Never before in history has mankind longed so fervently as now for genuine international security and real peace; and never, in all probability, have men participated so widely and devotedly as they are participating today in efforts to strengthen peace and security. Yet we all feel that confidence in the possibility of preserving peace has been seriously undermined and that the life of mankind as a whole is being overshadowed by the grave threat of war.
77. It would be dangerous, in such serious times, to Indulge in propaganda contests, which only obscure the real problem of the causes and cure of international tension. This is particularly true of all attempts to hide behind Words about peace the acts which lead to war, or to divert mankind’s longing for peace entirely into discussion of secondary features of the present crisis in international relations and away from its real and direct causes.
78. According to the cheap propaganda of the Cominform type, the whole world is divided into friends of peace and warmongers; such were Mr. Vyshinsky’s words from this rostrum. But the issue of war or peace does not really depend so much on whether a particular State desires war or not, but primarily on what it does or, more accurately, on the aims it pursues in its international policy. In affairs of this kind men determine the fate of peace only to a limited extent; in the last resort, war and peace have their own inherent logic. A government which pursues a policy of domination and aggression towards other countries, even though it does not want war — or at any rate world war — is preparing war by its policy, Be this as it may, one fact is beyond dispute: formal peace declarations and proposals for reductions in armaments, prohibition of atomic weapons, a five-Power pact, and so on do not in themselves by any means prove that the government making them is genuinely working for peace.
79. Let us remember the lessons of the recent past. In the period immediately preceding the Second World War, Hitler juggled with a number of peace proposals, and his manoeuvres led to a propaganda game appallingly similar to the one we are witnessing at present. From 1933 to the outbreak of the Second World War, Hitler made a variety of “proposals” for arms reductions and the prohibition of certain types of weapons. In 1936 he proposed what was called the twenty-five-year peace plan for Europe. Together with Mussolini he persistently proposed a “four-Power pact”, and finally succeeded in obtaining one. Even after the war had already broken out, in 1939, Hitler said: “The most important need of the European and non-European economy is the establishment of an unconditionally guaranteed peace and a feeling of confidence among the nations... For this necessary feeling of confidence the first essential is to settle the question of the use of contemporary weapons and its extent”...
80. And in September 1938, when he launched his conquest of Czechoslovakia, Hitler said: “Germany’s love of peace is demonstrated by the facts. We have made a whole series of proposals for the limitation of armaments” ... “I made this proposal: Germany was prepared to limit its army to 200,000 provided that the armies of other States did not exceed that figure...” “I made vet another proposal: Germany was prepared provided other States agreed to do the same, to give up its heavy armaments and armaments of offence — tanks, bombers and, if necessary, aircraft in general, heavy and super-heavy artillery... ” “ Throughout these years I have genuinely pursued a peace policy in practice. I have tackled every question, even when its solution appeared impossible, with the firm resolve to settle it by peaceful means... ”
81. Today we all know what Hitler’s aims were in making these proposals. I have not quoted these passages merely in order to make mechanical comparisons. I have quoted them to show that peace-loving words and proposals for the reduction of armaments or the prohibition of any particular weapon do not always in themselves constitute proof of peaceful intentions but may in certain cases serve aggressive, hegemonic aims. We can have confidence in the sincerity of such proposals only when they are at the same time in harmony with the practical policies pursued in international relations by their proposers, since it is precisely these policies which reflect the true attitude of any government toward peace.
82. At the present time aggressive war represents as a rule the continuation of a hegemonic policy. If we wish to fight against war, we must first of all combat that very policy. In other words, we consider that the prime duty of the United Nations in its efforts to strengthen peace is to endeavour to uphold democratic principles in international relations, for only they can guarantee independence and equality, and hence peace, to the nations. Unless practical efforts of this kind are made by each individual nation and each individual government, we shall be unable to create the necessary conditions for the solution of the outstanding problems of the present international political crisis. Universal peace, independence and equality of nations and their democratic mutual relations cannot today be isolated from each other. Anyone who attempts to use the United Nations for hypocritical propaganda and at the same time, in practice, makes it impossible to solve and eliminate those disputes and critical situations which are the real and direct source of international tension, abuses the United Nations and the peaceful aspirations of mankind. This applies not only to such major, pressing issues as Korea and Germany, but also to a large number of other questions which spring from a hegemonic policy and undemocratic and aggressive actions in international relations.
83. A typical and highly dangerous situation of this kind has arisen in Yugoslav-Soviet relations as a result of the aggressive pressure exerted by the Government of the Soviet Union; and it is precisely for these reasons that the Government of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia has decided to submit a complaint to the United Nations [A/1946]. Since the Yugoslav delegation will later submit detailed evidence of this situation, I shall not at this point dwell in detail on the facts in which the situation itself is manifested.
84. The aggressive pressure upon Yugoslavia takes the following principal forms: systematic organization of frontier incidents, constantly increasing in scope and frequency; complete economic blockade, including even the cessation of rail and postal communications; obstruction of normal diplomatic contacts to a degree almost tantamount to a rupture of diplomatic relations; discrimination against and persecution and expulsion of the Yugoslav diplomatic staff remaining in those countries; persistent attempts to interfere in our internal affairs; systematic threats and intimidation by means of diplomatic actions; military demonstrations, official statements by responsible persons, propaganda, and the like; incitement of governments under the influence of the USSR to hostile acts against Yugoslavia; attempts to establish in our country subversive espionage and diversionary activities aimed at undermining its defensive strength, at setting up agencies of Soviet foreign policy in Yugoslavia and at overthrowing its political regime by violence; monstrous campaign of slander, falsehood and deceit; public appeals to the peoples of Yugoslavia from official authorities in the Soviet bloc inciting them to overthrow the Government by violence; the terrorization and persecution of persons belonging to our national minorities and of our citizens in the countries of the Soviet bloc; the violation of all clauses of peace treaties in so far as they relate to obligations towards Yugoslavia; the unilateral breach of almost all treaties and agreements concluded between the countries of the Soviet bloc and Yugoslavia; the breaking of all cultural and other tics and so on.
85. In view of such a policy and such acts by the countries of the Soviet bloc towards Yugoslavia, we are obliged to reckon with the rapid and continuous growth of the military strength of Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. The growth of military strength in these countries has already far exceeded the limits provided in the peace treaty. Only two years ago those countries had 14 divisions on our frontiers, whereas now there are about 25 divisions on the Yugoslav frontiers out of a total of about 53 divisions available to those countries and Albania, excluding police forces. This figure does not include USSR forces stationed in those countries. If that is the situation, surely it is clear that the peoples of Yugoslavia are justly alarmed for their future peace and independence.
86. The Yugoslav Government has complained to the General Assembly of the hostile acts of the Governments of the USSR and the other governments of the Soviet bloc on two grounds: first, because it considers that the number of such acts by States of the Soviet bloc has so increased as to become a serious threat to the independence and peace of the peoples of Yugoslavia and at the same time one of the sources of danger to peace in general; and secondly because, apart from the immediate urgency of the matter, the Yugoslav Government considers that the United Nations should always help to avert a situation which might in time develop into a direct threat to world peace. The situation created by the aggressive pressure of the USSR, on Yugoslavia is just such a one, and it therefore quite justifiably evokes anxiety and concern not only among the peoples of Yugoslavia but among other peoples as well.
87. The question arises: why is the USSR Government exerting aggressive pressure on Yugoslavia, and what exactly does it want from Yugoslavia?
88. In Yugoslavia’s relations with the neighbouring countries of the Soviet bloc there are no unsettled questions such as might account for aggressive activity towards Yugoslavia. The peoples of Yugoslavia entertain neither hatred nor any kind of hostile intentions towards their neighbours.
89. In general matters of international policy Yugoslavia has always adopted peaceful positions; it has always striven and is still striving to secure the peaceful settlement of difficult problems by means of mutual agreement and universal, peaceful, international collaboration. Yugoslavia is a small country, and everyone knows that it cannot threaten the independence and security of the Soviet Union and a whole group of countries.
90. The official representatives of the Yugoslav Government have emphasized frequently that Yugoslavia wishes to live in peace with the neighbouring countries, and that its whole foreign policy has developed in that direction. Moreover, at the session of the General Assembly of the United Nations last year, acting on behalf of the Yugoslav government, I officially proposed to neighbouring countries, whose governments have the audacity to assert that they are threatened with danger from Yugoslavia, that they should conclude an agreement of non-aggression. In spite of all this, USSR aggressive pressure on Yugoslavia is increasing annually, despite the innumerable “peaceful” pronouncements which the USSR representatives make whenever it suits them.
91. The substance of the matter is that the Government of the Soviet Union regards Yugoslavia as its war loot, its “trophy” obtained during the Second World War, and its activities have therefore been directed from the outset towards subjecting Yugoslavia and its peoples, their strength and their economic wealth to Soviet hegemony and exploitation.
92. The Government of the USSR no longer recognizes international co-operation based on equal rights. It merely demands obedience from other nations. No one can express that truth as clearly as the Soviet Union itself has expressed it through the notorious anti-Yugoslav resolution of the Cominform in 1948, which openly called upon the Yugoslav peoples to force their Governments to comply with the demands of the Cominform — that is to say, to subject itself to the hegemony of the USSR — or to depose it and set up another which would submit to such enslavement. But never in the history of the peoples of Yugoslavia have they once deposed their government because it did not wish to submit to foreign hegemony. Oft the contrary, they have often deposed governments which have begun to submit to such hegemony. It is absolutely clear that our nation has now again unanimously supported its Government’s protest against the aggressive tendencies of a foreign government.
93. The USSR plan directed against the independence and freedom of the peoples of Yugoslavia was in fact drawn up long ago, at the time of the Second World War, The Government of the Soviet Union began its attempts to achieve its aims by the old and tried method of turning the ruling political forces in Yugoslavia into its tools. As the Yugoslav Government did not appear to be a , suitable mechanism for the achievement of such a purpose, it was first subjected to attack then all kinds of threats, intimidations, provocations, military demonstrations and economic and political pressure were used in Order to force the peoples of Yugoslavia to bend the knee and submit to foreign hegemony. That is the fundamental cause of the situation which has now arisen in Soviet Yugoslav relations,
94. The peoples of Yugoslavia and their Government, for their part, seek peace on their frontiers and are prepared to do everything compatible with their sovereignty, freedom and honour to maintain peace and thus to make their contribution to the strengthening of peace throughout the world. Nevertheless, let there be no misunderstanding: we have never bent our knees to threats in the past and we shall not bend them now, whether these threats represent a measure of intimidation and pressure or a presage of aggressive action in the future.
95. We do not expect the Government of the Soviet Union to regard our internal structure with affection, but we are at least entitled to expect it to refrain from planning to subject Yugoslavia to its hegemony, to cease its aggressive pressure and hostile acts against our country, and to show that minimum of respect for the sovereignty of a free nation without which no international co-operation is possible. But the delegation of the Soviet Union replies with insults and slander to the peaceful intentions of the Yugoslav Government, which hopes that the possibility of avoiding disputes which arouse anxiety in the minds of all peace-loving people will be discussed constructively here. With regard to those methods I have nothing to add to what the Yugoslav representative said in his reply two days ago [342nd meeting]. I should, however, like to point out one more fact.
96. These tactics, which consist in first heaping slander upon an independent country and its government and then in making this slander the pretext for disregarding quite openly all international obligations and the most elementary principles of relations between nations and for subjecting that country to the demands of foreign hegemony, are by no means new or subtle. In spite of them, however, facts remain facts.
97. Moreover, if the purpose of this method is to avoid replying on the substance of the issue, it is a bad method. The people of Yugoslavia and all peace-loving peoples want a substantive answer, an answer to concrete questions concerning respect for the independence of a free people and the maintenance of universal peace, In particular, they wish to know whether the Government of the Soviet Union is prepared to concord its policy towards Yugoslavia even to a certain extent With the peaceful statement which USSR representatives make here so often. No slander can obscure the reality, peaceful intent and constructive Character of this question, as raised by the people of Yugoslavia and In the form in which it has been submitted here by the Yugoslav delegation.
98. In View of the purpose of the United Nations “ to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,., " (Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Charter) and of its power to " ...recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations...” (Article 14 of the Charter), the Yugoslav delegation hereby expresses its Wish for the General Assembly to recommend that the USSR Government and other Governments of the Soviet bloc should render their behaviour in relation to Yugoslavia, as a member of the United Nations, compatible with the spirit of the principles of the United Nations Charter; restore to diplomatic relations their generally accepted meaning; establish a frontier system by agreement with Yugoslavia; agree to the establishment of joint commissions for the settlement of frontier incidents j and take any other necessary measures for the peaceful settlement of outstanding disputes between those countries and the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia.
99. We are fully aware that these peaceful proposals bear no relation to the aggressive quality of the Hostile acts of the governments of the Soviet bloc against Yugoslavia, but the Government of the Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia nevertheless wishes to do everything in its power to help to find a solution of these problems and „ not to aggravate an international situation which is already very serious. Let the governments of the Soviet bloc show a minimum measure of preparedness to maintain friendly relations with the peoples of Yugoslavia.
100. The issue of Soviet aggressive pressure against Yugoslavia is not merely an individual case or a specific dispute. No; it is typical of the present state of affairs in the world, and especially of the fundamental cleavage between words and deeds which now characterizes the foreign policy of the Soviet Union. This issue illustrates one of the principal factual reasons for the present international crisis, one of the fundamental obstacles to any stabilization of international relations. Although it is true that the organizers of this aggressive pressure against Yugoslavia have achieved no results in Yugoslavia itself, they have achieved such results in other countries of eastern Europe.
101. The Polish representative, among others, recently adduced [342nd meeting] an “argument” against the Yugoslav complaint, to the effect that although we have spoken for four years of an imminent invasion of Yugoslavia, no such invasion has yet taken place.
102. Let us disregard the substance of this strange “argument Nevertheless, the listener cannot fail to see something tragic in the fact that such an argument is put forward by the Polish representative in particular. It is true that matters have not reached a point where an invasion of Yugoslavia has taken place in the Technical sense of that word, but the Polish representative fails to observe that during that time, behind the smoke screen of the anti-Yugoslav campaign, his own country, Poland, and other eastern European countries have in fact been annexed. The attack against Yugoslavia represented the beginning of the complete subjugation of the eastern European countries, which was carried out by ways and means which failed in Yugoslavia. The independent socialist development of these countries has been brought to an end. The trials in the capitals of eastern European countries, at which Yugoslavia was accused, were not in fact trials directed against Yugoslavia. They were directed against these same eastern European countries, and at them those countries’ own independence was tried and sentenced.
103. But this is not all. Simultaneously with the final subjugation of these countries, a new stage in post-war international political relations was inaugurated. The existence of a number of really free and independent socialist governments in eastern Europe would have made it possible to strengthen and develop further the idea of international co-operation based on equal rights, and this would have facilitated the solution of many difficult international problems which remained unsettled after the Second World War. But the subjugation of these countries to a foreign hegemony consigned to the background this democratic concept, which had already received the seal of approval in the United Nations Charter, and the dangerous principle of the balance of power of the great Powers and the consequent division of spheres of influence began to flourish in its place. This has created such a tense situation in Europe, that it has become impossible to settle any question at all without disrupting the delicate balance between the great Powers which has now replaced the peaceful co-operation of great and small nations based on equal rights.
104. The Yugoslav delegation considers that the real reason why a number of questions have not yet been settled consists, not in any differences in the formal approach to their solution, but in the fact that no general conditions of international confidence have been created and that all these questions represent component parts of this international «balance», which is based exclusively on the strength of the great Powers. In actual fact, however, mankind can strengthen peace only in so far as it can retard the progress of hegemonic tendencies, the desire to achieve mastery and control over other nations, and can oppose solid, material, moral and political obstacles to such tendencies. The more democracy there is in international relations, the greater are the guarantees of the maintenance of peace.
105. That is the point of view from which the Yugoslav delegation considers the proposals of the Government of the USSR, which are now being submitted by that delegation. It is proposed that we should reduce armaments and prohibit atomic weapons. In principle, the Yugoslav delegation supports both proposals. Nevertheless, the approach to this question should not be abstract and pacifistic, but should have regard to its eventual practical bearing on the general cause of peace. Pressure against the freedom and independence of nations may also be conducted without the atomic bomb, since, as has often been stated in the Assembly, “conventional” bombs, aviation, various times of heavy artillery, and so on, can also be highly “effective” methods of mass destruction.
106. While such proposals are submitted separately from the settlement of urgent questions of international relations and separately from the effort to neutralize the fundamental causes of the existing international tension which I have mentioned before, they will remain exclusively a propaganda weapon. Mankind needs an assurance that definite measures for the reduction of armaments cannot lead to the strengthening of one bloc and to the consequent clearing of the road for its aggressive pressure upon smaller and weaker nations. In the opinion of the Yugoslav delegation, such confidence can be created, in the first place, by general efforts to strengthen democratic relations between nations, relations of mutual respect for their independence and equal rights. We consider that in that connexion governments should prove their love of peace by the policy they conduct in practice.
107. It is also proposed that we should conclude a “five- Power pact”. It has often been stated here that a five- Power pact will be useless if it merely repeats the principles laid down in the United Nations Charter. It is obvious that sixty nations have greater weight than five. Nevertheless, if the five-Power pact does not serve the same purposes as the United Nations Charter, it can only represent a short-lived attempt to obviate the existing differences between the great Powers by establishing spheres of influence, and can only achieve a temporary stabilization of international relations through a new division of the world into spheres of influence. It must be clear to everyone that such a five-Power “peace pact” would in fact mean foreign mastery or war to a number of small and weaker nations. At the same time it would mean the end of the United Nations, the failure of this great democratic and progressive undertaking, international co-operation and collective security. Such a failure would also constitute a triumph for and an unleashing of all anti-democratic and aggressive forces in the world and would finally lead inevitably to a new world war. Recent history gives us convincing proof of this. Let us recall that no more than a year elapsed between the Four-Power Munich Agreement and the beginning of the Second World War. The conditions are even less favourable now than they were thirteen years ago. Of course, this does not mean that we do not consider individual consultations between the great Powers necessary for the strengthening of peace. These Powers bear the main responsibility for the fate of the world and for war. In that connexion the meeting between the highest representatives of the four great Powers, which was suggested here by the President of the French Republic, might have a positive effect.
108. At the present time negotiations are taking place in Korea with a view to concluding military activities. Not only the Korean people but all peace-loving humanity whole-heartedly desires the success of these talks. Nevertheless even in the most favourable circumstances, even if these talks are soon concluded successfully, we must bear in mind that we shall really have extinguished the fire only temporarily, and that its causes will remain practically unaffected.
109. The. example of the Korean war shows more clearly than any other post-war event that attempts to achieve hegemonistic purposes by means of direct pressure or by turning certain political groups or movements into tools of the policy of a given foreign government is the continual reason for new world-wide clashes now more than at any other time. On the other hand, that example confirms the old truth that the most genuine movement towards national liberation must lose its Free character and fail, if it becomes a tool of the foreign policy of another country.
110. That was the part played by USSR influence in Korea. That is why we attach such great importance to the strengthening of the independence and equal rights of nations and, in general, to struggles for democratic relations between nations at the present time — together, of course, with the simultaneous expansion of international co-operation and the participation, based on equal rights, of all nations in international organs serving the common interests and purposes. We believe, I repeat, that this is the only way which Will lead us to that indispensable confidence in the hope of maintaining peace without Which it would be impossible to solve the greatest problems of contemporary international relations, such as the reduction of armaments and the prohibition of atomic weapons.
111. With reference to my Government and my country, I must state clearly that we regret being obliged to spend such a vast percentage of our national income on armaments and that we regret being obliged to appeal to foreign countries for assistance in a rearmament which we need only in order to defend our peace and independence, instead of using that assistance for the economic development of our country and hence for the increase of the contribution which our country might make to peaceful economic exchanges. Nevertheless, while the Government of the USSR continues to do everything in its power to subject our peoples to its mastery and to its economic exploitation, we can have no confidence in its peaceful statements and even less confidence in the sincerity and peaceful nature of its proposals concerning the reduction of armaments and the prohibition of atomic weapons. There can be no faith in the maintenance of peace throughout the world while nations have to fear for their independence and for their right to do as they wish in their own countries. If we eliminate aggressive threats, if we eliminate the fear of peoples for their freedom and independence, if we enable nations which have been subject to aggressive pressure and threats to believe once more that their peace and freedom will be respected, then such demands as reduction of armaments and prohibition of atomic weapons will give rise to greater confidence and will be accepted by all nations in good faith.
112. The Yugoslav delegation, considering that democratic relations between nations represent one of the principal conditions of peace and that the measure of respect for such relations may also be regarded as a measure of the contributions made by peoples and governments to the strengthening of peace throughout the world, reiterates its conviction that the confirmation of the rights and duties of States in international relations in a special United Nations declaration would make a highly useful contribution to the strengthening of confidence in the possibility of maintaining peace. In any case the Yugoslav delegation, will continue to support action based on that idea.
113. Moreover, the elimination of vast economic differences between nations (and) assistance to under-developed countries with a view to hastening their economic development, is another of the permanent concrete aims of our efforts to paralyse the fundamental causes of war. Although it cannot be said that nothing has been done in this connexion, it will only be possible to speak of any decisive achievement in the matter when the relevant decision is made on the principal question, that of the financing of the economic development of under-developed countries. The Yugoslav delegation continues to believe that the establishment of a world fund for economic assistance to under-developed countries, with a corresponding democratic organization to control its use, would be one of the most important contributions to the cause of peaceful co-operation.
114. The events of the past year have undoubtedly shown that the United Nations represents the greatest obstacle to aggressive tendencies which has ever been created by united mankind. The peoples of Yugoslavia are the more conscious of that fact because, at a difficult time in their history, they met with sympathy and received considerable support from the United Nations. In the present international situation, to abandon this Organization would be to deprive ourselves of the last possibility of peaceful international agreement and to give a clear field to the elements of force, the elements of aggression and war. Thus, any attack against the United Nations with a view to undermining the Organization is in fact an activity directed against world peace.
115. In the opinion of the Yugoslav delegation, the future of the United Nations largely depends on the extent to which we can develop in it the independent initiative towards peace of all nations, great and small. The world does not need a special pact of the five great Powers, but it does need extensive independent activity by the small and medium States in finding ways which can lead us out of the present international tension. These countries cannot and need not belong to any bloc, but they represent an extremely strong moral, political and material factor, which may considerably assist the peaceful settlement of outstanding disputes.
116. Another question on which the future of the United Nations will depend is the direction in which its machinery for collective security develops. We consider it impossible to combat aggression only by means of declarations of principle and criticism having the nature of propaganda. The Yugoslav delegation considers that the first duty of peace-loving nations is to combat direct, aggressive threats, and it is convinced that the United Nations machinery for collective security may succeed in opposing obstacles to such threats. Only those who do not wish mankind to possess a weapon against aggression can take the view that that weapon should be abandoned merely because it may be abused in certain circumstances.
117. I do not wish to discuss in detail the proposals of the Collective Measures Committee, which in our opinion still contain certain weaknesses and failings, since we shall have ample opportunities to speak of this later. I shall only touch on one aspect, of the problem here. We must not forget that the system of collective security is not in itself the creator of peace, although it may contribute to that cause. It is primarily a warning to a possible aggressor, a warning which intimates to him that, if he violates the only principles on which peaceful international co-operation can be based, he will be confronted with the collective resistance of all nations. But the United Nations should in the first place concern itself with action for the peaceful settlement of misunderstandings by direct negotiations between the parties, by conciliation and by mediation. Operation of collective security machinery should never hamper the United Nations in carrying out these tasks or in its efforts to be universal in its membership. If the United Nations develops in that direction it will play a highly important part in the general efforts of mankind to maintain and strengthen peace, and in promoting the further development, qualitative and quantitative, of peaceful international co-operation. The peoples and Government of Yugoslavia will support the United Nations in all aspects of this work.
118. In conclusion I should like, on behalf of the Yugoslav delegation, to join in expressions of gratitude to hospitable France and to the beautiful city of Paris. I would wish that we could be as unanimous in our decisions relating to the maintenance of peace and on respect for the rights of nations and persons as we are unanimous in our delight with Paris and in our respect for those great social, cultural and philosophical achievements which Paris and France have given to all humanity for many centuries.