Czechoslovakia

On behalf of the Czechoslovak delegation, I should like to express the hope that the fifth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations may lay the foundations for the solution of all those vexed problems which are at the origin of the strained international situation, and that it may lead to their peaceful and just solution in the interests of a democratic and lasting peace. 110. Our delegation is imbued with hope, for it represents the foreign policy of a State which condemns force as an instrument of national policy in international affairs and considers that differences of economic and social structure between various regimes should not stand in the way of an international collaboration based on democratic principles. The foreign policy of our Republic seeks to achieve collaboration and good relations with all peace-loving peoples and States on the basis of mutual respect for national sovereignty. The policy of the Czechoslovak State is inspired by the firm determination to ensure the happiness and well-being of the people of our country. It is for that reason that we so earnestly desire peace and agreement among nations. 111. The Czechoslovak delegation is of the opinion that the fifth session of the General Assembly has the opportunity to make a considerable contribution to the creation of the conditions prerequisite to that peaceful collaboration among the great Powers which is the key to the successful solution of all controversial international problems, and to the real defence of peace. 112. Great value must therefore be placed on the proposal of the Government of the Soviet Union [A/1376], submitted to the Assembly by Mr. Vyshinsky, “that the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France, China and the Soviet Union should combine their efforts for peace and conclude among themselves a pact for the strengthening of peace”. Such a step, which would be welcomed with great joy by the peoples of the whole world, could create the conditions required for the removal of the causes of the threat to peace. 113. The declaration which the USSR Government has submitted for the consideration of the Assembly contains further important and concrete proposals for the defence of peace. In the first place, it proposes the prohibition of propaganda in favour of another war, We know that on the initiative of the Government of the Soviet Union, the General Assembly as long ago as 1947 adopted its important resolution 110 (XI) prohibiting all propaganda in favour of another war and calling upon governments to promote friendly relations among nations. 114. There is no need to expatiate on the value, as a step towards relieving war tension, of the prohibition of propaganda in favour of a new war and the strict observance of that principle at the present time. The United Nations should apply the whole weight of its authority to prevent propaganda in favour of another war, propaganda in favour of the mass killing of people, the spreading of an ideology of war and of aggression and the stirring up of hatred between peoples and States. The governments and parliaments of the Member States, supported by the authority of the United Nations, can perform the beneficial task of enforcing, legally and politically, within their own territories, the international prohibition of propaganda in favour of another war, and calling war-mongers to strict account, 115. The Czechoslovak delegation, representing a peace-loving people and a peace-loving State, a country where war propaganda is unthinkable, besides being a penal offence, is deeply convinced that public opinion in all the Member States and among all the peoples would welcome this step with satisfaction and actively support the United Nations in enforcing the prohibition of propaganda in favour of another war. 116. Public opinion throughout the world would welcome with deep relief the unconditional prohibition of the use of the atomic weapon, the establishment of strict international control to ensure the complete and unconditional observance of that prohibition, and the affirmation that the first government to use the atomic weapon would be declared a war criminal. 117. We have seen how spontaneously the partisans of peace acted in this matter. Four hundred million people in all parts of the world, belonging to the most varied peoples and races, representing different political viewpoints and philosophies, and living in a variety of social conditions, have already combined their forces in the anti-war campaign and signed the Stockholm Appeal, which demands the prohibition of the use of the atomic weapon and requires that the first government to use that weapon should be regarded as a war criminal. On behalf of the life and happiness of all mankind and future generations, the demand is advanced that this great discovery of contemporary science should not be used for the mass destruction of peoples and the dissemination of death on a hitherto unprecedented scale, but that it should be used only in the interests of peaceful construction, an example of which is provided by the gigantic constructional works in the Soviet Union, where the unbridled forces of nature are being used in the interests of the nation. 118. It may be supposed that in the past the greatest obstacle to an agreement on the prohibition of the atomic weapon and the institution of strict international control was the delusion entertained by one great Power that it had the monopoly of atomic energy. But this delusion is contradicted by the facts. Atomic energy is not the monopoly of a single Power. Hence all the peoples throughout the world are equally concerned that the atomic weapon should be prohibited. A great responsibility lies on this fifth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, The Czechoslovak delegation considers that it should not deceive the hopes of hundreds of millions of men of goodwill and that it should be able to contribute by decisive action to the liberation of the peoples from the fear engendered by the threat of an atomic war. 119. Finally, it is proposed that the great Powers, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China and the Soviet Union, should reduce their present armed forces by one-third during 1950 and that the question of a further reduction should be submitted for consideration at one of the forthcoming sessions of the General Assembly. 120. There can scarcely be a more effective means of relieving war tension than a reduction of the armed forces of the five great Powers, whose military and economic potential decides in the last resort the question of war and peace and whose example would automatically make it possible for the other States Members of the United Nations to proceed to an immediate reduction of their military budgets and armed forces. The mere fact that the great Powers, acting on the basis of a legal injunction of the United Nations, reduced their armed forces, would be a serious blow to those who preach and incite to another war, and would contribute to the creation of the conditions necessary for a peaceful solution of controversial international problems. 121. Such a step would undoubtedly greatly relieve the public in those States whose military budgets are inordinately high, and in which the masses of the workers bear the whole weight of the continuing armaments race and of military preparations. The magnitude of such preparations may be clearly seen from the military budgets of the United States and of the States parties to the North Atlantic Treaty. Their policy is also reflected in the increase in the occupation forces in various parts of the world. Moreover, it is no longer any secret that they are pursuing a policy of remilitarizing western Germany, where the organization of a west German aggressive fascist army has been entrusted to war criminals, to the hitlerite generals. 122. It is impossible to agree with the argument that an atmosphere of confidence must be created before it is possible to talk of disarmament. We consider that the opposite is true. Disarmament creates an atmosphere of confidence, A great historical responsibility lies with the fifth session of the General Assembly in this vital matter. 123. The proposals contained in the declaration of the USSR Government are clearly concrete measures for the defence of peace and are the outcome of the consistently peaceful policy of a socialist Power, a policy based on the theory that it is possible for States with differing social and economic systems to co-exist in peace and to engage in peaceful competition. 124. The foreign policy of certain other great Powers, on the contrary, is not based on the possibility of the peaceful co-existence and rivalry of differing economic and social systems, but on the conception of the inevitability of military conflict between them. And therefore, instead of collaboration, they are organizing all kinds of aggressive military pacts in a so-called crusade against the Soviet Union and the peoples’ democracies. This policy is the source of the present tension. 125. A way out of this situation is indicated by the proposals of the Soviet Union, which aim at collaboration between the five great Powers and the adoption of effective measures in support of peace. 126. And now, viewing the matter in the light of these principles, I shall with your permission make some critical observations on the position and proposals of the United States delegation. 127. First of all there is the question of the representation of the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations and its organs, a question on which the United States delegation has adopted an unfavourable attitude, in contrast to that of all the other great Powers. 128. It is clear that no legal or political arguments can justify a policy which denies the legal representatives of 500 million people the right to take their places in the United Nations and its organs. The views of those who connect the question of the representation of the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations with the internal political structure of China must be regarded as particularly harmful. 129. We may fully endorse the position adopted by the representative of India [277th meeting], who demonstrated that the Central People’s Government of China is the only legal government of the Chinese people, and at the same time stated that the question of the political nature of a country’s regime is the domestic concern of each individual nation and has nothing to do with the question of the representation of a State in the United Nations. If we begin to act on the basis of whether or not we like the domestic arrangements and regimes of the various States Members, our discussions would scarcely be conducive to agreement and collaboration in the United Nations. They would, on the contrary, bring about the collapse of collaboration in the United Nations, for the United Nations is in fact based on the collaboration of States with differing economic and social systems and differing political regimes. I personally, for example, do not like the economic and political structure of Australia. But I do not of course conclude from that that the Australian Government cannot be represented in the United Nations. 130. An invitation to the representatives of the People’s Republic of China to attend the fifth General Assembly of the United Nations would substantially enhance the importance of the Assembly’s discussions and decisions and would considerably increase the general prestige of the United Nations. It cannot be considered normal that a great Asian Power, the State with the largest population in the whole world, should be excluded from the work of the United Nations, a state of affairs which diminishes the prestige and authority of the Organization. An invitation to the legal representatives of the People's Republic of China to join the United Nations would be a first important practical step towards the re-establishment of collaboration between the five great Powers, a collaboration which is the basis for the legal activity of the Security Council and for an effective peace policy of the United Nations in general. 131. It may therefore be expected that the fifth session of the General Assembly will find a means to end the present unstable and irregular situation and will invite the legal representatives of the Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China to take part in the permanent work of peaceful collaboration. 132. Mr. Acheson, on behalf of the United States delegation, submitted proposals [279th meeting] in the form of a four-point plan. That plan calls for measures which in fact would deprive the Security Council, which is the principal organ of the United Nations, of its competence, the establishment of a so-called peace and security commission with the right of inspection “in every country”, the creation of special military units in the Member States and at the same time the appointment of a United Nations military adviser. 133. It is impossible to dissociate these proposals from the general policy of the United States, which is in a process of transition from the cold war to acts of direct aggression. That, incidentally, is evident from the words of Mr. A. Barkley, Vice-President of the United States, who said on 21 May 1950 that the United States “may have to occupy more countries before the cold war is ended”. Such a step might be inevitable, “so we must maintain armed forces all over the world”. Clearly the Vice-President was speaking openly of the aim to achieve world hegemony and of the acts of aggression which were being prepared by the United States, such as the attacks on Korea and Taiwan. 134. That is really aggression, aggression committed by the United States against the Korean people. For the purpose of this aggression, the imperialist and militarist circles of the United States have abused the name and emblem of the United Nations, on the basis of certain illegal decisions of the Security Council. At the same time, the United States has repeatedly rejected the proposals of the Soviet Union for settling the Korean question peacefully, with the participation of representatives of the People’s Republic of China and of the Korean people, proposals which have also been introduced at this session. 135. The Korean people has the undisputed right independently and in all sovereignty to decide its own fate. It has the right to decide in accordance with its Own desires the question of a single and democratic government of its State. If a just and democratic settlement of this matter is to be achieved, the sovereign will of the Korean people must be respected, the bombing of Korean towns and villages must cease and the forces of occupation and intervention must be withdrawn from Korea. 136. We are also confronted with aggression committed against the People’s Republic of China in the form of the landing of foreign forces on the island of Taiwan. 137. I consider that the General Assembly of the United Nations is entitled to ask under what Article of the Charter the United States forces occupied this territory, which by historical right and by the Cairo Declaration of 1 December 1943 is an integral part of the Chinese State. If the General Assembly is assured here that the United States has no territorial ambitions and seeks no special position or privileges with respect to Formosa, one cannot but ask what the United States forces are really seeking in that territory, which is an integral part of the sovereign possessions of the Chinese State, Now, when aggression has been committed, something in the nature of a special statute is being asked for Taiwan. It is clear that, just as in the Korean question, an attempt is being made as an afterthought, to conceal aggressive acts behind the fig-leaf of international legality. 138. The establishment of a special statute for Taiwan would be an illegal act and would constitute a further flagrant interference in the domestic affairs of a foreign State, in violation of the Charter. All that is required to create a situation which would be in accordance with international law and democratic principles is to withdraw the occupation forces. 139. These facts show sufficiently clearly the real nature and purpose of the United States proposals. Their purpose is to secure a fundamental revision of the Charter so that the United Nations may become the instrument of the policy of a single Power; in that way the aggressive acts of that Power would be given at least the appearance of legality. Their purpose is to secure the use of the armed forces of the Member States on any occasion in the service of a single Power, albeit under the emblem of the United Nations. Hence the demand for the abolition of the principle of concerted action by the great Powers which is the basic prerequisite of an effective policy of peace. Hence too the demand that the Security Council should be deprived of its competence and that the Charter should be revised, which can only result in great damage to the United Nations. 140. The Czechoslovak delegation considers that the development of democratic principles in international relations, the interests of the security of nations and of international peace require, on the contrary, the strengthening and strict observance of the principles of the Charter, an instrument which is based on the principle of mutual respect and the equality of rights of peoples and States, and not on the principle that a single State Member should hold a monopoly in the United Nations. 141. The Czechoslovak delegation unreservedly accepts the binding force of the Charter of the United Nations, which was created five years ago by a humanity sickened by the horrors of war. 142. Attempts are being made to transfer responsibility from the guilty to the innocent, and to accuse the Soviet Union and the peoples’ democracies of violating peace and pursuing an imperialist policy. 143. What these allegations are worth can best be seen in Mr. Bevin’s speech [283rd meeting]. By way of example, reference may be made to his remark about the putsch in Czechoslovakia, which was really a democratic and constitutional solution of the governmental crisis of 1948. But it is difficult to discuss such matters with Mr. Bevin so long as the Government of the United Kingdom speaks of the democratic solution of the governmental crisis as a putsch, while regarding the fascist revolution brought about by the Munich Agreement, or diktat, as a legal situation. Mr. Bevin accuses the Soviet Union of violating agreements concluded during the war, but everybody knows that it was actually the United States and the United Kingdom which violated the historic agreements of Yalta and Potsdam. Mr. Bevin talks of peace, but makes bellicose declarations here and threatens war. 144. It is evident that all this slanderous propaganda accusing the Soviet Union and the peoples’ democracies of violating peace is calculated only to conceal and justify the military preparations and aggressive acts of the Anglo-American bloc. But the facts are stronger than slanderous propaganda. The historical facts testify that the foreign policy of the USSR and its allied States, the peoples’ democracies, is characterized by an unflinching and consistent campaign against warmongers, against the policy of aggression and incitement to a new war, a campaign to secure a lasting democratic peace. The fundamental feature of this policy, which results from the very essence of the socialist State, is an unyielding and consistent effort to prevent the weakening and destruction of the United Nations, to strengthen it and to ensure the strict observance of the international obligations and principles of the Charter. 145. On the other hand, it is undeniable that the United States foreign policy is characterized by the effort to gain mastery over the greatest possible number of States, to deprive those States of the means of conducting an independent domestic and foreign policy, and to use them for the realization of its aggressive plans. The foreign policy of the United States is at this time characterized by the transition from the cold war to acts of direct aggression, the United Nations being used for that purpose. It is in this light that the United States efforts to obtain a revision of the Charter and thus to undermine the foundations of the United Nations and convert it into an instrument of its policy must be regarded, 146. Such a policy is fully confirmed by the statements of the representatives of two great Powers, Mr. Acheson and Mr. Bevin, statements which cannot contribute to relieve the strained international situation. 147. The way out of this situation can be found in the proposals made in the declaration of the USSR Government. They open the way to agreement among the five great Powers in the interests of the strengthening of peace. They show the way to the adoption of concrete measures capable of relieving the war tension, and in the end of averting the threat of war. They show a practical way of securing peace. They would strengthen the authority of the United Nations, the purpose of which is to defend the peace and security of the nations.