320/11–750: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin)
Gadel 102. Re Delga 244 November 7, 1950. In Dept’s view most desirable alternative re Yugo proposals would be: a) adoption of acceptable substitute for first proposal on “duties of State in event of outbreak of hostilities,” b) reference to IC of second proposal for commission of good offices.
If adoption of substitute not possible Dept doubts whether original text of first Yugo proposal could be simply voted down without prejudice to Yugo position and for this reason is anxious to avoid such course. Perhaps this proposal could also be referred to IC. Reference of first Yugo proposal to IC would become imperative if Soviet resolution for definition of aggression (Delga 2371) is referred to IC.
Dept agrees Soviet resolution should be preferably voted down for reasons outlined in Lodge’s speech2 or referred to IC if considerable sentiment develops for latter alternative.
Dept believes discussion of Soviet resolution offers admirable opportunity for pointed inquiries directed to SovDel as to applicability of proposed definition of aggression to such situations as Russo-Finnish war, North Korean aggression and Chinese Commie armed intervention in Korea.
Reference could also be made to fact that definition of aggression offered in Sov resolution differs from that included e.g. in Convention defining aggression signed at London July 3, 1933, between USSR, [Page 432] Rumania, Estonia, Poland, Turkey, Persia, Afghanistan.3 This definition includes among others following acts as constituting aggression:
“Provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take, in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.” (See Hudson, International Legislation, Vol. VI, 1932–4, P. 413)
Furthermore, as pointed out by Lodge, Sov resolution contains no reference to indirect aggression. Perhaps Pearson might be interested in above suggestions for inclusion in his speech.
- The text of the Soviet draft resolution was transmitted in this telegram.↩
- During a statement to the First Committee on November 7 regarding the Yugoslav resolution, Senator Lodge commented with some care upon the Soviet proposal to define aggression: “The Government of the United States had always considered, and was still of the opinion, that no definition of aggression could be exhaustive and that any omission might encourage an aggressor. It would be noted, for example, that the definition proposed by the USSR delegation contained no reference to indirect aggression, to subversion or to the fomenting of civil strife. Any attempt at a comprehensive definition of aggression was inconsistent with the provisions of the Charter, particularly with Article 39, which provided that the Security Council should determine the existence of any act of aggression and take the necessary steps to put an end to it. A definition of aggression adopted by the General Assembly could not be binding upon the Security Council and would not even bind the General Assembly itself when it considered whether there had been aggression in a particular case. If the definition of aggression proposed by the USSR had already been adopted, the Soviet Union would no doubt have attempted to claim that there had been no aggression against the Republic of Korea on 25 June 1950 or that it had been the forces of the United Nations which had committed aggression in Korea. It was not a definition of aggression which was needed, but the determination of all the Member States to live up to the principles of the Charter.” (GA (V), First Committee, p. 262)↩
- For text, see League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 147, No. 3391.↩