bec
[ar-
the
DP
his
nal
; as

Aen

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT

Below is the full text of “The Reality and
Guarantees of a Secure World,” by
Mikhail Gorbachev, General Secretary of
the CPSU Central Committee, published
in Pravda and Izvestia, September 17:

The 42nd Session of the United Na-
tions General Assembly opened a few
days ago. It is this fact that suggested
the idea of this article. Objective pro-
cesses are making our complex and di-
verse world increasingly interrelated
and interdependent. And it increasingly
needs a mechanism which is capable of
discussing its common problems in a
responsible fashion and at a representa-
tive level and of being a place for the
mutual search for a balance of differing,
contradictory, yet real, interests of the
contemporary community of states and
nations.

called upon to be such a mechanism. by
its underlying idea and its origin. We
are confident that it is capable of fulfill-
ing that role. This is why in the first
autumn days, when the period of the
holidays is over and international
political life is rapidly gathering
momentum; when an opportunity for
important decisions in the disarmament
field can be discerned, we in the Soviet
leadership consider it useful to share
our ideas on the basic issues of world
politics at the end of the 20th Century.

It seems all the more appropriate
since the current session of the United
Nations General Assembly is devoted
to major aspects of such politics.

ees ats

It is natural that what we would like
to do first of all in this connection is try
and see for ourselves what the idea of
the establishment of a comprehensive
system of international security — the
idea advanced at the 27th CPSU Con-
gress — looks like now that 18 months
have passed since the Congress. This
idea has won backing from many states.
Our friends, the socialist countries and
Members of the non-aligned move-
ment, are our active co-authors.

This article deals primarily with our
approach to the formation of such a
system. At the same time it is an invita-
tion for the United Nations’ member-
countries and the world public to ex-
change views

The issue
is survival

The last quarter of the 20th Century
has been marked by changes in the ma-
terial aspect of being — changes revolu-
tionary in. their content and _ signi-
ficance. For the first time in history

The United Nations Organization is.

humanity has become capable of re-
solving many problems that hindered
its progress over centuries. From the
standpoint of existing and newly-
created resources and technologies,
there are no impediments to feeding a
population of many billions, to provid-
ing education and housing and keeping
everyone healthy. Given obvious dif-
ferences and potentialities of peoples
and countries, there has taken shape a
prospect for ensuring befitting condi-
tions of life for the earth’s inhabitants.

At the same time dangers have
emerged which put into question the

very, survival of the human.race. This.is.

why new rules of coexistence on our
unique planet are badly needed which
should conform to new requirements
and changed conditions.

Unfortunately, many influential
forces still adhere to outdated con-
ceptions concerning ways to ensure na-
tional security. As a result, the world is
in an absurd situation where persistent
efforts are being made to convince us
that the road to-an abyss is the most
correct one to take.

It is difficult to appraise in any other
way the view that nuclear weapons al-
legedly make it possible to avert a world
war. This is not simple to refute pre-
cisely because it is totally unfounded.
Because one has to dispute something
which is being passed off as an axiom —
since no world war has broken out since
the emergence of nuclear weapons,
hence, it is these weapons which have
averted it. But it seems more correct to
say that world war has been averted
despite the existence of nuclear weap-

ons. ;
Some time back the sides had several

scores of atomic bombs each. Then
they possessed 100 nuclear missiles,
and finally, their arsenals grew to sev-
eral thousands of nuclear warheads.

Not long ago Soviet and American
scientists studied the relationship be-
tween strategic stability and the size of
nuclear arsenals. They arrived at the
unanimous conclusion that 95 per cent
of all nuclear weapons of the US. and
USSR can be eliminated without stabil-
ity being disrupted. This is a telling
argument against the * nuclear deter-
rence” strategy that has given birth to
an insane logic. We believe that the re-
maining five per cent should not be re-
tained either — then stability would be
qualitatively different.

Without claiming to instruct anyone,
and having come to realize that mere
statements about the dangerous world
situation are unproductive, we began

“New thinking” bridges gap
between word and deed

seeking an answer to the question: is it
possible to have a model for ensuring
national security which would not be
fraught with the threat of a world-wide
catastrophe?

Time for

new thinking

Such _an approach was central to
conceptions that had taken shape dur-
ing the process of evolving the new po-
litical thinking, permeated with a realis-
tic view of what is surrounding us and
what is happening around ourselves —
a view characterized by an unbiased
attitude to others and the awareness of
our Own responsibility and security.

The new thinking is bridging the gap
between word and deed; and we also
embarked on practical deeds. Being
confident that nuclear weapons are the
greatest evil and the most horrible
threat » we announced a unilateral mora-
oa a nuclear tests which we ob-
served, let say frankly an w
might have ne : =e een

Then came the January 15, 1986
Statement putting forward a concrete

Mikhail Gorbachev gives the closing report to the 27th Congress of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union on March 6, 1986.

program for the stage-by-stage elimina-
tion of nuclear weapons. At the meeting
with President Reagan in Reykjavik we
came close to the realization of the
desirability and possibility of complete
nuclear disarmament. And then we
took steps which made it easier to ap-
proach an agreement on the elimination
of two classes of nuclear arms — me-
dium and shorter-range missiles.

We believe that it is possible and
realistic. In this connection I would like
to note that the government of the Fed-
eral Republic of Germany assumed the
stand which is conducive to it to a cer-
tain extent. The Soviet Union is pro-
ceeding from the premise that a rele-
vant treaty can be worked out before
the end of the current year. Much has
been said about its potential advan-
tages. I will not repeat them. I would
only like to note that it would deal a
tangible blow at concepts of limited use
of nuclear weapons and the so-called
‘‘controllable escalation’’ of a nuclear
conflict. There are no illusory inter-
mediate options. The situation is be-
coming more stable.

This treaty on medium and shorter-

a

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, JUNE 3, 1987 e S1