291

p After the socialist community had arisen, the principle of peaceful coexistence became the basis of the policy of all its countries with regard to capitalist states. This common basis makes it possible constantly to carry out joint actions in foreign policy and facilitates the close co-operation of fraternal countries both in foreign policy and in diplomacy. The aim of this co-operation is jointly to create the conditions for building socialism and communism in the fraternal countries, to support the working-class movement in the capitalist world and the struggle of the Asian, African and Latin American peoples for national liberation.

p Joint international socialist action, co- ordination of policy on fundamental issues, which signifies above all the proper combination of national and international interests, joint action on questions of war and peace and against the 292 aggressive intrigues of the United States and other imperialist powers, for the building up of a collective security system in Europe and in Asia, for the complete and final abolition of colonialism in all its forms and manifestations—all this is of inestimable significance for the preservation of peace and international security, the consolidation of the unity of all the progressive and peace- loving forces. The joint efforts of the socialist states more than once helped to eliminate serious postwar crises resulting from the actions of the imperialist circles and endangering world peace.

p Socialist diplomacy must not, however, be reduced to joint action for peace and international co-operation. Another major aspect should be considered—the national distinctions of every socialist country, which are also displayed in its foreign policy and diplomacy.

p Every socialist country also has its specific tasks in foreign policy which it seeks to accomplish relying on the assistance of other fraternal states. These tasks stem from the national interests of the country and objectively do not run counter to the general interests of the socialist community. On the contrary, the successful solution of national foreign-policy problems further strengthens the world socialist system.

p The struggle of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam against US imperialist aggression and for the solution of the Vietnamese people’s national problem, the unification of the country; the national problem of the Korean people, the unification of the country on a democratic basis, whose solution is the cardinal task of the foreign policy and diplomacy of the Korean People’s 293 Democratic Republic; the struggle of the People’s Republic of China for the liberation of age-old Chinese territory, Taiwan—all these problems are not merely of a local nature. Not only the countries which raise them but also all the other socialist countries, all the peace-loving states are vitally interested in their settlement. A just solution of the national problems of the Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean peoples, and the stamping out of the constant source of tension created by the US imperialists would greatly improve the situation not only in the Far East and in Southeast Asia, but throughout the world.

p European socialist states, too, have their specific tasks in foreign policy in that they, for example, show a special interest in building up a European security system and in thwarting the aggression of West German imperialism. That is why the socialist states of Central and Southeast Europe are working hard to solve the problems of European security. Mention should be made of the diplomatic actions undertaken by the governments of Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, the German Democratic Republic and other countries aimed at setting up atom-free zones, at freezing the level of atomic armaments in Central Europe and at convening a conference of European states to discuss and settle questions of the continent’s security.

p European socialist states do not, of course, confine their diplomatic activity to moves on these questions. They take steps to create the necessary conditions for a radical improvement of the situation in Europe. Among them are, for example, the conclusion of a number of important economic and cultural agreements between the countries of 294 Eastcrn and Western Europe and the enlivening of trade between them.

p In this context mention should be made of certain political speculations in the West, where reactionary circles propound the thesis that the sovereignty of socialist states is measured by the degree of their activity in foreign affairs. But, first, that their activity is high is confirmed by the cited examples refuting the fabrications. Second, activity in foreign affairs cannot be regarded as the sole yardstick of state sovereignty. It is not the number of diplomatic steps that attests to the degree of a country’s independence; it lies in the essence and rational nature of the policv pursued, to what extent it conforms to national interests and helps to create the necessary external conditions for the solution of national problems, internal and foreign; in the strengthening of the socialist community as a whole. Lastly, what is important is the extent to which a country’s foreign policy contributes to the accomplishment of the task of all mankind—to preserve peace and prevent another world war.

p As long as the two systems exist and the socialist countries are confronted bv forces of world imperialism that are still considerable, these countries have different possibilities for being active in foreign affairs. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that as long as imperialism, the constant source of aggression and war, exists, the military economic potential of every socialist country is highly important.

p Because of a number of historical, economic, military and political factors the Soviet Union plays a special part in international affairs. This imposes on it special responsibility in the struggle 295 for consolidating the international positions of all the socialist states and compels it constantly to care for the destinies of peace and international security. That the Soviet Union successfully copes with the task entrusted to it by the objective course of events is a practical embodiment of the principles of fraternal solidarity of socialist countries, the principles of socialist internationalism.

p Any step the USSR takes in foreign policy, far from infringing the interests of other fraternal countries, on the contrary, helps to strengthen their positions, consolidates the international weight and prestige of the socialist community as a whole and of each of its members separately. If the USSR takes special interest, for example, in questions of disarmament and prohibition of nuclear tests, does this mean that it “usurps” someone else’s rights? Of course not. The energetic policy of the Soviet Union in the struggle to preserve peace, its firm defence of the international positions of world socialism demonstrate the strength and might of the USSR and other socialist countries.

p Some people in the West would like to regard any step of a socialist country towards improving relations with capitalist states not as an ordinary development in the diplomatic sphere, but almost as a “deviation” from socialism or, to use the expression of Western leaders, as readiness to act as a "bridge between Eastern and Western Europe and between the capitalist and the communist systems”.

p A worthy rebuff to such attempts has been given, in particular, by the Polish Trybuna Ludu in an editorial article entitled: "What Is the Real State of Affairs?”

296

p “Foredoomed are the expectations,” the newspaper states, "that slogans of ’co-operation with the East’ and the mirages of economic advantages will lead to disunity in the socialist camp, that the liquidation of the German Democratic Republic or a change in the frontiers of socialist states in general can be ‘bought’. The object of our foreign trade are goods, and not the national interests of Poland and let no one expect that at the price of a trade transaction with our country it is possible to gain any political concessions.”  [296•1 

p The imperialist circles headed by the United States are again and again trying to "reappraise values”. The collapse of the "positions of strength" policy, failure of the imperialist concepts of "rolling back" communism and “liberating” the peoples of Eastern Europe, the further change in the relationship of world forces in favour of socialism—all this inevitably leads to corrections to the strategy and tactics of international imperialism. When he was US Secretary of Defence, Robert McNamara stated that personally he thought the United States could not achieve victory in a nuclear war, in a strategic war, in the normal meaning of the word “victory”.

p “The policies of both containment and liberation were of necessity rather rigid, whereas this policy of ’peaceful involvement’ leaves considerable freedom of action,” we read in the American Current History.  [296•2  “... As anyone willing to see clearly already knows,” Adlai E. Stevenson, US representative to the United Nations, stated 297 shortly before his death, "the current course of world affairs calls for something more than a ’ policy of containment’. ... I would suggest that we have begun to move beyond the policy of containment; that the central trend of our times is the emergence of what, for lack of a better label, might be called a policy of cease-fire and peaceful change.”  [297•1  The purpose of the policy "of cease-fire and peaceful change" or, to use the terminology of ex-President Lyndon Johnson, of "building East-West bridges" naturally remains the same. This is frankly stated by Washington’s spokesmen. "It is not necessary to think of liberation as the result of some cataclysmic clash of nations; one can begin to think of liberation through change,"  [297•2  Dean Rusk, the then Secretary of State, declared in the Economic Club of Detroit in September 1964. Former US Vice-President Hubert Humphrey spoke in the same vein when he said: "I know that some persons believe that the best way to deal with Communism is simply to hate it or ignore it, hoping that it will go away. But real life is simply not that way.... I am in favour of competition in all possible ways with the Communist world. But I believe, too, in trade and exchange of all kinds when trade and exchange serve our self-interest.”  [297•3 

p Realising that former methods did not justify themselves and that the application of military force against the socialist community as a whole 298 is very risky (although the imperialists have used, and still use, military force against certain countries of the community), imperialism’s strategists are trying to use more “effective” methods of struggle against the socialist countries, methods which, in their opinion, are more suitable to the obtaining situation.

p Both in substance and aim the new manoeuvres in no way differ from all the ideological subversions the Western powers have employed so far against the socialist countries. As for the "external distinction" of the latest ideological subversion, it undoubtedly seems more refined and disguised to the ruling circles of the United States and other imperialist countries. Imperialist diplomacy makes the present manoeuvres under pleasant-sounding slogans of "improving relations" with the Eastern countries, "extending economic ties”, and so on. Western capitals do not conceal their intention to exploit temporary difficulties and differences in relations between countries of the world socialist system and in the international communist movement in order to sow mistrust among them.

p The foes of socialism circulate the theory that "ideological tolerance is inherent in democratic society" (meaning the bourgeois world), but is absent in the socialist community. From this they draw the conclusion that it is impossible to eliminate "internal differences" in the communist world. Proceeding from this conclusion, they formulate their current political principles as regards relations with socialist countries. "The West can encourage a certain degree of national independence within the Communist world (i.e., spread mistrust among socialist countries—S/i. S.} through limited programs of aid and other forms of 299 cooperation"  [299•1  with some East European countries— this is what J. William Fulbright advises Western ruling circles in his book Prospects for the "West.

p The ruling circles of the United States and their Western allies are openly trying to make an impact on developments in the world socialist system, to influence the position of the USSR and other fraternal countries on major international issues. The imperialists are seeking to combine this new ideological and political subversion with acts of aggression and military ventures against socialist countries.

p Socialist states maintain extensive diplomatic relations with most countries in the world.  [299•2  The economic and political relations of these states with non-socialist countries shape and develop differently. The conditions in which the relations are maintained differ in each case and the degree of interest of the sides is not the same. But in all cases socialist states arrange their relations with capitalist countries on the basis of the principles of peaceful coexistence. Each socialist country develops its economic, political and cultural relations with Western countries only on the basis of 300 complete equality, observance of sovereignty and mutual non-interference in internal affairs.

p Since one of the parties is a socialist state, the various machinations abounding in the practices of bourgeois diplomacy must be ruled out in these relations. It is not in the interest of a socialist country to utilise relations with capitalist countries to the detriment of other fraternal states. On the contrary, the interests of all socialist states demand that the international positions of each of them be strengthened to the utmost, that their international prestige grow constantly. A weakening in the position of any one of them in foreign policy, just as the slightest violation of their unity, inevitably reduces the efficacy of the efforts of all these countries in foreign affairs. Hence the need for indefatigable joint struggle against all attempts of the imperialist powers to attack the foreign-policy interests of any socialist country.

p The Soviet Union and other socialist countries tirelessly worked for the restoration of the legitimate rights of the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations and against the reactionary theory of "two Chinas”, and constantly defending the interests of the German Democratic Republic, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Korean People’s Democratic Republic in the United Nations, where these countries are unrepresented, and in other international organisations.

p Socialist countries are vigorously campaigning in the United Nations for peace and international security, for solution of the pressing problems of our time.

p The world has no organisation more representative than the United Nations. Today 127 states 301 are members of the United Nations by comparison with the 51 when the UN was founded. This fact alone demonstrates the peoples’ desire to turn the United Nations into a truly universal organisation for the maintenance of peace and international security.

p The path of the United Nations, founded after the Second World War, one of the greatest tragedies in mankind’s history, is difficult and at times torturous. It is impossible to ignore the fact that the basic changes in the world during the postwar period affected, despite the resistance of the imperialist powers, both the alignment of political forces and the general situation in the United Nations. Its destinies and prospects have been linked with such historic events as the collapse of the colonial system which has directly influenced UN membership. It was stressed in the political Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the 23rd Party Congress that "the admittance of many newly-free countries to UN membership has substantially changed the situation in that organisation, and the change has not been in favour of the imperialists. In the UN the Soviet Union undeviatingly strives to facilitate the unity of countries opposing aggression and thereby enhances the role played by the UN in the struggle for universal peace and the independence of the peoples".  [301•1 

p Being a worldwide forum, the United Nations naturally must keep in step with the times in order that the shifts in the Organisation fully meet the progressive processes underway in our constantly changing world. So far this has not 302 been the case. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that a number of actions undertaken within the framework of the United Nations, specifically the adoption of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, has played a positive part.

p When the United Nations was founded, hardly any of the realistically-minded political leaders expected that its establishment would eliminate contradictions arising between states, that fundamental differences in the social nature of states and the consequent differences in the aims and methods of their policies, would be overcome. At the same time, it was beyond doubt that a universal organisation for the maintenance of peace and security is capable of playing a useful part in world affairs if it, responding to the demand of the nations, would adhere to the principles of equality, respect for state sovereignty and free choice of ways of social development, recorded in the Charter.

p If the United Nations, notwithstanding the substantial resources and possibilities it possesses, has not become a genuine centre of co-ordinated action in the interests of peace, international security and defence of human rights, the reasons are well known. The imperialist powers, the United States first and foremost, have exerted every effort to turn the United Nations into their obedient tool. Washington’s actions have more than once caused serious political crises in the United Nations; such, for example, as the "financial crisis" artificially created by the USA in 1964, which actually paralysed the 19th session of the General Assembly. The United States tried to hold the Soviet Union responsible for the 303 deficit in the UN budget resulting from expenditure on the so-called UN operations in the Congo and in the Middle East, in other words, for the interventionist actions of the imperialist powers in these areas, which were opposed by the USSR and other peace-loving states.

p Western diplomacy has tried and is trying to impose on the United Nations the order inherent in the bourgeois world, is seeking to introduce in it the worst methods of bourgeois parliamentarism which would turn it and its agencies into worthless debating societies. This is particularly felt during the sessions of the General Assembly, and is an element of the politics pursued by the United States and some other countries vis-a-vis the UN.

p Lenin pointed out: "Take any parliamentary country, from America to Switzerland, from France to Britain, Norway and so forth—in these countries the real business of ‘state’ is performed behind the scenes and is carried on by the departments, chancelleries and General Staffs. Parliament is given up to talk for the special purpose of fooling the ’common people’.”  [303•1  This apt description comes to mind when one analyses the speeches of representatives of certain countries.

p There is no denying, of course, the significance of business-like discussions which develop in the United Nations on important international issues. Such discussions (especially during periods of crisis) have their positive side, even if they do not lead to actual decisions; they make it easier to rally world opinion against the forces of war and reaction and to expose these forces.

p The United Nations has not turned into an 304 organisation of the type of a bourgeois parliament, it has its own face, and credit for this must go above all to the diplomacy of the socialist countries and other peace-loving states, which defend the principles of the UN Charter and uphold progressive, democratic procedures and methods in it. By their peace-loving actions in the United Nations the Soviet Union and other socialist countries help mobilise the peoples to fight against the plans of the imperialist states, the USA especially, designed to paralyse the UN or turn it into a tool of their wishes.

p Official US representatives increasingly resort to advertising methods in the case of big political issues. This is symptomatic of the present situation in the United Nations; unable any longer to impose their will on the organisation with the help of the "voting machine”, US leaders utilise the UN rostrum to perorate on every convenient occasion about their striving for peace, equality and freedom of the peoples. One might justifiably conclude that the purpose of such propaganda artifices is to divert attention from US acts of aggression in different parts of the world, from its reckless ventures in foreign policy.

p More than half of all UN members are young Afro-Asian states, who naturally place special hopes in the Organisation. Their representatives raise many questions pertaining to the elimination of economic backwardness, this grave legacy of colonialism. There is no doubt that the UN could render effective economic and technical assistance to the peoples who have taken the road of independent development, and that something is being done in this respect. But for this assistance to be substantial its main share should be 305 contributed by those who for centuries usurped the lion’s share of the wealth of the Eastern peoples and are responsible for their present economic situation. This is how the question is posed by these countries, and this is justified from every angle: from the viewpoint of compensation (at least partial) for the damage caused, and from the viewpoint of moral and political responsibility.

p But the Western representatives will not see it that way. They prefer to engage at General Assembly sessions and committee meetings in endless general discussions on a question that is of vital importance for the developing countries and is not terribly intricate. Western diplomacy utilises an examination of aid problems for demagogic purposes. It tries to submerge in endless debate solution of these questions and of burning issues of war and peace for which purpose the United Nations was founded.

p In contrast to this, the initiative of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries in the UN is always dictated by vital requirements, by deep concern for the destinies of peace and social progress. It is based on a scientific analysis of processes underway in the world and also of the main trends of the imperialist powers’ foreign policy at a particular stage in international relations.

p Adhering to their peace-loving course, the socialist countries submit urgent problems for discussion to the General Assembly. Their representatives focus attention on issues, on whose settlement depend the stamping out of seats of tension and the strengthening of international co-operation. They extensively utilise the UN and its rostrum for exposing and frustrating the 306 aggressive plans of the imperialist powers, for mobilising world opinion to work for these aims.

p Energetic activity in the United Nations holds an important place in the foreign policy of socialist countries. Fraternal mutual support internationally, and defence of the interests of one another in foreign affairs are a characteristic feature of the policy and diplomacy of socialist countries. Difficulties and differences naturally can exist, and do exist, in interpreting specific international issues. There are also divergences in opinion associated with countries’ historical distinctions, the specifics of a particular stage of their development. These differences stem from the historical situation in each country and its national distinctions. But such distinctions, far from precluding, in fact presuppose the solution of common problems on the basis of the principles of socialist internationalism.

p The Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence which determines the socialist policy towards capitalist states helps strengthen co-operation of the fraternal countries in foreign policy. Today, attempts to deviate from this position exacerbate the situation in the world, and, moreover, weaken the international positions of the socialist community and the anti-imperialist front.

p At the same time, a correct interpretation of the principle of peaceful coexistence plays a big part both for the scientific elaboration of problems of foreign policy and the diplomatic practices of socialist states. Unfortunately, in this matter there have been fallacious statements in Soviet literature in the recent past in which concepts were seriously misinterpreted. Particularly widespread were the attempts to reduce all Soviet foreign policy 307 essentially to this principle alone. It was asserted, for example, that peaceful coexistence was the general line of Soviet foreign policy. Such an interpretation ran counter to the theoretical principles and practices of Soviet foreign policy and also to the definition of the main purpose of the activity of the Soviet state given in the Party Programme.

p “The CPSU considers that the chief aim of its foreign-policy activity is to provide peaceful conditions for the building of a communist society in the USSR and developing the world socialist system, and together with the other peace-loving peoples to deliver mankind from a world war of extermination,” it is pointed out in the Programme of the CPSU.  [307•1  The foreign policy of the USSR was defined as follows by the 23rd Party Congress: "The foreign policy of the Soviet Union, together with that of other socialist countries, is aimed at securing favourable international conditions for the building of socialism and communism; strengthening the unity and cohesion, the friendship and fraternity of the socialist countries; supporting the national liberation movements and maintaining all-round cooperation with the young developing countries; upholding consistently the principle of the peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems, firmly repelling the aggressive forces of imperialism and delivering mankind from the threat of a new world war.”  [307•2 

p The practical embodiment of the general course of Soviet foreign policy in any situation is dictated 308 not by chance circumstances, not by someone’s “good” or “ill” will, it is a result of a scientific, Marxist-Leninist analysis of the situation, a thorough study of the causes which gave rise to it, the tendencies and prospects for development.

p As for the definition of peaceful coexistence as the general line of Soviet foreign policy, it does not reflect the diversity of the activities of the CPSU and the Soviet Government in foreign policy. Peaceful coexistence is the basic principle of interstate relations with countries of the capitalist system. It is only one, indisputably important, but only one of the trends in Soviet foreign policy.

p Soviet foreign policy also has other major aspects: relations with fraternal socialist countries, relations with young Afro-Asian states, many of which have taken or are taking the non-capitalist path of development, the attitude to the revolutionary movement in other countries. The ignoring of any of these aspects of Soviet foreign policy can lead to serious mistakes.

p When we speak of the policy of peaceful coexistence, one must bear in mind that the development of peaceful, good-neighbourly relations between the countries of the two systems depends not only, and not so much, on the socialist countries. It depends to a no lesser extent on the policy of the capitalist countries, on the political processes underway in each capitalist country and in the Western world as a whole. Therefore it is very important to assess the policy of these countries in a strictly differentiated way, taking into account all the specific circumstances. One should consider what policy the given country applies towards socialist states at a given stage. 309 Experience shows that a stereotyped approach to Soviet relations with other countries is harmful in general and especially in regard to capitalist states. The steps of the Soviet Government after the Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee of the CPSU held in October 1964, put an end to relapses of such an approach.

p The peace-loving forces in all countries are interested in creating a situation where the principles of peaceful coexistence would become universal and wholly determine relations between all socialist countries, on the one hand, and all capitalist countries on the other. But possibilities should be distinguished from reality. One must consider not only the striving and policy of the socialist countries but also political trends. In the scientific elaboration of foreign policy, one must act on the principle that peaceful coexistence is a real category and is applicable only to the sphere of relations between states of the two systems. The policy of peaceful coexistence must be kept on terra firma and not turned into an amorphous, abstract concept, into a subject of scholastic arguments. This is a real category which has its own definite sphere of action. The 23rd Congress of the CPSU resolutely stressed that "the principle of peaceful coexistence does not apply to relations between oppressors and oppressed, between colonialists and the victims of colonial oppression”.  [309•1 

p Many Western leaders are blinded by class hatred for socialism and fear of it, they are incapable of understanding the meaning of the great revolutionary changes in the world. They 310 cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that socialism, having emerged beyond the bounds of one country, has become a world system and is turning into a decisive factor of world development. They refuse to understand that the world has entered a stage marked by the accelerated disintegration of capitalism and the break-up of colonialism. Imperialism has not only lost its monopoly in international relations, it is now incapable of fully running affairs even in the part of the world where capitalist relations still exist. The attempts of the Western ruling classes to pursue the old policy of dictation in the new historical conditions, as though nothing has changed, are unwise. Hence the crisis in the policy of the imperialist states, the blind alley in which they find themselves in foreign affairs.

p All this is also confirmed by the situation in the imperialist camp. Heightened war preparations, the arms race and the cold war hysteria, on the one hand, and the mortal danger of a thermonuclear war which the ruling circles of the United States and other imperialist powers have to reckon with, on the other—all this creates an impasse for the leaders of the imperialist bloc. In his speech at the 16th Session of the UN General Assembly the late President Kennedy had to admit that an unconditional war could no longer lead to unconditional victory. It could no longer serve as a means of resolving disputes.

p Many capitalist leaders admit that this crisis is the result of the disparity between the means and the aims of Western policy. The aims were set at a time, according to Iqbal Singh, well-known Indian publicist, when the Western bloc was much stronger. Yet even then it could not 311 measure up to the task of gaining supremacy over the rest of the world, which is the goal of the Western alliance. Some public circles in Western countries are beginning to realise that the relationship of forces is changing, but there is no corresponding change in the aims and tasks.

p The peoples of the world are learning from experience that the policy of peaceful coexistence pursued by the countries of the socialist community meets the interests of all nations, including the Western powers, that it was thanks to this policy that the world has been saved more than once from a devastating thermonuclear war. This has become possible because the aggressive policy of the imperialist powers is resisted by the greater forces of peace and socialism. The fight by the socialist countries and all the peace-loving forces against preparation for another world war has been, and remains, the main content of contemporary world politics. The socialist system has become the natural centre of attraction for all peace-loving forces.

p Pursuance of the policy of peaceful coexistence is creating the prerequisites for normalising the international situation, is facilitating the development of relations between states on the basis of consideration for mutual interests and the settlement of outstanding problems through negotiation.

p The Soviet Union has always championed the maintenance of normal relations with all countries and the settlement of international issues through negotiation, and not war.

p This fundamental principle of Soviet foreign policy was strikingly displayed at the Tashkent meeting of government heads of India and Pakistan (January 1966), during which the Soviet 312 Government for the first time in history acted as mediator and, moreover, was instrumental in attaining a peaceful settlement of the PakistaniIndian dispute which had threatened to become a serious danger to peace.

p Growth of the forces which stand for the preservation of peace and the consolidation of the security of the peoples is a determining feature of the present world situation. In contrast to prewar situations in the past, the alarming development of events today, caused primarily by the increasingly aggressive policy of the principal imperialist power, is not irreversible. In this situation, socialist foreign policy, socialist diplomacy is scoring substantial successes in the struggle for peace and against the forces of aggression and imperialist reaction. The record of international affairs shows that whenever there is progress in solving urgent problems, whenever international co-operation is arranged and the sphere of operation of the peaceful coexistence principle is extended, whenever the aggressive forces are compelled to retreat and the peaceloving forces are registering successes—in all these instances the initiative is shown by the Soviet Union, other socialist countries and all peace- loving states, by their activity and efficacious efforts.

p Socialist states, relying on their mighty economic, military and technical potential, are making a tremendous contribution to world peace and preventing another world war. "The joint proposals and political actions of socialist states,” the 24th CPSU Congress pointed out in its Resolution, "are exerting a positive influence on the development of the entire international situation. Many 313 plans of the imperialist aggressors have been frustrated by the vigorous resistance of socialist states.”

p Socialist states, together with the peace-loving forces in other countries, are working to normalise the world climate, are foiling the aggressive plans of the imperialists and isolating the reactionary forces. The Leninist policy of peace and peaceful coexistence, firmly and consistently pursued by the Soviet Union and other fraternal countries, is playing the determining part in the effort to preserve world peace and normalise the situation in different regions of the world.

p Without the joint and consistent efforts of socialist countries it would have hardly been possible to achieve, say, the conclusion of international agreements like the treaties on the ban of nuclear weapon tests in three media, the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, the peaceful use of outer space, and on the prohibition of the use of the sea and ocean bed for military purposes. All this is not a result of a Soviet-American “deal”, as some falsifiers claim. The drafting and signing of each of these treaties demanded the exertion of immense effort by socialist diplomacy and comprised a whole stage in the history of international relations and the diplomatic struggle of the two world systems in the United Nations and outside of it.

p Of considerable importance is the fact that socialist countries step by step are “accustoming”, if we may put it that way, world opinion, and first of all Western diplomacy, to the practice of preparing and signing, together with socialist countries, important international documents and, what is most significant, to the idea that such 314 treaties and agreements are essential. Socialist states are imposing their initiative on Western countries; by concerted and energetic actions they are compelling their capitalist partners in negotiations to agree to the solution of various problems, to compromises which in no way fit into the course of the Western powers, but are a reflection of their being forced to take into account the real state of affairs.

p That problems of European security hold a special place in the policy of socialist countries is natural. The political climate in the world largely depends on the situation and developments in the European continent.

p “Conservative state wisdom”, which twice in our century has turned Europe into the main arena of world wars unleashed by German imperialism, is impelling the self-same sinister forces to make another attempt, this time, most likely, on a nuclear level. One shudders to think what this might spell for a continent with the highest population density in the world, a highly developed industry, immense cultural treasures and, above all, with a highly organised proletariat, what this might mean for the nations of the entire world, what this, especially, might mean from the viewpoint of mankind’s further progress and the prospects of the world revolutionary process. Europe has always played an important part in the destinies of mankind, in the development of civilisation, and is the homeland of socialism. The course of all international development, therefore, largely depends on the situation in Europe.

p Throughout the postwar years the safeguarding of European security has been one of the most burning and paramount issues. The socialist states 315 of Europe have made a notable contribution to the exploration of ways for its solution.

p What complicates the situation in Europe is not only that states of two different socio- economic systems coexist here but also that two powerful military and political blocs confront each other in this continent. The situation is further entangled by the military presence in Europe of the United States, the leading power of the capitalist world, which in its foreign policy steadily furnishes fresh proof of imperialism’s unchanging, reactionary aggressive nature. The United States pursues definite objectives in Europe: to preserve supremacy over its West European allies and to save at all costs its single-handed leadership in the "Atlantic community”.

p The USSR and other fraternal countries are jointly discussing European security problems, are charting a common course based on the Leninist doctrine of peaceful coexistence and are consistently adhering to it. The policy of socialist countries in European affairs and their co-ordinated actions are designed to safeguard effective security in this continent, to bring about a turn from the policy of controntation to mutual understanding and co-operation between all European states.

p To sum up, here are some results of the persistent efforts of these states to safeguard European security and arrange all-European co-operation. First, a steadily increasing tendency towards such co-operation has definitely emerged in Europe. Second, the striving of West European countries to get rid of American dictation has substantially grown. Third, disintegration of the system of aggressive blocs created by US imperialism has noticeably increased. Fourth, the 316 most aggressive circles of Europe, the West German militarists and revanchists are clearly and increasingly being isolated.

p All these processes are based on the laws of capitalism at its last, imperialist stage of development. But they all are taking place under the impact of the socialist foreign policy which is guided by Lenin’s injunctions on utilising contradictions in the capitalist world.

p Among the actions of socialist foreign policy designed to safeguard European security an important place is held by the constructive, businesslike programme proclaimed by the Political Consultative Committee of Warsaw Treaty member states at its meeting held in Bucharest on July 4-6, 1966, in the Declaration on Safeguarding Peace and Security in Europe. A thorough scientific analysis of the situation, the balance of power, possibilities and prospects makes feasible the measures outlined in this truly historic document of socialist foreign policy. These measures meet the most profound needs of current development which are common for all European peoples.

p The main prerequisites for safeguarding security in Europe, it is pointed out in the Declaration, are the unconditional recognition of the inviolability of the existing frontiers, including the Oder-Neisse line and the boundary between the two German states and also prevention of the access of West Germany to nuclear weapons in any form. Exploration of a German peaceful settlement, on the basis of recognising the existence of two German states, would be of considerable importance.

p The Conference of European Communist and Workers’ Parties, held in Karlovy Vary on April 317 24-26, 1967, offered another striking confirmation of the concern of the progressive forces for safeguarding European security. The statement adopted at the Conference pointed out that the constructive proposals on the question of consolidating peace and security in Europe, outlined by the socialist countries in the Bucharest Declaration of Warsaw Treaty member states and also the proposals that Communist Parties of capitalist countries put forward at their meetings and in their decisions, represent a realistic basis for strengthening peace and security in Europe. As a result of a free and extensive discussion and fraternal co-operation in the spirit of internationalism, the participants in the Karlovy Vary Conference examined European problems and the measures needed for safeguarding security in Europe.

p The programme of action elaborated by the Conference opened up to Europe a prospect of veering away from a division of the continent into confronting military blocs to all-European cooperation and peace. All states, as it is pointed out in the statement of the Conference, should accept the realities of the European situation. This implies recognition of the existing frontiers in Europe, recognition of the existence of two sovereign equal German states, the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany, the ruling out of any access by the Bundeswehr to nuclear weapons, recognition of the invalidity of the Munich agreement from the moment it was concluded. The Communists of Europe proposed measures capable of promoting peaceful relations between all European powers, such as the conclusion of a treaty renouncing the use of force; 318 normalisation of relations between all states and the German Democratic Republic and also between the two German states; consistent defence and development of democracy in the Federal Republic of Germany, which implies every support to the struggle by its progressive forces for the outlawing of neo-nazi organisations and any revanchist propaganda, annulment of emergency legislation, and freedom of activity for democratic and peace-loving forces.

p The Conference stressed the importance of the unity and solidarity of the Communist and Workers’ Parties of Europe and the entire world for effective struggle to safeguard European security. It appealed to all people of good will to take part in this struggle. "The European peoples are themselves able to settle questions of peace and security of their continent,” it was stressed in the conference statement. "Let them take the destinies of Europe into their own hands!”

p Questions pertaining to the situation in Europe are constantly examined at meetings of Warsaw Treaty countries, and a common stand on them is elaborated to meet the security interests of the European states. It is generally known what an important part in spreading the idea of consolidating security and normalising the climate in Europe has been played by the documents adopted at the conferences of Warsaw Treaty states held in Bucharest in 1969 and in Berlin in 1970 and at meetings of the Foreign Ministers of these states in Prague and Budapest in 1969 and 1970. These documents outlined a common programme of action and concrete measures for solving these problems, including the convocation of an allEuropean conference, and they reaffirmed the 319 demand for the inviolability of the state frontiers existing in Europe.

p It was pointed out in the Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the 24th Congress that the joint efforts of socialist states prevented the implementation of NATO plans for giving the West German militarists access to nuclear weapons, brought about substantial progress in accomplishing such an important task in stabilising the situation in Europe as the strengthening of the international positions of the German Democratic Republic and helped to torpedo the so-called Halstein doctrine.

p The efforts to arrange all-European co- operation exerted by socialist states and the Communists of countries in both the Eastern and Western part of the continent are especially valuable because these are practical steps and each of these states actually strives to create a model of peaceful coexistence of European countries with different social systems.

p Although the biggest forces of international imperialism are concentrated in Europe, the socialist countries and the Communist and Workers’ Parties increasingly influence the situation, striving for its normalisation. Sucli is the natural result of unity and solidarity, of purposeful, coordinated action. Whether these are joint actions or steps in foreign policy of individual socialist countries they meet the interests of each country and the entire socialist community, the interests of all the peoples and the task of strengthening world peace. These interests are also served by measures of socialist countries to reinforce their defence potential which is needed in a situation when the imperialist circles are trying to shore up their 320 military political blocs and stepping up their aggressive policy.

The policy of peaceful coexistence by no means signifies a weakening of the defence potential, “self-disarmament” of the socialist countries in the face of the unceasing military provocations of the imperialist powers. It is clear that if the aggressive forces of international imperialism continue the arms race and war preparations the socialist countries will have to build up a military potential exceeding that of the imperialist powers both quantitatively and qualitatively.