YouSaid · the spoken record

GROMYKO

lines on the record: 1,518
first: 1957-09-24
most recent: 1984-09-24
sittings or episodes: 22
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

“The States that make up this commonwealth have common destinies, and solve common problems in building a society that excludes the exploitation of man by man and opens up limitless vistas for the use of all human abilities and achievements in science, technology, and culture for the welfare and not for the extermination of peoples. These profoundly humane ideals inspire the socialist countries in their joint efforts in the international arena. 68. The socialist countries have their own vital interests, their own obligations, including the obligation to protect their mutual security, and their own socialist principles of mutual relations based on brotherly assistance, solidarity and internationalism. This commonwealth is an indissoluble whole, cemented together by indissoluble ties such as history has never known before. 69.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“In solving some of them it is possible to make some progress; others remain unsolved for years; and still others seem to have been raised simply to complicate the work of the United Nations and to poison the international atmosphere. 66. There are various reasons for this. However, as experience shows, the productiveness of the work of the United Nations largely depends on the degree of realism with which States assess each other’s interests, including the interests of the socialist-commonwealth. Attempts to use the United Nations against the vital interests of the socialist countries, against their security interests — and such attempts are sometimes made - are doomed to failure. 67. The socialist commonwealth was formed after the Second World War and was an historic achievement of all progressive humanity.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“We know very well that they, too, regard our country as their friend and ally in the common cause, the struggle for peace and the freedom of peoples. 64. The Soviet Union, together with the other socialist countries, is consistently and firmly pursuing a policy o peace and friendship among nations and upholding the principles of peaceful coexistence among States regardless of their social system. Does this mean that so-called military adventures, encroachments on the freedom of nations, and instigation of international crises could remain without rebuff from our side? No, it does not. Dedication to peace and opposition to aggression in any form, direct or indirect, are organically blended in Soviet policies. 65. Every session of the General Assembly of the United Nations is faced with major problems.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“From the very first days of the Soviet State we have sought in the international field for points of contact with countries whose social systems and ideologies were different from our own. Even today the Soviet Union is a staunch advocate of the need to find possibilities of co-operation or even joint action with the governments of the bourgeois countries for the common purpose of preventing a new world war. 63. In the effort to prevent war and immobilize the forces of aggression, our natural ally is the large group of States which do not belong to the socialist commonwealth but have broken the fetters of colonialism, have started on the road to independent development and cherish the interests of strengthening peace. These are the developing countries, where approximately 1,500 million people live.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“Indeed, they associate the future of the social system of whose interests they themselves are the spokesmen with this very course in international affairs. 60. Those who really cherish the interests of peace and who can clearly distinguish between the conflict of ideas and ideologies per se and efforts to decide the outcome of that conflict by resort to arms can hardly fail to appreciate the foreign policy pursued by the Soviet Union and the states of the socialist commonwealth. 61. In our time, when unprecedently destructive types of weapons have been developed, only the ignorant or the foolhardy can fail to realize what a military clash between the two social systems would mean. 62.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“Whichever region of the world or major event we consider, we see everywhere a conflict in which the forces of peace, national liberation and progress oppose the forces of reaction and war. This conflict is being carried on ceaselessly and with varying degrees of intensity and passion on the battlefields of Viet-Nam and in the Sinai desert in efforts to eliminate the remains of colonialism, at the negotiating table in Geneva, and here at the Headquarters of the United Nations. 59. The reason why the most vital problems of the peoples of the world remain unsolved must be sought in the policy pursued by those circles of the Western Powers which place their allegiance to military blocs and to the armaments race above the interests of the peoples.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“56. Allow me, Mr. President, on behalf of the Soviet delegation, to congratulate you on your election to the post of President of the twenty-third session of the General Assembly, and to wish you every success in your endeavours in this important position. 57. This twenty-third session of the General Assembly is beginning its labours in a complex situation in which the policies of States are coming into increasingly sharp contrast. We say this in order to stress the importance of the tasks facing the United Nations and the responsibility of every Government for creating at this session an atmosphere conducive to productive discussion of the items on the agenda. 58.”
1968-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 23 (1968)
“The USSR Government calls on the Governments of States Members of the United Nations to unite their efforts and achieve at this session of the General”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“This means the bringing about, together with the other socialist nations, of favourable international conditions for the building of socialism and communism. It means strengthening the unity and cohesion of the socialist countries, their friendship and brotherhood. It means support for the national liberation movement and comprehensive co-operation with the young developing States. It means consistently upholding the principle of peaceful co-existence of States with differing social systems, repelling aggression and saving mankind from another world war. 170. Guided by these aims, the Soviet Union is ready to develop and improve its relations with all States which, for their part, work towards the same ends, and to co-operate with them in seeking solutions to present-day international problems. 171.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“The Soviet Union advocates the earliest possible solution of the question of admitting the German Democratic Republic to the United Nations. We have no objection to the simultaneous admission of the other German State, the Federal Republic of Germany. It is also necessary to settle at long last the question of restoring the rights of the Chinese People's Republic in the United Nations. 168. The Soviet Union places its entire influence as a major world Power and a Member of the United Nations behind the struggle for peace, freedom and social progress. 169. The main trends and aims of the Soviet Union's foreign policy have been laid down by the twenty-third Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and our country is steadfastly translating them into reality.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“The so-called United Nations Commission for the Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea should be disbanded. It should certainly have been scrapped long ago. 167. The Soviet Union regards the United Nations as an important instrument in the struggle to ensure the security of peoples, and attaches great importance to the strengthening of the Organization and the elimination of all shortcomings in its work. We have consistently endorsed the idea that the United Nations should become a truly universal international organization, we cannot reconcile ourselves to a situation in which several sovereign States, which have been in existence for more than one decade, remain outside the United Nations. Here we have in mind first and foremost the German Democratic Republic, a peace- loving socialist State of German workers and peasants.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Guided by a desire to promote the consolidation of peace in the Far East, the Soviet Union and a number of other socialist countries have submitted for consideration by the General Assembly the item entitled "Withdrawal of United States and All Other Foreign Forces Occupying South Korea under the Flag of the United Nations" [A/6696 and Add.1-3], The United States occupation of South Korea creates a dangerous source of international tension. The United States has transformed South Korea into a military training ground, has dragged it into the aggressive war in Viet-Nam and is obstructing a peaceful solution of the problem of Korean unification. The withdrawal of United States and all other foreign troops from South Korea is absolutely essential.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“All the other colonial peoples, which were but recently denied their natural human rights, have freed themselves and founded their own independent States, whose representatives occupy seats in this hall in full equality with all the rest. 165. But the nearer draws the day of the final elimination of colonialism, the more stubbornly do the colonial Powers resist the completion of the historical process of national liberation. At its twenty-second session, the General Assembly is called upon to take further measures to ensure the prompt elimination of the vestiges of colonial slavery. 166.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“If yet another step is taken and an international convention prohibits the use of nuclear weapons, the possibility of taking practical action to purge our planet of weapons for mass destruction would draw much closer. 163. My delegation expresses the hope that all the States represented at the General Assembly will give due attention to the consideration of our proposal. 164. The Soviet Union has always directly aided those who at the cost of bitter fighting, have been demolishing one colonial prison after another. Today, the only areas remaining under the colonial yoke are a small part of Africa and some island territories scattered over the oceans.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“All the greater is the responsibility resting upon the Governments that realize how events may develop unless the nuclear arms race is halted; all the more important it is for the General Assembly at its twenty-second session to adopt a clear resolution approving the proposal to conclude a convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons and emphasizing the vital importance of the matter. 162. The Moscow Treaty banning nuclear weapons testing in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water was followed by a Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space [resolution 2222 (XXI)] which declared outer space and celestial bodies out of bounds for nuclear weapons. Today there is a chance to conclude a treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“In their-day, such personalities in the League of Nations as Lloyd-George and Tardieu, Simon and Politis devised the most refined procedures in order to sink any viable disarmament proposal. The main gambit was to establish a number of useless committees and sub-committees and to cast them adrift without any instructions or clear directives. As a result, their discussions merely echoed the discord in the League of Nations itself. The history of postwar disarmament negotiations shows that there is still no lack of practitioners of such methods, which resemble nothing so much as funeral rites over any reasonable proposal, performed according to the rules of diplomatic protocol. 161.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“That would indeed be better, much better, and our country Is prepared to take such a step. It is not we who fear radical solutions which would completely remove the threat of nuclear war, The Soviet Union has repeatedly put forward proposals for complete nuclear disarmament, and we are prepared to take immediate action to that end. It is others who fear such decisions, and who they are is well known. 159. In these conditions, to make prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons conditional on their complete elimination would be tantamount to renouncing both. To take the stand of "all or nothing" is pseudoradicalism, and in effect amounts to reluctance to move closer to a solution of the problem of nuclear disarmament. 160. We foresee that every effort will be made to sidestep our proposal to prohibit the use of nuclear weapons.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“It also proposes that every State party to the convention should undertake to make every effort to arrive as soon as possible at agreement on the cessation of production and the destruction of all stockpiles of nuclear weapons in conformity with a treaty on general and complete disarmament under effective international control. 157. These are the key provisions of the draft convention which the USSR Government is submitting for the attention of all States Members of the United Nations. The gist of them may be expressed more briefly still: the Soviet Union proposes that nuclear weapons should be abandoned politically and that a further effort should be made to scrap them physically. 158. Sometimes the question is raised: would it not be preferable to come to an immediate agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons completely?”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“The existence of immense stockpiles of such weapons, which are continuing to grow, and the incessant complications and military conflicts in various parts of the world, serve to emphasize the urgent need to complete this task. 154. Inspired by a desire to strengthen the feeling of security and confidence in the future, the USSR Government is submitting for consideration by the General Assembly at its twenty-second session the important and urgent item entitled "Conclusion of a convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons". At the same time we are submitting the draft of such a convention [A/6834]. 155. The USSR Government proposes that every State signing the convention should undertake to refrain from using nuclear weapons, from threatening to use them and from inciting other States to use them. 156.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Armies numbered in millions have time and time again swept from one country to another, from west to east and from east to west. This has happened in other continents as well. So if I mention Europe in particular, it is only because the decisive battles of the Second World War were fought on its soil and it was there that passed the flaming Juggernaut of war, albeit Europe was not alone to be scorched. 153. No one who is not anxious to keep the world In a state of war fever, in which the machinery of destruction is perfected from day to day and from year to year, can question the need to come to an understanding without further delay on a complete and final prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“No, only those who regard world wars as an inescapable concomitant of human existence advocate the legalization of nuclear weapons. It is they who are attempting to hypnotize people by all sorts of magic formulas, saying, for example, that it is better not even to try to ban nuclear weapons, since the question is much too serious, immeasurably complex and almost hopeless. As if it were not the contrary — the more vital the problem, and the more profoundly it perturbs the actions, the greater the need to bend every effort to solve it. 152. The peoples of the world curse war and those who, by their actions and policies, have twice plunged them into world conflict. In Europe there is probably not a single yard where the bones of the slain are not mouldering, and where the soil is not soaked in the blood of the war dead.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“The vast difference between a situation in which nuclear bombs are actually marked "ready for use" or "fit for launching" and one in which prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons has become international law under a treaty is only too obvious. 150. History shows instances when certain types of weapons were not put into action because their use had been banned by international conventions or agreements. Poison gas and toxic agents which took a toll of tens of thousands of human lives in the First World War were not used in the Second World War, for by that time there existed the Geneva Protocol banning the use of chemical and bacteriological weapons. 151. Who today objects to banning the use of nuclear weapons? Is it those who are working for peace?”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Six years ago the United Nations adopted a resolution which declared nuclear war to be a crime against humanity — the Declaration on the prohibition of the use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons. That resolution reflected the natural desire of the overwhelming majority of States to mitigate the threat of nuclear war and to ban a force which runs counter to human nature and to humane principles. Unfortunately, however, the provisions of that Declaration have not been formalized by a treaty. 149. Why is this so? Surely all States, nuclear and non-nuclear both, and all their peoples, would stand to gain from an international undertaking never to use nuclear weapons.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“We are gratified to note that some progress has now been made towards a solution of the problem of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. 146. A treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons would not only place no obstacle in the way of the peaceful use of atomic energy by non-nuclear nations; it would actually open up new prospects for them in that respect. 147. There is no doubt that not only our contemporaries but our descendants also will praise the conclusion of a treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons — if this important matter is concluded — as an act of great realism and far-sighted concern for the vital interests of the world's peoples. 148.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Either we follow the Charter, which embodies the experience of the peoples that bore the brunt of the Second World War — in which case all States must show the highest sense of responsibility and find ways to eliminate the most destructive of all weapons, nuclear weapons — or the Governments will prove themselves incapable of taking a responsible attitude and the entire affair will, as on so many previous occasions, boil down to a repetition of solemn phrases and to the adoption of well-meaning but useless resolutions. The world has reached a stage where no State can evade this choice. 145. Of all the measures which today could contribute to a containment of the nuclear arms race, one which, in our view, is urgently called for is the conclusion of an international treaty to halt the spread of nuclear weapons.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“That is why we also urge the speedy implementation of such measures to curtail the arms race as the banning of all nuclear testing, the elimination of military bases in foreign territories, and the establishment of non-nuclear zones in various regions. 143. We mention this today not because, on the eve of a great jubilee, we should like once again to demonstrate that the Soviet Union's policy is peaceful and humane, We are bound to raise anew the pressing question of disarmament at this session of the General Assembly because, unless we intervene in a most determined way in the sphere of the nuclear arms race, one which poses an immense threat to the destinies of all mankind, all pledges of dedication to the ideals of peace proclaimed in the United Nations Charter will remain a dead letter. 144.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Therefore, we have no need for armaments save to defend our sovereignty and territorial inviolability and the gains of the socialist system, and to protect our friends and allies and the peaceful existence of peoples. Nor are there in socialist society any social groups which would derive material advantage from an arms race. 140. That is why, ever since the 1922 Genoa Conference, at which representatives of the socialist and capitalist systems met for the first time at an international negotiation table, our country has consistently advocated general disarmament. 141. That is why, ever since nuclear weapons made their appearance, the Soviet Union has been firmly advocating their prohibition and destruction. 142.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“We regret that our allies in the anti-Hitler coalition did not accept our proposal. The attitude which they then took has seriously hampered the work of the United Nations. 137. Guided by all these considerations, the USSR Government is submitting to the General Assembly at its twenty-second session the important and urgent item entitled "Need to expedite the drafting of a definition of aggression in the light of the present international situation" [A/6833]. 138. We urge the States Members of the United Nations to consider that proposal in a duly responsible manner. 139. Acquisitive aims in foreign policy are alien to the Soviet Union and to the community of socialist States.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“The Soviet Union, which pursues a foreign policy based on respect for the rights of nations big and small, and which is a consistent and firm advocate of effective measures to consolidate peace, believes that the completion of work on the definition of aggression should be put off no longer. 136. It will be no exaggeration to say that, in the question of defining aggression, the United Nations is deeply indebted to the peoples of the world. I would remind the Assembly that, as far back as the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, the USSR delegation, on the instructions of its Government, introduced a proposal that in drafting the United Nations Charter the question of a definition of aggression should be decided upon at the outset, so that all States would henceforth be guided by the definition.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“If States take an objective and honest approach to what is happening on the international scene, and they are guided by a desire for peace, there will be no problem in distinguishing between those who are trying to break into a house and the inhabitants who are defending their home regardless of the political views of the household and the assailants. 134. To take any other view would be to encourage aggression and to make common cause with those who use weapons as an argument in a clash of ideas and who are ready to shoot down an unacceptable ideology, naturally shooting down at the same time those who profess it — entire peoples, if necessary. 135. The ups and downs of the discussions on the definition of aggression are closely linked with the struggle between the various concepts and views concerning war and peace.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“It is, of course, to be expected that the forces which are not interested in strengthening peace will, as they did decades ago, obstruct the preparation of a definition of aggression and will once again resurrect the arguments that we heard in the League of Nations and, later, here in the United Nations, to the effect that it is impossible to pinpoint aggression or to draw the line between attack and defence against attack. Who knows, they may well refer once again to the ideological differences which allegedly make it impossible to reach a concerted opinion on this topic. 133.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“If, let us say, a State or group of States, with or without a declaration of war, invades the territory of another State with its armed forces, bombs that territory or sends land, naval or air forces inside that State's territorial limits without the permission of the State's Government, or if it sets up a naval blockade of the shores or ports of another State, can there be any doubt, in any such case, as to whether this is aggression and as to who is responsible for it? 131. But if, nevertheless, anyone is still not sure whether or not certain actions constitute aggression, such uncertainties should be cleared up in advance, done away with once and for all, so that no room is left for any doubt. Fewer will then be tempted to attack other nations under cover of cunningly continued pretexts, which is the present practice. 132.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“If that suits anyone at all, it certainly does not suit the peace-loving States. The absence of a definition of aggression is a serious deficiency in international relations and international law. To make good that deficiency would strengthen the effectiveness of the United Nations in its efforts to prevent and stop aggression, and especially the effectiveness of the Security Council, in which is vested the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace. It would then be more difficult to hinder the branding of aggressive actions as aggressive, and of the States that undertake them as aggressors. 129. The immense experience amassed by mankind in the course of its history and the time-honoured and time-tested rules of international law allow of a precise definition of the terms aggression and aggressor. 130.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Even when tanks marked with swastikas were already rolling over frontier markers, when the troops of the Nazi aggressors were marching through the streets of certain capitals, and when the names of independent States were beginning to vanish from the map one by one—even then there were some politicians who pretended they had not the foggiest idea of what constituted aggression, The results of that political blindness, or, to be more precise, of that deliberate policy of connivance with the forces of aggression, shall never be erased from the memory of the peoples. 128. In the present situation too, the task of defining aggression confronts us in all its magnitude. But unfortunately, for two decades now the United Nations has seemed quite unable to muster the strength to work out such a definition.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“The Soviet Union proposed that the Powers capable of resisting the Nazi aggressors should set up a mighty barrier to their predatory plans and unite their efforts to deal a rebuff to Hitler and his allies and to prevent the impending war. We believed even then that the struggle against aggressive designs would be facilitated by the elaboration in international law of a precise definition of aggression, and we pressed for this. But the Governments then in power in a number of Western nations, having decided on collusion with Hitler and Mussolini, frustrated the elaboration of such a definition. 127. The representatives of those nations at international conferences displayed exceptional ingenuity in inventing every conceivable loophole so as to evade a clear-cut definition of what is aggression and what is defence against aggression.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“To continue to ward off another world war, as well as to paralyse the forces of aggression and militarism in their attempts to achieve their goals through local wars, requires still greater cohesion and solidarity among all peace-loving States and all groups and movements upholding the cause of peace, and still greater action on their part in the International arena. 126. Even before the outbreak of the Second World War the Soviet Union sought to organize a collective effort to repel aggression. In those years our country rose unhesitatingly on more than one occasion in defence of the victims of aggression and demonstrated by its deeds its abhorrence of the policy of conquest and enslavement.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“The argument runs approximately as follows: at that time the aggressive forces directed the course of events, from aggression against Ethiopia and the Anschluss of Austria to the dismemberment and occupation of Czechoslovakia, from the conquest of Manchuria to the Invasion of Northern and Central China. That is how the Second World War crept up on the nations. 125. Today the balance of power in the world is different. Today the main line of world events is increasingly determined by the policy of peace and of repelling aggression.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“The entire course of international development indicates that the greatest danger to the cause of peace today is to be found in the increasingly frequent acts of armed aggression against sovereign States, in the bombing and seizure of their territory, in attempts to suppress the national liberation movements by armed force, and in calls for retaliation. It is the direct duty of the United Nations to curb the policy of aggression wherever and however it may manifest itself. 124. How feasible is this task? Comparisons are sometimes drawn between the thirties and the sixties of this century.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“These apprehensions are rapidly mounting because of the fact that the Power that plays the leading role in NATO has unleashed a war against the Viet-Namese people, is protecting the aggressor in the Middle East and has strewn its military bases practically all over the world. 122. There would be a noticeable abatement in international tension if military blocs were dissolved. These blocs are not an invention of ours. The Soviet Union and other socialist countries are proposing the simultaneous disbanding of the North Atlantic Alliance and the defensive Warsaw Treaty concluded to counterbalance it, or else, as a first step, an agreement to dissolve the military organizations of both alliances. 123.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“This conviction of ours is borne out by the growing trends towards friendlier relations between the East and West of that continent and towards the development of mutually advantageous co-operation among European States in various fields. The specific proposals to that effect submitted by the Soviet Union and the European socialist countries are well known. 120. The USSR Government has already drawn the General Assembly's attention to the dangers inherent in the division of the world into opposing military- political groupings of States. Repeated statements to this effect have been made jointly by the States members of the Warsaw Treaty. A similar statement was made at the Conference of European Communist and Workers' Parties held at Karlovy Vary in April 1967. 121.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“The danger of the revanchist policy of the Federal Republic of Germany is aggravated by the support it receives from the United States of America, which is becoming even more closely and openly allied with the Federal Republic of Germany in the international arena, although a mere quarter of a century ago the United States, in a coalition with the Soviet Union and other European States, was waging a struggle against German militarism, on whose predatory and revanchist plans the leading circles of West Germany are increasingly patterning their own policies. 119. Like many other European States, the Soviet Union is convinced that it is possible to have a Europe in which security for any one State or people would at the same time mean security for all.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“One foot rests on the platform of "Germany with its 1937 boundaries" — that is to say, a Germany that is no more and will never be again; the other rests on the defeated designs and doctrines of the "cold war". And, despite the juggling with ostensibly peaceful phraseology, this policy is unable to shift towards recognition of the true situation in Europe today. 118.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“In the memory of the peoples, Munich has become a symbol of criminal collusion with an aggressor and with the rape of the Czechoslovak people; yet Bonn continues to cling to the Munich Agreement, refusing to recognize that it was void from the outset. 115. Even many of the allies of the Federal Republic of Germany in the NATO military bloc do not support its absurd claims to West Berlin. Yet Bonn continues to advance those claims. 116. Finally, the legitimate concern of the peoples, particularly those which suffered from Nazi aggression, is aroused by the attempts of revanchist quarters in the Federal Republic of Germany to gain access to nuclear weapons. 117. If I were to characterize briefly the Federal Republic's policy, I would say that it is a policy that has both feet firmly planted in the past.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“113. No sooner is a responsible statement about the realities of present-day Europe or about the inviolability of its present boundaries made in Moscow, Paris, Warsaw or Berlin, than a revanchist witches, sabbath takes place in West Germany. No sooner does any State, including a non-European one, give some indication of adopting a realistic attitude to the fact of the existence of two German States — the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany — than Bonn resorts to every means of political blackmail and economic pressure to bolster its absurd claims to represent "the whole of Germany". 114.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“110. Among the geographical names mentioned in connexion with armed clashes in various parts of the world there are none today from the European continent. Does this mean that the current situation in Europe offers grounds for complacency? 111. Most of the Members of the United Nations are non-European States. Yet, they too cannot fail to be concerned over the problem of Europe, where both world wars began. No country, even far away from Europe, can divorce the concerns of the European peoples from its own, or from the common concern for international security. That would be a great mistake — a statement as indisputable today as it was in the past. 112. Demands for a recarving of the political map of Europe are being advanced again, as if there had not been a Second "World War or a victory of the anti- Hitler coalition over Nazi Germany.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Israel's attack on the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan gives added urgency to the question of the attitude to be adopted by the United Nations towards the policy of aggression: should the United Nations allow the invaders to use the occupied territories as a political bargaining point and thereby reward them for their crime, or should it demand the immediate withdrawal of the invading forces? To curb the aggressor or to condone the aggression- such is the choice with which the logic of events has confronted the States Members of the United Nations. 109. The Soviet Union is prepared to do its utmost at the General Assembly and in the Security Council to bring about the prompt elimination of the consequences of Israel's aggression — a requirement that is profoundly just and in accord with the interests of peace in the Middle East.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“Israel must comply with the United Nations decisions on Jerusalem [resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V)], otherwise the Security Council will have to take a decision on sanctions against it. The Soviet Union will be ready to participate in the implementation of such a decision. 107. There are other questions, too, which in one way or another relate to the situation in the Middle East. The Soviet Union is in favour of all the States of this region, directly contiguous on the southern boundaries of our country, being guaranteed peace and security. It is impossible, however, to move in this direction until the first step has been taken, and that is to free Arab lands from the forces of the Israel aggressors. 108.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“But it is well known that the overwhelming majority of States in one form or another condemned the aggressor's actions and defended the rights of the Arab States, The Soviet Union is in sympathy with the initiatives and efforts undertaken of late, notably in the capitals of Arab States, aimed at eliminating the aftermath of the Israel aggression. 106. While condemning that aggression, the Soviet Union sees the solution of the question in promptly securing the withdrawal of Israel's forces behind the lines they occupied prior to 5 June 1967. Further, the Arab States — the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan — must be compensated for the material damage inflicted upon them by Israel's aggression and by the continuing occupation of parts of their territory.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“The danger that war may again break out remains. 105. Can a solution be found to the problem of eliminating the consequences of Israel's aggression? Undoubtedly it can, and the United Nations has a part to play in finding it. Owing to the stand taken by those countries which encourage the policy of conquest, first and foremost the United States, the emergency special session of the General Assembly failed to solve the problem of eliminating the consequences of Israel's aggression, and above all, the withdrawal of Israel forces from the Arab territories seized by them.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)
“The people of Viet-Nam are fighting for their freedom and independence; they are fighting heroically and we are convinced that their just cause will triumph. 103. This is not the first time that the General Assembly has been convened this year. This same hall has been a meeting place for the emergency special session which discussed questions arising out of the aggression by Israel, encouraged by the larger Powers backing it, against the Arab States, These questions continue to face the world today. 104. Israel is still occupying sizeable territories of the United Arab Republic, Syria and Jordan, where it is installing an occupation administration. Its troops are deployed along the eastern bank of the Suez Canal and the Canal itself is out of action. Many thousands of Arab refugees have been driven from their lands.”
1967-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 22 (1967)