It is now two years since the Second World War ended. During that interval the United Nations has been founded and its Charter states that it is necessary “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small...”
The idea of a struggle for the peace and security of all peoples embodies the expectations and hopes of millions of simple people who are sincerely striving for a peaceful and a better life, and for the attainment of peace and security throughout the world.
The last world war from which we have recently emerged was begun by Hitler and Mussolini and cost millions of human lives and created devastation unprecedented in history. From hundreds of thousands of graves scattered over the fields of Europe, the flower of our youth who fell in the fight against fascism for the happiness and freedom of their peoples, summon us to combat these who are now talking loudly of a new war, sowing fear and mistrust among nations, carrying on the ideological preparation of public opinion for a future war in the pages of many reactionary newspapers published in the United States, Turkey, Greece, Spain and other countries.
The question naturally arises: what has been by the United Nations during this period? I regret to have to say that it has done very little. The most important resolutions of the General Assembly have not been carried out. I refer to the principles governing the general regulation and reduction of armaments; the control of atomic energy; the relations between Members of the United Nations and Spain; the treatment of Indians in the Union of South Africa, and the surrender and punishment of war criminals.
One need only mention such facts as the armed struggle of the Netherlands Government against the Indonesian people, the unrestrained savagery of the fascist terror against the people of Greece; the civil war in China; the maintenance of the Franco regime in Spain; the race in atomic armaments; the maintenance in power of Japanese militarists; the maintenance in Germany of certain fascist and pro-fascist elements, who fought against the freedom-loving peoples; the armaments race in certain countries — all these facts show that the forces of international reaction, on which Hitler and Mussolini formerly thrived, do not even now intend to abandon their fight against the forces of democracy and progress.
The establishment of naval and air bases in regions thousands of kilometres distant from the frontiers of certain States, the maintenance of industry in a state of mobilized preparedness, the expansion of military budgets, the expenditure of enormous sums on scientific research for the discovery of new types of armaments — all these are directed towards implementing the imperialistic plans of these sinister reactionary forces. War is threatening to intrude upon the peaceful life of the peoples.
The heads of American business firms, corporations, trusts and syndicates, who earned enormous profits out of the last world war, are quite openly preaching world hegemony. In their efforts to maintain and inflate their excessive profits, they are attempting to capture still greater foreign markets, and to enslave on any pretext economically weak countries. These same forces are inspiring the so-called “atomic diplomacy” and “dollar diplomacy”; they are fighting for the disruption of international co-operation, and they are urging die United States to follow an official policy of expansion. They have taken up Hitler’s slogan of world hegemony and have dragged out the racial theory to justify it.
Some have proclaimed in the Press the idea that the future belongs to the all-absorbing “American spirit”, that the “American type” of man is the prototype of the “superior being”, and that there exist “peoples who have no clearly marked path in life”.
Field Marshal Smuts in his book, Toward a Better World, states that in Africa there must be created a country for the white man, and no mixture of blood allowed between the two rates. Naturally, these statements of Smuts are in complete conformity with the policy of repression which he has followed in South Africa against all unsubmissive Indians and other non-whites. The Government of the Union of South Africa has not discharged the obligation laid upon it by a resolution of the. General Assembly, and has openly defied this resolution.
While this is going on, torrents of calumny are being levelled against the Soviet Union, which stands in the forefront of the progressive forces fighting for peace. By its just policy and its progressive ideology in favour of equality and friendship among peoples, the Soviet Union is steadily helping to unmade the intrigues of all aggressors and to rally the forces fighting for peace and security.
Obviously, such overt advocacy of racial discrimination is bound to react unfavourably on the establishment of co-operation and mutual confidence between the great Powers and the small nations, without which no stable and lasting peace can be achieved. The campaign to disrupt international co-operation, waged by the overt and covert enemies of lasting peace, is accompanied by unbridled anti-Soviet propaganda, blackmail and the threat of new war.
In this connexion the principle of great Power unanimity, the so-called veto, is now bring most energetically attacked by the forces of reaction. As we have heard here, the Argentine delegation has again moved to discuss the question of abolishing the principle of unanimity applied by the permanent members of the Security Council, although this question has already been discussed at the last session of the General Assembly. What do the Argentine delegation and other delegations hope to gain by pressing for a revision of the principle of the unanimity of the five great Powers?
Mr. Molotov, the head of the Soviet delegation, made an exhaustive statement on this question at the last session of the General Assembly. He said:
“Two principal trends are struggling within the United Nations to gain influence over the main course of its work. One of those trends bases itself on the main fundamentals of the United Nations Organization and on respect for the principles underlying it. The other, on the contrary, is intended to shake the foundations on which the United Nations rests and to pave the way for the proponents of a different course.... The success of this campaign would mean victory for a policy which would enable one group of States, led by the strongest of the Powers, to dominate the other Powers, which would then find themselves in the minority. Instead of a policy of international cooperation in the spirit of the democratic principles of the United Nations, the triumphant policy would be that of the new claimants to world domination as represented by a corresponding bloc or, if you wish, by a group of Powers to which the Retention of the principle of unanimity of the great Powers already seems to be inconvenient.
“If the great Powers which led the struggle again the fascist aggressors keep together and, if, with the support of the other nations, they refuse to allow any rift in their ranks, they will be able to do much to counteract the whetting of insatiable appetites. Otherwise the new claimants to world domination will be given a free hand for all sorts of adventures until they break their necks.”
These deeply significant words of Mr. Molotov still hold good today. Our task is to strengthen, not to weaken, the United Nations, which has all the resources necessary to consolidate peace and prevent fresh aggression. The United Nations should not be a repetition of the late-lamented League of Nations; it should be sufficiently strong and authoritative. The Byelorussian delegation will resolutely oppose any revision of the principle of the unanimity of the five great Powers.
The Byelorussian delegation will oppose no less resolutely Mr. Marshall’s proposal to establish an interim standing committee of the General Assembly on questions of peace and security. According to Mr. Marshall’s proposal such a committee should be one of the principal organs of the United Nations. The establishment of a committee such as that proposed by the United States Secretary of State would be unconstitutional. Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the United Nations Charter provides that:
"There are established 23 the principal organs of the United Nations: a General Assembly, a Security Council, an Economic and Social Council, a Trusteeship Council, an International Court of Justice, and a Secretariat."
There is not even a hint there of the possibility of setting up an interim committee or any other similar kind of committee with such wide powers as Mr. Marshall proposes. Accordingly, Mr. Marshall's proposal really amounts to a demand for revision of the United Nations Charter; but we cannot embark on a course which would be so extremely dangerous to the existence of our Organization.
The proposal to set up an interim committee on questions of peace and security in reality an expression of the aims of certain circles which are anxious to limit the powers of the Security Council and nulify the part it plays; when according to Article 24 of the United Nations Charter the Security Council betas “primary responsibility for the maintenance of International peace and security”. The opponents of friendly co-operation between states and nations evidently want to set over the Security Council — where the principle of great Power unanimity in settling important peace problems operates — some other kind of body to deal with questions of peace and security; a body in which the principle of adopting common decisions would not apply; which could be converted into a body with contending blocs of States, in which the will of some States would be imposed on others.
It is not difficult to realize that such action would be gravely detrimental to our Organization and would jeopardize international peace and security.
At the first session of the General Assembly the following highly important resolutions were carried: the resolution of 24 January 1946 on the “establishment of a Commission to deal with the problems raised by the discovery of atomic energy”; and the resolution of 14 December 1946 on the “principles governing the general regulation and reduction of armaments”.
Naturally the question arises: what has been done during the intervening period to carry out these resolutions? We know that the Atomic Energy Commission and the Security Council have discussed at great length the plans put forward by the United States and the Soviet Union, but have unfortunately failed to reach a satisfactory decision. The solution of this very important problem has again been postponed. That fact undoubtedly merits the attention of the representatives in the General Assembly. The peoples of the whole world patiently wait for us to solve this problem.
The Heads of the corporations, trusts and syndicates of certain Powers are doing all they can to wreck the work of the Atomic Energy Commission. Certain prominent figures in the United States are openly opposing any kind of control over atomic energy. For instance, Mr. Martin, Governor of the State of Pennsylvania, declared that, “We must go ahead with the atomic bomb in one hand and the Cross in the other”. Such statements are not calculated to facilitate a speedy solution of so difficult a problem.
An attentive study of the United States plan clearly shows that its authors made considerable efforts to ensure that, if the plan were adopted, the United States would be guaranteed the decisive role in producing and exploiting atomic energy. The failure to achieve any perceptible progress was due to the attitude taken by the United States representative in the Security Council. The United States proposals did not provide for the signing of an international convention prohibiting the atomic weapon. Moreover, the United States representative on the Security Council categorically declared that he could not agree to the conclusion of such a convention until the United States proposal was adopted in full. We know, however, that tins proposal entirely satisfies the interests of the United States as regains the manufacture of atomic armaments.
Certain circles are attempting to present the matter in such alight as to blame the delay in implementing the General Assembly resolution on the Soviet Union, which is opposed to die adoption of the United States proposal
The Soviet Union’s plan has been repeatedly explained very fully and clearly. I shall only point out that the Soviet proposals call for outlawing the atomic bomb. According to these proposals, the production and utilization of atomic energy for military purposes should be prohibited, and the atomic weapon and all other types of weapons of mass destruction should be barred from national armaments. The discovery of atomic energy should be used to improve the standards of living of the peoples of the whole world, to raise their level of prosperity and to further the progress of human culture. There must be strict international control over atomic energy.
This plan fully accords with the principles of the United Nations and the fundamental interests of the peoples of all countries, who demand an immediate solution of so vitally important a problem as the organization of control over atomic energy. There is no doubt that the atomic bomb now plays a great part in the political calculations of the individual leaders responsible for the policies of certain Powers.
I must say quite frankly that those who reckon that any one country can long retain a monopoly of the atomic bomb are badly mistaken. Mr. Molotov, at the last session of the General Assembly, said: “Science and scientists cannot be shut up in a box and kept under lock and key,” and he added: “It should not be forgotten that atomic bombs used by one side may be opposed by atomic bombs and something else from the other side, and then the final collapse of all the present-day calculations of certain conceited but short-sighted people will become only too obvious”.
We should give serious thought to this highly authoritative statement. The solution of this supremely important problem would undoubtedly facilitate agreement on other questions connected with the use of atomic energy. Consequently, the Byelorussian delegation hopes that a positive solution of this problem will be found by the Security Council at a very early date.
Nor is the resolution of 14 December 1946 on the “Principles governing the general regulation and reduction of armaments” being implemented satisfactorily. The resolution says that the General Assembly recognizes the necessity of a rapid general regulation and reduction of armaments and armed forces, and recommends that the Security Council give prompt consideration to formulating the practical measures, according to their priority, which are essential to achieve this end. unfortunately, the Security Council has not obtained substantial results on this question either.
The peoples of the world have just endured the most bloody and destructive war in history, a war that was begun by Hitler and Mussolini. Mankind is tired of war and wants a durable and stable peace. The common people of all countries are concerned because, under the screen of resolutions for peace and hypocritical pledges of peace, secret preparations are being made for a new war and armaments am bring increased in certain countries. We still remember the examples of Hitlerite Germany, fascist Italy and militarist Japan.
We may well ask why the Anglo-American Joint Staffs are bring maintained now that the war is over and yesterday’s pretenders to world hegemony have been defeated, and now that the Allies have every possibility of keeping these countries disarmed for a sufficiently long period. What is the necessity for the standardization of armaments as is now bring practised? Who needs a treaty for the defence of the Latin-American countries? Who intends to attack them? These are the questions which are bring asked by the common people. The Security Council must answer them not only in words but in deeds. History tells us that the former League of Nations smothered the problem of disarmament in futile and endless negotiations. We must bear these lessons of history in mind. No one denies that the solution of the problem of a general reduction of armaments will require much time and that we shall have to overcome great difficulties.
The Second World War is becoming more and more a memory, but the lessons of that war should convince us that effective steps must be taken now to prevent a new war.
The last war has left many problems unsolved, among them problems of basic significance for the further development of Europe and the whole world. Whatever difficulties may arise in finding a favourable solution for these problems, there is not one of them which could not be satisfactorily solved if the great and small Powers followed a joint and agreed policy. Conversely, not a single important international problem of our time can be solved with any measure of success by pursuing a policy of unilateral action, faits accomplis or other methods of an aggressive diplomacy which takes no account of the lawful interest of other countries.
Only by the friendly co-operation of nations, based on their equality, on full respect for their freedom and independence, on consideration for their legitimate and vital interest, can a stable peace be ensured. At the present time the sources of our difficulties, alarm and anxiety are the results of the machinations of warmongers, their friends and abettors. The peoples who have endured the indescribable horrors of war long, as never before, for peace. Only a durable and stable democratic peace will afford mankind an opportunity of healing the wounds of war speedily, and raising the material and cultural level of the common people.
A general reduction of armaments will serve the cause of peace and international security and, by strengthening confidence between great and small nations, will reduce military budgets and thus relieve the tax burdens of the population. For a just and prompt solution of this most important problem we must show our eagerness to co-operate with one another in the interest of international peace; we must unite our efforts; we cannot do this by pitting one country against the other, by creating blocs directed against peace-loving States and by pursuing a policy designed to place some countries under the domination of a stronger Power.
The Byelorussian delegation is convinced that, if the Members of the United Nations sincerely wish it, these difficulties can be overcome and international peace and security attained.
The United Nations is once again faced with the Spanish problem. This question has been frequently discussed in international organizations. Two years after the military defeat of fascism by democratic forces we have still to cope with the unsolved problem of liquidating the fascist regime and setting up a democratic order in Spain. The victory of democratic forces over fascism is not yet a victory for the Spanish people.
The freedom-loving Spanish people bore the first blow of the nazi war machine. Hitler’s army and Mussolini’s troops, taking advantage of the policy of “non-intervention”, forcibly set up a fascist regime under Franco. For eleven years now Spain has been under fascist occupation and the Spanish people have been heroically struggling against the Franco regime. The existence of Franco Spain is a serious threat to international peace and security and a factor which strengthens and encourages reactionary forces in other countries.
The common people and the ex-servicemen of the allied armies who sincerely believed that victory over fascist Germany would also mean the speedy emancipation of the Spanish people from the yoke of their fascist oppressors, may well ask: how can continuance of the fascist regime in Spain be explained? Why has the war criminal Franco not been punished for the crimes he has committed? Why is he still in power? The same indignant question is put by the Byelorussian people, whose territory was despoiled by Franco’s troops.
We must answer these questions and settle this problem more rapidly. At the last session of the General Assembly we agreed that the Franco regime is a fascist regime; that the Franco regime was forcibly imposed upon the Spanish people by Hitler and Mussolini; that Franco Spain took a direct part in the world war on the ride of the Axis Powers. Surely, then, effective measures should be taken. Despite all logic and justice, however, regardless of the principles proclaimed by the United Nations, the Franco regime still exists. It is supported by the sinister forces of reaction. This is a very serious reproach that might be directed to us whose duty it is to implement the great principles of the Unites Nations Charter.
Time has shown that the moral pressure exerted against the Franco regime has not yielded substantial results. Not only is the Franco Government still in power; it is strengthening its economic and commercial relations with some Members of the United Nations.
The General Assembly resolution indicated the possibility that the action taken might prove inadequate and might not lead to the establishment by democratic methods of a new regime in Spain. The General Assembly recommended that “if within a reasonable time, there is not established a Government which derives its authority from the consent of the governed, committed to respect freedom of speech, religion and assembly and to prompt holding of an election in which the Spanish people, free from force and intimidation and regardless of party, may express their will, the Sorority Council consider the adequate measures to be taken in order to remedy the situation”.
There can be no doubt that the time has come to implement this recommendation and to take the necessary measures. These measures must be taken by the General Assembly at its present session.
As early as the first session of the Assembly, the Byelorussian delegation recommended that each Member of the United Nations should sever not only diplomatic but also economic relations with Franco Spain, and suspend all rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic and wireless communications. The Government of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic still considers that the severance of diplomatic and economic relations with Franco Spain is an essential measure for remedying the existing situation. During the intervening period, we have become convinced that the efforts of the democratic countries of the world to establish democracy in Spain are energetically opposed by reactionary forces in certain countries. There forces are disrupting the common democratic anti-facist from by organizing and strengthening their economic relations with fascist Spain, thus giving economic and political support to the Franco regime. Certain countries are trying to exploit the Spanish situation in order to grab economic positions in Spain and subjugate the country economically.
The Byelorussian delegation hopes that the General Assembly will find a just solution of this important problem and that effective steps will be taken to liquidate the Franco regime m Spain. Peace and security and the sufferings of the Spanish people will brook no further delay.
The next question upon which I should like to comment is the measures taken by the Security Council with regard to Indonesia.
The Government of the Indonesian Republic appealed to the Security Council to protect the interests of the Indonesian people who had suffered an unprovoked armed attack by the Netherlands. The Security Council discussed the appeal of the Indonesian Republic and took an appropriate decision.
On 7 August 1947, the Government of the Indonesian Republic again approached the Security Council with a request to set up an arbitration commission in implementation of the Security Council’s decision, empowered to settle the questions outstanding between the Netherlands and the Indonesian Republic.
So far the Security Council has not responded to the request of the Indonesian Republic as energetically as the situation in Indonesia, created as a result of the war between the Netherlands and the Indonesian Republic, would have warranted. According to information from Indonesia; the Security Council’s decision imposing a cease-fire order is not being properly complied with; the Dutch troops are still carrying on military operations which are called “police measures”, and the Netherlands is thereby contravening the Security Council’s decision.
The Soviet Union representative raised the question of the need to withdraw the troops of both sides to the positions which they occupied before military operations began; but the Security Council unfortunately did not accept this proposal. The people of Indonesia are heroically struggling for their freedom and independence. The Byelorussian delegation considers that the Security Council should take resolute measures to stop the armed attack by the Netherlands Government against the Indonesian people.
Actuated by a feeling of justice, the Byelorussian delegation feels it must draw the attention of this Assembly to the question of the extradition and punishment of war criminals.
The horrors and crimes perpetrated by the fascist beasts in the occupied countries are well known. In trying to carry out their insane plan for world hegemony, the fascists devised and introduced a ghastly technique for depopulating the world by means of death camps, gas chambers, crematoria, etc. As the Nurnberg trials have shown, they shot, hanged, gassed and burned fifteen million peaceful and innocent people: old people, women and children. They killed ten millions on the field of battle. Seven millions were driven into slavery, deprived of their country, their homes and human dignity, and of these, hundreds of thousands were made to perish in German labour camps.
In a series of joint declarations the United Nations gave the solemn assurance that the persons responsible for these crimes would not escape condign punishment. On 13 February 1946, the General Assembly adopted a resolution proposed by die Byelorussian delegation on the extradition and punishment of war criminals, which recommended that Members of the United Nations “... forthwith take all the necessary measures to cause the arrest of those war criminals who have been responsible for or have taken a consenting part in the above crimes, and to cause them to be sent back to the countries in which their abominable deeds were done, in order that they may be judged and punished according to the laws of those countries.”
The declaration of the allied Governments and the foregoing resolution of the General Assembly confirming die principles of justice and international law were greeted with the deepest satisfaction by the leaders of mankind and all honest people. Their disappointment is all the greater when they see that the United Nations is not fulfilling its solemn undertaking to punish war criminals. The overwhelming majority of persons who have committed abominable crimes against peace and humanity remain unpunished. Several of these criminals, in an effort to escape justice, have left Germany and are hiding in other countries, including even States which are Members of the United Nations; others — under the guise of refugees and displaced persons — are concealed in refugee camps; still others are circulating freely in the Western occupied zones of Germany and Austria, setting up all manner of organizations which are undermining the United Nations and hatching new plots against mankind.
The idea of justice must triumph; war criminals must be tried and sternly punished. The punishment of war criminals will be a terrible warning to all those who might think of kindling a new world war.
For these reasons the delegation of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republics considers it essential that the second session of the General Assembly should adopt such recommendations as will ensure the implementation of the General Assembly’s resolution of 13 February 1946 on the extradition and punishment of war criminals.
The Byelorussian delegation firmly supports the Soviet Union proposals as set forth by Mr. Vyshinsky, the head of the USSR delegation, in his address to the General Assembly on 18 September. These proposals for action to be taken against war propaganda and warmongering dearly express the sincere yearnings of peoples who have experienced all the horrors of the Second World War, and who long for a stable and durable peace. The Byelorussian delegation feels sure that the General Assembly will carry out its task of establishing peace and security throughout the world.