320/12–2450: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
[Received December 24—5:15 p. m.]
Delga 461. Re Entezam committee cease-fire proposal. Following is text message dated December 23 from Chou En-lai to Entezam. Committee at present does not plan release text to press.1
“Peking, December 23, 1950, Mr. Nasrollah Entezam, President of the Fifth Session of the United Nations General Assembly, Lake Success.
The attitude of the Central Peoples Government of the Peoples Republic of China on the so-called “three-man committee for cease-fire in Korea” and the peaceful settlement of the Korean question is to be found in my statement issued on December 22. Besides being broadcast by the Hsiu Hua News Agency on the same date, the said statement is hereby transmitted by cable for your information.
“Chou En-lai, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Central Peoples Government of the Peoples Republic of China, Peking, December 22, 1950.
“Statement by Chou En-lai, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Central Peoples Government of the Peoples Republic of China on the resolution concerning the ‘three-man committee for cease-fire in Korea’ illegally adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 14, 1950.
[Page 1595]“The General Assembly of the United Nations illegally adopted a resolution submitted by thirteen nations concerning a so-called ceasefire in Korea. This resolution provided for the establishment of a three-man committee, consisting of the President of the current session of the United Nations General Assembly, Entezam, the Indian delegate Rau, and the Canadian delegate Pearson, both appointed by him, to conduct talks to determine whether it is possible to arrange appropriate and satisfactory conditions for a cease-fire in Korea, and then to make recommendations to the United Nations General Assembly. With reference to this resolution, Chou En-lai, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the the Central Peoples Government, the Peoples Republic of China, issues the following statement:
‘1. The representative of the Peoples Republic of China neither participated in nor agreed to the adoption of the resolution concerning the so-called “three-man committee for cease-fire in Korea” by the United Nations General Assembly. Prior to this, the Central Peoples Government of the Peoples Republic of China had repeatedly declared that the Central Peoples Government of the Peoples Republic of China would regard as illegal and null and void all resolutions on major problems, especially those concerning the major problems of Asia, which might be adopted by the United Nations without the participation and concurrence of the duly appointed delegates of the Peoples Republic of China. Therefore, the government of the Peoples Republic of China and its delegates are not prepared to make any contact with the above mentioned illegal “three-man committee”.
‘2. The Central Peoples Government of the Peoples Republic of China has always held and still holds that the hostilities in Korea should be speedily brought to an end. In order to end the hostilities in Korea, genuine peace must be restored in Korea, and the Korean people must have genuine freedom to settle their own problems. The reason why the hostilities in Korea have not yet been put to an end is precisely because of the fact that the United States Government has despatched troops to invade Korea and is continuing and extending its policies of aggression and war. As far back as the beginning of the hostilities in Korea, we here stood for the peaceful settlement and localization of the Korean problem. For this reason, the Government of the Peoples Republic of China and that of the USSR have repeatedly proposed that all foreign troops be withdrawn from Korea, and that the Korean people be left alone to settle the Korean problem themselves. However, the United States Government not only rejected such a proposal, but also rejected negotiations for the peaceful settlement of the Korean problem. When the invading troops of the United States arrogantly crossed the 38th Parallel, at the beginning of the month of October, the United States Government, recklessly ignoring warnings from all quarters and following the provocative crossing of the border by Syngman Rhee in June, thoroughly destroyed, and hence obliterated forever this demarcation line of political geography. In the later part of November, when the representative of the Peoples Republic of China was invited to take part in the [Page 1596] discussion by the Security Council on the charge against United States aggression in Taiwan, he again submitted the proposal that the United States and other foreign troops be withdrawn from Korea, and that the people of South and North Korea be left alone to settle their domestic affairs. But the United Nations Security Council, under the domination of the United States, rejected this reasonable peace proposal from the Government of the Peoples Republic of China. From this it is evident that since the United States Government has from the very beginning refused to withdraw its troops, it has absolutely no sincerity in ending the hostilities in Korea, still less in letting the Korean people have genuine peace and freedom.
‘3. This being the case, why does the American delegate, Mr. Austin, now favour an immediate cease-fire in Korea, and why does President Truman also express willingness to conduct negotiations to settle the hostilities in Korea? It is not difficult to understand that, when the American invading troops were landing at Inchon, crossing the 38th Parallel or pressing toward the Yalu River, they did not favour an immediate cease-fire and were not willing to conduct negotiations. It is only today when the American invading troops have sustained defeat, that they favour an immediate cease-fire and the conducting of negotiations after the cease-fire. Very obviously, they opposed peace yesterday, so that the United States might continue to extend her aggression; and they favour a cease-fire today, so that the United States may gain a breathing space and prepare to attack again, or at least hold their present aggressive position in preparation for further advance. What they care about is not the interests of the Korean people and the Asian peoples, nor those of the American people. They are only interested in how American imperialists can maintain their invading troops and aggressive activities in Korea, how they can continue to invade and occupy China’s Taiwan and how they can intensify the preparation for war in the capitalist world. Therefore, the representative of MacArthur’s headquarters said bluntly that they could accept a cease-fire only on a military basis and without any political conditions. This means that, all the status of aggression will remain the same after the cease-fire, so that they can fight again when they are prepared. Further, they could take this opportunity to declare the existence of a state of emergency and to prepare for mobilization in the United States, in Western Europe and Japan, thus driving the peoples of the United States, Western Europe and Japan down into the abyss of war. Is this not what Messrs. Truman, Acheson, Marshall and MacArthur are doing now? With reference to the so-called proposal for cease-fire first and negotiations afterwards, irrespective of the fact that the proposal by the twelve nations had neither been adopted by the Security Council nor by the United Nations General Assembly and irrespective of what countries are to be included in the negotiating conference, and even if all these had been agreed upon, the agenda and contents of the negotiation could still be discussed endlessly after the cease-fire. If the conference is not a conference of the legal Security Council or of the legal five power conferences, or is not affiliated to them, the US Government in the last resort can still manipulate its voting machine. Thus to discuss the cease-fire and start negotiations now on the basis of the [Page 1597] withdrawal of all foreign troops from Korea and the settling of Korean domestic affairs by the Korean people themselves is to act hypocritically and would therefore suit the designs of the US Government, and hence cannot satisfy the sincere desire of the peace-loving peoples of the world. The three-man committee—a cease-fire on the spot—peace negotiations—launching of a huge offensive; this Marshall formula is not in the least unfamiliar to the Chinese people, because in 1946, General Marshall assisted Chiang Kai-shek in this way, repeatedly for a whole year, and in the end had to admit failure and leave. Will the people of China, who had learned this lesson in 1946 and later gained victory, fall into such trap today? No, the old trick of General Marshall will not work again in the United Nations.
‘4. Moreover, the present issues are definitely not confined to the Korean problem. While the United States Government was engineering the hostilities in Korea, it despatched the Seventh Fleet to invade China’s Taiwan and then bombed northeast China, fired on Chinese merchant vessels and extended its aggression in east Asia. Against all this, the Central Peoples Government of the Peoples Republic of China has repeatedly lodged charges with the United Nations. But under American domination, the majority in the United Nations has not only upheld American aggression against Korea and supported American invasion and occupation of Taiwan, the bombing of northeast China, but also rejected the three proposals submitted by our representative on the charge against the United States for armed aggression against Taiwan, and shelved the charge of United States aggression against China made by the delegate of the Soviet Union. Our representative was kept waiting for a long time and until the first committee of the United Nations General Assembly was indefinitely adjourned, he was not given a chance to speak.
‘This attitude which was taken by the majority of the United Nations under the domination of the Anglo-American bloc, obviously violates the United Nations Charter and its purposes. They are furthering rather than checking American aggression. They are undermining rather than defending world peace.
‘What particularly arouses the world’s indignation is that, in spite of the fact that during the past several months the United Nations held innumerable discussions on China or on important questions concerning China, the delegates of the Peoples Republic of China, who are the only representatives of the four hundred and seventy-five million people of China, are still being kept out of the doors of the United Nations whereas the representatives of a handful of the Chiang Kai-shek reactionary remnants are still being allowed to usurp the seats of the Chinese delegation in the United Nations. To such an extent the Chinese people have been slighted and insulted!
‘Therefore, the Chinese people, who, impelled by righteous indignation, have risen to volunteer in resisting the United States and helping Korea, and thus protecting their homes and defending their country are absolutely reasonable and justified in so doing. The Chinese peoples’ volunteers, who have been forced to take up arms side by side with the Korean peoples’ army to resist the American aggressors, under the unified command of the government of the Korean [Page 1598] Democratic Peoples Republic, are fighting for their own existence, fighting to aid Korea and fighting for the peace of east Asia as well as the peace of the whole world.
‘5. It must be pointed out that the proposal for a peaceful settlement of the Korean problem submitted by the majority of the delegates of the thirteen Asian and Arabian nations was originally based on their desire for peace, and this is understandable. But they have failed to see through the whole intrigue of the United States Government in supporting the proposal for a cease-fire first and negotiations afterwards, and therefore they have not seriously considered the basic proposals of the Chinese Government concerning the peaceful settlement of the Korean problem.
‘The original thirteen-nation resolution was not wholly palatable to the United States Government, so it was separated into two resolutions. The first resolution, or the resolution providing for the so-called “three man committee for cease-fire in Korea”, which is satisfactory to the United States, was, under pressure, given priority for discussion and was consequently adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. But the second resolution, or the resolution providing for a so-called “negotiating conference” “negotiating commission”, with which the United States was either not satisfied, or not quite satisfied, was therefore shelved for the time being.
‘The difference between these two resolutions was remarkably demonstrated by the attitude of the Philippine delegate. The Philippine delegate, who always follows in the footsteps of the United States, only agreed to the first resolution but withdrew from the second resolution. This trick of close cooperation displayed by the Philippines in the role of demanding a cease-fire and by the United States in the role supporting it has thus been exposed.
‘From this fact itself, the lesson can be drawn that if the Asian and Arabian nations wish to gain genuine peace, they must free themselves from United States pressure and must abandon the “three man committee for cease-fire in Korea”, and give up the idea of cease-fire first and negotiations afterwards.
‘6. The Central Peoples Government of the Peoples Republic of China solemnly declares that the Chinese people eagerly hope that the hostilities in Korea can be settled peacefully. We firmly insist that, as a basis for negotiating for a peaceful settlement of the Korean problem, all foreign troops must be withdrawn from Korea, and Korea’s domestic affairs must be settled by the Korean people themselves. The American aggression forces must be withdrawn from Taiwan, and the representatives of the Peoples Republic of China must obtain a legitimate status in the United Nations. These points are not only the justified demands of the Chinese people and the Korean people; they are also the urgent desire of all progressive public opinion throughout the world. To put aside these points would make it impossible to settle peacefully the Korean problem and the important problems of Asia.’”
- The text of this message from Chou En-lai was included in the report of the Cease-fire Group to the First Committee, dated January 2, 1951 (U.N. document A/C.1/643).↩