RUSSIA WANTS DISARMAMENT

Wanganui Chronicle, 31 October 1946, Page 5

RUSSIA WANTS DISARMAMENT

Moves That Nations All Ban Production Of Atomic Energy For Military Uses Received 6 p.m. NEW YORK, Oct. 29 The leader of the Russian delegation (Mr. Molotov) moved, in the United Nations General Assembly, th at disarmament is necessary and that as a primary objective in that direction, the production of atomic energy for military purposes be banned. Mr. Molotov said that the outbursts against veto power being used by the United Nations were •utbursts against Russia, and were aimed to aid the manufacturers of atomic weapons. The exact text ef Mr. Molotov’s motion was:—

“(1) In the interests of consolidating international peace and security, and in conformity with the purposes and principles of the United Nations’ Organisation, the General Assembly considers a general reduction in armaments is necessary. “(2) Implementation of the decision on reduction of armaments should include, as a primary objective, the ban- , ning of the manufacture and use of the atomic energy for military purposes. “ (3) The General Assembly recommends to the Security Council that it provide for the practical achievement of the objectives set forth in the above. “ (4) The General Assembly calls upon Governments of all States to render every possible assistance to the Security Council in this responsible undertaking, the accomplishment of which conforms to the establishment of a stable peace and international security, and also serves the interests of peoples by lightening the heavy economic burden caused by excessive expenditures for armaments, which do not correspond to peace or post-war conditions.” Mr. Molofov added: “We hope this resolution will find the support of all the United Nations.”

He said that all mistakes wh? the Security Council made were wrongly attributed to a so-called veto, and the noise made arounu this matter was due to intentions to conceal the real issue. The question was whether the United Nations were on the right course. The basic principle of the League of Nations had been unanimity of all members. That made the League unworkable. The United Nations Charter was based differently, because the Security Council required the unanimity of the “Big Five.” That principle was accepted, not by accident but because it was intended to secure unanimity of action by the Great Powers which had not existed before.the second World War.

The principle of unanimity of the •'Big Five” had reep roots. What was behind the wide campaign which recently had begun against it? The result of the elimination of veto would be majority rule, aUegedly the mest democratic, as though it was impossible to compare the voice of the Honduras with that of the United States, or the voice of Haiti with that of Soviet Russia. Who would be naive enough to overlook the fact that this campaign was anti-Soviet? Mr. Molotov said some people were trying to undermine the very foundations of the United Nations. Soviet Russia was as true as ever to I. the principles of real international collaboration and adherence to the United Nations’ Charter, but the success of such a policy depended on the attitude of other Powers. SOVIET SEEKS PEACE. Mr. Molotov said there was no doubt in Soviet Russia that peace and peaceful competition were in the interests of the Russian people, and that of the peoples of other countries, but the Russians were not sure whether the fate of Germany and Japan had been sufficient warning to the Imperialists. Some people, like Mr. Churchill, believe only in extreme methods of aggression. Those people saw in Soviet Russia the main obstacle to their dark plans. “Judging by certain frank statements, we must, under the new postwar conditions, take into account the possibility of an increased influence in certain countries of aggressive imperialistic circles, which, for the sake of achieving world domination, can embark upon reckless aggression and hazardous military adventures," Mr. Moiotov continued. “Mr. Churchill, who has many sympathisers, both in England and the United States, is a prophet for such imperialists. They are now waging a campaign against the Soviet Union." The Soviet was willing to give full information on troops in non-enemy countries, and did not understand why other countries should decline to do this. There were two diverging tendencies in the development of international relations. The struggle between the United Nations’ principles and those who sought world domination was still jn the preliminary stage. The elimination of veto would mean liquidation of the United Nations’ Organisation, since the veto was the foundation thereof. It would ruin democratic international co-operation, and bring to the forefront new pretenders for world domination. If the Great Powers were not allowed to split their ranks, much could b e done in the interests of international cooperation. It was known that naval units, and air squadrons suddenly appeared where they had never been before to promote “diplomatic negotiations.’’ It was known that dollar diplomacy was need to promote dollar democracy. The main task cf the United Nations was to withstand these attacks. ATOMIC BOMB. The atom bomb played a great role in ths political conjectures of many people, but Stalin said the atom bomb could not change the course of a war boesuse there were not enough of thorn. Mr. Molotov said the bomb was iwwhers used against troops, and this w.u no aecidant.” If there are, howover. plans Io use atom bombs against Civilian oop ilatif.",? c-f cities, and to Jv ,’r.u-n on a large scale at that, as ct; tain teWapapors babble, me should

not give oneself up to any illusions regarding the international effect which will be produced by the realisation of atrocious plans of this kind,” he said. “Lastly, it should not be forgotten that atom bombs used by one side may be opposed by atom bombs, and something- else, from the other side, and then the obvious collapse of all present-day calculations of c er tain conceited but shortwitted people will become all too apparent.”

Mr. Molotov declared that the Baruch atomic control plan was egotistical. It tried to obtain for the United States a monopoly of the atom bomb, but monopoly by one nation could not be reckoned with. A scientific question could not be locked in a drawer. Implementation of the American atomic energy control plan would be in contradiction to the unanimously adopted decisions of the United Nations. “It is sufficient to say that to carry out this plan it will be necessary to upset the United Nations Charter and to abandon the principle of unanimity of the Great Powers in the security council, which is to decide the question of the atom bomb,” said Mr. Molotov. “It is not because there is a desire to give a free hand to the worshippers of the atom bomb that someone is raising such a hubbub around the veto. All this goes to show that the Baruch plan does not meet the interests of the United Nations, both as far as its substance and form are concerned.” Discussing the Russian control plan, Mr. Molotov said: “We tie up our calculations for the future with the use of the atom bomb. I would recall that the General Assembly has already declared for the exclusion of atomic weapons from national armaments. Therefore, there is no reason to postpone adoption of the international convention proposed by the Soviet regarding the banning of the manufacture and use of atomic weapons. Only by adopting such a decision will be created conditions favourable to the free and fruitful examination of questions relating to the establishment of control over atomic energy in all countries.” Mr. Molotov said much noise was being made about the veto to free the hands of supporters of the atom bomb. The Russians were not building their future plans on the atom bomb. “Prohibition of the warlike use of the atom bomb should be the sacred task of all those who fought aggression.” Mr. Molotov urged the Assembly to prevent the world splitting into two camps—that of “atomists” and that of those who wished to use atomic energy for peace. Baruch, in October, had frankly spoken of the way he felt about peace. His philosophy was clearly one of limitless expansion of world domination. The Soviet could not believe that a majority of Americans accepted this philosophy, which was also alien to the Soviet. Stalin’s replies to questions recently put to him showed the reality and wisdom of the Soviets’ search for world cooperation. TRUSTEESHIP COUNCIL Mr. Molotov said it might be thought someone was deliberately hindering the establishment of the Trusteeship Council. The prestige of the United Nations was being undermined by the fact that it had not created the Council for nearly two years. The Council could have been called upon to facilitate living conditions of the peoples inhabiting the mandated territories of France, Britain, New Zealand, Australia, Belgium, and South Africa, and to contribute to their development towards self-government and independence. Not a single step had been taken along this path by countries which would not release their firm hold of mandates, confining themselves to writing unsatisfactory drafts and insignificant declarations. Mr. Molotov declared that the Security Council adopted an openly unfavourable attitude toward Soviet Russia on the Persian question, making a gross error which was bound to undermine its prestige. He said it was high time the just demands of India and Indonesia were recognised. It was also necessary for the Security Council to know what armed forces of the United Nations were at present stationed outside their own countries to facilitate the work I of a military staff committee. All | these things were shortcomings of | United Nations. Mr. Molotov then moved bis mo- 1 tion. I