TRIBUNE SUPPLEMENT —-~

BEGINNING IN 1990

e Nuclear freeze by all nations

e U.S.-USSR continue nuclear
arms reductions

e All nuclear states eliminate
tactical N-arms

e U.S.-USSR ban all space

weapons

All nuclear states ban testing

Total ban on all mass

destruction weapons

reducing by one-half the relevant nuciear arms
of the Soviet Union and the United States,
which would be an important step towards
complete elimination of nuclear weapons.
Barring the possibility of resolving the problem
of space means not wanting to stop the arms
Trace on earth. This should be stated in clear and
straight-forward terms. It is not by chance that
Supporters of the nuclear arms race are also
ardent supporters of the Star Wars program.
These are the two sides of the same policy,
hostile to the interests of people.

Let me turn to the European aspect of the
nuclear problem. It is a matter of extreme
concern that in defiance of reason and contrary
to the national interests of the European
peoples, American first-strike missiles continue
to be deployed in certain West European

’ countries. This problem has been under
discussion for many years now. Meanwhile the
security situation in Europe continues to
deteriorate.

It is time to put an end to this course of events
and cut this Gordian knot. The Soviet Union
has fora long time been proposing that Europe
should be freed from both intermediate-range
and tactical nuclear weapons. This proposal
remains valid. As a first radical step in this
direction we are now proposing, as I have said,
that even in the first stage of our program, all

Viet and U.S. intermediate-range ballistic and
cruise missiles in the European zone should be
eliminated.

Achieving tangible, practical results at the
Geneva Talks would give meaningful substance
to the program designed to totally eliminate
nuclear arms by the year 2000, which we are
Proposing.

The Soviet Union considers as fully feasible
the task of completely eliminating, even in this
century, such barbaric weapons of mass
destruction as chemical weapons.

At the talks on chemical weapons, within the
framework of the Geneva Conference on
Disarmament, certain signs of progress have
recently appeared. However, these talks have

€n unreasonably protracted. We are in favor
of intensifying the talks in order to conclude an
effective and verifiable international convention
Prohibiting chemical weapons and destroying
the existing stockpiles of those weapons, as
agreed with President Reagan at Geneva.

_ in the matter of banning chemical weapons,
Just like in other disarmament matters, all
Participants in the talks should take a fresh look
at things. I would like to make it perfectly clear
that the Soviet Union is in favor of an early and
Complete elimination of those weapons and of
the industrial base for their production. We are
Prepared for a timely declaration of the location
of industries producing chemical weapons and

for the cessation of their production. We are
ready to start developing procedures for
destroying the relevant industrial base and to
proceed, soon after the convention enters into
force, to eliminate the stockpiles of chemical
weapons. All these measures would be carried
out under strict control including international
on-site inspections.

A radical solution to this problem would also
be facilitated by certain interim steps. For
example, agreement could be achieved ona
multilateral basis not to transfer chemical
weapons to anyone and not to deploy them in
the territories of other states. As for the Soviet
Union, it has always strictly abided by those
principles in its practical policies. We call upon
other states to follow that example and show
equal restraint.

A long with eliminating weapons of mass

destruction from the arsenals of states, the
Soviet Union is proposing that conventional
weapons and armed forces become subject to
agreed reductions.

Reaching agreement at the Vienna
negotiations could signal the beginning of
progress in this direction. Today it would seem
that a framework is emerging for a possible
decision to reduce Soviet and U.S. troops and
subsequently freeze the level of armed forces of
the opposing sides in Central Europe. The
Soviet Union and our Warsaw Treaty allies are
determined to achieve success at the Vienna
Talks. If the other side also wants this, 1986
could become a landmark for the Vienna Talks
too. We proceed from the understanding that a
possible agreement on troops reductions would
naturally require reasonable verification. We
are prepared for this.

As for observing the commitment to freeze
the numbers of troops, in addition to national
technical means, permanent verification posts
could be established to monitor any military
contingents entering the reduction zone.

Let me now mention such an important forum
as the Stockholm Conference on Confidence
and Security-Building Measures and
Disarmament in Europe. It is called upon to
place barriers against the use of force or covert
preparations for war — whether on land, at sea
or in the air. The possibilities have now become
evident.

In our view, especially in the current
situation, it is essential to reduce the numbers of
troops participating in major military
manoeuvres notifiable under the Helsinki Final
Act.

It is time to begin dealing effectively with the
problems still outstanding at the conference. It
is known that the bottleneck there is the issue of
notifications regarding major ground force,

naval and air force exercises. Of course, those
are serious problems and they must be
addressed in a serious manner in the interests of
building confidence in Europe. However, if

‘their comprehensive solution cannot be

achieved at this time, why not explore ways of
their partial solution? Why not reach agreement
now about notifications of major ground force
and air force exercises, postponing the question
of naval activities until the next stage of the
Conference?

It is not accidental that the new Soviet
initiatives in their considerable part are directly
addressed to Europe. In achieving a radical turn
towards the policy of peace, Europe could have
a special mission. That mission is erecting a new
edifice of detente.

For this, Europe has a necessary historical
experience, which is often unique. Suffice it to
recall that the joint efforts of the Europeans, the
United States and Canada produced the
Helsinki Final Act. If there is a need for a
specific and vivid example of new thinking and
political psychology in approaching the
problems of peace, cooperation and
international trust, that historic document could
in many ways serve as such an example.

E nsuring security in Asia is of vital importance

to the Soviet Union, which is a major Asian
power. The Soviet program for eliminating
nuclear and chemical weapons by the end of this
century is in harmony with the sentiments of the
peoples of the Asian continent, for whom the
problems of peace and security are no less
urgent than for the peoples of Europe. In this -
context, one cannot fai! to recall that Japan and
its cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki became the
victims of nuclear bombing and Vietnam a
target for chemical weapons.

We highly appreciate the constructive
initiatives put forward by the socialist countries
of Asia and by India and other members of the
non-aligned movement. We view as very
important the fact that the two Asian nuclear
powers, the USSR and the People’s Republic of
China, have both undertaken not to be the first
to use nuclear weapons.

The implementation of our program would
fundamentally change the situation in Asia, rid
the nations in that part of the world, too, of the
fear of nuclear and chemical warfare, and bring
the security in that region to a qualitatively new
level.

We regard our program as a contribution to a
search, together with all Asian countries, for an
overall, comprehensive approach to
establishing a system of secure and durable
peace in this continent.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, JANUARY 29, 1986 e 9

|