Nine years have passed since the end of the Second World War and the signing of the United Nations Charter at San Francisco. It is common knowledge that the peoples of the world placed high hopes in the United Nations, and expected it to take practical and effective action in the cause of peace. Unfortunately, it must be recognized that the United Nations has failed to fulfil those hopes.
118. Even in the earliest days of United Nations activity, it became obvious that the governments of some States did not intend to implement those provisions of the Charter which are designed to promote the defence and the strengthening of peace and security throughout the world.
119. Important proposals for the strengthening of peace have been rejected by a rubber-stamp majority. As a result, the United Nations has been unable to settle such serious problems as disarmament, the prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and other weapons of mass destruction, and other vital questions.
120. The authority of the United Nations as a universal and international organization has been undermined by the abandonment of the concerted policy pursued by the Allies during the war, a policy aimed at the achievement of an enduring peace, and by the establishment within the United Nations of a bloc of aggressive states.
121. At the fifth session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, Mr. Malenkov, the head of the Government, said: “The United Nations should revert to the course set for it. by the Charter. It is the direct obligation of the United Nations to promote the settlement of international problems and prevent the possibility of aggression by any Member State against other States. In so doing it will receive the full support of the Government of the Soviet Union.”
122. The Soviet representatives in the United Nations have been and continue to be guided in their proposals by the desire to strengthen world peace and security; and, in spite of great difficulties, they have worked in the United Nations for the adoption of effective decisions calculated to reduce international tension, avert war and enhance the authority of the United Nations.
123. The whole world knows of the Soviet Union’s proposals on disarmament and the prohibition of devices for the mass destruction of human beings and material resources, and its proposals on measures to reduce tension in international relations and to strengthen international peace and security.
124. The common people throughout the world still count on the United Nations for effective action to reduce international tension and avert the threat of another world war. The United Nations owes a tremendous responsibility to the common people; accordingly, it is the Organization’s duty to address itself with greater attention and seriousness to the consideration and solution of the problems confronting it, in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations, in order to prevent any new aggravation of international tension.
125. In his statement of 27 September 1954 before the 479th plenary meeting of the General Assembly, the representative of the Philippines stated that Member States should be more receptive to proposals for the revision of the Charter of the United Nations, no matter how radical they might seem. He proposed that the scope of domestic jurisdiction and of the concept of the sovereignty of States should be restricted, that the principle of unanimity in the Security Council should be limited or abolished, that permanent membership in the Security Council should be done away with, and that the United Nations should be given the means to enforce decisions affecting international peace and security. He felt that this could only be achieved by a desperate frontal assault on the problem of international organization.
126. That statement represents a continuation of the campaign to undermine the basis of the United Nations Charter, the principle of unanimity — a campaign initiated by the ruling circles of the United States many years ago. And that is understandable, for the aim of achieving world domination, with its consequent efforts for expansion and aggression, cannot be consistent with the preservation of that principle free of all qualification. If the principle of the unanimity of the five great Powers is preserved, the Security Council cannot be transformed into a weapon of the policy of some Powers against others. Those who attack that principle are trying to turn the United Nations into that institution of unhappy memory, the League of Nations, which had neither the right nor the means to prevent aggression; they are trying to free their hands and turn the United Nations into an instrument of war.
127. If it adopted such proposals, the United Nations would lose all resemblance to an international organization and would in essence become the servant of a State or a group of States. The General Assembly should not entertain such proposals. It should create all the conditions necessary to enable the Security Council — which in actual fact has now become a secondary and inactive organ, as may be seen from the report of the Security Council [A/2712], which was submitted for our consideration — to become an organ capable of ensuring the pacific settlement of disputes and dangerous situations, and of ensuring the elimination of all obstacles to the strengthening of friendly relations among States in the cause of peace.
128. It is a fact that the United Nations is undergoing a crisis, and that its authority is waning in the eyes of world public opinion. However, the view expressed by Mr. Pearson, the representative of Canada, that the Soviet Union is responsible for the impasse in which the United Nations finds itself, is completely unjustified. The United Nations is in this position because it has as yet been unable — through no fault at all of the Soviet Union — to find a proper solution to such fundamental international problems as the limitation of armaments and armed forces and the prohibition of atomic and hydrogen weapons. The United Nations has often engaged in fruitless debate on questions which are in no way related to the maintenance and preservation of peace.
129. It must also be pointed out that, the United Nations is not yet a universal, international organization; for many countries have still not been admitted to its ranks. It is entirely improper that for five years the United Nations has refused to admit the representative of the 600 million-strong Chinese nation, the representatives of a great Power, the People’s Republic of China, which has recently celebrated its fifth anniversary. The absence of the People’s Republic of China from the United Nations not only detracts from the Organization’s authority, but also prevents it from finding successful solutions to a number of international problems of extreme importance, particularly problems affecting Asia and the Far East.
130. We meet at a time when there has been some relaxation of international tension. In 1954, on the initiative of the Soviet Union, important international conferences of the five great Powers took place in Berlin and Geneva, and resulted in some reduction of international tension. Those conferences proved that where there is good will, international negotiations can be fruitful.
131. On the other hand, we have to recognize the fact that there are aggressive forces in the world whose aim it is to prevent any reduction in international tension. These aggressive forces are attempting to prevent the prohibition of atomic and hydrogen weapons, and weapons of mass destruction, and are conducting a frantic armaments race, thereby preventing any relaxation of international tension.
132. The Soviet Union has consistently attempted to reconcile the position of the great Powers on a number of highly important problems, particularly the reduction of armaments and the prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and other weapons of mass destruction. If the great Powers were to renounce the use of atomic weapons, men would be able to breathe freely, and the threat of atomic war would largely be removed — and with it one of the most fundamental causes of international tension. We must strive to strengthen co-operation on the honourable and businesslike basis among States with different social systems.
133. It is a matter for deep regret that the Geneva Conference failed to take any decisions on the Korean problem, which is still a cause of anxiety to the peoples of the entire world. As we know, the United Nations devoted a great deal of time to the Korean question, but failed to achieve any positive results. The question remains one of those international problems whose equitable solution is vital for the strengthening of peace in Asia and throughout the world.
134. In his statement to the Assembly of 28 September [482nd meeting], Mr. Munro, the New Zealand representative, referring to the discussion of the Korean question at Geneva, said that the cause of Korean unification had suffered a serious setback. He placed the blame on the so-called “Communist delegations”. This assertion is not consistent with the facts and is entirely without foundation. It is in fact the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that have consistently advocated a peaceful and just settlement of the Korean question, and still do so. An entirely different policy is being followed by the Government of the United States of America and its allies. They and they alone are to blame for the fact that, first in the United Nations and later at Panmunjom and Geneva, an impasse was artificially created in order to prevent the armistice in Korea being transformed into a lasting peace and to prevent the unification of Korea on a democratic basis.
135. Moreover, statements advocating the disruption of the armistice in Korea have recently been heard more and more frequently in reactionary circles in the United States. Particularly noteworthy are the redoubled efforts of the Syngman Rhee clique to wreck the Korean armistice. For example, Pyun Yung Tai, the South Korean Minister for Foreign Affairs, said on 1 June 1954 that the armistice agreement was no longer valid, and that Syngman Rhee’s Government was no longer bound by any commitments it may have entered into under the armistice agreement. That was a provocative statement. Syngman Rhee, according to a Reuters dispatch of 17 June, said that there would be no more negotiations; that he had reached an understanding with the United States that there would be no further negotiations with the Communists after the Geneva Conference. “We are on the threshold of the greatest crusade in history”, he told the New York Journal-American. The facts prove that Syngman Rhee and his protectors not only do not desire a peaceful settlement of the Korean question, but are attempting to rekindle the flames of war in that area and are doing everything possible to exacerbate to the utmost the situation in Asia, which had improved somewhat after the Geneva negotiations. Some of these mettlesome warriors should be reminded of the lessons of the recent past — particularly the dismal failure of the three-year war of aggression against the freedom-loving people of Korea.
136. It is the duty of the General Assembly to take measures to settle the Korean question once and for all, to restore the national unity of Korea as an independent, democratic State, and to achieve that enduring peace which the entire Korean people await and which is so vital to the interests of the peoples of Asia and the whole world.
137. Mr. Lloyd, the United Kingdom representative, speaking to the General Assembly this morning [487th meeting], took considerable pains to give a distorted interpretation of the statement made by Mr. Vyshinsky, the Chairman of the Soviet Union delegation. Mr. Lloyd’s statement was not aimed at achieving a further reduction in international tension; its purpose was entirely the opposite. We might venture to ask the United Kingdom representative why he saw fit to refer once again to the long-discredited myth of the “iron curtain”, and why he distorted the Soviet Union’s position on a number of highly important, international issues, and slandered certain Asian countries by alleging that a policy of neutrality is imposed on them by Moscow and Peking. It may be noted in passing that Mr. Vyshinsky made no reference in his statement to the United Kingdom and its foreign policy. Mr. Lloyd’s remarks by no means served the interests of the British people; they served the interests of those groups who do not desire the settlement of the most important international issues but wish to exacerbate still further the relations between States.
138. It is evident from Mr. Lloyd’s statement that he is in fact opposed to the unification of Germany as a single, democratic, peace-loving State. By his talk of free elections in Germany, Mr. Lloyd attempted to conceal the policy of opposition to the unification of Germany as a single State. He deliberately passed over the Soviet Union’s proposals on the German problem. He cited imaginary figures for the armed forces of the German Democratic Republic, figures that have been published in the British Press in the past for libellous purposes.
139. As is known, the Western Powers at the Berlin Conference rejected the USSR proposal to fix the size of the police forces in the German Democratic Republic and the West German Federal Republic. The United Kingdom representative knows that. Mr. Lloyd purposely said nothing of the rearmament of West Germany, in which the United Kingdom is playing no minor part, as numerous facts show, in particular the recent nine-Power Conference in London. Mr. Lloyd asked for courtesy; he asked for deeds, not words. But before he makes these demands of others, Mr. Lloyd should make them of himself. There is a proverb to the effect that people in glass houses should not throw stones.
140. We may justifiably say to the representative of the United Kingdom and to those on whose behalf he speaks here: Stop creating aggressive military alliances and blocs in Asia and Europe; give the Germans the chance to settle the fate of their own country; do not make Anglo-American cannon-fodder of them; stop the rebirth of German militarism and fascism, the worst enemy of the freedom of the peoples of Europe; show by deeds your desire for peace and not for the preparation of a new war, your desire to lessen, and not aggravate, international tension.
141. In this connexion I should like to make some observations on the remilitarization of West Germany, a question which perturbs us because twice in a quarter of a century German militarism has laid waste Byelorussia and other European nations.
142. Only nine years after the capitulation of Hitlerite Germany, the West German militarists are emerging once again as a real threat to European security. Let me cite some facts concerning the militarization of West Germany. On 26 February 1954, the West German Bundestag adopted as an addendum to the Bonn Constitution an act permitting the introduction of universal military conscription in West Germany. The Adenauer Government has already worked out detailed plans for the formation of West German armed forces.
143. The details of the plans for creating West German forces were reported in an interview given to the United Press by Mr. Blank and published in the London Star of 16 March 1954. It was stated that the size of the initial West German contingent of the “European Army” is to be 500,000 men. In the next two or three years, it is intended to increase that number to 800,000; steps are being taken to create 12 divisions, but these will later be increased to 60 divisions. Tank units are planned, as the core of the new revanchist German army. West Germany is to have an air force of 86,000 men equipped with about 1,500 modern planes. It is proposed to create a navy, with 50,000 men. The formation of the army is exclusively in the hands of former fascist generals such as Kesselring, Manteuffel, Ramcke, Heusinger and others.
144. It must also be noted that, with the encouragement and assistance of the United States, a war industry has again come into being in West Germany. At the end of 1953, there were more than 400 plants and factories working on war production. The very same persons who financed the Hitlerite army and supplied it with weapons — people we know of old, like Krupp, Flick, Schacht, Abs, Pferdmenges and others — have seized control of the West German economy. Thus, facts and figures show that, in defiance of the vital interests of the European countries and of the German people, the rulers of the United States are doing their utmost to bring about the rebirth of German militarism, the deadly enemy of the peoples of Europe.
145. The policy followed by the Soviet Union on the German question is diametrically the opposite. World public opinion showed tremendous interest in the Soviet Government’s notes of 24 July and 4 August 1954 concerning collective security in Europe. These notes were a new manifestation of the peace-loving policy of the Soviet Union and of its desire for the lessening of international tension and the strengthening of peace and international co-operation. The creation of a system of collective security in Europe would bring with it more favourable conditions for the settlement of the German problem, thereby removing the serious obstacles to German unification created by the policy of remilitarizing West Germany.
146. The Byelorussian people are conscious of the new threat from German militarism, and therefore oppose the policy of remilitarizing West Germany. The Byelorussian people yearn for peace, and consequently support with all their strength the policy of the Government of the Soviet Union, a policy aimed at settling the German problem on a peaceful, democratic basis.
147. Many representatives who have spoken in this debate devoted considerable attention to the atomic problem. The importance of finding a solution for this problem of our time is obvious to all. Yet it has to be noted that international discussions on this problem have been going on for eight years without achieving any positive results.
148. The facts show that in the United States preparations for atomic warfare are being carried out on an unprecedented scale; and to this end military air bases and atomic stockpiles have been established in every part of the world. The land, air and sea forces of the United States are being trained to use nuclear weapons in offensive operations. New types of bombs of increasing destructive power are devised and accumulated, and the production of weapons of mass destruction of all kinds is being expanded.
149. Leading American political and military figures make no secret of their plans for the unrestricted use of atomic and hydrogen weapons. Admiral Radford, the_ Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States, stated on 12 March 1954 that the United States would use atomic weapons if that was to the advantage of the United States.
150. In line with this policy, steps have been taken to ensure that this year’s appropriations for atomic and hydrogen weapons production and for the air force are higher than at any other time since the war. The appropriation for the Atomic Energy Commission for the fiscal year 1954-55 amounts to $2,425 million. The atomic production development plan for the period up to 1958 allows for a tenfold expansion of atomic weapons production in comparison with the 1952 level.
151. Because of the destructive power of these weapons, the atomic and hydrogen weapons race which is being carried on constitutes a tremendous threat to humanity. In this connexion, an article in The New York Times of 1 April 1954 deserves attention. According to this newspaper, the explosion of the hydrogen bomb detonated on 1 March 1954 on Bikini Atoll was 600 to 700 times more powerful than that of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The appeal addressed to the members of this General Assembly by the million inhabitants of Hiroshima, who experienced all the horrors of atomic bombing, is fully justified. It declares that all experiments with thermonuclear weapons should be prohibited, as should the production or use in any way of such weapons.
152. The use of thermonuclear weapons in war would bring untold suffering to the peoples; it would mean the mass annihilation of peaceful populations and the destruction of the great cities that are the centres of modern industry and culture. The danger of war is a matter for legitimate anxiety, particularly on the part of the peoples of Asia and Europe, who were so recently the victims of the Second World War.
153. The facts convincingly refute the assertion made by Mr. Dulles in his statement to the plenary meeting of the General Assembly, that the ruling circles of the United States are vitally interested in peace, the prohibition of atomic and hydrogen weapons and the observance of the United Nations Charter. By repeated use of the word “peace”, Mr. Dulles tried to throw dust into the eyes of ordinary people and convince them that the rulers of the United States detest war and are concerned only to ensure the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. Mr. Dulles declared that the United States proposals proclaimed on 8 December 1953 [470th meeting] could help to dispel “the darkest cloud that hangs over mankind.”
154. However, it must be pointed out that the United States atomic pool proposals of 8 December do not dispel this “darkest cloud that hangs over mankind”; indeed, they in no way hamper States that are in a position to produce atomic and hydrogen weapons. The plan is based on the idea of setting aside some small amount of atomic materials for peaceful purposes, while the mass of nuclear materials is directed, as before, to the production of more atomic and hydrogen bombs.
155. Even Mr. Pearson, in his statement before the General Assembly [475th meeting, para. 18], admitted that “international co-operation in the peaceful uses of atomic energy cannot in itself remove the dangers of atomic destruction”. Thus, the United States plan of 8 December does not envisage atomic disarmament, and in no way restricts an aggressor in the use of atomic and hydrogen weapons at any time or for any purpose. The plan cannot help to reduce the real danger of atomic war. Its aim is to weaken the vigilance of the peoples with respect to the problem of atomic weapons.
156. The real path to the prevention of the use of atomic energy for military purposes and its use for solely peaceful ends has been shown by the Soviet proposals. Agreement between the Soviet Union and the United. States on the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes would be of great significance. It is in the interest of all peoples throughout the world to ensure that atomic energy is used exclusively for peaceful construction, and not applied to the mass destruction of peoples, to wholesale devastation and annihilation.
157. It is known that the Soviet Union has repeatedly submitted important proposals, and amendments and additions to those proposals, designed to facilitate agreement on the prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and other weapons of mass destruction and the reduction of armaments and armed forces. At this session of the General Assembly, the Soviet Union has submitted Proposals [A/2742 and Corr.1] recommending that the United Nations Disarmament Commission should be instructed 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.
158. The carrying out of the measures set forth in the USSR proposals, it is proposed, should be completed not later than the carrying out of the measures taken for the reduction of armaments and armed forces referred to in paragraph 2 (a) of the draft resolution, and the production of atomic and hydrogen weapons should 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. 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 and appropriations for military requirements, the Soviet proposals provide for the creation of a standing international supervisory organ. This international organ would 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.
159. In connexion with the proposal concerning the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons except in defence against aggression in the French-United Kingdom memorandum of 11 June 1954 [DC/52, annex 9], the General Assembly would instruct the United Nations Disarmament Commission to study and clarify this question and submit its recommendations.
160. The Soviet Union has always striven and still strives for the adoption of proposals that are really designed to ensure international peace and security. The continuation of the armaments race not only subjects the peoples to an unbearable burden of armaments, but brings in its train a further aggravation of international relations, and leads to the creation of military groupings. That is why agreement on the question of the reduction of armaments and armed forces and the prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and other weapons of mass destruction is a matter of particularly great importance.
161. The representatives of Brazil, Ecuador and Ethiopia, in their statements on 1 October before plenary meetings of the General Assembly, said that the Soviet Union’s new proposals on the conclusion of an international convention on the reduction of armaments and the prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and other weapons of mass destruction encouraged the hope that an agreement would finally be concluded and that atomic energy would be directed to peaceful purposes.
162. The Byelorussian delegation entirely agrees with these statements, and considers the Soviet proposals a new effort, a new and important contribution to the solution of the problem of completely eliminating and prohibiting all weapons of mass destruction. They open up possibilities of ending the armaments race, removing the threat of atomic and hydrogen warfare, lightening the tax burden on the people, and strengthening peace and friendship among nations. They contribute to the relaxation of international tension and offer prospects for the large-scale use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes and the welfare of all mankind.
163. The Byelorussian people warmly support the Soviet Government’s proposals; they consider that atomic energy, that great invention of the human genius, should be used not against civilization, but for the progress of civilization in every field; not for mass annihilation, but for peaceful purposes to promote the welfare of all the peoples of the world.
164. The campaign of propaganda for a new war, which is being carried on in a number of countries, is a serious threat to peace and to the peaceful settlement of international problems. That campaign is compounded of war hysteria and malicious slander against the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and the peoples’ democracies; indeed, it goes to the extent of open incitement to rebellion against the existing governments of those countries.
165. In the United States and certain other countries, the General Assembly Resolution 110 (II) of 3 November 1947, condemning propaganda “which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression”, is being trodden underfoot.
166. At the present time, after the Berlin and Geneva Conferences, when the peoples of the world have been offered the hope of a continued relaxation in international tension, it is quite obvious that influential circles in certain countries are resolved by fair means or foul to increase tension in international affairs once more. These circles artificially maintain the atmosphere of war hysteria; they threaten the world with atomic and hydrogen bombs and openly proclaim a policy of “positions of strength” and the prolongation of the “cold war”, constantly resorting to methods of threat and intimidation.
167. In their speeches, the political and military leaders of the United States go so far as to call for the continuation and intensification of subversive, diversionary and terrorist activities against the USSR and the peoples’ democracies. In the American Press and on the radio, propaganda is carried on for a variety of plans involving the use of military bases for the preparation of attacks upon the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and the peoples’ democracies. It is openly stated in the Press that United States air bases have been planned for the destruction of Soviet industry, and that an atomic attack could be made from these bases on any target of importance in the Soviet Union.
168. The United States Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Carney, in his speech in New York on 27 May 1954 at a meeting of the National Security Industrial Association, called for a preventive war with the Soviet bloc. The time had come, he said, for an immediate trial of strength with the Soviet Union. The reckless character of this propaganda and of all this trumpery American boosting of plans for aggression must be obvious to every sober-minded person.
169. These bellicose statements by the unbridled propagandists of a new war are not just fortuitous. The reduction of international tension which has recently taken place has not been to the liking of the American monopolies, they see in the resumption of normal international relations, which would render the armaments race pointless, a threat to their profits.
170. Such propaganda is rightly condemned by world public opinion. The General Assembly should hearken to the voice of the common people throughout the world and call upon the governments of a number of countries to take decisive action to put an end to the propaganda being carried on in their countries, propaganda whose purpose is to create enmity and hatred amongst the nations and to prepare for a new world war. The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR entirely and unreservedly associates itself with this lawful and timely demand of the common people throughout the world.
171. The Byelorussian delegation feels compelled to call the attention of the General Assembly to the aggressive activities of the Kuomintang clique, which have found expression in violations of the freedom of merchant shipping in the area of the China seas and the illegal seizure of merchant ships of the USSR, Poland and other countries. As is well known — Mr. Skrzeszewski, the chairman of the Polish delegation, has already spoken on this subject today — the Polish merchant ships Praca and Prezydent Gottwald and the Soviet tanker Tuapse have been victims of piratical acts of this kind. The ships seized by the Kuomintang clique have still not been released, and their crews are being subjected to flagrant coercion, insults and terror. Such piratical acts are a gross violation of the universally recognized principle of freedom of the seas, and can only be regarded as deliberate acts of provocation intended to disrupt peace and tranquillity in the Far East and throughout Asia. These aggressive activities are taking place under the protection of the United States Seventh Fleet. They have caused rightful indignation among the peoples of Asia and the whole world. The General Assembly should put a stop to these criminal acts and categorically condemn both the Kuomintang clique and those who encourage it.
172. The present juncture in international relations is one of particular importance and responsibility. We all know well that the peoples of the entire world yearn for peace and loathe war. What is more, they are aware that the Soviet Union has pointed out ways to preserve and strengthen peace. The Soviet Union has consistently based its policy, and still does, on the conviction that the peaceful coexistence of States with different social systems is not only possible, but absolutely essential.
173. It is our duty to contribute to the settlement of international disputes, and to see that the recent improvement in the international atmosphere does not give way to a new increase in tension. We must try to bring the United Nations back to the path planned for it in the Charter, the path of assisting in the pacific settlement of all international disputes on the basis of respect for the sovereign rights of all nations. The peoples of the world look to the United Nations for effective and constructive action to strengthen international peace and security. Hundreds of millions of peoples trust and hope that there will be a further decrease in international tension. It is our duty to justify these noble hopes.
174. The Byelorussian people, like other peace-loving peoples, are vitally interested in preventing any further exacerbation of international relations. The Byelorussian people, who suffered the onslaught of Hitler’s armies, wish to ensure that mankind is not plunged once again into the abyss of a new world war.
175. The United Nations must carry out its duty and do everything possible to find positive solutions for such basic problems as the reduction of armaments and armed forces and the prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and other weapons of mass destruction, and _for other important problems relating to the strengthening of peace and international security.
176. The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR warmly supports the USSR delegation’s proposals and urges the delegations to the ninth session of the General Assembly to adopt them. Their sole and exclusive purpose is the reduction of international tension and the strengthening of peace throughout the world. In adopting these proposals, the General Assembly will be fulfilling its duty in its task of removing the threat of a new world war and alleviating international tension.