As more than a year has elapsed since the United Nations Charter was signed at the San Francisco Conference, it is now possible for us to sum up to some extent the results of the work carried out with a view to the establishment of a stable peace and security throughout the world.
Fifty-one nations signed this “Peace Charter” which proclaimed noble ideals for the struggle for the peace and security of the nations. The preamble to the Charter states:
“We the peoples of the United Nations,
“determined
“To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
“To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
“To establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and “To promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
“And for these ends
“To practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
“To unite our strength to maintain international peace and security …”
These are the great purposes to be achieved and the problems to be faced by the United Nations. In these words are embodied the desires and hopes of millions of ordinary people, who earnestly long for peace and security. Although the United Nations has not been in existence long, and although considerable time was taken up in the establishment of the administrative machinery and in the organization of the work, it is nevertheless necessary to examine immediately its initial activities and the direction in which those activities are developing.
More than a year has elapsed since the end of the second world war, which cost humanity millions of lives and unprecedented destruction. The horrors and sufferings which accompanied the second world war are still fresh in the memory of man; yet now, while the ashes of the conflagrations are still smouldering, while the tears are not yet dry on the faces of wives and mothers who have lost their husbands and sons in this war which was started by fascist and imperialistic elements, there is talk of a new, third world war.
In the pages of many reactionary, anti-popular American, English, Turkish, Greek and other newspapers there are rumours of an imminent new world war. All this gives rise to uncertainty and fear in the minds of the peoples of the world.
In whose interest is this hue and cry about a new war? It is in the interest of those who amassed enormous capital in the last world war, the large trusts and armament kings who received great profits from military supplies. In his answer to a question asked him by Alexander Werth, correspondent of the Sunday Times, Generalissimo Stalin gave a clear appraisal of these rumours.
Generalissimo Stalin said:
“I do not believe in a real danger of a ‘new war.’ Those who are clamouring about a ‘new war’ are chiefly military-political intelligence agents and their few supporters among civilian officials. They need this clamour if only: (a) to frighten with the spectre of war certain naive politicians from among the opponents and thereby help their Governments to wrest more concessions from these opponents; (b) to make it difficult for some time to reduce the military budgets of their countries; (c) to check demobilization of troops, and thereby prevent a rapid increase of unemployment in their countries.
“It is necessary to distinguish clearly between the hue and cry about a ‘new war’ which is taking place now and the real danger of a ‘new war,’ which does not exist at present.”
Such is the realistic estimation of the existing situation given by Generalissimo Stalin. From this, of course, it does not follow that all is well in the international political field. On the contrary, this appraisal points to the existence of organizations and parties which wish to ensure the success of their own policy by speculating on the danger of “a new war.” All this cannot but react unfavourably on the establishment of co-operation and mutual confidence between nations, especially between the Great Powers, without which it is impossible to build a durable peace.
It is necessary, in my view, to bring to the attention of the General Assembly yet another circumstance which cannot fail to react on the work of the Organization. I mean the efforts of certain States (Cuba, Australia) towards the amendment of the Charter which we signed and adopted, and particularly to revise that part of it which concerns the unanimity of the five Great Powers. The fact that an attempt is being made to amend the Charter at the very beginning of the existence of the United Nations, implies the existence of a threat that this Organization may become an instrument for the pursuance of a policy by certain nations or groups of nations instead of an instrument for the establishment of a durable universal peace. No other construction can be given to these intentions, whatever guise they may assume.
The representatives of several States have spoken openly against Article 27 of the Charter, which provides for the unanimity of the great Powers on decisions reached by the Security Council in matters affecting peace. The voices of the representatives of Peru, Venezuela, Argentina, Turkey and others have been raised from this very platform against the unanimity of the great Powers. The Belgian delegation took credit for the fact that already at the San Francisco Conference it had declared itself against the principle that the permanent members of the Security Council must take their decisions in common. Its arguments at San Francisco, the falsity of which was exposed at the time by the supporters of peace and security, have just been reiterated by the Belgian representative before this high Assembly.
The sole aim of the attacks against Article 27 of the Charter, which are based on the alleged wish to make the United Nations Organization more democratic, is to shatter the unity of the United Nations, for it is on the principle of unanimity of the great Powers that the very existence of the Organization is based. Any other method of taking decisions in the Security Council on vital matters relating to the organization of international peace involves the risk of changing this body into an instrument of one State or a bloc of States, whereby some nations may impose their will on others. This would bring the United Nations Organization to an inglorious end, for the essence of its existence is to enable the great Powers to take decisions in common.
Those who criticize the principle of unanimity of the permanent members of the Security Council forget the fact that the responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security falls primarily on the great Powers. They forget also that peace can only be established when the great Powers settle unanimously all the fundamental problems of peace and security.
The effort to achieve unanimity in deciding fundamental questions of principle must be the main task of the Members of the United Nations. That is the purpose of Article 27 of the Charter of the United Nations. That is why the Byelorussian delegation strongly objects to any revision of the Charter, and of Article 27 in particular.
Furthermore, the Byelorussian delegation considers it necessary to examine certain aspects of the work of the Security Council. I wish to draw your attention particularly to the proposal made to the Security Council that it should ask all the Members of the United Nations to supply information regarding the numbers and disposition of their troops stationed in foreign countries other than ex-enemy territories.
It is well known that during the war against hitlerite Germany and its satellites, and also against imperialistic Japan, the armed forces of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of America and the United Kingdom were compelled, by military necessity, to enter the territories of a number of countries. Thus, for instance, the Soviet army was active in Poland, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia, while British and American troops operated on French territory. There was nothing surprising or strange in this. The presence of foreign troops on the territory of non-enemy States was necessary in order to crush the fascist aggressors. This necessity, however, no longer exists since the war is over.
Nevertheless, some States have not withdrawn their troops from the territories in question. For nearly two years, British troops have remained in Greece, where they interfere in the internal affairs of that country.
A number of measures taken by the Government of the United Kingdom indicate that Great Britain is doing all she can to keep her troops in the countries of the Near East also.
According to available information, the number of British troops at present in Egypt is several times greater than the number which the United Kingdom has the right to maintain there in accordance with the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936. The United Kingdom is maintaining air units on the territory of Iraq, and is controlling the armed forces of that country. British troops are concentrated on the frontier of Iran and on the frontier between Turkey and Iraq. Large numbers of British troops are concentrated in Palestine and in Transjordan, where British bases and a network of aerodromes have been equipped, and strategic roads have been built.
In Indonesia, the United Kingdom has concentrated an enormous army. This army, which entered the country with the praiseworthy aim of disarming the troops of militaristic Japan, has embarked on one-sided military action against the Indonesian people who wish to secure their national independence.
The presence of the forces of the United States of America in China is causing alarm amongst democratic public opinion throughout the world. The increasing military aid given by the United States to certain elements in China against Chinese democratic forces is fostering civil war' in that country, and arousing the anxiety not only of the Chinese, but of democratic public opinion throughout the world. This policy of the United States in China is in no way conducive to the maintenance of peace in the Far East.
Regardless of the attitude which the States directly interested in this question may assume, the Byelorussian delegation feels obliged to draw attention to the fact that the pursuit of such a policy by the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America towards non-enemy States cannot promote a spirit of sincere co-operation between the allied States, and is a direct contravention of the Charter. Article 2, Paragraph 1, of the Charter, for instance, states that “the Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” Nevertheless, the Anglo-American armed forces exercise, on the territory of some Members of the United Nations, such wide powers and such privileges as can only be assumed by a conqueror over a defeated country. It is also impossible to reconcile the policy of the United States of America in China with the obligation placed on Members of the Organization by Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Charter, “to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”. Lastly, the activities of British and Dutch troops in Indonesia cannot be reconciled with Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter, which demands that Members of the United Nations “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”
Humanity is tired of war, and genuinely desires that friendly co-operative relations, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, should exist between nations and States; whereas, the maintenance by some Powers of their troops on the territories of other non-enemy States creates an atmosphere of anxiety and insecurity amongst the nations,
The next question with which I wish to deal is that of the situation prevailing in Franco Spain.
The Security Council has dealt for a long time with this question, the urgency and significance of which are fully apparent.
Everyone knows that the Franco regime was imposed on the Spanish people as a result of military interference on the part of the principal Axis Powers — hitlerite Germany and fascist Italy.
During the second world war Franco Spain was a loyal ally of Germany and Italy, supplying those countries with strategic raw materials and military information, and placing its ports and air bases at the disposal of these countries. Assertions that Spain took no part whatever in the second world war and remained a “nonbelligerent country” are quite untrue. If Spain did not formally enter the war, this was due to circumstances entirely outside her own control. The fact that the Spanish “Blue Division” took part in battles against Soviet troops, side by side with the German fascist armies, is known to the whole world, and this can only be described as military action on the side of the Axis against the nations of the democratic coalition.
Even after the war, the Franco regime continues to serve as a centre for propaganda and the dissemination of dangerous fascist activity. Spain has become a refuge for German scientists engaged in research which endangers peace and humanity. The Franco Government has given shelter and assistance to a large number of war criminals, Nazi leaders and agents, who are using Spain as an operational base for their activities and for their plans to organize a military revenge.
The Franco regime continues to exist as a centre for the fascist plot against freedom-loving peoples, and as a springboard for a future war which may once again spread throughout the whole world. Under Franco’s domination Spain continues to be an armed camp.
These are the facts: they are convincing and obvious, and it was natural to expect the Security Council to take all the measures in its power, since the activities of the Franco regime in Spain are of the nature described in Article 34 of the Charter.
That is why peace-loving nations welcomed the Polish Government’s proposal in the Security Council, that the Council should ask all those Members of the United Nations which maintain diplomatic relations with the Franco Government to break off those relations immediately. This would have been an effective means of influencing Franco Spain, and would have led to a definite change of situation in that country. It would have weakened the international position of the Franco regime, and would have confronted it with a political crisis.
But the Security Council rejected the resolution submitted by the Polish representative. Instead of taking effective steps, the Security Council chose the method of formal procrastination. We do not know the reasons which motivated the establishment of a sub-committee to investigate the Spanish situation, as this situation was extremely well known to the members of the Council.
Moreover, on the basis of the documents which it examined, the Sub-Committee came to the conclusion that in fact the Franco regime was by its nature, structure and general line of conduct, a fascist regime, brought into being largely with the help and based on the model of hitlerite nazi Germany and the fascist Italy of Mussolini. The Sub-Committee decided that the existing situation in Spain was such that its continuance might actually endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.
Yet, in spite of this, and after a further lengthy examination, the Spanish problem found no positive solution in the Security Council.
The Council, instead of taking effective measures in relation to Franco Spain, passed a resolution rejecting the use of all positive coercive measures by the Members of the United Nations against the Franco fascist regime. By this resolution, the Security Council resigned itself to accepting the situation created by the Franco Government, which may lead to the violation of peace and security throughout the world.
The Byelorussian delegation takes note of the fact that the solution of the problem of Franco Spain by the Security Council is completely unsatisfactory.
The nations of the whole world demand, in the name of international security and justice, joint action on the part of the democratic nations with regard to the Franco Government. It is our sacred duty to-do everything possible to destroy the hotbed of fascism in Spain. The Franco regime, which has been imposed by force upon the Spanish people, must receive no support whatsoever from the Governments of the States, Members of the United Nations.
The Byelorussian delegation therefore insists that the Security Council should again consider the question of Franco Spain, and hopes that it will be examined in accordance with the principles of collective security. It is essential that the States members of the Security Council should, in examining important matters affecting peace and security, forget the economic and political interests of their own countries and should, in accordance with Article 24 of the Charter, take prompt and effect action in respect of countries which, under the provisions of Article 39 are violating peace and security.
The entire democratic world knows that the Spanish people are impatiently awaiting their liberation from the fascist dictatorship of Franco. History has placed the problem of the liquidation of fascism in Spain on the agenda. The sooner and more completely this problem is solved, the sooner and the more completely will Spain join the family of democratic States, united in their desire to ensure world peace.
Peace is the most ardent wish of the vast majority of mankind. The peoples of the whole world are certain that we can all be loyal friends in the establishment of peace, even as we were loyal allies in the grim days of the war.
The Byelorussian delegation expresses the hope that the representatives to the present session of the General Assembly will show a spirit of cooperation and mutual trust in the solution of the highly important problems on our agenda.
The peoples of the world are watching our progress with attention, and expect from us just and effective decisions. Our task is to justify these expectations.