of deceit, of snares and propaganda, to which he has df-
voted so much eloquence. We shall hope* however, that he,
too, will present a clear reply when the question has to
be decided: who is for and who is against the general re-
duction of armaments; who is for and' who is against the
prohibition of atomic weapons?
Various questions come to mind when one hears such
speeches. Perhaps the Soviet Government did wrong in
bringing up the question of the general reduction of ar-
maments? But nobody here has said that openly. Still,
perhaps the wrong time was chosen for bringing this ques-
tion before the General Assembly? Nobody has made any
definite statement to that effect either.
It is sometimes hinted that we ought first to guarantee
collective security, and only then commence disarmament.
The error of such logic is easily perceived. Anyone can
understand that the general reduction of armaments under
the direction of the United Nations organization will unques-
tionably strengthen international security. Consequently,
those who are concerned for international peace and secur-
ity should certainly desire the accomplishment of a general
reduction of armaments. Otherwise, talk about the need to
consolidate universal security would be no more than cam-
ouflage for those who in reality do not recognize the neces-
sity of a general reduction of armaments.
What did the Soviet Government have in mind when
it submitted the question of the general reduction of ar-
maments for consideration at the General Assembly?
Our aim was very simple. It was, that the General
Assembly take the first step towards the solution of this
important problem. We considered, and still consider, that
it will be quite sufficient if the General Assembly expresses
itself without delay on the following three questions.
In the first place, the General Assembly would be doing
318