1. Mr. President, the Soviet delegation sincerely congratulates you on your election to this high office and wishes you every success in carrying out the important functions of President of the United Nations General Assembly. I should like to take this opportunity of referring to the admirable work done by your predecessor, Mr. Quaison-Sackey, the Ghanaian Minister for Foreign Affairs, who at the last session, with its specific difficulties, stood confidently at the helm of the good ship "United Nations General Assembly" as it made its way — if one may say so — through stormy political waters.
2. The present session of the General Assembly is not just an ordinary annual meeting of representatives of more than a hundred States from every continent. It marks for the United Nations the completion of the first twenty years of its existence and activities.
3. On anniversary occasions such as this, it would of course be pleasanter to hear about events of a positive character; and it would indeed be pleasanter to talk about them, too. But, as we see it, important dates of this kind should be regarded merely as an additional reason for surveying — without excessive formalities and in a realistic manner — the ground already covered and for studying how the work can best be organized today and tomorrow.
4. The United Nations came into being in the year of the historic victory over the forces of aggression and fascism in the Second World War. Even then, the nations which had experienced the countless hardships of the war years were turning their thoughts towards the future. They earnestly wished to set up an enduring system of international co-operation, which would protect succeeding generations from the scourge of war. That was the time of a powerful anti-fascist and democratic upsurge throughout the world, and the spirit of that time naturally found its expression in the basic provisions of the United Nations Charter.
5. Today it is particularly appropriate to ask whether the United Nations is justifying the hopes which were placed in it and whether it is proving equal to the tasks proclaimed in its Charter. There are some who will maintain that the activities of the United Nations serve only to inspire illusions and nothing more, and that no useful achievements can be discovered in its record of service. They will even go so far as to say that the very idea of peaceful and fruitful co-operation between States with different interests, and different social orders and ideologies is unrealistic. There are others, on the contrary, who are prepared to see the virtues and the successes of the United Nations in its shortcomings, in the disruption of its work and in deviations from the Charter. Let the United Nations ignore acts of aggression, let it remain silent when there is interference in the internal affairs of nations, and on occasion let it even use its flag as a cover for such interference — this is what some people expect of our Organization.
6. Both the nihilism of the former group and the policy of the latter group of undermining the foundations of the United Nations are alien to the Soviet Government.
7. It was clear from the very outset that the United Nations would not be able to eliminate all the contradictions arising between States in a developing and changing world, and that it would be even less able — nor indeed should it try — to gloss over the fundamental differences in the social character of States and the consequent differences in the objectives and methods of their policies. At the same time, there was no doubt that a world-wide organization for the maintenance of peace and security would be capable of playing a useful role in world affairs if, in response to the appeals of the people, it were founded on the principles laid down in the Charter — the principles of equal rights of respect for the sovereignty of States and of the freedom of each country to choose its own course of social development.
8. In fact, every time the United Nations has found the strength to project into international relations and transform into actual deeds the lofty principles proclaimed at its inception, it has proved that it is indeed able to serve the interests of peace, freedom and the independence of peoples. The adoption by the General Assembly of the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples [resolution 1514 (XV)] is sufficient in itself to show that this judgement is correct.
9. It can definitely be said that the United Nations does have considerable possibilities, and that it does have a future, provided that it can absorb all the new and healthy elements which have been introduced into international relations by the whirlwinds of progressive social change and national liberation movements, and by the powerful action of the peoples to achieve their independent and free development and to achieve peace.
10. Without over-simplifying the position and without going to extremes, it must, however, be recognized that the United Nations has not yet become a genuine centre for co-ordinating the actions of nations in the interests of peace, international co-operation and the defence of the inalienable rights of peoples. The reasons for this do not lie in its Charter, for there the tasks of the United Nations are clearly and faithfully set forth together with the provisions necessary to carry them out successfully under present-day conditions. The real reasons lie elsewhere.
11. No charter will be of any use if the actual policies of States which have signed the Charter are completely at variance with what the Charter requires. And everyone knows that there are some States which have made it almost a rule to infringe the United Nations Charter, although they never lose any opportunity of holding forth about the sanctity of their international obligations.
12. No sooner does a nation in the Western or Eastern hemisphere take action against foreign domination or a corrupt puppet regime, or merely call for a restoration of constitutional procedures — and all these are domestic affairs — than foreign marines, aircraft, warships and every imaginable instrument of pressure and dictation are hurled against it.
13. What does this policy have in common with the principles of the United Nations or with the elementary rules of international law? The answer is: nothing at all.
14. The Soviet Union and the other socialist States, and indeed many countries which certainly do not in every respect share our ideology or our convictions about the future of society, base their policies on different foundations. In spite of all the nuances and the occasional differences in their positions, the socialist countries and the non-aligned countries are at one in agreeing that there is not and cannot be any place in international life for aggression, dictation and interference in the affairs of other countries. Ideological differences must not be a source of war and conflict between States.
15. The course which the Soviet Union is following in international affairs is one of upholding peace and the rights of peoples to independence and social progress and of striving to achieve disarmament and a broad and mutually advantageous co-operation between States on the basis of the principles of peaceful coexistence. This course was chartered by the founder of the Soviet State, V. I. Lenin, and it is the course which the Soviet Government continues today firmly and consistently to hold to in determining its attitude to any given international problem, specific event or particular State.
16. The twentieth session of the General Assembly is starting its work in a complex and strained atmosphere, as military operations involving large amounts of war equipment are taking place in certain regions of the world, and human blood is being shed.
17. The war in Viet-Nam has, as we know, already spread over a territory larger than that of such States as the United Kingdom, Italy or the Federal Republic of Germany. Large units of the United States Army, Navy and Air Force have been brought into action, and barbaric bombing attacks are being carried out on the territory of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam. What the United States is doing in Viet-Nam has only one name, and that is "aggression".
18. Yes, the United States is acting in Viet-Nam as an aggressor and as a violator of the Geneva Agreements of 1954 which guarantee the peace, independence and neutrality of Viet-Nam and the restoration of its national unity. Whatever version of events the United States Government may give, it is clear to everyone that it is not the National Liberation Front of South Viet-Nam or the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam which has attacked the United States; rather, United States armed forces have invaded Viet-Namese territory in order to impose a political order which suits the United States in a land where the Viet-Namese people alone is entitled to be master.
19. The Soviet Union resolutely condemns United States aggression in Viet-Nam. The cause of the Viet-Namese people is a just one. They are defending their native land. The Soviet people sympathize with the heroic struggle being waged by the people of South Viet-Nam under the leadership of the National Liberation Front. We have been providing, and shall continue to provide, the necessary fraternal aid to the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam.
20. Is there any way out of the situation that has developed in Viet-Nam? There is. The Government of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam and the National Liberation Front of South Viet-Nam have advanced a reasonable and fair basis for a settlement. This moans, of course, the cessation of the bombing of the territory of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam and the strict fulfilment of the 1954 Geneva Agreements. The war was brought to Viet-Nam from across the ocean. In order to put an end to it, the forces of the United States of America and its partners in aggression must withdraw from foreign soil and take their weapons with them. The Viet-Namese people must be given the opportunity to determine their own future. The Soviet Government fully supports the just demands put forward by Pham Van Dong, the Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, on 8 April 1965, in the form of the four points with which we are familiar.
21. It is frequently said that the United States has made serious efforts to initiate talks on the question of Viet-Nam but that its approaches to various organizations and Governments have been to no avail. Such statements will not, however, deceive anyone and will not lessen United States responsibility for its present actions in Viet-Nam. Aggression does not cease to be aggression because its organizers start talking about peace and political settlement. What the United States must do is to stop the aggression completely and without previous conditions.
22. If for some reason or other the authorities at Washington are not asking themselves what the continuation of aggression against the Viet-Namese people can ultimately lead to, then we can only say that this is a great mistake. They should ask themselves that question.
23. In addition to the continuing armed interference by the United States of America in Viet-Nam, the international situation, and more particularly the situation in South Asia and South-East Asia, has been made considerably more complex by the armed conflict between the two large neighbouring States of India and Pakistan. This conflict is of no benefit to either side. Whichever way the fortunes of war may swing at any particular moment, neither India nor Pakistan stands to gain. There are, of course, third parties whose purposes would be suited only too well if India and Pakistan were to become more deeply involved in mutual enmity, since that would weaken each of them and make them more susceptible to foreign influence and dictation.
24. The position of the Soviet Union is based on sincere goodwill towards India and Pakistan, and is well known; it has been stated here in the United Nations. The Soviet Government has appealed to the Governments of India and Pakistan to put an end to hostilities and to seek a reasonable settlement of their differences at the conference table. It has offered India and Pakistan its good offices if both sides desire to employ them. Anxiety over the armed conflict between India and Pakistan and an awareness of the need for a peaceful settlement of their differences have been displayed by many States represented in this hall.
25. Hostilities along the Indian-Pakistan frontier have now ceased, to the great satisfaction of the Soviet Union. It is a sensible step on the part of both Governments. An important factor in halting the bloodshed was the part played by the United Nations and, personally, by Secretary-General U Thant. I should like to express the hope that further efforts will be made by India and Pakistan to bring about good-neighbourly relations with one another.
26. The acuteness of the situation in South-East and South Asia, and the heightening of tension in various other parts of the world, must not blind us to the significance of the problems relating to the strengthening of security in Europe. Let no one forget that Europe was the starting point for the two world wars which have convulsed our planet.
27. In the post-war period a special kind of situation developed in Europe. For one thing, in place of the defeated Hitler Reich there came into being two independent German States, with different social systems and contrary political policies. One of them, the Federal Republic of Germany, does not recognize either the existence of the other State — the peace-loving German Democratic Republic — or the new European boundaries, or, in general, the consequences of the Second World War. The situation is further aggravated by the fact that the tasks of a post-war settlement have not been fully carried out as was envisaged by the Potsdam and other agreements between the Powers making up the anti-Hitler coalition. This in turn has left the door open to the intrigues of the militarist and revenge-seeking forces of West Germany, which long to rewrite history.
28. Regardless of the attitude of any State towards the German Democratic Republic or the Federal Republic of Germany, and regardless of its assessment of the present situation in central Europe, the conclusion of a German peace settlement has been and remains the key problem of European security.
29. Shots, it is true, are not ringing out in Europe today, but verbal clashes and loud arguments are taking place which may prove more fatal than shots. The question of giving West Germany access to nuclear weapons, either through a multilateral force, as proposed by the United States, or through an Atlantic, force, as proposed by the United Kingdom, is a perennial item on the agendas of the various conferences and consultations among some of the NATO Powers.
30. If anyone still had any doubts about the designs which are harboured at Bonn with regard to participation in a NATO nuclear force, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has itself dispelled them by its official statements. Either participation in a NATO nuclear force or possession of nuclear weapons of its own — that is how the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany puts the question, thereby actually equating the one with the other.
31. To those who are hurrying to clear the way for the possession of nuclear weapons by West Germany, we say: would it not be better to stop? You apparently do not mind throwing to the winds the fruits of the victory over German fascism and militarism, a victory won through the efforts of the peoples of the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, the United States, Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and other States. But who will allow you to do it?
32. Today there are many people, even in Western Europe, who fully realize the danger of such plans. The Soviet Union and the other States parties to the Warsaw Treaty have firmly declared that, should the members of NATO flout the interests of peace by taking steps to carry out plans for the establishment of a multilateral nuclear force, in whatever form that might take, then, in view of the grave consequences which this would have for the security of Europe, they would be obliged to take the necessary defensive measures for their own security.
33. There is yet another question which serves to separate the States which stand for peace and security in Europe from those which are charting plans for new military campaigns and already trying on the boots of Hitler’s generals. This is the question of the postwar frontiers in Europe. It is not a question to be approached lightly. No responsible Government can fail to realize that the question of frontiers is a question of war and peace — and not only of war and peace in Europe. With the advent of modern means of warfare, the barriers between continents have ceased to exist.
34. The Soviet Union, which made untold sacrifices for the sake of victory over Hitler Germany and for creating the conditions for lasting peace in Europe, will not allow the established frontiers to be altered. They have been definitively fixed and are not subject to revision. There can be no question of this whatsoever. The Soviet people, our allies and our friends are capable of standing up for their interests.
35. The paramount lesson of the Second World War — and the twentieth anniversary of the victory in that war has just recently been celebrated by our peoples — is that the lack of unity among the peace-loving European countries and the absence of a system of collective security in Europe made it easier for the forces of aggression to violate the peace. The aggressor tore to shreds treaties which bore his own signature, and in place of the language of international negotiations on disarmament and the prevention of war, he preferred the language of steel and the clang of weapons forged for his war machine. That is why the Soviet Union consistently calls for agreement and concerted efforts on the part of the European States in the interests of their security and the development of co-operation among them on an all-European basis.
36. As a European and at the same time an Asian Power, the USSR is fully cognizant of its role and responsibility in matters affecting the security of Europe and Asia. Every worth-while effort to this end will always meet with the understanding and active support of the Soviet Government.
37. The present session of the General Assembly must take an important decision on the convening of a world disarmament conference to be attended by all the nations of .the world. The idea of such a conference has been gaining ground for many years, and the Soviet Government is gratified to note that it is now close to fulfilment. We suggest that the world conference should be convened in the middle of 1966 at Geneva or at some other place acceptable to all the participants.
38. Such a conference will provide an opportunity for trying out new approaches to the solution of the most important and difficult problem of our day, that of disarmament. Everything must be done to avoid any repetition of the mistakes and omissions which have marked previous discussions of disarmament problems. That means that we must invite to the conference States which do not at the present time take part in the work of the United Nations, or are excluded from disarmament talks on one pretext or another. We cannot turn our backs forever on the indisputable fact that the elaboration of effective agreed measures on disarmament, to be carried out by all States, including the nuclear Powers, demands the participation, at the very least, of the largest countries in the world, regardless of whether they are represented in this hall or not.
39. A world conference would be a serious test of the goodwill of States and of their readiness to take practical steps, attitudes which so far have certainly not been shown by some of the participants in disarmament discussions.
40. Whether we consider what took place decades ago, at the time of the first disarmament talks, or whether we look at the very latest meetings of the Eighteen-Nation Committee in Geneva, we are inevitably confronted with a clash between two opposing policies. The proponents of one policy maintain that, since men have produced armaments, they can also destroy them. Those who follow the other line apparently want to spread pessimism and disbelief in men’s ability to put a stop to the armaments race. This is no mere argument between optimists and pessimists. It reflects diverse interests and basic policy differences.
41. States can establish special agencies and even ministries for disarmament, but so long as there is no genuine desire to demobilize a single soldier, let alone dissolve whole armies, disarmament talks will not move forward. What is paralysing the work of the Eighteen-Nation Committee is not the technical difficulties involves in achieving disarmament, but conflicting political positions.
42. As we weigh the results which the United Nations -has achieved over the past twenty years, we are justified in casting blame on those who pile obstacle upon obstacle in the way of disarmament; no manoeuvring on their part can disguise their unwillingness to scrap their national war machines. No arguments can conceal the chasm which lies between the paltry interests of those who favour the armaments race and the interests of the peoples, which long for peace and for deliverance from the burden of armaments and military expenditures.
43. The USSR Government considers, as it has always considered, that one of the principal objectives of its foreign policy is to do everything in its power to promote agreement on disarmament under effective international control. We have no preconceived notions as to where to start the process of reducing and disbanding the armed forces of States, into what stages that process should be divided, and how to organize control of disarmament — of disarmament, I repeat, not of armaments. The only thing that matters is that real disarmament should take place, that the danger of nuclear warfare should be removed, and that the measures of implementation should not give military advantages to any one side.
44. However hard and full of obstacles the road to disarmament may be, the Soviet Union will not relax its persistent and vigorous endeavours to achieve appropriate international agreements. A standstill in the matter of disarmament is of advantage only to those who cling to the policy of positions of strength, and for whom the armaments race turns into a shower of gold.
45. Since the position of certain of the western Powers makes it impossible to move forward in the elaboration of an agreement on general and complete disarmament, it is essential, without abandoning that effort, to strive for the implementation of partial measures which would help to limit the armaments race, decrease international tension and thereby prepare the way for radical measures of disarmament. The memorandum presented to the States Members of the United Nations on 7 December 1964 by the USSR Government set out our proposals on this subject, such as prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons, dismantling of foreign military bases and withdrawal of foreign troops stationed in alien territory, establishment of denuclearized zones, reduction of military budgets — in the first place those of militarily powerful States — and prohibition of underground nuclear weapon tests. A number of valuable ideas have also been put forward by other countries, including Asian and African countries. All these proposals must be carefully weighed, so that no opportunity is neglected to halt the armaments race, particularly as regards nuclear weapons.
46. The conclusion of the Moscow Treaty, to which the USSR Government continues to attach considerable importance, resolved part of the problem of the cessation of atomic and hydrogen weapons tests, and indeed, the most substantial part, by prohibiting nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water. It is quite natural that the world's peoples should also want underground nuclear testing to be prohibited. The United Arab Republic recently proposed the cessation of underground testing of nuclear weapons of a given capacity, accompanied by a moratorium on all other underground nuclear testing. In the view of the USSR Government, that proposal of the United Arab Republic, supported by other non-aligned nations on the Eighteen-Nation Committee, deserves the most serious consideration.
47. One of the crucial problems of international life, which is closely linked with the problem of disarmament, is the question of dismantling foreign military bases.
48. In many cases, foreign military bases in alien territory are a legacy of the war. But twenty years is more than long enough to do away with them.
49. For the most part, however, military bases are a relic of colonialism; they were established in times when no one took any account of the views of the indigenous populations. Such establishment may have been accompanied by formal agreements, but to recognize their validity would be the same as recognizing as valid the transactions of a usurer, whose victim is bound hand and foot with debt and is kept in lifelong servitude.
50. The USSR Government fully endorses the conclusion of the Cairo Conference on Non-Aligned Countries that "foreign military bases are in practice a means of bringing pressure on nations and retarding their emancipation and development, based on their own ideological, political, economic and cultural ideas".
51. We think that the General Assembly has every justification for demanding that States which maintain military bases in alien territory should dismantle them forthwith.
52. It is the duty of the United Nations, and that includes the General Assembly, to help the peoples to shake off the foreign yoke once and for all. Does it possess the practical means for so doing? Yes, such means exist, and they increase from one session of the General Assembly to the next.
53. The Declaration adopted by the United Nations in 1960, which we all remember, solemnly proclaimed "the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations" [resolution 1514 (XV)]. We may also cite the United Nations Charter, which enunciates the lofty principles of the equality of nations, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. Above all, the majority of the Members of the Organization are avowed opponents of colonialism and neo-colonialism. What is more, many of the States that have joined the United Nations in recent years have themselves gone through the arduous experience of struggle for independence.
54. Today colonialism is retreating all along the line. It is retreating, but it has not yet completely capitulated. Like a glacier which in bygone ages covered whole continents, it leaves deep scars and fissures even as it retreats.
55. A people fighting for its freedom and independence has a sacred right to use all means of struggle, including arms. Colonialism is the very embodiment of violence and arbitrary rule, and whatever is done to eliminate it is just and humane. The manifold aid which a people receives from friends in its struggle is aid in achieving the purposes of the United Nations. Hence it is also aid to the cause of the United Nations.
56. The United Nations has on more than one occasion censured Portugal's brutality against the inhabitants of its colonies, and the racists of South Africa for their savage policy of apartheid. Unfortunately, that has had little effect the situation. If we were to show timidity in the face of the challenge hurled by the colonialist States we would not only be shirking our duty and ignoring the dictates of our conscience; we would also undermine the authority of the United Nations. The General Assembly, in my view, must seriously examine the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
57. The present sharp aggravation in the relations among many States and the deterioration of the international situation squarely confront the United Nations with the question: where lies the root of the evil? Indisputably, the principal reason for the mounting threat to world peace is the interference of certain States in the domestic affairs of others, and, above all, armed interference. Examples are the events in Viet-Nam and the recent gross display of force against the Dominican Republic, which merits not only the gravest censure, but also vigorous counteraction by the United Nations. Other examples are furnished by the events in the Congo and in many other parts of the world.
58. In the days of colonial conquest and imperialistic reapportionment of the world, when the peoples of whole continents were regarded by the developed industrial Powers as tempting prey for expansion and inhuman exploitation, foreign, interference in the domestic affairs of those peoples generally took the form of annexation, of forcible attachment to the metropolitan country. In our day, in a period of profound changes in the balance of world forces and in the conscience of the peoples, even those whose appetites match those of the old-time colonialists would not risk setting themselves such objectives.
59. Consequently, those who continue to pursue a policy of interference in the domestic affairs, of others endeavour to give new shape to the "big stick" policy, and, in addition to time-worn and hackneyed references to the protection of the rights of foreign nationals, they produce what I would call refurbished arguments, such as the defence of "moral values" or "kindred ideals". But even to admit that there might be some justification — and, however ingenious the arguments, there is none — for interfering in the affairs of others, would be to deliver small and weak States to the' arbitrary rule of the strong, and to assent to constant breaches of the peace.
60. There can and should be no justification-ideological, economic or any other — for interference by States in each other's internal affairs. Whether we speak of the people of Viet-Nam or the people of the Dominican Republic, the people of Cuba or the people of any other State, the people concerned, and it alone, is entitled to decide upon matters concerning its domestic development, and to choose the path it wants to follow. No outsider has the right to choose that path for it. That is a fundamental principle of international law and of the United Nations Charter. It has also been repeatedly emphasized in the decisions and declarations of the Bandung, Belgrade and Cairo Conferences, in which many States Members of the United Nations took part.
61. Who, then, more than the United Nations, should be concerned to ensure proper respect for the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of others, to see to it that it becomes law? There can be no two opinions about it — this is a direct obligation of the United Nations, arising out of the principles and purposes proclaimed by it in its Charter.
62. Desiring to contribute to making the twentieth session of the General Assembly justify the hopes placed in it, and to arrive at decisions called for by the serious international situation, the USSR Government proposes that the General Assembly should examine an important and urgent new item entitled "The inadmissibility of intervention in the domestic affairs of States and the protection of their independence and sovereignty" [A/5977]. We are also submitting to the General Assembly a draft declaration on the matter which, we are sure, will be carefully studied by States Members of the Organization.
63. The adoption by the General Assembly of a special declaration on the inadmissibility of intervention in the domestic affairs of States and the protection of their independence and sovereignty would constitute a new and vigorous step by the United Nations towards ensuring international security. It would be a good service to the peoples which have cast off the fetters of colonialism, established national States and now see as their primary objective the strengthening of political and the achievement of economic independence. Such a declaration would be of particular value to small countries, which are not always capable of repelling foreign expansionism and defending their independence and sovereignty by their own efforts.
64. It would be altogether wrong to see in this initiative of the Soviet Union merely a wish to embarrass a particular Power or group of Powers. We are not trying to take advantage of a situation in order to square accounts; our goals are higher than that. To those who nevertheless see in a declaration forbidding foreign interference a condemnation of their own actions, we would simply reply that they, of course, should know best.
65. We consider it essential to condemn all foreign interference in the domestic affairs of States and peoples, and to prevent any future possibility of such interference. The approval of a declaration which would not only confirm but also spell out and develop one of the most important provisions of the United Nations Charter, would undoubtedly be of great value in safeguarding the interests of world peace. The USSR Government calls upon all States Members of the United Nations to take that step.
66. There is another important matter which merits foremost attention in the work of the twentieth session of the General Assembly. That is the question of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. We all know the circumstances in which such weapons came into being, how the first mushroom-shaped clouds from nuclear explosions rose over our planet, and why it was not possible to outlaw the nuclear bomb immediately. The Soviet Union was forced to develop its own nuclear weapon; we had no other choice.
67. No matter how many words of condemnation, how many curses, may now be uttered concerning this weapon of mass destruction, the fact is that it has appeared, it exists. But will the present nuclear arsenals breed new ones? Will nuclear weapons gradually proliferate, as have weapons of other types? That is the question which disturbs the peoples and those statesmen who are alive to their responsibility towards them. Their anxiety is fully understandable and natural, for the risk of a war in which nuclear weapons would be used will only continue to grow, and to grow in a geometric progression, if possession of such weapons becomes wide-spread.
68. If, in addition to the Soviet Union, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the People's Republic of China, which already possess nuclear weapons, and which are permanent members of the Security Council, other States embark on the development of their own nuclear weapons or are given access to them, then it will be too late and, in fact, impossible to arrest the process. An even keener nuclear rivalry will ensue.
69. Essentially, mankind is now faced with the alternatives of letting things slide or of taking steps to ensure that nuclear weapons should at least be contained within the frontiers where they already exist, by concluding an appropriate international agreement. The Soviet Union Government favours such an agreement, since under present conditions no better solution can be found.
70. Needless to say, an agreement on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons cannot be an end in itself. It is a step — and a major step — towards banning and destroying nuclear weapons, and not simply a means of limiting the number of nuclear Powers or, as some say, of ratifying the present nuclear monopoly of the five great Powers. That is what the Soviet Union holds to be the purpose of such an agreement.
71. Hence the prevention of the further spread of nuclear weapons is part and parcel of the struggle for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons and the prevention of nuclear war, that being the unalterable purpose of USSR foreign policy. The achievement of agreement on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons would be to the advantage both of the nuclear Powers and of the States which do not possess such weapons. For a country will be far better advised to rely, for its future, on steps aimed at curbing the threat of nuclear warfare, on disarmament, than on weapons of mass extermination or the hazards of military rivalries in the context of a nuclear arms race.
72. Of course, an agreement on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons can have a real rather than an imaginary value only if it closes tight all the loopholes and thus prevents the spread of nuclear weapons.
73. We speak of this because at every step we come up against attempts to legalize the proliferation of nuclear weapons under the guise of international agreements on their non-proliferation. Examples are not far to seek. Thus the United States draft, recently submitted for the consideration of the Eighteen-Nation Committee at Geneva, while referring to the prohibition of some forms of proliferation of nuclear weapons, nevertheless leaves a loop-hole large enough to permit the unobstructed passage of no less than a whole multilateral fleet, equipped with hundreds of rockets with nuclear warheads. The purpose is well known to everyone. Behind such stratagems are the nuclear appetites of the West German militarists.
74. An agreement on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons worthy of the name must include undertakings by States which possess nuclear weapons not to transfer those weapons in any form whatsoever — whether directly or indirectly, through a third State or group of States — to the possession or control of States or groups of States which do not possess nuclear weapons, and not to grant to those States or groups of States the right to take part in the ownership, control or use of nuclear weapons.
75. Moreover, nuclear weapons, or control over them or over their emplacement and use should not be transferred to units of the armed forces or military personnel of States not possessing nuclear weapons, even if such units or personnel are under the command of a military alliance.
76. For their part, parties to the Treaty not possessing nuclear weapons must undertake not to create, manufacture or prepare for the manufacture of nuclear weapons either independently or together with other States, in their own territory or in the territory of other States, and must likewise undertake to refrain from having anything to do with nuclear weapons in any form — directly or indirectly, through third States or groups of States.
77. My delegation has been instructed to request the inclusion in the General Assembly's agenda of a new item — "non-proliferation of nuclear weapons" [A/5976] — as an important and urgent question. We are submitting a draft treaty on the subject which will be circulated to all delegations. The Soviet Union is prepared to sign such a treaty here and now. We should like to believe that the States Members of the United Nations will approach consideration of the question of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the draft treaty submitted by us, in all seriousness and with a sense of responsibility for the fate of the world.
78. The Soviet Government has advocated and continues to advocate the development of co-operation among States in the interests of preserving peace, guaranteeing security and solving economic, cultural and other international problems.
79. No one, I think, would go so far as to say that the present state of international economic relations is normal and satisfactory. Flagrant discrimination, unequal conditions, trade embargoes, and other abnormalities are encountered at almost every turn. Many States are sustaining great losses and having difficulty developing their independent economies while their riches are being syphoned off into other countries. Such a practice is intolerable.
80. The ice of the "cold war" with which economic relations among groups of States have become encrusted must be chipped off.
81. In seeking a normalization of conditions the Soviet Union is not pursuing any narrow objectives or special advantages for itself. The world capitalist market is the last thing that affects our economy. The development of sound and mutually profitable economic relations, as called for recently by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development is a great undertaking which is in the interests of all peoples. At the same time it provides an excellent natural basis for bringing about a turn for the better in political relations as well, for politics cannot be divorced from economics.
82. The Soviet Union for its part, has been working consistently and intently to develop friendly relations with all States. Close and many-faceted co-operation between the Soviet Union and its fellow socialist States is being expanded and strengthened. We have established relations of friendship and mutual trust with a large number of non-aligned States.
83. A gratifying development of the recent past has been the further improvement of our relations with virtually all our neighbours. The Soviet Union is ready to broaden its contacts and the areas of its co-operation with France, the United Kingdom, Italy and other capitalist countries if they so desire.
84. We should also like to have good relations with the United States, but, it need hardly be said, with due reciprocity and not at the expense of other countries.
85. The Soviet Union is doing and will do everything in its power to help to bring about a constructive settlement of the questions which the United Nations has before it. Clearly, however, the United Nations can become more effective — which is what the peoples expect of it — only if all the States concerned are faithful to its purposes and strictly abide by the undertakings they have assumed under its Charter. For that reason States Members of the United Nations cannot overlook the attempts made — at different times and at different levels, but originating as a rule from the same source — to circumvent and undermine its Charter. These attacks, as everyone knows, have been and are being directed primarily against the principle of the unanimity of the permanent members of the Security Council, notably in connexion with peace-keeping operations, i.e. with the question of United Nations armed forces, their recruitment, use and command. The key to the solution of these truly important questions, we repeat, can be found only in strict observance of the United Nations Charter.
86. It would not be out of place to caution once again that if we allow any part of the United Nations Charter to be damaged we may be unable to repair it, for the structure of the United Nations will not, I fear, withstand such a test.
87. As in the past, the United Nations is seriously impairing its authority and lessening the impact of its pronouncements and actions by failing to this day to restore to the People's Republic of China its lawful rights in the United Nations. The sooner justice triumphs and the People's China takes its rightful place in all United Nations bodies, the better it will be for the interests of the United Nations itself and the interests of peace. The Soviet Union strongly supports the inclusion of the question of the restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the agenda of the General Assembly and urges that it should be settled promptly and positively.
88. The prevention of aggression and interference in the affairs of others, the pacific settlement of disputes between States, compliance by States with obligations assumed under international treaties and agreements— these tasks are perhaps more urgent now than ever before. If the United Nations wishes to keep pace with the demands of the times it must address itself to these tasks in earnest.
89. Any Government which takes a stand in favour of peace and the lessening of tension and which really wants the United Nations to be an effective instrument for the safeguarding of international security can count on our co-operation and our support. However, the Soviet Union is, as it has always been, an irreconcilable opponent of the policy of imperialistic tyranny and. aggression, and of the hypocrisy which so often characterizes the words and deeds of certain States and which conceals not only the absence of any desire to work for peace but also actions undermining peace. In short, at this anniversary session of the United Nations General Assembly too the Soviet Union will bring all its efforts and all its influence to bear on the side of peace, genuine international co-operation and friendship among peoples.