Soviet statement on Atl

(Continued from last week)

'PHE ruling circles of the U.S.

immediately after the termina- tion of the Second World War, be- gan establishing air and naval bases in both the Atlantic and in the Pacific as well as on many re- -mote seas, including areas locat- ed thousands and thousands of kilometers from the U.S. bound- aries. Since that time the number of American war bases, far from being reduced, has been consider- ably multiplied, both in the East- ern and in the Western hemis- spheres, in the countries of Eu- rope and in the countries of Am- erica, Asia and Africa. Entire states, especially from among those situated close to the bound- aries of the USSR, have been pre- pared to provide convenient bridgeheads for the Anglo-Ame- rican air forces and other facili- ties for attacking the USSR. The flow of various arms is being di- rected to such states, by means ‘of ever new American credits be- ing granted to them.

No reasonable person could claim that this was being done to provide for the defense of the U.S. It is known, on the other hand, that no danger of aggres- sion has existed for the US. since the Second World War which ended in the defeat of the aggressive powers.

Furthermore, can it be con- sidered accidental that after the termination of the Second World War the U.S. and Britain pre- served their organization of the eombined chiefs of staffs in Washington, which in a hush- hush manner continues its work, preparing its fresh plans of ag- gression? For if no such plans existed there would be no reason for preserving that staff in Wash- ington under present peace-time - conditions, and no need for send- ing American, as well aS British, troops to the territories of an increasing number of states.

American troops are now sta- tioned not only in countries of Europe and Asia by way of carry- ing out their post-war occupation tasks on former enemy territories. American troops still remain on the territories of a whole number of states which are members of the United Nations. It has be- come the custom in recent years with the ruling circles of the U.S. to assume the right of sending their troops to the territories of other states, Greece in Europe or China in Asia, for instance, on the pretext that this is es- sential to the security of the U.S.

It is perfectly clear that such

a foreign policy has nothing , — ings mentioned above, are striving

in common with legitimate con- cern for- defense of the U.S., and that this policy is thorough- ly permeated with the spit of violence, with the spirit of ag- gression. i

It is considered as universally recognized that certain circles in the U.S. are seeking to prepare both Western Germany and Japan as their weapons for the imple- mentation of aggressive Plans, and to make them accomplices in

the aggression which is being |

prepared.

Nor is it accidental that the U.S. is resorting to every pretext in order to postpone the conclu- sion of the peace treaties both with Germany and with Japan. This is the natural consequence of the foreign policy of the ruling circles of the U.S., a policy which is basedyat the present time on aggressive plans and is not aimed at strengthening universal peace. ... ‘ ;

The North Atlantic Pact, which conforms to the plans for the establishment by violence of Anglo-American world ‘domina- tion, and therebv to the aims of the policy of unleashing another war, is designed precisely as a_

: “The North Atlantic grouping is being formed, not for purposes of self defense and in general not for the tasks laid down by Article 51 of the United. Nations Charter.” a

means of achieving these objec- tives. : Seay

It is not. only the ruling aggres- sive circles of the U.S., and not only such British inspirers of the pact as Churchill and Bevin, but a good many other warmongers of lesser caliber that stand in the background of this pact. One should bear in mind, however, that the signing of these or any similar pacts does not serve as a guarantee and does not yet

provide an opportunity for the _

realization of the aggressive aims set by the inspirers of such pacts.

One should recall in this con- nection, the unanimous support given in democratic circles of all countries to the well-known statement of the head of the ‘Soviet government, J. V. Stalin, that “the horrors of the recent war are too fresh\in the mem- ory of the peoples, and the pub- lic forces in favor of peace are too strong for Churchill’s pupils in aggression to be able to over- power them and turn them to- wards a new war.”

Ht The North Atlantic Alli-

-ance—A Factor Under-

mining the United

Nations Organization "THE state department's official statement attempts to estab- lish that the grounds for the for- mation of the North Atlantic Al- liance, as also the other group-

to “strengthen the United Na- tions organization.” Such a state- ment would be convincing only if it were possible to agree that the formation of the North At- lantic Alliance and ‘other group-

ings and blocs in circumvention

of, and behind the back of, the United Nations organization could serve to strengthen this organi- zation. Such an assumption, how- ever, it stands to reason, is ut- terly absurd. i

In actual fact, the knocking to- gether of the North Atlantic Al- liance, heading a whole series of specific groupings of states in various parts of the globe, repre- sents the final breaking away of the present policy of the U.S. and Britain from the policy unani-

-mously conducted by the govern-

ments of the U.S., Britain and the Soviet Union, together with many other nations, when the United Nations organization was being created and its charter drawn up and endorsed.

It is a universally known fact that the United Nations organi- zation did not discuss the forma- tion of the North Atlantic Al- liance, or of the Western Union, or of the Pan-American Pact. It

' However,

is equally known that the ques- tion of the formation of a Medi- terranean Union, or a Scandina- vian grouping, or an alliance of states in the process of organi- zation, is at present proceeding without the participation of the United Nations organization and in outright circumvention of this organization. :

The participants of these groups and, first of all, the ruling circles of the United States and Great Britain, realize that it is not to their advantage to bring these questions up for discussion by the United Nations. Here they would probably be asked what are the real purposes and nature of these groups. This is in no way desired

by the governments concerned — ywhich are directing the formation —

of all, these alliances, blocs and groupings. They prefer to do this secretly, behind the back of the United Nations organization. The ruling circle of the U.S. and Bri- tain are actually confronting the United Nations organization with a fait accompli by forming these blocs and groupings.

All this, however, does not pre- vent them from claiming all the while that the North Atlantic Al- liance, as well as the other blocs and groupings that they are form- ing, allegedly serves to strengthen the United Nations organization.

these words. Even those who make such statements do not at-

tribute any significance to these ©

words. E

In actual fact the North At- lantic Alliance and its associated groupings of states, headed by the ruling circles of the U.S. and Britain, constitute a direct un- dermining of the United Nations organization. Today these group- ings aim at undermining the authority of the United Nations crganization, tomorrow they may bring about the destruction of this organization. Not for nothing have the foundations of this or- ganization been systematically un- dermined in the last three years, which is especially reflected in the striving to do away with the principle of five-power unanimity

in settling all the major issues ©

ensuring universal peace and in- "ternational security, as laid down in the charter. i

In support of the position it has taken. on the question of the North Atlantic Alliance, the state de- partment offers to the United Nations Charter. These refer- ences, however, are not only far ‘from convincing but are distin- guished by their exceptional ir- responsibility. The state depart- ment refers to Article 52 of the United Nations Charter which speaks about the possible exist-

A

, out saying that this article

no one now believes .

ence of regional pacts provided they are consistent with the pur- poses and principles of the United Nations organization. It goes with- is necessary in the United Nations Charter. Facts, however, demon- strate that the North Atlantic Pact can in no way be considered as such a regional arrangement.

The political meaning of the North Atlantic Pact. and its re- lated arrangements has nothing in common whatever with what is stated in Article 52 of the United Nations Charter concern- ing the purposes and principles of regional arrangements.

The North Atlantic Pact can- not in general be referred to as a regional arrangement, as it em- braces states in both hemispheres and pursues the aim not of settl- ing various regional problems, but of determining the entire course of the foreign policy of such powers as the U.S. and Britain, who continually interfere in the affairs of many other states and in every part of the globe at that. It can only be claimed in mock- ery that the, North Atlantic Pact is a regional arrangement. He who respects Article 52 of the United Nations Charter will not take this view, as the North At- lantic Alliance was formed, not on the basis of Article 52, but as a direct violation of the charter and the fundamental principles of the United Nations organiza- tion. ;

The state department likewise refers to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which speaks of “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations,” and the Security Council is as yet unable to take due measures to maintain world peace.

The fact that such an article is necessary in the United Nations Charter is very evident. On the other hand, however, it is equally obvious that the formation of the North Atlantic’ grouping can in no way find justification in Ar- ticle 51. ;

This is evident first of all from the fact that neither the U.S., nor Britain, nor any other of the countries of the North Atlantic, are menaced by any armed at- tack whatever. This alone suffices to prove the groundlessness: of any references to Article 51 which aim at justifying the formation of the North Atlantic Alliance.

The North Atlantic grouping is being formed, not for purposes of self-defense and in general not for the tasks laid down in the aforementioned article of the charter. The North Atlantic Al- lianee headed by the U.S. would

simply be of no use to anyone © if there did not exist the striving —

forcibly to establish the domina- tion or the U.S. and Britain over other countries, if there did not

exist the striving to establish by —

force Anglo-American world dom ination. The North Atlantic Pact is by no means required for self- defense, but for the realization of the policy of aggression, for

effecting the policy of unleashing —

a new war.

_ Consequently, the state depalt- ment’s atempts to justify the for- mation of the North Atlantic Al-

liance by referring to Article 51

of the charter are utterly ground- less. These references can only ‘delude the broad public, but can- not serve really to explain thé

motives for the formation of this

new “North Atlantic’ grouping and all kinds of related subsidiary unions and blocs.

This is how matters stand with the state department’s references to Articles 51 and 52 of the United Nations Charter,

If admittedly the state depart- ment’s references to the United Nations Charter are irrelevant, then it becomes necessary to refer

es

to another explanation given of | the motives behind the formation |

of the North Atlantic Alliance,

likewise contained in the afore-

mentioned décument. In this con~ nection the state department's references to the so-called Van denberg resolution, adopted bY the American Senate, are deserv” ing of especial attention. e “Last summer, in fact, the U.S Senate approved a resolution sub- mitted by Vandenberg on thé ‘new departure” in American fol eign policy. The state depart ment’s statement says that the aforementioned “resolution pro poses that for the first time i? the nation’s history the U.S. a5" sociates itself in peacetime wit? countries outside the Wester? hemisphere ‘in collective securitY arrangements designed to safe guard peace and to strengthe? our security.” : ae This statement of the state d@— partment once again refutes ito own assertion claiming that th® North Atlantic grouping is of * regional nature. It at the sam

_ time demonstrates that since th®

end of the Second World Wa! changes have occurred in the for eign policy pursued by the rulin: circles of the U.S. which lay bat® the present frankly aggressive na ture of this policy.

The said resolution gives @ : hand to the U.S. government a setting up any international al liances in peacetime and, on u pretext of ensuring security per

j (Continued on Next. Page)

*

PACIFIC TRIBUNE — MARCH 4, 1949 — PAGE *

free