聯合國的台灣判決 身為一個台灣人，我相信大家都會因無聯合國會籍感到鬱卒。為什麼台灣不能被接納為聯合國會員？台灣可曾申請加入聯合國？根據聯合國憲章，它的會籍是開放給所有熱愛和平的國家。台灣是一個國家嗎？有人會說當然是，因台灣具備成為一個國家的所有要件 - 政府，軍隊和民選總統。但是，如果我們更深入探討細節，例如，何時建國？台灣是否擁有自己的國家主權？是否有台灣的憲法？那，我們就只有張口結舌、無言以對了。 然而，終還是會有不同的答案來回答這些問題。中華民國國民黨會回答您，台灣是中華民國的一部分。台灣最大反對黨民進黨會告訴您，台灣是中華民國、中華民國就是台灣。一些台灣獨立組織會告訴您，台灣是一個獨立的國家，只是她的名字在這個時候叫中華民國。有些台獨人士會告訴您，台灣還不是一個國家。但，中國共產黨總會一口咬定，台灣是中國的一部分。 台灣是中國的一部分或台灣是屬於中華民國？台灣與中國究竟是什麼關係？國民黨政府自二戰結束，開始軍事佔領台灣並對台灣人民洗腦，說台灣人就是中國人，台灣是中國的一部分。中華民國國民黨馬主席說世界上只有一個中國，就是中華民國。但在國際社會和聯合國，他們卻都只承認中華人民共和國。 2014年5月27日一組由前民進黨主席施明德領銜的政要，提出「大一中國架構」，其五原則包括「尊重現狀」、「現狀陳述」、「一中已遭窄化」、「大一中包括中華民國和中華人民共和國」、「兩岸應消除相互敵對」。這個由所謂不分藍綠的「大一中」原則，遭到北京政府和民進黨新任主席的否定。中國堅持其一國兩制，硬稱台灣前途由全體中國人決定；國民黨馬英九老談他的三不「不統、不獨、不武」；民進黨蔡英文則堅持台灣共識「台灣的前途要由台灣兩千三百萬人決定」。 上述所提的原則和構想，都是奠基於中華民國合法擁有台灣的概念。不幸的是，到目前世上並沒有任何法律文件可以證明，中華民國曾擁有過台灣的領土主權。如果我們自己將台灣套入中華民國，我們是走入胡同、只有死路一條。 一九五０年十一月三十日星期四下午三點至六點半，聯合國安理會在紐約成功湖召開了第530次會議，針對中國所指控「美國武裝入侵台灣」一案，以9比1駁回，給予一個非常明確的答覆。中華人民共和國中央人民政府的官方代表伍修權，在會場指控美國武力侵略中國領土台灣。但是，聯合國安理會給予正式的回答說『沒有』。即使中華民國駐聯合國大使蔣廷黻，針對當天伍的指控案也投了反對票。這是聯合國判決，台灣不屬於中國的一份正式官方記錄。請務必詳讀！http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.530〈全文登錄如附〉 是的，所有台灣人都應該詳讀這段歷史，來了解自己的國籍身份。一九五０年聯合國即白紙黑字明文公告世人，台灣不臣屬於中國。無奈，在過去六十四年，早期的台灣精英於二二八被殺殆盡，餘者懾於軍事戒嚴的淫威啞雀無聲，也有部份投機者甘心當國民黨馬前卒，然而後來的台灣黨外人士，雖然自組政黨，卻也不妨多讓死抱中華民國，說什麼「台灣就是中華民國、中華民國就是台灣」，真是五十笑一百，令人欲哭無淚。我們誠摯地呼籲當代的太陽花學子，能正視這份聯合國公告，台灣不是中華民國、中華民國也不是台灣。當然，台灣更不是中國的一部分。拿此準繩，自然可以正確地衡量在台灣即將到來的政事。二０一六年，只選有心要承擔「台灣總統」的候選人。同時也讓我們都密切關注，馬英九會穿戴什麼頭銜，去出席他日夜思慕的「馬習會」。是的，中華民國是中國的一部分，早該歸還中國，但台灣不是。 謝鎮寬 加州海沃 Taiwan on UN As a Taiwanese, I believe we all frustrate in the UN membership. Why Taiwan can’t be accepted as member of the United Nation? Has Taiwan ever applied the UN membership? According to the UN Charter that its membership is open to all peace loving states. Is Taiwan a nation? Yes, of course Taiwan has all the elements of a nation - government, military and elected president. But, if we go more details such as when was it established? Does Taiwan own her own state sovereignty? Is there a Taiwan Constitution? We are tongue-tied. However, there will be different answers to these questions. The Chinese Nationals Party KMT will answer you Taiwan is part of Republic of China. The major opposite party DPP will tell you Taiwan is ROC and ROC is Taiwan. Some of the Taiwan Independent group will tell you Taiwan is an independent nation and her name ROC at this time. Some TI will tell you that Taiwan is not yet a nation. But, the Communist China always say Taiwan is part of China. Is Taiwan part of China or Taiwan of ROC? What is the relationship of Taiwan and China? The KMT government occupied Taiwan since end of WWII and brain washed Taiwanese that Taiwanese are Chinese and Taiwan is part of China. ROC/KMT/Ma said there is only one China in the world that is ROC. But in the international community and UN they only recognize the People’s Republic of China. May 27, 2014 a group led by former DPP chairman Shih Ming-teh proposed a “Broad one-China framework” with five principles include “respect the status quo” “the status quo” “one China has been narrowed” “Forming a China to include ROC and PRC” “two sides should eliminate hostile to each other”. This “Greater one China” principle proposed by the so call bipartisan mixed with the green and the blue concepts rejected by both Beijing government and the DPP newly elected chairwoman. PRC insists on the one country two system, KMT/Ma insists on his three noes – no unification, no independence, no use of force”. DPP/Tsai insists on the Taiwan consent – Taiwan’s future decide by the 23M Taiwanese. All the above-mentioned notes and proposals are based upon the concept that ROC is legally owns Taiwan. Unfortunately there is no any legal document can prove that ROC owns Taiwan’s territorial sovereignty. If we tie Taiwan with ROC we go nowhere. On November 30, 1950 Thursday 3-6:30pm the United Nations Security Council held its 530th Meeting at Lake Success, New York and made a very clear answer to China’s claim of the ownership of Taiwan with a decisive vote 9 to 1 rejected the complaint of the United States armed invasion of Taiwan. Wu Hsiu-Chuan, the official representative of the Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China accused the United States aggressed/invaded China’s territory Taiwan. But the UN Security Council officially answered him NO. Even the ROC’s UN ambassador Tsiang Tingfu voted against Wu’s complaint on that day. This is the official record that Taiwan is not part of China. Please do read! http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.530 (Attachment) Yes, all Taiwanese should read this part of history to understand their own national identities. Taiwan is not ROC and ROC is not Taiwan. Of course Taiwan is not part of China. Let’s all watch closely what title Ma is going to put on his dream meeting with China’s president Xi Jinping. Yes, ROC is part of China and should return to China but not Taiwan. John Hsieh Hayward, California http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.530 聯合國 安 全 理 事 會
正 式 紀 錄 第 五 年 第七十二號 笫五三〇次會議一九五〇 年十一 月三十日 紐約發拉星草場 目 次 第五百三十次會議 一九五O年十一月三十日星期四午後三時在鈕约成功湖舉行 主席 Mr A BEBLER (南斯拉夫） 出席者 下列各國代表 中國、古巴、厄瓜多、埃及、法蘭西、印度、那威、蘇維埃社會主義共和國聯盟、大不列顛及北愛爾蘭聯合王國、美利堅合衆國、南斯拉夫 議程沿用第五二九次會議議程 ─ ( a )關於台灣（福摩薩）遭受武装侵犯之 控訴（績前） ( b )大韓民國遭受侵略之控訴 (續前) 經主席邀請，中華人民共和國中央人民政府代表伍 修權先生， 大韓民國代表林先生就理亊會議席。 Sir Gladwyn Jebb (英聯王國） 本人當然贊同美法兩代表的主張，卽當前一項聯合决議草案——文件S/1894號所載十一月十日由古巴、厄瓜多、法蘭西、那威、英國及美國共同提出的决議草案—現應付予表决，但在表決之前，本人擬極簡略說明本代表團對目前發生的整個情勢的見解。 前日﹝第五二七次會議﹞我們曾聽到一段極堪注意，同時又極令人悲觀的發言，把中華人民共和國中央人民政府的想法盡行暴露。這一段發言之所以引人注意，是因爲由此可以看得出人們和外界隔離過久之後------希望我這話不致得罪別人-------其爭取他們認真視爲是中國的正當目標的苦鬭，養成了憤世的人生觀之後會有何種心理。這一段發言之所以令人悲觀，是因爲其中很淸楚地反映這個政府已全部受了蘇聯宣傅的蒙蔽，而這種宣傅畢竟是專以蘇聯的利益爲出發點，並不一定顧到其外圍各共產主義國家的利益的。 在我看來，伍先生全篇演說中最暴露內情的幾段，就是誇說日本帝國主義的崩潰須完全歸功於中國人民和蘇聯的力量。中國人民多年抗担日本侵赂的功績，誰也不會小看它，但是事實依然是擊敗日本的决定性力量實來自美國和不列顚國協各國。 蘇聯在此次鬭爭中祇是在日本快要投降的最後數日才越過邊界，其主要目的是洗掠滿洲，並不惜犧牲中國，恢復蘇聯一向自認有權繼承的帝俄時代的特權與利益。 北京政府代表對這些明白的事實很可能毫無所知，因爲他們一直在共產主義宣傅的神話似的空氣中生活着，從未聽到過這些事實。順便可以提，蘇聯代表昨日 [第五二八次會議] 就這個問題發言時，似乎也祇說了些神話。 此次遨請伍將軍及其同屬參加會議有̶一個好處，就是他們至少在短期内能脫離暗室文宣世界，認為眞理隨「神明領袖」言論而轉移，親自觀察許多國家代表如何在這個思想自由的場合中彼此交換意見的情形。 旣然現在中華人民共相國政府的代表團除了聽那些以不合時代的哲學------這種哲學祇能吸引初受教育和思想不成熟的人------爲其制度基礎的國家而外，尙有聽聞施行其他制度國家發言的機會，本人或可順便吿訴他們昔日帝俄曾經扮演過重要角色的—齣帝國主義舊戲早已閉幕了 。十八世紀尤其是十九世紀時歐洲之擴張勢力，當然是以文藝復興時代的思想與技術爲出發點的，這樣使歐洲國家比世界其他國家處於特別優勢的地位。 可是這些思想和技術現巳在歐洲和北美洲以外的地方種下了根基。西方國家已不再獨霸科學知識和技術，因此很多民族，尤其是亞洲民族，最近曾極力推進，根據現代和進步的原則，自成獨立的國家。亞洲征服了西方技術，並以之爲亞洲民族利益而用，可說是當代意義重大最足令人興奮的現象之─，結果自上次大戰以後，巳成立了五大新興與獨立的亞洲國家。因此歐洲和亞洲之間的舊關係------歐洲與亞洲在以往一百五十年的關係------現巳遂漸由新的關係替代 ，這是全世界各地在普遍發生着的情形。 但是崇拜斯大林的人不肯接受這樣的演進，在他們看來，任何國家，除非是受共產黨政府統治，背後又受莫斯科政治局指使，都不能算是獨立。如有任何人認爲這是自相矛盾的話，那末祇能說他沒有讀過蘇聯的經典，共產主義事實上願意在亞洲冒充解放力量但這祇是一種偽装 ，而所以要採用偽装，是因爲這些國家大多數人民都要求實現民族解放，而共產主義却斷然非其目的所在。 1 本人對此點不願多說，祇願指出上述亞洲新興國家的領袖們都同意此說。他們並不否認，事實上亦無人否認共產主義會造成若干結果，但是他們均極堅决認爲如果換取物質進步的代價是對克姆林宫發佈的命令不分皂白必須一律作奴隸式的順從，那末這個代價對他們或對任何有自尊心的人都未免太重了。 無論如何，所謂這些新興國家，無論是巳經成立或正在形成之中，將來都要受歐洲國家和美國的剝削，這種說法在共產主義者看來必然是眞的，因爲根據共產主義的理論家和預言家的推測，這是必然發生的現象。蘇聯代表昨日 [第五二八次會議] 援用列寧著作的一段，可說是共產主義者一向如何以事實遷就理論的典型例證。蘇聯代表說這是典型的引證，這話絲毫不差。根據列寧的說法，這個時代按定義旣然是"帝國主義的時代"，那末在這個時代中〝國際托辣斯已經開始把世界瓜分了，各大資本主義國家把世界全部領土劃分範圍業巳完成了〞結果------根據共產主義的嚴格理論---------帝國主義國家因爲各自的市場都達飽和點之故，本身自然會分散 ，而帝國主義國家之間便發生"不可避免" 的戰爭。 至於各強國非但不擴充鞏固其所謂殖民地區域，而後者反而有逐漸實現自治和獨立的可能 ，世界最大的工業國------美國爲了鼓勵世界貿易，尙有將其剩餘產品大量免費分送各國的可能 ，所謂帝國主義各國還有想盡種種方法，爲據謂被它們視爲受治的民族改善其技術知識和技術方法的可能，最後，這些帝國主義國家非但不自相殘殺，反而有團結一致維護整個自由世界的可能，凡此種種可能性，對於共產主義者都是不可思議的，因爲列寧並沒有如此預斷，所以决不會眞有此事。可是現在眞的有了此事。至於西方國家竟會實際協助亞洲民族實現其願望，更非共產主義者能了解。 可是這是確實的情形。如果戰後不任蘇聯軍隊佔據朝鮮一半或一大半的領土肆意刼掠，那末這個不幸的國家早就會實現獨立自治了。此所以共方於去年六月二十五日决定要把另一半自由的朝鮮拖入蘇聯衞星國的黑暗可瞵的行列中。這是北朝鮮當局所探取的决定，並可假定曾徵得莫斯科共產黨總部的同意。 中央人民政府對此雖或表示同意 , 但是他們絕不致於看不出此項决定將來的結果。本人亦難相信他們會受共產黨國際宣傅局的催眠，居然相信此次戰爭的起因是美國爲顧全有名的托辣斯和獨佔企業的利益起見而侵略朝鲜領土。 簡單的一點就是非共產黨主義各國政府大致認爲北朝鮮公然侵略的行爲是對他們獨立的一種積極威脅。世界上非共產主義政府認爲共方發動攻擊和侵略是對他們本身獨立的威脅。他們一直在决心證明凡欲實施此項行動的國家，其人民與政府終必蒙受極大損失和苦痛，期能消滅這種威脅。 這是他們原來的意旨，本人敢謂至今並無改變共產帝國主義越想威脅自由世界，自由世界越是加緊努力集中空前未有的團結力量來保衞這種眞正而非虛偽的民主。 一如本人所說，自由世界的人心對於朝鮮戰爭的罪惡與責任何在，絕無疑義。聯合國曾請毎一會員國考慮可以出多少力量去抗拒武力侵略。主要力量之來自目前尙未在遠東各地與共產主義作武力搏鬭的國家，或領土遠離侵略直接威脅的其他國家，這是可以料想得到的事。因此應付武装衝突蔓延的主要責任由美利堅合衆國來負擔是不難了解的，因爲美國是在發生侵略地點附近有軍隊可資遺調的唯一自由國家。我們都知道美國人民的政府如何迅速和英勇地響應號召。 但是英聯王國也是首先響應的一國。我們當然不能將亞洲各地戰線上的軍隊調往朝鮮。但在某一時期我們採取行動非常迅速，結果英聯王國在朝鮮戰場海面的軍艦數目比較美國軍艦還多。本人所說相信不致有錯誤。 我們的軍隊不久便開達，立卽與聯盟國家的軍隊組織起來。聯盟軍隊現在朝鮮作戰者已有兩旅之多。我們的軍隊最先到達和美國及南朝鲜本身軍隊並肩作戰，除美國外，美國派遺軍隊人數較任何他國爲多。 我們在朝鮮的目標與美國的目標完全相同，不折不扣地實現聯合國的目標，別無其他企躅。我們最欣望的莫如早日撤兵並見朝鲜能有一眞正獨立的朝鲜政府。我們在朝鮮非但不求 "托辣斯和獨佔" 特權，反而深感英國人民爲了協助朝鮮經濟的重建和復興，勢須盡重大的犧牲。 除此而外，我們並不從以軍事力量保護馬來亞和朝鮮爲足，因此曾與不列顛國協所有其他國家共同擬具一項經濟和技術協助的建設性計劃，以應東南亞洲人民的需要。昨日發表的哥倫坡計劃便是和共產帝國主義強迫我們接受的戰事相對的建設性行動。這項計劃的原則絲毫沒有帝國主義的色彩，且大部份係由國協中的三個亞洲國家-------印度、巴基斯坦和錫蘭的専家們擬成。此項計劃把我們所追求 2 的光明世界標明得清清楚楚，將來等到處理朝鮮戰後復興建設的時候，英國亦當盡一分和平和建設性的力量。 現在巳很明白地看得出如果戰爭繼櫝下去，我們鼓勵亞洲的獨立民族國家不受外國統治並接受他們本身所希望的技術和經濟協助的目標，是很難充分實現的。因此，我們的政策必須以早日結束軍事行動爲目的。不但我們在遠東的目標，而且我們對戰爭的厭惡，以及就在本人發言的時候我的同胞正在朝鮮與馬來亞不斷捐軀這一層認識都使我們不得不採取這樣的政策才不受影響。如果中央人民政府的代表們能聽從理智，本人懇請他們聽取這一段事實的聲明。 從這一段關於本代表圑立場的一般聲明來看，我們何以仍舊促請安全理事會以大多數票通過當前這一項有關朝鲜的决議案，其理由巳甚明顯了。北京政府派大批軍隊於朝鮮參戰的嚴重事實，在我們看來絕不應影饗該决議草案的通過。該决議草案很明白地指出聯合國目的之實現對於中國的利益絕無影響，反之如果北京方面繼續不斷派兵前往朝鮮參戰，中國利益恐怕要大受損害。在北京政府採取任何無可挽救的决定前，本人特請其一再善爲考慮意氣用事巳是不宜 ，若妄聽另有所圖者的意見，恐更不利。 朝鮮問題當然不是目前議程上的唯一項目，此外，又有中央人民政府指控侵略台灣的抗議 ，關於這一點，我們祇能說他們所控指台灣變成美國基地或美國事實上控制該島一節，完全沒有證實。 如美國代表所說，駐台灣的美軍人員祇有四十四人。因此議程上所謂侵略一說顯然缺乏證據因此斷不能成立。我們知道台灣昔日是日本的屬地之一所有日本屬地將來如何處置仍舊是國際上的問題。如果沒有大家承認的法律决定就要求甚或企圖用武力來解决這個問題，—定會引起國際反響，因此是不可接受的。這個問題必須和平解決，但若有關的—方----------中華人民共和國中央人民政府對聯合國軍隊作大規模的軍事對抗並且蔑視聯合國的明白願望，那末這個問題的解决便異常渺茫。 因此本人回頭談到原來的提議，卽關於目前議程第二項 (a) 的决議草案，現在應卽提付表决。如果該草案被否決，我們便要考慮進一步行動。但是這一點顯然需要非常嚴重的考慮，但本人仍舊希望中華人民共和國政府有鑒於本人及其他代表所說的話，事實上能注意該决議草案的內容，表明在原刖上他們可以同意整個朝鮮問題至少應該遵循他們渴望加入的國際組織所訂原則求得解决。 主席 本人以南斯拉夫代表資格願作如下的聲明。 討論下面兩項問題一般都認爲是彼此有密切關係的，而就兩問題的實體來說，確屬如此。但是這兩問題相對的重要性却並不相等。首要的是朝鮮問題-------卽一九五O年六月二十五日所爆發經過五個月之久，越來越激烈，且一開始就非常嚴重的戰事，此次戰事對國際間可能引起的後果，使全人類都不寒而慄。 和這次戰爭比較起來，台灣（福摩薩）問題尙屬次要，凡是從國際安全觀點來看這個問題的人或者認爲這個國際問題是對一般和平有相當嚴重威脅的人，都覺得上述一點是很明白的。 我們對後一觀點完全贊同，因此我們的結論是台灣問題必須和平解决。我們如果能夠解决主要的問題------朝鮮問題-------那未台灣問題便不難獲得解决。 卽在目前，我們或者就應當努力解决這個問題和台灣問題直接有關各方面彼此之間如能進行磋商，對朝鮮這個主要問題的解决可能有良好的影響。 本代表圑在一般情況許可如此採取行動的範圍内，隨時準備促進實施此項建議。雖然如此，本人認爲朝鮮問題仍舊是主要的問題，這是聯合國當前最重要的問題。在目前維持一般和平的問題與朝鲜間題的發展有很大的閼係。朝鲜戰事已轉入新的階段，其主耍特徵是大批中國軍隊出現於朝鲜戰場參加作戰。此項事實不幸已無可置疑。大批軍隊派往朝鮮參戰業經中華人民共和國政府在北京承認，並經伍將軍在此證實了。這是朝鮮問題中的一個嶄新而極端嚴重的因素。安全理事會因此必須判定這個因素的眞實意義並决定對策。 本人見北京政府代表設法避免討論此項問題，且對安全理事會迫於中華人民共和國政府一手造成的情勢不得不探取的行動拒絕合作，深以爲憾。我們曾看見過不少國家-------會員國和非會員國兼而有之------ 於聯合國各機構中答復或有根據或無根據的指謫，然而這些國家之中從來沒有一個拒絕參加討論的。非但如此，有許多次非會員國還想盡辦法要求聯合國請他們對問題發表聲明。 本人提及這一點，並不是因爲希望中華人民共和國代表此次參加公開討論對於朝鮮戰事新階段所引起的國際情勢會有什麼良好的影響，祇是因爲伍 3 將軍發表演說﹝第五二七次會議﹞所表現的抑鬱情緒，在我看來是和尊重聯合國憲章原則的政府所應表示的精神完全相反的。 伍將軍在他的長篇演說中把憲章原則聯合國的任務撇在背後，而世界相平問題刖竟一字不提，實在令人詫異。 伍將軍從詳談論台灣問題，並簡略提及朝鮮戰事，但是似乎把這兩項問題之間的關係乃至世界和平問題，都完全忘掉了。然而這正是主要的問題，而且是—切問題的焦點。 自聯合國於舊金山成立以來，我們已看見過多次局部戰事，聯合國也曾對這些戰事，加以注意。但是這些戰事所引起國際間的反響，沒有一次比得上朝鲜戰事。伍將軍有沒有自己問過這是爲了什麼理由？他有沒有想過何以其中有這樣大的差別？他有沒有問過自己，從這種差別中，關於此次朝鲜戰事悲劇中扮演重要角色各國所應負的責任，我們應該得些什麼結論？ 伍將軍對責任問題的論據顯然就是蘇聯代表在此屢曾發揮的一點，就是說，唯一要負責任的是美國。爲了說明此點，他們不惜列舉所有種種情況， 以資佐證，可是能夠斷定責任的要點却避而不提。這個基本要點便是戰事發生後初期内各政府的行爲。 讓我們囘想一下這些政府的行爲。自戰事發生之初，雙方卽互指先開戰釁。可是祇有南朝鮮政府向聯合國提出呼籲，安全理事會當日卽發表命令要求停戰並撒囘至北緯三十八度。試問當時情況如何？何方接受並遵守了命令？戰事發生以後十二或十五小時內深入敵境的北朝鮮軍隊接受了停戰命令，撤囘至北緯三十八度沒有？不，這些軍隊並未遵守命令。兩日以後，北朝鮮政府致電秘書長指六月二十五日的决定爲非法。 試問蘇聯政府和中華人民共和國政府對此項停戰及撤回至北緯三十八度的命令採何態度？ 它們有沒有予以擁護-------道義上的擁護。不，它們在報章上肆意詆毁，而官方則置之不理達兩月之久，但在另一方面則不斷頌揚北朝鮮軍隊在南朝鮮境內的戰功。 它們甚至更進一步，本人在六月二十七日於安全理事會第二次會議 [第四七四次會議] 時提出一項新决議草案，再度要求雙方停戰並撒回至北緯第三十八度，並重新提議邀請北朝鮮政府前來成功湖，希望能於最後一分鐘以和平方法解决戰事。不料此項提議竟引起東歐各國新聞界對本國政府乃至本人肆意攻擊橫加詆毀。 這些事實可以證明朝鮮戰事應歸何方負責，這是極端嚴重的責任，因爲朝鲜不比巴勒斯坦 、印度尼西亞或喀什米爾，其理由可以不用細說。朝鮮是極度敏感的神經中樞。凡是干預朝鮮問題的國家早就應該注意這一點，並應預見其行動，態度與意見可能引起的後果。在我們這一方面，我們也必須切記這一點。 南斯拉夫外交部長 M r Kardelj 於一九五〇年九月八日發表聲明說 " 南斯拉夫人民於考慮朝鲜的情勢時，不得不顧及一項事實，卽共產黨國際宣傅局各國 政府三年以來在蘇聯政府領導之下不斷對社會主義的南斯拉夫施以劇烈攻擊，其原因正 是南斯拉夫的工作民衆堅持在本國境內自由探取决定的權利。此項爲社會主義南斯拉夫 所堅决反對的侵略政策，反映着主動者在世界其他部份所採取的政策。由此可見目前對 南斯拉夫仍舊採取侵略或反社會主義專爲本身爭取優勢的政策者絕不會在世界其他各地 採取不同的政策，卽民主和社會主義的政策及和平，平等對全世界族一視同仁的政策。 共產黨國際宣傅局領袖們所採的政策和人類進步久已格格不入，因此，對於受其利用的 進步和自由運動都是有害無利的。 "他們雖然高唱和平並指控他人爲侵赂者，但這難掩飾他們對朝鮮戰事或對危害整偭世 界和平所負的—部份責任。" 今日中華人民共和國於朝鲜戰爭中不斷增援北 朝鮮政府，本人必須認爲中華人民共和國政府曾參 加並且在繼續積極參加蘇聯對本國的侵赂。本人必 須指出這個政府絕未脫離此項政策或蘇聯在世界其 他各地尤其是朝鮮所探的反民主政策。 中華人民共和國政府除了於北朝鮮軍隊侵略南朝鮮時給以道義上和外交上的聲援負有責任外，現在又加上了以人力和物力大量增援北朝鮮侵略者的責任，南斯拉夫聯邦人民共和國對此項行爲小得不加譴斥並予制裁。 南斯拉夫政府對國際問題所遵循的原刖一向是不斷努力消弭新戰爭的危機，並反對所有侵略行爲不論係來自何方。爲達成此項目標，必須有堅定的立場，嚴禁所有侵略行爲，並反對任何藉侵略遂行目的之國家。 南斯拉夫政府的態度，並不純粹由於南斯拉夫人民深愛和平的緣故，而也是因爲本國政府深信在目前我們决不能以思想、政治、社會或經濟方面的 4 理由在侵略行爲之間劃出基本的區別來。首先要做的事是消弭人類對戰爭和侵略的所有恐懼，以便他們能夠沿進步的大路上邁進。此所以在今日所有侵略行爲不祇應親爲是對和平和人類的罪惡，而且也應該視爲是破壊人類進化的罪行。本代表團是從這個觀點來研究六國决議案的。 中韓交界上發生的事件嚴重地威脅和平且有引起朝鮮戰爭蔓延的可能，這是無可否認的事 。 南斯拉夫代表團以往曾有對整個朝鲜戰事發表意見的機會。我們認爲造成朝鮮流血局面的事件首先要歸咎於北朝鮮政府的險惡政策和鼓動此項政策的人。我們認爲凡支持此項政策的外來力量，不論來自那一方面，都有使朝鲜戰事有擴大並挑起新世界大戰的危險。 南斯拉夫政府的態度因此非常明顳。我們對南朝鲜政權並無同情。我們對在朝鮮發生的事件深引爲憾。可是我們絕對無意替北朝鲜政府的政策覓尋藉口，或予以絲毫支持，因爲目前的局勢正是該政府所採政策的結果。 至於造成目前情勢的過失應由那一方面的朝鮮政治頜導當局來負責，這一點祇有朝鮮人民自己才能斷定。這是 在朝鲜唯一可以遵循的途徑，唯有遵循這個途徑才能不致有擴大戰事的危險。 南斯拉夫代表圑爲了上述原因，擬贊助任何能夠使朝鮮戰事地方化並防止戰爭在遠束蔓延的措施，因爲這樣的戰爭不但會使亞洲人民罹難，且很可可能會引起另一次世界大戰。 南斯拉夫代表團秉此意旨，雖不全部贊成六國决議草案，但因該案目的在避免朝鮮戰事擴大，故對其一舨旨意仍將加以贊助。 本人遵照本國政府對朝鮮問題的一般態度，將於表决該决議草案的前文時棄權。本人擬投票贊成該决議草案正文及該草案之全部。 Sir Benegal N RAU ( 印度） 本人在以往數日對理事會中的發言，尤其是對美國代表的聲明 [第五二八次會議] 及北京政府代表的聲明﹝第五二七次會議﹞，非常注意。他們的發言完全沒有共同之點，可是其中有一點特殊的例外。這一點非常重要，本人願藉此機會略予申論。 美國代表在兩日前的演說中曾提到中國人民和美國人民彼此之間的長久和密切的關係。北京政府代表一方面對所謂美國帝國主義者的狡詰侵略提出抗議，但是承認在中國的全部外交史上美國人民和中國人民彼此之間素來維持着友善的關係。本人可說本人親自得來的印象也證明以上所引的聲明確係實情，因爲甚至在國際情勢極度緊張的以往數月中，本人在美國所遇見社會各階層的人，無論是政府官員或私人，决沒有誰不是迫切希望美國和屮國之間直接和間接都不發生戰爭的，本人並不要求北京政府代表就此便相信我的話。事實上，本人要請他以親身的觀察來證實這句話。讓他盡量利用機會與美國社會每一階層的人談話並親自觀察判斷，他一定 會與本人一樣，發覺美國人民都很熱心、和善，亟願按他們自己的生活方式安居樂業，和帝國主義的態度恰恰相反。 他們當然對侵略深懐戒懼，並決定於侵略發生時堅予抗拒。但每一國的人民都是如此，中國人民亦非例外。誰不知道中國人民以往三四十今所受的痛苦經驗。在這一段時期的大部份時間中，他們的國家都被戰爭蹂躏得疲敝不堪。因爲這些經驗的結果，他們自然是満腔懷疑和憂懼，並渴望有一個時期的和平。 本人相信不祇這兩國人民有此感覺，且舉世人民均有同感。倘若全世界均渴望和平，那末我們現在極力設法尋求實現相平的方法，亦决不致於過晚。關於這一方面， 本人將來也許還得再說些話。 至於安全理事會現在所討論的具體决議草案本人要通知理事會我們還沒有奉到政府的最後訓令。這是非常重要的一項决議草案，可能引起嚴重的後果。鑒於十一月十日該决議草案提出以後發生的事件，本國政府當然亟欲加以愼密的考慮。如果這個問題必須在今日提出表决，本人當不參加投票，但擬保留日後提出聲明的權利。 Mr MALIK (蘇維埃社會主義共和國聯盟） 本人曾密切注意坐在左邊的英聯王國代表發言 ， 但結論認爲英國代表和美國代表都並沒有駁倒蘇聯代表圑關於美國侵略台灣的聲明中所列舉的一個事實或—點論據。 Mr Austin 昨日說他沒有時間去研究中華人民共和國代表所舉的事實，恐怕他才沒有時問閱讀蘇聯代表圑的聲明。當事實和他們的立場相反時，算是事實倒霉，這似乎已成了英美代表的一貫作風，成了他們的習憤。他們把事實推在一邊，然後開始對蘇聯及其政策肆意加以詆毁。這樣一來他們便易於辯論和討論問題了。但是用這樣的方法是絕不會達到肯定的結論的。 Mr Austin 和美國的統治階級隨時準備指控他人------甚至上帝-------犯侵略的罪名，但當有具體事 5 實的文件-------關於美國侵略行爲， 美國統治階級的侵略行爲，佔頜他人領土，遺派満載軍用品的鉅大艦隊至他國領海等事實的文件向安全理事會提出時，當別人列舉事實，證明美國公然違犯公認的國際公法規則，並促請注意此類行爲按國際公認的定義確屬侵赂行爲之時， Mr Austin 便把事實推開不管，Si r Gladwyn Jebb也同樣照辦。他們然後開始對蘇聯肆意詆毀，以爲這樣便解决了問題，證實了他們'的論據。 這就是目前的實在情形，在此情形下，安全理事會如何能夠通過一項公允的解决辦法？在此情形下，如何能望安全理事會對中華人民共和國政府的抗議予" 客觀的考慮？ M r Austin和Sir Gladwyn Jebb對於中華人民共和國代表與蘇聯代表聲明中所舉的昭彰事實隻字未提，這些事實向全世界證明了美國統治階級犯了直接侵略和公然侵略中國的罪行。 關於本日議程主要項目的討論目前的情形就是如此。 Sir Gladwyn Jebb更漫無邊際地從理論與哲學的觀點侃侃而論。我們在安全理事會中對此早已論及， 本人不擬重提這一點，但從Sir Gladwyn Jebb的全部理論可以歸納一點，他是替帝國主義征服行爲和帝國主義對亞洲入民所採態度辯護的宣傳家。在我看來，這是非常明顯的，因此無論怎樣抵賴莫斯科和蘇聯，都不能掩飾Sir Gladwyn Jebb的本來面目。 Sir Gladwyn Jebb 想證明十八及十九世紀的帝國主義是歷史的陳蹟，英聯王國往日實行帝國主義的猙獰面目固然不復存在，可是現在有麥阿瑟將軍實行帝國主義的另一方式。麥阿瑟將軍把朝鮮的村鎮城市焚燬，屠殺當地平民，強姦婦女，殺戮老弱兒童，把整個國家化爲灰燼，然後宣佈他是代表聯合國並在聯合國幟旗之下行事的。 帝國主義的方式雖然改變了，可是殺人放火的本質仍奮保存着。而且，現在還有了聯合國名義與旗幟爲掩護。 Sir Gladwyn Jebb 在理事會承認英國曾積極參加侵略朝鮮，試問我們能夠祈望一個積極參加美國侵略朝鮮的國家的代表說些什麼？美國和英國代表因爲本國政府聯同對朝鮮人民施以侵略，故對討論下一項問題的觀點是彼此相同的。這是無可否認的事實。 Sir Gladwyn Jebb 說蘇聯是在極力設法強迫他人接受其制度與生活方式，本人對此已答覆多次，認爲現在無需再加答復，因爲這不外是最誹謗和訛僞的宣傅，蘇聯，蘇聯的領袖和蘇聯政府或人民都從未強迫任何人接受他們的制度，他們亦從無此意。我們不喜歡資本主義-------你們不喜歡社會主義。我們並未強迫你們接受社會主義，可是美國却利用"美國之聲" 於世界各地宣揚所謂"美國生活方式" 藉此強迫我們接受資本主義。若其他國家不願接受美國生活方式，何故必須以武力強其接受？ Sir Gladwyn Jebb仔細考慮這個問題後便知他那一套哲學思想耍全部垮台，本人甚至尙未提到Sir Gladwyn Jebb 本人承認英國軍隊在馬來亞的行爲與美英軍隊在朝 鮮的行爲完全相同。 因此這兩大強國，所謂 "西方國家" 派遺軍隊前往亞洲國家的目的很顯明地是想用砲火與刀槍來阻止亞洲兩國------其實尙不止兩國-------的人民爭取自由及獨立並成爲獨立的主權國，在外交關係上與美英站在平等地位。這是不適合美國和英國統治階极的要求的，因爲後者的行動根據是獨裁原則，武力及殖民地壓迫政策，這就是整個問題的要點。 Sir Gladwyn Jebb 說他並不勸大家聽有關方面的意見，試問英國代表是不是這個問題的有關方面？他不是顯然和這個問題直接有關嗎？可見Sir Gladwyn Jebb本人就自相矛盾。根據他的理論，凡是他的希望、意見和建議都可說是有關方面的意見。 若是如此，理事會如何能夠考慮英聯王國代表的意見------"有關方面" 的意見？英國的軍隊、將領軍官及士兵現正在和美軍對朝鮮人民作戰。他們是干涉主義者和侵略者，因此英國代表是站在 "有關的一方"，故就這個問題的全部發言都是 "有關方面的意見" 若根據英國代表的論據， 安全理事會對他的意見可以置之不理。 Sir Gladwyn Jebb 曾重提 Mr Austin 以往在理事會初次提出的一項數字。Mr Austin 說駐台灣的美國軍官與士兵祇有四十四名。伹是 Mr Jebb和Mr Austin 都不提據有台灣的第七艦隊及其雄厚兵力。 本人願請 Sir Gladwyn Jebb 聽一聽他所認識的英國記者的報導。他是邱吉爾的兒子 RandolphChurchill 這是他在本月初十一月三日在每日電訊報發表一文所載消息，此項消息當然是極新近的Randolph Churchill 曾到過台灣和台北，他曾駕車巡視全島，親睹美國人在台灣的活動情形，察知他們來台灣的原因和目的。 6 他說他認爲杜魯門總銃對美國第七艦隊的命令是對從大陸方面來襲的軍力，加以攻擊。杜魯門總統對第七艦隊的命令因此是對中華人民共和國的敵意行動，因爲此項命令的要點是美國第七艦隊對從來自大陸企圖向台灣進發的軍力加以全力打擊。 據 Mr Austin 在安全理事會所作聲明，現在台灣的美國軍事人員祇有四十四人，卽等於以外交人員身份派駐世界各國首都軍事代表圃的普通人數。譬如說凡與蘇聯有外交關係的國家均派有軍事代表團駐在莫斯科。在華盛頓亦駐有和美國有外交關係各國的軍事代表團，在其他國家亦有相同的情形。這些都是正常的軍事代表團。 Mr Austin 說美國駐台灣的軍事代表團亦是正常的軍事代表團。 可是美國軍事代表團在台灣究竟做些什麼？試看Randolph Churchill對這一點的報導Admiral Jarrett指揮下的美國陸軍及海軍代表對台灣各地防線已作澈底調査，相信於必要時，國民政府（卽國民黨）軍隊六十萬人的戰鬥能力實較以往在大陸時爲強。 由此可見美國軍事代表團在台灣做些什麼工作。試問在什麼地方發生過這種以普通外交官身份派駐外國的軍事代表圑在當地國家從事澈底研究與調査其防線和陣地的情形？可是駐台灣的美國軍事代表團却不經任何居間關係直接辦理此項工作。因此美國軍事代表圑不是尋常的團體。事實上這個代表團不祇供給軍事方面的意見而巳，而且有軍事指揮權。這就是說美國軍事代表圃不是普通的外交團體而是指揮台灣國民黨夥幫的美軍參謀圑。 再者，Mr Randolph Churchill 又說 "英國已不復承認國民政府"，可是英國軍隊竟有一位聯絡官Lieutenant Commander Dennis爲代表。因此英聯王國變成了一條兩頭蛇。英國一方面承認中華人民共和國中央人民政府，但在另一方面則派遺軍事代表駐台灣與該地的美國軍事代表團打成一片。 Randolph Churchill在同一文中提到美國對台灣的用心說“此間（指台灣） 無人相信美國會在可以預見的期內放棄台灣”。 這是一段非常坦白與具體的聲明。美國用武力佔據了外國一個島，且無意於可以預見的期內將其放棄。因此Randolph Churchill答復了 Mr Austin所說美國在台灣毫無企圖的聲明[ 第五二八次會議] 。Churchill把Austin駁倒了。 Randolph Churchill 又說“美國方面刻在供給國民政府軍備與極有價値的經濟援助。台灣顯已不再被認爲是戰略上的冒險。反之，一般輿論日益堅决認為該島連同所有寶貴的海軍與空軍基地如不幸落入共方手上對美國和英國的利益是嚴重的打擊。本人要強調所謂利益者不僅是指美國的而且也指英國的利益。本人這樣說是欲證明安全理事會的英國代表對這個問題的計論斷難平正客觀。又所謂台灣未受侵略一說亦無可置信。 關於麥克阿瑟對台灣的意向與國務院耆見互相衝突一說，Randolph Churchill 坦白說出事實，並謂關於麥克阿瑟與美國國務院之間彼此意見不同等等傳說與宣傅均與事實不符。 Randolph Churchill說 “最近外間紛紛傅說麥克阿瑟將軍與國務院意見分裂一節，似是表面現象，並非實在情形”。麥克阿瑟將軍發表致海外戰役退伍軍人會的有名文吿以前數星期-------該文件曾禁止報界發表-------國務卿艾奇遜先生曾分發一項祕密文件說明美國在東南亞的戰略需要。 凡曾讀過這兩項文件的人都認爲對目前情勢和政策的解釋兩項文件並沒有多大出入。杜魯門總統對麥克阿瑟將軍不滿，顯然並不是因爲彼此對將來的政策在意見上有任何基本不同，而另有其他原因意見紛歧的起因是麥克阿瑟將軍表示意見的態度過份囂張，又因在外交政策上政府當局有約東軍人權力的必要。 從 Randolph Churchill 這些聲明來看，麥克阿瑟將軍在對退伍軍人發表的文吿中以極其現實與坦白態度所表示的意見和國務院的政策沒有參差不同之處，而且他的意見和美國總統對遠東問題包括台灣問題的政策彼此之間也沒有出入之處。 Randolph Churchill 指出事實的眞相。他列舉各項事實，使美國方面對麥克阿瑟將軍和國務院之間的所謂意見不同的種種傅說不攻自破。 這是美國對台灣用意的實在情形。這又是美國侵略中國的情形。 美國代表和英國代表對在安全理事會提出的關於台灣的決議草案隻字不提，堪予注意。他們祇是關心朝鮮問題，在這一方面， 他們得南斯拉夫代表的積極支持。後者更自吿奮勇，不惜用盡各種方法幫助美國代表擾亂世人視聽企圖莳明美國在遠東沒有侵略行爲。 南斯拉夫代表顯然爲了辯論的目的自稱站在反對任何侵略的立場，同時他用盡所有力量替美國在台灣侵略中華入民共和國及在朝鲜侵略朝鮮人民等行爲辯護和掩飾。從他的聲明中可以看得出南斯拉夫代表和美國代表在安全理事會中何故如此固執提 7 議把以往從未合併的兩項問題------武力侵略台灣問題及所謂 "大韓民國遭受侵略之控訴" 問題-----合併計論。 南斯拉夫代表爲了掩飾他對台灣問題的態度故必須如此，他稱台灣爲次要問題，並堅持朝鮮是主要問題。如果台灣是次要問題，那末佔據該島的美國干涉侵略者便可留下來作主人翁了，這是南斯拉拉夫代表所得的結論。因此他要把兩項問題歸倂，以便轉移安全理事會和世界輿論的視線，使其集中於朝鮮並蒙蔽人民的眼晴，便他們看不見合灣的情勢，由此可以協助美國統治階級替侵略中國的行爲找尋藉口並加以掩飾。 這種把問題歸倂起來的簡單方式本來不難發現。美國代表和他的南斯拉夫夥伴兼助手所用這種歸倂兩個問題的方法，表示南斯拉夫的統治階級和派駐安全理事會的代表已開始充分包庇美國統治階級的侵略行爲，且用完全相同的誹謗方法對付蘇聯。在這問題上，Mr Bebler 和 Mr Austin之間毫無差別。卽用顯微鏡來檢査亦看不出什麼差別。 有些代表想把罪名推賴到北朝鮮當局身上，但北朝鮮當局並未獲准列席安全理事會，以及他們於不在場時被指控爲侵略者，這件事實却沒有人提到。這是美國代表和美國統治階級認爲方便而有用的程序，利用別人不在場時任意指他爲侵略者。他們非但不顧事實不欲研究或分析事實，且往往在捐棄事實及拒絕聽取被控者答辩以後才認定他人有罪。這樣提出指控當然是很方便的。英美集團及其助手南斯拉夫代表慣用這樣的技倆，久之已成了安全理事會牢不可破的工作方法之一。這就是責任問題的情形。 鑒於上述事實，蘇聯代表團看到英美代表及其南斯拉夫夥伴拒絕討論美國侵略中國的問題。他們逃避這個問題的討論，不願面對事實，不願討論這個問題。 蘇聯代表團認爲安全理事會此次會議議程上第—個問題是美國武力侵略台灣問題。理事會的責任是詳細和客觀地討論該問題，分析事實，並作公允的决定。 不僅是向安全理事會提出抗議的中華人民共和國中央人民政府，而且四萬萬七千五百萬中國人民都期待安全理事會對此問題作公允的决定。有人在此提到和中國人民的友誼，請以具體行動來表現這友誼。 中國人民藉其合法政府爲代表曾向安全理事會抗議美國侵略。請用客觀態度，友善的精神仔細研究此項抗議，並作一公允的决定，保護中國人民，免受美國統治階級的侵略，並以行動來證明對中國人民的友誼。 侵略者對被侵略者揚言 "友善”是沒有人相信的派遣軍隊前往佔頜他人領土，然後以主人翁自居的人，口口聲聲表示友善，是無人相信的，在這樣的情形下，什麼話都難令人置信。 現在需要的是事實和行動。最好的事實------對中國人民表示和平及友善的事實莫如由安全理事會通過决定，要求美國統治階級馬上停止侵略中國，並將軍隊自中國領土撒退。這是安全理事會所能做到的最公允的决定，這是中國人民和中國政府所祈望的决定。 主席 發首人名單上旣無其他發言人， 我們或可進行表决。但在會議之初，中華人民共和國代表詢問在各項决議草案付表決之前是否可以准他發言。現在請他發言。 伍修權先生（屮華人民共和國中央人民政府）在我第一次發言的時候﹝第五二七次會議﹞，我已經聲明在這一次出席安全理事會祇是參加控訴美國武装侵略台灣的討論。我不參加所謂控訴侵略大韓民國的討論但是很奇怪的，美國代表奥斯汀先生在他兩次的發言中，不正面來回答我中華人民共和國對於美國武装侵赂臺灣的控訴這證明中華人民共和國控訴的理由，是顛撲不破的。 但是，這種企圖把大家的注意力轉到所謂控訴侵略大韓民國的議程上去，以這個麥克阿瑟的非法的報吿爲根據，以威脅的口吻提出了一連串的誣蠛性的問題。我吿訴奥斯汀先生，這種威脅是嚇不倒人的。 我不參加控訴侵略大韓民國的討論，理由是很淸楚的。因爲朝鲜問題的眞相，不是別的，正是美國政府武装干涉朝鮮的內政，並且嚴重地破壤了中華人民共和國的安全。美國政府盜用聯合國的名義，是完全非法的。 六月二十七日聯合國安全理事會對於朝鲜問題的决議，由於沒有中華人民共和國和蘇聯兩大常任理事國的參加，這個决議根本上是非法的。在這種情況下，我决不參加這種根本荒謬的所謂控訴侵略大韓民國的討論。也完全沒有必要囘答奧斯汀先生以這個麥克阿瑟的報吿爲基礎的所提出的問題。 自從美國政府發動侵略朝鲜戰爭以來，從八月二十七日到十一月二十五日北侵略朝鲜的美國武装力量，巳經侵犯我國颌空，根據初步的統計，已經 8 有兩百次，所出動飛機、計一千架以上，毁壊了中國的財產，殺傷了中國的人民，我要問奥斯汀先生，這是不是侵略呢？ 自從六月二十七日以來，美國第七艦隊已侵入我國臺灣的領海和阻止我中華人民共和國中央人民政府對於臺灣行使主權。我要問奧斯汀先生，這種行爲是不是侵略呢？ 自從第二次大戰結束以來，美國政府花費了六十萬萬以上的美金幫助中國國民黨反動殘餘集團去發動空前殘酷的內戰。因爲美國的武器殘殺了幾百萬中國的入民我要問奧斯汀先生，這是不是干涉中國的內政呢？ 祇准帝國主義進行侵略，不准人民反抗的時代，已經是過去了。是的，中國人民是愛好相平的，但是，中國人民完全有信心，打潰侵入、侵略中國的一切帝國主義侵略者。 爲要維護世界的和平與聯合國憲章的荘嚴，我再次向安全理事會要求接受中華人民共和國的建議以便制止美國的侵略，制止戰爭，保證亞洲與世界的和平與安全。 主席 進行表决之前，我們必須决定投票程序我們雖然把朝鮮和台灣問題合倂討論，但本人提議按兩項目於議程提出的先後秩序將决議案付表决。 本人因此提議將關於台灣問題的兩决議草案，按其提出先後秩序付表决，換句話說，卽先表决蘇聯於一九五〇年九月二日提出的决議草案[S/1757],然後表決中華人民共和國中央人民政府於一九五O年十一月三十日提出經蘇聯代表團贊助的一項决議草案。此後，我們便可以表决和朝鮮有關的唯一决議草案，卽由古巴、厄瓜多、美國、法蘭西、那威及英聯王國提出上註十一月十八日日期的决議草案 [S/1894] Mr MALIK ( 蘇維埃社會主義共和國聯盟） 主席的一番話是不是說不必理會印度代表的意願？印度代表曾說未曾奉到該國政府躕於投票立場的訓令。至今爲止，安全理事會對於未接本國政府關於投票立場訓令的任何國代表，向來都顧及其意願，主席的意思是不是說他將不顧及印度代表的意願？ 主席 印度代表並未要求理事會等到他接獲政府訓令後再來表决。他祇是指出他不能參加表决而巳。發生這種情形並不是初次。但如 M r Mahk 堅持，本人可請印度代表聲明是否要求理事會今日不舉行表决， 等到他接獲本國政府的訓令再說。 Mr MALIK 〈 蘇維埃社會主義共和國聯盟）本人並未堅待任何主張，成是見剁一件事實，促請注瞀而巳。本人並不堅持任何主張。 主席 本人提議之表决程序旣無異議，本人認爲巳得一致同意。玆將蘇聯於九月二日提出之决議草案先付表决。 Mr MALIK 〈 蘇維埃社會主義共和國聯盟）鑒於該决議草案係於開始討論該問題之時提出，理事會多數國家代表已不復記憶，本人擬請將該决議草案全文宣讀。 主管安全理事會事務部助理秘書長宣讀文件S/1757，其全文如次 "安全理事會， "鑒於中華人民共和國中央人民政府對美利堅合衆國政府以美利堅合衆國武装部隊侵 佔經美利堅合衆國、大不列顛及中國於一九四三年十二月一日開羅協定中承認爲中 國頒土不可分之一部份之台灣島，由此干涉中國内政，構成侵略行爲一事，提出申 訴， "又鑒於美利堅合衆國出席聯合國代表 Mr Austin對中華人民共相國中央人民政府就 台灣問題向安全理事會所提申訴之聲明， "譴貴美利堅合衆國政府的行動爲侵略行爲，並且是干涉中國內政之舉動， "决定爲制止此類侵犯中華人民共和國主權之非法行動起見，向美利堅合衆國政府建 議立卽自合灣島及屬於中國之其他頗土完全撒出其陸海空軍部隊。" 舉行舉手表決。 贊成者 蘇維埃瓧會主義共和國聯盟。 反對者 中國、古巴、厄瓜多、埃及、法蘭西、那威、大小列顚^北愛爾蘭聯合王國、 美利堅合衆國、南斯拉夫。 印度未參加表决。 主席 一票贊成，九票反對。一理事國代表未參加表决，該决議案未通過。 本人現將中華人民共和國中央人民政府代表提送經蘇維埃社會主義共和國聯盟贊助之决議 草案[S/1921] 提付表决 該决議草案全文如次 "安全理事會， "鑒於美國政府武装力量侵佔台灣構成對中國領土的公開直接侵略， "復鑒於美國政府對中國領土的武装侵略及其對於朝鲜的武装干涉 破壤亞洲和平與 安全，違反聯合國憲章與阈際協定， 9 "譴貴美國政府武装侵略中國領土臺灣和武裝干涉朝鮮的罪行， "並决議要求美國政府自臺灣完全撤出它的武装侵赂力量，以保證太平洋的與亞洲的 和平和安全， "決議要求美國及其他外國軍隊一律撤出朝鮮，朝鮮內政由南北朝鮮人民自己解决， 以和平處理朝鮮問題。" 舉行舉手表决。 贊成者 蘇維埃瓧會主義共和國聯盟。 反對者 中國、古巴、厄瓜多、埃及、法蘭西、那威、大小列顚^北愛爾蘭聯合王國、 美利堅合衆國、南斯拉夫。 印度未參加表决。 主席 表決結果如次 一票贊成，九票反對，無棄權。一代表團未參加投票。該决議 案被否決。 本人現將古巴、厄瓜多、法蘭西、那威、英聯王國及美利堅合衆國提出的决議草案[S/1894] 付表決。該案全文如次 "安全理事會， "復按其一九五〇年六月二十五日之决議 案內斷定北朝鮮軍隊曾犯破壊和平行爲，並 籲請聯合'國全體會員國勿予北朝鮮政府以任何協助， "復按大會於一九五〇年十月七日通過之 决饞案，内列舉聯合國對朝鮮之政策， "鑒悉聯合國統帥部一九五〇年十一月五日特別報吿書所述中國共產黨軍隊在朝鮮展 開與聯合國軍隊作戰之事實， "重申聯合國軍隊除爲實現一九五〇年十月七日大會决議案所規定恢復朝鮮全境之安 定，及於主權完整之朝鮮境內成立統一獨立之民主政府等目標所必耍外，不應在朝 鲜任何地點留駐， "堅持不應探取足以使朝鮮事件蔓延至其他區域，從而使國際和平與安全更受危害之 行動， "籲請所有國家與當局，尤其負以上鑒悉行動之責任者，勿援助或鼓勵北朝鲜當局， 阻止其國民個人或部隊援助北朝鮮軍隊，並着令現時或在朝鮮境內之此等國民個人 或部隊立卽撤退， "申明聯合國之政策爲不侵犯中國鄰近朝鮮之邊界，並充分保護中國與朝鮮在其邊界 之合法權益， "提請注意中國軍隊繼續干涉朝鮮事對於維持上述政策所能引起之重大危險， "請朝鮮問題過渡委員會及聯合國朝鮮統一曁善後委員會對有關朝鮮邊界情形，並對 邊界他方之國家或當局有利害關係之任何問題，從速予以審議，並協助其解决，又 提議請聯合國朝鮮統一曁善後委員會於可能範園內儘早前往該區，並在抵達當地以 前爲此目的借重該委員會現有代表駐在該區之會員國之助力。" 南斯拉夫代表團曾要求分段表决，卽先將前文------前三段付表决，然後表决該决議草案其 餘部份。 倘無異議，我們卽如此進行表决 現在旣無異議，本人卽將該决議草案前三段付表决。 舉行舉手表决。 贊成者 中國、古巴、厄瓜多、埃及法蘭西、那威、大不列顛及北愛爾蘭聯合王國 、美利堅合衆國。 反對者 蘇維埃瓧會主義共和國聯盟。 棄權者 南斯拉夫。 印度未參加表决。 主席 該覺議草案前文表決結果如次 贊成者八，反對者一，棄權者一，一代表團未 叁加投票。 旣有一安全理事會常任理事國投反對票，該决議草案前文未獲通過。 茲將該决議草案第二部份從"申明聯合國 ”等語開始至該段之末提付表决 舉行舉手表决。 贊成者 中國、古巴、厄瓜多、埃及法蘭西、那威、大不列顛及北愛爾蘭聯合王國 、美利堅合衆國、南斯拉夫。 反對者 蘇維埃瓧會主義共和國聯盟。 印度未參加表决。 主席 該覺議草案第表決結果如次 贊成者 九，反對者一，棄權者零，一代表團未 叁加表決。 如表決前文的情形，投反對票者為安全理事會一常任理事國，故該决議草案第 二部份亦經否決。 本人現請安全事會代表表决該决議草案的全部。 首先，本人請蘇聯代表對程序問題發言。 Mr MALIK (蘇維埃瓧會主義共和國聯盟） 我們已沒有表决的需耍。該决議草案兩部份均遭否决。依照安全事會及聯合國其他機構所沿用的—般辦法，倘有一决議草案的所有各部均遭否决之後，卽不用將該决議案之全部付表决。 10 主席 一般慣例或許如 Mr Malik 所說，但議事規則並無此項規定，亦不禁止表决。此外，本人尙憶蘇聯代表曾屢次要求大會於某一决議草案各部份均經否决之後，仍將該决議案之全部付表决 本人特別記得 Mr Vyshmsky 在某一次辯論時稱投票是每一代表圑主權的行動，卽使某一决議案各部扮均經否决，該代表團對該决議案的全部仍有表示意見的權利。 Mr MALIK ( 蘇維埃社會主義共和國聯盟) 主席剛才所舉的先例和目前的情形毫無關係。因此蘇聯代表團認爲沒有將該决議案提付表决的理由。 主席 本人認爲蘇聯代表兩次發言是表示異議，而不是需要由理事會作一决定的程序動議。因此倘本入解釋無誤，本人卽請安全理事會各代表表决該决議案之全部舉行舉手表決。 贊成者 中國、古巴、厄瓜多、埃及法蘭西、那威、大不列顛及北愛爾蘭聯合王國 、美利堅合衆國、南斯拉夫。 反對者 蘇維埃瓧會主義共和國聯盟。 印度未參加表决。 主席 表決結果如次 贊成者九，反對者一，棄權者零，一代表團未參加表決。反對 投票者旣爲安全理事會某一常任理事國，該决議案巳經否决。 議程項目已討論完畢。因南斯拉夫翰任主席期於本日屆满，本人未能指定下次會議日期。下次會議將由繼任主席召集。 午後六時三十分散會。 http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/PV.530 UNITED NATIONS / NATIONS UNIES SECURITY COUNCIL OFFICIAL RECORDS
CONSEIL DE SECURITE PROCES-VERBAUX OFFICIELS LAKE SUCCESS, NEW YORK TABLE OF CONTENTS Pagl 1. (a) Complaint of armed invasion of Taiwan (Formosa) (continued) 1 (b) Complaint of agression upon the Republic of Korea (continued) 1 TABLE DES MATIE RES 1. a) Plainte pour invasion armee de Taiwan (Formose) (suite) 1 b) Plainte pour agression contre la Republique de Coree (suite) 1 S/PV,S30 Relevant documents not reproduced in full in the texts of the meetings of the Security Council are published in monthly supplements to the Official Records. All United Nations documents are designated by symbols, i.e., capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document. Les documents pertinents qui ne sont pas reproduits in extenso dans le texte des seances du Conseil de securite sont publies dans des supplements mensuels aux Proces-verbaux officiels. Les documents des Nations Unies portent tous une cote, qui se compose de lettres majuscules et de chiffres. La simple mention d'une cote dans un texte .signifie qu'il s'agit d'un document des Nations Unies. FIVE HUNDRED AND THIRTIETH MEETING Held at Lake Success, New York, on Thursday, 30 November 1950, at 3 p.m. CINQ CENT TRENTIEME SEANCE Tenue a Lake Suceess, New-York, le jeudi 30 novembre 1950, a 15 heures President: Mr. A. BEBLER (Yugoslavia). Present: The representatives of the following countries: China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, France, India, Norway, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Yugoslavia. The agenda was that of the 529th meeting. 1. (a) Cornplaint of armed invasion of Taiwan (Formosa) (continued) (b) Complaint of aggression upon the Republic of Korea (continued) At the invitation of the President, Mr. Wu Hsiuchuan, representative of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China, and Mr. Li1nb, representative of the Republic of Korea, took places at the Council table. Sir Gladwyn JEBB (United Kingdom): 1 am, of course, going to support the proposal of my United States and French colleagues that the j01l1t draft resolution before us - that is to say, document S/1894, tabled on 10 November by the representatives of Cuba, Ecuador, France, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States - should now be put to the vote, but before the vote takes place, 1 should like to set out very briefly the views of my delegation on the whole situation which has now arisen. The day before yesterday [527th meeting] we had a most interesting, if profoundly depressing, revelation of the state of mind of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China. It was interesting because of the indication it gave us of the mentality of persons who - 1 hope 1 may say this without offence - have been cut off from the great world for all too long, and whose bitter struggle to obtain what they no doubt sincerely regard as the legitimate aims of China, has produced a corresponding bitterness in their outlook on life; depressing, since it constituted fairly clear evidence that this government has completely swallowed the propaganda line of Moscow, which is, after all, designed to serve the needs of the Soviet Union and not necessarily those of communist States on the periphery. One of the most revealing passages of the whole speech of Mr. Wu, to my mind at least, was his claim that the Japanese imperialists had been defeated chiefly owing to the efforts of the Chinese people and of the Soviet Union. No one will underestimate the resistance 1 of the people of China to Japanese aggression, over a period of years, but the fact remains that the decisive contribution to the defeat of Japan was made by the United States and the British Commonwealth. The part of the Soviet Union in the struggle was limited to crossing the border in the last few days when the Japanese were on the point of surrender, with the principal abject of pillaging Manchuria and regaining, at the expense of China, those imperialist rights and privileges of imperialist Russia, to which the Soviet Union has always proclaimed itself to be the heir. It is only too probable, l fear, that the representatives of the Peking Government do not know these plain facts, because they have never heard of them and have lived in the fairy tale atmosphere of communist propaganda, which incidentally surrounded my Soviet colleague when he spoke on this topic yesterday [528th meeting] . Perhaps one of the advantages of having General Wu and his colleagues with us at this table is that they have had, for a short period at any rate, to emerge from that dark propaganda world - where truth is what the "divine Leader" may say from time to time - to see for themselves what happens when representatives of many nations come together, and in a place where thought at least is free. Since, therefore, the delegation of the Central People's Government is now in a position at least to hear nations other than those whose system is based on an outmoded philosophy which can make a strong appeal only to the newly-educated and the immature, l may perhaps inform them that the old era of imperialism, in which imperial Russia played so prominent a part, is now over. The expansion of Europe which occurred during the eighteenth and, more especially, during the nineteenth centuries was, of course, based on ideas and techniques which had their origins in the Renaissance; these put European nations of course in a specially advantageous position in comparison with the rest of the world. However, these ideas and techniques have now taken root elsewhere than in Europe and North America. The West no longer holds a monopoly of technical knowledge and skill, and it is for this reason that many States, particularly in Asia, have recently been forging ahead and forming themselves into nation States, based on modern and progressive principles. This conquest of western techniques by Asia, and their adaptation to Asian purposes, is one of the major and most encouraging phenomena of our times, and has resulted since the last war in the establishment of at least five large new and independent Asian nations. Hence the old relationship between Europe and Asia, or rather the relationship between Europe and Asia which prevailed for about 150 years until quite recently, has given or is giving place to a new relationship. This is a process which is gradually taking place all over the world. 2 But the Stalin-worshippers will have none of this. To them no nation can be independent unless it is controlled by a communist government, which in its turn is controlled by the Moscow Politburo. If anyone should think that this is a contradiction in terms, that only means that he has not read the Soviet classics. Communism, in fact, likes to masquerade in Asia as a liberating force, but this a mere disguise adopted simply because national liberation is the aim of the vast majority of the people of those countries whereas 'communism certainly is not. I shall not elaborate on this thought except to say that it is shared by the popular leaders of the new Asian States to which l have referred. They do not deny nobody would deny - that communism as a system can produce certain results, but they would assert, and most vigorously assert, that if the price to be paid for such material progress is slavish obedience in a11 respects to dictates issued by the Kremlin in the interests of Soviet imperialism, then that price is too high for them or any other self-respecting person to pay. In any case the suggestion that these newly emerging or newly emerged States must in some way be exploited by European States or by the United States of America must, in the opinion of Communists, be true, because such exploitation, as we know, is inevitable according to the predictions of the official communist theoreticians and soothsayers. The quotation from the works of Lenin which was given us by the representative of the Soviet Union yesterday [528th meeting] is a classic example of the way in which the communists have always made the facts fit their theories. The representative of the Soviet Union said it was a classic quotation and so indeed it is. Since this is by definition the "age of imperialism", according to Lenin, it must be the period "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". But what happens then, of course - according to strict communist theory - is that the imperialist Powers fa11 out among themselves owing to their respective markets becoming saturated, and an "inevitable" war between the imperialist Powers then follows. The possibility that instead of the great Powers extending and reinforcing their so-called colonial areas the latter, that is to say, the colonial areas, might gradua11y become self-governing and independent; the possibility that the surplus products of the greatest industrialist nation today, the United States, would actually be distributed free in large quantities in order to encourage world trade; the possibility that the so called imperialist Powers would be devising schemes for improving the technical knowledge and the knowhow of what they were supposed to regard as subject peoples' and finally the possibility that the imperialist Powers, far from fighting one another would actually band themselves together for the protection of the whole of the free world is of course inconceivable to com- 3 munists because it was not predicted by Lenin and consequently cannot be true. Yet it is true. More particularly, it is of course inconceivable to the communists, that the Western Powers should actually encourage the national aspirations of the peoples of Asia. And yet this is so, and it would have been the case in Korea if, owing to their pillaging operations, Soviet troops had not been left in command of quite half or more than half the area of that unfortunate country at the end of the war. And that is why on 25 June last the decision was taken to blot out the free half of Korea and to bring the whole of it into the grey and dismal ranks of Soviet satellites. The decision was taken by the North Korean authorities, presumably with the approval of the Communist Headquarters in Moscow, and though the Central People's Government may also have approved, l expect they were too intelligent not to know what were likely to be the consequences, and l cannot imagine that they at any rate believed the story which has been put about by all the mesmerists of the Cominform, that the war started because of an attempt by the United States to invade the territory of North Korea in the interests of the famous trusts and monopolies. The simple point was that the non-communist governments on the whole regarded and rightly regarded this flagrant aggression by the North Koreans as a positive threat to their independence. The noncommunist governments of the whole world regarded this attack, this aggression, as a threat to their own independence. They were, and they still are, determined to do away with this threat by demonstrating that the government, the people and the nation which attempts to carry it out in practice suffers very great pains and penalties. This was their intention, l repeat, and l think this still is their intention. And the more communist imperialism seeks to threaten the free world or any part of it, the greater the reaction of the free world will be and the greater will be its efforts to organize its unparalleled resources in the defence of genuine, and not bogus, democracy. As l have said, there is no doubt in the minds of the free world on which side the guilt and responsibility for the war in Korea lies. Each of the United Nations was called upon to consider what contribution it could make to meet this armed aggression. It might have been expected that the major portion of this aid should come from countries which were not already engaged in military operations against communism elsewhere in the Far East and from those counties whose lands were well removed from the direct threat of aggression elsewhere. It was therefore understandable that the main responsibility for meeting this extension of armed conflict should be borne by the United States of America, which in any case was the only free country which had forces available near the scene of the aggression. We all know how promptly and nobly the government of the people of the United States responded to this call. 4 But from the first the United Kingdom responded to the appeal also. We could not, of course, take our troops from the battle lines elsewhere in Asia to send them to Korea. Nevertheless, so promptly did we act that at one tune l believe l am right in saying that the United Kingdom had more naval vessels in the Korean theatre of war than even the United States. Our troops also soon arrived, organized with those of our sister nations in the Commonwealth. There are now two Commonwealth brigades fighting in Korea. Our men were the first to arrive to fight alongside those of the United States and the South Korea themselves; and they are there in greater numbers than those of any country except the United States. Our aims in Korea and those of the United States are identical: to give effect to the purposes of the United Nations, nothing more and nothing less. Nothing would give us greater pleasure than to withdraw our soldiers and to see a really independent Korean government functioning in Korea, and far from seeking profitable concessions for "trusts and monopolies" in Korea, we are only too conscious that the British people will have to make heavy sacrifices for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Korean economy. But apart from this and not content with this military effort to protect Malaya and Korea, we have worked out, with all the other nations of the Commonwealth, a constructive plan for economic and technical assistance to those peoples of South-East Asia who want it. The Colombo Plan, announced yesterday, is the constructive counterpart of the fighting forced upon us by communist imperialism. It is free of all principles of imperialism and worked out to a considerable extent by the experts of the three Asian members of our Commonwealth, India, Pakistan and Ceylon. It makes clear the better world which we are struggling for. And when the time comes to rehabilitate the war-ravaged land of Korea, Britain will also play a peaceful and constructive part. Now it is clear from this record that our aim of encouraging independent national States in Asia, free of foreign domination and accepting such technical and economic devices as they themselves wish, cannot be properly realized so long as the fighting continues. Our policy must therefore be directed to bringing the military operations to a close. Not only our alms m the Far East but also our hatred of war and the realization that, even as l speak, my own countrymen are being killed in Korea and Malaya, imposes this on us. If the representatives of the Central People's Government are capable of listening to reason, l would beg them to listen to this plain statement of fact. After this general statement of the position of my delegation, it will be clear why we still urge the Security Council to adopt, by a large majority, the draft resolution on Korea which is before It. The fact, grave though it is, that the troops of the Peking Government 5 have now taken part in large numbers in the fighting in Korea does not in our view affect at all the desirability of passing this draft resolution. The draft resolution makes it absolutely clear that the interests of China will in no way be affected by the achievement of the objectives of the United Nations, and it also makes it clear that if Peking goes on pouring troops into Korea those interests may very well suffer and suffer acutely. Before the Peking Government makes any irrevocable decision, 1 would ask them to think many times. Passion is a bad counsellor; advice from interested sources may be a worse counsellor still. Korea is not of course the only subject on our present agenda; there is also the complaint of the Central People's Government that aggression has taken place against Taiwan. Here we can only say that they have completely failed to substantiate any accusation that Taiwan is being converted into a United States base, or that the United States is in fact in control of the island. As the representative of the United States has already pointed out, there are, in fact, only forty-four United States service representatives in Taiwan. It is therefore perfectly clear that the allegation of aggression, which is the item on our agenda, has not been proved and must therefore fall. Taiwan, as we know, is one of the territories formerly belonging to Japan, and its disposal, like those of other territories formerly belonging to Japan, still remains a matter of international concern. Any claims - still more any attempt - to settle this question by armed force and in the absence of some generally recognized legal decision, must have international repercussions and is, therefore, unacceptable. The matter must be settled peacefully and it is clear that there can be little prospect of doing this so long as one of the parties concerned, the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China, is engaged in large-scale military operations against United Nations forces and in defiance of the expressed will of the United Nations. Therefore 1 revert to my original proposal that the pending draft resolution on item 2 (a) of our present agenda should now be put to the vote. If it is vetoed, we shall then have to consider what to do next, and it is clear that that will need some very serious reflection. But 1 still have hopes that the Chinese People's Government, in view of what 1 and others have said; will in effect pay attention to what is said in the draft resolution and indicate that, in principle, they are prepared to agree that the whole problem of Korea should at least be solved in accordance with the principles of the international organization which, as 1 believe, they are so keen to enter. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I 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 6 not the same. ~he first and main question is that of Korea, the question of the war which broke out on 25 June 1950, which has 1asted over five months which has been becoming more and more bitter, and 'which was very serious from the start. Its possible international consequences make all humanity shiver. Compared with that war, the question of Taiwan (Formosa) is secondary importance. That is obvious To all who consider It from the point of view of international security and who see this particular international 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 could at least reach a solution on the main problem, that of Korea. Efforts to achieve such a solution might perhaps be in order even now. Consultations between the parties directly 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 have any hope that the participation of the representative of the People's Republic of China in our public discussions will have a salutary effect on the turn in the inter- 7 national situation resulting from the new phase-in the Korean war, but simply because this sulking, just like the speech made here recently by General Wu [527th meeting], seems to me to show a spirit quite opposite to that which should inspire governments which show any respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter. 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 is the heart and core of the problem. We 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. Has General Wu asked himself why? Has 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 governments 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 Nations. That same day, the Security Council issued its order to cease fire and withdraw to the 38th Parallel. What 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-General- two 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. 8 They went even further. On 27 June, at the Security Council’s second meeting [474th meeting], l myself submitted a new draft resolution repeating the request to the parties to cease fire and withdraw to the 38th Parallel and once again proposing that representatives of the Government of North Korea should be invited to Lake Success, in a last-minute attempt to achieve a peaceful settlement of the conflict. As a result of that proposal, my government and I myself were subjected to attacks and slanderous reports in the Press of the Eastern European countries. Those are the facts which show who are the parties responsible for the Korean war. This is a grave 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, Mr. Kardelj, said: "When 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 coincided with the interests of the progress of mankind, and it is therefore harmful to all progressive and liberating movements which become its instruments. "All 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. I must emphasize that this government has in no way dissociated Itself from that policy, nor from 9 the USSR's anti-democratic policy in other parts of the world, and particularly in Korea. To its responsibility for the moral and diplomatic support it gave the army of North Korea when it invaded South Korea, the Government of the People's Republic of China has added its responsibility for large scale assistance in the form of men and materiel furnished to the North Korean aggressor. The Government of the Federative People's Republic of Yugoslavia can only condemn and censure that act. The guiding principle of the Yugoslav Government's policy in international affairs has always 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 well 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 entertain any sympathy for the South Korean regime 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. 10 That is the only course to pursue in Korea. It is the only course which does not entail the danger of spreading the conflict. 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 well 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. In 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 meeting] 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. I do not ask the representative of the Peking Government to take this statement of mine on trust. Indeed, 1 would 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 does not know that they have been passing through terrible ordeals during the last thirty or forty years, their country has been ravaged by war of one kind or another most of that time. As the 11 result of these experiences, they are naturally full of suspicions and fears and must be longing for a spell of peace. l am sure this feeling is not confined to the people of the two countries l have mentioned, but is shared by the people of the whole world. If there is such a universal desire for peace, surely we should not find it impossible to discover a way to peace even at this late stage. l may have to say more on this aspect of the matter before long. 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 with 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 from 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 either. 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. Mr. 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, with 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 settled the matter and proved their point. 12 That is the true picture of the present situation. In such circumstances, how can the Security Council adopt a fair solution? In such circumstances, how can the Security Council be expected to give objective consideration to the complaint of the Government of the People's Republic of China? Neither Mr. Austin nor Sir Gladwyn Jebb has mentioned a word about the crying facts which the representative of the People's Republic of China has cited in his statement or the facts which the USSR representative has cited in his. Those facts show to the whole world that the ruling circles of the United States are guilty of direct and flagrant aggression against China. That is the position regarding the discussion of the main question on today's agenda. Sir Gladwyn Jebb launched into theoretical and philosophical discourses. We 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 to 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 practiced 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 J ebb 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 aggression against the people of Korea. That is an indisputable fact. I 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 I do not think there is any need for me to answer once again, because that is nothing but the most slanderous and lying propaganda. Neither the Soviet Union, nor its leaders, nor its government, nor its people have ever imposed their system on anyone. h or do they wish to do so. We do not like capitalism- you do not like socialism. But we are not imposing socialism on you, 13 while you are trying to impose capitalism on us under the guise of the "American way of life" which you advertiseto the whole world through the "Voice of America". Yet, if other nations do not wish to adopt the American way of life why should it be imposed upon them by force? Sir Gladwyn Jebb should ponder this question, and the whole of his philosophical system would then fall to pieces. l am not even mentioning the fact tint Sir Gladwyn Jebb admitted here that British troops in Malaya were doing exactly the same thing as American and British troops were doing in Korea. 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 representative the 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 disposal. • 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 Taipei, 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. 14 He writes that he regards President Truman's order to the United States Seventh Fleet as an order to attack any forces invading from the continent. Therefore, President Truman's order is a hostile act against the People's Republic of China, as the order is essentially that the United States Seventh Fleet should make an all-out attack upon any forces which might attempt to approach Formosa from the continent. 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. All States in diplomatic relations with the USSR have their military missions in Moscow for example. In Washington 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 say on that subject: Churchill writes that American military and naval representatives under the command of Admiral 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 mission is doing in Taiwan. Where 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 here (that is, in Taiwan) believes that the United States intends in 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 15 future. Randolph Churchill thus replies ta Mr. Austin's statement that the United States has no designs on Taiwan [528th meeting]. Churchill refutes Austin. Randolph Churchill writes further: "The A1l1ericans are now supplying the Nationalists with ammunition as well as valuable economic aid. Formosa is plainly no longer regarded as a bad strategic risk. On the contrary, the opinion is increasingly hardening that it would 1,(' violently against the American and British interests if this island, with its valuable naval and air bases, were to fall into communist hands." l emphasize - not only ta American, but a1so to British interests. And l do this to show that the British representative in the Security Council cannot be impartial and objective in the discussion of this matter, and the extent to which his assertion that there is no aggression in Taiwan can be taken seriously. Referring to the supposed disagreements between MacArthur's intentions and the intentions of the United States State Department with regard to Taiwan, Randolph Churchill calls things by their proper names and affirms that ail the wide1y circulatec1 propaganda to the effect that there is some kind of disagreement on this matter between MacArthur and the United States State Department is not in accordance with the facts. Randolph Churchill writes that the "recent widely advertisec1 differences in Pacific policy between General MacArthur and the State Department were more apparent than real". Some weeks before General MacArthur sent his famous message to the Veterans of Foreign Wars - the message that was withdrawn from the Press – Mr. Acheson, the Secretary of State, distributed a secret document defining the strategical requirements of the United States in South-East Asia. Those who have read bath these documents do not consider that there is much difference them in the definition of the existing situation or policy. It is fairly clear that President Truman's grudge against General MacArthur was due to causes distinct from any substantial difference of views on future policy. Lt was evoked by General MacArthur's extravagant expression of his views and by the need to maintain the civil authority over the military in foreign policy. Thus it follows from these 5tatenH'nts by Randolph Churchill that there is no difference and no divergence between General MacArthur's policy, as expressed with complete cynicism and frankness in his famous message' to the Veterans, and the policy of the State Department; and that there is, furthermore, no difference between 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 proper names. He adduces facts, and before those facts the fables about the supposed differences of view between General MacArthur and the State Department, so widely circulated by American propaganda, fall to pieces. 16 That is the situation with regard to United States intentions towards Taiwan. That is the situation with regard to United States aggression against China. It is characteristic that neither the United States representative nor the United Kingdom representative said a single word about the draft resolutions on Taiwan submitted in the Security Council. They are interested only in Korea. In this they are actively supported 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 world public opinion and proving that there has been no aggression by the United States in the Far East. For clearly 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 proposal 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 problem 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 world 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 not 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 would 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 condemned and declared aggressors in absentia. That is a procedure which the United States representative and the ruling circles of the United States find convenient and helpful: to convict anyone and everyone 17 of aggression in absentia, and to do so not only without regard for the facts, not only without any attempt to examine or analyse those facts, but after discarding them and refusing to hear the party they are accusing. It is easier to make accusations in that way. And this practice has already become firmly established as part of the Security Council's method of work by the Anglo American bloc and their assistant, the representative of Yugoslavia. That is the situation with regard to the question of responsibility. 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 could make. That decision is expected of it by the Chinese people and the Chinese Government. The PRESIDENT (translated tram French): 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. I call upon him now. 18 Mr. Wu HSIU-CHUAN (Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China) (translated from Chinese): In my first speech [527th meeting], I stated that I would only participate in the discussion in the Security Council of the complaint of American aggression against Taiwan and that l would not participate .in the discussion of the so-callec1 "Complaint of aggression against the Republic of Korea". Very strangely, however, the representative of the United States, Mr. Austin, in both his speeches did not answer the charge of armed aggression against Taiwan leveled against the United States by the People's Republic of China. This proves that the case ac1vanced by the Central People's Government is irrefutable. However, Mr. Austin attemptec1 to turn the attention of the representatives here to the question of the so called 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 participate 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 absurd. 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 estimates, 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 sovereignty on Tai.wan. l want to ask Mr. Austin: 1s this not aggression? Since the end of the Second World War, the Government of the United States has spent over six thousand million dollars to help the Chinese Kuomintang reaction- 19 ary remnant clique initiate this unprecedentedly cruel civil war, and this clique, using American arms, have killed several million Chinese. l wish to ask Mr. Austin: Is this not intervention in the domestic affairs of China? The era when only imperialists were allowed to indulge 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 all the imperialists who dare invade China. l once again call upon the Security Council, in order to maintain world peace and in order to maintain the prestige of the Charter of the United Nations, to accept the proposals advanced by the People's Republic of China so as to put an end to American aggression, to prevent war and to ensure peace and security for Asia and for the world. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): 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. I therefore suggest that we 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 could 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 [S/1894]. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from 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 Council 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 from French): The representative of India did not ask the Council to postpone the vote until he had received instructions from his government. He simply pointed out that he could not take part in the vote. l t 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 from Russian): l do not insist on anything. 20 l simply noted a fact and have drawn attention to it, but l do not insist on anything. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): As there has been no objection to the order of voting l suggested, I take It that It is unanimously approved. l therefore put to the vote the draft resolution submitted by the Soviet Union on 2 September. 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. The Assistant Secretary-General in charge of the Department of Security Council Affairs read doclt1nent S/1757, the text of which follows: "The Security Council, "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 internal affairs of China, "considering also the declaration of the representative 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 Republic 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 internal affairs of China, "And resolves, with the object of putting an end to such illegal acts, which violate the State sovereignty of the Chinese Republic, to propose to the Government of the United States of America that it immediately withdraw all its air, sea and land forces from the island of Taiwan and from other territories belonging to China." A vote was taken by show of hands. In favour: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Against: China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Norway, United Kingdom of Great B:Itam and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Yugoslavia. India did not participate in the voting. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): 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. 21 I put to the vote the draft resolution submitted by the representative of the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China and sponsored by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics [5/1921]. The text of that draft resolution reads as follows: "The 5ecurity Council, "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, "Recognizing 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 criminal 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 Pacific 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." A vote was taken by show of hands. 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, Yugoslavia. India did not participate in the voting. 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: • "The 5ecurity Council, "Recalling its resolution of 25 June 1950 determining that the North Korean forces had 'committed a breach of the peace and calling upon all Members of the United Nations to refrain from giving assistance to the North Korean authorities, 22 "Recalling the resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 7 October 1950, which sets forth the policies of the United Nations in respect to Korea, "!laving . noted from the special report of the Ul11ted Nations Command in Korea dated 5 November 1950 that Chinese communist military units are deployed for action against the forces of the United Nations in Korea, "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 sovereign State of Korea, as set forth in the resolution of the General Assembly dated 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, "Calls upon ail States and authorities, and in particular those responsible for the action noted above, to refrain from assisting or encouraging the North Korean authorities, to prevent their nationals or individuals or units of their armed forces from giving assistance to North Korean forces and to cause the immediate withdrawal of any such nationals, individuals, 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; "Calls attention to the grave danger which continued 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 Commission for the Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea proceed to the area as soon as possible, and, pending its arrival 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 remainder 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. A vote was taken by show of hands. 23 In favour: China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Norway, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America. Against: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Abstaining: Yugoslavia. India did not participate in the voting. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): The result of the vote on the preamble of the draft resolution is as follows: eight votes 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 Security Council, the preamble of the draft resolution is rejected. l put to the vote the second part of the draft resolution, from the words "Affirming that United Nations forces ... " to the end. A vote was taken by show of hands. In favoltr: China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Norway, United Kin;,;c1om of Great Britain and Northern Irelanc1, United States of America, Yugoslavia. Against: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 1ndia did not participate in the voting. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): 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, thus the second part of the draft resolution has also been rejected. l call upon the members of the Council to vote on the draft resolution as a whole. First, however, l call on the representative of the USSR, who wishes to speak on a point of order. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): 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 PRESIDENT (translated from French): 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 Assembly 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 resolution as a whole, even when its different parts had been rejected. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): The precedent in the General. Assembly which you have cited has nothing to do with the present situation. The delegation of the Soviet Union therefore sees no reason to put this resolution to the vote. The President (translated from French): l regard the two interventions 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 was 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. India did not participate in the voting. The PRESIDENT (translated from French): 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. | 
