Soviet statement on Atl

(Continued from
last week)

'PHE ruling circles of the U.S.

immediately after the termina-
tion of the Second World War, be-
gan establishing air and naval
bases in both the Atlantic and in
the Pacific as well as on many re-
-mote seas, including areas locat-
ed thousands and thousands of
kilometers from the U.S. bound-
aries. Since that time the number
of American war bases, far from
being reduced, has been consider-
ably multiplied, both in the East-
ern and in the Western hemis-
spheres, in the countries of Eu-
rope and in the countries of Am-
erica, Asia and Africa. Entire
states, especially from among
those situated close to the bound-
aries of the USSR, have been pre-
pared to provide convenient
bridgeheads for the Anglo-Ame-
rican air forces and other facili-
ties for attacking the USSR. The
flow of various arms is being di-
rected to such states, by means
‘of ever new American credits be-
ing granted to them.

No reasonable person could
claim that this was being done
to provide for the defense of the
U.S. It is known, on the other
hand, that no danger of aggres-
sion has existed for the US.
since the Second World War
which ended in the defeat of the
aggressive powers.

Furthermore, can it be con-
sidered accidental that after the
termination of the Second World
War the U.S. and Britain pre-
served their organization of the
eombined chiefs of staffs in
Washington, which in a hush-
hush manner continues its work,
preparing its fresh plans of ag-
gression? For if no such plans
existed there would be no reason
for preserving that staff in Wash-
ington under present peace-time
- conditions, and no need for send-
ing American, as well aS British,
troops to the territories of an
increasing number of states.

American troops are now sta-
tioned not only in countries of
Europe and Asia by way of carry-
ing out their post-war occupation
tasks on former enemy territories.
American troops still remain on
the territories of a whole number
of states which are members of
the United Nations. It has be-
come the custom in recent years
with the ruling circles of the U.S.
to assume the right of sending
their troops to the territories of
other states, Greece in Europe
or China in Asia, for instance,
on the pretext that this is es-
sential to the security of the U.S.

It is perfectly clear that such

a foreign policy has nothing , — ings mentioned above, are striving

in common with legitimate con-
cern for- defense of the U.S.,
and that this policy is thorough-
ly permeated with the spit of
violence, with the spirit of ag-
gression. i

It is considered as universally
recognized that certain circles in
the U.S. are seeking to prepare
both Western Germany and Japan
as their weapons for the imple-
mentation of aggressive Plans,
and to make them accomplices in

the aggression which is being |

prepared.

Nor is it accidental that the
U.S. is resorting to every pretext
in order to postpone the conclu-
sion of the peace treaties both
with Germany and with Japan.
This is the natural consequence
of the foreign policy of the ruling
circles of the U.S., a policy which
is basedyat the present time on
aggressive plans and is not
aimed at strengthening universal
peace. ... ‘ ;

The North Atlantic Pact, which
conforms to the plans for the
establishment by violence of
Anglo-American world ‘domina-
tion, and therebv to the aims of
the policy of unleashing another
war, is designed precisely as a_

: “The North Atlantic grouping is being formed, not for purposes of self defense and in general not for the tasks laid down by
Article 51 of the United. Nations Charter.” a

means of achieving these objec-
tives. : Seay

It is not. only the ruling aggres-
sive circles of the U.S., and not
only such British inspirers of the
pact as Churchill and Bevin, but
a good many other warmongers
of lesser caliber that stand in
the background of this pact. One
should bear in mind, however,
that the signing of these or any
similar pacts does not serve as
a guarantee and does not yet

provide an opportunity for the _

realization of the aggressive aims
set by the inspirers of such pacts.

One should recall in this con-
nection, the unanimous support
given in democratic circles of
all countries to the well-known
statement of the head of the
‘Soviet government, J. V. Stalin,
that “the horrors of the recent
war are too fresh\in the mem-
ory of the peoples, and the pub-
lic forces in favor of peace are
too strong for Churchill’s pupils
in aggression to be able to over-
power them and turn them to-
wards a new war.”

Ht
The North Atlantic Alli-

-ance—A Factor Under-

mining the United

Nations Organization
"THE state department's official
statement attempts to estab-
lish that the grounds for the for-
mation of the North Atlantic Al-
liance, as also the other group-

to “strengthen the United Na-
tions organization.” Such a state-
ment would be convincing only
if it were possible to agree that
the formation of the North At-
lantic Alliance and ‘other group-

ings and blocs in circumvention

of, and behind the back of, the
United Nations organization could
serve to strengthen this organi-
zation. Such an assumption, how-
ever, it stands to reason, is ut-
terly absurd. i

In actual fact, the knocking to-
gether of the North Atlantic Al-
liance, heading a whole series of
specific groupings of states in
various parts of the globe, repre-
sents the final breaking away of
the present policy of the U.S. and
Britain from the policy unani-

-mously conducted by the govern-

ments of the U.S., Britain and
the Soviet Union, together with
many other nations, when the
United Nations organization was
being created and its charter
drawn up and endorsed.

It is a universally known fact
that the United Nations organi-
zation did not discuss the forma-
tion of the North Atlantic Al-
liance, or of the Western Union,
or of the Pan-American Pact. It

' However,

is equally known that the ques-
tion of the formation of a Medi-
terranean Union, or a Scandina-
vian grouping, or an alliance of
states in the process of organi-
zation, is at present proceeding
without the participation of the
United Nations organization and
in outright circumvention of this
organization. :

The participants of these groups
and, first of all, the ruling circles
of the United States and Great
Britain, realize that it is not to
their advantage to bring these
questions up for discussion by the
United Nations. Here they would
probably be asked what are the
real purposes and nature of these
groups. This is in no way desired

by the governments concerned —
ywhich are directing the formation —

of all, these alliances, blocs and
groupings. They prefer to do this
secretly, behind the back of the
United Nations organization. The
ruling circle of the U.S. and Bri-
tain are actually confronting the
United Nations organization with
a fait accompli by forming these
blocs and groupings.

All this, however, does not pre-
vent them from claiming all the
while that the North Atlantic Al-
liance, as well as the other blocs
and groupings that they are form-
ing, allegedly serves to strengthen
the United Nations organization.

these words. Even those who
make such statements do not at-

tribute any significance to these ©

words. E

In actual fact the North At-
lantic Alliance and its associated
groupings of states, headed by
the ruling circles of the U.S. and
Britain, constitute a direct un-
dermining of the United Nations
organization. Today these group-
ings aim at undermining the
authority of the United Nations
crganization, tomorrow they may
bring about the destruction of
this organization. Not for nothing
have the foundations of this or-
ganization been systematically un-
dermined in the last three years,
which is especially reflected in
the striving to do away with the
principle of five-power unanimity

in settling all the major issues ©

ensuring universal peace and in-
"ternational security, as laid down
in the charter. i

In support of the position it has
taken. on the question of the North
Atlantic Alliance, the state de-
partment offers to the United
Nations Charter. These refer-
ences, however, are not only far
‘from convincing but are distin-
guished by their exceptional ir-
responsibility. The state depart-
ment refers to Article 52 of the
United Nations Charter which
speaks about the possible exist-

A

, out saying that this article

no one now believes .

ence of regional pacts provided
they are consistent with the pur-
poses and principles of the United
Nations organization. It goes with-
is
necessary in the United Nations
Charter. Facts, however, demon-
strate that the North Atlantic
Pact can in no way be considered
as such a regional arrangement.

The political meaning of the
North Atlantic Pact. and its re-
lated arrangements has nothing
in common whatever with what
is stated in Article 52 of the
United Nations Charter concern-
ing the purposes and principles
of regional arrangements.

The North Atlantic Pact can-
not in general be referred to as
a regional arrangement, as it em-
braces states in both hemispheres
and pursues the aim not of settl-
ing various regional problems, but
of determining the entire course
of the foreign policy of such
powers as the U.S. and Britain,
who continually interfere in the
affairs of many other states and
in every part of the globe at that.
It can only be claimed in mock-
ery that the, North Atlantic Pact
is a regional arrangement. He
who respects Article 52 of the
United Nations Charter will not
take this view, as the North At-
lantic Alliance was formed, not
on the basis of Article 52, but as
a direct violation of the charter
and the fundamental principles
of the United Nations organiza-
tion. ;

The state department likewise
refers to Article 51 of the United
Nations Charter which speaks of
“the inherent right of individual
or collective self-defense if an
armed attack occurs against a
member of the United Nations,”
and the Security Council is as yet
unable to take due measures to
maintain world peace.

The fact that such an article
is necessary in the United Nations
Charter is very evident. On the
other hand, however, it is equally
obvious that the formation of the
North Atlantic’ grouping can in
no way find justification in Ar-
ticle 51. ;

This is evident first of all from
the fact that neither the U.S.,
nor Britain, nor any other of the
countries of the North Atlantic,
are menaced by any armed at-
tack whatever. This alone suffices
to prove the groundlessness: of
any references to Article 51 which
aim at justifying the formation
of the North Atlantic Alliance.

The North Atlantic grouping is
being formed, not for purposes of
self-defense and in general not
for the tasks laid down in the
aforementioned article of the
charter. The North Atlantic Al-
lianee headed by the U.S. would

simply be of no use to anyone ©
if there did not exist the striving —

forcibly to establish the domina-
tion or the U.S. and Britain over
other countries, if there did not

exist the striving to establish by —

force Anglo-American world dom
ination. The North Atlantic Pact
is by no means required for self-
defense, but for the realization
of the policy of aggression, for

effecting the policy of unleashing —

a new war.

_ Consequently, the state depalt-
ment’s atempts to justify the for-
mation of the North Atlantic Al-

liance by referring to Article 51

of the charter are utterly ground-
less. These references can only
‘delude the broad public, but can-
not serve really to explain thé

motives for the formation of this

new “North Atlantic’ grouping
and all kinds of related subsidiary
unions and blocs.

This is how matters stand with
the state department’s references
to Articles 51 and 52 of the United
Nations Charter,

If admittedly the state depart-
ment’s references to the United
Nations Charter are irrelevant,
then it becomes necessary to refer

es

to another explanation given of |
the motives behind the formation |

of the North Atlantic Alliance,

likewise contained in the afore-

mentioned décument. In this con~
nection the state department's
references to the so-called Van
denberg resolution, adopted bY
the American Senate, are deserv”
ing of especial attention.
e
“Last summer, in fact, the U.S
Senate approved a resolution sub-
mitted by Vandenberg on thé
‘new departure” in American fol
eign policy. The state depart
ment’s statement says that the
aforementioned “resolution pro
poses that for the first time i?
the nation’s history the U.S. a5"
sociates itself in peacetime wit?
countries outside the Wester?
hemisphere ‘in collective securitY
arrangements designed to safe
guard peace and to strengthe?
our security.” : ae
This statement of the state d@—
partment once again refutes ito
own assertion claiming that th®
North Atlantic grouping is of *
regional nature. It at the sam

_ time demonstrates that since th®

end of the Second World Wa!
changes have occurred in the for
eign policy pursued by the rulin:
circles of the U.S. which lay bat®
the present frankly aggressive na
ture of this policy.

The said resolution gives @ :
hand to the U.S. government a
setting up any international al
liances in peacetime and, on u
pretext of ensuring security per

j
(Continued on Next. Page)

*

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — MARCH 4, 1949 — PAGE *

free