Georgi Zadorozhny, LL. D.

Professor of International Law

Progress Publishers Moscow

Translated from the Russian by Vic Schneierson

P. n. 3AAOPO)KHbIH

MHPHOE COCVmECTBOBAHHE CoBpeMCHHoe MexayHapoflHoe npaeo

MHpHOrO COCymCCTBpBaHHH

Ha

CONTENTS

Page

FOREWORD................... 7

Chapter One. THE PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE OF STATES WITH DIFFERENT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS

1. Peaceful Coexistence in Our Time..........

15

2. An Objective Law Governing the Development of Mankind .

23

3. A Progressive Political Idea.............

30

4. A Realistic International Policy...........

37

Chapter Two. THE ONLY SENSIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO NUCLEARMISSILE WAR

1. The Basic Problem of Our Time. Preventive War Critically Reconsidered...................47

2. Critics of "Equilibrium of Fear", ''Nuclear Deterrent", "Massive Retaliation" and ``Brinkmanship'' Doctrines.......52

3. Just and Unjust Wars...............58

4. Peaceful Coexistence Is Inevitable. A New World War Can Be Prevented....................62

5. Use of Force in International Relations Is Incompatible with Peaceful Coexistence. The Doctrine of ``Restricted'', ``Minor'' and ``Local'' Wars Is the Surest Road to Total Thermonuclear Disaster....................68

6. U.S. Acts of Aggression in the Middle East, Against Cuba and in Vietnam---Threat to Universal Peace..........76

7. The Policy "From Positions of Strength" Is a Repudiation of Peaceful Coexistence................86

Chapter Three. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE UPHOLDS THE SOVEREIGN RIGHTS OF NATIONS, THE HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS OF ALL MEN

1. Sovereign Equality of All Peoples and States Is an Imperative Condition of Peaceful Coexistence. Sovereignty and the Problem

of Just State Frontiers...............96

2. Criminal Character of Colonialism and Neo-Colonialism in All Forms.....................105

3. Basic Sovereign Rights of Peoples and States in International Relations. Two Kinds of Aid to the Developing Countries . . 113

4. Peaceful Coexistence Promotes the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of All Men. The International Human Rights Covenants....................121

5. The International Human Rights Protection---a Specific Form

of Class Struggle Under Peaceful Coexistence.......128

First printing 1968

Printed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Chapter Four. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE IMPLIES RESPECT FOR THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION

1. "Export of Revolution" and "Communist Expansion" Are a Fib 138

2. Revolutions Are Not Exportable or Made to Order. Plans of Exporting Counter-Revolutions to the Socialist Countries . . 144

3. State Total Spy Policy Is the Shortest Road to War .... 149

4. Imperialist Campaign Against the Right of Every People to Select Its Own Socio-Economic System and Form of Government. The American Policy of ``Liberation'' Is a Straight Road

to a New World War...............154

5. The Johnson Doctrine Stands for Armed Intervention and the Export of Counter-Revolution............163

6. Peaceful Coexistence Does Not Imply that Nations and States Must Have the Same System..............170

Chapter Five. DISARMAMENT GUARANTEES PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND ORDER

1. The Best Way to Avert War Is to Destroy the Means of War .

177

2. Disarmament as a Principle of International Law.....

186

3. Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.........

191

4. Peaceful Use of Space and Celestial Bodies .......

195

5. The Principle of Collective Security, the Problem of Dissolving Military Blocs and Joint Efforts to Reinforce the Peace . . .

201

Chapter Six. ALL-ROUND INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION IS PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE IN ACTION

1. The "Divided World Doctrine Perverts the Idea of Peaceful Coexistence...................206

2. Peaceful Coexistence Implies Reciprocal Efforts in Settling International Problems by Negotiation......... 211

3. Observance of International Obligations Is a Necessary Aspect

of Peaceful Coexistence..............219

4. Peaceful Coexistence Implies International Division of Labour to the Best Advantage of All Concerned. Differences in Ideology

Are No Barrier to International Trade........ . 222

5. Peaceful Coexistence Implies Broad International Contacts to Fortify Friendship, Confidence and Co-operation.....230

Chapter Seven. INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PEACEFUL

COEXISTENCE

Chapter Eight. THE PRINCIPLES OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AS EMBODIED IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

1. Peaceful Coexistence Is a Generally Recognised Standard of Modern International Law..............268

2. The U.N. Principles Are Principles of Peaceful Coexistence . 277

3. General Assembly Resolutions Have Developed the U.N. Charter Principles of Peaceful Coexistence..........283

4. Elucidation of Peaceful Coexistence Principles by International Research Groups.................296

5. The Bandung Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. Decisions of

the Conferences of Non-Aligned Countries........299

6. The Principles of Peaceful Coexistence Are the Best Foundation for Peaceful Relations Between States with Different SocioEconomic Systems.................304

Chapter Nine. THE PRINCIPLES OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE DOCTRINES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

1. Distortions of the Principles of Peaceful Coexistence Must

Be Frustrated..................314

2. Opponents of Peaceful Coexistence Suffer a Setback .... 326

3. The Scientific System of International Law.......336

Chapter Ten. INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE PROGRESS OF MANKIND

1. Peaceful Coexistence Is a Specific Form of Class Struggle . . 343

2. Peaceful Coexistence Is Peaceful Economic Competition in the Course of which the Most Progressive and Just Social System which Provides the Highest Living Conditions for the People Shall Win Out ... -...............347

3. The Growing Role of Peoples in International Relations . . 349

4. Individuals in International Law Relations.......355

5. The Will of Peoples and the Politics of Governments ... 358

6. Contemporary International Law Is Important for the Ultimate Outcome of Peaceful Coexistence...........363

Conclusion THE SOVIET UNION'S ROLE IN THE PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW . . 373 Index.......................383

1. Peaceful Coexistence Is an International Law in Action . . 235

2. The Nihilists of Modern International Law.......240

3. Universal Recognition of the Standards and Principles of International Law Under Peaceful Coexistence.......243

4. The Establishment of the Rules of International Law Under Peaceful Coexistence...............248

5. Equal Treaties Are a Principal Source of International Law . 254

6. The Unity of International Law. Struggle Between ``Old'' and ``New'' in International Law............. . 259

7. Definition of International Law As a Regulator of Peaceful Coexistence...................264

FOREWORD

The fierce ideological controversy raging in the world today over the conception of peaceful coexistence is yielding what are frequently diametrically opposite definitions. This is because the present epoch is highlighted by the collision of two diametrically opposite lines in international politics.

One of the two lines is centred on accelerating social progress, reinforcing peace, freedom and the independence of the peoples, on bridling aggressors and securing the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems.

The other line is working for a new world war with the object of restoring capitalism in the socialist countries and recapturing the countries that have thrown off the colonial yoke.

But what is the role of contemporary international law in such circumstances? What is the character of this international law under peaceful coexistence? And what does it mean---contemporary international law of peaceful coexistence?

It stands to reason that the policy of the socialist countries is only one of the factors behind the possibility of preserving the peace and peaceful coexistence under contemporary international law, including the U.N. Charter.

The general crisis of capitalism has become deeper. Its contradictions, grown more acute, are making imperialism more adventuresome and reckless. The imperialists have touched off a series of aggressive actions---the criminal U.S. war in Vietnam, the provocations against Cuba, Israeli aggression against Arab countries, intrigues in the former colonial countries, the revival of militarism in the German Federal Republic, Bonn's revenge-seeking ways, acts that imperil world peace, and the policy of intervention in the domestic affairs of various countries.

Yet it is no longer capitalism but the world socialist system that now exerts the decisive influence on world development.

The current period is highlighted by the steadily rising international influence of the Soviet Union and the world socialist system as a whole, and by the fresh victories of the countries fighting colonial rule. Soviet prestige has grown immeasurably in the world. The influence of Soviet policy in key international issues, notably the problem of world peace, has become distinctly stronger.

The foreign policy of the socialist countries is designed to secure a peaceful environment for communist and socialist construction in the countries of the world socialist system, and to avert a new world war. It proceeds, quite naturally, from present-day developments and prevailing conditions, but stems essentially from basic long-term tendencies and the broad prospects of international development. The trend towards the peaceful coexistence of states with different socio-economic systems is the hallmark of the contemporary perspective. Despite the tension generated by the imperialist aggression in Vietnaw and in the Middle East, the forces battling for peace and international security have a good chance to drive home constructive solutions of international problems, to consolidate the peace-loving forces and to further inter-state co-operation in conformity with the U.N. Charter and the generally recognised principles of contemporary international law.

The conjectures abroad about the Soviet Union abandoning the policy of peaceful coexistence or, at least, relegating it to obscurity, are wide of the mark.

Let us recall facts that refute them beyond a shadow of doubt.

Take the proceedings of the 23rd Congress of the Soviet Communist Party, which convened from March 29 to April 8, 1966. The Congress decisions point out explicitly that the foreign policy of the Soviet Union is aimed at "upholding consistently the principle of the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems".^^1^^

``While exposing the aggressive policy of imperialism, we are consistently and unswervingly pursuing a policy of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems,"

says the Central Committee Report to the Congress. ''This means that while regarding the coexistence of states with different social systems as a form of class struggle between socialism and capitalism, the Soviet Union consistently advocates normal, peaceful relations with capitalist countries and a settlement of controversial inter-state issues by negotiation, not by war.''^^1^^

The 23rd Congress stressed that the principle of peaceful coexistence is inapplicable to relations between colonialists and the victims of colonial oppression.^^2^^ Its sphere of operation, the Congress pointed out, is confined to inter-state relations between the socialist and capitalist countries, and added: "We want these relations to be not only peaceful, but also to include the broadest mutually advantageous contacts in the economic, scientific and cultural fields.''^^3^^

Similar position on the question of peaceful coexistence is reflected in the Theses of the C.P.S.U. on the Fiftieth Anniversary of the October Revolution.

Eager to further the scientific and technical revolution in the modern world through more liberal international economic intercourse and greater economic exchange between the socialist and capitalist systems, the Directives of the 23rd Congress for the Five-Year Economic Development Plan envisage a further increase in trade with the capitalist states.

The Soviet attitude towards peaceful coexistence was also set out in the Soviet Government statement on the fundamentals of domestic and foreign policy, approved in August 1966 by the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. "In the contemporary circumstances," it said, "peaceful coexistence is more distinctly than ever an objective necessity in the mutual relations of the countries of the two opposite systems." For this reason, it added, "the Soviet Union will persevere in its policy of peace and peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems, and work for an easing of international tension''.

In their Declaration on the Strengthening of Peace and Security in Europe, passed in Bucharest on July 5, 1966, the Warsaw Treaty countries called on all states "to develop good-neighbour relations based on the principles of independence and national sovereignty, equality, non-in-

~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 50.

~^^2^^ Ibid., pp. 50-51.

~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 50.

~^^1^^ 23rd Congress of the C.P.S.U., Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, Moscow, 1966, p. 288.

terference in domestic affairs and mutual advantage---the principles of the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems". This move was also supported by the Karlovy Vary Conference of European Communist and Workers' Parties (1967).

The socialist countries favour greater contacts and broader forms of co-operation in all spheres of international life.

Despite the deterioration caused by the U.S. aggression in Vietnam, the principles of peaceful coexistence have been advanced and reaffirmed in the relations of socialist states with such capitalist countries as France, Italy, Canada, Japan, Britain, the Scandinavian countries, Pakistan, Turkey and Iran, to say nothing of Afghanistan, India, Finland, Burma. Cambodia, Austria, etc.

The good progress of Soviet-French relations is benefiting world peace. The understanding achieved between the Soviet Union and France on a number of major issues transcends the context of bilateral agreements in importance. The Soviet-French Declaration of June 30, 1966, issued during President de Gaulle's visit to the U.S.S.R., stressed the wish of the two countries "to seek all opportunities for the maximum development of exchanges and co-operation" in line with "the friendly relations and historical bonds existing between the two countries''.

The principles of peaceful coexistence prevail these days in the relations of socialist countries with capitalist states in Africa and Latin America, as well as Europe and Asia.^^1^^

A Soviet-Indian communique was signed in Moscow on July 16, 1966, in which the two countries "reaffirm their faith in the principles of peaceful coexistence, whose consistent implementation creates favourable conditions for constructive labour and for better living standards, enables the developing countries to firm up their political and economic independence, and furthers the development of the anti-colonial national liberation movement and the social progress of all mankind". In the current situation, shot through with perils to world peace, the Soviet Union and India jointly appealed "to all the governments to reject the use of force and to observe strictly the principles of peaceful coexistence in international relations''.

The joint communique issued on May 19, 1966, on the negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United Arab Republic stressed that in face of the dangerous trends in current international relations "rejection of the threat and use of force and observance of the principles of peaceful coexistence, which create a sound basis for relations between states and peoples, are a vital necessity''.

Another example is to be found in the Soviet-Italian communique published on January 31, 1967, after talks between the two heads of state. The two sides agreed that it was important for "all states, regardless of social system, to adhere to the principles of peaceful coexistence in their relations". They "expressed their intention to apply efforts towards the full affirmation of these principles in international relations''.

The Treaties between the socialist countries also point out to the importance of the peaceful coexistence. Thus Cl. 5 of the Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance between the U.S.S.R. and Hungary of September 7, 1967, stresses that the U.S.S.R. and Hungary, "while consistently conducting the policy of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems", will bend every effort to strengthen mutual understanding and co-operation, to establish friendly relations between European states and to co-- ordinate their actions in this field.

Finally, the 50th Anniversary of the Soviet Union emphasised the importance for a mutually advantageous co-operation between states with different social structures on the basis of the principles of peaceful coexistence.

The First Solidarity Conference of the Asian, African and Latin American nations, held in Havana in January 1966, passed a special resolution on peaceful coexistence. It noted that peaceful coexistence referred to relations between states with different social and political systems and could not apply to relations between social classes, the exploited and the exploiters within any country, and between the oppressed nations and the oppressors. The resolution stressed that peaceful coexistence envisaged strict adherence to the principles of the self-determination of peoples and the sovereignty of all countries, big and small.

The Soviet Union firmly opposes all attempts to confine the principles of peaceful coexistence to relations between the Great Powers. "Our Party and our government," the

~^^1^^ Mirnoye Sosushchestvovanie---leninski kurs vneshnei politiki Sovietskogo Soyuza, ed. by A. A. Gromyko, Moscow, 1963, pp. 8-9.

23rd Congress of the C.P.S.U. stressed, "categorically reject the absurd standpoint that the Great Powers can develop their relations at the expense of the interests of other countries and peoples. All countries, big and small, have the same right to respect of their sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. And nobody has the liberty to violate this right.''^^1^^

The monograph devoted to the 50th Anniversary of the October Revolution expounded the Soviet conception of international law and stressed the fact that the principle of peaceful coexistence is of historical significance and has a "universal character".^^2^^

The authors of the Soviet six-volume Treatise on International Law express the same view, saying that the principle of peaceful coexistence "incorporates all the other principles" of international law.^^3^^

These and many other facts bear out the immutable line of the Soviet state, which works unalterably for the consolidation of peaceful coexistence principles in relations between countries of different social systems.

For all this, peaceful coexistence is not the sole principle of socialist foreign policy. In substance, the socialist countries strive to secure the best conditions for socialist and communist construction, to cement their friendship and fraternity, to promote the struggle of the peoples for national and social emancipation, to achieve extensive co-- operation with the newly independent states, develop solidarity with the international working class, to further peaceful coexistence with states irrespective of their social system, to repulse the aggressive imperialist forces and prevent a new world war. The principles of peaceful coexistence are universally recognised principles of international law, and all relations between countries with different social and economic systems should abide by them.

The present Chinese leaders, who have turned their backs on Marxism-Leninism, are doing a great service to the enemies of peace, democracy, international friendship and social progress by their pronouncements about the fatal inevitability of wars in the contemporary epoch, the harm of

the peaceful coexistence policy and the benefits of a world war as a means of class struggle, by their nihilistic attitude towards international law and their other views and attitudes hostile to the socialist doctrine.

All these anti-Leninist views peddled by the Maoist clique are alien and inimical to the very substance of the socialist doctrine and the practice of international law. The Maoist politics brings grist on the mill of anti-- communism---the bitterest enemy of the whole mankind.^^1^^ In reality, the ideals of socialism are peace and friendship among the people.^^2^^

The principles of peaceful coexistence are the only sensible groundwork for the foreign policy of states with different socio-economic systems. Their elucidation, therefore, has immense academic and practical interest.

In just the last few years---a very short time against the backdrop of world history---the policy of peaceful coexistence has yielded enormously beneficial results. It has enabled the Soviet Union to establish normal relations with dozens of new states and has dissipated the myth of Soviet aggressiveness.

Sensible and justified compromises have been achieved in international affairs. A Treaty banning nuclear weapons tests has been concluded in Moscow. Good prospects have appeared for good-neighbour co-operation among all the European countries, irrespective of their social systems. Resolutions have been passed by the United Nations to refrain from orbiting nuclear-armed objects, to convene a world disarmament conference, to preclude the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to abstain from interfering in the domestic affairs of other countries. The U.N. also approved two Covenants on Human Rights, the Treaty on the Peaceful Use of Space and Celestial Bodies, the Convention on the Prohibition of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, etc.

The principles of peaceful coexistence have won the strong backing of the United Nations, where projects are underway to codify them.

International conferences on world trade and development were convened in Geneva and Delhi on the initiative

~^^1^^ 23rd Congress of the C.P.S.V., pp. 45-46.

~^^2^^ Sovietskoye gosudarstvo i mezhdunarodnoye pravo, ed. by F. I. Kozhevnikov, Moscow, 1967, p. 4.

~^^3^^ Kurs mezhdunarodnogo prava, ed. by V. M. Chkhikvadze, Moscow, 1967, Vol. II, p. 15.

~^^1^^ Antikommunizm---vrag chelovechestva, ed. by A. M. Rumyantsev, Prague, 1962, p. 11.

~^^2^^ G. P. Frantsev, Istoricheskiye puti sotsialnoi musli, Moscow, 1965, p. 453.

of the socialist states, which concluded a number of mutually advantageous commercial agreements and greatly expanded their international trade.

The purpose of this volume, much of which is devoted to an appreciation of the contemporary international law of peaceful coexistence, is to show that peaceful coexistence is not merely an objective necessity and progressive political idea, not just a form of ideological struggle, but also a realistic international policy based on a system of universally recognised principles and standards of modern international law.

The urgency of a study of this problem was once more emphasised in a message from the Central Committee, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet and the Council of Ministers to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and the Soviet diplomats abroad on the 50th Anniversary of the Soviet Diplomatic Service. The message of December 30, 1967, noted the great contribution made by Soviet diplomacy to consistent implementation of the Leninist policy of peaceful coexistence and set Soviet diplomacy the major tasks of "consolidating the principle of peaceful coexistence and expanding mutually advantageous ties between states with different social systems''.

Chapter One

THE PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE OF STATES WITH DIFFERENT SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEMS,

1. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE IN OUR TIME

In the past fifty years the political face of our planet has changed beyond recognition. This is due mainly to the two major revolutionary developments of our time---the emergence of the system of socialist states and the collapse of the colonial empires under the impact of the national liberation movement. International developments of the last few years have borne out the vitality of the Leninist doctrine on the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems.^^1^^ These have been years in which it was developed to fit the specific historical conditions of the current period.

The facts show that in contemporary international law and politics peaceful coexistence has gained a new quality after the establishment of the world socialist system and the emergence of a group of young states in Asia and Africa.

The ideologists of imperialism counterpose the peaceful coexistence of Lenin's lifetime, when Civil War and a foreign armed intervention raged in Russia, to the peaceful coexistence of today, when the world socialist system is growing into the decisive factor of world development. But their attempts are groundless.

In Lenin's lifetime the Soviet state was a socialist oasis in a capitalist environment and capitalism was considerably superior in strength to the forces of the young Soviet Republic.

``The Soviet state," to use the definition of G. V. Chicherin, the one-time People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs, "was a herald of world peace. But in its early days it had

~^^1^^ L. F. Ilyichev, Obshchestvenniye nauki i kommunizm, Moscow, 1963, p. 101.

not grown to the active, positive and practical policy of peace which the Soviet Government is able to pursue today, since it has become a major, universally recognised international factor. At that dramatic and difficult time, the Soviet Government could do little more than appeal for the conclusion of peace by all the peoples.''^^1^^

On July 17, 1920, G. V. Chicherin said in his report to the All-Russia Central Executive Committee that "our thesis has been and continues to be peaceful coexistence with other governments, whatever they may be".^^2^^

Radical changes have occurred since then in the balance of world strength. The scales have tilted in favour of socialism. Peaceful coexistence has become a fundamental principle of international law.

In the broad sense, peaceful coexistence is the application of modern international law in practice.

A comprehensive definition of peaceful coexistence is contained in the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Peaceful coexistence, the Programme says, implies renunciation of war as a means of settling international disputes and their solution by negotiation; it implies equality, mutual understanding and trust between countries, consideration for each other's interests, non-interference in internal affairs, recognition of the right of every people to solve all the problems of its country by itself, strict respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries and promotion of economic and cultural co-operation 'on the basis of complete equality and mutual benefit.^^3^^

International law deals with, and develops, the principles and standards of the peaceful coexistence of states with different socio-economic systems. The spotlight in international law is, indeed, focussed on the problem of peaceful coexistence. The legal aspects of the matter are given meat and bone by the daily actions of governments in their international dealings, by the activities of foreign ministries and other bodies handling external relations.

The prevention of a world nuclear war by the forces of peace has been the ultimate test of the peaceful coexistence idea. To a certain extent, it was the progressive standards

of modern international law, and the efforts of the nations and of many governments to secure their observance, that helped achieve this happy outcome.

Post-war international relations have convinced many people in the West that the peaceful coexistence of states has a direct bearing on the future of human society and is highly important in the context of modern international law.

Take the speech of the late President John Kennedy at American University on June 10, 1963. He called on Americans to ``examine'' their "attitude towards peace itself" and to realise that "world peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbour---it requires only that they live together with mutual tolerance submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement.''^^1^^

Utterances of this kind are piling up. People are taking note of the fact that communism has become "the greatest force of modern times, a society that is being built up over vast areas of the globe" and that now already "one-third of mankind is building a new life under the banner of scientific communism",^^2^^ that communism is not a passing vogue to be relegated to a museum within a year or a decade.

There are people, however, who are trying to identify peaceful coexistence of states with peaceful coexistence of ideologies. What they are trying to do is to identify the inter-governmental and legal aspects of the relations between countries of the two systems with the class struggle at home.

The basic content of the contemporary epoch lies in the transition from capitalism to communism. It is pointless to expect, therefore, that the capitalist system will produce anything positive in its effort to preserve the modern world. It is pointless to expect that it can solve global problems without the participation of the socialist system.

Those who do not take both systems into account in settling world problems are sure to fail. The facts disprove the contention, such as the one made by William Ernest Hocking, the U.S. sociologist, that "there is no pure example either of communism or of capitalism" in the world today.^^3^^

~^^1^^ G. V. Chicherin, Statyi i rechi po voprosam mezhdunarodnoi politiki, Sotsekgiz, 1961, p. 258.

~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 145.

~^^3^^ The Road to Communism, p. 56.

~^^1^^ J. Kenned}', "Toward a Strategy of Peace", The Department of State Bulletin, July 27, 1963, pp. 5-7.

~^^2^^ The Road to Communism, p. 449.

~^^3^^ W. E. Hocking, Strength of Men and Nations. A Message to the USA Vis-a-Vis the USSR, New York, 1959, p. 35.

2-3121

This is a futile attempt at obscuring the fact that the world today is a theatre of struggle between two opposite social systems, between antagonistic outlooks, and that the nations are living through a period of keen ideological and class conflicts.^^1^^

Many Western leaders are trying to identify the conceptions of inter-state relations and of ideological struggle in order to obscure the existence of states with two different and antagonistic systems. Take Walt Whitman Rostow, the prominent American economist and sociologist, who claims that "the image of a bi-polar world ... is inaccurate now, and it will become progressively more inaccurate with the passage of time''.

What makes Rostow think it is ``inaccurate'', and what does he think is ``accurate''?

``The arena of power," says Rostow, "will enlarge to become, for the first time in history, truly global.''^^2^^

So that is what Rostow has up his sleeve! What he wants is for capitalist power to become universal again. What he wants is to enlarge the arena of capital, to make it truly global.

This explains why the U.S. doctrine and practice of international law is bent on diverting research from the problems of peaceful coexistence, and why it insists on substituting the formula of "co-operation among nations" for "the peaceful coexistence of states".^^3^^ What it wants is to belittle, if not deny, the international significance of the socialist system.

The enemies of peaceful coexistence go out of their way to pervert its content and to discredit it before the public.^^4^^

In the past, Western ideologists tried to brush off the conception of peaceful coexistence and said it did not exist. Today, many of them concentrate on distorting its substance and perverting its legal basis. The journal General Military Review, for example, describes peaceful coexistence

as an optimistic palliative aimed at securing a breathing space in the proletariat's struggle for total domination.^^1^^

Other ideologists think peaceful coexistence is no more than a temporary and unstable state of peace. West German writers are particularly fond of this formula. They describe peace as a ``pause'' between wars, a time of "accumulating strength" for a new world war.

The W^Test German generals (who recently issued a special document, "Psychological Struggle as a New Field of War and Leadership") aver that "the total clash of world outlooks creates a permanent absence of peace in our time, an all-out struggle in all fields of life''.

Clearly, the Bonn generals are trying to provide a theoretical basis for their militaristic plans by claiming, in effect, that the confrontation of world outlooks makes lasting peaceful coexistence impossible. The opponents of peaceful coexistence are at pains to prove that inter-- governmental contradictions are insuperable and international disputes insoluble.

In the teeth of such contentions, which reduce the concept of peaceful coexistence to merely a temporary absence of war, progressive statesmen and public leaders, journalists and scientists claim on absolutely valid grounds that peaceful coexistence implies commercial, economic, cultural, scientific and other contacts between all countries, that the conceptions of ``peace'' and "peaceful coexistence" are intimately connected and that peaceful coexistence has a far broader connotation than merely an absence of war between states in this or that period.

There is no ground for Professor Hazard's pronouncement that the Soviet concept of peaceful coexistence is "related solely to keeping the peace",^^2^^ that it merely connotes a middle road between open conflict and war and does not infer co-operation. The official Soviet conception of peaceful coexistence has nothing in common with the "limited conception of coexistence" ascribed to it by Hazard and other monopoly ideologists.^^3^^

The facts show that peaceful coexistence is not a mere recognition of the existence of the world socialist system,

~^^1^^ See General Military Review, Dec. 1961, p. 648.

~^^2^^ J. N. Hazard, "Codifying Peaceful Coexistence", The American Journal of International Law, 1961, Vol. 55, p. 111.

~^^3^^ J. N. Hazard, "Legal Research on 'Peaceful Coexistence'", Vol. 51, pp. 64, 69.

2'

19

~^^1^^ Protiv sovremennoi burzhuaznoi filosofii, ed. by M. T. lovchuk, Moscow, 1963, pp. 33-39; Sovremennaya filosofiya i sotsiologiya v stranakh Zapadnoi Yevropy i Ameriki, ed. by M. A. Dynnik, Moscow, 1964, p. 461.

~^^2^^ W. W. Rostow, The Stages of Economic Growth. A Non-- Communist Manifesto, Cambridge University Press, 1960, p. 128.

~^^3^^ J. N. Hazard, "Legal Research on 'Peaceful Coexistence' ", The American Journal of International Law, 1957, Vol. 51, p. 65.

~^^4^^ G. D. Karpov, Ideologicheskaya diversiya protivnikov mirnogo sosushchestvovaniya, Moscow, 1965.

but a recognition as well of its increasing role in modern international relations, and a recognition that it is an objectively existing reality of the epoch of the transition from one socio-economic formation to another.^^1^^

Peaceful coexistence implies the right of every nation to choose its own form of government, political structure and economic system in accordance with its sovereign will. It implies emphatically that the social and political arrangement of every state is within the sole and inviolable competence of its people. None but the people have the right to decide how they want to live, what way of life they want to follow.

The United States, it is true, takes a different view. It has forged a doctrine of the ``incompatibility'' of socialism with the principles of the Western hemisphere. More, it has pushed through its doctrine at the Punta del Este conference of American States, which framed a resolution that the existence of the Republic of Cuba, being constituted along Marxist-Leninist principles, was ``incompatible'' with the principles of the American system. By its aggressive conduct against Cuba and the Dominican Republic, the United States has thus attempted to formalise its doctrine in international practice, though it contradicts international law, the U.N. Charter and peaceful coexistence.

U.S. armed operations in the Dominican Republic are nothing but export of counter-revolution, which is condemned by international law. It also contradicts the late President Kennedy's statement of June 10, 1963, that the United States will not impose its system on any nation that does not wish to accept it.

Yet, no sooner had the followers of Bosch, the bourgeois liberal lawfully elected President of the Dominican Republic, rejected the ``gorillas'' who had usurped power by force than the United States landed 20,000 U.S. marines to impose rulers the Dominicans did not want. However, the proponents of ``incompatibility'' overlook the obvious fact that objectively developing processes cannot be blocked either by armed export of ideas or by gunboat diplomacy and the big nuclear stick.

Realistic leaders and scientists recognise this fact. "The general trend in the new, economically developing nations

and in Latin America," says an official U.S. paper on this score, "is toward some form of socialism as a method for achieving social and economic betterment through rapid and planned development.''^^1^^

U.S. diplomat Chester Bowies admitted that since the obvious majority in the non-communist countries are unwilling to accept as a model the American way of life, the demand that the two-thirds of mankind inhabiting the noncommunist world join the United States in a crusade for the "American way of life" is a fatuous undertaking doomed to certain failure.^^2^^

In spite of this, the governing groups of certain countries are trying to impose their way of life on the peoples of other lands, as in South Vietnam and the Dominican Republic.

Andrew Tully, author of a book about the Central Intelligence Agency, says that ``installation'' of puppet administrations and "the setting up" of new regimes^^3^^ is the stockin-trade of the United States for the export of counter-- revolution. Walter Lippmann, too, admits that the United States is liable, in the name of anti-communism, to assist governments that oppose any and all important socia) changes.^^4^^

The Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union points out that "peaceful coexistence serves as a basis for the peaceful competition between socialism and capitalism on an international scale and constitutes a specific form of class struggle between them".^^5^^ In this struggle, socialism will defeat capitalism by sheer force of example.

In the meantime, the advocates of the capitalist system claim that it is superior to the socialist system. So why do they fear the influence of socialist ideas on the minds and hearts of the people, and why do they attempt to impose their way of life by force of arms?

``The Soviet system," writes Erich Fromm, a U.S. writer, "challenges us to develop a system that can satisfy the needs

~^^1^^ United States Foreign Policy, Ideology and Foreign Affairs, Study Prepared at the Request of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate, Washington, 1960, p. 3.

~^^2^^ Ch. Bowles, The Coming Political Breakthrough, New York, 1959, p. 144.

~^^3^^ A. Tully, C.I.A., The Inside Story, New York, 1962, pp. 89, 214.

~^^4^^ W. Lippmann, The Coming Tests with Russia, Boston, 1961, p. 36.

~^^5^^ The Road to Communism, p. 506,

~^^1^^ Y. P. Frantsev, Peace, Peaceful Coexistence and Prospects Ahead for Socialism, Moscow, 1964, p. 31.

of man better than communism does. But while we talk a great deal about freedom and the superiority of our system, we avoid the Soviet challenge and prefer to describe communism as an international conspiracy out to conquer the world by force and subversion. The Russians hope to see the victory of communism as the result of its superior performance. Are we afraid that we cannot meet the communist competition, and is this the reason why we prefer to define the struggle as a military one rather than as a socio-economic one?''^^1^^

Speaking of peaceful economic competition, Lenin stressed that it is a contest of two modes of production, two formations, two economies, the communist and the capitalist, in which force of example and influence is decisive. This is why Lenin urged that the significance of communism be shown in practice, by example.^^2^^ He pointed out that the Soviet system exercised its "main influence on the international revolution through its economic policy".^^3^^ In the world as a whole, the struggle has shifted to the economic scene, to the economic competition. It is in this plane that socialism can win certainly and finally on an international scale.^^4^^

The reason why force of example is gaining increasing prominence as a factor in the peaceful competition between states of the two social systems and in international relations is that the masses, the makers of history, the makers of all material and spiritual values, are growing progressively into the decisive force of both domestic and foreign policy. Force of example is also important because the ideological struggle in the international arena is one of the key factors of foreign policy and of inter-state relations.

The striking economic progress and the scientific and cultural accomplishments of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, the fact that the states of two social systems have coexisted in the world for the past fifty years--- all this bears out the vitality of the Marxist-Leninist peaceful coexistence doctrine.

2. AN OBJECTIVE LAW GOVERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF MANKIND

Not only have Lenin's ideas of peaceful coexistence won the minds of hundreds of millions of people in the past half century. They have also won prominence in modern international law, comprising a clear-cut system of vital principles and standards.

The implementation of the principles and standards of peaceful coexistence is playing a decisive part in delivering mankind from the threat of a nuclear catastrophe, securing a lasting peace and impelling the further progress of human society.

It is truly difficult to overrate the immense power of organisation and innovation implicit in Lenin's ideas of peaceful coexistence with respect to the whole system of international relations.

This is a fact that both the friends and foes of peaceful coexistence understand perfectly well.

For all this, we are still likely to encounter the viewpoint that peaceful coexistence is incompatible with MarxistLeninist theory, that Leninism as a doctrine of the world socialist revolution rules out in principle the possibility of peaceful coexistence and that, in any case, the idea of peaceful coexistence was never postulated by Lenin. Bernard Ramundo, an American author, for one, claims that peaceful coexistence did not become a keynote of Soviet foreign policy until after the 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U.^^1^^

Another ``expert'', one Edward McWhinney, claims that peaceful coexistence as a legal concept dates back to the beginning of 1956, when the Association of International Law convened in Dubrovi, and that it was initiated by Yugoslav jurists, while Soviet jurists, of all things, opposed it.^^2^^ McWhinney maintains that Lenin never mentioned peaceful coexistence and that the idea is being falsely attributed to him by contemporary Soviet jurists.^^3^^

B. Meissner, foreign policy adviser to the Bonn Government, dates the ``invention'' of peaceful coexistence in the Soviet Union to 1927,^^4^^ whereas another ``expert'', Gustav

~^^1^^ B. Ramundo, The Socialist Theory of International Law, Washington, 1964, p. 25.

~^^2^^ E. McWhinney, "Peaceful Coexistence" and Soviet-Western International Law, Leyden, 1964, p. 32.

~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 31.

~^^4^^ Der Spiegel, Jan. 15, 1964, No. 3, S. 62.

~^^1^^ E. Fromm, May Man Prevail? An Inquiry into the Facts and Fictions of Foreign Policy, 1961, p. 251.

~^^2^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 457.

~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 32, p. 437.

~^^4^^ Ibid.

Wetter, maintains that the policy of peaceful coexistence is at loggerheads with the Marxist-Leninist teaching. Yet it is common knowledge that Lenin substantiated, and experience reaffirmed, that peaceful coexistence is the soundest possible principle of international relations "during the period of the coexistence side by side of socialist and capitalist states"^^1^^ and that the plans of the Soviet state are centred on "peaceful coexistence with the peoples ... with all nations".^^2^^

The ideologists of aggressive imperialism make all their contentions in order to promote the idea that co-operation with the countries of the socialist system is impossible, to obstruct any relaxation of international tension and to continue their policy of armed aggression unhindered.

Bur everything they say is contrary to the facts, because Lenin's teaching on the peaceful coexistence of the states of the socialist and capitalist systems is part and parcel of Marxist-Leninist theory.

It was long before the October Revolution that Lenin discovered the law of the uneven development of capitalism from country to country and arrived at the conclusion, fully confirmed by subsequent events, that "socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries" and that it will "achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will for some time remain bourgeois or prebourgeois".^^3^^

After the Great October Socialist Revolution Lenin stressed that "the workers' revolution develops unevenly in different countries, since the conditions of political life differ".^^4^^

He drew attention to the objective mainsprings of the world socialist revolution, independent of the will of people, due to which, given the uneven development of different countries, the revolution takes place in some countries, while the others remain bourgeois or even pre-bourgeois. "History," Lenin wrote, "does not run smoothly and pleasantly, permitting the working people of all countries to rise simultaneously with us.''^^5^^ This, as Lenin put it, is a "historical inevitability"^^6^^ governing the simultaneous co-

existence of socialist states and states still in the presocialist stage.

The relationship between states with different socio-- economic systems has been a pivotal question in international relations ever since the October Revolution. Lenin drew attention to the historic significance of the fact that in our epoch "the reciprocal relations between peoples and the world political system as a whole"^^1^^ hinged on the relations that prevailed between the countries of the socialist and capitalist systems.

The only thing that may be added on this score is that peaceful coexistence was, and still is, the only basic principle governing the relations of the states of the two systems. At different stages of history Lenin used different expressions to define this principle to fit the varying situations ("peaceful co-habitation", "equality of the two systems of ownership", "alliance of all countries without exception", "peaceful relations with all countries"), but the substance of what he said was always one and the same---it connoted the peaceful coexistence of the states of the two systems. Lenin believed that peaceful coexistence was inevitable as an objective historical fact and referred to the necessity of "this or that form of economic relations"^^2^^, "certain relations between ourselves and the capitalist countries",^^3^^ etc.

Yet, while the world's first socialist state showed a distinct inclination from its first day to recognise the inevitability of peaceful coexistence, the leaders of the capitalist world resisted it (by blockade, intervention, refusal to recognise the Soviet Government, etc.) for a long time.

The reluctance of the capitalist countries to coexist peacefully with the Soviet state contradicted the objective laws of history. The subjective factors rooted in the governing circles of the capitalist countries took precedence. They were generated by a bitter hatred of the proletarian revolution, a reluctance to deal with the communist government and a desire to strangle the Soviet Republic, the torch-bearer of the world revolution.

Lenin exposed the futility of all attempts to block the operation of objective economic laws. He showed it was futile for the capitalist leaders to act solely on their subjective class interests in dealing with the Soviet socialist

~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 241.

~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 151.

~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 213.

~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p, 39.

~^^2^^ Ibid. p. 365.

~^^3^^ Ibid.

~^^4^^ Ibid.

~^^5^^ Ibid.

~^^6^^ Ibid.

Vol. 23, p. 79. Vol. 28, p. 119. Vol. 27, p. 167. p. 101.

state. He pointed out that "there is a force more powerful than the wishes, the will and the decisions of any of the governments or classes that are hostile to us. That force is world general economic relations, which compel them to make contact with us".^^1^^ He also pointed out that "without definite relations between us and the capitalist countries we cannot have stable economic relations. Events very clearly show that neither can the capitalist countries have them".^^2^^

``The most urgent, pressing and practical interests that have been sharply revealed in all the capitalist countries during the past few years," he went on to say, "call for the development, regulation and expansion of trade with Russia.''^^3^^

It would be wrong, however, to reduce the concept and importance of peaceful coexistence to just the objective economic factors and to underrate the factors of the superstructural order, which also strongly influence the international situation and promote relations of peaceful coexistence.

Lenin pointed out that "this fundamental economic necessity will make a way for itself",^^4^^ but at once attached importance to the peace-loving foreign policy of the Soviet state, to its flexible and resourceful diplomacy, to international agreements and the standards of international law. At the Eighth All-Russia Congress of Soviets in 1920 Lenin noted that "we are winning over to our policy of peace a steadily increasing number of states which are undoubtedly hostile towards the Soviets".^^5^^

Despite what the various opponents of peaceful coexistence have to say, its immense influence on the entire system of international relations was already apparent in Lenin's time. This is why Lenin had good cause to say that "it is our duty to do everything that our diplomacy can

do___We promise the workers and peasants to do all we

can for peace".^^6^^

It is a Leninist rule not to rely solely on the objective laws governing social development and never to neglect

foreign policy and diplomacy, which secure the necessary agreements between states of the two systems to promote the principles of peaceful coexistence.

Yet it is obvious, too, that foreign policy and diplomacy should not be overrated. They cannot be successful, unless they conform with the objective laws of history. Neither the one nor the other can repeal them.

Peaceful coexistence as an upshot of objective economic laws cannot be repealed or abolished by a foreign policy, even if it assumes the form of aggression, intervention, blockade or cold war against the socialist countries.

Modern international law recognises and promotes peaceful coexistence. This does not mean, however, that violations of international law repeal or abolish peaceful coexistence. Violations of law cannot replace law itself. Neither can they repeal an objective law of history or create a new objective law to govern social development. Therefore, we must not make the possibility of peaceful coexistence conditional on the observance or non-observance of the standards of international law. Violations of international law impede peaceful coexistence, but they cannot repeal it, or make it impossible. Peaceful coexistence has made headway despite numerous violations of universally recognised standards of international law by imperialist states. The struggle in behalf of these standards is waged because their observance furthers the principles of peaceful coexistence.

The more aggressive imperialist ideologists and politicians expect to wipe out peaceful coexistence by violating universally recognised standards of international law and obstructing the conclusion of international treaties and agreements designed to promote peaceful coexistence.

What they want would be to announce that due to the repeal of a treaty, a break of diplomatic relations, a declaration of war or an intervention, peaceful coexistence is over.

This is what they expected to achieve in the early years of the Soviet Republic by their policy of blockade and armed intervention, by refusing to recognise the Soviet state ---the socialist subject of international law. The Entente did its utmost to wipe out the new socialist state and extirpate the very idea of peaceful coexistence.

But they were in for a disappointment. The objective laws were stronger than their wish, their aggressive policy and

~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 155.

~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 151.

~^^3^^ Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. 3, p. 726.

~^^4^^ Ibid., p. 727.

~^^5^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 488.

~^^6^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 379,

their reluctance to deal with the Soviet Republic. Neither the blockade nor the armed intervention could wipe out peaceful coexistence. Lenin drew the following conclusion: "We must therefore remember," he said, "that peace is of course possible from the point of view of the world situation, the historical situation created by the Civil War and by the war against the Entente.''^^1^^ The Soviet efforts for peace, for peaceful coexistence, he added, were "yielding splendid results"^^2^^ despite the adverse circumstances.

The question of whether wars between states of the two systems are fatally inevitable is closely associated with the question of objective and subjective factors.

It will be recalled that some theorists styling themselves as Marxists think that war is fatally inevitable, despite all the changes in the world since the Great October Socialist Revolution and the emergence of the world socialist system.

Their attitude is contrary to Leninism, for Leninism has always postulated that wars were inevitable in the epoch of imperialist domination, and that a new era, delivering mankind from wars, was ushered in by the October Revolution and the establishment of a socialist state in Russia.

The exponents of the doctrine of the fatal inevitability of wars in our epoch apply Lenin's references to the inevitability of wars among capitalist countries in the imperialist epoch to relations between socialist and capitalist countries at a time \vhen war is no longer inevitable and realistic opportunities have appeared not only to prevent it, but to remove it entirely from the life of society.

Examining the capitalist principle of violent and coercive settlement of international disputes, Lenin wrote before the October Revolution that no basis, no principle of division other than force was possible under capitalism. "There is and there can be no other way of testing the real might of a capitalist state than by war," he wrote. "War does not contradict the fundamentals of private property---on the contrary, it is a direct and inevitable outcome of those fundamentals. Under capitalism the smooth economic growth of individual enterprises or individual states is impossible. Under capitalism, there are no other means of restoring the

periodically disturbed equilibrium than crises in industry and wars in politics.''^^1^^

Since wars "cannot be destroyed by the intrigues of rulers and diplomats," Lenin pointed out, "the task of the socialists is not to awaken illusions on this score, but on the contrary constantly to expose the hypocrisy and impotence of diplomatic 'peaceful demarches'.''^^2^^

The bourgeoisie strives to prove that peace is possible under capitalism, that international conflicts can be settled peacefully, and that wars can be prevented. Prior to 1917, when imperialism ruled undivided, the most fashionable way of furthering this idea was to prattle about pacifism, disarmament, arbitration, the equality of small nations, the United States of Europe, and ultra-imperialism. All these were nothing but non-committal hypocritical formulas typical of the thoroughly mendacious diplomacy of imperialism.^^3^^

Lenin's writings exposed bourgeois pacifism and the reactionary purport of the abstract sermon of peace,^^4^^ the reactionary complexion of the disarmament slogan under capitalism, always coupled with increasing militarism,^^5^^ and the reactionary substance of international arbitration in the capitalist environment.^^6^^ Lenin demonstrated the specious nature of the slogan of the equality of nations under capitalism^^7^^ and the impossibility of settling national conflicts, the reactionary nature of the United States of Europe slogan so long as capitalism^^8^^ survived, the reactionary purport of the "theory of ultra-imperialism", etc.

The law of the uneven development of capitalism, which inevitably caused wars between capitalist countries in the imperialist epoch, paved the way for the victory of socialism first only in one or a few countries.

``This," Lenin stressed in 1916, "is bound to create not only friction, but a direct attempt on the part of the bour-

~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 341.

~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 15, pp. 199-200.

~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 23, p. 128.

~^^4^^ Ibid., Vol. 21, pp. 162, 290, 292; Vol. 22, pp. 176, 191; Vol. 23, p. 268.

~^^5^^ Ibid., Vol. 10, pp. 56-57; Vol. 15, pp. 131, 191, 196; Vol. 19, p 106; Vol. 23, pp. 81, 97, 267.

~^^6^^ Ibid., Vol. 21, pp. 267-68; Vol. 22, p. 173.

~^^7^^ Ibid., Vol. 18, pp. 543-44; Vol. 21, p. 293.

~^^8^^ Ibid., Vol. 21, pp. 342-43; Vol. 22, pp. 341-43.

~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 455.

~^^2^^ Ibid.

geoisie of other countries to crush the socialist state's victorious proletariat.''^^1^^

Lenin also foresaw that a programme of peace and friendship among nations was the first necessary step the victorious socialist revolution had to make, though this would lash the capitalist world to fury.

Lenin warned that "the whole capitalist world is armed to the teeth and is only waiting for the moment, choosing the best strategical conditions, and studying the means of attack".^^2^^

The policy of the capitalist governments confirmed Lenin's predictions soon after the revolution in Russia. Lenin pointed out that "the imperialist plunderers in the West, in the North and in the East are taking advantage of Russia's defencelessness to tear her heart out"^^3^^ and that "the imperialists of the Entente countries are blockading Russia in an effort to cut off the Soviet Republic, as a seat of infection, from the capitalist world".^^4^^

Speaking at the Eighth Congress of the Russian Communist Party, held at the height of the foreign armed intervention, Lenin said: "We are living not merely in a state, but in a system of states", and that therefore "there will have to be a series of frightful collisions between the Soviet Republic and the bourgeois states.''^^5^^

At the Ninth Congress, on April 5, 1920, Lenin warned again that "the whole capitalist world is armed to the teeth and is only waiting for the moment, choosing the best strategical conditions, and studying the means of attack".⁶ Later, after the intervention ended, Lenin noted: "The international bourgeoisie, deprived of the opportunity of waging open war against Soviet Russia, is waiting and watching for the moment when circumstances will permit it to resume the war.''^^7^^

3. A PROGRESSIVE POLITICAL IDEA

Does this mean that Lenin considered wars between the capitalist world and the Soviet Republic inevitable? Does it mean, too, that the Great October Socialist Revolution

1 Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 79.

~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 487.

~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 466.

~^^4^^ Ibid., Vol. 29, p. 305.

~^^5^^ Ibid., p. 153.

~^^6^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 487.

~^^7^^ Ibid., Vol. 32, p. 452.

and the birth of the world's first socialist state injected nothing new into international relations and had no influence on the foreign policy of finance capital, which makes wars inevitable?

No, Lenin pointed out in reference to the question of war and peace, a question of life and death to millions of people, that "in this question, too, our October Revolution marked the beginning of a new era in world history".^^1^^

Lenin wrote: "We have every right to be and are proud, that to us has fallen the good fortune to begin the building of a Soviet state and thereby to usher in a new era in world history, the era of the rule of a new class, a class which is oppressed in every capitalist country, but which is everywhere marching forward towards a new life, to victory over the bourgeoisie, to proletarian dictatorship, to the deliverance of mankind from the yoke of capital, from imperialist wars.''^^2^^ (My italics---G.Z.]

Lenin was sure it was possible to prevent imperialist wars even though capitalism still existed in many countries.

Speaking at the Seventh All-Russia Congress of Soviets on December 5, 1919, he said: "On the basis of two years' experience, we can say to you with absolute certainty that every one of our military victories will greatly hasten the approach of the time---now very near---when we can devote the whole of our energy to peaceful construction.''^^3^^

In his summing up, Lenin spoke with assurance about the possibility of "gaining for ourselves a durable and lengthy peace". He spoke of the possibility of "peaceful socialist construction for a long time" once the Civil War was over.^^4^^

He distinctly rejected the notion that wars between states of the two systems were inevitable. This is clear from his inference that "from the standpoint of world history, peace is of course possible".^^5^^

If he had thought peace impossible, how could he have based the Soviet foreign policy on mankind's general urge after the First World War "towards freedom, towards peaceful labour and against possible future wars"?^^6^^ This

1 Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 55.

~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 55.

~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 230.

~^^4^^ Ibid., p. 252.

~^^5^^ Ibid.

~^^6^^ Ibid., p. 365.

Soviet foreign policy, in Europe and Asia, "just as elsewhere", pursued the aim of securing "peaceful coexistence with all peoples"^^1^^; this was an aim Lenin could not have pursued if he had thought war inevitable.

The facts show that Lenin considered peaceful coexistence, rather than war, inevitable. "We can say with a fair amount of certainty," he wrote, "that regular trade relations between the Soviet Republic and all the capitalist countries in the world are certain to continue developing.''^^2^^

The Soviet Government headed by Lenin deemed it possible as early as in 1922 to speak not only of establishing peace, but of eliminating wars. In an interview to Farbman, an English news correspondent, on October 27, 1922, Lenin declared the Soviet Government's determination to work for "the greatest possible number of the simplest and most obvious decisions and measures that would certainly lead to peace, if not to the complete elimination of the war danger".^^3^^

These and many other of Lenin's propositions were taken into consideration in the decisions of the congresses of the C.P.S.U..on the absence of a fatal inevitability of wars in the contemporary epoch. They repudiated the notion that wars were inevitable so long as imperialism existed on earth.^^4^^

It is precisely in the matter of stamping out wars and securing peace, Lenin said, that "socialism contains within itself gigantic forces" and that "mankind has now entered a new stage of development, of extraordinarily brilliant prospects".^^3^^

These possibilities are doubly realistic in our day, when it is no longer capitalism but the world socialist system that exercises the decisive influence on the course of world events. This is why talk about the inevitability of wars in the modern epoch merges willy-nilly with the contention of the imperialist ideologists, who impute to the socialist countries an aggressive war policy aimed at establishing communist world domination. It is the ideologists of imperialism who cherish the idea that war is inevit-

able. U.S. State Secretary Dean Rusk, for one, avers that the bulk of mankind is not able today to take part directly in solving the problem of controlling force in international relations.

Lenin stressed that "our workers and peasants prized above all the blessings of peace"^^1^^. He declared time and again that "we shall do our utmost to preserve peace in the future"^^2^^ and demonstrate by specific measures "our unwavering desire to pursue a policy of peace".^^3^^

On the heels of the famous Decree on Peace in which Lenin's Party and government raised "the banner of peace, the banner of socialism for the whole world to see",^^4^^ the Seventh All-Russia Congress of Soviets on December 5, 1919, passed a resolution on Lenin's initiative solemnly confirming the principle of peaceful coexistence as the general line of Soviet foreign policy. "The Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic," the resolution said, "wishes to live in peace with all peoples and devote all its efforts to internal development in order to establish the smooth running of production, transport and government affairs on the basis of the Soviet system; this has so far been prevented by the intervention of the Entente and the starvation blockade.''^^5^^

The Seventh All-Russia Congress of Soviets instructed all constitutional bodies handling foreign affairs "to continue this peace policy systematically, taking all appropriate measures to ensure its success".^^6^^

Lenin did not mince words to reject the idea of an offensive war against the capitalist world, despite the people's legitimate anger, indignation and hate of imperialism.^^7^^

Back in April 1918, Lenin said on this score that "any Russian who contemplated the task of overthrowing international imperialism on the basis of Russian forces would be a lunatic".^^8^^

On March 12, 1919, Lenin stressed again that an offensive war against imperialism was impossible.^^9^^

~^^1^^ Leni

a, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 150.

~^^2^^ Ibid.

Vol. 32, p. 115.

~^^3^^ Ibid.

Vol. 33, p. 149.

~^^4^^ Ibid.

Vol. 28, p. 65.

~^^5^^ Ibid.

Vol. 30, p. 231.

~^^6^^ Ibid.

~^^7^^ Ibid.

Vol. 27, p. 167.

~^^8^^ Ibid.

p. 292.

~^^9^^ Ibid.

Vol. 29, p. 30.

~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 365.

2 Ibid., p. 265.

~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 386.

~^^4^^ V. I. Zamkovoi, Kritika burzhuaznykh teori neizbezhnosti novoi mirovoi voiny, Moscow, 1965.

~^^3^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 498.

3-3121

Yet there are still writers like Meissner, who attribute to Lenin the idea that peaceful coexistence implies " expansion of communism by means of a military or non-military use of force" in some cases and "revolutionary coups and the establishment of minority dictatorships from within" in others.^^1^^

Lenin opposed export of revolution to the capitalist countries. "There are people," he said, "who believe that revolution can break out in a foreign country to order, by agreement. These people are either mad, or they are provocateurs", because revolutions "break out when tens of millions of people come to the conclusion that it is impossible to live in the old way any longer,"^^2^^ because " revolutions are not made to order, cannot be timed for any particular moment; they mature in the process of historical development and break out at a moment determined by a whole complex of internal and external causes.''^^3^^

This is due to the objective nature of the laws of social development, which have to be taken into account. This is why Lenin said: "I propose this not because I like it, but because we have no other road, because history has not been kind enough to bring the revolution to maturity everywhere simultaneously.''^^4^^

Lenin's objections to the idea of exporting revolution, based on his knowledge of the laws of social development, were of the utmost practical importance because they were aimed at avoiding war as a result of exporting or even ``pushing'' revolution. "Such a push," Lenin pointed out, "can be given only by war, never by peace.''^^5^^

Lenin stressed specifically that "such a theory" was at variance with Marxism, which always opposed ``pushing'' revolutions, for they develop by themselves "with the growing acuteness of the class antagonisms".^^6^^

What policy, we may ask, should the Soviet socialist state follow according to Lenin's teaching in relation to "the outside world, to those states that have remained in capitalist hands"^^7^^?

The policy postulated by Lenin was peaceful coexistence, creating conditions in which, "having started on our work of peaceful development, we shall exert every effort to continue it without interruption".^^1^^ Lenin considered peaceful coexistence the only possible condition in which "we shall be able to devote ourselves wholeheartedly to economic development and ... shall be able, for a longer period, to work calmly, steadfastly and confidently".^^2^^

There is no reason to think, however, that Lenin granted absolution to capitalism. By no means did he consider peaceful coexistence a conciliation with capitalism tantamount to abandoning the class struggle. "The abolition of capitalism," he wrote, "and of its vestiges, and the establishment of the fundamentals of the communist order comprise the content of the new era of world history that has just set in.''^^3^^

What did Lenin mean by "destruction of capitalism and of all traces of it''?

As we have already seen, Lenin rejected international wars between socialism and capitalism, export or ``pushing'' of revolution and every variety of intervention in the affairs of other countries.

What Lenin considered the only realistic road to world revolution, to the victory of socialism over capitalism, was peaceful economic competition between the two formations, and the ultimate economic successes of the victorious socialist country.^^4^^

For the peoples to fling capitalism overboard and establish the rudiments of communist order each in their own country, Lenin believed they had to be shown "the significance of communism in practice, by example".^^5^^

This is why Lenin stressed time and again that "we are now exercising our main influence on the international revolution through our economic policy".^^6^^

It is in the sphere of peaceful competition between the capitalist and socialist systems, precisely in an environment of peaceful coexistence, Lenin pointed out, that "we

~^^1^^ B. Meissner, "Die Sovietunion und das Volkerrecht 1917-1962", Koln, 1962, Der Spiegel, Jan. 15, 1964.

~^^2^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 480.

~^^3^^ Ibid. p. 547.

~^^1^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 151.

~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, pp. 491-92.

~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 392.

~^^4^^ Ibid., Vol. 32, p. 437.

~^^5^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 457. ~^^0^^ Ibid., Vol. 32, p. 437.

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.

p. 101. pp. 71-72. pp. 71-72. Vol. 31, p. 418.

shall have certainly and finally won on an international scale".^^1^^

In his last article, "Better Fewer, But Better", Lenin emphasised the importance of the economic accomplishments of the socialist country with an eye to "the inevitability of the final victory of socialism". He outlined a "general plan of our work, our policy, our tactics, our strategy" which "we, the Russian Communist Party, we, the Russian Soviet Government, should pursue" in an environment of peaceful coexistence---"to prevent the West European counter-revolutionary states from crushing us".^^2^^

Lenin said Soviet economic successes would be the earnest of this policy, strategy and tactics and urged that the utmost efforts be made "to develop our large-scale machine industry, to develop electrification", etc. "In this, and in this alone," he said, "lies our hope.''^^3^^

A class struggle is being fought unintermittently in the world both by socialism against capitalism, and by capitalism against socialism, despite peaceful coexistence. We are encircled by imperialist states who hate the Bolsheviks with all their hearts, wrote Lenin, and added that it is necessary "to be on the alert, to remember that we are surrounded by people, classes, governments who openly express the utmost hatred for us".^^4^^

Peaceful coexistence is inconceivable without class struggle on an international level, even though one or another country may suddenly wish to abandon this struggle.

Those of the Left who criticise Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence from the ``left'' and pronounce it as " advantageous to imperialism" are as far removed from the truth as heaven is from earth. The imperialist ideologists and politicians know perfectly well that peaceful coexistence is class struggle, which is of no advantage to them and which they are vainly trying to squash. It was this, indeed, that prompted von Brentano, the former Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany, to call for "a controlled world-wide ban on class struggle".^^5^^

4. A REALISTIC INTERNATIONAL POLICY

The imperialist ideologists and politicians who oppose contacts with the socialist countries keep saying that Lenin's conception of peaceful coexistence allegedly rules out cooperation between countries of the two systems. They endeavour to prove that class struggle and international cooperation are incompatible.

Yet Lenin deprecated those who opposed international co-operation and who objected to treaties and agreements with the capitalist countries. He ridiculed people who thought, as he put it, that "the interests of the world revolution forbid making any peace at all with the imperialists". "A socialist republic surrounded by imperialist powers," he told them, "could not, from this point of view, conclude any economic treaties, and could not exist at all, without flying to the moon.''^^1^^

The many practical actions of the Soviet Government under Lenin's leadership show convincingly how much importance he attached to peace treaties, international agreements and transactions, diplomatic relations, commerce and co-operation between the Soviet state and the capitalist countries in the handling of world problems.

We might recall what Lenin said about the peace treaty with Estonia, to say nothing of the Brest Treaty, as a means of developing international co-operation. "We have concluded peace with Estonia---the first peace," he wrote. "It will be followed by others, opening up for us the possibility of trading with Europe and America.''^^2^^ The peace terms provided for in the treaty with William C. Bullitt (disavowed by the Western Powers) reveal the deep interest the Soviet Government showed in peace agreements with the capitalist countries. "We hold so dear the blood of the workers and peasants shed for so long in Russia," said Lenin, "that although the terms are extremely unfavourable, we are prepared to accept them.''^^3^^

Lenin protested vigorously against the attempts of capitalist governments to scuttle the peace treaties they signed with the Soviet Republic. "We shall not permit peace treaties to be flouted," Lenin warned. "We shall not permit attempts to interfere with our peaceful work.''^^4^^

* Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 71.

~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 347.

~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 150.

~^^4^^ Ibid., p. 149.

~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 437.

~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 500.

~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 501.

~^^4^^ Ibid., p. 148.

~^^5^^ Politisch-Soziale Korrespondenz, Sept. 1961, S. 16.

Lenin also attached special importance to trade between countries of the two systems. He said: "We must trade with the capitalist countries as long as they exist .. . and the fact we can do so is proved by the increasing number of trade agreements we are signing and negotiating with them.''^^1^^

At the Ninth All-Russia Congress of Soviets in December 1921, Lenin noted with satisfaction that "Russia has sprouted, if one may so express it, a number of fairly regular and permanent commercial relations, missions, treaties, etc.''^^2^^

Bourgeois propaganda is still liable to charge that the Soviet calls for co-operation are pure propaganda and pursue diplomatic victories rather than effective agreements. Meissner, for example, says that the Soviet policy of peaceful coexistence is a policy that "does not reckon with international law, or, at best, a policy that recognises international law temporarily".^^3^^ This is untrue. Let us refer to Lenin again. "We cannot rest content with a diplomatic victory," he said. "We need more than that: we need genuine trade relations.''^^4^^

The inflexible determination of the Soviet Government to develop international co-operation between the two systems, and its profound confidence in the success of this undertaking, were expressed by Lenin in relation to the Genoa Conference. "Through Genoa, if the other parties in the negotiations are sufficiently shrewd and not too stubborn," he said. "Bypassing Genoa if they take it into their heads to be stubborn. But we shall achieve our goal!''^^5^^

The fifty years of international relations since the October Revolution show that it was the bourgeois governments, rather than the Soviet Government, that have for years refused to co-operate with the Soviet state.

Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence has always stood for international co-operation. There are many statements by Lenin that show co-operation to have been a principle of Soviet foreign policy. On November 20, 1922, Lenin said at a plenary session of the Moscow Soviet:

``As to foreign policy, we had the fewest changes in that

field. We pursued the line that we had adopted earlier, and I think I can say with a clear conscience that we pursued it quite consistently and with enormous success.. . . The road we are on is absolutely clearly and well defined, and has ensured us success in face of all the countries of the world, although some of them are still prepared to declare that they refuse to sit at one table with us. Nevertheless, economic relations, followed by diplomatic relations, are improving, must improve, and certainly will improve.''^^1^^

The importance Lenin attached to treaties with countries of the capitalist system is illustrated by the readiness of the Soviet Government to honour the terms of treaties envisaging good-neighbourly relations concluded by the tsarist and provisional governments. "We reject all clauses on plunder and violence," Lenin wrote, "but we shall welcome all clauses containing provisions for good-neighbourly relations and all economic agreements; we cannot reject these.''^^2^^

The question of compromises in international politics, being intimately related to the problems of international co-operation, treaties and agreements, is another important element of Lenin's teaching oh peaceful coexistence.

Imperialist ideologists and politicians complain about the alleged intransigence of the Soviet Union, about its alleged reluctance to conclude agreements, no matter how mutually advantageous, let alone to make concessions.

This again is untrue. Lenin scoffed at any a priori rejection of compromises. He deprecated the infantile disease of ``leftism'' in the communist movement and wrote that the slogan "No compromises!" is "an absurdity"^^3^^. Lenin described it as fatuous, and favoured compromises wherever they were unavoidable, useful and necessary. In an article on this subject, entittled "On Compromises", he pointed out that the idea of compromises must not be renounced out of hand. It would be preposterous, he added, to reply negatively to the general question of whether or not an exponent of the proletarian revolution may make compromises with the capitalist class.^^4^^

The purpose, Lenin wrote, was not to avoid compromises,

~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 215.

~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 152.

~^^3^^ B. Meissner, op. cit., p. 16.

~^^4^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 181.

~^^5^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, pp. 264-65.

^^1^^ Ibid., p. 436.

~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 26, p. 255.

~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol 31 (Ms), p. 68.

~^^4^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 491.

but to remain true to one's principles "through all the compromises".^^1^^

This is the overall Leninist stand, which rules out any a priori rejection of the very idea of compromises.

Suffice it to recall the Brest Treaty, or the agreement with Bullitt. The Soviet Government, Lenin said, had signed it, because "we are prepared to make great concessions to end the bloodshed and apply ourselves to peaceful labour".^^2^^

In his report to the Ninth All-Russia Congress of Soviets on December 23, 1921, Lenin said that "we are ready to make the greatest concessions and sacrifices in order to preserve the peace" and that "we shall do our utmost to preserve peace in the future and .. . shall not shrink from great sacrifices and concessions in order to safeguard this peace".^^3^^

The Soviet Government headed by Lenin made big concessions not only in matters related to peace. At the Eighth All-Russia Congress of Soviets Lenin observed that the country was willing to make the maximum concessions "to obtain a trade agreement with Britain so as to start more regular trade".^^4^^

As we see, all claims that compromises are incompatible with Leninism do not hold water. Neither does the complaint that it is impossible to reach mutually advantageous agreements with the Soviet Government.

This does not go to say that Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence stands for nothing but concessions in international relations and that it countenances all concessions, no matter how harsh, for the mere sake of achieving agreement.

The strategists of the "positions from strength" policy could not be more wrong if they thought the Leninist policy of peaceful coexistence implies peace at any price.

Lenin warned: "We are ready to make huge concessions and sacrifices, but not any kind and not for ever. ... There are ... limits beyond which one cannot go.''^^5^^

In defining the limit to concessions in matters of peace, Lenin noted that if "peace treaties are flouted" and " attempts are made to interfere with our peaceful work", we

shall "rise to a man to defend our existence".^^1^^ At an AllRussia Central Executive Committee meeting on July 15, 1918, Lenin declared there are "limits, beyond which even the most peace-loving masses of the working people will be compelled to rise, and will rise, as one man to defend their country".^^2^^

Lenin issued highly important instructions concerning compromises and concessions in commercial and other agreements with the capitalist countries. "We must make it a rule not to make any political concessions to the international bourgeoisie," he said, "unless we receive in return more or less equivalent concessions.''^^3^^

Lenin specified the criteria of the limits to concessions, compromises and other terms. He considered as "normal for relations between the R.S.F.S.R. and capitalist countries" only agreements like the Rapallo Treaty of 1922 between Germany and the R.S.F.S.R. It was a treaty, he pointed out, wherein "true equality for the two property systems" is postulated. As for concessions, Lenin believed it possible "to permit deviations from the Rapallo-type treaty only in exceptional circumstances that gain very special advantages for the working people of the R.S.F.S.R.''^^4^^

Although there is a variety of states in the capitalist world, differing from each other by the degree of their aggressiveness and reactionary conservatism, and in economic,,political and military strength, etc., Lenin's conception of peaceful coexistence rules out ostracism of some capitalist states and ``favouritism'' vis-a-vis others, whereby peaceful coexistence would be declared possible in respect of some and impossible in respect of others. Peaceful co-, existence is a universal principle of international relations. It applies to all socialist and all capitalist states. It is ridiculous therefore to fulminate against the Soviet Union for seeking peaceful coexistence with the United States, the chief and the most aggressive of the capitalist powers. Maoist writers, however, go so far as to qualify this as a betrayal of Leninism.

Lenin it was who said that "friendly relations" with the great capitalist powers are "quite possible, and that is our

~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 492.

~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 137.

~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, pp. 148, 149.

~^^4^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, pp. 471-72, 474. ^B

Ibid., Vol. 33, pp. 148, 149.

~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 149.

~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 27, p. 540.

~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 332.

~^^4^^ Ibid., p. 357.

aim".^^1^^ Elsewhere he said, "We stand for an alliance with all countries without exception".^^2^^ "Peaceful coexistence with all peoples",^^3^^ he said, is part of the Soviet objective throughout the world. In reference to the United States, Lenin said, "Let the American capitalists leave us alone. We shall not touch them.''^^4^^ He stressed there were "no obstructions whatsoever on our part"^^5^^ to peace with America.

What is more, in response to the direct question of whether Russia is ready to enter into business relations with America, Lenin said in 1920, "Of course she is ready to do so, and with all other countries too.''^^6^^

In a nutshell, Lenin did not exclude the United States (or any other imperialist country) from the sphere of peaceful coexistence, although he never stopped exposing "the most reactionary ... the most savage imperialism, which is throttling the small and weak nations and reinstating reaction all over the world---Anglo-American imperialism".^^7^^

The distinctive feature of Lenin's policy of peaceful coexistence is its objective of achieving palpable results, rather than declarations of common principles. This, indeed, explains why, already in May 1918, the Supreme Economic Council of the R.S.F.S.R. submitted to the United States a Plan for the Development of Economic Relations between Soviet Russia and the United States of America.

Here is one more testimonial to the far-reaching plans Lenin had for co-operation with the United States. "I am often asked," he said in a letter to the American workers, dated September 23, 1919, "whether those American opponents of the war against Russia---not only workers, but mainly bourgeois---are right, who expect from us, after peace is concluded, not only resumption of trade relations, but also the possibility of receiving concessions in Russia. I repeat once more that they are right.''^^8^^

It should be borne in mind when speaking of the universal nature of peaceful coexistence that the capitalist countries, too, should not discriminate against any socialist

state. It is ridiculous to profess adherence to the principles of peaceful coexistence in relation to some socialist countries, and to neglect them in relation to others. Yet this was what George Kennan in theory^^1^^ and Dean Rusk^^2^^ and President Lyndon Johnson in practice have been advocating on the assumption that the principles of peaceful coexistence were practicable vis-a-vis the Soviet Union only, while pursuing towards other socialist countries a policy of annexions (the Chinese island of Taiwan), of aggression (the bombing of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, armed intervention and blockade against Cuba), of export of counter-revolution (the countries of Central and South-East Europe), of non-recognition (C.P.R., G.D.R., K.P.D.R., D.R.V.), of non-admission to the U.N. (Bulgaria, Hungary, Rumania, Albania and the M.P.R. in the past, and now the G.D.R., K.P.D.R. and D.R.V.), or of refusal to restore lawful rights in the U.N. (C.P.R.).

Lyndon Johnson's doctrine is really an attempt at discrediting and scuttling peaceful coexistence, which, however, is a universal principle of international relations and applies equally to all capitalist and socialist countries without exception.

The decisive role ascribed to the masses is an important element of Lenin's teaching on peaceful coexistence.

Charges that peaceful coexistence implies a compact with the imperialists are groundless, and doubly so because peaceful coexistence is meant to safeguard not only the peoples of the socialist countries, but also those of the capitalist countries, inasmuch as it accords with their interests.

In our time the peoples have awakened to their role of makers of history. They have ceased to be objects of secret imperialist diplomacy. The role of the peoples in international relations has increased immeasurably. In face of the nuclear threat the peoples are taking the future of peace into their own hands, for it is their own future, and are letting the capitalist governments feel more and more strongly that they are the makers of history and possess all the sovereign rights implicit in international law. "The government abolishes secret diplomacy," said Lenin's famous De-

~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 383.

~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 366.

~^^3^^ Ibid., pp. 365-66. « Ibid., p. 365.

~^^5^^ Ibid., p. 366.

~^^6^^ Ibid., p. 367.

~^^7^^ Ibid., Vol. 28, p. 190.

~^^8^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 39.

~^^1^^ G. Kennan, "Peaceful Coexistence, A Western View", Foreign Affairs, Jan. 1960, pp. 177, 180; G. Kennan, "Polycentrism and Western Policy", Foreign Affairs, Jan. 1964, pp. 175-78.

~^^2^^ D. Rusk, "Why We Treat Different Communist Countries Differently", The Department of State Bulletin,

cree on Peace.^^1^^ It did so to "help the peoples to intervene in questions of war and peace",^^2^^ so that the government should always be "under the supervision of the public opinion of its country".^^3^^

This aspect of peaceful coexistence, advanced by Lenin, is being carried into practice consistently.

``The will of the people should be the basis of government power," says the tlniversal Declaration of the Rights of Man (1948). This has become one of the most important principles of international law. It means that no government may ignore the will of its people and pursue with impunity a policy contrary to the principles of peaceful coexistence, in which the will of the peoples of different countries is clearly expressed.

It is silly to think that since imperialist governments stand at the helm in the capitalist countries, agreements with them are possible only if the socialist states surrender. It is silly to think, too, that these governments are unable to strike equal agreements and maintain mutually advantageous co-operation, that they consent to nothing but predacious terms. Lenin noted that even before the October Revolution the "predatory governments not only made agreements between themselves on plunder, but among them they also included economic agreements and various other clauses on good-neighbourly relations"/*

As a matter of fact, in the present circumstances the agreements capitalist countries may conclude with the socialist states have got to be governed by the principles of peaceful coexistence, no matter how they wish the contrary. Nor is this due only to the strength of the socialist countries, which ensures their independence. A section of the bourgeoisie is sensible enough to want events to develop peacefully. "We know perfectly well," said Lenin in reference to such people in 1922, "that by no means all of you want to fight.''^^5^^

In a letter to D. I. Kursky on May 17, 1922, Lenin again pointed out that opposition to peaceful coexistence was confined chiefly to "that section of the international bourgeoisie which refuses to recognise the rights of the communist sys-

tern of ownership, that is superseding capitalism, and is striving to overthrow that system by violence".^^1^^

Yet what makes the capitalist governments accept peaceful coexistence is the will of their peoples, who have a stake in peace and international co-operation.

Peaceful coexistence, therefore, is not merely an objective necessity, and not only a progressive political idea advanced by Lenin. It is also a foreign policy resting on enduring foundations, because, as Lenin put it, "our peace policy is approved by the vast majority of the world population".^^2^^

It is up to international law to assist the peoples in bridling the aggressors before it is too late, in preventing aggressors from using weapons of annihilation, averting a world nuclear war and for ever excluding wars from the life of society.

The immense impact of the peaceful coexistence policy, and hence of international law, a science that develops and propagates it, is beyond question.

The socialist countries are forging new standards of international relations.^^3^^ The socialist principles of peace, equality, the self-determination of nations and respect for the independence and sovereignty of all countries, coupled with socialism's upright and humane diplomatic methods, are exercising an increasing influence on world affairs and winning ever greater international recognition and support.

This new type of international relations is founded exclusively on the idea of sovereignty. Its basis is voluntary. It accords with the rockbottom interests of the people, and with the principles of socialist internationalism.

Until recently, there were two forces to be reckoned with in the world---the socialist countries, and the capitalist countries. Some time ago, the neutralist non-aligned countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America emerged on the world scene as a new serious factor of peace. This new factor has created a number of new problems of international law. Legal forms are being wrought for alliances between the socialist countries and the nations that have flung off the colonial yoke---alliances that are now one of the cornerstones of international politics and constitute one

~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 250

~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 252.

~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 254.

~^^4^^ Ibid., p. 255.

^B

Ibid.. Vol. 33, p. 220.

~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 358.

~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, p. 390.

~^^3^^ Dialektika sovremennogo obshchestvennogo razvitiya, ed. by F. V. Konstantinov, Moscow, 1966, pp. 299, 306.

of the most important factors of modern international relations.^^1^^

Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko pointed out in 1961 that the international stand of the neutralist countries coincides essentially with the stand of the socialist countries and lays the accent on peace and peaceful co-- operation.

In our time, highlighted by rapid scientific progress and the development of weapons of war capable of annihilating tens, perhaps even hundreds, of millions of people, vigilance is absolutely essential in relation to all things that jeopardise peace. The fate of the peoples is indivisible today, regardless of the continent they live on.

That is why George Kennan, a prominent U.S. diplomat and foreign relations analyst, concluded that the West has no other choice than the acceptance of peaceful coexistence as the basis of its policy towards countries of the communist world.^^2^^

Chapter Two

THE ONLY SENSIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO NUCLEARMISSILE WAR

1. THE BASIC PROBLEM OF OUR TIME. PREVENTIVE WAR CRITICALLY RECONSIDERED

The scientific and technical revolution of the mid-20th century has made the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems doubly essential. Immensely powerful weapons, the drive to produce still more monstrous means of mass destruction, coupled with the armed conflicts that flare up here and there, are liable to precipitate a nuclear war and cause incalculable damage, if not total destruction, to civilisation.^^1^^

Man has created a hydrogen bomb equal in explosive power to 100 million tons of TNT. It can destroy all living things within a radius of several hundred kilometres.

According to U.S. experts a 20-megaton bomb can destroy all buildings within a radius of 24 kilometres and kill all life from New York to Philadelphia if it is exploded between these two cities.

Nuclear explosions form huge clouds of radioactive particles, carried by the wind over great distances, contaminating the air and plants, poisoning living bodies, causing grave incurable diseases and sowing death in places far removed from the site of the explosion.

What science and the scientists can do to deliver mankind from the perils of a nuclear-missile war is a social and international matter and depends on the policy of the states. Political means, too, may be used, such as agreements based on accepted international standards.

Hence the ever-increasing weight of the political sciences in resolving the cardinal problems of our time.

Realistic legal forms of safeguarding peace will never

~^^1^^ B. V. Ganyushkin, Neitralitet i neprisoyedineniye, Moscow, 1965.

~^^2^^ G. Kennan, On Dealing with the Communist World, New York, 1964, p. 21.

~^^1^^ N. M. Nikolsky, O.snovnoi vopros souremennosti. Problema unichtozheniya voiny, Moscow, 1964, Chapter V.

be effectively charted until the substance of the struggle and co-operation of the two camps is properly studied. The policy of peaceful coexistence offers a basis for the practical solution of the fundamental international problems of our age and lays a realistic road for delivering mankind from the dangers of a nuclear-missile war.^^1^^ Theory and practice, science and experience, confirm beyond a shadow of doubt that peaceful coexistence is the only sensible alternative to a nuclear-missile war.

Despite the perils of a nuclear war---for the aggressor most of all---some scientists go out of their way to advocate it. Some go so far as to cultivate the doctrine of a preventive nuclear war. U.S. war theorist Bernard Brodie, for example, says in his book, Strategy in the Missile Age, that "so long as there is a great advantage in striking first, and under existing conditions the advantage would be tremendous, we must realise that even rational men could start a total war and irrational ones would need no such justification''.

The term "preventive war", Brodie writes, is used to describe "a premeditated attack by one country against another, which is unprovoked in the sense that it does not wait upon a specific aggression or other overt action by the target state, and in which the chief and most immediate objective is the destruction of the latter's overall military power and especially its strategic air power." Brodie stresses that the term "preventive war" implies the unprovoked slaughter of millions of persons, mostly innocent of responsibility.

The sense of a preventive war, Brodie claims, lies in that it "spells total victory for the initial attacker", because, he adds, "the side that hits first stands a good chance, assuming reasonably shrewd planning and preparation, either of destroying the opponent's retaliatory capability or of disorganising and reducing it to such degree that the remnants could be easily handled, in an attempted counterattack, by the aggressor's active defences".^^2^^

As we see, the ideologists of U.S. imperialism make no secret of the fact that they view a preventive war as a total nuclear-missile war. U.S. theorists state that U.S. strategy

attaches cardinal importance to the thermonuclear variety of a total war.

As far as the contemporary U.S. military doctrine is concerned, "absolute war is the form to be appreciated (as closely as possible), by absolute war being meant war in which violence is employed to the utmost limit of its effectiveness without voluntary restriction of effort or means".^^1^^

The notion that atomic, hydrogen and missile weapons are a means of delivering the so-called free world, because the country to strike first in a modern nuclear war is sure to be the victor, is being widely publicised in the United States.

What the advocates of a nuclear war overlook is that the aggressor will never escape retribution. Amitai Etzioni, Associate Professor of Sociology at Columbia University, is obviously not one of their number. "An all-out attack ... would leave enough nuclear striking power in the East," he writes, "to. cripple the United States.''^^2^^

Western strategists and politicians who claim that a surprise attack on the socialist countries would wipe out their economic and military potential and settle the outcome in the initial stage of the war in favour of the aggressor, could not be more wrong. They are dangerously mistaken if they think the surprise factor---though highly important in the nuclear missile age---is decisive in a war that will inevitably involve the whole of the globe.^^3^^

Propaganda of the surprise factor is part and parcel of the "psychological warfare" the imperialists are waging against the cause of peace. By spreading the illusion that a sudden attack will yield victory with the minimum of loss, the ideologists of imperialism hope to blunt the peoples' struggle for peace.

Internationally, "psychological warfare", and particularly propaganda of the surprise factor, pursues many different objectives. It aims, first, at intimidating governments and nations and thus rendering them more pliable in face of aggressive demands and ultimatums; second, at implanting the notion that it is futile to resist the ``omnipotent'' United States; third, at splitting the forces campaigning for peace,

~^^1^^ Dale O. Smith, U.S. Military Doctrine. A Study and Appraisal, New York, 1955, p. 57.

~^^2^^ Amitai Etzioni, The Hard Way to Peace. A New Strategy, New York, 1962, p. 259.

^^3^^ L. F. Ilyichev, Progress nauki i tekhniki i mezhdunarodniye otnosheniya, Moscow, 1958, p. 42.

~^^1^^ V. A. Romanov, Isklucheniye voiny iz zhizni obshchestva, Moscow, 1961, pp. 7-9, 198.

~^^2^^ Bernard Brodie, Strategy in the Missile Age, Princeton, 1959, pp. 230, 227, 236, 231. *

4-3121

socialism and social progress; fourth, at creating a favourable moral and political atmosphere for an attack.

Dangerous provocations were attempted that could have plunged the world into a destructive nuclear war. In November 1961, for example, General Thomas Power, Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Strategic Air Command, ordered nuclear bombers at all U.S. bases to take off in the direction of the Soviet Union by reason of a false alarm. Power did not even inform, let alone consult, the U.S. President, the Supreme Commander of the nation's armed forces.

Bertrand Russell, the eminent British scholar, stressed that apart from premeditated government action there is always the danger of a misunderstanding causing a universal disaster in a matter of one or two hours.

Norman Thomas, the U.S. publicist, wrote on this score that "our fate is literally in the hands not merely of heads of governments but of hundreds of anonymous colonels--- our own, our allies', and our enemies' ".ⁱ

Technical progress in delivery vehicles, wrote Reinhqld Niebuhr in a preface to The Society of Fear, a brochure by Brown and Reed, makes a war touched off by an error of judgement or by accident more possible.

What U.S. imperialism has done to strain the international situation, its increasingly aggressive conduct, indicates clearly that the source of aggressive war, of the threat of a new world-wide conflagration, survives as long as imperialism survives.

Recent developments show that the danger of a nuclear war breaking out has increased substantially. Take the war waged by the United States against the people of South Vietnam, the U.S. bombing of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and the latest doctrine of Lyndon Johnson. The conception of escalation, meaning a gradual development of war from individual conflicts into a world-wide nuclear conflagration is, in effect, being applied in practice at an appallingly rapid rate in Southeast Asia. The escalation in Vietnam and U.S. efforts to saddle the peoples of the Latin American countries with governments and systems of its own choice are fresh evidence of the fact that the United States intends to employ armed force whenever the course of events goes against its grain----and this despite its lip service to the principles of peaceful coexistence.

The conquest of the atom can shower untold blessings upon mankind if used for peaceful purposes and, conversely, untold suffering if employed for furthering the aggressive policy "from positions of strength''.

So why not use the achievements of science and technology for the benefit of mankind?

In our time the nations and governments have one choice only: peaceful coexistence and competition between socialism and capitalism, or a genocidal nuclear war.

Imperialist ideologists are trying to convince the peoples that "the only way to deal with communism, and the nation under it, is to smother it by military containment".¹ Herman Kahn, a U.S. scholar, avers that "war is a terrible thing; but so is peace",^^2^^ while General Maxwell D. Taylor says in his book, The Uncertain Trumpet, that war should regain "its historic justification as a means to create a better world".^^3^^ Edward Teller, who fathered the U.S. hydrogen I bomb, hails the notion that war is the best "means to create \ a better world". He says that the conceptions of "an all-out war as a cataclysm that will wipe out mankind" and of "an abolition of nuclear weapons as a means ... to avoid a future war" are "two patterns of ideas" that "are driving us toward a tragedy which, when it comes, will be of our own making".^^4^^ What Teller is trying to say is that struggle for peace and disarmament will lead to a nuclear disaster.

But is a nuclear-missile war really the "innocent pastime" Teller claims it to be?

It would mean death to many hundreds of millions of people. It would mean wholesale destruction and ruin.

Past wars have caused mankind indescribable suffering. But they were child's play compared with a nuclear-missile world war. The wars of the 17th century claimed 3,000,000 lives, those of the 18th century 5,500,000, those of the 19th century 16,000,000, and the two world wars of the 20th century 90,000,000.

``To say that about 600,000,000 people will be slaughtered in a global atomic war may be a rank understatement,"^^5^^

~^^1^^ Ibid., p. 42.

~^^2^^ Herman Kahn, On Thermonuclear War, Princeton, 1961, p. 46.

~^^3^^ Maxwell D. Taylor, The Uncertain Trumpet, New York, I960, 'p. 146.

~^^4^^ Edward Teller with Allen Brown, The Legacy of Hiroshima, Garden City, New York, 1962, p. VIII.

~^^5^^ Richard G. Hubler, SAC, Strategic Air Command, New York, 1958, p. 11.

«*

51

~^^1^^ N. Thomas, The Prerequisites for Peace, New York, 1959, p. 25.

writes Richard G. Hubler, the U.S. strategic aviation expert. Linus Pauling, the prominent U.S. scientist, said in 1958 that the probable figure would be 800 million, but his estimate is obviously outdated. J. D. Bernal indicated that modern weapons "can destroy the human race".^^1^^ This is quite likely, considering that one nuclear bomb surpasses in force the explosives used in all the preceding wars, including the First and Second world wars, and that the nuclear stockpiles are so great they can destroy all life on the globe many times over.

By dint of the highly developed missile techniques no spot on earth is invulnerable. Ballistic, intercontinental and global rockets can deliver nuclear bombs with lightning speed to and from any spot on earth with no more than a negligible deviation from the target.

A nuclear-missile war will engulf the whole world. It will be impossible to draw a distinction between the battlelines and the rear, between the civilian populations and the armed forces. Industrial and cultural centres will be turned to ruins. The greatest monuments of human civilisation built in the ages will be wiped off the face of the earth. Radioactive fall-out generated by the nuclear explosions would drift in the atmosphere for years to come, afflicting more and more people, causing disease and suffering, and leading to the degradation, perhaps extinction, of the human race.

There are more than enough nuclear warheads today to destroy every city in the world. "Would not the death of mankind in a radioactive fog reduce all victories and everything else to nought?" is the legitimate question asked by Johannes F. Barnick.^^2^^

consequences of all-out thermonuclear war appear as stark to the other side as to us, they may avert disaster, not through a reconciliation of interests but through mutual terror.''^^1^^

The U.S. committee for the study of peace headed by Professor A. Holcombe says in its report that the "situation of mutual terror is the factor that makes peaceful coexistence possible". As far back as 1954, Marshal of the R.A.F. John Slessor declared, "The greatest disservice that anyone could possibly do to the cause of peace would be to abolish nuclear armaments on either side," because, said Slessor, "to abolish the atom bomb would mean, sooner or later, a third world war---and quite possibly our defeat in that war.''^^2^^ Harold Arthur Watkinson, once Britain's Minister of Defence, also doted on the "equilibrium of fear" theory. "The 'balance of terror' that stems from the nuclear deterrent," he claimed, "is fulfilling its function of keeping the peace.''^^3^^ It is not likely that the advocates of an " equilibrium'of fear" or a "balance of power" will be so childishly naive as to overlook the fact that in the environment of "balanced terror" the danger of an accidental or sudden attack assumes formidable proportions.

B. H. Liddell Hart, the British war theorist, points out rightly that the mounting destructive power of nuclear weapons creates more and more possibilities for a sudden strike or surprise attack.^^4^^

One cannot argue against the fact that "the conception of a 'balance of power' is profoundly at variance with modern international law and is a policy that leads to the outbreak of a world war".^^5^^

``Equilibrium of fear", ``brinkmanship'' and other similar doctrines are at loggerheads with the idea of peaceful coexistence. The International Association of Democratic Lawyers noted in 1956 that "an armed peace does not yet mean peaceful coexistence". The doctrine of "equivalent intimidation", according to which armed force should be

2. CRITICS OF "EQUILIBRIUM OF FEAR",

``NUCLEAR DETERRENT", "MASSIVE RETALIATION"

AND ``BRINKMANSHIP'' DOCTRINES

Some theorists are conscious of the implications of a nuclear-missile war and offer the alternative of an " equilibrium of fear" or "mutual terror". They contend that the threat of a total nuclear war is the likeliest means of preventing one. Henry A. Kissinger put it thus: "As long as the

~^^1^^ H. A. Kissinger, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, New York, 1957, pp. 84-85.

~^^2^^ J. Slessor, Strategy for the West, London, 1954, p. 16.

~^^3^^ International Affairs, Moscow, 1960, No. 3, p. 7.

~^^4^^ B. H. Liddell Hart, Deterrent or Defence, A Fresh Look at the West's Military Position, London, 1960, p. X.

~^^5^^ Sovietsky yezhegodnik mezhdunarodnogo prava, 1959, AN SSSR Publishing House, 1960, p. 280.

~^^1^^ Linus Pauling, No More War!, New York, 1958, p. 142; J. D. Bernal, A Prospect of Peace, London, 1960, p. 10.

~^^2^^ J. F. Barnick, Die Deutsche Trumpfe, Stuttgart, 1958, S. 29.

``dosed"^^1^^ to balance the degree of resistance put up by the opposite country, has nothing in common with peace either.

A ``dosed'' or ``equivalent'' confrontation of an armed force is ultimately bound to lead to a nuclear war. This is starkly revealed in Herman Kahn's escalation theory. It has many enthusiastic supporters among U.S. reactionary ruling circles today, when the aggressiveness of the United States has assumed such sharp forms.

One variety of the "nuclear intimidation" doctrine was the late State Secretary John Foster Dulles's conception of "massive retaliation". Falling back on its now extinct atomic weapons monopoly, and later on its short-lived nuclear superiority, the United States attempted to dictate terms to the socialist countries, threatening "massive retaliation", that is, resort to atomic weapons in the event of an armed conflict if they did not yield.

Calls for a return to the Dulles policy resound more frequently of late in the NATO countries, particularly the United States and Federal Germany, on the plea that it "accords with the laws of the nuclear era" in which there is "an immensity of risks tied up with the eventual use of the new arms".^^2^^

French General Pierre Gallois, for example, avers that in the nuclear age "the equilibrium assured by the menace of mutual destruction is stable, more stable than it ever was at times of an armed peace".^^3^^

Yet Henry A. Kissinger admitted, and this in 1959, that the conception of "all-out retaliation", which he styled as the chief element of the "nuclear age strategy", had sense only so long as the United States was obviously superior in the event of a total war.

As soon as this superiority was lost, the doctrine collapsed like a house of cards. General Gallois noted that "America's ability to act with impunity was no longer assured" since the development of the Soviet intercontinental rockets deprived the U.S. of the opportunity "to strike at the enemy without retaliation.''^^4^^

``For the first time in our history," wrote Kissinger, "we are vulnerable to a direct hostile attack.''^^1^^

The arms race, the "balance of power" policy, or any of the other policies of "nuclear intimidation", cannot serve as an alternative to a nuclear-missile war. On the contrary, policies that attempt to strike a "balance of terror" are distinctly leading to a nuclear war.

In November 1961, the late President Kennedy said "we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient .. . and that therefore there cannot be an American solution for every world problem".^^2^^ In his American University speech on June 10, 1963, he declared that the kind of peace the United States wants is "not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war . . . not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women. ... Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts".^^3^^

Subsequent developments---in the Congo, in South Vietnam and the Dominican Republic, and the Lyndon Johnson doctrine of armed U.S. intervention in other countries' domestic affairs---show that the sensible ideas of John Kennedy are being consigned to oblivion by his successors.

It is all too clear that the latest doctrines of war escalation and armed interference by one country, say, the United States, in the internal affairs of another, say, the Dominican Republic, have nothing in common with the principles of peaceful coexistence, or, for that matter, of modern international law.

The cold war and the policy "from strength" prompts certain Western researchers to define the situation after the Second World War as an intermediate status between peace and war, which, they hold, epitomises the ideas of the coexistence of countries of the two systems.^^4^^ But any socalled intermediate status is really either a state of war or a state of peace. It is illegitimate to speak of some ``third'' independent states, or of an "intermediate status", equiva-

~^^1^^ G. Turner and R. Challener (ed.), National Security in the Nuclear Age, Basic Facts and Theories, London, 1960, p. 141.

~^^2^^ C. Delmas, M. Carpentier, P. Gallois, M. Faure, L'Avenir de L' Alliance Atlantique, Paris, 1961, pp. 113, 120.

~^^3^^ P. Gallois, Strategic de L'Age nucleaire, Paris, 1960, p. 132.

~^^4^^ P. Gallois, "New Teeth for Nato", Foreign Affairs, Oct. 1960, p. 69.

~^^1^^ H. A. Kissinger, op. cit., p. 84.

~^^2^^ New York Times, Nov. 17, 1961, p. 1.

~^^3^^ J. Kennedy, op. cit., The Department of State Bulletin, July 27, 1963.

~^^4^^ Ph. Jessup, "Should International Law Recognise an Intermediate Status between Peace and War?" American Journal of International Law, 1954, Vol. 48, pp. 101-02; G. Schwarzenberger, A Manual of International Law, 4th ed., Vol. I, p. 174.

lent to peace or war, where we see a transition from war to peace or vice versa.

In our time there can be in the relations between the states of the two social systems one status only: either peaceful coexistence or its antipode, a nuclear-missile war. No third status is possible. The theory of an "intermediate status" is aimed, in effect, at camouflaging preparations for a nuclear war and violations of the international commitments implicit in the principles of peaceful coexistence and the pertinent international law.

Some influential Western groups have a vested interest in war. They possess considerable military, material and political resources, which they put to use whenever they think fit. Suffice it to recall the outbreak and development of the Caribbean crisis, the aggressive conduct of the United States in Vietnam, the armed U.S. intervention in the internal affairs of the Dominican Republic, and the Israeli aggression in the Middle East.

One should always bear in mind the sole alternative to peaceful coexistence---nuclear war involving the use of weapons of mass annihilation. Once a nuclear-missile war breaks out, it will be too late to discourse on the blessings of peaceful coexistence and what it does, or could do, for mankind.

Peaceful coexistence is consistent with the vital interests of all men. All nations and states, irrespective of the system they belong to, stand to gain from it. It stands for competition in the improvement of the living standard and helps to settle by peaceful means the question posed by history on an international scale: who will win, communism or capitalism?

The competition between socialism and capitalism has invaded the economic, political, ideological, social, cultural and scientific fields. It does not eliminate the question of the differences between the states of the two systems, the antagonism of capitalism and socialism, and the economic, political, ideological and social competition and struggle between the two systems, whose purport boils down to the cardinal question of which of the two systems will finally win.

Some governing groups in the capitalist countries expect to settle the matter by force, by a war against the countries of the socialist system, by subversive activities, plots and coups, and by exporting counter-revolution and restoring capitalism.

The countries of the socialist system, on the other hand, expect to tilt the scales in favour of socialism and settle the ultimate question of "who wins" on an international scale by attaining an edge in production, a higher productivity of social labour and greater output per head of population, that is, by attaining in the socialist countries the world's highest standard of living. Once the Soviet Union and the socialist camp as a whole forge ahead into first place for aggregate output and production per head of population, implying socialism's victory in the peaceful economic competition, people in the capitalist world will be won'to the side of communism much more quickly.

Canada's Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson said some years ago that capitalism could no longer in our day deal by means of war, a fact he described as ``inexorable'', because "war may have once been the pursuit of policy by other means". It makes no sense, however, "when applied to all-out nuclear war, which cannot mean the triumph of policy if it also means total and general destruction".^^1^^

Any genuine search for alternative to nuclear-missile war leads inevitably to the conclusion that the peaceful coexistence of the states of the capitalist and socialist systems is the only possible choice. Walter Millis, a U.S. military writer, for one, concedes this point. He writes: "However difficult it may be to imagine a world without war, this task is now forced upon us. ... A continuation of the present state of international affairs is bound sooner or later to produce a catastrophe in which most civilised values .. . must perish.''^^2^^

The facts show again and again that it is up to the sociologists to frame the common platform on which the countries of the capitalist and socialist systems could live in peace and, much more, co-operate closely to the mutual advantage of their peoples.^^3^^ A platform like that would have to be built on the common factors that bring together the interests of the peoples of different countries, that is, on the basis of peaceful coexistence and international cooperation governed by universally recognised standards of contemporary international law.

~^^1^^ L. B. Pearson, Diplomacy in the Nuclear Age, Harvard University Press, 1959, p. 67.

~^^2^^ See his article in the New York Saturday Review, Sept. 24, 1960.

~^^3^^ P. N. Fedoseyev, The Strategy of Peace in Modern Sociology, Moscow, 1966, p. 28.

3. JUST AND UNJUST WARS

Marxism-Leninism showed the only way to settle the problem. To define the nature of a war, Lenin pointed out, you have first to define its "political content",^^1^^ for there have been progressive wars in history time and again, such as wars "of a bourgeois-progressive character, waged for national liberation", whose chief content and historical purpose was "the overthrow of absolutism and feudalism, the undermining of these institutions, and the overthrow of alien oppression".^^2^^

There is no reason at all, from the standpoint of modern international law, to proclaim as just the various wars against ``barbarians'' (the wars of the ancient Greeks and Romans against the-peoples of Asia, Europe and Africa), religious wars (the crusades, the Moslem wars against '' infidels", the wars waged by Catholics against Protestants), colonial wars (the conquests by the British, French, Spanish and Portuguese on the American, Asian and African continents), racial wars (Hitler Germany's war for domination over the peoples of Europe and the war fought by imperialist Japan to conquer the peoples of Asia), ideological wars (the wars fought by feudalistic Europe against the revolutions in France, Italy, Spain and elsewhere), and anti-- communist wars (the intervention in Soviet Russia, the aggression of the ``axis'' countries against the U.S.S.R., the U.S. wars in Korea and Vietnam, etc.).

The deepening of the general crisis of capitalism and the exacerbation of its contradictions is making imperialism more reckless and hence more dangerous to the peoples, to the cause of peace and social progress. More frequently, imperialism seeks a way out of its crisis in armed provocations, various plots and outright military interventions.

Following in the footsteps of Hitler and Barry Goldwater, the Johnson-Rusk doctrine is attempting to qualify as just all anti-communist wars and wars against the national liberation movement, wherever they may break out.

Past experience shows that criteria of just wars were in most cases devised to camouflage what were really unjust wars. Often, wars were said to be fought to maintain peace and order and promtply styled as just. In fact, however, they were fought to maintain or restore the imperialist di-

One of the important matters on which the peoples and states must reach a clear understanding is the question of just and unjust wars.

The finest thinkers, who witnessed ceaseless wars and short periods of peace that served as preparation time for fresh armed conflicts, have set themselves this question before.

As far back as the 17th and 18th centuries, the most advanced minds suggested limiting war to resistance of violations of the basic rights of states. They styled wars in defence of violated rights as just and legitimate (bellum justum, bellum legitimum).

For thousands of years the ruling classes resorted to war to secure imagined or genuine vital interests, and always sought to create at least a semblance of justice and legitimacy for their actions, referring as a rule to the need of protecting their lawful rights violated by the adversary. Yet all these wars were a vehicle of reactionary policy, a policy of brute strength.

In the past---the time of the slave, feudal and capitalist societies---when everlasting war, rather than eternal peace, was the typical state of international relations, political science was naturally unable to say what wars were just and what wars were not. Before the emergence of socialism on the world scene, war was considered a natural function of the state and the right to make war was a principal factor of its sovereignty.

For ages, war was accepted as a legitimate means of violating the vital privileges of other nations and states. As recently as 1922, the prominent U.S. jurist, Charles Hyde, declared that every state was privileged to attain political and other advantages over other states not merely by force, but by direct resort to war.^^1^^ According to Oppenheim, the British jurist, the international law of the imperialist epoch ``scorned'' the difference "between just and unjust wars".^^2^^

In circumstances such as these all attempts at distinguishing just from unjust wars were futile.

~^^1^^ Ch. Hyde, International Law, 1922, Vol. 2, p. 189.

~^^2^^ L. Oppenheim, International Law, 1944, Vol. 2, p. 145.

~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 196.

~^^2^^ Ibid., Vol. 21, pp. 299-300.

vision of the world and the dominance of the Great Powers over other peoples.

At present, too, calls are sounded in the United States to create a world-wide American empire by conquest and violence (on the pretext of banishing wars) and establish a Pax Americana.

The imperialist ideology is inclined to describe all wars, especially world wars, as a factor of human progress. Constant struggle between the new and the old being a law of natural and social development, say the proponents of this doctrine, wars, like revolutions, tend to accelerate human progress and facilitate the emergence of entirely novel relations by destroying the old.

It could not be clearer that these theories have nothing at all in common with international law. And doubly so, because a new world war would be a nuclear war, and would spell disaster rather than progress, flinging man far back, probably many centuries back.

In our time, when capitalism is no longer able to shape the course of history and it is the forces of peace, democracy and socialism that play the determinative role in international affairs, when it is possible to avert world wars and, much more, to banish aggressive wars altogether, the problem of defining just and unjust wars has become a pressing one, because the peaceful coexistence of the two systems does not by any means rule out just wars inasmuch as its principles are inapplicable to relations between oppressors and the oppressed, between colonialists and the victims of colonial oppression.

Since the question applies to international, not civil, wars, this makes the problem of just and unjust wars a matter of concern for all mankind, which cannot be settled positively from the narrow standpoint of one power or group of powers.

The only way to solve the problem is to proceed from international law and the U.N. Charter. In a nutshell, a war in violation of the U.N. Charter is an unjust war, and a war in pursuance of the U.N. Charter is a just one.

All aggressive and colonial wars are unjust. What is more, an aggressive war is an international crime. Every war of conquest aimed at robbing a people of its right to self-- determination, its right to elect its own form of government, state, internal arrangement and economic and political system, is

an unjust war. A war purposed to interfere militarily in the affairs of other peoples, depriving them of the right to sovereign equality, political independence and territorial integrity, and a war aimed at revising historically prevailing boundaries are likewise unjust.

An unjust war need not be an open resort to the national armed forces against the freedom of another people. It may be prosecuted by armed bands and irregular detachments operating within the frontiers of other states.

An unjust war is a violation of international peace and imperils the security of all states. This is why the U.N. Security Council can, and must, act on the U.N. Charter and settle the matter of compulsive measures against states thai start unjust wars.^^1^^

Any war against aggressors and colonialists who seek to rob a people of its freedom or to maintain colonial rule by force, is a just war. A war in pursuance of the right to selfdetermination against attempts to saddle a people with a political system, form of government or status it does not want, is also a just war.

Self-defence against aggression and armed struggle against foreign enslavement and colonialism is the classical type of just war, formalised in international law and the U.N. Charter. The sacred war of the Vietnamese against U.S. imperialism is such a just war. The tenacity and determination of the people of Vietnam, their heroic stand against U.S. imperialism in defence of their freedom and independence, for the unity and integrity of their country, contribute to the world-wide struggle for peace, independence, democracy and socialism.

Civil war is the domestic affair of a people. The Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man recognises the privilege of every people to wage just war against tyranny and oppression. Foreign armed intervention in a civil war, even if limited to the infiltration of irregular troops or armed detachments, is unjust. Conversely, struggle against foreign armed intervention is just.

These are the answers provided in international law to the question of just and unjust wars. The only way the modern states can banish unjust wars is by adhering to the principles of the U.N. Charter.

~^^1^^ Y. Mikheyev, Primeneniye prinuditelnykh mer po Ustavu OON, Moscow, 1967, pp. 47-52.

4. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE IS INEVITABLE. A NEW WORLD WAR CAN BE PREVENTED

Peaceful coexistence is an inevitable historical process, the result of objective social development, an existing fact, and not the figment of anybody's imagination.

The existence of states with different socio-economic systems, marked by struggle and co-operation between them, is a typical feature of human society since October 1917.

Modern techniques and means of communication have brought the countries and continents closer together in space and time. Peaceful coexistence has thus become an irresistible necessity, an objectively essential want. To deny it is tantamount to turning back the clock of history, which we know to be irreversible.

He who evades peaceful coexistence or refuses to accept its universality has his sights on a reactionary war, though such a war has never altered, and cannot alter the irreversible nature of the historical process.

For all the differences between the states, and for all the ideological and other contradictions between the nations, they are all in substance desirous of maintaining peace and averting a nuclear-missile war.^^1^^

A realistic possibility of banishing war from the life of society and securing peaceful coexistence has arisen for the first time in history. The Programme of the Soviet Communist Party stresses and proves this point, instilling fresh confidence in all the champions of peace. "It is possible to avert a world war," it says, "by the combined efforts of the mighty socialist camp, the peace-loving non-socialist countries, the international working class and all the forces championing peace. The growing superiority of the socialist forces over the forces of imperialism, of the forces of peace over those of war, make it actually possible to banish world war from the life of society even before the complete victory of socialism on earth, with capitalism surviving in a part of the world.''^^2^^

The 23rd Congress reaffirmed that the conclusion of the world communist movement on the possibility of bridling the aggressors and averting a new world war is entirely valid.

Let us see what factors make peaceful coexistence a realistic proposition.

To translate this proposition into reality, the mass of the people have got to take a hand in the general effort; all the forces working for peace have got to keep up and intensify their endeavours, and the peace movement, the trade unions, the various women's and youth bodies and other democratic organisations must mount fresh, more powerful actions.

The socialist countries have a special role to play in safeguarding the peace. Having formed a world system, the socialist states have become an international force that exercises a powerful influence on world development. So the strengthening of the world socialist system is the pivot in the maintenance and strengthening of peace.

The socio-economic and political rapport of the countries of the socialist system has created an objective foundation for a new type of international relations between them, a new type of international division of labour springing from their co-operation, their co-ordination of economic plans and from the specialisation and co-ordination of production.

The existence of the world socialist system, which has the material and political means of preventing aggression, placed at the service of peace; the existence of the ever increasing group of Asian. African and Latin American countries vitally interested in peace and working actively against war; the existence of a powerful workers' anti-war movement in the capitalist countries, and its various political organisations; the existence of the national liberation movement of the peoples of the colonies and dependent countries; the existence of neutral countries advocating peaceful coexistence, and the existence of the world-wide peace movement with a following of hundreds of millions--- all this makes it possible to prevent a world nuclear war.

The experience of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries proves that socialism and peace are inseparable and that socialism might serve the cause of peace, that the socialist countries backing peace and pursuing the Leninist principle of the peaceful coexistence of countries with different social systems constitute a mighty barrier to imperialist aggression.

The role of the socialist countries in international affairs is increasing.

The Armed Forces of the Soviet Union, a reliable bulwark of international peace and security, are equipped with nu-

~^^1^^ V. Chkhikvadze, A Peaceful Future for All Peoples, Moscow, 1965, p. 21.

~^^2^^ The Road to Communism, p. 505.

clear-missile weapons in sufficient numbers to repel any and all aggressors.

The main result of the efforts exerted by the peace-loving forces is that a world war has been averted in the past two decades.

The danger of a new world war persists. But such a war is not inevitable. There are forces in the world capable of frustrating the aggressive designs of the imperialists. The aggressors are now opposed by a mighty and insuperable force, and if they start a war it will be their undoing.

The world socialist camp, the international working class, the national liberation movement and all the peace-loving forces of the world are strong enough to avert a world war if they act in unison.

Unlike the "wild men", moderate groups in the West, including sections of the big bourgeoisie, are aware that the principle of peaceful coexistence accords with their interests, while a nuclear war will not spare the dominant classes of the capitalist society.

What President Kennedy said on June 10, 1963, in his address at American University shows that he, at least, was conscious of these implications. He said that if a total war were to break out, irrespective of who started it, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. would be the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact, he added, that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. "All we have built, all we have worked for," he concluded, "would be destroyed.''

The prominent Canadian political commentator, John Minifle, notes that the attractions of neutralist policy are being realised by a wide range of capitalist countries.^^1^^ The impossibility of inducing the new Asian countries "to jettison non-alignment, which is the basic principle of the foreign policies of those countries"^^2^^ is also registered by a number of U.S. observers.

The struggle of the newly free national states against imperialist and colonialist policies has a strong bearing on peaceful coexistence. Long ago, Lenin pointed out that "the period of the awakening of the East in the contemporary revolution is being succeeded by a period in which all the Eastern peoples will participate in deciding the destiny of

the whole world".^^1^^ Here is how the Programme of the C.P.S.U. assesses this factor: "The joining of the efforts of the newly free peoples and of the peoples of the socialist countries in the struggle against the war danger is a cardinal factor of world peace. This mighty front, which expresses the will and strength of two-thirds of mankind, can force the imperialist aggressors to retreat.''^^2^^

Besides, peaceful coexistence offers favourable opportunities to the working class of the capitalist countries to campaign for its rights, for a better living and for world peace.

The 23rd Congress of the C.P.S.U. stressed that "the international situation calls for the unity of all anti-war, antiimperialist forces, and primarily for the unity of the world socialist system, all the contingents of the world communist, working-class and national liberation movement, the peaceloving nations and states, and all champions of peace, irrespective of their political views and world outlook.''^^3^^

The national movements for peace and international cooperation differ in form from country to country, but the substance and purposes are the same everywhere. All of them protest against the policy of war and provocation, against the exhausting arms race. They call for disarmament and peaceful coexistence, which, once fully achieved, will offer grand opportunities for bettering the living conditions of all.^^4^^

The peace movement is the broadest of all modern movements, embracing people of different political convictions and religious beliefs, and of different social classes, but united by the noble desire to avert new wars and secure a lasting peace.

No longer can the aggressive forces expect the peoples to submit unprotestingly to whatever they do. The peoples were made to understand in no uncertain terms that they are unwilling to die in destructive wars fought to enrich the monopolies. Faced by the menace of a nuclear war, strongly divergent mass movements are forming a previously inconceivable coalition, whose purpose it is to deliver mankind from a nuclear-missile disaster.

Vigorous and systematic action by the peoples in behalf of peace is of extreme importance to peaceful coexistence,

~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 160.

~^^2^^ The Road to Communism, p. 496.

~^^3^^ 23rd Congress of the C.P.S.U., p. 287.

~^^4^^ V. S. Yemelianov, Atom i mir, Moscow, 1966.

~^^1^^ J. Minifie, Peacemaker or Powder-Monkey, Canada's Role in a Revolutionary World, Toronto, 1960, p. 14.

~^^2^^ e g., G. King, Southeast Asia in Perspective, New York, 1956, p. 276.

5-3121

because it exercises an increasing influence on governments and compels them to follow a peace-abiding foreign policy.

The peoples have made substantial headway. Their efforts are bringing home to statesmen and politicians that peaceful coexistence, which has been advocated by the Soviet Republic since the day it has emerged, is absolutely necessary. "Peaceful coexistence has become a necessity," was the way Bertrand Russell, the British philosopher, put it. The Pugwash movement of scientists is propelled by this idea, which conforms with their desire to deliver mankind from the nuclear peril.

A certain section of the bourgeoisie in the highly developed capitalist countries which takes a level-headed view of the relation of forces in the modern world and of the disastrous consequences a nuclear world war would have for capitalism, has also come out in favour of peaceful coexistence. Amitai Etzioni is one of the people who "hope for the establishment in the near future of peaceful coexistence". He has advanced a ``gradualist'' theory "oriented toward elimination of international violence while preserving both the national security and the values to which we are committed, through (1) reduction of international tension, (2) reversal of the arms race, and (3) an interbloc political settlement".^^1^^

The aggressively bellicose tendencies of the imperialist powers are being confronted today by the moderate and sober trend of that section of the bourgeoisie which is deeply conscious of the disastrous consequences a nuclear-- missile war will bring about for capitalism.

Big Business groups in the United States, too, have become acutely aware of the fact that, with the United States being a missile target, nuclear hostilities will wreak destruction not only on business, but on businessmen. They are calling for a realistic approach and mutual understanding in international affairs.

In the atomic age, a world war is a risky undertaking for the imperialist aggressors. President Kennedy realised this when he said in his American University address on June 10, 1963, that total war "makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains ten times the explosive force delivered by all the Allied air forces in the Second World War''.

Despite the propaganda of the "wild men", spurred by the U.S. aggression against South Vietnam, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, Laos and the Dominican Republic, the number of Americans dismayed by the state of international affairs is mounting steadily. More Americans are coming to realise that a special responsibility for the maintenance of peace rests with the Soviet Union and the United States, the two greatest powers of the modern world. There will be neither stability nor tranquility in the world, until these two powers adjust their relations. International development as a whole depends essentially on the state of Soviet-American relations. The Soviet Union is raising no obstacles to normal relations. Its chief foreign policy objective is to secure a state of peace for the building of a communist society in the U.S.S.R. and developing the world socialist system, and, hand in hand with all the peace-loving nations, to deliver mankind from the threat of war.

Given a sensible approach, states with different socio-- economic systems can always find common ground to resolve troublesome problems in the interest of universal peace.

The Programme of the C.P.S.U. defines peaceful coexistence as the historically objective necessity of our time. "Peaceful coexistence of the socialist and capitalist countries," it says, "is an objective necessity for the development of human society. War cannot and must not serve as a means of settling international disputes. Peaceful coexistence or disastrous war---such is the alternative offered by history.''^^1^^

The architects of the "positions from strength" policy have long been trying to discredit the idea of peaceful coexistence. They scoff at it, and ascribe to it a reactionary purpose. Some try to prove that before the 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U. the Soviet Union considered war the only means of settling the historical dispute between the two systems. It was "the rapid advances in technological warfare," they say, "with the possibility of mass destruction for both sides in the event of a total war" that caused the U.S.S.R. to postulate the necessity of ending "the transition period not through armed conflict, but through the growing strength of the `peace-loving' states and the self-destruction of the capitalist world".^^2^^

~^^1^^ Amitai Etzioni, The Hard Way to Peace. A New Strategy, New York, 1962, p. 84.

~^^1^^ The Road to Communism, p. 56.

~^^2^^ R. Fifield, "The Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence", The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 52, No. 3, July 1958, p. 508.

^5<

67

There are people, too, who portray the socialist countries' desire for peaceful coexistence as a sign of weakness.^^1^^

The New York Times described peaceful coexistence as a tool of world revolution and qualified it as a new declaration of war on the "free world"---a military, political, economic and propaganda war.^^2^^

Certain U.S. ideologists pervert Lenin's idea of peaceful coexistence, which would secure for all nations an enduring peace for the entire period in which the problems dividing the two systems will be resolved. They say the Soviet conception of ``peace'' is one in which the Communists defeat everybody and establish a communist world dictatorship.^^3^^

But all the exertions of its adversaries notwithstanding, the progressive idea of peaceful coexistence, unlike the backsliding ideology of war, is winning fresh positions in international relations.

Linus Pauling, the U.S. scientist and twice the Nobel Prize winner, pointed out he is not alone in thinking that "the time has come for morality and justice to take their proper place of prime importance in the conduct of world affairs, that world problems should be settled by international agreements and the application of international law".^^4^^

It is only natural that people the world over want to know more about peaceful coexistence, that sole alternative to nuclear-missile war. It is therefore important to probe the very concept of peaceful coexistence and all its political, sociological and legal implications.

5. USE OF FORCE IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IS

INCOMPATIBLE WITH PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE. THE DOCTRINE OF ``RESTRICTED'', ``MINOR'' AND ``LOCAL'' WARS IS THE SUREST ROAD TO TOTAL THERMONUCLEAR

DISASTER

In our time world development is shaped by the struggle and competition between the states of the two systems. Ideologists of imperialism contend that communism needs

wars to win and that the Communists are therefore spoiling for war. Barry Goldwater, for example, said it was "the Communists' aim to conquer the world".^^1^^

U.S. foreign affairs experts write that the Soviet leaders are allegedly prepared, if opportunity presents, "to engage in a so-called progressive war to effect the ultimate collapse of the capitalist world".^^2^^

A University of Chicago professor, Hans J. Morgenthau, warns of the "professed Soviet aim to take over the world" for the "world-wide triumph of communism" and laments the ``dangers'' faced by the capitalist world from the Soviet Union, which, he alleges, "seeks to conquer the world .. . with military might''.

According to Das Parlament, a West German journal, the relations between socialist and capitalist states, being antagonistic, cannot be resolved by anything short of war fipm the standpoint of Marxist-Leninist principles. These and similar inventions are not novel. Lenin referred to them in his day, saying, "some foolish people are shouting about red militarism. These are political crooks who pretend that they believe this absurdity and throw charges of this kind, right and left, exercising their lawyers' skill in concocting plausible arguments and in throwing dust in the eyes of the masses.''^^3^^

The Marxist-Leninist teaching and recent world history hold up the lie to the falsehoods of the bourgeois propagandists.

Lenin stressed time and again that "all our politics and propaganda ... are directed towards putting an end to war and in no way towards driving nations to war".^^4^^

The Programme of the C.P.S.U. says that "Communists have never held that the road to revolution lies necessarily through wars between countries", and that for this reason the working class and its vanguard, the Marxist-Leninist parties, prefer to accomplish the transfer of power from the bourgeoisie to the workers by peaceful means, without a civil war, for this accords best with the national interests of the country concerned.

~^^1^^ E. R. Goodman, The Soviet Design for a World State, New York, 1960, p. 164.

~^^2^^ Quoted from 22oi Syezd Kommunisticheskoi Partii Sovietskogo Soyuza, 17-31 oktyabrya 1961 goda. Stenograficheski otchot, Vol. 1, p. 249.

~^^3^^ J. Gavin, War and Peace in the Space Age, p. 147.

~^^4^^ L. Pauling, No More War!, New York, 1958, p. 11.

~^^1^^ B. Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative, A Mafadden Capitol Hill Book, 1963, p. 91.

~^^2^^ United States Foreign Policy, Ideology and Foreign Affairs, op. cit., p. 15.

~^^3^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 29, p. 66.

~^^4^^ Ibid., Vol. 31, p. 470.

Wilhelm G. Grewe, a prominent West German diplomat who loves nothing better than flinging mud at Soviet foreign policy, admits all the same that "war has never been a favoured method" of the Soviet Union.^^1^^ The French sociologist Julien Cheverny notes that armed force has been nothing but a means of "self-defence and counter-attack for the socialist countries".^^2^^

The inventions about the Communists' wanting war are also refuted by those who say that communism triumphs through peace. "The monstrous essence of the conflict between communism and the West," writes William S. Schlamm, "so monstrous that nobody dares to mention the fact---is that communism thrives on peace, that it wants peace, and that it triumphs through peace.''^^3^^

As we see, some of the opponents of peaceful coexistence want to fight communism because it is allegedly warlike, and others because it wants peace.

No old socio-economic formation has ever given way voluntarily to a new formation. Never did it step out of the way of the new before it exhausted all its powers of resistance. The imperialists consider a thermonuclear war as their last resort, hoping to stamp out the socialist system by mass annihilation.

Imperialist ideology, policy and practice show that war is inherent precisely in the capitalist system, and that in our time the monopolists are hell bent on settling by war the historical issue of which system is better.

Lord Dundee, a peer of the United Kingdom, says he is sooner prepared to face the prospect of half the world being destroyed in a nuclear war, so that a small community of free people could start building anew, than of a world in which all may live on as slaves of communist tyranny. The final extirpation of the Soviet system should be a U.S. national goal, declared a U.S. Air Force Association message to the U.S. President, and according to the Foreign Policy Institute of the University of Pennsylvania, the "long-term strategy" of the United States ruling class is based on the

notion that it cannot tolerate the survival of a political system diametrically opposite.

The Buchmanites claim that "the third world war has begun". Anthony Nutting, a British ex-diplomat, throws common sense to the winds and contends that there is a "war that the Soviet Union has declared upon the capitalist world".^^1^^ A similarly absurd notion is advanced by U.S. Senator Henry M. Jackson. "We are at war," he says.^^2^^

According to the West German journal Aussenpolitik, these notions have been christened "belligerent coexistence", connoting brinkmanship of the most evil form. " Belligerent coexistence" is the nearest thing to a preventive war. "We should maintain our armed forces in such a way," wrote U.S. Congressman George H. Mahon, "that, should it ever become obvious that an attack upon us or our allies is imminent, we could launch an attack.''^^3^^ Considering the fact that Mahon is one of the architects of the theory of pre-emptive war---an aggressive war purposed to lay waste the opposing country as a precaution---the meaning of what he implies by "launch an attack" is perfectly clear.

British Air Marshal John Slessor, too, declares, "We shall not stop short of striking first.''^^4^^

The U.S. press speculates prolifically on "initiative in a nuclear conflict". Albert Wohlstetter, a U.S. Air Force theorist, says in reference to his country that "it not only can emerge unscathed by striking first, but that is the sole way it can reasonably hope to emerge at all.''^^5^^

It should be clear, however, that the one to strike first will never be able, despite the accuracy of modern nuclear weapons, to destroy at one blow all the underground and particularly the mobile means of nuclear retaliation. Yet at regular intervals U.S. generals mouth threats of destroying Russia "twice or three times over". These pronouncements have been rightly countered with the absolutely reasonable observation that it hardly matters how many times Russia can be destroyed if she is able to destroy the aggressor at least once.

In Karl Jaspers's opinion "the world is on its way to the

~^^1^^ W. G. Grewe, Deutsche Aussenpolitik der Nachkriegszeit, Stuttgart, 1960, S. 423.

~^^2^^ J. Cheverny, Eloge du colonialism, Essai sur les revolutions d'Asie, Paris, 1961, p. 120.

~^^3^^ W. S. Schlamm, Die Grenzen des Wanders. Ein Bericht uber Deutschland, Zurich, 1959, S. 185.

~^^1^^ A. Nutting, Europe Will Not Wait. A Warning and a Wag Out, London, 1960, p. 115.

~^^2^^ Foreign Affairs, Apr. 1960, No. 3, Vol. 38, p. 446.

~^^3^^ Time, May 9, 1960, p. 13.

~^^4^^ J. Slessor, Strategy for the West, p. 7.

~^^5^^ Foreign Affairs, Jan. 1959, p. 230.

total destruction of mankind".^^1^^ Schlamm avers that "wars remain the main tool of national policy recognised by international law", while Robert Osgood says "war is a sensible instrument of foreign policy''.

However, ever since the emergence of the Soviet state, a fundamentally new kind of state, and of the socialist system, a fundamentally new kind of system, the question of war, peace and revolution took on a qualitatively new complexion.^^2^^

The socialist states reject war as a means of settling international disputes. As early as in 1920 peaceful coexistence was already an objective historical fact. It was conditioned, as Lenin pointed out, not only by the essence of the peaceful Soviet foreign policy, but by the basic interests of states belonging to the different social systems. Lenin considered peaceful coexistence would be "our guarantee that we shall be able to devote ourselves whole-heartedly to economic development and that we shall be able, for a longer period, to work calmly, steadfastly and confidently''.

In a reference to the peaceful coexistence policy, Lenin told the Eighth All-Russia Congress of Soviets on December 22, 1920: "We have already taught a number of powerful countries not to wage war on us." He added: "We are winning over to our policy of peace a steadily increasing number of states which are undoubtedly hostile towards the Soviets.''^^3^^

It is only natural that this factor, noted by Lenin, has gained stature as time went by, because the relation of forces has changed in a truly global sense (and is changing still more) in favour of socialism, that is, of peace.

The capitalist countries are gradually learning from experience that peaceful coexistence is a sensible pattern of relations for countries of the two systems.

This is doubly true with regard to the modern epoch.

Since barefaced preparations for a universal all-out nuclear war are being condemned and resisted by the bulk of the world population, the imperialist ideologists are trying to cover up their war plans with various doctrines, such as those of ``limited'', ``minor'', ``local'' and other similar wars.

``The American people ... must be educated to the fact," wrote Edward Teller, "that wars are divisible, that we can limit the scope of war, and that the use of nuclear weapons in a war limited in territory and purpose would not lead inevitably to a global nuclear disaster.''^^1^^ Promptly he drew the conclusion that the United States "must prepare for limited warfare---limited in scope, limited in area, limited in objectives, but not limited in weapons''.

Similar conclusions are contained in the writings of the leading U.S. research centres, whose authors argue that the "United States must adopt a policy of limited wars".^^2^^

In contrast to the Dulles-Eisenhower strategy, the U.S. News and World Report wrote, referring to official sources, that the biggest change of all in the Democratic Party administration's strategy "is that a 15-minute war is not to be the only war planned for".^^3^^

Herman Kahn revealed that the American 'strategy of "combined nuclear containment", ``control'', and the like, implies preparedness for "the use of limited war", " controlled reprisal", "controlled war" and (sic!) "automatic mutual homicide".^^4^^

Why "mutual homicide"? Because if anyone thinks the idea of a "limited war" implies nuclear restraint, he is totally and dangerously wrong. Did not Edward Teller write, "we must prepare for limited warfare---limited in scope, limited in area, limited in objectives---but not limited in weapons"?^^5^^ And did not Henry Kissinger specify that " conventional forces should not be considered a substitute for a limited nuclear war capability, but as a completement to it"?^^6^^

In what sense does a ``limited'' war then differ from a ``total'' war? Merely in that a ``limited'' war should, as its theorists conceive it, involve the use of nuclear weapons to attain a certain aim in a certain ``limited'' area, particularly, where the peoples attempt to stamp out the remnants of colonialism. Robert Endicott Osgood, who is one of the theorists of "limited warfare", stresses that "effective limita-

~^^1^^ K. Jaspers, Die Atombombe und die Zukunft des Menschen. Politisches Bewunsstsein in unserer Zeit, Munich, 1958, S. 103.

~^^2^^ Traktaty o vechnom mire, ed. by F. V. Konstantinov, Moscow, 1963, p. 9.

~^^3^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, pp. 491-92, 494, 488.

~^^1^^ E. Teller with A. Brown, The Legacy of Hiroshima, p. 288.

~^^2^^ J. Cerf, W. Pozen (ed.), Strategy of the 60s, New York, 1961, p. 22.

~^^3^^ U.S. News and World Report, March 13, 1961, p. 39.

~^^4^^ H. Kahn, On Thermonuclear War, pp. 240, 152.

~^^5^^ E. Teller with A. Brown, The Legacy of Hiroshima, p. 236.

~^^6^^ H. Kissinger, The Necessity for Choice, p. 86.

tion of weapons is virtually precluded" in the sense of a "geographical restriction of combat" and "discrimination between tactical and strategic targets".^^1^^

The doctrine of ``limited'' nuclear war is senseless, because, above all, it can be nothing but a prelude to an unlimited universal nuclear war. S. E. Singer, a Pentagon nuclear weapons specialist, stressed that efforts to limit a war will run foul of modern nuclear weapons and the possibility of miscalculation, which makes limitation a doubtful and hazardous concept.

``The possibility of all-out war," wrote Kissinger, "is inherent in a limited war among major powers.''^^2^^

The authors of "Developments in Military Technology and Their Impact on United States Strategy and Foreign Policy", a report published by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stress that there is no clear distinction " between strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, or strategic and tactical targets, and there are real dangers that a tactical nuclear war might rapidly degenerate into that general nuclear war which it is our purpose to avoid''.

The theorists of ``limited'' war themselves come to the conclusion that it is really unlimited. Osgood, quoting General Douglas MacArthur, says: "A war should be fought all-out to a clear-cut victory." He condemns "political considerations that might hinder the utmost military effort to destroy the enemy forces quickly and effectively as being contrary to all the rules of war and the simple dictates of humanity".^^3^^

But the strongest and most convincing repudiation of the "limited war" doctrine is furnished, on the one hand, by the U.S. war in South Vietnam and, on the other, by the latest foreign policy doctrines of Lyndon Johnson.

Indeed, what did the U.S. start out to achieve in South Vietnam? To begin with, it helped France in her dirty war against the peoples of Indochina. Then France suffered a setback, and her role of Southeast Asian gendarme was taken over by the United States. Years went by. Billions of dollars went down the Indochina drain. Thousands upon thousands of people lost their lives. The scale of the war

increased. At first, the United States had several hundred American advisers in South Vietnam. Today, the number of U.S. troops there runs into the hundreds of thousands. The war has expanded vastly. New types of weapons have come into play, and covert preparations are being made to employ nuclear weapons.

The South Vietnam experience is therefore most convincing evidence that the so-called limited war doctrine is a total failure.

Added evidence is furnished by the escalation doctrine engineered by Herman Kahn and Lyndon Johnson's doctrine about the alleged right of the United States to interfere with force in the internal affairs of any country where a revolutionary situation arises and the people try to put in power a government of their own choice.

This state of international relations, where peace is really of ``local'' duration between a succession of ``local'' wars, is much closer to ``total'' war than to ``local'' peace. The Soviet journal, Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodniye otnosheniya (World Economy and International Relations), notes rightly that the various architects of the specious theory of ``local'' peace are really bent on obscuring the theory of peaceful coexistence. A "local peace" is at best a state of cold war with all its various dangers.^^1^^

Kissinger gives us an idea of what he and his like understand by a ``minor'' war. He holds that in a ``minor'' war the nuclear weapons used should not exceed 5,500 kilotons and the theatre of hostilities should not exceed 800 km.

It is very doubtful that the belligerents in a so-called minor war will stick to this criterion, since no one but Kissinger has ever set the specifications for it and no international treaty exists on this score. A minor war is bound to grow automatically into a major, or ``total'', nuclear war.

The changes in the political map of the world created by the emergence of the socialist socio-economic system, are irreversible.

Imperialist politicians, statesmen and military leaders have good reason to fear that in this age of space rockets and nuclear bombs, an all-out nuclear war will end in the final downfall of the capitalist system. So they assume they might attain their various objectives by means of "minor"

~^^1^^ R. E. Osgood, Limited War, the Challenge to American Strategy, Chicago, 1957, pp. 259-60.

~^^2^^ H. Kissinger, The Necessity for Choice, p. 59.

~^^3^^ R. E. Osgood, op. cit, p. 35.

~^^1^^ Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodniye otnosheniya, 1961, No. 1, p. 8.

and ``local'' wars. On the assumption that "political changes may be effected by way of minor wars", Karl Jaspers, the West German philosopher, contends that in the pursuit of this goal there is between an atomic war and a state of universal peace "a broad field of wars involving conventional type weapons''.

Harvard professors Thomas C. Schelling and Morton H. Halperin, on the other hand, believe that the very attempt to set the limits for ``local'' wars would touch off such wars. "Agreements which serve to facilitate keeping local wars limited," they write, "may make the outbreak of local war more likely.''^^1^^

The U.N. Charter sets out the sacred right to self-- determination of all peoples, who may freely elect their government and form of government. International law and the U.N. Charter prohibit interference in this process by any other state, and even by the United Nations Organisation.

Knowing this, the United States and Britain devised a variety of arguments to justify their armed interventions, say, in the Lebanon and Jordan. Let us list some of them to show how shaky is the ``legal'' basis of the "local wars" theory: (1) ``self-defence'', (2) "repulse aggression", (3) "protection of U.S. and British lives and property", (4) "concern for the Lebanon and Jordan", and (5) ``invitation'' of U.S. troops to the Lebanon and, accordingly, of British troops to Jordan.^^1^^

The plea of self-defence is absurd. Nobody will ever believe that the events in the Lebanon and Jordan endangered the security of the United States and Britain. Neither will anyone believe that the two major imperialist powers needed to resort to ``self-defence'' against such small and weak countries as the Lebanon and Jordan undoubtedly are. The argument does not hold water either in reference to the Congo, Laos, South Vietnam and the Dominican Republic.

The plea of "repulsing aggression" is no more convincing. The United States and Britain have not indicated to this day who, save themselves, had attacked or intended to attack the Lebanon and Jordan, and what ``aggressor'' they had gone there to repulse. The same is true of the Congo, Laos and the .Dominican Republic.^^2^^

To clear itself of blame, the United States fell back on Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which provides for individual or collective self-defence against an aggression. What it implies is an aggression that has already broken out. In this, as in many other cases, the United States and Britain did the reverse: they ``assisted'' the Lebanon and Jordan in the absence of an aggression, and did so after the U.N. Security Council had examined the matter and found no signs of either aggression or intervention. Besides, unless there is a Security Council decision to the contrary, assistance by way of collective self-defence may be accorded

~^^1^^ See Q. Wright, "United States Intervention in the Lebanon", American Journal of International Law, Jan. 1959, Vol. 53, pp. 112-25.

~^^2^^ O. E. Tuganova, Mezhdunarodniye otnosheniya na Blizhnem Vostoke, Moscow, 1967.

6. U.S. ACTS OF AGGRESSION IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AGAINST CUBA AND IN VIETNAMTHREAT TO UNIVERSAL PEACE

In the last ten years, the imperialists have made repeated attempts to set off, and have indeed set off, ``local'' wars of various sorts---in Egypt and Hungary in 1956, in Syria in 1957, in the Lebanon and Jordan, in Cuba in 1961, in Laos and the Caribbean in 1962, in the Middle East in 1967. Besides, for a number of years the United States has been fighting what is in effect an undeclared war in Vietnam.

Imperialist politicians are exerting themselves to justify the theory and practice of ``minor'' wars by specious contentions that they fall in with the Soviet conception of peaceful coexistence. In an address to the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Dean Rusk declared on November 28, 1961, that by peaceful coexistence the Soviet Union allegedly means determined efforts to spread its system to the rest of the world and that the Soviet programme of total victory for communism does not rule out the threat or use of force, short of any big war that may destroy the Soviet Union.

This is untrue. The Soviet conception of peaceful coexistence rejects any and all aggressive wars, let alone a world war.

In the eyes of international law, revolution, civil war, change of government or the form of government in a country are a purely internal matter of the nation concerned.

~^^1^^ Th. C. Schelling, M. H. Halperin, Strategy and Arms Control, New York, 1961, p. 31.

under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter only by such countries as have an appropriate mutual assistance treaty with the attacked state. No such agreement existed between the United States and the Lebanon, nor between Britain and Jordan.

The argument about "protecting American lives and property" is another fraud and a bald attempt to revive the colonial customs of the 19th century, when battleships were dispatched to weaker countries on the pretext of protecting foreign lives, but really in order to cuff them into submission. The ``argument'' reveals, too, that the United States often flaunts international law and the provisions of the U.N. Charter about the equality of big and small nations, giving precedence to the "national interests of the U.S.A." and prejudicing the legitimate rights of other nations for the sake of the egoistic interests of the U.S. monopolies.

The U.S. intervention in the domestic affairs of the Dominican Republic in April 1965 is a striking example.

The excuse that the U.S. and British operations in the Lebanon and Jordan were prompted by ``concern'' for the interests of the two latter countries was made to disguise the plans of squashing the national liberation movement there. The United States and Britain were bent on stamping out Arab nationalism and on subjugating Iraq, the United Arab Republic, the Yemen and other Middle East countries.

The excuse that U.S. and British troops had been `` invited'' to the Lebanon and Jordan, respectively, is invalid too.

The Lebanon and Jordan, as we see, fell victim at the time to an armed U.S. and British aggression, and Iraq and the United Arab Republic faced the very real threat of a similar invasion. As victims of aggression, the Arab states were thus entitled to fight a national liberation war against the aggressors and the peril of colonial subjugation, for their national freedom and independence. This sort of war is just and is recognised as lawful by the U.N. Charter, whose Article 51 says:

``Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.''

The Arab states are members of the United Nations. They have the legitimate right to resist armed aggression by all the means at their disposal. Inasmuch as the aggression

against them was an accomplished fact at the time, they were entitled under the U.N. Charter to offer the invader armed resistance until the Security Council took the necessary measures and halted the aggression.

As we see, the United States is apt to assume the job of international policeman and confront the United Nations and mankind with the fait accompli of an aggression in the form of a so-called minor or local war, which it launched behind the back of the United Nations and in defiance of the Security Council, upon which is laid the "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security" and which is the sole body empowered to determine "the existence of any threat to the peace" and to decide on measures "to maintain or restore international peace and security''.

The Caribbean crisis of 1962, triggered by aggressive U.S. actions against Cuba and the U.S. President's order to stop and search all vessels sailing to Cuba, no matter what flag they flew (which was nothing short of a naval blockade), shows how dangerous the use of force in international relations may be even if matters do not come to the point of war.

The U.S. Government's action was a gross violation of the elementary standards of international law and a challenge to the U.N. Charter. U.S. naval control over ships of other sovereign countries on the high seas in peacetime went against the time-honoured rules and customs of marine law, which postulate freedom of shipping on the high seas for all countries of the world.

The freedom of shipping principle connotes that the seas beyond the national and territorial waters of maritime countries are free and open to all nations and that no state may claim control over any part of the high seas. The prominent U.S. international law expert, Charles Cheney Hyde, notes on this score that "on the high seas broadest rights of unmolested navigation are asserted and enjoyed by ships of every flag in time of peace"; he adds that the principle of free and unmolested navigation on the high seas in peacetime by ships of every flag is broadly recognised.^^1^^

L. Oppenheim, the well-known British expert, maintains that "all vessels with their persons and goods are, whilst

~^^1^^ Ch. Hyde, International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States, Vol. 2, p. 751.

on the open seas, considered under the sway of the flag State" and that "no State has as a rule a right to exercise its legislation, administration, jurisdiction, or police over parts of the open sea".^^1^^

The Permanent Court of International Justice ruled in one of its judgements that vessels on the high seas are subject to no authority but that of the state under whose flag they sail.^^2^^ Justice Moore attached his particular opinion to this decision. In accordance with the principle of the equality of independent states, he maintained, all nations have an equal right to the unmolested use of those parts of the ocean that belong to no one. No state, he added, may in time of peace interfere with the shipping of other states on the high seas.^^3^^

The freedom of the open seas principle, reasserted in 1948 by the Geneva conventions on questions of marine law, implies that the naval and merchant vessels of all countries may sail the high seas in any direction and ship any cargoes to the ports of any country.^^4^^ Article 2 of the Open Seas Convention stresses, in particular, that the open sea is open to all nations, and that no state may claim sovereignty over any part thereof.

Under the principle of free shipping for all nations, a merchant vessel of one state may not be stopped or detained in the open sea by the naval forces of any other state. It is not, therefore, subject to search or attack by such naval forces. The fact that the vessel in question may be carrying a military cargo in peacetime is irrelevant, and cannot serve as legitimate ground for stopping or detaining it.

What is more, according to modern international law blockading the shore of any state in peacetime is one of the criteria of aggression and a grave international crime.

U.S. naval operations in the Caribbean against vessels of other countries not only violated the principle of the freedom of the high seas. They were also under international law criminal acts of aggression that pushed the world to the brink of what could have been a disastrous war.

It is hard indeed to list all the provisions of the U.N. Char-

ter violated by the United States at the time of its reckless Cuban venture.

The Charter obliges member-countries "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" (Preamble), while the U.S. actions in the Caribbean pushed the world to the very brink of a nuclear disaster.

The Charter requires member-countries "to reaffirm faith ... in the equal rights ... of nations large and small" (Preamble) and to honour "the sovereign equality of all its members" (Art. 2, Cl. 1), while the United States flaunted Cuba's right to sovereignty and independence, and the equality of all other countries as well by inspecting and detaining their ships in the open seas.

The Charter requires U.N. member-countries "to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained" (Preamble), while the United States acted contrary to justice and violated the principle of the freedom of shipping on the high seas laid down in numerous international treaties and customs as a time-honoured standard of international law.

The Charter requires member-countries "to practise tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours" (Preamble), while the United States is intolerant and hostile to the Cuban revolution and comports itself not as a good neighbour, but as an interventionist and aggressor.

It is one of the purposes of the United Nations "to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace" (Art. 1, Cl. 1). It is also a key principle of the Charter that all countries "shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a matter that international peace, and security, and justice, are not endangered" (Art. 2, Cl. 3). In defiance of this principle, the United States refused to negotiate with Cuba. It was reluctant to settle its dispute with that country by peaceful means and endangered world peace and justice by its reckless course of action.

The U.N. Charter requires all member-countries to refrain "in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of.any member or state, or in any other manner in-

~^^1^^ L. Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, pp. 541, 540.

~^^2^^ Permanent Court of International Justice Publications, Series A., No. 101, p. 25.

~^^3^^ Ibid., pp. 65, 69.

~^^4^^ D. Javad, Mezhdunarodniye soglasheniya po morskomu sudokhodstvu, Moscow, 1965.

6-3121

consistent with the purposes of the United Nations" (Art. 2, Cl. 4). Yet the United States resorted openly to brute force not only against Cuba, but also against other countries whose ships were on the high seas en route to Cuba. What was more, the United States threatened publicly to employ nuclear weapons in the conflict it itself had provoked.

The Charter prohibits "to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state" (Art. 2, Cl. 7), yet the United States is openly intervening in Cuba's domestic affairs, trying to restore a reactionary regime there, hindering Cuba from safeguarding her sovereignty, claiming the right to pick Cuba's allies and friends for her, striving to obstruct Cuba's purchases of arms essential for her self-defence, and, last but not least, conducting an undisguised policy of armed intervention against Cuba.

The United States is bent on arrogating the functions of international gendarme, ignoring thereby the will of the peoples and the decisions of international bodies. Lifting the veil on the substance of this policy, U.S. State Secretary Dean Rusk told the American International Law Association on April 23, 1965, that "international affairs are part of our national affairs" and that the United States has to be " concerned with all" of the planet, "all of its land, waters, atmosphere, and with surrounding space''.

Dean Rusk revealed blandly what this concern was. The United States, he said, is "endeavouring to impose the international interest upon other nations". What he really meant, of course, was the American interest.

In Korea, the United States sought to sanctify its aggressive war with the U.N. flag, and in the Dominican Republic with the flag of the Organisation of American States.. Not so in Vietnam. There, it could not have cared less for the universally recognised requirements and standards of international law and human decency.^^1^^ It organised an undisguised armed intervention in the domestic affairs of that country, grossly violating the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Agreements of 1954, which call for the country's neutralisation.

Until 1965 the United States had been waging an undeclared war against the people of South Vietnam. Today, the U.S. Armed Forces are committing a new international crime

by their armed aggression against a sovereign state, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. This aggressive course undermines the very pillars of international legality and, in effect, constitutes a crime, as provided for in Clause A, Article 6, of the Charter of the International War Crimes Tribunal.

International law, in particular the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 and the Geneva Convention of 1949 (of which the United States is a signatory), categorically prohibits the bombing of peaceful towns and of the civilian population.

The U.S. generals have elected to scorn international law by making peaceful villages the targets of piratical air raids and by strafing and killing old men, women and children. Like the nazis, who exterminated civilian populations in the Second World War on the pretext of combating partisans, the U.S. commanders in Vietnam are trying to justify the brutal air raids on the Democratic Republic of Vietnam by the claim that they are fighting the partisans of South Vietnam.

In doing so, the U.S. Air Force employs napalm, a barbarian means of warfare which inflicts on its victims, chiefly civilians, great pain and a slow death. The use of such a weapon is banned by Clause E, Article 23, of the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 on the laws and customs of land war.

By using poisonous gases against the Vietnamese people, the United States Armed Forces are committing one more grave crime against humanity. U.S. correspondents who witnessed how poisonous gas was sprayed at a low altitude from helicopters, reported that the gas afflicted not only the South Vietnam partisans, but also the puppet Saigon troops, claiming casualties among non-combatants, as well as combatants.

Chemical warfare has long been condemned by all civilised nations as a grave international crime. It is outlawed categorically and unreservedly by a number of international treaties. This is indicated in the Geneva Protocol of June 17, 1925, which stresses that the use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases was justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world, as declared in treaties to which the majority of the powers are parties.^^1^^

~^^1^^ F. I. Kozhevnikov, V. I. Menzhinsky, Agressiya SShA vo Vietname i Mezhdunarodnoye pravo, Moscow, 1967.

~^^1^^ M. Hudson, International Legislation, No. 143.

The attempt made by a spokesman of the U.S. State Department on March 23, 1965, to misguide public opinion by claiming that the use of gases is not contrary to international law and practice, could not have been more cynical and inept.

Together with dozens of other states, the United States signed the Geneva Protocol of 1925 for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases and Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, specifically with the purpose that this prohibition "shall be universally accepted as a part of the law of nations", equally binding upon the conscience and practice of the nations.

The United States, by the way, has signed a number of other international treaties and agreements banning gas warfare.

As far back as 1899, the First Hague Conference adopted a declaration banning shells designed to spread asphyxiating and other lethal gases. The parties to the Versailles Treaty of 1919, too, signed its Article 171, which prohibits the use in war of asphyxiating and other similar gases, liquids and compounds. The United States undertook a like commitment in its treaty with Germany on August 25, 1921, and under the Washington Treaty of February 6, 1922, desirous that prohibition of gas warfare "be universally accepted as a part of the law of nations". The Washington treaty said in its Article 5 that the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous and other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices, was rightly condemned by the civilised world and the prohibition of their use declared in treaties to which a majority of the civilised powers are parties.^^1^^

The U.S. Secretary of State said at the Washington Conference that for more than a hundred years the civilised world maintained two key principles of warfare: (1) do not inflict unnecessary pain in exterminating combatants, and (2) do not exterminate innocent non-combatants. The State Secretary added at the time that the use of gases in war, being a violation of these two principles, is condemned almost universally.^^2^^ Yet today a Pentagon spokesman has the effrontery to claim that the use of gases in South Vietnam is a humane way of fighting the enemy in territory where women and children are present.

~^^1^^ Conference on the Limitation of Armament, Washington, Nov. 12, 1921-Feb. 6, 1922, Washington, 1922, p. 1609.

~^^2^^ Ibid.

The prohibition of the use of gases in war has long since become an irrevocable standard of international law, binding on all states, the U.S.A. included. Even Hitler declared early in the Second World War (September 1939) that Germany would live up to the 1925 Protocol for the prohibition of gas warfare, provided all the other belligerents did the same. Admittedly, the nazis used poisonous materials on a few occasions in the Soviet-German theatre of war, but were appropriately punished for it as war criminals.

What U.S. spokesmen say about chemical weapons being used in Vietnam with merely tactical aims, and on a limited scale, and that the gas used is merely tear gas, is therefore irrelevant.

The conduct of the American militarists in Vietnam, the brutal air raids, the use of napalm and phosphorus bombs, and then of gases, are flagrant violations of the laws and customs of war and are nothing but senseless cruelty with regard to the civilian population. They are all acts defined by international law as war crimes or crimes against humanity.

By using poisonous gases in Vietnam, the United States has defied the conscience and international practice of all nations. It has challenged the civilised world and the very concept of international legality. But that is not all. There have been calls in the United States for the use of nuclear weapons in its ``minor'' Vietnam war.

The criminal war against the people of Vietnam is the most cynical of all the aggressive acts committed by the U.S. imperialists.^^1^^ What is going on in Vietnam fits none of the standards of international law and is incompatible with the code of international morality. The aggressors keep climbing the rungs of ``escalation'' in their dirty war, creating fresh dangers to world peace.

The events in Vietnam, which are an act of ruthless imperialist aggression and a gross violation of international law, have added greatly to world tension.

Extending the scale of their operations, the U.S. imperialists commit aggression against the people of Laos, where the civilian population is also made to suffer, and violate the sovereignty of Cambodia, whose security is greatly imperilled. In effect, they have involved other countries in their war.

~^^1^^ P. S. Romashkin, Prestupleniya protiv mira i chelovechestva, Moscow, 1967, pp. 338-48.

The peace-loving nations want an end to the U.S. aggression in Vietnam, an end to the seat of war in Southeast Asia; they want an easing of tension and a normalisation of international relations. No state and no government concerned over the future of peace should look on indifferently while the United States runs wild in Vietnam.

Its actions are a threat not only to the independence and freedom of the Vietnamese, but also a grave peril to world peace.

The American and other imperialists hoped to stamp out one by one, by means of ``minor'' or ``local'' wars, the national liberation movements in countries that have won, or are fighting for, independence, such as Algeria, the Congo, Laos, the Yemen, Cambodia, Oman, the United Arab Republic, Syria, Guatemala, the Lebanon, Jordan, Cyprus, Indonesia, Brunei, South Vietnam and the Dominican Republic. They hoped that ``minor'' or ``local'' wars would also help them squash socialist countries, such as the Korean People's Republic. They hoped that aggressive acts against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and subversive acts against the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland and the other socialist countries, would further their aims.

In combating the practice of ``local'' wars, the peace-- loving forces know that an imperialist minor war has every chance of developing into a world-wide nuclear holocaust.

It stands to reason that recognition of the idea of peaceful coexistence as a fact and standard of modern international law implies that ``minor'' or ``local'' wars restricted to the territory of a country or a region, as well as ``big'' wars involving the whole world, are ruled out. To secure peaceful coexistence, it is not enough to just recognise it. It is necessary, too, to practise its key principles.

form of conflict", but also aimed at "bringing the Soviet Union to the point where it would be obliged to do the adjusting"^^1^^ in respect of Western demands.

``American leaders," says Professor William Appleman Williams, "initially assumed that the combination of American strength and Russian weakness would enable them to structure the post-war world according to the principles and the practices of the Open Door policy.''^^2^^

Louis J. Halle, a former member of the State Department's policy planning staff and a zealous advocate of " positions from strength" of the most aggressive variety, described the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a `` godsend''.^^3^^

According to Field-Marshal Viscount Alembrooke, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings also delighted Winston Churchill. "We now had something in our hands," he recalled, "which would redress the balance with the Russians. The secret of this explosive and the power to use it would completely alter the diplomatic equilibrium.''^^4^^

James Burnham exclaimed, "It would have to be recognised that peace is not and cannot be the objective of foreign policy.''^^5^^

U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas observed that, in the peoples' eyes, Americans "were military giants who strode the world's stage, shaking our nuclear fists".^^6^^

Developments proved the policy "from positions of strength" to be unrealistic, both due to the economic successes of the Soviet Union and all the other socialist countries, and the staggering Soviet achievements in science and nuclear rocketry.

The Soviet intercontinental and global rockets, the Soviet artificial earth satellites and spaceships, and the spaceflights of the Soviet cosmonauts have dispelled the imperialist illusion in regard to the policy "from strength''.

7. THE POLICY "FROM POSITIONS OF STRENGTH" IS A REPUDIATION OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE

Some imperialist strategists advocate thwarting the policy of peaceful coexistence by peaceful means---an economic, ideological, psychological and cultural offensive---in order to vanquish the enemy with the least losses.^^1^^

American observers admit that U.S. post-war foreign policy not only "assumed the indefinite prolongation of some

~^^1^^ W. Reitzel, M. A. Kaplan, C. G. Coblenz, United States Foreign Policy, 19^5-55, Washington, 1956, p. 106.

~^^2^^ W. A. Williams, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, ClevelandNew York, 1959. p. 169.

~^^3^^ L. J. Halle, American Foreign Policy, Theory and Reality, London, 1960, p. 252.

~^^4^^ A. B. Bryant, Triumph in the West, 19k3-19W, London, 1959, p. 477.

~^^5^^ J. Burnham, The Struggle for the World, London, 1947, p, 184.

~^^6^^ W. O. Douglas, Democracy's Manifesto, Garden City, New York, 1962, pp. 9-10.

~^^1^^ J. Galbraith, The Liberal Hour, London, 1960, p. 20.

The launching of the first sputnik by the Soviet Union, says U.S. General J. Gavin, crushed and discredited the "atomic age strategy"^^1^^ conceived by the United States.

``We have essentially gone, in only fifteen years," lament the U.S. theorists, "from a position of dominant strength to a position of, at best, nuclear parity based on the threat of mutual annihilation.''^^2^^

And here is the conclusion the ideologists of modern imperialism draw, once they wake up to the collapse of the policy "from strength":

``The assumption that the United States had the power to force the Soviet Union to accept American terms was the fundamental weakness in America's conception of the world.''^^3^^

This is not surprising, because U.S. diplomacy had only one hard and fast method, the method of force.

Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas stressed that the policy of massive retaliation is obsolete and that " Russia today stands on a par with us; she must be treated as an equal if we are to have even a modicum of peace".^^4^^

• But sound ideas did not gain prevalence among the U.S. governing class, despite certain periods of sanity (cf. some of John Kennedy's utterances).

``We Americans," wrote D. F. Fleming, "are currently trying hard to devise new rules for victory ... to restore some shadow of rational possibility to the institution of war, and to the threat of its use as an instrument of diplomacy.''^^5^^ And this, as Corresponding Member of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences N. N. Inozemtsev, author of a paper on U.S. foreign policy, noted, despite the crisis of the U.S. "positions from strength" policy being generated by objective, irreversible factors, rather than subjective, temporary, external ones.^^6^^

It is a wonder why U.S. politicians make their calls for the use of force in international relations, and all too often translate words into deeds.

We do not think many of them fail to appreciate the fact that their "from strength" policy has been futile. It is just that the very essence of the capitalist system, quite inevitably, impels power politics.

This is why Hans Morgenthau and Arnold Brecht maintain that "international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power. Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always the immediate aim"^^1^^ and, we might add, so is domination over other nations to the imperialists.

Nicholas John Spykman, a prominent U.S. foreign policy observer, said that "in international society all forms of coercion are permissible, including wars of destruction. This means that the struggle for power is identical with the struggle for survival and the improvement of the relative power position becomes the primary objective of the internal and the external policy of states".^^2^^ As for Burnham, he believes that nothing but force and war can propel foreign policy, that no foreign policy is conceivable without force. Burnham believes the United States had a foreign policy in its history only at times of declared war and at times of active power position tactics.

Burnham makes no secret of the fact that the U.S. governing groups consider power politics the only possible type of politics and that the very idea of some other policy is puerile and self-denying.

Joseph L. Kunz, a prominent jurist, notes with respect to the U.S. doctrine of international law that "we are in the present epoch living in climate of so-called `realism'; power, not international law, prevails in the thinking of many . . . whether scholars or representatives of governments". In another article, Kunz maintains that "new realism" signifies that there is nothing but power, and that international law is ``sterile''.

Hans Morgenthau, who was a Chicago University professor and later a U.S. State Department advisor, was a zealous exponent of the power positions cult in the U.S. doctrine of international law. He tried, in effect, to revive Machiavellism by maintaining that in politics moral justice and legal standards are meaningless in face of supreme power.

Some bourgeois legal experts believe war is inevitable

~^^1^^ J. Gavin, War and Peace in the Space Age, p. 26.

~^^2^^ H. Strausz-Hupe, W. R. Kintner, S. T. Possony, A Forward Strategy for America, p, 122.

~^^3^^ W. A. Williams, op. cit., p. 19.

~^^4^^ W. O. Douglas, op. cit., p. 23.

~^^5^^ D. E. Fleming, The Cold War and Its Origins, London, 1961, pp. XII, XIII.

~^^6^^ N. Inozemtsev, Vneshnyaya politika SShA v epokhu imperializma, Moscow, 1960, p. 699.

~^^1^^ A. Brecht, Political Theory, The Foundation of 2&th Century Political Thought, Princeton, 1959, p. 346.

~^^2^^ N. J. Spykman, America's Strategy in World Politics. The United States and the Balance of Power, New York, 1942, p. 18.

even in a peacefully coexisting world. But they go farther than that when they try to sanctify it by falling back on international law. J. Brierly, for example, believes that international law should candidly recognise that all wars are equally legal.

The above authors make believe they do not know that the only wars considered legal are those which countries are compelled to wage in self-defence against aggression, national liberation wars against foreign rule or popular revolutionary wars and uprisings against the exploiters, against reactionary regimes and tyrannies. In wars like that the people fight for their self-determination, social progress and independent national development. The wars fought by the people of South Vietnam and by the people of the Dominican Republic against the U.S. aggressors and their puppets come under this head.

The liberation wars and uprisings against exploiters are no breach of international peace, and do not undermine peaceful coexistence. Reversely, wars waged by foreign states against a people fighting for its national or class emancipation, do constitute an aggression, a violation of international peace, and are incompatible with peaceful coexistence.

U.S. political, social and legal experts have set out to find a way of forcing the countries of the socialist system "to surrender peacefully''.

Walter Lippmann wrote that nothing but great political changes within the two coalitions would offer a way out. Although he mentions changes within both coalitions, he really means political changes in the socialist countries only.

How the ideologists of the bourgeois world expect to achieve this goal is revealed in utterances that go back many years. As long ago as January 1957, the New Republic journal organised a discussion on the coming decade. Serge De Gunzburg contributed an article, "The West Need Not Fear Peaceful Coexistence", in which he examined three solutions to the cardinal problems of our time:

(1) destruction of communism through a third world war;

(2) disintegration of communism through an internal upheaval aided by the West, and

(3) peace through compromise according to the principle of "live and let live''.

The author rules out the first solution, because "the West

has not got the superior force that would assure final* victory''.

With reference to the second solution, he says it "seems to be the basis of American thinking. But recent events have shown ... the regime remains strong. ... Solution No. 2 therefore leads us back to solution No. 1 and must be discarded''.

Serge De Gunzburg thus infers that the notorious power positions policy and the various forms of exporting counterrevolution have no future, and arrives at the logical conclusion that "the remaining course is peaceful coexistence". As for peaceful coexistence, he notes, "it can only be achieved through compromise and mutual concession''.

The ten years since these ideas were set out have proved them right. It has been demonstrated beyond all doubt that the "power positions" policy and export of counterrevolution have not yielded, are not yielding and will never yield the results desired by their exponents. Experience has also shown that the policy of peaceful coexistence, a policy of compromise and mutual concession, is the only reasonable and sensible policy to follow.

Let us look at the Caribbean crisis in the light of this approach. It was resolved by a compromise and a mutual concession. And we could quote many more facts to show that peaceful coexistence is a reality.

The cold war idea, which its advocates often associate with the concept of peaceful coexistence, holds a special place among the political conceptions of modern imperialism.

Some imperialist ideologists preach the doctrine of cold war, or, as they sometimes call it, cold peace, as an alternative to war and peaceful coexistence. Others describe it as "neither war nor peace".^^1^^

Thomas K. Finletter says peaceful coexistence is a " passing phase", which, he adds, "will come to an abrupt end when it no longer serves" the purpose of the Communists. "Ideology and Foreign Affairs", a study prepared at the request of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Harvard University's Centre for International Affairs, maintains that the Communists consider peaceful coexistence as merely a "transitional stage" designed to "lull the non-- communist world''.

~^^1^^ H. Seaton-Watson, Neither War Nor Peace. The Struggle for Power in the Post-War World, London, 1960, pp. 453-56.

Rodney Gilbert attempts to ``prove'' in his book that peaceful coexistence is a "continued conflict short of total war".^^1^^

But everything the reactionary ideologists and politicians are doing to discredit the idea of peaceful coexistence, which they describe as a socialist instrument of all-embracing cold war, a means of communist ``aggression'', ``expansion'' or "world conquest", a Soviet policy aimed at "achieving economically what could not be achieved militarily", is absolutely and entirely pointless.

The contention that peaceful coexistence is a "passing phase", a "transitional stage" and a state of "neither war nor peace" is conclusively refuted by the facts, which show that peace and peaceful coexistence are not one and the same thing, that peaceful coexistence is not simply an absence of war, not a temporary and shaky armistice between wars, but an objectively operating regularity governing the two opposite social systems and a realistic policy based on a reciprocal rejection of war as a means of settling interstate disputes. Reality shows that it is an operating standard of international law which exists irrespective of anyone's will and wish and is effectively applied in modern interstate practice.

What the Western ideologists want to do by contending that cold war is unavoidable is to extirpate from the minds of men the idea that war has ceased to be inevitable and that it can be prevented.

In their efforts to convince the public that local or global wars are necessary, some cold war politicians follow in Hitler's footsteps: Hitler said that "some events have to be so described as to induce, quite automatically, a gradual conviction among people that if a thing cannot be removed peacefully, force has to be applied, because the existing state of affairs must at no price continue''.

It is this basically fascist method that the nuclear war enthusiasts are using today, although contemporary international law and the U.N. General Assembly Declaration 1653 (XVI), of November 24, 1961, prohibit it.

At the 22nd U.N. General Assembly session the Soviet Union proposed to conclude special convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons.

The socialist doctrine considers it natural and logical that if legal responsibility attaches to the incitement of a man's murder, there is all the more reason to prosecute war propaganda, that is, incitement of mass murder.

On March 12, 1951, the Soviet Union adopted the Law for the Protection of Peace, under which war propaganda of every shape and form is qualified as a grave crime against humanity, because it undermines peace and creates the menace of a new war. Under this law all persons guilty of war propaganda are to be tried in a court of law as dangerous criminals.

By adopting this law, the Soviet Parliament acted upon the lofty principles of its peace policy, aiming to fortify peace and the friendly relations of all nations, irrespective of their social system. The Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. proceeded from the belief that the conscience and legal awareness of nations cannot suffer war propaganda to go unpunished.

The Law for the Protection of Peace epitomises the peaceabiding nature of the Soviet socialist state as a state of the working people, where no class or social group has a stake in war as a source of profit and a means of gaining dominance over other peoples. Having abolished all forms of national oppression within the country and created a model multinational state based on the equality and friendship of nations, the great Soviet Union follows in its relations with foreign states and peoples the Leninist principle of respect for sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity, independence and non-interference in other countries' internal affairs, Soviet people are being educated in the spirit of equality and friendship among nations, the spirit of internationalism and respect for all other nations.

The Soviet Union has no need to seize markets, sources of raw materials and spheres of investment. The Soviet economy develops according to a plan and is aligned with the immense, continuously expanding domestic potential for production and consumption.

The Soviet mentality is concentrated on creative labour, peaceful construction, scientific progress, the advancement of the arts, and the all-round harmonious development of man and society. The struggle for peace, the protection of peace, is a dominant rule of Soviet society.

The Law for the Protection of Peace is a powerful moral support for the champions of peace all over the world and

~^^1^^ R. Gilbert, Competitive Coexistence: The New Soviet Challenge, New York, 1956, p. 17.

a convincing proof that the Soviet Union is firmly determined to carry through its policy of prevention of war, maintenance of peace and peaceful coexistence.

Vladimir Lenin, the great founder of the Soviet state, said that all Soviet policy and propaganda are concentrated on putting an end to wars.

True to this idea, the Soviet state wages a tireless battle for peace.

Back in 1947, the Soviet Union initiated a resolution in the U.N. General Assembly, saying in part: "The General Assembly condemns propaganda in any form and in any country, aimed at or likely to create or strengthen a danger to peace, breach of peace or act of aggression.''

In all its subsequent disarmament proposals, the Soviet Union consistently suggested measures to end war propaganda and eliminate the cold war.

While rejecting war and coercion in international relations, peaceful coexistence does not require any of the parties involved to abandon their existing system, their order or ideology. It does not remove, even after general and complete disarmament, the ideological contradictions between the two systems, but rejects the use of force in any shape or form in settling ideological issues. It does not stand for a reconciliation of the socialist and bourgeois ideologies, nor for any abandonment of the class struggle.

Speaking about the struggle of the bourgeois and socialist ideologies, Lenin said: "The only choice is---either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle course (for mankind has not created a `third' ideology, and, moreover, in a society torn by class antagonisms there can never be a non-class or an above-class ideology). Hence, to belittle the socialist ideology in any way, to turn aside from it in the slightest degree, means to strengthen bourgeois ideology.''^^1^^

In keeping with this Leninist principle, the Programme of the C.P.S.U. notes that "the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems does not imply any easing of the ideological struggle. The Communist Party will go on exposing the anti-popular, reactionary nature of capitalism and all attempts to paint bright pictures of the capitalist system. The Party will steadfastly propagate the great advantages of socialism and communism over the declining capitalist system.''^^2^^

~^^4^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 384. ~^^2^^ The Road to Communism, p. 569.

The fact that the C.P.S.U. Programme contains nothing that weakens ideological struggle under peaceful coexistence is evident for everybody,^^1^^ only not for the Maoists.

There are no valid grounds for the demand of some Western politicians that their consent to peaceful coexistence be made conditional upon "ideological coexistence", that is, the abandonment by workers and Communists of the class struggle.

The U.S. philosopher Erich Fromm is far more reasonable on this score. The ideological struggle will continue, he says, but it must not be used to "nourish the spirit of

.» 2

war

Peaceful coexistence means that ideological disputes between states will be settled when the peoples of all countries will make their own choice of the better system, whose advantages will be brought home to them in the process of peaceful development.

~^^1^^ Ph. Moseley, "The Meanings of Coexistence", Foreign Affairs, Oct. 1962, p. 38.

~^^2^^ E. Fromm, May Man Prevail? An Inquiry into the Facts and Fictions of Foreign Policy, p. 16.

Chapter Three

PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE UPHOLDS

THE SOVEREIGN BIGHTS OF NATIONS,

THE HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL

FREEDOMS OF ALL MEN

1. SOVEREIGN EQUALITY OF ALL PEOPLES AND STATES IS AN IMPERATIVE CONDITION OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE. SOVEREIGNTY AND THE PROBLEM OF JUST STATE FRONTIERS

Some bourgeois doctrines say it is impossible to rule out force in settling disputes between countries of the two systems, because the number of countries is so very great. "War," they say, "is inevitable in a world divided into sovereign states.''

U.S. economist and sociologist W. W. Rostow claims that national sovereignty means that nations "retain the ultimate right to kill people of other nations in the defence or pursuit of what they judge to be their national interest", and that, consequently, "war, ultimately, arises from the existence and acceptance of the concept of national sovereignty".^^1^^

Some opponents of the sovereign equality of nations and states infer that in the nuclear age sovereignty should be consigned to oblivion.

``Military thought," says Max Beloff, an Oxford University professor, "is probably ahead of civilian thought in its readiness to accept the obsolescence of full national independence, since if countries cannot fight independently, the main historic bastion of sovereignty has already fallen.''^^2^^

Imperialist ideologists maintain that the existence of national states is the cause of wars, a source of strife within the capitalist system. Emery Reves, an American "world leadership" advocate, says, for example, that "the political structure of the nation-states is in violent and absolute

opposition to the needs of an economic system of free enterprise. In final analysis, all obstacles to free economy arising in the democratic countries derive from it.... The individual system of free enterprise within the limits of nation-states can neither flourish nor develop." Reves maintains that "the system of free enterprise" has "been driven into bankruptcy ... by the nation-wide structure".^^1^^

He has turned everything inside out. It is not the nationstate structure that is bringing about the collapse of socalled free enterprise. Quite the reverse. It is the capitalist system (that is, the system of free enterprise).

Utterances like Reves's reveal that, as the Programme of the C.P.S.U. rightly indicates, "the imperialists persist in distorting the idea of national sovereignty, in emasculating it of its main content and in using it as a means of fomenting national egoism, implanting a spirit of national exclusiveness and increasing national antagonisms".^^2^^

The opponents of sovereignty argue speciously that the struggle for peace implies loss of freedom, since peace is obtainable solely at the price of freedom.

The socialist countries and the democratic forces of other countries hold up the idea of national sovereignty in the name of the equality of the peoples, of their mutual confidence, friendship, assistance and contacts, and of social progress. The idea of national sovereignty is an important factor of progressive social development.

Modern international intercourse is based on international law. The joint life of several peoples within the system of one state (either Unitarian or federal) follows the principles of their state law promulgated by the appropriate organs of political power. The peoples living within a federal state have supreme organs of political power and government which legislate the political and other domestic laws regulating social and other relations between the peoples of the state concerned and between the citizens living on its territory.

Several peoples organised in a single state have a political and legal structure distinct in its functions from the international legal standards regulating the intercourse of peoples that each have their own separate state. This legal structure is marked by the existence of legislative organs

~^^1^^ W. W. Rostow, The Stages of Economic Growth, A Non-- Communist Manifesto, pp. 107, 108.

~^^3^^ M. Beloff, New Dimensions in Foreign Policy, London, 1961, p. 201.

.96

~^^1^^ E. Reves, The Anatomy of Peace, New York, 1946, pp. 47, 48, 46.

~^^2^^ The Road to Communism, p. 495.

7-3121

establishing intra-state law, of bodies ensuring the observance of these standards of law by all persons, institutions, organisations and groups of persons within the territory of the given state, and of bodies of government that regulate and direct the daily life of the peoples of the given state.

No matter how close and intimate the relations may be between separate states, they are constituted upon an international basis.

What is the main feature of this international legal basis? It is the idea of sovereignty and co-operation, and in this epoch, when two systems exist side by side, it is the peaceful coexistence and co-operation of the sovereign states of the two systems.

Within the confines of its territory, every state possesses supreme powers, or sovereignty, which rule out the power of any other state in the given territory.

Maoist claims to deciding what does or does not conform with the interests of other countries over the heads of their governments and peoples, are contrary to the standards of international law. That sort of practice would leave no room for international agreements and would make a travesty of the principles of respect for the sovereignty of states and of non-interference in their domestic affairs.

The Draft Declaration on the Rights and Duties of States, passed by the U.N. General Assembly in 1949, as well as the modern code of law, recognise the right of every country "to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things within its boundaries''.

If such a demarcation of territorial authority between all states did not exist, each of them could lay claim to authority with regard to one and the same territory, which would create chaos and anarchy in the relations between states, nations and people.

The system of international relations is based on intercourse between sovereign states constituted within the boundaries of definite territories over which the jurisdiction of the respective states extends. But every state has not only jurisdiction within the framework of a definite territory, but also sovereignty in its relations with all other states. In this sense, sovereignty means that the solution of international questions involving the interest of a given state cannot be devised without its participation and its voluntary consent unequivocally expressed by its competent organs in accordance with its constitutional procedure.

In this sense, sovereignty implies primarily the political independence or, more precisely, self-sufficiency, of a state in defining its general international status and in resolving the specific problems, in which it figures as an interested party.

The experience of international relations shows that proclamation of political independence and independence in foreign policy is insufficient as such for peaceful coexistence and even for the very conception of sovereignty. Proclamation of political independence by a state, and even its admission to U.N. membership, does not secure its sovereignty and create all the conditions for peaceful coexistence. The territorial integrity and immunity of every state, that is, the observance of its territorial authority, are absolutely essential.

Contemporary international law, based on the principles of peaceful coexistence, requires respect for the territorial integrity and immunity of every state. Not only does this principle of peaceful coexistence outlaw annexion, occupation or temporary seizure of foreign territory; not only does it rule out any and all invasions of foreign territory, including invasions of air space and territorial waters. It also implies the right of the state concerned to prohibit any and all activities in its territory of foreign authorities, organisations and citizens. The state may nationalise foreign property and outlaw the functioning of foreign companies if and when such functioning goes against its sovereign interests. It may annul all privileges for foreigners and may outlaw and prevent the dissemination in its territory of foreign publications, newspapers, books and radio broadcasts.

The question of the peaceful regulation of territorial problems and border disputes has a special bearing on peaceful coexistence.^^1^^ In the past, territorial disputes led up to long and sanguinary wars. Imperialism has imposed on the world unjust frontiers. Numerous armed conflicts, aimed at settling border issues by force, flared up after the Second World War.

To avert these conflicts, the Soviet Union initiated a discussion on territorial problems at the 19th U.N. General Assembly. Prior to this, on December 31, 1963, the Soviet

~^^1^^ B. M. Klimenko, Gosudarstvenniye granitsy---problema mira, Moscow, 1964.

^f

99

Government addressed the world's heads of government and state in a message urging the rejection of force in the settlement of territorial and border disputes. The overwhelming majority of states has, in the main, approved the Soviet stand on the urgent and complicated problems related to territorial and border disputes between states.

So let us examine the Soviet point of view.

It is the basic aim of the Soviet Union to prevent the outbreak of territorial and border conflicts between states. In the world today, territorial disputes stemming from complex historical, political, social, geographic and national factors may develop into an armed conflict and lead up to a thermonuclear disaster.

The Soviet position is that armed methods of settling territorial disputes should be ruled out.

This does not mean that territorial problems are to be shelved, or left hanging fire, just so that war is prevented.

Imperialism has imposed on mankind many unjust frontiers. Suffice it to recall that a number of countries is divided into two states. There is the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and South Vietnam, the Korean People's Democratic Republic and South Korea, there are two Congos, and two Somalis, and, much more, there are three Guineas.

The Soviet Union is anxious that these injustices should be rectified at the earliest possible time without resort to aggression.

Would this imply that the use of force is completely ruled out?

Some Western groups accuse the Soviet Union of taking a contradictory attitude. It approves and supports national liberation wars, they aver, while advocating the peaceful settlement of territorial problems.

But there is nothing contradictory or conflicting about this. Whenever the colonialists defy international law and U.N. decisions, and refuse to grant independence to this or that country, or when they retain control over a part of its territory and, on top of it, forcibly suppress the national liberation movement, the people of the oppressed country are within their rights to resort to arms and to wage a sacred war of liberation until they achieve a full victory over the colonialists and gain national independence. Such a national liberation war is, in effect, the inviolable right, provided for in Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, of individual

or collective self-defence from aggressors which the colonialists certainly are.

Every people and every state, whether or not a member of the United Nations, possesses this right to individual or collective self-defence. The help extended by the Soviet Union to the oppressed peoples in their national liberation wars is, therefore, provided in the exercise of the provisions of the U.N. Charter on collective measures of compulsion with regard to colonialists engaged in an aggression against the oppressed people concerned.

Such is the attitude of the Soviet Union on territorial problems related to the abolition of the survivals of colonialism.

U.S. State Secretary Dean Rusk groundlessly asserted on April 23, 1965, at a sitting of the American International Law Society "that acceptance of the doctrine of 'wars of liberation' would amount to scuttling the modern international law of peace, which the Charter prescribes.. . . And acceptance of the practice of 'wars of liberation' ... would mean the breakdown of peace itself.''^^1^^ Yet he was compelled to admit that "international law does not restrict internal revolution within a state or revolution against colonial authority". In effect, however, he denied the right of a colonial people to take up arms in the exercise of its right to self-determination against colonialist efforts to safeguard this colonial authority and said this would "authorise a state to wage war, to use force internationally, as long as it claimed it was doing so to `liberate' somebody from 'colonial domination' ''.

These utterances confirmed once again that the United States is a bastion of the outgoing colonialism and an enemy of the national liberation movement of the oppressed peoples.

As for the territorial problems that stem from the defeat of the nazi aggressors, who started the Second World War, the Soviet Union considers them to be settled once and for all, as provided for in the peace treaties and surrender instruments. Any revision of these problems would be an encouragement and comfort to the aggressive and revengeseeking forces who are striving to touch off a third world war.

^^1^^ The Department of State Bulletin, May 10, 1965, p. 697.

Such a revision is impossible, because nobody can alter the outcome of the Second World War.

As for unjustly established frontiers, the Soviet Union considers it necessary to settle international disputes over them by negotiation and other peaceful means.

What criteria should be used to establish just frontiers?

Lenin pointed out that the principle of the self-- determination of nations is the best criterion. Every people has its national, historically demarcated territory inhabited by members of the people concerned, who constitute a compact ethnic majority of the population in that territory. Just frontiers run through the points where the national territories of neighbouring peoples touch each other. Unjust frontiers are those which divide a single people, or fence it off from a part of its national territory.

The principle of the self-determination of peoples is one of the basic principles of the U.N. Charter. Any attempt to seize territories inhabited by other peoples and to shift the frontier outside one's national territory would therefore constitute an imperialist act.

The Soviet Union is firmly opposed to such expansionist acts, which it regards as acts of aggression, as violations of the principle of respect for the territorial immunity of every state prescribed by the U.N. Charter.

In order to end all territorial disputes and, more, all aggressive and expansionist ambitions, the Soviet Union suggested that the problem be discussed at the U.N. General Assembly and that an international treaty be concluded whereby the states would reject the use of force in settling territorial and border disputes.

This treaty would contribute greatly to world peace, to the elimination of the disgraceful heritage of imperialism and to the establishment of just frontiers all over the world.

Conclusion.of a multilateral treaty rejecting the use of force in the settlement of territorial disputes and border issues would certainly benefit world peace. All concrete measures designed to relieve international tension, to remove the causes of war, patently help to fortify world peace.

The Western press thinks that a treaty rejecting the use of force in the settlement of territorial issues is superfluous, because the U.N. Charter prescribes it, and its provisions are binding on all U.N. members.

It is, indeed, true that the U.N. Charter says in its Article 2, Clause 4, that "all members shall refrain in their

international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any member or state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations''.

The fact that the U.N. Charter contains this principle only serves to show that the Soviet proposal is fair and timely, and that it is consistent with the U.N. Charter. It is therefore more than strange to deduce that the measures envisaged in the Soviet proposal are unnecessary or superfluous just because the U.N. Charter exists.

Yet the Charter says the United Nations Organisation is a centre for harmonising the actions of nations in the attainment of the common United Nations aims.

The Charter stipulates that the United Nations, all its organs and all its member-states, must act to fulfil the principles proclaimed by the Charter.

The Charter directs the General Assembly, and consequently all U.N. member-states, to discuss any questions or any matters (Art. 10), to consider the general and specific principles of co-operation (Art. 11), and to initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of promoting international economic and political co-operation, in particular for the progressive development of international law and its codification.

The intricate set of problems related to the adjustment without war of territorial problems falls obviously within the competence of General Assembly, which should promote the progressive development of international law and its codification through the medium of an appropriate treaty, the idea for which has been put forward by the Soviet Union.

Article 14 of the U.N. Charter militates in favour of such a treaty, for it empowers the General Assembly to recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation "likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations including situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the purposes and principles of the United Nations''.

It is border disputes and territorial conflicts more than anything else that impair friendly relations among nations and the general welfare of mankind.

The fourth principle of Article 2 of the U.N. Charter, to which the opponents of a treaty rejecting force in the settlement of border disputes refer, is superseded in effect by Article 14, which clearly stipulates that the General As-

sembly shall promote measures such as the above-- mentioned treaty, because any forcible breach of the territorial inviolability of a state is the kind of situation that results "from a violation ... of the purposes and principles of the United Nations''.

References to the Charter only accentuate the timeliness and necessity of a treaty laying down the principles for the peaceful adjustment of international territorial problems.

United Nations practice, too, conclusively refutes anything the opponents of such a treaty may say about the Charter making it redundant.

Let us list a few examples:

1. The U.N. Charter lays down the principle of disarmament. Does this mean that concrete agreements on disarmament are redundant? Of course not. The United Nations has for many years endeavoured to draw up a disarmament treaty.

2. The U.N. Charter contains the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members. Yet in 1949 the General Assembly adopted the draft Declaration on the Rights and Duties of States.

3. The U.N. Charter contains the principle of the equal rights of nations large and small, the equality and selfdetermination of the peoples. Yet in 1960 the General Assembly adopted a Declaration on the Abolition of All Forms of Colonialism.

4. The U.N. Charter proclaims human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. Yet in 1948 the United Nations approved the Declaration of Human Rights, and two human rights pacts were adopted by the General Assembly in December 1966.

5. The U.N. Charter requires that all members fulfil their international obligations and observe international treaties. Yet the United Nations has prepared the draft of a Convention on Treaty Law.

6. The U.N. Charter provides for international co-- operation in the economic, social and cultural spheres. This was precisely why a large number of agreements on co-operation in all these spheres was drawn up and concluded within the United Nations framework.

All these agreements, declarations and treaties issued and signed by the United Nations members were necessary to translate into practice the respective principles already laid down in the U.N. Charter.

And it is likewise necessary to conclude an international treaty banning the use of force in the settlement of territorial questions and border disputes, in order to actuate the principle of territorial inviolability.

2. CRIMINAL CHARACTER OF COLONIALISM AND NEO-COLONIALISM IN ALL FORMS

It follows from the concept of peaceful coexistence that a state is sovereign not only in foreign, but also in domestic affairs.

A state could not conceivably maintain supreme authority in foreign affairs only, while lacking such authority in internal matters. A state deprived of independence in internal matters would be automatically deprived of authority in foreign affairs, because its domestic and external interests are connected, because foreign policy is a continuation of domestic policy, and because an unbreakable and organic connection exists between its two basic functions, the internal and the external.

Modern neo-colonialism represents independence externally proclaimed by the former colony, while foreign capital retains its grip on the country's economy, exploits its national wealth and population, and imposes a government that commits it to unequal agreements and blocs, thus also depriving it of external independence.

The ultimate designs of the colonialists are betrayed by their efforts to prove that decolonialisation does not necessarily imply recognition of the sovereignty or the legal personality of countries whom they grant ``independence''.

This is why the principle of territorial integrity and inviolability is an important condition of peaceful coexistence.

All forms of colonial and other dependence are incompatible with the concept of a subject of international law and United Nations member. Contemporary international law condemns all dependence of this kind. Every state is entitled to shaking it off and embarking on an independent foreign policy consistent with the sovereign interests of its people.

The political independence of a state from any other state, its independence in foreign affairs is, therefore, an important aspect of sovereignty as a principle of international law.

H. C. Allen, a University of London professor, has put his

finger on the reason why the imperialists campaign against sovereignty. "The fact of national sovereignty," he writes, "has come to make well-nigh impossible effective American leadership of the free world.''^^1^^

Respect for national sovereignty implies recognition of the right of every people to establish its own, independent and separate national state.

Respect for state sovereignty implies respect for the independence of any national state in its internal and external policy, its independence from all overt or covert foreign domination.

Respect for the people's sovereignty implies respect for the right of every people to establish the system of economy and form of government of its own choice, to have a government elected by the people, acting in behalf of the people, and pursuing a domestic and foreign policy consistent with the sovereign interests of the people. Violation or observance of the principle of the people's sovereignty, the question of what system or form of government is better or worse, and of whether or not the policy of a government responds to the interests of its people, do not fall within the competence of international law. Those are questions resolved by the people of the country concerned, who may change the system or form of government and elect a new government whenever they think it possible and necessary.

The question of the observance or violation of the principles of national and state law does not fall within the competence of international law either.

No external authority---no international organisation and no foreign state or group of states---may separate the government of a country from its people. Any external authority is obliged to reckon with the presence in the country of the given government, inasmuch as this government is recognised by its people.

Peaceful coexistence, as evidenced by the very concept of it, is unthinkable without the observance of, and respect for, national and state sovereignty.

Sovereignty and neo-colonialism are incompatible, because the latter implies no more than a formal independence of the country, while that country remains under foreign domination and its government is, in effect, deprived of the possibility of exercising its sovereign rights.

~^^4^^ H. C. Allen, The Anglo-American Predicament. The British Commonwealth, the United States and European Unity, London, 1960, p. 149.

Sovereignty is the only principle that ensures relations between nations and states in conformance with international legality.

But sovereignty would defeat itself if it were understood as the absolute and unlimited authority of a state free from the obligation of respecting the lawful interests and rights of other peoples and states and of honouring their sovereignty. The concept of absolute sovereignty, urged at one time by the advocates of absolute monarchy, has nothing in common with the concept of modern international law because, for one, it proclaims the sovereignty of one state while scorning that of others, and thereby annuls sovereignty as a principle of international law.

Even so vehement an opponent of sovereignty and so zealous an advocate of a world government headed by the United States as Emery Reves, writes: "Nothing can distort the true picture of conditions and events in this world more than to regard one's own country as the centre of the universe.''^^1^^

Nothing could be more ridiculous than to ascribe this absurd, essentially imperialist view on sovereignty to the Soviet doctrine of international law.

It will be recalled that Lenin's decrees concerning international relations and the nearly 50 years of Soviet international practice are based on the "fundamental idea of international law being the basis of intercourse between equal states".^^2^^

Those Western observers who portray sovereignty as the source of all social evils, international conflicts and wars, deliberately overlook the fact that today, when sovereignty is considered the cardinal basis of international law, there is no room at all for sovereignty in its absolute feudal form.

Sovereignty as the basis of international co-operation implies the supreme authority of all states rather than one select state, and is consistent with the interests of all states, which is inconceivable unless they are equal. Normal relations between states are impossible, unless they are based on the principle of equality.

This is why peaceful coexistence also implies the sovereign equality of all states, large and small. States differ from one another in many ways---the size of their popula-

^^1^^ E. Reves, The Anatomy of Peace, London, 1950, p. 1.

~^^2^^ SU, RSFSR, 1918, No. 39, p. 505.

tions, the area of their territory, industrial and agricultural production, economic and military potentials, scientific and technical levels, the standard of living, their love of peace and their aggressiveness, their social, political and economic systems, etc.

The states are not equal in these respects, but this does not mean the strong should dominate the weak, and the big ride roughshod over the small. The imperialist theory of the hegemony of the Great Powers and the inequality of the subjects of international law, is set forth, among others, by Karl Jaspers, the West German philosopher, who says that "the small ones are entitled to have a say and to issue advice, but they are not entitled to act independently, without the consent of the hegemonic powers".^^1^^

International law prohibits such domination and declares the equal rights of all states, irrespective of their area, strength and level of development, ruling out all privileges. Yet the state of affairs in the imperialist camp goes against this principle. Equality is all too often scorned. Modern international law prohibits all forms of unequal dependence, so that neglect of this standard is in all cases a violation of international law. Karl Loewenstein, the U.S. jurist, is mistaken when he maintains that "although equality is considered the principal attribute of sovereignty, it may not exist in fact in international co-operation".^^2^^

International law may tolerate such supplementary rights of states as accord with their supplementary responsibilities in regard to the family of nations. But these supplementary rights are not a privilege and are entirely confined to the respective supplementary responsibilities undertaken by the state concerned.

The principle of equality, or rather sovereign equality, is becoming more and more universal. Before the emergence of the socialist states it was applied solely to the European and some American states. Many Asian, African and Latin American countries were not regarded as the equals of the European powers. The standards of international law were considered applicable solely to the so-called civilised nations of Europe and North America.

Charles Cheney Hyde produced what might be described as the classical formulation of the U.S. doctrine on this

score. "If the inhabitants of the territory concerned," he wrote, "are an uncivilised or extremely backward people, deemed to be incapable of possessing a right of sovereignty, the conqueror may, in fact, choose to ignore their title, and proceed to occupy the land as though it were vacant.''^^1^^

This candidly imperialist conception, which denies the peoples of Asia and Africa the right to equality and the other fundamental rights of a subject of international law, is still widespread in the bourgeois doctrine of international law. '-'Anti-imperialist revolt," writes the Frenchman Lucien Laurat, "which today assails the underdeveloped regions, is essentially reactionary both in the political and the economic sense.''^^2^^

As for the Soviet state, it has shown from the first by its actions that "the entire eastern policy of Russia is diametrically opposite to the eastern policy of the imperialist powers".^^3^^

Lenin approved Chicherin's plan for "Negro and other colonial peoples participating on an equal footing with the European peoples in all conferences and committees and having the right to prevent interference in their internal affairs".^^4^^ Though it dates back many years, the plan exposes neo-colonialism in the form of ``aid'' and points out that "voluntary co-operation with, and assistance to, the weak should be practised by the strong without subjecting the weak to the will of the strong".^^5^^

``Tomorrow in world history," Lenin predicted, "will be just such a day when the peoples oppressed by imperialism will finally be aroused and the decisive long, hard struggle for their liberation will begin.''^^6^^

The disintegration of the imperialist colonial system was one of the most important results of historical development after the Second World War. The Great October Revolution, the emergence of the world socialist system and the attendant rapid growth of the national liberation movement impelled this emancipation of the oppressed peoples, with

~^^1^^ Ch. Hyde, International Law, Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States, Boston, 1947, Vol. 1, p. 357.

~^^2^^ L: Laurat, Problemes actuels du socialisme, Paris, 1955, p. 147.

~^^3^^ Dokumenty Vneshnei Politiki SSSR, Gospolitizdat, 1961, Vol. 5, p. 80.

~^^4^^ Leninski Sbornik XXXVI, Gospolitizdat, Moscow, 1959, p. 451.

~^^5^^ Ibid., p. 452.

~^^6^^ Lenin, The National Liberation Movement in the East, p. 312.

~^^1^^ K. Jaspers, Die Atombombe und die Zukunft des Menschen, S. 153.

~^^2^^ K. Loewenstein, "Sovereignty and International Co-operation", American Journal of International Law, Apr. 1954, p. 226.

more than 60 independent states rising upon the ruins of the colonial empires in Asia and Africa.

The standards of modern international law are no less binding upon any Asian and African state than upon a European or American state. From the standpoint of this international law, the rights of states do not depend on their socio-economic system. The attempts of the imperialist powers to discriminate in international relations against countries that, having gained sovereignty, embarked on socialism, are a gross violation of international law. There is absolutely no reason for Ph. Jessup, the U.S. jurist, to plead that the principle of equality be ``reassessed''.

The imperialist powers violate the principle of the territorial integrity and political independence of weaker states, whom they exploit, in a variety of ways---sometimes by direct annexion, sometimes by enmeshing them in various financial, economic, military or political arrangements, or else by various other devices short of formal annexion.

Violations of the territorial integrity and political independence of states by the imperialist powers undermine the system of international intercourse between sovereign states and conflict with the idea of peaceful coexistence.

The imperialists oppose the people's aspirations for freedom, independence, democracy and progress, and interfere in the domestic affairs of the newly independent states. Even some American jurists admit that under neo-- colonialism "such influences" exercised by the hegemonic state upon a dependent one "amount in substance to intervention in the external and domestic self-determination of nominally still sovereign states which, by traditional standards of international law, would have to be qualified as non-permissible".^^1^^

This is just the thing about neo-colonialism: the imperialist powers employ unequal treaties to secure the same goals as those of the old colonialism, keeping the economically underdeveloped countries as their agrarian appendages and exploiting their peoples. As Jack Woddis, author of Africa---The Lion Awakes, put it aptly, the colonialists grant independence to their former colonies, and "are going in order to stay''.

The French economist, Robert Fossaert, believes- that what has taken place was "a modification of the forms of the economic connection between the metropolitan countries

~^^1^^ K. Loewenslein, "Sovereignty and International Co-operation", American Journal of International Law, Apr. 1954, p. 244.

no

and the ex-colonies, and not a change in the nature of this connection".^^1^^

``To grant another people formal independence and in effect maintain one's domination over that people in one way or another---that is the dodge which colonialism is using more and more often,"^^2^^ wrote G. Kanesaburo, a Japanese researcher. By means of various forms of neo-- colonialism U.S. imperialism has created a peculiar kind of colonial empire and become a major world exploiter.

The United States exercises neo-colonialism above all through the export of private capital, which by 1959 was officially estimated at over $44,700 million ($29,700 million in direct investments), whereas total U.S. investments abroad at the close of 1946 were only $7,000 million.

Walter Lippmann forecast as far back as 1949 that Britain, that formerly Great Power, would fall into the meshes of a unique form of U.S. neo-colonialism. He wrote that the alliance between the exceptionally strong American economy and the British economy could not really be an alliance of equals. No matter how much tact and good will the United States showed, nothing could disguise or put off for any length of time the inevitable consequence of such an alliance---the transmutation of the United Kingdom into a country dependent on America, for which the U.S. would pay and therefore dispose of as it wishes. The nearly two decades since Lippmann said this have borne out his view. Britain has indeed followed the U.S. lead in all important international issues.

The U.S. is employing a variety of politico-economic and military-strategic forms of expansion to pursue a unique sort of neo-colonialism with regard to many countries of the capitalist world, depriving them of a part of their independence.

``This ingenious method," wrote Jawaharlal Nehru in 1933, "is called economic imperialism. The map does not show it. A country may appear to be free and independent if you consult geography or an atlas. But if you look behind the veil you will find that it is in the grip of another country, or rather of its bankers and big business men. It is this invisible empire that the United States of America possesses.''^^3^^

~^^1^^ R. Fossaert, L'Avenir du capitalisme, Paris, 1961, p. 46.

~^^2^^ G. Kanesaburo, Sovremenny kolonializm, Moscow, 1960, p. 27.

~^^3^^ J. Nehru, Glimpses of World History, London, 1949, pp. 475-79,

U.S. literature often professes the United States to be an enemy of colonialism. That, indeed, is quite true in respect to British, French and other colonialism, so long as it can be dispensed with and replaced by new, more streamlined forms of neo-colonialism. But whenever the United States is unable to step into the breach and establish its own domination, it extends every support to the old colonial powers and presses for a policy of "collective colonialism''.

Wahrhold Drascher, the West German theorist of colonialism, observes that "no European state could retain its hold overseas" without U.S. support.^^1^^

William J. Lederer, an American publicist, lists numerous facts to show how the United States "instead of helping dissipate colonialism, often has backed the status-quo governments---the ones which the citizens dislike".^^2^^

No wonder that Reinhold Niebuhr, the prominent American sociologist, calls on his country to clear itself of the onus of colonialist charges levelled by the "coloured peoples''.

But the United States cannot clear itself of these charges, because the daily practice of imperialism confirms them over and over again.

Here are a few examples.

To justify the new forms of colonialism, the authors of a U.S. collection, The Idea of Colonialism, have had to proclaim international law ``outmoded'' and to describe sovereignty as a ``quasi-fiction'' when applied to states which have no "real capabilities for the development and conservation of their own resources". The ideologists of neo-- colonialism suggest substituting "absolute property rights" on the disposal of the resources of Asian and African countries for international law, so that sovereignty should belong to "the one who has developed" these resources.^^3^^

The theory of ``immaturity'', applied to the colonial, semicolonial and dependent countries, was spread intensively by Bernard Baruch, who liked to say that "it takes time for peoples to learn to govern themselves".^^4^^

Some advocates of colonialism maintain that the body of international law contains so-called colonial law, which

regulates "colonial expansion" with regard to countries incapable of "exercising progressive and independent political government".^^1^^ This contention is knocked into a cocked hat by the facts of contemporary international life.

Unlike the imperialist countries, the socialist states stand firmly for the self-determination of all peoples. The socialist countries work for the granting to all colonial countries, trust and other non-self-governing territories of full independence and freedom in the setting up of their own national states according to the freely expressed will and desire of their peoples, giving the peoples the opportunity of shaping their own destiny and choosing their own form of political administration. They advocate the abolition of all strongholds of colonialism, such as possessions and leased areas in foreign territories, and the observance in relations between states of the U.N. Charter principles of equality and of respect for the sovereign rights and the territorial integrity of all states without exception, ruling out colonialism of all shapes and forms and all exclusive rights and advantages enjoyed by some states to the detriment of other states.

3. BASIC SOVEREIGN RIGHTS OF PEOPLES AND STATES '

IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. TWO KINDS OF AID TO THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Those who dream of a revival of colonialism ought to be reminded that all subjects of international law possess a wide range of rights and duties in international relations. It is the sum total of these rights and duties of the subjects of international law that constitutes the concept of their legal capacity. There are basic rights and duties devolving upon the subject of international law due to its being such a subject and due to the nature of modern international law. Basic rights are those without which the subject of international law cannot exist normally and the violation of which impairs international intercourse and peaceful coexistence. These basic rights and duties devolve upon the subject of international law at all times, regardless of whether or not they have been laid down in any specific treaty. They differ from other rights and duties stipulated in connection with some specific international treaty.

~^^1^^ W. Drascher, Schuld der Weissen? Die Spatzeit des Kolonialismus, 1961, S. 77.

~^^2^^ W. J. Lederer, A Nation of Sheep?, New York, p. 104.

~^^3^^ The Idea of Colonialism, ed. by R. Strausz-Hupe and N. W. Hazard, New York, 1958, pp. 451, 446.

~^^4^^ B. M, Baruch, The Public Years, New York, 1960, p. 410.

~^^1^^ R. Quadri, Manuale di Diritto Coloniale, Padova, 1950, p. 1.

8-3121

There is an unbreakable unity between the rights and the duties of the subjects of international law, because every right implies the duty of the other subjects of international law to respect this right.

At different stages in the development of international law the content of the basic rights and duties differed. The classical 19th century bourgeois international law maintained, for example, that the rights to declare war, to conclude peace, to maintain diplomatic relations, to conclude international treaties, and to bear international responsibilities, were among the basic rights of states.

In the past, Oppenheim shows, the basic rights included the right of existence, self-preservation, equality, independence, territorial authority, international intercourse, good name and reputation.^^1^^ A. Verdross, on the other hand, believes that there were just five basic rights in the past---the right of independence, self-preservation, equality, honour and intercourse.^^2^^

Attempts were made to codify the basic rights of states by the Inter-Parliamentary Union in 1928, the 7th PanAmerican Conference in 1933 in the Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, and by the United Nations in 1949 in the draft Declaration on the Rights and Duties of States.

Modern international law stipulates the following basic rights and duties of the subjects of international law in respect to the peoples---the makers of history and the masters of their own destiny:

The right to self-determination, which is the right of every people and nation to establish its own independent national state within its national territory, to choose the political arrangement it wishes, not short of federative or international alliances with other states or withdrawal from such alliances, to select the form of government and the socio-economic system, that is, the political, social, economic, legal and cultural status. In the exercise of their right to self-determination the peoples are entitled to employ force in self-defence against colonial domination.

This right is coupled with the obligation of tolerance and of living together with other states as good neighbours, of

respecting the system and form of government chosen by other peoples, of observing the legislation of all the other subjects of international law as to their particular status,¹ of granting independence to territories conquered in the past, and of refraining from the imposition of any definite form of organisation or government on any other people.

Every subject of international law is entitled to political independence (sovereignty) within the framework of international law and to the right of settling independently all matters concerning domestic policy.

This right is aligned with the obligation to refrain from interference in the domestic or external affairs of other subjects of international law and from undertaking any actions that may jeopardise their political independence and their sovereign right to settle independently all matters of their internal and external policy, particularly the obligation to refrain from inciting an uprising or rebellion, or organising armed struggle, or committing terrorist acts in another state with the object of obstructing the will of the people to elect and maintain its own political, economic and social order.

Every subject of international law has the right to the inviolability of its territory and to the free use in the national interest of all natural wealth and resources,^^2^^ and the right to territorial and personal supreme authority, including the right to exercise jurisdiction over all persons and things within the limits of its territory, in particular the right of nationalising foreign property and abolishing all privileges for foreigners.

The supreme territorial authority of a colonial state does not apply to its colonies, which cannot be considered as part of the territory of the colonial power concerned. The right of supreme territorial authority conforms with the obligation of refraining from seizing foreign territory and violating the territorial integrity and inviolability of other subjects of international law in any way whatsoever, and with the obligation of not recognising the seizure of foreign territory by other subjects of international law, of refraining from subversive activities in foreign territories, in particular from organising armed groups, or irregular or volunteer

~^^1^^ L. Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, p. 112.

~^^2^^ A. Verdross, Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo, Izdatelstvo inostrannoi Hteratury, Moscow, 1959, p. 204.

~^^1^^ D. M. Feldman, Priznaniya gosudarstv v sovremennom mezhdunarodnom prove, Kazan, 1965.

~^^2^^ G. A. Aksenyonok, Pravo gosudarstuennoi sobstuennosti na zemlyu v SSSR, Moscow, 1950.

8*

forces with the object of invading the territory of some other state.

The right to supreme territorial authority conforms with the obligation of every state to refrain from the threat or use of force with the object of violating the existing frontiers of another state or as a means of settling territorial disputes or problems concerning the frontiers between states.

Every subject of international law has the right to equality in relation to other subjects of international law in the sense that all possess equal legal capacity---equal rights and obligations under international law---and none is entitled to claim any privileges in relation to other subjects of international law or to put any of them under its jurisdiction. No considerations of a political, economic, racial, geographic, historical or any other nature may restrict the legal capacity of any subject of international law as an equal member of the coirnnunity of nations. The five Great Powers in the Security Council have additional rights consistent with their special responsibilities pertaining to the maintenance of peace.

This right conforms with the obligation of abolishing all forms of colonial or other dependence, rejecting any and all discrimination, respecting the honour and dignity of every people and state as a subject of international law, and, moreover, championing human rights and the basic freedoms of all, irrespective of race, sex, language and religion.

Every subject of international law has the right to international intercourse and co-operation with other subjects of international law in the political, social, economic and cultural fields, and the right to participate in international conferences, and also the right to exchange diplomatic, consular and other representatives.

This right conforms with the obligation of developing friendly relations with all subjects of international law on the basis of the equality and self-determination of nations, irrespective of their system, the obligation to exercise international co-operation in the settlement of international problems of an economic, social and humanitarian nature, the obligation of recognising new subjects of international law and inviting the states concerned to any international conference or gathering that deals with questions directly involving the said subjects of international law.

Every subject of international law has the right to parUS

ticipate directly in the creation of the standards of international law, in establishing and maintaining international legality, which ensures peaceful coexistence through the conclusion of international treaties and the defining of other sources of international law.

This right conforms with the obligation of exercising justice and respecting international commitments implicit in the treaties and other sources of international law, and of being internationally liable for violations of international law.

Every subject has the right to peace in conditions of peaceful coexistence. This signifies that every people has the right to take the matter of peace into its own hands and to undertake any actions designed to avert war, maintain peace and secure peaceful coexistence. Not only has every people the right to control completely the actions of its government, but also to replace this government if its actions do not conform with the interests of peace. What is more, every people has the right to abolish in its country the socio-economic system that gives rise to wars in modern society. Besides, every subject of international law has the right to individual or collective self-defence against the aggressor if, for all this, an aggressive war does break out.

The right to peace conforms with the obligation of helping in every way to deliver future generations from the scourge of war, banishing war from society within the lifetime of the present generation by rejecting war as an instrument of national policy, outlawing aggressive wars as an international crime, and maintaining the principles of non-aggression and disarmament. This obligation does not affect the right of nations to self-defence against colonial domination in the exercise of their right to self-- determination.

The right to peace conforms with the obligation of employing peaceful means based on justice and mutual advantage and consistent with the standards of international law in accommodating, adjusting or settling international disputes or situations liable to cause a breach of the peace, and refraining from any actions that may complicate the situation and thereby jeopardise international peace and security, and prejudice justice.

The right to peace conforms with the obligation of outlawing all war propaganda, particularly propaganda of preventive war or of a "nuclear strike-first" plan.

It also conforms with the obligation of maintaining international peace and security by effective collective measures within the framework of the U.N. Charter in order to obviate any threat to peace and, particularly, to suppress acts of aggression and other breaches of the peace.

The right to peace also conforms with the obligation of making available to the United Nations by decision of the Security Council of armed forces and rendering the U.N. other assistance whenever an aggression has to be suppressed. There is the corollary obligation, too, of refraining from giving any assistance or comfort whatsoever to the aggressor.

Every subject of international law has the right to be a full and equal member of any universal (world) and regional organisation, provided it conforms with the U.N. Charter.

This right accords with the obligation of promoting the admission of new members to the United Nations and of using the machinery of international organisations for the economic and social progress of all nations under conditions of peaceful coexistence, based on the maintenance of international peace and security through the efforts of all members of international organisations.

Such are the basic rights and obligations of all peoples and states, irrespective of the continent to which they belong, of when they gained independence and of whether or not they are former colonies.

On the initiative of the Soviet Government, the U.N. adopted on December 14, 1960, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, which gave legal power to the demand of the peoples for the final abolition of the imperialist colonial system. The Declaration solemnly proclaimed the "necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations''.

The document recognised the "passionate yearning for freedom of all dependent peoples and the decisive role of such peoples in the attainment of their independence", and recognised the fact that "the peoples of the world ardently desire the end of colonialism in all its manifestations''.

The Declaration stressed that any refusal to grant freedom to dependent nations, or any obstruction to their freedom, tends to intensify conflicts and "represents a grave threat to world peace", that "the continued existence of colonialism impedes international co-operation", that it

``undermines the U.N. ideal of universal peace" and that "an end must be put to colonialism in order to avert serious crises''.

The Declaration proclaimed that "all peoples have a right to self-determination" and that on the strength of this right "they freely establish their political status and effect their economic, social and cultural development" (Cl. 2). The Declaration proclaimed that "subjugation of peoples to foreign rule and domination, and their exploitation" are contrary to the fundamental human rights, that they contradict the U.N. Charter and hinder the development of cooperation and the establishment of world peace (Cl. 1). The Declaration calls on all U.N. members ``forthwith'' to " transfer all power to the peoples" of the trust and non-self-- governing territories "without any conditions or reservations whatsoever" (Cl. 5).

The socialist countries, which are true friends of the peoples and states combating imperialism and colonialism, are rendering them every possible support in abolishing all forms of colonialism and firming up their sovereignty.

By now nearly all the Asian and African countries have flung off the colonial yoke. This is a great gain in the antiimperialist struggle. The day is not far distant when the last remaining seats of colonialism will also be wiped out and the banner of national freedom will be raised in all lands. The socialist countries will continue to render every possible support to the peoples fighting for emancipation and to work for the earliest independence of all colonial countries and peoples.

The purpose of Soviet aid to the newly independent countries is to strengthen their national economies and to facilitate their pursuit of an independent foreign policy.

The Soviet Union takes firm action to prevent imperialist interference in the domestic affairs of the young states and the neo-colonialist efforts to set the newly independent states against each other and thus sap their strength in internecine strife.

The Soviet Union is co-operating economically and technically on a bilateral basis with more than twenty developing countries, including India, Indonesia, Ceylon, Burma, Pakistan, Cambodia, Nepal, Afghanistan, the Yemen, the United Arab Republic, Iraq, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Somali, Sudan, Ethiopia, Tunisia, Laos, Senegal, etc.

The agreements the Soviet Union has signed with the

above countries for economic and technical co-operation envisage research, surveying, prospecting and designing, shipments of industrial equipment and materials, dispatch of Soviet specialists and training of national personnel.

Soviet assistance is being extended to the above developing countries in the building of some 600 industrial projects, as well as educational establishments, hospitals and other projects of importance to the construction of an independent national economy.

The number of Asian, African and Latin American students in Soviet university-level educational establishments and technical schools has nearly doubled in the past five years, and the number of Soviet instructors and lecturers, physicians and specialists sent abroad has increased as much as four times over. They are employed in 28 Asian and African countries.

The Soviet Union has granted credits on easy terms to economically weak countries for the above purposes, and in the case of some countries Soviet credits cover a very substantial part of their total investments and the necessary influx of foreign exchange.

The Asian, African and Latin American peoples are searching for ways and means of eliminating their socioeconomic and cultural backwardness in the shortest possible time and to firm up their hard-won national independence. However, imperialism has not given up its efforts to regain lost ground. Often, it attempts to shore up its positions with the assistance of the reactionary forces in the developing countries and to reduce the latter's political independence to a mere formality. It seeks to arrest the national liberation movement and social reforms by political pressure, corruption and, all too frequently, by outright military interference. The so-called economic aid is another lever extensively used for this end.

Soviet aid differs in substance to that coming from the United States, which is chiefly military. Referring to U.S. foreign aid, Senator Fulbright, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told U.S. Senate on August 6, 1958, that America has been supplying the underdeveloped countries amply with weapons of destruction and very sparingly with weapons of war against poverty, economic evils and internal weakness.^^1^^

According to U.S. Congress,^^1^^ U.S. aid is, to use the language of its documents, a means of "ensuring U.S. security", "economising on U.S. defence expenditures", `` deterring'' what it calls aggression, "obtaining war bases and strategic sites all over the world", "winning access to vital raw materials", "offsetting the appeal of communist slogans", "forming a favourable sentiment towards the United States, particularly in Asia and the Middle East", etc., etc.

The assistance rendered by the socialist countries pursues entirely different aims.

The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance membercountries consider it their internationalist duty to aid the developing countries. From 1950 to 1963, inclusive, the foreign trade of the CMEA countries with Asian, African and Latin American states climbed more than seven times over. The CMEA countries are helping 40 developing countries in the building of 1,100 economic projects.

Jack Woddis notes in his book, Africa---The Lion Awakes, that socialist aid "is most favourable for the rapid economic advance of the new African states and thus for safeguarding their independence".^^2^^

To be sure, few will now deny that Soviet assistance to the developing countries is one of the most important factors of the present international situation.

The successes of the national liberation movement are tied up intimately with the successes of world socialism and the international working class. The lasting, indestructible alliance of these revolutionary forces is an earnest of final national and social emancipation the world over.

Now, the socialist countries are co-operating successfully with the independent Asian, African and Latin American countries on many important international issues.^^3^^

4. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE PROMOTES

THE HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS OF ALL MEN. THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COVENANTS

International law asserts the principle of the equality of all races. This implies equality of persons of different races living together for various reasons in the territory of one

! United States Foreign Aid, Its Purposes, Scope, Administration and Related Information, 86th Congress, 1st Session, Washington, 1959, p. 84.

~^^2^^ J. Woddis, Africa---The Lion Awakes, p. 288.

~^^3^^ B. I. Gvozdarev, Evolutsiya i krizis mezhamerikanskoi sistemy, Moscow, 1966.

Congressional Record, 1958, Aug. 6, Vol. 104, p. 14960.

and the same state. International law also asserts the equality not only of all nations, large and small, but also of all people, irrespective of race, sex, language and religion.

Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is a necessary condition of peaceful coexistence. If international law were to overlook the individual and his interests, rights and freedoms, the principles of such a body or law, which regulates the relations between peoples and states, would be essentially stripped of their basic sense and practical importance.

Peaceful coexistence enables the democratic forces to work for democracy in a peaceful environment far more effectively than in a militaristic climate, let alone a state of war.

The problem of human rights was always closely linked with the struggle against war, which necessarily generates contempt for human rights and fundamental freedoms.¹ War preparations are invariably accompanied by an offensive on the rights of man and by a gradual folding of democratic freedoms in the capitalist countries. So the struggle for peaceful coexistence is at once a struggle for democracy and the rights of the nations.

The peoples set up the United Nations "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small" (Preamble, U.N. Charter).

The United Nations Organisation is purposed to achieve international co-operation "in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for the fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion" (U.N. Charter, Art. 1, Cl. 3).

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed on December 10, 1948, was the first such act of international co-operation. It was an important step in the international effort to promote human rights, particularly with respect to countries where such rights have not been legislatively recognised or observed.

Yet the document was passed as a recommendation and did not provide, in effect, for any specific or special measures to implement human rights. This was its main weakness.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was proclaimed by the United Nations as "a challenge all peoples and states should strive to meet", promoting respect for and the enforcement of human rights and fundamental freedoms "by means of progressive national and international measures" all over the world.

It took 18 years of persistent effort before the articles of the Declaration were elaborated in two international treaties, the Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that were adopted by the 21st General Assembly of the United Nations on December 16, 1966. Two lines of international and domestic policy---the lines of the two opposing socioeconomic systems---clashed on this issue. Guided by the communist motto, "Everything for the sake of man, for the benefit of man", the socialist countries persistently and energetically advocated broader human rights and fundamental freedoms, and effective international and national measures to implement them everywhere.

The reactionary imperialist countries headed by the United States, where the capitalist system, founded on the exploitation of man by man and the oppression of peoples, holds sway, made every effort to narrow and restrict human rights and resorted to all kinds of procedural manoeuvres to postpone indefinitely the adoption of Covenants on human rights. The U.S. delegates to the United Nations declared on more than one occasion that they would not sign the Covenants because their articles recognised the right of peoples to self-determination and man's economic and social rights.

At the 21st General Assembly the socialist countries, supported by other peace-loving states, compelled the aggressive and reactionary forces to retreat.

The endorsement of human rights Covenants by the General Assembly convincingly illustrates the superiority of the forces of peace, democracy and socialism over the forces of imperialism, reaction and war.

By recognising the right of all peoples to self-- determination, that is, freely to determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and also the right of all peoples freely to dispose of their natural wealth and resources, the Covenants inflict a telling defeat on the capitalist system, with its ideology of imperialism and colonialism.

~^^1^^ P. N. Fedoseyev, Dialektika sovremennoi epokhi, Moscow, 1964, p. 271.

The prohibition of war propaganda and of "any advocacy of national, racial and religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence" is an indictment of the policy of aggression and cold war.

International protection of human rights is closely linked up with the struggle against the policy of aggression and war, a policy that leads to total violation of the democratic freedoms and rights of great numbers of people. Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, declares the preamble to each of the Covenants.

The Covenants have tremendous significance for the people of capitalist, colonial and developing countries where these rights have either not yet been provided by law or have been proclaimed but are not observed.

In accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Covenants recognise that the ideal of free human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his economic, social and cultural rights, as well as his civil and political rights.

What are the political and civil rights whose implementation will promote attainment of that ideal?

Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights every citizen has the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives, and to have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country. Every citizen has the right to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections by universal and equal suffrage, held by secret ballot.

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law.

The Covenant limits application of the death penalty; prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; outlaws slavery and the slave trade in all their forms, as well as servitude, including forced labour.

Proclaiming that everyone has the right to liberty and security of person, the Covenant forbids arbitrary arrest or detention and establishes numerous procedural and legal guarantees for persons charged with a criminal offence, above all, the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by

law. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law, and no one shall be held guilty on account of any act which did not constitute a criminal offence at the time when it was committed.

The Covenant reaffirms the importance of a number of other democratic freedoms, such as the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the right of peaceful assembly, the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose one's residence.

Various rights of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities are also provided for.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.

Equally significant in the struggle for peace, democracy and" socialism is the other treaty, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This Covenant recognises the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. Recognising the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, states are obliged to improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food. To achieve the full realisation of the right of everyone to work and the opportunity to gain his living by work, states are obliged to take steps to assure steady social and cultural development and full and productive employment under conditions guaranteeing fundamental political and economic freedoms to the individual. States shall recognise the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work, equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment, and also the right to rest, leisure, periodic holidays with pay.

A number of measures are stipulated for protection of the family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, protection of mothers, and protection of children and young persons from economic and social exploitation.

Recognising the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, the Covenant obliges states to improve all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene, prevent epidemic and other diseases, and assure medical service to all.

Implementation of the right of everyone to education should be directed to the full development of the human personality and should enable all persons to participate effectively in society. As a minimum, each state is obliged to implement, on all the territories under its jurisdiction, compulsory primary education, free of charge, for all.

Everyone has the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications, and to protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the authqr.

States are obliged to take steps necessary for the conservation, development and diffusion of science and culture, to respect the freedom indispensable for scientific research and creative activity, and to encourage and develop beneficial international contacts and co-operation in the scientific and cultural fields.

The Covenant recognises the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance, as well as the right of everyone to form trade unions and join the trade union of his choice. Also recognised is the right of trade unions to establish national federations or confederations and the right of the latter to form or join international trade union confederations.

What is the procedure by which the human rights and fundamental freedoms stipulated in the Covenants are to be put into practice?

Each state which is a party to the Covenants is obliged to take maximum steps to achieve progressively the full realisation of these rights and freedoms, including, particularly, the adoption of legislative measures if such do not already exist. Each state is obliged to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes, to assure effective protection of human rights by its judicial, administrative and legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state.

States are obliged to submit to the United Nations reports on the measures which they have adopted and the progress made in achieving the observance of the rights recognised in the Covenants. Reports may indicate factors and difficulties affecting the degree of fulfilment of obligations under the Covenants.

Competent agencies of the United Nations may submit reports with recommendations of a general nature as well

as on the advisability of international measures likely to contribute to the effective implementation of the Covenants. An 18-member international Human Rights Committee is to be formed to promote implementation of the provisions of the Covenants.

The states which are parties to the Covenants undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in them will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other convictions, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Each state undertakes to respect and ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights and freedoms recognised in the Covenants.

Likewise, the individual, having duties to other individuals and to the community to which he belongs, is under a responsibility to strive for the promotion and observance of these rights.

Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Today the exploiters' doctrine and practice of regarding the individual as an ``instrument'' of the state or an ``object'' of international law have collapsed completely and on a world-wide scale. Thanks to the consistent efforts of the socialist countries and other nations, the individual has become the subject of a whole series of international legal relations, and states have undertaken to act as instruments for the protection of his political, economic, social, civil, cultural and other rights.

Is limitation of exercise of these rights and freedoms possible? In the case of economic, social and cultural rights, the Covenant declares that states "may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society''.

As for political and civil rights, in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation, states may restrict these to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin. A state is obliged to inform the other states which are parties

to the Covenant of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated.

With regard to some of the rights and freedoms the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights declares that no restrictions may be placed on the exercise of these rights "otherwise than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others''.

However, the Covenant specifically rules out derogations from the articles formulating the right to life, to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the right of everyone to recognition as a person before the law, the articles prohibiting slavery, servitude and the slave trade in all their forms, prohibiting torture and cruel treatment, and, finally, the article stating that no one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of an act which did not constitute a criminal offence at the time when it was committed.

The imperialist and other reactionary forces have by no means surrendered completely, however. They will undoubtedly mount new offensives against human rights, fundamental freedoms and the people's democratic gains.

It is stated in the Covenants that no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognised or existing in any country in virtue of law, conventions, regulations or custom shall be admitted on the pretext that the Covenants do not recognise such rights or recognise them to a lesser extent.

The history of the drafting of these two Covenants clearly shows that international co-operation in the political and social spheres in conditions of peaceful coexistence serves as a specific form of effective class struggle for the ultimate victory of the new and progressive socio-economic system over the old and outdated system.

whose main principle is full and free development of each and every individual.

The individual is not a subject of international law because he cannot be the bearer of sovereignty, which belongs to the state as represented by bodies of political power and government elected by the people and subject to the people's control. The individual may be a subject of international legal relations, that is, a bearer of such international rights and duties as are provided for him by the subjects of international law on the basis of appropriate international treaties and agreements.

It does not follow, however, that international law deals solely with the interests of peoples and states and is indifferent to the rights of man.

States and nations will never be genuinely equal until all men are assured equality and freedom. Lasting peace and the peaceful coexistence of states with different socioeconomic systems will never be attained unless rights and fundamental freedoms are assured for all.

It is, indeed, quite logical that the Charter of the United Nations treats as one the equal rights of men and women, and of nations large and small. This is absolutely essential if there is to be social progress and a better living for all in an environment of greater freedom.

When the Covenants were being framed, two distinct trends of international and domestic policy clashed. The socialist states, supported by the majority of the countries battling colonialism and imperialism, advocated a broader range of human rights and called for the quickest possible enforcement of the human rights pacts.

Spokesmen of the colonial imperialist powers, on the other hand, strove to pare down the rights of men, or at least to delay their enforcement. They objected most vehemently to the right of nations to self-determination, to the full equality of women, and to some of the economic and social rights.

To the socialist countries concern for man's welfare and the continuous satisfaction of his growing material and spiritual requirements is an objective law. The October Socialist Revolution and the people's revolutions in other countries were highlighted by the liberation of man from the exploitation of fellow-man and by the assurance of economic, as well as political and social gains.

5. THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION---

A SPECIFIC FORM OF CLASS STRUGGLE

UNDER PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE

Whatever is done should be done for the sake of man, for the benefit of man---that is the socialist, communist principle. As Karl Marx said, communism is a social order

9-3121

``Everything for the sake of man, for the benefit of man," is the communist motto. "The aim of socialism," says the Programme of the C.P.S.U., "is to meet the growing material and cultural requirements of the people ever more fully by continuously developing and improving social production.''^^1^^

Socialism affords and guarantees citizens the broadest of rights and freedoms. The transition to communism implies a sweeping development of individual freedoms and citizens' rights.^^2^^ What the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the two international Covenants on human rights provide for is long since inscribed in the constitutions of the U.S.S.R. and the other socialist countries, and enforced in practice.

Socialist democracy stands for complete social and national equality. The Declaration of Rights of the Working and Exploited People, adopted by the Soviet Government in January 1918, proclaimed such basic principles as the abolition of all exploitation of man by man, the abolition of the division of society into classes and of the inequality of nations, and the establishment of a social structure as would best secure human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.^^3^^

The above Declaration had a historical bearing on the observance of human rights in the international context. It condemned colonialism and proclaimed a complete break with the "barbarous policy of bourgeois civilisation, which has built the prosperity of the exploiters of a few chosen nations on the enslavement of hundreds of millions of toiling people in Asia, in the colonies in general and in the small countries".^^4^^

The idea of fundamental freedoms for all is embodied in Article 123 of the Constitution of the U.S.S.R., which says that equal rights for all citizens, irrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres of activity, is an indefeasible law of the U.S.S.R. Any direct or indirect restriction of the rights of citizens on account of their race or

nationality, as well as all advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness, or hatred and contempt, are punishable by law.

The right to participate in the government of the country is embodied in the fact that all power in the U.S.S.R. is vested in the working people of town and country represented by the Soviets of Working People's Deputies. The Soviet system has for the first time in history solved the most important and basic problem of democracy--- that of the genuine participation of all sections of the people in the administration of the state.^^1^^

The Soviet Constitution guarantees all citizens the basic political freedoms, such as the freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings, of street processions and demonstrations, of conscience and religious worship, the right to unite in public organisations, inviolability of person and of home, and privacy of correspondence.

The problem of ensuring economic, social and cultural human rights (the right to work, rest and leisure, education, maintenance in old age and in case of sickness and disability) has been solved effectively, and dependable material foundations have been built up to make these rights secure.

Lenin never tired of stressing how important it is to uphold socialist legality in safeguarding the Soviet social and political system, the life, health, rights, freedoms and interests of the Soviet citizen.^^2^^

The reality of Soviet life holds up the lie to the capitalist propagandists who say that "the October Revolution has abandoned the ideals of democracy" and that "communism connotes enslavement of the individual by the state''.

All talk about socialism suppressing the individual, dissolving the personality in the crowd and depriving it of independence and initiative, and about the personality being no more than an instrument of the socialist state, is false through and through. The shoe fits the other foot. Those are ills inherent in the capitalist system.

``Free world" propagandists forget about the wretched and unequal situation of hundreds of millions of people in

~^^1^^ Sovietskaya sotsialisticheskaya demokratiya, ed. by M. B. Mitin, Moscow, 1964, Chapters III, IV, VI.

~^^2^^ M. S. Strogovich, Osnovniye voprosy sovietskoi sotsialisticheskoi zakonnosti, Moscow, 1966, pp. 156, 164.

~^^9^^*

131

~^^1^^ The Road to Communism, p. 460.

~^^2^^ Stroitelstvo kommunizma i razvitiye obshchestvennykh otnosheni, ed, by F. V. Konstantinov, Moscow, 1966, p. 14; B. V. Shchetinin, Mir, demokratiya, sotsializm, Moscow, 1967, p. 75.

~^^3^^ T. I. Oizerman, Marksistsko-Leninskoye ponimaniye svobody, Moscow, 1967, pp. 60-61.

~^^4^^ Lenin, Selected Works, Moscow, 1947, Vol. II, pp. 264, 265.

the capitalist environment, and fall back on human rights when they need a pretext for exporting counter-- revolution under the spurious banner of ``liberation''.

President Johnson has declared repeatedly that his administration aims to create a ''grand society". But what it has really done is move in the opposite direction. Its dirty war in Vietnam, the armed intervention in the Dominican Republic, the persecution of Communists and other champions of peace, and the upswing of racial discrimination again bear out the fact that aggressive foreign policy and the policy of curtailing democratic freedoms are interconnected and that war preparation means suppression of democracy. They prove, by this token, that genuine enforcement of equal human rights is the basis of freedom, justice and world peace.

The persecution of Communists and other champions of peace and democracy transcends the national competence of the United States or any other state, because the problem of human rights and basic freedoms is an international one.

Neglect and contempt of human rights have led frequently to acts of gross brutality which shocked public opinion the world over. It is not to be suffered, therefore, that anybody should attempt to restrict or curtail, let alone wipe out, democratic rights and freedoms anywhere in the world.

The U.N. Charter and the Human Rights Declaration have proclaimed as man's supreme desire the attainment of a world in which all men shall have freedom of speech and conviction and shall be free of fear and want. The Government of the United States committed itself to cooperate with the United Nations in promoting universal respect and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms by progressive national and international action.

Yet the reactionary U.S. legislation, such as the McCarren and Smith Acts, and the persecution of various people on the strength of these acts, is obviously inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution and international law. It is a challenge to international legality and a disgrace to the whole civilised world.

The Declaration of Human Rights says that all men shall enjoy all the rights and freedoms proclaimed in it, irrespective of any distinctions, including "political or other convictions". Clearly, every American, be he a

Communist, Republican or Democrat, must enjoy all these rights and freedoms. This is provided for, among other things, in amendment IV to the U.S. Constitution, dealing with the protection of the rights of the person of any U.S. citizen.

Amendment IX says that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". This means that all rights, those enumerated in the Constitution, as well as those embodied in other documents, such as the U.N. Charter and the Declaration of Human Rights, are to be observed and supported in the United States.

It is the inflexible rule of international law and of every civilised society that all men are equal before the law and are entitled without distinction to the equal protection of the law, to equal protection from any and all political discrimination. Every person, says Article 28 of the Declaration of Human Rights, is entitled to a social and international order under which the rights and freedoms set out in the Declaration may be exercised in full.

Needless to say, the U.N. Charter, the Declaration of Human Rights and the various specific standards of international law do not prohibit or prejudice the organisations of peace champions, Left forces or communist activity.

It is, therefore, an act of gross brutality on the part of the U.S. authorities to proclaim as a crime the exercise of the freedom of conviction whenever it concerns the communist ideology. It is a brutal violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms to try and ban communist activity in the United States, for every person, naturally including every U.S. Communist, is entitled to the freedom of political conviction and its free expression. This freedom, says the Human Rights Declaration (Article 19), envisages the freedom to adhere to one's convictions and the freedom to disseminate one's ideas.

Amendment I to the U.S. Constitution declares that not even Congress "shall make" laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press^ or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances''.

The efforts of the U.S. authorities to outlaw the Communist Party are a gross violation of the principles of

democracy and international law, which grant every man freedom of assembly, association and political parties.

The demand to register under the McCarren Act provides for a five-year term of imprisonment and a $10,000 fine for each day of evading registration. Yet Amendment VIII to the U.S. Constitution says it is unconstitutional to impose "excessive fines" and inflict "cruel and unusual punishment". The Tax Court of the United States joined in the anti-communist witchhunt and ruled that the Communist Party of the U.S.A. should pay an "income tax" of $326,000, which it allegedly owed for 1951. Yet no party in the history of the United States has ever paid any income tax.

The requirement to register as an "agent of a foreign power" or "member of a subversive organisation" is really an act of coercion compelling people to enter an association, one that, among other things, bludgeons U.S. citizens into committing an act of political or criminal self-- accusation. This requirement goes against the U.S. Constitution, whose Amendment V says unequivocally that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". At the height of the proceedings against the Communist Party of the U.S.A., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the ``laws'' under which it was being prosecuted were unconstitutional. For all this, the U.S. judiciary persists in its arbitrary actions, for the underlying purpose of the U.S. reactionaries is to persecute people holding political beliefs that differ from those of the men waging the dirty war in Vietnam, pursuing the policy of interference in other countries' affairs and abolishing democratic freedoms in their own country.

Their cries about "pure democracy", "interest of the whole nation" and "welfare state" are meant to cover up the daily violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the modern capitalist world.

Millionaires are free to own the means of production, while millions of working people are free to go without work, free to die of hunger. There can be no question of any true freedoms and rights in a world of unemployment, poverty, and of social, racial and national oppression.

Freedom from exploitation is the first and essential condition for the existence of all the other human freedoms. In effect, exploitation of man by man connotes the absence

of basic freedoms even in those capitalist countries where such freedoms are professed.

How can human rights and the right of nations to selfdetermination go along with armed intervention, such as that of the United States in South Vietnam, whose people the American imperialists refuse to treat as a subject of international law, or with racial discrimination, such as is, -in effect, condoned by the legislation of certain capitalist countries, to say nothing of the South African Republic?

Respect for the equality of nations is mere fiction in the light of the United States' planting and maintaining dictatorships in some of the Latin American countries and terrorising their people with American arms, as in the case of the Dominican Republic.

The right of participating in the administration of one's country is fiction, too, so long as, say, more than 15 per cent of all Americans are barred under various pretexts from the ballot-box.

Equality of races is another fake, because in the United States, for one, more than 20 million Negroes are in fact deprived of rights, of many of them legislatively.

There can be no fair trial where lynching and Ku-- KluxKlan terror ride free, and no civic equality where bourgeois legislation often stipulates the very reverse, and no right to education where racists say that "a Negro who asks for desegregated schools is asking for his funeral''.

The problem of human rights is made doubly difficult by the fact that militarisation in the capitalist countries is curtailing human rights and the fundamental freedoms, as in the Federal Republic of Germany.

John Dewey, the U.S. philosopher, has gone to the length of declaring as "no longer adequate" the view that "love of freedom is inherent in man''.

What, one may ask in that case, is the ``adequate'' view?

The answer is provided by yet another U.S. philosopher, one Reinhold Niebuhr, who says individual freedom is an evil. Jacques Maritain, the neo-Thomist, calls for " particular energy" in supporting government measures against "political heretics". Even ex-Secretary of State Dean Acheson admits that the government of his country is "aloof, hostile and suspicious"^^1^^ in its treatment of the American citizen.

~^^1^^ D. Acheson, A Democrat Looks at His Party, New York, 1956, pp. 123-24.

Human rights and fundamental freedoms are grossly violated in many other capitalist countries, too, to say nothing of Franco Spain and Salazar Portugal.

In reality, the "free world" is a world of exploitation and lack of rights, a world where human dignity and national honour are trampled underfoot, a world of obscurantism and political reaction, of rabid militarism and bloody reprisals against the working people.

Bourgeois propaganda goes out of its way to emphasise the relatively high living standard in some of the capitalist countries. What they do not mention is the poverty, as the price of this prosperity, imposed on many Asian, African and Latin American peoples, and even the people of the United States, the richest of the capitalist countries, as admitted by President Lyndon Johnson in his 1964 election speeches and subsequent declarations.

What we should bear in mind is that mankind has not yet wiped out poverty, which holds hundreds of millions of people in its thrall, because capitalism entrammels a considerable portion of society's productive forces and withholds them from use for the general benefit. The root cause of this is the basic contradiction of the capitalist system, that between the social character of production and the private capitalist form of appropriating the results of production and the labour of hundreds of millions of people. Imperialism is using technical progress essentially for military purposes and turns the achievements of human genius against humanity. Under imperialism, poverty is accentuated by growing militarism. Militarism, spurred by the capitalist system, is exhausting the nations and ruining the peoples, who languish under the attendant tax burden, the mounting inflation and the skyrocketing cost of living.

The facts show that the problem of human rights and fundamental freedoms is something the capitalist countries are unable to solve conclusively due to the exploitation of man by man.

The socialist countries, on the other hand, associate the struggle for human rights at home and internationally with their struggle for peaceful coexistence.

The efforts of the socialist countries are prompted by the wish of preventing a nuclear war and securing peaceful coexistence and international co-operation.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stresses that recognition of human dignity and of equal and inviolable human rights is "the groundwork of freedom, justice and universal peace", and that the building of a world in which people would enjoy freedom of speech and conscience and would be free from fear and want is the lofty purpose of the United Nations and of all men. The Declaration also stresses that human rights and fundamental freedoms have to be ensured in order to develop friendly relations among nations and to secure universal peace.

Philosopher Bertrand Russell was quite right in saying that in a peaceful world "our self-tormented species should allow itself a life of joy such as the past has never known", concentrating all its energies on "constructive aims".^^1^^

Assurance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all is a necessary principle of international law and of peaceful coexistence.

The socialist countries are offering the capitalist world peaceful competition in technical and social progress, in the attainment of a high standard of living, and in the assurance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all men on earth.

~^^1^^ B. Russell, Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare, p. 52.

Chapter Four

PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE IMPLIES RESPECT

FOR THE RIGHT OF NATIONS

TO SELF-DETERMINATION

1. "EXPORT OF REVOLUTION" AND "COMMUNIST EXPANSION" ARE A FIB

No study of peaceful coexistence is complete, unless it underscores the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of states with different socio-economic systems chosen or approved by the peoples.^^1^^

Yet Western ideologists have their own ideas on this score. James Burnham, for example, says that in matters affecting "world political relations, the procedure would have to be quick, firm, sufficient intervention". Western politicians conceive coexistence as a kind of ping-pong game, with one side exporting revolution and communism and the other exporting counter-revolution and capitalism.

Robert Bowie, of Harvard University, thinks the Soviet conception of peaceful coexistence implies "recognition and `peaceful' acceptance by the non-communist nations of communism's continuous expansion", while the U.S. Organisation of Peace Committee says peaceful coexistence is a state of international relations see-sawing between war in the literal sense and peace in the ideal sense. Certain groups want to upset the equilibrium between the two systems and to organise what they describe as " farreaching political transformations" within the socialist countries by all means short of a hot war. Western leaders labour under the delusion that the political system of their adversary is unstable and that sustained pressure will yield them victory through counter-revolution.

Their charges of "export of revolution" and "communist penetration" are a specious invention, designed to excuse

their -reluctance to co-operate with any of the socialist countries and to justify the cold war and the policy of "liberation without war", which is based on subversion and which certain groups hail as a ``peaceful'' way of restoring capitalism in the socialist countries. Imperialist propaganda has long been beating the drums about ``liberating'' by overt and covert means the peoples of the socialist states from the system they have themselves chosen. Richard Lowenthal, writing in the New Republic, calls for a ``transformation'' of the socialist states. He predicts a "crisis of the communist ideology" and a "disintegration of the Communist Party regime within the Soviet Union itself", inferring a ``transformation'' that will ``automatically'' reduce the present division of the world into two camps "to the far more manageable proportions of normal power rivalry" and resolve "the present atomic stalemate into real peace''.

Nutting advises "taking the cold war" to the enemy's camp and encouraging ``resistance'' within the socialist countries.

The New York Herald Tribune urges the use of overt and covert means likely to influence the course of events.

This is only a sampling of the various methods, ways and dodges the imperialist ideologists, politicians and publicists hope will regain for capitalism the peoples that have chosen the socialist path. Unrealistically, they have been nursing these hopes since October 25, 1917, the day the socialist revolution broke out in Russia.

To justify export of counter-revolution, bourgeois politicians and propagandists are trying to create the impression that they are protecting the countries from export of revolution. Books and films are being put out in vast numbers to back up this lie. So are magazine and newspaper articles, and radio and television broadcasts.

In 1959 a certain Fischer compiled studies of Russia by American authors fighting the socialist ideology in history, political science, economy, sociology, geography, philosophy, literature, music and the arts. The many authors he quotes aver that the Soviet peaceful coexistence policy is no more than "new garb for the old communist plot" against "free world" countries, a policy designed to "throttle the free nations", "establish communist world rule" and "secure world domination by communism without resort to war''.

~^^1^^ A. S. Piradov, Printsip nevmeshatelstva i osnovniye problemy sovremennogo mezhdunarodnogo prava, Moscow, 1964.

The various bourgeois theorists charge that peaceful coexistence as conceived by the Soviet Union is a vehicle of secret war and total diplomacy, including plots and conspiracies, armed interventions and ``limited'' wars, short only of a universal nuclear war, all contrived for the export of revolution. Bourgeois propaganda accuses the Soviet Union of pursuing a policy of secret intervention in the internal affairs of the capitalist states through "subversive activities" by the Communist Parties of the respective countries.

The Washington Post and Times Herald, for example, argues that "if it is possible to isolate any single root of friction between the Soviet Union and the United States, that root is the Soviet philosophy of revolution for export''.

Prominent U.S. leaders are taking a hand in the slander campaign. Take ex-Vice-President Richard Nixon, who claimed at an American Legion Convention on August 25, 1959, that he had made a thorough study of the philosophy, tactics and strategy of communism. "On the basis of these studies," he said, "I know that Communists throughout the world are united in working for one objective---- communist rule over all people of the world.''

Wishing to justify the reactionary reprisals against Communists in his country, Nixon declared without the slightest concern for the truth that "the Communist Party in the United States, like all Communist Parties throughout the world, is directed and controlled from Moscow and has in the past and will in the future engage in espionage and subversion in order to serve the interests of communist governments wherever they are opposed to those of the United States or other free nations''.

Western propaganda hits out at the Programme of the C.P.S.U., which demonstrates that peaceful coexistence is both necessary and possible, that wars can be prevented and that every nation will gain from socialist reconstruction in its country.

The New York Times describes peaceful coexistence as a medium of "political, economic and ideological penetration and subversion backed by military and economic aid, by infiltration of the political, economic and social organisations of other countries, by the exploitation of international and domestic differences and personal ambitions, by plots against established governments involving even assassination, by coups d'etat, and where opportunity

offers itself even by `little' proxy wars and proxy revolts serving Soviet ends''.

Actually, the New York Times put the boot on the wrong foot. Those are the typical features of the U.S. policy "from positions of strength" and ``total'' diplomacy. We quoted the passage to show how far bourgeois propaganda is prepared to go to justify its hostility to peaceful coexistence. The newspaper argues that peaceful coexistence "works primarily through local agents, partners or dupes who all too often are able to conceal their activities under a cloak of seeming legality or local concern leading to the claim that the Soviet penetration is a purely domestic affair of the countries concerned".^^1^^

Lt.-General John W. O'Daniel, retired military attache to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, wrote in the January 1957 issue of the American Mercury that the Communists are using peaceful coexistence to cover up a "war according to the nine principles of warfare as we teach our own military personnel in our military schools". He said "the_t Soviet objective is Soviet-controlled communism in the* entire world" and that the Soviet diplomatic "peace offensives are manoeuvres to throw sand in the eyes of the gullible as to the real intention, which is Soviet-controlled world-wide communism". O'Daniel alleged that the "strategy in gaining the Soviet objectives" consists of the following elements: "political penetration, propaganda, fifth column activity and espionage, cell operations, economic penetration and the threat of armed force." What O'Daniel did was to attribute to Soviet foreign policy the methods implicit in the U.S. policies "from positions of strength", "cold war", ``liberation'', "nuclear retaliation", ``brinkmanship'' and "preventive defence", as prosecuted in, say, Vietnam and the Dominican Republic. The opponents of peaceful coexistence think that if they repeat their inventions often enough people will finally believe them. They overlook the true causes of the national liberation movement---the craving of the oppressed peoples to win their freedom, to embark on independent development, to achieve political, economic and social progress and spiritual revival within the lifetime of the present generation and come abreast of the 20th century.

Every display of sympathy for the Soviet Union and the

~^^1^^ New York Times, Aug. 26, 1957.

other socialist countries is portrayed by the cold war warriors as "communist penetration" and "export of revolution''.

Eisenhower, for example, attempted to blame the Soviet Union for subversive activities that are part and parcel of official U.S. policy, propelled by the cold war, the " liberation without war" doctrine and many similar ideological covers for the aggressive foreign policy of the U.S. ruling quarters against Panama, Cuba, the Congo, the United Arab Republic, Laos, South Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, and, many other countries of the world. Yet U.S. State Secretaries from Dulles on, claim that unstable situations have "the hand of Moscow" behind them.

The true purport of all this talk is evident from what the bourgeois propagandists style as "communist expansion": it is invariably the peoples' struggle for peace and social progress, against colonialism and imperialism.

Some opponents of the socialist system, it is true, deny the fibs about Soviet foreign policy. George Kennan, who was once U.S. Ambassador to Moscow, speaking on May 6, 1957, at the Foreign Press Club in New York, condemned the American tendency of overemphasising the military element in Soviet policy and the alleged Soviet designs of sending armed forces wherever deterrents, such as an alliance with the United States or U.S. military aid, are lacking. This, he said, is a dangerous oversimplification which disregards many an important element.

Kennan warned against the overworked inclination of some U.S. politicians to portray all people in third countries who view Soviet policy with a friendly eye as blind Moscow puppets, and to attribute all they say and do to Moscow diktat. Kennan explained that people have their own reasons for supporting Soviet policy and are in no way dependent on Moscow. Kennan also denounced the stubborn tendency, shown by some sections of Americans, to ignore the spontaneous origin of many of the situations arising in third countries. He said it would be a fatal mistake to consider as a product of Soviet aggression such situations as existed before the Communists took any prominent part in them, and which would scarcely be less dangerous if no communist influence were involved at all.

The ten years since Kennan made these sensible observations show that no notice was taken of them in the United States. How else to explain the reckless -conduct of

the United States in Southeast Asia and the Dominican Republic?

As far back as 1944 White House experts scoffed at the Soviet "communist threat" to the United States. They indicated in a special memorandum that "since Russia became communistic, our national interests and our way of life never have been seriously threatened by the Soviets".^^1^^

More recently, Walter Lippmann wrote that the Soviet Union regards its military forces "not as an instrument of world conquest, but as the guardian against American interference with the predestined world revolution".^^2^^

Erich Fromm, the U.S. philosopher, pointed out that "an over-all settlement with Russia" is being obstructed by "our obsession with the Russian wish for world domination".^^3^^

The French sociologist Julien Cheverny exposed the myth of Soviet or communist ``colonialism''. The so-called free world, he wrote, has invented the idea that communism is out to create a new imperialism, like the capitalist imperialism.^^4^^

The Cairo newspaper Al-Massah, in its issue of August 7, 1957, ridiculed Western notions about export of revolution to the Arab countries. "We are grateful to the Soviet Union," it wrote, "for its determined stand in behalf of Arab freedom. We repeat that this stand is an expression of Soviet policy and that the Soviet Union asks no payment for it. The Soviet Union has never set any conditions as a compensation for the support it gave to Egypt during the imperialist aggression. We are certain that the Soviet Union will never interfere in the affairs of the Arab countries.''

The many years since this was written bear out the fact that the Soviet Union does not interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries. Never does it put the weight of its power on the scales, unless justice is jeopardised, as it was in Egypt in 1956, in Cuba in 1962, in Vietnam and in the Middle East today.

~^^1^^ R. Sherwood, The White House Papers of Harry Hopkins. An Intimate History, London, 1948, Vol. 1, p. 306.

~^^2^^ W. Lippmann, The Coming Tests with Russia, Boston, p. 29.

~^^3^^ E. Fromm, May Man Prevail? An Inquiry into the Facts and Fictions of Foreign Policy, pp. 219-20.

~^^4^^ J. Cheverny, Eloge du Colonialisme. Essai sur les Revolutions d'Asie, p. 113.

2. REVOLUTIONS ARE NOT EXPORTABLE OR MADE TO ORDER.

PLANS OF EXPORTING COUNTER-REVOLUTIONS

TO THE SOCIALIST COUNTRIES

The Soviet state has always abided by the universally recognised standards of international law and has never made "export of revolution" its purpose.

Lenin pointed out that the objective of "exporting revolution" could be conceived only by "someone who has gone off his mind"^^1^^ and added that "revolutions are not made to order, cannot be timed for any particular moment", that "they mature in the process of historical, development and break out at a moment determined by a whole complex of internal and external causes".^^2^^

Lenin objected to the theory of ``pushing'' revolution, and stressed that "such a push can be given only by war".^^3^^

Lenin emphasised that "friendly relations" between the Soviet state and even the biggest capitalist countries were "quite possible, and that is our aim".^^4^^ He explained that Soviet plans in Asia were "the same as in Europe: peaceful coexistence with all peoples", and that "we stand for an alliance with all countries without exception".^^5^^

Lenin's principle of peaceful coexistence has always been the main principle of Soviet foreign policy. The Soviet British agreement of March 16, 1921, stipulated as a prime condition for peaceful commercial relations the undertaking of either signatory to abstain from "hostile actions or measures against the other party and from direct or indirect official propaganda outside its own boundaries against the institutions of the British Empire or the Russian Soviet Republic, respectively''.

The All-Russia Central Executive Committee, which was the supreme political body of Soviet Russia at the time, reaffirmed solemnly in a message that the "Soviet Republic, preoccupied with the internal rehabilitation and reorganisation of its economic life, has no intention whatsoever of interfering in the domestic affairs of America".^^6^^

Similar undertakings were assumed in later treaties, including the Roosevelt-Litvinov agreement of 1933, which ushered in Soviet-American diplomatic relations. The signatories gave assurances that they would not conduct hostile propaganda against each other, support any antigovernment groups in either country or interfere in each other's internal affairs.

More than 45 years have gone by since the publication of the first of these two documents, and over 33 since the second. All this time the Soviet Union has been faithful to its commitments. It has never abandoned its stand for peace, for the peaceful coexistence of the states of the two systems, regardless of the internal order in any country, because the social and economic system in a country is the internal affair of its people.

The Communists are confident that socialism will take the place of capitalism all over the world. But they know this will not happen through "export of revolution". The advantages of the socialist system will persuade the peoples in the capitalist countries to opt for socialism in the exercise of their natural and inalienable right of choosing the form of government they think best, and they will do so without any outside ``pushing''.

Socialism, by its very nature, rules out any form of expansion or aggression. It has rooted out the motives that usually drive non-socialist states to piracy. What the socialist countries need most to build a communist society is lasting peace. Instead of competition in armaments, socialism advocates competition in transforming nature and harnessing it to the will and peaceful interests of all men.

The Programme of the C.P.S.U. is in complete accord with the ideas of the Marxist-Leninist classics, who pointed out that "proletarian revolution in any country, being part of the world socialist revolution, is accomplished by the working class of that country and the masses of its people. The revolution is not made to order. It cannot be imposed on the people from without. It results from the profound internal and international contradictions of capitalism. The victorious proletariat cannot impose any `felicity' on another people without thereby undermining its own victory.''^^1^^

^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 293.

~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 547.

~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 71.

~^^4^^ Ibid., Vol. 33, p. 383.

~^^5^^ Ibid., Vol. 30, pp. 365, 366.

~^^6^^ Dokumenty vneshnei politiki SSSR, Vol. IV, pp. 9, 10.

~^^1^^ The Road to Communism, p. 484.

10-3121

Many bourgeois writers construe peaceful coexistence to mean abolition of the socialist order in countries where it prevails and extirpation of communist ideas in the rest of the world.

The strategists, ideologists and publicists who side with capitalism expect to attain this goal by a variety of means. Cyrus Sulzberger, editor of the New York Times, wrote in 1956 that encouraging differences between the socialist countries should be the "cardinal feature of any grand political strategy of the West". To split the socialist forces, he wrote, "is our duty ... an obligation of our own political system". Among other things, he urged "exploiting differences, divergent interests and cravings among the Eastern peoples''.

The U.S. imperialists think it best to squash the principle of peaceful coexistence, whose "minimum objective", they say, is to "preserve the communist status quo". They want something quite different. "We should seek," writes one of them, "to turn the communist world into the principal battlefield of ideological and political conflict.''^^1^^

These and similar calls for the export of counter-- revolution lift the veil on the policy of the U.S. ruling quarters. They reflect the official U.S. approach to the problem of the peaceful coexistence of the capitalist and socialist systems.

In 1959, Senate passed an amendment that provided for allocations to the U.S. Government for the export of counter-revolution under the guise of promoting a " peaceful evolution" of the socialist countries. Dean Rusk said he was busy "peering beyond for every constructive possibility".^^2^^

The German Democratic Republic is high up on the list in the aggressive plans for the export of counter-- revolution. The West German revenge-seekers want to abolish the G.D.R. under the slogan of "reunification or self-- determination". They think German unity is impossible, until the social system in the G.D.R. is "transformed, or if it can be made to transform itself''.

The governing group in the Federal Republic of Ger-

many exerted considerable pressure on its Anglo-- FrenchAmerican and other NATO partners. Konrad Adenauer declaimed that it was a matter of "liberating all Eastern Europe''.

The governments of the United States and Britain make the most of time-worn anti-communist slogans to assault countries whose peoples have risen, or are rising, to combat imperialism and colonialism. This applies to Cuba, Laos, the Congo, South Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, etc.

Andrew Tully, the author of a revealing investigation of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency stressed, "It is senseless, as some observers have written, to say that the Iranians overthrew Mossadegh all by themselves. It was an American operation from beginning to end.''^^1^^ The New York Times wrote, "When Guatemala threatened to go communist we intervened to overthrow the Arbenz regime. On the other hand, our relations were notably friendly with Peron of Argentina, Perez Jimenez of Venezuela, Somoza of Nicaragua, Batista of Cuba, Trujillo of the Dominican Republic.''

J. Galbraith after investigating this policy wrote, "When we support tyrants and rascals we everywhere support the impression that we are indifferent to liberty, decency and social justice.''^^2^^

This is quite true. The latest U.S. exploit---its armed intervention in Vietnam---bears it out.

U.S. financier Eugene R. Black admits that "economic aid, after all, does not just subsidise people; it influences events".^^3^^ Harvard professor R. Emerson, too, says U.S. economic aid is meant to direct the development of industrially weak countries along anti-communist lines.

The State Department is using the so-called Peace Corps^^4^^, formed on March 1, 1961, to export counter-- revolution and combat the national independence of the developing countries. On the pretext of helping "foreign countries meet their urgent needs for skilled manpower",

~^^1^^ A. Tully, The Inside Story, New York, 1962, p. 96.

~^^2^^ J. Galbraith, The Liberal Hour, p. 34.

~^^3^^ E. R. Black, The Diplomacy of Economic Development, Cambridge, Mass., 1960, p. 57.

~^^4^^ B. I. Gvozdarev, "Soj/uz Radi Progressa" i yego sushchnost, Moscow, 1964.

10-

H7

~^^1^^ H. Slrausz-Hupe, W. Kintner, S. Possony, A Forward Strategy for America, p. 282.

~^^2^^ D. Rusk, The Winds of Freedom, Boston, 1962, p. 39.

the U.S. authorities are plying them with what are essentially agents of subversion.

In carrying out export of counter-revolution or, as it is sometimes called, a policy of "diplomacy in depth", the United States resorts to the services of business firms, foundations, missionaries and private persons, who operate under the guidance of the military and diplomatic missions of the U.S.A. and "can provide useful links to local leaders with which the official diplomatic community might find it difficult to establish formal ties''.

However, all pretences are lowered as far as Cuba is concerned. The United States is quite frank about its purpose of exporting counter-revolution to that island. Lyndon Johnson declared on February 24, 1963, that U.S. policy is to get rid of Castro and his communist government, and on the next day Dean Rusk followed up with the statement that "the Marxist-Leninist regime is incompatible with the obligations of this hemisphere and those of Cuba herself". Need we add anything to prove that export of counter-revolution is an avowed purpose of United States' foreign policy?

The "peaceful liberation" of the socialist states projected by the late John Foster Dulles and the anti-communist policy of the U.S. Government are forms of exporting counter-revolution, which takes the shape of ideological, economic and indirect aggressions, irresponsible press, radio and television propaganda, economic pressure and bribery, hand-outs and ``aid'', subversion, plots, terrorist acts, armed gangs and counter-revolutionary conspiracies. The objective is to overthrow the existing system, depose the lawful government elected by the will of the people and instal a government willing to destroy the people's socialist or democratic gains and accept the U.S. terms of "unconditional surrender''.

``Peaceful liberation" is nothing but the usual aggressive policy of imperialist expansion accomplished ``peacefully''.

The more aggressively-minded imperialist groups dread peaceful coexistence of the two systems. Yet their attempts to pull the wool over the public's eyes and portray the Soviet Union as an opponent of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist countries are confuted by the facts. The peoples are a good judge of which policy is really the source of international tension.

3. STATE TOTAL SPY POLICY IS THE SHORTEST ROAD TO WAR

The ideologists of imperialism carrying the anticommunist torch, declare candidly that the subversive activities of their intelligence services play a prominent part in the struggle for world domination. The ruling groups in the imperialist countries make extensive use of intelligence agencies, which makes their policy increasingly sinister and provocative.

The U.S. press is cultivating the spirit of total espionage against the socialist countries, while some U.S. politicians try to portray the policy of espionage and subversion as typical of the communist ideology. Take the late Adlai Stevenson. "The conspiratorial tradition," he wrote, "is very old and deep-rooted in communist thinking, and when they talk of 'peaceful competition', for example, I suspect that most Communists would include under that label political subversion, coups d'etat, and even revolution under Communist Party leadership.''^^1^^ This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Espionage and subversion are part and parcel of official U.S. policy. Many U.S. government agencies are used for intelligence purposes. Annually, many millions of dollars are allocated to conduct subversive activities in all countries.

The Department of Defence and the Central Intelligence Agency are less accountable than ever for their actions to U.S. Congress and the President. The U.S. Government is also keeping close to the reckless internal and foreign policy charted by these two bodies.

In an article entitled "Daggers Against Diplomacy", journalist Charles Edmundson writes that the incidents provoked by the CIA "can be decisive in shaping---or misshaping---public opinion and foreign policy". Harry Howe Ransom indicates that the CIA is "a major operator in international political manoeuvres".^^2^^ The importance attached to the post of CIA chief is an indication of the role played by the U.S. spy machine in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. Senators Gruening and Russel say that the post "in many respects is second in importance only to

~^^1^^ Foreign Affairs, Jan. 1960, p. 202.

~^^2^^ H. Ransom, Central Intelligence and National Security, Camb., Mass., 1958, p. 87.

the President".^^1^^ John Amory wrote in this context that "if the Executive instead of relying on CIA information, had taken the opposite direction, each time, then on the basis of past performance American foreign policy would have been more often right than wrong".^^2^^

In the past, America prided itself on its democratic institutions and the absence of militarism and military bureaucracy. But already during the First World War, as Lenin noted, it drifted into the "filthy, bloody morass of bureaucratic-military institutions which subordinate everything to themselves, and suppress everything".^^3^^ The Second World War and the post-war "positions from strength" policy spurred a still more rapid growth of such institutions, particularly espionage and subversion agencies, and saw their influence on U.S. foreign policy and that of other imperialist states mount by leaps and bounds.

The prominent U.S. intelligence expert, Roger Hilsman, says that the image of post-war America covers "hundreds of intelligence analysts---experts on every area in the world from Turkestan to Uruguay and on every subject from nuclear physics to economics".^^4^^

The view that the spying and the subversive activities carried on under the auspices of the U.S. Government are justifiable, is now fairly widespread. Ransom adduces that "espionage and undercover political intrigue on a global scale have consequently become a part of America's arsenal for fighting the cold war".^^5^^

Sherman Kent, an American intelligence officer, revealed that the set of tools employed by U.S. agents in other countries "leads off with the rumour invented and passed along by word of mouth, it includes subornation of perjury, intimidation, subversion, bribery, blackmail, sabotage in all its aspects, kidnapping, booby trapping, assassination, ambush, the franc-tireur, and the underground army".⁶ The United States has something like a dozen government

agencies directly engaged in intelligence, plus many more working part-time under the supervision of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Hilsman reveals that a large number of U.S. intelligence agents is attached to the intelligence departments of army, navy and air staffs, but that a still larger number is employed in the information service of the State Department and in the Central Intelligence Agency, which works for the President, the National Security Council and the rest of the U.S. Government.

U.S. intelligence makes use of the social sciences, for, as Ransom puts it, "the Washington strategic intelligence practitioners" have a "formidable task alone in keeping up to date on what social scientists already have discovered". The day may come, Ransom says, when social science will have reached "such an advanced state of development that decisions at the highest level of government may be made by the purely scientific approach".^^1^^

Political intelligence is a complex operation. It gathers a vast amount of diverse, seemingly disconnected facts, documents and other materials contained in the press and in books on political and social topics.

Whereas military, technical and, to a large extent, economic intelligence procures clear and precise information good for immediate use, political intelligence procures material which it still has to process, generalise, compare and analyse. The ultimate analysis may lead to more or less concrete conclusions of a political nature. The other forms of intelligence, admittedly, also have to deal with abstract information now and then, but in their case it is the exception rather than the rule.

Political intelligence obtains much of its information from the public press. To lead to accurate judgements, this information has to be scientifically processed and studied. Hilsman suggested that scholars should be employed to do this, because a purely superficial acquaintance with the available information is useless. The U.S. leaders, he says, believe that peace, like war, is total in nature, and that it requires intelligence to broaden its forms and methods, and to use all the latest social science achievements.

The United States, Hilsman revealed, borrowed the experience of Hitler Germany, where "the nazis, by putting

~^^1^^ Congressional Record, Senate, Vol. 108, Jan. 31, 1962 p. 1318.

~^^2^^ J. F. Amory, Around the Edge of War. A New Approach to the Problems of American Foreign Policy, New York, 1961, p. 81.

~^^3^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, pp. 415-16.

~^^4^^ R. Hilsman, Strategic Intelligence and National Decisions, Glencoe, 1956, p. 17.

~^^5^^ H. Ransom, Central Intelligence and National Security, p. VII.

^^6^^ Sh. Kent, Strategic Intelligence for American World Policy, Princeton, New Jersey, 1953, p. 21.

~^^1^^ H. Ransom, Central Intelligence and National Security, p. 212.

modern knowledge to the service of policy-making, were actually predicting and influencing the course of events.''^^1^^

Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter, former director of CIA, wrote that intelligence agents are like "a researcher engaged in hard, painstaking work, poring over foreign newspapers and magazines, reference works and similar materials, endlessly putting fact upon fact, until the whole outline appears and the details begin to fill in".^^2^^

The State Department and U.S. diplomatic missions abroad are deeply involved in organising and maintaining espionage. Ransom points out that the State Department is essentially the main collector and user of intelligence information. In a New York Times Magazine article on the Powers case, Ransom indicated that most U.S. diplomatic missions abroad have CIA agents on their staffs under the guise of diplomatic or consular officials. The spying done by U.S. diplomats in various countries is described at length by Charles W. Thayer, a former U.S. diplomat in his book Diplomat.

Hilsman revealed in his book that the State Department's information service is really an intelligence body and that in 1945 the State Department was given charge of what had in wartime been the Office of Strategic Services, a vast information machine. This office, he wrote, "had two major themes---a continued faith in espionage and a growing utilisation of research and analysis''.

According to Ransom, "a kind of war in peace is an accurate description of the character of some of the activities that have been assigned to the contemporary central intelligence system of the United States.''^^3^^

Subversion against the Soviet Union and other socialist countries is the avowed, official purpose of the so-called Mutual Security Act of October 10, 1951. The Act formalises U.S. interference in the internal affairs of other countries in contravention of universally accepted standards of international law and is incompatible with peaceful coexistence and respect for state sovereignty. Under the Act the United States may, while maintaining normal diplomatic relations with other states, form military detachments consisting of

~^^1^^ R. Hilsman, Strategic Intelligence and National Decisions, pp. 124, 125.

~^^2^^ R. H. Hillenkoetter, "Using the World's Information Sources", Army Information Direct, Vol. 3, 1948, p. 3.

~^^3^^ H. Ransom, Central Intelligence and National Security, p. VII.

nationals of these states for using them against their motherland.

The aforesaid shows clearly that the United States is acting in gross violation of the Soviet-American agreement of 1933, which bans all activities of this sort.

Clause 3 of the 1933 agreement obliges the U.S. Government "not to organise, subsidise, support or permit in its territory military organisations or groups with the purpose of armed struggle" against the U.S.S.R.

Clause 4 of the same agreement obliges the U.S. Government "not to allow the formation or location in its territory of any organisations or groups, and to take in its territory preventive measures against any organisations and groups which aim to overthrow or prepare to overthrow or alter by force the political or social system" of the U.S.S.R.

The Mutual Security Act shows what the governing quarters in the United States understand by peaceful coexistence and what they want to inject into the ``old'' international law. The "new principles" of U.S. imperialism have flung open the gates to lawlessness in international relations.

Spying is an international crime banned by international law and the legislation of all states. Replying to a question by Senator Russel B. Long, Christian Herter indicated that spying in every form is a violation of sovereignty. Senator Fulbright reaffirmed in a report to U.S. Senate that throughout history any deliberate claim by one head of state to the right of violating the territorial sovereignty of another nation was considered an extremely grave unfriendly act. It is impermissible, Fulbright went on to say, for one head of state to violate the sovereignty of another state, and doubly impermissible to assert his right to do so. For all this, the United States is stepping up its espionage and subversion, and is making use for this end, among other things, of the latest scientific and technical achievements, such as spy satellites.

U.S. News and World Report revealed recently that "the U.S. now is waging a new kind of undercover warfare around the world, using 25,000 skilled Americans and spending 2 billion dollars a year. This elite 'secret army' is carrying on counter-insurgency in 50 nations''.

A new body has been set up to supervise this activity, known as the Special Group, consisting of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Deputy Secretaries of State

and the Defence Secretary, who convene weekly secret conferences at the White House.

The journal revealed, too, that the programmes framed by the Special Group involve not only "the rapid-firing rifle, the silent knife and the strangling wire", but also U.S. forces "to start---or at least assist---revolutions behind the iron curtain".^^1^^

ence is a revolutionary war" waged by the Communists to destroy capitalism all over the world. He said this revolutionary war (a term which, he says, he prefers to "cold war") is as ``total'' as a thermonuclear war.^^1^^

The uprising in Hungary in October 1956, when reactionary fascist-type organisations abroad worked hand in hand with domestic counter-revolutionaries at the bidding of foreign forces in an endeavour to tear down the Hungarian People's Republic and restore the capitalist system, is a graphic example of how capitalism attempts to export counter-revolution to the socialist countries.

Andrew Tully quotes authentic information to the effect that the CIA "managed to smuggle arms to the rebels and generally gave them assistance before the uprising".^^2^^

The NATO countries, notably the United States, who had organised the rebellion in Hungary with the object of exporting counter-revolution, attempted to distort the substance of international law by accusing the Soviet Union of ``intervention'', and of all but ``aggression'', in that country. It will be recalled, however, that when the events broke out, the Soviet troops abandoned Budapest so as not to interfere in Hungary's internal affairs. It turned out that underground reactionary forces were lying in wait for this withdrawal. Together with the armed fascist gangs bundled in from West Germany and Austria, they made a new attack on the Hungarian People's Republic with the aim of unleashing chaos, anarchy, white terror and plunder, and restoring the Horthy-Salasy bourgeois order in defiance of the popular will. At the request of the Hungarian Government, the Soviet troops had then had to take action against the reactionary putschists.

The Warsaw Treaty provides for the stationing of Soviet troops on the territory of some of its signatories. Like the Warsaw Treaty itself, this stipulation was prompted by the existence of the aggressive North Atlantic bloc.

The Soviet Government has repeatedly offered the world powers to withdraw all their troops from foreign territories, including Germany, and to dissolve such military alignments as the North Atlantic pact and the Warsaw Treaty.

The Soviet Government has also repeatedly announced that as soon as the United States and the other imperialist

4. IMPERIALIST CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE RIGHT OF EVERY

PEOPLE TO SELECT ITS OWN SOCIO-ECONOMIC SYSTEM

AND FORM OF GOVERNMENT. THE AMERICAN POLICY OF

``LIBERATION" IS A STRAIGHT ROAD TO A NEW

WORLD WAR

According to Henry Kissinger, U.S. politicians are of one mind that "Western diplomacy should seek to influence Soviet internal developments" because, they believe, "an effective settlement presupposed a change in the Soviet system".^^2^^

U.S. Professor Quincy Wright advocates undisguised export of capitalism, the spread of "Western dynamism and democracy". Wright declares that peaceful coexistence is impossible, unless the Soviet Union abandons socialism. Nelson Rockefeller is also fired by this idea and hopes that "a basic transformation of Soviet society is probably taking place".^^3^^

Delirious ideas such as these are advanced by the more aggressive section of imperialist ideologists not only in the United States, but also in the Federal Republic of Germany. The ultimate objective in unifying Europe, said Walter Hallstein in 1954, then a Staats-Sekretar of the Bonn Foreign Ministry, should be the unification of all parts of the continent up to the Urals.

Hallstein said this could be achieved in successive stages. Outlining Hallstein's plan, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wrote that he referred to the ending of the division of Germany and the merging of ``free'' Western Europe with an Eastern Europe "delivered from communism" up to the Urals.

The French General Allard, too, harped on the idea of exporting counter-revolution, for, he said, "peaceful coexist-

~^^1^^ U. S. News and World Report, Apr. 12, 1965.

~^^2^^ H. A. Kissinger, The Necessity for Choice, pp. 194-95.

^^3^^ Foreign Affairs, Apr. 1960, No. 3, Vol. 38, p. 372.

^^1^^ Revue de Defense Nationale, Aug.-Sept. 1966, pp. 1371, 1375.

~^^2^^ A. Tully, op. cit., p. 167.

powers withdraw their troops from West Germany and dismantle their military, air and naval bases in foreign territories, the Soviet Union will simultaneously withdraw its troops from countries where they are stationed under the Warsaw Treaty. The Western powers rejected this offer and compelled the governments of the socialist countries in Eastern Europe to take additional security measures. This is why all Western attempts to question the legality of the Soviet troops participating in the suppression of the fascist putsch in Hungary are groundless. Soviet participation was in direct fulfilment by the U.S.S.R. of its international commitments.

Western writers say the Warsaw Treaty does not, allegedly, provide for the engagement of Soviet Armed Forces in such cases as the Hungarian uprising, since no armed attack had been made on Hungary by any foreign country. In their opinion, the events in Hungary did not create a casus foederis, that is, a situation invoking allied obligations and mutual assistance against aggression.

The forms of aggression, however, differ. An aggression may be direct and undisguised, like the attack of the British, French and Israeli troops on Egypt, or like the U.S. operations in Vietnam and the Dominican Republic. But there is also disguised, indirect aggression when armed gangs are sent across the border and putsches are organised against the lawful government.

The Western powers committed an indirect aggression against Hungary. Their agents fomented a counter-- revolutionary rebellion and smuggled armed gangs of the HorthySalasy and other fascist organisations across the Hungarian border from Austria and West Germany. An attempt was made to set up a puppet government which, while it lasted, acted on the direct orders of the American diplomatic mission.

International law bans direct aggression and armed attack, and indirect aggression as well, for it pursues the same goals as an armed attack. In 1954, the United States organised the putsch that overthrew the lawful Guatemalan Government of President Arbenz, and put in power the Castillo Armas clique. This indirect aggression enabled the North Americans to recapture their positions in that country.

The same objective was pursued by the imperialists in Hungary, with the sole difference that Guatemala was a

small capitalist country, while Hungary was a socialist state. In the first case, an indirect imperialist aggression succeeded in establishing a puppet regime, while in the second case the imperialists attempted to export counterrevolution to a socialist country in an endeavour to bring it back to the capitalist fold. This was a challenge to the whole socialist system, to the countries that had for purposes of defence joined the Warsaw Treaty. Thanks to the fact that Hungary had loyal and strong friends in the peoples of the other socialist countries, the aggression of the imperialist powers failed dismally.

That the imperialists hoped to restore capitalism in the East European socialist countries by means of aggression is admitted by the bourgeois press. The New York Times of October 30 and 31, 1956, and the London Times of November 9, 1956, wrote that fascist gangs were smuggled into Hungary from abroad. Paul Wool, a Christian Science Monitor correspondent, revealed in a report dated November 12, 1956, that the rebellion was thoroughly prepared by the Americans.

The armed gangs and the putschists imperilled the socialist gains of the Hungarian people and pressed for the revival of the pre-war fascist order in People's Hungary, which would have cost Hungary her independence.

In the circumstances, the Soviet Union had had to fulfil its Warsaw Treaty obligation. At the request of the Hungarian Government, Soviet troops came to Hungary's assistance.

British, French and United States spokesmen in the U.N. took advantage of the Hungarian events to attack the Warsaw Treaty, endeavouring to prove that it was incomparable from the standpoint of international law with similar Western compacts.

It is quite true that the Warsaw Treaty is essentially different from, say, the North Atlantic pact. The latter is an instrument of attack and aggression, while the Warsaw Treaty is a shield from aggression. The North Atlantic pact is an instrument for exporting counterrevolution, while the Warsaw Treaty is designed to protect the gains of revolution. The North Atlantic pact is an aggressive politico-military alignment designed to suppress the national liberation movement, while the Warsaw Treaty is a defensive organisation whose members harbour the deepest sympathy for the peoples' craving for political

independence and shield them from the forces of aggression, reaction, colonialism and imperialism.

The history of international relations since the founding of the North Atlantic Alliance, has largely been a history of imperialist interventions in the internal affairs of other countries and nations, and of operations aimed at squashing the peoples' actions against reactionary regimes.

True, many operations were abortive. The peoples were able to repulse the aggressors and their puppets. This applies first and foremost to all imperialist attempts at interfering in the domestic affairs of the socialist states. The Warsaw Treaty ensures defence of the sovereignty and gains of its socialist member-states from all forms of direct and indirect aggression.

There is nothing improper about this, because both the theory and the practice of international law consider indirect aggression to be no less criminal than direct aggression. The Western powers, too, consider as lawful any actions in defence of "democratic ideals" and "free institutions" against indirect, as well as direct, aggression on the strength of Article 5 of the Inter-American Mutual Assistance Treaty of 1947, Article 4 of the North Atlantic Alliance, Article 7 of the Brussels Treaty of 1948, Article 8 of the Western European Union, Article 4 of SEATO, etc. So why are the nations of Eastern Europe denied the right of defending themselves from all forms of aggression under the Warsaw Treaty, as they were by the reactionary Commission of Jurists in The Hague.^^1^^

The imperialists take the startling view that it is against the rules to export revolution and quite in order to export counter-revolution.

The Warsaw Treaty envisages mutual aid not only in cases of armed attack, but in all cases where the imperialists attempt by indirect aggression, by export of counter-- revolution, to restore capitalism in any socialist country.

Quincy Wright admits that a state that falls victim to subversive intervention "can properly ask for aid from other states within its own territory, and other states can properly respond to such a request".^^2^^ To be sure, Wright concedes this privilege to the capitalist states only. But

by the same token, the socialist countries are also entitled to assisting a victim of subversive intervention, or export of counter-revolution, say, a new state of Asia or Africa, let alone a socialist country. Wright himself indicates, after all, that "there are many inexperienced states in existence, and if they are to enjoy peaceful coexistence, they must be protected by international law against subversive intervention".^^1^^

Export of counter-revolution may yield temporary success in regard to such weak countries as Guatemala. It has no future at all in regard to the socialist states.

Cabot Lodge, then U.S. delegate to the United Nations, told U.S. television audiences on September 8, 1957, that if the United States had sent troops to Hungary, as it had to Korea, it would have precipitated a new world war.

To avoid such situations in future, the United States need only adhere more scrupulously to international law in its foreign relations.

The advocates of the "positions from strength" policy ought to know that all aggressive acts, be they direct or indirect, against any of the socialist countries will encounter collective defensive counter-action by the socialist countries, welded together by the principles of socialist internationalism, the Warsaw Treaty and other agreements.

The principles of the U.N. Charter are, in effect, also the international legal principles of peaceful coexistence, and are binding upon all states. Let us list them once more. They are the principles of sovereign equality, observance of international obligations, peaceful settlement of disputes, prohibition of aggression, repudiation of threats of force, respect for the territorial integrity and political independence of all countries, collective security of all U.N. members and other countries, and non-interference in the domestic affairs of other states.

The late John Foster Dulles admitted that the U.N. Charter "couples peace with justice and provides the most significant body of international law yet known". There is no way, however, of aligning the ``liberation'' policy, the policy of exporting counter-revolution, with this body of international law. The Charter enjoins all states to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for

~^^1^^ The Hungarian Situation and the Role of Law, International Commission of Jurists, The Hague, 1957, p. 21.

~^^2^^ Q. Wright, United States Intervention in the Lebanon, p. 123.

~^^1^^ Q. Wright, "Subversive Intervention", American Journal of International Law, Vol. 54, p. 530.

the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples; to unite their strength in maintaining international peace and security; to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for the fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion; to reaffirm faith ... in the equal rights of nations large and small, etc., etc.

The United States was one of the founders of the United Nations. It signed the U.N. Charter, which essentially embodies the idea of peaceful coexistence. It is therefore obliged to honour the Charter provisions and the principal decisions, imbued with the spirit of peaceful coexistence, passed by the U.N. on the strength of the Charter. The Declaration on the Rights and Duties of States, passed by the U.N. General Assembly in 1949, for example, says that "the states of the world form a community governed by international law" and that "a great majority of the states of the world have accordingly established a new international order under the Charter of the United Nations".^^1^^

Article 1 of the Declaration provides that "every state has the right to independence, hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other state, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own forms of government". The ruling quarters in the United States have no excuse at all to violate this international principle laid down in the U.N. Charter and binding upon all its members. Neither is there any justification for their trying to interfere in the domestic affairs of the socialist countries.

Respect for the right to independence, the choice of the form of government and recognition of sovereignty and sole jurisdiction over home territory are bound up intimately with the principle of non-interference in other nations' affairs.

Articles 3 and 4₍ of the Declaration require all countries "to refrain from intervention in the internal or external affairs of any other state" and, among other things, to refrain "from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another state, and to prevent the organisation within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife''.

By this token the ``liberation'' policy and the "mutual

security" doctrine, whose obvious purpose it is to overthrow by subversion governments and systems chosen by their peoples, are clearly a challenge to the United Nations and a gross violation of international law.

No state may pass laws that undermine international peace and order and contradict peaceful coexistence. Article 7 of the Declaration calls on every state "to ensure that conditions prevailing in its territory do not menace international peace and order", while Articles 13 and 14 stipulate that every state "has the duty to conduct its relations with other states in accordance with international law" and, what is more, "to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law", stressing that no state "may invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty''.

These provisions of the U.N. Charter and its projection, the Declaration on the Rights and Duties of States, mark out the ``liberation'' policy as a crude violation of the United Nations Charter.

It is not the term "peaceful coexistence" that some of the U.S. legal and political experts object to, but the very substance of the peaceful coexistence policy; they oppose it with a policy calculated to extirpate the socialist system. This attitude of repudiating peaceful coexistence is a red herring across the path of international justice.

The policy of ``liberation'' or that of ``ousting'' communism is incompatible with the idea of peaceful coexistence, and the more sober-minded politicians of the capitalist world have grasped this fundamental fact. The collapse of the so-called policy of liberating the socialist countries is obvious to all, save a handful of reckless politicos, chiefly of the "wild man" variety.

A report drawn up for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on U.S. policy vis-a-vis the Soviet Union and the East European countries admitted that the ``liberation'' policy "cut no ice" with the East Europeans.

Sulzberger wrote, "If we preach `liberation', we practice `containment' ". The result, he pointed out ruefully, was "a stalemate", with U.S. policy becoming "synonymous with anti-communism".^^1^^

~^^1^^ U.N. Documents, A 1251, pp. 78-79.

~^^1^^ C. L. Sulzberger, What's Wrong with U.S. Foreign Policy, New York, 1959, pp. 208, 232.

11-3121

161

The most eloquent admission of failure and the most convincing acknowledgement that peaceful coexistence was inevitable came from Walter Lippmann. His perspicacity is underscored by the fact that his confession, made in a New Republic article, came six months before the Soviet Union launched the world's first artificial earth satellite.

``The one world which we always have taken for granted in our thinking," Lippmann wrote, "has been succeeded by many worlds. We now live amidst these many worlds. They compete with one another, they coexist with one another. They trade with one another and, in varying degrees, they co-operate with one another.''^^1^^

Lippmann bared the futility of the attempts to ignore the existence in the modern world of two basic and opposite systems. He stressed the deep-going character of this change in the objective world, and in America's "political thinking". He compared it with "the change from the Ptolemaic to the Copernican astronomy, from the view that this earth is the centre of the universe to the view that this earth is only a planet, a big planet no doubt, but still a planet in a much larger solar system''.

This is quite true. The capitalist world is no longer the centre of the earth. It is, indeed, no more than a part, a big part no doubt, but still only a part of our planet. The other part consists of the socialist world, and all past, present and future schemes of destroying it are futile. It is this new situation that Lippmann begged his readers to understand, in order "to get our bearings and to feel our way forward''.

Lippmann pointed out to his compatriots that the old "picture of ourselves and of our place in the world and of our role in the history of mankind is no longer valid". Until 1945, he pointed out, "we have thought that we were living in one world", with its political centre "in the Western society, the society which consists of Europe and the Americas". "It looked as if Britain and France, reinforced by the United States and Canada," he went on to say, "could prolong indefinitely the world order that had existed in the 19th century" and that "with American military and financial help the world-wide predominance of the Atlantic community would continue" ... "that with

Britain and America acting as partners, they could handle Russia and have the deciding voice in the post-war settlement''.

This and many other things that Americans "took for granted", Lippmann pointed out, were "a brilliant illusion" as far back as 1918, and doubly so in the present post-war world, when "the Atlantic community, with the BritishAmerican partnership as its core, was no longer the paramount power in the world''.

To dramatise the rapid changes of the past 100 years, Lippmann noted that "the culture, the ideology of the Western society is no longer recognised as universal''.

What Lippmann admitted in effect was that peaceful coexistence is unavoidable, because any attempt at abolishing what he called the "Soviet empire", be it in a "peaceable and orderly" way, "could readily enough lead to a world war''.

James Burnham, a frank anti-Communist who styles export of counter-revolution as ``liberation'', admits that ``liberation'' implies, besides "all-sided political warfare", such demonstrations as "auxiliary military and paramilitary actions" and "adequate preparation for whatever military action may be required",^^1^^ not short of a nuclear war.

The imperialist offensive on the sovereign rights of nations is not confined to the socialist states. It is prosecuted against all the peoples of the world. This is borne out by the latest American "Johnson Doctrine''.

5. THE JOHNSON DOCTRINE STANDS FOR ARMED INTERVENTION AND THE EXPORT OF COUNTER-REVOLUTION

Briefly, the Johnson Doctrine boils down to the following: sustained interference, not short of armed intervention, in the internal affairs of other countries on the pretext of combating communism and with the objective of imposing internal and external solutions congenial to Yankee imperialism. Nor does Johnson make a secret of it.

President Johnson is convinced that any development in any country need merely be branded communist or communist-inspired for the United States to gain the right to

~^^1^^ New Republic, Apr. 15, 1957.

~^^1^^ J. Burnham, Containment or Liberation? An Inquiry into the Aims of United States Foreign Policy, New York, 1953, p, 223.

11*

intervene at once with economic, financial, political or military measures, not short of a dirty war as in South Vietnam, brutal bombings of undefended areas as in North Vietnam, or military occupation of all or part of a country's territory as in the Lebanon and the Dominican Republic.

On the excuse of "combating communism", the ruling element of the United States arrogates the role of supreme judge, international policeman and executioner.

Why did the Johnson Doctrine appear at this particular juncture to deal with governments and democratic forces promoting national independence and social progress and to plant reactionary regimes and despotic dictatorships in the countries concerned?

It is because in Latin America many of the reactionary regimes are tottering on the brink of disaster, and because the Alliance for Progress has misfired, like all the other U.S. diplomatic moves.

The references to "combating communism" are no more than a smokescreen, because the true .purpose is to suppress all democratic forces. Kennedy's policy has been abandoned, says Le Monde, the influential French paper, for a policy "that equates reformists and revolutionaries---who are all branded as Communists---and seeks to preserve the prevailing state of affairs". Le Monde adds: "Since this state of affairs is being challenged and will surely be overthrown if democracy prevails, it is to be maintained by force, that is, by military dictatorships.''

The reference to "combating communism" is, indeed, no more than an excuse for assailing the democratic institutions and installing reactionary dictatorships in the countries of the so-called free world. This is illustrated by the armed U.S. intervention in the Dominican Republic, launched on that very pretext, although the interventionists operated against the constitutionalist supporters of the democratically elected President Juan Bosch, who had been deposed by a military dictatorship. That the pretext was entirely false is borne out by the facts reported by Comment, a British journal, which says the State Department could find no more than 58 "Communist agitators" in the Dominican Republic. "That," said Comment, "was exactly 58 times more than what the United States would like.''

James Fulbright told U.S. Senate on September 15, 1965,

that there was no evidence the Communists had a hand in planning the Dominican revolution and that the United States had intervened on the side of the military and the oligarchy to the detriment of the Dominican people. Senator Fulbright deplored that the United States had acted against the champions of the freely elected constitutional government and that it was ``inimical'' to the reinstatement of Juan Bosch, the "only freely elected president in the history of the Dominican Republic''.

The same fate lies in store for other countries. Undersecretary of State Thomas Mann has announced, for one thing, that if the danger of a revolution loomed in Colombia, the United States would send 200,000 Marines to all corners of that country.

Lyndon Johnson denied at a press conference that the doctrine was his own brainchild and claimed that he was merely continuing the policy of his predecessors.

There is a certain amount of truth in what he said. The Johnson Doctrine is a projection of the interventionist course followed for years by Yankee imperialism in the Western hemisphere. At first it was known as the Monroe Doctrine, on the strength of which the United States assaulted the sovereign rights of the Latin American peoples. This was followed by President Theodore Roosevelt's "Big Stick" policy, President Taft's "preventive policy", the Truman Doctrine and, finally, the Eisenhower Doctrine. All of them had the same purpose of maintaining the highly privileged position of the U.S. monopolies in the Western hemisphere by bald interference in the domestic affairs of the Latin American countries.

The pretexts for intervention differed. One time it was "to protect U.S. lives and property", another time it was "deliberate violation of the rights and interests of U.S. citizens", and another time still it was "chronic disorder" and "state of anarchy". It was on these excuses that the United States interfered in the affairs of Latin American countries on more than 150 different occasions before the Second World War.

The old pretexts for intervention are no longer usable. So the Johnson Doctrine differs from the previous ones by its new pretext---"combating communism". This is indicated, in so many words, in a resolution of the House of Representatives, of September 20, 1965, which was meant to provide a legal basis for the Johnson Doctrine. It em-

powered the U.S. administration to take unilateral measures, not short of armed action, against "subversive forces known as world communism". Lyndon Johnson evidently hoped that people would not see through the lie of the pretext of "combating communism''.

But the exponents of the Johnson Doctrine, and its executors, were in for a disappointment. It touched off an angry storm, and most of all in the Western hemisphere.

Raul Leoni, President of Venezuela, wrote in Foreign Affairs that acts like those committed in the Dominican Republic are designed to restore the times of international intervention. President Orlig, of Costa Rica, made a similar comment. Venezuelan Senator Arturo Pietri declared that the U.S. violated the principle of the equality of the peoples of America.

The indignation roused by the policy of exporting counter-revolution was so great that the legislatures of some Latin American countries passed special decisions. The Senate of Colombia described the conduct of the Johnson administration as a return to the inglorious epoch of Yankee imperialism, opposed by the rest of America, and the Peruvian Chamber of Representatives protested against U.S. attempts at making unilateral armed interventions a part of official U.S. policy without consulting anybody else.

The Latin American public was still more critical of the Johnson Doctrine. The Left Liberation Front of Uruguay described it as an unheard-of violation of the principle of self-determination, and the trade unions of Argentina said it was an attempt at muzzling the peoples and blocking the road to popular governments. The United Trade Union Centre of Chile considered it as an effort to shore up the brutal exploitation of which the Latin American peoples have long been victims.

In the United States, too, the Johnson Doctrine has evoked caustic comment. Senator Fulbright noted that the only people to show any enthusiasm over the Dominican adventure were the Latin American military dictators and ruling oligarchies. The United States, he said, had gone out of its way to substantiate the idea that it is an enemy of social revolution in Latin America.

The National Guardian wrote pointedly that twenty years after Hitler had committed suicide in the Imperial Chancellery in demolished Berlin, the unenviable title of

most hated country in the world has passed to the United States.

Such is the harvest reaped by the Johnson Doctrine and the policy of exporting counter-revolution. Yet the U.S. ruling element persists in its policy of armed intervention.

A special danger attaches to the U.S. designs of forming an inter-American armed force. The plan is obviously incompatible with international law, which prohibits the use of force in international relations. What is to become of the Security Council, which the U.N. Charter says is the only body in the world competent to rule on the lawful use of force against an aggressor? The press has discussed this, and other questions, at length since Johnson declared in his address at Baylor University on May 28, 1965, that new international machinery, adapted to the rapidly developing events, should be set up. An act was signed in the Organisation of American States, aimed at establishing a special "inter-American peace force". Its authors made no secret of the fact that they envisaged "permanent machinery" for armed interference in the domestic affairs of the Latin American countries.

The Dominican crisis was no accident. Yankee imperialism exposed itself as an international policeman bent on squashing the struggle of the Dominicans for their freedom, sovereignty, and the right to elect their own course. The Dominican crisis revealed, however, that the United States can no longer do as it pleases with impunity. This made it realise that it needed a screen---a "mixed force" that would involve other Latin American countries in its assault on the Dominican people.

The United States applied pressure on the spokesmen of the Latin American countries and promptly announced that a sitting of the OAS in Washington had passed the decision to establish the said "inter-American force" by a majority of 14 votes.

But even procedurally the ``decision'' was unlawful. It takes the votes of two-thirds of the OAS members, that is, 14 votes to pass a decision. Washington was really one vote short, and had to fall back on the vote of the ``representative'' of the Dominican Republic itself, who really represented nobody or, at least, spurned the directives of the constitutional government of his country.

Essentially, the ``resolution'' on the establishment of an

``inter-American peace force" was passed in violation of the U.N. Charter, and is thus juridically invalid.

According to the U.N. Charter the Security Council is the only body authorised to establish international armed forces of any sort through its Military Staff Committee. Such armed forces are established by the Security Council in every specific case to act against specific aggressions. The United Nations, as such, has no permanent armed forces. So a regional organisation obviously has even less title to maintaining an armed force as a "permanent mechanism". Nor is such a force provided for in the Charter of the OAS and the Rio Pact.

According to Article 53 of the U.N. Charter "no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorisation of the Security Council''.

By establishing .the "inter-American peace force" the United States is trying to substitute itself for the United Nations in the Western hemisphere, just as it attempted to do so in the Eastern hemisphere by establishing NATO.

As far back as 1945, at the San Francisco conference where the U.N. Charter was being drafted, the United States attempted to keep Latin America, which it considers its own hunting ground, out of the sphere of operation of the U.N. Charter. Yet the overwhelming majority at that conference squashed the U.S. attempt. The U.N. Charter recognised the exclusive authority of the Security Council in using armed force and its principal responsibility for maintaining international peace and security.

According to the U.N. Charter the states have the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in the event of an armed attack, until the Security Council has taken enforcement measures against the aggressors. The build-up of a special police force to cope with possible crises is, therefore, tantamount to preparation for preventive wars against the peoples of Latin America in conformance with the Johnson Doctrine in all cases when the nations of the Western hemisphere will want to shake off U.S. colonialism and its puppets, the reactionary dictators and tyrants such as Trujillo and Batista. U.N. SecretaryGeneral U Thant observed reasonably on May 27, 1965, that the compulsive actions of the OAS in the Dominican Republic may have far-reaching repercussions detrimental to the very existence of the United Nations Organisation.

We might add that there will really never be any " interAmerican peace force". It will be the U.S. Marines who will pose as such a force, although, here and there, the reactionary dictatorships may furnish contingents of cannon fodder for the aggressive U.S. military ventures.

The United States landed its Marines in the Dominican Republic without even consulting the OAS, let alone obtaining its consent.

The "inter-American peace force" which operated in the Dominican Republic consisted of 30,000 U.S. Marines and a mere 1,500 men from Brazil, Costa Rica, Honduras and Nicaragua, and it is not surprising that the Latin American peoples oppose this new form of Yankee imperialism styled an "inter-American peace force". The governments of Mexico, Chile, Peru, Ecuador and Uruguay voted against the "peace force", while, the Washington Post reports, many of the other Latin American governments were reluctant to afford the OAS authority to employ armed force, partly because they were apprehensive of the role the United States would play when such decisions would be passed. To our mind, there is scarcely any doubt about the role of the U.S. The United States employed armed force in Korea, Vietnam, the Lebanon and elsewhere without bothering to ask for the consent of the United Nations.

Recent events indicate that the imperialists have stepped up their subversive actions against countries pursuing social progress.

The most candid exposition of the U.S. policy of armed intervention and export of counter-revolution was contained in the statement made by State Secretary Dean Rusk at the Senate on February 18, 1966. If the United States decides that any country entitled to defence under this agreement has suffered an armed attack, he said, it is obliged to act, irrespective of the opinions or actions of any of the other signatories.

The New York Times observer James Reston remarked rightly that Rusk's sombre doctrine goes much farther than any of the previous political conceptions of the United States. Even John Foster Dulles, not a shy man by any means, Reston writes, assumed that every alliance had to have terms and propositions, and that it envisaged a certain amount of dependence on the actions of all the members of the alliance. Rusk believes that the United States must fulfil commitments under every agreement of

alliance it has signed, irrespective of what the other signatories decide to do.^^1^^

On August 25, 1966, Rusk spoke before the Senate Military Preparedness Subcommittee about "U.S. commitments" to NATO, the pact concluded in Rio de Janeiro, SEATO and CENTO, and declared candidly that in the future the United States may take international action unprovided for in either the unilateral or the multilateral agreements. The United States, Rusk said, cannot but reckon with the fact that its natural interest in, and concern for, world peace may require actions he cannot predict at the moment. Rusk made it clear that the absence of formal commitments with respect to any region or country does not mean the United States will refrain from intervening in the affairs of any country if it sees fit to do so.

All these pronouncements, which make up the notorious Rusk Doctrine, are designed to legalise U.S. armed intervention, regardless of whether or not an appropriate agreement exists to this effect, so long as the pragmatic U.S. "national interest" favours it.

The Rusk Doctrine is one of the most typical doctrines of imperialism.

The ruling element of the United States is pursuing a policy of relentless imperialist expansion in an attempt to dictate its will to other nations. It will not stop short of new armed conflicts or of direct aggression against the freedom-loving peoples.

Peaceful coexistence rests on the inference that ideological issues should not be confused with inter-state relations, that the ideological struggle should proceed without resort to force in international relations.

As far back as April 30, 1957, the Soviet Union proposed to the Western powers to reach an agreement stipulating that "ideological struggle is not to spread to international relations''.

The adversaries of peaceful coexistence accuse the socialist countries of trying to impose their ideology on the capitalist countries. This is untrue. The Communists know socialism will triumph all over the world, because they know the spread of communist ideas cannot be halted by frontiers, armies, police truncheons and prisons, inasmuch as the Marxist-Leninist teaching expresses the rockbottom interests and ideals of every nation.

This is precisely why the United States policy-makers feel so insecure. They are dreaming up ways of throttling the revolution in Cuba, because they dread its effect on the other countries of the American continent.

Adlai Stevenson, a prominent leader of the U.S. Democratic Party, admitted that "the great struggle for men's minds ... will be won not with bigger bombs, but with better ideas". This chimes in with the standpoint of those who suggest competing in harnessing nature to man's peaceful interests, for that is the competition which will conclusively settle the debate about the advantages of this or that social system.

The communist standpoint is based on the universally recognised standard of international law that choice of the way of life is the internal affair of every people.

The world knows perfectly well that international tension is generated not by the policy of the socialist countries and the ideology of world communism, but by the policies and actions of the extremist imperialist groups.

Respect for the popularly chosen systems is a vital condition of peaceful coexistence. Repudiation of this condition and interference in the domestic affairs of other nations with the object of altering by coercion the system they have elected for themselves is, in effect, an outright repudiation of the idea of coexistence.

The internal life of nations and states, like their international relations, is in continuous flux, never static. Human society is changing all the time. The map of the world is

6. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE DOES NOT IMPLY THAT NATIONS AND STATES MUST HAVE THE SAME SYSTEM

Peaceful coexistence implies respect for the peoples' choice of the system of government. Yet the ideologists of capitalism defy the self-evident fact that peaceful coexistence does not imply that nations and states must have the same system (if the system were the same the problem of securing the peaceful coexistence of states with different socio-economic systems would never have arisen). They insist that "a real policy of coexistence must have as a corollary the disappearance of ideological antitheses"^^2^^.

~^^1^^ New York Times, Feb. 19, 1966.

•^^2^^ Van Bogaert, "Coexistence et droit international", Revue Generate de Droit International Public, Avril-Juin, 1959, No. 2, p. 218.

being refashioned, and so is the social image of nations and states. This dynamics is impelled by the inexorable laws governing social development, prodded on by the struggle of the masses. It is a law of history, a law of social development, that change the peoples' internal life and these changes go hand in hand with changes of their image as subjects of international law. Yet the changeover from one social formation to another does not occur simultaneously in all countries. It occurs at different times, with one set of countries keeping the old system while others shift to the new. Current history is just this sort of period of conversion, attended by radical changes in both the internal and international life of the peoples.

To avoid international cataclysms that may upset world peace, the process of internal reconstruction in this or that country must be settled entirely by its own people without any outside interference.

In our day, when capitalism is on the downgrade while socialism is squaring its shoulders, the role of the people in socio-political matters is mounting steadily. The people, the makers of history, hold sovereign title to their countries. This is something the constitutions even of many of the bourgeois states recognise, at least nominally. It is something the United Nations Charter postulates, particularly by requiring nations to develop friendly relations based on respect for equality and the right of self-- determination.

The people as makers of history and masters of their fate may depose and replace governments. They-may alter the form of government, replacing a monarchy with a republic, presidential, parliamentary or immediately democratic. The people may also alter the political structure, joining several states into one and, reversely, dividing one state into several. The people may settle the destiny of a territory, bringing it into their national state. The people may partially or wholly alter the political and social system in their country, amend the economic system and the form of ownership or select an entirely new economic system to replace the old. This is the sovereign right of every people.

On the strength of their right of self-determination, the people may make any changes they wish in their country. By making these changes, they exercise their sovereign will and nobody, no state or international organisation,

may interfere in this process, which is the exclusive privilege of the people concerned.

All the other states, and all international organisations, are merely required to honour any such change, to respect the economic system chosen and approved by the people, to recognise the new government, form of government and political structure established by the people's will and the territorial changes effected in accordance with the principle of self-determination.

It stands to reason that this right to choose, maintain or alter the system belongs to all peoples, not just some of them.

It is in vain that the advocates of colonialism and imperialism question the right of the peoples to choose the system they wish. They claim that the right of self-- determination is rejected by some influential states and that, allegedly, no one can tell what it really means and who it applies to. This attempt at repudiating the right of selfdetermination is just as puerile as a half-hearted recognition would be, based on the argument that self-- determination has been neither specified nor formalised as a principle of international law.^^1^^

Many of the newly free peoples now face the question of what road to follow: the capitalist or the socialist? This choice is entirely their own internal affair.

One of the highlights of recent years was that some newly free countries opted for progressive social development. This corroborated the conclusion of the 1960 Moscow Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties that "the masses are becoming convinced that the path of non-- capitalist development is the best for eliminating age-old backwardness and improving their living conditions. It is the only path along which the peoples can rid themselves of exploitation, poverty and hunger''.

The United Arab Republic, Algeria, Mali, Guinea, Congo (Brazzaville) and Burma, have carried through far-- reaching social reforms. The process goes on differently from country to country, at different degrees of intensity and in specific ways. The revolutionary creativity of the peoples is producing unique forms in the movement towards social progress.

~^^1^^ B. Rivlin, "Self-Determination and Dependent Areas", International Conciliation, New York, 1955, p. 199.

In the present period of transition from capitalism to socialism, marked by a bitter class struggle all over the world, observance of the principle of non-interference gains greatly in stature, because it paves the way for the universal right of freedom, sovereignty, territorial integrity and self-determination, that is, the free choice of political status and free economic, social and cultural development.

Clearly, violations of the principle of non-interference imperil the independence, freedom and normal political, economic, social and cultural development of the various countries, notably those which have recently shaken off colonialism.

Neo-colonialism, export of counter-revolution, armed intervention and other forms of direct and indirect interference rob the peoples of their natural right of choosing their own political, economic and social institutions without outside pressure and compulsion. They subvert international legality and friendly international relations. What is more, they create a threat to world peace.

It is not surprising that the United Nations devotes much of its attention to this problem. On December 21, 1965, the 20th U.N. General Assembly, acting on the initiative of the Soviet Union, adopted a Declaration condemning interference in the internal affairs of states and safeguarding their independence and sovereignty.

The United Nations voiced its alarm over the current international situation and the mounting threat to world peace created by armed interference and other forms of direct and indirect intervention, violating the sovereignty and political independence of peoples and states.

The Declaration condemns armed intervention, a synonym of aggression, as a gross violation of the basic principles of modern international law. It emphasises that direct interference, subversive activities and all forms of indirect intervention go against these principles, as embodied in the U.N. Charter and elsewhere.

It could not be clearer that these U.N. decisions mostly imply the colonial war fought by U.S. imperialism in Vietnam, the armed U.S. intervention in the Dominican Republic and the subversive activities of U.S. intelligence in various countries of the world.

The Declaration militates against aggressive and colonialist policy in yet another way: on behalf of the United Nations it recognised the legality of the decision taken by

the conferences of neutralist and non-aligned states in Bandung, Belgrade, Cairo and Accra. In the past, the colonialists viewed the Asian and African peoples as mere objects of international law. Now they have recognised them as subjects of it, and acknowledge the substantial influence they exert on the development of contemporary international law itself.

Here are another two facts that speak of the setback suffered at the 20th U.N. General Assembly by the opponents of international legality and friendly international relations. For something like ten years, the United Nations have been codifying the principles of peaceful coexistence ---the principles of peaceful and friendly relations between states with different socio-economic systems. Yet for years spokesmen of countries party to aggressive blocs, notably spokesmen of the United States, obstructed the inclusion of the term "peaceful coexistence" in U.N. resolutions on various transparent pretexts. Now, Clause 4 of the Declaration says that strict observance of international commitments regarding non-interference, repudiation of armed force, respect for sovereignty, independence and other inalienable rights of states "is a fundamentally important condition for securing the peaceful coexistence of nations''.

Only recently, spokesmen of the imperialist powers at the Special Committee for the Codification of the Principles of International Law, set up by the U.N. General Assembly in 1963, prevented the Committee from adopting exhaustive formulas on the principle of non-interference and said the general provisions of the U.N. Charter were ample; they claimed that there was no need to list the noninterference commitments in detail and, particularly, actions considered as violating non-interference. Now, they were compelled to admit their error and to vote for an exhaustive non-interference charter.

The Western powers have been compelled to recognise that no state or group of states may interfere directly or indirectly, for whatever reason, in the internal or external affairs of another state. The Charter bans not only armed intervention, but also such forms of interference as organising, aiding, supporting, financing, encouraging or performing terroristic armed subversive activities aimed at changing the political or socio-economic structure of any state or at interfering in the internal struggle or civil war of another state.

The Declaration outlaws all forms of violence designed to deprive the peoples of their political system or form of national existence, because every people possesses the inalienable right of selecting its political, economic, social and cultural system without the interference in any shape or form of any other state, group of states, or even the United Nations Organisation. In reference to the foreign affairs of states, the Declaration condemned all threats against the legal status of states for their political, economic and cultural institutions. This implies that no state may employ or encourage economic, political and other measures to compel another state or to subject its sovereign rights to foreign diktat or to obtain advantages from it.

In a nutshell, the Declaration requires all states to respect the right of all peoples and nations to self-- determination and independence, so that they may exercise this right freely without any outside pressure and that they may fully observe human rights and the fundamental freedoms.

The new non-interference charter stipulates that its propositions shall not serve to justify aggression and that the appropriate prerogatives of the Security Council in maintaining international peace and security shall in no way be prejudiced by references to the principle of noninterference.

This gives us reason to say that the Declaration is one of the most important measures taken within the United Nations framework to firm up international legality.

It is something that enhances the prestige of the United Nations and will encourage the effort of codifying other peaceful coexistence principles and promote other concrete effective measures for strengthening world peace.

Chapter Five

DISARMAMENT GUARANTEES

PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND ORDER

1. THE BEST WAY TO AVERT WAR IS TO DESTROY THE MEANS OF WAR

The antipode of peaceful coexistence is war. To root out war, it is not enough to proclaim the principles of nonaggression, respect for the systems chosen by the peoples, self-determination and non-interference in internal affairs, or even to outlaw aggression. It calls for measures that would make war impossible.

The most effective such measure would be disarmament, that is, the elimination, or at least a drastic reduction, of arms and armed forces, the banning and destruction of means of mass annihilation and the establishment of rigid international disarmament control.^^1^^

The enemies of peaceful coexistence, such as Barry Goldwater, declare disarmament "a peril to man's freedom". Goldwater thinks the U.S. Government should "announce in no uncertain terms" that the United States is "against disarmament''.

His reasons? Well, it is his arch-reactionary opinion that the United States should convince "the enemy that we would rather follow the world to Kingdom Come than consign it to hell under communism". The inference he makes is that the United States "must stop lying to ourselves and our friends about disarmament".^^2^^

Princeton University professor Eric Goldman believes a nuclear war against the socialist countries is justified by

~^^1^^ S. A. Malinin, Pravoviye osnovy razoruzheniya, Leningrad, 1966; O. V. Bogdanov, Vseobshcheye i polnoye razoruzheniye, Moscow, 1963.

^^2^^ B. Goldwater, Why Not Victory?, New York, 1962, pp. 114, 121, 162; yew York Times Magazine, Sept. 17, 1961, pp. 110, 102.

the "supreme principle" of "containing the spread of communist power".^^1^^ William S. Schlamm, too, thinks it is morally right to use nuclear weapons against communism and describes as "the most disgraceful intellectual scandal of our time" the universal clamour for a nuclear weapons ban.^^2^^ A.F.K. Organski explains why U.S. policy-makers object to disarmament. "Deprived of the ability to use their superior military forces," he points out, "the Great Powers would lose much of their ability to dominate weaker nations.''^^3^^

The imperialists do not conceal their eagerness to convert the disarmament problem from a means of averting wars and securing international co-operation into a means of subverting the peace.

Hans Karl Gunther, a leading West German military theorist, maintains that "the armament race must continue ... until one of the systems (socialism or capitalism) collapses". Gunther explains why. "The West," he says, "is given a chance at victory by continued arming, whereas a general disarmament would take this chance away.''

This is a candid admission that by stepping up the arms race the Western powers not only automatically reject peaceful coexistence, but pursue the deliberate goal of overpowering the socialist system.

This is why quite a few U.S. foreign policy strategists describe complete and universal disarmament as "a pure chimera".^^4^^

In outlining the true plans of the United States, United Business Service, a journal run by U.S. monopoly interests, warned back in 1960 that the United States "must resign" itself "to an extended period of high defence costs".^^5^^

The imperialist ideologists cloak their dismissal of disarmament with claims that a stepped up arms drive is the surer way of safeguarding world peace.

Nuclear disarmament might increase the danger of a war breaking out,^^6^^ is how Professor Hans Morgenthau put it,

~^^1^^ W. Millis, J. Morray, Foreign Policy and Free Society, New York, 1958, p. 67.

~^^2^^ W. Schlamm, Die Grenzen des Wanders, Ss. 1, 51, 141.

~^^3^^ A. Organski, World Politics, New York, 1959, p. 386.

~^^4^^ R. Strausz-Hupe, W. Kintner, S. Possony, A Forward Strategy for America, p. 290.

~^^5^^ International Affairs, No. 11, 1960, Moscow, p. 5.

~^^6^^ H. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations. The Struggle for Power and Peace, New York, 1960, pp. 384-85.

while Herman Kahn said a world without arms would be "hopelessly unstable".^^1^^

According to Harvard professors Thomas C. Schelling and Morton H. Halperin, even a small arms reduction would increase, rather than reduce, the war danger. "Any agreement that reduced the capability for destruction in general war," they wrote, "might make war more likely, in that the costs and risks in initiating it would not appear as great.''^^2^^

Conceptions such as these thrive on capitalist soil, for it cannot survive without an arms drive and without kindling new wars.

U.S. researcher D.F. Fleming described it as "our military obsession" that impels an "intense insistence upon military strength" and ``over-militarisation''.^^3^^

The U.S. press says that any "serious reminder of disarmament makes the U.S. economy shudder", because the war industries have become a vital part of the nation's economic make-up.

``Many powerful groups of Americans," wrote U.S. publicist Norman Thomas, "have so great a stake in the arms race that consciously or instinctively, they reject the idea of total disarmament." He identified them as "the generals, who have a vested interest in their profession, prestige and income, the scientists in their research funds and investigations, and the stockholders and managers of countless corporations in the profits they derive from their business connections with the Defence Department, the world's biggest single customer".^^4^^

Due to the capitalist bent for war every province of human progress is kneaded to fit the business of war and war preparations.

The U.S. space research programme is an operation approaching the automobile industry in size and will probably top the $20,000 million mark in the foreseeable future, though it has only one consumer to cater to, wrote Fortune magazine in June 1962.

U.S. space research, like the arms drive, serves the aggressive aim of preparing and starting a nuclear-missile

~^^1^^ H. Kahn, On Thermonuclear War, Princeton, New Jersey, 1960, p. 5.

~^^2^^ Th. C. Schelling, M. Halperin, Strategy and Arms Control, p. 17.

~^^3^^ D. F. Fleming, The Cold War and Its Origins, Vol. 2, p. 1086.

~^^4^^ N. Thomas, The Prefequisites for Peace, p. 54.

12'

war. For one thing, General James M. Gavin recommends as an important aspect of U.S. "atomic age strategy" the establishment of a "United States space command directly under the Department of Defence" which, be believes, "will restore to us the strategic initiative".^^1^^

Richard G. Hubler, who is an advocate of a new U.S. "nuclear age strategy", calls for a sustained arms drive, defining the "absolute power" he craves for as "the capability to destroy the universe".^^2^^

Some writers go so far as to blame the Soviet Union for the delay in disarmament, although the negotiations of the past 16 years show, as Joseph P. Morray rightly observes, that the Soviet Union wants the disarmament of our strifetorn planet, while the governments of the NATO countries do not.^^3^^

Yes, the Soviet Union has a position of principle on disarmament.

``Disarmament," said Lenin years ago, "is the ideal of socialism.''^^4^^ The Programme of the C.P.S.U. stresses that "general and complete disarmament under strict international control is a radical way of guaranteeing a durable peace". It goes on to say: "Imperialism has imposed an unprecedented burden of armaments on the peoples. Socialism sees its duty towards mankind in delivering it from this absurd waste of national wealth. The solution of this problem would have historical significance for mankind.''^^3^^

Whatever some writers may say to the contrary, the disarmament idea is realistic. Take the Moscow Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water, which came into force on October 10, 1963. Was it not an effective step in the desired direction and an extremely important international accord for protecting the health of millions upon millions of people?

What the finest contemporary minds clamoured for, what people of good will campaigned for in the past decade, is

now a reality. An end has been put to the contamination of the world with radioactive substances. This has now become a standard of international law.

The Moscow Treaty bans all nuclear explosions, save underground blasts, provided these do not cause radioactive fallout outside the country conducting the test.

The Moscow Treaty has far-reaching legal and political repercussions.

Any state that makes a nuclear explosion in contravention of the Treaty will thereby commit an international crime. Nuclear explosions are now qualified as an act of aggression against mankind. They fall unquestionably under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which says the Security Council is authorised to take any measures it deems necessary against a threat to peace, breach of the peace and acts of aggression. These measures may involve not only a complete or partial break of economic and diplomatic relations with the aggressor state (Art. 4), but also such "action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security" (Art. 42).

However, the more important thing is to,secure a situation in which no country could ever test nuclear weapons. The fact that a country has not signed the Test-Ban Treaty is irrelevant, because the Treaty has been endorsed by more than 100 states, i.e., the overwhelming majority of the U.N. membership. This makes the nuclear test ban a United Nations principle and a standard of international law. Nuclear test explosions are a breach of the peace, an act of aggression, and a challenge to the United Nations.

It is natural, therefore, that the United Nations may call to account such of its members as violate this principle. Besides, on the strength of Art. 2 (6) of the U.N. Charter the United Nations "shall ensure that states not members act in accordance with these principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security''.

Prevention of nuclear test explosions is obviously essential for the maintenance of international peace and security, and the United Nations may therefore see to it that all states, including non-members of the U.N., observe the ban.

Article 1 of the Moscow Treaty provides that each of its three original signatories, the Soviet Union, the United States and Britain, shall not only abstain from making nu-

~^^1^^ J. Gavin, War and Peace in the Space Age, London, 1958, pp. 216,

274.

~^^3^^ R. G. Hubler, SAC, the Strategic Air Command, New York, 1958, p. 268.

~^^3^^ J. P. Morray, From Yalta to Disarmament. Cold War Debate. New York, 1961, pp. 328-29.

~^^4^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 95.

~^^5^^ The Road to Communism, p. 505.

clear tests themselves, but also ``prevent'' nuclear weapons test explosions, or any other nuclear explosions, "at any place under its jurisdiction or control". The jurisdiction of every state applies to its land, its national and territorial waters, and to its air space. The spirit of the Article implies, however, that the three Great Powers may, though they do not exercise jurisdiction over the high seas and outer space, enforce universal control over the observance of the Moscow Treaty. This means that the three Great Powers may, and are committed to ``prevent'' nuclear explosions in the open sea and outer space by (among other things) stopping and inspecting suspicious ships carrying objects used for nuclear explosions, confiscating the said cargoes and destroying rockets, sputniks and platforms in outer space designed for such explosions.

The agreement concluded by the Soviet Union, the United States and Britain to ban the orbiting of objects with nuclear weapons or warheads, signed on the sixth anniversary of the launching by the Soviet Union of the world's first artificial Earth satellite, follows the same tack.

The Moscow Treaty would be a mere scrap of paper if some states, its signatories, refrained from making nuclear . explosions, while other states made them.

People the world over, excluding atomaniacs and the political adventurers who dream of laying their hands on nuclear weapons, acclaimed the international test ban, which put a stop to the pollution of man's environment with radioactive fallout, and viewed it as a start in stopping the pollution of man's environment with acts of cold war.

The Moscow Treaty has tended to relieve international tension and to pave the way to the solution of many other urgent problems to the general advantage.

It is highly pertinent, too, that the Moscow Treaty proclaimed as the "principal aim" of the three Great Powers "the speediest possible achievement of an agreement on general and complete disarmament under strict international control''.

Mankind expects the Great Powers to make further constructive advances in the spirit of peaceful coexistence and to conclude new agreements consistent with the interests of all the parties involved.

The nuclear test ban shows that, given the good-will of the Western powers, the world can also settle other aspects related ta general and complete disarmament, as repeatedly

m

suggested by the Soviet Union. On a Soviet initiative the world made yet one more step towards the general and complete elimination of arms when the governments of the Soviet Union, the United States and Britain reached an understanding in 1964 to reduce the manufacture of fissionable materials for military purposes. This was a new step towards relieving international tension, and a concrete disarmament measure.

It will be recalled that plutonium and uranium-235, the atoms of which set off the chain reaction that results in destructive nuclear explosions, are the primary material in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. The arms drive is directly related to the stockpiling of just these fissionable materials. Therefore, a reduction in their manufacture is a way to slow up the arms race.

Coming out with a fresh initiative designed to avert a nuclear war, the Soviet Government took a decision to halt the building of two large atomic reactors intended for the manufacture of plutonium and to reduce considerably the manufacture of uranium-235 for nuclear weapons, putting the corresponding amount of fissionable material to use in peaceful fields. The governments of the United States and Britain followed suit.

A development ushered in by the conclusion of the Moscow Test-Ban Treaty, the above measures indicate that in future the Great Powers will use nuclear materials to a far greater extent for peaceful purposes than for the manufacture of nuclear warheads.

Even Hearst's New York Journal-American admitted that these decisions went a long way in relieving cold war tensions.

The Washington Star stressed the practical impact of the new agreement. The measure demonstrated, it said, that the arms race could be slowed and even made to fold.

The New York Post compared the new agreement to the Moscow Test-Ban Treaty and described it as a tacit accord between Washington and Moscow to put the brakes on the arms race and keep it at its present level.

Some of the French papers, such as the Nation, maintained that the decision to reduce the manufacture of fissionable materials is "more an economic measure taken by states which are reluctant to bear the burden of unnecessary expenditure". Liberation denied this and called on the French Government to abandon "its destructive insanity",

to succumb to the ``contagion'' of economy and to admit that the billions spent on a nuclear "strike force" are an unnecessary waste.

The new step towards nuclear disarmament was a silent condemnation of the policy of its opponents, principally the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany. "It is hardly to be expected," said a statement on this score by the West German Free Democratic Party, that international politics will remain static and wait patiently until the last of the Germans finally understands that one can swim against the tide for only a short time.

The facts show clearly that all attempts to counteract the policy of peaceful coexistence, especially such specific tokens of it as the measures towards nuclear disarmament, are doomed to failure.

The Soviet Government showed how every possible opportunity may be turned to advantage in achieving mutual understanding on the basis of the policy of "reciprocal example''.

In describing this policy, New York Times commentator James Reston wrote that instead of waiting until the other side is ready to reach an official written agreement with a consummate mechanism of inspection and control, everybody takes the safe and limited steps he can, calling on the others to follow suit.

The measures taken by the nuclear powers to slow up the nuclear drive respond to the vital interests of all nations. "If the peoples of the universe," wrote the Tunisian AlAmal, "are congratulating themselves on the conclusion of this agreement, it is because they think its implementation will further the political and economic stabilisation of the world.''

``We owe it to the political prestige of the Soviet Union, to its economic power, to the influence of the socialist camp and to the forces championing peace," wrote the Austrian Volksstimme, "that peace has been consolidated.''

The Soviet Union made the most of the benign climate after the conclusion of the Moscow Test-Ban Treaty. In a memorandum on January 28, 1964, it suggested a series of measures designed to slacken the arms race and ease international tensions, namely, agreements to withdraw troops from foreign territories, reduce the armed forces of states, cut war expenditures, create atom-free zones and ban the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union sug-

gested that the NATO and Warsaw Treaty countries sign a non-aggression pact and urged measures to preclude sudden attack, destroy bomber forces and outlaw underground nuclear tests. All these proposals, it pointed out. •would further the principal goal of general and complete disarmament.

The U.N. Disarmament Committee reconvened on the initiative of the Soviet Union in April 1965.

Elimination of all means of warfare would rule out all inter-state relations but those based on the principles of peaceful coexistence.

The probable consequences of the nuclear arms race are beginning to worry Western students of the disarmament problem.

``We are not allowed to go on living on an earth populated with megaton bombs," wrote Columbia University sociologist Amitai Etzioni. "We are standing with one foot in a grave that is a hundred megatons deep." [Today, the more likely figure is 300 megatons.---G.Z.] "It is better to abolish the arms race a few years too early than one day too late,"^^1^^ Etzioni concluded.

Stuart Chase, another U.S. sociologist, pointed out that "the crisis of our time is applied technology growing at an exponential rate and now out of control". He drew the logical and sound conclusion that "the technological imperative demands the end of nuclear war, lest the resulting radioactivity, if not blast and burn, destroy the human race".^^2^^

The growing number of countries gaining possession of nuclear weapons, the 16th U.N. General Assembly noted, is another factor adding to the perils of the arms race.

The prominent French political leader, fidouard Depreux, warned that "the more members the atomic club has, the greater the risk of one of them losing control of his nerves or letting himself become involved in a frightening outburst of violence and destruction".^^3^^

The socialist stand on disarmament is motivated by the objective of socialist and communist construction, the need to satisfy the growing material and spiritual requirements

~^^1^^ A. Etzioni, The Hard Way to Peace. A New Strategy, New York, 1962, pp. 265, 87.

~^^2^^ S. Chase, Live and Let Live. A Programme for Americans, New York, 1960, pp. 51, 135.

~^^3^^ fi. Depreux. Renouvellement da socialisme, Paris, 1960, pp. 151-52.

of the people and by the wish to safeguard millions of lives.^^1^^

The Programme of the C.P.S.U. says:

``Complications in the international situation and the resultant necessity to increase defence expenditures may hold up the fulfilment of the plans for raising the living standard of the people. An enduring normalisation of international relations, reduction of military expenditures and, in particular, the realisation of general and complete disarmament under an appropriate agreement between countries, would make it possible greatly to surpass the plans for raising the people's living standard.''^^2^^

This is why the Soviet Union has repeatedly declared its readiness to disband its armies and throw its nuclear weapons and rocket missiles into the sea, provided other countries do the same.

and co-operate witK each other and other members of the United Nations in order to reach "a practicable universal agreement concerning the post-war regulation of armaments".^^1^^

The U.N. Charter went a step farther and defined disarmament as a United Nations ideal. This follows from the fourth principle set out in Article 2, which says U.N. members "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force" in any way contrary to the purposes of the United Nations.

The Preamble of the Charter calls on all U.N. members to unite their strength to maintain international peace, and to insure that "armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest''.

The Charter authorises the General Assembly to consider the general principles of co-operation "in the maintenance of peace, including the principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments" (Art. 11, Cl. 2).

Article 26 says the Security Council shall be responsible for formulating, with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee referred to in Article 47, plans "for the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments". The Military Staff Committee, says Article 47, is established to advise and assist the Security Council, among other things, on questions relating to "the regulation of armaments, and possible disarmament''.

The U.N. Charter, as we see, refers not only to the reduction or regulation of armaments, but also to possible disarmament.

The above U.N. Charter provisions were formulated before the atom bomb became a stark reality. The development of mass annihilation weapons has made them doubly urgent.

The U.N. General Assembly acknowledged this in one of its earlier resolutions, devoted to the problem of atomic energy control and the use of atomic energy solely for peaceful purposes.

Other General Assembly resolutions intimate that disarmament should be recognised as an operative principle of international law. Resolution 40 (I) of December 14, 1946, concerning the principles governing the general

2. DISARMAMENT AS A PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

General and complete disarmament is obviously the soundest way of removing the menace of a nuclear-missile war. In our age of atoms, electronics and space exploration, the arms race harbours dangers man has never faced before. The future of mankind---man's road to peace or war--- hinges largely on disarmament.

To disband the armed forces, destroy all arms, including nuclear, chemical, bacteriological and rocket weapons, fold up war production, dissolve war and defence ministries and military staffs, dismantle war bases, outlaw military training and allocations, and establish strict, effective and comprehensive controls over all these measures---means a world without arms, without the means of waging war; then, peaceful coexistence will be the only possible international policy.

On October 30, 1943, the Big Four stressed in a joint declaration on universal security that it is necessary to achieve, a rapid and organised conversion from war to peace and to establish and maintain international peace and security "with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources". The Big Four said they would consult

~^^1^^ P. Yudin, Disarmament and Culture, Moscow, 1966, p. 6.

~^^2^^ The Road to Communism, p. 546.

~^^1^^ Vneshnyaya politika Sovietskogo Soyuza v period Otechestuennoi voiny, Vol. I, pp. 414-15.

regulation and reduction of armaments, appeals for the swiftest regulation and reduction of armaments and armed forces, a ban on the use of atomic energy for military purposes, withdrawal from national armouries of atomic and all other principal weapons of mass annihilation and for atomic energy control.

The resolution of January 24, 1946, described prohibition of mass annihilation weapons as a cardinal aim.

In a number of its subsequent resolutions the U.N. General Assembly reiterated this standpoint of the majority of the nations and states of the modern world. In its resolution of January 11, 1952, for example, it pointed out that effective and sweeping disarmament embracing all types of armed forces and armaments should be undertaken by all states possessing armed forces. The General Assembly repeated its wish that the United Nations create an effective system of collective security to maintain peace and promote a gradual reduction of armed forces and armaments in accordance with the goals and principles of the U.N. Charter.

Later General Assembly resolutions also stated that disarmament is one of the key principles of international law and that the states should comply with it. Resolution 715 (VIII), adopted on November 28, 1953, reaffirmed "the responsibility of the United Nations for considering the problem of disarmament" and warned that "the continued development of weapons of mass destruction, such as atomic and hydrogen bombs, has given additional urgency to efforts to bring about effectively controlled disarmament throughout the world, as the existence of civilisation itself • may be at stake''.

Competition in developing armaments being "not only economically unsound, but ... in itself a grave danger to peace", the General Assembly again referred to "the continuing desire of all nations" to "lighten the burden of armaments", recognised "the general wish" and reaffirmed its own "earnest desire" to reach agreement "as early as possible on a comprehensive and co-ordinated plan under international control for .. . the reduction of all armed forces and all armaments''.

In its Resolution 808 (IX), adopted on November 4, 1954, the U.N. General Assembly pointed out that a disarmament agreement should cover the following points:

a) regulation, limitation and major reduction of all armed forces and conventional armaments;

b) total prohibition of the use and manufacture of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction of every type, and the conversion of existing stocks of nuclear weapons for peaceful purposes;

c) establishment of effective international control.

In Resolution 1252 (XIII), adopted on November 4, 1958, the General Assembly stated clearly that the "responsibility of the United Nations in the field of disarmament" was expressed "in the Charter of the United Nations and in previous resolutions of the General Assembly''.

At its 14th Session, the General Assembly responded to a Soviet initiative and reaffirmed that "the question of universal and complete disarmament is the most important question facing mankind today". Prompted by its "desire to deliver present and future generations from the danger of a new and disastrous war", the U.N. General Assembly in its Resolution 1378 (XIV), of November 20, 1958, hoped that "measures aimed at universal and complete disarmament under effective international control will be worked out and approved in the shortest possible time''.

All these documents, plus many more,^^1^^ indicate that disarmament is a principle of international law and of the U.N. Charter, which all states of the modern world must honour.

The fact that disarmament has, in substance, become an operative principle of international law is reflected in the joint Soviet-American statement on agreed principles for disarmament negotiations published by the Soviet and U.S. governments on September 21, 1961, and in the Soviet draft of the Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament Under Strict International Control submitted by the Soviet Union to the 18-Nation Disarmament Committee in March 1962 and supplemented by more specific proposals at the 18th U.N. General Assembly.

That disarmament has not materialised so far does not make it any less a standard of international law, just as violations of sovereignty, the delay in self-determination and breaches of existing international obligations do not detract from the corresponding principles.

~^^1^^ Subsequently, the General Assembly indicated in resolutions 1660(XVI), 1664(XVI), 1722(XVI), 1761 (XVII), 1908(XVIII), etc., the importance of implementing "in the shortest possible time" the principle of "general and complete disarmament under strict international control''.

Refusal to disarm is a violation of one of the most important aspects of international law.

The Soviet Union has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to accept general and complete disarmament, let alone a reduction of armaments and armed forces. In 1964, the U.S.S.R. took the initiative in reducing military allocations. But the clearest exposition of its stand is contained in the Soviet draft programme of general and complete disarmament submitted to the United Nations, which provides for:

(1) disbandment of all armed forces and banning of their reconstitution in any form whatsoever;

(2) banning and destruction of all stockpiles and termination of the manufacture of all types of weapons, including atomic, hydrogen, chemical, bacteriological and other types of mass annihilation weapons;

(3) destruction of all means of delivering mass annihilation weapons to targets;

(4) dismantling of all military bases and withdrawal and disbandment of troops stationed in foreign territory;

(5) repeal of all types of military conscription;

(6) termination of military training and closure of all military educational establishments;

(7) dissolution of war ministries, general staffs and their local bodies, as well as all other military and paramilitary institutions and organisations;

(8) cutting short of all allocations for military purposes out of state budgets and out of the funds of public organisations and private persons.

After the consummation of general and complete disarmament the states would retain rigidly limited contingents of police (militia) armed with light firearms, according to specified quotas, to maintain internal order and protect the safety of citizens.

General and complete disarmament should give no state the least military advantages over other states. It must therefore be carried out at one and the same rigidly agreed and specified time in several consecutive stages.

The Soviet control proposals explode the charges that the U.S.S.R. does not want control over disarmament. They contain a detailed plan of strict international control over all disarmament measures, and envisage the establishment immediately after the conclusion of the Treaty of a preparatory commission responsible for control.

The control organisation should be set up within the framework of the United Nations when the Treaty enters into force and should consist of representatives of all the signatory states. The control council should require a twothirds majority vote on questions of substance and an ordinary majority vote on procedural matters.

The control council shall supervise the control system and keep in all the signatory countries its own personnel, recruited on an international basis. The inspectors in the various countries shall enter upon their duties as soon as the states begin to carry out the stipulated disarmament measures. They shall be allowed to visit any point in which disarmament measures are being carried out at the appropriate time and without hindrance.

For this purpose, the personnel of the control council shall enjoy in the territory of every signatory such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent and unhindered exercise of control over the implementation of the Disarmament Treaty.

At every stage, the control organisation shall have powers commensurate with the volume and character of the particular measures of disarmament.

For the Soviet Union, disarmament is not a tactical line, but a line of principle and an inseparable part of its foreign policy.

Militarism, as such, is the greatest social evil bred by capitalism.

Fritz Wielmann estimates in his recent book, Armament and Disarmament in the Latter Stage of Capitalism, that capitalism spent an average $4,000 million annually on armaments in 1901-14, an average annual $65,000 million during the First World War, and $13,000 million on the eve of the Second World War. The cost of the Second World War was $730,000 million annually.

3. NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

The most dangerous possible consequence of the unbridled arms race is thermonuclear war.

How to avert the disastrous consequences of a nuclear war and how to avert the nuclear war itself?

A total ban on all types of nuclear weapons within the framework of general and complete disarmament under strict international control would be the best possible way.

Yet general and complete disarmament, though an imperious demand of the times, cannot, as U.N. experience shows, materialise overnight. Eager to insure the security of the peoples by concrete and immediate measures, the Soviet Government submitted to the United Nations the draft of a Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It will be an important step towards general and complete disarmament and the deliverance of mankind from the menace of a nuclear war.

The Moscow Test-Ban Treaty and the agreement signed within the U.N. framework on the non-orbiting of nucleararmed space objects have sho\vn that measures of this kind are very fruitful.

The non-proliferation idea implies that nuclear states (U.S.S.R., U.S.A., Britain, France and China) should make no nuclear weapons available in any shape or form to states that have no such weapons. The projected ban applies not only to nuclear weapons, but to assistance in developing and manufacturing them, and, among other things, to the provision of pertinent information.

The non-nuclear powers shall not develop, produce, or prepare to produce, nuclear weapons on their own or jointly with other powers in any territory whatsoever. They shall also undertake to refrain from receiving nuclear weapons and from owning such weapons in any form, and from acquiring any control over nuclear weapons, their dislocation or use in any exigency whatsoever.

All loopholes have to be plugged up against the spread of nuclear weapons and their transfer to any countries, for, lacking such an agreement, the risk of a nuclear war breaking out will increase in geometrical progression. The further spread of nuclear weapons, meanwhile, will touch off dangerous nuclear rivalry. The imperative need for averting such rivalry is more than obvious, considering that the NATO countries headed by the United States and Britain under the guise of a ``multilateral'' or ``international'' nuclear force want to give nuclear weapons to the West German revenge-seekers, who are nurturing plans of a new world war.

This is why the Soviet draft envisages in emphatic and unambiguous terms that transfer of nuclear weapons in any form, "directly or indirectly, through third parties or groups of states", be banned. The non-nuclear powers shall be prohibited to receive nuclear weapons even for those

of their military units that have been put under the command of military alliances.

The U.S.S.R. draft, submitted to the United Nations, provides for just this possibility.

The choice is clear: if a thermonuclear war is to be averted, the steps taken to this end have got to be real and effective. The U.S. proposal, which bans some forms of nuclear proliferation and permits others, is insufficient. What difference does it make whether a non-nuclear power, say, the Federal Republic of Germany, gets its nuclear weapons directly, or indirectly through a so-called NATO multilateral nuclear force?

On the initiative of the Soviet Union, the U.N. General Assembly passed two resolutions (2028[XX] on November 19, 1965 and 2149[XXI] on November 4, 1966) recommending a nuclear non-proliferation treaty and appealing to all governments to refrain from action that might obstruct the conclusion of such a treaty.

It is high time the powers came round to taking joint partial disarmament measures, such as:

a) closure of foreign military bases;

b) withdrawal of all troops stationed abroad to within their national frontiers;

c) reduction of the armed forces of the two German states to agreed proportions within an agreed time;

d) measures removing the danger of a nuclear conflict: establishment of nuclear-free zones, undertakings by the nuclear powers to refrain from using nuclear weapons against countries within such zones, etc.;

e) termination of flights by foreign planes carrying atomic and hydrogen bombs over the European countries and of visits by foreign submarines and surface vessels carrying nuclear weapons to European ports.

Could anything be done in the context of international law to prevent the kind of tragedies that occurred recently near the shores of Spain and Greenland, where the U.S. Air Force lost hydrogen bombs, causing radioactive pollution of land and sea?

The Soviet Memorandum handed to U.S. Ambassador Frank Kohler by Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko on February 16, 1966, voiced the deep concern of the Soviet people, and that of other peoples, over this occurrence (four nuclear warheads fell on Spanish territory at Palomares and in Spanish coastal waters when a U.S. bomber

13-3121

crashed on January 17, 1966). The Soviet Government pointed out that the practice which led to the disaster contradicted universally recognised principles of international law. The Soviet Union suggested measures to secure the "undelayed termination of nuclear-armed flights beyond national frontiers''.

What is at issue is not just the radioactive contamination of a densely populated part of Europe and of the Mediterranean Sea, nor just the violation of the 1963 Moscow Treaty and the 1958 Geneva Open Seas Convention, which prohibit all practices liable to cause radioactive pollution of the atmosphere or the sea.

The flights of U.S. nuclear-armed bombers over the open seas and the territories of various countries are a challenge to world peace and international security. Even in peacetime irresponsible acts by U.S. servicemen may, at any moment, expose many countries to the fate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with the difference that the bombs that demolished these two Japanese cities had just a fraction of the explosive power packed by the warhead that fell near the Spanish shore.

The crash of the U.S. bomber near Thule (Greenland) was the sixteenth such accident involving U.S. nuclear bombs. Luckily, no nuclear explosion has yet occurred. But what is to guarantee us that it will not occur some day?

A mere error, inadvertently committed without evil intent by a U.S. pilot, or an accidental mid-air collision of two bombers, may cause a nuclear bomb to fall to earth and contaminate thriving territory.

Why should mankind put up with this senseless peril?

It is all too obvious that mere protests will alter nothing. What is needed is a treaty outlawing transportation of nuclear weapons outside national frontiers, on the high seas, in airspace over the high seas, in the territory of the nonnuclear powers and in their air space.

The U.N. General Assembly has, on the strength of a Soviet-American agreement, passed Resolution 1884 (XVIII) in 1963 condemning the placing of nuclear-armed objects and other types of mass annihilation weapons in outer space.

Yet a hydrogen bomb that falls out of a plane will do as much damage as a bomb that falls out of a space object. So the ban on the placing of nuclear weapons in outer space should be extended to the high seas, the territory of the

non-nuclear powers and the air space over the high seas and the non-nuclear countries.

This arrangement could be made part of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty endorsed in principle by the General Assembly and now discussed in Geneva by the 18- Nation Disarmament Committee. If transfer of nuclear weapons to all the non-nuclear countries is to be banned, it is only logical to ban transportation and stationing of nuclear weapons outside the national frontiers and air space of the nuclear powers.

The non-nuclear powers could sign this treaty as well, just as they did the 1963 Moscow Test-Ban Treaty, because it is committing them to prohibit the transportation and stationing nuclear weapons in their territories and to close down the foreign nuclear bases now located within their frontiers.

This would consummate the idea of non-proliferation and of nuclear-free zones; the non-nuclear powers, which shall have no nuclear weapons within their frontiers, would then be guaranteed that nuclear weapons will not be used against them.

4. PEACEFUL USE OF SPACE AND CELESTIAL BODIES

In our time the danger of a nuclear accident exists not only on the earth and in the air, but also in outer space. It seems the time has come to institute international rules and practical measures for the regulation of space activity, in order to frustrate aggressive plans of using the Moon and other celestial bodies for military purposes.

There are two diametrically opposite approaches to the exploration and utilisation of outer space---the peaceful scientific approach aimed at benefiting all mankind, and the aggressive military approach, prompted by purely strategic considerations.

Back in 1958 Lyndon Johnson set out a far-reaching programme of space expansion designed to seize an absolute position in outer space and gain total control over the Earth. James Webb, head of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, made no secret of the fact that 75 to 80 per cent of what will be done under the U.S. Apollo programme, which envisages a manned landing on the Moon, may be militarily useful and serve as the groundwork for a military system.

is'

195

The Soviet Union plays a foremost part in the technical and scientific exploration of outer space, and in the enactment of space rules. In 1958, the Soviet Union submitted to the United Nations the draft of an international agreement banning the use of outer space for military purposes. A number of important resolutions was passed since then by the General Assembly on the strength of Soviet drafts, including the 1963 Declaration on the Legal Principles Governing the Exploration and Utilisation of Outer Space and the Resolution condemning the orbiting and placing in space of nuclear-armed objects.

The Soviet Union uses its decisive influence on international affairs and on the progressive development of international law to avert a world nuclear war and frustrate the designs of the aggressive imperialist forces, which are bent on utilising the Moon and other celestial bodies for a war of extermination on the Earth.^^1^^

The U.S. militarists make no secret of their monstrous plan of turning outer space and the celestial bodies into a theatre of nuclear-missile war. In 1958, J. Edson, a Department of Defence spokesman, defined ``seizure'' of bases on the Moon as "the main objective of U.S. policy and of its technical efforts", because a "lunar stronghold" might, from his point of view, "settle the outcome of the rivalry on earth". Subsequently, Braker, another Defence Department spokesman, said the Pentagon had already made maps of projected U.S. war bases in 70 areas of the lunar surface.

The United States believes, according to the Revue de la defense national, the journal of the French Defence Ministry, that military occupation of the Moon by an Earth power is bound to give it absolute control over the Earth. The United States wants bases on the Moon to fire rockets at targets on the Earth.

To prevent any possible international disagreements the Soviet Union proposed the conclusion of a multilateral treaty on the legal principles governing the exploration and use of the Moon and other celestial bodies.

The Soviet draft was adopted by the 21st General Assembly, and the Treaty, which formalises the existing practices and is a major event in the progressive development of international space law, was signed on January 27, 1967.

~^^1^^ Kosmos i problema vseobshchego mira, ed. by G.P. Zadorozhny, Moscow, 1966; G.P. Zhukov, Kosmicheskoye pravo, Moscow, 1966, pp. 60-66.

The Treaty recognises the common interest of all mankind in the outer space exploration and says that this exploration should be carried out for the benefit of all countries, to further the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter. It declares that the exploration and use of outer space shall be the province of all mankind.

Under the Treaty, all states have free access to all areas of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, without discrimination of any kind. States shall consider on a basis of equality any requests by other states to be afforded an opportunity to observe the flight of space objects which they have launched. All stations, installations, equipment and space vehicles on the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be open to representatives of other states.

The Treaty furnishes answers to a number of questions concerning sovereignty in the space above our planet. In the first place, its signatories undertake not to place in the Earth orbit any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, instal such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner. The fact that the sovereignty of states ends at the level of possible orbital flight is confirmed by the ban on the establishment of military bases, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies, and, chiefly, by the Article which declares that outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

Thus, the Treaty has buried the Pentagon's expansionist plans of seizing and appropriating the Moon and other celestial bodies. The U.S. companies that were selling plots on the Moon have now been put out of business.

In providing that a state shall retain jurisdiction and control over an object it launches into outer space or constructs on a celestial body, the Treaty does not contradict its ban on the appropriation of celestial bodies. This point merely refers to the ownership of the objects.

The upper limit of a state's sovereignty in the space above the Earth has not yet been finally established. The 21st General Assembly passed a decision to study this question with the aim of defining the dividing line between air space and outer space.

This is important because the legal aspects of air space and outer space differ. An aircraft of one country cannot enter the air space of another country without special permission, and an aircraft that enters it unlawfully may be shot down if it disobeys orders from the Earth.

Spaceships and satellites, on the other hand, fly over countries without any preliminary permission.

According to Article I of the Treaty, outer space, beginning with orbital space, is excluded from the sphere of state sovereignty, for it "shall be free for exploration and use by all states without discrimination of any kind". Article I says further: "There shall be freedom of scientific investigation in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and states shall facilitate and encourage international co-operation in such investigation.''

While the border between air space and outer space will finally have to be determined in an international treaty, it is already clear that international custom regards an orbital flight as a flight in outer space, and not in air space.

Everyone who, beginning with Yuri Gagarin, has orbited the Earth is called a cosmonaut or astronaut, that is, a space pilot.

Thus, the orbit of a spaceship or satellite, or rather, the point where its orbit comes closest to the Earth, will evidently be recognised as the dividing line between air space and outer space.

The transportation of nuclear weapons in air space, below orbital level, has not yet been banned, but it is prohibited in outer space, beginning with orbital level.

The extent to which orbital level becomes the border between air space and outer space as far as other matters are concerned is something for the future to decide.

The principle of co-operation and mutual assistance underlying the Treaty obliges states to conduct their activities in outer space and on celestial bodies with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other states. In particular, states must avoid the harmful contamination of outer space and also avoid adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter. States must consult with one another in regard to any potentially harmful interference with activities in the peaceful exploration and use of outer space. States must also immediately inform other states of any

phenomena they discover in outer space which could constitute a danger to the life or health of astronauts.

Article V of the Treaty forcefully exemplifies the principle of mutual assistance and co-operation by declaring that states shall regard astronauts as envoys of mankind in outer space and shall give them all possible help in the event of any accident, distress or emergency landing.

In carrying on activities in outer space and on celestial bodies, astronauts of one country are to render all possible assistance to the astronauts of other countries.

Under the Treaty, states bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including responsibility for damage done on the ground, in air space or in outer space by objects they launched into outer space, or by their component parts.

The Treaty also deals with activities carried on in outer space by international inter-governmental organisations and non-governmental entities. States bear responsibility for the activity of the latter.

While dealing with a broad range of matters concerning international space law, the Treaty envisages the possibility of a further progressive development of space law through amendments to it, and also through the conclusion of other agreements, bilateral or multilateral.

According to Article III, international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, extends to outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies. Significantly, the Treaty declares that United Nations General Assembly Resolution 110 (II) of November 3, 1947, which condemned propaganda designed or likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, is applicable to outer space.

The Treaty's significance stems from more than the fact that it promotes broad international co-operation both in the scientific and legal aspects of the peaceful exploration and use of outer space.

By prohibiting the use of the Moon or other celestial bodies for military purposes, and by providing conditions for their use exclusively in the interests of peace, scientific progress and the welfare of all mankind, the Treaty makes an important contribution to mutual understanding and friendly relations between peoples and states in other fields of international endeavour, and above all in the sphere of disarmament.

The problem of disarming and of eliminating the nuclear war danger is bound up closely with the problem of international confidence. Lack of confidence is one of the big reasons for instability in international relations and all too often acts as a stimulant of the arms race.

Disarmament will most effectively eliminate international tension and, more important still, stamp out the menace of a world war by making impossible the use of atomic, hydrogen, rocket, bacteriological and other weapons of mass destruction. International confidence may be built up by a repudiation of the use of any type of nuclear weapon duly recorded in an international instrument.

The above proposition has a precedent in the 1925 Geneva Protocol banning gas and bacteriological warfare, which was one of the reasons why gas and bacteriological weapons were not used in, say, the Second World War.

The Western powers made the question of control a bone of contention in the disarmament negotiations. By demanding arms control instead of control over disarmament, the Western powers opposed the U.N. resolutions on general and complete disarmament with conceptions of `` brinkmanship'', "equilibrium of fear" and "mutual deterrents''.

U.S. Professor Seymour Melman described the arms control doctrine as the response made by "conservative theorists" to "the growing strength of the disarmament idea". He noted that arms control had a "dual appeal", for it could be "presented to the public as disarmament", yet "need not close down a single major military establishment, nor put any obstacle in the way of the Pentagon's war games and strategy planning''.

``Arms control," notes U.S. philosopher Fromm, "is part of a theory of armament, not disarmament.''^^1^^

``A peace based solely on a balance of fear," writes Edouard Depreux, "is at the mercy of an accident or an act of folly. Salvation lies more than ever before in disarmament, which cannot but be controlled.''

The progressive American observers, Victor Perlo and Carl Marzani, pointed out:

``To devise a system of making war which depends on

wartime inspection to make it feasible is, on the face of it, nonsense, but then to argue that you must educate the enemy to accept your nonsense is to show a capacity for disregarding reality which would normally be associated with mental institutions.''^^1^^

The establishment of confidence and friendly relations between the Soviet Union and the United States, the two mightiest powers of the modern world, has a special bearing on peaceful coexistence and world peace. International relations throughout the world would be quite different if the two giants would achieve good relations in the spirit of equal co-operation.

5. THE PRINCIPLE OF COLLECTIVE SECURITY, THE PROBLEM OF DISSOLVING MILITARY BLOCS AND JOINT EFFORTS TO REINFORCE THE PEACE

It is possible to institute other measures designed to reinforce peaceful coexistence before general and complete disarmament is agreed upon. The states could institute nuclearfree zones, dismantle war bases^^2^^ and remove all troops from foreign territories, ban all nuclear weapons tests, dissolve military blocs, and the like.

Military blocs impede peaceful coexistence. As the principles of peaceful coexistence take deeper root and agreement is finally reached on general and complete disarmament, the Western military blocs (NATO, SEATO, CENTO, etc.) and the Warsaw Treaty, are bound to be dissolved. The United Nations Organisation will then be better able to discharge its function of a universal security organisation.

A system of collective security could be an excellent political guarantee of peaceful coexistence. Collective security, which is based on the idea of the indivisibility of peace and the right of individual and collective self-defence, is part and parcel of the conception of peaceful coexistence.

The conception of collective security implies that a breach of peace at any point of the globe is a breach of world peace, while an act of aggression against one country

^^1^^ C. Marzani, V. Perlo, Dollars and Sense of Disarmament, New York, 1960, p. 23.

~^^2^^ M. I. Lazarev, Imperialisticheskiye voyenniye hazy na chuzhikh territoriyakh, Moscow, 1963.

~^^1^^ E. Fromm, May Man Prevail? An Inquiry Into the Facts and Fictions of Foreign Policy, p. 203.

is an aggression against all countries and entitles them to come to the assistance of the victim state with the object of suppressing the aggression.

The idea of the maintenance of international peace through collective security under the auspices of the world organisation is implicit in the U.N. Charter and in the right of every state to individual and collective self-defence, and is thus an expression of the idea of peaceful coexistence.

To justify the U.S. policy of aggression, writer Emery Reves casts doubt on the efficacy of the collective security idea. He scoffs at the U.N. Charter and says that "static structures", by which he obviously implies the United Nations, "too weak and rigid to withstand the storms of events, will be blown away like a house of cards", qualifying this as "the fundamental fallacy of the idea of collective security, based on treaty agreements between sovereign nations".^^1^^

Most of the international developments of 1946-67 refute Reves's contention. It was ultimately and largely the efforts of the peace-loving forces that succeeded in quenching the flames of war in Korea, Egypt, the Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and in the Caribbean.

The credit goes to the fundamental principles of the U.N. Charter, under which U.N. member-countries undertook to join forces for the maintenance of international peace and security, to ensure that armed forces are used solely in the common interest, "to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace", and to render every assistance in all actions designed to promote collective security.

To ensure rapid and effective U.N. action, the memberstates have made the Security Council, whose work is governed by the Great-Power unanimity principle, responsible for the maintenance of collective security by measures of compulsion. The Security Council has been made responsible for determining the existence of a threat to peace, a breach of peace or an act of aggression, submitting recommendations or deciding what measures (preventive or enforcement) ought to be taken to maintain or restore international peace and security (U.N. Charter, Article 39).

The members of the United Nations are required by the Charter (Article 49) to "join in affording mutual assistance

in carrying out the measures decided upon by the Security Council". Among other things, the members of the United Nations must, for this end, make available to the Security Council at its request "armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security" ( Article 43, Cl. I).^^1^^

The Charter obliges all members to submit to the pertinent Security Council decisions, and to discharge them. The Security Council may, if this is deemed necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security, require that states non-members of the United Nations act in accordance with the U.N. principles.

Clause 5 of Article 2 of the Charter says:

``All members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.''

So much for the collective security provisions of the United Nations. Let us just note that the U.N. Charter provides for collective security on a regional, as well as universal (world-wide), scale. The Security Council may, where appropriate, utilise regional arrangements or agencies "for enforcement action under its authority", while no enforcement action "shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorisation of the Security Council''.

The actions of the imperialist blocs, which are splitting the world into hostile alignments, contradict the idea of peaceful coexistence, as well as the principles of the U.N. Charter. In their efforts to bend the United Nations to the will of the U.S. ruling element, the United States has with NATO, CENTO, SEATO, OAS and ANZUS backing taken measures designed to subvert the collective security system established by the U.N. Charter, obscure the Security Council and turn the U.N. from an instrument of collective security into an instrument of condoning and assisting imperialism's aggressive wars against the freedom-loving peoples (as, say, in the Congo).

It is the ideal of peaceful coexistence to dissolve all blocs

E. Reves, The Anatomy of Peace, p. 209.

~^^1^^ E, S. Krivchikova, Vooruzhonniye sily OON, Moscow, 1965, pp. 70-71.

and exercise collective security through the world organisation. The Declaration on the Strengthening of European Peace and Security, issued by the Warsaw Treaty countries in Bucharest on July 5, 1966, calls for this very thing.

Collective security is particularly essential in Europe, where two world wars have broken out in the past. No German peace treaty has yet been concluded, while revengeseekers are straining to lay their hands on nuclear weapons and to revise the frontiers. In its effort to turn Western Europe into an instrument of global policy, the United States is keeping its troops and military bases in the NATO countries, building up nuclear stockpiles, stationing nuclearpowered submarines in European waters and patrolling European skies with nuclear-armed planes. It wants to make Europe the theatre of a disastrous nuclear conflict, and is using the North Atlantic military bloc to deepen the split in Europe. This policy is doubly dangerous, because it hinges more and more on a compact with the militarists and revenge-seekers of West Germany, who are nurturing aggressive schemes, howling for a revision of the results of the Second World War, and of European frontiers.

Since the situation in Europe exercises a strong influence on world relations generally, it is highly desirable that the European states take effective measures to stamp out the danger of an armed conflict in Europe and to bolster European collective security. The time for this is quite ripe. All over Europe, the influence has increased of the forces which realise the need for rising above the differences in political views and convictions and acting to ease international tension, promote mutually advantageous relations between all European states without discrimination, shore up the independence of their countries and uphold their national dignity. Nearly half the European countries are socialist states. Considering the mounting sentiment in all Countries in favour of eliminating the backwash of the cold war and the obstacles to all-European co-operation_v normalising international relations and extending international contacts, it appears that the problem of European security could be solved by the concerted efforts of the European states, of all the social forces favouring peace, irrespective of their ideological views and their religious or other convictions.

One of the essential preconditions for European security is the development of normal inter-state relations based on

the principles of sovereignty, national independence, equality, non-interference in the domestic affairs of others, territorial integrity and mutual advantage, that is, the principles of peaceful coexistence.

Political relations based on the principles of peaceful coexistence will help to restore traditional commercial relations between the European countries, which will, in turn, operate as an important factor of rapport and promote confidence and mutual understanding. There is no sphere of international co-operation in which the European countries would then fail to reap mutual advantages.

The Bucharest Declaration of the Warsaw Treaty countries suggests a number of tangible steps in this direction: the simultaneous dissolution of existing military alliances or, at least, the disbandment of the military organisations of the North Atlantic pact and of the Warsaw Treaty; an effective system of European security in place of the military groupings; implementation of partial disarmament measures; reaffirmation of the existing European frontiers; settlement of the German problem with due consideration for the security interests of all the interested countries and Europe as a whole; convocation of an all-European conference for the maintenance and strengthening of collective security in Europe, etc.

In their Declaration on the Strengthening of European Peace and Security, the Warsaw Treaty countries appealed to all the European states "to unite their efforts and make Europe, which is a key centre of world civilisation, a continent of all-sided and fruitful co-operation between equal nations and a powerful factor of stable peace and mutual understanding throughout the world''.

Chapter Six

ALL-ROUND INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION IS PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE IN ACTION

1. THE "DIVIDED WORLD" DOCTRINE PERVERTS THE IDEA OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE

Peaceful coexistence implies all-round co-operation by the states of the two systems. While millions of people in all countries have grasped that in a world divided into two antagonistic systems peaceful coexistence is the only possible alternative to nuclear-missile war, men like Richard Nixon maintain that the concept of coexistence is entirely insufficient and negative, because, they allege, it leaves the world divided by hate and fear.^^1^^ Some of U.S. ideologists consider peaceful coexistence as a "protracted conflict", which includes all forms of coercion, even wars.^^2^^

West German philosopher Karl Jaspers, too, advocates a ``wall'' to isolate the two systems of states, for, he argues, without such isolation political coexistence would be a misconception. He contends that neither coexistence nor cooperation can make peace possible.

None of the socialist states, nor the Soviet doctrine of international law, ever regarded peaceful coexistence as merely the simultaneous existence of states that do not co-operate. Peaceful coexistence paves the way for broad, fruitful and mutually advantageous political, economic, social, cultural, scientific, technical and other co-operation among nations in a world at peace and free from, the danger of war.

It is not simultaneous existence of the two systems with a pistol at each other's head that the Soviet Union has been invariably offering the United States and the other capitalist countries, but broad, mutually advantageous cooperation, joint solution of problems and good-neighbour relations.

Ever since its establishment, the Soviet state has been

working for broader business contacts with the capitalist world.

G. V. Chicherin, People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs in Lenin's government, stressed in 1923 that the foreign policy of his country "supports the interests of universal peace everywhere and at all times" and that "always, without fail, Soviet diplomacy supports everything that promotes world peace, reduction of armaments and of the tax burden, regulation of world antagonisms and conflicts, satisfaction of the vital interests of the masses in all countries, development of economic contacts, and mitigation of the agonising world crisis. Soviet diplomacy is bent on developing peaceful, normal and friendly relations with all states in the interest of universal peace and economic progress, elimination of the world crisis and rehabilitation of our country's economy.''^^1^^

Bourgeois propaganda identifies the concept "peaceful coexistence" with the concept ``cease-fire'', and the concepts ``system'' with ``camp''. This is being done deliberately. It is an attempt at discrediting the concept of peaceful coexistence and changing the word ``peaceful'' to something else. After all, if ``system'' and ``camp'' were identical concepts, there would be, in the final analysis, no "PEACEFUL coexistence" but an "ARMED cease-fire". This is not so. Military camp and social systems are entirely different things.

The opposite view is meant to show that coexistence is impracticable and that the two systems ought to be integrated, that is, the socialist system abolished wherever it now exists.

J. Davis and H. B. Hester counterpose "co-operative coexistence" to "competitive coexistence",^^2^^ overlooking the fact that the Soviet doctrine of peaceful coexistence (not simply ``coexistence'') covers these two and other elements. Leaves and Thompson, the authors of UNESCO: Aims, Progress, Outlook, make the same mistake of opposing international co-operation and mutual understanding to peaceful coexistence, and maintain, among other things, that in UNESCO the Soviet Union is out to move the social sciences out of the focus of international mutual understanding into the focus of the "peaceful coexistence" of states that have different economic and social systems.

~^^1^^ I. M. Ivanova, Mirnoye sosushchestvovaniye i krisis vneshnepoliticheskoi ideologii imperializma SShA, Moscow, 1965, pp. 173-78.

~^^2^^ R. Strausz-Hupe, W. Kintner, I. Daugherty, A. Cotrell, Protracted Conflict, New York, 1959, pp. 10, 119.

~^^1^^ G. V. Chicherin, Statyi i rechi po voprosam mezhdunarodnoi politiki, pp. 243-44, Moscow, 1961.

~^^2^^ J. Davis, H. B. Hester, On the Brink, New York, 1959, p. 162.

What the two authors are after is to prove that the Soviet Union, rather than certain Western quarters, is opposing the conception of "peaceful coexistence" to the conception of ``co-operation'', although it is well known that the Soviet Union considers peaceful coexistence inconceivable without broad international co-operation and has worked from the first for mutual understanding as a means of securing peaceful coexistence and international co-- operation.^^1^^ In a letter to the Director-General of UNESCO dated December 30, 1955, the Soviet Foreign Ministry pointed out that "the Soviet Government stands for broad international co-operation in the field of cultural exchanges and stronger cultural ties" and that the U.S.S.R. "considers such cooperation to be an important means of reinforcing the peace and creating an atmosphere of international confidence''.

The letter noted that the Soviet Union is participating in UNESCO first and foremost to advance the principal provision of its charter, which stipulates that UNESCO shall promote the goals of international law, general welfare and mutual understanding between peoples by means of greater co-operation between the nations of the whole world in the fields of education, science and culture.

The- Soviet Union believes that UNESCO's part in developing such co-operation should continuously increase, keeping pace with the outstanding scientific and technical achievements.

Experience shows that the tendency to split the world into two dissociated parts originates in the Western countries. Apart from the various restricted politico-military groups and blocs there is the Common Market and other tokens of "European integration" calculated to wall off the states of the two systems.

Some go to the length of contending that co-operation, contacts and commerce between countries of the different social systems add to the war danger. "If we want to remain on a sovereign nation-state basis," writes Emery Reves, "then the only chance of a somewhat longer period without war is to keep the sovereign nation-states as far apart as possible, to reduce contact between them to a minimum and not to bring them together in one organisation where the conflict of their interests will only be intensified.''^^2^^

Reves thinks paradoxically that international co-opera-

1 Cf., Dokumenty vneshnei politiki SSSR, Vol. V, pp. 191-92.

~^^2^^ E. Reves, The Anatomy of Peace, p. 222.

tion, far from eliminating the grounds for conflict, is a source of strife. Some writers go a step farther and urge the capitalist states to break diplomatic relations with the socialist countries. This exposes the "divided world" doctrine for what it really is---a doctrine of the most aggressive imperialist groups and rabid opponents of peaceful coexistence.

What the Soviet Union implies by peaceful coexistence, on the other hand, are broad contacts, continuous co-- operation in the settlement of world problems by negotiation, extensive world-wide commerce and peaceful competition in satisfying the material and spiritual requirements of all.

The experience of history shows that political autarchy by one state, let alone a group of states with a population of 1,000 million, is impossible. Even at times of the greatest alienation between the capitalist countries and the socialist states, contacts continued to exist. If contacts do exist at times of strain, times of normal contacts should obviously see broad co-operation in the handling of problems of mutual interest in the economic, trade, scientific, technical, cultural and other fields of human intercourse.

As a participant in international intercourse, the modern state is obliged to consider and co-ordinate mutual interests and honour the sovereign rights of every other subject of international law.

It is quite wrong to think that the coexistence of the states of the two systems is no more than a cease-fire, a respite of non-violence or absence of war. It is quite wrong to reduce the concept of peaceful coexistence to mere nonaggression. Yet many reactionary United States international law experts are trying to do just this, imputing to the Soviet doctrine the view that peaceful coexistence " implies exclusively the maintenance of peace between the diametrically opposite systems". John Hazard, for example, writes that the Soviet conception of peaceful coexistence connotes "a middle path between open conflict and cold war". In the teeth of the facts, Hazard ascribes to himself and his Western colleagues the credit for expanding " international legal research beyond the previously held narrow conception of coexistence as live and let live".^^1^^ He pretends ignorance of the fact that the Soviet conception of

~^^1^^ J. N. Hazard, "Legal Research on 'Peaceful Coexistence'", American Journal of International Law, Jan. 1957, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 64, 69.

14-3121

peaceful coexistence implies continuous co-operation in securing peace and friendly relations between nations, peoples, states, political leaders and the people at large.

Those American researchers who are honestly eager to clear up the question of co-operation in peaceful coexistence cannot but conclude that "there is little, if any, historical evidence to support the current belief that the United States and the U.S.S.R. cannot co-operate".^^1^^

The more warlike imperialist ideologists, who are the bitterest enemies of peaceful coexistence, are at pains to prove that the international contradictions and disputes between the capitalist and socialist states are insoluble and that negotiations designed to settle the various differences are therefore harmful.

Sociologist Strausz-Hupe is an avowed enemy of peaceful coexistence. High-level talks, he argues, "will not end the conflict between the two opposing social systems", because, he adds, they are no more than ``engagements'' in the "propaganda battle''.

The New York Post quoted Dean Acheson as describing peaceful coexistence as a sterile theory connoting that negotiating with the Russians inevitably means surrender to them, while any easing of tension is a method whereby Moscow hopes to prepare us for burial.

The sombre allegations of the opponents of peaceful coexistence that it is impossible to resolve international disputes peacefully and to negotiate with the Soviet Union are refuted by the facts and by many American statesmen, diplomats and scientists. Chester Bowles, for example, stresses that "a genuine peace can only be achieved by negotiation"^^2^^ and Amitai Etzioni attests that "a politically feasible policy for a peaceful `settling' of inter-bloc conflict exists".^^3^^

Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas proceeds from the existing possibilities in stating that "an overall settlement with Russia" is for the United States a "foremost

need".^^4^^

George F. Kennan scoffs at those who say it is impossible to negotiate with the ``untractable'' Russians. "We Americans," he says, "cannot forever play the part of injured

~^^1^^ J. Davis, H. B. Hester, On the Brink, p. 26.

~^^2^^ Ch. Bowles, The Coming Political Breakthrough, p. 146.

~^^3^^ A. Etzioni, The Hard Way to Peace. A New Strategy, p. 83.

~^^4^^ W. O. Douglas, Democracy's Manifesto, p. 23.

innocence. We have our flaws. We are a nation often angered and easily offended. .. . All that is reprehensible. Nothing is more annoying than unfeeling childishness. This is unquestionably our national deficiency, and we must overcome it.''^^1^^

Thirty years ago President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared that the difficulties in adjusting relations between the Soviet Union and the United States could "be removed only by frank, friendly conversations".^^2^^

Admiral William Leahy, who attended the Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam conferences, noted that "on almost every political problem, after a forceful statement of their views, the Russians had made sufficient concessions for an agreement to be reached".^^3^^

Harry Hopkins, who was prominent as President Roosevelt's adviser, exposed the stand of the opponents of Soviet-American co-operation. "Our Russian policy," he wrote, "must not be dictated by people who have already made up their minds that there is no possibility of working with Russians and that our interests are bound to conflict and ultimately lead to war. From my point of view that is an untenable position and can but lead to disaster.''

True enough. If ever in the past negotiations were either conspicuously absent or unsuccessful, the blame for it lies at the door of bourgeois diplomacy.

``We have assumed," wrote Emmet John Hughes, the onetime adviser of President Eisenhower, "that advance in a political conflict could be achieved by the strange device of retreat from direct diplomatic encounter.''^^4^^

2. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE IMPLIES

RECIPROCAL EFFORTS IN SETTLING INTERNATIONAL

PROBLEMS BY NEGOTIATION

The Soviet Union associates peaceful coexistence with the peaceful settlement of international disputes and negotiation of problems endangering the peace, because a war cannot be prevented once it has begun. The only way to

~^^1^^ G. F. Kennan, Russia, the Atom and the West, New York, 1958, p. 62.

~^^2^^ New York Times, Oct. 21, 1933.

~^^3^^ W. D. Leahy, / Was There, New York, 1950, p. 318.

~^^4^^ E. J. Hughes, America the Vincible, Garden City, New York, 1959, p. 272.

14"

remove the chances of war breaking out is to remove all grounds for international conflict and settle disputes arising between states by peaceful negotiation.

The states of the two systems must meet each other halfway, make mutual concessions in the adjustment of controversial international problems and work for compromise in inter-state relations in order to safeguard peace and deliver mankind from the perils of a thermonuclear war.

Yet these concessions and compromises must not be made at the expense of system or ideology, for peaceful coexistence does not require departure from either the ideology or chosen system. What peaceful coexistence requires is normal, equal, mutually advantageous relations, which naturally calls for mutual concessions and compromises, and consideration for each other's interests. It calls for effort on both sides and for an understanding of the other fellow's point of view.

The compromises and concessions referred to do not imply surrender of ideological positions, or of the system, as many bourgeois propagandists aver. They apply solely to the method of resolving international problems, so that solutions should not prejudice the interests of any of the sides concerned and should be built upon the principle of mutual advantage.

Mutual concessions that invigorate peace and avert wars are a gain for all nations and states. Sensible and reasonable compromises are a gain for both sides. More, they are unavoidable. Only a sensible and patient search of fair solutions acceptable to all can produce standards of international law which all states are able and willing to observe.

It is natural that political, economic, ideological and other disputes arise between states of the two socio-economic systems. But they can be resolved through peaceful talks and the achievement of agreements.

The Soviet leaders stress that the states of the two systems should not accentuate matters in which they have divergent views, and that they should search for those on which their views converge in order to base their relations on them and work for better mutual understanding. In short, they should seek accord in matters in which accord is possible.

The big question is how to reach agreement on controversial issues to the satisfaction of both sides and not excite

the wish of any of the two to sharpen the dispute and thereby create international complications.

This seems to be possible by mutual concessions based on the principles of equality and mutual advantage.

Lester B. Pearson has rightly observed that "the techniques of negotiation are not so important as the desire and will to settle problems by discussion and agreement.''^^1^^ He notes reasonably that if peace is to prevail there must be compromises, tolerance and understanding.

U.S. researcher Cecil V. Crabb bears out the importance of concessions and compromises. "In successful negotiations," Crabb says, "concessions cannot be expected from the other side alone.''^^2^^

Walter Lippmann points out that the time has come for the United States to learn "to live in a world where our own will is not the only law".^^3^^

In a letter to Winston Churchill, President Roosevelt pointed to "the necessity of having the U.S.S.R. as a fully accepted and equal member of any association of the Great Powers formed for the purpose of preventing international war", and added that "it should be possible to accomplish this by adjusting our differences through compromise by all the parties concerned".^^4^^

Co-operation in settling disputes on a basis of equality and mutual advantage is a key factor of peaceful coexistence.

Peaceful coexistence requires international rule of law. It requires stable universally recognised standards of international law adopted by general consent through negotiations and binding on all states.

The old principle, pacta sunt servanda, is now a principle of peaceful coexistence, for it blends best with the principle of justice in international relations. Yet it is fair treaties only, concluded on an equal and mutually advantageous basis, that should be observed. Treaties imposed by imperialists to sustain their colonial system are rightly and legitimately rejected by the Asian, African and Latin Amer-

^^1^^ L. B. Pearson, Diplomacy in the Nuclear Age, Harvard University Press, 1959, p. 49.

~^^2^^ C. V. Crabb, American Foreign Policy in the Nuclear Age. Principles, Problems and Prospects, New York, 1960, p. 207.

~^^3^^ New York Herald Tribune, Jan. 9, 1962, p. 22.

~^^4^^ W. Churchill, The Second World War, Triumph and Tragedy, London, 1953, pp. 215-16.

ican countries, which have flung off the colonial yoke or are in the act of doing so.

The behaviour of states in their mutual intercourse should be governed by such standards as they recognise. A rule which ignores the legitimate interests of other powers cannot be considered a universally accepted standard of international law. Universally accepted standards of international law are standards formulated by mutual consent and with consideration for the mutual interests of the states concerned.

The German problem, which is still hanging fire, shows how much the absence of negotiations and agreements on controversial international issues tends to strain the general situation and imperil world peace. The West German militarists are taking advantage of the situation to exploit the contradictions of the Great Powers and strive to touch off a new world war in the hope of achieving their revengeseeking objectives on the assumption, as Konrad Adenauer put it, that "God has endowed the German people with the special mission of safeguarding the West from the strong influences emanating from the East''.

Rudolf Walter Leonhardt, a West German publicist, put it thus: under Hitler, Germany was declared a bastion against communism, and under Adenauer, a bastion against the East.^^1^^ The difference is only in the name.

Here are a few facts to show that the Bonn Government is seeking revenge and making territorial demands it has no business making.

``In some cases," said Adenauer as far back as 1954, "the Federal Government did not think it necessary to conceal that it does not recognise the Oder-Neisse line as a state border and considers the land beyond this line as part of the German state.''^^2^^

Von Brentano, then Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic, went so far as to support Bonn's revenge-seeking pretensions with references to international law. No doubt should arise in the course of any negotiations, he said, that by dint of international law the territorial limits of Germany are determined by the frontiers of the German Reich as on December 31, 1937, and that the German nation cannot recognise the Oder-Neisse line as either the present or the future border of Germany.

^^1^^ R. W. Leonhardt, X-mal Deutschland, Miinchen, 1961, S. 433.

~^^2^^ Protokole des Bundestages, Oct. 21, 1954, Bonn, S. 150.

What the absence of a peace treaty and encouragement of revanchism can lead to is easily seen. Even Der Spiegel, the West German journal, warned that whoever "demands the restoration of the 1937 frontiers should realise clearly that what he demands ... is the restoration of conditions which impelled the outbreak of the Second World War in this century''.

The governments of the NATO countries are evading a peaceful settlement of the German problem. This was spotlighted by events related to the 20th anniversary of the ending of the Second World War in Europe, particularly by Lyndon Johnson's speech of May 8, 1965, and the AngloFranco-German-American declaration published in May 1965.

What the Defence Ministry of the Bonn Republic wants most is for the Bundeswehr to get nuclear weapons. Der Spiegel believes that this can only mean "that the Bundeswehr wants to be in a position to drag the Americans into a war against their will''.

The U.S. jurist, K. Loewenstein, makes no secret of the fact, for example, that the United States is essentially opposed to a settlement of the German problem, because, he says, the reunification of Germany "may raise more issues than does the present split".^^1^^

The only solution the Bonn Government believes practicable is forcible absorption of the German Democratic Republic and the concomitant abolition in the G.D.R. of the socialist system.

However, no matter what Bonn may wish to the contrary, peaceful coexistence is an existing fact in the relations between states of the two systems. If it hasn't materialised in full measure in the relations of the two German states, this is entirely the fault of the F.R.G. Government, because, as the Government of the German Democratic Republic declared in its paper, The Historical Mission of the German Democratic Republic and the Future of Germany, "peaceful and sensible co-operation and peaceful and sensible coexistence of the two German states is quite possible, despite their different social systems and views''.

``The Soviet Union," says the 23rd C.P.S.U. Congress Resolution, "has always favoured and will continue to favour,

~^^1^^ Current History, Jan. 1960, p. 42.

normal relations with all countries and the settlement of international issues by negotiation, rather than war.''^^1^^

At the same time, the 23rd Congress outlined a broad programme for improving the international situation, consolidating peace and promoting peaceful co-operation among nations. Here are the most important measures set out at the Congress:

end the U.S. aggression in Vietnam, withdraw all U.S. and other foreign troops from South Vietnam and allow the Vietnamese people to decide their internal affairs by themselves; accept the position set forth by the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the national Liberation Front of South Vietnam as a basis for the settlement of the Vietnam problem;

ensure strict adherence to the principle of non-- interference in the internal affairs of states;

conclude an international treaty on the non-- proliferation of nuclear weapons; completely remove the question of the arming of F.R.G. with nuclear weapons in any form; abide by the wish of the peoples and set up nuclearfree zones in various parts of the world;

secure a solemn undertaking of the nuclear powers to refrain from using nuclear weapons first;

reach an agreement on the banning of underground nuclear tests;

take further steps towards the complete prohibition and destruction of nuclear weapons;

continue to look for a peaceful solution of the German problem, this being a cardinal task in ensuring European security, so that the survivals of the Second World War in Europe could be completely eliminated through the recognition of the now existing borders of the European countries, including those of the two German states;

take practical steps in safeguarding European security and developing peaceful mutually advantageous relations among all the European states.^^1^^

A constructive programme which, if implemented, would remove the danger of war in Europe, is set out in the Declaration on Strengthening Peace and Security in Europe issued by the Political Consultative Committee of the Warsaw Treaty countries on July 5, 1966.

The socialist states offered all other countries to develop good-neighbour relations based on the principles of the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems, to act primarily in relieving military tensions, to rule out access of the F.R.G. to nuclear weapons in any form, to recognise the existing frontiers in Europe, accept the fact of two German states---the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany---and convene an all-European conference to discuss European security and all-European co-operation.

The European security programme charted in Bucharest is a realistic approach to lifting war tensions in Europe by disbanding politico-military alliances or, as a first step, dissolving their military organisations, by abolishing foreign military bases on the European continent and taking other measures to remove the threat of war.

Adjustment of such key problems as the U.S. aggression in Vietnam and European security would alter the situation in the world and facilitate other highly important objectives ---termination of the arms race, controlled universal disarmament, etc.

The principle of settling international issues by negotiation acquitted itself splendidly at the Tashkent Conference, convened on the initiative of the Soviet Union in January 1966. Not only did it terminate a major armed conflict be tween India and Pakistan; it laid a good groundwork for friendly relations between the two countries.

The Tashkent Conference epitomised the universal desire of sustaining the principles of international law that are based on good will and designed to settle disputes between states, including the developing Asian and African countries, by peaceful means.

The Tashkent Conference showed once more that ways and means of solving differences between states have got to be looked for patiently and that the developing countries have no friends more dependable than the socialist states.

The principle of the peaceful solution of international disputes can doubtlessly contribute constructively to the adjustment of a major international conflict fraught with great peril for world peace, such as the U.S. war in Vietnam.

The important thing is not to let the aggressor distort this principle by such manoeuvres as, say, putting the Vietnam issue before the Security Council.

Some of the countries (the U.S.S.R., France and others)

^^1^^ 23rd Congress of the C.P.S.U., p. 288.

~^^2^^ Ibid., pp. 55-56.

objected to putting the issue on the Security Council agenda when the U.S. spokesmen asked the United Nations to discuss the situation.

This stand of the countries opposed to the U.S. aggression in Vietnam is wholly understandable. It exposes the aggressor's hypocrisy and thwarts his attempts of veiling the crimes of the U.S. military machine by a Security Council discussion; and is prompted by the wish of finding effective ways to end the aggression and settle the Vietnam problem peacefully.

The United States first launched aggression against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, then complained to the Security Council against the victim of its aggression. It did not approach the Security Council during the many years of its intervention in the affairs of South Vietnam, nor when it landed its Marines in that country, nor when it began bombing the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. When Washington ordered its troops into action in the Dominican Republic, Panama, the Lebanon and other countries, it did not even bother to inform the Security Council about it, although armed force in international relations is not supposed to be employed without the consent of the Security Council.

The objections to putting the U.S. complaint on the Security Council agenda are based on the provisions of the U.N. Charter.

It does not matter that Vietnam, the victim of the aggression, is not a member of the United Nations. What matters is the substance of the conflict and the means best suited to terminate the dirty war and reach a peaceful adjustment of the Vietnam problem.

A Security Council discussion would have been a screen covering the crimes of the U.S. imperialists in Vietnam, and would have delayed and extended the conflict. The Security Council cannot take effective measures of compulsion against the U.S. aggressor, because the United States, a permament member of it, has veto power, whereby it can frustrate compulsory measures against itself.

How, then, can victim of an aggression expect assistance from the U.N. in accordance with the U.N. Charter?

According to Article 51 of the U.N. Charter nothing shall impair the inherent right of an individual or collective to self-defence in the event of an armed attack until the Security Council has taken the necessary measures against

the aggressor to maintain international peace. Since the Security Council is unable to take any compulsive action against the United States, which would be sure to veto such action, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam may obtain assistance from friendly countries and combat the U.S. aggressor in self-defence until it drives him out of Vietnam. The Statement on Vietnam of the 23rd Congress of the C.P.S.U. contains a firm warning to that effect. "In escalating the disgraceful war against the people of Vietnam," it says, "the aggressors will meet with increasing support of Vietnam by the Soviet Union and other fraternal socialist countries.''^^1^^

The Warsaw Treaty countries reasserted this stand at their Bucharest Conference in July 1966. Since it is the ideal of the U.N. Charter to take effective compulsive measures against the aggressor, rather than indulge in fruitless discussion, the objections to the U.S. complaint being discussed by the Security Council conforms with the U.N. Charter.

What procedure does the U.N. Charter envisage for the peaceful solution of the Vietnam conflict?

According to Clause 3 of Article 2 and to Article 33 of the U.N. Charter the parties to a dispute must solve it by peaceful means "of their own choice"---negotiation, mediation, inquiry, etc. On the strength of Article 36, the Security Council may "recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment" but "must take into consideration any procedures" which "have already been adopted by the parties''.

As we know, such procedures have already been adopted by the parties at the 1954 Geneva Conference, which defined the appropriate methods of adjusting the Vietnam problem in agreements.

The Security Council is not competent, therefore, to alter the procedure laid down for a peaceful settlement in the 1954 Geneva Agreements on Indochina.

3. OBSERVANCE OF INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS IS A NECESSARY ASPECT OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE

Peaceful coexistence implies that the only way to settle controversial international disputes is the peaceful way.

~^^1^^ 23rd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, p. 427.

This is provided for in the U.N. Charter, which says that "parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice" (Article 33).

Among the principles listed in Article 2 of the U.N. Charter is one which stresses that "all members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, and security, and justice, are not endangered''.

Another important purpose of the United Nations is to "bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace" (Art. 1, Cl. 1).

These provisions stipulate that all disputes shall be resolved in conformance with the principles of justice and international law geared to the legitimate interest of all and to the principle of mutual advantage. This, too, is part of the concept of peaceful coexistence, for no international treaty or agreement can be enduring and stable, unless it is based on equality, justice and mutual advantage.

Toeing the line as regards one's obligations, as the U.N. Charter prescribes, has an essential bearing on the principles of peaceful coexistence.

The facts bear out that the Soviet Union has from the very beginning scrupulously honoured its international obligations.

It has never gone back on any of its international undertakings, let alone its economic, financial and commercial commitments.

The U.S.S.R. has never failed its allies under treaties of mutual assistance against aggression, as its stand against the Japanese attacks on Mongolia before the Second World War amply demonstrates.

As a member of the League of Nations, the Soviet Union was very nearly the only country to apply economic sanctions against fascist Italy in connection with the latter's aggression against Ethiopia.

Committed to mutual aid under the 1935 Treaty with Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union worked diligently to avert the nazi aggression against that country and was ready to

rush armed help to the Czechs, but was prevented from doing so by the ruling circles of Czechoslovakia, France and Britain.

Despite the United States and Britain breaking their promise of opening the second front in Europe in 1942, the Soviet Union fulfilled all its wartime obligations faithfully, not short of declaring war on imperialist Japan.

``The Russians were magnificent allies," wrote Henry Stimson, former U.S. Defence Secretary. "They fought as they promised, and they made no separate peace.''^^1^^

Even Churchill admitted in a speech at the House of Commons on February 27, 1945, that he knew of "no government which stands to its obligations, even in its own loss, more solidly than the Russian Soviet Government". In a letter to the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R., Churchill said the Soviet Union "had never broken an engagement or treaty".^^2^^

Yet the opponents of peaceful coexistence sing the same old song about the West being ill-advised to negotiate with the Soviet Union, because any agreement that may result would be so much labour lost due to the Soviet Union's never honouring international treaties and obligations. A special Stanford University research group under R. M. Slusser and J. F. Tviska went out of their way to prove that the Soviet Union went back on all its treaties with other countries. But they failed, and were compelled to admit their error in the American Journal of International Law after their effort was exposed by Professor S. B. Krylov in the Izvestia.

It is the United States that frequently violates its commitments. This was the case with the jointly adopted Potsdam Agreements and the 1954 Geneva Agreements on Vietnam. Its conduct is incompatible with the idea of peaceful coexistence and co-operation between the two systems, let alone the principle of the sanctity of international treaties (pacta sunt servanda).

``Fulfilment of understandings, agreements and treaties among nations is the basis of international order," said

~^^1^^ H. Stimson, M. Bundy, On Active Service in Peace and War, New York, 1947, p. 527.

~^^2^^ Correspondence Between the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. and the Presidents of the U.S.A. and the Prime Ministers of Great Britain During the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945, Vol. I, Moscow, 1957, p. 90.

former U.S. State Secretary Cordell Hull. Western statesmen pay lip service to this principle, but often violate their obligations. To clear themselves of blame, they frequently invoke the proposition that a treaty is valid so long as the conditions and circumstances that prevailed at the time of signing remain unchanged.

Yet this reservation is never valid, save in such extraordinary cases when the further exercise of a treaty may prejudice the territorial integrity or political independence of the signatory, or when it contains unfair, unequal or forcibly imposed stipulations.

The London Declaration of January 17, 1871, reaffirmed by the Council of the League of Nations in 1935, prohibits arbitrary reference to this reservation in violating international commitments, because systematic non-observance of such commitments would make international law impossible to apply and the peaceful negotiation of disputes senseless.

It is a postulate of international law that states negotiate and conclude agreements not only when disputes jeopardising peace arise between them. Agreements are a necessary factor of international co-operation and friendly international relations. This follows from the Charter of the United Nations, whose principal purpose it is "to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples''.

4. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE IMPLIES INTERNATIONAL

DIVISION OF LABOUR TO THE BEST ADVANTAGE OF

ALL CONCERNED. DIFFERENCES IN IDEOLOGY ARE

NO BARRIER TO INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Broad international trade provides firm ground for peaceful coexistence. The idea of commerce between countries of different systems has won world recognition and its benefits have long since been borne out by practice.

The Cannes Conference of 1922 recognised that "every country ... is entitled to choose for itself the system it prefers",^^1^^ that all nations must refrain from propaganda aimed at "deposing the order and political system established in other countries" and that "all states must jointly undertake to refrain from any and all hostile actions against their neighbours''.

Chicherin observed that "the well-known Cannes Resolution proclaimed the equality of the two economic systems in their mutual relations. The Soviet Government welcomed this principle and accepted it as the basis of its international policy and its economic relations with the capitalist world. As for the latter, it confined itself to proclaiming the principle, but is not carrying it into practice. The two economic systems are unable to reach agreement, because the capitalist system lays claim to world domination.''^^1^^

The 1927 Geneva Economic Conference, too, after recognising the coexistence of the two different systems, put on record the principle of "peaceful commercial cooperation among all nations".^^2^^

Ever since 1922 economic relations between the Soviet Union and, later, all the socialist countries, on the one hand, and the capitalist countries, on the other, have figured prominently in contemporary international relations. Despite the resistance of certain imperialist quarters, trade has been expanding year after year.

The broader the economic and commercial relations between states are, the less chance there will be of a nuclearmissile war breaking out between them.

Lenin stressed time and again the importance of economic contacts and commerce as the material basis of the peaceful coexistence of the two systems., "Without definite relations between us and the capitalist countries," he said, "we cannot have stable economic relations. Events very clearly show that neither can the capitalist countries have them.''^^3^^

Normal relations governed by international law, even between countries of the same system, serve as an important guarantee of stable economic and commercial relations. So normal diplomatic and international relations are doubly important for the development of economic and commercial contacts between states of the two opposite socio-economic systems.

Economic contacts are what makes the opponents of peaceful coexistence consent to normal diplomatic and juridical relations with countries of the other system. This was demonstrated back in 1918-20, at the time of the blockade of Soviet Russia. "It is an open question as to who suffers

~^^1^^ G. V. Chicherin, op. cit., p. 264.

~^^2^^ See N. N. Lyubimov, Mezhdunarodniye ekonomicheskiye otnosheniya, Izdatelstvo IMO, 1957, p. 308.

~^^3^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 151.

^^1^^ Dokumenty vneshnei politiki SSSR, Vol. V, p. 58.

from it most," Lenin observed, "the blockaded or the blockaders.''^^1^^

The stand of the imperialist groups who attempted to scuttle peaceful coexistence, proved untenable from the start. Lenin noted in 1921 that there is a "force more powerful than the wishes, the will and the decisions of any of the governments or classes that are hostile to us. That force is world general economic relations, which compel them to make contact with us.''^^2^^

At the 1922 Genoa Conference the Soviet delegation suggested that the capitalist countries embark on peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Republic. "In the present historical epoch," the Soviet spokesman said, "which makes possible the simultaneous existence of the old and the burgeoning new socialist system, economic co-operation between states representing these two property systems is insistently necessary for universal economic rehabilitation.''

The terms of peaceful coexistence defined by the Soviet side were "reciprocity, equality and full, unqualified recognition.''^^3^^

In 1933 the Soviet Union proposed at an international economic conference that the countries represented there conclude a convention on economic non-aggression and the development of economic and commercial relations.

After the Second World War the Soviet Union repeatedly suggested a world-wide economic conference.

A. Masnata, a Swiss economist, stresses that international treaties and agreements promote international economic contacts in a world of "different politico-economic systems" and that the existing foreign trade monopoly in the communist countries does not stand in the way of such trade.⁴ The facts refute the bourgeois leaders who cast doubt on broad and free international trade because of the foreign trade monopoly established in the socialist countries.

The Soviet Union, preoccupied with the building of communism, has a big stake in dependable and enduring peace, and in the development of all-round economic, technical and commercial contacts with all countries.

The enemies of peaceful coexistence call for an economic blockade of the U.S.S.R. They want the Soviet Union ousted from the world markets in the hope that the "free world's co-ordinated, implacable efforts can grind the Soviet revolutionary dynamism to a halt and dull the glamour of the Leninist system".^^1^^ When the war was over, the United States enacted a special bill banning trade with the Soviet Union in a number of commodities and levied duties on some Soviet goods that were three or four times higher than the duties on the same goods imported from other countries.

The fronton of the U.S. Department of Commerce building bears the legend, "Equal and fair trade is the purpose of the U.S.A.". U.S. businessmen say their motto is "world peace through world trade". But where trade with the socialist countries is concerned, the U.S. Government raises impediments to U.S. businessmen and commercial firms of other countries. Take trade with- Cuba. By exerting pressure on the governments of other countries, the United States is "resorting to economic imperialism", say researchers Davis and Hester.

West German leaders pay lip service to the principle of "free trade", which they describe as the "practical foundation of a world trade policy required by Germany, an industrial exporter country",^^2^^ but in effect they often hinder businessmen from so much as fulfilling contracts already signed with the Soviet Union. In 1963, for example, the West German Government, acting on the instructions of the U.S. Government, prohibited the sale to the Soviet Union of gas and oil-pipes.

Hans Moller, University of Munich economics professor, suggested using international economic organisations for collective actions, that is, for an economic aggression against the socialist countries.^^3^^

By developing commerce, mankind reaps the advantages of the international division of labour and the specialisation of production developed in past centuries. Besides, there are the benefits yielded by the socialist international division of labour and the socialist world market, which

' R. Strausz-Hupe, W. R. Kintner, S. T. Possony, A Forward Strategy for America, p. 209.

~^^2^^ L. Erhard, Deutschlands Ruckkher zum Weltmarkt, Dusseldorf, 1953, S. 9.

~^^3^^ H. Moller, Internationale Wirtschaftsorganisationen, Weisbaden, 1961, S. 119.

~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 152.

~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 155.

~^^3^^ Dokumenty vneshnei politiki SSSR, Vol. V, pp. 191-92.

~^^4^^ A. Masnata, Les Echanges Internationaux du XX Siecle, Geneve, 1961, pp. 187-88.

15-3121

emerged after the Second World War hand in hand with the socialist community.

There were different periods in the relations between the Soviet Union and the capitalist countries. There were times of strain and times of normal relations. Yet commercial contacts never ceased. They expanded or shrank somewhat, and even stopped almost entirely in the case of some countries, while increasing in the case of others. Today, they have attained considerable dimensions. Admittedly, a large portion of Soviet foreign trade goes to the countries of the socialist system and the economically developing states (in the last decade or so), but the trend in Soviet trading with the capitalist countries, too, particularly Britain, France, Finland and Japan, is a rising one to the mutual advantage of all concerned.

The Soviet Union has always treated foreign trade as an important factor and a component of the peaceful coexistence of states.

Big Soviet orders go to the Western powers, tending to reduce unemployment there and to promote the living standard of a large section of their population. Time and again, the Soviet Union offered large long-term orders to capitalist industries on the basis of non-governmental credits at a standard international rate of interest. This would be mutually advantageous.

The importance of international trade as a component of the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems is appreciated by many Western leaders and researchers. The prominent French economist, F. Francois Perroux, advocates lasting economic and commercial bonds in order to "shift the competition from the military sphere to the purely economic".^^1^^

Many Western leaders understand the futility of economic blockades and trade discrimination often employed by imperialist groups against the socialist countries. The West German economist, Christian W. Hauck, for one, observed that "the development and growth of the Soviet economy cannot be stopped by not selling it any machines".^^2^^ It is fitting to recall at this point that on September 23, 1919, in

a letter to the American workers, Lenin commended the Americans who opposed the war against Russia and expected the socialist state to resume and extend its commercial and other peaceful relations once peace was restored. Lenin voiced his firm belief in a "lasting peace between socialist Russia and the capitalist world" throughout the time when socialist and capitalist states existed side by side. Mutually advantageous trade, he pointed out, was one of the key factors of an enduring and dependable peace.

The U.N. Conference on Trade and Development, which convened in Geneva in 1964, was a big success for the policy of peaceful coexistence. The Soviet Union was one of the promoters of the Conference and the establishment of a new international trade organisation, eager to make international commerce and co-operation a powerful stimulant of economic and social progress and an effective instrument for mutual understanding and world peace. N. S. Patolichev, the Foreign Trade Minister of the U.S.S.R., told the Geneva Conference in March 1964 that Soviet trade had climbed in 1963 to over $14,000 million and surpassed nearly twelve-fold the physical volume of his country's pre-war trade.

The Geneva Conference established the general principles that "there shall be no discrimination on the basis of differences in socio-economic systems"; the trading methods must accord with this principle. The Conference proclaimed that "economic development and social progress should be the common concern of the whole international community and should by increasing economic prosperity and well-- being help strengthen peaceful relations and co-operation among nations".^^1^^

Soviet trade with the capitalist countries, notably Finland, France, Italy, Japan, Britain and Sweden, has increased by more than 50 per cent between 1961 and 1965.

The economic relations of the Soviet Union have grown into a major international factor furthering the struggle for peace and social progress.

The Soviet Union devotes much of its effort to expanding its commercial and economic ties. It believes that such ties are consistent with the national interests of the various countries and that they promote an easing of world tensions. Current scientific and technical progress, too, calls for broad international intercourse, for more active participation in

~^^1^^ F. Perroux, La coexistence pacifique, Paris, 1958, Vol. I, p. 20.

~^^2^^ Ch. W. Hauck, Kapitalismus im Kreuzverhor, Heidelberg, 1961, S.

49, 50. 226

Yearbook of the United Nations, 1964, pp. 198, 199.

is*

world trade, and in international scientific, technical and cultural projects.

In 1965, the Soviet Union signed a protocol on expanding its trade with Japan, which topped the list of the developed capitalist countries trading with the Soviet Union. Already in 1965 trade with Japan amounted to more than $333 million, and an understanding was reached to conclude a new long-term agreement for 1966-70.

An agreement was also concluded with France that year, providing for a considerable expansion of trade in 1965-70.

Considerable headway has been made in expanding commercial and economic relations with Britain and Italy. A good example is Soviet co-operation with FIAT in building a passenger car plant in the Soviet Union.

A number of major capitalist countries have realised that better opportunities for expanding trade with the Soviet Union are provided by long-term agreements which the two sides can take into account in their economic development programmes.

Soviet economic co-operation with independent Asian, African and Latin American countries strengthens their economies and contributes significantly to peace and the right of nations to freedom and independent development.

Through economic co-operation the Soviet Union helps developing countries to build up major national industries, train technical and scientific personnel and expand their foreign trade. As for the Soviet Union, it benefits from the international division of labour by purchasing the traditional commodities of developing countries, such as cotton, wool, raw hides, dressed non-ferrous ores, vegetable oil, fruit, coffee, cocoa-beans, tea and other raw materials, as well as ready-made goods.

In future commerce with the developing countries will increase considerably by virtue of their structural changes and economic advances and their consequently greater demand for machinery and equipment.

The Soviet Union is planning to improve the commodity structure of its foreign trade, to better the quality of its exports, to streamline trading methods, to make better use of imported commodities and to greatly expand sales abroad. Priority export of machinery, equipment and other readymade goods is envisaged, and export of various raw materials, semi-finished goods and materials is contemplated.

The Soviet merchant fleet, whose tonnage is growing steadily, is highly prominent in the development of Soviet foreign trade. The tonnage of the world fleet has increased 89 per cent in the past 15 years, while that of the Soviet fleet increased 320 per cent. It is estimated that in the coming five years the world fleet will increase by 20-25 per cent, while the Soviet fleet will increase 50 per cent.

The establishment of an international shipping body by the U.N. Council for Trade and Development will facilitate broad solutions of the many maritime problems, including the commercial relationships of shipowners and shippers.

For all this, commercial relations between the West and the Soviet Union are still entrammelled by artificial restrictions. In some countries higher duties are still being imposed on Soviet goods.

The United States are trying to impede the development of Soviet foreign trade.

Yet sentiment is running high among U.S. businessmen in favour of bigger trade with the Soviet Union. David Rockefeller, President of the Chase Manhattan Bank, for example, called on the U.S. Government to give serious thought to expanding East-West trade.

This sentiment has evidently reached the White House, because in one of his recent messages President Johnson said if the two countries want to live in peace, they must know each other better, and that the best way to this end is peaceful, mutually advantageous trade.

However, President Johnson's numerous pronouncements on this score are not being backed up by practical steps.

Acknowledging the "distinct interest" the 23rd Congress of the C.P.S.U. showed in expanding Soviet-American trade, the New York Times (Apr. 8, 1966) noted that it would be a good thing if this interest were to prompt President Johnson to exert pressure on Congress in order to amend some of the pertinent laws. The President has often said that he wants greater East-West trade, the paper continued, but has made no practical effort so far to relax the existing restrictions.

It was not until 1967 that America's ruling circles, yielding to public pressure and afraid of falling behind the other Great Powers in trading with the Soviet Union, lifted the restrictions on several hundred commodities whose sale to the Soviet Union had been previously banned. They also signed an agreement setting up a direct air link between

Moscow and New York. After long procrastination the United States Senate finally ratified the Soviet-American Consular Convention.

heads of government are highly important for international rapport and the resolution of controversial issues in a spirit of mutual understanding and realism. Mutual understanding of statesmen is an important avenue for closer relations between the states of the two systems. Many meetings and patient efforts fired by a mutual desire to improve relations are necessary to achieve such understanding and secure peaceful coexistence.

Yet American diplomacy, says Emmet Hughes, a one-time presidential adviser, "earnestly insisted upon the minimum of political and diplomatic contact''.

It was not the socialist countries that erected the "iron curtain". It was the capitalist countries. Erich Fromm points out that the Western propaganda machine goes out of its way to picture "the West as the fighter for good, for freedom, and for humanity, and . . . communism as the enemy of all that is human and decent". It is not surprising therefore that, lacking the right perspective in their conception of communism, "most Americans take for granted a number of the cliches such as that the Russians want to conquer the world for revolutionary communism, that because they do not believe in God they have no concept of morality".. . -^^1^^

What the United States must do, wrote Davis and Hester. is to seek security in mutual understanding, cultural exchanges, international co-operation and the use of American economic resources for creating better living conditions throughout the world.

Who is it that erected the iron curtain? Who is it that dreads peaceful economic competition? Who is it that fears progressive ideas?

To answer these questions we need but look at the facts and the utterances quoted above to see that it is the recationary Western groups. On August 25, 1957, the United Press confessed that the Soviet Union was campaigning intensively for an expansion of tourist, technical, scientific and other contacts with the Western world.

In the last few years, the Soviet Union has been visited by many prominent statesmen, public leaders, Congressmen, businessmen, industrialists, farmers and hundreds of thousands of people of all walks of life from the United States, Britain and other capitalist countries. All of them had ample opportunity to see that the Soviet people want peace, thai

5. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE IMPLIES BROAD INTERNATIONAL CONTACTS TO FORTIFY FRIENDSHIP, CONFIDENCE AND • CO-OPERATION

Contacts between peoples, statesmen and political and business leaders, and broader international economic, cultural, scientific, technical and other co-operation, promote sounder international relations and peaceful coexistence. This has prompted the Soviet Union to make contacts with the leaders of other countries a major element of Soviet foreign policy.

Inter-parliamentary contacts have increased greatly. Parliamentary delegations of more than 60 countries have visited the Soviet Union in the past few years, and delegations of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. have gone to more than 40 countries. The Soviet Union maintains cultural contacts with more than 100 countries. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. outlines measures designed to "expand the Soviet Union's cultural relations with the countries of the socialist system and with all other countries for the purpose of exchanging scientific and cultural achievements and of bringing about mutual understanding and friendship among the peoples".^^1^^

The importance of mutual contacts has also been underscored by many Western political leaders. Harold Macmillan, ex-Prime Minister of Britain, told the students of Moscow University on February 23, 1959, that "many of the troubles in the world stem from a lack of understanding and the absence of knowledge about each other". Yet the ruling quarters of some capitalist countries have instituted barriers restricting contacts between the peoples of their countries and those of the socialist states. The French Figaro admitted that normal relations require of both worlds that they should "know each other such as they are and not such as they are pictured to be under emotional stress or the stress of ideology''.

Periodical meetings and conferences of West and East

The Road to Communism, pp. 578-79.

E. Fromm, May Man Prevail?, pp. 23, 27.

they want peaceful coexistence with all nations, and broader economic and other mutually advantageous contacts.

Contacts need not be confined to political leaders and business people. They may extend to public organisations, to scientific, technical and cultural workers.

International cultural and scientific co-operation furthers scientific and social progress and promotes peace and closer relations among nations.

Expansion of cultural contacts with other countries is one of the tasks set by the Programme of the C.P.S.U. and the 23rd Congress.

Soviet international cultural and scientific relations are very broad. In 1966, they existed with more than 100 countries, including 57 based on inter-governmental agreements. Their forms are very diverse, embracing exchanges of professors and students, scientific co-operation, joint work by medical workers, demonstrations of works of art and literature, tours of actors and other performers, exchanges of films, sports contests, tourism, friendly contacts between towns, etc. Such contacts mutually enrich national culture, promote greater and better mutual understanding and strengthen peace.

Soviet cultural and scientific relations with capitalist countries are designed to extend mutual understanding, consolidate peace and promote mutually beneficial exchanges of scientific and cultural achievements. Soviet contacts with Italy, Japan and Britain are highly effective, and notably so with France.

Soviet-French contacts in the field of art and literature, the cinema, radio and television, are widening all the time. A Soviet-French protocol on cultural, scientific and technical relations for 1965-66 was concluded in May 1965. It envisaged greater scientific exchanges, mutual visits and joint research by scientists, participation in colloquiums, conferences and congresses on technical, agricultural, medical and educational matters. Broad contacts are planned in the fields of radio broadcasting, television, cinema, art and sports. The agreement on the joint development of colour television based on the CECAM system with the subsequent use of artificial Earth satellites is striking evidence of how Soviet-French co-operation is expanding.

During General de Gaulle's visit to Moscow the Foreign Ministers of the Soviet Union and France concluded an agreement on co-operation in exploring outer space for

peaceful purposes and another agreement on scientific, technical and economic co-operation, which will promote greater exchanges between the two countries in science and technology, especially the most advanced fields.

The contacts of the Soviet and French scientists and researchers have multiplied and become more fruitful. Good results have been registered in Soviet-French co-operation in the peaceful use of atomic energy. Plans have been endorsed to extend the joint research, particularly in highenergy physics.

In order to strengthen mutual confidence and extend the points of contact and co-operation between France and the Soviet Union, the two governments have agreed to continue regular consultations.

Soviet scientists are eager to co-operate with other countries, too, on the vital problems of our time, including the study of the oceans and the Earth's upper mantle, in biological, seismic and other programmes, and in the study of cancer, virus diseases and cardio-vascular complaints.

The Soviet Union wishes to benefit from the foremost scientific and technical achievements of other countries and to develop international technical co-operation.

In the cultural and scientific fields, the Soviet Union is helping the peoples fighting for national and social emancipation, and the young developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America to solve such vitally important problems as the elimination of illiteracy, the training of national personnel, the battle against mass diseases, etc.

More than 100 educational and medical institutions, research centres and sports projects have been built, or are in the building stage, with Soviet assistance, in Asian and African countries. Among these are a polytechnical institute in Guinea, an oil institute in Algeria, a technological institute in Rangoon, a hospital in Pnom-Penh, etc. Soviet teachers, doctors and specialists in various fields of science, art and sports, are employed in 28 countries of these two continents. Thousands of young men and women from Asia, Africa and Latin America are being trained in the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union considers international tourism an important avenue for strengthening peace, mutual understanding and good-neighbour relations, which makes it a factor of peaceful coexistence. Soviet people have always cordially received foreign visitors, attracted to the Soviet

Union by its grand socialist accomplishments, the treasures of Russian and Soviet culture, the fine monuments of the past and the striking variety of climates, which extend the Soviet tourist season to twelve months a year.

A Department for Foreign Tourism has been established by the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. in April 1964 with the object of expanding international contacts.

The other socialist countries, too, are promoting international tourism.

The European socialist countries have become one of the principal tourist areas of the world, second only to the Mediterranean.

Chapter Seven

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE

1. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE IS AN INTERNATIONAL LAW IN ACTION

The relation of peaceful coexistence to international law is an important point of our study. Attempts at drawing a line between peaceful coexistence and contemporary international law are rooted in misconception, failure to grasp the substance of peaceful coexistence, or deliberate falsehood.

Edward McWhinney says the Soviet Union's attitude to "traditional international law" is essentially "hostile and defensive", while E. R. Goodman accuses Soviet diplomacy of using international law to furthering "Soviet world domination". In Hazard's opinion, codification of peaceful coexistence amounts to repatterning "the body of international law along Soviet lines".^^1^^

Boris Meissner, too, alleges that its pursuit of peaceful coexistence notwithstanding the U.S.S.R. is liable to spurn rule of international law at times of the tidal waves of revolution.^^2^^

Yet, Soviet doctrine and practice proceed from the postulate that peaceful coexistence is inconceivable \vithout rule of international law. The Soviet Union has always championed rule of law, although the imperialists cast doubt on this fact in order to divert public attention from their own frequent transgressions against international law.

~^^1^^ E. McWhinney, "Le concept sovietique de 'coexistence pacifique' et les rapports juridiques entre L'URSS et les Etats occidentaux", Revue Generate de Droit International Public, No. 3, 1963, p. 555; E. R. Goodman, The Soviet Design for a World State, p. 410; W. Kulski, Peaceful Coexistence. An Analysis of Soviet Foreign Policy, Chicago, 1959, p. 133; J. N. Hazard, "The Sixth Committee and New Law", "Co-existence Codification Reconsidered", American Journal of International Law, Vol. 57, pp. 89, 606.

~^^2^^ B. Meissner, op. cit., p. 14.

To camouflage his own nihilism in relation to international law, McWhinney takes the liberty of speaking on behalf of the Soviet doctrine in proclaiming as "patently heretical in the sense of being un-Marxist ... the existence of a common international law that is supposed to be binding on capitalist and communist states.''^^1^^

He describes as a failure the "Soviet attempt to explain how international law could simultaneously serve both capitalist and communist states"^^2^^ and suggests framing a custom-based ``inter-bloc'' international law under which relations between countries of the two systems would not be governed by "any formal, written accords", as distinct from international law.^^3^^

McWhinney makes no bones about defining ``inter-bloc'' international law as the "minimum rules of the game" of cold war.^^4^^

It is not mere ignorance that lies behind the distortions of the Soviet conception of international law. All too often it is the aversion of West European and American writers to peaceful coexistence and rule of law.

There is no earthly reason to counterpose peaceful coexistence and international law. From the standpoint of the Soviet doctrine, peaceful coexistence is modern international law in action.

At no time have the socialist states counterposed peaceful coexistence to international law. By working for peaceful coexistence they are, in effect, working for the observance by all states of the universally recognised standards of contemporary international law.

A. Verdross is mistaken in saying the socialist revolution in Russia swept overboard the "various assets" of international law and squashed the evolution of "the Christian European international law into universal international law.''^^5^^

What the October Revolution swept overboard were not the ``assets'' of international law, but those imperialist institutions and standards that were inconsistent with genuinely democratic international law. It struck out the

``right" of waging wars of conquest, making colonial seizures and concluding unequal treaties.

Some self-styled experts claim that the problem of peaceful coexistence arose after the Second World War. But it was as far back as 1926 that Professor A. Sabanin, a prominent exponent of the Soviet doctrine of international law, formulated the task of "working out the legal standards of coexistence with the capitalist world''.

By blaming the Soviet Union for the alleged absence of a legal basis of peaceful coexistence, the apologists of imperialism want to justify their own negative attitude towards the policy of peace and peaceful coexistence.

With this in view the imperialist spokesmen, from top statesmen and diplomats to the various writers and hacks, dig into Marxism-Leninism and come forth with crude misstatements of the facts. They quote Marxism out of context to ``prove'' that the Soviet state "denies the binding nature of international law". Yet if they took the trouble to look up the early Soviet decrees they would see that Soviet legislation, particularly that referring to international affairs, proceeds from the basic idea of international law being a vehicle of relations between equal states.

Even in its early notes, the Soviet Union called for fidelity to elementary international custom, the universally recognised standards of international law", "the usually recognised rules, the most elementary and universally accepted norms of international law and the universally accepted standards and customs of the law of nations. Many Soviet notes and statements point out that peaceful coexistence is inconceivable without the observance of international law and that the Soviet Union has always honoured international law.

The official Soviet view on the importance of international law to peaceful coexistence accords to the latter with the modern concept of legal order and the role ascribed to international law by the United Nations.

The importance of international law was reasserted for the n^th time in the General Assembly Resolution of December 12, 1960, which said that "in view of the conditions prevailing in the world at the present time the role of international law and its precise and undeviating observance by all governments has grown considerably in reinforcing international peace, developing friendly relations and cooperation among all nations, settling disputes by peaceful

~^^1^^ E. McWhinney, op. cit., p. 39.

~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 47.

~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 92.

~^^4^^ Ibid., pp. 115-16.

~^^5^^ A. Verdross, Volkerrecht, Wien, 1959, S. 43.

means and promoting the economic and social progress of all peoples''.

The Resolution referred in this connection to earlier resolutions, passed on December 14, 1957 and December 10, 1958, which endeavoured to define the basic principles of peaceful coexistence precisely by reason of the "conditions prevailing at present in the world''.

The states of the world socialist system work hand in hand with the new Asian and African states and the neutral states of Europe to implant in international usage the principles of peaceful coexistence, which are the core of modern international law.

The U.N. General Assembly deemed it necessary to review the programme of the International Law Commission "in the light of the latest changes in international law" with due emphasis on "encouraging peaceful relations and co-- operation between states''.

Bourgeois political and legal literature often contends that the Soviet doctrine of international law denies the possibility of a universal international law to regulate relations between the capitalist and socialist states, equally binding on both.

Soviet international practice belies these inventions. So do recorded statements of leading Soviet statesmen and legal experts.^^1^^ The first sitting of the Soviet International Law Association, too, upset the bourgeois charges. "The most fruitful factor from the standpoint of peaceful coexistence as a principle of international law," said Korovin, "is its development into a universally recognised principle of modern international law.''

The fact that only universally recognised principles and standards come under the head of modern international law was stressed by F. I. Kozhevnikov in a special report, while V. Koretsky noted that the fight for the progressive, dem-

ocratic development of international law must proceed "under the banner of the principles of peaceful coexistence".^^1^^

I. Blishchenko and V. Durdenevsky pointed out that "modern international law was one of the means of preventing wars" and that this applied "in particular to the standards of diplomatic and consular law, which facilitate mutual understanding and juridically gurantee peaceful relations and peaceful coexistence between states.''^^2^^

``The role of peaceful coexistence in the shaping of the standards of modern international law is so great," stressed N. Minasyan, "that its common principles and standards take shape in our time only by the consent of countries of the two systems, the socialist and the capitalist, that is, on the basis of their peaceful coexistence.''^^3^^

R. Bobrov described peaceful coexistence as "the central principle of modern common international law". He argued that "the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems is the principal regularity of contemporary international affairs and consequently the key objective foundation of the international law of the epoch of transition from capitalism to socialism". G. Sharmazanashvili inferred that "modern common international law is a law of peace and the peaceful coexistence of states and nations".^^4^^

All manuals on international law, edited by F. I. Kozhevnikov, which the Ministry of Higher Education of the U.S.S.R. has approved for use at law schools, refute the specious contention that Soviet doctrine denies peaceful coexistence and international law.^^5^^

As for the new Soviet Treatises in International Law, published in 1964 and 1966, they say Soviet jurists proceed from the fact that modern international law expresses the historical reality and objective necessity of the peaceful coexistence of the two, socialist and capitalist, world systems of states, whose peoples are ultimately the determinative factor in the province of international law. A spe-

~^^1^^ I. P. Blishchenko, "Priroda mezhdunarodnogo prava nashego vremeni i borba dvukh sistem", (Voprosy filosofii, 1965, No. 1, pp. 28-36); M. Y. Rapoport, "Osnovniye printsipy mirnogo sosushchestvovaniya gosudarstv---kriteri sovremennoi mezhdunarodnoi zakonnosti", (Izvestia vysshykh uchebnykh zavedeni. Pravovedeniye, Leningrad, 1960, No. 4, pp. 89-99); M. K. Korostarenko, "Leninizm o mirnom sosushchestvovanii (Vestnik Kievskogo Universiteta, No. 3, Kiev, 1960); G. B. Starushenko, "Mirnoye sosushchestvovanie i revolutsiya" (Kommunist, 1962, No. 2, pp. 78-89).

~^^1^^ V. M. Koretsky, Deklaratsiya prav i obyazannostei gosudarstv, Kiev, 1962, p. 1.

~^^2^^ I. P. Blishchenko, V. N. Durdenevsky, Diplomaticheskoye i konsulskoye pravo, IMO, 1962, p. 6.

~^^3^^ N. M. Minasyan, Sushchnost sovremennogo mezhdunarodnogo prava, 1959, Rostov-on-Don, 1962, p. 170.

~^^4^^ R. L. Bobrov, Sovremennoye mezhdunarodnoye pravo, p. 79; G. V. Sharmazanashvili, Pravo mira, Tbilisi, 1962, p. 144.

~^^5^^ International Law (A textbook for use in law schools), ed. by F. I. Kozhevnikov, Moscow, 1961, pp. 3, 7, 16, 13, 23, 72.

cial chapters and other sections in these new Treatises showing that peaceful co'existence is the cornerstone of modern, international law, were contributed by this author.^^1^^

2. THE NIHILISTS OF MODERN INTERNATIONAL LAW

None of the Soviet writers has ever denied the importance of international law for peaceful coexistence. Many Western writers have. These nihilists of international law make allusions to a crisis, a break into Western and Soviet international law, or into regional and particular systems of law "with no international legal rules to govern the actions of states across the frontiers of the various systems".^^2^^

P.E. Corbett, an American jurist, is the most outspoken of all. He maintains that governments will never practise any universal international law, no matter how vigorously they may profess "allegiance to such law".^^3^^

Professor D. Levin, a Soviet jurist who has written a number of papers on the theory and history of the bourgeois doctrine of international law, arrives at the conclusion that it (1) repudiates the juridical character of international law or belittles its importance for international relations and preaches nihilism or the notion of a ``crisis'' in international law, (2) denies the consensual nature of international law and seeks to portray legal international relations as worldwide relations between individuals, and (3) harps on the idea that modern international law is primitive, urging its further development toward "world law" and the attendant repudiation of state sovereignty.^^4^^

Take the book by Emery Reves, Anatomy of Peace, already quoted in this volume, or that of A. Hamer Hall, who does not believe the U.S.S.R. and U.S.A. could co-- operate within the framework of international law and suggests the alternative of a "world government".^^5^^

~^^1^^ Vchebny kurs mezhdunarodnogo prava, ed. by F. I. Kozhevnikov, Moscow, 1964, pp. 30-31 and Chapter III. Kurs mezhdunarodnogo prava, M. 1966, pp. 78-94; see also Sovietskoye gosudarstvo i mezhdunarodnoye pravo, ed. by F. I. Kozhevnikov, Moscow, 1967, Ch. V.

~^^2^^ E. Wilk, "International Law and Global Ideological Conflict", American Journal of International Law, Vol. 45, pp. 68-69.

~^^3^^ P. E. Corbett, Law in Diplomacy, Princeton, New Jersey, 1959, p. 274.

~^^4^^ D. B. Levin, 0 sovremennykh burzhuaznykh teoriyakh mezhdunarodnogo prava, Moscow, 1949; Sovietskoye gosudarstvo i pravo, No. 7, 1959, pp. 63-71.

~^^5^^ See A. Hall, The Fundamentals of World Peace, New York, 1953, pp. 31-32.

Sterling Edmunds is another writer who runs down international law. "There is to be found in the whole realm of legal learning no more anomalous collection of fallacies, no more deceptive body of affirmations masquerading under the name of science," he writes, "than that pseudo-branch of jurisprudence which, for nearly three centuries, successive historians have presented to us under the title, The Law of Nations or International Law".^^1^^

Some exponents of the American doctrine often urge a ``reform'' of international law that would destroy or reduce to the minimum its democratic principles.

American University professor Pitman B. Potter, for example, wrote in an article, entitled "Liberal and Totalitarian Attitudes Concerning International Law and Organisation", that "international law is not always perfect and at times should be modified or put aside or defied".^^2^^

He urges to modify, put aside or defy those provisions of international law which hinder the imperialists from ``justifying'' their various aggressive actions. It is these provisions that prompt Potter to describe international organisation as faulty and to advocate ``discretion''. What imperialism wants is to gear international law and its principles, rules and standards to its own needs.

None will argue against the obvious fact that if any of the provisions of international law have become obsolete, they ought to be revised and brought up to date. But the U.S. aggressions against Guatemala, in Vietnam and the Dominican Republic shed light enough on what is irking the imperialists in modern international law. The U.S. interventions in the internal affairs of the Congo, Laos and Cuba show all too clearly what restraints they object to.

Violations of the universally recognised standards of international law are a grave impediment to the peaceful coexistence and co-operation of states of the two systems.

Even such prominent bourgeois jurists as H. Lauterpacht, of Britain, are slipping into nihilism. He says "the absence of agreed rules partaking of a reasonable degree of certainty is a serious challenge to the legal nature of what goes by the name of international law".^^3^^

~^^1^^ S. R. Edmunds, The Lawless Law of Nations, Washington, 1925, p. 1.

~^^2^^ American Journal of International Law, Vol. 45, No. 2, p. 329.

~^^3^^ H. Lauterpacht, "Codification and Development of International Law", American Journal of International Law, Vol 49, No. 1, p. 19.

16-3121

That perversions of international law and nihilism are no chance trends in the bourgeois doctrine is evidenced by the attitude of Oxford University professor James Leslie Brierly, the distinguished British legal expert. He qualifies as rudimentary the institutions of the modern system of international law and regrets its limitations. Brierly declares that "law will never play a really effective part in international relations until it can annex to its own sphere some of the matters which at present lie within the domestic jurisdiction of the several states". It is a most serious restraint on international law, Brierly thinks, that practically "the whole sphere of international economic relations ... belongs to domestic jurisdiction''.

He maintains that international law has not yet become "one of the pillars of a stable international order" because, he claims, it cannot "make and maintain the most elementary distinctions", such as that between legal and illegal use of physical force, which, he holds, leads to the maintenance by powerful states of "policies outside the law". Brierly adds wrily that "such policies cannot even be wholly condemned, because the interests which they protect are often perfectly reasonable interests".^^1^^

If such basic principles as sovereignty, territorial integrity, political independence, the equality of states and noninterference were, indeed, deleted from international law, as Brierly wishes, international law would, indeed, be unable to distinguish between the legal and illegal.

Brierly argues finally that international law has so far proved a failure because it does not, like domestic law, play the role of "an instrument for promoting the general welfare in positive ways" and has failed in "maintaining international peace". All the same, Brierly is compelled to admit that international law is an institution the world could well use to build a better international order^^2^^ and that it is "performing a useful and indeed a necessary function in international life in enabling states to carry on their dayto-day intercourse along orderly and predictable lines", in which role it has "proved a serviceable instrument".^^3^^

The overwhelming majority of the leading bourgeois

experts in international law have come to the conclusion that general international law is quite possible in the modern world. Some do so directly, others indirectly. Professor Roger Pinto, of Lille University, says normal relations between the states of the two systems, above all the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A., are possible if based on conventional law.

An indirect recognition of peaceful coexistence as a standard of international law is contained in the Oppenheim-Lauterpacht course, which says that positive international law no longer recognises any distinctions in the membership of the community of nations based on religious or cultural differences.

George Schwarzenberger, too, essentially recognises peaceful coexistence and notes that the protection of Clause 4, Article 2 of the U.N. Charter "extends to every state whether a member of the United Nations or not".^^1^^

Political literature in capitalist countries contains many confirmations of the obvious fact that peaceful coexistence has gained de facto, and in many countries also de jure, recognition as a standard of international law.

As far back as 1956 George Kennan said he saw no reason why the United States and Russia should not have satisfactory and promising relations despite the controversy between their respective social systems and political philosophies.

3. UNIVERSAL RECOGNITION OF THE STANDARDS AND

PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW UNDER PEACEFUL

COEXISTENCE

To gauge the true importance of international law we should weigh the objective laws of social development, for they govern the international life of states and their mutual relations. Experience shows that the foreign policy of any state is so much more successful if it dovetails with the objective laws governing international relations. States, peoples, parties and individual leaders, it is true, exert an influence on these laws either stimulating them within certain limits, or, conversely, slowing them down. But no state or group of states, no class, no party, and no leader can ever stop, let alone reverse, the march of history.

~^^1^^ J. L. Brierly, The Law of Nations, An Introduction to the International Law of Peace, Oxford, 1963, pp. 74-75, 75, 77.

~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 76.

~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 78.

~^^1^^ G. Schwarzenberger, The Fundamental Principles of International Law, Academic de droit International, No. 1, Vol. 87, 1956, p. 330.

16*

In line with the objective laws man arrived at the conclusion at the dawn of civilisation that states must be guided in their mutual relations by a body of rules. These rules were naturally geared to the political views of the then governing classes. The history-shaped international division of labour and specialisation of commodity production in the various countries created an economic basis for the political and legal relations of nations and states. International economic relations were, and still are, an expression of the objective laws of history.

Subsequently, as the socio-historical formations succeeded each other, the standards of international law and diplomacy were remodelled to keep abreast of alterations in the relations of production within countries; which induced changes in international economic and political relations. The dynamics of international relations mounted continuously, expanding the sphere to which the standards of international law applied.

In the 19th century large-scale industry, Engels noted, had so connected all the peoples of the globe that each depended on what happened to the other. Universally recognised standards are thus built upon the foundation which Marx described as the "mutual dependence of all mankind" and the necessity of developing the concomitant "world-wide contacts".^^1^^ In modern times, too, when states of two systems coexist, people live in the state, and every state lives in a system of states which maintain certain relations with each other. It is this system of mutual relations that is regulated by international law.

As distinct from the past, when international law governed relations between states of one social formation (the exploiting system), modern international law has been governing relations between states of two world systems, the socialist and the capitalist. That makes it far more complex.

The Soviet doctrine of international law, based on the principles of Marxist-Leninist dialectics and the principles of historical materialism, maintains that since international relations and international law are social phenomena they are subject to the propositions of dialectical materialism. The many standards, institutions and principles of modern international law can be studied all the deeper by dialectical

methods and correctly interpreted in the context of materialist theory.

International relations are a derivative of internal relations both in the economic context and in the field of politics and law.

The foundations of international law are rooted in the material conditions of life in modern society.

It is impossible to understand any social phenomenon, international relations and international law included, nor any of its standards, institutions and principles, if they are examined in isolation from all the other social phenomena. The various aspects of international law, and international law as a whole, may be reduced to nonsense if they are viewed in isolation from international life. Conversely, every phenomenon, standard, institution and principle of international law become all the easier to understand and reason when they are viewed in their connection with all contiguous phenomena.

Modern international law will never be properly appreciated, if it is not tied up with such directly related aspects as foreign policy and diplomacy, and, of course, the whole modern system of international relations. The polarity of the capitalist and socialist systems, the existence of the world national liberation movement, the working-class and communist movement, and the peace movement have got to be taken into account. So has the powerful growth of the peace camp, of democracy and socialism, for it is a decisive factor in all international life.

The basic objective historical fact is that of the coexistence of the two antagonistic, socialist and capitalist, systems whose existence does not depend on either the will or the wish of political leaders.

What should contemporary international law be like to meet the exigencies of modern historical development, and what is it really like today?

Modern international law is the international law of the epoch of peaceful coexistence, in which the problem of who beats whom infers one of two possibilities---either peaceful economic competition or a nuclear-missile conflict. In the modern epoch it is peace rather than war which constitutes the natural state of mankind.

The fundamental purpose of modern international law is to promote peaceful competition between the two systems, of which economy is today the main theatre. It is up to

~^^1^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, On Britain, Moscow, 1962, p. 405.

international law to provide a peaceful environment for this competition, so that the advantages of one or the other system are proved by the degree to which they satisfy people's material and spiritual requirements, rather than by force of arms.

In settling any international issue between the socialist and capitalist countries---which naturally applies to the nature of international law, because it governs these issues ---we have to proceed from the fact of coexistence. That is the only basis on which co-operation, and consequently international law, can possibly exist.

The peoples need not necessarily have the same system for states to co-operate and to abide by one body of international law.

International law safeguards the supreme sovereign rights which, in every state, are vested in accordance with the democratic legal order in the peoples whose role as makers of history has increased immeasurably in our time.

It follows that the extent to which the various standards of international law mirror the sovereign rights of the peoples is the criterion of their validity and conformance with the objective laws of historical development.

In his "Footnotes on Modern Diplomacy", Harold Callender writes in the New York Times Magazine of December 9, 1956, that the public has come to exercise a strong influence on international relations. "Two world wars," he says, "have caused the public in democratic countries to take greater interest in diplomacy and to assume a right to know what the diplomats are up to." He also admitted that the public has by its "greater interest" caused the demise of secret diplomacy. "In a democratic age," Callender observes, "there can be no secret yet binding agreement such as those once made by sovereigns or foreign ministers. There can be no important agreements that are not approved by the legislature if not by public opinion.''

Recognition of legal international standards must be voluntary and has to be extended through elected representative institutions or governments, which act on the international scene through their specially appointed representatives and participate in the creation of international rules with consideration for the coinciding interests of the respective peoples concerned.

Deliverance of mankind from the menace of nuclearmissile war and maintenance of peace and peaceful coexist-

ence are just such matters on which the interest of all peoples coincides.

A long time ago, Marx predicted the day in man's history when peace will be an international principle.^^1^^

That day is here. The socialist and neutralist countries have accepted peace as an international principle and are now working assiduously to make it universal.

We may therefore legitimately say that the right of peace, instead of the priorly accepted right of war, which is now outlawed by modern international law, has gained increasing prominence among the basic international rights of the states.

A number of other standards of international law that we might describe as ``basic'' or ``elementary'', qualify as universally recognised rules, that is, rules consistent with the interests of the peoples and states of both the socialist and capitalist systems, accepted as binding by both systems.

Many exponents of the Anglo-Saxon doctrine agree that the concept of "modern international law" must apply only to those standards which are universally recognised. Brierly says the doctrine of positivism "teaches that international law is the sum of the rules by which states have consented to be bound, and that nothing can be law to which they have not consented".^^2^^

However, opinions to the contrary prevail (Hans Morgenth'au) in the United States among exponents of the so-called realistic school, who say international law should be replaced by criteria based on "national interest".^^3^^

The Soviet doctrine of international law proceeds from what the classics of Marxism-Leninism have said on this score. They never made any reservations with regard to international law and have, on the contrary, repeatedly stressed its legal character.

Professor Y. Korovin underscores the fact that many standards of international law come under the head of ``basic'', ``elementary'', "universally recognised" and " universally accepted", that is, "recognised as binding from the point of view of both the bourgeois and the socialist state". In describing their substance, Korovin writes that "universal recognition of international rules is one of the forms in which the international struggle and co-operation of the two

~^^1^^ K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 491).

~^^2^^ J. Brierly, The Law of Nations, p. 52.

~^^3^^ H. Morgenthau, In Defence of National Interests, pp. 34, 39, 147.

systems are effected, dominating the contemporary stage in international relations".^^1^^

Professor S. Krylov emphasises that "struggle for the enforcement of the basic principles of international law is the duty of all who cherish peace, freedom and the independence of nations". In describing the attitude of the Soviet state and people towards universally recognised standards of international law regulating and securing the peaceful coexistence and co-operation of the states of the two systems, he points out that "the Soviet Government has always supported and safeguarded these principles of international law", adding that "every Soviet citizen has a stake in this''.

Professor F. Kozhevnikov refers to the conception of "modern international law" the sum total of such " elementary notions of international legality, whose strict observance is unconditionally binding on all states of the modern world without exception by virtue of the coexistence of two worlds, the socialist and the capitalist, between which international co-operation is both possible and necessary". He stresses that the existence of modern international law. meaning the body of universally recognised international standards and.principles, "is impelled by the existence of the two systems---the socialist and the capitalist worlds''.

``Modern international law," he continues, "must be the basis of an agreed system of relations between states belonging to the two opposite worlds, whose co-operation is necessary and possible." Kozhevnikov notes that the Soviet Union is doing its utmost to strengthen modern international law as the legal form of the coexistence of the two worlds.^^2^^

There are different points of view on this score. Some writers say international law is an external law based on solely the domestic law of individual states. Some experts (Lasson and Zorn in German literature, Morgenthau, Dickinson and Potter in American literature) believe only the interests of the Great Powers are the source of international law. Other authors hold that real international law has to be formulated by an international authority. Brierly, for example, maintains that the absence of an "authoritative legislative mechanism" is the undoing of modern international law.^^1^^

In the past, Bertrand Russell, too, came forward with projects of a "world government" and bodies "exercising legislative and judiciary functions". Yet, he admitted that it was impossible to create a world government based solely on consent and was aware that this would involve force, ``war'', ``conquest'', and the like.^^2^^ Subsequently, Russell came round to the view that a world government would not succeed, and called for an agreement between East and West, recognising unavoidable coexistence and the disastrous futility of war.

As a rule, plans of a world government really connote underlying pretensions by a power or group of powers to world domination.

International organisations are designed to promote the development of international law, and not to legislate rules of international behaviour.

The U.N. General Assembly, as the San Francisco Conference noted when the U.N. Charter was signed, is not a legislative body. Nor does it have to be one in order to promote the progressive development of international law. The General Assembly is quite capable of doing it through agreed actions of the three groups of its member-states (the socialist, capitalist and neutral), but not by itself.

The International Court, too, does not create international law. All it does is interpret and apply its standards to particular disputes between states.

Although standards of international law are defined and enforced by men, these individuals do not act as individuals in so doing, but as representatives of peoples and

4. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RULES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW UNDER PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE

Standards of modern international law, whose observance is the earnest of peaceful coexistence, are rules established with regard to the basic interests of the people in accordance with their sovereign will, rights and interests.

This brings up the question of how standards of international law are moulded in our time of the peaceful coexistence of the two systems.^^3^^

~^^1^^ See Sovietskoye gosudarstvo i pravo, No. 9, 1951, p. 16.

~^^2^^ Sovietskoye gosudarstvo i mezhdunarodnoye pravo, ed. by F. I. Kozhevnikov, Moscow, 1967, Chapter II.

~^^3^^ I. I. Lukashuk, Istochniki Mezhdunarodnogo prava, Kiev, 1966.

~^^1^^ J. Brierly, The Law of Nations, p. 16.

~^^2^^ B. Russell, New Hopes for a Changing World, London, 1951; The Basic Writings, London, 1961, pp. 701, 702.

states, as organs of states who jointly create standards of international law.

L. Petrazhitsky compared relations between states to relations existing in society between individuals in the production of material values. In his opinion, such relations were based on the inter-action of numerous units, independent from each other as regards plans and wishes. He called this system individualistic, that is, based on de-- centralisation, as distinct from relations (between states and people) governed by public law, based on the principle of centralisation and subordination.^^1^^ These units, he said, were not subordinate to each other, but to the state and to international law, which regulated relations between states who, being sovereign units, were not subordinate to each other either and had no supra-state power to govern them.

Standards of international law, indeed, are not created by any world legislative organ, for none exists, nor by any international organisations, which are not authorised to do so by the peoples and states that establish them, nor by international courts, which merely interpret and apply already existing standards of international law, nor by individuals, who enter international relations solely through the medium of their states. Standards of international law are shaped in international treaties concluded between states or, more precisely, between governments elected by the people and acting in the name of their people in international relations.

This brings us to the question of international custom and treaty, which has evoked a whole spectrum of divergent views. Some believe that custom has priority over treaty, others that primacy belongs to treaties, and others still that treaty and custom have equal juridical force.

Rousseau, for example, maintained that the legal force of custom and treaty was the same. Eagleton and Kelsen believed that international custom held priority over international treaty. Guggenheim and Morelli held essentially the same view.

Scelle chimed in with Basdevan in writing that a treaty was no more than a "record of customary rule", while custom was the "original and chief source of international law and order".^^2^^

Alvarez and other jurists in different countries hold the distinctly different view that international custom has forfeited its primacy to international treaty. For example, Alvarez maintains that by virtue of the extraordinary dynamism of contemporary international affairs, international custom tends to disappear and turn into a recorded standard of international law.^^1^^

Verdross points to the possibility of treaty rules repealing custom, and vice versa.^^2^^

The weakness of all these views is, firstly, that they endeavour to settle the matter without reckoning with the existence of two systems, of their respective influence on international law and, secondly, that they oppose international custom to international treaty, which is a dogmatic, even artificial, thing to do.

Today, there are many collective and bilateral treaties, and only few customs of international law have escaped being recorded in at least one of them. On the other hand, very few treaties are not based on the conceptions and standards of custom law, which they radically amend. Quite a few standards of international law enforced through treaties subsequently became customs of international law recognised by all states without reference to any specific international treaty as the source.

Custom and treaty are not really opposed in the practice of states, and are more properly a unity, for they back each other.

A treaty may come into collision with international custom, giving rise to the question of which is primary---the treaty or the custom. But it is impossible to say beforehand that treaty holds priority over custom in all cases, or vice versa. We could name a number of international customs that no international treaty could waive. Take the principle of the peaceful coexistence of states with different socioeconomic systems, which had been a custom of international law prior to its being recorded in a number of treaties. Or take the principle of sovereignty, which also entered international practice as a custom. These principles could not be repealed by any international treaty. International customs that embody basic and universally recognised prin-

~^^1^^ See Vestnik Prava, No. 2, 1900, p. 8.

~^^2^^ G. Scelle, Manuel Ae droit international public, Paris, 1948, p. 577.

~^^1^^ A. A. Alvarez, Le droit international nouveau dans les rapports avec la vie actuelle des peuples, Paris, 1959, p. 431.

~^^2^^ A. Verdross, Vdlkerrecht, S. 95.

ciples of international law cannot be repealed by international treaty, and it is therefore impossible to maintain a priori that treaty holds priority over custom.

Important international customs are not repealed by treaties as such, but by changes in the socio-economic formation, which give birth to a new type of international relations and, hence, to new international law that makes obsolete old customs no longer consistent with the legal conceptions of states of the new socio-economic formation.

It is wrong to say that international custom holds priority over treaty, because the dynamism of international relations continuously impels the progressive development of international law and its codification precisely in international treaties even when new standards are created to replace the old.

The Soviet doctrine holds that international treaties are the chief and basic source of international law, and that they occupy the main place in international law.^^1^^ But a treaty is no more than an agreement between states concerning the rights and obligations mutually devolving on the peoples and states concerned.

We might ask at this point whether every agreement between states, regardless of its content and of the number of signatories, is a source of universally recognised Standards of international law.

Contrary to what Charles de Visscher^^2^^ and Hersch Lauterpacht say, two states, even a particular group of states, cannot create standards of international law that would repeal, replace and contradict the universally recognised standards. A group of states may initiate new standards of international law, but for these to become valid they have to be universally recognised, that is, recognised by a considerable section of the states of the two systems, the socialist and the capitalist, with the proviso that the new Asian and African countries, too, give their tacit or public consent.

Professor N. Polyansky is quite right when he says custom must be universal before it becomes a source of international law.

Exponents of the Anglo-Saxon school also say a bilateral treaty, or a treaty between several states, does not create a general international law and that the standards of such law must be established by all the states.

Bilateral treaties are sources of international law only for their signatories and only if they do not contradict the universally recognised principles and the international legal order set forth in the U.N. Charter. On the other hand, if a treaty does not contradict these principles, it is bound to express or develop them and cannot, therefore, be itself a source of general international law for all states. Some bourgeois authors confirm that treaty deals are not a source of general international law.

As for multilateral treaties, to be legally valid they have to express the voluntary and equal consent of the signatory governments acting on behalf of their peoples and in the name of their sovereign interests.

The significance of U.N. General Assembly resolutions should be stressed in this connection, for the General Assembly is calculated to play a big part in the organisation of international law and order at the present stage of peaceful coexistence.

We have already demonstrated that a source of international law must express the voluntary and equal consent of the states of the two systems acting on behalf of their peoples and in the name of their sovereign interests. But what are we to make of U.N. General Assembly resolutions, in which such consent is self-evident?

Some authors believe that no General Assembly resolutions, even those unanimously passed, are a source of international law, and that, among others, the resolution on the abolition of colonialism is not, allegedly, a standard of international law, because Article 10 of the Charter describes General Assembly resolutions as recommendations.

When a few states convene an international conference and agree to some rule, the latter becomes a source of international law, leaving no doubt as to its validity. Should this not be doubly true when the 120 states of the United Nations unanimously pass a resolution? Is it not absurd to say, as some authors do, that this resolution is not a source of international law? After all, according to the original text of the U.N. Charter, the U.N. Security Council, consisting of 11 U.N. members, passes decisions binding on all U.N. members if it marshals seven ayes, including the

~^^1^^ V. M. Shurshalov, Osnovniye voprosy teorii mezhdunarodnogo dogovora, Moscow, 1959.

~^^2^^ Ch. Visscher, Theories et Realties de Droit international Public, Troissieme Edition, Paris, 1960, pp. 183-87.

concurring votes of its permanent members. So if the same five permanent members together with two-thirds of the General Assembly membership of, say, 80 states, vote for a resolution, there is no valid reason to say it is not a source of international law. And this is doubly true of General Assembly resolutions passed unanimously.

The Soviet Government memorandum to the 16th U.N. General Assembly on the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples stressed:

``Now that the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples has been passed, the preservation of the colonial system and the continued policy of terror and repression against fighters for national self-determination, like the fanning of colonial wars, is a grave crime against humanity, a gross violation of international law and an open challenge to the United Nations.''^^1^^

Back in 1952, Berthold Goldman, editor of Journal du Droit International said peaceful coexistence is "the hope and desire of all peoples and the declared aim of all governments", adding that it must be "passed in legal form", although the means to it are chiefly political. His colleagues, the French professors Gerard Lyon-Caen and Georges Berlia, pointed to "the new international law for pacific coexistence" as the juridical means of realising peaceful coexistence. Lyon-Caen stressed that "modern international law cannot be anything but conventional law", and Berlia also noted that peaceful coexistence could be visualised only in the context of treaty law.^^2^^

5. EQUAL TREATIES ARE A PRINCIPAL SOURCE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

The Soviet doctrine holds that equal treaties concluded by states of the two systems in conformity with objective laws are a source of international law.

This stand is consistent with the common foundations of international law, recognised in general also by bourgeois doctrine despite its many contradictions and the various

exceptions it postulates in regard to the consensual theory.

Among these exceptions is the standpoint enunciated by Brierly, who maintains that the facts of international life do not square with the consensual theory. He says "the theory of implied consent is a fiction invented by theorists", that consent cannot of itself "create an obligation" because "if consent is withdrawn the obligation collapses".^^1^^

But consent cannot be withdrawn, because, once it is freely given on terms of equality and mutual advantage, it signifies acceptance of international obligations and accession to an international treaty.

Brierly goes on to say that custom law exists irrespective of a state's consent. He seems to forget that consent is not necessarily declared and may be given tacitly. However, if a state declares its non-recognition of a custom created, say, by the predacious practices of imperialism, this custom is unquestionably no longer binding on that state.

``A state which has newly come into existence," Brierly says, "does not in any intelligible sense consent to accept international law.''

It is patently clear, however, that no state could possibly deny the necessity of international law or question the desirability of a legal regulation of international relations. What Brierly deliberately obscures is that a new state may or may not recognise this or that old standard of international law, such as, say, the predacious or unequal articles and clauses of a treaty.

Whether Brierly likes it or not, those are the facts of international life. The new Soviet socialist state born of the October Revolution denounced the predacious and unequal treaties concluded by the tsarist government. Many former colonies, now sovereign states and U.N. members, likewise legitimately repudiate as invalid such standards of the old international law that had served as a means of enslavement.

To be sure, Brierly admits this indirectly when he says that "in the absence of any international machinery for legislation for majority vote, a new rule of law cannot be imposed upon states merely by the will of other states".^^2^^

Let us now see how Brierly explains the binding nature of the rules of international law.

~^^1^^ Pravda, Sept. 29, 1961.

~^^2^^ B. Goldman, "International Law and Pacific Coexistence", Journal du Droit International, No. 1, 1952, p. 25; G. Lyon-Caen, "Le droit international et la coexistence paciflque des Etats relevant des systems politiques opposes", pp. 32, 36, 54, 58.

~^^1^^ J. Brierly, The Law of Nations, 6th ed., pp. 51, 52, 53.

~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 53, 52.

``The ultimate explanation of the binding force of all law," he says, "is that man, whether he is a single individual or whether he is associated with other men in a state, is constrained, in so far as he is a reasonable being, to believe that order and not chaos is the governing principle of the world in which he has to live." Ultimately, however, Brierly contends that no satisfactory explanation can be furnished for the binding force of international law.

Speaking of the legal character of international law, Brierly admits that it is "practically inconvenient and also contrary to the best juristic thought to deny its legal character". What is more, Brierly defeats his own objections to the theory of consent by saying that "most competent jurists would today agree, the only essential conditions for the existence of law are the existence of a political community and the recognition by its members of settled rules binding upon them in that capacity".^^1^^

The conception of consent as the only basis of international law, as the pillar of its binding nature, was widespread among bourgeois jurists at the time of pre-monopoly capitalism. But the consensual theory will be subjective and therefore invalid, if it ignores the objective laws of history.

The facts show that in the period of peaceful coexistence the theory of consent can be valid only if it takes into account the objective laws by observing the will of the peoples and the interests of the whole mankind.

Korovin was right in saying in an article published in the International Affairs that "any international agreements and acts calculated to undermine peace (aggressive military blocs), to enslave other states (colonialism old and new), and to foster national or racial discrimination, and the like, are legally invalid''.

Agreements concluded between ruling classes or groups in the bourgeois states in defiance of the sovereign interests of their peoples do not qualify as standard of international law. Essentially, they are illegal and unlawful acts, because they embody the narrow class will of rulers, rather than the sovereign will of the whole people. The aggressive colonialist blocs are graphic examples of such anti-popular organisations, unlawful from the point of view of international law.

Soviet jurist I. Lukashuk notes that the practice of " antipopular treaties" is typical of imperialist states.

The United Nations Organisation was established to " develop friendly relations between nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples". Consequently, what the delegates of the various states do in the United Nations is lawful and legitimate from the standpoint of international law, insofar as it expresses the sovereign will and sovereign interest of the peoples of their respective countries.

By voting in the United Nations for resolutions that prejudice the sovereign will of their peoples, delegates betray their trust. In such cases, their vote is not cast in the name of their peoples, whose sovereign rights they usurp, which deprives the resolutions concerned of their legal basis.

The above furnishes an answer to the question of whether international law can prevail in the mutual relations of the states of the two systems, why it can prevail, and what its nature is like. Standards of international law are able to govern the relations of states of the two systems in those cases only when they conform to history's objective laws, when the governments of the bourgeois states proceed in their relations with the socialist states from the rockbottom sovereign interests of their peoples and, if only objectively, uphold the sovereign rights of their peoples. For their part, the governments of the socialist states honour the sovereign rights of their peoples, express the sovereign will of their peoples, and thereby champion the sovereign rights of all peoples.

We may list such examples as the U.N. Charter, the decisions of the Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam conferences, the decisions of the 1954 Geneva Conference on Indochina, the General Assembly resolutions on general and complete disarmament and peaceful coexistence, etc.

Some standards of modern international law, we might add, champion the interests of all mankind because they reflect and express the objective laws of history.

The contention, made by certain Chinese jurists, therefore, that modern international law is an imperialist tool, is contrary to the facts. When entering into internationally legal agreements with the governments of the capitalist countries, the Soviet Government never relinquishes its positions of principle. By expressing the sovereign will of

~^^1^^ J. Brierly, op. cit., pp. 55, 56, 68, 69, 71.

17-3121

the Soviet people and championing the sovereign interests of the peoples, the Soviet Government compels bourgeois governments to express the sovereign will of their own peoples. In so doing, the Soviet Government has the support not only of the Soviet people but also the peoples of the capitalist countries who, in turn, press bourgeois governments to agree with the Soviet Government and uphold the sovereign will and interest of their people.

Experience shows that it is impossible to champion peace without international law, or despite international law. It is also impossible to champion peace with international law if the will of the dominant monopoly bourgeoisie, the will that is diametrically opposite to the idea of peace, the will that repudiates peace between nations, countries and systems, is implied under the head of international law.

It is one of the most distinctive features of the relations of the new type, which prevail between socialist countries, that the finest and loftiest principles of universally recognised international law come into full play and that, being based on the principles of socialist internationalism, they go much farther in the realm of co-operation than general international law and peaceful coexistence require.

Peaceful coexistence being incompatible with any form of force in international relations, except sanctions against a country that has committed an act of aggression or against colonialists resisting the abolition of colonialism, Lenin's words that law is nothing without compulsion (spoken in reference to domestic law) should not be dogmatically applied to international relations regulated by international law, based in the modern epoch on the principles of peaceful coexistence and respect for sovereignty, self-- determination, equality, non-interference, freedom of will and mutual advantage.

Under modern international law, compulsion is condoned solely with regard to an aggressor by decision of the Security Council as an act of reprisal, of collective and individual self-defence against acts of aggression, for Articles 2 and 4 of the U.N. Charter require the states to refrain in their international relations not only from the use, but also from the threat of force.

It is quite obvious that even the United Nations cannot use force, save in cases of combating aggression. In all other cases, in all provinces of peaceful intercourse between nations and states, international law is brought into effect

in accordance with the U.N. Charter through freely accepted international obligations and in line with the principle of mutual advantage, possible only if voluntarily accepted obligations are observed.

The key to the question of compulsion in international law lies precisely in the historical fact that only such accepted and operative standards as are consistent with the sovereign interests of the peoples, with their sovereign will and rights, are valid standards of international law in the contemporary epoch. No standard of international law may operate to the detriment of the sovereignty of the peoples.

If a standard of international law is based on the voluntary principle, the principle of equal rights and mutual advantage, that is, on the sovereign will of the peoples of the states parties to the agreement, and if it conforms with their vital interest, it is only natural that the peoples and states concerned will not have to be compelled to observe it, because they have as big a stake as anybody else in observing it.

It is only the government that evades observance of a standard of international law, and thereby violates the sovereign interest and will of its people, that has to be compelled. In such cases, compulsion and pressure on the government concerned should come from its people. The modern peace movement, which strives to prompt bourgeois governments to live up to the requirements of the U.N. Charter, is an example of such compulsion.

6. THE UNITY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

STRUGGLE BETWEEN ``OLD'' AND "NEW"

IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

Speaking of the substance of modern international law, we should bear in mind that international law is single and binding on all states, regardless of their system. That is why B. Dutoit's writings on the so-called "Soviet international law"^^1^^ and also those of R. Crane on a "new communist international law"^^2^^ are a sheer absurdity. The existence of two world systems does not, in reference to the

~^^1^^ B. Dutoit, Coexistence et droit international a la lumiere de la doctrine sovietique, Paris, 1966, II partie.

~^^2^^ R. Crane, "Soviet Attitude Toward International Space Law", American Journal of International Law, July 1962, p. 686.

17*

whole world, signify any pluralism of international law. All it can signify is the existence of two different approaches to international law.

The imperialist powers pursue a policy of subjugating and enslaving the peoples, a policy of aggression and world domination. In pursuance of their policy of diktat, imperialist governments crudely violate, even repudiate, international law.

The relations between the United States and its allies, for example, are all too often relations of bald diktat and subjection.

The socialist countries pursue a policy of peace and friendship among nations, a policy of honouring and consolidating universally recognised standards of international law.

Like all other social mechanisms, international law is in continuous flux. The realities of modern life have given rise to improved forms of relations, which supersede those moulded through traditional practice and formalised in traditional standards. Take the relations that have taken shape between the socialist countries and between the latter and the young Asian and African states.

The relations that prevail within the socialist system of states are fundamentally different from those prevailing within the imperialist camp.

The historical process of the all-round coming together of nations, which international law is designed to promote, began, in effect, since the emergence of the Soviet Union and the other states of the socialist system.

The world capitalist system took shape and developed in bitter struggle between states, through the subjugation and exploitation of weak countries by strong, the enslavement of hundreds of millions of people and the constitution of entire continents into colonial appendages of the imperialist metropolitan states. The international law of the period in which capitalism took root was a means of formalising de jure the struggle between the capitalist states, and in particular the results of this struggle. Just as the domestic law of capitalist states was more often than not the will of the bourgeoisie raised to the status of law, so international law was, in effect, the will of the ruling class of the major capitalist powers recorded in appropriate treaties.

Being a social mechanism, international law, too, is

marked by struggle between the old and the new. All social mechanisms have intrinsic contradictions, because all social mechanisms, international law included, possess a past, a present and a future, and therefore have obsolescent and burgeoning elements.^^1^^ The unity and struggle between these contradictions, the struggle between the obsolescent and the burgeoning, comprises the intrinsic content in the development of international law. In modern international law the struggle proceeds between two opposite elements--- the progressive and democratic, which is consistent with the interests of all nations, on the one hand, and the reactionary and imperialist, which is a survival of the times when imperialism ruled supreme and on which the reactionary and imperialist camp relies, on the other.

The struggle between the two systems is the content of contemporary international life and it thus determines the content of modern international law. The states of the imperialist camp go out of their way to preserve the more reactionary institutions, designed to uphold the world domination of the imperialist powers. The states of the democratic camp, on the other hand, apply the more progressive institutions of the previous international law while developing their democratic content, and at once create new, consistently democratic institutions of international law.^^2^^

The struggle between the old and new in international law became intensive after the Great October Socialist Revolution. International law was augmented with such new institutions and principles as:

peaceful coexistence; the proclamation of imperialist war as a crime against humanity; the principle of non-- aggression; abolition of secret diplomacy and recognition of the people's sovereign right to determine their own fate; abolition of colonial dependence and the development of selfdetermination into a universal principle; the principle of equal rights of all nations and states without exception; censure of racial discrimination and recognition of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language and religion; the principle of collective security and sanctions against aggressors by a world security organisation; the principle of democratic

~^^1^^ B. M. Kedrov, Yedinstvo dialektiki, logiki i teorii poznaniya, Moscow, 1963, pp. 12, 44-45.

~^^2^^ Diplomatichesky slovar, Gospolitizdat, Moscow, Vol. II, 1956, p. 130.

peace, combining responsibility for aggression with recognition of the legitimate interest of defeated countries, ruling out revanchism; banning of all violations of the territorial integrity and political independence of states; substitution of the principles of peaceful coexistence (requiring all states "to show tolerance and live together as good neighbours", [Preamble of the U.N. Charter] not interfering in each others' internal affairs and collaborating in the solution of the various international problems) for the principle of imperialism, for "undisguised plunder of the weak", and, last but not least, appearance of realistic possibilities to avert war and secure rule of peaceful international law.

The October Revolution did not abolish the ojd bourgeois-democratic institutions and principles of international law. It only underscored their democratic side more thoroughly and pointedly.

The contemporary international law is not mere wishful thinking. It is a reality. It is "international law in action", wrote Alvarez, a veteran Western jurist, "conforming with the changes that life has wrought in the classical law of nations".^^1^^

The old international law was chiefly inter-state, or rather inter-governmental, in character, Alvarez stressed, while present-day international law is new primarily in the sense that it adapts itself to the contemporary life of the peoples, and not only of states.

The old international law "did not recognise the people as the subject of law" and built upon "the will of the ruler". Today, the people exercise a direct influence on the development of international life, while the "legal consciousness of the people is playing an increasing role" in international law, its basic propositions, purposes, principles, etc.^^2^^

The struggle between the ``new'' and ``old'' in international law continues.

By the dialectical method we examine social phenomena, including the standards, institutions and principles of international law, not only from the standpoint of their mutual connection and dependence, but also from the standpoint of motion, development, and unintermittent renewal.

No institution or principle of international law can be understood correctly, unless it is examined in the historical

context. The standards, institutions and principles that prevail in one socio-economic formation cannot simply repeat the standards, institutions and principles of the preceding formations, even if their designations coincide terminologically, because they are qualitatively different. This difference in quality is doubly obvious in our time, when two world systems exist side by side.^^1^^

Take the principle of self-determination. In the bourgeois epoch it denoted the right of a European or American nation to reunify and create a separate national state. In our time, this right to create a national state is vested also in all the African and Asian peoples. The principle of selfdetermination has also acquired another qualitatively new aspect consistent with its intrinsic purport, namely, the right of every people not only to choose its own mode of government, but also the right to substitute one system of ownership and economy for another, less progressive system.

The historical approach based on the dialectical method enables us to lay bare the true substance of the institutions and principles of international law, whose content changes substantially in the course of their development.

The science of international law, and doubly so international legal practice, need to know at every given peried what content of the various institutions and principles is progressive and viable, and capable of achieving the ultimate purpose.

It is the purpose of the science of international law to elucidate the institutions and principles that prevail in the present, and will also prevail in the future. The theory of the pluralism of international law is untenable, because, in effect, it repudiates international law.

A general international law valid for all peoples and states exists, whether this or that theorist or politician likes it or not. The fact that this common international law does not yet govern all international relations is immaterial. Just as some social relations within a state are not governed by legal standards, so too not all international relations are governed by standards of international law. Such relations exist and develop despite the lack of international standards to govern them. These relations, ungoverned by

~^^1^^ A. Alvarez, op. cit., p. 413.

~^^2^^ Ibid., pp. 308, 327, 15, 414, 268, 22.

~^^1^^ G. V. Sharmazanashvili, Of prava voiny k pravu mira, Moscow, 1967.

standards of international law, obtain in various spheres of life---political, economic, social and cultural. There /ire the commercial and financial relations between firms and organisations of different countries, maintained in the economic sphere in the absence of any special commercial treaty, or the like. In the social sphere, foreigners are ensured human rights and legal capabilities on the basis of the equality of men often in the absence of a formal treaty to this effect.

There are many similar examples in the sphere of culture and science, where scientists and cultural workers maintain contacts and exchange national and cultural values to the benefit of the peoples in the absence of an appropriate international agreement.

In the political sphere, too, there are certain relations between peoples and states that are not of the order of juridical relations.

Some factual relations of an anti-legal nature are practised by the imperialist states. These are calculated to replace international law with the right of diktat by the strong. Such lawlessness is not only factual. Often it is the result of inter-governmental deals, which capitalist states transact to clothe in the garb of international law and substitute lawlessness for rule of law and force, for rule of treaty.

In order to restrict or eliminate such practices, it is es^ sential to extend the scope of contemporary international law, to work for its codification and progressive development in those spheres where it is insufficient.

Those relations between peoples and states that are not yet legally regulated, will only benefit from being formalised, supported and enforced by international law.

According to Hyde the term "denotes the principles and appurtenant rules of conduct which states consider themselves obliged to observe and therefore usually observe in their relations with each other''.

International law, wrote L. Oppenheim, "is the name for the body of customary and conventional rules which are considered legally binding by civilised states in their intercourse with each other".^^1^^

F. List believes that international law is the body of legal standards which governs the mutual rights and obligations of states belonging to the international community of states related to the implemenation by them of their rights of statehood.^^2^^

Some jurists maintain that modern international law is the "expression of the co-ordinated wills of different states, in other words, the wills of their governing classes", in which ihe will of the socialist states, which expresses the will of the peoples and the will of the imperialist states, which represents the will of a handful of monopolists, are "juridically equal".^^3^^

This theory endeavours to pass as contemporary international law the will of the governing classes of imperialist states, whose foreign policy is shaped by the class interests of monopoly capital, which congenitally gravitates towards aggression and war.

The Soviet science of international law has frequently laid bare and criticised the flaws in such definitions of international law.

A. Vyshinsky defined international law as an- "aggregate of standards regulating relations between states in the process of their struggle and co-operation, expressing the will of the governing classes of the states, and enforced by compulsion on the part of the states individually or collectively".^^4^^

After the 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U. most Soviet jurists revised this definition, stressing in one way or another that

7. DEFINITION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AS A REGULATOR OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE

The far-reaching changes that have occurred in the contemporary international situation require the definition of international law, moulded in the preceding epoch and inconsistent with present reality, to be finalised.

Professor Martens defined international law as the ag^ gregate of legal standards determining the conditions whereby the people achieve their vital purposes in the sphere of their mutual relations.

~^^1^^ L. Oppenheim, International Law. A Treatise, 6th edition, London, 1947, Vol. 1, p. 4.

~^^2^^ F. List, Mezhdunarodnoye pravo v sistematicheskom izlozhenii, Yuryev, 1917, p. 1.

^^3^^ Volkerrecht und rechtliches Weltbild, Vienna, 1960, pp. 302, 298.

~^^4^^ A. Y. Vyshinsky, Voprosy mezhdunarodnogo prava i mezhdunarodnoi politiki, p. 480.

modern international law is the law of the period of the peaceful coexistence of states.

Vyshinsky's definition overlooks the fact that modern international law is in character a universal, generally recognised body of law in the sense that it has ceased to apply to just the European and North American peoples, and is now binding on all peoples and states in all continents.

The flaw of Vyshinsky's definition lay in its over-- accentuation, of the state and in its overlooking the role of the peoples as makers of history who have taken their future, the future of the world and mankind, into their own hands. Besides, it glossed over the principle of respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples. It is unclear from the definition why the law it implies is called international.

The most glaring flaw in Vyshinsky's definition was that it underplayed the role of the peoples as makers of history and exaggerated the class will so strongly as to, in effect, substitute class will for international law. It seemed to say that international relations were not inter-state and not international in character, but merely class relations. Besides, it confused the role of compulsion in domestic law with the role of compulsion in international law.

Marx once observed that violations of law should not be allowed to replace law itself. This is why any agreement between governing groups of capitalist states, if it expresses the will of only the dominant classes and not the sovereign will of the people for peace based on the principles of peaceful coexistence, is invalid from the standpoint of modern universally recognised international law.

The rulers of capitalist states are not in the habit of saying in so many words that their foreign policy pursues the interest of the ruling class. They profess to act in the interest of "the whole nation", the interest of "all peoples", or, at the very least, "in the name and on the instructions of their people". For any bourgeois politician to say in our time that he expresses the will of the ruling class and not of the whole people in his foreign or domestic policy is to discredit himself in the eyes of the people.

In the past, the exploiting classes elevated their will not only to the status of domestic, but also of international law. This must not be allowed to happen in our time if mankind is to be delivered from the menace of a nuclear-missile war,

because the contemporary imperialist bourgeoisie is consumed by a craving for war and world domination.

By this token, the modern international law of the states with different social and economic systems could be defined as the aggregate of universally recognised customary or conventional international standards and principles legally binding on all states and expressing the interests of all mankind, governing the international legal order, under which mutual relations between peoples and states of the different socio-economic systems are based on the principle of peaceful coexistence.

Chapter Eight

THE PRINCIPLES OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AS EMBODIED IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

1. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE IS A GENERALLY RECOGNISED STANDARD OF MODERN INTERNATIONAL LAW

The composite elements of the conception of peaceful coexistence listed in the previous chapters constitute a concrete system of principles of contemporary international law embodied in positive, that is, operative standards of international law as fixed in treaties and customs.

Although the bourgeois doctrine frequently repudiates peaceful coexistence and some of the principles of modern international law, such as sovereignty, equal rights, selfdetermination and non-interference, which constitute the core of peaceful coexistence, the idea of peaceful coexistence and its key principles have, whether theorists and politicians like it or not, developed into standards of international law and are exercising an influence on international relations. The main problem now is to secure their regular observance by all states.

Peaceful coexistence and all its principles, as embodied in the standards of operative international law, are a legal and political superstructure engendered by the objective laws of social development. This is why nobody can put them down.

The ideologists of imperialism go out of tKeir way to discredit these principles, and even to prove that they do not exist.^^1^^ They peddle the idea that the Soviet conception of peaceful coexistence is incompatible with international law.

But their contention is overruled by the practice of half a century and the principal legislative acts of the supreme bodies of the world's first socialist state at different stages

of its history.^^1^^ The provisions of the Decree on Peace, drawn up by Lenin, were confirmed and developed by subsequent congresses of Soviets. In 1922, for example, the Tenth All-Russia Congress of Soviets stressed that "the cause of peace rests with the peoples themselves" and that "exhausted and tormented, ruined and starved iftankind must be provided with peace at all costs".^^2^^

The steadfast efforts of the Soviet state in behalf of peace and peaceful coexistence were corroborated by the resolution of the Second Congress of Soviets, which stressed that the Soviet Government considered as its prime task to work for peace and persevered in re-establishing normal contacts with all peoples.

The capitalist countries, in the meantime, thwarted normal relations with the socialist state and pursued a policy of, sabotaging peaceful coexistence. This made the Fourth Ail-Union Congress of Soviets declare that the U.S.S.R. is "the only state in the world which pursues a straightforward and open policy of consistent peace, conforming with the interests of all mankind.^^3^^

Proceeding from the fact that peaceful coexistence is an operative principle of modern international law, D. Levin, the Soviet jurist, wrote that the principle of peaceful coexistence "has won the recognition of nearly all states of the world as the main pillar of contemporary international relations".^^4^^ Peaceful coexistence was first formalised as a universally recognised principle of international law in those acts and documents which recognised the Soviet state as a new, socialist subject of international law, a state with a new socio-economic system.

The act of recognition extended to a new subject of international law connotes the obligation to respect the new social system of that state, its form of government, its political structure and its system of legislation and law. The act of recognition implies readiness to enter into normal diplomatic, commercial and other relations with the given

~^^1^^ V. V. Gladyshev, "Mezhdunarodno-pravovoi printsip mirnogo sosushchcstvovaniya v yego istoricheskom razvitii" (Vestnik Moskovskogo Uniuersiteta, Seriya X, Pravo, 1964, No. 4. pp. 9-18).

~^^2^^ Syezdy Sovietov Soyuza SSR, soyuznykh i avtonomnykh Sovietskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik. 1917-1936, Sbornik dokumentov, Vol. I, Gosyurizdat, 1959, p. 237.

~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. Ill, pp. 60, 114.

~^^4^^ D. B. Levin, Diplomatiya, Sotsekgiz, 1962, p. 150.

~^^1^^ J. Slessor, What Price Coexistence? A Policy for the Western Alliance, New York, 1961, p. 112; R. Aron, Paix et guerre entre les na-_ tions, Paris, 1962, pp. 661-65; M. Kovner, The Challenge of Coexistence," A Study of Soviet Economic Diplomacy, Washington, 1961, pp. 11, 108.

state and to maintain these relations in the interest of peace and in conformance with the requirements of international law.^^1^^

When the capitalist states recognised the Soviet Union and entered into legal international relations with it, they thereby recognised the principle of the peaceful coexistence of states of the two systems as the basic standard of relations between such states.

The international principle of peaceful coexistence did not win full recognition overnight. The armed intervention of foreign states in the domestic affairs of the Soviet Republic was a repudiation of peaceful coexistence. It was calculated to strangle and destroy the first state of the new, socialist system, to restore capitalism in Russia and to eliminate the division of the world into two systems. However, the attempt to destroy the new socialist state by force proved abortive, as did the attempt to put the Soviet state on its knees by means of blockade, hunger and international isolation.

In 1922, 1923 and 1924 a spate of capitalist states recognised the Soviet Republic and, consequently, the inevitability of peaceful coexistence as the basis of relations between states with different socio-economic systems.

In 1922, Paragraph 1 of the resolution of the Cannes Conference referred to the "equality of the two property systems", recognising thereby, as Lenin put it, the inevitable rapport of the capitalist and communist systems "on terms of equality". This proposition was also recorded in more emphatic form in the Rapallo Treaty.

The 1922 Cannes Conference recognised that "every country ... has the right to choose for itself the system it prefers",^^2^^ that all nations must undertake "to refrain from any and all propaganda aimed at overthrowing the order and the political system established in other countries" and that "all states must jointly assume the obligation to refrain from hostile actions against their neighbours''.

In its assessment of the Genoa Conference, the All-Union Central Executive Committee observed that "the course of international relations of the recent past indicates that the temporary coexistence of the communist and bourgeois systems of ownership is inevitable in the current stage of

~^^1^^ D. M. Feldman, Priznaniya gosudarstv v souremennom prove, Kazan, 1965.

~^^2^^ Dokumenty vneshnei politiki SSSR, Vol. V, p. 58.

historical development and compels even the most irreconcilable enemies of Soviet Russia to search for agreement with the communist system of ownership after their fouryear-long attempts at destroying that system by force have proved abortive".^^1^^

As far back as 1933, the U.S. Government conceded the possibility of peaceful coexistence when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt expressed the hope "that the relations now established between our peoples may forever remain normal and friendly, and that our nations henceforth may co-operate for their mutual benefit and for the preservation of the peace of the World".^^2^^

Despite various attempts at breaking down peaceful coexistence, it was developed and reaffirmed in various treaties between the U.S.S.R. and the capitalist states, particularly in non-aggression pacts (such as the Briand-Kellogg peace pact), mutual assistance pacts and pacts against aggression.

The idea that peaceful coexistence is inevitable gained fresh prominence at the time of the Second World War, when the major capitalist powers became aware that the aggressor could not be vanquished, nor an edifice of world peace be built, without the Soviet Union. This is why they agreed to collaborate with the Soviet Union not only in smashing the Hitler bloc, but also in forging the post-war image of the world.

The anti-Hitler coalition, wrote Inozemtsev, a Soviet jurist, "is convincing proof that peaceful coexistence and collaboration is possible between states with different socioeconomic systems".^^3^^

The fact that the Soviet Union, a great socialist power, worked hand in hand with the capitalist powers in building the post-war edifice, shows that peaceful coexistence was universally recognised de jure and de facto as a pillar of modern international law. A glance at the documents which determined the post-war arrangement, drawn up jointly by states with different socio-economic systems, will show that peaceful coexistence has in fact become an operative principle of international law.

Thus, in the Anglo-Soviet Treaty of Alliance of May 26, 1942, the signatories gave "expression to their intention

~^^1^^ Dokumenty vneshnei politiki SSSR, Vol. V, pp. 59, 385.

~^^2^^ New York Times, Nov. 18, 1933.

~^^3^^ N. N. Inozemtsev, Vneshnyaya politika SShA v epokhu imperializma, p. 361.

to collaborate closely with one another as well as with the other United Nations" both in times of war and peace. Article 3 of the Treaty records their desire "to unite with other like-minded States in adopting proposals for common action to preserve peace and resist aggression in the postwar period". In Article 5 the parties to the Treaty agreed "to work together in close and friendly collaboration after the re-establishment of peace for the organisation of security and economic prosperity in Europe''.

In the same treaty, the signatories declared their allegiance to such principles of peaceful coexistence as territorial inviolability and non-interference in internal affairs (Article 5), collective security (Article 3), observance of international obligations (Article 7) and economic co-- operation based on mutual advantage (Article 6).

When signing the Treaty, Anthony Eden said that " understanding between us is one of the fundamentals of peace, not for us alone, but for the world". He also said: "Upon the co-operation of the Soviet Union, the United States of America and the British Commonwealth the future of mankind will largely depend.''^^1^^

Although this Treaty is now invalid, it shows that already during the Second World War Britain and the Soviet Union considered peaceful coexistence and co-operation of states with different socio-economic systems a natural and self-evident fact.

The Soviet-American agreement of June 11, 1942, stressed that its signatories were "committed to a common cause, jointly with all other like-minded states and peoples, aimed at creating the foundation of a just and lasting common peace ensuring law and order for them and all other peoples''.

Was this not an admission that the principles of peaceful coexistence and co-operation of states of the two systems in creating such a common peace were viable and effective?

In the same agreement, the United States and the Soviet Union undertook "to promote mutually advantageous economic relations between the two countries and to improve world economic relations" by means of "concerted actions" designed "to extend by appropriate international and internal measures production, the use of manpower and the

exchange of consumer goods" and "to destroy all forms of discrimination in international commerce, reducing customs duties, lifting trade barriers, and generally attaining all economic objectives".^^1^^

Although this agreement has become invalid, it, too, embodies the idea of peaceful coexistence.

The idea of peaceful coexistence and close collaboration with the Soviet Union was also recognised by France in the Non-Aggression Pact of 1932, the Mutual Assistance Pact of 1935 and the Treaty of Alliance of 1944. De Gaulle said on this score in 1944 that "to be united is for France and Russia to be strong, and to be separated is to be in danger".^^2^^ Thus, de Gaulle recognised that France and the Soviet Union could coexist not only in the context of general international collaboration, but, much more, in the context of an alliance.

The idea of peaceful coexistence was taken a step farther in the Four-Nations Moscow Declaration on General Security, of October 30, 1943, which recognised the necessity of establishing "a general international organisation based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving states, and open to membership by all such states, large and small".^^3^^

The text of the Declaration says, in effect, that the principle of the peaceful coexistence of states with different socio-economic systems is a self-evident basis of international co-operation and of a security organisation, membership to which would be open to all states, large and small, on the basis of sovereign equality, irrespective of their system.

The Teheran Declaration of the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union is also pervaded with the idea of peaceful coexistence as the basis of the international collaboration of all countries. The leaders of the three powers belonging to different socio-economic systems stated in that Declaration:

``We express our determination that our nations shall work together in war and in the peace that will follow.''

~^^1^^ Vneshnyaqa politika Sovietskogo Soyuza v period Otechestvennoi voiny, Vol. 1, pp. 278, 281.

~^^2^^ Ch. de Gaulle, Memoires de Guerre. Le Salut (1944-1946), Paris, 1959, p. 385.

~^^3^^ Documents on American Foreign Relations, Vol. VI, July 1943-June 1944, Boston, 1945, p. 229.

~^^1^^ A. Eden, Freedom and Order, Selected Speeches, 1939-1946, London, 1957, p. 164.

18-3121

In reference to the future, the three Great Powers declared: "We shall seek the co-operation and active participation of all nations, large and small." The Teheran Declaration proceeded from the belief that all countries, large and small, socialist and capitalist, must "come into a world family of Democratic Nations".^^1^^

The Teheran Declaration thereby expressed the idea of the close co-operation of states of different systems within a single family of nations, as well as the idea of peaceful coexistence. "We look with confidence to the day," said the U.S.S.R., Britain and the United States in Teheran, "when all peoples of the world may live free lives, untouched by tyranny, and according to their varying desires and their consciences.''^^2^^

These words pinpoint the principle of peaceful coexistence as an operative standard of international law.

Let us quote two statements made by leading U.S. statesmen of the time..In a telegram to Mikhail Kalinin, Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., dated November 8, 1944, President Roosevelt wrote that with, the nearing end of the war the world could still more confidently expect the attainment of the common goal---a stable and just peace and continued close co-operation between all the United Nations.^^3^^ State Secretary Stettinius, too, referred to the attainment of a lasting and just peace, built upon the stable foundation of co-operation and mutual understanding.^^4^^

The principles of peaceful coexistence were also reaffirmed at the Crimea Conference in February 1945, at which the Big Three agreed plans of working hand in hand with their Allies to attain "a secure and lasting peace".^^5^^

In Yalta, the top leaders of states with different socioeconomic systems reasserted their "determination to build, in co-operation with other peace-loving nations, world order under law, dedicated to peace, security, freedom and the general well-being of all mankind".^^6^^

Their determination to preserve and' extend their "unity of purpose and of action" after the war was described by the Big Three, who belonged to different systems, as their "sacred obligation which our Governments owe to our peoples and to all the peoples of the world".^^1^^

Having reaffirmed the principle of peaceful coexistence as a "sacred obligation" in the historic decisions of the Crimea Conference, the Big Three acted on the experience of history in stressing that "only with the continuing and growing co-operation and understanding among our three countries and among all the peace-loving nations can the highest aspiration of humanity be realised---a secure and lasting peace''.

What other recognition could be more convincing that secure and Blasting peace is fiction without peaceful coexistence and close co-operation among states of the two systems ?

When President Roosevelt declared that the science of human relations, the ability of all peoples without exception to live and work together in one world in an environment of peace had to be developed, no man in his right mind could doubt that Roosevelt's words signified unconditional recognition of the peaceful coexistence "of all peoples without exception".^^2^^

The Yalta decisions reaffirmed not only the general idea of peaceful coexistence but also its specific principles. The Declaration on Liberated Europe stressed that "the restoration of sovereign rights and self-government" in accordance with the principles of self-determination, that is, "the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live",^^3^^ had to be provided for.

At the Potsdam Conference (July 1945) the U.S.S.R., Britain and the U.S.A. "extended the scope of their collaboration and understanding".^^4^^

The leaders of the Big Three concluded the Conference "with renewed confidence that their Governments and peo-

~^^1^^ Documents on American Foreign Relations, Vol. VI, July 1943- June 1944, Boston, 1945, p. 235.

~^^2^^ Ibid.

~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. II, p. 364.

~^^4^^ Ibid., p. 369.

~^^5^^ Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers. The Conferences at Malta and Yalta, 1945, Washington, 1955, p. 975; United \ations Documents, 1941-1945, London, 1947, pp. 147-48.

~^^6^^ Ibid., p. 972.

~^^1^^ Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers. The Conferences at Malta and Yalta, 1945, p. 975; United Nations Documents, 1941-1945, pp. 147-48.

~^^2^^ International Affairs, No. 3, 1961, Moscow.

~^^3^^ Foreign Relations of the United States..., p. 972.

~^^4^^ United Nations Documents 1941-1945, London, 1947, p. 194.

18'

pies, together with the other United Nations, will ensure the creation of a just and enduring peace".^^1^^

As we see, the decisions reached at the Moscow, Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam conferences, which laid the foundation of post-war peace and order, reaffirmed and extended the principles of peaceful coexistence.

Much of what these decisions envisaged has not been fulfilled by the Western powers, but this does not blot out the fact that they actually recognised the idea of peaceful coexistence as a standard of international law, just as violations of sovereignty or of some other principle of international law does not repeal the respective standards of operative international law.

Western writers are prone to say that the Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam decisions accord with principles of international law as advocated by the Soviet Union and do not accord with principles advocated by the West.

A glance at the respective decisions concerning co-- operation between the states of the two systems in the post-war world reveals plainly that there is nothing in them contrary to universally recognised notions and standards.

It is easily demonstrated that the Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam decisions and, consequently, the principles of peaceful coexistence set out in them, were in no way imposed upon the Western powers. One need only refer to the foreign policy statements made by the United Kingdom and the United States in the absence of any Soviet delegate (e.g., the Atlantic Charter, August 14, 1941) and compare them with Soviet statements, such as the Soviet declaration at the London Conference on September 24, 1941, which endorsed the principles set out in the Atlantic Charter.

The Yalta Conference said that establishing a general international organisation to maintain peace and security was essential both to prevent aggression and "to remove the political, economic, and social causes of war through the close and continuing collaboration of all peace-loving peoples".^^2^^

As we see, "close and continuing collaboration of all peace-loving peoples" belonging to different socio-economic systems was recognised as essential to banish war and make an international security organisation effective.

2. THE U.K. PRINCIPLES ARE PRINCIPLES OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE

John Hazard pretends he does not understand what is behind the Soviet proposal of peaceful coexistence. Joseph Alsop says that by peaceful coexistence the Soviet,Union means "the world power struggle according to the strange prevailing rules, ... avoiding any serious risk of major war. The rules they play by, although we have largely accepted them, are rules made hi the Kremlin.''

According to these rules, Alsop alleges, the Soviet union "can freely attack any conveniently vulnerable position on our side of the line''.

Yet the idea of peaceful coexistence, of close and continuing collaboration among all the peace-loving peoples, pervades every line of the U.N. Charter, signed at the San Francisco Conference by 50 states and later acceded to by more than 70 states. This Charter is today the principal code of international law.

Ninety per cent of the votes at the San Francisco Conference belonged to delegates of the capitalist powers, headed by the United States and Britain. So the Soviet Union could in no way have imposed upon them the idea of peaceful coexistence as a basis for post-war peace, which was jointly defined during the Second World War.

Even so zealous a NATO protagonist as Claude Delmas admits that when the United Nations was being created the common inclination of Communists and non-Communists alike was "to reach agreement for building a world free of tensions".^^1^^

The United Nations members reaffirmed these principles in the draft of their Declaration of the Rights and Duties of States, passed by the U.N. General Assembly in December 1949. It defined some of the basic rights and duties of states "in view of the new development of international law and in harmony with the Charter of the United Nations''.

In full accord with the spirit of the Charter, the U.N. General Assembly declared in its resolution of December 6, 1949, that "the states of the world form a community governed by international law", making no distinction between states of the two socio-economic systems and stress-

^^1^^ United Nations Documents 1941-1945, p. 194.

~^^2^^ Foreign Relations of the United States..., p. 971.

~^^1^^ C. Delmas, M. Carpentier, P. Gallois, M. Faure, L'Avenir de I' Alliance, Atlantique, p. 19.

ing that "the progressive development of international law calls for the effective organisation of intercourse between states". This General Assembly resolution recorded that "a considerable majority of the states of the world have accordingly established a new international order governed by the, U.N. Charter, and the majority of the other states of the world have declared their wish to live in accordance with this order''.

It is of interest, therefore, to examine the extent to which the U.N. Charter, and modern international law as recorded in the Charter, express the principles of peaceful coexistence.

Here is how the idea of the peaceful coexistence of states with different socio-economic systems is formulated in the U.N. Charter:

``To practise tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours.''

Membership to the United Nations is open to "all other peace-loving states", regardless of their political system (Art. 4).

The Charter makes no specific distinctions as to the political forms and socio-economic systems of the modern states, while requiring all U.N. members to join forces "to maintain international peace and security" and "to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest''.

In setting up the United Nations Organisation, the peoples, as the Preamble to the Charter says, were determined "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war". Yet it is obviously impossible to deliver mankind from war by trying to secure peace for generations that inhabit countries of the one system, and overlooking the generations inhabiting the countries of the other.

The only way to make peace secure is for the countries of the, socialist and capitalist systems to work for it jointly. The U.N. Charter says it is essential "to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples", in order "to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion''.

It is one of the basic U.N. purposes, as said in the Charter, "to reaffirm faith in the equal rights of nations large and

small", regardless of their form of government and political structure, and regardless, too, of their socio-economic system.

There is every reason to say that the very creation of the United Nations Organisation epitomises the idea of the peaceful coexistence of states with different socio-economic systems.

G. Morozov said rightly that the "fundamental principles of the U.N. Charter create realistic opportunities for making it the juridical platform of peaceful coexistence".^^1^^

Before the world's first socialist state appeared on the scene, that is, before peaceful coexistence became a fact of history, war was regarded in international law as much a lawful and natural state as peace.^^2^^ In the past, says Oppenheim, "wa~r was in law a natural function of the state and a prerogative of its uncontrolled sovereignty".^^3^^

But this was before the world split into two systems, before the socialist system became operative in the world alongside the capitalist.

.

Under the impact of the 1917 October Socialist Revolu^: tion, which branded aggressive war as a crime against humanity^^4^^ and gave birth to peaceful coexistence, war was banned in international law first in treaties on neutralitv and non-aggression concluded by the Soviet Republic with its neighbouring countries, and then in the Briand-Kellogg Peace Pact of 1928.

After the U.N. Charter came into being and more than 120 states joined the United Nations, renunciation of aggressive war became a universal principle of peaceful coexistence and international law.

:

Aggression is a breach and violation of international riot of domestic, peace. This is why the concept of `` aggression'' cannot be applied to a civil war, which is waged between parts of the population of one state or one nation patently an internal affair. Armed intervention by a foreign power in the domestic affairs of another power, such as the U.S. intervention in South Vietnam and Laos, constitutes air aggression.

~^^1^^ G. I. Morozov, Organizatsiya Obyedinyonnykh Natsy, p. 298.

~^^2^^ Hugo Grotius, Jure Belle ac Pads.

^^3^^ L. Oppenheim, International Law. A Treatise, Vol. II, Disputes, War and Neutrality, London, 1944, p. 145.

<.-...

~^^4^^ P. S. Romashkin, Prestupleniga protiv mira i chelovechestva^ Mos_T cow, 1967, pp. 24-25.

•...•>,.•<

The concept of ``aggression'' is bound up with the concept of "unjust war". An undisguised armed attack, like the treacherous assault by nazi Germany on the U.S.S.R. on June 22, 1941, or the Anglo-Franco-Israeli attack on Egypt in 1956, are typical aggressive acts. Other examples of aggression are the U.S. intervention in the Dominican Republic, the Dutch operation in Indonesia, the British ventures in Oman and Aden, and the Portuguese acts in Angola and Mozambique.

An aggression may be a veiled one, such as when the aggressor puts a puppet government into power in another country by means of his agents and then moves his troops in under a phoney treaty. Germany's aggression against Czechoslovakia, Britain's against Greece, America's against Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, etc., are examples of such veiled aggression.

A state is an aggressor whose armed forces enter the territory of another state with or without a declaration of war (e.g., Israeli invasion on the territories of the U.A.R., Syria and Jordan in 1967), bomb or bombard the territory of another state (e.g., U.S. air-raids on the Democratic Republic of Vietnam), or attack the ships or aircraft of another state. The unlawful stationing of troops in foreign territory (e.g., U.S. troops in South Vietnam) and the blockading of ports of another state (e.g., U.S. naval blockade of the island of Cuba) are also aggressions.

Various questions related to the internal situation and the international position of states are, by token of the above definition, an insufficient motive and justification for aggression.

Ever since war as an instrument of national policy was banned by international legal means (Briand-Kellogg Pact, United Nations Charter), aggression has been qualified as an international crime for which the aggressor states must bear responsibility. At the 22nd session of the U.N. General Assembly the Soviet Union proposed to speed up the elaboration of an exhaustive definition of aggression.

The General Assembly resolution of December 6, 1948, (on the rights and duties of states), says that "every state has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognised by international law''.

Peaceful coexistence implies the right of every nation to self-determination not only as regards territory and the

creation of a separate national state, but also in the choice of the form of government and the socio-economic system.

The draft of the Human Rights Covenants says that all peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of this right, it says, they are free to determine their political status and free to ensure their economic and social advancement. Article 1, Clause 2 of the U.N. Charter defines as the purpose of the United Nations to develop international co-operation "based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples''.

The General Assembly resolution of December 6, 1949, says that "every state has the right of independence and hence of exercising freely without dictation by any other state, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government''.

The Bandung Conference of 1955 described this U.N. resolution as "a prerequisite of the full employment of all fundamental Human Rights" and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as "a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations".^^1^^

That the concept of self-determination covers the right to choose not only the form of government but also the social system, and the system of economy and property, was stressed in the Soviet declaration of solidarity with the Atlantic Charter on September 24, 1941. The Soviet declaration reaffirmed the right of all peoples "to establish the social system and choose the form of government they consider desirable and necessary for the economic and cultural prosperity of their country".^^2^^

It will be recalled that Lenin's Decree on Peace also interpreted the right of self-determination "for all nations" as the right to form an independent state.^^3^^

Peaceful coexistence implies non-interference in the internal affairs of peoples and states. The U.N. Charter, too, sets out the principles of sovereignty and self-- determination, but stresses that nothing contained in it authorises the United Nations, let alone any state or group of states, "to intervene in matters which are essentially within the do-

~^^1^^ George McTurnan Kahin, The Asian-African Conference, Bandung, Indonesia, April 1955, Ithaca, New York, 1956, p. 80.

~^^2^^ Vneshnyaga politika Souietskogo Soyuza.v period Otechestvennoi voiny, Vol. I, p. 165.

~^^3^^ Pekrety Sovietskoi Vlasti, Gospolitizdat, 1957, Vol. I, pp. 39-40.

231.

mestic jurisdiction of any state" or anything requiring U.N. members "to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter" (Art. 2, Cl. 7).

The U.N. General Assembly Resolution on the Rights and Duties of States also stresses that "it is the duty of every state to refrain from intervention in the internal or external affairs of any other state''.

/

Foes of peaceful coexistence harp on the notion that the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs has not yet been incorporated in international law from the standpoint of Soviet willingness to observe it. This could not be farther from the truth. The principle of non-- interference is an operative and universally recognised principle of international law and the Soviet state is its most fervent protagonist, viewing it as one of the key principles of peaceful coexistence.

The U.N. Charter declares the United Nations to be an organisation "based on the principle of sovereign equality of all its members" (Art. 2, Cl. 1) and says it is one of the principal purposes of the United Nations "to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples" (Art. 1, Cl. 2) and to reaffirm faith "in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small" (Preamble).

The equality of states as a corollary of their sovereignty connotes the right of every state to participate in international relations on equal grounds, meaning that states have an equal degree of legal capability.

The principle of the equality of states implies an equal volume of international legal capability, the right to participate in settling questions affecting the interests of the state concerned, equality of its vote in international organisations and conferences, free choice in undertaking obligations, equality of rights and obligations and proportionality of mutual advantages in treaties. "Agreement," wrote Lenin, "is possible only between equals. If the agreement is to be a real agreement, and not a verbal screen for subjection, both parties to it must enjoy real equality of status.''^^1^^

3. GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS

HAVE DEVELOPED THE U.N. CHARTER PRINCIPLES

OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE

What the U.N. Charter set out on peaceful coexistence has been developed in numerous General Assembly resolutions, some of which have already been quoted in this volume, particularly in the resolutions on the Rights and Duties of States, on Human Rights, and a few other special resolutions.

The General Assembly Resolution on the Rights and Duties of States, of December 6, 1949, says that "every state has the right to equality in law with every other state" and "has the duty to_/ treat all persons under its jurisdiction with respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion". This conforms with the basic provisions of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which describes these rights as the goal all states should aspire to.

Pacts on political and civil rights, and also on economic, social and cultural rights, could be effective in achieving this goal.

The institution of international protection of human rights is a new development in international law in the epoch of the peaceful coexistence of the two systems and is highlighted by a competition as to which system best satisfies the political, civil, social, economic and cultural rights of man.

The future of mankind depends on the outcome of this competition.

This is why human rights have ceased to be the concern of the state in relation to only its own citizens, and their protection is fast becoming a category of international law.

Article 2 of the draft Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Human Rights stresses that every state is obliged to strive both individually and through international cooperation to the maximum extent of its resources for legislative and other measures to enforce the rights provided for in the Covenant.

Conclusion of such a Covenant is all the more necessary today, because the monopoly bourgeoisie is bent on violating even the half-baked bourgeois concept of democracy.

Democratic human rights and freedoms in the so-called free world have become an object of abuse and of police reprisals.

~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 24, p. 336,

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights passed by the United Nations in 1948 declares that every person has the right to freedom of convictions and to their free expression, which, as the Declaration points out, implies freedom to keep one's convictions and to seek, obtain and disseminate information and ideas by every method.

As we said, the peaceful coexistence propositions of the U.N. Charter were taken a step farther in some of the General Assembly special resolutions.

The 12th U.N. General Assembly deemed it necessary on December 14, 1957, to adopt a special resolution, 1236 (XII), on the principles of co-operation among U.N. members, which underscored the urgency and importance of developing peaceful good-neighbour relations between states regardless of differences in the relative level and character of their political, economic and social development.

This resolution upsets the contention that U.N. Charter provisions on tolerance, self-determination, good-neighbour relations and other principles of friendly relations between nations refer solely to relations between capitalist states. When a General Assembly resolution speaks of developing peaceful and good-neighbour relations between states regardless of the differences and character of their political, economic and social development, it obviously and clearly means peaceful and friendly relations between all states, regardless of any and all distinctions.

The General Assembly resolution on co-operation sets out this idea in a number of its other sections, saying, for example, that it is necessary to encourage the attainment of the basic purposes of the U.N. Charter, namely, " maintenance of international peace and security and friendly cooperation of states"; that it is necessary "to develop peaceful relations and tolerance between states"; that it is necessary to extend international co-operation, relieve tension and settle differences and disputes between states by peaceful means, and last but not least, that all states must apply their every effort to consolidating international peace and developing friendly relations and co-operation.

That this resolution is pervaded by the idea of peaceful coexistence is brought home forcefully by the principles it lists as the foundation for peaceful, good-neighbour, friendly relations between states, for tolerance and cooperation between them. The resolution says that these

principles, should be achieved in accordance with the Charter, on the basis of mutual respect and advantage, nonaggression, mutual respect of sovereignty and equality, territorial integrity and non-interference in the domestic affairs of one another. What the resolution does, in effect, is list the fundamental principles of peaceful coexistence.

The resolution points out that all these principles follow from the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter and that their observance is, at once, observance of "the purposes and principles of the Charter''.

The resolution was adopted by all member's of the United Nations, that is, by the capitalist, socialist and neutralist states of all the continents, by countries with different political and social systems, different forms of government and different political structures, different ideologies and cultures, different levels of civilisation and different legal systems.

No further proof is needed to show that peaceful coexistence and all its principles constitute a universally recognised and operative standard of modern international law.

;

The aggressive forces not only cast doubt on the principles of peaceful coexistence; they are trying to violate and undermine them, thereby violating the principles of contemporary international law. But nothing they can do will rescind peaceful coexistence. On the contrary, it will only stress its importance.

In its Resolution 1301 (XIII) of December 10, 1958, the General Assembly again called on U.N. members "to take effective steps towards the implementation of principles of peaceful and neighbourly relations", that is, the principles of peaceful coexistence set out in Resolution 1236 (XII).

Besides, Resolution 1301 recommended that "all memberstates should take practical measures or make arrangements ... to foster open, free and friendly co-operation and understanding in the fields of economy, culture, science, technology and communications''.

In its Resolution on the Abolition of Colonialism, of December 14, 1960, the General Assembly made universal the key principles of peaceful coexistence by spreading them to all countries, continents and peoples. The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples emphasised the importance of "peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of

equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all", of the "inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory", the right of selfdetermination, including the right to "freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development", the right to "freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources", and the obligation of all U.N. members to base their relations on "equality, noninterference in the internal affairs of all states", and on "respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity''.

In the last few years, the United Nations has gone forward from proclaiming common propositions of peaceful coexistence and international co-operation to the practical business of codifying the principles of peaceful coexistence. On December 18, 1962, the 17th General Assembly passed Resolution 1815, which reaffirmed the immense importance of the progressive development of international law and rule of law among nations in view of the far-reaching political, economic, social and scientific changes that have occurred in the world since the Charter was adopted. This resolution again proclaimed the extreme importance of peaceful coexistence or, as this was put in the resolution, of developing peaceful and good-neighbour relations between states, irrespective of their differences or relative stages, or the character of their political, economic and social development.

Resolution 1815 (XVII) reminds the states of their obligation to co-operate with one another and to create conditions in which justice and the observance of commitments arising from international treaties and other sources of international law would be secure.

Note the recognition by the General Assembly in this document that principles of international law related to friendly relations and co-operation of states, and to the pertinent obligations, are of immense importance for the progressive development of international law and the establishment of rule of law among nations.

The resolution refers to the seven principles contained in Articles 1 and 2 of the U.N. Charter and calls attention to two more principles, which were defined after the Charter was passed:

a) subjection of peoples to foreign enslavement, domination and exploitation is an obstacle to international peace and co-operation;

b) discontinuance of the arms race is essential before general and complete disarmament under effective international control can be carried through.

Although the General Assembly decided on beginning a study of the principles of international law related to peaceful coexistence in order to promote their progressive development and codification and to insure their ,more effective application, Resolution 1815 (XVII) ruled that only four questions should be examined in that period: nonapplication of force in international relations, peaceful settlement of international disputes, non-interference in internal affairs and the sovereign equality of states. In addition, the resolution deemed it necessary to decide what other principles should be examined at subsequent sessions, and in what order this should be done. U.N. members were asked to submit their opinions on this score in writing. After an exchange of views at the 18th General Assembly in 1963, a Special Committee was set up to report on the progress of the codification of the principles of peaceful coexistence. The very structure of this Committee, which followed the principle of fair geographical representation and representation of the major legal systems of the world, evidenced the triumph of the idea of the peaceful coexistence of states with different socio-economic systems.

Resolution 1966 (XVIII) of December 16, 1963, adopted by the 18th General Assembly, instructed the Special Committee to take account not only of the wishes and views of individual states, but also of their practice of applying the principles of peaceful coexistence, and of anything else related to this question, particularly the elucidation of these principles by international law experts. The resolution also pointed to the need for studying, with the object of codifying, such principles as the obligation of states to cooperate with one another, the equal rights and self-- determination of peoples and the fulfilment of international obligations.

The Special Committee succeeded in reconciling the various points of view on some important aspects of the problem of peaceful coexistence at its session in Mexico City in 1964.

However, only some points of view were reconciled, and

only concerning the question of the non-application of force in international relations and the concept of sovereign equality. No agreement was reached on the question of the peaceful settlement of disputes and the question of noninterference, because the delegates of the big capitalist powers refused to codify these principles of peaceful coexistence on the plea that they were sufficiently defined in the U.N. Charter.

Obviously, some Western powers wish to slow down the progressive development of international law and the codification of the principles of peaceful coexistence. The imperialist powers interfere all over the globe in the domestic affairs of other countries and refuse to settle their international disputes by peaceful means. This is why they do not wish to tie themselves down to detailed international obligations banning such conduct.

The attitude of these powers to the two principles of peaceful coexistence, on which agreement was finally reached in the Special Committee, is highly indicative.

The draft of the clauses on the non-application of force in international relations says:

a) aggressive wars are international crimes against peace;

b) every state shall refrain from organising irregular or volunteer forces or groups with the object of invading the territory of another state;

c) every state shall refrain from fomenting or organising civil war or committing terrorist acts in another state;

d) threats or use of force shall not be employed also in territorial disputes and issues related to frontiers between states.

Some delegates attempted to cast doubt on the legitimate right of the peoples to use force in self-defence against colonial rule in the exercise of their right of self-- determination, and, furthermore, objected to the term ``force'' covering economic, political and other forms of pressure, as well as armed operations. Besides, some delegations contended unreasonably that the ban on the use of force in international relations does not oblige states to undertake measures promoting the earliest possible disarmament and preventing propaganda of war.

As for the principle of the sovereign equality of states, agreement was reached in the Special Committee on the following points (which stress that, being subjects of international law, the states have equal rights and duties):

a) the states are juridically equal;

b) every state has the rights implicit in complete sovereignty;

c) and d) the person of a state, its territorial integrity and political independence, are inviolable;

e) every state has the right freely to choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural system;

f) every state is obliged to fulfil in good faith its international obligations and to live in peace with other states.

Some delegates objected to such incontestable elements of sovereign equality, recognised in a number of General Assembly resolutions, as the right of every state to dispose freely of its natural wealth and resources and the right of every state to participate in the solution of international problems affecting its legitimate interests.

Although the Special Committee was able to draw up a report for the 19th General Assembly (A[5746]), its work of codifying the principles of peaceful coexistence was no more than a modest start.

It will be recalled that the 19th General Assembly did not examine any items on its agenda in substance (the report of the Special Committee included) because the United States and delegates acting at its behest artificially created a "financial crisis" in the United Nations and frustrated its work.

Over the head of the Security Council and in violation of the U.N. Charter, the American group of states wanted the Soviet Union and a few other countries to pay part of the unlawful expenses incurred by the late U.N. Secretary-General Hjalmar Hammarskjold in financing the socalled U.N. armed forces in the Congo and the Middle East. The Soviet Union was told to pay more than $50 million, failing which it was to be deprived of its vote in the General Assembly on, allegedly, the strength of Article 19 of the U.N. Charter.

The ultimate object was to undermine the very pillars of the United Nations Organisation, for the Soviet Union is one of the permanent members of the Security Council on whose concurring vote effective enforcement measures against aggression depend. The only lawful enforcement measures under the U.N. Charter are those passed by the Security Council with the "concurring votes of the permanent members" (Art. 27, Cl. 3).

In the circumstances, the United Nations would collapse

19-3121

289

if the Soviet Union were deprived of its vote. Fortunately, that sort of thing is impossible, for it would be a "U.N. action" to deprive the U.S.S.R. of its vote, and according to Art. 11, Cl. 2, "a question on which action is necessary shall be referred to the Security Council by the General Assembly", where it would require the concurring votes of all the five permanent Security Council members. The Soviet Union would doubtlessly veto the ``measure'' because it is contrary to the U.N. Charter.

This leads us to the question of who should pay for the maintenance of U.N. Armed Forces.

Obviously, it should be the member-states that make their national contingents available to the Security Council.

The U.N. Charter leaves no doubt on this score. Its Art. 43 says that all U.N. members contributing to the maintenance of peace "undertake to make available to the Security Council" on its call "the armed forces", assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for this purpose.

But on what terms?

The Charter says this should be done "in accordance with the special agreement or agreements ... concluded between the Security Council and member-states or between the Security Council and groups of member-states", such agreements governing "the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and the assistance to be provided" (Art. 43, Cl. 2).

The U.N. Charter does not allow the General Assembly to handle the question of enforcement measures directly. U.N. members may render assistance in collective measures solely to the Security Council, and this solely in conformance with the above-mentioned agreements. The Security Council is the only body that may require U.N. members to furnish such assistance, provided there are special agreements ratified by the signatory states "in accordance with their constitutional processes" (Art. 43, Cl. 3).

Was any such agreement related to the financing of operations in the Congo and the Middle East concluded between the Security Council and the Soviet Union?

Most emphatically not.

Besides, under the Charter the Security Council does not maintain mercenaries and does not bear any expenses pertaining to collective measures.

According to the U.N. Charter every member of the organisation whose national contingents take part in joint enforcement measures maintains these contingents itself and pays for their operation, unless some other procedure has been provided for in a special agreement with the Security Council. Yet in the case of the Congo and the Middle East operations, the Security Council concluded no agreements at all.

Neither the Security Council nor the General Assembly have any grounds, therefore, to require the Soviet Union to pay for these operations.

As evident from the Charter, financial claims addressed directly to the United Nations by states whose national contingents participated in these operations have no legal ground. These claims ought to be made to those against whom the operations were conducted, that is, to the aggressors, who bear the full financial responsibility for their international transgressions and crimes.

Controversy is rife all over the world as to how "to salvage the United Nations". The answer could not be simpler. All states, irrespective of their social system, must honour the U.N. Charter and refrain from creating artificial crises. On the eve of the twentieth, jubilee session of the U.N. General Assembly many observers thought the United Nations was at a dead end and a general crisis was inevitable, because of the "financial crisis" artificially created by U.S. diplomacy.

But the United Nations is too important an instrument of peace and international co-operation for even the most aggressive enemies of peace and friendly international relations to dare destroy it.

The efforts of the peace-loving countries prevented a breakdown and yielded a solution of the "financial crisis". What is more, they isolated the aggressive imperialist alignment and passed a number of important decisions.

This is true, first and foremost, of the Declaration condemning interference in the internal affairs of states and safeguarding their independence and sovereignty, which was passed by 109 out of 117 votes on the initiative of the Soviet Union on December 21, 1965. This Declaration applies the provisions of the U.N. Charter to contemporary international practice and stresses that no state is entitled to interfere directly or obliquely, for any reason whatsoever, in the internal and external affairs of other states.

19'

The Declaration defines the substance of the non-- interference principle and stresses that its observance is essentially important "to ensure that nations live together in. peace with one another since the practice of any form of intervention not only violates the spirit and letter of the Charter of the United Nations but also leads to the creation of situations which threaten international peace and security''.

The Declaration emphasises that all forms of "direct intervention, subversion and all forms of indirect intervention are contrary to the basic principles on which peaceful international co-operation between states should be built" because intervention violates the rights of peoples.

For this reason, the Declaration points out, "armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the person of the state or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are condemned''.

The idea of peaceful coexistence is also distinctly expressed in other 20th General Assembly resolutions and declarations concerning specific problems of international relations.^^1^^ For example, the Preamble to the Convention on the Abolition of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ( Resolution 2106[XX) of December 21, 1965) stresses that " discrimination between human beings on the grounds of race, colour or ethnic origin is an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations among nations and is capable of disturbing peace and security among peoples''.

The Resolution on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which underscored the importance of plugging up all loopholes for direct or indirect spreading of these weapons, is another highly important resolution passed by the 20th U.N. General Assembly on the initiative of the Soviet Union.

The peoples of the world welcomed the decisions on abolishing the survivals of colonialism. In pursuance of the well-known Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, the 20th General Assembly proclaimed that colonialism and its offspring, racism and apartheid, are crimes against humanity. Acting on the provisions of modern international law, the General

Assembly emphasised that national liberation movements are lawful and that U.N. members may lawfully give peoples material and moral support in their struggle for freedom and independence. The Portuguese colonialists and the racist South African and South Rhodesian regimes were condemned during the debates in the United Nations, and their protectors from NATO and other aggressive blocs were also pilloried.

Credit is due to the United Nations for approving the Convention on the Abolition of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The 20th U.N. General Assembly acted also in behalf of general and complete disarmament. It passed resolutions on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and the establishment of a denuclearised zone in Africa. Also, a decision was adopted to convene a world disarmament conference.

All these constructive decisions were taken thanks to the concerted efforts of the socialist states and the non-aligned countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, after persevering struggle against the bearers of the aggressive and colonialist traditions, headed by the United States, who still constitute a serious obstacle to United Nations efforts for peace and social progress.

There are still many important problems facing the United Nations, which it will not be able to resolve until it overcomes the stubborn resistance of the reactionary forces. This applies most of all to the problem of general and complete disarmament under strict international control and to that of banning and destroying all types of nuclear weapons and means of nuclear delivery.

It is up to the United Nations to wipe the remnants of colonialism off the face of the earth and to secure true sovereignty, equality and non-interference for all peoples on terms of complete and unqualified self-determination. To enforce human rights and fundamental freedoms for all men, the United Nations must activate the human rights Covenants, the drafts of which have been drawn up over the years.

It is up to the United Nations to develop all-round international co-operation free from discrimination in the political, economic, social and cultural spheres. The efforts of codifying the principles of peaceful coexistence have to be consummated. Those socialist and other coun-

~^^1^^ V. M. Chkhikvadze, "Voprosy mezhdunarodnogo prava na XX sessii Generalnoi Assamblei" (Sovietskoye gosudarstvo i pravo 1966. No. 3, pp. 67-78).

tries, that have not yet been admitted to the United Nations, have to be accorded membership so the organisation may be universal.

The Security Council, the main U.N. body for the maintenance of international peace and security, is still in a state of paralysis; one of its permanent members, the People's Republic of China, has not had its rights restored. Once the functions of the Security Council are restored, many of the important U.N. problems concerning the peaceful solution of international disputes and the maintenance of peace by collective measures will be largely eliminated. After all, pertinent prerogatives have been vested in the Security Council, as put down in detail in Chapters 6, 7 and 8 of the U.N. Charter.

Is the United Nations able to cope with all these and other vital problems?

The United Nations is designed to play a substantial role in maintaining peace and international security. The number of U.N. members pursuing peace-loving anti-imperialist goals has grown considerably in recent years. Their vigorous activities will make the United Nations more effective as an instrument for frustrating aggression and safeguarding world peace.

The 23rd Congress of the C.P.S.U. noted with satisfaction that the Soviet Union "undeviatingly strives to facilitate the unity of countries opposing aggression and thereby enhance the role played by the U.N. in the struggle for universal peace and the independence of the peoples". It said that the Soviet Union would "continue to regard the U.N. as an arena of active political struggle against aggression, for peace and the security of all peoples".^^1^^

In their Declaration passed on July 5, 1966, at a conference in Bucharest, the Warsaw Treaty countries declared that they "attach great importance to strengthening the United Nations Organisation through strict adherence to its Charter^ universality and alignment of its activities with the changes in the world, and that they would assist in every way in making the organisation more effective with the object of safeguarding world peace and security and developing friendly relations among all peoples".^^2^^

Writers like John Hazard and Edward McWhinney maintain that the General Assembly resolutions dealt with in the preceding section treat anything but the principles of peaceful coexistence and that the act of passing these resolutions does not imply approval of the idea of peaceful coexistence.

This could not be farther from the facts. What they say is convincingly refuted by the decisions of the Belgrade and Cairo conferences of non-aligned countries, which declare in so many words that the principles set out in the General Assembly resolutions and the principles framed by the Bandung Conference are precisely principles of peaceful coexistence. Take the Preamble of the special Cairo resolution Peaceful Coexistence and Its Codification by the United Nations. In this resolution the Cairo Conference recommended the U.N. General Assembly "to adopt, on the occasion of its 20th anniversary, a declaration on the principles of peaceful coexistence", which would constitute an " important step towards the codification of these principles''.

Bernard A. Ramundo strays from the facts when he tries to create the impression that peaceful coexistence "is generally not considered a legal principle in the West".^^1^^ But now he himself has to study the problem of the codification of peaceful coexistence principles.

But no matter how obviously mistaken Western ideologists are, we should on no account underrate the resistance of aggressive groups in the capitalist countries to the impregnation of peaceful coexistence principles in international practice.^^2^^ Foes of peace and co-operation are trying in every way to emasculate what the U.N. is doing towards codifying the principles of peaceful coexistence. They insist, moreover, that the term "peaceful coexistence" be struck out of U.N. documents and replaced by "friendly relations among, nations". However, though the latter expression is part of the concept of peaceful coexistence, it cannot serve in its stead because peaceful coexistence is a far broader concept than "friendly relations''.

~^^1^^ B. Ramundo, The Socialist Theory of International Law, Institute for Sino-Soviet Studies, Series No. 1, Jan. 1964, Washington, p. 29; B. Ramundo, Peaceful Coexistence. International Law in the Building of Communism, Baltimore, 1967, pp. 13-14, 31-32, 46, 217, 226.

~^^2^^ P. Nedbailo, "O kodiflkatsii mezhdunarodno-pravovykh printsipov mirnogo sosushchestvovaniya", Sovietskoye pravo, Kiev, No. 5, 1963, pp. 25-36. Jn Ukrainian.

~^^1^^ 23rd Congress of the C.P.S.U., p. 54.

~^^2^^ Pravda, July 8, 1966.

Recognition and observance of the principles of peaceful coexistence is an imperious demand accentuated by the objective social laws of development and, no matter how hard they may try to evade it, the governments of the capitalist countries will ultimately have to observe them in their international relations.

The decisions of the General UNESCO Conference in Montevideo in 1954 urged all states members of UNESCO to press home the idea that peaceful coexistence, mutual understanding and co-operation of all peoples, no matter how different they be, is possible, provided the principle of selfdetermination is observed.

The General Conference instructed its Director-General "to initiate an objective study of measures, conducing to peaceful co-operation, in accordance with the objects proclaimed in the UNESCO Charter". The Ninth General Conference in 1956 passed a resolution, Social Science and the Problems of International Mutual Understanding and Peaceful Coexistence. It called on the states to promote recognition of the principles of peaceful coexistence and recommended bilateral measures to establish relations that would further mutual understanding between countries with different socio-economic systems. The Conference instructed the Director-General to carry on with the objective, scientific study of ``methods'' to secure peaceful coexistence and international co-operation.

ence of political scientists took place in Munich in 1957, a conference of the International Sociological Association in Moscow in January 1958, of the International Association of Legal Science in Rome in February 1958 and of the International Association of Economic Science at Bourget in March 1958.

An International Conference of Sociologists in Prague in September 1958 framed the programme of UNESCO research on the subject for 1959-60.

At all these conferences, American attempts to discredit the idea of peaceful coexistence and to divert UNESCO from a study of this problem towards cold war positions, fell through.

In 1956 the International Law Association also took up the matter of peaceful coexistence. At its 47th Session in Dubrovnik (1956) Professor Bartos demonstrated in his report that besides being a political principle, peaceful coexistence was also a principle of international law.^^1^^

At its next session in New York (1958) the International Law Association gave the problem of peaceful coexistence still more thorough study and decided to continue investigations, in order to define the principles of peaceful coexistence and to list the juridical aspects of the problem.

At its 49th Session in Hamburg (1960) the International Law Association made an exhaustive study of the problem of peaceful coexistence.^^2^^ But codification of the principles of peaceful coexistence was frustrated in the I LA by the same tactics as in the United Nations.

The ILA session held in Brussels in 1962 took what amounted to a step backward---it set out to abolish the Committee charged with the scientific codification of the principles of peaceful coexistence. This was done on the unjustifiable pretext that principles of "friendly relations" rather than those of peaceful coexistence had to be codified.

When reactionary politicians make this argument, the explanation is simple: not only are they insufficiently conversant with questions of international law, but also openly hostile to peaceful coexistence. Similar attitude on the part of the scholars of the International Law Association is un-

4. ELUCIDATION OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE PRINCIPLES BY INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH GROUPS

On the strength of these decisions, the problem of securing peaceful coexistence and international co-operation was .examined in 1955 and 1956 in Stockholm at a conference of the International Political Science Association, in Paris at a conference of the International Association of Legal Science and in Geneva at a conference of economists.

The peor results achieved at these conferences were due to U.S. sabotage of all earnest discussion and the American insistence that the term "peaceful coexistence" be struck out of the pertinent documents. In point of fact, the U.S. went to the length of demanding that UNESCO abandon the matter altogether.

The majority of UNESCO members did not support the U.S. stand and ruled that investigations continue. A confer-

~^^1^^ See Sovietskoye gosudarstvo i pravo, No. 6, 1959, p. 110.

~^^2^^ See Sovietsky Yezheyodnik Mezhdunarodnogo Prava, 1960, pp. 418-

19.

forgivable.^^1^^ Suffice it to recall that the General Assembly Resolution 1815 (XVIII) re-emphasised the "urgency and importance" of peaceful coexistence for "the development of peaceful and good-neighbour relations between states, without distinction as to their development, or their political, economic and social character". Fortunately, the efforts to stump the codification of the principles of peaceful coexistence proved futile. The International Committee on the Legal Aspects of Coexistence, set up in 1956 by the International Law Association session in Dubrovnik in pursuance of an Executive Council resolution dated October 27, 1962, drew up a report in 1964 (Chairman Henri Cochaux, Belgium, Rapporteur Milos Radojkovic, Yugoslavia) for the ILA session in Tokyo, in which it formulated 16 principles of peaceful coexistence based on the U.N. Charter and resolutions of the General Assembly.

The report repudiated all arguments against considering the principles of peaceful coexistence as principles of modern international law.

The Tokyo session of the International Law Association (August 1964) approved the report and dashed the hopes of John Hazard and Edward McWhinney, who wanted to scuttle the codification of the principles of peaceful coexistence. U.S. experts, too, were not inclined to range themselves behind Hazard and McWhinney. Myres S. McDougal and Dennis O'Connor, who are members of the American Branch of the International Law Association, submitted to the Tokyo session the draft of a resolution containing eight principles of peaceful coexistence based on the U.N. Charter and various General Assembly resolutions.^^2^^ Besides, in his speech to the American Society of International Law on April 23, 1965, U.S. State Secretary Dean Rusk voiced approval of what the United Nations Special Committee had done in Mexico City about codifying peaceful coexistence principles.

The opponents of codifying the principles of peaceful coexistence were also defeated at the World Federation of United Nations Associations, which consists largely of Western delegates. At its 18th Session in New York in 1963 it passed Resolution No. 13 on the progressive development

~^^1^^ A. Holcombe (ed.), Peaceful Coexistence, A New Challenge to the United Nations, Twelfth Report, Commission to Study the Organisation of Peace, p. 30.

~^^2^^ Proceedings and Committee Reports of the American Branch of the International Law Association. 1963-1964, No. 4, 1964, p. 86.

of international law, calling for a study of "the basic juridical principles of peaceful coexistence and co-operation between nations" in order to encourage governments to cooperate in "codifying the basic juridical principles of peaceful coexistence". In 1965 the Federation organised a seminar on this subject in Czechoslovakia.

The matter has not been dropped. The World Federation of United Nations Associations, comprising not only legal experts, but also public and political leaders of more than 30 countries, is still studying it, and, in the final analysis, the International Law Association is doing the same, despite the vehement resistance of Hazard and McWhinney, who have for many years been obstructing ILA work in this direction.

5. THE BANDUNG PRINCIPLES

OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE. DECISIONS OF THE CONFERENCES OF NON-ALIGNED COUNTRIES

The principles of peaceful coexistence recorded in the U.N. Charter and developed in resolutions of the General Assembly are winning the support of an increasing number of states. The Bandung Conference of Asian and African countries held in April 1955 put these principles down in its Declaration on the Promotion of World Peace and Cooperation. The Bandung Declaration said the principles in question would in the opinion of the Asian and African countries help to maintain and consolidate international peace and security, and listed them as follows:

1. Respect for fundamental human rights and for the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

2. Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations.

3. Recognition of the equality of all races and of the equality of all nations, large and small.

4. Abstention from intervention or interference in the domestic affairs of another country.

5. Respect for the right of each nation to defend itself singly or collectively, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.

6. (a) Abstention from the use of arrangements of collective defence to serve the particular interests of any of the big powers.

(b) Abstention by any country from exerting pressure on other countries.

7. Refraining from acts or threats of aggression, or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country.

8. Settlement of all international disputes.by peaceful means, such as negotiation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial settlement as well as other peaceful means of the parties' own choice, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.

9. Promotion of mutual interests and co-operation.

10. Respect for justice and international obligations. The governing groups of the countries that refused to

observe the principles of international co-operation contained in the Bandung Declaration pleaded groundlessly that the Bandung principles did not concur with the U.N. Charter and, of all things, were calculated to replace the Charter.

Some Western writers unconsciously refute the contention that the principles of peaceful coexistence were invented by Communists after the 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U. They say these principles are no novelty, because their basic aspects have been known since Christian France under Francis I established relations with Moslem Turkey under Suleiman the Magnificent (16th century), or since the Peace of Westphalia, signed at Munster in 1648, which established normal relations between Catholic and Protestant countries, or at least since revolutionary France established relations with feudal Europe (Pinto, Bastid)^^1^^.

A glance at the Pancha Shila principles and the Bandung Declaration shows beyond any doubt that they conform with the U.N. Charter, that code of modern international law which in effect constitutes the juridical basis of the peaceful coexistence and co-operation of states of the two systems. Some of the Bandung principles reproduce certain of the U.N. Charter provisions almost word for word. The first principle of the Bandung Conference speaks of respect for fundamental human rights and for the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter. The U.N. Charter, too, defines as its purpose "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person" (Preamble) and requires all members to "fulfil in good faith the obliga-

tions assumed by them" in accordance with the U.N. Charter (Art. 2, Cl. 2).

The second Bandung principle refers to respect for the sovereignty and integrity of all countries, and the U.N. Charter, too, stresses that the "organisation is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members" (Art. 2, Cl. 1), that U.N. members renounce attempts on "the territorial integrity or political independence of any state" (Art. 2, Cl. 4), and that the prime purpose of the U.N. is "to maintain international peace and security" (Art. 1, Cl. 1).

The third Bandung principle calls for the equality of all races and all nations, large and small, and U.N. members, too, as the Charter says, are determined to reaffirm faith "in the equal rights ... of nations large and small" (Preamble). It will be recalled that the U.N. described as its principal purpose to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of "equal rights and self-determination of peoples" (Art. 1, Cl. 2), and to promote respect for human rights and the fundamental freedoms "for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion" (Art. 1,C1. 3).

The fourth Bandung principle calls for non-intervention and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, and the U.N. Charter (Preamble) likewise requires its members "to practise tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours" and stresses that it does not "authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state" (Art. 2, Cl. 7).

The fifth Bandung principle advocates respect for the right of every country to individual and collective selfdefence "in accordance with the United Nations Charter", thereby calling for the observance of Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.

The sixth and seventh principles of the Bandung Declaration urge the states to refrain from acts or threats of aggression or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country in any form, by pressure on other countries or by exploiting collective defence agreements in the particular interest of any Great Power. Indentical provisions are contained in the U.N. Charter (Articles 39, 52 and 103), requiring all memberstates to refrain in their international relations "from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or

~^^1^^ S. Verosta, "Zur Geschichte der Koexistenz", Koeristenz zwischen Ost und West, Europa-Verlag, Wien, 1966, S. 9-19.

political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations" (Art. 2, Cl. 4), and call on U.N. members to insure "that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest''.

The eighth principle of the Bandung Declaration calls for the settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means, such as "negotiation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial settlement, or any other peaceful means of their own choice in accordance with the U.N. Charter, that is, Articles 2 (Cl. 3) and 33 of the U.N. Charter, where all these peaceful means are listed. The eighth Bandung principle postulates that negotiations and other peaceful methods, rather than force, should be the means of settling international differences. So does the U.N. Charter postulate as its basic purpose "to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or/ situations which might lead to a breach of the peace" (Art. 1, Para 1). It requires of all U.N. members to settle "their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered" (Art. 2, Cl. 3).

The ninth Bandung principle requires promotion of mutual interest and co-operation. It is also one of the purposes of the United Nations "to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character" (Art. 1, Cl. 3) and "to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples" (Preamble).

Lastly, the tenth Bandung principle invokes respect for justice and international obligations. The U.N. membercountries, as the Charter says, are likewise determined "to establish cpnditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained" (Preamble) and undertake to settle their disputes in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered (Article 2, Cl. 3).

Questions of peaceful coexistence were also dealt with at conferences of the non-aligned countries.

The Belgrade Conference of Non-Aligned States ( September 1961) declared that today "the principles of peaceful coexistence are the sole alternative to cold war and the

possible universal nuclear disaster" and that, consequently, they "must be the sole basis for all international relations''.

In the concluding declaration of the Belgrade Conference its participants noted that the contemporary situation "makes peaceful co-operation among peoples, based on the principles of independence and equal rights, an essential condition for their freedom and progress''.

The non-aligned states said that along with the abolition of colonialism in all shapes and forms, the adoption and practice of the policy of peaceful coexistence throughout the world created the right climate for the final elimination of international conflicts.

In refuting the notion that peaceful coexistence was a renunciation of revolutionary and national liberation struggle, the Belgrade Conference stressed that "the policy of peaceful coexistence is equivalent to active efforts in removing historical injustices and eliminating national oppression and, at once, guaranteeing to each people independent development''.

The Belgrade Conference decisions could not have been more convincing in refuting the notion that peaceful coexistence was a surrender of the ``free'' world on Kremlin terms, that peaceful coexistence benefited none but the Soviet Union, and that all other peoples of the world rejected it. The Soviet Union did not even participate in the Conference of Non-Aligned States.

The Belgrade decisions refute such theorists as I. Lapenna, who says peaceful coexistence might be acceptable to the West if it is not the peaceful coexistence conceived by the Soviet Union, adding that if the Soviet Union did not accept the Western interpretation there would be no basis for either international law or co-operation.^^1^^ Bernard Ramundo, who declared, of all things, that peaceful coexistence was impossible because the Soviet Union sought the "role as judge of the progressive development of international law",^^2^^ would also do well to study the Belgrade decisions, in which the Soviet Union had no hand.

The participants of the Cairo Conference of Non-Aligned States in October 1964, in which the Soviet Union did not

~^^1^^ I. Lapcnna, "Legal Aspects and Political Significance of the Soviet Concept of Coexistence", International and Comparative Law Quarterly, No. 12, 1963, pp. 745-77.

~^^2^^ B. Ramundo, The Socialist Theory of International Law, Washington, 1964, p. 28.

participate either, reaffirmed "their deep conviction that, in the present circumstances, mankind must regard peaceful coexistence as the only way to strengthen world peace, which must be based on freedom, equality and justice between peoples within a new framework of peaceful and harmonious relations between the states and nations of the world''.

The Cairo Conference stressed that "the principle of peaceful coexistence is based on the right of all peoples to be free and to choose their own political, economic and social systems according to their own national identity and their ideals, and is opposed to any form of foreign domination". The Conference went on to proclaim solemnly "the following fundamental principles of peaceful coexistence". The resolution listed nine principles, which we have already examined among the principles of the U.N. Charter, the Bandung Declaration and resolutions of the U.N. General Assembly.

The Cairo Conference resolution is a noteworthy document because it fixes attention on the provision of freedom, independence and equal rights to formerly oppressed peoples. It stresses rightly that "peaceful coexistence cannot be fully realised in the world before imperialism, colonialism and neo-colonialism are destroyed''.

In its Appeal to the Peoples of the Soviet Union and the Peoples, Parliaments and Governments of All Countries, the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. at its jubilee session on November 6, 1957, noted that "throughout the 40 years the Soviet land has, acting upon the Leninist principle of the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems, steadfastly practised a policy of peace, friendship and mutually advantageous economic and cultural relations with all countries''.

The principles of peaceful coexistence were affirmed in bilateral declarations and agreements made jointly by the Soviet Union and many capitalist and neutralist countries of Europe, Asia, Africa and America.^^1^^

During the 1956 Anglo-Soviet negotiations in London both sides declared they would take guidance in their mutual relations and relations with other countries in the principles of the U.N. Charter in the belief that "respect for national independence and sovereignty, territorial integrity and noninterference in one another's internal affairs are the basis for friendly co-operation and peaceful coexistence of all states, regardless of their social system''.

The Soviet Union and India have dissimilar state structures and different socio-political systems. Years of experience show, however, that observance of the Pancha Shila principles of peaceful coexistence, the principles of Bandung and those of the U.N. Charter creates excellent opportunities for the development of economic, technical, cultural and diplomatic co-operation by the two countries. The many years of Soviet-Indian good-neighbour relations show graphically that states with different social systems can exist side by side in peace and agreement, and work for the general good.

An analysis of the international treaties and other sources of international law of the past 50 years reveals the operation of a clear-cut system of principles of peaceful coexistence. These are:

l..The Principle of Self-Determination. This principle has acquired cardinal importance in the present era of transition from capitalism to socialism, an era highlighted by the decisive influence of the world socialist system and by tremendous victories on the part of peoples fighting for national independence and social progress. Self-determination implies

6. THE PRINCIPLES OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE

ARE THE BEST FOUNDATION FOR PEACEFUL RELATIONS

BETWEEN STATES WITH DIFFERENT SOCIO-ECONOMIC

SYSTEMS

The Declaration adopted by the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. on February 9, 1955, addressed to the parliaments of all countries, stressed that relations between states have got to be "based on the principles of equality, non-- interference in internal affairs, non-aggression, rejection of violations "of the territorial integrity of other states, and on respect for sovereignty and national independence''.

The Declaration pointed out that observance of these principles secured the peaceful coexistence of states, irrespective of their social and political system.

Naturally, relations between socialist countries, which are based on the principles of proletarian internationalism and fraternal mutual assistance, go farther than the principles of peaceful coexistence.

~^^1^^ Kurs mezhdunarodnogo prava, ed. by V. M. Chkhikvadze, Moscow, 1967, pp. 25-26.

20-3121

the inalienable right of every nation to a free choice of political, economic, social and cultural system, form of government and state structure; it means that no state may impose any system or form of government on any other nation, and affirms the right of every people to develop the political, economic and social order it has chosen.

All nations, great and small, including those still under foreign domination or colonial rule, have the right to selfdetermination.

2. The Principle of Non-interference. Any form of direct or indirect interference, including subversive activity, is an encroachment on the sovereign rights of a people or state. It creates a threat to a country's independence, freedom and normal political, economic, social and cultural development, and jeopardises world peace.

No state has the right to interfere directly or indirectly in the internal or foreign affairs of another state for any reason whatever.

Neither the United Nations nor any other international organisation has the right to interfere in a country's internal affairs or to demand that its members submit such affairs for consideration by an international organisation, with the exception of cases when the Security Council takes enforcement actions under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

International law condemns not only armed intervention but also all other forms of intervention directed against a state's sovereign rights or against its political, economic or cultural institutions.

Peaceful coexistence requires non-intervention (direct or indirect) in one another's internal or foreign affairs, respect for the systems chosen by nations, and no hostile propaganda that incites hatred among nations. States shall refrain from aiding, abetting, financing, encouraging or organising civil strife or subversive activities in another state, from. committing terrorist acts with the aim of forcibly changing its system, and from organising irregular troops or armed groups with the object of invading another state.

3. The Principle of Sovereignty. Observance of the above demands of international law is connected with the principle of sovereignty, which connotes the political independence of every people and state in its internal and external affairs, and independence from any foreign state. In international relations, sovereignty is the right of every state to partici-

pate in the solution of all international matters relating to its lawful interests through international treaties, conferences and organisations.

4. The Principle of Sovereign Equality. Peaceful coexistence means that all states enjoy legal equality in international relations and in international organisations and conferences, and have an equal right to protection in conformity with international law. Each state shall respect the legal competence of other peoples and states. No considerations of a political, social, economic, geographical, historical, racial or any other nature may restrict the legal capacity of a people or state with regard to its equal rights and duties as a subject of international law. All survivals of colonialism, including segregation and discrimination, shall be abolished. The only states whose rights may be restricted are aggressor states that have perpetrated international crimes.

5. The Principle of Territorial Inviolability. States are truly sovereign in internal affairs when _i they possess supreme authority on their territory, particularly, the right to deal freely with their national wealth and natural resources, and also the right to close down all foreign military bases on their territories.

The exercise of supreme authority does not imply that peoples or states may inflict damage on any other countries by experiments or actions liable to produce harmful consequences or jeopardise their security.

Respect for the territorial integrity and inviolability of each state rules out the use of force in resolving territorial disputes and frontier problems; it implies that territories under colonial rule shall be given their freedom.

6. The Principle of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Banning of Racial Discrimination. True equality of peoples and states is inconceivable without the equality of great and small nations and races. This, in turn, is inconceivable without the equality of all men, without human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. International law prohibits racial restrictions of any kind designed to destroy or curtail the recognition or equal exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural and other spheres.

Recognition of the dignity of all members of the human family and of men's equal and inalienable rights is the foundation of freedom, justice and universal peace. The ideal of free human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want

20*

can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his political, economic, social, civic and cultural rights.

Peaceful coexistence calls for the abolition of racial discrimination, which is an obstacle to peaceful relations between nations and can lead to a breach of international peace; it also demands the prevention and eradication of racist theory and practice, in order to promote mutual understanding between races and create an international community free from all forms of racial segregation and racial discrimination. International law prohibits discrimination, that is, any distinction, exclusion, restriction or privilege on account of race, colour, or tribal, national or ethnic origin, aiming at, or resulting in, the abolition or curtailment of the recognition or equal exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or other spheres.

,

Effective implementation of human rights and fundamental freedoms strengthens world peace and friendship among nations.

It is impermissible for any state to impose on any other state privileges for foreigners or to grant foreigners greater rights than to its own citizens, although the state can exempt foreigners from certain liabilities such as military service, taxes, etc.

7. The Principle of Peace, Non-Aggression and the Banning of Aggression. An armed attack by one state on another, or the use of armed force in any other form contrary to the United Nations Charter is aggression, the gravest of all international crimes and the most dangerous encroachment on the rights of sovereign peoples and states. Armed intervention is synonymous with aggression.

The preparation of aggressive wars is an international crime which entails political and material responsibility, like aggression itself, for the state or states concerned and criminal responsibility for persons guilty of such a crime, irrespective of the statute of limitations.

Armed measures of repression against peoples fighting against colonialism, and also the use of force with the object of depriving peoples of the form of their national existence, are likewise international crimes.

8. The Principle of Self-Defence and the Lawfulness of National Liberation Wars. While branding aggressive wars as an international crime, international law recognises as

legitimate the use of armed or other force against aggressors and against colonial rule in pursuance of the right of selfdetermination. Peoples fighting against colonial rule, for their freedom and self-determination enjoy the right of individual and collective self-defence, just as states do.

9. The Principle of International Security and Collective Self-Defence. Struggle against aggression should be real and effective. In the event of an aggression, every state has the right of individual or collective self-defence in conformity with the principle of the indivisibility of the world (an attack on one state is regarded as an attack on all states) and the principle of collective security (assistance by other states to a victim of aggression and the suppression of aggression) within the framework of a universal security organisation.

Peoples subjected to colonial oppression have the right to appeal for, and to receive, every support in their struggle.

10. The Principle of Banning the Use or Threat of Force. No state may apply or encourage political, economic or any other coercive measures to curtail the sovereign rights of another state or to obtain any benefits from it, except in case of preventive measures undertaken by the Security Council in accordance with Chapter III of the United Nations Charter.

Any use or threat of force in international relations that contradicts the United Nations Charter is forbidden.

In this sense the term ``force'' embraces not only armed force but also any form of coercion, violence or pressure, including political, economic, social or psychological pressure, against the territorial integrity or political independence of a state. This -outlaws the "positions of strength" and cold war policy, and all economic, political and other pressure that prejudices the sovereign rights of peoples and states, including any direct or indirect compulsory actions that -deprive people under foreign domination of their right to self-determination, freedom, independence and the form of their national existence.

11. The Principle of Banning War Propaganda. International law bans all propaganda of war, incitement to war or the fanning of war, in particular, propaganda of preventive war or strike-first nuclear war.

12. The Principle of the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes. By virtue of the ban on the use or threat of force in international relations, states are obliged to

adjust their international disputes so as not to jeopardise international peace, security and justice. Disputes of this kind should be settled by negotiation and other peaceful means agreed between the parties and consistent with the circumstances and nature of the dispute, in a spirit of mutual understanding and without any form of pressure. The parties to a dispute are obliged to take steps to reduce international tension, strengthen peace and encourage friendly relations and co-operation between states.

While employing peaceful means, all states must refrain from any actions that might exacerbate the situation.

13. The Principle of Disarmament. The ban on the use of force in international relations makes the armaments drive, which creates a threat to peace and is an unbearable burden on the peoples, unlawful and senseless. General and complete disarmament of all states under effective international control is the most desirable form of disarmament. This does not exclude such preliminary steps as the establishment of nuclear-free zones, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, a complete ban on nuclear testing, the dismantling of foreign military bases on the territory of other countries, a ban on the use of weapons of mass destruction and destruction of the means of their delivery, etc.

14. The Principle of Mutual Advantage. The peaceful settlement of international disputes---which rules out unlawful use of force, threat of force and all forms of pressure and intimidation---implies that a search for agreed, mutually advantageous decisions is the only basis on which international problems may be resolved without imperilling international peace and security and without prejudicing mutual interests. Only in this case states are able to assume stable and enduring international commitments of their own free will.

15. The Principle of the Observance of International Commitments. Decisions reached on a mutually advantageous basis acquire the force of international contract obligatory for all states that accepted them of their own free will or agreed with them. Furthermore, every state must strictly observe the universally recognised standards of international law, in particular, the principles of international law postulating the peaceful coexistence of states and governing international law and order. Therefore, observance of justice and of commitments voluntarily undertaken, implicit in international treaties and other sources of international

law, as well as the principle that international treaties are sacred, is a key principle of international relations. Peaceful coexistence creates conditions in which states are able to respect justice and observe commitments arising from treaties and other sources of international law, provided the commitments do not contradict the principles of peaceful coexistence or the United Nations Charter.

16. The Principle of Universal International Co-operation. In the world of today, countries having different socio-- economic systems cannot live in isolation from one another. International co-operation envisages systematic actions by the states of different systems to eliminate everything that might jeopardise world peace or friendly relations among nations. The states of the two systems should co-operate not only in maintaining international peace and security but also in the economic, social and cultural spheres, as well as in science and technology, in order to further the progress of mankind and to eliminate the causes of international tension.

Peaceful coexistence connotes broad, fruitful and mutually advantageous international co-operation.

All states, great and small, bear responsibility for the development of good-neighbourly relations and the establishment of an atmosphere of co-operation on a regional scale as well, particularly among states with different social and political systems, inasmuch as all mutual understanding, including the improvement of bilateral relations, has a positive influence on international relations as a whole.

17. The Principle of the Universality of International Organisations. The modern system of relations between peoples and states in conformity with international law is not based on the establishment of any supra-national bodies of world government. It requires that all international organisations be used to promote the economic and social progress of all peoples, as centres for the co-ordination of actions by states belonging to different socio-economic systems.

Modern international law and order recognises the right of every subject of international law to take part in the decisions of international organisations or conferences on international problems that concern its legitimate interests, and to become a party to any international treaties that affect these interests.

18. The Principle of Peaceful Competition Between the Two Systems, The peaceful coexistence of capitalist and

socialist states connotes not simply all-round international co-operation between states of the two systems, but also a competition in which the winner will be the more progressive social system, the one that provides the higher living standard, the maximum of democratic rights and freedoms and a real abundance of material and spiritual blessings.

ing cognisance of the broadening sphere of agreement in the work of the Special Committee and the General Assembly itself.

Although United Nations efforts in this respect are being delayed by imperialist countries, codification of the principles of peaceful coexistence in the form of a declaration or convention is only a question of time, and time, as we know, sides with the forces of peace, democracy and socialism, with world peace and the cause of international friendship.

When the Soviet Union, and with it, progressive, peaceloving forces throughout the world, celebrated the 50th anniversary of the October Revolution it had every reason to be proud of its immense contribution to the development of international law. Lenin's principles of peaceful coexistence have been embodied in numerous international treaties and underlie the relations between states with different socio-economic systems.

,

The United Nations is making slow but sure progress in developing international law and in further codifying the principles -that govern the relations between socialist and capitalist states. On December 20, 1965, the 20th General A-ssembly passed Resolution 2103 (XX), underscoring the urgency of drafting and adopting a declaration to this effect.

The General Assembly repeatedly emphasised the importance of this work, for example, in resolutions 1815 (XVII) of December 18, 1962, and 1966 (XVIII) of December 16, 1963.

In Resolution 2181 (XXI) of December 12, 1966, the General Assembly again stressed that conscientious observance of the principles of international law relating to friendly relations and co-operation between states in keeping with the Charter of the United Nations is of cardinal importance in maintaining international peace and security and improving the international situation.

The General Assembly strongly urged the progressive development and codification-of tKese principles with the aim of ensuring their most effective application.

A declaration to this effect, it emphasised, would constitute "a landmark''.

The 21st General Assembly instructed the Special Committee on the principles of international law relating to friendly relations and co-operation between states to submit to the 22nd General Assembly the draft of a declaration tak-

m

Chapter Nine

THE PRINCIPLES OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE DOCTRINES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

1. DISTORTIONS OF THE PRINCIPLES OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE MUST BE FRUSTRATED

Is modern international law conceivable without sovereignty, political independence, equality, non-interference in the domestic affairs of states and the other key principles of peaceful coexistence?

i

Surely, this question sounds absurd to anyone in the least conversant with contemporary international relations.

Yet James Brierly, the prominent British jurist and Oxford University professor, has his own views on this score. In a book, The Law of Nations, based on the course of lectures he delivers to his students, Brierly sets out to reject some of the principles in question as ``false'', `` dangerous'', ``monstrous'' and ``contrived''. Brierly attempts to prove that the above principles do not really exist and that the very thought of their existing is a fallacy.

To demonstrate how groundless the position of the foes of sovereignty is and how it leads to a repudiation of international law, we shall here reproduce some of Brierly's arguments against sovereignty.

According to Brierly, sovereignty is a principle of " international disorder", one of those concepts which have " become our tyrants rather than our servants", a "false doctrine which the facts of international relations do not support". Brierly maintains that sovereignty "presents the most formidable difficulties''.

Why?

Because, Brierly replies in his book, sovereignty has come "to be regarded as power absolute and above the law''.

In its latest form, Brierly writes, this doctrine not only involves "a denial of the possibility of states being subject to any kind of law, but became an impossible theory for a world which contained more states than one.''

What Brierly intimates is that modern sovereignty restricts the freedom of states.^^1^^

Brierly's objections to sovereignty are levelled at the absolutist conception of it, which he and other ideologists of imperialism have invented themselves and which really has nothing in common with modern international law, being a backwash of the feudal absolutism adopted by capitalist ideologists to justify imperialist policies.

To attack sovereignty, Brierly has, as we see, perverted its substance. If he examined sovereignty as it really existed (e.g., the U.N. Charter, which speaks of the "sovereign equality" of all U.N. members, i.e., the sovereignty of each based on equal rights of all U.N. members), he would have nothing to object to.

Brierly regards sovereignty in terms of absolute power unrestricted by any standards of law, although nobody ever defined it as such (Brierly admits it) save the foes of sovereignty, who seek to discredit sovereignty by inflating it to absolutist-despotic proportions.

In effect, Brierly's views amount to a repudiation of international law proper. "If sovereignty means absolute power," he writes, "and if states are sovereign in that sense, they cannot at the same time be subject to law." This is why, Brierly concludes, he cannot "escape from the conclusion that international law is nothing but a delusion''.

The most paradoxical thing about Brierly's views is that he himself admits their absurdity and irrelevance to the facts of international life. "To the extent that sovereignty has come to imply that there is something inherent in the nature of states that makes it impossible for them to be subjected to law," he writes, "it is a false doctrine which the facts of international relations do not support.''^^2^^

All of 80 years ago F. Martens, the Bussian jurist, pointed out in his celebrated work, The Modern International Law of the Civilised Nations, in which he criticised the feudal absolutist notion of sovereignty, that "the idea of state sovereignty implies only that the state is a self-reliant legal person" and that "law and order" in international affairs "derive from international intercourse" because "in the exercise of their immutable functions the states depend on

~^^1^^ .1. Brierly, The Law of Nations, pp. 46, 47, 48, 49, 122, 309.

~^^2^^ Ibid., pp. 46, 16, 48.

one another". Martens emphasised that "while proclaiming the complete internal and external independence of states, we should always bear in mind that the right of independence always connotes the obligation to respect the independence of others".^^1^^

The contemporary system of international relations builds upon the intercourse of sovereign states, each possessing the highest power, that is, sovereignty, within the borders of its state territory, ruling out within this territory the power of any other, foreign state, so that no states could claim highest power with regard to one and the same territory, which would lead to chaos and anarchy in relations between states, nations and people.

Sovereignty is a principle that secures intercourse between peoples and states in legal international order precisely because it is conceived as an authority obliged to respect the legitimate interests and rights of other peoples , and states, and not as an absolute, unrestricted authority of any state in relation to all other states.

As a principle of international law sovereignty stands for the highest power not of some single state, but of all states, with consideration for the interests of all states concerned, which is inconceivable unless all states have equal rights. As an absolute and totally unrestricted power of one state in relation to other states, sovereignty would rule out normal legal international relations between states.

Actually, sovereignty may be defined as the political independence of a state from other states in the sphere of foreign policy, but on no account is it to be considered as absolute independence. It is an independence bounded by the framework of modern international intercourse.

Verdross notes that international law emerges and vanishes together with the correctly understood relative sovereignty of states.^^2^^ He is mistaken only insofar as he styles the principle of sovereignty on which modern international law is built as "relative sovereignty", because it is real and neither relative nor absolute sovereignty.

However, Brierly, who denies sovereignty, pretends that the principle does not exist and centres his efforts on repudiating what he himself admits has prevailed at least from

the time Jean Bodin's De Republica appeared in 1576, namely, that "sovereignty has become the central problem in the study both of the nature of the modern state and of the theory of international law''.

Brierly makes an abortive attempt to distort Bodin's teaching and to impute to Bodin the conception of sovereignty as "an irresponsible supra-legal power". All the same, Brierly is compelled to admit that this had not been Bodin's "real intention" and that "the real meaning of Bodin's doctrine" envisaged the state as "one in which the government is a recta or a legitima gubernation, that is to say, one in which the highest power, however strong and unified, is still neither arbitrary nor irresponsible, but derived from, and defined by, a law which is superior to itself''.

As we see, Brierly admits that Bodin did not conceive sovereignty as an absolute, legally unrestricted power of one state spurning the sovereign interests of other states.

Brierly points out that for Bodin sovereignty "was an essential principle of internal political order and he would certainly have been surprised if he could have foreseen that later writers would distort it into a principle of international disorder and use it to prove that by their very nature states are above the law''.

But why follow the errant ways of these "later writers"? After all, as Brierly himself admits, in what Bodin "was writing about sovereignty he was cutting away their foundations". So why distort the real substance of Bodin's teaching and that of sovereignty? Is it not the purpose of the scientist to restore the truth and to substantiate the concept of sovereignty as a principle of international order? How could authors identify sovereignty "with absolute power above the law" and ascribe the "attribute of a personal ruler inside the state" to "the state itself in its relations to other states"^^1^^?

Brierly says the answer lies in the history and theory of the modern state, which, as often happens, retrace the facts related to that state.

Indeed, the conception of sovereignty as a principle of international anarchy and chaos is typical of the theory of the modern imperialist state, which follows its practices and strives to substantiate the absolutist and despotic actions of that slate. Yet it has regard only for its own sovereignty and

~^^1^^ F. F. Martens, Sovremennoye mezhdunarodnoye pravo tsivilizovannykh narodou, 1882, pp. 205-07.

~^^2^^ A. Verdross, Volkerrecht, S. 8.

J. Brierly, The Law of Nations, pp. 7, 9, 10, 11.

316.

spurns the sovereign rights and interests of all other states wherever it can possibly do so.

Even Brierly, an active exponent of this theory, admits that the classical doctrine of international law of the time of burgeoning capitalism has nothing in common with the modern imperialist absolutist doctrine. Brierly concedes that in his Leviathan Thomas Hobbes considered sovereignty "an essential principle of order". For all this, in the teeth of the facts, Brierly ascribes to Hobbes the contention that " sovereignty must be absolute and illimitable" and qualifies this as "totalitarianism pure and simple''.

Brierly also attacks Locke and Rousseau^^1^^ for their theory of popular sovereignty, which requires the governments to serve the interests of the people. Brierly declares that "the whole people cannot be the sovereign in either sense" and that the sovereignty of the people is not even a genuine democratic ideal, being ``totalitarian'' because it implies the ' submission of the individual, even of a minority, to the majority. Brierly considers it natural that a "politically conscious minority", such as, say, a military clique, "may well be stronger than the people as a whole and better able to make its will prevail". Brierly is not inclined to censure that sort of thing in a bourgeois state. What is more, he maintains that "the whole people are incapable of acting as a body, they are not even the strongest power", and that "the work of governments is a skilled and a full-time job which the law cannot avoid entrusting to particular individuals or organs" and that, ultimately, "the real rulers of society are never discoverable".^^2^^

To conceal the role of the capitalist monopolies and banks, which are the true rulers in the bourgeois state, Brierly distorts the essence of people's sovereignty and tries to substantiate the allegedly natural inference that "the real rulers of society are never discoverable''.

In this manner Brierly ties up his distortion of sovereignty outside the country with its distortion also inside the country.

Yet when he goes on to examine the conception of `` independence'', Brierly himself discovers that his concept does not hold water.

Brierly thinks it is sufficient to show that there exist

``dependent" and ``independent'' states to infer "that independence cannot be a fundamental right of states as such". He thinks it is quite natural for dependent states to exist and does not consider it necessary to recognise their right of independence. "Independence," he declares, "is merely a descriptive term; it has no moral content." Yet he is compelled to admit in the same breath that the term `` independence'' denotes "the status of a state which controls its own external relations without dictation from other slates''.

It does not call for much perspicacity to tie this up with the sovereignty of states in international affairs in accordance with the standards of modern international law. Brierly is aware of this, for he writes that independence "does not mean freedom from law, but merely freedom from control by other states" and that "the associations of sovereignty have become attached in the popular mind to the notion of independence''.

In the final analysis, therefore, Brierly recognises that the feudal absolutist garb does not fit the modern conception of sovereignty.

It is quite true that sovereignty is associated in the popular mind with independence and does not mean what Brierly says it means.

However, judging by his book, Brierly shuns the popular mind and its correct notion of sovereignty and gravitates towards those minds that pervert sovereignty and attribute to it "freedom from any and all restriction", on the one hand, while exploiting the term ``sovereignty'' to justify arbitrary and unlawful conduct, on the other. Brierly's objections to the principles of independence and sovereignty fall flat, too, when he examines the question of intervention. He says the term ``intervention'' is used to denote "acts of interference . .. either in the domestic or the foreign affairs of another state which violate that state's independence''.

He mentions half-heartedly that ``non-intervention'' is the general rule, but concentrates all his efforts on examining the legal grounds for intervention. There is no section on the "Principle of Non-intervention" in his book, replaced by a paragraph entitled ``Intervention'', wherein the author exerts himself to prove that intervention may have "moral approval''.

This sort of statement in relation to international law, which allegedly ignores the concept of intervention, is not, of course, imputable to the professor's ignorance. It is much

~^^1^^ Truktaty o vechnom mire, ed. by F. V. Konstanlinov p 143

~^^2^^ J. Brierly, op. cit., pp. 12, 6, 13, 14-15.

more likely an attempt to justify the interventionist conduct of the capitalist powers on the plea that international law does not, allegedly, outlaw interventions. That sort of thing only shows how futile it is to repudiate sovereignty, independence, non-intervention and other principles of international law.

Brierly defeats himself as an opponent of sovereignty when he discusses the territorial supremacy of states. He cannot help admitting that "a state occupies a definite part of the surface of the earth", wherein it exercises " jurisdiction over persons and things to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of other states". Neither can he help admitting that a state "is popularly said to have `sovereignty' over the territory". Yet he says this "much abused word" has a "rather special sense", referring "not to the independence of the state itself, but to the nature of rights over territory". According to Brierly, the sovereign rights of the state over its territory do not necessarily imply independence and do not go far enough to serve the state's independence.

All the same, Brierly admits the need for the term " sovereignty over the territory", because, he writes, there is no "better word" to denote the basic rights of the state over territory.

But it is not just a matter of using the convenient word. The term expresses clearly the true state of affairs, in which normal relations between states are inconceivable without sovereignty and territorial supremacy.

It is not surprising that Brierly's repudiation of sovereignty leads him to repudiating the principle of the equality of states.

Though he admits that "the doctrine of equality was introduced into the theory of international law by the naturalist writers",^^1^^ the doctrine "is worse than merely redundant, for it may easily become seriously misleading" because it contains the inference that "all states have equal rights''.

``If it is said that all states ought to have equal rights whether they actually do or not," Brierly writes, "then the doctrine ceases to be merely innocuous and becomes mischievous" because, Brierly explains, "it would be obstructive of progress that every state, large or small, should claim an equal voice in every new co-operative enterprise.''^^2^^

~^^1^^ J. Brierly, op. cit, pp. 150, 128.

~^^2^^ Ibid., pp. 124, 125.

One would think that Brierly has never heard of the revolutions of the 20th century, which wrought far-reaching changes in the present world.

Brierly's book smacks of the old-fashioned colonialism of the time when Britain, ruler of the seas and possessor of a giant colonial empire, scorned the sovereign rights of peoples, robbed them of equality and independence, and interfered in their internal affairs.

All Brierly's efforts to topple the basic principles of modern international law, and with them the principles of peaceful coexistence from the positions of the British imperialist and colonialist doctrine, are abortive.

Let us now examine similar attempts by Emery Reves, an ideologist of the American imperialist doctrine, who is at pains to prove that sovereignty, along with other principles of international law, is a source of war.

Reves maintains that "the coexistence of social groups with equal sovereign power is precisely the condition of war, the very condition that can never, under any circumstances, bring peace". He seeks to prove that "war takes place whenever and wherever non-integrated social units of equal sovereignty come into contact" and that "war between given social units of equal sovereignty is the permanent symptom of each successive phase of civilisation''.

Elsewhere, Reves stresses that "war is the result of contacts between non-integrated sovereign units, whether such units be families, tribes, villages, estates, cities, provinces, dynasties, religions, classes, nations, regions or continents''.

Reves maintains that peace is impossible until the sovereignty of individual states or, as he puts it, of social units, will be transferred to a supra-national power. "Peace between fighting groups of men," he writes, "was never possible and wars succeeded one another until some sovereignty, some sovereign source of law, some sovereign power was set up over and above the clashing social units, integrating the warring units into a higher sovereignty."¹ Reves has a patented recipe for preventing wars between nations once and for all, namely, "integration of the scattered conflicting national sovereignties into one unified, higher sovereignty capable of creating a legal order within

~^^1^^ E. Reves, The Anatomy of Peace, p. 122. 21-3121

which all peoples may enjoy equal security, equal obligations and equal rights under law''.

Quite deliberately Reves shuts his eyes to the fact that only real sovereignty of every nation can provide equality, equal rights and independence.

If sovereignty existed in the shape ascribed to it by Kelsen, Brierly, Reves and the other jugglers of Bodin's teaching, that is, as an absolute and unlimited right of every state to do whatever it wishes in the international arena, every state would have the right of aggression and war as the most effective means of attaining its absolutist pretensions. Yet no right of aggressive war exists from the standpoint of modern international law. It cannot be inferred from the principle of sovereignty, which denotes that all states rule out the right of aggression, because aggressive war is the most unlawful violation of sovereignty inconsistent with international law.^^1^^

All the same, Reves strains to discredit sovereignty in' behalf of U.S. imperialist expansion. This is why he describes the modern system of international relations as "a society of the modern feudal lords, the nation-states''.

He avers that the world is today so organised that sovereignty "is exercised in an absolute form by groups of individuals we call nations".^^2^^

Reves spurns the democratic principles proclaimed by the bourgeoisie at the time of the bourgeois revolutions. "The great ideals of national sovereignty, independence, nationality, as the basis of states," says Reves, "were wonderful achievements in the 18th century, in a world which was so vast before the industrial revolution had begun.''

The world of nation-states has become too crowded for modern monopoly capital, which has outgrown the national frontiers and overflown into other countries, seeking profitable markets, cheap sources of raw materials and lucrative spheres of investment, where it can enslave and exploit foreign peoples in its quest for maximum profits. Sovereignty, as we know, is a means of safeguarding states that wish to be free and independent rather than objects of foreign exploitation.

This is why national sovereignty is an irksome obstacle to such apologists of imperialist expansion as Reves. He

~^^1^^ N. A. Ushakov, Suverenitet v sovremennom mezhdunarodnom prove, Moscow, 1963, pp. 175-84.

~^^2^^ E. Reves, op. cit., pp. 215, 132, 133.

says in so many words that "the political framework of our world with its 70 or 80 sovereign nation-states [today the U.N. membership alone numbers 120 sovereign states---G.Z.] is an insurmountable obstacle to free industrial progress, to individual liberty and to social security". Sovereignty, Reves says, may have had a great record of success in the past, but today it is "the cause of all the immeasurable suffering and misery of this world. We are living in complete anarchy, because in a small world, inter-related in every other respect, there are 70 or 80 separate sources of law---70 or 80 sovereignties.''

To American monopoly capital the modern world is ``small'' because it has many states. If, as Reves and his like visualise, it were turned into an American empire with just one sovereignty, that of the United States, it would be a large world, large enough for ``progress'', that is, a world in which the U.S. super-monopolies would meet no obstacles to exploiting all humanity.

This is why Reves endeavours to prove that "the inescapable economic and technical realities of our age make it imperative to re-examine and re-interpret the notion of sovereignty''.

Reves heaps invective upon the modern system of international relations and international law. "Existing anarchy in international relations, due to absolute national sovereignty," he writes, "must be superseded by universal statutory law, enacted by a duly elected legislative body." Such "universal law" must, according to Reves, "take the place of the utterly fallacious, ineffectual and precarious rule of unenforceable treaty obligations entered into by sovereign nation-states and disregarded by them whenever it suits their purpose".^^1^^

Let us assume for a minute that such a statutory law is enacted by the legislative body suggested by Reves and that this statutory law proclaims the full equality of all men. Let us also assume that the enforcement of equality will be exercised by some world body in the absence of such authority and protection as the sovereign national states afford to their citizens.

What will happen if we have the American millionaires and billionaires, backed by powerful monopolies, on the one hand, and the peasant or worker of any of the young African countries, on the other?

~^^1^^ Ibid., pp. 137, 140.

Nominally, both have equal rights and equal freedom. But the former have property, capital and the organised support of the monopolies, while the latter have nothing, or almost nothing apart from their hands. What will this ``equal'' cohabitation of the American capitalist and the African peasant or worker bring about? This is quite easy to see: the latter will be prey to a still more savage exploitation by the former than that obtaining today in, say, the South African Republic.

The same fate will befall the national bourgeoisie of the economically less developed countries, which is unable to withstand the competition of the powerful American (and other) monopolies without the support of its national sovereign state.

The theories of "universal law" possess the same tendency as those of "world government", namely, to create a regime of undivided domination and exploitation of the world population for the powerful American monopolies.

Evidently, Reves does not expect his appeals of annulling sovereignty to find favour with the peoples, for he suggests an ``alternative'' to a voluntary renunciation of independence: the establishment of a world-wide American empire by forcible means.

``If we cannot attain to universalism and create union by common consent and democratic methods as a result of rational thinking," he writes blithely, "then rather than retard the process, let us precipitate unification by conquest." He only deplores that "political unification of the world by conquest is expensive, painful, bloody''.

Reves's book was written in that short-lived period when the United States held monopoly possession of the atom bomb. This explains the writer's elation at the idea that "for the first time in human history, one power can conquer and rule the world. Indeed, but for the industrial potential of the United States, Hitler might have done it!''

He shuts his eyes to the real balance of strength in the world and exclaims: "Now only, for the first time in history, the conquest of the world by a single power is a geographic, technical and military possibility.''

Our scrutiny of the theory of Reves and other apologists of U.S. imperialism reveals all too clearly that, whatever they might say about their respect for the rights of nations, they are bitterly opposed to the principle of self-- determination which alone can safeguard these rights.

``The principle of 'self-determination of nations' is a primitive and oversimplified expression of the concept of national independence," Reves argues in his book. "It is designed to work in laboratory conditions. Present-day realities, however, produce too many interferences to make possible the application of such a hypothetical formula without recurrent explosions.''^^1^^

This attempt at scaring mankind with the bogey of " recurrent explosions" is obviously intended to rob the na^- tions of the right to choose the form of government they like best and substitute a more efficient socio-economic system for a less efficient one, which right, as we know, is implicit in self-determination.

Reves betrays this intention by his outright denial of democracy. "We cannot have democracy in a world of interdependent, sovereign nation-states," he maintains, "because democracy means the sovereignty of the people." He contends that "the nation-state structure strangulates and exterminates the sovereignty of the people". The way to make sovereignty of the people possible, Reves claims, is to turn sovereignty over to institutions of a world community.

He overlooks the fact that the concept of ``people'' is as sociated with the nation-state structure. Transfer of the sovereign powers of the peoples to a "world community" or to a non-existent "world people" is tantamount to wiping out the principle of people's sovereignty. Reves confesses to it when he reduces self-determination to a "hypothetical formula" designed to work solely in "laboratory conditions", as distinct from the present-day realities.

Reves must needs repudiate democracy, people's sovereignty and self-determination in order to exonerate U.S. imperialist expansion and provide an ideological foundation for the United States ambition of dominating the world.

This is why Reves goes to the length of claiming that "to believe that the nation-state is the expression of sovereignty is pure totalitarianism, the greatest foe of democracy" and that "a democratic state cannot `surrender' sovereignty, for the simple reason that it is not sovereign. Only a totalitarian or fascist state is sovereign".^^2^^

What are we to make of all this?

~^^1^^ E. Reves, op. cit., pp. 269, 268, 205, 206.

~^^2^^ Ibid., pp. 162, 141, 142.

Although Reves maintains that sovereignty "constitutes the unsurmountable obstacle to all progress, to all social and economic efforts, that bars all human progress on any lines", he is compelled to admit that "the existing system of sovereign nation-states" is "accepted and upheld today by capitalists and socialists, individualists and collectivists, all national and religious groups alike".^^1^^

For all of Reves's appeals to end sovereignty, which he styles as the source of all evils, he himself admits that sovereignty suits capitalists as well as socialists, and individualists as well as collectivists.

A vehement opponent of sovereignty, Emery Reves con.cedes its existence. He and his like, all manifestly inimical to the principles of peaceful coexistence and international law, are thus forced to admit that their notions are worlds removed from reality.

maintains that the doctrine of sovereignty should be fully rejected and adds that a stable international system cannot be built until modern states agree to restrictions on their freedom of action. The states are unable to operate, he says, until the peoples will be prepared to submit to world law and world government.

Eagleton overlooks the fact that states enjoy freedom under international law not on the strength of absolute sovereignty, but of sovereign equality, which affords each of them the necessary freedom. The principle of sovereign equality gives peoples and states freedom to act without prejudice to the sovereign interests of other states.They would unquestionably lose this freedom under world law and world government.

The U.N. Charter rejects such ``unlimited'' sovereignty as would afford every state the right to use force and start wars at its own discretion. The Charter prohibits states to practise ``unlimited'' sovereignty and qualifies such practice as aggression.

The foes of sovereignty impute "unlimited sovereignty" that repudiates international law to the Soviet doctrine. Hans Kelsen maintains, for example, that Y. Korovin, "as all the other Soviet writers on international law, insists on the principle of unlimited sovereignty of state as essential to the relationship between the state and international law".^^1^^

Korovin refuted this charge. He writes in the textbook Mezhdunarodnoye Pravo (International Law) that the basic principles of Soviet foreign policy are those of "peaceful coexistence and observance of sovereignty".^^2^^ Elsewhere in the same book he notes that since the October Revolution "such key principles of international law as the sovereign equality of states, self-determination of nations, non-- interference in the domestic affairs of other states, territorial inviolability, the peaceful coexistence and co-operation of states irrespective of their social system, the fulfilment in good faith of freely accepted obligations, etc., have become the guiding principles of the world's first socialist state". The fidelity of the Soviet doctrine to each of these institutions is beyond argument. It is a rank falsehood to say

2. OPPONENTS OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE SUFFER A SETBACK

Attacks on sovereignty lead to a denial of international law. They lead to contentions that international law is unable to create international security and to the inference that, therefore, the system of international intercourse should be replaced by a world state or by a world law.

This is no novel idea. Besides, millions of people know today that the notion of world government advocated by a section of Western social scientists really connotes world domination by the U.S. monopolies.

The fact that world government as such will not deliver mankind from wars is seen by Philip Jessup, a zealous foe of sovereignty, who says wars between countries would continue even if a world government were to exist, with the sole difference that they would be styled as "civil wars inside an established world community".^^2^^

American political scientists cling to the world government idea because it is a convenient screen for U.S. ambitions and not because, as they profess, it will deliver mankind from wars.

Clyde Eagleton, a prominent American political scientist,

~^^1^^ E. Reves, op. cit., p. 74.

~^^2^^ Ph. Jessup, The International Problem of Governing Mankind, Claremont, Calif., 1947, p. 5.

~^^1^^ H. Kelsen, The Communist Theory of Law, New York, 1955, p. 158,

~^^2^^ International Law, a textbook for use in law schools, ed. by F. I. Kozhevnikov, Moscow, 1961, pp. 64, 9, 75.

that the Soviet state recognises none but its own sovereignty and denies submission to the rules of international law or the decisions of international organisations.

Soviet jurists have disclaimed this time and again. The textbook International Law says Soviet theory consistently maintains the principle of sovereignty and national selfdetermination within and without as the principle of the freedom of the peoples in all spheres (political, economic, cultural).

The Soviet doctrine recognises the right of self-- determination for all peoples and the right of sovereignty for all states.

The special feature of the Soviet conception of sovereignty, says the text-book, is that it does not stop at the recognition of certain formal rights (equality, non-- interference) for all states but it envisages the practice .of these rights and the exposure of all attempts at violating the state' sovereignty of individual countries, whatever the pretext or camouflage.

The book stresses that respect for the principle of the sovereignty of all countries without exception springs from the very foundations of the Soviet political system as a free union of free peoples based on the sovereign equality of all the constituent nations.

It notes that sovereignty is an inalienable privilege of every state as a subject of international law and that "the independence of a state is expressed in its right freely, at its own discretion to decide all its internal and external affairs without violating the rights of other states and the principles and rules of international law''.

Does this bear any resemblance to the reactionary feudal absolutist doctrine that scorns the sovereign rights of other states and bends the rules and principles of international law to its own will?

To clear up all possible doubt in regard to the charge that the Soviet conception of sovereignty is conceived in an absolutist spirit, let us again quote the writers of the Soviet textbook on international law. The determinative significance of sovereignty in relations between states, says the book, is not the same thing as the conception of so-called "absolute sovereignty". No sovereign state may act arbitrarily in its foreign relations, flaunting internationally approved principles of law and freely assumed obligations. That sort of thing would contradict the principle of the sovereign

equality of countries parties to international intercourse and undermine such intercourse, leading to unrestricted rule of force and abuse.^^1^^

As we see, the Soviet doctrine of international law condemns the absolutist interpretation of sovereignty. It upholds the conception of sovereignty implied in the U.N. Charter, which recognises the sovereignty of every state on a basis of equality. This conception, by the way, is the only serviceable basis for another key principle of modern international law, that of the equality of all nations and states, large and small.

The Soviet conception of sovereignty rests on the idea that international law and order cannot prevail unless the principle of sovereignty is observed with regard to all peoples, nations and states. Unless the principle of sovereignty is observed, write the authors of the Soviet textbook, "free co-operation of states, and hence international law", is impossible. Rules of international law can arise only from the "sovereign expression of states participating in international community and from mutual respect of their sovereignty''.

The Soviet doctrine says that faithful observance of the principle of sovereignty makes international co-operation "most fruitful and successful", that sovereignty is a reliable means of safeguarding weak states from the dictation of the big capitalist powers and that at present "the struggle for sovereignty is more than ever before linked with the struggle for peace, against imperialist aggression''.

The Soviet doctrine asserts rightly that the principle of sovereignty is bound up with other principles of international law and that its exercise is inconceivable unless other key principles, such as those of territorial integrity, noninterference, equality, non-aggression, mutual advantage, and the like, are properly observed.

The Soviet international law textbook stresses that the principle of the immunity of state territory is one of the cardinal rules of modern international law, because it obliges "all states reciprocally to respect the inviolability (integrity) of state territory".^^2^^

The Soviet doctrine calls for consistent and rigid observance by all states of the principle of the territorial in-

~^^1^^ International Law, ed. by F. I. Kozhevnikov, pp. 79-80, 83, 93, 96.

~^^2^^ Ibid., pp. 96, 97, 98, 177.

tegrity of all other states. Understandably so, because it is the Soviet view that state territory is under the exclusive and complete jurisdiction of just one state in the exercise of its exclusive territorial competence, which "constitutes an organic part of state sovereignty, for which reason its violation is impermissible''.

In defining the juridical nature of exclusive territorial competence the Soviet doctrine proceeds from the basic idea that territory is a necessary property of a nation and that any prejudice to territory is prejudice to the nation and a violation of international law and order which entitles every nation to the right of self-determination, of free and independent choice of its fate and of its territory.

The nature of exclusive territorial competence is rooted in the fact that territory is the possession of the people inhabiting it, a material expression of their exclusive competence, independence and inviolability.

>

Some bourgeois writers attempt to vindicate imperialist expansion with a theory of the "penetrability of territory". The Soviet doctrine, on the other hand, unfailingly supports the demand of territorial inviolability, withdrawal of armed forces from foreign territories, and the winding up of foreign military bases, which it qualifies as a rank violation of the sovereign rights of the respective states.

The Soviet stand on territorial integrity rests on Lenin's Decree on Peace, which condemned any and all forms of annexation violating the self-determination of nations.

The Soviet doctrine of international law says the principle of non-interference by one state in the domestic affairs of another stems from the recognition of the sovereignty of states and their right of independence. This principle is doubly significant in the era of the coexistence of states with different socio-economic systems, says the Soviet textbook.

Why?

Because "strict observance of the principle of non-- interference is one of the most important guarantees of peace''.

Here is how the Soviet doctrine explains the importance of the non-interference principle in our time. Recognition of the right of every people "to be master in its own country", it says, that is, its unqualified right to choose the social and political order in its country and to make its internal and external policy with no interference whatsoever by any other states, affords extensive opportunities for

``peaceful and mutually advantageous co-operation between states, regardless of differences in their social systems.''^^1^^

The Soviet doctrine stands dearly for peaceful coexistence and for the sovereignty of all peoples and states without exception, regardless of their system.

The modern reactionary bourgeois doctrine holds an entirely different view.

There are many foes of sovereignty among the bourgeois jurists, who conceive it in an absolutist spirit (Kelsen, Scelle, Jessup, and others) despite the explanations offered by their own colleagues who, like Charles G. Fenwick, the U.S. jurist, define it as "only freedom from control by any other state, not freedom from the restrictions that are binding upon all states".^^2^^

The foes of sovereignty admit all the same that sovereignty plays a decisive part in traditional theory and is a pillar of modern international law. What is more, many of them uphold the principle of exclusive territorial competence and even the principles of independence and equality, which, of course, torpedoes their own arguments against sovereignty.

The criticism levelled at sovereignty by some Western jurists is scientifically untenable, because it militates against the absolutist conception and collapses as soon as its authors delve into such principles as the equality of states, non-interference in internal affairs, territorial jurisdiction, and the like. Jessup says national sovereignty "is the root of the evil"",^^3^^ Fenwick describes it as "a doctrine of legal anarchy",^^4^^ and Morgenthau writes "peace and order among nations would be secure only within a world state",^^5^^ that is, on the proviso the sovereignty of states is wiped out.

Putting an absolutist construction on sovereignty, Kelsen declares the sovereignty of one state necessarily rules out the sovereignty of all the other states. He argues that his own theory of international law strips the state of the absolutist character imparted to it by the dogma of sovereignty.

Scelle endeavours to construe sovereignty as absolute,

~^^1^^ International Law, ed. by F. I. Kozhevnikov, p. 114.

~^^2^^ Ch. Fenwick, International Law, New York, 1948, p. 250.

~^^3^^ Ph. Jessup, op. cit., p. 2.

~^^4^^ Ch. Fenwick, op. cit., p. 20.

~^^5^^ H. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations, New York, 1954, p. 469.

in order to prove the absence of sovereignty in our time. He argues that the idea of sovereignty is inconsistent with international law and avers that sovereignty as an absolute principle could apply only to a global society. He considers the concept of sovereignty to be incompatible with international rule of law and the concept of juridical obligations, because he views sovereignty as the absolute and unrestricted power of every state to do whatever it wishes. His rejection of sovereignty prompts him to construe a supranational legal order in place of the international, because, he says, "the existing international legal order cannot make anything like the progress possible under a supra-national legal order".^^1^^

For all this, most of the foes of sovereignty, who subjectively repulse the idea of sovereignty, believe all the same that objectively the principle of sovereignty prevails as an operative rule of international law, and one whoseobservance and respect is binding on all states, regardless of their system.

Charles G. Fenwick, the American jurist, lists independence as second in importance only to the right of national existence and identifies it with the concept of sovereignty, noting that "the principle of equality is now firmly established in international law".^^2^^

Herbet W. Briggs, a Cornell University professor of international law, sets out numerous cases, documents and notes to show that the principles of sovereignty, political independence, territorial integrity and equality are universally recognised standards of international law.

His book contains, among others, the judgement of Arbitrator Max Huber in the case of U.S.A. vs. Holland concerning the island of Palmas (Miangas), which reads as follows:

``Sovereignty in the relations between states signifies independence. Independence in regard to a portion of the globe is the right to exercise therein, to the exclusion of any other state, the functions of state. The development of the national organisation of states during the last few centuries and, as a corollary, the development of international law, have established this principle of the exclusive competence of the state in regard to its own territory in such a way

as to make it the point of departure in settling most questions that concern international relations.''^^1^^

Philip Jessup, jurist and diplomat, is an articulate opponent of sovereignty. Yet he notes that sovereignty is the soil (he calls it ``quicksand'') "on which the foundations of traditional international law are built". He goes on to admit that independence, like equality, is a "quality or characteristic which states are commonly said to possess under international law".^^2^^

J. G. Starke, a British jurist, says the state is deemed to possess independence and sovereignty "within its territorial limits" and is obliged to abstain and prevent its agents and subjects from committing acts "constituting a violation of another state's independence and territorial supremacy", and "not to intervene in the affairs of another state".^^3^^

London University professor Georg Schwarzenberger observes that state sovereignty denotes independence from external influence and the freedom to exercise exclusive jurisdiction within the limits of one's territory, which makes possible the coexistence within the framework of law of a considerable number of subjects of international law.

Schwarzenberger declares in relation to the non-- interference principle that "the internal structure" of a subject of international law is reciprocally considered "as a matter of exclusively domestic jurisdiction". It follows, he says, that "each sovereign state decides for itself whether it wishes to organise itself on democratic, authoritarian or totalitarian patterns, or to run its economy on lines of laissezfaire, state planning, state socialism or communism".^^4^^

``International law," Schwarzenberger writes, "is universal and on the vital level of the overall relations between West and East, the principle of sovereignty appears as much as ever the appropriate starting point of any systematic exposition of the fundamental principles of international law.''^^5^^

~^^1^^ H. Briggs, A Law of Nations, Cases, Documents and Notes, New York, 1952, pp. 73, 239-40.

~^^2^^ Ph. Jessup, op. cit., pp. 40, 36, 27, 31, 37.

~^^3^^ J. G. Starke, An Introduction to International Law, London, Second Edition, 1950, pp. 74, 75.

~^^4^^ G. Schwarzenberger, A Manual of International Law, 4th ed., p. 49.

~^^5^^ G. Schwarzenberger, "The Fundamental Principles of International Law", Recueil des Cours, Academic de Droit International, 1956, Ley den, Vol. 87, p. 214.

~^^1^^ G. Scelle, Manual de Droit International Public, Paris, 1948, pp. 101-02, 96-97, 99, 22.

~^^2^^ Ch. Fenwick, op. cit., pp. 249, 250, 218.

Charles Rousseau, a French jurist, is dead set against sovereignty, but admits that the principles of territorial supremacy and of independence are valid principles, which include three elements---exclusiveness, self-reliance and full power. Rousseau says equality of states constitutes one of the basic principles of international law, another being the principle of the self-determination of peoples. Rousseau describes the principle of non-interference as "the leading principle of international relations".^^1^^

Another prominent French jurist Marcel Sibert emphasises that the exterior side of sovereignty denotes the power of a political society to comport itself freely within the limits of the law in its relations with other societies without foreign pressure and that independent states are equal before the law.^^2^^

Professor Georges Scelle, whom we know as a bitter opponent of sovereignty, recognises territorial supremacy and/ the exclusive competence of the state within its territory.^^3^^

Even Hans Kelsen admits that the concept of sovereignty plays a decisive role among the "basic concepts" of the traditional theory of international law.

Kelsen's objections to sovereignty blow up in his face when he says that if sovereignty means that for a community to be a state it must submit only to international law and not to the national law of another state, sovereignty may be considered an essential property of the state.^^4^^

It is indeed the purpose of sovereignty, as understood in our time, to rule out the subjection of one state to the national law of another state and secure observance by all states of the universally recognised and binding rules of international law. Joseph Kunz, who like Kelsen labours in the sweat of his brow to discredit the idea of sovereignty, is compelled to admit that despite various new tendencies and amendments, international law today " remained based upon the same sociological foundations . . . the international community of sovereign states".^^5^^

Not sovereignty as such but the imperialist urge to violate sovereignty is the cause of wars in international relations.

The student of history knows, writes John B. Whitton, a prominent British jurist, that normal relations between states depend on scrupulous fulfilment of international treaties. How much strife and bloodshed was caused by the failure to observe this "categorical imperative" of international life!

Violations of international obligations and non-observance of the pacta sunt servanda principle, which are at once gross violations of the sovereign rights of other states, have all too often been the cause of wars in the past.

It will not be too much to say, Whitton notes, that organisation of an efficacious and permanent peace depends primarily on the solidity, precision and legal efficiency of treaty obligations.^^1^^

Peaceful coexistence is inconceivable unless international obligations are observed by all, because its aspects and principles are laid down in international treaties and constitute valid standards of international law.

Speaking at the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 28, 1959, shortly before his death, John Foster Dulles said the United States has got to find a modus vivendi in the modern world, split into antagonistic states, and "end the cold war".^^2^^

This was a forced admission by its most bitter enemy that the peaceful coexistence policy is the most realistic and that the principles of peaceful coexistence have got to be worked out and observed.

Some time later Konrad Adenauer admitted the same thing, though he had for years maintained that peaceful coexistence was an illusion which, unfortunately, had too many adherents.^^3^^

In spring 1966 Adenauer said in an address to his party that peace with Russia is not only unavoidable, but also essential.^^4^^

As we see, in the final count opponents of the principles of peaceful coexistence as a doctrine and as practice, were

~^^1^^ Ch. Rousseau, Droit International Public, Paris, 1953, pp. 91-92, 81, 321.

~^^2^^ M. Sibert, Traite de Droit International Public, Paris, 1951, Vol. 1, pp. 100, 264.

~^^3^^ See G. Scelle, Cours de Droit International Public, Paris, 1948, pp. 89, 88.

~^^4^^ Recueil des Cours, Vol. 84, pp. 5, 105-06.

~^^5^^ J. Kunz, "The Changing Law of Nations", American Journal of International Law, Vol. 51, p. 78.

~^^1^^ Recueil des Cours, Vol. 49, pp. 152, 153.

~^^2^^ J. F. Dulles, "Ending the Cold War", The Department of State Bulletin, Feb. 16, 1959, p. 222.

~^^3^^ Le Monde, Jan. 12, 1960.

~^^4^^ Za rubezhom, Moscow, No. 48, 1966, p. 14.

compelled to bow before the objective laws governing man's development.

3. THE SCIENTIFIC SYSTEM OF .INTERNATIONAL LAW

The U.N. programme of promoting the progressive development of international law will not confine itself to just the codification of the general principles of peaceful coexistence. It will invade all spheres of international cooperation. To facilitate this effort, it is desirable to frame a scientific system of international law consistent with the U.N. Charter and the spirit of the times.

The range of international relations now regulated by the standards of international law is so great that the prewar system of international law has to be repatterned structurally. Socialism has spread beyond the limits of one state and now constitutes a world system, exercising a decisive influence on international life. Go-operation between states of the different socio-economic systems is growing rapidly in every possible field.

This co-operation, coupled with international rule of law, prompts the division of international law into two sections ---a general and a special one.

The general section should, it appears, set out the general principles of international law and peaceful coexistence governing co-operation in all spheres.

The special section, on the other hand, should show how these principles are applied in the juridical regulation of international co-operation in the various spheres---the political, economic, commercial, legal, financial, social, cultural, humanitarian, etc.

After all, there are such general principles of international co-operation as concern every sphere---the political, economic, social, cultural, etc. These govern international co-operation as such and concern the means of securing co-operation and enforcing the rules of international law. They deal with the role of peoples and states as subjects of international law, etc. On the other hand, there are also special principles related to the ways and means of ensuring international co-operation in individual, special, specific spheres.

To build a truly scientific system of modern international law in the epoch of the peaceful coexistence of states with different socio-economic systems, we must obviously pro-

ceed from, the key principles of peaceful coexistence governing contemporary international relations.

Let us see what systems of international law were offered in the past, and why these systems do not live up to the exigencies of modern times.

As a rule, the past systems were borrowed from other departments of law and did not reckon with the specific features of international law. Furthermore, they have fallen far behind present standards and the character of international law in the epoch of peaceful coexistence.

Some writers, to be sure, did not think it possible to mould any system at all. This applies to Franz von Holtzendorff, Funck-Brentano and A. Sorel,

Then there were the so-called primitive systems, which divided international law into law of war and peace ( Alberico Gentili, Hugo Grotius) and relations between states into ``normal'' and ``abnormal'', this being a variant of the Grotius system (James Lorimer, William Edward Hall, James Walker). The primitive system is unserviceable in our time, because aggressive war is outside the pale of modern international law.

Some of the old systems, chiefly rooted in the doctrine of natural law, were based on the fundamental rights of states. Their exponents classified the rights of states as absolute and relative ( T. L. Kluber, Wheaton). These systems are so obviously obsolete we need not waste space on arguing them.

There was also the institution system known as Roman law (R. Zouch, A. Bulmerincq), which still dominates some courses of international law.

Another system was based on the idea of the state and its functions as the supreme authority (J. C. Bluntschli, A. Rivier, P. Pradier-Fodere).

The main deficiency of all these systems was that they were borrowed from other departments of law and ignored the unique and independent nature of international law, stripping it of its naturally inherent structure.

True, attempts were made to align the system of international law to its specific features. The system based on the two supreme principles of international law, the subjective (sovereignty) and objective (principle of intercourse), brought forward by F. F. Martens, was one such system. Then there was the system based on the idea of interests common for all states and the international protection of

22-3121

these interests and rights, brought forward by N. M. Korkunov. Besides, a system was constructed on the idea of international alliance ( N. M. Kapustin and I. Ivanovsky). Professor P. E. Kazansky's system, based on the idea of international accommodation and intercourse, was a variant of it, and so was that of Moscow University Professor L. Kamarovsky, who combined the principles of sovereignty and intercourse with the idea of international organisation.

All these old systems, which still figure in Soviet and foreign textbooks, are not serviceable, because they do not conform with the development and character of international law in the contemporary epoch of the peaceful coexistence of the two socio-economic systems.

The specific thing about modern international law, as distinct from the other departments of .law, is that it regulates relations between sovereign states in accordance with the principles of sovereignty, equality, non-interfer,- ence and the other rules of peaceful coexistence. This goes to show that neither the system of Roman law, which regulates relations between individuals within the state, nor the system of state law, which governs the structure, powers and procedures of state within a country, are suitable as patterns for the science of international law.

The system of bourgeois state law usually adheres to the following lines: the three properties of a state---public power, population and territory; bodies of state; functions of state; legislation; administration; the judiciary.

That this scheme is not properly applicable to international law is self-evident, because there are no such things as public supra-state power and supra-state bodies in international law.

As for the functions of state power, that is, legislation, administration and the judiciary, any attempt to identify domestic legislation with international treaty practices, the function of government with the practice of international unions and alliances, and domestic legislation with peaceful means of settling disputes or with war, is obviously fallacious.

The system of Roman or Institute law is unsuitable as well. There were two systems of Roman law, the institutionary and the pandect, both of which, for all their differences, recognised the subject, object and motion of law.

If applied to international law, this system would define population and territory as objects of international law,

despite their being components of the concept of the state as a subject of international law. Besides, the concept of the motion of law does not, and cannot, as such contribute anything to the systematisation of international law.

One of the sections of this system endeavoured to set out a consummate doctrine of the state as a subject of international law. It postulated the principles of sovereignty, but glossed over the territorial and personal supremacy of the state. Yet we cannot conceive the principle of sovereignty and the role of the state as a subject of international law without such supremacy.

Nor did it say anything about the bodies exercising the foreign relations of a state. It is clear, however, that the role of the state as a subject of international law will never be properly understood, unless we examine the bodies that represent and personify the state in the international arena.

The section devoted to population was patchy and covered heterogeneous, almost disconnected, questions, while ignoring some essential ones, such as the rights of peoples, the principles of people's sovereignty, self-- determination, and the like.

The section on territory was not entirely logical. It examined questions unrelated to state territory, such as marine law and the various problems of international transport law.

The section on state bodies handling foreign relations overlooked the important role of diplomacy, the chief instrument of a state's external functions. Little or no attention was paid to questions of diplomatic practice.

The examination of international treaties and conventions somewhere in the middle of the course, in isolation from the other sources of international law dealt with in the opening chapters, were not logical either.

A number of questions were put out of focus, among them the peoples' struggle for peace, the role of diplomacy, the question of private international law, and a variety of matters pertaining to international economic relations.

Other questions, too, were dealt with in cursory fashion. This is particularly true of international security and suppression of aggression.

Absence of a conclusive and guiding idea to bring out the specific features of international law really amounted to absence of a system and made the transition from one question to the next incomprehensible. The chapter on

22*

history examined the various institutions before the reader had a chance to grasp their substance. The concept of international treaties is dealt with after an account of the various treaty relations giving shape to the principle of sovereignty, non-interference, the regime of population and territory, the juridical status of the foreign relations bodies, etc.

Lack of a guiding idea also makes incomprehensible the logic of the transition from questions of state responsibility to the concept of physical and legal persons, from the legal status of foreigners to the concept and significance of state territory, from the question of open seas to the basic distinctions between Soviet and bourgeois diplomacy, from questions of consular law to the concept of international treaties, from questions of the termination of treaties to congresses and conferences where such treaties are concluded, from agreements on special aspects of international, relations to peaceful means of settling disputes, from the laws and customs of war to the struggle for peace that precedes war and aims at averting it, etc., etc.

Attempts at patterning the system of international law after those of other departments of law create nothing but confusion and distort the institutions of international law. They do not reveal the specific features of international law and are unable to settle some of its problems.

What we need today is a system that would take account of the specific features of international law and build upon the ideas and principles of peaceful coexistence rather than the eclectical combination of the systems of State and Roman law.

In the system that was in some measure accepted by the new Soviet six-volume treatise on international law,^^1^^ the principles of peaceful coexistence hold a focal place in the general section. Naturally, the general section opens with an introduction that defines international law and shows the specific nature of its universally recognised standards and sources, sets out the problem of codifying the standards and principles of international law and describes the basic historical stages in the development of international law and the science of international law. The introduction also specifies the place of international law within the system

of international relations and defines its basic purpose of regulating the peaceful coexistence and co-operation of different states subjects of international relations.

A considerable portion of the general section is devoted to the new type of international relations that have arisen between countries of the socialist system., the principles of socialist internationalism and their juridical formalisation in the various instruments and acts of the socialist states.

The general part describes all the principal means of organising international relations and securing peaceful coexistence and co-operation among the subjects of international law, such as diplomacy and the role of the peoples in international relations, inner-state and external bodies for foreign relations, the United Nations Organisation and other international bodies, international congresses and conferences, conventional law, and the like.

The concluding passages of the general section describe the manner in which standards of international law are formed, and show its progressive development and codification.

The special part deals with questions related to international co-operation between states of the two systems in specific fields---the political, economic, social, legal, cultural, humanitarian, etc.

The political aspect treats the following questions:

1) ensuring the sovereign rights of peoples and states; abolition of colonialism and responsibility for international crimes; 2) peaceful settlement of international disputes;

3) maintenance of international peace and security by effective collective measures; 4) disarmament and extirpation of aggressive wars.

The economic field involves:

1) equal rights of the two systems of property; 2) commercial and financial relations, and settlements; 3) monopoly of foreign trade and status of trade representatives;

4) state bodies and questions of trade and economic cooperation; 5) international organisations of economic collaboration; 6) economic collaboration with, and aid to, developing countries; 7) economic collaboration of the socialist states.

The social field involves:

1) protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms; 2) the International Labour Organisation; 3) equal rights of women; 4) slavery and forced labour; 5) international as-

~^^1^^ Kurs mezhdunarodnogo prava, ed. by V. M. Chkhikvadze, Moscow, 1967, Vols. MI.

sistance to children; 6) the World Health Organisation; 7) traffic in arms, alcoholic drinks and narcotics.

The legal administrative side covers questions related to the various specialised U.N. organisations and other associations, as well as questions of international criminal law and legal co-operation.

The special part also deals with international co-- operation in communication and transport---the Universal Postal Union, the International Communication Union, agreements concerning radio broadcasting and treaties on railway, motor, marine and air traffic.

It also treats such matters as international scientific and cultural relations, development of cultural, scientific, artistic, educational, sports and others contacts, and the work of such organisations as UNESCO.

Questions of humanising armed conflicts and the laws and customs of warfare, responsibility for violating these / laws and for crimes against humanity are also dealt with in the special part.

It is not our purpose to set out in detail the system of modern international law. All we wish to say, and say with good reason, is that every aspect of international law, be it public, private, particular or regional, fits perfectly into the system of international law if it follows the principles of peaceful coexistence.

The aforesaid demonstrates beyond any shadow of doubt that a truly scientific approach to the problem of peaceful coexistence paves the way to the moulding of the principles of peaceful coexistence into a valid system of international law.

It is up to legal experts to work out a scientific system of the standards of modern international law, for that is one of the principal objectives envisaged in the U.N. Charter, which lists one of the purposes of the United Nations as "promoting international co-operation in the political field and encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification''.

Chapter Ten

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE PROGRESS OF MANKIND

1. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE IS A SPECIFIC FORM OF CLASS STRUGGLE

Appeals to make peaceful coexistence connote ``perpetual'' coexistence of the two systems and to secure "an essentially status quo situation"^^1^^ in the capitalist world, that is, abandon the class struggle, are unrealistic.

Some imperialist writers who profess to recognise the idea of peaceful coexistence wish to construe it as a guarantee that capitalism will exist eternally, that it is inviolable and that, moreover, such a guarantee is to be tendered by the world socialist system.

By raising the "fundamental question of permanent coexistence of the socialist and capitalist systems" the American Professor Stephan Fischer-Galati intimates, in effect, that the socialist system should guarantee that the capitalist system in its present shape will remain intact by abandoning class struggle.^^2^^

P. Bastid believes that in a world of peaceful coexistence "a status quo loyally upheld by either side is the only basis for agreement".^^3^^ Italy's Minister of Justice Gonella urges the Soviet Union to exert ``influence'' on the Communist Parties to refrain from assaulting the "constructive policy of the democratic governments with whom Russia wishes to negotiate''.

Gonella, like other Western statesmen and politicians, knows perfectly well, for all that he says to the contrary, that the various Communist Parties make and carry through their policies independently.

~^^1^^ A. E. Rubinstein (ed.), The Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union, New York, 1960, p. 405.

~^^2^^ Current History, Nov. 1959, p. 278.

^^3^^ P. Bastid, "Les principes juridiques et moraux de la coexistence", Bulletin Interparliamentaire, No. 1, 1955, p. 7.

Even prominent American leaders admit it is absurd to demand that kind of status quo. "While the push on all continents is and has been for change," writes William O. Douglas, "the weight of American influence has been on the side of the status quo. That was and is an untenable position. Not all the bombs in the world, not all the wealth of America can maintain that status quo.''^^1^^

U.S. Professor William Appleman Williams wrote of the inevitable necessity of "an open door for revolutions",^^2^^ and so did Chester Bowles. Bowles described as the most significant fact of our times that revolution is not only "alive and on the march again in Asia, Africa, in the Middle East and Latin America", but that "it is carrying everything before it".^^3^^

Even John Foster Dulles noted that "change is the law of life".^^4^^

Whether we like it or not, wrote H. Aubrey, author of/ an economic study of peaceful coexistence, the United States, which became the world's strongest power after the Second World War, is looked upon as a conservative force, a friend and ally of regimes that oppose any and all change.

Senator Fulbright censured U.S. foreign policy as far back as 1958 for its dumbfounding reluctance to face the facts and for its habit of misreading the writing on the wall.

The objective laws of history make it impossible to maintain the kind of status quo the imperialists desire for even a relatively short time, let alone for ever. Man's revolutionary progress never stops and is irreversible. The status quo of one day is sure to be changed to some extent the next day by the very train of events, and nothing man can do will stop this march of history. It will be recalled that the U.N. Charter issues no guarantees---and is not designed to guarantee---not only the political and socio-economic, but even the territorial status quo, because it proceeds from the right of the peoples to determine by themselves their country's future.

Due to the ascendant course of history the status quo as

visualised by the imperialists can serve neither as a basis nor as a condition of peaceful coexistence.^^1^^

Peaceful coexistence has nothing in common neither with the "total peace" doctrine, nor with the social stagnation formula which are essentially no more than a screen for the status quo?

The "total peace" idea is unrealistic, because there cannot and never will be any class peace so long as exploiting classes survive on earth. Neither can there be peace between the oppressed colonies and the colonialists so long as the remnants of colonialism are not torn down, and, of course, there cannot be peace between aggressors and their victims so long as aggressions keep breaking out.

Peaceful coexistence does not imply a serene sitting on the sidelines. It is class struggle between capitalism and socialism in their international relations within the framework of modern international law.

It is scarcely surprising, however, that bourgeois statesmen, politicians and ideologists wish to equate two entirely different concepts---ideology and inter-state relations. This is important to them for the psychological war they are fighting against socialism and for the ideological sorties they have been mounting lately against the socialist countries.

Peaceful coexistence does not signify abandonment of the class struggle between socialism and capitalism, nor an ideological truce. It signifies that the struggle between the two systems will continue in the sphere of ideas, the way of life, the economic system and the system of property; it signifies that this struggle will be waged by peaceful means, without war and interference in each other's domestic affairs.

Capitalism is losing the political and ideological battles against socialism, as many bourgeois spokesmen admit. So the imperialist countries are laying their stakes chiefly on ideological subversion and anti-communism.

Under the pretext of peaceful ideological coexistence they are trying to carry the "battle of ideas" to the socialist countries.

But all they have done in this respect, or still want to do, is futile, because their own, bourgeois ideology is in

~^^1^^ Kakoye budushcheye ozhidayet chelovechestvo, ed. by A. M. Rumyantsev, Moscow, 1962, pp. 15, 17.

~^^2^^ G. P. Frantsev, Istoricheskiye puti sotsialnoi mysli, Moscow, 1965, p. 456.

~^^1^^ W. O. Douglas, Democracy's Manifesto, p. 16.

~^^2^^ W. A. Williams, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, Cleveland and New York, 1959, p. 212.

~^^3^^ Ch. Bowles, The Coming Political Breakthrough, p. 17.

~^^4^^ J. F. Dulles, War or Peace, New York, 1957, p. 18.

the throes of a deep crisis and is unable to advance ideas capable of capturing the masses.

Lester B. Pearson describing the ideological dead-end of modern capitalism says that "the West has nothing to offer but technology; no philosophy, merely plumbing; Coca-Cola for Confucius!''^^1^^

Some of the West German writers, too, are beginning to realise that the old aggressive imperialist conceptions have collapsed.

``What we need," writes Riidiger Altmann, "is a conception that reaches out farther than European integration, that is more constructive than military alliances, that is better than bald anti-Bolshevism---a conception that would provide the Western world with a positive goal for concerted action.''^^2^^

``The whole Western world," writes Right-wing Labourite Michael Shanks, "stands in need of a new dynamic, a new., sense of social purpose.''^^3^^

John F. Kennedy, when still a Senator, stressed that what America needs "most of all is a constant flow of new ideas".^^4^^

But these hopes of securing a "flow of new ideas", of finding new ``criteria'' or a "new dynamic" are in vain, for the moribund capitalist. system has outlived its time. The magazine Life, for one, no matter how unwittingly, agrees with us on this point. Despite its outward appearance of prosperity, it says, America is being sapped by a moral and spiritual cancer.

U.S. philosopher Fromm notes, too, that the West is a "picture of moral bankruptcy" and has succumbed to " inner emptiness and deep-rooted lack of hope".^^5^^

We could continue this list of testimonials to the political and ideological afflictions of the capitalist system. Many Western political science experts admit the ideological breakdown of capitalism and the ideological superiority of the socialist system.

U.S. ideologists need to ``repair'' their "public philosophy", says writer Max Ways, because, as he put it, the Communist "has a general theory to explain" history. But that

is just the trouble: U.S. ideologists know perfectly well that nothing they can do will ``repair'' their "public philosophy". This is why they assault the principle of peaceful coexistence, though their criticism is obviously misplaced and groundless. It is not surprising therefore that Anton Zischka, a writer on international relations, says the bigger part of the world believes in the Communists, and even their deadly enemies, of whom he is one, admit it.

As a variety of writers attest, capitalism is losing its competition with socialism in the vital spheres of ideology and politics. But this is not enough to secure a final socialist victory over capitalism, because economy is the main and decisive sector of the competition. The system that will ultimately win is the one that provides greater material benefits to all people, the one that attains for the people the higher standard of living.

2. PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE IS PEACEFUL

ECONOMIC COMPETITION IN THE COURSE OF WHICH

THE MOST PROGRESSIVE AND JUST SOCIAL SYSTEM

WHICH PROVIDES THE HIGHEST LIVING CONDITIONS

FOR THE PEOPLE SHALL WIN OUT

The advantages inherent in socialism to procure for the people considerably greater material and spiritual benefits is a determinative factor in the struggle between the two systems. To win the peaceful economic competition, the socialist countries must achieve the world's highest standard of living. The advantages of communism have to be proved in all spheres of life, and above all in the sphere of production. The Programme of the C.P.S.U. says:

``When the Soviet people will enjoy the blessings of communism, new hundreds of millions of people on earth will say: 'We are for Communism!' It is not through war with other countries, but by the example of a more perfect organisation of society, by rapid progress in developing the productive forces, the creation of all conditions for the happiness and well-being of man that the ideas of communism win the minds and hearts of the masses.''

Practical deeds and accomplishments demonstrating the advantages of the socialist system are needed for socialism to win the peaceful competition with capitalism.

The peoples of the socialist countries challenge the capitalist countries to compete in the noble endeavour of

~^^1^^ L. B. Pearson, Democracy in World Politics, Princeton, New Jersey, 1955, p. 91.

~^^2^^ R. Altmann, Das Erbe Adenauers, Stuttgart-Degerloch, 1960, S. 180.

~^^3^^ M. Shanks, The Stagnant Society, Baltimore, Maryland, 1961, p. 17

~^^4^^ J. F. Kennedy, The Strategy of Peace, New York, 1960, p. 164.

~^^5^^ E. Fromm, May Man Prevail?, pp. 232, 16, 17.

raising the material and spiritual level of the people. And they are certain socialism will win.

In drawing up the plan of his article, "The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government", Lenin said the country ought to borrow all the good it can from foreign nations.

The socialist state has been eager at all times to maintain peaceful relations with other countries. The Soviet doctrine of peaceful coexistence and competition of the two systems is worlds removed from the American conception of "peaceful evolution", designed to export counterrevolution.

The socialist countries never try to impose their system on other countries. But the very existence of the socialist system, which ensures the most rapid rate of economic, scientific and cultural development and gives the fullest scope to the creative initiative of the people brings home to people in the capitalist world that it is high time they advanced from the old to the new and progressive, from capitalism to socialism.

``On all sides, at every step one comes across problems which man is quite capable of solving immediately, but capitalism is in the way," wrote Lenin before the October Revolution. "It has amassed enormous wealth---and has made men the slaves of this wealth. It has solved the most complicated technical problems---and has blocked the application of technical improvements because of the poverty and ignorance of millions of the population, because of the stupid avarice of a handful of millionaires.''^^1^^

This fundamental flaw of the capitalist system is still more evident today. Kenneth E. Boulding, a prominent American economist, thinks the biggest assignment facing capitalism is to raise consumption to a point where full production could be maintained. Unfortunately, he writes, the only practicable method of large-scale consumption is war, and it is this method that nations evidently use when the burden of abundance gets too heavy. The world today, Boulding says, is in the grip of a dilemma it has itself created: either to expand consumption by war or reduce production by crises and unemployment.

The capitalist system is being shaken to its foundations by the struggle of classes. Shifting the blame for unemployment, crises and the other contradictions that rack capital-

ism on the socialist countries is putting the boot on the wrong foot.

The Soviet Union wants peaceful relations with the capitalist countries because, being a socialist state, it condemns aggressive imperialist wars. Besides, peace is the best environment for realising its grand plans of communist construction.

The Twenty Second Congress of the C.P.S.U. voiced the firm belief that "as the socialist system grows stronger, as its advantages over capitalism reveal themselves more fully and socialist and democratic forces all over the world increase, more and more countries at various levels of development will enter upon the path of revolution and join the system of socialism as streams add their waters to a mighty river".^^1^^

It would appear leaders of the capitalist system should acclaim the prospect of peaceful competition, for they profess fear of being destroyed by the Soviet Union through "total war", "export of revolution", "subversive intervention", etc., etc. Yet when the Western powers are advised to embark on peaceful competition and give up their policies of ``brinkmanship'', "cold war", ``liberation'' and the like, they reject the idea out of hand.

Robert Fossaert, a French economist, says that capitalism is no longer the master of its fate and that socialism will "never return to the social forms of the capitalist system''.

The spokesmen of the capitalist system dread peaceful competition between the two systems, and turn down peaceful coexistence. Cardinal Spellman, the reactionary head of the Catholics in the United States, calls on his flock to fight the "opiate of peaceful coexistence''.

3. THE GROWING ROLE OF PEOPLES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

In dealing with the concept "subject of international law", political and legal literature falls back on the concepts of state, government, people,^^2^^ nation, country and power. In international practice, subjects of international law are

~^^1^^ The Road to Communism, p. 275.

~^^2^^ Verdross uses ``people'' in his definition of the existing state of affairs, pointing out that "not individuals, but peoples organised into states constitute the most important subjects of international law" ( Verdross, Volkerrecht, S. 104-05)

~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 389.

sometimes designated by all these terms in one and the same treaty or agreement.

Soviet literature refers time and again to the people as the makers of law in international relations.^^1^^ R. Bobrov stresses, for example, that it is impossible to create democratic standards of international law without the will of the people.^^2^^ The idea that peoples are subjects of international law was also set out by Professor A. Baumgarten of the German Democratic Republic.^^3^^

In one of his papers Baumgarten wrote that the more important standards of modern international law, those on the maintenance of peace, are based on the will of the majority of the peoples. The writer stressed that in our time the peoples take a hand not only in the establishment of a new international law, but also in making it a reality. What do all these terms mean, and who is really the subject of international law?

Let us first examine the concepts of state and people,* because, in one way or another, all the other terms are associated with at least one of them.

The view that the state is the only and exclusive subject of international law reduces the concept of state as a subject of international law to the state machinery of class domination. The exponents of this view argue that the state, even an international organisation, but not the people, may be the subject of international law.

The people and the state are one in the socialist countries, where there are no antagonistic classes and the people govern themselves while the governments are the vehicles of their sovereign will. "In the imperialist countries, however, there are differences between governments and peoples",^^5^^ and the state, which is subordinated to the capitalist monopolies, is no more than an instrument of coercion and a tool of the dictatorship of the imperialist bourgeoisie.

To say that the state rather than the people is the subject of international law means that in the capitalist countries all the sovereign rights protected by international law are vested not in the people but in the governing upper section of the imperialist bourgeoisie, which controls the state as a machine of class domination and coercion.

Marxism maintains that the peoples are the makers of history and that they may not only replace and repattern the government, but also radically change the social and political system in their country and even sweep out any outdated, reactionary socio-economic system, of which the state as a machine of coercion in an exploiting class society is the guardian.

International law recognises and protects the right of every people to self-determination, which signifies not only the right to found a national state, but also the right to determine freely the political, economic, social and cultural status.^^1^^

It is therefore wrong to proceed from the practice of the states of the capitalist system alone and to ignore the practice of relations between the socialist countries.

In a class society the concepts of ``population'' and `` people'' are not identical. But they are identical in the socialist countries.^^2^^ A new relationship is arising there between people of different nationalities, who have common features: a common socialist motherland, a common economic basis, a common social and class structure, the common philosophy of Marxism-Leninism and the common goal of building communism.

The 22nd Congress of the C.P.S.U. determined that in view of far-reaching changes in the economy and the class structure of Soviet society, the U.S.S.R. has become a state of the whole people, developing steadily towards self-- government by the masses. This change in the nature of the Soviet state requires Soviet jurisprudence to look into the role of the peoples, states and governments in the international relations of the near future.

~^^1^^ Mezhdunarodnoye pravo, Gosyurizdat, 1957; M. I. Lazarev, Kongress narodov v zashchitu mira i osnovniye printsipy mezhdunarodnogo praua, Gosyurizdat, 1953; Y. A. Korovin, "K voprosu o roll narodnykh mass v razvitii mezhdunarodnogo prava" (Sovietskoye gosudarstvo i pravo, 1956).

~^^2^^ R. L. Bobrov, Sovremennoye mezhdunarodnoye pravo, p. 69.

~^^3^^ Vestnik Leningradskogo universiteta, No. 5, 1961, p. 116.

~^^4^^ D. A. Kerimov, Narod i gosudarstuo, Leningrad, 1963, pp. 21-22.

~^^5^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 252.

~^^1^^ It is wrong to say, as the Netherlands delegate did in the Third Committee of the 7th U.N. General Assembly, that only peoples that already possess a state have the right of self-determination. The right to self-determination extends to all peoples, whether or not they have their own national state.

~^^2^^ Concerning the concept of people in a class society, see Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 9, pp. 57, 136; Vol. 10, pp. 341, 370; Vol. 11, pp. 254, 355; Vol. 27, p. 262.

The practice of modern international relations between capitalist and socialist states recognises the state as a subject of international law, regardless of the role played in it by the people and the extent to which it reflects and upholds their basic interests.

When comparing the concepts of ``people'' and ``state'' we should bear in mind that the concept of "machinery of class domination" defines only the class essence of the state from the standpoint of its key internal functions. Other properties of the state should be named with respect to the state's external function, namely, population and territory.

In his definition of the role of the state in international relations, Lenin calls states "political alliances", and stresses that in the matter of the self-determination of peoples a state implies "demarcation of their frontiers",^^1^^ the frontiers of the state.

„

In international relations, Lenin says, the state is a political, territorial alliance. This is something jurists often overlook when they concentrate their attention on the internal function of the state. They seem to forget that a state is not an isolated island or a body floating in outer space, but one of a system of states situated on the same planet.

The founders of Marxism-Leninism refer frequently to the increasing role of the people in international relations. So the contemporary epoch, marked by a further decline of the capitalist system and the mounting influence on world affairs of the socialist countries, in which the people have the decisive and final say, casts a new light on the question of a subject of international law. Although it is still the rule to consider the state (regardless of the social system) the subject of international law, the historical tendency is for the role of the people in international relations to continue to increase.^^2^^ Consequently, the question of the subject of international law ought to be treated in a new way.

``In the new historical epoch," says the Programme of the C.P.S.U., "the masses have a far greater opportunity of actively intervening in the. settlement of international issues. The peoples are taking the solution of the problem

of war and peace into their own hands more and more vigorously.''

The peoples are subjects of international law. This does not go to say, however, that they should act in international relations as though there is no such thing as state power. Whenever the policy of bourgeois governments goes against the interest of their people, the latter may intervene and force a change of policy. "We want a government to be always under the supervision of the public opinion of its country," was how Lenin put it.^^1^^

It is indicative that the Second All-Russia Congress of Soviets addressed its proposals for peace, for an immediate truce, etc., to "the governments and peoples of all countries" and to "the governments and peoples of all the belligerent countries.''^^2^^

The peoples settle the question of the form of statehood they wish by self-determination; they establish national states and carry through their foreign policy through the appropriate machinery of state. It is natural, therefore, that questions of foreign policy are not handled directly by the people, but by the government and other pertinent bodies on the strength of the country's constitution created by the people.

The fact that the role of the peoples has increased in international relations does not detract at all from the role of states, because relations between peoples are maintained through the states, which are the vehicles of foreign policy. Although the state is a historical category (for there was a time when states did not exist, while international relations did, and there will come a time when the state will wither away, while international relations will continue to develop), international policies have been conducted through the medium of the state ever since classes appeared, and will be so conducted until classes no longer exist in all countries.

Daily conduct of international politics and international relations is inconceivable in our time without the medium of the state. International law recognises that national states are the chief vehicles of the sovereign rights and interests of the people and stresses that the right to self-- determination of every people signifies the right to create a national

~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, pp. 253, 323.

~^^2^^ P. N. Fedoseyev, Kommunizm i filosofiya, Moscow, 1962, p. 43.

~^^1^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 26, p. 254.

~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 251.

23-3121

state through which every people enters into international relations and carries forward its sovereign rights in the international field.

The state must be the servant of the people. Its bodies and departments must be elected by the free choice of the people. They must be the instrument of the people's will, responsible and accountable to the people for their actions. The people have the right to replace a government by another government that fulfils their will better and observes their sovereign rights. They may also change entirely the form of government, and even the socio-economic system of their country. Article 1 of the draft Human Rights Covenant approved by the U.N. stresses that "all nations and peoples" have the right to the free determination of their political, economic, social and cultural status.^^1^^

|

No government may, from the viewpoint of internationaj law, usurp the sovereign rights belonging to the people of its country. The activity.of a government in its international relations is not juridically legitimate unless that government represents its people and enjoys their support. If the activity of the government goes against the will of the people and against their interest, it cannot be considered lawful. It is up to the peoples to follow the activity of their governments and give it the desired direction, pressing for the replacement of governments whose activity prejudices or opposes the sovereign interest of the peoples. This is particularly important in our time, for no task is more important today than that of securing the peaceful coexistence of states and relieving mankind from the menace of a world thermonuclear war.

To put it more briefly, it is the peoples, and not only governments, who bear the responsibility for the policy of their states in international relations.^^2^^

States and governments may be destroyed or go out of existence. But the peoples remain. This was true for, say, the nazi state of Germany, the fascist states of Italy, and Japan, which were torn down in the course of the Second World War. New states and new governments were set up in their place.

4. INDIVIDUALS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW RELATIONS

It is to be stressed, however, that despite the peoples being subjects of international law, it is wrong to belittle or nullify the role of states. Georges Scelle, for example, considers the concept of sovereign state "an unscientific conception".^^1^^ Yet this is untrue. Lenin noted that "we live not only in separate states, but also in a certain system of states" and that "we are not at all indifferent to the Staatenbau, to the system of states, to their mutual relations".^^2^^

In the present circumstances, the state is a most important vehicle of sovereign rights in international dealings, provided the government expresses the sovereign will and safeguards the sovereign interest of its people, rather than the egoistic interest of the dominant section of the monopoly bourgeoisie.

For a nation to carry forward its right of self-- determination it must first create a national state, through which it enters into international relations with other peoples and realises its sovereign rights. The concrete right of political independence, which is the principal element of the general right of self-determination, implies the right of the peoples to create their independent state.^^3^^ Unless it has its own national state, a people cannot be fully capable in its international relations and cannot carry forward its sovereign rights independently from other states.

No matter how the state is defined in international law---- as the aggregate of population, territory and state power, or as the aggregate merely of the bodies of state power and government---supremacy in the settlement of the principal questions belongs to the people. Governments must be elected in accordance with the will of the people and must shape their internal and foreign policy to suit the sovereign interest and will of the people.

To be a subject of international law means to have sovereign rights and to bear the corresponding obligations in international relations, to participate in the creation of the standards of international law and in determining the juridical relations to which the people in question, their government or its citizens, are parties.

~^^1^^ Rep. E 2256 E/C No. 4/649.

~^^2^^ G. I. Tunkin, Voprosy teorii mezhdunarodnogo prava, Moscow, 1962, pp. 266, 277.

~^^1^^ Recueil des Corns..., Vol. 46, pp. 333-34.

~^^2^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 35, pp. 273, 274.

~^^3^^ G. B. Starushenko, Natsiya i gosudarstvo v osvobozhdayuihchikhsya stranakh, Moscow, 1967, Chapter 1.

23*

The standards of international law define the sovereign interests and rights of the peoples, and also the prerogatives and obligations of the various bodies carrying forward international relations---from the head of state and the parliaments down to the governments, foreign ministries and departments, and diplomatic and consular missions.

Kelsen endeavours to prove that individuals, too, are subjects of international law. He says, among other things, that "international law obligates and authorises ... human individuals ... as an organ of the state".^^1^^ But Kelsen ought to know that when representing organs of the state on the strength of international and internal law separate physical persons cease to be individuals and act precisely as organs of the state (Heads of State, Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers, heads of delegations), their actions being regarded not as actions of individuals but as actions of the state itself.

/

On the strength of international law standards created by the peoples through the medium of their states, organs of state power and government, as well as diplomatic and consular representatives, international organisations and even individual physical persons may in certain juridical relations act as concrete bearers of laws and obligations (e.g., relations governed by the rules and customs of war or by agreements concerning private international law).

But in all these cases the organs of state power or government, the international organisations or physical persons are not, as such, subjects of international law. They are subjects of international legal relations within the limits fixed for them in agreements between subjects of international law, for international law distinguishes between a subject of international law and a subject of international legal relations.

He in whom sovereign rights and duties are vested and he who creates the standards of international law by agreement with other subjects of international law is himself a subject of international law. Sovereignty is the chief property of the subject of international law. This sovereignty belongs to the people, not the government, the international organisation or a physical person.

The subject of international legal relations is a concrete

party to international legal relations, a concrete bearer of the rights and obligations of these legal relations as established by the standards of international law created by agreement between subjects of legal relations.

To safeguard their sovereign rights, subjects of international relations may themselves enter into international legal relations, but may also through standards of international law establish such legal relations in which international organisations and even individual physical persons, and not only governments or bodies of state power or government, will act as bearers of specific rights and obligations.

In its consultative judgement of April 11, 1949, the International Court of Justice noted that "subjects of law of any specific juridical system are not necessarily identical in nature and in terms of reference". The subjects of different legal relations may be states, international organisations, representatives of states, and even legal and physical persons. But only the people, who act in international relations through the medium of their state and government, can be the subject of international law.

Naturally, the subject of international legal relations, unless it is the people itself, cannot be regarded as equal, let alone opposed, to a subject of international law. This is why all attempts to oppose the individual to the people and state are groundless ,and just as groundless is to claim that individuals rather than peoples and states are subjects of international law.

Suggestions have been made to establish a special international organisation in which an individual could seek protection of his rights and freedoms over the head of his state. These suggestions were turned down because they went against the principles of the modern system of intercourse between sovereign peoples and states, under which the individual, being a citizen of a state, safeguards his rights and freedoms through the medium of his state.

Lauterpacht suggested, for example, that a Human Rights Council be established within the U.N. framework and that Article 58 of the Statutes of the International Court be reworded to entitle individuals as well as states to institute legal proceedings in the said Court.^^1^^

~^^1^^ H. Kelsen, General Theory of Law and State, Cambridge, 1945, p.

~^^1^^ H. Lauterpacht, International Law and Human Rights, London, 1950, p. 373,

342. 356

Clyde Eagleton maintains that the individual, more than the state, is becoming the "personality in international law" and that in the final analysis it is the individual, not the state, who comprises the unit of human society.^^1^^ He is quite wrong. It is not the individual, but the people organised into a state that constitute the unit of international society. Not only the individual, but even the people, carry forward their rights in our time chiefly through the medium of the state. Philip C. Jessup, too, overlooks this when he says that so-called transnational situations may involve "individuals, corporations, states, organisations of states, or other groups".^^2^^

No matter what situations may arise in international relations, they cannot be settled without the intervention of states. What is more, they can arise only because states are involved in them, since in any such situation the individual acts as the citizen of his state. If this were not so, the situa* tion could be neither international nor ``transnational''.

5. THE WILL OF PEOPLES AND THE POLITICS OF GOVERNMENTS

In international relations diplomacy and foreign policy is exercised not directly by the people as a whole, but through organs of power and government, that is, through the state. The right of self-determination belongs to the peoples. It signifies the right of every people to create its national state, to choose its form of government and its system of economy and property, and the right to elect the government of its own choice. All this applies to the sphere of domestic competence, and the existence in the country concerned of a government recognised by its people is to be reckoned with in international relations. International law prohibits the imposition from outside of a government upon any people. It requires respect for the government in authority in the country.

In all the socialist countries representative legislative organs elected by the people along democratic lines are the supreme bodies of state power. The constitutions of the socialist countries stress the key principle of socialism under which sovereignty is vested in the people and the people

is the sole source of power in the country (the governments in the socialist countries are higher executive organs, subordinate in everything they do to the supreme representative legislative bodies elected by the people). They provide for universal elections, equal and direct suffrage, secret voting, a truly democratic organisation of elections, freedom of nomination, the right to recall deputies, etc.^^1^^

The Constitution of the U.S.S.R. affirms the principle of people's sovereignty, the principle of the sovereign supremacy of the working people, of the people as a whole, and not separate parts of it, for there are no antagonistic classes in Soviet society.

Nominally, bourgeois constitutions, too, often recognise that sovereignty is vested in, and emanates from, the people. But by people the bourgeoisie really means its own class. The bourgeoisie usurps the sovereignty vested in the people and spurns their sovereign will. The bourgeois constitutions either annul the equality of citizens and their democratic freedoms, or make a show of democracy, which they hem in with so many reservations and restrictions that the people are virtually robbed of democratic rights and freedoms.

The people of a country must control their government, because the government acts in their name in the international arena.

The people are responsible for what their government does in international affairs. If the government's policy goes against their conscience, they must replace it with another.

All bodies of state must, from the standpoint of international law, execute the sovereign will of their people. Whatever they do on the international scene is unlawful, unless it accords with the sovereign will of the people. The people are entitled to control the activity of the principal organs of state exercising foreign policy---the parliament by periodical elections and the government by referendum and plebiscite (say, in determining ownership of a part of the territory), control through a representative body which ratifies treaties concluded by the government, or by interpellation and subsequent discussion of a government action, and, last but not least, by voting confidence or lack of confidence in the government.

~^^1^^ V. M. Chkhikvadze, Gosudarstvo, demokratiya, zakonnost, Moscow, 1967, Chs. II, III, VII, pp. 214-15, 238-45.

~^^1^^ C. Eagleton, International Government, pp. 115, 118.

~^^2^^ Ph. Jessup, Transnational Law, New Haven, 1956, p. 3,

Governments must not usurp the sovereign rights of the peoples and exploit them in the egoistic interest of the classes they represent to the detriment of their people.

However, the practice of exploiting governments, the bourgeois included, is mostly different. "Men," wrote Karl Marx, "make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past.''^^1^^

Experience shows that whenever the bourgeois governments follow a foreign policy that is contrary to the sovereign interest of the people this policy clashes with, and violates, international law.

The history of international relations shows, too, that standards of international law are not truly valid, unless they express the sovereign will of the peoples of the respective countries parties to the pertinent international' agreement. Conversely, agreements concluded in the sole interest of the dominant groups who seize control of the government and contradict the sovereign interest of the people, are really unlawful transactions or deals contrary to the fundamental principles of international law.

History is marching forward inevitably to the withering away of the state. After states wither away and classes disappear, international relations will continue and so will the standards of international law that regulate them. But this entirely natural conclusion will be inconceivable if we follow the logic of those who maintain that no international law could exist without class will. We should note, however, that for the state to wither away completely, as the Programme of the .C.P.S.U. points out, "it is necessary to provide both internal conditions---the building of a developed communist society---and external conditions---the victory and consolidation of socialism in the world arena".^^2^^

All of us know that imperialist policy expresses the egoistic interest of a handful of monopolists. The domestic and foreign policies of the big capitalist states are shaped by the class interest of monopoly capital, pervaded by a craving for aggression and war.

Yet the monopolists and imperialists constitute a relatively small section of the population in the capitalist countries.

~^^1^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 247.

~^^2^^ The Road to Communism, p. 556.

The bulk of the population are workers, peasants and the working intelligentsia.

In the socialist countries, where no monopolists and imperialists exist, the people's will is the will of the whole people. The standards of international law created by the socialist states unfailingly express the will of all mankind, and not of any governing class or classes.

In defining the essence of the international relations engendered by the capitalist system, the Programme of the C.P.S.U. says that "imperialism knows no relations between states other than those of domination and subordination, of oppression of the weak by the strong. It bases international relations on diktat and intimidation, on violence and arbitrary rule. It regards wars of aggression as a natural means of settling international issues.''^^1^^

The Programme of the C.P.S.U. notes that "it is becoming possible for the new principles advanced by socialism to gain the upper hand over the principles of aggressive imperialist policy".^^2^^

The world capitalist system is racked by deep-going and acute contradictions, which are undermining and destroying imperialism. Among the most prominent of these contradictions is that between the people and the monopolies.³ Whose side is international law to take in this conflict? Whose rights is it to defend?

The Programme of the C.P.S.U. says "the policy of peaceful coexistence is in accord with the vital interests of all mankind, except the big monopoly magnates and the militarists".^^4^^

It follows that the view that modern international law ought to express the will of the ruling classes, that is, the will of the imperialist bourgeoisie, is part and parcel of bourgeois ideology.

The Programme of the C.P.S.U., on the other hand, op* poses the attempt to turn "the people into the blind tools of the policy of the capitalist monopolies".^^5^^ The Programme of the C.P.S.U. lists such criteria of international relations and rights as "the vital interests of

~^^1^^ The Road to Communism, p. 503.

~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 503.

~^^3^^ Ibid., pp. 479-80.

~^^4^^ Ibid., p. 506.

~^^5^^ Ibid., p. 499.

all mankind",^^1^^ the interest and will "of the people as a whole",^^2^^ "the national interests of the country",^^3^^ "the interests of a nation",^^4^^ "the supreme national interests of each country",^^5^^ "not only the interests of the working class, but also those of all working people",^^6^^ "the vital interests of all working people",^^7^^ etc.

Not all these criteria are consistent with the essence of modern international law, which regulates relations between states of two different systems. Such criteria as "the interest and will of the people as a whole", "not only the interests of the working class, but also those of all working people" and the "vital interests of all working people" reflect the principles of socialism, of proletarian internationalism, which characterise the new type of international relations prevailing between countries of the socialist system.

As regards relations between states of the two systems^ modern international law hinges upon such criteria as the "vital interests of all mankind", the "national interests of the country" and the "interests of a nation''.

If a ``standard'' expresses nothing but the will of the ruling class and not "the national interests of the country", "the interests of a nation" and the "vital interests of all mankind", it has nothing in common with modern international law.

F. F. Martens, the Russian jurist, stressed early in this century that international law does not live up to its name until the principles it upholds cease to violate the lawful needs of the peoples.^^8^^ The ideologists of the capitalist system are forced to admit that important questions cannot be settled today without due consideration for the will of the peoples. Lester Pearson writes, for example, that diplomacy is being increasingly subjected to public pressure and taste. A special report on U.S. policy in Asia drawn up for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stresses that in the middle of the 20th century it is no longer enough to deal with just the government in power.

Another Senate Foreign Relations Committee report says foreign policy in all countries has ceased to be the exclusive domain of a small elite free to make and remake the political line. Today, more than ever, it says, foreign policy must respond to the hopes and fears of the public.

International law will not do its public duty until it is regarded and treated as a body of standards expressing the sovereign will of the peoples, the vital interests of all mankind. Such standards, based on mutual consideration for the sovereign interest of the peoples, will encourage friendly relations among all nations and regulate these relations in keeping with the peaceful coexistence principles of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples with the object of securing the sovereign interest of the peoples in all spheres of international life, reinforcing world peace and attaining universal welfare.

6. CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LAW IS IMPORTANT FOR THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE

International law originates and develops on an objective historical basis, regardless of the will of individuals.

It plays its role as a superstructural category all the more effectively, the more it corresponds to the demands of the contemporary historical process and the bigger is the sphere of international relations it regulates.

The superstructural character of international law does not depend on some special basis all of its own, because no such special basis exists. Neither can the subservient class role of international law be defined simply as an expression of "the will of the ruling classes", because two diametrically opposite wills---the will of the working class and the will of the bourgeoisie, which are two antagonistic classes---exist in the contemporary world. If international law were to express a single will, it would shed its class character, its class characteristics, which cannot belong at one and the same time to two opposed and mutually excluding wills of two antagonistic classes. If the standards of modern international law expressed the pre-eminent will of one of the dominant classes of the contemporary world, it would be either bourgeois or socialist, whereas it is neither bourgeois nor socialist, but international, for it reflects the interests of peoples---of the socialist, capitalist and neutralist states alike.

~^^1^^ The Road to Communism, p. 506.

~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 547.

~^^3^^ Ibid., p. 485.

~^^4^^ Ibid., p. 491. ~^^8^^ Ibid., p. 468.

~^^6^^ Ibid., p. 487.

~^^7^^ Ibid., p. 506.

~^^8^^ F. Martens, Sovremennoye mezhdunarodnoye pravo tsivilizovannykh narodov, p. 18.

This does not mean, however, that contemporary international law lacks concrete class character. It will be recalled that the class character of any superstructure depends on which basis it serves, which basis it strengthens and which basis it helps to destroy.

No matter how long peaceful coexistence prevails, sooner or later it will culminate in the victory throughout the world of the new, progressive system over the old, moribund system.

``In the place of moribund reality comes a new, viable reality," wrote Engels, "peacefully if the old has enough intelligence to go to its death without a struggle; forcibly if it resists this necessity.''^^1^^

This is why anybody who thinks international law cannot go farther these days than merely democratic goals is mistaken. If this were so, international law would not be , superstructural in character and would not play the subservient role of a superstructure.

The essence of international law as a superstructural category is undefinable if we ignore its subservient character and do not see how it affects the struggle of the contemporary classes and systems.

The polarity of the two systems comes to the surface in international affairs in so cardinal a matter as that of war and peace, in the problem of equal rights and selfdetermination of peoples, and the provision of fundamental political, economic, social and civil rights for all.

Writers with imperialist views regard war as a ``natural'' and ``necessary'' thing. Nicholas John Spykman, the author of a book of U.S. world strategy, says "the international community is a world in which war is an instrument of national policy and the national domain is the military base from which the state fights and prepares for war during the temporary armistice called peace".^^2^^

Thomas K. Finletter, a prominent investigator of U.S. strategy and foreign policy, maintains that "since the beginning of history war has been the final means by which disputes between nations have been resolved".^^3^^

Not only Western politicians, sociologists and philoso-

phers, but many Western jurists as well, believe that war is "a major instrument of international politics".^^1^^

The socialist view on war is entirely different. Lenin pointed out that socialists always condemned war between peoples as "barbarian and brutal".^^2^^

Socialism signifies that class domination and the motive causes of war are abolished in the country concerned. Capitalism symbolises the epoch of wars for the division and redivision of the world, while the appearance of socialist states symbolises the beginning of a new era of peace. If exclusion of war from the life of society has become possible in our time, we owe this to the fact that the socialist system has begun to exercise a decisive influence on the course of world events.

However, the aggressive nature of capitalism has not changed. Capitalism fosters the danger of new wars, because the policy of the imperialist powers, their foreign policy included, is shaped by the class interests of monopoly capital, of which aggression and war are inherent features.^^3^^

Socialism has a stake in the abolition of wars, in an enduring and lasting peace, which is the best environment for the building of communism in the socialist countries.

War is as much a part of imperialism as struggle against imperialist war, the policy of peace, is a part of socialism. While imperialism strives to establish ``brinkmanship'' as a standard of international relations, socialism champions lasting peace and 'universal security.

Contemporary international law, being a superstructural category, upholds peace and thereby helps to destroy the capitalist basis that cannot survive without wars. It helps to fortify the socialist basis, for which peace is essential on its march to communism.

Peace is an ally of socialism. Socialism does not need wars to spread its ideals.

The emergence of socialism ushered in the era of the liberation of oppressed nations. Socialism relieved peoples from class and national oppression and realised in practice the principle of the equality and self-determination of peoples. It worked for, and achieved, the abolition of the im-

~^^1^^ K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Works, Vol. II, pp. 361-62.

~^^2^^ N. J. Spykman, America's Strategy in World Politics. The United States and the Balance of Power, New York, 1942, p. 447.

~^^3^^ Th. Finletter, Foreign Policy. Next Phase, the 1960s, New York, 1960, p. 2.

~^^1^^ Q. Wright, "The Role of Law in the Organisation of Peace", Organising Peace in the Nuclear Age, New York, 1959, p. 31.

~^^2^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 295.

~^^3^^ P. S. Romashkin, Voenniye prestupleniya imperializma, Moscow, 1953, p. 422.

perialist colonial system and ensured human rights and fundamental freedoms for all people.^^1^^

The socialist system strengthens the mutual confidence "of workers and peasants speaking different languages, without which there absolutely cannot be peaceful relations between peoples or anything like a successful development of everything that is of value in present-day civilisation".^^2^^

The October Revolution brought about the birth of a state in Russia that advanced the great slogan of peace and forged new principles to govern relations between peoples and countries.

``To the old world, the world of national oppression, national bickering and national isolation," wrote Lenin, "the workers counterposed a new world, a world of the unity of the working people of all nations, a world in which / there is no place for any privileges or for the slightest degree of oppression of man by man.''^^3^^

Actually, the standards of international law safeguarding the sovereignty of every state, large and small, were not invented by Communists. But contemporary international law recognises and defends the right of every country to independence and sovereignty, chiefly thanks to the stand taken by the socialist states.

Indeed, international law bans one nation dominating another. It requires states to base their relations on the principle of sovereign equality and to develop friendly relations in accordance with the principles of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples. .

The U.N. Charter calls on all states to promote and develop respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, to reaffirm faith in the fundamental rights of men, in the dignity and worth of the human person. This was reasserted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed by the United Nations on December 10, 1949. According to Article 55 of the U.N. Charter, universal observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all is necessary to achieve the stability and well-being essential for

peaceful and friendly relations between nations in conformance with the principles of equal rights and the selfdetermination of peoples.

Back in 1950, the General Assembly passed Resolution 421 (V), which stressed that the enjoyment of civil and political freedoms and the possession of rights in the cultural field are concomitant because a man deprived of economic, social and cultural rights is not the individual whom the Universal Declaration regards as the ideal free individual.

Disregard of human rights in the capitalist world stems from contempt for the human person inherent in the imperialist ideology, which regards man as the source of every possible social evil. The President of the International Psycho-Analytical Association, for example, says wars are not caused by the evil avarice of arms manufacturers, the injustices of secret diplomacy or the defects of the capitalist system, but by man's allegedly constant craving for enmity, cruelty and aggression towards his fellow men.^^1^^

There is yet another highly essential aspect that reveals the subservient role of contemporary international law and its class character. This is the question of the relation of international law to the capitalist code of morals, on the one hand, and the communist and human code of morals, on the other.^^2^^

The Programme of the C.P.S.U. says:

``Communism makes the elementary standards of morality and justice, which were distorted or shamelessly flouted under the rule of the exploiters, inviolable rules for relations both between individuals and between peoples. Communist morality encompasses the fundamental norms of human morality which the masses of the people evolved in the course of millenniums as they fought against vice and social oppression.''^^3^^

The Programme points out that the elementary standards of morality and justice, which, as Marx and Engels noted, should be the governing norms also in international relations, are spurned in the imperialist countries. By spurning

~^^1^^ Y. Frantsev, Communism and Freedom of the Individual, Moscow, 1963, pp. 31, 35; Stroitelstvo kommunizma i dukhovny mir cheloveka, ed. by Ts. A. Stepanyan, Moscow, 1966, pp. 131, 477, 626.

~^^2^^ Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 386.

~^^3^^ Ibid., Vol. 19, p. 92.

~^^1^^ Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodniye otnosheniya, No. 8, 1962 p. 21.

~^^2^^ See P. A. Steiniger, "Sozialistische Moral und demokratisch.es V61- kerrecht am Beispiel der Solidaritatspolitik der DDR im antikolonialen Befreiungskampf", Staat und Recht, Heft 9, S. 1483-507.

~^^3^^ The Road to Communism, p. 506.

them, capitalism is in effect opposing international law as a whole, while communism upholds the principal norms of human morality evolved by man over thousands of years.

The attitude of capitalist morality to the conception of peaceful coexistence is highly indicative of its true substance. Peaceful coexistence, from its standpoint, is nothing but a new and higher stage of cold war, namely, struggle for supremacy short of military means.

Writer Norman Thomas observes that at least until the beginning of our century the U.S. Government held the unbeaten record of violating treaties, referring to those it concluded with the Indians.

The depraved methods of secret diplomacy with which the cold war is carried on, and the subversive activities of imperialist agents in all countries, are only too well known. It is not surprising, therefore, says Max Ways, that the style, of U.S. politics, which attempts to replace international law with "material considerations" and "national interests", appears dirty.^^1^^

Chester Bowles, the prominent U.S. diplomat, wrote that it is cynical and wrong to assume that U.S. aid enables the U.S. to buy political support in the United Nations, regardless of what attitude it assumes.

Bourgeois aesthetics and imperialist morality is the very opposite of communist aesthetics and morality,^^2^^ which is based in the sphere of international relations on the Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence.

The criticism of the Soviet doctrine by such individuals as Mirkin-Getsevich, who contended that its class method "puts the Soviet doctrine beyond the pale of the modern theory of international law", is absurd. Why build artificial class projections worlds removed from reality and science, and therefore useless?

If we take the realities, the class approach to international law will yield important results, because it enables us to reveal the historical role of international law as a superstructural category, with features that set it apart from other superstructural categories.

The superstructural role of contemporary international law stems from its formalising the peaceful coexistence of the

states of the two systems in the legal sense, regulating the peaceful competition of the two systems, and promoting the victory in this competition of the new, progressive system of communism.

Contrary to what the Mao Tse-tung theorisers may say, the Leninist conception of peaceful coexistence, and the practice of the Soviet Union pinpoints it as a specific form of class struggle proceeding within the bounds of international legality and law.

While qualifying all Soviet contacts with the United States as ``collusion'' with imperialism, the Chinese leaders waste no opportunity themselves for developing relations with the capitalist countries, including the United States. The Soviet Union, for its part, unfailingly considers peaceful coexistence as a long and active struggle for peace, against the aggressive aspirations of imperialism, as a specific form of struggle between the two social systems, as a class struggle between socialism and capitalism. The purpose of the peaceful coexistence policy consistently pursued by the Soviet Union is to safeguard peace by active antiimperialist actions on the part of all peace-loving forces. The Soviet peaceful coexistence policy rests on mankind's overpowering desire of peace, its desire to preclude the threat of a new world war, to bridle the imperialist aggressors and to secure social progress and the freedom and independence of the peoples.

The policy of peaceful coexistence is designed to prevent the imperialists from applying force against peoples that have flung off the colonial yoke and peoples that have embarked on socialist construction. It is meant to create a world environment in which every people could develop freely and achieve national and social progress. The 23rd Congress of the C.P.S.U. declared the willingness of the Soviet Union "to continue to support the peoples fighting against colonial oppression and neo-colonialism, to develop all-round co-operation with the newly independent countries, to promote in every way the consolidation of the antiimperialist front of the peoples of all continents".^^1^^

The question of which is the better system, the socialist or the capitalist, now confronts the new states of Asia and Africa, who have to grapple with political, economic and social problems of giant proportions.

~^^1^^ M. Ways, Beyond Survival, New York, 1959, p. 94.

~^^2^^ Kritika sovremennoi burzhuaznoi ideologii, ed. by T. I. Oizerman, Moscow, 1963, p. 26; A. <G. Yegorov, 0 reaktsionnoi sushchnosti sovremennoi burzhuaznoi morali, Moscow, 1961, pp. 210, 216.

^^1^^ 23rd Congress of the C.P.S.U., p. 283.

At an average annual growth rate of 4 per cent, the underdeveloped countries will need 80 to 100 years to reach the present level of production in the developed capitalist countries.^^1^^

So they have to make up their minds what path to follow. The experience of the Latin American countries, which flung off the colonial yoke as long as 150 years ago, shows that the capitalist path is not able to deliver them from poverty and backwardness.

It is only natural, therefore, that in searching for a way out the new countries are fixing their attention more and more on the experience of the socialist countries, and above all that of the Soviet Union.

Here is what prominent Western ideologists, politicians and scientists say on this score.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas notes that •> Russia has in the lifetime of one generation "risen from feudalism to an industrial society", whereas it took the U.S.A. 165 years to do it. Douglas adds apprehensively that this "makes a powerful psychological impact in underdeveloped areas".^^2^^

The well-known U.S. sociologist, C. Wright Mills, says that "by its industrial success, the Soviet system has proved that there is a way to industrialise backward countries without resort to the older capitalist way of the West".^^3^^

Financier Eugene R. Black, the author of The Diplomacy of Economic Development, writes that "communism has an insidious appeal to the new leaders of the underdeveloped world".^^4^^

Emmet John Hughes, who was adviser to President Eisenhower, writes:

``Nor does any Asian people overlook the more distant, but more profound, example of the Soviet nation itself: nowhere in the world, more eloquently than in Asia, did the orbit of Sputnik declare, with the universe as witness, that America no longer was the world's sole genius of the age of the machine.''^^5^^

Adolph Kummernuss, a prominent West German public leader, observes that in, say, Africa, the "ideological influence" of the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries is "ten times as great as that of the Americans despite all their dollars".^^1^^

British journalist S. Hempstone, who spent some years in Africa, attested that "Russian influence is growing in Africa", and said it was "unrealistic to expect the New Africa ... to turn its back ... on Russian economic assistance".^^2^^

According to Alfred G. Meyer, a theorist of anti-- communism, even the reactionary groups in the new Asian and African countries, "however violently anti-communist they be, almost inevitably use the language of Lenin when they begin to talk about the economic problems of their countries".^^3^^

The spread of socialist ideas in the newly free Asian and African countries that have embarked on non-capitalist development shows that socialism is winning the historical competition with capitalism on those continents as well.⁴ The socio-economic changes in Algeria, the United Arab Republic, Burma, Guinea, Mali and other countries are marked by a strengthening of the state sector, the loss of economic control by foreign monopolies, a tireless struggle against colonialism and imperialism, and the development of friendly relations with the socialist countries.

The successes of communist construction in the Soviet Union promote the spread of socialist and communist ideas. The Soviet economic plans and the good progress made by the Soviet people in fulfilling them are the finest testimonial for socialism and communism among the working people of the world.

The utterances of the Mao Tse-tung clique to the effect that communist construction in the U.S.S.R. and the Soviet policy of peaceful coexistence are a betrayal of MarxismLeninism and of the internationalist duty of the Soviet people are, therefore, entirely groundless.

The activity of the Soviet state on the international scene blends the national interests of the Soviet people with its fidelity to its internationalist duty.

~^^1^^ See V. Rymalov, V. Tyagunenko, Slaborazvitiye strany v mirovom, kapitalisticheskom khozyaistve, Moscow, 1961, p. 110.

~^^2^^ W. O. Douglas, Democracy's Manifesto, p. 31.

~^^3^^ C. W. Mills, The Causes of World War Three, New York, 1958, p. 68.

~^^4^^ E. Black, The Diplomacy of Economic Development, Cambridge, 1960, p. 14.

~^^5^^ E. J. Hughes, America the Vincible, New York, 1959, pp. 153-54.

~^^1^^ A. Kummernuss, Wohin geht Afrika?, Frankfurt-am-Mein, 1960, S. 72.

~^^2^^ S. Hempstone, The New Africa, London, 1961, p. 637.

~^^3^^ A. G. Meyer, Communism, New York, 1963, p. 159.

'' B. M. Mitin, Filosofiya i sovremennost, Moscow, 1965, p. 198.

24«

The resolution of the 23rd Congress of the C.P.S.U. emphasises that the building of communism in the U.S.S.R. and the all-sided improvement of Soviet socialist society are the basic contribution of the Soviet people towards the "world revolutionary process", towards the struggle of all peoples against imperialism, for peace, national independence, democracy and socialism".^^1^^

The major events of our time bear out Lenin's words that the Soviet socialist state exerts its principal influence on the world revolution by its economic policy.

The irrepressible movement of the peoples towards emancipation from capitalist exploitation and slavery, towards national independence, coupled with the steady change in the balance of forces in favour of socialism, peace and progress, constitute a basic feature of the present international situation. The 23rd Congress of the C.P.S.U. noted that " themain trend of the historical process in our time is determined by the world socialist system, the forces fighting against imperialism, for the socialist reorganisation of society".^^2^^

Socialism, whose purpose it is to deliver all people from the terrors of war and all forms of exploitation, directly links the struggle for democracy with the struggle for socialism and is confident of complete and final victory over capitalism.^^3^^

Even now everybody can see that the socialist ideology of the working class is not only penetrating the science of international law, but is also gradually defeating bourgeois ideology.^^4^^

The principles of peaceful coexistence and the other standards of international law have been modelled by the objective course of history to facilitate the attainment of this lofty and noble goal.

CONCLUSION

THE SOVIET UNION'S ROLE IN THE PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

The foreign policy consistently pursued by the countries of the world socialist system is in complete accord with the universally recognised principles and standards of modern international law, an important element of modern civilisation.

Moreover, the countries of the socialist community are supplementing these principles and standards with a fundamentally new content that has brought contemporary international law to its highest flowering; a higher type of relations has taken shape in the world socialist system.

In another respect as well the rise, consolidation and further progress of the world socialst community is of great significance for the entire system of contemporary international law. Not only do the socialist countries themselves invariably and consistently observe its principles and standards; they are working vigorously for their strict observance by other countries.

The present-day policy of the Maoists, who have broken away from Marxism-Leninism, is in full contradiction with the position of the socialist countries.

Regarding modern international law as an imperialist weapon and the important institutions of this law as bourgeois survivals, the Maoists undermine international cooperation. They have refused to sign generally recognised treaties such as, for instance, the Moscow Test-Ban Treaty of August 5, 1963, and are dissolving one treaty after another, even those concluded with the socialist countries. It would be quite sufficient to recall the denunciation by Peking of the treaty on co-operation in saving human lives and rendering help to vessels and aircraft in distress concluded between the U.S.S.R., C.P.R. and K.P.D.R., as well as the denunciation of the treaty concluded by five countries on March 27, 1956, on co-operation in conducting fish-

^^1^^ 23rd Congress of the C.P.S.U., p. 300.

~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 281.

~^^3^^ Kommunizm i dialektika, ed. by A. M. Rumyantsev, Prague, 1964, p. 356.

'' G. I. Tunkin, Ideologicheskaya borba i mezhdunarodnoye pravo, Moscow, 19G7, p. 10.

ing, oceanographic and limnological research in the western part of the Pacific Ocean.

Anti-humanistic traits of the Maoists became particularly evident in their gross violation of the diplomatic norms and etiquette.

In 1967 Peking leaders organised violent demonstrations of the Red Guards in front of the embassies of the Soviet Union, France, Britain, India, Burma, Indonesia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Mongolia. Red Guards blocked the entrances, held up cars with foreign diplomats, overturned and set fire to them giving free hand to abuse and violence.

Nevertheless despite the subversive activities of Maoists the world socialist system is exerting a decisive influence on the entire progressive development of present-day international law.

The Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917 ushered in the era of the collapse of capitalism and the establishment of a new social system. It rocked the entire edifice of world capitalism to its foundations and split the world into two opposing systems.

A study of the history of international relations and diplomacy shows that the development of international law over the past 50 years has followed the road outlined by the October Revolution.^^1^^ A qualitatively new international law has now come into operation throughout the world in place of the old international law of the capitalist era.

Lenin described the substance of international relations under capitalism as "open plunder of the weak" and " financial operations that amount to the plunder and strangling of weak nationalities". The old international law served as a juridical instrument for the promotion of this plunder. Its characteristic principles and institutions were: the right of every state to wage war and practise various forms of intervention; a system of imperialist inequality and colonial oppression; various forms of exploitation of the rest of the world by the Great Powers (capitulation, exterritorial consular jurisdiction, protectorates, vassal status, mandate system, unequal treaties, and so on); annexation of foreign territory; racial discrimination; disfranchisement of national minorities; a privileged status for Europeans and Americans in other countries, etc.

Whatever insignificant democratic institutions and standards the old international law did contain concerned only the countries of Europe and North America, and not Africa or Asia.

The sphere of operation of contemporary international law is extended to all countries and continents after the October Revolution. Today all states, regardless of socio-economic system or geographical situation, equally enjoy the protection of international law and have equal legal powers as subjects of international law in keeping with the principle of sovereign equality.

Ever since the October Revolution the criterion of international legality has been the will of the peoples themselves, which is the supreme law of history, instead of the will of the ruling classes. Contemporary international law recognises that the will of the people must be the basis of all political power, that the sovereign rights following from the international law are vested in the people and that the activity of governments in international relations must correspond to the sovereign interests of their people and be subordinated to their will.

There has arisen a new interpretation of the fundamental rights of peoples and states as subjects of international law. These fundamental rights now include the right to selfdetermination, political independence, territorial inviolability, equality, international relations and co-operation, participation in establishing international law and order, membership of international organisations, and, finally, the right to peace.

Under the influence of Lenin's famous Decree on Peace, which qualified war as "the greatest of crimes against humanity", contemporary international law has prohibited the use of force; in place of the right to start war, a feature of the old international law, it has proclaimed the right of all nations to peace. Persons guilty of Crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity are now liable to prosecution and punishment, irrespective of the statute of limitations.^^1^^

Similarly, on the Soviet Union's initiative all forms of colonialism have been declared a crime against humanity, whereas before the October Revolution the colonial system was an integral part of international law.

~^^1^^ P. S. Romashkin, Prestupleniya protiv mira i chelovechestva, Moscow, 1967, pp. 261-63 and Ch. 7-8.

~^^1^^ Y. P. Frantsev, Mezhdunarodnoye znachenige Oktyabrskoi Revolyiitsii, Moscow, 1967, p. 163.

Modern international law incorporates principles of socialist internationalism; before the October Revolution these progressive ideas advanced by the founders of MarxismLeninism still awaited practical application.

Principles of fraternal alliance in the relations between the socialist countries and the newly free countries of Asia and Africa hold a significant place in the system of modern international law.

The principles of peaceful coexistence have also won universal recognition in international law; they have been confirmed in the U.N. Charter, in General Assembly resolutions and in numerous international legal acts.^^1^^

Whereas international law prior to the October Revolution was characterised by crude dictation, subordination, plunder, exploitation, racial discrimination and denial of human rights---all features of the imperialist system of inequality and colonial oppression---today the universally recognised principles of peaceful coexistence constitute the core of modern international law. These principles are:

self-determination of nations,

non-interference,

sovereignty,

territorial inviolability, -

equality of great and small nations,

banning of racial discrimination,

observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

the criminal nature of aggression,

non-aggression,

the lawfulness of self-defence and wars of national liberation,

disarmament,

collective security,

outlawing of the threat of force,

banning of propaganda of war,

peaceful settlement of international problems,

mutual advantage,

observance of international commitments,

universal international co-operation,

international division of labour and trade,

universality of international organisations,

peaceful competition between different systems.

~^^1^^ See G. P. Zadorozhny, Mirnoye sosushchestvovaniye i mezhdunarodnoye pravo, 1964, pp. 360-402; N. M. Minasyan, Pravo mirnogo sosushchestuovaniya, Rostov-on-Don, 1966, pp. 52-55.

Besides its part in establishing the new principles the Soviet Union has influenced, in one or another degree, the progressive development of every standard and institution of modern international law.

It would take several volumes to present anything like a full picture. Here we shall limit ourselves to a few examples relating to the settlement of territorial problems.

The October Revolution dealt the death blow to the imperialist policy of partitioning and repartitioning the world. The various methods of acquiring territory, all regarded as legitimate in the bourgeois era---such as primary seizure, occupation, purchase, transfer in the form of a gift, conquest, cession "by treaty", and so on---are now recognised as being criminal manifestations of colonialism incompatible with international law.

Lenin's famous definition of annexation, formulated in the Decree on Peace, has been confirmed and repeated in various international treaties and in United Nations documents.

The principle of national self-determination, according to which "frontiers are defined by the will of the population", as Lenin put it, have now, thanks to the Soviet Union's tireless battle against the imperialist policy of annexation, become the supreme principle of international law in deciding the destiny of territories. A nation's rightful frontiers are those that have taken shape historically.

Under the Soviet Union's influence the very content of the legal nature of state territory has changed. The principle of territorial integrity now goes hand in hand with the principle of territorial inviolability, which outlaws not only annexation but also any indirect encroachment on a state's supreme territorial authority. Indirect encroachment of this kind, as, for instance, the establishment of foreign military bases, occupation, the seizure of national wealth and natural resources by foreign capital, is a feature of neo-- colonialism. The right to self-determination, and a nation's sovereignty over its natural riches is now recognised and confirmed by the United Nations, in particular, in the Covenants on Human Rights.

The Soviet Union has been instrumental in the unprecedented progress in international air and maritime law, in terms both of protecting state sovereignty and promoting international co-operation in air and marine transport. International maritime law was thoroughly codified for the first

time in the Geneva Conventions of 1958, which deal with sea fisheries, territorial waters, the continental shelf and the prohibition of unlawful actions on the high seas.

A new status now governs international rivers, straits and canals, which in the past were seized by imperialist powers and were used as a pretext for interfering in the affairs of the countries bordering on them.

The Soviet Union has also played a key part in defining the international legal status of the Arctic and Antarctic regions.

The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, was drafted.

Before the October Revolution international law offered practically no protection to the individual. The ruling classes in the capitalist countries used international law exclusively in their own narrow interests, ignoring human rights and fundamental democratic freedoms. Today, respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, irrespective of race, sex. language or faith, has become a basic principle of international law. The Soviet Union campaigned against reactionary forces to develop the propositions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and record them in Covenants on Human Rights. The 21st General Assembly (1966), overcoming resistance from the colonialists, approved and opened for signing a Covenant on the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of Man and a Covenant on the Political and Civil Rights of Man.

The Soviet Union played a prominent part in the adoption of a number of other important documents protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, for instance, such as the Convention on the Abolition of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1966), the Convention on the Political Rights of Women (1954), the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slave Trade and Institutions and Customs Similar to Slavery (1956), the Convention on Combating Trade in Human Beings and the Exploitation of Prostitution by Other Persons (1950), the Convention on Narcotics (1961) and the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948).

The Soviet Union's efforts have helped significantly to channel the activity of the International Labour Organisation, UNESCO, the World Health Organisation and other

specialised international agencies for protecting human rights.

The October Revolution also dealt the death blow to the system of capitulation and other forms of a privileged or unequal status for foreigners. The Soviet Union has introduced into international custom the practice of granting foreigners the same rights as the local citizens, and the mostfavoured status, under which a foreigner is granted the same rights on the territory of another country as previously granted to the citizens of any other country.

The right of asylum for foreigners persecuted for activity in defence of peace or for national liberation, for their scientific activity, or for defending the working people's interests was also introduced into international law.

In opposition to the old law of the bourgeois era, which regarded the individual as an object of law or an instrument of the state, the Soviet Union and other peace-loving countries, proceeding from the principle that man's welfare is the highest goal, have achieved the conclusion of a number of important treaties under which the individual has become a participant in international legal relations.

A great contribution has also been made by the Soviet Union in the sphere of diplomatic and consular law.

In its Decree on Peace the Soviet Republic abolished secret diplomacy. By a decree adopted on July 4, 1918, it did away with imperialist inequality in the appointment of diplomatic representatives. The Soviet Union was the first country to abolish exterritorial consular jurisdiction and to relieve consuls of commercial functions. It is to the Soviet Union that international law owes the rise of the institution of trade representatives.

In the sphere of international conferences the Soviet Union introduced a democratic voting procedure (a simple majority on procedural matters and a two-thirds majority on important questions), the principle of chairmanship in rotation, and the principle of equality of languages, not only in conference proceedings but also in the official texts of international treaties.

The Soviet Union was one of the initiators in the founding of the United Nations as a strong international security organisation with broad powers in maintaining international peace and security, in promoting all-round international co-operation in the political, social, economic

and cultural spheres, and in co-ordinating the actions of states on various international problems.

The whole world knows the energetic work of the Soviet Union in all United Nations agencies, where it strives for positive decisions, constructive actions and progressive development and codification of international law, in particular, through the U.N. Commission on International Law. It has taken an active and direct part in drafting all the numerous U.N. treaties, conventions and agreements. The most important U.N. decisions codifying standards of international law and promoting its progressive development were adopted by the General Assembly on the initiative of the Soviet Union (the resolutions on control over atomic energy, on general and complete disarmament, on codification of the principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal, on codification of the principles of peaceful coexistence, on outlawing force in international relations, on the non-- proliferation of nuclear weapons, on the dismantling of foreign military bases, the Human Rights Covenants, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, the Declaration on the Impermissibility of Interference in the Internal Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty, etc.

Experience shows that the recognition of principles of international law by General Assembly decisions, adopted unanimously or by a substantial majority, does not always mean they will be put into practice. The peace-loving states want the principles of international law to be concretised in the more effective form of commitments recorded in international treaties and agreements. Towards this end the Soviet Union has taken the initiative in codifying General Assembly decisions in such international treaties and agreements as the Covenants on Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions on the Protection of War Victims, the Convention on the Abolition of All Racial Discrimination, the Moscow Partial Test-Ban Treaty, the Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Treaty on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space, the Convention Outlawing Nuclear and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction, and s.o.

Many of these treaties have been signed and have gone into force. The signing of the others will be a further step forward in the progressive development of international law.

All these sources of international law, which not only consolidate existing principles and standards but formulate

a number of new propositions, were drafted with the most active and direct participation of the Soviet Union. The incorporation of international customs in international treaties is being increasingly practised by the Soviet Union and other countries. In this way the century-old customs of ambassadorial and maritime law were recorded in conventions mentioned above.

The Soviet Union attaches much importance to the observance of moral standards in international relations. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels urged efforts to turn the simple laws of morality and justice by which private individuals guide themselves in their relations into the supreme laws in relations among nations. The communist morality is expressed in those simple standards of ethics and justice and includes the fundamental universal moral standards which the people have developed through the centuries in their fight against social oppression.

Thanks to the influence of the socialist countries these standards are becoming inviolable principles in relations both among individuals and among nations. Modern international law is not a collection of ideal and abstract notions about desirable conduct by countries but a system of definite and positive legal principles and standards.

The Soviet Union and other socialist countries are making a great contribution to the modern theory and practice of international law. They are promoting the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems, the ultimate result of which will be the complete and final victory of the new, progressive socio-economic system over the old and outdated system. The peoples of the socialist countries are building what the Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union describes as "the prototype of a new society, of the future of the whole of mankind''.

Further progressive development of international law is an inevitable result of the historical competition between the socialist and capitalist systems. In the course of this competition the new type of international relations will exert a growing influence on the general system of international law. This influence already now goes farther than the development of general democratic principles. It is characterised by the consistent implementation of completelynew, socialist principles and standards of international law.

Such is the inexorable law of historical progress, and nothing can hold it back.

INDEX

Acheson, D.---135, 210 Aden---280

Adenauer, K---146, 214, 335 Afghanistan---10

Aggression, definition of---279, 280, 375

---direct and indirect---156, 158, 280

---against: Egypt---156, 280

---Guatemala---241

---Dominican Republic---241

---Vietnam---241

See also: War in Vietnam and Vietnam

---armed---83

---armed intervention---- synonym of a.---174, 308

---as unjust war---GO, 61, 280, 361

---as crime---117, 279, 280, 288

---banning of a. principle--- 308

Aid to developing countries--- 119-21

Aksenyonok, G. A.---115

Albania---43

Algeria---173. 371

Allen, II. C.---106

All-out retaliation doctrine---54

Altmann, R.---346

Alvarez, A. A.---251, 262

Amory, J. F.---150

American Branch of the International Law Association---298

Angola---280

Annexation---330, 377

Antarctic---378

Anti-communism---13, 161, 346

Anti-Hitler coalition---271

ANZUS---203

Arctic---378

Argentina---147

Aron, R.---268

Asylum---379

Atlantic Charter (1941)---276, 281 Aubrey, H.---344 Austria---10, 156

Averting of a new world war--- 62-67

Balance of terror doctrine---53

Bandung principles of peaceful coexistence---299-302

Barnick, J. F.---52

Baruch, B. M---112

Basdevan, J.---250

Basic sovereign rights and duties ---113-18, 375

Bastid, P.---300, 343

Baunlgarten, A.---350

Beloff, M.---96

Berlia, G.---254

Bernal, J. D---52

``Big Stick", Th. Roosevelt's policy of---165

Bilateral declarations on peaceful coexistence---10-11, 305

Black, E. R.---147, 370

Blishchenko, I. P.---238, 239

Blockade of Soviet Russia---223- 24, 226, 270

Blocs and systems---207

Bluntschli, J. C.---337

Bobrov, R. L---239, 350

Bodin, J.---317

Bogaert, van---170

Bogdanov, O. V.---177

Bosch, J.---164

Boulding, K. E.---348

Bowie, R.---138

Bowles, Ch.---21, 210, 344, 368

Brazil---169

Brecht, A.---89

Brierly, J. L.---90, 242, 249, 255, 316-17

Briggs, H.---332

``brinkmanship" doctrine---52, 53,

57, 200 Britain---10, 77, 78, 221, 227, 228,

232, 272, 277, 321 Brodie, B---48 Brown, A.---51 Brunei---86 Bryant, A. B.---87 Bucharest Declaration---9, 204-

05, 216, 219, 294 Bullitt, W---37 Bulgaria---43 Bundy, M.---221 Burma---10, 173, 371 Burnham, J.---87, 89, 132, 163

Civil war---61, 76, 287

Class struggle, under peaceful

coexistence---35-36, 56, 94, 343-

47, 368-72 Coblenz, C. G.---87 Cold war---91,<J4, 368 Collective self-defence---309 Collective security---201-05, 261 Colombia---166 Colonialism---105-13, 261, 292-

93, 304, 369, 374, 375, 376 C.P.S.U. (Communist Party of

the U.S.S.R.), 23rd Congress

---programme of settlement of international problems--- 216

---on U.N. Organisation---294

---on class struggle under peaceful coexistence---369

---on the unity of all anti-war forces---65

---on peaceful coexistence--- 8, 9

C.P.S.U., Programme of

---on peaceful coexistence--- 16, 67, 361

---on possibility to avert a world war---62

---on war and revolution---69

---on ideological struggle---94

---on sovereignty---97

---on human rights---130

---on how revolution is accomplished---145

---on disarmament---180, 186

---on international contacts--- 230

---on peaceful competition--- 347

---on the role of peoples in war and peace issues---352- 53

---on withering of state---360

---on new type of international relations---361

---on morality---367

---on the role of newly free peoples---65

C.P.S.U., Theses of

---on the 50th Anniversary of the October Revolution, on peaceful coexistence---9

Communiques

---Soviet-Indian---10

---Soviet-Italian---11 Competition between two systems---22, 25, 56, 57, 145, 171, 245, 347-49

---ideological and political--- 335-47, 362-72

---economic---347-49

---Lenin on---24, 35, 72, 348

---20th Congress of C.P.S.U. on---349

See also: peaceful competition. Compromise and mutual concession policy---91, 212 Compulsion in international

relations---258-59 Conferences:

---Bandung (1955)---281, 299

---Belgrade (1961)---302-03

---Cairo (1964)---303-04

---Cannes (1922)---222, 260

---Delhi (1968)---13

---Geneva (1927)---223

---Geneva (1933)---224

---Geneva (1954)---219, 257

---Geneva (1964)---227

---Genoa (1922)---224, 270

---Havana (1966)---11

---Karlovy Vary---10

---London (1941)---276

---Montevideo (1954)---296

---Moscow (1943)---273

---Potsdam (1945)---257, 275

---Punta del Este---20

---San Francisco (1945)---277

---Teheran (1943)---257, 274

---Washington (1922)---84 ---Yalta (1945)---257, 274-76

Confidence, international---200-01 Congo---55, 86, 100, 147, 203 Congo (Brazzaville)---173 Consent---253

Consensual theory---255-56 Contacts, international:

---Soviet position---230-32

---as factor of peace and understanding---232

---Soviet-French agreements on contacts---232-33

---scope and kind of contacts ---232-33

Conventions

---Hague (1899)---84

---on Treaty Law---104

---on Rights and Duties of States (1933)---104, 114

---Soviet-American consular convention---230

---on the Abolition of All Forms of Racial Discrimination---293, 378

---Geneva (1958)---378

---on humanitarian issues--- 378

Co-operation, international---38, 98, 206, 293

---scientific and technical--- 232-33

---cultural---232, 264

---in space---198

---"divided world" doctrine--- 206, 209

---Chicherin plan---207

---peaceful coexistence---207, 208

---no autarchy---209

---duty of state---209

---with newly free states--- 233

---the principle---310-11 Corbett, P. E---240 Costa Rica---166, 169 Cotrell, A.---206

Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights---124-25, 281, 283, 293,

378 Covenant on Economic, Cultural

and Social Rights---125-28, 378 Crabb, C. V.---213 Crimes against humanity---84,

85, 92, 117, 261, 279, 375 Criminal responsibility---373 Cuba---7, 20, 43, 79, 82, 147 Cyprus---86 Czechoslovakia---220, 280, 299

D

Davis, J.---207, 210 Daugherty, I.---206 Declarations:

---Four-Nations Declaration on General Security (1943) ---273

---Teheran Declaration---273- 74

---on Liberated Europe---275

---Soviet Declaration at London Conference (1941)---276, 281

---On the Prohibition of Use of Nuclear Weapons---92

Callender, H.---246 Cambodia---10, 85 Canada---10 Capitalist system:

---struggle against peaceful coexistence---25, 27, 28, 30, 269

---sections of bourgeoisie---44, 64, 66, 360

---working class in---65, 360

---war is inherent in---70, 364- 65

---and co-operation---209

---against trade with socialist countries---25, 229

---politics---260, 361, 374

---bankruptcy of ideas---346

---democracy---359-60

---morality---368 Capitulation system---379 Caribbean crisis---56, 79, 80 Carpentier, M.---54

Casus foederis---156

CENTO---170, 201, 203

Cerf, J.---73

Chairmanship in rotation---379

Challener, R.---54

Chase, S.---185

Cheverny, J.---70, 143

Chinese People's Republic---12,

43, 192, 370, 371, 373-74 Chicherin, G. V.---16, 109, 207,

Chile---169 Chkhikvadze, V.---12, 62, 292,

305, 340, 359 Churchill, W.---213

25-3121

---Soviet-French (1966)---10

---Bandung---299-302

---Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. (Feb. 9, 1955)---304

---bilateral, on peaceful coexistence---305

---London (1871)---222

Decree on Peace---33, 43-44, 269,

281, 330, 375 Delmas, C.---54, 277 Democracy---358-59, 367-68 Democratic peace principle---261-

62 Democratic Republic of Vietnam

---43, 86

See also: Vietnam and War in

Vietnam

Depreux, E.---185, 200 Dewey, J---135 Diktat---20, 264, 358 Diplomacy---368

---Soviet---26

---50th anniversary---14

---secret---261, 379

---American---366 Diplomatic representatives---379 Disarmament:

---the best way to avert war ---177

---general and complete---186, 192, 293

---effective control---186, 191, 200-01

---Security Council---187

---a principle of international law---189-90

---partial---193, 207, 310

---increasing the danger of war, U.S. doctrine---177-78

- NATO---180

---people's living standard--- 187

---space---199

---international tension---200

---arms control without disarmament---200

Dissolving of military blocs---

203, 217

Domestic matters---106-07 Dominican Republic---20, 55, 82,

86, 147, 167, 169 Douglas, W. O.---87, 88, 210, 344,

370 Drascher, W.---112

Dulles, J. F.---54, 73, 142, 148, 159, 169, 335, 344

Durdenevsky, V. N.---239

Dutoit, B---259

Duties and obligations in international law:

---of living as good neighbours---114

---of granting independence to dependent territories---115

---to refrain from interference ---115

---to refrain fi;om seizing foreign territory---115

---to abolish all forms of colonial dependence---116

---to respect human rights--- 116

---of developing friendly rela-- tions between nations---116

---to settle international problems---116

---of exercising justice and respecting

international commitments---117

---to deliver mankind from the scourge of war---117

---of employing peaceful means for settling international disputes---117

---of maintaining international peace and security by effective collective measures ---118

---of refraining from giving any assistance or comfort whatsoever to the aggressor ---118

---of using the machinery of international organisations for the economic and social progress of all nations---118

Dynnik, M. A.---18

E

Eagleton, C.---250, 326, 358 Economic non-aggression---224 Economic basis of international

law and diplomacy---244 Ecuador---169 Eden, A.---272 Edmunds, S.---241 Edmundson, Ch.---149 Edson, J.---196 Eisenhower, D.---73, 142, 211

Eisenhower Doctrine---165

Yemelyanov, V. S.---65

Emerson, R.---147

Equal treaties---254-58

Equality of two economic systems---222-23

Equality of languages---379

Equality of states principle---96- 99, 107-08, 116, 222, 259, 261, 282, 288-89, 306-07, 320, 321, 334, 366

---applicability to every country---108

Equilibrium of fear---52, 53, 54

Erhard, L.---225

Escalation, conception of---50,

75, 185, 219 Establishment of international

law standards---248-54 Ethiopia---220

Etzioni, A---49, 66, 185, 210 European security---204-05, 216-

17 Export of counter-revolution---

146-48, 154-70

---in the Dominican Republic 20, 21, 147

---in South Vietnam---21, 56,

---in Hungary---155-58

---in Guatemala---156, 159 ---in Latin America---165-69

``export of revolution"---- invention to justify export of counter-revolution---138-43, 144-46

Exterritorial consular jurisdiction---379

Fossaert, R.---Ill, 349 France---10, 192, 218, 221, 227,

228, 232, 233, 300 Francis I.---300 Frantsev, Y. P.---13, 20, 345, 366,

Freedom of the high seas---80 Fromm, E.---21-22, 95, 143, 200,

231,346 Frontiers, just and unjust---100,

102, 377

---in Europe---217 Fulbright, J.---120, 153, 164, 344

G

Gagarin, Y.---198

Galbraith, J.---86, 147

Gaulle, Ch. de---273

Gallois, P.---54

Ganyushkin, B. V.---45

Gavin, J.---68, 88, 180

German problem---214-15

German Democratic Republic--- 43, 86, 146, 215, 217

Gentili, A,---337

Genocide---378

Gilbert, R.---92

Gladyshev, V. V.---269

Goldman, E.---177-78

Goldman, B.---254

Goldwater, B.---69, 177

Gonella, G.---343

Goodman, E. R.---68, 235

Great Powers in Security Council---116

---and disarmament---182, 192 Greece---280

Grewe, W. G.---70 Gromyko, A. A.---46, 193 Grotius, H.---279, 337 Guatemala---147 Guggenheim, P.---250 Guinea---173, 371 Gunther, H. K.---• 178 Gunzburg, S, de---90 Gvozdarev, B. I.---121, 147

H

'Hall, A.---240 Hall, W. E.---337 Halle, L. J.---87 Hallstein, W.---154 Halperin, M. H.---76, 179

Faure, M.---54, 277 Fedoseyev, P. N,---57, 122, 352 Feldman, D. M.-^115, 270 Fenwick, Ch.---331, 332 "Financial crisis" of U.N.---289-

Finland---10, 227 Finletter, Th---364 Fischer-Galati, S.---343 Fleming, D. E,---88, 179 Force in international relations

---incompatibility with peaceful coexistence---68-76

---applied against aggressors and colonialists---61

---banning the use of---176, 258, 309

Hammarskjold, H.---288

Hauck, Ch. W.---226

Hazard, H.W.---112

Hazard, J. N.---18, 19, 209, 235,

295, 298

Hempstone, S.---371 Herter, Ch.---153 Hester, H. B.---207, 210 Hilsman, R---150, 152 Hiroshima---87, 194 Holtzendorf, F.---337 Hobbes, Th.---318 Hocking, W. E.---17 Holcombe, A.---53, 298 Honduras---169 Hopkins, H---211 Hubler, R.---51, 180 Hudson, M---83 Hughes, E.J.---211, 231, 370 Hull, C.---£22 Human Rights---122, 261

---and war---122

---and peaceful coexistence--- 121-22, 136-37

---Covenants on---123-28

---communist principle---128

---human rights protection--- a specific form of class struggle under peaceful co- existence---128-37 "

---human rights protection as a principle of peaceful coexistence---307-08

Hungary---11, 43, 76, 86 Hyde, Ch.---58, 79, 109, 265

llyichcv, L. F.---15, 49 Inozemtsev, N,---88, 271 Inter-American armed force---

167-69 International Associations:

---of Economic Sciences---297

---of International Law---297- 99

---of Legal Sciences---296

---of Political Sciences---296-

---Sociological---297 International canals, rivers and

straits---378 International Court of Justice---

249, 357

International customs---250-51 International Law:

universal nature of---243-48, 266

---definition of---264-67

---as superstructure! category ---363-64, 365, 368

---class character of---363-67

---banning war and maintaining peace---364-66

---and human rights---366-68

---and capitalist doctrines--- 314-35

---as element of civilisation--- 373

---and general peace---258

---unity of---259

---single and binding on all states regardless of their systems---259

---no pluralism in---259, 263

---as social phenomenon---260, 262

---old and new---260-61, 262

---unity and struggle between contradictions---260-61

---as reflecting history's objective laws---243-44, 256, 257

---social content and nature of---261, 272-73

---bourgeois-democratic institutions---262

---progressive development and codification of---379

---role in peaceful coexistence

---7, 13, 27, 99, 235-40, 248, 258

---objective character of---92, 363-64

---legal structure of nations and states---97-98

---independence of states--- 105, 366

---equal treaties as sources of ---254-59

---equality of states---107-08

---applicability to Asian and African peoples---110, 175, 375

---so-called colonial law---112- 13

---creation of the standards of---117

---in space---199

---Soviet stand on---235-37

---Soviet doctrine of---238, 244-45,247,252,268-69

---nihilists on---240-43, 314-15, 326

---imperialist position on--- 241,249

---and two world systems--- 244

---and diplomacy---245

---and sovereign rights---246

---universally

recognised standards of---247, 252, 265

---will and interests of peoples as criteria---247-48, 253, 257

---binding force of---256

---and progress of mankind--- 343-48, 363-72

---Maoist position on---98, 257-58

International law commission---

380 International organisation and

international law---249, 357-58,

379-80

Inter-Parliamentary Union---114 Interventions:

---in general---61, 291, 319-20

---in Dominican Republic---20, 56, 78

---in Soviet Russia---59

---in Lebanon and Jordan--- 77-78

---in Western hemisphere--- 165

---armed i.---synonym of aggression---174

lovchuk, M. T---18 Iran---10, 147

Iraq---78

Iron curtain---231 Israel---7, 56, 280 Italy---10, 227, 228, 232 Ivanova, I. M.---206 Ivanovsky, I.---335

Jackson, H. M.---71

Japan---10, 227, 228, 232, 354

Jaspers, K.---71-72, 76, 108, 206

Javad, D.---80

Jessup, Ph.---55, 110, 326, 331,

333 358 Johnson, L. B.---43, 50, 55, 59,

132, 136, 148, 165, 195, 215, 229 Johnson Doctrine---165-68 Joint efforts to reinforce peace

---204-05, 211-19 Jordan---77

Just and unjust wars---58-61 Just and unjust frontiers---99-

K

Kahn, H.---51, 73, 179

Kalinin, M.---274

Kamarovsky, L.---338

Kanesaburo, G.---111

Kaplan, M. A.---87

Kapustin, N.---338

Kedrov, B. M.---260

Kelsen, H.---250, 327, 334, 356

Kennan, G.---43, 46, 142, 211

Kennedy, J.F.---17, 20, 55, 64, 66, 346

Kent, Sh---150

Kerimov, D. A.---350

Kissinger, H.---53, 55, 73, 74, 75

Kintner, W. R---88, 206, 225

King, G.---64

Klimenko, B. M.---99

Kliiber, J. L.---337

Konstantinov, F. V.---45, 72, 130, 318

Koretsky, V. M.---239

Korkunov, N.---338

Korostarenko, M. K.---238

Korovin, Y. A.---247-48, 256, 327, 350

Kovner, M.---268

Kozhevnikov, F. I.---12, 82, 238, 239-40, 248, 327

Korean People's Democratic Republic---43, 82, 100, 169

Ideological struggle---17-18, 35-

36, 94 Independence of states

---in internal matters and foreign affairs---105

---definition of---105, 115

---formal---106

---distortions of---106, 318

India---10, 217, 305

Individuals in international relations---126, 249-50, 355-58, 378

---not subject of international law---353-55

---as subject of international legal relations---356-57

Indivisibility of peace---201 Indonesia---86

Krivchikova, E. S.---203 Krylov, S. B.---221, 248 Kulski, W.---235 Kummernuss, A.---371 Kunz, J.---89, 334 Kursky, D. I-

---on peaceful coexistence with all peoples---32, 144

---on desire to pursue a policy of peace---33

---on readiness to preserve peace in the future---33

---on willingness to live in peace with all peoples---33, 35

---• on impossibility of offensive war against capitalist system---33

---on non-export of revolution---34, 144

---on Soviet policy to the outside world---31-32, 34, 72

---on peaceful development of Soviet society---32, 35

---on struggle between two systems---35, 36

---on peace treaties---37

•---on international treaties and agreements---39, 44, 282

---on compromises and concessions---39-41

---on coexistence with U.S.A. ---42

---on secret diplomacy---43-44

---on just and unjust wars--- 58-59

---on the role of Eastern and Negro peoples---64-65, 109

---on putting an end to war--- 69

---on struggle of ideologies--- 94

---on self-determination---102

---on international law---107

---on equality of states---107, 109, 130, 282

---on human rights---131

---on disarmament---180 Lyon-Caen, G.---254 Leonhardt, R. W.---214 Levin, D. B.---240, 269 Liddel Hart, B. H.---53 List, F---265

Loske, J.---318

Lodge, C.---159

Loewenstein, K.---108, 110, 215

Lorimer, J.---337

Lowenthal, R.---139

Lukashuk, 1.1.---248

Lyubimov, N. N.---223

• M

MacArthur, D.---74

McDougal, M.---298

Macmillan, H.---230

Mahon, G. H.---71

Mali---173, 371

Malinin, S.A.---177

Maoist distortions of peaceful

coexistence and international

law---12-13, 41, 257-58, 369,

371, 373-74 Maritain, J.---135 Maritime law---377-78 Maritime law customs---79-80 Martens, F.---264, 315-16, 337,

Marx, K.---266 Marx, K. and Engels, F.---244,

247, 360, 364, 367, 381 Marzani, C.---200-01 Masnata, A.---224 Massive retaliation doctrine---54,

Meissner, B.---23, 34, 38, 235 Melman, S.---200 Membership in international

organisations---118, 293-94 Menzhinsky, V. L-^-82 Mexico---169 Meyer, A. G.---371 Middle East---8, 56 Mikheyev, Y.---61 Military bases---193, 201 Military containment doctrine---

Mills, C. W.---370 Millis, W.---57 Minasyan, N. M.---239, 376 Minifle, J.---64 Minor wars---68-76 Mitin, M. B.---131, 371 Modern international law as a

reality---262, 263, 375, 381 • Modus vivendi---335 Moller, H.---225 Mongolian People's Republic---

Morality in international relations---367-68, 382 Morgenthau, H. J.---69, 89, 178,

247, 331

Morozov, G. I.---279 Morray, J.---178, 180 Mossadegh---147

Movement for peace---65, 259

Mozambique---280

``Multilateral" nuclear force---192

Mutual advantage---213, 220, 258, 259, 310

Mutual dependence of all mankind---244

Mutual interests---209

Mutual terror doctrine---52, 53

N

``National interest" doctrine---247

Nationalisation of foreign property---99

National liberation movement--- 15, 59, 64, 86, 90, 100, 109, 293, 308-09

National state and people---355

National States

---newly free---45, 64, 119, 369-70

---and old international law--- 255, 374

---and choice of new system ---370-72

---trade with socialist countries---226, 228

Naval blockade---79, 80 Nedbailo, P. E.---295 Negotiation---216-18

Nehru, J.---Ill

Neo-colonialism---105-13, 174,

292-93, 304, 369, 377 Neo-colonialism and sovereignty

---106-13, 174 Neutralist, non-aligned countries

---conferences of---175, 299, 302-04

---as factor of peace---45

---and Soviet Union---46 New type of international relations---258, 260, 361-362, 366; 373

Nicaragua---147

Nikolsky, N. M.---47

Niebuhr, R.---50, 135

Nixon, R.---140, 206

Non-aggression---261, 308

Non-aligned countries on peaceful coexistence---302-04

Non-interference---175-76 216, 281, 293, 329, 335

Labour

---international division of--- 225-26

Laos---76, 86

Lapenna, J.---303

Laurat, L.---109

Lauterpacht, H.---241, 357

Lawfulness of national liberation war---308-09

Lazarev, M.I.---201, 350

Leahy, W. D.---211

Lebanon---77

Lederer, W.J---112

Legal capacity of subject of international law---113, 282

League of Nations---220, 222

Legal nature of U. N. General Assembly resolutions---253-54

Legality, international---174

``Legislative body" and international law---323

Legitima gubernation---317

Lenin, V. I.:

---on peaceful economic competition---22, 35

---on plans of Soviet state in world politics---24-25, 355

---on coexistence of socialist and capitalist states---24, 25, 39,72

---on the law of uneven development of capitalism---24

---on historical inevitability of peaceful coexistence---24, 28

---on international economic relations and trade---25-26, 32, 37, 38, 39, 42, 223-24

---on policy of peace and Soviet diplomacy---26

---on deliverance of mankind from wars---31, 32

---on durable and lengthy peace between Soviet state and capitalist countries---31

Non-interference principle, definition of---306

Non-proliferation of nuclear weapons---191-95, 216, 293

Nuclear arms race, consequences of---185

Nuclear deterrent---52-57

Nuclear-free zones---201, 216, 293

Nuclear intimidation doctrine--- 54, 88

Nuclear-missile war---354

Nuclear weapons

---refraining from use of---216

---prohibition and destruction of---216, 293

Nutting, A.---71, 139

O

Obligations, international---259 Observance of international commitments---219-22, 310-11 October Revolution

---as beginning of peaceful coexistence---25

---and peace---366

---and elimination of war---28, 31-32

---and qualification of aggressive war---279

---and Decree on peace---33, 43

---and Human Rights---129

---and international treaties ---236, 256

---and international law---261- 62, 374

---and will of peoples as criteria of international law--- 375-76

---and role of Asian and African peoples as subject of international law---375

O'Connor, D.---298

O'Daniel, J. W.---141 Oder-Neisse line---214 Oizerman, T. I.---130, 368

Old international law---374-75,

376 Oppenheim, L---58, 80, 114, 265,

Oman---86, 280 Organski, A.---178 Osgood, R. E.---74

Outlawing the threat of force---

376 Outer space

---moon and celestial bodies--- 195, 196

---Soviet plans---196

---border between air space and outer space---198

---harmful contamination--- 198

---common interest of all mankind in---197

---free access to---197

---is not subject to national appropriation---197

---jurisdiction and control over objects---197

---prohibition of use for military purposes---197, 199

---and disarmament---199

---responsibility for national activity---199

---universality of---41, 43

---and sovereignty---106

---inevitability of---62-68

---and self-determination---20

---as objective law---25, 30, 62, 67, 268

---as fundamental economic necessity---26, 27

---role of superstructural factors in---26-27

---and class struggle---36, 56, 94, 344, 368-72

---as realistic foreign policy--- 37, 45, 63-64

---sole alternative to nuclearmissile war---45, 52

---historical significance of--- 12, 31-36, 56

---and question "who wins whom"---57, 145, 245

---and just wars---60

---and interest of all mankind ---23-30

---and working class of capitalist countries---65

•---and human rights---122, 136-37

---as standard of international law---239, 243, 261-62, 267, 271

---as custom law---251

---ultimate outcome of---363 Peaceful coexistence, Western

theories, doctrines and distortions:

---as "divided world"---206, 209

---as "protracted conflicts"--- 206

---coexistence or existence--- 206

---as ``wall'' between countries---206-08

---as maintenance of peace between diametrically opposite systems---209

---as a middle path between open conflict and cold war ---86-87, 209

---``perpetual'' coexistence--- 341

---status quo conservation of ---343, 344

---as "total peace"---345

---"ideological coexistence"--- 94, 345

---gradualist theory---66

---"belligerent coexistence" theory---71

---short of any big war---19, 76, 92

---as open door policy---87

---as peaceful surrender---67, 90, 138

---as live and let live policy--- 90-91, 209

---neither war nor peace---92, 138

---as "passing phase" and "transitional stage"---55-56, 91,92

---as ``inaccurate'' bipolar world---18

---inevitability of---62-67

---no co-operation among nations---18, 24

---as ``pause'' between wars--- 19

---as temporary state of peace ---19

---as struggle for total domination---19, 34, 139, 148

---as an all-out struggle in all fields of life---19

---as temporary absence of war, armistice, ``cease-fire'' ---19, 92, 207

---as ``distinction'' between past and present---15-16, 23, 300

---imposing way of life by force of arms---69

---nihilists on---18, 161

---"not Leninist" doctrine---23

---``invention'' of Soviet jurists ---23

---at ``loggerheads'' with Marxist-Leninist teachings--- 24

---as "pure propaganda"---38

---as ``reluctance'' to conclude agreements---39

---favouritism and ostracism ---41-42

---as armed peace doctrine--- 53, 54

---as mutual nuclear intimidation---55

Peaceful competition---56-57

Pacta sunt seruanda---213, 221,

Pakistan---10, 217 Palomares incident---193-94 Panama---218 Patolichev, N. S.---227 Pancha Shila---300, 305 Pauling, L.---52, 68 Pax Americana---55, 60 Pearson, L. B.---57, 213, 346 Peace:

---as basic right of peoples and states---117, 247

---as principle of peaceful coexistence---308

---"total peace" doctrine---345 Peaceful coexistence

---meaning, definition of--- 209-10, 212

---peace and peaceful coexistence---19

---yesterday and now---15-16

---Programme of C.P.S.U. on ---16

---and international law---12, 16, 17, 235-40

---position of socialist countries on---9-10

---place among other principles---12

Peaceful competition as principle ---311-12

Peaceful settlement of international disputes---211-12, 217, 220, 309-10

Peace of Westphalia (1648)---300

Peoples:

---masses as makers of history---22, 43, 351

---and governments---44, 106, 117, 170, 172, 257, 258, 274, 318, 350, 353-54, 355-56

---right to control the government---353, 359

---will of and the politics of governments---358, 362

---world population and Soviet foreign policy---45

---and struggle against wars--- 65

---right to choose better system---95, 117, 172, 261, 351, 354

---sovereignty of---106

---legal capacity of---113

---• basic sovereign right of--- 113-21

---right to peace---117, 352-53

---increasing role of---172, 352

---will and interests of as criteria---247, 248, 256, 257-58, 266

---legal consciousness of---262

---as subject of international law---349

---responsibility in foreign relations---354, 359

---supremacy in the settlement of principal questions ---355

Perlo, V.---201

Perroux, F---226

Peru---166, 169

Petrazhitsky, L.---250

Pinto, R---243, 300

Piradov, A. S.---138

Plebiscite---359

Poland---86

Polyansky, N---252

Portugal---135

``Positions from strength" policy

---55, 67, 87, 88, 91, 150 Possony, S. T.---88, 178 Power, Th.---50 Pozen, W.---73

Pradier-Fodere, P.---335 Principles of peaceful coexistence---267

---as embodied in international law---267, 312

---as core of international law ---268

---recognition of---270

---Bandung principles of--- 299-302

---in General Assembly resolutions---283-93

---codification of---293, 312-13

---as best foundation for peaceful international relations---304-05

---as elucidated by International Associations---296-99

---scientific system of---305-13

---enumeration of---376 Propaganda of war---92-94 Psychological warfare---49

Q

Quadri, R.---113 R

Racial discrimination---261, 307-

Ramundo, B.---23, 295, 303 Ransom, H---149, 151, 152 Rapoport, M. Y.---238 Recognition---269-70 Recognition of international law

standards---214 Referendum---359 Reitzel, W.---87 Responsibility in international

law---354 Reston, J.---169 Restricted wars---68-75 Reves, E---97, 107, 202, 208, 321-

26 Revolutions

---are not exportable---34, 138-42, 144

---are not made to order---34, 144, 145

Rivier, A.---337 Rivlin, B.---173 Rockefeller, D.---229 Rockefeller, N.---154 Rockets

---Soviet intercontinental and

global---87 Romanov, V. A.---48 Romashkin, P. S.^85, 279, 365,

375 Roosevelt, F. D.---145, 271, 274,

Rostow, W. W.---18, 96 Rousseau, Ch.---250, 334 Rousseau, J. J.---318 Rubinstein, A. E.---343 Rumania---43

Rumyantsev, A. M.---13, 345, 372 Rusk, D.---33, 43, 76, 82, 101, 146,

148, 169, 170, 298 Rusk Doctrine---169-70 Russell, B.---50, 66, 137, 249

Shchetinin, B. V.---130

Sherwood, R.---143

Shurshalov, V. M.---252

Sibert, M.---334

Slessor, J.---53, 71, 268

Smith, D. O.---49

Socialist internationalism---258,

304-05, 376 Socialist system:

---international significance of ---15, 16, 18, 19-20, 372

---and new standards of international relations---45, 258

---role in preventing war---63, 365

---and sovereignty---97

---and abolition of colonial system---19, 366

---and Human Rights---129- 30, 366-67

---and good-neighbour relations---217

---and contacts---230, 233-34

---and international law---258, 373

---and friendship among nations---260

---people in---350-51

---and peace---365

---and fraternal alliance with newly free countries of Asia and Africa---247, 376

---and future of mankind--- 381

Somali---100

Sorel, A.---337

Sources of international law---

380-81

South African Republic---324 Sovereignty:

---and wars---96-97

---in nuclear age---96-98

---and freedom of nations--- 97, 259

---definition of---98-99, 115

---national sovereignty---106

---state sovereientv---106

---people's---106, 325, 359-60

---historical significance---107, 332, 333

---doctrine of absolute---107, 314-23, 331-32

---and equality of states---96- 99, 107

---in space---197-98

Sabanin, A.---237 Sanctions---261 Scandinavian countries---10 Scele, G.---250, 331-32, 334, 355 Schelling, Th. C.---76 Schlamm, W. S.---70, 178 Science of international law and

dialectical method---263 Scientific system of international

law---335-42 Seaton-Watson, H.---91 SEATO---170, 201, 203 Security Council

---prerogatives---79, 176, 202- 04, 258, 294

---and war in Vietnam---218

---and peace-keeping operations---290-91

Security, international principle

---309 Self-defence---77, 101, 117, 168,

201, 218-19, 258-309 Self-determination---102, 117,

123, 138-48, 154-63, 172-73, 263,

327, 353, 379

---definition of---114-15, 280- 81, 305-06, 358

---as universal principle---261 Settling international issues---

211-19

Suleiman the Magnificent---300 Shanks, M.---346 Sharmazanashvili, G. V.---239,

263 Schwartzenberger, G.---55, 243,

---as a custom---251

---distortions of---314-26, 331- 36

---and democracy---325

---``unlimited''---327

---in Soviet doctrine---327-31 Soviet doctrine of international

law

---on sovereignty---327-31, 373- 81

---on territorial inviolability--- 329-30

---on non-interference---330-31

---on peaceful coexistence--- 330-31

Soviet programme of general and complete disarmament---190-91 Soviet policy acts

---Declaration of Rights of the Working and Exploited People (1918)---130

---Constitution (1936) on human rights---130-31

---Decree on fundamental idea of international law--- 107

---Appeal of Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. (Nov. 6, 1957)---305

---Law for the Protection of Peace (1951)---93

---Resolution of 4th All-- Russia Congress of Soviets---269

---Resolution of 7th All-- Russia Congress of Soviets---33

---See: Decree on Peace Soviet Union:

---multinational state---93

---and protection of peace--- 93-94

---position on territorial problems---100-01

---and aid to the developing countries---118-20

---and disarmament---180, 191

---and non-intervention---144- 45

---and international commitments---145, 155-56, 220-222,

276, 380

---and atomic disarmament--- 182-83, 184-186

---and sovereignty---327-28

---and human rights---129-31

---and international co-opera-

tion---38, 207-09

---and peaceful use of space and celestial bodies---196

---and peaceful settlement of international disputes---211- 12, 216

---long-term orders to capitalist industries---223-24

---and international trade--- 227-229

---and contacts---230, 269

---and international law---257- 58

---as state of whole people--- 351

---and democracy---359

---internationalist duty of--- 371-72

---and progressive development of international law--- 373

Space, peaceful use of---195-201

Spain---136

Spy politics---149-53

Spykman, N. J.---89, 364

Special Committee on Peaceful

Coexistence---287-89 Spellmann---349 Staatenbau---355 Standards of international law---

Starke, J. G.---333 Starushenko, G. B---238, 355 State and people in international

relations---352-59 State as vehicle of sovereign

rights---353-55, 356, 358-59 Status of foreigners---379 Steiniger, P. A.---367 Stepanyan, Ts. A.---366 Stettinius, E.---274 Stevenson, A.---149, 171 Stimson, H.---221 Strausz-Hupe, H.---88, 112, 146,

206, 210

Strogovich, M. S.---131 Suez crisis (1956)---143 Subject of international law---

349-52

---Lenin on---352, 353

---peoples as---353

---definition of---355, 356

---states of Asia and Africa--- 375

Subversive activities

---incompatible with peaceful coexistence---152, 161, 175

---as state policy of U.S.A.--- 149-54

Sulzberger, C.---146, 161

Sweden---227

Syria---76, 86

System of international relations

---98, 357 Sources of international law---

250-253 System of principles of peaceful

coexistence---305-12

279, 280

---Anglo-Soviet (1942)---271, 272

---Soviet-American Agreement (1942)---272

---Soviet-French Non-- Aggression Pact (1932)---273

---Soviet-French Mutual Assistance Pact (1935)---273

---Soviet-French Treaty of Alliance (1944)---273

---U.S.S.R. - C.P.R. - K.P.D.R. Treaty---373-74

---U.S.S.R. - Czechoslovakia (1935)---220-21

---Potsdam---221

---Soviet-American Consular Convention---230

---Inter-American Mutual Assistance Treaty (1947)---158, 168, 170

---Brussels Treaty (1948)--- 158

---Moscow Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests (1963)---180-83, 195, 373

---Agreement to ban the orbiting of objects with nuclear weapons or warheads---182

---non-aggression pact between NATO and Warsaw Treaty countries (draft)--- 184-85

---Versailles (1919)---84

---Washington (1922)---84

---on territorial problems (draft)---102-04

---Soviet-British agreement (1921)---144

---Roosevelt-Litvinov agreement (1933)---145, 153

---North Atlantic Pact---155, 157, 170, 201, 203, 204

---on peaceful use of space and celestial bodies (1967)--- 196-98, 378

---elaborated in UNO---380 Treaties, theory of

---Lenin on equal rights agreements---39, 282

---and international customs ---250-52

---as basic source of international law---252

---bilateral---253

Taylor, M.---51

Tashkent Conference---217

Teheran decisions (1943)---273-74

Teller, E---51, 73

Territorial integrity and immunity of every state---99, 105, 110, 262

Territorial inviolability---307, 333-34

Territorial problems and border disputes---99, 377

---Soviet proposals on---100

---in Europe---101-02 Territorial supremacy---307, 320 Threat of use of force---288, 309-

Thomas, N.---50, 51, 179, 368

Thule incident---194

Tourism, international---233-34

Trade and differences in ideology---222-27

Treaties, practices

---Warsaw Treaty---9, 155-58, 201, 205, 207

---U.S.S.R.-Hungary---11

---Brest Treaty (1919)---40

---Bullitt Treaty---37, 40

---Rapallo Treaty---41, 270

---Geneva Convention (1958) ---80, 194

---Geneva Agreements (1954) ---82, 221

---Geneva conventions (1949) ---83

---Hague Convention (1907) ---83

---Geneva Antigas Protocol (1925)---83, 84, 200

---Briand-Kellogg Pact---271,

---multilateral---253

---treaty deals---361, 362

---equal treaties---254

---legally invalid---256

---rejection of---213, 222, 255

---stability of---220 Trade, international

---and ideological struggle--- 222

---U.S.S.R. - U.S.A.---229 - 30, 272-73

---between socialist and newly free states---228

---and peaceful coexistence--- 226

---as factor of peace---227

---Soviet merchant fleet---229 Trade representatives---379 Truman Doctrine---165 Tuganova, O. E---77

Tully, A.---21, 147, 155 Tunkin, G. I.---354 Turkey---10 Turner, G.---54

U

Ultimate outcome of peaceful coexistence and international law---363-72, 381

UNESCO---207-08, 296-97, 342, 378

United Arab Republic---78, 86, 173, 371

U.K. armed forces---289

U.N. Charter---61, 81, 102-04, 122, 159-60, 168, 181, 187, 197, 202, 218, 220 222, 257, 277-83, 285, 289-91, 300-02, 315, 336, 342

U.N. General Assembly Declarations

---on rights and duties of states---98, 104, 114, 160-161, 277, 280-82, 283

---on human rights---104, 122, 132, 133, 137, 284, 366

---on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples---118-19, 285-86, 292

---on non-interference (1965) ---174-75, 291-92

---on Space Law (1963)---196

---on Abolition of Racial Discrimination---293

---on the Prohibition of the

Use of Nuclear Weapons (1961)---92

U.N. General Assembly Resolutions---380

---as source of international law---253-54

---on war propaganda (1947) ---94, 199

---• on disarmament---187-90, 257

---on nuclear non-- proliferation treaty---193

---on non-placing of massive destruction weapons in outer space---194

---on civil and political freedoms---367

---• on space---196

---on limit of state's sovereignty-in space---197-98

---on role of international law (I960)---237-38

---on codification of peaceful coexistence principles---238, 257

U.N. General Assembly resolutions on peaceful coexistence

---283-89, 312

---1236 (XII) 1957, Dec. 14--- 284

---1301 (XIII) 1958, Dec. 10--- 285

---1815 (XVII) 1962, Dec. 18--- 286, 297-98

---1966 (XVIII) 1963, Dec. 16 ---287

---2103 (XX) 1965, Dec. 20--- 312

---2106 (XX) 1965, Dec. 21--- 292

---2181 (XXI) 1966, Dec. 12--- 312

U.N. Organisation

---and international law---249

---legally binding decisions--- 253-54

U.N. principles as peaceful coexistence principles---277-82 U.S.A.

---Lenin on peaceful coexistence with---42

---economic relations with Russia---42

---intervention in Middle East ---76, 78

---end to atomic weapons monopoly---54

---interventions to "protect American lives and property"---78

---acts of aggression against Cuba---79-82

---and policy "from the positions of strength"---86-95

---"world leadership" of---96, 324

---and colonialism---101-02, 111-12

---aid to developing countries ---120-21

---human rights---131-37

---war in Korea---82

---war in Vietnam---7, 8, 10, 67, 82-86, 218

---McCarren Act---132-34

---Smith Act---132

---export of counter-- revolution---146-48

---"Peace Corps"---147

---"diplomacy in depth"---147

---state spy policy---149-54

---Mutual Security Act (1951) ---152-53

---anti-communism---161

---President Taft's "preventive policy"---165

---space arms race---179 80

---and disarmament---177-80, 200

---militarism---177-79

---provocative flights of American nuclear bombeii---19' i95

---aggressive plans of using the Moon for military purposes---195, 196

---bill banning trade with U.S.S.R.---225

---against contacts with U.S.S.R.---231

---and dependent countries--- 20

Ushakov, N. A.---322

Universal Declaration on Human Rights---44, 284

``Universal law"---323, 324

Universally recognised standards of international law---252

Universality of international organisation as principle---311

Uruguay---169

Validity of international law

standards---360-62 Venezuela---147, 166 Verdross, A.---114, 236, 251, 316 Verosta, S.---300 Vietnam---7, 55, 76, 82, 100, 147,

Visscher, Ch.---252 Voting procedure---379 Vyshinsky, A. Y.---265, 266

W

Walker, J.---337 War:

---in Vietnam---8, 61, 74, 85, 134, 218

---before October Revolution 28-30

---as crime---375

---``inevitability'' of---28-31

---nuclear---47, 49, 52, 60

---surprise factor in---49

---preventive---48

---past and future---51-52, 58, 59

---all-out thermonuclear---49, 52

---nuclear ``strike-first'' doctrine---53, 71, 117

---just and unjust---60-61, 100- 01

---and human progress---60

---possibility to avert---60, 63, 64

---and revolution---70, 72

---pre-emptive war doctrine--- 71

---``limited''---73-74

---``local''---75, 76, 86

---``minor''---75, 86

---civil---61, 76, 288

---undeclared---82

---gas---83-85

---as instrument of foreign policy---88

---of liberation---90

---war propaganda, ban of--- 309

Watkinson, H. A.---53 Ways, M.---346, 368 Webb, J.---195

West Germany---19, 156, 204.

214-15, 217, 225 Wetter, G.---23-24 Wheaton, H.---337 McWhinney, E.---23, 235, 236,

295, 298

Whitton, J. B.---335 Wielmann, F---191 Wilk, E.---240 Will of classes and international

law---266, 351, 360, 362 Will of monopoly bourgeoisie---

258, 360, 361

Williams, W.A.---87, 88, 344 Withering of state---360 Woddis, J.---121 Wohlstetter, A.---71 Working class and international

law---362

World government---249, 324, 326-27

``World law"---326

World legislative organ---250

World Federation of U.N. Associations---298-99

World Health Organisation---378

``World people"---325

World state---324, 326

Wright, Q.---77, 154, 158, 365

Yegorov, A. G---368 Yudin, P.---186

Zadorozhny, G. P.---196, 376 Zhukov, G. P.---196 Zischka, A.---347 Zouch, R.---337

REQUEST TO READERS

Progress Publishers would be glad to have your opinion of this book, its translation and design and any suggestions you may have for future publications.

Please send your comments to 21, Zubovsky Boulevard, Moscow, U.S.S.R.