The Wilmington morning star., 1946-11-01
An Upsetting Speech
Rv JAMES RESTON

Foreign Minister Molotov's statement yester'
day in the General Assembly on the world sltua-
ton was generally interpreted last night as the
most deeply disturbing speech ever delivered
before the United Nations. 1t was, of course,
applauded by the delegates Of states that
usually side with the Soviet Union in Allied
countries. However, even delegates who nave
usually remained aloof from the East-West
alignments in the United Nations believe that
it wiped out the more conciliatory atmos-
phere of the last few days and widened the
gulf that has confounded The United NauonS
tor the last ten months.
Mr.. Molotov's proposal for disarmament
was generally approved. 1t was noted, how
ever, that he did not include in his proposal
as Foreign Commissar Maxim Litvinov did
in Geneva in 1927-an offer of inspection to
make the disarmament plan effective. Also,
the delegates expressed the fear that the dis
armament offer was surrounded with so dis
torted an attack on American atomic energy
policy and on those who had proposed aboli-
ton of the veto that he produced an atmos-
phere detrimental to the disarmament plan
he proposed.
What was it, in a speech that included an
offer of disarmament and protested repeated
ly the Soviet Unions desire for peace and
cooperation with other nations. that produced
this melancholy reaction? The delegates men
toned several specific points:
Remarkably enough, it was the manifest
sincerity with which the Soviet Foreign Min
lister put forward a humber of ideas that as
tonished the other delegates. Time and again
he condemned those who had broken the
rule of great power unanimity" in the United
Nations. In most of the cases in which the
unity of the Big Five had been broken, how
ever, the division was Al, with the Soviet
Union in the minority.
However, while protesting his country's de-
sire for cooperation with the small states in
general and the other great powers in par
tlcular, he seemed to be suggesting to the
Assembly that cooperation must be based on
general acceptance Of the Soviet Unions pol
icy.
This was especially true of his attack on
the United States atomic energy plan in
general and on the United Nations Atomic
Energy Commission in particular.
There is anything but unaninity in this
Assembly for the United States plan tor in
ternationalizing the bomb, but Mr.. Molotov
charged-what is not generally believed-that
the plan was devised to protect our monopoly
of the bomb. He attacked Mr.. Baruch as if the
latter were a private citizen conducting some
Machlavellian scheme of his own instead of
carrying out a policy approved by the United
States Government.
This was the sort of thing that disturbed
the delegates. Many of them telt that Mr..
Molotov, in his remarks about Mr.. Baruch
and the American atomic energy plan, in
essence, had questioned the integrity of the
United States Government and its dele gate on
the Atomic Energy Commission.
Mr.. Baruch had once said, he observed.
that peace becomes almost hateful when war
is over" Taking this Nietszchean theme as
his text. he developed a picture of reactionar-
les in the United States and Britain who, as
a means to world domination, were support
ing the United States atomic bomb policy and
opposing the veto.
Nine times in his speech ne used this phrase.
world domination until the delegates COM
mented to one another that he seemed to be
sincerely afraid that powerful elements in the
Western World, uncertain of being able to
make the capitalistic system work, were bent
on an lmper1allstic campaign to bolster CAPT.
tallsm and destroy the Communist system.
This MARKHAM premise has been heard be-
fore, but never so clearly in the United Ma
lions. Premier Stain himself had spoken of
the ~War-making thrusts of world capitalism
IN his last election speech. Later, however, he
had publicly stated that he believed the two
worlds could work together and that he did
not see any campaign of enlightenment against
the Soviet Union.
Mr.. Molotov, however, undertook To SIG.
gest that 'far-reac ching plans connected with
the atom bomb" were somehow being ad-
Vanced by those who saw glory in war and
were uncertain of the future Of their own
countries.
ut is easy to see" he said, 'how vicious the
talk of the almost hateful peace is. This
talk is, above all, suggestive of the profound
distrust in the peaceful methods Of further de-
v%elopment of ones own country and of some
pessinnistic lack of confidence in ones own
strength, in so far as the prospect of peace
tul competition between states and social sys-
TENS are concerned. On the other hand. this
philosophy strikes one by its irresistible trend
toward expansion and unchallenged domino
ton Of the world"
In developing his thesis, Mr.. Molotov did not
hesitate to apply tests to other countries that
he rejects for the Soviet Union, to condemn
decisions of the majority of the Security
Council and to judge as good plans proposed
by the Soviet Union and as ''bad' those that
did not quite coincide with Soviet views.
For example, he observed that India was
a member of the United Nations and there
fore should, he said, be treated as a 'sover-
eign state" 1t was noted by some delegates,
however,, that the Ukraine and White Russia
were also members of the United Nations and
that the Soviet Government had recently let it
be known that it was conducting a purge of
certain dissident elements in the Ukraine.
In discussing the Iran case Mr.. Molotov