‘

ANDREI

ELOW the Pacific Tribune prints the second installment of the speech delivered

B by Andrei Vishinsky, Soviet deputy foreign minister, to the United Nations Gen-
eral Assembly on September 18. Although -the speech made headlines in Cana-

‘dian daily newspapers, only the Daily Tribune in Toronto printed in in full and no others
_ Save even a complete summary. Entire sections were dismissed in a few words or ig-
nored completely. Vishinsky spoke in Russian and the following text is a preliminary

translation.

\

ae so-called Truman Doctrine and “Marshall Plan” are particularly striking in-
stances of the violation of the United Nations organization principles and of ignor-
ing the organization, The experience of the few past months has proved that dec-
laration of this doctrine meant that the U.S. government openly gave up the principles
of international cooperation and concerted actions of the great powers, and passed to
attempts to dictate its will to other independent nations, utilizing at the same time
the economic means, allotted as relief for individual countries in need, for open political

pressure. This has been. suffi-
ciently illustrated by the meas-
ures undertaken by the U.S. gov-
ernment in Greece and Turkey
outside of the framework of the
United Nations organization and
in evasion of it, as well as by
the measures planned for Bur-
Ope in accordance with the so-
called “Marshall Plan.”

Such a policy is in deep con-
tradiction with the principle pro-
claimed by the General Assem-

bly in its resolution of Decem-

ber 11, 1946, that assistance to
other countries “should never
be used as a political weapon.”

“The Marshall Plan” is in fact,
as is quite clear now, but an-
Other version of the Truman
Doctrine adjusted for the con-
ditions of postwar Europe.

The U.S. government when put-
.ting forward this “plan” appar-
ently expected, with the cooper-
ation of the British and French

governments, to make the uro-—

Pean countries that are in need
of relief face the necessity of

giving up their inalienable right ®

to dispose of their own economic
resources, to plan their own
national economy as they see
fit, just as the U.S. government
€xpected to make all those coun-
tries directly dependent on the
interests of American monopo-
_ lies, which are Seeking to avoid
the impending crisis by an ac-
Celerated export to Europe of
accumulated commodities. and
Capital. Be
As is known, not all the Huro-
bean countries, in spite of their
Needs and the difficulties of
Postwar economic rehabilitation,
agreed to such an infringement
of their sovereignty and to such
an interference with their in-
ternal affairs; while the coun-
tries that consented to take part
in certain negotiations on the
Subject in Paris begin to under-

Stand more and more the dan-

Ser of their position and the true
_ Meaning of this offer of relief.
_ It is becoming more and more
Clear to everybody that the
_ “Marshall Plan” being put into
effect will mean a subjugation
of the European countries to the
€conomic and political ‘control
exercised by the U.S. and direct
interference on their part with
the internal affairs of those
countries. f

FRIDAY, ‘OCTOBER 17, 1947

an

T the same time, this plan

is an attempt to break Eur-
ope into two camps and com-
piete, with the
Great Britain and France, the
formation of a bloc of a num-
ber of European countries hos-
tile to the interests of the, demo-
cratic states of Eastern Europe
and, first of all, to those of the
Soviet Union. : .

“The tendency to set up a bloc
of a number of Western Euro-

pean countries, Western Ger-
many included, as against the
countries of Eastern Europe is
important feature of this
plan. At the same time it is
intended to use Western Ger-
Many and German heavy in-
dustry (Ruhr) as one of the im-
portant economic bases for Am-
erican expansion in Europe,
without any regard to the na-
tional interests of the countries
—victims of German aggression.
Bearing these facts in mind,
they show indisputably the in-
compatibility of such U.S. policy
as well as that of the Britsih
and French governments who
support the U'S., with the basic
principles of the United Nations
organization. Lae

‘One cannot consider as normal
, 2 situation wtih regards to the

relations among the members of _

‘the United Nations organization
when foreign armed forces con-
tinue~ to remain on the _ terri-
tories of the members of the or-
ganization, being the instrument

‘of political interference in their

internal affairs and thus creat-
ing unequal, subordinate  rela-
tions between the states, incom-
patible with the Charter.

‘British troops still remain in
Egypt—against: the will of that
country; . they still remain in
Greece ‘in violation of her state
constitution, in Transjordania,
who applied for membership in
the United Nations organization.

American troops continue to
remain in China; this by no
‘means contributes to the estab-

lishing of internal peace in that
country. The presence of for-
eign troops on the territory of
non-enemy states should not
take place unless such presence

assistance of

.

is connected with the protection
of communications with ex-en-
emy territories during their - oc-
cupation,

The strengthening of universal
peace and mutual confidence
among the nations demand an
urgent and positive solution of
the question of the evacuation
from the territories of the non-
enemy states of foreign troops
not engaged in guarding of com-
munications with the ex-enemy
states. : #

e@ .
E should point out also the
failure on the part of some
members of the organization to
put into effect important deci-
sions of the Assembly; onthe
Spanish question (Argentine), on
the question of discrimination
against Indians in South Africa,

‘on the establishment of trustee-

ship over the former mandatory
territory of South-Western Africa
(Union of South Africa).

The General Assembly can not
Pass by such actions of some

‘individual members of the or-

ganization, who disrupt the
achievement of the aims set out

in the decisions of the Assembly

and who weaken the prestige of
the United Nations organization:

In this connection we cannot
avoid dwelling on the develop-
ments that are taking place in

Indonesia. These events cannot’

be qualified otherwise than an
act of aggression perpetrated
against the Indonesian people by
a member state of the United
Nations, :
Unprovoked military attack by
Holland against the Indonesian
Republic caused justified indig-
nation of all the honest people
throughout the world. Well, did

the United Nations organization |

render due. assistance to the In-
donesian people? All of us know
that was not the case.

As the result of the consid-
eration of the Indonesian ques-

tion by the Security Council, cer- .

tain states made no small efforts
to minimize the importance of

_ developments in Indonesia and to ©

impress upon the Security Coun-
cil a decision which by no means
can be regarded as sufficient for
the protection of the Indonesian

.

Republic who became the vic-
tim of military attack.

It is clear that such decisions
eannot but undermine the pres-
tige of the United Nations or-
ganization, which is exactly call-
ed upon to secure the mainten-
ance of peace among the na-
tions. :

At the same time, one’s at-
tention is attracted to the fact
that while not showing due in-
eterest for the elimination of the
unsatisfactory state of affairs

_ with regard to the solution of

the Spanish and other questions,
cited above, some _ influential
powers display a particular in-
terest in the Iranian question,
which still remains on the agen-
da of the Security Council, not-
withstanding the fact that eigh-
teen months have already passed
since its complete settlement,
and that in spite of the request
of Iran itself to take this ques-
tion off the agenda of the Se-
curity Council.

It is really worthy of note
how the delegates of the USA
and Great Britain doggedly try
‘at any cost, against any reason-
ing, to keep the Iranian question
on the agenda of the Security
Council for some apparently
specific purposes.

The extraordinary doggedness
displayed in this respect-by the
American and British members
of the Council is all the more
worthy of one’s
that this doggedness remajned
unshaken even after the well-
grounded clarification made by
the Secretary General to the ef-
fect that there are no reasons
for the Security Council to deal
with the so-called Iranian ques-
tion. |

UCHING upon the subject

of the Trusteeship Council,
the Soviet delegation also con-
siders it necessary to note the
following:

At the meeting of the General
Assembly of December 13, 1946,
the USSR delegation criticized
the agreements on _ trusteeship
“over the ex-mandatory territor-
‘ies, submitted for the approval
of the Assembly, for the reason
that both the very preparation
of those agreements and some
ef their articles did not cerre-
spond to what is required by the
UN Charter.

The fact that ‘the establish-
ment of the Trusteeship Council
was based on the said agree-
ments, the above-mentioned set-
backs naturally, could not but in-
fluence the USSR delegation’s at-
titude toward the election of the
members of the Council. The
Soviet delegation still continues
to maintain the views stated in
this respect by, the Soviet dele-
gation to the General Assembly
on December 13, 1946.

attention. in

The USSR delegation, repre-
senting the state which is a
permanent member of the Trus-
teeship Council, wishes to ex-
press the hope that the above-
mentioned violations of the Char-
ter that took place at the time
the agreements on trusteeship

_ were concluded will be correct-

ed, which would undoubtedly
facilitate the execution by the
Trusteeship Council of its tasks.

It goes without. saying © that
this would serve the interests
both of the United Nations or-
ganization as a whole and those
of the population, of the trustee
territories :

HE unsatifsactory
affairs with

state of
regard to the

work of the United Nations or-

ganization is not an accident
but a result of an attitude to-
ward the organization on the
part of a number of members,
USA and Great Britain first
of all.

Such an attitude does not fa-
cilitate the strengthening of the
organization and does not serve
the cause of international co-
operation. On the contrary, such
an attitude leads to the weaken-
ing and instability of the United
Nations organization, which un-
doubtedly is in keeping with
Plans and intentions of tne re-

-actionary elements in the coun-

tries mentioned, under whose |
influence a suitable policy :
being carried out. :

Asi far as the Soviet Union
is concerned, its policy with re-
gard to the United Nations or-
ganization is a policy of strength-
ening of the organization; it is
a policy of broadening and
strengthening of international,
cooperation, a policy of a steady,
consistent observance of the
Charter and of the fulfillment
of its principles. a

The strengthening of the
United Nations organization is
cnly possible on the basis of a
respectful attitude toward the
political and economic independ-
ence of the nations, >

basis of a respectful attitude _

toward the sovereign equality of © "

the nations, as well as of con-
sistent and unconditional observ-
ance of one of the most impor-
tant principles of the. United
Nations organization — that is,
the principle of unanimity and
accord among the great powers
in taking decisions on the most
important problems dealing with
maintenance of international
peace and security. . ;

It is in full accord with the
special responsibility of these

powers for the maintenance of — :

universal peace and is a guaran-
tee of the protection of inter-
ests of all the members of the
United Nations organization,
great and small. oe.
The Soviet Union feels it is

its duty to resolutely fight
against any attempts to shake
this principle, no matter under
what motives these attempts are
made. :

6 cee

HERE is left for me to say
just a few more words with |
regard to the address of U.S. _
Secretary of State Mr. Marshall.
Questions that not~once had

been the subject of discussion
were touched upon in this ad-

dress. Most of these questions

are included in the agenda of

the General Assembly as separ- _

ate paragraphs, which means
that we'll have opportunity to
state our opinion on them at.
the proper place and time.
The Soviet delegation, however,
feels it necessary to immediate-
ly dwell upon the question rais-_
ed by Mr. Marshall in this =
first statement, the question of
the independence and territorial ©
integrity of Greece. iss :
Leaving discussion at length
of this question until the time
the General Assembly deals with
it, according to the adopted

agenda, the Soviet delegation —

(Continued on Page 12)
PACIFIC TRIBUNE—PAGE 11 _

on the —