_ Peoples’

‘Ting of U.S. military bases

peace.

TEXT. OF MALIK'S UNITED NATIONS RADIO BROADCAST

ease fire - put an end to bloody fighting in Korea

hii is the text of the radio
address made by Jacob Malik,
Soviet deputy foreign minister and
permanent yepiresentaifve at the
United Nations, in which he pro-
posed that as a first step towards
a peaceful settlement in Korea
“discussions should be started be-
tween the belligerents for a cease
fire and an armistice providing for
mutual withdrawal of forces from

the 38th parallel.”

voces a8 perfectly obvious. that
radio broadcasts on the subject
of “the price of peace” should
serve the cause of strengthening
peace and assisting the forces
which stand for peace in their
noble struggle to prevent war.

All tthe nations of the world
realize the supreme value of peace
to mankind,

It is mot yet six years since
conclusion of the Second World
War, in which millions of persons
lost their lives, but peace, for
which such a high price was
paid, is once again threatened.

The ruling circles in the United
States of America, the United
Kingdom and. France are endeav-

2g oring to convince their peoples

that, in order to maintain peace,
it is necessary to arm, to create
a so-called “position of strength”
which will supposedly make out-
break of a new world war im-
possible.

It should however, be clear to
all that whoever desires peace
should seek to resolve by peace-
ful means the problems arising
out of mutual relations with
other countries.

‘The government of the Soviet
“Union has repeatedly declared
that the policy which is being
pursued by the United States, the
United Kingdom, France and @
number of other countries is pro-
foundly vicious, will inevitably
lead to fresh international con-
flicts, and contains within itself
the seeds of a new world war.

It is precisely this policy of the
Western powers which has
‘brought about the present seri-

ous international tension.

The chief reason for the de-
terioration in relations between

the USSR and the three Western

powers was establishment of the
North Atlantic military alliance.

The political leaders of the
countries participating in this
bloc made no secret of the fact
that this military alliance is di-
rected against the USSR and the
Democratic Republics.

It is sufficient to point out
that American newspapers and
Magazines are daily publishing
maps and diagrams showing a
in
Europe and the Near East sur-

_ rounding the Soviet Union, and
indicating the air routes of U.S.

bombers from those bases to the

industrial centres of the USSR.

It is well known that at the
preliminary conference of >the
deputy foreign ministers of the
four powers in Paris, the repre-
sentatives of the [United States,
the United Kingdom and France
offered every resistance {0 adop-
tion of the Soviet proposal that
the urgent question of American
military bases and the Atlantic
Pact should be placed on the
agenda of the Council of Minis-
ters whose task it is to consider
all the more important questions
concerning the safeguards of

This policy of the governments
of the United States, the United
Kingdom and France cannot be
regarded otherwise than as an
endeavor to maintain the existing
international tension,

Conclusion of the North At-
lantic Pact, establishment of
American military bases abroad,
remilitarization of Western Ger-
many and creation of West Ger-
man armed forces, encouragement
of a revival of Japanese militar-
ism, the mad armaments race
and expansion of armed forces in
the countries of the North At-
lantic Pact and especially in the
United States—these are all cur-
rent features of the aggressive
policy of the Western powers.

The most flagrant manifesta-
tion of this policy is the armed
intervention in Korea of the Un-
ited States and a number of
other countries dependent upon
the United States.

The Soviet Union, the Chinese
People’s Republic and a number
of other states have repeatedly
submitted proposals for peaceful
settlement of the Korean dispute,
and the only reason why the war
still continues in Korea is that
the United States has prevented
adoption of these peace proposals.

Seizure of the Chinese island
of Taiwan or Formosa and bomb-,
ing of Chinese territory provide
irrefutable evidence of the US.
endeavor to extend the war in
the Far East. :

As we know by experience,
however, this can only have the
effect of drawing more closely
together the peoples of Asia who
justly regard this policy of the
ruling circles in the U.S. as a
threat to their epee aod in-
dependence.

The peoples of the eautitetss
who are members of the North
Atlantic Bloc are themselves suf-
fering aill the onsequences of
the policy of an armaments race
and preparations for a new war.

‘Whereas in 1938-1939, before
the Second World War, the per-
capita military expenditure of
the. American government was
about $8, in 1950 the per-capita
expenditure of the American gov-
ernment on war _ preparations
rose to $147 and in 1951 it will

vise to $307.:

' The only people to benefit from
the armaments race are those
who make enormous profits from
military contracts.

The National City Bank Let-
ter,
capitalists, has admitted that the
American economy “is moving
every month at any ever-faster
rate towards making armaments
its chief business and subordinat-
ing to armaments all civilian ac-
tivities and the peacetime way of
life.”

In order to mask this pouioe of
an armaments race and creation
of centres of aggression, the rul-
ing circles of the Western Powers
are trying to represent as ag-

gressive the peaceful policy of

the Soviet Union, People’s Re-
public of China, Poland, Czecho-
slovakia, Rumania, Hungary and
Bulgaria, while declaring’ that
their own policy of actual aggres-
sion is a policy of peace.

- Both these assertions, however,
are refuted by the\ facts, which
cannot be concealed.

The Soviet Union has consist-
ently defended, and is defending,
the cause of peace, and is pursu-
ing a policy of collaboration with
all countries desiring such col-
laboration. ‘

\

a publication of American _

The Soviet Union threatens no
one; it has not, and cannot have,
any aggressive plans whatsoever.
The ‘peaceful policy of the So-
viet Union is. based on the funda-
mental principles which underlie
the Soviet social structure and
the interests of the Soviet people.
The efforts of the Soviet peo-
ples are directed toward peaceful
construction.
The Soviet state is Bceord in
expanding civilian industry, in
bringing into jbeing the giant
hydro-electric power stations and
irrigation systems on the Volga,
the Dnieper and the Amur-Darya,
and in carrying out its plan ‘to
transform nature in order to. se-
cure abundant and stable har-
vests. mn
. The peaceful constructive labor
of the Soviet people in the post-
war years has led to a consider-
able. rise in the population’s
standard of living.
As a result of rising wages, of
systematic reduction of prices
and of increased state expendi-
ture on social and cultural ob-
jects, the total income of work-
ers, employees and peasants rose
by 62 percent in 1950 as compared
with the pre-war total for 1940.
Obviously, the development of
civilian construction on such a
scale. and the considerable rise
in the population’s standard of
living would have been impos-
sible
«had pursued, not a policy of
peace and construction, but a
policy of competition in arma-
ments and armed forces.

_In contravention of the United

Nations’ resolution concerning
‘prohibition of war - propaganda,
hundreds of newspapers. and

journals in the !U.S. are daily and
openly calling for an attack on
the Soviet Union. —

At the same time, no one can
name a single USSR newspaper
which called for an attack on the
U.S, or any other country what-
soever.

In the USSR a special law has
been passed, punishing as penal
offenders any who might try to
conduct war propaganda.”

The Soviet Union bases its poli-
cy on the’ possibility of the peace-
ful coexistence of the two sys-
tems, socialism and capitalism,
and steadfastly pursues the course
of maintaining loyal and peace-
ful relations with all states which
show a desire for economic co-
operation, provided that the prin-
ciples of reciprocity and obsery-
ance of accepted obligations are
respected. ee

With’ regard to Feiatione be-
tween the Soviet Union and the

‘

if the Soviet government.

armaments, _

United States, as long ago as
1932, in reply to the question
asked by the American journal-
ist Ralph VY. Barnes, “Could not
the Soviet and American peoples
be convinced that an armed con-
flict between their two countries
should never under any circum-
stances take place?”: Stalin re-
plied as follows:

“Nothing is easier than to con-
vince the peoples of both coun-
tries of the harmfulness and
criminality of mutual annihila-
tion.

“Uniortunately, however, ques-
tions of peace and war are not
always set¥led by the peoples.

“I have no doubt that the
masses of the people of the Un-
ited States did not want a war
with the peoples of the USSR
in 1918-1919,

“Thad did not oreeent the Unit-
ed States government, however,
from attacking the USSR in 1918
(together with Japan, England
and France) and continuing arm-

ed aggression against the USSR

until 1919,°

“As far as the USSR is con-

cerned, it seems hardly necessary
to supply further proof of the
fact that both the peoples of the
USSR, and the government of the
USSR, are anxious that an armed
conflict between their two coun-
tries should never under any cir-
cumstances arise.”

The Soviet government has de-
fended and continues to defend
the’ program of strengthening
peace and internafional security.

That program includes coopera-
tion of the great powers, which
has been expressed in the pro-
posal for conclusion of a pact to
strengthen peace.

It provides for reduction of
absolute prohibition
of atomic weapons, with estab-
lishment of international control
to implement. that prohibition,
and also strict implementation of
the Potsdam decisions on the
German problem, a peace settle-
ment with Germany and Japan
and expansion of commercial and
economic ties between all coun-
tries.

If this program is not being
carried out, it is only because it
does not. suit the forces of ag-
gression in a number of coun-
tries, which are afraid that the
carrying out of such a program
would undermine their aggressive
measures, would make an arma-
ments race impossible and would
thus deprive them of an oppor-
tunity to obtain further billions
in excess profits from war orders,

“The Soviet Union took an active

_ part in establishment of the Unit-

“The Soviet peoples believe thai as a first step discussions.

”

should be started between the belligerents for a cease fire. . .
; PACIFIC TRIBUNE — JUNE 29, 1951 — PAGE 10

t

"lieve that the most acute problem

mess or the parties to enter on

‘of the Korean question.

: great a price to pay in order to

ed Nations.
The Soviet Union took this ac-
tion in the belief that the strength
of this international organization —
lies in the fact that it is based ee,
on the principle of the unanimity
of the five great powers, on the —
inadmissibility of isolating any of
those powers and on the fact that
its action will be effective only
if the great powers respect that
principle.
Nevertheless, mainly through
the fault of the United States,
this principle is continually being —
violated, and three of the five .
great powers, the United States,
the United Kingdom and France,
are systematically pursuing the
policy of isolating the other two
great powers, the USSR and the -
People’s Republic of China.
In setting up the United Na~
tions, the peoples of the world
hoped that the organization would ,
become a reliable instrument for -
maintenance of international
peace and security and would ful-
fill the obligation of saving “suc-
ceeding generations from the
scourge of war”. which it assum-
ed under the charter.
During the whole existence of |
the United Nations, the Soviet
Union has been taking steps to
strengthen that organization and
has resisted any and every at-
tempt ;made by certain states,
especially the United States, to
by-pass the Security ‘Council,
which was given the main respon-
sibility for the maintenance of
peace and security, and to turn
this international organization in-
to a tool of one or more states.
By the efforts of the ruling
circles in the U.S, however, the
United Nations is being trans-
formed more and more into an
instrument of war, a means for
unleashing a new world war; and
at» the same time it is ceasing
to be a world-wide organization
of nations endowed with equal
rights. ;
The UN adopted the illegal de-
cision sanctioning, post factum,
the American aggression in Ko-
rea and China.
The UN branded as an “aggres-
sor” the People’s Republic of
China, which is defending its own
frontiers and endeavoring to se-
cure the return of the island of
Taiwan, which had been seized by
the American forces.
This is also borne out by the
illegal decision to declare an em-
bargo against China and by the
fact that 400 million Chinese
people are still not PepEoeen tag
in the IUN.
The Soviet Union will enue
its struggle to ‘strengthen peace
and avert a new world war.
The peoples of the Soviet Union
believe that it is possible to de-
fend the cause of peace.
The Soviet peoples further be-

a 82

of the present day—the problem
of the armed conflict in Korea—
could also be settled.

This would require the readi-

the path of a peaceful settlement

The Soviet peoples believe that
as a first step discussions should
be started between the belliger-
ents for a cease fire and an
armistice providing. for mutual
withdrawal of forces from the
38th Parallel.

‘Can such a step be taken?”

I think it can, provided there is
a sincere desire to put an end to-
the bloody fighting in Korea.

I think that, surely, is not too

achieve peace in Korea.

4