The sixth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations is meeting in the very heart of France, here in Paris, with its magnificent tradition of fighting for freedom, Paris, whose streets only a few years ago rang with the boots of the Wehrmacht and which was liberated by its heroic people at the cost of bloody sacrifice.
117. Those wounds are still not closed. In this part of Europe, as in my own country, everyone knows that war brings the nations neither profit nor dollar dividends, but only ruin, poverty and death.
118. Once more, and despite the tragedy caused by the Second World War, the threat of armed conflict weighs upon mankind. Since the capitulation of the Axis Powers no one has threatened the security of the United States of America. But, from fear of public opinion at home and in the world at large, the United States Government is trying to pass off its plans of aggression as plans for defence.
119. Neither has anyone threatened the United Kingdom, nor is anyone threatening it. It is incomprehensible therefore why Mr. Eden should have attempted to justify the Atlantic pact by appealing to Article 51 of the Charter. That article, as everyone knows, applies specifically to the event of an armed attack. The Atlantic pact is consequently flagrantly inconsistent with it. Nor can the Atlantic pact be regarded as a regional pact.
120. For that reason we have from the very first consistently denounced the Atlantic pact and all American military pacts as pacts for war. And now, at the end of 1951, no one in his right mind continues to cherish illusions as to the real objects of these so-called defence pacts. We have unmasked more than once the aggressive nature of the Atlantic pact. What was the reply? That it was a regional pact in accordance with the United Nations Charter. But this “regional ” pact is now being extended to every continent. In defiance of geography, the waters of the Atlantic today bathe not only the Italian peninsula and North Africa but also the shores of Greece and Asia Minor. It is now the aim of the Americans to make even the Mediterranean a mare americanum, and their Press already calls it mare nostrum. And their plans are even more ambitious than that. Is not Mr. Acheson dreaming of making the power of the United States felt in every corner of the world!
121. The United States is forcing the governments under their domination, in every continent, to place their territories at the disposal of American forces of occupation. American garrisons are moving in on aerodromes which are being prepared in France, the United Kingdom, Italy and numerous other countries. The United States intends to surround the Baltic with a network of bases and aerodromes, The end in view is always tire same: preparation for a new war to establish American domination, the American “new order”.
122. The United States is forcing the members of the Atlantic bloc to accept its military command and its supreme commander, to whom their armed forces are subordinate, contrary to the will of their people. That is shown by the hostile reception accorded General Eisenhower by the masses on his first tour of inspection of Marshall-Aid Europe. The concentration of large forces of police has been required to enable Eisenhower to pass through Western European capitals.
123. The San Francisco, Washington and Ottawa conferences mark a fresh stage in the realization of American war plans. At those conferences the United States Government imposed upon its allies its plan for making German and Japanese militarism the main instrument of aggression. In return, Western Germany and Japan were given a privileged position in the aggressive bloc. The other partners in the pact were to pay the price.
124. The United States has sought to give a semblance, of legality to the revived German militarism by including Western Germany in the Atlantic pact. That was flatly opposed by the European countries, who will understand the danger of an Americanized neo-hitlerite Germany, armed to the teeth. Consequently they had to be tricked. An attempt has been made to do so by disguising these plans for the revival of German militarism under the idea of a so-called “European Army”, named after the French Premier. The name of another French politician provided a cloak for the plans for rebuilding the German war potential. The Schuman plan and the Pleven plan mean the rebuilding of the war potential of Germany under an American protectorate! Mr. Van Cauwelaert, President of the Belgian Parliament, has stated with regard to Belgium what these plans really mean for the countries of Western Europe. He has said: “Acceptance of the Schuman plan, the Pleven plan and a ‘European Army’ would be the end of our sovereignty”.
125. The idea of creating a “European Army” is not new. One of the leaders of the neo-hitlerite Bruderschaft Deutschland said recently: “A European army, inspired with the truly European spirit, already existed during the last war when the German Armies with their French, Flemish, Walloon and other allies were fighting Bolshevism
126, Need I say that the French, Walloon and other detachments of that army consisted of traitors to their country, Quislings, men without faith or honour? Would any patriot have allowed himself to fight in such an army?
127, Under United States control, revengeful and revisionary slogans have become key motifs in the programme of the Bonn political leaders. Mr. McCloy, the American pro-consul, in his speech of 16 August 1951, promised the support of the United States Government for the German plan of revenge. It is not surprising therefore that the former hitlerite general, Frissner, elected President of the German Servicemen’s League, should be vindicating, even now, the hitlerite aggression of 1939. On 9 September last, he stated at Bonn: “I still think that the Polish expedition was necessary”. He praised the crimes committed by the hitlerite troops in the last war: “The Waffen SS units” he said “stood the test of fire. They did their duty in a spirit of sacrifice and unalloyed idealism; their behaviour was exemplary”. That is how one of the protagonists of the mew Wehrmacht attempts to efface the memory of those abominable crimes. He is trying to excuse in advance similar methods that may be used by the revived Wehrmacht. That is how the Americans, against the real interests of the German people, are creating a new Wehrmacht, a mercenary army of aggression, under the Bonn regime, and foisting on the German people war criminals like Frissner, whom they are putting in key military and economic positions.
128, In assuming responsibility for the economic administration of Germany, the United States of America is reconstructing its war potential, clearly at the cost of that country’s peace-time production but also at that of the economic life of the whole, of Western Europe.
129. We are dwelling at considerable length on the German problem, not only because it is a serious peril to peace, but also to warn the countries of Western Europe against the consequences of the restoration of German militarism. The revival of militarism and neo-hitlerism threaten all Germany’s neighbours. In this respect the politicians of Bonn, from Schumacher to the leaders of the rightist S.R.P., such as Remer, are uttering symptomatic threats. Schumacher's statements are well known; I would like, however, to quote Remer’s most recent statement: “Germany should take advantage of its strong position to obtain the most favourable conditions. By defending our interests we shall show ourselves to be good Europeans”.
130. Poland’s position is that aggressive Prussia is no longer its neighbour; a friendly frontier unites it to the peace-loving German Democratic Republic, that Republic whose existence is due to the German people’s change of heart. The ever-growing influence of the democratic elements, which the Soviet Union’s execution of the Potsdam Agreement has enabled to come to power in Eastern Germany, has contributed to the destruction of the breeding centres of fascism, militarism and the desire for revenge and aggression. East of the Elbe friendly relations, uniting peace-loving governments and peoples, have developed. West of that river the decrepit generals of the Wehrmacht brandish their sabres, in defiance of the wishes of the German people. The complete settlement of relations with Poland is an earnest of the German Democratic Republic’s wish for peace. The development of relations between Poland and the German Democratic Republic makes it possible to state that the coming to power of the democratic elements throughout Germany would be a powerful Factor for peace and security in Europe. The basis upon which relations with Poland have been set up shows that the Government of the German Democratic Republic is determined to carry out fully the principles set forth by Prime Minister Grotewohl on 12 September 1949 at the time of the establishment of the German Democratic Republic. He stated in particular that the Government of the German Democratic Republic, following a peace policy, wished “to establish peaceful and Friendly relations with all countries. In its defence of the interests of the German people and of peace, the Government of the German Democratic Republic is fighting for the unity of Germany. A divided Germany is a permanent cockpit for strife in Europe.
131. That is precisely why the United States, by bringing Western Germany into the Atlantic pact, has entrusted to it a very special role in its preparations for aggression, that of perpetuating the division of the country at all costs. That is also its aim in proposing to the General Assembly a commission of investigation into conditions in Germany, at the very moment when the German people is increasingly showing its desire for unity. Meanwhile, at Bonn, the American occupation authorities and the government of Hitler’s heirs in the pay of the United States are vainly endeavouring to stifle this wish for unity. They reject the proposals for unification put forward by the Parliament and Government of the German Democratic Republic. As is well known, the proposal made by the President of the German Democratic Republic, Mr. Pieck, for the immediate beginning of direct negotiations to put an end to the division of Germany has been rejected by Mr. Heuss, the President of the so-called Bonn State. The proposals recently submitted by the three Powers are merely a manoeuvre intended to justify this rejection, and can only result in the maintenance of a divided Germany.
132. I should like to add that this is being done despite international treaties and in violation of the United Nations Charter. In the same way, the Atlantic pact itself and the incorporation of Western Germany into this pact, as I have already said, constitute a violation of the Charter also.
133. Japan has been assigned a similar part in the Far East to that filled by Western Germany in Europe. The aim of the San Francisco Conference was the consolidation of the American positions in the Far East, the legalization of the present armament of Japan and its participation in the Korean war and preparations for aggression against the People’s Republic of China. During this conference, the United States tried to show the world, by means of the radio, the Press and television, that it was capable of dictating its wishes to the governments dependent upon it, although they were fully aware that they were acting contrary to their own national interests.
134. The military failure in Korea and the failure of the American plans in China have brought Japanese militarism into the foreground. It is Japan, with its government imposed upon the Japanese people, which is henceforth to carry out American plans in the Pacific. That is why article 1 of the so-called treaty of military aid to Japan guarantees in the first place the protection of the Japanese militarist Government against its people, which hates militarism and is fighting against its oppressors, American and Japanese. The 5,500,000 signatures to the demand for a five-Power pact, despite the repression carried out by the police and United States armed forces, bear witness to the Japanese people’s desire for peace, as does also the wave of strikes and protests throughout the country.
135. But it is obvious that after the Soviet Union’s victory over Hitlerism and Japanese militarism, after the victory of the People’s Republic of China, while the heroic Korean people is successfully repulsing imperialist attacks, and while Viet-Nam is fighting for its freedom and a wave of struggles for liberation against foreign occupation is spreading throughout Asia, the methods of the Japanese Samurai American-wise are doomed to shameful defeat.
136. The policy of war preparations in all parts of the world, the feverish creation of new bases for aggression against the Soviet Union and the peoples’ democracies are obviously incompatible with the aims of the United Nations. Such behaviour is a direct threat to the existence of our Organization.
137. Mr. Eden calls this policy a policy of collective security, but collective security cannot be based on conspiracy and plotting by a group of States against other States, under the pretext of defence. Collective security should be based on co-operation between all States, in the interests of their common peace and security. The United Nations should be the centre round which the peaceful co-operation of men of peaceful ideas and of respect for international law will harmoniously develop.
138. In organizing a general aggression pact, violating international agreements, struggling against peoples who wish to govern themselves, interfering in the internal affairs of various countries and waging economic war, the United States continually attacks the very principles of the United Nations Charter.
139. Mr. Eden did not say a word about this. When he spoke of respect for international law and of the sacrosanctity of treaties, he made no reference to the systematic violation of the agreements signed at Cairo, Yalta, Potsdam and Moscow, although those agreements were signed in good faith and on the basis of equal rights. Mr. Eden was probably thinking of treaties imposed by force upon weaker countries. He is even prepared to resort to armed force in order to defend these treaties.
140. The year 1950 furnished proof of the fact that American threats and calls to world domination had reached the stage of realization. From incitement to war and the organization of future aggression the United States went on in 1950 to concrete acts of aggression. They made brutal attacks upon peoples which they thought would not be in a position to defend themselves. The heroic Korean, people was the victim of that policy.
141. The year 1951 saw the failure of the American attempt to enslave the Korean people. Events have proved once again the great historic truth that peoples who struggle for their freedom are invincible and that they cannot be overcome by military or technical superiority. The Korean people is waging a victorious struggle against the aggressor. That people is heroic because it is inspired by freedom, and it is prepared to negotiate because it is anxious for peace.
142. Nevertheless, the war continues. Six months have passed since the day when the Soviet Union representative, Mr. Malik, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, submitted on behalf of the Soviet Union some constructive proposals for a cease-fire in Korea. Under the pressure of public opinion in America and throughout the world, the rulers of the United States of America began negotiations, although they regarded them as a tactical manoeuvre from the outset. That is why the Americans have sabotaged these peace talks, submitted unacceptable claims, withdrawn their own proposals and violated decisions taken by common agreement.
143. Is it not significant that at a time when the armistice talks were taking place at Kaesong and then at Pam-Mun-Jon the Americans were bombing behind the lines, massacring the civilian population and violating the Chinese frontier, while heavy naval artillery was destroying towns indiscriminately?
144. The continuation of military operations and the sabotage of the talks have but one purpose, that of prolonging the war in Korea. In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of innocent persons are being killed and the age-old treasures of the Korean people are being destroyed. Time is pressing. The United Nations can no longer remain passive in the face of this bloodshed. The cessation of hostilities in Korea should be our foremost concern; it is the most urgent problem of the present.
145. Aggression, preparation for war, the armaments race and incitement to war, have resulted in the Korean tragedy. The example of Korea should serve as a warning to all peoples, and especially to small countries. The authors of war plans are not concerned with the destinies of peoples. Even the fate of their own allies is a matter of indifference to them. Mr. Poage, a representative from Texas and a member of the United States Congress, has admitted this with disconcerting frankness: “We can give our allies”, he said, “ only one assurance: we will carry out the work of destroying means of transport and production as well as we can, far better than any of the armies which have overrun this territory in the last ten centuries, We shall destroy all the bridges, we shall flood all the collieries, we shall raze to the ground all the factory chimneys in Belgium and Northern France. We shall demolish everything.”
146. Korea is an example of the realization of these criminal plans. South Korea has been changed from an American military base into a base for attacking the peaceful People’s Democratic Republic of Korea. The special correspondent of the French newspaper Le Monde gives the following picture of South Korea as it is at the present day: “A former village can now only be seen under the snow as a kind of abandoned camp, and what a town was like can only be seen from the alignment of the shattered walls and the position of scraps of iron, among which there sometimes stands an ironically preserved sign reading ‘Thanks to UN forces’. Here were Kumchon, Yongdong, Tesjon, Konju, Chonan, Suwon, Seoul... 250 kilometres of a road which has become the Appian Way of a gigantic new Pompeii. The stream of fire has spared nothing, the disaster is complete.”
147. Is there any nation which would accept such a perspective without resisting it with all its strength? This is the application, raised to the standards of American technique, of the hitlerite method of total destruction, the victims of which were Warsaw, many towns in the Soviet Union, Coventry, Rotterdam, Oradour and Dunkirk. Today it is the duty of humanity as a whole to prevent the realization of these criminal plans.
148. The United Nations cannot remain indifferent in the face of acts of aggression and preparations for aggression. It cannot remain silent whilst popular liberties are being trampled underfoot. Ways and means must be found to ease the present international tension, check the armaments race, and direct the energies of all peace-loving peoples to political and economic co-operation designed to bring peace, security and prosperity to the world. But the measures must be concrete, energetic and effective and, most important of all, they must be taken immediately.
149. It is clearly not the American disarmament plan, presented by the American Secretary of State, that is going to solve this problem. Long before Mr. Acheson made his speech, the American Press had been promising a sensational peace plan which was to help ease the existing tension and provide a basis for co-operation, between the major Powers in particular. Then finally, on 8 November 1951, came Mr. Acheson’s speech. We heard once again, expressed this time in even harsher and franker terms than before, American views on the problem of war and peace, and on the independence and subjugation of nations.
150. Never before had we heard American State interests formulated so cynically and so frankly. For Mr. Acheson, these are merely the two sides of the same coin. It is not difficult to guess what coin Mr. Acheson has in mind. Both United States policy and the destiny of the world are closely bound up with the dollar. The chief consideration, for Mr. Acheson, is that the dollar should multiply and increase. Mr. Acheson speaks of the two sides of the same coin; the point is that there is one currency only — the currency of war. On the reverse we have preparations for aggression; on the obverse, pacific, hypocritical phrases.
151. Mr. Acheson juggles with his coin, showing one side or the other, according to circumstances, conditions and needs. At the moment we have what he calls “the mustering of strength”; which means armaments, war orders, and subjugation of nations, one after another; increased exploitation of colonial countries under pretext of defending them, and economic discrimination extending from machine tools to bathing suits.
152. It is this side of the coin that Washington has been showing to the world for the last five years. And Mr. Acheson would have us believe that armaments, the establishment of military bases, and the creation of aggressive blocs are simply directed to “upholding the principles of the Charter”, and that the subjugation of countries and peoples to the United States is a means of defending their liberty.
153. It is for this reason that Mr. Acheson praises the San -Francisco Treaty, though the whole world knows that it is in fact a Diktat of exceptional harshness, imposed not only on Japan but also on those of America’s allies who have signed it. This is an example of the practical application of the principle of negotiation through strength which Mr. Eden propounded to us here this morning. These are, incidentally, the methods commonly used at the conferences of the members of the North Atlantic Treaty.
154. At the same time Mr. Acheson tries to persuade his listeners that the Soviet Union is not showing, in its acts, a will to peace. Mr. Acheson, in his arguments, is obviously avoiding facts. He is purposely twisting the truth about the Soviet Union’s peace policy, the Soviet Union’s scrupulous observance both of international agreements and of the Charter of the United Nations; the respect shown by the Soviet Union for the rights of other peoples and the Soviet Union’s opposition to war preparations and war-mongering, all that he is silent about. It is not the Soviet Union which is launching attacks on other countries. It is not the Soviet Union which is sending its troops all over the world, on the territories of other States. It is not the Soviet Union which is encircling the globe with its military bases, or bombing the towns and villages of Asia. The Soviet Union does not force people to arm, nor does it apply measures of economic discrimination. Mr. Acheson cannot comprehend that a country may be powerful, even very powerful, without being imperialist, without thirsting for wars and conquests.
155. United States politicians are very fond of using the formula “peace through deeds”. If Mr. Acheson really wished to show his desire for peace by deeds, he could very easily do so. He could, at this sixth session, have announced the liquidation of American bases on all continents, the recall of American troops to their own country; he could have announced the end of the arms race, the withdrawal of American troops from Korea; he could have announced that the United States of America intended to stop intervening in the internal affairs of other countries on the pretext of defending human rights, freedom of information and the rest.
156. But, what did Mr. Acheson in fact offer us? This allegedly new disarmament plan turns out to be merely the old and already discredited Baruch plan, applied now to all types of armament. It does not provide for prohibition of the production and use of the atomic weapon; nor does it provide for the limitation of other armaments. This plan will not halt the armaments race — which incidentally, it does not even propose to do.
157. On the contrary, it proposes taking an inventory of war equipment and carrying out inspections. The execution of this plan rests, first and foremost, on the ability to count. That is not surprising. Counting is after all a very important part of the American way of life. People spend their time counting their fortunes. And now, they want to set up a commission which will solemnly count rifles and guns, tanks and atomic bombs. Starting with small things and then passing on to bigger ones. The motives underlying this plan are not far to seek. American generals and politicians are tortured by uncertainty: credit or debit — are they ahead or behind in the race? If they are behind, then they must immediately step up production and impose checks on the other side. If they are ahead, they can embark on what they call “negotiation through strength”. They can try to impose their conditions on others, dictate disarmament, reinforce and extend their own domination over the world.
158. But even this proposal of Mr. Acheson’s is conditional upon the cessation of hostilities ill Korea. The linking up of these two questions is very significant. We know very well who is prolonging the war in Korea, and who, on various trumped-up pretexts is constantly setting up new obstacles to the conclusion of an armistice.
159. The American plan neither halts nor even slows down the armaments race. The plan is that it should proceed by stages. Now, when nations everywhere are staggering under the burden of armaments, and calling for immediate action, Mr. Acheson’s plan makes no concrete proposals, solves none of the problems of the hour.
160. We shall have occasion later at the meetings of the First Committee to analyse the Acheson plan in detail. But it must be labelled, here and now, as a new manoeuvre in the cold war — or, as Le Monde of 9 November rightly described it, a manoeuvre meant to pose as a peace proposal. It is plain that this manoeuvre will not deceive anyone, this propaganda stunt will misfire, especially since the hypocrisy and guile of Mr. Acheson’s words had been unmasked in his own country even before he made his speech in this hall.
161. On the very same day, in fact, General Bradley, Chief of the American General Staff, announced that the United States was going to increase its armaments and prepare for the tactical use of the atomic weapon. Similarly, General Eisenhower, Commander-in-Chief of the Atlantic bloc, is demanding atomic weapons for his aggressive bases in Europe.
162. That is how the American generals understand Mr. Acheson’s words. Those, in practice, are the two sides of the coin with which we have been presented. It is this plan, devoid of all real meaning, which has been submitted to us here in the guise of a real peace plan.
163. Mr. Acheson in his speech abused the word “ peace ”. That was clearly because the desire for peace is growing ever stronger among the peoples of the world. The past year has witnessed an expansion of the world peace movement and the response of the popular masses to the inaction of the United Nations.
164. Disappointed in their hopes, the nations have taken the cause of defending peace into their own hands. As the peace movement grows, its proposals are couched in increasingly concrete terms. Two weeks ago, the World Peace Council, meeting in Vienna, issued an appeal to the United Nations General Assembly to take concrete effective measures to safeguard peace.
165. The World Peace Council has expressed its conviction that “war is not inevitable, that the peaceful coexistence of different social and political systems is possible”. In its resolution, the Council calls upon the General Assembly of the United Nations at its sixth session to adopt effective decisions to guarantee general disarmament and institute a system of international control designed to enforce disarmament by all States.
166. Our Organization cannot remain deaf to the voice of millions of men and women all over the world. It is the duty of this Organization to find a solution for the most pressing problems of the present day and to ease the international tension. First among the matters to be settled is the Korean war. A cease-fire must be arranged immediately. The Korean people, delivered from the threat of foreign bayonets, must be free to forge its own destiny. The Polish delegation therefore whole-heartedly supports the Soviet Union proposal on Korea [336th meeting], calling for troops to be withdrawn behind the 38th parallel within ten days of the armistice, and all troops and volunteers to be withdrawn from the country as a whole within three months.
167. These last few years have seen a great many armament conferences organized under the auspices of the United States Government — the conferences at Washington and Ottawa, for instance, and the one shortly to be held in Rome. At such conferences, a group of States, under the leadership of American delegates, consult together on the best weapons and the most appropriate strategy for the next war, which they themselves are fomenting.
168. The peoples of the world have had enough of such armament conferences as these. It is high time that an international body, with as large a competence and representative a basis as possible, including both Member States? of the United Nations and non-member States, should take: the problem of disarmament in hand. Such a conference must be convened within a very short time.
169. Whatever the representative of Bolivia may have said about it this morning, the convening of such a conference is within the competence of the United Nations. In the field of security and peace, indeed, the Organization’s activities should extend to the greatest possible number of States, so that their efforts may be combined. The United Nations has already called conferences of this kind on much, less important matters, such, for example, as the question of freedom of the Press and of information. The Bolivian representative probably does not like disarmament conferences. On the other hand, he supports the numerous conferences which are preparing aggression and intensifying the armaments race.
170. The problem of disarmament cannot be solved by half measures or meaningless resolutions. The vital interests of all States, both those which are Members of the United Nations and other States, depend on a solution of this problem. Only the joint efforts of all the nations will be able effectively to secure total disarmament. In the present, situation, the capitalist countries are advancing ever further along the path of a war economy, lowering as they do so the standard of living of large masses of the population. The armaments race must be checked, so as to allow the economic development of the countries of Europe and raise the standard of living of their peoples.
171. Analysis reveals that of the various proposals submitted to the Assembly only the Soviet Union proposals present the problem with the necessary fairness and seriousness. A general disarmament conference devoted solely to this problem will enable the matter to be thoroughly discussed and make it possible to prepare precise and detailed plans. Such a conference must become a working body which will draw up a plan, offer definite recommendations as to its execution and work out methods of effective control.
172. The problem of disarmament is closely linked with the proposal concerning a five-Power pact. Such a pact, guaranteeing co-operation between the major Powers for the maintenance of peace and security, will create an atmosphere of confidence in international relations.
173. In speaking of the five-Power pact, we are thinking of a treaty which would really bind its signatories. For Mr. Pearson, international treaties and solemn engagements are only scraps of paper. Mr. Pearson has already on several; occasions shown his contempt for law and international pledges. It is sufficient to recall his attitude on the election of the Secretary-General at the fifth session of the General Assembly. He said then that if it was impossible to settle that matter within the framework of law, other methods would have to be used.
174. The conclusion of a five-Power pact will create an atmosphere such as will make it possible to achieve disarmament by all countries without fear or restriction, thus transforming the war economy into an economy of peace. The adherence of other States to the five-Power pact will bring additional guarantees of international security, ensuring peace and independence by co-operation, understanding and mutual arrangements.
175. Speaking today from this rostrum, Mr. Eden failed to mention the concrete proposals made by the Soviet Union. He has, nevertheless, had sufficient time to study them thoroughly. We understand the reason for his silence. It is, however, surprising that the representative of the United Kingdom, a country which is bent beneath the burden of armaments, should have been one of the authors of the proposal recommending a plan which means the continuation and growth of rearmament.
176. On behalf of the Government and people of Poland, I should like here to support without reservation a peace programme as thus conceived. For us Poles the word peace is not an empty expression. The struggle for the maintenance of peace is one of the essential principles of our country’s foreign policy. We believe in the possibility of the co-existence and co-operation of countries with different political systems. Peace and co-operation exclude methods involving pressure, discrimination and interference in the internal affairs of other countries.
177. Poland’s policy of peace is expressed in the country’s creative work, its great effort of peaceful reconstruction, and its desire to overcome the centuries of backwardness. It is expressed in the building of socialism in our country. We are developing our industry, modernizing our agriculture, reconstructing our capital which was destroyed under the Hitlerite occupation, and building new towns and villages. Fundamentally different from the budgets of countries pursuing a war policy, our budget is devoted in the first place to peaceful investment and to social institutions.
178. We are spending considerable sums to raise the cultural level of our people. It is the patriotic devotion and creative effort of the Polish people which will ensure the success of our endeavours. That is what has enabled us to complete the first years of our six-year plan, at the end of which Poland will cease to be a merely agricultural country and will become an industrial and agricultural country with a per capita production exceeding that of Italy and equal to that of France.
179. We owe our success, to a large extent, to the disinterested and friendly assistance of the Soviet Union. Thanks to that assistance, we have been able to reconstruct our war-ravaged country and obtain considerable success in economic matters. Our industry is benefiting from the rich experience of Soviet technology and science. The provision of capital goods on the basis of long-term loans is enabling Poland to develop the already existing branches of its production and to create new ones. Our relations with the Soviet Union are relations of a new type; and they may serve as an example to other countries. It is an example of well-conceived relations between States, and particularly between a major Power and smaller States, an example of relations based on the principle of equality of rights, of respect for national sovereignty and mutual interests and of friendly reciprocal assistance.
180. We are collaborating closely with the popular democracies and are developing our relations with the Peoples’ Republic of China and the German Democratic Republic, all this in a spirit of complete mutual understanding. None of these countries makes economic assistance subject ta political concessions.
181. The same is not true of the countries involved in the orbit of the American war policy. The United States has imposed its economic dictatorship on the countries of Western Europe and made them dependent upon itself.
182. Twenty years ago, in other conditions and circumstances, the French economist Andre Siegfried, who has since become an enthusiastic supporter of the Marshall Plan, said on the subject of the so-called American aid: “The danger, from now on, is that everything is permitted to America: it need spare neither persons nor things; it can, if it wishes, behave arbitrarily, strangle peoples and governments, help them on conditions of its own choice, and control them”.
183. The interests of international peace and co-operation require economic co-operation and the development of normal commercial relations between all countries. Contrary to these principles, the United States has for years, been applying a policy of economic discrimination. It has made international trade and economic relations between States into an instrument of political pressure.
184. In recent months, the United States has denounced, after first violating, its commercial agreements with the Soviet Union, Poland and the other countries of Eastern Europe. That is indisputably an act which endangers peace. The United States is using blackmail to force the countries of Western Europe and the other continents to go back upon their commercial engagements and agreements. Goods that have been ordered are not delivered. Boats, ready to get under way are requisitioned. That is the situation, for example, so far as Anglo-Polish relations are concerned. It is regrettable that the Governments of Western Europe are agreeing to apply these methods and failing to keep their promises, although their failure to do so is in flagrant contradiction to the interests of their own countries.
185. Economic circles in the countries of Western Europe are coming more and more to realize the disastrous consequences for them of dependence on the United States, and are increasingly appreciating the advantages of commercial relations with the Soviet Union, the Peoples’ Republic of’ China and the peoples’ democracies.
186. Poland has often expressed the desire to maintain, normal commercial relations, based on mutual understanding of national interests, with all the countries of the world. That is proved by the agreements we have concluded with the countries of Western Europe and overseas, and by our efforts to create the best possible conditions for the development of trade among the European countries. Once again we place on their guard all those who, under American pressure, are breaking the agreements they have concluded we place them on their guard against the pernicious consequences for them of such a policy. Trade and economic co-operation are at the very basis of international co-operation. Any one who attacks international economic co-operation attacks the peace and security of the world.
187. Pressure, blackmail and intimidation — those are the corner-stones of the United States’ war policy. As early as 1945 Generalissimo Stalin said that the purpose of that policy was “to intimidate people with weak nerves”, "The policy of intimidation can have no effect on the attitude of nations which have passed through difficult trials during their history and which have firmly resolved to pursue the way of socialism, peaceful construction and the defence of peace.
188. It follows from my statement that the present session will have to resolve problems of considerable importance.
189. The practices tending to maintain colonial exploitation and foreign domination, an example of which is provided by the situation in Egypt and certain countries of North Africa, should be condemned by the General Assembly.
190. The General Assembly should see to it that the United Nations is not used as an instrument of pressure and interference in the internal affairs of States and nations, as has been the case, for example, in Iran. The exploitation of the under-developed countries, the policy of economic discrimination, the obstacles placed in the way of world trade — all these should be condemned by the General Assembly.
191. To ensure peace and security, to stop the hostilities in Korea, to put an end to the armaments policy and the policy of preparing for war — those are the problems which confront us.
192. The Soviet Union proposal shows the way which will lead to a solution of these urgent problems.
193. The Polish delegation appeals to the General Assembly to support that peaceful and constructive proposal.