* The Geneva _problems

THERE is no. stronger logic
than the logic of life, the
logic of things, for it is based
on the realities. It is this very
logic that projected to the fore-
front in the Geneva discussions
the problems of European se-
curity. And it is for this same
reason that it figures first in
the Directives by the Heads of
“Government to the Foreign
Ministers.

The most ardent desire of all
peoples today is the desire for
peace. People want to live with-

out fear of the tomorrow. They’

want to breathe freely, to see
the feeling of alarm and uncer-
tainty displaced by a feeling of
security and certainty that
there will be no war.

Conclusive proof of this is
the mighty peace movement
and the World Congress of
Mothers. All segments of so-
ciety are raising their voice
in defense of peace, in defense
of general ‘security.

Most revealing in this con-
nection is Walter Lippmann’s
remark in the New York Her-
ald Tribune (July 27): “In this
country, the cause behind the
immediate causes of the col-
dapse of McCarthyism and the
effacement-of the war party has
been the popular realization
that modern war is intoler-
able.”

There is also no ignoring the
grow ing movement for neutral-
ity in a number of countries, a
movement that speaks, if any-
thing, of the desire to find se-
curity along this path and to
avoid being involved in dan-
gerous military blocs. Witness
the deep satisfaction and joy
with which the Austrian people
greeted the news that their
country would henceforth be
permanently neutral.

*
The Geneva Conference was

made possible and imperative
by the peoples’ will for peace.

What also contributed to its
success were the views voiced
of late in the United States
that “negotiations and not
force” should be the underly-
ing principle in the relations
between states.

Official U.S. circles have been

evincing a desire to assess
things in their proper light, to
promote normalization of in-
ternational relations. It is in-
deed encouraging to. see. that
forces working in this direction
are now making their appear-
ance in the country. President
Dwight Eisenhower has noted
the need “to advance construc-
tively, not merely to re-enact
the dreary ‘performances,
pashiee performances, of the
past . ”
. But Geneva’s greatest success
lies in the fact that it has
warded off the spectre of war
which loomed over Europe after
the ratification of the Paris
agreements.

Some might say, of course,
that solution of the disarma-

ment. problem would also have
given a feeling of security, that
the settlement of the German
question would also have con-
tributed toward safeguarding
European security. This is how
many of the Western newspa-

the

Organization of a system of collective security
would help solution of other outstanding issues

pers argue. Even at Geneva
there were attempts to make

the German problem the prime

issue.

There is no denying that both
the solution of the disarmament
problem and the settlement of
the German question would
conduce to the strengthening
of general security. Yet, all
this notwithstanding, the ques-
tion of European security un-

deniably remains the  para-
mount issue of the day.
*

A sober assessment of the
situation prevailing on the eve
of the Geneva conference
proves this.

There is no escaping the fact
that the past few years were
darkened by the cold war poli-
cy, which fostered international
tension and an atmosphere of
distrust and suspicion. To dis-
pel this distrust and suspicion,
to change the political climate
prevailing in the world and
to create an atmosphere of
mutual confidence — such was
the urgent and pressing task be
fore the participants of the
conference.

This was a difficult and com-
plex task, particularly if we
remember that it had to be
settled in a situation character-
ized by the arms drive, the ex-
istence of military blocs and
the establishment of military
bases on foreign territories, in
other words, by. direct war pre-
parations.

: The frank exchange of views
in Geneva showed that all the
participants aimed to find a
common lanquage and ways
and means of peacefully resolv-
ing the pressing issues.

At the same time the Geneva
conference revealed that there
was a difference in the partici-

pants’ approach to certain is-
sues. Under the circumstances
there could be only one way

and only one method— a sober
estimation of the existing reali-
ties.

The task was to foster an
atmosphere of security in the
present situation. And that is

what the Soviet delegation pro-.

posed.

*

The Soviet stand on the_ques-
tion of European security is
well known from numerous
documents. and statements by
the leaders of the Soviet state.
It was expounded with crystal
clarity at: Geneva too.

The Soviet Union favors the
establishment of a collective
security system in Europe to
which all European countries,
and also the United States,
would be a party. This view
is based on the firm belief that
states with differing political
and social systems can co-exist
in peace.

As a matter of fact, a collec-
tive security system (not only
for Europe, but for the whole
world) is the goal of UN whose
charter provides for peaceful
international cooperation be-
tween all states, big and small,
on the basis of equality and ir-
respective of their political and
social systems, and for peaceful
solution of all disputes that may
arise among UN members. The
system of collective security in
Europe proposed by the Soviet
Union fully conforms to these
principles.

The organization of a system

of collective security in Europe

would undoubtedly facilitate
tremendously the solution of
other outstanding issues, pri-
marily the German problem.

The establishment of a col-

lective security system in Eur-
ope, would, undeniably, greatly
help toward settling the Ger-
man question in the interests
of peace, in the interests of all
European nations and in ac-
cordance with the aspirations
of the German people them-
selves. Both the German De-
mocratic Republic and the Ger-
man Federal Republic, the two
states that are today existing
realities, would participate in
this system.

The participation of the two
German states in the collective
security system would natural-
ly make easier contact and ra-
pproachment between them,

and would lay the foundation
for Germany’s_ reunification
along’ democratic and peaceful
lines.
system would also go a long
way to solving the disarmament
problem, making the
drive purposeless.

But there is no discounting
the fact that in the present
situation the organization of
a collective. security. system ‘in
Europe would call for extensive
preparatory work.

Before all else, it would be
necessary to foster an atmos-
phere of mutual confidence be-
tween: the European states
which has been undermined by
such factors as the Western

‘powers’ policy of keeping Ger-

many ‘split, their policy of re-
militarizing Western Germany
and the establishment of nar-
row military alignments, which
necessitated the Warsaw treaty
organization as a counter-meas-
ure.

The new proposals advanced
by the Soviet Union at the
Geneva conference are designed
to avert the threat of war be-

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — SEPTEMBER 16, 1955 — PA

.

The collective security ©

arms

A European security system

tween the two opposing align-

ments.
*

What is the most significant
thing about these new Digna
als? Their realistic assessme?
of the present situation. ee
proceed from the fact that wi :
opposing alignments existing e
Europe the essential thing is
create a climate conducive '¥
normal and peaceful cooperé-

tion. between them and a peace”

ful adjustment of the contro"

versial issues.

The Soviet proposals
for the organization of t
lective security system i
stages. :
Tn the first, NATO, the We
ern European Union and me
Warsaw treaty organizatlo
will remain intact.

In other words, in the ini
period the parties to
and WEU as well as the
to the Warsaw treaty are a
relieved of the obligations fe
sumed by them under exist
treaties and agreements. iD
the same time, these states Ue
dertake to refrain from the ni
of force and to settle all the
disputes by peaceful means: a

Further, pending agreeR
on the reduction of armamé wes
and the prohibition of ato
weapons and on the wit

‘provide
he col-
n two

itial

parties

of foreign troops from the ee
ritories of European countt i
-the parties to the UrOP
treaty of collective ae e
pledge to refrain from any i
ther steps to increase their at é
ries

ed forces in the territo a
other European states we a
earlier treaties and agree™

This, agreements covert
the first stage would peer’

build up an atmosphere ° f
tual confidence and there wee
be no further need for Wau,
military blocs as NATO, ore
or for the Warsaw treaty
ganization. that
Another Soviet proposal A
has focussed world public on”
tention is the proposal t? “ene
clude a treaty betwee?
Western and Warsaw
ments under which the
bers of the respective
ments, pending the organ!
of a European collective secul? oe
system, mutually pledge t?
frain from the use of force:
The Soviet delegation ®°',
that its proposal was uld
means the only one that ©?
serve ‘as a basis for find) ding ®
solution to the organization
a collective security syste™
Europe. 7
The observations made
Prime Minister Sir A? int
Eden regarding a security’ par
with a more narrow ae serv
states participating are oan
ing of attention, with due itaa
sideration of.the present 9”
tion in Germany.. ush-
The Geneva Conferencé "
ered in a new phase in ¢
lations between the’ oa ore
took part in it. And it pa
be no overstatement to 597 4.
Geneva can represent t
ginning of a new phase in # c0°
politics if the same spirit ©

alig®”
izaty

Ta
operation and mutua He:
standing which prevaile a aif”

. Four-Power meeting is ™
tained. the

Successful solution » of
European security PY?
would lay the solid foundatl +t
for this new phase — ;
international cooperation.

© Reprinted from News

ies