Soviet Veto Of U.N. Police Force Plan

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28259, 23 April 1957, Page 11

Soviet Veto Of U.N. Police Force Plan

(Rec. 11 p.m.) NEW YORK, April 22.

Mr Dulles said in his foreign policy review that the free world was forced to form collective military pacts, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the South-east Asia Treaty Organisation, and the Bagdad Pact, because the Soviet Union vetoed the creation of an armed United Nations police force to maintain international order.

“The Soviet rulers pour out abuse against so-called militaristic groupings,” he said. “And as the free nations move to strengthen their common defence, the Soviet rulers emit threats. “But we can, I think, be confident that such Soviet assaults will not disintegrate the free world.” Mr Dulles said that a mobile retaliatory power was ready for use against aggression, but the extent to which it would be used woufd depend on the circumstances. “The essential thing is that a would-be aggressor should realise that he cannot make armed aggression a paying proposition,” he said.

“The United States is the only free world country able to sustain the cost of developing a capacity for retaliation adequate to deter a potential aggressor who himself has great and growing aggressive power.

“There are some, who in a zeal to economise, would slash that part of our budget which is often miscalled ‘foreign aid’—as though it did not aid us. That would not be economy, but extravagance. Disarmament “Possible” “If the forces and facilities which others provide were subtracted from the common defence, the United States defence budget would have to be expanded vastly from what it is now,” Mr Dulles said. However, the United States did not believe that the only way to security was through evermounting armaments. “We consider that controls and the reduction of arms are possible, desirable and in the last reckoning, indispensable.” he said. “Thus far it has not been possible to assure the inspection and other safeguards that would make it prudent for us to reduce our effective power, but we shall continue to seek that goal.” Mr Dulles said that the United States would continue to help new nations, although he added that there was no justification for neutralism. “Today, nations born to independence are born into a world one part of which is ruled by despotism and the other part of which stays free by accepting the concept of inter-dependence,” he said. “There is no safe middle ground.” He said that there was a great move for freedom in the world, and nowhere was the pressure for change greater than within the Soviet orbit. The question of how the United States should deal with this matter was not easily answered.

But, he said, by example and a spread of knowledge of United States ways, the Administration would see to it that the divided or captive nations knew they were not forgotten, that the United States would never make a political settlement at their expense, and that a “heartfelt welcome” and a new opportunity awaited them as they gained more freedom. “We seek the liberation of the captive nations,” Mr Dulles said. “Events of the past year indicate that the pressures of liberty are rising. “The satellite countries no longer provide a submissive source of added Soviet strength. Indeed, Soviet strength . . . has now to be expanded to repress those who openly show their revulsion against Soviet rule.” Mr Dulles said the United States was faced by a “distressing” conflict of loyalties when Britain and France invaded Egypt last year. He said the United States abandoned its historic ties and oppo#d the invasion because to do otherwise would have involved disloyalty to the United Nations.