I should like to take this opportunity to extend greetings to the General Assembly at its ninth session and to wish it every success in its important and responsible work. The ninth session of the General Assembly is faced with great problems. The peoples rightly count on the Assembly to make greater efforts than heretofore to solve these problems in the interests of peace and international security.
2. The developments that have taken place in the international situation since the end of the war in Korea have shown that the conditions necessary for a further relaxation of international tension exist. A clear illustration of this was the Berlin Conference, at which the great Powers worked together again after an interval of five years. The mere fact of the convening of the Conference and the resumption of direct contact between the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of four great Powers was welcomed by the people of all countries. The Berlin Conference helped to clarify views on a number of most important international questions, and, in particular, it led to the agreement to convene a conference of the five great Powers at Geneva, with the participation of other countries. And the Geneva Conference succeeded, despite resistance from ruling circles in the United States, in bringing about the cessation of the eight-year Indo-Chinese war and the restoration of peace in that country, thereby extinguishing the flames of war at another Far Eastern danger-point and strengthening the cause of peace.
3. The experience of the Berlin and Geneva Conferences proves how useful international negotiations can be, and shows that other outstanding international questions which are a source of international tension and prevent good relations among peoples could be settled by the same means. Our primary objectives must be to remove the threat of a new world war and to bring about a substantial reduction of armaments, the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction, the liquidation of military bases in foreign territories, the cessation of war propaganda and the abandonment of the policy of creating aggressive military blocs.
4. At the Geneva Conference, the Governments of the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea pursued a policy based on the highest motives, and made great efforts to bring about a peaceful settlement of the Korean question. Despite those efforts, however, no agreement was reached on this question, owing to resistance from ruling circles in the United States, who are stubbornly opposed to the restoration of peace in Korea. But the peoples of the world are demanding with growing insistence the peaceful unification of Korea at the earliest possible date, in accordance with the principle of respect for the national rights of the Korean people.
5. The suggestion which Mr. Lloyd made in his speech that the Korean question is not urgent is inconsistent not only with the vital interests of the Korean people, who underwent grievous suffering during an unjust war, but also with the cause of peace in Asia.
6. The rulers of the United States ignore the legitimate rights and aspirations of the Asian peoples and their desire for freedom and independence. These peoples have struck out along the road of independent development, and no attempt to halt them has the slightest chance of success. The Asian peoples are more and more showing themselves to be important factors in international life; they wish to be masters of their own fate, no longer subject to foreign oppression and exploitation. This vast process of the renaissance of the Asian peoples is one of the most important phenomena of our epoch.
7. Like the Chinese and the Korean peoples, the other peace-loving Asian peoples will reject any outside attempt to interfere in their domestic affairs and dictate to them. This is an important factor in the present international situation, and should be recognized by all those who are standing in the path of the Asian peoples in their struggle for independence and national freedom.
8. The historic changes which have come about in Asia are of tremendous significance. The emergence of the People’s Republic of China and the heroic struggle of the Korean and Viet-Namese peoples for national independence and liberation are conclusive proof of the fact that the will of the Asian peoples to defend their vital interests is unshakable and will prevail. To fail to take account of this is to close one’s eyes to the facts.
9. The events of recent years have shown what an important part is being played in international affairs by that great Asian Power, the People’s Republic of China, whose peace-loving policy has won the warm approval of millions of people throughout the world. The constructive proposals put forward by the People’s Republic of China, which participated in the Geneva Conference side by side with the other great Powers, made a great contribution to the results achieved. Thereby the People’s Republic of China took its rightful place among the great Powers, and the restoration of its lawful rights in the United Nations is accordingly all the more urgently necessary.
10. The unfortunate vote taken in the General Assembly on the opening day of this session can only be deplored. By that decision, the People’s Republic of China was once again prevented from taking its rightful place in the United Nations. It is essential that the United Nations should face the facts, and, in its own interests, rectify the present anomalous situation in which the people of China, six hundred million strong, are unrepresented in this Organization.
11. However, the progress made in 1953 and especially in 1954 towards a further relaxation of international tension is meeting with resistance from international reactionary circles — in the United States, in particular — which are endeavouring to nullify the successes of the forces of peace and are continuing and intensifying their anti-peace policy. At the very beginning of this year, leading representatives of American ruling circles announced their new long-term programme, the notorious policy of “positions of strength” — the so-called “new look”, which in fact amounts to a policy of intensified military preparation and intimidation.
12. This is a highly disturbing development, for it has placed and is continuing to place more and more obstacles in the way of the peaceful settlement of international problems, and menaces every measure offering hope of a peaceful settlement of world issues. The continuance of the cold war, the carrying on of war propaganda and the dissemination of hatred among the peoples, the creation of aggressive blocs in various parts of the world, the construction of military bases in the territory of other States, and the adoption of a strategy based on the use of atomic and hydrogen weapons of mass destruction — these are policies constituting a grievous threat to the peace of the world.
13. The “new look" policy proclaimed by ruling circles in the United States can only be regarded as an attempt on their part to provoke new armed clashes, that is to say a new war, through the conversion of local disputes into a world conflict in which they would resort to “massive retaliation”, using means, as they say, of their own choosing. Mr. Dulles himself, the United States Secretary of State, announced this “new look” in American foreign policy in a speech which he made on 12 January 1954. In line with this concept, the United States will itself decide whether to resort to “massive retaliation” — which is being openly advocated by responsible military and political leaders in the United States — and where and to what extent it is to take place.
14. It is quite obvious that the principal intention of this policy is to launch a preventive war. And it must be equally obvious to everyone what is meant by the words “means of their own choosing”; it must be obvious that those means include weapons of mass destruction, and that atomic, hydrogen and other weapons of the same type are no doubt being used, as before, as a main instrument of intimidation and a principal force of aggression.
15. The so-called new military planning, which is being carried on by United States ruling circles in accordance with what Hanson Baldwin, military analyst of the New York Times, called “basic United States strategy” in an article published in that newspaper on 15 January 1954, is being based more and more firmly on the idea of a world atomic war. It is accompanied by fresh appeals for the launching of preventive and atomic wars. It is further apparent from the general idea underlying this “new look” policy that American aggressive circles by no means contemplate any prohibition of the use of weapons of mass destruction; on the contrary, their military planning is based entirely on the proposed extensive use of such weapons.
16. General Gruenther, Supreme Commander of the forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was reported in the New York Herald Tribune of 12 January 1954 as saying, in reply to a question about the possibility of prohibiting the use of atomic weapons, that he did not think there was any valid comparison between gas war and atomic war, and that he was convinced that atomic weapons would be used in any future war. Admiral Radford, Chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on 5 March 1954 that atomic weapons had acquired virtually conventional status in United States armaments, and that atomic weapons should be used simply as explosives of a new type.
17. Thus the Pentagon’s “new look” planning places predominant emphasis on the mass-destructive power of atomic, hydrogen and other weapons of mass destruction. This shows that reactionary circles in the United States are continuing their policy of trampling underfoot the fundamental interests of peace-loving mankind, and proves once again that United States policy is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the United Nations and constitutes a grave threat to international peace.
18. Mr. Dulles, the United States Secretary of State, said in the general debate [475th meeting, para. 120} that “international peace is an attainable goal”. We are convinced that this goal can and must be attained. However, the “new look”, the United States policy of “positions of strength” which was proclaimed early this year by none other than the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Dulles, will certainly not advance the cause of international peace; on the contrary, it is designed to make international peace impossible of achievement. The direct consequences of this policy are continued rearmament and the intensified militarization of national economies — features which the United States is forcing on the Western European countries also.
19. Rearmament brings astronomical profits to the arms-manufacturing monopolies, but at the same time it results in a systematic deterioration of standards of living for broad masses of people in the countries concerned. In international relations the “new look” policy is bringing about growing tension and increasing the threat of a new world war. Today the whole world is aware of the consequences of this pernicious policy, a policy resolutely condemned by all peace-loving peoples, whose only desire is for peaceful coexistence and the peaceful settlement of international disputes.
20. The economic difficulties created by the armaments race, the liquidation of United States monopoly of atomic and hydrogen weapons and its consequence, the failure of the policy of intimidation; the failure, too, of attempts to halt the economic development of the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and the peoples’ democracies, together with the constantly increasing interest of the capitalist States in the expansion of economic relations with these countries — all this offers graphic evidence of collapse of the policy of “positions of strength”. The fundamental cause of this collapse is the fact that that policy is contrary to the vital interests of the peace-loving peoples and accordingly cannot win their support.
21. The “new look” policy which has been initiated by the ruling circles in the United States, and the importance which is being attached in these circles to weapons of mass destruction, increase the immediate danger of the outbreak of atomic and hydrogen war. The first essential, therefore, is the conclusion of an agreement for the unconditional prohibition of the use of atomic and hydrogen weapons. The need for the banning of weapons of mass destruction is the more imperative in that atomic and hydrogen weapons are becoming more and more powerful, and their use would cause untold devastation.
22. The American hydrogen bomb tests carried out in the Pacific in the spring of this year show the ruthlessness of this atomic policy; at the same time, however, the universal revulsion which these United States atomic experiments have aroused among the Asian and other peoples demonstrated their determination to prevent the launching of atomic war. The peoples of Asia and the Pacific learned with justifiable anger that the American atom-mongers, disregarding the interests and even the lives of the local populations, were using for their experiments — experiments which were followed by disastrous consequences — not their own territory but territory thousands of miles away from the United States.
23. Prime Minister Nehru of India, in a statement in the Indian Parliament on 2 April 1954 [DC/44 and Corr.1], said: “The open ocean appears no longer open, except in that those who sail on it for fishing or other legitimate purposes take greater and unknown risks caused by these explosions. It is of great concern to us that Asia and her peoples appear to be always nearer these occurrences and experiments and their fearsome consequences, actual and potential.”
24. The indignation and revulsion of world public opinion against these experiments should be a grave warning to those who are spreading fear and war hysteria. What mankind expects, and is endeavouring to ensure, is that the great inventions of the human mind should be used for, and not against, civilization; not for mass destruction, but for peaceful ends, and for Progress and prosperity in every sphere.
25. World public opinion welcomed the news that in the Soviet Union the practical use of atomic energy for Peaceful purposes had already begun. As Mr. Vyshinsky, the Chairman of the Soviet delegation, said in his statement [484th meeting] that fact in itself strengthened faith in the tremendous future possibilities of atomic energy in the peaceful service of mankind.
26. The proposals submitted by the Soviet Union at this ninth session of the General Assembly show the way which the United Nations must follow if it wishes to make possible constructive decisions which would ease the burden of armaments and reduce international tension. The Soviet proposals offer a genuine opportunity for the conclusion of a comprehensive international agreement providing for the substantial reduction of armaments and the prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and other weapons of mass destruction, with the establishment of effective international control over the fulfilment of treaty obligations.
27. The Czechoslovak delegation is profoundly convinced that the Soviet proposals offer a sound basis for the conclusion of an agreement which would be the long-awaited answer to the aspiration and hopes of mankind. We unreservedly support the Soviet proposals, which, we are confident, will be acceptable to all who really desire the reduction of armaments and the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction.
28. Every dispassionate observer of facts and events knows that “security” based on the policy of positions of strength and the formation of closed military blocs must lead to the division of the world into hostile camps, to feverish rearmament and to the aggravation of international tension. Such a conception of “security” — expressions of which were the European Defence Community ignominiously rejected by the French National Assembly under the pressure of French public opinion and the military bloc set up at Manila — will not led to peace; the ends it pursues are precisely the opposite.
29. The military bloc created at Manila is essentially a bloc of colonial Powers, whose aim is to preserve their dominance and their political position in Asia and to turn back the clock of history, which has brought the peoples of Asia freedom and independence. The fact that the originators and adherents of the Manila Treaty are trying so hard to convince us of its defensive nature — as Mr. Dulles, Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Casey, the Australian representative, tried to do in their statements in the general debate — in no way alters the real nature of the Treaty; on the contrary, it merely emphasizes it. The Asian countries predominantly concerned — India, Burma and Indonesia — correctly interpreted the nature of the pact and refused to associate themselves with it. The abstention of the great majority of the Asian nations, representing more than four-fifths of the population of South-East Asia and more than nine-tenths of the population of the countries of Asia as a whole, is the most cogent possible testimony to the true nature of the new military bloc.
30. The division of Europe into closed groups of States presents a grave danger to peace and to the peaceful coexistence of European peoples, as the experience of the First and Second World Wars has shown. If we draw attention to the lessons of the First and Second World Wars, the reason is that one cannot fail to see in them analogies with events now taking place — particularly those which have recently occurred in Western Germany.
31. The peoples of Europe are well aware that a leading part in the organization of the two world wars was played by German militarism, that same militarism whose rebirth it is planned to hasten by the inclusion of West Germany in the Atlantic Pact. But the peoples of Europe are also very aware that there were real possibilities of checking the forces of reaction and war by applying the principle of collective security. If the Second World War occurred nevertheless, that was precisely because the aggressor succeeded in dividing Europe into military camps.
32. This lesson of history has cost many European peoples dear, among them the people of Czechoslovakia. That is why the Czechoslovak people associate themselves with the other European nations in emphatically protesting against the United States plan of creating hostile blocs in Europe, and against the policy of the remilitarization of West Germany.
33. In the present international situation what is more than ever necessary is, not the division of Europe into hostile camps, but the development of friendly cooperation between all the peoples of Europe and the concentration of efforts to establish mutual security.
34. The experience of two world wars compels the nations of Europe to seek a reliable path to the strengthening of peace in Europe. Such a path exists. It consists in the endeavour to establish a collective security system which will answer the basic national interests of all European countries.
35. As early as the Berlin Conference, the Soviet Union put forward the draft principles of a general European treaty on collective security in Europe. The draft principles received the support of a considerable number of countries. A system of general European collective security in which all European States participated regardless of differences in social structure would also create an atmosphere favourable to the settlement of the German question on a peaceful and democratic basis. Under these Soviet proposals it would be possible for both the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany, and after the unification of Germany, for a unified German State, to participate in the treaty. Thus, the obstacles to the settlement of the German question which have been created in recent years by the policy of remilitarizing West Germany would be removed.
36. In addition, the conclusion of a general European treaty on collective security would unquestionably contribute to the settlement of the Austrian question by removing the threat of an Anschluss and of the swallowing-up of Austria by a militarized West Germany. It is well known that the impossibility of concluding the Austrian State Treaty was due to the opposition of the Western Powers to the adoption of effective measures against this threat of Anschluss. The need for such effective measures is rendered more pressing by the fact that in the last few years the call for the return of Austria under the yoke of the German monopolies and for a new Anschluss has become increasingly insistent both in West Germany and in Austria.
37. In the face of these facts, no well-informed person will be deceived by the attempts of those who would absolve their governments of responsibility for the delay in settling the Austrian question — attempts which have been going on for several years and which have been renewed here during the general debate by Mr. Dulles and Mr. Lloyd.
38. In Austria itself, the conviction is constantly gaining ground that the most rapid method of securing the genuine independence, the territorial integrity and the inviolability of the frontiers of democratic Austria lies within a general European collective security system.
39. The establishment of such a general European defence system would make for a decidedly healthier atmosphere in Europe, hold the forces of aggression in check, make it possible to put an end to the feverish armaments race, and develop peaceful co-operation, as well as economic and cultural relations between States on a lasting basis.
40. The principles of collective security embodied in the Soviet proposals are based on respect for the national sovereignty of all countries, large and small, regardless of their social structure; hence, they correspond fully with the interests of all European peoples.
41. In this connexion it must be borne in mind that the consistent application of the principle of respect for the sovereignty of States is of paramount importance today. Its importance is all the greater in that the opponents of peace and those seeking world domination are disseminating theories that the concept of the sovereignty of States is obsolete and harmful, and are setting up all manner of supranational organizations — of which the European Defence Community project is an example — and similar groupings to help in the realization of their plans. It is no coincidence that the authors of these attacks on the sovereignty of States are the very people who at the same time instigate interventionist activities in the domestic affairs of other States, The principle of consistent respect for the sovereignty of States is in fact the basis of peaceful co-operation between peoples, and hence the indispensable basis of any effective system of collective security.
42. The Czechoslovak people, having had bitter experience of German expansionist aggression in the past, are watching the course of events in West Germany, Czechoslovakia’s immediate neighbour, with sharpened attention. Despite the hard-won experience of two world wars, the policy of reviving German militarism is not only being preached again, but is even being applied in the western part of Germany.
43. With the backing of ruling circles in the United States of America, which seek to arm the West German militarists as quickly as possible. Hitler’s politicians and generals are becoming ever more prominent in West Germany. Their policy of revenge is voiced with ever-increasing insolence. It is an unheard-of piece of insolence and a proof of the danger represented by German militarism that a former Hitlerite general should openly be calling for the occupation of France. The New York Journal-American of 25 September 1954 published an interview with General von Falkenhausen, the former German military governor of Occupied France and Belgium, in which he recommended that France should be occupied “for her own protection”. When the journalist interviewing him observed that in talking of occupying France he was using strong language and advocating strong measures, the general ominously replied: “Isn’t it about time that strong language was being used and very strong measures taken?”
44. Since the collapse of the European Defence Community, aggressive circles, especially in the United States, have been devoting much energy to the realization of their plan to revive West German militarism and a military coalition with the West German revanchistes in another form, under some new label, as the outcome of the London negotiations shows.
45. In his speech during the general debate [487th meeting], Mr. Lloyd spoke as a firm supporter of the policy of remilitarizing West Germany and expressed satisfaction at the results of the London Conference. Everybody knows, however, that to arm the West German militarists within the system of the aggressive North Atlantic Treaty would be just as dangerous to peace in Europe and the world as to revive the Wehrmacht within the system of a European army. That fact is not altered by any talk of so-called guarantees. Such talk merely betrays the uneasy conscience of its authors, and their aim is to deceive world public opinion and weaken its vigilance.
46. In its note of 27 September 1954, the Czechoslovak Government conveyed to the Governments of a number of European countries which had formerly been the victims of Hitlerite aggression an urgent warning against the danger of a revival of German militarism and spirit of revenge. The Czechoslovak Government’s note calls for the taking of the necessary steps for a peaceful settlement of the German question and the establishment of a system of collective security in Europe. In its note, the Czechoslovak Government reaffirms its conviction that the strengthening of peaceful political, economic and cultural ties between the countries of Europe, irrespective of differences in social structure, would be an important contribution to peace and security in Europe and a big step forward towards a settlement of the German question.
47. The revival of an aggressive German army and its inclusion in a military coalition would confirm the partition of Germany, accelerate the armaments race and still further accentuate those disagreements between the two parts of Europe which stand in the way of European security.
48. Hence, the draft European collective security treaty submitted at the Berlin Conference by Mr. V. M. Molotov, Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, is of particular importance, for its entry into force would mean the removal of that danger and the creation of conditions for the peaceful coexistence and collaboration of all European nations.
49. The function of the United Nations in the present situation is to exert every effort to establish and apply the principles of the peaceful settlement of international disputes and the development of friendly collaboration between the nations. States must decide the important issues in the present international situation by their common efforts and in accordance with the principles of the Charter. The United Nations must also help effectively in restoring normal international relations and in bringing about a further relaxation of international tension. The peoples of the world call for the preservation and strengthening of peace, and they sincerely desire that the United Nations should renew and strengthen its authority by overcoming the forces which are leading it away from faithful observance of the Charter.
50. The Czechoslovak Government, which faithfully discharges its obligations under the Charter, is wholeheartedly in favour of the development of all forms of friendly collaboration between nations, so that they may freely develop their national life and mutual relations in conditions of peace. It is convinced that such collaboration can prosper if based on mutual equality, consistent observance of the principle of non-interference and the fulfilment of international obligations.
51. In its domestic policy, the Czechoslovak Government is devoting a large proportion of State resources to promoting industrial and agricultural production and trade and transport, so as to secure a steady improvement in the material conditions and cultural level of the whole nation. With the tireless, disinterested help of the Soviet Union, and in close collaboration with the people’s democracies, the Czechoslovak people have achieved considerable success in following such a policy during the last five years. There is no unemployment, poverty or hunger among the workers in the Czechoslovakia Republic, and per capita consumption has increased during this period by one-fifth.
52. Further evidence of the Czechoslovak Government’s peaceful policy is offered by the fact that in 1954 budgetary allocations for education, cultural purposes, public health and social welfare amounted to 31.2 per cent of the whole budget, while those for national defence amounted to only 8.9 per cent.
53. The Czechoslovak people are vitally interested in the preservation of peace, for they know that Only in conditions of peace can steady progress in welfare be fully maintained. In order to strengthen peace and peaceful collaboration among the nations, an end must be put to all forms of propaganda aimed at deluding world public opinion by spreading doubts as to the possibility of the peaceful coexistence of countries with different systems of social organization. The purpose of the fictitious allegations and slander repeated in the various forms of war propaganda is to create an atmosphere of fear and war hysteria and thus to prepare the ground psychologically for a new war. Such propaganda is being intensified in a large number of countries. Not a few national and responsible military leaders, especially in the United States, are bluntly urging war.
54. Only recently, Senator Knowland, the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate of the United States, published in Collier’s magazine of 1 October 1954 an article characteristically entitled “We Must Be Willing To Fight Now”, in which he attempts to prove the impossibility of the peaceful coexistence of the two systems, calls the termination of the Korean and Indo-Chinese wars a big mistake, and urges that war should be started immediately. In his speech in Detroit on 27 September 1954, Admiral Radford, Chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, reaffirmed the policy of massive retaliation propounded by Secretary of State Dulles. General Gruenther, Supreme Commander of the forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, keeps repeating that atomic weapons will be Used in the future war.
55. In its efforts to condition the people psychologically and increase war hysteria, war propaganda in the United States uses methods which recall those employed during the period preceding the Second World War. In the New York Times of 29 April 1954, Hanson Baldwin, the newspaper’s military analyst, already wrote about the “age of the push-button and of atomic arms”. Thus, the peoples of the United States and other countries are being persuaded that war and the use of the most frightful weapons are inevitable.
56. The military propaganda in the United States leaves no one in any doubt as to who is the intended victim of the attack that is being prepared. With a cynicism which arouses disgust and justified indignation among all peace-loving peoples, the military strategists calculate exactly how many hours of flight are necessary to drop bombs on the industrial centres of the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and the people’s democracies.
57. An editorial in the weekly US. News & World Report states, with the indifference of a merchant of death, that for its $700 million assistance to Spain the United States will receive a base from which jet bombers with atomic bombs will be able to fly to Moscow in a few hours; and in an article published in the 24 August 1954 issue of the magazine Look, the former United States Ambassador Bullitt attempts to frighten the Americans with the danger apparently lurking in the peaceful development of the People’s Republic of China. He calls for the “liberation” of the Chinese mainland, and proposes that a war should be started in which the Americans would use only naval and air forces for atomic attack, while the burden of the ground fighting would be left — in accordance with the declared principle of “Asians against Asians” — to the forces of Chiang Kai-shek and Syngman Rhee.
58. These few examples show that, despite the condemnation of war propaganda contained in the General Assembly resolution 110 (II) of 3 November 1947, intensified war propaganda is being conducted in a number of countries, especially the United States. This propaganda is being engaged in at a time when the nations are trying to achieve an improvement in their mutual relations and a relaxation of international tension, and when their efforts in this direction have already resulted in such considerable successes as the termination of the war in Korea and Indo-China.
59. The propaganda in favour of a new war which is being conducted in a number of countries cannot be interpreted otherwise than as an effort to spread hatred and enmity among peoples and aggravate the international situation. The General Assembly of the United Nations cannot ignore these facts.
60. The Czechoslovak delegation therefore proposes that a new item, entitled “Prohibition of propaganda in favour of a new war” should be included in the agenda of the General Assembly.
61. At the same time, the Czechoslovak delegation proposes the following draft resolution [A/2744] : “The General Assembly, “Considering that the cessation of hostilities in Korea and the restoration of peace in Indo-China have contributed to a relaxation of tension in international relations and that more favourable conditions have consequently been created for the settlement of unsolved international problems and the strengthening of peace, “Noting at the same time that propaganda in favour of a new war, which was condemned by the General Assembly in a special resolution adopted on 3 November 1947, not only has not been brought to an end, but is becoming increasingly prevalent in many countries, that appeals for war and for the use of war bases in foreign territories for the invasion and bombardment of the large cities and industrial centres of various countries with the use of atomic and hydrogen weapons are being systematically broadcast through the press, radio and cinema and that public officials not infrequently call for aggressive action against other States, "Recognizing that aggressive propaganda of this kind constitutes a serious obstacle to the further relaxation of international tension and the improvement of relations between States, “Calls upon all Governments strictly to observe the General Assembly resolution of 3 November 1947 condemning all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, and “Recommends that all States, both Members and non-Members of the United Nations, should take effective measures against all forms of propaganda tending to create hostility and hatred among nations and increasing the danger of a new world war as being incompatible with the fundamental principles and purposes of the United Nations and as constituting a serious obstacle to the development of normal relations among States and the strengthening of world peace.”
62. The Czechoslovak people desires peace with all its heart, and it is therefore exerting itself to the utmost to promote the strengthening of peace and the peaceful coexistence of nations. We are firmly convinced that the cause of peace, which is the cause of all ordinary people throughout the world, will prevail.
63. The ninth session of the General Assembly can do much to strengthen peace and international security. The Czechoslovak delegation will seek with all its strength to help the General Assembly to deal successfully with the tasks which a peace-loving humanity expects it to accomplish.