173

p The far-reaching changes in the world in the late 1950s and early 1960s brought about serious changes in the objective content, conditions and prospects of relations between the socialist and capitalist countries. In the new circumstances, these relations are extremely complex.

p On the one hand, the persistent aggressive nature of imperialism, its unwillingness to renounce force in resolving the historic dispute with socialism, the increasing militarism and unrestrained arms race, the increasing activity of the anti-socialist and counter-revolutionary forces, are all bound to intensify and expand the struggle between the two systems in every social sphere, and to worsen relations now and again. On the other hand, despite the opposite nature of the social and economic systems, there are many problems in international relations which both socialist and capitalist countries are objectively interested in resolving. For example, the avoidance of a nuclear-missile world war, which would bring untold suffering throughout the globe, the protection of environment, development of power and other natural resources, development of transport and communications, prevention and eradication of the most dangerous and widespread diseases, and the exploration and development of outer space.

p The problem of mutual relations has become more complicated than ever; even so, the new elements in this area fully confirm the veracity of the Leninist foreign policy of socialism, the Leninist concept of relations between countries with different social systems, including the principle of 174 the possibility and expediency of their peaceful coexistence.

p The essence of peaceful coexistence as a specific form of class struggle in the world has not changed today, although its importance has markedly risen. New circumstances have combined with the previous factors to make peaceful coexistence an objective necessity for further human development.

p In earlier times, the alternative to peaceful coexistence was conflicts and wars, in which the whole burden fell primarily on those who took a direct part in them. Although the First and Second World wars brought immense human suffering and destruction, they were, in the final analysis, accompanied by accelerated social progress. If it cannot be averted, another world war could threaten the very existence of entire countries and nations.

p The CPSU, in the resolutions of its 20th (1956) to 24th (1971) congresses, and the world communist movement, in the documents of the International Meetings of 1957, 1960, and 1969, have analysed the new circumstances and creatively developed the Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence. “In a world divided into two systems, the only correct and reasonable principle of international relations is the principle of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems advanced by Lenin. . . ,” says the Statement of the 1960 Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties.  [174•*  The Programme of the CPSU declares: “Peaceful coexistence of the socialist and capitalist countries is an objective necessity for the development of human society. War cannot and must not serve as a means of settling international disputes."  [174•** 

p The 23rd Congress of the CPSU approved the foreign policy of the Party’s Central Committee and the Soviet Government and confirmed the need consistently to uphold the principle of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems, firmly to repel the aggressive forces of imperialism and deliver mankind from a new world war.  [174•*** 

175

p The International Meeting of Communist and Workers Parties that met in Moscow in 1969 also put great store by the peaceful coexistence policy: “Directed as it is against the warmongers, reactionaries and monopoly arms manufacturers, this policy meets the general interests of the revolutionary struggle against every form of oppression and exploitation, and promotes friendship between all peoples and the development of fruitful economic, scientific, technological and other spheres of co-operation between countries with different social systems in the interests of social progress.”  [175•* 

p The international activity of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries reflects the creative development of Marxist-Leninist theory. Peaceful coexistence is part and parcel of socialist foreign policy and reflects its strategic policy in relations with capitalist powers.

p “Our principled line with respect to the capitalist countries, including the USA,” the Report of the CPSU Central Committee to the 24th Party Congress says, “is consistently and fully to practise the principles of peaceful coexistence, to develop mutually advantageous ties, and to co-operate, with states prepared to do so, in strengthening peace, making our relations with them as stable as possible.”  [175•** 

p Lenin frequently said that recognition only of the armed form of struggle against imperialism and underestimation of other forms of struggle, the inability to replace one form of struggle by another depending on objective circumstances, can only lead to a serious setback to the socialist cause. This point is especially relevant today when the world socialist system—the most revolutionary, leading anti-imperialist force of the present day—is a decisive factor in social development and when it enjoys vast opportunities to influence the whole international situation in the interests of the social and national emancipation of all peoples.

p Today, when the need for peaceful coexistence has become more vital than ever, the objective possibilities of attaining it have expanded. The steadily increasing economic, 176 political and military strength uf the Soviet Union, the economic attainments of other socialist countries and their greater friendship and unity are vital factors operating in that direction. The growth everywhere in political awareness and the active influence of common people on the settlement of foreign policy issues, the wide scope of the peace movement uniting millions of people, are also having a vital impact on the character and forms of mutual relations between different countries. “Mass action against imperialism is a condition for implementing the policy of peaceful coexistence,”  [176•*  says the Document of the 1969 Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties.

p World socialism and the working people in capitalist countries now have a chance to curb the aggressors and force peaceful coexistence upon imperialist countries. This is due to the deliberate and purposive socialist foreign policy as much as to the objective unfolding of the world revolutionary process in the last half century. The American Communist leader Gus Hall has said: “The policy of peaceful coexistence is the result of a changing objective reality, of accumulated experiences of class struggle, of realism and of good common sense.”  [176•** 

p The Leninist way of looking at the question of the relationship between peaceful coexistence and the tasks of the world revolutionary movement by which the CPSU invariably guides itself, demolishes the speculative schemes of the Maoists and other vulgar interpreters of MarxismLeninism which are divorced from reality. In proclaiming a threat of a weakening of the struggle against imperialism because of peaceful coexistence, they actually ignore the principal front of battle with imperialism where the internationalist character of proletarian dictatorship today is most effective. Behind the “Left”-wing-opportunist criticism of peaceful coexistence lies an underestimation of the role and possibilities of socialism in the world, lack of confidence 177 in the strength and potential in the world revolutionary process today and inability to take account of and use the objective situation and trends of world development in the interests of the working class and of the whole revolutionary movement.

p The Communist Party of the Soviet Union has shown that in the situation when the balance of power has changed, the revolutionary process as a whole and in individual countries can develop even more successfully in conditions of peaceful coexistence. This is a view shared by fraternal Marxist-Leninist parties both in socialist and in capitalist countries. It has been developed comprehensively at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties in Moscow in 1969 and at the 24th CPSU Congress. Addressing the 24th CPSU Congress, Georges Marchais, then Deputy General Secretary of the French Communist Party, fully supported the policy of the CPSU on relations between countries with different social systems, and noted its importance.

p True to the creative spirit of Leninism, Communists reject both “Left”-wing-revisionist and Right-wing-revisionist distortions of the idea of peaceful coexistence. They look upon it as a principle of relations between countries but completely inapplicable to the class struggle within individual countries, to relations between the exploiters and the exploited, between the oppressors and the oppressed, between the colonialists and the victims of colonial oppression, to the struggle between bourgeois and socialist ideologies. Peaceful coexistence in the Leninist understanding, as mentioned in the Theses of the Central Committee of the CPSU issued on the occasion of the Lenin Centenary, “has nothing in common with class peace and leaves no doubt about the sacred right of the oppressed peoples to employ every means in their fight for liberation, up to and including armed struggle.”  [177•* 

p Relations of peaceful coexistence, therefore, certainly do not presuppose an end to class struggle either within individual countries or internationally. They do not eliminate the contradictions between socialism and capitalism, nor do 178 they lead to what is called “convergence” between the two systems. On the contrary, peaceful coexistence, as stated at the international forum of Communists in 1969, “helps to promote the class struggle against imperialism on a national and world-wide scale.”  [178•*  The extreme tension generated in social confrontations in the principal capitalist countries in recent years are obvious confirmation of this thesis.

p Furthermore, relations of peaceful coexistence between countries must certainly not be seen as idyllic. They invariably involve struggle, conflicts and disputes between socialist and capitalist countries. These conflicts and disputes can and must be decided by other than military means, by means of negotiation. “Peaceful coexistence,” the Programme of the CPSU says, “implies renunciation of war as a means of settling international disputes, and their solution by negotiation; equality, mutual understanding and trust between countries; consideration for each other’s interests; noninterference in internal affairs; recognition of the right of every people to solve all the problems of their country by themselves; strict respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries; promotion of economic and cultural co-operation on the basis of complete equality and mutual benefit.”  [178•** 

p The renunciation of war as a means of settling disputed issues between countries cannot simply be based on good will from one side. It necessitates a realistic understanding of reality by both sides, equal rights and the need to consider the interests of both sides. Only this approach can effectively guarantee that any agreement between socialist and capitalist countries can be reached. This fully conforms to the interests of all countries, big and small.

p The principle of non-interference in a country’s internal affairs, the recognition that every people has the right independently to settle all issues pertaining to its country, a principle which Lenin consistently championed, has important theoretical and practical significance today. This 179 requirement goes a long way in defining the bounds of peaceful coexistence. The right of every people to decide themselves all issues concerning their own country presupposes the right to revolution, to replace a moribund social system by a more progressive system, to establish popular power, to carry through revolutionary changes. Accordingly, the Soviet Union considers it its internationalist duty vigorously to repulse any attempt at interference by imperialist powers in the internal affairs of socialist countries, any encroachments on the revolutionary gains of the peoples, and it consistently opposes the export of counter-revolution, does all it can to support the liberation struggle of the peoples. International relations in the last half century contain irrefutable proof of that.

p Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries is a vital element in peaceful coexistence. Being indissolubly connected with the principles of equal rights and non-interference in internal affairs, it is objectively aimed at removing any encroachments upon sovereignty and encroachments against the territory of other countries, which have given rise to, and even now cause, military confrontations that could lead to extremely dangerous consequences.

p Economic and cultural co-operation on the basis of complete equality and mutual benefit is a constituent part of the peaceful coexistence policy. Economic and cultural contacts are important and useful not only by themselves but also because they help to improve mutual understanding and trust between countries and peoples. At the 23rd Congress of the CPSU, it was said that the Soviet Union is a supporter of the idea that relations with capitalist countries are “to be not only peaceful, but also to include the broadest mutually advantageous contacts in the economic, scientific and cultural fields.”  [179•* 

The 24th CPSU Congress reaffirmed this policy, instructing the Central Committee “consistently to continue carrying forward into practice the principle of peaceful coexistence, to extend mutually advantageous relations with the capitalist countries.”  [179•** 

180

p The principles of international contacts advocated by socialism, and especially the principle of peaceful coexistence, which have now spread wider afield, are acquiring increasing importance. As an example one may cite the UN General Assembly resolution of December 14, 1957, on peaceful coexistence, which was adopted with only one dissenting vote (Taiwan); the Declaration of the Cairo Conference of Non-Aligned Heads of State or Government in 1964, which expressed “the deep conviction that in the present circumstances mankind must regard peaceful coexistence as the only way to strengthen world peace”  [180•* ; the Declaration of the 20th UN General Assembly on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty; and the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 16, 1970.

p The magnetic power of the principles of peaceful coexistence is very great. The West German Chancellor Willy Brandt recognises that coexistence has found a response and support among many people in the world, especially among non-aligned countries.  [180•** 

p The shift in the world balance of power towards socialism creates objective conditions for considerable changes in the attitude of the capitalist West to the socialist countries. Before, the acceptance or non-acceptance by capitalist countries of the policy of peaceful coexistence wholly depended on the struggle and tangle of particular tactical interests of various bourgeois groupings. Before the most influential politicians who proclaimed doctrines of "rolling back" socialism and "massive retaliation" and " brinkmanship" firmly rejected peaceful coexistence. But the situation has changed since the early 1960s.

p Capitalist leaders are today forced to reckon with the fact that it is no longer feasible to rely on a thermonuclear world war as a means of attaining their political ends. This 181 circumstance, although by itself not a sufficient basis for developing peaceful coexistence, is, at any rate, a new element in international relations and increases the possibility of settling any bone of contention through negotiation. Here lies a source for expanding the political basis of peaceful coexistence.

p The economic foundation of peaceful coexistence—the general worldwide economic relations whose objective significance was underlined by Lenin—has expanded in recent years. The increase in the economic motivation of capitalist countries in commercial links with socialist countries has resulted from the growth in socialist countries’ economic strength and, correspondingly, in the possibilities for international trade, as well as the growing problem of markets within the capitalist world and the deepening inter– imperialist contradictions. The economic attainments in the socialist world of recent years vividly show the bankruptcy of Western calculations connected with the policy of economic blockade and trade discrimination.

p The scientific and technological revolution, the development of productive forces, the trend towards increasing international division of labour, the creation of new means of communication, the “reduction” in distance and the facilitation of every form of contact between countries objectively demand the expansion of world economic contacts which affect both systems alike.

p The world balance of power today, a common-sense account of the possible consequences of a world clash involving nuclear missiles, and the trend of economic and scientific and technological development are all bound to lead one to the conclusion that not only the working people, but the whole of humanity is objectively interested in peaceful coexistence between capitalist and socialist countries.

p This objective demand of the time is undoubtedly leading to a growing struggle in bourgeois countries between various tendencies on the question of relations with socialist countries.

p The growth in political and economic prerequisites that would secure an effective policy of peaceful coexistence, of course, does not in the least presuppose that all this would 182 happen automatically. Imperialist reactionaries are opposed to peaceful coexistence. Hence the task put forward by Communists of forcing imperialism to adopt the policy of peaceful coexistence.

p The unwillingness of reactionary, imperialist circles in the United States and elsewhere to renounce the cold war and the arms race, attempts to put down by force popular revolutionary movements, to destroy socialism, the waging of “limited” or “local” wars and the organisation of armed provocation, and the stepping up of subversion designed to split the socialist community are all serious obstacles in the way of the peaceful coexistence policy.

p Confronted by resolute popular resistance and convinced of the futility of direct aggression, the reactionary forces are seeking roundabout ways, more veiled methods of contending with the world revolutionary movement. Besides continuing the arms race, they are increasingly using “peaceful” means of fighting world socialism. They now rely more on fanning nationalism, setting one socialist country against another and splitting the anti– imperialist forces. The enemies of international co-operation are also more intensively attempting to pervert its meaning. Today they less frequently operate openly: direct advocacy of force and wars as effective means of settling international issues cannot be successful in the present circumstances. Therefore, in their fight against peaceful coexistence, some imperialist ideologists today prefer to operate from within, under the guise of its supporters. Their approach to peaceful coexistence is nothing short of an attempt to emasculate its meaning and to harness it to imperialist policy. The range of such concepts is extremely wide: some approach peaceful coexistence as a simple absence of hot war and identify it with the cold war; others demand an end to the popular struggle for national and social emancipation, a coming to terms of socialist and bourgeois ideologies.

p John Slessor, Marshal of the Royal Air Force, and author of the book What Price Coexistence?, argues in favour of peaceful coexistence, but interprets it in his own way: “The most we can hope for in the foreseeable future is a tolerable form of peaceful coexistence, a genuine coexistence, and not 183 the communist kind, which implies the bloodless victory of communism....”  [183•*  The American sociologist Erich Fromm considers that “the basis is the mutual recognition of the status quo, the mutual agreement not to change the existing political balance of power between the two blocs.”  [183•** 

p What they mean by “status quo” is that the West may agree to peaceful coexistence only if the socialist system gives a guarantee that revolutions will not take place in the capitalist world. Yet in the second half of the 20th century, when social and national liberation movements have matured in the world and are rapidly developing, it is really absurd to think in this way. Revolution is engendered by objective historical processes which create a revolutionary situation in a country, and this does not depend on the will or wish of other countries, on any form of agreement between countries. The undisputed right of all peoples freely to choose their own social, economic and political system cannot be challenged. The Soviet Union and all progressive forces respect and champion this right.

p The imperialist theory of “selective coexistence” which envisages relations of peaceful coexistence with some socialist countries and the freedom to wage aggressive wars against other countries does not correspond to the interests of peace and international security. Similarly, the insidious American doctrine of “building bridges” to socialist countries is very far from genuine peaceful coexistence. It is designed to interfere in the internal affairs of socialist countries, to exacerbate the “psychological war”, to encourage anti-socialist and nationalistic tendencies, to split the socialist countries and to undermine the peaceful positions of socialism. It is quite apparent that none of this has anything in common with the principles of peaceful coexistence.

p Sometimes those who inspire and organise subversive activity against the socialist system refer to the Marxist-Leninist proposition of the inevitability of ideological struggle under 184 peaceful coexistence. Communists certainly do believe that peaceful coexistence between socialist and capitalist countries does not mean, and cannot mean, the extinguishing of the class struggle between them, a reconciliation between bourgeois and socialist ideologies. But this is a struggle of ideas. Any attempts by defenders of a moribund system to bring into the ideological struggle lies, misinformation and calumny against socialism, theoretical exercises by professional anti-Communists and all manner of turncoats, only bear witness to the profound ideological crisis of the contemporary imperialist bourgeoisie, the spiritual poverty of its ideologists and the historically inevitable doom of anticommunism.

p The policy of peaceful coexistence is the only sensible way to develop relations between states with different social systems. Resistance by aggressive forces to this policy, however, which takes the most different forms, is still great. All the more important, therefore, is the attitude taken by realists in the capitalist world.

p Typical in that respect was the position of the French President in the years of 1958 to 1969, General de Gaulle, who said in 1960 that the presence of opposed regimes should not hamper peaceful coexistence, “otherwise nothing could ultimately save the human race”.  [184•*  The term “ coexistence” is recognised also by certain British statesmen. Back in 1960, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan said: “We must all learn to live together.... Whether we like it or not . .. we must find a way of living together—find some way of living side by side.”  [184•**  In an interview with the Soviet newspaper Izvestia in May 1969, Paul-Henri Spaak, in his capacity as Belgian Prime Minister, said he was in favour of accepting the Soviet idea of peaceful coexistence.

p Similar views have frequently been aired in the United States of America. George Kennan, for example, the man who was the author of the doctrine of "the containment of communism”, has said: ”. . .The West has no choice but to accept the quest for peaceful coexistence as the basis 185 for policy toward the countries of the communist world.”  [185•*  The late President Kennedy said in a speech at American University in Washington, B.C., on June 10, 1963: ”. . .We are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on earth.”  [185•**  His successors have also many times declared their desire for peace.

p Of course, one must bear in mind that bourgeois officials interpret “peaceful coexistence” and “peaceful competition” in their own way, and sometimes try to use this slogan for disguising the foreign policy plans of imperialist circles. Nevertheless, the idea of peaceful coexistence, which has become a paramount demand of peoples, is taking on an increasingly marked reflection in the policy of some capitalist countries. This by no means implies either voluntary reconciliation with the new social system by bourgeois politicians, and even less so their coming over to the camp of supporters of socialism. It reflects the demands by working people and a realistic attitude among the more far-sighted leaders in the capitalist world.

p Guided in its relations with the capitalist countries by the principle of peaceful coexistence and relying on its own growing strength, the Soviet Union, together with other peace-loving forces, is strengthening this tendency, consistently advocates firmer peace and less international tension, seeks to end the arms race and stamp out any hotbeds of cold war, tries to normalise and improve relations with all capitalist countries. These efforts are meeting success.

p “The Communist Party of the Soviet Union has always held, and now holds,” says Leonid Brezhnev, General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, “that the class struggle between the two systems—the capitalist and the socialist— in the economic and political, and also, of course, the ideological domains, will continue. That is as it should be, because the world outlook and the class aims of socialism and capitalism are opposite and irreconcilable. But we shall strive to shift this historically inevitable struggle onto a path free from 186 the perils of war, of dangerous conflicts and of an uncontrolled arms race. This will be a tremendous gain for world peace, for the interests of all peoples, of all states.”  [186•* 

p Today, increasingly broad implementation of the principle of peaceful coexistence between socialist and capitalist countries has become wholly feasible.

p The Soviet Union’s steadily growing economic potential and political influence in the world, its active foreign policy and the realistic line taken by a number of capitalist countries have resulted in increasingly broad application of the principles of peaceful coexistence in the bilateral relations between the Soviet Union and these countries.

p Soviet-French relations have been developing fruitfully ever since the beneficent turning point towards practical implementation of the principles of peaceful coexistence took place several years ago. President Charles de Gaulle’s visit to the Soviet Union in June 1966 and Premier Alexei Kosygin’s visit to France were landmarks in Soviet-French relations.

p Opponents of normal Soviet-French relations often claimed that all this was connected solely with General de Gaulle’s personality, with his foreign policy course. However, the years since his departure have demonstrated how groundless those assertions were. The relations between the two countries are based on solid historical traditions and a broad range of common interests.

p It is clear from their nature and scale that the diversified Soviet-French relations and co-operation of recent years accord with the interests of the peoples of the two countries, and also that the ruling circles of France are objectively interested in them to a considerable extent. France’s withdrawal from the NATO military organisation and her realistic stand on a number of major international issues open up additional possibilities for closer Soviet-French relations, in the political sphere above all. The high level of these relations is convincingly illustrated by the regular meetings of statesmen of the two countries, in particular, the visit by 187 President Georges Pompidou to the Soviet Union in October 1970.

p The broadening and deepening of Soviet-French cooperation and the friendship and mutual respect that exist between the peoples of the two countries were reaffirmed during the visit to France by Leonid Brezhnev, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, and his talks with President Pompidou. As the Soviet-French declaration of October 30, 1971, said, the participants in the talks had “resolved to give still greater depth and stability to co-operation between the USSR and France, and particularly to their political co-operation, which serves peaceful aims exclusively.”  [187•*  Towards this end they drew up and signed “The Principles of Co-operation between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and France”.

p In order to make their economic and industrial co– operation more stable the two countries concluded a ten-year agreement on further economic, technical and industrial cooperation.

p Another step towards implementing the principle of peaceful coexistence between countries with different social systems, relaxing tensions and consolidating peace in Europe was made during the meeting between Leonid Brezhnev and President Pompidou at Zaslavl, in Byelorussia, in January 1973.

p The principles of Soviet-French co-operation—unswerving observance of the inviolability of the present frontiers, noninterference in the domestic affairs of other countries, equality, independence, renunciation of the threat of force or use of force—could serve as a constructive basis for European international relations as a whole.

p Speaking about improvements in recent years in relations between European countries belonging to the two social systems, note should also be taken of the new features introduced into the foreign policy of the Federal Republic of Germany by the advent of the coalition of the SocialDemocrats and Free Democrats to power. The formation of the Brandt-Scheel government reflects important changes in 188 the mood of broad sections of the population of Federal Germany; it reflects a desire to lead the country’s foreign policy out of the impasse into which it had been brought by the refusal of the preceding governments to recognise the results of the Second World War.

p Describing the Soviet stand on this question, Leonid Brezhnev said in a speech at the 15th Congress of the Soviet Trade Unions in 1972: “As for the Soviet Union, we take a sincere and earnest approach to the question of an improvement of relations with the Federal Republic of Germany, although, for understandable reasons, this is not a simple matter for our country. The calamities of the last war and the suffering which the Hitlerite aggression inflicted on our people are still alive in the memory of Soviet people. However, we believe that the ordeals of the past should not remain for ever an insuperable obstacle to developing our relations with West Germany. We also take into account the fact that the majority of the West German population stands for an improvement of relations with the Soviet Union and other socialist countries.”  [188•* 

p The striving of the Soviet Union and other European socialist countries to embody the principles of peaceful coexistence in relations with the Federal Republic of Germany was expressed in the signing of the Moscow-Bonn (August 12, 1970) and Warsaw-Bonn (December 7, 1970) treaties. The paramount international significance of these treaties is determined above all by the fact that they clearly establish the inviolability, now and in future, of the borders of all European states, including Poland’s western frontiers on the Oder and the Neisse, and the border between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic.

p These treaties signified an important step towards a European detente; they created new prerequisites for further advances in that direction.

p At the same time they open up new prospects for an improvement of bilateral relations between the Federal 189 Republic of Germany and the European socialist countries. “The entry into force of the treaties concluded by the Soviet Union and Poland with the Federal Republic of Germany will create a new political atmosphere in Europe in many respects,” Leonid Brezhnev declared at the Eighth Congress of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany in 1971. “This, it is to be assumed, will substantially improve the prerequisites for normalising West Germany’s relations with the European socialist countries, for developing fruitful co-operation between the countries of the East and West of Europe in general and for settling important problems of European security.”  [189•* 

p The acute political struggle in Federal Germany over ratification of the above-mentioned treaties showed that the opponents of peaceful co-operation with the Soviet Union have not yet laid down arms and that the possibilities of fundamentally improving Soviet-West German relations can be translated into reality only through active, purposeful efforts by both sides.

p The Crimean meeting between Leonid Brezhnev and Chancellor Willy Brandt in September 1971 illustrated how extensive the possibilities are for improving Soviet-West German relations and the situation throughout Europe.

p The fact that the treaties were ratified despite the intrigues of the reactionary, militaristic and revenge-seeking forces, and the results of the November 1972 Bundestag elections, in which the voters unequivocally endorsed the Brandt government’s realistic foreign policy are highly noteworthy. They reflect the stable trends towards a detente in Europe and confirm the fruitfulness of the Soviet Union’s policy of improving and broadening relations with the Federal Republic of Germany in various spheres.

p Soviet-Finnish relations rest on a firm foundation of goodneighbourliness and co-operation. Thanks to efforts by both sides, they have undergone further development lately. New positive steps have been taken by the Soviet Union in the sphere of relations with the Scandinavian countries, including 190 an agreement on regular political consultations at various levels.

p A champion of peace and an advocate of settling disputed issues through negotiation, the Soviet Union attaches much importance to improving relations with the United States, a country which, by virtue of its high economic, scientific and technological level and its powerful military potential, including up-to-date nuclear-missile weapons, plays the leading role in the capitalist world. The prevention of a thermonuclear world war depends largely on the state of Soviet-American relations and the course they take.

p The Soviet Union’s tasks in relations with the United States were clearly formulated in the Resolution of the 24th Party Congress: “The Congress instructs the CC CPSU consistently to continue carrying forward into practice the principle of peaceful coexistence, to extend mutually advantageous relations with the capitalist countries. The Soviet Union is prepared to develop relations also with the United States of America, holding that this conforms with the interests both of the Soviet and the American peoples and those of world peace. At the same time, the Soviet Union will always firmly oppose the aggressive actions of the United States and the policy of force.”  [190•* 

p In promoting businesslike co-operation and mutually advantageous relations with capitalist countries on the basis of the principle of peaceful coexistence the Soviet Union does not make any exception with regard to the United States. It considers an improvement in relations with the United States—not, of course, contrary to the interests of its friends and allies, nor at the expense of the interests of any other countries or nations—to be both possible and desirable. At the basis of this realistic course lies the indisputable fact that notwithstanding the opposite social systems of the Soviet Union and the United States and their fundamentally different positions on many world issues, there exist objective factors which make the two countries desirous of stabilising the international situation and preventing a nuclear-missile world war.

191

p For a long time influential circles in the United States deliberately ignored the possibilities of normalising American-Soviet relations, although the Soviet Union had made initiatives in that direction more than once. For instance, early in 1956 the Soviet Government proposed a treaty of friendship and co-operation with the United States. In the years that followed, the Soviet Union repeatedly proposed ways and means of improving Soviet-American relations.

p The attempts by US ruling circles to pursue a policy “from positions of strength” towards the Soviet Union proved unsuccessful. This policy was patently at variance with the real correlation of the forces of the two powers, including their military-strategic potentials. President Nixon’s foreign policy report to Congress in February 1972 noted, among the major changes in the world, “the end of an indisputable US superiority in strategic strength, and its replacement by a strategic balance...”.  [191•*  As the alignment of world forces changed in favour of socialism, continuation of the cold war in American-Soviet relations became more and more obviously detrimental to the interests of the United States itself.

p Nor could America’s top circles fail to take account of the trends towards a detente that were making themselves felt more and more in the policy of some of the West European allies of the United States.

The peaceful outcome of the Caribbean crisis in 1962 reflected a more realistic US approach to assessment of the world situation and testified to the possibility of resolving acute international problems by negotiation. The same applies to such steps as the establishment of a direct telephone link between Washington and Moscow, the 1963 Moscow treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water, the agreement not to launch into space any objects carrying nuclear weapons, the mutual undertakings to limit the production of fissile materials, and, finally, the Soviet-American talks on the limitation of strategic arms and the signing of several agreements on measures to reduce the danger of the outbreak of a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the United States.

192

p The Soviet Union takes a businesslike and realistic approach to a further improvement of Soviet-American relations and consolidation of the prospects for world peace. We consider it useful, said Leonid Brezhnev in his speech at the 15th Congress of the Soviet Trade Unions, “to expand such spheres in the relations between the Soviet Union and the United States that would make it possible without departing from the principles of our policy, to organise mutually advantageous co-operation in the interests of the peoples of both countries and the interests of world peace.

p “We have said it before and we confirm it now: an improvement in relations between the Soviet Union and the United States is possible. Moreover, it is desirable, but, it goes without saying, not at the expense of any other countries or people, not to the detriment of their legitimate rights and interests. Such is our unchanging position.”  [192•* 

p The talks which Leonid Brezhnev, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Nikolai Podgorny, President of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet, and Premier Alexei Kosygin conducted with President Richard Nixon of the United States in Moscow in May 1972 were a major step in the development of Soviet-American relations.

p The keynote of the “Basic Principles of Mutual Relations Between the Soviet Union and the United States” that was signed as a result of the conversations was the agreement of the two sides “to proceed from the common determination that in the nuclear age there is no alternative to conducting their mutual relations on the basis of peaceful coexistence”.

p In the course of the negotiations the two sides expressed their willingness to co-operate in various spheres. This was confirmed in a whole series of agreements that were signed during the Moscow meeting, and also during subsequent Soviet-American contacts.

p During the talks the two sides gave primary attention to the problem of reducing the danger of nuclear war. They believe that curbing the competition in strategic arms will 193 make a significant and tangible contribution to this cause. The Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems and the Interim Agreement on Certain Measures with Respect to the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, signed in Moscow, are, in effect, materially limiting these modern and most powerful types of weapons for the first time in history, as Leonid Brezhnev has noted. Recognition and strict observance of the principle of equal security of the two sides is an important prerequisite of success in this sphere. Neither the Treaty nor the Agreement give any one-sided military advantages to the Soviet Union or the United States. They are designed to prevent another round of the strategic arms race, reduce the danger of a nuclear conflict and promote the reaching of further agreement on limiting and then destroying weapons of mass destruction. They correspond to the vital interests of the Soviet and American peoples as well as to the vital interests of all other peoples.

p The Moscow Agreement on the Prevention of Incidents on or over the Sea is also designed to improve Soviet– American relations and strengthen universal peace. During the talks the Soviet Union and the United States stated that they would continue their efforts to reach an international agreement on chemical weapons and would continue negotiations to limit armaments, with the ultimate purpose of general and complete disarmament under strict international control.

p Of favourable importance for the prospects of a European detente is the intention expressed by the two sides to contribute towards the peaceful future of Europe on the basis of respect for the territorial integrity of all European states, inviolability of their frontiers, non-interference in internal affairs, sovereign equality, independence and renunciation of the use or threat of force.

p The Soviet-American summit meeting in May 1972 also led to the signing of agreements on co-operation in science and technology, in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes, in medical science and public health, and in environmental protection.

p Substantial progress was also outlined in the sphere of economic relations. The system of artificial barriers to the development of Soviet-American trade, barriers detrimental 194 to the United States itself, has long been criticised in the United States. Speaking about American-Soviet economic contacts, David Rockefeller, President of the Chase Manhattan Bank, said that it would be sensible and useful both for the Soviet Union and the United States to increase the present insignificant volume of trade. The United States, he noted, had clung to prejudices and had objected to giving permission to trade with the Soviet Union for a longer time than required by its own economic interests. Commerce, he said, was one of the best means of promoting mutual understanding-

p The significance and possibilities of Soviet-American economic co-operation are determined by the scale of the economic and scientific-technical potential of the two countries. The summit meeting was followed by intensive talks on economic questions. As an official White House report summing up President Nixon’s first term of office declared, the agreements that were signed as a result of the talks provide for the biggest long-term commercial deals ever concluded between any two countries. Implementation of the plans for large-scale and long-term Soviet-American co-operation in the economic sphere would promote a sounder political climate in the relations between the two countries and would facilitate further progress towards lasting peace, the main aim of Soviet foreign policy.

p The fruitful results of the Soviet-American summit meeting reflect the real state of affairs in the world. They are in accord with the interests of international security, with the interests of the peoples of all countries.

p Speaking at the end of 1972, in a report delivered at a joint meeting of the CPSU Central Committee, the USSR Supreme Soviet and the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Leonid Brezhnev emphasised: “If the two countries—the USSR and the USA—will really follow the course charted jointly during the Moscow negotiations, then, we think, new substantial steps developing Soviet-American relations for the benefit of the peoples of the two countries and for universal peace may become possible during further contacts. However—and this should be emphatically 195 stressed—much will depend on the course of events in the immediate future, and, in particular, on the turn in the question of ending the war in Vietnam.”  [195•* 

p The victory of the people of Vietnam and of all peaceloving forces in putting a stop to the US aggression against Vietnam, which even a bourgeois author like George F. Kennan described as “the most disastrous of all America’s undertakings over the whole 200 years of its history”,  [195•**  will undoubtedly contribute to an improvement of the international situation.

p The Soviet people are giving the heroic people of Vietnam the assistance they need and are now helping them to eliminate the consequences of the war. They are supporting the peoples of Laos and Cambodia and the fighters against imperialist aggression in the Arab East. Liquidation of the existing hotbeds of aggression and of the war danger, and the exercise by all peoples of their inalienable rights, above all, their right to independent development, which the Soviet Union consistently strives for, correspond to the fundamental interests of all peoples, to the interests of peace and security the world over.

p Regular political consultations and summit meetings have now become a characteristic feature of the peaceful coexistence of countries with different social systems.

p Personal contacts between Soviet leaders and President Urho Kekkonen of Finland have become a tradition. They promote better friendship, mutual understanding and confidence between the two countries with the aims of further developing Soviet-Finnish relations and strengthening peace and international security. The f ruitfulness of summit talks is graphically illustrated by the exchange of visits between Leonid Brezhnev and President Pompidou of France, by the talks between Soviet leaders and President Nixon in Moscow in May 1972 and in the United States in June 1973, which led to a marked improvement in Soviet-American 196 relations, and Leonid Brezhnev’s meetings with Federal German Chancellor Willy Brandt.

p The April 1973 Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in its resolution noted that the continuation of summit meetings would contribute to full implementation of the Soviet Peace Programme and give the favourable changes in the international situation an irreversible nature.

p The Soviet Union and its Warsaw Treaty allies attribute great importance to the strengthening of peace in Europe, whose peoples suffered the most in the two world wars. Recognition of the inviolability of the existing frontiers in Europe, including the frontiers of the sovereign German Democratic Republic, Poland and Czechoslovakia, is one of the main prerequisites for guaranteeing European security. In their European policy, the socialist countries pursue the following aims: to strengthen and consolidate the gains of the peoples achieved as a result of the Second World War and the radical social changes in Europe that followed it; to isolate the forces of imperialist aggression and to prevent the West German revenge-seekers from getting their hands on nuclear weapons; to strengthen the security of their Western borders; to create every condition for wide and fruitful cooperation of European countries with different social systems.

p Alongside the Moscow-Bonn and Warsaw-Bonn treaties mentioned above, the series of agreements on West Berlin as well as the treaty of December 21, 1972, on the basis of relations between the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany, and the final lifting of the diplomatic siege of the German Democratic Republic have been major steps in Europe’s advance along the road to peace and security.

p The Soviet Union and its Warsaw Treaty allies, in pursuing their policy of peaceful coexistence, initiated the convening of a European conference to discuss question of security and co-operation within Europe. The calling of such a conference as a result of the concerted efforts of all interested states would be a valuable contribution to attaining a detente, to increasing security and furthering peaceful cooperation in Europe.

197

p This initiative was supported by many European countries; Canada and the United States also expressed their agreement with it.

p The proposals of the socialist countries concerning a European conference were set forth in detail in the Declaration on Peace, Security and Co-operation in Europe, adopted on January 26, 1972, at a meeting of the Political Consultative Committee of the Warsaw Treaty countries held in Prague.

p As the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the USSR Council of Ministers noted, this Declaration “sums up the experience of prolonged efforts by the Warsaw Treaty member-countries to establish the principles of peaceful coexistence and takes into account the constructive realistic features that have arisen in the policies of several West European countries in the past few years.”  [197•* 

p The Declaration proceeds from the community of the longterm interests of the European countries in the sphere of peace and co-operation.

p The countries that participated in the meeting of the Political Consultative Committee put forward the following general principles of European security and relations between the countries of Europe for their general recognition and practical implementation in the political affairs of the continent: inviolability of frontiers; renunciation of force or the threat of force; peaceful coexistence of countries belonging to the two social systems; good-neighbourly relations based on the principles of independence, national sovereignty, equality, non-interference in internal affairs and mutual advantage; wide-scale diversified mutually beneficial contacts among European countries in the economic, scientific, technological and cultural fields, in the sphere of tourism and also in the sphere of environmental protection; maximum efforts towards a solution of the disarmament problem; support of the United Nations.

p The adoption of these principles would contribute to the drafting of a system of mutual obligations whose observance would guarantee collective security in Europe.

p As the Declaration notes, an agreement on reduction of 198 armed forces and armaments (both foreign and national) in Europe would help to strengthen European security; however, the solution of this problem should not harm the interests of the countries participating in the agreement.

p Public opinion plays an important part in the efforts to turn Europe into a continent of lasting peace and large-scale co-operation. This was illustrated by the Assembly of Representatives of Public Opinion for European Security and Co-operation, which took place in Brussels in June 1972. The solemn declaration adopted by the Assembly says: “We pronounce ourselves resolutely and vigorously for security and co-operation. We will not allow the hopes which have freshly emerged to be deceived. We are certain that in this way we will be answering the desire of all European peoples in their aspiration for a free and independent development for progress.”  [198•* 

p The changes on the European continent did not take place of themselves. They are the result of long and persistent efforts by the Soviet Union and its friends and allies.

p The European security and co-operation conference which the socialist countries have been urging for many years should open a new chapter in the history of Europe. Multilateral preparatory consultations for the conference, with the participation of 32 European countries and aslo the United States and Canada, began in Helsinki, in November 1972.

p The purpose of the multilateral consultations is to determine the time, place, participants and agenda of the conference, in other words, procedural and organisational questions in the main. Agreement on these will make it possible to get down to a practical examination of the key problems of collective security in Europe.

p It is obvious that the political, economic, internationallegal, military and other aspects of European security must be examined in inseparable connection with the realities of today. It is also obvious that special attention must be given to the key questions of a system of collective security.

p The security of the peoples of Europe must be based on the universally known principles of peaceful coexistence. In 199 other words, the countries must, in their relations, observe the principles of inviolability of frontiers, non-interference in one another’s internal affairs, independence, equality, and renunciation of the threat or use of force.

p “The peoples attach great hopes to the convocation of the European conference,” Leonid Brezhnev said in his report, “The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”. “They expect it to deal with the basic problems of strengthening European peace, to put an end to the suspicion and fear bred by the cold war, and give the Europeans confidence in the morrow.”  [199•* 

p While putting the political aspects of European security in the forefront, the socialist countries by no means underestimate the importance of other problems that have a direct bearing on all-European co-operation, on an improvement of contacts among the European countries. This includes the question of establishing business relations between the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and the Common Market.

p It should be noted that businesslike co-operation in various spheres of international relations—economic, scientific and cultural contacts, exchanges of information, friendly contacts—are being established between the Soviet Union and many European countries, among them France and the Federal Republic of Germany. All this contributes to better mutual understanding.

p Preparatory consultations for talks on a reduction of armed forces and armaments in Europe took place in Vienna, the Austrian capital.

Developments in recent years have increasingly shown that the Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence, irrespective of a country’s social system, has become a real force in international affairs.

200