- The Empire Club of Canada Addresses (Toronto, Canada), 5 Nov 1959, p. 64-81
- Aroutunian, Hon. A., Speaker
- Media Type
- Item Type
- The importance of the outcome of the visit of Khrushchov to the USA to Canada because of our close economic, political and military ties with the United States. Media coverage of the event. The success of the visit. The scope of exchange visits of businessmen and specialists, artists and scientists, to the U.S.S.R. How to develop and improve such exchanges. Agreements both cultural and scientific between Canada and the U.S.S.R. Tourism. Simplifications to the visa process to encourage mutual travelling experiences between the people of Canada and the U.S.S.R. Canada's interest in the development of the Arctic and opportunities for cooperation with the U.S.S.R. A review of Canada's efforts in development of the Arctic regions. The possibilities of the construction of a gigantic dam in the Bering Strait. A discussion of peaceful co-existence: what it means and what it requires. The importance, particularly economic, of peaceful coexistence between Canada and the Soviet Union. The development of international trade as an essential factor of peaceful coexistence. Developing trade with the Soviet Union. A discussion and analysis of the Soviet proposal for disarmament, and the concept of international control of arms. Some remarks on the situation between the Soviet Union and the two Germanys. The importance of personal contacts between heads and government in resolving complicated international problems. Putting an end to the cold war. The results of Mr. Khrushchov's visit to the United States as part of the opening of new possibilities for further enlargement and betterment of relations between Canada and the Soviet Union.
- Date of Original
- 5 Nov 1959
- Language of Item
- Copyright Statement
- The speeches are free of charge but please note that the Empire Club of Canada retains copyright. Neither the speeches themselves nor any part of their content may be used for any purpose other than personal interest or research without the explicit permission of the Empire Club of Canada.
- Empire Club of CanadaEmailinfo@empireclub.orgWWW address
Agency street/mail address
Fairmont Royal York Hotel
100 Front Street West, Floor H
Toronto, ON, M5J 1E3
- Full Text
- "SOME REFLECTIONS ON KHRUSHCHOV'S VISIT TO U.S.A. AND A FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF SOVIET-CANADIAN RELATIONS"
An Address by HON. A. AROUTUNIAN Ambassador of the U.S.S.R. to Canada
Thursday, November 5th, 1959
CHAIRMAN: The President, Mr. Harold R. Lawson.
MR. LAWSON: The recent visit of Chairman N. S. Khrushchov to the United States was one of the most dramatic events in the realm of international affairs since the war. On the one hand it swept back the iron curtain and cleared the way for freer intercourse and negotiation between the two great hemispheres of the world. On the other hand it revealed in sharp contrast the deep-seated difference between the philosophies of the east and west as to the structure of the ideal state and the freedom of man. Today we are privileged to hear an interpretation of the significance of this memorable occasion by no less a personage than the Ambassador of Mr. Khrushchov's own country.
The Ambassador is, by education and primary vocation, a Doctor of Economics and a Professor of Political Economy. Before joining the Ministry of Foreign Affairs he did research at the Russian Academy of Sciences and later headed the Institute of Economics at the Academy. His diplomatic career began in 1943 and he has subsequently taken part in many international organizations and conferences, including the United Nations General Assembly. For the past year he has served as Ambassador Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the U.S.S.R. to Canada.
One facet of Mr. Khrushchov's personality that became abundantly clear during his visit to the United States was his sense of humour. It is gratifying to know that the Ambassador shares this, as evidenced by his recent remark in Hamilton that when our first spacemen get to the moon they will not have to go through Soviet Customs. Somehow I cannot help but feel that this characteristic--this propensity for seeing the lighter side of things--constitutes at least one common bond between us and that, as people who take life seriously but do not take themselves too seriously, we are bound in the long run to get along together.
The biographical material on the Ambassador that I received from the Russian Embassy ended with one terse and strangely reassuring sentence. It simply said this: "A. A. Aroutunian is married and has children." May I say to you, sir, that, but for an accident of birth, you might have been a typical Canadian!
It is a great pleasure to introduce His Excellency the Ambassador of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Honourable Amazasp Avakimovich Aroutunian.
DR. AROUTUNIAN: The recent visit of N. S. Khrushchov, Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers, to the United States is regarded, I believe, an extremely important contribution in promoting a better understanding of the Soviet Union not only in the United States itself, but also in Canada.
Canadians had almost the same extensive opportunities as Americans to follow his visit and his utterances on the most important current problems concerning which peoples are anxious. Everyone understands that the outcome of the visit of N. S. Khrushchov to the USA has vital importance to Canada because of her close economic, political and military ties with the United States. One should not forget the geographical position of Canada located between two most powerful nations. Thus it is quite natural that the visit did not pass off for Canada without any repercussions. I think it had in fact important consequences.
It was not a pure courtesy the exchange of messages between N. S. Khrushchov and Mr. Diefenbaker, when the visit had been accomplished. Flying back home from Washington, N. S. Khrushchov conveyed to the Prime Minister of Canada and to the Canadian people his best wishes of peace and friendly co-operation between the Soviet Union and Canada. The message was welcomed by Mr. Diefenbaker and he said in return that Canadians, being Northern neighbours of the Soviet Union, shared our striving for peace, and friendly co-operation between our two countries. He pointed out, that the Canadian Government and the people were encouraged by the degree of the agreement contained in the final Soviet-American communiqu6. Both messages were made widely known in our country, and the Soviet people have appreciated very much that friendly exchange of wishes of peace and co-operation, as an expression of mutual desire to improve yet further Soviet-Canadian relations.
I must say with great satisfaction that the press, radio and television in Canada covered widely and, in general, objectively, correctly--evidently for the time being with some inevitable exceptions--the visit of N. S. Khrushchov to the United States.
Everyone who saw him on TV, who listened to him on radio or read his speeches could say--since he is not a shackled prisoner of bias towards "cold war"--nothing but that the leader of the great country of the Soviet Union came to this continent with good intentions, with all his honest heart and hand to do his best to diminish misunderstandings between two great powers, mutual relations of which determine nowadays international situations, to decrease mutual suspicion and mistrust between East and West, to pour cold water on the hot-headed peoples and open warm beneficent springs to flood the "cold war" in order to develop friendship and good relations between nations and to secure peace in the world.
N. S. Khrushchov appeared before the public as a human being with his family and without any kind of horns and tail, just as an open-minded, straightforward, vigorous and frank partisan whole-heartedly devoted to the cause of peace and friendship between nations. He told the American people the real truth about the Soviet Union. He emphasized peaceful aspirations of the Soviet people and peaceful policy of the Soviet Government, he showed how the Soviet people endeavour to build a communist society, what it means in fact, very different from frightened imagination or from hostile propaganda. The visit of N. S. Khrushchov has been a genuine mission for just and lasting peace and friendship among nations.
Nobody can expect that one visit is enough to bring at once the rule of peace and friendship to this Earth. At the same time no one can deny that the visit of N. S. Khrushchov had great success. International tensions which had been accumulating during long years of "cold war", have begun to lessen considerably. One can say that his visit has been an historical event and has opened a new period of the development of international relations with real possibilities to put an end to the "cold war" and to secure the peace. My observation is that the friendly and peaceful mission of N. S. Khrushchov to the United States has had a significant influence also in Canada.
A few days ago, November 1, the Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers, N. S. Khrushchov, made a major speech at the session of the USSR Supreme Soviet on the results of his visit to the USA and of his talks with President Eisenhower. I believe it would be of import for us to know his reflection on his visit. He said:
"You know that during my meeting with President Eisenhower we exchanged views on a number of major international questions. The results are reflected in the joint Soviet-American communiqué. I should only like to add that our talks were very useful and contributed, in our view, to a definite mutual understanding and to bringing closer points of view in the assessment of the situation as a whole, in the approach to some concrete important questions and the realization of the need for improved relations between the Soviet Union and the U.S.A.
"That is a substantial contribution to the cause of stabilizing universal peace, and we value it very greatly."
I believe that the time is ripe for much more broader contacts between our countries in all fields of international cooperation--in cultural, scientific, economic, and even political. You remember that in the late spring of 1958 a group of Toronto businessmen visited the Soviet Union. If I may I can say that I consider their visit like an appearance of first swallows which bring with them an aroma of spring in public relations between peoples of our countries. But one group of visiting businessmen like one swallow does not make a summer. It made a good start and showed foresight in the development of relations. This year we have widened the scope of exchange visits of businessmen and specialists, artists and scientists. And summer may not be far away.
What we need now is to reach some understanding and agreement on how to handle further development of exchange visits for mutual benefit of both our countries. We have already some experience in the business of exchange of visits. I would not say that everything is moving smoothly, free from bumps, but I have not the slightest doubt about the great usefulness of exchange of visits for both sides. We both have to learn more from experience on how to improve further the exchange of visits between Canada and the Soviet Union, but we have to develop them more and better.
The scientists take the lead in that respect. We have learned that a few days ago, in Moscow, Alexander Nesmeyanov, President of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, and Dr. E. W. R. Steacie, President of Canada's National Research Council, completed the agreement on the exchange of lecturers and research workers in the academic year 1960-61. The Soviet-Canadian program in principle provides for an exchange of three lecturers per year for periods of up to three weeks. Similarly, there will be an annual exchange of up to seven scientific workers for periods up to nine months.
Someone may consider the quantity of exchanges not big enough. But do not forget language difficulties and finance involved. You know that research has always faced tight money situation. To begin with the Soviet-Canadian Plan for exchange of scientists is a considerable and important program for scientific co-operation between our countries. I shall continue to do my best to encourage the Soviet-Canadian scientific co-operation. In the past I was in the Soviet Academy of Sciences and can understand the significance of the Nesmeyanov-Steacie agreement for the benefit of sciences in both countries.
Such an agreement, I am sure, would be useful in other fields of international co-operation between Canada and the Soviet Union. The Nesmeyanov-Steacie agreement is the first agreement on the cultural co-operation between the Soviet Union and Canada, and I hope it is not the last, that it will be followed by others. I believe particularly in the advantages of general and specific agreement on cultural exchanges.
The Soviet Union has agreements on cultural co-operation with many Western countries, as well as with other countries. We have agreements with the United Kingdom, the United States, West Germany, etc. Let us also have an agreement on cultural co-operation between Canada and the Soviet Union.
Peoples of both our countries know each other little, even amazingly little. We need better mutual knowledge of each other. As a matter of fact the Soviet Union and Canada are next-door neighbours. We have to think more on how to get proper knowledge of each other. Tourism will help in that respect. We are going to increase the foreign tourist trade in our country, and hope that we will develop much tourist and other travelling between Canada and the Soviet Union.
The foreign tourism is a new activity for our people. Never, even before the Revolution, had foreign tourism been a noticeable phenomena in our country. Under the Soviet Seven-Year Plan of economic and cultural development we have started a programme to improve considerably foreign tourist services in our country and particularly we have instituted a large programme of building foreign tourists' hotels, boarding houses, motels, camps, restaurants, etc., as well as service stations for cars.
We have already simplified a great deal the mechanics of issuing visas for tourists and other groups of travellers to our country. Just a month ago today we informed the proper Canadian authorities about further simplification of the procedure of issuing visas. I hope that existing difficulties in the development of tourism will be overcome. I shall be happy if we succeed in increasing considerably mutual travelling of peoples of both our countries. That will create better mutual understanding and help to develop bilateral co-operation in many fields of mutual interests.
The Canadians are especially interested in the economic and cultural development of the Arctic. It is quite understandable. The Chairman of the Soviet Government, N. S. Khrushchov, was asked on the very first day of his arrival to this continent about Soviet willingness to exchange information on the Arctic. He told a CBC correspondent at the National Press Club in Washington: "I think we would be ready to do so. We must co-operate with all countries who ask for help. We are against monopolies of all kinds." This statement gives a general basis for the Soviet-Canadian cooperation in the exchange of information on the Arctic as well as in other fields.
We have already given some assistance to the corresponding Canadian bodies who, in connection with the abovementioned statement, asked for information on the Arctic. There are close contacts between the Soviet and Canadian scientific bodies engaged in the work in the Arctic. I am sure that the Soviet-Canadian exchange information on the Arctic will grow with the expected diminishing of international tensions, and with further development of economic, cultural and political development of our relations. Moreover, the corresponding co-operation of our countries on the Arctic matter can involve under certain circumstances much broader aspects than only the exchange of information.
You have a vast area m the Arctic, as we have. As to the Soviet Union I can give you a few figures to show what the cold and frigid zone means for our country. More than one-third of the Soviet territory is situated beyond the Arctic Circle. During January, on three-quarters of the territory we have hard frost with a temperature of 40 degrees C below zero. Since we think about the economic and cultural development of the country, we cannot desert these vast territories because of the frost. Besides that we are interested in the Northern Sea Route. From the Russian north City of Murmansk in the European part of the country to the City of Vladivostok in the Russian Far East, there is a distance of 13,000 miles along the Suez Canal and only 5,800 along the Northern Sea Route.
About thirty years ago we began an extensive economic mastering of our Arctic region. We started to develop first of all the Northern Sea Route. We have built a merchant marine adjusted to the Northern conditions. Recently we have launched a new ice-breaker "Lenin", first ship with an atomic installation constructed for peaceful purposes. The ice-breaker "Lenin" will change radically the traffic conditions in the Northern Sea Route which will create yet more favourable transportation for the economic and cultural development of the Soviet Arctic and northern areas in general. Forty per cent of new capital investments, under the Seven-Year Plan, will be used in the Eastern part of the Soviet Union, connected greatly with the northern areas with the cold climate and eternal frost.
The struggle against the frost presents a problem of paramount interest for the Soviet Union. It is estimated that about 10 per cent of capital investments in our country is used primarily for the struggle against the frost.
The scientists in our country are thinking of how to change the climate of the now cold areas, including the Arctic. There are different ideas, but one of them is the most radical, so revolutionary that it is very difficult at once to recognize it. By the way it concerns directly also Canada and the United States and not only the Soviet Union. In my reflection on the matter, I am encouraged by a story which took place in 1921.
The chief of the Soviet Government at that time, Lenin had a chance to tell to a well-known British thinker, Herbert G. Wells, about the plan of the electrification of Russia. H. G. Wells even with his great ability of knowledge could not understand the possibility of electrification of backward Russia and acknowledged Lenin's programme of electrification as a mere dream, like a utopia. The actual production of electricity in our country now has surpassed many times Lenin's programme which H. G. Wells thought as utopia. Interplanetary travelling is not a utopia now. You know that a number of Soviet and American sputniks are in movement in the space, that the Soviet Union has sent three luniks towards the Moon. If science and labour can realize such old dreams of humanity, why can it not succeed in trying to change the climate in the Arctic?
I have in mind a new project, now under discussion in the Soviet scientific spheres, to erect a giant dam in the Bering Strait and, with its help to reorganize the whole Arctic region--change the climate, make the immense territories of eternal frost in the Soviet Union, Canada, and Alaska the flourishing areas with moderate climate.
Some of you very pragmatic people still think that maybe I spin yarns of a fairy tale. But in fact that is a project on which its author, a very prominent Soviet engineer, Peter Borissov, has worked for more than thirty years. He has elaborated in great detail the scientific, engineering and economic aspects of the construction of a gigantic dam in reinforced concrete of 74 kilometres in length and 50 in depth on an average to floor the Bering Strait. The project is designed having in mind the present level of construction engineering.
The construction of a gigantic dam in the Bering Strait is quite practical from an engineering point of view, quite profitable from an economic point of view. By the way Peter Borissov's project envisages the possibility of making the St. Lawrence bay a navigable waterway throughout the whole year which means your city, the City of Toronto, would become a year-round seaport.
The project is worthwhile thinking over. It requires international co-operation on a very solid basis between many countries--the Soviet Union, the United States, Canada, Norway, Sweden, etc. I realize that it is not realistic today, but we can work to make it realistic tomorrow by changing the whole international situation and establishing on Earth real friendship among the nations. I want to introduce the idea of the radical changing of climate in the Arctic, to the Canadians for their reflection.
Our age can and must become an age of peace and progress. The achievements of sciences and techniques are brilliant, their future development is more exciting. The proper organization and peaceful use of those achievements will so brighten the future of human beings that all the best dreams of peoples will become a reality.
The most indispensable condition of the peace and progress in the world now is to recognize and practise the principles of peaceful coexistence. During his visit to the United States N. S. Khrushchov paid particular attention to the problems of peaceful coexistence of nations with different social systems.
What does peaceful co-existence mean?
It signifies the repudiation of war as a means of solving controversial issues between States. N. S. Khrushchov, Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers, and D. D. Eisenhower, President of the United States, have agreed that all outstanding international questions should be settled not by application of force, but by peaceful means through negotiation. Peaceful coexistence presupposes an obligation on the part of all states from violating each other's territorial integrity and from interfering in the internal affairs of the other countries. If all recognize the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states--and this means recognition of the right of the people of every state to choose the government and the economic and social system it likes--peace will be ensured on earth. You like your capitalist system, said N. S. Khrushchov to the American Congress leaders. "Well, go ahead, live as you do! God bless you! But we like the socialist system. So be so kind to let us live the way we want to."
Peaceful coexistence requires that political and economic relations between countries are to be based upon complete equality of the parties concerned and on mutual benefit. Peaceful coexistence does not mean merely living side by side in the absence of war, fencing one-self by a high wall. It would be a dull international life. Peaceful coexistence can and should develop into peaceful competition for the purpose of satisfying man's needs in the best possible way. "We challenge you," said N. S. Khrushchov in Des Moines, "to competition in production of meat, milk, butter, consumer goods, machines, steel, coal, oil, so that people may live better. This is far more useful competition than competition in stockpiling hydrogen bombs and all kinds of arms. Let there be more corn and meat and no hydrogen bombs at all!"
The principles of peaceful competition do not at all demand that one or another state should abandon its political, social and economic system and ideology. There are people who think that the capitalist system is better and more productive for mankind. That is their right to think so. There are a great number of people as well who think otherwise. In such a condition we have to assent to one thing--not to try to impose by means of force one's system or one's philosophy upon other nations. In the age of A- and H-bombs and modern rockets, it is a very dangerous undertaking.
Acceptance of the principle of peaceful coexistence cannot lead to the immediate end of disputes and contradictions which are inevitable between countries with different social systems. But the main thing would be ensured--the states would keep to the positions of ideological struggle, without resorting to arms in order to prove that one is right. I do not say that the practice of peaceful coexistence in the international relations is an easy thing. But what to do? We have to live on this planet. Every nation has its own place under the sun. We have to learn how to live in peace here on the earth, and not only in heaven. I can assure you that in spite of our achievements in space rockets towards the Moon we are not going to evacuate the population of socialist countries to the Moon and leave the Earth for the capitalism. We are quite human beings and love this Earth and do not believe it paradise in the heavens. By our activities in upper space we are not intended to discover the biblical paradise. If you want paradise, we prefer to have it here, on this Earth.
How to learn to live in peace on this Earth so much suffered from wars? No other way but through mutual respect and understandings, through mutual concession. Chairman of the Soviet Government N. S. Khrushchov stated a few days ago, November 1st, in his speech at the session of the Supreme Soviet: "Peaceful coexistence of states with different social orders presupposes elements of mutual concessions, mutual consideration of interests, since otherwise normal relations cannot be established."
There is no other alternative in our nuclear age. It is a dangerous illusion to think that the situation can be saved during a nuclear war by sending the people into basement shelters.
I believe it is much better to devote all our efforts to avoid war and ensure peaceful international relations between nations. All nations have to learn how to live in peace. The United Nations can, in certain conditions, become an organization where peoples of the world can learn to exercise successfully peaceful coexistence. I venture to say that all nations stand in need of peaceful coexistence, and the Soviet Union does not ask any favour in that respect.
No doubt, such a development of events will answer the vital interests of the peoples of all countries including the Soviet Union and Canada. Canada and the Soviet Union are in fact next-door neighbours. Modern progress in the means of transportation has made our countries even closer neighbours. In the sight of economic development of both our countries, one can see their further approach which will be of paramount importance to both our countries. We pay great attention to the development of our Eastern and Northern regions which are closer to Canada than to our Western regions. Forty per cent of our new capital investments will be used under the Seven-Year Plan in those areas. My understanding is that Canada has a great future in its economic march to the North and the West. On its part, that move will bring your country much closer to our country. In the near future, Canada's international relations and, first of all, economic ties through its West across the Pacific, may become of major importance in world affairs. It would be blind policy for both of us not to take into account the approachment of our countries in their economic move to the new areas--in the Soviet Union to the East and North and in Canada to the West and North. Our economic life tomorrow makes today another strong emphasis upon the importance of peaceful coexistence between Canada and the Soviet Union.
No doubt there are people who honestly do not understand the possibility and the necessity of peaceful coexistence between nations. There are also people who intentionally do not want peaceful coexistence and who are partisans of any kind of war, not only the cold war. N. S. Khrushchov emphasized in one of his speeches, returning from the USA, that he who does not recognize peaceful coexistence slides down, whether he wants it or not, to the positions of the cold war and armaments race, to the position of settling international issues by force of arms rather than peaceful negotiations.
The development of international trade as an essential factor of peaceful coexistence corresponds to the national interest of all countries, including Canada and the Soviet Union, maybe more for Canada than for the Soviet Union having in mind the different importance of foreign trade for each of them.
As to the Soviet Union we have a huge home market as well as all the possibilities to produce what we want. Our seven-year plan of economic and cultural development relies on the internal forces of our country, on our own industrial and natural resources, on the possibilities available for us at home. Our economic plan will not suffer if some countries do not want to increase their trade with the Soviet Union. We believe that trade of any country with the Soviet Union is of mutual interest because of the advantages of international division of labour and specialization of the production in each country. The Soviet Union has important trade relations not only with the socialist countries, but also with the capitalist countries--Great Britain, France, West Germany, Italy, Sweden, and so on. I do not think that these countries do not have benefits from their trade with the Soviet Union.
Last year Soviet exports amounted to more than four billion dollars. The same were for Soviet imports. During the seven-year plan Soviet foreign trade will at least double. The industrial production will almost double. The trading nations cannot ignore that fact or take hostile stands against the growth of Soviet foreign trade and industry. It will not help them and will not hinder the development of Soviet trade and industry. The only alternative is to seek to develop trade relations with the Soviet Union on the basis of mutual benefit.
World market is continuously developing and every country has the possibility to increase its imports and exports. After the Second World War, Canada had increased its foreign trade enormously and she is now among few great exporting nations: Great Britain, the United States, West Germany, France--which have an old history of their trade. The growth of Canadian foreign trade had no harm for world trade, on the contrary, it brought its benefits for world trade. Providing normal development of trade between Canada and the Soviet Union, I do not see any danger neither for Canada nor for the Soviet Union as for the sound competition between them on world markets.
The question of trade is one of profit. And it is rather difficult not to admit the possibility of emulation in this field as well as in others. The only position that it is necessary to keep is not to resort to artificial obstacles, to discrimination, to such abnormal things as dumping. The Soviet Union is a consistent and convinced supporter of healthy normal development of world trade on the basis of mutual advantages, free from dumping, from political discrimination and other methods of trade harmful to international co-operation.
We want to develop our trade with Canada to mutual benefit of business and economy of both countries. We want a more reasonable ratio in exports and imports between both countries. I believe that the present trade negotiations have been spun out without necessity. I believe as well that long negotiations will bring after all good results for both sides. If I may I should say that the easing of international tension which has sprung up from the hopeful talks between Chairman N. S. Khrushchov and President D. D. Eisenhower creates a better general political atmosphere for the development of Soviet-Canadian trade and for mutual understanding in world economic affairs.
The prospects of international affairs are brighter today after the historic meeting at Camp David than during the long previous years. The development of economic and trade relations between the Soviet Union and Canada can only bring its contribution to the benefit of sound international relations. Further development of good trade relations between Canada and the Soviet Union will help to develop the co-operation of both countries also in general political field. Let's take for example the question of disarmament. Canada and the Soviet Union are members of the newly established commission of ten nations for the disarmament. Thus, they assume together with the eight other powers great responsibility in the most important international matter. Chairman N. S. Khrushchov and President D. D. Eisenhower have agreed that the question of general disarmament is the most important one facing the world today and pledged to make every effort to achieve a constructive solution of this problem.
It is well-known that N. S. Khrushchov, head of the Soviet Government, proposed in the United Nations a programme of general and complete disarmament of all states. The United Nations decided by a unanimous resolution to send the Soviet plan for general and complete disarmament together with the British outline to the new 10-nation Disarmament Commission. I am pleased to say that Mr. Green, Minister for External Affairs for Canada, stated at the U.N. General Assembly that he is entirely sympathetic with the general objective stated in the Soviet proposal--namely, a world without arms. Mr. Green gave a neat definition of the Soviet proposal for disarmament--namely, a world without arms. Indeed it is the most encouraging programme to ensure just and lasting peace in the world. Its realization would open a new era in the life of mankind.
The main aims of this programme are the following: land armies, navies, and air forces should cease to exist; foreign military basis must be abolished; all nuclear bombs and military rockets must be destroyed; general staffs and war ministries should be abolished; military educational establishments and organizations must be closed.
The programme consists of three stages, the first of which provides the reduction of forces, the second--the completion of liquidation of armed forces and the liquidation of military bases and the final one--destruction of nuclear and rocket weapons, liquidation of material of the air forces, destruction of all stocks of chemical and bacteriological weapons, discontinuation of appropriation of funds for military purposes in any form. Thus the Soviet plan envisages the liquidation of arms and all types of weapons and forces with the exception of militia and police for keeping internal order.
The Soviet proposal of disarmament includes the means of international control. A contrary assertion is not correct and derives from ignorance and from one kind of understanding of international control.
There are at present two understandings of international control. One requires first, international control--then disarmament. It proposes to establish different kinds of inspection before any real step in disarmament. The other requires international control over the fulfilment of agreed measures of disarmament and sees no peaceful use of international control when there are no real deeds in disarmament. The Soviet Union is for this kind of international control. The Soviet Union considers that the control separated from the real deeds in disarmament will serve in the present international situation the intelligence purposes. The Soviet Union is for genuine international control connected with the realization of agreed disarmament measures in practice. We hope that we shall find common understanding of international control which will serve the real disarmament actions. Let me remind you that the Soviet proposal provides "to supervise the timely implementation of measures of general and complete disarmament there shall be established an international control body which shall have at its disposal all facilities necessary to exercise strict control." And N. S. Khrushchov emphasized in his speech that "it is this general and complete disarmament that will clear the way for the establishment of comprehensive and complete control."
The volume of control and inspection must correspond to the character of measures of disarmament which are carried, stage by stage. After general and overall disarmament is completed the international organ is to have free access to all objects under control. The control organ will also receive an opportunity to establish a system of aerial inspection and aerial photography over the territories of states. The liquidation of material opportunities to conduct war or to make an armed attack as a result of complete disarmament will make it possible for the states to open their territories for genuine observation.
Proposing a programme of general and complete disarmament, the Soviet Government pointed out that it was ready for partial steps in disarmament. We are for the discontinuance of nuclear weapon tests for all time and hope that an appropriate agreement will be concluded to that effect without delay. Chairman N. S. Khrushchov spoke in the United Nations on different partial measures of disarmament and strengthening security, including non-aggression pacts between the member-states of NATO and the Warsaw Treaty, prevention of surprise attack, an atom-free zone in Central Europe and others.
I was asked to point out the Soviet position on the German question. You will understand me, of course, if I say that a public announcement of an Ambassador on a controversial matter would not be in keeping with normal diplomatic practice. The position of the Soviet Union on the German question and particularly concerning the Soviet proposal about a peace treaty with Germany, has been stated many times. Here I may refer to what has been said by Chairman N. S. Khrushchov to American Congressmen: "Our position is known to you. We consider it necessary to take into account that two sovereign states with two different social systems exist at the present time on the territory of former Germany. Let the Germans themselves decide the question of how to live further. How they decide, such it will be."
As to the Berlin question, it is known that an understanding was reached between Chairman N. S. Khrushchov and President D. D. Eisenhower that negotiation would be reopened with a view to achieving a solution which would be in accordance with the interests of all concerned and in the interest of the maintenance of peace. The heads of the Soviet and USA governments have agreed that negotiations on the Berlin question should be reopened and that no limit of time should be placed before them. At the same time they should not be delayed indefinitely. Chairman N. S. Khrushchov stated that the Soviet Government wished to express once more its assurance that all interested sides would try to settle the question of West Berlin without delay, in conformity with the interest of easing tension in Germany and in Europe, with the interest of strengthening peace.
The improvement of international political situation which has started as a result of the visit of Chairman N. S. Khrushchov to the USA is creating a better atmosphere to settle suspended problems of international importance. The talks at Camp David made inevitable the summit meeting.
I believe that Canada, long before that, was for a summit meeting as was the Soviet Union. The sooner the summit meeting the better the cause of peace and security in the world.
We believe that nowadays personal contacts of heads of government and other responsible people have a paramount importance in resolving complicated international problems. The visit of Mr. Macmillan, the British Prime Minister, to Moscow, the visit of Chairman N. S. Khrushchov to the United States are only the first steps of mutual visits of the heads of West and East governments. Those visits will create better mutual understanding, bring more confidence, help to put an end to the `cold war' and to ensure peace--in the world. Further development of good relations between the Soviet Union and Canada can only contribute to the common cause of securing world peace. I believe that the results of N. S. Khrushchov's visit to the United States have opened new possibilities for further enlargement and betterment of the relations between Canada and the Soviet Union.
I tried to make my address to this distinguished meeting of the members of the Empire Club of Canada as clear and informative as possible. That is up to you, gentlemen, to judge how I succeeded. As for me I thank you for your kind attention.
THANKS OF THE MEETING were expressed by the President.