B.S.A. ACCUSED OF PREPARING A “PEARL HARBOUR” FOR THE SOVIET UNION

Grey River Argus, 15 November 1948, Page 2

B.S.A. ACCUSED OF PREPARING A “PEARL HARBOUR” FOR THE SOVIET UNION

Vyshinsky and Western . Delegates Take Gfeves Off (Rec. 9.30), PARIS, November 13. The Soviet delegate, M. Vyshinsky, charged the United States with “preparing a Pearl Harbour for the Soviet Union,” in a long and impassioned speech in the United Nations Political Committee. M. Vyshinsky told the committee that such Americans as General Kenny had revealed plans for the sending of long-range American bombers, with atom bombs, into Russia from British bases.

RUSSIA’S ARMY BIGGEST The Political Committee was debating the Soviet’s disarmament resolution, calling for a one-third reduction of arms by the Big Five, M. Vyshinsky was replying to speeches by Mr Hector McNeil (Britain) and Mr Roderick Osborn (United States) yesterday, when they were opposing the Soviet resolution, and were challenging M. Vyshinsky to deny that Russia had the largest army of any power in the world. CANADIAN DENOUNCES SOVIET 1 Mr Osborn attacked Russia for “failure to create an atmosphere of confidence.” He quoted M. Molotov as saying that the world was marching towards Communism, and a recent article in the Moscow Journal, “Bolshevik,” which stated that the time had come for the Communist parties of the world to transform themselves into revolutionary parties ready for an armed revolt. Mr Osborn said: “How can an atmosphere of confidence be established in these conditions? M. Vyshinsky has impressed- upon us that Communism is the grave-digger of Capitalism.” He said that Russian policy was the real cause of the present tension. It was absurd to accuse the United States of aggressiveness. He declared Russia had: '■ (1) Forcibly annexed territories. (2) Destroyed progressive democratic Governments in Eastern European countries. (3) Obstructed the negotiation of peace treaties with Germany and Japan. (4) Refused to accept the plan for atomic control approved by fortyeight nations. (5) Used the veto on twenty-eight occasions in the Security Council. (6) Rejected “conciliatory” moves to end the Berlin deadlock. Mr Osborn said that Russia had 4,000,000 men under arms and the Soviet sphere States had another 2,000,000. This represented 250 combat divisions —five times the size of the forces of all the Western European nations. The Soviet proposal for a one-third reduction of armaments “would not lift the veil of secrecy surrounding Soviet armaments, and it would perpetuate Soviet military superiority.” He said the Franco-Belgian proposal laying down that disarmament “can only be attained in an atmosphere of real and lasting improvement in international relations,” pointed the wav to real progress towards peace. The resolution also demanded “the receipt, checking and publication of full information of national armaments.”

BRITISH CHALLENGE TO VYSHINSKY Mr Hector McNeil, the British Minister of State, told the Soviet that tnere could be no disarmament until reliable figures were given on the Soviet armed strength. He challenged M. Vyshinsky to deny that the Soviet Union had between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 men under arms, “by far the largest number of armed men oi any Power in the world.” We are willing to have peace with the Soviet any time she wants it, but we will not have peace at any price. He referred to M. Vyshinsky’s charges that Britain and the United States had “wrecked” the agreement on Berlin by going back on earlier accords. He declared: ivl. Vyshinsky said that my Government, with other Governments, went pack on previous agreements. If M. Vyshinsky means that in conversation with Senor Juan Bramuglia (Argentine) he saw some formula acceptable to the Soviet, then that is a significant event when anyone finds a formula acceptable to the Soviet Government, but that does not mean that the formula was acceptable to anyone else. I am sure Senor Bramuglia will freely admit that my Government went back on no agreements which it accepted, either here or in Moscow. It must be difficult for M. Vyshinsky to persuade himself that we are wreckers and he is the ministering angel of rehabilitation and reconstruction.” Saying that fear rather than the Gene"va Convention prevented the combatants in the last war using toxic acids, although they had such acids ready, Mr McNeil warned that with atomic energy, the switchovei from the peaceful manufacture of atomic energy to the production oi the atom bomb was not greatly difficult. “Hence complicated control must be thought up. We must make certain that there can be no clandestine producer of fuel for warlike purposes,” he said. “On this the Soviet has constantly back-pedalled.” Quoting figures to show the effect the Soviet resolution would have, M. McNeil said that Britain had 5,000,000 men and women under arms in June, 1945. He added: “In Septembei last,, when we came to the United Nations, my country had 787,000 men under arms. This was a smaller figure than the armed police forces which the totalitarian States so curiously need to maintain support for those policies which we are constantly reminded are held unanimously. Mr McNeil said that Britain’s annual military Budget since the war had dropped from 62 per cent., in 1944-45 to 10 per cent., in 1947-8. “This is disarmament in practice, not 'in words and slogans,” he said. Britain had cut her forces to one-sixth and the Soviet maintained its forces at more than half. “In this uncomfortable position for us, the Soviet proposes that Britain in 1949 should cut her forces to 520,000 while the Soviet cut its forces to 2,700,000. We solemnly ask the Soviet what need she had for these vast armed forces. I cannot believe that the Soviet needs them to maintain peace and order in the Soviet. My country and all the countries of the Commonwealth, with all the independent countries of Western Europe, disarmed to the limit, because we wanted peace and had faith —now miserably undermined —that all other countries wanted peace.” SOVIET’S PROPOSAL TURNED DOWN FLAT The U.N.O. Political Committee rejected each article of the Soviet disarmament proposal, and did so separately, by overwhelming majorities. Then the committee rejected the proposal as a whole by 36 votes to six, with seven abstentions.

WESTERN PROPOSAL ADOPTED The committee adopted a FrenchBelgian resolution, which stated that no disarmament treaty is possible “so long as each State lacks exact and autheticated information on the armed forces of the other States”; and also that that disarmament “can only be attained in an atmosphere of a real and lasting improvement in international relations, implying, in particular, the application of control of atomic energy, and the prohibition of atomic weapons”. The resolution was adopted by 40 votes to six, with one abstention. This resolution envisaged a plan to work toward an inter-nation control which would be empowered to receive, to check, and to publish full information supplied by the member States regarding their armed effectives, and their conventional armaments. The resolution charged the U.N.O. Security Council to continue the study of the disarmament problem in order to' obtain “concrete results as soon as possible”. The Political Committee rejected a Polish “compromise” proposal, modifying the Soviet one to the extent of freeing an international control organ of any veto. AUSTRALIAN’S CRITICISM OF WESTERN POWERS Before the vote was taken, Colonel Hodgson (Australia) opposed the form of the Western resolution. He said that it was too vague, and that it meant nothing. He said that every speaker had set a different interpretation on it, and, if the resolution were passed, then the Commission would spend its whole time arguing about the meaning of its instructions. VYSHINSKY ALLEGES BOMB THREAT In his speech on Saturday M. Vyshinsky declared: The Western proposal for the international supervision of disarmament is not a blank cheque, but is a bounced 1.0. U.” He added that the Western, plan was intended to camouflage the Western reaction to the Soviet resolution for a production of arms from the eyes of among millions of peoples of the world who wanted nothing but peace. ■ Shaking his pen at Mi' Osborn, M. Vyshinsky thumped the table as he cried: “The European part of Russia —this' heart of Russia —is being aimed at!” He declared that General Kenny wrote in the American weekly magazine “News Week,” last May, of a plane to use the atom bomb against Moscow, and against other key Soviet cities. SOVIET'S SECRET M l . Vyshinsky refused to give the figures of the Russian armed forces as asked for by Mr McNeil, saying: “It is none of your business! Our army now consists of two classes — those of 1946 and of 1947. All _ of the others have been demobilised and sent home. He would be too stupid to hand over our fate to you when you do not want to accept a single reasonable proposition of the Soviet. Union. We are not used to being dictated to, and we will, not be dictated to. We think that international co-operation should not consist of the majority dictating to the minority, but of agreement between the majority and the minority.” BERLIN QUESTION M. Vyshinsky concluded his usual vigorous attack by declaring that Senor Bramuglia, the acting-Presi-dent of the Security Council, had told him that Britain and the United States “wrecked” an agreement during the Paris negotiations on the Berlin deadlock. CHARGES AGAINST BRITISH M. Vyshinsky recalled that at last year’s assembly, he had named nine war-mongers. He declared; “I could name eighteen British war-mongers, but I just look at Church'ill. He added that Russia would lay on 'h e table the facts about her armaments and armed forces when *yest'l'n Powers did likewise —and not before. LONDON INSULTS TO SOVIET M. Vyshinsky told the .United Nations of “a mob of yelling., snarling and impudently screaming insults at the Soviet Embassy in Kensington' Palace Gardens at London. The alleged guardians of the diplomatic rights—the policemen —stood by, and they let the crowd in the gates. They took not a single measure to prevent 'his insult to the Soviet flag and to thp Soviet Embassy.” M. Vyshinsky replied to the allegations by Mr H. McNeil (Britain) that the diplomats in the. Soviet were not allowed freedom of movement and that there diplomatic rights were not respected. M. Vyshinsky said: “It is easy for you to say that there >s freedom for diplomats in your countries. If one leaves one’s embassy, one will be whistled at, screamed, killed. This is the respect and the protection you give to diplomatic rights. People in glass houses should not throw stones!” The Polish delegate (M. KatzSuchy) said that the conciliatory attempts of the committee had failed. He protested against the new Anglo-American plan for placing the control of the Ruhr in the hands of German trustees. “This is contrary to the principles of the Potsdam agreement,” he said. “If nations show such disregard for treaties, how do they dare ask for confidence in the world?” ____