The attention of the world is riveted on this session of the United Nations General Assembly. One reason this session is regarded as an outstanding international event is that the most prominent statesmen from many countries are taking part in the discussion of problems which are of vital importance for all mankind.
120. The lofty and noble principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter impose a grave responsibility upon us, the representatives of various countries of the world. We must not forget that the United Nations wag set up ”to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold Sorrow to mankind”.
121. These words from the Preamble of the United Nations Charter express the dearest wishes of the peoples of all lands. The delegations of many peace-loving States are working tirelessly in the United Nations for the attainment of this noble goal. Together with these countries, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic has been defending international peace and security and it will continue to do so.
122. The course of the general debate has shown that the delegations of many States have come here with the sincere intention of doing their share in reaching constructive decisions on questions of disarmament and on other problems with which the United Nations is faced. Unfortunately, however, not all the delegations are so motivated. The representatives of a number of Western countries who have spoken from this rostrum led us into a maze of polemics, even while their Governments pursue the old policy of the cold war.
123. The well-known old precept that men should be judged by their deeds and not their words can also be applied in assessing government policies. It suffices to turn to the facts, the events of the past year, in order to see who is the genuine standard-bearer of peace and who opposes the fulfilment of the peaceful aspirations of the peoples.
124. The socialist countries, whose foreign policy is predicated on the principle of peaceful coexistence, earnestly endeavour to consolidate peace and prevent another war. The peoples of the world greeted with deep satisfaction the plan of general and complete disarmament [A/4219] which the Soviet Union submitted last year, at the fourteenth session of the United Nations General Assembly.
125. The peoples had great hopes that 1960 would be marked by the adoption of international decisions that would clear the storm clouds out of the sky. But the Western Powers and, in the first place, the United States, dashed these hopes. The violation of the Soviet Union’s air space by spy aircraft of the United States, the premeditated wrecking by the United States Government of the conference of the Heads of Government of the great Powers in Paris, the intrigues of the colonialists in the Congo (Leopoldville), the threat of intervention against the Republic of Cuba, the sabotaging of the work of the Ten-Nation Committee on Disarmament by the delegations of the Western countries and the plans to equip the West German militarists with nuclear rockets, all testify to the fact that the ruling circles in the United States and in other Western countries have chosen once again to increase international tension.
126. In these circumstances a grave responsibility falls on the United Nations General Assembly at its present session. It must take decisions that would open the way for radical measures in the interests of world peace.
127. At its fifteenth session, the General Assembly must devote particular attention to the question of disarmament, which is universally recognized as the most important and urgent question of our times.
128. Stockpiles of nuclear weapons grow from day to day, and rockets and other means of delivery of atomic and hydrogen bombs are being increasingly perfected. It is known that the United States military clique is preparing not only for atomic but also for bacteriological and chemical warfare. Further developments in that direction may lead to catastrophe. General and complete disarmament is therefore a goal whose attainment is dictated by pressing necessity. Man’s creative mind — which is already conquering outer space and which, beyond doubt, will soon lay bare the mysteries of other worlds — must hot and cannot put up with the fact that decisive measures which would banish war from the life of society for all time have not yet been taken.
129. All peoples need peace. Only those who have not experienced the horrors of war or who, in pursuit of their criminal purposes, disregard the interests of the people, do not cherish peace. The Byelorussian people knows full well the calamities that war brings in its train. The Nazi invaders turned Byelorussian towns and villages into ruins and heaps of ashes. War robbed the Byelorussian people of more than half of its national wealth. Industrial output in the Republic was pushed back several decades, down to the 1913 level. However, the heaviest, the irreparable loss was that in human lives. In the years of the Second World War Byelorussia lost more than 2 million people, or over 20 per cent of its population. When we speak of the consequences of war, the Poles and the Czechs, the French and the British, and other-peoples who have experienced the horrors of war understand us well.
130. In order to conceal their wicked military plans, the enemies of peace are throwing up a new kind of smoke screen by ascribing aggressive intentions to us. But that is a gross distortion of the truth. The socialist States are the ones which pursue a peaceful foreign policy. The Governments of the Soviet Union and of the other socialist countries have been working tirelessly in all the international organizations to ensure the easing of international tension and the consolidation of peace among nations.
131. The reason for which we desire peace is not that the Soviet State is afraid of, or considers itself weaker than, any other State, but that socialism and wars of aggression are incompatible. In our country power is in the hands of the working people, and the working people do not need war. The Soviet people, in conditions of fraternal friendship and close cooperation, are building communism — a new and happy society, giving fulfilment to the fondest dreams of the best sons of mankind: that all men should enjoy true freedom and security and lead a life of creative labour. To speak in metaphor, we are building a fine new house for the working man and we do not want it to be set on fire. Nor do we want the houses of our neighbours to be burned down, for what builder thinks of destruction?
132. In this context I should like to say a few words about my Republic. Before the revolution Byelorussia was an under-developed borderland of Czarist Russia. The Byelorussian people was cruelly oppressed by landlords and capitalists, including foreign exploiters. It even lacked a state structure of its own. As a result of the victory of the October Socialist Revolution in Russia, the Byelorussian people acquired the right to set up its own sovereign State, and proceeded to do so. Under the Soviet Government, with the disinterested help of the Russian, the Ukrainian and the other brother peoples of the Soviet Union, my country has become a Republic with a highly developed national economy. In 1960 Byelorussia will produce thirty-five times more industrial goods than in 1913, and almost four and a half times more than in the pre-war year 1940.
133. Judged-by the per caput level of industrial and agricultural output, Byelorussia is far ahead of many capitalist countries of Europe and America. Thus, in terms of output per 1,000 inhabitants, Byelorussia produces more metal-cutting lathes than the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Japan, and more lorries and tractors than the United Kingdom, France, the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy.
134. Whereas before the Revolution 80 per cent of our population was illiterate and there were hardly any specialist with higher education, at present more than 100,000 such specialists are employed in the national economy of the Republic. Higher educational establishments in Byelorussia are training more students per 10,000 inhabitants than is the case in any capitalist country of Europe.
135. Our people see the results of its peaceful creative work in rapidly rising prosperity and in the ever-increasing extent to which its material and cultural requirements are being met. This is clearly borne out by the constant rise in the real wages of manual and non-manual workers and in the income of the peasants, by the reduction in the length of the working day, by the abolition of personal taxation, by the colossal volume of housing construction, by the constant improvement of the free medical services enjoyed by the Soviet people, by the development of the system of general education and by many other measures which the Soviet Government carries out in the interests of the working people.
136. The Byelorussian people, like the peoples of the other Soviet Republics and of the socialist countries, devotes its efforts to peaceful construction. But we are bound to feel concern over the fact that powerful reactionary forces in the Western countries are striving to aggravate international relations and are pursuing a policy of the cold war. It is in that spirit that the Western bloc made preparations for the present session of the General Assembly. The Western Powers refused to heed the appeal made by Nikita S. Khrushchev, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, to the Heads of Government of all States to attend the General Assembly and to take part personally in a serious discussion of the pressing problem of our day. What is more, the United States Government — apparently in order to hamper the work of delegations — reacted by restricting the freedom of movement in New York of Mr. Khrushchev and a number of other high-level representatives. This unprecedented action by the United States Government — which, first and foremost, was damaging to the dignity of the United States itself — in essence constituted an attempt to initiate a new phase of the cold war. Later on, the Heads of Government of certain Western countries were compelled to take part in the work of this session. But, as can be seen from certain statements and proposals, some of them did not come here with good intentions.
137. For instance, both the tone and the substance of the speech made by Mr. Diefenbaker, the Prime Minister of Canada [871st meeting] profoundly outraged us. This senior statesman repeated here from the United Nations rostrum the slander disseminated by war criminals and other dregs of society who were expelled from the Soviet Union and found refuge in the Western countries, including Canada. He alleged here that the peoples of the Soviet Union were not free and even called for the holding of free elections in the Soviet Union — what he regards as "free elections”, of course. I do not think that the Prime Minister of Canada is not informed about the state of affairs in the Soviet Union. He is bound to know that the world’s most democratic elections to State organs are periodically held in our country in accordance with the Constitution.
138. In so far as the Soviet Government and socialism are concerned, our people voted for them, arms in hand, back in the years of the civil war when it drove out of the country the troops of fourteen imperialist States, including the United States, which had been trying to destroy the new social system in Russia. Likewise, the whole world knows how the Soviet people voted in the Second World War. They defended with honour their socialist fatherland, freedom and democracy, utterly defeating the Nazi hordes.
139. Since the war, too, the peoples of the USSR have been voting unanimously for communism. They have demonstrated a rate of growth of output and of the productivity of free labour, the like of which the world had never seen. It was the Soviet people and no other which inaugurated a new era in mankind’s development — that of the conquest of space. This could be done only by men who were genuinely free from the fetters of the old world, by the representatives of the most highly civilized of all societies. This is recognized by the peoples of all countries, and it is only the enemies of peace, the representatives of the capitalist monopolies, who venture to slander the peoples of the Soviet Union and of the other socialist countries, because that is one of their ways of intensifying the cold war. As regards the Canadian Prime Ministers rude attacks on the socialist countries, it is not hard to guess in whose interests they were made. A Canadian newspaper, Citizen, commenting on Mr. Diefenbaker’s speech at this session of the General Assembly said: "... we are moving towards a period when Canada’s independence of action in international affairs will be even more restricted than in the past…”. Quite recently General Pearkes, the Canadian Minister of National Defence, said that Canada was placing four air bases in the northern part of the country at the disposal of the United States Air Force. There you have Canada’s independence and the peaceful intentions of its Government.
140. Mr. Menzies, the Prime Minister of Australia, who preceded me today and felt obliged to make a hostile statement about the Soviet Union, also acted in the spirit of the cold war. Without saying anything at this juncture about the substance of his attack, I should like to state the following with regard to his speech: the position of the Western bloc, which rejects the Soviet Union’s draft declaration of the grant of independence to colonial countries and peoples [A/4502] must be weak indeed if Mr. Menzies had to speak in defence of imperialism and colonialism and against the interests of colonial and dependent, peoples. There was apparently no one else to do this. As regards his arguments about the position of the neutral countries and his assertion that the Western bloc respects their interests, the entire history of the United Nations, including, unfortunately, the present session of the General Assembly, shows the interests of the neutral. countries being trampled on by the bloc of the Western countries which follow the lead of the United States and act on its instructions.
141. With regard to the attacks made by the representative of the Philippines, I do not deem it necessary to reply to him because he represents a puppet régime set up in those islands by the United States.
142. The Byelorussian SSR, being a European country, is profoundly interested in the speedy solution of all the problems engendered by tension between European countries. This relates in particular to the problem of a peaceful settlement with Germany.
143, Twice within the lifetime of a single generation, German troops have invaded the territory of Byelorussia, threatening the very existence of the Byelorussian people. That is why we cannot remain indifferent to the dangerous developments in the Federal Republic of Germany, where the militarists, with the blessing and active assistance of their NATO allies and, first and foremost, the United States, are fanning “revanchist" feelings, creating a vast army and striving to get it equipped with atomic and rocket weapons. Yet it was but a few years ago that the Western Powers and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany stated solemnly that West Germany would not have a large army and that the Bundeswehr would not be given atomic weapons. These declarations have been forgotten, and the Western Powers have also thrown overboard the official commitments on the subject embodied in the Potsdam Agreement of 1945.
144. The great danger of the Western countries’ policy of arming the Federal Republic of Germany lies in the fact that we are dealing with a State whose Government does not recognize the existing frontiers with its neighbours. In these circumstances how can a sensible person believe in the "defensive character" of the West German Army? One must be a complete simpleton or have criminal designs, to put atomic and rocket weapons in the hands of former Nazi generals.
145. In this context it is impossible not to refer to the speech made at this session of the General Assembly by Mr. Macmillan [877th meeting]. It is odd to see the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the part of a defender of West Germany's rearmament. It is odd to hear assurances about the "peaceful intentions” of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany coming from the Prime Minister of a country which still bears the scars of the Second World War to remind its people of the calamitous consequences of the policy of appeasing German militarism. It is odd to hear these statements while Federal Chancellor Adenauer, the Ministers of the Bonn Government and other West German officials and politicians are openly proclaiming that the aim of militarist Germany is "revanchism" — the revision of frontiers and the seizure of foreign territory. Judging by Mr. Macmillan's statement, it would appear that the ruling circles in the United Kingdom do not want to heed the lessons of the past. For something rather similar happened once before. Everyone remembers how Mr. Chamberlain sought to appease Hitler and what a high price the British people had to pay for its Governments unwise policy at Munich. Is not the United Kingdom Government pursuing an identical policy towards Germany now? The policy of giving a free hand to militarism and "revanchism” in West Germany creates a threat to peace and to the security of all peoples, including the British people. It is a dangerous policy. In view of the existence of military alliances and the entry of the Federal Republic of Germany into NATO, the reckless policy of the West German Government may start a world conflagration.
146, I should like to draw the Assembly’s attention to facts illustrating the revival of nazism in the Federal Republic of Germany and to the activities of former war criminals there. We deem this to be our duty because it was following a proposal by the Byelorussian SSR In 1946 that the General Assembly adopted resolution [3(1)] on the extradition and punishment of war criminals.
147. Fifteen years after the crushing of Nazi Germany, nazism has again raised its head in the Federal Republic of Germany. The tide of anti-Semitism which swept over West Germany this year furnished further proof of the fact that the old roots of nazism in the Federal Republic of Germany have not been dug out, but, on the contrary, have produced new shoots. Government services in West Germany are at present Staffed to a considerable extent by adherents of nazism. Everyone is aware of the evidence exposing as war criminals the former Federal Minister Oberlander and the present State Secretary to the Chancellor, Globke, who, in 1944, was the right-hand man of that hangman, Himmler.
148. We in Byelorussia remember very well the name of Adolf Heusinger, the war criminal who is now in command of the Bundeswehr. Authentic documents paint a fearful picture of the monstrous crimes committed by this Nazi general. During the war Heusinger was chief of the operations department of the German Army High Command, and on his orders the Nazis carried out mass shootings in Byelorussia. In the autumn of 1942, for instance, 45,900 people were shot in the Brest area. It was on his personal orders demanding “the taking of repressive measures with the application of the harshest measures of intimidation" that in September 1942 the Nazis shed the blood of the peaceful inhabitants of the Byelorussian Settlement of, Slavnoye, brutally killing completely innocent people. Adolf Heusinger took part in the preparation and execution of Hitler’s plans for the enslavement of the peoples of Europe. And now this hangman-cum-general is held in high honour once again and his hands are stretching avidly to weapons of mass destruction. The conscience of mankind cannot tolerate this.
149. This situation has arisen in West Germany because the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and France began to violate the Potsdam Agreement immediately the war was over. As had been the case after the First World War, United States aid in the amount of several thousand million dollars set German militarism on its feet again. This has been admitted by the former Nazi General Speidel who said on 8 August I960: "Without this aid we would never have been able to set up, organize and train the armed forces of the Federal Republic". It may well be that these words are music to the ears of certain United States politicians, but the peoples of Europe — and not of Europe atone — resolutely condemn the dangerous policy of reviving German militarism.
150. The Governments of the Western countries perhaps entertain hopes of once again directing eastwards the war machine of German militarism. But the road to the East has been barred to aggressors once and for all. The socialist countries have at their disposal everything needed in order to offer a crushing rebuff to the German militarists and their military allies. We should like to draw the attention of the ruling circles of the Western countries to the fact that German militarism also knows the road to the West. Last September, for instance, in connexion with the holding of the so-called “Day of the Fatherland" in a number of West German cities, leaders of the Christian Democratic Party, the ruling party in the Federal Republic of Germany, demanded the return of "territories beyond Germany’s western frontiers". As we all know, declarations of this kind are neither isolated nor accidental. The Western European countries and their statesmen who are encouraging Adenauer ought to give thought to these statements and look to the security of their own peoples.
151. The stand taken by the socialist countries on the German question is not motivated by a desire for revenge or hatred of the German people. It is dictated by concern for the fate of peace in Europe and in the world. Peace is desired by the German people itself, whose interests are being suitably defended by the German Democratic Republic, a genuinely peace-loving and democratic State. The Government of the German Democratic Republic has consistently put forward proposals for the peaceful settlement of the German question.
152. The document [see A/4504] on the general and complete disarmament of the two German States, issued by the Government of the German Democratic Republic and circulated in the United Nations at the request of the Czechoslovak delegation is further evidence of this fact. The Byelorussian delegation warmly supports these proposals. Delegations should read this document and-think its contents over. It has been inspired by the wish of the German Democratic Republic to make a contribution to the bringing about of general and complete disarmament. It suggests unimportant step — the general and complete disarmament of the two German States, a measure in which not only the peoples of Europe but also those of the other continents are greatly interested.
153. In his speech Mr. Macmillan explained the militarization of the Federal Republic of Germany by asserting that the German Democratic Republic is armed and pursues a policy contrary to peace. This argument is untenable, to put it mildly. The German Democratic Republic advocates the total disarmament of both German States, How can one juggle with the facts to that extent?
154. It is high time the Western countries adopted a reasonable attitude towards Germany and recognized that two German States now exist. We believe that the most sensible course in the present circumstances would be to conclude a peace treaty with the two sovereign German State — the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany — and bring the situation in West Berlin back to normal, in accordance with the USSR Government’s proposals. The conclusion of a peace treaty would put an end to remilitarization and "revanchism" in West Germany; it would open up to the German people the prospects of peaceful and democratic development; it would greatly facilitate the solution of the problem of Germany’s unification; it would lead to the elimination of a threat of war which is once again emerging in the heart of Europe; and it would consolidate peace and promote the security of peoples.
155. More than once it has proved necessary to draw the General Assembly’s attention to the aggressive actions of the United States against the Soviet Union. Today, we are compelled to do so again, because recent events have shown conclusively tins serious threat to world peace created by the acts of aggression rashly committed by the United States Government.
156. The latest provocative intrusions by United States U-2 and RB-47 military aircraft into the air space of the USSR, which are but links in a long chain of similar acts of provocation, are fresh in everybody’s memory. In the last two years there have been twenty-five cases of provocative intrusions by United States military aircraft into the air space of the Soviet Union alone; this figure does not include violations of the sovereignty of the People’s Republic of China and other States.
157. Quite frankly, we Soviet nationals find it hard to remain calm when we speak of this disgraceful activity by the military clique and the Government of the United States. Yet there are individuals, even here in the United Nations, who try to represent the United States as a peace-loving Power. This shameful role can be played only by minions of the United States.
158. The whole world, I repeat, the whole world, was alarmed when the United States U-2 aircraft flew over the territory of the Soviet Union and was then shot down. There was no corner of the world, it seemed, where public opinion did not indignantly condemn the United States Government's policy of playing with fire. Even here, in the United States itself, not a few sober voices were raised in protest. But instead of drawing the necessary conclusions from the U-2 venture, the United States repeated it exactly two months later by sending an RB-47 towards the shores of the Soviet Union. As is known, both these piratical raids had a sorry ending for their organizers. But it is permissible to ask what is the intention of the Pentagon and the United States Government in pursuing this policy of provocation. Is it possible that the United States Government does not realize that its policy is extremely dangerous to the cause of peace? One must give its due to the USSR Government, which has been showing concern for the fate of mankind, exercising self-restraint and doing everything in its power to shield the world from the catastrophe of war.
159. The acts of aggression by the United States must put on their guard those present in this hall and ordinary folk in all countries, with whose fate the military clique in the United States is gambling so cruelly. One can imagine what will be left of the sovereignty of many small countries — and they comprise the majority of United Nations Members — if the United States Government, which has proclaimed spying from the air and the violation of the sovereignty of other States to be its official policy and which claims impunity for these criminal acts, is not sternly called to order in good time. All those who are concerned over the fate of peace and the security of peoples cannot fail to condemn the acts of aggression by the United States against the Soviet Union. The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR thinks that it is the duty of the General Assembly to compel the United States to respect the United Nations Charter, the rules of international law and the sovereignty of other States, because this policy on the part of the United States increases tension in international relations, presents a threat to the security of peoples and is fraught with the most grievous consequences for the cause of peace.
160. Public opinion throughout the world calls for the ending of the reckless policy of the arms race which is dangerous to the cause of peace, and the stopping of the senseless expenditure of material resources on preparations for war,
161. According to data published in the United States Press, the countries of the West which belong to various aggressive blocs annually spend for military purposes 63,000 million dollars, or more than half the annual income of all the under-developed countries in the world. The expenditures of the United States for direct military purposes average 128 million dollars per day. This sum is almost double the amount allocated by the United States Government for the building of schools in the 1960-1961 fiscal year. The achievement of general and complete disarmament, as proposed by the Soviet Union, would lighten the heavy burden of taxes borne by the workers of the capitalist countries, and would open up limitless prospects for the improvement of standards of living.
162. The idea of general and complete disarmament is being enthusiastically welcomed and supported by the peoples of all countries of the world. It is not so easy now to oppose this idea; that is why everyone is talking about disarmament. Why, then, has no appropriate agreement on disarmament yet been reached? Who is responsible for the breakdown of disarmament negotiations?
163. The representatives of Western countries who have spoken here, President Eisenhower and Mr. Macmillan among them, have clearly tried to shift the blame from the guilty to the innocent by accusing the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries represented on the Ten-Nation Committee on Disarmament of disrupting the Committee’s work. The facts show that it was the Western Powers themselves who reduced the work of the Committee to a deadlock. In order to reach an agreement, the delegations of the USSR and the other socialist countries took a flexible attitude in the Committee and mad concessions to the Western Powers on many points. But there was no constructive response from the Western countries. Nor can their latest proposals be considered constructive, for they repeat the old formula for the establishment of control over armaments; and that, as you know, is diametrically opposed to disarmament. It became clear that the Western Powers were using the Ten-Nation Committee as a screen to cover the continuance of the armaments race, and were merely deceiving the peoples into thinking that they were in favour of disarmament. The Soviet Union and the other socialist States could naturally not be parties to such a deception of the peoples, and broke off their work in the Ten-Nation Committee.
164. But the Soviet Union is persistently working to bring about general and complete disarmament. The idea of general and complete disarmament, the most humane idea in the history of mankind, has gained new strength since Mr. Nikita S. Khrushchev, Chairman of the Soviet delegation and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, made his speech to the General Assembly [869th meeting] on 23 September 1960. The Soviet delegation has submitted for the General Assembly’s consideration a number of new proposals, which are set forth in the document, "Basic provisions of a treaty on general and complete disarmament" [A/4505]. These proposals develop further the idea of general and complete disarmament. They take into account the experience of the negotiations which have been held on the question of disarmament, the constructive suggestions made and the wishes expressed by the official representatives of various countries, and the views of spokesmen of the general public.
165. This detailed programme not only provides for the achievement of general and complete disarmament in three stages, but also ensures that at none of these stages shall any one State acquire military advantages over other States. All disarmament measures from beginning to end will be carried out under strict and effective international control which will be entirely appropriate, both in extent and in kind, to each stage of disarmament.
166. But what have the Western Powers brought to this session of the General Assembly? Let us take a look at their new positions on the disarmament question. However closely we examine the statements made by the representatives of the Western Powers we shall not find in them anything new, anything which shows that the Western Powers are working towards disarmament. The same old control over armaments, the same old inspection without disarmament — such are the elements which characterize the position of the United States, the United Kingdom and certain other Western countries. The primary factor in their approach to disarmament questions is still their desire to obtain espionage information about the socialist countries. In those circumstances, the inescapable conclusion is that for the Western Powers the ideal solution of the question would apparently be the conversion of Mr. Allen Dulles’s agency into an international control organ. Surely, the militant rulers of the United States and the other countries members of NATO are asking a great deal!
167. The representative of Italy, in his speech [876th meeting], urged us to bear in mind the inequality existing in the sphere of conventional armed forces. I cannot refrain from pointing out that the basic provisions of a treaty on general and complete disarmament submitted by the Soviet delegation included proposals for reducing the armed forces of all States to agreed levels at the very first stage, the maximum levels suggested for the United States and the USSR being 1.7 million men.
168. Prime Minister Macmillan said many fine things about the need to save mankind from the threat of war, but himself proposed nothing that was really new. It is characteristic that not long before Mr. Macmillan made his statement to the United Nations General Assembly, Mr. Watkinson, the United Kingdom Minister of Defence, had argued for the continuance of the arms race. He said plainly that in the coming decade the United Kingdom would continue to build up its armaments. In this speech again, first place was given to the question of control.
169. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom proposed that a meeting of technical experts should be convened to work out measures for the inspection and control of disarmament. In support of his proposal Mr. Macmillan referred to the experience of the Conference on the Discontinuance of Nuclear Weapons Tests held at Geneva. It is true that a conference of experts of the USSR, the United States and the United Kingdom produced a joint report, one of the conclusion of which was that control over nuclear explosions could be fully ensured. But the ink had barely dried on the signatures to the experts’ report when the Western Powers began to cast doubt on its conclusions. And for nearly two years now the United States and the United Kingdom, using all kinds of dubious “technical” and pseudo-scientific arguments, have been hindering the conclusion of an agreement for the discontinuance of nuclear weapons tests. All this suggests that the proposal made by the United Kingdom Prime Minister is apparently just a new trick on the part of the Western Powers to delude the people into thinking that something is really being done in the sphere of disarmament.
170. The conclusion of an agreement on the discontinuance of nuclear tests and the prohibition of nuclear weapons does not suit the book of the ruling groups in the United States, who are following a policy designed to increase international tension, and they are compelled to use every possible means to conceal their aims. It was with this very intention that President Eisenhower, in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly [868th meeting], proposed that countries should transfer part of their fissionable materials to international stockpiles and should gradually cease production of such materials. It is not difficult, however, to detect the real meaning and the insincerity of this proposal. It must be clear to everyone that the transfer of a certain quantity of fissionable material to an international organization, or even the- cessation of the production of such materials, does not rule out the possibility of a nuclear war. After all, the United States has already accumulated a sufficient quantity of nuclear weapons to ensure that even if the production of fissionable materials were stopped, the sword of Damocles would still be hanging over our heads in the form of weapons of mass destruction which might be put into action at any moment upon the whim of some madman. And no inspection will be of any use.
171. The Soviet Union is proposing a clear and precise programme: to prohibit both tests and the production of nuclear weapons, to destroy the means of their delivery and then the weapons themselves, and to abolish military bases on foreign territory. Just that is what the socialist countries are asking. What more radical step could be taken as regards disarmament? But the Western Powers are against these proposals; they even refuse to discuss them in plenary meetings of the General Assembly.
172, Who can still be in doubt that the Western Powers have no serious intention of finding a positive solution to the question of disarmament? The real reason why the United States and its partners sabotaged the disarmament negotiations was that the militarization of the economy and the armaments race brings the monopolies of the imperialist Powers fabulous profits.
173, Take for example the United States, where the profits of the monopolies engaged in armaments production have become truly astronomical. The General Dynamics Corporation, which produces ballistic missiles, submarines, military aircraft and other military equipment, has in the last ten years increased its profits from $1.8 to $91.8 million. During the same period the profits of the United Aircraft Corporation have grown from $16 to $109 million. In 1947 the profits of the General Electric Company amounted to $177 million; now there are more than $500 million. But even that is not enough for them. The American military production monopolies are demanding larger and larger military orders; are demanding the continuance of the armaments race; and military expenditure in the United States is climbing.
174. At a time when the United States and its allies are preventing a positive settlement of the disarmament question, the General Assembly must make its authoritative voice heard. It must recognize the need for a prompt solution of the problem of general and complete disarmament and ensure the earliest possible preparation and conclusion of a disarmament agreement. The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR, for its part, fully approves the basic provisions of a treaty on general and complete disarmament submitted by the Soviet delegation, and urges all delegations to support these proposals. The General Assembly should also recommend the earliest possible completion of the work of drafting an agreement on the discontinuance of nuclear tests, and should call upon Powers possessing nuclear weapons not to carry out any tests of these weapons before the conclusion of the relevant agreement.
175. Our criticism of the work of the Ten-Nation Committee on Disarmament does not mean that we are fundamentally opposed to the disarmament question’s being considered in any committee at all. Experience has shown, however, that with the present composition of the Ten-Nation Committee, no agreement on disarmament questions is possible. We therefore support the Soviet delegation's proposal [A/4509] that the Committee should be augmented by the addition of five neutral countries. We have no doubt that they will play a constructive part in the Committee's work and that this will help to bring about a positive settlement of the question of general and complete disarmament at the earliest possible date.
176. The Byelorussian delegation fully and entirely agrees with Mr. Khrushchev's proposals for the reorganization of the United Nations Secretariat and the elimination of unjust representation in "the Security Council. We consider these proposals extremely sound,
177. The fact is that a great deal of time has passed since the adoption of the United Nations Charter and the establishment of the United Nations organs. During this time the world situation — the distribution of forces in the world arena, has radically changed. A powerful camp of socialist countries, with a population numbering 1,000 million, has come into being. Many States in Asia, Africa and other parts of the world have freed themselves from colonial dependence, have started along the road to successful development as States and are following a policy of neutralism. They present a mighty front of neutral States which is having a significant influence on world politics. As for the Western bloc, in recent years it has lost its former position both economically and militarily. But the composition of the Security Council and the structure of the Secretariat have remained unchanged. What is more, the executive organs and staff of the United Nations are made up of supporters of the bloc of Western capitalist countries, and they pursue a policy advantageous to the United States of America.
178. Mr. Hammarskjold, the Secretary-General, puts on a show here of outraged innocence, but his lack of objectivity is obvious. It is clear from his behaviour in the Congo (Leopoldville), that he is the servant of the Western countries. If anyone still has any doubts on that score he need only look at the memorandum dated 27 September 1960 submitted by the Congolese Parliamentary delegation, which has been circulated to representatives. The mere fact that the Western countries have raised such a clamour in response to the criticism of Mr. Hammarskjold, that they have gone all out to keep him in his post, makes it obvious whose interests he serves as Secretary-General. How can we have confidence in a Secretary-General of the United Nations who is not guided in his actions by the principles of the United Nations Charter?
179. Thus, the structure and composition of the executive organs of the United Nations do not correspond to the distribution of forces in the world, to the new situation in the world. The Western Powers ignore that fact. They are still trying to act as masters in the United Nations, as they have done in the past, and since the machinery of the United Nations is in their hands they succeed in imposing their policy on it. This makes it impossible for the United Nations to fulfil its purpose of maintaining international peace and security and settling international disputes, in conformity with the principles of justice and international law.
180. The representatives of the Western countries complained loudly that the Soviet Union's proposals had created a crisis in the United Nations. But the United Nations has long been undergoing a crisis, as a result of the illegal usurpation of power in its executive organs by the United States of America, The Soviet Union, concerned as it is at the state of the world, has submitted proposals which are designed to remove the crisis in the United Nations, to restore the Organization to health. The United Nations ought to be a universal organization, in which only generally agreed decisions should be carried out. The present situation in the United Nations does not meet these requirements. The fact that the People's Republic of China has for ten years been prevented from taking part in the work of the United Nations and that the Mongolian People's Republic has been denied admission to membership is a black spot in the history of the United Nations. It is evidence of the situation that exists in the Organization. The blame for this strange situation rests with the United States, which brings pressure to bear on many States and exercises arbitrary rule in the United Nations.
181. If the United Nations Secretariat remains in the hands of the United States and its military allies, this situation may continue. But in that case there will be no organization in the world which can take agreed decisions, binding on all, on matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security. This is a matter of much concern to the delegations of the socialist countries; and many other delegations, too, understand this situation. Thus, when we say that the Secretariat should be reorganized and inequitable representation in the Security Council ended, it is because we believe that the Organization must be strengthened and turned into an international forum which could really put into effect the lofty principles of the United Nations Charter. The Soviet Union's proposals must be seen as an important contribution towards strengthening the Organization and raising its international prestige, as an important measure towards putting the principles of the United Nations Charter into effect.
182. The sharply negative reaction of the Western Powers to the Soviet Union’s proposal shows once again that the time is ripe for the reorganization of the executive organs of the United Nations, and that the Western Powers do not want to lose the advantages they at present enjoy in the United Nations.
183. It is time to stop the United Nations being used as a tool of the Western bloc. The United Nations is an international organization, and the legitimate interests of all its Members should be given equitable weight in its activities. The Soviet Union's proposal is not prompted by any desire on the part of the socialist countries to secure a special position for themselves in the United Nations. What we want is the strengthening of the Organization. The United Nations will be strong only when it reflects the interests of all. All we want is that the positions of all countries, and not of one group of countries only — as is the case at present — should be taken into account in the executive organs of the United Nations and in the Organization itself. We wish the executive machinery of the United Nations to reflect the real position obtaining in the world.
184. Concerned as we are for the future, we believe that such a reorganization can be regarded as one important step towards bringing about the conditions in which a programme of general and complete disarmament can be carried out. We fully share the opinion of Mr. Khrushchev, the Chairmen of the Soviet delegation, that there can be no disarmament without safeguards against the misuse of United Nations armed forces. There can be no disarmament in the absence of a staff which will carry out decisions in the interests of all. We believe that if the Western Powers really want disarmament they must recognize the need to reorganize the United Nations Secretariat and to correct the inequitable situation which has arisen in the Security Council.
185. A real sign of the times is the sudden collapse of the shameful colonial system which not long ago extended, over vast areas of the earth. Since the overthrow of colonialism in Asia, the banner of the national liberation movement has been seized by the long-suffering continent of Africa which had been reduced to the very last stages of impoverishment by the European colonizers and held back several centuries in its social development. Indeed, whatever indicator we take for purposes of comparison, whether it be national income, the level of industrial development, literacy or the provision of medical services, Africa takes the lowest place in the whole world. The dire results which the overlordship of the colonialists has had for the African people are indicated, for example, by the fact that Africa's share in the world's population has shrunk from 20 per cent in the sixteenth century to 8 per cent in the twentieth.
186. The Western Powers accord Africa, a special place in their plans. The capitalist monopolies count on the fantastically wealthy African continent to compensate them for the loss of their colonial possessions in Asia. In a report to the United States Senate prepared by the Prances Bolton mission in 1956, it was stated that one of the goals of the United States in Africa was to secure access to the continent's raw materials, in order, particularly, to meet strategic needs. And in Alliance Policy in the Cold War, published in 1959 and edited by Arnold Wolfers, Director of the Washington Center of Foreign Policy Research, it was stated: "It could be argued that we should support our European allies in their colonial policies on the assumption that European strength, so necessary to the defense of the West, depended upon the economic and strategic benefits of the colonial system."
187. Recent events show that the colonialists are making desperate attempts to hold back the headlong development of the liberation movement on the African continent. But the mighty tide of national liberation is sweeping away the last bastions of colonialism. Already this year, the independent countries of Africa account for three-quarters of the continent's population and two-thirds of its territory.
188. At its present session, the General Assembly has admitted to membership in the United Nations sixteen new States, including fifteen African countries. The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR, on behalf of the whole Byelorussian people, warmly welcomes the hew African States and the Republic of Cyprus, and asks the delegations of these countries to convey to their peoples our sincere wishes for their successful economic and soda! progress and the consolidation of their independence.
189. We rejoice at the fact that in 1960 a large group of colonial peoples acquired political independence. But it should not be forgotten that many peoples are still suffering under the yoke of colonial slavery and are struggling for their freedom.
190. True, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in addressing the General Assembly, said that the Soviet Union's call for the liquidation of colonialism was completely anachronistic. But the whole world knows that the peoples of Kenya, Tanganyika, Rhodesia, South West Africa, Angola, Mozambique and Ruanda-Urundi in Africa, of Goa and West Irian in Asia and of Guiana in America are still languishing under the yoke of colonial slavery, and are deprived of elementary human rights.
191. Who can believe that colonialism is dead, when blood has been flowing for six years now in Algeria, where the French colonialists are trying by fire and sword to break the will, of the Algerian people, heroically fighting for the freedom and independence of their fatherland?
192. And does not the policy of the imperialist Powers in the Congo (Leopoldville) tell us that colonialism is still alive, and that it is adapting itself to new conditions, employing new forms and methods of resistance to the national liberation movement of the peoples? In the events id the Congo we see reflected as in a mirror the manifestly colonialist character of the North Atlantic and other blocs of Western States headed by the United States of America.,
193. It is the responsibility of the United Nations to take decisive measures to restore the situation in the Republic of the Congo to normal and to establish suitable conditions for the unhindered functioning of the Parliament elected by the people and of the Lumumba Government — the only lawful one. The first condition for the normalization of the situation in the Congo is, as the Congolese Government requests, the immediate withdrawal from the Congo of the troops and military personnel of Belgium and its allies, under whatever cover or pretext they may be there. The only troops which should remain in the Congo are those United Nations military units which are approved by the Lumumba Government. The Congolese people, its Parliament and its lawful Government, are capable of settling their national problems themselves, and will undoubtedly do so successfully if the United States and other western Powers stop interfering in Congolese internal affairs.
194. The duty of the General Assembly is to put an end to colonialism once and for all — to turn over this shameful page in the history of mankind. The Byelorussian delegation fully supports the draft declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples [A/4502] submitted by the Soviet delegation for the consideration of the United Nations, and appeals to the delegations of all States to endorse this manifesto, thereby opening a new era in the history of mankind — the era of the complete emancipation of the peoples from colonial dependence.
195. This draft declaration has met with a hostile reception from ruling circles in the Western countries. According to the Press, Mr. Herter, the United States Secretary of State, has bitterly opposed this profoundly democratic document. This reaction on his part merely proves that ruling circles in the United States, reflecting the will of the monopolies, are pursuing a colonialist policy. Mr. Herter's violent reaction to the Soviet delegation’s proposal showed that the colonialists are afraid of the peoples' struggle for their independence, and that it is not through any grace of theirs that the enslaved peoples will win their freedom.
196. We frankly state that we are resolutely in favour of the immediate abolition of colonialism, that we are on the side of the peoples which are fighting against Shameful colonial enslavement, and that in their noble fight for freedom and independence these peoples can count on the moral and material support of the socialist countries.
197. The peoples which are still in a state of colonial dependence or which have only recently acquired their political freedom know that it is no less important to liberate themselves from the economic shackles of the imperialist monopolies. Cuba's heroic struggle clearly illustrates what a difficult problem the emancipation of the colonies and the under-developed countries from the power and oppression of monopolistic capital is. The peoples which have already won political freedom are now faced with the greater and more difficult task of fighting for their economic freedom.
198. It must be borne in mind that the capitalists never give anyone disinterested help. The peoples of the under-developed countries pay at a very high rate for assistance, for the monopolies extract from their countries profits far exceeding the assistance given. In their endeavour to enslave the peoples the imperialists make use even of the forms of assistance to the under-developed countries which are provided under United Nations auspices.
199. In his address to the General Assembly, President Eisenhower tried to represent the United States as a great champion of the economic and social progress of the under-developed countries. He used every means to advertise the United States plan of assistance to those countries. I feel compelled to point out that in describing the United States aid plan the President said nothing of the need to industrialize the underdeveloped countries or to develop their agriculture On the contrary, he spoke only about the disposal of American agricultural surpluses in these countries and particularly stressed the need for sending them through the United Nations, administrators and observers of every sort. It is doubtful whether the peoples of the under-developed countries will gain anything from such plans of assistance.
200. President Eisenhower and Mr. Macmillan Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, tried in this Assembly to prove to the representatives of the new countries of Africa how little assistance the USSR and the other socialist countries are giving the underdeveloped countries. It was a vain attempt. Those to whom those parts of the addresses in question were directed know that the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries are giving the under-developed countries disinterested assistance in the development of their own economies, their industries, their agriculture, and in the exploitation of their natural resources In the interests of the people. Moreover, the socialist countries do not attach any political conditions to their assistance, but adhere strictly to the principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of the underdeveloped countries. The representatives of the colonial Powers make much of their help to the underdeveloped countries, but these countries would have far greater resources available for their economic development if the Western Powers returned to their peoples even part of the wealth they stole from them during the long years of their colonial domination.
201. The assistance given to the countries which have freed themselves from colonial oppression should be such as to promote the speediest elimination of their economic backwardness and of the poverty and illiteracy of their peoples, and to remove from every comer of the earth the heavy consequences of long colonialist domination. Such assistance, whether given through the United Nations or on a bilateral basis, should expand and increase.
202. The peoples of all countries in the world are demanding an end to the cold war; they wish to live in conditions of peaceful coexistence and co-operation between countries with different social systems. The question of peaceful coexistence or war has become the crucial issue of world politics.
203. The Soviet Union and the other socialist countries, which have put forward the only sound programme of peaceful coexistence, propose that all States should compete in raising the levels of living of their peoples, not in the armaments race; in the construction of housing, hospitals and schools, not of military bases and rocket launching pads; in the expansion of mutually profitable trade and cultural exchanges, not in the cold war. This programme is being more and more actively supported by millions of ordinary people in all comers of the globe.
204. Never was the responsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace and for the future of the peoples so great as it is at present. The peoples expect from this session of the General Assembly real and decisive measures for the consolidation of international peace and security. We must do everything in our power not to disappoint them.