_* The Geneva problems--2
Approach to disarmament

TBERE is no doubt that one

of the most distinctive feat-
ures of the Big Four Conference
at Geneva, from the goodwill
displayed by its participants to
Cooperate, was the realistic ap-
Proach to the issues under con-
’ Sideration.

To take the problem of dis-
armament. The directives of
the heads of government to
their foreign ministers contain
Common basic principles. They
are:

+ The solemnly proclaimed

desire of “removing the threat
of war and lessening the bur-
den of armaments.”
_ + Mutual agreement on the
necessity of achieving a system
‘for the control and reduction
of all’ armaments and armed
forces under effective safe-
fuards. '

+ Agreement to work togeth-
€r todevelop an acceptable sys-
tem for disarmament through
the sub-committee of the United
Nations Disarmament Commis-
Sion and at the forthcoming
talks of foreign ministers.

The sceptics might claim, of
Course, that statements on the
need for disarming had been
made before, that proposals on
the reduction of armaments and
armed forces had been submit-
ted before, and that, all this not-
Withstanding, the problem re-
Mained deadlocked. Quite true.

But Geneva was able to dis-
Cuss the disarmament problem
after the Soviet had advanced
“ts proposals of May 10 and the
~’ Disarmament sub-committee
in London had begun its work.

€ sub-committee is now in

ew York.

The all-important thing is
hat the Four Powers have un-
®nimously approved the prin-
“iple that the solution of the

_ “isarmament problem must pro-
feed along with the efforts to
Promote and strengthen confi-

€nce between states and on
€ basis of this confidence.
€neva not only proclaimed this
Principle; it laid the beginning
or its implementation.
his does not mean, of course,
at confidence between states
ad been fully established on
all issues and, particularly, on
€ issue of disarmament.

far as this and other prob-

lems are concerned there are

Still points which require an

“xchange of views to determine
€ area of agreement. There

re also questions on which
© Four Powers hold differ-
ent views,
This is how matters stand.
Ut if the same path is follow-
€d that was taken at Geneva—
he Path of seeking agreed solu-
tOns with due consideration for

Mutual interests — the search

Will undoubtedly end success-

fully.
*

Tn discussing the disarmament
Problem, the Geneva conferenc
Participants submitted a num-

t of constructive proposals.

rench Premier Edgar Faure’s
Proposals merit attention, par-
‘ularly his statement on the
Necessity of reducing budget
®*PPropriations for military pur-
Poses. Also of interest were
the Proposals advanced by Pres-
Sht Kisenhower and Sir An-
. ny Eden on the question of
Mspection and control.

he British prime minister

Admitted that the Soviet gov-~

Tyument was right in its May
Proposals to link the question

A solution to disarmament can be found
if the Big Four follow their Geneva example

of disarmament with the ques-

tion of confidence between
states.
At Geneva, too, the Soviet

Union submitted a comprehen-
sive and clear program on the
reduction of armaments and
prohibition of atomic weapons.

To summarize the Soviet
stand on these questions.

The Soviet government be-
lieves that implementation of a
«broad disarmament program is
possible only once an end is
put to the cold war and confi-
dence in international relations
established.

It holds that this task must
be tackled jointly by the: Four
Powers. Furthermore, that it
would be desirable if the UN
adopted a declaration aimed at
ending the cold war, lessening
international tension and pro-
moting confidence between
states.

At the same time solution of
the disarmament problem should
be sought now. ‘As a first step
in this direction to reach agree-
ment on measures on which
the views of the Four Powers
are most coincident.

These measures include est-
ablishment of the level of arm-
~ed forces. There is nothing to
prevent agreement on this ques-
tion since the Soviet Unioh has
agreed with the levels for the

Prohibition of atomic and nuclear weapons necessar
from the great cities of the world.

Five Powers proposed by the
United States, Britain, France
and Canada.

This proposal calls for the
level of the armed forces of
the United States, the ‘Soviet
Union and China to be estab-
lished at 1,000,000 to 1,500,000
men each, that of Britain and
France‘at 650,000 men each and
that of all the other states not
to exceed 150,000-200,000 men
each.

The armed forces level for
China, as well as other ques-
tions concerning the armed
forces of that country, will
naturally be subject to exam-
ination with~ the participation
of the Chinese People’s Repub-
lic government. The level of
the armed force of all the other
States to be considered at an
appropriate international con-
ference. _

Striving for international co-
operation in the field of peace-
ful utilization of atomic energy,
the Soviet government has de-
cided to contribute an appro-
priate amount of fissionable
materials to the world pool of
the International Atomic Energy
Agency, as soon as agreement
on its establishment is reached.

*

No one is likely to deny in
the light of these Soviet propos-

SoM < a

als that the Soviet Union has
displayed its goodwill to assist

in working out a solution for
the disarmament problem.

The Soviet government, tak-
ing into’ account the stand of
the United States, Britain and
France, agrees that prohibition
of atomic and hydrogen weap-
ons should be carried out by
stages,

The draft submitted by the
Soviet delegation in Geneva
Proposes that complete’ prohi-
bition of atomic and hydrogen
weapons come into effect fol-
lowing the reduction of armed
forces and conventional arma-
ments .to the extent of 75 per-
cent of the agreed reductions,
that elimination of such weap-
ons from national armaments
and their destruction be com-
pleted in the course of reduc-
tion of armament to the final
25 percent of the agreed re-
ductions, and that all atomic
materials be used thereafter ex-
clusively for peaceful purposes.

The Soviet Union further
proposed that the three West-
ern Powers follow its example
in demobolizing the military
contingents withdrawn from
Austria in accordance with the
State Treaty.

But does that mean that no-
thing should be done mean-
while and that the atemic and

y to remove the threat of destruction

hydrogen arms race should be
allowed’ to continue, thus. in-
creasing the danger of destrue-
tive atomic war? Of course
not. If the Great Powers were
to follow, this course, they
would be acting contrary to the

* interests of the peoples.

The Soviet Union proposes
that, before the entry into ef-
fect of the agreement on com-
plete prohibition of atomic and
hydrogen weapons, the Great
Powers give a solemn undertak-
ing not to employ nuclear weap-
ons, except for purposes of de-
fense @gainst aggression, when
a decision to that effect is tak-
en by the UN Security Council.

The Four Powers must un-
dertake not to be the first to
employ atomi¢ and hydrogen
weapons against any nation,
and to call upon all other states
to adhere to such a declaration.
Finally, the Soviet government
proposes to discontinue tests of
these weapons.

The Four Powers are agreed
in principle on the need to set
up effective international con-
trol to enforce the measures to
reduce armed forces and arma-
ments. The Soviet Union be-
lieves that here, too,-a realistic
approach should be taken and
control established that would
be feasible, effective and would
not represent impermissible in-
terference into the domestic af-
fairs of ether states.

While upholding its propos-
als of May 10, the Soviet Union
is ready to give serious con-
sideration to any other propos-

als aimed at finding an :effec-_

tive solution to the disarmament
problem. In his closing speech
at. the Supreme Soviet session

-N. A. Bulganin, commenting on

President Eisenhower's proposal
regarding an exchange of mili-
tary information — between the
United States and the: USSR
and — reciprocal facilities for
aerial photography, noted:

“The Soviet government is
giving and will eontinue to
give close and serious study to
Mr. Eisenhower’s Proposal, pro-
ceeding from the neeq to re-
concile the viewpoints and
reach agreement on this high-
ly important question,

“We are convinced that in
the fight for peace for the
peoples we shall continue to
work together, ana things wil}
go better and all will end well.”
Western political figures and

the press, commenting on the
outcome of the Geneva confer-
ence, recognize the possibility
of agreement on the disarma-
ment problem. Premier Faure,
for one, stated that in his opin-
lon the disarmament problem
could be pretty - easily settled
at the forthcoming meeting of
foreign ministers.

The Soviet government, for

its part, has stated that during

further examination of the dis-
armament problem it will ex-
ert every effort to find a solu-
tion in line with the aspirations
of the nations. :

These aspirations cannot be
ignored by the realistically-
minded statesmen of the coun-
tries that will be the Soviet
Union’s partners at future in-
ternational meetings, especially
so now that Geneva has further
Strengthened the will of the
peoples to achieve a: general
entente.

@ Reprinted from News, *

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — SEPTEMBER 23, 1955 — PAGE 9