‘This obligation shall become effective immediately’

USSR pledges no first use of A-arms

By TOM MORRIS

_ UNITED NATIONS — Ina dramatic
unilateral declaration before the UN
General Assembly, June 15, the USSR
Pledged to the world not to be the first to
Use nuclear weapons. Reading a message

Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev,
Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko told
delegates:

“The USSR assumes an obligation not
to be the first to use nuclear weapons,”
Brezhnev wrote. “This obligation shall

me effective immediately ...”’

The Soviet leader continued, ‘‘If the
other nuclear powers assume an equally
Precise and clear obligation not to be the

t to use nuclear weapons, that would

tantamount in practice to a ban on the
Use of nuclear weapons altogether.”’

The USSR also called for the banning

of chemical weapons saying, ‘‘We are:

Prepared to agree without delay on the
Complete prohibition of chemical
_ Weapons and the elimination of their
Stockpiles’’, and further stated, ‘‘There
are no types of weapons the Soviet Union
Would not be prepared to limit or ban on
the basis of reciprocity.””

Gromyko said the USSR will submit to
the UN a draft document on banning
development, production and stock-
Piling of chemical weapons as well as
their destruction.

Soviet unilateral ban on nuclear
Weapons’ first use was greeted by loud
applause by the world body and a long

ne formed to congratulate Gromyko
(minus the U.S. delegation). A U:S.
Spokesman is quoted saying the U.S. re-
Serves the right to use nuclear arms in
Case of a ‘“‘conventional attack’.

The USSR has for years been calling
for a ban on nuclear weapons use and,
Many times has appealled to the U.S. and
other nuclear powers to join with it in
Tenouncing first use. Brezhnev’s mes-
Sage, however, has put the Soviet Union
as the only major nuclear giant to pub-

licly and unilaterally pledge itself not to
be the first to use such weapons.

A brief outline of Soviet initiatives on
the key question of nuclear weapons
shows the long path followed by that
country in an effort to rid the world of the
nuclear war spectre:

e 1946: The USSR proposes to the
UN Atomic Energy Commission a com-
plete and unconditional ban on manu-
facture and use of nuclear weapons;

e 1947: The USSR calls for strict
international controls of atomic energy
use;

e 1948: Another appeal to the UN for
a draft convention banning atomic
weapons;

e 1949: USSR proposes at UN a one-
third reduction in arms and banningn of
nuclear weapons;

e 1952: Renews its appeal to ban

atomic weapons as well as bacterio-

logical weapons;

-e@ 1954: At Geneva Summit USSR
urges a fixed agreement for a complete
ban on nuclear weapons and that par-
ticipants pledge no first use of such
weapons;

e 1956: At the 11th UN General As-
sembly the USSR calls for a ban on all
atomic and hydrogen weapons within
two years;

e 1958: The USSR appeals directly to
the U.S. Congress and the parliaments of
Britain and the Federal Republic of
Germany to wield their influence *‘so the
question of ending tests of nuclear
weapons by states should be settled for
all time’’

e 1959: USSR. calls. for .“‘zones.of
peace’ in Central Europe, Baltic Sea,
and a general disarmament pact to take

effect in three stages over four years;

e 1960: Ata Ten Nation Disarmament
meeting, USSR calls for ban on and de-

struction of nuclear weapons’ delivery
systems;
e 1961: At 16th UN General Assem-

bly, USSR urges renunciation of all nu-
clear arms’ use;

e 1965: 20th anniversary of ending of
World War Two, USSR appeals for a
pledge by all powers not to use nuclear
weapons;

e 1968: USSR parliament proposes a
7-point comprehensive arms ~ non-
proliferation pact which includes ban-
ning nuclear arms;

e 1969: Calls for end to production,
stockpiling, testing and use of nuclear
arms and a pact on the sole use of nuclear
energy for peaceful purposes;

e 1970: At 25th UN General Assem-
bly, issues call for banning all weapons of
mass destruction and establishment of
denuclearized zones;

e 1971: Urges convening of a con-
ference of five nuclear powers to reach
agreement on ending nuclear race;

e 1972: Repeats its call at UN Com-

mittee on Disarmament for agreement by
nuclear powers;

e 1976: Urges completion of SALT-II
talks and for treaties banning all tests and
production of nuclear and chemical
weapons;

e 1977: USSR calls for a non-first use
agreement by signatories to the 1975
Helsinki conference participants;

e 1978: At the First UN Special Ses-
sion on Disarmament, USSR advances a
detailed and comprehensive program
dealing with every aspect of the growing
arms build-up;

e 1979: At 34th UN General Assem-
bly urges a treaty by Helsinki Con-
ference states pledging non first use of

‘nuclear or conventional weapons;

e 1980: Gromyko again urges at 35th
UN General Assembly to support a con-
clusive treaty, including pledge by nu-
clear powers on no first use;

e 1981: Soviet government issues an
Appeal to World Parliaments urging
negotiations to stop the escalating arms
race. It stressed ‘“‘there is no type of
weapon the USSR would not agree to ban,
on a mutual foundation by agreement
with other states ...""

At the 36th UN General Assembly
Gromyko proposed a resolution that
would condemn states and statesmen
who would be the first to use nuclear
weapons as “‘the gravest crime against
Mankind”’.

And at the UN Second Special Session
on Disarmament, the Soviet Union has
clearly stated, without reservation and

without terms, it will not use nuclear-

weapons first..

The Soviet announcement clearly puts
the onus on the U.S. and other NATO

states and openly challenges the ‘first’

strike’ madmen. It is clear that should
the Western powers respond in kind by
also renouncing first use, the road to
arms control, ending the build-up and
disarmament would be open.

International Focus | oe

Tom Morris

Patience in the
face of arrogance

Mike Wallace, a CBS 60 Mi-

Nutes reporter, broadcast a
Segment June 13 from Vietnam
which included an interview
with Foreign Minister Nguyen
Co Thach. Underlying Wal-
ace’s “‘hard questions” style

lier an arrogance beyond be-
ief.

_ He approached his task ob-
livious to the fact that his coun-
try had wreacked unpre-
Cedented havock on that small,
beautiful country and put the
direct question: ‘Why is your
€conomy a basket case?”’

Wallace asked about ‘‘slave
dor’, and charged young
Vietnamese women were
being shipped off to the USSR
to “repay’’ that country for its
€conomic aid. He wanted to
Now about difficulties in the
South, about why Vietnam is in
ampuchea — all the stock
questions set out by the official
ashington line.

He charged Vietnam with
Spraying chemicals on Kam-
Puchea and, when Nguyen Co

Thach branded that a lie,
sweetly suggested perhaps the
Soviets are doing it without
Vietnam’s knowledge.

‘“‘Why don't the Vietnamese
like the Russians?” Wallace
barged on. ‘‘We do’’, came the
rely — they helped us and are
helping us, responded the
Foreign Minister.

Ro
The Vietnam war was over

seven years ago. For many

young people today joining the

world-wide peace struggle that .

war is but history.

For the Vietnamese it’s any-
thing but history. The eco-
nomic and ecological wrec-

kage is still being overcome;

the human carnage and social
dislocations tackled.

Vietnam’s aid to the deci-
mated Kampuchean _people
continues, as does its vigilance
northward against continued
Chines provocations. In short,
as well as rebuilding their land
after 35 continuous years of
war, this heroic people must
also expend their energies
defending their land.

Incredible patience is one of

the attributes friend and foe
alike has always credited to
Vietnam’s spokespersons.
This strength may never have
been more evident than in
Neguyan Co Thach dealing with
Mike Wallace.

PARKS DEPARTMENT.
TVS PARK

Park sign in South Africa’s capi-
tal city, Pretoria.

in South Africa
you don’t exist

In January, the racist
government of South Africa
banned Winnie Mandela, wife
of imprisoned African Na-
tional Congress leader Nelson
Mandela for the fourth time.
That means this courageous
woman has spent all but 11
months of the past 20 years
under ban.

Last week the same regime
imposed the fifth banning order
on Albertina Sisulu, wife of
Walter Sisulu, also imprisoned
along with Nelson Mandela.
This ban will mean 25 years of
Albertina Sisula’s life will be
spent under the fascist arbit-
rary ruling which is akin to
house arrest.

Neither Winnie Mandela nor
Albertina Sisulu have been
charged with any crime. They
have not broken any laws. The
bans are imposed without re-
course.

There are no trials, no evi-
dence, no charges. People are
simply banned by the apar-
theid government, in this case

by Justice Minister Kobie

~ Coetsee whose order is final

and irrevocable. :

Do you know what Albertina
Sisulu did? She was arrested,
along with 250 others, for at-
tending a memorial service for
trade unionist Joe Mavi and
ANC representatives Petra
and Jabu Nyaose who were
blown up in their car by the
South African police.

A banned person cannot be’
in the company of more than
One person at a-time. Police
permission to travel outside
their township is required.
Mails are read, phones tapped
and the individual followed.
One cannot write for public-
ation or be quoted.

Picture living that way for 20
and 25 years. Imagine the out-
rage, the frustration and the
anger; consider how these and
countless others feel when
they hear hypocrites like
MacGuigan mutter on about

“‘deploring’’ apartheid while -

turning a blind eye to all appe-
als for boycotts and sanctions.

You wonder how much pro-
crastination we'd see if every
spouse of every MP in Ottawa
were living under banning or-
ders.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JUNE 25, 1982—Page 9