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

“I think we can all agree that these conditions are extremely difficult and that this enables the United States Government and the United States military command to put daily, or even hourly, pressure on the Lebanese Government, which, in fact, is what they are doing. Have we not all read in today's papers, published here in the United States, that pressure by the United States Government has reached the peak where it has demanded that the Lebanese Government should be changed to include persons more acceptable to the United States? In front of the whole world, virtually holding the Lebanese Government at pistol point, Washington is blatantly and shamelessly interfering in Lebanese affairs.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“It is true that the Lebanese Government has not openly and officially asked for the withdrawal of United States forces by a certain date, as far as we are aware. But let us be frank, gentlemen. The Lebanese Government is in a difficult position — not only are there foreign troops in Lebanese territory, but they are also occupying the capital of the country, so that the Lebanese Government is carrying on its work within range of their rifles. You can judge for yourselves under what conditions the talks between the United States Government and its generals in Lebanon on the one hand, and the Lebanese Government on the other, are proceeding.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“If we accept that those who attempt to justify the delay in withdrawing the United States forces from Lebanon on the ground that the situation is unstable are acting for the good of Lebanon, it is difficult to say what would constitute gross interference in Lebanon's internal affairs and a flouting of those United Nations principles which protect States from such interference. 27. Third argument. It is claimed that the date for the withdrawal of United States forces from Lebanon must be fixed in agreement with the Lebanese Government and at its request. It is well known, however, that the new Lebanese Government asked for such withdrawal a long time ago and has said on a number of occasions that the sooner these forces leave, the better.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“One would have thought that those who had delayed the withdrawal of their forces with the excuse that the new Government had not been formed would now withdraw them immediately. This, however, has not happened, and now a new argument has been put forward to the effect that the forces should not be withdrawn until the situation in Lebanon has become stabilized. We know, however, that, first, the very presence of United States troops in Lebanese territory is a way of exerting pressure on Lebanon enabling imperialist circles to cause provocations of various kinds and use them as justification for their actions. Secondly, the way the Lebanese settle their internal affairs is no concern of the Americans, the United States Government, or anyone else. Why should they have to do it under the threat of United States machine guns?”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“Anyone who really wants good relations to obtain between the Arab States would blush to defend the occupation of Lebanon and Jordan by foreign forces, or the aggressive policy of the Western Powers towards the Arab States, or the delay in the withdrawal of their troops from Lebanon and Jordan. 26. Second argument. It is said that the situation in Lebanon is not stable, and that there is, therefore, a danger of its deteriorating if United States troops leave Lebanese territory. Earlier we were told that United States troops could not leave Lebanon until the new President took office and a new Lebanese Government was formed. But the new President, General Chehab, has taken office and a new Lebanese Government has been formed.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“The main reason why the Arab States have not yet achieved the unity they should have is the imperialist policy of those two Western Powers, a policy of setting the Arab States against one another, in the belief that the longer their various differences are perpetuated, the easier it will be for the two Powers to carry out their policy. The United States and the United Kingdom seek every pretext to postpone withdrawing their troops precisely because they are fully aware that to do so would help to unite the Arab peoples and to remove the various differences which exist between the Arab States.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“To make the withdrawal of troops dependent on a radical improvement of relations between the Arab countries when the Western Powers are in fact hindering such an improvement must mean that these Powers have plans for continued aggression against Lebanon and Jordan, with all its attendant consequences. Further evidence of the insincerity of that requirement is that the presence of United States and United Kingdom troops in Lebanon and Jordan is in itself a serious obstacle to the unity of the Arab States. Such unity is just what the United States and the United Kingdom do not want.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“But, first, for the imperialist Powers to take upon themselves the role of judges in regulating relations between countries of the Arab East is an absurdity, since everybody knows that they are Only waiting for an opportune moment to seize some of these countries by the throat. Secondly, this requirement is in blatant contradiction with the letter and spirit of the General Assembly resolution, which does not and could not (I would stress that — it could not) contain any condition of that sort for the withdrawal of United States and United Kingdom troops.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“It is said that before the troops can be completely withdrawn, a radical improvement must be achieved in the relations between Arab States and that unless such an improvement takes place there is some danger that if the United States and United Kingdom tanks, aircraft, guns and military personnel were removed from Lebanese and Jordanian soil, and if the United States and United Kingdom warships, which for a considerable period now have kept their gun muzzles trained on Lebanon and Jordan, were to leave their shores, then the prospects of friendlier relations among the Arab countries might deteriorate.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“It makes no difference that not all States felt able to condemn the United States and the United Kingdom aloud and openly, and that some countries expressed their opposition to those actions in a more restrained way, or even simply by voting tor the draft resolution proposed by the Arab States. 24. We shall deal only with those arguments which the United States and United Kingdom Governments have used recently, that is, since the United Nations took its decision on the early withdrawal of United States and United Kingdom forces from the Near East, as they have a direct bearing on any appreciation of the present position regarding the withdrawal of troops, a question which is at the moment of prime importance and which the Assembly cannot by-pass. 25. First argument.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“We must dwell briefly on the specious arguments put forward by the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom in order to justify not only their original aggression against Lebanon and Jordan, but also their present efforts to obstruct the withdrawal of troops. 23. We shall leave aside what was said by the United States and United Kingdom Governments in defence of their intervention in Lebanon and Jordan, including statements by their representatives at the special session of the General Assembly on that subject. Their actions, like the arguments which they have put forward in defence of those actions, have, in fact, been universally condemned.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“That the United Kingdom Government has made such a statement is not a very good omen for the anticipated statement by the United States Government, which has promised, as we have already pointed out, to give details of its plans regarding the withdrawal of United States forces from Lebanon. But the Government of the United States will be wrong if it follows the example of the United Kingdom Government and goes on making evasive, indefinite statements indicative only of the desire to continue obstructing the execution of the General Assembly resolution on the early withdrawal of United States and United Kingdom troops from the Near East. 22.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“One may wonder why the United Kingdom Government should have recourse to such evasive and indefinite phrases, if it intends in the near future to begin and complete the withdrawal of its forces from Jordan and to abandon the delaying tactics it has been using in this matter. There would seem to be no reason for this, if the United Kingdom Government is not playing a double game and has good intentions — to the extent that one can speak about the good intentions of a country which has just committed aggression against another country. 20. It is our view that phrases of this sort are not used by accident, that they point to a definite plan to delay the withdrawal of troops still further, or, at any rate, to continue attempts at procrastination. 21.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“Thus, this statement by the United Kingdom Government also reveals great reluctance to name a date for the completion of the withdrawal of United Kingdom troops from Jordan. On the basis of this statement, it is not difficult to see that the date by which the withdrawal of troops is to be completed will be left hanging in mid-air. 18. Furthermore, in this statement by the United Kingdom Government nothing is said about whether its previous statement in which precise political conditions were laid down for the withdrawal of troops, remains in force, or whether it has been superseded. 19.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“The United States Government, it is true, has not yet made its promised statement, and it is not yet known to the Members of the Assembly, or at least to the overwhelming majority of them, including the Soviet delegation, when it intends to do so. 16. But, as we all know, the United Kingdom Government has made its promised statement. Did this statement, by any chance, change the situation and remove the grounds for alarm? Not in the least; for the statement, which was circulated to all delegations yesterday [A/3937], says no more than that the withdrawal of United Kingdom troops from Jordan will begin on 20 October and that it will be completed within a period not exceeding such time as may be required for the necessary arrangements for the movement of personnel, stores and equipment. 17.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“There it is stated that withdrawal of the forces can be begun and completed "provided satisfactory progress is being made". The document goes on to say that the withdrawal is intended to begin during the month of October and to be completed "as quickly as the situation in the area allows". These expressions of the United Kingdom's attitude also speak for themselves. 15. It is true that the United States and United Kingdom Governments have promised to make further statements about their plans as regards the withdrawal of their forces. One might have thought that better formulations of policy would be forthcoming and that these Governments would make clear statements about withdrawing their forces promptly from the Near East. However, this has not so far happened.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“It is this subject which is dealt with in the principal section of the Secretary-General's report, concerning withdrawals of United States and United Kingdom forces, and also in the memoranda by those Governments appended to the report. 13. Regarding United States forces, one of the documents referred to say that they will be withdrawn from Lebanon "as expeditiously as possible". It is further stated that the forces may be withdrawn by the end of October, but "provided the international security situation with respect to Lebanon continues to Improve". Thus, the passages quoted, expressing as they do the position of the United States Government, speak for themselves. 14. The same must be said about the memorandum on the withdrawal of United Kingdom forces from Jordan.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“All this gives ground for believing that the existing situation regarding the carrying out of the resolution of the special session will be properly understood, and that those responsible for the continuing occupation of Lebanon and Jordan will draw the appropriate conclusion and fulfil the obligations for which they themselves voted on 21 August 1958 in this very hall. 12. Evidence that the Governments of the United States of America and the United Kingdom continue to create obstructions to the withdrawal of their troops from Lebanon and Jordan is to be found, not only in the fact that the troops still remain in those countries, but also in the Governments' statements about their intentions for the immediate future.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“Those who appraised soberly the situation which arose in the Near and Middle East as a result of United States and United Kingdom intervention and who said openly and unequivocally that those actions, no matter in what guise they were carried out, were the actions of enemies of peace, realized even at the time for what purpose the United States and the United Kingdom landed their troops in Lebanon and Jordan, along with tanks, aircraft, guns and warships. 10. Now, however, it must be clear even to those who were inclined to accept at their face value the assurances given by United States and United Kingdom statesmen concerning their motives in sending troops to Lebanon and Jordan, that the aims they were pursuing in landing troops in the two small Arab countries have nothing to do with what those statesmen said on the subject. 11.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“There has been one diplomatic measure after another, different kinds of pressure have been brought to bear by the United States and United Kingdom Governments on Lebanon and Jordan, but the policy of the United States and the United Kingdom has remained the same: to postpone as long as possible compliance with the decision about the withdrawal of their troops and to continue in their role as occupying Powers, with all the consequences. 8. Why the delay? Because the United States and the United Kingdom sent their troops to the Near East for purposes which are alien to the interests of the peoples of that region, even as they are alien to the cause of peace in the Near and Middle East. 9.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“Now that the question of withdrawing them has arisen, however, they procrastinate under various pretexts and continue to occupy Lebanon and Jordan and to bear the brand of aggressors. 7. Since the closing of the special session, the United States and the United Kingdom have engaged in intensive, not to say feverish, diplomatic activity. The trouble is that the purpose of this activity has not been to put the resolution of the General Assembly into immediate effect, but to delay doing so.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“Despite the fact that the report contains a good dose of forced optimism, it does, nevertheless, reveal that there are no possible grounds for complacency about the situation in the Near East, since the United States and the United Kingdom have not yet carried out the obligations imposed on them by the above-mentioned Assembly resolution. 6. Enough time has passed since the adoption of that resolution for the United States of America and the United Kingdom, if they really had any regard for the United Nations, not only to begin withdrawing their troops from Lebanon and Jordan, but to have completed the withdrawal. It is well known that when they committed their aggression against Lebanon and Jordan, and by that token against the entire Arab world, they were able to land their troops very quickly.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“Ask any delegation — except, perhaps, the delegations of the United States, the United Kingdom and a few other countries which are the most fervent supporters of those Powers' activities — whether it is satisfied with the way in which the resolution adopted at the third emergency special session [resolution 1237 (ES-III)] is being carried out, and you will invariably receive the answer — no, it is not satisfied. 5. All these delegations will give the very same answer to the question of how they feel about the contents of the Secretary-General's report.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“Taking the main point first, can we say that effect has been given to the resolution adopted by the General Assembly at its special session, the purpose of which was to obtain the early withdrawal of United States and United Kingdom troops from the Near East? We all know that it has not. There are still United States and United Kingdom troops in the territory of Lebanon and Jordan, although there has been no lack of noisy publicity about their imminent withdrawal. This shows that the danger to peace in the area of the Near and Middle East, which arose as a result of the aggression by the United States of America and the United Kingdom against Lebanon and Jordan, has not been lessened a whit. 4.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“This relieves us of the need to return to those questions and, still more so, to dwell on the international situation as a whole. If my delegation has thought fit to speak once more in the general debate, the only reason is that with regard to one important question which concerns, and indeed cannot fail to concern, the General Assembly and all the States represented in the United Nations, a new factor has appeared which cannot be passed over in silence. We have in mind the situation which has now arisen in connexion with the withdrawal of United States and United Kingdom troops from Lebanon and Jordan. The report just presented by the Secretary-General [A/3934/Rev.1] prepared at the request made by the General Assembly at its recent special session, deals with this very question. 3.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“Permit me to express the hope that the General Assembly will prove itself equal to the tasks confronting it, and that the results of our work will contribute to the strengthening of peace. 117. The Soviet delegation, for its part, will do all in its power to contribute to the success of this session of the General Assembly. During the present general debate, the Soviet delegation has stated the position of the Soviet Government [750th meeting] on a number of important questions to be dealt with by the General Assembly. It has also given a general appreciation of the existing international situation, which may be described as very strained and fraught with the danger of a serious military outbreak. If that were to happen, it might plunge mankind into the maelstrom of an atomic war of extermination. 2.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“Yet some statesmen, instead of struggling to avert disaster, have begun to rock the boat so that it is already beginning to take on water. This, in their language, is called "keeping the world on the brink of war". They are doing it even now, today. Meanwhile, what human society needs is not a contest in the production of means of death and destruction or in the glorification of war. If rivalry, or rather competition, between States with different social systems is inevitable, then let it be competition in raising the welfare of the people and in amassing spiritual riches. Such competition will not divide peoples but will bring them together, directing their efforts to the service of peace and progress. 116. Our session is due to examine a number of questions which have a vital bearing on our quest for this goal.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“The Soviet Government has always proceeded and still proceeds from the conviction that peaceful coexistence between States is inconceivable without free economic intercourse, without a large-scale development of international trade or without strict respect for the sovereign rights of States to dispose of their riches and natural resources. The Soviet Government considers that one of the principal keys to a lasting peace is trade freed from artificial restrictions and conditions which in recent years have been determined more by the general staffs of certain countries than by business circles, trade based on the principle of mutual benefit and the full equality of the parties. 115. Peace today can be compared with a boat in the ocean, which is in peril of being submerged by the waves.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“The fact that these proposals, which cover the most important questions in the relations between the USSR and the United States, have hitherto come to nought can be explained by the attitude of the United States, and of the United States alone, although we are convinced that an improvement in relations between the Soviet Union and the United States would serve the interests of the United States and of its people no less than those of the USSR and of the Soviet people. The only persons who can fail to see this are those who have grown accustomed to thinking in terms of military blocs and cannot imagine a situation in the world in which all the barricades of the "cold war" have been pulled down. 114.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“The possibility of securing the conditions for stable and peaceful coexistence between States, regardless of their social structures, depends to no small degree on the establishment of mutual trust and co-operation in the relations between the Soviet Union and the United States. We already drew attention to this, as you will recall, at the twelfth session of the General Assembly, As you know, the Soviet Government proposed to the United States Government tire conclusion of a treaty of friendship, which could lay a solid foundation for co-operation between the two countries for many years. We have also submitted to the United States broad and concrete proposals for the development of economic co-operation.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“These are based on the recognition of the simple fact that all States Which now exist, regardless of their social systems, are situated on one planet and that there is no escaping that truth. 112. The fact that the world is indivisible was generally recognized already in the third decade of this century. The truth of this concept should therefore be even more manifest today, when technical development has reached such a level that all States, wherever they may be situated, have for practical purposes become close neighbours. They should consequently strive to develop peaceful relations between themselves if they do not wish to see the world engulfed in the conflagration of an atomic war. 113.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“The other course is the resolute renunciation by States of the use of force in their relations with other States; the cessation of war propaganda; strict respect of the right of all peoples and of all States to live their own life and to determine for themselves the system which they prefer; and the abandonment of the frenzied armament race in favour of the development of peaceful co-operation between States, without any attempt to place one country under another's control. This second course acquired its own distinct and clear-cut designation in international relations long ago. I have in mind, as you well know, the principles of peaceful coexistence between all States.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“The adoption of this course would lead to a further widening of the present division of the world into military groupings, to an even greater hostility in their mutual relations and to a transformation of the entire world into one vast military camp bristling with every type of modern weapon, and we would be faced with the dangerous consequences which such a situation engenders. 111.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“It is only natural, therefore, that questions affecting the basic trends of their foreign policy should today be regarded by all States is of unprecedented acuteness. 109. If we assess the international situation by looking at the present state of international relations as a whole, and as it is in reality, it immediately becomes obvious that mankind must now choose between two courses of action for the future. 110. One course is to intensify further the differences and the animosities and to deepen the mistrust prevailing between the main groupings of States. This is the course we are being driven to adopt by the advocates of the "cold war" and of the policy of "proceeding from positions of strength". It is the course of those who daily engage in malevolent war propaganda.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“In its view, European security can be truly assured only if the efforts of all European States are united, if they are brought closer together in the interests of peace and if broad co-operation is established between them. In this connexion, the conclusion of a treaty of friendship and co-operation by the European States, and the United States as well could be of great benefit. 108. We are living in tense and complicated times, with the world divided to opposing military groupings of Powers and with States having at their disposal unprecedented moans of destruction. In these circumstances, the responsibility of statesmen for the policy they pursue, their responsibility towards peoples, is greater than ever before.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“The Soviet Government has always opposed the division of the world into military groups of States, as their existence seriously poisons international relations and is fraught with the danger of a military clash between them. The Soviet Government, together with the Governments of the other signatories of the Warsaw Treaty, has stated that it desires to find means of relaxing tension in relations between the States parties to the Warsaw Treaty and the States members of NATO. That is in fact the purpose of the proposal for the conclusion of a non-aggression pact between these two groups. 107. As a consistent advocate of the cause of peace among nations, the Soviet Union is ever concerned about assuring security in Europe.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“It is extremely difficult to convince a Ruhr miner or a southern Italian farm-labourer that his soil was used as a bridge-head for United States intrusion into Lebanon because of the need to combat "international communism". And what are the views on "Atlantic solidarity" of the inhabitants of tiny Iceland, against which its NATO "ally", the United Kingdom does not hesitate to send its fleet merely because the Icelanders dared to proclaim their sovereign rights over their country's territorial waters. 105. There is thus no cause for surprise in the fact that some of the members of the Western blocs are beginning to show concern and mistrust regarding the policy of the United States and the United Kingdom, and that increasingly more noticeable cracks are appearing in these military blocs. 106.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“It should now be clear to all that, in order to achieve their ends, the sponsors of military blocs do not hesitate to set the entire mechanism in motion and to drag in their partners behind them. 103. It may be said that this does not mean that the countries which now render assistance to the United States and the United Kingdom, even by permitting the use of their territories, wish to be drawn into dangerous events. Experience of the past shows, however, that an aggressor can drag many a country into an adventure involving interests alien to it me rely because it had assumed in advance obligations devised for that very purpose. 104. Behind the false phrases about "joint defense against the communist threat", the "solidarity of the western world" and similar deceitful nonsense there are obvious dangerous designs.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“Government does not and cannot have any justification for keeping its forces there. It must either withdraw them or let the entire world conclude that Washington is nurturing plans for a now aggression in that part of the world. 102. The events of recent months in the Near East and in the area of the Taiwan Strait have again demonstrated the true significance of the policy of erecting military blocs. Relying on a system of such blocs — NATO, the Baghdad Pact and the South-East Asia Treaty Organization — the United States has been able to use the ports, airfields and principal means of communications of West Germany. Italy, Turkey, the Philippines and other participants in these blocs, with the tacit or openly expressed support of the Governments of those countries, for transporting troops to areas where it commits aggression.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“There can be no doubt as to the ignominious end which awaits the organizers of such an adventure. And there can be no doubt either that Syngman Rhee's supporters would not dare to engage in my military provocation against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea without the approval and direct support of those who bear the responsibility for Syngman Rhee’s conduct, namely the United States, which to this day maintains its forces in South Korea. 101. Again, why does the United States keep its forces in South Korea even after all the Chinese people's volunteer units have been withdrawn from North Korea. In Washington nothing is said on this subject; everybody remains silent. Perhaps the United States delegation will inform the General Assembly from tills rostrum when American forces will leave Korean soil? The United States.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“Representatives of some Governments have on several occasions, without batting an eyelid and in all apparent seriousness, voted for the fiction that China is not China at all and that the impostor representing the Chiang Kai-shek clique is entitled to occupy the seat which belongs to the representatives of the legitimate Government of the great Chinese people. 99. We have long been waiting for the United Nations to put its house in order and to free the seat which rightly belongs to the representatives of the People's Republic of China. The delegation of the USSR urges that this be done. 100. The sabre-rattling of the United States in the Far East has also clearly encouraged the American puppet in South Korea, Syngman Rhee, who is again becoming active and is preparing a "march to the north".”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“Can we then regard it as normal, even for one minute, that there are in our midst no representatives of one of the greatest and most ancient States in the world, China, which is one of the sponsors of the United Nations and within whose borders live approximately a quarter of the world's inhabitants? We must inevitably ask ourselves how long the United Nations will tolerate such a situation, which prevents it in many cases from speaking as a truly international organization. 98. For many years now an unseemly farce has been played in the United Nations around the question of the representation of China.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“A peculiar result of the policy of the United States towards the People’s Republic of China is the abnormal situation which we have witnessed for almost ten years in the matter of Chinese representation in the United Nations. It is because of the hostile and aggressive attitude of the United States Government towards the People’s Republic of China — and for that reason alone — that there are no representatives of China in our midst. 97. In the United Nations, we have representatives of eighty States. These include representatives of Powers great and small, of ancient States and of young countries recently created. We all hail this and welcome the fact that our organization is so broadly representative.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“How can this practice of military demonstrations and this exertion of pressure on other countries be accurately described? If it were not too charitable to do so, we might describe them as a form of modern international piracy and a recrudescense of ancient methods of colonial pillage. In modem times, however, such conduct is as infinitely more dangerous as are rockets, jet aircraft and atomic bombs when compared with the halberds and muskets of the Middle Ages. 95. In the opinion of the Soviet Government, the General Assembly should adopt a decision prohibiting States from engaging in such movements of their naval and air forces for purposes of blackmail, intimidation and the preparation of aggression, and requiring that such forces should be kept within their national frontiers. 96.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“We can only conclude from this that those circles in Washington which bear the responsibility for the present foreign policy of the United States have adopted the same methods of blunt threats and sabre-rattling as were once used by Hitler in preparing attacks on his victims. If threats of force are unavailing in one place today, then they must be used in another place tomorrow. But if those who utter threats are permitted to behave as they please and are not checked in time, then there is but one short step from the threat of arms to the actual use of arms. 94. We are entitled to ask, who has authorized the United States Government to assume the role of an international policeman, to interfere in the affaires of other States and to make whatever arrangements for them that it may deem fit?”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“Once again United States naval and air force units are engaged in provocative demonstrations and threats are being uttered, this time against the People's Republic of China. 92. Large United States naval and air force units are rushing hither and thither, all over the face of the globe; they are being used by the United States Government as a sort of "big stick" — to use an expression which has gained currency in United States diplomatic parlance — held over the heads of States which refuse to submit to the dictates of Washington, It could be said that aircraft carriers, cruisers, bombers and fighters have become auxiliary instruments of the "diplomacy" of the United States Department of State. 93.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“The United States Government also found an excuse to send its marines into the territory of Cuba. 90. Were not these also the very methods employed by the United States and the United Kingdom this summon in the Near East? On that occasion, the excuse was provided by internal developments in Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan, The United States Sixth Fleet rushed to the shores of Lebanon and trained its guns on the country's capital. The United States Air Force blockaded the approaches to Beirut airport, and the British began a demonstrative concentration of their armed forces in Cyprus. Finally, as you know, United States forces made a direct armed intrusion into Lebanon and British forces into Jordan. 91. Today we perceive the same pattern.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“I refer to the technique of military demonstrations on an international scale, the dispatch of warships and air force units to the ends of the earth, to the borders of States which they Intend to subject to pressure or to direct force in order to impose their will upon them. I need mention only a few events of this year in order to make clear the extent to which these techniques have come into use. 88. When the legitimate Government of Indonesia took stops to suppress a group of insurgents in that country, the United States Secretary of State considered it proper to interfere openly in Indonesia affairs at the very height of the armed struggle. He made a public statement against the Indonesian Government while United States naval units appeared in the vicinity of Indonesia's coast. 89.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“No one who really has the interests of peace at heart can fail to condemn the policy of threats and provocations, the policy of war, pursued by the United States against China; and one simple fact will become increasingly obvious, namely, that in the Far East there can be no lasting peace until the United States armed forces are withdrawn completely, once and for all, from the Chinese island of Taiwan and from the Taiwan Strait, until the United States ceases interfering in China's affairs. 87. The actions of the United States in the area of the Taiwan Strait focus particular attention on one method which certain Western Powers, and primarily the United States, have acquired the habit of using to gain their ends in the international arena.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)
“In the United Kingdom, for example, even the press organs most loyal to the tenets of "Atlantic solidarity" have noted with horror in the past few days that the United States is prepared to unleash a world war for the sake of its adventures in Chinese territory, and recognize that Washington's actions "make even America's best friends despair". Even in the United States there is obviously a growing recognition of the fact that the present course of the United States Government in the Far East is lawless and dangerous, and constitutes a threat to peace in that area and throughout the world. 86.”
1958-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 13 (1958)