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

“In a word, what we say is: accept the proposal for the conclusion of a peace treaty and the conversion of West Berlin into a Free City on the basis of that treaty, and we will accept proposals for the most effective guarantees for that City which are known to modern international practice. Do not all these proposals of ours ensure respect for the lawful interests of the Western Powers? Surely they provide a solution of the problem for those who are seeking a solution, those who sincerely want to solve the question of a peace treaty by means of negotiation, readiness for which was mentioned yesterday by Mr. Kennedy, President of the United States of America. 76.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“As the Soviet Government and the Head of that Government, Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev, have frequently stated, the United Nations could also be a guarantor of the status of the Free City. For such a purpose that status could be officially registered with the United Nations, and other forms of United Nations participation in guaranteeing the freedom and independence of the Free City could be envisaged. The Soviet Government is also ready to agree to the use of contingents of troops from neutral States, or United Nations troops, as guarantors of the Free City's status. 75.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“Do the Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and France not know that the Soviet Government is ready to assume, together with them, a solemn obligation to protect and respect the freedom, independence and rights of a Free City of West Berlin, including the freedom of its external communications? And if the four Powers reach an agreement for the presence of token troops in West Berlin as a guarantee of the Free City's status, only hopeless sceptics and people who have lost all common sense can doubt that the status of the Free City will be reliably guaranteed. Since co-operation between the four Powers succeeded in bringing Hitler's Germany to its knees, it will surely be easier to arrange effective guarantees for a Free City of West Berlin. 74.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“The implementation of our proposal for a peace treaty involves no prohibition of access to West Berlin, nor a blockade, as some have tried to assert. Ho; a Free City of West Berlin would have the right to establish relations with any country on any continent. For this only one thing is required — unfailing respect for the sovereignty of the State through whose territory pass the land, air and water communications linking West Berlin with the outside world, that is, for the sovereignty of the German Democratic Republic, with which the appropriate agreements concerning the use of those communications will also have to be concluded. 73.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“We have stated dozens of times, in the most formal terms, and we declare once more, that we are firmly of the opinion that the people of West Berlin should be guaranteed — I repeat, guaranteed — the right to live and to work in whatever social structure suits them. We propose that this right of the inhabitants of West Berlin should be reliably protected against any encroachment. How many times must all tint be repeated, in order to put an end to the continuing attempts to distort the clear and consistent position of the Soviet Union? 70. Freedom of communications between West Berlin and the outside world? We are in favour of ensuring those communications. 71. But why is it asserted from all sides that free access to West Berlin is being threatened by someone? That is another gross distortion of the Soviet Union's position. 72.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“We are proposing that the situation in West Berlin should be regulated by a peace treaty in conditions which would affect the prestige neither of the USSR nor of the Western Powers. 68. Do the Western Powers want the freedom and welfare of the people of West Berlin to be safeguarded? We are in favour of that. We will repeat once more, as we have done countless times; we are in favour of that. 69. The United States of America, the United Kingdom and France do not want the established way of life in West Berlin - the social order or, as they say, the social system — to be disrupted. That coincides with our attitude. No one has designs on the social order which exists in West Berlin.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“But it would be far more correct to describe West Berlin as a cesspool in which wallow the completely outdated occupation regime, the criminal subversive centres of the Federal Republic of Germany and the NATO powers, and the crowd of West German militarists and revenge-seekers. 66. The representatives of the Powers which are responsible for the absence of a peace treaty and for the present abnormal situation in West Berlin frequently invoke the principles of the United Nations Charter. But is there anything in common between the principles of that Charter and the policy which their Governments are conducting in opposing a German peace treaty? Of course not. 67.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“The Soviet Government has frequently drawn the attention of the Governments of the Western Powers to the serious nature of the existing danger. This was referred to by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev, at his recent meeting in Vienna with Mr. Kennedy, President of the United States of America. 65. There is, in the world today, no place where there is such a hive of subversive, diversionary and espionage centres as in West Berlin. Western propaganda has given many names to West Berlin, such as "an arrow in the flesh of the German Democratic Republic", "a bridge-head for a drive to the East", "a front-line city".”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“For the Soviet Union the most Important thing is to write finis to the Second World War by concluding a German peace treaty which would serve the interests of a strengthening of peace and the interests of the peoples of Europe, including the German people. 63. The conclusion of a peace treaty would enable the situation in West Berlin also to be normalized, on the basis of such a treaty. 64. West Berlin has now become, a source of great military danger, like the crater of an active volcano which constantly threatens to erupt. It may be that countries which are geographically remote from West Berlin do not realize entirely clearly what is happening there. The Soviet Union therefore regards it as a duty to warn the peoples, over and over again, of the situation which is developing as a result of the absence of a German peace treaty.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“The conclusion of a peace treaty would entail no disruption in the way of life: of either German State, or of West Berlin. In so far as the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany belong to different Power groups, the Soviet draft peace treaty takes that fact also into account: it does not call for the immediate dissolution of the political and military ties binding the two German States to their allies. 62. We are ready to sign either a single treaty with the two German States or. separate treaties with the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“But when the conclusion of a peace treaty removes the tension and both German States have a common platform, at least with regard to the conduct of their external affairs, that, apparently, hinders a "rapprochement" between the two. How can these arguments be accepted? Is it not more correct to assume that they are put forward, for the sole purpose of making it more difficult to conclude a German peace treaty, by those to whom the interest of restoring the national unity of Germany is as foreign as the interest of concluding a German peace treaty? 61. Anyone who has studied the Soviet proposals attentively will doubtless have noted that they take account of the actual situation which evolved as a result of the defeat of Hitlerite Germany.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“Whose interests will be damaged if the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic undertake not to manufacture or equip their armed forces with nuclear rocket weapons? No one's. Who will be harmed if the two German States undertake to settle all disputes solely by negotiation? No one. The only people who may be infuriated by these proposals are the enemies of peace. 60. We sometimes hear it said that a peace treaty will be an impediment to the unification of Germany. What curious logic. When, owing to the absence of a peace treaty, the situation in Germany and around West Berlin is becoming more and more acute and the tension in the relations between the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany is continual" increasing, that, apparently, produces no impediment to the unification of Germany.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“How can the threat of war be prevented from arising in connexion with the present position in Germany and in West Berlin where the long-obsolete occupation regime still exists? There is a remedy: in 1961 a German peace treaty should be concluded and the situation in West Berlin should on that basis be restored to normal, West Berlin being converted into a demilitarized Free City; a peace conference for that purpose should be called immediately. Such are the well-known proposals of the Soviet Government. 58. The Soviet Union is not begging for a peace treaty. It has. earned the right to conclude such a treaty, at the cost of enormous sacrifice. 59. Who will suffer from the fact of a peace treaty legally stabilizing the present German frontiers? No one.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“The United Nations would be showing courage and foresight if it decided to admit both German States to membership in it. We would like to emphasize, with the utmost clarity, that life itself is insistently bringing this demand on to the agenda: the demand for the admission of both German States to the United Nations. 56. The Soviet Government raises the question of a threat to peace from West German militarism so insistently not, of course, from any fear of its military preparations. But just as no particular strength is needed in order to pull a trigger, so one does not have to be stronger than others in order to unleash a war. 57. What is the remedy for this situation?”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“The German Democratic Republic does not cease to exist on that account, just as the other German State, the Federal Republic of Germany, does not cease to exist because its social order, Government and leaders are not to the taste of many people in other countries. 54. The wider the international recognition granted to the two German States, and the sooner they are admitted to membership in the United Nations, the stronger will be the foundations of the post-war peace in Europe and the less free will be the hands of the West German militarists and revenge-seekers. 55. Many of the participants in the recently ended Belgrade Conference of Non-Aligned Countries quite justly pointed out that this step was overdue. How can the General Assembly continue to be inactive with regard to a question which is so important for the fate of the world?”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“The "self-determination" of the Germans, to which those who oppose the conclusion of a German treaty allude in certain capitals of the West, Is an expression belonging to a policy of deceiving the . peoples. That dish is an imperialist one, to the taste only of those who shape the destinies of West Germany. Speculation built around the slogan of "self-determination" has nothing in common with the true national interest of the German people. If anyone in Bonn or in Washington does not like the social order established in the German Democratic Republic, does not like the Government and leaders of the German Democratic Republic, what of it?”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“They exercised self-determination as long ago as the autumn of 1949, when they established two independent States, elected the parliaments of those States, and formed their own Governments. Year after year the distance between those States widened, as they developed in opposite directions. One of them, the German Democratic Republic developed along the paths of peace, in the circumstances of the building of socialism; the other the Federal Republic of Germany, developed along military paths, under conditions of capitalism. No one can help seeing that the Division between these two German States took place not in a national but in a social context. 53.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“for all the world as though they had been directly transplanted from the pages of fascist newspapers to the election posters of the West German political parties. 51. The statesmen of the West, including Chancellor Adenauer, in objecting to the conclusion of a German peace treaty, often speak of "self-determination" for the Germans. By self-determination, however, they understand nothing more nor less than absorption of the German Democratic Republic by West Germany, although the adventurous nature of such a policy should be obvious to all. 52. To this we have answered and still answer, very simply, that the Germans have long since exercised self-determination.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“If Ribbentrop had not ended on the gallows, a comfortable arm-chair would certainly have been found for him in the West German Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 50. It is also worth glancing at the dominant slogans of the recent West German electoral campaign. Were they, by any chance, slogans calling for the strengthening of peace and the removal of the mines left on German soil by the war, so that they should no longer threaten international relations? Did they call for normal relations with the neighbouring countries, for mutual understanding between the two German States? No, the calls that then resounded from the banks of the Rhine were entirely different, The slogans were permeated with the madness of chauvinism, and looked r.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“One may ask what such leaders can teach the "Bundeswehr" soldier, what ideals they can inculcate in him, what morals they can instil in their subordinates, From its inception, the West German "Bundeswehr" has been shaped and trained as an aggressive force. 49. The same features that characterized the policy of Germany on the eve of the Second World War stand out, with ever-increasing distinctness, in the present policy of the Federal Republic of Germany. Many of those sitting in this hall remember, of course, how the rulers of Hitlerite Germany likewise demanded the right to "equality in armaments", likewise emitted heart-rending cries about the "communist menace". In exactly the same way they corrupted the souls of the Germans with the ideas of "revanche", which today pervade the entire foreign policy of the West German State.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“Under every pretext — such as claims of insufficient room for rearguard services, for manoeuvres, or for firing-ranges — the Federal Republic of Germany is thrusting its network of military strong-points and bases ever more deeply into the territories of West European countries. 48. Already Western Germany has strong armed forces, commanded by former Hitlerite generals who sullied themselves by monstrous crimes committed against the peoples of the Soviet Union, France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece and many other countries. The war criminal Fertsch has been appointed to a very high post of command in the "Bundeswehr" by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany. The Hitlerite generals Heusinger, Speidel and others are prominent in NATO organs.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“The most dangerous feature of the situation is that the adventurous plans of the West German revenge-seekers repose on a fairly solid military and material foundation. 47. At the insistence of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, even those insignificant and essentially formal restrictions imposed on military production in Western Germany by the Paris Agreements of 1954 are, one after the other, being removed. These restrictions have already been raised three times. But even that is a matter of little account to the West German militarists. They persistently demand possession of nuclear weapons.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“But who can be taken in by such words? The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, like all of us, is very well aware that the States to whose territories it lays claim will never modify their frontiers for the benefit of the German revenge-seekers and will refuse to let themselves be drawn into any deals on this question. 45. Most wars, as a rule, originate precisely in attempts to modify existing frontiers for the purpose of acquiring fresh territory. Such was the case with the two world wars unleashed by Germany. No matter how much the word "peaceful" is used in connexion with a demand for the revision of existing frontiers, it cannot mask the fundamentally aggressive nature of the policy pursued by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany in this matter. 46.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“Having seized the commanding positions in the political and economic life of the country, Hitler's political successors, and sometimes even his former assistants, are mobilizing their forces, awaiting the hour when they can take revenge for the lost war. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is openly demanding the revision of the frontiers established as a result of the Second World War. Press, radio, television, cinema — all modern propaganda media are utilized to implant the idea of revenge. Inoculation with the bacillus of "revanche" and militarism begins, indeed, at the school bench. 44. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany attempts to apply a little "make-up" to its policy, and with this object it appends the word "peaceful" to its demand for a revision of European frontiers.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“It has voluntarily limited the size of its army, has refrained from introducing compulsory military service, and has expressed its readiness to abstain from equipping its armed, forces with nuclear weapons. The German Democratic Republic makes no territorial demands on its neighbours, The entire twelve-year history of this State has been the history of the struggle to strengthen, on German soil, the idea of friendship and co-operation between States, regardless of their social structure. 43. But what of the other German State? Behind the facade of a sham parliamentary system, affairs in the Federal Republic of Germany are in the control of those who in the past erected fascism, those who are primarily responsible for the Second World War.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“The two German States — the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany — resemble each other, perhaps, only in the black-red-gold colours of their national flags, each a heritage of the Weimar days. They are separated, not merely by frontier-posts, but by the most profound social and political differences. Unless this is taken into account, no proper understanding of the new situation that has now developed in Germany and Europe can be gained. The fact that certain politicians may close their eyes to this new situation does not, of course, result in its removal. 42. The German Democratic Republic has broken forever with the shameful past of Nazi Germany; it has radically transformed its economy and social life; and it has stripped political power and economic might from the standard-bearers of German militarism.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“Along the Elbe and past the Brandenburg Gate run dividing-lines which create the highest degree of international tension and can at any moment result in the launching of thunderbolts upon each other by the two military groups of Powers. 40. This threat to peace has arisen neither today nor yesterday. It has matured from year to year, in proportion as the conclusion of a German peace was postponed. The unsettled situation in that part of Central Europe, where there were only fragments of Hitler's Reich and then two German States arose, created one of the most dangerous knots of contradiction between States. With time, the knot has been drawn ever tighter and the contradictions have become ever more acute. 41.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“And although many fine speeches have been made from this rostrum, the major and most acute questions in international relations today — general and complete disarmament, the total abolition of the colonial system, and the 'final closing of accounts in regard to the Second World War-still await solution. With what relief the peoples of the world would breathe if the present session of the General Assembly were to mark a turning-point in this respect! 39. The General Assembly has at its sixteenth session to consider many international questions, the importance of which we all recognize. But there is one question which, whether or not it is formally on the agenda, has today eclipsed all others — the question of concluding a German peace treaty. Dangerous passions seethe around it.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“If that were to happen, those achievements of human brain and brawn, at which the world marvels today, would be used against mankind, to destroy all the treasures built up by Man over many generations and to annihilate hundreds of millions of human beings. 38. It must be candidly said that, so far, the United Nations has all too often been content to play the role of observer, and has preferred to remain on the sidelines, when the Governments of the Western Powers have been playing their dangerous international game. The agenda of the United Nations General Assembly continues to contain questions on the solution of which an abatement of tension and, in the last analysis, the future of mankind itself depend.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“The true causes of the intensification of international tension must be sought in the aggressive policy of the Powers belonging to the NATO military bloc. Only recently the "cold war" seemed to be dying out, together with the so-called policy of "brinkmanship", and a sober appraisal of the relationship of the real forces in the world seemed to be taking its place. But those expectations proved unjustified. 37. One cannot help wondering, today, where the activities of the principal Powers in that military bloc are leading us. If they continue to brandish weapons and broadcast threats, as they now do in connexion with the Soviet proposal for an immediate German peace treaty, no one can be sure that events will not go beyond the fatal limit.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“In truth, all present in this hall understand our feeling of pride that the first human beings who as pioneers opened up the road into' outer space were citizens of the socialist Soviet Union, and that the space-ships on which they accomplished their heroic flights were created by our compatriots. 35. Profound transformations are taking place over a substantial portion of our planet, and the relations between people are changing so as to reflect the principle of fairer shares for all in the production and consumption of material goods. In our country there is nation-wide discussion of the magnificent programme for the building of a communist society, on the portals of which will be engraved that lofty principle of which the world's best people have long dreamed: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". 36.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“How far we still are from that goal is shown by the fact that the present session of the General Assembly is meeting under circumstances more disquieting than those of any previous session. 34. Why has this happened? Has mankind now moved backwards in its development? Certainly not. Never has historical progress been so impetuous, never has the creative genius of Man reached such heights, as in our day. To get an idea of the possibilities opened up by progressive science, technology and culture, suffice it to recall that it was in this year of 1961 that Man first, escaped from the sphere of the Earth's attraction.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“With the passing of the years, the United Nations has grown. Dozens of new countries have poured into it. Let us recall that the Charter of the United Nations, as adopted at the constituent session of San Francisco in June 1945, bore the signatures of fifty-one States. Look around you today, in this General Assembly hall, and you will see that the number of Members of the United Nations has almost doubled, mainly on account of the Asian and African States which have) acceded to national independence in the post-war period. We must admit that the United Nations still has much to do if it is to attain the goal for which it was founded to save mankind from the scourge of war.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“I take this opportunity, Mr. President, to congratulate you, on behalf of the Soviet delegation, on your election to this high office. 30. Sixteen years have passed since the United Nations was born. When the Founder States affixed their signatures to the Charter, the guns in Europe had ceased to roar. It is true that the war in the Far East had not yet ended, but people already sensed the imminent falling of the curtain, and in fact that mankind's great tragedy would soon be over. 31. The peoples, tortured by hunger and suffering, were directing their thoughts to a single question: how could a new tragedy be avoided, how could the path to war be barred? That was why such applause greeted the emergence of the United Nations, which proclaimed the maintenance of peace as its supreme goal. 32.”
1961-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 16 (1961)
“41, That is the additional statement which the USSR delegation has felt it necessary to make on the subject of the Secretary-General's report on the carrying out of the resolution adopted by the emergency special session of the General Assembly concerning the withdrawal of United States and United Kingdom troops from Lebanon and Jordan.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“40, The position of the United States and the United Kingdom on the withdrawal of troops, the contents of the Secretary-General's report and the statements of the Governments of these Powers setting forth their position, give us full grounds for asking that the question of carrying out the special session's resolution on the withdrawal of troops and, consequently, the elimination of the consequences of Anglo-American aggression in the Near East, should be included in the agenda of the present session as a separate and independent item.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“We all realize that we are not now concerned with which way the resolution, adopted unanimously at the special session of the General Assembly, is interpreted, since no matter what interpretation is put on it, it deals with the early withdrawal of United States and United Kingdom forces — that, after all, is what the resolution states — and that any attempts to delay the solution of this problem are a flagrant violation of the resolution and should be strongly condemned.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“Is it possible to agree, for example, with the assertion contained in the report that "the political essence" — I repeat these words — "the political essence" of the resolution adopted at the special session lies not in the demand for the early withdrawal of United States and United Kingdom troops, but in the provisions concerning the relations between Arab States. To draw such a conclusion is to miss the whole point. 39. These remarks on the report have been made en passant.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“It is true that the report states that it is only interpreting the resolution, but it might well be asked why an interpretation of this kind was found necessary, especially since it is neither exact nor objective. 38. In saying this we do not wish in any way to belittle the importance of the Secretary-General's efforts; on the contrary, it is our hope that his efforts will bring positive results in the interests of peace. But we have felt it our duty to draw attention to serious defects of this kind which could and should have been avoided.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“37, We feel bound, however, to mention another aspect of the report — the one-side interpretation of certain provisions of the resolution adopted by the General Assembly at its special session. The report gives the impression that the resolution in question was mainly concerned not with the withdrawal of foreign troops from the Near East, but with relations between the Arab States. We all know, however, that such is not the case and that the resolution arose out of a debate on the question of withdrawing United States and United Kingdom troops from Lebanon and Jordan, and that the session was convened for consideration of this particular question and no other.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“But this only shows the degree of absurdity which the claims of the Jordanian Government and those behind it have reached. On the strength of these demands it might be thought that the General Assembly had adopted a resolution on radio broadcasts rather than on the withdrawal of troops, which is patently not the case. We hardly consider it necessary to speak at length on this subject. 35. These claims are nothing but another attempt to justify the actions of the United States and the United Kingdom and to make the withdrawal of forces more difficult. 36. And now a few words on the report. We have already dealt with and assessed the main points contained in It. They reflect the position of the United States and the United Kingdom, which bear the entire responsibility for their actions.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“If we all agree with this, sad I think that those who sincerely want the resolution to be implemented are bound to agree, let us tell the United Kingdom Government first, the United States Government next, and, naturally, the Jordanian Government, whose representatives are also present in this hall, that it is high time to stop their tricks. As for Jordan's domestic affairs, for which the British are still showing great concern, they are for the Jordanians, and the Jordanians alone, to settle as they choose. 34. It is also said that the Jordanian Government is displeased with the broadcasts transmitted by certain Arab States and is making various demands in this connexion as a precondition for the withdrawal of United Kingdom forces from Jordan.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“The United States and the United Kingdom, of course, were quick to seize this chance and have now been using King Hussein as a pretext for some time, although everyone realizes that neither Hussein nor the Jordanian Government is concerned. We do not think that the United Nations can allow the unreasonable and irresponsible position of the Jordanian Government on this point to hinder the early withdrawal of United States forces from the Near East, as demanded by the General Assembly resolution — I repeat, "the early withdrawal", as more than a month has now passed since the resolution was adopted at the special session, a fact we cannot fail to take into account. 33.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“Not long ago the world Press widely reported that first the Jordanian Government was refusing to admit United Nations observers, then refusing to admit representatives of the Secretary-General, then refusing something else, and putting forward its own conditions making special demands upon the other Arab States, primarily the United Arab Republic. Becoming embroiled in its policy, having placed itself in the hands of certain foreign groups, and afraid to face its own people, the Jordanian Government presumed to act as a judge of who should have the last word on the withdrawal of foreign troops from the Near East. 32.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“Several Other arguments, just as invalid and absurd, have been advanced by the United States and United Kingdom Governments in justification of their obstructionist policy. Ever since the question of the withdrawal of troops was first considered by the United Nations, the two Governments have claimed that one of the obstacles is the refusal by the Jordanian Government and King Hussein to agree to the arrangements, envisaged in the resolution adopted by the General Assembly at its special session, when we all know that Jordan was one of the co-sponsors of the resolution. 31.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“We consider that this story has already been sufficiently discredited, since everyone knows that an attack by Israel on Jordan would in actual fact be an attack by the United States and the United Kingdom. Israel would obviously not lift a finger without their sanction and encouragement. Since the argument is still being repeated, however, it would not be out of place to say a few words about it. If the United States and the United Kingdom continue to intimidate Jordan by speaking of a possible attack by Israel, they will clearly be doing so deliberately, in order to hinder the withdrawal of their forces, and, if so, they will bear full responsibility for the performance which they stage from time to time, in which they assign the leading part to Israel. 30.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“On the other hand, if the United States Government continues to delay the final withdrawal of its forces on various transparent excuses, pointing to the United Kingdom at the same time, the fact can be used by the United Kingdom Government to avoid withdrawing troops from Jordan in the immediate future. If the United States and United Kingdom Governments continue to employ these tactics, the only possible conclusion is that they are conspiring together, even as they did in the original aggression against Lebanon and Jordan. 29. I come to the fifth argument. We are told every now and then that in the event of a United Kingdom withdrawal from Jordan, the latter will be liable to attack by Israel.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“This argument is also painfully transparent and is only used to avoid responsibility. Everyone has known for a long time that the United States and the United Kingdom are hand in glove in this matter. The United Kingdom makes the United States its excuse, and vice versa, and each uses the other to justify in the eyes of the world its own actions — in this particular case, its delay in withdrawing its troops. If the United States Government were to state clearly, without conditions or reservations, that it would withdraw its troops in the very near future, if it were actually to do so, the fact would be bound to influence the United Kingdom. I do not think anyone would dispute the validity of this proposition.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“It is therefore time to discount any claims that the wishes of the Lebanese Government are taken into account in fixing a date for the final withdrawal of United States forces from Lebanon; such claims are worthless. The Lebanese people and the Lebanese Government will not be free until all United States soldiers, United States artillery, United States machine guns and United States rifles have been removed from Lebanon and until the United States fleet, which has lately become a symbol of blackmail, pressure and direct aggression against a number of countries, has left the Lebanese coast. 28. Now for the fourth argument. It is still being claimed that it would be awkward for the United States to withdraw its forces from Lebanon while the withdrawal of United Kingdom troops from Jordan remains undecided.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“For these recent actions alone the United States Government should be present here in the Assembly in the role of the accused party and should be made to answer before the whole world for its brutal coercion of a small Arab State. Indeed, all small countries, and not only the Arab States, whose representatives are here in the Assembly hall, cannot but realize that if Lebanon is not; protected against such actions, the fate that is Lebanon’s today may befall them tomorrow, and it is the aggressor who will decide which of them is to be the next victim. The question arises, should the General Assembly act on this, or is it to turn a deaf ear to the cries of a victim of aggression, cries which are not always heard through the thick walls of the Assembly hall for the simple reason that the victim is not allowed to voice his protest out loud.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)