led by USSR Foreign Minister Gromyko

RMS LIMITAT

. Leonid Brezhnev and Soviet Foreign

¢© beginning of the arms limitation talks In Moscow.

ySt as in the Vladivostok Ac- yds. This was taken for *nted. No problems arose. But >» itis now proposed to break up © 4greement also in this respect, fd to do so in a way that would ge an advantage to the United lates, with the Soviet Union ¢'ding itself in a worse position.

New Weapons

i et twas proposed to us to include © agreement a clause prohibit- de the creation of new kinds of Atapons. At first sight it seemed fre was nothing bad in it. But I Muld like to remind that the oe Union itself had long ago ide the proposal on banning the Yinufacture of new kinds and _™ systems of mass extermina- - Moreover, we have submit- !to the United Nations a draft - l€ relevant international trea- is, And what was the response? ol the U.S. government support 44° Proposal? No.

Moscow they said only the dist 8eneral words about the '( to include into an agreement {¢" a proposition, moreover, to- f- ° €T Or, as they say, in a ‘‘pack- om _With other obviously unac-; be Hable Proposals. fm “t us speak frankly. If both

,‘ountries stand for banning “dk nds of weapons of mass 4 . juination, then let us discuss rele : treaty. we have. If you | Mendments to the Soviet 2 Put them forth. Let us dis- Ae se amendments. If you i 44 NO amendments, then let us iF clu

de this t Fete treaty. e. ._ New U.S. Weapons

s!

inthe U.S. is prepared to ban of “nds of weapons, what, then, US tags (0 produce the ‘‘B1” nd, “SIC bomber? The same is id ae the ‘Trident’? atomic a4, "Me. Brezhnev spoke of he Sy _American. weapons 4, \ during the official negoti- it dint? the American side, Ss? Bi, 80 Tepeatedly. So what we 1d ri Tain declarations by the iid | a Side which do not tally nt,, “© Actual readiness to ban

-and the Soviet

new kinds of weapons of mass extermination. : ;

Carter’s ‘Sincerity’

In his latest statement Carter used the word ‘“‘sincerity’’ when referring to the Soviet leader- ship’s attitude to questions of strategic arms limitation. I would like to Say: We’ do not tack ‘sin- cerity. We have plenty of it. It is on this basis that we build our pol-

‘icy and would want others to build their policies so that deeds _

would not differ from words.

Reading some of the statements made in the USA you probably noticed that not only some, what they call ‘‘all-encompassing proposals’’, but also an alterna- tive ‘‘narrow proposal’ have been made to us. What is this ‘‘narrow proposal’? We are sim- ply told — let us conclude an agreement that will concern bal- listic missiles and strategic bom- bers. At the same time it is prop- osed to ignore the Cruise missiles ‘*Backfire’’ bomber, which I have already reminded you is not a strategic weapon at all.

Strange Concession

It looks as is a concession is being made to us, but this is a very strange concession. We are given what does not belong to the United States. Having called a non-strategic aircraft strategic, they ‘say: we are prepared not to include this bomber in the agree- ment at this stage, if the Soviet Union gives the green light to the manufacture and development of U.S. Cruise missiles.

So, according to this narrower agreement, the Cruise missile would be totally excluded from the agreement.: Such a decision would signify that sealing one channel — ballistic missiles = would simultaneously be opening a new channel Which could be wider and deeper: production of Cruise Missiles, which are nuc- lear arms carriers. I emphasize — nuclear arms carriers. But it is our task to prevent nuclear war and

PHOTO —TASS

Minister A.A. Gromyko greet U.S. Secretary of State Cc. Vance before

deliver mankind from nuclear war.

Is it not the same to be killed by weapons delivered by a Cruise missile or by a ballistic missile? The results is the same. The pro- duction of cruise missiles will de- vour no less money. Do: the peoples stand to gain by this? What will be the use of such an

“agreement for security? And' will

this be security at all?

It will not be even a semblance of security. Frankly speaking, that is why we also rejected the so-called ‘‘narrow’’ agreement. We declared that it does not pre- sent a solution for the problem and does not even come close to solving the problem. That is what the U.S. Secretary of State took home when he left Moscow.

The USSR firmly stands for good relations with the United States, just as with other coun- tries in the world. We stand for relations based on the principles of” peaceful coexistence, for friendly relations. Possibilities for that are far from exhausted.

We do not intend to belittle the substantial differences that now exist in the positions of the USA and the Soviet Union. The Sec- retary of State was told this frank- ly. But does this mean that there are insurmountable obstacles?

No, it does not. We want to hope.

. Fy XE

.

ION

that the leadership of the United States will take a more realistic. stand, that it will give greater con- sideration to the security interests ofthe. Soviet Union and its allies and will not strive for unilateral advantages.

Military Budgets

I would like to touch upon yet another problem. It is the ques- tion of military budgets. How many times has the Soviet gov- ernment in confidential talks with the leaders of respective coun- tries belonging to a different so- cial system, raised the question of reducing military budgets! We submitted this proposal also for discussion by all states. And this proposal, like the proposal on banning new types of mass de- struction weapons, has met with extensive support. Regrettably,

we see how the budgets of some

states, the USA included, grow

and follow the. ascending line. I

want to emphasis the fact that war budgets must be reduced and the funds in question, be rechannelled to peaceful purposes.

Soviet Proposals

I am not going to read you the complete list of the proposals submitted by the Soviet Union over the past few. years intended to’ ensure détenté, “peace, dis- armament, and better relations between states. That list includes more than 70 proposals.

In 1946, immediately after the war, the Soviet Union made a proposal on concluding a conven- tion prohibiting the use of nuclear energy for military purposes. And who has the sponsor of the prop- osal on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons? The Soviet Union and not the: country that today claims to be virtually the champion of general and com- plete disarmament, On the initia- tive of the Soviet Union the Mos- cow Treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in three media has been concluded. Moreover, we have made a proposal on the uni- versal and complete prohibition of nuclear weapons tests. This proposal has received broad- based support in the United Na- tions. Do yout think the United States has supported our pro- posal? No, it has not.

The Soviet delegation headed by Soviet Communist Party leader Leonid Brezhnev during discussion with

the American delegation headed by Secretary of State C. Vance.

If the U.S. government and its allies want to do a good thing they should adhere to the will of the overwhelming majority of the world’s, states and conclude a comprehensive agreement on the complete prohibition of nuclear weapon tests. We will continue to vigorously work for the positive solution of that problem. |

Our country has made a prop- osal on banning the modification of the environment for military purposes. I must point out that, by and large, the United States has supported this proposal, al- though a number of the provisions of our draft treaty: have been weakened by it to the displeasure of a number of states. Neverthe- less, the overall result, the final result, is positive and, apparently, an appropriate international con- vention will soon be signed.

Non-Use of Nuclear Arms

Not long ago, participating States of the Warsaw Treaty

- jointly proposed that all the par-

ticipating countries of the All European conference take com- mitments not to be the first to use nuclear weapons against one another.

Indeed, if no one is the first, then there will be no state to be the second and hence, the third,

_fourth and fifth to use them. The NATO member-states, however, without any particular discus- sions, though they say there was a difference of views, declared a negative attitude to this proposal. We do not regard discussion of this matter to be over. Perhaps, technically this item is not on NATO’s agenda, but in reality it remains and will continue to be discussed until the problem of the non-use of nuclear energy for military purposes is resolved.

Soviet Peace Policy

The Soviet Union pursues a consistent policy of peace, of intemational détente, a policy of curbing the arms race, a policy of disarmament. This is our funda- mental line, we shall follow it per- sistently, and no one will push us off that road. But we shall also give a rebuff to anyone who will try to improve his position to the detriment of our interests, the in- terests of our friends and allies.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—APRIL 15, 1977—Page 7