United N ation.c; nRST COMMITIEE, 73 6th [;ENERAL MEETING ~SSEMBLY Wednesday, 1 December 1954, at 10.30 a.m. NINTH SESSION Official Records NfJIIJ York
CONTENTS fact, to be alike in substance. Neither of them formally Page called for a final decision by the United Nations. The \genda item 61 : eight-Power draft resolution did not even formally The question of \;\/est Irian (West New Guinea) invite the parties to resume negotiations. Its two (concluded) ...... 459 operative paragraphs would be ineffective if the nego \genda item 17: tiations mentioned in the Indonesian draft resolution The Korean question : were not resumed. The implication, therefore, was that (a) Report of the United Nations Commission for negotiations must be undertaken with a view to effecting the Unification and Rehhabilitation of Korea .... 461 a transfer of sovereignty. That meant that the draft resolution did not provide any basis for free negotia tions. It did not even suggest that the dispute should Cluairman.: Mr. Franci1co URRUTIA (Colombia). be referred to the International Court of Justice, a procedure which might, perhaps, have provided the most reasonable way out of the current deadlock. AGENDA ITEM 61 5. In addition, Mr. Andersen wished to say that his delegation attached great importance to the interests of rhe question of West Irian (West New Guinea) the inhabitants of the territory. The inhabitants, how (A/2694, A/C.l/L.l09, A/C.l/L.UO, A/C.l/ ever, had not been able to express their wishes, and L.lll) (concluded) neither of the draft resolutions before the Committee made any reference to their interests or to their . Mr. WESTERBERG (Sweden) wished, first, to development towards self-government. nake it clear that his delegation's attitude to the draft 6. For those reasons, Denmark had felt it necessary, esolution submitted by Indonesia (A/C.l/L.109) had in spite of its sincerely friendly feelings towards Indo tot been based on a restrictive interpretation of the nesia, to vote against the eight-Power draft resolution, 1rovisions of the Charter relating to the competence of just as it would have voted against the Indonesian he Organization, an interpretation which might well draft resolution had it been put to the vote. 1rove harmful to the prestige of the United Nations. ['herefore, when Sweden had voted against the inclu 7. Mr. BELAUNDE (Peru) explained that, although ion of the item in the agenda ( 477th plenary meet he had previously said that he would abstain in the vote ng), it had done so because it had felt that a debate on the joint draft resolution (A/C.ljL.llO), he had m the question, based on the reasons advanced by later decided to vote in favour of it, both on account ndonesia, would serve no useful purpose, the more so of the international situation, and especially in view ince Sweden could not regard the problem as one relat of the statements made by the representatives of ng to a people's right to self-determination. Yugoslavia and Cuba. ~. The Swedish delegation had felt that a decision 8. The difficult international situation made it in 'Y the General Assembly in conformity with the pro cumbent upon the United Nations to express the hope IOSal submitted by Indonesia, in the light of the debate that the problem would be settled, but without thereby m the question, ·might be interpreted as an endorse prejudging the legal positions of the parties. nent by the United Nations of a transfer of sovereign y from one State to another. For those reasons, it had 9. On the other hand, the Peruvian delegation had ound it necessary to vote against the eight-Power draft always believed that, in the present problem, the pri esolution (A/C.l/L.llO). It had been prepared, how mary consideration was the rights and interests of the ver, to vote in favour of the Colombian amendment inhabitants of the territorv. The draft resolution sub A/C.l/L.lll), because that amendment placed the t'litted by Indonesia ( AjC~l j L.109) made no reference mphasis on the interests and rights of the inhabitants whatsoever. direct or indirect, to that principle. With ,f West New Guinea. regard to the eight-Power draft, Mr. Belaunde recalled that, in addition to voicing certain criticism of a formal '· Mr. ANDERSEN (Denmark) stated that one of nature, he had said (734th meeting) that some reference he reasons which had prompted his delegation to vote should be made in the draft to the rights and interests .gainst the inclusion of the item in the agenda had of the inhabitants of the territory. Unfortunately, part 1een the fear that, in the present circumstances, a of an amendment submitted by Colombia (A/C.l/ lebate on the question would not contribute to a solu L.lll) to that effect, which could have been added to ion of the problem. Unfortunately the debate had con the operative part of the joint draft resolution, had trmed that apprehension. been withdrawn. But the representatives of Yugoslavia . In those circumstances, the Danish delegation did and Cuba, two of the sponsors of the joint draft tot think that it would be helpful if the General resolution, had stated categorically (732nd and 735th \.ssembly adopted a resolution of the kind proposed meetings) that the reference in paragraph 1 of the 'Y either Indonesia or by the eight Powers. While the operative part to the principles of the Charter of the I'Ording Df those two texts differed, they seemed, in United Nations applied to the rights and interests of 459 A/C.l/SR.736 460 General Assembly - Ninth Session - First Committee the inhabitants of the territory. That had prompted 17. The Chilean Government considered that the item the Peruvian delegation to vote in favour of the draft. which had been under discussion had nothing to do 10. The draft resolution which had been approved with the principle of the self-determination of peoples, confined itself to expressing the desire that the parties since there did not appear to be any movement favour should reach agreement, without in any way prejudging ing self-determination among the inhabitants of West their legal positions ; the parties could enter into nego New Guinea; moreover, according to the information tiations or even, if they so wished, request the Interna Mr. Maza had received, those inhabitants had not tional Court of Justice for an opinion on the legal inter reached a sufficiently advanced stage of civilization to pretation to be placed on the treaty. But whatever the be able to express their wishes freely. Furthermore, position of either party, its action must be governed by there was no racial unity between the inhabitants of the principles of the Charter. \Vest New Guinea and those of Indonesia which could afford an a priori justification for unification. 11. Mr. Belaunde did not believe that the draft reso lution should create any difficulties between Indonesia 18. It was therefore clear that the question was purely and the Netherlands and hoped, on the contrary, that and exclusively a political dispute between two Govern both countries would interpret it as the expression of ments concerning sovereignty over a specific territory the sincere desire of the General Assembly that the which, under the terms of existing treaties, must parties should come to an agreement, the paramount remain in statu quo until the negotiations had led to consideration in such agreement being the rights and a result. interests of the inhabitants of the territory. 19. For those reasons, and given the present state 12. Mr. SARPER (Turkey) said that his delegation of the question, the Chilean Government considered had voted against the inclusion of the item in the that the purpose for which the United Nations had agenda, as well as against the eight-Power draft reso been established would not be furthered if the Organ lution, because, in its opinion, the United Nations was intion were to succumb to the dangerous temptation of not authorized, within the meaning of Article 2, para trying to force Member States to negotiate on a ques graph 7, of the Charter to intervene in matters within tion which did not involve international peace and the domestic jurisdiction of Member States. security. 13. Mr. TOV (Israel) said that his delegation had not 20. The Chilean Government ardently hoped that the taken part in the debate, but had followed it with dispute between Indonesia and the Netherlands could great interest and attention. Israel would have been in bE' settled by mE'ans of friendly conversations, freely a very difficult po~ition had it trier! to overcomP the entered into, between the two Governments ; it hoped legal objections provoked bv the Indonesian draft reso that, as had been agreed in the treaties of 1949, the lution. It had felt, on the other hand, that the princi problem could be peacefully settled by the parties, ples mentioned by the representative of Mexico (731st without endangering the peace of the world. meeting) should haYe been formulated in a draft reso 21. Mr. ENTEZAM (Iran) said that there was no lution, and it had deplored the fact that that had not doubt that a dispute existed between two Member happened. When the eight-Power draft resolution had States concerning the question of \Vest Irian, and been submitted, Israel had felt that it offered a favour able change. But paragraph 2 of its operative part had regretted that negotiations in the past had not succeeded appeared to be unnecessary, because, while favouring in resolving the problem. However, Iran did not wish direct negotiations in principle, Israel did not consider to lose hope that in the future such negotiations would it healthy to follow the tendency of anticipating the bring about the desired results. It was in that hope that Iran had voted in favour of the eight-Power draft inclusion of items in the agenda of coming sessions of the General Assembly. That was why it had voted resolution. against the inclusion of paragraph 2 of the operative 22. Mr. KREMER (Luxembourg) said that the atti part of the joint draft resolution. There was one funda tude of his delegation in voting against including the mental reason, however, which had forced Israel to item in the agenda had been based on the fact that abstain from voting, and that was the fact that the it did not regard the Assembly as competent to deal with population of the territory of West New Guinea was the question. Any discussion of the question by the not mentioned in the eight-Power draft resolution. Assembly, therefore, constituted an intervention in the Israel had felt that the Colombia amendment would domestic affairs of a State, and, as such, was contrary overcome that difficulty, and regretted that that amend to the provisions of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the ment had virtually disintegrated and had not been in Charter. Any discussion of a matter of that nature cluded in the joint draft resolution. Under the circum was likely to aggravate the situation. t-tances, Israel had been forced to abstain from voting. 23. Nothing that had been said during the debate had 14. Mr. MAZA (Chile) said that the Chilean delega been able to persuade the Luxembourg delegation that tion had not taken part in the general debate or in the its position had been ill founded. It had therefore been debate on the proposals which. had been put forward, unable to support the draft resolution, and had voted but that it considered it necessary to explain its vote. against it. 15. On the question of procedure, it had voted in 24. Mr. SERRANO (Philippines) said that in the favour of considering the Colombian amendment first, g~:neral debate his delegation had refrained from any ex because it felt that the established custom in deliberative pression of views on the merits of the question. It bodies of voting first on amendments should be believed that when a question was brought before the respected. United Nations, the nature and extent of the United 16. On the proposal itself, the Chilean delegation had Nations intervention should depend pro tanto upon abstained. That attitude could not have surprised the the nature and extent of the assistance the parties Indonesian delegation, because the Indonesian Ambas sought. sador, Mr. Sudjono, who had just left Chile, had been 25. In the Indonesian draft resolution, the United duly informed of it. Nations was simply informed that a dispute was 111 736th meeting - 1 December 1954 461 existence concerning 'vVest Irian. No reference was Korean question would command the support of all made in the draft to the merits of the respective claims. those who truly sought to bring about a peaceful settle Indonesia stated merely that it wanted the negotiations ment in Korea. to be resumed with the assitance of the Secretary 32. Prince WAN WAITHAYAKON (Thailand) General in order to reach a solution. wished to submit a draft resolution ( A/C.l/L.113) 26. Such being the temper of the draft resolution, the to the effect that the Committee decide that the repre Philippines delegation had taken an attitude of absolute sentative of the Republic of Korea be invited to parti impartiality on the merit of the case and had announced cipate, without having the right to vote, in the debates I 733rd meeting) that it would yote in Lwour of the of the Committee on the Korean question. draft resolution onlv to the extent that it sought the 33. Mr. WADSWORTH (United States of America) continuance of such-negotiations. ·- wished to support most strongly the draft resolution 27. However, it had developed in the course of the of the representative of Thailand to invite a repre debate that there were certain parts in the Indonesian sentative of the Republic of Korea to participate, with draft resolution which had the effect of prejudging out having the right to vote, in the debate on the the issue between the parties, or which touched partially Korean question. The Republic of Korea had been the t•non the merits of the case. 1n the Yiew of the innocent victim of the aggression which had called for Netherlands as well as of other delegations, those the collective action of the United Nations, and it alleged defects were carried over. in a different form, was the party primarily concerned with the question tc the eight-Power dr:-tft resolution. That being the which was going to be discussed. case. and to avoid any misinterpretation of its position 34. As to the draft resolution submitted by the repre of strict impartiality on the merit~ of the issue, the sentative of the Soviet Union, to invite the represent Philippines delegation had abstained from voting on the ative's of the Communist regimes, which had been found eight-Power draft resolution. to be guilty of aggression in Korea, the representative of the United States wished to express, in the strongest 28. On the Colombian amendment, the discussion had possible terms, the opposition of his delegation. Those disclosed that it suggested. in effect, self-determination regimes had no right to participate in that discussion. for the inhabitants of \Vest Irian, implying thereby They had done nothing to purge themselves of the that their present status was that of a non-self-govern aggression. They had, in fact, continued to demonstrate ing people. That was what the Netherlands contended their aggressive intent, since they continued to defy but Indonesia denied. Since that amendment, therefore the accepted norms of international behaviour and the touched on the merits of the issue. the Philippine recommendations of the United Nations. Communist delegation had likewise abstained from voting on it. China continued to hold hundreds of captured United 29. Mr. Serrano reserved the position of his delega Nations personnel in violation of the armistice agree tion on the case before the General Assembly. ment, and recently thirteen capturerl Americans had received prison sentences on false charges. AGENDA ITEM 17 35. He wished to emphasize most strongly that it was the view of his Government that the Communist regimes had no right to participate in the deliberations The Korean question: of the Committee on the Korean question. (a) Report of the United Nations Commission 36. Mrs. SEKANINOVA-CAKRTOV A (Czechoslo for the Unification and Rehabilitation of vaquia) said that the discussion in the Committee Korea (A/27ll, A/2786, A/C.l/L.ll2, A/ directly affecterl the vital interests of the Democratic C.l/L.ll3. A/C.l/L.ll4) People's Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China, whose security had been directly threatened in the Korean war and was so closely linked with a 30. Mr. Yakov MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist peaceful settlement of the Korean question. It was Republics) said that, as the First Committee was about therefore only just and reasonable that their repre to consider the Korean question, his delegation wished sentatives should take part in the deliberations of the to submit a draft resolution ( A/C.1 /L.112) to the Committee. To reject their participation would he con effect that the Committee dC'cide to invite the repre trary to the ba~ic principlrs of dcmocracv, as ,,·ell as to sentative's of the Democratic People's Republic of the principles and practice of the United Nations Korea and the People's Republic of China t0 participate which had, on many occasions. invited interested parties in the consideration of the question. It was impossible to participate in discussions. Their exclusion would he t0 expect an objective consideration of the Korean both illogical and impractical. for there could be no question in the absence of those representatives, and cloubt that their absence would he detrimental to the it would be out of the question to expect a solution 38. The discussion had served to underline the ab that the representative of the Republic of Korea wa~ normal situation arising out of the fact that the people entitled to attend the discussions on the question. of China were not represented in the United Nations; 46. Mr. SKRZESZE\VSKI (Poland) said that then that situation was all the more abnormal since recent was no doubt that a fundamental condition for thE events, and the Geneva Conference in particular. had comprehensive and objective consideration of the Ko· again shown the significant international role played by rean question was to ensure to all States concernec the People's Republic of China. the right to submit their points of view during thE 39. Under present circumstances, when the Chinese debate. Only if that condition had been fulfilled coulc people were still depriwd of their lawful right in relation the Korean problem be brought to the point of fina to the United Nations, it was es~ential that their repre solution. For those reasons his delegation whole· sentative be invited to participate in those discussions. heartedly supported the Soviet Union's draft resolu A peaceful solution of the Korean problem was tion that representatiws of the Democratic People'~ possible only on the basis of ag-reement between the Republic of Korea and of the People's Republic oJ parties concerned, in the same way in which the cessa China be im·ited to participate in the debate on thE tion of hostilities had been achieved. Korean question. 40. The conclusion of the armistice had been made 47. In connexion with the Korean question thE possible by the Gowrnments of the Democratic People's General Assembly faced many important and contra Republic of Korea and of the People's Republic of versial issues; the problem of the political conferencE China, supported by the USSR. and after its conclusion mentioned in paragraph 60 of the Armistice Agree those Governments had ma(le constant efforts to attain ment,1 the question of the armistice and its implementa a peaceful solution of the Korean question. tion, withdrawal of the armed forces, unification o' 41. To construe measurc·c; taken bv the Goycn1ment Korea and elections as well as other issues-issue: of the People's Republic of China, in accordance with which were either general or specific in character international law and in the interests of its internal whether political or organizational. All of thosE security in a case which had no connexion with the problems, however. had at least one common deno Korean question. as an arg-ument ag-ainst inviting its minator in that they touched upon the most vita interests of North as well as of South Korea. Problem 1 t prsentatiw was entirely unfounded. of that nature could not and should not be examine< 42. The Czechoslovak delegation therefore fully sup without the participation of representatives of botl ported the draft resolution submitted by the repre parts of Korea. The General Assembly could no sentative of the Soviet Union 1o invite the represent simply ignore the ttniwrsally known fact that thE atin·s of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Korean question could not be soh-eel, or even success and of the People's Rrpublic of China to participate fully examined, without the participation of the People': in the discussion of the Korean question. Republic of China. The United States and its allies 43. 1\Tr. LTU Chich (China) wished. fir~t. of all. to which had agreed to the invitation to the People': support wholeheartedly the draft resolution submitted Republic of China to participate in the Geneva Con by the representative of Thailand to invite the repre ference, had to admit. ipso facto, that it was impossiblE sentative of the Rt'public of Korea to participate in the to bring about peace in Asia or, for that matter, in thE cliscussion. He wished to oppose. <"qually emphatically. world. without the participation of the People's Repu the draft resolution of the Soviet LTnion to invite the blic of China and the Democratic People's RepubliE Chinese and Korean Communists to participate in the of Korea. v,rork of the Committee. The Chinese and Korean 48. There was a host of precedents in the practicE Communists stood condemned as agg-ressors. Referring of the General Assembly for inviting States concerne< to the declaration of the sixteen Powers which had to participate in its debates. Consideration of sud taken part in the Korean Political Conference at a question without the participation of the partie: Geneya ( A/2786. Annex) to the effect that the Com concerned would violate the fundamental legal principlE munist deleg-ations hacl rejected every effort to obtain of audi alteram partem, in other words, the principlE ag-reement, that they harl repudiated and reiected the of letting- the other side be heard. The representative: authority and competence of the United Nations in of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and o Korea aml had labelled it as the tool of aggression, the Chinese People's Volunteers had taken part in thE he maintained not only that the Chinese and Korean armistice negotiations and had contributed their shan Communists had no rig-ht to be present, but that it to bring about the cessation of hostilities in Korea ,,-as completely futilr to entertain the idea that their In signing the cease-fire agreement they had assume< participation would be helpful to the Committee's deli a number of obligations jointly with the United Nation berations. Command. He wondered how it was possible in logi' 44. Mr. NUTTING (United Kingdom) said that it on the one hand to recognize the Armistice Agreemen would hardlv be fittine- for the United Nations to and, on the other hand. to deny the other party to tha accede to the' rt'quest ma~le by the repre:;entative of the Agreement the right to participate in the discussion of : Soviet Union for the participation of China and North problem which related directly to the fulfilment of thE Korea in the discussion. At the Geneva Conference the obligations contained in that Agreement. Furthermore Communist Gowrnments had rejected the authority of the representatives of the Democratic People's Republi' the United Nations in this matter and, therefore, his of Korea and the People's Republic of China had taker delegation could not possibly vote for the seating of an active part at Geneva as representatives plenipo representatives of those Governments as observers or tentiary of States interested in the solution of thE as participants in this discussion. Korean question. Their concrete proposals had consti 45. On other hand, the Republic of Korea had joined 1 See Official Records of the Security Council, Eighth Year the United Nations Command in resisting aggression, S!tpplemcnt for July, August and September 1953, documen and for that reason his delegation was of the opinion S/3079, appendix A. 736th meeting - 1 December 1954 463 uted important contributions to the proceedings of the historical record. The States Members which had inter :::onference. vened in Korea on the side of the United Nations, ~9. In opposing the invitation to the representatives together with an equal number of their sympathizers, Jf the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and of had in the past defeated all proposals to invite repre he People's Republic of China, the representative sentatives of the Democratic People's Republic of Jf the United States, instead of offering arguments, had Korea to take part in the discussion of the Korean ·esorted to inventions and slander, as was very well question. As a result of the initiative taken by the ;nown. By doing so, the representatiw of the Uniterl. People's Republic of China and the Democratic People's )tates had hoped to prevent the truth from coming Republic of Korea, and with the support of the USSR, mt, the truth which would be heard from the repre hostilities in Korea had ceased. The next task was to ;entatives of the Democratic People's Republic of arrive at a peaceful solution of the Korean question (area and the People's Republic of China. The repre as a whole. Certainly, there could be no serious con >entative of the United States had started out by pres sideration, let alone a solution of the question unless ;ing charges against those representatives in their the representatives of North Korea and China were tbsence and then had denied them the right to take first invited to take part in such a discussion. The >art in the debate, thus making it impossible for the stand taken by the United States delegation made it tbsent parties to defend themselves. clear that the United States and those delegations which supported the United States stand were not iO. An invitation to representatives of the People's interested in dealing seriously with the question of find ~epublic of China and of the Democratic People's ing a solution of the Korean problem. {epublic of Korea would contribute to a positive solu ion of the question. It would facilitate the debate and 54. The reference made by the United States repre vould create an atmosphere propitious to a peaceful sentative to the case of the thirteen United States spies ;cttlement. who were arrested and duly convicted in China could not be taken seriously by the Committee as there was il. Mr. Yakov MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist no logical connexion between that case and the fJUestion {epublics) said that his delegation was not surprised of extending an invitation to the representatives of tt all at the position taken by the representative of North Korea or of the People's Republic of China to he United States. Over a number of years the position participate in the present debate. After all, the People's ,f the United States on the present question had Republic of China was not at war with the United ·emained unchanged. Once again, and without any States or with the United Nations. ustification, the United States delegation had called SS. \Vith regard to the statement of the United King he Democratic People's Republic o-f Korea and the :>eople's Republic of China aggressors and had urged dom representative to the effect that the Communist countries had called the United Nations a belligerent, hat in those circumstances the representatives of those that description should not be objected to. The United ountries should not be irwitE'd to participate in the Kinadom and other Members of the United Nations liscussion on the present question. In this respect he had "fought in Korea and thus North Korea and the vould ask the representative of the United States People's Republic of China were justified to c~ll the vhether, before the Korean War, the United States United Nations a belligerent party. Actually tt was lelegation would have agreed to invite representatives not a question of the lTnited Nations. it was a question >r North Korea to submit their case on an equal foot of a certain group in the United Nations which had ng with the representatives of South Korea. If the interwned in the Korean War with their armed forces. ssue of inviting the representatives of . North f nted in Canada A--41889---March 1955-1,9.SO