44. Mr. President, first of all, I should like to congratulate you on your election to this high position and to wish you success.
45. The States Members of the United Nations have gathered for their joint meetings more than twenty times. That is an impressive figure. It gives grounds for undertaking a certain review of the road that has been travelled and, most important, for defining the tasks that face the United Nations and for considering how best they may be dealt with.
46. As for the Soviet Union, it has come to the nineteenth session of the General Assembly, as in the past, with its Leninist policy of peace and defence of the rights of the peoples to independent and free development. On our side there is, and will be, no lack of readiness to utilize the opportunities afforded by the United Nations for the relaxation of international tension, for international co-operation and for the development of relations among States with different social systems, on the basis of the principles of peaceful coexistence.
47. Two very important propositions are proclaimed in the United Nations Charter. One says that the peoples of the United Nations are determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind. The other proposition reads that the United Nations should be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of the common ends of its participants.
48. Were the Charter being drafted now, and not when the last shots of the great battle against the fascist aggressors were still resounding, it could hardly be put better. In reviewing the work of the United Nations, we must consider its activities first of all from the standpoint of the fulfilment of these provisions of the Charter. We must be mindful of them every time the United Nations determines its attitude to some serious event, of which there are not a few in the modern world with its more than 120 States.
49. It is true that up to now international complications, no matter how acute and dangerous they may have become, have nevertheless not crossed the fateful line. But where is the guarantee that with a new outburst of international tension this line will not be crossed? There can be no such guarantees, as long as the fundamental international problems on which peace most of all depends remain unsolved.
50. What most alarms the peoples of the world is the arms race, the like of which has never before been seen. Information which would reveal the full armaments picture is kept under lock and key. But even so it is common knowledge that, month after month, fresh piles of armaments — nuclear weapons, missiles, bombers, tanks, submarines — are pouring from the atomic factories, from the production lines and from the shipyards. Nor can it be denied that scientific and technological thinking and many of the best scientists and engineers are employed on the creation of ever more destructive types of weapons.
51. Thus, colossal amounts of human effort, energy, knowledge and material resources are being wasted on something which is not only of no use to people but, on the contrary, threatens them with untold calamities. The utter abnormality of this situation is still further underlined by the fact that statements in favour of disarmament are dispensed ever more generously with each passing year, whereas the gap between such statements and disarmament itself is constantly widening.
52. The Conference of the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament, which was entrusted by the countries represented in the United Nations with preparing agreements on disarmament, has been in session at Geneva for almost three years now. Five times it has submitted reports on its work to the General Assembly. What can one read in these reports? Always the same thing: the participants arrived on the shores of Lake Geneva, had meetings, prepared a report, and then recessed. But one cannot find in these reports any indication of the drafting of agreements or even a single one of the questions considered by the Committee. The results of the negotiations in the Eighteen- Nation Committee are absolutely unsatisfactory. Thus it seems that at Geneva, where so many watches famous for their faultless action are made, time has stood still.
53. What is the reason for the obviously unfavourable state of affairs in the disarmament negotiations? To call a spade a spade, it has to admitted that everything turns on the attitude of "certain" NATO States, which do not want disarmament.
54. The times are now such that even opponents of disarmament are not opposed to flirting with this demand of the peoples. They will tell you that the desire to save mankind from the threat of nuclear war and the gigantic burden of military expenditure is one of the loftiest expressions of the human spirit. Sometimes they go even further and state that the radical solution for this problem would be general and complete disarmament. But as soon as specific questions are put forward for discussion, as soon as one goes from words to deeds, arguments of quite a different sort emerge, which are in fact aimed at proving that disarmament is impossible. The number of arguments used in this connexion is not very large — just two or three theses repeated in various combinations.
55. It is said, for example, that disarmament is impossible without international control. But who is maintaining that control is not necessary? The Soviet Union is in favour of control, the strictest and most exacting control, but control over disarmament. If our partners in the negotiations took the same view, there would be no problem.
56. In reality, however, things are different. Readiness for disarmament is measured in homoeopathic doses, whereas control measures are prescribed on a downright horse-doctoring scale.
57. What, for example, is the essence of the latest United States proposals in the Eighteen-Nation Committee? It is to leave untouched the stockpiles of nuclear bombs and not even to prevent their further accumulation, to take virtually no action regarding conventional weapons, to leave military bases in alien territories intact, and to restrict ourselves to "freezing" certain types of available delivery vehicles. Whereas for control it is proposed to open wide all doors. In other words, you find out everything you are interested in, reconnoitre the defences of the other side, and then act as seems most advantageous. That is the meaning of control without disarmament, which can only lull the vigilance of the peoples but cannot bring them real security,
58. Another argument put forward is the following: in the actual process of disarmament, before all weapons have been destroyed, some country or group of countries may fall victim to aggression. A farfetched argument indeed! As if it were not easier to unleash aggression when armaments are on the increase; as if security in an armed world were greater than in a world where national military machines were being scrapped. But there is an answer to this artificial objection, too, in the Soviet Government's well-known proposal to leave a limited number of missiles at the disposal of the Soviet Union and the United States, in their own territories, until the whole process of disarmament is completed. It is sometimes asked how many such missiles should be left. Well, we are ready to discuss this with our partners. Name some figures, and let us get down to a businesslike and practical discussion of the question.
59. Voices may still be heard — in fact we heard them at the conference table at Geneva — asserting that it is difficult to contemplate disarmament since man, by his very future, remains pugnacious and unaccommodating. You must wait for human nature, so unflatteringly described, to change. One might ask what physical and intellectual qualities man must acquire in order to live in a world without armaments. For our part we think that agreement on disarmament can be reached before everyone turns into an angel. Attempts to place the nations longing for peace on the same level as a handful of profiteers who wax rich on military preparations and put their narrow interests before the interests of the overwhelming majority of mankind only show how destitute of ideas the advocates of the arms race are.
60. None of the arguments advanced as evidence that disarmament is impossible can be reflected as in the least convincing. It is not at all that disarmament is materially impossible; the trouble is that those forces which do not want it are still influential. But can the interests of profit gained in the manufacture of arms be allowed to prevail over the desire of the peoples to protect themselves from the threat of nuclear war? No, that can certainly not be allowed.
61. Let those Western statesmen who oppose proposals aimed at real disarmament take up the proposals of the Soviet Union once again, and let them see whether their attitude to these proposals is not determined by preconceived ideas. And above all, let them ask themselves seriously whether it is the socialist countries alone that would gain from disarmament. No one who gives the matter serious thought can fail to admit that all countries and all peoples will gain by disarmament. Disarmament will also help the newly liberated peoples to overcome their age- old backwardness, inherited from colonialism. The economic programme of disarmament proposed by the Soviet Union opens up good prospects in this regard.
62. The Soviet Government does not take the view that, since others are not ready for a radical settlement of the disarmament problem, one may drift with the stream and do nothing to check the arms race. The Soviet Union is ready to negotiate for an agreement on general and complete disarmament. But it also favours measures which, as a start, would at least slow down the arms race and reduce its scope. In diplomatic language such measures are called partial. Their significance lies in the fact that they reduce international tension and create more favourable conditions for disarmament, and also for the settlement of other outstanding international issues,
63. The Soviet Government is submitting for consideration by the General Assembly a memorandum on measures for the further reduction of international tension and limitation of the arms race [A/5827], Our proposals have been drafted to take into account the views expressed by a number of States in negotiations both within the Eighteen-Nation Committee and outside it. We trust the General Assembly will give thorough consideration to these proposals.
64. In submitting this memorandum, the Soviet Government is acting on the assumption that real possibilities exist for carrying out a number of partial measures on an agreed basis. lt proposes going further in the direction of reducing the military budgets of the great Powers and the strength of foreign military forces stationed in Europe. As is known, something has already been done in this respect.
65. The slowing down of the arms race is the purpose of the proposals, contained in the Soviet memorandum, for the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons, the prevention of their further spread, the establishment of denuclearized zones in various parts of the world, the inclusion of underground explosions in the ban on weapons testing, and the elimination of one at least of the vehicles for delivering nuclear weapons, namely, bomber aircraft. There is now also urgent need to dismantle foreign bases in alien territories, to conclude a non-aggression pact between the NATO States and the Warsaw Treaty States, and to adopt certain other practical measures.
66. The Soviet Government supports the proposal by the Polish People's Republic for the freezing of nuclear armaments in Central Europe.
67. Various proposals are being put forward as to which forum is most suitable for disarmament negotiations and what aspects of the problem should be given priority in the immediate future. In the view of the Soviet Government, the present situation calls for the convening of a world conference on disarmament with the participation of all the countries of the world, as proposed by the Cairo Conference of non-aligned countries. The proposal by the Government of the People's Republic of China to convene a conference of world Heads of State to discuss the complete prohibition and complete destruction of nuclear weapons, and to reach agreement on the renunciation by States of the use of such weapons as a first step, deserves positive consideration. This coincides with what the Soviet Government, too, has repeatedly proposed.
68. The Soviet Government is prepared to participate in further discussions, in any forum and at any level including the highest, of the problems of general and complete disarmament, the prohibition and destruction of nuclear weapons, and measures for limiting the arms race.
69. All those who have spoken from this rostrum have ascribed due importance to the task of disarmament and the search for ways to bring about a further reduction of international tension. The representatives of Powers whose activities outside the United Nations follow entirely different direction are no exception in this respect. It is surely no secret to anyone that, as the current session of the General Assembly drew near, efforts to set up, in one form or another, a so-called NATO multilateral nuclear force became more and more intensive.
70. The picture is strange. On the one hand, the representatives of some leading NATO Powers try to convince everyone that they are opposed to making nuclear weapons available to other States and that they would like to reach agreement to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. On the other hand they say that they cannot resist the demands of some of their allies who are clamouring for nuclear weapons, or, at least, for access to them. However, since it is on a NATO bloc basis that a new group of countries is being given access to nuclear weapons, they maintain that this in no way amounts to the spread of nuclear weapons.
71. But do the authors themselves believe that their arguments are convincing and logical? It looks as if, for the sake of appearances, they have agreed to keep the front door of the NATO nuclear club closed, but at the same time are ready to open wide the back door to some of their allies.
72. It is difficult to avoid the impression that some sort of performance is being played out before everyone's eyes. One character says to another: "You have nuclear weapons; share them with me or else you'll be sorry — I'll start making my own." Another character looks at the audience and tries to calm them by saying that there is no other solution except to yield to the demands of the first. Both of them, however, make no mention of the fact that the text of their dialogue was written beforehand and that the entire performance was necessary in order to persuade and reassure the credulous. The final scene of the play has not yet been written. It may turn out to be different from what the two characters mentioned imagine.
73. Let us unite in saying that no one should make nuclear weapons available to anyone else and that no one should accept them from anyone else, including those provided through military alliances. Otherwise, nuclear weapons will spread all over the world and, as they do so, the threat to peace will grow in geometrical progression.
74. It may seem to some that the military measures planned by certain NATO countries are a purely European and even West European affair, and that the farther a country is situated from Europe the more secure it may feel. Yes, some may think, this is undoubtedly a challenge to the Soviet people and the Poles, to Czechs and Yugoslavs, to Frenchmen and Englishmen, to Turks and Greeks, to the inhabitants of the Scandinavian countries — a challenge to all the peoples of Europe. But the creation of a multilateral nuclear force should be a cause of concern not only for Europeans. It is by no means always that the international situation can bet divided into separate parts; Europe here; Asia and Africa there; the Western Hemisphere in yet another compartment. If the situation in Europe deteriorates, the political climate of the entire planet is affected. And, vice versa, whenever the war clouds thicken in other parts of the world, Europe grows feverish also.
75. It must be clearly said that the creation of a NATO multilateral nuclear force would mean a further spread of nuclear weapons, and consequently such an action runs counter to the interests of peace. Schemes of this kind play primarily into the hands of those in the Federal Republic of Germany which are demanding a revision of European frontiers and are associating the realization of those demands with acquiring access to nuclear weapons.
76. The States Members of the United Nations must fully understand that plans for the establishment of a multilateral nuclear force constitute the major obstacle militating against an agreement to prohibit the spread of nuclear weapons, to which the Soviet Union is prepared to become a party. Everyone must surely understand that, if such an agreement is not concluded, all countries — nuclear and non-nuclear- will be the losers.
77. The revanchist claims and the ever more insistent attempts of the Federal Republic of Germany to acquire nuclear weapons impart special urgency and significance to the problem of ensuring European security and achieving a German peace settlement, a problem whose solution is being constantly sought by the Soviet Union.
78. History has known three German Reichs which in one way or another followed the same policy of militarism and expansionism. The Third — Hitlerite — Reich brought untold misery to the peoples of the world, particularly those of Europe, and ended in utter catastrophe. The German Reich no longer exists. No matter how often fingers are traced over a 1937 map of Germany, the mirage which still befogs the minds of some people on the Rhine will not materialize either into "Reich number three and a half" or into "Reich number four".
79. There are two German States, the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic; and it is the latter which pursues a policy dictated by a feeling of responsibility for the strengthening of peace in Central Europe. It is this obvious fact which must be the starting-point for all attempts to ensure European security and to find a solution for the problems of a German peace settlement.
80. To this day, some people are busy fomenting hatred and estrangement between the two German States and seeking to impede agreement and cooperation even where there are, in fact, no controversial issues. Indeed, the very facts of life call for normal relations between the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany, in the interests both of their national affairs and of a relaxation of tension and the strengthening of peace. These goals would also be served by the admission of the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany to full membership of the United Nations — a step which, in our view, has long been necessary.
81. The people of the Soviet Union know that the Citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany also want to live in peace. And our country is ready to develop normal, good-neighbourly relations with the Federal Republic of Germany. When the Soviet Union raises the question of ensuring European security and bringing about a German peace settlement, it has in mind not something directed against the Federal Republic of Germany, but action which would serve the vital interests of both our countries, as well as those of all the other States which are not unaffected by how the situation in Central Europe develops.
82. In condemning the plans for the establishment of a NATO multilateral nuclear force, the Soviet Union states quite frankly that the realization of those plans will make the unification of Germany still more difficult. Those who are really concerned about the unification of Germany, and do not merely pay elaborate lip-service to it, must understand that the creation of multilateral nuclear forces would be a further obstacle to achieving rapprochement and agreement between the two German States. In short, a NATO multilateral nuclear force and the cause of German unification are incompatible.
83. Much is expected from the present session of the General Assembly by the peoples of newly independent States and by those of colonial countries which are striving for the complete elimination of colonialism in whatever form it manifests itself. Of course, there are in this hall representatives of States who do not like to deal with this problem. They may say: Why should we return time and again to this problem, since the United Nations has already adopted the well-known Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples [resolution 1514 (XV)]? No, one cannot conceal the fact that the question of liberation of the peoples is far from settled, that millions of people and dozens of territories remain under foreign domination and that such a shameful vestige of colonialism as apartheid has not yet been eradicated.
84. The Soviet Union is consistent in its support for the struggle of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America for the right freely to determine their own destiny. It unequivocally associates itself with the demand for the elimination of colonialism and neocolonialism put forward by the Second Conference of Non-Aligned Countries at Cairo; it does so because this demand is one which has been made by the Soviet State since the time of the great Lenin.
85. The abrogation of inequitable treaties imposed by the former parent States on a number of young countries, the dismantling of foreign military bases on their territory, the cessation of all foreign interference in the political and economic life of these countries — all these are legitimate and just demands which must be satisfied without delay. One can dam the flow of mighty rivers, one can tame the enormous power of the atom, but one cannot curb the energy of the peoples in their march towards freedom, independence and social progress.
86. The year 1965 must become the year in which all colonial regimes are eliminated, down to the very last one. It would be well if the next session of the General Assembly — a jubilee session — were marked by the completion of this great historic process.
87. In the Caribbean area and in South-East Asia, in the Congo and in Cyprus, there live peoples that speak different languages and that are at different levels of social development, but that find themselves threatened by one and the same danger: interference in the internal affairs of these countries and peoples by those who have not yet renounced the policy of diktat and domination. The Cairo Conference of Non- Aligned Countries quite rightly included the following in its decisions: "Economic pressure and domination, interference, racial discrimination, subversion, intervention and the threat of force are neo-colonialist devices against which the newly-independent nations have to defend themselves. The Conference condemns all colonialist, neo-colonialist and imperialist policies applied in various parts of the world."
88. How true these words! Beneath them are the signatures of almost fifty States of Africa, Asia and Latin America, to which we are ready to add our own.
89. The Soviet Union emphatically condemns the constant provocations against the Republic of Cuba, and we are convinced that many States represented in this hall share these feelings. The collusion which was engineered under notorious pressure in the Organization of American States in connexion with Cuba violates international standards and the United Nations Charter. Indeed, the decision taken at the session of the Organization of American States at Washington even contains military threats against Cuba. Is this anything but an expression of aggressive policies against a small sovereign State? The measures of economic blockade against Cuba are also incompatible with the principles of the United Nations, as clearly emerges from the decisions of the World Conference on Trade and Development recently held at Geneva. The Republic of Cuba is a full-fledged Member of the United Nations, and the United Nations should raise its voice in defence of Cuba’s sovereign rights. We cannot overlook the attempt by a major Power of the Western Hemisphere to disregard the commitments which it has itself assumed under the United Nations Charter.
90. The Soviet Government has frequently expressed its complete solidarity with and firm support for the Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Cuba and its people, and has repeatedly called for measures to normalize the situation in the Caribbean; its declarations in support of Cuba remain valid.
91. Recently the world witnessed dangerous acts of provocation in the Gulf of Tonkin. A few days ago, United States military aircraft and ships again raided and bombarded the territory of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam. These aggressive actions arouse indignation. The Soviet Union condemns them, and gives warning that it cannot remain indifferent to the fate of a fraternal socialist country and is prepared to provide it with all necessary assistance. Those who resort to such actions should know that they are starting a dangerous game.
92. The Soviet Union deems it necessary to emphasize that the armed intervention of the United States of America in the affairs of South Viet-Nam with a view to suppressing the national liberation struggle of the people of South Viet-Nam, and the plans — of which rumours have been heard—to expand the military conflict in South Viet-Nam, are fraught with grave threats to the preservation of peace throughout South-East Asia — and not only there.
93. If we add to this attempts to undermine the Geneva Agreements on Laos, the constant violations of the frontier and sovereignty of Cambodia, the miserable colonialist intrigues in connexion with the establishment of Malaysia, then it becomes even clearer how much inflammable material has accumulated in that part of the world through the fault of those for whom the United Nations Charter and the rights of peoples are inapplicable when they run counter to the policy of colonial domination and the extraction of the wealth of others.
94. It is difficult to imagine a more flagrant form of interference in the internal affairs of an independent State than the combined action of the colonizers in the Congo, which was carried out by Belgian paratroopers taken to Stanleyville in American military transport aircraft from British-controlled Ascension Island. We may be sure, however, that the people of the Congo has not yet said its final word and that it will defend its right to freedom and independence from those who, in their death grip, are clinging to the copper, diamonds, cobalt and uranium that are the property of the Congolese people.
95. The Soviet Government expresses its full sympathy with the efforts of the African States to put an end to military and any other intervention by the colonizers in the affairs of the Congo and to bring about the immediate withdrawal from the Congo of all foreign military personnel, including mercenaries, who even now are massacring Congolese patriots.
96. One need not have particularly keen insight to understand that, if the national movement in the Congo were crushed, the colonialist coalition would be encouraged to embark on shady enterprises against other African States and their recently won freedom and independence. In order to thwart such provocations, the solidarity of States and peoples struggling against imperialism mid colonialism must be strengthened.
97. The Soviet Union supports the Republic of Cyprus in its defence of its independence and territorial integrity. The question of Cyprus cannot be resolved except on the basis of preserving the independence and territorial integrity and respecting the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus, and of safeguarding the lawful rights of the two ethnic communities in Cyprus.
98. Guided by its policy of peaceful coexistence, the Soviet Government deems it necessary to draw the attention of the World's States to the fact that territorial disputes are one of the sources of international complications and friction [A/5751]. Territorial claims and border disputes between States differ, of course, in their nature. One must not confuse the question of territorial disputes between sovereign States with the right of countries and peoples to struggle for their freedom and independence, for the final liberation of their territories from the colonial yoke or from foreign occupation. But in respect of territorial disputes between sovereign States there can be no two opinions, provided, of course, that the interest of preserving peace is regarded as paramount: all such questions, as well as any other disputes between States, should be resolved not by force of arms but solely by peaceful means.
99. It has been, and remains, the unswerving desire of the Soviet Union to strengthen the United Nations and to enhance its role in international affairs. We attach great importance to the United Nations at the time when it had just been created and when memories of the failure of the League of Nations were still fresh in people's minds. Together with the other founder Members of the United Nations, we desired the proper conclusions to be drawn from the sad experience of its predecessor. Can it be said that the United Nations has always been equal to the tasks laid down by its Charter? No, it cannot. By no means everything is running smoothly in the United Nations.
100. Thus at present, in the general debate and behind the scenes in the Assembly, there is a great deal of verbal sword-play about a subject whose great and fundamental significance no one, of course, will dispute. I refer, it is hardly necessary to say, to the United Nations armed forces and everything connected with that matter. On what basis should United Nations peace-keeping forces be formed? Who is to make the final decision about their use? What complexion will their Command take? The questions on this subject multiply, and the answers multiply even more.
101. It looks as if someone were reasoning like this: Let us vote in favour of the United Nations armed forces acting in circumvention of the Security Council. There is nothing simpler: just press the green button of the new voting machine installed this year in the General Assembly hall, and then let us see what will be the outcome of this violation of the Charter; perhaps we may get away with it. It may be easy to yield to pressure or to the temptation to play with a voting machine. But a country will, as a result, inevitably find itself in a difficult position where its own security is at stake and where, as has happened more than once in the past, it has to seek help and support from those who are now defending the United Nations Charter, the only reliable basis for the Organization's activities and entire structure.
102. We are firmly convinced that co-operation between States in the United Nations should not be determined by momentary considerations which may encourage premature decisions, prevent thorough consideration of the future aspects of a problem, and produce combinations prejudicial to the vital interests of the Organization. No; such co-operation can be based only on factors of lasting importance, and must be in line with the high principles and aims in the name of which the United Nations was established.
103. The Soviet Government is against any State or small group of States regarding the United Nations as, so to speak, its subsidiary. We are convinced that the overwhelming majority of States Members of the United Nations concurs in our view. The feeling of responsibility for the fate of this Organization, and comprehension of the importance of the cause for which it was established, are growing, as is the national consciousness of the States — including the newly-liberated countries — which every year swell the ranks of the United Nations. This is a good sign.
104. As for the Soviet Union, it supports the idea that the United Nations should work with greater efficiency for the good of the world. The Soviet Government's proposals for the strengthening of the United Nations are well known. We have brought them to the attention of all States Members of the Organization. It seems to us that if we approach the activities and tasks of the United Nations — including the conduct and financing of operations to preserve international peace and security in accordance with the Charter — as the Soviet Union proposes, many difficulties which the Organization has had to face in the past would disappear. We take a firm stand on this position, not because the Soviet Union seeks any special advantages for itself, but because we regard the United Nations as a collective instrument for the maintenance of international peace and we wish it to be effective and authoritative.
105. The situation in which the People's Republic of China has so far been deprived of its lawful rights in the United Nations while its seat is occupied by the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek is abnormal and contrary to the interests of peace. The Soviet Union firmly and resolutely advocates the immediate restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations, and opposes any attempt to force through the concept of "two Chinas"; we favour the expulsion of the Chiang Kai-shek representatives from the United Nations. There is only one China — the People's Republic of China. The island of Taiwan, which is an inalienable part of China, must be returned to the People's Republic of China.
106. The improvement of the international situation and the development of relations between States generally go hand in hand with a revival of trade and all other economic ties. A conspicuous feature of 1964 has been the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. It is important to consolidate the positive results of the work of that Conference.
107. Any changes for the better in the international situation naturally depend not only on whether success has been achieved in resolving international, problems which affect many countries, but also on how direct relations between States, and especially between major Powers, develop.
108. If we turn our attention, say, to the relations between the Soviet Union and the United States of America — countries which stand at opposite poles of social development — there too, in our opinion, we have sufficiently broad fields for co-operation. The joint adoption of measures to avert the threat of war; the expansion of trade relations; the peaceful conquest of outer space; the exchange of scientific, technical and cultural achievements — in each of these fields many untapped possibilities still exist.
109. True, we also have forms of relations with the United States about which we might say that it will be better if we never have to put them to use. For example, the direct line of communications between Moscow and Washington for quick contact in the event of an international crisis is kept in constant operational readiness. To verify that the line is in good working order, the Soviet operators frequently transmit extracts from A Sportsman's Sketches by the well-known Russian writer I. S. Turgenev. It is said that these texts have aroused among the American operators great interest in classical Russian literature. The Americans from time to time transmit the results of baseball games. Well, this is also a form of cultural exchange. The line has never been used for its real purpose. Probably nobody will object if this is always so.
110. The Soviet Government is ready to develop in every way its relations with all countries which, in turn, seek to do the same. This applies to countries, among others, such as major Powers, like France, the United Kingdom, Italy and Japan. It applies to States which are neighbours of the Soviet Union and with which we have every possibility of living in harmony and developing mutually beneficial co-operation. It applies to any State, large or small, whether it is far from or near to our country.
111. The Soviet Union's policy in international affairs is consistent and clear. It is a policy of ensuring peaceful conditions for the building of socialism and communism in our country, of strengthening the unity and solidarity of the socialist countries, and the friendship and brotherly ties between them. It is a policy of support for national liberation movements, of the development in every possible way of solidarity and co-operation with the independent states of Asia, Africa and Latin America. It is a policy of affirming the principles of peaceful coexistence with countries having a different social system, of saving mankind from the threat of a world war. The Soviet Government holds to its well-tested policy in all the complexities and changes of international life, since it stems from the very nature of the Soviet socialist State.
112. Of course, so long as the arms race unfortunately continues and so long as actions are taken which endanger the preservation of peace, our country must see to the strengthening of its own security. We shall be able to repel encroachment on the socialist countries and on our friends and allies, and to stand up for our common cause, for the ideals of socialism, freedom and progress. Any aggressor will meet with our monolithic strength.
113. From representatives of more aggressively-minded circles in certain countries we sometimes hear appeals not to hold back from extreme measures, even to the extent of bombing of foreign territories, the landing of troops, and so on. They assert that this is a true reflection of "resoluteness" and "firmness". But in politics these qualities have nothing in common with the bravado of a duellist waiting for the opponent to falter. In the world of today — at the present stage of development of military technology - genuine resoluteness, firmness and courage are not measured by Philistine standards. Whoever is ready to plunge headlong into the abyss, carrying others with him, shows not resoluteness but irresponsibility and short-sightedness. Firmness is shown, not by him who pins his hopes on threats and sabre-rattling, but by him who firmly and confidently pursues a policy of averting war and does not allow himself to be diverted from this course. Genuine courage in politics, as opposed to a pretence of courage, is the ability to weigh one's actions and their possible consequences coolly; it consists in having the presence of mind and the will to resist and repel those who, under cover of talk about firmness, resoluteness and courage, advocate reckless ventures.
114. The last year and a half has been marked by a certain easing of international tension. It would probably be correct to say that the inertia which until recently held back any initiative towards normalizing international relations has now to some extent been overcome. A number of cases have justified the method which has been called the policy of mutual example, whereby States do not conclude formal agreements but take the necessary measures simultaneously on the basis of mutual understanding, looking each other, as it were, in the face.
115. But probably all will agree that what has been achieved has led us only to the beginning of the road. We must make further progress, in order to save the world from the dangers created by the arms race, by foreign intervention in the internal affairs of a number of countries and peoples, and by the remaining tension in the relations between dozens of States. In any case, this is only a stage on the long road, a sure guide to which, for our policies, is constituted by the historic propositions proclaimed oy the Twentieth and Twenty-second Congresses of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union — namely, that there is no longer any fatal inevitability of world war and that the present generation is capable of averting a thermonuclear war, of preventing it from breaking out.
116. We know full well that forces are at work in the world — and very influential forces — which persistently cultivate the idea that the peoples are unable to resolve the international problems crucial to the maintenance of peace, and which seek to hypnotize the peoples with their pessimism. Who does not remember, for example, the state of prostration which overcame certain circles in the West during the years immediately preceding the outbreak of the Second World War and, more especially, during the initial period of the war, when Hitler seemed to be going from success to success? At that time those circles watched the avalanche of Hitler's divisions and air armada as a sparrow watches a boa constrictor, and lamented that there was nothing to be done. But when the Soviet Army, supported by the might of our entire people, ground down Hitler's invading hordes in fire and metal, it became clear to all that the critical point had been passed and that the day of the anti-Hitler coalition's great victory over the forces of fascism was inevitably drawing near.
117. We mention this because even now we frequently encounter similar views. However hard one struggles to solve important international problems, however much one appeals to the interests of peace and the interests of peoples — nothing will come of it, say the proponents of this fatalistic philosophy which is designed to disarm the peoples ideologically, politically and morally.
118. Translated into practical terms, this philosophy means that, if today tens of thousands of millions of dollars, roubles, pounds sterling, francs and marks are diverted from peaceful needs to military purposes, even more will be so diverted tomorrow; if today no foundations have been built for a lasting peace, they will not be built tomorrow either. But there is a great danger in such an approach to the conduct of international affairs. It serves only the interests of the enemies of peace.
119. The Soviet Government categorically rejects it, and will continue its unremitting struggle against any attempts to undermine the peoples' confidence in their own strength and to deprive them of their hope for the normalization of the international situation and for the strengthening of peace. It has indeed happened before, and may happen again, that the main obstacle to the settlement of urgent international problems proves to be, not the difficulty actually inherent in these problems, but the artificially cultivated disbelief in the possibility of reaching an agreement and resolving them. We are convinced, however, that there are no international problems which are insoluble; their situation is not impossible, although it may be complicated. Such problems include disarmament, the question of ensuring security in Europe and a German peace settlement, the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, the withdrawal of foreign troops from national territories, the abolition of foreign military bases, and the conclusion of a non-aggression pact between the NATO countries and the countries of the Warsaw Treaty.
120. The policy of the peaceful coexistence between States having different social systems serves not only the interests of the Soviet Union but also, the Soviet Government is firmly convinced, the interests of all other countries. This policy may not offer simple and easy solutions to international problems; but it is the only one which can produce solutions that are genuine and reliable, the only one which can serve as a basis for a truly lasting peace.
121. I would express the hope that the nineteenth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations will, by its productive work, facilitate further progress in the development of international co-operation, in the defence of the inalienable rights of peoples, and in the strengthening of peace throughout the world.