Equal Opportunity Speech

Molotov

Paris, France 1946

The principle of so called "equal opportunity'' has become a favourite topic of late. What, it is argued, could he better than this principle, which would establish equal opportunity for all states without discrimination? The advocates of this view come forward now as modern champions of the principle of equality in relations between states. But in that case, gentlemen, let us discuss the principle of equality seriously and honestly.

The Danube is not the only waterway of international importance. There are other waterways of still greater international importance. It is not only certain riverways that are of international importance; as we know, sea routes, and, still more, routes linking up oceans, are of far greater international importance than any river system. If we really wish to maintain the principle of "equal opportunity" in the matter of waterways, then let us adhere to this principle consistently, as befits real champions of the principle of equality in relations among states.

Why then do we not advocate the principle of "equal opportunity" in regard to waterways where the interests of many states are especially great - the Suez Canal, say, or the Panama Canal? Many states are interested in both these waterways. If we are to become ardent patriots of the principle of so-called "equal opportunity'' let us then discuss its application in this case too. Are the advocates of the principle of "equal opportunity" willing to apply it to the Suez Canal? Are the advocates of the principle of "equal opportunity" willing to apply it to the Panama Canal as well? These questions should not be evaded. They will come up sooner or later anyway.

As to the Danube, apart from everything else, we are now faced with a specific situation with which we have to reckon. There are countries in the Danube Basin which suffered very grievously in this war. On the other hand, it is in this area that important political changes have taken place, and the young democracies which have been formed here have not yet had time to solve even the most pressing problems of their postwar recovery. The Danube Basin includes Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary, as well as Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and some other states. These countries went through hard times during the second world war. They suffered badly in the war, they have been greatly weakened, and in any case they certainly cannot be classed among those that grew rich on the war - leave aside the Soviet Union, whose human and material losses were exceptionally great. The Soviet Government has published the concrete figures and facts of these losses for everyone to read. The losses caused by the destruction of war and the rapine of the invaders alone are estimated at 679,000 million rubles. And if we take the Soviet Union's total expenditures on the war, they will exceed these losses, colossal as the figure is, severalfold. Such is the postwar situation of the states in the Danube area.

There are, however, other states which were with us in the Allied camp but which fortunately suffered less than the states I have just mentioned. And lastly, there are countries which, although they bore the heavy burden of the struggle against our common enemy, have at the same time succeeded in these past years in increasing their wealth. Take, for example, the United States of America.

Here in Paris everyone of you can find a copy of the "World Almanac, 1946" In this book you may read the following figures: the national income of the U.S.A. in 1941 was estimated at 96,000 million dollars, in 1942 at 122,000 million dollars, in 1943 at 149,000 million dollars, and in 1944 at 160,000 million dollars. Thus, in four years of the war the national income of the U.S.A. rose by. 64,000 million dollars. The same book says that in 1938 the total national income of the United States was 64,000 million, dollars. Hence the mere increase. in the national income of the U.S.A. during the war years was equal to its total national income in 1938. These are facts which one cannot refrain from mentioning.

Yesterday the United States representative declared here that his government could substantiate a claim for 20,000 million dollars of reparations, were the United States to start calculating its losses during the war. But such statements hardly carry conviction with people who are aware of the facts.

We know that the United States made a very great effort in this war, in defense of its own interest, and of our common aims, for which we are all very grateful to the United States. But for all that, it cannot be said that the United States is one of those states which suffered grave material damage in the second world war, which were ruined and weakened in this war. We are glad that this did not happen to our ally, although we ourselves have had to go through trying times, the consequences of which will take us long years to heal.

Now that you know the facts, place side by side Rumania, enfeebled by the war, or Yugoslavia, ruined by the German and Italian fascists, and the United States of America, whose wealth has grown immensely during the War, and you will clearly see what the implementation of the principle of "equal opportunity'' would mean in practice. Imagine under these circumstances, that in this same Romania or Yugoslavia, or in some other war - weakened state, you have this so-called "equal opportunity" for, let us say, American capital - that is, the opportunity for it to penetrate unhindered into Rumanian industry, or Yugoslav Industry and so forth: what, then, will remain of Rumania's national industry, or of Yugoslav's national industry?

It is surely not so difficult to understand that if American capital were given a free hand in the small states ruined and enfeebled by the war, as the advocates of the principle of "equal opportunity" desire, American capital would buy up the local industries, appropriate the more attractive Rumanian Yugoslav and all other enterprises, and would become the master in these small states. Given such a situation, we would probably live to see the day when in your own country, on switching on the radio, you would be hearing not so much your own language as one American gramophone record after another of some piece or other of British propaganda. The time might come when in your own country, ongoing to the cinema you would be seeing American films sold for foreign consumption - - not those of the better quality, but those manufactured in greater quantity, and circulated and imposed abroad by the agents of powerful firms and cinema companies which have grown particularly rich during the war.

Can anyone really fail to see that if, as a result of the application of the principle of so-called "equal opportunity" in small states, unrestricted competition begins between the home products and the products poured out by the factories of the United States or Great Britain, nothing will remain of the sovereignty and independence of these states, especially considering the postwar conditions? Is it not clear that such unrestricted application of the principle of "equal opportunity" in the given conditions would in practice mean the veritable economic enslavement of the small states and their subjugation to the rule and arbitrary will of strong and enriched foreign firms, banks and industrial companies? Is it not clear that if such "principles of equality" are applied in international economic life, the smaller states will be governed by the orders, injunctions, instructions of strong foreign trusts and monopolies? Was this what we fought for when we battled the fascist invaders, the Hitlerite and Japanese imperialists?

If you still have any doubts on this' score read what Senator Thomas writes in the latest issue of the American Magazine. He writes in this widely circulated periodical that it is not accidental that American dollars are frequently the instrument of U.S. foreign policy. And further, that the American policy of dollar democracy renders assistance to U.S. foreign policy. Senator Thomas dwells at length on a number of specific questions to explain his idea. He further explains why the last American loan was granted to England, and why America could not have refused this loan. He also explains the reasons for granting the last loan to France, and the plans for granting a big loan to China, He speaks of the conditions on which a loan might be granted to Poland, and so on.

The candid Senator is highly pleased with this "dollar democracy," and believes that its success will be unbounded. He too, of course, is a proponent of the principle of "equal opportunity," especially at the moment - when America is going through a period of prosperity, and many other countries through a period of postwar economic weakness. The advocates of "dollar democracy" have visions of seizing one economic position after another in all parts of the globe. There are now quite a number of American capitalists who dream of becoming masters of whole states, of instituting conditions in those states to suit themselves, by taking the utmost advantage of the temporary postwar conditions, which are particularly favorable for "dollar democracy." But no government of a democratic state can allow itself to be tempted into such schemes of aggrandizement if it cherishes its prestige, and if it realizes, what the consequences may be.

During the war the Allies regarded it as one of their chief aims to see to it that there shall be no fascist states in Europe or any other part of the world, and that the road shall be cleared for the democratic states and for their prosperity. This does not mean that after the war we should sympathize with those who would like to make use of their wealth and the fortunes amassed during the war to exploit the postwar difficulties experienced by small and war-weakened states, even though this be done under the cry of the "equal opportunity" principle, or the "policy of dollar democracy," or, generally, under the auspices of any avaricious schemes, by whatever fine words they are embellished.

Printable version: Equal Opportunity

Original source: http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0072849037/35266/3_5.htm

Edited by: Jordi Getman-Eraso