79. First of all, Comrade President, 1 should like to take this opportunity to congratulate you most warmly as the first representative of a socialist country to be elected to the high post of President of the United Nations General Assembly. I should like to express my conviction that your experience and tact, which are valuable assets to any politician, will have a beneficial effect on the work of the twenty-second session of the General Assembly. I should also like to pay a. tribute to the endeavours and skill of the President of the preceding three sessions of the General Assembly, Mr. Pazhwak, the representative of Afghanistan.
80. Sessions of the United Nations General Assembly are always an event in international affairs. However, they are not of equal importance in the implementation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Some have been marked by the adoption of weighty resolutions strengthening international security and protecting the rights of peoples. Others have left no discernible trace. Acts of aggression and of interference in the domestic affairs of States, which have lately become more frequent, and for several outstanding international issues which still await solution, confront the twenty-second session of the General Assembly with tasks that are both formidable and responsible.
81. For the peoples of the Soviet Union, and for all those who feel sympathy or friendship for our country and who correctly assess its role in the international arena, this session is of special significance in that the fiftieth anniversary of the Soviet State is to be celebrated on 7 November of this year. I mention this here not only because we have a great celebration, but because the event that took place in our country fifty years ago has been exercising a tremendous influence on the entire course of world affairs.
82. If the United Nations Charter speaks of the determination of the peoples of the United Nations to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, if the idea that another world war can be prevented is penetrating the minds of millions of people and prompting them towards action, and if the principles of the equality of all States and of non-interference in their internal affairs are today recognized as rules of international intercourse, the starting-point for these historic gains of the peoples was provided back when, a few hours after the October Revolution, the second All-Russian Congress of Soviets voted in Lenin's Decree on Peace.
83. That historic document defined as annexation or seizure of foreign lands "the incorporation into a large and powerful State of a small or feeble nation without the definitely, clearly and voluntarily expressed consent and wish of that nation, irrespective of the time such forcible incorporation took place, irrespective of the degree of development or backwardness of the nation forcibly annexed to, or forcibly retained within the frontiers of the given State and, finally, irrespective of whether the nation inhabits Europe or distant, overseas countries".
84. We read those words from the Decree on Peace today and we feel the breath of an entire era, brimming with profound transformations and bitter clashes with foreign enslavers, from the Nazi aggressors to the present-day colonialists, and we are brought face to face with the ideological origins of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
85. We accept as something that goes without saying that verbatim records are published of the meetings of the General Assembly and that radio and television broadcasts emanate directly from this hall. The same questions that appear on the agenda of the United Nations are debated in parliaments and are discussed at conferences and meetings of political parties, trade unions and public organizations and in the press.
86. But today's absence of secrecy in diplomatic actions and the ever-broadening participation of the masses in the solution of problems of war and peace also have their origins in the October Revolution. The very first foreign policy acts of the Soviet regime contained a new form of address; they were addressed not only to Governments, but also to the peoples. And it is from that time onward that the voice of the peoples has been heard with increasing clarity and has spoken with increasing firmness at the international conference tables.
87. The crucial foreign policy issue that confronted our country immediately after the victory of the Socialist Revolution was how it could and should establish relations with all the other States of the world which had an opposing social and economic system. The reply to this question was provided by V. I. Lenin and by our Communist Party — a reply whose perspicacity has been corroborated by the experience of half a century. It was: on the basis of peaceful coexistence.
88. In the face of attempts to misrepresent the premises of communist philosophy we repeat what we have said before: that the more progressive social system asserts its superiority over the system that is on its way out by revealing the opportunities vested in its economic system, by an increasingly full satisfaction of man's material and spiritual needs, by the genuine implementation of human rights and by the nobility and fairness of its ideals. To accomplish this, it needs not wars but the requisite conditions for the peaceful construction of socialism and communism.
89. Does not experience show that it is possible to improve relations between States with differing social systems if those States are really concerned with removing all obstacles to the improvement of relations and if they seek ways of bringing this about?
90. There is, however, one essential condition without which peaceful coexistence would become a farce, and this is that the principles of peaceful coexistence must be applied in equal measure to all States, large and small, in all regions of the world. Attempts to make arbitrary use of these principles and to restrict their application to the chosen few will go on meeting determined and vigorous opposition on the part of the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries.
91. The United Nations, which was established on the basis of the principles of peaceful coexistence of States with different social systems and which reaffirmed those principles in a number of resolutions, must say firmly to all those who have placed their signature under its Charter; You reserve the right to settle independently all the problems of your own country — therefore be good enough to recognize that right for others, too; you are counting on respect for your sovereignty and territorial integrity — therefore respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all other countries and peoples. Unless an end is put to acts of aggression, unless each nation is given freedom in the choice of a social system and a form of government, unless there is genuine recognition of the equality of all States and strict observance of international legality, there is and there can be no enduring peace or security for the peoples.
92. The most serious threat to peace today is the United States aggression in Viet-Nam, which has sharply aggravated the entire international situation and is impeding a solution of paramount international problems.
93. Gross violations of international agreements, the flouting of elementary rules of international law, disregard for world public opinion — all these manifestations of the policy of international brigandage are to be found in concentrated form in the actions of the United States in Viet-Nam.
94. The half-million strong army of the occupationists is trampling over the soil of South Viet-Nam and hundreds of United States bombers make regular raids on the territory of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam. Taking part in the intervention against the Viet-Namese people are such allies of the United States as Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, South Korea and the Philippines. The aggressors are extending hostilities to Laos and carrying out provocations against Cambodia.
95. The war in Viet-Nam is being fought on the largest scale of any war since 1945. Its danger lies not only in the scope and intensity of hostilities but also in that the fighting can at any moment spread to other areas and draw other States into its orbit, In vain does Washington attempt to delude the public by making soothing statements. To do so means to tell a falsehood and to close one's eyes to the real danger to which the war in Viet-Nam exposes the entire world.
96. Attempts are made from time to time on the United States side to imply that the United States was not averse from making a "peace initiative" in Viet- Nam. In such cases the press is appropriately tuned up and Washington's emissaries begin touring certain capitals, while backstage meetings and talks are held in the United Nations, although the latter has nothing to do with the solution of the Viet-Nam problem. But each time such an "initiative" turns out to be a soap bubble intended now for domestic, now for foreign consumption.
97. What was the reply of the United States Government to the statement made on 28 January 1967 by the Government of the Democratic Republic of Viet- Nam that it was ready to begin negotiations on a settlement of the Viet-Namese problem once the United States stopped the bombings of the territory of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam and other aggressive acts? The reply was barbarous bombings of residential areas in Viet-Namese cities, the destruction of dams and irrigation systems and air raids on hospitals in the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, and the build-up of United States forces in South Viet-Nam.
98. Yesterday the General Assembly once again heard an exposition of the United States position on the Viet-Nam question [1562nd meeting], and once again it became obvious that it contained nothing new: those whose armed forces have invaded Viet-Nam have no intention of leaving, and even an end to the bombing of the territory of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam is, as hitherto, made contingent upon demands which are virtually ultimatums.
99. Every State which really seeks to bring about an end to the war against the Viet-Namese people should be clearly aware of the fact that peace can be brought about in Viet-Nam only if the aggressors withdraw. Attempts to excuse the aggressor, halfhearted censures and whispered exhortations merely increase the temptation to seek a way out of the predicament in ever more reckless and dangerous escapades.
100. That is why it is so important that everywhere in the world, including the rostrum of the General Assembly at its twenty-second session, condemnation of the United States aggression in Viet-Nam should ring out loudly and that the peoples, including the people of the United States, should see that a wall of moral and political isolation is rising around the aggressor.
101. Every decent man in the world and, first and foremost, every man in public life, must, if he is honest with himself, admit that the Americans have come with weapons in hand to a distant foreign land and are attempting, by force of arms, to impose an order that suits certain quarters in the United States; that they are trying to drown in blood the unquenchable desire of the Viet-Namese people to be independent and free. The farce of elections that is enacted at the bidding of United States generals and envoys in South Viet-Nam merely make still plainer the criminal designs of those who unleashed the Viet-Namese war. All this must be condemned, and condemned decisively.
102. The Soviet Union, together with other socialist countries, renders and will go on rendering the fraternal people of Viet-Nam the increasing support and diverse assistance necessary to repel the aggression. The Soviet Union fully supports the position of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam and the Programme of the National Liberation Front of South Viet-Nam (the only genuine representative of the South Viet-Namese people) which are in conformity with the Geneva Agreements and constitute a just basis for the settlement of the Viet-Namese question. The people of Viet-Nam are fighting for their freedom and independence; they are fighting heroically and we are convinced that their just cause will triumph.
103. This is not the first time that the General Assembly has been convened this year. This same hall has been a meeting place for the emergency special session which discussed questions arising out of the aggression by Israel, encouraged by the larger Powers backing it, against the Arab States, These questions continue to face the world today.
104. Israel is still occupying sizeable territories of the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan, where it is installing an occupation administration. Its troops are deployed along the eastern bank of the Suez Canal and the Canal itself is out of action. Many thousands of Arab refugees have been driven from their lands. The danger that war may again break out remains.
105. Can a solution be found to the problem of eliminating the consequences of Israel's aggression? Undoubtedly it can, and the United Nations has a part to play in finding it. Owing to the stand taken by those countries which encourage the policy of conquest, first and foremost the United States, the emergency special session of the General Assembly failed to solve the problem of eliminating the consequences of Israel's aggression, and above all, the withdrawal of Israel forces from the Arab territories seized by them. But it is well known that the overwhelming majority of States in one form or another condemned the aggressor's actions and defended the rights of the Arab States, The Soviet Union is in sympathy with the initiatives and efforts undertaken of late, notably in the capitals of Arab States, aimed at eliminating the aftermath of the Israel aggression.
106. While condemning that aggression, the Soviet Union sees the solution of the question in promptly securing the withdrawal of Israel's forces behind the lines they occupied prior to 5 June 1967. Further, the Arab States — the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan — must be compensated for the material damage inflicted upon them by Israel's aggression and by the continuing occupation of parts of their territory. Israel must comply with the United Nations decisions on Jerusalem [resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V)], otherwise the Security Council will have to take a decision on sanctions against it. The Soviet Union will be ready to participate in the implementation of such a decision.
107. There are other questions, too, which in one way or another relate to the situation in the Middle East. The Soviet Union is in favour of all the States of this region, directly contiguous on the southern boundaries of our country, being guaranteed peace and security. It is impossible, however, to move in this direction until the first step has been taken, and that is to free Arab lands from the forces of the Israel aggressors.
108. Israel's attack on the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan gives added urgency to the question of the attitude to be adopted by the United Nations towards the policy of aggression: should the United Nations allow the invaders to use the occupied territories as a political bargaining point and thereby reward them for their crime, or should it demand the immediate withdrawal of the invading forces? To curb the aggressor or to condone the aggression- such is the choice with which the logic of events has confronted the States Members of the United Nations.
109. The Soviet Union is prepared to do its utmost at the General Assembly and in the Security Council to bring about the prompt elimination of the consequences of Israel's aggression — a requirement that is profoundly just and in accord with the interests of peace in the Middle East.
110. Among the geographical names mentioned in connexion with armed clashes in various parts of the world there are none today from the European continent. Does this mean that the current situation in Europe offers grounds for complacency?
111. Most of the Members of the United Nations are non-European States. Yet, they too cannot fail to be concerned over the problem of Europe, where both world wars began. No country, even far away from Europe, can divorce the concerns of the European peoples from its own, or from the common concern for international security. That would be a great mistake — a statement as indisputable today as it was in the past.
112. Demands for a recarving of the political map of Europe are being advanced again, as if there had not been a Second "World War or a victory of the anti- Hitler coalition over Nazi Germany.
113. No sooner is a responsible statement about the realities of present-day Europe or about the inviolability of its present boundaries made in Moscow, Paris, Warsaw or Berlin, than a revanchist witches, sabbath takes place in West Germany. No sooner does any State, including a non-European one, give some indication of adopting a realistic attitude to the fact of the existence of two German States — the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany — than Bonn resorts to every means of political blackmail and economic pressure to bolster its absurd claims to represent "the whole of Germany".
114. In the memory of the peoples, Munich has become a symbol of criminal collusion with an aggressor and with the rape of the Czechoslovak people; yet Bonn continues to cling to the Munich Agreement, refusing to recognize that it was void from the outset.
115. Even many of the allies of the Federal Republic of Germany in the NATO military bloc do not support its absurd claims to West Berlin. Yet Bonn continues to advance those claims.
116. Finally, the legitimate concern of the peoples, particularly those which suffered from Nazi aggression, is aroused by the attempts of revanchist quarters in the Federal Republic of Germany to gain access to nuclear weapons.
117. If I were to characterize briefly the Federal Republic's policy, I would say that it is a policy that has both feet firmly planted in the past. One foot rests on the platform of "Germany with its 1937 boundaries" — that is to say, a Germany that is no more and will never be again; the other rests on the defeated designs and doctrines of the "cold war". And, despite the juggling with ostensibly peaceful phraseology, this policy is unable to shift towards recognition of the true situation in Europe today.
118. The danger of the revanchist policy of the Federal Republic of Germany is aggravated by the support it receives from the United States of America, which is becoming even more closely and openly allied with the Federal Republic of Germany in the international arena, although a mere quarter of a century ago the United States, in a coalition with the Soviet Union and other European States, was waging a struggle against German militarism, on whose predatory and revanchist plans the leading circles of West Germany are increasingly patterning their own policies.
119. Like many other European States, the Soviet Union is convinced that it is possible to have a Europe in which security for any one State or people would at the same time mean security for all. This conviction of ours is borne out by the growing trends towards friendlier relations between the East and West of that continent and towards the development of mutually advantageous co-operation among European States in various fields. The specific proposals to that effect submitted by the Soviet Union and the European socialist countries are well known.
120. The USSR Government has already drawn the General Assembly's attention to the dangers inherent in the division of the world into opposing military- political groupings of States. Repeated statements to this effect have been made jointly by the States members of the Warsaw Treaty. A similar statement was made at the Conference of European Communist and Workers' Parties held at Karlovy Vary in April 1967.
121. These apprehensions are rapidly mounting because of the fact that the Power that plays the leading role in NATO has unleashed a war against the Viet-Namese people, is protecting the aggressor in the Middle East and has strewn its military bases practically all over the world.
122. There would be a noticeable abatement in international tension if military blocs were dissolved. These blocs are not an invention of ours. The Soviet Union and other socialist countries are proposing the simultaneous disbanding of the North Atlantic Alliance and the defensive Warsaw Treaty concluded to counterbalance it, or else, as a first step, an agreement to dissolve the military organizations of both alliances.
123. The entire course of international development indicates that the greatest danger to the cause of peace today is to be found in the increasingly frequent acts of armed aggression against sovereign States, in the bombing and seizure of their territory, in attempts to suppress the national liberation movements by armed force, and in calls for retaliation. It is the direct duty of the United Nations to curb the policy of aggression wherever and however it may manifest itself.
124. How feasible is this task? Comparisons are sometimes drawn between the thirties and the sixties of this century. The argument runs approximately as follows: at that time the aggressive forces directed the course of events, from aggression against Ethiopia and the Anschluss of Austria to the dismemberment and occupation of Czechoslovakia, from the conquest of Manchuria to the Invasion of Northern and Central China. That is how the Second World War crept up on the nations.
125. Today the balance of power in the world is different. Today the main line of world events is increasingly determined by the policy of peace and of repelling aggression. To continue to ward off another world war, as well as to paralyse the forces of aggression and militarism in their attempts to achieve their goals through local wars, requires still greater cohesion and solidarity among all peace-loving States and all groups and movements upholding the cause of peace, and still greater action on their part in the International arena.
126. Even before the outbreak of the Second World War the Soviet Union sought to organize a collective effort to repel aggression. In those years our country rose unhesitatingly on more than one occasion in defence of the victims of aggression and demonstrated by its deeds its abhorrence of the policy of conquest and enslavement. The Soviet Union proposed that the Powers capable of resisting the Nazi aggressors should set up a mighty barrier to their predatory plans and unite their efforts to deal a rebuff to Hitler and his allies and to prevent the impending war. We believed even then that the struggle against aggressive designs would be facilitated by the elaboration in international law of a precise definition of aggression, and we pressed for this. But the Governments then in power in a number of Western nations, having decided on collusion with Hitler and Mussolini, frustrated the elaboration of such a definition.
127. The representatives of those nations at international conferences displayed exceptional ingenuity in inventing every conceivable loophole so as to evade a clear-cut definition of what is aggression and what is defence against aggression. Even when tanks marked with swastikas were already rolling over frontier markers, when the troops of the Nazi aggressors were marching through the streets of certain capitals, and when the names of independent States were beginning to vanish from the map one by one—even then there were some politicians who pretended they had not the foggiest idea of what constituted aggression, The results of that political blindness, or, to be more precise, of that deliberate policy of connivance with the forces of aggression, shall never be erased from the memory of the peoples.
128. In the present situation too, the task of defining aggression confronts us in all its magnitude. But unfortunately, for two decades now the United Nations has seemed quite unable to muster the strength to work out such a definition. If that suits anyone at all, it certainly does not suit the peace-loving States. The absence of a definition of aggression is a serious deficiency in international relations and international law. To make good that deficiency would strengthen the effectiveness of the United Nations in its efforts to prevent and stop aggression, and especially the effectiveness of the Security Council, in which is vested the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace. It would then be more difficult to hinder the branding of aggressive actions as aggressive, and of the States that undertake them as aggressors.
129. The immense experience amassed by mankind in the course of its history and the time-honoured and time-tested rules of international law allow of a precise definition of the terms aggression and aggressor.
130. If, let us say, a State or group of States, with or without a declaration of war, invades the territory of another State with its armed forces, bombs that territory or sends land, naval or air forces inside that State's territorial limits without the permission of the State's Government, or if it sets up a naval blockade of the shores or ports of another State, can there be any doubt, in any such case, as to whether this is aggression and as to who is responsible for it?
131. But if, nevertheless, anyone is still not sure whether or not certain actions constitute aggression, such uncertainties should be cleared up in advance, done away with once and for all, so that no room is left for any doubt. Fewer will then be tempted to attack other nations under cover of cunningly continued pretexts, which is the present practice.
132. It is, of course, to be expected that the forces which are not interested in strengthening peace will, as they did decades ago, obstruct the preparation of a definition of aggression and will once again resurrect the arguments that we heard in the League of Nations and, later, here in the United Nations, to the effect that it is impossible to pinpoint aggression or to draw the line between attack and defence against attack. Who knows, they may well refer once again to the ideological differences which allegedly make it impossible to reach a concerted opinion on this topic.
133. If States take an objective and honest approach to what is happening on the international scene, and they are guided by a desire for peace, there will be no problem in distinguishing between those who are trying to break into a house and the inhabitants who are defending their home regardless of the political views of the household and the assailants.
134. To take any other view would be to encourage aggression and to make common cause with those who use weapons as an argument in a clash of ideas and who are ready to shoot down an unacceptable ideology, naturally shooting down at the same time those who profess it — entire peoples, if necessary.
135. The ups and downs of the discussions on the definition of aggression are closely linked with the struggle between the various concepts and views concerning war and peace. The Soviet Union, which pursues a foreign policy based on respect for the rights of nations big and small, and which is a consistent and firm advocate of effective measures to consolidate peace, believes that the completion of work on the definition of aggression should be put off no longer.
136. It will be no exaggeration to say that, in the question of defining aggression, the United Nations is deeply indebted to the peoples of the world. I would remind the Assembly that, as far back as the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, the USSR delegation, on the instructions of its Government, introduced a proposal that in drafting the United Nations Charter the question of a definition of aggression should be decided upon at the outset, so that all States would henceforth be guided by the definition. We regret that our allies in the anti-Hitler coalition did not accept our proposal. The attitude which they then took has seriously hampered the work of the United Nations.
137. Guided by all these considerations, the USSR Government is submitting to the General Assembly at its twenty-second session the important and urgent item entitled "Need to expedite the drafting of a definition of aggression in the light of the present international situation" [A/6833].
138. We urge the States Members of the United Nations to consider that proposal in a duly responsible manner.
139. Acquisitive aims in foreign policy are alien to the Soviet Union and to the community of socialist States. Therefore, we have no need for armaments save to defend our sovereignty and territorial inviolability and the gains of the socialist system, and to protect our friends and allies and the peaceful existence of peoples. Nor are there in socialist society any social groups which would derive material advantage from an arms race.
140. That is why, ever since the 1922 Genoa Conference, at which representatives of the socialist and capitalist systems met for the first time at an international negotiation table, our country has consistently advocated general disarmament.
141. That is why, ever since nuclear weapons made their appearance, the Soviet Union has been firmly advocating their prohibition and destruction.
142. That is why we also urge the speedy implementation of such measures to curtail the arms race as the banning of all nuclear testing, the elimination of military bases in foreign territories, and the establishment of non-nuclear zones in various regions.
143. We mention this today not because, on the eve of a great jubilee, we should like once again to demonstrate that the Soviet Union's policy is peaceful and humane, We are bound to raise anew the pressing question of disarmament at this session of the General Assembly because, unless we intervene in a most determined way in the sphere of the nuclear arms race, one which poses an immense threat to the destinies of all mankind, all pledges of dedication to the ideals of peace proclaimed in the United Nations Charter will remain a dead letter.
144. Either we follow the Charter, which embodies the experience of the peoples that bore the brunt of the Second World War — in which case all States must show the highest sense of responsibility and find ways to eliminate the most destructive of all weapons, nuclear weapons — or the Governments will prove themselves incapable of taking a responsible attitude and the entire affair will, as on so many previous occasions, boil down to a repetition of solemn phrases and to the adoption of well-meaning but useless resolutions. The world has reached a stage where no State can evade this choice.
145. Of all the measures which today could contribute to a containment of the nuclear arms race, one which, in our view, is urgently called for is the conclusion of an international treaty to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. We are gratified to note that some progress has now been made towards a solution of the problem of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
146. A treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons would not only place no obstacle in the way of the peaceful use of atomic energy by non-nuclear nations; it would actually open up new prospects for them in that respect.
147. There is no doubt that not only our contemporaries but our descendants also will praise the conclusion of a treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons — if this important matter is concluded — as an act of great realism and far-sighted concern for the vital interests of the world's peoples.
148. Six years ago the United Nations adopted a resolution which declared nuclear war to be a crime against humanity — the Declaration on the prohibition of the use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons. That resolution reflected the natural desire of the overwhelming majority of States to mitigate the threat of nuclear war and to ban a force which runs counter to human nature and to humane principles. Unfortunately, however, the provisions of that Declaration have not been formalized by a treaty.
149. Why is this so? Surely all States, nuclear and non-nuclear both, and all their peoples, would stand to gain from an international undertaking never to use nuclear weapons. The vast difference between a situation in which nuclear bombs are actually marked "ready for use" or "fit for launching" and one in which prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons has become international law under a treaty is only too obvious.
150. History shows instances when certain types of weapons were not put into action because their use had been banned by international conventions or agreements. Poison gas and toxic agents which took a toll of tens of thousands of human lives in the First World War were not used in the Second World War, for by that time there existed the Geneva Protocol banning the use of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
151. Who today objects to banning the use of nuclear weapons? Is it those who are working for peace? No, only those who regard world wars as an inescapable concomitant of human existence advocate the legalization of nuclear weapons. It is they who are attempting to hypnotize people by all sorts of magic formulas, saying, for example, that it is better not even to try to ban nuclear weapons, since the question is much too serious, immeasurably complex and almost hopeless. As if it were not the contrary — the more vital the problem, and the more profoundly it perturbs the actions, the greater the need to bend every effort to solve it.
152. The peoples of the world curse war and those who, by their actions and policies, have twice plunged them into world conflict. In Europe there is probably not a single yard where the bones of the slain are not mouldering, and where the soil is not soaked in the blood of the war dead. Armies numbered in millions have time and time again swept from one country to another, from west to east and from east to west. This has happened in other continents as well. So if I mention Europe in particular, it is only because the decisive battles of the Second World War were fought on its soil and it was there that passed the flaming Juggernaut of war, albeit Europe was not alone to be scorched.
153. No one who is not anxious to keep the world In a state of war fever, in which the machinery of destruction is perfected from day to day and from year to year, can question the need to come to an understanding without further delay on a complete and final prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons. The existence of immense stockpiles of such weapons, which are continuing to grow, and the incessant complications and military conflicts in various parts of the world, serve to emphasize the urgent need to complete this task.
154. Inspired by a desire to strengthen the feeling of security and confidence in the future, the USSR Government is submitting for consideration by the General Assembly at its twenty-second session the important and urgent item entitled "Conclusion of a convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons". At the same time we are submitting the draft of such a convention [A/6834].
155. The USSR Government proposes that every State signing the convention should undertake to refrain from using nuclear weapons, from threatening to use them and from inciting other States to use them.
156. It also proposes that every State party to the convention should undertake to make every effort to arrive as soon as possible at agreement on the cessation of production and the destruction of all stockpiles of nuclear weapons in conformity with a treaty on general and complete disarmament under effective international control.
157. These are the key provisions of the draft convention which the USSR Government is submitting for the attention of all States Members of the United Nations. The gist of them may be expressed more briefly still: the Soviet Union proposes that nuclear weapons should be abandoned politically and that a further effort should be made to scrap them physically.
158. Sometimes the question is raised: would it not be preferable to come to an immediate agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons completely? That would indeed be better, much better, and our country Is prepared to take such a step. It is not we who fear radical solutions which would completely remove the threat of nuclear war, The Soviet Union has repeatedly put forward proposals for complete nuclear disarmament, and we are prepared to take immediate action to that end. It is others who fear such decisions, and who they are is well known.
159. In these conditions, to make prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons conditional on their complete elimination would be tantamount to renouncing both. To take the stand of "all or nothing" is pseudoradicalism, and in effect amounts to reluctance to move closer to a solution of the problem of nuclear disarmament.
160. We foresee that every effort will be made to sidestep our proposal to prohibit the use of nuclear weapons. In their-day, such personalities in the League of Nations as Lloyd-George and Tardieu, Simon and Politis devised the most refined procedures in order to sink any viable disarmament proposal. The main gambit was to establish a number of useless committees and sub-committees and to cast them adrift without any instructions or clear directives. As a result, their discussions merely echoed the discord in the League of Nations itself. The history of postwar disarmament negotiations shows that there is still no lack of practitioners of such methods, which resemble nothing so much as funeral rites over any reasonable proposal, performed according to the rules of diplomatic protocol.
161. All the greater is the responsibility resting upon the Governments that realize how events may develop unless the nuclear arms race is halted; all the more important it is for the General Assembly at its twenty-second session to adopt a clear resolution approving the proposal to conclude a convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons and emphasizing the vital importance of the matter.
162. The Moscow Treaty banning nuclear weapons testing in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water was followed by a Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space [resolution 2222 (XXI)] which declared outer space and celestial bodies out of bounds for nuclear weapons. Today there is a chance to conclude a treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. If yet another step is taken and an international convention prohibits the use of nuclear weapons, the possibility of taking practical action to purge our planet of weapons for mass destruction would draw much closer.
163. My delegation expresses the hope that all the States represented at the General Assembly will give due attention to the consideration of our proposal.
164. The Soviet Union has always directly aided those who at the cost of bitter fighting, have been demolishing one colonial prison after another. Today, the only areas remaining under the colonial yoke are a small part of Africa and some island territories scattered over the oceans. All the other colonial peoples, which were but recently denied their natural human rights, have freed themselves and founded their own independent States, whose representatives occupy seats in this hall in full equality with all the rest.
165. But the nearer draws the day of the final elimination of colonialism, the more stubbornly do the colonial Powers resist the completion of the historical process of national liberation. At its twenty-second session, the General Assembly is called upon to take further measures to ensure the prompt elimination of the vestiges of colonial slavery.
166. Guided by a desire to promote the consolidation of peace in the Far East, the Soviet Union and a number of other socialist countries have submitted for consideration by the General Assembly the item entitled "Withdrawal of United States and All Other Foreign Forces Occupying South Korea under the Flag of the United Nations" [A/6696 and Add.1-3], The United States occupation of South Korea creates a dangerous source of international tension. The United States has transformed South Korea into a military training ground, has dragged it into the aggressive war in Viet-Nam and is obstructing a peaceful solution of the problem of Korean unification. The withdrawal of United States and all other foreign troops from South Korea is absolutely essential. The so-called United Nations Commission for the Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea should be disbanded. It should certainly have been scrapped long ago.
167. The Soviet Union regards the United Nations as an important instrument in the struggle to ensure the security of peoples, and attaches great importance to the strengthening of the Organization and the elimination of all shortcomings in its work. We have consistently endorsed the idea that the United Nations should become a truly universal international organization, we cannot reconcile ourselves to a situation in which several sovereign States, which have been in existence for more than one decade, remain outside the United Nations. Here we have in mind first and foremost the German Democratic Republic, a peace- loving socialist State of German workers and peasants. The Soviet Union advocates the earliest possible solution of the question of admitting the German Democratic Republic to the United Nations. We have no objection to the simultaneous admission of the other German State, the Federal Republic of Germany. It is also necessary to settle at long last the question of restoring the rights of the Chinese People's Republic in the United Nations.
168. The Soviet Union places its entire influence as a major world Power and a Member of the United Nations behind the struggle for peace, freedom and social progress.
169. The main trends and aims of the Soviet Union's foreign policy have been laid down by the twenty-third Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and our country is steadfastly translating them into reality. This means the bringing about, together with the other socialist nations, of favourable international conditions for the building of socialism and communism. It means strengthening the unity and cohesion of the socialist countries, their friendship and brotherhood. It means support for the national liberation movement and comprehensive co-operation with the young developing States. It means consistently upholding the principle of peaceful co-existence of States with differing social systems, repelling aggression and saving mankind from another world war.
170. Guided by these aims, the Soviet Union is ready to develop and improve its relations with all States which, for their part, work towards the same ends, and to co-operate with them in seeking solutions to present-day international problems.
171. The USSR Government calls on the Governments of States Members of the United Nations to unite their efforts and achieve at this session of the General