My delegation regrets, as I am sure we all do, that the question of the final disposal of Eritrea must again be postponed. The very extensive debate in the subcommittee and in the committee has, however, convinced many delegations that the facts of the situation must be still further clarified before a solution can be found capable of commanding the support of this Assembly. When it became obvious that the basic differences of opinion within the committee precluded reaching a solution, we agreed that only through further study of the problem and through a new and objective analysis of the facts could the General Assembly find a solution which could be accepted by the necessary majority of its members. For this reason we voted for the committee's recommendation for the establishment of a commission composed of representatives of governments with no direct interest in Eritrea. We can all trust this commission to render a report reflecting the actual situation in the territory and on the basis of which the next session of the Assembly will be able finally to resolve this problem. We therefore will maintain our support of this part of the committee's recommendation.

As the Assembly is aware, we also have before us the question of the appropriate adjustment of the boundaries of the former Italian Colonies. In view of the complex technical aspects of this problem and the lack of complete information before us, it has not been possible for the committee to make substantive recommendations to the Assembly. In order that the Assembly may subsequently give consideration to this matter, it has been proposed that the procedure to be adopted be studied by the Interim Committee, and that a report be submitted to the fifth regular session of the General Assembly. My delegation agrees and hopes this resolution will receive the general acceptance of the Assembly.

Mr. President, I will not take more of the Assembly's time to discuss further this problem which has already consumed so much of our energies and about which so much has already been said. In closing, however, I would like to observe on behalf of my delegation that the Assembly might well congratulate itself on a difficult job well done. We may even hope that despite the complex and controversial aspects of this problem, the resolutions recommended by the Political Committee will receive the unanimous approval of this Assembly. As in the case of our own delegation, such unanimous approval would not mean that we have all succeeded in persuading our colleagues that our own preferred positions should be accepted. It would mean that we have all joined, in the spirit of the Charter, in a cooperative effort to help the General Assembly to discharge its novel and important responsibilities in this matter.

JESSUP STATEMENT ON SOVIET VIOLATION OF SINO-SOVIET TREATY OF 1945

Ambassador AUSTIN. Now we come to the Chinese question. Dr. Jessup spoke on this question after the 1949 Assembly session. It was referred to by me as a Soviet violation of the Sino-Soviet Treaty of 1945. The subcommittee will be interested in the following passage from Dr. Jessup's statement in a plenary session, December 7, 1949.

If the Soviet Union had not been afraid to publish the facts concerning its policies and practices in the Far East, we could have had a basis on which to decide whether or not we are mistaken in our well founded conclusions that the Soviet Russian policy in China today is part of a continuous story, a story which began in the days of Czarist Russian imperialism and which still is characterized by the search for special monopolistic privileges by encroachments and by attempted dismemberment of China.

I have spoken above about some principal problems in our great struggle in trying to get freedom today where Dr. Jessup has entered the lists and shown both skill and valor in behalf of the United States. If I had more time, I would also want to tell you about some of the less well known activities of the United Nations where Dr. Jessup has represented the United States with distinction.

His work on such matters as the problem of the veto in the Security Council and development of improved means for settlement of international disputes and in the genuine tradition of constructive American statesmanship.

89965-51-25

Now, on this China question, I understand you have something to propose to me to talk about, and I would rather follow that than to go on as I have in other cases, if you would like to now tell me what you are particularly interested in.

NATIONALIST CHINESE RESOLUTION IN THE U. N.

Senator SPARKMAN. Yesterday Senator Brewster posed a question to Ambassador Jessup as to why the complaint that you have just referred to was not acted on, either in 1949 or in 1950. In substance was that not it?

Senator BREWSTER. Yes.

Senator SPARKMAN. I thought you might comment on that. Ambassador AUSTIN. You can button it all up with a word, as it were. It was because of lack of agreement.

Now, let me explain what I mean by that.

This item was put on the agenda as an urgent, additional item. It was not on the original agenda. It was put on by China.

Dr. Tsiang submitted a draft resolution proposing that the Assembly sustain his charges against the Soviet Union and call on all members to desist from military and economic aid to the Chinese Communists, and to refrain from recognizing that regime.

The Soviet Union attempted to block this item throughout. It voted against putting it on the agenda and did not participate in the debate or in any way answer the charges.

Mr. Vishinsky asserted that Dr. Tsiang had lost the right to represent the Chinese people. Dr. Jessup made four speeches on this point. They are all attached here and I would like to submit them. Senator SPARKMAN. When you submit them they will be handled in the same way, sir. Have you marked them?

Ambassador AUSTIN. I have.

INTERIM COMMITTEE ACTION REGARDING U. N. RESOLUTION

Ambassador AUSTIN. These speeches dealt in general with a draft resolution sponsored by the United States, Australia, Mexico, Pakistan, and the Philippines, calling for a respect for China's political independence, noninterference in her internal affairs, fulfillment of existing treaties, and a ban on seeking spheres of influence or establishing puppet regimes there.

The delegations of Cuba, Equador, and Peru submitted another resolution which, with amendments, was adopted, which put the case to the Interim Committee. That is, it took it out of the General Assembly and put it in the Interim Committee. That was done on the theory that it could weigh evidence. Dr. Tsiang agreed to this course, and did not press his resolution to a vote.

The Interim Committee did not move the case along in the summer of 1950, we being then engaged in the Korean case, in which, of course, Dr. Tsiang was just as interested as we were.

Of course, it has been unable to bring action about during the summer of 1951 because of the continuance of the fifth session. There had been no meeting of the Interim Committee. It cannot meeet while the General Assembly is in session.

THE SUBSTITUTE RESOLUTION

Dr. Jessup's speeches in the marked portions set out American foreign policy toward China, and in the last one contains a bill of particulars of the Soviet Union's attempt to prevent the Assembly from discussing the matter.

JESSUP'S STATEMENTS REGARDING CHINESE RESOLUTION

I would like to read briefly from this. This is Dr. Jessup speaking: In my opening statement before Committee No. 1, I stated that the failure to endorse this resolution might well be interpreted as indicating an intention to profit by the present situation in China for purposes of imperialist aggrandizement.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Is that referring to the Tsiang resolution or the substitute we put in?

Ambassador AUSTIN. That is the substitute resolution.

What other conclusions can the world draw from the five votes cast against these fundamental principles? Let us look on the affirmative side at the merits of this resolution.

The very fact of the Soviet opposition attests indeed to its importance. That opposition is the conclusive refutation that this resolution is not as one delegate feared in his views expressed in the first committee a mere song to the moon. The Soviet opposition is proof that the Soviet Union understands perfectly that this resolution far from condoning the past actions of Soviet Russia in China is occasioned by those very actions and reflects the acute fears of the international community of this Soviet Russian continuation of Czarist Russian imperialism, in the Far East.

I am skipping some of it now. He said:

I have listened with interest to the suggestion just advanced by the distinguished representative of Ecuador proposing on behalf of the three sponsors of the original resolution, a new amendment which would incorporate a certain additional thought in their joint resolution. While it is true, Mr. President, that this amendment does not go the whole way to meet the difficulties to which we called attention in the First Committee, we do feel that it goes part of the way and we shall accordingly vote for the resolution introduced by Cuba, Ecuador, and Peru, if this amendment is adopted and incorporated in it.

AUSTIN-TSIANG RELATIONSHIP

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Is that the resolution which would refer the matter to the Little Assembly to take evidence and look into the case?

Ambassador AUSTIN. That is right. That is the same one Dr. Tsiang assented to.

Senator SPARKMAN. Mr. Ambassador, at that point let me ask this question: In connection with all of these matters affecting China, has it been your practice as the chief of our delegation to discuss these matters fully, frankly, and in a friendly relationship with Dr. Tsiang, the Chinese representative?

Ambassador AUSTIN. Yes.

Senator SPARKMAN. You have maintained good relationship with him, the representative of Nationalist China?

Ambassador AUSTIN. Yes. I pause-you make me pause-because there is a certain thing that you do not know about that makes my position very emphatic. I lived in China in 1916 and 1917 and I have a great affection for the Chinese people. I feel that Dr. Tsiang repre

NOMINATION OF PHILIP C. JESSUP

sents the Chinese people and their psychology and thought. Therefore, personally, I have been so close to him that really there does not seem to be anybody else in the General Assembly who has any warmer support than I give him, personally and in his office.

Now, we thought these things out and talked them all over.

Senator SPARKMAN. He assented to this resolution, you said, which was adopted in the 1949 General Assembly. That is what prompted my remark.

Ambassador AUSTIN. That is right. I do not believe I need to say

more.

Senator SPARKMAN. I think not.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Could I ask you one question right there? Ambassador AUSTIN. Yes, indeed.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I am probably moving a little too fast, but I wanted to ask you, Ambassador Austin, if it is not your conviction that what happened in China had really been by the usual Russian underground methods of taking over that country, so that today China is a conquered country with leaders reporting to Russia? Ambassador AUSTIN. You are exactly right. These papers I am handing back contain very important evidence of the position of Dr. Jessup.

Senator SPARKMAN. They will be handled in the manner aforementioned.

(The documents referred to appear in the record, as follows:)

STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR JESSUP IN COMMITTEE I, NOVEMBER 28, 1949

A charge by one member of the United Nations that another member is violating both a treaty and the Charter of the United Nations is a matter of serious concern to us all. This is particularly true in the present case because the alleged violation includes the charge of assisting in attempting the violent overthrow of a recognized government; and, most of all, because both China and the Soviet Union, as permanent members of the Security Council, are pledged to fulfill special responsibilities in maintaining international peace and security. A due regard for the normal deliberative processes of the United Nations as well as for the opinion of the world community would have dictated that the Member against which the charges have been leveled should make some response to them and should place its side of the case before this committee. We regret that it has not seen fit to do so and that the Soviet delegation and also the delegations of other Eastern European states have refused to participate in the consideration of this case.

Equally serious, although not equally well-documented, charges were made in this Assembly by the U. S. S. R. against the United States and United Kingdom in the discussion of the Resolution on the Essentials of Peace just concluded in this committee. Both my delegation and that of the United Kingdom not only voted in favor of placing that item on the agenda for discussion and hearing but took their full part in the debate in answering the charges of the Soviet Union. In this we were fulfilling our duty to the United Nations in helping to make the Assembly, as Secretary of State Acheson in his opening speech in the Assembly urged that it should be "a forum in which the international public interest can be fully expressed" through the participation of all members. Had we not done so, had we adopted the Soviet tactics and refused to participate, it is not difficult to imagine the inferences which the Soviet delegation would have drawn as to the truth of those charges made against us.

[The following two paragraphs were underlined for emphasis by Ambassador Austin:]

Unfortunately the members of the United Nations must recall previous instances in which the Soviet Union adopted the same procedure of refusing to participate when an item which it regarded as unpleasant or disagreeable to it was brought up for consideration.

The United States cannot but deplore this selective participation in the work of the United Nations. Such an attitude seems the more regrettable when viewed in the light of the overwhelming judgment of this committee given only last Friday that one of "the essentials of peace" is full participation in this Organization—a judgment expressed by the terms of the resolution in a specific call upon "every member to participate fully in the work of the United Nations." The Soviet delegation, it will be recalled, explained its vote of abstention on this provision on the ground that it was already binding upon all members by the terms of the Charter.

For its part, as a member of the United Nations and of the Security Council, the United States is compelled to regard with serious concern the charges made by the Chinese delegation and feels that the General Assembly in fulfilling its responsibilities under the Charter must take cognizance of them and of the situation in the Far East. It is one of the basic tenets of United States policy regarding the Far East as reaffirmed by Secretary of State Acheson only last August, "to encourage and support the efforts of the United Nations to achieve" the objectives of encouraging the development of an independent China free from foreign control and "particularly to maintain peace and security in the Far East."

During the past few weeks this committee has been engaged in a sobering discussion of what constitutes the essentials of peace. Although the debate was initiated by the Soviet Union through an attack upon the Western powers, the discussion soon became focused, as every consideration of the requirements of peace necessarily must, on the foreign policies and measures of the Soviet Union itself. In that debate the representatives of countries from all areas of the world, including one courageous example from Eastern Europe itself, voiced the same basic concern and urged the same basic solution-the concern arising from what the distinguished delegate of Brazil termed the "unbridled imperialistic encroachments" of the Soviet Union, and the solution to be found in the fulfillment in good faith of the pledges and principles of the Charter.

The general charges made against the policies and activities of the U. S. S. R. in that debate find a further specific application in the complaint which the Chinese delegation has now laid before us. Although these charges focus upon one geographic area, the fundamental problem is the same. It is a problem of maintaining an independent, unified, and free country against what are charged to be aggressive encroachments of a foreign power.

Throughout its modern history, China has been struggling to establish and maintain its independence, its integrity, and its freedom. The struggle has been waged not only against potent internal pressures but against forces brought to bear directly upon China by her neighbors. A brief consideration of what these external forces have been is pertinent since it is clear that the struggle against them is still in progress.

The great millenia-old Chinese civilization first came into extensive contact with the people, institution, and ideas of the Western World not more than 100 years ago. In the preceding century the population of China had begun to increase in an extraordinary and spectacular manner. The mounting pressure of population upon subsistence, the intrusion of commerce in the products of the industrial revolution, and the exposure to foreign ideas created new and severe social, economic, and political problems in China. The ways of the old Manchu regime proved inadequate to cope wth the new and kinetic situation. Instead of changing to meet it, the system of central authority in the Chinese Empire grew brittle and soon crumbled easily at the shocks of domestic unrest and foreign encroachment.

The international mores of that period have now fortunately changed. They have been superseded by the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. As I shall point out, however, even in the earlier period the United States took the leadership among the Western powers in an attempt to safeguard China's integrity and independence and to cushion the shock of these contacts with the west.

The United States has never had any territorial ambitions to be satisfied at the expense of China. Indeed, from the time when it first entered upon relations with the Chinese Government, it has been a major tenet in the policy of the United States to aid China in preserving her integrity against China's two imperialistic neighbors, Russia and Japan.

At the time of the Russian occupation of Manchuria at the turn of the present century, the United States, in a note sent to the Russians and to other interested governments, exerted its influence to maintain "China's territorial and ad