Chinese Communist and Soviet Charges Regarding Bombing of Chinese Territory The People's Republic of China addressed cablegrams to the Security Council on August 28 and 30, 1950, complaining that United States airplanes had invaded the air space over Chinese Communist territory, strafing buildings, railway stations, and railway carriages and killing and wounding a number of persons. In a letter of August 29, 1950, to the Secretary-General dealing with the charges contained in the first cablegram, Ambassador Austin stated that aircraft under the Unified Command were under instructions strictly prohibiting them from crossing the Korean frontier; that no evidence had been received to indicate that those instructions had been violated; and that the United States would welcome an investigation on the spot by a commission appointed by the Security Council. On August 31, 1950, he stated that, on the basis of reports just received, one F-51 aircraft might possibly have attacked, by mistake, an airstrip at Antung in Manchuria, approximately five miles from the Korean border. On August 31, 1950, the Soviet Union introduced a draft resolution in the Security Council which accepted the version of the facts given by the Chinese Communists, condemned the actions of the United States and charged the United States Government with violation of the Chinese Communist frontier, and called upon the United States to prohibit “such illegal acts violating Chinese sovereignty and causing damage to the People's Republic of China and to the peaceful Chinese people." The United States submitted a draft resolution on September 1, 1950, which would have established a commission composed of two representatives, one to be appointed by the Government of India and one by the Government of Sweden, to investigate on the spot and report as soon as possible on the allegations of the People's Republic of China. This draft resolution also requested the full cooperation and support of all governments and authorities to provide safe-conduct and all facilities requested by the commission. The United States also explained that it was prepared to compensate for damages and would take such disciplinary action as might be necessary to assure that such acts were not repeated if any or all of the allegations were substantiated by a competent, impartial fact-finding commission. The United States draft resolution was rejected in the Security Council on September 12, 1950, because of the veto of the Soviet Union. At the same meeting the draft resolution submitted by the Soviet Union likewise failed of acceptance since it received only the Soviet Union's vote in favor. The Chinese Communist regime in a communication dated September 24, 1950, made a substantially identical complaint to the General Assembly. On October 5, 1950, the U.S.S.R. introduced this item on its own behalf, and the General Assembly subsequently placed the item on its agenda in the following form : "Complaint by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics regarding the violation of Chinese air space by the air force of the United States of America and the machine-gunning and bombing of Chinese territory by that air force, and against the bombardment and illegal inspection of a merchant ship of the People's Republic of China by a military vessel of the United States." At the end of 1950 the Political and Security Committee of the Assembly had not reached this item. CHINESE NATIONALIST CHARGE OF SOVIET On December 8, 1949, the General Assembly referred this item, which had been proposed by China, to the Interim Committee for "continuous examination and study" and called for a report with recommendations to the fifth General Assembly. The Interim Committee considered the question at a meeting February 7, 1950, at which Dr. T. F. Tsiang, the representative of China, introduced a resolution proposing that the Interim Committee (a) recommend to the Assembly that it determine that the U.S.S.R. had violated the Charter and the Sino-Soviet treaty of friendship by obstructing the National Government of China and aiding the Chinese Communists; (b) urge all members to desist and refrain from giving any military and economic aid to the Chinese Communists, and for this purpose decide to send to China a naval and air observation group; and (c) recommend to all members not to accord diplomatic recognition to any regime organized by the Chinese Communists. For several reasons no action was taken at that time. There was no initiative because it was seen that as the topic progressed there might be sharp cleavage between members of the free world, as it necessarily involved the difference between those who recognized the Communists and those who recognized the Nationalists. Moreover, after June 25 there was no inclination or even time for those delegations on the Security Council to undertake this item. Also, the examination of evidence on which to base the finding of treaty violations was a new procedural problem for a political body that seemed difficult to solve in the light of the recognition question. When the Interim Committee returned to the matter on September 15, its chairman pointed out that the item touched upon important issues which were being considered by other United Nations bodies and which would be considered by the Assembly itself when it met within a few days. For these reasons he suggested that the Interim Committee not debate the question. The Interim Committee accepted the chairman's suggestion. When the item was discussed in the First Committee of the Assembly in November, Dr. Tsiang enumerated various instances which he cited as evidence of the aggressive nature of Soviet imperialism with respect to China. He believed that the events of the past 12 months clearly showed that the Soviet Union was making every effort to insure that the so-called Peiping government would be completely subservient to it, to annex vast Chinese areas, and to acquire special privileges all over China. He consequently proposed that the General Assembly appoint a commission of inquiry (a) to gather information relating to this matter from the two countries in dispute as well as from other members and (b) to report its findings to the next session of the Assembly. John Foster Dulles, the United States representative, supported the proposal on the ground that such a commission could ascertain the facts to provide a complete picture of what had actually happened. He considered it a moderate proposal of a procedural character which would not in any way prejudge the final decision on the charges. On the other hand the Soviet Union representative, Jacob A. Malik, argued that the remarks of the Chinese representative had been filled with hatred, lies, and "Kuomintang pettifoggery." He specifically denied the various charges against his Government and contended that the case was simply a slanderous fabrication to conceal the evil designs of warmongers and American monopolists and the shortcomings of the Kuomintang regime. The Syrian Delegation submitted a proposal under which the Interim Committee would be instructed to continue inquiry on this question to obtain more information and facts having direct bearing upon the case, if such findings were obtainable, and to report to the Assembly at its next session. Subsequently, Dr. Tsiang withdrew his proposal in favor of the Syrian proposal and an additional proposal submitted by El Salvador, which would draw the attention of all states to the necessity of complying faithfully with the recommendation contained in General Assembly resolution 291 (IV) concerning the promotion of stability of international relations in the Far East. That recommendation set forth specific principles including the scrupulous observance of treaties designed to secure the independence and territorial integrity of China. The First Committee approved the Syrian resolution by 35 votes to 17, with 7 abstentions, and the Salvadoran resolution by 38 votes to 6, with 14 abstentions. In the General Assembly, the resolution referring the item to the Interim Committee was adopted by 35 votes to 17, with 7 abstentions: the second resolution, by 39 votes to 6, with 14 abstentions. The United States voted in favor of both resolutions. 4. Tibet On November 12, 1950, the Secretary-General of the United Nations received a cable from the Government of Tibet, alleging that Chinese Communist forces had invaded the border areas between Tibet and China proper on October 7 without warning or provocation. The Tibetan communication stated that Chinese Communist troops had pressed forward from several directions in an advance toward Outer Tibet. This alleged invasion of Tibetan territory occurred while a Tibetan delegation was in India conducting preliminary negotiations with the Chinese Communist Ambassador to India regarding the relations between China and Tibet. In the appeal to the United Nations it was declared that, while close relations between Tibet and China existed prior to 1912, these relations were of a personal nature between the Emperor of China and the Dalai Lama, the spiritual and temporal ruler of Tibet. It was stated further that although the Chinese had usually misconstrued this relationship as giving China suzerainty over a vassal state, Tibet had declared its complete independence of China in 1912 and had broken off diplomatic relations with the Chinese National Government in July 1949. The Tibet Cabinet and National Assembly concluded by entrusting "the problem of Tibet in this emergency to the ultimate decision of the United Nations, and hoping the conscience of the world would not allow disruption of our state by methods reminiscent of the jungle." On November 14 the Delegation of El Salvador requested that the question of the "invasion of Tibet by foreign forces" be added to the agenda of the fifth General Assembly. On November 24 the General Committee unanimously voted to postpone consideration of the problem. The Indian representative stated that his Government was interested in promoting a friendly settlement of the issue, that hope still existed for a peaceful settlement, and that such settlement could best be promoted by deferring, for the present, consideration of the item. Other delegations generally concurred with the Indian view. Ambassador Gross, speaking for the United States, said he had supported postponement because of the Indian advice that hope for peaceful settlement still existed. Otherwise the United States would have voted to place the question on the agenda, in the belief that when a complaint of aggression is made to the United Nations there should be an opportunity to have that complaint heard and considered if any state so desires. B. OTHER SECURITY POLITICAL POLITICAL AND PROBLEMS BE TWEEN STATES and Territorial 1. Threats to Independence Independence and Integrity of Greece During 1950 the Greek Government made further progress toward restoring normal conditions in the regions near the northern frontiers formerly infested by the forces of the Communist guerrilla movement. As a result of the operations of the Greek Army in 1949 the organized guerrilla movement in Greece had been reduced to the isolated activity of small, scattered groups. Although these groups continued to engage in sporadic raids and sabotage activities in or near relatively unprotected villages in the northern part of the country, by the end of 1949 the bulk of the guerrilla forces had withdrawn into adjacent territory, chiefly into Albania and Bulgaria. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that they are being maintained in those countries under conditions which would permit international Communist leadership again to use them to threaten the security of Greece. Despite the elimination of large-scale guerrilla activity, border relations have not improved between Albania and Bulgaria, on one hand, and Greece on the other. The two northern states have shown no disposition to move toward normal relations with Greece. However, the Greek-Yugoslav border region has remained quiet, and considerable progress is being made toward normal relations between these two countries. The United Nations Special Committee on the 941458-51 -6 63 |