YouSaid · the spoken record

Bachev

THE RECORD WRITES THIS SPEAKER AS BACHEV

lines on the record
70
first
1968-09-24
most recent
1971-09-24
sittings or episodes
2
sources
un-general-debate

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

  1. “The General Assembly should concern itself with the problem of the immediate withdrawal of United States troops from South Korea rather than with the report of the so-called United Nations Commission, which merely serves the imperialistic aims of the United States in that region. That is why, together with several other countries, Bulgaria requested the inclusion in the agenda of this session of the questions relating to the withdrawal of United States and all other foreign forces occupying South Korea under the flag of the United Nations [A/7184 and Add.1 and 2] and the dissolution of the United Nations Commission for the Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea [A/7182 and Add.1 to 4]. 96.”

    1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)

  2. “The main cause of tension in that part of the world is the presence of United States occupation troops on the territory of South Korea, interference in the internal affairs of the Korean people and the obstacles which the United States continues to place in the way of the national reunification of that country. 94. Contrary to the policy of the United States, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is strictly observing the Armistice Agreement of 1953 and aspires to the reunification of the country by peaceful means. In its memorandum of 25 July 1968 [A/C.1/970] the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea reiterated its proposals for the organization of free elections in the South and in the North, without outside interference and after tie withdrawal of foreign troops. 95.”

    1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)

  3. “But the course of negotiation requires the total and unconditional cessation of bombing and of all other acts of war against the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam. This would make it possible to proceed to the discussion of all the questions of concern to the two parties, with a view to reaching a political settlement of the Viet-Nam problem as a whole on the basis of the Geneva Agreements of 1954. If the United States wants such a settlement, it must abandon escalation, take into account the true situation in Viet-Nam and recognize the National Liberation Front of South Viet-Nam. 92. The aggressive policy of the United States in Asia is also illustrated by acts of provocation against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. 93.”

    1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)

  4. “Consequently, it is obvious that this bombing is militarily senseless, politically harmful and morally to be condemned. Why then, does the United States persist in its efforts to justify the need for air raids? It is probably in order to conceal its bad faith and lack of any sincere desire to start serious discussions for the solution of the Viet-Nam conflict. Or, as a United States magazine has just pointed out, the United States Government claims the right to continue the escalation while at the same time expecting international public opinion to credit it with seeking peace in Viet-Nam. And yet, for the United States, there is no other way but negotiation that can lead to a cessation of the war and a solution of the problem.”

    1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)

  5. “The obstinate refusal of the United States to stop all aerial bombing of the territory of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam is the principal obstacle to progress in the Paris talks. In this connexion, it would be appropriate to ask the following question: what is the moral, political or even military justification for the refusal of the United States to stop the bombing? It has been unanimously recognized that no such justification exists. According to qualified specialists in the United States, the military value of all the United States bombing operations in the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam is limited. They produce no substantial military effects, merely serving to increase the material damage, the number of casualties and the sufferings of the Viet-Namese civilian population.”

    1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)

  6. “Goldberg, who proposed in this very Assembly [see 1412th and 1562nd meetings] that the Government of the United States professions of good faith should be put to the test. In fact, with the first small test, when the question arose of the pace at which the preliminary talks were to be held, the insincerity of the United States became patent. It was only thanks to the goodwill of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam that the talks did not fail to open, despite the inconsistency of the United States position. 90. In these circumstances, it is obvious that the United States profession of faith would be still less able to stand the test of serious political negotiations. The behaviour of the United States at Paris is sufficient proof of this. 91.”

    1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)

  7. “The opening at Paris of talks between the representatives of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam and the United States aroused timid hopes concerning the possibility of a solution to the Viet-Nam conflict. These hopes were, however, soon dispelled by the rigid positions taken by the United States at the Paris meetings. There is nothing new, nothing positive or constructive, in the United States attitude. 89. The representatives of the United States do not cease to repeat that they are ready to negotiate on the peaceful settlement of the Viet-Nam conflict any time, anywhere and without preliminary conditions, and they become indignant when the sincerity of their motives is questioned. It would be appropriate to recall the words of Mr.”

    1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)

  8. “We therefore declare ourselves ready to contribute to the realization of this idea as well as to other effective measures calculated to strengthen confidence and good-neighbourly relations among the Balkan peoples. The favourable developments in the Balkans during the last few years give us confidence that the countries of south-eastern Europe can successfully handle even more ambitious tasks for the peaceful settlement of relations in this important region of our continent. 87. The signature of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is, alas, the only encouraging factor in the international situation, still darkened by the war in Viet-Nam, a war which the United States never ceases to extend by committing its enormous military potential in that area. 88.”

    1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)

  9. “Among the measures aimed at limiting the nuclear danger, the proposal to create nuclear-free zones including not only vast regions but limited groups of States or even individual countries, takes on a new aspect; formulated in this way, it opens up greater possibilities for setting up zones free of nuclear weapons. 86. Regarding this proposal we should like to state that Bulgaria continues to believe in the feasibility of the idea of transforming the Balkans into a nuclear-free zone. The implementation of such a proposal would constitute a positive new stage towards understanding and co-operation between the Balkan countries, and would play an important part in lessening tension in Europe and in the neighbouring geographical regions.”

    1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)

  10. “All these problems show the urgent need to call a halt to the arms race, and this explains the general interest aroused by the Soviet Union’s memorandum [A/7134] concerning urgent measures to achieve disarmament and stop the arms race. This document takes into account long years of experience in disarmament negotiations and the ideas and suggestions of a great many States. It thus corresponds to the general interest of mankind as well as to the specific interests of the different countries and the various regions. We should like to stress here the special importance of the proposal relating to the conclusion of a convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons, which is a new step of capital moral and political importance for the strengthening of the security of countries.”

    1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)

  11. “To these attempts by the Federal Republic of Germany must be added those of certain countries of western Europe as well as certain United States politicians. We realize, however, that these efforts must not be confused with the concern of countries wishing to obtain firmer safeguards against nuclear aggression. Complete security can be obtained only by the total prohibition of nuclear weapons and the destruction of stockpiles of: such weapons; but under present conditions, the mere fact of limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons constitutes a guarantee for the security of States. The statements of the three nuclear Powers, approved by the Security Council resolution of 19 June 1968 [255 (1968)] constitute a further reassurance in that respect. 85.”

    1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)

  12. “It confirms the prevailing view in the United Nations that collateral measures constitute a good method of reaching the final goal of general and complete disarmament. 84. The fact that the General Assembly approved the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons by a large majority, and that over eighty member States have already signed it, warrants the hope that the Treaty will come into force in the near future. We must not, however, underestimate the fact that certain circles are continuing their attacks against the Treaty. The Federal Republic of Germany, which is striving to obtain possession of nuclear weapons for its revanchist policy, is renewing its efforts to prevent the Treaty from entering into force.”

    1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)

  13. “The West must, then, also make a realistic and balanced appraisal of the present state of affairs if it wishes to assist in overcoming the dangers threatening stability, security and peaceful development in Europe. This is the only way to create conditions favourable to a relaxation of tension and to peaceful coexistence. 82. The Soviet Union’s new programme for halting the arms race and for disarmament is a concrete expression of the peaceful policy of the socialist countries and of their concern for the security of peoples. 83. This programme follows on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [resolution 2373 (XXII)] which represents a considerable step forward, made possible by the efforts carried out over many years in the field of disarmament by the United Nations and by the great majority of member States.”

    1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)

  14. “In so far as it depends on them, the socialist countries will not allow themselves to be deflected from this path. 81. Despite the open or covert opposition of NATO, this policy has produced encouraging results during the last few years. Co-operation and relations between the socialist States and a considerable number of European countries such as France, the Nordic countries, Austria, Turkey and others, have expanded and become much more fruitful for the mutual benefit of these countries and in the best interests of Europe. We hope that this positive process can be extended to relations with other western States as well, and we are ready, for our part, to co-operate sincerely in that process.”

    1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)

  15. “These were dangerous plans for the peace of Europe, but the action taken by the socialist countries to consolidate the socialist régime in Czechoslovakia caused them to fail. 80. In the presence of this NATO policy, what is the alternative proposed by the socialist States? They are above all determined to co-operate effectively with the countries of western Europe, including the member States of the Atlantic Alliance, not only to solve political problems but also to broaden economic, technical and cultural relations. Instead of the arms race, they propose disarmament; instead of the Western military blocs, a valid system of European collective security; instead of closed economic groups, the harmonious development of trade on an equitable basis.”

    1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)

  16. “Only a few months ago, the last session of NATO held at Reykjavik openly approved the revanchist policy of the Federal Republic of Germany whose military expenditure already exceeds that of Hitlerite Germany when preparing for the Second World War. For some time, new plans have been drawn up with a view to increasing the military forces of NATO in Europe and accelerating the arms race. 79. The militarist policy of the Atlantic Alliance, and especially that of the ruling circles in Washington and Bonn which are the main promoters of this policy is a permanent source of tension in Europe. It was in the context of this policy that plans regarding Czechoslovakia were prepared with a view to upsetting the balance of forces in Europe and undermining the entire status quo in our continent.”

    1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)

  17. “The implementation of decisions aimed at “strengthening” the northern and southern flanks of the Atlantic bloc and the establishment of independent NATO fleets in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, is now in progress. A considerable increase in expenditure on the re-equipment of the Atlantic armies with new and more modern material was decided upon at the NATO meeting of December 1967. NATO naval and air forces in the Mediterranean have been reinforced by new units, some of them equipped with nuclear weapons. All these military measures have been taken in accordance with dangerous political and military doctrines and theories and have been accompanied by feverish activity on the part of the NATO general staffs and by continuous military manoeuvres throughout Western Europe. 78.”

    1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)

  18. “This policy is a serious blow against the relaxation of tension in the relations between East and West which was becoming increasingly manifest thanks to the sincere efforts of the socialist States and of certain countries of western Europe. 77. To confirm this it is sufficient to examine the decisions and activities of NATO during the past few years. According to official information published by the Pentagon in December 1967, the United States has doubled its stock of nuclear weapons in Europe in six years. Decisions and actions have been taken with a view to setting up nuclear mine zones along the frontiers of the socialist countries, including those in the Balkans.”

    1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)

  19. “The speech by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the United Kingdom [1693rd meeting] which we heard this morning compels me to make the same remarks. But perhaps there is no reason for surprise. Perhaps Mr. Rusk’s statement is only the inevitable expression of a policy which breeds uncertainty and danger on all continents. 76. We are thus obliged to point out as we did at the previous session of the General Assembly [1575th meeting], that, because of this policy, the deterioration in the world situation is becoming more marked. Not only has no progress been made towards solving the two open conflicts — the war in Viet-Nam and the crisis in the Middle East — but world tension continues to grow as a result of the worsening of the situation in Europe caused by the policy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).”

    1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)

  20. “74. It is with profound regret that we note the attempts made by the representatives of certain Western countries to introduce into the debates of this session a political note which creates and maintains tension throughout the world. 75. The statement made by Mr. Rusk, the United States Secretary of State, [1677th meeting], is a proof of this. The lack of moderation displayed in that statement will not only make the General Assembly’s work more difficult, but will also worsen the international climate. Our regret and concern are all the greater because the statement came from the Government of a great country having a major responsibility for the safeguarding of international peace and understanding.”

    1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)