The Korean conflict has, quite properly and naturally, played an important role in this debate. The great majority of the Governments represented here consider that the war in Korea is a flagrant case of aggression on the part of North Korea, and that it is of the utmost importance for the maintenance of peace in the future that this aggression should not be successful. The Swedish Government has, among so many others, taken this position.
95. I should like, however, to dwell for a while on the opposite point of view — the one which has repeatedly been put forward in the Security Council by the representative of the Soviet Union.
96. In doing so I pass over the assertion that North Korea has been the victim of aggression on the part of South Korea since I can hardly believe that such a contention has been brought forward in earnest. Moreover, the course of events after the outbreak of the war constitutes as clear a refutation of this assertion as anybody may wish. However, a clever and more subtle argument has been put forward by the Soviet Union. It implies that the war in Korea is a civil war, and that an intervention in the fight between different Korean Forces is a violation of Article 2 (7) of the United Nations Charter.
97. As is well known, that Article states that the United Nations is not authorized to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State. I should like to point out that the interpretation of Article 2 (7), as presented by the representative of the Soviet Union, would mean that : the United Nations Charter had raised to a legal principle the policy of non-intervention that was followed by most countries during the Spanish Civil War. The very wording of Article 2 (7) argues against such an interpretation. The Article in question makes an exception for enforcement measures under Chapter VII. Furthermore, Korea was divided into two zones of occupation which it had not yet been possible to unite into one country. The relations between North Korea and South Korea were, therefore, de facto very similar to those between two different States.
98. The action of the United Nations in the war in Korea has also, for other reasons, been condemned as “illegal” by the representatives of the Soviet Union. In particular it has been stressed that the United States decided upon intervention before the Security Council had considered the question. But both the action of the United States and the decisions of other countries to assist South Korea are solidly based upon the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter concerning collective self-defence. It would have been easier to understand the Soviet Union objection had the other members of the Council taken the view that the Soviet Union was obliged to take part in military defence actions against North Korea, despite the fact that its representative was not present when the Council considered the matter. The other members of the Council, however, have confined themselves to recommending all Member States to take part in the aid to South Korea. This appeal has, fortunately enough, received a very widespread response, although no legal obligation existed. In my opinion, that indicates that legalistic views are not decisive in the attitude of States in situations such as the present one.
99. In the remarkable speech delivered by the Secretary of State of the United States during this debate [279th meeting] certain proposals were outlined to strengthen the General Assembly’s authority to take action for the maintenance of peace. It is natural that the United States, which so valiantly carries the main burden of the defence in Korea, should take the initiative which practical experience has proved to be necessary. The Swedish Government will carefully consider these proposals. Anything that can be done to strengthen the practical possibilities of the United Nations securing peace and preventing aggression will be favourably considered by my Government. I may, however, observe at once that we should not exaggerate the possibilities of reaching important results through mere technical improvements in the machinery of the United Nations. The political conditions needed for the solution of our most burning political problems must be created by the policy of the Member States; they cannot be procured by mere technical methods, however perfect. During nearly two decades of activity with the League of Nations I, like so many others, was personally strongly influenced by the opinion that essential results were to be obtained in this way — the technical way — but when the machinery was tested practical experience was certainly disappointing. My delegation therefore wishes to stress the importance of the presence of such political conditions as are necessary to prevent or, as fortunately seems certain to be the result in Korea, stop aggression.
100. In connexion with the proposals put forward by the leader of the Soviet Union delegation during this debate [279th meeting], I should like to deal with two points. Mr. Vyshinsky mentioned the so-called Stockholm Appeal concerning atomic weapons as well as the proposal for an agreement between the permanent members of the Security Council, and he expressed the opinion that we could find here valuable instruments for the strengthening of peace. I must confess that I fail to see in what way the acceptance of these two points in his programme would contribute to the solution of our present problems. Could it really be possible that the peoples would be saved from the evils of war through a universal acceptance of the Stockholm Appeal? If that were the case the name of the capital of Sweden would be connected with the greatest miracle in the history of humanity. I regret to say that I consider, on the contrary, that the name of Stockholm has been used as a label for superstition. If not even the immense adherence to the Christian commandment of charity and its call for peace on earth have been able during past centuries to prevent war, how then could a general adherence to the Stockholm Appeal have a stronger effect?
101. The first two points of the Stockholm Appeal express the demand for prohibition of atomic weapons and for international control of the use of atomic energy. We all know that in principle there has been agreement in the United Nations in regard to these two demands; but we also know very well that when we examine these questions more closely strong differences of opinion arise as to the implementation of the two principles. These differences are completely concealed in the Stockholm Appeal.
102. The third point expresses the idea that the state which first resorts to the use of atomic weapons commits a crime against humanity. Even this phrasing conceals problems which should have been stated clearly and openly. Everyone agrees that aggression in itself is an international crime. If an aggressor makes use of atomic weapons, either at the time of the aggression or later when he is threatened by defeat, then his crime against humanity is even more qualified. On the other hand, if a State which has been attacked without there being any guilt on its own part should, as a last resort to save its own existence or, perhaps civilization itself, make use of atomic weapons against the aggressor, then the problem is entirely different. It is to be suspected that most of those who have adhered to the Stockholm Appeal have not even taken cognizance of the existence of this problem or, even less, been prepared to take a stand thereon. Consequently, the third point of the Stockholm Appeal should, in order to be complete and honest, contain the following: “The state which defends itself against a criminal aggressor by making use of atomic weapons shall be considered an enemy of mankind”. Many of the adherents would certainly have hesitated to give their categorical agreement to an assertion of this kind.
103. As to the other part of Mr. Vyshinsky’s proposal which I have just mentioned, is it not evident that a treaty between the permanent members of the Security Council would be an instrument for the preservation of peace only if it contained agreement on the solution of important controversies between the Powers? But if the agreement were limited to general declarations of willingness to have peace and co-operation, then it would only repeat statements contained in the United Nations Charter. In the time between the two world wars, I should think more treaties of this type were concluded than at any other time in history, but they did not prevent the outbreak of the Second World War.
104. The Swedish delegation has, during the last three sessions of the General Assembly, recommended a liberal application of the rules for the admission of new members to our Organization in order to promote its universality. This is still our position, and we therefore hope that the present session will finally succeed in obtaining a positive solution of this question. Even more, we hope that those Member States which have withdrawn during the last year from the work of certain organs will return to this work in a spirit of collaboration and goodwill. As I have already pointed out in another connexion, the Swedish delegation also hopes that the question of the representation of China will be brought to an early solution.
105. This year, again, the question of the Jerusalem regime will come up for renewed consideration. A somewhat artificially composed majority adopted resolution 303 (IV) last year ordering the establishment of the Jerusalem area as a corpus separatum; under the direct authority of the United Nations. The Swedish delegation warned against the adoption of this resolution, as we considered it impossible of implementation and, together with the delegation of the Netherlands, we submitted a proposal which seemed to us to ensure the protection of the Holy Places and at the same time provide the basis for an agreement with the interested parties. My delegation persists in thinking that a solution of this problem, so important for millions of people of different religious faiths throughout the world, must be sought along the general lines of the suggestions put forward by the two delegations.
106. In his speech, Mr. Acheson outlined a programme of economic recovery and social reforms in Korea. He expressed the opinion that land reform and material help constitute the most important conditions for the creation of a viable Korean State. I am convinced that this is a very realistic outlook which deserves all our support in the present case as well as in other similar cases.
107. As a general principle we ought to direct our efforts — by using available possibilities — towards furthering and strengthening the co-operation which has taken place in different fields within the organs of the United Nations and its specialized agencies. The Swedish delegation will revert to these questions during the debate in the main committees on the different points of our agenda.
108. Allow me to finish by quoting the open letter to the United Nations from the Danish scientist, Professor Bohr — a quotation which, in my opinion, contains a deep and universal truth. In his letter Professor Bohr said: “In the search for a harmonious relationship between the life of the individual and the organization of the community, there have always been and will ever remain many problems to ponder and principles for which to strive. However, to make it possible for nations to benefit from the experience of others and to avoid mutual misunderstanding of intentions, free access to information and unhampered opportunity for exchange of ideas must be granted everywhere.”