‘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