113. Any comprehensive evaluation of the general debate in our General Assembly so far, and particularly the statements on the international, situation made in the past few days, clearly show that a fresh breeze is blowing which is changing the International climate. Not only does, the new atmosphere reflect the change in the general mood, it also brings out in relief new and favourable facts. A decisive source and, at the same time, symptom, of this new atmosphere was the meeting of Premier Khrushchev and President Eisenhower. At the time of their meeting, and especially after the joint statement was issued, new signs appeared on the horizon of international life which indicate that we have come upon a new Stage in post-war international developments.
114. In this new stage there are ample openings and a favourable constellation for peaceful competition among the two world systems by means of discussions and agreements among the peoples, The cold war atmosphere of distrust can be replaced by the atmosphere of at least a minimum of trust indispensable for co-operation in important fields. The period of threats of force can give place to the period of discussions diverse in character and composition. The period of the accelerating arms race can be superseded by the gradual elimination of the arms race, which would mean the release of inestimable material resources to promote human progress. The meeting of the two great statesmen, therefore, could mean the dawn of a new era for the whole of humankind, in which the banishment of war once and for all could be regarded as a realistic and feasible aim and the United Nations could play a decisive role in achieving this prophetic dream of the greatest human minds.
115. However, the birth of such a new era will not be easy; it will cost much labour and travail. Our Assembly is confronted with the indisputable possibility and task of acting as midwife to the birth and strengthening of this atmosphere, the heralds of which are already with us.
116. I believe that it is beyond any dispute that the most immediate harbinger and most vital single event was the meeting and joint statement of Premier Khrushchev and President Eisenhower, which paved the way for further meetings. Let us glance briefly at the difficulties against which the current change for the better is being projected,
117. It is generally known that when the Soviet Union first made public its proposal concerning West Berlin it was subjected to complete misrepresentation by western official and semi-official propaganda. It was presented as an attempt by the Soviet Union to force its will down the throat of the western partners; in other words, as if the Soviet Union's purpose had been the sharpening of tension around Berlin, as if the Soviet statement had been something of a "trigger- happy” ultimatum after which the guns would have their say. In the light of the results of the Khrushchev- Eisenhower meeting, if anyone today re-reads those Soviet proposals without prejudice, he cannot but admit that the essence of those proposals has always been an invitation to hold discussions. However, at that time the cold war agencies distorted the Soviet proposal with such hue and cry that even a great many well intentioned people were confused. After a few hours of conversation the two statesmen were able to clarify the misrepresentation, and already in Washington and Bonn the present position of West Berlin has officially been admitted as being abnormal.
118. This short recapitulation shows up quite clearly the vicissitudes that had to be overcome to bring about the new climate. Not only has the path traversed so far been paved with difficulties; further hurdles will have to be taken to continue improving and maintaining the new climate. Even the kind of questions put to the Chairman of the Soviet Council of Ministers and the President of the United States at their press conferences in Washington seemed to reflect the disappointment of the cold war diehards at this further lessening of tension. The questioners sought for excuses to maintain, the cold war atmosphere. They went out of their way to discover any signs of retreat on either side during the personal talks of the two statesmen. Some of the questioners hoped to discover justification for their earlier cold war statements. There was some obvious disappointment among them when the two great statesmen expressed their mutual esteem and in their public announcements confirmed each other's statements. Everything seemed to indicate that such people would have welcomed their contradicting each other.
119. Still more characteristic is the following. It is common knowledge that, at the tenth anniversary celebrations of the Chinese people's Republic in Peking, Premier Khrushchev gave a positive evaluation of his visit to the United States and the talks with President Eisenhower. When this was reported in the United States Press, instead of rejoicing over this fact as a sign of the eclipse of the cold war, it indulged in day dreaming of a Soviet-Chinese antagonism and leaned over backwards to resurrect the cold war spirit.
120. One could brush this aside with the remark: that is only the Press, and not even the whole Press. And that is true. But instead of making it easier, such Press opinion only makes it harder for the President of the United States to apply to the foreign policy of the United States Government the principles contained in the joint statement.
121. Something else, besides the signs evident in the United States Press, should be mentioned here, which could not have escaped the notice of anyone who has been attending this Assembly. The United States Secretary of State made his contribution to the general debate [797th meeting] after the first meeting had taken place between the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union and the President of the United States and only one day prior to the address [799th meeting] by the Soviet Premier to the General Assembly. The United States Secretary of State spoke at such a time without in a single phrase expressing his felicitations or hope on the prospect of the historic meeting; he avoided every mention — good or bad — of the whole meeting.
122. Furthermore, the United States Secretary of State in the general debate, and more particularly the United States representative Mr. Robertson in the debate cm the question of China's representation [800th meeting], discussed certain subjects here in such language as if we were still living through the most embittered, cold war period.
123. All this goes to show that those who have become accustomed to the cold war climate need time to become acclimatized to the new atmosphere. In this transitional period of acclimatization we have to count on many disturbing moments caused by the residuum of the cold war, just as in the first days of spring the thaw may still be accompanied by snow-drifts and sleet.
124. I have sketched all this only to indicate the difficulties in the face of which we have to work for the development of the new climate. Here, at the General Assembly, it is the task of all representatives, whether they come from small or large countries, from socialist or capitalist countries, from colonial Powers or former colonies, to catch hold of every opportunity for co-operation that will foster the new atmosphere. In line with the principle of peaceful coexistence, the foreign policy of the Government of the Hungarian People’s Republic is destined towards this end, as reflected by this intervention and by the actions of the whole Hungarian delegation.
125. What is the essence of this new atmosphere? The carrying into practice of the principle of peaceful coexistence, the practice of the spirit of peaceful coexistence in all spheres of international contact. There are some who have an aversion to the expression "peaceful coexistence". There are some who are suspicious of the term and call it a propaganda slogan. Only a few days ago we were witness to a conspicuous instance of how deeply the idea of "peaceful coexistence" is either misunderstood or misinterpreted by some western politicians and journalists poisoned by the spirit of the cold war and the policy of strength. The day after the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union arrived back in Moscow, a New York daily paper wrote indignantly that the cold war was with us again because Mr. Khrushchev had again spoken about coexistence in Moscow. Albeit, the end of the cold war means the final prevailing of the principle of peaceful coexistence over the policy of strength principle.
126. Not only Mr. Khrushchev spoke about peaceful coexistence in Moscow. The Khrushchev-Eisenhower meeting as such and the communique issued on it were eloquent expressions of peaceful coexistence. What is the meaning of putting into practice the principle of peaceful coexistence in the context of settling international issues mid solving international problems? First and foremost it means that controversial international issues can and must be solved by peaceful, direct negotiation.
127. How is "peaceful negotiation" to be interpreted? Acceptance of the (principle of peaceful coexistence does not only mean the mere acceptance of the other’s existence and right to exist. It also implies a certain esteem for the other, mutual respect, serious and unbiased consideration for the other’s views and outlook. "Negotiations" between the partners committed to the principle of peaceful coexistence means not only an exchange of words instead of bullets, but also the examination and endeavour to solve given problems with due and mutual consideration for each other’s viewpoints.
128. That is what has mostly been lacking so far in international practice, even in the United Nations itself. In general, the socialist countries propose discussion of controversial issues to give the involved or conflicting parties an opportunity to make themselves heard. In cases, however, when the United Nations has found itself in a stalemate on certain controversial issues, this has generally been the outcome of methods of discussion applied by the Western Powers as a means to vindicate their own one-sided will and exclude the opinions of the involved or conflicting parties. It seems worthwhile to examine some instances of this.
129. The General Assembly has been discussing the problem of the unification of Korea for ten years now. In all these ten years not once has the opinion of North Korea been heard on this subject by the General Assembly of the United Nations, its competent committee, or any of its agencies. All proposals made in favour of offering them an opportunity to speak have been turned down by the voting machine, A similar procedure has been used over and over again to carry resolutions that represented only the one-sided views of certain Western Powers.
130. Or, let us look at the debate on the representation of China at the beginning of the present session. The arbitrary acts of certain Western Powers even prevented the General Assembly from discussing its own views on the matter.
131. The latest of such gross arbitrary actions is the one to place the so-called question of Tibet on the agenda. The authors of such actions refuse to give the Chinese People’s Republic its rightful place in this Organization, but they are anxious to vindicate their own one-sided views by means of the voting machine.
132. Incidentally, whatever the role of other countries in one or other of these actions, as now in the case of Ireland and Malaya, it is no secret that the representatives of the United States are the power behind all of them.
133. I shall cite another example. Immediately prior to the opening of the General Assembly, the Security Council was convened to discuss the so-called question of Laos, and it appointed a Sub-Committee in violation of the Charter. The convening of the Council and the resolution adopted [S/4216] bolstered the incorrect attitude of the ultra-reactionary leaders of the Kingdom of Laos and its western allies. But it is still more reprehensible that even before the fact finding Sub-Committee makes its report, certain representatives here are ready to accept the statements made by the Kingdom's representatives, who are not and never have been in control of their own country, as if they were verified facts. Furthermore, they are trying to use these statements here to rekindle the dying flames of the cold war.
134. The most characteristic case of all is that of Algeria. Here again the main obstacle to a proper solution is the failure to accept negotiation as the means to that end. For years now the forces supporting the independence of the Algerian people have been trying here to persuade the French Government to sit down and negotiate with the representatives of the independence movement, the Provisional Government of Algeria. It seems that at this General Assembly the representatives of the French Government and their allies are still seeking to avoid precisely such negotiations, because they are anxious to maintain some form of colonialism.
135. One of the major sources of the unfortunate attitude which led to this one-sided approach to international problems was the under-rating by the representatives of some Western Powers of certain countries. Today it is already evident to all that the disadvantage of under-rating the socialist countries was actually felt most of all by the capitalist countries themselves, and particularly by the leading capitalist countries. In point of fact, the lagging behind evident in the leading capitalist countries in certain fields, and perhaps most of all in the field of the technical sciences vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, can in part be traced to this underrating. To expedite the eclipse of the cold war period let there be mutual effort for mutual esteem.
136. But this again does not go quite smoothly. May I mention here that recently we have gained interesting experiences concerning Western newspapermen who came to Hungary. They already find it difficult to write badly and even to concoct bad reports about conditions in the Hungarian Peopled Republic. It can be stated that never in the course of their thousand-year-old history have the Hungarian people, when comparing all tie changes that have occurred so far, lived in better conditions than today. In such circumstances, what can a journalist do whose ear is tuned to the cold war? He has to render an account of the good things but he has to think up bad theories to support it. I am going to tell you what happened to a journalist of some distinction who writes for a New York daily. Since he did not find anything bad to write about, he wrote the good things he saw and theorized like this: the present-day leaders of the Hungarian people are bad because they have created for the Hungarian people such good conditions as to make them forget that their leaders are bad.
137. After the bygone period of the policy of strength and the cold war, it is no easy task to write about one another in a good neighbourly fashion, even about bad things with goodwill, and not as occurred in the case I have mentioned in which even good things were written about with illwill.
138. The meeting between Premier Khrushchev and President Eisenhower has initiated a new tone, a new spirit, a new method of negotiating in line with the principle of peaceful coexistence. Premier Khrushchev’s thirteen-day visit has much altered, as it were, the general feeling all the world over, the pronouncements of statesmen and the style of the Press in all the five continents. The talks have paved the way to further negotiations, and the change that has occurred is indicative of further changes.
139. One cannot help noticing that these talks and their results have much altered also the tone of speeches delivered here at the General Assembly. Such a spirit of negotiation is apt to improve the functioning of the United Nations itself. By correctly understanding the essence of the new method of negotiation — the willingness to listen to the opinion of the other party — the General Assembly could tackle controversial issues that have been deadlocked for years.
140. In the view of the delegation of the Hungarian People’s Republic the main features of the new international atmosphere, therefore, are a more consistent enforcement of peaceful coexistence, a higher esteem and increased respect for one another, and a spirit of negotiation aiming at mutual understanding. The enhancing of these features could be instrumental in further unfolding and preserving this new atmosphere. The. Hungarian delegation is of the opinion that the best contribution by the General Assembly to this aim would be to concentrate its attention upon the present principal tasks of the United Nations.
141. It is easier now for the General Assembly to deal with the principal task of maintaining peace and security because the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR presented right here the proposal of the Soviet Union for general and complete disarmament. Lately discussions of problems of peace and security have begun to slip through the fingers of the United Nations to be discussed at the conference tables of other agencies. Here to the Assembly discussion of the most exciting problems of international peace was made difficult by the lack of a genuine spirit of negotiation, by conducting business through mechanized voting. Very serious reasons prompted the Soviet Premier to warn the United Nations of the fate of the League of Nations. Indeed, if the United Nations allows itself to be used for the selfish political purposes of a group of Member States, if instead of the proper questions of peace and security it deals with fictitious problems, and if instead of striving for relaxation of tension some endeavour to turn this Organization into an arena of the cold war, then it will inevitably share the fate of the League of Nations. In the present more favourable international atmosphere, the General Assembly can also find it easier to deal with its proper task. In fact we have here a whole series of questions related to disarmament, including that of averting the danger of nuclear explosions in the Sahara. Here are the problems of the countries now rising from colonial status. We have here the problem concerning assistance to economically underdeveloped countries, to the less strained atmosphere it seems possible to adopt on these matters more favourable resolutions this year than a year ago.
142. The United Nations has the important task of promoting final liquidation of the colonial system all over the world. We think it is very fortunate for the United Nations to have admitted to membership in the last few years a number of Asian and African countries, the last of which was Guinea, a country recently arisen from colonial status. On behalf of the Hungarian delegation I wish to take this opportunity to express our sympathy for the peoples struggling for their freedom and independence in Africa and on other continents.
143. Mankind has not only to cope with the task of liquidating the colonial system but also to promote the economic advancement of countries which were colonies in the past and whose development has been lagging behind that of the colonial Powers. We consider it one of the fundamental objectives of the United Nations to marshal all the forces inherent in international co-operation and to grasp every opportunity to accelerate the economic advancement of less developed countries, to secure their economic independence.
144. A decisive turning point also from this point of view would undoubtedly be the acceptance of the Soviet disarmament proposal, which would open up new vistas for the liquidation of economic backwardness all over the world.
145. The creation of a new atmosphere cam be essentially promoted if the General Assembly devotes its attention to the immediate prime task: the discussion of the problem of disarmament. We all remember the never-ending debates on the constitution of the Disarmament Commission and the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, as well as the cold war rigidity shown by the representatives of certain Western Powers in insisting upon their unjustly favourable share of seats in these commissions. Indicative of a slackening of the cold war since then has been the constitution of the ten-Power committee. But most instrumental in liquidating the cold War is the disarmament proposal submitted here by the Government of the Soviet Union [A/4219].
146. How deaf and blind is mistrust, and how stubborn the cold war fomenting mistrust, is shown also by the reception given here and there to the proposal. In his speech before this Assembly the representative of one of the Western great Powers went so far as to misconstrue the Soviet proposal to make it appear as if the Soviet Union wanted disarmament without control. Anyone who has read Mr. Khrushchev’s speech and the Soviet declaration can clearly see that the Soviet Union proposes to ensure adequate control parallel with every stage of disarmament.
147. Another interesting symptom illustrating this very stubbornness is the following. The same politicians and columnists who are accusing the socialist countries of maintaining their system by force of arms, now want to arouse mistrust for the Soviet proposal concerning complete disarmament by presenting the frightening picture of Communism spreading all over the world in the wake of complete disarmament. All I would tell these gentlemen is that they should have a little more confidence in their own system, which still may have the courage to enter into competition with the socialist countries even without the support of arms. The Soviet Union on its part has made its proposal for complete disarmament, and the fourteenth session of the General Assembly will bear witness to how the representatives of the Western Powers are able to respond to it.
148. Another auspicious sign of a favourable international atmosphere is also the fact that none of the delegations has proposed inclusion in the agenda of the so-called Hungarian question. Such an attempt would also this year have been conducive to intensifying the cold war, and the absence of such an attempt can but deserve appreciation from the point of view both of the United Nations and of the peaceful, undisturbed development of the Hungarian people. We have heard, however, some statements on the fact that Sir Leslie Munro, who had been appointed United Nations Special Representative on the Question of Hungary by a resolution [1312 (XIII)] adopted last year in violation of the Charter, was not allowed to enter Hungary. Whoever approaches the current problems of international life in the spirit of negotiations as outlined earlier cannot but understand our position taken in this matter.
149. As we have already made clear on numerous occasions, this for us is a question of principle. What is called here the "Question of Hungary” constitutes an internal affair of the Hungarian People’s Republic, in which interference, according to the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter, is inadmissible for any foreign State or international organization. For this reason the Hungarian Government cannot, on principle, grant an entry permit to a person who wishes to go to Hungary with the intent of investigating there on behalf of an international organisation and reporting on his work done. I should like to make it clear: my Government cannot do so on principle. Not that we have anything to hide from anybody. During the first nine months of this year, hundreds of politicians, authors, artists, scientists and journalists from other countries and tens of thousands of tourists and other visitors went to Hungary and could see with their own eyes that life in Hungary is consolidated and normal in every respect and that broad masses of the Hungarian people are living better than ever before.
150. To dissipate any doubts in the minds of representatives to the General Assembly, there is no obstacle to any one of the 800 representatives here — I reckon with a round 800 persons, for the ten representatives of Chiang Kai-shek cannot be taken into account — I can say there is no obstacle to any one of the 800 representatives going to Hungary immediately, or whenever he wishes to do so, and looking around there, provided that he undertakes this trip of his own accord and not as a mission on the basis of a resolution hostile to the Hungarian People’s Republic. Any member of the General Assembly has but to apply to the Legation of the Hungarian People's Republic in Washington and he will obtain his visa at once.
151. We can say without exaggeration that the United Nations is at the crossroads. The international situation aid the agenda item concerning disarmament give the General Assembly a chance to steer the ship of mankind towards peace and security and thus to fulfil the great hopes pinned to it. At the same time, any possible attempts to revive the cold war and the policy of strength will reopen the previous manoeuvres and may turn the United Nations into a new source of the cold war. In the full sense of the words, it is in the common interest of both socialist and capitalist countries, of both small .and big Powers, that the present session of the General Assembly strengthen, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, the spirit of peaceful coexistence. The people of the Hungarian People’s Republic, in unison with the great family of socialist peoples, are eager to endorse the principle of peaceful coexistence, because it complies with the interests of the Hungarian people. For this very reason the Government of the Hungarian People’s Republic has instructed its delegations present here to promote, to the best of its modest possibilities, the strengthening of the atmosphere of mutual understanding. Accordingly, the work of the Hungarian delegation will be characterized by its endeavour, during the discussions on every one of the agenda items, to foster the principle of peaceful coexistence.