The general debate on the report of the Secretary-General offers us an opportunity to state our views both on individual questions of interest to this or that country and on the general questions of international co-operation. Such an exchange of views should be useful in establishing mutual understanding among the United Nations. It is also necessary in order to improve the work of the Organization and its important organs, such as the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and others.
The United Nations is only in the initial stage of its activities. There are necessarily substantial shortcomings in its work, if only because it is only beginning to apply its new principles and that under conditions which greatly differ from those of the past. But precisely for this reason it is in the interests of the United Nations not to hush up the existing shortcomings but to expose them from the very outset and to take care that they are not allowed to occur in the future. Naturally, this applies primarily to the Security Council since it has to deal daily with important problems relating to the defence of universal peace, in regard to which the interests and views of individual States are not infrequently in conflict.
Take the question of Spain and the Iranian question.
The Security Council, and still earlier the General Assembly, found nothing better than to make general declarations against Franco. The Secretary-General has rightly pointed out, in this Connexion, that this is, of course, absolutely insufficient. On the other hand, the proposal to sever relations with Franco was not adopted. In this way certain great Powers which set this tone took upon themselves the moral responsibility for the failure to take action in respect of a dangerous hotbed of fascism in Europe.
The Iranian question arose in connexion with the time-limits on the stay in Iran of certain Soviet military units stationed there under treaty. Even when these military units had left Iranian territory, and both the Soviet and the Iranian Governments requested that the question be removed from the agenda, the Security Council refused to do so and adopted an absolutely unjustified, and frankly ill-disposed, attitude towards the Soviet Union. In acting in this manner, the Security Council made a gross mistake, which is bound to undermine its authority.
I will now turn to the World Federation of Trade Unions.
One would think it would be quite natural for the United Nations to establish friendly ties with the World Federation of Trade Unions which has come into being in recent years and which embraces tens of millions of workers of many countries. This is particularly necessary for the Economic and Social Council, which will be unable to ensure the success of its work unless it has the support of such mass democratic organizations as the World Federation of Trade Unions.
In actual fact, however, the situation is entirely different. Up to now the World Federation has not been associated with the every-day work of the Economic and Social Council. But that is not all. Is it right that the terms of representation in the Economic and Social Council should be the same for this Organization as for the International Automobile Association, the National Association of Dried Fruits Retailers, et cetera? Is it not time to put right also in this field a situation which is out of keeping with the elementary principles of democracy?
Let us consider now, the state of affairs in respect of the establishment of an international trusteeship system. It might be thought that someone is deliberately hindering the establishment of the Trusteeship Council. But is not the authority of our Organization being undermined by the fact that, after more than a year, it has been unable to create the Trusteeship Council which will have the duty of improving the living conditions of the peoples who inhabit the territories under mandates held by Great Britain, France, Belgium, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa, and which should promote their development in the direction of self-government and independence?
But what is the situation in actual fact? Not a single step has been taken along this path by the countries which keep a firm grip on the mandates of Palestine and Tanganyika, Togoland and New Guinea, etc., and which confine themselves in the meantime to the writing of unsatisfactory drafts and insignificant declarations. Incidentally, the Government of the Union of South Africa has gone even further and instead of taking measures to prepare South West Africa for self-government or independence, simply demands that annexation of this territory be sanctioned, a course which, as is obvious to everyone, is entirely contrary to the Charter of the United Nations.
In this connexion I will also mention India. Although India is a Member of the United Nations, and consequently, in accordance with the Charter, her relationship to Great Britain should be based on sovereign equality, have you not heard here in the General Assembly India’s appeal for support and assistance? We cannot turn a deaf ear to this situation. It is time that the just demands of India were recognized.
Likewise, the Netherlands must recognize the just demands of the people of Indonesia.
I shall now speak about Greece. But one cannot remain indifferent to the fact that the Greek fascists have tin-own off all restraint, thanks to the protection afforded them by the British occupation forces.
Take another example. Two months ago the Soviet representative submitted the following proposal to the Security Council:
“States Members of the United Nations are required to submit the following information to the Security Council within two weeks:
“1. At what points in the territory of Members of the United Nations or other States, with the exception of former enemy territories, and in what number, are armed forces of other Members of the United Nations stationed.
“2. At what points in the above-mentioned territories are air and naval bases situated and what is the size of their garrisons belonging to the armed forces of other Member States of the United Nations.
“3. The information to be provided under paragraphs 1 and 2 should refer to the situation as it existed on 1 August 1946.”
The need for the Security Council to obtain this information seems quite obvious, not to mention the fact that the presence of armed forces of the United Nations outside the confines of their country and in territories other than enemy territories — the occupation regime for which has been specially laid down — is now giving rise to serious uneasiness among the peoples and in the public opinion of the whole world.
I draw the attention of the Assembly to the situation that has arisen in this particular case.
In accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter, the Military Staff Committee has already begun to examine the question of the armed forces which the Members of the United Nations must place at the disposal of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security, as provided for in Article 43. In this connexion it is natural that the Security Council should know the actual situation, namely, what armed forces of the United Nations are at present stationed outside the confines of their countries and where they are situated. The submission of this information should, of course, be obligatory for all the United Nations. The Soviet Union, on its part, is prepared to submit this information to the Security Council and sees no reason whatsoever for refusal on the part of any other Member of the United Nations to do the same.
What reasons can there actually be to refuse to submit these data to the Security Council? Why should anyone of us conceal from the United Nations the actual position as regards this question? What have the Governments of the Members of the United Nations to be afraid of when they are required by the Security Council to submit the information that is needed for the implementation of the provisions of the Charter? For its part, the Soviet Union is prepared to submit this information to the Security Council and sees no reason to conceal the actual position as regards this question from the other United Nations and thereby hinder the Security Council in the execution of its duties.
Unfortunately, the proposal of the Soviet Union was not adopted in the Security Council, since it was opposed by the representatives of Great Britain and the United States of America and, along with them, by the representatives of some other countries. The discussion of this important question is dragging along in the Council. Nevertheless, the Soviet Government expresses its confidence that we shall be able to reach agreement on this question and to push the matter ahead. It is essential for the General Assembly to state its weighty opinion on this subject.
The facts which I have cited concerning the Spanish question, the relationship with the World Federation of Trade Unions, the question of trusteeship and other matters that have been so far discussed, show that there are serious defects in the work of the United Nations and of its individual organs. The number of such instances could be considerably augmented. This is particularly true of the Security Council. There is a misguided desire to attribute the shortcomings of the Council’s work merely to the use of the so-called “veto.” The hubbub raised over this issue is apparently needed in order to divert our attention from the most important shortcomings in the activities of the United Nations and, in this way, to lay the blame at the wrong door. But let us hope that these attempts will be doomed to failure.
In any case the General Assembly has not met in order to overlook the main trend of the development of international relations in our time.
We should be interested above all to know in what direction international co-operation is developing at present. Does the new Organization contribute to that international co-operation, in the interests of the peace and security of nations, for which it was created? Are we going along the right path? That is the main question.
The United Nations was created while the flames of the second world war were still raging. It was created by the same anti-Hitler coalition that was headed by the United States of America, Great Britain and the Soviet Union, which bore on their shoulders the brunt of the struggle against our common enemy and which were anxious to create an effective international organization for the defense of post-war peace and security. At the same time, it was recognized as necessary to take into account the grave lessons of the past and, above all, the generally known fact of the impotence and failure of the League of Nations, in order to avoid repeating its weaknesses and mistakes and to create an organization which would not suffer from its principal defects.
The main principle of the League of Nations was the unanimity of all its Members in taking decisions. This rendered the League of Nations ineffective, because it enabled any interested member to hinder or to frustrate altogether any proposed decision. The League proved to be powerless to take measures against aggressive Powers, which were always able to find subordinates among the members of the League.
The United Nations Charter has introduced a new procedure for the adoption of decisions. It has now been laid down that the General Assembly shall adopt its important decisions by a two-thirds majority. As to the Security Council, which bears the main responsibility for the maintenance of peace and for measures against aggression, the decision on questions of this nature requires not only a majority of not less than seven out of the eleven members of the Security Council but is also conditioned upon the unanimity of the five great Powers, the United States of America, Great Britain, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, France and China, whose unanimity is, so to speak, a guarantee of the interests of the United Nations as a whole.
The principle of the unanimity of the great Powers was adopted not by chance, but after a thorough and lengthy discussion. The recognition of this principle reflected the desire of the United Nations to ensure co-ordination and unity of action on the part of the great Powers in counteracting any possible aggression. Before the second world war the great Powers were not animated by this desire for unity of action in defence of peace and security, and therein lay the greatest misfortune for the whole of mankind. The United States of America stood aloof from the high road, so to speak. In regard to the Soviet Union, the principal members of the League of Nations pursued a short-sighted and out-and-out reactionary policy.
The hard trials of the war led the Governments of the great western Powers to the conviction that it was necessary to act in harmony against the common enemy during the war, and to the recognition of the necessity of forming such an international organization to deal with post-war problems as would maintain the profoundly progressive principle forged in the war, the principle of the unity of the great Powers which rallied around them all the democratic States. It follows from this that the principle of the unanimity of the great Powers in matters relating to the defence of peace and security is deep-rooted, and that this principle was recognized by the United Nations, which were actuated by the desire for a more reliable defence of the interests of all peace-loving States, both great and small.
Of late, a wide-scale campaign has been launched against the recognition of this principle. No chance was missed of engaging in long-winded discussions of this principle, while the problem of the necessary unity of the great Powers is glossed over in every way and is constantly being replaced by the specific question of the manner in which the so-called “veto” is to be applied in deciding questions in the Security Council.
What is the meaning of the campaign against the veto, that is to say, against the right of any of the great Powers not to permit a decision to be adopted in the Security Council which it considers undesirable in the interests of the maintenance of peace and international security? What will be the outcome of renunciation of the principle of unanimity of the great Powers in deciding questions of this nature?
It is easy to foresee the results of such a renunciation. No one will now suggest that we should go back to the bankrupt League of Nations with its unanimity of all members in adopting decisions. Consequently, there is a desire to utilize the renunciation of this principle in order to impose a procedure whereby decisions would be adopted by a majority vote. Proposals to this effect have already been made here in the General Assembly. There are even people who represent such a procedure for the adoption of decisions within an international, organization as the most democratic one, as if the best democracy worthy of universal recognition would be to consider, in an international organization, that the vote of Honduras is equal to that of the United States of America, or the vote of Haiti to that of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which represents a federation of sixteen Republics. It seems obvious that it is not worth while wasting words on arguments regarding this sort of “democracy.”
However, this does not mean that the campaign conducted under the guise of the struggle against the veto can be ignored. It would be extremely short-sighted to regard this campaign as a fortuitous and insignificant matter. It would also be naive to overlook the fact that the campaign has assumed a character which is definitely hostile to the Soviet Union. None of us are blind from birth; nobody here could fail to see that the downright reactionaries are already making capital out of this campaign.
The dispute about the veto and the whole present discussion make it necessary to speak openly about the contradictions and the principal political trends existing in international affairs in our times. Two principal trends are struggling within the United Nations to gain influence over the main course of its work. One of those trends bases itself on the main fundamentals of the United Nations Organization and on respect for the principles underlying it. The other, on the contrary, is intended to shake the foundations on which the United Nations rests and to pave the way for the proponents of a different course. From these latter now come all kinds of onslaughts, both in the form of direct attacks and in the form of flanking manoeuvres.
The origins of the United Nations Organization are still fresh in our memory; from the very outset it was permeated by the spirit of democratic co-operation. The important part played by the United States of America in this matter is also well-known.
The United Nations was created in order to implement such international co-operation among the great and small countries as would, in the largest possible measure, conform to the interests of all peace-loving States. From the very beginning it was obvious that, for this purpose, it was necessary above all to ensure concerted action on the part of the great Powers. Moreover, it was known at that time — no less than at present — that it was a question of international co-operation in which the efforts of States with different social and political systems should be united for the sake of peace and security.
The war made it particularly clear that States with widely different social structures have extremely important interests in common which they can uphold only by their joint efforts and on condition of non-interference in each other’s internal affairs. This was recognized by the United States of America, as well as by Great Britain and the Soviet Union. As we know, the resulting co-ordination of the war efforts of these countries and their allies, together with the achievement of extensive mutual aid between them, produced great results and ensured victory for the Allies in the war.
As before, the Soviet Union is loyal to the principles of such international co-operation and is prepared to spare no effort for the achievement of success along these lines. For this reason the Soviet Union stands unshakably for respect for the United Nations, and considers that the honest and consistent observance of its Charter is essential. Naturally, such international cooperation can only be really successful if the other Powers also manifest in deeds their willingness to follow the same path.
The recognition of the principles of international co-operation is of profound significance: it is an expression of the firm will to achieve universal peace and of the readiness to enter into peaceful competition in social and economic affairs, as between States and social systems.
So far as the Soviet Union is concerned, there is no hesitation or doubt among our people that peace among nations and peaceful competition between them, which also means the possibility of developing ever-increasing and friendly co-operation and mutual aid between great and small States, are entirely in keeping with the interests of our country. We have no doubt, either, that this policy of developing international co-operation is also in accordance with the interests of all peace-loving countries. Such a policy may not suit the plans of a government which has no confidence in the internal forces of its State and is infected with a lack of faith in peaceful means of international co-operation and competition and which prefers to draw up pretentious plans to achieve domination and to exploit other peoples.
As we know, the lessons of history are not always comprehended in the manner that befits the real interests of a State. We cannot be sure that the collapse of imperialist Germany and the bankruptcy of imperialist Japan will provide the grasping imperialists with a sufficiently convincing proof of the recklessness and inevitable failure of their policy of striving to achieve world domination, which, as we know, constitutes the real substance of imperialism.
Judging by certain frank statements, we must take into account, even in the new postwar conditions, the possibility of the increased influence in certain countries of such aggressive imperialist circles who, for the sake of achieving world domination, may embark upon a reckless aggression and the most hazardous military adventures. Churchill, who has sympathizers in England and in the United States, is a prophet for such imperialists.
Naturally, the normal principle of international co-operation does not at all enter into the plans of such imperialist circles, who in the long run believe only in the extreme methods of pressure and violence. Their policy, in its essence, is hopelessly reactionary. We must recognize that the policy of these circles, which aims at the achievement of world domination, is the direct opposite of the policy of international co-operation and the peaceful competition of social systems. We must also take into account the fact that the adherents of this imperialist and profoundly reactionary policy see the main obstacle to the realization of their expansionist plans in the Soviet Union, against which, in their impotent rage, they would be prepared to unleash all the hounds.
Thus, we must reckon with two opposite trends in the development of international relations. It is easy to see that, while the principle of unanimity of the Great Powers established in the Charter of the United Nations is entirely in keeping with the policy of strengthening normal international co-operation with the all-round development of the forms of this co-operation and competition, the retention of this principle in its integrity cannot be in keeping with the policy of achieving world domination, which is linked with aspirations towards expansion and aggression. The clash and the struggle between these two policies are now, it may be said, in the initial stage. But even this is already beginning to cause a cleavage within the United Nations.
Imagine what would happen if the campaign to abolish the so-called veto were crowned with success! What would be the political consequences?
It is quite obvious that the repudiation of the principle of unanimity of the great Powers, and this is what is actually behind the proposal for the abolition of the veto, would mean, in fact, the liquidation of the United Nations, because this principle is the cornerstone of that Organization. Perhaps not all the participators in this noisy campaign sufficiently realize whence it is leading. But inasmuch as the United Nations is based on the principle of unanimity of the great Powers, the abolition of this principle will result in the collapse of the very edifice of the United Nations.
But this is not the only question at issue. The success of this campaign would mean victory for a policy which would enable one group of States, led by the strongest of the Powers, to dominate the other Powers, which would then find themselves in the minority. Instead of a policy of international co-operation in the spirit of the democratic principles of the United Nations, the triumphant policy would be that of the new claimants to world domination as represented by a corresponding bloc or, if you wish, by a group of Powers to which the retention of the principle of unanimity of the great Powers already seems to be irksome.
The disputes and struggles that are going on around the so-called veto indicates the intensification of the antagonisms between the two fundamental political tendencies, one of which consists in the defence of the principle, which we all recognize, of international co-operation among the big and small States, while the other one consists in the desire of certain influential groups to have a free hand in order to wage a frantic struggle for world domination. An attitude of neutrality in such a question is ambiguous and inappropriate.
The Allies fought against imperialist Germany and imperialist Japan in order to free the peoples from fascist claimants to world domination. We did not fight in order that some other country or countries should take their place. Our peoples did not pour forth their precious blood in order to pave the way for new claimants to world domination. This is exactly what we should be reminded of at the present time.
If the great Powers which led the struggle against the fascist aggressors keep together and if, with the support of the other nations, they refuse to allow any rift in their ranks, they will be able to do much to counteract the whetting of insatiable appetites. Otherwise the new claimants to world domination will be given a free hand for all sorts of adventures until they break their necks.
We know that there are quite a number of ways in which the stronger Powers can bring pressure to bear on other States. We know that squadrons of warships and military aeroplanes sometimes appear on seas and in the sky where they had not been before, when this is considered necessary in order to achieve greater success in diplomatic negotiations. We also know that dollars and pounds sterling do not always stay at home, especially when it is necessary to set “dollar diplomacy” to work, if only, let us say, for the purpose of securing due respect for “dollar democracy”. And now, as we know, there is already talk of “atomic diplomacy” as well.
It is an open secret that these and other means, in various combinations, are not infrequently resorted to for the purpose of influencing other countries, and the small ones in particular. But there are people and whole influential groups who are not content with all this; for them, it would be worth while to remove all barriers, including the liquidation of the principle of unanimity of the great Powers within the United Nations, thus paving the way for the operations of those persons and groups who will not content themselves with anything less than the submission of all peoples to their dictate and to their money bags!
To counteract such insatiable appetites and strivings for world domination is the most important task of the United Nations. Only when it has proved, in fact, its ability to act in this direction will the United Nations be able to give the necessary reply to the question whether we are following the right path.
In this connexion it is necessary to dwell on the question of the atomic bomb, which now plays such an important part in the political calculations of certain circles.
Only recently, Joseph Stalin, the head of the Soviet Government, clarified, in a convincing manner, the views of the Soviet Union on this subject. He particularly emphasized that the atomic bomb “cannot decide the outcome of war since atomic bombs are by no means sufficient for this purpose”, and he said also that, if one is to speak of threats to peace, “certainly monopolistic possession of the secret of the atomic bomb does create a threat” against which “at least two remedies exist: (a) Monopolistic possession of the atomic bomb cannot last long, and (b) The use of the atomic bomb will be prohibited”. There should be a due appreciation of these authoritative statements, which echoed throughout of the world and met with a sympathetic response in the hearts of many millions of people.
As we know, there are two different plans regarding the use of atomic energy. I have in mind the plan of the United States of America, on the one hand, and the plan of the Soviet Union, on the other.
The United States plan, the so-called “Baruch plan,” unfortunately suffers from a certain amount of egoism. It proceeds from the desire to secure for the United States of America the monopolistic possession of the atomic bomb. At the same time, it calls for the earliest possible establishment of control over the production of atomic energy in all countries, giving to this control an international character in outward appearance, but in fact attempting to protect, in a veiled form, the monopolistic position of the United States in this field. It is obvious that projects of this kind are unacceptable, since they are based on a narrow conception of the interests of one country and on the inadmissible negation of the equal rights of States and of their legitimate interests.
This plan, moreover, suffers from certain illusions.
Even in the field of atomic energy, the monopolistic position of any single country should not be counted on. Science and scientists cannot be shut up in a box and kept under lock and key. It is time that illusions on this score were discarded. The expectations that the atomic bomb will have a decisive effect in time of war are likewise illusions.
It is common knowledge that the atomic bomb was used against such towns as Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The populations of these Japanese towns experienced the cruel effect of the atomic bomb. But the atomic bomb has not yet been used anywhere for action against troops. And this is not fortuitous. If, however, there are plans to use atomic bombs against the civilian population of towns and, moreover, to use them on a large scale, as certain newspapers babble, one should not foster any illusions with regard to the international effect which would result from the carrying out of atrocious plans of this kind. Justified indignation would sweep over honest people in all countries, and the sanguine hopes regarding the decisive importance of the atomic bomb in a future war may lead to political consequences which will mean the greatest disillusionment, above all for the authors of these plans.
Lastly, it should not be forgotten that atomic bombs used by one side may be opposed by atomic bombs and something else from the other side, and then the final collapse of all the present-day calculations of certain conceited but short-sighted people will become only too obvious. Illusions in serious matters are always dangerous, as both Mr. Baruch and his partners will probably have to recognize.
All this goes to show that truth and justice are not on the side of the United States plan, not to mention even the fact that the carrying out of this plan is in contradiction to the unanimously adopted decisions of the United Nations. It suffices to say that, to carry out this plan, it is necessary to break the United Nations Charter, to abandon the principle of unanimity of the great Powers in the Security Council, where the question of the atomic bomb is being decided. Is it not because there is a desire to give a free hand to the admirers of the atomic bomb that someone is raising such a hubbub over the veto?
All this goes to show that the Baruch plan, both in its substance and in its form, fails to meet the interests of the United Nations.
There is a different plan for the atomic bomb, the plan proposed by the Soviet Union. This plan is based on an altogether different policy.
We, the Soviet people, do not tie up our calculations for the future with the use of the atomic bomb. Please remember also that the General Assembly has already declared itself for the exclusion of atomic weapons from national armaments. Therefore, there is no reason to postpone the adoption of the international convention proposed by the Soviet Union prohibiting the production and use of atomic weapons. Only by taking such a decision shall we create suitable conditions for a free and fruitful examination of the questions relating to the establishment of control over atomic energy in all countries.
After the first World War, already, the nations agreed to prohibit the use for military purposes of poisonous gases, bacteriological preparations and other inhuman means of warfare. It is all the more necessary to prohibit the use for military purposes of atomic bombs as well as any other means for the mass extermination of people, which in this case means the wholesale destruction of the inhabitants of towns and civilians in general, since a merciless blow will fall mainly on children, women, sick persons and old men.
Those who yesterday fought against the aggressors and those who are really opposed to aggression should consider it their sacred duty to outlaw the use of atomic bombs and to see that the use of the newly discovered atomic energy is directed exclusively towards peaceful purposes. Only such use of atomic energy will be acknowledged by humanity as a just cause. The honour and conscience of the freedom-loving peoples demand that the atomic bomb be outlawed, for the United Nations will never assume the responsibility for any plans to use atomic energy for the purpose of destroying people wholesale and, in general, to use it to the detriment of mankind.
Our disputes in this case were probably inevitable owing to the novelty of the question. But, here too, we must avoid splitting up into two camps: the militant atomists, on the one hand, and the advocates of the use of atomic energy exclusively for peaceful purposes on the other. We must hope, therefore, that the exchange of views which has begun on this subject will lead in the long run to a unanimous opinion among the United Nations, including the United States of America.
Otherwise, what would people think and what should we reply to their perplexed questions?
The other day you may have read in the New York newspapers the speech delivered by Mr. Baruch, who was fairly outspoken in his views on peace and war. On 12 October, at the College of the City of New York, he stated: “Peace seems beautiful during the savagery of war, but it becomes almost hateful when war is over.” Late in his reflections, Mr. Baruch was not sparing of words in expressing his love for “freedom.” But it is easy to see that his idea of freedom is far removed from the real aspirations of the common people for freedom, well-being and lasting peace. He would like to see all people satisfied with the freedom under which only the lucky ones can enjoy the benefits of life, not only in the days of peace but also during a raging war. Mr. Baruch’s sentiments are far removed from those of the people who have to sweat in heavy daily toil or who defend the freedom and the future of their native land with their own hands and at the cost of their lives. If that were not so, public men of his class would also have to agree that the so-called “common people” are nowadays mostly concerned that their Governments and their politicians should regard it as their main task to defend the peace and security of the nations because, after all the trials of the second World War, the longing for security and lasting peace is the innermost sentiment of the common people, men and women, throughout the world.
Far-reaching plans connected with the atomic bomb are perhaps dictated by the very same philosophy which is expressed in the words: “Peace becomes almost hateful when war is over.” If this gloomy philosophy is followed, then naturally, the relevant political conclusions should be drawn, namely, to innate military budgets, to increase the size of armies and try to be ahead of others in the armaments race, including the atomic bomb. This militant philosophy can only lead to preparations for a new aggression, which the United Nations have been so unanimous in condemning. But it is easy to see through the vicious arguments concerning “almost hateful peace.” Those who hold this philosophy can scarcely hide their deep lack of faith in the peaceful development of their own country, and a pessimistic lack of confidence in their own strength, insofar as the prospect of peaceful competition between States and social systems is concerned. On the other hand, in this philosophy there is striking evidence of an irresistible yearning for expansion and undivided domination of the world.
We cannot believe that the majority of Americans are partisans of a philosophy of this kind. We suppose that, even after the successes they achieved during the second World War, the Americans, like all the other peace-loving nations, are anxious, above all, that peace should be as stable as possible and that the security of the peoples should be the main concern of the Governments of the United Nations. These sentiments of the common people of the Soviet Union and of the United States unite them to each other and to all the other United Nations.
The Soviet Union emerged from the recent war as a country which had experienced the hateful occupation by the enemy of a considerable part of its territory. For many years to come our people will not be able to forget their great sacrifices and the devastated towns and villages, which they are now engaged in restoring with their utmost exertions. These and other gigantic tasks already form part of our new Stalin Five-Year Plan which we have begun to put into effect this year. We are full of confidence that the time is not far off when our industry and agriculture, our transport system and cultural institutions, our towns and villages will fully recover from the consequences of war, will flourish again and will thus show other nations the might and the great possibilities of a liberated people and of the workers’ State created by them.
There is no lack of faith among our people in the peaceful paths of progress and there is none of the uncertainty which appears in countries with unstable economic and political conditions, for we stand firmly on the positions won by the people. There is a great desire among our people to take part in the peaceful rivalry of States and social systems, a rivalry in which individual peoples would be able not only to reveal their internal possibilities but also to bring about closer co-operation with each other and in a greater variety of ways.
Our people long for lasting peace and believe that only in peace conditions can economic wellbeing and real prosperity be guaranteed for many years to come, together with the free life of the common people and of all mankind. The Soviet Union is alien to the strivings of those strong Powers and of influential groups in other countries which are infected by imperialistic dreams of world domination. The Soviet Union sees its best friends in the truly peace-loving States. We regard the strengthening of international co-operation on behalf of peace and progress as our most important task.
Today’s local newspapers published Joseph Stalin’s answers on the most important questions of international relations. In these answers you will perceive the wise far-sightedness of the Soviet Union and its inflexible determination to strengthen friendship between the peoples on a democratic basis of co-operation.
It remains for me to draw certain conclusions and to make certain concrete proposals.
The creation of the United Nations Organization was a great historic undertaking. A still more important task is to ensure that its work takes the right direction. To achieve this, respect for the principles of this Organization should be strengthened among the peoples; to achieve this, it is also necessary that attacks and onslaughts on these principles should be duly checked. Then the existing shortcomings in its work will be overcome; then the United Nations Organization will successfully carry out its main tasks in regard to the defence of the peace and security of nations and the development of international co-operation based on just and democratic principles.
Our fight against the common enemy was crowned with brilliant victory. Those who yesterday aspired to world domination are overthrown; the fate of these countries should serve as a serious warning to those who would be inclined to yield again to unbridled cravings for expansion and world domination. The Allies have disarmed Germany and Japan and have the means of keeping them disarmed for a considerable time.
We know how deep are the wounds inflicted on our peoples and how heavy is the burden which many of them bore during the Second World War. Governments would not carry out their principal duties if they failed to take all possible steps to lighten this burden and to give heed to the legitimate wishes of the peoples in this respect. In this connexion, it is of particular importance that we now have every opportunity to restrict armaments and to reduce military expenditure which, nevertheless, in some cases continues to grow without sufficient justification.
The United Nations Charter authorizes the General Assembly to consider the general principles of co-operation in the maintenance of international peace and security including the principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments (Article 11 of the Charter).
In defining the functions and powers of the Security Council, the Charter makes it responsible for formulating plans for the regulation of armaments with a view to promoting the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources (Article 26 of the Charter). Moreover, Article 47 of the Charter, which provides for the establishment of a Military Staff Committee and which defines its functions and tasks, points out that the Security Council must bear in mind, the regulation of armaments and possible disarmament.
It should be recognized that the time has come to adopt definite decisions for the fulfilment of these tasks. Now that the disarmament of the principal aggressive States has been carried out and measures have been taken to limit strictly the armaments of other ex-enemy States, the time has come to take measures for a general restriction of armaments. The adoption of these measures will at the same time strengthen the confidence of the world that the United Nations are really permeated by the desire for lasting peace.
Lastly, the reduction of armaments will be a deserved blow at the expansionist strivings of those groups which have not yet sufficiently learned the lessons of the ignominious collapse of aggressors in the recent war. On the other hand, we cannot forget that if some States, while making professions of a peaceful policy, are not only failing to reduce their armaments but, on the contrary, are increasing and improving them, the peoples are justified in doubting the sincerity of such pacific declarations.
In accordance with Article 11 of the United Nations Charter, the Soviet delegation submits for the consideration of the General Assembly the following proposal:
“1. In the interests of consolidating international peace and security and in conformity with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Organization, the General Assembly considers a general reduction of armaments necessary.
“2. The implementation of the decision on the reduction of armaments should include as a primary objective the prohibition of the production and use of atomic energy for military purposes.
“3. The General Assembly recommends to the Security Council that it provide for the practical achievement of the objectives set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above.
“4. The General Assembly calls upon the Governments of all States to render all possible assistance to the Security Council in this responsible undertaking, the accomplishment of which accords with the task of establishing lasting peace and international security, and also serves the interests of the peoples by lightening the heavy economic burden imposed on them by excessive expenditure on armaments, which is not in keeping with peaceful postwar conditions.”
The acceptance of a decision generally to reduce armaments and to prohibit the use of atomic energy for military purposes will indeed be in accordance with the peaceful aspirations of our peoples and will contribute to the development of international co-operation.
In conclusion, permit me to express confidence that this proposal of the Soviet Union will have the support of all the United Nations.