-NIT£D NATIONS 

SECURITY 

C 0 LJ 1\1 <.: I L 

REF ID:A58072 

f:::_t' e-~-f~==--. 

::.-::-:-:r'·::..·~.- - ~ ~ == -··- --... __ ....... ----~ _.,. ~-- -- - - - -·-

- --~-- .. -·--- --.. ---.. 

GENlilRtlL 

S/PV.680 

10 September 1954 

ENGLISH 

; ... VEP.BATIM RECORD OF TI:rn! SIX Ir1JNDRED .A..'l'ID EIGHTIETH MEETING 

He!.cl at ~c!3.r:.r·.1.ttar":.~ ..... !3, ~J'T York, 

I 

on Jlriday, 10 Se_ptember 195i~, at 3 p.m. SEE PA~E o2'f 

PresiCl.ent: 

- ._..i--- Mr. URRUTIA 

Brazil 

China 

Denmark 

France 

Lebanon 

New Zealand 

Tu:::koy 

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 

United Kingdom of Great Britain 

and Northern Ireland 

United States of l\merica 

Colombia 

Mr ... L'.211.B:l 

Mra 'IS I.AJ.1'G 

Mr. BORBERG 

Mr. HOPPEI;OT 

Mr. P.IZK 

Mr. MUEO 

Mr. SARPER 

Mr. VYSIInrsKY 

Sir Pierson DIXON 

Mr. LODGE 

Any corrections to the originals of speeches in this record should be 

submitted in writing, within two workinR days, to Mr. II. Roigt, Director, 

Language Services DiviSion, Room i2l+1, Headquarters. Corrections should be 

accompanied by or incorporated in a letter, on headed notepaper, bearing the 

appropriate symbol number and enclosed in an envelope marked 11URGENTu. 

Corrections can be dealt uith more speedily i.f' delegations will be good enough 

to incorporate them in mireeographed copies of the record • 

.AS THIS RECORD WAS DISTRIBUT.ED AT 9.30 HOURS ON 13 SEPTEMBER 1954, 

THE TIME-LIMIT FOR CORRECTIONS WILL BE 9.30 HCURS OU 15 S!5P'IEMBER 1954. . . " . 

54-24666 
REF ID:A58072 

S/PV.600 

2 

The interpretation into _!:~glish of the statement by the represent~ 

of' the Union of Soviet Socialist Re;publ.ics at the 679th meeting was given. 

ADOPTION OF TilE AGENDA 

The PRESIDEI~T (~anslated from F'rcnch): The 67~th meeting is closed 

with this inte:::"preta~ion. I am now e~ing to declare the 680th meeting of' ., ,. I •• ~ "' 

the Security Council o:pen. If there are no objections to the adoption of the 

agenda, which is exactly the same as that adopted thi~ morning by 10 votes 

to l, I will call upon the representative of the United Kingdom to speak. 

Mr. VYSHINSKY (Union of' Soviet Socialist Re:publics)(translated from 

Russian): For the s~ reasons as I g~ve in my first stateme~t objecting to 

the inclusion of' this.item i11 the agenda of the 679th meetlng of the :...:~.:.:-= ~-~ . Security Council, I also object ot its inclusion in the agenda of the 680th 

meeting of' the CounQil~ 

The discussion of this item seems to me to be absolutely :profitless and 

unjus tif'ied. 

The PBESIDENT (translated from F~): For the reasons I gave this 

morning I call for the vote on the ado:ptio11 of the agenda. 

A vote was ta.~en by show of hands. 

In favour: 

Against: 

Brazil, China., Colombia, Demnark, France, Lebanon, 

New Zealand, Turkey, United Kingdom of Great Britain 

and Northern Ireland, United States of .America. 

Union of Soviet SociaJ.iat Republics. 

The PBESIDENT (translated from French): The a.gend.a is adopted by 

10 votes to l. 

LETIER DAT.ED 8 SEPT.ENBER 1954 FROM THE REPBESENTATIVE ·OF' TEE UNIIJ:ED STA'mS OF 

AMERICA J\.DDRESSED 'l'O THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL (s/3287) (continued) 

i 

' ' 

' t 

.~ 
N.'l/mlw 

REF ID:A58072 

SiPV .680 

3 

Sir Pierson DIXON (United Kingdom): I do not know whether the 

si~nificance to be attached to the vote of the representative of the Soviet Union, 

which was a vote against discussing this question, is that we should pay no 

attention to his speech. But I listened to it and I propose to consider it as 

a speech which has been delivered in spite of this inconsj.stency which· r detect 

in his attitude. 

It was with profound re,Jret that we heard of the incident of 4 September 

in which a United States Navy plane was shot down by Soviet fighters. There have 

been a deplorable number of incidents of this kind. To shoot without provocation 

at foreignaircraft which have appeared anywhere near,or even remotely near,Soviet 

territory seems unfortunately to have become a Soviet practlce. 

Mention has been made during this debate of various similar incidents, 

including one in which a British aircraft was involved. Her .Majesty 1 s Gover11l'.llent 

in the United Kingdom fully supports the action of the United States Government 

in seizin:; the Security Cou..llcil of this matter and thus alertint; world opinion. 

It is, in our view, most desirable that there should be a st1·onu and widespread 

international reaction a&,ainst such unwarranted acts of force in times of peace 

which can only serve to increase international tension. 

Let us examine for a moment the circumstances of this particular incident. 

The United States representative has given us a calm and objective account of 

what occurred. The representative of the Soviet Union dis~utes these facts. 

His version was diametrically different. That is perhaps what could be expected. 

But frankly, it did not seem to me to carry conviction. I am bound to say that 

in the view of my dele~ation there appears to be strong prima facie evidence 

that the attack was not only unprovoked and maU.e without warning, but occurred 

well outside Soviet air space. On the evidence the attack is indefensible'. 

My Government would thlnk it deplorable if the practice came to be accepted 

of shooting down aircraft, whether military or civilian, in time of peace, without 

warning or provocation, merely on the ground that they were in the neighbourhood 

of the territorial air space of another State. This would be contrary to every 

precept of proper international behaviour. Moreover, we are, I think, bound to 

find this trigger-happy attitude on the part of the Soviet Union glaringly 

incompatible with professions of a desire to reduce international tension. 
· AW/mlw 

REF ID·:AS8072 

S/PV.680 

4-5 

My delesation wishes to express its ;~eat distress at the particular 

incident to which the United States dele~atiou has drawn ~ttention and its 

profound sympathy with the friends and relations of the unfortunate airman 

who must be presumed to have lost his life as a result of it. 

Most delegations here, I am sure, share these sentiments, and I should 

hope that our discussion here would serve to make it plain that world op;Lnion 

strone,ly di'sapproves of such acts of' uncivillzed behaviour. 

The United Nations is now seized.of this matter, and the views of' the 

Council will be clearly on recoru. Ic is incumbent upon all Members or the 

United Nations, and indeed non-Members, to take he~d of the views expressed 

in this Council and to conduct themselves in accordance with those 

principles of international behaviour which must be the foundation of good 

relations between countries. 
• 

i 

t 

• 

~fw~A58072 I 6 

Mr. HOPPENOl' (France) (translated from French): The intention of the 

United States delegation in taking the step of bringing before the Security 

Council the incident which occurred off the Siberian coast on 4 September, 

resulting in the destruction of an .American naval aircraft and the loss of at 

least one human life, was, as the head of that delegation has told us, to draw 

the Security Council's attention to an occurrence likely to threaten the 

maintenance of international peace and security. That step was actuated by a 

spirit consistent with that of the Charter, and the incident to which it proposes 

to call the attention of the highest tribunal established by the Charter itself 

is of a kind which it is undoubtedly our duty and our right to take into 

consideration. It is for this reason that the French delegation voted for 

the placing of this matter on our agenda, as did ten other members of the Council. 

The United States representative's explanation of his Government's position 

favourably impressed us all by its moderation and its studied objectivity. We 

were equally glad to hear him affirm the United States Government's desire to 

embark upon the settlement of all the regrettable incidents which he enumerated, 

in a spirit consistent with the precepts laid down in the Charter, by a process of 

peaceful negotiations and, should they fail, by recourse to the International 

Court of Justice. That is a course from which peace-loving peoples should never 

allow themselves to be diverted, and the Soviet Government would greatly weaken 

the force of the assurances in favour of international peace an~ conciliation 

of which it has so often given us here if it refused to take it. 

I listened with .no less attention to Mr. Vyshinsky's statement, and I was 

glad to note that our Soviet colleague endeavoured, so far as the fire or his 

ever youthful temperament allowed him, to adopt as moderate a tone as 

Mr. Ca.bot Lodge. I hope that in the weeks and months to come the exchange of 

views between our two eminent colleagues will continue thus to combine firmness 

as regards substance with this relaxed moderation of form • 
REF ID:A58072 

BX s/Pv,680 

7 

With great brilliance Mr. Vyahinsky made tbe most of certain contradictions . . . and certain divergencies which he found in the official United States doc1J.Inents . . . and press' reports on the incident of 4 September. !·Te had. before us an advocate . . . interested not so much in defending a legal argument or in establi~hing the 

' facts of bis case_as in endeavouring to embarass the witnesses by a~ ingenious . . and insidious cross-examination. But he who tries to prove too much o:f'ten 

proves nothing; and~ in my opinion, 'there a~e grounds :f'or seeing in certain 

contradictions and certain fumblings and 'ma~o~uvres by the Un:!.ted States Pl'.OO:f' 

of the United States Government's good faith rather than o:f' its perversity. 

By acknowledging spon~aneoualy that it had been wrong in stating on the first 

day that the American aircraft had: not replied to the :f'ire of the Soviet fighters, 

i~ gave proof of honesty rather than of duplicity. There was noth:lng to compel 

it, other than a wish to be tr~th:f'ul 1 to correct the asse~tion1 which could have 

been contradicted only by an unsupported counter-assertion. . As to the testimony 

of the members o:f' the American crew, the fact that the news agencies and press ~ ~ I I 

of that country gathered and reproduced them at such length gives evidence of . . the freedom of inquiry and of the press in the American democracy; it proves 

·that the authorities to which that crew is responsible preferred to allow this 

testimony to be freely and publicly expressed rather than dictate it or suppress . . it in favour of an official version. I wish I were sure th~t in a similar 

situation put in reverse, all Governpients throughout the world, and certain of 

them in particular, would acknowledge so qui~kly any error that they had 

committed1 and would produce in public the witnesses of the incidents BO freely . . I might almost say so simplemindedly. 

About the incidents themselves I shal~ merely say that this attitude on the . part o:f' the American authorities, which Mr. Vyshinsky holds against them, seems 

to me to constitute a solid and even a convincing presumptio~ of their good faith, 

and that while I am no more an airman than Mr. Cabot Lodge or Mr. Vyshinsky himself / 

all the airmen I have been able to consult agree that it is almost inconceivable 

that a bomber could deliberately expose itself to the risk of a reply bound to 

' be fatal to it by opening fire on fighters which are much faster, much lighter 

and much less vulnerable than itself. 

• 

• 

• 
• 

• 

" 

, 

• 

RE~ 11:,i~d .... ASB 0 7 2 lJ/.I. y .vvv 

8 

But the question before us is a different one -- or rather, it goes far 

beyond the incident of 4 September. What should be borne in mind, and the 

view the Security Council should express, is that it is inadmissible that 

the undoubtedly regrettabJ.e but often inevitable presence of' en aircraft 

close t.o or even over the te:i:•ritory of a. foreign country, in peace time, 

should be punished. by its destruction aml by loss of huma.n life.· Even if 

the aircraft has committed an error, even if it is established at the very 

moment of the incident -- end that is strictly speaking impossible -- that 

that error was voluntarily and deliberately committed, the use of force in 

driving it off, with the ce;t'tain risk of destroying it, should not be accepted 

by civilized countries maintaining peaceful relations with each other. The 

varying limits of territorial waters were fixed in the period of sail, 

when it took vessels severa.l hours to cover a distance an aircre£t now covers 

in a few minutes. Besides, any airmen will tell you that it is as impossible 

in the great majority of cases for an observer on land or at sea as it is 

for the pilot of an aircraft tq. determine wi·thin a matter of kilometres the 

vertical position of an aircraft. This consideration, opening up as it does 

so many possibilities of errors committed in good faith, should be enough to . 

render recourse to force a.ndviolencein correcting and rectifying them 

morally unacceptable. I must add that it should also indicate the desirability 

of prudence end wisdom to aircraft carrying out peaceful missions near foreign 

territory; end it is to be hoped that the pilots of such aircraft will 

always leave e.n ample margin of adequate safety between the international 

air space open to them and the national air spaces, the limits of which 

they cannot easily discern exactly from the air. 

As Mr. Cabot Lodge has reminded us, when an incident of this kind 

occurs there is an international procedure which should make it possible for 

it to be settled in an honourable e.nd peaceful way, in the spirit and 

according to the provisions of the Charter. If a Ste.te is convinced of the 

illicit presence of an aircraft over its territory, means to prove the 

justit'ica·tion of its complaint other than shooting the aircraft down in full 

flight are open to it; and if such an affair has unfortunately ended in tragedy 

and the two parties are casting the responsibility for this upon each other, the 

same procedure of negotiation, enquiries and finally recourse to the International Court of Justice should enable the injured party to obtain satisfaction 

and to prevent the recu~rence of such incidents by appropriate measures. 

I 
REF ID:A58072 

S/PV.680 

9-10 

As I said at the beginning of this statement, it was with deep satisfaction 

• that I heard Mr. Cabot Lodge, speaking ~n behalf of his Government, open wide the 

doora for the application of this procedure both to the incident of 4 September 

and to every similar case, and I regretted the more that I could not find in 

Mr. Vyshinsky 's statement any response to that declaration, which was wholly in I 

conf.'ormity with the spirit of the Charter, by which all of us here should be 

a.ctua.ted. The action ta.ken by the United Sta.tea delegation will have ha.d the 

great merit of disclosing to the Security Council and to world public opinion 

a state of affairs and a number of incidents which have plunged only too many 

homes into IC.Ourning, peace-time though it may be, and which are both symptoms 

of the distrust dominating international relations and factors aggravating 

this tension·. --A discussion such as the one we have here begun should permit 

-~ full light to be thrown on this situation, and should give the conscience of 

mankind the opportunity to express its disapprova1 of methods of behaviour 

which contravene all the precepts of international morality. 

In expressing· to the United States delegation its deep sympathy for the 

unfortunate victims of these methods, the French delegation cannot ~ut fully 

associate itself with the action it has taken and support that action without 

'any reservation. 

\ 

• 

• 

• 

• 

.... 
... J 

• 

.. 

REF8 ;J-P.£feB-58 0 7 2 , 

11-12 

Mr, LEME (Brazil)(translated from French): The United States 

dele,;ation is submitting to the Security Council for consideration a somew·hat 

serious situation. A United States military aircraft has been attacked over 

the high seas by two Soviet MIG aircraft while carrying out a peaceful mission. 

The aircraft was destroyed and human lives were lost. 

We very much regret that at the very time when the United Nations is 

preparing for the work of the ninth session of the General Assembly, after the 

conclusion of the a~mictice in Indo·China, a time when all hearts are joyfully 

celebrating universal peace, a fresh incident should have occurred, thus 

threatening the maintenance of this peace and of international security. 

An atmosphere of mist~ust and hostility cannot possibly constitute the 

climate in which the nations of the two hemispheres are to live. Peoples 

sometimes differ in their ideologiesa that is of no importance. The 

peoples gathered under the flag of the United l\1ations have pledged themselves to 

practise tqlerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours. 

·This spirit should govern the conduct of nations on land and sea and in the 

air. It is understandable that in an atmosphere charged with intrigue and 

suspicion excesses may sometimes be committed. Such may be the conduct of 

certain persons but it must in no circumstances be that of nations. 

Accordingly, an act of the kind which has been repnrted to the Council, if 

it is n~t the first, compels us to c~nclude that the requisite steps to prevent 

the recurrence of such incidents have not been ta.ken. 

The Brazilian delegation takes note of the incident of 4 September; it 

regrets the fate of the victims, and, in the inte:i:·est ef international peace 

and security, appeals to States to give strict and categorical instructions 

to ensure that the men to whom missions of responsibility a.i:·e entrusted should 

by caution and calm be able to prevent the recurrence of events such as that 

now before the Security Council. 
nc/ts ~r, fiw :ASao12 

-,-,. .. ----

Mr • TS IANG t China)°: I voted both this D'JO.L'nine; and this afternoon 

' . . in favour of the adoption of the agenda, after listening carefully to the 

objections.of the So~iet Union representative. ' ' I 

The Soviet Union representative rals.e·i two ObJections. One was to the 

effect that, in his mind, the Un:Lted States version of the incident of !~ Septiember 

was entirely wrong and that, therQfOr~, the incident was not worthy of attention. 

His second ob1jection was based on his opinion that a discussion in the Se::urity 

Council of the incident of 4 $t:}ptember' \70Uld 1 as he sta.ted, aggravate the 

eit11at:lon in the Fa.r Ea.st. I should like to take up the seconU. objection 

first • . 

I do not believe that by itself any discussion in the Security Council 

aggravates any international situation ·- or, for that matter, improves any 

international situation. What effe.::t a discussion in the Security_ Council 

- can have on the factual situation in the world depends to a large extent on 

th-3 tone of the discussion. In this respect, I should like to join with 

precedine; speakers this afternoon in cone;ratulating the United Sta.tea 

rcprese1itative on the moderation aod sobriety of his sta.teme.at and on the fe.c t 

that he informed the Council that hie Government was ready anu willing to ac~cpt 

any of the means of peaceful settlement prescribed by the Cha.1·ter of the United 

Nations. If there should be· any aggravation of the international situation as 

a result of this discussion, the responsibility therefor would certainly not 

lie on the shoulders of the United States delegation, 

• 
... ------------------- ~ 

• 

• 

• 

REF ID:A58072 

F'JB/ns 8/Pv.680 

16 

Suppose the Counci1 bad decided to acr.ept the obJe~tion of the Soviet Union 

representative and had dismissed this cotnplaint Offhand~ Would that have 

improved the international situation? Let us imagine the resulting situation· 

in the world if we had accepted the advice of the Soviet Union representative • 

I do not believe that ~t would have been improved at all. I believe that the 

effect of such action would, indeed, have· aggravated the situation not only in 

the Far East but in ~he world as a whole, for by d.is~issing this complaint 

without a discussion we should have destroyed one of the important instrume:nts 

of peace which the wqrld has today. 

I a.m firmly convinced that the Security Council did the right thing in adopting 

this agenda and in proceeding to consider the serious complaint that the 

delegation of the United States has placed before us. I would BO a little 

further and say this: the United Statea, ln 1~ringing thia cace to the Security 

Council, has acted not only in defence. of the interests of the United States 

but also in loyal fulfilment of its oblic;e. ti Jns as a Member of the United Natio11s. 

Now we·are faced with this situation. We have heard a version of the 

fa.eta presented to us by the representat.ivtJ of the United States; we have heard 

also, a version or the facts presentea to l:s by the ~epresentative of the Soviet 

Union; and the two versions are fiiametricnlly oppos~te. I am not a third 

party witness of the incident, and I doubt if it W·m.ld be possible for this Council 

or any other international body to obtain a third party version of, what took place 

for t~e simple factual reason that third parties did not happen to be on the 

scene. 

What are we to do with these t\:o versions'? I have certaj.n considerations 

in mind -- certain guiding considerations. In the first place, in the United 

States -- and, in fact, in all countries of the free world -- there is no 

compulsion, legal, political or social, on tho citizens of the country or on the 

servants of the government, civil or 111ilitary, to falsjfy reports to their 

superiors. 'Wben a public servant in a free country -- be he civil or military - . sends a report to his superiors he is exp.:::.:-ted to report the facts as he saw them. 
FGB/ne 

REF ID:A58072 

S/J?V.680 

17 

That is an elementary standard of conduct in all the free countries. In fact, 

in the free countries governments do not aasu.~e for themselves omniscience and 

do not presume to determine any line of thinking. That is not true in the 

Soviet Union. The Soviet Union Government does assume omniscience and does 

vreaume to determine the thinking and even tho reportine of its servants, 

The fact that the Government of the United states corrected a part of its first 

note adds to my respect for the veracit~· of that Government. The fact that the 

United States press, with thousands of newspapers, discussed the incident from 

different angles and called the attention of the public to the different versions 

and to the different aspects of this whole story also ad~3 to my respect for 

the United States version of' this incident. 

The United States Government, anl in fact the g:)verncmnt of any free country, 

faces do~estic criticism for its public statements. That is one consideration 

in my mind in viewing a.nd reviewin~ the two versions of the incident of 

4 September which have been presented to this Council. A second consideration 

is that such incidents have. occurred in the past. 'l'he representative of the 

United States this morning called our attention to a number of such incidents . . affecting United states aircraft. He also called the attention of this Council 

briefly to some of the tncidents affecting aircraft of other countries. 

• 

• 

t 
• 

MA/mlw 

REF ID:A58072 

S/PV.680 

18-19 

It so happens that yesterday morning I received the report of the 

Australian Royal Commission on Espiona~e. This publication is called Official 

Transcript of Proceedings ta:cen at Melbourne on Wednesday 30 June 1954. It 

produces, the testimony of a former Soviet civil servant. I have in mind 

.Mr. Petrov whose name figured so larBely in the world ~ress a few months a50· 

Now, unexpectedly and in fact very surpi·isin1.~ly, tM.s testimony supplies a test 

or the veracity of the'•Soviet Union Goyernme11t in matters of a similar ldnd. 

In the winter of 193 ,- , Soviet Unl .m .:i1·1.1~d forces souhht to intrude into 

the Chinese province of Sinkiang. -The Soviet Union Government then, as the 

Soviet Union representative here, proclailJed il;s own innocence. In this 

testimony, I was interested to find tl::'lt Mr. Petrov said that lle was a member 

of that unit which intruded into Chinese soil and that, in fact, Soviet 

soldiers, tanl~s and aeroplanes-did carry on warlilte ac ti vi ties on Chinese soil 

and then wi thd.re'1 • 

That controversy lasted for se-.,.eral years without any final decision bein(, 

obtained. Here at last, from a civil servant of the Soviet Union, a participant 

in that incident, we' have the final proof as to Soviet responsibility in that . 

case. 

This mornin~, we heard a version of the facts which we may call the 

Vyshinsky version of the incident of 4 September; and, in the course or time, 

we will also have a Petrov version of the incident of l+ September. 

This incident of 4 September stands condemned by the civili~ed opinion 

of the world. In the opinion of my dele~ation the action or the Soviet Union 

aeroplanes which shot aow~ the United States 'aeroplane deserves to be condemned. 
REF ID:A58072 

s/Pv.680 

20 

Mr, SARP1'H (Turkey}; I have listened carefully to the statements 

made by l,he representatives of the U.'lited States of America and the Soviet 

Union. My delegation is gratified to note the calm and moderate tenor 

of the statem~nt made by the representative of the United States. I understand 

fully the depth of indignation fel~ by public opinion in the host country to 

our Organization over this most regrettable incident. 

The incident as reported by the news agencies and as explained in the 

letter dateq 8 Geptember 1954 from the representative of the United States of 

America addressed to the P-.cesident of the Sel.!urity Coun1..:i.L (S/3287) is indeed 

very grave. 11 A United States Navy P2V aircraft, o::i a p.~a.ceful miss ion over11 

(internationaJ)1nigh seas", states this .Letter, 11was atta.::i~cc.t without warning 

by two MIG type ai:rcra.ft with Soviet ma.rkin~s,. • on Septerr.ber 4, 11 This 

unprovoked a.tta.ck ca.used the destruction of the UnHed States Navy aircraft 

and the loss of one of the members of its crew. 

Had this been the first incident of its kind, one might not perhaps feel 

as alarmed as one does feel now. Such incidents hs.ve,most unfortunately, 

been recurring for some time in conditions simila.r to the one now under 

consideration. 

As to the a.rgumeni:S that the United States Havy aircraft haa. violated 

Soviet Union territory or Soviet Union air space and that it ha.J fired first 

on the Soviet fighters, these are not sound and convin• .. :jne; at all. Even if we 

were to suppose that the P2V aircraft had 1~lown over Doviet Union te.t·ritory 

as a 1·eeult of human or mechanical error, O.L' because of unfavourable atmospheric 

conditions, it should, according to weJl-er.;tablished practice, have been warned 

and directed to its proper eourse. '.J.'he ~-·~noring of this practice and the 

shooting down of tl'ie aircraft without warnin(; canno·t and should not be condoned. 

The representative of the Soviet Union quoted abundantly in his statement 

from the United States press, anc1. he made e;reaf; ca.pit.al of' an erro;r- in the i·eports 

that immediately followed the incident under conside1·ati.Jn. The United States 

Government, as the representative of the Soviet Unlon aimits, had subsequently 

corrected this error and had given at.l accurate a, • .::~ount of the inci6.ent as it 

had actually taken place, This, in our opinion, should rather be appreciated 

than sharply critieized. ile do not very much adruire those who stubbornly 

insist on errors and who consider themselves infallible. 

" 

• 
TJR/bs 

REF ID:A58072 

s/ JJV .·.:;so 

21-22 

The representative o! the Soviet Union, in the final part of his statement, 

almost admitted, as clearly as could be expected under similar ci~cumstances, 

that this deplorable inciden~ had taken place over international high seas. 

As to the contention of the :..·epreseutative of the Soviet Union to the effect 

that the American -plane fired f'irst, we cannot even for the sake of argument 

believe for a moment that the crew of the P2V had fired first. The speed 

and manoeuvrability of the P2V and the MIG are known to us all. In respect of both 

speed and fire power the P2V is largely handicapped. Therefore, firing first 

by the crew of a P2V aircraft on a MIG would mear. ae3king certain destruction --

and no one in his right mind would seek to be destroyed. 

Avoidance of' such provocative acts in international relations is one 

of the first prerequisites for achieving an atmosphe~e of international 

co-operation that will be co11ducive to the maintenance of international peace and 

security. What makes the incident undei· co~isideration all the more deplorable· I 

is the fact that it has occurred at a. tiio1e when appearances tend to indicate 

that some attempts are being made ~o lessen the existiag tension in 

international relations. 

In this brief statement I have t!'ied to be as frank and as straightforward 

as I could be in order to show the apprehensions of' my delegation over the 

recurrence of such lamentable incidents which might increase to dangerous 

proportions the already existing tension. It is in this spirit that we ·e.re 

prepa~ed to support any decision or recoI11JJ1endation which may find a peaceful 

solution and provide assurances for the prevention of the ~ecurrence of such 

incidents. 

\ 
REF ID:A58072 

AW/ns S/PV.680 2, 

Mr. MUifllO (New ~ealand): An incident of the nature described in the 

United States representative's letter of 8 September js prim.a. facie a matter 

of international concern, and when, as in this case, the States involve~ are 

great Powers, such an incident can~ot be viewed other than with gravity. 

That sense of sravity :!.e acoentua.tcJ ·oy a feeling o'£ r;rief' and sympathy over 

the loss of life involved. 

At this stage no specific action by t:~e Council has been proposed. Even 

if no action is contem-pla:ted, however, :!.t is e..r:ipropria.te that the Council should 

be fully acquainted with the facts ~d thet its .members should have an opportunity 

to express their views. I should lj~~e t:> add my tribute to the moderation and 

candor displayed by the representative of ·~he United st~ces in his speech this 

morning. The consensus of opinion in the Council •M and that consensus is 

already clear enough -- it may be hoped, will be taken into account by the 

parties :responsible, whether or not it is embod::!.ed in a formal resolution. 

It cannot be disputed that this incident took place, and that, furthermore, 

in recent months other incidents of a similar nature have occurred, in each 

of which Communist planes have attacked planes of other nationalities, outside I 

Communist territory. The United States letter states that the lateet incident 

is "of a type which might end.anger international pea.ce and security", It is 

obvious that this danger increases with the repetition of such incidents, 

particularly if they assume the nature of a pattJrn. It is also obvious that 

international tension will be created and international relations will deteriorate 

if all protests, however well founded, are rejected and no means of equitable 

settlement can be found. 

In this connexion I should like to rc!cr to the speech delivered in the 

general debate at the seventh session or th1~ General Assembly by the leader of 

the Swedish delegation. In his speech Mr. UnC!.en referred to a similar incident 

involving Swedish and Soviet planes, and hjo remarks, in my opinion, were a model 

of pertinence and moderation. 

lf 
• 

Kw/ns 

REF ID:A58072 

s/Fv .GSO 

24 

He drew attention to the fact that both the Swedish planes shot down were 

flying over international waters, even outside the twelve-mile limit claimed 

by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union, he reported, refused to accept any 

responsibility in regard to the firs~ claim, despite the fact that no aircraft 

belonginB to a third Power were in the vicinity. In regard to the second 

incident, the S~viet Union claimed tha.t the plane concerned had crossed the 

Soviet frontier and had open~d fir~. In fact, the Swedish plane was unarmed 

and was engaged in rescue.operations. The Soviet Union further refused to 

submit the matter either to the Internatioria.l Cou:rt of Justice or to arbitration. • i I .. 

It was in connexion with this last refusal that the representative qf Sweden 

made his most cogent point and one tha.t is equally relevant today. The 

Swedish representative drew attentivn to tho "tremendous peace o:f'.:fensive" which 

had been launched by the Communists. Jk ewphasized, a.a so indeed did the 

representative of the United States today, the valuable contribution to peace 

which would derive from an extensive use of a j1idicial procedure in the settlement 

of international disputes. "The governra.cnto which range themselves behind the 

\ 

new peace propa.ganda" 1 he concluded, 11 should at any rate show so much good will 

as not tharesolves to refuse acceptance of inquiry by jntcrnational organs into 

the facts of a. dispute". 

Today there is much talk of the possibility of what.is called "peaceful 

co-existence". I should like to suggest. two simpJ,e vays in which a state of 

peaceful. co-existence can be strengthened, In the firct place, attacks of the 

kind we are discussing should not be made. Surely they can be avoided. None, 

I believe, is unavoidable. In ~ha second place, sue~ disputes as do arise should 

be submitted to international judgment, and that judgment should be accepted. 

If these two principles were followed by a.111 "peaceful co-existence" would 

attain a less precarious reality than it has today. 
REF ID:A58072 

BL..~/bd S/PV.6f.0 

25 

Mr. BORBERG (Denmark): A detailed aooount of the incident or 

4 September and the reply of the Soviet Union representative having been given 

just today, my Government ha.a oovioualy not been in a position to study the case. 

My observations must therefore of necessity be or a tentative and very general 

nature. 

In view of the importance which the Great Powers attach to such incidents 

and the consequences the people of the smaller Powers fear may result, it was 

with great pleasure that I noted the restraint with which the ~epresentative 

of the United States presented his case. Not only was there nothing in the 

direction of war threats, but there were definite indications of willingness 

to settle the matter either through direct nesotiations or in the 

International Court of Justice, As the Soviet Union has not brought the case 

before the Council, in spite of the fact that it maintains that the United 

States aircraft attacked first, there s~cma to be on its aide as well no desire 

to exaggerate the incident. I therefcre very much hope that the two parties 

will succeed in finding a solution satisfactory to both of them, 

To that hope I add t~ expression of another hope, based on their stand 

here today, that th~ great Powers, in their endeavours to safeguard peace, 

will henceforth find it possible to make their military border relations less 

tense. The effect of shooting down one single aircraft in peacetime is of no 

military importance worth speaking of, but its ef£ect in ~~king negotiations 

more difficult is long-la.sting, Add incident to incident, and the willingness 

of Governments and people to settle down to negotiations, trading and living 

together will dwindle parallel to the tensions created by the incidents. A 

policy to avoid incidents wou1d be a great help to all peace endeavours. 

" 
• 

REF ID:A58072 

S/PV.680 

26 

' The PRESIDENT (translated ___ .. _._.... from French): -- Since all the me?Ifbers of the 

Council have expressed tbei:r vi.e:-1s on ~his case 1 I should l.ike to make some 

observations in my capacity as representative of Colombia. 

We have all of _us had ·to reply to general criticisms of the United Nations, 

It is accused of being a useless orgauization whlcb coul.d_we~l be dispensed with. 

But the fact is not that the United Nations is useless or ineffective, but that 

our Governments do not know how to lllP..'>:.e uE?e of' it. The United States request 

gave u~ great satisfaction, because it p~·oves not only the usefulness, but also 

the necessity of the Un'L·:i.ed Pa.tio:r.10 D,._.; ·.,_e justification for its existence. 

In the pa~t, even incidents less sc-·ious tban the one we are now discussing 

ha.ve. started wars. It is to be hoped \.,kit tne permanent members of the Council 

will in'future bring such incidents befo:e it, as the United States has done; 

for this discussion sh~ws how impor·tant a port the Security Council ca.n play in 

preventing them from bringing a.bou~ consequences of more tragic seriousness. 

I have to admit that I did not understand the ar~'Ull.lents adduced by our 

smin~nt Soviet ~olleague very well. ~ ".10 not, for i~~ta.nce, see why he 

criticized the United Sta.~es delegation for a.pproach.Lng me last Monday and 

requesting the convening of the Security Council four days later. On the 

contrary, I consider that the attitude taken by the ~nited States proves its 

entire good fa.i th. When you di~cover that a. fire ho.s bro!ten out, you do not 

wa~t to finnwho is responsible before you call tte fire-brig~d.e. I believe 

that Mr. Ce.bot Lodge's decision to 1•equest the calling of the Secu~ity Council 

and to refer the ma.tter to it even before he ha~ received full reports on what 

had. occurred. Pr'?'ves not merely his entire good f~th but also his sincerity. 

That is why I believe that what has happened during the past four days -- the 

ha.ste with which the ca.se was ref' erred to tiie Security Council and the very frank 

correction of certain errors and certei1 re~orts -- bears witness to a sincerity 

and a good faith for which all of. us sho~~d be grateful to the United States 

delegation, 

I have also been impressed by the c·. -:e argued by our French colleague / 

Mr. Hoppenot. Without being an airum.~, cne ~ust obviously find it hard to 

understand why a mere bomber would provo~e an attack by fighter planes, which, 

as everyone knows, have far greater striking force. It is just as though someone 

were to try to attack with his bare fists a. soldler armed with a sub-ma.chine gun. 

!t is incomprehensible on the face of it. It is hard to see how the 

reconnaissance aircraft could have attacked the fighter planes. 
REF ID:A58072 

3/PV.680 

27 

I have noted, too, Mr. Vyshiuskyts argument that the roap calculations 

were wrong. No very accurate maps are available, but I have referred to an 

atlas and have i'ound that Vladivostok is situated at the south of a peninsula 

less than fifty miles long. Following Mr. Vysllin~%y's suggestion I drew a 

line eastward from Vladivostok; and according to the scale, the distance of 

100 miles to which he referred gives a point on the high seas, not on 

any territory, either Soviet or non-Soviet. I may quite well be wrong, but 

this does at leas·t show clearly that the matter needs to be examined more 

closely. I should be grateful to the Soviet repl'esentative if he would 

furnish us with a map so that we can chec~ the distances he mQntions. 

That is why I, for 111y own part, would have been in favour of an investigation 

. in accordance with Article 34 of the ChaL·ter, Indeed, il:i was precisely for 

reasons of this sort that the decision was taken to include this .Arliicle when 

the Charter was drafted at San Francisco: in order to give the Security 

Council the power to investigate any dis,;ute s9 as to prevent obscure 

inci~ents from becoming threats to i1i.,ernational peace and security as a result 

of false information or misinterprctati~n. Accordingly, the Council's 

investigatory powers were universally recoGnized, without reservation. Still 

mnre: the permanent members of the Council were required to abstain from 

voting in the discussion of any dispute to which they are parties, as was the 

position of the United Kingdom when the Corfu case ca~e up for consideration. 

In my cpinion it wnuld unquestionably be a great step forward if the Council 

were allowed to make use of the investigatory powers conferred upon it at 

San Francisco; for that would enable it to settle situations which might, if 

allowed t~ deteriorate, start a war, as they have done in the past. 

Hence, the step taken by the United States delegation is a very important 

one, and, I repeat, it is unfortunate that the pl·opo~als for an investigation 

are not being accepted. Obviously one of the parties can oppose an 

investigation, supposing that it is carried out on its own territory, by, 

for example, preventing aircraft crews f!·om ma~ing statements to a United • 

Nations commission. But that, in my opinion is a detail; what really counts 

is the judgment passed by public opinion. E'or it is self-evident that if one 

gryvernment accepts the investigation and the otheT refuses to have anything to 

do with it, no arguments will p1·event public opinion from regarding the 

government which does not accept the i!1vustisation as guilty. 

, 
...... _ 

REF ID:A58072 

~,; 'J .68o 

28 .. 

Mr. Vyshinsky told us this morning-· I mde a note of his observation .... 

that the matter needed clarification. ·we entirely agree, but in.my view the best 

method of achieving this i's to agree to an investiga·tion. If Mr. Vysbinsky told 

us that he was not against an investia~tion, that would be a far more solid 

argument than all those we beard this morning. 

How~ver, investigation is only one of the possible solutions. There are 

others, The representa·t;i ves of France and Turkey 1 for instance 1 have ma.de 

observations which might very well serve as the basis for constructive 

negotia.ti'ons to prevent the recurrence of incidents of this kind. For example, 

we have heard an explanation of the way in which Soviet aircraft warn aircraft 

flying off course that they are over foreign t1::rritory.· An aircraft may happen 

to stray off course owing to bad weather or technical reasons and enter foreign 

territory; but would it not be possible, in' order to warn it of that fact and 

direct it"to land or withdraw, to agree on conventions or signals other than a 

burst of artillery fire -- a somewhat violent wethod of bringing the matter to . . its notice? 

I believe· that a. solution could be found if tile will to study the mat·ter 

existed, For ~xe.mple,~it might be possible to dra!t.con~~ntions providing for I .. I ~ ' 

effective means of informing the crew.of' a foreign aircraft that it has strayed, ' . it may well be in good faith, over the territory.of another country. At a.11 

events; today's discussion proves that the problem needs to be considered and a 

solution found. 

A~ the representative of Denmark has very judiciously observed, nothing is 

more dangerous than international tension in frontier areas. Anythlng that is . - done to obviate incidents in these areas will contribute to the maintenance of 

internatio~al peace and security. 

I myself hav~ no proposal to submit to the Council. However, in c~se any 

member of :the Council, bearing thought for the future, should wish to submit 

specific proposals at another meeting -- if there is one -"· I wish to say that my . . . 

pos~tion is identical with that of the representa.~ive of Turkey, If after a closer 

examinat~on of all the do~uments, we have the opportunity of reopening this debate 

and of rea~h~ng an effective solution, I shall certainly vote for any draft 

resolution designed to achieve the purposes laid down in Chapter VIof the Charter. . . . 

I have no other speaker on my list. Does any member of the Council propose 

to speak after the interpretation of my statement? 
REF ID:A58072 

S/PV.680 

29 

Mr. VYSHINSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated 

from Russian): I should like to take this opportunity of replying to sane 

critical rema.rlts which have been ma.de 'here in regard to my statement • In 

asserting that the specif'ic incident described in the United States 

notes of' 6 September did in f'act occur, Sir Pierson Dixon should have 

adduced some f'acts to corroborate and bear out his contention that the 

incident took place precise~y as descriued and not otherwise. He confined 

himself, however, to an unsupported assertion the.t there was, a.a he put it, 

strong prim.a-fo.cie evidence that precisely such an attack took place. 

It must, I thinlt, be recognized that considering all the circumstances, 

~ bare unsupported assertion that the event took place in such a way and not 

otherwise, considering that a number of' statements have been ma.de to show that 

that was not and could not have been t~e case and that the version given 

contains a number of contradictions and is extremely confused, in such 

circumstances, I repeat, a. mere uncorroborated assertion is not sufficient'. 

I should also like to t~te the opportunity of saying that I have no 

intention whatsoever of explaining my position as if' I were an accused 

person standing trial. The Soviet Union is apparently sitting in the dock . and is being confronted by a series ot' prosecuters and judees; I em 

apparently expected to disprove sane charge, to justify myself to someone. 

In order to remove this misunderstanding, I should like it to be clear to 

the Council that I do not consider myself or my country to be in such a 

position. Since my request that the item should not be included in the · 

Security Council's agenda was not met, I consider it essential to malte an 

explanatory statement, giving an accurate and objective account, based on 

precisely established facts in the possession of my Government, of' what in fa.ct 

too!t place, and at the same time, to draw attention to a. number of' 

contradictions, errors and mutually exclusive arguments; there will thus be no 

room for doubt ot' the objectivity and impartiality of' the ana.lysis I am 

ma.king. I am obliged to take this course, because the Security Council rejected 

my proposal that this question should not be discussed. This does not, however, 

mean that I accept the view that the Security Council is obliged to discuss 

the question because it has taken a decision to that effect. I still adhere 

• 
., 

~i;" ...... IR~= A5 8 0 7 2 

Ofl:V oOOU 

:50 

·to my opinion, which is that it is inappropriate for the Security Council 

to discuss this question for a variety of reasons, the most important 

of which are that the incident described did not occur, that it did not take 

place at the position stated and did not involve the occurrences described 

in the incorrect account contained in the note submitted to the Council by 

the plaintiff. 

If I understood him correctly, Mr. Urrutia is now proposing not only that 

I should take a line directly opposed to my position, as I have just described 

it, but eJ.so that I should acquiesce in the desire that the Council should 

undertake a more detailed examination of the question. 

He is presumably counting on my great naivet~. He is probably assuming 

that I shall agree with a kind smile, to absolutely everything. Th.at would be 

a completely unfounded assumption. 

I prove to you that it is not the business of the Security Council to 

.,, examine this question, and the reply I get is: "Come, let us appoint a. 

commission to go more deeply into the que!3tion11 • But if I said: "I entirely 

agree with you, let us appoint such a commission", I should ipso facto be 

accepting the thesis that the Securi~y Council is entitled to deal with this 

queotion. But I have argued and sought to convince you from the very outset 

that the Security Council is not entitled to do so. 

You refer in this connexion to Article 34. I see no grounds whatever for 

bringing this incident under Article 34, I referred to this, among other 

matters, in the statement in which I drew attention to the observations of 

the £h!istian Science Moni~P.! 6 special correspondent in Washington. This ' 

gentleman pointed out thr.t responsible United States military a1.1thorities not 

invo1~ed in diplomatic and propaganda tactics would be inclined to take the 

l~ne that this incident an~ o~he~s o~ the seme kind represented a normally 

admissible risk of patrol c.nd counter-patrol duty in certa.:i.n areas·. So that 

if you engage in this tY.[Jt:l of r;atrol work, which swe in all seriousness call 

nothing but offensive s11cop:i.ng (let me use the la.ng1.1a.ge of criminal law, of 

the CriJninal Cede: the ri~ 'lt wot'd for it is espionage), I must be allowed to - insist "teat measures -0£ sorre other Itind should be ta.ken,. not those preached here 

by cert:~.i.n repr~sentatives cleJr:r!.ng to be gu:!.C!ed by highly d.elic.a·te humanitarian 

consid:!rr~tions. But I cha.ll hav'3 something to say e.bout this a little later. 
REF ID:A58072 

S/PV.680 

31 

Accordin,51.y I cousider that Article 34, ·to which you have referred, can 

have no bearing on this question, simply because this question has no 

connexion with Chapter VI. Chapter VI is concerned with cases in which 

a dispute arises, the continua.nee of whi..:h is likely to endanger the 

maintenance of interna·tional peace and security. 

I deeply regret the occurrence of sucn incidents as that of 4 September. 

Even so, however, we surely l"!amiot serioual;y think that this incident is 

' . capable of causing international coinpl.ica.tions likely to endanger international 

peace and secufityt And what I have heard here from other members of the 

Security Council strengthens my conviction that, whatever attitude we may adopt 

in this case, whatever regrets we may express -- and regret is called for 

because the incident, since it entailed loss of life, provoked needless tension 

in the relations of the countries directly involved -- we'must not represent 

the case as one which, unless some sort or special measures are immediai,ely 

adopted, will cause the outbreak of a third world war, But articles in the I 

press say quite frankly that the case must by hook or by crook be brought under 

Chapter VI in order to make it impossible for the Soviet Union to cast a 

contrary vote, that is to use the veto, in order to force it to abstain from 

voting, as it would be entitled to do under ArLicle 2'((3) (not 26, as they 

state in error). But all these manoeuvres have absolutely no bearing on the 

incident itself, despite all its regrettable aspects from the hu.~anitai•ian 

and political points of view -- in which connexion of course I have no 

reason to raise any objec·tions and sha.11 raise none, 

O:f.' course an incident is an incident. This is a :regrettable incident. 

Firing is regrettable, one way or another, wherever it occurs. But, I 

ventw.·e to ask, whav connexion is there between this incident and Chapter VI? 

There is absolutely no connexion. 

The United States representative and I will doubtless continue to differ 

about how the incident ca.me about, who was guilty, what were the consequences, 

and so forth. But will the continuation of thi~ dispute be a. threat to peace? 

No. A threat to peace will be created if the patrol activities of such aircraft 

are continued and if su::!h pat.colling -- which some fL•a.nk journalists have 

called 11 espionage" - - leads to armed c.:lashes, 
REF ID:A58072 - 1--· /n-.. b/ J:'V .ocu 

32 

Of course an increase in the frequency of border incidenlis could bring about 

a threat to peace; quantitative changes of any kiud may be transformed into a 

•') qualitative change. But a dispute connected irith an incident of this kind is 

not by itself sufficient to create such a threat; this will arise only if .. such incidents are repeated, Naliurally we must take steps to see that they 

do not Qccur. I shall fully support any proposals which, independently C'f' this 

particular case, are designed to prevent the occurrence of such incidents in 

the future; but the 'essential condition for that is to put an end to this 

"prying" (as the American press calls it) into foreign territory by so-called 

patrol bombers, which are u1Bde out to be quite puny, indeed incapable of attacking 

anyone and so slow that they can scarcely disengage if attacked by some otber 

aircraft. 

In my view, measures must be taken to put a stop to this patrolling, or 

weather ~bservation or, as Mr. Lodge called it, anti-submarine surveillance. . . 

It may be asked what submarines the aircraft were looking for. Whose 

submarines were they trying to track down and why? If the American fleet 

were to cease performing such functions, if the whole practice and system of 

what is called peaceful patrolling were dropped -· a policy in ~ctual fact of 

endeavouring' to penetrate frontiers with military aircraft, armed to the teech 

and intended, with the help of their radar and other apparatus to detect and 

observe one thing and another -- then we should have grounds for hoping that such 

incidents would not be repeated in the future. 

Mo self •respecting State: ca.~ permit its State frontiers to be inadequately 

defended. 

Mr. Munr(" has referred here to the Swedish incident. I should like to 

point out that that case too involved the question whether or not it is 

permissible to warn an aircraft violating a frontier that it will be fired 

upon, and ti:, open fire on such an aircraft;. 

The Swedish Government in its note and correspondence with the 

Soviet Government argUed that Swedish legislation and Swedish regulations 

in general did not admit that procedure. However, I should like to recall 

that there is a Swedish Government instruction which was appended to the 
. 

REF ID:A58072 

sLPV.680 

33 

Swedish Governmen Ii' s no l:ie ·t;o the Soviet Government j.n 1952, in which it is ste. ted 

' ' . that individual aircraft which penetrate into Swedi.sh territory without permission 

should be warned to withdraw. If the airc:i.·aft does not change its course and 

head a.way from S111edish territory, the instruction oays, it; should be f'irad on. 

That is what Sweden says; it is e.n instruction jssued by the Swedish Government, • I ' 

This means that a State which has any respect for its sovereignty, its 

independence and its security in e.ll cases has the right of self-defence. 

Where there is no attack there need be no self-defence: that is the import of 

this principle. Of course it does not ~ean ·that a State may take the offensive 

on the pretext that it has been attacked. That would be a gross distortion of 

the prin~iple to which I am referring. 

I again say, let us assume that all of you are right. For certaln reasons, 

which are quite under~tand.able, incideuta.J.ly, you are all with one voice 

upholding the United States version. Let us assume that e.ll of you are right, 

that the incident did in fact ta.lee place at a distance of 40 miles (this is 

a.11 aasur:iption.only, and an incorrect ·assumption, since this was not the case). 

At this point I should like to say a few words to Mr.. Urrutia on the subjec Ii of 

geography. While assuming that he is right, I would, however, as!t him where the 

4o miles in question were. located. We~e-they in the waters oft San Froncisco 

or San Diego'l Where were they? Oft' the United States coast or, perhaps, off 

the Japanese coast which Soviet aircraft approach within a distance of 40 miles? 

No, these miles were off the Soviet coast. What is the reason for approaching to 

a distance of' 40 miles and then asserting that the aircraft approached to that 

distance only. llhat is the reason 'l What is the reason i'or a:l.rcraft approaching 

(~I to a distance of 40 miles, aircraft which are armed and, furthermore, equipped 

with radar? The United States press itself states that the purpose is to feel 

out the strength of the enemycs radar installations. Who is that enemy? It is 

f hardly necessary for me to be specific and state that the Soviet Union is 

t regarded as the enemy against whom the United States is conducting !3-ll armaments 

f race and stockpiling atomic and hydrogen bombs, having regard to the propaganda 

, it is making in favour of a. prevcnti ve Wal' a15ainst the Soviet Union. The Soviet 

' Union is the enemy. This is vlhy, at one point or another, the United States is 

f feeling out its strength. This is a fact Mr. Urrutia should bear in mind. 

'. 

" 
REF ID:A58072 

s/r:v .680 

34 

Even if the facts set out in the notes from the United States Government 

are correct, I still ask where the incident occurred'Z It did not occur off 

,..) the United States coast, even at a distance of 50 or 100 miles. Vladivostok 

indeed is 10,000 kilometres from the United States. Where then did the incident 

•. occur? Perhaps the aircraft of ·the Soviet Union penetrated deep into American 

air~pace? Perhaps Soviet submarines are prowling off the coast of Colombia? 

I do not know, Mr. Urrutia is quite likely better informed on this matter tha~ 

I. But I ask you: even if this is the case, why was it that this incident 

took place near the Soviet coast, even if it was forty miles away? You 

carefully a.void this question. You regard it as quite proper that, as is now 

the case, the United States navy should consider itself' ·t;he me.ster of the 

situation in the Pacific, able to go wherever it likes. It can sail into the 

Strait of' Formosa.. It can undertake the defence of that unfortunate so-called 

Government of Chiang Kai~shek, With its equally unfortunate and not ~verintelligent representatives with whom we are unfortunately obliged to have 

dealings here and who engage in all manner of' slan~erous nonsense which, I 

regret to say, runs unchecked in the Security Council, ~EJ was clearly 

<;tem...,nstrated here today. You yourselves, the Americans themselves, e.nd people 

in the highest positions say tha.li the United States navy is the master in the 

Atlantic, the Mediterranean and the Pacific ••• It is the master everywhere. / 

You force us to believe tha.li Q.llything its aircraft, its submarines, ·or its 

surface warships do will be justified. I see proof' nf this here now. The 

present case, too, serves to prove it. 

I accordingly ask you to bear in mind that lihe Sovie~ Union considers that 

this matter does not fall within the Security Councilts jurisdiction and that 

we shall therefore reject any proposals which a.re based on the premise that 

it does. Whether or not you think I a.m entitled to vote, whether or n~t you 

consider that I 8.Ill an interested party in the dispute, whether or not you 

interpret my vote as a veto, whether or not you intend tn take this into a.cc<"unt --

regardless of a.11 this, we shall continue to maintain this position. 
REF ID:A58072 

I I~ I' 

S/l?V.680 

!S5 

To revert to Sir Pierson's reference to 11 strone; evidence", wha~ "strong 

evidence" does he have in mind? On what is it 'based? On the statements which 

the airmen were able to malte. But we still do not even know uha.~ they said 

beyond the fact that one said he opened fire and another said that he did not 

open fire. The Navy Department states in reply to inquiries that it is not known 

who fired. But if it is not known who fired, when and why he fired a.re also 

unknown. A state of confusion, no less. And this is what is deocribed as·pr:l.ma 

facie evidence. But such a description is a mockery of the course of justice, 

It is not prime. ~ evidence, but prime nonsense, The most complete end utter 

nonsense. 

The fact is that absolutely no evidence has been put forward in the case. 

Take Mr. Lodge 's letter, fo:r:· example. It con ta.ins 110 evidence to sup.Port the 

assertions made, Take his speech. In my viev, he proved nothing except the 

opposite of what he set out to prove, 

Sir Pierson Dixon's arguments therefore seem to me to be ill-considered 

and unwise. 

All of us have long been o.cquain·ted with Mr, Hoppenot and have a. deep , respect for both his stronger and weaker sides -- for we can still respect a 

ma.n's weaker side -- and we tberafore respecb both the stronger and weaker sides 

of Mr. Hoppenot's we:y of thinking. I em not sure whether the bone I have to pick 

with him concerns his stronger or weaker side, but whichever it is, I feel bound I 

to raise the point. Mr. Hoppenot said that contradictions are proof of good 

faith and that acknowledgment of mista.ltes is evidence of honesty. To my mind, 

it is good when a man corrects his mistake, bub it is not good it' he does so 

and at once proceeds to comm.lt a greater one. 

Of course, if there are contradict.ions, lf some say one thing and some say 

another, then, according to the maxim that the truth emere;es fi·om the clash of 

opinions, tbe truth will ell!.er~e when contrary views are expressed. But how can it 

be concluded tha~ contrad!ctions are proof of good faith? Does it mean that if 

a man speaks without involving himself in contra.dictions, he is not speaking in good 

faith? If a man speaks smoothly and clearly -- the case in question being itself 

quite clear -- and there are no contradictions, does this mean that he is not speaking in good faith1 Such reasoning is completely incomprehensible and cannot possibJ;y 

be entertained, Are we to say the.I:. contra.dictions are proor of good faith and that 

therefore the more contradictions there ai·e, the more eood faith is demonstrated? 

I• 
. ) 

REflp~;t;R~~A58 0 7 2 -1 - • ·---

36 

A man who embroils himself !n contradictions is a man of the greatest good faith I ~ I I I ~ 

because, had he not been, he would have been at pains to conceal and avoid . ' . contradictions, While if he does not avoid contradictions and if the 

contradictions pile up, one on top of another~- a veritable mountain of 

contr~dictions · •• then he is a p~odigy of good faith. That is Mr. H~ppenot's 

reasoning, I cannot possibly agree with such a line of reasoning, Does this 

imply that any case can proceed without contradictions? No. Does it imply tha~ 

' ' 

contradictions are a.lwa.ys evidence of ba.d faith'l No. Indeed, a.s I have said 

once before today -~ and Mr. Hoppenot should remember this -- the idea that all . . this is being deliberately done, with the knowledge of the higher authorities at 

any rate of the American authorities -- is far from my mind. I noted it I ~ I 0 

primarily in connexion with the hubbub and confusion there has been over this 

question, Mr. Hoppenot asks me why I mentioned the call, whi~h I as well as 

others knew about. But that is really not some sort of State secret; and ~ 

d~d not learn of it by means o~ some ~iece of radar ~pparatus. TP.e fact is 

that the call was ma.de o~ Monday but the meeting w~s not called until Friday. 

That was what I said in pointing out that t~ere had been some kind of confusion. 

And you will pardon me if I point out that in one of the American newspapers . . . yesterday,. 01· perhaps today - - I have for gotten the date - - I read the comment I ' • 

that certain Ameri~a.n officials had acted too hastily in ~his case, had forced 

the pace too much and then, when they had overstepped the mark, had no idea what I ~ • a I • 

to do next. And only then did they consider questions of form a.nd method, did 

they consider w~at claim should be made! the nature an~ form in which it should be 

expressed and so forth. That and that only was the bea.r~ng of my remarks. Of 

course, I might have ignored the matter. I did not know that this was a great . . secret of yours. If it is, then I must a.poJ.ogize for uncovering a.nd disclosing 

it. But I must say that I ~as not warned that it was a. secret. In future 

you must take care to see that your secrets do not leak througll the walls of the 

President of the Seci.trity Council. Mr. Hoppenot defended the United States 

version at all costs and in an attempt to help the United States authorities 

extricate themselves from these "contradictions", said that nothing prevented 

them from maintaining 0their original position. 
REF ID:A58072 

B/J?V;6Bo' 

37 

:~· : . i' would ask 'Mr: :Hoppenot if he seriously thinks that tbere was nothing to 

prevent this? ' If one ·airman says it·1 fired", and another' one says "I fired, · 

not you" 1 it is very di:t'ficUlt afterwards 'to ·say 'th~t nobody fired." Perhaps . 

he thinks this. is perfectly normal: 9. 1i~ on~~ uttered should be persisted in 

to the' end, regardless of· ~one~quenc'es .. · But the~e are people and facts that 

may catch a'i1ar out~ ~~1bis is even mor~' de,ngeroUs than admitting the mistake, 

There.is ne~er any shame or danger in admitti~g·a mist~e provided the admission • • I '" 

does· not l~ad to 'another, That is ~:Ir. Hoppenot•s reasoning. But what does 

all this reasoning a.mount to? r ~sk t~e Council. It amounts only to this: 

the United.St'ates":uiust at all costs be shown to be'in the right. That is . . precisely what one newspaper said when it observed that, in order to prove that 

the in~iderit occurred over the high seas, the United States authorities took 

such and such'oteps. ·'What setps were these? First there was the'a.f'firmation 

that ihe incXdent occurred 100 miles to the east of Vladivostok -- and I must warn 

anyone who wishes to ·ref er to the ma.p that what is meant is a distance not along a 

stratght line but along the parallel, for on the globe and on maps distance is 

messured along the parallels. This I must point out in advance. At first the 

distance was 100 miles but later, when the first steps were being taken to prove 

that the clash occurred over the high seas, the figure of 125 miles made its 

appearance. Even 145 miles'vas mentioned. I do not know how any reliance can 

be placed on ~~ch data as these. ~o wy mind it is impossible to place a:n.y 

relia•ce on them at all. 

You sa.y l let us verify the :f'a.cts I Mr. Urrutia. even aske'd whether I would 

not produce a map. I cou1d do so without difficulty, of course, thoueh I have no 

cartographer's 'workshop· or office.here to prepare one. But I can go to a 

bookshop ~-· assuredly in the United Sta~es there is a shop where maps are to be 

had. I h~~e no doubt that they are to be had even in Colombia -- 0and purchase I ' the ma.p, Then; after acquiring a' pair of dividers as well, all we have to do is 

to meas~re off.on this map the 'appropriate distance to scale. You will then be 

' able to' fix the spot where these 100 miles end. Why then do you need a map of 

mine, ~··map s:ign~~·by me?· rlby? I ~ee why~ 'rr I ea~ "Certainly, here you are", 

it will mean that I have been dragged into discussing this question: I will 

produce a map, then we will appoint a commission, then there will be something else. 

In other words, it will turn out that the Security Council is competent to deal 

I• 

, 
,J 

. , 

- ------- -  

REF ID:A58072 

S/PV.680 

38 

with this question. No, it is not competent to do so. If I venture to take up 

the Council•s time it is only because I am compelled to do so. 

For the record, I should like to add with reference to one of the later 

_speakers, that I consider it beneath my dignity to react in any way to the 

slanderous statement by the so-called representative of China, who in reality 

is the representative of the Chiang Kai-shek clique and was thrown out of China 

PY the freedom-loving Chinese people when they freed themselves from their 

oppressors. I consider it beneath my dignity to reply to the slanderous venom 

he poured out here, taking advantage of the fact that he happens to be in a 

position where no one will stop him. I did not wish to raise a point of order 

at the time because I relied on the loyalty of the President. Now that I have 

the floor I e.m taking the opportunity of pointing this out. This too, very 

likely, is pa.rt of the plan for the consideration of this ·question; presumably 

it is considered undesirable to discuss it in a more tranquil manner than that 

which those gentlemen -- who I regret to note are still seated near me -- allow 

themselves to use in discussing any question. 

The Turkish representative said that this incident, in the form in which it 

was described in the American press, gave rise to universal alarm, Of course, 

it gave rise to alarm; it alarmed us too, because we see a good deal of l 

evidence that certain States are persistently pursuing the obJect:l.ve of 

11 f'eeling out", as some newspapers put it, what is going on in foreign territory. 

This incident provides further proof that such States are following a course 

of' action entailing consequences which cannot of course contribute to an 

improvement in the international atmosphere; quite the reverse. The Berlin 

Conference helped to ease the tension, despite the unfavourable conditions under 

which it was held; the Geneva Conference resulted in the end of the war in 

Inda-China, That marked an enormous advance towards the strengthening of 

world peace and international security. As we know, a number of other steps 

have been taken with a view to aggravating the international political situationJ 

for example, the attempt to compel France to vote for ratification of' the 

so-called European Defence Community. That attempt failed, thanks to the 

resistance of the French people, for which they a.re only to be commended. 
REF ID:A58072 

8/PV.680 ,9 

All the f'acts I have mentioned have served to ease international tension 

to some extent. Thie d.evel.o:Pment we.a probabJ.y not welcome in a.ll qua.rtei·s and 

it was perhaps thought that it might be useful, a.t this particular moment, on 

the eve ot' t~ ninth session'of the General Assembly, which will be called up 

to conGider and decide a large number or highly important questions, to a.ttem~t 

to raise a stir over this specific issue. The situat1.on is quite simple: if' 

a patrol aircraft attempts to cros~ our frontier, it can· count on receiving 

the appropriate treatment from us • And such incidents are the ge:r.'m, the initial 

cause for which a weakening of intei'llational canf'idence and co-operation develops. 

Every event, of course, has a political explanation. 

Despite all the contradictions detected by Mr. Hoppenot contradictions which, 

in his view make the story preferable to one without contradictions -- the 

Turkish representative swallows a.~l the statements that have been made here, 

accepts the United States story end is prepared to agree that everything took 

. place exactly as the honourable representatives have said it did. If, he says, 

the incident in fact followed the course described by the Soviet Union, the 

Soviet aircraft should have given ~ warni.ng. But how does the Tur.kish 

representative know that no warning was given?. If he readsrtho Soviet note, 

he will find that a warning was g:J,ven. Jly what method? By the usual method -- py 

various wing manoeuvres, possibly by warning shots or flares; in any event 

warnings were given. These warnings received dne and only one answer from the ·. bomber. And this was no defenceless c;raft; it was a borober bristling with 

machine-guns and carrying many o~her weapons enablfna 1~ to offer res~stanc~. 

We do not suggest that the Neptune planned to.attack the Soviet fighters. 

I presume that it had no such plan; but when it was told: "Be offl", it 9pened 

fire. . . , 

That is the s;ituation; but you have said: "No, ~o one told it to withdraw, 

no one warned it that it "{as flying where it, had no business to be, that it had 

no right to fJ.y in that area", Where did.you get this idea? 

, . 
¥Ji/ .. 6M> :A58072 . 40 

We declare that that was what happened, and you reply that a-warning should 

have been given, and that that wa.s not done. Apparently you must have been on the 

, 1 aircraft and have seen ·for yourselves all that happened. This is hardly 

evidence of objectivity on your part in the case. 

. , 

_.,. You said: "We cannot believe that the American aircra.f't could have fired 

first, for that would have meant its destruction", You repeated wha.t Mr. Lodge 

said about suicide. Of course the idea of committing suicide di~ not enter into 

the.American airmen's plans. But the American aircraft was confronted with a 

specific situation. It wa.s called upon to Withdraw. What action could it then 

take? The action take11 by the .minor figures involved, who probably deemed it 

their military duty to die a hero's death and to resist the request to withdraw. 

Or perhaps there was simply some confusion. 

But the question still remains: who fired first? 

We advance one version and the United States advances another, contrary 

version. Uh1ch should be given pre:f'erence'l Some speakers say the version 

containing contra.dictions. We, on the other hand, consider that preference 

should be given to the version which is free from contradictions. 

This is the crux of the matter. 

The Turkish representative maintains that to ha.ve fired first would have . ' 

meant certain destruction for the Neptune aircraft. This might be so were it not 

for the fact that the function of Soviet aircraft protecting the integrity of 

the frontiers of the Soviet State, is not to shoot down an a.ircra.t't, even if it 

has committed a violation, but to prevent an aircraft from violating the Soviet 

frontiers and fr9m persisting in such a violation. To that end, they call on 

the offending aircraft and make a peaceful proposal that it should discontinue 

the flight. 

But the cases which Mr, Lodge has compelled me to describe here today go to 

show that what usually happens is that the aircra.f't is requested to land but 

refuses to do so, is called upon to follow the Soviet planes, but declines to do 

so and opens fire. 
.. 

REF ID:A58072 

S/PV.680 

41 

lou ignore a.ll this. You also evade the question what purposes are pursued A 

in these patrol activities. What are these purposes? You are reluctant to answer 

this question. Do you think these bombers are really investigating the state of \ < 

the weather? Well, blessed. is he who believes; he has an easy time in this 

world. But I do not believe it, and ~ee no reason why I should. I know the 

bombers are not concerned with the weather. If you have any other evidence, . I ask you to produce it. 

Mr. Borberg expressed the h~pe that the two parties would f~nd a solution 

satisfactory to both of them. He spoke of his hopes that everything possible 

would.be done to ensure more norpia.~ border relations; he expressed the hope 

th~t these border relations vould become less tense, and so forth. I agree with 

him entirely. The need, qlearly, is that governments should live and work 

together in friendship. But this,of course, means that they must not intimidate 

one another with their armaments or, still less, amass an infinite quantity and . . variety of such armaments and constantly try to create occasions for putting them 

to use uy Jlla.king up all manner of fables about dangers threatening now from the 

east, nrlW through,Al~ska 1 now from tbe north and so on and so forth. In general, 

the peace endeavours of which the Danish representative spoke here meet with a 

completely symP.athetic response from me. But if they ar~ to succeed, Mr. Borberg, 

there must be not only desires but specific actions, particularly on the part of 

those who glory in their strength and, indeed, do not know the meaning of 

restraint. This will not do, We must not build everything on the premise 

that might is the universal deciding factor. Might is not right; right is might. 

Rigl1t must be respected and, in particular, international law must be respected. 

The PRESIDENT (translated from French): I have only one member of 

the Council on my list of speakers for this evening the representative of the 

United States. In view of the.lat~ hour, I have consulted the English and 

French spealting representatives. By way of exception, and by way of exception 

only, they have agreed to dispense vith interpretation in order to allow the 

rep~esentative of the United States to speak now, after which we shall adjourn 

the meeting. The United States representative informs me tbat his statement will 

take only a few minutes. Are there any objections to this procedure? 

,. 
) 

J 

c 

~[ •• ~P,_:A58072 0/ J.-V o <.JUV 

42 

Mr. HOPPENOT (France) (translated f~ French): Tbe right to 

interpretation belongs equally to the speaker and the listener. In view of 

the special circumstances, and in order not to delay the pleasure of the 

members of the Secretariat, who a.re certainly intending to take part in 

Staff Day, I am ready as a listener to dispense with the interpretation into 

French, provided that Mr. Vyshinsky, as a speaker, is pTepared to do 1ikewise, 

The PRESIDENT (translated from French): Such is certainly my 

intention. That is why I have asked the Soviet Union delegation if it could, 

by way of exception only and in view.of the situation which has arisen today, 

dispense with the interpretation. 

Mr. VYSHINSKY (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics): I agree. 

The PRESIDENT (translated from French) 2 In view of the fact that 

this procedure has been approved unanimously,I call upon the representative of the 

United States. 
BS/ns 

REF ID:A58072 

s/PV.6Ao 

43 

l..U-. LODGE (United States of America): I shall be true to my word 

to the President that I will taY.e less'th~n three minutes, I did think that 

I should mak~ a few comments on what has been said by the representative of the 

Soviet Un3.on. In many respects they are similar to his previous utterances on 

other subjects. Today, however, he did something that I have never heard ~im 

do before when he attacked the represcntati·~e of China not in his capacity as 

the representative of China but in a personal capacity -- he made a personal 

reflection on him. I think that that is a vioiation of the baoic decencies 

of parliamentary procedure, I believe that Dr. Taiang is a man of fine 

character and fine mind, and I regret what I think an impart~al person would 

say was a most ill-mannered observatlon. 

Then the representative of the Soviet Union began by expressing his 

unwillingness to adbpt the agenda, which will inevitably lead the world to 

believe that he opposes discussion because his Government has something to hide; 

otherwise, why would he oppose discussion! 

Secondly, his remarks were full of quotations from the UnitP.d States press. 

as though the United States press were the voice of the United StatesGovernment, 

It would be understandable for a citizen of the Soviet Union who had never been 

here before to make such an assumption, because in the Soviet Union the press 

is a tool or an arm of the Government and the people who work for the press the~e 

are in effect government 'employees, subject to the discipline of _the Government. 

But it is passing strange that the representative of the Soviet pnion, who ha.s 

been here for so many years, should continue ~aking that error. 

Now I was in the United States press for a good many years, and I think it 

is a wondrous and excellent institution, but it does not speak for the United 

States Government. Clippings from it cannot be quoted as indicating matters of 

official fact here in the United States. 

Then there was the discussion of the error in reporting the location of the 

downing of the plane. Of course, it ia by now well-known all over the world tbat 

only the Communists never admit ma.king mistakes; only C9Ilfillunists insist all the 

time that they are perfect, that they are the pcerloaa ones who must be above the 

connnon ordinary run of mortals who sometimes get tired and who sometimes make 

errors. As a matter of fact, the error was not a very large one; it consisted 
. 

'J 

' 

AW/ns 

REF ID:A58072 

s/w.G8o 

44 

in reporting the incident in a clumsy way whereby a line was drawn a hupdred 

milee east, then a.l-opped down south, and that is where the location was. 

The representative of. the soviet Union simply failed to mention the part a.bout. 

dropping down south and just stopped about the line going a. hundred miles east, 

It is an old trick, and ~ have seen it worked in many courtrooms -- but still it 

is a trick just the sa.meo The fact is that this happened forty-three miles 

off the coast of Siberia, and there is no mystery at all about why United States 

planes should be in those waters: we have a peace treaty with Japan; we have 

the duty and the right to exercise normal a9tivities in that area. 

In regard to all the other cases mentioned by the representative of the Soviet 

Union,I need but repeat what I previously said, that the United States is ready 

to brina them before the Internationa~ Court of Justice. 

fairer statement I can make than that, 

I do not know what 

One thing has emerged from this discussion today, and that is- that the 

Soviet Union representative apparently defend.a the r.ight of his Government to 

shoot airplanes down over the international high seas without warning and 

without provocation. That is a serious statement, but I put it to the Council that 

that is what emerges out of this, and that is something for the world to ponder. 

As I close, let me express appreciation for the tone of the statements which 

have been ma.de here today by the representatives of Member nations. They have 

been very different, they have been constructive,tliey have been gifted, and they 

have been an inspiration to me. On behalf' of the United sta·tes, I express my 

thanks. 

What we· are asking :f'or here today is not much;. it is merely that the Soviet 

Union deal with these matters by peaceful processes. 

United Nations, we should do no less. 

surely, as Members of the 
---------------.....,.......-~~~-~----- -- -·---

REF ID:A58072 

s/Pv.680 

45 

. ' 

·.rhe PRESIDENT {translated f'rom French): As there has been no 

interpretation of Mr. Vyshinsky t !! s_ta.teLOent, may I ask Mr~ Cabot Lodge whether 

he 1ioo is prepared to wa.ive th_e interpretation of his la.st observations in order 

' to enable Mr. Vyshinskf to reply to one po~nt. 

Mr, VYSHIHSKY. {Union or Soviet Social;j.st Republics) (translated from 

~!!!!;!): I do not wish to waste the Council's time but I should like to SPY a 

few words, at least, about one point which Mr. Lodge made in his last speech and . . which I I cannot pass over in silence. I " 1 1 a 

Mr. Lodge said that the Soviet Union representative was apparently defending ' . the right of the Soviet Union to shoot aircraft down over tbe high seas. If he 

had not made his speech in haste then I am sure Mr. Lodge would not have said 

that, for my whole argument on this question was concentrated on proving that the 

incident involving the Soviet and United States aircraft occurred over Soviet . ' ' 

territory and not over the high seas. It is therefore absurd to suggest that I 

coul~ be defending the right of any State to shoot aircraft down over the high sea& 

It is others who wish to defend this right. We a.re opposed to it, The 

people who defend it are those who consider fo~ instance that they have the right 

to shoot aircraft down over Formosa, that is to say, not over their own territory . . and not over their own waters, bu~ over the Straits of Formosa, to fly round other 

nations' ships and generally1o misuse the armed forces they have in this region, 

We do not engage in such activities. · 

Such a conclusion is wholly absurd and I must correct Mr. L9dge's mistake. I 

I hope he will concur. 

The PRESIDENT (translated from French): Since the list of speakers is 

exhausted, I shall adjourn this meeting •. The Council will be convened again if 

and when any delegation so requests. 

The meeting rose at 6.20 p.m~