POLICY OF PEACE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26617, 13 November 1947, Page 7

POLICY OF PEACE

Soviet’s Search for World Co-operation “ INHERENT WITH STABILITY ” Rec. 9.30 p.m. NEW YORK, Nov. 11. Russia’s foreign policy was one of peace, said Mr Andrei Vyshinsky, Soviet delegate to the United Nations, at the Foreign Press Association’s thirtieth annual dinner to-night. “ Its characteristics are i stability and consistency and it is animated by a spirit of co-operation and love of peace toward those peace-loving countries which are willing in their turn to co-operate.” Mr Vyshinsky followed this remark by a strong attack on “ war-mongers ” in the United States and Britain and appealed to the . press to show the way to peace and cooperation by illuminating that way “ with the eternal light of truth and by ruthlessly exposing every intrigue of the enemies of democracy and peace.”

Mr Vyshinsky began by recalling the horrors of the recent war and sacrifices made by the Soviet “ which countered the enemy’s hardest and fiercest blows.”

He continued: “ In defining the Soviet Union’s foreign policy in 1939, Mr Stalin said: “We are for peace and the strengthening of business ties with all countries. We hold this view and will go on doing so as long as those countries maintain the same relations with the Soviet and do not try to encroach upon our country’s interests.’ “Three years ago on the twentyseventh anniversary of the founding of the Soviet State, Mr Stalin said: ‘Winning the war against Germany means the fulfilment of a great historic task. But winning the war does not mean guaranteeing for nations a durable peace and reliable security in the future. Our task consists not only of winning the war but in making impossible forever the outbreak of new aggression and new war—if not forever, then at least for a long period.’ ” Mr Vyshinsky continued: “ In answering a question by the Republican Mr Harold Strassen in 1946, Mr Stalin made it clear that Russia and the United States can co-operate with each other. He said that if there is the wish to co-operate, cc-operation is possible, even though the economic systems of the two nations be different. You can see that the Soviet foreign policy is one of peace. What is this programme confronted by? Would it be by any chance the so-called Marshall Plan or so-called Truman doctrine? In this regard I might call your attention to the remarks made by Senator Wayland Brooks in the Senate in March, 1947. Commenting on the appropriation of 400.000,000 dollars for Turkey and Greece Senator Brooks said: ‘lf the Republicans had prevailed and let the Germans eat up Russia we would not be in the predicament we are in now.’ In other words, the Truman programme would not be necessary. You cannot put it any more clearly. That is like the

statement by one of the most prominent American statesmen published in the New York Times on June 24, 1941, that the United States then should help which ever side it saw to be losing. The statesman said ‘lf we see that Germany is winning, we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we

ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible.’ It is known that similar wishes were voiced at that time in Britain. It cannot be denied that this programme advocated by prominent British and American statesmen also has stability and consistency insofar as hatred and vicious animus toward the Soviet are concerned.”