It is now five years since the United Nations Charter, in which it was laid down that the fundamental purpose of the newly-established international organization was to be the prevention of new wars and the maintenance of international peace and security, was signed at San Francisco.
85. What results have we to show at this fifth session of the General Assembly? What has the United Nations achieved during these five years towards the fulfilment of the tasks and purposes laid down in the Charter?
86. If we trace its activities during this period, we must, of course, acknowledge that, despite the difficulties which it has encountered, the United Nations has a certain amount of positive work to its credit. Nevertheless, the work of the United Nations has shown, and unfortunately continues to show, a number of serious shortcomings, which are reflected in the abandonment of the most important principles laid down in the Charter and, in a number of cases, in the direct violation of positive decisions taken by the General Assembly. The United Nations has signally failed to do all it might have done to increase its prestige and authority and to fulfil the tasks assigned to it, which are: to strengthen peace, to develop co-operation among peoples and States based on equality of rights, to strengthen friendly relations between them, to bring about by peaceful means the settlement of disputes and to prevent acts of aggression and conflicts between States.
87. As is well known, a number of important decisions having as their purpose the maintenance of international peace and security were taken during this period, but unfortunately these decisions have not been implemented, and many of the most important questions placed before the United Nations have not been carried to their proper conclusion.
88. On 20 September, in the course of the general debate, Mr. Vyshinsky, head of the USSR delegation, made a speech [279th meeting] in which he set forth a programme of peace and submitted for the consideration of the General Assembly a number of concrete proposals aimed at eliminating the threat of a new war and strengthening international peace and security. These proposals clearly express the sincere hopes of those peoples who experienced the horrors of the Second World War for the maintenance of a lasting and firmly established peace.
89. The desire for peace is deeply rooted in the Soviet people, who are busy with their peaceful and creative labour. From the very first days of its existence, the Soviet Union has pursued a consistent and persevering policy of peace, a policy of unmasking any and every instigator of war. In its consistent struggle for peace the USSR Government is backed by the unanimous and active support of the entire Soviet people. In the Soviet Union the cry for war is not heard from a single platform, and speeches by haters of humanity demanding mass slaughter and the shedding of the blood of peace-loving peoples would be unthinkable. In the Soviet Union there can be no such thing as propaganda for military expansion, for national and race discrimination, for depriving any people of its national freedom and independence; whereas in the capitalist States propaganda for war and hatred of humanity is heard day after day, and the Press is full of it. Through its leading statesmen and its representatives in international organizations, through the proposals submitted by them to international conferences and meetings, the Soviet Union has constantly and consistently demanded the limitation of armaments, the prohibition of the atomic bomb and the utilization of the achievements of atomic science in the interests of humanity and for the strengthening of friendly relations between peoples. The Soviet Union is an active participant in the great struggle for the survival of mankind against the forces of destruction and death.
90. A simple comparison is all that is needed to demonstrate who is working for peace and who for war. While every effort is being made in the USSR to utilize atomic energy for peaceful purposes and economic development, the only concern in the capitalist countries is to find new ways of destroying a greater number of human lives, to discover new bacilli etc. for the annihilation of human beings. It is sufficient to note that at a moment when the capitalist countries are involved in a furious arms race, when thousands of millions of dollars are being spent for the production of atomic bombs and poisonous substances intended for the annihilation of humanity, the Soviet Government is beginning the construction of the two largest hydro-electric stations in The world on the Volga (at Kuibishev and Stalingrad), and another on the Dnieper. These decisions of the Soviet Government constitute new proof of the peaceful aims of the Soviet Union.
91. The peoples of the world have learned the bitter lessons of the past world wars; they passionately desire peace; they do not want war, and for this reason they are signing the Stockholm Appeal with immense enthusiasm. It is no accident that the Stockholm Appeal, which calls for the unconditional prohibition of atomic weapons and the establishment of strict international control in order to enforce this prohibition, has already been signed by hundreds of millions of people. Millions of people of all countries refuse to serve as cannon-fodder for the warmongers; they know that all over the world peace is endangered by an imminent and grave threat of a new war, and that such a war can and must be prevented.
92. The Byelorussian people, who have felt the impact of two world wars in a single generation, have hastened to add their signatures to the Stockholm Appeal. During the Hitlerite occupation, the Byelorussian people lost hundreds of thousands of their finest sons and daughters. They are well aware what war means, and they are steadfast in their determination to foil the criminal plans of the warmongers. The Byelorussian people will defend the cause of peace by every means within their power, and they are confident that the struggle for peace will end in victory.
93. The great Soviet people and the Soviet Union, the mighty country of socialism, which has consistently pursued a Stalinist foreign policy of peace and friendship among the peoples, constitute a staunch and trusty bulwark of the international movement in favour of peace. The Byelorussian people are confident that the might of the democratic forces, led by the Soviet Union, will inflict a resounding defeat on the aggressive plans of the capitalist monopolies, which are doing everything in their power to unleash a new and bloody war.
94. The causes of these tenacious attempts by certain circles to unleash a new war are openly described in the capitalist Press. The view is put forward that a lasting peace and, in particular, the peaceful regulation of relations with the Soviet Union, would “ruin business”. A lasting peace, it is declared, would be a calamity, and must be prevented at any price.
95. Thus Mr. Lawrence, editor of the US. News & World Report, explained in detail in an article published in the issue of 14 January 1949 under the title “Our Unpreparedness for Sudden Peace” that if the “cold war” against the USSR were to end suddenly, the American economy would be dealt “a devastating blow”, since its “false prosperity” is based entirely on the constant inflation of “armament expenditures”. According to Lawrence, a lasting peace with Russia would make it impossible to justify present and future expenditure on armaments and the threat of “a sudden turn to peace by Russia” would therefore be “the biggest economic danger faced by America”.
96. These words are a glaring example of the fear of peace. Those who think along these lines wish to hold off the possibility of peace as long as possible, and they therefore maintain a state of alarm and uncertainty in international relations. Their greatest fear is that a lasting peace might “break out”, and they do everything in their power to prevent the peaceful negotiations desired by the peoples of the entire world.
97. On 20 September, we heard the speech to the Assembly of Mr. Acheson, Secretary of State of the United States of America [279th meeting], Mr. Acheson attempted to place the blame for all the difficulties and failures of the United Nations on the Soviet Union, which he accused of having placed a number of obstacles in the way of the work of the United Nations. In actual fact, however, these barriers and obstacles to the work of the United Nations were erected by the United States and the United Kingdom.
98. The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR considers that certain of the proposals submitted by Mr. Acheson are incompatible with the Charter, and represent an attempt to bypass the Security Council, block its action and reduce it to a cipher by replacing it, in violation of the Charter, by the General Assembly and other organs. These proposals are therefore unacceptable, and should be made to conform with the Charter.
99. The representative of Iraq has openly called for the elimination of the principle of unanimity, which is the cornerstone of the United Nations Charter. Similar demands have been made in the Assembly by the representatives of Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, Greece, Peru and others. This represents a new outburst of attacks against the principle of unanimity, which does in fact constitute an effective obstacle to the realization of the expansionist plans nurtured by the war-mongers. In place of a policy of strengthening international co-operation based on respect for the independence and sovereign equality of all nations, based on common respect for the rights and interests of all five great Powers, these gentlemen are proposing a plan for the undermining of the principles of the United Nations, for its liquidation by the abolition of the principle of unanimity.
100. The idea of replacing the Security Council by the General Assembly is not new and has been put forward in the past. At previous sessions, we have witnessed repeated attempts to abolish the principle of unanimity and bypass the Security Council and replace it by other organs. The Anglo-American majority took advantage of the absence of two permanent Members — the USSR and China — from the Security Council to adopt a series of illegal decisions reflecting discredit on the United Nations, and has exploited the Security Council, to which the Charter assigns the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, as a tool of its aggressive policy. If the opponents of the principle of the unanimity of the five Powers succeed in having it abolished, they will in fact have achieved the liquidation of the United Nations. Mr. Santa Cruz, the representative of Chile, has proposed [281st meeting] the conclusion of a four-point agreement which would render it obligatory for the States signatory to it to comply with recommendations of the General Assembly and automatically to declare war should the Assembly adopt a recommendation to that effect by a two-thirds majority. Mr. Santa Cruz long ago ceased to concern himself with the principle of unanimity.
101. It is not by accident that the former United States President, Mr. Hoover, and after him Mr. Dulles, spoke of the “reorganization” of the United Nations in order to remain in line with their uncomplaining satellites such as Mr. Santa Cruz. The same line is followed by the representative of Chile.
102. We must decisively sweep aside any attempt to hinder the normal operation of the Security Council and we must put an end to attacks against the principle of unanimity. All the Members of the United Nations are obliged to abide by its Charter.
103. We must expel the Kuomintang representative from the United Nations, beginning with the Security Council, and we must give his place to the real representative of the Chinese people, that is to say to the representative of the Central People’s Government of China.
104. We must demand the immediate cessation of intervention in Korea and settle the Korean question by peaceful means, giving the Korean people itself an opportunity of deciding its own fate.
105. The Security Council has taken a number of illegal decisions on the Korean question. The Security Council has allowed the flag of the United Nations to be used in the present armed civil strife in Korea, thus flagrantly violating the fundamental principles of the United Nations.
106. On 21 September [280th meeting], a. speech was made here by the representative of Australia, Mr. Spender, who devoted some time to crude slander of the Soviet Union and the people’s democracies. It should be noted that such statements have become familiar to us and are not being made for the first time in organs of the United Nations. By distorting universally known facts, Mr. Spender tried to maintain that the Soviet Union was making no effort to promote international cooperation and did not wish to take constructive measures for the strengthening of universal peace. The representative of Australia was guilty of a completely untruthful statement, to say the least of it, when he declared that the Soviet Union was not conducting a peaceful policy.
107. The whole world knows that the Soviet Union has fought and is fighting for the extension of international co-operation and the strengthening of universal peace. It was in the interests of international co-operation and the strengthening of the peace and security of peoples that the Soviet Union drew to the, attention of the United Nations such important matters as the question of the reduction of armaments, the prohibition of propaganda for a new war, the prohibition of atomic weapons and the conclusion of a peace pact. Hence, it is not the Soviet Union that is to blame. As far back as 1934, the head of the Soviet Government, Josef Vissarionovich Stalin, clearly and definitely formulated the foreign policy of the Soviet Union Government in the following words: “Our foreign policy is clear. It is a policy of keeping the peace and strengthening trade relations with all countries. The USSR has no intention of threatening anybody and even less so, of attacking anybody. We stand for peace and defend the cause of peace.”
108. Thus, the foreign policy of the Soviet Union in its relations with capitalist States is based upon the possibility of the co-existence of the socialist and capitalist systems and of wide-spread co-operation between them. It is clear to us that the instigators of an aggressive policy are not interested in agreement and co-operation with the USSR. Under cover of speeches on agreement and co-operation, they are taking all the measures at their disposal to undermine such co-operation, to avoid concluding agreements and, at the same time, to lay the blame upon the USSR.
109. The peoples of the world know full well that the instigators of a new war fear agreements and cooperation with the USSR above all else, since a policy of agreements with the USSR would undermine the position of the war-mongers and would render their aggressive policy pointless. Is it not clear from this that the representative of Australia, Mr. Spender, has made a crude and unmannerly attempt to distort and discredit the foreign policy of the Soviet Union and thus_ to transfer the blame from the guilty party to the innocent?
110. It is impossible to overlook the statements of the New Zealand representative [280th meeting], Mr. Berendsen, who, like the Australian representative, tried to distort the position of the Soviet Union in matters relating to international co-operation and the strengthening of peace and security throughout the world. For the first time from the international platform of the United Nations General Assembly, the representative of New Zealand openly proclaimed that war was the only possible means of settling disputes. His actual words were as follows: “This is our chance to banish war, even if — and the anomaly is inescapable — by war itself”.
111. Thus it would appear that only war can save the peace. In spite of the fact that a resolution [110 (II)] was adopted by the second session of the General Assembly on “measures to be taken against propaganda and the inciters of a new war”, the representative of New Zealand takes the liberty of speaking from this tribune in favour of a new war. I think it would be correct to include the name of the representative of New Zealand, Mr. Berendsen, in the list of inciters of a new war. The representative of New Zealand not only refuses to acknowledge the General Assembly resolution on the prohibition of propaganda for a new war, but he has become so bold as to allow himself to make an open call to war within the United Nations.
112. Gentlemen, we must censure such statements in definite terms.
113. On 25 September 1950 [283rd meeting], during the general discussion, we heard the statement of the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Bevin, who ascribes aggressive intentions to the Soviet Union and appraises peace petitions and peace campaigns for peace and security throughout the world as a propaganda manoeuvre. Whenever the question arises of discussing and settling serious problems, Mr. Bevin resorts to the word “propaganda”. Every day the postal and the telegraph services bring to the United Nations telegrams and letters from all corners of the globe, from simple people of all nationalities and of all creeds, who beg the United Nations to outlaw the atomic bomb, to put an end to the race for armaments, to put an end to the intervention in Korea and to conclude a peace pact between the five great Powers. A great struggle for peace in all parts of the globe has unfolded before our eyes. The war-mongers have run up against the granite wall of popular resistance. The ranks of those who strive for peace continue to swell every day. One half of the human race has expressed itself, in one form or another, for peace and against war.
114. When it became difficult to ignore this vast movement towards peace, the imperialists began to conduct propaganda against the movement and also undertook repressive measures and fierce reprisals against the partisans of peace, who are being prosecuted, imprisoned, and dismissed from their work. Mr. Bevin calls all this a propaganda manoeuvre. This is no question of propaganda. It is a question of the future of peace throughout the world. Mr. Bevin will not succeed in his manoeuvre of white-washing the real aggressors, who are now conducting a sanguinary war in Korea, and of ascribing the aggression to States which are unremittingly battling for the peace and security of the peoples of the world.
115. I have seen photographs, taken by American correspondents, of Mr. Dulles, who usually sits in this hall, in the trenches near the 38th parallel at a time when he was instructing Syngman Rhee’s officers. These photographs were reproduced in the newspapers of many countries. It is difficult to disprove such evidence. The Korean people know very well who organized the intervention in Korea. All this constitutes military interference in the affairs of other States. And those who do such things are the real aggressors, Mr. Bevin.
116. We must endeavour to establish mutual confidence and to unify all our forces for the maintenance of international peace and security throughout the world. We must endeavour to develop friendly relations between States on the basis of respect for the principle of equal rights and we must take all possible measures to strengthen peace and security throughout the world.
117. The representative of the Tito group made some slanderous attacks here against the Soviet Union; but the absolute nonsense which he uttered here is not worthy of any attention whatsoever. It would be beneath our dignity to waste time in refuting his slanderous fabrications.
118. The Byelorussian delegation, in expressing its people’s aspiration towards peace and desire to avert war, whole-heartedly supports the real programme for peace formulated in the “declaration on the removal of the threat of a new war and the strengthening of peace and security among the nations”, submitted by the delegation of the Soviet Union for the consideration of the General Assembly [A/1376]. This declaration, which expresses the firm resolve of hundreds of millions of people to avert the threat of a new war, proposes once again to censure the propaganda in favour of a new war which is being conducted in a number of countries, to prohibit the use of atomic energy for military purposes, to institute international control to enforce this prohibition, to conclude a pact for the strengthening of peace between the five great Powers and to reduce the armed forces of the five great Powers by one-third during 1950.
119. The delegation of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic calls upon the members of the General Assembly at this plenary meeting to support this declaration. By adopting this declaration, we shall give the peoples of the world a chance to free themselves from fear of a new war and Shall make a valuable contribution to the cause of peace and security among nations.