Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

I take this opportunity, Mr. President, to congratulate you, on behalf of the Soviet delegation, on your election to this high office. 30. Sixteen years have passed since the United Nations was born. When the Founder States affixed their signatures to the Charter, the guns in Europe had ceased to roar. It is true that the war in the Far East had not yet ended, but people already sensed the imminent falling of the curtain, and in fact that mankind's great tragedy would soon be over. 31. The peoples, tortured by hunger and suffering, were directing their thoughts to a single question: how could a new tragedy be avoided, how could the path to war be barred? That was why such applause greeted the emergence of the United Nations, which proclaimed the maintenance of peace as its supreme goal. 32. With the passing of the years, the United Nations has grown. Dozens of new countries have poured into it. Let us recall that the Charter of the United Nations, as adopted at the constituent session of San Francisco in June 1945, bore the signatures of fifty-one States. Look around you today, in this General Assembly hall, and you will see that the number of Members of the United Nations has almost doubled, mainly on account of the Asian and African States which have) acceded to national independence in the post-war period. We must admit that the United Nations still has much to do if it is to attain the goal for which it was founded to save mankind from the scourge of war. How far we still are from that goal is shown by the fact that the present session of the General Assembly is meeting under circumstances more disquieting than those of any previous session. 34. Why has this happened? Has mankind now moved backwards in its development? Certainly not. Never has historical progress been so impetuous, never has the creative genius of Man reached such heights, as in our day. To get an idea of the possibilities opened up by progressive science, technology and culture, suffice it to recall that it was in this year of 1961 that Man first, escaped from the sphere of the Earth's attraction. In truth, all present in this hall understand our feeling of pride that the first human beings who as pioneers opened up the road into' outer space were citizens of the socialist Soviet Union, and that the space-ships on which they accomplished their heroic flights were created by our compatriots. 35. Profound transformations are taking place over a substantial portion of our planet, and the relations between people are changing so as to reflect the principle of fairer shares for all in the production and consumption of material goods. In our country there is nation-wide discussion of the magnificent programme for the building of a communist society, on the portals of which will be engraved that lofty principle of which the world's best people have long dreamed: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". 36. The true causes of the intensification of international tension must be sought in the aggressive policy of the Powers belonging to the NATO military bloc. Only recently the "cold war" seemed to be dying out, together with the so-called policy of "brinkmanship", and a sober appraisal of the relationship of the real forces in the world seemed to be taking its place. But those expectations proved unjustified. 37. One cannot help wondering, today, where the activities of the principal Powers in that military bloc are leading us. If they continue to brandish weapons and broadcast threats, as they now do in connexion with the Soviet proposal for an immediate German peace treaty, no one can be sure that events will not go beyond the fatal limit. If that were to happen, those achievements of human brain and brawn, at which the world marvels today, would be used against mankind, to destroy all the treasures built up by Man over many generations and to annihilate hundreds of millions of human beings. 38. It must be candidly said that, so far, the United Nations has all too often been content to play the role of observer, and has preferred to remain on the sidelines, when the Governments of the Western Powers have been playing their dangerous international game. The agenda of the United Nations General Assembly continues to contain questions on the solution of which an abatement of tension and, in the last analysis, the future of mankind itself depend. And although many fine speeches have been made from this rostrum, the major and most acute questions in international relations today — general and complete disarmament, the total abolition of the colonial system, and the 'final closing of accounts in regard to the Second World War-still await solution. With what relief the peoples of the world would breathe if the present session of the General Assembly were to mark a turning-point in this respect! 39. The General Assembly has at its sixteenth session to consider many international questions, the importance of which we all recognize. But there is one question which, whether or not it is formally on the agenda, has today eclipsed all others — the question of concluding a German peace treaty. Dangerous passions seethe around it. Along the Elbe and past the Brandenburg Gate run dividing-lines which create the highest degree of international tension and can at any moment result in the launching of thunderbolts upon each other by the two military groups of Powers. 40. This threat to peace has arisen neither today nor yesterday. It has matured from year to year, in proportion as the conclusion of a German peace was postponed. The unsettled situation in that part of Central Europe, where there were only fragments of Hitler's Reich and then two German States arose, created one of the most dangerous knots of contradiction between States. With time, the knot has been drawn ever tighter and the contradictions have become ever more acute. 41. The two German States — the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany — resemble each other, perhaps, only in the black-red-gold colours of their national flags, each a heritage of the Weimar days. They are separated, not merely by frontier-posts, but by the most profound social and political differences. Unless this is taken into account, no proper understanding of the new situation that has now developed in Germany and Europe can be gained. The fact that certain politicians may close their eyes to this new situation does not, of course, result in its removal. 42. The German Democratic Republic has broken forever with the shameful past of Nazi Germany; it has radically transformed its economy and social life; and it has stripped political power and economic might from the standard-bearers of German militarism. It has voluntarily limited the size of its army, has refrained from introducing compulsory military service, and has expressed its readiness to abstain from equipping its armed, forces with nuclear weapons. The German Democratic Republic makes no territorial demands on its neighbours, The entire twelve-year history of this State has been the history of the struggle to strengthen, on German soil, the idea of friendship and co-operation between States, regardless of their social structure. 43. But what of the other German State? Behind the facade of a sham parliamentary system, affairs in the Federal Republic of Germany are in the control of those who in the past erected fascism, those who are primarily responsible for the Second World War. Having seized the commanding positions in the political and economic life of the country, Hitler's political successors, and sometimes even his former assistants, are mobilizing their forces, awaiting the hour when they can take revenge for the lost war. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is openly demanding the revision of the frontiers established as a result of the Second World War. Press, radio, television, cinema — all modern propaganda media are utilized to implant the idea of revenge. Inoculation with the bacillus of "revanche" and militarism begins, indeed, at the school bench. 44. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany attempts to apply a little "make-up" to its policy, and with this object it appends the word "peaceful" to its demand for a revision of European frontiers. But who can be taken in by such words? The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, like all of us, is very well aware that the States to whose territories it lays claim will never modify their frontiers for the benefit of the German revenge-seekers and will refuse to let themselves be drawn into any deals on this question. 45. Most wars, as a rule, originate precisely in attempts to modify existing frontiers for the purpose of acquiring fresh territory. Such was the case with the two world wars unleashed by Germany. No matter how much the word "peaceful" is used in connexion with a demand for the revision of existing frontiers, it cannot mask the fundamentally aggressive nature of the policy pursued by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany in this matter. 46. The most dangerous feature of the situation is that the adventurous plans of the West German revenge-seekers repose on a fairly solid military and material foundation. 47. At the insistence of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, even those insignificant and essentially formal restrictions imposed on military production in Western Germany by the Paris Agreements of 1954 are, one after the other, being removed. These restrictions have already been raised three times. But even that is a matter of little account to the West German militarists. They persistently demand possession of nuclear weapons. Under every pretext — such as claims of insufficient room for rearguard services, for manoeuvres, or for firing-ranges — the Federal Republic of Germany is thrusting its network of military strong-points and bases ever more deeply into the territories of West European countries. 48. Already Western Germany has strong armed forces, commanded by former Hitlerite generals who sullied themselves by monstrous crimes committed against the peoples of the Soviet Union, France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece and many other countries. The war criminal Fertsch has been appointed to a very high post of command in the "Bundeswehr" by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany. The Hitlerite generals Heusinger, Speidel and others are prominent in NATO organs. One may ask what such leaders can teach the "Bundeswehr" soldier, what ideals they can inculcate in him, what morals they can instil in their subordinates, From its inception, the West German "Bundeswehr" has been shaped and trained as an aggressive force. 49. The same features that characterized the policy of Germany on the eve of the Second World War stand out, with ever-increasing distinctness, in the present policy of the Federal Republic of Germany. Many of those sitting in this hall remember, of course, how the rulers of Hitlerite Germany likewise demanded the right to "equality in armaments", likewise emitted heart-rending cries about the "communist menace". In exactly the same way they corrupted the souls of the Germans with the ideas of "revanche", which today pervade the entire foreign policy of the West German State. If Ribbentrop had not ended on the gallows, a comfortable arm-chair would certainly have been found for him in the West German Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 50. It is also worth glancing at the dominant slogans of the recent West German electoral campaign. Were they, by any chance, slogans calling for the strengthening of peace and the removal of the mines left on German soil by the war, so that they should no longer threaten international relations? Did they call for normal relations with the neighbouring countries, for mutual understanding between the two German States? No, the calls that then resounded from the banks of the Rhine were entirely different, The slogans were permeated with the madness of chauvinism, and looked r. for all the world as though they had been directly transplanted from the pages of fascist newspapers to the election posters of the West German political parties. 51. The statesmen of the West, including Chancellor Adenauer, in objecting to the conclusion of a German peace treaty, often speak of "self-determination" for the Germans. By self-determination, however, they understand nothing more nor less than absorption of the German Democratic Republic by West Germany, although the adventurous nature of such a policy should be obvious to all. 52. To this we have answered and still answer, very simply, that the Germans have long since exercised self-determination. They exercised self-determination as long ago as the autumn of 1949, when they established two independent States, elected the parliaments of those States, and formed their own Governments. Year after year the distance between those States widened, as they developed in opposite directions. One of them, the German Democratic Republic developed along the paths of peace, in the circumstances of the building of socialism; the other the Federal Republic of Germany, developed along military paths, under conditions of capitalism. No one can help seeing that the Division between these two German States took place not in a national but in a social context. 53. The "self-determination" of the Germans, to which those who oppose the conclusion of a German treaty allude in certain capitals of the West, Is an expression belonging to a policy of deceiving the . peoples. That dish is an imperialist one, to the taste only of those who shape the destinies of West Germany. Speculation built around the slogan of "self-determination" has nothing in common with the true national interest of the German people. If anyone in Bonn or in Washington does not like the social order established in the German Democratic Republic, does not like the Government and leaders of the German Democratic Republic, what of it? The German Democratic Republic does not cease to exist on that account, just as the other German State, the Federal Republic of Germany, does not cease to exist because its social order, Government and leaders are not to the taste of many people in other countries. 54. The wider the international recognition granted to the two German States, and the sooner they are admitted to membership in the United Nations, the stronger will be the foundations of the post-war peace in Europe and the less free will be the hands of the West German militarists and revenge-seekers. 55. Many of the participants in the recently ended Belgrade Conference of Non-Aligned Countries quite justly pointed out that this step was overdue. How can the General Assembly continue to be inactive with regard to a question which is so important for the fate of the world? The United Nations would be showing courage and foresight if it decided to admit both German States to membership in it. We would like to emphasize, with the utmost clarity, that life itself is insistently bringing this demand on to the agenda: the demand for the admission of both German States to the United Nations. 56. The Soviet Government raises the question of a threat to peace from West German militarism so insistently not, of course, from any fear of its military preparations. But just as no particular strength is needed in order to pull a trigger, so one does not have to be stronger than others in order to unleash a war. 57. What is the remedy for this situation? How can the threat of war be prevented from arising in connexion with the present position in Germany and in West Berlin where the long-obsolete occupation regime still exists? There is a remedy: in 1961 a German peace treaty should be concluded and the situation in West Berlin should on that basis be restored to normal, West Berlin being converted into a demilitarized Free City; a peace conference for that purpose should be called immediately. Such are the well-known proposals of the Soviet Government. 58. The Soviet Union is not begging for a peace treaty. It has. earned the right to conclude such a treaty, at the cost of enormous sacrifice. 59. Who will suffer from the fact of a peace treaty legally stabilizing the present German frontiers? No one. Whose interests will be damaged if the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic undertake not to manufacture or equip their armed forces with nuclear rocket weapons? No one's. Who will be harmed if the two German States undertake to settle all disputes solely by negotiation? No one. The only people who may be infuriated by these proposals are the enemies of peace. 60. We sometimes hear it said that a peace treaty will be an impediment to the unification of Germany. What curious logic. When, owing to the absence of a peace treaty, the situation in Germany and around West Berlin is becoming more and more acute and the tension in the relations between the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany is continual" increasing, that, apparently, produces no impediment to the unification of Germany. But when the conclusion of a peace treaty removes the tension and both German States have a common platform, at least with regard to the conduct of their external affairs, that, apparently, hinders a "rapprochement" between the two. How can these arguments be accepted? Is it not more correct to assume that they are put forward, for the sole purpose of making it more difficult to conclude a German peace treaty, by those to whom the interest of restoring the national unity of Germany is as foreign as the interest of concluding a German peace treaty? 61. Anyone who has studied the Soviet proposals attentively will doubtless have noted that they take account of the actual situation which evolved as a result of the defeat of Hitlerite Germany. The conclusion of a peace treaty would entail no disruption in the way of life: of either German State, or of West Berlin. In so far as the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany belong to different Power groups, the Soviet draft peace treaty takes that fact also into account: it does not call for the immediate dissolution of the political and military ties binding the two German States to their allies. 62. We are ready to sign either a single treaty with the two German States or. separate treaties with the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany. For the Soviet Union the most Important thing is to write finis to the Second World War by concluding a German peace treaty which would serve the interests of a strengthening of peace and the interests of the peoples of Europe, including the German people. 63. The conclusion of a peace treaty would enable the situation in West Berlin also to be normalized, on the basis of such a treaty. 64. West Berlin has now become, a source of great military danger, like the crater of an active volcano which constantly threatens to erupt. It may be that countries which are geographically remote from West Berlin do not realize entirely clearly what is happening there. The Soviet Union therefore regards it as a duty to warn the peoples, over and over again, of the situation which is developing as a result of the absence of a German peace treaty. The Soviet Government has frequently drawn the attention of the Governments of the Western Powers to the serious nature of the existing danger. This was referred to by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev, at his recent meeting in Vienna with Mr. Kennedy, President of the United States of America. 65. There is, in the world today, no place where there is such a hive of subversive, diversionary and espionage centres as in West Berlin. Western propaganda has given many names to West Berlin, such as "an arrow in the flesh of the German Democratic Republic", "a bridge-head for a drive to the East", "a front-line city". But it would be far more correct to describe West Berlin as a cesspool in which wallow the completely outdated occupation regime, the criminal subversive centres of the Federal Republic of Germany and the NATO powers, and the crowd of West German militarists and revenge-seekers. 66. The representatives of the Powers which are responsible for the absence of a peace treaty and for the present abnormal situation in West Berlin frequently invoke the principles of the United Nations Charter. But is there anything in common between the principles of that Charter and the policy which their Governments are conducting in opposing a German peace treaty? Of course not. 67. We are proposing that the situation in West Berlin should be regulated by a peace treaty in conditions which would affect the prestige neither of the USSR nor of the Western Powers. 68. Do the Western Powers want the freedom and welfare of the people of West Berlin to be safeguarded? We are in favour of that. We will repeat once more, as we have done countless times; we are in favour of that. 69. The United States of America, the United Kingdom and France do not want the established way of life in West Berlin - the social order or, as they say, the social system — to be disrupted. That coincides with our attitude. No one has designs on the social order which exists in West Berlin. We have stated dozens of times, in the most formal terms, and we declare once more, that we are firmly of the opinion that the people of West Berlin should be guaranteed — I repeat, guaranteed — the right to live and to work in whatever social structure suits them. We propose that this right of the inhabitants of West Berlin should be reliably protected against any encroachment. How many times must all tint be repeated, in order to put an end to the continuing attempts to distort the clear and consistent position of the Soviet Union? 70. Freedom of communications between West Berlin and the outside world? We are in favour of ensuring those communications. 71. But why is it asserted from all sides that free access to West Berlin is being threatened by someone? That is another gross distortion of the Soviet Union's position. 72. The implementation of our proposal for a peace treaty involves no prohibition of access to West Berlin, nor a blockade, as some have tried to assert. Ho; a Free City of West Berlin would have the right to establish relations with any country on any continent. For this only one thing is required — unfailing respect for the sovereignty of the State through whose territory pass the land, air and water communications linking West Berlin with the outside world, that is, for the sovereignty of the German Democratic Republic, with which the appropriate agreements concerning the use of those communications will also have to be concluded. 73. Do the Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and France not know that the Soviet Government is ready to assume, together with them, a solemn obligation to protect and respect the freedom, independence and rights of a Free City of West Berlin, including the freedom of its external communications? And if the four Powers reach an agreement for the presence of token troops in West Berlin as a guarantee of the Free City's status, only hopeless sceptics and people who have lost all common sense can doubt that the status of the Free City will be reliably guaranteed. Since co-operation between the four Powers succeeded in bringing Hitler's Germany to its knees, it will surely be easier to arrange effective guarantees for a Free City of West Berlin. 74. As the Soviet Government and the Head of that Government, Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev, have frequently stated, the United Nations could also be a guarantor of the status of the Free City. For such a purpose that status could be officially registered with the United Nations, and other forms of United Nations participation in guaranteeing the freedom and independence of the Free City could be envisaged. The Soviet Government is also ready to agree to the use of contingents of troops from neutral States, or United Nations troops, as guarantors of the Free City's status. 75. In a word, what we say is: accept the proposal for the conclusion of a peace treaty and the conversion of West Berlin into a Free City on the basis of that treaty, and we will accept proposals for the most effective guarantees for that City which are known to modern international practice. Do not all these proposals of ours ensure respect for the lawful interests of the Western Powers? Surely they provide a solution of the problem for those who are seeking a solution, those who sincerely want to solve the question of a peace treaty by means of negotiation, readiness for which was mentioned yesterday by Mr. Kennedy, President of the United States of America. 76. The solution proposed can inconvenience only those whose hatred for peace and socialism clouds their vision and who do not see where the policy of preserving the remnants of the last war in Germany is leading. The Soviet proposals can fail to suit only the narrow-minded strategists from the military staffs of NATO or these statesmen who consider West Berlin to be necessary to that military bloc as a springboard for a drive to the East. They much prefer the situation as it is, when every day sees the accumulation of more inflammable material owing to the absence of a German peace treaty. Is there not evidence of this in the recent very dangerous provocation committed against the German Democratic Republic, when its air space was invaded by two military jet aircraft equipped for carrying nuclear bombs? Whose were these invading aircraft that used the air corridors, temporarily made available for the transit of unarmed transport aircraft of the three Western occupying powers, for an incursion deep into the territory of the German Democratic Republic? They were fighter-bombers of the West German "Bundeswehr". 77. The Soviet Government has warned the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, and also the Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and France, that in future any invading military aircraft will, in such circumstances, be destroyed by any available means, including rockets. 78. How do the Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and France respond to the Soviet Union's proposal for the elaboration of a German peace treaty? Instead of coming to a peace conference table and considering the Soviet proposals in a business-like manner, or putting forward their own proposals, the Western Powers have begun to intensify their military preparations and have gone so far as to threaten, point-blank, the use of force as a response to the conclusion of a peace treaty. We will not enumerate those military measures to which the NATO Powers have resorted in the last few months and which have, so to speak, brought the international situation to boiling-point. 79. The leading politicians of some Western Powers often declare that those Powers will not shrink from a test of strength in answer to the conclusion of a German peace treaty — will not shrink; in other words, from replying with war to the peace which is proposed by the Soviet Government. But the question arises as to whether those bold words are weighed carefully enough, .whether it is sufficiently borne in mind that there is a great difference between a declaration of readiness to use force and the use of force itself, if it be considered what such use of force would mean, what consequences it would entail for Europe, for the world and, last but not least, for those States which, for some unknown reason, so often and so vociferously proclaim their readiness to resort to force as an answer to the signing of a German peace treaty. 80. What is there to add in reply to such declarations? I can remind you of the words of the Head of the Soviet Government who stressed that ft in response to peace, in response to a peace treaty, force is used — that is, if aggression Is committed — the Soviet Union will be compelled to stand-up for its just cause, for its security and for the security of its allies, together with whom it is endeavouring to do away with the vestiges of the Second World War through the conclusion of a German peace treaty. 81. There is one other important point which the Soviet delegation would like, most emphatically, to stress. The Soviet Government, as it has more than once declared, will conclude a peace treaty with the German Democratic Republic alone only if, despite all our efforts, no agreement with the Western Powers is reached. 82. If the United States of America, the United Kingdom and France do not proceed to the joint conclusion of a German peace treaty, as the Soviet Government urges them to do, the Soviet Union and the other countries concerned will have no alternative but to conclude a peace treaty with the German Democratic Republic and to settle the question of West Berlin on that basis. In that event, no one will be able to reproach us with not having tried to persuade those who were formerly our allies, in the war against Hitler's Germany, to remain our allies in the reaching of a German peace settlement. 83. We should not like to act towards them as they acted towards the Soviet Union when, without its participation, they concluded a peace treaty with Japan. But we are entitled to draw the appropriate conclusions from that circumstance. The upshot is, that when the Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and France conclude a peace treaty with Japan without our participation it is perfectly right and proper, but that when, after repeated appeals to the Governments of those same three Western Powers, their refusal to act jointly with us compels us to conclude a peace treaty without them, such procedure on our part becomes inequitable and improper. So singular an approach to the problem of distinguishing what is lawful and what is unlawful is possible only when the facts are weighed in the imperialist balance. But today, in international affairs, such a balance has no place. 84. It has been said here that there is a possibility of a peaceful solution which would take into account the rightful interests of the peoples in the establishment of European security. Yes, we too favour such a solution. But what, in present circumstances, is meant by safeguarding the interests of European security? It means, first of all, concluding a German peace treaty which would establish the position that has developed in Europe and Germany in consequence of the Second World War, and calling, for that purpose, a peace conference in the very near future. 85. It is two years since our draft of a German peace treaty was communicated to the Governments concerned, and published. There has been ample time in which to study the Soviet proposals and convene a peace conference. Favouring as we do the immediate conclusion of a peace treaty, we advocate the speediest possible calling of a peace conference, open to participation by all States which, with their armed forces, took part in the war against Hitlerite Germany. 86. The conclusion of a German peace treaty involves more than the question of liquidating the problems left over from the last War. It involves the whole question of the fate of the world — the question whether there is to be war or peace. To such a question no single State, no single responsible Government, no single responsible statesman can remain indifferent. No State can be neutral on this issue, just as the United Nations as a whole cannot and should not be a neutral, disinterested observer. 87. Such is the position of the Soviet Government — and, we are happy to declare from this rostrum, such is also the position of our allies — on the subject of a German peace treaty. 88. In the opinion of the Soviet Government, one of the central problems that should be considered at the General Assembly's present session is the problem of disarmament. 89. A good many years have passed since, after the most destructive war that ever descended upon mankind, the States embarked on disarmament negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations. Even today, however, that problem is far from solution, while weapons of ever more lethal form continue to be created and the arsenals bulge with their stockpiles. 90. Two years ago there was an event which breathed new life into the search for ways of stopping the arms race. Many of those present at today's meeting of the General Assembly must surely still remember the day when from this rostrum the Head of the Soviet Government, N. S. Khrushchev, submitted for the consideration of the United Nations a programming of general and complete disarmament. That programme gave hope to all sincere supporters of disarmament. We are entitled to say that the fourteenth session of the General Assembly fulfilled its duty to the peoples by unanimously adopting a resolution which proclaimed general and complete disarmament to be the most important question facing the world of the day and called upon all countries to make every effort to solve it in the shortest possible time. 91. Everyone knows why the work on the implementation of this resolution proved fruitless and why the activities of the Ten-Nation Committee, charged by the General Assembly to consider the programme of general and complete disarmament, ceased to be meaningful. The primary reason was that the opponents of disarmament did not intend to give way. They did everything possible to obstruct an agreement on general and complete disarmament and to prevent the negotiations, even on that occasion, from breaking out of the cycle of empty talk. 92. What course remained open to a protagonist of disarmament? There was only one — to submit the whole question once more to the General Assembly for consideration. And that was what the Soviet Government did. But even at its next, its fifteenth, session the General Assembly was unable to move the disarmament problem off dead centre. More specifically, it proved unable to adopt clear and unambiguous directives for the drafting of a treaty on general and complete disarmament. Consideration of the disarmament question had to be postponed, because the new Government of the United States had requested time in which to study it. Simultaneously it was agreed that the Soviet Union and the United States of America should engage in bilateral talks on disarmament — an idea which was approved by the General Assembly. 93. This bilateral exchange of views yielded certain positive results. Despite considerable difficulties and despite differences of opinion on many important aspects of the disarmament problem, it proved possible to work out a Joint Statement of Agreed Principles for Disarmament Negotiations [A/4879], The results of the Soviet-American talks on disarmament were well received in the Soviet Union. We have no doubt that they were received with satisfaction in other countries as well. 94. The Joint Statement of Principles, together with the communication of the Soviet Government on the course of the Soviet-American talks has already been circulated to all States Members of the United Nations. If you read the text of the Soviet-American statement, you will see that it expresses, first and foremost, recognition of the need to achieve agreement on a programme of general and complete disarmament. This is yet another indication that the idea of general and complete disarmament is steadily making headway, in the present international situation, while the forces whose policy is linked with the arms race are finding it ever harder to maintain their positions. 95. If the Joint Statement of Principles is compared with the Soviet disarmament plan, it will easily be seen that the statement contains a number of provisions advocated by the Soviet Government ever since it first came forward with the programme of general and complete disarmament. We allude to those provisions of the Joint Statement relating to: the disbanding of the armed forces of States; the dismantling of military bases; the elimination of all stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, bacteriological and other weapons of mass destruction, the cessation of the production of such weapons, and the elimination of all means of delivering them; the elimination of other forms of armament, and the cessation of their production; the closing of all military training institutions, and the abolition of all institutions designed to organize the military effort of States; and the discontinuance of military expenditures. The Soviet Government has always considered that the combination of these measures should constitute general and complete disarmament. The Agreed Statement of Principles also contains other useful provisions. 96. Thus, as a result of the bilateral exchange of views, there has been presented to the General Assembly a document that may serve as a directive for the purpose of subsequent negotiations for the preparation of an agreement on general and complete disarmament, 97. But is it possible to say that the "green light" has been given and the road for disarmament negotiations is now clear? No, such optimism would today be excessive. It is, of course, a welcome development that the two States — the United States of America and the Soviet Union — which bear the main burden of armaments in the world of today have been able to agree on a common platform for the resumption of disarmament negotiations. But there is a real danger that attempts may be made so to interpret these provisions as to inject into them matter extraneous to genuine disarmament. 98. The Soviet Government deems it impossible to pass over in silence the inability of the parties, during the talks, to settle the fundamental dispute as to whether the subject of discussion should be disarmament and control of disarmament — I repeat, control of disarmament, of general and complete disarmament — or control of armaments. There is no possibility of escaping this question. 99. During the bilateral negotiations, the United States of America, or, mor6 precisely, its representatives, declared — as was only natural and proper — that the armed forces and armaments of States which under the treaty became subject to reduction or abolition at the relevant stage of general and complete disarmament should be placed under strict control. But the representatives of the United States of America added, at the same time, that it would also be necessary to place under control — forthwith, beginning at the very first stage — that part of the armed forces and armaments of States which, under the treaty, was to remain at the States' disposal. Confirmation of this position of the United States of America is also contained in a letter received by us from the United States side at the bilateral disarmament talks after agreement had been reached on the basic principles. 100. How is all this to be understood? If this demand is translated into ordinary human language, if everything is reduced to its simplest terms, then it would appear that States could reduce their armed forces and armaments by a negligible amounts — say 5 per cent — but at the same time would have to open all their doors to international control — in other words, to foreign investigation. But what would result from acceptance of this demand, a demand which is in no way dictated by the interests of disarmament ? The only result would be to give a potential aggressor information about the armed forces and armaments of the States in which he was interested. That might, precisely, serve the purposes of aggression — purposes, that is, diametrically opposed to those of disarmament. It would, of course, play into the hands of certain circles in the West — into the hands of the military staffs of the NATO military bloc. But no peace-loving State valuing the interests of the peoples' security, the interests of the maintenance of peace, and its own interests, could or would accept the establishment of control over armaments. 101. Such conclusions are substantiated by the fact that our partners in the talks indicate no time-limits for the implementation of an agreement on general and complete disarmament, and that, consequently, the opponents of disarmament could at any time advance some contrived, artificial pretext for obstructing disarmament, having in the meantime secured intelligence regarding the States' armed forces. 102. In an attempt to justify their proposals in this matter, the representatives of the United States of America advance the argument that, unless all the existing armaments of States were subjected to control, the quantities which they still retained after the reduction in armaments and armed forces at any given stage had been implemented would be unknown. Such an argument, however, is completely unfounded. Even now, no one knows what armaments and armed forces are at the disposal of States, simply because, for understandable reasons, States do not disclose such information. And this is entirely natural. The same situation would persist even after implementation of the disarmament measures envisaged for any given stage prior to the completion of general and complete disarmament. Consequently the States' armaments would still remain unknown, but with the substantial difference that a considerable part of the armament would have been liquidated and in that matter effective control would have been established. With the achievement of general and complete disarmament, permanent and all-embracing control would be established — I emphasize, permanent and all-embracing control. 103. If the partisans of control over armaments do not abandon their position — if they do not recede from the position stated from this rostrum by Mr. Eisenhower, the former President of the United States — it will mean that future disarmament negotiations are likewise doomed to failure. 104. Last year the Head of the Soviet Government, N. S. Khrushchev, stated in this hall that the Soviet Union was ready to accept any proposals for control of disarmament that might be made by the Western Powers, provided that those Powers accepted the proposals of the Soviet Union for general and complete disarmament. So far, no answer to this statement has been received from the Western Powers. I draw the attention of everyone present to this fact: so far, up to this moment, we have received no answer to this declaration by. the Head of the Soviet Government. We received no such answer yesterday, when the position of the United States Government on the question of disarmament was set forth. 105. How do matters in fact stand? Do the Western Powers agree to accept our proposals for general and complete disarmament, if we accept their proposals for control of disarmament? It is essential to secure an answer to this question. We declare again, with all determination, that the Soviet Union will never agree to the establishment of control over armaments. 106. Let us now turn to the question of international armed forces in circumstances of general and complete disarmament. The Soviet Government agrees that such forces should be established in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. Their administration — and the Head of the Soviet Government, N. S. Khrushchev, has said this more than once — must be truly international; that is to say, it must be in the hands of representatives of the three principal groups of States — such representatives having equal rights — and not in the hands of some servitor of the NATO military bloc. We regret that, in this matter as well, our partners in the talks take up a different position. This can only complicate consideration of the disarmament question. 107. The Soviet Government, which put forward the idea of general and complete disarmament, will do everything in its power to give effect to it. 108. The Soviet Government would like to call the attention of the General Assembly to one problem which, though it has to do with organization, is important and has not yet been solved. I refer to the composition of the body which should prepare the treaty on general and complete disarmament. 109. It is well known that the composition of the Ten-Nation Committee, on which five socialist countries and five Western Powers were represented, did not reflect realities, did not reflect the actual distribution of forces in the world and in the United Nations. The neutralist countries, constituting the third major group of States in the world, were not represented in the Ten-Nation Committee. But questions of disarmament cannot be solved without the neutralist countries, whose population represents one third of mankind and whose contribution to the strengthening of peace is by no means small. Of this the Soviet Government is convinced. 110. It might, of course, be said that the neutralist States lack powerful armed forces. That is perfectly true. But it does not follow that questions of disarmament are of no concern to them. The questions of disarmament, on whose solution the maintenance of world peace depends affect the vital interests of all States. 111. And if this is so, then countries belonging to all three groups should participate in the disarmament negotiations. It goes without saying that the neutralist countries must have, in the disarmament negotiating body, rights equal to those of the other members of that body, and not — as proposed by the Western Powers — attend its meetings as private individuals, with second-class rights. 112. The Soviet Government fully supports the demand by the participants in the Belgrade Conference of Non-Aligned Countries that these countries should be represented in all future disarmament negotiations. The Soviet Government insists that the disarmament negotiating body include representatives, with full powers, from the main groups of States, without whose participation there can be no constructive negotiations on disarmament. 113. The need for reaching the earliest possible agreement on disarmament would not be stated completely if no reference were made to the question of the cessation of nuclear weapons tests. This is all the more necessary in that attempts have recently been made, in connexion with the Soviet Government's decision to conduct experimental nuclear explosions in the USSR, to distort the true picture and to depart from the course which really leads to a solution of this problem. 114. Many Western statesmen have spoken on this subject recently. But their statements miss the mark and avoid the real issue. There is plenty of demagogy in them, but no proper evaluation of the position and of the reasons which compelled the Soviet Union to take this decision. 115. The Soviet Government has clearly stated that it took the step in question with a heavy heart. It did so in the face of hard facts, in reply to direct threats by the United States and its NATO allies to use force if a German peace treaty should be signed. Given the Western Powers' massive military preparations directed against our country and other socialist countries, the Government of the USSR had no choice but to take steps to strengthen the defensive capacity of the Soviet Union. 116. You also know that the NATO military bloc was systematically — I repeat, systematically — conducting nuclear weapons tests, as though nothing were amiss, during the whole period when the Soviet Union was not conducting such tests — the period which is often called the "moratorium". The fact that these tests were conducted by the French does not alter the position in the least. It is of no real significance to the Soviet Union which of the NATO Powers it is that acquires new information as a result of experiments with nuclear weapons. The nuclear tests by France were part of an over-all programme for the strengthening of NATO's military potential. In consequence, that bloc and the States belonging to it gained a definite military advantage in relation to the Soviet Union, which since 1958 had carried out no nuclear weapons tests. 117. Let everyone in this hall put himself in the Soviet Union's position and answer how he would have acted if one of the Members of the NATO military bloc, systematically ignoring the Soviet Union's pledge regarding the conduct of tests, had proceeded to make a nuclear test. 118. We warned the Americans, the English and, of course, the French that if France continued nuclear weapons tests the Soviet Union would also be obliged to resume such testing. What answer was given to the Soviet Government's warnings? It was announced that the tests were continuing and would continue. If there were no other reason, but merely this reason of nuclear tests by France, that alone would fully justify the resumption of nuclear weapons testing by the Soviet Union. 119. It must also be stressed that the United States and the United kingdom have never agreed to a complete cessation of all nuclear weapons tests. They have always tried, and still are trying, to leave themselves loopholes to legalize the perfection of nuclear weapons. First they proposed — and they are now again proposing — that this agreement should not cover underground test explosions of nuclear weapons; that is, precisely those explosions which they had long since prepared for the purpose of designing new types of nuclear weapons, as has now been confirmed by the latest American underground tests. Then they proposed the legalization of so-called nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes, although it is well known that in explosions for peaceful purposes the nuclear devices used are the same as those employed in explosions for military purposes. 120. No, gentlemen — we say to the Governments of the Western Powers — if you want honest co-operation with us, do not try to cheat and put the Soviet Union in a position of inequality. 121. The hypocrisy of the cry raised in Western capitals about the harmful effects of nuclear tests on human health is obviously a mile off. It is amazing that they made that "discovery" there precisely after the decision to conduct nuclear weapons tests had been taken by the Soviet Union. Where were they before, these people who are now carried away by this studied compassion for human beings? Why were they not concerned about the pollution of the atmosphere and the poisoning of surface water by radio-active deposits, when for a period of several years explosions of American and British nuclear bombs were resounding over the expanses of the Pacific Ocean and in the United States itself? After all, the Western Powers have detonated many more nuclear explosions, all told, than the Soviet Union has. 122. What is most surprising is that this ostentatious concern for humanity is being displayed by the very people whose actions and policies are pushing the world towards the disaster of nuclear war. Pushing things to a nuclear war, whose flames would consume whole States and incalculable material and cultural resources — that is considered a normal procedure; but nuclear weapons tests by the Soviet Union for the purpose of raising a new barrier in the path of war that is abnormal. It is clear that the Western Powers' position on the question of nuclear tests contains not a grain of genuine concern for the future of humanity. It is theatrical and false in character. 123. Yes, the Soviet Government is conducting nuclear weapons tests, is constructing new types of nuclear weapons, is showing and will continue to show concern for strengthening the defensive capacity of the Soviet Union and of our allies who, together with the Soviet Union, are pursuing a policy of peace and, like us, advocate general and complete disarmament. The Soviet Union is being forced to all this by the actions of the NATO Powers. The position will change, if these Powers renounce their aggressive policy and tread the path of general and complete disarmament. 124. We do not propose to make questions of the Soviet Union's security the subject of imperialistic-arbitration on the part of NATO. We do not propose to allow them to be decided by those who are forging weapons of war day in day out, who have established dozens and dozens of military bases in areas adjacent to the Soviet Union. 125. The Soviet Government was not lacking in patience when we negotiated with the Western Powers on disarmament questions as a whole and on the question of prohibiting nuclear weapons tests in particular. The Soviet Government did everything possible to facilitate the reaching of an agreement with the Western Powers. But these Powers responded by making their policy increasingly aggressive and by intensifying their military preparations to the point of direct provocation. They responded with treachery, continuing nuclear tests when the Soviet Union had engaged in no such tests over a long period. 126. What is the way out of the situation which has arisen over the question ot nuclear weapons tests? There is a way out, and the Soviet Government is proposing it. It consists of reaching agreement on the questions raised by general and complete disarmament. Such an agreement will also mean the solving of the question of the cessation of nuclear weapons tests. 127. We understand the attitude of those States which do not possess nuclear weapons and sincerely desire that the testing of such weapons should be completely and universally prohibited. But in this connexion we must emphasize, with all the firmness at our command, that the cessation of nuclear weapons tests alones with the international situation as it is now — I repeat, with the international situation as it is now — would not reduce the danger of a nuclear and rocket war. 128. For it is well known that, in the absence of an agreement on general and complete disarmament, the arms race — including the production of atomic and hydrogen weapons — would continue and that the stockpiling of these weapons would consequently also continue, quite apart from the fact that the existing stocks would remain intact. Meanwhile, the amounts of nuclear weapons already in existence are such that their use in war would entail the most terrible results for the world. In the case of States with comparatively small territories and a high population density, the consequences would be catastrophic. These are facts, cold facts. 129. Moreover, if the Soviet Union had not resumed nuclear weapons testing, that would have greatly increased the danger of war. Yes, increased; since the aggressive forces might have been tempted to embark upon adventures and to overstep the boundary beyond which yawns the abyss of nuclear war. 130. The conclusion of a separate agreement on the cessation of nuclear tests whilst the Western Powers continue the arms race can only create the illusion that something is being done to avert nuclear war, whereas in fact the Western Powers are heading straight towards it. The conclusion of an agreement 11 on the cessation of nuclear testing, in such circumstances and outside a programme of general and complete disarmament, could only give the peoples a false sense of security, acting as a kind of opiate to lessen their vigilance for the preservation of peace. 131. If States carry out general and complete disarmament under effective international control, if all forms of weapons, including nuclear ones, are destroyed and the armies disbanded, the Incentive to perfect nuclear weapons will disappear, and hence the incentive to test them, There will then no longer be any sense in testing nuclear weapons on the ground, underground, in the atmosphere or in outer space; theree will in fact be nothing to test, since all nuclear weapons will have been destroyed. In this way, the difficulties which have arisen in negotiations over the question of control, including control of the prohibition of nuclear weapons tests, will also disappear. Of course, the most careful international control will be needed during general and complete disarmament, and the control bodies must be granted free access into every nook and cranny, without a veto or restrictions of any kind. 132 . At the present time the question of the cessation of all nuclear tests can be resolved only on the basis of general and complete disarmament, since the conclusion of a separate agreement on the cessation of tests would not solve the main problem of removing the threat of nuclear war and could be used by certain circles to achieve their aggressive aims. General and complete disarmament would not only preserve the health of mankind; it would save its very life, and deliver it from the threat of bombardment by destructive, death-dealing nuclear weapons. 133. The position of the USSR in the matter of nuclear weapons tests is set forth in detail in a memorandum on this subject [A/4893] which the Soviet Government is submitting to the General Assembly. 134. The Soviet Government, as it has repeatedly stated, considers it desirable that, pari passu with negotiations on general and complete disarmament, an agreement should be reached to carry out a number of measures designed to reduce international tension, to strengthen trust between States and, by this means, to facilitate solution of the disarmament problem. Amongst such measures we envisage the conclusion of a non-aggression pact between the NATO countries and the Warsaw Pact countries, the creation of atom-free zones, the withdrawal of foreign troops from territories, and other steps. Detailed proposals on these questions are set out in the special memorandum which the Soviet Government is putting before the General Assembly. 135. I repeat, the implementation of these measures must not be made dependent on an agreement On dip-armament questions, and the achievement of a disarmament agreement must not be made conditional on a decision to take the steps that I have indicated. 136. In this connexion, particular attention should be paid to the importance of withdrawing troops from foreign territories within the national boundaries of States. As you know, there still exist foreign troops, and numerous foreign military bases, on the territories of many States. In a number of cases the disposition of these troops and bases on foreign territory constitutes direct military occupation, aggression, pregnant with the danger of serious international complications. Surely it is obvious, for instance, that there can be no talk of a lasting peace in the Far East so long as part of the basic territory of China — the island of Taiwan — continues to be occupied by American troops. 137. The Soviet Government would like to express its confidence that the General Assembly, having considered the disarmament problem and measures designed to reduce international tension, will b| able to take decisions which will open a new chapter in the peoples1 struggle to translate into fact mankind's centuries old dream — the creation of a world without weapons, a world without war. 138. A year ago the General Assembly , on the initiative of the Soviet Union, adopted a resolution containing the Declaration on the Ranting of independence in colonial countries and peoples [1514 (XV)]. You will well remember the long and impassioned discussion in the United Nations, and throughout the world, which preceded the adoption of this Declaration. Nobody will deny that the United Nations Declaration struck a heavy blow at the colonial system of government and at colonialism as a whole. Naturally, the Declaration did not please the colonizers. 139. The question arises: what has been done, and what remains to be done, to implement the Declaration ? 140. Over the past year, the former United Kingdom colony of Sierra Leone has become independent and United Kingdom trusteeship over the territory of the Cameroon has come to an end. In December of this year Tanganyika, and in January 1962 Western Samoa, will be declared independent. 141. In Algeria and Angola, in Kenya and Uganda, in Rhodesia, Nyasaland and West Irian, the peoples' struggle to free themselves is constantly gaining momentum. It is because of the self-sacrificing struggle of the Congolese people, supported by its many friends throughout the world, that it has been possible to thwart the original schemes of the colonizers and their associates. In the Congo there has been set up a national Government which is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the world's States. However, the situation in the Congo is disturbing — the colonizers do not want to leave the country, they are hatching plans to dismember the Republic of the Congo and to detach from it the rich province of Katanga. The imperialists are making a suspicious fuss about the Congo and we do not want to be present at another performance by the colonizers to cover up an imperialist deal to share out the riches of Katanga. True, the colonizers are quite happy to trip each other up in the Congo, but the danger of the country being stifled by a new agreement between them still remains. 142. The liberation movement is dealing colonialism some crushing blows but the colonial system is not yet completely demolished. At the beginning of 1962, territories with a population of more than 70 million will still be under colonial domination. 143. Look at what is happening in Africa. In Algeria a criminal colonial war continues. There is no need to go through the list of the colonizers' misdeeds in that country. Much is being said about that in the General Assembly and in the Press, including the French Press. From time to time the French Government enters into negotiations with the Provisional Government of the Algerian Republic. But unfortunately these negotiations produce no results, because the French side breaks them off as soon as they have started. The reason for this is that the French Government, while paying lip-service to the Algerian people's right to self-determination, is still trying to suppress the embattled people of Algeria by force of arms. The United Nations must not reconcile itself to this situation, but must raise its voice in defence of the Algerian people. 144. The peoples of the Soviet Union are deeply indignant at the persecution of the non-white population in the Republic of South Africa, which, with its apartheid policy is like a modern version of ancient slave-owning home, where for every freeman there were several slaves who were deprived of elementary human rights. 145. You know that, this policy of suppressing national movements of liberation is, not the independent policy of individual colonial Powers, but the collective policy of the Powers which formed themselves into the North Atlantic military block, NATO. Could Portugal wage colonial war of destruction in Angola and keep 13 million people under domination in its colonies? Of course not. Portugal is a small backward State, which is really a protectorate of certain imperialist powers. 146. Could the bloody events in Bizerta have taken place if the NATO countries had not supported the colonizers against Tunisia? No, they could not. 147. Among the States members of NATO there is a kind of division of labour in colonial policy, although from time to time an internecine battle for the riches of the colonies takes place. However, the general trend of this military bloc's policy is one of mutual responsibility and mutual support as between the colonizers. 148. The representatives of the colonial Powers sometimes try, in this hall, to preach democratic freedoms and human rights. They talk about the so-called "free world", although in actual fact they play the executioner in the colonies to this day. They constantly assert that the peoples of the colonial countries are not yet mature enough to govern themselves. To listen to these gentlemen one would think that the real purpose of exterminating the people of Angola and its intelligentsia is to create conditions in which Angola ban become independent. And presumably the colonizers have for the last eight years been destroying the flower of the Algerian people in order to prepare Algeria for independent self-government. What hypocrisy! 149. But not long ago they were saying and doing the same things in regard to those countries which have now achieved independence, which are developing successfully as independent States and whose representatives are with us in this hall. 150. Can the General Assembly ignore the existing situation and avoid taking measures to implement the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples? No, it cannot do so, unless it wants to lose the confidence of those peoples. I should like to recall the warning given by the Head of the Soviet Government, N. St, Khrushchev, who said in this hall on 12 October 1960, during the fifteenth session of the General Assembly: "The General Assembly must realize in all earnestness that unless steps are taken with the utmost dispatch, colonialism will remain capable of inflicting much further suffering and hardship, of ruining millions upon millions of further lives and of provoking armed conflicts and wars, thereby threatening peace and security not only in individual areas but throughout the world." [902nd meeting, paragraph 7]. 151. The Soviet Government supports the decision of the Conference of Non-Aligned Countries, recently held at Belgrade, which formally declared the need for the immediate, unconditional, complete and final abolition of colonialism. The Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples was colonialism's death sentence, and this sentence must be carried out. We support the demand made at the Conference of Non-Aligned Countries that 1962 should see the final liquidation of colonial regimes everywhere. We consider that this appeal must be supported here and that the United Nations should give it the status of an international decision. 152. The Government of the Soviet Union has proposed that the item "The situation with regard to the implementation of the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples" should be discussed at the present session. We hope that appropriate measures will be taken as a result of such discussion. 153. The Soviet Government believes that first of all the United Nations should firmly demand the immediate and unconditional cessation of terrorism and colonial wars. It is essential to effect the withdrawal of all' the Administering Powers' forces and the complete liquidation of all foreign military bases in colonies, Trust Territories and other Non-Self-Governing Territories. The peoples of all colonial countries, without exception, must be given the opportunity to enjoy democratic rights and freedoms in practice. 154. All colonial laws and regulations based on racial discrimination or banning or limiting the activities of political parties, trade unions and other public organizations must be immediately revoked. In all colonial countries, elections to the legislative organs must be held on the basis of universal suffrage, and genuinely national democratic institutions must be set up. All power must be transferred to these bodies, and all organs of the colonial administration, whether working openly or under cover, must cease to operate. 155. All agreements of a colonial nature, whether secret or not, which are designed to limit the sovereignty of the newly emerging independent States, must be completely annulled. 156. The Soviet Government considers it essential that a United Nations commission should be set up to exercise strict and unceasing control over the implementation of the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples, and over the measures which I have described. It submits for your consideration a memorandum on the situation with regard to the implementation of the Declaration [A/4889] and expresses the hope that the proposals made therein will obtain the support of the States represented in the United Nations. 157. We. all fully realize that the achievement of independence by former colonial countries is a result of the struggle engaged in by the peoples of the colonies and their many friends throughout the world. Those who oppress the colonial peoples will stop at nothing in order to be able to go on plundering those countries, even after they have gained political independence. To this end the colonial Powers use the methods of economic, political, military and diplomatic pressure, seeking to preserve the colonial character of these countries' economies and the system by which they are exploited. 158. Unequal agreements binding many young States of Africa and Asia, military establishments on the territory of former colonial countries, bases of colonialism in various parts of the world, military colonial blocs, constant interference in the internal affairs of States, various forms of economic subjugation and domination — such are the manifestations of colonialism against which many peoples are obliged to battle hourly in the fight for their independence and freedom. This is the true face of the military colonial blocs, the true face of colonialism. 159. In the modern world, there are various social systems and ideologies. In these circumstances there is no way to preserve peace other than the peaceful coexistence of States. Of course, peaceful coexistence is not just a temporary absence of military conflict between States, reminiscent of an unstable truce. Peace on such a shaky basis would be neither solid nor lasting. Peaceful coexistence presupposes the development of trade and of economic, cultural, scientific and other ties between States. 160. An indispensable condition for peaceful coexistence is unconditional recognition of the fact that it is the inalienable right of each country to establish its own social and political order. Only the individual nations are entitled to decide how they wish to live, what way of life they wish to follow. 161. But within the precincts of the United Nations one sometimes hears statements to the effect that the leaders of certain States dislike the domestic systems of the socialist States, whose representatives sit in this very United Nations hall. Such leader® have more than once execrated socialism, socialist doctrine and the systems in the .socialist countries. We reply, as we have replied before: the socialist States came into being by the will of their peoples. They did not request permission to appear from those who now condemn such systems. They exist and are growing, and we are proud that their strength is increasing daily and that the socialist social system is revealing the grandeur and brilliance of its expanding potential 162. We do not dictate to others what systems they shall have. But we declare categorically that we shall not allow anybody to tell the socialist countries what their systems should be. We, too, dislike the domestic systems of some countries where everything — the labour, the feelings and the desires of millions and tens of millions of people — is subordinated to the interests of a trifling minority who hold allpower and wealth in their hands. We might find much to say about such systems, but we do not say it, because we came here for entirely different purposes. 163. The United Nations is precisely the world centre from which the struggle to implement the principles of peaceful coexistence can best be organized. Not so very long ago the leaders of certain Western Powers were afraid — indeed, some are still afraid — to pronounce the words "peaceful coexistence", regarding them as a species of communist enticement or communist trap. Yet this concept is already in permanent international use. 164. The United Nations cannot fulfil its task of consolidating peace and promoting international collaboration so long as the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the Organization have not been restored. All who are concerned to strengthen peace and wish to make the United Nations into a genuine instrument for peace and collaboration among States should take steps for the immediate restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations, and for the expulsion of the representatives of the Chiang Kai-shek clique from all United Nations organs. 165. During the twelve years that have elapsed since the people's power was established in China, the Western Powers, and the United States of America in particular, have prevented the restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations. But Washington's dislike of China's domestic system is no reason for violating the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China. The people of a country, and no one else, decides whether its Government shall be changed. The United Nations may only recognize the Government; it is riot entitled to discuss what Government should be in power in a particular country, still less to approve or disapprove its existence. For the United Nations to assume any other attitude on this question would constitute patent interference in China's domestic affairs, which is entirely inadmissible under the United Nations Charter. 166. The Soviet Government is gratified that the resistance of those who for an entire decade have prevented the General Assembly from considering the question of the restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations has finally, at the General Assembly's sixteenth session, been broken down. This very important item has now been included in the agenda for the session, and the Assembly will express its influential view on the issue. 167. To all appearances, however, those opposing the restoration of the People's Republic of China's lawful rights in the United Nations have not really surrendered but have merely changed their tactics. It is rumoured that they would like to force this question into some sort of special commission so as to postpone a decision once more, although the question is perfectly clear and requires no further study in any commission or committee. 168. These manoeuvres have a clear purpose: to spread the aggressive and completely fallacious theory of "two Chinas". But no State that bases its policy on realities and displays concern for the maintenance of peace, no honest person anywhere in the world, will ever agree to those political corpses, the representatives of the Chiang Kai-shek clique who have entrenched themselves on Taiwan under the protection of United States bayonets, continuing to occupy a seat in the United Nations. Needless to say, the Soviet Union and all the genuine friends of the People's Republic of China are prepared today, as always, to reject firmly all attempts to put additional obstacles in the way of the restoration of the People's Republic of China's lawful rights in the United Nations with the help of the imperialist theory of "two Chinas". 169. Depriving the People's Republic of China — one of the greatest Powers on earth — of its lawful rights in the United Nations does irreparable damage to all activities of this Organization and seriously hampers the consideration in the United Nations of a number of important international questions, such as general and complete disarmament, the final liquidation of the colonial system, the economic development of underdeveloped countries, and other questions which cannot be solved without the collective effort of all States. 170. The Soviet Government appeals to the General Assembly, and to all the Governments represented in it, to put an end to the present intolerable situation in which the representatives of the Chiang Kai-shek clique are unlawfully usurping China's seat in the United Nations. We are convinced that any Government which really stands for peace and for general and complete disarmament cannot fail to support this equitable view. Any Government represented in the United Nations which casts its vote with the opponents of the restoration of the People's Republic of China's lawful rights in the United Nations and against those who favour respecting the inalienable rights of the Chinese people, strengthening the United Nations and consolidating peace and collaboration among all States, regardless of their social systems, will bear a heavy responsibility. 171. At the last session of the General Assembly, Cuba was warmly applauded. The people of this country has accomplished a great revolutionary feat by overthrowing the tyrant Batista and the foreign monopolies, and has boldly taken the new road of a free and independent life. 172. What do the Cubans want? They want to govern their country themselves, to use its wealth themselves, and to adopt the system and way of life that they prefer. Is not this in line with the principles and high purposes to which the States Members of the United Nations subscribed in signing the Organization's Charter? And is it not a crime to organize against Cuba — whose people wishes to build its own State in independence-subversive activities, an economic blockade,' and armed intervention? 173. The General Assembly cannot overlook the fact that those who organized the recent intervention are hatching fresh criminal plots against the Cuban people. The Soviet Union's attitude towards that imperialistic policy is well known. Its warnings remain in force. 174. It would be desirable for the situation in Laos to be restored to normal, at the earliest possible moment, and for an agreement to be reached enabling Laos to develop as an independent and neutral State. We hope that the three-Power negotiations in Laos for the formation of a Government of national unity headed by Prince Souvanna Phouma, and the Geneva conversations concerning non-interference in the domestic affairs of Laos and respect for its independence and neutrality, will end in success. The Soviet Union, like the other socialist countries, is in favour of settling this problem promptly and of signing, even tomorrow, the necessary agreement. It is now for others to play their part. 175. Peaceful coexistence is closely linked with the problem of overcoming the backwardness of the industrially under-developed countries, a position which they inherited from colonialism and imperialism. As the Head of the Soviet Government, N. S. Khrushchev, has frequently stressed, the present level of science and technology makes it possible to solve the problem of the economic backwardness of the under-developed countries within a brief period of time — during the life of one generation. If only a part of the huge amounts spent by States on military items and the arms race were converted to peaceful economic construction, all the necessary engineering projects and undertakings, which are at present impracticable, for developing the vast natural wealth of Africa, Asia and Latin America could be carried out in a comparatively short space of time. 176. The United Nations is called upon to serve these lofty aims of peace and the peaceful coexistence of States. The principles of equality of rights and respect for the sovereignty of States, great and small, and the principles of economic collaboration and progress laid down in the United Nations Charter must cease to be merely fine phrases and high flown turns of speech. They must become a basic and unconditional rule in relations between States, binding upon all. The Soviet Union has supported and will continue to support that view. 177. As is well known, three main groups of States have now taken shape in the international arena — the socialist countries, the countries belonging to the Western military blocs, and the neutral States. The problem is to work out agreed solutions which take into account the legitimate interests of these different groups of States; unless this is done, the United Nations cannot become an effective centre for harmonizing the States' activities. Nevertheless, some Powers want to control the situation by using the United Nations as their own apparatus. So far, all States have not had equality of representation in the organs of the United Nations; the Organization's structure has not yet been adjusted to reflect the real pattern of power in the international arena. 178. At the fifteenth session [869th meeting, paras. 282-285], the Head of the Soviet Government put forward a proposal for reorganizing the structure of the United Nations. The events of the past year have shown how the completely abnormal, lop-sided structure of the United Nations and the one-sided composition of its main organs have seriously impaired international collaboration. 179. It is sometimes asserted that implementation of the Soviet Union's proposals would paralyse the Organization's activities. But such a contention is absurd. The United Nations will not be paralysed by the reorganization that we propose. What will be rendered ineffective or, if you will, paralysed is the mainspring for the policy of some Powers which is designed to subordinate the United Nations to the narrow, selfish interests of certain military blocs. But is that a matter for regret? 180. On the contrary, the activities of the United Nations will then rest on a more durable foundation. Certain people seek to depict the situation which has now arisen in the United Nations Secretariat as in some sort a "crisis" of the entire 'Organization. To this we reply: an organization that fell into a critical situation whenever the post of its administrative head became vacant would not be worth twopence. Crises in the United Nations, as well as greater effectiveness in its work, can be brought about only by States Members of the Organization acting through the principal organs on which they are represented — primarily, that is, the Security Council and ^he General Assembly. 181. We favour a prompt solution of the question concerning the leadership of the United Nations Secretariat, on a basis reflecting the real situation that obtains in the world today. The Security Council should deal with this problem, since the Council must be the principal body to express an opinion on the matter. But we should like to warn those who consider that the Secretariat should continue to work at the beck and call of a particular group of States that they will meet with determined opposition from our side. We urge the States Members of the United Nations to decide this question by agreement; the decision may be a temporary one to start with, but it should be such as will not widen the existing gulf between States but will create a firmer basis for collaboration within the framework of the United Nations. Precisely because there is no such collaboration at present, the United Nations has been powerless to stop the tragic course of events in the Congo, Angola, Bizerta and Algeria. 182. The Soviet Government firmly supports the policy of the peaceful coexistence of States having different social and economic systems. All our vast economic plans constitute eloquent confirmation of the fundamentally peaceful policy of the socialist Soviet State. 183. The magnificent, practical and scientifically-grounded aim of the Soviet people is to increase industrial production approximately two and a half times within ten years. Our plan is one of peace and of peaceful economic competition with the capitalist countries. The chief objective of the Soviet Union's foreign policy has been, and still is, to ensure peaceful conditions for such constructive work within the USSR and other friendly socialist countries, and, together with all peace-loving countries, to save mankind from a destructive world war. 184. We aim at the broadest possible extension and development of all economic and other useful ties with every single State, including of course the independent countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, but also the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France and other developed capitalist countries. 185. We are not pessimists, and do not see the horizon as hopelessly darkened by the leaden clouds of approaching war. The world situation is serious and does not inspire complacency. The sixteenth session of the United Nations is meeting in troubled times. But this makes it all the more incumbent upon us to act resolutely and do everything in our power to make the international horizon brighter, so that the warm sun of lasting peace may finally shine upon mankind.