question would be settled in connection with the proposal
for a general reduction of armaments, now under discus-
sion, whereas in the present resolution such an addition
could only serve to complicate the question—that of
troops on foreign territories. The Soviet delegation pro-
posed that we should not confuse two distinct questions:
one, that of troops abroad; the other, that of troops at
home. However, our view was not accepted.
The General Assembly is offered a resolution, para-
graph 4 of which provides that all Members of the United
Nations submit information regarding "the total number
of their uniformed personnel on the active list, wherever
stationed, at home as well as abroad, including military-
type organizations."
The Soviet delegation considers this paragraph unac-
ceptable, for the following reasons.
The proposal that information be submitted regarding
troops at home as well as troops abroad serves only to
divert attention from the question which has been placed
before the General Assembly. Is it to our interest to divert
attention from the question of troops stationed on foreign
territories? Why should attention be diverted from this
important question? Why should the question be compli-
cated by supplementary proposals that will hinder us from
obtaining a clear idea as to how things stand with
regard to troops on foreign territories? If we wiant to know
the truth as to how things stand with regard to troops of
United Nations cm foreign territories, we should not
impede the submission of such information, should
not raise obstacles to the clarification of this question,
by diverting attention to other questions, no less
complicated.
For this reason, the Soviet delegation proposes that
paragraph 4 (1) be deleted from the resolution. That will
529