€ Main features of Soviet
policy is the striving for
days Was manifested in the
‘Of the existence of the

Mal conse tO. the Peoplest,”
November be seen on the slog-

PY, in al 1917. In exactly the
Lol the u the years of the ex-
tab, there has remain-
steno © striving for the peace-
focal sy Of Countries with. dif-
A ems, on the principles
| Policy mir Lenin: based Soviet
ss Soviay WE, turn to the histo-
that pa Union we can éasily
Stine emament too was long
sl aim -» Soviet diplomacy as
EY lene: international policy.
N Bie onal conferences, in-
teSentat Of Nations meetings,
pity |, .VeS of the USSR did
bark €ir power to urge the
a gg (Pon the implementa-

®ctive disarmament pro-

oui
coun of foreign policy does
1 8 the [sate the absence of
¥ he So rst years of the exist-
p, they, viet state the political
» it». Was, if one may so
hy cgi Olored: the capitalist
by oe and the Soviet
a Social has appeared a large
the .St countries, the ma:
h; an, a Onies have won inde-
wy a a developing indepen-
in list ater or lesser degree.
i,’ Stat World has also changed.
hy, tender, Tetain imperialist, ag-
* the “és. In this situation,
bosPtoach ct Union has a dif-
DS op . ‘© various countries
Countries.

ER an
1... 4 the capitalist world

fery;

with & ¢° the relations of
Py Me 4, € capitalist world,
Aly These following chief ele-

,, ie Syst. ations: mutual res-
F |, the os €m and way of life
teres of the other coun-
dab ae In each others in-
BS on velopment of econo-
Ptiotion < basis of mutual

er he cultural, scienti-
ty. tia) “ae and, as far as
: Pprochement based

Non
Stri
Security, 8 for peace and

=

Ta ‘
AY capitalist countries

8 Finis tly manner. Little
» Which pursues a
oe Ong maintained re-

ar
3 yen

viet Union cooper-:

lations with the USSR based on trust
and sincere friendship. In the past
years Soviet-French relations have con-
siderably improved. In practice this is
expressed: in the expansion of trade
and scientific and technical cooperation
covering even such fields as space and
nuclear research. These changes were
largely stimulated by France’s position
on international problems which coin-
cide or are close to the Soviet views.
The fact that France regards the NATO
military organization as unnecessary,
and having a negative effect upon the in-
ternational atmosphere, greatly facili-
tated Franco-Soviet rapproachment.
Similar is the position of Paris in re-
gard to the Vietnamese conflict and
the Middle East crisis.

But this does not mean that politi-
cal unanimity is an essential condition
for normal relations. The USSR and
Italy, for example, have very little in
common in appraising international
events. Nevertheless, the whole world
knows that in the economic field, the
USSR has equally good relations with
Italy as with a few other ‘countries.
The same may be said about Canada.
Although on the map of the world we
are divided by ice, the atmosphere be-
tween the USSR and Canada has be-
come much warmer than say, 10 years
ago. After such a stage as expansion
of trade it is possible to go over to
broader cooperation, particularly in the
scientific and technical fields and espe-
cially questions connected with the
study and exploration of the Arctic.

It is doubtful of course whether nor-
mal relations will be established be-
tween the USSR and the military dic-
tatorship in Greece. The militarist
policy of West Germany, which is com-
bined with demands for revising the
results of the Second World War, by no
means evokes the confidence of the
Soviet people.

Neither can one expect big positive
changes in Soviet-American relations
in the immediate future. The most ob-
viously negative role here is played by
the war the United States is waging in
Vietnam and the aggressive actions
against the socialist Democratic Re-
public of Vietnam. If the United States
had not embarked -upon the road of
violating the Geneva agreements and
intervening in South-East Asia, the at-
titude of the Soviet Union and many
other countries to the United States
might possibly have been different. Al-
though, of course, there can be no
question of warmth between Moscow

and Washington unless the Un*<!

eIN Vo NOV E B ISGNISVOViI

“In October 1917, after the Russian workers had overthrown their imperialist
government, the Soviet Government of the revolutionary workers and peasants,
openly proposed a just peace..., a peace that fully guaranteed equal rights

to all nations.”

Viadimir Lenin

States changes its main foreign politi-
cal conception of struggling against the
“communist” world.

The USSR and the developing
countries

The right of nations to self-determi-
nation is one of the basic Soviet for-
eign political principles. That is why
Soviet diplomacy strove and continues
to strive for each nation to live in con-
ditions of freedom and independence
and the system it has chosen. The very
emancipation of these countries from
colonial or semi-colonial status is con-
nected with the struggle the USSR
has waged against colonialism in the
United Nations and other international
forums. Soviet diplomacy played no

‘small role in the United Nations adopt-

ing the decision on the complete aboli-
tion of the colonial yoke. The example
of Egypt, the Congo and Vietnam
shows that it is not enough for a young
state to acquire independence, it must
be defended. In a number of cases dip-
lomatic means are not enough to sup-
port the struggle of the young states
for independence and the Soviet Union
also renders them military assistance.

But, of course, the most characteris-
tic feature of Soviet policy in the coun-
tries of the “third world” is friendly
economic support. Unlike the majority
of Western countries,.the Soviet Union
rarely resorts to granting money loans.
If it does so, it does not demand such
high interest rates as the West. Nei-
ther is the practice of supplying food
and consumer goods capable of radi-
cally changing the living standard in
one or another country. That is why
the USSR orientates itself on such as-
sistance which wil! help reconstruct
the economy and build the basis for
the economic progress of a country.
The large enterprises built with Soviet
assistance in India or Indonesia, or the
Aswan High Dam in the United Arab
Republic, do not, of course, yield im-
mediate results. But with the help of
such projects the developing countries
take the first big steps toward becom-
ing modern industrial states. When
Soviet specialists go to a Republic they
set themselves the task of training na-
tional specialists. The training of sev-
eral hundred future doctors or teach-
ers, agronomists or engineers, is
greater assistance than supplies of,
foodstuffs or ready-made goods.

Assistance to foreign states is not in-
cluded in the Soviet budget as a special
.-em. Nevertheless, It must be said that
the Soviet Union fulfils the recommen-

“PEACE”

dations of the first International Con-
ference on Trade, according to which
the industrial states must allocate no
less than one percent of their income
for assistance to the developing coun-
tries. Incidentally, such countries as
Canada and the Federal German Re-
public allocated only .60 percent of
their income for such assistance; and
Italy, France and the Netherlands —
more than one percent.

Attitude of USSR to colonialism
and neocolonialism

The attitude to colonialism has al-
ready been mentioned above. The
Soviet Union wants to ensure that no
person lives under conditions of the
disgraceful and anachronistic colonial
system. Neocolonialism is directly con-
nected with the question of colonial-
ism. Very often, economic and military
assistance, particularly on the part of
the former colonial powers, as well as
the United States and the FRG, con-
ceal the striving to seize the markets
of one or another country, or, which
is even more serious, to retain or ac-
quire military bases and influence gov-
ernment policy. The formula of neo-
colonialism signifies a tolerant attitude
to. political independence combined
with the refusal to promote economic
independence. Natural to neocolonial-
ism sometimes are also military and
political ventures. For instance, the
striving to sever Katanga’ from the
Congo, and then Biafra from Nigeria,
is natural to the neocolonialists
and nct to the “traditional” colo-
nialists. The scaring of some young
states with the “communist menace”
and drawing them into the system of
blocs such as SEATO is also neocolo-
nialism.

The Soviet Union does not use assist-
ance to developing countries as an in-
strument of political pressure. The
USSR has no military bases in other
countries and does not intend to ac-
quire them. The assistance it renders
to other countries is not always free
of charge but it is always based on
mutual benefit and is directed towards
consolidating the economic sovereign-
ty of the country receiving this assist-
ance, USSR policy is completely free
from any features of colonialism or
neocolonialism. That is why the USSR
has every moral right to struggle, and
it does struggle, against these pheno-
mena which play a reactionary role in
the development of human society and
which sharply contradict the tasks and
aims of the United Nations Charter.

November 4, 1967 — PACIFIC TRIBUNE — Page 11

re em oe

:
|
|
|
}
i