Soviet Urges Disarmament In U.N. Statement

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27471, 4 October 1954, Page 11

Soviet Urges Disarmament In U.N. Statement

(Rec. 9 p.m.) NEW YORK, October 2. The Soviet Union issued a memorandum at the United Nations headquarters yesterday stating that there is an “urgent need” for international agreement on disarmament. As a follow-up to the proposals which he introduced to the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday, Mr Andrei Vyshinsky, the Soviet delegate, submitted an explanatory memorandum to the Assembly.

“The Soviet Union,” the memorandum says, “is submitting its proposals in the belief that they meet the ever-growing demand of the peoples for the cessation of the races for armaments, including atomic weapons, and for the adoption of immediate measures to ensure that mankind is spared the horrors of a destructive atomic war.” Mr Vyshinsky’s memorandum says that first among the outstanding international problems is the question of the reduction of armaments, the reduction of military budgets, and the prohibition of atomic, hydrogen, and other weapons of mass destruction. Observers note that, in this statement. the Soviet Union is again acknowledging that a reduction in conventional armaments can now precede a ban on atomic weapons. Mr Vyshinsky on Thursday raised some hopes that the Soviet Union is making a move towards meeting the West by accepting as a basis for discussion' the British-French proposals of last June. 4 , Western diplomats were still studying the Soviet proposals yesterday, and there is not likely to be any official considered reaction to them until Mr Selwyn Lloyd, the British Minister of State, addresses the General Assembly on Monday. x . Observers said the one great weakness in the proposals—and it a PPfa r ed to be basic —concerned the establishment of a control organ to supervise any reductions and prohibitions. Under the British-French plan, reductions would take place only when the control organ reported that it was able “effectively to enforce them. Under the Soviet proposals, there would be a simultaneous first stage reduction and establishment of a temporary control body under the Security Council (where the veto would apply). The second stage reduction in conventional armaments and Proh’kiuon of atomic weapons, under the Soviet Plan, would be accompanied by taneous establishment of a standing international control organ.

It has always been a cardinal principle of Western disarmament proposals that an effective system of control must precede any reductions or prohibitions and that to be effective the control body should have access to all countries producing atomic and other weapons so that it can preyent any clandestine operations. The Soviet Union has consistently refused to surrender any of its sovereignty and has made it plain that if would not permit a control organ to carry out the. “effective” inspections insisted on by the West. Mr Vyshinsky’s memorandum did not add much in the way of explanation of his complex plan. It said there was "appreciable” relaxation of tension in international relations resulting from the Berlin and Geneva Conferences. This had made the peoples of the whole world confident that, provided the principles of sovereign equality, non-interference in the affairs of other States, EQutual respect for the rights and interests of States and fulfilment of international obligations were observed, there was “every possibility for reaching agreement on important outstanding international problems.” The disarmament proposal was received with cautious optimism today by New York newspapers, which unanimously stressed that Mr Vyshinsky’s offer must be followed by deeds if it was to be taken seriously. The "New York Herald-Tribune” said: "One might be tempted to view Mr Vyshinsky’s discourse less dubiously if it did not come as an obvious rejoinder to the American plan for a world atomic bank for peaceful uses first proposed by President Eisenhower last December and restated by the Secretary of State. Mr John Foster Dulles, at the opening of the General Assembly session last week. The “New York Times” said that the proposal’s "real meaning must still be revealed.” But taken at face value "it purports to represent a substantial change in the hitherto rigid Soviet attitude and even to offer a tentative approach toward Western views.” The newspaper said: “It would be folly to put one’s hopes too high, for Soviet words are one thing and Soviet deeds are quite another, and even a cursory examination of the new plan reveals that, side by side with some positive elements, it also embodies previous Soviet propositions aiming at the one-sided disarmament of the free world.”