At the opening meeting of our present session, we welcomed to our midst yet another State which has won its national Independence, the Federation of Malaya. My Government attaches great importance to the fact that the growing number of small and medium sized States now taking their rightful places in the United Nations is increasingly consolidating the principle of universality on which this Organization is founded, and has necessarily enhanced both our chances of settling the problems before us and the authority of any decisions we may make in accordance with the principles of the Charter.
71. While the presence among us of States that have entered on a new stage of their national existence gives reality to one of the major principles of the United Nations, it also makes the absence of the representatives of the People’s Republic of China more strikingly obvious. Day by day international events show with increasing clarity how completely anomalous this situation is, and how necessary and indeed imperative it is that the legitimate representatives of China should play a part in solving the fundamental problems that face mankind.
72. The Romanian delegation is in complete agreement with the view that disarmament is a central problem at the present session. The implications of the problem are social and economic as well as political and military, and of such vital concern to men and women everywhere and so multilateral in character that the Organization's ability to undertake a constructive examination of the problem has become the touchstone by which the peoples of the world judge its functions, its effectiveness and its raison d'être.
73. The armaments race imposes a burden on the peoples which has become intolerable in many States. The economic and financial effects are so damaging that even in developed countries the position has become critical, while the underdeveloped countries are unable to concentrate their main effort on economic advancement and better standards of life for their people. The efforts of modern technology are directed towards destructive military aims at the expense of progress, civilization and the prosperity of mankind.
74. Tests of modern weapons in themselves create unavoidable biological hazards whose effects are already being felt. The stockpiling of increasing numbers of nuclear bombs, the race to develop more advanced types of weapon with atomic warheads, and the build-up of stocks of weapons of this kind in more and more parts of the world are creating a highly dangerous situation which may, if corrective action is not taken in time, lead to catastrophe on an unimaginable scale. It is time that the United Nations intervened with all the strength and authority at its command to halt this dangerous trend.
75. My delegation considers that the disarmament problem should be fully debated in the General Assembly. We believe that the discussion should cover the practical aspects as well as the question of the general approaches to disarmament and the principles involved, so that we can both clarify the problem and make practical decisions with a view to its solution.
76. Let me begin by making clear my delegation's position with regard to the two approaches to the problem of nuclear weapons which have developed and which have been put forward in this debate.
77. The first approach is based on the absolute premise that, in the atomic age international relations, the balance of power in the world arena, must necessarily be founded on atomic and hydrogen weapons. It follows that armaments policy, military strategy and tactics and foreign policy must be adjusted accordingly. This approach naturally determines the stand taken with regard to disarmament.
78. This approach is expounded in some detail in Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, a book recently published in the United States summing up the views of such influential Americans as John McCloy, David Rockefeller, Allen Dulles, General Walter Bedell Smith and other members of the Council on Foreign Relations. This approach is not purely academic; it is being more and more plainly reflected in the arms policy, strategy and foreign policy of the United States and in its stand on disarmament.
79. The United States memorandum on disarmament submitted to the General Assembly at its eleventh session [A/C.1/783]. the proposals of the Western Powers at the London meetings of the Sub-Committee of the Disarmament Commission |DC/113. annex 5], and the statements of the Secretary of State of the United States at this session of the General Assembly [630th meeting], have this in common; not one of them accepts, even as a distant goal, the idea of the outright prohibition of atomic weapons and the condemnation of nuclear warfare.
80. Any such prohibition or condemnation must necessarily be absolute, since any exception would merely provide a loophole for the use of atomic weapons and an incentive to those planning to launch an atomic war.
81. The Western proposal which sanctions the use of atomic weapons for defensive purposes opens just such a loophole. The proposal does not bear examination. In the first place, any aggressor can claim that he acts in self-defence. Even Hitler, who took very little trouble to cover up his aggressive plans, justified his attack on Poland by alleged "Polish aggression" at the German border. Secondly, in the absence of a universally accepted definition of aggression, there are radical differences of opinion in this connexion. Some States claim that their security interests are involved in areas 8,000 or 10,900 miles from their frontiers, and assert that the military bases for their strategic bomber forces in foreign territory in those areas are defensive in character. In these circumstances, an aggressor can obviously always claim to be acting in self-defence and use atomic weapons.
82. Those who adopt this approach consider the atomic weapon the key factor in strategy and foreign policy and are consequently unalterably opposed to the prohibition of atomic weapons and their elimination from the arsenals of States.
83. The proponents of this view make great efforts to accustom the public to the appalling prospect of atomic war, and to play down its catastrophic character. There is talk, for example, in United States official circles, of "clean" bombs or bombs with limited "yield", and of the effort that is being made to devise means of intercepting intercontinental ballistic missiles with atomic warheads.
84. But the world knows the destructive power of nuclear weapons. According to data from United States sources, in the case of the bombs dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the area of total destruction where 75 per cent of the population was killed was 3 miles in diameter. Blast and heat destroyed or burnt buildings within a radius of a further nearly 4 1/2 miles at Hiroshima and 2 miles at Nagasaki. The explosion killed 70,000 to 80,000 people at Hiroshima and 35,000 people at Nagasaki. In the two towns, as many as 250,000 people were injured.
85. It should be remembered that the bombs dropped on Japan were small in comparison with present-day bombs, particularly thermonuclear bombs. A single 20-megaton bomb can devastate an area 16 miles across. In other words, it can annihilate any large town in the world. The explosive power of such a bomb is ten times greater than that of all the bombs dropped on Germany during the four years of war, and 200 times greater than that of the bombs dropped on Japan.
86. Even if the United States discovered a so-called "clean" bomb, or a bomb with limited "yield" the problem would be unaltered. Are we to suppose that if the United States discovered a way of making such bombs, it would share the secret with the other interested States? Even if it did, what guarantee is there that only such bombs would be used in the event of nuclear war, in view of the known fact that various types of atomic and hydrogen bombs are now in existence? What would prevent the belligerents from using the most destructive bombs available if there was no agreement outlawing their use?
87. It is clear that so-called "clean" bombs or bombs with limited "yield" have no bearing on the grave problem confronting the world - how to avoid the danger of a devastating atomic war.
88. It has been argued here that the atomic weapon is the weapon on which the North Atlantic Treaty Organization relies, and that it is because it is a "guarantee of the security of the NATO countries" and cannot be given up that the leaders of the countries concerned have taken a negative stand on the prohibition of atomic weapons.
89. Apart from the fact that, in our view, the possession of atomic weapons is not a "guarantee of security", and that the accumulation of nuclear weapons of all types and the feverish concentration on their development and production are pushing the world to the brink of another war, what are the logical consequences of this argument?
90. Those consequences are that the vital interests of mankind as a whole, including the peoples of the NATO countries, are being subordinated to the interests of a single group. The interests of a group are preventing the United Nations from taking the necessary steps to avert the danger of anatomic war. Surely the United Nations cannot tolerate a situation in which the entire human race is brought to the brink of an abyss by such short-sighted policies?
91. There is a second approach, based on the view that nuclear war and the destruction and incalculable human suffering that accompany it must be condemned outright and that action must be taken to eliminate it entirely. This approach also determines a corresponding stand with regard to disarmament.
92. Although all the available information suggests that the Soviet Union has at least the same nuclear capability as any other great Power, the Soviet Government has repeatedly proposed - and It has reaffirmed its position in this Assembly - the prohibition of atomic weapons and the condemnation of nuclear warfare. The Romanian delegation unconditionally supports this approach.
93. The Romanian Government's position with regard to other disarmament problems is equally clear. We are for the reduction of armed forces and armaments, the effective international control of disarmament, the liquidation of all military bases on foreign territory, the withdrawal of the troops of all States to their own countries, and the cessation of war propaganda.
94. The humanitarian principles on which the Charter is based demand that the United Nations should exert every effort to advance progressively to the outlawing of atomic and thermonuclear weapons, their elimination from the arsenals of States, and general disarmament. It is essential, however, to find ways and means of putting an end to sterile discussion and of achieving practical measures of disarmament.
95. Unfortunately, the Western Powers' proposals are vitiated by the fundamental defect that they make each of the measures advocated conditional upon other measures on which it is extremely difficult to obtain agreement at the present time. Thus, the proposals include such measures as the reduction of armed forces, international control, the cessation of the production of nuclear weapons and even the discontinuance of nuclear tests, all of which are obviously desirable. But to each of these measures there is attached at least one condition which has the effect of making the proposed measure impracticable. It is as though angels of peace were trying to take wing but were prevented from leaving the ground by a millstone tied round their necks.
96. It is therefore clear that the simultaneous solution of all disarmament problems is impossible in the present situation; that partial measures should be taken; that, if this is to be done, a start must be made; and that, in order to make a start we should select a measure or measures that can be separated from the whole and adopted immediately. There is no other effective and feasible method of achieving effective measures of disarmament.
97. All the conditions are present for a first practical step towards disarmament: the immediate discontinuance of nuclear tests for a period of two or three years. Agreement on this point could obviously be reached immediately, because it is not linked to the prior solution of any other problem. We believe that the Assembly could make an important contribution to the cause of disarmament by adopting a measure of this kind.
98. I have said that the stand taken by the United Nations on the question of disarmament is a serious test of its effectiveness. The position it takes with regard to the aspirations of peoples to shape their own national life, in freedom and independence, is also a test of its loyalty to the principles of the Charter. This is the issue which so clearly exposes the contradiction between the principles of the Charter and the policies of certain States which seek to seize the economic resources and interfere in the domestic affairs of countries which have cast off the colonial yoke and intend to shape their own destinies freely.
99. Only eleven months ago, the armed aggression against Egypt brought the world within a hair's breadth of general war. The flames of war had hardly been extinguished and the peoples of the region were waiting a favourable opportunity to carry out a programme which help them to solve their real problems, when the "Eisenhower doctrine" reintroduced, throughout the Near and Middle East, on a greater scale and with far more diversified resources to support it, the disastrous policy which has brought the region to the brink of war.
100. I should like to discuss an incident recently reported in the world Press. After Mr. Henderson had returned to Washington on the completion of his special mission, the State Department made a great fuss about the allegedly dangerous situation which had developed in Syria. Who was endangered? According to official statements from Washington, Syria's neighbours, including Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq, were alarmed, and on this basis a variety of American arms was immediately flown to them in military aircraft. But shortly afterwards official spokesmen of Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq announced that their countries considered that the developments in Syria were a purely domestic matter and said that the arms received would in no circumstances be used in a fratricidal war.
101. It may well be asked whether the time has not come to let the Arab countries decide for themselves their security is in jeopardy. If this latitude is not given to them, the stability, progress and peaceful development of which the people of the region have dreamed for so long will continue to be threatened; indeed, the threat will be aggravated. Uncertainty about the future, anxiety, fear, conspiracies, the ever growing burden of military expenditure, incitement to fratricidal war and, ultimately, the danger of a global war: those are the implications of the "Eisenhower doctrine" for the Arab peoples and for people everywhere.
102. No one can view such a prospect without concern, least of all a country situated close to this potential hotbed of war. In the past, Romania was linked to the Orient by numerous economic and social ties and those ties subsist today. A glance at the map suffices to show that Romania has every reason to be interested in the maintenance of peace in the area lying between the eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea; it is in its interest that these countries should assert their sovereignty, consolidate their independence and settle their disputes by negotiation.
103. For that reason, we listened carefully to what the United States representative had to say [680th meeting] about the situation in the Middle and Near East. But what struck us most was the omission of any reference to the most important political phenomena in that area, the existence of a powerful popular movement among the Arabs for freedom and independence, and the elimination of colonialism. The important thing to realize is that the States in that part of the world have ceased to be mere pawns on a chess board, which can be shifted in accordance with the plans of the great Powers.
104. Persistence in that position will maintain a permanent state of unrest, involving numerous risks, some of them incalculable. It is therefore the duty of the United Nations to make a dispassionate examination of the danger which overshadows the Near and Middle East and to take immediate action to prevent a train of events which could seriously threaten the peace of the world.
105. In considering the disarmament question, and the problems of the Near and Middle East, it is impossible not to be aware of the two paths between which mankind must choose: the recognition of force as the instrument of the foreign policy of States, or peaceful coexistence between States with different socio-political systems and the settlement of all international problems by peaceful means on the basis of equality and mutual benefit.
106. By reason of its social and political structure, the Romanian People's Republic is a resolute and consistent supporter of the policy of peaceful coexistence.
107. Moreover, the principles of peaceful coexistence are no longer merely an abstract theory about international relations. They have been adopted by ever-widening circles of public opinion in all the countries of the world and are guiding the foreign policy of a growing number of States, whose population accounts for more than half of the globe. The gratifying expansion of co-operative relations among a number of European and Asian countries has proved the practical value of these principles. The positive influence resulting from their adoption by the Bandung Conference of Asian and African States is well known.
108. The principles of peaceful coexistence now have the force and value of a law governing the peaceful development of mankind.
109. Unfortunately, they are not yet being properly applied in all spheres of international life, In point of fact, the principles of peaceful coexistence are rejected by those States which base their foreign policy on methods which tend to promote rather than to lessen international tension, and which, instead of restoring normal multilateral relations among States, poison the international atmosphere still more, to a point at which it becomes completely unbearable. The partisans of a policy of force based upon the existence of military blocs and economic and cultural barriers, the practitioners of the strategy and tactics of the "cold war", persistently disregard the interests of peace and security of all peoples, even those on whose behalf they claim to speak.
110. The United Nations was conceived as the chief instrument of peaceful coexistence, as the noblest means of securing the coexistence of peoples with differing political systems. The Member States were to achieve this goal by mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, by non-aggression, by non-interference of any kind - political, economic or ideological - in the domestic affairs of any other country, by equality and policies of mutual benefit, in a world, by the fostering of a spirit of peaceful and creative emulation.
111. That is why the Romanian Government believes that the international arena is the right place for the efforts and endeavours of each Member State to put the spirit of peaceful coexistence into effect, and that the United Nations should smooth the way for, facilitate and encourage, action designed to attain the common goals set forth in the Charter. With what profit, for example, a small or medium-sized State could copy the peaceful emulation, in the economic field, of two great Powers with differing social systems! What a stimulating effect such competition would have on mankind as a whole, and what a high example of international ethics it might set!
112. The policy of peaceful coexistence constitutes the only creative climate for all peoples, the only crystal through which they can regard the future with confidence.
113. In order to bring about such a policy, all States, large or small, have a duty, in accordance with their own circumstances, to take steps and to engage in useful action which would help to safeguard their own security, to protect their own interests, and at the same time to promote international peace and cooperation.
114. I am thinking, primarily, of the duty incumbent upon each State to develop relations of fruitful cooperation with its neighbours, on the basis of common traditions and interests, as determined by their geographical proximity.
115. It is with that aim in view that the Romanian Government has tried to develop friendly and good-neighbourly relations with all the countries in the Balkans and in South-East Europe, regardless of their social systems, and the results it has achieved in that respect have been good. However, the interests of peace and progress of all the Balkan peoples and the interests of peace throughout the world demand that these relations should be strengthened and developed multilaterally.
116. A realistic examination of the main geographical and historical facts can lead to only one conclusion; each State in the area stands only to gain from the development of mutual relations, from the patient search for and utilization of all that unites these States and these peoples, from all the political, economic and social advantages that might ensue from active co-operation, inspired by sincerity, goodwill and trust, and imbued with an urgent desire for peace.
117. Being firmly convinced that present circumstances are favourable, and that each Balkan State can make an important contribution, the Romanian Government has taken the initiative of convening a conference of the heads of Government of Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Yugoslavia and Romania. The purpose of the conference would be to examine the possibilities of bringing about multilateral cooperation with a view to strengthening peace in the Balkans by the negotiated settlement of all outstanding problems, by the development of economic and cultural relations, by meetings between the leaders of the countries of South-East Europe, by exchanges of delegations, by exchanges of visits, and, in general, by any other means of contact and rapprochement between representatives of public opinion in the countries concerned.
118. If those countries were to make a solemn undertaking to abstain from all aggressive acts in their relations with each other, it would certainly constitute a guarantee of the security of their joint frontiers, and would create among them a climate of confidence.
119. There might also be concluded economic agreements based on a sound approach to problems of trade, agreements which would raise the present volume of trade considerably and would satisfy a whole series of mutual interests by taking into account, in a constructive manner, the resources and needs of each Balkan State. All this would help to strengthen and develop the economy of those States and, from a more general point of view, would constitute a glowing example of what can be achieved by agreements concluded and put into effect in a spirit of complete equality by States with different social systems.
120. The stimulus to cultural exchanges necessarily afforded by such relations could not fail to be profitable to peoples whose traditions, so different in the distant past, are nowadays growing even closer. A more detailed knowledge of the culture of each people would increase their mutual esteem and fruitful co-operation.
121. In order that such inter-Balkan co-operation should be of a lasting character, the Romanian Government has proposed the formation of a regional collective entente of Balkan States, based on the full equality of its member States, on mutual respect for sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs.
122. In my Government's view, a Balkan regional entente could not and should not become a group hostile to other States or an obstacle to the development of friendly relations between the States forming part of the entente and those which are outside it.
123. Such an entente could be a first step toward a wider international entente and, first of all, towards the organization of co-operation at the general European level, which would constitute a safe guard for the peace and security of all the States of the continent which has in the last fifty years been the breeding- place of two world wars.
124. As we have shown, the principles of peaceful coexistence are not yet being effectively applied in international life. The Romanian delegation therefore believes that it would be useful for the General Assembly to hold a full-scale debate on them, with a view to the adoption of appropriate measures. We therefore consider that the proposal of the Soviet delegation for the adoption of a declaration concerning the peaceful coexistence of States [A/3673] is of great value.
125. It has been rightly emphasized in the Assembly that the solution of the fundamental problems of the international situation would be greatly facilitated if the atmosphere of mistrust which subsists today in the relations between many States could be dissipated. The Romanian delegation believes that mistrust between States cannot be wiped out overnight, but only gradually, by innumerable efforts, large and small, in all those spheres of life in which the peoples are naturally in contact.
126. We must therefore persevere in seeking to overthrow those artificial barriers which prevent normal economic and cultural exchanges. That is why the People’s Republic of Romania is striving for free economic relations among all States.
127. Knowledge of the scientific discoveries and of the artistic creations whereby each people expresses its own ideals and aspirations, and whereby it helps to enrich the store of universal culture, plays a no less important part in bringing the peoples together and eliminating mistrust. Here too there are great possibilities which have not as yet been properly utilized.
128. Unfortunately, cultural exchanges, which could be a means of bringing the peoples together, have also been contaminated by the "cold war" policy. It is well known that propaganda setting the peoples against each other is one of the most active means used to promote this policy. The Romanian delegation believes that one of the chief sources of mistrust might be eliminated If effective measures were taken to halt radio broadcasts urging the overthrow of law and order in certain sovereign States, and it will press the United Nations to take a stand in favour of such measures. The means which the human mind has devised of spreading truth, popularizing scientific discovery and educating mankind, should not be used to spread hatred, mistrust and hostility between the States.
129. The Romanian delegation expects a great deal from the work of this General Assembly at which are gathered representatives of more than eighty States, large and small, with different social systems, from every corner of the world. We have come here in the hope that we shall be able, at this session, to resume and to develop the process of decreasing tension and consolidating peace. Let us spare no effort to achieve that goal.