RE NTT ETT MY PERE TE BTS GT TERE TIS TR FIT ; Brezhnev interview ~ ~ head We stand by what we say On January 13 in an interview with the newspaper, Pravda, Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev out- lined the USSR’s position on a wide range of international topics. We reprint that section of the interview which dealt with the situation in : * * & A revolution took place in Af- ghanistan in April 1978. The Af- ghan people took their destiny into their hands and embarked on the road to independence and freedom. As it has always been in history, the forces of the past ganged up against the revolution. The people of Afghanistan, of course, could have coped with them themselves. But from the very first days of the revolution they encountered external ag- gression, rude interference from outside into their internal affairs. Thousands and tens of thousands of insurgents, armed and trained abroad, whole armed units were sent into the territory of Afghanistan. In effect, imperialism together with its ac- complices launched an unde- clared war against revolutionary Afghanistan. Afghanistan persistently de- manded an end to the aggression, that it be allowed to build its new life in peace. Resisting the exter- nal aggression, the Afghan leadership, during the lifetime of President Taraki and then later, repeatedly asked the Soviet Union for assistance. On our part we warned those concerned that if the aggression was not stopped we would not abandon the Afghan people at a time of trial. As is known, we stand by what we say. The actions of the aggressors against Afghanistan were assisted by Amin who, on seizing power, launched cruel repressions against broad segments of Afghan society, against party and military cadres, against representatives of the intelligentsia and the Moslem clergy; that is, exactly against those segments on which the April revolution relied. And the people under the leadership of the People’s Democratic Party headed by Babrak Karmal rose against this Amin tyranny and put an end to it. Now in Washington and some other capitals they are mourning over Amin. And this | exposes their hypocricy with particular clarity.. Where were these weepers when Amin was conducting his mass repressions, when he forcibly removed and unlawfully physically extermi- nated Taraki, the founder of, the new Afghan state? When makingits request for aid, Afghanistan proceeded from clear-cut provisions of the Treaty of Friendship, and Cooperation, concluded by Afghanistan with the USSR in December, 1978, on the right of each state, in accor- dance with the United Nations Charter, to individual or collec- tive self-defence, a right that other states have exercised more than once. It was no simple decision for us to send Soviet military contin- gents to Afghanistan. But the Par- ty’s Central Committee and the Soviet Government acted in full awareness of their responsibility and took into account the sum total of circumstances. The only task given to the Soviet contin- gents was to assist the Afghans in repulsing the aggression from outside. They will be fully with- drawn from Afghanistan once the causes that made the Afghan leadership request their introduc- tion disappear. The National interests or sec- urity of the United States of America and other states are not affected in any way by events in Afghanistan. All attempts to por- tray matters otherwise are sheer nonsense. These attempts are being made with ill intent, with the aim of making easier the ful- ” fillment of their own imperialist plans. Also absolutely false are the al- legations that the Soviet Union has some expansionist plans in respect to Pakistan, Iran or other countries of that area. The policy and psychology of colonialists is alien to us. We are not coveting the lands or wealth of others. It is the colonialists who are attracted by the smell of oil. Outright hypocritical are the at- tempts to talk at length about the “Soviet threat to peace’’ and to pose as observers of international morals by those whose record in- cludes the dirty war against Viet- nam, who did not move a finger when the Chinese aggressors made their armed intrusion into socialist Vietnam, who for de- cades are keeping a military base on the soil of Cuba contrary to the will of its people and government, who are engaged in sabre-rattling, who are threatening to impose a blockade and are exerting open military pressure on the revolu- » tionary Iranian people by sending < to the shores of Iran a naval ar- é mada weapons, including a consider- = able part ofthe U.S. carrier force. made in this connection: interfer- , ence in the internal affairs of Af- ghanistan is really taking place, and even such an august and re- spected institution as the United Nations Organization, is being used for this. Indeed, can the dis- cussion of the so-called ‘‘ Afghan question” in the United Na- tions, contrary to objections by the government of Afghanistan, be described otherwise than a rude flouting of the sovereign rights of the Afghan state! For the Afghan Government and its responsible representative in the United Nations Organiza- tion are stating for all to hear: leave us alone, the Soviet military contingents were brought in at our request and in accordance © with the Soviet-Afghan Treaty and Article 51 of the United Na- tions Charter. In the meantime, under the cover of the clamor, assistance is being increased to those elements armed with- atomic5 BREZHNEV .. . “if there were no Afghanistan certain circles in the : United States and NATO, would have surely found another pretext to And the last point that must be aggravate the situation in the world.” : that are intruding into Afghanis- tan, are perpetrating aggressive actions against the legitimate government. The White House recently openly announced its decision to expand the supply to these elements of military equip- ment and everything necessary for hostile activities. The Western ‘press reports that during his talks in Peking, U.S. Defence Secret- ary Brown colluded with the Chinese leadership on the coordi- nation of such actions. The sum total of the American adminstration’s steps in connec- tion with the events in Afghanis- tan — the freezing of the SALT-II Treaty, refusal to deliver to the USSR a whole number of com- modities, including grain, in ac- cordance with some already con- cluded contracts, the termination of talks with the Soviet Union on a number of questions of bilateral relations, and so on, shows that Washington again, like decades ago, is trying to speak with us in the language of the cold war. In this the Carter Administration is displaying contempt for impor- tant inter-state documents, is dis- rupting established ties in the field -of science, culture and human contacts. It is difficult even to enumerate the number of treaties, inter- governmental agreements, ac- cords and _ understandings reached between our two coun- tries on questions of mutual rela- -tions in various fields that have ~ been arbitrarily and unilaterally violated lately by the government of President Carter. Of course, we will manage without these or those ties with the United States. In fact, we never sought these ties as some sort of a favor to us, but believing that this is a mutually advantageous matter meeting the mutual interests of the peoples of our countries, and first of all in the - contextofstrengthening peace... Tory foreign policy & AfghanistanmEna The reactions of Prime Minister Clark and Minister for External Affairs | Flora (in a hurry) MacDonald remind one of a couplet composed by Canada’s outstanding working-class poet Joe Wallace. One line in this short verse is apropos of these eager proponents of Carter’s foreign policy. It goes like this: ‘‘When they cough in Washington, they spit on Parliament Hill’. ‘e These two puppets on Jimmy Car- ter’s string are bad icine for Cana- dians. For they are the two main spokesmen for Tory foreign. policy. And, if the truth be told, both are ill-fitted for the job. * * * The Clark government got Canada in hot water over the Jerusalem affair as a result of Clark’s greed for votes in last __ May’s election. Then Clark jumped into Carter’s Iran debacle with both feet. Now he and his Tory government have embroiled our country into Car- ter’s meddling in the affairs of the sovereign state of Afghanistan. But this time, either through eagerness or ignor- ance (or perhaps both) they seem to _ have forgotten their role vis-a-vis the USA. . This time we were told by the press that Canada’s representative in the Un- ited Nations would lead off the attack ; on the world body against the Soviet. Marxism-Leninism in Today's World Union in respect to its activities in Af- ghanistan, calling for U.N. sanctions against the USSR. Next came Flora MacDonald’s call upon the Interna- tional Olympic Committee to take this year’s Games out of Moscow, offering Montreal as an alternate site. Thus the Tories have converted Canada from a line-backer on the U.S. imperialist team to a ball carrier. A truly dangerous switch. * * * The question naturally arises: why is the Clark government so eager to carry the ball for U.S. imperialism against Iran, Afghanistan and the Soviet Union? Some people say that both Joe Clark and Flora MacDonald, the chief spokesmen for the Tories on foreign — policy, have little knowledge or exper- tise in international affairs. Others say that they are just simple blunderers. And still others say they are ambitious and crave the mantle of head lackeys - for U.S. imperialism on a world scale. Perhaps some truth resides in these ex- planations. However, such explanations beg the question. The basic reasons for such ‘“‘me-tooing’’ lies in the fact that U.S. imperialism and Canadian imperialism _ are members of the same club — World Imperialism Inc., which is headed by” U.S. imperialism. And the Clark gov~ ernment speaks and acts on behalf of the Canadian imperialists. And just as Canadian imperialism is subservient to U.S. imperialism, the Clark govern~ ment is subservient to the U.S. Gov~ ernment. * * * One example. U.S. President Carter rejected the explanation of the Soviets that they responded to the request of the Afghan Government for assistance in correcting the destabilization from abroad that presented a serious danger to Afghanistan. Carter took to the air- waves to denounce the Soviet au~ thorities as liars. Last week the Cana~ dian representative at the U.N., com- menting on the same Soviet explana~ tion stated that he ‘‘just couldn’t be~ lieve it’’. A bit more polite than Carter but the same implication. For the record we note here that on December 5, 1978 Afghanistan and the Soviet Union signed the Afghan-Soviet Treaty. Article four of the Treaty “‘the high contracting parties ... as in the | spirit of the U.N. Charter, shall consult each other and take by agreement ap- propriate measures to ensure the sec- urity, independence and _ territorial integrity of the two countries’’. That Article was invoked by the Afghan Government and the Government of the USSR responded. 3 so The purpose of branding as a lie the explanation of the Soviet and Afghan Governments for the Soviet armed pre- sence in Afghanistan is to validate the U.S. charge of “‘invasion’’ — a charge - the Canadian Government echoes. This false charge of ‘‘invasion’’ against the Soviet Union is meant also to draw attention away from the real villians who, with malice aforethought, have meddled in Afghan affairs for decades in order to keep that country in bondage to imperialism and as a launching pad for espionage and military activities against the Soviet Union. : Those villians are: U.S., British and other imperialist powers allied in NATO, and China, Pakistan and the reactionary Afghan forces who or- ganize and conduct counter-revolution against the People’s Democratic Gov- ernment of Afghanistan. * * * Remember Chile! Keep Toryism out of office! PACIFIC -TRIBUNE—JANUARY 25, 1980—Page 5