easy enough to say yes if you mean yes. Peiping has said no, but this time it has said it less forthrightly.

The present reply gives no inkling that there has been a change of heart and that its intentions are honorable.. The United Nations should not be fooled.

Let us ask ourselves with honesty and candor whether the United Nations should put itself in the position of a suppliant to a transgressor and make further appeals to Peiping. Would a further appeal contribute to the authority of the United Nations and the system of collective security? Would it not rather inflate the appetites and ambitions of Peiping, confusing the world as to what the issues really are and complicating a situation which is in fact a very simple one? If particular members wish to address further appeals to Peiping, they are at entire liberty to do so. My Government would raise no objections. If these members receive any replies which_reflect the possibility of a reasonable settlement or the adoption by Peiping of an acceptable course of conduct, of course my Government will be ready to consider them. But I would point out to my colleagues that this is not merely a problem of finding a formula acceptable to Peiping. The result must also be acceptable to the United Nations and in conformity with the Charter. The United Nations has called. on its members for great sacrifices on behalf of collective security. It has gone to great lengths to leave the way open for a peaceful settlement of a situation brought about by flagrant aggression. In the conduct of military operations, its forces have used the greatest restraint under extreme provocation in order to localize the conflict in Korea. But the United Nations must not be taken for granted. I ask my colleagues to give some thought to the issue of collective security. Collective security is not merely a phrase. The views of the people of the United States on this matter were developed. through a generation of vigorous debate and are linked with the sacrifices of the peoples of the world in World War II which had to be made because the world had not been able to establish a system of collective security to meet Nazi aggression. We do recognize that there are honest differences on the question before us on the points of view of the Governments represented around this table. Some are remote from the scene of conflict and hope somehow to avoid involvement. Some are concerned lest the strength of the United Nations be so committed in Korea as not to be available for their own defense. Others take differing views about the nature of developments in the Far East and what these mean to the rest of the world. But on one point we are all agreed. If any one of us is attacked, each of us would in that situation desperately ask the United Nations to provide the unified support of every other Government in the world to meet the attack. How can we bring that about for our own countries? Only by a determination to take united action to support each other faithfully and vigorously when an act of aggression occurs.

41. CONDEMNATION OF CHINESE COMMUNIST AGGRESSION IN KOREA: Statement by the President, January 25, 19511

Ambassador Austin has fully and forcefully presented the views of this Government on our attitude toward aggression by the Chinese Communists. These views have the solid support of the Executive, the Congress, and the people of the United States.

Each member of the United Nations must make its own decision on this issue. For my part, I believe in calling an aggressor an aggressor. The question of what can and should be done about the aggression in Korea of course must be discussed with all other friendly nations.

Obviously, this is no time for rash or unwise action. This is a time for clear thinking and firmness.

Let me stress again that the American resolution contains-as all our proposals have contained-a method for bringing about a ceasefire and opening the way for peaceful settlement of outstanding issues.

42. CONDEMNATION OF CHINESE COMMUNIST AGGRESSION IN KOREA: Resolution 498 (V) of the United Nations General Assembly, February 1, 1951 3

The General Assembly,

Noting that the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, has failed to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in regard to Chinese Communist intervention in Korea,

4

Noting that the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China has not accepted United Nations proposals to bring about a cessation of hostilities in Korea with a view to peaceful settlement, and that its armed forces continue their invasion of Korea and their large-scale attacks upon United Nations forces there,

1. Finds that the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China, by giving direct aid and assistance to those who were already committing aggression in Korea and by engaging in hostilities against United Nations forces there, has itself engaged in aggression in Korea;

2. Calls upon the Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China to cause its forces and nationals in Korea to cease hostilities against the United Nations forces and to withdraw from Korea;

1 Department of State Bulletin, Feb. 5, 1951, p. 205.

2 See supra.

U.N. General Assembly, Official Records, Fifth Session, Supplement No. 20 A (A/1775/Add. 1), p. 1.

See Report to the U.N. General Assembly from its Group on a Cease-Fire in Korea, Jan. 2, 1951, and Principles Adopted by the General Assembly's Group on a Cease-Fire in Korea, Jan. 11, 1951; supra, docs. 35 and 36.

3. Affirms the determination of the United Nations to continue its action in Korea to meet the aggression;

4. Calls upon all States and authorities to continue to lend every assistance to the United Nations action in Korea;

5. Calls upon all States and authorities to refrain from giving any assistance to the aggressors in Korea;

6. Requests a Committee composed of the members of the Collective Measures Committee' as a matter of urgency to consider additional measures to be employed to meet this aggression and to report thereon to the General Assembly, it being understood that the Committee is authorized to defer its report if the Good Offices Committee referred to in the following paragraph reports satisfactory progress in its efforts;

7. Affirms that it continues to be the policy of the United Nations to bring about a cessation of hostilities in Korea and the achievement of United Nations objectives in Korea by peaceful means, and requests the President of the General Assembly to designate forthwith two persons who would meet with him at any suitable opportunity to use their good offices to this end.2

43. UNITED STATES POLICY IN THE KOREAN CONFLICT: Address by the President, April 11, 1951 3

I want to talk plainly to you tonight about what we are doing in Korea and about our policy in the Far East.

In the simplest terms, what we are doing in Korea is this: We are trying to prevent a third world war.

I think most people in this country recognized that fact last June. And they warmly supported the decision of the Government to help the Republic of Korea against the Communist aggressors. Now, many persons, even some who applauded our decision to defend Korea, have forgotten the basic reason for our action.

It is right for us to be in Korea. It was right last June. It is right today.

I want to remind you why this is true.

THE COMMUNIST THREAT TO FREEDOM

The Communists in the Kremlin are engaged in a monstrous conspiracy to stamp out freedom all over the world. If they were to

1 The Collective Measures Committee, set up by the General Assembly's Res. 377 (V) of Nov. 3, 1950 (supra, pp. 187-192), consisted of representatives of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Egypt, France, Mexico, the Philippine Republic, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, Venezuela, and Yugoslavia.

2 The President of the General Assembly, on 19 February 1951, informed the members of the General Assembly (A/1779) that Dr. Luis Padilla Nervo (Mexico) and Mr. Sven Grafstrom (Sweden) had accepted his invitation to form with him the Good Offices Committee, as provided in the above resolution.

3 Department of State Bulletin, Apr. 16, 1951, pp. 603-605 (also available as Department of State publication 4195; 1951).

415900-57-vol. 2- -61

succeed, the United States would be numbered among their principal victims. It must be clear to everyone that the United States cannot― and will not-sit idly by and await foreign conquest. The only question is: When is the best time to meet the threat and how?

The best time to meet the threat is in the beginning.

It is easier to put out a fire in the beginning when it is small than after it has become a roaring blaze.

And the best way to meet the threat of aggression is for the peaceloving nations to act together. If they don't act together, they are likely to be picked off, one by one.

If they had followed the right policies in the 1930's-if the free countries had acted together, to crush the aggression of the dictators, and if they had acted in the beginning, when the aggression was small-there probably would have been no World War II.

If history has taught us anything, it is that aggression anywhere in the world is a threat to peace everywhere in the world. When that aggression is supported by the cruel and selfish rulers of a powerful nation who are bent on conquest, it becomes a clear and present danger to the security and independence of every free nation.

This is a lesson that most people in this country have learned thoroughly. This is the basic reason why we joined in creating the United Nations. And since the end of World War II we have been putting that lesson into practice we have been working with other free nations to check the aggressive designs of the Soviet Union before they can result in a third world war.

That is what we did in Greece, when that nation was threatened by the aggression of international communism.

The attack against Greece could have led to general war. But this country came to the aid of Greece. The United Nations supported Greek resistance. With our help, the determination and efforts of the Greek people defeated the attack on the spot.

Another big Communist threat to peace was the Berlin blockade. That too could have led to war. But again it was settled because free men would not back down in an emergency.)

THE COMMUNIST PLAN FOR CONQUEST

The aggression against Korea is the boldest and most dangerous move the Communists have yet made.

The attack on Korea was part of a greater plan for conquering all of Asia.

I would like to read to you from a secret intelligence report which came to us after the attack. It is a report of a speech a Communist army officer in North Korea gave to a group of spies and saboteurs last May, one month before South Korea was invaded. The report shows in great detail how this invasion was part of a carefully prepared plot. Here is part of what the Communist officer, who had been trained in Moscow, told his men: "Our forces," he said, "are scheduled to attack South Korean forces about the middle of June.. The coming attack on South Korea marks the first step toward the liberation of Asia.'

Notice that he used the word "liberation." That is Communist double-talk meaning "conquest."

I have another secret intelligence report here. This one tells what another Communist officer in the Far East told his men several months before the invasion of Korea. Here is what he said: "In order to successfully undertake the long awaited world revolution, we must first unify Asia. . . . Java, Indochina, Malaya, India, Tibet, Thailand, Philippines, and Japan are our ultimate targets. . . . The United States is the only obstacle on our road for the liberation of all countries in southeast Asia. In other words, we must unify the people of Asia and crush the United States."

That is what the Communist leaders are telling their people, and that is what they have been trying to do.

They want to control all Asia from the Kremlin.

This plan of conquest is in flat contradiction to what we believe. We believe that Korea belongs to the Koreans, that India belongs to the Indians-that all the nations of Asia should be free to work out

their affairs in their own way. This is the basis of peace in the Far East and everywhere else.

The whole Communist imperialism is back of the attack on peace in the Far East. It was the Soviet Union that trained and equipped the North Koreans for aggression. The Chinese Communists massed 44 well-trained and well-equipped divisions on the Korean frontier. These were the troops they threw into battle when the North Korean Communists were beaten.

STOPPING SHORT OF GENERAL WAR

The question we have had to face is whether the Communist plan of conquest can be stopped without general war. Our Government and other countries associated with us in the United Nations believe that the best chance of stopping it without general war is to meet the attack in Korea and defeat it there.

That is what we have been doing. It is a difficult and bitter task. But so far it has been successful.

So far, we have prevented World War III.

So far, by fighting a limited war in Korea, we have prevented aggression from succeeding and bringing on a general war. And the ability of the whole free world to resist Communist aggression has been greatly improved.

We have taught the enemy a lesson. He has found out that aggression is not cheap or easy. Moreover, men all over the world who want to remain free have been given new courage and new hope. They know now that the champions of freedom can stand up and fight and that they will stand up and fight.

Our resolute stand in Korea is helping the forces of freedom now fighting in Indochina and other countries in that part of the world. It has already slowed down the timetable of conquest.

In Korea itself, there are signs that the enemy is building up his ground forces for a new mass offensive. We also know that there have been large increases in the enemy's available air forces.