Soviet statement on Atlantic Pact

Western Union—Wea-
pon of the Aggressive
‘Anglo-American Bloc
in Europe

ie March, 1949, a Treaty of
Mutual Assistance and Collec-
tive Defense was concluded in
Brussels between: Britain, France,
Belgium, the Netherlands and
Luxemburg, which laid the foun-
dation of the separate group of
certain West European States,
known as the “Western Union.”

It was envisaged that certain
other European countries, willing
to adjust their policy to the aims
of the above group headed by
Great Britain, would. be included
in the Western Union. It is like-
wise known that the founders of
the Western Union had from the
very outset precluded the pos-
sibility of the participation in that
alliance of all the countries of
people’s democracy and of the
Soviet Union and have thus dis-
closed that the Western Union
has not been formed with a view
to uniting the peace-loving Eu-
ropean countries nor in the in-
terests of assuring a durable
peace in Europe generally, ‘but
with other ends in view which
have nothing in common with
concern for strengthening peace
and international security.

It is not fortuitous that states-
men of the member countries of
that group, beginning with the
British Foreign Secretary, Bevin,
have been obliged to declare
openly that the establishment of
the Western Union signifies an
important change in the policy
of these countries. This could not
be concealed when the backstage
preparations of that group had
been completed.

It is easy to see that the estab-
lishment of this alliance means
that the governments, of Britain,
France and the other participant
countries have finally abandoned
the policy that was pursued by
the democratic states which were
members of the anti-Hitler coal-
{tion during the Second World
War, and which aimed at consoli-
dating the forces of- all peace-
loving states in order to do away
with Hitler aggression and fas-
cism and to prevent a resurgence
of aggressive forces after the
termination of the war. -

The establishment of the West-
ern Union signifies, in the first

place, a complete change in the
policy of Britain and France in
regard -to the German problem,
and demonstrates a renunciation
by the governments of those
countries of the democratic and
anti-aggressive policy in regard to
Germany which was adopted by
the Yalta and Potsdam conferen-
ces of the anti-Hitler coalition
powers.

During the Second World War,
the allies in the anti-Hitler coali-
tion were united not only by the
will to win victory in the war of
liberation against Hitler Ger-
many and fascism. They were also
united by the will to prevent, in
future as well, the German ag-
gression that has unleashed two
world wars within the past de-
cades, These noble aspirations
found their expression in the de-
cisions of the Yalta and Potsdam
conferences. :

The Treaties of Friendship and

Mutual Assistance, concluded by
the Soviet Union with Britain in
1942 and with France in 1944 for
terms of 20 years, express the
same policy aimed at preventing
a@ resurgence of aggressive Ger-
many. It is perfectly clear that
the policy which found its ex-
pression in these_and other simi-
lar treaties conformed both to the
interests of the signatories and to
the interests of all peace-loving
nations of Europe.
- The Soviet Union, now as be-
fore, strictly abides by this pol-
icy—a policy in full conformity
with the decisions of the Yalta
and Potsdam conferences of the
heads of the governments of the
USSR, the U.S. and Britain and
of France which endorsed these
decisions, a policy directed to-
wards ensuring a durable peace
in Europe and preventing fresh
aggression on the part of the
state which had been the chief
culprit in unleashing two world
wars.

The formation of the Western
Union means that Britain and
France have renounced: the
above anti-aggression policy
adopted at the Yalta and Pots-
dam conferences, and that these
powers have embarked upon a
new policy, highly dangerous
for the peace-loving nations,
with the purpose of establish-
ing their domination over other
nations in Europe, not stop-
Ping at employing for these
ends yesterday’s aggressor,
which has since the termina-
tion of the war become depend-
ent on them.

Nothing else could exvlain why,
though the Brussels Pact men-
tions in’ passing a desire to pre-

vent a resurgence of an aggress-
ive policy on Germany’s part, the
governments of Britain anfd
France at the present time, to-
gether with the government of
the U.S., strive to enlist and util-
ize for their ends Western Ger-

«many, where old pro-Nazi and mil-

itaristic elements of German re-
action are more and more deéply
entrenching themeslves in all sec-
tions of the administrative ma-
chinery—with the help of the An-
glo-American occupation authori-
ties in the. first place. The fact
that this turn in policy of the
West European states has met
with support and encouragement
from the -ruling circles of the
U.S. considerably aggravates the
danger of the political develop-
ments that have taken place in
the aforementioned European
countries which have abandoned
the policy of peace and taken the
path of preparing fresh aggres-
sion in Europe.

As distinct from all treaties of
mutual assistance concluded by
the Soviet Union with other Eu-
ropean States, including Britain
and France—treaties which are
aimed at preventing the possi-
bility of fresh aggression on Ger-
many’s part and thereby promot-
ing peace in Europe—the military
alliance of the five Western
states has been set up having in
mind not so much Germany as
with a view to employing the
group of Western powers they
have formed against states which
were their allies in the Second
World War. Aggressive statements
are frankly made by a number of
statesmen of the Western coun-
tries as well as in the Anglo-Am-
erican and French press to the
effect that the Western Union
has been established against the
USSR and the States of: people’s
cGemocracy, notwithstanding the
fact that the peaceful policies of
these countries are an indisput-
able and universally known fact.

It is indisputable, then, that no
matter how hard they may try to
conceal the true aims of the Brus-
sels Treaty, the establishment of
the Western Union has nothing in

“common with concern for the de-

fense of these States.
Furthermore, it has by now been
made sufficiently clear that on
the pretext of preventing a situa-
tion that would endanger the so-
called “economic stability’ of
the signatories of that pact, they
are preparing to employ military
measures and every kind of re-
pression against the working class
and the growing democratic
forces’ within those states, as well
as against the mounting libera-

tion movement of the peoples in
the colonies and dependent
countries,

It is not accidental that the
Brussels Pact represents an al-
liance of colonial powers which,
for the sake of preserving their
age-long privileges; in the col-
onies, want to employ the new-
ly initiated military-political
groupings in order to suppress
the national liberation move-
ment in these colonies. All this
lays particular emphasis on the
anti-democratic and reaction-
ary aggressive nature of the
Western Union.

The alliance of the five West-
ern European states represents a
military political supplement to
the economic association of Euro-
pean countries that has been set
up to carry through the ‘Mar-
shall plan” in Europe. Both these
groupings of European countries
are steered by the ruling circles
of the Anglo-American bloc, which
is anything but concerned with
the attainment of the genuine na-

tional state or, at least, economic ~

goals of any of the countries par-
ticipating in the above groupings
—a bloc whose purpose is to bol-
ster up and further expand its
own strategic military and eco-
nomic positions. :

And just as the ‘Marshall plan”

_is not aimed at a genuine econo-

mic revival of the European
states, but serves as a means of
adjusting the policy and economy
of the ‘“Marshallized” countries to
the narrow, self-seeking and stra-
tegic-military plans for Anglo-
American domination of Europe,
so has the new group been form-
ed not with a view to mutual as-
sistance and collective defense of
the countries participating in the
Western Union—because, were
the Yalta and Potsdam agree-

ments observed, these countries”

would be threatened by no ag-
gression whatever—but with a
view to bolstering and further
expanding the domineering ‘influ-
ence of the Anglo-American rul-
ing circles in Europe, and to sub-
jugating to their narrow inter-
ests the external and internal pol-
icies of the respective European
states.

The incompatibility of such poli-
tical plans of the Anglo-Ameri-
ean bloc with concern for peace
and with the realization of the
principles of democracy in the
European countries is perfectly
clear. ‘

Hardly had the Western Un-
ion come into being last March,
when the ruling circles of the
U.S. promptly declared that this

union would be given every sup-
port, :

Such a statement was perfect-
ly natural, for those circles have
every reason to believe that the
new grouping will be entirely
dependent on Anglo-American
plans of every sort. But to meet
all contingencies, special Ameri-
can observers, whose role is quite ~
understandable, were introduced
into the Western Union.

It is now clear to all that the
faster and farther the countries of
the Western Union move along
the path of opposing the countries
of people's democracy and the
Soviet Union—a path to which
they are being persistently push-
ed by the policy of the Anglo-
American ‘bloc—the more _ thew’
Western European powers will
become politically and economic-
ally dependent on the ruling cir-
cles of the U.S., who are not in
the least bit concerned about the
political and economic rebirth of
the European states.

As a result—inevitable and al-
ready observed at every turn—
will come an intensification of the
contradictions both “between the
U.S. and the countries of the
Western bloc, and among the
West European grouping itself. It
is on neither a sound nor a firm
basis of economic rebirth that
the new West European grouping
has been set—a grouping which
is of auxiliary significance in a
way, if one bears.in mind the
broader European grouping set
up from among the “Marshalliz-
ed” countries.

Far from rendering the coun-
tries participating in the new
grouping any substantial practi-
eal aid, the aforementioned group
has in no way prevented the ap-
pearance of mounting economic
difficulties in many West Euro-
pean states, nor has it prevent-
ed a tremendous growth of un-
employment in some of them, and
it has not helped to open hopeful
prospects for their further eco-
nomic progress. The aggressive
purposes of this grouping are fur-
ther reflected in the ever-increas-
ing demands for greater armies
and military expenditures, and
this increasingly undermines their
chances for further and stable
economic advance,

At the same time this situation
leads to an intensification of
grave political difficulties inside
these states. And this at a time
when the Soviet Union and the
countries of people’s democracy,
which .are taking only the first
steps in their socialist develop-
ment, are moving along the road

(Continued on Next Page)

“The North Atlantic alliance . . . represents the final breaking away... from the policy unanimously conducted ... when the United Nations organization was being created...”
PACIFIC TRIBUNE — FEBRUARY 25, 1949 — PAGE 4

;

ae OM |

‘

i