MR VYSHINSKY SPEAKS IN ASSEMBLY

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25610, 27 September 1948, Page 7

MR VYSHINSKY SPEAKS IN ASSEMBLY

Criticism Of “Instigators Of A New War”

REDUCTION PROPOSED IN ARMS OF BIG FIVE

(N.Z. Press Association—Copyright)

(Rec. 10 p.m.) LONDON, September 25. Mr Andrei Vyshinsky (Russia) violently criticised “instigators of a new war” when he addressed the United Nations General Assembly in Paris to-day. He named the United States, Britain, and the other countries of the Brussels Pact as “feverishly preparing public opinion for war against the Soviet Union.”

He added that a campaign of “shameless lies against the Soviet” was now being “headed not only by amateurs from the family of retired politicians but by persons holding high official posts in the Governments of Britain, the United States, France and other countries.”

Mr Vyshinsky called for a reduction by a third in the land, naval, and air forces of the Big Five nations and a total ban on atomic weapons.

Mr Vyshinsky said that the formation of the Western Union was “a direct contradiction of the interests of the strengthening of peace and the security of the people.” He contrasted this “Western political bloc” with the alliances of “peace-loving European States being concluded to prevent the possibility of new German agression.”

Mr Vyshinsky said: “The whole British, French and American press openly states that the military alliance of the five Western Powers is directed against the Soviet Union, and the new democracies. Those who conclude such agreements and establish such alliances are pursuing a policy which has nothing in common with the consolidating of peace and are assisting the instigators and organisers of a new war. “The instigators of a new war have become more insolent during the last year and are carrying on ther criminal activities with greater cynicism, trying to intoxicate with war poison as many common people as possible.” As evidence of plans for war, Mr Vyshinsky cited: (1) The combined British and American naval manoeuvres last year in the Atlantic; (2) the combined British and American air manoeuvres held over Britain earlier this month; (3) newspaper magazine articles in Western countries discussing “in the insolent tone of frantic instigators of war” various plans for attacking the Soviet Union. Mr Vyshinsky strode to the rostrum with a grim, set expression. General Marshall, the United States Secretary of State, and Mr Robert Schuman, France’s Foreign Minister, listened intently to the translators through earphones. The British Foreign Secretary (Mr Ernest Bevin) was not present. The British delegation was headed by the Minister of State (Mr Hector McNeil).

“Slanderers” Named Among the “slanderers” of Russia, Mr Vyshinsky named Mr James Forrestal, the United States Secretary of Defence. Mr Kenneth Roy all, the United States Secretary of the Army, Senator Bridges, chairman of the American Senate Appropriations Committee, and General Kenny, until this week commander of American Strategic Air Forces. He named among Britons, “members of Parliament, Brown, Air Commodors Harvy, Colonel Sir Thomas Moore, Air Marshal Sir Hugh Walmsley, Harold McMillan, and others.”

Mr Vyshinsky continued: “These gentlemen no longer are coming forward with general pronouncements and slogans calling for war against the U.S.S.R. and tile new democracies. They come forward with flashy colorsred plans for utilising military aircraft and the atomic bomb for the destruction of such Soviet cities as Moscow, Leningrad, Kharkov. and Odessa.”

Mr Vyshinsky devoted a large section of his speech to the atomic bonto. He said that Russia insisted on the immediate prohibition of atomic weapons and the setting up of international control. Without such prohibition all talk about control was misleading and “intended to serve as a smokescreen in the atomic weapon race.”

Mr Vyshinsky’s proposal on armaments reduction came after he had assured the Assembly that his country sought co-operation with all nations, while “the United States Government, from a policy of fighting against aggressive forces, has passed over to a policy of expansion and realisation of plans for world domination.” Mr Vyshinskv said that his proposals were presented “for the purpose of strengthening the cause of peace and eliminating the threat of a new war fomented by expansionists and other reactionary elements.” Throughout his sneech he maintained that the expansionists were-wholly on the Western side of the Iron Curtain. No Reference to Berlin Mr Vyshinsky made no reference, even indirectly, to the Berlin crisis, and did not mention the German problem even in general terms. General Marshall sat poker-faced through Mr Vyshinsky’s list of accusations against the United States. The Assembly adjourned until Monday soon after Mr Vyshinsky’s sneech. After the adjournment a United States delegate said: “It is the same old stuff.”

Britain’s president of the Securitv Council (Sir Alexander Cadogan) said: “He covered all the old points, coun-

ter-attacking on points on which the Russians have been the worst offenders.’* Mr McNeil, who alone among the Big Five delegates applauded Mr Vyshinsky, said that he had applauded "because I thought a bit of politeness was due here.” The United States delegation later issued a statement saying: “The United States will willingly carefully study any proposal for the regulation of armaments which complies with the control plan of the Atomic Energy Commission or the principles governing the regulation of conventional armaments approved by the majority of the members of the Commission for Conventional Armaments.” Colonel Sir Thomas Moore, interviewed by Reuter, said he assumed that Mr Vyshinsky’s reference to him was a result of speeches he had made saying that “Mr Attlee, Mr Churchill, and General Marshall should go to Moscow and ask Mr Stalin in a friendly but forthright way: ‘What do you want, peace or war? If you want peace, we will work with you with all the forces at our command. If it is war we will give it to you with everything we have got. including the atomic bomb.’ ” The “Sunday Express” says that diplomatic observers believe that Russia and her satellites are preparing to leave the United Nations. ‘ : This belief,” it adds, “has gained weight since Mr Vyshinsky’s speech to the Assembly to-day. “Russia’s excuse for any withdrawal from the United Nations is likely to be based on its opposition to the proposal to modify or abolish the veto. Some of the smaller Iron Curtain countries are reluctant to leave the United Nations. They share the general small Powers’ dislike of the big Powers* right of veto. To make this the reason for walking out would involve a complete switch of policy which would be difficult to justify to their people. “Mr Vyshinsky’s disarmament proposals, particularly as they relate to atomic weapons, are regarded as an attempt to embarrass the Western Powers without affecting the strength of Soviet arms.”

Agenda Adopted When the General Assembly met yesterday afternoon, the president (Dr. H. V. Evatt) said that no delegations had asked to speak at the afternoon session. He suspended the general debate until to-day and called the delegates to discuss the provisional agenda for the Assembly as submitted by the steering committee. A Soviet delegate. Mr Jacob Malik, immediately demanded that the Assembly eliminate from the agenda: (1) Argentina's demand that Italy, Ceylon, Eire, Portugal, Austria, Finland, and Transiordan. whose applications for United Nations membership were vetoed in the Security Council by Russia, should be admitted by the Assembly. (2) The problem of Korean independence. (3) Threats to Greece’s independence.

(4) The Little Assembly proposals to limit the use of the veto. In spite of Mr Malik’s warning that “dire consequences’* might result if the United Nations discussed these items, the Assembly rejected all the Russian demands. Mr Malik, raterring to the Chilean accusation that Russia had violated fundamental rights by refusing to permit Russian wives to join their husbands abroad, said that this was unwarranted interference in the Soviet’s domestic affairs. “The Soviet prevents Russians from marrying foreigners to protect them from the calumny of lies against Russia in certain foreign quarters,” he added. The Assembly decided to retain Chile’s accusation on the agenda. The delegates adopted the remainder of the agenda without opposition with the exception of India's complaint over South Africa’s treatment of Indian nationals. This was held for further discussion when the South African delegation announced that it would oppose its inclusion.