led by USSR Foreign Minister Gromyko

RMS LIMITAT

. Leonid Brezhnev and Soviet Foreign

¢© beginning of the arms limitation talks In Moscow.

ySt as in the Vladivostok Ac-
yds. This was taken for
*nted. No problems arose. But
>» itis now proposed to break up
© 4greement also in this respect,
fd to do so in a way that would
ge an advantage to the United
lates, with the Soviet Union
¢'ding itself in a worse position.

New Weapons

i et
twas proposed to us to include
© agreement a clause prohibit-
de the creation of new kinds of
Atapons. At first sight it seemed
fre was nothing bad in it. But I
Muld like to remind that the
oe Union itself had long ago
ide the proposal on banning the
Yinufacture of new kinds and
_™ systems of mass extermina-
- Moreover, we have submit-
!to the United Nations a draft
- l€ relevant international trea-
is, And what was the response?
ol the U.S. government support
44° Proposal? No.

Moscow they said only the
dist 8eneral words about the
'( to include into an agreement
{¢" a proposition, moreover, to-
f- ° €T Or, as they say, in a ‘‘pack-
om _With other obviously unac-;
be Hable Proposals.
fm “t us speak frankly. If both

,‘ountries stand for banning
“dk nds of weapons of mass
4 . juination, then let us discuss
rele : treaty. we have. If you
| Mendments to the Soviet
2 Put them forth. Let us dis-
Ae se amendments. If you
i 44 NO amendments, then let us
iF clu

de this t
Fete treaty.
e. ._ New U.S. Weapons

s!

inthe U.S. is prepared to ban
of “nds of weapons, what, then,
US tags (0 produce the ‘‘B1”
nd, “SIC bomber? The same is
id ae the ‘Trident’? atomic
a4, "Me. Brezhnev spoke of
he Sy _American. weapons
4, \ during the official negoti-
it dint? the American side,
Ss? Bi, 80 Tepeatedly. So what we
1d ri Tain declarations by the
iid | a Side which do not tally
nt,, “© Actual readiness to ban

-and the Soviet

new kinds of weapons of mass
extermination. : ;

Carter’s ‘Sincerity’

In his latest statement Carter
used the word ‘“‘sincerity’’ when
referring to the Soviet leader-
ship’s attitude to questions of
strategic arms limitation. I would
like to Say: We’ do not tack ‘sin-
cerity. We have plenty of it. It is
on this basis that we build our pol-

‘icy and would want others to
build their policies so that deeds _

would not differ from words.

Reading some of the statements
made in the USA you probably
noticed that not only some, what
they call ‘‘all-encompassing
proposals’’, but also an alterna-
tive ‘‘narrow proposal’ have
been made to us. What is this
‘‘narrow proposal’? We are sim-
ply told — let us conclude an
agreement that will concern bal-
listic missiles and strategic bom-
bers. At the same time it is prop-
osed to ignore the Cruise missiles
‘*Backfire’’
bomber, which I have already
reminded you is not a strategic
weapon at all.

Strange Concession

It looks as is a concession is
being made to us, but this is a very
strange concession. We are given
what does not belong to the
United States. Having called a
non-strategic aircraft strategic,
they ‘say: we are prepared not to
include this bomber in the agree-
ment at this stage, if the Soviet
Union gives the green light to the
manufacture and development of
U.S. Cruise missiles.

So, according to this narrower
agreement, the Cruise missile
would be totally excluded from
the agreement.: Such a decision
would signify that sealing one
channel — ballistic missiles =
would simultaneously be opening
a new channel Which could be
wider and deeper: production of
Cruise Missiles, which are nuc-
lear arms carriers. I emphasize —
nuclear arms carriers. But it is our
task to prevent nuclear war and

PHOTO —TASS

Minister A.A. Gromyko greet U.S. Secretary of State Cc. Vance before

deliver mankind from nuclear
war.

Is it not the same to be killed by
weapons delivered by a Cruise
missile or by a ballistic missile?
The results is the same. The pro-
duction of cruise missiles will de-
vour no less money. Do: the
peoples stand to gain by this?
What will be the use of such an

“agreement for security? And' will

this be security at all?

It will not be even a semblance
of security. Frankly speaking,
that is why we also rejected the
so-called ‘‘narrow’’ agreement.
We declared that it does not pre-
sent a solution for the problem
and does not even come close to
solving the problem. That is what
the U.S. Secretary of State took
home when he left Moscow.

The USSR firmly stands for
good relations with the United
States, just as with other coun-
tries in the world. We stand for
relations based on the principles
of” peaceful coexistence, for
friendly relations. Possibilities for
that are far from exhausted.

We do not intend to belittle the
substantial differences that now
exist in the positions of the USA
and the Soviet Union. The Sec-
retary of State was told this frank-
ly. But does this mean that there
are insurmountable obstacles?

No, it does not. We want to hope.

. Fy XE

.

ION

that the leadership of the United
States will take a more realistic.
stand, that it will give greater con-
sideration to the security interests
ofthe. Soviet Union and its allies
and will not strive for unilateral
advantages.

Military Budgets

I would like to touch upon yet
another problem. It is the ques-
tion of military budgets. How
many times has the Soviet gov-
ernment in confidential talks with
the leaders of respective coun-
tries belonging to a different so-
cial system, raised the question of
reducing military budgets! We
submitted this proposal also for
discussion by all states. And this
proposal, like the proposal on
banning new types of mass de-
struction weapons, has met with
extensive support. Regrettably,

we see how the budgets of some

states, the USA included, grow

and follow the. ascending line. I

want to emphasis the fact that war
budgets must be reduced and the
funds in question, be rechannelled
to peaceful purposes.

Soviet Proposals

I am not going to read you the
complete list of the proposals
submitted by the Soviet Union
over the past few. years intended
to’ ensure détenté, “peace, dis-
armament, and better relations
between states. That list includes
more than 70 proposals.

In 1946, immediately after the
war, the Soviet Union made a
proposal on concluding a conven-
tion prohibiting the use of nuclear
energy for military purposes. And
who has the sponsor of the prop-
osal on the non-proliferation of
nuclear weapons? The Soviet
Union and not the: country that
today claims to be virtually the
champion of general and com-
plete disarmament, On the initia-
tive of the Soviet Union the Mos-
cow Treaty banning nuclear
weapon tests in three media has
been concluded. Moreover, we
have made a proposal on the uni-
versal and complete prohibition
of nuclear weapons tests. This
proposal has received broad-
based support in the United Na-
tions. Do yout think the United
States has supported our pro-
posal? No, it has not.

The Soviet delegation headed by Soviet Communist Party leader Leonid Brezhnev during discussion with

the American delegation headed by Secretary of State C. Vance.

If the U.S. government and its
allies want to do a good thing they
should adhere to the will of the
overwhelming majority of the
world’s, states and conclude a
comprehensive agreement on the
complete prohibition of nuclear
weapon tests. We will continue to
vigorously work for the positive
solution of that problem. |

Our country has made a prop-
osal on banning the modification
of the environment for military
purposes. I must point out that,
by and large, the United States
has supported this proposal, al-
though a number of the provisions
of our draft treaty: have been
weakened by it to the displeasure
of a number of states. Neverthe-
less, the overall result, the final
result, is positive and, apparently,
an appropriate international con-
vention will soon be signed.

Non-Use of Nuclear Arms

Not long ago, participating
States of the Warsaw Treaty

- jointly proposed that all the par-

ticipating countries of the All
European conference take com-
mitments not to be the first to use
nuclear weapons against one
another.

Indeed, if no one is the first,
then there will be no state to be
the second and hence, the third,

_fourth and fifth to use them. The
NATO member-states, however,
without any particular discus-
sions, though they say there was a
difference of views, declared a
negative attitude to this proposal.
We do not regard discussion of
this matter to be over. Perhaps,
technically this item is not on
NATO’s agenda, but in reality it
remains and will continue to be
discussed until the problem of the
non-use of nuclear energy for
military purposes is resolved.

Soviet Peace Policy

The Soviet Union pursues a
consistent policy of peace, of
intemational détente, a policy of
curbing the arms race, a policy of
disarmament. This is our funda-
mental line, we shall follow it per-
sistently, and no one will push us
off that road. But we shall also
give a rebuff to anyone who will
try to improve his position to the
detriment of our interests, the in-
terests of our friends and allies.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—APRIL 15, 1977—Page 7