Mr. President, please accept my warm congratulations on your election
to your high office. It is a great pleasure to see the representative
of the fraternal Hungarian People's Republic presiding over the
thirty seventh session of the General Assembly and we wish you every
success in your work.
The period since the last regular session of the Assembly has been
filled with complex and contradictory events. The peoples have
persistently demanded that the threat of nuclear war be averted, the
arms race curbed and disarmament achieved, but those in the
belligerent circles of imperialism have been accelerating the arms
race and pushing the world towards nuclear catastrophe. Mass anti war
demonstrations have gained in strength, and we have been deafened by
the explosion of the bombs of the aggressors. The national liberation
movements have broadened in scope, and the colonialists and racists
have mounted ominous plans for suppressing, those movements. Peace
loving peoples have won new and constructive victories, while the
forces of imperialism and reaction have developed monstrous doctrines
and programmes for the mass extermination of human beings and to
undermine the process of detente and co operation. In this new tense
international situation the peoples of the world are once again
realizing that there is no task more important or more urgent today
than that of defending peace and averting the threat of nuclear war.
That cannot be refuted by those whose statements at this session have
constituted merely another routine attempt to distort the real
picture of the present day world and to shift all the blame for its
troubles from themselves to innocent parties.
As has already been noted during this session of the General
Assembly, the current aggravation of the international situation and
the mounting threat of war are due to the fact that some Western
States, above all the United States, persist in policies inimical to
the interests of peace. The situation is all the more alarming in
that some of those States are permanent members of the Security
Council and their policies are totally in conflict with the
particular responsibility for international security and the
preservation of peace that the Charter places upon them.
A close analysis of statements by leading United States officials on
the substance of the military and political problems, in the world
today and a careful analysis of the goals of the intensive rearmament
programme that has been launched in the United States and of the
strategic concepts being put forward cannot but show that
Washington's present course is by no means peace oriented. We have
all heard the frank statement at the 11th meeting by the United
States Secretary of State, Mr. Shultz, that the United States is
guided in its actions by the principle of the position of force and
will be unswerving in its use of it. Is this not an express policy of
military and political confrontation, a policy of seizing dominant
positions on a global scale is it not making this all part of a
fundamental principle
It would be difficult to imagine a political credo in greater
opposition to the requirements of the Charter. The policy of
discarding in practice the principle of equality and equal security,
which, in this nuclear age, is an absolutely vital principle, erodes
the mainstays of the structure of relations between States and
contributes to the threat of war.
The United States is provoking tension and protracting conflicts; it
acts on its own behalf and through proxies in order to justify the
further buildup of arms and its growing demand that its allies toe
the line. The United States is instigating an anti communist crusade
and is spreading lies about an alleged Soviet threat and other
fabrications in order to impose its latest missiles on the
territories of others and to cause an impasse in disarmament talks.
Those provocative actions are camouflaged by demagogic utterances
about a commitment to peace through strength; to the prevention of
wars in general. But the legitimate question arises of whether the
authors of those pronouncements did not indeed have an opportunity,
for example, to prevent or halt the Israeli aggression in Lebanon.
Acting at variance with the commitment to prevent nuclear war they
entered into in the 1970s, Washington's strategists are now
proclaiming the admissibility and even the acceptability of a nuclear
conflict. The world has been subjected to cynical bombast about
first, second and subsequent nuclear strikes, about nuclear
escalation in doses, about demonstrative and selective use of nuclear
weapons, and so forth. Over the past year and a half, the United
States has put forward more different concepts of the use of force
primarily in a nuclear context than in any preceding decade. They
talk about a secured nuclear war, then they talk about limited war,
about blitzkrieg, and about protracted war.
All these statements and actions are permeated with the idea of the
first use of nuclear weapons and an insane reliance on winning a
nuclear victory. Such notions are the sheerest adventurism, fraught
with enormous dangers for mankind. They constitute nothing but naked
war propaganda. There can be no doubt that any use of nuclear weapons
will cause a chain reaction. That being so, strategic planning of
this kind, in any of its versions, represents in actual fact planning
for a nuclear catastrophe. But those so called planners ought to be
reminded that planning and preparation for of aggression are
qualified in international instruments specifically in the Charter of
the United Nations, in the judgment of the Nuremberg International
Military Tribunal, and in the Definition of Aggression and other
United Nations documents as a crime against peace and against
humanity. Military political stereotypes inherited from the time of
the former monopoly on the atom bomb are now outmoded. In his message
at the twelfth special session the second special session of the
General Assembly devoted to disarmament, the General Secretary of the
Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and
President of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, Mr.
Leonid Brezhnev, described as indisputable and determinant the fact
that nuclear war, should it break out, could, in the current
international situation, mean the destruction of human civilization
and perhaps en the end of life on Earth.
Such is the harsh imperative of this nuclear age: there can be no
security for anyone through nuclear adventurism. A nuclear Power can
be secure only if its foreign and military policies pose no threat to
any other country. As to notions that one's own security can be
strengthened by chasing the phantom of military supremacy, plans to
achieve such supremacy simply cannot be carried out, and measures
undertaken to that end can only aggravate military nations and lower
the level of security for all.
While, in this nuclear age, strategic stability based on an
approximate balance of forces is an extremely important basis for
universal security, it is no guarantee of that security. Mankind can
free itself from the deadly threat only by gradually lowering the
level of military confrontation, through the implementation of agreed
measures on the limitation and reduction of armaments and on
disarmament. There is no other way, for security and disarmament are
inseparably linked.
Today's realities demand the adoption of urgent and effective
measures for the prevention of nuclear war. Particular responsibility
for that lies with the permanent members of the Security Council
which are in addition nuclear weapon Powers. In present conditions.
the commitment by each nuclear weapon Power not to be the first to
use nuclear weapons would be of key significance for removing the
threat of nuclear war. That is the express duty of the nuclear
Powers; it is their primary responsibility towards mankind.
As is known, the USSR, which takes a. very serious view of its status
as a nuclear Power and as a permanent member of the Security Council,
has already shouldered that responsibility. The step taken by the
USSR is a powerful stimulus for the drastic of the threat of nuclear
war and for the strengthening of trust in relations between States.
The exclusion from international relations of force in all its
manifestations, both nuclear and conventional, would be fostered by
early completion of the work on a world treaty on the non use of
force in international relations, a draft of which was submitted by
the Soviet Union in 1976 for consideration by the United Nations. A
set of specific and constructive proposals set out in the memorandum
of the USSR on Averting the growing nuclear threat and curbing the
arms race, which was submitted to the Assembly at its second special
session devoted to disarmament creates possibilities for making
progress along all avenues leading to the limitation and radical
reduction of armaments, whether nuclear weapons, other weapons of
mass destruction, including chemical weapons, conventional weapons,
or naval activities. There is no kind of weapon which the Soviet
Union would not be prepared to limit or ban on a basis of
reciprocity. Further evidence of the readiness of the USSR to reduce
the nuclear threat, to curb the arms race and to make our planet
safer for life and for constructive work is provided by the proposals
aimed at the speedy cessation and total prohibition of nuclear
weapon testing; these were formulated with due regard for the views
and suggestions of many countries, including suggestions regarding
verification and regarding an appeal to all the nuclear Powers to
declare, within an agreed time frame, a moratorium on all nuclear
explosions, pending the conclusion of a treaty banning them
completely.
The USSR initiative entitled Intensification of efforts to remove the
threat of nuclear war and to ensure a safe development of nuclear
energy is also of vast significance. That proposal develops further
the work already begun on questions of preventing nuclear war and of
nuclear disarmament ranging from a simultaneous freeze on the
production and deployment of nuclear weapons and their delivery
vehicles to the elimination of existing nuclear capabilities as well
as of strengthening the security of non nuclear countries. It is
designed to ensure the safe development of nuclear energy for
constructive purposes in all countries. Any destruction of non
military nuclear facilities should unquestionably be qualified as a
nuclear attack, which, in the definition of the United Nations, is
the gravest crime against humanity.
The aggressive actions of the imperialists and their henchmen even
today are leading to bloodshed in many flashpoints on our planet. A
typical example of this reign of bloody terror a war of annihilation
which is nothing short of genocide is the aggression launched by
Israel against Lebanon and the Arab people of Palestine. The tragedy
in Lebanon has shaken the entire world and provided yet further
evidence that in this latest criminal adventure, in addition to all
the others, the strategic allies, Israel and the United States, acted
hand in hand.
Scores of thousands of human beings and the destiny of hundreds of
thousands more, have fallen victim to the most sophisticated American
military technology, tried out with the help of Israel in Lebanon. In
shamelessly arming the aggressor, which has repeatedly been condemned
by the United Nations, and overtly and covertly acting as its
accomplice, the United States contrary to its obligations as a
permanent member of the Security Council is doing everything possible
to establish in that area an order which would enable it and its
henchmen to do as they please in other people's territories.
However, they should know better than to labor under such a delusion.
Attempts to rule the destinies of the peoples of the Middle East from
Washington or Tel Aviv are inevitably doomed to failure. The selfless
struggle of the Palestinian people under the leadership of the
Palestine Liberation Organization, the courage and determination of
the Syrians and the Lebanese, have clearly demonstrated this. The new
plan for a Middle East settlement which has been announced by the
President of the United States and widely publicized does not contain
anything new. The United States proposals are flawed in their very
essence. They fail to provide for the liberation of all Arab
territories seized in 1967, deny the right of the Palestinians to
create their own State and disregard the PLO, This is nothing but a
continuance of the treacherous Camp David policy of acquiescence,
designed to enslave the peoples of that region.
Our position on the Middle East problem has always been and continues
to be crystal clear. The complex problem of the Middle East can be
resolved only by the concerted efforts of all the parties concerned,
which must certainly include the PLO, the sole legitimate
representative of the Arab people of Palestine. This problem cannot
be resolved without strict observance of the principle of the
inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by forces; the
recognition and exercise of the right of the Arab people of Palestine
to self determination and to create their own independent State on
Palestinian soil, which must be freed from Israeli occupation; and
ensuring the right of all States of the region to a secure existence
and development in conditions of mutual respect for sovereignty,
independence and territorial integrity, with appropriate
international guarantees.
This is the only course that will lead to a settlement, as envisaged
in the Soviet proposal on the convening of an international
conference on the Middle East. The results of the Twelfth Arab Summit
Conference at Fez constitute a constructive contribution to the
settlement process. We take a positive view of the principles that
were adopted at that Conference for the solution of the Palestinian
question and the Middle East problem as a whole.
Nowadays it is more necessary than ever before for political leaders
to demonstrate common sense, clear sightedness, prudence and genuine
realism in their approach to the problems that arise. We should also,
of course, be guided always by the fact that international detente
calls for peaceful co operation with other States, not military
preparations or hostility toward other States. Detente is a
conscientious observance in good faith of the norms of international
law and the principle of non intervention in the internal affairs of
others. It also implies a constant desire to contribute by practical
action to curbing the arms race in the world and strengthening
security by gradually building up mutual confidence on a just and
reciprocal basis. This is exactly what the States of the socialist
community are doing. Unfortunately, this cannot be said for the
United States and its partners in aggressive blocs.
Yet another example of the fact that the Washington Administration
adheres to diametrically opposite principles is its policy with
respect to Afghanistan, South East Asia and the Caribbean. They are
trying to achieve their aim of barring the way to social reforms by
staging military adventures against peoples seeking freedom and
progress. This is clearly demonstrated by the continuing hostile
actions of the United States of America against Cuba, Afghanistan,
the countries of Indo China; Nicaragua and other States of the world,
and this should serve as a warning. It is also shown by its support
for reactionary anti people regimes in Chile, South Korea, El
Salvador and other countries.
The long chain of irrefutable facts indicative of the dangerous
course followed by the foreign policy of the United States, which is
a threat to peace and social progress, includes the well known action
of that country against the anti colonialist struggle of the peoples
of the world. When in August 1981 the racists of Pretoria launched
their large scale aggression, which is still going on now, against
the People's Republic of Angola, the United States chose to act as a
forthright advocate of that naked act of aggression. In the Security
Council it vetoed the draft resolution strongly condemning the
aggression and calling for its immediate cessation. The veto was in
no way accidental; it constituted the implementationof what had
earlier been proclaimed the new regional strategy of the United
States regarding southern Africa.
The basic tenets of this strategy, which in its very essence is a
doctrine of recolonization, amount to nothing less than a naked
threat to use South Africa to bring about the destabilization of
independent African States. As regards the Namibian problem, the so
called new doctrine basically encourages the South African racists to
retain Namibia as a colony of South Africa and to impose on the
Namibian people conditions that are advantageous to Pretoria. The
Apartheid regime is allowed to use force in pursuing its colonial
policy, to employ the piratical methods of the Israeli militarists in
Lebanon, and to attempt to destroy the South West Africa People's
Organization and to exclude it from participating in decisions on the
future of its homeland. The task of the United Nations is to prevent
this and to work for the early attainment of independence by the
people of Namibia.
Washington is known never to have fulfilled its obligations as
regards the developing countries. When the conflict between the
United Kingdom and Argentina erupted as a result of the stubborn
opposition of the United Kingdom to the decolonization of the
Falkland Islands (Malvinas), the United States ignored its
obligations as far as Argentina was concerned, extended the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization to Latin America and took advantage of
the situation in order openly to assist in the colonialist plunder
and to penetrate the South Atlantic region.
A vivid example of the policy of force and blackmail as a means of
carrying out imperialist plans on a global scale is provided by the
actions of the United States aimed at undermining the regional
organizations of the developing countries, nullifying the United
Nations decision to convene the Conference on the Indian Ocean,
opposing the drafting of a world treaty on the non use of force in
international relations and refusing to sign the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The same strategy of force is being carried out by the United States
in the realm of international economic relations. It is precisely
those in the ruling circles of that country that impede by every
means available the implementation of United Nations decisions on the
establishment of a new international economic order, obstruct the
launching of global negotiations and defend in every possible way the
activities of transnational corporations, which are detrimental to
the sovereignty and the economies of the developing countries.
The policy of blackmail and threats is being employed not only
against socialist States but also against those developing countries
that have chosen the road of independent development and social
progress. Attempts are being made to split the non aligned movement,
to play down its significance as a major factor in improving the
international situation. The weapon of coercion is being used also
against the developed countries allies of the United States. One
recent example of this in addition to the constant demands for an
increase in their military budgets, is the unseemly efforts of the
United States Administration directed against a mutually advantageous
project for a gas pipeline between Siberia and Western Europe. We
almost have the impression of hearing a cowboy's lasso whistle over
some countries of Western Europe. AU this is a significant lesson for
the young developing countries, which should indeed think twice
before developing ties, especially economic ties, with the United
States.
The Soviet Union and other socialist States oppose that policy of
diktat and blackmail by a clear and unequivocal policy of developing
international economic co operation on a basis of equality and in the
interest of all the participants and with due regard for the special
interests of the developing countries, at the same time providing
them with assistance on a scale greater than that recommended by the
United Nations.
Given the deterioration in the international situation caused by the policy of imperialism,
of overriding importance for the destiny of mankind is the positive
implementation of the Leninist strategy of peace, the Peace Programme
for the 1980s worked out by the twenty sixth Congress of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union and promoted by the Soviet Union,
which is celebrating its sixtieth anniversary. The creation and the
successful development of the Soviet Union are of undying
international significance and an important historic landmark in the
age old struggle of progressive mankind for equality, the progress of
nations and world renewal.
Faithful to the principle of peace and friendship among peoples, to
which it pledged itself at the hour of its birth, the Soviet State
takes this as the basis of all its activities in the international
arena. It underlies all its successes and achievements. Leninist
ideals and principles embodied in the decisions of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union and the highest State bodies of the Land of
the Soviets and in the Constitution of the USSR determine the
approach of the Soviet State to all problems of relations between
countries and peoples.
The sixtieth anniversary of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
is clear testimony to the triumph of the Leninist national policy and
to the historic achievements of socialism. The workers of the
Byelorussian SSR cherish the fact that they belong to the unified
family of Soviet peoples. They realize that everything we have done
and achieved has been brought about by the concerted efforts of all
the peoples of our multinational homeland. We have every reason to be
proud of our achievements in political, economic and social
development. In this period Byelorussia has become a Republic with a
highly developed industry and intensive agriculture. At present our
industry produces 30 times more than in the pre war year, 1940,
despite the fact that it was almost totally destroyed by the Hitler
aggressors in the Second World War and that those aggressors murdered
a quarter of its population. Education, science, health care and
culture have made great strides in the Republic. We live and work in
a socialist democracy which guarantees genuine rights and freedoms
for every human being. In order to continue their successful and
constructive work the Byelorussian people, like other peoples of the
USSR and of the entire planet, need above all lasting peace.
Deadlocks in the international arena do not occur of themselves. It
is well known that they are created deliberately. This can be said
about almost every situation of conflict and outstanding problem the
continuing conflict between Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Iran,
opposition to the peaceful reunification of Korea free from outside
interference, and to the withdrawal of foreign troops from South
Korea, the refusal to take part in, or the obstruction of,
disarmament talks, the desire to put weapons into outer space and
other pressing problems.
Let us take as an example the problem of Cyprus. Here again we see
who is doing what to impede United Nations efforts to defend the
independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic
of Cyprus and to demilitarize the island by withdrawing all foreign
troops and eliminating all foreign bases; how attempts are being made
to impose on the Cypriots a solution alien to them. In those
circumstances United Nations efforts should be directed towards
making the intercommunal talks a success, while fully respecting the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Cypriot State and its
policy of non alignment.
Thus in the final analysis underlying all these deadlocks there are
selfish imperialist interests and a reluctance to take account of the
real situation in an evolving world and of the will of the peoples.
Today political wisdom lies in concerted, persistent and patient
efforts to solve the problems threatening universal peace. In that
way, even if not all the problems are solved at once, many will be.
It is particularly important, of course, to solve the most pressing
problems of our time: that of averting a nuclearwar, curbing the arms
race and achieving disarmament. If we do not, the wise sphinxes to
which the United States Secretary of State recently alluded in
justifying Washington's policies will no longer be there.
The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR, guided by the testament of
Lenin that the Soviet State wishes to live in peace with all peoples
and directs its efforts to the building of its own State, will
actively promote the preparation and adoption of measures designed to
avert the threat of nuclear war, strengthen peace, bring about co
operation among peoples and solve other problems on the agenda of
this session of the General Assembly in accordance with the Charter
of the United Nations.