July 26, 1951
To the Congress of the United States:
I transmit herewith, pursuant to the United Nations Participation Act, a report on our participation in the work of the United Nations during 1950.
It is a record of decision and action in the face of danger and, at the same time, a record of increasing efforts to promote human progress in the attainment of the basic objectives of the United Nations Charter. It is for the most part a record of solidarity among United Nations members against aggression.
The struggle of the United Nations against Communist aggression in 1950 has a deep significance that reaches beyond the momentary successes and reverses recorded. This significance lies in the simple fact that the United Nations acted promptly and resolutely, and with success, against deliberate, treacherous, and well-prepared aggression. The aggressors and their supporters undoubtedly believed that the Organization and its members would not come to the defense of Korea with timely and effective help. It is probable that one of the purposes of the attack was to break down--through such a failure--any possibility of effective United Nations action against aggression in the future.
As the world knows, the United Nations met the assault squarely and without hesitation. In so doing, it made clear that an aggressor will not be allowed to isolate and destroy his victims one by one. The United Nations elected to act now rather than to drift passively once more down the fatal trail of failure to oppose aggression which leads finally to total war. Thousands of men have therefore sacrificed their lives in Korea to the end that millions may not lose their lives in a world war.
There is much to indicate that the resolute resistance of United Nations troops has given pause to those aggressive forces which cold-bloodedly brought tragedy to Korea.
In these great events the United States has taken a worthy and responsible part. American troops fighting in Korea are a major bulwark of the international community against the barbarous forces that would debase and destroy it. American fighting men have rarely in all our history struck more important blows for human freedom and welfare. I am proud--and I know the American people are proud--of the fight which our men, together with their comrades in arms, have waged in Korea.
The army and people of the Republic of Korea have heroically and patiently endured the brunt of the Communist aggression. The story of their unwavering resistance to that aggression is an epic in the annals of the struggle of free men to maintain their liberty and independence.
I should like to pay special tribute to the gallant fighting men of the other countries who defended the cause of the United Nations in battle during 1950--men from Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, Thailand, Turkey, the Union of South Africa, and the United Kingdom.
Fighting units from Ethiopia arrived in Korea in early May 1951, and units from Colombia arrived in early June 1951. Hospital units and ships from Denmark, India, Norway, and Sweden also are operating in the Korean area.
United Nations action in Korea has been truly collective action. Concrete aid in the form of combat troops, ships and planes, field hospitals and medical equipment, other equipment, supplies, and food has been made available by 39 members of the United Nations; political support, by no less than 53 members. These countries vary greatly in their abilities to contribute to a collective military operation such as that in Korea. Contributions equal in number and identical in kind are obviously impossible. Nevertheless it must be recognized that every free country, large and small, is vitally--and I should say equally--interested in world security.
Much has been said in the Congress and in public forums on all phases of our action in Korea. Discussion and honest criticism are in the best traditions of our people and are in fact essential to the working of our system of government. As on other subjects, I welcome them in connection with our record in the United Nations. Throughout the world, Communist propaganda has of course sought to represent this country's action as "imperialism" dictated by material interests. I do not believe that, wherever the channels of opinion are free, our basic purposes will be misunderstood. Our action in the Korean crisis was not dictated by any American material interest there. We neither sought nor do we seek any special position or privilege in Korea. Our action in the crisis was motivated by our deep conviction of the importance of preventing a breakdown of the international security system and of the principles of the Charter. I was convinced then, and I am convinced now, that to have ignored the appeal of Korea for aid, to have stood aside from the assault upon the Charter, would have meant the end of the United Nations as a shield against aggression. It might have meant the end of any possibility that collective security could be made to work.
Under the Charter, the United Nations must afford protection against aggression, whether committed by big countries or by small countries. Just as the United Nations branded as aggression the original assault by the North Korean Communist regime, so it has branded as aggression the later intervention by the Chinese Communist regime and its attack upon United Nations forces. There are not two laws, one for small and one for large countries. Indeed it is hard to see how the United Nations could ever operate under such a double standard. This does not of course mean that the United Nations has acted blindly, without carefully considering the effects of its measures. In fact the record shows a most careful concern by the great majority of members, including this country, to avoid extension of the conflict and to preserve unity while maintaining our objective of resisting aggression.
While our primary and immediate task has been defense against aggression and the creation of collective measures for accomplishing this more effectively, we have not lost sight of the objective of creating an international security system based upon the reduction and control of armaments. In my statement to the General Assembly on October 24, 1950, I made clear our continued determination to work toward this goal in every practicable way.
The aggression against the United Nations has brought home to all peoples the imperative need for developing more effective means to deal with aggression within the framework of the United Nations. The Korean case has demonstrated that the United Nations can act effectively against aggression through recommendations of the Security Council, or the General Assembly, if the Security Council is paralyzed by the veto. But in Korea the participating nations had to improvise their measures from the ground up.
It was to meet this need that the Secretary of State launched at the beginning of the General Assembly in September 1950 the proposals which were developed into the Uniting for Peace Resolution. Mr. Acheson said:
"The world waits to see whether we can build on the start we have made. The United Nations must move forward energetically to develop a more adequate system of collective security. If it does not move forward, it will move back.
"... The General Assembly can and should organize itself to discharge its responsibility promptly and decisively if the Security Council is prevented from acting."
This resolution can mark the beginning of a great step forward in the development of the United Nations as an instrument for collective action to maintain peace and put down aggression. We place great hope in the program projected by this resolution, particularly the provisions relative to the maintenance by members of the United Nations of armed forces for possible service as United Nations units, and the Collective Measures Committee set up to study and report on possible methods of maintaining and strengthening international peace and security. We shall give our full support to the aims and objectives of the program and to the work of this Committee in developing them.
Despite the emphasis which the United Nations has been compelled to give during the last year to action to meet aggression, it has intensified rather than slackened its various activities to promote human progress in attainment of other basic objectives of the Charter.
One of the fundamental human aspirations is the desire to control one's own destiny or, phrased in another way, to exercise the rights of self-government or independence. The organs of the United Nations which are charged with the responsibility of fulfilling the purposes of the Charter with respect to the development of nonself-governing people made notable progress during the past year. The United States has contributed fully to these efforts.
The United Nations has intensified its efforts to combat the perennial enemies of mankind--hunger, disease, and ignorance. Through many channels and in numerous programs, the United Nations and the specialized agencies have furthered the basic goal of "the creation of conditions of stability and well being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations." Of particular significance this past year was the inauguration of an expanded program of technical assistance for the economic development of underdeveloped countries. Some 56 countries of the free world have participated by making contributions, and 48 countries have initiated programs designed to use the facilities of the United Nations and specialized agencies in the development of their own human and material resources and in raising their standards of living. The United States has actively supported these activities and will continue to do so.
The weakness and the strength of the United Nations manifested in 1950 were those of a human endeavor which is still in its infancy. Despite centuries of effort, nations have only recently been able to cooperate effectively on a world-wide scale to achieve security and their other common purposes. In our limited experience we have met with many difficulties and reverses and will meet more in the future. But we have also achieved tangible success, and this success gives ground for hope that we are moving ahead on the right track. It is essential for all of us to understand that a stable peace can be achieved only through long, hard work and sacrifice. I am sure that the people of this country and of practically all countries realize that the goal of peace is worth this work and this sacrifice.
Under the stress of events in 1950 the members of the United Nations did not, of course, always see completely eye to eye. Nevertheless as loyal members the great majority strove to accommodate their views and action to the fullest possible extent in the interest of the major purposes of the United Nations. No nation has a monopoly of wisdom. Even among peoples sincerely devoted to United Nations principles--the overwhelming majority--there are bound to be differences concerning the best methods of putting these principles into effect. When we attempt honestly and frankly to work out these differences in the common interest, no one nation can expect to have its way completely. But decisions that are the result of discussions by many countries have a moral and political force in the international community which unilateral decisions seldom have.
Two years ago I said that the first point of our four-point foreign-policy program would be "to give unfaltering support to the United Nations and related agencies" and "to continue to search for ways to strengthen their authority and increase their effectiveness."
The record of our participation in 1950, set forth in the following pages, shows that we have not faltered in our support. I know the American people are determined to persevere in this course.
HARRY S. TRUMAN
NOTE: The message and the complete report are published in "United States Participation in the United Nations; Report by the President to the Congress for the Year 1950" (Department of State Publication 4178; Government Printing Office, 1951, 429 pp.), and in House Document 196 (82d Cong., 1st sess.).
To the Congress of the United States:
I transmit herewith, pursuant to the United Nations Participation Act, a report on our participation in the work of the United Nations during 1950.
It is a record of decision and action in the face of danger and, at the same time, a record of increasing efforts to promote human progress in the attainment of the basic objectives of the United Nations Charter. It is for the most part a record of solidarity among United Nations members against aggression.
The struggle of the United Nations against Communist aggression in 1950 has a deep significance that reaches beyond the momentary successes and reverses recorded. This significance lies in the simple fact that the United Nations acted promptly and resolutely, and with success, against deliberate, treacherous, and well-prepared aggression. The aggressors and their supporters undoubtedly believed that the Organization and its members would not come to the defense of Korea with timely and effective help. It is probable that one of the purposes of the attack was to break down--through such a failure--any possibility of effective United Nations action against aggression in the future.
As the world knows, the United Nations met the assault squarely and without hesitation. In so doing, it made clear that an aggressor will not be allowed to isolate and destroy his victims one by one. The United Nations elected to act now rather than to drift passively once more down the fatal trail of failure to oppose aggression which leads finally to total war. Thousands of men have therefore sacrificed their lives in Korea to the end that millions may not lose their lives in a world war.
There is much to indicate that the resolute resistance of United Nations troops has given pause to those aggressive forces which cold-bloodedly brought tragedy to Korea.
In these great events the United States has taken a worthy and responsible part. American troops fighting in Korea are a major bulwark of the international community against the barbarous forces that would debase and destroy it. American fighting men have rarely in all our history struck more important blows for human freedom and welfare. I am proud--and I know the American people are proud--of the fight which our men, together with their comrades in arms, have waged in Korea.
The army and people of the Republic of Korea have heroically and patiently endured the brunt of the Communist aggression. The story of their unwavering resistance to that aggression is an epic in the annals of the struggle of free men to maintain their liberty and independence.
I should like to pay special tribute to the gallant fighting men of the other countries who defended the cause of the United Nations in battle during 1950--men from Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, Thailand, Turkey, the Union of South Africa, and the United Kingdom.
Fighting units from Ethiopia arrived in Korea in early May 1951, and units from Colombia arrived in early June 1951. Hospital units and ships from Denmark, India, Norway, and Sweden also are operating in the Korean area.
United Nations action in Korea has been truly collective action. Concrete aid in the form of combat troops, ships and planes, field hospitals and medical equipment, other equipment, supplies, and food has been made available by 39 members of the United Nations; political support, by no less than 53 members. These countries vary greatly in their abilities to contribute to a collective military operation such as that in Korea. Contributions equal in number and identical in kind are obviously impossible. Nevertheless it must be recognized that every free country, large and small, is vitally--and I should say equally--interested in world security.
Much has been said in the Congress and in public forums on all phases of our action in Korea. Discussion and honest criticism are in the best traditions of our people and are in fact essential to the working of our system of government. As on other subjects, I welcome them in connection with our record in the United Nations. Throughout the world, Communist propaganda has of course sought to represent this country's action as "imperialism" dictated by material interests. I do not believe that, wherever the channels of opinion are free, our basic purposes will be misunderstood. Our action in the Korean crisis was not dictated by any American material interest there. We neither sought nor do we seek any special position or privilege in Korea. Our action in the crisis was motivated by our deep conviction of the importance of preventing a breakdown of the international security system and of the principles of the Charter. I was convinced then, and I am convinced now, that to have ignored the appeal of Korea for aid, to have stood aside from the assault upon the Charter, would have meant the end of the United Nations as a shield against aggression. It might have meant the end of any possibility that collective security could be made to work.
Under the Charter, the United Nations must afford protection against aggression, whether committed by big countries or by small countries. Just as the United Nations branded as aggression the original assault by the North Korean Communist regime, so it has branded as aggression the later intervention by the Chinese Communist regime and its attack upon United Nations forces. There are not two laws, one for small and one for large countries. Indeed it is hard to see how the United Nations could ever operate under such a double standard. This does not of course mean that the United Nations has acted blindly, without carefully considering the effects of its measures. In fact the record shows a most careful concern by the great majority of members, including this country, to avoid extension of the conflict and to preserve unity while maintaining our objective of resisting aggression.
While our primary and immediate task has been defense against aggression and the creation of collective measures for accomplishing this more effectively, we have not lost sight of the objective of creating an international security system based upon the reduction and control of armaments. In my statement to the General Assembly on October 24, 1950, I made clear our continued determination to work toward this goal in every practicable way.
The aggression against the United Nations has brought home to all peoples the imperative need for developing more effective means to deal with aggression within the framework of the United Nations. The Korean case has demonstrated that the United Nations can act effectively against aggression through recommendations of the Security Council, or the General Assembly, if the Security Council is paralyzed by the veto. But in Korea the participating nations had to improvise their measures from the ground up.
It was to meet this need that the Secretary of State launched at the beginning of the General Assembly in September 1950 the proposals which were developed into the Uniting for Peace Resolution. Mr. Acheson said:
"The world waits to see whether we can build on the start we have made. The United Nations must move forward energetically to develop a more adequate system of collective security. If it does not move forward, it will move back.
"... The General Assembly can and should organize itself to discharge its responsibility promptly and decisively if the Security Council is prevented from acting."
This resolution can mark the beginning of a great step forward in the development of the United Nations as an instrument for collective action to maintain peace and put down aggression. We place great hope in the program projected by this resolution, particularly the provisions relative to the maintenance by members of the United Nations of armed forces for possible service as United Nations units, and the Collective Measures Committee set up to study and report on possible methods of maintaining and strengthening international peace and security. We shall give our full support to the aims and objectives of the program and to the work of this Committee in developing them.
Despite the emphasis which the United Nations has been compelled to give during the last year to action to meet aggression, it has intensified rather than slackened its various activities to promote human progress in attainment of other basic objectives of the Charter.
One of the fundamental human aspirations is the desire to control one's own destiny or, phrased in another way, to exercise the rights of self-government or independence. The organs of the United Nations which are charged with the responsibility of fulfilling the purposes of the Charter with respect to the development of nonself-governing people made notable progress during the past year. The United States has contributed fully to these efforts.
The United Nations has intensified its efforts to combat the perennial enemies of mankind--hunger, disease, and ignorance. Through many channels and in numerous programs, the United Nations and the specialized agencies have furthered the basic goal of "the creation of conditions of stability and well being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations." Of particular significance this past year was the inauguration of an expanded program of technical assistance for the economic development of underdeveloped countries. Some 56 countries of the free world have participated by making contributions, and 48 countries have initiated programs designed to use the facilities of the United Nations and specialized agencies in the development of their own human and material resources and in raising their standards of living. The United States has actively supported these activities and will continue to do so.
The weakness and the strength of the United Nations manifested in 1950 were those of a human endeavor which is still in its infancy. Despite centuries of effort, nations have only recently been able to cooperate effectively on a world-wide scale to achieve security and their other common purposes. In our limited experience we have met with many difficulties and reverses and will meet more in the future. But we have also achieved tangible success, and this success gives ground for hope that we are moving ahead on the right track. It is essential for all of us to understand that a stable peace can be achieved only through long, hard work and sacrifice. I am sure that the people of this country and of practically all countries realize that the goal of peace is worth this work and this sacrifice.
Under the stress of events in 1950 the members of the United Nations did not, of course, always see completely eye to eye. Nevertheless as loyal members the great majority strove to accommodate their views and action to the fullest possible extent in the interest of the major purposes of the United Nations. No nation has a monopoly of wisdom. Even among peoples sincerely devoted to United Nations principles--the overwhelming majority--there are bound to be differences concerning the best methods of putting these principles into effect. When we attempt honestly and frankly to work out these differences in the common interest, no one nation can expect to have its way completely. But decisions that are the result of discussions by many countries have a moral and political force in the international community which unilateral decisions seldom have.
Two years ago I said that the first point of our four-point foreign-policy program would be "to give unfaltering support to the United Nations and related agencies" and "to continue to search for ways to strengthen their authority and increase their effectiveness."
The record of our participation in 1950, set forth in the following pages, shows that we have not faltered in our support. I know the American people are determined to persevere in this course.
HARRY S. TRUMAN
NOTE: The message and the complete report are published in "United States Participation in the United Nations; Report by the President to the Congress for the Year 1950" (Department of State Publication 4178; Government Printing Office, 1951, 429 pp.), and in House Document 196 (82d Cong., 1st sess.).