Refuting Y.A. Malik
Refuting Y.A. Malik
Refuting Y.A. Malik
Refuting Y.A. Malik
Source: Peking Review, No. 3，January 21, 1972
by "Renmin Ribao" Commentator
SOVIET representative Y.A. Malik made a speech over the Radio of the United Nations on January 6, 1972. He advertised vociferously that the so-called "programme of peace and international co-operation" of the Soviet Union has produced a "positive effect" and made a "substantive contribution" to the 26th Session of the U.N. General Assembly, vainly attempting to cover up the political isolation and moral defeat of Soviet revisionist social-imperialism at this U.N. session. This ugly show to represent defeat as victory is very clumsy indeed.
Malik talked glibly about the "correctness" of the Soviet stand and attitude on the India-Pakistan question, but he tried his best to avoid mentioning the fact that the armed aggression committed by the Indian reactionaries against Pakistan with Soviet backing was denounced by most of the member states. He dared not mention the fact that the General Assembly adopted by an overwhelming majority of 104 votes the draft resolution calling for ceasefire and troop withdrawal by India and Pakistan, a draft resolution which had actually been vetoed by the Soviet Union in the Security Council. This, as the whole world has seen clearly, is a heavy blow to Soviet revisionist social-imperialism whose ferocious features can never be camouflaged by any flowery words of Malik and his like.
For Malik to advocate the so-called "peace and international co-operation" is really a great irony. How can one pose himself as a peace-upholding angel when he has brazenly supported the Indian aggressors and undermined peace in the South Asian subcontinent? What right has he to prate about "international cooperation" when he has arbitrarily acted against the demand of most countries to stop aggression and safeguard state sovereignty and territorial integrity? The Soviet representative thrice abused the veto right in the Security Council, resorted to every trick to play for time and abetted the Indian reactionaries to dismember Pakistan. This is probably the "substantive contribution" to the U.N. trumpeted by Mr. Malik!
What is more preposterous is that Malik even asserted that the Soviet revisionists favoured a "cessation of the bloodshed" over the India-Pakistan issue, as if they were very much concerned about the destiny of the East Pakistan people. This is sheer hypocrisy. It is precisely you who helped the Indian Government in all respects to launch the war of aggression against Pakistan and inflicted the calamity of bloodshed on the Pakistan people. Your hands are stained with the blood of the East Pakistan people. It is precisely you, a gang of accomplices of the Indian aggressors, who "took the side of tyranny and violence."
To hide the awkward position of the Soviet revisionists in the United Nations, Malik in this speech harped on the time-worn anti-China tune, and distorted and attacked with utmost effort the just stand taken by the Chinese Delegation in the United Nations by alleging that China took a "negative position'' on the disarmament question, "showed no interest" in a settlement of the Middle East issue, and so forth. AH these attempts are completely futile.
The Chinese Government and people have always favoured genuine disarmament. But we are resolutely against all kinds of frauds of the two superpowers in covering up their arms expansion and launching of aggression with empty talks of disarmament. We have consistently advocated the convening of a world conference to discuss the question of complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons, but we cannot agree to a world disarmament conference the Soviet Union has proposed to convene, which has neither set a clear aim nor put forward practical steps for its attainment. The Chairman of the Chinese Delegation had questioned the Soviet representative at the 26th Session of the U.N. General Assembly whether or not he dared to declare that at no time and in no circumstances will the Soviet Union be the first to use nuclear weapons and that it will dismantle all nuclear bases and withdraw all nuclear weapons and means of delivery from abroad. To date, the Soviet Government dares not say a word about this question. Who is really taking a "negative position" on disarmament? Is it not crystal clear that you are carrying out sham disarmament but real arms expansion?
Malik also bragged about the treaty on the prohibition of bacterial weapons proposed by the Soviet Union. This is in fact the product of Soviet-U.S. collusion. Disregarding the desire of the majority of the medium-sized and small countries, this treaty separates the complete prohibition of chemical weapons from that of bacterial weapons, and fails to prohibit chemical weapons, thus essentially enabling the United States and the Soviet Union to continue to possess and develop chemical weapons, especially allowing U.S. imperialism to use chemical weapons freely in its war of aggression against Viet Nam to kill the Vietnamese people. So far as bacterial weapons are concerned, the substantial part of the treaty makes no explicit stipulations to prohibit their use, so it has no binding force whatever on the superpowers which possess large quantities of bacterial weapons. This is but another fraud of sham disarmament you put up in the United Nations General Assembly.
On the Middle East question, the Chinese Government and people have all along resolutely supported the just struggle of the Palestinian and other Arab peoples against the U.S.-Israeli aggression, and supported the just demand of Egypt, Syria and other Arab countries to recover their lost lands and that of the Palestinian people to regain their national rights. We have all along advocated that Israel must immediately and unconditionally withdraw from all the Arab territories it has occupied. We are against the dirty political deal over the Middle East between the two superpowers. The Chinese Delegation has acted accordingly at the United Nations. The essence of the so-called "political solution" advocated by Soviet revisionism is to divide the spheres of influence in the Middle East with U.S. imperialism and to gag the just struggle of the Palestinian and other Arab peoples against the U.S.-Israeli aggression. Of course, we "showed no interest" for this but have to expose it resolutely.
By taking part in the work of the United Nations, the Chinese Delegation, together with a great number of medium-sized and small countries, as well as with all the peace-loving and justice-upholding countries, has made positive efforts in opposing imperialism, expansionism, colonialism and neo-colonialism, and in safeguarding the national independence and state sovereignty of various countries, safeguarding world peace, and promoting the cause of progress of mankind. This is really unfavourable to the two superpowers in their manipulation and monopolization of the affairs of the United Nations. That is why Malik was so exasperated and so rampant in opposing China.
One sentence in Malik's speech can be said to be correct, that is, "imperialism, colonialism and reaction . . . found themselves isolated at the Assembly." But it should be stated clearly that the mentioned "imperialism, colonialism and reaction" refer mainly to U.S. imperialism and Soviet revisionist social-imperialism. The trend of medium-sized and small countries uniting to oppose the hegemony of the two superpowers as reflected in the United Nations is irresistible. The attempt of Malik, no matter how he flies into a rage, is futile.
Posted: 2009-03-07 03:20 |
|- CR STUDIES
|- CR DOCUMENTS
Total 0.021808(s) query 3, Time now is:03-29 23:10, Gzip enabled