In accordance with its practice, the General Assembly has begun its work with a general debate, which enables delegations to give their views on the questions they consider most important and most deserving of the Assembly’s attention. Several delegations have already availed themselves of this opportunity, and some have naturally attempted to analyse the current international situation, to appraise the role played by the United Nations in recent events, and to determine what history holds in store for the United Nations and the world.
49. Several representatives have noted that the agenda of the ninth session includes a number of questions already considered at previous sessions which, borrowing a term from botany, they called “the hardy perennials”. But they either made no attempt to explain this phenomenon, or if they did, in our opinion they were not successful.
50. We can hardly term successful an analysis of world events in which the course of history is portrayed as a meaningless jumble of facts brought into being by the malignant will of certain people who, as some speakers claimed, are intent upon upsetting the world order and whose troublesome behaviour presumably compels representatives of other States to engage in such pursuits as the armaments race, the stockpiling of atomic and hydrogen bombs, the formation of new blocs, the installation of new military bases in foreign territories and the preparation of plans for a new world war. We need hardly say that in our opinion such a conception of the course of world events shows no real grasp of the process of prehistorical development of human society. Those who reason in this way truly cannot see the forest for the trees. They fail to realize that there are laws which govern the process of historical development. Yet only by adopting this guiding principle is it possible to gauge correctly the significance of world events — such as the widespread movement of national liberation in Asian countries — and to determine the position and the tactics of the United Nations which, in turn, should serve as a basis for its programme of action in relation to these events.
51. I feel I must also note that some representatives made an attempt to glorify the past activities of the United Nations. Their assertions are refuted by all the facts, which show that the United Nations, an international organization dedicated to the maintenance of international peace and security, cut a sorry figure on many occasions and failed in its duty, under the Charter, to act in accordance with the principles of justice and international law, thereby prejudicing its international authority. Faithful observance of its principles and of the Charter is a prime requisite for the successful work of the United Nations.
52. In his statement of 23 September [475th meeting], Mr. Dulles said that the American people sincerely believe in the Purposes and Principles of the Charter. I do not doubt that the American people sincerely believe in the purposes and principles of the United Nations, but the American people have little to do with these matters, while those Americans who deal directly with United Nations affairs frequently disregard the principles of the United Nations. They flout the principles of the Charter, such as the injunction in Article 1, “to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace” and “to achieve international co-operation”. The yearly recurrence at the past few sessions of the whole sorry business of inviting the People’s Republic of China to take its rightful seat in the United Nations is surely nothing but an infraction of these important principles which are the very basis of the work of the United Nations.
53. The stubborn opposition of some delegations which support the attitude taken in the matter by the United States — an attitude contrary to the principles of the Charter and of international law — proves that these delegations are unfortunately not inclined to fulfil their obligations by adhering to the principles of the United Nations. The Soviet Union, for its part, is deeply convinced that the just demand that the People’s Republic of China should not be prevented from taking its rightful seat in the United Nations must be complied with and that the participation in our work of the representatives of the Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China will be of the greatest assistance to countries which endeavour, through the United Nations, to work for peace and to achieve international co-operation in solving the world’s economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems. We shall not weary of drawing attention to this abnormal state of affairs, this denial of a most important demand made by peace-loving States.
54. Some of the problems facing the United Nations are of the utmost importance, and their solution would avert the threat of a new world war and strengthen universal peace. These are not empty words. This is reality itself, knocking at the door of the United Nations. Among the measures which must be taken to achieve that end are several of outstanding importance, such as the prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and other weapons of mass destruction and their elimination from the armaments of States, a substantial reduction of armaments and the establishment of control over the application of these decisions, to name but a few of these measures. There can be no doubt that the adoption by the General Assembly of agreed decisions on these important questions would have the welcome effect of further easing international tension and improving international relations.
55. The Soviet Union is profoundly convinced that there is every possibility of reaching an agreement on all these unresolved questions which would strengthen international peace and security, on condition that we respect the principles of sovereign equality of States, non-interference in the affairs of other States, mutual respect for the rights and interests of States, and fulfilment of international commitments. Under such conditions there would a very real prospect of settling outstanding international problems, however important or acute they might be. We are convinced of this. We are convinced that the possibility is a real one, mainly because we feel confident that all peoples are anxious for peace, international co-operation, and the development of peaceful international relations. Our confidence is based on Lenin’s doctrine of the possibility of the peaceful coexistence of States in spite of differences in their social structure, and it is further confirmed by almost forty years of experience, during which the Soviet Union has maintained good-neighbour relations with many countries whatever their social structure.
56. Attempts are often made to disparage the principle of peaceful coexistence by intimating that it is being used either for propaganda or as a temporary, fortuitous or tactical measure, designed to provide a breathing space. It is said, quite unjustifiably, as Mr. Dulles did in his speech at Williamsburg on 15 May of this year, that (I am quoting from a newspaper) “coexistence is not part of a Soviet Communist creed or practice except in the sense that non-Communists are allowed, in a Physical sense to exist.” The Chilean representative in his turn, speaking at the 475th plenary meeting, called the principle of coexistence a mere slogan, launched, as he said, by the propaganda machine of the aggressor. Neither remark has any foundation in fact.
57. I could site numerous facts in support of my words, but it should suffice to recall that as early as 1922, more than thirty years ago, Lenin, the great builder of the Soviet State, speaking of the possibility of a rapprochment on the basis of economic interests _between the Russian Republic and capitalist countries, particular the United Kingdom, said when interviewed by a correspondent of the Observer and the Winchester Guardian: “We feel that perfectly friendly Rations with both Powers” — the reference is to Great Britain and France — “are entirely possible and constitute our objective ... We feel that the interests of England and France, if they are properly understood, will also operate in this direction.”
58. The question as put at that time was: Is it conceivable that a Socialist republic could survive in a capitalist environment? Lenin’s reply was: “This seemed inconceivable both, politically and militarily. That it is nevertheless possible, both politically and militarily, has already been proved; it is a fact. But what about commerce?” he continued. “What about trade relations? What about communications, assistance, an exchange of services between backward and ruined agricultural Russia and the industrially advanced and rich group of capitalist Powers — are these possible? Have we not been threatened that we would be surrounded by barbed wire and that therefore there would be no trade relations ?”
59. Certainly such threats were uttered, and attempts were made to take corresponding action. But even then experience clearly showed that trying to ignore the importance of diplomatic and trade relations between the Soviet Republic and other States of the Western world brought no positive results. The Western countries were forced to recognize that the coexistence of States with different social structures was possible.
60. The Soviet Union has consistently maintained that position. The entire subsequent development of the Soviet Union’s relations with capitalist countries has confirmed that the principle of coexistence is important, realistic and necessary. Nowadays only arch-reactionaries in Western countries continue to oppose the recognition of this important principle with its great practical significance, a principle which has always played and must continue to play an important part in the development of normal international relations and which is, indeed, essential to that development.
61. The Soviet Union Government, while bending all its efforts to further a mighty development of peaceful economic construction within its country, is at the same time taking all possible steps to ensure normal relations with other States, in other words, to bring international relations back to normality. The Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union, Mr. Malenkov, said at a meeting of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR: “We are consistently pursuing a policy of peace and of strengthening international co-operation.” Such are the basis and the purpose of the Soviet Union Government’s entire foreign policy. No matter what is said to distort and twist the truth, this purpose and this basis of the Soviet State’s genuinely peaceful foreign policy tell the entire world that this is how the Soviet State conceives and carries on its relations with other States.
62. The objective of the Soviet Union’s domestic policy is steadily to raise the level of its economy and the material and cultural level of Soviet citizens and of the entire Soviet society. The great bulk of State funds is used to promote the growth of industrial production, agriculture, trade, and all forms of transport. Vast sums, amounting to many thousands of millions of roubles, are expended on such social and cultural activities as universal education, vocational training, the development of science and the arts, social security, pensions, and aid to mothers of large families and destitute mothers. In the Soviet Union’s budget for the current year, the allocations for social and cultural needs are 40 per cent higher than the allocations for defence. Furthermore, this year the allocations for defence amount to only 17.8 per cent of the total, or 2.6 per cent less than last year. Such a policy naturally precludes any preponderance of allocations for war purposes in the Soviet Union’s budget, while anything having to do with the armaments race, the installation of military bases in foreign territories or the formation of military blocs is altogether out of the question.
63. The Soviet Union rejects any such policy both in practice and as a matter of principle. That is why it constantly endeavours to bring about the prohibition of atomic weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, the prohibition of war propaganda and a substantial reduction in armaments and armed forces.
64. The Soviet Union is convinced that only a policy based on the aforementioned principles can lead to a strengthening of mutual trust and international cooperation and can prevent the countries of the world from being divided into hostile camps. In this connexion, I cannot but recall what Mr. Molotov said in his statement on the results of the Berlin Conference: “It is our earnest desire that neither Europe nor the entire globe should be divided into two camps on the question of the defence of peace. We appeal to all European States to renounce the formation of military alignments directed against each other; for the formation of such alignments cannot but result in war. Instead, we propose the union in a single camp of all the European States which are anxious to preserve their security and to achieve lasting peace in Europe.” This appeal applies not only to European States, but to all the countries in the world.
65. On the basis of its conviction that if peace is to be preserved the world must form a single camp, the Soviet Union Government has objected and continues to object to the organization of separate and exclusive alliances of certain States — such as the European Defence Community (EDC) — which are directed against other States and are nothing more or less than military blocs for clearly aggressive purposes. Such a situation is contrary to the basic principles of international law and international relations on which the Soviet Union’s foreign policy is based. Only where these principles are observed do we find peaceful and friendly co-operation among nations, which in turn serves to strengthen international confidence and mutual respect, to consolidate general peace and international security.
66. In this connexion I must recall the five principles which, on the conclusion of the negotiations held at New Delhi and Rangoon in July of this year, India, the People’s Republic of China and Burma proclaimed to be the essential basis for their mutual relations. These principles are: (a)mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty; (b) non-aggression; (c) non-intervention in each other’s internal affairs; (d) equality and mutual advantage; (e) peaceful coexistence. We wholeheartedly support these principles.
67. The present session of the General Assembly has opened at a time when international tension has somewhat eased as a result of the termination of the war in Korea and the restoration of peace to Indo-China. There can be no doubt that the year 1954 has been marked by a relaxation of international tension. This, we believe, was partly due to the Berlin Conference of the four Foreign Ministers, but even more due to the Geneva Conference of the Foreign Ministers of five Powers — the United States, the United Kingdom, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People’s Republic of China — with the participation of representatives of other States. Although little was accomplished at the Berlin Conference, that little was of great international importance inasmuch as the Conference overcame the obstacles to meetings between representatives of the four Powers, and paved the way for the Geneva Conference. The Berlin Conference also served the useful purpose of demonstrating more clearly than before the essential link between the solution of problems such as that of Germany and that of ensuring European security.
68. These questions are of course of great international moment, and it is therefore particularly important to form a clear and correct conception of the methods by which they can be solved. In his statement of 23 September [475 meeting] the United States Secretary of State did not outline any such methods, although he devoted a few passing remarks to these questions, which were, however, by way of review. To do him justice, his remarks seemed to be impromptu and not in entire accordance with the facts — and that should be borne, in mind in discussing the ways and means of settling the questions raised in that statement.
69. In referring to the German question, Mr. Dulles said, for example, that “the division of Germany cannot be perpetuated without grave risks”. One cannot but agree with that statement. But what, in fact, are these risks? It would be useful to have further information on this point. What are the risks involved in the division of Germany? I venture to suggest that these risks; are that, instead of re-establishing a united, peace-loving, democratic and independent Germany, headed by an all-German Government — which is what the Soviet Union has been proposing — attempts will be made to re-establish Germany as a militarist State headed by men like Field Marshal Kesselring and his ilk who are eager for revenge. Such a settlement of the German question indeed involves grave risks — the risk of giving free rein to the militarist and aggressive forces which survived in Western Germany after the end of the Second World War, and the risk that these forces may pave the way for a new war, which would, of course, be contrary to the interests of the European nations and of the German people themselves.
70. It is here that the real danger lies not only for Europe, but for the whole world, the real risk inherent in certain policies towards Germany. In his brief reference to the German question, Mr. Dulles tried to give the impression that the Soviet Union proposals would serve to aggravate the dangerous division of Germany. Such a conclusion is utterly unfounded. It is, on the contrary, the proposals of the Western Powers which are incapable of promoting the unification of Germany as a peace-loving, democratic and independent State, and which can only serve to perpetuate the division of that country. This is surely borne out by many facts in West Germany today. It is not evident that there are forces which are struggling for, and have in some measure already achieved, the remilitarization of Germany and the restoration of Germany as a militarist State, an objective which East Germany can never accept because it is against the interests of the German people as a whole? Hence, the remilitarization of Western Germany makes the perpetuation of the division of Germany more likely and indeed more inevitable than ever.
71. That is why the Soviet Union is so persistently and forcefully warning against the danger threatening Europe and the whole world from the lair of the fascist beast, which is waiting for the hour of a new war to strike, for the trumpet call of the Prusso-German militarists headed by the monopolists of the Rhine and the Ruhr, athirst for money and for blood. We, or for that matter, anyone truly anxious to preserve peace and to remove the threat of a new war, cannot permit this to happen. We cannot permit history, whose pages are stained with the blood of two world wars, to repeat itself. We cannot allow our children and grandchildren to suffer the bloody tragedy of a third.
72. Mr. Dulles said that "the problem of peace in Europe has become further complicated because of the recent setback to the consummation of the European Defence Community.” It would be difficult to agree with such a statement, which seems to me to be without foundation, since it is precisely the attempt to force Europe to accept the EDC — which, as the European countries fully appreciate, is a threat to their own security and to the security and interests of all peace-loving nations — that is complicating the problem of maintaining peace in Europe. The European Defence Community is usually represented as an organic unity merging the armed forces of a number of Western European States. It was so described by Mr. Dulles, who further claimed that the fact that the EDC would merge the armed forces of such countries as France and Germany was proof of its non-aggressive character. Yet the facts say otherwise. The facts show that the militarists of Western Germany are at present exerting every effort to revive their war industry and their military strength. To begin by including 12 West German divisions in the armed forces of the EDC, subsequently to increase their number to 60 and to raise the total strength of the Western European army to 800,000 within two to three years — which is being planned in the West, as Mr. Theodor Blank, the de facto Minister of War of the Bonn Government has openly stated — to do this is to embark on the course of rearming a future Deutschland über alles which, as soon as it feels sure of its military strength, will undoubtedly again show its true nature and will fall upon its neighbours and the rest of Europe with fire and the sword. This is the logical course of events.
73. This is where the danger to European security lies. This is the risk. It is here that the lightning is already heralding the thunderstorm of war. Those who fail to see it must be politically blind or must be political opportunists interested in the kindling of a new world war. As the history of Europe has shown, the restoration of Germany’s military might unquestionably constitutes a threat to the security of Europe and of the whole world. This fact is appreciated by all thoughtful and clear-minded persons, including even some big businessmen in the United States. For example, in his book Germany, Key to Peace, published in 1953, James P. Warburg, the well-known United States banker, wrote as follows on the subject of the plans for the restoration of German militarism: “. . . we have created or helped to create a new, truncated German nation of 48 million restless inhabitants — an unnatural state which threatens the future of the German people no less than it jeopardizes the peace of Europe and, ultimately, the security of the United States. . . . This new Germany has been shaped exclusively by the West under our leadership. It is not the ‘new’, peaceful, democratic Germany which we talked about creating years ago. It is the old Germany — not the Germany of Hitler— but the Germany which produced Hitler — the Germany of industrial magnates and political bureaucrats who somehow survive all political change . . .”
74. Sir James Headlam-Morley, the well-known British historian and one-time adviser to Downing Street, made the following statement as long ago as 1930 in his book Studies in Diplomatic History: “If Germany fully recovers her military power, the German army will as in the past be a sword constantly pointed at France and Belgium.” And this is true. I should merely add that German militarism constitutes a threat not only to the wellbeing of France and Belgium, but to other European countries, such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union — in fact to the rest of Europe.
75. There is talk of guarantees against the threat that a revived German militarism constitutes to the nations of Europe and there is also talk of special agreements similar to the Treaty of Locarno. In its day, the Treaty of Locarno was hailed as the beginning of a new era in Europe and in the world as a whole, and it was followed by hasty attempts to bring Germany into the League of Nations. Actually, the Treaty of Locarno, as Stalin rightly said at the time, was a plan for “the development of forces for a new war, rather than for peace”. “Locarno”, he said, “held the seeds of a new war”. Even Clemenceau described the Treaty as a scrap of paper which Germany would tear up when necessary.
76. That is exactly what happened, as we are all well aware. These facts cannot be expunged from history. Ten years after the Locarno Conference, Nazi Germany unilaterally broke the Treaty, thus taking a decisive step towards the preparation of a new world war which broke out in 1939. Even now, attempts are being made to justify the piratical war of the German fascists against the democracies and especially against the Soviet Union, by describing Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union in 1941 as a defensive war partly necessitated by Germany’s future demographic position as compared with that of her enemies. Various so-called scholars in a number of Western countries including and in particular in the United States such as Spikien, Possony, Strausz-Hupe, who have been flooding the book market with their pseudo-scientific, scribblings, do not hesitate to justify military adventures and to glorify aggressive wars by claiming that they were fought in self-defence. These gentlemen have gone so far as to assert that demography was a military weapon in the Second World War and that war is the supreme arbiter which decides the fate of nations, force being the factor governing its decision. Thanks to the encouragement of influential militarists and aggressive circles, these widely circulated scribblings I have just mentioned have become best sellers in the United States.
77. The imperialist monopolists do not consider it a virtue to abide by treaties. Western Germany, which has revived the traditions of previous, and in the main, Hitlerite diplomacy, is no exception in this respect. Western Germany is controlled by United States and West German monopolies, particularly those of the Rhine and the Ruhr, who are the true exponents of the Kaiser’s policy of aggression, which has been inherited by the foreign policy of Hitler and Adenauer. Under the cloak of conversations about “defence”, the militarization of Western Germany is proceeding apace, and special efforts to restore Western Germany’s military power are being made by the American monopolists, who have long been bound by ties of open or concealed collaboration with the West German monopolists in the matter of preparing war, such preparation being an important factor in the realization of the American plans of world hegemony.
78. This situation is still more sharply emphasized by the aggressively military nature of the so-called European Defence Community. The backbone of this Community is to be the armed forces of Western Germany, whose ruling circles nurture plans of revenge. That the intention is actually to unleash a new war and in that war to gain revenge for the lost Second World War is surely proved by the following typically revengeful resolution of the Bundestag at Bonn: “The Government is instructed to inform the countries participating in the European Army treaty that the present frontiers of Germany, both in the East and in the West, are in no way acceptable to the Federal Republic.” The position could hardly be stated more clearly.
79. It is not surprising, remembering the lessons of the last two world wars, that broad popular movements in all countries, particularly the countries of Europe, including France, are firmly resisting ratification of this EDC treaty, which is so dangerous, not only_ to the French people but to all the States neighbouring on Western Germany, and to all peace-loving peoples. The collapse of this treaty in France was a great victory for peace. At the same time, it was a heavy blow to the policy of operating from a position of strength. In our view, it was a serious warning to the inciters of war and to those engaged in propaganda for war and the organization of it.
80. The supporters of the European Defence Community, of course, lament the failure of the treaty as a great misfortune. At the same time they are continuing their attempts to find fresh means of ensuring the success of their plans, which are similar to the plans that were designed to establish the European Defence Community.
81. How different, when we consider the matter, are the interests of the countries in the camp of peace from those of the leaders of the countries in the opposite camp. The rejection of the EDC treaty by the French National Assembly is convincing evidence of the extent to which the policy of establishing mutually opposed groups of States in Europe is contrary to the interests of the peace-loving nations. The French Parliament’s decision was of course received with satisfaction by all those who, not in word but in deed, stand for the real security of the nations of Europe and the strengthening of universal peace. The peace-loving peoples regard that action as beneficial to the cause of peace. Others tend to regard it as a misfortune for the cause of peace. Those are two different attitudes, and each speaks for itself.
82. The problem of European security is of course inseparable from the German problem. There are two fundamentally different lines of policy on both questions. One line of policy favours a united, peaceful and democratic Germany and the establishment of a provisional all-German government for the attainment of that objective, the unification of Germany being brought about by means of genuinely free and democratic all German elections to an all-German constituent assembly. The other line of policy is embodied in the plan of the three Western Powers, the main feature of which is the attempt to bind the future all-German government to fulfil, for a period of 50 years, what the plan describes as the international rights and obligations of the Bonn Government. It should be obvious to everyone that such a provision would deprive Germany, during those 50 years, of any opportunity or justification for acting in accordance with its own interests, of acting freely or as a sovereign State in the true sense of those terms. Furthermore, this plan, which would bind the future united Germany not to deviate, for a period of 50 years, from the so-called international obligations assumed by the Bonn Government unilaterally and, of course, entirely without the consent of the other half of Germany, contains no measures capable of preventing or arresting the continued growth of militarist aspirations and the desire for revenge.
83. It should be pointed out that the all-European agreement proposed by the Soviet Union was, on the other hand, based on the principle of the collective defence of the States which were parties to the agreement against an armed attack in Europe on one or more of such States. The all-European collective security agreement proposed in the Soviet Union’s plan would include all the European nations, and not some small and specially selected group of States. States parties to this agreement would pledge themselves not to enter into any coalitions or alliances or to conclude any agreements, the purposes of which were incompatible with the preservation of collective security in Europe. In our view, such a European system would provide a sound basis for the security of that continent. It would mark a substantial step forward in that vital matter and would also create conditions more propitious to a settlement of the German problem through the establishment of a united, independent, democratic and peaceful Germany. Experience shows us that no settlement of the German problem is possible without a settlement of the question of European security. It should be emphasized, too, that a settlement of the German problem would undoubtedly also facilitate a settlement of the Austrian problem, as the two problems are interconnected.
84. In his statement in the General Assembly [475th meeting], Mr. Dulles also touched on the Australian question and made an attempt, which I presume to describe as unsuccessful, to give the impression that at the precise moment when the Austrian treaty was completely ready and appeared to be on the point of signature, the Soviet Union suddenly put forward new conditions. This is not in accordance with the facts. As early as 1949, the four Powers — the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the Soviet Union — agreed on the main lines of the treaty with Austria. Agreement was then reached on all its most important sections with the exception of a few points which were not considered to be sufficiently important to preclude its signature. It was the Western Powers themselves, who, instead of standing by the treaty for Austria, in regard to which agreement had been reached on almost all points, put forward new proposals in the guise of the so-called abbreviated treaty, which differed substantially from the treaty previously agreed on 111 1949. The nature of this abridged treaty was so unacceptable to all the parties concerned that it was repudiated two years later by the United States, the United Kingdom and France themselves. After wasting two years and thereby delaying the settlement of the Austrian question, they repudiated the abbreviated treaty they had attempted to put through instead of the treaty in regard to which agreement had been reached on all points of principle as early as 1949.
85. Since that time, say during the past two or three years, events have occurred which must be taken into account in settling matters relating to the Austrian treaty today. Those events make it essential to include in that treaty — this is a matter of the highest importance — a provision prohibiting the forcing upon Austria of plans for a new Anschluss with Germany, for a new military and aggressive alliance between Germany and Austria (there has been such a tendency during the past few years), and also to ensure that Austria has the possibility of democratic and peaceful development. But this is precisely what the United States is opposing, a fact which testifies to the objectivity of the statement on the position regarding the Austrian treaty made by the United States representative from this rostrum on 23 September.
86. As we know, a satisfactory settlement of the Korean question was not achieved at the Geneva Conference. But a settlement of the Korean question is urgently needed both in the interests of the unification of Korea and of the maintenance of world peace. It is, in our opinion, particularly necessary in view of the fact that systematic attempts are, as we know, still I being made to break the armistice in Korea and to unleash a further war against the Korean people. It is a I matter of common knowledge that special efforts are being made by Syngman Rhee and his clique to bring this about.
87. We are convinced that there is literally not a moment to be lost in reaching a settlement of the Korean question. The General Assembly must therefore exert every effort to bring about a solution. At the Geneva Conference, the delegations of the Soviet Union, the Chinese People’s Republic and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea put forward constructive proposals for a peaceful settlement. During the discussion of the Korean question at that Conference, there was a rapprochement in the views of a number of delegations, for example, in those of the Soviet Union and United Kingdom delegations, both of which considered it important to establish the basic principles for the attainment of agreement on the Korean question. If this could have been done, progress would have been made in paving the way for the restoration of the national unity of Korea. But the representatives of a number of other delegations did not share that view, the Belgian representative even going so far as to assert that the Soviet Union delegation’s Proposals would have, as he put it, appalling consequences for the United Nations.
88. Despite the fact that no progress was made with the discussion of the Korean problem at the Geneva Conference, the delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea put forward concrete proposals for the settlement of this question, which were supplemented by the following draft declaration proposed by the Soviet Union: “The States taking part in the Geneva Conference have agreed that pending the final settlement of the Korean question on the basis of the establishment of a united, independent and democratic Korean State, no action of any kind shall be taken which might constitute a threat to the maintenance of peace in Korea. “The participants in the Conference express their confidence that both the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea will act in accordance with the present declaration in the interests of peace.” This Declaration holds out the best prospects for the urgently needed settlement of the Korean question.
89. A serious obstacle to the settlement of that question is undoubtedly the so-called Mutual Defence Treaty between the United States and South Korea, which is being used, and which certain parties are planning to use, to convert South Korea into a base for military operations in the Far East. We consider it essential for the States concerned to pursue their efforts to reach agreement on a peaceful settlement of the Korean question through the creation of a united, independent and democratic State. A satisfactory solution of the Korean question must be found without delay.
90. The fiasco of the European Defence Community in Europe and the failure of the plans of reactionary circles to prevent the cessation of military operations in Indo-China — the fact that such attempts were made is well-known — has not deterred these circles from further attempts to prevent a relaxation of the international tension which favours preparations for a new world war. One such attempt was unquestionably the Manila Conference at which a number of States under the leadership of the United States agreed on the organization of a new bloc serving the same purposes as the North Atlantic bloc, as was openly stated. United States propaganda is attempting to represent the Manila Treaty as a victory for the cause of the collective defence of South-East Asia. But the very fact that the majority of Asian countries, including countries such as India and Indonesia with populations totalling almost 450 millions, declined to associate themselves either with the Manila Conference or the Manila Treaty, and that these aggressive plans are opposed by the Chinese People’s Republic with its population of 600 million effectively disproves assertions that the purpose of the Manila Conference and the Treaty signed in Manila by its participants is the defence of the South-East Asian countries and that it corresponds to the interests of the Asian people. The real intention underlying the plan for the so-called defence of South-East Asia is to undertake armed intervention in Asia with the help of some Asian countries, intervention on a “collective basis”, to use the term coined by some of the leading proponents of the plan. The plan is similar to the plan for the Korean war, involving the organization of foreign intervention with the participation of a few unimportant Asian countries in order to conceal the special interest of the colonists in dominating and in continuing to dominate the area it is a plan to suppress the national-liberation movement in the South-East Asian countries by means of a perfidious scheme to set one group of Asian peoples against another.
91. Having decided to camouflage these objectives by references to the need to guarantee the so-called freedom and independence of the Asian peoples, the sponsors of such plans do not, however, conceal the fact that the concept of independence does not interest them in the slightest. All that matters is to state that it does, in order to facilitate the recruitment of troops for the armies of the puppet regimes and thus more readily to conceal their own participation in this military adventure, their own interest in this war. With that end in view, they are again planning to make use of the title and flag of the United Nations, which, according to a State Department representative, must give its moral sanction to this military undertaking allegedly organized for the defence of “important interests at stake”. But what are these “important interests” which are at stake in southern Asia?
92. An idea of the nature of the “important interests” in southern Asia, with which the United States is so concerned, can readily be obtained from a perusal of the official record of the meeting of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on 13 January 1954. According to this record, Mr. Dulles made the following statement in the Committee: “The interest of the United States in that part of the area is, from a strategic standpoint, very closely tied into what is commonly called the offshore island chain. The offshore island chain has, in essence, two land bases: At the north, the Korean mainland, and in the south, we would hope in Indo-China. Then in between are the islands themselves, Japan, the Ryukyus, embracing Okinawa, Formosa, the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand. The United States has a security tie, of one sort or another, with each of these areas, not formalized in some cases, in the form of a treaty, but nevertheless very real and very actual.”
93. Some time later, on 29 March, Mr. Dulles made a further statement on the same question — namely, Indo-China and South-East Asia. He described the former as a “rice bowl”, “an area that is rich in many raw materials, such as tin, rubber, oil, iron ore.” He said later that the loss of the Chinese continent was a great disaster for the United States, a disaster which would be heightened if to it were added the loss of the millions of people, the vast economic resources and strategic positions of South-East Asia and the Pacific islands.
94. All these admissions leave no room for doubt that the Manila bloc was organized to enable the imperialist monopolies to continue, unimpeded, their exploitation of the natural wealth of the Asian countries and of the peoples of these countries themselves. This is a matter of special concern to the United States monopolies, which lay claim to world leadership, but are being frustrated by the success of the national liberation movement in the East and Asia.
95. The strength of these interests, which the United States discovers in all parts of the world, is well known. Equally well known are the methods by which the United States has invariably and persistently defended these interests since the time of President McKinley.
96. These admissions make it clear that objectives and schemes such as those activating the authors of the Manila Treaty have nothing in common with the interests of peace. Revealing as they do the military designs of their organizers and participants, such agreements give the lie to declarations of peaceful intentions and to assertions that their purpose is to ensure the protection and security of the peoples of areas which have attracted the special attention of the monopolies.
97. Long ago though it was, the eminent United States jurist, J. Reuben Clark, was right when he stated in a memorandum written 50 years ago: No single country had so often used its armed forces for the temporary occupation of parts of the territory of foreign States as the United States. Such intervention, he went on to say, had developed into actual intervention in “the political affairs of foreign States. This respected legal adviser to the State Department maintained in his memorandum that many pretexts had been given for such action. It had usually been justified by reference to humanitarianism, the defence of the citizens of the country concerned, and so on and so forth. Although this was written 50 years ago, it is just as apposite today.
98. An attempt was also made at Manila to camouflage this new act of aggression by references to the objectives of protection and security, although such references could mislead no one.
99. Simultaneously with the organization of the Manila bloc the work of staff officers and other experts is proceeding on the drafting of plans for a new world war. In this connexion, attempts are being made to base the whole system of military measures on a plan for so-called massive retaliatory action. The plan for so-called massive retaliatory action is in reality nothing more or less than a plan for a preventive war. The qualification “retaliatory” is patently false and is intended to mislead public opinion, to give the impression that the military operations in preparation are merely a counter-attack although the myth of a pending attack on the United States has long been exploded.
100. The policy of massive retaliation clearly stems from the desire to unleash a preventive war: to strike the first blow, for that is what preventive war means. Those who are organizing the preparations for massive retaliation — which is not, cannot be and is not intended to be a matter of retaliation — proceed from the premise that if they are not to lose the war against the presumptive enemy, the American generals will be well advised to start it themselves. Such plans are a repetition of Hitler’s crazy blitzkrieg schemes, or of those of the Japanese militarists who attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor.
101. In a speech he made earlier this year, Mr. Dulles, advertising this massive retaliation policy, said that the United States must be ready to strike a blow in any part of the world. He said where: in the Arctic or the tropics, in Asia, the Near East or Europe, at sea, oh land or in the air, and with conventional or new weapons. There is retaliation for you.
102. Surely these threats of open attack in every quarter of the globe reveal the truly aggressive intention of what is called retaliation. Defined in those terms, the policy would in fact inevitably be one not of retaliating blows but of striking the first blow. The talk of retaliation is intended to divert attention from the preparations being carried on to start a war.
103. The true intention of this policy has been even more clearly revealed by Mr. Gordon Dean, a highly responsible person and former Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission. Recently, in one of the most striking numbers of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Mr. Dean made a direct appeal for a preventive atomic war against the Soviet Union.
104. The present Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, took the same line in the Senate Committee on Appropriations, when he said that in the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, full advantage should be taken of the superiority in thermo-nuclear weapons in order to maintain United States pre-eminence.
105. In line with this decision to make extensive use of atomic and hydrogen weapons — which are essentially offensive weapons — measures are being taken for the maximum possible equipment of the armed forces with atomic weapons, artillery rockets with atomic warheads of the “Honest John”, “Corporal” and “Regulus” types, and so forth.
106. The inveterate militarists are inflaming warlike passions by disseminating propaganda about the might of the American atomic artillery, which, they say quite frankly, could open huge breaches in the enemy’s lines, through which the attacking units would rush to complete the victory. So much for this so-called retaliatory blow. That is preventive war. The object of this policy is that one should be in a position to strike the first blow if there should suddenly appear on the political or international horizon the spectre of an impending attack — whether real or imagined matters little. Once such an imaginary danger appears in any quarter and even if it fails to appear it can always be invented — as Mr. Clark, the former State Department lawyer whose words I have already quoted said, there need be no lack of pretexts then this massive retaliation will take place.
107. From what I have said it is obvious that to the authors of this theory everything is plain sailing. Enormous breaches will be opened; the attackers will pour through — and victory will fall into their laps. Everything will go smoothly according to plan. But in my country we have a saying for the boasting of such blusterers: “The road looks nice and smooth on paper, but you’ve forgotten the holes, and you’ve got to get over them first.” True indeed, they must not be forgotten.
108. The fact that stockpiling of atomic weapons is the primary consideration in United States policy may be seen from the recently published semi-annual report of the Atomic Energy Commission (Major Activities w the Atomic Energy Programme, January-June 1954). Some interesting things can be read in this report; for instance: “The nation’s atomic weapons stockpile, growing rapidly in total numbers, reflects a trend of increased variety and versatility of weapons.” The same report goes on to say: "Development of a ‘family of weapons’ ” — “family” indeed! — “has extended the military usefulness of available fissionable material. Paralleling fission weapon development since 1950 there has been in progress a concerted development effort on thermo-nuclear weapons. ... A. national policy decision was made to take every advantage of such progress to assure that the United States maintains its superiority. The President directed the Commission to continue to produce atomic weapons during 1954 consistent with this decision.” Am I justified in saying that United States policy gives first place to the production of atomic and thermo-nuclear weapons? I think I am.
109. It is well known that the life of a State is most faithfully reflected in its budget. While I do not wish to go into details here, I cannot but observe that the budgets of the Western Powers clearly reflect a policy of militarism. That is particularly true of the budget of the United States.
110. If you compare the military expenditure of the United States during the current financial year with its expenditure on social insurance, health, education and housing, you will see that for all these latter items the budget allocates only 4.2 per cent of total expenditure, whereas 66 per cent of the total goes directly to military purposes. This comparison clearly reveals the character of the budget, the character of national policy; for, I repeat, the budget is the most faithful mirror of State policy. These figures, which typify the current United States budget, eloquently illustrate what is really meant by the so-called policy of negotiation from strength; they show how heavy a burden it lays upon the taxpayers, and what serious deficiencies they suffer, as a result, in education, health and other social and cultural spheres.
111. On the other hand, fabulous profits are being made in the production of atomic weapons by the great monopolies, in whose hands all military contracts are concentrated. The production of atomic energy for peaceful purposes is of no great interest to them, nor even perhaps to the political leaders of the United States. No wonder that according to reliable sources it will be three or four years before an atomic reactor for the production of electric power, that is to say for a peaceful purpose, will be put into production in the United States; whereas the Soviet Union has already constructed a power station using atomic energy. The inauguration of this power station in the USSR marked the outset of a veritable industrial and technical revolution. This fact alone has strengthened faith in the great future of atomic energy in the service of the peaceful needs of mankind; at the same time, however, it has caused great disquiet in the camp of the militarists, who, as we know, are not interested in the development of the production of atomic energy for peaceful purposes.
112. Many facts go to show that progress in this direction is of little importance to these people, whose entire attention and energy is directed to the maximum development of atomic weapons production. They continue to count on their presumed superiority in this field; and they are not beyond attempting to aggravate international tension still further, for such tension is the source of vast military programmes which the monopolies are only too happy to carry out. And this policy also meets the wishes of influential military groups, headed by military leaders such as Admiral Radford and General Gruenther, who are at present busy on the preparation of what is called long-range strategy, again based on preventive war with the use of atomic and hydrogen weapons.
113. In the Western countries, and in particular in the United States, the past year has been one of intensified rearmament. In the United States this has been expressed primarily in the stockpiling of atomic and hydrogen weapons, reflected in turn in increased expenditure for the Atomic Energy Commission — according to statements by reliable persons, the appropriations for these purposes have reached a figure higher than in any previous year. Thus the frantic race to turn atomic energy into an instrument of death instead of a source of wealth — to use Mr. Dulles’ own words — has continued.
114. As early as last year, the Soviet Union Government, at the time of the proposal of 8 December, stressed the great significance of the practical possibility of using atomic energy for peaceful purposes, and expressed its readiness to take part in negotiations on this subject. On 30 January and 2 February 1954 the Government of the Soviet Union conveyed to the Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and France the text of a draft declaration for the unconditional abandonment of the use of atomic and hydrogen weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. The preamble to that declaration expressed the resolve to free mankind from the threat of a destructive war with the use of atomic, hydrogen and other weapons of mass destruction. It also stressed the desire to encourage, by every means possible, the application of scientific discoveries in the field of atomic energy solely to peaceful uses for the benefit of the peoples and the improvement of their standards of living.
115. In taking this position the Soviet Union Government was acting in line with its view that atomic materials should be used wholly, not merely in part, for peaceful ends alone; that the achievements of scientists in this field should serve not the purposes of war and mass annihilation but the purpose of promoting economic progress and the prosperity of mankind. The Soviet Union Government was convinced that this would open up unprecedented possibilities for the expansion of industry, agriculture and transport, for the application of atomic science to medicine, for technical advance and the further progress of science. The Soviet Union Government believes that the United States proposal of 8 December [470th meeting] will do nothing to remove the threat of an atomic war, which is causing growing anxiety in many countries, particularly in view of the emergence of new and increasingly destructive types of atomic and hydrogen weapons. That is the Soviet Union’s position.
116. Now we have a new item on the agenda for this session: international co-operation in developing the peaceful uses of atomic energy [item 67]. Unfortunately this proposal has not as yet been crystallized in the form of some sort of programme or plan, and we shall therefore clearly have to revert to the question later, after we have received more concrete proposals and corresponding documents.
117. The correspondence between the USSR and the United States on this question [A/2738] has just been published. Anyone who reads it can familiarize himself fully with the Soviet Union’s position on the question of measures for the peaceful use of atomic energy. In this connexion I cannot but express my surprise at the fact that Mr. Dulles, in his speech to the General Assembly [475th meeting], and Mr. Lodge, in the General Committee [94th meeting], declared that the Soviet Union Government had rejected the proposal for negotiations on measures for the peaceful use of atomic energy. The baselessness of these assertions may be seen if one refers, for instance, to that passage of the Soviet Union Government’s aide-memoire of 27 April to the United States Government which says: “Inasmuch as it is the constant aspiration of the Government of the USSR, to assist in strengthening peace among nations and under present conditions, in particular, to assist in the elimination of the threat of an atomic war, the Soviet Government has expressed readiness to take part in the appropriate negotiations.”
118. In the aide-memoire of 22 September — the contents of which were undoubtedly known to Mr. Dulles before he made his statement on 23 September, and certainly to Mr. Lodge before he spoke on 24 September — it is clearly stated: “The Soviet Government declares its willingness to continue these negotiations for the examination of the proposals of the Soviet Government as well as the proposals of the Government of the United States of America.” How can it be said in these circumstances that the Soviet Government has refused to take part in such negotiations? How can anyone say that? For whose ears is such a statement intended?
119. Equally groundless are attempts to depict the USSR’s position with regard to participation in measures for the peaceful use of atomic energy as one hedged about with certain prior conditions.
120. Nor can we overlook the fact that the proposal of 8 December passes in silence over the question of prohibiting the use of atomic weapons, and ignores the persistent demands of the peoples for the outlawing of atomic weapons and their exclusion from national armaments.
121. But such a position on this matter is not calculated to promote the maintenance of international peace and security. The Soviet Union considers it essential that an international agreement should be reached ensuring the prohibition of the use of atomic energy for purposes of war and making possible the use of atomic energy solely for the peaceful needs of mankind. The possibilities of agreement with a view to international co-operation for the peaceful use of atomic energy are far from being exhausted. Of that we are profoundly convinced.
122. As for our proposal that States should pledge themselves not to use atomic or hydrogen weapons, the need for such an agreement has certainly not passed. On the contrary, various facts which I have just cited and which there is no need for me to repeat, show that it is more urgent than ever, for no one can deny the reality of the danger of the atomic armaments race and of the use of atomic weapons, the danger even of the preparations being made for the use of such weapons; in other words, the danger of the launching of an atomic war, and primarily for preventive purposes. It is all the more important, therefore, that the United Nations should take steps to ensure that no country dares to use this weapon. Nor should anyone be allowed to produce this weapon, which should be outlawed. Such a danger undoubtedly exists.
123. In this connexion, I would like to refer to the opinion expressed by the famous scholar Mr. Bernard Baruch, a co-author of the well-known Acheson-Baruch-Lilienthal plan for the control of atomic energy, in his book A Philosophy For Our Time, with which I recently became acquainted. In this book, which Is available in any bookshop in New York, Mr. Baruch acknowledges that there is a danger of the atomic weapon being used, notwithstanding the creation of atomic pools and other schemes aimed, and rightly so, at ensuring the utilization of atomic energy for peaceful purposes and deserving of general support. In his book Mr. Baruch states: “Whatever is allotted this international pool, different nations would still hold back the larger of available fissionable materials for developing atomic and other nuclear weapons.” Mr. Baruch adds: “The dangers of atomic attack would not be lessened.” “The atomic-arms race would not slacken.”
124. If we take the past year, we find that throughout the period since the proposal for an atomic pool was made, the United States has not reduced but has increased the tempo of the armaments race, the rate of stockpiling, nuclear weapons and the development of other military and aggressive measures. This is particularly true where nuclear weapons are concerned.
125. Numerous events during that year indicate that in its foreign policy the United States is still relying on the policy of “negotiating from strength”. This policy, under which various national measures of a military character are planned, accordingly revolves around the atomic weapon, which has officially been declared the basis for the practical implementation of United States foreign policy. It engenders a national war psychosis, arouses enmity and hatred of other peoples, encourages propaganda for a new world war, which in turn inevitably leads to an armaments race, the establishment of an ever-increasing number of military bases in foreign territories, and the formation of an ever-increasing number of military blocs justified by misleading references to defence against some non-existent threat from the Communist countries.
126. The success of the Geneva Conference, which thwarted the aggressive designs of the advocates of the policy of negotiation from strength, the failures sustained by United States foreign policy in efforts to secure the ratification of the so-called European Defence Community Treaty, and the failure of attempts to prevent a cease-fire in Indo-China, have driven the reactionary circles of some countries, including the United States and its Western allies, into further endeavours to prevent the relaxation of international tension and the normalization of international relations. We do not doubt that these endeavours are doomed to failure, as the nations’ will for peace is growing ever stronger, while the forces of war are steadily weakening. This is an important development which is deeply gratifying to all supporters of peace.
127. The policy of negotiation from strength also Provides the United States monopolies with an important pretext for maintaining a military economy at the highest possible level with a view to preventing the intensification of the depression cycle which the country has already entered, and to reaping further profits from military deliveries.
128. The symptoms of a crisis in the United States are having harmful repercussions on the economy of the other Western countries as well as of agrarian and Colonial countries. The economic policy of the United States, with its high tariffs, legislation regarding the preferential purchase of American goods, and so forth, is hampering exports from Western Europe to the United States and is resulting in the “dollar famine”. The latter is being aggravated by United States measures restricting trade, the embargo on trade with the People’s Republic of China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and other similar measures, which also done serious harm to the countries of Western Europe. Western Europe could easily overcome the “dollar famine” if the restrictions imposed on its trade with the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and the people’s democracies were lifted. The resumption of imports from Eastern Europe, the USSR, the People’s Republic of China, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and other countries, at the level prevailing before the passage of the Battle Act and other restrictive measures, would, according to experts, enable the countries of Western Europe to save about $600 million on commodities such as wheat, maize and barley, raw tobacco, lumber, crude oil and oil products alone.
129. There is clearly an urgent need to eliminate artificial barriers to the normalization of trade and of economic relations in general. This is required by the fundamental and vital interest of all peoples. It is required by the interest of the under-developed countries for which the lifting of the embargo and similar trade restrictions is particularly urgent. It also corresponds to the interests of peace and international security, in the maintenance of which trade plays an important part by bringing individuals closer together, eliminating mutual distrust and providing an opportunity for genuinely peaceful co-operation.
130. It is quite natural that there should be a wide spread movement throughout the world in favour of the normalization of international economic relations and in particular trade relations. It should be noted that a recent report of the United States Foreign Operations Administration — I should also like to mention some favourable aspects of the activities of institutions in other countries, including the United States — contains a statement to the effect that there is a growing belief in Western Europe that great possibilities exist for trade between East and West, and that for the Western countries this trade could be a source of real prosperity, capable of remedying unemployment, poverty and exchange difficulties and of laying the foundation for a lasting and secure peace. This is not propaganda on my part; I am basing myself on one of the recent reports of the United States Foreign Operations Administration.
131. As the experience of the past year has shown, the overwhelming majority of business circles throughout the world are anxious to expand trade and economic relations with the USSR, the People’s Republic of China and the peoples’ democracies, realizing that such relations would open the door wide to economic, cultural and political prosperity.
132. Only the other day, the British periodical The Economist (I happened to come across this item) published a statement by the deputy president of the Associated British Chambers of Commerce. In that article the deputy president stated that “the biggest short-term hope for an expansion of oversea markets lay in an increase in East-West trading.”
133. What then is the difficulty? What is holding matters up? Matters are held up by obstacles such as the Battle Act, by various restrictions which must be removed, if the hopes of the world are to be fulfilled. This is precisely the aim of the policy of the Soviet Union, which is expanding and developing its relations with all countries prepared to reciprocate. With every year the Soviet Union is expanding its foreign trade relations and the volume of its foreign trade has more than doubled since 1948. The course of events itself is eliminating the obstacles which attempts are being made to place in the way of the development of economic relations between the Soviet Union and Western countries. The external links between the USSR and the Western countries are constantly increasing and are injecting a spirit of confidence and respect for mutual interests and advantages into the international political atmosphere.
134. Soviet foreign trade policy, aimed at strengthening the free and extensive development of international economic relations, is an integral part of Soviet foreign policy which reflects the firm desire of the Soviet nation to live in peace and harmony with all peoples and to strengthen peace and international security.
135. Over thirty years ago the great founder of the Soviet State, Lenin, pointed out with reference to the Genoa Conference that co-operation between the Soviet Republic and capitalist countries was possible and even inevitable. The most pressing, vital and practical need of all capitalist States, as had become crystal clear during the past few years, was, he said, the development, regulation and expansion of trade with Russia. Disputes and quarrels might develop; various groups might break away — it was even extremely probable that they would do so — but in the final analysis, he continued, this interest, this basic economic need would triumph. It could be asserted with some degree of confidence that the expansion of normal trade relations between the Soviet Republic and all the other capitalist countries of the world would inevitably continue.
136. The Soviet Union resolutely and consistently follows a policy of peace, emphasizing the need for sound and radical measures capable of removing the threat of a new world war, and thus preventing incalculable further suffering and the death of countless million human beings.
137. At every session, the Soviet Union has devoted its efforts, and will do so at the present session also, to securing a successful solution of this important task, indeed this task of paramount importance. The Soviet Union is firmly convinced that the General Assembly can solve it. It must solve it, and thus fulfil the desire of the peoples clamouring for peace and security.
138. The Soviet Union delegation accordingly submits the following draft resolution [A/2742 and Corr.1] to the present session of the General Assembly; it is entitled “Conclusion of an international convention (treaty) on the reduction of armaments and the prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and other weapons of mass destruction”. “I. The General Assembly instructs the United Nations Disarmament Commission to prepare and submit for confirmation by the Security Council a draft international convention (treaty) designed to strengthen peace and increase international security and providing for the prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and other weapons of mass destruction and their elimination from the armaments of States, a substantial reduction in armaments and the establishment of international control over the implementation of these decisions on the basis of the French and United Kingdom proposals of 11 June 1954. “Accordingly, the convention (treaty) should contain the following basic provisions: “1. The following measures shall be taken simultaneously : “(a) In the course of six months (or one year), States shall reduce their armaments, armed forces and budgetary appropriations for military requirements to the extent of 50 per cent of the agreed levels. Armaments and armed forces shall be reduced from the strength of armaments and armed forces existing on 31 December 1953, and appropriations shall be reduced from the amount of actual expenditure on military requirements during the year ending 31 December 1953. “(b) For the purposes of supervising the fulfilment by States of the obligations in connexion with the reduction of armaments and armed forces provided for in sub-paragraph (a), a temporary international control commission shall be established under the Security Council with the right to require States to provide the necessary information on the measures taken by them to reduce armaments and armed forces. The commission shall take the necessary steps to supervise the fulfilment by States of the obligations assumed by them in connexion with the reduction of armaments, armed forces and appropriations for military requirements. States shall periodically supply the commission at established intervals with information concerning the implementation of the measures provided for in the convention. “2. On completion of the measures referred to in paragraph 1, the following measures shall be taken simultaneously: “(a) In the course of six months (or one year), States shall reduce their armaments, armed forces and budgetary appropriations for military requirements by the remaining 50 per cent of the agreed levels from the strength of armaments and armed forces existing on 31 December 1953, and shall reduce their appropriations from the amount of actual expenditure on military requirements during the year ending 31 December 1953. “(b) A complete prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and other weapons of mass destruction shall be carried into effect, the production of such weapons shall be discontinued and they shall be entirely eliminated from the armaments of States; all existing atomic materials shall be used only for peaceful purposes. “The carrying out of these measures must be completed not later than the carrying out of the measures taken for the reduction of armament and armed forces referred to in paragraph 2 (a), and the production of atomic and hydrogen weapons shall cease immediately, as soon as a start is made with the reduction of armaments, armed forces and appropriations for military requirements in respect of the remaining 50 per cent of the agreed standards. “(c) States shall institute a standing international organ for the supervision of the implementation of the convention (treaty) on the prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and other weapons of mass destruction, the discontinuance of the production of these weapons and their elimination from the armaments of States and the reduction of armaments, armed forces an appropriations for military requirements. “This international organ shall have full powers of supervision, including the power of inspection on a continuing basis to the extent necessary to ensure implementation of the convention by all States. “II. In connexion with the proposal concerning the prohibition of the ‘use of nuclear weapons except in defence against aggression’ in the Franco-British memorandum of 11 June 1954, the General Assembly instructs the United Nations Disarmament Commission to study and clarify this question and submit its recommendations.”
139. In submitting these proposals, the Soviet Union is fully confident, that they will receive very careful consideration and that they represent a cause which will help the United Nations to fulfil its duty of combating the danger of the use of atomic weapons, halting the armaments race, and averting the threat of a new world war, in the interests of the peace and security of all peoples.