1. The declaration issued in Moscow on 24 May 1958 by the Warsaw Treaty countries contained a comprehensive analysis of the present international situation and the accuracy of this appraisal has been fully borne out by events. We do not believe that the United Nations will be fulfilling the noble aim of saving "succeeding generations from the scourge of war" proclaimed in its Charter, if delegations to its General Assembly fail to face the facts, no matter how unpalatable this may be in certain quarters. After all, aggression cannot be described in mild terms, nor can flattering epithets be, found for those who wish to kill the "Geneva spirit". The world knows full well that it was the ruling circles of the United States of America and their allies, who, immediately after the Conference of the Heads of Government of the four great Powers at Geneva in July 1955, derided, criticized and repudiated the Geneva spirit. By their actions, they have completely nullified the results of the Geneva discussions and have again plunged the world into an atmosphere of tension and the danger of war.
2. During the past two years, the United Nations has been confronted by four serious violations of the rules of international relations. The first was the armed attack on Egypt towards the end of 1956, and the second, the preparations made last year for an armed attack on Syria. Barely a month ago, the General Assembly was called into emergency special session to consider the question of the flagrant aggression committed by the United States of America and the United Kingdom in Lebanon and Jordan. On that occasion, as in the case of Egypt, the United Nations was able to adopt a decision which was universally considered to have helped to avert the threat of war created by the actions of United States and United Kingdom troops in the Near and Middle East. However, resolution 1237 (ES-III) adopted by the Assembly, at its third emergency special session, on the withdrawal of United Kingdom and United States troops from Jordan and Lebanon, has not yet been complied with and we are confronted with yet another exacerbation of the international situation. This time, it is caused by the aggressive activities in which the United States of America is engaging in the Far East, where that country has, for many years, pursued a hostile policy towards the People’s Republic of China.
3. These events are clearly interrelated. They are links in the same chain — that of the aggressive policy of imperialism. The only difference is that in the last two episodes, the fully armed United States, the leader of the imperialists, has taken the stage after the failure of its partners' attempts to crush the Arab peoples.
4. I must make it clear that I am not referring here to the people of the United States whose great practical ability and love of freedom and peace are well known. I am referring to those circles which have grown rich on two world ways and are accustomed to seeking the largest and surest profits — those derived from the production of armaments, military equipment and supplies. The more weapons of destruction are produced and the more quickly they are expended, the greater the profits received, profits which will disappear if a stable and lasting peace is established on earth. These same circles are interested in a policy of fomenting hatred against everything progressive, because progress and imperialistic war are incompatible.
5. It should be noted, above all, that the imperialist States, headed by the United States of America, in fact refuse to recognize and accept the historical necessity for the peaceful coexistence of countries with different social systems. Only a few days ago, at a meeting of the General Committee of the General Assembly, the representative of the United States took exception to the very term "peaceful coexistence" and succeeded in securing the substitution of another. His conductin this particular instance was scarcely prompted by personal or linguistic considerations. The question at issue is obviously the negative attitude of the United States towards what, in our view, is the Cardinal problem of our times. It should be borne in mind that the alternative to peaceful coexistence is war. Do the following facts, for instance, testify to a peace-loving attitude? The ruling circles of the United States remain obdurate in their opposition to the proposal for a summit meeting. They have refused to follow the example of the Soviet Union in discontinuing tests of atomic and hydrogen weapons and, on the contrary, have stepped up the pace of their test explosions; although they recently appeared to be ready to yield to the pressure of world public opinion, they entered so many reservations and laid down so many conditions that their statement on the subject seems designed to hoodwink the public, while the actual discontinuance of tests remains in doubt. The United States of America and its allies have rejected the plan to establish an atom-free zone in Europe and are unwilling to accept the collective security plan.
6. Can are ascribe to a concern for peace the fact that the United States has organized aggressive military blocs in all parts of the world and is planning to organize more, that it has established hundreds of military bases on the territory of foreign States, but still finds the need for more, and that it is building missile launching sites in a number of countries? Was it not the leaders of the United States of America who conceived the theories of "roll-back", "containment", the cold war and the local war? Although they openly vote for the appropriation of millions of dollars to finance subversive activities in foreign countries and support various organizations and schools to train saboteurs, they do not hesitate to censure "indirect aggression", allegedly committed by other countries, in order to justify their own direct aggression against others.
7. The United States makes lavish promises and is, in fact, supplying atomic weapons, atom bombs and missiles to a number of countries in Europe, Asia, Africa and America. United States armed forces are now stationed all over the world. Its warships and military aircraft "patrol", "reconnoitre" or are in a state of full combat readiness in the far North, the Far East, the Mediterranean and Europe. These are facts which cannot be disproved by mere assertions. Nor can it be denied that it is these activities which are responsible for the tension felt by all. Moreover, the activities of the United States of America affect not only the countries which are the direct target of aggression or pressure, or on whose territories weapons are being stockpiled.
8. The delegation of the People's Republic of Bulgaria must make it clear that the Bulgarian people cannot remain indifferent when missile-launching bases are constructed, movements of military formations are observed and United States forces are landed close to its frontiers or in areas in the immediate vicinity of its territory. Yet, this is what is happening in some countries near Bulgaria and in the Eastern Mediterranean.
9. The policy of the United States of America, which has given rise to this situation, is particularly dangerous, because responsible leaders in that country have repeatedly attempted to raise the so-called question of the situation in the eastern European countries and have made it clear that what is at stake is the social system in those countries, which is not to their liking.
10. The presence of United States armed forces not far from our borders and the negative attitude officially proclaimed by United States leaders towards the socialist system adopted and unanimously supported by the Bulgarian people, are further causes of tension in that part of the world and are obstacles to the establishment of peaceful and good-neighbourly relations among the countries of the Balkan peninsula.
11. In direct contrast, the socialist countries have been working unremittingly, both inside and outside the United Nations, for the easing of International tension, the elimination of the threat of war, the pacific settlement of outstanding international problems by negotiation, and the maintenance and strengthening of world peace. The entire history of the Soviet Union, the world's first socialist State, from its emergence down to the present day, has been one of endeavour to introduce a new code of ethics in international life and new international relations based on respect for the sovereignty and national independence of all countries and on complete non-interference in the domestic affairs of countries, both large and small. It is a history of efforts to achieve disarmament and of an unrelenting fight for peace.
12. This is the policy, which the Soviet Union and the other socialist Members of the Organization have untiringly pursued from the earliest days of the United Nations and which they are still pursuing, a policy fully consistent with the Charter and with the lofty Purposes and Principles of the United Nations. I do not propose to enumerate all the measures these countries have taken and all the proposals they have made. I need only recall that, in the last few months alone, the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries took steps and also submitted proposals which, if carried into effect, would bring about the necessary conditions for the settlement of the most pressing and vitally important problems of our times. The fact that these proposals were warmly welcomed and supported by the broadest circles of the world community testifies to their peaceful character.
13. The proposals in question include the Soviet Union's proposal for the convocation of a summit conference, the Soviet Government's unilateral decision to discontinue the testing of atomic and thermonuclear weapons, the proposal of the Political Consultative Committee of the Warsaw Treaty Organization for the conclusion of a non-aggression pact between the Warsaw Treaty Organization and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries, the Polish Government's proposal for an atom-free zone in Central Europe, the Soviet Government's proposal for the conclusion of a treaty of friendship and co-operation among the European States, in which the United States would participate, as well as a series of other proposals of a similar nature. Adoption of these proposals, which are valuable in themselves, would create conditions favourable to the initiation of other peaceful measures and would provide an opportunity for each country individually and the United Nations as a whole to contribute to the consolidation of peace. Only short-sighted politicians and inveterate enemies of peace could discern any hidden designs of "international communism" in the policy which inspired these proposals.
14. The most important problem at the present time is that of maintaining peace. But peace cannot be maintained unless aggression is halted, the armaments race discontinued and conditions established for normal economic co-operation among nations.
15. A proper settlement of most of the questions included in the agenda of the General Assembly at its thirteenth session would facilitate the establishment of peaceful conditions in the world. Our delegation does not underestimate the significance of such questions as the situation in Cyprus, Algeria and others. Its views on these matters, which are based on the principle of recognition of the right of peoples and nations to self-determination, will be expressed in due course. But we consider that the United Nations should, in the first place, condemn imperialist aggression, strive to eliminate the centres of such aggression in the Middle, and Far East, break the dead-lock on the problem of disarmament, including atomic disarmament, and recommend specific measures for the practical realization of the idea of peaceful coexistence among States.
16. The withdrawal of United States troops from Lebanon and of United Kingdom troops from Jordan brooks no further delay. The decision taken in this matter by the General Assembly, at its third emergency special session, was welcomed by the whole world community as a victory for the peace-loving forces. Its full implementation will be a signal service to the cause of peace. Lebanon and Jordan face no danger from abroad except for the danger presented by the foreign occupation. The internal situation in those countries urgently requires the immediate withdrawal of these foreign troops. It is now more obvious than ever that United States and United Kingdom troops landed in Lebanon and Jordan for the purpose of interfering in the domestic affairs of these and other Arab countries. The General Assembly should not desist from its efforts, but should, on the contrary, remain on the alert until the last foreign soldier has been withdrawn from the territories of these two Arab States. As long as foreign troops remain there, acts of provocation of all kinds are possible and, hence, a new deterioration in the situation may occur. This dangerous hotbed of war will not be eliminated by awaiting the advent of certain unspecified "favourable conditions" or by "defending" United States warships in Lebanese waters by tanks on Lebanese soil, but by ordering the warships to weigh anchor and by withdrawing them, together with the tanks, to the shores of the United States.
17. There is absolutely no need for the United Kingdom and United States troops to be replaced by a so- called United Nations force. As we know, the idea of an international armed force used by Governments against peoples, is not new. It has appeared in various guises many times in the past, and history has recorded many examples which make the true nature of this idea abundantly clear. Alliances of reactionary and conservative international circles against national liberation movements in the world have used international forces of this kind more than once in the past. International forces have often operated against colonial peoples and have done so against China, invariably performing police functions for the benefit of the oppressors. Despite efforts to present it in an unexceptionable form, the idea which some people are trying to force upon us now is that the United Nations should assume the functions of an international policeman, a role which the United States and the other imperialist Powers cannot play today without running a considerable risk. As recent, events have shown, direct police interference by the United States is a very dangerous undertaking. Hence, the United Nations is needed to serve as a screen. The part to be played by the international force is quite clear even now. Its task will be to suppress national liberation movements and to serve the interests of the colonialists, the capitalist monopolies and imperialism.
18. However, the United Nations is certainly not intended to become a police force for the purpose of hampering the national liberation struggle of peoples. Its function is to assist the peoples still under the yoke of colonialism in their movement for national liberation and to promote the economic development of the under-developed countries. It should be borne in mind that national liberation movements cannot be checked by any police measures. In accordance with its spirit and aims, the United Nations should encourage these movements in order to alleviate the sufferings of the peoples engaged in this struggle, and to remove the danger to world peace.
19. With regard to the withdrawal of foreign troops from Lebanon and Jordan, we would point out that there are powerful factors with which the aggressors must reckon: world public opinion, which is backed by the effective strength of the peace-loving States and which condemned the unjustifiable intervention against two small Arab States, and resolution 1237 (ES-III) which was unanimously adopted on the subject by the General Assembly, at its third emergency special session. The dangerous hotbed of conflict in the Middle East must be eliminated as soon as possible. Obviously, troops landed within a few days on foreign soil can be withdrawn in an equally short space of time. And I need hardly say that their withdrawal should not be made contingent upon any conditions.
20. The situation in the Far East is a source of alarm to every nation today. The actions of the United States off the shores of China are a threat to world peace. Furthermore, the huge propaganda machine of the imperialist forces has been set in motion for the purpose of completely obscuring the basic facts. To judge by the United States Press and by the pronouncements of United States political and military leaders, it would almost seem as though the People's Republic of China had attacked the United States. Addressing the General Assembly a few days ago [749th meeting] the Secretary of State spoke of Chinese communist armed aggression. He made it appear as though calm and prosperity had hitherto reigned in the Taiwan Strait and had been disturbed, if you please, on 23 August, when the Chinese Communists suddenly launched a heavy bombardment of the Quemoy Islands.
21. Everybody knows, of course, that the situation is entirely different. As a result of the great social upheaval which has occurred in China, the authority of the Central People's Government has been established throughout mainland China. Only the dispatch of United States troops to Taiwan and the other islands in the Taiwan Strait has temporarily prevented the extension of popular rule to these Chinese territories. That, however, cannot affect the legal status of these territories, which indisputably belong to China, nor can it affect the character of the struggle which is still in. progress. A few months after the victory of popular rule in China, the United States seized these parts of Chinese territory by force, thus committing an open act of aggression against China. That aggression has been continuing for nine years. During that time, United States political and military leaders have repeatedly made provocative threats against China, and United States armed forces have carried out demonstrations in the Taiwan Strait, to say nothing of the innumerable attacks by Chiang Kai-shek's aircraft and warships, of which the lackeys of the United States on Taiwan are continually boasting.
22. The cause of the existing situation, which must be recognized as extremely serious, should be sought only in the aggressive acts of the United States of America In the Taiwan area. The fact that the United States is multiplying its provocative acts, threatening China and transferring military and air units to the area, increases its responsibility for the situation which has arisen. Only a few years ago, the United States declared that it was not interested in the islands of Quemoy and Matsu, recognizing that these territories, at least, were indivisible from mainland China. Now, it does not want to give them back to China. What else is this but an act of provocation against a great people, what else but playing with fire? The Chinese people have the right to fight for the liberation of their land and they will attain that end, no matter what the cost. To hope that China will give up its islands is to cherish the absurd illusion, which apparently has not yet been abandoned by some, that the People's Republic of China does not exist. It is high time that those who cling to such dreams should be awakened to the facts before they step over the brink of the abyss.
23. After they have withdrawn their Sixth Fleet from the Mediterranean, the United States leaders should be requested to withdraw their Seventh Fleet from foreign shores. The baleful effect of those fleets on the cause of peace is abundantly clear. Here in the United Nations, even the voice of the smallest State exerts profound influence, when it carries the conviction always given by truth. This is not the time for such subtleties as the hint about bringing this matter to the United Nations. What matter? There is no international dispute between the People's Republic of China and the Chiang Kai-shek clique. The only attitude which the United Nations can and should adopt, with regard to the situation in the Far East, is the attitude of world-wide public opinion, which may be expressed in the words "hands off China!" We have heard voices raised here against the use of force by China in settling its own problems relating to the elimination of the armed remnants of the defeated Chinese reactionaries. Strange as it may seem, the representatives of countries in which public opinion is entirely on the side of China and whose Governments recognize the Central People's Government as the only Chinese Government, have spoken against the use of force by China. If what the people who take this attitude have in mind is that China should occupy its islands without firing a shot, that would be, in accordance with the wishes of the Chinese People's Government itself, as the responsible leaders of China have frequently stated. The question is, how can the Chinese people liberate their islands with bouquets of flowers in their hands, when the islands are occupied by the armies of Chiang Kai-shek and United States leaders declare that their forces will help him retain his foothold there? It is obviously inconsistent to raise the question of China’s not using force and, at the same time, to rule out the possibility of the peaceful unification of the country.
24. The armed forces of the United States should leave Taiwan and all the Chinese islands in the Taiwan Strait — that is the solution to the dangerous situation in the Far East. It should be bluntly stated that the representatives who are appealing to China not to use force are appealing to the wrong party. There is clearly no reason why the struggle of the Chinese people against their internal enemies should give rise to international tension; it did not so do during the long period before 1949. Presumably, no international tension would be caused by the presence of the Chinese shores of a United States ballet troupe or football team. The United States Seventh Fleet, however? is not a ballet troupe nor a football team. Anyone who sincerely hopes that further trouble in the Far East will be avoided, should appeal to the commanders of the Seventh Fleet, not to the People's Republic of China. At this crucial juncture, the Bulgarian people, who highly value their friendship and true alliance with the great Chinese people, wish their friend and ally all success in vindicating its, awful rights. The just cause of the People's Republic of China must and shall prevail. Only then will peace in the Far East be assured.
25. Disarmament is universally recognized as the most serious problem of our time. Our Organization rightly gives the closest attention to that problem at every session of the General Assembly. Unfortunately, however, no agreement has so far been reached on the cessation of the arms race or on disarmament. The cause lies in the enormous influence which the capitalistic monopolies manufacturing armaments exert on the policies of certain Western States. Our delegation will deal more fully with the reasons for the failure of the disarmament negotiations when the problem is discussed in the appropriate Committee of the Assembly. I will merely point out that the negotiations in the Sub-Committee of the Disarmament Commission were conducted by the representatives of the four Western Powers on the one hand, and the Soviet Union on the other. In the course of those negotiations, two basic approaches to the disarmament problem took shape. The Soviet Government, accompanying its proposals with practical measures, gave abundant proof of its sincere desire to deliver mankind from the nightmare and the burden of armaments. The Soviet Union unilaterally reduced its armed forces by 2,100,000 men, considerably curtailed the strength of its armed forces in the German Democratic Republic and in Hungary, withdrew its troops from Romania and decided unilaterally to discontinue the testing of nuclear weapons.
26. The Western Powers, on the contrary, are pursuing a policy of systematic obstructionism, raising one obstacle after another. The proposals of the Soviet Government have been rejected with a persistence worthy of a better cause. The culmination of imperialist diplomacy was the Western Powers' repudiation of their own proposals as soon as they were accepted by the Soviet Union.
27. The systematic rejection, even without the necessary study, of the Soviet proposals, in particular, concerning the reduction of armed forces and the prohibition of atomic and thermo-nuclear weapons, reached its crowning point when the Soviet Government announced its decision to discontinue test explosions of atomic and thermo-nuclear weapons on 31 March 1958. The United States and the United Kingdom not only refused to follow the Soviet Union's example, but, on, the contrary, increased the number of their own test explosions. For example, an official document, the twenty-fourth semiannual report of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, states that different models of weapons — meaning atomic and nuclear weapons — have been perfected to meet the needs of the armed forces .and that, in the interests of preserving peace, new models have been developed which are smaller;, more efficient and more powerful and which can be quickly activated. The report, also contains the far from reassuring promise that efforts will be made to perfect even lighter, more powerful and more rapidly activated weapons.
28. It may be seen that in the countries in whose arsenals lethal weapons are being stockpiled, no opportunity is missed to point out (that this is being done in order to safeguard peace; This idea clearly has its roots in the fallacious theory, dear to imperialist circles, that the only way to a lasting peace is to achieve a balance of power between large States, armed to the teeth. Apart from the fact that this theory is completely false, it reflects a very strange conception of international relations, namely, that such relations must for all times be based on the strategy and tactics of the “cold war” and an unending Arms race. It is not difficult to see that, when the exponents of this theory speak of a balance of power, they are concealing their real intentions. When they expatiate on this subject, what they have in mind is their own supremacy. The question is, can anyone fail to realize the futility of such an aim in the era of intercontinental ballistic missiles and earth satellites?
29. That theory should long since have been consigned to the scrap-heap of history. The arms race entails a twofold danger. The race itself is fraught with the danger of war. As we all know, weapons do not stay put. Where nuclear weapons are concerned, they are not only being perfected in depth, so to speak, as the United States reports would have us believe, but that country is also seeking to develop them in breadth. United States atomic weapons are at present to be found at hundreds of United States military bases in many countries of the world: in Western Germany and the United Kingdom, in Turkey and Taiwan, on United States aircraft carriers and cruisers, aboard the planes that maintain a round-the-clock patrol of certain areas. The United States has proposed to its allies in the Atlantic pact — some of which have already signified their agreement — that it should build new bases and launching sites for missiles with atomic and nuclear warheads on their territory. We also know that more and more countries are putting forward their claims to manufacture their own atomic weapons and are propounding theories about "equality" in the realm of atomic armaments, the right to membership in the so-called "atomic club", and so forth. Things have gone so far that even the militarists of the former Nazi General Staff, who are seeking their revenge, have begun to rearm with the help of those who, in the forum of the United Nations in the presence of the true victims of Munich, have urged us to remember the lessons of Munich, although they themselves were parties to that agreement. Yet, there is another, a second danger: the tests themselves, that is, the perfecting of atomic weapons already constitutes, as we know, a direct mortal danger to the health of mankind.
30. For that reason, the Bulgarian delegation welcomes the initiative of the Soviet Government in submitting specific measures in the field of disarmament for consideration by the United Nations at this session. These proposals, which provide further proof of that Government's consistent policy, take account of scientific and technological advances and the requirements of our time, and show the peoples the only road to liberation from the nightmare of rearmament. The Soviet Government’s memorandum [A/3929] deals fully with all the problems of disarmament and opens up prospects for the settlement of those problems in the interests of all peoples and of world peace.
31. c It is to be regretted that, though some time has passed since the Soviet memorandum on disarmament was submitted, an attempt is being made to pass it over in silence. It is quite obvious that the representatives of the Western Powers, armed to the teeth as they are, and those of their allies, instead of openly discussing the business-dike Soviet proposals or submitting constructive proposals of their own, would rather sit and talk about disarmament than actually disarm. Disarmament commissions can and doubtless should meet. In the first place, however, their composition should reflect the existence of the two fundamentally different approaches to the question of disarmament and, in the second place, they must have something on which to base a practical examination of the problems confronting them. That basis can and should be the memorandum of the Soviet delegation, which the United Nations should approve and recommend forthwith. It is to be hoped that the attitude of obstructionism and idle talk about disarmament will be recognized as unacceptable at this session, and that the Soviet Union's proposals on disarmament and its proposals on the banning of the use of cosmic spacer for military purposes and the elimination of military bases on the territories of other countries will be favourably received so that the United Nations can make as much headway as possible in the matter of disarmament. Trade instead of rearmament, the development of cultural relations among countries — these are slogans worthy of mankind at a time when it stands on the threshold of the conquest of cosmic space.
32. With that objective in view, we should take practical action on the proposal for convening an international economic conference to consider the problems of international economic co-operation. A special fund should be established for the economic development of under-developed countries and to improve technical assistance programmes. It is entirely fitting that questions concerning broad international economic cooperation, unrestricted trade among all countries and mutually profitable economic aid extended to the underdeveloped countries by more highly developed countries, should be given prominence in the statements of the majority of delegations.
33. These, in the view of our delegation, are. The major problems with which the United Nations General;: Assembly should concern itself at its present thirteenth session.
34. The Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria has been and is pursuing a firm, and consistent policy of peace. For that very reason, and in accordance with the will of the whole Bulgarian people, the Bulgarian Government has supported and continues to support the Soviet Union's disarmament proposals and the Soviet Government's efforts to secure the peaceful settlement of international problems, the further expansion of political, economic and cultural ties among peoples. and the strengthening of peace and security in Europe and throughout the world. It will support any proposals, from whatever source, directed to that end.
35. True to the Bulgarian people's unswerving desire for peace, the Bulgarian Government has always made and will continue to make every effort to maintain and expand normal friendly relations with all countries, thus giving effect to its policy of peaceful coexistence and co-operation in the conduct of its international relations.
36. As a country situated in the heart of the Balkan Peninsula, the People's Republic of Bulgaria pays special attention to its relations with the neighbouring Balkan countries; The underlying purpose and primary aim of the foreign policy of the People's Republic of Bulgaria is to maintain friendly, good-neighbourly relations with all the Balkan States, and its policy is directly designed to make the Balkans a zone of peace and security.
37. The Bulgarian delegation can point to the fact that many problems of equal interest to us and to our neighbours have been satisfactorily settled. The Bulgarian Government considers that the existence of some unsettled problems is not an obstacle to the further improvement of our relations. What is needed is a joint effort to strengthen the confidence among the Balkan countries, which, for centuries, have had the closest relations with each other. In bringing about an improvement in those relations, which can only be of advantage to themselves, these countries will, at the same time, be making their contribution, as Members of the United Nations, to the strengthening of peace in that important part of Europe.
38. Our delegation once again emphasizes the desire of the Bulgarian people to work unstintingly for the maintenance of good relations with all peaceful countries, near and far.
39. Let me, in conclusion, express the hope that the United Nations General Assembly, at this session, will make significant progress in its examination of the important problems which we have before us, and that its decisions on behalf of peace throughout the world will meet the aspirations of the peoples.
30. when we spoke in the general debate [765th meeting], our delegation had not had an opportunity of studying carefully the Secretary-General's first report [A/3934/Rev.1] on the implementation of the resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 21 August 4958 at its third emergency special session [resolution 1237 (ES-III)]. The matter is of such outstanding importance that we cannot pass it over in silence. The adoption of the resolution of 21 August was greeted with relief by the people of the world and increased their hopes in the potentialities of the United Nations. There can be no doubt that these hopes were contingent upon the rapid and unconditional implementation of the resolution. However, in the past six weeks the hope that the situation in the Middle East would be brought back to normal has not been realized; despite the resolution of the emergency special session, United States forces are still occupying Lebanon and United Kingdom forces are still occupying Jordan. No one can be satisfied by the symbolic gesture of the withdrawal of a few units, which has been represented to us here as an alleged proof of goodwill. The publicizing of such symbolic gestures may improve the position of certain political leaders of the United States, when the pressure of public opinion becomes too strong, but it can in no way change the facts. The facts are that foreign troops are still in Lebanon and Jordan, that they are in no hurry to leave and that their presence there is appreciably aggravating the situation in those countries.
31. The question of the unconditional implementation of the resolution of 21 August 1958 is not a limited or a local problem. This question is of great international significance and it is most acute. It cannot fail to interest all delegations. However, attempts have been made here to minimize the importance of the problem and to persuade us that this is a question which concerns only the King of Jordan, or very nearly. We feel obliged to protest vigorously against attempts to foster the notion that, when the United States and United Kingdom forces are sent to various parts of the world, in this case the Near and Middle East, this is of no concern to countries which are net directly affected, that is to say, countries in whose territories foreign troops have not been landed. It is in the colonialists' interests to carry out their aggression on the quiet, so to speak, and to allow no voice to be raised in defence of the nations which are their victims. In the case of Anglo-American aggression in the Middle East, no one can be expected to ignore the fact that the most substantive part of the General Assembly resolution of 21 August 1958, that providing for the speedy withdrawal of foreign troops, is not being implemented. That resolution is of Interest to everyone and concerns everyone. This is not only an Arab problem. While it is true that the intervention of the United States and the United Kingdom in Lebanon and Jordan has most directly affected the Arab countries, it is also true that the interests of all peoples fully Coincide with those of the Arab peoples, which are fighting to do away with the remnants of colonialism and to prevent interference by imperialist Powers in their domestic affairs.
32. It la indeed high time to allow the Arab peoples to settle their domestic affairs in their own way, to achieve full State sovereignty and-national independence and to start remedying their economic backwardness, which is the more unjustifiable in view of the fact that these countries possess incalculably rich mineral resources. The United States and the United Kingdom must once and for all abandon their ambition to lay down the law to the Arab peoples concerning what Governments they should or should not have. The Bulgarian people supports the legitimate struggle of the Arab East for its independence. The interests of the Bulgarian people fully coincide with the interests of those peoples fighting for their Independence. Accordingly, when we speak of the situation which has arisen in the Near and Middle East as a result of the presence of United States and United Kingdom forces in Lebanon and Jordan, we, the Bulgarian delegation, have in mind not only the Interests of the Arab peoples, but the interests of our own country as well. The United States would like to establish military bases in the Arab countries against all socialist countries, including ours.
33. We have already stated, both at the third emergency special session [737th meeting] and at this thirteenth session of the General Assembly [765th meeting], that the People's Republic of Bulgaria is directly concerned with the course of events in the Near and Middle East. The presence of United States armed forces in the Eastern Mediterranean is one of the reasons for the tension prevailing in that region. The Bulgarian people cannot remain Indifferent to the fact that, in a country which lies near Bulgaria there is a concentration of all kinds of armed forces and armaments belonging to a State which has on many occasions openly expressed disapproval of our social structure and the hope that it may be changed.
34. It may well be asked what defensive operations are being carried out by the United States Sixth Fleet and other United States armed forces in the Eastern Mediterranean. In what way do the countries of the Near and Middle East and of the Balkan Peninsula threaten the security of the United States? The countries of that region are allies of the United States, newly formed Arab countries whom no one could suspect of intending to Jeopardize the security of the United States, and socialist countries which have fought most consistently for peace and for the peaceful settlement of international disputes and which have no aggressive intentions against the United States.
35. When the armed forces of the United States entrench themselves in the Eastern Mediterranean, it is clear that they can have no defensive purpose, and that their objectives have nothing to do either with the defence of the United States or with the maintenance of peace. The best proof of this is the interference of these forces in the domestic affairs of Lebanon and the interference of the forces of their ally, the United Kingdom, in those of Jordan.
36. That these forces now resort to direct action in foreign territory represents a threat not only to the immediate victims, but also to the peoples against which such action may be directed in the future. Accordingly, tension in the Near and Middle East can be eliminated by only one method; namely, by the withdrawal of all interventionist forces from that region.
37. Although we do not wish to minimize the Secretary-General's efforts, we feel obliged to express our disappointment at the fact that his first report gives no clear answer to the question when the armed forces of the United States and the United Kingdom will be withdrawn, to the last man, from Lebanon and Jordan.
38. The Secretary-General's report was eagerly awaited, not only by the representatives at this session of the General Assembly, but by the peoples of the whole world, in the hope that the threat of war created by the United States and the United Kingdom in the Near and Middle East would be promptly removed. But neither the report nor the annexed memoranda from the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom make it clear when this action, which would promote peace, will be completed. On the contrary, it is obvious from these documents that a number of conditions and, moreover, vague and indefinite conditions, open to all kinds of Interpretations and allowing for arbitrary delays, have been advanced for the final withdrawal of foreign forces from Lebanon and Jordan, There is a well-known proverb that with the help of one “if”, Paris can be thrust into a bottle. Where the word “if” is used, it is clear that the given decision will not be carried out. We categorically protest against these “ifs” with which the whole report of the Secretary-General and the annexes thereto are interlarded. In these confused conditions, which are even impossible to carry out, we cannot fail to discern the wish of the ruling circles of the United States and the United Kingdom to delay the implementation of the General Assembly resolution.
39. Nearly three months have passed since the date, of the landing of United States and United Kingdom forces in Lebanon and Jordan. During that period, all the so-called arguments originally advanced to justify the intervention of the United States and the United Kingdom have collapsed. There is scarcely any need to dwell on Jordan where, as is generally known, United Kingdom troops are strengthening the existing régime against the will of the Jordanian people.
40. So far as Lebanon is concerned, the United States has declared that it was Invited to send troops by the Government then in power. It was clear even then that that argument was invalid, since responsible Lebanese leaders immediately stressed the illegality, from the constitutional and all other points of view, of the action taken by the then President, Mr. Chamoun. United States leaders subsequently stated that they would withdraw their forces when asked to do so by the legitimate Government of Lebanon. Now that argument also has collapsed, because the most responsible present Lebanese leaders have publicly stated that they want United States troops to be withdrawn from the territory of their country as soon as possible.
41. A new so-called argument is being advanced, to the effect that negotiations should be conducted between the Government of the United States and the Government of Lebanon. We now have the following situation: the Government of a small country, whose army is equal in numbers, but considerably inferior in fighting power to the troops of the foreign State which are occupying its territory, is being forced to carry on unequal negotiations or, in other words, to submit to the will of the occupier.
42. All reports clearly indicate that the United States is not even trying to conceal its open and flagrant interference in the domestic affairs of Lebanon. The United States diplomatic representative takes it upon himself to recommend the composition of the Lebanese Government, to demand that three or four supporters of former President Chamoun should be included in the Government and to suggest the quantitative and qualitative composition of the Parliament.
43. If this is not shameless interference by a foreign Power in the affairs of an independent State, we may well ask what is. The people will no longer allow themselves to be deceived by the duplicity of United States diplomacy, such as we have witnessed recently. On the very day when the United States Ambassador tried to establish a Government corresponding to his own and his Government’s wishes, we were told “from this forum that the United States was not interfering in any country's domestic affairs. At the same time, there can be no doubt that the presence of United States forces in Lebanon is aggravating internal conditions in that country and that United States leaders are delaying the withdrawal of forces with a view to achieving certain objectives which run counter to the interests of peace. The United Nations should not tolerate such a situation, especially since it is contrary to its own decision and represents a direct threat to peace.
44. The basic purpose of the resolution adopted on 21 August 1958 at the third emergency special session was the early withdrawal of United States forces from Lebanon and of United Kingdom forces from Jordan. Without this provision, the resolution would have been meaningless and would not have received the votes of all delegations.
45. We think that the attitude to that question adopted in the Secretary-General’s first report is scarcely compatible with this basic point of the resolution. The report lays stress not on the withdrawal of foreign troops from the Arab East, but on the relations between the Arab States, although a necessary condition of these relations is the absence of Interference on the part of the United States and the United Kingdom.
46. It cannot be gainsaid that the core of the resolution of 21 August is the demand for the early withdrawal of the Interventionist troops. It is not enough, moreover, as is done in the afore-mentioned memoranda, to fix the date for the beginning of the withdrawal of foreign troops from Lebanon and Jordan without stating the final date for such withdrawal.
47. The United States and the United Kingdom have set themselves up as arbiters of the final time limit for the implementation of the General Assembly resolution. This is a self-appointed task, and they themselves voted for the resolution. At the present time, six weeks after the adoption of this resolution, there is no longer any room for argument about the meaning of "early withdrawal". United States troops in Lebanon maybe- come the cause of disturbances which might be used as an excuse for their continued presence in that country. The same may be said of the United Kingdom troops in Jordan.
48. The only request that the United Nations can rightly make at the present time is for the withdrawal of United States and United Kingdom forces from Lebanon and Jordan as soon as possible and within a specified time limit.