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 reason why it has not so far been possible to conclude a treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is no secret to anyone. No sooner had all States voted in favour of a constructive resolution on this question in New York, than certain Powers, in Geneva, started to look for those very loop-holes for the proliferation of nuclear weapons which the United Nations had unequivocally opposed. Everyone knows that this is being done for the sake of the Federal Republic of Germany. But that only gives us cause for redoubled and tripled concern. 151. In Western Germany, preparations are already being made to equip the army with nuclear missiles. Military personnel reared by Hitler's generals are being trained in the use of nuclear weapons and missile technology.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Last year a constructive resolution was adopted which urged all States to take the steps necessary for the conclusion of a treaty which would be void of any loop-holes leading to the proliferation, either directly or indirectly, of nuclear weapons in any form [resolution 2028 (XX)]. So far, however, no such treaty has been concluded and the probability that more and more States will become nuclear Powers, in addition to the present five, is increasing and already almost lends itself to factual analysis. 149. It is also apparent to everyone that, if the process of proliferation of nuclear weapons continues, it may become irreversible, to say the least. An appropriate international treaty imposing clearly defined obligations on States might be an effective means of combating such proliferation. 150.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“The United Nations should not work merely in order to build up archives serving as a kind of burial ground for proposals and plans directed towards the solution of one of the most vital problems facing mankind. We appeal for a different approach. The United Nations is entitled to express its opinion clearly and firmly on the ways of eliminating the nuclear threat, and to state it in such terms that those who are opposed to such action would be unable to ignore its attitude. 147. Which aspects of the nuclear problem are being placed in the forefront today? The answer to this question was given by the twentieth session of the General Assembly which gave a prominent place on its agenda to the question of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. This answer is, of course, still valid. 148.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“The opinion is sometimes voiced that the elimination of the nuclear threat is primarily the concern of those States which possess nuclear weapons. These States have, indeed, a special responsibility, if only because they alone possess nuclear weapons and know their destructive capabilities better than anyone else. Nevertheless, much depends on the United Nations as a whole. 146. The problem of the removal of the nuclear threat can be dealt with in different ways. For example, its existence can be mentioned from time to time in official records and resolutions and it can be referred from one session of the General Assembly to another and from committee to committee. The USSR Government does not approve of this practice.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“In our day, the task of consolidating peace and of resisting aggression and interference in the domestic affairs of States is inseparably linked to averting the danger of nuclear war. This problem, which is one of the most serious in the whole history of mankind, has confronted the United Nations ever since the establishment of the Organization. At the very first session of the General Assembly, in 1946, the USSR Government drew the attention of Governments and peoples to the dangerous situation which had arisen as a result of the appearance of nuclear weapons and submitted a Draft International Convention to Prohibit the Production and Employment of Weapons Based on the Use of Atomic Energy for the Purpose of Mass Destruction. Since that time, the United Nations has been continuously concerned with the problem of nuclear weapons. 145.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Many States have striven to solve this question at previous sessions of the United Nations General Assembly and at meetings of the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament. 143. All this gives the USSR Government reason to hope for a constructive approach at the twenty-first session of the General Assembly to the question which we are submitting as an important and urgent item, entitled "Elimination of foreign military bases in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America" [A/6399], The adoption of a clear and unequivocal decision on this question would be a great step towards strengthening the independence of the newly-emerged States, protecting them from foreign intervention, and relaxing world tension, 144.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“We are motivated by broader interests — the interests of world peace. 140. The decision to eliminate United States military bases in foreign territories would not, in our opinion, jeopardize the interests of United States security. If the United States undertook their elimination, such a step would certainly not be held against it. 141. Where should a start be made on the elimination of foreign military bases serving the aims of aggression? It might be advisable to begin in Asia, Africa and Latin America. This might perhaps prove to be the easier way. 142. The Organization of African Unity has demanded the elimination of foreign military bases in Africa. A firm stand on that subject was taken by the Cairo Conference of Non-Aligned Countries.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Instead of, say, fifteen bases in a certain area, ten are left, but those ten bases are expanded and equipped with more powerful weapons, and the result is that the total number of foreign troops and armaments deployed beyond national borders is actually increased rather than decreased. What is needed is a genuine elimination of bases and not the appearance thereof, 139. It may be that not all States represented here will react in the same way to our proposal. We hope that the majority will adopt a sympathetic attitude. It is not any narrow interests of our own that we are promoting here. The Soviet Union is a Power which has everything necessary to defend its security against, among other things, the threats posed by the foreign bases of certain members of Western military blocs.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“For the masters of such bases have, so to speak, become firmly entrenched and it is not easy to dislodge them. 137. No one claims that the elimination of these military bases is a simple matter. But even in a simple matter no progress can be achieved unless an effort is made. We can see that the bases may not be eliminated all at once, but, to begin with, only in certain areas and in individual States. But it is essential to move in that direction if the United Nations really intends to take action to achieve a relaxation of international tension and to create conditions in which every State will feel secure. 138. Of course, I am not referring to the formal reduction in the number of bases and other military installations abroad which certain Western Powers sometimes effect for economic reasons.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“If a sculptor should attempt to depict what the foreign military bases stand for, he would have to produce a monument to violence, destruction and death. Some of the military bases serving the aims of aggression are situated hundreds rather than thousands of miles from the United States, as for example in Latin America, but their purpose is much the same. 135. Many countries would like to get rid of such bases and the unfair agreements by which those bases were imposed on them. However, they are not yet in a position to do so and their demands are not heeded. They need support, not least from the United Nations. 136. Is it in the power of the United Nations to solve this problem and should the twenty-first session of the General Assembly deal with it?”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“A great many facts could be adduced to show that the foreign bases of certain Western Power shave been used as springboards of aggression to force the States in whose territory they are situated, and even neighbouring States, to make political and economic concessions against the interests of their own peoples. The logic they use is simple enough: if you do not accept our political argument, we have a much more convincing argument to hand — bombers, marines and aircraft carriers. 134. Why do certain circles in the United States cling to their bases, such as those in and around South Viet-Nam, which are situated many thousands of miles from New York and San Francisco? Have they brought culture, progress and well-being to the local population? They have not.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“An analysis of developments in the international situation in the post-war period and particularly in the last few years inevitably leads to the conclusion that the military bases established in foreign territory by certain Powers of Western military blocs are a basic, instrument of aggressive policy. Many of these bases are a legacy of colonialism. There are also other bases which these Powers have set up in the territory of weaker countries simply by imposing completely unfair agreements on them. 132. This applies primarily to the United States, which has set up hundreds of military bases and fortified points beyond its borders, and permanently maintains about a million of its armed forces, nuclear and missile equipment, aircraft and other weaponry in the territory of other States. 133.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“It has been repeatedly stated here, in the General Assembly, that the Assembly's work must be made more effective and fruitful. This is a case where that can and must be done. 130. We believe that the item submitted by Czechoslovakia, entitled "Strict observance of the prohibition of the threat or use of force in international relations, and of the right of peoples to self-determination" [A/6393 and Corr. 1], is also of great immediacy. The USSR Government fully supports the initiative of the Czechoslovak Government in submitting this important question for the consideration of the General Assembly. 131.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Because this has not in fact been the case, giving rise to justified alarm, the USSR delegation, on the instructions of its Government, is submitting for the consideration of the twenty-first session of the General Assembly as an important and urgent question, an item entitled "Status of the implementation of the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty" [A/6397]. 129. Consideration of this question will give the United Nations an opportunity to make plain to all mankind who is violating the Declaration. The United Nations must state in the clearest terms that those who violate the Declaration by trampling on the sovereignty of independent States are assuming a grave responsibility for the possible consequences.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“A year ago, the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty [resolution 2131 (XX)]. The States Members of the United Nations acted in the belief that this important document could and should be a useful instrument for the normalization of international relations, and that those States which voted for the Declaration would adhere strictly to it.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“The Soviet Union, a firm adherent of the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other States, vigorously opposes those who disregard the sovereign rights of peoples and seek to implant lawlessness and violence in international relations. Together with other States which advocate peace, we shall use every opportunity to rebuff any manifestations of the policy of interference in the domestic affairs of others. 127. The front line in the struggle against violations of national sovereignty is everywhere. This struggle is going on in all continents, at different levels of international relations, and in a variety of forms. It is one in which the United Nations is required to play an active role. 128.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“The continuing provocations of the United States against the Republic of Cuba constitute a great threat to peace. The Soviet Union has warned and warns again those who harbour aggressive designs against Cuba that Cuba has faithful and reliable friends who are keeping a close watch on the intrigues of the enemies of the Cuban revolution and who are ready to give the Cuban people all necessary support in its struggle for freedom and independence. 125. Acts of interference in the domestic affairs of independent States, wherever they are committed; are a threat to peace and to the security of all peoples. The Soviet Union is a great Power and a permanent member of the Security Council, and it bears a substantial part of the responsibility for maintaining world peace. 126.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“The Soviet Union and other socialist States, and all the forces of peace, are on the side of the Viet-Namese people and its just cause. We have extended and shall extend every assistance to the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam in repulsing aggression. Those responsible for the Viet-Namese war should duly weigh the significance of the warning issued by the socialist States meeting at Bucharest and draw the appropriate conclusions. 123. The policy of aggression in its most concentrated form is to be found today in Viet-Nam, but Viet-Nam is not the only country so affected. We have already referred to Laos and Cambodia. Nor can we forget the intervention in the Dominican Republic and the threats, intrigues and subversive activities against the peoples of a number of other countries. 124.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“It is a simple and natural plan; to halt unconditionally the bombings of the territory of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, to withdraw from South Viet-Nam all armed forces of the United States and its allies, as well as foreign weapons, and to give the Viet-Namese people an opportunity to settle its internal problems for itself. The aggressor came to Viet-Nam and the aggressor must depart. 121. It is the duty of every State and every Government which is aware of its responsibility before the peoples of the world to speak out from this rostrum in support of the heroic Viet-Namese people, to condemn the United States aggression and require it to be halted unconditionally both in North and South Viet-Nam, and to demand the withdrawal from Viet-Nam of all armed forces of the United States and its allies. 122.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“What emerges from the statement made yesterday on behalf of the United States Government here in the General Assembly [1412th plenary meeting] is that the United States Government is defending its aggressive course in the Viet-Nam question and that there is still no sign of any serious intention on the part of Washington to seek a solution to this question and to halt the aggression against the Viet-Namese people. 120. Where should we seek the solution to this problem? A programme for settling the question of Viet-Nam in accordance with the principles of international law and the interests of peace exists. This programme has. been put forward by the Government of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam and the National Liberation Front of South Viet-Nam.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Washington pours out an endless stream of words intended to prove that the United States is seeking a peaceful way out of the present situation, as if it was almost against its will that the United States had found itself in Viet-Nam and was hurling more divisions, air squadrons and warships into battle. The incontrovertible fact is, however, that every so-called "peace feeler" by Washington is followed by a further escalation of its aggression. 119.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“If the United States had not acted contrary to the Geneva Agreements, had not interfered in the domestic affairs of the Viet-Namese people, and had not sabotaged the holding of nation-wide elections In Viet-Nam, then there would be no war there today. The Viet-Namese people would long ago have looked into its own affairs and found ways of dealing with them. 117. Every State, in whatever part of the world It may be, has been affected In one way or another by the consequences of the aggression in the Indo-China area. In fact, all international questions are now influenced by the course of events in Viet-Nam. War communiques have not only become front-page news, but have also made people everywhere fear that yet another generation may have to put on military uniforms. 118.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“The invasion of South Viet-Nam by more than 300,000 United States soldiers and officers, the barbarous bombings of the territory of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, the armed interference in the affairs of Cambodia and Laos — all this is aggression. A Power with large armed forces and modern weapons has attacked a people which gained its independence after a hard struggle and does not wish to submit to new oppressors. The crimes being committed by the United States military clique in Viet-Nam have been denounced by the whole world. 116. The right of the Viet-Namese people to peace, freedom and national unity was solemnly proclaimed twelve years ago in the Geneva Agreements.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Unfortunately, what quite often happens is that a country or group of countries has only to oppose, overtly or covertly, the implementation of decisions which are serving the interests of peace and protecting the lawful rights of peoples, for such decisions to remain on paper, and for the United Nations to be unable to make any headway. 114. Let us take the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of States. Ask any delegation in this hall and surely not one of them will question the validity of this principle. But that is lip service, What happens in fact? Not only is the policy of interference in the affairs of others not on the wane, but in a number of cases it has assumed increasingly brazen and dangerous forms. 115.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“On the basis of these considerations and guided by the aims proclaimed in the United Nations Charter, the USSR Government is in favour of again focusing attention at this twenty-first session of the General Assembly on questions whose solution would protect peoples from attacks on their sovereignty and independence, and would immobilize the aggressive forces. It cannot be said that the United Nations has never before made efforts toward this end. It has more than once taken commendable decisions in defence of the rights of peoples. 113. But what often follows such decisions?”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“The fatalistic assumption that the forces of aggression cannot be halted in our time is as unfounded as the illusory hope that the international outlook will brighten by itself. 111. When violence is being plotted against peoples, the conspirators always conceal their intentions by peace-loving talk and false assurances, and resort to various manoeuvres to divide the ranks of the opponents of aggression and to paralyse the activities of international organizations which are called upon to guard the peace. Therefore, the sooner the danger is revealed and its consequences are weighed, and the firmer and closer to unanimity is the resistance, the more reliable will be the defence of universal peace. 112.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Even when the United Nations Charterwasbeing drawn up, when the curtain on the final act of the heroic struggle of peoples against the fascist aggressors, to be succeeded by life in peace had not yet fallen-even at that time no one is likely to have imagined that all that was needed to eliminate the lurking dangers to peace was for the just principles of good neighbourliness, peaceful co-operation and the equality of all peoples to be endorsed by the signatures of a majority of States. 110. If the Ideals of peace, freedom and national independence are to prevail in international relations, timely and purposeful action must be taken by the peace-loving elements. That was true in the past and is still true. But the opportunities for such action are now immeasurably greater.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“107. Mr. President, may I first of all congratulate you on behalf of the USSR delegation on your election to the high post of President of the General Assembly and extend to you our heartfelt wishes for success in discharging your responsible duties. 108. The Charter of the United Nations begins by declaring that the peoples are determined "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind". This lofty aim has united countries situated in different continents and having a different social system. It is the raison d'etre of the United Nations. It is the true criterion by which to assess the activities of the UnitedNations at any given period. 109.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Any Government which takes a stand in favour of peace and the lessening of tension and which really wants the United Nations to be an effective instrument for the safeguarding of international security can count on our co-operation and our support. However, the Soviet Union is, as it has always been, an irreconcilable opponent of the policy of imperialistic tyranny and. aggression, and of the hypocrisy which so often characterizes the words and deeds of certain States and which conceals not only the absence of any desire to work for peace but also actions undermining peace. In short, at this anniversary session of the United Nations General Assembly too the Soviet Union will bring all its efforts and all its influence to bear on the side of peace, genuine international co-operation and friendship among peoples.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“The Soviet Union strongly supports the inclusion of the question of the restoration of the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China in the agenda of the General Assembly and urges that it should be settled promptly and positively. 88. The prevention of aggression and interference in the affairs of others, the pacific settlement of disputes between States, compliance by States with obligations assumed under international treaties and agreements— these tasks are perhaps more urgent now than ever before. If the United Nations wishes to keep pace with the demands of the times it must address itself to these tasks in earnest. 89.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“The key to the solution of these truly important questions, we repeat, can be found only in strict observance of the United Nations Charter. 86. It would not be out of place to caution once again that if we allow any part of the United Nations Charter to be damaged we may be unable to repair it, for the structure of the United Nations will not, I fear, withstand such a test. 87. As in the past, the United Nations is seriously impairing its authority and lessening the impact of its pronouncements and actions by failing to this day to restore to the People's Republic of China its lawful rights in the United Nations. The sooner justice triumphs and the People's China takes its rightful place in all United Nations bodies, the better it will be for the interests of the United Nations itself and the interests of peace.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“Clearly, however, the United Nations can become more effective — which is what the peoples expect of it — only if all the States concerned are faithful to its purposes and strictly abide by the undertakings they have assumed under its Charter. For that reason States Members of the United Nations cannot overlook the attempts made — at different times and at different levels, but originating as a rule from the same source — to circumvent and undermine its Charter. These attacks, as everyone knows, have been and are being directed primarily against the principle of the unanimity of the permanent members of the Security Council, notably in connexion with peace-keeping operations, i.e. with the question of United Nations armed forces, their recruitment, use and command.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“We have established relations of friendship and mutual trust with a large number of non-aligned States. 83. A gratifying development of the recent past has been the further improvement of our relations with virtually all our neighbours. The Soviet Union is ready to broaden its contacts and the areas of its co-operation with France, the United Kingdom, Italy and other capitalist countries if they so desire. 84. We should also like to have good relations with the United States, but, it need hardly be said, with due reciprocity and not at the expense of other countries. 85. The Soviet Union is doing and will do everything in its power to help to bring about a constructive settlement of the questions which the United Nations has before it.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“In seeking a normalization of conditions the Soviet Union is not pursuing any narrow objectives or special advantages for itself. The world capitalist market is the last thing that affects our economy. The development of sound and mutually profitable economic relations, as called for recently by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development is a great undertaking which is in the interests of all peoples. At the same time it provides an excellent natural basis for bringing about a turn for the better in political relations as well, for politics cannot be divorced from economics. 82. The Soviet Union for its part, has been working consistently and intently to develop friendly relations with all States. Close and many-faceted co-operation between the Soviet Union and its fellow socialist States is being expanded and strengthened.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“The Soviet Government has advocated and continues to advocate the development of co-operation among States in the interests of preserving peace, guaranteeing security and solving economic, cultural and other international problems. 79. No one, I think, would go so far as to say that the present state of international economic relations is normal and satisfactory. Flagrant discrimination, unequal conditions, trade embargoes, and other abnormalities are encountered at almost every turn. Many States are sustaining great losses and having difficulty developing their independent economies while their riches are being syphoned off into other countries. Such a practice is intolerable. 80. The ice of the "cold war" with which economic relations among groups of States have become encrusted must be chipped off. 81.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“My delegation has been instructed to request the inclusion in the General Assembly's agenda of a new item — "non-proliferation of nuclear weapons" [A/5976] — as an important and urgent question. We are submitting a draft treaty on the subject which will be circulated to all delegations. The Soviet Union is prepared to sign such a treaty here and now. We should like to believe that the States Members of the United Nations will approach consideration of the question of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the draft treaty submitted by us, in all seriousness and with a sense of responsibility for the fate of the world. 78.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“Moreover, nuclear weapons, or control over them or over their emplacement and use should not be transferred to units of the armed forces or military personnel of States not possessing nuclear weapons, even if such units or personnel are under the command of a military alliance. 76. For their part, parties to the Treaty not possessing nuclear weapons must undertake not to create, manufacture or prepare for the manufacture of nuclear weapons either independently or together with other States, in their own territory or in the territory of other States, and must likewise undertake to refrain from having anything to do with nuclear weapons in any form — directly or indirectly, through third States or groups of States. 77.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“Behind such stratagems are the nuclear appetites of the West German militarists. 74. An agreement on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons worthy of the name must include undertakings by States which possess nuclear weapons not to transfer those weapons in any form whatsoever — whether directly or indirectly, through a third State or group of States — to the possession or control of States or groups of States which do not possess nuclear weapons, and not to grant to those States or groups of States the right to take part in the ownership, control or use of nuclear weapons. 75.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“Of course, an agreement on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons can have a real rather than an imaginary value only if it closes tight all the loopholes and thus prevents the spread of nuclear weapons. 73. We speak of this because at every step we come up against attempts to legalize the proliferation of nuclear weapons under the guise of international agreements on their non-proliferation. Examples are not far to seek. Thus the United States draft, recently submitted for the consideration of the Eighteen-Nation Committee at Geneva, while referring to the prohibition of some forms of proliferation of nuclear weapons, nevertheless leaves a loop-hole large enough to permit the unobstructed passage of no less than a whole multilateral fleet, equipped with hundreds of rockets with nuclear warheads. The purpose is well known to everyone.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“Hence the prevention of the further spread of nuclear weapons is part and parcel of the struggle for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons and the prevention of nuclear war, that being the unalterable purpose of USSR foreign policy. The achievement of agreement on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons would be to the advantage both of the nuclear Powers and of the States which do not possess such weapons. For a country will be far better advised to rely, for its future, on steps aimed at curbing the threat of nuclear warfare, on disarmament, than on weapons of mass extermination or the hazards of military rivalries in the context of a nuclear arms race. 72.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“An even keener nuclear rivalry will ensue. 69. Essentially, mankind is now faced with the alternatives of letting things slide or of taking steps to ensure that nuclear weapons should at least be contained within the frontiers where they already exist, by concluding an appropriate international agreement. The Soviet Union Government favours such an agreement, since under present conditions no better solution can be found. 70. Needless to say, an agreement on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons cannot be an end in itself. It is a step — and a major step — towards banning and destroying nuclear weapons, and not simply a means of limiting the number of nuclear Powers or, as some say, of ratifying the present nuclear monopoly of the five great Powers. That is what the Soviet Union holds to be the purpose of such an agreement. 71.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“Will nuclear weapons gradually proliferate, as have weapons of other types? That is the question which disturbs the peoples and those statesmen who are alive to their responsibility towards them. Their anxiety is fully understandable and natural, for the risk of a war in which nuclear weapons would be used will only continue to grow, and to grow in a geometric progression, if possession of such weapons becomes wide-spread. 68. If, in addition to the Soviet Union, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the People's Republic of China, which already possess nuclear weapons, and which are permanent members of the Security Council, other States embark on the development of their own nuclear weapons or are given access to them, then it will be too late and, in fact, impossible to arrest the process.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“The USSR Government calls upon all States Members of the United Nations to take that step. 66. There is another important matter which merits foremost attention in the work of the twentieth session of the General Assembly. That is the question of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. We all know the circumstances in which such weapons came into being, how the first mushroom-shaped clouds from nuclear explosions rose over our planet, and why it was not possible to outlaw the nuclear bomb immediately. The Soviet Union was forced to develop its own nuclear weapon; we had no other choice. 67. No matter how many words of condemnation, how many curses, may now be uttered concerning this weapon of mass destruction, the fact is that it has appeared, it exists. But will the present nuclear arsenals breed new ones?”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“It would be altogether wrong to see in this initiative of the Soviet Union merely a wish to embarrass a particular Power or group of Powers. We are not trying to take advantage of a situation in order to square accounts; our goals are higher than that. To those who nevertheless see in a declaration forbidding foreign interference a condemnation of their own actions, we would simply reply that they, of course, should know best. 65. We consider it essential to condemn all foreign interference in the domestic affairs of States and peoples, and to prevent any future possibility of such interference. The approval of a declaration which would not only confirm but also spell out and develop one of the most important provisions of the United Nations Charter, would undoubtedly be of great value in safeguarding the interests of world peace.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“The adoption by the General Assembly of a special declaration on the inadmissibility of intervention in the domestic affairs of States and the protection of their independence and sovereignty would constitute a new and vigorous step by the United Nations towards ensuring international security. It would be a good service to the peoples which have cast off the fetters of colonialism, established national States and now see as their primary objective the strengthening of political and the achievement of economic independence. Such a declaration would be of particular value to small countries, which are not always capable of repelling foreign expansionism and defending their independence and sovereignty by their own efforts. 64.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“Desiring to contribute to making the twentieth session of the General Assembly justify the hopes placed in it, and to arrive at decisions called for by the serious international situation, the USSR Government proposes that the General Assembly should examine an important and urgent new item entitled "The inadmissibility of intervention in the domestic affairs of States and the protection of their independence and sovereignty" [A/5977]. We are also submitting to the General Assembly a draft declaration on the matter which, we are sure, will be carefully studied by States Members of the Organization. 63.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“That is a fundamental principle of international law and of the United Nations Charter. It has also been repeatedly emphasized in the decisions and declarations of the Bandung, Belgrade and Cairo Conferences, in which many States Members of the United Nations took part. 61. Who, then, more than the United Nations, should be concerned to ensure proper respect for the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of others, to see to it that it becomes law? There can be no two opinions about it — this is a direct obligation of the United Nations, arising out of the principles and purposes proclaimed by it in its Charter. 62.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“But even to admit that there might be some justification — and, however ingenious the arguments, there is none — for interfering in the affairs of others, would be to deliver small and weak States to the' arbitrary rule of the strong, and to assent to constant breaches of the peace. 60. There can and should be no justification-ideological, economic or any other — for interference by States in each other's internal affairs. Whether we speak of the people of Viet-Nam or the people of the Dominican Republic, the people of Cuba or the people of any other State, the people concerned, and it alone, is entitled to decide upon matters concerning its domestic development, and to choose the path it wants to follow. No outsider has the right to choose that path for it.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“In our day, in a period of profound changes in the balance of world forces and in the conscience of the peoples, even those whose appetites match those of the old-time colonialists would not risk setting themselves such objectives. 59. Consequently, those who continue to pursue a policy of interference in the domestic affairs, of others endeavour to give new shape to the "big stick" policy, and, in addition to time-worn and hackneyed references to the protection of the rights of foreign nationals, they produce what I would call refurbished arguments, such as the defence of "moral values" or "kindred ideals".”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“Examples are the events in Viet-Nam and the recent gross display of force against the Dominican Republic, which merits not only the gravest censure, but also vigorous counteraction by the United Nations. Other examples are furnished by the events in the Congo and in many other parts of the world. 58. In the days of colonial conquest and imperialistic reapportionment of the world, when the peoples of whole continents were regarded by the developed industrial Powers as tempting prey for expansion and inhuman exploitation, foreign, interference in the domestic affairs of those peoples generally took the form of annexation, of forcible attachment to the metropolitan country.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)