155. The fourteenth session of the General Assembly is' historic if only for the reason that during it the Head of the Soviet Government has addressed the Assembly for the first time. In Mr. Khrushchev the peoples see a tireless fighter for peace, whose name will be remembered for centuries to come. He clearly expressed the inmost desires of all men of good will, of all mothers, and of all young people in the world — to have a better life, and to work in greater peace.
156. The opening of the fourteenth session has, indeed, coincided with a turning-point in international relations, when a great hope has presented itself to mankind the hope that the cold War will finally be brought to an end and that mankind will enter upon an era of mutual understanding and peaceful coexistence among States. We note, as a particularly happy omen for the work of the session, that its opening has coincided with an event which marks the culmination of the efforts undertaken to improve the international situation — namely, the visit paid by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union to the United States. This event — like the forthcoming visit of the President of the United States, Mr. Eisenhower, to the Soviet Union, which will probably also coincide with the work of the fourteenth session of the General Assembly — surrounds it with exceptionally favourable circumstances, offering it opportunities which none of the earlier sessions of the Assembly enjoyed.
157. It is no exaggeration to say that the fourteenth session, because of the relaxed and improved atmosphere in which it has opened and of the prospects presented to it, might well be called an "extraordinary" session. Let me express the conviction that the fourteenth session of the General Assembly will also be extraordinary because of the results which it will achieve in carrying out the directives of the Charter and making the wishes of every people in the world come true.
158. In the light of past experience, however, the first task of this session should be to put an end to the efforts made by some delegations to use the United Nations as an instrument in the policy of setting certain countries against others. The United Nations should, on the one hand, eliminate anything that might hinder or check the incipient improvement in international relations; on the other hand, it should use every effort to strengthen, broaden and consolidate what has already been achieved in this direction. It would be strange indeed if, at the very moment when decisive steps are being taken to eliminate disagreements and bring countries closer together, there should be continued in the United Nations the practice of dealing with questions from obsolete standpoints and by out-of-date methods, with the same lack of perspective that for many years has doomed the United Nations to impotence.
159. In this connexion it must be noted with regret that traces of the cold war are still to be seen in the activities of certain delegations to the United Nations. How else but as a cold war manifestation can we characterize the decision, recently imposed on the Security Council, to send a group to Laos to investigate the false accusations made by the Royal Government against the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam? It is already clear, from reports published in the Press and received from the United Nations group itself, that this group is chasing ghosts — in other words, that the reactionaries of Laos and their protectors have dared to make a sport of the United Nations.
160. The discussion of the question of the representation, of China in the United Nations culminated, a few days ago, in a decision — likewise a product of the cold war — which is diametrically opposed to the new trend in international relations. Our delegation has already stressed that, so long as the United Nations is deprived of the co-operation of the peaceful force represented by the great Chinese people, its activities will suffer. The absence of the People's Republic of China is retarding our work. Hence, despite the decision imposed here, we cannot but express once more our profound conviction that the question of the representation of China should and will be settled in the near future in accordance with the principles of the United Nations and in the interests of peace.
161. It cannot be denied that the central and most important item on the agenda of this session is the Soviet Government's proposal contained in its statement concerning general and complete disarmament [A/4219] A positive solution of this question would lead to the quick and easy settlement of all the complicated problems which today divide the world. To make war impossible — that has been, and is, the prime task. Today, however, it is no longer sufficient simply to recognize that fact. It is necessary to come to a decision.
162. The armaments race has reached unheard-of proportions. The speech of Mr. Khrushchev to this Assembly [799th meeting] and the statement of the Soviet Government on general and complete disarmament, have given a clear enough description of the prospects which would face humanity if that most terrible of all wars — which a third world war would be — were to break out. I need not, therefore, dwell on that aspect of the matter. Today everyone recognizes that there is no time to be lost. All have come to realize that a direct threat has been suspended over the world. For this very reason, having regard to the set-backs encountered in previous disarmament negotiations, we must draw the appropriate conclusions, seek out new paths to our goal, and take new steps.
163. The proposal of the Soviet Union, made in Mr. Khrushchev's address to the General Assembly, offers precisely that way out of the present situation, and that method whereby mankind's drift towards a new war can be halted.
164. There is but one radical solution — to eliminate the material possibility of waging war. And this can only be done through general and complete disarmament, through the destruction of weapons and war material, and through cessation of the training of military personnel. So long as armies, armed forces, military aircraft, navies, and nuclear and rocket weapons continue to exist, there can be no absolute guarantee of a lasting peace.
165. The Bulgarian Government warmly supports the Soviet proposal for general and complete disarmament. In the People's Republic of Bulgaria the leadership of the State is in the hands of social forces which for scores of years have had the demand for general disarmament and for the complete guarantee of peace inscribed on their banners and embodied in their programme.
166. The declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria, published on 24 September 1959, includes the following statement: "The Bulgarian Government fully supports the historic programme of the Soviet Government for general and complete disarmament, and holds the view that its implementation at three stages in the course of four years is fully feasible provided the efforts of the peoples and their Governments are united, which in particular applies to the great Powers." [A/C.1/818]
167. Examining the declaration of the Soviet Government, our delegation notes that it enumerates exhaustively all the positive consequences of general disarmament. The arguments set forth in the Soviet declaration cannot be seriously contested; they are irrefutable because they strike an echo in the minds and hearts of all decent people throughout the world.
168. The Bulgarian delegation will give a more detailed explanation of its position with regard to the Soviet Government's proposal when agenda item 70 (General and complete disarmament) is discussed in the First Committee. I venture, however, to make a few preliminary remarks concerning the reaction to the Soviet proposals which is reflected in the statements and comments of a number of responsible leaders in various countries.
169. It has been said, for example, that the Soviet proposal is "unrealistic" or even "utopian". The authors of these pseudo-authoritative statements naturally have difficulty in finding any reasonable grounds for their assessments. Why is the Soviet proposal for general disarmament considered unrealistic? Has the insane stockpiling of arms, a practice which ' must sooner or later lead to war, become so natural and inevitable in the life of human society that there are people who cannot conceive of life without armies and atomic bombs? No, of course not. On the contrary, the vast majority of peoples regard armaments as a misfortune, as a dreadful calamity, and seek to be rid of them. Those who say that the Soviet proposal is "unrealistic" and "utopian" should remember the statement of Mr. Khrushchev that weapons are made by the hands of men and that the hands of men can, and will, destroy them.
170. In present circumstances, general and complete disarmament is more realistic than partial disarmament, in that a decision in favour of complete disarmament confronts States with fewer of those questions on which it is more difficult to reach agreement and in connexion with which the representatives of the armament kings find it easier to raise obstacles at all disarmament conferences.
171. It is known that for the last few years the word "disarmament" has mostly been taken to mean no more than a partial reduction of armaments and armed forces. Disarmament negotiations have envisaged the retention, after an agreement has been concluded, of certain kinds of weapons — that is the retention of the material capacity to wage war. This relative disarmament can only relatively reduce the threat of war. In the days of conventional armaments, such a relative lessening of the menace of war might have been satisfactory. Today, however, no one is in a position to determine what quantities of modern armaments in the hands of a single State can be regarded as not constituting a threat to other States.
172. It is perfectly clear that no such criterion can be applied in the case of modern types of weapons. The threat remains a threat, whether twenty or two hundred atomic or hydrogen bombs are in reserve. Not without reason have military experts predicted that the day will come when a small country maybe in a position to threaten more powerful countries. The feeling that, even after partial disarmament, one country could still attack another continues to be a source of mistrust and tension among the negotiators, and this greatly hampers talks on disarmament. We would do well to remember how many mutual suspicions and accusations accumulated during such negotiations when we were not yet, after all, in the position in which we find ourselves today.
173. In the opinion of our delegation, what is unrealistic is to imagine that it is possible, in existing circumstances, to frighten the socialist countries by threatening to use force against them; to think that international problems can be decided by force of arms; or to consider that war can settle the vast problems facing mankind, such as the problem of doing away with that poverty which afflicts half the population of the earth, the problem of raising the living standards of millions and millions of people, or the problem of discovering the secrets of nature for the benefit of all mankind.
174. It is further said that the Soviet proposal contains nothing new, that it is a re-statement of old attitudes which have long been known. This assertion is well known as a choice argument adopted by the champions of the cold war. They have applied it to all new proposals of the Soviet Union — often without having read them carefully. In order properly to understand the essence and meaning of the Soviet proposal, account must be taken of the historic circumstances in which it is put forward. Conditions are constantly changing, and something that was presented to us several years ago may now appear in an entirely different light. The Soviet proposal is new because it is put forward at a time when it has been shown that the old approach to the disarmament problem cannot, produce the desired results, and time does not stand still. It is also new because it is made by a country which has the most powerful military techniques at its disposal, a country which has sent a rocket to the moon. What could be newer than the fact that the Soviet Union itself, at this very moment, should propose to all countries the disbandment of armed forces and the destruction of all forms of armament — in other words, the elimination of every material possibility for an attack by one country upon another?
175. In connexion with the Soviet proposal, resort is had to yet another argument — the question of control, about which that proposal, it is alleged, has little to say. Yet we all heard the words of Mr. Khrushchev, which I now quote: "We have advocated, and still advocate, strict international control over the fulfillment of a disarmament agreement, after such an agreement has been reached. But we have always been opposed to the idea of divorcing the control system from the disarmament measures — to the idea that the control organs should become, in effect, organs for the collection of intelligence data under conditions in which no disarmament would actually take place." [799th meeting, para. 63]
176. And the declaration of the Soviet Government on general and complete disarmament says: "For the purpose of supervising the timely implementation of the measures of general and complete disarmament, an international control organ composed of all States shall be established. The staff of the control organ shall be recruited on an international basis with due regard to the principle of equitable geographic distribution. "The international control organ shall have at its disposal all the facilities necessary for the exercise of strict control." [A/4219]
177. It would be hard to put it more clearly. Control is indeed, necessary. But control is necessary when there is something to control. What good is control, if no one knows what is to be controlled? Moreover the very method whereby control is to be effected depends on what is to be subject to such control. In any case, one thing is clear: the noble purpose of the Soviet proposals warrants their being examined conscientiously. If that is done, the problem of control will be solved.
178. In fact, the Soviet disarmament proposal recommends radical measures for the eradication of war — which has always been the ultimate goal of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union and all the socialist States. But these, measures have their basis in the actual nature of the threat of war, in the possibilities inherent in the waging of war under present conditions, and in the extent of the danger. They are measures capable of countervailing the evil which menaces mankind. All other measures, including those of partial and limited disarmament, while in themselves acceptable as a step towards general and complete disarmament, are inadequate in that they do not eliminate a possible outbreak of war, an event which in present conditions might easily turn into a nuclear catastrophe.
179. Of course, there are difficulties in implementing these measures, which are bound up with the solution of vast and complicated political, economic and technical problems. But does the alternative of war present mankind with problems that are any easier or smaller in scope? It is time for each and all of us to take a clear stand. All States, whether great or small, are vitally interested in the solution of the disarmament problem. All countries must make their contribution towards finding a way out of the present situation.
180. The People's Republic of Bulgaria has always attached very great importance to the international issues upon which the preservation and strengthening of peace depend. We, therefore, convinced that the solution of the disarmament problem is the most important question facing all peace-loving countries and the United Nations as a whole, welcome and unconditionally support the Soviet Government's proposal on general and complete disarmament. We firmly believe that only the course indicated by the Soviet Union can finally lead to the elimination of the threat of war; that general and complete disarmament will establish new conditions conducive to the rapid material and cultural development of all peoples, and to circumstances in which it may be easier to solve not only today's but also tomorrow's controversial international questions.
181. We cannot believe that the responsible leaders of certain States seriously fear that mankind will fight with antediluvian weapons when no trace of present-day armaments and armed forces remains upon the earth. Of course, there are people who are incapable of thinking in any but military terms. To these people we would say that human society is not a pack of wolves, and that, when the means of waging war no longer exist, war itself, as a social phenomenon, will disappear. We all wish to bury war in the archives of history; and we must discover the way in which to achieve this humane objective, no matter what difficulties beset our path. Let us not shirk the difficulties but overcome them.
182. As a Member State of the United Nations and a participant in the Ten-Power Committee, our country will put forth every effort to make its contribution towards solving the disarmament problem.
183. While advocating the most radical solutions for this problem, the Bulgarian Government also regards with favour every measure capable of bringing us nearer to the settlement of the basic question — the safeguarding of peace. In this connexion, our country believes that it is necessary to move more boldly towards reaching agreement on urgent measures, such as: the prohibition of atomic and hydrogen weapon testing, the prohibition of the export of such weapons, the establishment of zones free of atomic weapons, the elimination of military bases on foreign territory, and the conclusion of non-aggression pacts between the States members of NATO, on the one hand, and the States parties to the Warsaw Treaty on the other. At present, the most urgent measure is the prompt and successful termination of the Geneva talks and the concluding of an agreement between the Soviet Union, the United States and the United Kingdom forbidding test explosions of atomic and nuclear weapons. Incidentally, does not the fact that no atomic explosions are now taking place, although there are no controls but merely a declaration of the States concerned, refute the arguments of those who advocate control for the sake of control?
184. Our delegation also believes that one of the most essential measures to be taken in the disarmament field is a prohibition on the export of atomic and nuclear weapons from countries producing such weapons to other countries.
185. Directly related to this problem is the proposal for the creation of zones free of atomic and rocket weapons. The policy of establishing atomic and rocket bases in the greatest possible number of countries creates entirely legitimate concern among the peoples. The Bulgarians and other peoples of the Balkan peninsula cannot, in our view, be indifferent to the fact that rocket bases are being built or planned close to their borders. The Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria, having regard to the vital interests and the security of the Bulgarian nation, has considered and considers itself in duty bound to call the attention of Governments of nearby and neighbouring countries to the serious danger involved in the placing of rocket bases on their territories.
186. We cannot agree with those who state that this constitutes intervention in their domestic affairs. The brandishing of weapons, and even more so, of atomic and rocket weapons, on a neighbour's threshold hardly constitutes a particularly friendly act, and the neighbour cannot be expected to give the impression that such activity is of no concern to it. Surely it is absurd to assert that the placing of atomic and rocket bases of United States origin in the Balkans and the region of the Adriatic is for the "defence" of the countries on whose territories they are stationed, when it is remembered that these nuclear rocket weapons are controlled by the military command of a country, many thousands of kilometres away, whose responsible military and political leaders make no secret of their unfavourable attitude toward States with, to them, distasteful socialist systems. Obviously the only possible use for these weapons is, not defence, but rather the execution of dark designs directed against the countries of the socialist camp. Only one answer is possible: the stationing of United States atomic and rocket bases on foreign territories is not in the interests of these countries and their peoples; on the contrary, the basic interests of these peoples demand the removal of death dealing weapons, to the farthest possible distance and with the maximum of dispatch, from their homes.
187. Lastly, we consider as urgent the proposal for the conclusion of a non-aggression pact between the States members of NATO and the States parties to the Warsaw Treaty. Such a pact would bring about calm in a region where the armed forces of the two powerful military groupings are poised against each other.
188. It is often said that confidence--in particular, confidence between those formerly allied in the war against Hitlerism and Facism — has been destroyed. Such lack of confidence is exploited by the opponents of disarmament. "First confidence, and then disarmament" say many, although they would be unable to explain how confidence could be re-established in the presence of an arms race. Confidence will return when each State is confident that it will not be attacked — still less attacked by surprise for the simple reason that there will be nothing with which to attack. In other words, disarmament will help to re-establish the confidence that has been lost.
189. The successful solution of other problems would also contribute to the restoration of confidence. Of such problems I would mention only a few. Why should the General Assembly not recommend, to the great Powers at this very Session, that they allot part of their military budgets to aid for under-developed countries?
190. As representatives of a country which until recently was very backward economically, we know the value of friendly mutual aid, such as that given to us by the Soviet Union and other socialist States; thanks to this assistance, the Bulgarian people are now generously remunerated for their labour. For this reason we quite understand the concern felt by the representatives of many Asian, African and Latin American countries where, despite huge natural resources, economic backwardness is not yet eliminated and a great need exists for aid unaccompanied by intervention in their domestic affairs. There is general sympathy for the Latin American countries’ efforts to free themselves from the excessive control exercised by foreign capital in their economies. Many of the countries of Asia, Africa and South America, until recently dependent or semi-dependent, are resorting to the mobilization of internal resources in order to solve the problem of raising their standards of living.
191. The plans for the industrialization of India, and the independent national economy established in Indonesia and other States, are matters of common knowledge. The plans and actions of President Kubitschek for the rapid development of Brazil's very rich natural resources are also commanding attention. Why should such countries as these not be given disinterested aid in the form of credits made available from a reduction in military budgets? Further, why should the problem of world scientific and technical collaboration not be solved at this session?
192. At the stage now reached in the development of productive forces and economic relations, the field of scientific and technical collaboration should be one of the most important for peaceful economic co-operation between all countries. The time has come for the United Nations to take concrete steps for the development of such collaboration pari passu with technical assistance to economically under-developed countries. Why not recommend to all States Members of the United Nations that they put an end to the system of discriminatory measures in world trade? The solution of these and similar problems, the collaboration of great and small States for this purpose, joint effort by the former colonial Powers and dependent countries, and by socialist and capitalist régimes — such is but a part of the practical action that will lead to the gradual re-establishment of confidence in this world of heterogeneous States and social systems.
193. I should like to refer briefly to the foreign policy of my Government in relation to these problems. As a European State, Bulgaria, remembering that both world conflicts began in Europe, is interested in the safeguarding of peace in that continent. German militarism began both the First and Second World War; to avoid a third war, the decision was taken to eliminate German militarism. Now German militarism has been resurrected with the aid of the Western Powers. What is to be done?
194. The States of Eastern Europe, it is true, have protected themselves by means of the Warsaw Treaty. In that way they have made certain of the final elimination of German militarism in the event of its again engaging in military adventures. But this does not completely guarantee peace.
195. We therefore support the realistic proposal for the conclusion of a peace treaty with the two German States, as well as the proposal for the transformation of West Berlin into a free city. Free cities are not new in the history of Germany, and their charters are not subject to infringement. It is even less likely that anyone will violate the charter of a free city of West Berlin when that charter is guaranteed firstly by the State on whose territory it is located — the German Democratic Republic — and secondly by the great Powers and, as suggested, in some way by the United Nations. The rather more than two million Germans of West Berlin, about whose fate the western leaders express concern, will live as they wish, but the foreign war-mongering and provocative body in the centre of the German Democratic Republic will disappear. That will be a gain to peace.
196. The People’s Republic of Bulgaria is particularly interested in the safeguarding of peace in the Balkans; and exceptionally favourable conditions for peace have now been established in that area by the conversion of the majority of the Balkan States to socialism.
197. Whatever the number of unresolved problems, we do not wish to solve them by force. The Bulgarian Government's statement of 24 September 1959, to which I have already referred, includes the following passage: "True to its peaceful policy, the Bulgarian Government has undertaken numerous steps to improve relations with the non-Socialist countries in the Balkans, to strengthen peace in that area. It proposed the conclusion of collective or bilateral treaties among the Balkan countries. "Not long ago our country proposed the signing of a non-aggression pact between the People's Republic of Bulgaria and the Kingdom of Greece. We have twice reduced our armed forces thereby giving a new real expression of our peaceful policy. The Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria and the Bulgarian people have unanimously supported the proposal of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR Mr. Khrushchev for the creation of an atom-free and rocket-free zone in the Balkans and the Adriatic because it serves the cause of peace. The proposal for a meeting of the leaders of the Balkan states has the same aim. If these measures are carried out, they will open the road to new agreements among the Balkan countries, they will provide new possibilities for turning the Balkans into a zone of peace." [A/C. 1/818]
198. We hope that all these proposals, notwithstanding the difficulties, will ultimately be accepted by those Balkan Governments which have not yet agreed to them. That outstanding son of the Bulgarian people, Georgi Dimitrov, used the following words: "The peoples, the working class, the toiling peasants — an progressive people throughout the world — want peace, a durable peace, a democratic peace; they want brotherhood between the peoples, not aggression and a new world war. "
199. The Bulgarian delegation, acting on the instructions of its Government in the spirit of the peace- loving policy of the People's Republic of Bulgaria and of the peaceful aspirations of the Bulgarian nation, also supports all initiatives and proposals directed towards the solution of the other questions on the agenda of the present session.
200. Our delegation is deeply convinced that the fourteenth session, having opened under these exceptionally favourable circumstances which will, we hope, continue to influence its work — a session during which the great friend of peace, Mr. Khrushchev, has made his proposal for the elimination of war — will satisfy the peoples desires and make its contribution in the decisive struggle for disarmament for the consolidation of peace throughout the world, and for the strengthening of the authority of the United Nations.