The eleventh session of the General Assembly has met in an international situation of great complexity. During the past few weeks the forces of aggression and dark reaction in various peaceful parts of the world have been girding themselves for an attempt to plunge humanity into an abyss of new calamities and world conflicts.
54. Not so long ago the most striking development on the international scene was the relaxation of tension. Moving forward step by step, the peace-loving countries were settling international controversies by negotiation and stamping out the smouldering embers of war. We in the Soviet Union are proud of the active part which our country played in that great endeavour. I do not wish to take up the Assembly’s time by enumerating all the constructive steps taken by the Soviet Government in the past few years in its struggle to bring about an easing of tension in international affairs. They are generally known. They embraced the full range of international problems, from the effort to bring about a cease-fire in Korea and Indo-China to the normalization of economic and cultural relations with most countries of the world.
55. The real reduction in international tension which was achieved, made the Geneva Conference of the Heads of Government of the four great Powers possible in the summer of 1955, marking an important step in the development of post-war international relations. The “spirit of Geneva” gave new Lope to the peoples who rejected the “cold-war” policy with all its baleful implications.
56. But the “spirit of Geneva” was not welcomed by certain influential circles whose interests were bound up with the armaments race. Their aim was, and is, to aggravate international tensions through a policy of reckless adventure and provocation.
57. The exalted position of the United Nations obliges all of us who participate in its activities to make a sober and realistic appraisal of each new development in international affairs. Today we cannot fail to recognize that the imperialistic forces of reaction and aggression have succeeded in dealing a serious blow to the cause of peace and have markedly increased international tension.
58. Fighting has recently broken out in the Near East as the result of a conspiracy against the freedom and independence of the peoples of the Arab world. In times like these any local armed conflict can easily touch off a worldwide conflagration. In regions like the Near and Middle East, which are of paramount political, economic and strategic importance, such a conflict, if not resolved at the very outset, might well plunge the world into another bloodbath. And indeed the armed attack by the United Kingdom, France and Israel against Egypt has created a situation which threatens the cause of peace and confronts the peoples of the world with all the implications of the danger of a third world war.
59. In Eastern Europe the Hungarian fascist conspirators, supported from abroad by international reaction, have attempted to overthrow the people’s democratic regime, to deprive the Hungarian masses of the democratic freedoms which they had won, and to reduce Hungary once more to the status of a helpless vassal of the imperialist Powers. That attempt has failed.
60. The aggression against Egypt and the fascist putsch in Hungary are links in the same chain. They clearly reveal the far-reaching and dangerous intentions of those international forces which are seeking to hold back the forward march of humanity along the road of freedom and national self-determination, to restore colonial rule in areas where it has been overthrown, and to return to power anti-popular regimes in countries where they have collapsed.
61. In such circumstances the responsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace and security becomes especially apparent. The prestige and the future of the United Nations hang in the balance, for it has taken upon itself the solemn obligation “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind”.
62. In recent weeks the entire world has fixed its anxious attention on the threatening events unfolding in Egypt. The unprovoked aggression by the United Kingdom, France and Israel against Egypt has profoundly aroused world public opinion. The treacherous, unjust and colonialist character of the armed attack by Israel, the United Kingdom and France on the Egyptian people is clearly evident to peace-loving forces everywhere. At the same time, it is perfectly obvious that Israel in attacking Egypt was playing the role of provocateur in instigating the execution of a vast carefully planned operation whose chief participants were the United Kingdom and France. Various reasons and explanations for the aggressors’ surprise attack against Egypt have been given in official documents of the United Kingdom and French Governments. These explanations do not stand up under criticism.
63. The absurd argument that the United Kingdom and France launched an aggressive war against Egypt in order to “bring hostilities to an end” between Israel and Egypt, and to “separate the belligerents” as the United Kingdom Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden declared in his speech of 30 October 1956 [S/3711 ] does not hold water. Are we to believe that the naval and aerial bombardments of Port Said, the brutal destruction of such thickly populated Arab quarters of Port Said as El-Tamil, El-Manakh, Abbas Street and others, served to “separate the belligerents”? Can anyone tell us that the inhuman slaughter of thousands of peaceful citizens of Port Said, primarily women and children, the shooting down by aircraft: of residents of Heliopolis who were peacefully waiting for a tram, the bombing and destruction of the Coptic church in Cairo, the destruction of the Post Office and of the Roman Catholic church in Alexandria, were carried out for the purpose of “separating the belligerents”? Everyone knows that at these points there was no contact between the “belligerents” (Egypt and Israel), hence these acts could not have served to “separate” them.
64. The United Kingdom, French and Israel aggressors have resorted to the threadbare lie that some terrible Communist plot was being hatched in Egypt to seize the whole Near and Middle East with its vast oil resources, and that this left them no alternative but to face the danger squarely. This is another argument which does not hold up under criticism. Such an argument, which incidentally was brought up again today in Mr. Pineau’s speech, might serve as a plot for some Hollywood film, but it has no place in an analysis of the reasons for such a crime a? the armed attack by the United Kingdom, France and Israel against the Egyptian people. When the aggressors can think of nothing else to say in justification of their crimes, they habitually drag in the bogey of communism. That is by now an old story.
65. The argument that the aggression by the United Kingdom and France against Egypt was prompted by their desire to guarantee freedom of passage through the Suez Canal likewise fails to withstand criticism.
66. In the first place, everybody knows that the Egyptian State has in practice ensured freedom of passage through the Canal; after nationalization the Canal operated without interruption, and freedom of passage was in no way endangered. Despite what the aggressors had just been saying, they themselves, far from doing anything to ensure freedom of passage through the Suez Canal, acted so as to put this vital international waterway out of operation for a long time to come. The United Kingdom and France are directly responsible before all the users of the Canal for this flagrant violation of the Constantinople Convention of 1888 on freedom of navigation.
67. Secondly, what are the legal grounds on which the United Kingdom and France have been, and are still trying to monopolize the solution of the Suez Canal problem, which concerns the vital interests of many Governments, including those of the Soviet Union, while they trample on the sovereign rights of Egypt?
68. Thirdly, what justification have the United Kingdom and France for resorting to armed force to settle a question on which the Security Council had so recently adopted a decision? It will be recalled that the Security Council affirmed the well-known six principles, agreed upon in a resolution [S/3675] which, had they been put into effect, would have brought about the complete settlement of the Suez problem by peaceful means. The Security Council’s decision was widely acclaimed as a notable achievement of the forces of peace. The United Kingdom and France voted for those principles and agreed to negotiate whit Egypt. It is now clear that this gesture was false, its purpose being to lull the vigilance of the peace-loving nations and prepare the ground for the sudden attack on Egypt.
69. The attack by the United Kingdom, France and Israel against Egypt was, of course, not motivated by the foregoing considerations, which the aggressors are now alleging in order to conceal their real aims. Irrefutable facts show the attack on Egypt was only the first step in the execution of a large-scale strategic plan conceived by the imperialists. It was the intention of the colonial Powers to take advantage of the existing situation in order to foil the Egyptian Government’s decision to nationalize the Suez Canal, and to take it back into their own hands. They intended to crush Egypt for daring to assert its sovereign rights; unseat its government for refusing to go along with their imperialistic aims and bring the Egyptian people to their knees. They wanted to deprive several States in the Near and Middle East of their national independence and sovereignty by taking direct military action against the Arab peoples to restore the oppressive colonial regime which the peoples of these countries had thrown off, and to regain the position, privileges and sources of wealth which the imperialists had lost in these countries. The armed attack against Egypt launched by Israel and joined in by the United Kingdom and France was, I repeat, only the first step in the realization of the over-all colonialist plan of the imperialist aggressors.
70. The first emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution [991 (ES-1)] urging the United Kingdom, France and Israel to agree to an immediate cease-fire and to withdraw all forces from Egyptian territory. However, this resolution did not at first produce the desired effect.
71. A tragic situation resulted. Egypt, which was shedding its lifeblood and upon whose peaceful population United Kingdom and French bombs were raining down, appealed for help. Any delay might have spelt disaster for Egypt and caused the war to spread. In these circumstances the Soviet Union considered it imperative to take decisive steps. In a draft resolution [S/3736] submitted on 5 November 1956, it called upon the Security Council to propose to the Governments of the United Kingdom, France and Israel, that they should immediately cease all military action against Egypt and withdraw within three days the forces that had invaded Egypt. At the same time the Soviet Union recommended that the Security Council consider it essential that all Member States of the United Nations, especially the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as permanent members of the Security Council having powerful air and naval forces at their disposal, should give military and other assistance to the republic of Egypt, which had been the victim of aggression, by sending naval and air forces, military units, volunteers, military instructors and other forms of assistance, if the United Kingdom, France and Israel failed to carry out within the stated time limits the recommendations specified by the draft resolution.
72. At the same time, the Soviet Government proposed to the United States Government that the two make a joint effort within the United Nations, together with other Governments, to halt the aggression and prevent further bloodshed. The Government of the United States unfortunately did not support this initiative which the Soviet Union, prompted by the gravity of the situation and by its sense of responsibility for the maintenance of peace in the Near East, had undertaken.
73. Finally, the Soviet Union appealed to the United Kingdom, France and Israel to consider the dangers inherent in the situation created as a result of their attack upon Egypt, and to put an immediate end to their aggression. The Soviet Government declared, moreover, that its armed forces were ready to co-operate actively with those of other Governments in putting down aggression in the Near East should the United Nations so decide.
74. Vicious anti-Soviet propaganda has tried and is still trying to make it appear that these resolute steps taken by the Soviet Government against aggression in Egypt are proof of some special selfish motives on the part of the Soviet Union in that area. Slanderers have been, and are still, declaring that the Soviet Union is pursuing its own selfish aims, directed against the aims of the Western Powers and the peoples of the East.
75. Such assertions are utterly without foundation. The Soviet socialist State does not have, and does not want, concessions, military bases or privileges of any sort in the Near East, whether political, economic or military. Any expansionist aims are totally alien to the thinking of the Soviet Government, and would be incompatible with our principles. Nevertheless, the Soviet Union, like many other Governments, is concerned that freedom of passage through the Suez Canal should be assured.
76. The delegation of the Soviet Union notes with great satisfaction that military operations in Egypt have ceased. The brave resistance of the heroic Egyptian people, whose just cause has won the moral support of freedom-loving peoples everywhere, has caused the aggressors to retreat. This triumph is all the more remarkable because two great Powers armed with the finest military equipment, proved unable to crush the resistance of the young Republic of Egypt, far weaker militarily than they, but strong in its indomitable spirit. That example is an inspiration to all peoples who are fighting for their freedom and independence.
77. Thus the conflagration which flared up briefly in the Near East, is dying down, but beneath the fresh ash the embers are still smouldering, and if we do not take care, they may flare up again. The Soviet Union is seriously concerned over the fact that although a formal cease-fire prevails in Egypt, the withdrawal of United Kingdom, French and Israel forces from Egyptian territory is being held up. In fact, it is reported that the interventionists are reinforcing their troops in the area. An aide-memoire [A/3370] of the Egyptian Government transmitted to the Secretary-General on 18 November states that the United Kingdom and France, instead of withdrawing their forces from Egypt, are “consolidating their positions in Egyptian territory”. The aide-memoire goes on to say: “... these armed forces are at the same time launching upon extremely provocative acts in Port Said and the Suez Canal area, which acts include indiscriminate shooting of the population resulting in many victims... To this are added the searching and looting of houses and stores, and forcing [Egyptian] labourers, under all kinds of threats, to work with the invading forces”. This situation is fraught with grave danger.
78. As long as the troops of the aggressors remain in Egyptian territory, there can be no assurance that hostilities will not break out anew. The Soviet delegation is of the opinion that the General Assembly should again categorically demand the immediate withdrawal of United Kingdom, French and Israel troops from Egypt. This is the more necessary because the Government of Israel, for example, does not wish to withdraw its troops from the Gaza Strip, having declared it “an integral part of its territory”,
79. The Government of the State of Israel has openly proclaimed its annexationist aims with regard to Egypt, including the incorporation into Israel of the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, and the islands of Tiran and Sinafir in the Gulf of Aqaba. The Soviet delegation considers it imperative that measures be taken to prevent Israel from further provoking its neighbours and to ensure peace and tranquillity in the Near East.
80. Surely the voice of reason must convince the United Kingdom, France and Israel that their forces must be withdrawn from Egypt without further delay, lest the situation be aggravated anew. It must be borne in mind that the sympathies of peace-loving peoples the world over are on the side of Egypt.
81. The decision taken by the first emergency special session of the General Assembly to establish a United Nations international police Force raises the following considerations. First, it must not be forgotten that the establishment and command of an international armed police Force, under the terms of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, are the prerogative of the Security Council. In the present instance, this provision of the Charter has clearly been violated. Secondly, once the United Kingdom, France and Israel withdraw their armed forces from Egyptian territory there will be no need for a United Nations international police Force.
82. However, the Soviet delegation is aware that Egypt has agreed to the introduction of United Nations armed forces, with the understanding that they may be stationed along the demarcation line between Israel and Egypt which was established by the Armistice Agreement of 1948. Naturally the international forces must not stay in Port Said or the general area of the Suez Canal after the withdrawal of United Kingdom and French troops from Port Said. The continued presence of United Nations forces in that area would violate the provisions of the Constantinople Convention of 1888 and would constitute a clear infringement of the sovereign rights of Egypt. It goes without saying that the United Nations forces must also withdraw from the demarcation line and from Egyptian territory in general as soon as the Republic of Egypt should consider it necessary.
83. We must not overlook the disturbing fact that influential circles in the United Kingdom and France, and certain circles in the United States, have far-reaching and extremely dangerous intentions in connexion with the dispatch of United Nations forces to Egypt. Their aim is to remove the Suez Canal from Egyptian control and establish some form of alien so-called “international” control in its stead. Demands are being made that the United Nations forces should be stationed throughout the Suez Canal zone and should remain there until such time as a settlement of the Suez problem based on the well-known proposals of the Western Powers can be imposed on Egypt.
84. This reasoning indicates that the Powers which were defeated in the colonialist war against Egypt would obviously like to take advantage of the presence of foreign armed forces in the Suez Canal to carry out their old plans for the “internationalization” of the Canal. It is not difficult to see that such an interpretation of the function of the United Nations armed Force could in practice lead only to the violation of Egyptian sovereignty and of the Constantinople Convention of 1888. In this connexion we cannot but associate ourselves with the remarks made on 16 November 1956 by the Prime Minister of the Republic of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, on the Suez Canal problem: “This United Nations force will not be concerned with the Suez Canal issue as such, which can only be considered separately after peace has been fully established and all foreign forces removed. The main task of the international force is said to be to ensure that Israel remains within the demarcation lines set by the old Armistice Agreement.”
85. It is clear that the stationing of an international United Nations Force on Egyptian territory and the duration of its mission are questions which can be decided only by agreement with the Government of Egypt. It is also clear that it is not possible to discuss in substance or resolve the problem of ensuring freedom of passage through the Suez Canal or the problem of Palestine until such time as the forces of the United Kingdom, French and Israel aggressors have been completely withdrawn from Egyptian territory. At this moment the honour of the United Nations, the honour of peace-loving peoples everywhere demands that we take steps to ensure the immediate withdrawal of the invaders from Egyptian soil.
86. The United Nations should also demand that the United Kingdom, France and Israel call an immediate halt to all actions constituting a threat or causing tension along the Israel-Jordan or Israel-Syrian frontiers (troop concentrations on the frontiers, flights of reconnaissance planes and the like), so that genuine pacification of that part of the Arab East may come about. There are a number of indications — as the Syrian representatives said here yesterday [586th meeting] — that certain circles in the United Kingdom, France and Israel harbour further aggressive designs against the Arab Governments. It is the duty of the United Nations to unmask such intentions and nip them in the bud.
87. It is shortsighted to think that aggression against Egypt or punitive actions by the French colonial authorities in Africa can strengthen the position of colonialism. The peoples of North Africa, both those who have already achieved national liberation and those who are fighting for it, have taken their destiny into their own hands. There is no way of stopping this great process of national resurgence.
88. I shall say only a few words about Hungary, since this question has already been exhaustively discussed in both the second emergency session and the present session of the General Assembly. It will be recalled that the Cuban delegation interrupted our general discussion by submitting for the Assembly's consideration a draft resolution [A /3357/Rev. 2] on the so-called “Hungarian question”. As was to be expected, the debate on the provocative Cuban resolution and its approval by a majority of the Assembly not only failed to contribute to the lessening of international tension, but made matters worse and struck a serious blow at the authority of the United Nations.
89. The content of that debate and the nature and tone of the statements by the representatives of the Western Powers made it plain that for all their high-sounding declarations, it was not sympathy for the Hungarian people which prompted them to sponsor the inclusion of the “Hungarian question” on the Assembly’s agenda. They needed a pretext to divert the attention of the public from the armed intervention of the colonialists in Egypt and the preparations for aggression against the Governments of the Arab East. They needed an excuse to launch a political campaign here in the United Nations against the socialist governments in order to revive the “cold war” in all its intensity.
90. Why was this necessary? There is only one answer to that question: the forces of aggression in the world arena do not wish to reconcile themselves to the ever-growing desire of the masses for a relaxation of international tensions and the development of peaceful cooperation among Governments having different political systems. It was no mere accident that the voices of reaction all joined in such frenzied opposition to the great principle of peaceful coexistence. This is no abstract theoretical struggle, but one with a definite purpose, and the events in Hungary are a concrete and active manifestation thereof.
91. It is obvious that the forces of reaction and aggression, in opposing the principle of peaceful competition between two social and economic systems, are by no means confident that they will succeed in proving the superiority of their own system in that competition. This is why they have been exerting such strenuous efforts to bring about a full-scale revival of the “cold war,” which had begun to subside after the Geneva Conference of the Heads of Government of the four great Powers.
92. One of the manifestations of the newly revived “cold war” policy of the reactionaries which most gravely threatens the cause of peace is the subversive activity directed by organs of certain of the Western Powers against the socialist countries. This so-called “activity” has long since assumed the form of unprecedented interference in the internal affairs of sovereign States.
93. Previous discussion has made it abundantly clear that the fascist putsch in Hungary was organized with the active participation of influential foreign forces. Facts cited here on this rostrum by the representatives of a number of countries are still fresh in our minds and need hardly be repeated. I should like to stress here only the most important and fundamental aspect of the situation, which is that the fascist underground in Hungary, with outside encouragement, tried to fasten itself on to the healthy national movement aimed at eliminating serious mistakes and distortions in the country’s social and economic life, to seize control of this movement and to force it to serve purposes inimical to those of the Hungarian people. This, it must be emphatically stated, is the first time since fascism was routed in the Second World War, that we have witnessed a direct and open attempt by the fascist forces which were reconstituted underground, to challenge democracy and take revenge by resorting to arms. It is a situation which calls for the utmost vigilance on the part of those who desire peace.
94. Consider what would have happened if the fascists had prevailed in Hungary. The frightful atrocities committed by the Horthyist followers during the few days when they had the upper hand in the streets of the Hungarian capital are an indication of the fate which awaited the Hungarian people.
95. But Hungary was not the only country concerned. The victory of Hungarian reaction would have meant the emergence of a fascist Government in the very heart of Europe, which would have served as a springboard for the international forces of reaction seeking to revive fascism and re-establish their power all over the continent. Thus, the victory of the counter-revolutionary putsch in Hungary would have constituted an extreme threat to peace.
96. We still face many acute international problems, in the solution of which the United Nations has an important role to play. Foremost among them are the problems resulting from the aggressive attack by the United Kingdom, France and Israel against Egypt. It is the solution of these really urgent problems that requires the attention of the General Assembly, and in such a time of stress it is the more regrettable that this forum should have been the scene of base “cold-war” manoeuvres such as the attempt to falsify the essence of the “Hungarian question” and use it as a pretext for interfering in the internal affairs of Hungary.
97. I should like now to take up the problem of disarmament. Our primary responsibility consists not only in helping to wipe out the dangerous breeding-ground of war in the Near East, but in establishing conditions which will preclude the possibility of a renewal of such conflicts in the future. Mankind rejects the path of war and does not wish to live a quasi-military life. It calls for a serious effort to re-order international relations in such a way as to ensure a truly lasting and stable peace. It longs to see the day when air-raid sirens will not disturb children in their sleep, when everyone will be able to reap the magnificent fruits of scientific progress and enjoy the blessings of contemporary civilization. We support any practical measures that serve the cause of peace. What we need, however, is no temporary patching up of the edifice of peace, but a fundamental solution of the problems that agitate mankind.
98. The Government of the USSR wholeheartedly seeks to secure a radical improvement in international relations. Today, when, as recent events have shown, aggressive circles in certain countries are prepared to plunge the world into the abyss of a new world war to further their own selfish interests, the Soviet Government repeats its solemn and fervent appeal to all peace-loving nations, all true champions of peace, to intensify their resistance to the intrigues of aggression and reaction and to display resolution and firmness in strengthening international peace and security.
99. The most urgent problem, which is of decisive importance for the strengthening of peace, is disarmament. It is the key to a radical improvement in the whole international situation. We must firmly reject any theory according to which a lasting peace can result from a balance of power between great nations armed to the teeth. This theory underlies the policies and strategic plans of the Governments of a number of large Western countries. It determines the scale and tempo of the armaments race and dictates some countries’ approach to international relations and to the United Nations. It inspires the strategy and tactics of the “cold war” and breeds contempt for the cause of true international cooperation.
100. Consider the prospect offered to mankind by elevating rivalry in the armaments race to the status of a principle. With such rivalry, which by its very nature excludes any limitations, there can be no question of a balance of power. Where the principle of rivalry in the armaments race, and, more particularly, in atomic weapons, operates, the possibility of a stable balance of power is excluded, and is replaced by a balancing on the “brink of war” if I may use an expression popular in the United States.
101. It is quite plain that such balancing requires a particular psychological environment. It is no accident that prominent advocates of a policy “from a position of strength” still include in their arsenal of weapons, every kind of intimidation of other countries, or that they still sow the poisonous seeds of fear and mistrust. In support of the so-called “general, global plan for the struggle against communism” United Kingdom Field Marshal Montgomery declares: “It is not easy to maintain solidarity, if there is no fear.” He is echoed by General Gruenther, the former Supreme Commander of the armed forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization who says: “In view of the Soviet policy of co-existence the danger has arisen that the fear that gripped the public in the past, may disappear.” As you see, those who advocate a policy “from a position of strength” require the element of fear.
102. Only in the unhealthy atmosphere of an artificially fostered fear can the taxpayers be made to pay out vast sums for armaments, only so can the globe be ringed by a network of military blocks and war bases. During the seven years that NATO has existed, its organizers have spent $364,000 million on war preparations! $364,000 million! This means that the policy “from a position of strength” has cost each family in the member countries of NATO an average of $3,274.
103. Anyone seriously concerned about the future of mankind, and earnestly desiring to create a system of guarantees for a lasting and stable peace, must admit that the pseudo-realistic theory of a balance of power based on rivalry in the armaments race is worthless and cannot give mankind confidence in the morrow. It completely undermines the very idea of creating an effective system of international security based on trust and co-operation.
104. You know that the Government of the Soviet Union has recently [17 November 1956] placed before the whole world a most important statement on disarmament [A/3366] and the lessening of international tension. This statement contains in particular new proposals for disarmament, for the prohibition of atomic and hydrogen weapons including the prohibition of tests with such weapons and the establishment of effective control to ensure compliance with these measures. The new Soviet proposals correspond to the vital interests of all mankind and constitute a great constructive contribution to the true consolidation of peace. I call upon the General Assembly to consider them with all the attention they deserve.
105. The Soviet proposals, in the first place, raise the question of a substantial reduction of armed forces and armaments during the next two years. They provide that within that period the armed forces of the Soviet Union, the United States and China should be reduced to 1 to 1.5 million men each; those of the United Kingdom and France to 650,000 men each; and those of the remaining countries to 150,000 to 200,000 men. Our proposal is that this should be done progressively. As a first step in this direction, the armed forces of the USSR, the United States and China should be reduced to 2.5 million men each, and those of the United Kingdom and France to 750,000 men each, during the first year in which the Soviet Government’s proposals are put into effect.
106. The Government of the Soviet Union also proposes that effect should be given to the prohibition of atomic and hydrogen weapons within two years. By this we mean that States should stop producing nuclear weapons and prohibit their use, and at the same time completely destroy their stock-piles of such weapons and remove them from their armaments.
107. I particularly wish to call your attention to the fact that under the Soviet Government’s proposals the immediate cessation of tests of atomic and hydrogen weapons is the first step on the road to prohibition of these weapons. There is no reason whatever why this proposal should not be carried out, particularly as it is not linked with any system of control, since any kind of explosion on any scale and in any part of the globe is immediately recorded and detected by modern scientific establishments, which have the necessary equipment for this purpose. For this reason, as the Soviet Union has repeatedly emphasized, the proposal can be carried out at once, and this would give all peace-loving peoples the assurance that the cause of disarmament is at last beginning to move forward.
108. The Soviet Government’s proposals also deal with the very urgent question of the stationing of armies on foreign soil and military bases outside national frontiers.
109. You are aware that in accordance with certain international obligations the armed forces of the USSR are at present stationed in the territory of four countries: the German Democratic Republic, Poland, Hungary and Romania. You will also be aware that the Soviet Union has already liquidated all its foreign military bases.
110. The United States, on the other hand, has armed forces in Western Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Italy, Morocco, Libya, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and other countries. According to far from complete information published in the Press, there are no less than 100 United States air bases abroad, twenty of them in the United Kingdom, eighteen in Japan, twelve in the Federal Republic of Germany, eight in France, six in Morocco, five in Canada, five in South Korea, and five in that part of Chinese territory occupied by the United States armed forces (the Island of Taiwan). There are also United States air bases in the territories of Spain, Turkey, Greenland, Greece, Philippines, Iceland, the Azores, Libya, Saudi Arabia and so on. There are also United States bases in foreign countries, such as Italy (three bases) Japan (three bases) Philippines, Western Germany, Spain, Greenland, Morocco, Liberia, Canada, Bermuda, Trinidad, South Korea and others. And then we are told that this is done in the interests of defence or self-defence.
111. The United Kingdom, too, maintains a considerable number of armed forces on foreign soil. In particular, United Kingdom forces are known to be stationed in Western Germany, Libya, Egypt, the Bahrein Islands, Japan, South Korea, and so forth. French forces are stationed in Western Germany, Tunisia, Morocco, Libya, Cyprus, Egypt, and elsewhere.
112. It is self-evident that the existence of armies and military bases on foreign territory is one of the sources of international tension. The Soviet Government proposes that in the course of 1957 the armed forces of the United States, the USSR, the United Kingdom and France on German territory should be reduced by one-third and this reduction should be controlled in appropriate fashion. Simultaneously, the armed forces of the United States, the United Kingdom and France in the territories of the NATO countries and those of the USSR in the territories of the Warsaw Treaty countries should be considerably reduced. In the course of two years, all foreign naval and air bases on the territories of other States should be liquidated.
113. In addition, we assure the leaders of the Western Powers that as soon as they withdraw their armies from Western Germany and liquidate their military, naval and air bases on foreign territory, we shall at once and without delay withdraw all our armies from those countries in which they are now stationed under the Warsaw Treaty. These armies were dispatched to their present stations under reciprocal agreement with the Governments of the socialist countries, and the question of their continued presence will be decided by these Governments in accordance with the principles laid down in the Soviet Government’s statement of 30 October 1956. In accordance with the programme I have described, State military expenditure must be appropriately reduced. This will of course have a most beneficial effect on the people’s living standards.
114. The Western Powers have always regarded, and still regard, the organization of effective international control to ensure the implementation of appropriate disarmament measures as a stumbling block on the road to disarmament. It is common knowledge that the Soviet Government has more than once made far-reaching proposals to ensure strict and truly international control. To prevent a sudden attack by one State on another, the Soviet Government, in particular, has proposed, and is still proposing, that control posts be established in the various countries on a reciprocal basis, at large ports, railway junctions, motor highways and airfields. These posts would be to ensure that no dangerous concentration of armed forces and armaments occurs.
115. While not rejecting this proposal in principle, the representatives of the Western Powers, and particularly of the United States, have so far usually countered it with the so-called “Open Skies” plan, i.e., the plan for mutual aerial inspection. The Soviet Government has repeatedly pointed out that this proposal is far from solving the problem of disarmament control and is not capable of preventing aggression. Since, however, the Western Powers have made acceptance of their proposal sine qua non for any agreement on disarmament, thus creating a dead-lock, the Soviet Union has decided to take an important new step to meet its partners halfway.
116. The Soviet Government has stated that it is prepared to consider the question of employing aerial photography within the area of Europe in which the principal armed forces of the North Atlantic bloc and of the Warsaw Treaty countries are stationed. As you already know from press reports, the Soviet Union proposes that aerial photography should be carried out to a depth of 800 kilometres east and west of the demarcation line between the aforementioned armed forces. The implementation of this plan would of course be subject to the consent of the States concerned.
117. The Soviet Government considers that all these measures, so important in themselves, can and should serve as a point of departure for the complete liquidation of armed forces and armaments of all types so that States would retain only such contingents of militia (police) as are necessary to maintain internal security and protect their frontiers.
118. The USSR, desiring to give peoples the confidence that arms will never be used for the settlement of disputes between States, once more proposes the conclusion of a non-aggression pact between the countries of the North Atlantic Alliance and the countries participating in the Warsaw Treaty. Such a pact, considering that the participants would include tin Soviet Union and the United States, that is countries which possess the most powerful armed forces, would result in radical changes in the entire international climate and would help to lessen international tension and to create confidence between States. Such is the broad and yet realistic programme of action proposed, by the Soviet Union.
119. I know that the reactionary propaganda machine will once again put forward its usual argument — that this is bolshevik propaganda. Whenever we propose genuine, specific and carefully considered plans, we are told by persons who do not wish to act upon these plans that they are propaganda. Yet what prevents those making such assertions from finding out whether this is in fact propaganda or a firm determination on the part of the peoples of the Soviet Union to really bring disarmament about? Let us make the attempt.
120. The question arises, where and how should this programme be considered and the necessary decisions worked out. The Soviet Government considers that efforts to solve these problems should be continued in United Nations bodies. Yet the present international situation calls for the immediate adoption of measures to prevent war and terminate the armaments race. Bearing this in mind, the Soviet Government supports the proposal made by the President of the Swiss Confederation to convene a conference of the Heads of Government of the USSR, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and India. Such a conference could facilitate the reaching of agreement on disarmament questions. Moreover, the success of this conference could pave the way for a broader conference in which the Heads of Government of all States parties to NATO and the Warsaw Treaty could take part. This broader conference should also be attended by the Heads of Government of a number of other countries, and especially the People’s Republic of China, India, Yugoslavia, Indonesia and Burma, which are not parties to any military groupings.
121. In the words of the Soviet Government, the world now has a choice between two paths: the path of discontinuing the “cold war”, renouncing the policy of “positions of strength”, disarmament and the creation of all conditions for the peaceful coexistence of States with differing economic and social systems, or continuation of the armaments race, continuation of the “cold war” — a path leading towards a war unparalleled for its hardship and destructiveness. There is no third course. In the USSR Government statement of 17 November 1956 occurs the following: “The Soviet Government has always maintained and still maintains that there are no such controversial problems in the world as could not be settled peacefully, with due regard for the legitimate interests of the countries concerned. As to the existing ideological differences, they cannot serve as a reason for the aggravation of relations between States, for war propaganda, and especially for the use of force by one State against another. Such differences can and must be resolved through a struggle of ideas in which the advantages of this or that ideology or this or that economic system will be demonstrated by the very course of historical development.” [A/3566] From this august rostrum I urge you to support the proposals submitted by the Soviet Government, the implementation of which will radically change the whole international atmosphere, eliminate the threat of another world war and strengthen international peace and security.
122. I am approaching the end of what I have to say. Any analysis of the present tasks of the United Nations, would be incomplete without a reference to the grave economic problems which preoccupy the minds of millions of people in all countries of the world. The Soviet. Union is in favour of active economic co-operation on a world-wide scale, in the interests of all nations. Differences in the social systems of countries cannot and should not hamper this co-operation. In contrast to the “Let us arm!” slogan of the North Atlantic bloc, we advance the slogan “Let us trade”.
123. The grandiose programme for the development of the national economy of the Soviet Union, described in the sixth Five-Year Plan, offers most favourable opportunities for expanding economic relations with other countries. The People’s Republic of China and other socialist countries offer enormous opportunities for the expansion of international trade. These relations can, of course, be developed only in strict compliance with the principles of equality and mutual advantage, without any discrimination.
124. It is generally admitted that the United Nations, and its economic bodies are not yet giving questions of international trade the attention they deserve. Moreover the illegal decision of 1950 [resolution 500 (V)], imposing an embargo on trade with the People’s Republic of China has not yet been revoked and certainly hampers the development of sound international economic relations. The Soviet delegation intends to submit to this, session a proposal for the establishment of a world trade organization to function within the framework of the United Nations. This new body will be able to draw on the valuable experience acquired by the regional economic commissions, the Economic Commission for Europe, the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East, and the Economic Commission for Latin America.
125. There is also an urgent need for a thorough discussion and an agreed solution of the most pressing economic problems connected with the expansion of international economic co-operation. In this connexion the Soviet delegation is submitting a proposal to convene a. world economic conference in 1957 to which all countries will be invited, whether they are Members of the United Nations or not. This economic conference could,, for example, discuss the following problems: (a) a further expansion of world trade and the establishment of a world trade organization within the framework of the United Nations; (b) international economic co-operation to promote the formation of independent national economies in under-developed countries; (c) international credit and finance problems. A world economic conference would undoubtedly further expand international economic relations and strengthen international co-operation.
126. The outstanding event of our time is the great process of liberation and regeneration of the peoples of Africa and Asia. During the past ten years more than 1,250 million people — almost half the world’s population — have embarked upon the path of independent national advancement. The Bandung Conference of African and Asian countries [April 1955] has shown the whole world not only that the relative importance of the nations of the East in international affairs has increased immeasurably, but also that they play a very important part as a factor of peace, and as champions of peaceful co-operation among equal nations.
127. Yet colonialism is still far from dead, A number of countries have the status of colonies or semi-colonies. Even States which recently achieved their independence are constantly coming to grips with various forms of colonialism. Surely the war being waged by French armed forces against the people of Algeria, the Netherlands occupation of part of Indonesian territory (West Irian), the de facto occupation by United States armed forces of an integral part of the territory of China (the island of Taiwan) or Portugal’s refusal to liberate the Indian territory of Goa, are all manifestations of colonialism. There are also other forms of colonialism which adapt themselves to circumstances and make increasing use of camouflage tactics, devising “consortiums”, “associations” and other allegedly “non-political” forms of colonial expansion.
128. We cannot but agree with Mr. Sukarno, the President of Indonesia, who recently stated that in this age: “there can be no final peace or security until the last vestiges of colonialism have been swept into the ash can of history along with fascism, feudalism, slavery and other rubbish of the ages”. Indeed, colonialism poisons the international atmosphere, breeds antagonism and hostility among nations and sows the seed of hatred and war. The elimination of the outdated system of colonialism has become a pressing historical need.
129. The United Nations cannot disassociate itself from the great process of the liberation of colonial peoples. At this session of the General Assembly we are called upon to consider and solve a number of pressing problems affecting the vital interests of peoples who do not as yet enjoy the right to self-determination and who are struggling to free themselves from the colonial yoke. I should in particular like to refer to the question of prolonged periods of trusteeship over a number of territories. Up to the present time the United Nations has merely stood by and watched how Member States of the United Nations, administering various Trust Territories, violate the obligations they assumed under the United Nations Charter. As is known, organs of self-government have not even been established in some territories and to all intents and purposes the indigenous inhabitants are excluded from the administration of territories. Certain Powers have a very peculiar conception of the right of trusteeship; for example, they carry out tests of atomic weapons in Trust Territories and thereby expose the local inhabitants to serious danger. Moreover some countries are taking measures leading to the annexation of Trust Territories. We can discern an obvious trend towards imposing the colonial yoke more firmly and increasing colonial dependence in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter.
130. The United Nations General Assembly could here and now decide to fix specific time limits, as short as possible, on the expiry of which the peoples of all Trust Territories would be granted independence. Trust Territories should even now be given the right to send observers, representing the local administration and elected by the people, to the United Nations.
131. One of the important current problems is how the economic development and industrialization of underdeveloped countries are to be ensured and how the economic gap between these countries and highly-developed industrialized States can be closed as soon as possible United Nations bodies are discussing the question of setting up a special fund for the economic development of under-developed countries. The Soviet delegation considers that this measure is completely justified and feels that the question should be solved without delay. The Soviet Union is prepared to participate in a fund of this kind.
132. The Soviet Union deems it necessary not only to participate in United Nations efforts to assist the underdeveloped countries but also to co-operate with them on a bilateral basis. The USSR is in practice already co-operating with a large number of States on the basis of complete equality and mutual benefit. Furthermore, at the present time the Soviet Union is assisting other countries in the construction of several hundred industrial enterprises and has granted them long-term credits amounting to 25,000 million roubles on the most favourable terms. In doing so the USSR does not seek concessions or a share in profits, it does not impose conditions inconsistent with the sovereignty, national interests and dignity of countries, and it does not ask for political or military advantages in return for its assistance.
133. The present international situation makes exceptionally high demands on the United Nations. We should use and exploit the great opportunities offered by the United Nations which are, unfortunately, far from being used to advantage. In this connexion I should point out that the Soviet people, like all peace-loving peoples, once again express their profound indignation that through the fault of a certain group of States the question of the representation in the United Nations of that mighty world Power, the People’s Republic of China, has not been settled at this session either. The fact that the Indian proposal [A/3338] to place this question on the Assembly’s agenda was rejected indicates that forces are at work within the United Nations trying to prevent it from assuming the role in international affairs which belongs to it under its Charter. It still remains our primary and fundamental duty to rectify the monstrous injustice as a result of which the legitimate representative of China with its 600 million inhabitants is absent from this Assembly. We are not concerned solely with the respect due to the inalienable rights of the People’s Republic of China. We are concerned just as much with the respect due to the fundamental principles and prestige of the United Nations. It is time to put an end to this injustice.
134. Statesmen of different political beliefs, faiths and philosophies are assembled here in this hall. In this inspect the composition of the United Nations is a real cross-section of the world. Yet notwithstanding all the differences between these States and peoples, whose representatives are assembled here, they have all recognized the principles of the United Nations Charter. This means that while certain factors divide these States and peoples, other more important ones must unite them. We all live on one and the same planet which cannot be divided into isolated parts. In other words we must live in harmony with each other and persevere in our search for the path of peaceful and fruitful co-operation in the interests of mankind as a whole. The solution of this problem naturally requires great efforts. Yet since we have such a lofty goal to attain, nothing should deter us.
135 What do the peoples want and expect from us? What mandate have the representatives assembled here received from the hundreds of millions of people inhabiting Europe and America, Asia, Africa and Oceania? These peoples, speaking in different languages, have submitted to us a single imperative demand — give us a stable peace, do away with the spirit of hostility and mutual distrust in international relations, and make sure that mankind can work in undisturbed peace. Let us therefore eliminate every obstacle that stands in the way of an improvement in the international situation and hampers the United Nations in the proper fulfilment of its high mission.