Mr. VYSHINSKY said that at the sessions of the General Assembly, it had already become a tradition for each session to be opened with a general discussion in order that Members might get a general picture of the path which had been traversed, sum up the events of the past year, make an analysis of the activities of the United Nations, and, as seemed natural, analyse the foreign policies of certain States, particularly of those which played a leading role in the United Nations. At the present session his delegation would present its review in the most concise form, and would do so in respect of the period of activity which had elapsed since the second session of the General Assembly, which took place from September to November 1947.
At the last session of the General Assembly, the delegation of the USSR spoke about the principal drawback in the activities of the United Nations (84th meeting), that drawback being the failure to fulfil a number of extremely important recommendations of the General Assembly. Recommendations on the general reduction of armaments, on the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes only, and on the expediting of the drafting of measures to prohibit atomic weapons had not been carried out; neither had recommendations on a number of other important issues.
At the same time, attention had to be drawn to the utterly abnormal situation in which influential Members of the Organization were making use of their influence not for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the General Assembly and relevant measures but, on the contrary, for the carrying out of measures basically contradictory to and incompatible with those recommendations. Such was the case, for example, with the Palestine question, the Indonesian question, that of discrimination in the Union of South Africa, and a number of other important questions. There was no need to put special emphasis on how injurious were the violations of the Charter of the United Nations and particularly the adoption of such unlawful decisions as, for example, the decisions regarding the establishment of the Interim Committee, the United Nations Temporary Commission on Korea, the so-called United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans, to the authority of the General Assembly and the United Nations generally.
Mr. Vyshinsky recalled the circumstances under which the Interim Committee was set up last year, upon a motion submitted by the delegation of the United States of America. Even at that time there had been no doubt that the initiators of the establishment of that Interim Committee had as their aim the creation of a body which would compete with the Security Council in order to undermine the role and the significance of the Council as the body bearing the primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security under the Charter, Even at that time, it was clear that the Interim Committee was envisaged by the United States delegation as a body with functions wider than those of the Security Council. The establishment of the Interim Committee was another step towards the undermining of the United Nations, and towards the undermining of the whole cause of international co-operation, since the proposal of the United States was designed to transfer to the Interim Committee the solution of the most important matters relating to peace and security, thus bypassing the Security Council in violation of the United Nations Charter. It was designed to do so, not on the basis of the principle of the unanimity of the five great Powers, but on a different basis. There was no doubt, therefore, that the adoption of that proposal had been undermining — and continued to undermine — international co-operation based on mutual understanding, trust and respect, and the interests of all States, large and small, which were striving to strengthen peace and security for all peoples.
Nevertheless, the Interim Committee had not justified the hopes of its champions and organizers. It was hardly accidental that the initiators of the establishment of the Interim Committee had not ventured, at the present session, to raise the question of transforming that Interim Committee into a permanent body.
The appointment of the United Nations Temporary Commission on Korea was, according to the plans of the authors of that proposal, to cover up foreign interference in the internal affairs of Korea and to bolster the setting up in Korea of a government composed of individuals upon whom the United States authorities in Korea had already been leaning, and upon whom they hoped to lean in the future, in utter disregard of the interests of the people of Korea. Even in South Korea, numerous cases of lawlessness, violence and even terror had occurred against the progressive people, and particularly against the active participants of the democratic movement who did not want to put up with the lawless position of their country. Accordingly, at the price of lawlessness and of splitting Korea in two, the United States authorities had set up a South Korean puppet government which they had widely advertised as the all-Korean Government. Such a falsification, however, could mislead no one. That falsification became particularly evident when compared with the situation in Northern Korea, where a widespread national movement for the unity and independence of Korea had resulted in the establishment of the Supreme People’s Council elected by the population of both Northern and Southern Korea, and in the creation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
There could be no doubt that the future of Korea belonged to the Korean people who were championing the unity and independence of their country against all attempts to convert Korea into a colony and to use it as a place d’armes for aggressive purposes.
Equally unsuccessful had been the efforts of the so-called United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans which had been illegally set up at the last session of the General Assembly, and which was calculated to facilitate the suppression of the national liberation movement in Greece, on the one hand, and to strengthen and support the artificial charges of the Greek monarcho-fascists against the northern neighbours of Greece on the other. Such a committee, with such an assignment and with such terms of reference, had been unable to win laurels either for itself or for the United Nations as a whole. As far back as 1947, numerous cases proving the lack of impartiality in the work of the Special Committee had been cited in the First Committee. It had been proved that no conclusions worthy of attention or credit could be arrived at on the basis of the material provided by the Special Committee. Mr. Vyshinsky said that exactly the same situation existed at present, and that the USSR delegation would have to return to the matter when the so-called Greek question came under consideration at the meetings of the First Committee and at subsequent meetings of the General Assembly.
In the field of economic questions, the activities of the United Nations in the course of the period under review had been concentrated on problems which, though of some importance, were far from affecting the most important interests of the peoples, and first and foremost, of the peoples of those countries which had suffered most from the war and from the severe hardships and privations imposed upon them by the hitlerites. Such bodies of the United Nations as the Economic and Social Council and the Economic Commissions for Europe and for Asia and the Far East had eschewed the fulfilment of the important tasks of drafting measures calculated to contribute to the rehabilitation of the economy of war devastated countries and to the development of their principal national industries.
Despite the fact, that, as was well known, the Marshall Plan ignored the United Nations, the economic bodies of the United Nations had deemed it to be their most important task to facilitate the implementation of that Plan in every way possible. It was not accidental that the report of the Secretary-General himself, the report of Mr. Trygve Lie, pictured the Marshall Plan, without any reason whatsoever, as a « ... programme [which] holds great promise for the restoration of Western Europe to economic and political stability. »
Meanwhile, it had become even more obvious than it had been a year ago that the Marshall Plan not only did not make any contribution to the economic and political stabilization of Europe but, on the contrary, worsened the economic position of the European countries that had joined the Plan, which undermined their economic and political independence.
Referring to the Security Council, Mr. Vyshinsky said that in the year 1947-1948, that Council had had before it a number of most important questions which were connected with the implementation of resolutions and recommendations of the General Assembly. Among them, it was essential to mention, in the first place, the decision of the General Assembly of 24 January 1946 on atomic energy, and the resolution of the General Assembly of 14 December 1946 on the general regulation and reduction of armaments.
On the other hand, the Security Council also dealt with questions relating to cases of violation by certain States of the principles and provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and decisions of the General Assembly — violations which had taken place in the course of the elapsed period. In spite of the fact that, in many cases, those violations had been and remained a direct threat to the peace and security of the peoples, the majority of the Security Council not only did not find it fitting to adopt measures required for the removal of such threats, but, on the contrary, adopted the opposite position by supporting and bolstering such violators. It was so with regard to the Indonesian question where the majority of the Security Council had not adopted measures to stop the armed aggression by the Netherlands against the Indonesian people. The majority of the Security Council had adopted again that same attitude when, by decision of that majority, the case had been transferred to the hands of the Committee of Good Offices — consisting of representatives of the United States, Belgium and Australia. The Committee had taken sides with the Dutch colonizers and imposed upon the Indonesian Republic the enslaving and grievous « Renville » Agreement, as a result of which Indonesia had been deprived of a number of rich areas taken by the Dutch in 1947.
At the same time, the majority of the Security Council had rejected a proposal calling for the cessation of hostilities and for the withdrawal of Dutch troops from the territory they had occupied at the beginning of the military operations which had actually meant encouragement of the aggressors
The Security Council had also failed to carry out its duty with respect to the Palestine question. The decision of the General Assembly of 29 November last had been ignored and the establishment of two independent States in Palestine, Arab and Jewish, had been impeded. The policy of the majority of the Security, Council with regard to the Palestine question was not directed toward the adoption of measures for the removal of national contradictions in Palestine, nor was it directed toward ensuring good-neighbourly relations between the Jewish and Arab peoples; on the contrary, the policy of the Security Council had contributed to the deepening of those contradictions, of the cleavage, and forced both Arabs and Jews to take the road of armed force and armed clashes which had resulted in warfare in Palestine.
The wrecking of the decision of the General Assembly of 29 November had been due not. only to direct proposals on the part of certain States to revise the above-mentioned decision, but also to such measures as had resulted from the proposal of the United States delegation to set up a trusteeship over Palestine (A/C.l/277), and the proposal to appoint a Mediator (A/C.l/ SC.9/1) a measure, however, which so far had failed to yield any positive results.
Mr. Vyshinsky then turned to another important question, a question which he regarded as of exceptional importance, the question of the control of atomic energy, and also the important question of not utilizing atomic energy for other than peaceful purposes. After thirty months of work by the Atomic Energy Commission, there had been no positive results.
The same applied as regards the Commission for Conventional Armaments, which had worked for almost the same period of time. None of the tasks assigned to those Commissions by the General Assembly had been fulfilled and the Commissions had not moved one inch nearer to the implementation of those decisions.
The work of the Atomic Energy Commission had remained fruitless, and the reason was that the Government of the United States had refused and continued to refuse to solve the principal problem, the solution of which would determine the direction and nature of all measures relevant to the problem of removing atomic weapons from national armaments and securing the atomic energy only and exclusively for peaceful purposes. Mr. Vyshinsky pointed out that, as was well- known, the Soviet Union had insisted and continued to insist on the necessity for immediately prohibiting atomic weapons and their utilization for aggressive ends. The Soviet Union insisted on the need for establishing strict and effective international control over the observance of such a ban on the use of atomic weapons. The necessity to prohibit atomic weapons arose from the very nature of that type of weapon because it was essentially an aggressive weapon intended for attack and attack only. It was designed to destroy cities; it was a weapon designed for mass extermination of peaceful populations. Any objection to the prohibition of atomic weapons was possible only on the part of those circles which were interested in the retention in their own hands of the control over that weapon, groups which were cherishing plans for attacks on other countries. Those circles, those quarters, were perfecting their aggressive plans and cherishing illusions that those plans would work, even if the whole nation or the vast majority of the nation which was to attack other countries was against war, against military aggression which was planned by the reactionary top groups.
Those circles strenuously opposed a convention for the prohibition of atomic weapons, and instead of such a convention they were making proposals for the establishment of international control of atomic energy as a whole. It was not difficult to realize that without the prohibition of the use of atomic energy for military purposes, it would be absurd to speak of control over atomic energy, since the object of the control would not exist. Without the prohibition of the production and use of atomic weapons, all proposals regarding the establishment of an international body for control over the use of atomic energy would be deprived of any practical sense. It would be useless to try to prohibit or control atomic energy without banning atomic weapons in the first place. In such circumstances the very drafting of any provisions concerning the competence, functions, powers, and responsibilities of the control organ would be useless and a waste of time. Without the prohibition of atomic weapons, any and all talk about control over the use of atomic energy would be only a means of misleading the people and designed to serve as a smoke-screen concealing from the eyes of the world the true atomic weapons race.
The Government of the United States, in insisting that an international control organ should be established first, and that agreement on the prohibition of atomic weapons would follow, placed the cart before the horse. It was clear that the Government of the United States was not interested in the progress of the work of the Atomic Energy Commission which, for two and a half years, had been struggling with the task of drawing up proposals regarding the exclusion from national armaments of atomic weapons and of all other principal types of armaments designed for the mass destruction of people. The demand that there should be concluded first the establishment of international control, and that conventions for the prohibition of atomic weapons might then ensue was designed to disrupt the conclusion of a convention for the prohibition of the use of atomic energy for military purposes. Such a position on the part of the representatives of the United States was nothing but a design to cover up their lack of desire to have any kind of control. Furthermore, the United States plan also included proposals for ownership by the international control organ of all enterprises connected with atomic energy. In other words, that international organ would have complete control and would have every opportunity for uncontrolled interference in the internal affairs of any country.
Taking into consideration the fact that the United States plan provided for the transfer to the international control body not only of enterprises, but also of whole industries, which to a certain degree serviced the plants and installations producing atomic materials, it was not difficult to understand what the adoption of the United States plan might lead to. It was perfectly clear that the plan for ownership by the international control body of all atomic energy enterprises would make that body the owner of all relevant enterprises in any country without any restriction of control in the economic life of the
The USSR maintained that the international control body should have the right to adopt decisions by a majority of votes, but it was impossible to agree that that international body should become a United States body and should have the right to interfere with the economic life of any country, even if that were supported by a simple majority in the control organ. The USSR could not accept such a situation. The USSR realized that in the control organ there would be a majority which might adopt one-sided decisions, a majority upon whose favourable attitude the USSR could not count. That was the reason why the USSR, and probably not only the USSR, could not agree that the fate of its national economy should be placed in the hands of that organ.
Apart from that, the United States proposal for control did not present an opportunity for the control of atomic production proper. The Second Report of the Atomic Energy Commission to the Security Council dated 11 September 1947 stated the United States position on that question as follows: « ... effective international control of atomic energy in order to prevent its use for destructive purposes must begin with strict control over these two key substances » — that is, uranium and thorium — and «the starting point of any system of control lies with the raw materials which are the source of these two key substances».
That statement indicated that all attention was concentrated on the mining of raw materials. It would be futile however, to look in that report for any indication as to the necessity for a simultaneous establishment of control over the industrial production of atomic energy.
Thus, there were no doubts left in anybody’s mind that the Government of the United States wanted to place its hands on the sources of raw materials in other countries, with the aid of the so-called international control body where the United States expected to be backed by its own majority. At the same time the United States refused to place its own atomic enterprises under international control, together with all the other enterprises and sources of raw materials. It was clear that such a way of putting the question was intended to provide the United States with an unlimited possibility of further uncontrolled production of atomic bombs.
The USSR maintained that a properly organized international control body should exercise control over the production of atomic energy in all its stages, beginning with the production of raw materials, up to and including the output of manufactured goods.
The Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and other Powers could not agree with that position. The USSR — and not only the USSR — could not agree with the policy of these Governments.
Recently the Manchester Guardian had published a letter from the Secretary-General of the British Association of Scientific Workers which very justly raised the following question:
«What harm would have been done by our agreeing to a declaration that we would not use atomic energy for military purposes in any future war?»
Such a declaration, be it noted, had been contained in the convention prohibiting the use of gas for warfare. The British Association of Scientific Workers wondered why the use of atomic energy in war could not be renounced, just as the use of toxic gas had been renounced. The letter from the Secretary-General of the British Association of Scientific Workers contained the following reply:
« In the two years that have elapsed since the first Soviet suggestion for a convention was made, it has become clear that the real reason for the attitude of the Western Powers on this issue was that the United States Government deemed it necessary to retain the threat of the use of atomic weapons as a key factor in the cold war against Russia.»
Atomic weapons - were weapons of attack, weapons of aggression. All the peace-loving peoples, millions and millions of common people through out the world to whom aggressive tendencies and intentions were foreign, should raise their voices for the immediate prohibition of the use of the atomic bomb which was intended for mass extermination of the peaceful population of countries and designed to destroy peaceful cities.
Without a doubt, such a situation had arisen because of the policy which was being pursued in the United Nations by such influential Members as the United States of America, whose foreign policy had undergone a radical change in recent years.
At one time, the United States and the USSR had fought together against aggressive forces, against fascist Germany and militaristic Japan. Side by side with the USSR the United States had shed the blood of its sons on the battlefield against the common enemy, completing the fight until the final stage had been reached and peace had been established.
The USSR continued to pursue its former policy of struggle against Fascism for democratic principles and for the well-being and strengthening of the economic and political position of the democratic countries. German Fascism and Japanese militarism having been crushed, the USSR continued to pursue a policy of peace, devoting all its efforts to the solution of internal problems and, primarily, of problems connected with the rehabilitation and further development of the national economy of a country disrupted by war. The people of the USSR were entirely preoccupied with peaceful labour, with the strengthening and furthering of the development of socialist construction in their country and were standing guard firmly for the peace and security of all nations.
The policy of the USSR was consistent and constant in its efforts to expand and strengthen international co-operation. Such a policy followed from the very nature of the Soviet State. It was a socialist State of workers and peasants who were deeply interested in the establishment of the most favourable conditions for peaceful creative work and the building of a socialist society. The USSR pursued a foreign policy of co-operation with all countries prepared for peaceful co-operation. It fought consistently against any plan or measure which was designed to create a gap among peoples. It fought for the realization and implementation of the democratic principles which had arisen out of the war.
Such was not the case with respect to the present foreign policy of the United States. After the termination of the recent world war, the United States Government had changed its foreign policy from one of fighting against aggressive forces to one of expansion. It was now attempting to realize plans for world domination. In certain countries, it openly supported the most reactionary monarcho-fascist regimes and groups and aided them systematically with money and armaments for the suppression of democratic national liberation movements. It was organizing military alliances or blocs, constructing new military, air and naval bases as well as expanding, reconstructing and bringing up to date certain old bases that had been established during the war with Germany, Japan and Italy. Furthermore, it was carrying on an unchecked propaganda campaign to the effect that there would be a new war with the USSR and the new democracies of Eastern Europe. A wild armaments race was taking place. There existed a true worship of the cult of the atomic bomb which was supposed to provide a means of escape from all the dangers and misfortunes threatening the capitalist world. Those were the principal aspects, the characteristic features of the present foreign policy of the United States of America.
Such a policy was engendering a war psychosis and was sowing restlessness and fear among the great masses who strived for peace and peaceful creative labour. It was a policy which had nothing in common whatsoever with a policy of peace.
As was well known, the United States Government, together with the Governments of the United Kingdom and France, had organized a military- political bloc of five States, the aim of which was not to prevent German aggression and render mutual assistance against such aggression. The bloc could not pursue such an aim because it was not directed against the danger of the recurrence of German aggression and it even intended that Western Germany, which since time immemorial had served as a stronghold of German militarism and only recently had served as a bulwark for Hitlerite aggression, should be included in it. It was quite clear that the forming of such alliance was in direct contradiction with the objectives of strengthening world peace and security.
However, other alliances of peace-loving European States were being concluded to prevent the possibility of recurring German aggression. Similar treaties had been concluded by the USSR with the countries of Eastern Europe as well as with Finland; and it was on the same basis that the Anglo-Soviet treaty and the Twenty-Year Franco-Soviet Treaty of mutual assistance had been concluded. Such treaties and the alliances based upon them aimed at preventing the possibility of further German aggression; they were in full conformity with the interests of all peace-loving peoples and would not lead to the oppression of peace-loving countries. They were not designed to set States against each other or to split Europe.
However, treaties such as the treaty of military alliance of the Western States, which included the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, did not only have in mind Germany, but could be directed against States which had been allies during the Second World War. All the British, French and American Press openly stated that the military alliance of the five Western Powers was directed against the USSR, and against the new European democracies. Such a treaty could in no way be regarded as one concluded for the purpose of defence alone. Those who concluded such agreements and those who established such alliances were pursuing a policy which was utterly incompatible with the strengthening of peace. Those who were concluding such treaties were assisting the instigators and organizers of a new war.
The resolution adopted at the second session of the General Assembly, denouncing propaganda concerning a new war and demanding assistance by means of information and propaganda for the purpose of strengthening friendly relations between nations, had not checked the instigators of war, who in the past year had become more insolent. They were now carrying on their criminal activities with even greater cynicism and were trying to poison with war propaganda as many as possible of the common people of their own countries. The propaganda was accompanied by slanderous falsehoods concerning the alleged aggressiveness of the USSR and the new democracies. In that way, an attempt was being made to depict the USSR as an undemocratic country, while on the other band the United States of America, the United Kingdom and other countries of the Anglo-American bloc were being pictured as democratic countries par excellence. All that was accompanied by a furious armaments race and the development of plans for an attack against the USSR and the new democracies as well as by the preparation of other military measures.
In that connexion, it had to be recalled that although three years had elapsed since the end of the Second World War, the Anglo-American Combined Chiefs of Staff, a body which was directed against the interests of peace, continued to exist secretly. It had been established in 1942 for the period of the war of the united nations against fascist Germany and for the task of directing the military operations of the Allies. It was still continuing its secret activities. Among the United States representatives on its staff were Admiral Leahy, Admiral Lewis Denfield, General Bradley, General Hoyt Vandenberg, and among the United Kingdom representatives were Admiral Sir Henry Moore, Lieutenant General Sir William Morgan, and Air Marshal Medhurst.
In September 1947, under the supervision of the Anglo-American Combined Chiefs of Staff, manoeuvres were held in the North Atlantic with the participation of British, American and Canadian naval units. In September 1948, manoeuvres for the so-called defence of the United Kingdom were held with the participation of British and American Air Forces.
At the same time measures were being taken for the expansion and fortification mainly of military air bases for any future military adventures which might be decided upon. The Press of those countries was full of insolent articles, written in frantic warmongering terms, directed against the USSR and against the new democracies. The Press discussed various plans for the attack against the USSR from those bases, with the clear intention of puzzling nervous people in boasting of United States military powers and in particular of the power of the «special invasion forces», as the American weekly, the Saturday Evening Post, had pointed out in its issue of 11 September. It had mentioned the special invasion forces which were being prepared, that is to say bombers which could carry showers of atomic bombs.
An editorial in the influential magazine United States News and World Report, in its issue of 9 April, openly confirmed that the air forces of the United States were being re-organized for the eventuality of possible military operations in Europe. The magazine stressed that those air combat forces based in the United Kingdom were being built up by the United States in a radius around the Soviet Union; it reproduced a detailed plan of attacks by American air forces upon the Soviet Union. According to the magazine, these plans were supposed to be in preparation, and would be carried out chiefly with the aid of the above-mentioned bombers, jet-propelled fighters and planes carrying atomic bombs.
The same magazine had published a map showing the lines of attack by the air forces of the United States in accordance with the plan outlined above. The explanatory note under one of these remarkable maps read as follows:
«The United States will attack Russia chiefly by air. The Mediterranean area would be of first importance, together with Britain and the Middle East. The Arctic would be of minor importance in these operations. Southern Italy, Sicily and Turkey would be important as bases. Atom bombs would be saved for use on Russia herself.»
Another American publication, The New York Times Magazine, published on 30 May an article expressing regret that the United States had no really satisfactory maps of the interior of the Soviet Union. The article stated:
«This is perhaps the great disadvantage. The offence would suffer in bombing attacks upon Russia because of the lack of such maps... For blind bombing the most exact type of map is essential. »
The article, with cynical frankness, listed military air bases from which Soviet cities would be attacked, giving the respective distances, down to the nearest mile, of Soviet cities which apparently were doomed to atomic destruction by America. For instance, the article states:
«It is 3,000 miles round-trip from London to Moscow; 1,750 miles one way from Tripoli to Rostov;» — Tripoli being another Anglo- American base — «3,400 miles one way from Fairbanks, Alaska, to Vladivostok; 3,500 miles from a Greenland base to Sverdlovsk. »
Such were the occupations of the alleged peace- mongers who were proclaiming their peaceful intentions throughout the world.
A map published by ESSO (the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey) was of the same insolently arrogant and war-inciting nature. It was called, quite provocatively, «The Map of the Third World War.» That was what was being published in the United States. It was being handed out to motorists. It carried, with provocatively militant appeals, the heading: «Pacific Theatre of Military Operations.» It was an example of malicious war propaganda against the Soviet Union and the new democracies of Eastern Europe.
Reaction, which was no longer sure of the morrow, was continuously mobilizing its forces. Public opinion was being frantically manipulated, the Soviet Union and the new democracies were being shamelessly slandered and libelled, malicious lies were being spread abroad, facts were being manipulated so as to deceive millions of common people and to divert their attention from the actual instigators of war. Millions of copies of magazines newspapers and books impregnated with bestial hatred of democracy and socialism were being issued, openly instigating an attack against the peace-loving democracies.
The reactionary circles of the United States and the United Kingdom, as well as of countries such as France, Belgium, and others did not confine themselves to slander and abuse. The campaign was now being led not only by amateurs from the family of retired politicians, statesmen, senators and Members of Parliament, but also by persons now holding high official posts in the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and other countries. Those persons included United States Secretary of Defence Forrestal; General Kenney, Commander of the Strategic Air Forces of the United States; United States Secretary of War Royall; Senator Bridges, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee; British Members of Parliament such as Mr. Brown, Mr. Harvey and Sir Thomas Moore; Deputy Chief of Staff of the British Air Force Air Vice Marshal Walmsley, Mr. MacMillan, and others.
Those persons were no longer coming forward with general pronouncements and slogans calling for a war against the Soviet Union and the new democracies. They, and in particular the above-mentioned representatives of the high military command of the United States, were producing flashy coloured plans for the use of military aviation and atomic bombs for the destruction of such Soviet cities as Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Kharkov and Odessa. United States Secretary of Defence Forrestal had overstepped all limits when speaking before the Armed Forces Committee of the United States Senate. He had insisted upon an increase of many billions of dollars in appropriations for war purposes — in other words, for purposes of war against the Soviet Union. He had called for powerful air forces capable of inflicting incessant blows far beyond the outer bases existing at present.
Mr. Royall and Senator Bridges and Mr. Brown and other adventurers had spoken in the same manner. They had openly caned for attack upon the oil fields of Batum and Baku, the Donetz Basin and industrial regions beyond the Ural Mountains.
Despite the declarations which were constantly being made by representatives of the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and a number of other Western European States to the effect that their respective Government would not pursue any aggressive aims, a furious armaments race was under way in those countries, with the United States in the lead. In 1947, two years after the end of the war, the United States Army was three and a half times larger than it had ever been in pre-war years. The United States Air Force had grown even faster, its numbers in 1947 having increased seventeen times as compared with 1937. During that same period, the United States Navy had increased by three and a half times in tonnage of operating naval units, and the personnel of the Navy had increased five times.
The United States budget approved for 1948- 1949 showed an increase in expenditure for war purposes amounting to nearly four billion dollars as compared with the preceding year.
According to official data, the following increases in the military budget intended for the purpose of the re-armament of the Army, Air Force and Navy of the United States had been planned for coming years: 1949-1950, seventeen and a half billion dollars; 1950-1951, twenty billion; 1951-1952, twenty-one and a half billion; and 1952-1953, twenty-two and a half billion. That was the United States Five- Year Plan.
Enormous sums of money were still being spent on war experiments, military research and the manufacture of all kinds of new types of perfected weapons, with, as a result, the flow of billions of dollars of profits into the pockets of American monopoly capitalists.
Not only was the United States itself carrying on intense preparations for aggressive steps against the USSR and the new democracies, but it was also helping a number of Western European countries to prepare for war. The United States was supplying the armies of a number of Western European States with American armaments, and all that was being done on the pretext of strengthening the defence and building up the protection of those countries against outside aggression. Some reports concerning the possibility of the resumption of armament supplies from the United States to certain Western European countries under a sort of lend- lease programme had already appeared in the Press.
Such was the situation in the field of international relations at present. Such were the conditions and the circumstances in which the third session of the General Assembly of the United Nations was starting its work.
Undoubtedly pompous and grandiloquent speeches about international co-operation, peace, the independence of peoples, human rights and democracy could be heard from the rostrum of the General Assembly, as had been the case at the last session and as, now as before, was also the case in committees and commissions of the United Nations. But behind the scenes of the United Nations, in all kinds of military offices in the United States, in the United Kingdom and in a number of other countries rotating within the orbit of Anglo-American influence, other speeches were being made which were utterly incompatible with the principles of the United Nations.
Such a situation could not be tolerated. Millions of common people had paid with their blood for the crimes of the fascist warmongers who had been the organizers of the recent war; they could not allow a repetition of the recent war, which had caused such untold destruction, sorrow and grief to mankind.
On instructions from its Government, the delegation of the USSR desired to propose to the General Assembly, for the purpose of strengthening the cause of peace and removing the menace of a new war which was being fomented by expansionists and other reactionary elements, the adoption of the following resolution (A/658):
« Noting that, up to the present time, practically nothing has been done to implement the General Assembly’s decision of 24 January 1946 on atomic energy control, as well as the decision of 14 December 1946 on « principles governing the general regulation and reduction of armaments »;
« Recognizing as a task of the first importance the prohibition of production and use of atomic energy for war aims;
« Recognizing that a general substantial reduction of armaments satisfies the demands for establishing a durable peace and for the strengthening of international security and is compatible with the interests of the nations in easing the heavy economic burden they face as a result of excessive and ever-increasing expenditures on armaments in various countries;
« Taking into account that the great Powers, permanent members of the Security Council, possess the overwhelming number of armed forces and armaments and bear the main responsibility for the maintenance of peace and universal security;
«Desirous of strengthening the cause of peace and eliminating the threat of a new war fomented by expansionists and other reactionary elements,
« The General Assembly
« Recommends to the permanent members of the Security Council: United States of America, United Kingdom, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, France and Chin«, as a first step in the reduction of armaments and armed forces, the reduction by one third during one year of all present land, naval and air forces;
« Recommends the prohibition of atomic weapons as weapons intended for aims of aggression and not for those of defence;
« Recommends the establishment, within the framework of the Security Council, of an international control body for the purpose of supervision and of control over the implementation of the measures for the reduction of armaments end armed forces and for the prohibition of atomic weapons. »
The delegation of the USSR, in submitting this draft resolution, felt confident that the adoption of the above-mentioned proposal would be approved by the General Assembly and that thus the General Assembly would make a great and lasting contribution to the cause of peace and security of all peoples.