ont ~~ mde partie de la Corée ~~ Ue agression crimi1!elle ~ r et détruit plus de biens. ~ 'la menace qui pèse sur f~11 ~ ~ de la Corée du Nord qui rer les Nations Unies, le l'exprimer officiellement 1 indignée qu'éprouvent la paix. En invitant touS "~ "~ It is now clear to the whole worin that the heroic Korean people is waging a. self-sacrificing struggle against the United States invaders, using arms manufactured in Korean factories and wm:ks, booty left behind by the Syngman Rhee troops during their rout and flight, and weapons abandoned by the retreating United States forces. On the other hand, no one can deny any longer that 'Jl..ited States armed intervention in Korea is being carried out with enormous contingents of armed forces, and constitutes a. large-scale war of aggression rather than the minor "police action" to which President Trnman rderred sorne time ago. The facts published in the Press in the United States snffice to show that 14 It i5 enough, however, to analyse this draft resolution in the light of the actual policy of the United States in Korea ta see clearly that the main purpose of this draft resolution, as of the previous illegal resalutians on Korea which the United States delegation has imposed upon the Security Couneil, is nothing more or less than ta conceal and justify the aggression beglln by President Truman in Korea and aIl the measures which United States ruling eircles are taking to extend United States armed intervention in the internaI affairs of the Korean people and to involve the largest possible number of courttries in this aggression. If, during the first days of United States intervention there were still sorne people who did not quite gra;p the meaning of the events in Korea, at the present time there can hardly be a single honest and objective person who does iîût ch~arly understand ihat the United States Government, supported by the Governments of the colonial Powers of Europe, is waging a war of aggression and invasion, a colonial and imperialist war against the Korean people and against the people of the other countries of Asia and tht: Far East. While, during the first days of United States aggression in Korea, the ruling circ1es of the United States were still able to some extent to delude sorne sections of the popalation into thinking that the war is being waged against North Korea only, succeeding events have shown that the war is being waged, not against North Korea, but against the entire Korean people. The most eloquent confirmation of t1-lis can he seen in the barbarous bombardments by the United States naval and air forces of peaceful towns and villages in Korea, with the resulting massacre of peaceful inhabitants - old people, women and children. AU this is being done on the personal orders of General Mac- Arthur. Towns and villages of bath North and South Korea alike are being subjected equally to the most barbarous hombings by United States aircraft. Many peaceful towns and villages in South Korea could be named, which, though situated far behind the battle lines, are nevertheless being subjected to the most barbarous bombings by United States aircraft. For example, 77 peacefl', inhabitants were killed and 306 dwellings destroyed as a result of United States bombings of the town of Pyongtaek in the province of Kyonggi in South Korea on 15, 16 and 19 July. On 15 July United States aireraft, having raided the town of Inchon in South Korea, bombed the Tonyan textile factory and fired at peasants busily weeding in the fields, killing 80 people. It is sufficient to look at any communication from General MacArthur's staff on the activities of the United States Air Force to see clearly that United States aircraft are bombing indiscriminately both Nort'l and South Korea. For example, the report of Marrtrthur's staff of 31 August referred to the ~ombing of twenty Korean towns and villages includmg Yongdong, Inchon, Kongju, Chungju, Osan, Kaesong, Haeju, and Kumchon. AIl these towns are in South Korea. It is clear from aU this that the time has come to put an end ta the lying United States propaganda that 1United States troops are fighting agal_lst North Korea only. The United States interventionists are waging war against the entire heroic Korean people, inhumanly a~d deliberately destroying peaceful Korean towns and LVIllages of no military importance, and killing a' ,he 15 'On 16 July United States aircra!t bombed the residential district of Seoul for an hour, completely destroying and burning 1.520 dwelling houses in the Y~nsan area. On 4 July United States bomhers raided the town of Renchen. in the county of Renchen of the province of Kangwon, and bombed it indiscriminate1y, destroying twenty-three dwelling houses. On 5 July, twelve United States B-29 bombers raided the town of Hamhung and hombed it indiscri:l1inately from a height of 2.000 metres. destroyingeighty dwellinghouses. On 5 July three United States bombers raided the village of Yangaki near the town of Pyongyang and dropped over 70 bombs weighing from 100 to 500 kilogrammes. As a result. about 100 of the 145 dwelling houses in the village w~re compleL.:ly or partially de- ~troyed. 1 have given only a few farts. They are. however. sufficient to show that United States ruling circles are engaging in bloody aggression against the whole Korean people and must bear the full responsibility for the consequences of th15 adventure. On 30 August an appeal was received from the President of the Central Committee of the "Cnited Democratic Fatherland Front of Korea addressed ta the Secretarv-General of the United Nations and to the President of the Security Council. This appeal has not yet appeared in the form of a document. The appeal states that. between 15 and 28 August, signatures were coUected throughout Korea - North and South - to a declaration by the Korean people demanding that the Unit'~d Nations should take urgent steps ta secure the immediate cessation of United States armed intervention in Korea and the withdrawal of the forces of the foreign inten'entionists from Korea. Over 13 million Koreans of sixteen years of age or over signed this declaration, inc1uding 7,900,000 persons living in South Korea. The people of the whole of Korea, bath North and South. thus expressed their will and their attitude towards United States intervention in Korea. The appeal contains the following statement: "The United States interventionists are attempting ta conceal their base and bloody deeds in Korea from the public opinion of the world and to conceal their imperialist aims behind a smoke-screen of lying propaganda. "While dmpping hundreds of tons of bombs and lead claily ulxm Korean towns and villages, laying them The appeal goes on to say: "The Korean people declares to the United Nations, to aIl mankind, that it, like every other people, has an inalienal>le right to organize its life as it itself wishes, inclependently and without foreign interference, that United States intervention in Korea is a violation of this right and that the Korean people is firmly resolved to defend its right to freedom and independence to the end". ln this connexion l would also draw the attention of members of the Security Council to the appeal to the people of the United States, published on 13 ]uly, from the Korean Democratie Front of North America and the American Committee for Aid to the Korean Federation of Trade Unions, i.e., from Korean pa;riots living in the United States. This appeal was received by the USSR delegation on 29 ]uly. lt was apparently also received by the delegations of other Members of the United Nations. The appeal states: "The civil war in progress in Korea is a volcanic eruptian of the supprcssed anger of the whole patriotic Korean people against the Syngman Rhee regime in South Korea . . . "The Syngman Rhee regime has trampled underfoot the universal desire of the Korean people by preventing by force and coercion the peaceful unification of South and North Korea on the bàsis of general elections." The appeal shows further on that under the Syngman Rhee regime supporters of a peaceful union were ar~ rested, cast into prison, tortured and killed, and that from the time of Korea's liberation until the middle of Deccmber 1949 149,000 supporters of peaceful union were put to death, 62,000 of them being killed between July a'ld December 1949. lt states further: "The present war in Korea is a revolutionary war of the Korean people for the unification of its divided country. Consequently, it is a domestic dispute and not a. complex international situation. Therf";<; no justification for foreign intervention in a dOtk" '" dispute of the Korean people. United States intervention is senseless. and United States soldiers are dying in vain." This is the attitude of the entire Korean people to the United States aggression. They hate and curse the United States aggressors who are laying waste their country and killing off their peaceful populations. They vehemently protest and demand that the United Nations should take urgent steps to put :m end to thi5 bloody aggression. Mr. Austin's draft resolution appeals hypocritically to States to avoid any action which might lead to a spreading of the Korean conflict to other areas. But is it not clear to everyone that the armed intervention of the United States Government and MacArthur's increased military operations and barbarous bombing of the Korean people are in themselves a threat to international peace and security and are preventing the peaceful settlement of the Korean question? Is it not clear that only the immediate cessation of military operations and the withdrawal of aIl foreign troops from Korea can guarantee an immediate peaceful settlement of the Korean question? This is what the USSR delegation is suggesting on its Government's instructions. The almed intervention by the United States Government in Korea constitutes a gross breach of the United Nations Charter, in particular of Cbapter l in which it is statOO: "AIl Members shaH refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner incon~istent with the purposes of the United Nations". The United States bas equally violated another provision of Chapter l of the Charter which calls upon Members to "develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace". Mr. Austin, in an endeavour to ;J:itify the aggression by the United States Governme!;~ against the Korean people, bas presented various !'(';af:ons for th;.t aggression. 1s it not clear, however, that therc are and can be no reasons in the world which coulcl. justify lawless and gross breaches of aH standards of mternationallaw and the flagrant violation of the obligations which the United States Government has assumed under the United Nations Charter? It is clear that no such reasons exist. 1 1 By its refusaI to consider the USSR proposaI for the peaceful settlement of the KOl'ean question, the United States Government has shown to the whole world that its has changed from a policy of preparation for aggression to direct acts of aggression and that it has no regard for either the opinion of the Korean people or for that of the overwhelming majority of the world's inhabitants, including the opinion of the millions of com1110n people in the United States who do not want war. Recent -events connected with the United States aggression in Korea have shQwn that even the docile vassaIs of the United States - the ruling circles of the countries of the Atlantic bloc - cannat refuse to pay heed to the imperious voice of their peoples who demand the peaceful settlement of the Korean question. As pointed out earlier, only the Governments of the three colonial Powers - the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands - have submitted to the pressure from Washington, and sorne United States puppets in certain other countries have dared to state that they will send a "token" number of their troops to Korea to fight against the Korean people. The peoples of Asia have rightly seen that the United States armed intervention constitutes a mortal threat to their national interests and to their freedom and indepenrlence. And even those ill-starred Governments of sorne Asian countries which hastily promised, under pressure of the State Department, to send troops to Korea, are not in every case able to fulfil those promises, as the latest reports have revealed. All this fully shows that peace-Ioving peoples strongly protest against the war unleashed by the United States imperialists in Korea and in the Far East. The peoples of Asia, whose struggle for freedom and independence has already been attended by considerable success, have spoken out active1y in. support of the Soviet Union's proposaI for a peaceful settlement of the Korean question. Proof of this m,y. be' found in the communication addressed to the Sequrity Couneil by the rentraI People's Government of. the People's Republic of China, representing the 475 million Chinese people. The same demand was made by the Government of the People's Republic of Mongolia. The people of India has also declared itself in favour of a peaceful settlement of the Korean question, as shawn in Prime Minister Nehru's public appeal to the Security Council in favour oi a peaceful settlement of the Korean question. The people of Asia, and more especially the people of Korea, particularly welcomed the communications sent ta the Security Council by the Governm..nts and peoples of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Albania, appealing for an immediate cessation of United States armed intervention in Korea and the withdrawal of aU foreign troops from that country. Over 20,000 cablegrams and letters, to which l~ve already teferred, whieh were receh-ed hy the 19 The heroic Korean people, which is fighting for its freedom and national independence, for its existence as an independent State, is also receiving encouragement, in its righteous struggle against the foreign usurpers, from the appeals addressed to the Security Couneil by a number of international organizations such as the Committee of the Supporters of Peace, the World Federation of Trade Unions, the Women's International Democratie Federation, the World Federation of Democratie Youth, the International Union of Students, and also from the appeals which are daily reaching the. Security Couneil and the USSR delegation in their thousands from numerous organizations and private persons in aU parts of the world. No hypocritical draft resolution presented in the Security Cauneil by the United States representative can prevent people of good will throughout the world, who thirst for peace and for tranquil, creative work, from expressing their sympathy, from lending their moral support to the heroic Korean people or from aiding the victims of the barbarous bombing by the United States Air Force in Korea, since the fight of the Korean people against United States intervention is the cause of an progressive mankind in its great struggle for peace and security, against aggression and against the unleashing of a new war. On the other hand, neither this draft resolution nor any other draft resolution can conceal the virtual isolation in which United States ruling circ1es have found themselvl.:s, after launching armed aggression in Korea and thereby increasing the danger of a new war. The United States Government and its delegation in the Security Couneil are obliged to exert every effort to justify the bloody aggression of United States imperialism against the Korean people and the peoples of other countries of Asia. Every resource of propaganda, diplomatie pressure and even blackmail have been set in motion. The lowest methods of slander have been used against the Soviet Union and its peaceful foreign policy, a policy of peace, friendship and co-operation among peoples. No slander can, however, conceal from the peoples of the world, and above aU from the peoples of Asia, the weU-known and obvious fact that the Soviet Union has striven and strives for peace and freedom and quality of rights for the peoples, while the Government of the United States bas striven and strives for war and for the extension of war, t~t the United States bas proceeded from a policy of war preparation and propaganda to direct acts of colonial aggression in Korea, China and Vietnam, with the object of securing the colonial servitude of the peoples of Asia. An attempt is being made to assert that tens of thousands of United States soldiers are losing their lives in Korea in the name of the "age··long struggle for human freedom". ln fact, however, United States soldiers, and above aU the Negro soldiers subjected to The ruling circles of the United States have lost ground, politically and morally, by the aggression which they have launched in Korea. They have found themselves virtually isolated. Their only active support cornes from a thin stratum of the ruling circ1es of the colonial Powers of Europe which have been intimidated by United States propaganda, and from their military and political vassals in the countries which have become entirely dependent on the United States, such as Greece, Turkey, and the Philippines. The people of the whole world - and, above aIl, the peoples of the Soviet Union, the Chinese People's Republic, the entire people of Korea, the peoples of the Democratic People's Republics, who constitute a great part of the population of the earth, together with manv millions of the common people of France, the United Kingdom, the United States and a number of other ~ountries of Europe, Asia and America-demand the Immediate cessation of United States aggression in Korea and in Asia and the prompt and peaceful settlement of the Korean question. This is how matters really stand as regards .United Scates aggression in Korea, and not as official United States propaganda and United States politicians have tried to make out. The peoples of the world do not wa~t ~ar. This is the reason why the overwhelming maJonty of the ordinary people of the world. the people of good will, have come out in support of Generalissimo Stalin's statement concerning the desirability of the peaceful settlement of the Korean question. The public has received this statement as a further proof of the fact that the Soviet Union continues to watch, as before, over the peace and security of mankind and the freedom and independence of peoples. In conformity with the Stalin foreign policy ofpeace, the Soviet Government introduced its proposaI to the Security Council regarding the peaceful settlement of the Korean question. This proposaI €onstitutes the essence of the USSR foreign policy which is directed towards peace, and shows the only correct and. certain road towards the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, and the strengthening of international peace and security. Those who have the interests of peace at heart cannot but support the USSR proposaI regarding the peaceful settlement of the Korean question. The draft resolution proposed by the United States representative must definitely be rejected, inasmuch as it is designed to spread the bloody aggression of the United States against the Korean people. Th~ PRESIDENT: 1 think 1 am bound to point out that in his speech, which was for the most part, as far as 1 could understand it, merely a repetition of speeches which he made time and again during the month of August, the Soviet Union representative referred specifically to aIl three draft resolutions which are now before the Council. 1 would also point out with aIl respect that, if the Council in its wisdom decides to have three separate debates on these three draft resolutions, as weIl as the general debate which we are now engaged in, it is likely to have the pleasure of hearing Mr. Malik's speech three more times - that is, if the Coum::il is lucky. 1 think the moment has come when the representatives will agree to adjourn the meeting. When shall the Council meet again? Would tomorrow afternoon at 3 o'clock be agreeable? As there is no objection, the Council will now adjourn, and meet again on Wednesday, 6 September, at 3 p.m. The meeting rose at 7 pm.