330/8–1750: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State
priority
[Received August 17—7:45 p. m.]
303. Following is account of informal meeting SC members 2 p. m. today, called by Malik through intermediary Rau to continue informal [Page 597] exchange of views on deadlock in SC. Malik opened meeting with expression “heartfelt thanks” to Rau for cooperating in arranging today’s exchange of views.
Malik then mentioned that in discussion with Rau way of liquidating situation in SC had been discussed, particularly question of inviting two parties (South and North Koreans) to SC. He proposed deadlock should be liquidated as follows: both should be invited. Position Soviet Union boils down as follows, he said: in effect, Soviet Union, without changing its view as to validity June 25 resolution, was willing to leave aside question validity that resolution and agree to invite South Korean representative and simultaneously decide to invite representative North Korea.
In response Malik request for expression views, Jebb said if he understood correctly Malik’s proposal boiled down to invitation to both representatives simultaneously. Jebb asked how this would change existing situation. Or would Malik have in mind first inviting representatives ROK and then discussion question inviting North Korean representative. Malik replied in affirmative to Jebb’s statement that he was proposing both representatives be invited simultaneously. Malik went on to say his proposal alters substance of matter without altering position Soviet Union regarding validity June 25 resolution (or discussion further question validity since this question has already been fully discussed). Malik said “complications” indicate representative South Korea should be invited but that simultaneously representative North Korea should be invited. In other words, Malik said the two decisions must be covered in one. After decision had been taken to invite both simultaneously consideration could be given to the form in which this decision would be executed in formal meeting SC, that is, manner in which implemented.
After providing opportunity, which not taken, for further expression of views, Malik went on to say Soviet delegation feels without participation both parties at SC no peaceful solution Korean question can be achieved.
In response to request for clarification by Fawzi as to how Malik would propose putting decision he sought before formal meeting SC, Malik replied as follows:
Representative of Egypt was referring to second stage of matter which would be academic to discuss before decision had been reached on first stage (agreement to seat both simultaneously). Repeating his view no necessity going back over ground of validity of June 25 resolution (referred to by Fawzi) which had been sufficiently discussed, Malik said should not be difficult reach agreement on formal presentation in SC if agreement could first be reached privately on his proposal.
[Page 598]In further effort to clarify matter for Fawzi, Malik went on to say he had already made clear that when he refers to representative of Korean people he means representatives from South and North Korea. Substance of matter is that there are two governmental authorities in Korea which have clashed in armed conflict. In order deal with question of Korea SC must have representatives of both authorities available.
Malik then said that even assuming (as some members of SC say) question is really one of North Korea being on one side and UN on other side, equity and principles of charter require SC to hear North Korea which stands accused before UN. SC cannot ignore equity or indulge in petty vengeance or discriminatory measures.
Tsiang intervened to following effect: If authorities of North Korea had a grievance they could have brought complaint to SC which could have considered complaint as a dispute and SC might then have heard both parties. NK had, however, resorted to war and article 32 did not apply. It was open to NK to turn war back into a dispute by withdrawing to 38th parallel. Article 32 might then apply and SC might then hear NK; otherwise Chinese delegation would adhere to decision June 25.
Malik made no comment on Tsiang’s remarks.
Sunde intervened that he could not understand how Malik’s proposal today was any different from proposal he had previously made in SC.
Malik said he would make further endeavor to clarify matter as follows: He had made proposal in SC to hear representatives of Korean people. He had further clarified that this meant representatives of North and South Korea. Series of members had objected because of June 25 decision. The Soviet Union representative had objected and stated his views and as result of difference of views SC found itself unable to go on with substance of its work re Korea.
Malik said Soviet Union strongly stands on its position that both parties should be invited. He said again it would be impossible to achieve peaceful settlement Korean question unless both were invited. He said he wished to repeat and emphasize this point, which he did.
It then being past three o’clock, Malik inquired if it were desired to continue private exchange of views at specified later time.
Rau, speaking for first time, said first that in order to avoid any misunderstanding he wished to make clear to his colleagues that he had merely agreed to convey Malik’s desire to hold meeting to have informal exchange of views.
Rau then went on to say he had submitted proposal at last Monday’s meeting and that he had indicated he would submit resolution if there [Page 599] were sufficient support for proposal. Many delegates had indicated they would like to see text of resolution. This, he said, would take time to prepare. Meanwhile, purpose of his proposal would be defeated if SC were to continue its discussion of substance of Korean matter. He therefore wished to ask indulgence of his colleagues for adjournment SC until Monday or Tuesday.
Malik suggested, and no objection being raised, it was agreed (a) there would be another informal exchange of views Monday afternoon, and (b) bearing in mind Rau’s request, next official meeting of SC after today would be next Tuesday.1
It was also agreed without objection that Malik would state at opening SC meeting as follows: “An informal exchange of views took place between members of the SC on questions which arose during the course of meetings of the SC. It was recognized that it would be appropriate to continue the informal exchange of views on the question touched upon.”
- August 22.↩