First of all I should like to congratulate Mr. Hammarskjold on the occasion of his election to the post of Secretary-General of the United Nations for a second term of office and to wish him success in the performance of his duties.
2. With the admission to the United Nations of the Federation of Malaya, eighty-two States are represented here irrespective of their social systems and ideological views. It would be more exact to say eighty-one States, since China, which was one of the founders of the United Nations, is not represented here by the legitimate government of the People's Republic of China. To suppose that the shadowy Chiang Kai-shek representatives from Formosa who wander about the United Nations express the will of the Chinese people is, politically speaking, to suffer paralysis of the brain.
3. The composition of the United Nations shows how the political map of the world has changed at the halfway point in this tempestuous twentieth century. Among the Members of the United Nations are many countries which have won their freedom and independence comparatively recently, casting off the fetters of foreign oppression imposed upon them by colonialism, which is now on its way out. This inevitable historical process did not begin today. The world of today is not in the least like what it was only a short time ago. The process of historical renaissance has been gathering force over the past few decades like a mighty torrent released by the great event of the twentieth century, the socialist October Revolution, which had the effect of accelerating social development, of awakening millions of people and of associating them actively and creatively in the evolution of history.
4. The great founder of the Soviet State, Lenin, perspicaciously defined the Soviet people's revolution as the beginning of a new era in the history of the world. Sun Yat-sen, the Chinese democrat, saw in the triumph of the people's revolution the birth of a great hope for mankind, and Mr. Nehru, the renowned leader of contemporary India, stated that, almost simultaneously with the October Revolution led by the great Lenin, India had entered upon a new phase of its struggle for freedom. The Indian people, he went onto say, had for many years been taken up with that struggle and had endured grim oppression with courage and patience. And although the Indian people under Gandhi's leadership had taken a different road, they had admired Lenin and had been influenced by his example.
5. The revolution came about in Russia because the people desired it. Revolutions simply are not possible when the people do not want them. People who are obsessed by the idea of the "export of revolution" somehow fail to note that the revolution in October 1917 was not exported to Russia or the Ukraine by anyone from anywhere. These people, who cannot conceal their irritation over the legitimate social changes which are taking place in the world, are trying to explain thorn, not infrequently from the rostrum of the United Nations, as the result of interference by outside forces. Yet it is as absurd to talk of the "export of revolution" as it would be to talk of exporting clouds from China to Cuba.
6. The glow of the October Revolution likewise illumined the birth of the Ukrainian Socialist State — the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. The Government of the Ukraine appealed at that time to all countries for peace and co-operation. In its appeal, the Soviet Government of the Ukraine, announcing to the peoples and Governments of the entire world that it had been established, expressed at the same time its firm determination to defend the independence and inviolability of the Ukrainian SSR and its desire to live in peace with all peoples and States.
7. Like Soviet Russia, the Ukrainian SSR was born with the slogan of peace on its lips, and it is the constant concern of its people and Government to strive for peace and for the strengthening of friendly relations among nations. That aspiration unites us to all the peoples of the Soviet Union, with whom we maintain relations of close and brotherly co-operation on a basis of equality. The Ukrainian people look upon the Soviet Union as a firm guarantor of their national sovereignty and independence.
8. The social relations and brotherly co-operation of the peoples of the Soviet Union, founded on the socialist principles of mutual help and support, have opened the door to the unlimited development of our productive forces, the unprecedented flowering of national culture and of science and the constantly increasing prosperity of our people.
9. Permit me to give a brief outline of the economic development of the Ukraine, a country now in the forefront of those European nations which have attained the highest level of economic development. The information furnished by our planning organs shows that the Ukraine has already surpassed all the capitalist States of Europe in the per capita production of cast iron, steal, rolled metal and iron ore. Our per capita production of cast iron is approximately equal to that of the United States, while the production of coal and iron ore is considerably higher. In absolute figures of industrial output, the Ukraine produced more cast iron than either the United Kingdom, France, the Federal Republic of Germany or the Benelux countries, which are, of course, noted for their high level of industrial development. In the production of rolled ferrous metals, the Ukraine is surpassed only by the United Kingdom, its output being greater than the combined output of such highly industrialized countries as France and Belgium, or France and Italy.
10. Our people, as is only natural, are justly proud of these achievements. At the same time we are firmly convinced that we shall go on to even greater successes in the next few years, notwithstanding the complexity and size of the new tasks which confront our national economy. That conviction is firmly grounded in a realistic appraisal of the material and spiritual opportunities opened up by socialism. Under a unified economic planning system pooling the resources, capabilities and efforts of the Soviet republics, and taking into account their national interests, the Ukraine has advanced as far in forty years of socialism as it would otherwise have done in centuries.
11. The Ukrainian Socialist State has always advocated a peaceful foreign policy based on the principles proclaimed in October 1917. Our people have fought for that policy both in times of peaceful development and in the days of frightful military conflict, when the Ukrainian people proved in the struggle against fascism that they were a worthy member of the great fraternal family of nations comprising the Soviet Union.
12. It is with profound conviction that we support the general foreign policy of the USSR in the Unite Stations. We shall continue to do so in the future, for the Soviet Union is a reliable bulwark of peace and of peaceful relations among nations and as such it acts in accordance with the vital interests of the Ukrainian people. The Government of the Ukrainian SSR has instructed my delegation to express its full support of the proposals submitted by the Soviet Union to the twelfth session of the General Assembly.
13. The delegation of the Ukrainian SSF wishes to state first of all that it supports the proposal calling upon the General Assembly to adopt the "declaration concerning the peaceful coexistence of States" [A/3673].
14. The question of peaceful coexistence is vitally important for the destiny of mankind. The world is big; it comprises many nations with different social systems, some socialist and others capitalist. That is an indisputable historical fact. If in our time Archimedes were at last to find a place to stand and to succeed in moving the world, even after such a cataclysm man would discover upon looking about him that the States which now exist had not disappeared. No State can leave this planet. That is why we must live in harmony and seek an acceptable basis for cooperation. If we in this one world wish, in the words of the United Nations Charter, to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war", we must recognize that the question which is the better political and social system can and should be decided not by the general staffs of our armies but by economic competition, not by war but by the results we achieve in our efforts to create a life worthy of man.
15. A certain renowned American has advised his countrymen, particularly those who determine the foreign policy of the United States, to learn to live with others in this world. That is all very well, but to learn to live with others it is necessary to want to live with them and to work for that end without preconceptions or prejudices, free from the dangerous illusion that the United States is called upon to "lead the world", to order others about and to tell them what their standards of conduct should be.
16. Unfortunately, the clear policy of peaceful coexistence propounded by the peace-loving countries, which accords with the interests of the peoples of the world, has so far been countered by the policy of negotiating "from a position of strength". That policy has nothing to recommend it and has not contributed to the solution of a single international problem. When a State or group of States, as in the case of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, form a bloc for the purpose of preparing for war, other States which are threatened with attack cannot sit back with folded arms. They must prepare to defend themselves, to meet force with force. The only result is to aggravate the situation and exacerbate passions.
17. The opponents of peaceful coexistence proceed from the premise that strength is on their side. Their mistake is that, drunk with their own power, they tend to overlook the power of others. Such self-deception obviously dulls the senses of certain strategists in generals' uniforms who, with calculated, cold-blooded cruelty, boast that they could wipe from the face of the earth whole States whose social systems are not to their liking.
18. As recently as last May, Admiral Burke, the United States Chief of Naval Operations, boasted that the United States could deal a blow to the Soviet Union that would destroy it, while General Norstad, Supreme Allied Commander of the armed forces of NATO, who is a well known figure, threatened that the United States could destroy anything in the USSR it pleased. Giving free rein to his belligerence, General Norstad went on to describe how attacks could be launched on the Soviet Union from all sides from the hundreds of American military bases abroad and in the United States. That, he continued, was the present position, and he saw no reason why it should not be maintained with the use of new weapons in the future. British Field-Marshal Montgomery with brutal cynicism suggested dropping a powerful bomb on the Soviet Union and wiping it out.
19. We, of course, are not in a position to appraise the common sense or abilities of General Norstad or Field-Marshal Montgomery, but there would appear to be not the slightest doubt of their recklessness. The important point is that militaristic thinking of this kind is the natural outcome of the United States policy of strength which rejects the possibility of the coexistence in one world of two States with such widely different social systems as the Soviet Union and the United States.
20. Perhaps we could ignore the inflammatory statements of certain generals and admirals of the North Atlantic bloc inasmuch as they are not concerned with the peoples of the world. Their profession obliges them to keep those peoples in a state of tension and to sow the seeds of war hysteria, for if a peaceful atmosphere prevailed it might well be that appropriations for military expenditures would be cut and they would find themselves out of a job. But when statesmen, who ought to obey the dictates of reason and who should have a better understanding of their responsibilities, begin to engage in such activities, we have reason to be seriously concerned.
21. Only a few days ago, the United States Undersecretary of State, Mr. Herter, said in Boston that there could be no peaceful coexistence with other Powers organized within the Soviet bloc. Mr. Herter has not yet gone so far as to suggest abolishing other States which differ from the United States, but in reality that is what he, taking his cue from the militarists, desires. He is mortally afraid that the people of the United States will grow old and tired and accept the idea of peaceful coexistence. Yet if there can be no peaceful coexistence, then what is Mr. Herter preparing for the peoples of the world: war?
22. It is perfectly obvious that in the present circumstances the first order of business should be to obtain recognition by the great Powers of the principles of peaceful coexistence, since it is primarily on these Powers that the fate of the world depends. If such great Powers as the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China and India can establish relations with each other on the basis of peaceful coexistence, then why cannot all the great Powers, including the United States, the United Kingdom and France, base their foreign relations on the same principles ? Why should not these principles form the basis of relations between the United States and the Soviet Union? Such a result would be of the utmost benefit not only to the peoples of the United States and the USSR but also to the other peoples of the world.
23. In that connexion, may I remind you of the words spoken by Mr. Khrushchev when he was interviewed by the managing editor of The New York Times on 10 May 1957. On that occasion Mr. Khrushchev said that the question of international tension was essentially a question of the relations between two countries, namely, the Soviet Union and the United States. "The case of international tension," he said, "is like a cabbage. If you take off the leaves one by one, you come to the heart." In the present instance, he continued, if you eliminated all the disputed and unsettled issues one by one, you would come to the heart of the matter, which was the controversy between the United States and the Soviet Union. The question was therefore whether the relations between the two countries would develop on a friendly basis or whether strained relations would continue to exist between them. The United States, Mr. Krushchev continued, was a highly developed capitalist country, while the USSR was a highly developed socialist country, and ideological differences would always exist between them. Yet that should not prevent them from having good-neighbourly relations. And indeed they were neighbours in the north, where Chukotka was a stone's throw from Alaska. Ideological differences should be no impediment, Mr. Khrushchev concluded, to developing normal diplomatic, cultural, economic and other contacts.
24. By approving the draft declaration concerning the peaceful coexistence of Stages, the United Nations would naturally be able not only to improve the political atmosphere which is still uneasy, but also to help put into effect an important provision of the Charter, namely, that we should "live together in peace with one another as good neighbours".
25. The bitterest opponents of the idea of peaceful coexistence try to convince us that coexistence between the two systems is virtually impossible. What arguments have they advanced? None, save the assertion that the very term "peaceful coexistence" means, to the Soviet Union, something entirely different from what it means to States with a different social system.
26. In the first place, we are not talking about the adoption of the Soviet or, let us say, the Australian interpretation of the term, "peaceful coexistence". The draft declaration, as we know, sets forth five principles of peaceful coexistence, namely: mutual respect for one another's territorial integrity and sovereignty; non-aggression; non-intervention in one another's domestic affairs on any economic, political or ideological grounds whatsoever; equality and mutual benefit; and peaceful coexistence. Thus, what we are concerned with is the tenor and trend of the foreign policies of Members of the United Nations and not the acceptance of this or that interpretation of the term "peaceful coexistence". In the second place, if anyone is himself afraid and tries to frighten others by pointing out that it is the Soviet Union which is urging the General Assembly to approve the five principles, his fears may be set at rest, for these principles are successfully being applied in their mutual relations by a large number of States which together make up a considerable portion of the world.
27. What evil or danger could there be if the General Assembly, acting on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations, were to approve the declaration on peaceful coexistence? Could this possibly prevent the development of closer international co-operation or the establishment of trust between States? Of course not.
28. The representative of Argentina, in the general debate [693rd meeting], tried to prove that peaceful coexistence was. impossible. He even quoted Lenin. But he entirely failed to understand Lenin. From Lenin's assertion that capitalism breeds war he hurriedly drew the conclusion that the peaceful coexistence of countries with different social systems was in flat contradiction to that premise. The representative of Argentina, either intentionally or accidentally, confused two different concepts — the reasons why wars break out and the possibility of peaceful coexistence.
29. Is it not a fact that the age of capitalism has been an age of ceaseless warfare? And have not two world wars been provoked by the extreme aggravation of imperialistic contradictions between the capitalist Powers? Is not the recent case of the attack on Egypt by powerful imperialist nations for the purpose of colonialist plunder proof of this? Do not events in Oman indicate the same thing?
30. But another social system is in existence now — the socialist system, which decisively rejects warlike policies. War is no longer inevitable now because the existence of socialist States — a group of States covering a large part of the earth and representing powerful forces of public opinion throughout the world, which are vocal in their opposition to war — offers ample opportunities for preventing a new war and for peaceful coexistence.
31. In this century, which has seen the development of atomic and hydrogen weapons, rocket techniques and inter-continental missiles, the peaceful coexistence of States regardless of their social structures is more necessary than ever before. Today there is no other way to peace and to the lessening of international tension than peaceful coexistence and friendly cooperation.
32. The fate of peace and peaceful international cooperation depends in large measure on whether the armaments race, and first and foremost the race for atomic and hydrogen weapons, can be stopped. Our Assembly must, unhappily, recognize that a solution to this urgent problem has not yet been found.
33. The Ukrainian people, like all the peoples of the Soviet Union and of other States, are in favour of a radical solution of the disarmament question, with the total prohibition of atomic and hydrogen weapons, the discontinuance of their manufacture and their elimination from the arsenals of States, the substantial reduction of the armed forces, armaments and military budgets of States, and the abolition of all foreign military bases in the territories of other States. The adoption of these measures would undoubtedly remove the threat of the outbreak of a new war and would create peaceful conditions of life for all peoples.
34. The western Powers have declared that they do not intend to seek a radical solution of the disarmament problem. In an endeavour to rescue the disarmament talks from the impasse they had reached, the Soviet Union on 30 April 1957 submitted a new proposal to the Sub-Committee of the Disarmament Commission [DC/112, annex 7] providing for the implementation of partial disarmament measures.
35. In the matter of atomic weapons, the Soviet Union proposed that two measures should be taken: firstly, States possessing atomic and hydrogen weapons should assume a solemn obligation not to use them for military purposes; secondly, nuclear weapons tests should be discontinued immediately,
36. But since the Western Powers at present refuse to assume a general obligation not to use nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union, as you know, proposed that such an undertaking should be given for a five-year period, at the conclusion of which the question should again come before the United Nations, if no agreement on the renunciation of the use of atomic and hydrogen weapons had been reached.
37. The Western Powers also refuse to agree to the complete and unconditional discontinuance of atomic and hydrogen weapons tests. Since the Soviet Union is anxious to clear the way for the settlement of this question, it proposes that atomic and hydrogen weapons tests should be discontinued at least temporarily, for a period of two or three years, and that the necessary control over such discontinuance should be established.
38. After refusing to assume an obligation not to use atomic weapons, the Western Powers have claimed in their statements that they are ready to stop atomic and hydrogen weapons tests. They have even declared, as did Mr. Dulles [680th meeting] and Mr. Lloyd [685th meeting] in their statements before the Assembly, that they would agree to the discontinuance of such tests for two years. In reality, however, the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom are making it impossible to reach an agreement on this question. By making the solution of the question of discontinuing nuclear weapons tests conditional on the settlement of other disarmament questions such as the reduction of armed forces and armaments, the cessation of the production of fissionable materials for military purposes, the establishment of a system of aerial inspection and other measures on which, as a result of the position adopted by the Western Powers, there is a considerable divergence of views, the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries are preventing the settlement of this question.
39. In the matter of the reduction of armed forces, armaments and military budgets, the Western Powers are also adopting an attitude which betrays the lack of any desire on their part to come to an agreement on these questions. By rejecting tire Soviet proposal for the reduction of the armed forces of the United States, the USSR and China to 1,500,000 men and of the United Kingdom and France to 650,000 men, which they had themselves proposed at one time, the Western Powers have revealed that they are not genuinely interested in any reduction of their armed forces. What they are offering in their proposal of 29 August 1957, [DC/113, annex 5], which they have been praising loud and long as a realistic proposal likely to lead to the termination of the armaments race, is in fact nothing but a repetition of their old and obviously inadequate proposals. They make all further reductions conditional upon the settlement of a number of political problems, and first and foremost on the unification of Germany, on conditions laid down by revisionist circles in Western Germany.
40. By linking the attainment of an agreement on disarmament to a political settlement, the Western Powers have brought both the disarmament question and the settlement of these political issues to an impasse. And what of the results? There have been none. In fact, the monopolies in the United States and the other NATO countries have no need of results, because to them the armaments race and international tension mean good business from which they can make fabulous profits. We may well ask whether the Western Powers are really interested in disarmament or whether merely talking about disarmament is enough for them.
41. Since it is hardly possible for anyone openly to oppose disarmament nowadays, the NATO countries think up every possible excuse to prevent a constructive agreement on disarmament. One example of this approach to the settlement of the disarmament problem is the statement made by Mr. Lloyd on 24 September [685th meeting]. Instead of making any practical proposals for the prohibition of atomic and hydrogen weapons and the substantial reduction of the armed forces and armaments of States, he asked more than thirty questions relating to the technical details of elaborating an inspection system, what was to be understood by armed forces levels, what types of military services ought to be included in the definition and so on. Furthermore he added, "until you work out the practical details you will not get an agreement”.
42. Mr. Lloyd could equally as well have asked another thousand and one questions. But, in the first place, the General Assembly is not a meeting where some ask questions and others answer them and, in the second place, no country, not even the United Kingdom, can, by juggling with questions, justify the armaments race and the testing of nuclear weapons.
43. Of course we have no objection to working out the precise details involved in the drafting of a disarmament agreement, but we are opposed to the substitution of questions of a secondary and technical nature for the main disarmament questions, which Mr. Lloyd is trying to force on us. Before we embark on a discussion of all the technical details, we must reach agreement on the main disarmament questions — the reduction of the armed forces and armaments of States, the reduction of military budgets, the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons and the discontinuance of nuclear weapons tests. But it is precisely to this that the Western Powers, and with them Mr. Lloyd, object.
44. If the Western Powers do not want this but propose instead that we should concern ourselves with the technical aspects of the disarmament question, then they are giving themselves away completely; they are proposing a method of dealing with disarmament questions which will lead, not to their speedier settlement, but to procrastination. If we were to agree to that, it would mean postponing the settlement of the disarmament question indefinitely.
45. The Ukrainian delegation believes that the proposals placed before the General Assembly by the Soviet Union are entirely in the interests of the peace and security of all peoples. Our delegation supports these proposals, which are a step forward in the direction of halting the armaments race and removing the threat of a new war. We believe that the carrying out of the measures of disarmament provided for in the Soviet proposals would be of paramount importance in reducing international tension and improving the entire international atmosphere, and that it would open the way to a radical settlement of the disarmament problem and the strengthening of peace throughout the world. We appeal to all representatives in the Assembly to peruse these proposals carefully and to support them.
46. The General Assembly has before it at this session many other important questions, and the peoples of the world expect it to find a just solution for them. In this connexion, I should like once again to draw attention briefly to the situation in the Near and Middle East.
47. An atmosphere of extreme tension has been created in that region as a result of United States interference in the internal affairs of the Arab States. Under cover of the so-called Dulles-Eisenhower doctrine, there is a growing threat of the use of armed force against peoples and Governments pursuing an independent foreign policy of their own choice. After Egypt, the threats are now directed against Syria. Syria, the adventurers say, is in danger of succumbing to communism, and is itself a threat to its neighbours. This is not a net: method on the part of colonizers. As soon as they come up against a liberation movement which is not afraid to speak the language of national dignity, they begin to shout about the danger of communism.
48. The Arab States themselves, Syria's neighbours, reject this arrant nonsense. And they undoubtedly know better than the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom whether or not there is any danger threatening them. This fact, however, does not embarrass certain representatives, who are perfectly willing to use the forum of the United Nations to try to sow mistrust of the Soviet Union's policy in the Near and Middle East. That, in particular, was what Mr. Lloyd tried to do when, after reading extracts, as he put it, from the records of Soviet broadcasts and statements in the Soviet Press, he affected to discover in them appeals for the overthrow of the Governments of countries in the Near and Middle East, including even Iran, a neighbour of the Soviet Union.
49. But it is obvious that Mr. Lloyd's sources of information have been misleading him. Neither in Soviet foreign broadcasts nor in the Soviet Press have there been or could there be unfriendly statements or appeals against other Governments or States. On the contrary, in these broadcasts, as in the Soviet Press, stress is constantly laid on the desire for co-operation and mutual understanding with other countries. And it is no accident that the head of the Iranian delegation, who spoke after Mr. Lloyd, stressed the importance of the happy growth of friendly relations between Iran and the Soviet Union in recent years.
50. The Ukraine, which is in close proximity to the eastern Mediterranean, cannot be indifferent to the recurrent outbreaks of tension in the Middle East. We are naturally concerned that the situation in the area should be stabilized on the basis of respect by all Members of the United Nations, and especially the great Powers, of the aspirations of the Arab peoples for national independence, sovereignty and freedom.
51. The twelfth session of the General Assembly has convened in an atmosphere somewhat more favourable than the atmosphere last autumn. But international tension is far from being eliminated and this gives rise to serious concern. The lofty Purposes and Principles of the Charter lay upon all of us an obligation to make our contribution to the task of improving the world situation. The peoples will judge the work of this session by the success with which the Assembly acquits itself of this task.