Russia Must First Show Sincerity

Chronicle (Levin), 8 October 1948, Page 5

Russia Must First Show Sincerity

(N.Z.P.A.—

-Reuter,

British Reply On Disarmament

Copyright)

Received Friday, 10.45 a.m.PARIS, October 7. The Political Committee of the United Nations this afternoon began discussion of the Russian disarmament resolution ealling for a reduction of one-third in the armaments of Russia, Britain, the United States, France and China. The Russian resolution declared that so far "practically nothing" had been done to implement the General Assembly's decisions on atomic energy control and disarmament. It profnosed, firstly, that the Big Powers snall, as a tirst step, reduce by one-third during one year all their present land, naval and air forces; secondly, prohibit atomic weapons intended for aims of aggression and not for defence ; thirdly, establish within the Security Council the framework of an international control body for supervision over the implementation of measufes for reducing armaments and armed fofces, and for the prohibition of atomic weapons.

The resolution added that the proposals wero aimed at "strengthening the cause of peace and eliminating the threat of a new war fomented by expansionists and other reactionary elements." Mr. Vyshinsky (Russia) said that the Soviet's motives in submitting the proposal were part of its consistent policy of struggling against any measures tending to create a cleavage among peoples. "The Soviet people, who heroically defeated the attacking German enemy, and who for three years have been working to cure the wounds dealt their country during the war and towards increasing the economic power of the Soviet State, are particularly interested in setting up a solid peace throughout the world. This policy of peace is directed against warmongers and against such things as the war phychosis which is being kindled in the United States." Mr. Vyshinsky traced the Soviet Union's disarmament efforts before the war and dealt with the various proposals Russia had put before the League of Nations Disarmament Commission, all of which, he said, had been rejected. "The Soviet's proposals were not supported because they weren't to the taste of France and the United Kingdom. Today the United States stands in the van of the organisation of blocs of European countries directed against the Soviet Union." Mr. Vyshinsky quoted several passages from Lenin's works to show that international co-opera-tion was the central theme of the Soviet Union's foreign policy. He said that atomic weapons were weapons of aggression. Those who did not want to spread their mastery over foreign territories by military force did not need to clutch such weapons. j Mr. Hector McNeil (Britain) said' that Mr. Vyshinsky's nroposals for ! a reduction of armaments were not j realistic and were not designed to create conditions of confidence, 1 because "Mr. Vyshinsky knows down to the last man and the last halfpenny what Britain spends on ! armaments, what men we have, how we train them, what weapons they are using and whether they are. But will anyone, including perhaps even anyone from those

States in closest relations with Russia, tell us with any certainty where Russia's men are placed, how many there are, what weapons they have and even how much Russia is spending on them." Mr. McNeil looked straight at Mr. Vyshinsky and asked him directly what proportion of her national inconie Russia Spent on armament in 1947-48. He continued: "Mr. Vyshinsky, have a guess. Five per cent? Ten per cent? Published figures say 17 per cent, but I am not certain that if pii ilc fhArp Mr. McNeil added that in 1937 Russia spent 17.5 milliard roubles on armaments, and it had now spent 66.1 milliards. This was another reason why Mr. Vyshinsky's proposition was not a sound approach to disarmament, because it gave an advantage to those who disarmed the least. "My country undertook a savage disarmament and demobilisation programme after the war," continued Mr. McNeil. "We are at the bottom of the scale, reduced to the irreducible minimum — but facing us is this figure of 66.1 milliards," Mr. McNeil asked Mr. Vyshinsky for a series of proposals that meant "adequate verification and adequate inspection for any disarmament programme. It isn't even necessary that these proposals should completely satisfy me or the military experts who advise my Government. What I ask for is a series of proposals that will persuade the peoples of the world that Russia is in earnest and has nothing to hide." People in parts of the world had become afraid of Soviet Russia, Mr. McNeil declared vehemently. "For two years my Government has displayed an overwhelming desire to believe the Soviet Goveriiment until our people have become critical of -the Goverriment's tolerance. And people don't become so critical until they are jnoved by their deepest instincts. Mr. Vyshinsky knows perfectly well that none of us could withstand an appeal for disarmament if he could show us that it is well based." Mr. • McNeil concluded: "Unless trust is created, unless the doors are opened, none of us would be good representatives of our people if we acceded to the Soviet requests."