Yugoslavia

In his report to the General Assembly, the Secretary-General, Mr. Trygve Lie, portrayed for us all the problems confronting the United Nations. I will endeavour in this general debate to explain the attitude of the Yugoslav delegation to some of these problems. I am doing so with the sole purpose of contributing to a clear and impartial presentation of these problems so that positive solutions may be found for them. That is the only way we can enable this Organization to justify its existence and prove its usefulness. From the earliest days of the existence of the United Nations Organization, Yugoslavia has been one of the most active Members. She will remain so in the future, and will be one of the most loyal guardians of the Charter. She will always be, as she was throughout the war, a supporter of international co-operation, in accordance with the principles expressed in the Charter, and will make every effort to contribute to the attainment of solutions in harmony with those principles. The main subject of discussion at the opening of our Assembly is the question of the principle of unanimity of the five permanent members of the Security Council, that is to say, of the principle of unanimity of the great Powers on questions of security. The very fact that our discussions are centred on this question cannot but arouse serious anxiety, both among the peoples who desire peace, and among all statesmen who are conscious of the heavy responsibility they bear towards the nations and towards history. The principle of unanimity of the great Powers is the corner-stone of the United Nations. It was established at the Yalta Conference by the leaders of the Allied democratic bloc. These statesmen, on whom rested the responsibility for conducting the war for the liberation of humanity, fully appreciated that the essential condition for victory was unanimous and harmonious action by the great Powers. From this they drew the correct conclusion that unanimity of the great Powers was a condition no less essential to the safeguarding of the great acquisition of the war and to the maintenance of peace after it. This perfectly correct conclusion was hailed with enthusiasm by the peoples whose blood still flowed over the battlefields. It inspired them with a new strength to continue their struggles to the end, for it aroused in them the conviction that the peace which would crown their victory would be lasting, and imbued them with the hope that they would never again know the horrors of a world war. It was from this conviction and this hope that the United Nations was born. The vast majority of the delegations to the San Francisco Conference felt that the edifice they were building must not be founded on sand, but on the firm foundation of the principles adopted at Yalta. It was for this reason that the majority declared themselves in favour of the principle of unanimity, and that this principle was introduced into our Constitution, the Charter of the United Nations. That is why our peoples welcomed this Charter with so much enthusiasm, and that is why the parliaments of our countries ratified it. But what do we see now? Barely a year has passed since the end of hostilities. The United Nations has only just reached the second part of the first session of its General Assembly, and this fundamental principle is already being questioned. Whereas at San Francisco only Australia and New Zealand voted against the principle of unanimity of the Great Powers, the number of its declared opponents has now increased, and the attacks against it have become more violent. We have even heard the representative of one of the great Powers speaking against this principle, and expressing the wish of his government that certain limitations be imposed on it. This fact is extremely disturbing. Let us not close our eyes to the present situation. It has two main aspects, one positive, the other negative. The positive aspect is our victory over nazi Germany, fascist Italy and imperialistic Japan, a victory which has enabled us to destroy the main sources of aggression in the world and thereby to create conditions which make possible the further evolution of mankind. The negative aspect is the disagreements and tension existing among the victors, including the great Powers. What, in these circumstances, is the duty of those on whom rests the responsibility for the future of mankind? What, m such a situation, should be the task of the international organization responsibile for the maintenance of peace? We believe our duty and our task should be to direct our efforts towards the achievement of the highest measure of concord amongst the great Powers, and, by agreements, to remove, as far as possible, all sources of misunderstanding between them. Translated into the language of our international documents, this means that we should guard carefully our most precious acquisition in this field, namely, the principle of unanimity of the great Powers on questions of security, and thus international peace, since it appears impossible to extend this principle, and make any further advance towards unanimity amongst the nations. There are some, however, who now wish to replace the obligation of unanimity by the right to take decisions by a majority vote. Is there any need to show that the principle of unanimity amongst the great Powers is the only means of preventing the present tension between them from getting out of bounds and leading to a danger of armed conflict? Is there any need to show that the only method of localizing conflicts is agreement between the great Powers? Is there any need to show that the most terrible danger, one which makes the peoples of the whole world shudder, would be a war between the great Powers, since such a war would inevitably involve the whole world, and would be fought with the most modern weapons? I think that, after all the bitter experiences humanity has endured in the past decades, such a demonstration is hardly necessary. But it does seem necessary to show that the position attained, as a result of the war, by the great Powers, whose unanimity on the most important questions is necessary in order that decisions may have validity, is in no way detrimental to the interests of the small States. It is, on the contrary, their only effective and practicable guarantee against fresh aggression and the danger of being drawn into another war. We have heard it said at the Paris Conference, and also at the beginning of the discussion on this question in this Assembly, that the privileges of the great Powers constitute an intolerable dictatorship over the small States, and that the latter must free themselves from this dictatorship. In our opinion, this criticism is based on a fallacy which is completely unfounded. It consists in the following. Members of the United Nations are divided into two groups, the small and the big. All the big States have allegedly common interests with which the interests of the small States conflict. There is, therefore, a danger of all the big States defending one point of view, on one or other of the questions with which our Organization has to deal, and all the small ones adopting another point of view; in such a case the big States will prevail, because each of them holds in leash a ferocious beast called the veto. Is that a true picture of the world today? Do we really find that the big States adopt one view and the small States another? Have the States grouped themselves on these lines at postwar conferences? Quite obviously not. What, therefore, is the problem? It amounts to deciding whether it is always to be the point of view of the great Power, supported, for special historical reasons, by the greater number of small States, which is to triumph; or, whether efforts are to be made to come to an agreement. The whole question is simply that of knowing which of these two methods is the better, from the point of view of international relations, and which conforms the more closely to the interests of peace. In our view there can only be one answer to this question. Just before this Assembly met, the first Peace Conference after the second world war brought its deliberations to an end. What we saw at this Conference fully confirms our view. It began with a debate on voting procedure. We heard the delegations of Australia and New Zealand striving to convince the representatives of small nations that they should oppose the voting rules which the great Powers were allegedly “thrusting” upon them, and reject the two-thirds majority rule, that is, a greater measure of unanimity, on the pretext that it was contrary to their interests. Nevertheless, when the discussions began and votes were taken on questions of substance, the delegations of Australia and New Zealand, together with the other delegations supporting the same view, and constituting a majority, nearly always spoke and voted against little Yugoslavia and in favour of Italy, her far more powerful neighbour and former aggressor; they generally voted and spoke with the United States of America against the small States of central Europe and against the Soviet Union. What was the result of this? The result was that a series of recommendations was adopted, despite the opposition of the States directly concerned; as regards the Peace Treaty with Italy, the result was a series of recommendations that were unacceptable to the principal victim of Italian aggression. In a word, the result was negative. What was the reason for this failure? The practice of simply taking decisions by a majority vote instead of trying to seek solutions by agreement. Is it possible, in the light of such an experience, honestly to maintain that the principle of compulsory agreement is a bad one, and detrimental to any State, great or small, and that it is preferable to take decisions solely by a majority vote? Admittedly, we often hear it said today that the principle may not be bad in itself, but that it has been abused to such an extent as to prevent the Security Council from taking any decision whatsoever. Let us put on one side the question whether and how far this charge of abuse of the rule of compulsory agreement for the great Powers is justified. We shall have an opportunity of discussing several of the questions with which the Security Council has been dealing and we shall then be able to consider whether and by whom the right conferred by paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the Charter has been abused. We would, however, like to ask another question. If the rule of compulsory agreement is abused, what guarantee have we that the method of decision by a majority vote will not be abused? The opponents of the rule at present in force tell us that the abuse of the rights of the great Powers has rendered the Security Council “impotent and sterile”. Resort to the right of veto simply means that a decision is deferred until conditions change, or until some basis of agreement and mutual concessions are found. It is, on the other hand, absolutely clear that abuse of the method of taking decisions by a simple majority vote would inevitably create such tension between the great Powers that the very existence of our Organization and of world peace would be imperilled. So let us not tamper with this provision of our Charter lest the edifice in which we live come toppling about our ears and we bring upon ourselves the curse of tens, nay, hundreds of millions of victims of a new war we shall have failed to prevent. The application of atomic energy to the purposes of war has encouraged an attempt by certain groups to use this great scientific discovery to intimidate the world, by increasing the threat of the use of force as a lever in international politics. The Charter of our Organization lays down that it is the Security Council which is competent and responsible in all matters concerning the maintenance of peace. In order that the Council may perform this duty, it is essential that the governments should give it all their support in the difficult task of making impossible the use of atomic energy for purposes of intimidation or war. The aim of the Security Council in this matter should be the destruction of all existing atomic bombs, the prohibition of their use, since this is a crime against humanity, and the establishment of an effective and efficient system of control of the production of atomic energy. The Yugoslav delegation considers that the Security Council must not be deprived in any way of its right to be the sole body to decide such questions. That is why Yugoslavia, prompted by the desire for peace, insists in its demand that the question of atomic energy should remain within the direct and exclusive competence of the Security Council. One of the essential purposes of the United Nations is, in my opinion, the rational application of the Charter. It would be extremely detrimental to the achievement of the aims which we have set ourselves, and which are as yet far from being realized, were we to destroy the faith of mankind in this Constitution which all we peace-loving peoples have adopted, and which, under solemn oath, we have agreed to apply. I intend to dwell on two problems which are of particular interest to my country as a member of the United Nations, and which may have a direct bearing on the peaceful development of the Balkan countries. I refer firstly to the admission of new States to membership in the United Nations, and secondly to the presence of foreign troops in non-enemy countries. These are problems of a general nature, but I wish to deal only with the concrete case of Yugoslavia and her neighbours, Albania and Greece. According to Article 4 of the Charter, “Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving States which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.” The United Nations, however, originated in the great coalition of peace-loving nations which took an active part in the struggle against fascism and succeeded in bringing about peace. The non-admission of Albania as a Member is a decision contrary to the spirit of the Charter. Albania was among the first victims of fascist aggression. It is not necessary to recall in detail the preparation of the infamous attack against the independence of Albania in 1939. The Italian Foreign Minister, Galeazzo Ciano, has related it clearly in his memoirs. Nevertheless, Albania resisted aggression; she organized her struggle; she submitted to heavy sacrifices in lives and in material wealth; she liberated herself, and adopted a democratic form of government. Albania does not covet territory belonging to others, and has no aggressive intentions towards her neighbours. Why is the democratic family of nations unwilling to make reparation for the violence perpetrated by fascism? Why this discrimination against a people which was the victim of aggression, a, democratic, peace-loving people which has contributed to the full extent of its powers to the establishment of the United Nations? It is all the more illogical since we are confronted with the successive admission of States which have been spared the hardships of war, and even former enemy States. In the opinion of the Yugoslav delegation, Albania was already fully entitled to admission at San Francisco, and the decision taken at that time not to admit her is not in accordance with the spirit of the Charter. The second problem which causes us anxiety is the presence of Allied troops on the territory of States which were not our enemies. I have in mind the presence of British troops in Greece, after the territory of that country had been liberated from enemy forces, and just as political life was being resuscitated. It is not the number or strength of such troops which is important, but the moral effect of their presence. No one can honestly doubt that the British troops stationed in Greece at the time when the Greek people had to decide the final form of their government exercised a decisive influence on the eventual result. The presence of these troops in Greece during the pre-election period gave extensive licence to anti-democratic elements, who felt that they were protected; a large number of them, in the hope of distracting popular attention from internal problems, launched a dangerous campaign against their neighbours, Albania, Bulgaria, and even Yugoslavia. The impression was created that aggression was being prepared, and that obviously has not contributed to the Balkan settlement we, the Balkan people, one and all, desire. “The Balkans for the Balkan peoples” was once a catchword of Gladstone’s, and disregard of this principle has brought dire consequences for us all. Why should we leave to posterity the impression that, on the occasion of the most important historic decision they were ever called upon to make, the Greek people did not enjoy that complete freedom of decision we had promised them both in the United Nations Charter and in the Atlantic Charter? The Yugoslav delegation regards this, too, as a violation of the Charter and as a threat to the independence and peace of such an important area as the Balkans. Furthermore, according to our information, the democratic parties of Greece have recently sent a letter in the same sense to the Secretary-General, Mr. Trygve Lie. One of the most important problems, to which a positive solution must be found without delay, is that raised by the survival of the fascist regime in Spain. Democratic opinion throughout the world, and, above all, that of the long-suffering Spanish people, demands its liquidation. In the interests of peace and security, not only in Europe but throughout the whole world, our Organization must enable the Spanish people to live in freedom and to establish a truly democratic regime. We all know that Franco was brought to power by Hitler and Mussolini. After the democratic elections held in Spain in February 1936, which gave a decisive victory to the parties united in the Popular Front, a rebellious colonial group led by General Franco placed itself at the head of a fascist revolt against the legal government, a revolt which would have been suppressed within a very short time had it not been assisted by the armed forces of Germany and Italy. The whole world was witness to the fact that the Spanish people fell a victim to the most vile foreign interference, which could not have succeeded without the odious policy of nonintervention. Spanish democracy has been crushed, and Franco, after becoming Caudillo, helped Hitler and Mussolini to turn Spain into a strategic base for the activities of the Axis. It was only "natural that Franco should consider his fate as virtually bound up with that of the Fuehrer and the Duce who had raised him to power. Not only did he repeat tins many times, but he even confirmed by his actions the ties of solidarity which bind him to the fascist bloc. Although Franco Spain formally adopted an attitude of non-belligerency, in actual fact she participated in the second world war on the side of fascist Germany, to whom she rendered extremely important military services. Spanish industry was placed at the disposal of the German military machine; the ports of the Iberian Peninsula served as supply bases for the German fleet. Franco Spain sent to the Eastern Front that “Blue Division,” recruited from fascist organizations, which behaved so brutally in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In 1944, the remnants of the shattered “Blue Division” were in our own country. In any event, Franco has given ample proof that he must be ranked amongst the leading fascist criminals. That is a fact which nothing can conceal. The intervention of Italo-German armies in Spain, from 1936 to 1939, gave rise to the greatest tragedy in Spanish history. The victims of the civil war and of Franco’s sanguinary regime number approximately one million. After the defeat of Hitler’s Germany, democratic public opinion throughout the world was confident that the fall of the Franco regime would be the inevitable and immediate result of the collapse of those from whom its power was derived. In the various countries of Europe, in the United States of America, in all the countries of South America, movements were formed to demand the severance of political and economic relations with the Franco regime. It seemed obvious that a fascist regime set up by the Hitlerites and the blackshirts could not survive under the new conditions. And yet Franco, whose place should be at Nürnberg, still struts about Madrid as head of the State, and maintains normal diplomatic relations with a certain number of Allied States. The Spanish problem constitutes an important international question of principle which cannot be avoided by indefinite adjournments. The Spanish people have the right to expect that, now the main strongholds of fascist aggression have been destroyed, there will be no repetition of the policy of non-intervention. It is not a question of interfering in Spain’s domestic affairs but simply one of abandoning the policy which, whether intentionally or otherwise, is tantamount to supporting the Franco regime. Opponents of a breach with Franco voice two main arguments: firstly, that it would lead to civil war; secondly, that the Spanish democrats are not sufficiently united. It is not difficult to see that these arguments dovetail with the tactics recently adopted by Franco. The Spanish Republican Government, which unites all the democratic forces of Spain, and is the legitimate representative of the people, asks that there be no compromise with Franco. It proposes that once he has been eliminated, free elections should be held in Spain, not under foreign supervision, but under the aegis of a government of national unity. History has placed on our agenda the problem of the extirpation of fascism in Spain. We are in duty bound to solve this problem urgently and comprehensively, in order to enable Spain, as a democratic State, to become one of the pillars of world peace and security. I feel obliged to touch on a subject of great importance to us, namely transport, and arising out of that, our Danubian shipping, a matter which my Government has attempted to settle with the help of the United Nations. It is well known that means of transport are a main target in wartime. Difficulties in restoring traffic are among the chief obstacles to the assistance of devastated countries and to the reestablishment of normal economic life. These difficulties are the greater because transport facilities have to cope not only with normal prewar traffic, but with increased requirements. We are at present obliged to transport a great deal of reconstruction equipment which we did not have to import in peacetime. That means that we need a much larger, river transport system, and that every form of transport must be pressed into service. We have had to put into commission every single piece of rolling-stock, every locomotive, every ship. Allow me to illustrate by one example Yugoslavia’s present predicament. Along with other countries, Yugoslavia has a considerable part of her river fleet on the upper Danube, whither it was taken by the Germans in their retreat. Since the capitulation of Germany, all these boats and barges have been immobilized in the American occupation zone. When every method of direct negotiation, over a period of a year, had failed, my Government proposed to the Economic and Social Council that the attention of the Government of the United States be drawn to the fact that the detention of these boats — which the United States itself did not deny belonged to our country — entailed an enormous economic loss, not only to Yugoslavia but also to neighbouring riparian States. Because these boats are lying idle, our industry, as well as that of Czechoslovakia and of Hungary, is not receiving regular supplies of the coal and ore it requires; that means thousands thrown out of work and the frequent shutting down of blast furnaces. That in turn has seriously hindered the production of essential machinery for agriculture and industrial requirements. Similarly, the transport of food is delayed, and it is impossible to ensure the regular transport of indispensable material for the reconstruction of devastated areas. For the first time the Economic and Social Council had the opportunity and the duty of solving a concrete economic problem. But the decision it took does not go far enough. It denies a just settlement to a nation which, in this case, demands no material sacrifice, not even a single dollar, for the amelioration of its economic life, but asks only for the restoration of what is indubitably its own property. Instead of that, a conference has been proposed of riparian States and States allegedly interested, for the purpose of settling this question, among others. We regard this proposal for a conference as a method of exerting pressure in order to establish on the Danube a regime contrary to the interests of the riparian States. We demand that the boats be restored, as they are our property. The question of their restoration has nothing to do with the regime on the Danube. As regards the latter subject, we wish to emphasize again that the Yugoslav Government cannot participate in the proposed conference to be held in Vienna, or in any other conference to discuss the question of the Danube and in which other delegates than those of the riparian States would take part. On the other hand, the Yugoslav Government will support any step for convening an international conference of all the riparian States to settle the future regime of the Danube, in accordance with the principles of the United Nations. There is another question I wish to mention: that of refugees. I am not referring to all categories of refugees, for, generally speaking, agreements have already been reached respecting those who deserve the concern of the United Nations, such as refugees from Franco Spain, the Jews in Germany, and certain other categories. The draft proposals for the establishment of a new international organization, worked out by a special Commission and approved by the Economic and Social Council, have been accepted without difficulty. We must, however, deal with a special problem which forms an integral part of the general refugee question, namely, the problem of military units abroad, and that of the extradition of war criminals. The main facts, in so far as the Yugoslavs are concerned, are probably known to all. In Italy, in the western occupation zone of Austria, and in Germany, there exist military camps containing tens of thousands of Yugoslavs. Some of these are officers and soldiers of former units, the quislings of our country, such as the Ustashi, the Nedic formations and the Chetniks, and some are former soldiers of the regular Yugoslav Army who were prisoners of war. Generally speaking, these camps are commanded by quisling leaders, many of whom are notorious war criminals. Those who enjoy the confidence of the commanders are armed. With the aid of such men the remainder are terrorized to prevent their return to their country. Those who wish to return to their country, or try to do so against the wishes of the commandant, are imprisoned or given corporal or even, in certain cases, capital punishment. It is obvious that everyone in these camps is subjected to violent propaganda against the present state of affairs in their country. The basic theme of this propaganda is the claim that war will break out in the near future between the Allies, that thanks to the atomic bomb, the Western Powers will be victorious, and that, in that war, the units formed in the camps will have the glorious duty of helping in the attack on Yugoslavia and of overthrowing the present regime. Those are the facts. Our delegation made them known at the first part of this session of the General Assembly, first in plenary session and then in the Social Committee, then in more detailed form in the Special Commission of the Economic and Social Council, and finally at the plenary session of the Council. But nothing was decided. Or, to be more precise, it was decided not to investigate this matter. I would like to mention, by the way, that investigation was prevented not by the exercise of the unanimity rule, which, moreover, does not apply in the Economic and Social Council, but by a majority vote. We hope that, during this session, a solution will be found not only for this question, but also for that of the immediate extradition of war criminals. This latter question is perfectly clear, and all that is needed is the goodwill of those governments which have hitherto prevented its settlement. I should observe here that, during the interval between the first and second parts of this session, a bilateral agreement was concluded between France and Yugoslavia concerning the extradition of war criminals and quislings and the repatriation of deportees. The French Government gave its approval to the agreement on the grounds that settlement of this question by organs of the United Nations would be too tardy a method. The United Nations should endeavour not to lay itself open to such criticism. The World Federation of Trade Unions is not yet taking part in the work of our Organization. That is because its request to be allowed full co-operation with us was not unanimously approved by the Members of the United Nations. At the very time when the United Nations was first established, the World Federation of Trade Unions, which embraces over 60 million organized workers, that is to say, the most productive section of mankind, stated its position. It now asks to be fully represented in the Organization. A tendency has nevertheless developed to reduce and limit the scope of this Federation, the enormous resources of which would be of the utmost value to us in our efforts for the strengthening and consolidation of peace and reconstruction, and to relegate it to a secondary position, that is to say, on the same level as other non-governmental organizations of far inferior strength and importance. That is why the World Federation of Trade Unions should be allowed full participation in the work of the United Nations. Its activities would be especially and immediately useful in the Economic and Social Council. Through the World Federation of Trade Unions, the United Nations has an opportunity of enlisting the co-operation of millions of workers, and of hearing their opinions concerning the measures which we take on all important questions. Full participation by the Federation in the work of the United Nations would, at the same time, be clear proof to all the workers of the freedom-loving countries that their efforts and sacrifices had not been vain, and that they were now being offered the chance of helping to build up the peace and a better and more secure future. One of our most important problems and one which should cause anxiety, not only to the countries which need assistance for the restoration of their economy, but to the whole of the United Nations, is that of the termination of the work of UNRRA. The work accomplished by UNRRA has been the finest attempt to achieve the ideals of the United Nations. This institution started operations at a time when the world situation was at its worst, when all Europe was under the nazi yoke. It was the embodiment of moral solidarity with the peoples who had been most directly exposed to the onslaught of the nazi and fascist war machine. There can be no doubt that the pledge of solidarity by the whole family of the United Nations to the most immediate victims of the war contributed in no small degree to the strengthening of resistance and the achievement of victory. The nazis and fascists felt most directly the impact of this stroke, and in their propaganda throughout the war tried their utmost to nullify the effects of the action taken by the Allies. When the war reached its end, this vast plan of reconstruction was put into effect. I am speaking as the representative of one of the most devastated countries, and the one which suffered the largest percentage loss of human lives, since out of every hundred graves in Europe, excluding those of Poles and of citizens of the Soviet Union, thirty-four are Yugoslav graves. We would have been in a very difficult situation without the assistance of UNRRA. As regards food supplies, the re-establishment of communications, medical aid, assistance to dispersed families and help in so many other ways, UNRRA has accomplished a great task, trader the guidance of its Director-General, in the first place Mr. Lehman, and later, Mr. La Guardia. The devastated countries have not nearly recovered from the wounds inflicted on them by the war. Hundreds upon hundreds of burnt- down houses have not yet been rebuilt. Millions of people are suffering from malnutrition. Above all, there are the children to care for, since it is on them that the future depends. These burdens cannot all be placed on the shoulders of peoples exhausted by the war, who suffered only because they lay in the path of nazi Germany and fought for our common ideal. Continuation of the work begun by UNRRA, in the same direction and on the same ones, must be the primary concern of the United Nations. We do not say this for selfish reasons, as a nation which is receiving assistance, but prompted by our concern for the general community and by our desire to see the achievement of that noble ideal of “freedom from want”. We say it also because we want to get on our feet again as soon as possible and become active members of the community in international trade, so that we too, who contributed so much to the common victory, may assist in the work of reconstruction and in raising the general standard of living. We considered it necessary to explain the attitude of the Yugoslav delegation. The Assembly must make decisions on the problems which I have just mentioned. In fact, we should all ask ourselves this question: why are these problems still on the agenda, a year after the end of the war, and a year after the establishment of the United Nations? These are problems which should have been settled by the Allies long ago, and which should no longer be hindering the work of this Organization for the establishment of peace. I have alluded to the following questions: the principle of unanimity of the great Powers; the threat of a new weapon; the admission of Allies into the United Nations; the withdrawal of Allied troops from Allied countries; the help to be given to countries devastated by the war; the restitution of boats taken away by the enemy; the return of prisoners of war to their homes; the extradition of war criminals; the severance of normal relations with Franco’s fascist regime, etc. Should these problems have remained unsolved till now? As, however, these problems are, in fact, unfortunately not yet solved, it should be obvious to everyone that they must be settled urgently, in order that we may proceed with a firm step towards the achievement of our declared aims, and enable the peoples of all nations to devote themselves to creative work, to their self-development and the strengthening of peaceful and constructive relations. The only concrete proposal, made in this spirit, which we have had the opportunity of hearing here, was that formulated yesterday before this Assembly by Mr. Molotov, a proposal for the general limitation of armaments, including, first and foremost, the prohibition of the production and use of atomic energy for military purposes. This proposal reflects the true desires, the hopes and aspirations of all the peoples of the world, who will undoubtedly welcome it and give it their support. They will see in it the first ray of hope; they will be able to say that humanity will one day free itself from the threat of armed conflict, and will throw off, like a nightmare, the haunting fear of war. The Yugoslav delegation takes this opportunity of stating that it is in complete and unqualified agreement with this proposal, and gives it full support. It also states that its country is prepared to give all assistance to the Security Council in the fulfilment of the duties laid upon it by this proposal.