S/PV.523 Security Council

De did not complete the discussion of this ql;lestion at ~ur last meeting. Several speakers were st111 on the hst, and others have since been added to it. l shall call upon the speakers in the order in which they are on my list. The members of the Council will speak first. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Limb, representative of the Republic of Korea, took a place at the 5ecurity Council table. Mr. TSIANG (China): l would like, first of aH, to state briefly the attitude of my delegation to draft resolution S/1894. The fundamental purpose of this draft resolution is to prevent an extension of the area of war. With that purpose my delegation is in hearty accord. l hope that this draft resolution will meet with success. l fear that it will not meet with success. This draft resolution contains an element of unreality. l might even say it contains an element of fantasy. It is based on the assumption that the intervention of the Peking régime is motivated on the grounds of electric power and guarantees of the frontier. Subjects like electricity and the frontier are negotiable. They are suitable subjects for negotiation. It is very well known that the United Nations, in regard to this subject, has a very open mind. Nevertheless, these subjects have not been taken up in negotiations. On the other hand, the propaganda campaign conducted by the Communists has concentrated on what it calls "United States aggression" and its demand is that there should be a withdrawal of all foreign troops in Korea. When a party refuses to enter into negotiations on subjects which are legitimate and negotiable and harps on subjects which are not negotiable, evidently the objectives involved are not the objectives presumed in this draft resolution. However, since this draft resolution is intended to try to achieve a laudable objective, it has the support of my delegation. l wish now to talk briefly on the special subject which is before the Councik namely, the special report of the Unified Command of 5 November presented to the Council by the representative of the United States on 6 November [5/1884]. The report is couched in very sober and cautious language. It is a studied understatement, as all such previous reports were understatements. For this very reason the special report is all the more impressive. On the same day - that is, 6 November - that the special report was submitted to the Council, a communiqué was issued by General "The defeat of the North Koreans and destruction of their armies was thereby decisive. In the face of this victory of United Nations anns, the Communists committed one of the most offensive acts of international lawlessness of historic record by moving, without any notice of belligerency, elements of alien Communist forces across the Yalu River into North Korea and massing a great concentration of possible reinforcing divisions with adequate supplies behind the privileged sanctuary of the adjacent Manchurian border. A possible trap was thereby surreptitiously laid, calculated to encompass the destruction of the United Nations forces engaged in restoring order and the processes of civil government in the North Korean border areas. . . The present situation therefore is. this: while the North Korean forces with which we were initially engaged have been destroyed or rendered impotent for military action, a new and fresh army now faces us, backed up by a possibility of large alien reserves and adequate supply within easy reach of the enemy but beyond the Iimits of our present sphere of military action." plus nouvelle Au première vention intrigue les The communiqué from which l have just quoted is much more explicit. It sets forth in bold terms the new situation which faces the Council. In connexion with the new situation in Korea, the first point which l wish ta make is that the intervention of the Chinese Communists is a development which puzzles and shocks the Chinese people as much as it does the other peace-Ioving peoples of the world. contraire le dit depuis Corée les aucun seule Japon provinces que aucune a personne représente L'homme bon The action of the Peking régime is totally un-Chinese. 1t serves no Chinese interest whatsoever. As l have told the Council repeatedly in the past, it has been the . consensus of opinion in China for more than haH a .century that a unified, free and independent Korea serves China's interests best. The Chinese people have no designs against the people of Korea. Our only fear has been that Korea might be used by Japan or by Russia for penetration into China's northern provinces. So long as Korea is free and independent, China has no fears from that quarter. This opinion, l repeat, has prevailed with the Chinese people for more than haH a ce~tury. Rational beings must acknowledge that this opmion is the height of enlightened self-interest. Ordinary people would accept it as just good common sense. While we must be realistic enough to recognize the gravity of the situation, the Council would be entirely wrong if it should assume that the 450 million people of China are involved in this blow to the cause of world peace. No, the Chinese people are innocent. If we should give them the proper opportunity, they would repudiate the action of the Communists. There is another aspect of this matter to which l think the Council should pay due attention. The action of the Chinese Communists has not been taken on the impulse of the moment. It is a planned action, systematically planned for sorne months. The units engaged in Korea aIl belong to the so-called Fourth Field Army of the Peking régime. Its Commander-in- Chief is General Lin Piao. This Army is supposed to be the best of aIl the Red units. It is also the most pro-Russian. In China it is considered a "100 per center". As early as June, parts of this Army began to be transported from Southern China to Manchuria. At present at least haH of this force, 300,000 men, are deployed from Mukden to both banks of the Yalu River. The units so deployed have been under special training. They have been given lessons in the Korean language. They have also been politically indoctrinated. They have been taught to hate the so-called imperialism of the United States and to treasure the so-called special fraternal relations between Korean and Chinese Communists. The Council will be interested to know about an incident which happened in the latter part of September in a barracks on the outskirts of Mukden where a unit of this Fourth Army was temporarily housed. A propagandist of the Communist Party harangued the officers and soldiers by enlarging on the brutalities of the United States forces in Korea, and called attention to the bombardment of hospitals and schools, the raping of women, the cruel treatment of prisoners of war, and so on. When the question period came, a junior officer rose to say that that was the first time he had heard of United States brutality in Korea. He said that he was in no position to judge whether or not these reports were true, l'lUt being of Manchurian origin he knew what the Soviet Army had done in Manchuria in the latter part of 1945 and the first haH of 1946. He went on to say that the Soviet Army had removed much of the machinery of Manchuria, destroyed much of what could not be removed, and that women of his own family had been raped by Russian soldiers in Manchuria. If China were to take revenge of foreign brutalities, he said, China should décida armées certaine à l'extérieur. anéantie. After such a speech, the chairman of the meeting decided to order the adjournment. The next day sorne other armed forces surrounded that particular barracks. Fighting between those on the inside and those on the outside lasted for sorne time. A goodly percentage of the unit was liquidated. l relate this particular incident to the Council to show the preparation of the Chinese Communists before entering Korea, and the psychological reaction of the officers and men involved. comment envahir la Along with the special training of the armies for the campaign in Korea, an intensive propaganda effort has been going on directed towards the civilian population with "hate America" as its central theme. When you keep in mind the simu1taneous invasion of Tibet and the substantial aid given to the Communists in lndo-China, you have at least an outline of the objectives of the Peking régime. armées à propagande l'Amérique". s'est était entrevoit Pékin. Tibet très souffre à cependant l must add in passing that the adventures in Tibet and lndo-China are, like the adventure in Korea, very un-Chinese. The people in China today live under conditions of famine. The last thing they wish to do is to fight in Korea or Tibet or lndo-China. Nevertheless, we have these military adventures. Chine, que Since they do not serve the interests of China, what interest do they serve? Obviously, the interests of the Soviet Union. qu'à l'associé Mao. The difficulty in the whole problem is that Mao tse-tung in Peking fancies that he has been made junior partner in the imperialist firm of Stalin and Mao. la entre l'une pouvait perspectives Europe, étaient Last November in the First Committee l explained the differences between China and Yugoslavia. One of the c1ifferences which l stressed was that in Asia Stalin could offer to Mao tse-tung many alluring and profitable adventures, whereas in Europe prospects of Yugoslav expansion are very limited. du au est constituée guée main, faveur C'est qui qu'une en If we wish to understand the real meaning of the Peking intervention in Korea, we can only find it in "Moscow's pattern of world conquest. It is startling to find that the vast population of 450 million people could be so absolutely controlled as to be made to appear overnight c1amouring for armed assistance to their so-called communist brethren in Korea. It is startling, but it is a fact. And this fact drives us to a further conclusion: tha.t a Communist China means war and aggression in ASIa. If we want peace and security in Asia, we must have a free China. My statement appears very startling. It une "1 also wish to make it clear that l am voting in favour of this draft resolution on the understanding that it does not limit the power of the Security Council, whenever it deems advisable to discuss any other preliminary measures to ensure that any possibility of a conflict wouId be forestalled; that is to say, l do not think that, if the Security Council approves the United Kingdom draft resolution - as l hope it willit will be unable subsequently to approve any measure which might be appropriate to strengthen the principles of the Charter and to avoid a breach of worId peace". l have taken the liberty of recalling what l said then in order to show that the draft resolution [5/1894] which we are proposing, together with the other five de1egations, is consistent with the position we took at the time, as my delegation considers this draft as a preliminary step towards preventing a new worId conflict. Indeed, at this crucial time, the Security Council cannot stand by without taking any action to save worId peace from being definitely disrupted. This draft resolution is fully consistent with the basic aspiration which guides my de1egation in the Security Councilcomplete and faithful' realization of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and maintenance of a rational, just and honourable peace among nations. My delegation fee1s that the time has come for all Member States of the United Nations, large and small, to face up to the situation and the present dangers, which immediate1y, vitally and directly affect them. All States are interdependent - most of them forming part of the United Nations - because if a new worId conflict were to break out, no country couId escape its consequences; and there is a danger that such a conflict may break out. If it proved impossible to localise the military action in Korea, the rupture of the peace would affect all nations equally, and would affect them profoundly: the one hundred and ninety million inhabitants in the U~~R jyst ~s much as t1Ie one hundred and fifty mJ1lton mhabitants of the United States; the four hundred and fifty million inhabitants of China just as much as the four million inhabitants of Ecuador. And in a new war the small states would have nothing to gain and much to lose. ~herefore, when the representative of the Soviet Umon tells us here that sorne members of the Council who do not agree with his opinions are following in the steps of other nations and are dependent on them, The invitation extended to the Peking Government in accordance with the United Kingdom proposaI adopted by the Council [5/1892], and the draft resolution submitted in document S/1894, should be considered in relation to the reports of the Commander ofthe forces now fighting under United Nations orders. conformément adoptée lution considérés dement ordres In an almost sudden way, the North Korean army has reappeared, strengthened by foreign troops and just as weU armed as it was last June. réapparait, bien Could the Security Council ignore all those facts? Clearly, it could not. In the first place, it had to invite the representatives of the Peking Government to discuss the report of the Commander of the United. Nations forces which was the document which set forth the situation requiring discussion. This is what the Council has done. In fairness it had to arrange that the discussion should be conducted with the participation of those representatives, because their Government was involved. If it had not done so, the Security Council would have been accused of investigating a situation without the presence of parties who might throw light on it, and of adopting resolutions without approaching the party which might in the end prove to have been responsible for the situation. Non, les avec Nations il s'efforcer, de ces avait sécurité qui sans lement choses gation tés ne du ou le l'annulation 27 ou contraire la 1950. But those invited did not accept that invitation for reasons which my delegation does not completely understand. In these circumstances the mere fact that Peking's reply was couched in certain terms should not paralyse the Security Council. Nor should the Council do anything that would amount to a revocation of its resolutions of 25 June, 27 June and 7 July 1950 [S/1501, 5/1511, 5/1588]. Nor should the General .Assembly go against the very core of its resolution 376 (V) of 7 October 1950. For fifty-three Members of the United Nations, the question of Korea is the question of aggression by North Korean forces against the Republic of Korea, and not of United States aggression against that country, or of illegal intervention by one or several States against Korea and China. General MacArthur is the legal chief of the Unified Command of the United Nations, carrying out the Organization's orders, and not a general who is the illegal chief of an aggressor army. Nations est Corée point commise d'un ou MacArthur dement ce armée à majorité que l therefore think that the United Nations must maintain that position, whether or n9t the Peking representatives are present. Moreover, the vast majority of the Member States of the United Nations consider that position just and consistent with the Charter. That is how my delegation understands the action the Security Council and the General Assembly have taken and which we aU know. If the opposite were When the representatives of the Peking Government arrive at Lake Success for the consideration of the Formosa question, they will see for themselves that the governments of the world represented here are no party to any alleged criminal aggression, and do not consider themselves to be so; on the contrary, they believe in aIl sincerity that they are doing no more than their dutY to safeguard the basic interests of aIl peoples in relation to foreign affairs, including the Chinese people. Furthermore, if the Peking Government had accepted the Security Council's invitation when the report of the Unified Command was being discussed, it might very wellagain, in the opinion of my delegation - have then aired grievances which it thinks it has against other States, in so far as such grievances are clirectly related to the Korean question. It would not have been improper - once more, in my delegation's opinionfor it to express such grievances, submit its claim, and suggest solutions compatible with the action already taken by the United Nations. Fortunately, the attitude of the United Nations has been and is as moderate and pacific as the authority of the democratic countries. \i\That that moderation indicates is not a lack of justification or fortitude, either • in the democratic world or at Lake Success, but confidence in its own strength, the impartial clefence of aIl the peoples of the world. There are nations which, at various times in the course of history, have actecl hom passion, violence or reasons of injured prestige. The United Nations cannot act in the same way because it has the support of most of the nations of the world. If it is desirable that the great Powers should show a degree of patience in proportion to their power, extent of territory and population, there is still more reason why the United Nations should do so. From such moderation, from the calmness with which it adopts its resolutions, the prestige of our Organization will be increased, its internaI coherence strengthened and its world position fortified. The nations of Asia particularly will be able palpably to appreciate - and they will appreciate it even better when the reconstruction of Korea is completethat the United Nations is not a screen behind which the old colonialism is concealed, the colonialism which we must bury once and ftr aIl, but an organization which seriously proposes the rule of law, equity and equality in the relations between States and individuals. The fa~t, however, that the Peking- Government has excused Itself from accepting the Council's invitation once more justifies the draft resolution contained in document S/1894, résolution tout pacifiques. That is why it is so urgent to discuss the draft resolution of which my de1egation is one of the authors, or any other draft resolution pursuing the same peaceful end. lorsque Conseil opposant sations Cependant, Formose l'Equateur résolution nement de contre sachions pensé, en paix, The USSR representative criticised this sense of urgency at the [521st] meeting of 10 November at which draft resolution S/1894 was submitted, and contrasted with it the time-limit set for the discussion of the Peking charges about Formosa. But the present situation is obviously different from the previous Formosan situation. It was the Ecuadorean delegation which submitted r506th meeting] a resolution hlviting a representative of the Peking Government to the discussions of the charges of aggression against Formosa [S/1823/Corr.1] even though everyone knew that there was no aggression. Neverthe1ess we considered it necessary to deal with the questio~ of Formosa, as it was a potential danger to peace. présenter qu'il de équivoque gouvernement: contre cru Nous peut générale ,One of the rea~ons which led my delegation to submit thlS draft resolutlOn was that it wouId be good for the Peking representatives to come to Lake Success and cO!,1Vince themselves of their Government's tragic mlstake; they are still speaking of aggression by one St~te against Korea, while fifty-three other States beheved and believe the opposite. We are guided by the hope that their misapprehension may be cleared up. Tha~ would help considerably to relieve the general tensIOn. que commise Commission peut-être contre Conseil des sentés l'Organisation. My delegation had very good reason to propose the, time-limit it did for discussion of the aggression agamst Formosa. It hoped that the First Committee of the ~en~ral Assembly might perhaps be able to begin consldermg the alleged aggression against China and the Formosa question, so that we might have the be~efit of the views expressed in that Committee, on WhlCh all the Member States of the United Nations are represented. b ~he difference between the two situations is therefore nationaliste son par la Il immédiatement affairés aSl~. F.ormosa is occupied and controlled by the NatlOnahst Chinese Government which holds' that there h,as b.een no invasion by the United States, that the ~ltuatlOn has remained unchanged since the last days 111 June, and that peace has not been broken. Rence, there was no urgent need for the Council immediately ta consider the question. In the northern territory of There is no need for further analysis of the draft resolution [5/1894] after the eXRlanations given by the representatives of India, France, the United Kingdom and the United States at the Security Council's [521st] meeting on 10 November. l shall merely add that the draft had to be submitted without delay as otherwise, l repeat, the situation might have taken such a serious turn that even the effort to achieve peace, which is the object of the resolution, would have been too late. If we examine this draft resolution paragraph by paragraph we shall see that the representative of the Peking Government need not be present, for it merely reaffirms what has already been stated in the resolutions of 25 June in the Security Council and 7 October in the General Assembly, that is, it insists that no action be taken which might lead to the spread of the Korean conflict to other areas and thereby further endanger international peace and security, calls upon all States and authorities to refrain from assisting or encouraging the North Korean authorities, and to prevent their nationals or units of their armed forces from giving assistance to North Korean forces, and to cause the immediate withdrawal of any such nationals or individuals as may presently be engaged in the conflict. This provlswn is the logical and inevitable consequence of the fact that since June 1950 the United Nations has regarded the Republic of Korea as the victim of aggression by North Korea and that our international Organization was obliged to repel that aggression in order to re-establish peace. It is c1ear that the presence of the Peking representative in the Security Council couId not change the just position adopted by the United Nations with regard to the Korean conflict; and it is therefore c1ear that the appeal for non-intervention by foreign Powers, which the authors of the draft now before the Security Council want to make, must be made either with or without the presence of the representative of the Peking Government. Since the beginning of August 1950, the Soviet Union representative has striven to convince us that the Korean conflict is not what the United Nations says it is; and we already know that in spite of that fact an overwhelming majority of the United Nations has decided that the Organization cannot change its fundamental attitude. There is no other way, eindeed, of interpreting the resolution adopted by the Assembly on 7 October. On the other hand, it would be absurd to have to await the presence of a representative of the Peking Government before the Council could affinn that the policy of the United Nations is to keep the Chinese frontier with Korea inviolate and fully to protect legitimate Chinese and Korean interests in the frontier area. What moral or material harm to the Peking Government can arise from the fact that the Security Council public1y proclaims clearly and categorically the pacifie United Nations policy, and in addition gives guarantees on behalf of that same Communist Government? With or without the presence of the Peking Government in the Council, is it not obvious to everybody that, if the Chinese Communist forces stay in Korea, the inevitable march of military events might itself prevent the pacifie purposes of the United Nations from being fulfilled? Thus, the penultimate paragraph of the draft resolution is not so much a threat as a logical warning. In the inadmissible event - inadmissible, l say, because it is contradicted by the facts - that there has been no intervention by Chinese military elements in Korea, how could the issue of a warning by the Security Council in any way damage or harm the Peking Government? If we examine the last operative paragraph of the draft resolution, we see that it must be reassuring to the Peking Government, because the recommendations, which are made to the United Nations Commission, to the effect that it should urgently consider and assist in the settlement of the problems which concern China, are also to that country's advantage. We believe therefore that we should approve the draft resolution. To oppose it would be to go counter to the interests of the Chinese people itself and not to desire that a solemn guarantee of respect for the frontiers of Chinashould be given. If, even before the Peking Government rejected the Council's invitation, the draft resolution seemed to me to be necessary, now that resolution, or some other like it, seems absolutely indispensable. The Security Council of the United Nations, which is the executive organ of the collectivity of nations and ?ot the instrument of any State, has to act, and must, III the opinion of my delegation, act in the way proposed by the draft resolution under discussion, or in some ?imilar way. The Security Council cannot act either III violence or with passion. That is its dutY equally to ail the nations of the world; it is the guardian of peace among all nations. My delegation sincerely hopes that the situation which has arisen in Korea during the last few days is not due to any aggressive intent. Let us hope that the Peking Government will learn, above all, the true, peaceful objectives of the United Nations. It may be that all the doubts and anxiety may have been caused by the presence of foreign troops fighting under the United Nations flag near the Manchurian border. If My delegation, l repeat, cannat believe that the Peking Government knows the United Nations sa little as ta believe that approximately fifty States - l am deliberately not counting the permanent members of the Security Council - should wish ta be accomplices ta a preposterous scheme of aggression against the Communist Government, or that they should lend their assistance ta imagined - and, of course, non-existent - ventures of conquest. My delegation hopes that when the representatives of the Peking Government arrive in the near future in arder ta bring charges in connexion with the campIaint about Formosa, personal contact with the Security Council and with the delegations ta the United Nations - which represent almost all the countries of the world - will faeilitate agreement by showing them the true spirit which guides us ail, and the serene atmosphere in which we are working for peaceful and constructive co-operation among ail nations.

Before calling on the next speaker, l should like ta remind members of the Council that it is getting late. Several other representatives have asked ta speak on the same question and if we follow our usual method of work we shall not be able to begin the next item on our agenda. In view of the situation today, l would therefore ask members of the Council ta forgo consecutive interpretation. If they agree, l shall be greatly obliged. It is, however, understood that this procedure will not constitute a precedent and that we shall return ta our usual method of work at the next meeting. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated fram Russian): The point is that the procedure proposed by the President does not of course present any difficulties for speakers who use English or French, that is, one of the working languages. But for those who do not speak either English or French, and who desire to check the accuracy of the consecutive interpretation, the system of simultaneous interpretation is not altogether convenient. l would therefore like ta ask that this system should not be applied to my speech. l shall be speaking in Russian, and would like ta have the opportunity ta check the accuracy of the consecutive interpretation by ear, since l shall be unable tJ check that of the simultaneous interpretation while l am actually making my speech.

If l understood him correctly, the USSR representative agrees that there should be simultaneous interpretation of speeches in one of the working languages and consecutive interpretation of speeches in other languages. The consecutive interpretation would preferably be into présente d'hui pas il délégation tionnel, de donné ble-t-il, s'agit tation devrait Mr. LACOSTE (France) (translated from French): This is a question of immediate importance for today's meeting, but it is also a question of principle. l am not at all prepared to give my opinion on the question of principle, and of course l am speaking only on behalf of the French delegation. From a personal point of view - and quite exceptional!y and without any prejudice whatever to the question of principle - l would agree, in view of the late hour and the fact that we apparently can expect rather long speeches on the substance of the matter, that we should forgo consecutive interpretation for this evening. Of course, in that case, alllanguages must be treated in the same way.

l do not know whether l have correctly understood the statement the French representative has just made, that is, that he also would accept the difference in treatment of a working language and of other languages which would result from the USSR modification of my proposa!. vient qu'il de tion, Mr. LACOSTE (France) (translated from French): That depends how long the USSR representative's speeches are going to be. des de remercie boration

Are there any further objections? l thank the members of the Council for their helpfulness, and cal! on the representative of Cuba. gation sent de du Mr. BLANCO (Cuba) (translated from S panish) : Like the other delegations the Cuban delegation is profoundly concerned over the new turn which the situation in Korea has taken according to the special report of the Unified Command of the United Nations [S/1884]. noises entrepris des paix, ticle The fact that Chinese Communist military units have penetrated Korean territory and been deployed in military action against the forces of the United Nations is a serious threat to peace, and Article 2, paragraph 6 of the Charter should be applied. contre se refusé seil pour coréen d'autres Since the armed aggression against the Republic of Korea took place, and the United Nations was obliged to use compulsion to repel the attack and re-establish peace because the aggressors had defied the recommendations of the Security Council, there has been a possibility that the Korean conflict might become general and extend to other areas. de circonscrire The Security Council, as we know, has striven to e.litJ.1inate thi~ danger by the adoption of measures to hmlt or localtze the Korean conflict. tion la paragraphe tant. d'encourager s'abstenir coréen In this connexion, we may recollect in passing the draft resolution submitted on 31 July last [479th meeting], by the delegation of the United States JS/1653]. Paragraph 3 of that draft was particularly Important, inasmuch as it asked al! States to refrain from giving assistance or encouragement to the North Korean authorities, and from taking any action which might extend the conflict to other areas and thus If the draft resolution had been adopted, it would have placed clearly before world public opinion the firm intention of aIl - l repeat, allthe members of the Council to localize the Korean war. That decision wouId probably have had a salutary influence on the Chinese Communists and perhaps averted the difficult situation facing us today. If it had been adopted, it would have shown, also, and with something more than words, the sincere desire on the part of aIl the members of the Council, to put an end to the hostilities in Korea. But the resolution, we repeat, was not adopted. The Soviet Union delegation's veto destroyed aIl hope of peace at that time. The intervention by Communist Chinese in Korea, as many representatives have already stated, brings the threat of a general war much nearer and threatens to prolong indefinitely the military operations which at one time seemed to have reached the final stage. We therefore feel that the Security Council must bring about the immediate cessation of that intervention. To that end, and in order to make the position of the United Nations perfectly clear to everyone concerned, we think that, before deciding on any other action, the Security Council must reiterate the underlying principles of United Nations action in Korea, offer to safeguard and protect the legitimate interests of Communist China, and ask Communist China to withdraw its troops from Korea. In short, the Security Council must reaffirm the programme of peace and economic rehabilitation of Korea adopted by the General Assembly. For those reasons, my delegation, which has followed these questions with interest in both the General Assembly and the Security Council, does not hesitate to support the joint draft resolution [S/1894]. There is no need for a detailed examination of the draft, as it has already been ably explained by other delegations during the debate. We feel sure that both the Members of the United Nations and world public opinion will receive it favourably. It represents everything that is being done today to maintain international peace. To the new enemies which have appeared in Korea, to the Chinese Communist authorities to which it is primarily directed, it constitutes a safeguard of their legitimate interests, and a calI to order and to reason. If they disregard the resolution, it will mean that they are persisting in their hq.stile attitude with aIl the serious consequences which that may bring. According to the reports received, the attitude of these authorities has confirmed our doubts as to their pacifie intentions. The intervention in Korea and the invasion of Tibet are facts which seem to indicate an aggressive policy of territorial expansion. Moreover, the reply given to the Council's invitation to take part in this debate on the special report does not give us In connexion with this attitude of the Chinese Communists, however, we wou1d like to draw attention ta certain statements by a spokesman of the Peking Office of External Relations appearing in the New York Times of 12 November. Among other things he :said: "To help Korea in its resistance against United 'States aggressors is to defend our own country". tude rations étrangères a autres its defend pays agresseurs "To defend our own country". That means that Korea is regarded as an integra1 part of China. If this is true, and if that is the idea underlying the words "to defend our own country", there is reason to think and fear that the aim pursued by the Peking régime in its armed intervention is the incorporation or annexation of Korea within Chinese territory, in open contrast with the aim pursued by the United Nations, which is the unification and independence of Korea and the establishment of a unified, independent and democratic government. pays), sant si propre intervenant but toire les assurer que et toutes gation mesure discussion. de munistes en For the reasons explained, and in view of all these rdoubts and fears, the delegation of Cuba considers that ;the Council should - in the interests of the Chinese Communists themselves, the Korean people, and man- :kind in generaladopt as a preliminary measure the joint draft resolution under discussion, which tends to establish an atmosphere of confidence and security. avait consécutive. Mr. LACOSTE (France) (translated from French): l thought the President had asked the Council to forgo consecutive interpretation. dans Toutefois, cette

This is a case of a statement in a language which is not·a working language. However, if the Council is prepared to forgo even that interpretation, l shall agree. l'esprit Mr. LACOSTE (France) (translated from French): l think that that would be in keeping with the request the President made just now. l'interprétation pourquoi tation. If it were otherwise, l should have to ask for consecutive interpretation into French. l do not see why only interpretation into French should be forgone. gagner cutive. Mr. BLANCO (Cuba) (translated from Spanish) : In arder to save time, l do not insist on consecutive interpretation. inscrit,

Then l caU on the next speaker, the representative of Norway. credi lS Mr. SUNDE (Norway): On Wednesday, 8 November [520th meeting], the Council decided to invite a repre- Coincident with this ominous turn in the military operations, it was found that Chinese soldiers were participating on the North Korean side in substantial and steadily increasing numbers. Official statements from Peking also made it clear that these new forces, which were joining the North Koreans at a crucial stage, had at least approval and encouragement from the Central People's Government. The detailed information in regard to this intervention supplied by the special report from the United Nations Command made it clearly incumbent upon the Security Council to give the new development urgent consideration. Last Friday, the Norwegian delegation associated itself [521st meeting] with five other delegations in submitting to the Security Council a joint draft resolution [5/1894], which was introduced and explained by three of the co-sponsors at the meeting of that day. l do not think there is much l can add to those explanations or that there is any need for a lengthy restatement of the serious concern which prompted the elaboration of the draft resolution and the timing of its submission. So far as the timing is concerned, my delegation agreed with the other co-sponsors that there was much to gain and nothing to lose by introducing the draft resolution as soon as possible, but we also agreed that it would be preferable to defer a detailed discussion and vote until the Central People's Government had been afforded an opportunity to be heard. In its cable of 11 November [5/1902], the Central People's Government has replied that it cannot accept the Security Council's invitation to participate in its discussion of this matter. l shall not try to evaluate or assess the reasons which ar~ given for this refusaI, but l cannot withhold the remark that they seem difficult to understand. In explanation of my delegation's support of the joint draft resolution, l should like to stress a few points which seem particularly important to me. It has become clear that the Chinese have important legitimate interests in the northwestern frontier zone of Korea, in regard to which there has been considerable concern in Peking. It also seems that serious anxiety has Qeen created by mischievous and false propaganda with regard to the objectives of the United Nations forces. In its resolution 376 (V) of 7 October, the General Assembly endeavoured as clearly and categorically as possible to dispel this fear. It seems, however, that those assurances did not succeed in establishing the desired confidence on the Chinese side of the border. The new and dangerous developments therefore make it imperative that a new effort should be made by the Security Council to remove every reasonable ground for suspicion and distrust on the part of the Chinese. But confidence should be reciprocal, and it is obvious that the United Nations policy of respect for Chinese rights and consideration of Chinese interests in the frontier zone would be gravely jeopardized if the intervention of Chinese forces were to continue. The Security Council should therefore adopt this draft resolution, which calls upon all the States and authorities concerned to refrain from assisting or encouraging the North Korean authorities, and to prevent their nationals or units of their armed forces from intervening or arrange for the withdrawal of such nationals or units as have already intervened. The object of the draft resolution is clearly to create trust and confidence and to provide for the peaceful removal of all causes of friction and irritation. It is inspired by the earnest prayers of millions of people all over the world who expect the Security Council to leave no stone unturned in its endeavour to secure peace.

1 call upon the representative of South Korea. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated fram Russian): If 1 understood the President correctly, he said at the beginning of the meeting that first he would give the members of the Security Council an opportunity to express their views. The PRESIDENT (translated fram French): 1 said that preference would be given to members of the Council on the list of speakers. 1 was told laterorally, it is true, and there may have been a misunderstanding - that the USSR representative, who put his name on the list after my statement and after the Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated fram Russian): l so wish, if l am to be allowed to speak today.

Will the South Korean representative's statement take the remaining haH-hour? Mr. LIME (Korea) : It will be much less than a halfhour.

Does the USSR representative still wish to speak first? Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated fram Russian): My speech will also last haH an hour. The PRESIDENT (translated fram French): As l should not like to take a decision on the question myseH, l shall leave it to the Council to decide. What does the Council think? Mr. GROSS (United States af America): Speaking for my delegation, we would be perfectly prepared to stay and hear both these statements. The PRESIDENT (translated fram French): If there are no objections, we shall hear the two statements, even though we shall have to sit until 6.30 p.m. There remains the question whether, in the circumstances, the USSR representative will accept the order of speakers as drawn up. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republies) (translated fram Russian): In the beginning l agreed with your ruling that the members of the Security Council should be allowed to speak first. l thought l should be called upon to speak after the representative of Norway. l should prefer to speak now.

Am l right in believing that the USSR representative did not absolutely insist on speaking now? Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated fram Russian): Yes, l insist that l should be allowed to speak now, before the representative whom the President intended to call upon, because the President said at the beginning of the meeting that the members of the Council would be allowed to speak first. At that time, at the time of the President's statement, the representative of the USSR was already on the President's list of speakers. l would therefore ask him to keep to the rule which he himself laid down. The PRESIDENT (translated fram French): 1s there any objection to a member of tM Council speaking first? Mr. GROSS (United States of America): l have no objection. l think it is entirely up to the President to rule but l think it does raise the problem of translation. If the President calls on the representative of the Soviet Union to speak first, do we then have to sit through an English translation before the representative of the Government of Korea makes his statement? Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): In view of the late hour, l shaH not insist. The interpretation can be given at the next meeting, as usual.

In the circumstances l intend to call now on the USSR representative and then on the South Korean representative. We shaH hear the interpretation of the USSR representative's speech into English at the beginning of our next meeting. Are there any objections to this procedure? ML MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): l have one additional suggestion. In view of the fact that another document was submitted after our work at today's meeting of the Security Council began - l mean document S/1902- l propose that the first three pages of that document, up to the part where the list of American air attacks on Chinese territory begins, should be read at the end of the meeting. It is only three pages in English. That would take only a little time, and it is desirable for that document to be brought to the knowledge of the members of the Security Council.

l think the best procedure would be to hear the two speakers on the list and not decide until then whether a document should be read. l would ask the USSR representative ta begin his statement with this in mind. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): As early as the beginning of August last, the USSR de1egation submitted to the Security Council [483rd meeting] a proposaI for the peaceful sett1ement of the Korean question providing for the cessation of armed intervention in Korea and the withdrawal of aH foreign troops from Korea [5/1668]. Under pressure from the Government of the United States of America, the USSR proposaI was rejected [496th meeting]. The United States Govern- ment did not agree to a peaceful settlement of the Korean question, and thereby assumed responsibility for the consequences of the aggression of which it was guilty in Korea. The purpose of the draft resolution now submitted by the United States delegation for consideration by the Security Council is to justify the United States aggres- sion against Korea and the Peo~le's.Republic of China, and to extend American aggresslOn m the Far East. The United States representative - and sorne of the CO-sponsors of the joint draft resolution who have The events in Korea began on 25 June 1950, as the result of a provocative attack by forces of the South Korean puppet régime on the frontier areas of the People's Democratic Republic of Korea. Many facts and official documents, which have been made known since then and which no one has refuted, show that the attack was the result of a previously con- ceived and carefuUy elaborated plan drawn up with the immediate participation of official military and political representatives of the United States. When it became c1ear that the terroristic régime of Syngman Rhee, which had never enjoyed the support of the Korean people, would collapse, the United States Government had recourse to open intervention in Korea and ordered its air, naval and land forces to attack the Korean people in support of the régime of the American puppet, Syngman Rhee, bankrupt and hated by the Korean people as that régime was. By that very fact, the Gov- ernment of the United States made the transition from a policy of preparation of aggression to open acts of aggression, and began openly to intervene in the domestic affairs of Korea and to engage in armed inter- vention in Korea. By adopting such a policy, the United States Government destroyed the peace, thereby showing that not only is its aim not to strengthen peace, but that, on the contrary, it is the enemy of peace. The complete inconsistency of the United States Govern- ment's references to the alleged fact that this armed American intervention against Korea was started at the request of the Security Council, has long since been established. Nevertheless, it is not superfluous to repeat that the Government of the United States began its armed intervention in Korea before the meeting of the Security Council of 27 June was caUed, and without regard to the decision [5/1511] that the Security Coun- cil wouId take. Thus, the United States Government confronted the United Nations with the fait accompli of its aggression in Korea and its aggression against China, with the fait accompli of violation of the peace in the Far East. There is no need to go again into the facts which we aU have known for a long time - how the Security Council gave its approval retroactively to the United States resolution designed to cover up that Govern- ment's acts of aggression against the Korean people. • Moreover, the Security Council adopted the United States resolution in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter. 1t adopted the resolution by only six votes: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Norway, Cuba and Ecuador. The vote cast by Mr. Tsiang, the Kuomintang representative, who is illegally occupying China's seat in the Security Council, was, against aU legality, counted as the seventh "vote" in favour of the draft resolution. Moreover, at the It is also common knowledge that the United Nations Charter provides that the Security Council shall inter- vene only in cases involving international order, and not in the domestic affairs of countries. Furthermore, the Charter actually forbids United Nations interven- tion in the internaI affairs of any State, such as an internai conflict between two groups inside the same State. It is also universally known that the events in Korea are the internaI affairs of the Korean people. The war in Korea is waged between two factions of the Korean people, between two temporarily divided gov- emmental camps, and the United States Government has no right to intervene in that war under whatever pretext, equally including the pretext of concealing itself behind the false front of the United Nations. prévoit d'événements nements interdit Unies lorsqu'il au événements du a momentanément Le tervenir ce essaie Nations un le By their decision of 27 June, the group of members of the Security Council violated one of the most im- portant principles of the United Nations - that of non-intervention in domestic affairs. l~ neures. résolutions et tilité This resolution of the Security Council, and those of 25 June [5/1501], 7 July [5/1588] and 31 July [S/1653], constitute hostile acts against the Korean people and acts against peace. fables auraient de Unies. The events that have occurred since then in Korea have exploded the myth that the United States forces in Korea were sent there for police action in support of the United Nations. ultérieurs lieux la Corée sion titue apparaît cette nationale, coréen de aucune Le violence milieux former Corée Orient. It was clear from the very beginning - and subse- quent <events have only confirmed it - that the aggres- sive circles of the United States broke the peace in an attempt to seize not only South Korea, but North Korea as weIl. The invasion of Korea by United States armed forces constitutes an open act of war against the Korean people. 1t is now clear to everyone that the purpose of this war is to deprive Korea of its national independence and to prevent the creation of a united democratic State of Korea based on the freely expressed will of the Korean people without any pressure and outside inter- vention. The purpose of this war is to establish by force a régime inimical to the Korean people which would enable the ruling circles of the United States to trans- for~ that country into a colony and to use Korean terntory as a military air-base in the Far East. des sident de When ordering United States armed forces to attack Korea, President Truman stated that he had also 1<, ordered the United States fleet "to prevent an attack upon Formosa", which meant occupation of this part Having invaded Korea with its armed forces, the United States Government, which is now pursuing a policy of direct violation of those agreements, became guilty of repeated acts of aggression against the People's Republic of China, as well, which it invaded by land, sea and air. The United States Air Force has repeatedly invaded the air space of North-Eastern China, brutally killing Chinese civilians and destroying Chinese property. The United States fleet, operating off Korea, has attacked and bombarded a merchant 'lessel in the open sea. The vessel was forced to submit to an illegal and humiliating search. That was in flagrant violation of China's free- dom of navigation. The American interventionist forces in Korea, making use of the name and flag of the United Nations, have advanced in the direction of the Yalu and Tumen Rivers, and now immediately threaten the north-eastern frontiers of China. Thus the Government of the United States, side by side with its aggression in Korea, has committed and is committing a number of acts of aggression which take the form of violation of the frontiers of China by land, sea and air forces and the seizure of the Chinese island of Taiwan. From all the above it follows that the United States Government has committed an act hostile to peace, and that it bears the responsibility for the consequences of the aggression which it started against Korea and China. The Soviet Union stands for a peaceful settlement of the Korean question. It is possible to secure a peace- fui settlement of the Korean question only by the cessation of armed intervention in Korea and the with- drawal of foreign troops from Korea, as the Govern- ment of the USSR has already proposed. With regard to the famous denunciation by Mac- Arthur in his so-called "special report" containing charges against the People's Republic of China, we do not, as the USSR delegation has already stated, recognize the so-called UniteJ Nations Unified Com- mand in Korea and IVe do not consider that any con- fidence can be placed in the unilateral and tendentious report of MacArthur, commander of the American interventionist forces in Korea and renowned for his enmity towards the Chinese people. From beginning to end the so-called special report by MacArthur and the statements on this matter by Basing his statements on this report by MacArthur, ML Austin, the representative of the United States of America, attempts to conceal behind the flag of the United Nations the further extension of the aggressive war in Korea and the open invasion of China. The United States has invaded Chinese territory, seized the Chinese island of Taiwan, violated the sovereignty of China and is threatening the security of China. The Chinese people and its Government have every reason to indict the United States Government for its hostile provocations and aggression against China. The statement of 11 November 1950 by the represen- tative of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China [5/1902] mentions the fol1owing with regard to the acts of aggression by the United States: "Facts have shown that the aim of United States aggression in Korea is not only Korea itself but also the extension of aggression to China... "As a result of the invasion of Korea and of Chinese Taiwan by American imperialists, and as a result of the bombing raids on North-East China, the security of China has been placed in peril... "Righteously indignant, many Chinese citizens are expressing a desire to help the Korean people and resist American aggression... "The Central People's Republic of the People's Republic of China continues as before to demand a peaceful settlement of the Korean question, but the Chinese people has no fear of the threats of any aggressors." This statement by the Government of the People's Republic of China also notes that lately the number of United States air attacks upon Chinese territory has been increasing daily and that "These crimes, com- mitted by the United States armed forces, which are violating the territorial sovereignty of China and threatening its security, have alarmed the whole Chinese people". The statement includes a list of attacks by the United States Air Force under the command of General Mac- Arthur on the territory of the People's Republic of China during the period from 27 August to 10 November. During that period of less than two-and-a- half months, the United States Air Force has made more than 80 attacks· on Chinese territory. Those are the concrete facts of United States aggression against China. The statement subsequently says that from the very beginning the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China has protested against the ."aggreSSive war conducted in Korea by the United States i,Govemment. and bas demand,d a poaœful "'tloment of 23 This statement by the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China demonstrates in a completely convincing way that the so-cal1ed special report by MacArthur and the statement by the repre- sentative of the United States of America in the Secu- rity Council on that report [519th meeting] represent a distortion of the facts and do not correspond to the truth. Since MacArthur's denunciation is unilateral, ten- dentious and undeserving of any confidence, any deci- sion based on that report must necessarily be incorrect. Thus, the mere fact that the joint draft resolution submitted by the de1egation of the United States and the delegations supporting it is based on a unilateral and tendentious report by an American general hostile to the Chinese people, is enough to prove that the draft resolution can be neither objective nor just. Nor can it be accepted. In addition to that, the joint draft resolution refers to a resolution by a group of members of the Security Council adopted on 25 June this year, a resolution which is illegal. It also refers to the resolution of the General Assembly of 7 October this year, which is also illega1. Both these resolutions were imposed dicta- torially by the Anglo-American bloc in gross violation of the United Nations Charter. As everyone knows, the USSR delegation protested against these resolutions, both in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. In substance, the draft resolution now submitted, based as it is on the two above-mentioned resolutions, is also a gross violation of the Charter and consequently is illegal. With regard to the purposes of this resolution, it is not difficult to see that its intention is to justify and further conceal United States aggression both against Korea and against the People's Republic of China, and to secure the extension of American aggression in the Far East. In view of the above, the delegation of the Soviet Union protests against this draft resolution and will vote against it. Mr. LIMB (Republic of Korea) : The presence of the troops of a new enemy in Korea and their savage attacks against the forces of the United Nations and the Republic of Korea, as repOf'ted by General Mac- Arthur on 5 November, constitute a most serious development. While the troops of the United Nations, shoulder to shoulder with my country's forces, are fighting and dying for the independence and freedom of Korea and for the democracy and peace of the world, this new foe now appears on the scene to add heavier tol1s to these forces and to chal1enge the intent of the United Nations. This challenge and this opposition must of necessity be removed with the same promptness and vigour with which the challenge of 25 June was met. l need not remind this august body of the great prestige and the confidence which the people of my country and of the whole world have increasingly reposed in the United Nations since that fateful day in June. land my coun- try have the supreme faith that the United Nations will exercise its enhanced authority to deal with the present unprovoked and lawless aggression with equal deter- mination and equal vigour, so that justice, democracy and freedom may prevail in the world. Just at a moment when the forces of our enemy were about to become completely defeated under the great leadership of General Douglas MacArthur of the United Nations forces, when our troops deserve a needed rest, when the peoples of the world were expecting the tidings of peace and when the stricken people of my country were rolling up their sleeves to rebuild their homes and communities upon the ashes of a savage and devastating war, a new foe has made a thrust and threatens to dash these hopes and endeavours to naught. An intolerable situation has arisen, and it has to be removed prompt1y and vigorously if humanity is to be preserved and if world authority is to be upheld. l am reminded of the Japanese aggression on Man- churia in 1931. At that time the Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. Stimson, did his best to arouse world opinion and to secure co-operation from other great Powers to stop it, but without results. The result of that is weIl known. The Japanese invaded Manchuria. Then they invaded North China, then Central and South China, and later on, in collaboration with Hitler and Mussolini, they attacked Pearl Harbor. Then came the Second World War. By the same token, if similar action and similar attacks are not stopped, the world may not know when it will get the same results. Aside from the problems of international politics, the sheer weight of human suffering as a result of the Communist aggression in Korea is staggering. Few nations have ever suffered such devastation as has been visited upon Korea. Millions of men, women and children have been driven from their homes and are without food, c10thing or shelter. Practically every major city in Korea has been smashed to pieces. Hundreds of villages are completely destroyed. Our industries have ceased operation, and most of them are in ruins. Our bridges, railways, tunnels and roads have suffered devastating damage. ~.. This is an important matter that this august body should keep in mind when it considers the problems of the invasion by the Chinese Communists. l am con- vinced that the future security of Korea therefore lies in the full adherence ta the principles of the United Nations. 'vVe seek no expansion beyand our borders. We threaten no nation and no people. Our ardent desire is ta mind our own business in fruitful and mutually helpful co-operation with the other free peoples of the world. We will always stand as we have stood in the face of this present attack. We will defend our northern boundary along the Yalu and the Tumen Rivers and the Ever-'vVhite Mountains. We will stand against invasion from whatever quarter it may come. We most certainly will not let one single inch of Korean sail be seized or mishandled by any Power or combination of Powers. We shall give our strength in co-operative action with the United Nations, just as the United Nations has lent its strength ta us. Thus, ta punish world criminals and ta protect the peace-Ioving peoples, now is the time and Korea is the place to build a defensive force which has been urged on this body so often and so earnestly. The question before the Council is a solemn one. The decisions ta be taken on this ques- tion of the invasion of my homeland are vital bath ta the welfare of my people and to the destiny of the world. By the Security Council's courageous action against the unlawful aggression of the Korean Communists, the prestige and the authority of the United Nations were enormously enhanced beyoncl expectation. It is the prayer of aIl humanity toc1fty that this great world Organization shall continue on the same noble course to save freedom from the evil forces of unprovoked and lawless aggression. l want to say a few words about the sacrifices being made by the troops of the United Nations. These boys - yom boys, your friends' boys - have sailed thou- sands of miles ta Korea not because they love Korea itself sa much, but because they believed in the prin- ciples of freedom and democracy and iustice and truth, Side by side with these boys from the Allied coun- tries, Korean troops are putting up a magnificent fight for the same principles and the same purpose. At the same time, may l also remind the Council of the state- ment made by the President of the Republic on 30 October to the effect that the President and the Gov- ernment and people of Korea will always co-operate with the workings and the organization of the United Nations; and they are now impatiently waiting for the iJ.rrival of the Korean Commission which has just been created to help rehabilitate and unify Korea. coréennes pour rappeler 30 qu'il le Nations impatience créer l'unification The work of the United Nations in Korea has always been welcomed by the people of Korea, and l am sure that after the frontier of the 38th parallel has been removed by this war the 30 million Koreans will more than ever welcome the work of the United Nations in Korea. été 30 davantage, 38ème

In view of the late hour, l suggest that we should adjourn and meet again at 3 p.m. tomorrow. The agenda will be the same, that is to say we shall first complete consideration of the question of Korea. In that connexion, we shaH hear an interpretation and then a proposaI by the USSR representative. After that the Council could take up the Palestine question. Are there any objections to my proposaI? Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): l should like to read the first three pages of the document to which l refer):ed. It shows the position of the Government of the People's Republic of China on the question we are discussing. l insist that this should be done today. Tt is only three pages and we have enough time for that. Mr. GROSS (United States of America): In view of the nature of the statement made by the representative of the Soviet Union, l should like respectfully to request permission to speak for the purpose of reading a statement which will take about six or seven minutes. l wish to read it now.

l am entirely at the Council's disposaI. Two proposaIs have been made: one, by the USSR delegation, to read the first three pages of document S/1902; the other, by the United States representative, to hear a statement by him. If there are no objections from the Council, we shaH agree with both these proposaIs. Mr. PROTITCH (Secretary of the Security Council) : The foHowing is the text of the first three pages of the k statement made on 11 November 1950 by the represen- " tative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Chinese r People's Republic: "The MacArthur report [5/1884] and Austin's statement [519th meeting] are from beginning to end a perversion of the facts and completely contrary to "The Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China continues as before to demand a peaceful settlement of the Korean question, but the Chinese people has no fear of the threats of any aggressors. "Immediately after the beginning of its aggressive war in Korea, the United States sent its fleet into the waters of Taiwan (Formosa), which belongs to China. It then sent its air forces to invade the air space of North-East China and carried out bombings. The United Nations took under consideration a charge brought by the Chinese Government that the United States fleet had invaded the waters of Taiwan and is ready to discuss this charge. In the 1ast three months numerous cases have been noted of United States aircraft violating the air borders of China, bombing Chinese territory, killing Chinese civilians and destroying Chinese property. The full tale of the crimes committed in l'\orth-East China by the United States air forces which have invaded Korea is given below. Recently the number of air attacks has been increasing daily. These crimes committed by the United States armed forces, which are violating the territorial sovereignty of China and threatening its security, have alarmed the whole Chinese people. Righteously indignant, many Chinese citizens are expressing a desire to help the Korean people and resist American agression. Facts have shown that the aim of United States aggression in Korea is not only Korea itself but also the extension of aggression to China. The question of the independent existence of the downfall of Korea has always been closely linked with the security of China. To help Korea and repel United States aggression means to protect our own homes and our own country. It is, therefore, completely natural for the Chinese people to be ready to help Korea and offer resistance to United States aggression. This natural desire of the Chinese people to help Korea and offer resistance to United States aggression has a whole series of precedents in world history, a fact which no one can deny. Everyone knows that in the eighteenth century the progressive people of France, led and inspired by Lafayette, gave similar voluntary assistance to the American people in their 'iVar of Independence. Before the Second World War denfocrats from all countries of the world, including Britishers and Americans, also helped by similar volunteer action the Spanish people in its civil war against Franco. The whole world admitted that those acts were lawful. "The spontaneous assistance of the Chinese people in Korea and their resistance to United States aggres- "The sincere desire of the Chinese to assist the Koreans against United States aggression is absolutely natural, just, magnanimous and lawful. The Chinese People's Government considers that there are no grounds for hindering the despatch to Korea of volunteers wishing to take part, under the command of the Government of the Korean People's Democratic Republic, in the great liberation struggle of the Korean people against United States aggression. As a result of the invasion of Korea and of Chinese Taiwan by American imperialists, and as a result of the bombing raids on North-East China, the security of China has been placed in peril. And now they dare to describe as "foreign intervention" the rightful action of the Chinese people in rendering voluntary .help to the Korean people who are resisting the United States. The American imperialists have forgotten that they themselves are interveners and aggressors. The voluntary action of the Chinese people who are helping Korea to resist the United States has been undertaken for the purpose of repelling American intervention and aggression against China and Korea. "The American aggressors have gone too far. After rnaking a 5,000 mile journey across the Pacific, they invaded the territories of China and Korea. In the language of the American imperialists that is not agression on their part, whereas the just struggle of the Chinese and Koreans in defence of their land and their people is aggression. The world knows who is right and who is wrong. Aggressors cannot be permitted arbitrarily to distort the facts. Aggressors will never be able to conceal their bestial countenance. The peoples of China and Korea resolutely demand that the United States aggressors and their collaborators shall cease their aggressive activities and withdraw their invasion forces. If the aggression is not stopped, the struggle against aggression will never cease. "The United States Government itself provoked the civil war in Korea; the United States Government itself unleashed a war of aggression against Korea; the United States itself invaded Taiwan, which belongs to China, bombed Chinese territory and threatened the t security of China. From the outset the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China denounced the war of aggression in Korea waged by the United States Government and demanded a peaceful ?ecision of the Korean question. At the present time ~t likewise resolutely denounces. the war of aggression m Korea carried on by the Umted States Government and calls for a peaceful settlement of the Korean question. Mr. GROSS (United States of America): There has just been read into the record of the proceedings a letter from a representative of the Communist régime of China. The charges and allegations in that letter are, l think, completely answered by a statement made today by President Truman, which l now have the honour to report to the Security Council. "The Security Council has before it a resolution concerning the grave situation caused by the Chinese Communist intervention in Korea. This resolution introduced by the representatives of Cuba, Ecuador, France, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States, reaffirms that it is a policy of the United Nations to hold the Chinese frontier with Korea inviolate, to protect fully legitimate Korean and Chinese interests in the frontier zone, and to withdraw the United Nations forces from Korea as soon as stability has been restored and a unified, independent and democratic government established throughout Korea. "This resolution further calls upon all States and authorities to withdraw immediately from Korea all individuals or units which are assisting the North Korean forces. l am sure that all members of the Security Council genuinely interested in restoring peace in the Far East will not only support this resolution, but also use their influence to obtain compliance with it. United Nations forces now are being attacked from the safety of a privileged sanctuary. Planes operating from bases in China cross over into Korea to attack United Nations ground and air forces, and then flee back across the border. Chinese Communists and North Korean Communist forces are being reinforced, supplied and equipped from bases behind the safety of the Sino-Korean border. "The pretext which the Chinese Communists advance for taking offensive action against United Nations forces in Korea from behind the protection afforded by the Sino-Korean border is their professed belief that thesa. forces intend to carry hostilities across the border into Chinese territory. "The resolution and every other action taken by the United Nations demonstrate beyond any doubt that no such intention has ever been entertained. On the contrary, it has been repeatedly stated that it is the intention of the United Nations to localize the conflict and to withdraw its forces from Korea as soon as the situation permits. Speaking for the United "If the Chinese Communist authorities or people believe otherwise, it can only be because they are being deceived by those whose advantage it is to prolong and extend hostilities in the Far East against the interests of all Far Eastern people. "It should be understood, however, that a desire for peace, in order to be effective, must be shared by all concerned. If the Chinese Communists share the desire of the United Nations for peace and security in the Far East they will not take upon themselves the responsibility for obstructing the objectives of the United Nations in Korea."

l take the Council's consent to hear document Sj1902 and the United States representative's statement as also implying consent to adjourn our meeting and to resume our work tomorrow, Friday, 17 November at 3 p.m. That being the understanding, l announce the meeting closed. SALES AGENTS FOR UNITED DEPOSITAIRES DES PUBLICATIONS FlNLAND - FINLANDE Akateemlnen Klrjakauppa, tatu, Helsinki. FRANCE Editioll$ A. Pedone. Paris V. C;REECE - GRECE "eleftheroudakis," LIbrairie ...1.. Plac. d. la Constitution, GUATEMALA Goubaud & Ciao lida. num. 28, 2 do Piso, Guatemala HAITI Max Bouchereau, Librairie velle." Boite postal. Prince. HONDURAS Libreria Panamerlcana, Fuente, Tegucigalpa. ItELAND -ISLANDE Bokaverzlun Sigfusar Austurstreti 18, Reykjavik. INDIA-INDE Oxford Book & Stationery House, New Delhi. INDONESIA - INDONESIE JaJasan Pembangunan, 84, Djakarta. IRAQ-IRAK Mackenzle's Bookshop, Station...s, Baghdad. IRAN "elob·Khanah Danesh, AIIenue, Teheran. l1fELAND - IRLANDE Rlbernian General Agency cial Buildings, Dame ISRAEL Leo Blumstein, P.O.B. )5 AII.nby Road, Tel·Avlv ITALY - ITALIE Colibri S.A., Via Chloss.tto LEBANON - LIBAN Librairie universelle, LIBERIA J. Mamolu Kamara, Streets, Monrovia. LUXEMBOURG librairie J. Schummer, Luxembourg. MEXICO - MEXIQUE Editorial Hermes, cat 41, Mexico, O. NEïHERLANDS - N.V. Martinus Nijhoff. 9, 's-Gravenhage. NEW lEALAND- NOUVELLE·lELANDE United Nations Association land, G.P.O. 1011, NICARAGUA Or. Ramiro Ramlrez Publlcacfones, Managua, ARGENTINA - ARGENTINE liditorlal Sudamericana S.A., Calle Alsina 500, Buenos Aires. AUSTRALIA - AUSTRALIE H. A. Goddard (Pty.!, Ltd., 255a George Street, Sydney, N.S.W. BELGIUM - BELGIQUE Agence et Messagerfes de fa Prer;se S.A•• 14·22 rue du Persil, Bruxelles. W. H. Smith & Son 71-75 Boulevaro Adolphe·Max, Bruxelles. BOLIVIA - BOLIVIE libreria Cientifica y Literarta, Avenida 1& de Julio 21&, Casilla 972, La paz BRAlIL - BRESIL Llvraria Agtr, Rua Mexico 96·B, caiu Postal 3291, Rio de Janeiro. CANADA - CANADA The Ryerson Press, 299 Queen StI'eét West, Toronto. eEYlON - CEYLAN . The A~ociated Newspapers of Ceyton, ltd., Lake Ho",e, Colombo. CHILE - CHili Librerla Iven., Calle Moneda 122, Santiago. CHINA - CHINE The Commercial Press, lid., 211 Honan Raad, Shanghai. COLOMBIA - COLOMBIE lIbrerla Latina lida., Apartado A~reo 4411, BogoU. COSTA RICA - COSTA·RICA Trejos Hermanos, )\partado 1313, San José. C.uBA La Casa Belga, René de Smedt, O'Reilly 455, la Habani1. CZECKO$LOVAKIA - • TCHECOSLOVAQUIE C..ko.laven.kY Spi.ovatel Naradnl l'Flda 9, Praha 1. DENMARK - DANEMARK EInar Munlcsgaard, N~rregade 6, K~benhavn. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC - REPUBLIQUE DOMINICAINE Ubrerfa Dominicana, Calle Mercedes rJo. 49, Apartado &5&, Ciudad TruJillo. ECUADOR ~ EQUATEUR Muiioz Hermanos y Cia., Plaza deI Teatro, Quito. EGYPT- EGYPTE· Librairte "la Renaissance d'Egypte,U 9 SH. Adly Pasha, Calro. El SALVADOR - SALVADOR Manuel Navas y Ciao "la Casa dei libre Barato" la Avenida sur num. >7, San Salvador. ETHIOPIA - ETHIOPIE Agence Ethiopienne de Publicité, Box 8, Addis-Abeba. United Nutions publications can tvrther b. obtalnad Ilom the foliowing bookseliers: GERMANY - ALLEMAGNE AUSTRIA - AUTRICHE Buchhandlung Elwert & Meurer, Haupt.' B. Wüllerstorff, Waagplatz, strasse, 101, Berlin-Schëneberg. Salzburg. W. E. Saarbach, Frankenstrasse, 14, Koln·Junkersdorf. JAPAN - JAPOJ\l Alexa.der Horn, Spiegelgasse, 9, Maru,en Co., ltd., Wi.sbaden. Nlhonbashi, Tokyo Ord.rs and inqufrie. from countrles wh.r••alos agents h..o not ,.t b.en appointed ma, bo sent to: Sales and errculation Section, Unitod Nation., New York, U.S.A.; or Seles Section, United Nation. Office. Palais des Halion., G.neva, Switz.rland. Printed in Canada Priee: 30 eents (or equivalent in