105. The General Assembly has begun its eighth session with a consideration of general international problems. The international situation has always directly affected the activity of the United Nations. It has determined the political atmosphere at every session of the General Assembly and decided the direction of its work and the nature of its decisions. Our first duty, therefore, as we proceed to examine important international questions, is to make a correct appraisal of the international situation that has evolved.
106. In recent years, relations among certain States have developed abnormally. After discarding the policy of friendly settlement of international questions by agreement which had united the efforts of the Allies during the war and in the first post-war years, aggressive circles in the United States and a number of other countries substituted for it the policy of the armaments race, military preparations and the cold war, in other words, a policy which leads to a new world war. An expression of this policy so inimical to the cause of peace was the creation of the North Atlantic bloc of aggressive States, the formation of which has greatly advanced the preparations for war. The aggressive policy of the cold war created a dangerous tension in international relations, the result of which was the war in Korea.
107. Mindful of the real threat of a new world war resulting from the increased activity of the international forces of aggression, the Soviet Union has drawn the proper conclusions from the existing international situation. In pursuance of its policy of peace, the Soviet Union has endeavoured with determination and persistence to avert the threat of a world war, and is taking all necessary measures to that end. In recent years, the USSR delegation to the United Nations has introduced a number of proposals aimed at strengthening peace and international security. At the same time, the Soviet Union has adopted a number of essential defence measures which were necessary in the interests of strengthening peace and its own security.
108. True to its unalterable policy of seeking the peaceful solution of international questions, the Soviet Union from the very first day of the Korean war came out in support of the immediate cessation of hostilities. It is well known how perseveringly the USSR delegation endeavoured to persuade the Organization to take urgent and effective action to that end. At the end of last year, the concern of the USSR that the war in Korea should be halted and its readiness to co-operate in the task of bringing hostilities to a close was emphasized once again in Stalin’s reply to The New York Times correspondent. The Soviet Union therefore supported the generous initiative of the Chinese People’s Republic and the Korean People’s Democratic Republic aimed at removing the obstacles to the negotiations at Panmunjom. The result was the cessation of hostilities and the conclusion of the Armistice Agreement.
109. The successful conclusion of the negotiations and the signing of the Armistice Agreement in Korea was welcomed by the peoples of the whole world as an important international event. It aroused the hope that the signing of the agreement might lead to a peaceful settlement in the Far East and the strengthening of peace throughout the world. The conclusion of the Armistice Agreement in Korea constitutes a serious defeat for the policy of using force in international relations. It is a victory for the principle of the peaceful solution of outstanding controversial international questions. This victory has quite properly been attributed to the consistent peace policy of the Soviet Union, and its efforts to relax international tension.
110. Basing its foreign policy on the possibility — which is unquestionable — that the socialist and capitalist systems can coexist over a long period of time and can engage in peaceful competition, the Soviet Union is prepared to co-operate with all countries which desire such co-operation. The relations of the Soviet Union with the countries of the capitalist world, based, as they have been, on the development of business relations and on respect for mutual interests, has convincingly shown that this policy of peaceful coexistence meets the vital interests not only of the Soviet Union but of all other countries. In pursuing this policy, the Soviet Union has convincingly and incontrovertibly proved that today there are no controversial or outstanding questions which cannot be settled peacefully by agreement between the States concerned.
111. The USSR Government’s latest notes on the German and Austrian questions and the recent talks between the USSR Government and the Government of the German Democratic Republic are evidence of the Soviet Union’s active and unremitting struggle in defence of peace and for the further relaxing of international tension. This is also shown by the Soviet Union’s successful attempts to improve relations with neighbouring countries and re-establish normal relations with a number of other States. Especially significant are the Soviet Union’s successes in strengthening its close collaboration and friendship with the Chinese People’s Republic, the German Democratic Republic and the peoples’ democracies. This persistent, purposeful foreign policy of the Soviet Union has already produced positive results. The change which has occurred in the international climate may serve as evidence of this.
112. After a prolonged period of mounting tension, now for the first time in the post-war years a certain détente in the international atmosphere has become noticeable. A more substantial relaxation of international tension is now possible. Nations are becoming more and more convinced that there are no insuperable obstacles to international collaboration, that any international disputes or outstanding questions may be solved by peaceful settlement without the use of armed force.
113. There are serious obstacles, however, to the restoration of normal international relations, obstacles created by the policy of the aggressive circles in the United States and other countries linked to the North Atlantic bloc. In these countries there are small but influential groups which either openly oppose the settlement of outstanding international questions or, more commonly, express themselves in favour of discussing these questions while at the same time continuing in practice to carry out the “policy of strength”, the strategy of the cold war and the ever-increasing intensification of the armaments race. It is, of course, impossible to disregard the fact that even highly responsible representatives of the United States Government are trying to play this political and diplomatic game.
114. It is not difficult to find proof of this if one examines the facts. Speaking in the General Assembly, the United States Secretary of State declared [434th meeting] 'hat the United States had come to the eighth session with the determination, as he put it, “to use for peace and justice the opportunities which this Organization provides”. That statement suggested that Mr. Dulles intended to unfold before the Assembly a programme of specific measures which the United States Government intended to carry out with the aim of improving the international situation and restoring normal relations with other countries.
115. It is apposite in this connexion to recall that, shortly before Mr. Dulles’ speech, the American propaganda machine sought to prepare public opinion for precisely such a development by publicizing in advance the Secretary of State’s forthcoming speech as a United States Government programme embracing a wide range of questions with which the present tension in international relations is connected. It would, however, be in vain to seek in Mr. Dulles’ speech even the slightest hint that the United States intends to heed the universal desire of the peoples for peace, to put an end to the cold war and to the armaments race. On the contrary, Mr. Dulles’ whole speech was couched in the form of demands of some kind addressed to the Soviet Union in connexion with every question he touched upon, even though he was dealing with the major international problems which had not yet been settled. At the same time, as the Soviet Press and the foreign Press correctly observed, Mr. Dulles studiously avoided saying when the United States would at long last make its promised contribution to the task of settling controversial international questions. Mr. Dulles’ speech shows irrefutably that statements by representatives of United States ruling circles concerning the allegedly peace-loving tendencies of United States foreign policy must be dealt with very cautiously and that the bankrupt “get tough” policy, the “policy of strength”, continues to be the political line of these circles.
116. Evidence of this is to be found, in particular, in that part of Mr. Dulles’ speech where he sings the praises of the “community defence” system. Mr. Dulles repeated the favourite claims of United States propaganda, namely, that the aggressive plans of the North Atlantic bloc are only measures of self defence, “counter-measures”, he called them. He asserted, for example, that a so-called “community defence” system made it possible for small countries to escape the menace of aggression and that the system could not be used for purposes of aggression. Mr. Dulles called these “community measures” the “enlightened way” to implement the Charter of the United Nations.
117. Developing this idea, Mr. Dulles further said that the military force of several countries united for military purposes offered less danger of aggression than that of a single country, which can be used “at the dictation of one government alone, sometimes of one man alone”. This assertion of Mr. Dulles is completely groundless. It is contrary to logic and historical facts. According to Mr. Dulles, the military force of the Netherlands, for example, or of El Salvador, which can be committed to battle at the will “of one government alone”, constitutes a greater threat to peace than the combined military might of fifteen States headed by a Power like the United States, which has a tremendous military potential and armed forces composed of millions of men. In the light of the recent aggression against the Korean People’s Democratic Republic unleashed by the North Atlantic bloc, such assertions are, to say the least, unconvincing.
118. As for the argument that a community defence system cannot be used for purposes of aggression, history knows of a number of cases where, under the guise of alliances formed to achieve peaceful and defensive purposes, aggressive States united to carry out their expansionist plans. Can it be said perhaps that the Holy Alliance, created after the fall of Napoleon I’s Empire, in order, as the act of alliance said, that the parties thereto should “lend each other aid and assistance”, was not an aggressive combination which instigated war in Europe and supported b; force the frontier changes imposed upon the countries of Europe? Was not the Second World War the result of the creation of a bloc of aggressive States known as the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo Axis, which also concealed its rapacious plans behind the pretext of mutual defence requirements?
119. What can there be behind Mr. Dulles’ praise of the “community defence” system if not an attempt to justify the existence of the aggressive North Atlantic bloc, which people in Western European countries are ceasing to believe is necessary? We are further convinced of this by the fact that only recently, before another audience and on another subject, Mr. Dulles sought hard to obtain increased appropriations for the arming of the Western European countries, using every possible argument to prove that the North Atlantic bloc must be preserved.
120. Mr. Dulles’ speech in the General Assembly convincingly proves that the ruling circles in the United States do not intend to promote a relaxation of international tension and do not propose, at least for the present, to bring about more normal international relations. United States ruling circles show no inclination to reckon with realities. They refuse to recognize the fact that the cold war is arousing increasing resistance among the masses, and that even among the leading circles of Western European countries there is a growing desire to put an end to the cold war and to return to normal international relations. Reflecting this mood, the prominent British Labour Party member, Mr. Wilson, recently wrote in an article in Reynolds News that the cold war was oppressing the world and had long constricted national and international horizons. Nevertheless, the ruling circles in the United States, far from renouncing this policy, which is incompatible with normal relations between countries, are, on the contrary, endeavouring, as the representative of Indonesia quite rightly pointed out in his statement [437th meeting], to transform the cold war into a permanent basis for foreign policy.
121. If international relations are to continue on this unhealthy basis, they can seriously damage the cause of peace, and all this abnormal policy can do is to prepare the way for further military conflicts. The danger that the cold-war strategy may culminate in precisely this way can be seen from numerous facts showing that the armaments race is being intensified in a number of countries and that, with the increased production of atomic weapons, it has now reached proportions which make it particularly dangerous for peace.
122. Despite the conclusion of the armistice in Korea and the prospect of a peaceful settlement of the Korean question, the United States and, under its influence, a number of other countries, far from reducing their armed forces, are, on the contrary, increasing the size of their forces in foreign territories and continuing to expand their network of military, air and naval bases. New links are being added to the chain of United States military bases which now stretch from Japan across the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans to the countries of western and northern Europe. At the present time, a strategic construction programme is being carried out by the United States in many areas of the globe, but particular attention is given to the erection of military bases in regions and territories which are especially suitable as springboards for an attack on the Soviet Union and the peoples’ democracies.
123. These extensive aggressive undertakings by the United States in foreign territories were modestly described by Mr. Dulles as “sometimes” involving “the placing of military forces from one country in another country”, but in actual fact these far-reaching plans of military strategy cannot be so camouflaged. Clear evidence of this is afforded by the treaty between the United States and japan and likewise by the agreements with Syngman Rhee and Chiang Kai-shek. The agreement with Syngman Rhee, moreover, is in direct contradiction with statements to the effect that the United States is ready to withdraw its troops from Korea; this fact clearly reveals the aggressive nature of such agreements.
124. Aggressive circles in the United States are especially concerned in the revival of German and Japanese imperialism. The reason for this interest in Germany and Japan was revealed by none other than Mr. Dulles, when he declared that those two countries constituted two key positions in the military disposition of forces against the Soviet Union.
125. In the present serious international situation, it is especially important, indeed essential, to take effective and practical measures to reduce tension in international relations and to remove the danger of a new world war. The Soviet Union has constantly made great efforts in the United Nations to thwart by diplomatic means the irresponsible plans of the aggressive circles in the United States, which seek to precipitate another world war. However, all these efforts to induce the Organization to adopt decisions which could reduce the existing international tension and restore normal relations between. States have been without success. These efforts have invariably encountered the opposition of the ruling circles in the United States and a number of other countries, which have obstinately prevented the adoption of decisions which might restrain aggressors.
126. At the present session of the General Assembly [438th meeting], the Soviet delegation has introduced fresh proposals concerning “measures to avert the threat of a new world war and to reduce tension in international relations”. There can be little doubt that these proposals will be received with great interest and sympathy by all sincere opponents of war, by all who hold that the cold war and the “get tough” policy, which created and are now maintaining the present international tension, must be eliminated and replaced by normal relations between States. The adoption of these proposals is dictated by the interests of the nations of the world, by the very circumstances which have arisen in international relations, and by the tension which must be relaxed immediately.
127. Some representatives who have spoken here have alluded to the fact that the proposals of the Soviet Union repeat in part proposals submitted by the Soviet delegation at previous sessions of the General Assembly. Those representatives, it would seem, completely fail to realize that, given the special character of the present time, circumstances and conditions, such measures are particularly necessary, despite the fact that a number of representatives in the United Nations are clearly dissatisfied at the efforts which are being made to relax international tension. This dissatisfaction emanates from certain aggressive circles which are committed to war, which are interested in war speculation and in the spread of the war psychosis which they have themselves engendered.
128. In a number of countries an important factor in the efforts being made to maintain and even to expand the military programmes which make the armaments race possible is the extraction by the giant monopolies of the greatest possible profits from the armaments race and the militarization of the economy. These profits, increasing as a result of the continuing feverish armaments race, have rapidly attained fantastic proportions, far beyond the level of the profits not only of the period of the Second World War but even of the last two or three years.
129. Those who maintain that the Soviet Union proposals contain nothing new are merely trying to conceal their determination to avoid any decisions which might help to lower the temperature of the international atmosphere and maintain peace.
130. The first proposal in the Soviet draft resolution [A/2485/Rev.1] is for the prohibition of atomic and hydrogen weapons and of all other types of weapons of mass destruction, and for the establishment of strict international control to ensure observance of that prohibition. Linked with that is another proposal for the reduction of the armed forces of the five permanent members of the Security Council by one-third, and a recommendation for the calling of an international conference for the carrying out by all States of the reduction of armaments.
131. These proposals of the USSR delegation are exceptionally timely because the countries which are members of the North Atlantic bloc — that purely military organization created to carry out aggressive plans against the Soviet Union and the peoples’ democracies — are endeavouring to wreck the efforts of the Soviet Union to bring about a relaxation of international tension. The question of the prohibition of atomic and hydrogen weapons and the establishment of strict international control to ensure observance of that prohibition is particularly to be singled out.
132. As before, the ruling circles in the United States reject all proposals aimed at establishing genuine international control, and would substitute for it the so- called “effective system” of international control which, as we have repeatedly shown, is absolutely unsuitable. The worthlessness of the control plan which the ruling circles in the United States obstinately refuse to relinquish is especially evident now that the Soviet Union has mastered the secret not only of the atomic weapon but of the hydrogen weapon also. Early this year the American Press rightly described this United States control plan, which is known as the Baruch plan, as a dead formula. Nevertheless, some of those who make United States foreign policy continue to cling to this dead formula.
133. The Soviet Union is again raising the question of prohibiting atomic and hydrogen weapons in the firm belief that its proposals will be correctly understood and supported by the General Assembly.
134. It has been argued in the General Assembly that it is useless to re-examine proposals for a one- third reduction of the armaments of the five permanent members of the Security Council, since there exists a Disarmament Commission which has not yet examined proposals previously submitted to it on this question. In our view, these arguments are unfounded. The fact that the Disarmament Commission was unable to make any headway during the whole of last year is clear evidence that General Assembly resolution 502 (VI), on which the Commission’s work is based, stems from a wrong theory concerning the reduction of armaments and armed forces. The defect of this theory resides in the fact that the so-called gradual disclosure and verification of armaments by stages cannot ensure a real reduction of armaments, since it makes it possible to conceal the most secret types of weapons and to avoid their disclosure and verification. The proposals for the reduction of armaments and armed forces introduced by the Soviet Union at the present session provide a solid foundation for resuming discussion of this most urgent and important question and place the discussion itself on a practical basis.
135. We have already pointed out that the uninterrupted arms race is accompanied by an expansion of the network of military bases of some States in the territories of other States, resulting in a virtual military occupation of these countries and the undermining of their national sovereignty. Such a situation cannot be regarded as normal. It must be put to a. stop immediately. That is the object of the USSR delegation’s proposals recommending that the Security Council should take steps to ensure the immediate elimination of military bases in the territories of other States.
136. The international atmosphere is poisoned by the propaganda which is being conducted by a number of States with a view to inciting enmity and hatred among nations and preparing a new world war. Such activity, which prejudices the cause of peace and heightens international tension, is incompatible with normal relations between States, and, as the Soviet draft resolution proposes, must without question be stopped as being contrary to the fundamental purposes and principles of the United Nations.
137. The peoples of the world cannot be satisfied with declarations about readiness “to explore ways to end the present tension”, when these are not followed by practical steps aimed at achieving a genuine relaxation of tension. They demand that the obstacles to the settlement of all controversial questions should be removed and the way opened to achieving agreement on those questions. The proposals of the Soviet Union fully meet these demands. They can serve as a starting point for carrying out effective measures to end the cold war and the armaments race and to restore normal relations between States. The adoption of the Soviet proposals would facilitate the settlement of controversial questions and create favourable conditions for a genuine relaxation of international tension.
138. The delegation of the Ukrainian SSR unreservedly endorses and supports the new peace proposals of the Soviet Union and calls on all the delegations of the countries participating in the present session, and through them on the governments of those countries, to support those proposals. The Government of the Ukrainian SSR will do everything in its power to assist in putting these peace proposals of the Soviet Union into effect.