S/PV.528 Security Council

1 invite the representatives of the People's Republic of China and of the Government of South Korea to take seats at the Council table. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): It is the established practice that, before the Security Council proceeds to discuss the sUQstance of a question on its agenda, the most important documents reçeived by the Council are read to the meeting. In this particular case 1 am referring to document Sj1918, the cablegram dated 27 November 1950 from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the " Korean Peop1e's Repub~ic to the ~r.esident of ~he Secu- 't rity Council concernmg atrOCltles commltted by

Has any member any observations to make on the USSR representative's proposaI? Do Members of the Security Council agree to hear the reading of the document to which reference has been made? l interpret silence as consent. l therefore request the Assistant Secretary-General to read document S/1918. CABLEGRAM DATED 27 NOVEMBER 1950 FRÛ'M THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE KOREAN PEOPLNS DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL CONCERNI'NG THE COM- PLAINT OF AGGRESSION AGAINST THE REPUBLI'C OF KOREA "1 have the honour to make the following statement and ask you to communicate this statement to the Members of the United Nations Security Council for their information. "The Government of the Korean People's Democratie Republic is in possession of copious information re- garding the bestial reprisaIs committed by the American and Syngman Rhee forces in the regions of North and South Korea occupied by them. Wherever the inter- ventionists and their Korean accomplices tread, the blood of Korean patriots fighting for the freedom and independence of their native country flows in streams. In the territory of South Korea where the troops of the People's Army were formerly located and the terri- tory North of the 38th Parallel now occupied by forces of the American imperialists and the supporters of Syngman Rhee, the American and Syngman Rhee Authorities are liquidating the democratic achievements, rights and freedoms of the people. They are setting up a cruel terrorist régime and throwing into prison, torturing and killing members of the democratic parties and public organizations, and even members of their families, ail those who have helped to introduce demo- cratic changes and to establish popular organs of authority, ail those who have given the people's com- mittees and the People's Army assistance of any kind. On 29 September in the Sodemun police department in Seoul, a number of American soldiers and Syngman Rhee followers killed several members of the depart- ment, cutting off their hands and feet. The corpses were exposed on public view. On 30 September, in Seoul, members of the Syngman Rhee detachment entrusted with the annihilation of communists dragged citizen Lima along the Dzonno Street and then murdered him, on the charge of having worked for an organ of the people's authority. On 1 October, in Seoul, the Syng- man Rhee Authorities shot without trial or investigation outside the Sinkhyn Mining Research Institute 19 townspeople accused of sympathy with the communists. This slaughter was conducted under the direction of ~! Seoul were shot on the banks of the Hangan River for having belonged to a trade union under the influence of the Labour Party. Sorne 20 young people were shot outside the Seoul Court of Justice for having joined the Union of Democratic Youth. On 5 October Syngman Rhee supporters dragged a 30-year-old man tied to an automobile along the Iljtsiro Street in Seoul, announc- ing that they would deal similarly with anyone who sympathized with the cOl11munists. On 20 October in Chunchon Syngman Rhee supporters cut off the hands of a 9-year-old boy because he had previously welcomed the People's Army with a republican flag. On 20 October, at Sangju, a 62-year-old woman was killed because her son was a member of the Labour Party. Before her death she was shut up in a shed without food for several days. On 22 October, in eastern Pyongan, the Americans shot 16 workers of a factory of agricultural machinery accused of sympathy with the People's Army. American soldiers together with the Syngman Rhee Authorities are carrying out mass executions of members of the local organs of the people's authority, members of the Labour Party and other democratic parties and public bodies. Contrary to the generally recognized principles of law they are even persecuting completely innocent members of their families inc1uding women, old men and children. Thus in Pyongan, for example, the Americans and the Syng- man Rhee Authorities have shot more than 7,000 persons, more than 2,700 in Haeju, more than 1,400 in Deren, more than 1,000 in Sonnym, more than 1,200 in Sunchon, more than 700 in Kechen, more than 900 in Anju, more than 800 in Tendyu, and about 1,400 in Senchen and Paekchon. In the localities occupied by the American Authorities, American soldiers are , violating and torturing Korean women'. On 29 Sep- tember, in Sinchon (Seoul), seven American soldiers raped the Korean woman Tsoi. American troops in Pyongyang arrested over 1,000 women belonging to the families of members of the Labour Party and women workers belonging to people's committees, sub- jecting them to barbarous torture and shooting them after having raped them. In Sonchen, Americans and Syngman Rhee followers brutally tortured an eighteen- year-old girl because her brother was a member of the Labour Party. They cut off her nose and breasts and then killed her. In a village ten kilometres from Auchen, American soldiers raped a woman who had given birth to a child a week earlier. In all the towns of North and South Korea where there are considerable numbers of American troops, the American and Syngman Rhee Authorities are organizing so-called detachments for servicing American soldiers, and for that purpose are recruiting women between the ages of fifteen and thirty- five. These detachments are, in fact, organizing prosti- tution. The American and Syngman Rhee troops not only put to death innocent citizens, but also pillage their property. On 29 September American troops and soldiers of the Syngman Rhee Army entered the house of the Chairman of the "Buk A Hendon" Women's "In order to conceal the atrocltJes committed by American and Syngman Rhee troops in Korea and to mislead world public opinion, the American imperialists forced the United Nations Commission on Korea, which is an obedient tool of aggression in the hands of the American imperialists, to sign and submit a number of reports on the alleged atrociti~ committed by the Korean People's Army in the territory North of the 38th Faralle1. These reports of the United Nations Commission on Korea, drawn up at the dictation of the American intelligence service, which has become a master in provocation, are mendacious from beginning to end. The provocations of the American imperialists cannot deceive either the Korean people or world public opinion. The war has taught our people many things. "The Government of the People's Democratic Repub- lie of Korea, which expresses the will of the Korean people, again protests energetically against the above- mentioned atrocities of the American and Syngman Rhee troops in Korea, which constitute a flagrant violation of the rules of international law and human morality and proclaims that the responsibility for those atrocities lies entirely with the Government of the United States of America, as the organizer and inter- ventionist in Korea. The Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Korea again insists that the United Nations, whose flag is being used blasphemously ta mask American aggression in Korea, should take the necessary measures to put an end to such atrocities by American armed forces in Kor'ea. "(Signed) PAK HEN EN Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People's Democratie Republic of Korea" Mr. LIMB (Republic of Korea) : The immediate past history of the war in Korea is known to aIl. The Secu- rity Council has acted promptly and vigorously for the sake of justice and humanity when on 25 June a wanton, unprovoked aggression was suddenly unleashed by the communists against the Republic of Korea. Fifty-three of the fifty-nine Member States of the United Nations quickly responded to Korea's calI for help. The United Nations forces are now beating back the invaders under the inspiring leadership of the Com- mander-in-Chief of the United Nations Forces, General - Douglas MacArthur. A reunited Korea was in sight. The order of the United Nations to restore peace and security throughout Korea was on the verge of fulfilment. Then, again suddenly, the Chinese Communist Army, without pro- vocation, without justification, wantonly invaded the sail of Korea. This massive Chinese Communist Army, supplied with weapons of every description, chiefly from the arsenals of the international communist heart- land, was driven into this savage warfare against Korea, a friendly neighbour. Shells.and bullets of thi~ Çhinese Communist Army are at thls very moment kI1hng the k men of the United Nations and the civilian population 1. of my country. This is a plain, unwarranted aggression. l point my fi!1ger, a~ these representatives of the Chinese commu111st reglme, and l ask: Why do they Does history afford another instance to match this grossest international crime? It does not, so far as my search of history can prove. The tragic aspect of it all is this: During the scores of centuries in which Korea and China have existed as neighbours, the Korean people have never committed a solitary act of aggression against the Chinese people. The Korean people have no enmity towards the Chinese people, even today. The Korean people know - and they know at first hand, from the Chinese prisoners of war - that the Chinese people are the dupes and pawns of the masters of international communism in Moscow, just as the people of North Korea were. The officiais of the Chinese Communists are but puppets and slaves of these masters. Chinese soldiers have not willingly gone into battle against United Nations forces: they have been forced into battle by those masters. The very fact that, while the friendship between the peoples of China and Korea is still deep, the communist oppressors are attacking the Korean people proves that the communists are not the leaders of the Chinese people: they are only usurpers of those people and their rights. The communists were fighting the Nationalists at the same time the Nationalists were fighting the Japanese. Thus, the Chinese Communists were, in fact, allies of the Japanese. The Nàtionalists chased mit the Japanese. Now the communists are trying to take the credit. After having witnessed the min, the devastation, the blood, the carnage which communist aggression has visited upon my country, l marvel at the great honours, bordering upon reverence and adoration, at all the pomp and splendour which the representatives of those communists are receiving from some of the delegations here. l be1ieve in diplomatic amenities when they are fair and equal for all- friend or foe. l cannot see, however, why the men whose soldiers are right now killing our own sons and broihers should be made heroes in the eyes of the world, with such great fanfare and chatter. Since when have Chou En-Iai's insolent cablegrams become binding orders and instructions to this august body, to be carried out in servility and awe? Your desire for world peace is evidenced by the mere presence here of this representation of the Chinese The "mission" they sent into Korea without warning was an overpowering army, trained, equipped and directed by their alien masters. There was no fairness or decency attached to that "mission". It came with planes, tanks and guns. It burns, it loots, it destroys, it kills. Callous brutality and atrocious ill-treatment of the civilian population and prisoners of war are its ethics. How many United Nations captives are being held today in Manchuria? Nobody knows. We can only pray to God that starvation and unattended illness may not be too rampant. The rows of white crosses above which flies the blue flag of the United Nations are mute evidence of communist diplomacy. The pawns of the Communists, the Chinese soldiers, compelled to fight on Korean soil, are increasing those white crosses right now while l am speaking. l charge the Chinese communist régime with criminal, wilful, wanton, unprovoked aggression upon the Republic of Korea. l charge it with endangering the peace of the world. l charge it with inviting the cataclysmic disaster upon all mankind by its insane, immoral and monstrous conduct. l demand that the Chinese communist régime with- draw its troops from Korea forthwith. l demand that it release the military and civilian prisoners of war. The Chinese communist reglme knows that it need have no iear of an invasion of its territory by Korean troops or by United Nations forces. It knows full well that even this assurance is unnecessary to the great Chinese people. Peace in the Orient and peace in the world are indivisible today. But they are also unattainable unless Communism halts its mad march of world conquest. It must be made to haIt. This is the stern reality and warning of the hour. Korea will never molest any of its neighbours. At the same time, it will never yield even one inch of its tool~ a place at the Couneil table. Mr. TSIANG (China): Yesterday afternoon [527th meeting] this Council heard one of the strangest state- ments in its existence. 1 saw in that statement nothing Chinese whatever. Until yesterday afternoon 1 had not thought it possible for any Chinese, even a communist Chinese, to allow himseH to be led around by his nose to do the bidding of his master. Yesterday afternoon's statement was, in the first place, a concentrated attack on what the speaker called the "imperialism of the United States". Imperialism is a very complex phenomenon. 1 do not think we need to go into ail the complexities. 1 think it is better for us to confine ourseIves to such simple facts as can be found in the elementary school textbooks. 1 say that because unless we keep a firm grasp of the elementary facts of history, we shall get lost in this maze of pro- paganda here. The relations between my country and the United States began informally about 167 years ago, when clipper ships from the New England coast visited Canton. Formai relations began in 1844 with the Treaty of Wang-Bea. Therefore, the American people and the United States Government have been at work in China for 167 and 106 years respectively. And yet, this so-called great imperialist country, after such a long period of time, has no imperialist fruit to show to the world. Any elementary school textbook will show you that the United States has not heId and does not hold a single square inch of Chinese territory; any school text- book will show you that the United States does not control a port or even haH a port in any part of China. The elementary school textbooks can also tell you that the United States Government and the American people do not own or control a single railway, or haH a rail- way, or a single mine, be it a coal mine, iron mine or gold mine in any part of China on the mainland or on the island of Formosa. • That, certainly, is a strange result after more than a century of imperialistic efforts. That cauId onlv be due to the laziness or the stupidity or the inefficienéy of the American people. 1 wish that more peoples of the world showed snch stupidity, such inefficiency, such neglect of their business. In the statement we heard yesterday, a great deal was said about American imperialist designs against Uni~ed States ?as not asked my government for any special econOlnJc. or 'political privileges. If, by sorne strange and traglc dlsaster of nature, Taiwan should come to be totally submerged, the United States Gov- ernment and the American people would together suffer a loss of .p;operty somewhere in the neighbourhood of a few mI1b~:m dolla~s. T?a~, again, is a very strange result of thls awful Impenabsm that has been described to us yesterday afternoon. The United States Government has sent the Seventh Fleet to the Straits of Taiwan. The. presence of that f1eet had the consent of my government, the only legitimate government in China. Those are the results of the so-called United States imperialism; that is also what you will find in any elementary school textbook. l now wish to say that that result cannot be due to lack of opportunity. We do not have to go far back in history; we only need to refresh our memories in regard to events that took place dur~ng the Second World War. Before giving aid to China in fighting Japan, the United States Government could have demanded certain conditions from my Gov- ernment, but in point of fact it demanded no conditions whatever. That policy of the United States Govern- ment was in strange contrast to the policy of the Gov- ernment of the Soviet Union. Before the Government of the USSR agreed to enter the war against Japan, China had to yield to the Soviet Union the naval port of Port Arthur for the use of the Soviet f1eet, together with special privileges in the commercial port of Dairen, and haH control of the trunk railways of Manchuria. No, the United States Government asked nothing of China for the great aid that it gave us during the Second World War. After the war, the Americans said good-bye to us, they left China and took nothing away from my country. That, again, was in strange contrast to the conduct of the Soviet Army in Man- churia. The Soviet Army, after occupation of Man- churia, took away from those provinces of China huge quantities of machinery, estimated by the Pawley Mis- sion to be worth about 800 million dollars, but estimated by my government to be worth two thousand million dollars. In addition to the removal of Chinese machinery from Manchuria, the Soviet Army of occupation demanded from my government that we should agree to set up joint companies for the exploitation of the natural resources of Manchuria, joint on the basis of 50 per cent for the Soviet UniGn and 50 per cent for China. The American forces which came to help us during the war did nothing of the kind. That again is a very strange contrast. l have told you facts which could be found in element- ary school te:x;t-books, relatin.g to th~ so-called imperial- ism of the Umted States. l wlsh to glve some elementarv school text-book facts in regard to the imperialism of We in China have suffered from imperialism. No country has taken so much territory from China as Russia, Czarist and Soviet. 1ndeed, Russia has taken more territory from China than all the imperialist Powers together. That is what elementary school text- books wouId tell us. That speech yesterday did not only distort this business of imperialism, but it also distorted the action of the United Nations. 'liVe were told that Japanese imperialism against China began in Korea and Formosa, that the second phase was to be in Manchuria and the third phase was to cover all of China. We were told that the United States today is following the footpath of Japanese imperialism, and that the United Nations is an accomplice, that it is conniving, that it is abetting that imperialism of the United States. 1s not that inter- pretation of the action of the Security Council a phantasm? l participated in the actions of the Security Council and of the General Assembly relating to Korea. l think l know the yearnings of the representatives in regard to this matter. The United Nations in the latter part of June faced a great crisis. The peace-loving nations of the world hoped that that aggression in Korea would not develop into a big war. l know for certain that every representative who supported the action of the United Nations wished the United Nations action in Korea, in the first place, to protect the independence of Korea and, in the second place, to strengthen the cause of world peace. Nobody here, nobody among the fifty- three delegations supporting the United Nations action ever thought, whether in their hours awake or in their sleep, of making Korea a corridor of aggression for the United States. That is simply a phantasm. The purposes of the United Nations are, c1ear. They are stated in our formaI resolutions. So far as the delegations are concerned, almO!>t every delegation has put its standpoint on record. There is not the least talk of using Korea for aggression against China, not to say any plan or design. That idea has been totally strange to the thought of the United Nations. The speaker yesterday began by c1aiming China's permanent seat in the Security CounciI. The Charter of the United Nations provides the Republic of China with a permanent seat in this CounciI. That seat is Th~t seat has not been given to a puppet régime in Chma to serve the aggressive purposes of its master. The speaker yesterday spoke about Formosa (Tai- wan) and cited the Cairo and Potsdam Agreements. The statesmen at Cairo and Potsdam indeed agreed to restore Formosa to China. But it was to be restored to China with the idea of developing its resources for the bendit of the Chinese people. It was not the pur- pose of the statesmen of Cairo and Potsdam to give Formosa to a puppet régime in China so that that régime might transmit it to its imperial master at Moscow in order that he could use the resources of Formosa to destroy the freedom of the peoples and upset the peace of the world. Mr. Wu Hsru-cHuAN (Central People's Govern- ment of the People's Republic of China) (translated from Chinese): During the speech l made yesterday l declared that the representative of the Kuomintang reactionary remnant clique had no right whatsoever to represent China. For that reason l consider that there is absolutely no necessity to give him an answer regarding the remarks he made today. The so-called Chinese Kuomintang reactionary remnant clique, the representatives thereof in the United Nations and in all the organs of the United Nations, are here merely as faithful followers of the American imperialists. Other than that, they have no business here, and l wish to remind the Security Council once again that this Kuomintang reactionary representative in front of me, disowned and denounced by the Chinese people, has no right whatsoever to represent China. l have serious doubts whether this man who spoke before me is a Chinese himself. The 475 million great people of China speak a language which, it appears, he does not know. Regarding the complaint of United States aggression in Taiwan, launched by the Central People's Govern- ment of the People's Republic of China, l wish to reserve my right to speak again during the discussion of this question. Mr. CHAUVEL (France) (translated from French) : On 10 November [521st meeting] the French delega- tion submitted to the Couneil a draft resolution [5/1894] co-sponsored by Cuba, Ecuador, the United States of America, Norway and the United Kingdom. In doing so, it emphasized that the draft was of great substantive importance. It alludes to the motives and the nature of the intervention by the United Nations- l stress "the United Nations" - in Korea. It specifies the purposes of that intervention and also defines com- prehensively the policy of the United Nations - l stress "the United Nations" anew - with regard to Korea. Lastly, it gives assurances and provides safeguards with regard to the inviolability of the Chinese frontier and the protection of legitimate Chinese and Korean interests in the frontier region. The motives of the six-Power action have, l think, been clearly explained. Some days before the draft Il Since the beginning of the year, the Peking Author- ities had shown the most eager desire for admission to the United Nations as representatives of China. That being so, it seemed surprising that they shoulrl oppose not merely the decisions of the Security Council, but also the United Nations troops engaged in carrying them out. If such an interpretation was regarded as exaggerated, the question arose either of misgivings about the poli- tical aims of the United Nations' intervention in Korea or of misgivings with regard to the protection of Chinese interests in the frontier region, which, as we know, are very considerable. At that particularly delicate moment, the Security Council, an organ qualified to speak on behalf of the United Nations, had to state the juridical position of the problem, define a policy and give assurances and safeguards. The draft resolution distributed as document S/1894 covers ail these special aims. It also covers - and above all- the general intention to avoid any misunder- standing which might have tragic consequences. At a time when the Peking Authorities might be led into taking action pregnant \Vith terrible consequences as a result of insufficient acquaintance with the facts of the matter or of the political, economic and administrative intentions of the United Nations, no effort should be spared to see that the facts and intentions are explained and stated with ail the required authority. The draft resolution was therefore submitted. Owing to the invitation to the Peking Authorities, and at the suggestion of the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, discussion of it was delayed until their arrivaI. Thus, eighteen days have elapsed since the draft resolution was submitted. Those eighteen days have been loaded with events; intentions, which were then obscure, have been expressed here in unambiguous and rather violent tenns. Does that mean that the draft resolution is out of date? Does that mean that ail the conclusions should immediately be drawn from the events of those eighteen days and that an outright condemnation should be sub- stituted for what was then simply a warning? The French delegation does not think so. The intentions of Peking have been expressed in -the crude and violent terms apparently appropriate to the subject. The legal facts of the matter have not thereby been changed, nor have the intentions of the United Nations; the general situation has undoubtedlv become worse. That is no reason for the United Î"\ations to be diverted from saying what it has to say; rather, it is an additional reason for it to state its position and policy, to state them in terms which will not allow of any misinter- For these reasons the French delegation wishes the Council to resume the discussion of the draft resolution submitted eighteen days ago, and hopes that it will be called upon without delay to support the text submitted by six of its members eighteen days ago. Mr. AUSTIN (United States of America) : l repeat, the problem is this: Will there be peace or war in the Far East? The world awaits anxiously the answer to that question. Yesterday, General Wu said that the Chinese people love peace. On that, we can agree. l believe that the peoples of the United Nations love peace and, for that very reason, they established this Organization. General Wu told this body that the Chinese people cannot afford to stand idly by in the face of United Nations military action in Korea, which he called "United States aggression". This United Nations action, he told us, had a dangerous tendency toward the extension of war. His régime, he told us, sees no reason whatsoever to limit the participation of Chinese Com- munists in the struggle against the United Nations. Still, l am willing to agree that the Chinese people love peace. General Wu told us that, regardless of any military measures taken in the name of the United Nations, the Chinese people are firmly determined to recover Taiwan and all other territories belonging to China, that no decision of the United Nations will prevent "action" by the Chinese people. Still, l am willing to agree that the Chinese people love peace. General Wu contrived, in the course of his speech, to challenge approximately two-thirds of the world, to defy the United Nations and to dismay friends of China. Glorifying peace, he sounded threatening. Invited here to give information and to shed light, he gave distor- tions, slanders, half-truths and outright lies, sorne big and sorne smal1. General Wu went very far yesterday to show that his hand is against all men. Let him pay heed lest he go home from this place with all men's hands against him. My delegation has no wish to explore, at this time, the details of General Wu's statement. It wouId take a long time to restore history to its previous condition. At this moment the Council should not be delayed in its effort to prevent the spread of war in Asia. At this 1. Our actions smce the establishment of the Peking régime have not been aggressive towards China or towards Korea or in Korea. During the year preceding the attack from North Korea, the United States has taken no action in Asia which could possibly he inter- preted as aggressive. It was during that period that sorne 140,000 Koreans who had fought in the Chinese armies began to be transferred by the Peking régime to the armies of North Korea. This was going on after the United States had withdrawn its military units from the Republic of Korea. It was solely following the attack of the Soviet-con- trolled puppet régime in North Korea against the Republic of Korea that the United States and the United Nations took up arms and that the United States returned to Korea together with the forces of other Members of the United Nations. The United States action in respect to Formosa was taken solely as a result of that Korean adventure. General \\1u misrepresents all this history in his attempts to depict the United States as an aggressor. He remains silent about the United Nations Commis- sion on Korea, its labours to unify that country peace- fully, its reports on the aggression from the North, its reports signed by representatives of Australia, China, El Salvador, France, India, the Philippines and Turkey. Ignoring these things, he put a question to the United States: vVhat is Korea to you, to your security, Korea being 5,000 miles away from you? This is a most illuminating question, because it is being asked by sorne one asserting himself the right to a seat in the Security Counci!. Korea has been for three years, and is today, a United Nations problem, involving United Nations commissions, prolonged con- sideration in the United Nations, and now for five months the agony of United Nations fighting forces. And what does General Wu say of all this? "An insolent provocation which the Chinese people absolutely cannot tolerate." General Wu declined to answer my questions directly. But here, as elsewhere. he did answer them, either by his silence - when he was bound to speak by the circumstances - or by the statements he made here revealing the attitude of an aggressor. vVhat must the Council do next? ln the opinion of my government, it must lay aside for the time being the fantastic charge of United States aggression against Formosa and proceed with the consideration of the six- Power draft resolution on Korea - document S/1894. . Soon aft~r the pending draft resolution had been mt~oduced ln the Security Council by the represen- tatlve ~f Fr~nce, 1 state~ th~t it had one central pur- pose: to bnng the fightmg ln Korea to a speedy end ~hile making sure that it does not spread". Its purpos~ IS exactly the same today. It is a resolution of action. It calls upon the Peking régime to withdraw its forces immediately from Korea and to cease its aid to a régime br.anded by the United Nations as an aggressor. It con- ta1r:s ass~rances tha~ Chinese security and legitimate Chmese lnterests wIll be protected by the United Nations. 1t is designed to localize the conflict. Com- pliance with its terms could avert the threat of war which . now hangs over Asia. 1 therefore urge the CounCl~ to proceed to act on that pending draft resolutlOn. We can best reply to General Wu's statement that his régime will not tolerate the action of the United Nations by showing that régime that the United Nations will not tolerate military action against the United Nations; the United Nations will not submit to threats; the United Nations stands against aggression. Let the Chinese c0111munist régime reflect before it persists in attacking United Nations forces and committing acts of aggression upon Korea. 1 am aware that one or two representatives may still be in need of instructions on this draft resolution, in view of the turn taken yesterday by military events and of that remarkable statement made here yesterday by General Wu. For this reason, 1 do not press for a vote now, but 1 do urge that the Council shol1ld vote upon the six-Power draft resolution in document S/1894 at its earliest possible convenience. .

1 have no more speakers on my list. Are there any members who still wish to take the floor? Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated fram Russian): Referring to the events in Korea and to the United States armed aggression in Taiwan, Mr. Austin, the United States representative, said in his statements at yesterday's and today's meetings that the gist of the problem was whether there would be war or peace in the Far East. It should be recalled in this connexion that in the first statement the USSR delegation made on the events in Korea on 3 August 1950 [482nd meeting], it declared the following: "It has, however, been shown on the basis of irrefutable data and facts that the events taking place in Korea began on 25 June as a result of the provocative attack by the forces of the South Korean authorities on frontier areas of the Korean People's Democratic Republic"... and " ... that this attack was carried out in accordance with a previously thought out and prepared plan under the direction Speaking during the General Assembly - both in the First Committee and at plenary meetings of the Assembly - Mr. Vyshinsky, the head of the USSR delegation, cited facts and data, adduced documents and maps showing that the South had prepared and carried out .an aggression against North Korea under the leadership and guidance of American ruling circ1es and their civilian and military representatives in Korea. Of aIl the facts cited in the statements made by the USSR delegation in the Security Council and at the fifth session of the General Assembly to prove that there had been an American aggression, not one has been denied by the United States delegation. As early as the beginning of August [482nd meeting], the USSR delegation to the Security Council pointed out that " ... the local conflict within Korea, arising as a result of United States provocation, has been used by the ruling circ1es of the United States not only as a pretext for military intervention in the internaI affairs of Korea, but also as a screen for expanding its aggression over wide regions of Asia, from the shores of Korea and Japan to the Viet nam territory, and for interference in the internaI affairs of the Chinese, Viet namese and Philippine peoples". The USSR delegation further dec1ared that "As a result of United States armed aggression in Korea, the Security Council of the United Nations is faced with two alternatives, namely peace or war. "The Security Council must make its choice: either it must decide to continue and intensify the war by throwing in even greater quantities of men and material resources, or it must decisively alter its course and follow the path of peaceful settlement to which it is being called by aIl the peace-Ioving peoples of the world, headed by the Soviet Union under its outstanding leader and teacher, the great Stalin. "United States ruling circ1es are dragging the Security Council and the United Nations towards war." Even then the USSR delegation was already calling upon the Security Council to follo~ the path of peace, the path of peaceful settlement of the Korean question. As early as the beginning of August, the USSR delegation submitted a draft resolution on behalf of the USSR Government proposing that the Security Council should discuss the question of peaceful settlement of the Korean conflict and adopt the fol1owing draft resolution [5/1668]: " (b) To put an end to the hostilities in Korea and at the same time to withdraw foreign troops from Korea." The delegation of the United States and the delegations in the Security Council which follow it rejected the USSR proposaI and imposed upon the Security Council a further discussion of the famous item "Complaint of aggression against the Republic of Korea". Later, at the beginning of October, the USSR delegation submitted to the fifth session of the General Assembly a draft resolution providing for the peaceful settlement of the Korean conflict and guaranteeing a solution to the question of Korean independence. Mr. Vyshinsky, the head of the USSR delegation, submitted a draft resolution providing that the General Assembly should recommend to the belligerent parties in Korea to cease military operations at once, and recommend to the "United States Government and the governments of other States that they should immediately withdraw their troops from Korea and thereby create the conditions which would give the Korean people the opportunity of exercising its inalienable sovereign right freely to decide its domestic political affairs. The follovving parts of that draft resolution provided for concrete measures making it possible to conduct free elections without any pressure from outside, without the interference of foreign Powers, and without the presence of foreign occupation troops in the country; for it wouId be naive to consider or suppose and dishonest to affirm that free and unhampered e1ections can be conducted in a country controlled by foreign occupation forces. AlI these proposaIs, however, were rejected by the United States delegation and the delegations of countries which frequently support the United States. It was already c1ear at the beginning of August and at the beginning of October that there was no room in the United States Government's calculations for a peaceful settlement of the Korean question. It was c1ear that in their efforts to establish world mastery the ruling circ1es of the United States had moved from a policy of preparation for aggression to the commission of direct acts of aggression when they committed an act of flagrant aggression against the peace-loving peoples of Korea and China and adopted the policy of direct intervention in the internaI affairs of these countries, attempting with the assistance of armed i?-t.ervention to prevent the Korean people from reahzmg its ancient dreams and aspirations towards the establishment of a single, free, independent and peace-loving democratic state. The facts, Mr. Austin, and the actual situation in Korea and the Far East are as l have pointed out, and not as you attempted to describe them in the speeches you made yesterday, today and on all previous occasions. As before, Mr. Austin continues to distort the facts and to give a false picture of the real situation. He obviously falsifies the history of the origin and development of the Korean question. For the sake of establishing the truth, it is necessary to recall that in December 1945, on the proposaI and insistence of the USSR Government and ML Molotov, the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, a well-known decision about Korea was taken in Moscow at the Conference of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of America and the United Kingdom. That decision fully guaranteed the rehabilitation of Korea as a single, independent and democratic State. Subsequently, however, the United States Government and the American Command in South Korea began to sabotage that decision and prevent its execution, showing themselves unwilling to part with South Korea and intending to convert, not only the southern part of that country, but the whole of Korea, into a colony, and the Korean people into slaves of the American monopolies. Having prevented the formation of a temporary democratic government of Korea and observing the indignation of the Korean people at this policy, the United States Government, counting on the support of the Anglo-American bloc in the United Nations, dragged the Korean question into the United Nations, illegally and in violation of the agreements made during the war and of Article 107 of the United Nations Charter. Thus, as early as 1947, the United States Government began concealing its aggressive policy in Korea behind the curtain of the United Nations. With the assistance of the Anglo-Americtln bloc, the United States Government forced the adoption of a number of illegal resolutions favourable to itself and its South Korean puppets, in order to conceal the domination of the American monopolies and the American militarists in Korea by these so-called United Nations resolutions. Mr. Austin has again repeated here his long-since discredited version of the activities of the so-called United Nations Commission on Korea, which was As long ag.o as Il August [486th meeting], the USSR delegatlon fully revealed the inconsistency of this report and showed that it had been concocted ex post facto after the collapse of the invasion of North Korea by the forces of Syngman Rhee, so as to cover up that !nvasion and conceal the identity of its American organ- Izers. It was shown and proved that the Commission itself drew all the information for its report to the United Nations from one-sided and false American and Syngman Rhee sources. The composition of the Commission in no way guaranteed or guarantees impartiality. The report to which l have referred was signed by a certain representative of the Kuomintang called Chu-Tu. ML Austin asserted that there is not and never has been a representative of the United States of America on the Commission. But there is no need for one. Everything will he done in the American way without one. There is a representative of the Kuomintang who can concoct any denunciation dictated to him by Mac- Arthur's staff. No one doubts, either, that in this matter the representative of the Kuomintang can always be assisted in this Commission by the representatives of the Philippines, El Salvador and, lastly, Turkey. And that is a majority of the Commission, a majority which, at the direction of the State Department and the Military Command of the United States in Korea and the Far East is ready at any moment to concoct any falsehood that may be desired. That is the position with regard to this Commission and its reports, which are the main argument in Mr. Austin's reasoning. Mr. Austin, again falsifying the facts, affirmed that in giving the United States armed forces the order to invade Korea, the President of the United States was guided by a resolution of the Security Council. As everyone knows, however - and the USSR delegation has repeatedly recalled the fact - Mr. Truman's order was given in the middle of the day, at 12 noon on 27 June, that is, several hours before the meeting of the Security Council was convened. The Security Council learned of this order from Mr. Austin himself, who reported this order of ML Truman at the meeting of the Security Council [474th meeting]. In addition, the United States Government, supported by its political allies in the Security Council, forced the adoption of an illegal resolution for the purpose of concealing the aggression already committed by the United States Government in Korea. Thus the United States Government has brought the whole ~orld face to face with the fait accompli of its aggression in Korea. D,uring th~ discussion of the question in the United NatIOns, whlch has lasted for almost four months beginning on 1 August, the United States The United States delegation's assertion that the United States Government's aggression in Korea was approved by 53 Members of the United Nations has already worn its·~lf out. 1t was not and is not convincing to anybody. The USSR delegation has repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that the Security Council's resolutions of 25 and 27 June are illegal, since they were adopted by an illegaI1y constituted Council, without the participation of two members of the Councilthe USSR and China. It is also a matter of common knowledge that the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in informing the Governments of the States Members of the United Nations of these illegal resolutions of the Security Council, did not refer to the conditions and circumstances in which they had been adopted. He did not inform the Members of the United Nations that these resolutions were adopted in gross violation of the United Nations Charter and of Article 27 of the Charter, and that, in particular, the United States draft resolution of 27 June approving the armed intervention of the United States in Korea was adopted by only six votes - those of the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France, Cuba, Norway and Ecuador. A seventh vote in support of the resolution was counted as having been cast by the Kuomintang representative, who was iI1egally occupying China's place in the Security Counci1. The United States Government is trying in vain to cover its aggression in Korea by iI1egal resolutions and by the name and flag of the United Nations. The United States Government's attempt to persuade public opinion that the war against the Korean people is being waged by "United Nations troops under United Nations command" defies common sense, the United Nations itse1f and its Charter. It is a gross falsification of the facts. It is common knowledge that the interventionist troops of the Cnited States ref>resent the main and decisive armed force carrying out an aggressive war against the Korean people in Korea, and that the small units of Turkish, Philippine and the troops of other vassal states are not fit for battle and are nothing but a symbolic camouflage. That the war in Korea is being waged by the United States is admitted even by the most active accomplice of American aggression in Korea, the British Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee. According to a report of the Reuters Agency, Mr. Attlee The Americans have demanded that the British and other governments dependent upon them should take part in the bloody crimes which they initiated in Korea. These governments were forced to "respond to the demand of the Americans" as was admitted by Mr. Attlee. These are facts which ML Austin cannot hide with any falsification or inventions. Mr. Austin has been shedding crocodile tears in the Council, saying that the sons of other nations as well as of the American people were dying in Korea. It is time ML Austin understood that in such cases it is necessary to ask first of all what they are fighting for, what they are dying for, and who has sent them to their death. Throwing aside all the falsification and inventions of Mr. Austin and of the ruling circles of the United States, it becomes crystal clear to all that the sons of the American and other nations are being sent to their death in Korea by American monopolists and warmongers. Baving dragged their own country into a war - into a military adventure in Korea - they have also dragged the governments of other countries after them. The aim of the war is to prevent the Korean, Chinese, and other peoples of Asia from gaining freedom and national independence, to maintain their countries in the position of American colonies and their peoples in the position of the slaves of American monopolies. After carrying out an illegal aggression against the Korean people and invading Korea with its military forces, the United States Government has violated the so-called 38th parallel, which was set up by international agreements, in an equally unlawful and criminal manner. After that, American troops began advancing towards the frontiers of China, carrying out systematic air raids on Chinese territory and barbarously murdering the Chinese population destroying dwellings and other material resources. Mr. Austin is trying to cover up these acts of agression by talking of friendship between the American and . Chinese peoples. 21 In his statement to the Security Council yesterday, the representative of the People's Republic of China clearly and effectively showed that American monopolists had in fact transformed China into a colony by means of various enslaving agreements imposed on China under the Kuomintang régime. Only the representative of the Kuomintang clique can fail to see this ; his eyes are closed to facts. The United States replaced, in China, the Japanese and German imperialists defeated during the Second World WaL They also took the place of the British and French invaders who had been weakened by the Second World War, and they tried to become the full masters of China. As a result of their heroic national liberation struggle, however, the Chinese people have freed themselves from the yoke of foreign imperialists, thus proving that henceforth relations between the Chinese and other peoples couId only be based on equality and respect for each other's sovereignty and not on the basis of colonial plunder and slavery. It is common knowledge that the notorious Stimson doctrine also helped to promote the enslavement of China by American imperialism. The principal aim of that doctrine was - as ML Austin recalled yesterday - to safeguard the rights of the United States under existing agreements and the interests of American monopolists in China. In fact, the simple American worker and farmer had no direct interest in China, but American monopolists had such interests. It was to defend those interests that 9'timson proclaimed his doctrine. The same aims have been fostered by missionaries; ML Austin spoke at great length on that subject at yesterday's meeting of the Council, and Mr. Dulles in the First Committee. 1 We all know that missionaries have always been a weapon of aggression and that they have served to pro- ML Austin dwelt at length on the so-called econornic aid to China, saying that it had arnounted to about $100 million a year during the last thirteen years. He forgot to mention, however, the thousands of million dollars earned by American monopolies through their exploitation of the Chinese people and the Chinese market, when they sold their goods to China at monopoly prices and bought its cheap raw materials from China. Nor did he mention the thousands of millions allocated by the United States Government to the reactionary Kuomintang régime in support of its armed struggle against the national liberation movement of the Chinese people. And yet, according to the estimates of the State Department's White Book, these sums have amounted to over $3,000 million for the four post-war years 1946- 1949 alone. According to more reliable information, they amounted to over $5,000 million. In the light of these facts, neither Mr. Austin nor anybody else will succeed in concealing the American monopolists' enmity and hatred of the Chinese people by references to the friendship between the American and Chinese peoples. It is sufficient to recall how the United States monopolies helped Japan in its war with China. For a number of years - 1938, 1939 and 1940 - right up to the .beginning of the Second World War, the American and world Press adduced numerous facts and examples bearing witness to the fact that Japan fought China with American and British equipment and military supplies. In its December 1938 issue, the magazine Business Week reported that Japan was buying aircraft of all the most recent types in the United States and acquiring a number of patents for the production of the newest American aircraft engines. Specific reference was made to the American firms which had supplied Japan with the newest aircraft and aircraft engines so as to make it easier for the Japanese invaders to bomb the Chinese fronts and to destroy the Chinese people. In its March 1939 issue, the magazine Amerasia reported that the economic assistance Japan was given by the United States during the Sino-Japanese War was considerably more extensive than the assistance given to China. In 1937 and 1938 American exports to Japan amounted to $528,100,000, whereas American exports to China amounted to $84,500,000. In addition, Japan imported from the United States a considerable quantity In its issue of 10 July 1939, the Manchester Guardian reported that in 1938 86 per cent of basic war deliveries to Japan were provided by the United States, the British Empire and the Netherlands, the United States coming first with 56 per cent. It was also pointed out in that newspaper that during the same period the Soviet Union, which had an abundance of the war materials needed by Japan, did not supply her with any at ail. Such is the irrefutable evidence of the hostile policy of American ruling circles and monopolists towards China and the Chinese people during the period mentioned here by Mr. Austin. None of Mr. Austin's references to friendship and assistance can conceal thesc generally known facts. Having adopted the policy of falsifying history and attempting to present the American imperialists a., friends of the Chinese people, Mr. Austin also attempt', to represent the seizure of the Chinese island of Taiwan by American armed forces on President Truman's order as a friendly action towards China by the United States Government. Meanwhile, the facts and documents at the Security Council's disposai fully refute this American version so carefully circulated by Mr. Austin. The question of the commission of this act of agression on China by the United States Government was raised before the Security Council as early as August this year. At the 490th meeting of the Security Council on 25 August, the Council heard a statement on the matter by the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China contained in the cablegram sent by Mr. Chou En-Lai,'Minister of Foreign Affairs [5/1715], and the answering statement of the United States representative in the Security Council, set forth in a letter addressed to the Secretàry-General [5/1716]. Mr. Chou En-Lai's cablegram and the statement made here yesterday by Mr. Wu Hsiu-chuan, representative of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China, quite clearly show that the United States Government has committed an act of These acts of the United States Government are ille~al and contrary both to the basic principles of internat~onal law .and to the established practice of internat~onal relatlOns. An:ong the basic principles of internatlO,nal law regulatmg international and political r~latlOns betwe~n ?tates, general recognition has been ~Iven to .the pnnclple of th~ inadmissibility of foreign l11terventIon m the domestIc affairs of States. This principle is also recognized in the United Nations Charter. At Mr. Truman's order of 27 June 1950, United States military and naval forces are cruising in the Straits of Taiwan with clearly expressed hostile intentions towards the Government of the People's Republic of China, while United States military and naval forces have illegally landed and based themselves on the Chinese island of Taiwan. The American military advisers are the actual masters of the island, the leaders and commanders of the Kuomintang armed forces on Taiwan. No one will believe Mr. Austin's assertion that there are only forty-four American officers on Taiwan. Tell the Security Council, Mr. Austin, how many warships there are in the United States Seventh Fleet, which seized Taiwan on Mr. Truman's order, and what the strength of that fleet is in men and officers. That is, if that is not secret! Stop leading the members of the Security Council astray! All these facts bear witness that this part of the territory of China has been occupied by United States armed forces. Such unilateral and illegal acts by the United States Government fall completely within the widely recognized definition of aggression. They constitute an act of aggression. It is also generally admitted that aState whose land, sea or air forces are landedor led beyond the frontiers of another State without the permission of the government of that State is the attacker in an international conflict, that is, the aggressor. The actions of the United States Government in respect of the Chinese island of Taiwan and American Air Force raids in Chinese territory constitute acts of aggression. Consequently, the United States Government is the attacking party, the aggressor. It is also generally known that aState which establishes a naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another State is admitted to be the attacking party. The United States Government has established an armed naval blockade of the coasts and ports of the Chinese island of Taiwan with the obviously aggressive intention of using armed force to prevent the le&"a~ Goven:m~nt of China and its armed forces from gammg admission to the island. Such actions by the United States Government constitute aggression, and the United States Government is the attacking party, the aggressor. "This move of the United States Government constitutes outright aggression against China. "This move of the United States Government furthermore constitutes a gross violation of the Cairo and Potsdam international agreements establishing Formosa as part of Chinese territory, agreements which bear the signature of the United States Government too, and is also a violation of the statement made by President Truman on 5 January 1950 to the effect that the Americans would not intervene in the affairs of Formosa." As Mr. Austin himself informed us, Mr. Truman openly admitted in his statement of 27 June that the decision of the United States Government with regard to the military measures in respect of Taiwan was dictated, first, by political considerations incidental to the so-called anti-communist campaign and, secondly, by strategic considerations under the pretext of the alleged necessity of guaranteeing the security of the Pacific area and of the armed forces of the United States. According to a widely recognized international definition of aggression, no considerations of a political, economic or strategic nature may serve as justification for an attack upon or invasion of the territory of another State. Meanwhile it is clear, both from the text and intent of Mr. Truman's statements of 27 June and 19 July 1950 [5/1716] and from the contents of the famous MacArthur message to the Veterans, that the ruling circles of the United States, having committed an act of aggression towards China, have seized Taiwan for political and strategic reasons, and that their chief reason for doing so was their effort to extend the line of defence of the United States as far as possible from its own frontiers, for the alleged purpose of guaranteeing national security. General MacArthur has declared outright that in his opinion, the strategic frontier of the United States is the chain of islands in the western part of the Pacific Ocean from the Aleutians to the Marianas, including the Chinese island of Taiwan. The United States Government attempts to represent the armed seizure of Taiwan as a kind of "United Nations action". These attempts, however, are just as futile as the efforts to represent the armed aggression in Korea as a "United Nations action". It is well known that neither at noon on 27 June, when Mr. Truman announced his order to the United States Seventh Fleet to occupy Taiwan, nor on later occasions, was there any decision by the United Nations and the Security Council on this question. The representative of the United States refers ta the fact that on 27 June he announced in the Security The Security Council did not at that time take any action. on the above-n;entioned statement by the represe~tatIve of .the Ul1lted States with regard to the selzure of TaIwan by American armed forces. It cannot, of course, be considered normal that the Securit~ Council pa~sed. over this act of aggression by the Ul1lted States m sIlence and did not rise up in defence of the legitimate interests of China and the Chinese people. However, it cannot be considered that that silence on the part of sorne members of the Security Council in connexion with this aggression is a "legal decision of the United Nations" behind which the aggressor can hide and cover up his aggression. The United States representative has stated that the United States is not encroaching upon the territory of China and has not taken any aggressive action against China. The facts which l have stated, facts which are known to the whole world, c1early show that such a statement is not in accordance with the facts. The occupation and seizure of foreign territory by armed forces is the c1earest possible form of encroachment. The United States Sev'enth Fleet, which is cruising in the Straits of Taiwan and around the island of Taiwan on Mr. Truman's orders, and is based in ports of that island, is blockading Taiwan in order to deny, by armed force, access to the island by the armed forces and lawful authorities of the only lawful government of China - the Central People's Government of the Peaple's Republic of China. That is not only encroachment but open seizure of foreign territory. Contrary to Mr. Austin's statements that the United States Government is not invading Taiwan, General MacArthur in his message to the American Veterans fully reveals the actual grasping intentions of the ruling circles of the United States with regard to that island, by admitting that Taiwan is needed by the American militarists for warlike and aggressive purposes, as it is a convenient base for the bombing of Asia by jet airplanes and flying fortresses. Thus, General MacArthur refutes Mr. Austin. In order to cover up the traces of this flagrant and unprovoked aggression, the United S~ates representative confuses the issue and piles up absurd arguments. In his letter of 25 August 1950 to the Secretary- General regarding Formosa he stated that: "The action of the United States in regard to Formosa was taken at a time when that island was the scene of conflict with the mainland. More serious conflict was threatened by the public declaration of the Chinese communist authorities. Such conflict Every word in that statement is untrue and is a distortion of the facts. The internaI conflict in China did not present and does not present any threat whatsoeyer to the Pacific area or to the security of the United States of America. It is an internaI affair of China and no one has the right to interfere in it. The United Nations Charter categorically forbids interference in the internaI affairs of States. It is common knowledge that there were and are no "United Nations forces", to which the United States representative refers in that letter, in the Pacific area or in any other part of the worId. There were no United Nations armed forces on 27 June when the President of the United States issued his order for the seizure of Taiwan. At that time the Syngman Rhee troops \Vere fighting in Korea - they had provoked a civil war on the orders of the United States ruling classes - and subsequently the United States Government sent American forces there and those forces are still fighting in Korea at the present time. Thus, the statement of the United States representative is not in accordance with the facts, and the United States Government's actions as regards Taiwan and Korea are illegal and contrary to the generally accepted principles of international law and the United Nations Charter. Those actions are direct and overt aggression. The United States representative's references to the fact that the decision of the President of the United States in regard to Taiwan was a neutralizing attitude towards both parties in the Korean civil war are untenable. No one, no international organ, empowered the President of the United States to take such neutralizing action, nor did it give him the right to seize Taiwan. That arbitrary act on the part of the United States Government is not a neutralizing action, but an aggressive action fraught with serious international consequences likely to worsen and aggravate the international situation and not to maintain and strengthen peace. The United States representative is attempting to prove that these obviously aggressive acts are fully in accordance with the spirit of the United Nations Charter. However, it should be clear in the light of the facts which 1 have mentioned 'that these acts have nothing in common with the spirit of the United Nations Charter. The statement of the United States representative regarding the illegal status of Taiwan is also unfounded. He made an attempt in his statement to reduce the whole matter to the fact that the Chinese are only on that island because the Chinese Government had heen allowed by the Allies to accept the surrender of the Japanese troops on the island. That is one of the usual assocla~ed P?wers to the Chinese Government to accept the capltulatIon of the Japanese armed forces in Taiwan arose from an international agreement previously adopted at Cairo and bearing the signature of the Government of the United States of America. Under the Cairo Agreement, the island of Taiwan, as an inalienable part of the territory of China forcibly detached from China .by the Japanese imperialists, was fully and uncondltIonally restored to China. Subsequently this agreement was confirmed by an international agreement at Potsdam and ratified by the Japanese Act of Capitulation. AIl assertions to the effect that the legal status of Taiwan cannot be determined before the adoption of some kind of international decision settling the fate of that island are ungrounded. They conceal nothing else than an intention hostile to the Chinese people, the intention of the United States Government to depart from the obligations it had undertaken earlier with regard to Taiwan. The statement of the United States representative that the United States Government adheres to the principle of "the integrity of China" also sounds hypocritica1. References are made to an illegal resolution of the General Assembly, the adoption of which, as is weIl known, was forced at the fourth session of the General Assembly by the United States Government and the bloc of delegations headed by that Government. The facts communicated in January this year in the American Press show that at the time the United States delegation, at the fourth session of the General Assembly, was expatiating on the "integrity of China", General MacArthur and a group of Senators were preparing the plot of aggression against China, preparing for the seizure of Taiwan. Having taken full control of the Kuomintang régime in Taiwan, the Government of the United States trampled on its own resolution and intervened with armed force in the internaI struggle in China between that régime and the legal government of the People's Republic of China. It assumed the "obligation to defend Taiwan", as Mr. Dewey, the leader of the Republican Party of the United States, declared in a speech delivered in Canada in the summer of this year. Defend from whom and protect whom? To defend Taiwan, of course, from the legal government of China and the Chinese people, and on that island to protect the pitiful remnants of the bandits of the Kuomintang clique who are hated by the Chinese people and fully maintained by and at the complete service of the Government of the United States. rn the light of the above and of the evident and direct attack on Taiwan by the United States Government, the meaninO' of the United States delegation's statement that "the United States would yvelcome United Nations consideration of the question of Formosa" becomes intelligible. This statement is clearly intended for 1t is well known to the United States Government that the question of Taiwan in no way falls within the competence of the United Nations and cannot be a subject of discussion in that Organization. The question of Taiwan is a problem which arose as a result of the Second W orld War against German fascism and Japanese militarism. This question was fully decided by international agreements during the war, and in particular by the Declarations of Cairo and Potsdam and the Japanese Act of Capitulation. As is well known, the United Nations Charter directly prohibits that Organization from dealing with questions of that kind. There is a special Article in the Charter on this point, Article 107. The question of Taiwan has already been decided long ago. Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of China, and no one, including the United Nations, is entitled to make it a subject of discussion. Consequently, the United States Government's statement that it would welcome United Nations consideration of the question of Taiwan is, in substance, nothing else than the expression of a secret intention to force the matter upon the United Nations, and here, with the support of its military and political allies, to compel a revision of that question which has been decided long ago, under cover of the authority of the United Nations. No less offensive is ML Austin's statement that the United States "would approve full United Nations investigation here or on the spot". What right has the United States Government to approve or not to approve the investigation of a Chinese island or the consideration of the problem relating to it? Who is asking its opinion? Truly, there are no limits to the pretensions of the ruling circles of the United States. Taiwan belonged in the past, and still belongs, to China, in accordance with wartime and post-war international agreements to which the United States has also subscribed, and no one, including the United States Government, has the right to agree or not to agree to this question being considered by the United Nations. Only the legitimate Government of China, the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China, has the right to dispose of this island as it sees fit. Any outside interference is inadmissible and illegal. Any intervention in this matter ~y the United Nations would constitute a gross violation both of international law and of the United Nations Charter. The United States Government has no more right to agree or not to agree to the consideration of the case of Taiwan or the investigation of that island by the United Nations than has the government of any In his statement yesterday, ML Austin raised a thousand and one different questions in an attempt to distract attention from the United States aggression in Korea. WouId it not have been better for ML Austin, instead of playing "twenty questions" and interrogating others, to reply himself to one fundamental question, the answer to which is imperatively demanded by all the peace-loving peoples of the world? That question is: when will the United States imperialists and warmongers cease their aggressive activities in Korea, China and the Far East? When will they withdraw their forces from the territories of other States? vVhen will they put an end to the war and allow the peoples of Korea, China and other countries of Asia to live in peace and friendship and be free and independent, as required by the United Nations Charter? The Security Council should demand an answer to this fundamental question from the United States Government. The sooner this is done, the sooner will peace be restored to the Far East. The Government of the People's Republic of China has appealed to the Security Council to take urgent steps against the aggressor and to require that he withdraw his troops from the territory of China and Korea. It expects the Security Council to adopt just decisions. It is the dutYof the Security Council to do SOI In order to distract the attention of the Security Council and to confuse the issue still further, the United States representative has said that if the Security Council wishes to examine the question of Formosa the United States will favour such a course and give its assistance to any such examination. The whole world however and, of course, the United States Government, are perfectly well aware that it is not a question here of examining the problem of Taiwan since this problem is not open to discussion, has long since been decided and does not require study by the Security Council. Another question is at issue here, the question of armed aggression by the United States Government against China, the invasion of the Chine~e island of Taiwan by United States armed forces. It is this question and none other which it is the duty of the Security Council to consider and decide, so as to protect the legitimate interests of China and the Chinese people against the unprovoked aggression by the United States Government. In accordance with the foregoing considerations, the USSR de1egation, on the instructions of its government, has introduced the draft resolution contained in document S/1757 and urges its adoption. Incidentally, I note that this draft resolution had not been circulated to the members of the Security Council today. I hope that it will be circulated at the next meeting. Such a decision by the Security Council would help to strengthen peace and security not only in the Far East, but throughout the whole world. While reminding the Security Council of the USSR Government's proposaIs with regard to the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, the delegation of the Soviet Union also supports the draft resolution submitted by the representative of the People's Republic of China, Mr. \Vu Hsiu-chuan, and in accordance with the rules of procedure of the Security Council proposes that this draft resolution be put to the vote. I shall not dwell in detail on the slanderous fabrications which the agent of the Kuomintang has made with regard to the Soviet Union, nor shall I refer to his illiterate views on imperialism, since when he referred to textbooks, he obviously had in mind some textbooks compiled by imperialists or apologists of imperialism, notwithstanding the existence of the only scientific definition of imperialism, which was given by the great founder of the Soviet Union, V. I. Lenin. That definition is as follows: "Imperialism is capitalism in that stage of development in which the domination of monopolies and finance capital has established itself; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance ; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun; in which the partition of all the territories of the globe among the great capitalist Powers has been completed". This is the classic, scientific definition of the era of imperialism. Any references to textbooks compiled by the imperialists or their apologists are unfounded. With regard to the slanders which have been made against the Soviet Union, I must say that no notice can be taken of any references to P:!wley and his wholly fabricated slanderous fictions, since only recently the United States Press reported that Pawley engaged in espionage in North Korea and that MacArthur is bombing Korean towns and industrial plants on the basis of plans and drawings supplied by Pawley. That was the purpose of Pawley and his mission in Korea and Manchuria. No reliance therefore can be With regard to the armed forces of the Soviet Union which operated against ] apanese imperialism in the Second World War, it was precisely the participation of the Soviet armed forces in the war against ] apan which, as even President Truman officially acknowledged, saved the lives of not less than 200,000 United States officers and men. The entry of the Soviet Union into the war against ]apanese imperialism and the consequential hastening of the conclusion of that war also saved the lives of many sons and daughters of the Chinese people. The USSR Government and the Soviet Union delegation in the Security Council therefore take pride in the fact that by entering the war against ]apanese imperialism the Soviet Union helped the allied and associated Powers to hasten the conclusion of the Second W orld War and save hundreds of thousands of human lives. No petty slanderous attacks and machinations of the agents of the Kuomintang clique can alter the circumstances and conceal these historic facts, which are known to all.

It is after 6.30 p.m. l think that we might listen to the interpretation of Mr. Malik's statement tomorrow. In order to save time, however, if the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics agrees, vve might perhaps waive the interpretation, since the representative of the Secretary-General informs me that the translations into English and French will appear in the provisional verbatim records and the USSR delegation will be able to check their accuracy there. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated fram Russian): Mr. President, you appear to be quite familiar with the point of view to which l adhere. l have always held the view that my statements should be interpreted, if only into English, since it is necessary to correct the interpretation. For reasons beyond my control, l shall be unable to read the English text tonight or tomorrow morning, and l should therefore prefer to hear the interpretation now and correct it if necessary, so as to save time. This is a firm ruling and l should also like to adhere to it in the future. The PRESI'DENT (translated fram French): The USSR representative understands the situation with regard to interpretation and it is not necessary for me to tell him that, if we are going to listen to the interpretation into English, we shall also have to listen to the interpretation into French. l therefore think that we can hold a meeting tomorrow morning devoted almost entirely to listening to the interpretations. Does the Council agree to that procedure? Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated fram Russian): This question is not open to discussion. The PRESIDENT (translated fram French) : Why? Ml'. DAYAL (India) : My delegation would have preferred an afternoon meeting, but if the morning is going to be taken up solely by interpretations we will have no objection. Perhaps the time couId be fixed at somewhat later than 10.45 a.m. Sir Gladwyn JEEE (United Kingdom) : l agree with the representative of India. In practice, l think the morning meeting will be taken up with the interpretations and that we shall effectively only begin our work at the afternoon meeting. l suppose we are going to meet tomorrow morning on that assumption. Ml'. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated fram Russian): With a view to speeding up the work, we might perhaps request our French colleague, who will have the printed text tomorrow morning and will be able to read a translation in his own language, not to insist on an interpretation into French now. l think that this will somewhat ease the situation which has arisen. Ml'. CHAUVEL (France) (translated fram French) : For reasons upon which l need not dwell, l shall not have time to read the French text tomorrow morning, l should therefore like to listen to the French text now, just as Ml'. Malik would like to hear the English. Mahmoud FAWZI Bey (Egypt) : l cannot but express my regret that, in the very grave circumstances which now confront us, a matter of translation should - as the President has stated that it would - take up a whole haH day of the time of the Security Council, of the United Nations and indeed of the whole world which expects us to do something urgently to bolster peace and allay the fears of all concerned. l cannot subscribe in the slightest degree to the assumption that, in fact, sorne time during tomorrow morning the representatives of the Soviet Union and of France will be unable to read the record which, in any event, will be published both in English and in French long before we arrive here at Lake Success. Therefore, l should like to appeal especially to the delegations of the Soviet Union and of France to agree that we should proceed to the substance of our work either tomorrow morning or in the afternoon, but preferably in the morning. In the meantime they would certainly be able to arrange for their staffs to make any necessary corrections and bring them to the attention of the Secretariat during the course of the morning. l tmst that my appeal to these two delegations in particular will not be in vain.

1 think that aU members of the Council agree that we should hold our next meeting tomorrow at 3 p.m. and that the interpretations into English and French should not be given oraUy at this time. Unless Mr. Malik objects, it shall be so decided. 1 think, that that will save the time of everybody with the exception of the delegations of the USSR and France, which will be in their offices from Il a.m. to 1 p.m. tomorrow to read the English and French versions. AU the other members of the Council wiU be free. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated frol1~ Russian): The impression 1 have received from the statement made by the representative of France is not such as to enable me to draw the same conclusions as you, ML President, have done. The conclusions you have drawn from the French representative's statement are somewhat unusual. On the contrary, it would appear that the French representative's statement will make it easier for us to meet and complete our work, which we have not concluded today. With regard to the observation you have made, Mr. President, perhaps we do not need to meet at aU, perhaps we couId send the texts of our statements to each other's houses and hold, so to speak, meetings of the Council at home. It seems as if we were on the way of achieving such an agreement. 1 see no justification for novelties of this kind in the work of the Security Council. 1 have submitted a compromise proposaI to the effect that we should restrict ourselves to one interpretation only. This would shorten our work by halL If we are agreed on this, let us proceed in this way. If we are not, we shall have to continue with our established procedure.

The next meeting will be held at 10.45 a.m. tomorrow. The meeting rase at 6.45 p.m. • Price: (or equivalent