On behalf of the delegation of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, I should like to take-this opportunity to extend greetings to the representatives attending the ninth session of the General Assembly and to express the hope that the work of the session will be successful.
49. During the general debate various views were expressed on the international situation and on the nature and significance of the political, economic and social problems which the General Assembly has to consider. In our view, proposals designed to achieve world peace and security should, along with other proposals, be given most careful consideration, more particularly the Soviet Union’s proposals [A/2742 and Corr.1] concerning the conclusion of a convention on the reduction of armaments and the prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and other weapons of mass destruction.
50. The USSR delegation’s proposals have evoked widespread interest and have increased the hopes of peoples that an appropriate agreement may be achieved which would be designed to strengthen peace and increase international security and which would provide for the prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and other weapons of mass destruction and a substantial reduction in conventional armaments.
51. The delegation of the Ukrainian SSR deems it even more essential to stress that favourable conditions exist for the adoption of agreed decisions on the international problems under consideration, and this can be achieved on the basis of mutual understanding, co-operation and an objective appraisal of the events which have occurred and are now occurring in the world.
52. As has already been pointed out, the ninth session of the General Assembly gets under way at a time when the efforts of peace-loving forces to bring about a relaxation of tension in international relations have achieved some heartening successes. The cessation of hostilities in Korea was an effective beginning towards the settlement by negotiation of controversial international questions. The armistice agreement in Korea made it possible for the representatives of the great Powers to convene in Berlin with a view to settling other outstanding problems. The Berlin Conference helped to clarify points of view on a number of important international problems and paved the way for another international conference at Geneva in which, for the first time since the war, the representatives of the five great Powers — namely, the United States, the People’s Republic of China, the USSR, the United Kingdom and France — took part. The Geneva agreements on the cessation of hostilities in Indo-China, which had continued for eight years, signified international recognition of the struggle of the people of Indo-China for national liberation.
53. In his annual report on the work of the United Nations, the Secretary-General quite rightly points out [A/2663, p. xi] that “the bringing to an end of the fighting in Korea and Indo-China has been ... the most important development of the past year for the United Nations and, indeed, in the whole struggle for peace.”
54. It would be difficult to deny the great influence of the peace-loving policy of the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and the people’s democracies, which, together with the efforts of the parties concerned, had a great effect on the results of the Geneva conference.
55. Obviously, the policy of friendship among peoples and of respect for the rights and interests of all nations, large and small, which is one of the fundamental and inviolable principles of the Soviet State, is exerting an increasingly beneficial influence on international relations.
56. The events of the past year lead to the following conclusions. In the first place, the results of the Geneva Conference, as Mr. Molotov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Soviet Union, has noted, confirmed the correctness of the principle upheld in the Soviet Union’s whole foreign policy that there are no controversial problems in current international relations which are not susceptible of solution by negotiation and agreement designed to strengthen peace. Hence, negotiations among the Powers concerned on outstanding international problems may have positive results, may lead to the relaxation of international tension and the strengthening of peace. The strengthening of peace through negotiations aimed at the settlement of controversial problems in Asia, Europe and other parts of the world meets the national interests of every country.
57. In the second place, the Geneva Conference, at which the People’s Republic of China took its legitimate place in the ranks of the other Powers, clearly indicated the important role in the solution of international problems to be played by the 600 million Chinese people and their Central People’s Government at Peking. It has therefore long since been necessary to discard a policy based on the assumption that it is possible at the present time to solve international problems without the People’s Republic of China, particularly problems relating to the maintenance of peace and security; that it is possible, without infringing the principles of the United Nations Charter, to ignore the right of the People’s Republic of China to take its legitimate place in the United Nations.
58. Since the majority in the General Assembly continues at this session, too, to refuse to consider the question of restoring the legitimate rights of the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations, how can one reconcile the declarations of faith in the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter which some representatives have made from this rostrum with the stubborn refusal to be guided by those principles with respect to the Chinese people, a great and peace-loving nation? Obviously, the talk of adherence to the United Nations Charter is necessary in order to conceal acts which are prompted rather by ideological considerations or preconceived hostility than by a realistic appraisal of the facts. Such a policy cannot long endure.
59. Among the problems affecting the fate of millions of people, the maintenance of world peace and international co-operation is a national necessity for all States, whether they are represented in the United Nations or not. The Charter of the United Nations begins with the solemn statement that the United Nations is “determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind”.
60. The peoples wish to live in peace and friendship. The peoples’ movement in favour of peace has now become the most significant phenomenon of international life. A relaxation of political tension has rewarded the efforts of the peace-loving forces which are fighting for peace and the prevention of a new war, the war which aggressive circles are seeking to unleash, their main target being the peoples who have adopted a different social order and a different social and political system.
61. But the danger to the peoples does not reside in the fact that different social systems or ideologies exist. The real danger lies in the aggressive policy of “positions of strength” which is wholly incompatible with the principle of peaceful coexistence, in the new strategy of so-called “massive retaliation” which, as cam be seen from statements by leading American political figures, is associated with strategic atomic bombardments and is fraught with the risk of a third world war.
62. Mr. Lloyd, who spoke yesterday [487th meeting], gave an example of a distorted representation of the facts when he repeated the absurd accusations against the Soviet Union of having committed acts which gave him no reason to believe the sincerity of the Soviet Union’s desire for peaceful coexistence. One might imagine Mr. Lloyd to be one of the ardent champions of peaceful coexistence, but this is far from being the case. His defence of the policy of remilitarizing West Germany and his justification of aggressive, restricted military groups lead one to the conclusion that the last thing he believes in is the possibility of peaceful coexistence and that he evidently does not consider that peaceful coexistence is a vital necessity for the United Kingdom either.
63. Mr. Eden, on the other hand, takes a different position. On 23 June of this year he told the House of Commons that the policy of peaceful coexistence was the United Kingdom’s aim and the aim of every country. We may assume that Sir Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister, holds the same view.
64. Mr. Lloyd’s false inferences were loaded with rude remarks, and his attempts to raise the spectre of a “world revolution”, allegedly the aim of Soviet foreign policy — a more ridiculous assertion can hardly be imagined — and his attempts deliberately to distort and besmirch the peaceful policy of the Soviet Union, made his intentions quite clear. His whole speech was indicative of tendencies not at all conducive to a further relaxation of international tension or the creation of a more favourable atmosphere for the settlement of important international problems which are still unresolved despite all the efforts of the Soviet Union and other peace-loving countries.
65. In his statement on 23 September [475th meeting] Mr. Dulles observed that the United States of America would confidently and steadily so act that peace might become “a sustaining principle of action”. In itself such a statement deserves a favourable response, if the principle is to be taken as meaning action aimed at the maintenance of international peace. However, careful analysis of the foreign policy of the United States shows that its dominant trend is inimical to the maintenance and strengthening of peace. The United States is resolutely striving through “positions of strength” to achieve a dominant role in the world, and is attempting, in the teeth of historical necessity, to revive dead social relationships destroyed in the march of history and to thwart the national liberation movement of the peoples of Asia, Africa and other continents. Also obvious to all are the actions of the reactionary groups designed to frustrate the favourable turn in international relations towards a relaxation of tension which the Korean armistice and the settlement of the Indo-China question have brought about.
66. Attempts are being made to intensify the “cold war” in order to continue the militarization of economies and the armaments race, the establishment of new military bases on foreign territory and the stockpiling of atomic and hydrogen weapons, and to facilitate the organization of closed military groups. One such closed group with far-reaching consequences is the military bloc recently established under the Manila Treaty.
67. A noteworthy and highly characteristic circumstance is the fact that the members of the new military bloc in Asia are for the most part colonial powers, and that the Asian countries invited to become parties to the Treaty represent but one-tenth of the population of Asia, the overwhelming majority of the countries and peoples of Asia being opposed to this Treaty. This fact alone shows that the real aims of the Manila Treaty have nothing in common with the true interests of the Asian peoples and with the principles on which international co-operation should be based: the principles of mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, non-aggression, non-intervention in the domestic affairs of States, equal rights, mutual benefit and peaceful coexistence. The fact that some delegations here have described the new military bloc as an instrument of peace and prosperity does not change its colonialist and aggressive nature with all the ensuing consequences for the Asian peoples.
68. The final draft of the Treaty, for example, retains article 4 of the earlier draft, which, on the pretext of combating subversive activities, provides for concerted action by the parties to the Treaty to suppress the popular movements in Asia for national independence and liberation from the yoke of colonialism. The official United States Press describes the Manila Treaty as the first official instrument of our time designed to permit international intervention in the domestic affairs of States, intervention which, moreover, can take any form, from economic and military aid to direct intervention.
69. Thus, the military alliance which the United States has formed in Asia is essentially a bloc of the colonialist Powers seeking to preserve their political and economic positions in Asia, while the pious declarations in the agreement about keeping and safeguarding the peace are there merely to reassure public opinion. However, the situation in Asia has changed radically and, no matter what steps are taken, it will continue to change in the direction of independent national development; the operation of the established laws of history cannot be prevented, and the course of history cannot be stopped, least of all by means of force.
70. In considering the position in the Far East, we cannot of course overlook the fact that the situation in that area remains tense owing to the unceasing acts of provocation by the Kuomintang which the Chinese people expelled from China and which has taken refuge on the island of Taiwan. Chiang Kai-shek’s pirates, under cover of the United States Seventh Fleet, which has established illegal control in the China seas, are attacking and seizing merchant ships of various countries and subjecting their crews to violence. The acts of piracy of the Kuomintang and of the United States authorities which are encouraging them are in flagrant violation of the generally accepted principles and standards of international law and, in particular, of the principle of freedom of the high seas. They are crimes which should be severely censured by the United Nations.
71. In Europe, too, the designs of those who inspire the policy of “positions of strength” are just as clear and dangerous as they are in Asia. Their plans for the division of Europe into opposing military camps and for the revival of German militarism, which more than once has brought devastation and ruin to many countries, are plans not for peace but for war.
72. The true way to ensure real security for Europe is to be found in the Soviet Government’s proposal for an European collective security treaty, which takes full account of the experience of history and of the urgent needs of the nations of Europe. While there is no need at this point to make a comprehensive analysis of this problem, the Ukrainian delegation wishes to state that the Government of the Ukrainian SSR is firmly convinced that the cause of peace can be served only by an all-European system of collective security, a system which would include all States, regardless of their social structure, which would recognize and guarantee existing State frontiers, safeguard the national sovereignty of States, impose upon them the obligation not to interfere in the internal affairs of other States, and provide for the participation in the collective security scheme of both parts of Germany until such time as they can be replaced by a unified Germany.
73. The Ukrainian people, which has been devoting all its efforts to the tasks of peaceful construction and raising the standard of living, remembers the lessons of the past and the untold suffering caused by repeated acts of aggression by the German militarists. It unanimously protests against the threat of a revival of German militarism which now overshadows the whole political life of Europe and is causing anxiety and uncertainty regarding the future.
74. The Ukrainian delegation also wishes to draw the attention of the United Nations to the campaign to create hatred and hostility among nations and to make propaganda in favour of a new war, which is being conducted on a wide scale in the United States. As early as 1947 the United Nations unanimously adopted resolution 110 (II) condemning all forms of war propaganda. Under that resolution, Member States undertook to take appropriate steps “to promote . . . friendly relations among nations” and “to encourage the dissemination of all information designed to give expression to the undoubted desire of all peoples for peace”. In actual fact, however, in the United States, not only the reactionary portion of the Press, which is linked with certain specific social circles, but also persons in important government posts are engaging in war propaganda and giving wide publicity to plans for atomic attack on the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and the people’s democracies, urging the use of weapons of mass destruction to create what they call a “scorched-earth belt” and to cancel out the inexhaustible human resources of Asia. In the Middle Ages it was proclaimed that it was better to have a desert than a country populated by heretics; today, the slogan of United States war propaganda is that it is better to have scorched earth than countries with a way of life other than the so-called American way of life.
75. Senator Knowland, the Republican majority leader in the United States Senate, published in the 1 October 1954 issue of Collier’s an article significantly entitled, “We Must Be Willing to Fight Now.” Dragging out the moth-eaten communist bogey. Senator Knowland urged the United States and other western countries to be ready to wage war, “now, if necessary”. That, in his opinion, would show “hard, rare courage”. I would point out that Senator Knowland is a public figure who helps to shape United States foreign policy. Far from being condemned or stopped, the propaganda in favour of the extermination of peoples by atomic and hydrogen weapons is actually encouraged under the pretext of what is called freedom of the press, although it must be clear that propaganda in favour of crime and incitement to crime have nothing to do with freedom of the press.
76. At this time, when a relaxation of international tension is to be observed and the possibilities of settling controversial problems have increased, the United Nations must once again speak out against the war propaganda being carried on in the United States and other countries, and brand it as a heinous crime against humanity.
77. Accordingly, the Ukrainian delegation firmly supports the proposal [A/2744] submitted today by the Czechoslovak delegation, that the General Assembly should examine the question of the prohibition of propaganda in favour of a new war as an item of an urgent and pressing character.
78. The security of both Europe and Asia can be ensured if all States, whatever their political and social structure, co-operate and agree on a general reduction of armaments and the prohibition of atomic and hydrogen weapons. The achievement of agreement on the reduction of armaments and the removal of the threat of war has been and continues to be a matter of primary importance, of the most urgent and pressing nature. That is why since 1946 the Government of the Soviet Union has repeatedly submitted to the General Assembly for consideration proposals for the unconditional prohibition of atomic and other weapons of mass destruction with the establishment of strict international control over such prohibition, and a proposal for the substantial reduction of the conventional armaments of States.
79. On 30 September 1954, the Soviet Union delegation submitted a draft resolution [A/2742 and Corr.1] concerning the conclusion of an international convention on the reduction of armaments and the prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and other weapons of mass destruction, which is of the utmost importance for ensuring international peace and security.
80. The first paragraph of the draft resolution submitted by the Soviet Union delegation stresses that the international convention should be based on the French and United Kingdom proposals of 11 June 1954 [DC/53, annex 9], Under the draft resolution, the Disarmament Commission would be instructed to prepare a draft convention 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. Provision is made for two successive reductions of armaments and budgetary appropriations for military requirements, to the extent of 50 per cent of the agreed levels, from the strength of armaments and armed forces existing on 31 December 1953.
81. In view of the increasingly destructive power of atomic weapons, the question of the international settlement of the problem of the cessation of the production, and the prohibition of the use, of such weapons is becoming ever more urgent. It is therefore only natural that the Soviet Union draft resolution should give this question the importance it deserves. The only means of averting the threat of an atomic war is the complete and unconditional prohibition of thermonuclear weapons and their elimination from the armaments of States. Only in this way can mankind be protected against the threat of mass annihilation.
82. An important question in considering ways of implementing the reduction of armaments and the prohibition of atomic weapons is that of ensuring the compulsory application of prohibition and reduction, with guarantees that the convention to be signed will in fact be observed by all States, and that no State’s security will be jeopardized as the result of violation of the convention. The way to ensure this is to establish effective international control. The USSR draft resolution provides for the establishment, first, of a temporary international control commission and, subsequently, of a standing international control organ. This proposal must be regarded as satisfactory in every respect.
83. The USSR draft resolution for the conclusion of a convention on the substantial reduction of armaments and the establishment of international control provides a practical basis for the adoption by the General Assembly of a decision which would be acceptable to all States, a decision so anxiously awaited by the peoples of the world. The Ukrainian delegation warmly supports this draft resolution which is of such great importance for the strengthening of world peace and international security.