Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Mr. VYSHINSKY said that the general debate with which the General Assembly had begun its work, in accordance with its tradition, should enable it to evaluate what had been done in the past, to outline its future tasks and to create the conditions which would make it possible for the United Nations to solve the problems before it. 2. However, as the previous two days had shown, representatives were far from unanimously agreed that their task should be interpreted in that way. In fact, one of their number, Mr. Tsiang, speaking on behalf of the Koumintang Government, had attempted the previous day (223rd meeting), to use the rostrum of the General Assembly to make perfidious and libellous attacks on the USSR. Mr. Tsiang had tried to retrace historical events, but his statement had lacked basic honesty and he had grossly falsified the facts. Thus, for instance, concealing the truth of the matter, Mr. Tsiang had omitted to state that twenty-five years previously the Soviet Union had been the only country to conclude an agreement with China laying down the fundamental principles for the settlement of questions arising between the two countries. At the same time, the Soviet Union had renounced all rights granted to it under the agreements signed by the Tsarist Government in violation of Chinese sovereignty. 3. Mr. Tsiang had merely demonstrated the hatred of the Chinese reactionaries, who felt their power tottering, of the progressive and democratic elements which, in all countries of the world, were struggling for independence and for the destruction of the yoke of imperialism. But it would be undignified to enter into a controversy with Mr. Tsiang and his like. 4. Coming to the main point of his remarks, Mr. Vyshinsky said that, everyone knew that the activity of the United Nations was closely linked with the relations existing between the Member States of the Organization and, above all, with the foreign policies of those countries which bore the main responsibility for activating its work. The attitudes of such Member States as the United States and the United Kingdom, leaders of the bloc of States which they had constituted, could not fail to influence conditions within the United Nations. 5. The past year had been marked by important events in the international sphere. Those events had shown that the Anglo-American majority in the General Assembly, far from seeking to strengthen the authority of the United Nations and thereby universal co-operation, was endeavouring to undermine the prestige of the Organization. 6. The facts demonstrated that while they gave lip service to the United Nations, the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom were attempting to take action outside the Organization and often even against its interests. That became evident when it was noted that the Interim Committee had been established illegally, when it was observed that, despite the provisions of the Charter, the so-called United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans and the United Nations Commission on Korea had been created, and when a determined campaign was being conducted against the principle of unanimity, despite the fact that that principle was one of the cornerstones of the Charter. 7. It was also significant to note that, upon the initiative of the United States and the United Kingdom, several countries had signed the North Atlantic Treaty, which represented an open attempt to undermine the prestige of the United Nations. Everyone recalled that in January 1949, the Secretary of State of the United States had stated that the North Atlantic Treaty had been motivated only by the desire to strengthen the authority of the United Nations. The authors of the Treaty had invoked Article 51 of the Charter, which provided for the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in case of an armed attack against a Member of the United Nations. In actual fact, the formation of a group of States signatories to the North Atlantic Treaty was in direct contradiction with the Charter and constituted a direct violation by those States of the obligations which they had assumed when they signed that document. 8. The Government of the Soviet Union had repeatedly pointed out that Article 51 was applicable only in case of an armed attack against a Member of the United Nations. But neither the United States nor the United Kingdom, nor any other member of that aggressive bloc, was threatened with armed attack. Consequently, the references to Article 51 were quite irrelevant. They were intended to veil the true political significance of the North Atlantic Treaty and to mislead public opinion. In its notes of 20 January and 31 March 1949, the USSR Government had pointed out that the North Atlantic Treaty had been inspired primarily by the desire of the ruling circles in the United States and the United Kingdom to prevent the greatest possible number of States from having an independent domestic policy and to use those States for the purpose of putting into effect their own plans of aggression. The Government of the Soviet Union had pointed out that the purpose of the treaty was also to frighten States which were not willing to obey the orders of the Anglo-American alliance, an alliance designed to achieve world, domination, regardless of the fact that the Second World War had ended in the destruction of fascist Germany and had demonstrated the madness of such ambitions. 9. The aggressive character of the North Atlantic treaty was fully confirmed by the recent statements of such United States officials as President Truman, Secretary of State Acheson, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Bradley, in connexion, with credits voted for the rearmament of the members of the alliance and for other projects furthering the preparation of a new war. 10. A number of other measures inspired by the current policy of the United States and the United Kingdom were also designed to undermine the authority of the United Nations. The so-called Marshall Plan, in particular, fell into that category. That plan, which had been a failure, was one of the cornerstones in the political and military system of Western States which was being set up against the USSR and the people’s democracies. The authors of the Marshall Plan claimed that its only purpose was to lend economic assistance to the countries of western Europe. In actual fact, the plan had divided Europe into two camps and, by hindering the development of national industry in the western European countries, was about to deprive those countries of their national sovereignty. 11. Everyone was aware that the Marshall Plan had not normalized but had disrupted the economy of western Europe. That fact was confirmed by the United Nations Secretariat survey of the world economic situation, published in June 19491. The survey showed clearly that industrial production had severely fallen off in all the countries of Western Europe during the first three months of 1949. The decrease in production had been accompanied by a corresponding increase in unemployment. The number of unemployed during that period had increased by one and a half times in France, had nearly doubled in the British and American occupation zones in Germany, and had doubled in the Netherlands and Norway. 12. As everyone knew, unemployment continued to mount in the United States, where, according to official data — which should not of course be taken too literally — there were currently more than four million unemployed. The USSR representative was therefore entitled to use those facts as a basis for the statement that the Marshall Plan had struck hard at the workers of the “Marshallized” countries, had lowered the purchasing power of the masses and had helped to impoverish them. 13. But while the countries of western Europe were weighed down by the burden of the aid which they were supposedly receiving under the Marshall Plan, the Soviet Union and the peoples’ democracies were successfully pursuing their programme of economic reconstruction and development. The Soviet Union was steadily increasing its economic power and was improving the cultural and material living conditions of the Soviet people. 14. Figures recently published by the central directorate of statistics of the USSR showed that, in the second quarter of 1949, industrial production in that country had risen by 20 per cent as compared with the second quarter of the preceding year. The number of industrial workers was mounting; their productivity was increasing. Prices of basic commodities were decreasing and the workers’ purchasing power was growing. The United Nations Secretariat, in its survey of the world economic situation, was obliged to admit that, contrary to what was taking place in the countries of western Europe and other parts of the world, industrial and agricultural production in the Soviet Union and the peoples’ democracies had continued to grow during the first quarter of 1949. 15. The policy of the United States and the United Kingdom, intended as it was to weaken the United Nations, was the cause of the unsatisfactory situation in such important organs of the United Nations as the Security Council, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Commission for Conventional Armaments, the Military Staff Committee and the Economic and Social Council. In all those bodies, the United States and the United Kingdom were bent on achieving their own aims, which had nothing in common with the principles and purposes of the United Nations, and were endeavouring, with the help of an obedient majority, to impose their decisions on other States. 16. That policy was responsible for the fact that over a period of almost four years, a body as important as the Atomic Energy Commission had done nothing to implement the General Assembly’s resolutions on measures for the prohibition of atomic weapons and the establishment of international control of atomic energy in order that the latter should not be used for military purposes. That fact was due to continual attempts by the United States and the United Kingdom to impose on the Commission their own plans of international control, plans which no State anxious to maintain its independence could possibly accept. 17. Similarly, the Commission for Conventional Armaments, which had been entrusted with the important task of preparing measures for the reduction of armaments and armed forces, had not yet achieved any results. 18. As. for the Economic and Social Council, that body was not dealing with fundamental problems of international economic co-operation, such as the promotion of the economic rehabilitation of countries that had suffered from the war, trade union rights, and the struggle against unemployment, which was becoming increasingly prevalent in capitalistic states, but preferred to deal with “problems” such as the effects of the chewing of coca leaves. 19. Such a position could not be tolerated. The United Nations should undertake measures to eliminate the obstacles which lay in the way of the normal operation of those organs. It should take the necessary measures to carry out the fundamental tasks that lay before it. 20. The Soviet Union considered it essential to proclaim that the situation in the United Nations could be improved only if all the Members of the Organization scrupulously observed the Charter and made every effort to increase the authority of the Organization, instead of pursuing their selfish aims. 21. Nevertheless, the United States, the United Kingdom, and certain other countries which followed in their wake, were trying to destroy, international co-operation, to form aggressive groups, and to prepare a new war. The United States and the United Kingdom were carrying on a frenzied race for armaments, increasing their military expenditures, constantly establishing new military bases on the territories of other countries and as everybody knew, conducting an unbridled war propaganda. 22. A proof of the truth of Mr. Vyshinsky’s assertions was that, in 1950, the United States, would spend 14,300 million dollars for purely military purposes, as against 11,000 million dollars spent in 1949, 1,100 million in 1936 and 1,200 million in 1937-1938. Thus the military expenses of the United States in 1950 would be twelve times as great as the United States military credits on the eve of the Second World War. At the same time, the United States expenditures for health, public education and social security would amount only to 2,300 million dollars. 23. The race for armaments was also being conducted in the United Kingdom, where military expenses were growing annually and where Goering’s old slogan, “guns rather than butter”, had a wide circulation. 24. The United States and the United Kingdom had set up joint military staffs, which representatives of the States composing the aggressive blocs were taking part. Those bodies were engaged in preparing plans for a new war and were counting, to a great extent, on the atomic bomb, on which the warmongers were pinning their hopes. Was it surprising, therefore, that the United States and the United Kingdom had refused to conclude a convention on the prohibition of the atomic weapon? 25. It was advisable to recall in that connexion that civilized peoples had long since condemned the use of gas as a weapon of mass extermination in war time, and that that instrument of war had been abandoned long ago. Nevertheless, the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom did not wish to take the same course with regard to the atomic weapon and did not intend to renounce that method of mass destruction. 26. Far from taking into account General Assembly resolution 110 (II) of 3 November 1947, which called for measures to be taken against the inciters to a new war, the ruling circles of the United States and the United Kingdom were continuing their war propaganda with ever increasing intensity. The aim of that propaganda was to justify to the masses of the people the military measures taken by those two countries and to create war hysteria, which would enable them to allocate increasingly large sums for military purposes. That had been openly acknowledged by the American review U. S. News and World Report, which had stated in its issue of 5 August 1949: “Aid abroad is harder to sell this year than last. War scare is having to be drummed up again to excite interest in a gift of arms to other nations. War talk is artificial, phony, but it is regarded as necessary to get Congress stirred up enough to produce a favorable vote.” 27. In reading such statements, it was easy to imagine how much poison professional liars and prevaricators were disseminating in order to help the instigators of war to achieve their aims. 28. Such was the policy that the United States and the United Kingdom were pursuing in order to establish world domination. Generalissimo Stalin, head of the Government of the Soviet Union, had said: “The policy of the present rulers of the United States of America and of the United Kingdom is a policy of aggression and is directed towards the unleashing of a new war.” 29. In contrast to that policy, the policy of the USSR was one of peace and collaboration with all nations which desired such collaboration. The Soviet Union was doing its utmost to strengthen the authority of the United Nations which, according to the words of the head of the Government of the Soviet Union, was “a valuable instrument for the maintenance of peace and international security”. 30. Mr. Vyshinsky then recalled that, during a plenary meeting of the first session of the General Assembly in 1946, the USSR delegation had proclaimed the conviction of the Soviet people that the establishment of wide and friendly collaboration between the peoples of the world would be entirely in the interest of the Soviet Union and of all peace-loving nations. 31. In 1934, Generalissimo Stalin, the leader of the peoples of the Soviet Union, had declared: “Our foreign policy is clear. It is a policy of maintaining peace and developing trade relations with all countries. The USSR has no intention of threatening and still less of attacking anyone. We want peace and we are defending the cause of peace, but we are not intimidated by threats and we are ready to deal blow for blow to the warmongers”. 32. Speaking again on the foreign policy of the Soviet Union five years later, in March 1939, Generalissimo Stalin had declared: “We are for peace and the development of commercial relations with all countries. We shall maintain that position to the extent that other countries display the same intentions towards the Soviet Union and do not attempt to harm our interests”. 33. The USSR had remained faithful to the principles outlined by its great leader. In its foreign policy it consistently upheld the cause of peace by denouncing the instigators of a new war who wished to plunge the world into a new and frightful upheaval. At a time when the forces of aggression were being mobilized, the USSR felt it was its duty to protest against the preparations for a new conflict and to speak in defence of world peace. 34. A powerful movement for peace was spreading and growing ceaselessly among the masses in all the countries of the world. The forces of democracy and peace were growing a hundred times faster than the sinister ranks of the warmongers. The determination to oppose the vile manoeuvres of imperialist aggressors was also growing among the democratic elements. It was the duty of the United Nations, whose Charter proclaimed the determination of its Members to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and to unite their strength to maintain international peace and security, to add its voice to that of the millions who protested, against war and demanded international peace and friendship. 35. The delegation of the Soviet Union had been instructed by its Government to appeal to the General Assembly to take steps to strengthen peace and to stave off the threat of a new war which was being prepared by the aggressive blocs of States grouped under the aegis of the United States and the United Kingdom. On the instructions of its Government, the USSR delegation was submitting the following proposals (A/996) for the approval of the General Assembly: "1. The General Assembly condemns the preparations for a new war now being conducted in a number of countries, and particularly in the United States of America and the United Kingdom, as reflected in the war propaganda encouraged by Governments, in the armaments race and the inflation of military budgets inflicting heavy burdens on the people, the establishment of numerous military, naval and air bases on the territories of other countries, the organization of military blocs of States pursuing aggressive aims directed against peace-loving democratic countries, and the implementation of other measures having aggressive purposes. “2. Just as the civilized nations long since condemned as a heinous crime against humanity the use for military purposes of poisonous gases and bacteriological media, the General Assembly regards the use of atomic weapons and other means of mass destruction as being contrary to the conscience and honour of the nations and incompatible with membership of the United Nations, and considers as inadmissible any further delay in the adoption by the United Nations of practical measures for the unconditional prohibition of atomic weapons and the establishment of appropriate strict international control. “3. The General Assembly calls upon all States to settle their disputes and differences by peaceful methods, and to refrain from resort to force or the threat of force. The General Assembly taking note, in this connexion, of the undeviating desire and will of the peoples to avert the threat of a new war and ensure the maintenance of peace — as expressed in the mighty popular movement in all countries for, peace and against the warmongers — and having regard to the fact that the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security lies on the shoulders of the five Powers, permanent members of the Security Council, unanimously expresses the wish that the United States of America, the United Kingdom, China, France and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will unite their efforts to this end and will conclude among themselves a pact for the strengthening of peace.”