Khrushchev in New York

i I - , ; - fL\

IN NEWYORK

A documentary record of PJikita S. Khrushchev's
trip to New York, September 19th to October
13th, I960, including all his speeches and
proposals to the United Nations and major
addresses and news conferences.

CROSSCURRENTS PRESS

NEW YORK

xmi *******

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PUBLISHED BY CROSSCURRENTS PRESS, INC.

NEW YORK, 1960
ALL EIGHTS RESERVED

A copy of this material has been filed with the Department of
Justice where the registration statement of Crosscurrents Press, Inc.,
156 Fifth Avenue, New York 10, N.Y., as a publishing representative
of Mezhdunarodkaya Kniga, Moscow, is available for inspection.
[Registration does not indicate approval or disapproval of this material
by the United States Government.

Page

i "i i' word e

■ o

\ 1 1 1 v:tl in New York, September 19, 1960 7

Meeting with Fidel Castro, September 20 , , \q

Dlwirraament, Colonialism, and Other International

Problems. Statement in the General Debate at the

Fifteenth Session of the United Nations General

Assembly, September 23 , ij

1 Umientof the USSR Government on Disarmament,
-Submitted for Consideration of the United Nations
< General Assembly, September 23 53

1 l i. Provisions of a Treaty on General and Complete

I lisarmament, September 23 72

tin l.u;ii.ion on Granting Independence to Colonial

( inun tries and Peoples, September 23 gj

\n American Antique Dealer Presents Khrushchev with a

Peace Pipe, September 23 95

. Conference at Glen Cove, September 24 97

■ i< n ■■ < inference at Glen Cove (II) , September 25 103

■I" ' - It at Cyrus Eaton Luncheon, September 26 107

1 <> President of UN General Assembly, September 26 . . .115

''»ing Representation of the People's Republic of

I Uiina in the United Nations. Speech at the UN

I leneral Assembly, October 1 1 jg

1 ■ - lily on the Question of the Structure of UN Governing
Bodies. Speech at the UN General Assembly, October 3 .127

ph to Letter and Draft Resolution Received from the
Heads of Government of Ghana, India, Indonesia, the
' I m led Arab Republic and Yugoslavia, October 3 139

860504

Meeting with Members of United Nations Journalists

Association, October 7 144

Television Interview with David Susskind, October 9 161

On the Procedure for Discussing the Disarmament Question.

Speech at the UN General Assembly, October 11 185

Statement for Radio Cuba, October 11 190

Reply on Disarmament. Speech at the UN General

Assembly, October 11 193

News Conference, October 11 - • • ■ -200

The Question of Granting Independence to Colonial
Countries and Peoples. Speech at the UN General
Assembly, October 12 . ... .4)1

Remarks on the Colonial Question. Speech at the UN

General Assembly, October 12 ^ Utt

Reply on the Colonial Question. Speech at the UN General

Assembly, October 12 ^ uy

Speech at Dinner for Delegations of New UN Members,

October 12 - 214

Further Remarks on the Colonial Question. Speech at the

UN General Assembly, October 13 - - 218

The Threat to Universal Peace. Speech at the UN General

Assembly, October 13 22 °

A Reply on the Question of. Aggression. Speech at the UN

General Assembly, October 13 224

Departure from New York, October 13 239

Speech on Return to Moscow, October 20 242

FOREWORD

Under the title khrushchev in new york, the publisher is
i risking available all the important statements made by Nikita S.
Khrushchev, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR,
during his stay in New York, September 19 to October 13, 1960,
.ii which time he was Chairman of the Soviet delegation to the
fifteenth Session of the United Nations General Assembly. The
following documents are included: a complete collection of his
I ) N statements; all Soviet proposals to the UN during this period;
Other major addresses and news conferences in New York; a
1 ul low-up report delivered after Khrushchev's return to Moscow.

This collection comprises a full review of the present world
lituation as seen by the Government of the USSR. It is a vital
part of an unprecedented chapter in diplomatic history, written
by i lie largest gathering of world leaders ever to take place.

The release of this collection, of course, does not imply either
■ ■■■■ptance or rejection of the ideas in it. It is published in the
belief that we must be fully informed— fully informed about all
Upects of developments that have such a direct bearing on our
I mi lire and the fate of mankind.

The Publisher.

ILLUSTRATIONS; Khrushchev in meetings with the following: First page, top
-Jawaharlal Nehru (India); bottom-Cyrus Eaton (second from right,
USA). Second page, top (left to right) -Sukarno (Indonesia); Kwame
Nkrumah (Ghana); bottom- Joseph Broz Tito (Yuogslavia) ; Gamal Abdel
Nasser (UAR). Third page, top-Fidel Castro (Cuba); bottom-Sylvanus
Olympio (Togo). Fourth page, top-Ali O-par Hagi Far ah (Somalia);
bottom— Mr. and Mrs. Watson Pierce (USA).

THE LIBRARY

THE UNIVERSITY

OF TEXAS

September 19, 1960

Arrival in New York

Nikita S. Khrushchev, Chairman of the Council of Ministers
ol the USSR, and head of the Soviet delegation to the Fifteenth
Session of the General Assembly, arrived in New York on Sep-
icmber 19 on the turboelectric ship Baltika. With him were the

I ol lowing heads of delegations: N. V. Podgorny of the Ukrainian
Republic; Kirill T. Mazurov of the Byelorussian Republic; Todor
Zhivkov of Bulgaria; Janos Kadar of Hungary; and Gheorghe
Ghcorghiu-Dej of Roumania.

The Baltika arrived at Pier 73 on the East River, not far

I I "in the UN Building, at 9:17 A.M., New York time. Despite the
heavy rain, many representatives of the diplomatic corps, newsmen
.mil radio and television correspondents were gathered at the pier.

The welcoming party included Valerian A. Zorin, USSR
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs; Mikhail A. Menshikov, Soviet
Ambassador to the United States; Antonm Novotny, President of
I izechoslovakia and Wladyslaw Gomulka, head of the Polish dele-
!■. ition to the United Nations.

Also among those greeting the Chairman and his colleagues
writ' Cyrus Eaton, American industrialist, and Mrs. Eaton,

After an exchange of greetings, Khrushchev made a brief
i.i lenient to those assembled:

Statement at the Pier

This is my second visit to the United States of America. Last
•■nl was here as a guest of your country's government. This time
I have arrived in New York in a new capacity—as head of the
loviet delegation to the session of the UN General Assembly.

The thoughts and aspirations of a majority of people in all
fries are now focused on one goal— how to achieve a situation

III which lasting peace will be ensured all over the world. Natur-
ally, people turn their eyes, first of all, to two countries—the United

7

States and the Soviet Union. They do this not because our coun-
tries are selected and marked by Providence, but because they are
the strongest economically and are armed with mighty modern
weapons.

Should the differences between us continue to grow and the
statesmen o£ the two countries not try to stop the development
of poor relations between our countries, everyone realizes what a
threat that would be not only to the United States and the Soviet
Union, but also to the whole world. We understand this and
are trying to do everything to shape the development of relations
in the direction of a peaceful adjustment of outstanding problems
and the establishment of world peace.

One cannot give preference to feelings and emotions in poli-
tics. One should be guided here primarily by common sense and
make a calm assessment of all the circumstances. Such is the lot
of statesmen: they must see not only their close friends, but also
have to go where the interests of their people tell them to go;
they do it for the common cause of all nations— for the cause of
consolidating world peace.

The Soviet Union attaches very great importance to the ques-
tion of establishing lasting peace. In order to ensure such peace
it is necessary that all countries, and primarily the United States
and its allies, realize the need for agreeing on disarmament under
strict international control.

Lasting peace on earth will be established only when arma-
ments are scrapped. But if these armaments are loaded and are in
a holster on your belt, then neither one side nor the other will feel
sure that a conflict will not accidentally break out somewhere.

That is why the Government of the Soviet Union has asked
the United Nations to submit for consideration by the General
Assembly the supreme question of contemporary international
relations— the problem of general and complete disarmament under
corresponding strict international control.

The Soviet Government is gratified to note that a number
of countries have taken a very serious approach to this problem,
and that leading statesmen are heading the delegations of their
countries to the UN General Assembly.

Unfortunately, certain statesmen mere Jy speak in defense of
the United Nations and call for the consolidation of its prestige,

I mi i in reality they are against having the disarmament problem
discussed effectively at the UN General Assembly. What is this
I ml a disparagement of the role of the international organization
tailed upon to ensure peace among the nations?

That is why, frankly speaking, I felt very strange when I read
recently the statement of Secretary of State Herter alleging that
Khrushchev was coming to America for propaganda purposes, and
thai the Soviet proposal on the participation of the leading states-
men in the discussion of the disarmament problem at the General
Assembly is "absolutely absurd." What a strange sort of logic!

Disarmament is the biggest problem which has for many years
now baffled the representatives of different countries who have
been vainly discussing it in various committees at different levels.
Ami now when the Soviet Government submits a proposal to have
i he leading statesmen participate in the discussion of this ques-
tion at the General Assembly so as finally to break the deadlock
mi this issue and find a solution for it, its proposal is called prop-
Iganda. Yes, this indeed is a strange sort of logic! Those who are
Working for the solution of the problem of general and complete
disarmament fail to understand such logic. If certain statesmen
i lei hue that Khrushchev has come to the General Assembly to
I ngage in propaganda, there is nothing left for me but to be proud
"I Mich a propaganda mission in favor of peace; and without spar-
ing any effort, I shall engage in such propaganda until even the
i Iim k-skulled are convinced of the need for reaching agreement on
■ neral disarmament and thereby ensuring peace throughout the
win Id.

I do not know whether I understood correctly the recent deci-
sion of the American Government on the participation of the
I IS President, Mr. Eisenhower, in the work of the General Assem-
bly. Perhaps the United States has now revised its attitude toward
I h Assembly sessions and has also come to the conclusion that the
I IN can seriously carry on negotiations for reaching a disarmament
Agreement. Well, if it is not merely a fancy speech they mean
Inn really constructive participation in the Assembly's work, we
fi.nl .such a decision.

In conclusion I would like to express my great respect for the

Vinci Iran nation and wish it success. I have the best feeling from

tuy l.isi year's visit to the United States and my meetings with the

American people. I still remember the good impressions I received
from the talks with public figures, statesmen, representatives of
American business circles and with plain Americans— workers,
farmers and intellectuals,

I'm sure that the relations between our great countries will
improve. It is common knowledge that no matter how dark a night
might be, it is invariably followed by dawn. That is why I'm sure
that no matter how hard the evil forces try to make the atmosphere
tense in the relations between our countries, they will certainly fail.

Good times will come when there will be warm and friendly
relations between our nations and our governments. It is in pur-
suance of this aim, which will help to improve the relations among
all the countries of the world, that the Soviet Union is prepared
to continue to work insistently, honestly and purposefully. It is
in the name of the consolidation of the cause of peace and solu-
tion of complicated international problems that the Soviet delega-
tion has come to the Fifteenth Session of the UN General Assembly
in New York. Thank you for your attention.

September 20, 1960

Meeting with Fide! Castro

Shortly after noon, Premier Khrushchev arrived at the Hotel
Theresa, on 125th Street and Seventh Avenue in Harlem, to pay
a visit to Premier Fidel Castro of Cuba. Khrushchev and Castro
exchanged opinions on a number of basic international problems
and on the forthcoming session of the UN General Assembly.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Khrushchev spoke briefly
to radio and newsmen on the sidewalk in front of the Soviet
Mission to the United Nations.

The Premier expressed his gratification at the meeting with
Castro, and stated:

"I considered it my duty to pay a visit to this heroic man,
who raised the banner of struggle of the Cuban people for liberty
and independence, the struggle of the poor against the rich, and
ensured the victory of the working man. The Soviet people ardent-
ly hail this victory and wish the greatest success to the people
of Cuba and to their national leader, Fidel Castro."

10

September 23, T960

Disarmament, Colonialism, and Other
International Problems

Statement in the General Debate at the Fifteenth Session of the
United Nations General Assembly

MR. PRESIDENT,
ESTEEMED DELEGATES:

It is my belief that everyone who comes to this rostrum and
casts a glance at this hall is aware that he is addressing a very
distinguished and responsible assembly.

There is no more responsible gathering of representatives of
.states than this one should be. Not for nothing is it called the
General Assembly of the United Nations. There is no need for me
to decipher the meaning of the name our organization bears. I
would just like to stress two words out of several others: these are
United Nations. Many nations are represented in this hall and they
.should be united not just by the walls of this hall, but by the
< ommon lofty interests of mankind.

Today there are gathered here to discuss major international
issues the representatives of now almost a hundred states. Soon we
will have amongst us the delegates of new members of the United
Nations Organization, and the walls of this hall will, as it were,
recede and it will house an even greater number of lands and
countries. We must, all of us, welcome this development because
wv want truly all states to be represented in the United Nations.

It is natural that our thoughts are now centered around what
.imitates and alarms mankind. Perhaps it is precisely here that the
world is seen in all its diversity and, of course, in all its contra-
il id ions. It has fallen to our lot to live in the most turbulent but
It the same time in the most wonderful time of man's development,
,ni(l the men and women of the future will envy us.

Much of what but very recently seemed to some to be im-

11

mutable and eternal has crumbled because it has outlived its time.
The new, more progressive, more equitable has established itself.
Our epoch is one of the rapid emergence of new forms of the
existence of human society, of an unprecedented upsurge to dom-
ination over the forces of nature, o£ an unparalleled upsurge to
a more progressive social order. But though we live in the twentieth
century it still bears traces of past ages, and more than that, the
remnants of barbarism. One of the chief features of this epoch
and its very essence is, however, the awakening of the erstwhile
backward, downtrodden, and oppressed peoples.

Ours is the age of the struggle for freedom when the peoples
are shaking the foreign yoke off their shoulders. The peoples want
a worthy life and are fighting for it.

The victory has been won already in many countries and in
many lands. Can we relax, however? We know indeed, that tens
of millions of people are still languishing in colonial bondage,
and are experiencing cruel deprivations.

This is taking place at a time known for its great and prom-
ising scientific discoveries. The mind and the hands of man have
created a space ship that circles the earth. Man is already capable
of sending human beings far beyond our planet. We have split
the atom and are penetrating the albumin cell. We are moving
on land and above land with astonishing speed, and the vistas of
our knowledge are so broad that we ourselves are surprised.

It may seem that everything in our world is perfect. But at
the same time who can say that this world of ours is already com-
pletely and well arranged, that in it there is no poverty and
deprivation. It is worthwhile pondering once again over the fact
that, according to United Nations statistics, hundreds of millions
of people on different continents are eking out a hungry and
miserable existence. Our world is not free from the feeling of
alarm for the future, it sees the danger inherent in the division
into military groupings and in the ever growing race of nuclear
armaments. The great achievements of man's genius can be used to
the benefit or to the detriment of mankind. Such is the difficult
choice that faces us.

Every thinking individual will contemplate the question of
what scientific progress is giving the people, what the great twenti-
eth century is giving them. Some justly say that it has opened up

12

before the world new horizons, limitless possibilities for creating
an abundance of material benefits and for the comprehensive satis-
faction of man's requirements. Others are no less justified in
pointing to the tremendous danger in that the achievements of
science and technology might serve not these noble goals but, in
i he first instance, the manufacture of horrifying means of extermi-
nation. These means of extermination are today inactive. But they
arc after all manufactured in order to become active.

This argument between the optimists and the pessimists re-
llects our present-day reality. The main content of this reality is
I he struggle between two tendencies, two lines in international
relationships. Naturally, I am not touching upon the differences
in the social systems since these are questions pertaining to the
domestic life of the peoples and states, and can and must be re-
solved by them alone.

This dispute-filled and complicated line of international re-
lationships came into being neither today, nor yesterday. Two
points of view regarding world developments plainly opposed one
another as early as in the first post-war years. One line aimed at
an international detente, at ending the arms race, at the develop-
ment of international cooperation, and the exclusion of war from
(lie life of society. What a noble and wonderful line this is! It is,
indeed, in the name of the triumph of justice that man lives on
l lie earth.

There is, however, a second line, and we have no right to
pass over it in silence. This is a line aimed at fanning the "cold
war." It leads to an unchecked build-up of armaments, to the
destruction of all the foundations of international cooperation
with all the ensuing dangerous consequences.

Two lines in international relationships have been in contest
for a long time. But if in elementary geometry parallel lines can
never meet, in international affairs these lines may collide. And
«his would be a fearful moment. Just ten or fifteen years ago hardly
anyone could foresee the outcome of the struggle between these
(wo lines in international policies.

In 1960, however, a year in which you and I are living, only
I he blind will not see the way in which the belief in the necessity
* if preserving peace is ever more definitely and plainly taking root
in the minds of the majority of nations.

13

The peoples of all countries, the workers and peasants, the
intellectuals, and a part of the bourgeoisie, except for a handful
of militarists and monopolists, want not war but peace and peace
alone. And if, therefore, the nations wage an active struggle in
order to tie the hands of the militarist monopolist quarters, peace
can be ensured.

It cannot indeed be otherwise, for life cannot be squeezed
into simple geometrical formulas, since life itself relies on the
genuine power of the peaceable states, on the ardent sympathy
and support of the overwhelming majority of mankind.

It is precisely in the name of the victory of the cause of
peace and tranquility, for the sake of service to the cause of
peace and security of the nations that the United Nations was
created, and we would like to hope that the decisions that will
be elaborated by this session of the United Nations General As-
sembly will bring us all closer to the achievement of the goal of
all mankind— peace and justice.

There exist no more lofty goals than those that face the
United Nations. It can take extremely important decisions in the
field of preventing the outbreak of a new war, safeguarding the
legitimate rights and security of all the nations, it can promote
the establishment of fruitful international cooperation.

Evidence of how serious are the problems submitted for con-
sideration by this session, evidence of how acute they have become
is provided by the fact that a number of states are represented by
statesmen holding leading positions in their countries.

Esteemed delegates, we have embarked upon consideration of
the problems that today agitate all the nations. The possibilities
of the United Nations have now broadened, and the greater is the
responsibility vested in it. I have already referred to the fact that
the United Nations has been augmented by a large group of young
independent African states. I am happy to have this opportunity
to welcome ardently, sincerely and cordially the states recently
granted United Nations membership, and to convey to them wishes
of wellbeing and prosperity on behalf of the Soviet people.

The road traversed by the representatives of these states was
not easy. The peoples of these countries sustained oppression, de-
privation, and sufferings. They have come to us after a stubborn
struggle for their independence and freedom, and all the more

14

cordially do we welcome them today. We say to them that they
h;ive taken their legitimate and rightful seats as members of the
United Nationsl

The countries that have cast off the burden of colonialism
are a huge and active peace force. From now on the young states
of Africa and the Mediterranean will also make their outstanding
<ontribution to the solution of the important and complicated
problems, facing the United Nations.

1. The Policy of Preparing War and Violating the Sover-
eign Rights of the Notions Must Be Condemned and
Halted

A year ago I already had the honour of speaking from this
lofty rostrum. That was a time when highly promising prospects
for the invigoration of the international atmosphere had opened
ii]) before mankind. Contacts between responsible statesmen from
various countries of the world were expanding. The General As-
lembly adopted a resolution on general and complete disarmament.
The Ten Nation Disarmament Committee began its work. Agree-
ment was reached on a Summit Conference. Certain progress was
made in the talks on the discontinuance of atomic and hydrogen
weapons tests. All this instilled great hopes into the hearts of
people in all countries.

No one can dispute the fact that the Soviet Union has never
ipared any effort to make international relations continue to
develop further in this gratifying direction. However, the sinister
forces who profit by maintaining international tension cling hard
to their positions. These are a small handful of people, but they
.iic fairly influential and greatly affect the policies of their states.
No small effort should, therefore, be exerted to crush their resist-
ance. Hardly does the policy of an international detente start to
yield appreciable fruits when they immediately launch extreme
measures so that the nations should not feel any relief, they go
all out in order again and again to force the world back to dark
limes, to aggravate international tension still further.

We come up against a dangerous manifestation of the activi-
ties of these forces last spring when the aircraft of one of the

15

largest of the United Nations member states, namely the United
States, perfidiously invaded the air space of the Soviet Union and
other states. Moreover, the United States has promoted such viola-
tion of international law into a principle of deliberately pursued
state policy.

The aggressive incursion o£ an American plane into our
country and all the subsequent actions of the United States Gov-
ernment have shown the nations that they are dealing with the
calculated policy of the United States Government which attempted
to supplant international law with piracy, and honest negotiations
between sovereign equal states with perfidy.

The whole world knows what a heavy blow this policy dealt
to the cause of alleviating international tension. In particular,
it was the cause of the breakdown of the Paris Summit Conference
which was to have considered the paramount problems of today.
Under different circumstances this conference could have laid the
foundations for sounder cooperation among states.

However, for some convinced lovers of what does not belong
to them the lessons they are taught are of no avail. They are given
a sound thrashing, but they think that all their setbacks are due
to their carelessness or to the use of inadequate facilities. And
then again they try to break into another man's house, but from
another entrance this time, and using new devices.

Something of the sort is happening with the initiators of
spy flights of American aircraft. I don't know what lessons they
drew from the U-2 incident, but exactly two months later, on July
1, they dispatched to us another military aircraft, an RB-47. This
plane carried guns and special reconnaissance equipment. The
plane penetrated our country from the direction of the Kola
Peninsula. For what purposes? In the name of what?

I believe every person of common sense understands that this
plane was not bringing us any good cargo.

Incidentally, the President of the United States, Mr. Eisen-
hower, mentioned in his speech yesterday that an RB-47 American
military aircraft was shot down by Soviet forces. I am not going
to argue about this matter. The actual state of affairs and our
position have already been explained in detail.

But, strange as it may seem, while closely following the
President's speech I did not hear him say a single word about the

16

U-2 plane which was also downed over the territory of the Soviet
Union. How can this be explained? Perhaps the President has
forgotten about this plane?

What then is the United States trying to do, in fact, by send-
ing its planes into the air space of the USSR? Does it perhaps want
to cause an incident which would be followed by rocket talk?
One plane, another plane, and, in actual fact, an incident of this
sort is staged. Or is this perhaps for the time being only a policy
of probing the strength of the other side?

Be this as it may, but one thing is absolutely plain: the provo-
cation-mongers are seeking to create an atmosphere in which the
nations would live in constant fear. If such an atmosphere satisfies
the United States Government it can in no way satisfy the Soviet
Union and the overwhelming majority of other states. We have
always striven and will strive for the ending of lawlessness in
international relations in all its manifestations!

The Soviet Union is not tendering any demands that are out
of the ordinary. We are merely striving for the observance of the
most elementary standards of intercourse between states. We merely
want the strict observance of the United Nations Charter which
excludes methods of violence, brigandry, or aggression, and de-
mands respect for the sovereign rights of all states as the basis of
stable peace on earth. Is this so very much? And is this not desired
by all honest people on earth who hold dear the destinies of peace,
the sovereignty and independence of their countries?

The allies of the United States sometimes rebuke us for
criticizing the American government too severely. But to feign
kindness, and condescendingly slap the backs of the sponsors of
international provocations would mean rendering a disservice to
the cause of peace. To fight for peace means to courageously expose
any actions which cause a war danger, whatever be their source.
This invigorates the international atmosphere very well. Con-
nivance with the provocation-mongers, lenience to them have been
shown by experience ultimately to lead to the outbreak of war.
History is familiar with not a few such examples which are un-
fortunate for the destinies of the nations.

The flights of American spy planes are instructive in another
respect too. They have demonstrated particularly graphically the
danger for peace that is constituted by the web of American raili-

17

tary bases which has enmeshed dozens of states in Europe, Asia,
Africa, and Latin America.

Like a deep source of dangerous infection in an organism
these bases destroy the normal political and economic life of
states upon which they have been imposed. They block the estab-
lishment of normal relations between these states and neighboring
countries. Indeed, what kind of normal relations can there be if
the people in these neighboring countries cannot sleep in peace,
if they are constantly overshadowed by the threat of being sub-
jected to an exterminating blow whenever the American military
take it into their heads to launch new provocations.

The United Nations cannot fail to heed the ever more insist-
ent demands of the peoples who are alarmed by the sallies of the
enemies of peace. The forms and results of the popular movement
for peace and international cooperation in various countries are
different, but its meaning, causes and aims are the same: it is a
movement of protest against the policy of war and provocations,
against the back-breaking arms race, against the foisting upon
the nations of a will that is alien and inimical to them.

There are fewer and fewer people willing to reconcile them-
selves with the present situation when any manifestation of the
free will of the peoples, any trends towards the pursuit of an
independent policy— whether on the part of Indonesia, Iraq, or
Guinea, neutral Austria, or little Iceland which is protecting her
economic interests— meet with frantic opposition and evoke thun-
der and lightning on the part of the powers grouping around
NATO, this present-day "holy alliance" of sorts which has assumed
the thankless mission of exorcising the spirit of freedom wherever
it appears on the globe.

Courageous Cuba has become the object of all kinds of at-
tacks, intrigues, and subversion, economic aggression and finally,
poorly concealed threats of intervention.

The relations of the United States with Cuba are illustrative.
All the branches of Cuba's economy before the victory of the
popular revolution in that country are known to have been dom-
inated completely by American monopolies which gained huge
profits out of the exploitation of the Cuba a workers and the
wealth of their fertile land.

Some people in the United States at times like to boast that

18

the living standards in their country are higher than those of
other countries. There is no doubt about it, the living standards
in the United States today are higher than in Cuba. But what
Es the explanation for this? Is it because the Cuban people are
less industrious or because the Cuban soil is less fertile? No, this
Is certainly not the reason. The diligence of the Cuban people
and their love for their homeland and their soil are well known.
The reason is quite different. For years the fruits of the Cuban
people's labour were used not by themselves but by the American
monopolies. After this can anyone be surprised at the fact that
(lie per capita income in Cuba was in 1958, for instance, six and
.1 half times less than it was in the United States? This speaks for
Itself eloquently.

Now a different order has come into existence in Cuba.
Having expelled dictator Batista the Cuban people have freed
ihcmselves from foreign exploitation, and have taken their fate
inio their own hands firmly declaring to the United States mono-
I '"lists: "No more plundering of our country. We ourselves shall
utilize the wealth of our labour and our landl"

Thus, Cuba's purported guilt consists in that the freedom-
loving and brave Cuban people wanted to live an independent life.
The United Nations must do all it can to remove from Cuba the
overhanging threat of interference from outside. To allow matters
to he brought to a new Guatemala would mean to give free rein
<<• events whose consequences hardly anyone can now foresee.

Stormy developments have flared up on the African continent.
The young Republic of the Congo on the third day after the
proclamation of her independence fell victim to aggression. Before
the eyes of the whole world the Belgian Government attempted to
deprive that country of its freedom, to take back what the Con-
golese people have been selflessly fighting for over decades. An
International crisis developed which brought back to everyone's
memory the troubled days of autumn 1956; the days of the Suez
< i isis. As was the case then, an independent African state fell vic-
tim to unprovoked aggression, the universally recognized principles
dI" relations among states were flouted, a situation w r as created
which is fraught with a grave threat to peace not only in Africa.

How ridiculous and absurd are the arguments with which
the aggressors have been covering up their actions. They alleged

19

that "chaos" would reign in the Congo if the Belgian troops had
not marched in, that the Congolese people had not yet matured
for independent nationhood. Who could believe these allegations?
The Africans have a saying which runs: "To cheat the people is
just the same as to try to wrap fire in paper." Armed aggression
against the Congo has been condemned by the whole of Africa,
by world-wide public opinion.

And of course, it was not concern for the life of Belgian
citizens in the Congo but the far more tangible interests of the
all-powerful monopolies which have taken root on Congolese land
that prompted the Belgian Government to undertake the reckless
attempt to bring the people of this young state to their knees, to
tear away by force its richest province of Katanga. Raw materials
for nuclear weapons— uranium, cobalt, titanium, cheap labour— that
is what the monopolists are afraid of losing in the Congo. This
is what constitutes the genuine basis of their conspiracy against
the Congo the strings of which extend from Brussels to the capi-
tals of other major NATO powers.

When the colonialists realized that the government of the
Republic of the Congo which was legally elected and enjoyed the
confidence of the Parliament had embarked upon the path of a
firm independent policy, and set itself the task of working for the
interests of the Congolese people, every means was employed by
the colonialists to bring down this government. The colonialists
decided to get a puppet government created which, posing as an
"independent" government, would; in fact, be obedient to the will
of the colonizers.

The colonialists tried to bring this about by crude methods
and direct interference, as they always do in such cases. Unfor-
tunately, in the case of the Congo they have teen doing this
unseemly work through the United Nations Secretary-General, Mr.
Hammarskjold and his staff.

This is shameful. The United Nations forces which were sent
at the request of the legal government to help that government
have taken over the airports and the radio station, disorganized
the life of the state and paralyzed the activities of the legitimate
government. The UN troops created conditions for the treacherous
acts of the Katanga puppet where forces were rallied and mobi-

20

lized against the government of Patrice Lumumba which was elect-
ed in conformity with all the rules of democratic procedure.

The colonialists and their servitors say that Lumumba is a
communist. Lumumba is certainly no communist but he is a patriot
of his country and honestly serves his own people in their struggle
for liberation from the colonial yoke.

But you, Messrs. colonialists, by your actions are helping the
peoples of the colonial countries to eliminate the screen by which
you blind the people, obscure their consciousness, spreading vari-
ous versions about communists. All the peoples will understand—
and they will understand it soon— that communists, that a com-
munist party, is a party which really expresses the will of the
peoples in their struggle for freedom and independence.

Some organs of the US and British press, encouraged by cer-
tain forces, clamour about an alleged Soviet defeat in the Congo.

What can one say of such unwise allegations? First of all, we
did not and could not sustain any defeat in the Congo because
(here neither were nor could there have been any troops of ours
or any interference on our part in the internal affairs of the Congo.

It has been and will always be our stand that the peoples
of Africa, like those of other continents, striving for their libera-
tion from the colonial yoke, should establish orders in their coun-
tries of their own will and choice.

Secondly, we have always opposed and will oppose any inter-
ference by imperialists in the internal affairs of the countries
liberating themselves from colonial dependence, as well as such
unworthy methods as were used in the Congo,

The colonialists seek to dissolve the legitimate government
and Parliament with the help of the countries which call them-
selves the free world, they want to celebrate their victory. But it is
as yet too early for them to rejoice for it is a Pyrrhic victory. By
their pseu do- victory the colonialists are helping to remove the
scales from the eyes of the colonial peoples who see more and
more clearly that, while granting independence in form, the
colonialists do their utmost to maintain colonial oppression.

The people will not stop half way. They will gird their forces
and act with still greater foresight realizing that the struggle for
independence is a hard one, that it is necessary to overcome many

21

difficulties on the way to freedom, to learn to distinguish true
friends from enemies.

The struggle started by the Congolese people cannot be
stopped. It can be slowed down and hampered. But it is with
all the greater force that this struggle will break out and then
the people, having overcome all difficulties, will gain full freedom.

The Soviet government has welcomed and is welcoming now
the struggle of the colonial peoples for independence and will do
its utmost to render moral support and material assistance to the
colonial peoples in their just struggle.

The United Nations should demand the re-establishment of
order in the Congo so that the Parliament legally elected by the
Congolese people can function, so that conditions be created for
the normal activities of the legitimate government of the Congo
which is headed by Mr. Lumumba and which has and is enjoying
the confidence of the Congolese people.

The Soviet Government has placed the Congo question on the
agenda of the fifteenth session of the General Assembly. The
Assembly should give a rebuff to the colonialists and their stooges
and call Mr, Hammarskjold to order so that he should not abuse
his position as Secretary General and should discharge his duties
in strict conformity with the provisions of the United Nations
Charter and the decisions of the Security Council.

It is the opinion of the Soviet Government that a decision
should be taken that only the troops of the countries of Africa
and Asia should be left in the Congo, those troops remaining there
only with the consent of the legally elected Congolese government
of Mr. Lumumba and being used only at the discretion of this
government in the interests of ensuring the normal functioning
of the legitimate government and Parliament of the Congo Re-
public.

All states which in deeds and not in words want to see the
Congo free and independent should refrain from any action which
could lead to an infringement of the territorial integrity and
independence of the Republic of the Congo.

We are convinced that the Congolese people themselves will
cope with the present difficulties and will .-succeed in establish-
ing order in their country.

We are all witnesses of the fact that many nations are expe-

22

riencing unceasing hostile acts, brutal pressure on the part of a
certain group of states which seek to ignore the legitimate interests
and rights of other countries. This fills the international atmos-
phere with acute conflicts the danger of which is enhanced by
the mounting arms race.

It is quite evident that international relations cannot con-
tinue to develop on this basis since this would mean sliding
headlong towards a precipice. It is the sacred duty of the United
Nations to come out in defense of the sovereign rights of states,
for the restoration of a firm legal basis in international relations,
and for the halting of the arms race.

Unfortunately, the policy of violating the integral rights of
the peoples is still to be felt in the United Nations itself. Just
take the question of the representation in the United Nations of
the great People's China. To block the restoration of the legiti-
mate rights of the People's Republic of China in the United
Nations only because the socialist order in that country is not to
the liking of the ruling quarters of certain Western countries, and,
first and foremost, the United States, means to ignore reality, not
to desire an easing of international tension and to sacrifice the
interests of consolidating international peace and the development
of international cooperation for the sake of the narrow political
designs of a small group of states. Such a situation is harmful
for the cause of peace and humiliating for the United Nations.

This is also attested to by the history of the question of the
admission of the Mongolian People's Republic to United Nations'
membership. As you know, this question has been discussed time
and again for many years. The Mongolian People's Republic,
however, up to now has not been admitted to the United Nations.
We believe that it is high time to settle this question and admit
the Mongolian People's Republic to the United Nations so that
it can participate on an equal footing with the other sovereign
states in the discussion and solution of vital international problems.

By its very nature and by its destiny the United Nations
should have the status of a universal world organization. The
existence of the United Nations would lose sense if it were to
become a one-sided organization and were to lower itself to the
position of an errand boy of this or that military alignment.

23

II. The Colonial Regime Must Be Completely and Finally
Eliminated

Fellow delegates:

The process taking place for all to see of the emancipation
and regeneration to independent life of nations which for ages
were kept away by the colonialists from the highroad of mankind's
development is a great hallmark of our epoch. In fifteen years
alone about one and a half billion people, in other words, half the
world's population, cast off the shackles of the colonial yoke.
Dozens of new national states emerged from the ruins of the old
colonial empires.

A new period has started in the history of mankind when the
nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America are beginning to take
an active part in the determination of the destinies of the whole
world together with the nations of Europe and North America,
Without recognition of this immutable fact there can be no re-
alistic foreign policy, no policy marching in step with the demands
of the times and conforming to the peace-loving aspirations of
the peoples.

Is the solution of major international problems conceivable
today without the participation of the People's Republic of China?
Can these problems be resolved without the participation of India,
Indonesia, Burma, Ceylon, the United Arab Republic, Iraq, Gha-
na, Guinea and other states? Let anyone who thinks otherwise
try here, within the United Nations, to ignore the opinion and
the votes of the representatives of the states of Asia, Africa, and
Latin America. True, in some Western countries the appearance
in the United Nations of new Asian and African states causes fear.

More than that, opinions have begun to circulate on ways to
limit the further flow of newly emerging states into the United
Nations.

As for the Soviet Union, I shall say frankly that we are quite
content with the admission of so many new states to the United
Nations. We have always opposed and will continue to oppose
any curtailment of the rights of nations that have won national
independence. We are at one with these states in our common
desire to preserve and strengthen peace, to create on our planet
conditions for peaceful coexistence and cooperation between coun-

24

iries irrespective of their state and social systems, as is required
by the peaceable principles proclaimed by the Bandung Con-
ference of Asian and African countries. Facts testify that the
I i Iteration of nations and peoples that had been under colonial
domination leads to the invigoration of international relations, to
the expansion of international cooperation, to the consolidation
of universal peace.

The peoples of the new states have shown convincingly that
(hey are not only able to get by without control and tutelage on
(he part of the colonial powers, and can govern themselves but
that they are active creators of a new life and incomparably wiser
;idminis trators and more careful masters of their property, of the
wealth of their country than the colonial authorities.

Early this year I visited India, Indonesia, Burma and Afghan-
istan. I must say that I was much impressed by the great success
in raising the level of the national economy and culture. In those
countries we saw large new building projects, dams and roads
under construction, the buildings of new universities and institutes.

Can such a picture be seen in the colonies? Such things do not
and cannot exist there. There the complete arbitrary rule of the
foreigners reigns supreme. Peoples of the colonial countries have
not only been deprived of the right to independence and self-
government, but their national and human feelings and dignity
are insulted and flouted at every step. The foreign monopolies
pump out of the colonies all that is of value, they barbarically
plunder the wealth by means of merciless exploitation.

Due to the rule of colonialists the economy of the colonies
is extremely backward in its development while the working popu-
lation leads a miserable existence. It is precisely in the colonies
that the longest working day is to be found and at the same time
the lowest national income, the lowest wages, the highest per-
centage of illiteracy, the lowest life span and the highest mor-
tality rate.

There is no need here to describe in detail the impoverished
state of over 100,000,000 human beings deprived of their rights
who are still languishing under colonial bondage. The archives
of the United Nations contain more than enough reports of vari-
ous United Nations commissions, petitions and complaints which
characterize the condition of the population of those countries

25

and territories where the colonial regime of government is still
preserved under various names. These documents are an indictment
of the ignominious system of colonialism. What is happening in
those countries and regions justly evokes profound indignation
and revulsion among all honest people on earth. But even in the
remaining colonies the time of the serene rule of the foreign
oppressors has passed. Though the order in the colonies remains
as heretofore the people there are becoming different. They are
becoming ever more conscious of their condition and are resolutely
refusing to bear the colonial yoke. And when the peoples rise up
to struggle for their freedom, for a better life, no force in the
world can stop this mighty movement.

Look what is happening in the colonies today. Africa is
boiling and swirling like a volcano. The Algerian people have
been waging a heroic selfless struggle for national independence
for about six years. Ever greater resolve is being manifested in the
struggle for their rights by the peoples of Kenya, Tanganyika,
Uganda, Ruanda-Urundi, Angola, Mozambique, Northern Rho-
desia, Southern Rhodesia, Sierra Leone, South West Africa, Zan-
zibar, as well as West Irian, Puerto Rico, and many other colonies.

It should be clear to all that the struggle of the peoples for
their liberation cannot be checked by any means or force, because
this is a great historic process which is going on with ever grow-
ing irreversible force. The domination of this or that state over
another can be prolonged by a year or two but, just as in the
past the bourgeois system came to replace feudalism, and just as
today the socialist system is replacing capitalism, the slavery of
colonialism will yield to freedom. Such are the laws of human
development and only adventurers can expect that mountains of
corpses and millions of victims would stop the arrival of a radiant
future.

Colonialism should be done away with for it brings misfor-
tunes and suffering not only to the peoples of enslaved countries.
Misfortunes and suffering, tears and privation also fall upon the
shoulders of the peoples of the home countries. Who can say that
French mothers whose children are dying in the fields of Algeria
are less unfortunate than the Algerian motjfcrs who bury their
sons in their own land.

Now when the blood of colonial peoples is being shed one

cannot turn away or close one's eyes to this bloodshed, and pre-
tend that peace reigns supreme. What kind of peace is this when
savage wars are raging, wars which at that are unequal from the
point of view of the conditions the combatants find themselves in.
The troops of the colonial powers are armed to the teeth with all
modern means of killing people, while the peoples selflessly fight-
ing for their liberation are armed with obsolete primitive weapons.
But whatever wars of extermination the colonialists should wage
the peoples fighting for their liberation will be victorious.

There are countries where sympathies toward the struggle of
oppressed peoples are great but they are rather afraid to spoil
their relations with colonial powers and therefore do not raise
their voice against wars of extermination and put up with colo-
nialism. Others are themselves colonialists and there is nothing to
be expected from them. The colonialist policy with all its atrocities
is supported by the allies of the colonial powers in aggressive
military blocs.

The overwhelming majority of mankind has long since ar-
rived at its final verdict regarding the colonial regime.

The Soviet Union faithful to the policy of peace and support
to the struggle of oppressed peoples for their national indepen-
dence which was proclaimed by V. I. Lenin, the founder of the
Soviet state, is urging the United Nations to raise its voice in
defense of the just cause of liberating the colonies, and to under-
take prompt action towards the complete elimination of the co-
lonial regime of administration.

Complete and final elimination of the colonial regime in all
its forms and manifestations has been prompted by the entire
course of world history in the last decades. This regime is doomed
and its death is a matter of time. Practically the question now is
whether the burial of the colonial regime will be quiet or whether
it will be accompanied by dangerous gambles by the supporters
of colonialism who clutch at extreme measures. The events in
the Congo are a fresh reminder of existing dangers.

The United Nations called upon to serve the strengthening
of peace and security of nations is duty bound to do its utmost
in order not to allow new flareups of military conflicts in Asia,
Africa and Latin America arising out of the clash between the
colonial powers and the peoples fighting for their freedom and

27

independence. Is it necessary to prove that any great power can
be involved in the orbit of such a conflict and then inevitably
the war, local at first, will grow into a general war, a world war?

It is not enough merely to be on the defensive against the
intrigues of the colonialists surviving one international crisis after
another. It is necessary to firmly safeguard mankind against these
intrigues, to make the world secure from colonial military adven-
tures. It is necessary to do away with colonialism once and for
all, and to throw it into the rubbish heap of history.

Who else but the United Nations should take a stand in
favour of the elimination of the colonial regime of administration
since, according to the Charter, the duty of the United Nations is
to affirm faith in the rights of man, in the dignity and value of
the human being, in the equality of rights of nations, big and
small. How can one develop friendly relations between nations
on the basis of respecting the principle of equality and self-
determination of nations which is the aim of the United Nations
and at the same time reconcile oneself to a situation where,
as a result of the predatory policy of powers strong militarily and
economically many a nation of Asia and Africa can win the right
to determine its own fate only at the price of tremendous suf-
ferings and sacrifices, only by armed struggle against oppressors.
How can one "achieve international cooperation in solving inter-
national problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humani-
tarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for
human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without dis-
tinction as to race, sex, language, or religion"— you will probably
have noticed that I was quoting Article I, paragraph 3 of the
aims and objects of the UN Charter,— and at the same time shut
one's eyes upon such a shameful phenomenon of present-day
human society as is the colonial regime.

Is it not time to mount the final offensive against colonialism
as a century or more ago civilized mankind launched an of-
fensive against the slave trade and slave-driving, and buried them,
thus opening up ample scope not only for the political but also for
the economic development of society.

The Soviet Government believes that the time has come to
raise the question of the complete and final elimination of the

28

colonial regime of administration in all its forms and shapes so
as to do away with this shame, this barbarism and savagery.

When I was preparing my statement, I knew that not all the
participants of the General Assembly would welcome the Soviet
Union's proposals, because along with the representatives of the
free and independent states there are sitting here representatives
of colonial powers as well. And they are hardly likely to welcome
our freedom-loving proposals.

Firmly adhering to the principle that the United Nations is
the centre for coordinating the actions of nations in achieving the
universal aims proclaimed in its Charter the Soviet Government
submits for consideration by this session of the General Assembly
a draft Declaration in which the following demands are solemnly
proclaimed:

1. To grant immediately to all colonial countries, trusteeship
territories and other non-self-governing territories complete inde-
pendence and freedom in the building up of their own national
states in conformity with the freely expressed will and desire of
their peoples. The colonial regime, colonial administration in all
its forms should be abolished completely so as to make it possible
for the peoples of such territories to determine their destiny and
form of government.

2. To eliminate likewise all strongholds of colonialism in the
shape of possessions and leasehold areas on the territories of other
states.

3. The governments of all countries are called upon to ob-
serve strictly and consistently the provisions of the United Nations
Charter and of this Declaration relating to equality and respect
for sovereign rights and territorial integrity of all states without
exception allowing no manifestations of colonialism, no exclusive
rights or advantages for some states to the prejudice of other states.

Being convinced that the complete elimination of the re-
gime of colonial administration will be a noble act of genuine
humaneness, a great stride forward on the way of civilization and
progress we ardently urge all governments represented in the
United Nations to support the provisions of this Declaration.

The draft Declaration prepared by the Soviet Government
and submitted for your attention outlines in detail the considera-
tions by which we were guided in raising this question at the

29

General Assembly. We request that this draft Declaration be cir-
culated as an official document of the UN General Assembly.

In this statement made in the general debate I should also
like to make the following points.

The adoption by the United Nations of measures for the
complete elimination of the colonial regime would not only create
favorable conditions for localizing and cooling the existing caul-
drons of military danger where an armed struggle between the
colonialists and the peoples fighting for their independence is
being waged, but would also greatly diminish the possibility of new
military conflicts between states in these areas of the world. The
peoples of the countries who are now suffering from humiliations
brought about by foreign domination would gain a clear prospect
of peaceful liberation from the foreign yoke, and the states cling-
ing to their colonial possessions would be held responsible to the
United Nations, to world public opinion for the implementa-
tion of the provisions of the proposed Declaration. Of course, such
a prospect will become reality only in the event that the colonial
powers do not evade the implementation of the UN decisions.

No one may forget what great changes the elimination of the
colonial regime would institute in the life of the peoples of the
enslaved countries. This would be not only a triumph of ele-
mentary human fairness and international law which the United
Nations must strive for not in words but in deeds, but would also
unite nations, backward as a result of age-long oppression, with
the benefits of modern science, technology, culture and social prog-
ress.

It is difficult to overestimate the tremendous importance of the
elimination of the colonial regime for the entire world economy.
It is common knowledge that the economy of colonies and trustee-
ship territories is today subordinated to the vested interests of
foreign monopolies, while the industrialization of these countries
has been artificially held in check. Imagine that the situation has
changed and these countries and territories, having become inde-
pendent, obtain the possibility of extensive utilization of their
rich natural resources, of industrialization, while their populations
lead a better life. This would result in a colossal growth of the
world market's capacity which would undoubtedly exercise a favour-
able influence not only on the economic development of the coun-

30

tries of the East but on the economy of industrially developed
Western countries as well.

A positive role in overcoming the age-old backwardness of the
countries that are being liberated would be played by economic
and technical assistance under the auspices of the United. Nations
and on a bilateral basis. Of course, this will require considerable
funds. Where can they be obtained without overburdening the
population of industrially developed countries? Once again from
this rostrum I draw your attention to such a source as disarmament.

The allocation of only one tenth of the funds which the great
powers are spending for military purposes would increase the
amount of assistance to underdeveloped countries by ten billion
dollars a year. And the whole integrated construction of one of
the world's largest power systems in the Ingui area of the Congo
which is capable of making a tremendous area in Africa blossom
is estimated at five billion dollars.

It is also pertinent to recall that it is the moral duty of states
that possessed colonies in the past to return to the liberated peoples
of those countries at least a part of the values taken by them
through cruel exploitation of the population and through pillage
of the natural resources.

It could be said that it is easy for the Soviet Union to speak
for the elimination of the colonial regime since the Soviet Union
has no colonies. Yes, this is so. We have neither colonies nor capi-
tal in other countries. But there was a time when many nationali-
ties that populate our country experienced the heavy oppression
of tsarism, of the landlord bourgeois system. The conditions of
remote areas of the tsarist empire hardly differed from those
colonies because they were severely exploited by autocracy, by
capitalism. If autocracy looked upon the peoples of Central Asia,
Trans-Caucasia and other nationalities that lived in the Russian
empire as upon a source of profit, after the October revolution
when these peoples obtained complete freedom they promptly
raised their economy, culture and wellbeing.

Let us take, for instance, the Soviet Republics of Central Asia.
Now Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirghizia, Turkmenia, Tadjikistan
—all the sister republics of Central Asia have turned from back-
ward colonies of tsarist Russia into advanced industrially developed
socialist republics. During the period from 1913 to 1960 the out-

31

put of major industries increased by over 60 times. The industrial
production per capita of Kazakhstan, a backward land in the past,
equals that of Italy and its per capita power output is higher than
in Italy and is at the same level as in Japan.

Before the revolution only 7 million kilowatt-hours of elec-
tricity was produced in the territory of Central Asia and Kazakh-
stan which is 300 times less than in the whole of the Russian em-
pire, while today the annual output of power is 19 billion kilowatt
hours, that is 9 times more than in the entire pre-revolutionary
Russia.

The peoples of the Soviet Union are engaged in peaceful
creative labor for the successful implementation of the targets of
the seven year plan for the development of the USSR national
economy for 1959-1965. As a result of the realization of this plan
the total industrial output in the USSR will increase during the
seven year period approximately twofold. The power output in
the country will increase more than twofold and in Central Asia
almost threefold.

Already today the Central Asian republics' power output per
capita is about 800 kilowatt-hours a year, i.e. considerably more
than in any Latin American republic. The Soviet Central Asian
republics and Kazakhstan produce many times more power than
such neighbouring states as, for example, Turkey, which generates
95 kilowatt-hours per capita, Iran-36 kilowatt-hours, Pakistan-Il
kilowatt-hours.

The economy and culture of other relatively small nationalities
of the Soviet Union, united in autonomous republics, have im-
measurably grown. Thus, for example, the output of the major
industries of the Yakut ASSR during the period of 1913-1959 in-
creased by 53 times, the Komy ASSR-by 109 times, the Tatar
ASSR-by 147 times, the Bashkir ASSR-by 163 times.

In the family of equal socialist republics the former border
lands of pre-revolutionary Russia which were threatened with ex-
tinction from malnutrition and diseases turned into flourishing
land where the living standards have grown in the same way as
in the whole of the Soviet Union. Wages and salaries of workers
and employees there do not differ in amou%t from those in other
republics of the Soviet Union. Along with all the citizens of the

32

USSR they are provided with pensions, sick pay and other social*
benefits.

Still more striking is the success of the Soviet Union's national
republics in the development of culture. It is known, for instance,
that before the revolution the nationalities of Kazakhstan and the
Central Asian republics were almost entirely illiterate. There were
almost no people with secondary and higher education. Soviet
power has opened for all peoples broad access to education and
culture. Illiteracy of the population of Kazakhstan and the Central
Asian republics as well as illiteracy of the population of the other
republics of the USSR is now done away with and they, like the
whole of the USSR, have become republics of overall literacy.
Before the revolution in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kirghizia,
Tadjikistan and Turkmenistan there were no institutions of higher
learning— and in Kirghizia, Tadjikistan and Turkmenistan even no
technical schools— whereas last year 211 thousand students studied
in those republics in the institutions of higher learning and 176
thousand students in the technical schools and other secondary
specialized institutions. For every ten thousand citizens of these
republics there are on the average 88 students of institutions of
higher learning and 73 students of technical schools not counting
large numbers of young people who went to study beyond the
borders of their republics-to Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Kharkov,
Saratov, Novosibirsk, Tomsk and other centres of culture. I would
recall that in France there are only 40 students in institutions of
higher learning for every ten thousand citizens, in Italy-34, and
in West Germany 31, that is, almost three times less than in Soviet
Central Asia.

One of the decisive factors guaranteeing the successful develop-
ment of the economy and culture of the national republics is the
growth of skilled cadres of workers and intellectuals.

May I cite here a few figures taken from the results of the
latest census and compare them with those of the census of 1926,
the year when our economy was already completing its return to
the pre-revolutionary level. During this period the total number
of workers and employees in the national economy increased six-
fold in the Soviet Union and tenfold in Central Asia and Kazakh-
stan.

Still more considerable was the increase of skilled workers

33

and specialists. Here, for example, are the figures for some profes-
sions (in thousands of people):

Me tal workers Th e wh ole of

the USSR
Central Asia

Chemical workers The whole of
the USSR
Central Asia

Mechanics

The whole of

the USSR
Central Asia

Drivers, tractor The whole of
and combine the USSR

operators Central Asia

Engineers, techni- The whole of
cians and agrono the USSR
mists Central Asia

Teachers and The whole of

other workers of the USSR

culture and Central Asia
education

Doctors and skilled The whole of
medical personnel the USSR
Central Asia

Scientific workers

The whole of

the USSR
Central Asia

1926

993

29
44

0.23
121

3,7

22

0.8
267

9.3
486

18

199

6

M

0.36

1QKQ Times fay which numbers
9304 9

528
395

16.6

1781

155
5684

754
4683

349

3276

342

1702

147
316

26.5

18
9

72
15

42
260

943
18

38
7

19

8.5

24-
23

Tremendous success in the development of economy, culture
and science was achieved, of course, not only in the republics of
Central Asia which were particularly backward in the pre-revolu-
tionary period, but in all other Soviet republics as well. Thus,
for example, in all the Union Republics academies of science
have been established and there exist a great number of scientific
research institutes and institutions of higher learning. In all re-
publics in the years of the Soviet rule qualified cadres of the work-
ing class have been trained and the numbers of intellectuals greatly
increased.

After the Great October Socialist Revolution the bourgeoisie
of the whole world kept harping about the inevitable end of
the power of the Soviets because Russia was a country of poor
education and the working class had no specialists capable of
running the state machinery and the country's economy. Life has

34

I > roved the truth of Lenin's words that the revolution would awaken
popular initiative and that Soviet power would produce leaders
.11 id organizers from amidst the masses and that the common worker
and peasant having taken power would learn to govern the state,
would master all achievements of modern science and technology.

The tsarist government pursued in the border lands of Russia
.in essentially colonial policy which differed but little from what
can be seen today in colonial countries. Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Tadjiks
and other nationalities were scornfully called "aliens." They were
not considered as human beings and were severely exploited. Na-
tional differences, hatred and discord were stirred up between
these nationalities, and the tsarist empire was held together only
I >y bayonets and subjugation. When the peoples of Central Asia
and Trans-Caucasia were given national freedom and equal rights
with other nationalities of Russia they showed their capabilities
in the development of national economy and culture.

Did the development of our country suffer from the granting
of the right to independence and self-determination to the peoples?
Are there strife and enmity in our multinational country between
nationalities or disintegration of the state? No, such is not the
case. There neither is nor can be anything of the sort.

According to the Constitution each of our 15 Union Repub-
lics has the right to remain in the Union or leave it if it so
desires. The existence of 19 autonomous republics, 9 autonomous
regions and 10 national territories makes it possible to preserve
tin' national features and cultural originality of each people and
nationality.

Accord and an unprecedented cohesion of all nationalities

I I ive been achieved in the Soviet Union. Genuine friendship be-
tween nationalities was brought into being which all the trials of
the second world war could not shake. It was not only the national
minorities who gained from these great changes but also the Rus-
M.ins, Ukrainians, and Bielorussians— the nations comprising the
majority of the Soviet Union's population.

We are proud that on the experience of the former border
l,i mis of Russia it has been completely proved that it is possible
in! the countries of the East to do away with backwardness,
poverty, diseases, and ignorance within the life-time of one genera-
tion and to rise to the level of economically advanced countries.

35

And now may I turn to other factual examples which illus-
trate how the colonialists exercise their "civilizing mission" in the
colonies.

Upon the attainment of independence by the former colonies
the national annual per capita income according to official UN
statistics was in Indonesia only 25 US dollars, while in Holland
it was 20 times higher. In Burma this income was 36 dollars, in
India-57, that is, ten times less than in Great Britain. The national
per capita income in Belgium at the time the Congolese people
won their independence was 13 times higher than the income
of a Congolese. And, at that, in the Congo, as well as in other
colonial countries, the lion's share of this extremely low income
was taken by the colonialists.

Let us take such an important index of a country's economic
development as the output of power. At the attainment of inde-
pendence the output of power in Burma was 4 kilowatt-hours per
capita a year, in India-about 15 kilowatt-hours, in Pakistan-2
kilowatt-hours, in Egypt-about 50 kilowatt-hours while in Great
Britain in 1947 the per capita output was over 1100 kilowatt-hours.

The colonialists kept the enslaved nations in ignorance and
darkness. In 1950 the number of literate persons in Indonesia
was not higher than 15 to 20 per cent. In India even a few years
after independence had been won, when measures had already
been taken to develop the national education system the literacy
level was 16 per cent, in Pakistan it was 14 per cent. By the time
the countries of French Indo-China attained independence there
were 330 students in France for each 100 thousand citizens and 4
in Cambodia. In 1948 in Indonesia there was one doctor for 67
thousand citizens. It is not surprising that as a result of the poor
living standards and due to the lack of the necessary medical aid
the average life span in all former colonies is appallingly low in
comparison with the home countries. In a number of these coun-
tries a man lives on the average not more than 35 years which is
almost half the span in the countries that held them in colonial
enslavement. This is the heritage of the colonial system which is
yet to be overcome.

If the home states had really been guided by the interests of
the colonial peoples, if they had really rendered them assistance
about which they like to talk instead of engaging in plunder and

36

1

exploitation, the peoples of the colonies and the home countries
would have developed equally and would not have differed so
shikingly in the development of the national economy, culture,
.ukI welfare. But what kind of a commonwealth is this when the
living standards of the Western countries and the colonies stands
no comparison. This is not a commonwealth but domination of
nne over another, with some using the labour and values of others,
rxploiting and plundering, pumping the national resources into
the home countries. The colonial peoples have only one way out
of their misery and lack of justice—the elimination of the colonial
i egime,

The advocates of the colonial regime intimidate the peoples
of the home countries alleging that after the elimination of the
colonial system the life of the population of industrially developed
countries would drastically deteriorate. The groundlessness of such
insertions is obvious.

First of all such assertions completely give away their authors
Who involuntarily admit that the home countries are continuing
to plunder the colonies and dependent countries and gain fabulous
[unfits. And this is really so, but it is also known that the super-
profits go not to the broad strata of the home country's population
I »n i mainly into the pocket of the monopolies. It is not the peoples
ol I he home countries but the millionaires and billionaires who

• ling to the colonial regime.

Secondly, the experience of the development of many countries
thai have gained national independence shows convincingly that
with the rapid growth of the national economy the internal mar-
1 | -i in these countries becomes incomparably more capacious, so
thai they can consume incomparably more industrial products
hcitn the more developed countries and at the same time on the
basis of the uplift of their productive forces produce more raw
1 1 i.i [<rials, various products and goods necessary for the economy

• ■I industrially developed countries. This is a more progressive and
piMonable system of relations between countries that leads to a
farther rise in the well-being of the peoples of both the colonial
(iiid dependent countries that were economically backward in the
|.ii, and the more developed countries.

The entire course of life, of economic and political develop-

37

ment passes the inexorable judgment of history upon the outdated
shameful colonial regime.

Of course, one cannot expect that our proposals regarding
the elimination of the colonial regime, which meet the vital in-
terests of mankind, will find sympathy on the part of those who are
still clinging to the colonial order. I can hear in advance the criti-
cal voice of the defenders of the colonial regime. But we say to
those who are accustomed to build their welfare at the expense
of the oppressed peoples in the colonies: think it over, take a look
at what is going on around you. If not today then soon, very soon,
the colonial order will finally perish, and if you do not get out
of the way in time you will be swept away. Neither by plots nor
by the force of arms can one add life to the doomed colonial re-
gime. All this will only strengthen and embitter the struggle of
the peoples against this completely rotten regime.

But the supporters of the colonial regime are growing fewer
and fewer even in the colonial powers themselves, and in the long
run the last word is not theirs. Therefore we appeal to the sense
and foresight of the peoples of the Western countries, to their
governments and representatives at this distinguished assembly of
the United Nations: let us unite in action aimed at the elimina-
tion of the colonial regime and thus accelerate this commutable
historical process, and do our utmost so that the peoples of the
colonial and dependent countries become able to decide their own
fate.

We welcome the sacred struggle of the colonial peoples against
the colonialists and for their liberation. If the colonial powers do
not heed the voice of reason and continue their old colonial policy
of keeping colonial countries in subjugation, the peoples who
support the position of eliminating the colonial regime should
render all-out assistance to the fighters for their independence
against colonialism, against colonial slavery. Moral, material and
other assistance should be rendered for the completion of the sacred
and just struggle of the peoples for their independence.

The Soviet Union on its part has been rendering assistance
to the economically underdeveloped countries and will be render-
ing such assistance on an ever-growing scale.* We sincerely help the
peoples of those countries in the establishment of their inde-
pendent economy, in the development of their national industry

38

which is the mainstay of real independence and of the uplift of
the people's welfare.

Nations who oppress other nations cannot themselves be free.
Every free nation should help the peoples still oppressed to win
freedom and independence.

May I express the hope that this session of the General As-
sembly will become an historic landmark on the way to the com-
plete and final elimination of the colonial regime on our planet.
This will be an act of great historic importance expressing the
aspirations of all nations struggling for national independence, of
all progressive mankind.

111. The Disarmament Problem Must Be Solved

Esteemed ladies and gentlemen 1 Last September on the in-
structions of the Soviet Government I submitted to the fourteenth
session of the UN General Assembly the proposals of the Soviet
Union on general and complete disarmament. The enormous de-
structive power of modern weapons, the unprecedented scope of
(he arms race, the accumulation by states of huge stockpiles of
the weapons of mass extermination all create a threat to the future
of mankind and make it imperative to seek an approach, new in
principle, to the disarmament problem. Our proposals are the
l»ractical expression of such an approach.

One could not but experience a feeling of gratification due
to the fact that the ideas raised by us were unanimously approved
by the United Nations and received wide support by the peoples
of the whole world. Being guided by the resolution of the last
session of the General Assembly the Soviet Union together with
oilier states took the most active part in the negotiations in the
Ten Nation Committee on Disarmament and bent its efforts in it
to elaborate a treaty on general and complete disarmament. With-
out waiting for an international agreement on the question of dis-
armament the Soviet Union is implementing unilaterally a reduc-
i i o 1 1 of its armed forces by 1,200,000 men, i.e., by one third, which
[a generally recognized to have contributed to improving the at-
mosphere for the negotiations on disarmament.

The Soviet Government consistently and determinedly pur-

39

suing a peaceful policy solemnly declares at this session of the UN
General Assembly that the Soviet Union maintains its armed forces
only for the defense of our country and for the fulfillment of obli-
gations to our allies and friends in case of aggression against them.
The possibility of our armed forces being used for other purposes
is ruled out since this would be alien to the very nature of our
state and to the fundamental principles of its peaceful foreign
policy.

Our country is compelled to maintain armed forces only for
the reason that our proposals on complete and general disarma-
ment have not yet been accepted. We shall do everything we can so
that general and complete disarmament becomes reality and man-
kind is saved from the arms race and the threat of a new destruc-
tive war.

One year has elapsed since the General Assembly adopted the
resolution on general and complete disarmament. By the present
pace of life this is comparatively a long period. And there should
be no doubt that those who are engaged in the production of arms,
in modernizing and designing new death-dealing means have not
wasted this time.

But in the sphere of disarmament no progress has been reached
in the year that passed. What are the reasons for such a situation
about which one has to speak with great regret and serious alarm?
Who is hindering the implementation of the General Assembly
resolution on general and complete disarmament-this perhaps the
most important and outstanding decision in the history of the
United Nations? Who is preventing the deadlock in the disarma-
ment problem from being broken?

The facts prove that the lack of any progress in the solution
of the disarmament problem is the consequence of the position
taken by the United States and some other states connected with
it through NATO.

Throughout the work of the Ten Nation Disarmament Com-
mittee the Western powers refused to proceed to the working out
of an agreement on general and complete disarmament seeking
by every possible means to evade a discussion of the substance
of the Soviet programme of general and complete disarmament
transferred by the General Assembly to the Committee for detailed
consideration. On their part they put forward proposals which

40

provided neither for general nor complete disarmament, nor for
disarmament at all, but only for measures of control over arma-
ments, that is, control without disarmament. However, one cannot
fail to see that the establishment of control without disarmament
would amount to the establishment of a system of international
espionage, and not only would it fail to promote the consolidation
of peace but might, on the contrary, aid a potential aggressor in
carrying out his plans that are dangerous for the peoples.

The danger lies in the fact that the establishment of control
over armaments if armaments are retained means in effect that both
one and the other side will know the quantities, qualities and
deployment of the armaments possessed by the opposing side.
( lonsequently, an aggressor could increase his armaments to a
superior level in order to choose a convenient opportunity and
launch an attack. We will never accede to control over armaments
without disarmament because this would mean encouraging the
aggressor. Our goal is to ensure stable peace which can be achieved
only through the elimination of armaments and armed forces
under strict international control.

Acting contrary to the UN General Assembly resolution the
Western powers in the Ten Nation Committee indulged in nothing
but meaningless talk about disarmament trying to hinder any
possible progress in this matter, and to discredit the idea of gene-
t.il and complete disarmament in the eyes of world public opinion.

The Soviet Government as well as the governments of a num-
ber of other states found itself forced to interrupt its participation
in the work of the Ten Nation Committee which had been turned
by the Western powers into a screen to cover up the arms race.
1 1 was not easy for the Soviet Government to take this decision
because it was our country that sponsored the question of general
mil complete disarmament and exerted every effort to come to a
I oiisiructive solution of this problem in the Committee in complete
i' < ord with the General Assembly resolution, but in the existing
if nation staying in the Committee would only amount to helping
r he opponents of disarmament. The fact could not be tolerated
that the great cause of disarmament was being made an object of
• I "-(illation for purposes hostile to the interests of universal peace.

That is why the Soviet Government has put the question of
disarmament up for consideration by the United Nations General

41

T

Assembly, the considerable majority of whose members is in no way
interested in the arms race and sincerely wishes its termination.
Taking into account the great importance of the disarmament
problem and the necessity to make a radical change in the course
of negotiations, the Soviet Government voiced the opinion that in
considering this question at the General Assembly the Heads of
State and Government vested with the necessary power should
directly participate. We note with gratification that this attitude
was met with due understanding by the governments of quite a
number of states whose delegations at the General Assembly are
led by the most responsible statesmen of their countries.

Bringing the disarmament question to the plenary meetings
of the General Assembly we proceed from the fact that considera-
tion of this question in all its scope should lead, at least, to its
solution or, at least, give a more concrete direction to the disarma-
ment negotiations, in which there should now participate along-
side those states belonging to the opposing military groupings the
states adhering to a neutral course.

Seeking to facilitate the work of the General Assembly and
to make the discussion of the disarmament problem more specific
the Soviet Government submits for consideration by the General
Assembly its proposal "Basic provisions of the Treaty on general
and complete disarmament." We request the President of the
General Assembly and the UN Secretariat to circulate this pro-
posal among the delegations as an official document of the General
Assembly as well as our explanatory memorandum which presents
the position of the Soviet Government on the disarmament prob-
lem in greater detail.

The new Soviet proposal on the question of general and com-
plete disarmament which has as its basis the provisions of the
Soviet Government's proposals of June 2, 1960, which were sub-
mitted for the consideration of all the governments of the world
has been drawn up with due regard for all the useful points which
were made during the past year in the course of the discussion
of this question by political and public circles of various countries
of the world. In many respects this proposal meets half way the
position of the Western powers which, as w« hope, will facilitate
an early agreement on disarmament.

We now provide, in particular, for the elimination of all

42

means of delivery of nuclear weapons to their target as early as
in the first stage of general and complete disarmament, include a
detailed elaboration of measures for effective international control
in all the stages and take into account the wishes of some Western
powers that the reduction of the strength of the armed forces and
conventional armaments should be provided for from the out-
set. Quite a number of other changes and modifications were
brought into our programme. All these changes, in our opinion,
make the programme of general and complete disarmament more
concrete and even more realistic and practicable.

The detailed elaboration of the Agreement on general and
complete disarmament is, of course, a complicated task for the
solution of which all the participants in negotiations should exert
much effort and labour. Various questions may arise in the course
of this work the solution of which would demand flexibility and
realistic appraisal of the international situation.

But we should all be aware that no flexibility will help the
solution of the disarmament problem and all the efforts and labour
devoted to this aim will, as hitherto, be wasted if not all the
participants in the negotiations are guided by a sincere desire to
realize mankind's eternal dream of disarmament.

However, such a desire was obviously lacking in the Ten
Nation Committee insofar as the USA and its NATO partners
were concerned. So far, there is still no evidence that they have
such a desire. In this connection one cannot ignore the new at-
tempts to sidetrack the whole matter which were undertaken by the
USA not long before the General Assembly started its work. Is it
not clear to everybody that the USA pursued precisely this aim
when it tried to get the convocation of the UN Disarmament Com-
mission only a few weeks before the opening of the General As-
sembly session? The experience of the work in the Ten Nation
Committee showed that there arose difficulties in the negotiations
in the Committee on practical problems of disarmament as a result
of the unwillingness of the Western powers to solve the disarma-
ment problem. The proposals of the Soviet Union submitted for
consideration by the Ten Nation Committee are widely known
and have been appreciated by world public opinion as quite clear
and realistic. It is necessary to emphasize that they took into ac-
count some wishes and proposals of the Western powers. Neverthe-

43

less Mr. Lodge, the US representative in the United Nations Dis-
armament Commission, alleged that the Soviet Union was propos-
ing buying a pig in a poke. In this case one may wonder whether
Mr. Lodge, like the hero of oriental fairy tales, has not put him-
self into a poke which prevents him from seeing what is well seen
and understood by all.

We were also surprised by another statement by Mr. Lodge
who opposed submitting the disarmament question for considera-
tion by this session of the General Assembly. He said he believed
that world public opinion should hear all this and hear it in such
a forum as this Commission which dealt exclusively with disarma-
ment and not merely hear it all at the General Assembly where it
would be but one of more than 80 items.

I am personally acquainted with Mr. Lodge and knowing that
for many years he represented the interests of the United States
of America in the United Nations I am surprised that he is of so
low an opinion of his own labour. However, that may be precisely
the reason, since Mr. Lodge has become so accustomed to the ques-
tions under discussion at the General Assembly that he counts
them by scores and hastens to refer them to an auxiliary body so
as to hide them from public opinion in a poke.

We regard with respect all the commissions of the United
Nations but for us the United Nations General Assembly is the
most representative and authoritative forum of the peoples. We
hope that the representatives of states of all continents present
here do not share such a point of view and will not consider the
disarmament question as a 79th problem. This is the cardinal
question which agitates the whole of humanity, and it is strange
that this is not realized by the representative of the United States
of America at the United Nations.

Even less disguised attempts were made in the UN Disarm-
ament Commission to channel the negotiations on disarmament
in such a direction that thereafter no solution of this problem
can be found. How otherwise can be evaluated the proposals of
the USA put forward in the UN Disarmament Commission to the
effect that the USA and the USSR should each transfer under inter-
national supervision 30 thousand kilograms of fissionable materials
for nuclear weapons purposes— this, by the way, was also repeated
by the President of the United States yesterday-or that these

44

countries should start closing down, one after another, plants
producing such materials for military purposes?

Only an ignorant person can believe that these proposals are
aimed at reducing the threat of nuclear war. Indeed, the US pro-
posals do not provide either for elimination of nuclear weapons
or destruction of their stockpiles or even the prohibition of their
use. They provide for the removal of certain amounts of fissionable
materials from the existing stockpiles of these materials which have
been accumulated by states for military use. It is well known,
however, that at present the existing stockpiles of fissionable ma-
terials are so huge that they are more than enough to annihilate
whole countries and peoples. It is no accident that when putting
forward its proposals the USA kept silent about the quantity of
nuclear weapons and fissionable materials for their future manufac-
ture that will remain at its disposal after the allotment of 30
thousand kilograms. If they had mentioned this, it would be even
more evident that such a step would not substantially alleviate
the threat of nuclear war.

The Soviet Government is deeply convinced that only a radi-
cal solution of the disarmament problem which would provide for
the complete prohibition of nuclear weapons together with the
cessation of their manufacture and tests and the destruction of
all accumulated stockpiles of these weapons can fully accord with
the task of delivering mankind from the threat of nuclear war
looming over it. That is precisely the goal which the Soviet Union
is trying to achieve, persistently and resolutely advocating general
and complete disarmament.

All this, in our opinion, leads to an important conclusion:
to break the deadlock in the disarmament problem at last, the
General Assembly should call to order those who impede the
solution of the disarmament problem, who try to supplant busi-
nesslike negotiations on disarmament with meaningless beatings
about the bush.

Objectively appraising the situation and the correlation of
forces existing in the world the Soviet Government is deeply
convinced that disarmament in our time is not only necessary
but possible. The struggle for peace has now become a great
banner mobilizing the peoples. Even those governments which,

45

"

as before, are suffering from an inclination to the "cold war"
policy and to the armaments race cannot afford to ignore it.

The United Nations has no other, more important and urgent
task than to contribute to the cause of disarmament becoming a
real fact and promoting at last the initiation of practical deeds,
namely: the return of soldiers to their homes, the destruction of
weapons including nuclear weapons and means of their delivery,

A great aim is worth great effort. The Soviet Government
expresses the hope that all the states concerned about consoli-
dating peace will exert their energy and will spare no effort to
solve the disarmament problem, this most important problem of
today. There can be no doubt that the peoples, the world over,
will greatly appreciate the decision of the United Nations General
Assembly on the disarmament question.

IV. Peaceful Co-existence Is the Only Sensible Path for
Developing International Relations in Our Time

Ladies and gentlemen! The peoples of the Soviet Union and
the Soviet Government are unfailingly striving for the principles
of peaceful co-existence to be firmly established in relations be-
tween states, for these principles to become the cardinal law of
life everywhere in present-day society. Underlying these principles
is not some "gimmick" invented by the communists but simple
things dictated by life itself, namely that relations between all
states should develop in a peaceful way, without resort to force,
without wars, without interference in the internal affairs of one
another.

I will not disclose a secret by saying that we entertain no
liking for capitalism. But we do not want to foist our system upon
other countries. So let those, who determine the policy of states
whose social system differs from ours, also abandon their fruitless
and dangerous attempts to dictate their will. It is high time for
them too to admit that the choice of a way of life is the internal
concern of every people. Let us build up our relations taking into
consideration the actual facts of reality. This will mean peaceful
co-existence. 4

One cannot disregard the fact that a force, much greater than
a wish, a will or the decisions of any government, is acting in

46

favour of the policy of peaceful co-existence. This force is the
desire which is natural and common for humanity, to avert the
calamities of war in which all the unprecedented means of mass
extermination, accumulated in the course of recent years, would
be used. It stands to reason that acceptance of the principles of
peaceful co-existence does not mean that it is necessary to begin
building up relations between states on a completely new basis.
In fact, peaceful co-existence is already a reality and has found
international recognition. The proof of this is that the General As-
sembly has twice in the recent period adopted resolutions reaffirm-
ing the need for peaceful co-existence. Whether they want it or
not, even those states whose governments still do not want to
voice their approval of the ideas of peaceful co-existence, are
forced to practice them in many respects.

In fact, the question now is how to make peaceful co-existence
secure, how to prevent departures from it which now and then
give rise to dangerous international conflicts. In other words, as
I have already said once, the choice we have is not great: it is
either peaceful co-existence which would promote the best human
ideals or else co-existence "at dagger's point,"

If one is to speak about the actual shape of peaceful co-
existence one might point to the relations maintained by the
socialist countries with the new states of Asia, Africa and Latin
America which have set themselves free from the oppression of
colonialism and embarked upon the path of independent policy.
Typical of such relations are friendship, great mutual sympathy
and respect, economic and technical assistance to less developed
countries without any political or military strings attached. The
relations of the countries of the socialist camp with neutral cap-
italist states such as, for instance, Finland, Austria, Afghanistan,
Sweden and others can also be cited as another good example.

I think the ideas of peaceful co-existence may triumph even
in those countries whose governments have not yet abandoned
either hostile acts against the socialist states or rude pressure on
non-committed states which pursue an independent policy. In these
countries too the realization is growing of the danger of the "cold
war" policy and the folly of balancing on the brink of the prec-
ipice.

47

When I was last in the United States I met statesmen, busi-
nessmen, workers and farmers, scientists and trade union leaders.
These meetings had for me, and also, I think, for the people I met,
great importance. My conviction has grown that the American
people do not want war, that in the highest strata of the Amer-
ican society there are people who deeply understand the necessity
to live in peace and rule out war from the life of mankind, peo-
ple who are able to go against deeply rooted prejudices.

I left the United States with the thought that there exist
practical possibilities to remove from the relations between our
states the gloomy shadows of suspicion, fear and distrust, that the
Soviet Union and the United States could go hand in hand in the
name of consolidating peace and establishing effective international
co-operation of all states. I must say that this conviction was not
shaken despite all that took place between the United States and
the Soviet Union in the recent months. In our time it would be
sheer nonsense if the two most powerful nations could not come
to terms between themselves. This should be done at least in
virtue of the great importance of the relations between the USSR
and the USA for the destinies of the world. The Soviet Govern-
ment is ready to go on doing its best to improve relations between
our country and the United States of America.

The policy of peaceful co-existence presupposes willingness
to solve all outstanding issues without resort to force by means
of negotiations and reasonable concessions. Everyone knows that
during the years of the "cold war" such questions chiefly did not
find their solution which led to the creation of dangerous hotbeds
of tension in Europe, Asia and in other parts of the world as well.

The international knots which are the heritage of the Second
World War are still entangled. First and foremost among them
stands the conclusion of a peace treaty with Germany and the
solution on this basis of the crucial question of West Berlin, If
a peace treaty with Germany has not so far been concluded this
is completely on the conscience of the governments of the Western
powers which to speak without beating about the bush have been
sabotaging this problem in the course of mar^ years. These gov-
ernments have got into the habit of outright rejection of all the
Soviet Union's proposals on a German peace treaty while at the

48

same time they themselves over the fifteen years that have elapsed
since the war did not find a suitable occasion to come forward
with their own proposals in this respect.

As a result of this the situation in Europe remains unstable,
fraught with the danger of acute conflicts. The absence of a
peace treaty can gladden most of all the revanchist and militarist
forces in West Germany. They are taking advantage of this so as
step by step to move forward towards the realization of their pur-
poses which are dangerous for the cause of peace. At the time of
the war in Korea when the relations between the great powers
were aggravated they came forward with the question of creating
the Bundeswehr and succeeded in this. Today we are the witnesses
of agitation by the ruling circles of the FRG who hope that the
present tense moment will allow them to pocket nuclear and
rocket weapons.

Despite the fact that the scheduled summit conference which
was to have considered among others the question of a peace treaty
with Germany was disrupted, we believe that there exist objective
conditions for an agreed solution of questions left open after the
last war. As we have already stated the Soviet Government is
prepared to wait a while with the solution of the question of a
German peace treaty to try to achieve agreement on this treaty
at the summit conference which the Soviet Union has proposed
be held in a few months' time. We would like to hope that the
Soviet Union's efforts in this direction will be supported also by
the governments of the USA, Great Britain and France.

The Soviet Union believes that the solution of the Korean
question is most essential for the consolidation of peace in the
Far East and in the whole world.

Only madmen can contemplate solving the Korean question
through the use of armed force.

The sole correct proposal— to leave the solution of the ques-
tion of the peaceful reunification of Korea to the Koreans them-
selves without any interference from outside— finds ever growing
recognition. The necessary condition for this is the immediate and
complete withdrawal of all American troops from South Korea
whose presence poisons the atmosphere not only in Korea, but in

49

the whole of the Far East and made possible such shameful facts
as the falsification of elections in South Korea.

The proposal of the Government of the Korean People's
Democratic Republic about a confederation of North and South
Korea is as reasonable as the proposal of the Government of the
German Democratic Republic on setting up a confederation be-
tween the two German states. This is the only way to a good start
for the peaceful reunification of these states.

During the recent years at sharp turns of international life
the peaceful states were compelled more than once to come for-
ward in defense of the just cause and to take effective measures
to direct developments into a peaceful channel. The United Na-
tions helped to rebuff the aggressors who made attempts upon the
freedom and rights of Egypt, it helped to call to order the inter-
ventionists in Lebanon and Jordan. We would like to hope that
the United Nations will successfully accomplish the responsible
tasks dictated by the world situation which is still disturbing.

The experience of the work of the United Nations has dem-
onstrated that this body is useful and necessary because in it are
represented all states which are called upon to resolve the press-
ing issues of international relationships by negotiations so as not
to bring them to such a state that conflicts and wars might break
out. This is a positive aspect in the work of the United Nations.
This, indeed, constituted the main objective in the creation of
the United Nations.

In the course of the United Nations activities, however, some
of its negative aspects also came to light. These negative aspects
found their expression in the fact that so far certain countries
succeed in imposing their will and their policy in the solution
of specific matters in the United Nations to the detriment of other
states. This does not further the basic goal of this Organization,
does not promote the adoption of such decisions as would reflect
the interests of all the countries making up the United Nations.
The executive machinery of the Organization is also consti-
tuted partially. It often approaches the solution of questions from
the standpoint of a certain group of countries This is particularly
true of the activities of the United Nations Secretary General. As
a rule the Western countries that make up the military blocs of

00

the Western powers exploit this post in their interests by nom-
inating for the post of United Nations Secretary General a candi-
date that is acceptable to themselves. The result is that in many
cases the practical routine work of the United Nations and of its
Secretariat is in effect carried out one-sidedly. The personnel of
the Organization is picked one-sidedly as well.

Partiality in the implementation of practical measures on the
part of the United Nations was particularly manifested in the
events that flared up in the Congo. Mr. Hammarskjold, the Sec-
retary-General, in implementing the decisions of the Security
Council, in effect sided with the colonialists and with the coun-
ties that support the colonialists. This is a very dangerous thing.

We have come to the firm conclusion that the time has come
(o create conditions for more effective work both of the United
Nations as a whole and of this Organization's executive working
body. I repeat, the matter concerns primarily the Secretary-Gen-
eral and his staff. The necessity of certain changes and improve-
ments should particularly be borne in mind in the light of the
immediate future.

For instance, we are now conducting negotiations on disarma-
ment. For the time being the United States and its allies are doing
their utmost to resist general and complete disarmament, and are
.seeking all sorts of pettifogging pretexts to thwart or at least to
stave off indefinitely the solution of the disarmament question.
But we believe that common sense will prevail and sooner or later
all states will influence those who resist a reasonable solution of
the disarmament problem. Therefore the United Nations machin-
ery should now be adapted to the conditions that will come into
being in the course of the implementation of a disarmament
decision.

An identical point of view has materialized in our proposals
as well as in those of the countries making up the NATO military
;i ligament regarding the necessity to follow up agreement on dis-
.umament with the creation of armed forces of all countries under
international control to be used by the United Nations as decided
liy the Security Council.

The Soviet Government believes that if the question of utiliz-
ing these international armed forces is approached correctly they

51

-

really can be useful. But the experience of the Congo puts us on
our guard. This experience indicates that the United Nations forces
are being used precisely in the way against which we warned and
which we resolutely oppose. The Secretary-General, Mr. Ham*
marskjold, has taken the stand of merely formal condemnation of
the colonialists. In actual practice, however, he is pursuing the
line of the colonialists, is opposing the legitimate Government of
the Congo and the Congolese people, is supporting the renegades
who, under the guise of fighting for the independence of the Re-
public of the Congo are in fact continuing the policy of the
colonialists and are apparently getting remuneration from them
for their treachery.

What is to be done in this case? If this is the way in which
the international armed forces will in practice be used, that is,
to suppress the liberation movement, then under such conditions
it will naturally be difficult to reach agreement on the creation
of international armed forces since there will be no guarantees
of their not being used for reactionary purposes alien to the inter-
ests of peace. Provision should be made to guard against any state
falling into the same predicament in which the Republic of the
Congo now finds itself. We are sure that other states also under-
stand this danger. Such solutions should therefore be sought as
would exclude similar occurrences in the future.

The Soviet Government has come to a definite conclusion on
this point and wishes to expound its point of view at the United
Nations General Assembly. Conditions have obviously matured
when the post of the Secretary-General— who alone governs the
staff and alone interprets and executes the decisions of the Secu-
rity Council and sessions of the United Nations General Assembly-
should be abolished. It is expedient to renounce the system under
which all the practical work in the period between General Assem-
bly sessions and Security Council meetings is determined by the
Secretary-General alone.

The executive body of the United Nations should reflect the
actual situation that obtains in the world today. The United Na-
tions includes states parties to the military .blocs of the Western
powers, socialist states and neutralist countries. This would there-
fore be completely justified, and we would be guaranteed to a

52

greater extent against the negative developments which came to
light in the work of the United Nations especially during the re-
cent events in the Congo.

We consider it reasonable and just for the executive body of
the United Nations to be constituted not as one person— the Sec-
retary-General— but as three representatives of the states belong-
ing to the three basic above-mentioned groups who could be in-
vested with the lofty trust of the United Nations. The crux of
the matter is not even in the name of this body but in that this
executive body should represent the states parties to the military
blocs of the Western powers, the socialist states, and the neutralist
states. This composition of the United Nations executive body will
create conditions for a more correct implementation of the de-
cisions taken.

In brief we consider it expedient to set up instead of a Secre-
tary-General who is presently the interpreter and executor of the
Assembly and Security Council decisions a collective executive
body of the United Nations comprising three persons each of whom
would represent a certain group of states. A definite guarantee
would thereby be created that the work of the United Nations
Executive would not be conducted to the detriment of any of
these groups of states. Then the United Nations executive will
really be a democratic body, it will really safeguard the interests
of all United Nations member states irrespective of the social
;md political systems of the various states making up the United
Nations. This is particularly necessary at the present time, and
will be the more so in the future.

There exist other inconveniences as well which the United
Nations members are now experiencing. These inconveniences are
caused by the location of the United Nations Organization. It
would seem that the United States of America which calls itself
a free democratic country should do its utmost to facilitate the
work of the United Nations, to create all necessary conditions for
the representatives of states constituting this organization. Prac-
tice shows, however, that the United States restricts and curtails
the rights of the representatives of various states. Facts are known,
for instance, of the representatives of young African and Asian

53

states being subjected to racial discrimination in the United States
and, moreover, to attacks by gangsters.

The representatives of the United States authorities explain
the various restrictions of the rights of representatives of states in
the United Nations by the fact that it is allegedly difficult for
them to ensure their security. I wish to emphasize that we are
of a better opinion of the hospitality of the American people
than that which may result from such statements and restrictions.
But these statements cannot be overlooked and, likewise, the
inconveniences cannot fail to be taken into account which are
put in the way of the work of the United Nations in these in-
stances.

The question arises of whether or not thought should be
given to the choice o£ another locale for the United Nations Head-
quarters which would better facilitate the effective work of this
international organization, Switzerland or Austria might well be
such a place, for example. I can declare in all responsibility that
if it should be considered expedient to house the United Nations
Headquarters in the Soviet Union we guarantee the best possible
conditions for its work, complete freedom and security for the
representatives of all states irrespective of their political or re-
ligious convictions, and of the colour of their skin since in our
country the sovereign rights of all states, the equality of all
nations, big and small, are held in high esteem.

You all know that in the past the Soviet Government sup-
ported the proposal that the United States of America be chosen
as the locale of the United Nations. However, recent developments
show that the United States is evidently irked and burdened by
this. Then perhaps the release of the United States from such a
burden should be contemplated.

* # #

Ladies and Gentlemen: Addressing the delegates to the United
Nations General Assembly with proposals on these essentially
important questions of our time the Soviet Government would
like to stress their specific, extraordinary significance for the destiny
of the world.

The importance of the disarmament problem requires no

54

special proof. This question is of such vital importance that it,
certainly, has to be discussed at the plenary session of the Gen-
eral Assembly.

The question of the elimination of the colonial regime is
also so vital that the necessity of its discussion at the plenary
session of the General Assembly will apparently meet with full
understanding by all the delegates.

We believe that especial importance has been acquired by
the question of the aggressive actions of the United States against
the Soviet Union which found their expression in the despatch
of American planes into Soviet air space. This is a fact which
by itself goes beyond the limits of the relations between states
admissible in time of peace. But this question assumes particular
importance also for the reason that the President of the United
States, Mr. Eisenhower, himself declared the aggressive flights of
the American planes a normal business allegedly necessary for the
security of the United States. At the same time the US Govern-
ment arbitrarily assumed the right to send such planes in future.
This is why since the matter concerns the violation of the sovereign
rights not only of the Soviet Union but of other states as well the
question of aggressive actions of the United States must be dealt
with by the United Nations at its plenary session.

The continuation of such actions and especially their interpre-
tation by the US President as state policy can at any moment
plunge mankind into a third world war. Therefore, I repeat, it
is the opinion of the Soviet Government that this question as well
as the questions of disarmament and the elimination of colonial-
ism must be discussed at the plenary session of the United Nations
General Assembly and not in the Committees.

The matter concerns the representatives of the overwhelming
majority of states of the world expressing at this session of the
General Assembly their opinions on the cardinal problems which
today agitate public opinion and all people on earth who are
interested in the further development of freedom and democracy
and yearn for peace for themselves and their children.

The Soviet Government hopes that the questions submitted
for consideration at the present United Nations Assembly will

55

meet with support and understanding, since they are motivated
by the sincere desire to secure a better life and tranquillity on
our planet.

Indeed, man lives and works in order to put to good use all
his strength, all his faculties and his possibilities. The world in
our time is diversified but at the same time it is one. We live
on the same planet and it will depend on us in what way we shall
arrange affairs on it.

Man's mind works wonders today. Tomorrow even more
boundless prospects will be revealed in the field of science and
technology. The question is one of the great scientific achievements
of our age being harnessed to the good of the peoples,

I think you will share my opinion that the attention of hun-
dreds of millions of people is focused today on the General Assem-
bly hall. What do the peoples of many countries of the world ex-
pect from us? A just and honest decision on the crucial problems
of our time. Peoples may be mistaken in their choice of govern-
ments. One or another historical situation may lead to injustice
in any country. But, however complicated the internal relation-
ships in states may be, people are apt to hope and believe in
the best. People want to live and prosper, and the main thing is
that they want their children to possess more and live better.

That is why we all, and I am saying this on behalf of the
Soviet people, should be inspired with the understanding of our
high and particular mission. Mankind has advanced so far ahead
that it cannot tolerate in its life the remnants of the grim reaction-
ary past. Mankind has advanced so far ahead that it realizes the
deep and grave danger of misusing scientific discoveries for the
sake of the arms race.

So let us leave to our successors, our children, grandchildren
and great-grandchildren good memories of our time. Let them
take the men of our time as an example and say: once the in-
habitants of the earth had complicated and most difficult prob-
lems. And they, having come together at the United Nations As-
sembly, resolved them, succeeded in settling them in the name of
a better future.

So let us act in such a way as to make the fifteenth session of

56

the United Nations General Assembly become an Assembly not
only of hope but of the realization of hopes.

The Soviet Government is ready to do its utmost so that
colonial slavery should collapse today, that today questions of dis-
armament should find their concrete and businesslike solution.

The Soviet Government is ready to do its utmost to achieve
today the prohibition of the nuclear weapons tests so that this
means of mass extermination can be banned and destroyed.

It could be said that these are complicated questions, which
cannot be solved at one go. But these are questions presented
by life and they must be settled before it is too late. The solution
of these questions cannot be evaded.

Concluding my address I wish to emphasize once again that
the Soviet Government, guided by the interests of the Soviet peo-
ple, by the interests of the citizens of the free socialist state, once
again is proposing to all: let us talk, argue, but let us solve the
questions of general and complete disarmament. Let us bury
colonialism that has been condemned by mankind.

No further delay is tolerable, no further procrastination can
be tolerated. The peoples of all states, irrespective of the social
systems of these states, are expecting the United Nations General
Assembly at last to adopt decisions meeting the aspiration of the
peoples.

Thank you.

57

September 23, 1960

Statement
of the USSR Government on Disarmament

Submitted for Consideration by the Fifteenth Session
of the United Nations General Assembly

The Government of the Union o£ Soviet Socialist Republics
has submitted for consideration by the General Assembly of the
United Nations the question of disarmament and of the state of
affairs as regards the implementation of the resolution of the
previous session of the General Assembly on this question.

The disarmament problem is the cardinal problem of today
on whose solution largely, if not chiefly, depends the preservation
of peace. This is now recognized by all states. At the same time
the Soviet Government is deeply concerned over the failure thus
far to make any headway in the settlement of this problem.

Today the states have already stockpiled and continue stock-
piling huge quantities of nuclear weapons and the means of their
delivery to the target in any part of the world. This in itself
gravely endangers peace since among the countries possessing nu-
clear weapons there are those which proclaim brinkmanship and
gross violations of the sovereignty of other states as their state
policy without stopping short of such methods as are usually em-
ployed in wartime.

At a time when the states possess huge stockpiles of nuclear
weapons every new step in the arms race enhances the danger of
the so-called accidental outbreak of war as well. Inaccuracies in
the work of the radar system can lead to misinterpretation of
the radar signals which may result in a start of military operations
and, consequently, in unprecedented disaster. A misunderstanding
of orders by pilots who, according to the United States Govern-
ment, make routine bomber nights carrying atomic weapons may
lead to these bombs being dropped on the territory of another
state with all the ensuing consequences. Malfunctioning of elec-
tronic devices in military nuclear rocket systems may also set off
the chain reaction of war conflict. *

If the nuclear arms race continues, it will be more and more
difficult to prevent such "accidents."

58

The arms race is one of the major factors increasing distrust
and suspicion in the relations between states and poisoning the
world atmosphere. The "cold war" hated by the peoples is a prod-
uct of the arms race, hampers its elimination and makes the arms
race all the more dangerous for states and peoples.

The ending of the arms race is a way toward the consolida-
tion of peace. The solution of the disarmament problem would
also yield great economic gains. Disarmament would release enor-
mous material and financial values which could be used for the
good of mankind.

Over a hundred billion dollars has again been burnt in the
huge furnace of war preparations in the one year that has elapsed
since the fourteenth session of the United Nations General Assembly
which unanimously approved the idea of general and complete
disarmament. Simple calculations show that these resources would
be enough to bring about a radical technical and economic re-
construction of the entire African continent. This money could
be used to feed hundreds of millions of starving people for a
year; only one per cent of the total sum of the military outlays
of states would be enough to build more than a hundred fully
equipped universities in countries which are greatly in need of
highly qualified specialists. The money spent on the building of
a single American nuclear powered submarine would suffice to
build at least 50 houses with 100 flats each or 10,000 cottages. Such
are the losses sustained by humanity due to the arms race!

Taking into account the fact that for many years the nego-
tiations on isolated disarmament measures were invariably dead-
locked by the Western powers, a year ago, at the fourteenth session
of the UN General Assembly the Soviet Union proposed an entire-
ly new approach to the solution of this problem, and put forward
the idea of general and complete disarmament under strict and
effective international control.

Life itself has prompted the raising of the question of gen-
eral and complete disarmament, as in the age of nuclear weapons
and powerful rockets partial or halfway disarmament measures
cannot fully eliminate the danger of war.

Only general and complete disarmament can ensure the solu-
tion of this great problem. Only general and complete disarma-
ment can secure lasting peace and tranquillity for mankind.

59

In raising the question of general and complete disarmament
the Soviet Union which is today generally recognized to be one
of the mightiest military powers of the world was proposing on
its own initiative to forego this military might forever, to elimi-
nate it completely, provided other Great Powers follow suit. If
the United States, Great Britain, France and the other Western
powers are ready to do so, it only remains to agree on how better
to translate this into reality. But if they are not ready it means
that their statements that they desire peace and that they need
armaments only for defense against possible aggression are not to
be believed.

Therein lay the core of the Soviet Union's proposal on gen-
eral and complete disarmament.

The new approach to the solution of the disarmament prob-
lem stems from the very nature of our country's socialist system.
Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, used to say that
disarmament is an ideal of socialism. Indeed, the socialist states
do not need armaments for any other purposes except defense
against possible attack, from the outside and ensuring the preserva-
tion of peace throughout the world. The Soviet Armed Forces have
not and cannot have any other objectives, for the foreign policy
of socialism is a peaceful and humane foreign policy. And if the
Western powers agreed to the renunciation of armed forces and
armaments, to the elimination of the means of waging war the
socialist states would have no need whatsoever for armed forces
and armaments and there would be no reasons for maintaining
rocket troops, army, navy, air force and anti-aircraft defense. None
of these is needed for the successful building of communism in
the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. Our lands are rich
in natural resources, our people like to work, science and tech-
nology render good service to our cause.

War is not needed for the triumph of communism, since the
struggle for the communist ideas is waged not between states but
between the classes inside each state. It is a slander on socialist
countries to accuse them of trying to impose their ideas on other
peoples and other states by means of war.

At the fourteenth session the Soviet Government did not con-
fine itself to raising the question of general and complete dis-

60

armament; at the same time it placed before the United Nations
a concrete programme for such disarmament.

Trying to facilitate as much as possible the settlement of the
disarmament problem, and to create an atmosphere conducive to
negotiations on this problem the Supreme Soviet of the USSR
made a decision to reduce the Armed Forces of the Soviet Union
by 1,200,000 men, i.e. by one-third. This decision is being scrupu-
lously carried out.

Now that a year has passed since the Soviet Union put for-
ward the question of general and complete disarmament it can
be said with certitude that the idea of general and complete
disarmament has been supported by all peoples who want this
idea to be realized as soon as possible. And this is but natural
since the peoples of all countries—not only socialist but capitalist
alike— want peace, want to see the world free of armaments and
free of wars between states. Neither the Soviet people, nor the
American, British, French, Chinese people, nor the peoples of
Africa, Asia, Latin America and Australia want war.

The will of the peoples for peace found its expression in the
resolution of the last session of the General Assembly on general
and complete disarmament which, as you all remember, was
adopted unanimously: not a single state opposed the resolution,
all of them supported it. Even those states which were stepping
up the armaments race and continue to do so, and which, as
experience has proved, did not intend, in fact, to give up the
brink of war policy, did not dare at the time to voice open oppo-
sition to general and complete disarmament.

The General Assembly declared in its resolution that the
question of general and complete disarmament is the most im-
portant question facing the world today, called upon the govern-
ments to make every effort to reach a constructive solution of
this problem and expressed the hope that measures for general
and complete disarmament under effective international control
would be worked out in detail and agreed upon at an early date.
This laid down the general line of disarmament negotiations. It
was decided to conduct the negotiations within the framework
of the Ten Nation Committee.

The peoples of the world reposed their best hopes in those
negotiations. They wanted to believe that now all states, and par-

61

ticularly the Great Powers possessing the most powerful weapons,
would find a new approach to the disarmament problem and
agree at last on its practical solution.

A year has passed since that time. Unfortunately it has to
be stated that this year was lost insofar as disarmament is con-
cerned. This is an alarming result which cannot and must not be
ignored.

What has happened? Why did it prove impossible to take a
single step forward towards the implementation of the said reso-
lution though a year has already passed since its adoption by the
General Assembly? Why did the negotiations in the Ten Nation
Committee on Disarmament fail to produce any positive results?
One should turn to the facts to answer these questions. And
the facts prove that again, as in the past, two opposing lines, two
positions have clearly and definitely emerged in the course of the
negotiations in the Ten Nation Committee.

One of them was in line with the demands of the peoples for
an early settlement of the disarmament problem. The other one
was in direct contradiction with those demands and was a poorly
camouflaged attempt to prevent disarmament.

The line of militating for general and complete disarmament
was pursued in the Ten Nation Disarmament Committee by the
Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Roumania, Bulgaria, i.e.
by the socialist states. The line of opposing the solution of the
disarmament problem was followed by the United States, Great
Britain, France, Italy, Canada, i.e. by the Western powers— mem-
bers of the North Atlantic military bloc.

Our position in the course of the negotiations was crystal
clear: the socialist states proposed to get down to business as soon
as possible, to start the practical solution of the problem, to dis-
cuss in a businesslike way a programme of general and complete
disarmament and to work out an appropriate treaty.

The stand taken by the Soviet Union and other socialist
countries was flexible throughout the negotiations. The delega-
tions of these countries in the Committee expressed their readiness
to hear with due attention and respect all the remarks, proposals
and considerations of the Western powers wjth regard to the
Soviet programme of general and complete disarmament that
would be aimed at a speedy settlement of this vital task. The

62

Soviet Government has proved its readiness by its deeds. It was
prepared to consider any other realistic programme for disarm-
ament.

When we learned from the conversations with the President of
France, General de Gaulle, that the French Government thought
it advisable to start disarmament with the elimination of the
means of delivery of nuclear weapons to the target, the Soviet
Government treated the idea in all seriousness and having given
it thorough thought made a substantial amendment to the pro-
gramme of general and complete disarmament. The amended
programme provided for all the means of delivery of nuclear
weapons to the target being eliminated in the first stage of
general and complete disarmament. The Soviet Government
agreed to this, being guided by the desire to facilitate agreement,
though it is common knowledge that the Soviet Union has supe-
riority in the most effective modern means of delivery of nuclear
weapons, namely in intercontinental ballistic missiles.

The Soviet Government met the Western powers halfway
in a number of other questions as well.

The United States and the Western powers sought from the
Soviet Union a more specific and detailed description of the con-
trol system in our programme of general and complete disarm-
ament. The Soviet Government took into account this considera-
tion also. The amended Soviet proposals set forth comprehensive-
ly and with many details a plan for the establishment of a control
system and the implementation of strict international control over
all disarmament measures. Now no one can assert, unless he
wants to contradict the facts, that the Soviet Union is evading
the establishment of strict international control over measures for
general and complete disarmament. It goes without saying that at
the same time the Soviet Government is in favour of control over
disarmament while strongly objecting to all attempts to impose
control over armaments, i.e. control without disarmament which,
as every one will understand, would merely be a legalized system
of international espionage.

After all, the establishment of control over armaments, if
armaments are retained, means, in effect, that both one and the
other side will know the quantities, qualities, and deployment of
the armaments possessed by the opposing side. Consequently, an

63

aggressor could increase his armaments to a superior level in
order to choose a convenient opportunity and launch an attack.
We will never accede to control over armaments without dis-
armament, because this would mean encouraging the aggressor.
Our goal is the winning of stable peace which can be achieved
only through the elimination of armaments and armed forces
under strict international control.

For instance, in case agreement is reached on the destruction,
in the first stage, of all means of delivery of nuclear weapons to
the target, on the dismantling of foreign military bases on the
territories of alien states, and the withdrawal of foreign troops
from those territories, then appropriate measures for control over
the carrying out of these arrangements should also be worked out.

The same applies to the subsequent stages of disarmament.

Such is the stand of the USSR as regards the questions of
general and complete disarmament under effective international
control which the Soviet Government took in the course of nego-
tiations in the Ten Nation Committee and still adheres to. No
one can deny that this is a positive stand prompted by the desire
to reach agreement on general and complete disarmament as soon
as possible.

Yet all the efforts made by the Soviet Union and other social-
ist states to have the Ten Nation Committee act in accordance
with the General Assembly resolution and take up the task of a
practical solution of the problem of general and complete dis-
armament ran, as it were, against a stone wall of opposition on
the part of the United States and other Western powers. Our
partners in the negotiations stubbornly refused to start the elabo-
ration of a treaty on general and complete disarmament and in
every way dodged a discussion of the substance of the Soviet pro-
gramme of general and complete disarmament. For the outside
world they say "yes" on disarmament questions, but when it comes
to the consideration of the disarmament question as such, they
make every effort to prevent agreement on disarmament.

The United States of America for its part made proposals
which provided for neither general, nor complete disarmament,
nor any disarmament at all, but only measles of control over
armaments, which is in fact, tantamount to control without dis-
armament. This wholly applies to the so-called "western plan" of

64

March 16, 1960 and the so-called "new" American proposals which
were put forward by the United States when the Ten Nation
Committee had already suspended its work.

What then did the Western powers propose? They proposed
control over rockets, control over satellites, control over atomic
industry, control over the deployment of armed forces, financial
control, ground control, control by means of aerial photography—
and all this with the states retaining all their armed forces and
armaments including nuclear weapons and all means of their
delivery to the target. The question, when framed in such a way,
may be of interest to those who while hatching military gambles
are concerned about collecting secret information on the armed
forces and armaments of other states, but has nothing to do with
disarmament. One cannot but see that the establishment of con-
trol without disarmament would not only fail to contribute to
the consolidation of peace but would on the contrary make it
easier for a potential aggressor to realize his plans which present
danger for the peoples.

But the Western powers in the Ten Nation Committee did
not wish to discuss anything except control without disarmament.
As the only specific measure for the first stage, beyond control,
they proposed that the strength of the armed forces of the USA
and the USSR be limited to the level of 2,500,000 men though it
is known that this is precisely the present strength of the United
States armed forces whereas the Soviet armed forces will number
2,423,000 men on the completion of a unilateral reduction by one
third, i.e. even less than proposed by the Western powers. Then
why was the proposal about the levels of 2,500,000 men made
at all?

It is difficult to evaluate this attitude otherwise than as the
unwillingness of the Western powers to agree to disarmament.

Not only did the Western powers reject a businesslike dis-
cussion in the Ten Nation Committee of the Soviet programme
of general and complete disarmament, not only did they put for-
ward no proposals of their own which would accord with the
demands of the resolution of the General Assembly on general
and complete disarmament, but they even went back on their
own proposals as soon as they were accepted by the Soviet Union.

It has to be stated, for instance, that though France put

65

forward a proposal to begin disarmament with the elimination
of the means of delivery of nuclear weapons to the target, its

representative in the Committee of ten in fact took the line of
abandoning this proposal as soon as it was accepted by the Soviet
Union, and began advocating not the elimination of the means
of delivery but only control over them. One need not be a special-
ist to understand the difference in principle between the elimina-
tion, destruction of rockets, military aircraft, warships and other
means of delivering nuclear weapons to their target, and the
establishment of control over them.

The fact that the French Government changed its view as
regards giving priority to the elimination of the means of deliv-
ery of nuclear weapons to the target is all the more incompre-
hensible since it is well known that in rocketry, that is in the
most advanced means of delivery, France is far from being the
first. The time is not far off when she can be outstripped even
by West Germany which the Pentagon intends to supply with
strategic rockets. Consequently, if agreement were reached on
the elimination of the means of delivery of nuclear weapons to
the target, France, far from standing to lose, would on the con-
trary, gain inasmuch as she would be on a par with the other
powers which are ahead of her now as far as the means of delivery
are concerned. There arises a legitimate question: are not NATO
commitments more important for France than the settlement of
the disarmament problem?

It is obvious that with the USA and its allies taking a nega-
tive stand as regards general and complete disarmament, the Ten
Nation Committee was not able to do any fruitful work towards
the implementation of the resolution of the General Assembly.
Moreover, from a body for negotiation on disarmament it began
to turn into its exact opposite: an instrument covering up the
continuation of the arms race.

Suffice it to say that while the Ten Nation Committee was
holding talks on disarmament, military appropriations continued
to grow in the United States, the construction of American
nuclear-rocket bases was stepped up in Britain, Italy and a num-
ber of other states, a new military treaty with the USA was im-
posed on Japan against the will of her people; preparations began
for supplying the West German revenge seekers and militarists

66

with "Polaris' 'strategic nuclear rockets, and steps were taken to ex-
pand the production of chemical and bacteriological weapons of
mass extermination. In other Western countries— members of
NATO— the arms race was given a new impetus as well.

All that was being carried out with the Ten Nation Com-
mittee being used as a screen. On the one hand, the arms race
was being stepped up, war preparations on an ever growing scale
were going on at a feverish pace, and on the other, allegations
were being made in the Ten Nation Committee about a desire
for disarmament, for continued negotiations. It was becoming more
and more apparent that the USA and its NATO allies sought, as
before, to drown the disarmament problem in futile disputes.

Under the circumstances, the Soviet Union and other socialist
states found themselves faced with the problem of whether there
was any sense at all in the further work o£ the Committee. After
giving due consideration to the situation that was created through
the fault of the USA and its allies the Soviet Government could
not but draw the conclusion that it was necessary to interrupt its
participation in the work of the Ten Nation Committee and to
raise the question of the necessity of considering the disarmament
problem at the General Assembly. The same conclusion was ar-
rived at by the other socialist states— members of the Committee.

It was not easy for the Soviet Government to make such a
decision, for it was precisely the Soviet Government that had put
forward a programme of general and complete disarmament, it
was the Soviet Government that sought to display maximum flexi-
bility in the course of the negotiations and worked persistently
for the negotiations to be effective and to make progress. Not-
withstanding all this, it had to take this step. To do otherwise
would be helping those who do not want disarmament, those who
are still pushing the world to wax.

Now that the United States and its allies have brought the
disarmament negotiations in the Ten Nation Committee to an
impasse, the General Assembly should give the present situation
due consideration and take appropriate measures with a view to
removing all obstacles in the way of solving the disarmament
problem. To achieve this it is necessary to declare bluntly and
plainly on behalf of all the states of the world to those who
hamper the negotiations on disarmament:

67

"

It is high time to put an end to maneuvering^ and delays,
the solution of the disarmament problem cannot be postponed
any longer, the elaboration of a treaty on general and complete
disarmament cannot be put off any more!

To expedite the solution of the disarmament problem the
Soviet Government is submitting to the General Assembly its
proposal entitled "Basic provisions of a treaty on general and
complete disarmament" which is appended to this statement. The
Soviet Government believes that this proposal provides a good
basis for the elaboration and conclusion of a treaty on general
and complete disarmament. In this proposal the Soviet Govern-
ment is going still further to meet the Western powers and takes
into account their attitude on some major points including their
pronouncements that it would be advisable, beginning with the
first stage, to couple measures for nuclear disarmament with meas-
ures to reduce armed forces and conventional armaments. To this
end the Soviet Government proposes that a substantial reduction
of armed forces and conventional armaments should be provided
for as early as in the first stage.

What is the essence of the Soviet proposal?
The Soviet Government proposes that within four years or
any other agreed period all states should carry out in three subse-
quent stages the complete and final elimination of all their armed
forces and armaments. At the same time all measures for disarm-
ament must be strictly controlled so that not a single state could
shirk the fulfillment of its obligations under the treaty on general
and complete disarmament and consequently, so that none of
them could take advantage of the elimination of the armed forces
and armaments of other states for aggressive purposes.

In the first stage which is to last for about a year or a year
and a half manufacture of the means of delivery of nuclear weap-
ons to the target must be stopped and the existing stockpiles
destroyed. In the first stage, too, all foreign military bases on the
territories of other states must be dismantled and all foreign
troops withdrawn from such territories. The strength of armed
forces of states must be substantially reduced, with the maximum
strength of the armed forces of the USSR ^id the USA being
established at the level of 1,700,000 men. Conventional armaments
must be reduced accordingly.

68

The implementation of all these measures would mean that
in a year or a year and a half after the disarmament treaty be-
comes effective not a single state would have at its disposal mili-
tary rockets or military aircraft capable of carrying atomic and
hydrogen bombs, or warships equipped for this purpose, or any
other means which could be used for delivering nuclear warheads
to their destination.

Not a single foreign military base— rocket, air, naval or any
other—would remain on the territories of states. All foreign troops
would be withdrawn from the territories of other states whether
or not they are occupation troops or stationed at present on for-
eign territories in accordance with some agreement. The armed
forces and conventional armaments of states would be consider-
ably reduced. It would be no exaggeration to say that were all
these disarmament measures carried out, the world would heave
a sigh of relief since the arms race would be stopped, the danger
of a surprise nuclear attack by one state on another would be
eliminated and, in general, the threat of a sudden outbreak of
war would be considerably reduced. All this is, of course, bound
to have a beneficial effect on the international situation as a
whole.

However, the implementation of the disarmament measures
proposed by the Soviet Government for the first stage would not
as yet entirely remove the threat of war. Even after that the states
would still retain nuclear and other weapons of mass extermina-
tion. But without the means of delivery nuclear weapons cannot
be used to harm other states. Therefore the means of delivery
must be destroyed and control must be established to prevent
their manufacture. The states would still have considerable armed
forces and conventional armaments. In other words, the states
would still maintain means of unleashing war.

Therefore, the Soviet Government proposes that immediately
following the completion of the measures of the first stage that
are to be carried out from beginning to end under strict inter-
national control, and after the International control organ and
the Security Council satisfy themselves that all the states have
fulfilled their obligations for the first stage, the states should
proceed to the realization of other large-scale disarmament meas-
ures comprising the second stage.

69

In the second stage the Soviet Government proposes, among
other measures, the complete prohibition of nuclear, chemical,
biological and other kinds of weapons of mass extermination as
well as discontinuance of their manufacture and destruction of
the existing stockpiles of such weapons, and further reduction of
the armed forces of states alongside the appropriate reduction of
armaments and war material.

The implementation of these large-scale measures would
mean that there would be no more weapons of mass extermina-
tion left in the world, while armed forces and conventional arma-
ments would be substantially reduced. Obviously, this would re-
duce to a minimum the possibility of war flaring up between states.

Nevertheless, even this is not as yet a complete and final
solution of the problem now facing humanity. If the states retain
armed forces-even though on a limited scale-it will mean that
the danger of war has not yet been ruled out from the life of
human society. But if so, how can one be sure that the arms race
will not start again and the world will not return, in the long
run, to the present state of affairs?

The Soviet Government believes that in the third stage it
will be necessary to go still further and complete the elimination
of the armed forces and armaments of all states, stop war produc-
tion, abolish war ministries, general staffs, and military and para-
military institutions and organizations of every kind as well as
to stop appropriating funds for military purposes.

On the consummation of the third stage of general and com-
plete disarmament the states would have neither soldiers, nor
weapons any longer, and the danger of war would be consequent-
ly eliminated once and for all. Then the centuries-old dream of
humanity— a world free of arms, free of wars-would come true.

As to the internal security of states it would be ensured by
strictly limited and agreed contingents of police or militia. In
case of need states would place such contingents at the disposal ot
the United Nations Security Council for the maintenance of world
security.

These are the major points of the Soviet proposal "Basic pro-
visions of a treaty on general and complete disarmament."

The Soviet Government expects that the members of the
United Nations will consider the proposal "Basic provisions of a

70

treaty on general and complete disarmament" with all seriousness
and responsibility. The Soviet Government expresses the hope
that the discussion of this proposal at the General Assembly will
make it possible to proceed without delay to the practical solu-
tion of the disarmament problem and will provide a more specific
line for the solution of this problem during negotiations in an
appropriate working organ. As to the composition of such a work-
ing body it appears necessary that besides states belonging to the
existing military blocs, wider opportunities in considering the
disarmament question should also be given to states adhering to
neutral positions. It should also be desirable that the main areas
of the world should be represented in such a disarmament body.

The Soviet Government realizes that the working out of a
treaty on general and complete disarmament will require patience,
mutual regard for the interests of the parties and flexibility on
the part of all the participants in the negotiations. The Soviet
Government, as before, is ready for such negotiations. It is aware
that the peoples of the world, anxious for the radical solution of
the disarmament problem are eagerly waiting for practical meas-
ures for general and complete disarmament to be initiated as soon
as possible.

Of course, an important step ensuring the success of the
negotiations on disarmament would be the re-establishment of
the legitimate rights of the Chinese People's Republic in the
United Nations. Thereby the great China would become a party
to the negotiations on the disarmament question.

The peoples of the world persistently demand a prompt solu-
tion of the disarmament problem. They expect that the United
Nations General Assembly will speak out with authority on this
vital problem.

Goodwill and determination are required for the solution of
the disarmament problem. It is from these positions that the
Soviet Government urges all members of the United Nations to
approach the consideration of the disarmament problem, the most
burning and pressing problem of today.

September 23, 1960

N. S. Khrushchev

Chairman of the USSR Council
of Ministers

71

September 23, I960

Basic Provisions of a Treaty on General and
Complete Disarmament

Proposals of the Soviet Government submitted to the
Fifteenth Session of the United Nations General As-
sembly by N. S. Khrushchev, Head of the USSR
Delegation, Chairman of the Council of Ministers
of the USSR

The Governments of the States participating in negotiations
on disarmament, guided by the resolution on "General and com-
plete disarmament" adopted by the General Assembly of the
United Nations at its fourteenth session on 20 November, 1959,
in the interests of saving mankind from the threat of a new war,
and in the interests of securing lasting and inviolable peace on
earth, recognize the need to proceed forthwith to the practical
accomplishment of the task of general and complete disarmament,
and have to this end resolved to draw up a treaty on general and
complete disarmament, which will include the following basic
provisions:

I. General and complete disarmament entails:

—the disbanding of all armed forces of States and the pro-
hibition of their re-establishment in any form whatsover;

—the prohibition and destruction of all stockpiles, and the
cessation of the manufacture of all kinds of armaments, includ-
ing atomic, hydrogen, chemical, biological and other types of
weapons of mass destruction;

—the destruction of all means of delivering weapons of mass
destruction to their targets;

—the liquidation of all kinds of military hases, and the with-
drawal and disbanding of all foreign troops stationed in the ter-
ritory of any State;

72

—the abolition of any kind of military conscription for
citizens;

—the termination of universal military training and the clo-
sure of all military education institutions;

—the abolition of war ministries, of general staffs and their
local agencies, and of all other military and paramilitary estab-
lishments and organizations;

—the discontinuance of the appropriation of funds for mili-
tary purposes whether from State budgets or from public organi-
zations or private individuals.

When general and complete disarmament has been achieved,
States will have at their disposal only strictly limited contingents
of police (militia), the size of which will be agreed upon for each
country and which will be equipped with light firearms, for main-
taining internal order and ensuring the personal security of
citizens.

II. General and complete disarmament shall be carried out
by all States over one and the same strictly defined period of time
to be agreed upon, the process of disarmament being carried out
gradually, in three consecutive stages, bearing in mind that at no
stage shall any State gain military advantages over other States
as a result of the course of disarmament.

To consider the question of the adherence of other States to
the agreement on general and complete disarmament a confer-
ence will be convened with all countries participating.

III. All disarmament measures, from beginning to end, will
be carried out under strict and effective international control as
follows:

a) Immediately after the signing of the treaty a preparatory

commission will be set up, with the task of taking practical steps
to establish an international organization for the control of gen-
eral and complete disarmament.

b) The control organization will be set up within the frame-
work of the United Nations the moment the treaty comes into
force. It will comprise all States, Parties to the treaty whose rep-
resentatives will meet periodically as a conference to consider

73

matters arising out o£ the implementation of effective control over
disarmament. The conference will elect a Control Council, con-
sisting of permanent and non-permanent members, which will
have its own local organs. The Control Council will consist of
representatives of socialist countries, of representatives of States
now members of Western military and political alliances, and of
representatives of neutral States. Except where otherwise espe-
cially agreed upon, decisions in the Control Council will be taken
by a two-thirds' majority of votes on substantive matters and by a
simple majority of votes on procedural matters.

c) The Control Council will be responsible for the practical
administration of the control system, will draw up instructions,
and will in good time analyze and process the reports rendered
to it. States will submit to the Control Council information about
their armed forces and armaments.

d) In all countries Parties to the agreements the control
organization will have its own staff, recruited internationally with
due regard for the principle of equitable geographical distribu-
tion, and in accordance with the provisions of the treaty. The
control organization will distribute its inspectors over the terri-
tory of States in such a way as to enable them to start discharging
their functions the moment States initiate the implementation of
disarmament measures. Each Party to the treaty will undertake
to give the inspection teams timely and unrestricted access within
its territory to any place where disarmament measures subject to
verification are being carried out or to any area in which on-the-
spot inspection of such measures is to be made. To these ends,
each Party to the treaty will, for the account of the control organi-
zation, make available to the staff of the control organization all
means of transport needed for travel within its territory.

e) The staff of the control organization will enjoy in the
territory of each party to the treaty such privileges and immuni-
ties as may be necessary for exercising independent and unre-
stricted control over the implementation of the disarmament
treaty.

f) International inspection teams will include experts in the
type of units to be disbanded and the types of weapons to be
destroyed.

7i

g) The inspectors will communicate with the Control Council
through existing channels of communication, being given such
privileges as will ensure the prompt delivery of reports and in-
structions.

h) All the expenses of the international control organization
will be met by the States Parties to the treaty. The scale of con-
tributions of States will be laid down in the text of the treaty on
general and complete disarmament.

The control organization shall at each stage have powers in
conformity with the scope and nature of disarmament measures
involved.

The basic disarmament measures will be spread over the
three stages of the programme of general and complete disarma-
ment in the following way:

First Stage

1. All means of delivering nuclear weapons will be elimi-
nated from the armed forces of States; their manufacture will be
discontinued and they will be destroyed. Such means include:

—strategic and tactical rockets, pilotless aircraft of all types,
and all military aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons;

—surface warships that can be used as vehicles for nuclear
weapons;

—submarines of all classes and types;

—all artillery systems, as well as other means, that can be used
as vehicles for atomic and hydrogen weapons.

2- The armed forces of all States will be reduced to fixed
levels, those of the United States of America and the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics being reduced to a maximum level of
1,7 million men. Conventional weapons and munitions thus re-
leased are to be destroyed, and military equipment either de-
stroyed or used for peaceful purposes. Military expenditures of
States will be reduced correspondingly.

3. All troops will be withdrawn from foreign territories to
within their own national frontiers. Foreign military bases and
depots of all kinds, both those released after the withdrawal of
troops and those kept in reserve, will be eliminated.

75

4. From the very beginning of the first stage and until the
final destruction of all means of delivering nuclear weapons, the
placing into orbit or stationing in outer space of any special de-
vices, the leaving of their territorial waters by warships and the
flying beyond the limits of their national territory by military
aircraft capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction,, will be
prohibited.

5. The launching of rockets will be carried out exclusively
for scientific peaceful purposes and in accordance with predeter-
mined and mutually agreed criteria, and will be accompanied by
agreed measures of verification, including inspection at the rocket
launching sites.

6. States having nuclear weapons at their disposal will un-
dertake not to transfer such weapons, or to transmit information
necessary for their manufacture, to States which do not possess
them. At the same time, States not possessing nuclear weapons will
undertake to refrain from manufacturing them.

7. States will reduce their military expenditures correspond-
ingly.

8. The following control measures will be carried out during
the first stage:

On-site international control will be established over the de-
struction of rocket weapons, military aircraft, surface warships,
submarines and other means which can be used as vehicles for
atomic and hydrogen weapons.

International inspection teams will be dispatched to places
where military bases are situated and troops stationed on foreign
territories, in order to supervise the elimination of the said bases
and the withdrawal of military personnel and troops to within
their own national territories; control will also be established at
airfields and ports, to ensure that they are not used for military
purposes. At the same time, rocket launching sites, with the ex-
ception of those maintained for scientific peaceful purposes, will
be destroyed under the supervision of the international control
organization.

The control organization will have the right to inspect with-
out hindrance all enterprises, plants, factories and shipyards, pre-
viously engaged wholly or in part in the production of rockets,

76

aircraft, surface warships, submarines and any other means of de-
livering nuclear weapons, in order to prevent the organization of
clandestine production of armaments which can be used as ve-
hicles for atomic and hydrogen weapons. By agreement, perma-
nent control teams may be established at some plants and installa-
tions.

There will be on-site international control over the disband-
ing of troops and the destruction of armaments.

The duties of inspectors will include:

Supervision of precise and punctual compliance with deci-
sions on the disbanding of military formations and units, elimi-
nation and destruction of the material of conventional arma-
ments, military equipment and munitions;

Reporting to the Control Council and to the Government of
the host country.

The control organization will have unhindered access to
documents pertaining to the budgetary allocations of States for
military purposes, including all relevant decisions of legislative
and executive bodies of States.

International inspection teams dispatched by the control or-
ganization will have the right to carry out a thorough examina-
tion of rocket devices to be launched for peaceful scientific pur-
poses, and to be present at their launching.

9. In the first stage joint studies will be undertaken of the
measures to be implemented in the second stage relating to the
discontinuance of the manufacture of nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons and to the destruction of stockpiles of such
weapons.

10. The first stage is to be completed within approximately
1-1.5 years. The international control organization will review the
results of the carrying out of the first-stage measures with a view
to reporting on them to the States Parties to the treaty as well
as to the Security Council and the General Assembly of the
United Nations.

Second Stage

1. There will be a complete prohibition of nuclear, chemical
biological and other weapons of mass destruction, with the cessa-

77

tion of manufacture and the destruction of all stockpiles of such
weapons.

2. Further reduction of armed forces and armaments will be
carried out to the levels to be agreed. Military expenditures of
States will be reduced correspondingly.

3. The following control measures will be carried out during
the second stage:

Representatives of the control organizations will conduct the
on-site inspection of the destruction of all existing stockpiles of
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The control organiza-
tion will have the right to inspect all enterprises which extract
raw materials for atomic production or which produce or use
fissionable materials or atomic energy. By agreement, permanent
control teams may be established at some plants and installations.

On-site international control over the disbanding of troops
and the destruction of armaments will be continued.

4. In the second stage joint studies will be undertaken of
the following measures to be implemented in the third stage:

a) measures to ensure observance of the treaty on general and
complete disarmament after the implementation of all the meas-
ures provided for by that treaty;

b) measures to maintain peace and security in accordance
with the United Nations Charter under conditions of general and
complete disarmament.

5. As in the case of the transition from the first to the second
stage, the international control organization will review the re-
sults of the carrying out of the second-stage measures with a view
to reporting them to the States Parties to the treaty, as well as to
the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United
Nations.

Third Stage

1. The abolition of the armed forces of all States will be
completed. States will have at their disposal only strictly limited
contingents of police (militia), the size of which will be agreed
upon for each country, and which will be equipped with light
firearms, for maintaining internal order and ensuring the per-
sonal security of citizens.

78

2. All remaining types of conventional armaments and am-
munition, whether held by the armed forces or in depots, will be
destroyed, and military equipment will either be destroyed or be
put to peaceful uses.

3. Military production at all factories will be terminated in-
cluding the manufacture of conventional armaments, with the
exception of strictly limited production of light firearms intended
for the use of the contingents of police (militia) retained by States
after the end of the programme of general and complete disarma-
ment.

4. War ministries, general staffs and all military and para-
military establishments and organizations will be abolished. All
military courses for reservists will be terminated. In accordance
with their respective constitutional procedures, States will enact
legislation prohibiting the military training of young persons and
abolishing military service in all its forms.

5. The appropriation of funds for military purposes in any
form, whether from State bodies, from private individuals or
from public organizations, will be discontinued. The funds re-
leased as a result of the achievement of general and complete'
disarmament will be used to reduce or to do away entirely with
taxes on the public, to subsidize the national economy and to
furnish economic and technical assistance to the underdeveloped
countries.

6. At the third stage, the following additional control meas-
ures will be introduced:

The international control organization will send inspectors
to verify on the spot the abolition of war ministries, general staff's
and all military and paramilitary establishments and organiza-
tions, and the termination of military training and all other forms
of military activity.

Control will be established over the discontinuance of the
appropriation of funds for military purposes.

The control organization may, where necessary, institute a
system of aerial inspection and aerial photography over the terri-
tory of States.

7. After the programme of general and complete disarma-
ment has been carried out, the control organization will be kept

79

in being to maintain constant supervision over the implementa-
tion by States of the obligations they have assumed. The Control
Council will have the right to send mobile inspection teams to
any point or to any establishment in the territory of States.

States will provide the control organization with information
about the points at which the contingents of police (militia) are
stationed, about their strength at every such point (area) and
about any movements of substantial contingents of police (militia)
near State frontiers. International inspection teams will carry out
comprehensive control to ensure that the strength of the police
(militia) and their armament are in conformity with the quota
agreed upon for each country.

8. Other measures designed to ensure compliance with the
treaty on complete disarmament will come into force.

9. Measures for preserving peace and security in accordance
with the Charter of the United Nations will be put into effect.
States will undertake, where necessary, to place at the disposal
of the Security Council units from the contingents of the police
(militia) remaining at their disposal.

As the implementation of the disarmament programme and
the reduction of military expenditure of States proceeds, part of
the funds thus released will be used to give economic assistance
to underdeveloped countries.

SO

September 23, I960

Declaration on Granting Independence
To Colonial Countries and Peoples

Submitted by the Head of the USSR Delegation

N. S. Khrushchev, Chairman of the USSR Council of

Ministers, for consideration by the Fifteenth Session

of the UA T General Assembly

The states that set up the United Nations Organization laid
in the basis of its Charter the lofty and humane ideals of equality
and self-determination of nations and peoples.

Born in die period of victorious completion of the Second
World War the United Nations embodied the hopes that inequal-
ity and enslavement of some nations and peoples by others would
disappear along with the barbarity and cruelty of fascism and mil-
itarism. But not all the hopes of the peoples came true. Still un-
solved is such a vital problem of our time as complete deliverance
of mankind from the shameful colonial order inherited from the
past.

Ours is the era of swift renovation of society, the era of
establishing more progressive and just forms of life, of the upsurge
of unprecedented triumph of man over the forces of nature.
The time has come for complete and final liberation of peoples
languishing in colonial bondage. Therefore the member states of
the United Nations solemnly declare their convictions, intentions
and demands for granting independence to colonial countries
and peoples.

The peoples that oppress other peoples cannot be free. Each
free nation should help in winning freedom and independence
for the peoples that are still oppressed.

Great Revival of Enslaved Nations

Rapid liberation and emancipation of countries and peoples
is a significant event of our time. Even during the lifetime of

81

the present generation two thirds of the world's population were
living under conditions of colonial rule. At the end of the First
World War the chains of colonial subjugation and oppression
of nations were broken in a number of countries. The banner of
national independence raised high over the world has become
now the banner of hundreds and hundreds of millions of people
in all continents of the globe. The time has come for the liberation
and revival of nations, peoples and tribes which were but re-
cently oppressed and downtrodden. Tens of new states have joined
the family of independent countries. The democratic ideas of
equality and self-determination of nations are being translated
into reality.

The myth of inability of colonial peoples to rule and to
create material values is reduced to ashes.

No one can say now that the peoples of Asia, Africa, Latin
America cannot govern themselves. Gigantic forces awoke for the
construction of a new independent life, and their spirits rose. Now
the solution of international matters is inconceivable without
the participation of People's China, without the participation
of the liberated peoples of India, Indonesia, Burma, Ceylon, the
United Arab Republic, Iraq, Ghana, Guinea and other states,
big and small.

Today no one can say that the liberation of nations and peo-
ples that were under the yoke of colonialism in the past will bring
about the extension of the zone of conflicts and clashes between
countries. On the contrary, national liberation has led to the
extension of the zone of peace while the colonial oppression and
colonial policy have led and will lead to wars.

Today no one can assert that the liberation of nations would
lead to the depression of economy, trade, crafts or agriculture.
On the contrary, experience shows that it is the political libera-
tion of colonial nations and the establishment of new independent
states that open the way for a genuine upsurge of the national
economy.

Now no one will dare to assert that the liberation of nations
from the colonial yoke would lead to a decline of culture. Life
shows that immediately after the liberation follows the revival,
uplift and flourishing of original national cultures, expansion

82

of public education, improvement of health service, training of
skilled national cadres: the possibilities of enriching world culture
are rising.

Not only the peoples of the East are gaining from the liber-
ation of previously oppressed nations but the peoples of the West
as well. The cause of freedom of peoples, their equal relations,
the preservation of peace in the world is being placed on a more
solid foundation.

But the liquidation of colonial regimes is yet to be completed.

The member states of the United Nations cannot remain in-
different when over one hundred million people still languish
in colonial subjugation in the ancient lands of Africa and Asia,
on the islands of Oceania, on the islands of the Caribbean and
in other places. The peoples of these countries have the right to
national independence but nevertheless they are still deprived of
rights, remain in the stocks. Violence and lawlessness continue to
reign in these countries, the major law there being profit for for-
eigners whose interest is all; the inherent rights of man and peoples
are nothing. The bossing by foreign administrators who despise
and loot local populations; persecution of tribes, derision of na-
tional customs, inequality for indigenous populations, shameful
disregard of their vital interests, degrading of national and human
dignity give rise to deep indignation in every honest person.

The lash of the overseer swishes there, the hatchet of the
executioner cuts heads off.

The peoples of the colonies do not want to live in slave con-
ditions, they are fighting for their rights and independence, for
everything that other nations enjoy. However, selfish interests of
the imperialist circles in the West stand in their way and hinder
tire realization of the just aspirations of peoples. Colonial wars,
punitive expeditions, open looting of peoples by monopolies,
military tribunals and secret trials, reservations, color bar, prisons
and concentration camps — these are some methods with which
overt and covert colonialists try to strangle all independent and
nationalistic life in colonial countries.

The Conference of African Nations in Accra justly branded
all this as colonial fascism.

Those who stand for the preservation of the old colonial

83

rule still hope for severe measures of retribution in the colonies.
Of course, such measures are hampering liberation. But does not
life follow its course? Did the cruel reprisals carried out through-
out decades stop the liberation of Indonesia? Did the massacre
of tens and hundreds of thousands of people of Indo-China save the
colonial rule there? Gould the crimes committed now against
the peoples of Africa stop the irresistible process of the liberation
of African nations?

No forces of oppression and despotism can save a colonial
order that has lived its life. And about those that were killed on
the path to freedom one cannot say that they are dead, no, they
are alive in the memory of peoples, they will live eternally as
heroes of national liberation struggle.

Colonialism is in its agony. But in the last minute of its life
it can bring about many sufferings and victims, ruin many lives in
colonies and metropolises, destroy much wealth created by the
labor of many generations.

The United Nations appeals to all peoples on earth and to
all governments not to remain indifferent observers of the suffer-
ing of colonial peoples. Gan one turn a deaf ear to the moans of
the people of Kenya where for eight years the colonial authorities
have continued to exterminate the local population driven into
reservations, prisons and concentration camps, to the sufferings of
the people of the Oman against whom aggressive war is being
waged? Who can remain calm seeing unending carnage of the
population of Nyasaland, Angola, Mozambique, Rhodesia, Ruan-
da-Urundi, South West Africa, Tanganyika, Uganda?

It is an intolerable situation in our time, in an age of progress
and outstanding discoveries of scientific genius, boundless expan-
sion of the power of man over the forces of nature, for France to
wage colonial war in Algeria with the use of aviation, artillery,
tanks and napalm bombs and other means of mass extermination
against the Algerians who have been for nearly six years fighting
with selfless courage for the freedom and independence of their
motherland. Hundreds of thousands of Algerians have been killed,
many Algerian towns and villages burned dowri. and destroyed, a
fifth of the country's population driven to concentration camps.
Dying for this unjust cause are many sons of France.

84

Can such a situation be tolerated any longer? No, it cannot,
if the interests of the great cause of peace, the interests of humanity
and progress are to be cherished.

In what name do those who do not want to part with the
colonial rule wage murderous wars against the peoples? Why are
the freedom-loving aspirations of the enslaved peoples suppressed?
Sometimes it is said that this is done in the interests of "civiliza-
tion" of the less developed countries in order to prepare them
for self-government.

But this is a lie given the shape of truth.

What civilization has been brought as a result of five cen-
turies of the tyrannic colonial rule to the African countries of
Angola, Mozambique and Portuguese Guinea whose area is more
than half of Western Europe and who have a population of eleven
million people? They have brought misery and lawlessness, force-
ful deprivation of the lands which have been watered with sweat
of many a generation, expulsion of farmers into barren and
drought-ridden regions.

Arbitrary rule, famine, ignorance and disease rage there,
slavery and forced labor are actually in existence there. There
is not a single establishment of higher education; secondary edu-
cation is almost completely lacking.

Why can Portugal exercise such lawlessness in the colonies
in our time? On what grounds?

During half a century of Belgian colonial domination the
Congo's population decreased more than twice from punitive
expeditions, starvation and disease. At the moment of the proc-
lamation of the independence of the Republic of the Congo only
few of its citizens could read and write.

The situation in other African colonies is no better in any
way.

Of course, in some regions of the colonies roads, airfields,
ports, mines, a few schools have been built. But all this serves
the purposes of exploitation of the native population and of loot-
ing the natural wealth of the colonies.

The assertion that the colonial rule is necessary in order to
prevent strife, fratricidal wars of tribes and peoples in colonies
is a deliberate lie also. Developments in the Congo show that

85

colonialism thrives on the use of discord and the artificial rousing
o£ differences between tribes and peoples. It tries to weaken their
common struggle for liberation. The motto of the colonialists is,
as ever, "divide and rule I "

What is inscribed on the colors of the peoples of Asia and
Africa who are fighting for their national freedom and independ-
ence? Inscribed on them are the slogans of peace and unity of
Bandung and Accra.

Being indifferent to the voice of justice, the colonialists are
trying to preserve the arbitrarily drawn frontiers parting peoples
and tribes as well as economic regions in Africa gravitating to each
other, to disrupt the unity and the territorial integrity of many
countries.

Independence for Colonial Countries and
Peoples is the Call of the Time

The United Nations appeals to peoples and governments ir-
respective of where their motherland may be — in the East or
West, in the North or South — to raise the question prompted
today by life itself: does a completely decayed colonial rule meet
the ideals of the peoples and the possibilities of the present age?

One has only to compare the development for the past century
of the independent countries of Europe or North America and
the development of colonial countries in Africa to see clearly
that the path of colonialism is the path of regression, the path of
slow dying, destruction and degradation of the forcefully enslaved
countries.

At a time when industry, transport, agriculture, science and
culture have reached a high level in the economically developed
countries, when vessels propelled by atomic energy have appeared,
and artificial celestial bodies have been launched into the cosmos,
Africa, the land of fantastic riches, has been retarded and turned
into a continent of famine; the main implements of its agriculture,
as thousands of years ago, are mattock, wooden plough and sharp-
ened stakes; the primitive system of agriculture prevails which
results in exhaustion and erosion of the soil. 4

Indeed, an abyss gapes now between the independent states
with highly developed industries and the colonial countries, while

86

once Asia and Africa were the cradles of great civilizations which
enriched the culture and civilization of other peoples.

It is obvious that the main purpose of the colonial regime is
to gain enormous profits for big foreign monopolies which have
seized the key economic positions in colonies, the extortion by
all ways and means of wealth and material values. Therefore, the
entire economy of the colonies is that of exploitation. Having been
subjugated first of all to the narrow interests and needs of the
markets of different, industrially more developed countries, it is
advancing slowly in a deformed, one-sided direction.

Only after Ghana had been liberated was it recognized that
its future lies not in the production of cocoa alone but in the
development of modern industry with the extensive utilization
of its large resources of hydro-electric power and the enormous
deposits of bauxite and it is exactly this that is valuable from
the point of view of the world's economy.

Under the colonial regime no use could have been made also
of enormous hydro-power resources of the Republic of the Congo,
which by their capacity nearly equal the present output of electric
power in all the countries of Western Europe, taken together.
The utilization of these resources alone would not only make it
possible to start the development of its colossal mineral wealth in
full measure and raise the level of agriculture in the Republic of
the Congo but would transform, in a significant measure, the whole
of the economic outlook of the Central African countries and
raise the well-being of its population.

It is scientifically proved that all countries of the African
continent as well as of other continents possess colossal and diversi-
fied natural resources that to a great extent are not exploited as yet.
They could be brought to the service of the peoples of these coun-
tries and thus to the service of the whole of mankind. But the
colonial regime deliberately preserves the economic backwardness
of the colonies, hinders their industrialization and the sensible
utilization of their resources. This is connected with an unprece-
dented waste of public funds, immense losses of labor, domination
of the parasitic monocultural way of running the economy of the
colonial countries which is adapted to satisfy the selfish interests
of the metropolises.

87

"

The present level of science and technology, the latest achieve-
ments of science, agriculture and culture makes it possible, in a
comparatively short period, for the peoples to use this huge wealth.
However, in order to use it, it is first of all necessary to secure
for the peoples the right to exist independently, to eliminate
colonial rule, to render economic aid in using this wealth. This
will permit a rise in the standards of living of the native popu-
lation, expansion of internal markets, doing away with present
illiteracy, with lack of national cadres, with the domination of
monoculture in the colonial economy. The colonial forms are
incompatible with the solution of tasks of this kind as well as
with the great achievements of technology which are an inalien-
able part of modern civilization.

The gains from the exploitation of colonies go not to the
peoples but mainly to big foreign monopolies — billionaires. Peo-
ples of both the East and the West have to pay a high levy to
colonialism. Oil and coffee, rubber and cotton, copper and
bananas, various raw materials and foodstuffs brought from col-
onies are sold at a price scores of times as high as the price paid
on the spot. Monopolies are robbing people twice — in the East
when they buy and in the West when they sell colonial goods and
raw materials.

Moreover, they compel peoples of the colonies to keep foreign
troops and administration in peace time, that is to pay the price
of the chains they are put into. At the same time the monopolies
are charging taxpayers in metropolises higher taxes for carrying
out punitive expeditions and colonial wars, forcing the peoples
of the metropolises as well to pay for the shackles into which
the monopolists-colonialists put other peoples. In fact, they are
burying on the fields of devastation the freedom of their own
people together with the independence of other nations. Such a
situation is in itself a heavy indictment of the colonial system.

Meanwhile if the member states of the United Nations and
first of all those of them, naturally, which in their time imposed
the yoke of colonialism on many peoples, would show at least a
minimum appreciation of the immediate needs of these peoples,
they would find ways of meeting these needs. One of the main
sources is the solution of the disarmament problem and curtail-
ment of military expenditures of states.

88

It is known that the member states of the military and
colonial North Atlantic bloc alone spend on the arms race 62 bil-
lion dollars a year. If at least half of this sum that is annually
spent for unproductive purposes dangerous for peace were used
for the development and uplift of African countries, for exam-
ple, gigantic engineering and technical projects including the
Ingui, Concure, Zanzibar and Volta plans— that is the plans for
the construction of large hydroelectric power stations and irriga-
tion systems, industrial enterprises and agriculture development
schemes— then the liberated nations of Africa could build every-
where schools, universities, hospitals, roads and carry out other
measures which would enable them to raise agriculture to a higher
modern level.

At the same time if the bonds of colonialism were removed
from African and other colonies this would facilitate the exploita-
tion of their natural resources, increase the demand for European
and American machinery and other industrial goods, increase the
export of raw materials for the industry of Europe and America,
raise the employment of the population and the utilization of
industrial capacities, and ensure the raising of living standard
of the peoples of industrially developed countries.

Every honest person and every government if it really stands
for the equality of nations, for the realization of the great aims
and principles proclaimed in the United Nations Charter cannot
but see that colonialism is an obsolete and shameful phenomenon
in the life of modern society. The complete and final liquidation
of colonialism would be a prelude not only to social progress but
also to rapid technical progress in industry and agriculture just
as the end of the slave trade gave a powerful impetus to the devel-
opment of the productive forces of society.

The liquidation of colonialism would be one of the most im-
portant measures to reduce international tension. It is the desire
to prevent the liberation and the national development of young
states in Asia, Africa, and Latin America that led to such armed
conflicts and wars after the Second World War as those in Indo-
nesia, Indo-China, Algeria, the aggression against Egypt, the foreign
intervention in Lebanon and Jordan, the conspiracies against
Syria, Iraq and others. And, indeed, all through the last hundred
years most wars and armed conflicts were in one way or another

89

connected with colonialism, with the struggle of big powers for
distribution and redistribution of colonies.

The peoples have more than once experienced the grave danger
of colonial wars growing into a new world war. And now the inter-
vention against the Republic of the Congo has led to an aggrava-
tion in the international situation, has endangered peace in Africa
and, indeed, not only in Africa. Can one forget that in the present
conditions with nuclear and rocket weapons in existence the con-
flagration of war started on one continent can instantly embrace
the whole globe?

Many of the most important points of concentration of
international tension — in the Middle and the Far East, in Africa
and Latin America — are to a considerable degree a result of the
colonial policy. Colonies and other so-called "non-self-governing
territories" are often used as military bases of foreign powers, as
firing grounds for atomic tests. Can such a situation make people
feel secure, relieve them of the fear of war, show a way out of
poverty, famine and disease which are still the lot of the peoples
of the countries which remain colonies and trusteeship territories?

Apart from large colonies and trusteeship territories some
powers retain as well strong points in different areas of the world,
for example, Western Irian, Okinawa, Goa, Puerto Rico and others,
not to mention Taiwan against which the USA has committed
aggression, having occupied this territory of the Chinese Peo-
ple's Republic. Why do the highly developed industrial powers
need such bases and "possessions" on foreign territories? Is it not
an obvious survival of the epoch of former colonial domina-
tion? What would the Europeans or the Americans say if one or
another Asian or African country demanded for itself strong
points in the countries of Western Europe or North America?

There cannot be two opinions — these bases are kept to threat-
en the national independence and security of peoples in the neigh-
bouring areas. As the trading stations at the dawn of colonialism
served as a basis for the spread of colonial rule of oppression in
Africa, Asia and America, so now, at the time of the decay of
colonialism the imperialists are trying to use the remaining bases
and colonies for brutal pressure on independent states of Asia,
Africa and Latin America.

90

The Shameful Colonial System Should Be Buried

The member states of the United Nations Organization sub-
mitting this Declaration, are of the opinion that every govern-
ment which in deeds, and not in words is for peace and progress
should respect the lawful rights of all nations without exception
in their demands for equality, justice and independence. Either
these demands will be recognized by all the states or the oppressed
peoples with the support of their numerous friends in the world
will take their destiny in their own hands and will gain liberty
and independence, crushing all the artificial barriers erected in
their way by the colonialists. The primary duty of all the nations
is to extend a helping hand in the sacred struggle for independence
against the yoke of the colonialists.

Together with the infamous system of colonialism such a
form of colonial rule as the trusteeship system has also outlived
itself. Being an obvious remnant of the mandate system of the
League of Nations the present trusteeship system in accordance
with the United Nations Charter should have facilitated the devel-
opment of the trusteeship territories toward self-government and
independence. Fifteen years have elapsed however since the Char-
ter was adopted, but only four out of eleven trusteeship territories
have attained independence.

So far no exact dates have been fixed for granting independ-
ence to the trusteeship territories including the largest of them —
Tanganyika, Ruanda-Urundi, New Guinea.

The powers responsible for "trusteeship," disregarding the
principles of the United Nations, are preserving in fact colonial
regimes, mercilessly exploiting the population and plundering
national resources, repressing those who appealed to the United
Nations Organization, hampering the economic and political devel-
opment of the trusteeship territories.

The trusteeship system has not justified itself anywhere and
should be buried together with the entire colonial system which is
an anachronism. The regime of colonial oppression has left to
man a heavy legacy in the form of numerous complicated prob-
lems. The tragic events in the Congo as well as in some other
parts of the world where peoples are waging the just struggle
for their rights, demand a reasonable solution of the problem

91

of relations between the indigenous population and the settlers
who came from other continents. Racial discrimination in all its
odious forms, i.e. division of peoples and nations into the priv-
ileged and the "inferior" is racism, justification of criminal geno-
cide, the way of adding new evil deeds to the evil deeds committed
earlier, of new crimes to the crimes committed earlier, the way o£
fomenting mutual hatred, endless bloody conflicts between coun-
tries and peoples.

Different people have different skin color, but the blood they
have is of the same color. And not a single people can lay a claim
to domination over other peoples.

Ties and relations between the peoples created at the time of
colonialism should be replaced by new relations based on the
principles of equality, friendship and mutual respect, irrespective
of the social and political system of states, ideology and political
views of people or the color of their skin. The peoples in colonies
should get real independence, but not a fictitious one under which
they would, in fact, be kept within the bounds of a modified
colonial regime. They are demanding not only greater freedom
within the colonial rule but the final elimination of this system,
freedom for progress, the right to be their own masters, to make
use of their wealth and the fruits of their labor. Every form of
enslavement, every manifestation of "trusteeship" or "charity"
toward peoples is a deep insult to their dignity.

Life itself makes it imperative to choose between stagnation
and progress, between slavery and freedom, between the division
of the peoples and their unity, between war and peace.

The United Nations considers it a duty to urge the powers
that have colonial possessions to enter into negotiations on equal
footing with representatives of the peoples of the colonies and
reach agreement on the establishment of freedom and independ-
ence of the colonial countries.

Exact and early dates for negotiations should be fixed and
any possibility of coercion or aggression on the part of the
colonial powers should be ruled out. But should those powers
turn a deaf ear to such an appeal, should they delay the libera-
tion of the colonies, suppress the liberation movement of the
colonial peoples, the peaceloving peoples should render every assist-

92

ance, moral and material, to the peoples fighting for their inde-
pendence.

The member states of the United Nations proceed from the
premise that every country, every nation has a full and inalienable
right to independent existence. They feel confident that the elim-
ination of the colonial regime will not mean alienation of the
countries of Africa or Europe from one another. On the contrary,
it will promote still greater cooperation among them. Such unity
and cooperation, however, should be granted reciprocally and
of free will.

The more consistently and directly the great principles of
international cooperation are realized— the principles of equal-
ity, sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-interference in each
other's internal affairs, mutual benefit, peaceful co-existence and
economic cooperation, the better will be mutual understanding
and agreement among free and equal states of the world.

Only thus will the countries of the West and the East, the
North and the South march forward to progress, to genuine peace-
ful comity of nations utilizing the great achievements of modern
science and culture. Only thus can be translated into reality the
high principles of the right of nations and peoples to self-deter-
mination enunciated in the United Nations Charter.

Moved by the ardent desire for the earliest establishment of
mutual good will and agreement among states and peoples as
well as between the indigenous population of the non-self-govern-
ing territories and those who settled on such territories and wish
to live there enjoying the same rights as those of the nationals
of such countries, member states of the United Nations who affixed
their signatures to this Declaration appeal to all people irrespective
of language and race, religion and political outlook:

Let all the people of the globe hear our words!

We all live on one planet. On this planet we are born, we
work, raise our children and pass on to them all we have
achieved in life. And though there exist different states on earth,
every person is born an equal citizen.

The very course of historic development at present poses
the question of complete and final elimination of colonial rule in

93

all its forms and manifestations, and not some time in the distant
future either, but immediately and unconditionally!

In accordance with this, member states of the United Nations
solemnly demand:

1. To grant immediately to all colonial countries, trusteeship
territories and other non-self-governing territories complete inde-
pendence and freedom in the building up of their own national
states in conformity with the freely-expressed will and desire of
their peoples. Colonial rule, colonial administration in all its
forms should be abolished completely so as to make it possible
for the peoples of such territories to determine their destiny and
form of government.

2. To eliminate likewise all strongholds of colonialism in the
shape of possessions and leasehold areas on the territories of other
states.

3. The governments of all countries are called upon to ob-
serve strictly and consistently the provisions of the United Nations
Charter and of this Declaration relating to equality and respect
for sovereign rights and territorial integrity of all states without
exception, allowing no manifestations of colonialism, no exclusive
rights or advantages for some states to the prejudice of other states.

« # *

In keeping with the noble principles of the Charter of this
Organization member states of the United Nations cannot but
regard the elimination of colonial rule as a most important
stage in international life. This act in itself will prove a vital
foundation for the development of genuine friendly relations
among all states and among all peoples and thereby for the
realization of the great objective of securing a durable and last-
ing peace on earth.

The sacred duty of each State and each government is to
promote an early and full implementation of this Declaration.

m

September 23, I960

An American Antique Dealer
Presents Khrushchev with a Peace Pipe

Upon Khrushchev's return to his residence after his speech
at the UN General Assembly, he was told that an American visitor
and his wife wished to see him to present him with a peace pipe

"All right," said Khrushchev, "let them come along. I shall
be pleased to see them."

The Premier's American guests were Mr. and Mrs. Watson
Pierce. The tall, gray-haired scholar carried in his hands an un-
usual 200-year-old Indian peace pipe.

In presenting the pipe to the Premier, Mr. Pierce said:

"I am presenting this peace pipe to the Premier of the Union
of the Soviet Socialist Republics. My colleagues at Archaeologi-
cal Artifacts and Antiques and I look upon this pipe as a symbol
which the Indians of the Black Foot tribe used to mark an end
to tomahawks and wars on the great plains of America. Our
ancestors thought that they belonged to different nations. They
fought, were frightened, and again fought until they found that
they could expel the spirit of sorrow by quietly chatting as thev
sat round the campfire. The pipe was then passed from hand to
hand. Smoke curled. And they became blood brothers and e-ood
neighbors in the human community.

"May A- and H-bombs and other weapons no longer frighten
the men, women, and children of the world. When they talk
may the leaders of our two great powers, the USSR and the USA*
see in this pipe a new age for the recently recognized African
nations and for all other countries assuming the full respon-
sibility for the establishment of a fair and desirable peace.

"Mr. Prime Minister, now this pipe is yours. And may you
and the heads of other states symbolically smoke it together."

95

Accepting the pipe, Khrushchev thanked Mr. and Mrs, Pierce.
"May I tender my heartfelt thanks to you and your wife for
this symbolic souvenir, for this present. Let me assure you that we
have no ideal more lofty than the preservation of peace between
peoples in the name of human happiness. The political and social
organization of society is every state's own affair. We Soviet peo-
ple believe that our social and political system is the most prog-
ressive and best of all. Many do not agree with us. That's their
affair. Let them live as they like. We are sure that as time passes
they will see the advantages of the new system for themselves. I
was very happy to see you and accept this present. When I drive
through the streets of New York 1 see many friendly faces. I am
aware that the absolute majority of Americans realize the aim
of my visit, which has been made in the interests of preserving
world peace.

"Still there are a few who follow wolfish rules, so to speak,
and howl when I drive through the city. I must confess to you that
at home I allow myself the pleasure now and then of going out
hunting and that is why I am familiar with the howling of
wolves. What I want to say is that despite this howling there are
many good-hearted people in America.

"You and your wife are such Americans. You very well know
how restorers work when they restore old paintings. They take
off the accumulations of time, layer after layer, and get down to
the genuine article. By your visit and symbolic gift you, like all
men and women of good will, are showing that you profoundly
believe in good relations between people, in the relations which
should exist between the peoples of America and the Soviet Union."
"My wife and I," said Mr. Pierce, "have lived in many coun-
tries and we know that there are men and women of good will
everywhere. As you so rightly noted in your speech today, war
was a calamity in the past and would be a still greater calamity
today. With A-bombs, a war cannot be limited, and I believe
that it may menace the whole of civilization."

"I agree," Khrushchev remarked. "I am pleased to see that
we are of one mind as to the grave danger that an atomic war
represents."

The American scholar then said that he wanted to go to the
Soviet Union and that he hoped he would be given assistance in

96

visiting museums and other institutions. He said he hoped this
assistance would help him to get over some bureaucratic obstacles.
"When you come to see us," said Khrushchev, "you will see
that we are a hospitable people and that your notion of bureau-
cratic obstacles is all wrong. The doors of our museums are wide
open to guests. If I don't happen to be away when you come to
Moscow and if you would like to see me, I will be happy to see
you at the Kremlin,"

Mr. Pierce said that his wife was a writer.

Turning to Mrs. Pierce, Khrushchev remarked, "Visit us and
perhaps you too, as a writer, will find some interesting things to
write about. We are not asking you to praise us. Just tell the truth
and we shall be grateful."

September 24, I960

News Conference at Glen Cove

Premier Khrushchev spent the week-end of September 24-25,
1960 at the country house of the Soviet UN Mission in Glen Cove,
Long Island. Spending the week-end with him there were N. V.
Podgorny, head of the Ukrainian delegation, Kirill T. Mazurov,
head of the Byelorussian delegation, President Antonin Novotny
of Czechoslovakia, Todor Zhivkov, head of the Bulgarian delega-
tion and Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, head of the Roumanian dele-
gation together with members of their staffs. Representatives of
the Hungarian and Albanian delegations had also been invited,
but due to State Department restrictions, could not leave Man-
hattan.

Wladyslaw Gomulka of Poland and members of his delegation
joined the group on Sunday.

On Saturday afternoon, President Gamal Abdel Nasser of the
United Arab Republic arrived in Glen Cove for a conference with
Premier Khrushchev. In the evening, a press conference was held
with newsmen.

question: Please describe your talk with Nasser.

khrushchev: During the talk we exchanged views on general
questions. We mainly talked of disarmament and the effort for a

97

stronger peace. President Nasser and I are old acquaintances and
we maintain good personal relations.

question: Do you think your talk with Nasser was fruitful?

Khrushchev: Yes, I do.

question: Do you plan to meet Tito?

khrushchev: We didn't come to any definite agreement about
it, but I think we will meet.

question: Why did you leave Manhattan for Glen Cove?

khrushchev: There are no hares in Manhattan, whereas they
are to be found here. I like them a lot.

question: General Speidel of West Germany declared in Wash-
ington recently that Western defenses should be moved eastward,
to the Soviet frontiers. What can you say about that?

khrushchev: Speidel didn't say anything new. He only re-
peated Hitler's mad ideas. Everybody knows what Hitler's lot was.
And it will be the lot of all who try to follow in his footsteps, of
all the Speidels.

question: British newspapers say that Macmillan is coming
here to make peace between the Soviet Union and the USA. What
do you think about that?

khrushchev: To make peace, I think, is too strongly put. But
we are prepared to accept Macmillan's help in improving Soviet-
American relations.

question: Does Nasser agree with you on disarmament?

khrushchev: I didn't ask him about it.

question: Did he tell you about any of his own proposals
on disarmament?

khrushchev: President Nasser will speak at the General
Assembly himself and will express his views about the matter.

question: What can you say about the position of the Western
powers on West German armaments?

khrushchev: One of the main contradictions in the position
of the Western powers is that they speak of disarmament or rather
control over armament, and at the same time continue to arm
themselves and to give weapons to the most aggressive state, that
is, West Germ an v.

question: What can you say about your stay here, in the heart
of capitalism, so to speak?

98

"

khrushchev: This is the heart of capitalism and I have the
heart of a Communist. Evidently, we can coexist on one planet.
For instance, in the capitalist world it often happens that an old but
rich widow marries a young man. And they live together, though
lie evidently doesn't thirst so for the old woman's love. Still he
lives with her. (Laughter.) In the same way, capitalist and social-
ist states must coexist even though there is no love lost between
them.

question: Please tell us whether Nasser told you what he
i bought about the speech you made in the UN yesterday? What
was his comment?

khrushchev: I would be showing disrespect for my guest if
I asked him a question like that. That's why I didn't ask that.

question: But perhaps he said something of his- own accord?

khrushchev: You are a rather cunning American. You want
to know what I talked about with the President during our con-
versation. Try the front door as all normal human beings do,
not the back one. (Laughter.) I won't tell you anything about
the questions we discussed anyhow.

question: You have a balcony on the third story here. You
could give news conferences from it, like the one you gave in
New York.

khrushchev: There is no need for that here. You felt offended
then that we were talking "on different levels." Now I can talk
with you on the same level, on the ground. (Laughter.)

In our talk here today I would like to provide some addi-
tional explanations for the point of view I set forth at the General
Assembly. In a statement to the press Mr. Herter said that I had
allegedly declared war on the UN. All that I beg you to do,
gentlemen of the press, is to be exact and not distort what I tell you.

I would like to tell you once again what I said about the
need for changing the structure of the UN Secretariat. My speech
was not directed against Mr. Hammarskjold in person. It is not
a matter of his person, but the fact that he expresses the position
only of that group of countries which is headed by the USA.

However, there are in the world countries with different
social and political systems. You know that the USA represents
the capitalist countries that belong to Western military blocs.
Those are the aggressive imperialist states. Then there are also

99

socialist countries, as you know. These countries conduct a policy
of peace.

There are countries that are neutral. The most typical o£ them
are India, Indonesia, the United Arab Republic, Burma and
Afghanistan, as well as Austria, Finland, Sweden, and other coun-
tries.

Hence, the world is made up of states which are sharply
divided into three groups. But the UN Secretary-General now
reflects the position of the states belonging to the Western mili-
tary blocs. For that reason, when he carries out a Security Council
decision or a decision of the General Assembly he naturally carries
it out in the interests of only one group of countries, to wit, the
group he represents. This, of course, is done in detriment to the
interests of the two other groups, the socialist and neutral groups.

Therefore, we maintain that this cannot go on any longer.
We think that not the UN Secretary-General by himself, but a
more representative, collective executive body, perhaps a Secre-
tariat-General, consisting of three Secretaries, should carry out the
decisions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. Were
the group of states headed by the USA to nominate Mr. Ham-
marskjold to this UN executive body, we would have no objections
because we know him as a representative of these states.

However, this Secretariat-General should also have represen-
tatives from the socialist and neutral countries. Then the Secre-
tariat would take into consideration the interests of all three groups
of states, when carrying out UN decisions.

This structure of the UN Secretariat would help also to solve
the disarmament problem. Why? Because now, in point of fact,
all have agreed that if we reach an agreement on disarmament
we shall establish international armed forces which will be em-
ployed under UN command.

Suppose now that we have already agreed to disarm and to
set up international armed forces. The question, then, is: who is
going to command these forces?

Will it be Marshal Malinovsky? He is an experienced com-
mander, and I know him very well. But you will immediately ask:
why Malinovsky? This is a lawful question. The Americans will
say that it would be better to appoint the present NATO com-
mander, Norstad, to the post, though I personally think Marshal

100

Malinovsky is a better commander than Norstad. Then the neutral
countries will ask: why is it only the great powers who are propos-
ing their commanders? We also want our interests to be reflected,
(hey will say. We also want our own commander, Marshal Amer,
say.

I ask you, gentlemen: will we ever be able to agree on these
candidates? I don't think so. You won't accept our candidate, and
we won't accept yours, Norstad, while as for Speidel, I suppose
you won't nominate him yourselves. (Laughter.) Nor would you
agree, I suppose, to have Amer. That means that it will be, in
general, impossible to reach agreement on the establishment of
international armed forces. If the UN armed forces are used as
they are now, if they are commanded by Hammarskjold alone,
no good will come of it. The Congo provides an instance of that.

The Congo government asked the UN to help with armed
forces. Armed forces were sent and began to operate against the
lawful government which had asked for help. You know that these
armed forces established control over the airfields, the radio sta-
tion and communications and thus, far from helping, on the con-
trary, complicated the work of the lawful Lumumba government.

Incidentally, why do we support Lumumba? Because he is the
Prime Minister of the lawful government appointed by the Parlia-
ment which the Congolese people elected. But why did the troops,
sent in the name of the UN, start operating against the Lumumba
government? Because it was profitable for the colonialist-imperi-
alist powers. They want to remove the Lumumba government which
is for preserving the country's independence and which seeks to
govern its country in the interests of the Congolese people.

UN Secretary- General Flammarskjold is helping Tshombe.
But that man is a traitor; he is betraying the interests of the
Congolese people. Tshombe is what Petlura was during the revo-
lution in our country. On behalf of the UN, Mr. Hammarskjold
is supporting Colonel Mobutu in the Congo, a man who is also
acting against the Congolese government. But Mobutu is a brigand.
If we again were to look for a comparison with our country he
would be akin to Wrangel, Kolchak, or other such flotsam of
history which our people chucked out. To make a long story short,
the forces operating against the lawful government, the lawful
parliament and the Congolese people, are being supported by

101

Hammarskjold on behalf of the UN. This means that in the
Congo the UN Secretary-General is pursuing the policy of the
Belgian colonialists and their sympathizer, the USA, and not the
policy of the peace-loving socialist and neutral countries.

Or take this example. If we agree to disarm— and I believe that
with time we will— and if we establish UN armed forces, these
armed forces, given the UN in its present structure, may find
themselves under the command of a person, for example, Mr.
Hammarskjold, who expresses only the interests of the West.

Therefore gentlemen, judge for yourselves, can we, the Soviet
Union and the countries of the socialist camp, agree in such a
situation to disarmament and to the establishment of international
armed forces which would operate under such a command? Of
course not.

One can also understand the point of the USA and the coun-
tries affiliated with it in the military blocs. They would not trust
us either, were the UN Secretary-General to be a representative
of the socialist countries. So both sides should understand each
other's mistrust of a one-man command of the UN Secretariat.
The UN Secretariat-General should include not only a repre-
sentative of the West and a representative of the socialist world,
but also a representative of the neutral countries.

This should be done in order that the Secretariat approach
in a more objective way the implementation of decisions with
respect to questions of an international order, with the aim of
ensuring peace on earth and good neighborly relations between
countries.

As you can see we have nothing against Hammarskjold per-
sonally. We are looking for a more perfect form of organization
that would guarantee peaceful coexistence of all states with dif-
ferent political and social systems, so that the decisions the UN
makes would not go against the interests of one or another UN
member. That is our stand. It is not at all a belligerent position.
On the contrary, it is a very peaceful one. And we are prepared
to cooperate with Mr. Hammarskjold as the representative of a
definite group of countries, as long as there are along with him
in the Secretariat representatives, with the same powers, from the
socialist and neutral countries, so that they may jointly decide
all matters.

102

We are not in favor of substituting our own candidate for
Hammarskjold. You cannot find a man for this post who would
be three persons wrapped up in one, who would be able to rep-
resent all three groups of states at once. That just cannot be done.
True, they say that God was three in one. But nobody has ever
seen Him. So let Him remain in the imaginations of believers.
What we want to have is a three-man UN Secretariat.

It is already dark. It is very hard to take things down. I am
taking care of your eyesight, gentlemen of the press. You will find a
use for it (Laughter.) Let's end our talk.

September 25, 1960

News Conference ot Glen Cove (II)

question: If the question of the Secretary-General is not de-
cided as you suggest, will that mean the Soviet Union will dis-
continue disarmament talks?

Khrushchev: No, it won't.

question: In the light of your proposal regarding the UN
Secretariat, how will you react to the formation of international
armed forces under the aegis of the United Nations if your pro-
posal is not accepted?

khrushchev: Under such conditions we shall not agree to the
creation of international armed forces. We do not want such forces
to be under the sole command of the UN Secretary-General.

question: Do you intend to address this session once again?

khrushchev: I intend to address it more than once, otherwise
the travel expenses won't be covered, (Animation.)

question: What subjects will you take up?

khrushchev: That's a secret.

question: It is rumored that Fidel Castro is going to speak
for four hours. Will you have the patience to listen to him?

khrushchev: I am ready to listen to Castro even for six hours.
(Animation.)

question: Today the United States launched a satellite which
is to be orbited around the moon.* What do you have to say about
this?

♦The correspondent referred to a 387-pound sphere launched atop an
Atlas A-66 rocket which, it was later learned, failed to reach its destination. (Ed.)

103

Khrushchev: It is very good. If your satellite lands on the moon
successfully, our lunik, which has been there for a long time al-
ready, will welcome it as its American mate. Let's hope that they
will get on nicely, on the principles of peaceful coexistence, which
we still lack here on earth.

question: An American general declared that two Soviet astro-
nauts perished a few days ago. Is this true?

khrushchev: It's one of those generals' jokes. (Laughter.)

question: Do you think that Hammarskjold should resign?

khrushchev: Let him think it over and decide by himself.

question: You proposed, on condition that other countries
find it expedient, that the UN headquarters be set up in Moscow.
But you have censorship for foreign correspondents, there is no
Western press on sale, and broadcasts are jammed.

khrushchev; I have already said at the General Assembly, and
I repeat now, that all conditions will be provided for the successful
work of the representatives of various countries in the United
Nations.

question: The US government considers that Harnmarskjold's
policy in the Congo was the best. What can you say on this score?

khrushchev: This appraisal contradicts the facts. Of course,
Hammarskjold suits you. Herter shakes his hand and solemnly
hands over to him a check for five million dollars for rendering
assistance to the Congo. In actual fact Hammarslcj old's policy has
been harmful to the legitimate government of the Congo. Had
there been three Secretaries-General in the United Nations, as we
propose, they would not have tolerated a situation where United
Nations troops helped not the legitimate Congolese government,
but those who opposed it. The country should be ruled by its
legitimate government and not by United Nations troops.

Our times have seen many instances of people who were
wrongly appraised. It is known, for example, that President Eisen-
hower considered Syngman Rhee to be a most clever man. Where
is Syngman Rhee now? Where is he hiding?

question: If there were no UN troops in Korea, to whom
would all Korea belong? To the North Koreans?

khrushchev: To the Koreans, in any case. 'At the present time
there are foreign troops in South Korea, and not in North Korea.

104

I want to say once again that one man in a post such as that
of Secretary-General of the United Nations cannot satisfy the de-
mands of all the groups of member states of the UN. When uni-
lateral decisions are made, the other side is compelled to rely on
its national forces. But we should not bring matters to conflicts, to
wars. The policy of operating "from positions of strength," and of
"rolling back communism" has suffered many fiascoes.

Remember Dulles, who initiated the policy of "rolling back
communism." Regarding this policy Mr. Stevenson noted most
wittily not long ago that the Democrats have been restraining
communism in Europe while the Republicans are trying to restrict
it in Manhattan.

Communism has taken firm root and has developed into a
mighty tree, which is not afraid now of any storms and tempests.

question: Has this tree really taken such firm root?

khrushchev: Try and shake it. There was an attempt to organ-
ize intervention after the October Revolution, but nothing came
of it.

(At that moment shouts were heard from pickets standing
a few yards away. Khrushchev remarked: "This is a manifestation
of American 'culture' for you.")

question: Our newspapers printed the full text of your speech
in the United Nations, whereas there were only 600 words about
Eisenhower's speech in your newspapers. Where is freedom of in-
formation in this case?

khrushchev: You don't know your own business. My speech
was printed in full only in the New York Times, but without the
supplements— the Declaration and our proposals on disarmament.
As regards President Eisenhower's speech, the full text of it was
printed in our newspaper Izvestia, whose circulation is several times
bigger than that of the New York Times. Now you may judge of
freedom of information.

question: When Raul Castro was in Moscow you declared
that in the event of US intervention against Cuba the Soviet Union
would strike at the United States. Have I interpreted your state-
ment correctly?

khrushchev; More or less correctly. But you have no reason
to feel nervous. Your analyst, Lippmann, wrote: "Khrushchev said

105

'if'." But since America doesn't intend to attack Cuba, all danger
has passed,

question: You say that one should not peek through other
people's fences. Why have you been the first to put up a fence?

khrushchev: What fence?

correspondent: The Iron Curtain.

khrushchev: Wake up, young man. Have you been in the
Soviet Union? Oh, you haven't! And still you are trying to prove
something. Incidentally, when a peasant plants a garden he fences
it in lest the shoots should be spoiled by pigs.

Come to the Soviet Union, we shall give you a visa, and you
will see that there is no Iron Curtain.

correspondent:! feel all right here. I am quite happy.

khrushchev: A slave also thinks he is happy having eaten
leavings from his master's table. You are a slave of capitalism!

correspondent: You too like to peek through other people's
fences.

khrsushchev: Where is that?

correspondent: In Hungary.

khrushchev: It's all lies you are telling! At the request of the
Hungarian Revolutionary Government the Soviet Union helped
the Hungarian people to throw out traitors of the type of Colonel
Mobutu in the Congo.

(Pickets were again heard shouting nearby. The Premier
pointed in that direction.)

khrushchev: What's that? They must be earning dollars for
a dinner.

president wladyslaw gomulka of Poland remarked to cor-
respondents:

"You must understand, we have not come as your guests, but
to attend the United Nations Organization, But look at the way
some Americans are treating delegations from different countries!
It's a disgrace! I am sure that nothing like this would have hap-
pened in any other country."

(At that moment N. V. Podgomy and K. T, Mazurov drove up
in their cars. Khrushchev said: "Here come reinforcements in the
persons of representatives of 'enslaved' Ukraine and Byelorussia.
Look how 'enslaved' they are!")

106

question: What is the purpose of your arrival at the United

Nations?

khrushchev: Above all, to achieve a decision on general and
complete disarmament under strict international control in the
interest of world peace.

September 26, I960

Speech at Cyrus Eaton Luncheon

Cyrus Eaton, prominent American industrialist, gave a lunch-
eon for Premier Khrushchev at the Hotel Biltmore. Attending
were about two hundred businessmen and public figures from
both the United States and Canada. Following is the Premier's
speech at that luncheon which was also addressed by Senator
Donald Cameron of Banff, Alberta, Canada and by Mr. Eaton
himself.

ESTEEMED HOST, MY GOOD OLD FRIEND, MR. EATON,

ESTEEMED MRS. EATON,

ESTEEMED LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:

It is a pleasure for me to be present at this luncheon and to
meet the people I know, representatives of business and public
circles of the United States and Canada. I have never been to
Canada, but since the Canadians whom we see here have been
invited by Mr. Eaton, I believe they share many of our honorable
host's perfectly fair and wise ideas.

I avail myself of this opportunity as your guest to congratulate
you from the bottom of my heart on the high award you recently
received— the International Lenin Prize for the Promotion of
Peace Among Nations. We greatly appreciate your activity in
strengthening peace and are happy that you merited the great
honor of receiving one of the highest distinctions which the public
can confer upon outstanding leaders of various countries working
for the sake of strengthening world peace. I am also proud of the
fact that the public has bestowed upon me the title of Laureate of
the International Lenin Prize for the Promotion of Peace. This is
a great honor for any man no matter what social and political
views he holds.

107

It is symbolic to a certain extent that you, one of the leading
representatives of the capitalist world, and I, who hold no small
place in the communist world, direct our common efforts toward
the struggle for peace. This shows that given the desire and
good will, people, despite differences in their views, can and must
unite their efforts in the struggle for peace in order to safeguard
peace among nations.

In reply to your cordial speech, Mr. Eaton, I would like first
of all to wish you and your esteemed wife further success in your
activities for the good of peace, and happiness in your personal
lives.

Allow me to thank you, Mr. Eaton, for your kind invitation
to visit the state of Ohio where you wanted to show me some iron
and steel plants and your farm. I am sure I would have seen many
interesting things there. I hope and believe that the time will
come when I shall be able to avail myself of your invitation without
being restricted in my movements around the United States.

You, Mr. Eaton, and I belong to the same generation; we have
seen a lot in our lives. The entire history of the present day has
practically passed before our very eyes and that is why, on the
basis of life experience, we are able to judge it and draw definite
conclusions. You and I hold different political, ideological and
social views. And yet we have not lost the ability, after speaking
together for a number of years, to understand one another reason-
ably, to argue, to differ on a number of questions, without de-
claring war on each other, without frowning when we meet.

Why is this so? Because the capitalist Eaton and the com-
munist Khrushchev when talking and meeting retain their opinions,
as you understand. Just as I have no intention of converting Mr.
Eaton to the communist faith, so, I hope, Mr. Eaton would not
waste his time trying to turn me into a supporter of the capitalist
point of view. But the representatives of the capitalist and the
socialist states have to learn to understand one another in order
to settle questions between states by peaceful means, to prevent
the outbreak of military conflicts and a new world war.

There are many examples of the peaceful competition of
capitalist and socialist countries and their mutually advantageous
cooperation. This is taking place because at the head of a number
of capitalist states stand far-sighted political leaders who soberly

108

appraise the course of international events and take the world
as it is. They understand that business-like, mutually advantageous
relations must be established with the socialist countries.

I agree with you, Mr. Eaton, that we have opportunities to live
in peace and successfully develop competition on a peaceful basis.
And history will judge us and show which system is better.

Public figures, journalists and ordinary people frequently ask
me why I came to New York in the autumn of 1960. I want to
speak about this again, although I think I explained it sufficiently
clearly in my speech at the United Nations General Assembly. The
Soviet delegation came to New York to the United Nations As-
sembly in order to prove again and again the vital need for general
and complete disarmament under international control. I repeat,
under strict international control.

In order to evade the disarmament problem and to divert
public opinion some Western leaders say that we demand disarma-
ment without control.

The United States press alleges that in making the proposal
on general disarmament I spoke hazily about control. I do not
know how to disperse this haziness among those who have veiled
their own eyes and their reason with this haze. Any sober-minded
rjerson can read quite clearly what I said about international con-
trol, and what is most important, we are prepared to sit down at
the negotiation table and help to clarify the unclear questions.
But before sitting down at the table and conducting negotiations
we have to agree firmly that we must decide the question of dis-
armament, we must achieve agreement on disarmament under
strict international control. We demand precisely disarmament
under control and not control over armaments. For control over
armaments does not diminish the danger of a sudden outbreak of
war. Control over armaments is also fruitless from the economic
standpoint since it does not lighten the burden of the arms drive
that lies entirely on the shoulders of the peoples.

Mr. Eaton in his speech named the figure of 100 billion dol-
lars annually spent on armaments. So what are we to do, double
or treble this figure in a year or two, or in five years' time? Can
we permit the colossal human values created by the efforts of
millions upon millions of people to be spent unproductively or
on the accumulation of weapons of mass extermination?

109

Sober-minded people, no matter who they may be, cannot
regard as normal such a purposeless and dangerous squandering
of values created by the effort o£ people. Was it not worth coming
to New York to fight again for such a just and noble cause as
the termination of the arms race, complete abolition of the dis-
graceful colonial system that humiliates the dignity of man? Was
it not worth crossing the ocean to improve the activities of the
United Nations Organization for the sake of strengthening peace?
I think it was worth it!

The Soviet Government did not spare and will not spare
either effort or time to achieve disarmament, so that the peoples
may be freed from the fear of a third world war, from the burden
of taxes used for preparing a new war.

We have submitted for the consideration of the Assembly
other questions as well, the proper solution of which would help
to normalize the international situation and lessen the danger of
the outbreak of a nuclear war.

I would like to say a few words in passing about some hasty
statements and reproaches made against me in connection with the
proposal on reorganizing the United Nations Secretariat. It is
said that Khrushchev is attacking Hammarskjold and is creating
a crisis in the United Nations Organization.

I have already said that the chief thing is not the criticism
of Mr. Hammarskjold as a person. The question at issue is not
that he personally maintains the position of the US State De-
partment in assessing international events but that this position
of his affects the execution of United Nations decisions in favor of
one group of states, to the detriment of other states.

Can a man who adheres to the point of view of but one
definite side execute a decision of the United Nations Organization?
If the candidacy of Mr. Hammarskjold suits the Western countries
we shall not object if they nominate him to the corresponding post
in the executive triumvirate which we propose should be set up,
but in this body, besides Mr. Hammarskjold, there must be a repre-
sentative from the socialist countries and a representative from
the neutral countries. In this way the executive body of the United
Nations would reflect the actual correlation of forges that has been
historically established in the present-day world. It is also said
that in this case, the Soviet Union would have two-thirds of the

110

United Nations executive power in its hands. They have in mind
that the representative of the neutral countries would allegedly
always support the position of the socialist countries, but in my
opinion, this argument does not speak in favor of those who ad-
vance it. It only shows that the policy now pursued by the ruling
circles of the Western countries is obviously not meeting with
sympathy among the states adhering to neutrality,

Mr. Eaton said many reasonable things about the importance
of improving relations between our two countries, about the suc-
cesses achieved by the United States of America, and about the
fact that we in the Soviet Union have achieved a high level of
economic development. It is common knowledge that the Ameri-
can people have attained much in their country's development
but we do not envy this. We propose to the United States of
America peaceful competition in economic development and in
improving the people's well-being. I agree that this competition
can be more successful if trade is organized between the two
countries. During my last visit to the United States I spoke much
about the usefulness of such trade without discrimination.

Peaceful competition embraces the main economic indices
and covers many other aspects of life. We should compete to see
who produces more and cheaper steel, oil, grain and coal, who
builds more dwellings, schools, scientific and cultural institutions
so that the people may be better provided. We can also compete
in baseball. We know that the Americans like this game very
much. We have a game similar to this. It is called lapta. I played
the game in my childhood. However, with age, and chiefly because
of preoccupation with other things I had to give up playing lapta.
Everything in its time.

We are proud that Soviet young men and women gained the
upper hand at the Olympic Games in Rome, but we also paid
tribute to the American sportsmen who scored outstanding results
in the Olympiad.

You said, Mr. Eaton, that you like farming and are acquainted
with it. I am pleased that you also appreciate my interest in agri-
cultural production. I was born in the country and, although I
have been living in town for a long time, I try to pay my native
village a visit every summer during my holidays.

Ill

I love to visit the place of ray birth. There, as everywhere else
in our country, I see ever new changes for the better. The land is
being better and more productively cultivated, our cities and
villages are becoming more beautiful. And the most important
thing is that people are living a better and more cultured life.
They have every confidence in the morrow.

Competition between socialism and capitalism is determined
not only by the absolute quantity of national production and not
only by the quantity of per capita production. It is also determined
by achievements in the formation of the personality so that man
who creates all the values on earth may be the first of these values,
so that he may advance science and technology more successfully,
easing life on earth and making it more beautiful for all people.

You have asked me, Mr. Eaton, to see to it that the Soviet
Government continues its tireless efforts in convincing the statesmen
of the world to agree unconditionally to general and complete
disarmament. As a statesman and as a man 1 can tell you that this
is one of the primary purposes of my life, of the activities of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Government.
We are pleased that these actions in defense of peace and for
disarmament are meeting with wide support among people of
different social and political views. If all the peoples direct their
efforts towards achieving disarmament and bring pressure upon
those governments that resist this, then the peoples will be able
to achieve general and complete disarmament. The Soviet Govern-
ment on its part will do everything possible to achieve such agree-
ment on disarmament and thus ensure peace throughout the world.
Guided by reason and the experience of human history, all of
us together must achieve disarmament and the world will then
heave a sigh of relief.

There is criticism in the American press about our proposals
on disarmament. Some American journalists write approximately
as follows: Khrushchev has proposed a plan for disarmament but
he speaks somewhat hazily about control.

I would like to address the representatives of the press if
they are present here, and if they are not I would like my remarks
to reach the press. Agreement should be reached An the first place
on the main thing, on general and complete disarmament under
strict international control. As for control, let us agree to this: you

112

suggest your formulations. I am sure we shall find a common lan-
guage on questions of control, because if agreement is reached on
general and complete disarmament there will be no cause for argu-
ment on questions of control over the fulfilment of the agreement
on general and complete disarmament.

If we do not reach agreement on disarmament, but talk only
about control, nothing will come of it. But if we reach agreement
on disarmament, on the disbanding of armies and abolition of
means of mass destruction, it will be easy simultaneously with this
to reach agreement on control.

I repeat, we also agree to discuss any formulations on control
for the sake of achieving agreement, for the sake of strengthening
peace.

I would like to make the following suggestion to you. Our talks
with the governments of the Western powers on disarmament do
not seem to be making any headway so far. What if we try an
experiment like this: let the business people of all countries— the
United States, Britain, Canada, France, our country and other
countries— journalists, lawyers and others— get together and help
the governments to reach agreement on disarmament. I would
gladly agree to present my views to these people if they invited
me, and would listen to their considerations. The heads of the
other governments would have to do likewise. I think this would
be a very useful experiment which would facilitate the achieve-
ment of an agreement on disarmament. After all, the people both
in the socialist and in the capitalist countries want to live in
friendship, to develop their economy so that peace reigns on
earth, so that the people will not be threatened with war.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your attention.

I propose a toast to the health of Mrs. Eaton, Mr. Cyrus Eaton,
and all of you gentlemen. (Applause.)

At the conclusion of Khrushchev's speech, Cyrus Eaton said:
"If you have no objections the representatives present at our meet-
ing would like to ask you several questions."

khrushchev: If you have any questions I am ready to answer
them. Questions should not be evaded.

question: Can the USSR and Canada have contacts in the sale
of similar commodities, ores in particular?

113

khrushchev: You want to know whether the Soviet Union
can have contacts with Canadian industrialists in the production
and sale of similar commodities, such as ores, for example. I can
answer briefly, it can.

We are cooperating, for example, in the international organiza-
tion dealing with the sale of tin. There each country has a definite
quota determined by a general agreement. Why not extend this
principle to other commodities?

We are prepared to sign such an agreement. Shall we sign it
now, or later? (Laughter.)

voices: Now!

khrushchev: By all means, we are ready.

question: Do you, Mr. Prime Minister, think, it possible that
expenditures on arms could be considerably reduced by mutually
beneficial, free trade between the United States, Canada and other
countries and also the Soviet Union?

khrushchev: Esteemed gentlemen! There is no greater happi-
ness for the Soviet Government, for the Soviet people, than to
reach agreement on the disarmament problem. For if we reached
agreement on disarmament we would not only avert the threat of
a new world war but would be able to increase manyfold peaceful
production for the benefit of the peoples. That is why we are ready
to cooperate with all states in this field.

I can tell you that when I met with the President of the United
States last year we had frank talks. He told me once: military men
often come to me and say— give us money for the production of
some weapon or other. If you don't the Russians will outstrip
us in armaments. (Laughter.) The President asked me: And how
are things in your country? I answered: In our country approxi-
mately the same takes place. Military men and scientists approach
the Government and ask for money for the production of new
rockets. And we give then the money. Six months later the same
people come and say: we have worked out more modern designs
of rockets, give us money for these rockets. We tell them: but we
have recently given you money for new rockets. And they answer:
now we have produced more perfected rockets, give us money,
otherwise the Americans will outstrip us. (Laughter.)

And we have to give money again. It is like the story about
the locust that has no end. (Laughter.)

114

There are no limits to the arms drive. Let us stop this race
to the abyss, let us stop the arms race, and the sooner the better.
For this will be to the benefit of our countries, to the benefit of
the peoples. (Applause.)

dr. hill: Mr. Prime Ministerl I am among those who welcome
your efforts and support your proposals on general and complete
disarmament. These proposals envisage the establishment of inter-
national inspection with posts in different countries. Since our
countries possess vast territories, violations of the agreement are
possible in remote areas of these countries. In this connection I
would like to know your opinion on what your attitude will be
should the population freely report to the international agency
on a contemplated violation of the international agreement on
disarmament?

khrushchev: On behalf of the Soviet Government I solemnly
declare that we welcome everything the scientist has stated here
in the question he put, and I can put my signature to what he
said. (Prolonged applause.)

At the conclusion of the meeting, Cyrus Eaton heartily thanked
Premier Khrushchev for finding the time to meet with representa-
tives of business and science from the United States and Canada.

Mr. Eaton expressed the hope that the Premier would con-
tinue with his former energy to uphold the great ideas of peaceful
coexistence and disarmament directed towards strengthening world
peace.

September 26, I960

Letter to President of UN General Assembly

The Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers forwarded the
following letter to the President of the UN General Assembly on
disarmament and the situation that has come about with respect
to the realization of Resolution No. 1378 on Disarmament which
the General Assembly adopted at its Fourteenth Session on No-
vember 20, 1959:

Supplementing the statement of the Government of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics of September 23 on disarmament, I
have the honor to forward herewith a draft resoultion on the
question of the composition of the Disarmament Committee which

115

the delegation of the USSR is submitting to the Fifteenth Session
of the General Assembly of the United Nations for consideration.
Please circulate this letter as an official document of the Gene-
ral Assembly.

N. Khrushchev

Chairman of the Council of Ministers

of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Draff Resolution of
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

The General Assembly resolves that the number of participants
in the Ten Nation Disarmament Committee be increased to include,
besides the representatives of Bulgaria, Canada, Czechoslovakia,
France, Italy, Poland, Roumania, the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland, and the United States of America, the representatives of
the following countries: India, Indonesia, the United Arab Re-
public Ghana and Mexico.

October 1, I960

Concerning Representation of the People's Republic
of China in the United Nations

Speech at the UN General Assembly

MR. PRESIDENT, FELLOW DELEGATES:

The delegation of the Soviet Union believes it necessary to
submit for the consideration of the General Assembly the question
of restoring the legitimate rights of the People's Republic of China
in the United Nations.

There is not the slightest doubt that the artificial barring of
the People's Republic of China from participation in United
Nations activities greatly harms our organization, considerably
narrows the scope of its activities, hampers the consideration of
international problems for the solution of which the collective
efforts of all states are required, and renders the fruitful considera-
tion of major problems virtually impossible.

116

I wish to emphasize particularly that the question concerns
the restoration of the rights of a great power which, according to
the UN Charter, is a founder and a member of the United Nations
and a permanent member of the Security Council, but which so far
has had no possibility of taking its legitimate place, participating
in the work of the United Nations and making a contribution to
its activities.

The situation is completely abnormal when the great Chinese
people, comprising one-fourth of all mankind, has no representa-
tives in the organization that is called upon to be the broadest
international forum and is based on the principle of the universal
representation of all the countries of the world.

States with diverse social systems and forms of government
are represented in the United Nations, and it is here that a realistic
image of the contemporary world should be reflected as in a mirror.
Under the present state of affairs, however, when there are no
representatives of China in the United Nations, a genuine image
of the present-day world is not reflected in the United Nations. It
is distorted beyond recognition.

It is clear to every man of common sense that the People's
Republic of China is a great power that unites the whole Chinese
people, and that the Government of the People's Republic of
China exercises absolute state power over the entire territory of
China, except for a few islands where the remnants of the Chiang
Kai-shek clique routed by the Chinese people are still holding out
temporarily under the protection of the American fleet.

The People's Republic of China has received wide inter-
national recognition and has established normal diplomatic rela-
tions with 34 states. The international ties of the People's Republic
of China are rapidly expanding. The trade and cultural relations
of People's China now embrace almost the entire world.

The Chinese people are engaged in a titanic effort to trans-
form their country, which in the recent past was economically
backward, into an advanced industrial socialist state. And they are
vitally interested in keeping the peace and are in favor of peaceful
international economic and cultural cooperation.

China was one of the sponsors of the five principles of peace-
ful coexistence in 1954. The Government of the People's Republic
of China repeatedly submitted proposals aimed at lessening inter-

117

national tension in the Far East as well as in the whole world. The
People's Republic of China made a large contribution to the peace-
ful settlement in Indochina, Korea and other areas of the Asian
continent. The Government of China actively favors the creation
of a zone of peace in Asia as well as a zone free from atomic wea-
pons in the Pacific. It proposes a peaceful nonaggression treaty
among all countries of Asia and the Pacific, including the United
States.

Chou En-lai, the Premier of the Council of State of the Peo-
ple's Republic of China, speaking in Peking on August 1, I960,
re-emphasized that the Government of the People's Republic of
China adheres to the policy of peaceful coexistence of states with
different social systems. He said, and I quote: "We want peaceful
coexistence not only with Asian and Arab countries but with Euro-
pean countries and countries of other areas of the world as well."
"We are in favor," he continued, "of a peaceful nonaggression pact
among the Asian countries and the countries of the Pacific, includ-
ing the USA, so that this entire area may become a zone free from
nuclear weapons."

The policy of the Government of China attests convincingly
to the fact that it firmly adheres to the basis of the five principles
of peaceful coexistence and that it supports the main objectives
and principles of the United Nations by its practical actions,
exerts great efforts to widen international cooperation and to
strengthen peace and friendship among nations.

Then why has the United Nations still been unable to solve
the important and absolutely clear question of the representation
of People's China? Mainly because the United States of America
does not want this. It does its utmost to prevent the People's Re-
public of China from taking its legitimate place in the United
Nations.

At this session of the UN General Assembly many heads of
state and government have in all clarity spoken about the ab-
solutely intolerable situation that has taken shape as a result of
the great People's China not being represented in the United
Nations.

The Government of the United States pursues a hostile and
aggressive policy against People's China. The United States, having
committed an act of aggression against China as far back as in

118

1950, forcibly captured the island of Taiwan and continues to use
it as a base for carrying out warlike provocations against the Peo-
ple's Republic of China, continues to build up the so-called "de-
terrent forces" in the Far East and to spend billions of dollars for
assistance to the Chiang Kai-shekists and for the preparation of
new war provocations.

The United States has set up numerous military bases along
the Chinese frontiers. In the past eighteen months it has under-
taken more than forty major military maneuvers in the Far East
area, of which almost half were in Taiwan and the Taiwan Straits.
The American generals make no secret of the fact that these man-
euvers were spearheaded against the People's Republic of China.

And at the same time highly placed American political leaders
hypocritically talk of the "aggressive nature" of the People's Re-
public of China. They constantly harp on the illegal resolution
proclaiming China an "aggressor" which the United States in the
past has foisted upon the General Assembly. Incidentally, it would
be appropriate in connection with the above-mentioned resolution
to inquire whose troops are at present stationed in Korea. If the
State Department has a short memory, it can be recalled that
Chinese volunteers have long since left that country, while Ameri-
can troops continue to occupy South Korea.

The attempts of the United States Government to revive a
political corpse like Chiang Kai-shek and his putrid regime, which
was rejected by the Chinese people, merely poison the interna-
tional atmosphere in the Far East.

Distinguished delegates,

It is now more than ten years that the United Nations has been
considering the question of People's China taking its legitimate
seat in the United Nations. Each time this rostrum is taken by
representatives of states who express the attitude of their govern-
ments toward this important question. Each time the states are,
in the main, divided into two groups when discussing this item.
One group follows the logic of the actual state of affairs, protects
the legitimate rights of the great Chinese people, and declares
plainly and openly, without hesitation, that it is time to eliminate
a great historical injustice and to invite the Government of the
People's Republic of China to send its delegation, which would

119

be here together with all o£ us in the United Nations and would
take part in all its activities.

Under various pretexts the representatives of other states have
been dodging a just decision and, in this way or another, have
been trailing in the wake of the United States Government in
thwarting the acceptance by the United Nations of the decision
to restore the legitimate rights of the People's Republic of China
in the United Nations.

The arguments which the United States Government adduces
against People's China can sound convincing only for those who
follow in the footsteps of the American politicians who more than
ten years ago sustained a fiasco in China as a result of the fall of
the mercenary Kuomintang regime and the victory of the Chinese
People's Revolution.

It is well known that for sixteen years the American ruling
circles did not recognize the Soviet Union for the sole reason that
our people had destroyed the bourgeois-landlord system and had
carried through the Great Socialist Revolution. Naturally, our
people did not ask the permission of any American politicians. The
Chinese people, led by their Communist Party, acted likewise.

We do not doubt that the time will come when the political
leaders of the United States will show a more sober approach to
People's China and will, instead of the hostility w r hich is today
manifest at every step, regard that great country with dignity and
respect.

Until the People's Republic of China takes its legitimate seat
in the United Nations no conditions can be created for genuine
negotiations and for the solution of the disarmament question. In-
deed, if any agreement is reached on disarmament, will such an
agreement be valid without China? After all, even if a disarmament
agreement is negotiated, the United States will declare that it
cannot be implemented because of China's non-participation, while
it is the United States itself that is blocking in every possible way
the participation of the People's Republic of China in the United
Nations.

We insistently urge you, distinguished delegates, to break this
vicious circle. There cannot indeed be anv disarmament without
China, there cannot be any normal functioning of the United
Nations without China.

120

Sensing the absurdity of the version that China is "repre-
sented" in the United Nations by the Chiang Kai-shekists and
fearing for the fate of the Kuomintang stooges, the United States
and certain other Western countries are attempting to railroad
through the notorious idea of "two Chinas." But it is after all no
secret to anybody that the idea of "two Chinas" is, in effect, a poorly
camouflaged strategem aimed at dismembering the territory of
Great China and tearing away the province of Taiwan, which is
one of its parts.

It has long been clear that the provocative plans for creating
"two Chinas" are doomed to failure, and the sooner certain poli-
tical leaders in the United States understand this, the better it
will be for the cause of world peace.

Those who think that it is the People's Republic of China
that is most in need of the restoration of China's rights in the
United Nations are mistaken. These gentlemen are making a mis-
take. If the purpose of our organization as a universal organization
uniting all nations is interpreted correctly, it is difficult to say
who is in greater need of the restoration of China's rights in the
United Nations, whether it is China itself or the United Nations,
which is called upon to be the broadest and most representative
international organization. This organization is in need of such a
great nation, such a great country as the People's Republic of
China being represented in the United Nations and taking an
active part in its work.

That is why the Soviet delegation proposes that the question
of the restoration of China's legitimate rights in the United
Nations be considered and resolved as an important and pressing
question at the very outset of the work of the General Assembly
session.

Allow me, Messrs. Delegates, to reply to the speech of the
United States representative, who argued the necessity of con-
tinuing the present bankrupt policy with regard to the People's
Republic of China and suggested that the Soviet proposal to restore
China's legitimate rights in the United Nations be rejected.

The United States representative referred here to the speech
of Comrade P'eng Chen, the Peking Mayor. I know Comrade
P'eng Chen well; and had you seen him, you would realize that

121

he is absolutely not the kind of person he was presented to be here.
He is a good man who enjoys respect in his country. The repre-
sentative of the United States referred to the fact that Comrade
P'eng Chen called the United States an imperialist power. But
is this a discovery, gentlemen? Indeed, the whole world knows
that the most imperialist power supporting the colonial regimes
is the United States of America. All the sparrows are chirping
this from the rooftops. And the United States representative, you
see, is incensed by this statement of Comrade P'eng Chen's. What
innocence! Just like a woman who tries to pass for a young girl
even though she may have a dozen children. The United States
representative also stated that Comrade P'eng Chen had said that
Mr. Hammarskjold had followed in the Congo a policy in the in-
terests of American imperialism, in the interests of the colonialists.
Is this any news either? Mr. Hammarskjold himself knows better
than P'eng Chen, whose policy he followed in the Congo, that
he is a loyal servant of monopoly capital and represents in the
United Nations the interests of states which are pursuing a piratical,
imperialist, colonial policy.

The United States representative said that the People's Repub-
lic of China is attempting to seize islands in the Pacific. But what
islands. I ask you, Mr. Representative of United States imperialism?
The People's Republic of China wants to liberate Taiwan and
other islands. To whom do these islands belong?

Look at the international agreements on this score which also
bear the signature of the American state's representative and you
will see that they say that Taiwan and the other islands located
close to the Chinese coast belong to the Chinese people. The liber-
ation of these islands is the legitimate right of the People's Repub-
lic of China, and we have supported these legitimate rights of
the Chinese people and will continue to support them. Moreover,
I should say that the Government of the People's Republic of
China is displaying great constraint with regard to the liberation
of these islands. But this is their internal affair and no one has
any right to interfere. But had the Soviet Union found itself in
a similar position, you may be sure that we would not have
tolerated the occupation of our territory and would have long ago
thrown all the traitors to the devil, so as to banish their very scent,
so that these islands may belong to the people.

122

The United States delegate enlarged here on the regime in
People's China. He indulged in many distortions and fabrications
concerning repressions of some sort allegedly taking place there.
All this is malicious slander of People's China. This is not a new
trick. How much was the Soviet Union slandered, how many times
was its doom forecast! But the Soviet Union lives and prospers.
There is no system more democratic than that of the socialist states.

Is it for you, gentlemen from the United States, to say what
democracy is? Sooner or later you will have to take a lesson in
organizing a system under which the rights of every man are truly
respected. Genuine democracy is possible only under socialism,
under communism. Before speaking about regimes in socialist
countries, I should recommend that the American representative
look in a mirror and see what kind of regime exists in the United
States.

The United States representative appealed here to the African
countries and claimed that the United States loved these countries
and was taking care of them. But, my dear gentlemen, in your
democratic country can the representatives of these states— if they
do not have United Nations credentials— stay at a hotel, get a
lunch or dinner in a restaurant for whites? No, they cannot. This
is humiliating, insulting to the dignity of every man. In America
there is a sharp line between whites and Negroes. Is that democ-
racy, is that respect for man? No, this is man-hating, sowing of
enmity between whites and blacks.

Let Negroes and representatives of other peoples of Asia and
Africa come to our country, to the Soviet Union, to the People's
Republic of China, to any socialist country; they will find there a
truly humane attitude, love and friendship. They will find this not
because they are black but because our peoples deeply sympathize
with those who are righting for freedom, who for centuries have
suffered, have been humiliated and oppressed by the colonialists.

In America Negroes are lynched and hanged only because they
are black. All the world knows this. This is the subject of books,
of press reports. Turn to your history, representative of the United
States! We bow our heads to Abraham Lincoln, the great American
who raised the banner of the struggle for the liberation of the
Negroes. He was an American and he fought against other Ameri-

123

cans for the equality of peoples, for justice. But racial discrimina-
tion exists in the United States even today.

To this day in a number of localities in the United States
Negro children cannot attend schools together with whites. Is this
not a shame for a civilized society? And the United States repre-
sentative deigns to smear the truly democratic regime of the Peo-
ple's Republic of China, which is building socialism. In our
country we have a saying in such cases which runs somewhat like
this: "He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones."

The United States representative smeared the regime of the
People's Republic of China. To this I would say: the ruling circles
of the United States are very friendly with regimes which are far
from being democratic.

You regard Franco as your best friend— the butcher of the
Spanish people, who has suppressed all democratic freedom in
Spain, established a regime of bloody dictatorship, and is chopping
off the heads of Spain's finest sons. But the Spanish people will
rise to the struggle, will mete out just retribution to the butchers,
and truth will triumph on Spanish soil!

(The President of the General Assembly interrupted Khrush-
chev and asked him to cooperate and refrain from personal attacks
on the head of a member state of the United Nations. He said that
these zvords by the speaker would be omitted from the official
record of the session.)

I consider the President's remark improper. Why didn't you
stop the representative of the United States when he slandered
great China? In the United Nations there must be equal condi-
tions for all states, and if you permit insults against socialist
countries we shall not tolerate it. I reject such remarks. We did not
come here as suppliants, we came as representatives of a great
nation, of a great socialist state, and we are defending our friend
—the People's Republic of China, its regime, its laws!

Now concerning the Franco regime. The United States main-
tains friendly treaty relations with this regime, has military bases
on Spanish soil for conducting its aggressive imperialist policy.

Another best friend of the Government of the United States,
whom it has proclaimed "a man of genius," is Syngman Rhee— the
hangman of the Korean people. He brought matters to such a
pass that he was booted out of South Korea and secretly made a

124

getaway from Korea in an American plane. And where is he hiding
now? You may rest assured that he is of course kept by the United
States of America.

In South Vietnam, too, they are chopping off people's heads,
and actually it is the domain of the United States.

I should like to cite another argument in reply to the state-
ment of the United States representative. He reproached Comrade
P'eng Chen for having called America an imperialist state and for
having called Mr. Hammarskjold, who is the Secretary-General
of the United Nations (although I think this injustice will be
rectified), a conductor of the policy of the colonialists. But if the
representative of the United States considers that it is logical to
demand, on this ground, that the People's Republic of China not
be admitted to the United Nations, may it be asked: why then,
do the representatives of the United States tolerate the presence
of representatives of the Soviet Union, who now, as before, oppose
the imperialist policy of the United States and the disgraceful role
played by Mr. Hammarskjold in the Congo?

One more argument. It is your business, Messrs. Delegates,
how you decide the question of restoring the legitimate rights of
People's China in the United Nations. Sometimes when certain
persons make unjust decisions, they consider these decisions to be
right. But time, history, show such decisions to be false. What is
the object of the people who deny China her rights in the United
Nations? Do they want the United Nations to consist only of states
with one social system? They do not like the People's Republic of
China, they do not like the socialist system. But what would hap-
pen if the socialist countries withdrew from the United Nations
and created an international organization of their own, if they
appealed to other countries urging support for their efforts in
the struggle for peace? That would be the death of the United
Nations. That would mean no United Nations but two alignments
which would be continuously ranged against each other. That
would lead not to the lessening but rather to the aggravation of
international tension, to an arms race. We do not want this. What
we do want is that the United Nations really unite all states,
regardless of their social and political systems, that it really unite
all nations. Our common duty is to ensure life on earth without
war between states, without armed conflict; and this can be at-

125

tained only if all states are united in a single organization— the
organization of the United Nations. That is why we support the
United Nations.

He who wants peace on earth, he who wants disarmament
must vote for the People's Republic of China to take her legiti-
mate place in the United Nations, for her to take part in the
activities of this organization aimed at strengthening peace.

What the United States representative is suggesting here is a
reflection of the old imperialist policy of inciting states against
each other. That is why it does not want China to take her place
in the United Nations. And they need this in order to follow the
policy of the cold war, of the arms race, to thwart the possibility
of agreement on disarmament. This is being done in pursuance
of the policy of Dulles, the "brink of war" policy. But we know
that any brink is a most precarious place, and even the best
acrobat who undergoes special training may topple over at any
time. It sometimes happens that he does topple and this is the
end of him. This is a misfortune for the person. But if the policy
of brinkmanship "topples" from this brink, that will be a catas-
trophe for all the countries of the world, because this will be a
terrible, a nuclear missile war.

Those who fail to grasp this should stop to think about it.

In order to prevent a further aggravation of international
tension it is essential to restore the rights of People's China in the
United Nations. It is necessary to throw the Chiang Kai-shekist
corpse to the devil and give the place in the United Nations to
a real living body-the People's Republic of China.

October 3, I960

A Reply on the Question of the
Structure of UN Governing Bodies

Speech at the UN General Assembly

MR. PRESIDENT, FELLOW DELEGATES:

By way of reply to the speeches of certain delegates I should
like to explain once more the position of the Soviet delegation
on an important matter placed before the present General Assem-

126

bly of the United Nations for consideration. What I have in mind
is the role and place of the executive organ of the United Nations
which we are suggesting instead of the office of Secretary-General.

I am doing so in order to give a rebuff to those who distort our
position as well as to explain it to those to whom the meaning
of this proposal is not as yet clear, but who want to study and
understand it correctly.

You will recall that the United Nations was created in 1945.
In the circumstances attending the victorious termination of World
War II, the best minds of that time thought about ways for estab-
lishing normal relations among states, for creating an interna-
national body which could solve outstanding problems arising
between states or groups of states so as to prevent matters from
becoming aggravated and especially to preclude war. This was
the main task before the United Nations.

A charter of this organization was drafted which provided
that there exist a General Assembly comprising all states which
have accepted the United Nations Charter and meet the demands
of the Charter.

For the solution of important questions, especially when they
cause tension, there was established a Security Council so that it
would be possible to reduce this tension without allowing matters
to become aggravated, much less result in war.

The Soviet Union, China, the United States of America, Great
Britain and France, the great countries of that time, were ap-
proved as permanent members of the Security Council. It was laid
down by the Charter of the United Nations that decisions taken
by the Security Council require the unanimity of these five states.
This was not accidental. It reflected the wisdom of the sponsors
and creators of the United Nations who took into account the real
international conditions of that time.

Fifteen years have now passed since the United Nations was
founded. Have any changes taken place in the world since that
time? Yes indeed, tremendous changes have occurred. He who fails
to realize this is in a heavy sleep and remains in the same state
he was in fifteen years ago with all his old views and understanding
of world problems. But we are dealing, or rather should be deal-
ing, not with persons in a state of heavy sleep but with persons
who have lived all this time and worked together with their peo-

127

pies and states, who see that great social and political changes
have occurred in the world. When World War II ended, there
were only two socialist states in all the world- the Soviet Union
and the Mongolian People's Republic.

Unfortunately, this republic has not yet been admitted to the
United Nations, and I would like to stress once more that such
an attitude toward the Mongolian People's Republic is absolutely
unjustifiable.

The leader of the capitalist world— the United States of Amer-
ica—emerged from the war the richest and economically most
powerful state; the United States lost less than other countries
during the war but earned from it more than any other state.

In the early postwar years the Soviet Union had a powerful
army but a devastated national economy, and the three imperialist
powers hoped that our state would soon breathe its last. They
hoped that the existence of the socialist system on earth would
thus end and socialism would survive only as an ideological and
theoretical question.

But all these hopes of the imperialists, colonialists and mo-
nopoly capital proved to be illusory, and collapsed.

Not only did the Soviet Union restore its strength, but it
also developed at a rate of advance which astonished all mankind.
We train annually more than 100,000 engineers, we have cre-
ated the world's first atomic power station, built the first atomic
icebreaker, which is successfully breaking the ice in the Arctic
Ocean. We have been the first to launch rockets into outer space.
The successes of the Soviet Union have proved how great are the
advantages of the socialist system, how boundless are the possibili-
ties that socialism and communism offer for the development of the
talents of the people.

The road of socialism has been adopted by great China,
which is successfully developing her economy and culture. Peo-
ple's China offers one more objective illustration of how peoples
liberated from imperialist oppression can quickly gain strength,
consolidate their independence, overcome the economic and cul-
tural backwardness of their countries.

Highly instructive is the example of Czechoslovakia. In the
past it was a highly developed industrial capitalist country. Bour-
geois ideologists contended that only backward, underdeveloped

128

countries provide the ground for socialism. Czechoslovakia refuted
these fabrications and demonstrated that even a highly developed
country which embarks on the road of socialism provides its peo-
ple with unparalleled conditions for rapid progress, for a better
life.

Or take the German Democratic Republic (GDR) . Having
adopted the path of peace, progress and socialism, the popula-
tion of the German Democratic Republic put an end to the
oppression of monopolies and militarism. Now the GDR is a peace-
loving and rapidly developing country. It threatens no one. Quite
different is the situation in West Germany. Its economy is devel-
oping on capitalist foundations, there is a revival of the same
forces— revanchism, militarism, fascism— which had plunged the
world into the Second World War. A hotbed of a new military war
menace is developing there and it follows not a peaceful but a
warlike policy.

These are only separate examples which show that socialism
augurs peace, progress, prosperity, complete salvation from all the
calamities and vices of capitalism for all mankind. Socialism has
securely won its place on our planet, has earned the recognition
and respect of the peoples.

The socialist states of Europe and Asia unite under their
banners more than one billion people; they demonstrate to the
whole world the advantages of the new and young socialist system
over moribund capitalism.

I would like to draw the attention of the esteemed delegates
to the Assembly to the question, apparently so simple: is it possible
to ignore the fact that more than one billion of a global popula-
tion of three billion live in countries most of which have formed
and shaped their socialist statehood in the course of the past fifteen
years?

It would seem that serious political leaders cannot ignore the
new social structure of the world which is having a decisive influ-
ence on international relations today.

If this irrefutable fact is recognized, and only politically
shortsighted people can refuse to recognize it, it will become
crystal clear that the structure of certain organs of the United
Nations which was quite normal at that time and was in line with
the actual state of affairs is now outmoded. More than one-third

129

T

of the global population are to some extent discriminated against
in the United Nations agencies, as, for instance, in the Security
Council and particularly in the Secretariat. President Sukarno
of Indonesia described this correctly in his speech here. Besides
the large and powerful detachment of socialist countries, new
young states, following a neutralist policy, have emerged on the
international scene.

There is great India, which only recently was a British colony;
there is Indonesia, a former Dutch colony; Burma and the United
Arab Republic; there are young states of Africa and Asia. They
have become independent countries and their population exceeds
one billion. But the interests of these countries are not taken into
consideration either in the Security Council or in the Secretariat
of the United Nations.

We all live on one planet and therefore we must search for
ways to normalize the relations among all states, to establish co-
operation on an equal footing. The United Nations must be pre-
cisely the forum, the body where such cooperation is effected in
the broadest and fairest way in the interests of preserving peace.

When the Soviet Government raises the question, for instance,
of reorganizing the General Secretariat, this only shows our sincere
concern for the necessity of ensuring the correct functioning of the
United Nations; it shows that we take into consideration the inter-
ests of the peoples of all countries instead of the interests of some
group of countries or even some circles.

Now one man is the interpreter and executant of all the deci-
sions of the Assembly and the Security Council. But an old saying
has it: there are no saints on earth and there have never been.
Let those who believe that there are saints keep their belief. We
have no faith in such fables.

And so this one man, Mr. Hammarskjold in this case, must
interpret and execute the decisions of the Assembly and the Se-
curity Council with due consideration for the interests of the coun-
tries of monopoly capital, the interests of the socialist countries,
and the interests of the neutralist countries. But this is impossible.
Everyone has seen how vigorously the imperialist countries have
been defending the position of Mr. Hammarskjold. Is it not clear
whose interests he interprets and executes, to" whom this "saint"
belongs?

130

Mr. Hammarskjold has never been objective toward socialist
countries; he has always defended the interests of the United

States of America and other countries of monopoly capital. The
developments in the Congo, where he played a most unseemly
role, were but the last straw that has exhausted our patience. In-
deed, had the composition of the Secretariat and the Security
Council been different, no particularly tense developments would
have taken place in the Congo. The colonialists would not have
dared to seize power again; and had they done so, the United
Nations forces not only would have expelled them but would have
created conditions for the normal functioning of the Parliament
and government lawfully elected by the Congolese people.

When the colonialists granted independence to the Congo,
they expected it to be only fictitious. But the Congolese Govern-
ment decided to defend its political and economic rights in all
seriousness. It enraged the colonialists, they embarked on a military
gamble and decided to impose on the Congolese people the old
colonial order under the guise of fictitious independence.

I repeat, unfortunately in the United Nations the Congolese
people did not find a protector of their interests. Is this the way
to fulfill the tasks and purposes of the United Nations?

Mr. Hammarskjold used the United Nations Armed Forces
not to support the lawful Parliament and government of the
Congo, at whose request these troops were sent there, but to sup-
port the forces of the colonialists who were and are fighting against
the Congolese Parliament and the lawful government in order to
resubjugate the Congo. He used the United Nations Forces to
interfere in the internal afEairs of the young state. No one can
tolerate any longer a situation in which the United Nations is
used not to help the Congolese people, but to act against them,
in which the United Nations acts in the interests of the colonialists.
This was justly noted here by the leaders of the delegations of
Poland, Czechoslovakia, Roumania, Bulgaria, Ghana, the United
Arab Republic, Cuba, Indonesia and others.

To avoid any misunderstanding, I want to repeat: we do not
and cannot trust Mr. Hammarskjold. Unless he himself shows
enough courage and resigns, which would be a chivalrous act, so
to speak, we shall draw the necessary conclusions from the situa-
tion now obtaining. A man who has trampled upon elementary

131

justice is not fit to occupy such an important post as that of the
Secretary-General.

Some people may say that probably Mr. Hammarskjold should
be replaced by another, more worthy person. They reason in the
following way: suppose Mr. Hammarskjold made a gross mistake;
is it not possible to rectify it by replacing him by another man?
This, of course, could be done. But would we thus safeguard the
United Nations against the repetition of similar mistakes in the
future? I do not think so. Any other Secretary-General cannot be
an objective representative of the three different groups of states.

Now, unfortunately, there is a certain bias in the work of the
United Nations, in the work of the General Assembly, the Security
Council and the Secretary-General. So far only one group of coun-
tries, led by the United States, dominates here; and it dominates
now not even by the right of the strong. At present these states
have lost the so-called right of the strong because nothing but a
fetish remains of the former strength which helped the colonialists
to keep the colonial peoples in subjugation.

The actual state of affairs in the world today is such that the
strength of the two most powerful states— the Soviet Union and the
United States—is at least equal; and if we take into consideration
other socialist countries and also former colonial countries, it will
become clear that the peace-loving states have not only the law
and justice but also strength on their side.

And if this is not taken into consideration, the United Nations
will, of course, not be able to function. Strictly speaking, it will
then fully lose its significance because it will be unable to fulfill
its main task— to maintain peace among nations.

But then why should we speak of the future? We see now the
result of the one-sided approach to the solution of the questions
confronting the United Nations due to the predominance of the
imperialist states in this organization. The post of the Secretary-
General is occupied by a representative of the Western Powers;
no representative of the socialist countries has even once been
allowed to take the post of the President of the General Assembly
in fifteen years. This is a situation that calls for no special ex-
planation!

The pressure of the imperialist countries at the General As-
sembly becomes particularly evident in settling the question of

132

the restoration of China's legitimate rights in the United Nations.
I have already spoken about this and I am repeating this again
for those who are thwarting the solution of the question on the
participation of the People's Republic of China in the United
Nations, for those who this time again follow in the wake of the
imperialist powers. It must be clear to everyone that this injustice
must be rectified at long last. No disarmament is possible without
China; without China there can be no normal work of the United
Nations.

But it is important that the United Nations be able to quench
the heat of war in time, wherever it may appear. How can it be
done? It can be done only by taking into consideration the interests
of all three groups of states, by taking into consideration the in-
terests of the colonial peoples as well. Now the colonialists are
doing their utmost to perpetuate the regime of slavery in colonial
countries, and in the countries whose peoples are winning their
independence the colonialists are trying to hoodwink them by
granting fictitious independence while actually trying to perpetu-
ate the colonialist regime.

Thus, in view of the present conditions, is it possible to choose
one man for the post of the United Nations Secretary-General who
would be able to reckon with the interests of all three groups of
states? We think that this is impossible. Of course, from the view-
point of devotion to the ideas of peace, the ideas of humaneness,
one might appoint to the post of Secretary-General a representa-
tive of the socialist states, and such a man would truly reflect the
most progressive ideas of human society, the ideas of ensuring
peace. But it is a foregone conclusion that the Western Powers
would distrust such a person and this distrust is quite under-
standable.

But if we ourselves admit that the appointment of a repre-
sentative of the socialist countries to the post of United Nations
Secretary-General would not create normal conditions for the work
of this body, how can the Western Powers demand that we believe
in the objectivity of their candidate, in this case Mr. Hammar-
skjold? The neutralist countries also want to play their part in
the United Nations; they want their interests to be safeguarded,
and these legitimate demands of the neutralist countries must be
taken into consideration.

133

Therefore the only correct solution would be to set up an
executive in which the three groups of states would be represented
by three persons so that they could execute the decisions of the
Security Council and General Assembly.

Some people say that if the United Nations executive consists
of three members, it will be paralyzed. But the task of the people
appointed to the executive will be precisely to find such wise
solutions as would secure peace, and this means that they must take
into account the interests of all groups of states. If the decisions
are made in the interests of only one group— for instance, if the
decisions are made, as is the case now, in the interests of the
imperialist states only— they will be unrealistic decisions. Let us
take a sober view of the matter. The imperialist states have no
practical basis for breathing life into such unilateral decisions
because they are unable to impose their decisions by force.

Those who allege that the Soviet Union advances proposals
which break up the United Nations assess the work of the United
Nations only from the viewpoint of one group of states. When
we say that the interests of the first, second and third group of
states are to be taken into account, they claim that this "destroys
the United Nations." No, this is a just demand. And tomorrow,
if not today, the peoples of the world will understand that the
United Nations must take into consideration the interests of all
states. The other way is the domination of one group of states,
and this would not mean solution of problems but aggravation
of international tension, which may even lead to armed conflict.

Messrs. Delegates, sacred is the striving of all peoples to
ensure peace on earth, and disarmament is the best guarantee of
peace. It is precisely disarmament that all peace-loving people
long for. It cannot be replaced by control over armaments without
disarmament. If our disarmament proposals are accepted, we are
prepared to accept any Western proposals on international control.

And what is the meaning of the control over armaments which
United States President Eisenhower offers us and of which Prime
Minister Macmillan of Great Britain has also spoken here? Con-
trol over armaments means admission of the necessity to have
armaments in the future as well. But it is clear to everyone that if
armaments exist, then at a critical moment all those who have

134

arms in their possession will, willingly or unwillingly, reach for
the holster, reach for these arms.

At a critical moment those who have arms in their possession
and follow the "from position of strength" policy will not ask
the opinion of the Security Council or convene the General As-
sembly to discuss the question of whether or not they should use
their weapons; they are sure to use them.

And if this happens, then, apparently, no Assembly would
meet, because war with all its destructive consequences would
follow.

Therefore, the best way to safeguard peace is to do away with
the means of destroying people, that is, to do away with arma-
ments. This is the Soviet people's sincere desire. We stated long
ago, through the mouth of the founder of the Soviet state Lenin,
that we are for disarmament. At this Assembly the Soviet Govern-
ment has once again set forth its viewpoint and submitted its
specific proposals for your consideration.

Therefore, I insistently urge you to realize the exceptional
importance of the disarmament problem for all peoples of the
world, for our contemporaries and for the generations to come.
The efforts of all countries and all peoples are needed to compel
the governments of the countries on whom agreement depends to
carry out general and complete disarmament in practice. Some
people say that Khrushchev and Eisenhower should be locked up
in some special chamber and kept there until they agree on dis-
armament. This, of course, is naive. We can sit there as long as
you like, but if the President, and especially the circles backing
him have no desire to agree, then no smoke will rise from the
chimney, as happens according to tradition when the Pope is
elected.

It is all the more true since in this case we are not dealing
with the question of electing the Pope but with the much more
complicated question of disarmament and the prevention of the
threat of war, a question of life and death for millions upon
millions of people.

It is said that after a disarmament agreement is reached, inter-
national armed forces must be formed. In princij>Ie we agree with
this. But the question arises: who is going to command them?
The United Nations Secretary-General? But in such a case the

135

decisions on these or other actions will depend on the ethical
convictions, on the conscience of the United Nations Secretary-
General. Is it permissible to make the destiny of millions con-
tingent on the actions of one man occupying this post? We cannot
rely on the conscience of the Secretary-General because everyone
has his own view on conscience, his own understanding of ethics.

The capitalist world has its own ethics, the communist world
its own, and the neutralist countries their own.

Therefore, with due consideration for the practical conditions,
we must ensure a structure of the United Nations apparatus which
would reflect the actual state of affairs in the world and express
the interests of the peoples of different groups of states. There can
be no disarmament, no international armed forces can be set up
unless all three groups are safeguarded against the abuses of these
armed forces.

How can this be ensured? We want no privileges for our-
selves, but we do not want others to have privileges over us.
We want all to be on an equal footing.

Therefore, if you gentlemen really want disarmament, if
you want the international organs to work in this direction for
peaceful purposes, then the United Nations apparatus must be
reconstructed so that the United Nations Secretariat and the
Security Council may reflect in their work the interests of the three
basic groups of states, in order that the interests of all the United
Nations member states may be protected.

Some persons utter sharp words and bitter accusations here,
alleging that Khrushchev is breaking up the United Nations. We
reject these accusations and declare most definitely that the aim
of the Soviet Union's proposals is to consolidate the United
Nations.

We want the United Nations to be indeed an organ in which
the interests of all groups among the United Nations member
states are taken into consideration and protected equally. The
ensuring of world peace must be the bedrock of the entire activity
of the United Nations.

But the states which pursue their own narrow group interests,
dominating the interests of other groups of states, are dealing a
blow at the United Nations; and, in the final count, i£ they persist

136

in carrying on their line, they will lead the United Nations to its
destruction.

If the machinery designed to settle the most important inter-
national issues with due consideration for the interests of all states,
if this machinery of the United Nations-the Security Council and
the Secretariat-settle these questions to the detriment of the
socialist or neutralist states, then naturally, these countries will
not recognize such decisions and will rely on their own strength
in defending the interests of their states, the interests of peace.

This is the choice now facing the UN. Either we truly unite
our efforts and do everything to consolidate the United Nations
and thus ensure cooperation of all states toward peace, or the
forces reflecting the interests and privileges of a group of imperi-
alist states will continue to dominate the United Nations and its
machinery, which will greatly damage the cause of peace and
international cooperation.

Those who support the policy of force and are trying to
impose their will on others through the United Nations should
clearly realize what place they occupy and what responsibility for
the future they assume before the world.

I would like in all frankness to say to the delegates of the
current session; do not fall for the high-sounding phrases pro-
nounced here by Mr. Hammarskjold and the representatives of
colonial powers who are trying to justify the bloody deeds com-
mitted against the people of the Congo by colonialists and their
hangers-on.

I would like to say that the United States representative who
spoke here is defending the old, the rotten, that which is already
collapsing. But neither the representative who spoke here for the
United States nor others will succeed in propping it up: a dead
man cannot be made to breathe. Colonialism has lived out its time.
Our duty is to bury this stinking corpse as soon as possible and
thus cleanse the atmosphere and create a better life for all the
people in the world.

Our sympathy, I repeat, is with those who are fighting for
their freedom and independence!

Some people say that Khrushchev is calling for rebellion. I
am not calling for rebellion, because the question of rebellion
against unwanted order in any country is settled by the people

137

themselves. I only said that if the colonialists do not agree to
grant independence and freedom to the colonial peoples, then the
peoples of the colonial countries can do nothing else but rise against
the shameful oppression, and all people of integrity must offer a
helping hand to those who are fighting for their dignity, against
robbery, against the colonialists.

We extend a hand to all who still suffer in the chains of
colonial slavery. If you regard this as a call to rebellion, I am
proud of this and say that the freedom-loving peoples of the Soviet
Union extend a hand of assistance to the peoples rising against
the colonialists, for their freedom and independence!

Esteemed Delegates,

The question uppermost in the mind of all mankind now is
whether the problem of disarmament will be solved, whether we
shall achieve a solution of this vital question.

We, on our part, firmly declare that we have come here with
the most honest intentions and are willing to do our utmost to
make peace prevail on earth, and not only peace but also friend-
ship among the peoples.

The Soviet Government will continue to work honestly to-
ward this goal, as the sower works so that people may have a good
harvest. He selects the best grains and throws them into the soil.
When he throws the seeds into the soil, he is not sure that a good
and favorable spring and summer lie ahead. No, he knows that
the sprouts of these seeds may encounter droughts, storms and
hurricanes. And it also happens that some grains just fall into
rocky soil.

But the man who sows cannot help working. He cannot fold
his hands if the forces of nature operate against his efforts. He
does not argue: is it worthwhile to work, to sow? Man lives and
wants to live! And that is why he is tirelessly working to ensure
life for the living, a better life for the peoples.

At the bidding of our people, we have come here and are
persistently sowing the seeds of peace. Perhaps not all our seeds
will fall into fertile soil. On the contrary, I am even convinced
that some of the seeds fall into rocky soil. But gentlemen, you
have certainly seen how a powerful pine tree grows on what seems
to be the most barren rocks. It is difficult to say what it thrives
on. But it growsl

138

We believe that if some of our seeds of peace fall into rocky
soil, not all of them perish, because they are sound seeds, the
seeds of human truth, and they are sown in the name of truth
and human life. We are convinced that these seeds will grow, will
push through the rocks to reach a nutritive medium and will
develop into a strong and powerful tree of life. We believe in life
and fight for it, for the triumph of peace on earth.

We are convinced that the seeds of truth will reach the minds
of the peoples to whom we are appealing; we are convinced that
the people sowing sound seeds, the seeds of truth, the seeds of life
will be rewarded for their labor by the reaffirmation of truth and
by the victory of the forces of reason and peace over the forces of
war. To achieve this one must tirelessly sow the seeds of truth,
urge the people to fight for this truth, to fight against evil dry
winds and storms. And if all fight, precisely all and not just a
group of states, this truth will prevail and peace on earth will
be safeguarded.

Thank you for your attention.

Ocfober 3, 7960

Reply to Letter and Draft Resolution Received From

the Heads of Government of Ghana, India, Indonesia,

United Arab Republic and Yugoslavia

On September 29th, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers
of the USSR received the following letter from President Kwame
Nkrumah of Ghana, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India,
President Sukarno of Indonesia, President Gamal Abdel Nasser
of the United Arab Republic, and President Josip Broz Tito of
Yugoslavia,

MR. chairman:

We have the honor of informing you that in view of the
existing tension in international relations and being confident
that you, Your Excellency, the Government and people of your
great power are striving ardently for the lessening of this tension
and for establishing conditions for the consolidation of peace, we
intend to submit for the immediate consideration of the current
General Assembly session a draft resolution the text of which is
enclosed herein.

139

We hope that this effort of ours will meet with your sympa-
thetic and favorable attitude.

We avail ourselves o£ the opportunity to assure again, Your
Excellency, of our high esteem for you.

The Draft Resolution submitted by the five governments to
the Fifteenth Session of the United Nations General Assembly
read as follows:

The General Assembly,

Deeply concerned with the recent deterioration in interna-
tional relations which threatens the world with grave consequences,

Aware of the great expectancy of the world that this Assembly
will assist in helping to prepare the way for the easing of world
tension,

Conscious of the grave and urgent responsibility that rests on
the United Nations to initiate helpful efforts,

Requests, as a first urgent step, the President of the United
States of America and the Chairman of the Council of Ministers
of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to renew their contacts
interrupted recently so that their declared willingness to find solu-
tions of the outstanding problems by negotiation may be progres-
sively implemented.

Chairman Khrushchev's reply to the President of Ghana read
as follows:

TO HIS EXCELLENCY, MR. KWAME NKRUMAH,
THE PRESIDENT OF GHANA:

The Soviet Government and I personally as the Chairman of
the Council of Ministers of the USSR have a high opinion of the
motives by which you, as well as the President of Indonesia, the
President of the United Arab Republic, the President of Yugo-
slavia and the Prime Minister of India were guided in sending
this letter and a draft resolution of the General Assembly to the
President of the United States and myself, with expressions of a
desire for the resumption of contacts between the President and
myself, so that it would become possible to discuss questions which
at present cloud the international situation, and to find solutions
for these questions through negotiations. This message shows once
again that the state of international relations is far from normal
today and that the international situation, particularly the relations

140

between the Soviet Union and the United States, evokes a legiti-
mate feeling of anxiety among many states and leading statesmen.

The Soviet Government has always been and still is of the
opinion that unsolved international problems, including the prob-
lems of relations between the USSR and the USA, must and can
be settled peacefully through negotiations if the sides concerned
desire to do so. Guided by this the Soviet Government insisted
on the necessity of the discussion of such problems at the highest
level, considering that most radical decisions, adopted through
an understanding between the leading statesmen, are necessary
for the improvement of the international situation and the solu-
tion of disputed problems, particularly the disarmament problem
which would put an end to the senseless destruction of tremendous
material values and the wasting of the energy of nations for the
production of the means of destruction. It is precisely for this
reason that the Soviet Government insisted on calling a Summit
conference and expressed the hope that this conference would lead
to a radical change in the international situation and help to con-
solidate peace and eliminate the contradictions existing between
states.

It is generally known what happened after an agreement on
calling a Summit conference was reached. Just at the time when
the peoples, including the people of the Soviet Union, were
hopefully anticipating the fruitful results of this conference, the
US Government right on the eve of the Summit embarked upon
a path of treachery which assumed the nature of such aggressive
acts as the violation of the state frontier of the USSR by the
American U-2 military aircraft. It is common knowledge that the
US Government through the President himself and the Secretary
of State confirmed that these acts, as well as the subsequent viola-
tion of the Soviet state frontier by the American RB-47 plane,
were manifestations of a certain "deliberate policy" of the United
States. It has also been confirmed that the US Government and
President Eisenhower personally have no intentions of relinquish-
ing this policy and still continue it to the present day.

The US Government has not provided the least compensation
to the Soviet Union which suffered damages as a result of a crude
violation of its sovereignty by American aircraft. But on the con-
trary it has many times affirmed the above-mentioned treacherous

141

policy in spite of the fact that this policy constitutes an outrageous
and unprecedented violation of the very foundations of interna-
tional law and of the sacred principle of respect for the sovereignty
of states. Thus, the American Government has placed itself in
a position which apparently makes it difficult for it to embark
upon the path of honest negotiations with the Soviet Union. Due
to this policy the US President has also personally placed himself
in a position where it is apparently hard for him to establish
contacts with the head of the Soviet Government, contacts which
could produce positive results.

It goes without saying that any attempt to advance some pre-
liminary conditions in establishing such contacts by a party which
has taken to perfidy is more evidence that the present US Govern-
ment has no serious intentions of seeking a settlement of contro-
versial questions splitting the states, through negotiations based
on mutual respect for the interests of the parties in these negotia-
tions. This also shows what little respect the US Government has
for the aspirations of other states to contribute their share in easing
tension in the relations between the big powers. It stands to reason
that the position of two such powers as the USSR and the USA
is of paramount importance for the further development of inter-
national relations. However, the active role of other states, big
and small, and of the United Nations Organization as a whole
in settling outstanding problems can by no means be under-
estimated.

Responsibility for the situation which has arisen lies with
the US Government and only with the US Government. I am
deeply convinced that every statesman capable of objectively
evaluating this situation cannot but draw the conclusion as to
who is putting obstacles in the way of a resumption of contacts
between the leaders of the Soviet Union and the United States
of America for the settlement of questions causing tension in the
relations between countries, mentioned in your appeal and in
the draft resolution.

The situation as we see it today is that the US Government,
far from denouncing the above-mentioned actions, even in spite
of the fact that President Eisenhower personally declared in Paris
that he had given instructions to refrain in future from sending
US planes inside the Soviet Union while he remained in the

142

White House, is pursuing the announced aggressive course of
foreign policy. Only this can explain why in his speech at the
General Assembly and in his reply letter to your appeal he main-
tains silence on the question of the sending of American U-2
warplanes inside the Soviet Union and raises the question about
the American RB-47 plane flight which, as we all know, took
place after the breakdown of the Summit meeting and after the
President's statement on the discontinuation of such flights of US
planes inside the Soviet Union.

It is obvious that if the US Government continues in future
to follow the aforementioned policy, then under these conditions
not a single self-respecting state, showing concern for the integrity
of its sovereignty and its security, can have faith in statements
by the US Government of its desire to improve relations between
the USSR and the USA. This fully refers to the disarmament
problem as well, if we take into account that the attitude of the
USA toward disarmament questions is obviously aimed at breaking
up any fruitful talk on disarmament and proceeds not from the
necessity of disarmament under strict international control, but
from the establishment of control over armament, i.e., the setting
up of an approved system of international espionage under the
UN flag.

The Soviet Government not only lives in the past but looks
to the future as well. Whatever tense relations there may be be-
tween the Soviet Union and the United States of America, these
relations can be improved if the government leaders rise above
one or another of personal prejudices and feelings of hostility,
and are guided by the great responsibility resting on their shoul-
ders for the destinies of the world. It is the profound conviction
of the Soviet Government that the present worsened state in rela-
ions between the USSR and the USA can be overcome. However,
this requires a clear admission of what caused these relations to
deteriorate. What is needed is a clear admission that it was caused
by the unprecedented perfidious actions of the US Government
which took the road of committing provocative, aggressive acts
against the Soviet Union. In other words, we are ready to establish
contact and start negotiations with the President and the Govern-
ment of the United States of America, having in view that the
US Government will find the courage to condemn the above-

145

mentioned actions, which caused Soviet-American relations to
worsen, and will manifest goodwill in bettering these relations
in deeds.

Such are the considerations of the Soviet Government, which
it deemed necessary to express in reply to the letter addressed by
the leaders o£ five countries to the President of the United States
and to me.

Respectfully,
N. Khrushchev

New York, October 3, 1960.

Chairman of the Council of Ministers
of the USSR

Similar replies were forwarded to the Prime Minister of India
the President of Indonesia, the President of the United Arab Re-
public, and the President of Yugoslavia.

October 7, I960

Meeting With Members of
United Nations Journalists Association

On October 1, the United Nations Journalists Association Rave
a luncheon for the Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers
N. S. Khrushchev. " '

The President of the Association, Mr. Paul Sanders, introduced
Chairman Khrushchev.

paul sakders: Mr. Chairman, when we sent our invitation to
the Baltika, we did not expect you to be so generous with press
conferences. We erroneously thought that your acceptance of our
invitation would give us certain advantages. Now we see that this
might have been interpreted as a kind of monopoly to which you
certainly could never agree.

I must say that your treatment of the press can be described
in no other way but as most democratic.

Having had the opportunity of watching you for several weeks
at General Assembly sessions and having heard many stories about
you, I believe that there is much in common between you and the
press. They say that you are an emotional man. r But, Mr. Chair-
man, emotions are a source of news to us, and being human, we

144

are not devoid of emotion, no matter how hard we try to be im-
partial. You like publicity as much as we do, and this is why we
like you.

But more than anything else we know you as a great propa-
gandist of the ideas of peaceful coexistence. We are glad to greet
you among us-among those who made coexistence a practical
reality. We represent different countries and have different biog-
raphies, we belong to different political creeds. We write for papers
and magazines or work for radio stations representing the broadest
variety of views. But a supreme spirit of comradeship reigns among
us. We do not argue on those questions which are likely to divide
us, and if there are not too many extraordinary and evening meet-
ings, we often discuss various questions among ourselves in an ef-
fort to better understand what is the cause of these difficulties.
You will thus see that coexistence is not a problem to us, even if it
is a very difficult problem for the world.

But we simply do not know whether you and the others will
make a success of the idea of peaceful coexistence on a world scale
or how you will do that. We hope that you will explain this to
us along with other questions.

In conclusion I should like to say in Russian, so far as my
pronunciation permits, Dobro pozhalovat (Welcome here).

Gentlemen, I give you Chairman Nikita Khrushchev.

Khrushchev: Mr. President of the Association, dear gentle-
men, comrades, friends,

I am glad to meet you journalists who cover the work of the
United Nations. I often meet journalists. Yours is a difficult but a
noble profession. The press can help the peoples to understand
correctly everything going on in the complex modern world. But
the press can also help to disorient the peoples if it is used for the
selfish ends of specific circles.

You are very busy nowadays. The Fifteenth Session of the
United Nations General Assembly is the most significant session
since the United Nations was founded. At this session we shall
have to consider such major international problems as disarma-
ment and the complete abolition of the disgraceful colonial sys-
tem. We attach exceptional importance to a successful, agreed
solution of these problems. All the peoples are interested in dis-

145

armament because this is the only way to avoid new, devastating
war.

I need not tell you that all these and other questions can be
solved, provided there is good will and desire for cooperation
among all countries, on the basis of the principles of peaceful
coexistence, abstention from aggressive acts and observance of the
standards of international law.

In present-day conditions it is ridiculous to try to impose any
decisions upon other countries by using a mechanical majority in
the United Nations. It is essential that the United Nations take
into account the interests of all existing groups of states, both
those who belong to Western military alliances and the socialist
and neutralist states. The creation of an appropriate structure for
the working bodies of the United Nations could help to improve
the activities of the United Nations.

I urge all of you to use the force of the pen, your abilities,
your influence to create a climate helpful to the activities of the
United Nations; I urge you to write truthfully. May a truthful
and realistic picture of the world today and of the problems con-
fronting all of us arise before millions of your readers.

Thank you for your attention. Now I am ready to reply to your
questions.

* * #

Pauline Frederick (National Broadcasting Company): Mr.
Chairman, do you consider that there is any hope for progress in
disarmament even before a relaxation of differences is achieved
and before the removal of the fear and mistrust existing between
the United States and the Soviet Union?

khrushchev: To abandon hope for agreement on disarmament
would, I think, be tantamount to dooming the world to another
war, would be tantamount to an admission of impotence by those
people who must think about peace and create the conditions of
peaceful coexistence. That is why I am now optimistic about the
possibility of reaching agreement on disarmament, and I have de-
clared more than once that such conditions exist.

It is difficult to judge how far these conditions have now ma-
tured because the current session of the UniteS Nations General
Assembly coincides with a "stormy period" in the life of the

146

American people. I am referring to the presidential elections.
Everyone in the United States is now engaged in this, everything
is subordinated to this; and the leaders on whom a solution of
the disarmament problem depends consider only which presiden-
tial candidate will be elected. This is unfortunate because one
leader or another might become president; this is of no decisive
importance for international problems for this is the domestic
problem of a single country. Well, now everything in the United
States is subordinated to the elections, and we must reckon with
this. But this is a transient feature.

We believe that everything must be done to safeguard peace,
that one must not give up hope but continue a stubborn struggle
for peaceful coexistence, for disarmament, for safeguarding an en-
during peace throughout the world. But the main thing in the
struggle for an enduring peace is disarmament, and not control
over armaments as Mr. Eisenhower, the President of the United
States, suggests. I repeat, though I have spoken of this many times,
I shall go on repeating until everyone understands that disarma-
ment, the destruction of weapons is the only way of avoiding war,
while control over armaments means the preservation of arms.
And if arms are preserved, even under control, those who own
the arms can always use them for aggressive purposes whenever
they want to. Therefore everyone who really wants peace must
strive not for control over armaments but for disarmament, the
destruction of weapons under the strictest, most extensive and
penetrating international control.

In this context I should like to clarify another question. I
should like to correct the report published in American newspa-
pers on my meeting with Mr. Macmillan. The newspapers reported
not quite accurately on the results of my meetings and conversa-
tions with Mr. Macmillan, the Prime Minister of the United
Kingdom.

We really discussed disarmament, the possibility of reaching
agreement on this question. Mr. Macmillan said that one must not
be hasty about this question, must wait and see until better con-
ditions are created for confidence between countries. Only then
could agreement on disarmament be reached. Mr. Macmillan be-
lieves that about five to ten years might be required to create a
climate of confidence and that for the time being it would be

147

better to set up some technical committees of experts to study
these questions. To put it in a nutshell, he suggests moving as
slowly as many insects, snails and other slow-moving organisms do
on earth.

If the question of disarmament is made to depend upon relax-
ation of tension and establishment o£ confidence, as some would
have it, I shall tell you that this is a most dangerous approach.
This is tantamount to arguing about which came first, the chicken
or the egg. Which came fust, the chicken or the egg-I believe this
question has not been solved to this day. Therefore on the ques-
tion of disarmament, too, to talk about what to begin with— the
establishment of conditions for confidence or disarmament-is
futile. My position is that we must begin with the main thing,
that is, disarmament: we must destroy armaments, establish con-
trol to see that no one arms himself. This will create the best
conditions for sincere and fraternal relations among all peoples.

Now I should like to say something about the time needed
to achieve confidence. If we take a period of five or ten years-
such a period has been mentioned-this contradicts the statements
of the Western circles themselves, since they say that it is essential
to accelerate agreement on disarmament. Is it not a fact that the
longer the agreement is delayed, the greater will become, with
every passing year, the number of countries possessing atomic weap-
ons and rockets? And if there are more states armed with atomic
hydrogen bombs and rockets, the difficulties of reaching agreement
on disarmament will become even greater. It would seem that,
following from this Western logic, we must speed up disarmament!
but Mr. Macmillan says that we must wait five or ten years. This
means that now we must doom these negotiations to futility. So
the idea seems to me that I, a grandfather, will start these talks
and my grandchildren will finish them! This is a chain reaction
for which all mankind will have to pay.

I must say that I have many grandchildren and I hope that
my grandchildren will follow their grandfather, but I still want
to do everything for the grandchildren so that they may live under
peaceful conditions, may thank us for having, upheld peace.

chairman: The next two questions are similar and therefore
I have decided to read them simultaneously.

148

Joseph newman (New York Herald Tribune): Would you ac-
cept the results of a two-thirds majority vote in the United Nations
to settle the question as to whether or not Mr. Hammarskjold
should remain in office as United Nations Secretary-General and
to decide on your proposal for a three-man executive?

arne torren (Expressen); Mr. Chairman, you said in your
speech in the Assembly on Monday that you would draw the nec-
essary conclusions from the existing situation if the Secretary-
General does not resign. Mr. Hammarskjold replied that he would
not abandon his post. Could you tell us what conclusion you have
already drawn or going to draw?

Khrushchev: These two are related questions but they are not
identical.

Regarding Mr. Hammarskjold's statement that he will not step
down from his post, you have heard what I said in my speech:
if Mr. Hammarskjold possessed gentlemanly qualities, he would
step down from his post. But I was not sure whether he had such
qualities, and in this respect Mr. Hammarskjold fully justified my
opinion of him.

Now regarding the decision of the question by a two-thirds
majority.

Even if such a decision as you speak about were made by a
two-thirds majority, even if it were made by a majority of 99 per
cent, we would not agree with such a decision anyhow.

The principles of majority which you determine by two-thirds
in solving disputable issues are quite acceptable within a country
when domestic— political, economic and other— questions are decid-
ed. But in this case we are dealing with a complex international
question. This question is decided by countries belonging to the
United Nations. But this is not a parliament but an international
forum which has been established in order to solve questions in
such a way that its decisions would not harm any state belonging
to this forum.

If you like, I shall present this question in a more naked form.
Suppose the following "ideal" thought were to occur to representa-
tives of member states of the United Nations: let us decide to
liquidate the socialist system in the Soviet Union. What would

149

happen if all, except the representatives of the socialist countries,
were to vote for this? What would we have replied to this? We
would have said, as is our Russian custom in such cases: "Out with
you! You have adopted such a decision and you may live with it;
as for us, we have lived under our socialist system and will go on
living under it. And if anyone interferes— yon will excuse me for
such an unrefined but most figurative expression-we shall give
him a good punch in the jaw! 1 '

Gentlemen, a very serious question has been raised here. That
is why I should like to dwell on it further. I beg you to ponder
this question thoroughly. A majority of votes in the United Na-
tions, which consists of imperialist, socialist and neutralist states,
is still held by countries of the imperialist, colonial bloc. We, the
socialist countries, are today in a minority in the United Nations.
But this situation might change. Today we are in a minority, but
tomorrow, as we warn you, you will be in a minority. Hence, you
must not abuse a temporary majority in the United Nations in
order to impose decisions on the minority, because, I repeat, this
is not a parliament. We are discussing here not the domestic prob-
lems of one country or another, we are discussing international
problems with due respect for sovereignty and non-intervention in
the affairs of other states. This must be borne in mind, this must be
the point of departure. Then a correct solution of the problem will
be reached.

Besides, I beg you to ponder seriously our proposal concerning
the structure of the United Nations. We do not demand a situa-
tion which would give us an equal number of seats with the
Western countries in the Security Council and the United Nations
Secretariat. We do not ask for a majority, we only ask for our
share.

The world has a population of three billion. The socialist
countries represent more than one billion of the population. This
means more than one-third. But we are not petty and we will not
weigh everything on scales up to the precision of a gram. We
accept one-third. The imperialist, colonial powers have less than
one-third of the world population in their countries, but we tell
them: "You take a third too." The neutralist countries account for
more than one-third, and we tell them: "You take one-third too."

150

Thus, all three groups of states would be represented in the
United Nations— and this is an international organization— the
capitalist, the countries of monopoly capital, the colonial powers;
the socialist countries, the countries of the really free world, the
freest of the free; and the neutralist countries. And all would have
their share, their one-third. This would create equal conditions
for all three groups of states. This would make it possible to solve
international problems without prejudicing any group of states.
Is this not sensible?

We want no privileges but our share to which we are entitled.

If you want to subordinate us to yourselves by a majority and
to compel us to settle issues under unequal conditions, you will com-
pel us to uphold our interests not by voting in the United Nations
but by acting outside the United Nations, i.e., by relying on our
strength, on our might. And this, as you understand, already leads
to an aggravation of relations.

Our proposals contain a reasonable starting point. We want
a relaxation of international tension, we want peaceful coexist-
ence, we want peace and friendship. You, on the other hand, strug-
gle for domination over us, over the socialist countries and over the
neutralist countries. Hence, you stand on the positions of continu-
ing the "cold war" and aggravating relations. Ponder this, gentle-
men! If you do not ponder this today, if you understand this
wrongly, I hope you will understand this tomorrow, because there
is no other way out.

That is how the question stands: either we shall develop our
relations along the road of eliminating international tension and
the cold war, strive for peace and friendship, or we shall continue
the line of aggravation which might end God knows where, be-
cause every aggravation of tension and the cold war might turn
into a hot war.

He who wants peace and friendship among the peoples must
consider the interests not only of his country and his group of
countries, he must also consider the interests of the socialist coun-
tries, the neutralist countries.

We do not want to impose our socialist system upon you. Go
on living as your conscience dictates, but do not interfere with our
living according to the dictates of our conscience. Let us not inter -

151

CO

O M

H

^ ?d

>

^ ?d

O

H O

W

!Z! ?d

• •

U ••

H

!Zi CO

O rt

DJ

o o

o ^

3 a

3 3

> a

2 CD

U h

.. hh

H

; o

s;

fere with the neutralist countries either, so that they may live as
their conscience dictates.

We do not ask anything for ourselves at the expense of other
states. We only want equal conditions for all, we want to continue
working for the common cause of ensuring world peace.

Stanley burke (Canadian radio): You said that the main ob-
jective of the Western countries in the Congo was to retain control
over raw materials available there, in particular over uranium. How
can you prove this statement, considering that uranium, which is
Katanga's main product, is extremely abundant in the world and
large uranium mines are being closed in Canada, for instance?
khrushchev: Sir, you want to impose upon me your idea that
the colonialists seize colonies and destroy people in order to help
them to end their earthly existence as soon as possible and to
expedite them on their way to paradise.

To me it is entirely a secondary matter, what the colonialists
are after-uranium, cobalt or the devil himself. What they want
is to plunder the colonial peoples, to profit at their expense, to
exterminate the peoples of enslaved countries. When the Belgian
colonialists came to the Congo, it had a population of more than
20 million. And now, when the colonialists have left after a stay
of many years, the population, far from increasing, has diminished
almost by half. Why? Do Negroes bear fewer children? No. They
bear perhaps even more children than Europeans. But they are
placed in unbelievable, inhuman conditions, and that is why their
children do not survive, and die; and those who do not die in
childhood, do not live long— their life expectancy is not as long
as that of people living under normal human conditions.

Or let us take the Australians. Mr. Menzies spoke at the
United Nations General Assembly. He could have told the story
of the conquest of Australia, he could have told how colonialists
hunted down and killed human beings like wild animals. They
exterminated nearly the entire indigenous population. And this
is what they call "civilization"! The peoples will remember such
civilization, and hatred for the enslavers will live through the ages.
We are against the policy of the coloniafists. With all our
energy we protest against this policy and we shall do everything

m

in our power to see the early end of this cursed, obsolete, slavish
system of colonialism, to see that all peoples gain freedom and
independence.

richard hottelet (Columbia Broadcasting System): What
have you achieved in New York, in your opinion, both in the
United Nations and outside it?

Khrushchev: The woodcutter measures the quality and quan-
tity of his work by a definite yardstick. In the past the Russians
had the sagene;* now it no longer exists. In the past I worked
as a fitter and I had definite standards by which to measure my
labor. My father was a miner, he also had his yardstick. Then I
became a political leader. I am not a woodcutter, or rather, I
am both a woodcutter and a politician. I think it is impossible
to measure the quantity and quality of my work, as the result of
a brief attendance at the United Nations, by a definite yardstick. I
say only one thing— he who believes that our efforts were made in
vain does not understand everything that is going on.

We have sown here good seeds, the seeds of peace and friend-
ship; we have exposed falsehood and sown the seeds of truth. And
no matter how loudly some people are now crying to silence the
voice of truth, their voices are not strong enough for this. Truth
cannot be killed! Truth will triumph. When will it triumph?
—well, one must have patience.

We are not discontinuing the struggle for truth. We have
started this struggle and shall continue it. Victory will be ours.
Please remember, truth will triumph because a lie is short-lived;
people will see through the lie, no matter how skillful the make-up
is, no matter how skillfully it is presented by cameramen, photog-
raphers, newsmen, artists— the features of a lie will show through
the make-up and evoke repulsion, while the truth will attract the
hearts of the peoples. Truth is with us. Truth will triumph.

simon molele (Tunisian radio): You here in New York and
other Soviet leaders in Moscow had official talks with the leaders
of the provisional government of the Algerian Republic. This
has been interpreted as de facto recognition of the Algerian Gov-
ernment by the Soviet Government.

•Discarded unit of measure equal to 2.134 meters.

153

Would you not like to comment on this and tell us, in par-
ticular, what aid you intend to render the Algerian people in
their struggle for independence?

khrushchev: You have understood correctly that from our
meetings and talks it follows that we recognize de facto the pro-
visional Algerian Government. I consider that not only we but
many countries of the world recognize it, and in the first place
it was recognized by President de Gaulle of France who entered
into negotiations with representatives of this provisional Algerian
Government.

I have already replied to similar questions and said that we
Soviet people sympathize with all colonial peoples fighting against
colonialists, for independence. How then can we exclude such a
great people as the Arab people who are fighting for their inde-
pendence, for their freedom? We welcome their struggle and we
rendered, and shall render them every assistance we can, any
assistance that will be useful to the Algerian people in their strug-
gle for independence, for freedom.

ferrara (Unita): What do you think about the vote on the
resolution of the five neutralist nations?

khrushchev: We have stated our attitude toward this resolu-
tion in my letter to its authors, which has been published. I think
that it is hardly necessary to return to this question now.

Arthur Fletcher (World Wide Press Service Agency): In view
of the fact that the Soviet Union calls in every way for the advance
of the underdeveloped countries, will it increase its contributions
to the United Nations assistance program as the United States has
promised to do?

khrushchev: We have repeatedly stated our views on this
question. We take part in rendering assistance to underdeveloped
countries through the United Nations, but we prefer, so long as
no agreement on disarmament is reached, to remain at about
the previous level of rendering assistance through the United
Nations. When agreement on disarmament is reached, there will
be every possibility, as a result of the disarmament, to save funds,
and hence we could increase assistance to underdeveloped coun-
tries by agreement with other countries. But we prefer to render
assistance chiefly on a bilateral basis, i.e., to reach agreement with

164

~

underdeveloped countries, and on the basis of this agreement
to render them disinterested assistance.

Now, as regards President Eisenhower's statement on assistance,
I should think that if the imperialist countries returned even a
tenth of what they plundered in the underdeveloped countries—
and they took everything from them— if they returned even a
tenth of the share, even this would be little. But I do not entertain
the hope that assistance on the part of the imperialist countries
will be increased, for it is one thing to talk and another to act.
Capitalism can only plunder. It cannot render effective assistance
because this contradicts the essence of capitalism.

Therefore, Messrs. Journalists, know how to read but also know
how to understand what you have read. I tell you this because my
experience in life prompts me to do it. Take Britain as an example.

What a wealthy country it is. Yet how poor is Indial How
wealthy is France, yet how poor are the African countries plundered
by France. How wealthy is Britain, yet how poor is Ceylon.

Is poverty the national feature of those countries? No. It is a
social feature, a political feature. The robbers came, plundered
the peoples of the enslaved countries, and then told them, "You
should be grateful for our plundering because we brought you
civilization." Well, you know, as our saying has it— "God defend
me from my friends, I can defend myself from my enemies." The
same applies here: God defend us from such civilization, and we
undoubtedly can cope with this civilization ourselves and conquer
it!

Besides, India was at a higher level when Britain began en-
slaving India. Britain relied not on civilization but on the force
of the robber, the force of the stronger. And this is called justice!
And now they want to assume a noble air. This, you know . . .
though perhaps I have said enough as it is.

s. gunzburg (France Press Agency); The organ of the Chinese
Communist Party, the newspaper Jen Min Jik Pao again sup-
ported the opinion that war is inevitable as long as the capitalist
society exists and that the atom bomb is a "paper tiger." Would
you like to comment on this statement?

khrushchev: I haven't read that paper. You have read it and
I must comment on itl Can you imagine my position? Since you

155

have read it, it is for you to comment. I will comment when
I read it.

don hwa: (South Korea?! News Agency) : Mr. Chairman, won't
you tell us something about your planned visit to North Korea?
What is the objective of your visit there now?

Khrushchev: I do not understand, gentlemen, why there is
such a merry reaction to this question. Apparently because this
is a gentleman from South Korea. I do not see any reason for
such merriment and I have the greatest respect for this gentle-
man's question.

You see, South Korea had Syngman Rhee. We have de-
nounced him and the regime which had been there under him,
although the present regime in South Korea does not differ from
the old one. Today there is one regime and tomorrow there will
be another, but the Korean people remain; and we believe in
the good inherent in every people, including the Koreans. It is
a freedom-loving people which fought heroically against the
Japanese occupation. But the people in the south of the country
found themselves in a worse position than in the north. The North
Koreans found themselves, both geographically and politically,
in a better position than the South Koreans, but we believe that
the South Koreans will catch up with the North Koreans.

You are asking when I shall go to the Korean Democratic
People's Republic? Right now we are making final arrangements
with Comrade Kim Ir Sen concerning the date on which we shall
be able to go to Korea, since I stayed in America longer than
I expected. This will be announced later on.

But I should like to convey through you, Mr. South Korean
Journalist, the best wishes to the people of South Korea, if you
dare to transmit my kind wishes. We should like to see the Korean
peoples themselves determine the social and political system of
South Korea. We wish the people of South Korea independence
and complete freedom, we wish the entire Korean people to
be the masters of their destiny and of their wealth.

james boyd (Sunday Star) and other correspondents: Has the
Soviet Union any proposals for stimulating the activity of the
United Nations Outer Space Committee?

khrushchev: We set forth our proposals some time ago and
we are willing, if our wishes are taken into account, to participate
in the committee. We regard the United States proposals as lop-
sided for they do not take into account the interests of the social-
ist countries. The United States wants to be in command in the
committee. If you want to be in command not in the committee
but in outer space, please do— there is enough place there for all.
You be in command in it and we shall be in command in it.

Thomas Hamilton (New York Times) : In your talks with
Mr. Macmillan you suggested, it seems, a summit meeting and
a special session of the United Nations General Assembly early
next year, after the inauguration of President Eisenhower's suc-
cessor. Could you not tell us in greater detail when, in your opin-
ion, this meeting should be held and what it should consider?

khrushchev: Yes, this was a correct report. When I conferred
with Mr. Macmillan, and I conferred with him twice in New
York, we touched upon these questions.

Mr. Macmillan assured me that a summit meeting would
take place. I stood on the same positions which we have set forth
already in due time: we are in favor of a summit meeting in
order to settle the issue of concluding a peace treaty with Ger-
many and to solve the problem of West Berlin as a free city
which ensues from this. But I also raised other questions.

In my talks with Mr. Macmillan I said that perhaps we
should consider the question of a peace treaty with Germany
at a peace conference of all countries who fought against Nazi
Germany, and conclude a peace treaty there. He who wants to
sign it would sign.

I suggested this with a view to accelerating the signing of
a peace treaty with Germany because the solution of this ques-
tion has been delayed too long. Mr. Macmillan assured me that
a meeting of the heads of government of the Great Powers would
take place and that at this meeting we should be able to discuss
this question. If this is so, we shall stand by the word we gave
after the Summit Meeting in Paris was torpedoed by the United
States of America last May.

The same correspondent raises another question, about a
special session of the United Nations General Assembly. Indeed

156

157

I have raised such a question in my conversation with Mr.
Macmillan. Mr. Macmillan did not deny that such a session
would be useful. I have already told you about this.

Now, as before, we consider that disarmament is the ques-
tion of questions. The present session, apparently, lacks special
conditions for achieving useful results on this question. First,
we must take into account the fact that the discussion of this
question in the United Nations coincided with the peak of the
presidential election campaign in the United States. Under these
conditions America, apparently, cannot now take an active part
in the discussion of this most important question. This is one
reason.

Secondly, some explain this by the fact that there are many
questions which must be discussed at the plenary session of the
Assembly.

We have always considered disarmament the prime task, a
question which prevails over all other questions. That is why,
in view of the above considerations, it will apparently be useful
to call a special session of the General Assembly and to discuss
at that session only one question— that of reaching agreement on
disarmament and establishing international control over disarma-
ment.

I have spoken on this question not only with Mr. Macmillan
but with statesmen of other countries as well. When will that
be expedient? I should think that we could gather in February
or March. Some have mentioned April because that suited them
better. It would be a good thing to convene such an Assembly
in Europe. Eighty per cent of the countries territorially tend to
Europe because of their geographic location. That is why we
would prefer the special session to meet in Geneva. But should
the participants in the session want to meet in the Soviet Union
and extend such an honor to us, we shall be happy to receive
the Assembly in Moscow or Leningrad. The most normal condi-
tions for its work would be created there.

I believe that people who really want agreement on dis-
armament and peace ensured-and this must hi the goal of all-
must sympathize with us and help us to achieve such a solution.

158

henry shapiro (United Press International): Will the status
quo be preserved in Berlin until the next summit meeting?

khrushchev: The question has been put in too abstract a
manner. First, will there be a summit meeting? From the way
Mr. Shapiro put the question it follows that I must give an assur-
ance that the status quo will be preserved. But no one can tell
in what year and on what date the meeting will take place.
That would mean to remain perpetually without a peace treaty
with Germany. If this question is understood as we understand it,
namely, that the summit meeting will take place after the pres-
idential elections, we shall strictly abide by our word. But if we
see that there is no desire to have a summit meeting, the coun-
tries whose position is that a peace treaty is essential will finally
meet and sign a peace treaty. And that will be the end of occupa-
tion status for West Berlin.

chairman: I should like to wind up with a question which is
outside the sphere of politics. This question has been asked by
Mr. Murray of the Irish Times: Can you definitely say that you
will orbit a man around the earth this year?

khrushchev: Do you want to be registered as the first vol-
unteer?

correspondent: Together with you.

khrushchev: My age and my weight do not meet the standards.

correspondent: This also applies to me.

khrushchev: I do not know and that is why I speak in this
way. I did not want to offend you. And there is nothing offensive
in it. I can only tell you that we have many people who want
to fly into outer space and they are making intensive preparations.
Everyone wants to have the honor to be the first to fly.

We regard such a flight as very important, as having great
scientific importance. That is why sporting methods are no good
here. And to fix a day and send a man into outer space precisely
on that day means to have a sporting approach to this highly im-
portant question. We do not set ourselves such a task. We shall
send a man into outer space when the appropriate conditions
have been created for this flight, for the life of the space traveler
must be protected. I cannot say when this will materialize since
this is, first of all, a matter for scientists. It does not take much

159

wisdom to send a man into outer space; the main thing is to
return him.

I heard the esteemed chairman say that this question was
the last. Therefore permit me to say a few words in conclusion.

Above all, I should like to thank our esteemed chairman, the
President of the United Nations Association of Journalists, and
to thank you all for having entertained my friends and myself
at such a good lunch. It is your right to make an appraisal, but,
in any case, I tried to return your hospitality by conscientious
work. I should like also to thank you, gentlemen, friends, com-
rades, for your attention and to wish you the best of success
in your work.

Let us pool our efforts in the struggle for peace. I am a Com-
munist. I shall reveal no secret if I say that there are Communists
here beside me; I see them. They are present here. But the
majority here are not Communists. However, we must agree that
we are all human beings, and man living on earth wants to live.
I repeat, let us pool our efforts toward one goal— the struggle for
peace. Questions pertaining to the social and political order of
society are the domestic affair of each people, but the cause of
world peace is the common cause of the peoples.

So let us concentrate our attention and efforts on achieving
the common goal of ensuring peace on earth. And in order to
ensure peace on earth, to prevent any accidents, an agreement
on disarmament must be reached by all nations. If we achieve
this, gentlemen, I am confident that we shall glorify our names
through the ages and our children and grandchildren will say:
"Our fathers and forefathers were not so stupid after all. For all
their quarrels, for all their arguments and bickerings, they under-
stood the main thing, they prevented war and ensured peace."

That should be enough for every man with a conscience— his
conscience would be clear.

160

October 9, I960

Television Interview with David Susskind

David Susskind, producer and television commentator, invited
Premier Khrushchev to be his guest for an interview on "Open
EMX, _ his regular Sunday evening program on WNTA-TV The
Premier accepted, and the program took place at 9 P.M. on Sun-
day, October 9. Originating in New York, the program was simul-
taneously relayed to six major cities in the United States It has
been rcbroadcast on many other television channels and radio
stations in the United States, as well as in Australia, Canada and
the United Kingdom. It was also re-televised in full in the Soviet
Union.

HUB. The transcription of the interview which follows o-ives
Premier Khrushchev's answers in direct translation from the Rus-
sian not necessarily as Mr. Viktor Sukhadrev, his interpreter
translated them for the television audience.

The dialogue that follows took place before the program
went on camera." e b

susskind: When you go to sleep, do you feel that the destinies
of mankind depend largely on you, on your attitude on your
moods? Tell us, do you sleep calmly being aware of this?

Khrushchev: I always sleep calmly.

susseiso: And what about the sense of tremendous responsi-
bility to a still unborn generation?

Khrushchev: You see, we do our utmost to avert war. Our
country is engaged in peaceful construction. Just take a look at
what we are doing.

susskind: I should like to very much, and I'd like especially
to take a look at the organization of communications in your
country.

Everyone is watching you today and many people believe that
you will not reply to my questions; but I don't believe it.

Khrushchev: It depends on what questions you ask. I shall
reply to any reasonable question.

susskind: Yes, this means yes, good, to Americans. And when
they want to say-excellent, they say-O.K!

161

khrushchev: I think that both the questions and the replies

will be keyed toward an improvement in the relations between
our countries, that is, between the Soviet Union and America,
among all the countries of the world.

If there are any questions which violate that principle I shall
not reply. I may not reply directly to all questions but I shall not
evade replies. Thus, I shall certainly give detailed replies to your
questions.

susskind: Mr. Khrushchev, I should like to assure you before
the beginning of the broadcast that the questions I shall ask are
in the minds of many people.

khrushchev: I beg you to ask the kind of questions which
will help to improve our relations.

susskind: I repeat, we have a good word "yes"; that's the
English for "da."

khrushchev: I also would like to hear "da" from you.

susskind: It is quite incomprehensible to me how a man who
has such a sense of humor can inspire the fear of war. We've been
taught that a sense of humor is the most positive quality.

khrushchev: That is right. If I inspire fear in you, this means
that you think badly of me and of my country.

susskind: You don't inspire fear here, but you do when you
deliver speeches, for instance, at the United Nations. If we could
remain here, the world would be in complete safety.

khrushchev: You are mistaken.

At this point the official broadcast began.

susskind: Good evening. This is Open End. My name is David
Susskind. Our guest tonight is Premier Nikita Khrushchev of the
Soviet Union. The gentleman alongside of Premier Khrushchev is
his official translator, Mr. Victor Sukhadrev.

A brief introductory note about tonight's program. When I
first heard or read that Premier Khrushchev was coming to the
United States to attend the Geneal Assembly of the United Na-
tions, I wrote the officials in New York of the Soviet Mission. I
requested his appearance on this program to answer questions
that are deep in all our minds, about the present situation in the
world. I also requested the opportunity of having crack newspaper
experts, familiar with the Soviet-American issues to accompany

162

me on the program to ask questions. The reply was that Mr.
Khrushchev, and this after several meetings with his official dele-
gation, that Mr. Khrushchev would answer questions from one
interrogator. I was asked to submit questions in advance. I refused
to do this, and Mr. Khrushchev's officials agreed that the questions
would be unrehearsed and spontaneous.

Tonight's questions and answers are not rehearsed, have not
been submitted in advance. In just a moment, we will begin this
program, whose main concern is the pursuit of information. In a
free republic it is our job, I think, never to trammel inquiry, but
to try to know more, to fmd out facts, to get answers. That is the
effort of this program, that is its intent. In just sixty seconds, we
will begin the interview with Premier Khrushchev.

susskind: Mr. Khrushchev, in Mr. Macmillan's address to the
United Nations General Assembly, he said, among other things,
quote, "The sponge of public opinion is almost saturated with
the persistent Hood of propaganda. It can pick up no more. Or-
dinary people all over the world, in their present mood, are begin-
ning to tire of the same conventional slogans and catchwords."
The people of our country and the people of the world, I think,
are very concerned about a host of issues. I hope tonight's questions
and answers will supply them with answers they desperately seek.

The first, Mr. Khrushchev: From personal observation and
from the reports of your officials in this country, you must know
that our people are dedicated to peace with honor. You must
know too, that ours is a representative government, elected by our
people and fully responsive to them. Why then do you continue
to perpetuate the myth that the American people are well-inten-
tioned, but that their government is imperialistic, warmongering
and deceitful? That fact is, and I think you know it, that the
American people, and the American government, whether Repub-
lican or Democrat, are one and the same with no interest or desire
to violate any other sovereignty, or extend its territories or to
colonize any nation in any part of the world in any manner
whatsoever.

khrushchev: The question you have just posed is not a simple
one and might provide a pretext for misinterpretation, with re-
gard to the reply, but I will certainly do my best to answer with-
out evading the essence of the question.

163

With regard to the social systems existing in our countries,
with regard to the state structures and our governments, I would
not like to add anything to what you have said, or to comment in
any way. With regard to your words to the effect that your govern-
ment is responsible to the various institutions, state institutions,
existing in this country, I would merely like to say in this context
that you are evidently not very well-acquainted with our system.
Because the fact is that our country has the most democratic sys-
tem; all the various functionaries are elected, and all are respon-
sible to the people, directly to the people. And the people who
are elected to the various legislative and executive bodies of the
Soviet Union are all men of labor, they are workers, peasants or
intellectuals. I myself am a living example of this. I was a worker
in my youth, my father was a worker and my grandfather was a
peasant. From an early age, I started to work and it was as a result
of my diligence, of my desire to serve my people, that the people
responded by electing me to this high office. But I would not like
to enter into any argument with regard to whose government is
more representative or more democratic, because if we were to
enter into such a dispute, I would start praising my state, and my
government, my constitution, and you would start praising yours,
and that would only lead to an aggravation, and would not serve
any useful purpose. We like and will live under our system, and
you will live under yours. You like your system— that's your busi-
ness; we like ours, so don't hinder us from living our way.*

susskind: 1 am sorry that I don't understand what you're
saying.

khrushchev: The interpreter will translate for you.

susskind: With apologies to Mr. Khrushchev, he has not an-
swered my question. I am. not comparing our governments. I
asked him why throughout the world, he continues to draw a
real cleavage between our people and our government, saying that
our people are peace-loving, but our government is warmongering.
Our government is exactly coincident with the temper of our
people. They are one and the same, and they are both peace-loving
so long as peace is accompanied by honor.

*The last two sentences were not translated
interrupted with his next comment.

164

for Mr. Susskind because he

khrushchev: You were in a little too much of a hurry, because
1 only just replied to the first part of that question you posed me.
And, after the translation of that first part is finished, I will go
on to reply to the second part. I will certainly do so.

Don't be in a hurry. Though you are a fiery man and I am
no longer young, I can still compete with you in replying. Wait a
minute, or do you want to outstrip me thanks to your age! First,
you are trying to involve me in a discussion regarding your govern-
ment. I do not think I should enter into such a discussion because
it is your government after all, and it is for your people to judge
that government. If I were to try to do so, that could be construed
as an attempt at interfering with the internal affairs of the Ameri-
can people, and I would not like to be misunderstood on that
point. But now I would like to give a reply.

We say that the government of the Soviet Union, which I
head in my capacity of Chairman of the Council of Ministers, is
the most peace-loving government in the world. You say, and I
believe you, that the people of the United States are peace-loving
people, and that the government of the United States is likewise
a peace-loving government: then, I would just like to raise one
question. Recall that last year I was in this country as a guest o£
your government. It gave me pleasure to accept President Eisen-
hower's invitation to come here, and I came with good intentions,
to establish personal contact with the President, or rather to re-
new these contacts, because we had met before. The purpose of
my journey was to promote better relations between our peoples
and our governments. I also wanted to establish good personal
relations with the President. And we did have some very good
talks. The President is aware of this. I recall that we sat and
talked and had coffee. He addressed me with the words, "my
friend," in English. And he said, learn the words, Mr. Khrushchev,
they mean, and he had them translated for me, and I said very
good. And allow me also to call you "moi drug," which is "my
friend" in Russian. And everything went very well, indeed. I was
seen off with honors. When I came back I reported to my people
that conditions were becoming propitious for us to have good
relations with the United States of America. This is the dream of
our people, of the Soviet Government. Because, after all, if such
good relations exist between the United States and the Soviet

165

Union, this means that there will be peace between our two coun-
tries and in the whole world.

But what happened later? What did your government do? Vir-
tually on the eve of the Paris Summit meeting, the United States
Government sent a U-2 spy plane into the Soviet Union. And then
after that they sent a second plane, an RB-47 reconnaissance plane.
We shot down this second plane, too. We said it was not good to
do such things; we asked, is this the way to show friendship? Just
imagine what would have been your reaction if we had sent our
plane into the United States, let us say, over New York or Wash-
ington, for example. What would have happened then? You
would have judged that Khrushchev came to your country, par-
took of American bread and salt, said some fine words, and then
in return sent a spy plane over your territory. Would you have
regarded this as a friendly or unfriendly act? Well, we too reacted
with the opinion that the American Government was insincere,
because the sending of an aggressor plane does not help improve
our relations, does not promote the cause of peace, but on the
contrary kindles passions and aggravates relations. The continua-
tion of such flights might lead to war.

And so, judge for yourselves. Who is it that stands for peace,
for friendly relations, and who is it that does not want friendly
relations, but aggravates the situation by his actions and brings
the world to the brink of war?

I am now replying not only to you, but to all the people who
are listening tonight. We are now facing the tribunal of public
opinion. We are honest. We gave our word that we would be
friendly, and we are true to our word— we do nothing to harm
America, But you have sent your spy planes to us.

sussrind: Mr. Khrushchev, the U-2 incident was part of both
our countries indulging in various intelligence operations to pro-
tect their securities. The best answer to the U-2 incident is that
the President has suspended all such flights. Let us not beat a
dead horse tonight. Is it not possible that relations between our
two countries could immediately improve, if you as a statesman
and head of your country, do, or w 7 ould do two things. Bury the
U-2 incident, and stop inflaming it, and number two, submit the
RB-47 incident to the international arbitration and decision re-
quested by the United States.

166

khrushchev: You see, any relations, no matter how sharp
they may become, lose their sharp edge in time. No matter how
stormy the ocean may become, sooner or later that storminess sub-
sides. After a storm there is always a calm. And so it will evidently
be with the U-2 incident. But I do think you have an incorrect
understanding on this matter, and I should like to deal with that.

(At this point in Mr. Sukhadrev's interpretation, Mr. Susskind
asked for an interruption for a station break. Premier Khrushchev
had actually gone ahead, however, and the remainder of his re-
marks are given herewith.)

It would be a good thing if the President had cancelled those
flights. But is that really so? In reality, they have not yet been
cancelled. I will deal with that a little later. The best thing would
be not to have sent any U-2 and RB-47 nights at all. You say that
the U-2 incident is a dead horse. But no, it is not a dead horse. If
your spy planes continue to fly over our country, we shall shoot
them down, and that might mean the outbreak of war. If you
allow yourselves to infringe on our sovereignty and invade the
boundaries of our country we shall be forced to take retaliatory
measures. And you must agree that this smacks of an armed con-
flict. Furthermore, after the President had said that he had can-
celled the flights, there was the RB-47 flight. This looks more
like a repetition of flights rather than a cancellation of them.

I will tell you more. Your military or intelligence agencies
planned to send over one more spy plane before my departure for
the General Assembly session. We learned about this and I said
to your Ambassador in Moscow, Mr. Thompson:

You are preparing to send another spy plane over here. We
are aware of that. You want to send it at an altitude of 25,000
meters. We are ready, and if you do send it, we warn you that the
results of this affair will be not too good. The plane did not come.
I believe the United States Government cancelled this flight.

I agree with you on one point— let us not kindle passions over
this question. Now you are asking us to agree to international
arbitration on the RB-47 plane. But we shall not agree to this.
What you want is for our internal, domestic state affairs to be
settled by international arbitration of some kind. The best and
only arbitration in this matter is not to send spy planes over each
other's territory. Why do that? Let us be friends, let us do no

167

harm to each other, let us not violate the sovereignty of other
countries.

(Station Break)

khrushchev: Do you have a couple of mattresses somewhere?

susskind: Sure, I'll get you a mattress. So that the public will
understand, because we've been off the air the last few minutes,
I said that we should both practice brevity, I in my questions, and
Premier Khrushchev in his answers, or we will have to stay the
night. He then asked if we could be brought several mattresses.
May we have the answer to that—

khrushchev: But, I already said, that if you will provide the
mattresses, I'm ready to be here all night.

susskind: All right, we'll send for the mattresses. Will you
please give us the answer to the question? The question was, it
seems like a year ago, that the U-2 incident was beating a dead
horse. The best answer to that is that our President, and our
government has suspended those flights. Could not Mr. Khrushchev
make an affirmative and definite and important move toward
better relations between our two countries, by first, burying the
U-2 incident forever, and not be resuscitating it always, and
secondly, by submitting the RB-47 incident to international arbi-
tration as requested by the American Government.

(Mr. Sukhadrev here continued with his interpretation of the
Premier's remarks as given in the previous speech.)

susskind: It is not a domestic issue. You claimed that your
territory was violated by one of our planes. We denied such alle-
gations. It is a matter between two sovereign countries in dispute.
The United Nations is clearly a forum for arbitration of that
dispute. Isn't your refusal to submit the dispute, which is not a
domestic dispute, but an international dispute, isn't that sympto-
matic of your hard, cold war policy?

khrushchev: Well, kind sir, where do we stand? You sent a
U-2 plane and then denied that you had sent it. You said that you
did not send the plane. It was only after we furnished material
evidence, and showed you the pilot who was shot down near
Sverdlovsk, only then did you admit the fact^hat you had sent a
spy flight. And yet not only admitted it, but asserted that it was
your right to do so and that you had the right to send planes in

168

(he future too. And so an RB-47 made its appearance in our skies.
Naturally, we shot it down. It would be better policy for you to
observe a rule which is illustrated by a passage from a play by
the Russian writer Griboyedov, his play, "The Wit Works Woe":
"Couldn't you select a more remote path for your walks?" I should
like to repeat this in regard to flights by American planes: couldn't
you select a route more remote from our frontiers for your flights?
This would be a more useful course to follow, and then no con-
flicts would spoil our relations. For we want to live with you in
peace and friendship.

susskind: (to interpreter as Khrushchev was speaking) Is
there progress in that answer?

khrushchev: All our replies contain progress.
susskind: Not tonight.

khrushchev: Just wait a minute. You suggested that the
United Nations should arbitrate in the case of the RB-47 plane.
We saw a fine example of United Nations arbitration in the Con-
go. But we are not the Congo! We are the Soviet Union. There-
fore we ask you to respect our sovereignty, and if it is not respected,
we shall be able to protect it properly ourselves!

susskind: I feel that an iron and implacable will lies behind
your smile.

khrushchev: Logic and truth lie behind it.
susskind: Then we are speaking different languages.
khrushchev: I think that the word "logic" sounds similar
in English and Russian.

susskind: I think we have seen an excellent illustration of the
United Nations in action in the Congo.

khrushchev: I would not like to return to the discussion of
that question because the discussion was fully treated in my state-
ments before the United Nations General Assembly. I therefore
would not like to return to the matter and take up the time of
our esteemed listeners. Whoever wants to know my point of view
on that question can read my speech, which was published in one
American newspaper.

susskind: May I ask you a question to which you can answer,
yes or no? Will you, in the interest of immediate improvement
in American-Soviet relations, submit the RB-47 issue to arbitration?
khrushchev: No,

169

susskind: I taught you "yes."

khrushchev: I'll gladly repeat that word, when you ask me
the appropriate question. May I say, will you stop flying into the
Soviet Union, and provoking conflicts? If that question were asked,
I'd say very good, and you would, I trust, say, "yes."

susskind; We have stopped. But we can't agree on it tonight.

khrushchev: Let me shake your hand. If you really have
stopped such flights and the President stands by your statement,
very good, I shall reply "yes."

susskind: In his speech before the United Nations Assembly
President Eisenhower said we would like to see a universal plebi-
scite, in which every individual in the world would be given the
opportunity, freely and secretly, to answer this question: "Do you
want the right to self-government?" In his speech before the Assem-
bly, your colleague, Mr. Gomulka, of Poland, approved of this
proposal, saying he favored seeking the opinions of all peoples on
problems closely linked with those of the right to govern their
own country. Do you or will you agree to a worldwide plebiscite
to be conducted as suggested by President Eisenhower, under
United Nations auspices, in which all peoples would be polled
on their views on self-government?

susskind: (to the interpreter) Could you translate as Mr.
Khrushchev goes along, would that be in order?

(Interpreter asks Khrushschev.)

khrushchev: I don't know how that can be done; it seems
that American technology is not up to that yet. You come along
to us, we'll do it immediately. We'll give you a simultaneous
translation.

A very good question.

susskind: I hope he has a good answer.

khrushchev: A very exact answer. Tell me please, how old
are you?

susskind: Thirty-nine.

khrushchev: You're a young man.

susskind: I'm aging.

khrushchev: I've got children that are older. And therefore
I say that you evidently don't have a very .good knowledge of
history. After our great October Revolution, military landing
parties were sent into our country by the United States, Britain,

170

France, Germany and Japan, and they imposed a Civil War and
intervention upon us. That was a nationwide plebiscite on the
kind of system the peoples of our country wanted to have. We
fought, that is we conducted the plebiscite, for four years. The
White Guards, the generals of the Tsarist Army—
susskind: But I didn't ask—

khrushchev: When that is required, we'll come to that. It's
not required now.

They (the White Guards) captured Siberia, the Ukraine,
Byelorussia, and they came up to Tula-they were within 150
kilometers of Moscow. But the Russian people, the Ukrainian
people, the Byelorussian people-all the peoples of the Soviet
Union, took a broom and swept all the interventionists into the
ocean, the Americans, the British, the Japanese, the Germans, all
the vermin. And they said: "Socialism will be built on our soil."
And socialism is developing very well indeed in our country. So
your President is late in raising this question before the peoples
of our country. The same question was raised as far back as 1918
by President Wilson and we gave our reply. Then in 1941 the
Germans and the Italians, the fascists, decided to verify that plebi-
scite, so they perfidiously attacked us, launched war against the
Soviet Union. We smashed them, and cleared our Soviet land of
the invaders. Now our people are successfully building commu-
nism.

If you understood deep in your heart what socialism and
communism really were, why nobody could tear you away from
them—

susskind: Oh, yes they could.

khrushchev: -as if it were a favorite dish of yours. But you
don't understand that socialism, communism is the most noble
teaching in the world. And if anybody tries to impose upon us
another such referendum, we will not try to evade or dodge such
an attempt, we will just sweep away all who venture to try it. Our
land is sacred and sovereign, and it's only the peoples of the Soviet
Union themselves that have the right to govern their land, and
administer their affairs. We recognize that you are certainly en-
titled to that same right, and do not interefere in our affairs and
give us that right also. Why should you try to poke your nose

171

into our garden? Have you not enough things to do in your own
country?

susskind: You're baying at the moon.* We know the history
of the Russian Revolution, we do not want a plebiscite in the
Soviet Union. We believe with all our might that there are many
subjugated peoples in Eastern Europe. We ask that a plebiscite
be held, not in your home country, not in the Soviet Union, but
in many of the countries of Eastern Europe, who are now within
the Soviet orbit. Let those people announce freely and openly
their preference for self-government. It's not necessary to cite the
October 1917 Revolution of the Communist Party in Russia, we're
talking about 1960, and a free plebiscite, without troops of any
country in the nations of Eastern Europe, and Africa, and Asia.

Khrushchev: Is such an expression as "barking (baying) at
the moon" regarded as normal polite conversation in your coun-
try? We regard it as rude. After all, I'm old enough to be your
father, and, young man, it is unworthy to speak to me like this.
You look pleasant enough but you do not express yourself quite
courteously. I do not permit an attitude like that towards myself.
I did not come here to "bark"— I am the Chairman of the Council
of Ministers of the world's greatest socialist state. You will there-
fore please show respect for me. If you do not want to, then do
not invite me for an interview. There must be courtesy, but you
are accustomed to prod and knock everyone about. Ours is the
kind of state which will not allow itself to be ordered about.

susskind: I'm sorry.

khrushchev: So you don't mean that a plebiscite should be
held in the Soviet Union?

susskind: No.

khrushchev: You have European countries in view?

susskind: The European countries, Asia, Africa, Latin Amer-
ican countries.

khrushchev: So, I can reply to that, that all these countries
have sovereign governments, and it is up to the people of those
countries and their governments to decide on that question. This
has nothing to do with me whatsoever. You evidently simply came
to the WTong address. Regarding your statement that these nations

*The Russian equivalent for "baying" is "barking." "Barking," therefore, is
the word as Khrushchev had it interpreted for him.

172

of Europe are captive, that I would not even wish to reply to,
because that truly, such an opinion is merely rubbish* which
really should be thrown out of your head. You need a new ap-
proach, and you should really understand history in the way that
it is being written today by the peoples, otherwise you will have a
very backward view on present-day issues.

susskind: Does the phrase "garbage thrown out of your head,"
is that good form?

khrushchev: Well, there can be a correct understanding, and
a wrong understanding, such is the fact, and I don't think there
is anything offensive in that, but if you think that there is some-
thing offensive, and you want to take me up on that, well, I
certainly, though I don't think there is anything offensive in it,
I can take back that "rubbish" (garbage)—

susskind: Oh, I think it would be charming.
We must pause for just a moment for another opportunity
for the radio and television stations throughout the country to
identify themselves.

(During the recess, Susskind apologized for the expression
"baying at the moon," saying it was not regarded here as
offensive. Khrushchev replied that nevertheless the ex-
pression was impermissible. Susskind again asked if
"throw garbage (rubbish) out of your head" was quite
polite.)

susskind: On October 7th, a few days ago, you said, "We shall
uphold our interests outside this international body, in regard to
the United Nations, by relying on our strength. This could lead
to nothing else but a new exacerbation of the situation." My ques-
tion is, your proposal to act outside the United Nations, and your
intentions to force a solution of the West Berlin issues, involve
the great danger of a nuclear war.

Do you truly believe that West Berlin, the German peace
treaty, and your proposal to reorganize the United Nations, are
worth the potential of a nuclear war, in which both sides face
extermination?

khrushchev: Your question is so involved that it could give
a person a nightmare. But I shall try to reply. In the first place,

*The Russian word, "musor," used here by Khrushchev, is best translated as
"rubbish." However, the interpreter translated it for Mr. Susskind as "garbage."

173

I certainly remember what I said at that press conference, and
what I said was that if the United Nations is constituted in the
same one-sided way that is now the case, trailing in the wake of
the United States, then the United Nations will lose the respect
and confidence of all countries that are seeking solutions to out-
standing issues. In that case, they will not turn for assistance to
the United Nations, but will rely on themselves to find solutions
to these questions. We of the Soviet Union are of the opinion that
if steps are made to humiliate us and subjugate us in the United
Nations, we can certainly do without the United Nations, as we
have done for many centuries, and that means that if, and I stress
"if," any state encroaches upon our sovereignty, we will uphold
that sovereignty by and with all the strength that we have at our
disposal. And if any state threatens us with a war, we will not be
afraid, and we will uphold the independence of our country, our
great achievements.

Do you remember the basis of our criticism of the United
Nations' structure? After all we are not seeking any privileges for
ourselves; we are merely seeking equal conditions in the UN for
the socialist countries, the countries tied up in the United States-
led military blocs and the neutralist countries. Is there anything
unjust in this? No, it is a perfectly just proposal. If this is not
done, it is not only we, but the other countries too who will stop
respecting the United Nations, and after that the United Nations
will simply die, it will cease to exist. (At this point Susskind started
to interrupt, but Khrushchev gestured that he had more to say.) I
have not yet replied on the point about West Berlin. I want to
reply to that. I am an honest partner and I will reply without
waiting for your supplementary questions on this point.

You say that we want to solve the problem of West Berlin
outside the United Nations. The German question is precisely
outside the United Nations sphere. As you know, this is a vestige
of World War II. The question of a peace treaty with Germany
and of West Berlin concerns the countries that fought against
Nazi Germany and not the United Nations. This is recognized by
the United States of America, France, the United Kingdom and
the Soviet Union. We have no differences here,

Let us now turn to West Berlin. What do we want to achieve
on the German question? We want to conclude a peace treaty

174

with both Germanies, Soon 16 years will have elapsed after the
end of the war, yet we have still no peace treaty. Do you regard
this as normal? Every one who wants to normalize the situation
after the war will draw the conclusion that a peace treaty must be
concluded with Germany. And that is what we want.

The conclusion of a peace treaty with both German states,
and evidently there is no other way out, will also settle the issue
about the occupation regime in West Berlin. We regard it as log-
ical that West Berlin should have its social system— the capitalist
system prevails there. We do not want to intervene in the affairs
of West Berlin. Let its population live under capitalism as it does
now, let it have self-government; let West Berlin be linked with
all countries with which it wants to have relations, but the occu-
pation regime in West Berlin must be liquidated.

So what do we want? We want peace. We want to remove the
remnants of World War II, so that they may not threaten to touch
off a third world war. You say that this might cause a nuclear war.
This I do not understand. So according to you, while we want to
sign a peace treaty with Germany the United States wants to fight
with us over this. Is that so? We consider that the United States
government will be reasonable. Even if the United States threatens
us with war we shall sign the treaty anyhow. We do not believe
that the American people would decide to start a third world war
because of the signing of a peace treaty with Germany. This is
madness. This is absolutely impermissible.

We, on the other hand, do not threaten anyone. Far from
that, we want to do away with the remnants of World War II, to
quench all the embers which are still smoldering, to do everything
possible to ensure lasting peace in all the world, to live in friend-
ship with all peoples— American, French, German, with all peoples.
You want to live under capitalism— this is your business; go ahead.
And we want to live under communism— this is our business. You
don't understand our position correctly. I believe that when you
come to understand it correctly, you will welcome our position
because it is the only right and reasonable one.

susskind: America and her Western Allies will never start a
war, I am sure. My question related to the fact that the issue of
West Berlin and German peace treaty has got to be settled by

175

negotiation and not by threat or use of force, or anything that
would blow both parts of the world up.

khrushchev; Now those are certainly words which I like very
much, and that is very reasonable. We do not intend to advance
any threats of any kind. Our only desire is that the United States,
Britain and France and other nations, should understand the
necessity for a peace treaty with the two Germanies, and that all
these countries should get together to sign a peace treaty, and
thereby do away with the vestiges of the Second World War. We
not only want to prevent war, we also want to establish conditions
for good, friendly relations among all countries. We want to live
in friendship and brotherhood with the American people, and
with the American Government too.

susskind: May I ask you this? Is not your charge, Mr. Khrush-
chev, that the United States controls the majority of the United
Nations really an insult to the free and independent nations that
compose its membership? As a matter of record, most of the free
nations have voted differently from one another, and the United
States, on many occasions. But on the other hand, there is no
recorded moment when the Soviet bloc of eight nations has ever
voted differently from the Soviet Union.

khrushchev: Evidently, you are not quite accurately in-
formed. Representatives of many countries that vote for the pro-
posals of the United States later come to us and clarify their
position and say that "we are wholeheartedly with you but due
to our position, we cannot vote contrary to the United States; we
are compelled for the time being to vote for the United States
proposals,"

susskind: But they are free and independent nations who con-
stitute the membership of the United Nations and are not under
some magic, or fear influence of the United States, they are voting
their separate consciences, are they not?

khrushchev: I have respect for your words, but when you
analyze the proceedings of the United Nations, you will change
your views. Unfortunately, pressure is brought to bear in the
United Nations on the delegates of countries that are politically
and economically dependent on the United States. But this will
soon be ended. The time will come when the peoples will rid

176

themselves of United States pressure and then the United States
will be in a minority at the United Nations.

susskind: We must pause briefly while the radio and tele-
vision stations identify themselves. We will return in one minute
and ten seconds.

(Station Break)
(During the exchange above, Khrushchev was handed a note which
apparently informed him that the intermissions were being used
for advertisements of Radio Free Europe. During the recess, he
said to Mr. Susskind— who apparently had not known of the ad-
vertisements—

"I have been told that anti-Soviet slander has been screened
here during the recess. Why do you do this? You are afraid of
communism, afraid of the truth! Well all right, let them screen
it. We are not afraid. This will only make us stronger.")

susskind: Mr. Khrushchev, you said in reply to another ques-
tion of a United Nations correspondent, the question was, "what
do you feel that you have accomplished here, inside and outside
the United Nations, since you've been here?" You said, "we have
sown good seeds of peace and friendship. We have exposed lies,
and sown seeds of truth, and no amount of effort will succeed in
killing this truth." Isn't it really a fact that the net of what you
have done since you have been here, is that you have attempted
to cripple and impede the United Nations by urging the removal
of Mr. Hammarskjold, and the substitution of a three-man secre-
tariat, which would hamstring the United Nations. You have at-
tempted to remove its headquarters out of New York. You have
attempted to capture an important block of neutral votes and
isolate the United States, and her allies; you have labelled the
Western powers as colonialists in an impassioned speech. You have
attempted to resell your total disarmament plan without any con-
cern for our very deep and legitimate fear about inspections and
controls.

khrushchev: You yourself have said that we should be brief,
but you have outlined a whole program there. What am I to do,
reply until about six o'clock in the morning?

susskind: No, all I ask is do these activities—

khrushchev: I see that you want to put me in a position
where you ask questions but give me no opportunity to reply.

177

You want to announce all your questions and then say, "The In-
terview is over." That is how it was handled with Comrade
Mikoyan. But it's no good. Our interview is drawing to a close.
Ask me a specific question and I shall reply.

susskind: Do your activities at the United Nations since you
have arrived, do they add up to sowing the seeds of peace and
friendship and the seeds of truth?

khrushchev: That is the only reason I came. I have no other
aim in life than to serve the truth, to serve my people— the work-
ers, peasants and working intelligentsia. I should like to express
my appreciation to you for the opportunity you have given me
to speak to the population of New York and of other cities of the
United States. In replying to your questions, I have sought to
contribute to a correct understanding of our policy and our aspi-
rations on the part of your people, Our main aspiration, the
aspiration of the Soviet people and the Soviet Government, is
to live in peace and friendship with all peoples. And we should
like very much to see this desire reciprocated by the American
people and the American Government. I think that sooner or later
we shall be friends, because friendship would enable us to develop
our economy and our culture, whereas war would only bring us
disaster. That is why we are for peace and friendship. I want to
thank all who have been listening to me and to ask them to do
everything in their power to improve relations between our
countries.

We in the Soviet Union have everything we need. Ours is a
rich country and a prospering economy. We are striving to raise
the living standards of our people to a high level, and our pros-
pects are exceptionally good. We need nothing from other peoples
except friendship. We have everything necessary to satisfy the re-
quirements of the people. That is why we extend a hand of
friendship and peace to the American people, and we should like
the Americans to reciprocate.

I thank you once more, dear friends! May everlasting peace
reign on our earth, and may there be no more wars. Long live
friendship between the peoples of the Soviet Union and the
United States.

susskind: May I ask you one more queftion. When do you
intend to return to the Soviet Union?

178

khrushchev: I am taking a plane for the Soviet Union on
Thursday at the end of the day.

I say to all those who want to go to the USSR and see how
the Soviet people live: welcome. Our people are very hospitable,
you will see and feel that for yourselves. (To Mr. Susskind) I in-
vite you to come.

susskind: We are separated by more than language. I am con-
vinced tonight that words do not mean the same things in our
respective languages, nor is the logic or the thinking easy to fuse.
Your answers to so many of the questions, Mr. Khrushschev, I sub-
mit, respectfully, did not deal specifically with the issues. I had
hoped tonight that we could uncover a lot more new information
that would give us hope for peace tomorrow.

khrushchev: In replying, I did everything I could to dispel
the misconceptions that you have in regard to the policies of the
Soviet Government. And I am sure that we will achieve under-
standing, despite the difference in the languages if we agree on
one thing— not to interfere with one another's internal affairs.
Each people decides on the political and social structure to be
established in every country, and let that be an internal matter
for that country to decide. If that rule is strictly adhered to, we
know that there will be no issues that will divide us, and prevent
us from establishing friendship. You say you want peace and not
war; we want peace. You say you want friendship; so do we.

susskind: Splendid words.

khrushchev: We always live up to our words. As regards
questions of war and peace, we are always for peace and shall
never start a war.

susskind: Categorically, you will never start a war?

khrushchev: Categorically, we shall never start a war. Re-
member my words; not only shall we not start a war, but we want
to live in friendship with you. (Is what we are saying now being
broadcast?)

susskind: (Yes.) I feel better about that. Will you now make
deeds square with doctrine and preachment?

khrushchev: We have always done so. Who has instilled in
you such a wrong understanding of our policy?

susskind: The facts. History. Observation, and very close
analysis.

179

Khrushchev: If you really study history and observe, the situ-
ation will not be hopeless. Gradually you will come to understand
us well and we will understand you. They can only hear what
you're saying. (Khrushchev had removed his microphone.) How
tricky you Americans are. (Laughing)

susskind: No, no, who could not hear you? Your projection
is incredible. I would like to ask you whether some of your mer-
curial temperament, the humor and the rage, while here in New
York, is that the true Premier Khrushchev personality, or is that
something of an acting job?

_ khrushchev: We reply to kindness with kindness. Even an
animal if you pat it will understand kindness on your part, but,
if you try to drag it by the tail, then it shows its teeth. If you
come to us in friendship, we will open up our hearts. If you send
a U-2 spy plane, we shoot it down.

susskind: Every time we pat you, you bite us.

khrushchev: It's you who are biting us. The sending of a
U-2, that means biting.

susskind: We are not sending any U-2's, that's history. That's
over. We seek peace and friendship with honor.

khrushchev: All right, let's put an end to it. Even after a
war, a peace is declared, and wc have not been fighting you. We
were allies in the last war. We want to be friends with you now,
too. We don't ask anything from you, we only want friendship
and peace.

susskind: We cannot fight. Negotiation must be the way, how-
ever painful, however protracted.

khrushchev: We are in favor of negotiations, of peace and
friendship. Come to visit us in the Soviet Union, have a look,
spend some time there, size us up and you will see what a wonder-
ful peace-loving people we have. Many Americans who have vis-
ited us have written about our country, and I have read some of
their impressions. It must be said that very few of them distort
the situation in our country; many of them write truthfully about
us, and we are happy that they are doing so and are helping to
establish friendly relations between our counties. What do I want
with war? I have so many grandchildren-even a great-grand-
daughter.

180

susskind: But, all of your words, since you arrived in the
United Nations General Assembly, all of your statements have
been of an agitating nature, calculated to intensify the cold war
and drive a deeper wedge between us. Don't call us colonial im-
perialistic warmongers-this is not first a fact, and secondly not
calculated to make life possible between us.

khrushchev: Are you against the colonial system? Let's shake
hands on that then. We have submitted a declaration to the Gen-
eral Assembly to have the colonial system eliminated. If you are
for this too, then we agree on this question.

susskind: We have. Since World War II, 1945, some thirty-
seven nations have been freed, voluntarily by the Western powers.

khrushchev: But there still exist colonies, don't there? There
still are people languishing under colonialism, let us free them.

susskind: Would you grant immediate freedom to any colony,
despite its degree of illiteracy, poverty, technical and administra-
tive incompetence, in spite of its total unpreparedness, and lack
of responsibility?

khrushchev: Yes, we are in favor of the complete freedom of
every nation. We have fifteen independent Union Republics in
the Soviet Union and any one of these republics can secede from
the Soviet Union if it so desires. If the Ukraine wants to secede,
it can do so; so can Georgia, Armenia, any one of the Republics.

susskind: I want to ask you this question. When you talked
to Macmillan, you insisted that a plenary special session of the
United Nations Assembly be held somewhere in Europe, at which
ninety-nine nations would discuss the issue of disarmament. When
a three-nation conference on nuclear suspension and testing could
not agree, when a ten-member nation conference could not agree
on disarmament, how could a ninety-nine nation conference ac-
complish anything except another rampaging forum for propa-
ganda?

khrushchev: My dear sir, sometimes even two persons meet
and cannot come to terms simply because one of them doesn't
want to. The Soviet Union is ready to sign a treaty on disarm-
ament and on the destruction of weapons. Let the United States
propose control over the destruction of weapons and over dis-
armament, and a system of such control. We shall accept what-
ever is proposed, because we are in favor of genuine control; it is

181

to our mutual advantage. But your President speaks not about
disarmament, but only about control over armaments. So it hap-
pens that we not only speak different languages, but we speak
about different things.

susskind: The peoples of the world are fearful of the climate
that exists throughout the world, they insist on the Western side,
that there be adequate inspection and controls leading to dis-
armament. Why is that totally unacceptable?

khrushchev: We are in favor of control and inspection. But
what should be controlled? If there is no disarmament, there is
nothing to control. What do you want, after all, to control the
work of our government? You don't need to do that, we can do
it ourselves.

susskind: We want to inspect each others' stockpile of nu-
clear weapons and launching sites, so that we know what exists
and what will be abandoned.

khrushchev: But we do not want to leave anything. We want
to destroy everything. Why leave anything? Our objective is that
there should be no weapons, that wars should not break out be-
tween states. But you want to destroy part of the weapons, and
leave part. But why leave any part? Obviously, for war purposes.
susskind: The presumption of disarmament before controls is
that absolute trust and faith on both sides exist. This is simply
not true. We have lived through a terrible time of tension and
conflict. Therefore, we must first inspect, agree upon control, and
then commence disarmament.

khrushchev: I find it difficult to reply to this because I am
the Prime Minister of a great country, and I know this question
more profoundly than you do. You evidently are not well enough
acquainted with the problem, and therefore it will be difficult for
us to find a meeting ground. The Soviet Union is willing to effect
disarmament, and that is the main thing. You speak of inspection
and of control. We shall never accept inspection and control with-
out disarmament, because that would be espionage. We must
achieve a solution of the main problem-disarmament. We must
achieve peace. Let us destroy our weapons and set up an inspec-
tion system to prevent anyone from arming in secret.

susskind: A final thing. When two philosophies are in abso-
lute stalemate with each other, on so many issues, there must be

182

on the part of both sides the desire to negotiate and accomplish
some constructive results, since both sides agree that war is un-
thinkable. Do you agree that negotiation is the only way and that
you are going to pursue that course?

khrushchev: That is right. We have different philosophies.
Yours is a bourgeois philosophy, ours is a communist one. On this
question we shall not agree, and we must not try to reach agree-
ment in this respect. Differences in opinions and philosophical
concepts must not lead to wars between our countries.

susskind: Must we coexist?

khrushchev: Yes, we must coexist.

susskind: In peace, in conditions of peace?

khrushchev: Yes.

susskind: Even though colleagues of yours are advocating a
more militaristic approach?

khrushchev: Do not try to confuse me. I am an experienced
man. And do not exercise pressure on me. We want peace to pre-
vail. Develop your economy and care for your state on capitalist
foundations. We do not intervene in your domestic affairs; don't
you intervene in our affairs.

susskind: And of the new countries, neither of us will inter-
fere in their affairs.

khrushchev: No one shall interfere, each country will choose
the system it wants to have for itself.

susskind: Would you join with us in an arms embargo? With
respect to the new countries, neither of us to ship arms of any
description?

khrushchev: We proposed that a long time ago. We proposed
an agreement that no nation, no state should sell any other coun-
try arms. But you did not accept that.

susskind: But a real arms race is on now with the new coun-
tries of Africa particularly.

khrushchev: Then let's sign such an agreement. We want
peace, not war, and we will do everything on our part to consoli-
date peace.

susskind: With respect to the new countries, that would in-
clude armaments, as well as military personnel, technicians, and
so forth?

183

khrushchev: Yes, it would. What is necessary is that you and
the British and the French should observe this. That no one
should sell them arms. What do these new states need weapons
for? They need bread, machinery for the development of their
economy. They do not need armaments. They themselves would
not be taking them, had no one interfered in their internal affairs.

susskind: Are you prepared to go to a new summit with our
new president?

khrushchev; Not only am I ready, but I think that we shall
meet by all means,

susskind; Will that summit have a preparation at a lower
le.\ r el, which would accomplish a lot of progress, before the states-
men sat down?

khrushchev: We are prepared to take any reasonable steps
which would lead to the improvement of relations between our
countries, to peace and friendship. The presidential elections are
your domestic affair. We are ready to meet and have reasonable
negotiations, to reach an agreement which would ensure peace
among us and friendship among all peoples.

But it is getting rather late. It is apparently time to finish this
interview.

susskind: Good night, Mr. Khrushchev.

khrushchev: Thank you, thank you very much. You're not
offended at me?

susskind: No, I'm not offended, mystified is the word.

khrushchev: Well, good-by and thank you.

susskind: Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, our
guest tonight has been the Premier of the Soviet Union, Nikita
Khrushschev. We've endeavored to ask a number of questions,
hoping for his answers; you have heard the questions and the
answers. You will have to judge the results for yourself.

184

October IT, I960

On the Procedure for Discussing the
Disarmament Question

Speech at the UN General Assembly

MR. PRESIDENT, FELLOW DELEGATES:

We are now deciding what questions should be discussed at
the plenary meeting of the General Assembly. The disarmament
question is the most important. That is the opinion of the peoples
of the Soviet Union and all the countries of the socialist camp.
That is the opinion of all who sincerely strive to guarantee a dur-
able peace on earth.

Therefore, we feel that the disarmament question should be
discussed precisely at the plenary meeting, so that this question,
which is of concern to all peoples, may take precedence in the
work of the current Assembly.

The General Assembly, the supreme organ of the United Na-
tions, has been set up not only to settle disputes that may arise
between states, but primarily to solve the important problems of
ensuring peace.

Under present conditions disarmament is the cardinal prob-
lem; the ensuring of durable peace depends on its solution. No
other question, no matter how important, can be compared with
this one, for on this question depends whether there will be another
world war or not. War can be excluded only if agreement on dis-
armament is reached among the states, only if disarmament is
carried out under strict international control so that no state can
secretly revive armaments and again threaten other states.

The Soviet delegation has already submitted this question as
a primary and urgent matter for discussion at the plenary meeting.
Today we appeal to all the delegates to try to realize the thorough-
going seriousness and urgency of this matter.

185

Of course, if we take the approach to the disarmament prob-
lem suggested by Mr. Lodge, who said that since there were 79
items on the General Assembly agenda it was impossible to devote
attention to the disarmament problem— if we take such an ap-
proach to the work of the United Nations and understand its
main purpose in such a way this means, strictly speaking, con-
demning the United Nations to disintegration. In that case this
organization would not be able to cope with the main task en-
trusted to it.

The chief duty of the United Nations is to ensure peace. And
reaching agreement on disarmament and the destruction of arma-
ments under strict international control is the basic problem in
ensuring peace.

All of us should thoroughly understand this, Messrs. dele-
gates, for the destinies of peace and the people are at stake.

The plan now proposed by the Steering Committee has already
been tested over the course of many years. How many years have
various commissions and committees spent discussing the disarma-
ment problem? Yet, has much been accomplished in these commit-
tees to solve this problem practically? Little, very little has been
accomplished-one might even say nothing. Therefore, the Soviet
Government hopes that all states will, at last, realize the respon-
sibility they bear and the importance of the disarmament problem,
and discuss this problem at the plenary meeting of the General
Assembly.

If the disarmament problem continues to be put off, as has
been done until now, there is danger that events will develop
in the same direction as they did in the League of Nations on
the eve of World War II. Mr. Nehru, Prime Minister of India,
has spoken of this problem with great conviction at the present
session. There is danger that the United Nations will follow the
same road taken by the cart of the League of Nations on the ques-
tion of disarmament.

Therefore, we must exert special effort to pull the wheels out
of this deep rut and take a road that will ensure agreement on
disarmament.

I should like to report to the assembled delegates that a very
complicated situation is now developing. Secondary, creeping

186

questions are being discussed, while with each passing day more
and more armaments accumulate, and each passing day brings new
acts of provocation which, far from facilitating matters, make the
solution of the disarmament question more difficult, increase ten-
sion, aggravate the "cold war," and step up the armaments race.

It is difficult to convince people who long for peace and, con-
sequently, for a solution of all questions connected with ensuring
peace, that the General Assembly has no time to discuss such
an important question as that of general and complete disarma-
ment. You will remember how much time was spent discussing
the question of whether it was worthwhile to keep the Chiang
Kai-shek puppet in the United Nations, although it is crystal-clear
to all sober-minded people that the legitimate rights of People's
China, whose government represents all the Chinese people, should
have been restored long ago. For how many years in a row has
this question been discussed? How many days has it taken up at
every session of the General Assembly? The US and its allies in
military blocs are the ones mainly responsible for the fact that
the legitimate rights of China have not yet been restored in the
United Nations.

The representatives of the Western powers have no time to
discuss the disarmament problem but they have plenty of time to
preserve international tension, to prevent normalization of rela-
tions between states. By their actions they are creating a situation,
that even in the future would make it impossible to achieve agree-
ment on disarmament. The US Government is continuing to pursue
the Dulles policy of brinkmanship. But, as everyone knows, it is
easy to fall off a brink and then a world war might break out that
would bring mankind incalculable suffering.

Take some of the other "questions" that have been discussed
in the United Nations for several years but that produce nothing
but a stink and poison the international climate. I mean the so-
called Hungarian question, the Tibetan question, and similar
questions which the great masters of provocation in the US hunt
up. They make every effort to have the UN concentrate its atten-
tion on these questions and to divert it from truly important and
urgent international problems. But it is clear to all that such
questions are not aimed at easing international tension. On the
contrary, they are fraught with the seeds of discord and hostility,

187

and artificially increase international tension. Thus, certain def-
inite circles want to continue the cold war.

It is high time for everybody to realize the seriousness of the

present situation.

The fact that most of the heads of states and governments
who came to the UN General Assembly have already returned to
their countries, while others are about to leave, shows that they
apparently have no confidence in the current General Assembly
session and have no hope that it will really take up such burning
questions as complete and general disarmament.

But this can be remedied, for modern means of transporta-
tion make it possible to fly off quickly and return just as quickly.
I am confident that if the disarmament problem were seriously
raised at the plenary meeting of the Assembly and if special,
extraordinary importance were attached to this question, the heads
of government and state who have already left would be able to
return to the Assembly. Moreover, those heads of government
and state who did not participate at the beginning of the session
would be able to come here.

This problem could also be settled in another way. I have
said as much to Mr. Macmillan, the British Prime Minister, and
to other statesmen, as well as at the press conference at the UN
Press Association. Perhaps it would be expedient to discuss the
problem of general and complete disarmament at an emergency
session of the UN General Assembly.

Right now, what with the presidential elections, a situation
has arisen in the United States where the government of that
country is apparently unwilling to assume any new and important
commitments. Yet without the constructive participation of the
United States no agreement on disarmament can be reached at the
United Nations General Assembly.

An emergency session of the General Assembly could be con-
vened sometime in March or April of next year. It could be
proposed that all states should send the heads of state or govern-
ment as the leaders of their delegations to that session.

It will be necessary to do everything possible to reach a
disarmament agreement at that extraordinary session of the Gen-
eral Assembly and to have every country make its substantial

188

contribution to the common cause of reaching a disarmament
agreement and ensuring world peace.

I believe that all who strive for peace and international
friendship will welcome such a decision to call an extraordinary
session of the UN General Assembly.

I should like to repeat that it would be desirable to hold
that session in Europe, for instance in Geneva, since the majority
of the United Nations member-countries geographically gravitate
to Europe. The session could be held in Moscow or Leningrad.
In that case we on our part would do everything in our power
to create the appropriate conditions for the normal functioning
of the General Assembly session, for all the delegates who come
to that session.

Thus, the Soviet delegation insists on the need to have the
question of general and complete disarmament discussed at the
plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly with the participa-
tion of the heads of government. If for one reason or other it
becomes impossible to discuss the disarmament problem in its
full scope and to reach agreement at this session at least on the
main principles, the Soviet Government deems it necessary that
an extraordinary session of the General Assembly be convened
with only one item on its agenda— general and complete disarma-
ment.

I call upon you, fellow delegates, to realize fully the respon-
sibility of the United Nations in settling such an important
question as disarmament. The peoples af the whole world expect
the United Nations to pave the way, at long last, to a solution
of the urgent and vital task of general and complete disarmament.

189

October 11, 1960

Statement for Radio Cuba

Dear friends, citizens of the free and independent Republic
of Cubal

While on the American continent in the United States of
America, so close to you, I am especially pleased to send greetings
to the Cuban people, their revolutionary government and to Fidel
Castro, that outstanding revolutionary and Prime Minister of
Cuba.

Only several days ago we met him and the other delegates of
the Cuban Republic at the UN General Assembly. During the
meetings with Fidel Castro we discussed many things and estab-
lished the fact that the viewpoints of the Soviet Union and Cuba
coincide on basic international problems.

The Soviet Union and Cuba are striving for a relaxation of
international tension, for general and complete disarmament un-
der strict international control. The Soviet Union is glad that the
Cuban delegation on behalf of its people raised its voice for the
complete and final ending of colonial slavery, for freedom for all
nations in the world.

We at the Assembly heard the voice of Fidel Castro, the voice
of Cuba. We applauded him and at present continue to applaud.
The sacred principle of freedom for all nations is especially near
and dear to those who defended their independence with arms in
their hands, who paid a high price so that this freedom might
triumph in their countries.

I do not have to tell you how strenuously and persistently the
Cuban people fought to have their country free and independent,
so that the wealth of Cuba would belong to the Cubans, and the
rights of Cuba would belong to the Cuban people.

We especially understand and sympathize with this because
the Soviet Union itself had to traverse a great path of struggle
before it became a free socialist state. The Soviet people faced

190

many hardships on their path before our motherland became one
of the greatest and strongest powers in the world.

How many times did our enemies crow, how many times did
they prepare crusades, and organize blockades in order to destroy
us. But you yourselves know that it is impossible to conquer a
people when all, young and old, come out in defense of their
motherland.

Soviet people rejoice over the liberation of Cuba from the
yoke of imperialist monopolies. We supported, are supporting and
shall continue to support your struggle for political and economic
independence, for a rise in the people's wellbeing. We shall con-
tinue to do this not because we have a stuffed purse and don't
know what to do with the money. Certainly the Soviet Union is
a great and rich country, but we have our own needs, our own
urgent problems.

Our motherland has grown unprecedently strong during the
forty-three years of Soviet power, the production capacity of its
industry has increased many-fold, has exceeded all the capitalist
countries with the exception of the United States in the volume
of industrial production and has now launched a great peaceful
challenge to the United States. The Seven-Year Plan which the
Soviet people are carrying out under the leadership of their Com-
munist Party makes it possible for us to reach the US production
level and by 1970 we shall be not the second but the first country
in the world not only in strength and power but in per capita
output as well.

The Soviet people support and will continue to support the
Cuban people so that you may achieve great new successes in the
development and nourishing of your independent state.

It is impossible to intimidate the Cuban people because they
meet with the support of all peace-loving nations throughout the
world. The Soviet people wish you success, fortitude and courage
in your great cause of reviving your motherland.

A victorious people has to overcome quite a number of diffi-
culties on its path: it is necessary to organize the economy. People
desire not only political victory and democratic organization of
the country. They want their material requirements to be ever
more fully met. This in turn requires greater and persistent work,
organization experience, trained personnel. A victorious people

191

always lack experienced personnel because the exploiters think
only about their own class, and keep the toiling workers and
peasants in ignorance. These difficulties cannot be ignored.

The enemy uses all possible means for undermining the revo-
lution. They slander the people, the leaders, and the republic and
engage in subversive activities. I learned from the papers that the
American imperialists are organizing and smuggling subversive
detachments into your country, and are supplying them with weap-
ons by means of so-called unknown planes, and you, of course,
know, just as we know whose planes these are. You have shot down
these unknown planes and they have become known. Unknown
planes flew over our country as well: we shot them down and they
also appear to be very well known-they belonged to American
imperialism.

But if the Cuban people are united, if you are solid, if you
are true to your revolutionary government and are well organized,
you shall achieve your aims and shall be victorious.

There is no need to assure you, dear friends, that the peoples
of the Soviet Union are on your side. Not only today but also
throughout your entire struggle for independence we shall be with
you. I think there is no need to assure you of this. You yourself
feel this very well.

From here, from New York, I warmly greet you and your
government headed by Fidel Castro, that fearless man and hero,

I should like to say sincerely:

Long live Soviet-Cuban friendship!

Long live Cubal

Long live her people!

Long live the complete victory of your just cause!

October 11, I960

Reply on Disarmament

Speech at the UN General Assembly

MR. PRESIDENT, FELLOW DELEGATES:

I have been listening attentively to all who have spoken here.
The representatives of the Western countries objected chiefly to
our proposal that the plenary meetings of the General Assembly
discuss the disarmament question. These men are old hands when
it comes to discussions. They claim that the Soviet Union wants
to make propaganda by having the Assembly discuss disarmament
at the plenary meetings. However, they themselves are the kind of
propaganda-makers who know all the ins and outs, so to speak,
when it comes to making propaganda in support of their own views.

The delegates have now been "thrown a bone" for contention,
namely, which UN body— the Assembly's plenary or the First
Committee— would be the best forum for a discussion of disarma-
ment. This is useless argument! It doesn't exist for us. What we
want is to have the question discussed where a settlement of this
burning problem may be found soonest, where it may really be
settled in the interests o£ the peoples.

In that case you might ask me: why are we insisting upon
having this problem discussed at the plenary meetings of the
General Assembly and not in the Committee? The explanation is
a very simple one. We have already been in the Committee. We
already know that stable— excuse me for the rather rude compari-
son—we know how it smells. In the Committee we achieved no
results at all.

You know that we were in the Five-Power Committee on
which Britain, the United States, Canada, France, and the Soviet
Union were represented. We spent many years working in that
Committee. At first we agreed even not to tell the press anything
about its discussions, and to keep this inside the Committee. We

192

193

thought and honestly believed that the people taking part in the
work of this Committee as representatives of the countries I have
named were really interested not in provoking complications dur-
ing the disarmament discussions but in creating the best conditions
for the achievement of agreement at the earliest date.

But what came of all this?

America had the best representative in the Five-Power Com-
mittee—Mr. Stassen. However, he finally quit the Committee or
rather, "had to quit," since he disagreed with the position he was
called upon to take in upholding the views of the late US Sec-
retary of State Dulles.

We saw that the only thing the people in this Committee
took seriously was the drinking of tea— or coffee, for those who
preferred it. One round of meetings followed another. One spoke,
another listened and a third moved that the meeting be postponed
to another day. And it went on like that interminably. I can't
tell you for sure how many years these meetings went on. But we
couldn't stand it any longer. There is, perhaps, a somewhat free-
and-easy expression, "let's spit on that institution and quit it." And
we quit it because it is not one for settling disarmament, but a
screen to deceive the public, to deceive the peoples, the working
class, the toiling peasantry and the intellectuals, to deceive all who
really want disarmament. But we don't want any part of such
deception.

I can see Mr. Jules Moch here. He is considered to be a
Socialist and a man who has talked the skin off his teeth at sessions
in the Ten Nation Committee. But to what end? None.

When I met Mr. de Gaulle, the President of the French
Republic, we reached a common understanding on certain prob-
lems. We agreed that to achieve accord on disarmament we must
start translating this understanding into reality by destroying the
means of nuclear-weapon delivery. I continue to support Mr. de
Gaulle, the President of the French Republic, on what he said
in this connection.

After that, Mr. Jules Moch spoke at a news conference
or in some other place— I can't quite remember exactly where,
but he ought to know— and repeated what Mr. de Gaulle had said.
We were happy to see that through its President, and then through
its representative in the Disarmament Committee, France had

194

stated this for all to hear. We thought that we were beginning
to have an understanding with one of the partners in the Atlantic
military bloc. But we were mistaken. When Jules Moch turned up
in the Committee he started saying quite different things. That
was another Jules Moch— not the one who had addressed the pub-
lic but the one who had spent many years in the Committee and
was doing all he could to stymie the disarmament talks.

Gentlemen, we still have some patience left. Our last hope
is that perhaps at its plenary meetings the General Assembly will
be able to help in achieving a disarmament agreement and that it
will finally shield humanity from war. Let me tell once again,
gentlemen, that if a war breaks out it will be a global war. Many
can't imagine what a future war will be like. I can, and concretely
so. The Soviet Union is not afraid of war! If we have war thrust
upon us, we shall fight for our country and we shall win, whatever
the cost!

But we must not forget the fact that this war would cause
untold losses and that you now sitting here would also be held
responsible for that. True, some of those sitting here have no good
name to shield in the first place. History will never forgive them
that! Let me emphasize: we believe it is essential for the General
Assembly to discuss disarmament at its plenary meetings.

Among the speakers here were Mr. Greene, for Canada, and the
United States representative— since his name is hard to pronounce
I shan't do it in order not to get my tongue twisted, I think every-
one will guess whom I mean without any mistake. They said that
Khrushchev, you see, was also planning to leave. Yes, I am plan-
ning to leave for Moscow on Thursday, October 13, at midnight.
But if you really want disarmament I will not only put off my
departure for Moscow, but will confer here until a disarmament
agreement is reached.

Things are going well in our country. I, the Chairman of the
Council of Ministers, have been away for a month already, but
things in the country are going ahead wonderfully. Therefore I
can spend here as much more time as we need to reach an agree-
ment on disarmament. Things in our country are improving with
every year, with every day.

You believe the struggle for disarmament is propaganda. And
you think that by raising the Hungarian and Tibetan questions

195

you are sowing, as Polish Foreign Minister Rapacki rightly put
it here, the seeds of peace and understanding, don't you? No, you
just dig up those questions which are likely to make countries
quarrel with one another. Well, do as you like. We do not fear
such issues either. We are no bulls to be teased by a red cloth
and to attack those who tease. We are Communists; we have
strong nerves; we have had good schooling in fighting. We fought
the White Guards for four years; we overthrew and routed the
enemies of the working class; and you want to scare us with dis-
putes. Well, gentlemen, you haven't got the guts for that, I'll
tell you.

Why should you raise the Tibetan question? But, as I have
already said, do raise it, if you need to. While moving about in
New York, I see always Americans chewing gum— this is their
habit. Now instead of gum you want to give the Assembly dele-
gates a piece of cotton for them to sit and chew on. Those who
have an itch for this may do it, but we are not going to.

Gentlemen, I think we should wake up those slumbering here;
wake up those absent from here— for the nations have sent them
to the General Assembly to discuss the disarmament problem.
Instead, they are roaming about in New York or God knows
where, though they are paid with their people's money.

I state, gentlemen, that the time will come when you will
realize the necessity of disarmament. People will throw out those
who put roadblocks in the way to peace and understanding rather
than create conditions for an agreement on disarmament.

You will not scare us, the people of the socialist world. Our
economy is expanding, our engineering is on the upgrade, and the
people are united. You want to force us into the arms race, don't
you? We do not want it, but we do not fear it, either. We shall
beat you! Rockets in the Soviet Union are turned out by produc-
tion line methods. Recently I visited a factory and saw rockets
coming off the assembly line like sausages from an automatic
machine, rocket after rocket.

Some people would like to test the strength of our ground
forces. You did once, and we defeated you. I mean those who
made war on us in the first years after the October Revolution:
the imperialists of the United States, France, Britain, Germany,
and Japan. We routed their troops and threw them out like scum

196

from our sacred soil. Should the imperialists repeat their aggres-
sion now, we shall defeat them again, but on a more advanced
level.

Some gentlemen will immediately jabber that Khrushchev
is threatening somebody. No, Khrushchev is not threatening any-
body, but is forecasting your real future. If you fail to realize the
actual situation and refuse to create conditions for an agreement
on disarmament, things will become more complicated, because if
there is no disarmament, there will be an arms race. And any
arms race is bound, in the long run, to reach its climax in a war.
Should war break out, many of those sitting here will be among
the missing.

Wake up, gentlemen; pinch yourself where it hurts if you
find it difficult to stay awake. Many have become accustomed to
hearing unctuous words here. I will not be sly with them, nor
pat them on the back now that the world is on the brink of catas-
trophe. If my words are not pleasing to someone, then I have
achieved my goal— that is what I wanted to do.

What is there to add?

So far not all of the peoples of Asia and Africa who have
recently rid themselves of colonial oppression are aware of their
own strength; they still follow their hangmen of yesterday— the
colonialists. But while this is the case today, it will not be so
tomorrow; no, it will not. The peoples will rise, straighten their
shoulders and assert their desire to become their own masters.
Take my word, gentlemen, this will happen in the not too distant
future.

It is your right to vote for the discussion of this problem
in the First Committee. We have no objections against the First
Committee— we have nothing against it, for I do not know where
conditions are better— in the First Committee or in the General
Assembly. But we say that we have already tried the First Com-
mittee and nothing has come of it. This is why we would like— for
the happiness of the nations— to have this problem discussed once
again at the plenary meeting of the General Assembly. If you
drive us into that committee again, we reserve the right to take
or not to take part in its work. If we see that the committee is
turned into a smoke screen to mislead people and that nothing
is really done about disarmament except to talk about it, as is the

197

case to date, we shall walk out of the committee; we shall not be
used as a smoke screen, nor will we deceive the working people
of the world.

We have listened to the Canadian, American and British rep-
resentatives here. They posed, as they have before, as righteous peo-
ple—those same colonialists who are rich because the colonies are
poor, because they have robbed these colonies. And here they pose
as Saint Nicholases. Honest people, however, can see their real faces.

Yes, we left the Five Nation Committee, but why? You gentle-
ment had turned that Committee into a stable. You had raised
such a stink there that there was no air for an honest man to
breathe, and we left. Like all honest persons and true sons of
working people, we long for fresh air. We have left not to return.

Gentlemen, if the disarmament problem should be discussed
in the First Committee, we shall take part in its work at first. We
will see how the discussion proceeds.

Perhaps a decision should be adopted to expand the Ten
Nation Committee. Incidentally, our proposal envisages a Fifteen
Nation Committee. We are prepared to participate in such a com-
mittee if representatives of the neutral countries are included in
it, as we propose.

Such a committee will be able to work successfully, if the
General Assembly passes a resolution to the effect that all nations
pledge to disarm and to destroy their weapons under international
control.

What kind of international control is required? I repeat: if a
resolution is passed on general and complete disarmament and
the destruction of weapons, we shall agree to any kind of control.
You may choose the toughest representatives from among those
who hate communism and socialism— we shall believe even them—
and let them work out proposals for control, The deeper and
wider the international control of disarmament, the more secure
will be the hope of the peoples that no country can make weapons
secretly or threaten any of its neighbors with war.

We do not fear control, that is control of disarmament, a
control which would follow the adoption of a resolution on dis-
armament. In this way, disarmament would fee carried out under
control.

198

And what has Mr. Macmillan proposed from this rostrum?
In his talk with me he said: Mr, Khrushchev, don't be in a hurry.
It is impossible to solve such a problem overnight. We'd better,
he said, do something like this: let us get together and set up a
political committee and a scientific committee.

And this scientific committee will do research into the best
method of killing a flea: is it better to pull out its legs or to tear
away its head? This, of course, is a "scientific problem," gentlemen,
but only for those who do not want disarmament. This is why I
told Mr. Macmillan: you want to drag us into a labyrinth with
no light or air, infested only with bats which fear light. You want
us to take part there in work on scientific problems of how to
achieve disarmament— and this will take, they say, from five to
ten years.

Gentlemen, if we are to wait another five to ten years, we can
say for certain we shall never come to terms concerning disarma-
ment. If today only three powers are in actual possession of atomic
weapons and a fourth state has begun testing them, in five or ten
years, I am sure, countries possessing nuclear weapons will be
counted by the dozen, and agreement will then be much harder
to arrive at.

It is already possible to send rockets and missiles to any point
on the globe, and we can— on top of this— land our spaceships at
any point. And what will the picture be like in five or ten years?
Gentlemen, you ought to realize it clearly. Therefore, if you do
want peace— though not all present here do, but the majority
perhaps does, and I turn to this majority— raise your voices for
disarmament, and mankind will be grateful to you. If you follow
imperialist, monopolist capital whose envoys spoke here, if you
follow the North Atlantic military bloc, people will damn you,
because they have trusted to you the holy of holies-peace, and
you will have disappointed people in their hopes, failed to reach
an agreement on disarmament, and led mankind to war.

These are the alternatives before you, gentlemen. Make your
choice.

Thank you for your attention.

199

October 11, 1960

News Conference

Late at night, on October 11, the crowd of newsmen who keep
a constant vigil at the Soviet Mission to the United Nations swelled
to unusual proportions. Everybody was waiting for Khrushchev's
return from the United Nations. As soon as he stepped out of his
car, the questions began. The following is a transcript of
Khrushchev's conversation with the correspondents in front of the
Soviet Mission.

correspondent: We have just heard your statement at the
General Assembly.

khrushchev: Yes, you may congratulate the imperialist states,
they may celebrate a "victory." They prevented the discussion of
disarmament at a plenary meeting of the General Assembly and
brought the world nearer to catastrophe. This is a victory for the
forces of war and not for the forces of peace. Every honest person
will regret this decision. Apparently the United States, Britain,
France and Canada do not want disarmament and other countries
do not yet realize the need for solving this question. But we shall
not spare our strength, we shall fight for peace, and expose the
warmongers. People will wake up if it is not too late.

correspondent: You have painted a gloomy picture. Don't
you see any ray of hope?

khrushchev: Not at this session.

correspondent: And in the future?

khrushchev: If the peoples raise their voice and compel the
governments to disarm not in words but in deeds, there will be no
war. Without pressure from the peoples, the Western governments
will not agree to disarm.

The imperialist countries gained this voting victory in order
to degrade the significance of the discussion of disarmament at the
General Assembly. But we shall not relax our efforts in the strug-
gle for disarmament. We represent a country which genuinely
stands for disarmament and lasting peace and no one will make
us budge from this position.

200

October 12, 1960

The Question of Granting Independence to Colonial
Countries and Peoples

Speech at the UN General Assembly

MR. PRESIDENT, GENTLEMEN:

The Government of the Soviet Union has proposed that the
Fifteenth General Assembly Session put on its agenda the question
of the adoption by UN member states of a Declaration on the
granting of independence to the colonial countries and peoples.
We believe it is necessary for the General Assembly to discuss this
matter at its plenary meetings.

The exceptionally great importance of the international prob-
lem of delivering mankind from the shameful colonialist practices
inherited from the past, should be obvious to everyone. Dozens of
peoples and countries have already shaken off the ignominious
colonialist yoke. The time is ripe to have all the peoples liber-
ated from colonialist oppression fully and once and for all. This
is a matter that is now particularly acute and pressing.

This point was dwelt upon by President Nkrumah of Ghana,
Prime Minister Nehru of India, President Nasser of the United
Arab Republic, President Sukarno of the Indonesian Republic,
Prime Minister Castro of Cuba, President Sekou Toure of the Re-
public of Guinea, Shukeiry, the head of the Saudi-Arabia delega-
tion, and many other delegates in their speeches at this Assembly.

The General Assembly must realize in all seriousness that if
the most urgent measures are not taken, colonialism can still cause
much suffering and sacrifice, take many more millions of lives and
provoke armed conflicts and wars threatening peace and security
not only in separate parts of the globe, but throughout the world
generally.

Much is said about freedom, equality, and brotherhood in the
West. There is talk of this also among the colonial powers. Their

201

T

ruling circles even try to assure us with a serious face that the
colonialist system is a progressive one; they call this system o£
slavery "help for the backward peoples" and "the raising of these
peoples to the highest level of civilization." However, tens and
hundreds of millions of people in Asia, Africa, and Latin America
know only too well what this "highest level of civilization" actu-
ally means for those nations enslaved by the colonialists.

As a result of this "civilization" the population of several
colonies, for instance, the Congo, has dwindled to nearly half of
what it was before. Everyone knows how Australia's indigenous
population was exterminated. Mr. Menzies who spoke here ought
not to forget that. The same thing happened in the United States
where the indigenous Indian population was all but killed off,
with those who survived chased into reservations.

And though America's Negro population ultimately became
free after the abolition of slavery, they are still discriminated
against and their elementary rights are curtailed to the minimum.
In many states of the United States Negro children cannot go to
school together with white children. Negroes are barred from
hotels for whites, from theaters and restaurants. Such is the true
face of the "civilization" that the imperialist colonialist powers
boast so much about! A fine sort of civilization, indeed! It was
planted by force in defiance of the wishes of the peoples. The
colonialists sent troops, artillery, and machine guns, and after the
troops came missionaries carrying the cross.

It was just recently that Mr. Macmillan waxed eloquent when
painting a picture of the blessings that Britain had conferred on
the colonial peoples. But litsen to what British newspapers say
about the real state of affairs in the colonies. Kenya, Rhodesia, and
the other colonies are in a state of turbulence! The colonialists
have been forced to despatch reinforcements to Rhodesia. What
sort of reinforcements are these— grain, medicines, doctors, and
teachers? Oh, no, these are reinforcements in the form of troops,
machine guns, shells, and cartridges. Send more cartridges! This
is what the colonialist benefactors demand.

Indeed, today prayers will no longer cover up the nakedness
of colonialist plunder. The peoples whom the colonialists seek to
inoculate with "civilization" know that this sort of "inoculation"
is costing their brothers their lives. We must resolutely unmask

202

the colonialists and reveal the true face of those who brought
disease, poverty, hunger, and death to the enslaved countries. We
must not let the colonialists go on hiding behind lying phraseology
about "the giving of help" and "civilizing," claiming that the
colonial peoples are still not mature enough for self-government.

Those are all the ravings of the slave-traders and the slave-
owners. No, it is not civilization that they want to bring. They
want to go on using the cheap labor of the colonial peoples, to
go on exploiting the riches of the colonial countries, to go on
waxing rich and fat by looting the oppressed peoples.

All the peoples can govern their countries by themselves. All
that is necessary is to give them the opportunity to do so.

If the United Nations fails to adopt proposals aimed at abol-
ishing the colonial regime, the peoples of the colonial countries
will have no other recourse than to take up arms. If they are not
granted the right to an independent existence, to the choice of a
political and social system at their own discretion, to the arrange-
ment of their own lives on their own soil as they themselves see
fit, they will win this right in struggle. I have said before and I
shall say again that the Soviet people are on the side of those
fighting for liberation from the colonial yoke, for their freedom
and independence!

A lot has been said here about the situation in the Congo,
and about the obligation of the United Nations to help the Con-
golese people in their struggle for independence. But what has
actually been happening so far? When the UN intervened in the
Congo, Mr. Hammarskjold, the Secretary-General, did everything
he could for the benefit of the colonialists. By means of the action
he took, he disrupted the normal functioning of the lawful gov-
ernment and deprived it of all means of communication. The
imperialist-colonialists found a Mobutu, supplied this renegade
and traitor to the Congolese people and others like him with
money, and began to corrupt the army in order that they might
continue with their colonialist plunder with the army's support.
But the Congolese people did not give up. Drawing support from
the resolve of its people, from the resolve of the lawfully elected
Parliament, the Congo Government, which Mr. Lumumba heads,
is doing all in its power to uphold its country's independence and

203

integrity. That is really the reflection of the will of the Congolese
people.

Life has debunked the falsehoods told by the Belgian colonial-
ists who alleged that they had gone back to the Congo to protect
women, children, and old people. Actually no one ever threatened
them. The colonialists returned when they saw that the new parli-
ament and the new government that had come into being when
the Congo had proclaimed its independence, wished to govern
the country by themselves and dispose of its riches in the interests
of the people, when they saw that this parliament and this gov-
ernment wanted to have not only nominal but also factual inde-
pendence.

History supplies quite a number of instructive examples on
this score. There was a time in Russia, too, when serfdom was
cracking at every seam and the peasants had begun to revolt
against the much-hated yoke of landlord serfdom. The more far-
sighted members of the landed gentry said at the time that the
serfs must be freed from the top because otherwise they would
themselves take their freedom from the bottom. To some extent
this is applicable today to the colonial powers. If the colonialists
fail to meet the lawful demands of the peoples of the colonies and
dependencies, these peoples will take their freedom by force. That
will be quite fair. They will take what rightly belongs to them.

The people who are against a discussion of the question of
the abolition of the colonial system at the General Assembly's
plenary meetings, with the participation of the heads of the gov-
ernments, are demonstrating the shortsighted character of their
policy and the bankrupt nature of their reckonings. In vain do
the colonialists hope that they will be able to halt the great move-
ment of the oppressed peoples for freedom and independence.
The entire trend of world history calls for the abolition of the
decayed colonial regime. The regime's final demise is but a matter
of time. If the United Nations wishes to be faithful to its Charter,
it must not hold aloof in deciding this matter.

That is why the Soviet delegation is calling upon all the states
to coordinate measures to abolish the regime of colonialist rule,
so that this natural and inexorable historical process may take
place under conditions where peace and international security will
be preserved.

204

We are addressing ourselves to the representatives of the
Afro-Asian countries who have but recently gained their inde-
pendence. We wish them to be duly aware of their responsibility
in this present hour of history when the struggle of the colonial
peoples for their complete emancipation is gaining increasing
momentum.

Esteemed delegates, representatives of countries which have
become independent and have joined the United Nations as equal
members:

How many centuries was it that the colonialists squeezed out
of you every ounce of sweat and blood, ruthlessly exploited your
peoples and put down every living thing in your country! Now,
when they can no longer go on with their policy of plunder,
rapine, and murder in your countries, they pose as your benefac-
tors. They now act the role of benign Christians and are not even
averse themselves to condemning oppression and colonialism.
They claim that by taking part in the colonial system they merely
paved the way for your countries to achieve independence and
self-government.

But that is the lie that a robber, who knows he is a robber,
tells. They now want to erase the memory of their atrocities in the
minds of the peoples they strangled for centuries. That it why
they are flirting with you, staging receptions, and delivering nice
speeches.

Please get me right. We have a tremendous amount of experi-
ence and we well know all the artifices and cunning ruses of the
oppressors, of the imperialists and the colonialists.

This is all being done to win you over, to make of you, the
representatives of states that were but recently colonial countries,
a buttress for the colonialists themselves today, to get you to help
them in their struggles to keep the colonialist system going. In the
countries that have gained political independence they seek to
create conditions that would enable the colonialists to go on with
their pillage of the peoples by taking advantage of the economic
backwardness of these countries.

You must realize that the fate of your brothers on the African
continent largely depends upon you. The colonialists want to use
precisely your hands to do a dirty thing, to thwart the adoption
of a Declaration for the liberation of all the colonial peoples.

205

They want to use your hands to go on drawing the noose tight
around the neck of the colonial peoples, to throttle these peoples.

That is why the Soviet Government is calling on you to dis-
play your will, to show that you not only know how to defend
your own interests, the interests of your own peoples and states,
but also that you who are now independent have not forgotten
those still suffering in colonialist bondage.

Is it for our countries to fear the phantom strength of the
colonialists? We have truth on our sidel The balance of forces is
in our favor. If you actively support the countries fighting against
the colonialist yoke, we shall be in the majority. It is necessary to
show courage and resolve. It is necessary to raise our voice against
the colonialists, whatever guise they assume. The conscience of
everyone in this hall is under the control of the people. Sooner
or later the people will demand an accounting and will ask how
their representative voted in the United Nations. Was he for the
immediate and full termination of colonialist bondage, for free-
dom for all the peoples? Or did he waver?

We are calling for joint action in the struggle against colonial-
ism. May the will of the peoples be done and an end be put once
and for all to the colonial system! May all the colonies receive
independence! May all the peoples become free!

The abolition of colonialism would be of supreme importance
for easing international tensions. The armed conflicts and the wars
we have seen since the Second World War, such as the wars in
Indonesia, Indochina, and Algeria, the aggression against Egypt,
foreign intervention in the Lebanon and Jordan, and the plots
against Syria and Iraq, occurred precisely because the imperialist
colonialists sought to stifle the liberation movement and hamper
the national advancement of the Afro-Asian and Latin-American
countries. Moreover, the recent intervention against the Congo
Republic resulted in an exacerbation of the international situa-
tion and jeopardized peace in Africa— and not only in Africa.

That is why we say that the problem of the complete aboli-
tion of the colonialist system is to a large extent the problem of
preserving and consolidating peace and international security.

The delegation of the Soviet Union has submitted this ques-
tion for consideration to the plenary session of 'the General Assem-
bly, the most representative UN body. The need to have the mat-

206

ter discussed right in this forum and at the highest level, with
the heads of government taking part, is quite obvious.

The discussion directly at plenary meetings— with the heads
of government and foreign ministers of the UN member states
participating— of the problem of eliminating the colonialist sys-
tem will turn this discussion into a most authoritative one and
guarantee the most favorable conditions for the successful solution
of this problem within the framework of the United Nations.

Thank you for your attention.

207

October 12, 1960

Remarks on the Colonial Question

Speech at the UN General Assembly

The representative of the Philippines, Senator Lorenzo Sumu-
long, in the course of discussing the resolution calling for consider-
ation of independence for colonies at the plenary meeting, referred
to the countries of Eastern Europe as "colonies" of the Soviet Union.

The representative of Roumania, Silviu Brucan, took the floor
to protest on a point of order. The floor was then given to Premier
Khrushchev on a point of order. Khrushchev stated:

ESTEEMED DELEGATES!

I protest the unequal treatment o£ the representatives of the
states meeting here. Why, when the gentleman who represents his
country, the country of the Congo, was speaking, did the chair-
man stop him? Why? He was referring to a telegram he had re-
ceived from his brothers* who are still suffering under the colonial
yoke. Yet the chairman stopped him, stating that this was a ques-
tion on substance, whereas it was a question of procedure, he said,
that was being discussed.

Why, when this groveler before American imperialism now
speaks not at all on a question of procedure, why does the chair-
man—who evidently sympathizes with colonial domination— not
stop him? Is this just? No, it is not.

Esteemed Delegates, Mr. President,

We are living on earth not by God's favor or yours, but by
the strength and reason of the great people of the Soviet Union
and all the peoples who are fighting for independence.

You cannot suppress the voice of the peoples, the voice of
truth, which is now sounding and which will continue to sound.
An end and death to colonial slavery! Down with it! It should be
buried— the deeper, the better.

*The telegram received by the representative of the Congo (Brazzaville)
was from the people of Portuguese Cabina. It was while h£ was speaking about
the difficult conditions under which they live that he was stopped by the
President of the Assembly.

208

October 12, 1960

Reply on the Colonial Question

Speech at the UN General Assembly

MR. PRESIDENT, ESTEEMED DELEGATES:

I am anticipating with pleasure the fact that, as I hope, the
Assembly will adopt a decision to discuss at its plenary meeting
the question of the complete abolition of the colonial system. If
my hope is not justified and the Assembly does not vote for a
discussion of this question at its plenary meeting, then not only
shall I be disappointed— that is not especially important— but mil-
lions and millions of people who are in a state of colonial slavery
and are awaiting their liberation will be disappointed.

Gentlemen, I am extremely pleased by another fact, and that
is that the representative of Great Britain, who took the floor
here, sharply criticized my position. It gives me great satisfaction
that the colonialists regard me as an enemy of the colonial system.
That is a great reward for me, and I am proud of it.

I am very fond of the words spoken by August Bebel, the
leader of the German workers, a Social-Democrat. He said ap-
proximately the following: "If the bourgeoisie praise you, Bebel,
think what stupid thing you have done, for which they praise
you. If the bourgeoisie speak badly of you, that means that you
serve the working class, the proletariat loyally!"

If the colonialists now rail at me, I am proud of the fact; it
means that I am loyally serving the peoples who are fighting for
their independence, for their freedom.

The representative of Great Britain has taken the floor here.
It would have been more fitting for him to learn a lesson, let us
say, from a rich peasant. When the system of private ownership
of the means of production existed in our country, the rich people
acted as follows— and, probably this method is used in all coun-

209

tries— when they hired a laborer, they fed him well on the first
day. Subsequently the rich man exploited the laborer mercilessly,
squeezed all the strength out o£ him, but when the laborer fin-
ished the work for which he was hired, he was also fed well so that
he might at least retain a good recollection of the exploiter who
had squeezed all the strength out of him. The British colonialists,
Mr. Representative of Great Britain, squeezed the blood and sweat
out of the peoples of India, the peoples of Burma, and the other
peoples whom they exploited and are still continuing to exploit.

You too should show respect for these peoples who are now
acquiring their independence and freedom, not by your mercies,
but as a result of their struggle and the call of the times. Do not
poison that day for them, the day which should be a holiday for
the peoples who are acquiring their independence. They are
human beings after all; grant them that moral satisfaction. They
have fought for it. You cannot even rise to the level of the rich
peasant who exploited the poor peasants. You want to make these
peo]3le sweat to the end.

Mr. Representative of Great Britain, when I said in my
speech today that the people are rebelling and the British coloni-
alists are sending guns in order to suppress them, I used informa-
tion from your London newspapers. This information was pub-
lished a day or two ago. So that these are quite fresh facts, indicat-
ing that the peoples of the colonial countries are rebelling. We
applaud them, but they must be given assistance on our part,
because the colonialists are better armed, they are destroying and
annihilating the populations of the colonies.

Now with regard to the speech of the delegate of the Philip-
pines. I must say that I have a dual reaction to this speech. I
spoke sharply, I protested and I protest against the fact that he
began "to stutter" in the first half of his speech but then he im-
proved. And the representative of the Philippines arrived at a
correct conclusion. I explain this as follows: He is not a bad man.
As he said, he suffered for many years, for many years the people
of the Philippines suffered under the yoke of the Spaniards. Then
they were "taken over" by the Americans, and they barely achieved
independence, although God knows what kind of independence
it is. It has to be peered at through a microscope, this inde-
pendence.

210

The delegate of the Philippines understands what colonialism
is, what the colonial yoke is. And apparently, in the first part of
his speech he did not speak sincerely. That was the effect of the
remains, the strings which still bind him, so to say, to the master—
the United States of America. And they pulled the strings. And
then, when he was stopped, he apparently came to the conclusion
—why the hell should I go ahead— the Americans themselves do
not take the floor but lie low, while they pushed me forward to
speak for them. And that is why he, so to speak, gave vent to his
feelings and poured out all of his hatred for the colonialists, for
the colonialist yoke. And I applauded him for these words with
pleasure and with all my heart.

I believe that the time will come when the Philippines will
become a genuinely independent country. Come to our country.
We shall give you the opportunity to go to any republic. We shall
ask the republics to invite you, and shall ask you to inspect them.

Look at everything captiously, with a partial attitude, and
even then you will understand what freedom is, and what colonial
slavery is. There is no greater freedom for man than the freedom
to build and develop an independent state, moreover a socialist
state, such as ours is.

The Soviet people have already completed the building of
socialism and have begun to build communism.

I know that not everyone here will applaud me, because
you have to grow to an understanding of the heights of develop-
ment of human society. But the time will come when you your-
selves will speak about socialism from this tribunal, provided,
of course, that this tribunal remains, if it is destined to remain.
At present it is a very shaky tribunal.

The floor has been taken here by an Englishman and by a
Colombian. The Englishman and the Colombian are, practically,
one and the same thing. The Englishman means the NATO mili-
tary bloc, and Colombia means the Monroe Doctrine. And there-
fore one can feel which way the wind blows. And one can feel the
smell. One can feel it! Mr, Colombian, we listened to you as the
representative of Colombia, but your voice is not the voice of
the Colombian people. The Colombian people, like all other
peoples, do not want to prolong colonial slavery. I am sure of

211

that. The time will come when the representative of Colombia will
really speak on behalf of the Colombian people from this rostrum.

Gentlemen, I ask all the delegates to express themselves in
favor of a discussion of the Declaration on independence and
freedom for the colonial peoples at the plenary meeting of the
General Assembly. The colonialists understand the difference
between a discussion "behind the scenes" and at a "solemn meet-
ing." I sit in the hall and look at the backs of Spaniards. As soon
as some colonialist hints at support for the policy of the colonial-
ists, they applaud. Why? Because they are colonialists! There is
a saying: "The devil does not gore his own!" because devils know
when to use their horns. And a colonialist supports a colonialist!

It is pleasant to live in times like these, when great events
are taking place, when the colonial system is collapsing! The
honor has fallen to our lot to take a spade and to dig a deep
grave, to bury colonialism deep in the ground and to drive an
aspen stake into it, that it may never rise again. According to an
old belief of the people, if you bury the devil you must drive an
aspen stake into his grave, that he may not rise from the coffin-
so let it be with colonialism. It must be buried according to these
traditions of the people.

I am certain that we shall find the courage, and chiefly the
correct understanding, to adopt a decision in keeping with our
conscience, and our conscience must tell us that the time has
come for all people to be free.

May the representatives of the African peoples, the blacks,
as they are called, forgive and excuse me. I do not know how
this sounds to the Negroes, are they not offended? I want to ex-
press my sympathies for them. It was a pleasure to me to listen
to them. The colonialists said about these people that they had
allegedly not matured for self-government. The representatives
of the imperialists who took the floor here have themselves not
risen to the level of a general human conception of freedom, or to
the appreciation of this freedom that is shown by these people,
the black people, who have torn themselves free of the yoke and
are boldly expressing their thoughts and defending the interests
of their peoples. That is a great joy.

Some white men boast of the fact that they are white, and
regard the black people arrogantly. But can one judge people by

212

the color of their skin? One man has a black skin, another a yellow
skin, the third a white skin. The most terrible thing is when a
man, be he white or black in the color of his skin, has a black
soul, that is a filthy soul. For this filthy soul cannot be improved.
We greet our brothers, the black people, the Negroes, we
greet all peoples who are fighting for their freedom and inde-
pendence. We are helping them and shall help them, and all
peoples must help them, and we profoundly believe that the
time will come when the peoples of all countries will feel that
they are brothers, when there will be no more exploited, no ex-
ploiters. Only one banner will wave— the banner of friendship,
the banner of peace, the banner of brotherhood, and on this ban-
ner there will be inscribed the words— Communist Society.

213

October 12, I960

Speech at Dinner for Delegations of New UN Members

Premier Khrushschev gave a dinner in honor of the delega-
tions of a number of young African states and Cyprus. The dinner
was attended by the heads of the delegations of Nigeria, Came-
roon, Dahomey, Upper Volta, Cyprus, the acting heads of the
delegations of Togo, the Ivory Coast, the Malagasy Republic, and
Somali, and by representatives of the delegations of Chad, Mali,
and Senegal.

Also present at the dinner were N. V. Podgorny of the Ukraine,
K. T. Mazurov of Byelorussia, A. A. Gromyko and the members
and advisers of the Soviet delegation.

N. S. Khrushchev congratulated the representatives of the
new states on the achievement of independence, wished them big
success and urged them to facilitate the liberation of those peoples
who are still oppressed by colonialism.

The head of the Cameroon delegation, S. Okala, the Minister
of Foreign Affairs, spoke towards the end of the dinner on the
newly emerging freedom in Africa. At the end of his speech he
toasted chairman Khrushchev.

Khrushchev replied as follows:

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for the words of greeting and the
kind wishes addressed to our people, the Soviet Government and
to me personally. I assure you, gentlemen, that the government
and the peoples of the Soviet Union are fully aware of their
responsibility. They realize that we are strong and that our
strength, reason and will must be applied to the maintenance and
consolidation of peace, against those who fan war. Our people
want peace and friendship, freedom and happiness for all peoples.

I should like to thank you in particular, gentlemen, for ac-
cepting our invitation and attending this dinner unafraid of the
fairy tales of those who depict us as "communists - imperialists,"

214

"communists - colonialists," those who picture us as more terrible
than the devil. The imperialists want to depict all communists as
if they swallow people, some from the head, and others from the
feet. (Laughter, Animation.)

To this I say once again: travel to our country, look at our
life for yourselves and you will see for yourselves that the com-
munists are not like that at all.

I have been a Communist for over 40 years. Comrade Tupo-
lev, sitting opposite, our aircraft designer, is not a Communist,
he is a non-party man, but this does not prevent us from being
great friends. In our country by no means all people are Com-
munists and no one demands that all should be Communists.
The population of the Soviet Union is 214,000,000 yet the party
numbers among its members only some 9,000,000. And this does
not hinder the unity and cohesion of our people. I repeat: come
to the Soviet Union, see everything for yourselves. You can come
to us on parliamentary and government delegations or as tourists.
Choose yourselves the capacity in which you would like to come
to us.

You know that in our country power belongs to the workers,
peasants and the working intellectuals. We have no capitalists
or landlords. In the past things were different and the working
people lived under very difficult conditions. I, for instance, began
working at the age of eight or nine. In my childhood I was a
sheep and cow tender working for an estate owner. At the age of
fifteen I began working in a factory; later I worked in pits and
at a chemical plant. Then for more than three years I fought in
the Civil War. This is my biography. All ministers of our govern-
ment have biographies like that, we all came from the people,
from workers 1 and peasants' families and from the families of
working intellectuals. That is why we well understand the peo-
ple's needs. Today I am Chairman of the Council of Ministers of
the greatest, the most powerful country in the world.

The colonialists seek to depict us as "Soviet imperialists,"
as "communists - colonialists." Do not believe them. We want
nothing from the peoples of Africa and other continents besides
friendship. We are ready to help you whenever you ask us to.
Our country has everything needed for successful development.
Judge for yourselves, the Soviet Union has, as I said before, a

215

population of 214,000,000 and 3,500,000 are added each year to
the population. We have plenty of iron ore, coal and oiL The
territory of the Soviet Union is vast: it stretches over 12,000 to
13,000 kilometers from east to west. We have plenty of everything
in our own country and as regards the question of communism
this is each people's own affair and this question is decided by
the free choice of the people of each country.

Communism is not pie in the sky. Communism is the real
and concrete conditions of the peoples' life: a short working day,
good housing, the world's lowest rent, good clothes, well-fed and
well-nourished children, free tuition for them, state stipends for
students, free medical aid, pensions, abolition of taxes on the
population, so that in five years we shall have no taxes at all-
such are the elements of communism in reality, in practical life.

Now in our country we have a seven-hour working day with
a six-hour day for miners. In 1964 we shall start the transition to
a six-hour working day for the country as a whole and to a five-
hour day for miners, and in twenty years our working day will
last not more than five or four hours.

This year we shall make 65 million tons of steel and next
year 71 million tons. This year we shall extract over 145 million
tons of oil.

Such is the rate of development of production in our country.

We have boundless forest tracts. Our natural resources are in-
exhaustible. What do we not have? We have no cocoa, coffee,
pineapples and mango. (Animation.) But this is what you have.
You can give these and other products to us and we in turn will
give you our products in exchange. We shall be grateful to you
and you, probably, will be grateful to us. Let us be friends and
cooperate. Here is the example of Cuba for you. When the United
States monopolies proclaimed an economic blockade of Cuba, re-
fused to supply her with oil, we helped Cuba, gave her oil and
bought sugar from the Cubans.

There are no reasons why we should not live in peace and
friendship. We sincerely want this friendship with your peoples
and with other peoples. I invite you once more: come over to us,
to our country more frequently; every time you come you will
know it better and better and I am confident you will like it.

216

We shall show you in our country anything you want to
see. Visit any of our republics, look at the life of the peoples
who before the revolution lived under colonial oppression and
now live in freedom and happiness. You will see for yourselves
how ridiculous are the fabrications of the imperialists about "the
slaves of communism."

I thank you once more, gentlemen, for your kind words and
wishes. We wholeheartedly wish you success in life, and in the
struggle for the independence and happiness of your peoples.

217

October 13, I960

Further Remarks on the Colonial Question

Speech at the UN General Assembly

ESTEEMED PRESIDENT, ESTEEMED DELEGATES:

I should like to say that the delegation of the Soviet Union
is greatly satisfied by the fact that the representative of the United
States has agreed that this most important question, the question
of the liberation of the colonial peoples, must be discussed at a
plenary meeting of the General Assembly.

I should like to stress that this is not a point of procedure
but of supporting the substance of the Declaration on the Aboli-
tion of the Colonial System. We must ensure the establishment
of conditions under which the peoples still languishing under
colonial oppression may attain freedom and independence. This
freedom is not being presented to them on a silver platter; they
are winning it in a hard and bloody struggle. Millions have
perished in this struggle. Therefore it is essential to give them an
extended declaration, to point out in this declaration what colo-
nial slavery has brought to these peoples, to point out the road
to the liberation of peoples from colonial oppression, to declare
that all peoples— black, white, yellow— regardless of the color of
their skin or their religion—must be equal -

I should like to say once again that there are no hopeless
people. Even colonialists like the Spaniards and the British— and
they are colonialists of the first water— even they are not hopeless.
And with the proper ventilation of their brains, they begin
properly to understand the question which is being discussed by
the General Assembly session; even they have announced that
they would vote in the affirmative.

So you see what a nice company we are. Our socialist state
which is guided by the Communist Party has submitted a proposal
on the abolition of the colonial system for discussion at the

plenary meeting of the Assembly, and we are very glad that our
proposal is supported by the United States, and that even Great
Britain— this classic colonialist country— will vote together with
us. I take their hand and shake it. If we continue to act in the
same way in the future this will only be to the benefit of all
the peoples.

Gentlemen, had the Assembly acted on the problem of dis-
armament just as unanimously as on this problem, you can
imagine what a step we could have made towards agreement on
general and complete disarmament under strict international con-
troll That is why I should like to ask you to draw the following
conclusion: the peoples of the world must take their destinies
into their own hands without expecting that this problem, the
problem of mankind's future, the problem of war and peace, can
be settled only by the Soviet Union, the United States, Great
Britain and France. No. This problem concerns all people.

We stand out only in that we possess the most perfect and
the most destructive weapons. But this is not the main thing. The
main thing is that should a war start, all the peoples of the world
will suffer from that war. Therefore it is essential that all the
peoples of the world should approach the problem of disarma-
ment, of world peace, with the same feeling of responsibility with
which they are approaching— have not approached yet, but are
approaching— the solution of the problem of liquidating the colo-
nial system.

Thank you for your attention.

218

219

October T3, I960

The Threat to Universal Peace

Speech at the General Assembly

MR. PRESIDENT, FELLOW DELEGATES:

The United Nations General Assembly has passed a decision
to include the question of the "threat to universal peace created
once sent their spy planes into the air space of the Soviet Union,
on the agenda of the Fifteenth Session. This is not a routine item
on the Assembly's agenda, but an extraordinary issue which stems
from actions which are incompatible with normal relations be-
tween states which are not at war.

It will be recalled that the American authorities more than
once sent their spy planes into the air space of the Soviet Union.
On May 1, 1960, literally on the eve of the Four Power Summit
Conference at Paris, an American U-2 spy plane intruded deep
into our territory and was shot down.

President Eisenhower of the United States, far from apologiz-
ing to our country for this crude aggressive act, declared such
flights a state policy of the United States. Moreover, two months
later another American war plane, the RB-47, intruded into Soviet
territory, and again the brazen aggressor was bought down.

Such actions on the part of the United States of America have
a pernicious effect upon the entire international climate and are
fraught with incalculable disasters.

I already declared from this rostrum on September 23 that
the Soviet Government considers that the question of the United
States aggressive actions against the Soviet Union must be discussed
directly at a plenary session of the General Assembly.

I should like you to bear in mind that this is no complaint on
the part of the Soviet Union. No, we are not complaining. The
Soviet Union is strong enough to uphold the interests of its coun-
try unilaterally.

220

But we do raise this question before the Gener^ ^

because the United States has proclaimed its right to ^ ssem . ^

international law. The United States Government sa^ s t^^ 1 * 1 ^

espionage flights, such aggressive incursions are esse^,-^ s ^

security of its country. The United States is doing $ 0) j fc ° r . e

because it has the right to ensure its security, has t ^ fa*^'

violate the boundaries of other countries, in disregard f , lg

interns
tional standards. In this way the United States wants t j

rule of iniquity in international relations. This is why t j le £ e

at hand has assumed special significance. I repeat, tj^ ^ ues 10n

dispute between two states but the question of the righ^ n ° a

to independence and sovereignty, a question of th, e Q ^ S es

devolving upon every state to respect the independent lga 10n
eignty of other states.

The aggressive flights of American planes have infri n
the sovereignty not of our state alone but on that £" U ^°^
number of other states as well: they violated the heutj j*t ^ f
itpr? fhe sovereignty of neutral An^ .

Afghanistan, violated the sovereignty of neutral A. Ustr i a

violated the sovereignty of Norway, Pakistan and txu*^' *\ e

not a fact that these states officially protested to the tlni^'g * U

when they learned about the flight of an American sp v ? a es

their protests the governments of these countries decl^ reci n

United States had not consulted them, had not aske^ ^ & . e

for making spy flights over their territories.

If such actions of the aggressors are not terminate -

completely, if they are not condemned, the impressi 0ri j[ a ^

gained that the Assembly approves such actions on th e p ar * g £ , e

United States and thus in a way encourages it to fu r th et ° G

sive actions. It will thus gravely injure international j a ^ a gg res '

in a way this will legalize the right of every state to ecaus e

.-'.■« ** Use such

methods. And this in turn may have the results that { n ,

its sovereignty every state will have to rely only on j tSelf e ^ m S

this

the

cur-

consequently reply to such an incursion with a retaij

own forces. But every reasonable person will underst aric j

in the

might result in force being countered with force, and. tj^ at
final analysis means war. Every country might estim^ te ^ .
sion of planes in its own way, regard it as a military c

^.. n «i-l.i ^^.v^lir *r^ curVi an lnnircinn wifll D TPfal"

sequently reply to sucn an racurauui wmi a. jcu^^

Whether troops are sent across the borders of an th_ er ^ ° W "

or planes are dispatched with aggressive purposes, tttfg coun r Y
r r institutes

221

an armed invasion of one country by another and it is in this
way that the aggressive invasions of the territory of the Soviet
Union should be regarded.

If one side assumes responsibility for starting a war, the other
side has the right to defend itself. It is compelled then to defend
its sovereignty and repulse the enemy invasion, to strike in retalia-
tion at the aggressor and at those bases from which the aggressor
is making the invasion.

These are the aspects of the question to which I wanted to
call your attention, esteemed Delegates! In connection with the
discussion of the question of aggressive flights by American planes,
I should like to express the following wish of the Soviet Govern-
ment:

Any conflicts between nations, even bloody wars in the long
run, end with the signing of a peace treaty. Fortunately, we have
never been at war with the United States of America. The only
exception is the aggression committed against us by the United
States right after the October Revolution. Then the United States
sent over its troops to our territory to assist the rotten, overthrown
regime of landlords and capitalists. But these troops were ejected
from our soil by the young Red Army of the Soviet Union. Since
that time not only have there been no armed conflicts between
us, but we even fought together in a most bloody war against
Hitler Germany and won a victory in this joint struggle.

Even now we are doing everything possible and will continue
to do so, not only to ensure peace between the peoples of the
Soviet Union and the United States of America but also to ensure
friendship between our peoples and our governments. We consider
that this is quite possible if the other side too strives for the same
end. The Soviet Union and the United States of America are a
great distance away from each other. Both are rich and highly
develop economically. Both countries have everything they need
to continue developing, each in its own direction, in the directions
chosen by the peoples of the Soviet Union and by the people of
the United States of America.

We are aware of the fact that the discussion at the General
Assembly on the question of aggressive actions perpetrated against
the Soviet Union by the United States of America is used by certain
circles to bring the cold war to a higher pitch. Therefore the Soviet

222

Government on its part would li^ e t0 do everything it can to
prevent a further increase of tensi on i n Soviet-American relations.

If the Government of the U nited states of America were to
declare at the General Assembly that it regrets the aggressive acts
perpetrated against the Soviet Uni 0n and other COU ntries, and were
to give assurances that henceforth the Government of the United
States will strictly observe the provisions of international law, re-
spect the sovereignty of the Soviet Union and all other countries,
we would regard such an assurance as recognition by the United
States of America that it was wrong on this question and we would
have received satisfaction. Thus i t WO uld be possible to draw the
line and we would not insist on t he discussion of the question.
That would clear the atmospher-^ re duce international tension,
and make it possible to solve m 0l - e quickly the questions on the
agenda, specifically the question of disarmament.

If, however, the Government f tne United States of America
does not want to display good wify w ni not condemn the practice
of dispatching its spy planes to the Soviet Union and other coun-
tries, the United Nations must ^ tn all severitv condemn such
aggressive actions, since this is a case of absolutely unprecedented
action on the part of a major power against other countries, ac-
tions which are fraught with th e most serious consequences to
universal peace and the security f na tions.

This policy of the United St^ tes must be condemned and cut
shor} so that such provocative incidents may not place the world
on the brink of war. American ag gress i V e flights in fact even re-
present a step beyond this brink. That is why it is impermissible
to relegate to the background the most acute q Uest ions of a deeply
fundamental nature, on the solu tion o( which tne destiny of the
world depends, while the rostrum of tne General Assembly is used
for chewing the hash concocted by the cold war exponents. This
would be a real shame for the U n i te d Nations. The peoples who
want peace to be strengthened and the international climate to
become healthier will pass their stern judgment on what is going
on in the United Nations and they will be right. The Soviet
Government does not want this to happen. It wants the United
Nations to justify the hopes of th e peoples and come forward as a
serious instrument of the strengthening f p ea ce, as a loyal sentinel
of the sovereign rights of states.

223

October 13, 1960

A Reply on the Question of Aggression

Speech at the UN General Assembly

Before speaking on the question of the aggressive actions of
the USA, for which the Chairman has given me the floor, I should
like to say a few words as a reply. I, too, am not deprived of that
right, and I should like to make use of it. I want to say briefly
and confirm the fact that the gentleman representing the Philip-
pines is not a hopeless case; he does posses a rational kernel
which may take root in his mind. He will come to understand
things correctly and judge them correctly. But some time is pro-
bably needed for this. We have a saying, "Each vegetable ripens
in its time." This gentleman is probably in the ripening stage
right now. He will ripen, I think, and come to understand
problems correctly.

MR. PRESIDENT, GENTLEMEN:

I should like to avail myself of the right given to every dele-
gate in order to reply to the speech by the representative of the
United States of America.

The representative of the United States declared that he
was going to defend the interests of the United Nations. He seems
to believe that the United Nations and the United States of
America are about the same thing, that this is a branch of the
State Department! We see, however, that this branch is becoming
independent.

The representative of the United States claimed that America
had committed no aggression against the Soviet Union in the first
years that followed the October Revolution. I must remind him
of something. He must have forgotten the memoirs of General
Graves, the commander of the American Army which landed in

224

Siberia. That general gave them a very original title. He must have
understood, and correctly understood what he was doing.

He called the United States intervention "American Adven-
ture in Siberia." He was in Siberia, and he was thrown out of
there by the Red Army and Siberian guerillas. I must say the
American general's book is true to the facts to some extent. Read
it, Mr. Representative of the United States; perhaps it will be
of use to you some day.

It is very useful to read sometimes! You see that what I am
recommending to you is not Bolshevik propaganda literature, but
the memoirs of your own American general.

Now another thing. The Security Council has twice passed
resolutions claiming that the Soviet charges of United States acts
of aggression against the Soviet Union are unfounded. This is
just what the Security Council has decided, unfortunately. It is
for this reason that we have brought the matter before the
General Assembly. What else could we do?

What the American representatives are doing looks like the
old story of the woman who pretended to be a virgin. But this
virgin already has a child, and even two of them; and besides, she
finds a way of giving birth twice within the space of two months:
in May and then in July.

They keep claiming that the United States is a virgin in this
case, and that she has no children. But we and the rest of the
world know that there was a U-2 in May and an RB-47 in July.

What kind of Security Council do we have, if it fails to con-
demn an obvious and insolent act of aggression? It is a Security
Council which no one will respect! It is, excuse my sharp lan-
guage, more like a spittoon than a Security Council!

The Security Council must safeguard peace and prevent war!
But look what the Security Council did when Secretary of State
Herter and the United States President himself, indeed the whole
of America and the entire world recognized that an American spy
plane had been sent into the Soviet Union. The Security Council
ruled that there had allegedly been no aggressive flights.

True, the first thing the United States did was to He about the
spy flight. But we knew whom we were dealing with. That is why,
when the plane was shot down, the Soviet Government decided
to make a vague statement so that the United States would not

225

find out where the plane was downed, what happened to the
pilot, and would not know that we had material evidence at
our disposal.

Then, we decided, the fish will swallow the bait. And our
expectations were justified. The United States of America de-
clared that the plane had not flown into the Soviet Union. The
plane, don't you see, was on a weather observation mission. It
flew over Turkey and the meteorological station was informed by
the pilot that the oxygen equipment had failed and that the pilot
had lost consciousness. Then, as the Americans reported, contact
was broken off. Evidently, they said, the pilot came down over a
lake in Turkey. We applauded these lies. You can imagine how
satisfied we were when our opponents presented us with a vulner-
able spot at which we could hit quite definitely.

We then declared that this was a lie, that the American spy
plane had been shot down near Sverdlovsk and that the pilot,
alive and in good health, was in our hands. We announced that
we had the wreckage of the plane, the instruments, to put it
in a nutshell— all the material evidence. What did the Americans
say afterwards?

Herter then said: "Yes, we did fly. We fly over the Soviet
Union because it has many military secrets and we must learn the
location of Russian rockets in the interests of our security (you
understand, in the interests of securityl) . That is why we sent the
spy plane."

The President of the United States confirmed this, agreed to
this. But this is a shocking state of affairs, unprecedented perfidy.
How can one tolerate this?

The intruding plane also flew over the territory of Afghanis-
tan, infringing her sovereignty, took off from the territory of
Turkey, flew over the territory of Pakistan. The pilot was to fly
to Norway and, in case of an emergency, to land in Finland. The
United States did not ask for Finland's permission and Finland
protested against this.

Gentlemen, you can imagine to what dangerous consequences
this leads. Powers is merely a pilot who wanted to earn big
wages and ended a big failure. I believe that he deeply repents
his action. Everyone knows that he who serves the golden calf,
serves the golden devil, will always end in failure! When Powers

226

was asked at the trial rf he , vouId have pressed ^ buUon ^

he flown with an atom bomb on board, he admitted: I was told
to press the button at a ce ttain site , and T prfissed fe bmtQn _
And when he was asked agai^ would he w d ^ bumm

knowing that the plane carri ed an atom homh> hg Hed . j

would.

You can imagine what , Vould have happened! The outbreak
of war, or not even the outbreak of war but war itself!

Gentlemen, we are all ^ dult and responsible le , Please

understand that we are not r^ ising this question in order to humi-
liate the United States of Arnica. We do not want this and did
not want it when we shot do Vn the plane . You rcmembcr state _
ment in winch I said that the President pf the United States
probably did not know of this fiight Though j sinned hdm
my own conscience, I made this statement out of ct for the

President to ease his position, t0 drag him out of the stinking pit
into which he had landed. £ ut he lost his seI£ . control and said . T
knew of the flight, I sanction^ it( this was in ^ ^^ of ^

Umted States, and m the interests of our security, and we shall
continue such flights.

And what are we suppose £0 do? We shot down ^ ^

shall shoot down such planes if thpv xrp wnt t„ «„ * •* j

* it tncy aie sent to our territory and

we shall hit at those bases fr nm tH w r i, .q,,,^,- „ ,

10111 wmcft aggiessive planes are sent
into our country. We have n other way 0ud

Underdeveloped country colonieSf unfortunately cannot do
this, they have no such possibilities. But we are able to defend

our homeland, to defend tjh p invJnlaktTi*** «* r 1

' ^e inviolability ol our frontiers and

to rebuff any aggressor!

Do you want war? Do yo u provoke war? But we ^ ^ ^^
of any threats If you start a wai , we shall have nQ ^ ^.^
but to hit back. Each country has the rig l n to defend itse tf, to hit
back if it is attacked. But we Want the United Nationg tQ denounce
such actions and thus to de nounce not only the flouting of the
sovereign rights of our state blU also the {iout[ q£ international
law m general. The United States proc i aimed fl . hts over ^

territories of other states as its rightj as its nationa} . ^^
are we to do? To surrender or to rebuff such ft*

If the United Nations G eneral Assembly does not understand
the full seriousness of the q Ucstion and follows ^ ^ ^ ag

227

the Security Council took, we shall not be able to respect such
decisions, we shall be impelled to rely on our own strength. And
you know that we have strength. We warn the Pentagon, we warn
the American aggressors— let them not stage provocations, for we
shall give them a vigorous rebuff.

The United States representative said here that the President
of the United States had said in Paris that there would be no
more flights. Gentlemen, pay attention to these words. It follows
that we are given some mercy from heaven. He does not say there
were any nights and he does not say there were no nights, he says
there won't be any more flights. But, saying this, he admits that
there were such flights.

What do we want? We want the President to say that the
United States was wrong. We need the admission by the Govern-
ment of the United States that it acted wrongly; we need an assur-
ance that it will not do this in the future. But how are you acting
Messrs. Americans? Today you say there won't be any more flights,
yet yesterday you did fly and claimed that such nights were your
right. Moreover, the President also said that he had cancelled the
flights for his term of office in the White House. And this means
that another President will be inaugurated and if the United
States desires, the aggressive flights will be resumed.

The new President of the United States may declare that
Eisenhower had cancelled the flights but that he is not obliged
to honor the pledges given by his predecessor. Can one tolerate
such arbitrariness?

It is also known that the President did not speak the truth.
After his statement in Paris on the stopping of the flights, two
months after the U-2 spy plane incident, a military RB-47 plane
was sent into the Soviet Union. We shot it down. Before my jour-
ney here to the session of the General Assembly, we learned that
the Americans wanted to send a new plane into our airspace at
an altitude of 25,000 meters.

Then I told the United States Ambassador in Moscow that we
had information about the preparations for that flight. The Am-
bassador was warned that we were prepared to meet this plane.
I told him: if you want to check our anti-aircraft rocketry, to test
our abilities to shoot down planes at an altitude of 25,000 meters

228

please go ahead. We have made preparations to demonstrate our
capabilities.

The United States authorities cancelled the flight. But pro-
vocations are still continuing.

NATO military exercises were recently announced near the
coast and frontiers of the Soviet Union on the Black Sea. I must
say that when Marshall Malinovsky, the Minister of Defense, asked
me what to do, I told him: you are the Minister of Defense, what
do you suggest?

He replied: I suggest that we alert our Armed Forces, espe-
cially our rocketry, get everything re ady for action and arm the
rockets with warheads.

I told the Minister of Defense that he suggested reasonable
measures because we did not kno w whether these were military
exercises or preparations for war.

Thus, I am here in America while our defenses are in readi-
ness for action.

What are the Americans doing? When I travelled to New
*ork on the liner "Baltika," United States planes buzzed our ship.
Furthermore, within two days of the journey to New York I saw
a submarine following our ship. I think that wisdom is not needed
to guess what kind of boat this was. The question might be asked:
Did you identify her? I have good eyesight; I am a man who
suffers from farsightedness. At first I looked through field glasses,
then 1 put them aside and saw the submarine. I found it easy to
identify her because we know this kind of weapon. We also have
submarines and not bad submarines.

What was the purpose of this new provocation? Do you want
to frighten us? But we are not easily frightened. Maybe you
wanted to sink the ship in which I was travelling?

All right, I will go down to the bottom, but I shall drag you
down also, be sure of this!

The RB-47 plane made a spy flight on July 1 and we shot
it down. The United States representative in his speech here has
asserted that the plane was shot down at a certain distance from
our frontier. One should point out that the United States authori-
ties cite different figures in this respect.

In this connection I recollect such an anecdote. One of the
Russian generals fighting against Shamil took him prisoner. The

229

general sent the officer who had captured Shamil to the tsar to
make a personal report. You probably know that some military
men have a weakness for exaggerating their own merits. This also
happened in this case. The officer began to exaggerate when he
described to the tsar his exploit in capturing Shamil. He told how
skillfully he had acted, how he had attacked personally. But the
general, knowing the weakness of this officer, sent another officer
with him and told the latter that if the first officer put on airs the
second was to tug his uniform. So when the first officer lied too
much, the second tugged at him. The first began lying still more
and the second tugged at him again. The first resented this and
said: why are you tugging at me all the time? You were not there,
and I was!

Something similar happened with the American representa-
tive today: he wants to lie and says that this is no lie. But I can
also tug at him and say: Mr. Representative of the United States,
we brought down your RB47 plane and it was brought down by
our fighters over the territorial waters of the Soviet Union.

Now they want to arrange international arbitration, in other
words, a court of arbitration. The Security Council discussed the
question twice. And the Security Council, figuratively speaking,
recognized as a virgin a woman who had two children. How can
we accept such a court?

The defense of the sovereignty of our country is entrusted
not to an international court but to our Armed Forces, to the
Minister of Defense of the USSR. If an enemy intrudes into our
territory, he must be smashed and thrown back. This is an in-
stance of a court, the court of the peoples of the Soviet Union.
There can be no other court for aggressors.

The representative of the United States said that Khrushchev
was wrong when he declared that the U-2 incident was the reason
for the collapse of the conference of the heads of the four powers.
He said that even prior to the conference the newspaprs Pravda
and Izvestia had come out sharply against the United States. He
added that these were newspapers which did not express public-
opinion. Well, I should like to tell you that you are throwing
stones even though you live in a glass house. In our country the
press represents the people, while your press represents a hand-
ful of capitalists. He who has money in the United States can own

230

newspapers. If the editor writes contrary to the wishes of tj,
monopolists, he is fired, sent to the devil. And the United State
representative is well aware of this. I should like now to reply Q
the substance of the statement by the United States represent^
tive. Yes, our newspapers came out sharply, but not against t^
United States, they came out against the statements made by ]yj r
Dillon, Mr. Herter, and the Vice-President of the United States*
I shall not name him in order not to intervene in the electio^
campaign for United States President.

These United States statesmen made cynical speeches at fcjj
time. We rebuffed them. This happened even before the U-2 flight*
into the Soviet Union.

To make it still clearer to the Assembly delegates wh ar
statements I am referring to, I shall cite an appraisal of tli es
statements by the United States President. When asked by a C o r
respondent at a press conference whether he knew of these state,
ments made by Dillon, Herter and the Vice-President, the Pre$^
dent of the United States said that he was aware of them ariei
fully subscribed to the content of those statements. Hence, t fn
was not just the viewpoint of Dillon, Herter or the Vice President
this was already the policy of the President, of the Government
of the United States.

Thus, the President of the United States, the Pentagon and
the State Department prepared the wrecking of the Summit COru
ference. Then they thought that this, perhaps, would not influence
Khrushchev. And they decided: let us resort to a stronger means
They sent a spy plane against the Soviet Union as early as Ap^ij
9. We tracked it, it flew over our territory but our anti-aircraf t
men did not shoot it down and those guilty were severely punishes
for it. Military men must always be on the alert, must always Br>
vigilant. We told them that they would be punished more severely
if they repeated this mistake. But the Americans understood thi*
otherwise if the plane was not shot down on April 9, they though
let us repeat this provocation.

They sent a second plane on May first. But this time ou>
anti-aircraft men tried to make amends and brought down jjj
plane. We thanked them for it and lifted the reprimand.

That is how things proceeded if one follows the chronology
and the facts.

231

I might be criticized at the Pentagon, but I think that the
President followed in the wake of the military men. He himself
did not want to aggravate relations with us. Though his term
of office was drawing to a close, I did not refuse to meet him.
But I know that this meeting would not have produced big re-
sults. Yet I wanted to pay him his due as a man. , . .

(At this moment, Mr. James Wadsworth, the United States
representative, interrupted to say that Khrzishchev was insulting
the President of the United States. The President of the Assem-
bly ruled that this was not the case and asked Premier Khrush-
chev to continue.)

I was thinking that if it was ruled that I insulted the Presi-
dent, maybe I should change to pantomime. Maybe I should make
a speech without words showing how the plane flies and then
imitate the sound made in bringing the plane down,

I should like to tell the United States representative a little
story. Two passengers were travelling in a train in Russia after
the 1905 revolution. The passengers were engaged in a conversa-
tion. It was a third-class carriage, and other people were sitting
opposite listening to the conversation between the two passengers.
One said to the other:

"The tsar is a fooll"

A gendarme, sitting on the other side of the carriage, heard
this, approached them and asked, "Who said that the tsar is a fool?"

The passenger replied, "I said it, Mr. Gendarme."

The gendarme showed his indignation. "How dare you say
that our tsar is a fool!"

"Excuse me/' replied the passenger, "I said that the German
tsar is a fool."

The gendarme shouted, "I know my tsar— if anyone is a fool,
it is our tsar!"

I do not want to add anything to this.

Esteemed delegates,

In my speech at the morning meeting I said that an end must
be put to this matter, a good end. It is true, it is difficult to find
a good end to a bad matter. But what is to be done? The virgin
girl gave birth and the birth of the child hase been registered.
Something must be done. The legitimate question arises— who is
the father of the child, will he help to bring it up or not?

232

We should like to have the Uni tfc j Cf f t A - A •*
«.i_. ■. . „, , . ^ u ^d States of America admit

that it committed aggressive acts. L<^ .*. a j i . j

in* admit th h them find a relevant word-

t^iL*-*-** - ■ ? S een ca mmitted which cannot be

tolerated m peace time given nort^i r *■ t ,

„j w fc , . ° U£ u relations between states,

and let them give an assurance that n, -n 1 ,-,-

ivr~ t <-u i , Uiere will be no repetition.

,, J! " to S P eecheS 7 ulc * be needed i£ the United States
epre enuttve got up and made s^ ^^ Wfi

accept this and the incident would b

we fi ™! " le U , nited State V nsists , on bright' to such flights. Then
we firmly mmt on our nght t0 dem ^ £ ^^J^ such

between states. A violation of intern af 5 ,,.,.. V
7f tt«j* i c, . % - ac ional law is the issue here.

It United States planes continue to> * „ , .

j ., , intrude into our air space

and we are impelled to shoot them dew ,, , .„ , ,

a „ aA ^ . . , MW n, the peoples will be awak-

ened at some tragic hour by a thev TT . n r r ~

„i r , "rionuclear war. Do you see

the consequences of such a policy? Ti^ ■ , ■

„„„, . . . . . \ J UE lt is why we so passionately

come out against this cynical aggressi^ H ^ 7

Fellow delegates, I do not insi st P \. , . , „

*«,* *u *u i i on satisfaction for myself

but for the peoples who resent such . cr .. / ,

m „„j „ i -,. ^ perfidious policy and de-

mand assurances that military provnrv • -it t ■

,-i^t , i , ..., J r "Qations will be terminated.

Only under such conditions can Oh P t , , .-
av ^u, Aa i t r , take further measures to

exclude war from the life of the peopi e

How can talks on disarmament k ** »j • u

n£ .1 u ^ held at a time when one

ol the great powers arranges provocate a - u . .1

„? „^ u ^ T r TT . ^ u Ve nights over the territory

of another great power? What fa the Va , ue S Qf such ^

1 do not want to boast of our lA , ,

k«i;*.^i^ *u T.r . . weapons, nor do I want to

belittle them. We are not m the s 3tN r ..
#.„*~« *u * t r , , AL xie. position as some other

states that have no means of defense: ^ ,

«*«***,* »*. • « - v„ , ^e can do more than merely

piotest against aggression. We have t ^ 3Q r£ul 7

to defend ourselves against affaressiovi T r, . " S

^f *i,o TT«,*f ^ c*. * 1 " y° u recognize the right

ot the United States to make provo r ^. a . , d , .

™t* v^h.. + ,1, i 1 . Ci ^tive flights, then recognize

our right to the resolute condemnation P +I & „ 5 ,

««♦ ^i« *k; in ■ , . . u of the aggressors. If you do

not do this we shall exercise this tight it. • ■ .

*.;«+** *t ^,^u * * , j r , • . c ourselves because it is the

light ot each state to defend its terrify

t? ^ j u „ ., ^ tc ^ry, its sovereignty.

Esteemed Mr. President, esteem^ a\ * .St

parting for home. I sincerely rejoice, 1 ^ ^ J?*? X "?! ^
t v^;^,v D . a ■ 1 1. , l Aough my skin is not black,

I rejoice together with those who w^ ^ R{ J d fa ^

colonial slavery that we unanimously , . , ' t ...
j; CM ,« e ,, Q i V* - r t ! ■ t 5* adopted the decision to
discuss the abolition of the colonial =^ ,

'■rstem at a plenary meeting

233

of the General Assembly. I rejoice together with you, and all

upright people on earth share our joy.

Today I should like to make a statement on the question. of
disarmament and to move relevant proposals. Here are our pro-
posals, our position:

On Disarmament and on ilie Situation Created in
Connection with the Fulfillment of the Resolution
Passed by the General Assembly o?i November 20 ',
1959 on this Question

The General Assembly,

Realizing that under conditions in which modern weapons
are unprecedented in destructive power and range of action, the
continuing arms race is fraught with tremendous danger for the
peoples of all countries;

Convinced that in the face of the danger of a nuclear-rocket
war the problem of general and complete disarmament is the
major problem of our times requiring an immediate solution;

Reaffirming the resolution of the Fourteenth Session of the
United Nations General Assembly #1378/14 of November 20,
1959, on general and complete disarmament;

Noting with regret that the aforesaid resolution has not yet
been implemented and that no proper measures have yet been
taken to implement it;

Once again urges the governments to exert all efforts towards
a constructive solution of the problem of general and complete
disarmament and recommends the early drafting and conclusion
of a treaty on such disarmament on the basis of the following
principles:

General and complete disarmament must include the dis-
bandment of all armed forces, the liquidation of all armaments,
the cessation of military production, the liquidation of all foreign
bases on alien soil, the prohibition of nuclear, chemical, bacte-
riological and rocket weapons, the discontinuation of the manu-
facture of such weapons and the destruction of stocks and all
means of delivery of such weapons, the liquidation of agencies
and institutions designed to organize military^ffairs in states, the
prohibition of military training, the discontinuation of military
expenditures;

234

General and complete disarmament shall be effected in an
agreed sequence, in stages and in a set period;

Disarmament measures, relating to nuclear weapons and con-
ventional armaments, must be balanced in such a way that no state
or group of states could obtain military superiority and that sec-
urity should be equally safeguarded for all;

The measures envisaged by the program for general and
complete disarmament shall be effected from beginning to end
under international control whose volume shall accord with the
volume and nature of the disarmament measures taken in each
stage. An international control organization with the participa-
tion of all states shall be set up within the United Nations frame-
work to effect control and inspection over disarmament;

In conditions of general and complete disarmament neces-
sary measures shall be taken in conformity with the United
Nations Charter for the maintenance of international peace and
security, including the obligation of states in case of need to
make available to the Security Council units from among the
police (militia) contingents preserved by the states for the main-
tenance of the internal order and the protection of the personal
security of citizens;

In order to create confidence in the proper use being made
of the international armed police (militia) forces and to preclude
the possibility of their being used in the interests of one or an-
other state or separate group of states,

Deems it necessary to change the structure of the United
Nations Secretariat and the Security Council in order to give
equal representation to all three groups of states in these agencies:
the socialist countries, the countries belonging to the Western
power blocs and the neutralist countries,

Forwards to the Disarmament Committee for consideration
the Soviet Government's proposal on "The Basic Provisions of a
Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament" and other pro-
posals on this question for drafting a treaty on general and
complete disarmament, including a system of international control
and inspection, ensuring strict compliance with the treaty.

We are ready to make no more speeches. Our proposals, our
position are clear, let us discuss them point by point. Let us work
out a decision which would satisfy all concerned on the question

235

of disarmament, but under one condition— let us disarm and not
agitate for control over armaments. We shall not take part in
working out a system of control over armaments without dis-
armament.

(Mr. Wadsworth of the United States interrupted to state that
the head of the Soviet delegation was not speaking on the sub-
stance of the question. The President of the Assembly overruled
him and asked Premier Khrushchev to proceed.)

Gentlemen,

Such are our specific proposals. But if the essence of the pro-
posals which we set forth, is not adopted in the First Committee or
if it becomes evident that the Western powers are resorting to
subterfuge, we shall not work in the First Committee when the
disarmament problem is discussed. Under such conditions we shall
work neither in a Committee of ten nor in a Committee of fifteen.

If the Western Powers display good will, we shall readily
study and make use of all submitted proposals in order to work
out a solution which would be directed towards safeguarding
general and complete disarmament under strictest international
control. (The representative of the United Kingdom interrupted
here to say that the head of the Soviet delegation was speaking
on a question which had nothing to do with the subject under
discussion. The President explained that he saw no reason to
interrupt Premier Khrushchev because the head of the Soviet dele-
gation had advised him that he ivould like to make a statement
on disarmament before his departure from New York. The Presi-
dent added that the speech by the Chairman of the Council of
Ministers of the USSR was apparently drawing to a close.)

You, Mr. President, were right in saying that if this gentle-
man had not interrupted me, I would already have ended my
speech.

I should like to draw your attention, gentlemen, to the way
these merchants trading in blood and human life raise the ques-
tion. They are mainly worried over the formal aspect of the
matter and it does not perturb them that the threat of a disastrous
thermonuclear war hangs over mankind. They are shameless, that
is what they are I #

Mankind will remember your names, Messrs. imperialists. By
the way, mankind cannot make them pay; for if a war breaks out,

236

they will undoubtedly cease to exist, because Britain, which is
often called in the West an unsinkable aircraft carrier will cease
to exist the first day of the war. One need only visualize the mean-
ing of nuclear war to know that it is imperative to do everything
possible to avert war.

But the gentleman who represents the United Kingdom here
evidently fails to understand this problem. Let us believe that
life will teach, if not you, then another representative. You will
be replaced and other men will come who will understand the
necessity of safeguarding an enduring peace and disarmament be-
cause peace can be safeguarded only when there is disarmament.
There can be no durable peace if armaments are preserved, if
there is only control over armaments, because in such conditions
each country can, if it wants to, make use of its armaments in spite
of any control. I think that this is clear to everyone.

I should like to hold your attention for a little while in order
to dwell once again on the question of the United Nations Secre-
tary-General. Gentlemen, speaking personally about Mr. Ham-
niarskjold, I am not fighting him. I have met him and we had a
very courteous conversation.

I think that Mr. Hammarskjold owes me a debt because he
exploited me when we entertained him on the Black Sea Coast.
I took him rowing and he did not work off the debt, did not
repay me in kind.

This is not a personal issue. The point is that I am a Com-
munist and he represents big capital. It is immaterial what capital
he actually has in his pocket because, as you know, it is often
easier to come to terms with a capitalist than with his lackey.
Mr. Hammarskjold represents the interests of a definite group
of states and does this successfully as shown by his actions in the
Congo. He operated there in the interests of those who set him
this task. They will thank him for this as they can thank those
who work for the colonialists.

But imagine that we reach agreement on disarmament and
set up international armed forces. How can we tolerate that these
armed forces should be under the control of one man represent-
ing the interests of a group of imperialist states? No, this is imper-
missible. Understand me rightly, I do not ask for privileges for
our socialist countries. But I do not want to see privileges for a

237

group of states of the imperialist camp, the camp of big monopoly
capital because they use the United Nations Secretariat in their
own interests. They used, it againt the Congo. They might seek
to use it against us. It can be used against the Congo because this
young state has no strength. It cannot be used against us because
we have strength.

The neutralist countries are a very considerable group of
states as regards the size of their population. They are now eco-
nomically weak, but human beings are human beings and their
value is not determined by how many millions of dollars they
own, but by the fact that they are human beings. Above all, one
must respect their human dignity.

That is why all three groups of states must be represented in
the United Nations agencies on an equal footing and with equal
standing. Only then will there be any certainty that disarmament
and the forming of international armed forces will be possible,
with the certainty that these international forces will not be used
against any single state or group of states.

Gentlemen, you can qualify my statement as you please, but
I honestly tried to set forth our position. We are willing to sit
down at a table for specific talks but only on condition that a
proposal in the direction I mentioned be adopted.

I beg you not to be offended if I said anything in not
quite the way I should have. I hurt the Philippine representative
a little; he hurt me. He is a militant man. I am a young parlia-
mentarian; he is an old hand. Let us learn from each other.

The Nepalese representative also taught us a good lesson
in parliamentary conduct. True, I do not know whether Nepal
has a Parliament or not. Upon my return home I shall look up
a reference book to see how matters are there with Parliament.

I wish you, gentlemen, big success— and we can achieve suc-
cesses. This is borne out by the unanimously adopted decision on
the colonial question. We Soviet people would sincerely rejoice
if successes were achieved on such vital questions confronting the
United Nations as the strengthening of peace and the creation
of an atmosphere of friendship among the peoples.

Thank you for your attention. Good-by, gentlemen.

October 13, I960

Departure from New York

Today I, Comrade Gromyko, Foreign Minister of the Soviet
Union, and other comrades are returning home. The Soviet Union
will be represented at the General Assembly by Comrade Zorin.

We are leaving in a good mood because we consider that some
glimmer of hope appeared that it would be possible to solve major
international problems through the United Nations, through the
meetings of the General Assembly. We are most satisfied with the
decision taken on the problem of abolition of colonialism.

We are happy on two scores: first, because such a decision has
been adopted. It can be said, of cource, that only a procedural
decision has been taken concerning the place where this question
will be discussed. But this decision has been taken by all delega-
tions unanimously and this should be taken to mean that the
General Assembly as a whole considers that colonial rule must
be abolished.

Secondly, we are happy because it is the Soviet Union with
the support of all socialist countries that sponsored this resolution.
And we have been supported by all peace-loving countries. Under
public pressure the colonialists had to retreat and to join all the
other delegations when the General Assembly was adopting this
decision.

I should like to stress that this is not only a great victory for
the peoples which are fighting for their independence. It is a great
victory for all the peoples of the world. Had all delegates displayed
an equal will and determination during the discussion of disarma-
ment, had they realized the full danger of the present situation,
the danger of an outbreak of a nuclear-missile war, the General
Assembly could have taken an important step toward universal
and complete disarmament.

It is the Asian and African countries that I have mainly in
mind, because the position of the countries which belong to the

233

239

military, aggressive NATO, SEATO and CENTO blocs is perfect-
ly clear. They are against disarmament and want only control over
armaments, and this of course is not disarmament under strict in-
ternational control, for which we are persistently working.

We trust that the time will come when the peoples of all
countries will thoroughly realize and understand the need to fight
vigorously for disarmament, will demonstrate their will, and then
disarmament will become a fact. As far as the Soviet Union is
concerned, it is ready to do everything in its power to achieve
universal and complete disarmament and we shall greet such a
decision wholeheartedly.

Thev accuse us of propaganda. But is the fact that we have
submitted concrete practical disarmament proposals and are pre-
pared to destroy armaments on the condition that the other side
does likewise— is that fact propaganda?.

We are ready to discuss this question in a businesslike manner
so as to ensure concrete decisions which would put an end to the
arms race and create all the necessary conditions for a tranquil life
for all people now and in the future.

We are sincerely striving to eliminate wars among states com-
pletely.

On leaving New York I should like to touch once more on a
question of great importance which was raised by the Soviet Dele-
gation at the General Assembly, the question concerning the im-
perative need for changing the structure of the executive bodies
of the United Nations.

The events in the Congo demonstrated the complete bank-
ruptcy of the present structure of the United Nations. And not
only bankruptcy, I should say, but literally the threatening situa-
tion which has arisen as a result of the fact that at the present
time the executive bodies of the United Nations, primarily the first
place the Secretariat, are dominated by representatives of imperial-
ist states.

The United Nations must really be an international instru-
ment in which each state and each group of states have equal sta-
tus, because at the present time three groups of states have distinct-
ly emerged in the world— the socialist, the imperialist, and the neu-
tralist groups. No one of these should have any advantages in the
United Nations to the detriment of the other two.

The Soviet Union will not accept disarmament so long as
there is no confidence that the international armed forces, the
formation of which is envisaged in the solution of the question of
disarmament, are in reliable hands and will not be used to the
detriment of any state or group of states.

We demand no advantages for ourselves but we shall never
resign ourselves to advantages for other groups of states.

In conclusion I should like to thank sincerely the residents
of New York for their understanding and for their friendly attitude
toward members of our delegation and myself. During this time I
received many letters and telegrams from Americans. In these
letters and telegrams, as well as during personal meetings, Amer-
icans assured me of their friendly attitude toward our people and
toward our country, and I sincerely reciprocate their feelings.

Of course there were some ill-wishers, the so-called picketers,
who are mercenaries. But I realize perfectly well that this riff-raff
does not represent the American people.

I trust that the cold relations between our countries, engen-
dered by the reckless actions of the authorities of the United States
of America who have sent two planes over the Soviet Union, will
be outlived. The time will come when the peoples and the govern-
ments of our countries will live not only at peace but also in
friendship.

We have worked and will continue working toward this end
and we expect corresponding reciprocal steps on the part of the
Government of the United States of America.

As to the friendly feelings of American people, their concern
for peace, we have never doubted this and do not doubt this now.

We wholeheartedly believe in peace on earth, in the friendship
of all peoples of the world, and we constantly fight for it.

240

241

October 20, I960

Speech on Return to Moscow

DEAR COMRADE MUSCOVITES!

Dear Comrades and Friends, listening to the radio in other
towns and villages of our great homeland!

I should like to share with you the impressions of our parti-
cipation in the work of the Fifteenth Session of the United Nations
General Assembly and, in conformity with established tradition,
give an account of the work done there.

ff the question is asked whether it was worthwhile to travel
to New York to this session, it can be said without any reserva-
tions—it was not only worthwhile but necessary to go there. It is
now acknowledged throughout the world that the current session
of the General Assembly is of exceptional importance.

The Soviet Government deemed it necessary that the most
pressing, vitally important problems of our time should be discussed
at the session. We considered that the most responsible statesmen
should attend the United Nations General Assembly. The Govern-
ment of the United States and its allies sought to discredit this
idea, but as you know nothing came of it.

Our position has received the warmest support in all the
socialist countries, met with broad response and understanding on
the part of the governments of many countries of the world. In
order not to become isolated, the President of the United States,
the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, Canada and some
others of their allies were impelled, as the saying goes, to change
horses in midstream and to rush to the session.

As world public opinion rightly points out, the Fifteenth Ses-
sion of the General Assembly has been the most representative*
international meeting ever held in modern history. The heads of
state, the heads of government and leading statesmen from more
than thirty countries of the world met there.

242

Many highly important international problems have been sub-
mitted for consideration at this session. The delegation of the
Soviet Union proposed that such urgent matters should be dis-
cussed as the question of general and complete disarmament, the
abolition of colonialism and the granting of independence to all
peoples and countries, the aggressive actions by the United States
of America against other states, and the necessity of changing the
structure of the executive bodies of the United Nations. The agenda
also includes such questions as the restoration of the lawful rights
of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations, the
Algerian issue, and many others.

The attendance at the session of delegations of the socialist
countries headed by the leaders of those countries and also the
attendance of the heads of state and heads of government of many
other member states of the United Nations produced considerable
results.

Delegates seated in the spacious hall of the General Assembly
listened with great attention and interest to the speeches made by
many outstanding statesmen of our time. A strong impression was
made by the speeches delivered by the heads of the delegations
of the countries of the socialist camp: the President of the Czecho-
slovak Socialist Republic, Comrade Antonin Novotny; the head
of the Polish delegation, Comrade Wladyslaw Gomulka; the head
of the Roumanian delegation, Comrade Gheorghe Ghcorghiu-Dej;
the head of the Hungarian delegation, Comrade Janos Kadar;
the head of the Bulgarian delegation, Comrade Zhivkov; the
Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Albania, Comrade Meh-
met Shehu.

The session was also addressed by the leaders of the delegation
of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Comrade Podgorny,
and of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Comrade
Mazurov.

The speeches made by the leaders of the delegations of the
socialist countries resounded like the voice of a new, just world
bringing to the peoples happiness and prosperity on earth. At the
same time their speeches were a severe condemnation of imperi-
alism and colonialism which cling to everything outlived and
doomed by history, and create a threat to the peace and the secur-
ity of the peoples.

243

A big contribution to the struggle for peace and for the
abolition of the colonial system detested by the peoples was made
in the speeches o£ the President of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah; the
President of Guinea, Sekou Toure; the President of Indonesia,
Sukarno; the Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru; the
President of the United Arab Republic, Gamal Abdel Nasser; the
head of the state of Cambodia, Norodom Sihanouk; and other
representatives of independent states. A strong impression was
made by the vivid speech delivered by Fidel Castro, the heroic son
of the Cuban people and Prime Minister of Cuba, Many construc-
tive proposals were also made in the speeches of other statesmen.
The representatives of the imperialist countries, the defenders
of colonialism, sought in every way to uphold and defend their
position, often overtly, but even more often covertly. And, as you
already know, battles flared up quite frequently at the session
which this international organization has not known since its
inception.

Our journey was also useful because we had many meetings
in which we exchanged opinions with statesmen from various coun-
tries on a whole series of vitally important international problems.
All this promotes better mutual understanding and the establish-
ment of closer relations among states.

During the long years of existence of the United Nations
much has been accumulated in it which needs resolute revision
and adjustment in conformance with the present deployment of
forces in the world. It can be said that the principal line in the
proceedings of the first stage of the Fifteenth Session of the United
Nations General Assembly was the struggle between the new, the
progressive, and the old, the obsolete, which is retarding the
development and growth of the new.

Permit me, dear comrades, now to dwell in some greater-
detail on the principal factors of the present international situa-
tion and the activity of our delegation to the Fifteenth Session ol"
the United Nations General Assembly.

I. Changes in the World Since the Inception of the United Nationi

Comrades, #

The Fifteenth Session of the General Assembly is regarded
by many people as a special session. This is quite justified. Tin*

244

session summed up some k -. r , , , , , . ...

TT . , ^ T . . . Results ot what had been done in the

United Nations since its fa -, .

^undation.

It was rightly pointed , , . % . , «.■■.,

, . , . ° ' , . out at the session that great political

and social changes have tak v i ■ tU ,•, '. ? r -,

„, . b . ^n place m the world m the past fifteen

years. These changes, abom, ni v ■ „, * - , r

' £ , . °. ^ all, he in the growth of the powerful

camp ot the socialist counk , T , ,■-,,■

,. L , , , . . ~nes. Now more than a billion people
live and work under the bav, * • ,. ™, , ,

. , . , . . viner ol socialism. The emergence of the

world socialist system is of a . . , , ? '

c -n , - , , - , decisive importance for the development

of all mankind, for its desu- r

tiny.
After World War II ^ „, ,. . , _._ , „ ^ T .

, . .^t the time when the United Nations

was being set up, the capiv ,. . ..... ,

,, -° , . , l ^ahst system was still dominant in the

world, the colonial system ,.;,., c , , , _,

. . , \ was still firmly entrenched. Bier social

changes have taken place l t , rft J * ,

r . ,. . L *i the fifteen postwar years. A number

of socialist states have emer , . _ r ,».',., , ,

., , , ^ed m Europe and Asia. Not only have

they emerged, but they hav -j, , . ■, ■,

, ,C , .° . . ; e rapidly gained in strength, have up-

held their revolutionary «\ i ■ -, T , ,

j. , . . / achievements, and have demonstrated

their superiority over the k . ,. . , ,

r , J .... Capitalist system m the advance of the

economy and the well-benm c ^ , , t , ,

„ ' . ^ oi the mass of the people, in the prog-

ress ot science and culture l k r °

It is precisely the soci^ v , _. ,. . . . . .

, r . ybat countries that are taking the lead

in the pace of expansion of , . . . . „

. , r , production, in the exploration of outer

space, in the peaceful uses » ^ r

1 r ot atomic energy.

We Communists were T , . , , . . , . , ,

, , . charged with being ravishers; with be-

ing able to organize peop^ °, . * .

° ,. ,° r r r ^e only m order to seize power; with

trampling underfoot person , £ .. « . , - . r , ,

, . , *■■ , *al freedom; with being unable to cre-

ate and organize the work cu - ■, - . Ti _ • ~

. , . & , f industry and agriculture. Our enemies

tried to prove that we w<\ ,-, J , ° . % ,

r^, .j T , _ . ^uld not advance science and culture.

They said that the Revoluv- , , . , .

TATI J . , tion only destroys but does not create.

Where are these gentlemen t , T .

„ ^ r~. , , . ., , now * where are these armchair proph-

ets? They have their tails b^ ^ ■ ^ , ., . T1 „

, ' ', , ^tween their legs; they are silent! What

else can they do but keep sU . ■

Now it is clear to the » n , , . .

£ . . whole world that genuine freedom, a

fast pace of development K: t , - , '

c l \ ^ ut the national economy, the advance

ol culture are there wher^ .u i • t. % t

. . . v the people triumph, where the new

m the organization of socie. ., , , . ..

. & TT . ,. . ty prevails— that means where socialism

triumphs. Under condition^ c • i* r , » ., ,

1 ... . * ol socialism a free people are build-

ing a new hie on the loun^t ,_• r % , . it,

° . . T r , . . uation of the teachings created by the

great thinkers of mankind^x^ ^ . , _ . . _. . '.

s Marx, Engels, and Lenm. The fruits of

245

these teachings can now be seen by everyone, except, perhaps, the
politically blind.

The colonial world also sustained tremendous changes during
this period. Colonial empires are tumbling down. It can even be
said that the colonial empires tumbled down and their fragments
are now cracking. India, Indonesia, Burma, Ceylon and other coun-
tries in Asia cast off the colonial yoke. The exceptionally tem-
pestuous process of the liberation of the peoples of Africa is now
taking place. The long-suffering peoples of Africa are at last
acquiring human rights.

All these great changes taking place in the world cannot be
ignored. When the United Nations was founded after World War
II, the political map of the world was different, and this map
determined the structure of this international organization.

During those years the United States of America dominated
the entire world. That country was the richest and economically
the strongest. Evidently this also predetermined the fact that the
headquarters of the United Nations were set up in the United
States of America. Geographically, this creates very great incon-
venience, all aside from the fact that the order existing in the
United States does not facilitate the location there of such an
international organization. If a headquarters for the United Na-
tions were to be selected now, the peoples of Africa, the Africans,
would hardly agree to its location in a country where Negroes
are not regarded as human beings, where savage discrimination,
even lynching, is visited upon them.

All these and many other factors of international affairs bear
out the fact that a reappraisal of values, a new approach to the
solution of highly important world problems is now required.

When the United Nations was founded, it was rightly en-
visaged that its main purpose was to safeguard peace, to settle those
issues which create tension and can lead to the outbreak of a third
world war. The emphasis was laid on creating a body which could
cope with difficulties and conflicts arising among states. With this
object in view the Security Council was set up.

The Security Council, very rightly at that time, was made
up of eleven members, five of them being permanent members, ll
was laid down that the United States of America, the Soviet Union,

246

China, the United Kingdom and France would be the permanent
members of the Security Council.

I should like to emphasize that it was precisely these five
states, each of which was regarded as a Great Power at the time,
that entered the Security Council in the capacity of permanent
members. The wisdom of the political leaders of that time who
were the sponsors of the United Nations was that they recognized
equal rights for each Great Power belonging to the Security Coun-
cil though the socialist countries were in an absolute minority
in the world at that time.

The Soviet Union and the Mongolian People's Republic were
the only socialist countries at that time. But the same rights were
recognized for the Soviet Union, the socialist state, as for the other
permanent members of the Security Council. A recognition of this
equality found expression in the fact that the United Nations
Charter laid down the principle of unanimity of the Great Powers,
the right to the veto. No one, even if it were a question of four
states against one, could take any cardinal decisions prejudicing
the world, prejudicing any of the five Great Powers.

In short, it was the capitalist countries that were predominant
in the world in those days. But the founders of the United Nations
were right in believing that the United Nations would be able to
cope with the tasks it was charged with only if the majority— and
it was the capitalist countries and colonialist powers that were
then in the majority— did not use their position against the
minority. Only under that condition could the United Nations
exist, progress and fulfill the role for which it was established.

What, then, was the political map of the world at the time
the Fifteenth Session of the General Assembly openeclP This pic-
ture, I repeat, is widely different from what it was when the United
Nations came into being.

To begin with, as I said before, there arose a world socialist
system embracing the countries with more than one-third of the
world's population. The socialist nations have enormous economic
potential. They are producing even today more than one-third of
the world's total output and nearly half of the world output of
some key items of industrial and agricultural production.

To continue. Upon the ruins of the colonial system there
emerged many independent nations which are pursuing a policy

247

of keeping out of the war blocs and alignments. These are India,
Indonesia, Burma, the United Arab Republic, the republics of
Ghana, Guinea, Nigeria and others.

The position of the former great colony-owning imperialist
powers has also changed essentially. By what right can Britain
be considered a great nation today, while India cannot be con-
sidered a great nation? Why? In the old days, the one who had
a big stick was considered great. It is Britain that used to be the
major colonialist power at one time. She brought other nations
into submission by force of arms and ruled them by brandishing
her stick. She seized all but half of the world, and that was the
measure of her power. Today the situation is different. Since the
end of World War II Britain has had to rest content with less
than she had before. And that she still retains and oppresses some
colonial countries through force and violence means a decline,
and not an upsurge, in her power.

Her soldiers still march the way they did in the Victorian era,
and some in Britain do not want to realize that times are different
from what they were then. Britain has long since ceased to be the
workshop of the world and the mistress of the seas.

France, another imperialist and colonialist power, has built
up her might in the same way, that is, by conquering and ruth-
lessly enslaving the Africans and the peoples of Asia. This great
power has been at war with Algeria for more than six years and
has so far failed to show her greatness by stopping her piratic
policy. Times have changed. Today the peoples are fighting a life
and death struggle for freedom against their oppressors, the colo-
nialists, and are waging a successful struggle to defend their hu-
man rights.

Why, then, is France regarded as a great nation, but Indo-
nesia is not? Why have India and Indonesia been put in a position
different from that of Britain and France at the United Nations,
and why, for instance, are they not permanent members of the
Security Council?

Or take the United States of America. She is still the mightiest
capitalist power. But whereas in the old days the United States had
a force of attraction, as the land of ascendant .monopoly capital
and as one which has a democratic, bourgeois constitution, she has
since forfeited this position. Today the United States is a rear-

248

tionary state dominated by monopoly capital, a state which is
pursuing an imperialistic policy, which is bound up with, and
is the leader of, the colonialists.

Everything in the United States is reduced to a state of sub-
mission to capital and militarism, although a semblance of democ-
racy is still kept up. Monopoly capital is in possession of everything:
the means and implements of production, such powerful ideologi-
cal vehicles as the press, publishing houses, television radio and
the movies, all of which are being used to break the will of the
people and to fool the mass of the people.

In the past the United States had an economy and power that
were in sharp contrast to those of the rest of the world. It is sep-
arated from Europe and Asia by the oceans, and those were its
insurmountable barriers during the wars that raged in Europe and
Asia. The United States experienced no horrors of war, no famine,
no ruin. Today the oceans are no longer an unassailable natural
fortress of the United States. The United States is forfeiting its
exceptional economic position, too.

The Soviet Union and all the socialist countries have scored
sweeping achievements in their economic development. We have
surpassed the United States in a number of sciences, in the field
of education, culture and art, let alone the superiority of the
political and social system which have been won by the peoples
of the socialist nations.

The United States has long since lost the power of attraction
she had before. On the contrary, there are some factors in opera-
tion today which make the United States repugnant to other peo-
ples and states. This is an essential change. This has not yet been
grasped in full by the Americans themselves. One may say that it
has not as yet been grasped by many people in the world, but
they feel it, although they have not drawn conclusions from the
changed situation. This is why the United States of America is no
longer as great a nation in the world arena as it used to be, al-
though it is still economically and militarily the strongest capitalist
country in the world,

China, at the time the United Nations was created, was bro-
ken up and was little thought of. The reason why the countries of
monopoly capital seated it on the Security Council must have
been to tie China to the capitalist world so as to prevent her from

249

being infected with socialist, Marxist-Leninist ideas. The imperi-
alist powers wanted to keep the Great Chinese Wall intact for
monopoly capital to use as a bastion, separating the world of
socialism from the world of capitalism.

But the Chinese people decided to live as they saw fit. The
Chinese people, under the leadership of the Communist Party
of China, won a great victory in their heroic struggle for libera-
tion. The Chinese people effectively used the favorable situation
which arose from World War II when the fascist forces had been
routed in Europe and militarist Japan was defeated. The Chinese
National Liberation Army had a rear on which it could rely. It
smashed the army of Chiang Kai-shek who had by then gone over
altogether to the side of the United States of America, the side
of imperialism.

Since China has become a People's China, Chinese in the true
sense of the word, and since her government genuinely reflects the
will and aspirations of the people, the monopolists and imperialist
powers do not recognize her. The imperialists do not recognize a
Chinese China, but do recognize as China the island of Taiwan
occupied by the United States. People's China has not even been
admitted to the United Nations, and she is not occupying her
rightful seat there.

Why does this happen? Has China disappeared? No, she has
not! China does exist! Is she not as great as she was? Yes, China
has become great indeed today, economically and politically a
more powerful nation. China is not recognized because she has
become a socialist nation. The fear caused by the emergence of a
socialist China knocked all common sense out of the imperialists,
and they began to deny the existence of the Chinese China.

Well, we know what this means from our own history. Indeed,
for a long time the most hard-shelled imperialists treated the Soviet
Union as no more than a geographic entity instead of as a great
nation. The United States of America did not recognize the Soviet
Union for sixteen years. So, I repeat, we know what this means.

True, even some bourgeois statesmen have lately realized the
senselessness of the United States policy with respect to China and
deplored it. From year to year it becomes more arid more difficult
for the United States to uphold its policy of nonrecognition of
People's China. At every session of the General Assembly the

250

mechanical majority is whittled down and the policy of this
mechanical majority in relation to China is laid bare.

This policy will evidently fall through altogether before long.
If God does not punish the government leaders of the United
States and deprive them of their reason, the best thing for them
would be to come out for the restoration of China's rights in the
United Nations and for the expulsion of Chiang Kai-shek's puppet
government. Will the United States statesmen be able to use the
gift of God or not? Let us not try to guess. It remains to be seen!
But if they should fail to act sensibly, they will have to swallow,
in the near future, the most bitter pill for their policy with re-
spect to People's China.

People's China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Burma and other
Asian states are playing an increasing role in world affairs and
world politics.

Vast changes have taken place in Africa, too, over the past
few years. There were as few as three independent states in Africa
when the United Nations was established. The entire territory
of that continent was divided among the colonialists who had
oppressed the African peoples for decades. The Africa of today
is an entirely different place. There are twenty-six independent
nations on that continent today which have a population of more
than 180 million. A very significant point is that the independence
of the overwhelming majority of these countries— sixteen out of
the twenty -six— was proclaimed in this year of 1960.

The delegates of the young African states said at the United
Nations General Assembly that 1960 is the year of Africa. The
whole of Africa is in the flames of a national liberation movement.
Yet more than twenty countries and trust territories on the African
continent are still under colonial rule. These countries have a
population of more than 50 million. The peoples of the colonial
and dependent countries are fighting against foreign oppression and
they will win their independence, beyond all doubt.

These are some aspects of the social and political map of the
world fifteen years after the establishment of the United Nations.

The imperialist powers— the states of monopoly capital— which
form part of the war blocs of the Western Powers want to rely
on their armed strength in order to perpetuate the predominant
position in the United Nations which they had at the moment the

251

United Nations was founded. They want to retain this predomin-
ance at any cost, although history has, in fact, deprived them of
these rights and, I would say— and this is the main thing-deprived

them of such opportunities. The erstwhile economic superiority
which once enabled the imperialist powers to bring pressure to
bear on many nations of the world is being lost. The imperialist
powers have likewise lost the former military superiority on which
they relied in carrying through their "policy of strength."

Yet the ruling circles o£ the imperialist powers are still nursing
the illusion of retaining their erstwhile supremacy.

It is quite natural and logical, therefore, that the delegation
of the Soviet Union should have told the Fifteenth Session of the
General Assembly that the structure of the United Nations is
outdated. This structure corresponded to the relationship of forces
and to the role and importance of the states as they were at the
time the United Nations was established, that is, in 1945. But it
is entirely out of keeping with the present situation. It has become
necessary to modify the United Nations structure in keeping with
the new relationship of forces of the three major groups of nations
in the world— socialist, imperialist and neutralist. This point has
been supported and appreciated by many delegates at the current
session.

We have not made any specific proposals as yet, but we have
put forward some points of principle with regard to this question.

The reason we have raised the question of changing the struc-
ture of the United Nations executive authority is not because we
want to have some privileges in the United Nations. Our position
—the position of the socialist countries— is generally known today,
and no sensible person can deny the importance of the lands of
socialism in the United Nations.

The United Nations itself cannot exist without the socialist
countries. Why? Some may say that the socialist nations are in the
minority today. But it is silly to judge the importance of this or
that group of states in the United Nations by the number of
countries these groups include. Unless one- third of the world's
population, which is in possession of half the world's entire power,
is represented in the United Nations, the United Nations will
indeed become meaningless as a world organization.

252

The triumphs of socialism have the power of attraction even
for those who do not recognize our system but who can no longer
shrug it off and ignore its sweeping progress. To ignore this is
to be like a blind man, who says there is no light and no sun and
that what the others say about light and the sun are no more than
fairy tales.

We consider that the United Nations should be improved
as an international instrument created in order to prevent a new
world war. The first thing to do toward this is to revert to the
ideas and principles which were laid down at the time the United
Nations and its Security Council were established, that is, to recog-
nize the principle of equal terms for all nations and, above all,
for those on which depends the decision whether there will be a
new world war or not.

While only five countries— the United States of America, the
Soviet Union, China, Britain and France— were listed as Great
Powers at the time the United Nations emerged, today the list of
these great nations is quite naturally much bigger. One cannot,
of course, fail to include India and Indonesia in this list while
including Britain and France, not to speak of the restoration of
the rights of People's China.

The imperialist colonial powers, which are pursuing their
own self-seeking group interests, have managed to spoil something
of what was done when the United Nations was established. They
have started acting in contravention of the United Nations Charter.

The charter provided that the Security Council was to solve
the most important problems by applying the rule of unanimity
of the five Great Powers, the permanent members of the Security
Council. Whenever the representatives of the Western Powers
failed to steam-roller any resolution of theirs, they bypassed the
Council by bringing those issues directly before the General
Assembly session.

Thus, the Security Council's supreme principle o£ unanimity,
laid down in order to ensure peace, is being violated by them.
They have bypassed this principle and want to get such issues
settled by a mechanical majority or a two-thirds majority at the
General Assembly in the hope that the voting machine will do this
job for them. But this is no way out of the situation. All they are

253

doing is opening a valve through which there can break out a
conflict that could bring mankind to the disaster of global war.

This situation increases the danger that the United Nations
itself might push the world to the brink of war or indeed into the
very cauldron of war. It is necessary strictly to observe the United
Nations Charter with regard to the principle of Great Power un-
animity in settling the most complicated international problems
in the Security Council.

But this is only one side of the matter. Account should also
be taken of the altered conditions in the world, the new balance
of forces in the world arena. The representation of five Great
Powers as permanent members of the Security Council is already
clearly insufficient.

Consequently, the organizational structure of the United Na-
tions must now be so arranged that the three groups of states-
socialist, imperialist and neutralist— are on an equal footing in
solving international problems on which the issue of peace or
war largely depends.

Those who insist on the old, who wish to preserve the old and
do not recognize the new, do not understand that the old does
not lead to the strengthening of peace. This old way is fraught
with a great danger of war. Those who do not take account of the
interests of all three groups of states and wish to exploit the
international organization in the interests of one group— namely,
the group of states of monopoly, imperialist capital— are not guid-
ed by the interests of strengthening peace.

That is why the structure of the United Nations should be
altered and its executive organs made to fit the requirements of
life, the principle of equal representation of all three groups of
states. Otherwise it will not be a United, but rather a disunited,
Nations.

I have spoken of altering the structure of the Security Coun-
cil. This, of course, fully applies to the executive organs of the
United Nations, to its Secretary-General. No one man, however
brilliant, can objectively express the interests of three groups of
states simultaneously.

It is quite natural that since the United Nations is now domi-
nated by the United States of America and its allies— Britain,
France and other countries of monopoly capital— which pursue

an imperialist, colonialist policy, they nominate their candidates
to the principal United Nations posts. Whose candidate is the
present United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Hammarskjold? It
is clear to all that he is the candidate of the United States of
America. The Swedes say that he is a representative of Sweden.
True, he is a Swede by birth, but he is representative of the monop-
oly capital of the United States of America in his political views,
and he serves the United States.

Let the Swedes not be offended by this. We too have our
own Hammarskjold in the United States— Kerensky. He is Russian
by birth, but whom does he serve? He serves American imperialist
capital, and the Russian people have been getting along rather
well without him for many years now.

Of course each group of states would like to have its own
candidate hold the post of Secretary-General. That is natural but
unrealistic. Each group of states wishing to introduce its represen-
tative into the United Nations executive wants to dominate, but
our stand is that there should be no domination by any one group
of states in the United Nations executive, the Secretariat.

Consequently, the most radical and just solution of the ques-
tion of both the United Nations Secretariat and the Security
Council would be to apply the principle of equal rights, equal
opportunities, equal representation. The United Nations Secre-
tariat must consist of three secretaries.

Objections may be raised that it will then be extremely dim-
cult to settle various questions. But it is difficult to settle questions
in the parliament of a single country too, especially in the parlia-
ments of bourgeois countries, inasmuch as antagonistic classes exist
there and each class has its own party and its own representatives.
The ruling classes pursue their own policy, that of suppressing the
other classes. In so doing they rely on capital, and capital is a
great force. It seemingly does not vote, but it bribes; and its voice
is therefore reflected by representatives of other classes it has
bought over. But this happens within a state.

To apply such a parliamentary system to an international
organization is altogether untenable. The United Nations em-
braces about one hundred states, and three systems of states stand
out sharply in the world today. To start suppressing this or that
group would be to take to the road of employing force, the road

254

255

of preparing for war. And it is not to wage wars that the United
Nations organization has been set up. It was established as an
instrument for ensuring peace.

To ensure enduring peace it is necessary that the interests of
no group of states are violated, that international problems are
settled with due respect for the interests of all three groups of
states. Only then can peace be ensured.

If a one-sided policy is followed in the United Nations, in the
Security Council, the Assembly and the executive, if the interests
of all three groups of states are not observed, the United Nations
will be committing suicide. Its decisions in such cases will not be
respected by all states. In such a case no group of states can oblige
other states to carry out the adopted decisions. Such a situation
can carry international tension to an extreme, and the conflagra-
tion of a world war might flare up from even an accidental spark.

The Second World War left the German question still un-
settled. Large and small countries take part in the United Nations,
but the German people do not. Italy has been admitted to the
United Nations, as has Japan, formerly a militaristic state. Even
Spain and Portugal, which are fascist states, have been admitted.
Why, then, are not the German people represented in the United
Nations? Because there is no peace treaty with Germany. The im-
perialist states are artificially putting off the conclusion of a peace
treaty. Thereby they try not to recognize the German Democratic
Republic (GDR). But this is a foolish policy, because the German
Democratic Republic has existed and developed for eleven years
now. It is necessary to put an end to this state of affairs and con-
clude a peace treaty with Germany. It is necessary to solve this
question, to put on record the conditions and changes that have
been brought about by the war, so that the German people may
be represented on an equal footing in the United Nations.

I repeat, the conclusion of a peace treaty with Germany is of
great importance for the relaxation of international tension. Pre-
serving the state of war with Germany does nothing but poison
the atmosphere, because all questions to be settled in signing a
peace treaty have already won de facto recognition.

It is now apparently necessary to put on record the existing
state of affairs— the existence of two German states and the invi-
olability of the frontiers established after World War II.

256

No sober-minded politician expects anyone to give way or give
up the gains of socialism in the GDR. Nor does anyone think that
West Germany will give up its political and social system either.
Therefore it is necessary to give de facto recognition to what has
already taken shape and to record this in an appropriate treaty.

With regard to West Berlin, too, we have time and again
submitted a reasonable solution.

The German question is now being used for political aims;
it is being exploited in some states in the course of election cam-
paigns.

A presidential election is now approaching in the United
States of America. The German question is an abiding feature of
the election campaign; will the situation in Germany change or
not, that is, will a peace treaty be signed with the two German
states or will the present state of affairs continue? This subject
crops up continuously in election debates. The aggressive circles
insisting on the preservation of this hotbed of war are trying to
exploit the German question in their policy "from positions of
strength." But it is dangerous to try force in a situation like this.

West Germany, too, is making use of the question of a peace
treaty with Germany. And here is what happens. For example, it
is said that in 1960 it is impossible to raise the question and reach
agreement on the German problem because the presidential elec-
tion in the United States is an obstacle to this. It is hinted to us:
pay no attention to the talk about the German question during
the election campaign. After the elections, on the other hand, it
will be possible to reach agreement.

But there will be an election in West Germany in 1961. There
too the aggressive circles, the representatives of monopoly capital,
exploit the German question, and there too some leaders hint that
Chancellor Adenauer cannot be expected to abandon his point of
view, because if he does, Brandt will win the elections. Have pa-
tience, therefore, till the elections are over, and conditions may
then arise for a more realistic approach to the solution of the
German question.

So the extremely important question of a peace treaty with
Germany which requires solution and which is fraught with grave
military dangers if abandoned, is continuously being put off.

257

This question must be settled. And apparently it must be set-
tled in 1961.

Common sense must prevail. It i s necessary to sign a peace
treaty, and the climate in Europe win then be entirely different.

The steps undertaken by West Germany against the GDR-its
violation of trade agreements, etc.— tetid to aggravate the situation,
because the German Democratic Republic, too, can take corre-
sponding steps; and all this, taken together, does not promise to
improve the relations between state s . j t i s necessary, therefore,
as we agreed with the Western Powers after the United States
wrecked the Paris meeting, that no s t e ps should be taken that
would lead to an aggravation of relations. We proposed a summit
meeting after the presidential electi on i n tne United States in
order to undertake fresh efforts to settle the issues in dispute, to
reach agreement on the conclusion of a peace treaty with the two
German states, and the solution on this basis of the question of
West Berlin as a free city.

We abide by these positions. And if another policy is forced
on us, the responsibility for this win rest with the imperialist
powers of the West.

II. General end Complete Disa? mament_the Way to Enduring Peace

Comrades, the Soviet Union has declared repeatedly that the
question of disarmament is the hub $£ all the vital international
issues of our time.

Mankind has endeavored for m^my generations to solve the
problem of ridding the world of destructive wars, the arms race,
and the competition in perfecting the weapons of annihilation.

In the past such hopes were foredoomed to failure. In condi-
tions of undivided sway by the exploiting classes, with the society
rent apart by irreconcilable class contradictions which imperialism
had carried to the extreme, with more than half of mankind under
the colonial yoke, continuous wars among states for a redivision
of the world were a constant feature G f the life of society.

Before the emergence of socialise all attempts to get rid of
war were pious illusions, dreams. An<a sometimes they also served
to delude people. It may be recalled, f or example, how the bour-
geoisie asserted during the First World War that it should be won
by the Entente powers so that there would be no more war. We

258

know, however, that the First World War was followed by many
others; and finally the fascists, with the connivance of the imperi-
alists of the United States, Britain and France, started an even
more destructive Second World War.

Now that science has discovered weapons of unheard-of de-
structive potential, any new world war would bring mankind
untold calamity and suffering. We are convinced that mankind
will not perish in the event of a new war. It will merely cast off,
finally and resolutely, the rotten capitalist system that breeds war.
The question arises, however: need the victory of the new be
achieved at such a terrible cost? Must the establishment of a new
system on the ruins of the old be paid for by the blood of hundreds
of millions of people? Is there no other way?

All people of reason understand the necessity for creating
conditions which would preclude the possibility of the outbreak
of war waged for the sake of the enrichment of some countries at
the expense of others. The Marxists-Leninists see such a possibility.

We Marxists-Leninists are fully aware of the complexity of
the questions of war and peace. Wars appeared simultaneously
with the division of society into classes. The danger of war and
the grounds for it will be finally and irrevocably eliminated with
the abolition of the division of society into the rich and the poor,
into the haves and the have-nots, into the exploiters and the ex-
ploited, with the establishment of a social system which will not
be based on the bestial bourgeois principle that man is a wolf
toward man.

Such a world will have nothing in common with the world
of capitalism governed by the law under which the stronger robs
and exploits the weaker. In the countries of imperialism those who
have capital have everything, while the common people— who
work and create all the material and spiritual values but have no
capital and are deprived of the means of production—are subjected
to exploitation and discrimination.

The ruling quarters of the United States describe the so-called
American way of life as a model for the "free world." But what
kind of freedom is that? It is freedom to exploit, freedom to rob,
freedom to die of starvation when there are surpluses, freedom
to be unemployed when production capacities stand idle. Freedom
in the United States is a freedom for monopoly capital to oppress

259

the working people, to bamboozle people with the bipartisan sys-
tem, to impose its will on their partners in military blocs. Such a
society provides the basis for wars between countries because the
tendency toward reaction inside the country and toward expansion
and aggression outside is characteristic of monopoly capital, of
imperialism.

To preserve peace under the conditions of the undivided
domination of imperialism would be impossible. But the situation
changed with the emergence of a new social system, socialism,
which is taking the place of capitalism. The socialist system is a
more progressive one; it establishes new laws governing the rela-
tions between people, new laws governing the relations between
nations and states. Our conviction is that all mankind shall accept
socialism, communism, a harmonious society which will know no
antagonistic classes and will be based on the most humanistic
principle: man is a brother and a friend to man.

After the victory of the working class and working peasantry,
there will be neither social, national nor any other causes for the
outbreak of war in any country. But this will be only under the
complete domination of the socialist, communist system through-
out the world. Mankind will then represent a true commonwealth
of equal nations.

This was said long ago and scientifically proved by the found-
ers of Marxism-Leninism.

The liquidation of the capitalist system is the crucial question
of the development of society. But only adventurists can think
that a change in the social system can be brought about by un-
leashing war between states. Social revolutions are not for export.
They cannot be carried by bayonets or rockets. Just as we cannot
even think of anyone imposing on us his own way of life, one
alien to us, in the same way we have no desire to interfere in the
internal affairs of other countries, because each nation has an
inalienable right to its own way of life.

The settlement of the question, what social conditions one
chooses to live under, depends on the nations themselves, on the
internal development and the ripening of conditions in every
separate country. Which system is to exist in one or another
country— socialism or capitalism— is not a question of international
relations, nor is it a matter to be discussed at such an mterna-

260

tional forum as the United Nations, where countries with different
social systems are represented. This is a matter to be settled by
the peoples themselves inside each state.

It is necessary to take into account the real state of affairs,
the world as it is. The present world consists of the countries of
socialism, the countries of capitalism affiliated to the military
blocs of the United States, and the countries not affiliated with
any military blocs and following a neutral policy.

Consequently we must search for such solutions of the car-
dinal international problems as would take into consideration the
conditions now obtaining— the simultaneous existence of opposing
social systems in different states— and, in such a situation, would
create conditions which would rule out the possibility of another
world war. Nuclear war would cause the unprecedented destruc-
tion of cities, factories and plants. It would lead to the annihilation
of hundreds upon hundreds of millions of people. It would destroy
the values created by the labor of many generations and would
affect all the countries, all the peoples. Its consequences would
have grave effects on the life of generations to come.

We would be committing a crime against present and future
generations were we to put up with such an unenviable lot and
not try to ward off the menace of a world war. It would also be
unpardonable because socialism has given the working class, all
the working people such strength, such possibilities for defense
as we were unable even to dream of before the emergence of the
socialist states.

Such is our position on questions of war and peace.

It would be naive to think that the capitalist countries would
agree to disarmament if they were stronger than socialism. The
situation now is such that the world system of socialism is at least
no weaker than the countries aligned by the United States in such
aggressive military blocs as NATO, SEATO and CENTO. The
socialist countries now possess hitherto unheard-of means of in-
fluencing the capitalist countries and, if you will, even compelling
them to accept a disarmament agreement.

Considering the movement for national liberation, the might
of the popular movement for disarmament and peace in all coun-
tries, and also the existence of peace-minded people among certain
sections of the bourgeoisie, the chances for disarmament are fa-

261

vored not only by our material capabilities for meeting any attack
on the socialist countries with a shattering rebuff, but also by the
support given to our struggle for peace and the termination of the
arms race by all the peoples of the world.

That is why the Soviet Government relies upon concrete polit-
ical, economic and moral factors in submitting its proposals for
general and complete disarmament. World war can be averted
if all the peoples fight hard for peace, for general and complete
disarmament, for the destruction of the means of waging war
under strictest international control.

Is all this possible? It is. No one denies that it is a difficult
thing, but war— if it does break out— will be even harder for the
peoples. That is why the question now is: should we Communists
retreat in the face of these difficulties and consequently follow in
the wake of those imperialist forces which stand for the continua-
tion of the arms race— and if it is continued the result will be
war —or should we, without sparing our strength, create a dam, a
barrier to such a course of events? We are against fatalism, against
inactivity on questions of war and peace. We should not underrate,
but more especially we should not overrate, the capabilities of
those imperialist forces which stand for the preparation of war.

As long as imperialist states exist, as long as they are ruled
by monopoly capital with its inherent drive for aggression, for
imperialist war, there will exist a danger of a new war. But this
is precisely the force that we can and must counter with a still
greater force— the preparedness of the peoples to avert war, their
determination to resolutely curb any imperialist aggression.

There is such a force against imperialism— this force is the
socialist countries, which are guided in their policy not only by
the interests of the peoples of their own countries but also by the
interests of the peoples of all countries, of all toilers. And these
forces rely not only on socialist humanism. They rely on their
socialist economy and they have mighty armed forces to defend
the state interests of the socialist countries.

Our strength lies in the fact that the interests of the socialist
countries coincide with the interests of the toilers of all countries,
including the working people of the capitalist countries. The
toilers in the capitalist countries take the position of struggling
for peace and peaceful coexistence. To all this we should add the

262

continually increasing number of new states which have freed
themselves from colonial oppression and which, as a rule, adopt a
policy of nonalignment, that is, the road of a peaceful policy, thus
destroying the former hinterland and reserves of imperialism.
And although the imperialist states are trying to use the neutralist
policy of a number of countries for their own purposes, and al-
though the neutralist countries sometimes echo them in their
chorus, this is a temporary thing.

There can be no neutrality on matters of war and peace, be-
cause all the peoples want peace and therefore all the peoples must
fight for peace, against the threat of a new war. The process of
demarcation of the forces of peace and the forces of war will ac-
celerate and develop. And this process will increase the forces
which stand for peace.

The peoples of the noncommitted countries face a historic
choice. The imperialist camp is attempting to involve them in
the arms race, to place the manpower and material resources of
these countries at the service of war. Imperialism does not offer
them anything for doing away with the economic backwardness
they have inherited from the colonial past. Imperialism does not
desist from attempts to interfere in their internal affairs with a
view to imposing a new colonial yoke upon them.

The socialist community of peoples offers the young states
a different path—the path of nonparticipation in the arms race,
of developing their economy and culture, of tolerating no inter-
ference in their internal affairs.

Need one say what the choice of the peoples will be? No
doubt they will choose the path of peace and freedom, and not
the path of war and of new enslavement. And this choice immeas-
urably increases the forces which stand for peace. As a result of
the growth of socialism and the forces of peace, the balance of
forces in the international scene is not in imperialism's favor.

At present it would be wrong to gauge the demarcation and
balance of forces of socialism and peace and of imperialism by
applying the parliamentary yardstick. It is not the number of
states ranged on this side and the other— on the side of socialism
and on the side of imperialism-that determine the balance of
forces in the final count.

Many factors must be taken into account in assessing the bal-

263

ance of forces: the economic and military potential, the population,
and many other factors of a material and moral nature. In this
case plain arithmetic may be gravely misleading.

The arithmetical yardstick does not provide a clear enough
idea even of the balance of forces within a state which has antago-
nistic classes. It is well known, for instance, that it is not the
number of parliament seats that determine the actual balance of
forces of parties and classes in any particular capitalist country.
The constitutions and election systems in bourgeois countries
are drafted in such a way as to give numerous privileges to the
ruling exploiting classes and not to the exploited, the working
classes. This is exemplified by France where the Communist Party
won 3,888,204 votes and 10 seats in the latest parliamentary elec-
tions, whereas a right-wing bourgeois party like the Union in
Defense of the New Republic, with 3,608,958 votes, won 188 seats.
Just compare 10 seats with 188. I would say such a parliamentary
method is of no use for determining more or less correctly the
balance of forces within any particular bourgeois state.

What then is the basis of power in bourgeois countries? Why
is it that proletarian parties, while they have enormous support
among the masses, frequently do not have a corresponding number
of representatives in the parliament? Simply because the bour-
geoisie resorts to various election machinations, leans for support
on the forces of suppression-the police, the army, the judiciary,
legislation which serves monopoly capital. These are the main-
stays of the power of the bourgeoisie. It is based on the fact that
the ruling classes own the means of production, the means of
ideological propaganda, and the means for suppressing democracy
and the revolutionary progressive movement. And this is exactly
the dictatorship of monopoly capital.

If such parliamentary methods are used to determine the
balance of forces between the socialist and the imperialist coun-
tries, the figures can easily be misleading and the picture they
give incorrect. How then can one explain the fact that the young
socialist state born in the October Revolution, which was the only
one in the world, weak and shaky, was able to uphold its right
to existence? Is it not a fact that our country was attacked at that
time by fourteen states? Our land was ravaged by the troops of
the United States of America, France, Britain, Germany, Japan

264

and other states. The young Soviet state crushed these forces and
ejected them.

We must always remember Lenin's advice; politics is not
arithmetic. The Soviet Union at that time leaned for support not
only on its internal forces, on the working class and toiling peas-
antry, but also on the international support of the working class
and the progressive segments of society in the bourgeois countries.
That is how it was even forty-three years ago.

Now the situation is entirely different. The Soviet Union has
grown into a tremendous force. Our economy is flourishing. We
have a mighty and well-equipped industry capable of producing
the most modern means of defense in the required amount. We
have an efficient state apparatus. We have a great army of highly
skilled engineers, technicians and scientists capable of solving any
problems. We have a first-rate, modern army equipped with rock-
ets and nuclear weapons. All the world is aware of the great
progress attained by Soviet science and engineering.

Furthermore, we are not alone. In Europe and Asia there are
other countries which have embarked on the road of socialism
and are successfully developing along this road. These new socialist
countries have already made great progress both in developing
their statehood, in the construction of socialism, and in building
up their armed forces.

I have already said that more than a third of the countries
which adopted a neutralist position represent the former hinter-
land of imperialism, the suppliers of manpower and raw material
resources. Imperialism has lost these reserves and will not be able
to return them to the colonial past.

All these conditions should be taken into account in deter-
mining the balance of forces, and it will then become clear that
the forces of peace are not weaker now, but stronger, than the
forces of war. This we should clearly realize in order to estimate
our forces in a realistic way, so as not to underrate our own pos-
sibilities in defending the policy of peace.

Now, as before, the Soviet Union stands on the position of
peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems.
But we are not begging for this peaceful coexistence. We are
offering such a policy on the basis of a sober appraisal of the
present balance of forces in the world.

265

"

All the peoples will come to socialism, to communism. Such is
the law of society's development. Some might say that if our
forces are not smaller but even larger than those of our enemies,
why should we not decide the issue by war? Why not accelerate
the course of history? But history is not a horse, it cannot be
driven with a whip.

When bourgeois politicians say that the Soviet Union needs
peaceful coexistence only as a temporary measure, that we Com-
munists are only biding our time to touch off a war and thus
change the political and social system in other countries, we say:
you are lying. Marxism-Leninism asserts that the question of the
balance of forces between this or that class is decided in every
state by class struggle. And when the revolutionary proletarian
forces increase, the proletariat decides the question of political
power and social system as it sees fit, that is, in the interests of the
proletariat, in the interests of the revolutionary class, in this or
that way in accordance with the concrete conditions existing there
and the methods used against it by the old ruling classes.

Should we admit the legitimacy of war between socialist and
capitalist countries for solving internal political and social prob-
lems, it would be playing into the hands of the enemies of social-
ism. The enemies of socialism would use this against Marxist-
Leninist teachings, against the socialist countries. Then they would
be able to say: you see what kind of a progressive system, what
kind of progressive teaching this is, if it must be imposed on the
peoples by force.

Socialism is strong in its vitality, in the fact that it answers the
deepest interests of the mass of the people. This has been proven
by the entire practice of the building of socialism and communism.

The ideas of socialism do not need violence to be spread
among the masses. This is a truth known even to school children,
but one which our enemies, the enemies of communism, are con-
tinually trying to distort.

What could better attract sympathy for socialism than the
example of the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries! It
is universally known what a backward country tsarist Russia was.
And it is universally known how far our country has advanced
and how mighty it has become in the years of socialist develop-
ment. Our once backward country has become a mighty, highly

266

developed socialist power. Socialism has created conditions for
the development of the economy, for the flourishing of culture
and science that are unthinkable under the conditions of capital-
ism. Even our enemies admit this.

The force of example is a great force. The better our affairs
are run and the higher the living standard in the socialist coun-
tries, the more quickly we shall win people's minds over to social-
ism. And this is a power which cannot be measured by arithmetic.

Returning to the question of the capabilities which the social-
ist countries possess for averting a new war, we should say that
this important question is not decided by the number of countries
which stand for peace and the number of countries which belong
to the military blocs of the Western Powers. It is well known that
at the present time the number of capitalist countries vastly ex-
ceeds the number of socialist countries. And if we proceed from
an arithmetical estimate, this might only mislead us politically.

The present balance of forces enables us to raise the question
and press for the practical solution of the disarmament problem.
The idea of general and complete disarmament represents a power-
ful weapon for rallying the people to the struggle for preserving
peace and averting a new war. That is why it is the duty of every
person and every nation to uphold this idea, to fight for it, to
fight for peace,

The Soviet Government has worked out in detail its position
on disarmament and has presented it to the United Nations. These
proposals have been forwarded to all countries in writing. The
objective of these proposals, as I have already said in New York,
is to prepare the conclusion of a treaty on general and complete
disarmament.

Our idea is that at as early a point as the first stage of dis-
armament all means of delivery of nuclear weapons to targets must
be destroyed, along with the elimination of military bases on
foreign soil, the liquidation of military aviation, etc. We also
suggest the banning of nuclear weapons, and the discontinuation
of their production and testing, and the destruction of all stocks
of nuclear weapons. In short, we stand for genuine disarmament
under international control.

The British Prime Minister, Mr. Macmillan, said in New York
something to the effect that disarmament talks might take five or

267

ten years. But the arms race continues. Today three, or even four
states have nuclear weapons. And how many will there be in five
or ten years? Many countries will have such weapons.

We are against procrastination* on such a major problem as
disarmament, and we shall not agree to take part in deceiving the
peoples with endless talks. Though Mr. Macmillan, the Prime
Minister of the United Kingdom, is a Scotsman, I do not want to
hurt his feelings by speaking of volynka. To a Scotsman volynka
is the Russian for his national musical instrument, but I speak of
volynka in the sense of procrastination on major problems. Our
proposals are quite realistic. We insist on talks that would yield
useful results and we are against talks that only befuddle and
deceive the people.

Some people in the West say that the Soviet Union has sub-
mitted its proposals to the Assembly for propaganda purposes. We
are not afraid of such charges. We are not issuing a call to war;
we are demanding the creation of conditions for durable peace.
And we shall continue to conduct such propaganda. It is not
detrimental to the people. But if the Western Powers are afraid
of propaganda in favor of peace, we are ready to forego speech-
making.

Here are our comprehensive disarmament proposals. Let the
Western Powers present theirs. Let us get around a table and
discuss point by point, in a businesslike manner, what is acceptable
and what is not.

I want to add that the responsibility for ensuring peace and,
therefore, for reaching agreement on disarmament and the de-
struction of weapons cannot be vested only in the countries which
possess nuclear weapons. This is wrong and dangerous.

There are no peoples indifferent to the solution of the disarm-
ament problem. If any industrially underdeveloped countries which
do not possess strong enough armies are excluded from doing their
part in the solution of the disarmament problem, they will, as a
result, not diminish but rather increase the danger of bringing on
themselves, on the peoples of their countries and on all the world
the military calamities of an unparalleled nuclear war.

* Khrushchev used the Russian word "Volynka" which has a double mean-
ing: either procrastination or bagpipe, (Eel.)

268

Every people, large or small, every state, strong or weak, must
now display the same interest and the same persistence in the
struggle for the solution of the problem of disarmament and the
destruction of weapons as they are displaying in their struggle for
freedom and independence.

The other day the Prime Minister of Britain, Mr. Macmillan,
spoke at the Conservative Party Conference. He expressed satis-
faction over the fact that he had gone to the General Assembly, "to
this remarkable meeting," to quote his words, which was attended
by representatives from nearly a hundred states. He admitted that
humanity now was facing the choice of adopting either the path of
violence or the path of negotiations for the solution of outstanding
issues.

Mr. Macmillan favors negotiations on outstanding issues for
the purpose of reducing tension.

The Soviet Government agrees with that position and we have
repeatedly argued that the policy of peaceful coexistence is not a
tactical device but the general line of the Soviet Union in foreign
policy bequeathed to us by the great Lenin. This was our position
in the past and this will be our position in the future!

But if Mr. Macmillan's statement about the striving to reduce
tension is not to remain merely a pious wish, concrete, practical
deeds are in order on the part of the Western Powers. Mr. Mac-
millan admits that the question of disarmament discussion is not
being resolved in deeds. An enlightening admission.

If the position of the British Government, as Mr. Macmillan
has said, really is that it wants disarmament and control simul-
taneously, so that there may be disarmament and control at every
stage, that is acceptable to us.

The Soviet Government, now as before, stands for real dis-
armament and has proven this by deeds, by effecting repeated
unilateral cuts in its Armed Forces. If Britain and her allies— the
United States, France and others— similarly display a real desire to
disarm, the main and most important obstacle to agreement on
disarmament will be removed and the road to disarmament will
be open.

Mr. Macmillan, if everything you have said was designed to
solve the disarmament problem, let us, at long last, proceed to

269

practical deeds and let us not delay indefinitely the solution of
this most burning question.

If this is your own opinion and the opinion of your allies,
let us then have your amendments to our proposals or your own
comprehensive proposals, if you do not like ours only for the
reason that they have been advanced by the Soviet Union. Copy-
right is unimportant to us; what is important to us is to reach
agreement on disarmament which would relieve mankind of the
danger of a catastrophic world war. The main thing for us is
disarmament, and not who was the first to advance this or that
proposal on this question. Before leaving New York I made a
special statement on disarmament at the Fifteenth Session of the
United Nations General Assembly. Our proposals have been pub-
lished in the press and are known to the public.

We have also presented to the United Nations a draft of "The
Basic Provisions of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarma-
ment" which also contains provisions on a strict and detailed sys-
tem of international control and inspection to ensure the observ-
ance of the treaty terms.

In the West they like the expression "showdown." To us
disarmament is not a gamble. But if they want it that way, we
shall put down our cards face up.

It is now up to the Western Powers to act. True, these powers
submitted new proposals to the Assembly after our departure from
New York. One of them, submitted by the United States, Britain
and Italy, contains, as conceived by its authors, the principles of
the solution of the disarmament problem. Another, submitted by
Britain, provides for the establishment of a committee of experts
to study-what would you think?— the question of control! Mac-
millan as orator calls for a concrete approach to the discussion of
disarmament problems. Yet in fact there is no such concrete ap-
proach. How can one understand such people? But life will teach
them a lesson; it will also teach a lesson to Mr. Macmillan and
other gentlemen like him. We can wait. We told him, "If you
gentlemen want to test the might and endurance of the socialist
state once again, we shall— as the saying goes -give you what for.
Today we are strong and tomorrow we shall be still stronger and
you gentlemen will not live long enough to rejoice at our weak-
ness. We Soviet workers and peasants and our scientists, from day

270

to day, from year to year, will give you cause for disappointment
in connection with the growth and strengthening of the forces of
socialism, the growth of the forces of communism.

This has been a slight deviation from the prepared text of
my speech, but I think it will be useful to those who do not want
to heed the voice of reason today. As if the fifteen years which
have been spent on discussing the questions of disarmament, in-
cluding that of control, were not enough!

Both these proposals show that the Western Powers are still
not ready to approach in a serious way the solution of the ques-
tions of disarmament, that they continue to make use of the talks
on disarmament— including those at the current session of the
Assembly— to cover up the policy of the arms race. Judge for your-
selves, how else can one assess the aforesaid proposal concerning
the principles of disarmament if it does not say a word about the
liquidation of military bases on foreign territories, if it does not
say a word about when, during what period this or that dis-
armament measure should be carried out? In essence it is a pro-
posal envisaging control over armaments, which was urged by
President Eisenhower in the General Assembly, and not disarm-
ament under control, which the Soviet Union has been insisting
upon for many years.

The aforesaid Western proposals are an ill omen for the
future.

If the Western Powers refuse to adopt the path of general
and complete disarmament, we shall be entitled to the conclusion
that they are not ready to disarm now, but do not want to say so
openly to their peoples because the peoples of the West— the peo-
ples of the United States, Britain, all the peoples of the world-
want disarmament. The Soviet Union will continue to fight stead-
ily and persistently for disarmament, for the strengthening of
peace and the security of the peoples. I repeat, we stand for real
disarmament, and everyone who stands for this will find they
speak a common language with us.

The peoples place great hopes in the United Nations, they
want it to settle outstanding international problems and bring
about conditions under which world peace would be reliably
ensured.

271

But I must say that if things go on as they are now, the United
Nations will not achieve substantial results. The cart of the
United Nations has cut a deep rut; it is rambling along this rut,
and it is hard for it to get out of it.

But had you seen the manner in which many delegates speak
and behave at the General Assembly, you would have reached the
conclusion that the United Nations may not justify the hopes the
peoples are placing in it.

Often the Hall is almost empty. The places reserved for dele-
gations of a number of countries are occupied by delegates "on
duty." Actually, they do not take part in the work of the Assem-
bly, but sit there, apparently, only to vote in case a vote is taken.
Such a representative "on duty" is like a robot or an automatic
machine tool which operates according to a given program. He
does not need to think, he does not need to exert himself; only
one thing is required of him: to vote "yes" or "no" on some par-
ticular question. It is impossible to influence the thinking of such
a person; he acts strictly in conformance with instructions previ-
ously received.

This convinces us even more of the justice of our appeal to
the heads of government of the United Nations member states
urging them to approach with all seriousness the vital inter-
national problems which face the world—the question of the abo-
lition of the colonial regime, of the restoration of China's lawful
rights, of the aggressive actions of the United States, and other
questions, above all, the overriding international question-dis-
armament-upon the solution of which the guarantee of world
peace depends in the first place.

It goes without saying that all these questions cannot be
solved during one General Assembly session. Therefore if we are
really striving to ensure durable peace, it is essential that the par-
ticipation of heads of state or heads of government should become
routine in the work of the General Assembly.

As I have already said in New York, apparently the disarm-
ament problem will not be solved at this session of the Assembly.
Therefore we consider that it is essential to hold an extraordinary
session especially on this question. It seems to us that such a ses-
sion could be convened next March-April. If the heads of state or
government which will take part in the work of the session solve

272

in principle the question of general and complete disarmament
under strict international control, after that, apparently, addi-
tional work will be needed in a narrower sphere. For instance,
heads of state or government could give direction to the work of
a fifteen-nation committee whose establishment we have suggested.
But I repeat, the questions of principle, the main questions
of disarmament cannot be solved without the participation of the
heads of government or state, because the mistrust among states
has become too great and the differences in the approach of gov-
ernments to the solution of this problem are too great. We must
display a sober and daring approach, display statesmanship in
order to send the cart of the United Nations on the right path.
Who can do this? This can be done only by those invested with
the full trust of their people, of their government.

III.

Freedom and Independence for Colonial Peoples!

Comrades, the Soviet Union with utmost determination has
raised before the Fifteenth Session of the United Nations General
Assembly the question of complete and immediate abolition of
colonialism— the abominable legacy of barbarism and savagery of
past ages. True to its policy of supporting the struggle of oppressed
peoples for national independence, the Soviet Union has called
upon the United Nations to raise its voice in defense of the just
cause of the liberation of the colonies.

Many delegations in the United Nations have welcomed and
approved the declaration of independence for colonial countries
and peoples, and it has been warmly supported by all freedom-
loving peoples.

The colonial powers and their allies in aggressive military
blocs stop at nothing to prevent the peoples of the colonies from
attaining independence and freedom. Therefore the discussion on
granting of independence to colonial countries at the United Na-
tions General Assembly session is marked by a tense struggle.

The freedom-loving peoples have scored a great success. The
General Assembly recognized as a most important problem the
question of the abolition of colonialism raised by the Soviet Union
and has included it in the agenda of the plenary session of the
Assembly. The recognition of the importance of this question

273

represents a great moral satisfaction to the Soviet Union, a great
victory for the forces fighting against colonialism.

The situation at the General Assembly was such that even
the imperialist colonialist states had to agree to a discussion of
this question at plenary sessions of the Assembly. I shall admit that
before going to New York, when our government discussed the
problems of the General Assembly session, we envisaged the pos-
sibility of the United States voting together with the Soviet Union
for discussion of this question at plenary sessions of the Assembly.

When the General Assembly considered the agenda, the Brit-
ish delegate was the first to oppose the Soviet proposal. He at-
tempted to prove that the colonies' progress and their liberation
were well nigh the sole concern of the colonialists.

The British delegate all but raised his hands to heaven, in-
voking as a witness the Lord, who, so to speak, blessed the colonial-
ists for their "civilizing" mission in the colonial countries. But
who does not know that this activity was expressed in the enslave-
ment of peoples, in the extermination of the indigenous popu-
lation?

The blood in one's veins curdles when one reads about the
kind of civilization the colonialists brought to the colonies. With-
in half a century of Belgian domination the population in the
Congo was reduced almost by half. People perished from punitive
expeditions, from hunger and disease, and the Congo was no ex-
ception. In the sixty years of French rule the population of Mada-
gascar diminished by more than half. The infant mortality rate
in the colonies is terrific. In Nigeria, for instance, more than half
the children die before they reach the age of six. The colonies
have the longest working hours, the lowest wages, the shortest life
expectancy, the highest death rate.

And all this is taking place in our century, a century of
progress and the greatest scientific discoveries, when people have
split the atom, are successfully conquering outer space and ex-
panding their power over the forces of nature with extraordinary
speed. Meanwhile representatives of powers which claim first place
in the development of culture boast of their "civilization," speak
of some "charitable deeds" of the colonialists. Listening to such
"benefactors," one begins to expect them to ask the Assembly to

274

express gratitude for their "civilizing," that is, colonialist policy
of slavery.

But the representatives of the peoples who have freed them-
selves from colonial slavery spoke differently. The General Assem-
bly session was addressed by representatives of India, Indonesia,
Ghana, Guinea, Ceylon, Liberia, Morocco, Nigeria and many other
countries who unanimously demanded that this question be dis-
cussed at plenary meetings of the Assembly and stressed the neces-
sity of abolishing the colonial system.

The representatives of the United States kept silent as though
they were absent. But it was impossible to keep silent all the time;
they had either to vote for the Soviet Union's proposal that this
question be discussed at a plenary meeting of the General Assem-
bly or come out in support of their allies— the colonialists. Of
course, the United States imperialists are actually colonialists
themselves; they impose enslaving treaties and exploit peoples of
many countries. This policy is well known to the peoples of Latin
America and of other countries.

During the heated debate on this question nearly all the
speakers were in favor of the Soviet proposal, and at last the
American representative took the floor. I am very sorry that he
did not complete his speech. The United States representative
made slanderous attacks on the socialist countries which caused
vigorous protest by the latter. The Roumanian representative,
Comrade Mezincescu, ascended the platform and gave the Amer-
ican a worthy rebuff. He demanded that the President of the
Assembly Boland should not permit such insults. A rather curious
scene followed.

The President overshot the mark, he did not expect his main
instrument—the gavel— to break, and he rapped it on the desk
with such force that it broke into pieces. After the President lost
this token of power, he made haste to declare the meeting closed.

It is to be regretted that the meeting was closed. I believe
that the representative of the United States would have completed
his speech by supporting the colonialist powers. However, the
night passed and it was apparently spent in meditation as a result
of which the Americans arrived at the conclusion that the lesser
evil should be chosen. It became clear that to come out with direct
and open support of the British, Spanish, Portuguese and French

275

colonialists would mean self-exposure. Therefore, the Americans
decided to feign a noble gesture and come out in support of the
proposal of the Soviet Union and the countries fighting against
the colonial system. The British representative, who took the floor
for the second time, also had to pretend that he was meeting half-
way those who were insisting on the discussion of this question at
a plenary meeting.

The unanimous decision on the discussion of this issue at
plenary meetings of the General Assembly is a major victory of
the forces fighting for the eradication of the colonial regime.

But I would like to warn you: it would be naive to accept
the voting by the imperialist powers at its face value. It can be
said that the unanimous vote was wrested from the colonialists
under the pressure of an overwhelming majority. The representa-
tives of the imperialist states decided to vote in favor of having
this issue discussed at the plenary meetings, but this does not yet
settle the essence of the matter. On the essence of the matter there
has never been and never will be any unity with the colonialists.
We stand for complete and immediate liquidation of the dis-
graceful colonial system, for condemning colonialism past and
present, for preventing the colonial system from appearing in any
form anywhere in the future.

The imperialists are trying to lend the colonialist policy "a
noble aspect." They are even not averse to speaking about render-
ing assistance to the countries that have freed themselves from
colonial oppression. But what kind of "assistance" is that? Take,
for instance, the speech made by the President of the United
States at the session of the General Assembly. It contained no
constructive proposals. The President declared that the United
States was prepared to allocate to the United Nations program
100 million dollars for assistance to the African countries that
have gained independence. But if this sum were divided among all
the population of the African countries which have gained inde-
pendence, it would be 55 cents per person. As they say, this would
not take you very far. In America 55 cents would not even buy
you two packs of cigarettes.

The imperialists used to plunder, and want to continue
plundering, the African countries and now they are offering mere
handouts. A dollar taken, a cent returned. They are offering hand-

276

outs in the same way as the kulak* used to give five kopecks at
Christmas to his laborer whom he had mercilessly exploited all
through the year; or as a capitalist used, once in a while, to give
a bucket of vodka for a whole arteLj-

The imperialists may even pay lip service to the necessity of
liberating colonial peoples, but they most probably will suggest
a plan to protract the granting of freedom and independence to
the peoples of colonial countries for many years. They will plead
that no cadres are available, that the people have not been edu-
cated, have not been prepared for self-government, and put forth
other "theories" of the slave merchants.

Listen to what a fine reply was given to these inventions of
the colonialists by a representative of a young African state. He
said: "If you want to be convinced that a man can walk, break
the chains that bind him!"

All the nations which truly adhere to the position of de-
nouncing colonialism and liberating colonial peoples must firmly
press for the complete and immediate discontinuation of colonial
slavery. It is necessary to lift one's voice against the colonialists,
expose their designs, no matter in what disguise they appear.

It is natural that the oppressed peoples are intensifying their
struggle for liberation, because the colonialists oppose the grant-
ing of independence to the colonial peoples. And they shall win
their freedom! There is no doubt that the freedom-loving peoples
will offer their helpful hand to those who are fighting against the
colonialists, the stranglers of the peoples' freedom. Nothing can
avert the collapse of the colonial regime doomed by history. Colo-
nialism is breathing its last, the peoples of the colonies shall be
free!

Comrades, the Algerian question is an important component
of the problem of abolishing the colonial system, but it will be
discussed at the General Assembly as a separate item on the
agenda.

For more than six years the Algerian people have been waging
an heroic war for their liberation from foreign oppression. The
French colonialists are trying with sword and fire to suppress the

*A kulak was a well-to-do peasant who employed others to work his land.
■f*An artel, in nineteenth-century Russia, was an association of independent
laborers who worked collectively and divided their profits.

277

Algerians striving for freedom and independence. But they have
not broken and are unable to break the will of the people who
have risen to struggle for their liberty. The noble struggle of the
sons and daughters of the Algerian people is enjoying steadily in-
creasing international recognition and support. In France proper
a movement of true French patriots, who are actively opposing
the colonial war in Algeria, is gathering momentum.

The Algerian question has more than once been taken up by
sessions of the General Assembly, but each time the colonialists
succeeded in reducing these discussions to insignificant resolutions
which did not render real assistance to the Algerian people The
French colonialists, supported by their allies, the United States
and Britain in the first place, emerged victorious, so to speak
from the discussion of this issue. This time the struggle at the
General Assembly will be much more vehement and" the colo-
nialists will find it more difficult to reduce the matter to another
toothless resolution.

What is the Soviet Union's position on the Algerian question?
It is absolutely clear. We have always been in favor of the self-
determination of all peoples, in favor of every people choosing
the social and political structure of its state. This fully applies to
Algeria, too.

We have repeatedly expressed our views on this question to
the French representatives. I recall the talks with former Prime
Minister of France Guy Mollet and Minister of Foreign Affairs
Pmeau during their stay in the Soviet Union in May of 1956 We
said then to the French leaders: if you do not take into considera-
tion the lessons of Vietnam, you will undoubtedly find no way
out of the deadlock in which you find yourself in Algeria The
only way out for you is to recognize the Algerian people's right
to self-determination. It is only on this basis that the Algerian
question can be settled.

Guy Mollet, and also Pineau, tried to prove that France can-
not give up Algeria because two million Frenchmen live there
Thus, according to their logic, this gives sufficient grounds for
believing that Algeria must be French. We then replied to the
leaders of the French Government: you speak of the two million
Frenchmen in Algeria (and actually they number less), but the
nine million Algerians cannot be ignored.

278

We tried to make our interlocutors see this problem in the
correct light. Guy Mollet and Pineau claimed that the loss of
Algeria would mean the loss of France's grandeur. We tried to
prove to them that the grandeur of France does not He in colonial
plunder, not in the oppression of other peoples. But apparently
the supporters of the colonialists do not want to reckon with facts,
because they are carrying on their old bankrupt policy.

If the French colonialists do not give up their attempts to
retain Algeria as their colony by force, they will lose it as a result
of a military defeat which is unavoidable.

Soon after General de Gaulle came to power as a result of a
military putsch, he made a statement to the effect that France
recognizes Algeria's right to self-determination. But later, under
the pressure of the extremist reactionary colonialist forces, he
went back on it and began talking about the right to self-deter-
mination, but only such "self-determination" as would predeter-
mine in advance that Algeria would remain part of France. The
most rabid French colonialists are demanding integration, that is,
complete absorption of Algeria; they want to do away with Algeri-
an Algeria and convert it into a French province in North Africa.

The peoples of the Soviet Union, of the socialist countries,
firmly follow Lenin's behests that every people must have the right
to self-determination, to organize their state the way they like.
Therefore our sympathy, our support are with the Algerian peo-
ple, who are waging a just war for their liberation from colonial
oppression.

There are different wars. We are against rapacious, imperialist
wars similar to that which the French colonialists are waging in
Algeria. But we recognize and support the just wars of peoples for
their liberation. The peoples of the oppressed countries are rising
to the struggle to throw out the colonialists because the latter are
not withdrawing from the colonies of their own free will. These
peoples are not balking at taking up arms, if necessary, for win-
ning their freedom and independence. The Algerian patriots are
now waging such a struggle and we wish them success.

We have already spoken about the Soviet Union's de facto
recognition of the provisional government of the Algerian Repub-
lic and want now to repeat this statement. This government has
earned recognition by the whole world, including France. The

279

French Government more than once established contact and en-
tered into negotiations with the government of the Algerian Re-
public, which is now regarded everywhere as the representative o£
the Algerian people, as its leader in the struggle for national
freedom and independence.

The General Assembly adopted a decision to discuss at its
plenary meeting the question of the Congo as well. In their
speeches at the Assembly the Soviet delegation, the delegations of
other socialist countries, and also many representatives of Asian
and African countries correctly assessed the situation now obtain-
ing in the Congo and the unseemly role played there by the Sec-
retary of the United Nations.

Ineffaceable is the shame with which the United Nations cov-
ered itself as a result of the policy pursued in the Congo by the
United Nations Secretariat under the leadership of Secretary-
General Hammarskjold. Due to the efforts of Mr. Hammarskjold
and his representatives, the lawful Parliament elected by the Con-
golese people and the government headed by Mr. Lumumba, set
up by the Parliament on the basis of the Constitution, were dis-
organized and paralyzed.

And who are these representatives whom Mr. Hammarskjold
sent to the Congo? They are Mr. Cordier and Mr. Bunche. Both
are Americans. But you should not be surprised, because Mr.
Hammarskjold himself is a servant of American monopoly capital.
It was not for nothing that the United States Secretary of State
Mr. Herter gave Mr. Hammarskjold a check for five million dol-
lars to be used in the Congo at his own discretion to consummate
the evil deed and to covertly restore the order which had existed
there under the Belgian colonialists.

The developments took a tragic turn for the Congolese peo-
ple. But at the same time it tore the masks from the faces of the
imperialist colonialists and those who serve them, from the face
of the United Nations Secretary-General.

Everyone now sees that he is pursuing a reactionary colonial-
ist policy, expressing the interests of the imperialist group of
countries headed by the United States. The developments in the
Congo will serve to enlighten the colonial peoples, will help them
to better understand who their friends ancf their enemies really
3 re.

280

And the failure of the policy of the colonialists is beyond
doubt. The time will come when the Republic of the Congo will
stand firmly on its feet and fully ensure its independence. The
guarantee for this is the selfless struggle the Congolese people are
continuing to wage and which will bring victory. The socialist
states, all freedom-loving nations are taking the side of the em-
battled colonial people, the side of the embattled people of the
Congo.

Comrades, all during the time our delegation was sailing on
the Baltika toward the American shores, and while we were in
New York, we constantly felt the attention and support of the
Soviet people, our great Soviet homeland.

We received thousands of letters and telegrams from different
corners of our country. They were messages from the personnel of
enterprises, colloctive farms, scientific institutions, Party, Soviet,
trade union and YCL organizations, from numerous workers,
collective farmers and intellectuals. These letters conveyed the
most cordial wishes for success in the work of the Soviet delega-
tion, expressed confidence that our delegation would do every-
thing possible to see to it that the General Assembly Session would
strengthen the peoples' faith in the relaxation of international
tension, and would save mankind from the armaments race, from
shameful colonial slavery.

The Soviet people gave unqualified support to the position
of the Soviet Government and demonstrated profound concern for
the settlement of the most important international problems for
the benefit of all the peoples longing for peace, tranquility and
happiness for themselves and for the generations to come.

All these kind messages gave us great confidence and inspired
us to struggle for the strengthening of world peace, for the achieve-
ment of solutions for the most urgent and vitally important prob-
lems of our time.

Permit me, on behalf of the Central Committee of our Party,
on behalf of the Soviet Government and myself personally, to ex-
press the warmest gratitude to the collectives of the working peo-
ple, to all the Soviet citizens for their kind wishes.

Our delegation also received thousands of letters and tele-
grams from foreign countries likewise conveying wishes for success
in our work for the benefit of peace. Many letters and telegrams

281

were received from Americans who also expressed hope for the
establishment of better mutual understanding among nations, foi
the strengthening of world peace.

Permit me to thank all our friends abroad for their kinc
wishes, for the support they rendered our delegation in its worl
at the Fifteenth Session of the General Assembly.

I would like to offer cordial thanks to the crew of the turb(
electric ship Baltika headed by Captain P. A. Maiorov, to thank
the crew of the TU-114 plane and its commander A. K. Vidkovsk}
for their fine work, for their perfect service. We crossed the
Atlantic aboard the Baltika and arrived in New York, and the
TU-114 plane brought us back to our beloved Moscow in ten
hours.

It took us ten days to cross the ocean on the Baltika, while
only ten hours were needed to return from New York to Moscow
in a TU-114 airliner. What progress in technology! A different
level, different possibilities!

It is for the Soviet people to judge how the Soviet delegation
fulfilled its mission at the General Assembly. We tried to repre-
sent the interests of the Soviet Union with honor and dignity. We
did not waste our time, fully realizing that we came to New York
to work and not to eat pancakes. The more so, since the American
Government, as you know from the press, had no intention of
meeting us with bread and salt. But this did not embarrass us and
we did our job as the sense of a great responsibility and the con-
science of Communists— the fighters for peace on earth— prompted
us.

I should like, comrades, to share with you my impressions om
the city of New York. It is a very large city. Gorky called it the
City of the Yellow Devil. But more than fifty years have elapsed
since Gorky was there and during this time New York has become
still more repulsive. It seems to embody the ugliness and degenera-
tion of capitalism. The people living there doom themselves to
something like penal servitude for life and immure themselves in
stone cells. Tall buildings are often torn down and replaced by
new skyscrapers. The city seems to be crawling upward. Trees
have been planted below in some streets, but they cannot grow,
they wither and are obviously dying. They are replaced by new
ones, but soon these too die.

282

It is pitiful to look at children who are deprived of the many
joys of childhood, because they have no chance to run about or
even to walk outdoors, which is necessary for every human being.
The streets are literally jammed by a vast number of automobiles.
And automobiles, as is known, use gasoline for fuel. This is why
the entire atmosphere is poisoned. To put it in a nutshell, New
York is a horrifying city in this respect.

The people who are responsible for the trend in city planning
are unable to check the further degeneration of the city because
neither the government nor the political leaders determine how
the city is to develop; this is done by each owner of a plot of land.
If it is to his advantage to tear down a fifteen- or twenty-story
building and build one with forty, or even more stories on a
busy street, he tears down the old building and puts up a new one.

The main thing in this City of the Yellow Devil is not the
man but the dollar. Everyone thinks of how to make more money,
how to get more dollars. Profits, the quest for capital, and not
people are the center of attention there.

The capitalist trend in city planning takes little account of
the vital requirements of the people. I could not but feel proud
comparing this with our socialist city development, where plan-
ning and building are subordinated to the man, concern for him,
and the creation of more conveniences.

Upon my return home to Moscow I literally delight in the
fresh, invigorating air our people breathe. Our capital is a won-
drous city, especially now when it is being transformed, when new
sections are going up. Moscow is becoming an ever more wondrous
city with comfortable houses, broad streets, squares, boulevards
buried in greenery, children's playgrounds, ponds and parks.

Comrades, I have already said that the United Nations in its
present form does not justify the hopes of the people to rid them
of the menace of war, of the armaments race. But we believe that
common sense will prevail, truth will triumph, good seeds will
give an abundant crop. The time will come, and it is not far off,
when under the pressure of the peoples the governments will
realize the necessity for the peaceful coexistence of states, will
arrive at the conclusion that general and complete disarmament
under strict international control must be carried out. For our
part, we shall do everything we can to have the United Nations

283

reorganized in line with the spirit of the demands of our time,
to make it an effective and universal instrument of world peace.

It must be admitted that the international situation continues
to be tense. The aggressive quarters in the United States have not
abandoned their aggressive actions, the provocative flights of
planes over other countries' territories, particularly the Soviet
Union. As you know, we submitted for the General Assembly's
consideration the question of the aggressive actions of the United
States against the Soviet Union. This item has been put on the
agenda.

A report recently appeared in the press to the effect that the
Pentagon decided to send submarines equipped with rockets and
nuclear weapons to cruise off the shores of the Soviet Union.

American generals and admirals cannot fail to know that our
country also has atomic-powered submarines equipped with rock
ets. What would happen if we took the same road and our sub
marines started cruising off American shores?

This is the criminal "policy of brinkmanship" proclaimed by
Dulles and pursued by his successors. This is the path of the "cold
war" which may develop into a shooting war.

Our relations with the United States have deteriorated of late,
but not through any fault of ours. But no matter how cold our
relations with the United States are today, we shall carry on the
Leninist policy of peaceful coexistence. We are sure that the time
will come when the relations between our states, our peoples, our
governments will improve.

But to bring this time nearer and to discourage the Pentagon
and American aggressive quarters from staging provocation!
against the Soviet Union, it is necessary for our economy to de-
velop at a high pace, for our science to be on an adequate level,
for our Army to have the most up-to-date armaments.

It is necessary to do everything to raise steadily the productiv-
ity of labor; to ensure the growth of the economy, science and
culture; to raise the living standards of the people so as to demon-
strate in practice, in peaceful competition with capitalism, the
great advantages of socialism, the great might of the teachings of
Marxism-Leninism.

Our domestic successes are convincing^ illustrated by the re-
cent report of the Central Statistical Board on the results of the

284

fulfillment of the national economic plan for the first nine months
of the year. These results hearten the Soviet people, the indefatig-
able builders of communism, and inspire our friends abroad.

Socialist industry, developing at an extremely fast rate, is ful-
filling its plans year after year. This year industrial production
will increase by more than 140 billion rubles. It should be noted
that only a few years ago, before the reorganization of manage-
ment in industry, the annual growth of industrial production
amounted to approximately 100 billion rubles.

You will remember that at the beginning of 1946, in drawing
up the plans for the postwar development of our economy, the
Party set the task of trebling industrial production and achieving
an annual output of 60 million tons of steel and 60 million tons
of oil. It was estimated that fifteen years and perhaps more would
be required to achieve these goals.

How have the Soviet people coped with this task? Fifteen
years have passed and industrial output in our country has in-
creased, not three times but six times over. The Soviet Union now
produces 65 million tons of steel and upward of 145 million tons
of oil a year. Equally fine progress is being made in our agricul-
ture and cultural construction.

The Communist Party and the Soviet Government devote spe-
cial attention to training skilled personnel. Our country's successes
in the training of skilled personnel have amazed the whole world.

The opponents of socialism have even produced an absurd
theory that the more engineers, scientists, doctors and teachers the
Soviet Union has, the greater the difficulties we shall experience
on our onward march. Well, we are facing these "difficulties" with
courage.

Allow me to quote some highly indicative figures. In 1926,
when we were about to regain the prerevolutionary levels of our
economy, the Soviet Union had 168,000 students in higher educa-
tional establishments and only a little more than 2.5 million white
collar workers and intellectuals. Last year we had 2.2 million
students, that is, 13 times more, while the number of white collar
workers and intellectuals has increased eightfold and now exceeds
20 million. The number of engineers, technicians and agronomists
has increased 18 times; and scientific workers, 23 times over.

285

The number of persons with secondary and higher education
among manual workers has increased considerably, Before the
revolution there were no people with secondary, let alone higher
education among the workers and peasants; and today according
to the latest census, 32 per cent of the manual workers have ;i
secondary or higher education, including 39 per cent among thj
workers and 21 per cent among the collective farmers.

Thus in the years of Soviet power we have built up an arm)
of more than 20 million brain workers— a truly popular intelli-
gentsia, the flesh and blood of workers and peasants. Even more
significant is the fact that almost a third of the Soviet people en
gaged in manual labor, including two-fifths of the workers and
more than a fifth of the collective farmers, have a secondary o]
even higher education.

AH this shows convincingly that we already have some very
tangible achievements in gradually eliminating the essential dil

ferences between manual and mental work. I could quote n

other equally convincing examples attesting to the outstaniln.
achievements of our motherland which is advancing confident
toward the great goal of communism.

Dear comrades, in little more than two weeks' time we shsitl
be celebrating the forty-third anniversary of the October Social iftj
Revolution, the greatest revolution in the history of mankind [|
is pleasant and heartening to realize that the Soviet people, llm
great builders of a new, Communist world, have achieved oul
standing successes under the leadership of their own Part) uj
Communists.

True to the all-conquering teachings of Marxism-Lenin ■ in
we are marching forward courageously, and no force in the woijtl
can arrest this advance of the peoples to their glorious goal.

Long live our Leninist Communist Party, the inspirer .nut
organizer of the building of communism!

Long live our Socialist motherland, the pride and glon
all progressive mankind I

Long live the mighty camp of the countries of Socialism!

Long live enduring peace throughout the world!

286