WORLD

USSR’s GROMYKO AT STOCKHOLM CONFERENCE

NATO’s deeds must match words

Excerpts of the speech Jan. 18 by Andrei Gromyko,
USSR Minister of Foreign Affairs, to the Stockholm
conference on Security and Disarmament in Europe.

* * *

One of the pressing tasks is to strengthen con-
fidence between countries, confidence both in the
political and military fields.

The deployment of new U.S. missiles begun in
certain West European countries does not contribute
to international security or to the security of the coun-
tries which have taken the risk of such deployment.
Conversely, whatever those in the West who base
their policies on deception of the peoples might claim,
enmity and war psychosis are being exported to
Western Europe along with the missiles. Those who
are trying to lull the people of the West European
countries with false promises of peace in the shadow
of American missiles are incurring grave respon-
sibility for this deception.

The dangerous slide towards the abyss can be
checked if the states participating in this forum show a
responsible approach. We repeat: If the USA and the
other NATO countries show readiness to return to the
situation which existed before the beginning of the
deployment of U.S. medium-range nuclear missiles in
Europe, the Soviet Union will also be ready to do so.

The Soviet-U.S. dialogue on the limitation of nuc-
lear arms in Europe was blown up by the U.S.
administration. Instead of conducting talks and dis-
playing a desire to work for accord, the U-S.
administration has chosen a course of breaking the

existing alignment of forces. It has set out to secure
military superiority over the Soviet Union; superior-
ity of the NATO countries over the Warsaw treaty
countries, through a huge build-up of its nuclear
armaments.

Preparing for War

These plans are matched by U.S. budgetary appro-.
priations for military purposes which are growing at
an unheard-of pace. New missiles, bombers and air-
craft carriers are being built at full speed with man-
iacal obsession. Experiments with new means of mass"
destruction are being conducted.

In short, the U.S. administration is thinking in
categories of war and acting accordingly.

Naturally, those who have assumed a course of war
have no interest in reaching arms limitation agree-
ments. That is why the SALT-2 treaty signed by the
United States at one point was subsequently over-
turned by Washington. For the same reason the U.S.
side refuses to conduct talks on the basis of the princi-
ples of equality and equal security, the only fair prin-
ciples, and ignores the existing agreements. Instead of
equality, they are pressing on us unjustified and ambi-
tious demands, moreover, pressing them merely to
block agreement.

Our country makes the prevention of war, first and
foremost nuclear war, the cornerstone of its policy. It
will be not out of place to recall that the USSR and the
United States have an agreement on this matter.

Together with our friends and allies, we have made
a proposal to clear Europe of nuclear weapons, both
medium-range and tactical ones. Would this not be
the best and most radical solution? Throughout the
duration of the Geneva talks we were pressing for
this, calling for major reductions in medium-range
nuclear arms. But the other side was thinking — and
continues to think today — only of how to move its
missiles closer to our doorstep.

We warned on more than one occasion that the
deployment of U.S. Pershings and Cruise missiles in
Western Europe would thwart the basis of the talks
and make them impossible. Having gone ahead with
missile deployments, Washington deprived those
talks of their subject matter. Current statements by
the U.S. administration on its readiness for talks
under conditions of continuing missile deployments
are just verbal camouflage of its policy.

Today’s Reality
Militarism is inhuman. This fact is making itself
most manifest today in Lebanon. That country is
being effectively torn apart, Lebanese soil is being
trampled by the boots of troops sent in by some of
those states whose representatives are sitting in this
hall. A U.S. naval armada is shelling Lebanese cities.

There is a serious danger that the flames of war
might spread to that entire area, which is a short
distance away from Europe. It should be recalled that
under the Helsinki Final Act all states have under-
taken to facilitate peace and the reduction of armed
forces in the Mediterranean area, to lessen tension in
that area. ;

And can any honest person be indifferent to what
has happened to Grenada? The piratic, terrorist ac-
tion of the great neighbor against the Grenadian
people is a challenge to the world. The United States
must withdraw its troops from Grenada, they have no
business there.

It is an open secret who is sending bands of mer-
cenaries against Nicaragua, who is turning Honduras
into a military base, who is keeping an anti-people
regime of butchers in power in El Salvador.

Let us look at the results of the recent 38th session
of the United Nations General Assembly where two
opposite approaches to the most important and urgent
problems of our time were clearly seen.

3
Foreign Affairs Minister Gromyko

How did this international organization react to the
initiative tocondemn nuclear war, to proclaim it a
crime against peoples? The overwhelming majority of
United Nations’ member countries, situated in differ-
ent continents and belonging to different social and
political systems, approved this call and adopted an
appropriate declaration with enthusiasm. And what
about the United States of America? It ranged itself
against the international community by voting
against.

‘Let us take another proposal — to freeze nuclear
arms, to step up efforts directed at the speediest at-
tainment of agreements on their substantial limitation
and radical reduction. This proposal, too, was met
with the support of the overwhelming majority of
United Nations member states. And what was the
position of the United States? It again said ‘‘no’’ and
found itself in total isolation.

Conference Tasks

The Conference that has begun cannot be arti-
ficially fenced off from the present-day European and
world realities, from the impact of events taking place
outside the walls of this hall. But we hold that the
Stockholm forum must effectively help the countries
that are interested in the development of the all-
European process in searching for and finding ways
leading to the strengthening of international trust and
security. ——

The Soviet Union has come to the Conference with
good intentions. We will be upholding a position of
peace among states and peoples and trying to ensure
that the Conference will make a substantial contribu-
tion to putting state-to-state relations right, and will
help to end the insane arms race. We stand for an
atmosphere of trust in relations between countries. It
is necessary for the settlement of conflicts, for the
development of mutually useful ties and contacts. The
Soviet stand consists in having the Helsinki Final Act
developed in practice in Stockholm through new
major agreements.

At this forum, we are frankly setting forth our ideas
on this score. Above all, this is the issue of preventing
nuclear war. Resounding ever more resolutely
throughout the world is the voice of millions upon
millions of people who are demanding that reliable
measures be adopted to divert a nuclear threat from
humankind. If we seriously want to establish neces-
sary trust in relations between countries, the ap-
proach to removing this threat should also be serious.

No First-Use

How far stronger this trust would be if the nuclear
states assumed a pledge not to be the first to use
nuclear weapons. This seems to be a simple measure
that is easy to implement. No second strike will come
without the first one. Would it not bring about a real
political turn in the cause of strengthening trust, and
not only between nuclear powers?

The Soviet Union already assumed unilaterally the
commitment not to be the first to use nuclear
weapons. We are recalling this from the podium of the
Stockholm Conference as well. The other nuclear
powers taking part in the Conference have not as yet
assumed such a pledge. The question is: Can one
place trust in their policy under these conditions?

We proceed from the premise that all states —
nuclear and non-nuclear — are equally interested in
the adoption of this pledge and its unconditional ob-
servance. No arguments, however refined, against its
adoption can be accepted as convincing if one sticks
to the positions of peace.

There is one more very important confidence build-
ing measure: the mutual obligations of states not to be
the first to use either nuclear or conventional weapons
against one another. In other words, not to use force.
Our position on this matter is also clear. In January,
1983, together with the other Warsaw treaty mem-
ber-countries, we put forward the proposal for a tre-
aty on the mutual non-use of military force and main-
tenance of relations of peace. Under the present cir-
cumstances this proposal is becoming increasingly
relevant.

Other Measures

Other initiatives of the Soviet Union and the coun-
tries of the socialist community also offer a good
many opportunities for creating an atmosphere of
confidence and stronger security.

For example, it would be worthwhile addressing
the problem of reducing military spending. Agree-
ment here would also constitute a major contribution
to building confidence and would at the same time be a
real means of curbing the arms race.

The task pf overcoming mistrust between states
would be undoubtedly facilitated by removing from
Europe such barbaric weapons of mass annihilation
as chemical ones, and, above all, by not deploying
such weapons where they have not been based yet.
The urgency of this task is emphasized by the fact that
inhuman plans in the field of chemical weapons are
gaining currency, although attempts are being made
to camouflage them.

A number of European states favor the establish-
ment of nuclear-free zones in various parts of Europe.
This issue is directly linked with the lessening of the
war menace, with consolidation of confidence. The
Conference would act correctly by giving it serious
attention.

On the whole, the Soviet Union is prepared to
support such confidence-and security-building mea-
sures that will indeed contribute to a real lessening of
military confrontation. However, should anyone
think of using the Conference in a bid to gain unilateral
advantages of any kind, this would encounter vigor-
ous opposition on our part.

The achievement of positive results at the Stock-
holm Conference would strengthen the conviction
that detente in Europe has a considerable reserve of
vitality. There are forces which are eager to perform
the last rites for detente. Bu the people treasure the
fruits borne by detente during the 1970s.

That is what the peoples of other continents also
expect from our Conference. They hope that common
sense and reason will prevail here in Stockholm and
that all the participants in the Conference will demon-
strate political will and a sense of responsibility.

8 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, FEBRUARY 1, 1984