An atmosphere of grave international tension, fraught with the dangers of war, dominates today both the work of the United Nations and the relations among nations in general. It is no overstatement to say that present world conditions submit the United Nations to one of its most difficult tests, the outcome of which will largely determine its future strength and role. It is high time that this Organization, which hundreds and hundreds of millions of men and women rightly expect to find a solution of the deadlock in which the cause of peace at present finds itself, should show that it is capable of uniting the will of all its Members on one question, namely, that the peace of the world must be preserved. We firmly believe that in the present circumstances, too, the United Nations can achieve success in this respect and the events connected with the Korean war clearly show that this success must be achieved as soon as possible if we really want to stop the fatal race into a new world war.
15. It is obvious to all that under the present conditions mankind can overcome the danger of war only through the United Nations. To allow the disruption or weakening of the United Nations as a universal organization of nations for collective security would be tantamount to giving a green light to war. It is, therefore, our primary duty to preserve at all cost the universality of the United Nations and constantly strengthen the part it must play in all questions related to war and peace, in accordance with the spirit of the Charter.
16. However much we may feel dissatisfied with our achievements, or rather lack of achievements in connexion with the work of the United Nations, we need only consider the difficult situation in which mankind would find itself if there were no such Organization to realize its importance for world peace.
17. Nevertheless, the efforts to strengthen the United Nations as an instrument of peace and development of peaceful co-operation among nations on a basis of equality are meeting with four very harmful tendencies which, in any case, undermine the confidence of peoples in the future of the United Nations and are making it difficult for us to find the way to a lasting peace.
18. In the first place, I wish to stress the tendency to reduce the role of the United Nations to that of a mere propaganda rostrum. Discussions are very often conducted here not with any idea of achieving real success or of ensuring agreement among nations, but from a propaganda point of view and very often for the purpose of concealing the truth, of giving facts other names and justifying undemocratic and even aggressive practices. If we allow this tendency to prevail, the United Nations will become ineffective and incapable of taking competent action in questions of war and peace.
19. The second harmful tendency is that which aims at transforming the United Nations into a kind of superstate, that is to say, transforming it into a force which would interfere more and more in the internal affairs of individual States and jeopardize their independence. We must look at these things realistically, and if we do so, we cannot fail to see the possibility of the United Nations being transformed into the instrument for controlling other countries by a group of great nations. It is clear that such a tendency could only serve to deprive the United Nations of its universal character.
20. There is no doubt that we must unceasingly bend our efforts towards strengthening the system of international security so that aggression will be doomed in advance. In this respect, the Yugoslav delegation is, of course, ready to support all measures which are really designed to strengthen such a system of international security.
21. However the United Nations can serve the cause of peace only if it assumes the character of a sort of round-table conference of equal nations, resolved to safeguard peace and to create the necessary effective means but equally determined to prevent any misuse of these means for the purpose of interference in the internal affairs of States.
22. Thirdly, I would wish to emphasize that the independent initiative for peace by small and medium-sized States does not carry enough weight in the United Nations. It goes without saying that the influence and responsibility of great Powers in matters affecting world peace are of the greatest significance; however, the very fact that the fundamental contradictions in the present world are caused above all by a struggle to dominate smaller and weaker countries, clearly shows that the strengthening of the independent role and independent initiative of small and medium-sized Powers in the United Nations would make a considerable contribution to the effective work of the Organization.
23. This does not, of course, mean that the Yugoslav delegation is advocating a bloc of small Powers in opposition to the great Powers. On the contrary, the Yugoslav delegation favours a system of international security and therefore advocates a joint effort of large and small countries in the struggle to strengthen peace. But the Yugoslav delegation cannot regard as satisfactory the present situation when a very large number of small countries blindly follow the lead of this or that great Power. It is clear that this fact greatly hinders the United Nations from intervening effectively in many controversies and conflicts in the present day world.
24. Finally, I wish to refer again to the very regrettable fact, of which we are all well aware, that the United Nations pays far too little attention to questions of international economic co-operation and especially to those economic questions which are undoubtedly one of the sources of conflict among nations. It is, for instance, a fact that both the western group and the Soviet group, while developing their own international economic systems, avoid, to a greater or lesser degree, taking any measures to strengthen the role of the United Nations in questions of international economic co-operation.
25. However, in viewing the work of the United Nations critically, we must not forget that the conditions in the United Nations are but the reflection of the actual state of affairs among nations. The role and tasks of the United Nations could also therefore be defined in different terms. It could be said, in other words, that the achievements of the United Nations cannot be increased or its work improved if we do not endeavor to change international political practices outside the United Nations, if we do not oppose the struggle for hegemony in the worlds a struggle which has engulfed mankind and is bringing it to the threshold of a new world war.
26. The peoples of Yugoslavia cannot accept the assumption that mankind must today choose between the domination of one great Power or another. We consider that there is another path, the difficult but necessary path of democratic struggle for a world of free and equal nations, for democratic relations among nations, against foreign interference in the domestic affairs of the peoples and for the all-around peaceful co-operation of nations on a basis of equality. We may speak of establishing a lasting peace only if we respect these principles.
27. For these reasons, the Yugoslav delegation attaches special importance to the draft declaration on rights and duties of States which is based on these principles. We know that relations among States are not settled by mere declarations and that peace cannot be safeguarded by solemn statements and legal formulas alone. But we nonetheless consider that some such declaration would represent a powerful moral and political factor, more particularly in the struggle for the preservation of the independence and security of small and medium-sized States, and thereby in the struggle for the cause of peace. In the final analysis, the struggle for the strengthening of peace in the world is at present a struggle for democratic relations among nations and cannot be considered as anything else.
28. It would in any case be unfortunate were a tendency to prevail here to solve the question of peace merely in piecemeal fashion, in a fragmentary manner, by dealing with the various questions under dispute separately instead of approaching the question of peace as a whole, which is the problem of constantly strengthening the basic principles on which peace itself rests and, in the final analysis, the constant strengthening of the whole system of international security. The Yugoslav delegation does not wish to rule out the first method. On the contrary, it considers it to be essential, but that method can lead to success only if it is based on the efforts to accomplish the second task. The adoption of the declaration of the rights and duties of States would undoubtedly contribute towards the solution of our second task.
29. We have on the agenda of the United Nations such important problems as the reduction of armaments and the prohibition and control of atomic weapons, the solution of which would restore the faith of mankind in the possibility of establishing a more lasting peace. But we can count on solving these questions successfully under present conditions and with the present balance of world power only if we make the nations regain their confidence in the possibility of ensuring a lasting peace. Failing such confidence, these questions are today not only insoluble, but may easily become a general instrument of propagandist rivalry.
30. In this connexion, I would again like to emphasize the problem of Chinese representation in the United Nations. Both the principles on which the Charter of the United Nations is based and political expediency require that China should be represented in the United Nations by its real government, that is, by the only government which can effectively assume on behalf of the Chinese people obligations and responsibilities in the United Nations. The delay in solving this question is, moreover, a very serious obstacle in finding a way out of present world tension.
31. And yet this question is not being solved here — not because it is in itself so difficult to solve, but because it is an integral part of an entire complex of problems on international relations which is as yet unsolved.
32. The Yugoslav delegation therefore insists not only on the solution of individual questions under dispute, but also on the continuous and general strengthening of the basic principles underlying the whole system of international security and of the practices governing contemporary international relations as a whole.
33. The Korean war is an object-lesson to all mankind. There is no doubt that the events in Korea are the direct result of the political division of the country and of interference in its internal affairs.
34. That is why the Yugoslav Government has adopted a special attitude in the Security Council with regard to the Korean war, as it considers that this is partly a civil war caused by the unusual position in which Korea found itself after the Second World War.
35. The peoples of Yugoslavia view with sympathy the Korean people’s desire for independence and unity and its right to settle its domestic affairs without outside interference. It is also clear that a strong national movement towards democracy and liberation exists in Korea which aims at independence and the unification of the country and at the eradication of reactionary institutions inherited from the past when the Korean people were the slaves and servants of foreigners. The so-called Korean question, therefore, cannot be solved until the Korean people achieve independence and unity under a government democratically elected by the people themselves.
36. The Government of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia, however, considers that the present policy of the Government of North Korea does not serve the cause of the true independence and unity of the Korean people. Whether we consider the war in Korea a civil war or not, that war is in the present circumstances bound to endanger world peace, bound to deal a blow at all peace efforts and to set in motion all the forces of war in the world. Recent events confirm this. Those who are inspiring the policy and activities of the North Korean Government have embarked upon an aggressive course, the consequences of which will have to be borne by the people of the whole world, while it is the Korean people who will, of course, shoulder the heaviest burden. This invariably happens when political movements and governments cease to be the organs of their own people and become instruments in foreign hands.
37. The Yugoslav delegation considers a speedy and peaceful solution of the Korean conflict to be in the interest both of the people of Korea and of world peace. Consequently, in the opinion of my delegation, the United Nations should strive to find a solution which would bring about a cessation of hostilities and the temporary re-establishment — pending the achievement of Korean unity — of the former demarcation line along the 38th parallel, which would render all acts of terrorism and vengeance in connexion with the consequences of the present war impossible and would enable the Korean people to hold democratic elections and elect a single national assembly and government.
38. Of course, in our opinion, there is today no alternative to such a solution — unless we decide to leave everything to the force of arms. Such a decision would be unsatisfactory in every respect and detrimental both to the interests of the Korean people itself and to the cause of world peace, because it would be fraught with the danger of a further spread of war.
39. I should like to stress that what we are disturbed by today is not only the tension which prevails in international relations, but also the fact that a number of methods for reaching international agreement are no longer resorted to, such as, for instance, direct negotiations between countries which are parties to a dispute, friendly mediation and so forth. There is also the added fact that we have so far been unable to find here in the General Assembly, through joint action and unanimous agreement, the means of establishing a United Nations body designed especially to promote international cooperation and mediation among nations, and to help parties to a dispute — with their consent — to solve specific disputes, so as to strengthen the part played by the small Powers in these endeavours and increase their active participation.
40. Desiring as it does to contribute in this connexion towards the strengthening of the United Nations as an instrument of peace, the Yugoslav delegation is submitting a concrete proposal to the General Assembly.
41. This proposal envisages the establishment of a permanent international commission of good offices, composed of the six non-permanent members of the Security Council and of six members especially elected by the Assembly from among United Nations Members — other than the permanent members of the Security Council. This commission would be required to encourage initiative in the peaceful and harmonious solution of international disputes and controversial questions. The basic method of work of this commission would be to examine without undue publicity (in order to avoid becoming another propaganda rostrum) all existing international disputes, not from the angle of their substance, but from the point of view of the possibility and desirability of direct negotiations and mediation between the parties to the dispute or between the largest number of States involved, in order to induce the parties to the dispute to open negotiations and try to find a satisfactory solution to the dispute. In other words, the commission which we propose should be established, would act as a catalyst, by promoting the method of direct talks and negotiations on questions which otherwise would furnish us with material for rhetorical battles for many years to come.
42. We have to strive, in the first place, of course, to preserve world peace and world security. This should on no account be taken to mean that we should confine our efforts to the political side of a question. Our concern with economic and social problems, which the Charter lays down as an important task of the United Nations, is now more important than ever for the preservation of peace. The Yugoslav delegation admits that important spade-work has already been done in this field and it would be highly regrettable if this work failed to bear fruit. However, the success achieved by our Organization in the economic and social sphere is extremely modest, especially when these activities are compared with the results obtained by international economic programmes undertaken outside the United Nations.
43. I wish, in this connexion, to draw attention to two problems which are, perhaps, not of the same importance but which are both equally typical. The first is the problem of international public financing, and the second, the problem of the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund.
44. It is a generally recognized fact, for example, that technical assistance is insufficient and that it cannot by itself solve the problem of the economic development of under-developed countries. Yet, this question is still being approached along the old lines, International financing is considered as a somewhat more civilized form of the old investment system in which the determining factor was, of course, solely the economic interest of those who provided the means, and not the interest of those whose productive forces these means were supposed to promote. Not until such an approach to the economic and social activities of the United Nations is modified, not until the assistance given for the comprehensive development of productive forces in the under-developed countries becomes a genuine and guiding principle of United Nations activities in the economic and social sphere, will any progress be made in the problem of international financing.
45. This situation also accounts for the fact that today any small country pursuing an independent foreign policy cannot usually obtain, despite the existence of the United Nations, adequate, economic support in the face of the economic pressure or economic aggression to which it is exposed. It is obvious that only the forces of aggression can benefit from such a situation.
46. The United Nations is therefore faced in this connexion with the following question: should a nation subjected to economic aggression or fighting for its economic independence or striving to overcome its economic and cultural backwardness obtain the economic support of the United Nations?
47. In our opinion, there is no question but that such support must be given, if only because such questions are so closely linked to the general question of the maintenance of peace. For this reason, the Yugoslav delegation attaches considerable importance to the question of the international financing of economic projects in the under-developed countries and considers that speedy practical steps should be taken without delay for the solution of this problem.
48. For the same reasons, the Yugoslav delegation is opposed to any attempt to wind up UNICEF or to make any fundamental change in its character, because this is an organization which has greatly helped the war-devastated and under-developed countries and which, by its structure and underlying conceptions, represents an important achievement of the United Nations in the field of international solidarity. Nor does the fact that these attempts to wind up or change UNICEF are supported by the country which has hitherto made the greatest contribution to the success of UNICEF render them any the less deplorable.
49. The head of the Chilean delegation quite rightly pointed out at the 281st meeting that mankind is spending scores of billions of dollars on armaments, war and destruction, while it is unable to create a fund of a few billions to cover the most essential financial needs of under-developed countries.
50. May I dwell briefly on one of Yugoslavia’s most important international political problems. At the 279th meeting, Mr. Vyshinsky, said: “The foreign policy of the USSR has always been to strengthen friendly relations and co-operation with all peoples pursuing the same ends …”
51. Those were Mr. Vyshinsky’s words. However, the attitude of the Government of the Soviet Union towards Yugoslavia shows clearly that these words do not, for the time being, correspond to actual facts, that they are not, for the time being, sincere and that they are, for the time being, nothing but words. The USSR Government, and the governments under its influence, are in fact pursuing against the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia, whose Government has always expressed its readiness to co-operate peacefully with all countries, including the Soviet Union, an aggressive policy of which the whole world is aware and which nothing can conceal. This policy is at present developing in accordance with the words of the former Bulgarian Foreign Minister Poptomov who, in his capacity as official representative of the Bulgarian Government, wrote on 8 January 1950, in the newspaper Rabotnichesko Delo, that the struggle against Yugoslavia “must be stepped up and waged with ever-increasing energy”.
52. And, indeed, in accordance with this aggressive policy against the peoples of Yugoslavia, which is to be “stepped up and waged with ever-increasing energy”, widespread political and propaganda activities have been organized. These activities are unprecedented in the concentration of means used to attain the maximum pressure.
53. Almost every day incidents are being organized and carried out along our frontiers. Groups of spies and saboteurs are being sent into our country. Our diplomatic representatives in the Eastern European countries are being expelled or their stay and the performance of their diplomatic duties are being rendered impossible by constant insults. Yugoslav national minorities in Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria are being dispersed. The old hatred among the Balkan peoples and the war psychosis in the Balkans are being artificially revived and fanned. The economic blockade of Yugoslavia is being carried to such lengths that Romania, for instance, has, in violation of all international obligations, severed all rail and postal traffic with Yugoslavia.
54. The military preparations and measures which are being organized along our borders are also part of the cold war against Yugoslavia. Trenches are being dug along the borders, fortifications constructed; troop movements are taking place; war material is being sent into the frontier zones; various measures of mobilization are being carried out and propaganda is being conducted to create a war psychosis and enmity between the peoples of Yugoslavia and their neighbours.
55. In order to illustrate this, may I quote a few statistics showing the scope of these anti-Yugoslav activities.
56. The East European Governments have broken forty-seven treaties concluded with Yugoslavia. By July 1950, 138 Yugoslav diplomats and other officials had been expelled or removed from their posts in these countries. In the course of two years, 896 frontier incidents have taken place on Yugoslavia’s borders with Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Albania. More than twenty centres have been established in the countries of Eastern Europe to carry out subversive activities against Yugoslavia; their sole activity consists in organizing and sending groups of saboteurs to that country.
57. The following figures will best illustrate the propaganda efforts made against Yugoslavia: During the first six months of 1950 the East European broadcasting stations beamed 6,732 anti-Yugoslav broadcasts in the languages of the peoples of Yugoslavia. If we calculate the duration of these broadcasts we reach the figure of 3,075 hours, that is, four months, eight days and three hours of unceasing anti-Yugoslav propaganda of the most aggressive and warmongering type. And all that in the course of six months!
58. All these subversive activities against our country are organized on a wholly official basis in the countries of Eastern Europe. As Yugoslavia is a small country and does not belong to any bloc of countries, the promoters of this anti-Yugoslav activity obviously consider that they need pay but scant attention to the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of another country. However, they overlook the fact that precisely for this reason, the aggressive character of the anti- Yugoslav campaign is all the more conspicuous.
59. Can such a policy be termed peaceful? Is it the expression of that concern for peace of which the representative of the USSR Government has spoken here? Does it correspond to the characteristics that Mr. Vyshinsky, in his speech in this Assembly, has attributed to the policy of the Soviet Union Government?
60. The answer to these questions is provided by the facts. And the facts are, as Mr. Vyshinsky is often wont to repeat, obstinate and cannot be altered by words.
61. When Mr. Vyshinsky therefore demands that warmongering propaganda be prohibited in all countries — a request with which we are in complete agreement — he ought, in the first place, to ensure such prohibition in his own country.
62. The Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia is a socialist country. At the head of the Republic stand the political forces which have emerged from the war of nation.il liberation and the socialist revolution. In view of this, the aggressive policy against socialist Yugoslavia is even more characteristic. The extraordinary bitterness and fury with which this anti-Yugoslav campaign is being waged shows that we are faced here both with a tendency to impose foreign hegemony upon an independent country and an attempt at reactionary intervention designed to silence a free people which demand equal and democratic relations among nations and especially among countries which claim to be socialist; to silence a free people who are blazing the trail for the further development of social democracy and are rejecting attempts to have methods of bureaucratic despotism imposed upon them from abroad.
63. Needless to say, the aggressive policy of the Soviet Union and other East European governments with regard to Yugoslavia is one of the chief factors determining the international political position of the Yugoslav Government and its attitude to the fundamental questions of world peace. This is why I have dwelt at somewhat greater length on the concrete aspects of this policy.
64. It is, however, evident that this policy towards Yugoslavia and the methods employed, can in no way be considered as something apart from the general trend of the present-day foreign policy of the Soviet Union. There can be no doubt that the aggressive anti-Yugoslav campaign is not an isolated phenomenon, but only a particular manifestation of the general trend of this policy.
65. In advancing this criticism, I wish to emphasize that we by no means consider that the Soviet Union Government bears sole responsibility for the present world situation. We are, for instance, convinced that every attempt to exploit the present international situation for a crusade against communism is tantamount to a direct undermining of peace and co-operation among nations. Numerous remarks have been made on this subject, particularly in recent weeks, and they clearly show that their authors are either unwilling or unable to understand that the struggle for peace cannot be identified with the struggle for the preservation of some social system or other, and that peace cannot be preserved by means of a crusade against socialism or against the strivings of peoples towards freedom and independence. On the contrary, peace can be preserved only by combating domination and aggression wherever they appear, regardless of the political and ideological slogans behind which they conceal themselves. Therefore, one of the chief conditions of peace is undoubtedly the possibility of maintaining international co-operation among States of different social types; co-operation within the framework of an international security system constituting an obstacle to aggression as such, no matter by whom it is committed; a system which, at the same time, could not be transformed into an instrument for fighting one or another social system.
66. On the other hand, however, the trend and methods of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union since the Second World War have been such that the USSR Government cannot disclaim its share of the responsibility for the present international situation.
67. Such a policy has shaken the belief of the peoples that the USSR Government is really guided by peaceful intentions. Its leanings towards hegemony, its obvious tendency of forcibly imposing its will on other I peoples who are developing along socialist lines, its contemptuous attitude towards the desires and sentiments of smaller nations, have alarmed the peoples. By its persistent tendency to bring every progressive movement under its absolute sway, the policy of the Soviet Union is undermining the forces of democracy in the world, and is constantly providing the real warmongering circles in the West with arguments against those who stand for peace. Recent events have proved this beyond any doubt. Is it not a fact that the Korean war has supplied the proponents of war in the Western countries with support and arguments wherewith they are today attacking peace-loving people, and even those ruling circles in various countries who are on the side of peace?
68. Is it not a fact that the temporary boycott by the Soviet Union of the United Nations has strengthened and encouraged all the enemies of the universal character of this Organization and of peaceful international; co-operation among States with different social systems?
69. We must also adopt a critical attitude towards the point of view of the Soviet Union on the role of the great Powers and the mode of co-operation among them. We consider that such an attitude fails to take into account the necessity of co-operation among nations on a basis of equality, and that it overlooks the necessity, of consistent respect for democratic principles in the relations between large and small States. Peace does not depend on the great Powers coming to an agreement by any means whatsoever. Such a peace might mean war against the small nations. The example of the Soviet Union policy towards Yugoslavia has given us a practical idea of what a world based on the legalized hegemony of the strong over the weak would look like.
70. In actual fact, the fate of the world depends primarily on the extent to which we are able to prevent, or at least restrain, the tendency towards domination over weaker nations. If this is not borne in mind, then every agreement among the great Powers will necessarily be little more than an agreement on spheres of interest. Peace on such a basis is not peace. It is understandable that such tendencies are bound to provoke the distrust of the peoples.
71. It can be said without exaggeration that this policy on the part of the Soviet Union has not only contributed to the creation of the present international situation, but has also disappointed and alienated the great sympathies and hopes that the peoples had entertained with respect to the Soviet Union in the immediate aftermath of the war. It is becoming increasingly clear that one cannot constantly say one thing and du another. Peace-loving people throughout the world today demand, first and foremost, that the USSR Government bring its actions into harmony with its words.
72. Particular attention should be paid to the fact that the slogan under which this whole aggressive anti-Yugoslav campaign is being waged is the accusation that it is the Yugoslav Government which is preparing aggression against certain neighbouring countries, and which has allegedly allowed the Western Powers to make Yugoslavia their military base against the East European countries.
73. There is no need for the Yugoslav Government to refute such accusations. The aggressive campaign waged against Yugoslavia by the East European countries in the course of the last two years points with sufficient clarity to the real source of aggressive intention.
74. I should, nevertheless, like to say a few words concerning the policy of the Yugoslav Government.
75. Responsible Yugoslav representatives have stated time and again, and I am stating it once more on behalf of the Government I represent, that Yugoslavia belongs to no bloc, that it has concluded no public or secret military alliances with any country, that no foreign power possesses, either directly or indirectly, military bases on Yugoslav territory, and that no foreign power participates in any form in determining Yugoslav defence policy. Further, neither the peoples of Yugoslavia nor their Government nurture any aggressive intentions with regard to any neighbouring country, or in any way menace or wish to menace the peace and j independence of any such country.
76. I am further authorized to state here on behalf of [ the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia the following: the peoples of Yugoslavia have in the past defended and will in the future defend the independence and integrity of their country against all aggression and against all attempts to threaten their right to be masters in their own house. The peoples of Yugoslavia, however, will not take part in any aggressive war and wish to live in lasting peace and peaceful co-operation with all nations, and especially with their neighbours. In accordance with this consistent peace-loving attitude, the Government of Yugoslavia declares that it is ready to conclude an agreement of lasting peace and nonaggression with each neighbouring country.
77. However, independently of the facts I have mentioned, it is necessary to emphasize that there is real danger today of aggression being launched, in certain circumstances, under the guise of defence from aggression.
78. Millions and millions of men and women in the world want peace. They will execrate any aggressor bringing war upon mankind. For this reason the aggressor hides himself and will always do so.
79. We, of course, bear in mind and welcome the progress achieved in the elaboration of international rules outlawing aggressive war. We have all accepted the principle that war must not be an instrument of national policy. We have all agreed that war can be considered justified only when it is waged for the defence of the national independence and territorial integrity of a State which has been the victim of an act of aggression.
80. However, today it is extremely important that the peoples should most resolutely oppose attempts made by covert aggressors to misuse the concept of lawful self-defence for the purpose of unleashing new wars. This applies particularly to the necessity of preventing the aggressor from developing a local conflict into a real war by invoking the principle of self-defence.
81. This has prompted the Yugoslav delegation to submit to the present session of the General Assembly a draft resolution the object of which is to prevent, or at least render difficult, such disguised aggression.
82. The basic idea of our draft resolution is that every state which, in whatsoever circumstances, is found to be engaged in military operations against another state shall be obliged to declare publicly within twenty-four hours its readiness to cease fire and its readiness to withdraw its armed forces from foreign territory and to carry out this undertaking, provided the opposing side makes a similar undertaking. A state failing to act in this manner will place itself in the position of an aggressor and will render itself responsible for the breach of peace.
83. The Yugoslav delegation believes that the adoption of this rule by the General Assembly would greatly lessen the possibility of disguised aggression. If this rule were adopted, any government conducting military operations under the guise of false self-defence would unquestionably be branded as an aggressor before the whole world and before its own people.
84. Finally, I wish to emphasize that the Government of Yugoslavia will for its part — whether the General Assembly accepts this proposal or not — adhere to the principles laid down therein.
85. All of us, and especially those of us who bear the primary responsibility for world peace, are in duty bound to draw the necessary conclusions from the experiences of post-war international developments and effect the necessary improvements in all spheres of international relations. We shall either all learn from past experiences and put an end to cold war methods, or we shall be compelled to admit the failure of all our efforts to find a way to peaceful agreement among nations; a failure which will sooner or later hurl mankind into the catastrophe of a new war. Mankind, which is yearning for a lasting peace, expects us to achieve practical results in this respect. Let us make every effort to be able to present mankind with such results so that we may, first of all, restore confidence to all peace- loving peoples in the possibility of achieving a lasting democratic peace.