To frustrate the plan of imperialist aggression the efforts of all the democratic anti-imperialist forces of Europe are necessary. The rightwing Socialists are traitors to this cause. With the exception of those countries of the new democracy where the bloc of the Communists and the Socialists with other democratic, progressive parties forms the basis of the resistance of these countries to the imperialist plans, the Socialists in the majority of other countries, and primarily the French Socialists and the British Labourites-Ramadier, Blum, Attlee and Bevin by their servility and sycophancy are helping American capital to achieve its aims, provoking it to resort to extortion and impelling their own countries on to the path of vassal-like dependence on the United States of America.

This imposes a special task on the Communist Parties. They must take into their hands the banner of defense of the national independence and sovereignty of their countries. If the Communist Parties stick firmly to their positions, if they do not let themselves be intimidated and blackmailed, if they courageously safeguard democracy and the national sovereignty, liberty and independence of their countries, if in their struggle against attempts to enslave their countries economically and politically they be able to take the lead of all the forces that are ready to fight for honour and national independence, no plans for the enslavement of the countries of Europe and Asia can be carried into effect.

This is now one of the principal tasks of the Communist Parties.

It is essential to bear in mind that there is a vast difference between the desire of the imperialists to unleash a new war and the possibility of organizing such a war. The nations of the world do not want war. The forces standing for peace are so large and so strong that if these forces be staunch and firm in defending the peace, if they display stamina and resolution, the plans of the aggressors will meet with utter failure. It should not be forgotten that the war danger hullabaloo raised by the imperialist agents is intended to frighten the nervous and unstable elements and by blackmail to win concessions for the aggressor.

The principal danger for the working class today lies in underestimating their own strength and over-estimating the strength of the imperialist camp. Just as the Munich policy untied the hands of Hitlerite aggression in the past, so yielding to the new line in the policy of the United States and that of the imperialist camp is bound to make its inspirers still more arrogant and aggressive. Therefore, the Communist Parties must take the lead in resisting the plans of imperialist expansion and aggression in all spheres-state, political, economic and ideological; they must close their ranks, unite their efforts on the basis of a common anti-imperialist and democratic platform and rally around themselves all the democratic and patriotic forces of the nation.

RESOLUTION ON INTERCHANGE OF EXPERIENCE AND COORDINATION OF ACTIVITIES OF THE PARTIES REPRESENTED AT THE CONFERENCE

The Conference states that the absence of contacts among the Communist Parties participating at this Conference is a serious shortcoming in the present situation. Experience has shown that such lack of contacts among the Communist Parties is wrong and harmful.

The need for interchange of experience and voluntary coordination of action of the various Parties is particularly keenly felt at the present time in view of the growing complication of the post-war international situation, a situation in which the lack of connections among the Communist Parties may prove detrimental to the working class.

In view of this, the participants in the Conference have agreed on the following:

1. To set up an Information Bureau consisting of representatives of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, the Bulgarian Workers' Party (Communists), the Communist Party of Rumania, the Hungarian Communist Party, the Polish Workers' Party, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks), the Communist Party of France, the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and the Communist Party of Italy.

2. To charge the Information Bureau with the organisation of interchange of experience, and if need be, coordination of the activities of the Communist Parties on the basis of mutual agreement.

3. The Information Bureau is to consist of two representatives from each Central Committee, the delegations of the Central Committees to be appointed and replaced by the Central Committees.

4. The Information Bureau is to have a printed organ-a fortnightly and subsequently, a weekly. The organ is to be published in French and Russian, and when possible, in other languages as well.

5. The Information Bureau is to be located in the city of Belgrad.

23. THE COUNCIL FOR ECONOMIC MUTUAL ASSISTANCE

January 25, 1949

[At the time the European recovery program was in its formative stages and when the Cominform was being organized, it was reported that eastern Europe was organizing its own Molotov plan to oppose the Marshall plan. On January 25 the official Soviet News Agency delivered the following text of a communiqué covering a conference on economic matters, which had just been ended in Moscow. It provided for a council for Economic Mutual Assistance among the participating states. The communiqué is reproduced in full.]

[Text from the New York Times, January 26, 1949, p. 10]

TEXT OF TASS STATEMENT

LONDON, Jan. 25 (AP)-Following is the text of a communiqué, distributed by the Soviet news agency Tass, on the Moscow Economic Conference:

An Economic Conference of representatives of Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Rumania, the U. S. S. R., and Czechoslovakia was held this month in Moscow.

The Conference ascertained the fact of considerable successes in the development of economic relations among the aforesaid countries, which found expression, first and foremost, in the major increase of the trade exchange.

Due to the establishment of the aforementioned economic relations. and to the implementation of the policy of economic cooperation,

the countries of the people's democracy and the U. S. S. R. had the opportunity of speeding up the restoration and development of their respective national economies.

The Conference established further that the Governments of the United States of America, Britain, and of certain other countries of western Europe had been, as a matter of fact, boycotting trade relations with the countries of the people's democracy and with the U. S. S. R., since these countries did not consider it possible to submit to the Marshall plan dictate, as this plan violated the sovereignty of countries and the interests of their national economies.

In view of the aforementioned circumstance the Conference discussed the possibility of organizing broader economic cooperation among the countries of the people's democracy and the U. S. S. R. The Conference decided that in order to establish still broader economic cooperation among the countries of the people's democracy and the U. S. S. R. it was necessary to institute a Council for Economic Mutual Assistance, comprised of representatives of the countries. taking part in the Conference, on the basis of equal representation, and having as its task the exchange of experience in the economic field, the rendering of technical assistance to each other, and the rendering of mutual assistance in regard to raw materials, foodstuffs, machinery, equipment, etc.

The Conference stated that the Council for Economic Mutual Assistance shall be an open organization, which may be joined by other countries of Europe that share the principles of the Council for Mutual Assistance with the desire to participate in broad economic cooperation with the aforementioned countries.

The Council for Economic Mutual Assistance shall pass decisions only upon the consent of the country concerned.

The Council shall meet periodically, in the capitals of the signatory countries in turn, under the chairmanship of the representative of that country in whose capital the session takes place.

24. OFFICIAL SOVIET PROTEST ON THE NORTH ATLANTIC

TREATY

[On March 31, 1949, the Soviet Government sent a formal memorandum to the seven sponsoring governments of the North Atlantic Treaty. This protest is reproduced in full.]

[Text from the New York Times, April 1, 1949]

TEXT OF THE SOVIET PROTEST ON THE PACT

LONDON, Friday, April 1 (Reuters)—Following is the text of a Soviet Government memorandum on the Atlantic pact:

On March 18 the State Department of the United States published the text of the North Atlantic Treaty, which the Governments of the United States of America, Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Canada intend to sign within the next few days.

The text of the North Atlantic Treaty fully confirms what was said in the declaration of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the U. S. S. R.

on January 29 this year, which is being attached hereto, both as regards the aggressive aims of this treaty and the fact that the North Atlantic Treaty contradicts the principles and aims of the United Nations Organization and the commitments which the Governments of the United States of America, Great Britain, and France have assumed under other treaties and agreements.

The statements contained in the North Atlantic Treaty that it is designated for defense and that it recognizes the principles of the United Nations Organization serve aims which have nothing in common either with the tasks of self-defense of the parties to the treaty or with real recognition of the aims and principles of the United Nations Organization.

Such great powers as the United States, Great Britain, and France are parties to the North Atlantic Treaty.

"DIRECTION" OF TREATY

Thus the treaty is not directed either against the United States of America, Great Britain or France.

Of the great powers only the Soviet Union is excluded from among the parties to this treaty, which can be explained only by the fact that this treaty is directed against the Soviet Union.

The fact that the North Atlantic Treaty is directed against the U. S. S. R. as well as against the countries of people's democracy was definitely pointed out also by the official representatives of the United States of America, Great Britain and France.

To justify the conclusion of the North Atlantic Treaty, references are being made to the fact that the Soviet Union has defensive treaties with the countries of people's democracy.

These references, however, are utterly untenable.

All the treaties of the Soviet Union on friendship and mutual assistance with the countries of people's democracy are of a bilateral nature, and they are directed solely against the possible repetition of German aggression, of which danger no single peace-loving state can be unaware.

The possibility of interpreting them as treaties which are in any degree aimed against the allies of the U. S. S. R. in the last war, against the United States or Great Britain or France, is absolutely precluded.

Moreover, the U. S. S. R. has similar treaties against a repetition. of German aggression not only with the countries of people's democracy, but also with Great Britain and France.

ASPECT OF GERMAN AGGRESSION

In contradiction to this, the North Atlantic Treaty is not a bilateral, but a multilateral treaty, which creates a closed grouping of states and, what is particularly important, absolutely ignores the possibility of a repetition of German aggression, not having consequently as its aim the prevention of a new German aggression.

And inasmuch as the great powers which comprised the antiHitlerite coalition only the U. S. S. R. is not a party to this treaty, the North Atlantic Treaty must be regarded as a treaty directed against one of the chief allies of the United States, Great Britain, and France in the late war, against the U. S. S. R.

Participants in the North Atlantic Treaty are effecting extensive military measures which can in no way be justified by the interests of self-defense of these countries.

The extensive military measures carried out by the United States in cooperation with Great Britain and France under the present peacetime conditions, including the increase in all types of armed forces, the drafting of a plan for the utilization of the atomic weapon, the stockpiling of atom bombs, which are purely an offensive weapon, the building of a network of air and naval bases, etc.-by no means bear a defensive character.

The preservation in Washington of the combined Anglo-American Staff organized during the second World War, the recent establishment of the military staff of the so-called Western Union in Fontainebleau (France), as well as the intention immediately to set up the defense committee envisaged by the North Atlantic Treaty, are by no means an indication of the peace loving or defensive aims of the participants of the treaty, but, together with other numerous military preparations, contribute to intensifying anxiety and alarm and to the whipping up of war hysteria in which all sorts of instigators of a new war are so interested.

25. STATEMENT BY THE FOREIGN MINISTERS OF THE ATLANTIC PACT POWERS

April 2, 1949

[Two days after the protest of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had been communicated to the 7 sponsoring governments, representatives of the 12 countries gathered in Washington to sign the pact answered in a statement released to the public on April 2, 1949. The full text of that release is as follows:]

STATEMENT BY THE FOREIGN MINISTERS

The foreign ministers of the countries assembled here in Washington for the signing of the North Atlantic Pact have taken note of the views of the Soviet Government made public by that Government on March 31, 1949.

The foreign ministers note that the views expressed by the Soviet Government on March 31 are identical in their misinterpretation of the nature and intent of this association with those published by the Soviet Foreign Office in January, before the text of the pact was even in existence. It would thus appear that the views of the Soviet Government on this subject do not arise from an examination of the character and text of the North Atlantic Pact but from other considerations.

The text of the treaty itself is the best answer to such misrepresentations and allegations. The text makes clear the completely defensive nature of this pact, its conformity with both the spirit and letter of the Charter of the United Nations, and also the fact that the pact is not directed against any nation or group of nations but only against armed aggression.