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

“Unfortunately, that has had little effect the situation. If we were to show timidity in the face of the challenge hurled by the colonialist States we would not only be shirking our duty and ignoring the dictates of our conscience; we would also undermine the authority of the United Nations. The General Assembly, in my view, must seriously examine the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. 57. The present sharp aggravation in the relations among many States and the deterioration of the international situation squarely confront the United Nations with the question: where lies the root of the evil? Indisputably, the principal reason for the mounting threat to world peace is the interference of certain States in the domestic affairs of others, and, above all, armed interference.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“It is retreating, but it has not yet completely capitulated. Like a glacier which in bygone ages covered whole continents, it leaves deep scars and fissures even as it retreats. 55. A people fighting for its freedom and independence has a sacred right to use all means of struggle, including arms. Colonialism is the very embodiment of violence and arbitrary rule, and whatever is done to eliminate it is just and humane. The manifold aid which a people receives from friends in its struggle is aid in achieving the purposes of the United Nations. Hence it is also aid to the cause of the United Nations. 56. The United Nations has on more than one occasion censured Portugal's brutality against the inhabitants of its colonies, and the racists of South Africa for their savage policy of apartheid.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“The Declaration adopted by the United Nations in 1960, which we all remember, solemnly proclaimed "the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations" [resolution 1514 (XV)]. We may also cite the United Nations Charter, which enunciates the lofty principles of the equality of nations, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. Above all, the majority of the Members of the Organization are avowed opponents of colonialism and neo-colonialism. What is more, many of the States that have joined the United Nations in recent years have themselves gone through the arduous experience of struggle for independence. 54. Today colonialism is retreating all along the line.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“The USSR Government fully endorses the conclusion of the Cairo Conference on Non-Aligned Countries that "foreign military bases are in practice a means of bringing pressure on nations and retarding their emancipation and development, based on their own ideological, political, economic and cultural ideas". 51. We think that the General Assembly has every justification for demanding that States which maintain military bases in alien territory should dismantle them forthwith. 52. It is the duty of the United Nations, and that includes the General Assembly, to help the peoples to shake off the foreign yoke once and for all. Does it possess the practical means for so doing? Yes, such means exist, and they increase from one session of the General Assembly to the next. 53.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“One of the crucial problems of international life, which is closely linked with the problem of disarmament, is the question of dismantling foreign military bases. 48. In many cases, foreign military bases in alien territory are a legacy of the war. But twenty years is more than long enough to do away with them. 49. For the most part, however, military bases are a relic of colonialism; they were established in times when no one took any account of the views of the indigenous populations. Such establishment may have been accompanied by formal agreements, but to recognize their validity would be the same as recognizing as valid the transactions of a usurer, whose victim is bound hand and foot with debt and is kept in lifelong servitude. 50.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“The conclusion of the Moscow Treaty, to which the USSR Government continues to attach considerable importance, resolved part of the problem of the cessation of atomic and hydrogen weapons tests, and indeed, the most substantial part, by prohibiting nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water. It is quite natural that the world's peoples should also want underground nuclear testing to be prohibited. The United Arab Republic recently proposed the cessation of underground testing of nuclear weapons of a given capacity, accompanied by a moratorium on all other underground nuclear testing. In the view of the USSR Government, that proposal of the United Arab Republic, supported by other non-aligned nations on the Eighteen-Nation Committee, deserves the most serious consideration. 47.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“The memorandum presented to the States Members of the United Nations on 7 December 1964 by the USSR Government set out our proposals on this subject, such as prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons, dismantling of foreign military bases and withdrawal of foreign troops stationed in alien territory, establishment of denuclearized zones, reduction of military budgets — in the first place those of militarily powerful States — and prohibition of underground nuclear weapon tests. A number of valuable ideas have also been put forward by other countries, including Asian and African countries. All these proposals must be carefully weighed, so that no opportunity is neglected to halt the armaments race, particularly as regards nuclear weapons. 46.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“Since the position of certain of the western Powers makes it impossible to move forward in the elaboration of an agreement on general and complete disarmament, it is essential, without abandoning that effort, to strive for the implementation of partial measures which would help to limit the armaments race, decrease international tension and thereby prepare the way for radical measures of disarmament.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“The only thing that matters is that real disarmament should take place, that the danger of nuclear warfare should be removed, and that the measures of implementation should not give military advantages to any one side. 44. However hard and full of obstacles the road to disarmament may be, the Soviet Union will not relax its persistent and vigorous endeavours to achieve appropriate international agreements. A standstill in the matter of disarmament is of advantage only to those who cling to the policy of positions of strength, and for whom the armaments race turns into a shower of gold. 45.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“No arguments can conceal the chasm which lies between the paltry interests of those who favour the armaments race and the interests of the peoples, which long for peace and for deliverance from the burden of armaments and military expenditures. 43. The USSR Government considers, as it has always considered, that one of the principal objectives of its foreign policy is to do everything in its power to promote agreement on disarmament under effective international control. We have no preconceived notions as to where to start the process of reducing and disbanding the armed forces of States, into what stages that process should be divided, and how to organize control of disarmament — of disarmament, I repeat, not of armaments.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“41. States can establish special agencies and even ministries for disarmament, but so long as there is no genuine desire to demobilize a single soldier, let alone dissolve whole armies, disarmament talks will not move forward. What is paralysing the work of the Eighteen-Nation Committee is not the technical difficulties involves in achieving disarmament, but conflicting political positions. 42. As we weigh the results which the United Nations -has achieved over the past twenty years, we are justified in casting blame on those who pile obstacle upon obstacle in the way of disarmament; no manoeuvring on their part can disguise their unwillingness to scrap their national war machines.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“A world conference would be a serious test of the goodwill of States and of their readiness to take practical steps, attitudes which so far have certainly not been shown by some of the participants in disarmament discussions. 40. Whether we consider what took place decades ago, at the time of the first disarmament talks, or whether we look at the very latest meetings of the Eighteen-Nation Committee in Geneva, we are inevitably confronted with a clash between two opposing policies. The proponents of one policy maintain that, since men have produced armaments, they can also destroy them. Those who follow the other line apparently want to spread pessimism and disbelief in men’s ability to put a stop to the armaments race. This is no mere argument between optimists and pessimists. It reflects diverse interests and basic policy differences.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“Such a conference will provide an opportunity for trying out new approaches to the solution of the most important and difficult problem of our day, that of disarmament. Everything must be done to avoid any repetition of the mistakes and omissions which have marked previous discussions of disarmament problems. That means that we must invite to the conference States which do not at the present time take part in the work of the United Nations, or are excluded from disarmament talks on one pretext or another. We cannot turn our backs forever on the indisputable fact that the elaboration of effective agreed measures on disarmament, to be carried out by all States, including the nuclear Powers, demands the participation, at the very least, of the largest countries in the world, regardless of whether they are represented in this hall or not. 39.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“As a European and at the same time an Asian Power, the USSR is fully cognizant of its role and responsibility in matters affecting the security of Europe and Asia. Every worth-while effort to this end will always meet with the understanding and active support of the Soviet Government. 37. The present session of the General Assembly must take an important decision on the convening of a world disarmament conference to be attended by all the nations of .the world. The idea of such a conference has been gaining ground for many years, and the Soviet Government is gratified to note that it is now close to fulfilment. We suggest that the world conference should be convened in the middle of 1966 at Geneva or at some other place acceptable to all the participants. 38.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“The paramount lesson of the Second World War — and the twentieth anniversary of the victory in that war has just recently been celebrated by our peoples — is that the lack of unity among the peace-loving European countries and the absence of a system of collective security in Europe made it easier for the forces of aggression to violate the peace. The aggressor tore to shreds treaties which bore his own signature, and in place of the language of international negotiations on disarmament and the prevention of war, he preferred the language of steel and the clang of weapons forged for his war machine. That is why the Soviet Union consistently calls for agreement and concerted efforts on the part of the European States in the interests of their security and the development of co-operation among them on an all-European basis. 36.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“No responsible Government can fail to realize that the question of frontiers is a question of war and peace — and not only of war and peace in Europe. With the advent of modern means of warfare, the barriers between continents have ceased to exist. 34. The Soviet Union, which made untold sacrifices for the sake of victory over Hitler Germany and for creating the conditions for lasting peace in Europe, will not allow the established frontiers to be altered. They have been definitively fixed and are not subject to revision. There can be no question of this whatsoever. The Soviet people, our allies and our friends are capable of standing up for their interests. 35.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“The Soviet Union and the other States parties to the Warsaw Treaty have firmly declared that, should the members of NATO flout the interests of peace by taking steps to carry out plans for the establishment of a multilateral nuclear force, in whatever form that might take, then, in view of the grave consequences which this would have for the security of Europe, they would be obliged to take the necessary defensive measures for their own security. 33. There is yet another question which serves to separate the States which stand for peace and security in Europe from those which are charting plans for new military campaigns and already trying on the boots of Hitler’s generals. This is the question of the postwar frontiers in Europe. It is not a question to be approached lightly.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“To those who are hurrying to clear the way for the possession of nuclear weapons by West Germany, we say: would it not be better to stop? You apparently do not mind throwing to the winds the fruits of the victory over German fascism and militarism, a victory won through the efforts of the peoples of the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, the United States, Poland, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and other States. But who will allow you to do it? 32. Today there are many people, even in Western Europe, who fully realize the danger of such plans.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“The question of giving West Germany access to nuclear weapons, either through a multilateral force, as proposed by the United States, or through an Atlantic, force, as proposed by the United Kingdom, is a perennial item on the agendas of the various conferences and consultations among some of the NATO Powers. 30. If anyone still had any doubts about the designs which are harboured at Bonn with regard to participation in a NATO nuclear force, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has itself dispelled them by its official statements. Either participation in a NATO nuclear force or possession of nuclear weapons of its own — that is how the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany puts the question, thereby actually equating the one with the other. 31.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“The situation is further aggravated by the fact that the tasks of a post-war settlement have not been fully carried out as was envisaged by the Potsdam and other agreements between the Powers making up the anti-Hitler coalition. This in turn has left the door open to the intrigues of the militarist and revenge-seeking forces of West Germany, which long to rewrite history. 28. Regardless of the attitude of any State towards the German Democratic Republic or the Federal Republic of Germany, and regardless of its assessment of the present situation in central Europe, the conclusion of a German peace settlement has been and remains the key problem of European security. 29. Shots, it is true, are not ringing out in Europe today, but verbal clashes and loud arguments are taking place which may prove more fatal than shots.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“The acuteness of the situation in South-East and South Asia, and the heightening of tension in various other parts of the world, must not blind us to the significance of the problems relating to the strengthening of security in Europe. Let no one forget that Europe was the starting point for the two world wars which have convulsed our planet. 27. In the post-war period a special kind of situation developed in Europe. For one thing, in place of the defeated Hitler Reich there came into being two independent German States, with different social systems and contrary political policies. One of them, the Federal Republic of Germany, does not recognize either the existence of the other State — the peace-loving German Democratic Republic — or the new European boundaries, or, in general, the consequences of the Second World War.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“It has offered India and Pakistan its good offices if both sides desire to employ them. Anxiety over the armed conflict between India and Pakistan and an awareness of the need for a peaceful settlement of their differences have been displayed by many States represented in this hall. 25. Hostilities along the Indian-Pakistan frontier have now ceased, to the great satisfaction of the Soviet Union. It is a sensible step on the part of both Governments. An important factor in halting the bloodshed was the part played by the United Nations and, personally, by Secretary-General U Thant. I should like to express the hope that further efforts will be made by India and Pakistan to bring about good-neighbourly relations with one another. 26.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“This conflict is of no benefit to either side. Whichever way the fortunes of war may swing at any particular moment, neither India nor Pakistan stands to gain. There are, of course, third parties whose purposes would be suited only too well if India and Pakistan were to become more deeply involved in mutual enmity, since that would weaken each of them and make them more susceptible to foreign influence and dictation. 24. The position of the Soviet Union is based on sincere goodwill towards India and Pakistan, and is well known; it has been stated here in the United Nations. The Soviet Government has appealed to the Governments of India and Pakistan to put an end to hostilities and to seek a reasonable settlement of their differences at the conference table.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“Aggression does not cease to be aggression because its organizers start talking about peace and political settlement. What the United States must do is to stop the aggression completely and without previous conditions. 22. If for some reason or other the authorities at Washington are not asking themselves what the continuation of aggression against the Viet-Namese people can ultimately lead to, then we can only say that this is a great mistake. They should ask themselves that question. 23. In addition to the continuing armed interference by the United States of America in Viet-Nam, the international situation, and more particularly the situation in South Asia and South-East Asia, has been made considerably more complex by the armed conflict between the two large neighbouring States of India and Pakistan.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“In order to put an end to it, the forces of the United States of America and its partners in aggression must withdraw from foreign soil and take their weapons with them. The Viet-Namese people must be given the opportunity to determine their own future. The Soviet Government fully supports the just demands put forward by Pham Van Dong, the Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, on 8 April 1965, in the form of the four points with which we are familiar. 21. It is frequently said that the United States has made serious efforts to initiate talks on the question of Viet-Nam but that its approaches to various organizations and Governments have been to no avail. Such statements will not, however, deceive anyone and will not lessen United States responsibility for its present actions in Viet-Nam.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“The cause of the Viet-Namese people is a just one. They are defending their native land. The Soviet people sympathize with the heroic struggle being waged by the people of South Viet-Nam under the leadership of the National Liberation Front. We have been providing, and shall continue to provide, the necessary fraternal aid to the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam. 20. Is there any way out of the situation that has developed in Viet-Nam? There is. The Government of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam and the National Liberation Front of South Viet-Nam have advanced a reasonable and fair basis for a settlement. This moans, of course, the cessation of the bombing of the territory of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam and the strict fulfilment of the 1954 Geneva Agreements. The war was brought to Viet-Nam from across the ocean.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“What the United States is doing in Viet-Nam has only one name, and that is "aggression". 18. Yes, the United States is acting in Viet-Nam as an aggressor and as a violator of the Geneva Agreements of 1954 which guarantee the peace, independence and neutrality of Viet-Nam and the restoration of its national unity. Whatever version of events the United States Government may give, it is clear to everyone that it is not the National Liberation Front of South Viet-Nam or the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam which has attacked the United States; rather, United States armed forces have invaded Viet-Namese territory in order to impose a political order which suits the United States in a land where the Viet-Namese people alone is entitled to be master. 19. The Soviet Union resolutely condemns United States aggression in Viet-Nam.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“Lenin, and it is the course which the Soviet Government continues today firmly and consistently to hold to in determining its attitude to any given international problem, specific event or particular State. 16. The twentieth session of the General Assembly is starting its work in a complex and strained atmosphere, as military operations involving large amounts of war equipment are taking place in certain regions of the world, and human blood is being shed. 17. The war in Viet-Nam has, as we know, already spread over a territory larger than that of such States as the United Kingdom, Italy or the Federal Republic of Germany. Large units of the United States Army, Navy and Air Force have been brought into action, and barbaric bombing attacks are being carried out on the territory of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“In spite of all the nuances and the occasional differences in their positions, the socialist countries and the non-aligned countries are at one in agreeing that there is not and cannot be any place in international life for aggression, dictation and interference in the affairs of other countries. Ideological differences must not be a source of war and conflict between States. 15. The course which the Soviet Union is following in international affairs is one of upholding peace and the rights of peoples to independence and social progress and of striving to achieve disarmament and a broad and mutually advantageous co-operation between States on the basis of the principles of peaceful coexistence. This course was chartered by the founder of the Soviet State, V. I.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“No sooner does a nation in the Western or Eastern hemisphere take action against foreign domination or a corrupt puppet regime, or merely call for a restoration of constitutional procedures — and all these are domestic affairs — than foreign marines, aircraft, warships and every imaginable instrument of pressure and dictation are hurled against it. 13. What does this policy have in common with the principles of the United Nations or with the elementary rules of international law? The answer is: nothing at all. 14. The Soviet Union and the other socialist States, and indeed many countries which certainly do not in every respect share our ideology or our convictions about the future of society, base their policies on different foundations.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“The reasons for this do not lie in its Charter, for there the tasks of the United Nations are clearly and faithfully set forth together with the provisions necessary to carry them out successfully under present-day conditions. The real reasons lie elsewhere. 11. No charter will be of any use if the actual policies of States which have signed the Charter are completely at variance with what the Charter requires. And everyone knows that there are some States which have made it almost a rule to infringe the United Nations Charter, although they never lose any opportunity of holding forth about the sanctity of their international obligations. 12.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“It can definitely be said that the United Nations does have considerable possibilities, and that it does have a future, provided that it can absorb all the new and healthy elements which have been introduced into international relations by the whirlwinds of progressive social change and national liberation movements, and by the powerful action of the peoples to achieve their independent and free development and to achieve peace. 10. Without over-simplifying the position and without going to extremes, it must, however, be recognized that the United Nations has not yet become a genuine centre for co-ordinating the actions of nations in the interests of peace, international co-operation and the defence of the inalienable rights of peoples.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“In fact, every time the United Nations has found the strength to project into international relations and transform into actual deeds the lofty principles proclaimed at its inception, it has proved that it is indeed able to serve the interests of peace, freedom and the independence of peoples. The adoption by the General Assembly of the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples [resolution 1514 (XV)] is sufficient in itself to show that this judgement is correct. 9.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“It was clear from the very outset that the United Nations would not be able to eliminate all the contradictions arising between States in a developing and changing world, and that it would be even less able — nor indeed should it try — to gloss over the fundamental differences in the social character of States and the consequent differences in the objectives and methods of their policies. At the same time, there was no doubt that a world-wide organization for the maintenance of peace and security would be capable of playing a useful role in world affairs if, in response to the appeals of the people, it were founded on the principles laid down in the Charter — the principles of equal rights of respect for the sovereignty of States and of the freedom of each country to choose its own course of social development. 8.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“They will even go so far as to say that the very idea of peaceful and fruitful co-operation between States with different interests, and different social orders and ideologies is unrealistic. There are others, on the contrary, who are prepared to see the virtues and the successes of the United Nations in its shortcomings, in the disruption of its work and in deviations from the Charter. Let the United Nations ignore acts of aggression, let it remain silent when there is interference in the internal affairs of nations, and on occasion let it even use its flag as a cover for such interference — this is what some people expect of our Organization. 6. Both the nihilism of the former group and the policy of the latter group of undermining the foundations of the United Nations are alien to the Soviet Government. 7.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“They earnestly wished to set up an enduring system of international co-operation, which would protect succeeding generations from the scourge of war. That was the time of a powerful anti-fascist and democratic upsurge throughout the world, and the spirit of that time naturally found its expression in the basic provisions of the United Nations Charter. 5. Today it is particularly appropriate to ask whether the United Nations is justifying the hopes which were placed in it and whether it is proving equal to the tasks proclaimed in its Charter. There are some who will maintain that the activities of the United Nations serve only to inspire illusions and nothing more, and that no useful achievements can be discovered in its record of service.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“It marks for the United Nations the completion of the first twenty years of its existence and activities. 3. On anniversary occasions such as this, it would of course be pleasanter to hear about events of a positive character; and it would indeed be pleasanter to talk about them, too. But, as we see it, important dates of this kind should be regarded merely as an additional reason for surveying — without excessive formalities and in a realistic manner — the ground already covered and for studying how the work can best be organized today and tomorrow. 4. The United Nations came into being in the year of the historic victory over the forces of aggression and fascism in the Second World War. Even then, the nations which had experienced the countless hardships of the war years were turning their thoughts towards the future.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“1. Mr. President, the Soviet delegation sincerely congratulates you on your election to this high office and wishes you every success in carrying out the important functions of President of the United Nations General Assembly. I should like to take this opportunity of referring to the admirable work done by your predecessor, Mr. Quaison-Sackey, the Ghanaian Minister for Foreign Affairs, who at the last session, with its specific difficulties, stood confidently at the helm of the good ship "United Nations General Assembly" as it made its way — if one may say so — through stormy political waters. 2. The present session of the General Assembly is not just an ordinary annual meeting of representatives of more than a hundred States from every continent.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“I would express the hope that the nineteenth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations will, by its productive work, facilitate further progress in the development of international co-operation, in the defence of the inalienable rights of peoples, and in the strengthening of peace throughout the world.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“Such problems include disarmament, the question of ensuring security in Europe and a German peace settlement, the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, the withdrawal of foreign troops from national territories, the abolition of foreign military bases, and the conclusion of a non-aggression pact between the NATO countries and the countries of the Warsaw Treaty. 120. The policy of the peaceful coexistence between States having different social systems serves not only the interests of the Soviet Union but also, the Soviet Government is firmly convinced, the interests of all other countries. This policy may not offer simple and easy solutions to international problems; but it is the only one which can produce solutions that are genuine and reliable, the only one which can serve as a basis for a truly lasting peace. 121.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“It serves only the interests of the enemies of peace. 119. The Soviet Government categorically rejects it, and will continue its unremitting struggle against any attempts to undermine the peoples' confidence in their own strength and to deprive them of their hope for the normalization of the international situation and for the strengthening of peace. It has indeed happened before, and may happen again, that the main obstacle to the settlement of urgent international problems proves to be, not the difficulty actually inherent in these problems, but the artificially cultivated disbelief in the possibility of reaching an agreement and resolving them. We are convinced, however, that there are no international problems which are insoluble; their situation is not impossible, although it may be complicated.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“We mention this because even now we frequently encounter similar views. However hard one struggles to solve important international problems, however much one appeals to the interests of peace and the interests of peoples — nothing will come of it, say the proponents of this fatalistic philosophy which is designed to disarm the peoples ideologically, politically and morally. 118. Translated into practical terms, this philosophy means that, if today tens of thousands of millions of dollars, roubles, pounds sterling, francs and marks are diverted from peaceful needs to military purposes, even more will be so diverted tomorrow; if today no foundations have been built for a lasting peace, they will not be built tomorrow either. But there is a great danger in such an approach to the conduct of international affairs.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“Who does not remember, for example, the state of prostration which overcame certain circles in the West during the years immediately preceding the outbreak of the Second World War and, more especially, during the initial period of the war, when Hitler seemed to be going from success to success? At that time those circles watched the avalanche of Hitler's divisions and air armada as a sparrow watches a boa constrictor, and lamented that there was nothing to be done. But when the Soviet Army, supported by the might of our entire people, ground down Hitler's invading hordes in fire and metal, it became clear to all that the critical point had been passed and that the day of the anti-Hitler coalition's great victory over the forces of fascism was inevitably drawing near. 117.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“In any case, this is only a stage on the long road, a sure guide to which, for our policies, is constituted by the historic propositions proclaimed oy the Twentieth and Twenty-second Congresses of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union — namely, that there is no longer any fatal inevitability of world war and that the present generation is capable of averting a thermonuclear war, of preventing it from breaking out. 116. We know full well that forces are at work in the world — and very influential forces — which persistently cultivate the idea that the peoples are unable to resolve the international problems crucial to the maintenance of peace, and which seek to hypnotize the peoples with their pessimism.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“A number of cases have justified the method which has been called the policy of mutual example, whereby States do not conclude formal agreements but take the necessary measures simultaneously on the basis of mutual understanding, looking each other, as it were, in the face. 115. But probably all will agree that what has been achieved has led us only to the beginning of the road. We must make further progress, in order to save the world from the dangers created by the arms race, by foreign intervention in the internal affairs of a number of countries and peoples, and by the remaining tension in the relations between dozens of States.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“Firmness is shown, not by him who pins his hopes on threats and sabre-rattling, but by him who firmly and confidently pursues a policy of averting war and does not allow himself to be diverted from this course. Genuine courage in politics, as opposed to a pretence of courage, is the ability to weigh one's actions and their possible consequences coolly; it consists in having the presence of mind and the will to resist and repel those who, under cover of talk about firmness, resoluteness and courage, advocate reckless ventures. 114. The last year and a half has been marked by a certain easing of international tension. It would probably be correct to say that the inertia which until recently held back any initiative towards normalizing international relations has now to some extent been overcome.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“From representatives of more aggressively-minded circles in certain countries we sometimes hear appeals not to hold back from extreme measures, even to the extent of bombing of foreign territories, the landing of troops, and so on. They assert that this is a true reflection of "resoluteness" and "firmness". But in politics these qualities have nothing in common with the bravado of a duellist waiting for the opponent to falter. In the world of today — at the present stage of development of military technology - genuine resoluteness, firmness and courage are not measured by Philistine standards. Whoever is ready to plunge headlong into the abyss, carrying others with him, shows not resoluteness but irresponsibility and short-sightedness.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“It is a policy of affirming the principles of peaceful coexistence with countries having a different social system, of saving mankind from the threat of a world war. The Soviet Government holds to its well-tested policy in all the complexities and changes of international life, since it stems from the very nature of the Soviet socialist State. 112. Of course, so long as the arms race unfortunately continues and so long as actions are taken which endanger the preservation of peace, our country must see to the strengthening of its own security. We shall be able to repel encroachment on the socialist countries and on our friends and allies, and to stand up for our common cause, for the ideals of socialism, freedom and progress. Any aggressor will meet with our monolithic strength. 113.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“It applies to States which are neighbours of the Soviet Union and with which we have every possibility of living in harmony and developing mutually beneficial co-operation. It applies to any State, large or small, whether it is far from or near to our country. 111. The Soviet Union's policy in international affairs is consistent and clear. It is a policy of ensuring peaceful conditions for the building of socialism and communism in our country, of strengthening the unity and solidarity of the socialist countries, and the friendship and brotherly ties between them. It is a policy of support for national liberation movements, of the development in every possible way of solidarity and co-operation with the independent states of Asia, Africa and Latin America.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“To verify that the line is in good working order, the Soviet operators frequently transmit extracts from A Sportsman's Sketches by the well-known Russian writer I. S. Turgenev. It is said that these texts have aroused among the American operators great interest in classical Russian literature. The Americans from time to time transmit the results of baseball games. Well, this is also a form of cultural exchange. The line has never been used for its real purpose. Probably nobody will object if this is always so. 110. The Soviet Government is ready to develop in every way its relations with all countries which, in turn, seek to do the same. This applies to countries, among others, such as major Powers, like France, the United Kingdom, Italy and Japan.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)