* 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