S/PV.530 Security Council

1 should like to make the following statement as representative of YUGOSLAVIA. The two questions which we are discussing together are generally considered ta be closely connected and are so in substance. Their relative importance, however, is Compared. with that war, the question of Taiwan (Formosa) IS o~ sec~ndary importance. That is obvious to ~ll who con.slder It from the point of view of internat~onal secunty and who see this particular internatlOnal problem as a more or less serious threat to the general peace. We decidedly share the latter point of view, and we have therefore come to the conclusion that a peaceful settlement of the question of Taiwan must be sought, and that such a settlement might be reached if we couId at least reach a solution on the main problem, that of Korea. Efforts to achieve such a solution might perhaps be i~ order even now. Consultations between the parties dlrectly concerned on the question of Taiwan might perhaps have a favourable reaction on the solution of the main problem, that of Korea. My delegation is prepared to follow up this suggestion in so far as it finds that the general atmosphere makes such an initiative possible. Nevertheless, 1 repeat, the question of Korea remains the main question; it is the most urgent problem before the United Nations. The question of the maintenance of general peace now depends, to a great extent, upon its deve1opment. We have reached a new stage in the Korean war, the outstanding feature of which is the appearance of considerable Chinese forces on the theatre of military operations in Korea. This fact is unfortunate1y beyond doubt. The fact that large military forces have been sent to Korea has been admitted and confirmed in the statements of the Government of the People's Republic of China made at Peking and also here by General Wu. This is an entirely new and very serious factor in the Korean problem. Clearly, therefore, the Security Council must assess it at its true value and act accordingly. 1 should like to say how regrettable it is that the representatives of the Peking Government are trying to avoid any discussion of this question and any cooperation in the efforts which the Security Council is forced to make because of a situation which the Government of the People's Republic of China has itself created. We have seen many States, both Members and nonmembers of the United Nations, replying to justified or unjustified accusations before the various organs of the United Nations. Neverthe1ess none of them has ever refused to take part in the discussions. What is more, non-member States have on several occasions made every effort to obtain an invitation to be heard on the subject. 1 am mentioning this, not because 1 ha~e any hope that the participation o~ th~ represent~tIve.s of. the People's Republic of Ch111a 111 our publIc dlscusslOns will have a salutary effect on the turn in the inter- 7 It is surely rather surprising that throughout the long speech made by General Wu, the principles of the Charter and the mission of the United Nations should have remained in the background while the question of world peace was not even mentioned. The General spoke at length about the problem of Taiwan and more briefly about the Korean war, but the connexion between these two questions and the peace of the world seems to have escaped him completely. That, however, is the main question. That isthe heart and core of the problem. vVe have witnessed many local wars since the United Nations was founded at San Francisco, and the United Nations has given its attention to those wars. None of them, however, has had international repercussions comparable with those caused by the Korean war. Bas General vVu asked himself why? Bas he asked himself why there is this great difference? Bas he asked himself what conclusions should be drawn from this difference as to the responsibilities of the governments which are playing a leading role in the Korean tragedy? Obviously, the General's argument on the matter of responsibility is the one which the representative of the Soviet Union has expounded to us many times. It is that the only party responsible is the United States Government. In support of that contention, all sorts of circumstances are cited, but the essential point which makes it possible to fix the responsibility is avoided. This essential point is the conduct of govcrnments during the first days following the outbreak of hostilities. Let us recall what their conduct was. From the beginning of hostilities, the two parties have accused each other of having opened fire. The Government of South Korea, however, was the only one to appeal to the United 1"\ations. That same day, the Security Council issued its order to cease fire and withdraw to the 38th Parallel. vVhat happened then ? Who accepted and obeyed that order? Did the army whose forces were at that time - twelve or fifteen hours after the outbreak of hostilities - alone in the territory of their enemy, in other words the North Korean Army - did that army accept the cease-fire order and withdraw behind the 38th Parallel? No, it did not. In a telegram to the Secretary-Generaltwo days later - the Government of North Korea attacked the decision of 25 June as illegal. And what was the attitude of the Government of the Soviet Union and of the Government of the People's Republic of China towards this order to cease fire and withdraw to the 38th Parallel? Did they give it any support, at least moral support? No. They maligned it in their Press and ignored it officially for two months, all the while chanting the praises of the army of North Korea for the victories it was winning in South Korean territory. Thos~ are the facts which show who are the parties responslble for the Korean war. This is a o-rave responsibility because Korea, for reasons which we"'need not go into, is not the same as Palestine, or Indonesia, or Kashmir. Korea is a highly sensitive nerve centre, and those who have intervened there should have borne that in mind and foreseen the results of their actions, attitudes, and advice. For our part, we must all bear that element in mind. In a statement on 8 September 1950, the Yugoslav Minister for Foreign Affairs, ML Kardelj, said: "\Vhen considering the situation in Korea, the people of Yugoslavia cannot but do so in the light of the fact that for three years the Government of the Cominform, led by the Government of the Soviet Union, have been carrying on a violently aggressive campaign against socialist Yugoslavia, precisely because the working people of Yugoslavia maintains its right to take its own decisions on its own soil. This aggressive policy, against which socialist Yugoslavia has reacted very firmly, throws light on the policy pursued by its organizers in other parts of the world. It leaves no doubt that those who are still pursuing an aggressive and anti-socialist policy towards Yugoslavia - a policy aimed at gaining supremacy for themselves - cannot be pursuing a different policy, a democratic and socialist policy, a policy of peace and of the equality and brotherhood of all peoples, in other parts of the world. For a long time, the policy of the leaders of the Cominform has not coincidcd with the interests of the progress of mankind, and it is therefore harmful to all progressive and liberating movements which become its instruments. "Ali their cries of loyalty to the cause of peace, and their accusations that others are aggressors will not suffice to cloak their share of responsibility for the Korean war and for the way in which they are endangering the peace of the world as a whole." Today, in face of the increasingly active interference of the People's Republic o~ China in the Korean war on the side of the North Korean Government, l must stress that the Government of the People's Republic of China has participated and continues to participate actively in the USSR's aggressive campaign against my country. l mus~ emp~asize that this gove~nment has in no way dissoclated Itself from that poltcy, nor from The guiding principle of the Yugoslav Government's policy in international affairs has ahvays been to wage a continuing struggle against the danger of a new war, against ail aggression, from wherever it may come. For that struggle to be successful, it must be based on the principle that ail aggressive acts are strictly forbidden and that anyone who resorts to them must be opposed. This attitude of the Yugoslav Government does not derive solely from the fact that the Yugoslav people are deeply devoted to the cause of peace. 1t is also due to my government's profound conviction that, at the present time, no fundamental distinction can be made between one act of aggression and another on ideological, political, social or economic grounds. The very first thing to be done is to relieve mankind from ail fear of war and aggression in order to enable it to go freely forward on the great road to progress. That is why today ail aggression should be considered not only a crime against peace and humanity, but also a crime against human progress. It is from this viewpoint that my delegation is today approaching the study of the six-Power draft resolution. It cannot be denied that the events taking place along the Sino-Korean frontier seriously threaten the peace and may portend a spread of the Korean conflict. The Yugoslav delegation has already had occasion to make its views known on the Korean conflict as a whole. We think that the responsibility for the events which have steeped Korea in blood, can in the first instance be ascribed only to the fatal policy of the North Korean Government as weil as to those who inspired that policy. We consider that any effort from abroad - from whatever side it may be - to save that policy from defeat can only increase the danger of spreading the Korean conflict and the risk of a new world war. The Yugoslav Government's attitude is therefore perfectly clear. We do not entertaip any sympathy for the South Korean régime and we deeply deplore the course events have taken in Korea. But we are far from wishing to justify the policy of the North Korean Government or from offering it the slightest support, for it is that government's policy which has led to the present state of affairs. 1t is for the Korean people themselves, and for them alone, to determine which leading political circles in Korea bear the responsibility for their present situation. For these reasons, the Yugoslav delegation will support any measure aimed at localizing the Korean conflict, any step intended to prevent the spread of the war in the Far East, for such a war would be not only a catastrophe for the peoples of Asia, but might weil engender a new world war. It is in this spirit that the Yugoslav delegation, although it cannot support every part of the six-Power draft resolution, will nevertheless support the general idea of the draft resolution since its purpose is to prevent the Korean conflict from spreading. ln keeping with my government's general attitude on the Korean question, 1 shall therefore abstain from voting on the preamble of the draft resolution before us. 1 shall vote for the operative part of the draft resolution, and also for the draft resolution as a whole. Sir Benegal N. RAU (India): 1 have listened with grave attention to the speeches made in this Council during the last few days, particularly those of the representative of the United States [528th mccting] and the representative of the Peking Government [527th meeting]. There was hardly any meeting ground between them save for one notable exception, but that exception is so important that 1 should like to dwell on it for a moment. At one point in his speech two days ago the representative of the United States referred to the long and close friendship between the people of China and the people of the United States. The representative of the Peking Government, while complaining of what he called the cunning aggression of American imperialists, conceded that in the entire history of China's foreign relations the people of the United States and China have always maintained friendly relations. If 1 may say so, the statements which 1 have just quoted are borne out by my own personal impressions, for even during the last few months of international tension 1 have not met a single individual in this country at any level, whether a government official or a private citizen, who was not anxious that there should be no war, directly or indirectly, between the United States and China. 1 do not ask the representative of the Peking Government to take this statement of mine on trust. Indeed, 1 wouId invite him to verify it by first-hand evidence. Let him meet as many people as he can at every possible level and judge for himself, and he will find, as 1 have found, that they are warm-hearted, kindly, the very reverse of imperialistic and only anxious to live in peace - their own way of life. They are, of course, apprehensive of aggression and resolved to resist it if it should come. But that is true of the people of every other country; it is true of the people of China too. Who ~oes not know th~t they have been passing through ternble ordeals dunng the last thirty or forty years, their country has been ravaged by war of one kind or another most of that time. As the Turning now to the specific draft resolution before the Security Council, l wish to inform the Council that l have not yet received final instructions from my government. It is a very important draft resolution, fraught \Vith grave possibilities, and in view of the events that have taken place since its introduction on 10 November, my government is doubtless anxious to give it most careful consideration. If the matter is pressed to a vote today, l shall not participate in the voting but shall reserve the right to make a statement subsequently. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated fram Russian): l have listened closely to the statement made by the United Kingdom representative, my neighbour on the left, and have come to the conclusion that neither he nor his United States colleague have refuted a single fact or a single argument of the USSR delegation's statement on United States aggression against Taiwan. ML Austin stated yesterday that he did not have time to get himself acquainted with the facts which the representative of the People's Republic of China had given and, seemingly, he has not had time to read the USSR delegation's statements eitheL It seems to have become a general rule, a tradition, with the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom, that when the facts are against them, so much the worse for the facts. They put the facts and documents to one side, and begin their usual slanderous propaganda against the USSR and its policy. Thus they find it easier to argue and discuss questions. However, no definite decision can ever be reached that way. ML Austin and the ruling circles of the United States are ready to accuse anyone of aggression - even God himself - but when concrete documents are placed before the Security Council, documents which deal with United States aggression, \Vith aggression by the ruling circles of the United States, with seizure of foreign territory, with the dispatch of a huge fleet carrying vast amounts of military supplies; when facts are adduced showing the most flagrant violation ~f generally accepted rules of international law, and attention is drawn to the fact that such acts constitute aggression under the generally accepted international definition of that term, then Mr. Austin waves the facts aside, and so does Sir Gladwyn Jebb. They begin their slanderous propaganda against the USSR, and think that they have thereby settlecl the matter and proved their point. That is the position regarding the discussion of the main question on today's agenda. Sir Gladwyn Jebb launched into theoretical and philosophical discourses. 'vVe have already talked about this in the Security Council and l do not want to reopen that subject. It is obvious, however, that only one conclusion can be drawn from all Sir Gladwyn Jebb's arguments: he is the apologist and active propagandist for imperialism, imperialistic conquests and of an imperialist attitude towards the peoples of Asia. This is quite clear ta me, and no allusions to Moscow or the Soviet Union can hide this fundamental characteristic of Sir Gladwyn Jebb. Sir Gladwyn Jebb is trying ta assert that the imperialism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is a thing of the pasto l t is quite true that the crude form in which the United Kingdom used to pursue its imperialist policy no longer exists. However, there is a new edition of imperialism, in the form now practised by General MacArthur. General MacArthur burns the towns and villages of Korea, murders its inhabitants, rapes women, murders the children and the aged, transforms the country into a desert and then declares that he is acting on behalf of, and ul1der the flag of, the United Nations. The nature of an imperialist plunderer remains the same, only the form is somewhat different. Moreover, we have a cover provided by the name and flag of the United Nations. Sir Gladwyn Jebb admitted in the Council that his country had taken an active part in the aggression in Korea. What could be expected of the representative of a country which is an active participant in the American aggression in Korea? There is no difference between the views of the United States and the United Kingdom representatives as regards their approach to the question under consideration, because .their g:overnments are jointly carrying out an aggresslOn agamst the people of Korea. That is an indisputable facto l have repeatedly answered Sir Gladwyn Jebb's allegations that the Soviet Union attempts to impose its system and its way of life on others, and l do ~ot think there is any need for me to answer once agam, because that is nothing but the most slanderous and Iying propag,:nda. Neither the S<;>viet Union, nor its leaders, nor Its government, nor ItS ,people have e,:,er imposed their system on anyone. h or do they w~sh to do so. We do not like capitalismyou do not hke socialism. But we are not imposing socialism on you, It is perfectly clear, therefore, that the ruling circles of the two Great Powers, the so-called "Western Powers" have dispatched their troops to Asian countries so as to prevent, by fire and sword, the peoples of two countries of Asia - and not only two - from gaining their freedom and independence, of becoming independent sovereign States and enjoying equality in their relations with the United States and the United Kingdom. That would not suit the ruling circles of the United States and United Kingdom, which base their actions on the principles of Diktat, force and colonial oppression. That is the gist of the problem. Sir Gladwyn Jebb said that he did not recommend receiving advice from interested parties. Is the United Kingdom representative not an interested party in this question? Is he not clearly and directly involved in it? Thus Sir Gladwyn Jebb contradicts himself. According to his own argument all his wishes, opinions and recommendations are the advice of an interested party. How then could the Council take into consideration the opinion of the United Kingdom representativethe opinion of an "interested party"? Your troops, your generals, your officers and soldiers are waging a war in Korea together with the United States Army against the Korean people. They are interventionists and aggressors. Consequently, you are an "interested party", so that your discourses on that subject are the "advice of an interested party". According to your own argument the Security Council is entitled to ignore your advice. Sir Gladwyn Jebb repeated here a figure which was first mentioned in the Council by Mr. Austin when he said that there were only forty-four American officers and soldiers in Taiwan. Both he and Mr. Austin, however, refrained from mentioning the Seventh Fleet, which captured Taiwan, and all the immense armed might at its disposaI. • l should like Sir Gladwyn Jebb to hear what a compatriot of his, whom he knows, writes. It is Randolph Churchill, the son of Winston Churchill. This is his own information, his own article, which was published in the Daily Telegraph on 3 November, at the beginning of this month. The information is therefore recent and fresh. He was in Taiwan, and in Taipeh, he drove around the whole island, and he saw what the Americans are doing in Taiwan, why they are there and what their intentions are. According to the statement made by Mr. Austin in the Security Council, there are forty-four United States officers in Taiwan, the usual number for a military mission sent with diplomatic credentials to any capital in the world. AlI States in diplomatic relations with the USSR have their military missions in Moscow for example. In vVashington there are military missions of States which have diplomatic relations with the United States, and the same applies to other countries. They are regular military missions. And Mr. Austin says that the United States military mission in Taiwan is also a regular military mission. But what is that mIssIon doing there? Let us hear what Randolph Churchill has to sayon that subject: Churchill writes that American military and naval representatives under the command of AdmiraI Jarrett have made a thorough study of Formosan defence lines and believe that, in case of need, the nationalist (that is Kuomintang) forces of some 600,000 men will fight much better than they fought on the continent. So that is what the American military I1IISSIOn is doing in Taiwan. \Vhere else has there been a case of a foreign military mission making a thorough study and survey of defence lines and fortifications in a country to which it is accredited in the usual diplomatic way? Yet the American military mission in Taiwan is doing that directly and without any intermediary. It is therefore not an ordinary mission. It is, in fact, a mission which not only gives military advice, but military direction. That means that it is not an ordinary foreign mission but the American Staff, commanding the Kuomintang bands in Taiwan. Further, Mr. Randolph Churchill writes that "Britain no longer recognizes the Nationalist Government", yet its armed forces are represented there by a Lieutenant-Commander Dennis, a liaison officer. Thus, the United Kingdom is acting as the two-faced Janus of old. On the one hand, it recognizes the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China, and on the other, it sends its military representative to Taiwan, and he is there together with the United States military mission. In the same article, Randolph Churchill writes the following about the intentions of the United States in regard to Taiwan: ."No one h.ere (th~t is, in Taiwan) believes that the UllIted States mtends m any foreseeable future to abandon Formosa". That is a very frank and concrete statement. The United States has seized a foreign island by force, and has no intention of parting with it in the foreseeable Randolph Churchill writes further: "The A1l1ericans are now supplying the Nationalists with a1l11l1unition as weil as valuable economic aid. Formosa is plainly no IO;l~er regarded as a bad strategic risk. Ou the çontrary, the opinion is increasingly hardening that it would 1,(' violently against the Ameriean and Ilritish interests if this island, with its valuable naval and air bases, were ta fall into comnmnist hands." l emphasize - not only ta American, but a1so to British interests. And l do this ta show that the British representative in the Security Couneil cannot be impartial and objective in the discussion of this matter, and the extent ta which his assertion that there is 110 aggression in Taiwan can be taken seriously. Referring to the supposed disagrcements kt we('n MacArthur's intentions and the intentions of the United States State Department with n'gard to Taiwan, l~an­ dolph Churchill calls things by their proper llanl('S and affirms that ail the wide1y circulatec1 propaganda to the effect that there is SI )me kincl of disagrcc111l'nt on this matter between MacArthur amI the United States Statl' Department is not in accordance with the facts. Randolph Churchill writes that tlll' "recmt widely advertisec1 differences in Pacific policy hetween (;('neral MacArthur and the State Department were more apparent than real". Some weeks befme General MacArthur sent his famous message to the Veterans of Foreign \Vars - the message that was withdr:l\\'n from the Press - Mr, Acheson, the Secretary of State, distributed a secret document defining the strall'gical requirements of the United States in South-East Asia. Those who have read bath these documents do not consider that there is much differenée bl'! W('('II the111 in the definition of the existing situation or policy. Jt is fairly clear that President Truman's grudge ag'ainst General MacArthur was due ta causes distinct fr0111 any substantial difference of views on future policy. lt was evoked by (;eneral MacArthnr's extravagant expression of his views and by the nl'e[1 ta maintain the civil authority over the military in fureign policy. Thus it follows frum these 5tatenH'nts by l~a1lClolph Churchill that there is no differenC(' and no divl'rg('lJ('(' between Cenl'ral MacArthur's policy, as expres~;l'd with complete cynicism and frankness in his famous message' ta the Veterans, and the policy of thl! State IkpartllH'nt; and that there is, furthermore, no differellCl' I)('t ween it and the policy of the President of the United States on Far Eastern questions, including the question of Taiwan. Randolph Churchill calls things by their prnper names. He adduccs facts, and beforl' thosl' facts the fables about the supposed clifferences of view l)('t w('('n Genl'fal MacArthur and the State DepartllH'nt, so widely circulated by American propaganda, fall to pieces. It is characteristic that neither the United States represent~tive nor the United Kingdom representative satd a smgle word about the draft resolutions on Taiwan submitted in the Security Council. They are interested only in Korea. In this they are actively suPP?rted by the representative of Yugoslavia, who has defi11ltely taken upon himself the task of using all possible means to assist the United States representative in misleading worid public opinion and proving that there has been no aggression by the United States in the Far East. For cleariy demagogic purposes, the Yugoslav representative proclaims a position which is allegedly directed against any aggression. At the same time he uses all his efforts to defend and coyer the aggression of the United States both in Taiwan against the People's Republic of China and in Korea and the Korean people. It is quite clear from these statements of his why both the Yugoslav representative and the United States representative so stubbornly maintained here in the Security Council the proposaI to combine for the purpose of discussion by the Security Council two questions which have not hitherto been combined - the question of the armed invasion of Taiwan and the question of the so-called "Complaint of aggression against the Republic of Korea". The representative of Yugoslavia needed to do this to enable him to conceal his position with regard to the problem of Taiwan. You see, he called that problem a secondary problcm and maintained that the main problem was Korea. But, if Taiwan is a secondary problem, the American interventionist aggressors who have seized that island can stay there and make themselves at home. That is the conclusion the Yugoslav representative draws. Consequently, he had to combine the two questions to enable him to divert the attention of the Security Council and worid public opinion towards Korea, to enable him to close people's eyes as to the situation in Taiwan and thereby assist the ruling circles of the United States in justifying and concealing their aggression against China. It is Ilot difficult to fathom these rather simple combinations. But these combinations which are resorted to by the United States representative and his Yugoslav partner and assistant show that the ruling circles of Yugoslavia and their representative in the Security Council have begun fully to condone the aggression of the ruling circles of the United States, and are applying the very same slanderous methods against the Soviet Union. In this matter there is no difference between Mr. Bebler and Mr. Austin. Even a microscope woulel not reveal any difference. An attempt has been made to blame the North Korean authorities, but no reference has been made to the fact that the North Korean authorities have not been admitted to the Security Council, that they have been conelemneel and declared aggressors ill absclltia. That is a proceelure which the United States representative and the ruling circles of the United States find convenient anel helpful: to convict anyone and everyone In the light of these facts, the delegation of the Soviet Union notes that the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom and their Yugoslav colleague are refusing to consider the question of United States aggression against China. They are evading the discussion of that question, c10sing their eyes to realities and do not wish to discuss the matter. The delegation of the Soviet Union considers that the first question on the agenda of this meeting of the Security Council is the question of armed aggression by the United States against Taiwan. It is the Council's dutY to consider that question carefully and objectively, to examine the facts and to make a fair decision. A fair decision on this matter by the Security Council is expected not only by the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China, which addressed the complaint to the Security Council, but also by the 475 million Chinese people. There has been talk here of friendship for the Chinese people. Show that friendship in deeds - concretely ! The Chinese people, in the person of its legal government, has addressed to the Security Council a complaint of aggression by the United States. Examine this complaint objective1y, carefully and in a friendly spirit, and make a fair decision! Protect the Chinese people from aggression by the ruling circ1es of the United States and prove your friendship for the Chinese people by deeds ! No one believes what an aggressor says about "friendship" for the victim of aggression. No one believes in affirmations of friendship by anyone who sends his armed forces into somebody else's territory, seizes that territory and plays the master. No one be1ieves him in such circumstances. What is needed are facts and deeds. And the best fact, a fact evincing pacific and friendly intentions towards the Chinese people, would be a decision by the Security Council demanding that the ruling circ1es of the United States immediately cease their aggression against China and withdraw their forces from Chinese territory. That would be the fairest decision which the Security Council cauld make. That decision i.s expected of it by the Chinese people and the Chinese Government.

As there are no other speakers on the list, we might proceed to the vote. However, at the beginning of the meeting the representative of the People's Republic of China asked me if he could speak before the Council voted on the draft resolutions before it. l calI upon him now. However, Mr. Austin attemptec1 to turn the attention of the representatives here to the question of the socallec1 complaint of aggression against the Republic of China, on the basis of the illegal MacArthur report. He brought forth a number of slanderous questions in a threatening tone. l must tell Mr. Austin that such threats will not frighten anybody. The reason why l do not partieipate in the discussion of the so-called complaint of aggression against the Republic of Korea is very clear. The truth of the question of Korea is that the Government of the United States has used armed forces to intervene in the domestic affairs of Korea, and has seriously breached the security of the People's Republic of China. The usurpation of the name of the United Nations by the United States Government is entirely illegal. The resolution on the question of Korea adopted by the Security Council on 27 June [474th meeting] is entirely illegal since it was adopted without the participation of the representative of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China and without the participation of the Soviet Union, two permanent members of the Security Council. Under such circumstances, l will not participate in the discussion of the so-called complaint of aggression against the Republic of China, a complaint which is absolutely absurdo And there is no necessity whatsoever to answer the questions brought forth by Mr. Austin on the basis of the MacArthur report. Since the Government of the United States started its aggressive war in Korea, according to preliminary e'stimates, from 27 August to 25 November, the United States armed forces of aggression in Korea violated the territorial air space of my country two hundred times, and the number of airplanes thus employed total more than one thousand. These acts have damaged Chinese property and killed Chinese people. l wish to ask Mr. Austin: Is this not aggression? Since 27 June the Seventh Fleet of the United States has been invading the territorial waters of China around Taiwan so as to prevent the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China from exercising soverei.gnty on Tai.wan. l want to ask Mr. Austin: 1s thls not aggresslOn? Since the end of the Second \!\Torld War, the Government of the United States has spent over six thousand million dollars to help the Chinese Kuomintang reaction- The era when only imperialists were allowed to induIge in aggression, while the peoples were not allowed to resist, has gone. The Chinese people love peace, but the people of China has complete confidence in its ability to beat back aIl the imperialists who dare invade China. l once again call upon the Security Council, in order to maintain worid peace and in order to maintain the prestige of the Charter of the United Nations, to accept the proposaIs advanced by the People's Republic of China so as to put an end to American aggression, to prevent \Var and to ensure peace and security for Asia and for the worid.

Before proceeding to the vote, we must decide in what order we shall vote. Although we discussed the questions of Korea and Taiwan together, l propose that we should vote on the draft resolutions in the order in which these two questions appear on the agenda. l therefore suggest that vve should vote on the two draft resolutions on the question of Taiwan (Formosa) in the order in which they were submitted, that is to say, first, on the USSR draft resolution [5/1757] submitted on 2 September 1950, and then on the draft resolution of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China [5/1921] which has been sponsored by the USSR delegation and is dated 30 November 1950. After that, we cauId vote on the only draft resolution relating to Korea, dated 18 November and submitted by the delegations of Cuba, Ecuador, the United States, France, Norway and the United Kingdom [5/1894]. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated fram Russian): Are we to infer from the President's remark that he has paid no heed to the wishes of the Indian representative, who has received no instructions on how he should vote? So far it has been the practice of the Security COlmcil to take such wishes into consideration when any member has been without instructions as to how he should vote. Does the President's remark mean that he is not taking the Indian representative's wishes into account? The PRESIDENT (translated fram French): The representative of India did not ~k the Council to postpone the vote until he had received instructions from his government. He simply pointed out that he cauld not take part in the vote. lt is not the first time that such a situation has arisen. Nevertheless, if Mr. Malik insists, l can ask the Indian representative to state whether he wants the Cot1ncil not to vote today so that he may receive instructions from his government. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated fram Russian): l do not insist on anything. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): In view of the fact that the draft resolution was proposed at the beginning of the discussion of the question and that the majority of the members of the Council no longer remember the whole text, l should like to ask that it be read to us. "Considering the appeal of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China regarding the act of aggression committed by the Government of the United States of America in the form of the invasion by armed forces of the United States of America of the Island of Taiwan, which is an inalienable part of the territory of China, as is admitted in the Cairo Agreement between the three Powers, vi::;. the United States of America, Great Britain and China, of 1 December 1943, and of the intervention thereby on the part of the Government of the United States of America in the internaI affairs of China, "considering also the declaration of the represen- tative of the United States of America to the United Nations, Mr. Austin, concerning the appeal of the Central People's Government of the People's Repub- lic of China to the Security Council on the question of Taiwan, "Condemns the said acts of the Government of the United States of America as an act of aggression and as an intervention in the internaI affairs of China, "And resolves, with the object of putting an end to such illegai acts, which violate the State sover- eignty of the Chinese Republic, to propose to the Government of the United States of America that it immediately withdraw aIl its air, sea and land forces from the island of Taiwan and from other territories belonging to China."

There was one vote in favour, and nine against. One member of the Council did not take part in the vote. The resolution is not adopted. "Recognizing that the invasion and occupation of Taiwan by the armed forces of the Government of the United States of America constitute open and direct aggression against Chinese territory, "Recogniàng that the armed aggression against Chinese territory and the armed intervention in Korea bv the armed forces of the Government of the United States of America have shattered peace and security in Asia and violated the United Nations Charter and international agreements, "Condemns the Government of the United States of America for its criminai acts of armed aggression against the Chinese territory of Taiwan, and armed intervention in Korea; "Resolves to demand the complete withdrawal by the Government of the United States of America of its forces of armed aggression from Taiwan, in order that peace and security in the Pacifie and in Asia may be ensured; and further "Resolves to demand the withdrawal from Korea of the armed forces of the United States of America and all other countries and to leave the people of North and South Korea to settle the domestic affairs of Korea themselves, so that a peaceful solution of the Korean question may be achieved." In favour: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Against: China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Norway, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Yugo- slavia. The PRESIDE'NT (translated from French): The result of the vote is as follows: one vote in favour, nine votes against, no abstentions. One delegation did not take part in the vote. The draft resolution is rejected. l put to the vote the draft resolution submitted by Cuba, Ecuador, France, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States of America [5/1894] which reads as follows: • "Recalling its resolution of 25 June 1950 de- termining that the North Korean forces had 'com- mitted a breach of the peace and calling upon all Members of the United Nations to refrain from giving assistance to the North Korean authorities, "Affirming that United Nations forces should not remain in any part of Korea otherwise than so far as necessary for achieving the objectives of stability throughout Korea and the establishment of a unified independent and democratic government in the sover- eign State of Korea, as set forth in the resolution of the General Assembly clated 7 October 1950, "Insistent 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, "CaUs upon ail States and authorities, and in par- ticular those responsible for the action noted above, to refrain from assisting or encouraging the North Korean authorities, to prevent their nationals or inclividuals or units of their armed forces from giving assistance to North Korean forces and to cause the immediate withdrawal of any such nationals, indi- viduals, or units which may presently be in Korea; "Affirms that it is the policy of the United Nations to bold the Chinese frontier with Korea inviolate and fully to protect legitimate Chinese and Korean interests in the frontier zone; "CaUs attention to the grave danger which con- tinued intervention by Chinese forces in Korea would entail for the maintenance of such a policy; "Requests the Interim Committee on Korea and the United Nations Commission for the Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea to consider urgently and to assist in the settlement of any problems relating to conditions on the Korean frontier in which States or authorities on the other side of the frontier have an interest, and suggests that the United Nations Com- mission for the Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea proceed to the area as soon as possible, and, pending its arrivaI that it utilize the assistance of such States members of the Commission as now have representatives in the area for this purpose." The Yugoslav delegation has asked for a vote in parts, that is, that we should first vote on the preamble - the first three paragraphs - and then on the re- mainder of the draft resolution. If there is no objection, we shall proceed in that manner. There is no objection; therefore l put the first three paragraphs of the draft resolution to the vote.

The result of the vote on the preamble of the draft resolution is as follows: eight yotes in favour, one against, one abstention. One delegation did not take part in the vote. The vote against having been cast by a permanent member of the Securitv Council, the preamble of the draft resolution is rejeéted. l put to the vote the second part of the draft resolution, from the words "Affirming that United Nations forces ... " to the end. In favoltr: China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Norway, United Kin;,;c1om of Great Britain and Northem Irelanc1, United States of America, Yugo- slavia. Against: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The result of the vote on the second part of the draft resolution is as follows: nine votes in favour, one against, no abstention. One delegation did not take part in the vote. As in the vote on the preamble, the vote against was cast by a permanent member of the Security Council, thns the second part of the draft resolution has also been rejected. l calI upon the members of the Council to vote on the draft resolution as a whole. First, however, l calI on the representative of the USSR, who wishes to speak on a point of order. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated fr01l/ Rltssiall): We have nothing to vote on. Both parts of the draft resolution have been rejected. According to the general practice followed by the Security Council and by other United Nations organs, when all parts of a draft resolution have been rejected, the resolution is not put to the vote as a whole.

The practice may have been as ML Malik says, but our rules of procedure contain no such provision and do not prohibit a vote. Moreover, l remember that on a number of occasions the representatives of the Soviet Union have asked the General Asscmbly to vote on a resolution as a whole even after all its parts had been rejected. l remember a specific case when ML Vyshinsky argued that a vote was a sovereign act by each delegation, which had the right to state its view on a 24 The P~ESIDENT. (translated from French): l regard the two mterventlOns by the USSR representative as objections, and not as points of order requiring a decision by the Council. Consequently, if my interpretation is correct, l invite the Council to vote on the resolution as a whole. A vote ~vas taken by show of hands. In favour: China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Norway, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Yugoslavia. Against: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The result of the vote is as follows: nine votes in favour, one against and no abstentions. One delegation did not take part in the vote. As the vote against the draft resolution was cast by a permanent member of the Council, the resolution is rejected. We have completed our agenda. l cannot state the date of our next meeting as the presidency of Yugoslavia ends today. The next meeting will be called by my successor. The meeting rose at 6.35 p.m.