PROBLEMS OF COMMON SECURITY
[1] Scientific Research Council
on Peace and Disarmament
Soviet Peace Fund
General editor and author of the Preface V. S. SHAPOSHNIKOV
Progress Publishers
Moscow
Translated from the Russian Designed by Vadim Kuleshov
AKTyAJIbHHE nPOEJIEMbl
BE3OnACHOCTH H
Ha
Editorial board:
V. S. Shaposhnikov (general editor),
G. A. Arbatov, O. N. Bykov, G. A. Zhukov, V. P. Maslin,
G. I. Morosov (deputy general editor), V. F. Petrovsky,
E. M. Primakov, V. K. Sobakin, V. M. Falin,
Yu. E. Fyodorov (deputy general editor), O. S. Kharkhardin
Secretariat:
0. G. Zaitseva
(head secretary),
1. V. Bogoslovskaya, A. Y. Sharova
0801000000---448 014(01)---84 6e
[4]CONTENTS
Preface. V. S. Shaposhnikov............. 7
Part One. AVERTING A NUCLEAR WORLD WAR AND THE QUESTION OF DISARMAMENT ~
Chapter 1. Nuclear War---A Menace to Life on Earth. V. S.
Emelyanov................. 17
Chapter 2. The No-First-Use of Nuclear Weapons Problem.
V. F. Petrovsky............... 31
Chapter 3. Limitation and Reduction of Strategic Arms. G. A.
Arbatov .................. 48
Chapter 4. Nuclear-Free Zones. A. N. Kalyadin ..... 66
Chapter 5. Control and Disarmament. S. B. Batsanov ... 81
Chapter 6. The Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. O. A.
Reutov ................... 102
Chapter 7. Outlaw Neutron Weapons. L. A. Ilyin .... 113
Chapter 8. The Struggle Against American Plans to Militarise
Space. G. A. Zhukov.............. 123
Chapter 9. Limitation of the Arms Trade. A. V. Kosijrev . . 140
Chapter 10. The Banning of New Types of Weapons of Mass
Destruction. A. M. Vavilov......... 157
Chapter 11. Confidence-Building Measures and International
Stability. O. N. Bykov ........... 170
Part Two. REGIONAL SECURITY PROBLEMS
Chapter 12. European Security: The Problems of the 1980s.
D. M. Proektor .............. 187
Chapter 13. The Middle East Conflict: a Threat to Universal
Peace. 7. P. Belayev . ........... 209
Chapter 14. Peace Zone in the Indian Ocean. Yu. Nllcolayev 224
Parl Three. THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT AND THE FIGHT AGAINST MILITARISM
Chapter 15. The Contemporary Anti-War Movement. V. S.
Shaposhnikov................ 247
Chapter 16. Myth of the Soviet Military Threat. V. V. Zhurkin 265
Chapter 17. Crimes Against Peace and Humanity. 7. 7. Karpets 277
Chapter 18. Human Rights and Problems of Peace. A. Ya.
Sukharev .................. 295
Chapter 19. War Propaganda Is a Threat to Peace. G. 7.
Morosov...................... 315
Chapter 20, Education and Disarmament. /, V, Ivanyan , . 333
5Part Four. THE SOCIAL-ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE ARMS RACE AND DISARMAMENT
Chapter 21. Nuclear Energy Must Serve the Cause of Peace.
A. M. Petrosyants ............. 351
Chapter 22. Disarmament, Development and the New International Order. /. D. Ivanov ........ 364
Chapter 23. Economic Consequences of the Arms Race. R. A.
Faramasyan ................ 382
Chapter 24. Disarmament and Social Problems. N. P. Ivanov 399
Chapter 25. Nature and International Security. Yu. E,
Fyodorov................... 416
Chapter 26. International Trade and Peace. A. P. Ognev . . 439
[6] __ALPHA_LVL1__ PREFACEThe group of authors of this study, part of a programme of the Moscow-based Scientific Research Council on Peace and Disarmament, set itself the objective of examining various aspects of international security and disarmament, and showing how they are related to each other. They devoted themselves mainly to the question of averting a world nuclear war whose threat is becoming more and more serious.
The early half of the 1980s is going down in history as a period of highly dangerous international developments. In a bid to achieve its chimerical plans of world supremacy, to halt and reverse the historically conditioned process of the social renewal of humanity, to suppress capitalism's immanent contradictions and antagonisms, imperialist reaction headed by the ruling element of the USA is escalating the military confrontation and power struggle against the community of socialist countries. The White House has branded the Soviet Union a "focus of evil" and has officially proclaimed destruction of socialism as a social system the goal of US foreign and military policy.
``In recent years," Konstantin Chernenko, General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, has pointed out, "the more aggressive of the US imperialists have grown more active, pursuing a policy of undisguised militarism reaching out for world supremacy, resisting progress, and spurning the rights and freedom of nations. The world has seen all too many examples of how this policy works in practice.''^^1^^
The warlike elements in the West think that to achieve their aims they must first of all do away with the military equilibrium between the USSR and the USA, between the Warsaw Treaty Organisation and NATO, and to secure strategic superiority over the socialist community. This is why imperialism is continuously accelerating the arms race. This is why new types and systems of offensive strategic arms are being developed and deployed, including the MX and Midgetman ICBMs, atom-powered submarines with Trident-2 missiles, strategic B-1B and Stealth bombers, and long-range sea, land and air based cruise missiles. Preparations are in full gear to deploy attack weaponry in outer space. Crash development is underway of an allembracing ABM system. And all these efforts are centred on the one aim of enabling the USA to deliver the first, pre-emptive strike against the Soviet Union.
Washington is pinning special hopes on the deployment of new highly accurate US medium-range Pershing-2 and cruise missiles in _-_-_
^^1^^ Pravda, 3 March 1984.
7 Westem Europe. The former take only a few minutes to reach their target, the latter are undetectable as they approach it. Both are therefore a classic first-strike weapon designed to eliminate the assumed enemy's launchers, communication systems, command and control posts, etc. The US ruling element and NATO leaders hope that the deployment of these missiles in Western Europe will tilt the balance of strength in their favour not only on the European continent but also globally for the 572 new US medium-range missiles are, in effect, strategic weapons in relation to the Soviet Union. Their warheads strike targets in a large part of the USSR, while the Soviet missiles of the same class known in the West as SS-20s, cannot reach the territory of the United States. "Regrettably, the USA has made its participation in the relevant talks a propaganda tool to cover up the arms race and its cold war policy", has stressed Konstantin Ghernenko, General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. "We have never taken part in that sort of game, and never will. The deployment of US missiles in Europe has raised obstacles to negotiations on ' Euromissiles' and, indeed, on strategic nuclear weapons. Removal of these obstacles (which would also eliminate the need for Soviet countermeasures) would clear the way for a mutually acceptable accord."^^1^^The development and deployment of new weapons systems designed to secure US military superiority goes hand in hand with far-- reaching and dangerous modifications in the politico-military philosophy of the US ruling element. The present-day US military doctrine reposes on the idea that a nuclear war is winnable and that a nuclear first strike against strategic enemy targets is essential. Various plans and scenarios are being devised for ``limited'' and ``all-out'', short and protracted nuclear wars. The US leadership would like to ``limit'' a nuclear war against the Soviet Union to the European continent or at least maximally weaken the counter-strike against the United States proper.
In the drive to win military superiority, the US has stationed many hundred_s of nuclear delivery vehicles all round the frontiers of the Soviet Union. And Washington intends to increase their number many times over. Among other things, it is planning to deploy some 12,000 long-range cruise missiles. And all the time, Washington is drumming into the heads of the public in the West that nuclear war is a wholly thinkable and admissible means of settling inter-state and class contradictions.
Imperialism's policy of military confrontation with the socialist community is tied in with its line of armed struggle against the fighters for national liberation and social progress in Asia, Africa and Latin America. In a bid to retain or recover its former positions of imperialist domination, Washington is escalating its military presence in the Middle East, the Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf, the Caribbean, and other regions. The rapid deployment force is being expanded. The system of army, naval and air bases, the material foundation for the US Army's crack interventionist units, is being built up. The intervention in Lebanon and the overthrow of the government of Grenada by US paratroopers show that the US leadership is ready to interfere in force in the internal affairs of independent states and peoples in the interest of monopoly capital, flouting international law and public opinion.
_-_-_^^1^^ PrcivAa, 3 March 1984.
8Washington wants its allies to be involved in these efforts. Plans are afoot to extend NATO's zone of operations in a southerly direction. The Japanese government is assuming ever greater commitments of military control over shipping lanes in the Pacific. Steps are being taken to tighten military and military-economic ties between the main centres of imperialism and certain pro-imperialist governments in Asia, Africa and Latin America. To destabilise any progressive regimes there and buttress imperialism's positions in the developing countries, imperialist elements incite conflicts, crises, and local wars. These are all concrete aspects of imperialism's militarist, aggressive foreign policy fraught with the threat of nuclear disaster and pushing the human family closer and closer to the edge of the abyss.
Imperialism also expects that by spurring the arms race and giving it ever new dimensions it will wear out the countries of the socialist community economically and disrupt the Soviet economy.
In the drive to tilt the balance of strength in its favour at any cost, the US leadership has set its sights on torpedoing or emasculating arms control negotiations by setting demands which it knows in advance are unacceptable to the USSR. In the talks on limiting nuclear arms in Europe, for example, the American proposals provided, in effect, for a unilateral disarmament of the Soviet Union.
In the difficult and tense international setting that has shaped in the early half of the 1980s, the USSR is showing a historically responsible approach to world events. In face of the abrupt aggravation of the struggle between the two opposite socio-economic systems, the Soviet people is redoubling its efforts for peace and for the elimination of the nuclear threat. Soviet foreign policy reposes on Lenin's idea that peace is a necessary condition for the preservation of human civilisation, for the survival of life, and for social progress. The historical contention between the two opposite socio-economic systems cannot be resolved by a military collision. That collision would result in the nuclear destruction of the human race. This has been shown most conclusively in the documents of the Soviet Communist Party and the articles and speeches of Soviet Party leaders and statesmen. Faithful to its fundamental policy of safeguarding peace, the Soviet Union has carried forward a coherent system of initiatives and proposals that would, if only put into effect, help to gradually resolve the most acute of problems, that of averting a nuclear disaster.
The Soviet Union has pledged unilaterally not to use nuclear weapons first. It has addressed all nuclear powers, first of all the United States, with the proposal for freezing nuclear weapons in terms of quantity and quality, that is, halting the quantitative build-up of all components of nuclear arms, refraining from the deployment of new types and classes of nuclear arms, setting a moratorium on the testing of nuclear warheads and their delivery vehicles, and terminating manufacture of fissionable material for nuclear warheads. This could be the first but highly effective and significant step towards reducing and, ultimately, wholly eliminating nuclear weapons.
The Soviet Union has suggested a concrete programme for a substantial reduction---by more than a quarter---of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles, leading to the elimination from Soviet, and US arsenals of more than a thousand such weapons. The USSR has always favoured a radical solution of the problem of nuclear arms in Europe, eager to turn that continent into a zone completely free of medium-range and tactical nuclear weapons.
9The Soviet Union is offering to halt manufacture of nuclear weapons worldwide, and thereupon to destroy their stockpiles. It has proposed a programme of phased nuclear disarmament.
It is most important to relieve mankind of the menace that chemical weapons would one day be put to use. The Soviet Union is calling for the complete and universal prohibition of the use of this type of mass annihilation weapons, for banning their development and manufacture, and for destroying their stockpiles.
The Soviet Union has made some extremely important proposals as regards the prevention of the militarisation of space. The Soviet Union is aware that in the difficult present-day world divided into opposite social systems and abounding in social, economic and political contradictions, and in the setting of distrust that has built up over many years, the only realistic basis for resolving these problems is to negotiate on the principle of equality and equal security. There can be no other basis because neither side will consent, nor can it consent, to prejudicing its security.
The Soviet Union's sincere striving to curb the arms race, to negotiate, to find political solutions for problems that bedevil inter-state relations, must not be taken as a sign of weakness. The people of the USSR, who paid a toll of 20 million lives for their victory over the brown plague of Nazism, simply know the value of peace. The USSR has always displayed the maximum flexibility and goodwill to secure progress, to achieve constructive and mutually acceptable solutions to the various problems related to the curbing of the arms race. But its flexibility has limits. It will never allow its security or the security of its allies to be jeopardised. The Soviet Union will not fail to counter any and all imperialist attempts to gain an edge in military strength. This was the reason why at the end of 1983, countering the deployment of new American medium-range nuclear weapons in Western Europe, the Soviet Union was compelled to take steps that will keep intact the rough military parity between the Soviet Union and the United States, and between the Warsaw Treaty Organisation and NATO. "Nor does the Soviet Union intend to strengthen its security thereby at the expense of others," Konstantin Chernenko, General Secretary of the CC CPSU pointed out on this score. "What the USSR wants is equal security for all.''^^1^^
Acting on the realities of the present-day world, the Soviet Union is working for the maintenance of strategic military parity, because objectively this parity is helping to safeguard peace. The rough equilibrium is a material force, the most reliable of the available safeguards that deter the aggressive ambitions of the ultra-reactionary Western circles headed by US imperialism. The Soviet Union seeks no military superiority, but neither will it allow anyone else to win such superiority.
But it is also all too clear that the reestablishment of the strategic military equilibrium at ever higher levels makes peace increasingly more fragile and unstable. The continuous imperialist escalation of the arms race is eroding the strategic military stability and leading therefore to greater tension and mutual suspicion. The growth of the nuclear potentials, the continuous sophistication of nuclear arms, _-_-_
~^^1^^ Pravda, 3 March 1984.
10 and the proliferation of new types of nuclear weapons, complicate the problem of curbing and halting the arms race, which may in the long run defy any and all control. That is why the Soviet Union is calling for a stop to the arms race, notably the nuclear arms race, and why it is working for far-reaching arms reductions.The Soviet Union is eager to remove the threat of war and to build confidence and security. That is why it is calling for a treaty on the mutual renunciation of armed force and maintenance of relations of peace between the NATO and Warsaw Treaty countries. The Soviet Union has,also proposed that relations among nuclear powers should be governed by a set of norms designed to preclude a nuclear conflict.
International security can be fortified by eliminating any existing seats of tension, conflict and crisis. The Soviet Union and the other countries of the socialist community are for a peaceful political solution of all controversial issues that are poisoning the international atmosphere. "There are no problems," says the Political Declaration of the Warsaw Treaty Countries of January 1983, "either worldwide or regional, that cannot be fairly solved by peaceful means. The main thing is that everybody should in practice acknowledge the lawful right of the peoples of all countries to deal as they see fit with their internal affairs without outside intorforenco, and to participate on an equal footing in international affairs; that everybody should respect the independence, territorial integrity, and the inviolability of the frontiers of states, and abide by the principle renouncing use or threat of force; that no power should try to enforce its hegemony or establish 'spheres of interest' or 'spheres of influence V'^^1^^
The remnants of colonialism, racism, and of oppression and exploitation of other peoples that have survived in some regions of the world are a serious source of international tension. They must be removed from the political scene. That is the view of the Soviet Union and the fraternal socialist countries. That is the view, too, of the entire international community. And it has been expressed repeatedly in many resolutions and other documents of the UN and other influential international organisations.
Prompted by the lofty aims of fortifying peace and international security, the Soviet Union is backing the struggle of the peoples of various countries for zones of peace and co-operation and for nuclearfree zones. These will unquestionably help to improve the international climate, further political solutions of controversial issues, and prevent any escalation of inter-state conflicts and crises.
Limiting the arms race and disarming is imperative. And not only because stockpiling and improving weaponry creates the threat of a war that would destroy all life on our planet. That is just one side of the question. The other is that the arms race imposed on humanity by Western reactionary forces is becoming an ever greater burden for the economies of all countries. In his day, Karl Marx wrote that war preparations "in economic terms [are] the direct equivalent of a nation throwing part of its capital into the water".^^2^^ Nowadays, the amount of capital "thrown into the water" is growing continuously. Hundreds of billions of dollars are spent unproductively while hundreds of millions of people are suffering from hunger, disease, _-_-_
~^^1^^ Pravda, 1 January 1983.
~^^2^^ Karl Marx, Grundrisse der Krltik der politischen Okonomie ( Rohentwurj) 1857-1858, Moscow, 1939, p. 47.
11 unemployment, illiteracy, poverty and privation. Tremendous resources are expended on manufacturing tools of destruction while the human family is facing increasingly acute food, energy, ecology, raw materials and other global problems that tend to depress society's material condition. The whole wide-ranging complex of socio-economic problems and objectives facing separate nations and humanity as a whole, as we see, makes it imperative to halt the arms race and convert arms production to peaceful needs.In the early 20th century Lenin stressed emphatically that " disarmament is the ideal of socialism".^^1^^ This curt but meaningful formula expresses the inherent wish of Soviet people to achieve disarmament and thereby gain effective guarantees of peace and international security. Indeed, this is a built-in element of the Marxist philosophy which postulates that in the long run the human family will put an end to wars and armament. "Disarmament," Frederick Engels wrote, "and thereby a guarantee of peace, is possible".^^2^^
This simple truth has never been more of an inspiration than it is today for the broadest possible segments of the world population in their fight to safeguard peace. The mass of the people, the public at large, is disturbed by the prospect of a military disaster and is pressing ever more actively for true guarantees of peace, for a halt to the arms race, and for disarmament. The early half of the 1980s is not only a time of increased war danger. It is also the time of an unprecedentedly massive anti-war movement involving people of diverse political, philosophical, religious and other beliefs brought together by the one urge of safeguarding life on this planet. The antiwar movement today is a reaction of common sense and reason to nuclear insanity, to the irrational policy reposing upon nuclear military force.
The World Assembly for Peace and Life, Against Nuclear War, which gathered in Prague in June 1983, is a landmark in the annals of the present-day anti-war movement. This representative gathering of peace champions witnessed a wide-ranging discussion of ways of ensuring the survival of life on earth.
The antiwar movement has grown into a power that influences political parties and governments. Anti-war organisations of all kinds are determined to continue intensifying the struggle against the arms race, and notably against the stationing in Western Europe of new US nuclear-missile systems.
Questions of war and peace have always occupied the minds of scientists. Indeed, scientists played a conspicuous part in furthering the peace movement after World War II. Peace fighters will never forget those eminent men and women of science whose names are associated with the early peace congresses, the Stockholm Appeal, and other actions against the war threat---those of Frederic JoliotCurie, John Bernal, Leopold Infeld, and many others.
Today, too, scientists and their organisations are taking an increasingly active and effective part in the antiwar movement. Important contributions are being made here by the World Federation of _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1974, p. 95.
~^^2^^ Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, "Kann Europa ahrusten?", Werke, Vol. 22, Dietz Verlag, Berlin, 1963, p. 373.
12 Scientific Workers, the Pugwash Movement, and a number of other national, regional and international associations of scientists.Soviet scientists have always stood in the forefront of the fight for peace. Their aspirations were expressed, in,particular, by the USSR Conference of Scientists for Delivering Mankind from the Threat of Nuclear War, for Disarmament and Peace, which gathered in 1983.
Today, scientific inquiry into the problems of peace is especially important. International security, peace and disarmament are highly complex problems, the result of interlinked economic, social and political processes. And a comprehensive approach to them has, therefore, in many ways predetermined the structure of this study. In its first part we see an examination of the aggregate of issues related to curbing the arms race and getting on with disarmament. The second part is devoted to some regional problems of international security. The third deals with the modern antiwar movement and the fight against militarism, its ideology and policy. The fourth and last part contains an analysis of the socio-economic consequences of the arms race and of disarmament.
Its authors hope that it will be seen as a contribution, albeit modest, of a number of Soviet scholars to the fight of the peoples for safeguarding and consolidating peace.
[13] ~ [14] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Part One __ALPHA_LVL1__ AVERTING A NUCLEAR WORLD WAR ANDEver sin'ce the two Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by US atomic bombs in August 1945, people have been asking themselves what is going to happen to our planet, to the human family, to human civilisation, if the imperialists start a nuclear war? No idle question. At no time in history has there been a weapon like the nuclear, of such varied effe'cts not only (and perhaps less) on enemy armed forces but also on the civilian population and the environment.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. THE GROWING THREATThese days the above question is being asked with increasing alarm. Understandably so. The world situation has been deteriorating steadily since the early 1980s. Tensions are rising. The threat of war, above all a war involving nuclear and other mass annihilation weapons, is increasing steadily. Militarist elements in the West, notably the US ruling elite, have clearly set their sights on aggravating the politico-military confrontation, on using armed force to seture their class-biased political aims across the world. To reverse the course of history, imperialist circles are giving added impulse to the arms race, initiating more military programmes, developing increasingly deadly and refined nuclear weapon systems, and building up their stockpiles.
Spurring the material preparation for war, the United States and NATO leaders propound doctrines based on the dangerous idea that nuclear war is both thinkable and winnable. The Pentagon is planning a "pre-emptive nuclear first strike", a "limited nuclear war", even a " protracted nuclear conflict''.
In recent years this escalation of the nuclear threat has brought to life an unprecedented surge of the mass antiwar movement in Western countries. One of its basic motivations is that the world is threatened by nuclear __PRINTERS_P_17_COMMENT__ 2---339 17 catastrophe, that it is approaching the point beyond which there can be nothing but universal destruction. "The machinery of destruction," writes US author Jonathan Schell in his recent book, The Fate of the Earth, "is complete, poised on a hair trigger, waiting for the `button' to be `pushed' by some misguided or deranged human being or for some faulty computer chip to send out the instruction to fire." And Schell amplifies: "Now we are sitting at the breakfast table drinking our coffee and reading the newspaper, but in a moment we may be inside a fireball whose temperature is tens of thousands of degrees. Now we are on our way to work, walking through the city streets, but in a moment we may be standing on an empty plain under a darkened sky looking for the charred remnants of our children.''^^1^^
Sentiments of this sort are spreading across the world, prompting millions of people of diverse political, ideological and religious creeds to raise their voice against the arms race and the preparations for a nuclear war. In the face of this general mood, public relations experts of the Western military-industrial complexes are trying to cover up the man-hating nature of Washington's current strategic line with talk that the latest means of nuclear warfare are not as dangerous to civilians as they are made out to be. Cynically, irresponsibly, they distort the facts, claiming that a few years after a nuclear strike the victim country can make good the damage.
These claims are wholly contrary to the material that scientists of all fields have at hand, to the conclusions of military engineers and experts who have a good idea of the impact and consequences of nuclear blasts, to the judgement of physicians who have studied the effects of radiation and radioactive fallout on the human body. Objective scientific data show most convincingly that a nuclear world war would spell the end of civilisation and, possibly, the end of life on earth.
After the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, scientists lost no time to make clear the catastrophic consequences for the future of the human family of the use of nuclear weapons.
``On November 28, 1945," writes Jonathan Schell, "less than four months after the bombing of Hiroshima, the _-_-_
^^1^^ Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1982, p. 182.
18 English philosopher Bertrand Russell rose in the House of Lords and said: 'We do not want to look at this thing simply from the point of view of the next few years: we want to look at it from the point of view of the future of mankind. The question is a simple one: Is it possible for a scientific society to continue to exist, or must such a society inevitably bring itself to destruction? It is a simple question but a very vital one. I do not think it is possible to exaggerate the gravity of the possibilities of evil that lie in the utilization of atomic energy. As I go about the streets and see St. Paul's, the British Museum, the Houses of Parliament, and the other monuments of our civilization, in my mind's eye I see a nightmare vision of these buildings as heaps of rubble with corpses all around them. That is a thing we have got to face, not only in our own country and cities, but throughout the civilized world'.''^^1^^In 1955, scientists of world renown, including nuclear scientists, put their signatures to the Russell---Einstein Manifesto, which is a call to all humankind. "We have to learn to think in a new way", it says. "We have to learn to ask ourselves, not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps; the question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all parties?
``There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal, as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.''^^2^^
The Manifesto, which set in motion the Pugwash movement of scientists for peace and disarmament, is especially topical today when the threat of universal death looms larger than ever.
It will not be amiss to recall that the initial scientific estimates of the disastrous consequences of a nu'clear world war were made back in the time when the number of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Jonathan Schell, op. cit., p. 183.
~^^2^^ Quoted from The Pugwash Movement at Twenty One. Issued by the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, London, 1978, pp. 11,12.
__PRINTERS_P_19_COMMENT__ 2* 19 atomic bombs was relatively small. Today, the total of nuclear weapons has climbed to 50,000 with an aggregate yield of some 20,000 million tons of TNT or one million times that of the bomb dropped by the Americans on Hiroshima. __ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. THE CONSEQUENCES OF A NUCLEAR STRIKESince the time of the first nuclear weapon, many varied types of different power have been developed, involving countless tests that yielded vast amounts of intelligence concerning the variety of dangers that its use creates not only for people but also for animal and plant life.
Nuclear arms have four death-dealing effects: the blast, the intensive thermal effect, direct radiation, and the radioactive fallout that contaminates soil, water and air. They destroy, burn, and poison all at once, and also contaminate the environment for a long time to come, with radioactive substances carried by the wind over immense distances from the epicentre of the blast.
Approximately 50 per cent of the energy of an ordinary nuclear bomb is released in the blast, 35 per cent as thermal radiation, 10 per cent as residual radiation that contaminates the environment, and 5 per cent as direct radiation. At present, however, ways have been developed to alter the correlation of each of the above factors, and to produce weapons of specific types, like the neutron bomb, which releases a far higher percentage of energy in the form of direct radiation. Furthermore, the correlation depends on how the blast is effected, above all on the altitude at which the nuclear weapon is detonated.
Calling attention to the disastrous nature of any nuclear world war, scientists and experts rely above all on the sad experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The bomb set off over Hiroshima at an altitude of 550 metres had a yield of nearly 20,000 tons of TNT, which was about 2,000 times that of the biggest blockbusters of the World War II period. The diameter of the fireball that formed during the blast was 17 metres, and the temperature on its surface was as high as 300,000 °C. The atom bomb at Hiroshima killed more than 240,000 people and claimed another 163,000 victims. This accounted for the city's almost entire population.
Here is how a group of UN experts describes the 20 deathdealing effects of a nuclear warhead of Hiroshima capacity: "At less than 2 km., thermal radiation can be expected to kill most people directly exposed to it... This may cause numerous fires, which under some conditions may form a huge fire storm enveloping much of the target area and adding numerous further casualties. That was the case in Hiroshima.''
The document amplifies: "Out to a distance of at least 2 km. most buildings will be crushed by the compressional load as they are engulfed by the blast over-pressure and the wind drag. People inside may be crushed under the weight of the falling buildings, hurt by the flying debris of broken windows, furniture etc., or even suffocated by the dense dust of crushed brick and mortar... A very rough estimate is that within the 1.5 km. circle, the blast will kill---by various mechanisms---virtually everybody in the open or in ordinary buildings.''^^1^^
Radioactive contamination of the target area causes tremendous casualties. The above UN document says that after a 10 to 20 kiloton ground blast the fallout spells death to unprotected people within an area of 50 to 100 sq km.^^2^^
At present, a fairly large circle of people know the information pertaining to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki tragedy. But Western propaganda services, notably those of the USA, are still trying to hush up and ignore the true facts, the monstrous destruction wreaked on those two cities, the unbearable suffering of the civilian population. In the early postwar years US military censors forbade publication of books and photographs about the consequences of the first nuclear strike in history, even including many special medical studies. Despite the vast scale of the calamity, not all the population of Japan was informed for quite some time of what had exactly happened.
The atom bombs set off over the two Japanese cities, as we have said, were of about 20 kilotons. Yet today there are nuclear warheads of 20 megatons, or 1,000 times more powerful. Bombs of considerably greater yield have been tested. Indeed, there is no technical limit to increasing the size of nuclear warheads.
_-_-_~^^1^^ General and Complete Disarmament. Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons. Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/35/ 392, 12 September 1980, p. 55.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 58.
21The massive build-up of the arsenals of mass annihilation weapons triggered by the policy of imperialist circles brings us face to face with the question of the consequences entailed by the use of various types of nuclear weapons, including those of high yields, and of the local, regional and global consequences of a large number of nuclear explosions. The answer to these questions is given, among others, in UN-sponsored reports.
In the introduction to a 1968 report, the then UN Secretary-General U Thant wrote: "I believe that the time has come for an appropriate body of the United Nations to explore and weigh the impact and implications of all aspects of nuclear weapons... To know the true nature of the danger we face may be a most important first step towards averting it. It is my hope that this report, and the ensuing debate by the General Assembly, will not only provide a deeper and clearer understanding of the effects of the nuclear arms race but also positively contribute to the search for ways to bring it to an and".^^1^^
The 1980 UN Secretary-General's report, " Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons", also devoted much space to the consequences of the use of nuclear arms.
The prime concern, indeed, was to see what would really happen if modern nuclear bombs were set off over cities.
In the 1968 study the group of UN experts took a hypothetical city with an area of some 250 sq km and a population of over one million. It was assumed that a one-- megaton nuclear bomb was detonated over the city's central district. Considering the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the results of careful experiments and calculations, the experts determined that the city would suffer the following losses: "Killed by blast and fire 270,000; killed by radio-active fall-out 90,000, and injured 90,000... The scale of the physical destruction which would be associated with casualties of this order of magnitude is so great that there is no basis of experience which could serve to help describe the instantaneous transformation of a vast living city into a sea of blazing rubble... A city in which more than a million people lived in an area of about 250 sq km would for all practical purposes be eliminated by a _-_-_
~^^1^^ Effects of the Possible Use of Nuclear Weapons and the Security and Economic Implications for States of the Acquisition and Further Development of These Weapons, United Nations, New York, 1968, p. IV.
22 single one-megaton weapon [hereinafter italics supplied]".^^1^^A nuclear weapon of greater yield would, naturaly, cause still greater damage. "For a ten-megaton explosion over such a hypothetical city, the area of complete or serious destruction would cover between 300 and 500 sq km, that is to say the area of the entire city," the experts note. " Moreover the effects of blast and direct radiation would extend well beyond its boundaries, with heath and forest fires raging up to twenty kilometres from the ground-zero of the explosion. Half of the entire population over an area of radius of some twenty-five kilometres could be expected to die within the first few days as a result of radio-active contamination.''^^2^^
Still greater destruction would be wrought by a 20-- megaton bomb. The heat which wouldresult would be intense enough to start fires as far as 30 kilometres from a point of detonation and could endanger the lives of people in an area with a radius of nearly 60 kilometres. The surface explosion of a 20-megaton bomb would result in the formation of a crater 75-90 metres deep and 800 metres in diameter.^^3^^
In other words, a single 1-megaton to 20-megaton warhead is enough to wipe almost any city of the world, whole or nearly whole, off the face of the earth.
The group of experts also studied the probable results of a nuclear strike against an industrial area of nine towns, each with a population of 50,000, and 140 settlements with an equal total population. The study showed that a 1-- megaton blast would kill 20 per cent of the population outright and destroy 30 per cent of the buildings.^^4^^
The experts also looked into the consequences of a nuclear strike against a small country of 500,000 sq km with a population density of 100 per sq km. With the use of four 20-megaton bombs, the blasts, radiation and fallout would physically damage something like 20 per cent of the entire country.^^5^^
The experts looked into the probable consequences of a nuclear blast over a few existing cities, including that of a 20-megaton bomb over Hamburg and a 15-megaton bomb over London. The zone of death, destruction and radioactive _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., pp. 6, 7, 9.
^^2^^ Ibid., p. 12.
^^3^^ Ibid.
~^^4^^ Ibid., pp. 12-13.
^^5^^ Ibid., p. 13.
23 contamination would here extend over vast areas. The physical damage from the Hamburg bomb would spread to more than a third of the country---from the epicentre nearly to the Austrian border and including Hannover and a number of other large cities. The zone of devastation created by the 15-megaton bomb explosion over London would extend to Paris, including that city.Those are the probable consequences of the more powerful of the now available nuclear weapons. But the consequences of several hundred tactical nuclear weapons detonated in the course of hostilities would be no less disastrous. Yet that is the variant planned by NATO. The military establishment in the West and notably the USA expounds a doctrine that any inequality in conventional arms between the contending armed forces may be balanced out by the use of tactical, relatively weak, nuclear weapons in the battle area, above all in Europe.
The UN experts have concluded, however, as a result of research and ``war-game'' study related to the European theatre, that the above strategic doctrine is likely to lead to the use of hundreds of so-called tactical nuclear weapons in the battle area. Without reproducing the technical details of the study, it will be interesting to cite the basic conclusion drawn by the experts: such use of nuclear weapons is likely to spell total devastation of the entire battle area. Nearly everything would be destroyed. Forests would disappear and only the shells of a few of the more solid buildings would survive as a sinister reminder of once flourishing cities. Fire storms would erupt with seats of high temperature, and everything combustible would burn, while the non-combustible would melt.
With just 400 small nuclear bombs, says the UN document, the physical damage caused within the battle area would correspond to something like six times that of World War II---and all sustained in a few days rather than a few years.^^1^^
Estimates show, the experts observe, that with 100 weapons having an average yield of 30 kilotons (range 5 to 50 kilotons) about one-tenth of the assumed typical European battle area would be completely devastated, and about one-quarter severely damaged. With 200 weapons about one-fifth would be devastated and half severely damaged; _-_-_
^^1^^ Ibid., p. 16. 24
24 and with 400 weapons about one third of the area would be devastated and all severely damaged.^^1^^In another European ``war-game'' study, the experts looked into a battle in which the two opposing sides together used weapons whose total yield was between 20 and 25 megatons, in not fewer than 500 and in not more than 1,000 strikes. The nuclear weapons were supposed to have been used against military targets only, in an area of about 25,000 sq km. In this engagement about 3.5 million people would have had their homes destroyed if the weapons had been air-burst, and 1.5 million if the weapons had been ground-burst. In the former case at least half the people concerned would have been fatally or seriously injured. In the case of the ground-burst weapons 1.5 million would have been exposed to lethal doses of radiation, and a further 5 million to the hazard of considerable although nonlethal doses of radiation.^^2^^
Those would have been the immediate casualties. It should be borne in mind, however, that the water mains and gas and power lines in the battle area would all have been destroyed. All human settlements would have no water, no power, no sewerage, no communications, while roads would be littered with the rubble of demolished houses. The wounded 'and the sick, and also the weak, would get no help. Survivors would not be able to bury the dead. Corpses would decompose, aggravating the sad situation, epidemics would break out. All this should, indeed, be borne in mind when nuclear weapons are referred to as weapons of mass annihilation.
The kinds of damage that nuclear weapons inflict have substantially changed many of the politico-military aspects of armed conflicts between states. In practically all the wars that were fought before the appearance of nuclear weapons, for example, non-belligerent countries never suffered any damage and, indeed, often benefited from supplying belligerents with arms and strategic materials. Neutrals that had common frontiers with belligerent powers suffered no direct damage.
Nuclear weapons have changed that. Not only the closest neighbours of the countries involved in a nuclear war are sure to incur physical damage. The same will also _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ibid., pp. 16-17.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 17.
25 happen to countries that have no common frontier with the belligerents but are associated with the battle area through rivers and reservoirs that supply water to more than one country, through seas with their various currents washing the shores of several countries, through air currents from the battle area and many other natural mechanisms that had never before been viewed as dangerous.Even in the event of a limited use of nuclear weapons, the natural mechanisms of many countries, notably the closest neighbours of the belligerent states, would feel the destructive effects of the explosions. The damage to neighbouring states would depend not only on the extent of the radioactive contamination but also on other factors. The zones abutting on the battle area could well suffer from the direct effects of the nuclear blast. It is hard, sometimes impossible, to foretell the precise area that would come under the effects of the explosion. During nuclear weapon tests the blast and the reflected wave are known to have merged, causing damage where it was least expected.
The damage would be especially frightful in areas with a high population density and where towns were located close to each other, as in Europe.
Consequently, the results of nuclear war, irrespective of where it may begin, would not be confined to the territory of just the belligerent powers. Not only the neighbouring countries, but also countries in other parts of the world, far distant from the battle area, would soon experience the effects of radioactive fallout.
The scale and nature of this danger would, of course, depend on the number and type of detonated bombs. If the megatonnage were high enough, no corner of the earth would be spared the effects of biologically harmful radiation.
Genetic damage of greater or lesser degree would be inflicted on all surviving life. It has been experimentally ascertained that ionising radiation may alter the hereditary material of plants, animals, and humans. Geneticists find that the vast majority of the observed genetic changes are harmful. They exercise a negative effect on the development of the human body and lead to mental backwardness and serious physical degradation.
Massive use of large-sized nuclear weapons would not only lead to the radioactive contamination of the entire surface of the earth; it could also destroy the ozone layer. A study made by the US National Academy of Sciences 26 in 1975 showed that explosions aggregating 10,000 megatons would reduce the ozone layer by 30 to 70 per cent.^^1^^ As a result, the earth would be exposed to considerably greater ultraviolet radiation, and many scientists assume that this, too, may have disastrous consequences for living organisms.
Meteorologists expect that a nuclear world war would greatly change the climate, aggravate the sad plight of the survivors.
The vast destructive power of nuclear arms rules out effective ways of protecting the civilian population and property. Science can offer no means of protection from the consequences of a nuclear war, says a document on averting nuclear war signed in Rome by representatives of science academies of many countries on 24 September 1982. There is hardly any chance of developing a sufficiently effective defence system for cities, because just one warhead that reaches its target causes massive damage. Much less still are the chances of effectively protecting the mass of the people from an all-out nuclear strike or of averting the destruction of the cultural, ecologic and industrial fabric of society.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. THE NUCLEAR THREAT AND POLITICAL DOCTRINESThe judgements of scientists should be taken into account in strategic and political doctrines, and in world politics.
In the early 1960s, Edward Teller, one of the fathers of US thermonuclear weaponry, propagated the idea of `` limited'' nuclear war. James R. Newman, the eminent American mathematician wrote on this score: "Edward Teller coaxes us to accept the concept of limited war. 'Limited warfare can very well stay limited.' (After all, half a loaf is better than none). 'All-out war will never be in our interest, and we should never start it.... While a limited war is in progress, we shall be much better prepared than in times of peace.''^^2^^
The ideas of Teller and his confederates are mirrored today in US government documents. The concept of " _-_-_
~^^1^^ Comprehensive Study..., p. 103.
~^^2^^ James R. Newman, "Two Discussions of Thermonuclear War", in: Scientific American, Vol. 204, No. 3, March 1961, p. 202.
27 limited" nuclear war is set forth in presidential Directive No. 59 signed by ex-President Jimmy Carter. And the deployment of Pershing-2 and cruise missiles in Western Europe is, in substance, material preparation for a war that the US ruling element would like to limit to just the European continent. Its sinister though futile hopes are that then a nuclear holocaust will spare the territory of its own country, separated from Europe by the vast spaces of the Atlantic.This idea of ``limited'' nuclear warfare, though highly attractive for the US leadership, comes under the head of exceedingly dangerous delusions. Official spokesmen in Washington are heard to discourse on the possibility of ``limited'', ``sustained'' and other varieties of nuclear war. This is intended to reassure people, to accustom them to the thought that such war is acceptable. Veritably, one has to be blind to the realities of our time not to see that wherever and however a nuclear whirlwind arises, it will inevitably go out of control and cause a worldwide catastrophe.
If irresponsible imperialist groups start a nuclear war, practically all regions of the world will become a war theatre. It will be worldwide in the full sense of the word. Washington's present-day strategic line is, indeed, leading up to a politico-military confrontation on a global scale. More and more military and naval bases are being set up in all parts of the world. The navy, including submarines with long-range missiles and an operational zone covering almost the entire World Ocean, is being expanded.
Yet the consequences of a nuclear world war, as scientific studies and estimates show, are wholly predictable. If the now available stockpiles of nuclear weapons were all used, the surface of most of the planet would turn into a vitrified slag-like mass on which nothing will grow; all animal and plant life would end. Only rare ruins of once imposing man-made edifices would serve as a reminder that once there had been life, green pastures, forests and flowering gardens in place of the scorched earth contaminated by radioactive fallout. The survivors, if any, would be doomed to degradation and extinction in the setting of a dislocated economy, the virulent radioactive contamination, and the devastated health system.
The foreign policy of the Soviet Union and the Soviet military doctrine take full account of the catastrophic 28 consequences of a nuclear world war. The 26th Congress of the CPSU stated most emphatically, therefore, that "to try and outstrip each other in the arms race or to expect to win a nuclear war, is dangerous madness.''^^1^^
The threat of a nuclear disaster is seen by the Soviet people, by all reasonable people on earth, as an impulse for struggle to eliminate it, to curb the arms race, to promote disarmament. And, of course, Soviet people are perfectly well aware that only the strength and power of the socialist countries, including their military power, can deter the aggressive designs of the imperialists and prevent them from starting a world war.
The Soviet Union is compelled to develop sophisticated weaponry to ensure its own security and that of its allies. "The general defensive orientation of the Soviet doctrine," said Soviet Defence Minister Dmitry Ustinov, "has always expressed and now expresses itself in the military-technical policy of our country. The Soviet Union has never initiated any of the more destructive weapons that represent a special danger to people and all other life on earth. On the contrary, we have always striven, and now strive, to avert any brutalisation of the tools of war, to avert the spread of the arms race to any new fields.''^^2^^
The United States, not the Soviet Union, is responsible for each new twist of the nuclear arms race. The USA was the first to test and use nuclear weapons in war, the first to develop intercontinental bombers, nuclear-armed submarines, and MIRV'd warheads. It was also the first to initiate manufacture of neutron bombs.
The Soviet Union, on the other hand, works for the basic objective of halting the arms race on the crucial principles of equality and equal security.
Moved by a deep sense of responsibility for the future of the world and of humanity, the Soviet Union is promoting nuclear disarmament and the total elimination of nuclear weapons. A phased programme of nuclear disarmament is set forth in a Soviet memorandum "To Avert the Growing Nuclear Threat, to Curb the Arms Race" to the Second Special Session of the UN General Assembly on _-_-_
~^^1^^ Documents and Resolutions. The 26th Congress of the CPSU, Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, Moscow, 1984, p. 31.
~^^2^^ D. F. Ustinov, Eliminate, the Threat of Nuclear War, Moscow, 1982, p. 4 (in Russian).
29 Disarmament. It works in the interests of all nations, and envisages:---cessation of the development of new systems of nuclear weapons;
---cessation of the production of fissionable materials for the purpose of manufacturing various types of nuclear weapons;
---cessation of the production of all types of nuclear weapons, including delivery vehicles;
---phased reduction of the available stockpiles of nuclear weapons, including delivery vehicles;
---total elimination of nuclear weapons.
Eager to reduce the threat of nuclear war that hangs over the world like the Sword of Damocles and to buttress international security and peace, the Soviet Union has unilaterally pledged no-first-use of nuclear weapons. In January 1983, pursuing the same aims, the Warsaw Treaty Organisation countries offered the NATO states a treaty on the mutual renunciation of the use of armed force and on the maintenance of relations of peace.
But while working for peace, the Soviet Union is compelled to see to its defences in face of the mounting imperialist war threat. Whatever the USSR does in this respect, however, is objectively serving the cause of peace, and consequently the survival of life on earth.
[30] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter 2 __ALPHA_LVL2__ THE NO-FIRST-USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROBLEM __ALPHA_LVL3__ [introduction.]To eliminate the nuclear war threat has been the key objective of Soviet foreign policy ever since World War II ended. When atomic weapons came into the world, the Soviet Union was the first to declare for all to hear that their very existence, let alone their possible use, is a deadly threat with nothing to equal it in world history, and must be eliminated. This clear and concrete approach to the dangers of nuclear war, to the need of averting and thereupon removing it from the life of society, was persuasive evidence of the humane nature of the foreign policy of the world's first socialist state.
The Soviet Union mounted an active drive in all areas, seeking to remove the nuclear danger. On the plane of international law, it called for a system of commitments ruling out use of force, above all nuclear, and calling for the settlement of international conflicts and crises by negotiation. On the military plane, it called for a stop and reversal of the nuclear arms race. On the moral and psychological plane, it worked for the renunciation of any and all war propaganda and sabre-rattling.
The Soviet Union's unilateral pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons was received all over the world as a historic step. That is how it is also described in the specially adopted resolution of the 37th UN General Assembly, which calls on other nuclear powers to follow the Soviet example and thereby take a tangible step towards the prevention of nuclear war.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. SOVIET EFFORTS TO ELIMINATE THE NUCLEAR THREATThe no-nrst-use of nuclear weapons approach is not novel for the Soviet Union. But it raised the issue each time with consideration for the specific political situation in the world.
31It is no exaggeration to say that the attitude to the nofirst-use issue reflects the two opposite approaches to the problem of war and peace in the nuclear age. That this issue has been raised at all is due to the need for blocking the road to the nuclear adventurism of the aggressive imperialist elements who have, from the day the US developed atomic arms, been striving (as conclusively attested to by Hiroshima and Nagasaki) to turn atomic, thermonuclear, and now also neutron bombs into an "absolute weapon" to secure their hegemonic ambitions, to blackmail and intimidate other nations. These elements rejected the Soviet proposal for renouncing the use of nuclear energy for military purposes, and lost no time to mount a massive nuclear arms race. While stockpiling and improving their nuclear arsenals, they encouraged the production of all types of strategic military doctrines justifying the use of nuclear arms as a "big stick" in world politics. A no-first-use pledge by all nuclear powers would dull the spearhead of these reckless ambitions nursed by those who are ready to stake the very existence of humanity in furthering their selfish interests .
The US refusal to outlaw the use of atomic weapons was censured by large segments of the world public. The public mood was reflected in the Stockholm Appeal of the Continuing Liaison Committee of the World Congress of Peace Forces. It called for unconditional prohibition of atomic weapons under strict international control. The government that would use atomic arms first against any country would thereby commit a crime against humanity and would be treated as a war criminal. On 19 June 1950 the USSR Supreme Soviet declared its solidarity with the proposals, and said that the Stockholm Appeal would certainly win the backing of the entire Soviet people. The response to the Stockholm Appeal was, indeed, tremendous all over the world. As many as 500 million people signed it.
In the 1960s, following up its efforts to secure the prohibition of nuclear arms, the Soviet Union put forward the proposal for banning their manufacture and use. This was consonant with the aspirations of the world public and of countries that had shaken off colonial dependence and were troubled by the increasing nuclear threat. But the US leaders blocked the proposal espousing dangerous doctrines that postulated various versions of "massive retaliation", meaning an all-out nuclear strike against 32 the USSR (designed, as it says in recently declassified 1954 US Army documents, to turn the Soviet Union into "a smoking radiating ruin at the end of two hours").^^1^^
In the light of these doctrines it was not in the least surprising that Washington declared as futile any attempts at balancing or limiting the nuclear potentials of countries, and characterised banning the use of nuclear arms as essentially impossible.
In the early 1960s, the non-aligned countries joined the drive for the prohibition of nuclear arms. They came forward with the proposal for banning the use of nuclear weapons and for calling a conference to sign a pertinent convention. The Soviet Union backed this proposal. So did the Sixteenth UN General Assembly, which adopted a Resolution on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear and Thermo-Nuclear Weapons.
In 1963 the matter was forwarded to the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament, but its deliberations yielded no results owing to the negative stand of the United States and its allies. Coming out against their delaying tactics, the Soviet Union submitted a draft resolution to the UN Disarmament Commission in 1965 calling for a convention banning the use of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons to be signed not later than the early half of 1966. In the meantime, the nuclear states were to declare that they would not use nuclear weapons first. In a message to the Eighteen Nation Committee of 1 February 1966, the Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers said: "The Soviet Union is prepared forthwith to assume the commitment not to use nuclear weapons first, provided the other nuclear powers do the same.''^^2^^
'Though the United States and its allies blocked these proposals, the very fact that they were made helped to create an international moral and political climate in favour of detente, whose faint outlines were beginning to appear at that time.
In a bid to consolidate the tendency towards a sounder international situation, to give it a dependable basis in international law, to ease the passage from confrontation to detente in the military field, the Soviet Union secured _-_-_
~^^1^^ International Security, Vol. 6, No. 3, Winter 1981/1982, p. 3.
~^^2^^ Pravda, 1 February 1966.
33 the adoption of a General Assembly resolution in 1972 favouring renunciation of force in international relations and the simultaneous banning of the use of nuclear arms for all time. Four years later, the UN approved the Soviet call for working out a world treaty renouncing force in international relations, and banning the use of nuclear as well as conventional arms.This was a truly all-embracing approach to the question of preventing war and renouncing the use of nuclear arms. A world treaty on the non-use of force, in both nuclear and conventional forms, would reassert one of the basic principles of the UN Charter in international relations and, indeed, take it a step further since there had been no nuclear weapons yet when the Charter was drawn up, while at present nuclear arms are the chief component of the armed forces of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. The problem of banning the use of nuclear weapons would also be solved in the context of this treaty. Renunciation of the use of force would, in general, prevent any local conflict involving conventional arms only from developing into worldwide hostilities triggering nuclear catastrophe.
One of the achievements and at the same time a cornerstone of detente was the recognition by leaders of the United States and other Western powers that in this nuclear age there is no sensible alternative to the peaceful coexistence of countries with different social systems. The central element of the bilateral and multilateral instruments signed on this basis between socialist and developed capitalist countries, including the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, was that use of force of any type---either nuclear or conventional---against each other was impermissible.
In June 1973, the USSR and the USA concluded an agreement on the prevention of nuclear war. "The Soviet Union and the United States," it said, "agree that an objective of their policies is to remove the danger of nuclear war and of the use of nuclear weapons.''
In the context of this agreement, the two countries were to avoid military confrontations and prevent situations capable of causing a dangerous deterioration of their relations. More, the sides pledged to act accordingly towards the allies of the other side, and likewise towards other countries, in circumstances which may endanger international peace and security. The agreement, we might add, did 34 not confine itself to just the nuclear topic, and was valid in all dangerous situations liable to lead to nuclear war. Together with other Soviet-American agreements, above all those limiting strategic arms, and the Soviet accords with other nuclear powers (Britain and France), it was called upon to eliminate use or threat of nuclear weapons.
Materially, these political accords reposed on the rough equality the USSR and its allies had attained by then with the armed forces of the USA and NATO. The recognition in Soviet-American relations of the principle of equality and equal security, and in the relations of all other countries of the principle of undiminished security, paved the way for lowering the levels of the military confrontation while preserving the rough military equilibrium that had shaped in the world towards the beginning of the 1970s.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. DECLARATION ON THE PREVENTIONAt the junction of the 1970s and 1980s, aggressive imperialist circles, first of all those of the USA, turned their backs on detente, departing from the letter and spirit of the agreements concluded in its framework, and set their sights on upsetting the military equilibrium and securing superiority.
The latest US programmes for developing and manufacturing nuclear arms, like the development of weapons based on the latest scientific achievements and discoveries, including weapons and weapon systems for warfare in and from space designed to multiply the destructive power of US arms many times over, tend to upset international stability. All these programmes are tied in with such strategic concepts and doctrines as those of a "first, pre-emptive nuclear strike", "limited nuclear war", and others based on the idea that first use of nuclear weapons can secure victory in a nuclear war.
According to the trustworthy Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the technical demands set by the USA for waging a ``limited'' nuclear war are, in fact, analogous to those for a pre-emptive strike. In substance, the whole thing is aimed at legalising the use of nuclear weapons, whereupon it would be simpler to pass from nuclear threats and blackmail to the actual use of nuclear arms. In the meantime, the USA broke off a number of __PRINTERS_P_35_COMMENT__ 3* 35 disarmament negotiations, and is using talks that are still going on not to reach accords but to ``defuse'' the anti-nuclear outcry in the Western countries, including the United States.
In these circumstances, no-first-use of nuclear weapons has be'come a topical, large-scale independent measure that should be adopted without delay in order to relieve the peoples of the threat of nuclear-missile war.
In a bid to rally the peace-loving countries and the public in support of this objective, the USSR submitted to 36th UN General Assembly as important and urgent a draft of a UN General Assembly Declaration on the Prevention of a Nuclear Catastrophe. The core of the Soviet draft was the proposal to solemnly proclaim that states and statesmen who use nuclear weapons first shall thereby commit a grave crime against humanity. The draft declaration won the support of the majority of UN members---the socialist and non-aligned states, including India, Algeria, Yugoslavia, Mexico, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Guyana, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Mozambique, Peru, Venezuela, Ecuador, and so on. None but the United States and its closest politico-military allies---nineteen countries in all---opposed the declaration.
The voting spoke of the intents of the nuclear powers. It showed who was who in the no-first-use question. Still a most important political document was adopted, called upon to exercise a benign influence on the world situation for a long time to come. The Declaration pointed to a clear and simple solution that would dispel the nuclear threat--- renunciation of the first use of nuclear weapons. For with no first strike there can be no second or any subsequent strike, and, consequently, no thermonuclear disaster.
The Declaration was a serious warning to the devotees of the nuclear arms build-up, of broad strategic rearmament programmes, and to all those who espouse the insane doctrines that nuclear war is thinkable and acceptable. Any such doctrines and actions that push the world to the abyss, are rejected in the Declaration as contrary to human morality and the lofty UN ideals.
The Declaration stresses that there are no ground or motives, no circumstances or situations, nor can there be, that would justify first use of nuclear weapons. This is a loud and clear warning that there never will be absolution or pardon for those who might venture to use nuclear 36 weapons first. It has got to be heard in all capitals, in all corners of the world. It is a reminder to all statesmen who have anything to do with the use of nuclear weapons that each of them is personally responsible for the future of the human family.
This aspect of the case, we might add, attracted the attention of the General Assembly. A number of delegations backed the opinion expressed on behalf of the Soviet leadership that despite collisions of interests and despite differences, no matter how keen, a balanced and sensible approach to acute international problems should always prevail in the conduct of top political leaders. The Declaration calls on the leaders of all nuclear powers to eliminate the danger of a nuclear disaster ever breaking out.
All these provisions are important because, among other things, they reject all apologies for the arms race, and all theories saying the arms race is continuing by inertia as a result of the endlessly changing military technology. The technical capacity for enhancing the accuracy of missiles, for example, is said to be the reason behind the `` counterforce'' doctrine, that is, the actual preparation for a first, crippling strike against the "enemy`s'' hardened targets and other military objectives, while, say, the achievements in space development are said to be leading to the development of defensive weapons against a retaliatory strike. All too obviously, this type of talk is aimed at reconciling people with the unprecedentedly large arms race and persuading them to abandon their fight against the war danger. The Declaration, adopted on Soviet initiative, stresses that the responsibility for the prevailing situation is traceable to concrete organisations and people, and that if the war danger is to be removed, there must be the political will for it. Armaments and doctrines backing their use are produced by people, and it is people who can and must renounce them.
According to the Declaration on the Prevention of a Nuclear Catastrophe, recognition that first use of nublear weapons is intolerable should be viewed as a start for efforts in all areas to prevent, and in the final analysis eliminate, the threat of nuclear war. It contains a provision for halting and reversing the arms race through equal negotiations in good faith, so that the energy of the atom should be used exclusively for peaceful purposes, for the good of humanity, and not for manufacturing tools of destruction.
37The blunt but at the same time simple form in which the Soviet Union couched the question of no-first-use of nuclear weapons made prevention of nuclear war the central topic of international discussions.
The discussion at the UN showed that the fundamental approach of the Soviet Union and other countries of the socialist community to the prevention of nuclear war is consonant with that of the non-aligned states.
The provisions added to the Declaration at the suggestion of the Indian and Mexican delegations stated that the common aim was to rule out use of nuclear weapons by halting their manufacture and thereupon eliminating their stockpiles. With this purpose in view, priority at any disarmament negotiations should be given to nuclear disarmament. The Declaration expresses the conviction that the first step should be to outlaw use of nuclear arms and nu'clear war in general.
The Declaration is important because, while admitting the difficulty of eliminating the mfclear threat, it points to the only sensible way of doing so---the way of negotiations, of renouncing incitement of military psychosis, renouncing ultimatums and ``linkages'', and of accepting the principle of equality and equal security.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. THE NO-FIRST-USE PLEDGE OF THE SOVIET UNIONEver since the workers and peasants took power in Russia, the distinctive feature of Soviet foreign policy has been that it matches words with deeds. In the shadow of the nuclear war threat, too, the Soviet Union does not confine itself to merely calling on people to realise the dimensions and sources of the danger, to showing how humanity can eliminate it. It is also taking firm action to ensure progress in this direction. It did so once again at the Second Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament in the summer of 1982 which, it will be no exaggeration to say, awakened the attention of the entire world to the issues of war and peace.
It will not be amiss to note that the Special Session itself, and its results, was in many ways a source o:f alarm and disappointment. While it sat at the UN Headquarters in New York, a top-level session of the NATO Council gathered in Bonn and reasserted the militarist policy of the USA and the rest of the bloc. The Reagan administration 38 began translating its plans for the preparation of war into concrete military build-up. The Pentagon's "Defense Guidance" document, according to which the United States is to be the world's No. 1 military power in all respects, has become known to the public: to win superiority, the USA is planning to spend at least $ 1.8 trillion on war preparations in the next five years. The main effort is to build up strategic offensive forces. The 1983 military budget provided for an almost 40 per cent increase in strategic allocations, so that by the end of the 1980s the number of nuclear warheads per one launch/sortie would rise 50 per cent. The warheads will be more accurate, their yield greater.
The new US "direct confrontation" strategy which underlies these plans, compounded with the statements of the Reagan team, beats all extremes of past militarist planning. To begin with, it sets the sights on a nuclear first strike. Washington has rounded out its "limited war" doctrine with the concept of "protracted nuclear war" from which it hopes to emerge the victor. The new strategy allows for the use of the most barbarian tools of war---not only nuclear but all other types of mass annihilation weapon (neutron, chemical, and so on). To suit this doctrine, qualitatively new weapons systems are being developed: MX intercontinental ballistic missiles, Trident 1 and Trident 2 submarine-launched ballistic missiles, B-1B and Stealth bombers, long-range cruise missiles, binary chemical shells, beam weapons, etc. If ever deployed, these weapon systems will destabilise the situation and redouble the danger of war. "Current US nuclear force improvements," writes Professor Beres in a study of the US military programmes and the statements of the chief of the Pentagon, "stem from a presumed need to prevail in a protracted nuclear war with the Soviet Union.''^^1^^
This is exactly what the US representatives had on their minds when they came to the special General Assembly session in New York. They and their closest allies went out of their way to obstruct achievement of any results and, taking advantage of the consensus principle, blocked the passage of any full-stale, concrete resolutions. As a result, _-_-_
~^^1^^ Louis Rene Beres, Myths and Realities: US Nuclear Strategy, Occasional Paper 32, The Stanley Foundation, Muscatine, Iowa, December 1982, p. 10,
39 the UN forum suffered the effects of the destructive factor in international affairs.But the special session showed that there is also a constructive factor on the world scene even more powerful than the destructive one. The statements made in the name of the vast majority of countries and of dozens of anti-war organisations, backed by the many peace marches and demonstrations in Western countries during the session, were clear evidence of the irrepressible wish of the peoples to ensure peace and reduce the war threat.
The Soviet Union's contribution to the session was a fresh reminder that Soviet policy is the core, the leading element behind the constructive factor and that it offers tangible opportunities for consolidating peace. The military, including nuclear, power of the USSR, like its political resources, serve as a counterweight to the NATO war preparations potential. And it is doubly effective, because the Soviet Union has solemnly pledged not to use nuclear weapons first.
The Soviet Union's courageous pledge is meant to bolster international confidence at a time when such confidence is being badly undermined by those who are trying to upset the existing equilibrium, to win military superiority over the Soviet Union and torpedo all the positive elements of detente, calling for a ``crusade'' against communism.
The Soviet initiative has hit the mark. Even before it was announced, a number of countries at the Second Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament called on the nuclear states to pledge no-first-use of nuclear weapons, to freeze their nuclear stockpiles, and begin negotiating nuclear disarmament without further delay. This plea was voiced, among others, by Jorge Castaneda, Mexico's Foreign Minister, who expressed the sentiment of most non-aligned countries, Thorbjorn Falldin, the then Prime Minister of Sweden, and others.
When the Soviet Union's pledge not to use nuclear weapons first resounded from the UN General Assembly rostrum, there was a burst of applause not usually heard at UN discussions. Participants in the session gave due credit to the consistency and peace orientation of Soviet foreign policy.
Many delegates emphasised the significance of this act of goodwill consonant with the vital interests of all nations. The Soviet initiative was welcomed by the socialist 40 countries and by the Asian, African and Latin American states. Nor could some spokesmen of the capitalist West fail to .admit its immense importance. The solemn pledge of the Soviet Union not to use nuclear weapons first was hailed by the anti-war movement and by millions of people all over the world.
The will of the vast majority of nations was clearly expressed in a special resolution of the 37th UN General Assembly stressing the importance of the Soviet Union's unilateral action and calling on other nuclear powers to follow suit and renounce first use of nuclear arms---a big step towards averting nuclear war. In short, non-use of nuclear weapons and the Soviet efforts to secure it, is backed by the prestige and authority of the UN.
The Soviet unilateral no-first-use pledge has again exposed the "Soviet war threat" as an unmitigated lie; it has shown that the Soviet Union poses no threat to any country on any continent.
The USSR took this courageous step with faith in the common sense and ability of the human family to avert a nuclear conflict.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 4. TWO APPROACHES TO OUTLAWING FIRST USEThe only ones to oppose the no-nrst-use idea are the United States and its closest NATO partners, for whom first use of nuclear weapons is the essence of military strategy.
To justify their negative attitude, they resort to crude lies. This is nothing but a clumsy attempt at shifting one's own fault on someone else\ The Soviet standpoint is clear. As was stressed in the statement made on 28 September 1983 by the General Secretary of the CC CPSU and Chairman of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet, "In this nuclear age, it is wrong to look at the world through the peephole of one's narrow egoistic interests. Responsible statesmen have no other choice but to do everything to avert a nuclear disaster. Any other approach is shortsighted; worse, it is suicidal.''^^1^^
Spokesmen of the NATO countries in the UN make the _-_-_
^^1^^ Pravda, 29. September 1983,
41 baffling claim that the Soviet proposal is little short of contrary to the UN Charter. They say it denies the victim of an aggression the use of nuclear arms in self-defence. They ignore the fact that the Soviet proposal is explicitly designed to prevent nuclear catastrophe, to deliver future generations from the calamity of war, that is, to promote the aim that is central to the UN Charter. The idea that first use of nuclear weapons in self-defence is justifiable is quite obviously a stratagem to escape responsibility for continuing the policy of nuclear blackmail or for starting a nuclear war.The NATO Council has produced what it called a programme for peace and freedom. It says that none of its weapons will ever be used except in response to an attack. This is intended to counter the Soviet pledge not to use nuclear weapons first. But its worth will be quite clear if we turn to history: no aggressor has ever started war without claiming that it was in "response to an attack". Take World War II. More, the strategic military doctrine of the present US administration envisages a "pre-emptive nuclear strike" which the USA may deliver first on the pretext of preventing a hypothetical attack on the United States. By the NATO book this "pre-emptive nuclear strike" is also a "response to an attack". In other words, the NATO Council's formula is no obstacle to an aggression involving all arms, including nuclear.
The pitiful inanity of NATO's claim that the no-first-use pledge is contrary to the UN Charter is compounded by the logic that then the entire process of disarmament is senseless. After all, there may be those who look upon napalm, mine traps and bacteriological weapons as the best means of self-defence. We might then also legitimately ask, if the existing accords on their non-use should, perhaps, be torn up? Or perhaps the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? For is it not by the same token contrary to the Charter because it deprives almost the entire world community of the chance to acquire nuclear weapons for self-defence? May not the non-nuclear states come to the conclusion, after all, that nuclear weapons are their best means of selfdefence?
The demagogic claims of the USA and its allies are evidence of their negative attitude to the Soviet proposal approved by the UN in 1976 to conclude a world treaty on the non-use of force in international relations or, in other words, 42 to make this UN Charter principle an inviolable rule in international affairs.
NATO spokesmen say the West cannot pledge no-- firstuse of nuclear weapons because, among other things, the Warsaw Treaty Organisation has an edge in conventional armaments. That this is untrue is easily proved by facts and figures. Furthermore, the Soviet Union has nothing against substantially reducing conventional armaments and armed forces both on a global and regional scale, and favours a search of pertinent sensible mutually acceptable solutions. But what puts the lid on NATO's excuses is that the Soviet Union wants a no-first-use agreement not only for nuclear but also for conventional weapons.
It will be recalled that a year after the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Soviet Union and other members of the Warsaw Treaty offered all those who had attached their signatures to its Final Act to conclude a treaty not to use nuclear weapons against each other first. The proposal was turned down by the West on the pretext that the socialist countries had an edge in conventional armaments. In March 1979, the Soviet Union proposed that the same countries should come to terms on the no-ilrst-use of both nuclear and conventional armaments, that is, conclude a non-aggression pact. But all these proposals fell on deaf ears.
The proposal for a treaty on the mutual renunciation of armed force between the Warsaw Treaty and NATO countries contained in the Political Declaration issued by the Warsaw Treaty countries in Prague on 5 January 1983 is another important step in view of the deterioration of the European situation. It reposes on the no-first-use of both nuclear and conventional weapons against each other. And participants in the anti-war movement in NATO countries insistently demand that their governments take a serious, objective view of this sensible proposal.
By proposing this treaty, the Soviet Union reaffirms its belief that armed force should never be used as a tool in international affairs, and this first and foremost in Europe. Use of armed force to achieve political aims on the European continent according to the World War II prescription is completely ruled out; it is contrary to common sense and devoid of political relevance since such a turn of events would obviously lead to nuclear disaster.
Concluding the treaty is an act that would in the final 43 analysis help overcome Europe's division into military blocs. Not only does the treaty, as proposed by the Soviet Union, envisage international law commitments not to use armed force but also a whole of other highly relevant pledges working in the interests of peace, confidence and mutual understanding. The fact, for example, that the treaty includes a pledge to negotiate in a spirit of goodwill effective measures to stop the arms race, to limit armaments and launch disarmament, lays emphasis on the organic bond between the moral-political aspects of security and practical disarmament. This makes it more effective. If concluded, the treaty would, indeed, create a new, much more favourable situation for halting the present dangerous developments and giving new impulse to the process of detente, leading to the successive solution of the tasks of limiting and reducing armaments, especially nuclear armaments.
The attempts to question the material relevance of the political pledge not to use nuclear weapons first are groundless.
In practical terms, the pledge calls for appropriate adjustments in military planning. Dmitri Ustinov, Defence Minister of the USSR, explained, for example, that the Soviet no-first-use pledge is of a wholly concrete character. It means, as he said, that "still greater attention will be paid now in the training of the Armed Forces to preventing any military conflict from growing into a nuclear one; these are the tasks that, in all their diversity, are becoming part of our military activity.''^^1^^ They imply a more rigid framework in training troops and staffs, in determining the arms structure, and in organising still tighter controls to rule out unsanctioned launching of tactical or strategic nuclear weapons. As we see, the Soviet decision never to use nuclear weapons first is a tangible action.
The Soviet pledge has, indeed, cast the set of problems related to the nuclear threat, its relaxation and elimination in a new light.
The acknowledgement that first use of nuclear weapons is impermissible is an important starting point in buttressing international security, in the programme aimed at eliminating the chances of nuclear catastrophe, which envisages measures that are wholly manageable if the other nuclear powers display the requisite political will.
_-_-_^^1^^ Pravda, 12 July 1982,
44The no-first-use pledge Would pave the way for banning nuclear weapons and tackling the tasks of nuclear disarmament one after the other.
At the Second Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament, the Soviet Union backed up its nofirst-use pledge with the offer of a phased nuclear disarmament programme, one of the first phases of which provides for the cessation of the production of fissionable material for nuclear weapons and the cessation of the development of any new types of nuclear weapons.
Special significance in this context attaches to the Soviet Union's support for the idea of mutually freezing nuclear arsenals as a first step towards their reduction and ultimate total elimination.
If all the nuclear powers pledged not to use nuclear weapons first, they would thereby contribute invaluably to the security of the non-nuclear states. The pledge, which applies to all countries without exception, is, among other things, an instrument that would add to the security of countries that have no nuclear weapons. To be sure, the Soviet statement offering unilateral security guarantees of not using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries that have no nuclear weapons on their territory remains in force.^^1^^
We hear voices of prestigious members of the ruling class in the West urging adjustments in the policy of Washington and NATO to suit the prevailing realities, for as pointed out by McGeorge Bundy, George Kennan, Robert McNamara and Gerard Smith, who held high posts in a number of US administrations, that policy "was first established when the American nuclear advantage was overwhelming, but that advantage has long since gone and cannot be recaptured.''^^2^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ At the First Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament, the Soviet Union pledged never to use nuclear weapons against countries that have renounced manufacture and acquisition, and also stationing of such weapons on their territory. The Soviet Union said it was prepared to conclude agreements on this score with any of the non-nuclear states, and called on the other nuclear powers to follow suit and assume analogous commitments. Other nuclear powers, such as the USA, Britain and France, came forward with statements that they would not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries either, but they attached so many reservations to their pledge that its value was thereby greatly reduced.
~^^2^^ Foreign Affairs, Vol. 60, No. 4, Spring 1982, p. 754.
45As a first step towards realism, these prestigious experts suggest renouncing first use of nuclear weapons.
Their opinion is backed by the Federation of American Scientists, and many US and Western politologists, including Richard Falk, Bernard Feld and David Lenefsky.^^1^^ Summing up the views of a large group of scholars, Hanna Newcornbe arrives at the following conclusion: as concerns the world situation a "no-first-use agreement would be a good step if the security of Western Europe could be safeguarded." Speaking of arms limitation, he continued, such an agreement could very well lead "to eventual total nuclear disarmament".^^2^^
__*_*_*__The Soviet pledge has, indeed, placed an item on the international agenda that no one is able to sidestep. In the final analysis, the attitude to it shows who is planning to start a nuclear war and who is fighting to prevent it.
There must be no breaks in this struggle. It must be given ever fresh impulses. And the Soviet Union is using all its weight in world affairs to make sure that it is successful. Again and again, this policy has proved effective.
On Soviet initiative, the UN General Assembly adopted a declaration in December 1983 which firmly, unreservedly, and for all time condemns nuclear war as being contrary to the human consciousness and reason, as being the most monstrous of crimes against humanity, against human survival.
This declaration, like the declaration of preventing nuclear catastrophe adopted on Soviet initiative in 1981, is seen by many in the UN as a new moral and political restraint for those who are nursing plans of a nuclear first strike. The declaration condemns the formulation, _-_-_
^^1^^ Federation of American Scientists. Scientists Urge "No First Use Policy" for US War/Peace Report, January 1965, p. 6; Richard A. Falk, "Renunciation of Nuclear Weapons Use", in: Nuclear Proliferation: Prospects for Control, ed. by Bennett Boskey and Mason Willrich, Dunellen Company, Inc., New York, 1970, pp. 133-145; Bernard T. Feld, "Arms Control or What?", in: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 31, No. 9, November 1975, pp. 5-7; David Lenefsky, "No-First-Use of Nuclear Weapons---A Pledge", in: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 29, No. 3, March 1973, p. 9.
~^^2^^ Hanna Newcombe, "Approaches to a Nuclear-Free Future", Part I, in: Peace Research Review, Vol. IX, No. 2, May 1982, p. 97.
46 initiation, spreading and propaganda of political and military doctrines or conceptions that justify first use of nuclear weapons and, in general, make nuclear war thinkable. The devotees of this approach have again exposed themselves: the United States and those of its NATO allies that follow closest in its footsteps voted against the declaration and also against the UN call on the Western nuclear powers (reaffirmed by the General Assembly) to follow the Soviet example and pledge no-first-use of nuclear weapons.The voting showed most clearly once again which policy is consonant with the aspirations of the peoples and which policy is at loggerheads with them. The UN approval of the declaration condemning nuclear war inspires confidence that, in the final analysis, reason will triumph and the danger that weighs upon the world will be eliminated.
[47] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter 3 __ALPHA_LVL2__ LIMITATION AND REDUCTION OF STRATEGIC ARMS __ALPHA_LVL3__ [introduction.]Nothing is more important than curbing the race of strategic armaments, which are tremendously destructive, have a long reach, are swift in action, and are the core of all mass destruction weaponry. They are the most refined technically and the most expensive economically. The menace lodged in the strategic arsenals to the survival of life on earth cannot be eliminated so long as the continuously renewed stockpiles of nuclear-missile weapons are not destroyed. Certainly, one of the chief means leading to a tangible reduction of the nuclear war threat is to reach an agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States to limit and reduce strategic nuclear arms.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. WASHINGTON: THE DRIVEAfter the initial strategic arms limitation successes of the 1970s, the Soviet-American dialogue began to flounder. The reason: imperialism's, above all US imperialism's, rejection of the principle of detente and a change of course by a considerable segment of the Western ruling element towards a politico-military confrontation, a psychological and economic war against the socialist community, and a revival of the most noxious forms of neocolonialist expansionism.
At the end of the 1970s, while the SALT talks were still going on and the sides were moving closer to concluding the SALT-II treaty, preparations for a new round of strategic arming were set in motion in the United States. Washington decided to station new US medium-range missiles in Europe. To justify this, it redoubled efforts to convince the world of a "Soviet threat". The attacks on the idea of strategic arms limitation, and arms control in general, grew fiercer, placing in question the ratification of the SALT-II Treaty by US Senate.
48The present approach of the US leadership to the strategic arms limitation dialogue is based on three main points of departure that distinguish the Reagan administration's course from that of its predecessors.
First, top US statesmen deny the existence of an overall strategic parity and complain that the Soviet Union is ahead in nuclear missiles.
Second, the principle of equality and equal security is rejected out of hand as meaningless, though it was the basis for talks and agreements in the 1970s, and the concept of so-called strategic stability has been brought into the world to replace it.
Third, instead of a mutually acceptable limitation of new types and classes of strategic weapons and subsequent increasingly considerable reduction of the already deployed weapons, Washington is suggesting a radical and selective reduction of the existing arms to suit the above two concepts. Limitation of new strategic systems and programmes is either renounced or put far back into the background.
The above three points make up the present US leadership's line of securing military superiority over the USSR.
A quantitative parity in strategic delivery vehicles, such as ground- and sea-based ballistic missiles and heavy bombers, was the foundation for a relaxation of tension and for talks on arms limitation in the early 1970s. The rough parity of the two powers in these arms was recorded in the set of SALT-I agreements, the Vladivostok accord, and the SALT-II Treaty. It has been and remains the cornerstone of the strategic balance of strength, and the foundation of the entire edifice of agreements and talks on the limitation and reduction of strategic arms.
As ballistic missiles with single warheads began to be replaced by MIRV'd strategic missiles, Washington began to devote increasing attention to their numbers. The USA doubled their stock during the previous decade. But in the latter half of the 1970s, the Soviet Union took requisite steps to close the lag.^^1^^ Limitation of the number of warheads on ballistic missiles and bombers (including cruise missiles) became one of the central SALT-II issues.
With the strategic forces getting thousands of nuclear warheads and the situation of the two powers levelling out _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Whence the Threat to Peace, Second ed., Military Publishing House, Moscow, 1982, pp. 6-8.
__PRINTERS_P_49_COMMENT__ 4---339 49 in this regard, the accent in America's strategic policy of the late 1970s shifted to purely qualitative factors of the nuclear balance. To suit the "limited nuclear war" doctrine and the concepts of hitting command and control posts and destroying enemy strategic weapons at bases, silos and launching pads,^^1^^ the main accent in the military balance is now less on comparing the number of vehicles or warheads, and much more on comparing weapons capable of highly accurate co-ordinated or flexibly re-targeted strikes at hardened targets of the opposite strategic force.At the end of the 1970s, the West began howling about "Soviet superiority" in ground-based ballistic missiles. It maintained that these missiles, owing to their great throwweight (i.e. their ability to deliver a considerable number of powerful warheads), their relatively high accuracy, the reliable system of control and communications, combat readiness, etc., are the "key parameter" in the balance of Soviet and American forces. And it is quite true that for objective historical and technical reasons, ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles play a far greater role in the Soviet strategic force than in that of the United States (with nearly 70 per cent of Soviet warheads and only 20 per cent of US warheads being installed on them). Naturally, therefore, the Soviet Union has an advantage in this field, but this in an overall setting of roughly balanced totals of vehicles and warhead members, which are gradually balancing out. The Soviet advantage here, however, is offset by US advantages in sea-launched MIRV'd ballistic missiles and in heavy bombers, which are at present being armed with cruise missiles. But the American rightists and the US military-industrial complex, who take the relation in ground-based ICBMs out of context, have been arguing since the end of the 1970s that the Soviet Union is seeking nuclear superiority. This has helped them to undermine the SALT-II Treaty and to argue in favour of new strategic programmes.
On coming to power, the Reagan administration went still further and treats the disproportion in ground-based missiles that had objectively shaped between the USSR and the USA as an absolute. Unlike the preceding administration, members of the Republican leadership began to _-_-_
~^^1^^ These provisions are central to the so-called counteri'orce strategy of the USA.
50 declare publicly that the Soviet Union had attained a " strategic superiority" which the United States must eliminate in order to "restore the balance".^^1^^ What the Republicans are really after, however, is not to ``restore'' but to upset the nuclear balance and to win superiority or what administration officials call "a margin of safety" by the end of the 1980s.^^2^^Washington sees one way of attaining its goal in eliminating the Soviet advantage in ground-based missiles, and in building up rather than reducing the US advantage in sea- and air-based elements of the nuclear triad. This is to be achieved by deploying Ohio class submarines, Trident I and Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles, long-range sea-based nuclear-armed cruise missiles, B-1B heavy bombers, the new Stealth aircraft, and air-launched cruise missiles. As for the ground-based component, the US politico-military leadership seeks to radically tilt in favour of the USA the balance of strength that has shaped objectively between the sides in key fields.^^3^^
Washington expects to benefit here in some respects from a strategic arms limitation and reduction agreement. This underlies one of the chief principles of the Reagan administration's approach to the negotiations. The START option advanced by the US President on 9 May 1982 envisages exceedingly rigid selective measures limiting groundbased ballistic missiles. The ceiling for warheads is put at 2,500 units, which would mean a reduction by a half of the present Soviet ICBMs, while the ceiling of 850 units offered by Washington for all ground- and sea-based ballistic missiles would compel the Soviet Union to reduce its ground-based missiles still more. The reduction of the total strategic throw-weight envisaged by the United States in later stages would require the dismantling of as much as 90 per cent of the Soviet ground-based ICBMs. In other _-_-_
~^^1^^ Modernization of the U.S. Strategic Deterrent. Hearings at the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 97th Congress, 1st Session, October 5, November 5, 1981, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1982, pp. 25-26.
~^^2^^ Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, FY 1983 Defense Budget Report, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1982, pp. 118-134.
~^^3^^ See Arms Control Policy, Planning and Negotiations. Hearings by Committee on Armed Services. U.S. Senate, 97th Congress, 1st session. July 21, December 1, 1981, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1982, p. 37.
__PRINTERS_P_51_COMMENT__ 4* 51 words, it would all but wipe out the core of the Soviet Union's defence capability.Washington considers the new American MX ICBMs, which have a large throw-weight and are highly accurate, an ace in the hole. Edward Rowny, head of the US delegagation at the strategic arms limitation and reduction talks, said: "We have to do two things. Build up our own throw weight by building more MX's and make our IGBM force less vulnerable... When the Soviets see that we have the will and the commitment to continue to close this gap, it is my opinion that they will then begin reducing the throw weight on their ICBM's." And he amplified: "If... they continue to build, then we have to build even more than we now plan to build.''^^1^^ In the framework of the START option, the USA would deploy 100 new MX IGBMs, while scrapping 500 outdated single-warhead Minuteman-2 and Titan-2 ICBMs^^2^^ and only 50 Minuteman-3 missiles.
The line of the Reagan administration which provides for a drastic reduction of the main component of the Soviet strategic potential is obviously contrary to the principles of equality and equal security. These principles, which governed the SALT talks in the 1970s, presuppose that any arms limitation agreements should cover all, not merely some arbitrarily selected, types of strategic weapons. They presuppose that reduction and limitation should apply equally to both sides, and that, following the fulfilment of the terms reached by the USSR and the USA, the parity will be maintained and consolidated at a lower nuclearmissile level. The terms offered by Reagan, on the other hand, apply much more demonstrably to the ground-based component of the Soviet strategic weaponry than to the ground- or sea-based elements of the US strategic force, while the third, air-based type of strategic weapon, in which the US advantage is quite considerable, is altogether left out of the limitation and reduction framework.
If this US project were put into effect, America would have nearly 50 per cent more delivery vehicles and a nearly three-fold advantage in the nuclear warheads they carry. And all this the US would receive as a kind of bonus (of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Arms Control Policy, Planning and Negotiations..., p. 35.
~^^2^^ In that case, however, with the ceiling at 850 missiles, the USA would be expected to have only 150 SLBMs, that is build 6 Ohio class submarines but scrap 31 Poseidon class submarines (496 SLBMs), which appears unlikely.
52 which Washington chooses to say nothing) in addition to the "levelling of the imbalarice" in the throw-weight ( number of vehicles plus number and power of warheads) of groundbased ballistic missiles. Its unequal proposals show that the Reagan administration snubs the principle of equality and equal security and wants to saddle the Soviet Union with the US concept of so-called strategic stability as a basis for negotiation. __ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. HOW THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION PLEADS ITS CASEThe substance of the "strategic stability" concept is that ground-based ICBMs are, by virtue of their earlier described properties, alleged to be a destabilising element of the military balance, because they are ostensibly better suited for a rapid pre-emptive strike against the strategic weaponry of the other side, notably missile silos and command and control posts. The greater the ground-based ICBM capability, US negotiators maintain, the more probable is the use of strategic arms in a critical situation and, consequently, the less is the stability of the nuclear balance.
Sea-based ballistic missiles, on the other hand, are declared a weapon of retaliation against administrative and industrial targets because, it is said, they lack the requisite combination of accuracy and warhead power, and besides, reliable two-way communications with command posts to coordinate a first strike. Bombers and cruise missiles are put under the same head, because they take a long time to rea'ch their target. Thus, the sea and air components of the triad are classified as ``stabilising'' types of strategic arms.
The above concept has enabled the present administration to scrap already existing methods of evaluating the military correlation and the notion of the prevailing overall Soviet-American strategic parity. The US advantages are portrayed as ``ineffectual'' and the Soviet ones as ``menacing'' and ``unacceptable''. Edward Rowny said at the Senate Committee on Armed Forces: "I think the total warhead number as it now stands is not a very good measure. The advantage which we temporarily enjoy in the total number of warheads is in areas which are not usable in a so-called first strike exchange. Our temporary lead is in the SLBM field and in the bomber field; generally in second strike or follow-on strike capabilities.''^^1^^
_-_-_^^1^^ Arms Control Policy, Planning and Negotiations..., p. 38.
53Reagan's strategic arms limitation and reduction proposals of 9 May 1982 are modelled to suit Pentagon's October 1981 strategic programme. They forbid more than half of the 5,000 permitted warheads---that is, more than 2,500 warheads---to be mounted on ground-based IGBMs. On sea-based missiles, on the other hand, there may be any number (under 5,000). Theoretically, therefore, the USA could by 1990 have 100 operative MX ICBMs (1,000 warheads) and as many as ten Ohio class submarines and 16 submarines of the preceding class with 256 Trident-I missiles (altogether 4,968 warheads).^^1^^
As for heavy bombers, they come under no limitation. The USA is out to build up its strategic airforce unimpeded, and arm it with cruise missiles. By 1990 it could have some 370 B-52 and B-1B bombers (capable of lifting several thousand cruise missiles in one sortie) and begin introducing the fundamentally new Stealth type aircraft.
The "strategic stability" concept, which lays the stress on the sea and air components of the strategic forte and which is quite obviously modelled to suit the US nuclear arsenal, was conceived long before the Reagan administration moved into the White House. Throughout the 1970s, Washington had time and again tried to fit the SALT agreements into its framework, as for example, in 1973 and 1977. But never before has the US leadership tried to saddle the Soviet Union with such blatantly unequal arms limitation terms. Never before has it mounted so massive a propaganda campaign to back its proposals. Never before has it been so uncompromising at the negotiating table, relying on the crude blackmail of its new nuclear missile programmes.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. WHAT IS BEHIND THE US LINE OF "RADICALLYThe Republican administration is trying to conceal the lopsidedness of its strategic arms limitation and reduction proposals in the eyes of the public at home and abroad by emphasising the "radical nature" of the measures it _-_-_
~^^1^^ The United States would have to scrap only 1,052 Minuteman-2, Minuteman-3 and Titan-2 ICBMs and 15 submarines with 240 Poseidon SLBMs. The combination of US strategic forces in 1990 in the START framework could, alternatively, be the following: 100 MX IGBMs and 300 Minuteman-3 ICBMs with MK-12A missile heads, 8 Ohio class submarines and 12 submarines of the previous class with 384 Trident-1 SLBMs. In all: 784 missiles and 4,972 warheads, with 752 ICBMs and 304 SLBMs on 19 submarines removed from service.
54 has been offering in Geneva. This ties in with yet another aspect of the current US approach to the limitation arid reduction of strategic arms. At first glance, Washington is, indeed, offering a considerable reduction---down to a ceiling of 850 for ground- and sea-based ballistic missiles which, even if we count 370 to 550 heavy bombers in the US arsenal, would yield a total of 1,220-1,400 strategic delivery vehicles. While we may recall that the Soviet Union is offering a 25 per cent reduction of delivery vehicles to 1,800 units on each side. But closer scrutiny will reveal that the US proposal is not prompted by any desire to disarm. There are other reasons behind it.To begin with, in the 1980s a certain reduction was begun in the number of US strategic delivery vehicles due to physical wear and tear of weapons that were made operative in large sets and at an exceedingly high rate in the 1960s. By the mid-1980s the USA will have removed more than 300 strategic delivery vehicles,^^1^^ not counting the 240 old B-52 aircraft which are at present in cold storage but included in the strategic weapons total specified under SALT-II. In the latter half of the 1980s, the USA will also withdraw 450 Minuteman-2 ballistic missiles, with the remaining 1,230 missiles and aircraft slated for removal in the early half of the 1990s.^^2^^
This weaponry will be replaced by a new generation of strategic systems---much more sophisticated but also much more expensive and intricate, keeping the replacement of old by new vehicles at a lower than 1:1 ratio. Under Reagan's programme, the US will have 10 to 13 Ohio class submarines, 100 MX ICBMs and 100 B-1B bombers by 1990, with the number of US strategic delivery vehicles going down from 2,280 (in 1979) to 1,700-1,800 units. And if the deployment of new weapons systems proceeds at a higher rate in the early 1990s, the number of US strategic delivery vehicles will go down to at most 1,300-1,600 vehicles by the middle of the next decade.^^3^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Ten submarines with 160 Polaris A-3 missiles, 90 B-52D bombers, and 52 Titan-2 ICBMs.
~^^2^^ This includes 450 Minuteman-3 ICBMs, 496 Trident-I and Poseidon SLBMs on old submarines (31), and 246 B-52s.
~^^3^^ This estimate assumes that 1,330 Minuteman-3 ICBMs, Trident-I and Poseidon SLBMs, and B-52 bombers are removed in 1990-1997, while at most 14 Ohio submarines, 600 MX or Midgetman and 200 B-l and Stealth aircraft will be made operative, amounting all in all to 1,100 vehicles.
55Despite the reduction of delivery vehicles, the number of nuclear warheads will keep increasing. By 1990 it is likely to rise 50 per cent---from 10,000 to 15,000 units--- and, more importantly, their striking power, survival and flexible retargetting, and the stability and efficiency of the command, control and communications system, will rise considerably. From the strategic and political point of view, the United States will not want to have any large disproportion with the USSR in number of vehicles, the simplest and most graphic indicator of the nuclear balance. In many ways, this explains Washington's ever stronger pressure for ``radical'' strategic arms reductions.
Behind the screen of the seemingly well-meaning slogan of "rapid progress" in disarmament, the US is really working to speed up the qualitative arms race, and to maximise---with fewer nuclear delivery vehicles---the strategic, military and political effect of the new generation of nuclear weaponry and qualitatively new weapons systems (ABMs and anti-ship weapons, space war weapons, and so on). Small wonder that, while insisting on reductions, US negotiators have, in effect, striick the matter of limiting new strategic arms systems off the agenda and categorically reject the Soviet nuclear freeze proposal so popular with the public in the United States. It is easy to see that Reagan's nuclear-missile programmes will not be affected by the ``redactions'' envisaged in the US proposal. All it means is that armaments which will anyway come up for scrapping in the late 1980s or early 1990s will be removed a little (five to seven years) earlier. Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko stressed in this connection that "Washington's position is not aimed at reducing strategic armaments but at quickly legalising the strategic arms race with an eye to the United States getting unilateral advantages. "^^1^^
The other objective underlying Washington's present course is that of shifting the centre of gravity in the Soviet-American nuclear confrontation from the global to a regional, above all European, level. Washington estimates that this would reduce the potency of nuclear retaliation against US territory, while the Soviet Union would be within reach of US forward-based nuclear weapons in Western Europe and the adjoining seas, in the Middle East, the Indian Ocean, and the Far East.
_-_-_^^1^^ Pravda, 24 February 1983. 56
56Given this reduction of the strategic arms ceiling, the political and military role of the West's regional nuclear forces would increase. The deployment of 572 US ballistic and cruise missiles in Western Europe now under way would amount to a 25 per cent increase (in vehicles) of the US strategic potential. And if the set of START proposals were put into effect, the increase would be nearly 50 per cent, with the planned deployment of several hundred sea-based cruise missiles, if put into effect, making it a more than 100 per cent boost. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, would be rigidly bound by the US terms to the low strategic arms ceiling.
The US leadership also expects to win political advantages ---greater political and military control over its imperialist allies, and erosion of the detente process in Europe. The other gain for Washington of a "radical reduction" is in the field of political propaganda. In the setting of the international detente of the early half of the 1970s, US devotees of military superiority and the arms race had had to suit their arguments to the changed situation. They criticised the Soviet-American SALT dialogue for its `` deficiencies'' and campaigned for more ``radical'' proposals which, of course, were impracticable because they set more limits on the USSR than on the United States.
Senator Henry Jackson, for example, and his then adviser Richard Perle (now Assistant Secretary of Defense), opposed the November 1974 Vladivostok accords, and demanded that the agreed overall ceiling for strategic delivery vehicles should be lowered from 2,400 to 1,760. "The Jackson proposals", wrote Arthur Macy Cox, a US expert, "were a negotiating maneuver obviously unacceptable to the Soviets, but because of the complexity of the nuclear numbers game many supporters of detente were deceived into thinking it was a good idea".^^1^^
The advocates of US nuclear superiority who refuse to be reconciled with strategic parity, are out to kill two birds with one stone. They make clearly unacceptable proposals to the USSR, amounting to a propaganda challenge, and appeal demagogically to the public disarmament sentiment at home and abroad. If the proposals are by any chance accepted, which is most unlikely, the strategic _-_-_
~^^1^^ Arthur M. Cox, The Dynamics of Detente. How to End the Arms Race, W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., New York, 1976, p. 33.
57 relation of strength would change quite substantially in America's favour. If, as is only to be expected, the proposals are rejected, the military-industrial complex and its allies expect to be able to justify a steep escalation of the arms race and thereby unilaterally upset the strategic parity.This, among other things, lay behind the moves of the Garter administration in 1977 when it scrapped the Vladivostok accord and advanced the project of "overall restrictions" on strategic arms. But never before have these designs played so great a role in US policy as they do under Ronald Reagan.
Having come to power with the intention of scrapping SALT-II and escalating the arms race in order to gain a "nuclear edge", the Reagan administration ran into serious difficulties already in the first two years of its term in office. It found, as Defense Secretary Weinberger bitterly complained, that it could not tilt the strategic balance in favour of the United States as quickly as it wished.^^1^^ A powerful nuclear freeze movement grew inside the United States. And under the impact of economic recession and the huge budget deficit pressure began to build up on Capitol Hill for reducing the unprecedentedly high military expenditures.
The widely advertised US plan of strategic arms limitation and reduction is meant to relieve the political pressure on the government inside and outside the United States, and to justify the continued large-scale Pentagon nuclear-missile programmes. If it cannot torpedo the strategic arms limitation and reduction dialogue, Washington wants to lead it into an impasse for years ahead on the pretext of Soviet ``intractability''. This Washington has confirmed more than once by word and deed. Caspar Weinberger, for example, while noting that the US approach envisages a radical change in the nuclear balance against the USSR, says candidly: "We believe our program will increase the incentives to the Soviets to seek meaningful arms reductions. Should they fail to recognize this opportunity, we will be in a better position to assure the country that our deterrent is strong and effective.''^^2^^
The same purpose of ``freezing'' the negotiations is served by the new US verification demands, which envisage _-_-_
~^^1^^ Modernization of the U,S, Strategic Deterrent,, p. 17,
^^2^^ Ibid., p. 8.
58 a considerable expansion of inspection measures beyond national technical verification means on both sides.^^1^^ These reasons explain the rigid position of the US negotiators in Geneva, as they do the far-flung propaganda campaign mounted by the United States in support of the already mentioned 9 May 1982 Reagan proposals.In 1983, Reagan came out with projects which US media hastened to proclaim "flexible and constructive". Their purpose was to appease world public opinion, which is increasingly disturbed by the US leadership's drive for military superiority.
Specifically, the US suggested limiting the total of ICBMs on each side not to 850 units as before, but to a larger figure. This is paraded as a concession to the Soviet Union, but in fact only reflects the desire to gain a chance of deploying a new type of ICBM, the Midgetnian, at some future date. Though the USA had agreed from the outset to include heavy bombers in the future agreement, setting a ceiling of 400 units for them, it refuses to put them under the same head as ballistic missiles. That is a key problem, because the attempt to separate bombers and ICBMs is aimed at consolidating the US advantage. On top of this, a Soviet bomber called Backfire in the West, really a medium and not a heavy bomber, is being unfairly included in the number of Soviet aircraft subject to limitation.
The US administration says it is prepared to negotiate limitation of long-range cruise missiles. But again it refuses to include them in the strategic arms total under the head of vehicles or of warheads.
Further, the US announced that when commissioning new warheads as many or a few more of the outdated ones are to be scrapped. Note that this applies exclusively to ballistic missile warheads. And again warheads of groundbased IGBMs are to be reduced the most. A steep build-up of US long-range ground-, sea- and air-based cruise missiles is still in the books. US experts estimate that if the above proposals are put into effect, the number of US strategic nuclear warheads will rise by several thousand and will amount to 15,000.
It follows that in its bid to win supremacy, to upset the strategic arms parity, the US administration insists on a selective approach to the limitation of strategic weapons.
_-_-_^^1^^ Arms Control Policy, Planning and Negotiations..., pp. 103-104.
59 __ALPHA_LVL3__ 4. SOVIET EFFORTS TO SECURE STRATEGICStrategic parity was no gift to the Soviet Union which the USA may ask back at will. It was a historic gain the Soviet people achieved by the early 1970s in spite of and counter to Washington's wishes. And given the existing relation of strength, the US attempts to upset parity and win superiority are still less realistic than before.
Commenting on the continuing US efforts to win strategic superiority over the Soviet Union, CG CPSU General Secretary Konstantin Ghernenko said: "All this is forcing the USSR to fortify the nation's defences. The Soviet people want no arms build-up. What they want is arms reduction on both sides. But we are compelled to see to our country's essential security, and also to that of our friends and allies. That is exactly what is being done. And we want everybody to remember that no adventure-seekers will ever succeed in catching us unawares, that no potential aggressor has the slightest chance of escaping a devastating retaliatory strike.''^^1^^ The Soviet leadership has also made clear time and again that the Soviet Union has weapons that can counterweigh other US weaponry---the Typhoon to counter the Trident system, and a similar Soviet aircraft to counter the B-1B bomber.
Still, if all these and other weapon systems were to be deployed on a full scale in the 1980s, this would be a very high price to pay for the United States to learn again that nuclear superiority is unattainable. The potential of global destruction would then be lifted to still higher and still more absurd levels. The new refined weapon systems and the related highly dangerous imperialist strategic concepts, would add to the probability of a thermonuclear war. The nuclear missile build-up would make the international political situation much tenser, impede progress in other disarmament fields, and give added impetus to the spread of nuclear weapons, to say nothing of the tremendous material costs to all concerned. Lastly, new classes and types of weapons would make limitation and reduction agreements, and the concomitant control and verification, still more difficult to achieve.
The above is central to the peace-loving policy of the socialist countries, the historic Soviet pledge not to use _-_-_
^^1^^ Pravda, 3 March 1984, 60
60 nuclear weapons first, and the Soviet proposals for freezing the nuclear stockpiles of the world's two militarily strongest powers. The Soviet approach to strategic arms reduction is based on the principle that an overall strategic equilibrium has shaped and continues to prevail between the two powers. Yet, this concept of strategic equilibrium, so cardinal in the present-day world, is bound to change in content, at least within limits, if new classes and types of weapons are developed.Such criteria as the correlation of the number of strategic delivery vehicles, and even of the number of the two powers' nuclear warheads, however important they may be, will no longer by themselves be able to guarantee the maintenance of a strategic equilibrium in the 1980s. As we have shown before, the number of vehicles of the US strategic force will go down with the years, and the number of warheads will most probably rise at a slower rate than before ---by 50 per cent in the 1980s as against 100 per cent in the 70s.^^1^^ But this will not make the job of maintaining parity simpler than it was before, because the United States intends to achieve superiority above all by means of a qualitative arms race, that is, by replacing the existing weapons systems with qualitatively more sophisticated ones. Marshal of the Soviet Union Dmitri Ustinov, USSR Minister of Defence, has made this quite clear: "Superiority is unambiguously conceived as the capability to hit the Soviet Union where and when Washington deems it desirable on the assumption that the counter-strike against the USA will be less powerful than it otherwise would be.''^^2^^
In the 1980s, the approach to strategic equilibrium (a relation of strength that rules out superiority on either side) and efforts to consolidate that equilibrium and lower its levels, call (in addition to comparisons of numbers) for the correlation between the US first-strike capability and the capability of the Soviet Union to deliver a strike in reply. Alongside the essential enhancement of the Soviet defence capability, the potential of the counter-strike (the chief deterrent) may be enlarged and consolidated through mutually acceptable agreements of strategic arms limitation and reduction. This, indeed, is the aim of the Soviet proposals in Geneva on stopping up all channels for _-_-_
^^1^^ Whence the Threat to Peace, pp. 33-41.
~^^2^^ Pravda, 12 July 1982.
61 continuing the arms race, on banning deployment of new strategic weapons, and on limiting to the maximum the improvement of their quality.The stability of the strategic balance is highly important in this context. But the US theory of stability, which declares ground-based ICBMs the sole destabilising weapon that is therefore subject to reduction, does not stand up to serious criticism. The approach to stability must not be purely mechanical, divorced from the general correlation of strength encompassing all pertinent elements. Comparisons of the ability of ICBMs to destroy hardened targets with the ability of analogous ICBMs of the other side are, in effect, meaningless. The comparisons should apply not only to ground-based missiles but also to all other weapons. The importance of the various components of the strategic potential of the other side, and in a broader sense the first-strike capability of one side and the capacity for retaliation of the other, should also be subject to comparison.
Since a pre-emptive strike may be delivered first of all to weaken the retaliation, the theoretical ability of various types of ICBMs to destroy missile silos is not equivalent to the ability of delivering a first disabling strike, considering that the US ground-based ICBMs carry only 20 per cent of the strategic warheads. More, new generations of sea-launched ballistic missiles of greater accuracy and with more powerful warheads will be as capable as groundbased ICBMs of destroying hardened targets, let alone airfields and submarine bases. And since they take a shorter time to reach the target and can attack from unpredictable directions, they may by all rights be considered destabilising.
Still more dangerous in the first-strike context are weapons adapted to paralysing the capacity for retaliation by destroying or disorganising the other side's early warning system and the system of command, control and communications. Nuclear weapons that are harder to detect by means of the early warning system and that reach their targets in a short time and from unpredictable directions should rank first for destabilising capability. This, too, is a reference to sea-launched ballistic missiles, long-range cruise missiles, ``stealth'' aircraft projects, and the new forward-based medium-range missiles of pinpoint accuracy. Anti-submarine, ABM and anti-satellite systems that 62 are now being intensively developed are also liable to have a destabilising effect in view of their ability to cushion a retaliatory strike.
Maximum limitation of the listed classes and types of weapons could, of course, add to the stability of the strategic situation.
An accord among the great powers to ban bomber overflights and cruising of aircraft carriers with planes carrying nuclear arms in zones abutting on the territory of the other side could be important in reducing the danger of sudden attack or accidental use of nuclear weapons. Advance notification of large flights of heavy bombers and forwardbased aircraft, and establishment of zones free of any antisubmarine activity of the other side's missile-carrying submarines would also be most useful in this respect. These measures are no less relevant as the US proposals for advance notification of ballistic missile launchings.
The Soviet Union has always been and always will be an advocate of truly radical strategic arms reductions. They must, however, repose on the principles of equality and equal security, ruling out one-sided impingement on the defence capability of one of the powers and without upsetting the existing balance of strength while lowering its level. It is also important that strategic arms reductions should not prejudice the stability of the nuclear balance, that is, affect the survivability or increase the disabling first-strike capability of the strategic forces as a whole.
Washington's START proposals, which provide for a reduction of the strategic weapons of the USA and the USSR (including aviation) by 40-60 per cent in the case of delivery vehicles and by 10-30 per'cent in the case of warheads, could have a negative effect in this respect as well. If carried into practice, the Soviet Union would hypothetically retain not more than 400-500 ground-based ICBMs and only some 20 nuclear-capable submarines which would be sitting ducks for the thousands of highly accurate American MX and Trident-2 warheads and massive ABM weapons. The obvious contradiction between the Reagan administration's "radical reductions" plan and its concept of ``stability'' is added proof that Washington seeks strategic superiority rather than progress in disarmament and in lessening the chances of nuclear war.
The Soviet proposal is that in the first phase the sides should reduce their strategic weapons equally by 25 per 63 cent and enforce a maximally strict limitation and ban on improving or deploying new types of strategic weapons. After this is done, the sides could begin still more far-- reaching reductions. In that case, the reduction of nuclear stockpiles would conform with the objective of stabilising the strategic balance and reducing the chance and probability of a first strike. In addition, keeping step with progress along this path, it would be necessary to ensure a proportionate limitation and subsequent reduction of US forwardbased nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons of third countries trained on the Soviet Union, and restriction of certain types of armed forces and military activities that have not so far been covered in any nuclear arms negotiations but have a direct bearing on the strategic balance (e.g. antisubmarine and anti-satellite systems).
Freezing nuclear, including strategic, arms quantitatively and qualitatively, as proposed by the Soviet Union, is of the utmost importance. It would prevent the military-industrial complex from employing its usual tactic of dragging out negotiations so that rapid fulfilment of military programmes would confront diplomats at the negotiating table with accomplished facts and relieve new weapon systems of possible limitation.
These far-reaching measures that could visibly reduce the probability of thermonuclear war, coupled with a search for mutually acceptable solutions in the framework of the Soviet-American strategic arms limitation and reduction dialogue in the 1980s, would be possible only if the whole political climate in the world were to improve. The present US attempts at combining "radical arms reduction" projects with anti-Soviet hysteria and an unprecedented arms build-up only go to show that Washington's peace posture is hypocritical and its approach to staving off a global catastrophe insincere and irresponsible. Progress in disarmament and progress in reducing international tensions are indissolubly and dialectically linked processes.
The deployment of new US medium-range missiles, which are a strategic weapon in relation to the USSR, is naturally bound to affect the strategic arms limitation and reduction talks. But the policy of the US leadership cannot alter the realities of the nuclear age, the durable correlation of strength in the world, and the unbending will of the nations to safeguard peace and promote disarmament. 64 And the objective long-term security interests of all countries, including the United States, irrespective of the ideological and political biases of the administration that happens to be in power, require that these realities be recognised.
[65] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter 4 __ALPHA_LVL2__ NUCLEAR-FREE ZONES __ALPHA_LVL3__ [introduction.]The peoples of the world are becoming increasingly aware today of the serious danger of nu'clear war, caused by US militaristic activities, and of the need for concrete measures to prevent it. This concern is also seen in the fact that broad public and government circles in many countries have been discussing proposals about creating nuclear-free zones, i.e. geographic zones where nuclear weapons are to be neither developed, nor deployed.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. THE CONCEPT OF A NUCLEAR-FREE ZONEWashington's massive arms build-up, the Pentagon's plans of ``limited'' and ``protracted'' nuclear wars in various regions of the globe, the establishment of US nuclear bases on foreign territories, and the attempts to involve numerous countries in US military plans have lately given a new impetus to the idea of creating nuclear-free zones. Its advocates believe that the further strengthening of their countries' nuclear-free status would guarantee their non-involvement in a nuclear conflict. This idea enjoys broad popularity, which is evidenced by the relevant proposals from a number of governments, its support by the UN and other international organisations, and the mass anti-nuclear demonstrations, whose participants increasingly call for creating nuclear-weapon-free zones. The viability of this idea has also been confirmed by practical experience in securing a nuclear-free status for the Latin American countries, a status that was formalised by the 1967 Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (Treaty of Tlatelolco).
The issue of nuclear-free zones has been a subject of discussion by the United Nations for a number of years. UN General Assembly resolutions and other UN documents have formulated and agreed upon concrete provisions making up the concept "nuclear-weapon-free zone", or " 66 nuclearfree zone". These documents have, above all, formulated some general principles of the concept, consisting essentially in that states included in such zones shall promise neither to purchase and develop nuclear weapons, nor to admit foreign nuclear weapons into those zones, while states that already possess nuclear weapons shall in turn promise to strictly respect the nuclear-weapon-free zone status and refrain from using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against states situated in such zones.^^1^^ The UN General Assembly resolutions favouring the creation of nuclearweapon-free zones in various regions of the globe and adopted in recent years with the backing of an overwhelming majority of UN members helped to make this idea become more popular.
Significantly, today's massive anti-war movement throughout the world is showing growing interest in the idea of nuclear-free zones. Calls for the creation of such zones have become an essential element in the slogans of mass anti-war demonstrations. In some countries, there are movements for creating nuclear-free zones both on a national and local scale. It is not by chance that this movement has become especially widespread in Western Europe. It was, in effect, a response to the NATO leaders' decision to deploy new medium-range US nuclear missiles in several West European states and to the readiness of US strategists to use the territories of their West European NATO allies as a theatre of war involving the use of nuclear weapons. The abrupt upsurge in the anti-nuclear movement in Western Europe was chiefly motivated by the West European peoples' increased awareness of the danger of these actions. The participants in the movement demand more resolutely than before that their governments alienate themselves from the dangerous nuclear plans of the United States and NATO, remove nuclear weapons from their territories, and proclaim them nuclear-free zones. In some countries, the movement for nuclear-free zones has spread to municipal bodies.
As a result of a powerful anti-nuclear movement, many towns, settlements and other administrative centres in _-_-_
~^^1^^ Final Document of the Tenth Special Session of the General Assembly. Resolution S.-10/2, June 30, 1978. See also UN Doc. CGD/ 467. Comprehensive Study of the Question of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones in All Its Aspects. Special Report of the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament, United Nations, New York, 1976.
__PRINTERS_P_67_COMMENT__ 5* 67 Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium and West Germany were declared nuclear-free zones, where local authorities prohibit the deployment, transportation and production of nuclear weapons. And though their national governments have declared they would ignore such resolutions, their moral and political significance is great for they symbolise the rejection by the broad masses of population of nuclear weapons, the nuclear arms race, and the strategy of nuclear intimidation, and show the desire of those masses to make a concrete contribution to the struggle for eliminating the threat of ntfclear war and for curbing the nuclear arms race.The Soviet Union's attitude to the nuclear-free zone concept and to the recent proposals aimed at forming such zones in various regions of the world rests on its principled position: from the very start of the nuclear age, it has been a consistent opponent of nuclear weaponry as such, of nuclear confrontation and of the nuclear (and conventional) arms race; it has resolutely spoken in favour of limiting and reducing nuclear weapons and strengthening international security by promoting detente, international co-operation and disarmament.
The USSR attaches paramount importance to the need to eliminate the threat of nuclear war and achieve disarmament, especially in the nuclear field, and also to the need to consolidate peace and security. It has always regarded measures for excluding specific regions from the nuclear arms race as an important trend in the work aimed at implementing regional military detente, preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, rediicirig the danger of nuclear war, and curbing the nuclear arms race. It is therefore only natural that it was the Soviet Union which tabled, on 27 March 1956, a proposal in the UN Disarmament Commission to create a zone of limitation and inspection of armaments in Europe. That was the beginning of the struggle for nuclear-free zones. The proposal suggested that an agreement be reached to ban the deployment of nuclear-armed units and all other types of atomic and hydrogen weapons in a zone that would iildude the territories of the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany, and also their neighbour states.^^1^^ _-_-_
~^^1^^ Official Records of the Disarmament Commission, Suppl. for January to December 1956, Document DC/83, Annex 5, (DC/SC. 1/41, and Corr. 1).
68 In fact, this proposal contained the contours of future plans for creating nuclear-free zones. It was further elaborated in Poland's proposal (1957) to create a nuclear-free zone in Central Europe. Under the Polish plan, the participants (Poland, Czechoslovakia, the GDR, and the FRG) were to have undertaken not to produce, purchase or deploy nuclear weapons on their territories. The nuclear powers were to have promised not to hand over nuclear weapons to the participants, not to deploy them there, or use them against the territory of the said nuclear-free zone. The Polish plan also provided for measures to control the implementation of such an agreement. The USSR declared its support for the Polish proposal and expressed readiness to adhere to its commitments. A similar statement was made by Czechoslovakia and the GDR.It is not accidental that the idea of creating a nuclearfree zone was initially suggested in regard to Central Europe, a region where the need to prevent nuclear confrontation had become especially urgent already at that time. However, the United States and its NATO allies took a negative stand towards this issue, showing no desire to undertake any commitments not to deploy or use nuclear weapons in Central Europe.
In subsequent years, the idea of creating nuclear-free zones to strengthen regional security was backed by many countries. It was amplified in various projects for establishing nuclear-free zones in respective continents, regions and countries. These projects reflected the specific features of the military-political situation in individual regions, the stands of individual governments and the public and changes in the world situation as a whole.
In determining its attitude to the establishment of nuclear-free zones in specific regions, the USSR proceeds from the assumption that the main task of any nuclear-free zone is to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons on a regional scale, and to protect the states of the region in question from becoming involved in a nuclear conflict.
In assessing concrete projects, the question that naturally arises is what should be the prerequisites for creating an effective, totally nuclear-free zone. There can, of course, be no single model. Every region has its own specifics, which should be taken into account in drafting a relevant agreement. However, this does not exclude the need for working out certain general criteria for a nuclear-free 69 zone, ensuing from the tasks facing such zones and from their role within the system of international security.
These criteria stem primarily from the principal tasks any nuclear-free zone is called upon to resolve. They include a pledge by the participating states not to produce and purchase nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, not to exercise direct or indirect control over such arms, and also not to allow the presence of foreign nuclear weapons in the zone. It is also important for such a zone to be really free of nuclear arms; the relevant agreement must not have any loopholes that would make it possible to violate the zone's nuclear-free status. On their part, the nuclear states would have to strictly respect the zone's nuclear-free status and not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against its participants. An agreement on a nuclear-free zone would have to conform with the existing norms of international law. An important factor in making a nuclear-free zone effective would be the establishment of a reliable mechanism to control the fulfilment of commitments undertaken by the nations participating in such a zone. Being a regional measure, a nuclear-free zone must have its distinctive features as compared with global measures. However, inasmuch as it is assumed that the nuclear states would have to undertake definite commitments in regard to the states participating in a nuclear-free zone, the need for the former to take part in relevant talks is obvious.
In conformity with its principled policy of limiting the territorial bounds of nuclear armaments with a view to eliminating the threat of nuclear conflict and strengthening international peace and security, the USSR favours talks on these matters and shows readiness to co-operate with other countries in implementing concrete proposals on the establishment of nuclear-free zones. This line is reflected in the resolutions of the 24th, 25th, and 26th CPSU Congresses; in the Soviet government proposals tabled for discussion at the United Nations and other international forums, and also within the framework of diplomatic contacts with non-nuclear states which have expressed their desire to formalise de jure the nuclear-free status of their territories.
In line with this principled stand, in 1978 the USSR signed and ratified Additional Protocol II of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America 70 (Treaty of Tlatelolco)^^1^^, thus pledging to respect the status of the Latin American nuclear-free zone. When signing Additional Protdcol II, the USSR made a statement which outlined certain important conditions that would make the Treaty effective.^^2^^
The USSR's positive attitude towards creating nuclearfree zones was confirmed by its Memorandum submitted to the Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament (1982), which, among other things, states: "It is the view of many states that the establishment of geographical zones where nuclear weapons shall neither be developed nor deployed plays an important part in curbing the arms race.''
As for the geographical limits of nuclear-free zones, as is apparent from the proposals put up by various governments, such zones may include entire continents, geographical regions, groups of countries, and individual states. In any case, such limits must be distinctly specified by consent of all the parties concerned.
``The Soviet Union takes a positive view of these initiatives. As a nuclear power, it is prepared to contribute _-_-_
~^^1^^ Signed in 1967, came into force in 1969. Additional Protocol I stipulates that the nuclear-free status applies to the territories situated within the zone to which the Treaty applies, but falling under the jurisdiction of states located outside the zone. Additional Protocol II stipulates that states possessing nuclear arms pledge to observe the nuclear-free zone status. By now, all the nuclear powers have signed Additional Protocol II. As for Additional Protocol I, its signatories are the United States, Great Britain and the Netherlands. France has signed but not ratified it. The Treaty involves twenty-two countries.
~^^2^^ The statement, among other things, indicates that those participants which would explode nuclear devices, for peaceful purposes, transport nuclear weapons or convey them as transit goods would be regarded by the USSR as violators of the Treaty. The statement also notes that the USSR does not recognise the possibility of applying the Treaty beyond the territories of the signatory nations; that the USSR takes into consideration the interpretation of the Treaty as meaning that transportation of nuclear weapons is prohibited by its provisions, and that any transit of nuclear arms by non-participating states likewise contradicts the provisions of the Treaty; and that any actions by the Parties to the Treaty incompatible with their nuclearfree status (including acts of aggression supported by a nuclear state) would give the USSR the right to revise its commitment to the Additional Protocol. All these provisions pursue the aim of enhancing the efficacy of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America.
71 to arriving at generally acceptable solutions concerning the establishment of nuclear-free zones.''^^1^^The common stand of the USSR and the other member states of the Warsaw Treaty Organisation favouring the establishment of nuclear-free zones was also outlined in the Political Declaration of the Warsaw Treaty Member States (January 1983) as follows: "The states represented at the meeting support the proposals to establish nuclear-free zones in the North of Europe, in the Balkans and other parts of the continent, and to turn the Mediterranean into a zone of peace and cooperation. They advocate appropriate talks on these questions.''^^2^^
It should be noted that proposals to establish nu' clearfree zones are now in different stages of implementation, depending on the specific features and possibilities of the region concerned.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. REGIONAL PROJECTS FOR NUCLEAR-FREE ZONESIn Europe, the movement for establishing nuclear-free zones is mounting, and concrete auctions are being taken in this direction by various governments. This is seen, among other things, in a number of European states' initiative to officially formalise their nuclear-free status, strengthen the regime of nuclear non-proliferation, and consolidate regional stability.
Northern Europe is a region where such possibilities are rated highly. Unlike Western Europe now living literally on a nuclear volcano, Northern Europe is still free of nuclear weapons. The countries of Northern Europe [have achieved a relatively high level of good-neighbour relations, albeit Norway and Denmark are NATO members, and Finland and Sweden are not. The four are signatories to the NonProliferation Treaty. They are aware of the dangerous consequences of the new US and NATO nuclear missile plans in Europe, especially those that may result from the recent deployment of US medium-range nuclear missiles in Western Europe. This increases the danger of their involvement in a nuclear conflict and makes the task of establishing a nuclear-free zone in Norhern Europe especially urgent.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Pravda, 18 June 1982.
^^2^^ Information Bulletin, No. 5, 1983, p. 11,
72It is an established fact that the flight routes of the US cruise missiles stationed in Britain would pass over Sweden and Finland. It is not surprising, therefore, that in recent years the socio-political circles of North European countries have been displaying growing interest in establishing a nuclear-free zone in the region and in securing international guarantees of their nuclear-free status. At the same time, there still exist factors impeding major steps in this direction. They are essentially connected with the pressure exerted on Norway and Denmark by the US and NATO leaders. The governments of these countries show no readiness to secure a non-nuclear status for Northern Europe by signing an appropriate international treaty, albeit they do declare their intention to continue refusing to deploy nuclear weapons on their territories. However, NATO's mounting preparations for a miclear war bring to naught their ``non-nuclear'' policy.
It is common knowledge that, in the event of hostilities, the Pentagon and NATO plan to use Danish and Norwegian airfields for bombers carrying nuclear arms. Continued attempts are being made to impose new commitments on Norway and Denmark within the framework of NATO's nuclear strategy and preparations for a nuclear war.^^1^^
As a result, social and political circles in Norway and Denmark are showing an increasing tendency towards formalising the nuclear-free status of the Scandinavian region within the framework of an international agreement so as to protect the region from the danger of being involved in a nuclear conflict and in NATO's nuclear strategy.
Finland came out in active support of the idea of establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Northern Europe. On 28 May 1963, the Finnish President proposed that the Scandinavian countries create such a zone and confirm by means of mutual commitments the absence of nuclear weapons in the area without damaging the security of those countries or violating the balan'ce of forces in the world. In May 1978, the President developed this concept by proposing to work out a Scandinavian arms control agreement which would be chiefly aimed at protecting the _-_-_
^^1^^ In 1982, Norway was compelled to sign an agreement on the so-called crisis situation. This has brought to light a secret plan, stipulating for the deployment of US nuclear weapons in Norway in the event of a "crisis situation''.
73 Scandinavian countries from the potential consequences of a nuclear strategy, in general, and from new nuclear technology, in particular.The Finnish government made proposals to begin appropriate talks between the Scandinavian states with the participation of nuclear states in the talks.
This has launched a discussion among socio-political circles in the Scandinavian countries, in the course of which various aspects of the question of establishing such a zone were examined. The discussion has noticeably concretised the idea of establishing a nuclear-free zone in Northern Europe.
From the very outset, the USSR supported the Finnish proposal and repeatedly confirmed its positive attitude to it in subsequent years. The Soviet Union expressed readiness to conclude a multilateral treaty or bilateral agreements with all the countries in the zone not to use nuclear weapons against them. The USSR does not tie in its commitments with a positive attitude to the zone on the part of other nuclear powers, albeit the participants in the zone would naturally enjoy greater security if guarantees to respect their nuclear-free status would also be given by the NATO nuclear powers. The USSR has also expressed readiness to discuss with the countries concerned the question of taking some other measures in regard to its own territory in the region adjacent to the prospective nuclear-free zone in Northern Europe, and also the question of a nuclear-free status of the Baltic Sea. This is an unprecedented step on the part of a nuclear state, showing the USSR's thoughtful attitude towards the opinions and desires of non-nuclear states in ensuring their security.
The United States and the other NATO nuclear states demonstrate a different attitude towards the security interests of the Scandinavian countries. They refuse to guarantee respect for the nuclear-free status of the countries of Northern Europe. By declaring that Finland's proposal contradicts NATO's strategy, the United States has started a campaign aimed at discrediting the idea of a nuclearfree zone in the region. This campaign, however, has failed to neutralise the Scandinavian nuclear-free zone movement. In 1982, over 2.5 million Danes, Finns, Norwegians and Swedes put their signatures under the Appeal for a Nuclear-Free North. And despite the increased activity of forces seeking to prevent the implementation of this 74 plan, it meets with response and support among people who side with different political parties and mass public organisations, and also among government circles in the Scandinavian countries. The struggle for consolidating the nuclear-free status of Northern Europe remains a major trend in the political life of the countries of the region.
The Balkans are also a region where more favourable prospects have recently come to light for establishing a nuclearfree zone. The political climate has significantly improved there, and in the present-day tense international situation life in the Balkans is relatively quiet. The Balkan countries show a strong desire not only for the results of detente to be preserved, but also multiplied to give a positive political impetus to Europe.
The socialist countries have taken the initiative in time and again proposing the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Balkans. Following the victory of the democratic forces at the October 1981 parliamentary elections in Greece, the new cabinet formed by the Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK) declared the Greek intention to turn the Balkans into a nuclear-free zone and to reject the deployment of nuclear arms on Greek territory. This has opened up new prospects for establishing that zone. When Greek Prime Minister Andreas Papandreo visited Sofia in 1982, it was noted that the initiative to turn the Balkans into a nuclear-free zone met the interests of the Balkan peoples and helped to improve the international climate and to gradually turn Europe into a continent free of nuclear weapons.
Concrete steps have been made in this direction. In 1982, Bulgaria proposed holding a Balkan summit meeting to discuss the proposal for turning the Balkans into a nuclear-free zone. The Bulgarian initiative met positive response in Yugoslavia, Romania, and Greece. It should be remembered, however, that today the Balkan Peninsula is where the line of direct contact between the Warsaw Treaty and NATO countries passes and where external imperialist forces, seeking to destabilise the situation and preserve the foreign military bases, are active. These factors complicate the task of establishing a nuclear-free zone there, but at the same time they make this task especially urgent and politically significant.
The USSR gave a positive response to the steps undertaken by the Balkan countries and came up with its own 75 initiatives aimed at achieving appropriate agreements. Back in the 1950s, the USSR supported the proposal to convene a conference to discuss turning the Balkans into a zone of peace and expressed its conviction that "the Balkan Peninsula can and must become a zone of peace and friendly co-operation between the Balkan states.''^^1^^ In 1959, the USSR proposed establishing a zone free of missiles and nuclear weapons that would include the Balkan Peninsula and the Adriatic region.
The Mediterranean. In 1963, the USSR suggested a projest for turning the entire Mediterranean area into a nuclear-missile-free zone. The Soviet government declared its readiness to pledge not to deploy nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles in the Mediterranean, implying that similar pledges would be made by other states, too. The USSR also proposed that, after that region has been declared a nuclear-free zone, the USSR and the United States should give joint "reliable guarantees that in the event of any military complication, the Mediterranean Sea area would be regarded as being outside the sphere of nuclear weapons.''^^2^^ Subsequently, the USSR supplemented this proposal with new ideas, such as reaching international agreements on:
---extending to the Mediterranean the confidence-- building measures in military matters that have already proved effective in international practice;
---co-ordinating the reduction of armed forces in the area;
---withdrawing nuclear weapons carriers from the Mediterranean;
---refusing to deploy nuclear weapons on the territories of non-nuclear Mediterranean countries;
---undertaking that the nuclear states refrain from using nuclear weapons against any Mediterranean country that does not allow other nations to deploy su'ch weapons on its territory.^^3^^
The United States and other NATO countries rejected these proposals, even though they were based on the principle of equality and equal security. Besides, their argument that the Soviet proposals were ``one-sided'' cannot _-_-_
~^^1^^ Memorandum oE the Soviet Government to the Government of Greece dated 13 May 1959.
~^^2^^ Pravda, 22 May 1963.
^^3^^ Pravda, 10 June 1981.
76 be recognised as well-grounded. Indeed, a nuclear-free zone in the Balkans, for instance, would include the territories of some of the USSR's Warsaw Treaty allies. The real cause of America's and NATO's negative attitudes lies in that the proposals for turning the Balkans and the Mediterranean from an area of military-political confrontations into a zone of stable peace and co-operation, free of nuclear weapons, contradict their policy aimed at preserving and intensifying nuclear confrontation, at stepping-up the arms race and at obviously destabilising the existing strategic balance.Earlier, we have spoken of the 25-year-old plan of the socialist countries to establish a nuclear-free zone in Central Europe. The plan was rejected by the United States, which preferred to start building nuclear bases in West Germany and turning it into America's chief nuclear arsenal in Europe. This has resulted in the greater saturation of Central Europe with nuclear weaponry. The US nuclear arms build-up in the region following the well-known NATO missile decision of 12 December 1979 has aggravated the tense situation of nuclear confrontation in Central Europe. In this situation, the Swedish government proposed that the Warsaw Treaty countries and the NATO members establish in Europe a zone free of "theatre nuclear weapons", which would be approximately 300 km wide, i.e. extend for 150 km on both sides of their line of contact. Sweden proposed starting appropriate talks on the type of nuclear weapons deployed in Europe and in the seas around Europe. The USSR supported the Swedish proposal and spoke in favour of expanding the geographical limits of the zone free of theatre nuclear weapons so that those talks would really be an effective measure for reducing the nuclear threat.
Taking into consideration the main characteristics of the existing types of nuclear weapons (range, velocity, etc.), the increasing range of tactical missiles, and the capability of tactical aviation (one of the major components of the theatre nuclear weapons), the USSR suggested the establishment of a 500-600-km-wide zone, i.e. extending 250 to 300 km west and east of the line of contact of the Warsaw Treaty and NATO countries.
The USSR suggested that the establishment of this zone could be started in Central Europe within the framework of the Vienna talks on reducing armed forces and armaments in the region. The USSR declared readiness to take part in 77 talks concerning the establishment of that zone, including its geographic dimensions and control measures.
The Swedish proposal was also supported by other socialist countries. The GDR, for instance, declared readiness to include all of its territory in that zone, provided the principle of equality and equal security were observed.
Yet, the Swedish proposal, which would have made it possible to significantly lower the level of military confrontation in Europe, had not become the subject of talks because of the negative attitudes of the United States and some NATO countries. They showed no interest in restricting tactical nuclear weapons, which would have had major significance for alleviating the tense situation of nuclear confrontation in Europe, for lessening the nuclear threat and for securing mutual trust among nations.
The United States and its NATO allies also took a negative stand towards broader Soviet proposals about making all of Europe a zone free of nuclear weapons, both tactical and medium-range, and about reducing radically the number of medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe on the principle of equality and equal security as an intermediate step to that end. The implementation of these proposals would have been a great step forward in bringing Europe closer to the historical goal of making it completely free of all types of nuclear weaponry.
The deployment in some West European countries of new US medium-range missiles is wrecking the efforts of peace-loving forces to establish nuclear-free zones in Europe. The USSR and its allies, primarily the GDR. and Czechoslovakia, cannot remain indifferent to the threat to their security; they cannot permit changes in the balance of forces in Europe in favour of NATO. All responsibility for the dangerous course of events in this area lies with the US and NATO initiators of the arms race, who cynically ignore the peace demands of the broad popular masses.
In conformity with its principled policy of gradually narrowing the area of nuclear arms deployment, the USSR supports all initiatives to establish nuclear-free zones in other regions of the world, such as Africa and the Middle East. One cannot but see that serious political difficulties and obstacles ensuing from acute conflicts hamper the establishment of nuclear-free zones in these regions. The USSR supports all steps towards establishing nuclear-free zones in these volatile areas, too, specifically, by preventing 78 South Africa from developing its own nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union supports the appeal by African states to turn Africa into a nuclear-free zone, and resolutely condemns all attempts to use the continent as a bridgehead, including South Africa's plans to create its own nuclear capability.
In 1964, the African heads of state and government, attending the OAU assembly, adopted a Declaration on the Denuclearisation of Africa. The idea was subsequently backed up by the United Nations. In 1965, the 20th Session of the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution supporting the Declaration. Its implementation was widely discussed at all subsequent General Assembly sessions. However, there is still no agreement, no legal document that would clearly formulate the duties of both the African countries and nuclear powers in regard to that zone. The USSR supports all pertinent steps taken by African countries within the framework of the OAU and UN.
At the 37th Session of the UN General Assembly, the USSR voted for the Resolution on the Implementation of the Declaration on the Denuclearisation of Africa. The resolution condemns all forms of nuclear co-operation with the South African racist regime, appeals to all states to immediately halt all military and nuclear co-operation with that regime, and urges the Security Council to take enforcement measures to prevent the South African regime from acquiring weapons or military hardware.^^1^^ The overwhelming majority of UN members voted in favour of the resolution; the only ones to abstain were the Western nuclear powers.
From 1974, the UN General Assembly has been annually discussing the question of establishing a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. The need for such a zone is dictated by the threat the Israeli projects for developing nuclear weapons present to peace and security in the region. The USSR supports the efforts by some countries of the region and the UN to establish a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. However, practical steps towards establishing such a zone are being blocked by Israel.
The exclusion of specific regions from the nuclear arms _-_-_
~^^1^^ Resolutions and Decisions adopted by the General Assembly during the 1st part of its 37th Session. From 21 September to 21 December 1982. Press Release, N.Y., 1983, pp. 91-92.
79 race involves other measures for strengthening regional security. In addition to pledges not to deploy nuclear weapons, such measures would imply other commitments (for example, confidence-building measures and a lower level of military activity). The Soviet proposals concerning the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, and the Indian Ocean call for an agreement on mutual pledges not to deploy nuclear weapons in those regions.Prospects for achieving agreements on the establishment of nuclear-free zones would improve by implementing the major Soviet global proposals made at the 33rd Session of the UN General Assembly in 1978. The Assembly approved the idea of concluding such agreements. The resolutions adopted by the General Assembly at its 33rd through 38th sessions contain appropriate recommendations to the UN members. Resolution 37/80, adopted by the 37th General Assembly, urges all nuclear states to make a solemn declaration that they would not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states having no nuclear arms on their territories, this declaration being a first step towards concluding an international convention on the strengthening of the security of non-nuclear-weapon states, against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The resolution contains a recommendation to the Security Council to examine such declarations and, if all of them meet the above objective, to adopt an appropriate resolution approving them.
However, the United States and the other Western nuclear powers have actually refused to commit themselves to pledges that would open the way to a real solution of the above-mentioned issues.
Because of their negative stand, there is also no progress at the talks on strengthening security guarantees for the nonnuclear states. The US and NATO ruling circles seek to have a choice of options for retaining their nuclear weapons on foreign territory, deploying them in places where they are still absent, and eventually using them.
This stand naturally reduces the possibility of finding generally acceptable solutions to establishing regional nuclear-free zones and formalising agreements concerning a nuclear-free status of specific countries. This also hampers the gradual lowering of the level of nuclear confrontation, both global and regional, and the elimination of the danger of a nuclear conflict.
[80] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter 5 __ALPHA_LVL2__ CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT __ALPHA_LVL3__ [introduction.]Problems of control related to the obligations assumed by the parties to agreements on the limitation and reduction of the arms race and on disarmament have always been considered important at relevant negotiations. Governments and international public opinion are concerned with these problems, which are also the subjects of heated discussions among scientists and politicians. This concern is not accidental. It is necessitated both by the importance of the control problem itself and by the efforts of opponents of disarmament to thwart positive steps in this area.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CONTROL IN THE PROCESSAgreements in the sphere of disarmament greatly affect the ensuring of the national security of most states. Therefore, any violation of the relevant agreement by any participating state invariably threatens the security of the other participants. Besides, the possibility of covert violations in the field of disarmament cannot be excluded, especially considering the desire of certain imperialist circles to attain military superiority and impose their hegemonist rule over other nations by force. Hence the need to work out, in the course of disarmament negotiations, such provisions which could effectively ensure compliance with pertinent agreements in each concrete case.
The problem can only be solved in its entire complexity if a number of conditions have been observed. How well the provisions of an agreement conform with the basic principle of disarmament, which is equal security for all parties concerned not only at the moment of its signing, but in perspective as well, is of primary importance from the viewpoint of ensuring the validity of that agreement.
__PRINTERS_P_81_COMMENT__ 6-339 81In order effectively to ensure the observance of disarmament agreements it is also important to make their wording sufficiently concrete, preventing dubious interpretations, and yet profound and broad enough to retain their value over a reasonable period in the face of new technological and scientific breakthroughs in related fields.
Protecting the interests of the participants whenever their security is threatened because of a violation of the agreement, or through some other extraordinary circumstances involving its content, is a serious problem. The problem of control over the implementation of disarmament agreements is one of particular importance in this group of problems.
Control is to be understood as a system of measures aimed at providing each participating state with all the necessary information concerning compliance with the agreements by the other participants, and at detecting possible violations. Normally, such measures are incorporated in these agreements and are carried through as stipulated by them.
The forms and methods of control may be quite varied and may be both international and national in character.
International measures of control include, for example, making certain information available to the participating states, consultations and co-operation in solving any problems arising in connection with the agreement, and onsite inspections on a voluntary or compulsory (permanent, systematic or selective) basis. These may involve the placement of detection and transmission equipment on the territory of the participating states, the setting up of special consultative and control bodies with broad powers, etc.
National control over disarmament is very significant. It includes the adoption of certain measures by the participating states, including legislative acts that would make provision for all organisations and private persons in the state to ensure the implementation of the agreement. This purpose can also be served by setting up national control committees staffed by scientists, experts, public activists, and so forth. However, the role of national measures is not at all limited to control per se. Their realisation enhances mutual confidence in honouring the agreement.
Verification by national technical means has a special function among various other forms of control. Remaining 82 under the jurisdiction of the relevant states and not intruding into the areas sovereign to other countries, they can effectively register certain parameters or signs of banned or limited weapons and transmit the data thus obtained for further deciphering and analysis.
It stands to reason that control in the process of disarmament, i.e. releasing and receiving information about armed forces, armaments, economic measures, and so forth, is not an end in itself. Its function is to contribute to the confidence of nations in the compliance by all other participants with this or that treaty.
It should be emphasised that control, although it is quite important, is not the only way of ensuring the validity of agreements. Moreover, it is not an absolutely indispensable element of any agreement on arms limitation. A system of control is not necessarily a must for certain measures in this area. For example, it would be hard to visualise a system of control over an agreement on the non-use of nuclear weapons. Besides, the negotiating parties, having agreed on certain measures of control, might omit them from the agreement. This, for instance, was the case with the 1963 Moscow Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water.^^1^^
Finally, if some disarmament measure is of a kind that makes a developed system of control indispensable, that control does not have to involve all the commitments of the participating states stipulated in the given international agreement. Thus, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons^^2^^ providing for the most thorough inspection of all atomic activity in non-nuclear states, contains no specific verification measures applicable to the pledge of nuclear powers not to transfer nuclear weapons to any other country.
Efforts to widen the functional area of control, which were made rather frequently by the Western powers during disarmament negotiations, were not able to bring about a successful solution to this problem. It would also be wrong to understand control as an independent action abstracted from concrete disarmament measures. This kind of `` control'' over the armament status would, in fact, evolve into _-_-_
~^^1^^ See The United Nations and Disarmament, 1945-1970, United Nations, New York, 1970, pp. 450-52.
~^^2^^ Ibid. pp. 474-78.
83 organised, sanctioned espionage, a clear asset for the potential aggressor who stakes on inflicting the first strike.It would likewise be an error to suppose that exchange of information on national defence potentials could be a precondition, a prelude, to the elaboration and conclusion of agreements. Practical negotiations have indicated that no flow of information, no research into its comparability can make up for a lack of political determination to halt the arms race, and a lack of readiness to seek mutually acceptable agreements on the basis of equality and equal security. Exchange of information on armaments and armed forces in the context of a disarmament process on the basis of appropriate agreements is quite a different story. An exchange like this is not at all unthinkable; moreover, in many situations it can be desirable and practicable and may come in as an important component of control machinery. Exchange of information is possible when elaborating agreements on arms limitation (although in this case it cannot be regarded as a measure of control). Yet, even then it will have to be inseparably interlocked with concrete disarmament measures.^^1^^
As part of a disarmament agreement, control provisions should be in full conformity with the principle of equal security of nations. This concerns the defence aspect of security as much as the political and economic ones. It is extremely important that control measures should not result in interference in the internal affairs of states.This is all the more justified since in implementing control, data about the armed forces and armaments could be revealed, including their combat capability, defence industry structure, etc., which in other circumstances represent carefully guarded secrets.
Without meeting these requirements, control would fail to help increase trust on the way to disarmament, and, on the contrary, it would even impair it.
The many years of practical negotiations have shown that such requirements cannot be met by control unless its forms and methods are in agreement with the scope, nature and specifics of concrete arms limitation and _-_-_
~^^1^^ Certain information on the armed forces activity (e.g. on military exercises) can be offered in thejsontext of confidence-building measures. For more detail see Chapter 11.
84 disarmament measures provided for in relevant agreements. This central principle of control, known as the principle of commensurate control and disarmament,^^1^^ is legalised in a number of universally accepted international documents. Thus, the Final Document of the Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament (1978), adopted by a consensus, says: "The form and modalities of the verification to be provided for in any specific agreement depend upon and should be determined by the purposes, scope and nature of the agreement.... Where appropriate, a combination of several methods of verification as well as other compliance procedures should be employed...``Every effort should be made to develop appropriate methods and procedures which are non-discriminatory and which do not unduly interfere with the internal affairs of other States or jeopardize their economic and social development. "^^2^^
This principled approach to the problem of control indicates, however, only a general direction in which mutually acceptable solutions ought to be sought, while the definition of control provisions to be included in concrete agreements that are both effective and causing no detriment to the security of states, depends on a complex combination of political, military and economic factors. These are:
---the type and character of armaments and armed forces to be included in the agreement; their share in the overall balance;
---the degree of anticipated limitation (complete banning or partial reduction);
---adjacent weapon systems or areas to be covered by the agreements whenever regional measures are involved;
---the contingent of would-be signatories to the agreement and of states possessing the armaments in question;
---the relation of the production of the armaments in question and their components with peace industries;
---the degree of mutual trust among the states;
---the performance capabilities of the appropriate control means and procedures.
_-_-_~^^1^^ See R. M. Timerbaev, Control over Arms Limitation and Disarmament, Moscow, 1983, pp. 24-26 (in Russian).
~^^2^^ Final Document of Assembly Session on Disarmament (23 May-1 Xuly 1978),-United Nations, New York, 1978, pp. 8, 15. ..
85 __ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. SOVIET EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH GENUINELYOver practically the entire history of disarmament negotiations, and especially since the end of World War II, the problem of control has been the cause of acute clashes, often being an obstacle in the way of reaching agreements. How did it come about?
The approach of different countries to the problem of control can only be evaluated in the context of their overall policies in the field of disarmament and foreign policy as a whole.
In their consistent efforts to realise tangible disarmament measures, all the way up to general and complete disarmament, the Soviet Union and other socialist countries have proposed effective, though not exaggerated, control measures compatible with the principles of equal security and non-interference in the internal affairs of states and commensurate with disarmament. The USSR has tried many a time to meet its negotiating partners halfway in the area of control. And if no understanding was reached in these matters, the blame lay entirely on the Western powers, which have long been using the control issue as a means of delaying and blocking negotiations, speculating on the general interest in ensuring compliance with agreements.
Western diplomacy has done a lot to create an impression that the problem of control is inordinately complex and, perchance, insoluble, and to present a hypertrophic picture of it. It spared no effort to create quite an array of myths around the problem of control, which then roamed over the pages of many bourgeois studies dealing with disarmament problems.
Control was portrayed as the only means of ensuring compliance with agreements, while the other methods discussed above were completely ignored. Control was accorded functions quite alien to it, up to the right of controlling national resources and economies, while the task of information gathering was extended well beyond the scope required for negotiated disarmament measures. More, the notion of control was often reduced to one or another of its forms, mostly to on-site inspection, and these notions were then deliberately confused. A peculiarity of most Western control plans, which were all characterised by dissociating measures of control from those of disarmament,, was the fact that, assuming they were adopted, they would 86 clear the way to interference in the internal affairs of states, and to the setting up of a system of gathering confidential defence, economic and political information. Finally, the USSR, other socialist and also non-aligned countries have been consistently working against attempts by the Western powers to establish control without disarmament. This has been used by the West as a pretext for creating another myth about the Soviet Union's alleged opposition to disarmament control.
The history of disarmament negotiations abounds in examples, especially since the end of World War II, of the unconstructive approach to Control issues of none other than the West.
Referring to the post World War II period, even the early American proposals on atomic energy control, presented to the UN Atomic Energy Commission in 1946^^1^^ and known as the Baruch Plan, were a blunt attempt to establish international control without disarmament. Concerned primarily with retaining its atomic monopoly, the US was stubbornly negotiating a plan that essentially had no provision for banning atomic weapons or eliminating their stockpiles, and was not intended for verifying any future agreement on this matter, but instead provided for placing all atomic installations under the supervision of an international authority, which was supposed to take sanctions against agreement-breakers, bypassing the UN Charter.
The Soviet Union, however, urged the total banning of atomic weapons and set forth a comprehensive set of proposals on control designed to serve that very purpose. Among other things, the USSR called for the creation of an international atomic energy control commission within the framework of the UN Security Council with a wide range of authority in the systematic and thorough inspection of all declared enterprises related to the production of atomic energy and in conducting special investigations whenever any violations of commitments undertaken by the participating states were suspected. Moreover, the control measures would become effective simultaneously with the banning of atomic weapons and would involve all the related installations at once, which would ensure their effectiveness. The control commission would also be authorised to _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Atomic Energy Commission, Document ABC/PV.I, 14 June 1946. *
87 consider applying sanctions in cases of violation, and to pass recommendations on this subject; however, the authority to apply such sanctions would still be vested in the Security Council in keeping with the UN Charter.^^1^^Thus, the system of control envisaged in the Soviet proposals, while being quite comprehensive, was neatly tailored, considering its nature and enforcement procedures, to the task of banning nuclear weapons, and effectively enhanced it. However, the USA and US-controlled majority in the Atomic Energy Commission refused to consider these proposals.
Another example of control without disarmament is the "open skies" plan proposed by President Eisenhower, which included an exchange between the USSR and the USA of detailed plans and diagrams of defence organisations, and unlimited reciprocal aerial photography.^^2^^ Interestingly, this plan, completely void of any disarmament measures, was elaborated and tabled at a time when there had appeared, for the first time in the postwar period, a possibility of reaching an agreement on this issue, following the consent of the USSR to accept the Anglo-French proposals of 11 June 1954, on the reduction of armed forces and armaments^^3^^ (which were formally supported by the USA) as a basis for agreement. In this situation the Western powers abandoned their own positions and tried to save their face behind the much publicised proposal for aerial photography. Yet it could not serve any useful purpose as an independent measure. Rather, aerial photography was intended for the identification and precise location of targets on Soviet territory. (This task was later assigned to the U-2 spy planes sent into Soviet airspace in violation of international law). However, the Soviet Union did not completely reject the idea of aerial photography, accepting its consideration in the context of practical disarmament measures. The Soviet Union insisted in this respect on such a definition of areas _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Atomic Energy Commission, Document AEG/7, 24 June 1946; Document AEC/24, 11 June 1947; United Nations Security Council, Document S/1246, 8 February 1949.
~^^2^^ See United Nations, Disarmament Commission, Subcommittee, Document DC/SC. 1/31, 30 August 1955. Aerial photography had been considered in earlier negotiations as a possible form of control over compliance with treaties.
~^^3^^ See United Nations, Disarmament Commission, Subcommittee, Document DC/SC. 1/10,11 June 1954; Document A/2742, 30 September 1954.
88 for photography that would equally suit the interests of security of all sides. As for the USA, it sought to decide the issue of areas for aerial photography in such a manner that would ensure it an advantageous position in information gathering, thus killing the opportunity for bringing the stands on this issue closer.^^1^^By using the problem of control the USA and other Western powers^ managed to bring the negotiations on a general and complete disarmament into deadlock in the second half of the 1960s, block the simultaneous prohibition of bacteriological and chemical weapons in 1972,^^2^^ and limit the area of application of the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques.^^3^^
But the greatest abuse of the control issue by the USA is evident in Connection with the prohibition of nuclear weapon tests, which had been negotiated at different international forums since the late 1950s. Though refusing at first to discuss a test ban as ail independent measure for arms limitation, the Western powers soon had to admit its importance. However, they simultaneously requested "preliminary technical studies of the control problem". Yet, when the Soviet Union, against all expectations, agreed to such studies and, as a consequence, a conference of experts on the subject took place in Geneva in July-- August 1958, the USA refused to participate in co-ordinated conclusions and Tecommendations of the conference on the _-_-_
^^1^^ See The Soviet Union's Disarmament Effort. 1946-1960, ed. by V. A. Zorin, Moscow, Institut Mezhdunarodnykh Otnosheniy Publishers, 1961, pp. 226, 236-37 (in Russian).
~^^2^^ The USSR and other socialist countries, as well as neutral and non-aligned countries, favoured banning both bacteriological and chemical weapons in the framework of one convention. Referring to control difficulties as regards the prohibition of chemical weapons, the Western powers agreed in 1972 to conclude a Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (TJie Soviet Union and the. Struggle for Disarmament. A Collection of Documents, Moscow, 1977, pp. 58-64 [in Russian]). The Convention came into force in 1975.
~^^3^^ The Convention, agreed upon in 1976, came into force in 1978. It implies the banning only of such use of environmental modification techniques that are followed by extensive, long-lasting or serious consequences, while the Soviet draft, tabled at the UN in 1974, did not hold any such reservations (The Soviet Union and the Struggle for Disarmament..., pp. 64-70, 214-20). For this reason a number of Latin American eountries refused to endorse the Convention.
89 pretext of "new seismic data" available to it.^^1^^ Later in the negotiations, the USA first insisted on a procedure for the setting up and operation of a control body and of inspection posts detrimental to the Soviet Union, then on an exaggerated number of on-site inspections, and then, again, on such verification procedures that would go far beyond the limits of test ban control requirements. On account of the unjustified control claims by the USA and Great Britain, the first agreement reached on this issue (the 1963 Moscow Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water) was of a limited nature and excluded underground nuclear blasts. Later, too, American diplomats insisted on compulsory on-site inspections, and blocked agreements on a complete ban of nuclear weapon tests for many years, although a most representative section of experts admitted that remote technical facilities augmented by an international exchange of seismic data are enough to control restraint from conducting underground tests.The way to the conclusion of a treaty on a general and complete ban of nuclear weapon tests was open when the Soviet Union offered a compromise proposal in 1976 on conducting on-site inspections on a voluntary basis whenever there appeared to exist reasonable grounds for suspicion of non-compliance with the treaty.^^2^^ In the resulting tripartite talks between the USSR, the USA and Great Britain (1977- 1980) practically all aspects of the treaty, including control, were agreed upon. Yet, after 1980 the tripartite negotiations were broken off by the American side, and in 1982 Washington, having taken the course of an intensified nuclear arms race, declared that it believed it was "not the right time" for the conclusion of a treaty banning nuclear weapon tests, and soon after that it officially announced its decision not to resume the tripartite negotiations.
It may seem a paradox, but in 1982, just as at the dawn of the nuclear test discussions, the USA again tried to camouflage its refusal to negotiate by making requests _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Soviet government declared that it agreed with all the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report of the conference of experts (see Pravda, 30 August 1958; V. V. Shustov, The Soviet Union and the Problem of Terminating Nuclear Weapon Tests, Moscow, 1977, pp. 37, 39, 49, 58 [in Russian]).
^^2^^ See United Nations, General Assembly, Document A/G. 1/31/9, 22 November 1976.
90 for a preliminary study of the control problem. This was exactly the study that American diplomacy has been imposing on the Geneva Committee on Disarmament beginning in the spring of 1982.^^1^^However, as has been noted several times in UN General Assembly resolutions and in a number of the UN Secretary General's reports, "all the technical and scientific aspects of the problem have been so fully explored that only a political decision is now necessary in order to achieve final agreement, that when the existing means of verification are taken into account it is difficult to understand further delay in achieving agreement...".^^2^^
Trying to revitalise a speedy solution to the problem of a .general and complete ban on nuclear weapon tests, the Soviet Union submitted the main provisions of a treaty on this issue to the 37th Session of the General Assembly in the autumn of 1982, in which all the positive achievements accumulated over the many years of discussing this problem were taken into account with due regard for the opinions of other states, including the subject of control. The document provides for a large complex of control measures to include on-site inspections on a voluntary basis, definition of the responsibilities, of the control personnel, and so on.^^3^^
The problem of banning chemical weapons became especially urgent in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Lengthy discussions on this problem have been held at the Geneva Committee on Disarmament, while in 1976-1980 it was the subject of bilateral Soviet-American negotiations, later broken off unilaterally by Washington. In the course of these negotiations a mutually acceptable approach to the solution of many complex questions, including control, was reached. It was decided, in particular, that control should be based on a combination of national and international measures, that on-site inspections on a voluntary basis would have an important role, and so on.^^4^^ However, apart from this, the USA requested that regular inspections be carried out in a number of cases to monitor the destruction of the stockpiles of chemical weapons, the removal _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Committee on Disarmament, Document CD/PV, 162, 11 March 1982.
~^^2^^ United Nations, Document A/RES/37/72, 14 January 1983, p. 1.
~^^3^^ See United Nations, Document A/37/243, 1 October 1982.
~^^4^^ See United Nations, Committee on Disarmament. Conference, Document CCD/112, 7 July 1980.
91 and dismantling of installations for their production, and the production of supertoxic lethal chemical agents foranti-gas protection. Without increasing the capability for detecting violations (this purpose was quite adequately served by on-site inspections on a voluntary basis), the procedures suggested by the USA implied serious incursion into the non-military chemical work of the participating states. Yet, the USSR made an attempt to meet the requirements of the Western powers.At the Second Special UN General Assembly Session on Disarmament in 1982, the USSR presented draft basic; provisions for a convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of chemical weapons and on their destruction, in whi'ch it agreed to regular onsite inspections (for example, based on quotas) of chemical weapon stockpile destruction. On-site verification of the authorised limited production of supertoxic lethal chemical compounds was also proposed (similarly on the basis of quotas).^^1^^ However, in response to this important compromise proposal the Western powers, particularly the USA, merely hardened their stance on control. The American document tabled at the 'Committee on Disarmament in early 1983 provides for a much wider range of on-site inspections than those contained in the earlier American proposals, while the principle of voluntary verification on suspicion is practically nullified.^^2^^
All these facts go to prove that the USA, supported by its allies, abuses the problem of control all the more, the greater that country's desire to deny progress in the area of disarmament. The question arises, why is it control that was chosen after World War II by Western-diplomacy as one of the main tools for sabotaging negotiations?
This is in part explained by control specifics. In fact, no system of control, no matter how well streamlined it may be, can guarantee one hundred per cent detection ~of all violations of treaty provisions. Therefore, one can engage in endless discussions of the imperfections of a control system, try to make it more efficacious, and consider its many technical aspects in the light of more recent _-_-_
^^1^^ See United Nations, Document A/S-12/AC. 1/12, 17 June 1982, Annex.
~^^2^^ See United Nations, Committee on Disarmament, Conference, Document CCD/343, 10 February 1983,
92 scientifie and technological breakthroughs, without eventually bringing it to ultimate ``perfection''.Meanwhile, stricter control, i.e. an increase in the quantity of data obtained, does not automatically mean its greater effectiveness from the point of view of compliance with disarmament agreements. Hence, the possibility of using control for military intelligence purposes, which is an object of particular interest for a potential aggressor relying on the first strike. As has become known, it was exactly this type of strike that in reality was elaborated and made the basis of combat training in the armed forces of the USA.^^1^^
Moreover, control, and above all on-site inspection with foreign supervisors in attendance, was considered in the USA to be an instrument of the political debasement of the socialist social structure, bringing direct pressure to bear upon the psyche of the Soviet people.^^2^^
American diplomacy and its allies are actively speculating on the assertion that the Western countries allegedly publish more detailed information about armed forces and armaments of those countries than is the case in the socialist states. However, the publication of this kind of information in the West has nothing to do with the objectives of disarmament control. It is prompted by competition among war industry corporations fighting for profitable contracts and advertising weapons systems; by attempts to employ the news about armaments, including new weapon systems, and about planned deployments of armed forces as a factor of deterrence and brutal pressure in relations with other countries; or simply by propaganda purposes. In the meantime, the nature of such information by no means presents any obstacle for keeping the armament programmes worked out by the military and political leadership from the knowledge of the country's population and the world public (as was the case, for instance, with the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Dropshot. The United States Plan for War with the Soviet Union in 1957, ed. by Anthony Cave Brown, The Dial Press/James Wade, New York, 1978; K. Shtaingous, B. Grainer. On the Way to World War III? War Plans of the USA against the USSR, Documents, Moscow, Progress Publishers, 1982, pp. 25, 72, 73.
~^^2^^ This is acknowledged, for instance, by W. Hahn, an American political scientist (Walter F. Hahn, "The Mainsprings of Soviet Secrecy", in: Peace and War in the Modern Age. Premises, Myths, and Realities, ed. by Frank R. Barnett, William C. Mott, John C. Neff, Anchor Books, Garden City, New York, 1965, p. 68).
93 programme for financing the neutron weapon system in the USA), or for the deliberate manipulation of various data.There was another circumstance that played a role in the abuse by Western diplomacy of the control issue. It was the fact that in the postwar years the USA and its allies could count on an automatic majority in different international bodies, including control organs, that is, a majority that made it possible for them to utilise far-reaching `` obtrusive'' verification procedures to their own advantage. Finally, in a large number of cases Western ``concern'' over control and ``readiness'' for it was, in effect, nothing more than a propaganda stunt, a bluff. General Eisenhower, the sponsor of the "open skies" plan, later admitted that, when proposing this plan, the USA "knew the Soviets would not accept it. We were sure of that.''^^1^^ A more recent example is the attempts made by some Western countries during the preparation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to substitute control by EURATOM for that of the IAEA, which amounted to self-control, with the intention in mind later to delay the enforcement of guarantees agreed on with the IAEA.^^2^^
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. THE REALISATION OF PRINCIPLES OF CONTROLAs a result of the consistent struggle of the USSR and other socialist countries for tangible disarmament measures, and spurred by a serious shift in the balance of power in the world, the USA and its allies little by little had to give up their most odious claims in the field of control. Thus, in the first half of the 1950s they in fact departed from the principle of ``administrative'' control which formed the basis of the Baruch Plan and many other early Western proposals; by the early 1960s they dropped their demand for implementing the system of control before the disarmament measures have been effected.^^3^^ Wherever the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Robert A. Divine, Eisenhower and the Cold War, Oxford University Press, New York, 1981, p. 121.
~^^2^^ R. M. Timerbaev, op. cit., pp. 107, 137.
~^^3^^ The report of the governments of the USSR and the USA concerning the results of the exchange of their viewpoints on the disarmament problem, transmitted to the Sixteenth Session of the UN General Assembly on 20 September 1961, stated that "during and after the __NOTE__ Footnote cont. on page 95. 94 USA and its allies were faced with the necessity of coming to an agreement on arms limitation, they found the way for working out mutually acceptable control procedures conforming, on the whole, to the subject and character of related agreements. This is mostly true of the late 1960s and 1970s when the process of detente resulted in more trusting relations among states, which in turn boosted the constructive search for solutions to the questions of control. The agreements and documents worked out during negotiations in these years cite various control measures. Thus, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction envisages a relatively simple system of control: national measures, consultations and co-operation among the participants, and investigations carried out by the UN Security Council.^^1^^ When elaborating the Convention, it was taken into consideration that microorganisms and toxins, the chief object of prohibition, can be produced quickly and easily at a great number of installations and in laboratories, and therefore, any reasonable system of physical verification cannot be effective. On the other hand, a state violating the Convention cannot count on swiftly gaining any appreciable military advantage.^^2^^ Similar procedures were largely employed in working out the system of control over the observance of the 1977 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. A new element of control was reflected for the first time in this Convention---the setting up of a consultative committee of experts accessible to all the participants, which is to convene at the request of any participant, engage in clearing up the facts, and present its _-_-_ __NOTE__ Footnote cont. from page 94. plementation of general and complete disarmament, the most thorough control should be exercised". (United Nations, General Assembly, 16th Session, Official Records, Annexes, Agenda item 19: Question of Disarmament, New York, 1961, p. 2).
~^^1^^ See The Soviet Union and the Struggle for Disarmament, pp. 58-64.
~^^2^^ This circumstance was also acknowledged by the participating Western states, which favoured stricter control measures with regard to banning chemical weapons, though they supported relatively simple control clauses in the convention banning bacteriological weapons. See, for example, the statements of the representative of Great Britain to the Committee on Disarmament of 7 and 30 April 1970 (Committee on Disarmament Documents CCD/PV. 462, 7 April 1970, and CCD/PV. 469, 30 April 1970).
95 expert opinion on any pertinent problem.^^1^^ The precedent thus established was then used in the Soviet-American proposals on the main elements of the treaty banning radiological weapons (submitted to the Committee on Disarmament in 1979).^^2^^The development and realisation of a number of agreements on arms limitation revealed the fundamental significance of national technical means of control. This primarily concerns control over strategic armaments. The Soviet-American SALT-I agreement says, for instance: "For the purpose of providing assurance of compliance with the provisions of this Interim Agreement, each Party shall use national technical means of verification at its disposal in a manner consistent with generally recognized principles of international law.''^^3^^ National technical means imply space, radar and other equipment (this notion is not clarified in the SALT agreements). National technical means cannot be used in any arbitrary way, but only in ways consistent with generally recognised principles of international law. At the same time each party commits itself not to hinder in any way the national technical means of the other side or to resort to concealment, which would interfere with verification of compliance with the provisions of these agreements with the help of national technical means.
In the agreements on the limitation of strategic armaments control by national technical means is supplemented by a consultative mechanism, such as the Permanent Consultative Commission. The need for such a mechanism is explained by the fact that some phenomena or actions by the parties, though possibly registered by technical means with a great degree of accuracy, may receive ambiguous interpretations and may, therefore, require additional clarification. The Commission has never revealed a single instance of violation of the agreements on the strength of such clarifications.^^4^^
The Soviet-American Treaty on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (SALT-II), signed in 1979, provided for more essential measures in strategic arms limitation.
_-_-_~^^1^^ The Soviet Union and the Struggle for Disarmament, pp. 64-70.
~^^2^^ United Nations, Committee on Disarmament, Conference, Documents CCD/31 and CCD/32, 9 July 1979.
~^^3^^ The Soviet Union and the Struggle for Disarmament, pp. 111-20^
~^^4^^ See R. M. Timerbaev, op. cit., p. 75.
96Accordingly, the tasks before the national technical means of control, whose use forms the backbone of control in the framework of the SALT-II Treaty, too, became more complicated. That is why a large number of clauses in the Treaty and the associated documents are worded so as to increase the effectiveness of those means. Thus, it was shown in practice that though on the whole control is contingent on disarmament measures, in some cases the purpose and capabilities of control may affect such measures.
National technical means can be used advantageously to control the limitation and prohibition of nuclear weapon tests. An understanding was reached on this point during the negotiations between the USSR, the USA and Great Britain on the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty, although the Treaty itself contains no control clauses.
National technical means were picked out as major elements of control systems in the Soviet-American treaties on the limitation of underground nuclear weapon tests (signed in 1974) and on underground nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes (signed in 1976).^^1^^ However, the content of the agreements (both these documents provided not for a ban on, but a limitation of the yield of nuclear explosions) required co-ordination of further control measures. For instance, the 1974 Treaty allows for tests being carried out on proving grounds only, requires the exchange of detailed data concerning these proving grounds, and the detonation of two calibration explosions on each of them, while the Treaty on Underground Nuclear Explosions for Peaceful Purposes contains clauses providing, in some cases, access to the locations of explosions for the control personnel of the other side, whereas on-site inspection procedures, powers and functions of the control personnel of the receiving side are detailed in the Appendix to the Treaty.
The system of control over a general and complete nuclear weapon test ban agreed upon in principle in 1980 during the tripartite negotiations between the USSR, the USA and Great Britain, includes the use of the national technical means of control, an international exchange of seismic data, the setting up of a committee of experts to consider questions regarding such an exchange, and also _-_-_
~^^1^^ See The Soviet Union and the Struggle for Disarmament, pp. 137-41, 159-83. The treaties have not come into force because of the US refusal to ratify them.
__PRINTERS_P_97_COMMENT__ 7---339 97 the possibility of conducting on-site verification on a voluntary basis on request.^^1^^Thus, effective control over compliance with certain disarmament measures requires a wider range of techniques than just the utilisation of national technical means.
The existing agreements of a preventive character offer a large variety of verification possibilities. These agreements prohibit some or other military activity in areas that have not yet been involved in the arms race and that are beyond the national jurisdiction of the negotiating states. This is true, for example, of the Antarctic Treaty (1959) ,^^2^^ the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (1967),^^3^^ the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof (1971).^^4^^
The most complete and detailed system of control is functioning in the area of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, whose cornerstone is the Treaty on the Non-- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, concluded in 1968.^^5^^ This is easy to explain because a violation of the Treaty that would give more states access to nuclear arms would sharply tilt the correlation of forces in that particular area, and would spur neighbours into acquiring a nuclear potential of their own, thereby immeasurably increasing the threat of war.
The control system of the Non-Proliferation Treaty is different because its foundation was laid down before the preparation and signing of the document, which adapted the control system to match its tasks.
The control functions were assigned to the International Atomic Energy Agency (set up in 1957) so as to "accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world",^^6^^ and to the Agency's system of guarantees. The guarantees are understood to be control measures carried out by the Agency's _-_-_
^^1^^ See United Nations, Committee on Disarmament, Conference, Document CCD/130, 30 July 1980.
~^^2^^ See The United Nations and Disarmament, 1945-1970, pp. 441-46.
^^3^^ Ibid., pp. 453-58.
^^4^^ Ibid., pp. 243-45.
^^5^^ Ibid., pp. 474-78.
~^^6^^ Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1957, p. 2.,
98 Secretariat verifying the use of nuclear materials on site to preclude their channeling to military purposes.Periodic oil-site inspection by IAEA inspectors of corresponding materials and equipment is the main form of control. The inspectors operate in such a manner as to minimise any possible interference in national peaceful nuclear activity, and to ensure the protection of industrial secrets and other confidential information that may be revealed to them.
Although states retain sovereignty over their nuclear industry, the Agency is authorised to call on them whenever necessary to take such measures as are necessary to allow the effective application of the guarantees.
In accordance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the IAEA guarantees are only applicable to non-nuclear countries. With regard to nuclear powers, there is no need for this type of control since the Treaty does not provide for any limitation of the existing nuclear arsenals.
Yet, in response to the desire of many non-nuclear states, in 1982 the Soviet Union announced its readiness to place part of its peaceful nuclear installations, several atomic power stations and research reactors under the control of the IAEA.^^1^^
The development and successful functioning of control systems provided for in different international agreements, along with the negotiating experience, indicate that, irrespective of their complexity, problems of control can be resolved to the mutual satisfaction of states. However, the political determination of governments is a most important prerequisite for taking any co-ordinated steps in the field of arms limitation.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the USA, supported by its NATO allies, took the course of gaining military superiority over the Soviet Union, disrupting the process of detente and curtailing all discussions on arms limitation. It is remarkable that, simultaneously with this turnabout in its policy, the West particularly revived its technique of speculating on control issues.
We have already discussed the way this technique was employed by the USA to thwart the negotiations on a complete and general nuclear weapon test ban and to drag out _-_-_
^^1^^ See United Nations, Document A/S-12/AC.1/11, 17 June 1982, Annex, p. 6.
99 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1984/PCS453/20100319/199.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2010.03.18) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ nil the negotiations on banning chemical weapons. Moreover^ the recurrence of the control syndrome in American diplomacy in the early 1980s has brought about new complications. It capitalises on the problem of control not only for hindering agreement, but also for breaking down and undermining treaties which have already been elaborated and are already in force. According to press reports, the USA demanded a revamping of Soviet-American treaties on the limitation of underground nuclear weapon tests and on underground nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes pretending that, among other things, the control measures provided therein are inadequate.^^1^^ This pretext, however, is at least superficial, since the control measures contained in the said treaties have never been tried in practice, for which the blame lies on the USA, which voted down the ratification of the treaties and their coming into force. The far-fetched argument of a certain inadequacy of the SALT-II control measures was vigorously used in the USA by the opponents of the Treaty, who eventually killed its ratification by the American side. Using the same pretext of control inadequacy, the USA, supported by some of its allies, attacked the convention banning bacteriological weapons. They simultaneously started a slanderous and totally falsified campaign aimed at casting doubt on the compliance by the Soviet Union with its commitments under various international documents on disarmament, in particular the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare.All these actions cannot but undermine trust among nations, and are aimed at a further aggravation of the international situation and the creation of an atmosphere more favourable to the arms race. The latter results in rapid and profound changes in military hardware, and qualitatively new types of weapon systems being developed, above all of mass destruction, that can make their supervision, and therefore their co-ordinated limitation, an inordinately difficult, if not impossible, matter.^^2^^
_-_-_^^1^^ See The Washington Post, 13 March 1983, p. Al.
~^^2^^ Most significantly, while rhetorically posing as a most active defender of control, the USA is pursuing a course of developing weapon systems and methods of their deployment which are very difficult to verify (cruise missiles, various basing modes for new generations of ICBMs, binary weapons, etc.).
100In turn it becomes necessary to halt and reverse the arms race as soon as possible and particularly in nuclear arms, and take the path of implementing effective, tangible disarmament measures, whilst scrupulously complying with concluded agreements. This is precisely the goal of the foreign policy of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, the goal of their concrete proposals in this area.
As is stressed in the Political Declaration of the MemberStates of the Warsaw Treaty Organisation, adopted by the Political Consultative Committee in Prague in 1983, "the states represented at the meeting proceed from the assumption that any agreement on arms reduction and disarmament should provide for proper measures to verify their implementation, including, when necessary, international procedures".^^1^^
_-_-_^^1^^ Information Bulletin, No, 5, 1983, p. 8,
[101] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter 6 __ALPHA_LVL2__ THE PROHIBITION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS __ALPHA_LVL3__ [introduction.]``It is highly important to safeguard humanity against the possible use of chemical weapons," said Konstantin Chernenko, General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. "Relevant talks have been going on for a long time. Now the chance of a solution seems to be maturing. What the world needs is a complete and universal ban on the use of chemical weapons, on their development and manufacture, and an agreement to destroy all their stockpiles. The Soviet Union is in favour of effective verification of such an accord, and wants the controls to cover the entire process of the destruction of chemical weapons from beginning to end.''^^1^^
The US ruling circles have launched a loud propaganda campaign, slanderously alleging that the USSR uses chemical weapons. Washington needs this to distract international public opinion from facts showing the use of combat chemical weaponry by the US Army and the Pentagon's active preparations to wage massive chemical warfare.
Concerned by the increased threat of war, including the danger of chemical warfare, the peoples of the world resolutely demand the elimination of its very possibility by banning the production of chemical weapons and destroying their stockpiles. The USSR fully supports this line. It has never used chemical weapons anywhere; nor has it handed them over to other countries.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. THE STRUGGLE FOR BANNING CHEMICAL WEAPONSChemical weapons have always evoked disgust and widespread condemnation. From time immemorial, the poisoning of wells was considered a crime incompatible with the rules of warfare. Armis belia non venenis geri (war is _-_-_
~^^1^^ Pravda, 3 March 1984. 102
102 waged by weapons, not by poison) said Roman lawyers two thousand years ago.As the widespread use of chemicals became increasingly possible, some measures were taken to prohibit chemical weapons by international agreements.
The 1874 Brussels Declaration and the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions banned the use of poisons and poisoned bullets, and a separate declaration of the 1899 Hague Convention condemned the use of projectiles specifically designed to diffuse asphyxiating or poisonous gases.
Chemical weapons in the form of poisonous gas were first used in 1914, at the outset of World War I. A large-scale gas attack by the Germans in 1915 took 5,000 lives. According to statistics, from that time on till the end of the war in 1918, at least 125,000 tons of toxic chemical agents had been used. According to official figures, about 1.3 million people suffered from poisonous gases during World War I, and 100,000 of them died.
The use of poisonous gases during World War I caused such strong public indignation that measures were taken to prohibit chemical (and also biological) weapons. The result was the Geneva Protocol of 17 June 1925, which banned the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous and other gases, all similar liquids, materials and devices, and also bacteriological agents. This established the custom and norm of international law, and the majority of states adhered to them in practice. It should be noted, however, that the United States joined the Geneva Protocol only fifty years later, whereas the USSR was one of the first to sign it.
In 1935-36, Mussolini's troops used mustard gas in Ethiopia. This led to numerous losses among Ethiopian servicemen and civilians, who did not have even most primitive medical aids, let alone means of antichemical defence.
The Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, which tried the top Nazi leaders, revealed facts showing the Hitlerites had been preparing to wage chemical warfare. Tabun and sarin were among the poisonous agents produced and stockpiled during the war by Nazi Germany.
The international community has contributed to the struggle for banning chemical weapons. The UN General Assembly unanimously adopted resolutions 2162 B (XXI) dated 5 December 1966, and 2454 A (XXIII) dated 20 December 1968, which called for "strict observance by all States of the principles and objectives of the Protocol for 103 the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925" and invited "all States to accede to the Geneva Protocol.''
In execution of the last resolution, and in conformity with the recommendation contained in the report of the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee (4 September 1968), a group of experts from 14 countries prepared in 1969 "A Report of the UN Secretary-General on Chemical and Bacteriological (Biological) Weapons and on the Consequences of Their Possible Use". The report was sent to the UN General Assembly, the Security Council, and the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee, and also to the governments of the UN member states. It read as follows: "Were these weapons ever to be used on a large scale in war, no one could predict how enduring the effects would be and how they would affect the structure of society and the environment in which we live. This overriding danger would apply as much to the country which initiated the use of these weapons as to the one which had been attacked, regardless of what protective measures it might have taken in parallel with its development of an offensive capability. A particular danger also derives from the fact that any country could develop or acquire, in one way or another, a capability in this type of warfare, despite the fact that this could prove costly. The danger of the proliferation of this class of weapons applies as much to the developing as it does to developed countries. ''^^1^^
The report went on to emphasise that the inertia of the arms race would have noticeably weakened if the production of these weapons were prohibited. Numerous data were published to show that their use could lead to tremendous loss of human life.
The report was the scientific and technological basis for conducting talks on the prohibition of chemical and biological weapons. The Pugwash Chemical Warfare Study Group also made a substantial contribution to the development of the scientific and technological aspects of this issue.
In the mid-1970s the US leadership had to agree to start talks on the banning of chemical weapons. It was compelled _-_-_
^^1^^ Chemical and Bacteriological (Biological) Weapons and the Effects of Their Possible Use, Report of the Secretary-General, United Nations, New York, 1969, p. 88.
104 to do so by public demands; also, the very climate of international detente was conducive to some positive elements in US foreign policy. In 1976, Soviet-American talks began with a view to submitting a joint initiative on banning chemical weapons to the Geneva Disarmament Committee. The talks were based on the Soviet-US agreements reached in the early 1970s. In June 1979, during the SovietAmerican talks in Vienna, both sides confirmed the importance of complete and verifiable prohibition of chemical weapons and agreed to strive for a joint proposal to be submitted to the Disarmament Committee.However, subsequent events showed the preparation of a draft convention was far from being ready.
The Soviet Union, showing considerable flexibility, proposed several new ideas that would allow to start immediate formulation of a convention acceptable to all states. Yet, despite the efforts taken by the USSR and some other countries, despite the appeals by the UN General Assembly for quickest possible prohibition of chemical weapons, and despite the fact that all the scientific and technological aspects of the problem have been well-studied and welldiscussed, all work for concluding the convention came to a standstill, both within the UN framework and at bilateral Soviet-American talks. By early 1980s, it became clear that the United States and its allies were resorting to delay tactics. For example, when the bilateral talks showed certain progress regarding the number of arms to be banned, the United States tabled additional patently unconstructive proposals regarding control, and this seriously impeded the talks. After the twelfth round (July 1980), the United States discontinued the talks altogether. At first they explained their refusal to negotiate by saying that the present US administration was revising its stand on all aspects of disarmament. Thereupon, the US leadership, as often happened before, fell back on the question of control and verification. When Washington discontinued the bilateral Soviet-American talks, the work on an international convention outlawing chemical weapons was entrusted to the Disarmament Committee.
The US stand is the main obstacle to an agreement on banning chemical weapons. This showed very clearly in the UN. The 36th UN General Assembly adopted, by an overwhelming majority of votes, a resolution noting the need for overall efforts to galvanise the talks on prohibiting 105 chemical weapons currently under way in the Disarmament Committee. Only the US delegation abstained during the voting.
The same UN General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending that all states refrain from actions that may hamper the talks and, specifically, discontinue the production and deployment of new types of chemical weapons and their placement on the territories of states which do not have them. The UN also urged the USSR and the US to resume bilateral talks as soon as possible. As many as 156 countries voted in favour, and only the United States voted against.
It is clear that the Reagan administration, having openly started to modernise and expand the US chemical arsenal, regards all talks on banning chemical weapons as an obstacle to the realisation of their plans.
The Soviet stand on prohibiting chemical weapons was clearly formulated in a memorandum to the Second Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament. This is what it stated: "Like many other states, the Soviet Union is of the opinion that this is one of the most pressing problems and that it should be solved without delay. By refusing to continue the bilateral talks and thereby discarding the Soviet-American agreement on a joint initiative in banning chemical weapons, the USA has dashed the hopes of the peoples for its early solution. It is all the more important therefore to intensify joint efforts by states in the Disarmament Committee to draft an international convention on the prohibition and elimination of chemical weapons.''^^1^^
Motivated by the desire to achieve a comprehensive and effective ban of chemical weapons, the Soviet Union, on 17 June 1982, submitted to the UN a document entitled "Basic Provisions of a Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction''.
The Soviet proposals envisaged that every state participating in the convention would pledge never and under no circumstances to develop, produce, acquire otherwise, stockpile, store or transfer chemical weapons, and would destroy or divert the stocks of chemical weapons to permitted purposes and liquidate or dismantle the facilities that produce them.
_-_-_~^^1^^ New Times, No. 27, 1982, p. 31. 106
106The Soviet Union has thus tabled cardinal measures that would fully eliminate the threat of chemical warfare. They envisage effective control, both national and international, and assume that every participant in the convention would pledge not to put obstacles, including intentional camouflage, to national control devices of other participants. Moreover, the Soviet proposals stipulate for on-site inspections. The draft says: "Within the period of destruction or diversion to permitted purposes of the stock of chemical weapons, a possibility of carrying out systematic international on-site inspections (for example, on the basis of an agreed quota) of the destruction of stocks at a converted or specialised facility (facilities) shall be provided for.''^^1^^ The Soviet proposals also suggested carrying out international on-site inspections of the production of extratoxic deadly chemicals intended for permitted purposes.
The assertions by US diplomats that the USSR is allegedly against international control are sheer bluff. Yet, imperialist propaganda spares no effort to distort or simply hush up the constructive Soviet stand.
The January 1983 Political Declaration of the Warsaw Treaty member states says that the signatories believe it necessary to hasten the elaboration of an international convention on the prohibition and elimination of chemical weapons. In January 1984, the Warsaw Treaty countries called on the NATO countries to negotiate a European chemical weapon ban. That sort of regional arrangement could speed up the conclusion of an international convention banning chemical weapons. This has'once again showed the truly humane and peaceful nature of the socialist countries' foreign policy, their readiness to take into account the interests of other participants in the talks so as to prevent a military conflict and achieve genuine and effective disarmament.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. THE PENTAGON'S COURSE TOWARDS A CHEMICAL WARThe achievements of chemistry, which under the pressure of militarist circles in the West are being used to prepare war, have resulted in very deadly poisonous substances, chiefly of the neuroparalytic type. In comparison with _-_-_
~^^1^^ United Nations Document A/S-12/AC. 1/12. 17 June 1982, Annex, 8.
107 mustard gas and similar poisonous agents used during World War I, modern neuroparalytic gases like VX are ten thousand times more toxic.In fact, poisonous substances used during World War I were spread by relatively simple devices compared to those existing nowadays, and were used in conformity with more or less primitive ideas about warfare.
Significant efforts were also made on developing chemical agents that would not kill people, but put them out of action. Such agents are now used by the police in some Western states and in dictatorships elsewhere to crush popular protest movements and uprisings. However, they may also be used in war as additional combat weaponry for intensifying the overall effect of an attack.
The tremendous striking power of modern chemical weapons was shown by the joint calculations of Soviet and American military experts presented in 1969 at Geneva. For instance, a raid by only twenty modern bombers carrying poisonous substances like VX against, say, London, Paris, New York or Moscow, would kill over 80 per cent of the inhabitants.
Despite their tremendous power, chemical weapons are relatively simple to produce. For example, the Chilean junta has started manufacturing a neuroparalytic gas similar to sarin. Chemical weapons are rather cheap and, like neutron weapons, kill people without destroying material values. These properties seem attractive to irresponsible military and political leaders.
Today, the United States has stocks of chemical weapons sufficient to destroy all living creatures on earth. Yet, it has announced a programme for increasing the US chemical arsenal from 3 million units (shells, bombs, missile warheads) to 5 million, and for developing a new generation of neuroparalytic agents, viz. binary weapons. The latter consist of two non-toxic components, which, when interacting, form a poisonous substance. The reaction can be started immediately before or during use. The introduction of binary weapons would substantially hamper talks on banning chemical weapons because inspection measures would be exceedingly complicated (binary weapon components may be relatively harmless if taken separately).
The Pentagon is modernising not only its armaments, but its military doctrines as well. The American press has reported of a new US strategic doctrine under which a future 108 War would involve all types of weapons of mass destruction. "Airland Battle", as the US military have christened it, is designed for a massive use of conventional, nuclear and chemical weapons in the course of a lightning attack similar to the German Blitzkrieg.
Allocations on US chemical rearmament are steeply rising. In the fiscal year 1978, they amounted to $ 111 million; in 1981, to $ 262 million; in 1982, to $ 455 million; in 1983, to $ 810 million; and in 1984, they are to reach $ 1,400 million. Back in the summer of 1980, the US Defense Department Research Council recommended stockpiling those weapons in Britain, closer to West Germany, the potential theatre of war. The Pentagon is also studying the question of equipping ground-based cruise missiles with chemical warheads. Such missiles, having the range of 1,500 miles, are being deployed in some West European countries.
Not long ago, the European public learned with concern that US chemical weapons have already arrived in Western Europe. In August 1982, the West German press and TV made public undeniable facts about a US chemical depot in the area of Fischbach (Rheinland-Pfalz), where about 10,000 tons of poisonous substances are stored.
A chemical war in densely populated Europe would be, of course, a calamity for the entire continent, but even the stockpiling of chemical weapons in Western Europe is fraught with great danger for its population. US military officials recognise themselves that, over the past thirteen years, at least 955 ``leakages'' have taken place from chemical depots on US territory.
The US military not only stockpile chemical weapons, but use them against peoples fighting for their national and social liberation. Richard Schweiker, Secretary of the US Health and Human Services Department, admitted that during the war in Southeast Asia US troops used chemical weapons in forty-one operations. In its chemical war against Vietnam, the US Army used over 96,000 tons of herbicides and defoliants, chiefly Agent Orange, Agent White, and Agent Blue, and over 7,000 tons of GS poisonous substances.
According to the US Army Command, herbicides were used to demask guerrilla bases, depots and communications, and to destroy their food bases, and only in rare cases for defensive purposes. Poisonous substances were used to ``fumigate'' the enemy from underground and other shelters, and also to ``localise'' the population, i.e. to restrict it 109 to areas controlled by puppet Vietnamese troops and US forces.
In reality, when operating in the jungle, the US Army normally did not just defoliate trees, but completely destroyed all the surrounding flora and fauna. Herbicides were used in huge doses amounting to tens and even hundreds of kilogrammes per hectare. Desiccated forests were set on fire with napalm, and the devastated areas were left to the weeds.
The use of chemical weapons in Vietnam resulted in 1.6 million victims; also 44 per cent of tropical forests were affected over approximately 2.5 million hectares, and 40 per cent of arable land over some 1.3 million hectares.
The use of Agent Orange proved especially disastrous because it contains dioxine, a highly toxic and stable substance. In fact, Agent Orange is still present both in the surface and abyssal layers of the soil in the lowland regions of Vietnam. It causes tumoral diseases, liver cancer, leukemia, and congenital malformations; impairs the course of pregnancy; and reduces the viability of newborns. Scientists think most of these anomalies result from genetic disturbances caused by US chemical agents. The nature of chromosomal aberrations and other changes in the genetic apparatus of people affected by Agent Orange is similar to those in the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who were radiated by A-bomb blasts.
The true results of US chemical warfare in Vietnam and Laos are becoming fully apparent only now. In addition to affecting people directly, poisonous substances like Agent Orange and Agent Green were found to have long-term ruinous effects on soil, plants, and human genetics. It is clear now that tens of thousands of US troops who used these poisonous substances were likewise affected. Almost 16,000 former US soldiers who had served in Vietnam and had been affected by Agent Orange have demanded compensation from the US government. A report by the US scientist, Samuel S. Epstein, analyses the effects of toxic substances on the health of former US servicemen (blood and liver diseases and birth of abnormal children).
A representative international symposium to study the effects of poisonous substances used by the US Army against the Vietnamese people was held in January 1983 in the city of Ho Chi Minh. The meeting was attended by prominent scientists from over 20 countries of Europe, America and 110 Asia. The participants visited the Mada area in Dangnai Province to get first-hand information. In the contaminated areas, the jungle was either partially or totally destroyed. The forest, dried off by defoliants and herbicides, was, as a rule, burned down with napalm, and this resulted in soil laterisation involving serious structural changes due to ecosystem disturbances. A savanna covered with hard-leaved weeds has replaced the destroyed lowland forests. Specialists estimated that from 100 to 150 years would be needed for new vegetation to grow, and even more time for fullvalue forest.
The destruction of forest impaired the water, climate and soil conditions, changed animal habitats and worsened human life, for instance, mangrove forests, which used to be the principal spawning sites of fish and crustaceans and which provided 70 per cent of protein food for the local population. The destruction of these forests forced the population to migrate, and this gave rise to complex social problems.
The use of chemical weapons in Vietnam roused the indignation of the world public and made it increasingly imperative to conclude a convention on the complete prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of chemical weapons.
Having started preparations for chemical warfare, the US administration is simultaneously trying to convince the world public that the USSR is allegedly involved in the use of chemical weapons. Such false reports were for many years insistently spread by US propaganda. For example, speaking at a symposium on chemical weapons organised by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) in 1968, a US colonel reported the use of Soviet-made chemical weapons in Yemen. However, his report was concocted so crudely that the participants instantly realised it was false.
Such frauds were especially frequent in the early 1980s. In early 1982, the former US Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, submitted a report to Congress entitled "Chemical Warfare in Southeast Asia and Afghanistan". Later that year, the US State Department published an ``update'' of this report.
The US administration has repeatedly declared that the results of an investigation by a group of UN experts (which was to ``confirm'' Washington's version on the Soviet "use of chemical weapons") would soon be made public. This 111 group, set up in 1980 under US pressure, has time and again travelled to the Afghan-Pakistan border area and to Southeast Asia to compare the US allegations with the facts. Esmat A. Ezz, Major-General of the Egyptian Army Medical Corps and the group's chairman declared they had done everything possible to compile an impartial report. As a result, in spite of importunate promptings and pressure from US special services, the UN experts found nothing to confirm the American claim.
In December 1982, the United Nations published a document which fully exposed as groundless Washington's slanderous allegations that Soviet-made poisonous substances have been used in Southeast Asia and Afghanistan.
The US press also admits the failure of these anti-Soviet frauds. In late 1982, The Christian Science Monitor published an article by David D. Newsom, the former US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, now Director of the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy (Georgetown University), in which he cited the slanderous version spread by the official US circles about the alleged use by the USSR of poisonous substances and stated that this campaign had failed to give results, despite all the effort and cost involved.
Anti-Soviet frauds are apparently needed to try and make the peoples of the world forget that it is the US, not some other country, that uses chemical weapons on an unprecedented scale. On the other hand, they are designed to divert the attention of the world public from the wide-scale programme of US chemical weapon build-up so that the Pentagon could appropriate more and more thousand million dollars for its plans to use mass-destruction weaponSj including chemical agents.
[112] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter 7 __ALPHA_LVL2__ OUTLAW NEUTRON WEAPONS __ALPHA_LVL3__ [introduction.]On 6 August 1981, the 36th anniversary of the Hiroshima tragedy, President Reagan authorised the starting of fullscale production of the neutron weapon---the most sophisticated weapon of mass destruction yet. The American leadership thereby took one more step down the road of escalating the arms race, and once again openly demonstrated its neglect of world public opinion, which has repeatedly voiced its indignation at Washington's criminal plans.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. NEUTRON ATROCITYRonald Reagan's ``fascination'' with the neutron bomb is a long story. As far back as 1978, he would say it was a humane weapon "with a death ray" which would kill only the enemy's soldiers, without destroying material things, and it was rather cheap to produce.
One has to exceed all limits of cynicism to try to prove the ``humanism'' of this weapon and its imaginary safety for the civilian population. One of the Pentagon generals declared without a moment's hesitation that a neutron warhead explosion would not even make china rattle in the cupboards of a nearby town. Herbert Kremp, the former director of the Springer newspaper Die Welt, wrote, gloating with delight, that if the neutron bomb were to be used, the beautiful city of Dresden would remain intact, even though all of its citizens might perish. Another Springer newspaper, Welt am Ronntag, also expostulated that the neutron bomb kills people alone, leaving everything else around intact. It piles up mountains of corpses without any external signs of injury inside intact buildings, industrial structures, or tanks.
In contrast to these inhuman speculations the enraged, yet just words resound of Ernst Bloch, a West German __PRINTERS_P_113_COMMENT__ 8-339 113 philosopher: "The idea crosses my mind that the neutron weapon is aimed not only against the enemy, but against humanity as a whole. Man in our society [in capitalist society] is becoming superfluous. Unemployment and the rationalisation of production are making a great number of the work force superfluous. May not a situation arise when this hideous weapon could be used to exterminate millions of people who have become superfluous and a burden to society?''^^1^^
The American administration's decision to start production of the neutron weapon is part of its foreign policy strategy designed to blackmail the nations of the world into succumbing to a policy and accepting socio-political systems which are to Washington's liking. It is yet another step by the American administration in sliding towards an all-out thermonuclear catastrophe. This is another indisputable ``priority'' in the nuclear arms race for Washington.
Western apologists of the neutron variety of nuclear weapons shamefacedly call it an "enhanced radiation weapon." They are thereby trying to cover up its true designation as a nuclear weapon of mass destruction.
It is well known that if the yield of a nuclear explosion is decreased then the shock wave and the heat radiation emanate from the epicentre much more quickly than does the penetrating radiation. Thus, with the nuclear bomb energy yield reduced 1,000 times (say, from one megaton to one kiloton), the radius within which people are affected by radiation diminishes approximately 25 times, and by the shock wave 10 times, while the effect of penetrating radiation is only three times less.^^2^^ Therefore, as the energy yield of a nuclear weapon is reduced, the relative importance of the penetrating radiation grows as a casualty causing factor.
The detonation of a neutron charge causes fission-fusion nuclear reactions. In fusion, the weapon's most important reaction, ions of deuterium interact with those, of tritium, emitting neutrons with an energy in the order of 14 million electron-volts (MeV), while the energy of the neutrons released by fission amounts to nearly 2 MeV.
Apart from that, nuclear fusion releases about 10 times as many neutrons as does a fission reaction of the same yield. _-_-_
~^^1^^ Konrad Liibbert, Neutronenbombe. Sine saubere Waffe, die nur Lebenzerstort, Verlag Marxistische Blatter, Frankfurt am Main, 1981, p. 20.
~^^2^^ See The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, ed. by Samuel Glasstone, United States Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, 1962, p. 648.
114 Neutrons emitted by nuclear fusion have a higher penetration effect and travel over greater distances than the ones generated by the fission of heavy nuclei. In a neutron charge detonation, energy is distributed according to the correlation of the fission-fusion reactions. "In terms of explosive yield the subkiloton and one-kiloton enhanced-radiation warheads for the eight-inch artillery shell are roughly 50-50 fission-fusion devices. The enhanced-radiation version of the Lance warhead is about 60 per cent fusion and 40 per cent fission. The two-kiloton eight-inch enhancedradiation shell is between 70 and 75 per cent fusion."^^1^^ Accordingly, at the detonation of a Lance neutron warhead or of an artillery shell, the blast accounts for 40 per cent of the yield, thermal radiation---for 25 per cent, radioactive fallout---for 5 per cent, and primary penetrating radiation---for 30 per cent.^^2^^According to other authors, the share of energy yield accounted for by primary radiation may reach even higher levels.
So, it becomes obvious that the neutron weapon is intended for the extermination of people by means of penetrating radiation. This atrocious objective is met through a sharply intensified high-energy neutron radiation from a nuclear warhead of a relatively low yield, which is, in effect, a mini thermonuclear bomb.
The relative nature of the notion "low-yield nuclear explosion" must, of course, be understood. Actually, a yield of 1 Kt is equivalent to the detonation of 1,000 tons of TNT. Concerning the Lance neutron warhead, for instance, it means the following: if 40 per cent of its explosive yield comes as the shock wave, it follows that this equals 0.4 Kt (400 tons of TNT), or the energy yield of 80 high-- explosive demolition bombs of 5 tons of TNT each detonated simultaneously. Therefore, the neutron weapon is not one free of all other effects except penetrating radiation, as the weapon's Western apologists are claiming. The assertion _-_-_
~^^1^^ Fred M. Kaplan, "Enhaced-Radiation Weapons", in: Scientific American, Vol. 238, No.5, May 1978, p. 47.
~^^2^^ See J. K. Miettinen, "The Neutron Bomb and the Related Doctrine", in: Peace and Security in a Changing World. Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs, Munich, 24-29 August 1977, pp. 367-369 (Dr. Miettinen is a prominent Finnish scientist working in the field of antiradiation protection.)
__PRINTERS_P_115_COMMENT__ 8* 115 that the neutron bomb is a ``clean'' weapon does not hold water either.Interacting with many non-radioactive elements, neutrons turn them into radioactive ones. This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as "induced radioactivity". The explosion of a neutron device yields about 10 times as many neutrons as an atomic explosion of the same energy yield. Therefore, if it were to be used, the neutron-induced radioactivity in the upper layers of the soil, in metal objects, foodstuffs, and the like, would be about 10 times as high as after an atomic explosion of a comparable yield. Thus, the terrain exposed to neutron radiation and everything on it or, more exactly, everything that remains on it, will be radioactive for some time. For instance, surviving Hiroshima citizens and rescue team members who arrived near the epicentre within two days of the atomic explosion could receive an irradiation dose of around 130 rad caused by induced radioactivity.^^1^^
So, the ``cleanliness'' of the neutron bomb and the `` innocuous'' nature of its explosion effects are a lie.
The neutron weapon's strongest effect is penetrating radiation consisting of a flux of fast neutrons and of highenergy gamma-rays. Immediately beyond the radius of the shock wave and thermoradiation, irradiation doses generated by a neutron warhead explosion may reach tens and hundreds of thousands of rad, while the minimal absolutely lethal dose for man is about 400 rad. Among the various types of ionising radiation produced by nuclear explosions, neutron radiation has the most marked biological effect, and therefore inflicts maximal casualties.^^2^^
Neutron radiation is highly dangerous because it inflicts such pathologies in the human eye as cataracts (opacity of the crystalline lens), malignant tumors, leukemia, and genetic defects. In this respect, according to different scientific assessments, neutrons are 5 to 10 times more dangerous than gamma-rays.
As testified by John H. Edwards, a well-known British _-_-_
~^^1^^ See ibid.
~^^2^^ See Yevgeni I. Chazov, Leonid A. Ilyin, Angelina K. Guskova, The Danger of Nuclear War. Soviet Physicians' Viewpoint, Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, Moscow, 1982, pp.44-45; L. A. Ilyin, "On Certain Medico-Biological Consequences of the Use of the Neutron Weapon", Report at the "Physicians of the FRG for the Prevention of Nuclear War" Congress, Hamburg, 19-20 September 1981.
116 geneticist, the peculiar feature of the neutron weapon is that the period during which it can cripple a human being is unlimited, so that even a number of generations after the use of this weapon genetically crippled babies may be born. Neutron radiation is very dangerous for an embryo developing in the mother's womb. Depending on the irradiation dose the mother has received, there is a wide variety of possible biological consequences, ranging from dying in the womb to babies being born crippled in different ways and suffering from many developmental defects.Responsible international scientific organisations, including the International Commission on Radiation Protection and the UN Scientific Committee on Atomic Radiation Effects, presume that, in principle, no matter how small the ionising radiation dose may be, it can with a certain degree of probability cause malignant tumors and genetic defects in people exposed to it and in their descendants. When dealing with neutron radiation, it should be understood that the rate of probability, or, to be more precise, of risk, of grave types of pathology developing as a result of exposure to neutrons will always be higher than in cases of people being exposed to other kinds of ionising radiation.^^1^^ Such are the facts of science.
The considerations offered above can be illustrated by the data assembled in Table I.
Everybody, even those uninitiated in military matters, but capable of soberly evaluating the realities of the modern world, understands that the positions of the advocates of the so-called most humane or, more correctly, sophisticated and atrocious weapon of mass destruction, is totally insupportable.
Let us turn again to analysing certain facts and circumstances. The USA intends to deploy neutron weapons in Western Europe. According to the press, 380 neutron warheads for the Lance missile and 800 heavy howitzer neutron shells are planned for deployment there. It is quite obvious that in the event of the neutron weapon being used, it will not be a matter of just one, but of a few hundred, and even thousand, explosions.
Considering the high population density and urbanisation level in Western Europe, populated areas there are normally 1-2 kilometres apart. If this is taken into account __PARAGRAPH_PAUSE__ _-_-_
^^1^^ See Yevgeni I. Chazov, et al., op.cit.; L. A. Ilyin, op.cit.
117Table 1
SELECTED DATA ON HARMFUL EFFECTS OF NEUTRON WEAPON ON MAN
A certain number of those exposed are likely to be affected later by malignant tumors and leukemia. Negative genetic effects may occur in the descendants of the exposed victims in a number of generations to follow.
__PARAGRAPH_CONT__ when looking into the published data on the effective radii of penetrating radiation, or on the irradiation doses generated at various distances from the epicentre of a 1 Kt neutron warhead explosion, it will readily become clear that an explosion of that kind will instantly create a zone of lethal radiation alone over an area of about 8 sq km around the epicentre.^^1^^ Another example: the size of the area, meaning the ring with irradiation levels ranging, say, from 100 to 1 rad, will amount to 10 sq km. Even within this zone, where the doses will be relatively low, the hazards for the Deople happening to be there will be quite serious, _-_-_^^1^^ See Yevgeni I. Chazov, et al,, op. cit.; L. A. Ilyin, op. cit.
118 considering the facts cited above concerning the far-reaching biological effects of neutron radiation.We have only cited isolated examples here to form a general notion of the dose levels of radiation and associated areas within which they will occur---and all this caused by the explosion of only one neutron charge of 1 Kt yield.
If all these estimates, based only on one hypothetical explosion, are now correlated with the realities of war hostilities involving the use of a terrifying number of neutron warheads not in a lifeless desert, but over a densely populated area, the falsehood and absurdity of claims that the neutron weapon is ``harmless'' for the civilian population will become absolutely clear.
Dr. Miettinen writes: "If it were used against troops hiding in urban areas from where civilians would not have been able to escape, its effects against civilians would be much worse than those of a fission warhead of the same energy yield... The number of casualties among civilians would double, while survivors would get much higher irradiation doses.''^^1^^
Filippo di Pasquantonio, a prominent Italian scientist, offers the following calculations. The irradiation dose over a distance of 400 m from the explosion of a 1 Kt neutron charge is 418,000 rad. Therefore, even people taking refuge in a good nuclear shelter with a protection coefficient of 500 would unavoidably get a lethal irradiation dose of 836 rad. Let us assume, he writes, that a group of people were far enough away to escape the harmful effects of radioactive radiation [i.e. instantaneous penetrating radiation from a neutron charge explosion], but they would enter the contaminated area all the same, moved by humane considerations. Besides, many would try anything possible to reach their homes and find out what had happened to their kin. These people, Pasquantonio concludes, coming as close to the point of explosion of a neutron charge as, say, 200 or 400 m and staying there for two hours, would receive irradiation doses of from 1,400 to 300 rad from neutron-- induced radioactivity.^^2^^
Such are the independent estimates of scientists from _-_-_
~^^1^^ J. K. Miettinen, op.cit., p.368.
~^^2^^ See F. di Pasquantonio, La bomba N. Consequenze biologiche, politiche e militari, Tesi editore, Rome, 1980.
119 different countries, which most convincingly corroborate the indisputable fact that, above all, the civilian population will fall victim to the neutron Weapon if it is used. __ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. THE STRUGGLE TO BAN THE NEUTRON WEAPONThe development and full-scale production of the neutron weapon by the United States is a challenge to the peace forces of the world. The moment the very first words were uttered by American leaders about its production and deployment, millions of people everywhere in the world actively joined the struggle to have it banned. The wave of meetings and demonstrations conducted under the slogan "Ban the N Bomb!" has swept people holding the widest possible range of ideological and religious views and creeds, but united by their impassioned desire to thwart the Pentagon's dangerous plans. The powerful popular movement for banning the neutron weapon has become an integral part of the massive anti-war movement that has swept the world in the early 1980s.
International public opinion became poignantly anxious over the imminent possibility of lowering the nuclear threshold in Europe on account of neutron ammunition going into service, and the increased risk of a conflict escalating to the point of a nuclear war.
West-European nations were especially indignant over Washington's avowed intention to deploy and use the neutron weapon in case of conflict, starting with the^ European continent. And inasmuch as the US leadership assigns this weapon for use anywhere but on American territory, threatening the peoples of other countries and continents with it, the US President's decision on its production can by no means be qualified as an internal affair of the United States. Facts disprove statements by Washington officials about the allegedly defensive character of the neutron weapon intended to counteract the "Soviet tank threat". To begin with, there is no Soviet tank threat as such. But the crux of the matter is the fact that the NATO forces wield a tremendous quantity of anti-tank weapons---up to 300,000 units. This force, in the opinion of specialists, is enough to destroy all the tanks in the world.
The question of banning the neutron weapon has gained much importance in international affairs. The attitudes on this issue show what countries are really out to eliminate 120 the threat of a nuclear world war and what countries are inclined to augment it.
The Soviet Union has been decisively and determinedly standing for the banning of the neutron weapon, and for mutual restraint from its production. At the 36th Session of the UN General Assembly in September 1981 Andrei Gromyko the Foreign Minister of the USSR clearly declared: "The decision of the United States to start the production of neutron weapons caused great indignation in the world. This decision is a new step towards intensifying the arms race, towards aggravating the situation in the world. Nations are stating clearly that they are categorically against the brutal neutron weapon, rightly regarding it as a particularly inhuman variety of weapon of mass destruction. Neutron weapons should be completely banned---both their manufacture and use.''
From the very moment the threat of neutron weapons being acquired by the US armed forces appeared, the USSR has been doing everything possible to avert the "neutron threat". When the United States sharply intensified its efforts to develop this weapon, the USSR took a major step by submitting to the Committee on Disarmament on 14 March 1978, together with other socialist states, a draft convention on banning the production, stockpiling, deployment and use of the nuclear neutron weapon. The Soviet leadership has repeatedly pointed out that mutual rejection of the production of this weapon is the simplest and most radical way of solving this problem, and called for conducting relevant talks.
This proposal won the support of world public opinion, and it drew a positive reaction from many nations, first of all from non-aligned ones.
Pressured by public sentiment in different countries, the then US President, Jimmy Carter, announced in spring 1978 a postponement of the final decision on the neutron weapon. As further developments showed, however, that step was taken with the sole purpose of deceiving the antineutron movement, and defusing the heat of criticism of the American leadership. The start of production of major components of the neutron weapon was announced as early as October 1978, while in August 1981 the USA launched its full-scale production.
On 14 August 1981, a TASS Statement was published clearly stressing that the US administration's decision was 121 yet another indication of a course toward an unrestrained arms race and a destabilisation of the world situation. "Washington," the Statement said, "has clearly decided to face its allies with an accomplished fact: first build an arsenal of neutron weapons, then pressure the allies to accept them on their territory.''^^1^^
When making his irresponsible decision, the US President did not even think it necessary to consult the NATO allies. Some leading figures in West-European countries took a similarly irresponsible position by trying to make it seem as though the decision taken in Washington was of no concern to them.
As to the position of the Soviet leadership, the TASS Statement stressed that mutual rejection of the manufacture of the neutron weapon is best suited to the task of strengthening peace and would serve the interests of all nations and peoples.
The peace forces of the world are working actively to bring about a change in the political line of the US administration and compel it to reverse its decision, prevent the spread of the neutron weapon, and ban it. All sensible people consider it their own objective, which is evidenced by the massive popular movement for banning the neutron bomb. The elementary sense of rational self-preservation unambiguously rules that the stockpiling of more and more new means of warfare must be stopped, and that the course of the arms race must be decidedly counterbalanced by a drive for the limitation, reduction and elimination of armaments, including nuclear. The people of the world demand that the neutron weapon be outlawed, and its production stopped.
The wishes of the peoples are reflected in the attitude of the international community. On the initiative of the socialist and non-aligned countries the 37th Session of the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling on all nations to negotiate a neutron weapons ban.
_-_-_^^1^^ Pravda, 14 August 1981.
[122] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter 8 __ALPHA_LVL2__ THE STRUGGLE AGAINST AMERICAN PLANSThe development of science and technology in the second half of the 20th century is constantly expanding the potential for the practical use of space by science and industry. At the same time imperialist circles, and first of all the government of the United States, are using scientific and technological progress to create space weapons systems capable of striking at targets both in space and on earth. The foreign policy course pursued by Washington gives rise to a real danger that space will be turned into a potential theatre of war. This prospect causes deep concern among clear-headed politicians, scientists, and the international public at large. All of these groups are demanding that efforts to militarise space be halted. This task is becoming ever more urgent; it is one of the most important aspects of the struggle for peace and international security.
From the very beginning of practical space exploration, the Soviet Union has consistently urged that the use of space and of heavenly bodies for military ends be forbidden or limited. The USSR seeks to achieve specific agreements on this question. In answer to an appeal from a group of American scientists and political leaders, the Soviet leadership stated in April 1983 that a crucial time, indeed, is coming: it is whether the interested states sit down at a negotiation table without delay and get down to working out a treaty banning the stationing of any kind of weapon in outer space, or the arms race spreads into outer space, too.^^1^^
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. THE US COURSE TOWARDS THE MILITARISATIONSince the beginning of the space age, the USA has devoted considerable attention to military aspects of the use of space, and especially to ways to insure the combat _-_-_
^^1^^ £cc Prai-da, 29^ Apiil 1983.
123 effectiveness of its armed forces with the help of satellites for communications and for the gathering of intelligence, meteorological, and navigational data. In the 1980s, a special role was assigned to multiple-use spaceships of the Shuttle type. Geoffrey Kemp, a military theoretician who holds high rank under the present US administration has written that "in the military sphere, the Shuttle will permit the deployment and servicing of larger, more sophisticated, satellites which can perform a host of tasks including command, control and communications, navigation, reconnaissance, surveillance, electronic ferreting and eavesdropping, and antisatellite operations. The impact of new space technologies on battlefield management and strategic warfare, including antiballistic missile defence, could have as significant an impact as the introduction of the telegraph and the wireless had in naval operations in earlier years.''^^1^^The speech delivered by President Reagan on television on 23 March 1983, is a typical manifestation of Washington's course towards militarising space and the threat it poses to the cause of peace. Reagan openly announced that work had begun on a broadscale and highly effective system of rocket defence which will include devices stationed in space.
US officials have let it be known that what is envisioned is the stationing in earth orbit of gigantic mirrors that will focus intense laser beams aimed at them from earth, making it possible to destroy Soviet rockets shortly after they are launched.
Much has been written in the American press about projects for the creation of space stations with laser and beam weapons on board capable of destroying enemy rockets. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative organisation with close ties to the present US administration, has set out "Project High Frontier", which calls for the creation of a global orbiting system made up of 432 "space trucks" carrying a total of 21,600 miniature interceptors similar to those already being tested by the USA aboard F-16 fighter planes. According to Air Force Magazine, the "space trucks" would orbit the earth at an altitude of 540 kilometres, ready to intercept land- and sea-based ballistic missiles in _-_-_
^^1^^ Geoffrey T. H. Kemp, "Defense Innovation and Geopolitics: From the Persian Gulf to Outer Space", in: National Security in the 1980s. From Weakness to Strength, ed. by W. Scott Thompson, Institute for Contemporary Studies, San Francisco, 1980, pp. 83-84.
124 the middle segment of their trajectory. The project would cost at least $ 300 billion.^^1^^In connection with such projects, the US administration has stepped up its propaganda about the need for an effective system of defence against ballistic missile attacks. David A. Andelman, an American expert in the field of military and strategic problems, has said that the deployment of "workable space-based laser systems" will radically change the character of nuclear-strategic war.^^2^^
Many scientists think it doubtful that any system could ensure the destruction of all enemy missiles. Even if such a system could be developed, though, it would be needed primarily by an aggressor preparing to strike a first blow. In the spring of 1983, the Soviet leadership most emphatically pointed out the great danger that the programme for anti-missile defence announced by the White House poses to peace.
The new militaristic conception of the White House, formalised in a Presidential Directive, has provoked concern and condemnation among prominent scientists specialising in physics and military strategy, among leaders of public and religious organisations, and indeed among all sober-- minded people, who are united in their efforts to prevent a nuclear holocaust. The essence of this conception was repudiated in a declaration signed in Rome in September 1982 by representatives of 36 academies of science. In April 1983, a group of prominent American scientists appealed to the Soviet and American leaders to prevent the militarisation of space. The same purpose underlies a bill tabled in US Congress by 120 Representatives and 28 Senators, which would prohibit the development of space and anti-satellite weapons. The Soviet leadership has called for a meeting of Soviet and American scientists to study the consequences of the US plans to put anti-missile systems into space, and this suggestion has been ac'corded wide attention.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. OUTER SPACE SHOULD NOT BECOME A THEATRE OF WARThe Reagan administration has set a dangerous course towards turning outer space into a theatre of military operations and a bridgehead for aggression against other _-_-_
~^^1^^ Air Force Magazine, February 1982.
~^^2^^ Foreign Policy, No. 44 (Fall 1981).
125 countries. Under these conditions, it is of particular importance that agreements prohibiting the deployment of any sort of weapons in space be reached, and that the arms race be kept from spreading into outer space.The basis for progress in this direction is the principle of the inadmissibility of use of force or its threat in international relations, which is set forth in the UN Charter. That this principle extends to outer space as well is incontestably certain. A world treaty on the non-use of force in international relations would be of significant help in keeping space from being turned into a theatre of war. Such a treaty is being elaborated in the United Nations at the initiative of the USSR. Art. I of the draft treaty submitted by the Soviet Union to the 31st Session of the UN General Assembly in 1976, suggested that the participating states "commit themselves to refrain from the use of armed forces involving any types of weapons, including nuclear or other types of weapons of mass destruction, on land, on the sea, in the air or in outer space [italics supplied]", and also from threatening such use.^^1^^
The political declaration adopted in Prague by the members of the Warsaw Treaty Organisation in January 1983 suggests that an agreement be concluded between the Warsaw Treaty and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on the mutual non-use of military force and on the maintenance of relations of peace. In particular, it suggests that the members of the two alliances commit themselves not to be the first to use military force against space craft and other space objects, not to jeopardise the safety of international space communications passing through areas outside any national jurisdiction [italics supplied].^^2^^
The signing of the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies in 1979 marked a significant step towards preventing the militarisation of space. Under this agreement, "any threat or use of force or any other hostile act or threat of hostile act...is prohibited" on the moon and other celestial bodies.^^3^^ Also forbidden is the use of the moon and other celestial bodies _-_-_
~^^1^^ Yearbook of the U.N., 1976, p. 105.
~^^2^^ See "Political Declaration of the Warsaw Treaty Member States", Information Bulletin, No. 5, 1983, pp. 18-19.
~^^3^^ Resolutions and Decisions Adopted by the General Assembly During Its 34th Session, 18 September 1979-7 January 1980, U.N., New York, 1980, p. 78.
126 for taking any other similar actions, or the threat of taking them, against the earth or other celestial bodies, and against space ships or man-made objects in space. The agreement is concerned not only with keeping the moon and other celestial bodies from being turned into a theatre for military operations, but also with prohibiting their use as bridgeheads for military operations elsewhere.The prohibition of war propaganda is a component part of the principle of the non-use of force or threat of force. The dawn of the space age has given special urgency to keeping the USA from using satellites as a new channel for war propaganda, ideological sabotage, and the kindling of hatred among nations. The 1967 space treaty confirmed the applicability to outer space of Resolution 110 (II) adopted by the UN General Assembly on 3 November 1947, which condemns propaganda intended to bring about or aggravate a threat to peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression, or capable of doing any of these. This provides sufficient legal grounds for condemning the plans of certain circles in the US to use space communications devices, and in particular the international direct television broadcasting service, to kindle enmity and hatred among nations. It should also be remembered that the rules of the systems of satellite communications now in operation (INTERSPUTNIK, INTELSAT, and INMARSAT) state that these systems are to be used only for peaceful purposes.
Despite the objections of the USA, which did not want this agreement mentioned as a condition for the establishment and functioning of international direct television broadcasting services, the 37th Session of the UN General Assembly approved, on 10 December 1982, the "Principles Governing the Use by States of Artificial Earth Satellites for International Direct Television Broadcasting". The adoption of these principles represents a contribution to the cause of keeping space from being used for hostile purposes. The effectiveness of these principles would be furthered by the working out and adoption of a relevant international convention.^^1^^ The USSR submitted a draft of such a convention to the UN as long ago as 1972.
The USSR also signed and ratified the 1936 International Convention Concerning the Use of Broadcasting in the Cause of Peace, which specifically obligates governments to _-_-_
~^^1^^ See International Affairs, Moscow, No. 6, 1983.
127 prohibit all radio broadcasts that propagandise war or damage international good will.^^1^^ The USA, however, is not among the signers of this convention; it uses radio stations as one of the main weapons in its "psychological war" against other countries.Militarist circles in the USA try to justify their aggressive plans in outer space by referring to the right of states to individual or collective self-defence, stated in Art. 51 of the UN Charter. Moreover, the right of states to self-defence is here interpreted so broadly as to justify measures of a preventative character. Such an approach is contrary both to Art. 51 of the UN Charter and to modern international law as a whole. The right to self-defence, in fact, represents no more than the right to take action in response to the use of armed force by another state.
It is also important that the 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies sets forth rules that prohibit using celestial bodies and the space around them as a theatre for military operations and a bridgehead for acts of aggression elsewhere. This creates a precedent for the gradual extension of such rules to outer space as a whole. Mindful of the dangerous trend towards spreading the arms race into space, and of the concern it has produced in world public opinion, the Soviet leadership declared its conviction that there is a need to agree on a total ban of the use of force, both in and from outer space in respect of the earth.^^2^^
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS ON PREVENTING THEThe ban on nuclear testing in space under the 1963 Moscow Treaty was an important step towards the demilitarisation of space. The Moscow Treaty does not, however, prohibit the deployment in space of nuclear weapons. In view of this, the Soviet government proposed to the US administration in that same year (1963) that an agreement be concluded forbidding the placing in orbit of weapons of mass destruction. In the course of the negotiations that followed, a draft resolution was worked out, and this was approved on 17 October 1963 by the 18th Session of the UN General _-_-_
^^1^^ Ibid., No. 3.
~^^2^^ See Pravda, 25 April 1983.
128 Assembly. The main points of this resolution were incorporated into the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, which gave the provisions of the UN resolution a legally binding force, and extended them to all its signatories.Art. IV of the 1967 Treaty contains a fundamental provision limiting the deployment of weapons in space. Item 1 of this article says that "States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner." Item 2 of the same article states that "the moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all states Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden."^^1^^ The provisions of the 1967 Treaty on the use of the moon and other celestial bodies exclusively for peaceful purposes were confirmed and further developed in the 1979 Treaty on the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.
Demilitarising space also includes prohibiting the deployment there of devices to influence the natural environment for military purposes, i.e. for what has been called "geophysical war". Of particular importance in this connection is the 1977 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, which prohibits the modification, for military purposes, of the earth's environment from outer space and of space itself.
Certain limitations on military activities in space also derive from the Soviet-American agreements of 1972 on the limitation of anti-missile defense systems (Art. 5) and on the limitation of strategic offensive arms (Art. 5). Thus, thanks to the efforts of the USSR, international agreements made during the period of detente cut off a number of channels for the military use of space.
Since these agreements were signed by the USA, American military experts are at present engaged in an effort to _-_-_
~^^1^^ The United Nations and Disarmament, 1943-1970, p. 454. 9-339 129
129 make the aggressive plans of the Pentagon seem compatible with the obligations set forth in Art. 4 of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, to represent those plans as peaceful and not in conflict with the Treaty. At the same time, the USA is showing a tendency to belittle as far as possible, and when possible to undermine, the importance of the provisions of Art. 4. Professor H. H. Almond, for instance, has tried to claim that the US efforts to militarise space are an " emerging law" and hence legally justified. He and other American military experts categorically deny the need for a regime of partial demilitarisation of space as a whole and of total demilitarisation of celestial bodies, as provided for in Art. 4 of the 1967 Treaty. Almond argues that the restrictions in this article do not envision the demilitarisation of space as such, and cites Art. 51 of the UN Charter (which provides for the right to self-defence for states) in support of his assertion that the concept of demilitarisation is altogether inapplicable to space and celestial bodies. In Almond's view, the realisation of this right in space is tied to the steady improvement of military technology, which in. practice will lead to the militarisation, rather than demilitarisation of space.^^1^^ But if this line of reasoning is to be followed, the regime of demilitarisation is also inapplicable on earth, which is in contradiction to the practice of demilitarising different regions of the world.Thus, for example, the development of navigation and shipping led to the partial demilitarisation of the Straits of Magellan in 1881 and of the Suez Canal in 1888. There have also been instances of the demilitarisation of islands having great strategic importance: the Spitsbergen Archipelago in 1920, and the Aland Islands in 1947. The Antarctic Treaty of 1959 serves as an example of the demilitarisation of an entire continent.
It should be remembered that what is being discussed are not abstract categories but concrete actions connected with the Pentagon's plans to fill outer space with various sorts of weapons. For example, it was announced in the Western press in late 1981 that the USA intends to site laser guns on the moon.^^2^^ Whatever the degree of reality _-_-_
~^^1^^ See H. H. Almond, "Military Activities in Outer Space. The Emerging Law", in: Proceedings of the XXIV Colloqtum on the Law of Outer Space, AJAA, New York, 1982, pp. 149-58.
^^2^^ See The Daily Telegraph, 12 November 1981, p. 4.
130 that such plans may have, experts in the USA and other NATO countries took advance measures to gut paragraph 2 of Art. 4 of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, devoting special attention to its provisions on the full demilitarisation of the moon and other celestial bodies. Professor Tullio Treves of the University of Milan, for instance, has tried to prove that although the 1967 Outer Space Treaty affirms the principle that the moon and other celestial bodies are to be used solely for peaceful purposes, it does not allegedly forbid all measures of a military character, as does the 1959 Antarctic Treaty. Treves argues that paragraph 2 of Art. 4 merely lists several types of military activity that are forbidden, and thus arrives at the conclusion that the principle that the moon and other celestial bodies are to be used "exclusively for peaceful purposes", as set out in that article, does not forbid the military use of such bodies,^^1^^A British legal specialist, J. E. S. Fawcett, has presented a similar ``interpretation'' of Art. 4 (2) of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. He holds that the use of military equipment for ``defensive'' purposes on the moon and other celestial bodies is quite permissible and fully in accord with the idea that they should be used for peaceful ends alone.^^2^^ Moreover, the essence of such ``defensive'' purposes is not explained, thus leaving the door open for militaristic ventures.
The great majority of legal experts in the West, in interpreting Art. 4 of the Outer Space Treaty, presuppose that it establishes a regime of full demilitarisation regarding the moou and other celestial bodies, and a regime of partial demilitarisation regarding outer space as a whole. This is the way the article is interpreted by Prof. Bin Cheng of London University, Prof. M. Markov of the University of Fribourg (Switzerland), and many other prominent proponents of the Western doctrine of international space law. It is the opinion of Bin Cheng that Art. 4(2) of the 1967 Treaty is to be interpreted in the same way as Art. 1 of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty---that is, as forbidding the _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Tullio Treves, "Military Installations, Structures, and Devices on the Seabed", in: American Journal of International Law, No. 4, 1980, p. 816.
~^^2^^ See J. E. S. Fawcett, International Law and the Uses of Outer Space, Manchester University Press, Oceana Publications, Inc., 1968, p. 34.
__PRINTERS_P_131_COMMENT__ 9* 131 pursuit of any activity for military purposes on the moon and other celestial bodies.^^1^^It has been asserted by US officials, and in press reports, that weapons of mass destruction could legally be put aboard the Shuttle in cases where it is making a so-called fractional orbital flight. P. Dembling, S. Gorove, and many other American experts on political and legal problems involving outer space argue that Art. 4(1) of the 1967 Treaty deals only with satellites in full earth orbit.^^2^^
Many other specialists in the West, however, maintain that placing nuclear weapons, or other weapons of mass destruction, aboard the Shuttle would be in violation of Art. 4(1) of the Outer Space Treaty, even if the Shuttle were in fractional orbit. N. Pulanzas, a Greek legal expert, holds that Art. 4(1) of the Treaty forbids the fractional orbital flight of any object carrying weapons of mass destruction. He bases his argument on the prohibition that paragraph 1 makes against stationing nuclear weapons, or any other type of weapon of mass destruction, in outer space "in any other manner.''^^3^^
The American authors R. J. Zedalis and C. L. Wade point out that in fact the prohibitions of Art. 4 (1) of the Treaty would come into effect whether or not a weapon of mass destruction completes a full orbit. It is their opinion that when such a weapon entered space, even if it did not complete a single orbit, it would come under the norms of international law forbidding the deployment in space, "in any other manner", of nuclear or comparable weapons.^^4^^
An analysis of Art. 4 shows that the 1967 Treaty does not prohibit the flight through space of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM's) with nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. The flight of an IGBM in a ballistic _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Bin Cheng, "Le Traite de 1967 sur 1`Espace'', in: Journal du droit international, Paris, No. 3, 1968, p. 608.
~^^2^^ See P. Dembling, Manual of Space Law, Vol. 1, Oceana Publications, Dobbs Ferry, N. Y., 1979, p. 14; S. Gorove, Studies in Space Law: Its Challenge and Prospects, Leyden, 1977, p. 87.
~^^3^^ V. Yasani and M. Lunderins, in their report entitled "The Peaceful Use of Outer Space: Legal Fiction and Military Reality" (1982), presented to SIPRI, maintain that this provision of Art. 4 (1) of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty is more convincingly applied to the ban on deployment of nuclear weapons in the so-called points of libration.
~^^4^^ See R. J. Zedalis and C. L. Wade, "Anti-Satellite Weapons and the Outer Space Treaty of 1967", in: Western International Law Journal, Vol. 8, Summer 1978, p. 465.
132 trajectory does not last more than thirty minutes and is not intended for long-term functioning in space. But the flight of an object making a fractional orbit is another matter. Such an object goes into earth orbit in order to leave it by using a braking mechanism. Thus an object making a fractional orbit can, with every justification, be classed as a space object and thus comes under Art. 4 of the 1967 Treaty. Thus either a full orbital or a fractional orbital flight by a spaceship like the Shuttle would be a violation of Art. 4 of the Outer Space Treaty if it carried a nuclear or other weapon of mass destruction. This view was affirmed in the SALT-II Treaty, which included a pledge "not to develop, test or deploy... systems for placing into earth orbit nuclear weapons or any other kind of weapons of mass destruction, including fractional orbital missiles.''It should be noted that the course of the present US administration towards the creation of a new generation of anti-missile weapons, which was proclaimed in President Reagan's speech of 23 March 1983, is contrary to the Treaty signed by the USSR and the USA on 26 May 1972, which places limitations on anti-missile defence systems. In Art. 5 (1) of that Treaty, the USA and the USSR undertook "not to develop, test, or deploy ABM systems or components which are sea-based, air-based, space-based, or mobile land-based". The Soviet leadership pointed out in March 1983 that at the time the USSR and the USA had started negotiations on strategic weapons, they jointly acknowledged that there was an inseparable link between strategic offensive and defensive weapons.^^1^^
Despite the notable significance of the existing agreements on space, no effective barrier has yet been erected in international law against the deployment in space of weapons that are not classified as "weapons of mass destruction." As a result, the danger that outer space will become militarised not only remains, but has grown considerably in recent years. The Soviet Union, in order to remove this danger once and for all, is working to achieve a treaty forbidding the deployment in space of weapons of any kind. The draft of such a treaty was submitted by the Soviet Union to the 36th Session of the UN General Assembly in August 1981.
_-_-_^^1^^ See Pravda, 27 March 1983,
133 __ALPHA_LVL3__ 4. THE DEPLOYMENT IN SPACE OF WEAPONS OF ANY KINDInternational agreements now in effect do not rule out the deployment in space of weapons which are not classified as weapons of mass destruction. It is for this reason that the Soviet draft treaty on the prohibition of the stationing of weapons of any kind in outer space specifies that all states parties to it undertake "not to place in orbit around the earth objects carrying weapons of any kind, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner, including on reusable manned space vehicles of an existing type or of other types which States Parties may develop in the future.''^^1^^ The draft treaty accords the states parties the right to monitor its observance using the technical means at their disposal, in keeping with the recognised principles of international law, and also the right to make use of the system of international consultations. It also contains an article obligating states parties not to destroy, damage, or disturb the normal functioning of space objects of other states parties, or change their flight trajectories, as long as such objects were placed in orbit in strict accordance with Article 1 of the treaty.
The discussion of the USSR's proposal at the 36th Session of the UN General Assembly in 1981 showed that all of the main groups of states recognise the urgency and importance of the problem. Resolution 36/99 on this question, the draft of which was introduced by the USSR together with Bulgaria, Hungary, Vietnam, the GDR, Cuba, Laos, Mongolia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Angola, received 123 votes in favour, with 21 abstentions (the USA and its NATO allies, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Tunisia, and others). It refers to the Soviet draft treaty forbidding the stationing of weapons of any kind in outer space, and suggests that the Committee on Disarmament conduct negotiations towards the conclusion of an international agreement that would prevent the arms race from spreading into outer space. Not one vote was cast against this resolution.
Despite the recommendation of the 36th Session of the UN General Assembly and the efforts of the USSR and other socialist countries, the negative position of the USA and certain of its NATO allies prevented the Committee _-_-_
^^1^^ UN General Assembly, A/36/192. 134
134 on Disarmament from beginning talks in 1982 on a treaty to forbid the stationing of weapons of any kind in outer space. Indeed, it was not even possible to create a working body within the committee for the conduct of such negotiations.For this reason the memorandum of the USSR entitled "To Avert the Growing Nuclear Threat, to Curb the Arms Race", which was presented to the Second Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament (7 June-10 July 1982), included the suggestion that the Committee on Disarmament immediately begin work on an international agreement to prohibit the deployment of weapons of any kind in outer space.
The final document of the Second Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament confirmed the decision of the First Special Session (23 May-1 July 1978) with regard to taking further measures and conducting international negotiations in keeping with the spirit of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty to the purpose of preventing an arms race in outer space.
The Second UN Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNISPACE-82), held in Vienna in August 1982, was an important milestone in the struggle to prevent the militarisation of space. The position of the Soviet Union on this question was expressed in a message of greeting from the Head of the Soviet Government to the participants in the conference. "The Soviet Union," the message said, "consistently stands for preserving outer space as an arena of peaceful co-operation and for keeping the boundless expanse of the Universe free of weapons of any kind. The achievement of this great and humanitarian goal through joint efforts is more than urgent; it is vitally necessary in the name of the future of all mankind.''^^1^^ The delegations of the socialist countries to UNISPACE-82, as well as those of the developing countries and of a number of West European states, spoke of the need to prevent the militarisation of outer space. They noted that to turn outer space into an arena of confrontation would inevitably hamper the development of international co-operation and interfere with the practical use of the achievements of space exploration for the good of all countries.
_-_-_^^1^^ Pravda, 10, August 1983.
135The US delegation sought to prevent the inclusion in the conference's final document of any statement of the need to preserve outer space for peaceful activities alone. It was only in the final stage of the conference's work that the US delegation, faced with political isolation, agreed that the final document should express the opinion that the spread of the arms race into outer space is a subject of serious concern to the international community, would be harmful to mankind as a whole, and therefore must be prevented.
Deep concern about the danger that the arms race in outer space creates for all mankind was expressed by the great majority of the delegates to the 37th Session of the UN General Assembly (September-December 1982). The Soviet delegate noted in his speech that the USA's military space programme envisions the deployment of systems for supporting its land forces, and also of systems targeted on Soviet satellites. He called on the USA to conclude with the USSR an agreement forbidding the stationing in outer space of weapons of any kind.
The result of the discussion of this question at the 37th Session of the UN General Assembly was the adoption, on 9 December 1982, of resolution 37/83, entitled " Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space". It should be noted that the draft resolution was co-sponsored by the socialist and the non-aligned countries and was supported by 138 countries. There were seven abstentions: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Israel, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, and Great Britain. Only the USA voted against.
The resolution called on all states, and particularly those having large potential in the realm of space exploration, to actively work for the goal of the peaceful use of outer space and to take immediate steps to prevent an arms race in outer space. The UN General Assembly requested the Committee on Disarmament to make an immediate review of the question of preventing an arms race in outer space and set up a special working group for this purpose. The prevention of an arms race in outer space was to be further considered at the next 38th Session of the UN General Assembly.
The USA and certain other Western countries sought to belittle the significance of the USSR's initiatives aimed at preventing an arms race in outer space. In particular,; they pointed out that the Soviet draft treaty contains no 136 definition of the term "weapons of any kind" that could be the object of negotiations to solve the problem of preventing an arms race in outer space.
In answer to this objection, the Soviet delegate declared that the best means of solving this problem would be "to prohibit the placing and stationing in space of dangerous loads consisting of either specially designed or adapted devices and means for acting on objects in order to destroy or damage them, wherever these target objects may be, in outer space, in the air space or on earth".^^1^^ He further explained that in practice such weapons would include spaceobject interceptors, based on the most diverse principles, for attacks on individual artificial earth satellites or for eliminating the space systems of an opponent, anti-missile weapons for attacks on intercontinental ballistic missiles and weapons for the destruction of air, sea or laud targets from outer space. This would also apply to multiple-use space ships that might carry various sorts of weapons on board, and to weapons using directed energy (laser rays and beams of high-energy particles).
In the summer of 1983, the Soviet Union, as a gesture ot good will, pledged not to be the first to introduce any type of anti-satellite weapons into space. This moratorium will remain in effect as long as other states, including the USA, refrain from putting any type of anti-satellite weapons into orbit.
The USSR suggested that the question of a treaty banning the use of force in outer space, and from outer space against the earth, be included on the agenda of the 38th Session of the UN General Assembly. The draft treaty places on states the obligation not to use force against one another in outer space or from* outer space. It would forbid the use of force, or its threat, in outer space, in the air, and on earth in all cases where space objects in orbit around the earth, stationed on celestial bodies or deployed in space in any other way, are used as a means of destruction. Also forbidden would be the use of force or its threat against space objects themselves. Thus any actions in or from space which are qualified as use of force by modern international law would be prohibited. The draft treaty sets forth concrete, material measures, the adoption of which would make it impossible for the arms race to spread into outer space. The parties to the _-_-_
^^1^^ UN Committee on Disarmament, Document CD/PV 184, 2 September 1982, p. 15,
137 treaty would undertake the obligation to completely ban all testing and deployment of any space-based weapons intended to destroy targets on earth, in the air, or in outerspace. The draft treaty envisions complete renunciation of the testing and development of new anti-satellite systems, and also the liquidation of such systems now at the disposal of states parties to it. It would also forbid the testing and use of piloted spaceships for military purposes, including anti-satellite uses.It.-is the position of the Soviet Union that it is easier to block the appearance of a new type of weapons than to liquidate a type already in existence. The USSR is constantly expressing its willingness to conduct constructive talks aimed at achieving agreement on the question of preventing an arms race in outer space.
The 38th UN General Assembly backed the Soviet proposal. In a relevant resolution the Disarmament Committee is advised to vitalise its examination of the question of preventing an arms race in outer space with an eye to the draft treaty submitted by the Soviet Union. The only one to vote against this proposal was the US representative, again showing Washington's contempt for the will of the peoples and the opinion of the international community.
The world is witnessing two contrary approaches to the question of preventing outer space from becoming a war theatre and to other topical aspects of international security and arms limitation. One of them is represented by the policy of the Soviet Union, which is seeking constructive, mutually acceptable solutions for these complicated problems in the name of reducing the threat of a nuclear world war. The other is followed by the US leadership, which is bent on a qualitative and quantitative escalation of the arms race, and on spreading it to outer space.
The Soviet Union continuously strives to block the spread of the arms race to outer space. The importance of finding a solution to this problem was underscored in the Statement of the USSR Council of Ministers unanimously approved by the USSR Supreme Soviet 12 April 1984, and in a communique issued 20 April 1984 by the Committee of Foreign Ministers of the Warsaw Treaty countries.
Of exceptional importance was the Soviet Government Statement of 29 June 1984 in which an offer was made to the government of the United States to engage in negotiations on preventing the militarisation of space,
138The USSR offered to establish on a reciprocal basis, to go into force at the opening of the talks, a moratorium on the testing and deployment of space weapons. The Soviet government once again displayed its understanding of the responsibility that rests with it as a leading nation in space exploration. The Statement noted that "the USSR and the USA are called on to fo everything in their power to see that outer space remains peaceful and set an example for other states to follow in solving this problem of concern to all mankind by laying the foundation for a multilateral agreement on this score.''
Even if the ambitious US plans of stationing various types of weapons in outer space are carried out only partially, this would mean much more than spreading the arms race to one more area priorly free of armaments. It would sharply increase the war threat, greatly destabilise the international situation, and substantially complicate or even rule out control and verification of the aggregate of new, highly dangerous weapon systems. This is why, indeed, all sensible people on earth, all those who cherish peace, demand most firmly that outer space should not be militarised.
[139] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter 9 __ALPHA_LVL2__ LIMITATION OF THE ARMS TRADE __ALPHA_LVL3__ [introduction.]It is not only nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction which pose a military threat in today's world. Peace is also threatened hy the use of so-called conventional arms. This is borne out by the dirty war which the USA waged in Indochina, the South African racists' acts of aggression directed against the African states and peoples, and Britain's armed actions in the Southern Atlantic. In the summer of 1982, the latest barbaric types of US weapons, including cluster, pellet, phosphorous and ``vacuum'' bombs, were used by the Israeli military as a weapon of genocide against the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples. Altogether during the years since World War II, through the fault of the imperialist forces, more than one hundred wars and armed conflicts were launched, of which the 36 largest took a toll of some 20 million human lives.^^1^^
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. A THREAT TO PEACEMany local armed conflicts would have been substantially reduced in extent and bloodshed and, perhaps, would never have been launched if it were not for the international sale and delivery of arms, or the arms trade, as it is succinctly, though somewhat inaccurately, called. For the majority of states it is an important source of modern weaponry.
One can easily detect a close relationship between arms deliveries and international conflicts and areas of tension. The flowline of one gives an idea of the geography of the other, and vice versa. Thus, since 1973, 65 per cent of the sales and over half of the gratis delivery of arms within the framework of US ``aid'' have been dispatched to the Middle East,^^2^^ where one of the main recipients of these _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Soviet Military Encyclopaedia, Moscow, 1976, p. 109 (in Russian).
~^^2^^ See The Defense Monitor, Vol. XI, No. 3, 1982, p. 7.
140 arm's---Israel---is committing a series of acts of aggression against its neighbours.The saturation of the world's hot spots with arms is the result of the political aims pursued by the leading arms exporters---the USA and its allies---and the recipients of these arms---aggressive, reactionary regimes.
This was graphically illustrated at the beginning of the 1970s, when the US policy of exporting arms was based on the so-called Nixon Doctrine, which directly provided for a sharp increase in deliveries of military supplies to the decaying Saigon regime and others like it which were prepared to defend the imperialist interests of the USA. The US was, in effect, mobilising arid arming the fifth column of imperialism in Asia, Africa and Latin America for the suppression there of national liberation and revolutionary movements when opportunities for the direct use of force by the USA and other Western powers were limited.
Accordingly, the overall volume of US arms sales was doubled in 1971-73 and redoubled in 1973-74.^^1^^ Nor did the USA's partners---competitors from among its NATO allies--- remain on the sidelines of the world capitalist arms market. By the end of the decade, France accounted for at least 10 per cent, Britain Ji, Italy 3, the FRG 2.3 per cent of the world arms deliveries primarily to developing countries, pursuing the same political aims as the USA.^^2^^
Understandably, these actions caused concern among many independent states which strove to strengthen their defence capabilities, increased the overall volume of world arms sales, stimulated the development in the arms market of new,, dangerous tendencies, and aggravated its negative consequences.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), by the 1980s the volume of arms sales in money terms had increased four times since the 1960s and eight times since the 1950s. Moreover, if in the 1950s and early 1960s a major portion of the arms exported went to the developed countries, by the end of the 1970s and early 1980s around three quarters of all world arms deliveries went to Asia, Africa and Latin America.^^3^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ See Arms Transfers and American Foreign Policy, ed. by Andrew J. Pierre, New York University Press, N. Y., 1979, p. 197.
~^^2^^ See World Armaments and Disarmament. SIPRI Yearbook 1981, Taylor and Francis Ltd., London, 1981, p. 116.
^^3^^ Ibid., p. 117.
141In their arms policy, the pro-imperialist forces continue to count on achieving "technological superiority" in the means of warfare. As a result, new types and systems of conventional arms, including fighter planes, tanks, ships and missile complexes that are only beginning to appear in the arsenals of producer countries are becoming items of international trade, and not only between the economically developed countries but also with :the developing states.
By the middle of the 1970s, the military arsenals of many developing countries had been modernised qualitatively. In 1958, only one such state possessed ``ground-to-air'' longrange missiles, whereas in 1975 there were 27 such states. In 1965, as few as 13 developing countries possessed supersonic aircraft. A decade later that number had risen to 41.^^1^^ Between 1965 and 1975 seven Asian, African and Latin American states acquired submarines and 25---anti-shipping missiles.^^2^^ The beginning of the 1980s saw the export of the next generation of arms. Apart from the members of NATO and Japan, such countries as Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Venezuela, and South Korea acquired US-made F-16 fighter planes. F-15 aircraft were delivered to Israel and Saudi Arabia, the AW ACS radar system to Saudi Arabia, and TOW anti-tank missiles to at least 12 countries.^^3^^
These developments qualitati\ely increase the danger ol local wars and conflicts, magnifying their intensity, destructiveriess, and the possibility of escalation by drawing into them powers which deliver arms. The likelyhood of this, as was justifiably noted by US researchers themselves, is growing especially since the United States and its allies export ever more advanced weapons, the servicing and mastering of which lead to the dispatch of military specialists and advisers. They may find themselves drawn into skirmishes even against the will of their government. This is also true as regards the growing demand for supplying modern technology with ammunition and spare parts during _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Economic and Social Consequences of the Arms Race and of Military Expenditures. Updated Report of the Secretary-General, United Nations, New York, 1978, p. 7. ,
~^^2^^ See Strategic Survey, 1976, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, London, 1977, p. 20.
~^^3^^ See Andrew J. Pierre, The Global Politics of Arms Sales, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1982, p. 10.
142 the Course of a conflict. The llSA, for instance, created an "air lift" to supply Israel with arms during the 1973 war, which, undoubtedly, increased the risk of directly involving a superpower in a dangerous international crisis.The USA is currently delivering a series of weapon systems capable of carrying nuclear warheads (supersonic F-16 and F-15 aircraft, ``ground-to-ground'' missiles, longrange Howitzers) to countries like Israel and Pakistan, which are known for their nuclear ambitions. Reports have appeared on the participation of US companies in setting up the production in South Africa of 155-mm Howitzers capable of discharging nuclear projectiles.
Even conservative US political scientists acknowledge the groundlessness of the Reagan administration's thesis that the latest conventional arms may serve to replace nuclear arms in these countries. Andrew J. Pierre, for one, asserts: "Paradoxically, the acquisition of new, sophisticated arms might simply serve to whet the appetite of military and political leaders for further enhancing the nation's defense forces and its status by acquiring nuclear weapons.''^^1^^
Therefore further restrictions on the growth and spread of conventional arms in terms of both quantity and quality could serve to undermine the nuclear arms non-- proliferation regime and hamper arms limitation talks.
Western political scientists, in order to justify in the eyes of developing countries the policy of delivery of new, expensive arms, often assert that the acquisition of such arms strengthens the prestige and even the ability of these countries to withstand the pressure and diktat of the superpowers. In reality, however, the USA and its allies are carefully dosing out and controlling both the volume and quality of military supplies to developing countries, ensuring the dependence of these countries on foreign military advisers, instructors, and the delivery of spare parts and ammunition. It is symbolic that Washington supplies the Arab countries with arms of invariably lower quality than it does to Israel. Should a country receiving arms from the US or any other Western supplier ``rebel'', then (as was the case during the Anglo-Argentine conflict in the South Atlantic) the mechanism of North Atlantic and West European solidarity comes into play and- sanctions _-_-_
^^1^^ Ibid., p. 31.
143 are imposed against the ``recalcitrant'', primarily refusal of arms, ammunition and spare parts. The USA, according to reports, provided the British with data on the electronic systems of US-made arms in the arsenals of the Argentine armed forces, which made it easier to neutralise such systems. This once again confirmed the truth: the imperialists will never befriend liberated countries and peoples who support the elimination of colonialism and neocolonialism. Their arms deliveries, particularly the more sophisticated and expensive, are simply an instrument for plundering the developing countries, tying them up and drawing into the imperialist countries' militaristic strategy.According to some repoits, developing countries with a per capita annual income of less than $ 670 in 1979 spent $ 64 billion on the purchase of foreign arms in 1970-79. This makes only relevant the S1PRI conclusion that "even if the arms are not ultimately used in war, they `kill' indirectly by diverting scarce economic resources from basic development needs such as nutrition, medical care, housing and education".^^1^^ As a growing number of states are acquiring arms abroad, the arms race, according to UN experts, "is increasingly a world-wide phenomenon, and, although its intensity varies markedly between regions, few countries and no major region has stayed out of it".^^2^^
The alarm of the peace-loving public is aroused not only by the extent and acceleration of the international arms trade, but also by the lack of any measures to restrict it, and what is more, by the lack of talks on such measures.
In 1977-78, Soviet-US talks on the limitation of sales and delivery of conventional arms were held---the sole official talks undertaken for this purpose in the postwar period. However, since December 1978 the US side has been rejecting repeated Soviet proposals to continue these talks.
As for the Soviet Union and other socialist states, the Political Declaration of the Warsaw Treaty Member States of 5 January 1983, says clearly and definitely: "In view of the continuous improvement of conventional weapons, which are becoming ever more formidable, it is necessary to make fresh efforts substantially to lower the present levels of conventional arms and armed forces both on a global scale and in individual regions, and to conduct _-_-_
~^^1^^ World Armaments and Disarmament, p. 117.
~^^2^^ Economic and Social Consequences of the Arms Race..., p. 5.
144 relevant talks for this purpose. It would also be useful to resume talks on limiting the sales and supplies of conventional weapons.''^^1^^ This is hampered, however, by the stand of the USA and its allies.This is a concrete manifestation of the struggle that is developing between the two policy lines regarding the international sale of arms. The Soviet Union, supported by the socialist community, by all those who favour curbing the arms race, strengthening peace and detente, and defending the sovereign rights and freedom of peoples, advocate its limitation through multilateral co-operation, first and foremost between the USSR and the, USA. Opposed to this are the pro-imperialist circles of the USA and a number of other Western powers, for whom arms deliveries are the instrumental means of subverting detente and accelerating the arms race, of threatening other states and interfering in their affairs, and of suppressing national liberation struggles.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. THE POLICY OF STEPPING UP THE ARMS TRADEThe present US administration displays no interest in renewing the talks on limiting the arms trade, which were interrupted by the Carter administration. Moreover, President Reagan has issued a directive stating that the delivery of arms and other military technology is officially seen as "an indispensable component of its [United States] foreign policy".^^2^^ The White House, even called the empty declaration of the former administration on the desirability of, ``curbing'' US arms, exports "dangerous theoretising", which allegedly would lead to an unjustified reduction in these exports.
. •> '
In this connection, mention should be made of Jimmy Carter's much toted "policy of containment" in the arms trade. From the outset, officially excluded from this policy were the NATO ;and ANZUS members, Japan, and also, in fact, Israel.,Regarding the other clients, the ,US asserted that it would continue to use arms transfers to .strengthen its security and the security of its close allies.^^3^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Information Bulletin, No. 5, 1983, p. 8. ,
~^^2^^ Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Vol. 17, No. 28, 13 July 1981, p. 749.
~^^3^^ See Conventional Arms Transfer Policy,.(Background Information, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1978, p. 59.
__PRINTERS_P_145_COMMENT__ 10-339 145During the first two years of its tenure the Carter administration insisted that it was observing a fixed ``ceiling'' on the dollar volume of US arms transfers. Actually it was an unprecedented attempt to declare more less. By juggling the figures and making use of all sorts of statistical tricks the projected sale of arms by the state lowered correspondingly from $ 11.3 and $ 13.5 billion to $ 8.7 billion in 1977 and to $ 8.4 billion in 1978. However, sales of arms through private channels were left outside the "policy of containment" and were not taken into consideration in these calculations.^^1^^ The total volume of US military exports during the Carter administration rose from $ 10.1 billion in 1976 to $ 17.4 billion in 1980. About $ 40 billion in arms were sold to Third World countries during the Carter administration,^^2^^ and it ``willed'' to the Reagan administration export orders of nearly $ 56 billion, providing for the delivery of almost 1,000 planes and helicopters, 150 ships and auxiliary boats, 1,100 tanks, 420 armoured carriers, 1,500 artillery pieces, 110,000 missiles of various classes, and a large amount of other military technology.^^3^^ President Carter admitted frankly that the USA accounted for over half of all world arms deliveries. And exports by Western countries, according to SIPRI data, accounted for at least 65-70 per cent of total arms exports.^^4^^
It seems appropriate to call attention to the circumstances which American literature on the arms trade, as a rule, deliberately glasses over. Thirty per cent of US arms deliveries goes to highly developed countries. A large percentage of them consists of the latest armaments and advanced military technology. Four NATO countries alone---the FRG, Italy, the Netherlands and Greece---accounted for 46 per cent of world arms imports by developed countries.^^5^^
Arms deliveries, including many systems capable of carrying nuclear weapons, are instrumental in implementing the programme of sharply increasing military preparedness which, under Washington's pressure, was adopted by the NATO countries and Japan in recent years. Such deals _-_-_
~^^1^^ See U.S. Executive Branch Decision-Making in Foreign Military Sales: The Process and Politics of Reform , C. A. C. I. Inc., Washington, 1979, p. 5.
~^^2^^ See The Defense Monitor, Vol. XI, No. 3, 1982, p. 3.
~^^3^^ See Whence the Threat to Peace, Second ed. p. 58.
~^^4^^ See World Armaments and Disarmament, p. 115.
^^5^^ Ibid.
146 as the planned purchase by Britain of a new generation of US submarine-based Trident nuclear missiles directly increase the threat of nuclear war.The expansion of the arms trade and other forms of cooperation with West European countries in the framework of NATO military preparations are also seen in Washington as a means of "sharing the burden" with its allies in the developing world.
On the basis of official government tlata, which on questions of armaments are, as a rule, overstated in respect to the USSR, and understated in respect to the USA, American researchers have compiled the following table on the delivery of arms to developing countries:^^1^^
Table 2
Year
All ``
nonCommunist''
countries
(per cent)
Including
USA (per
cent)
USSR
(per cent)
These data show that the US administration's attempts to ``substantiate'' its policy of increasing arms deliveries beyond the need to ``balance'' the corresponding Soviet activity is as unseemly arid groundless as analogous references to a US ``lag'' and the need to counteract a "Soviet threat", used by Washington to fan the flames of the arms race in nuclear, chemical and other directions.
The sale of arms to developing countries, as has already been noted, is regarded by NATO as an important element in the strategy of "spreading the sphere of action and responsibility" of this bloc beyond the geographical borders of the participating countries, i.e. increasing the scope of NATO's gendarme functions throughout the world. It is at the same time a source of tremendous profits for each _-_-_
~^^1^^ See The Defense Monitor, Vol. XI, No. 3, 1982, p. 8.
__PRINTERS_P_147_COMMENT__ 10* 147 partner-competitor, an instrument, for strengthening the position of each, and of ousting competitors. The NATO countries' scramble for foreign military orders heightens uncontrollability and unpredictability in the imperialist export of means of warfare, and enhances its destabilising influence in various parts of the world.It has been the traditional goal of this export to set up and strengthen aggressive blocs and the global system of military bases and strongpoints. The above-mentioned Reagan's directive stresses that arms deliveries should enhance the ability of the United States, in conceit with its friends and allies; to project power, i.e. to support efforts to foster the ability of US forces to deploy and operate in corresponding regions. This clearly points to the neocolonialist essence of the US policy of arms exports, which is targeted against liberation movements.
For the propaganda cover-up of the real aims of the policy of unbridled growth of arms deliveries abroad the Reagan administration is also using the hypocritical campaign against "``international'terrorism", tacking the label `` terrorist'' onto progressive, liberated states and national liberation movements. This pharisaical tactic was duly assessed in a TASS statement of 2 February 1981: "The nutrient medium for the arbitrary actions, violence and terrorism in the international arena is the activity and policy of those who trample underfoot the legitimate rights and interests of sovereign states and peoples, who spread the ideology of racial and national hatred, who support reactionary dictatorial regimes which resort to terror to stay in power, who pursue a line of increasing world tensions and accelerating the arms race, and who are fomenting an atmosphere of war psychosis. The responsible parties are well known.''
These parties can readily be traced by following the routes the arms deliveries have taken. Washington's decision openly to supply arms to the terrorist bands which 'are invading Afghanistan, to increase support to the traitors and mercenaries who are waging a war against Angola, •to arm the detachments of Somoza's bandits in preparation for a counter-revolutionary intervention in Nicaragua is a flagrant violation of international law. Moreover, according to the definition of aggression adopted by the United Nations "the sending by or on behalf of a State of armed -groups, irregulars or mercenaries;, which carry out 148 acts ot armed force against another State"^^1^^ constitutes an act of aggression.
The Christian Science Monitor cited graphic data: in the period from 1965 to 1980 the volume of US arms exports, on the one hand, and the number of coups and military actions in which 42 countries receiving arms from the USA took part, on the other, increased by 50 per cent compared with the years 1950-65. Can such an impressive coincidence between political violence and the export of US arms be considered accidental, the newspaper quite reasonably asked.
With the US administration rests the grave moral and political responsibility for the further expansion of the international arms trade and its negative consequences. According to US press reports, in fiscal 1981 Washington sold arms for the sum of $ 25 billion, which yielded enormous profits for the military-industrial complex. The list of recipients of these arms, apart from the NATO countries, includes Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, South Korea, Taiwan, Pakistan, the Sudan, Guatemala, and El Salvador.^^2^^
When dealing with the policy of stepping up armaments, and particularly trade in them, we cannot but mention those circles in the USA, and also in other Western countries which directly derive profits from the arms race, those whom Lenin called "the noble dealers in destructive materials".^^3^^ The Reagan administration frankly declares that one of the chief aims of its military programme, including the arms exports programme, is the strengthening and expansion of the defence industry.
In various years the arms exports of such large US monopolies included among the 15 main contractors of the Pentagon, as General Dynamics, Grumman, and Northrop comprised correspondingly 35.5, 30.9, 87.3 per cent of the overall total of concluded contracts.^^4^^ It comes as no surprise therefore that speaking before Congress a representative of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Resolutions Adopted by the General Assembly During Its 29th Session, Vol. I, 17 September-18 December 1974, United Nations, New York, 1975, p. 143.
~^^2^^ See The Defense Monitor, Vol. XI, No. 3, 1932, pp. 4-5.
~^^3^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 41, p. 288.
^^4^^ See Helena Tuomi, Raimo Vayrynen,, Transnational Corporations, Armaments and Development, Tampere Peace Research Institute, Research Reports, No. 22, 1980, p. 30.
149 big business stated : "the current arms transfer policy has, in essence, responded to our recommendations".^^1^^ __ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. THE USSR'S APPROACH TO CURBING THE ARMSIt should be stressed that counting on the USA, its allies and stooges attaining a position of superiority in arms deliveries, enabling them with impunity to dictate their will to other states and peoples, is impossible first and foremost due to the might and policy of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. The aggressive designs of imperialism compel the USSR and other socialist states to seriously concern themselves with maintaining their defence capability at the proper level.
Based on its principled stand of firmly defending peace, freedom and the independence of all peoples, the Soviet Union, together with other socialist community states, renders the necessary aid and assistance in ensuring the defence capability of the peaceful states which are legitimately concerned about their security, are subjected to threats, pressure, interference or to direct acts of aggression by imperialists and the aggressive forces armed by them, and also to peoples who are fighting for their social emancipation and national liberation. Solidarity with states liberated from colonial oppression, with the peoples who are defending their independence was and remains a fundamental principle of Soviet foreign policy.
Such are the causes and aims of the Soviet Union's participation in the international sale and delivery of arms. Participation has been forced upon the USSR and is purely defensive and just in character. It meets the interests of strengthening the independence and sovereignty of peaceloving states and international security as a whole. Without it, the forces opposing aggression and diktat, and curbing the warmongers and advocates of military adventures would be weakened, and the cause of peace would suffer. The assistance of the Soviet Union in ensuring the defence capability of other states pursues no expansionist aims, is not determined by any agreement to provide concessions, favourable _-_-_
~^^1^^ National Security Industrial Association. Presentation to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, U.S. Senate, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 28 July 1981, Press Release, p. 6.
150 conditions for multinational corporations, construction of military bases and other military facilities, and is not accompanied by interference in internal affairs. This assistance, first and foremost, takes into account the economic requirements and opportunities of its recipients.Western propaganda not infrequently seeks to cast aspersions on the USSR's actions in this sphere, asserting, for instance, that they are motivated by a desire to "export revolution". However, those familiar with Marxist-Leninist ideology and the practice of the Soviet state know that they in principle reject the idea of "the export of revolution". The best proof of the falsity of such assertions is supplied, for example, by the relations between the USSR and India, in which the Soviet Union assists in strengthening India's defence capability. The character of these relations is invariably assessed by Indian leaders as an example of peaceful co-existence and co-operation, friendship and equality of states with different social systems.
Hence the complete untenability of any attempt to draw a parallel between the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries, on the one hand, and the USA and its allies, on the other, and to charge them with equal responsibility for the arms race and lack of progress in limiting armaments is as clearly seen in the case of the international sale and delivery of conventional arms as in other aspects of military policy.
As has been repeatedly stressed by Soviet leaders, military rivalry is not the Soviet Union's choice. The USSR is opposed to having disputes and differences, including the dispute of ideas, turned into confrontation and armed conflicts between states. A world without arms and wars, the deliverance of all peoples from the burden of armaments ---that is the ideal of socialist society, in which there are no classes or social forces which are interested in war, the production or sale of arms, and whose primary goal is peaceful construction.
For all its diversity and complexity, despite the fact that it concerns important interests and relations of a large number of states, a solution can be found to the problem of restricting the arms trade, if, of course, the necessary political will is also displayed on the part of the USA and its allies.
For its part, the Soviet Union has also advanced concrete proposals, which were formulated in the document 151 ``Practical Measures for Ending the Arms Race", submitted to the First Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament.
Above all, the Soviet Union holds, a solution must be sought in the general context of detente, stronger international peace, the elimination of existing centres of military threat and the preventions of the appearance of new ones. Agreed political and legal criteria concerning the permissibility or impermissibility of supplying arms to one or another recipient in strict accordance with generally accepted norms and principles of international political and legal conscience contained in the UN Charter and a number of its resolutions, including the adopted definition of aggression, the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and in other international documents aimed at strengthening peace, would provide a sound basis for restricting arms deliveries.
This would make it possible sharply to restrict the delivery of arms, for example, to repressive, anti-popular regimes, thereby greatly facilitating the elimination of sources of tension and the arms race in various parts of the world. Understandably, this presumes insurance of the inalienable right of states and peoples to receive aid in order to counter aggression, and wage a struggle for their national liberation and social emancipation. This would provide additional guarantees for the security of peace-loving countries and peoples, lessen their urge to stockpile military equipment for defence purposes. These criteria will be taken into consideration also by potential aggressors.
The position of the USSR, which comes out in defence of the legitimate rights of states and peoples which are still under colonial or foreign domination, meets, however, with the objection of the USA. And this despite the fact that during the formation of the United States one of the chief tasks of its diplomacy was to ensure the arrival from abroad of arms in order to rebuff the attempts of the colonialist forces to maintain British domination in North America.^^1^^ Two hundred years after the United States won its independence, the government of that country, while delivering a tremendous amount of arms to repressive _-_-_
~^^1^^ See: John H. Latane and David W. Wainhouse, A History of American Foreign Policy 1776-1940, Doubleday, Doran & Co., Inc., New York, 1941, pp. 6-7.
152 regimes throughout the world, is denying aid to peoples fighting for their national liberation and social emancipation. However, this is not only incompatible with the accepted principles of present-day international law, but also runs counter to the clearly expressed will of the international community. The Final Document adopted by the First Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament in 1978, stressed in particular that talks on the limitation of the international trade in conventional arms should be "based on the principle of undiminished security of the parties with a view to promoting or enhancing stability at a lower military level, taking into account the need of all States to protect their security... and taking into account the inalienable right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial or foreign domination and the obligations of States to respect that right, in accordance _with the Charter of the United Nations.''Observance of these criteria would enable the drafting of measures to avert the further proliferation of some of the most effective, dangerous and destructive types of conventional arms, similar to the measures taken in respect of nuclear arms. This is also an important objective.
The problem of limiting the international arms trade is an organic part of the task of curbing and reducing nonnuclear arms. The problem was placed in this context already in prewar times. Today, however, its solution has acquired special urgency. Efforts along these lines merge with other efforts to create a barrier to the extensive intensification of the arms ratie and the threat of war. In this nuclear century measures for restricting or averting the delivery of modern, ever more destructive and effective conventional arms to different regions of the world should strengthen the nuclear arms non-proliferation regime.
Life rejects the absurd thesis put forward by the apologists of the arms race to the effect that delivery of the latest conventional arms would take the edge off the ``causes'' and ``incentives'' of some states to violate the above-mentioned policy. Oversaturation of explosive regions with conventional arms does not lead, as the supporters of this fallacious ``reasoning'' assert, to a heightened "sense of security" in the states situated there but, on the contrary, it only tends to foment a situation of military psychosis and suspicion, which undermines the security of each individual state and corresponding regions as a whole.
153Better guarantees for the security of states are provided not by the arms race, but by lowering the level of military confrontation, ensuring a balance of arms on a lower level. This would be the effect of limiting the delivery of conventional arms to one or another region on the basis of the implementation of clear-cut and just political and military-technical criteria. This would tend to improve the political and psychological climate, and would strengthen the feeling of security among the states situated there, eliminating thereby the grounds for any kind of nuclear ambition.
In other words, restricting the sale and delivery of conventional arms, particularly the most destructive types and systems, is closely linked with the non-proliferation of miclear weapons, and represents an important means of strengthening international stability, preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and averting the threat of nuclear war.
A discussion of possible approaches to the solution of this problem was begun at the Soviet-US talks on limiting the sale and delivery of conventional arms. And such approaches were beginning to take shape. The elaboration of political-legal and military-technical criteria determining the permissibility and impermissibility of arms deliveries was begun. As was noted in the Soviet memorandum, "For Peace and Disarmament, for Guarantees of International Security", published on 24 September 1980, "it seemed that agreement was within reach''.
The talks, in the spring of 1978, had already resulted in both sides reaching an understanding that "the problem of limiting international deliveries of conventional arms is a topical one and demands solution on a constructive basis with the aim of strengthening world peace and security and fortifying detente".^^1^^ Assessing the course of US-Soviet talks, the US press wrote about the possibility of achieving " concrete results" and on the whole hailed the talks as "an exciting prospect for ... people committed to the talks and the global policy of arms restraint".^^2^^
This prospect resulted, however, in a sharp rise in the activity on the part of the enemies of detente as a whole, and of a solution to the given problem, in particular. The _-_-_
~^^1^^ Pravda, 12 May 1978.
~^^2^^ The Washington Post, 19 December 1978, p. A 16.
154 US press named without beating about the bush those who opposed the continuation of the US-Soviet talks on the limitation of the international arms trade. They were "officials leery of collaboration with the Soviets, regional bureaus in the State Department and other agencies seeking to protect the interests and sensitivities of their clients".^^1^^ As a result, the US delegation at the following round of talks in December 1978 was provided with ``unprecedented'', according to press assessments, instructions aimed at a unilateral elimination from the discussion of precisely those regions which account for the main body of US arms deliveries. According to political observers, it was decided to ``torpedo'' in this way the talks so as to use the difficulties thus created as ``justification'' for the rejection of the very idea of containment in the arms trade. It is important to note that the talks were broken off precisely at the stage when there were signs of a solution of the question.The actions of the US with respect to these talks are yet another example of the falsity of the "Soviet military threat" assertions, and that allegedly the arms limitation talks were being blocked owing to the "intractability of the Russians". They also expose the attempts of some Washington circles to justify their final rejection of the "policy of containment" by referring to the impossibility of reaching agreement on co-operation in limiting international arms sales with other suppliers. Moreover, it is said that US allies are not prepared for corresponding talks until the Soviet Union demonstrates its readiness to solve the problem. Actually, unlike the Soviet Union, Britain and France declined from the outset to join the talks on this question. This also shows that Washington had long been in quest of an excuse to declare its refusal to solve the problem and that reference to the Iranian and Afghan events as the reason for stopping the talks with the USSR were in reality merely a pretext.
In the present complex international situation, too, the Soviet Union is conducting a consistent policy aimed at delivering all peoples from the threat of war, and at preserving peace. The Soviet Union has time and again stated that it advocates talks aimed at curbing the arms race. This, as was noted in the Soviet Memorandum submitted to the Second Special Session of the UN General Assembly on _-_-_
^^1^^ Ibid.
155 Disarmament, fully applies to limitations on the sale and delivery of conventional arms, and, in particular, to a renewal of Soviet-US talks. The USSR does not object to otherstates' participation in this discussion.All countries and peoples are interested in finding solution to the problem of restricting the international sale and delivery of conventional arms. To achieve it means to prevent wars and military conflicts, to guarantee the security of states and the liberation of peoples, to curb the arms race, narrow its sphere and lessen its burden, particularly in the developing countries.
[156] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter 10 __ALPHA_LVL2__ THE BANNING OF NEW TYPES OF WEAPONSThe arms race, which is gaining momentum, spurred by the policy of militarist and aggressive circles in the West, results not only in a growth in the quantity of weapons, but also in a qualitative improvement of them, including those of mass destruction. Each year the military-technical revolution, which is an offshoot of scientific and technical progress in the military sphere, discovers new possibilities for creating ever more powerful and sophisticated means of killing people and destroying material objects.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL CAPABILITY FOR CREATINGScience and technology have currently reached a point in their development when it has become possible to create new types of weapons of mass destruction, aside from nuclear, chemical and bacteriological weapons. Their development and deployment may have the gravest consequences for the cause of international peace and security.
The concern of the world public at such a course of development made the banning of new types of weapons of mass destruction a top-priority subject at diplomatic talks. The line taken by the Soviet Union and the countries of the socialist community is one of constantly searching for agreements in this area, such as would effectively prohibit the introduction into national arsenals of unforeseen means of conducting armed hostilities, while the course chosen by the USA and its allies can by no means be called constructive.
Western theorists tied up with the military-industrial complex are- trying to portray military-technical progress as an unavoidable consequence of the scientific and technical Devolution. They/are trying, thereby, to make the general public accept the idea that the arms race, including its 157 qualitative component, is an immanent consequence of the scientific and technical revolution.
Politics has always been the prime cause forcing science and military thought to converge. Yet the scientific and technical revolution does not nullify the dependence of politics on the nature of socio-economic relations. The social intent of utilising the achievements of the scientific and technical revolution for military purposes differs under socialism and capitalism. Wherever monopolies dominate, scientific and technical progress serves the strategic goals of the military-industrial complex; it also leads to the reproduction of social antagonisms on an ever increasing scale and with ever greater acuteness. Under socialism, however, science becomes yet another instrument for preserving peace and accelerating social progress. Politics aimed at general and complete disarmament is the only medium through which a virtual limit can be set on employing scientific and technological benefits for an arms build-up.
Politics, however, can serve quite a different purpose. The USA is now approaching a level whereupon heavy re-v liance on military technology becomes one of the most important means of attaining class and political objectives. The arms race sweeps away all rational political and financial discretion. "There is a kind of mad momentum," the former US Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, once remarked, "intrinsic to the development of all nuclear weaponry. If a weapon system works---and works well ---there is strong pressure from many directions to procure and deploy the weapon out of all proportion to the prudent level required.''^^1^^
The USSR has to accept the challenge made by the USA and NATO in arms race technology. Formidable new types of weapons are being created in the Soviet Union, too. However, the competition in this area clearly indicates that it is the USA that was the first to deploy new types and systems of weapons, while the Soviet Union acted only in response usually about some five years later. This was the case with atomic weapons, strategic bombers, missiles, and nuclear submarines. It was also the case with the independently targeted multiple warheads, modern cruise missiles, and so forth. It must be plainly stated that all these American _-_-_
~^^1^^ Ralph E. Lapp, The Weapons Culture, W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., New York, 1968, p. 218.
158 technological breakthroughs have had a destabilising effect on the strategic situation in the world.The start of each new round in the arms race has invariably been accompanied by a new wave of concoctions about the "Soviet threat". McGeorge Bundy, the former special assistant for National Security Affairs in the John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson administrations, admitted that far-reaching decisions were taken by the White House under the pretext of a US ``lag'' behind the Soviet Union in hydrogen bomb production in 1952, missile production in 1960, and bomber production in 1976, although there was no such lag.^^1^^ Such claims were usually made when submitting requests for the defence budget.
The intensive application of the gains of the scientific and technological revolution for military purposes is a major factor boosting military expenditures to the astronomic amount of $ 800 billion per year.
In the current, extremely complicated, international situation the USA has taken a course of attaining military superiority over the Soviet Union through multibillion expenditures on new weapon systems. Realising the political and moral vulnerability of the "pre-emptive nuclear strike" doctrine, American military leaders are constantly searching for ways of creating powerful new means of destruction. In 1984, for instance, the Pentagon requested $29.6 billion for military research and development.
Twelve years before the first atomic device was exploded, Ernest Rutherford insisted that no energy could be generated by the transformation of atoms. William T. Kelvin believed that X-rays were a mystification, that the use of aircraft was unthinkable, and that radio had no future. The creation of atomic and thermonuclear weapons came as a direct consequence of discoveries made shortly before World War II, yet nobody could anticipate the war being finished with the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In spite of all its intricacies, prognostication is necessary to activate an effective and scientifically sound programme for limiting the aims race and for disarmament, aimed at the future. No guarantees can be given against the emergence of principally new means of exterminating people, equal or even superior in power and casualty effect to all known types of weapons.
_-_-_^^1^^ See The Washington Post, 13 May 1976, p. A 23.
159Although nuclear missile hardware still retains the status of "absolute weapons", it would be a delusion to believe that this status can remain unshakeable at all times. The press sometimes carries speculations that future military thinking may lean to rejecting the traditional forms of armed conflict involving large armies and major armaments, and instead, it will turn to slow methods of human extermination, which damage the human system, and reduce its tenacity; or violate systems of. nourishment, or of protection from meteorological hazards, and infection, thus bringing people to death or long-term incapacitation.
In spite of the agreements reached in recent years in the sphere of arms limitation, the revolution in science and technology, as a result of the activity of Western militaryindustrial complexes, constantly ``spurts'" the arms race into new, often unexpected, channels. The arms race outpaces negotiations for its limitation.
Scientific and other publications carry many and various suggestions concerning new types of weapons. Some of them are futuristic in nature and extrapolate the current tendencies in technological development. For example, the theoretical possibility is mentioned .-of creating an annihilative weapon based on the mutual destruction of matter and anti-matter, with energy levels generated during the reaction many times above those of the thermonuclear yield.
Equipment using electromagnetic radiation to affect biological objects is also being developed.
In recent years there have been established certain effects of physical fields on the condition of living organisms. Low-level oscillations induced in various fields (electric, magnetic and acoustic) can have dangerous effects on vital activities. For example, electrical activity of the brain is manifested through regular oscillations, of which the most visible are the so-called alpha rhythms with a frequency of 10 cycles per second. A scintillating light; source was used in an experiment that induced an unnatural synchronisation in the brain being tested. Those subjected to the experiment reported unpleasant sensations, while their functional activities were notably subdued. If methods are developed of employing extensive .low-frequency, fields, natural or, induced, one cannot preclude the possibility of interfering with the brain function of large, sections of the population in selected areas over prolonged _periods of time.
160The peak power of electromagnetic oscillators has sored nearly 100 times over the last four years. Within the next five or six years one can expect equipment to appear capable of beaming electromagnetic radiation of tremendous power over several hundred kilometres, thus creating electromagnetic radiation density above the generally accepted safe norms over areas of tens of square kilometres.
Another possible weapon of mass destruction is an infrasonic weapon affecting people's internal organs and their behaviour. Scientists recognise the possibility, in principle, of propagating infrasonic waves with a frequency of 10-15 cycles per second, which have a most dangerous impact on man's system. Apparently, one cannot preclude further development of acoustic generators until they have the performance requirements of a weapon. For example, the possibility was cited of inducing infarction by exposure to emissions of this kind.
The British magazine New Scientist reported that the British army had used a high-frequency sonic generator designed for crowd dispersion in Northern Ireland. Witnesses testified that people ran in terror away from the source of the sound, covering their ears with their hands.
Possibilities for the production and military application of superheavy elemeuts are also being discussed. The existence of an area of stability was* established around nuclei with the atomic number of some 114 and 184 neutrons, and also, with the atomic number of 162 and 318 neutrons. Physicists consider such elements obtainable in the future, their half-decay period exceeding ten years and the critical mass ranging from 25 to 250 g (fissionable material consumption in a 1 Kt explosion is only 56 g). This would open the way to the use of nuclear charges for small firearm ammunition and would radically change the character of a future war.
There is a danger of creating technical means of radiological destruction. In principle, beams of charged or neutral particles (electrons, protons, neutral atoms, and others) can be used to destroy biological targets.
Today generators of powerful beams of charged or neutral particles exist in the form of accelerators widely used for research in high-energy and atomic-nucleus physics. Efforts are being made in a number of countries to develop drastically new methods of charged-particle acceleration. Coupled with the achievements in the creation of superconductive materials, this will clear the way for building powerful __PRINTERS_P_161_COMMENT__ 11-339 161 accelerating equipment, whose weight and dimensions will permit it to be used as a weapon.
Concentrated beams of high-energy and high-density elementary particles can also be used to destroy distant inanimate targets. The American press has carried articles about the use of such beams for punching channels through the atmosphere for the subsequent unobstructed transmission through it of laser beams.
There are reports about work carried out by the US Defense Department to develop the so-called genetic weapon, the use of which would scramble genetic mechanics and would cause the degradation and extinction of populations. It is not for nothing that research in "genetic engineering" has caused alarm among scientific communities in many countries. Even experiments in this realm are dangerous.
Another development known under the name of an "ethnic weapon" is also worth mentioning. What is meant here is the use of special chemical and biological agents for selective attacks on various ethnic groups. This selectivity can be made dependent on blood group distinctions, skin pigmentation and other specifics linked with the geographic area of habitation and nourishment practices.
The development of the ``psychotropic'' weapon is a promising line of research from the viewpoint of the Western military. It serves military objectives by affecting man's psyche, thus leading to loss of memory and other disorders, such as hallucinations, and depression. Chemical agents, as well as ultra- and infra-acoustic fields are the anticipated means of achieving this purpose. Experimental testing of the potent psychotiopic compounds LSD and BZ became notoriously popular in the USA in 1975. The experiments were conducted in secrecy and ended tragically on a number of occasions.
Besides new individual weapons of mass destruction, new weapon systems of this kind can also be developed and made operational. There are projects for the development of nuclear charges of superhigh yield, in the order of 1,000 megatons (or one gigaton). Such charges detonated at an altitude of 160 km can completely wipe out unsheltered people and structures over an area of several tens of thousands of square kilometres. The charges could be carried by satellites or delivered by gigantic nuclear-driven bombers. American futurist Herman Kahn maintains that in the future such aircraft would be placed on round-the-clock patrol 162 duty in the air similar to the one now carried out by atomic submarines.
Air-space nuclear weapon systems based on Shuttle type space transport ships capable of carrying large payloads could later be adapted for the deployment of new types of weapons, such as the "ozone bomb" that turns atmospheric oxygen into ozone. This new kind of weapon, as yet hypothetical, would depend on the highly toxic properties of ozone. Although ozone is spread all over the atmosphere, the layer of its higher concentration (the ozonosphere) is found at altitudes of 20-30 km. It is important in protecting life on the earth from the sun's ultraviolet radiation by absorbing most of it. Minor doses of this radiation cause burns, and in larger doses it is perilous to all kinds of life.
The ozonosphere can be treated in such a way that `` windows'' are created in it that will enhance ultraviolet radiation over certain areas on the planet. Certain quantities of ozone can be removed over enemy territory by seeding bromine, nitrogen and chlorine in the ozonosphere. Although ozone is constantly recreated in the atmosphere, and the ``window'' cleared in it can be shifted by air streams, it can be maintained by regular injections of chemical agents, for instance, from satellites. The low density of ozone (at normal pressure and temperature the layer accounts for just 3.1 mm of barometric pressure) makes this procedure feasible without any significant energy consumption. The ozonosphere can also be torn by nuclear explosions. Thinning it by 50 per cent enhance ultraviolet radiation 3-4 times, while the reproduction of ozone will proceed slowly. There are reports that American specialists, by way of an experiment, made a ``window'' in the ozonosphere two kilometres across by using rockets.
Over the last 10-15 years there has been increased interest in the possibilities of using natural phenomena as weapons for inflicting environmental damage for military purposes. The notion appeared of the so-called ecological weapon, the effect of which is obtained through treating the environment in such a way that stimulates or modifies natural phenomena: meteorological and geophysical. In its constant search for areas of military superiority over the socialist world and also in its bid for concrete military and political gains, the USA went to the lengths of using such means in Indochina, which was turned into a proving ground for weapons, not yet outlawed, in the 1960s and 1970s.
__PRINTERS_P_163_COMMENT__ 11* 163Methods of hostile modification of natural processes Can bring about several quite destructive consequences. The energy of hurricanes and cyclones can be released right over the battlefields, and increased precipitation can alter the mechanical properties of the soil, making it too weak to sustain the weight of heavy materiel, causing landslides and river floods.
From time to time Western literature circulates hypotheses on the possible use of ``tsunami'' (destructive oceanic waves) and artificial earthquakes for the large-scale destruction of cities and entire regions.
The scope of the aftermath caused by manipulating natural processes is unpredictable. So far, natural catastrophes surpass man-made weapons in terms of power released. The tornado (sand-storm) blast is equivalent to the yield of a 50 Kt atom bomb, while a hurricane releases energy equaling a 1,000 Mt bomb explosion. It has been calculated that a 1° drop in Canada's mean annual temperature would cause a catastrophic wheat crop failure in that country. A new glacial period would be precipitated over the earth by a 4 per cent drop in the solar constant.
The aftermath of an ecological war in terms of the scope of destruction will be graver, rather than lighter, than natural catastrophes. Some American experts consider these methods to be "total weapons". Edward Teller, the ``father'' of the American hydrogen bomb, said that weather may become the cause that triggers the last war. The 1975 CIA report entitled "Potential Implications of Trends in World Population, Food Production and Climate" said that longterm climatic modifications will have a negative effect on grain crops in the USSR, China and several developing countries. "It could give the U.S. a measure of power it never had before---possibly an economic and political dominance greater than that of the immediate post-World War II years.''^^1^^
As a result of the initiative taken by the USSR concerning the prohibition of ecological warfare an international Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques was enacted in 1978. The Convention banned the use of techniques that entail vast, long-term or profound consequences.
Our age of vibrant technological development is witness to the tendency of new areas, hitherto unmarred by military _-_-_
^^1^^ The Washington Post, 24 January 1975, p. A 27. 164-
164 use, being invaded by armaments. Space is an example. Quite soon it may be turned, according to Western specialists, into a battlefield imaginable only in science fiction films. "...Long-range planners at the Pentagon are considering prospects for space battles as early as the year 2010. ''^^1^^ Powerful laser guns capable of destroying missiles, ships, tanks and other materiel are expected to be used from space. Such guns would be installed on gigantic "combat stations". Some American experts believe that lasers will bring about a radical change in warfare. Their operational use will parallel the invention of gun powder and the atom bomb. To summarise the examples cited above, though far apart in terms of the possibility and likelihood of their practical realisation, indicate that scientific and technical development modified by the policy of imperialist states can bring to life new, perchance, qualitatively new, devices capable of exterminating huge masses of people. From this the problem emerges of their prohibition by inter national law. __ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. THE USSR'S EFFORTS TO BAN NEW TYPES OF WEAPONSIn the autumn of 1975, the USSR put forward a proposal at the UN on effective measures to be taken on an international scale to ban the creation of new weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons, and also submitted a draft of the appropriate international agreement.
In accordance with the Soviet draft submitted at the 30th Session of the UN General Assembly, states and, above all, the major powers would commit themselves to neither develop, nor manufacture new types and systems of weapons of mass destruction, nor to assist and encourage any activity directed thereto.
The question of what new kinds of weapons of mass destruction were supposed to be annihilated was intentionally left open. The Soviet Union suggested that they should be determined through concrete negotiations.
The Soviet draft contained clauses to ensure compliance by the parties to the treaty. In case of any suspicions by one party concerning compliance by another party, all sides concerned would assure their readiness to consult each other and co-operate in resolving possible issues. Every party would be entitled to appeal to the UN Security Council.
_-_-_~^^1^^ U. S. News Si World Report, Vol. 91, No. 4, 27 July 1981, ]>. 46.
165The draft included an important article stipulating the right and duty of all the participating states to pursue and utilise scientific research and discoveries exclusively for peaceful purposes and without discrimination of any kind.
Having approved the Soviet initiative, the UN General Assembly requested the Geneva Committee on Disarmament to start working out the text of the treaty as soon as possible with qualified governmental experts attending. Early in 1976, the Committee started debating this question. The talks are still going on.
The first problem that confronted the negotiators was the definition of the term "new types and systems of weapons of mass destruction". There is no compact definition of such weapons. Weapons of mass destruction are generally understood as means that are intended to inflict mass casualties, that can be used unexpectedly in all types of combat, in mass, in great depth and on any terrain.
Attempts have been made since World War II to give a clear-cut definition of weapons of mass destruction which would take into account such of their properties as their nonselective and nondiscriminating nature and the unpredictable and uncontrollable consequences of their use.
In 1948, the UN Commission for Conventional Armaments ruled that "weapons of mass destruction should be defined to include atomic explosive weapons, radio-active material weapons, lethal chemical and biological weapons, and any weapons developed in the future which have characteristics comparable in destructive effect to those of the atom bomb or other weapons mentioned above".^^1^^
From the very outset the Soviet Union proceeded from the premise that the definition of the term "new types and new systems of weapons of mass destruction" is a matter to be agreed upon at actual talks. The Soviet delegation to the Committee proposed to specify and extend the 1948 formula. It was pointed out that weapons could be developed which would be even more effective than the types which are currently in existence and are characterised not only by their destructive power, but also by their injuring factor. The Soviet delegation proposed a definition of new types and new systems of weapons of mass destruction that would read as follows: "...The expression 'new types and new systems _-_-_
~^^1^^ United Nations, Security Council, Documents S./C, 3/32/Rev. I, 18 August 1948, p. 2.
166 of weapons of mass destruction' includes weapons which may be developed in the future, either on the basis of scientific and technological principles that are known now but that have not yet been applied severally or jointly to the development of weapons of mass destruction or on the basis of scientific and technological principles that may be discovered in the future, and which will have properties similar to or more powerful than those of known types of weapons of mass destruction in destructive and/or injuring effect.''^^1^^Meeting the wishes of a number of countries, the Soviet Union consented for the treaty signatories to be able to conclude agreements on banning new types and new systems of weapons of mass destruction whenever they considered it necessary.
Several concrete types were initially suggested for inclusion in the treaty. These were: the radiological weapon; radiation devices capable of inflicting casualties and based on acceleration technology designed to affect biological targets; infrasonic amplifiers; and electromagnetic radiation emitters.
The future treaty would be appended with a list of concrete types of weapons subject to prohibition, and the list would be augmented as the necessity arose.
Two approaches to banning new types of weapons of mass destruction became clearly discernible during the debates in the Committee. The socialist countries believe that efforts in this field should be focussed on signing a comprehensive agreement, which does not preclude concluding limited agreements on concrete new types and systems. The non-aligned countries take the same approach.
The Western powers insist that the best way to prevent the development and deployment of new types of such weapons would be to conduct continuous surveys of this issue and work out agreements involving new types of weapons in those cases only when such weapons are clearly defined. They object to the preparation of a comprehensive prohibition.
The banning of new types and systems of weapons of mass destruction is unduly retarded because of the imconstructive position taken by the Western powers.
There is progress only in banning the radiological weapon. This kind of weapon involves direct use of the natural _-_-_
~^^1^^ Report of the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament, Vol. II, General Assembly, Official Records, 32nd Session, Supplement No- 27 (A/32/27), United Nations, New York, 1977, p. 2.
167 radiation of radioactive substances for military purposes, such as injuring people and contaminating terrain, water, military equipment, military and civil installations. Here, dust can be used which is manufactured from the waste of atomic power stations and which contains radioactive isotopes such as strontium 90, ruthenium 106, cerium 144, zirconium 45, and others. Dispersed as dust, radioactive precipitation of this kind will cause durable contamination of terrain for many months and even years. Use of plutonium in a radiological weapon would pose a great danger, as even small amounts of this element are enough to injure hundreds of millions of people.The fact that the radiological weapon has never been produced or employed does not mean that it will remain of no interest to military specialists.
Moreover, the danger of the radiological weapon being used in ``callous'' military operations, say, by terrorists, exists even now. By 1985, enough plutonium will have been piled up in the world to manufacture 60 thousand bombs of the kind used in Nagasaki.
The USSR has always stood for prohibiting the radiological weapon and actively supported international efforts to this end. Soviet-American talks were held in Geneva from May 1977 to July 1979, where basic elements of an agreement on banning the development, production, stockpiling and use of radiological weapons were agreed upon and drafted. The draft was then transferred to the Committee on Disarmament.
The idea of banning the development and production of new types and systems of weapons of mass destruction is winning ever wider support. Nine years running the UN General Assembly has passed resolutions in favour of such a ban. At the suggestion of the socialist and a number of non-aligned countries the General Assembly has repeatedly submitted requests to the Committee on Disarmament to revive the talks. Simultaneously, it appealed to all states to refrain from actions that could have a negative effect on talks on these problems.
It is, of course, reasonable that negotiations require time, even when they are not artificially dragged out. Yet time waits for no one. To get this business moving one could try to do the following. The permanent members of the UN Security Council, along with other militarily important countries, would make as a first step towards concluding a 168 comprehensive agreement identical statements concerning rejection of the creation of new types and systems of weapons of mass destruction, anticipating that these statements could then be approved by the Security Council. Declarations rejecting in essence the principle of applying science for the purpose of creating new weapons of mass destruction would become a major political and moral factor, and would facilitate the delivery of mankind from the threat of new types and systems of such weapons coming into being.
This new approach to solving the problem was proposed by the Soviet Union in the UN and enjoyed the support of a decisive majority of its members. The Western powers, as had often been the case before, preferred to abstain from voting on this proposal. The special resolution of the UN General Assembly appealing to all countries to guard against the misuse of new discoveries and achievements in science and technology was likewise resolutely supported by the socialist states and a majority of UN members. In 1982, only the USA and its closest allies voted against this resolution, while in 1983 the United States was the only country voting ``No''.
The negotiations on disarmament have indicated that it is far easier to take preventive steps: to prohibit what has not yet emerged from the laboratories, than to ban what has already got into the inventories of national arsenals and has become part of the armed forces' equipment. Political efforts should not trail behind the progress of military technology. It is easy to understand of what significance to the destinies of the world the timely conclusion of an agreement on banning nuclear weapons would be. A point of no return can be reached, beyond which concluding agreements based on mutual verification would be a lost cause. Letting this happen would mean pushing back the realisation of disarmament many years.
Banning the development and manufacture of new types and systems of weapons of mass destruction remains one of the major directions of limiting the arms race. The Soviet Union believes that there is no area of disarmament that defies agreement; there is no such category of weaponry that defies limitation, reduction or prohibition on a mutually acceptable basis with due regard for the security of all sides concerned. Above all, this is true of weapons of mass destruction, and their new types and systems. This problem requires a responsible approach by all the states concerned.
169 __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter 11 __ALPHA_LVL2__ CONFIDENCE-BUILDING MEASURES ANDProposals on confidence-building in the military field occupy an important place among Soviet peace initiatives. Dictated by the passionate quest of the peoples in this nuclear age for peace these proposals provide for measures which could tangibly contribute to the prevention of armed conflicts.
Such measures are a new phenomenon in international relations. They became necessary to bring under control the weapons of colossal destructive power that are capable of causing a catastrophe on a truly global scale. Such measures are feasible because of the approximate strategic parity between the socialist and capitalist worlds.
Many important factors underlie the USSR's serious attitude to confidence-building measures. Given the swift action arid power of modern weapons, the atmosphere of mutual suspicion is especially dangerous. Even a mere accident, miscalculation, or technical failure can have tragic consequences. It is therefore important to take the finger off the trigger, and put a reliable safety catch on all weapons.
There is no lack of goodwill on the part of the USSR. Had the West made its full contribution to the search for constructive solutions, significant progress would have been made in building confidence between states. However, the facts show that this is not what the ruling circles of the USA and many other NATO countries have in mind, for they sacrifice the businesslike development of improved confidence-building measures to an increasingly hard-line foreign policy.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. EXPERIENCE IN CONFIDENCE-BUILDINGConfidence-building is of particular significance in the military field. It is here that the security interests of states, 170 which are members of opposing military blocs, intertwine or collide. Since they are not actual disarmament steps, confidence-building measures can noticeably stabilise the strategic situation, make the existing balance of military forces more stable, and improve the conditions for arms reduction agreements based on the principles of equality and equal security.
The Comprehensive Study on Confidence-Building Measures made in 1980-1981 by a team of experts from 16 socialist, capitalist, and developing countries under the auspices of the UN noted that "the final objective of confidencebuilding measures is to strengthen international peace arid security and to contribute to the development of confidence, better understanding and more stable relations between nations, thus creating and improving the conditions for fruitful international co-operation".^^1^^
Specific confidence-building measures in the military field were taken in the 1970s and made binding in bilateral and multilateral agreements and treaties. What is important is that the signatories to them were, in the first place, states belonging to the main military alliances and possessing the most powerful arsenals of modern weaponry.
The first agreements in this field were concerned with the strategic level of military confrontation. A series of agreements between the two largest nuclear powers, the Soviet Union and the United States, had a stabilising effect on the strategic situation in the world and significantly enhanced confidence. On 30 September 1971, a USSR-US Agreement on Measures to Reduce the Risk of Outbreak of Nuclear War and an Agreement on Measures to Improve the Direct Communication Link Between the USSR and the USA ("hot lines") were signed. They were designed to prevent the accidental or unauthorised use of nuclear weapons and to improve the direct communication link between the two countries for this purpose. The Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems concluded on 26 May 1972 and the Interim Agreement on Certain Measures with Respect to the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms were of great importance in building confidence _-_-_
~^^1^^ Comprehensive Study on Confidence-Building Measures, Department of Political and Security Council Affairs, U.N. Centre for Disarmament, Report of the Secretary-General, United Nations, New York, 1982, p. 6.
171 befrvveen the Soviet Union and the United States. These documents are important in themselves as constraints on the strategic weapons build-up.Confidence between the USSR and the USA was further enhanced by the signing in 1972-73 of the Basic Principles of Mutual Relations Between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America, the Agreement on the Prevention of Incidents on and over the High Seas, and the Agreement on the Prevention of Nuclear War, all of which improved both the international situation and Soviet American relations.
Later, other nuclear powers joined in this process. On 16 July 1976 the Soviet-French Accord on the Prevention of Accidental or Unsanctioned Use of Nuclear Weapons was concluded and on 10 October 1977, the USSR and Great Britain signed the Agreement on the Prevention of Accidental Nuclear War.
The Helsinki Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, convened on the initiative of the USSR and other socialist countries, was a great breakthrough in confidencebuilding. It recognised the political result of World War II, denounced the policy of force and the Cold War, and confirmed the loyalty of its signatories to the principles of peaceful co-existence and mutually beneficial co-- operation of states with differing social systems.
An integral part of the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference was the document on confidence-building measures and certain aspects of security and disarmament which emphasised the "need to contribute to reducing the dangers of armed conflict and of misunderstanding or miscalculation of military activities which could give rise to apprehension, particularly in a situation where the participating States lack clear and timely information about the nature of such activities...''
The signatory states agreed to give three-weeks notice of military exercises involving ground forces numbering 25,000 or more troops and to invite observers from other countries. The significance of these measures is obvious. Large-scale exercises cannot easily be distinguished from the preparatory stages of deployment for an attack. For this reason sudden movements, first of all during major exercises, of significant numbers of troops armed with up-to-date weaponry and in a high state of preparedness cannot but cause apprehension.
172Since the Helsinki accords were signed not a single violation of these has been detected. Prior notification of military exercises and the invitation of observers have become routine.
The practice of taking co-ordinated confidence-building measures in Europe has confirmed that they could be further improved on the international legal basis which already exists.
The positive experience of confidence-building on the European continent has become a model for other regions and an incentive for a mutual search for broader and more effective measures in the interests of international security.
Fully aware of the need to build confidence, the USSR and other socialist countries have made a number of important proposals in recent years.
At its Berlin Session on 5-6 December 1979, the Warsaw Treaty Committee of Foreign Ministers expressed its readiness to enter into an agreement on the following:
---to give notice of major military exercises in areas defined by the Helsinki Final Act involving 20,000 and not 25,000 troops, with such notice to be given one month and not. three weeks in advance;
---to give notice of ground force movements in these areas to cover 20,000 or more troops;
---to give notice of major air exercises in these areas;
---to give notice of major naval exercises near the territorial waters of states---signatories to the Helsinki agreements;
---to limit military exercises to 40,000-50,000 men.
The proposals made by socialist countries for further confidence-building in Europe are broad, flexible and realistic. They would be beneficial both for the long-term and the short-term solution of the most acute and urgent problems in improving international security and confidence between the states of the opposing military alliances. This is why they particularly emphasise the limiting of all military activities involving exercises arid troop movements. The UN Comprehensive Study further notes: "Even in situations where a great deal of information is available, some degree of incalculability and risk may still remain. Fairly accurate knowledge of the characteristics and parameters of military manoeuvres, for example, their size, the area concerned, and their objectives, may still in some cases leave doubts and suspicions as to whether such exercises, 173 which involve a build-up of forces, cannot suddenly be used for launching a surprise attack.''^^1^^
Such doubts and suspicions would be natural against the background of ever expanding US and NATO military activity in Europe. Various field and command-post exercises are performed within the framework of their broad militaristic preparations. These exercises are far beyond the scale of similar activities in the Warsaw Treaty Organisation which are undertaken for the routine training of troops. The scale and frequency of NATO land, air and naval exercises increase from year to year and the areas in which they are conducted approach the frontiers of the USSR and its allies.
It is quite uderstandable that under such conditions the reduction of the risk of a sudden conflict in Europe, which would be most dangerous for world peace, is a vitally important goal. The proposals put forward by the Warsaw Treaty members would lead to that goal. Their essence is in extending prior notification to a larger number of manoeuvres involving all armed services and to movements of large units of land forces, and, most important of all, in dramatically decreasing the scale of military exercises.
The proposed measures would not endanger the security of either side but can only strengthen the existing balance of armed forces in the European continent and thus facilitate progress towards agreements on detente in the military field and on disarmament.
The USSR and its allies treat significant expansion of the areas involved as well as the increasing of the scope and effectiveness of confidence-building measures as a matter of urgency. The confidence-building mechanism would improve its efficiency as its scope expanded, both in the East and in the West.
The 26th Congress of the CPSU proposed expanding confidence-building measures to the entire European part of the USSR, provided that a similar expansion takes place in Western countries.
The importance of this proposal can hardly be overestimated. If, in accordance with the Helsinki agreements, the zone of confidence-building measures in the USSR covers an area within 250 kilometres of its boundaries with other signatory states, it would now cover a vast area of 2,500-- _-_-_
^^1^^ Comprehensive Study on Confidence-Building Measures, p. 7. 174
174 3,000 kilometres wide up to the Urals and thus expand more than ten-fold.This expansion is not a puiely geographical problem. It would be unrealistic to look for its solution in terms of absolute symmetry such as equality of the areas to be covered by agreed confidence-building measures in the East and in the West. A balanced account of political and military aspects is essential. Thus, the USA anc| Canada are also signatories to the Helsinki agreements. NATO pursues its military activities in the seas and oceans around Europe and in the airspace over them as well as on the continent itself.
The most important ingredient of the proposal is its very principle, equality and reciprocity, without which no expansion can be expected. The commitments to be undertaken by states must be equal. No unilateral advantages or privileges for some states at the expense of the security of others are acceptable.
The Soviet proposal fully meets these requirements. It calls for the coverage by confidence-building measures of the entire European continent with adjoining sea (ocean) areas of appropriate width and air space and possible involvement of the non-European signatory states, i.e. the USA and Canada, depending on the actual confidence-building measures that would be agreed on.
The Madrid Meeting, at which all parties to the Helsinki agreements were represented, offered a realistic possibility for progress in expounding confidence-building measures. The most important result of the Meeting was the decision on convening a conference on confidence-building measures, security, and disarmament in Europe, the first stage of which is to be devoted to the discussion of confidence-- building and measures to promote security.
However, the hard-line foreign policy pursued of late by the imperialist powers, above all, the USA had a negative effect on all aspects of international relations, including confidence-building. They bear responsibility for the current freeze on both the process of expanding confidence-- building measures proper in Europe and on progress towards agreements on a wider range of issues in military detente and arms limitation. As a result, the cyclic process has re gained momentum whereby heightened tension and increased war preparations generate mistrust which in turn spurs the trends to confrontation in international relations and brings the arms race to new heights.
175 __ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. REGIONAL CONFIDENCE-BUILDING MEASURES OUTSIDEThe all-embracing, truly global nature of the need to ensure peace and international security calls for the extension of confidence-building measures beyond Europe, where they have become a continuously active mechanism.
Europe pioneered the development and practical application of confidence-building measures. This does not imply that the European pattern can be mechanically applied to other regions. The European experience can only be an incentive for identifying realistic possibilities for agreement in other regions on similar but not necessarily identical measures which would take account of the local specifics.
The 26th Congress of the GPSU stated: "There is a region where elaboration and use of confidence-building measures ---naturally, with due consideration for its specific features--- could not only defuse the situation locally, but also make a very useful contribution to strengthening the foundations of universal peace. That region is the Far East, where such powers as the Soviet Union, China, and Japan border on each other. There are also US military bases there. The Soviet Union would be prepared to hold concrete negotiations on confidence-building measures in the Far East with all interested countries.''^^1^^
The extension of confidence-building measures to the Far East, is a burning issue of global, as well as regional, importance. During the postwar period this vast area has been a most explosive region with numerous trouble spots. The destructive wars raging there brought disaster to peoples of this region and more than once have threatened to engulf other regions and even the entire globe.
As a first step, the USSR proposes beginning negotiations between interested states on the possibility of extending confidence-building measures to the region, the nature, scope, and list of which would quite naturally suit the conditions prevailing there. On the other hand, the underlying principle in the development and application of confidencebuilding measures in the Far East can only be that which has shown its potential in Europe---equality and reciprocity. As for their types and forms, the local specifics could give rise to a wide variety of and in many cases noticeable _-_-_
~^^1^^ Documents and Resolutions. The 26th Congress of the CPSU, pp. 37-38.
176 differences from those applied in Europe. But one could hardly question the acceptability in the Far East of measures tested by practice such as advance notification of military exercises and exchange of observers, albeit with appropriate modification.Confidence-building treaties and political acts could also be useful in this region. Thus the Mongolian People's Republic proposes a convention on non-aggression and non-use of force in relations between the states of the region. The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Laotian People's Democratic Republic and the People's Republic of Kampuchea call for a zone of peace in Southeast Asia, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea advocates making the Korean peninsula a nuclear-free zone of peace.
The idea of creating zones of confidence-building measures in the Far East cannot get off the ground unless it incorporates the basic principle of international security in our times; in other words, it should not run counter to the interests of any party and should serve the interests of all. The confidence-building system must be open for any country to join.
Such a vast zone of confidence-building cannot realistically be expected to spring into existence as a result of a single act. The complex and contradictory pattern of interrelationships and the high tensions in that part of the globe dictate a measured approach. Before the necessary basis for multilateral negotiations is available, significant progress can be made through bilateral talks.
The USSR, is prepared for a dialogue on confidence-building measures with the states of the Far East in order ultimately to create a comprehensive confidence-building system in the region. Obviously the chances for creating such a system would be improved by positive changes in the USSR's relations with its largest neighbours.
The USSR has always been willing to have reliable goodneighbourly relations of mutually beneficial co-operation and mutual trust with Japan. Indeed, the economic exchange between the two countries is tangible, although it could be broader. Political relations are not, however, as extensive as they ought to be between such countries; the necessary trust is clearly missing. The reasons for this are both internal and external; certain outside forces have been doing their worst to prevent normalisation and good-- neighbourly relations between the USSR and Japan ever since __PRINTERS_P_177_COMMENT__ 12---339 177 World War II. Attempts are made to erase from the minds of the Japanese whatever is positive in the experience of recent decades, the experience of mutually beneficial cooperation. The fallacy of the "Soviet military threat" and unjustified fears are being instilled in their minds. The ruling circles assert that they have ``misgivings'' about Soviet actions.
If they really feared the USSR it would be logical to expect a positive response from Tokyo to the Soviet proposal that the mutual misgivings be discussed and confidence-building measures acceptable to the both sides be agreed. The Japanese government, however, plays a waiting game, which amounts to a negative position. In its reply to the Soviet initiative, any discussion of confidence-building measures was linked to numerous preconditions such as the satisfaction of Japan's illegitimate claims to several islands in the Kuril chain. The Japanese government knows full well that such preconditions are unacceptable to the USSR. Instead of making conciliatory confidence-building steps the authorities encourage loud anti-Soviet campaigns.
International confidence in the Far East and throughout the Asian-Pacific region would gain significantly from an improvement of relations between the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. The principles underlying the policy of the GPSU and the Soviet state in SinoSoviet relations have been unequivocally stated in resolutions of the 24th, 25th, and 26th Party Congresses. The USSR would like to have good neighbourly relations with China. The Soviet proposals aimed at normalising these relations remain in force and the sentiments of respect and friendliness of the Soviet people for the Chinese people remain unchanged. The Soviet Union has never tried to interfere in the internal affairs of the People's Republic of China. It has never denied that there exists a socialist system in China. The Soviet Union has always regarded the People's Republic of China as an independent, sovereign state. It has never supported the so-called "two Chinas concept" and has always recognised the sovereignty of the People's Republic over Taiwan.
The Soviet Union has never posed a threat to the People's Republic of China. It has. never had any territorial claims against China and is prepared to discuss confidence-building measures in the border areas.
``Certainly, normalisation of relations with the People's 178 Republic of China could help enhance socialism's role in world affairs," Konstaritin Chernenko, General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Chairman of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet, has pointed out. "The USSR is a consistent advocate of such normalisation. The political consultations have shown, however, that differences still exist on a number of fundamental issues. In particular, the Soviet Union cannot accept any accords that would prejudice the interests of third countries.''^^1^^
The possible participation of the United States, which is not a Far Eastern nation, in the working out and adopting of confidence-building measures on a regional scale is a complex problem. On the one hand, there is no international security and co-operation system in the Far East similar to the European one which incorporates the USA, a non-- European country, and within the framework of which that country is a party to the agreement on confidence-building in Europe. On the other hand, the US military presence, similar to that in Europe, could not be overlooked in the working out and adopting of confidence-building measures for this region.
Bilateral contacts and negotiations could be serious steps towards extending confidence-building measures to the Far East and beyond. The Soviet Union is ready for such contacts and negotiations. The involvement in this process of an increasing number of states in the region and their bilateral and multilateral search for confidence-building measures acceptable to them could lay the groundwork for subsequent collective measures. In this sense subregional treaties could be very useful and could at a later stage be integrated into a broader confidence-building system in the Far East or the Asian-Pacific region.
Thus objective possibilities exist in South-East Asia for a treaty of this kind between the Indochinese and ASEAN countries. The Soviet Union gives its full backing to the leaders of Vietnam, Laos, and Kampuchea who call for turning South-East Asia into a zone of peace, stability and prosperity. The goal is to restore and enhance good-- neighbourly relations in that region, and to ensure peace and co-operation there. The three countries of Indochina propose holding a conference with the six ASEAN countries--- Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, _-_-_
^^1^^ Pravda, 3 March 1984.
__PRINTERS_P_179_COMMENT__ 12* 179 and Brunei and signing a treaty. Furthermore, Vietnam, Laos, and Kampuchea have declared their readiness to sign bilateral treaties on peaceful co-existence with the People's Republic of China. These measures would undoubtedly help overcome the heritage of the past, the estrangement and mistrust which have accumulated in South-East Asia because of the activities of outside forces.The Soviet Government called on the ASEAN nations to show political realism and give the proposals of Vietnam, Laos, and Kampuchea serious consideration. The Soviet Union expressed its willingness to sit with other permanent members of the UN Security Council in a conference which would guarantee a treaty on peace, stability and prosperity in South-East Asia.
The extension of confidence-building measures to the entire planet would also be helped by the elimination of sources of tension and conflicts in various regions and the creation of zones of peace and co-operation. This process is certainly much wider in its scope than confidence-building but its many aspects are undoubtedly linked directly or indirectly with an extension of confidence-building measures.
The deterioration of the situation and the hardening of military confrontation in various regions are such that additional measures are urgently needed which would reduce the threat of armed conflicts; these measures must cover vast areas of the globe. They would limit the military presence and military activities, first of all of the main opposing forces both on the global and the regional levels, especially in the immense space of the seas and oceans, and in particular where the probability of most dangerous clashes is at its highest.
It is the desire to enhance international confidence that is behind the Soviet proposal on the mutual reduction of naval activities whereby missile-carrying submarines of both sides would be withdrawn from the present vast patrol areas and sail along agreed routes. The USSR is ready to discuss an extension of confidence-building measures to the seas and oceans, especially to the busiest trading lanes.
The situation in most regions would immediately be improved and the strategic balance on the global level stabilised by a further broad and courageous expansion of confidence-building measures along these lines, without disturbing the realistically evaluated balance of armed forces. Vast zones of confidence on the high seas would 180 accelerate the working out and adoption of similar measures for new areas on different continents.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. BUILDING INTERNATIONAL CONFIDENCEThe urgent task of building confidence in conditions of heightened tension will not be solved before the resistance of anti-detente forces is overcome. These forces are no longer content with delaying and obstructionist tactics, but try to strike at the very basis of international confidence, the principle of equality and reciprocity.
This is especially the case of the proposed expansion of the areas where confidence-building measures are in force. The USA and its NATO allies would welcome this expansion in the European part of the USSR but do not agree to apply similar measures in the seas adjoining the countries of the West or in their air space and thus try to reduce their own commitments. In a situation where the two military and political alliances are engaged in confrontation, the exemption of vast areas which are strategically important for NATO would be disadvantageous to the Soviet Union, for it would receive nothing in exchange for having made its vast European areas accessible. Indeed, the USA and its allies are very active in the seas and the air space of the North Atlantic. In particular, large scale manoeuvres, sudden redeployments of naval and air force units, and airlifts of large US Army units into Europe are regularly practised. If, unlike the military activities of the USSR within its European part, these exercises were not covered by confidence-building measures, a certain security disbalance would occur and rather than being enhanced, confidence would be undermined.
Other ideas and proposals of the US and its West European allies are equally counterproductive. Apparently attractive, they can only make confidence-building a more difficult process. They are essentially incompatible with the principle that the security of neither side be jeopardised. This applies to an expansion of the information exchanged. The availability of a larger volume of date could indeed help build confidence but the Western approach is basically wrong.
In contributing to confidence-building, the Soviet Union proceeds from the assumption that the amount of information must be dictated by the nature and scale of the specific agreed measures. This principle is embodied in the notification of military exercises and exchange of observeis, as 181 provided for in the Helsinki accord. Practice shows the effectiveness of such an agreement. Confidence-building is enhanced by rigorous correlation of the amount of information and the scale and list of specific kinds of military activities that are covered by the agreed confidence-building measures.
A further, more advanced stage of confidence-building would naturally involve an appropriate increase in information exchange. This is envisaged in the Soviet proposals. The geographical expansion of areas and, consequently, fields of military activities to be covered by confidencebuilding measures would, in particular, call for an associated increase in the volume of information to be exchanged by the two sides. The amount of information made mutually available on military activities would increase because confidence-building measures would apply to naval and air force exercises and movements of large military units as well as to a wider range of ground forces manoeuvres.
The USA, FRG, Great Britain, and some other NATO countries insist on ``openness'' and ``transparency'' in the military field, a demand seemingly worthy of support. The point is, however, that the proposed scales of ``openness'' are out of proportion with whatever is needed for the actual implementation of specific confidence-building measures even in their most comprehensive varieties that would cover, for instance, military exercises and troop movements. What the Western states are after amounts to the submission to them of data on the complement, structure, and deployment of armed forces, their weapons, the number and sites of war industries, and many other aspects of military potentials. At a time when the USA is initiating new rounds of the arms race in a bid to achieve military superiority, while in building up its armed forces the USSR is merely responding to threats, this demand looks unrealistic, to say the least. The Soviet Union cannot agree to providing the United States with military intelligence which can be abused to harm its security.
The demands for this ``openness'' and ``transparency'' are made chiefly for propaganda purposes as part of the West's slanderous campaign about the mythical "Soviet military threat''.
An impartial evaluation of the existing military strategic balance shows that there is no need for an unlimited expansion of information exchange. The data available to both sides are quite sufficient for confidence-building on the 182 broadest scale. These data show beyond any doubt that there is a balance of forces between the USSR and the USA and between the two main military alliances, the Warsaw Treaty Organisation and NATO.
The offensive that the aggressive forces have mounted against detente, their attempts to bring back the cold war, have no doubt complicated the process of international confidence-building, especially between countries of different world systems. It is not easy in a setting of tension to expand the agreed code of international behaviour, even to maintain it at the level reached. The absence of progress in international confidence-building is not simply a halt in the very first stage of a difficult process, for it spells the danger of departures from what has so far been achieved. The foundation of the confidence that was built with so much difficulty may be eroded.
Fear and prejudice, lies and hatred are the worst enemies of peace. And those imperialist reaction is cultivating assiduously as it stokes up international tensions. Nothing is more important in the present situation than prudence and circumspection, compounded with good faith and vigorous effort to secure accord and international confidence.
Those are the qualities of the large set of confidencebuilding measures proposed by the Soviet Union and other countries of the socialist community. The Soviet proposals are based on the realities of the world balance of forces and are aimed at securing both immediate and long-term gcil?. They repose on a sober-minded appreciation of the chances of adopting a new, albeit limited but wholly tangible and concrete, measures without further delay. At the same time, they offer scope for constructive initiatives aimed at an allencompassing confidence-building system in future. Their distinctive feature is their dynamism, which is meant to give continuously fresh impulses to the confidence-building process, to prevent it from marking time, let alone sliding back to the starting line.
Reaffirming the serious attitude of the Soviet Union to the idea of confidence-building, the USSR Supreme Soviet instructed the Soviet government on 29 December 1983, "to continue the line of ensuring the security of the Soviet state and its allies, to carry on with the requisite steps that could, considering the prevailing circumstances, lead to a change for the better in the international situation, and to further this line actively at the Stockholm Conference on 183 Gonfidence Building, Security, and Disarmament in Europe."^^1^^ At the Stockholm Conference, the Soviet Union submitted a wide range of concrete confidence-building and security proposals. Among them, above all, are measures that would remove the threat of nuclear annihilation. The USSR and the other countries of the socialist community are convinced that this purpose could be well served by a pledge of all the nuclear powers not to use nuclear weapons first, and a mutual pledge of the Warsaw Treaty and NATO countries to renounce use of both nuclear and conventional armed force. The other initiatives of the socialist countries, too, could go a long way in creating a climate of confidence and greater security---such as their proposals for nuclear-free zones in Europe, removal of chemical weapons from Europe, reducing military expenditures, advance notification of largescale war exercises and troop movements, restricting the size of war games, advance notification of large-scale air and naval exercises in the seas and oceans, and the air space adjoining Europe.
Speaking at the Stockholm Conference, Andrei Gromyko, First Deputy Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers and USSR Minister of Foreign Affairs, said: "The Soviet Union has come to the conference with good intentions. We will work here for peace among states and peoples, so that the conference should contribute palpably to rectifying interstate relations and halting the insane arms race. We are for a climate of confidence in international relations. This is essential if conflicts are to be settled, and mutually beneficial ties and contacts are to be expanded. The Soviet position is that the Final Act signed in Helsinki should be taken further here in Stockholm through new important accords.''^^2^^
In the contention against imperialist aggressiveness, the active Soviet policy of peace, backed extensively all over the world, is the chief guarantee that nuclear catastrophe shall be averted and life on earth preserved. And one of the important means of securing this noble aim is building and expanding confidence between states and peoples. However hard the enemies of peace and progress try to poison the world atmosphere with hostility and hatred, the future belongs to detente, co-operation, and international confidence.
_-_-_^^1^^ Praoda, 30 December 1983.
~^^2^^ Pravda, 19 January 1984.
184 __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Part Two __ALPHA_LVL1__ REGIONAL SECURITY PROBLEMS __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter 12 __ALPHA_LVL2__ EUROPEAN SECURITY:International relations are invariably pivoted on the questions of European security. Europe is the main area of military confrontation between the most powerful military-political alliances. An enormous economic potential and colossal cultural values are concentrated in this region of the world. And it is here that the imperialist forces have launched a new round in the arms race. The United States started to deploy their new medium-range missiles in a number of West European countries in the end of 1983.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. THE ESSENCE OF EUROPEAN SECURITYThe countries of the socialist community have placed their entire political and economic potential at the service of peace. They regard European security as a factor essential to the normal existence and functioning of the European states, one that secures for them full sovereignty, political and economic independence, as well as international relations and co-operation based on equality and ruling out confrontation.
The attainment of European security is a gradually unfolding, prolonged process which cannot avoid being influenced by the international situation both in Europe and outside it.
This long-term process is determined by a number of constant factors.
Among them is Europe's growing importance in the world scene. In this century, Europe was twice believed to have lost its global importance for ever. After the World War I many people thought it would never be able to rise from the ruins; and after World War II some people in the United States believed that Western Europe had not only forfeited its political positions but also turned from the subject of politics into its object. As a matter of fact, 187 on both occasions the wide-scale postwar processes allowed Europe to regain its position as a major political and economic centre of the world.
Despite Europe's division into two social systems, there are problems of all-European importance. It is important to recognise this fact in creating prerequisites for an allEuropean security system.
Europe's areas of common interest are creating, producing and exchanging values, and promoting cultural development and contacts. Yet, reactionary US policy-makers seek to insti'l the "trans-Atlantic idea" in Europe's political consciousness and separate the Soviet Union from the rest of Europe using the NATO machinery to this end. The desire to confront Western Europe to Eastern Europe prompts the strategy of turning the Western part of the continent into a US nuclear base to be used in the struggle against the socialist countries.
The problem of military might as political leverage is of great importance to European politics. Military groups formed during the last few decades command high military technology and military forces ready for action. The military confrontation in Europe is a major factor in contemporary global military-political relations.
However, a rough balance of forces sets the limits beyond which the political possibility of the potential aggressor to use its military force is not at all proportional to its actual size. In Europe, where the forces of both sides are approximately equal, it is practically impossible to make direct use of nuclear force for the purpose of attaining political goals. This would only lead to universal catastrophe---in Europe and throughout the world. A nuclear war in Europe would not solve any political problems but would destroy, instead, a huge proportion of the population and the material values. For this reason, the settlement of European political disputes by peaceful means and the repudiation of power politics have become imperative for Europe's development today.
There is an increasing need for economic co-operation among all European states. Shorter communication lines, great opportunities offered by the complementary nature of the CMEA and EEC members' economies, new jobs that can be created in the EEC countries through economic cooperation, as well as traditional ties, open up wide prospects for collaboration between the socialist and the capitalist 188 Countries of Europe. Moreover, Europe is getting increasingly involved in tackling the global problems of population growth, food and energy resources, environmental protection, and the like.
All this calls for the setting-up of a system of collective security in Europe so as to guarantee peace and stable relations among its nations.
However, this is hampered by the "Atlantic doctrine" according to which a US-West European alliance, predominantly a military one, directed against the USSR and its allies, and superior to them in nuclear forces, is a basic prerequisite for European security. What is meant is not an alliance per se, but a bloc orientated towards confrontation with the opposite social system. The authors of America and Western Europe, a book published by the Research Institute of the German Society for Foreign Policy, contend that "the main elements of the security system" that took shape in the 1950s "cannot be changed; with the policy pursued by the Eastern bloc, they are not likely to change in the future, either".^^1^^ In other words, they maintain that Europe is destined to be divided into military and political blocs. The convinced ``Atlantists'' repudiate collective security and other similar concepts because they call for changes, albeit partial, in the existing structure. This applies, for instance, to de Gaulle's foreign-policy concept of a more or less independent "West-European defence" and the like.^^2^^
However, the expediency of perpetuating the structures created, on the imperialists' initiative, at the height of the cold war and automatically projecting them a few decades forward is highly questionable, both theoretically and practically.
A security system can never remain unchanged. This is especially true of the contemporary, unusually dynamic world. It is not theory, but practice that calls for new methods of ensuring international, regional and national security. Ghristoph Bertram, a prominent political scientist, is right in saying that "security as a policy is a dynamic rather than a static process; perpetual security is non-existent".^^3^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Amerika und Westeuropa, Belser Verlag, Stuttgart, 1977, p. 168.
~^^2^^ Ibid., pp. 169, 170.
~^^3^^ Christoph Bertram, Sichercheit in einer sich andernden Welt. Sicherheitspolitik, Bad Honnef-Erpel, 1978, p. 17.
189Another important question is the effect of US policy on European security. Western analysts often speak about a crisis in transatlantic relations. A report published by well-known scholars of four major Western institutes dealing with the problems of world politics offers the following conclusions: this crisis is rooted in complicated, changeable historical and structural tendencies which acquire a social, political, economic and military dimensions. Politically, the conclusion boils down to the observation that the heyday of the old Atlantic system is already a thing of the past.^^1^^
Western Europe is worried, especially in the times of growing tensions, about the United States' attitude to the other great power, the Soviet Union. This is inseparably linked to the problem of finding ways to preclude nuclear catastrophe, avoid becoming the United States' nuclear hostages and avert nuclear war in Europe. This problem is of enormous importance for the West Europeans.
Normalisation of relations with the Soviet Union and other countries of the socialist community, detente and cooperation have in principle been---and will be as it seems, of greater importance to West European countries (albeit to a different extent) than to the United States. In the late 1970s, in some West European countries doubts arouse as to the correctness of US leaders' approach to the whole world as the area of confrontation with the Soviet Union. Such an oversimplified approach pushes into the foreground the military components of international politics. This means that efforts are made to involve Western Europe into the policy of hopeless and dangerous confrontation with their next-door neighbours from which the United States is separated by thousands of kilometres.
The peoples in Western Europe are increasingly aware of the fact that the world today cannot be artificially returned to the cold war of the 1950s. At any rate, in the early 1980s far from all policy-makers in Western Europe share the US Republican administration's opinion that detente has failed. In their view, the policy of detente has yielded important and fruitful results to their countries. Many responsible West European leaders prove unwilling to sacrifice the gains of the detente of the 1970s to the US "crisis strategy"-
_-_-_~^^1^^ See Die Sicherheit des Westens: Neue Dimensionen und Aufgaben. Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Auswdrtige Politik, Bonn, 1981, p. 5.
190In the last two decades, most of West European states refused to be automatically involved in conflicts the United States created or participated in. Instead, they sought to adhere to their own principles and exercise the right to independent reaction. It goes without saying that Atlantic solidarity in general largely determined the behaviour of the United States' allies in the times of acute crises. However, this solidarity was often forced and, whenever the United States undertook irresponsible actions fraught with conflict or made emergency decisions without consulting its allies, the latter tried to separate themselves from. Washington and stand aloof.
People in Western Europe are deeply concerned about the almost sudden appearance of ever new American nuclear doctrines whose authors are astonishingly unscrupulous about manipulating with the West Europeans' fate in the prospective "nuclear war against the Soviet Union". Washington does not rule out the possibility of such a war breaking out. While the USA rejects the Soviet Union's constructive proposals on nuclear disarmament, Western Europe tends to display an increasing interest in them.
The economic interests of the US monopoly bourgeoisie are also far from coinciding with those of West Europeans. Intensified by economic recession, the US drive to weaken Western Europe as its powerful competitor runs counter to the "Atlantic solidarity". At the same time, Western Europe is far more interested in developing trade and various forms of co-operation with socialist countries than the United States. According to Western sources, in 1979 the total volume of East-West trade was estimated at more than $ 60 billion. Europe accounted for 75 per cent of the sum. While the EEC members' export and import to the CMEA countries amounted to 17 per cent and 16 per cent, respectively, the US export and import to these countries amounted to only 7 and 1.5 per cent, respectively.
Europeans are concerned about the US attempts to exert a greater economic pressure to bear on the USSR and to make the US President's decisions binding on US allies' firms which are under the jurisdiction of their own countries. This can be exemplified by the US President's right to cancel foreign contracts as was the case with the attempted embargo on the deliveries under the gas-pipe contract. The globalisation of such attempts may only bring about new aggravation in the US relations with its allies.
191In recent years, the successive US administration's attempts to assume the role of the chief architect of world politics and to establish balanced relations with the European allies have failed. For all the "Atlantic solidarity", the Europeans have their own views and their own hierarchy of political and economic priorities.
It goes without saying that relations between Western Europe and the United States are complicated and contradictory. On the one hand, the ruling circles on both sides of the Atlantic are united by the community of their class interests, the common criteria by which they assess economic, political and ideological values and by the similar understanding of the security policy. On the other hand, the differences and even crises occurring within the framework of the "Atlantic solidarity" is the reality of our day. It lays the stage for the future restructuring of the European security system in the spirit of less rigid bloc wise notions and on the all-European collective basis. By ``Europe'' we mean the geographic region of the world which has existed within its natural confines in all times.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. SECURITY CONCEPT: NEW APPROACHESThe traditional notions of international and national security which have always been based on force and military superiority are growing obsolete in the era when nuclear war is looming over mankind. Following World War II, the people of foresight predicted that it would never be possible to settle political problems with the aid of nuclear weapons. In their view, that was particularly true of Europe with its relatively small territory, high population density and a high concentration of industrial centres and infrastructure. Despite the efforts of the reactionary politicians and militarists to intensify the arms race, the decades that have passed since the end of the war have accentuated this prediction rather than disproved it. At the same time, a tendency has emerged to search for an alternative to the European security system.
The alternative variants of the European security structure make up an impressive picture. They include the concept of West European political and military integra tion within the "Atlantic solidarity" framework; the concept of an independent federation with "autonomous defence"; the concept of national-effort-based security; the 192 concept of neutrality and non-alignment as forms of security, etc.
The search for alternative structures was intensified in the early 1980s when the United States started to regard Western Europe as a theatre for a future nuclear war.
Some of the West Europeans think it expedient to turn Western Europe into a vast nuclear-free zone while remaining in the Atlantic alliance. Others believe that this "buffer function" should be accompanied by "West European neutrality". They contend that it is necessary to withdraw from the US security system, which fetters Europe, while retaining "Western orientation" bolstered by certain American guarantees. Still others are of the opinion that within the framework of "a neutral West European system", which protects Western Europe against "the threat of an aggression from the outside", an alternative defence concept, radically different from that offered by NATO, should be elaborated. It is visualised as either "a truly defensive strategy", based exclusively on the defensive types of arms, or as security grounded on "non-violent resistance''.
Moreover, there are some people in the West whose thinking brings them very close to the idea of collective security. The Report of the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues chaired by Olof Palme states: "Peace cannot be obtained through military confrontation. It must be sought through a tireless process of negotiation, rapprochement, and normalisation... We face common dangers and thus must also promote our security in common.''^^1^^
The non-orthodox view on European security obtaining in Western Europe today has been brought into life by the fear that the United States would turn its West European allies into its nuclear hostages. Without overestimating the importance of these views, at least at this stage, one cannot, however, fail to discern in them the symptoms of an urgent historical requirement. The realities of the international situation call for a new approach to European security. This is not only a demand formulated by a social class, but also the question of life and death for Europe. It should be stressed that the Soviet Union, as well as its allies in the Warsaw Treaty Organisation, have been working out, throughout the 1970s and the early 1980s, a new, _-_-_
~^^1^^ Common Security. A Programme for Disarmament, Pan Books, London, 1982, p. 12.
__PRINTERS_P_193_COMMENT__ 13-339 193 realistic philosophy of European security of tremendous importance for the present generation and the ones to come.The Soviet concept of the security is based on the recognition of the fact that today the forces of peace are more powerful than the forces of war. Hence a number of conclusions.
First of all, genuine security should be based on peaceful coexistence. Lenin stressed that socialism has a stake in peace because "a better order of things cannot be created merely with the aid of war and bloodshed".^^1^^ According to Lenin, the attainment of victory and success in inter-state relations does not necessarily depend on the use of violence. The principle of peaceful coexistence Lenin formulated is gaining ever wider recognition in international relations.
Secondly, deterrence cannot serve as a reliable means of ensuring international security, including that in Europe. Nuclear war is not a realistic political way out. Effective guarantees for peace can only be attained through detente and disarmament. The Soviet Union condemns those who try to convince people that everything depends---and will always depend---on force and arms. It believes that peace based as it is on the fear that Europe can any minute be destroyed is none other than a substitute for genuine peace.
The socialist states' efforts towards military build-up are forced by the efforts of the West. They are aimed at defending socialism, maintaining a rough parity with NATO, and convincing the latters' leaders that hostile actions are doomed to failure. For this reason, it is preposterous to treat the Soviet and the US military build-up as pursuing the same goals. Not only is the Soviet military policy directed towards defence, but it also incorporates the idea of universal limitation of military efforts as its organic, inbuilt element.
Thirdly, we lay special emphasis on the need to realise the importance of the will for peace. In international relations, efforts should be mainly concentrated on staving off nuclear disaster. This approach to the top-priority problem that faces mankind, including, of course, the Europeans, presupposes overcoming psychological stereotypes and political traditions that have formed throughout centuries in the areas related to war and peace.
The remaining years of the 20th century can hardly be _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 42, p. 103, 194
194 expected to break down the tradition established by the very course of history in this century: the enormous growth in imperialism's military strength has been accompanied by a steady, though gradual, shrinking of the chances to implement its political programme in Europe by way of military aggression.For example, the range of ordnance has increased spectacularly from the five kilometres of the field gun at the turn of the century to the intercontinental ballistic missiles of today. Yet, this has not been accompanied by a proportionate growth in security or by even a roughly equal growth in the importance of military strength as a tool in furthering the policy of aggression and expansion.
On the contrary, the growing military strength has been continually weaking the security of European countries, bringing it almost to nought in military respects. At the same time, the growth in the military potential has not bolstered the real chances of resorting to direct military pressure or diktat as was the case in Europe's previous history. With the balance of forces finally established and the danger of annihilation looming over the world, political, class and social factors have repeatedly proved to be stronger, in a sense, than military strength, while the latter's size has ceased to signal the advantage of one side over the other.
The 1950s-1980s brought into sharp focus the widening gap between the progressive scientific thinking of those who have realised the inadmissibility of nuclear war and the thinking of the Western extremists in politics and science who urge to recognise nuclear war as a realistic political means. The latter refuse to admit that the nuclear weapon is increasingly relied upon as a tool in politics and psychology. This is a kind of militaristic shamanism, a symptom of imperialism losing its social orientation. The threats to reduce the world to ashes provided it continues to develop along the lines other than those to the liking of Western arch-conservatives and dogmatists are none other than the recognition of the imperialists' impotency as a class.
However, the world is really developing along the lines different to those favoured by the imperialists. The experience of the 20th century proves that historical progress cannot be stopped by force of arms, no matter how destructive it is. The imperialism's efforts that have involved the rapid development of armaments from the three-inch guns at the turn of the century to the Trident missiles of today, __PRINTERS_P_195_COMMENT__ 13* 195 the unleashing of world wars, the setting-up of fascist regimes and provoking international crises have failed to impede the natural course of historical development and bar socialism's way.
There can hardly be any doubt that the above-mentioned tendencies of the 20th century history will persist in the years to come. In a rapidly changing world, marked by turnabouts and political zigzagging a stream of ever new US military programmes and the bellicose pronouncements made by Washington policy-makers, there should be less and less room left to thinking in nuclear war terms. Europe increasingly tend to regard the unconditional recognition of the expediency of finding peaceful solutions to international problems as an indication of a genuine will for peace.
The Soviet Union is a steadfast proponent of a new way of thinking as regards security and international relations in general. Unlike the USA, the USSR has never pioneered the development of new systems of weapons in the postwar years. On the contrary, it has always been stimulating new ideas and efforts towards ensuring peace and disarmament.
Today, the will for peace has become even more important than ever before.
Talking about the will for peace one should emphasise the significance of consistency in pursuing a peace policy. It implies the ability to move towards the main goal, i.e. to continue seeking peaceful solutions in all situations and among various possibilities and options. This goal can only be reached by adhering to a reliable, stable and clearcut line orientated towards detente and disarmament. The policy of peace must be consistent, whatever the juncture, inevitable setbacks or complications may be. This is the Soviet Union's firm conviction.
There have been and there will be ups and downs, periods of tranquility and crises, of deviations and temporary retreats in relations among European nations. Just as all human relations, international relations have never been and will never be perfectly smooth and distinct. In a nuclear age, the responsibility assumed by the political leaders is much graver than ever before. This enormously complicates and, at the same time, enhances the role of the policy aimed at ensuring peace and confidence among nations.
The policy designed to build up European security should stem from the realities that have been brought about by the 196 social and political changes in the world, by the scientific and technological revolution and the continuous, far-reaching developments in the military field. European peace policy will never arrive at rational decisions unless the increasing importance of humanity's global problems is taken into consideration.
Political flexibility is another important factor to mention in this context. It presupposes a policy that is dynamic and subtle enough to allow to take into account all sorts of contingencies, the impact of different forces and the effect of tendencies counteracting the efforts towards finding peaceful solutions; it implies the ability to react to various developments in a balanced way, without losing sight of the main goal, the ability to slow down the advancement and, ii need be, stop and wait until forces are even. In 1920, Lenin spoke of the readiness to compromise whenever it helps to attain a common goal: "We are confident that, by continuing our peace policy and by making concessions (and we must do so if we wish to avoid war), the basic line of our policy and the fundamental interests which stem from the very nature of imperialist policy will come into their own and will make it more and more imperative for the R.S.F.S.R. to establish closer relations with a growing number of neighbouring states, despite the intrigues and machinations of the imperialists, who, of course, are always capable of provoking a quarrel between us and some other states.''^^1^^ Those were wise words.
The will for peace presupposes heeding the other side's legitimate interests of security and its way of thinking. For the problem of peace in Europe to be solved it is important that everybody should have a clear understanding of one another's interests and intentions. In Europe, the traditional understanding of the security-oriented policy as a "balance of forces" game and a continual struggle for attaining political and strategic superiority at the expense of the other side has been discredited. While in the past this policy might have, conceivably, been helpful as a way of reaching a desired alignment of forces before another war, there is no point in it now that war between East and West would be nothing but suicidal madness.
Furthermore, the will for peace implies recognising the principle of equality and equal security not only in theory, _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 31, p. 491.
197 but also in practice. The nuclear era is inconceivable without it. The balance of forces has objectively acquired a great importance. The socialist states have done a lot in order to turn the emergent objective reality into a most important principle of international politics.Of late, the balance of forces as a factor of peace and stability has become especially important. The socialist countries are of the opinion that the rough balance of forces reached by the states of the opposed systems should be maintained as it conduces to political stability, fosters peaceful relations and creates prerequisites for talks on military detente.
The efforts to maintain the rough parity are dictated by the danger that its violation may be used by the reaction to the detriment of socialism and universal peace. In our times, the potential aggressor finds it far more difficult to carry out his intention as there is a risk of his having to pay too high a price if he dares.
For this reason, the Soviet Union flatly repudiates the US administration's policy in the early 1980s aimed at turning the United States into the world's dominant military power and destroying the parity which is a guarantee of stability.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. THE MILITARY-POLITICAL ASPECT OF THE PROBLEMReliable security in Europe is inconceivable without limiting the military effort, giving less priority to the war factor in Europe's international affairs and, of course, lowering the level of the military confrontation on the continent. In a word, European security will be truly ensured only when the policy of peace actually suppresses imperialism's destructive aggressiveness.
The late 1970s and the early 1980s saw the United States using the "war factor" in the interests running counter to European security. From the political standpoint, the double-track decision adopted by NATO in December 1979 and, as a result, the deployment of the US Pershing and cruise missiles in Western Europe initiated at the end of 1983 is an attempt to upset the balance of forces and to provide a concrete nuclear-missile basis for the policy of ``crusade'' against socialism. This testifies to the intention to split Europe, wreck detente and attach Western Europe, which has become "excessively independent", closer 198 to the United States. This also reveals the shortsightedness of some West European governments seeking to build up their security with the help of US missiles (which actually undermine it) and to prove their "Atlantic loyalty''.
From the military point of view, the US dogged efforts to deploy their missiles in Europe reveal its intention to boost its strategic potential, to make its strategic nuclear force capable of dealing a ``disarming'' nuclear strike at the Soviet Union and to put the latter in a dangerous position by deploying nuclear missiles right at its doorstep.
At the same time, it is obvious that the United States' efforts to re-arm Western Europe in order to stabilise its own positions there is part of the US administration's global military programmes for period up to the 1990s. The US strives to turn Western Europe into a gear, as it were, of a giant flywheel of a global military build-up aimed against the USSR, its allies, and the national liberation movement throughout the world.
In a bid to warrant the deployment of new missiles in Europe, NATO spokesmen claim that the Soviet Union is seeking to tip the military balance, particularly that in Europe, in its favour. In fact, the Soviet Union is developing new types of armaments not on its own initiative, but in response to the appearance of such armaments in the United States. By the early 1970s, the United States had pioneered the development of 23 out of the 25 major systems ofs arms existing in the world.^^1^^ Since then the number of American initiatives has grown.
Those who claim that the Soviet Union has pioneered the development of new ``Euromissiles'', i.e. the most powerful medium-range weapons, usually refer to the SS-20 missiles. In actual fact, the US started developing its theatre missiles as early as 1969. In 1975, a special programme has been elaborated to develop the Pershing-2 missiles. In 1972, contracts were concluded to develop the Tomahawk cruise missile. As for the Soviet SS-20s, people in the West did not worry about them until 1977. The development of new American missiles is a typical American initiative in the area of the arms race, rather than a ``response'' to the appearance of the SS-20 missile.
Unless an agreement is reached on limiting or freezing _-_-_
~^^1^^ See How to Avert the Threat to Europe, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1983,
199 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1984/PCS453/20100319/299.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2010.03.18) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ nil the production and deployment of certain types of arms by both sides (to say nothing about the arms reduction), the modernisation of the obsolete weapons will be, in principle, almost inevitable.The bourgeois propaganda media, proficient at making the impossible appear possible and exaggerating or concealing things, skillfully manipulate facts to picture the partial modernisation of certain types of weapons undertaken by one side as a threat to mankind and the military effort intensified by the other side---the one they serve---as something of little consequence. This is exemplified by the all-out campaign against the Soviet SS-20 medium-range missiles initiated in the late 1970s and intensified after the adoption of the NATO double-track decision.
The thing is that the importance of modernising outdated, twenty-year-old missiles, called SS-4 and SS-5 in the West, has been exaggerated (this does not mean that the SS-20 missiles, just as all modern nuclear arms, are not a horrific weapon), while the US modernisation of many types of arms has been passed over in silence.
The development of the SS-20 missiles is a typical example of modernising systems of arms.
The Soviet SS-20 missiles have not destroyed the rough parity achieved in Europe. Neither have they created a critical situation. While installing two SS-20 missiles the USSR has been simultaneously dismantling three SS-4 and SS-5 missiles. NATO countries possess 1.5 times more warheads carried by medium-range missiles than the Soviet Union. The developing and deploying US superaccurate superpowerful Pershing-2 and cruise missiles are nothing more than the creation of entirely new systems of arms which greatly affects the strategic situation as a whole.
The US tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Europe constitute part of the US vast theatre of nuclear forces. According to various sources, at the end of the 1970s total US tactical nuclear weapons numbered 22,000 units.^^1^^ With the British and French warheads taken into account, NATO's superiority becomes still more obvious.^^2^^ In the early 1980s, _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Tactical Nuclear Weapons: European Perspectives, SIPRI, Taylor & Francis Ltd., London, 1978, p. 7. This publication mentions 22,000 tactical and 7,000 US strategic warheads. Since then the number of strategic warheads has grown.
~^^2^^ According to various sources, there are nearly 10,000 NATO warheads in Europe.
200 NATO enjoys a fifty per cent advantage over the Soviet Union in terms of nuclear warheads capable of being simultaneously released at the target.Nonetheless, there exists a rough parity between the USSR and NATO countries.
As a result, one can make the following conclusions.
First, there exist objective factors stimulating the development of the situation towards stopping the nuclear arms race, reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons. The existing parity creates these particular factors.
Second, the parity is an important prerequisite for a stable international situation and a lower level of political confrontation. For this reason it should be maintained.
Third, the efforts to destroy the parity are fraught with a tremendous danger for international stability and, certainly, for European security. The United States initiated these efforts in the early 1980s. However, programmes for a further increase in the number of nuclear warheads become senseless: the United States and the NATO countries already have dozens of thousands of nuclear weapons, i.e. an enormous missile and nuclear potential.
Through increasing their European potential by hundreds of new missiles, the United States are expanding their so-called forward-based systems in Europe. It includes the US nuclear medium-range forward-based arms (more than 700 aircraft: F-1HA, F-lll, F-4, carrier-based aircraft) which can reach the Soviet territory and have excellent tactical and technical characteristics. This system secures for the United States an advantage in the strategic balance between the two great powers.
By building up its nuclear force in Europe, the United States turns its allies into nuclear hostages and its territory into a battlefield in case of a nuclear conflict.
From the Soviet point of view, the new US Pershing-2 and cruise missiles are strategic weapons which have no counterpart in the Soviet Union. Instead of searching, together with the USSR, for the ways of ensuring a steady balance, the United States is making a step towards upsetting it. Instead of limiting the forward-based system, it is being developed qualitatively and quantitatively. All this aggravates the overall situation in Europe and undermines European security.
It should be emphasised that this new round of the arms race within NATO is occurring on a new qualitative 201 footing, meaning NATO's burning desire to begin a new stage of competition in military technology, specifically, in electronic laser space weapons. As applied to Europe, this new stage can be increasingly seen in the plans to modernise conventional forces through introducing the latest achievements in science and technology. Such innovations as super-accurate, self-guided missiles, the total re-equipment of all troop units with the latest technology, computerised command centres and the application of robots together by the end of the century are not only capable of giving the European armies an entirely new image, but also of generating new, difficult-to-calculate threats. A re-organisation along these lines would increase even greater the likelihood of a conflict in Europe and the chance of it turning into a nuclear confrontation.
However, any aspiration for superiority .holds out no prospects for Europe. The efforts to upset the balance of forces compels the other side to take countermeasures to consolidate its own defence. This is understood by many, and not only in Eastern, but also in Western Europe. Michael Foot, former leader of the British Labour Party, addressing the Party congress in 1981 said that the controversy over the deployment of US medium-range missile systems had led NATO to the gravest crisis in its entire history. What is meant is essentially a deepening credibility crisis: the Europeans have lost confidence in the US administration. West Europeans have started to doubt the effectiveness of talks carried on by the United States on disarmament issues.
As a result, the majority of the Western public fear the US Pershings more than the Soviet SS-20s.
The Soviet-US talks on medium-range nuclear weapons in Europe are a special topic to discuss. They have gone down in history as a vivid example of the US drive to hamper the solution of the nuclear arms limitation issue.
Since the very start of the talks, the US administration has been unwilling to reach a mutually acceptable agreement on nuclear arms in Europe. It has done everything in its power to bring the talks to a deadlock and start deploying its missiles in Europe as soon as possible.
According to the "zero option" formulated by the American negotiators, all Soviet medium-range missiles in both the European and the Asian parts of the USSR would have to be dismantled, while the United States and its NATO allies would not forfeit a single missile or plane. Moreover, 202 the United States and other NATO countries would secure for themselves a possibility of increasing their nuclear potential. As a result, NATO would have a 2:1 advantage in terms of nuclear-capable carriers and a 3:1 advantage in terms of warheads.
The Soviet approach to this issue is based on a realistic estimation of the state of affairs. The Soviet Union underscores that the American proposal does not take into account the enormous---both in scale and importance---components of the medium-range nuclear weapons and thus entails a disturbance in the balance of forces.
The American proposal does not heed aviation, nuclearr capable aircraft, which, as has already been stressed, constitute the backbone of the US forward-based system in Europe. They can penetrate deep in the European part of the Soviet Union and are capable of delivering nuclear weapons of enormous power. The United States have accumulated vast experience in strategic air-force offensive. And more. The US proposal does not take into consideration carrier-based aircraft. The US Sixth and Second Fleets patrolling the Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean have seven attack aircraft carriers with at least 240 carrierborne nuclear-capable attack aircraft. Finally, the US proposal passes over in silence the British and French nuclear forces, i.e. 162 missiles (ground-based and submarine-based ballistic missiles) which constitute part of the NATO aggregate force.
From the Soviet standpoint, the US negotiators should take into account all these forces instead of pretending that they are non-existent. The US side tried to evade the issue of the British and French nuclear forces referring to Great Britain's and France's sovereignty, non-participation in Geneva talks and the "national character" of their nuclear potentials. However, these two countries account for over a quarter of the total number of NATO's medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe. Their membership of the bloc is an open secret and has been confirmed by the leaders of both countries on various occasions.
For this reason, the Soviet Union insisted on including British and French weapons in the overall balance while considering the problem of reducing and limiting nuclear arms in Europe. This by no means implied that Great Britain and France should be involved in the nuclear arms negotiations against their will. What the Soviet Union 203 sought was taking these forces into account while calculating the balance of forces. The Soviet stand was based on recognising the need for an objective assessment of the existing balance of forces and for the unconditional repudiation of any efforts to upset it. It is necessary to recognise the truth that in the West the Soviet Union is opposed not by one, but by three nuclear powers---the United States, Great Britain and France.
Both the "zero option" and the so-called intermediate option formulated by the United States left no doubt that the American side was unwilling to reach an understanding with the Soviet Union. United States participated in the talks in order to appease the public and to create a more favourable political situation for their military build-up programmes.
The Soviet approach to the problem of reducing nuclear arms in Europe is based on its preparedness to find a drastic solution to it, i.e. to secure a genuine and absolute "zero option". At the very beginning of the talks the Soviet Union put forward a radical proposal: to dismantle nuclear arms, both medium-range and tactical, in Europe. The acceptance of this proposal would really mean "zero for all''.
Since the American side proved not to be prepared for such a solution of the problem, the Soviet Union advanced another proposal: to reduce nuclear arms in Europe roughly by two thirds, with an equal level for missiles. It would agree to freeze the number of SS-20 missiles deployed in the Western part of its territory. The Soviet Union would then agree to retain in the European part of the country only as many missiles as Great Britain and France possess together. This means that the number of missiles would be reduced by hundreds, including a few dozens of SS-20s. The number of Soviet and NATO medium-range nuclear-capable aircraft would have also been reduced to equal levels.
Had this proposal been accepted, more than 1,300 medium-range weapons would have been eliminated. The number of launching pads for the Soviet medium-range missiles in the European part of the USSR, as well as the total number of warheads they carry, would have dropped below the 1976 level, i.e. before the modernisation of medium-range missiles started. Finally, the Soviet Union proposed to negotiate parity not only in terms of carriers but also in terms of warheads.
At the end of August 1983, the Soviet Union made an 204 exceptionally important step. It was prompted by the feeling of historical responsibility .for the fate of the world and the desire to end the deadlock at the Geneva talks. The Soviet Union agreed to dismantle its medium-range missiles subjected to reduction. It stands to reason that this step presupposed a mutually acceptable agreement providing for the United States' abstention from deploying its new missile systems and heeding Great Britain's and France's nuclear weapons in the overall balance of forces in Europe. This proposal exposed the groundlessness of the fear that the USSR would only transfer its missiles from the European part of its territory to the east of the Urals and, at the same time, eased the Chinese and Japanese concern about the prospective transfer.
In October 1983, the ministers of foreign affairs of the Warsaw Treaty countries affirmed the need for continuing the Geneva talks until the NATO would start to deploy new US missiles. On October 20, 1983, the Soviet Government declared that the Soviet Union was prepared to take additional steps towards a mutually acceptable agreement. In order to ensure parity in the number of NATO and Soviet medium-range missile warheads, the Soviet Union expressed its readiness to have, in the case a mutually acceptable agreement was reached, 140 SS-20 launchers. This is appreciably less than the number of their counterparts in Great Britain and France.
Moreover, in case an agreement on limiting nuclear arms in Europe was reached, the Soviet Union was prepared to stop deploying SS-20 missiles in the eastern part of its territory as soon as the agreement came into force. It goes without saying that this step was conditional on reciprocity: the United States was not to deploy its new medium-range missiles in those areas from where they could reach the eastern part of the Soviet territory.
The Soviet Union was also prepared to negotiate equal aggregate levels for the Soviet and NATO nuclear-capable medium-range aircraft within a mutually acceptable range.
Lastly, if the United States had renounced the deployment of its missiles in Europe within the announced time, the Soviet Union could have started to dismantle its more than 200 SS-4. missiles with a view to completing their elimination in 1984-85.
Such was the constructive arid flexible stance the Soviet Union adhered to at the talks. And that was the way it 205 developed in accordance with the Soviet Union's desire to reach an agreement and thus make an important step towards consolidating European security. However, the United States rejected all Soviet initiatives and proposals and torpedoed the talks.
The siting of new US missiles in Europe has radically changed the military-political situation in the European continent.
The Soviet Union's reaction was made known in the Statement hy General Secretary of the GPSU Central Committee, Chairman of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet, made on November 24, 1983. The Soviet Union declared that since by its actions the United States had torpedoed the possibility of reaching a mutually acceptable accord at the talks on limiting nuclear arms in Europe and since their continuation in these conditions would only serve as a cover for the actions of the United States and a number of other NATO countries, the Soviet Union considered its further participation in these talks impossible.
It was also declared that the Soviet Union repealed its earlier-assumed unilateral commitments, including the moratorium on the deployment of Soviet medium-range nuclear weapons in the European part of its territory. The Soviet Union stressed that it was compelled to take adequate countermeasures to provide for its own and other socialist countries' security.
The countermeasures taken by the USSR in order to keep the balance cannot come as something unexpected for Western Europe and the United States. The Soviet leaders have repeatedly warned about them those leaders in Washington and the West European capitals who are wont, for their own mercenary motives, to jeopardise the fate of Europe and, in keeping with the logic of contemporary world development, the East-West relations as a whole. These leaders must be held responsible for the dangerous course of events on the European continent.
Turning to the other military aspects of the problem, we should stress that the success of the protracted negotiations at the Vienna talks on the reduction of the armed forces and armaments in Central Europe would be highly essential for European security. However, here too, Western negotiators display their lack of good will. They do not try to conceal that they are not interested in the successful outcome of the talks.
206In order to end the deadlock at the Vienna talks, in February 1983 the Soviet Union proposed, on behalf of the socialist countries directly participating in the talks, to reduce NATO's and Warsaw Treaty Organisation's armed forces in Central Europe to equal aggregate levels, despite their different estimation of the number of troops possessed by each side. It was pointed out that the sides could determine for themselves the range within which to reduce their armed forces to equal aggregate ceilings. As a result, none of the sides would have more than 900,000 troops stationed in the region, including 700,000 in the ground force.
As a first step, the socialist countries proposed to undertake the reduction of the Soviet and US troops in Central Europe on a reciprocal basis. It was stressed that the Soviet Union was prepared to withdraw another 20,000 troops in addition to the 20,000 earlier withdrawn from the GDR, provided the United States agreed to withdraw 13,000 men of its ground force. Consequent to this, the direct participants in the Vienna talks would agree to freeze the levels of their armed forces and armaments in Central Europe until the final agreement was reached.
Apart from the above-mentioned proposals, the Soviet Union advanced a number of other initiatives aimed at ensuring European security by various means, among them lowering the level of military confrontation in Europe. The most important of these initiatives are:
---the Soviet Union's unilateral commitment not to be the first to use nuclear arms;
---the Soviet Union's pledge not to be the first to use nuclear arms against those countries which do not produce, acquire or allow to deploy nuclear weapons on their territory;
---the proposal to abstain both from expanding the existing and creating new military blocs in Europe and on other continents;
---the proposal on convening a European conference on military detente and disarmament in Europe.
Moreover, the proposals of global importance contained other ideas about building up European security.
It will be relevant to stress the importance of the Soviet proposals concerning the measures to strengthen the guarantees of the security of non-nuclear states, among them: the non-use of nuclear arms against the states proclaiming 207 themselves nuclear-free or not having nuclear arms on their territory; establishing nuclear-free zones in the north of Europe and in the Balkans; signing a convention on strengthening the non-nuclear states' security guarantees, and others.
We shall not list here other proposals made by the Soviet Union, we shall only stress that among the major political initiatives towards strengthening peace and security in Europe advanced in the early 1980s, of special importance is the proposal formulated in the Declaration of the Warsaw Treaty Countries of January 5, 1983, concerning the signing of a treaty between the Warsaw Treaty Organisation and NATO on the non-use of military force and on maintaining peaceful relations. Such a treaty could be based on a mutual pledge of the participants in both alliances not to be the first to use either nuclear or conventional arms against each other and, consequently, to abstain from the first use of military force against each other. The conclusion of such a treaty would conduce to European peace and put the prospects for eliminating Europe's division into opposing military blocs on a realistic basis.
All these initiatives---whether on medium-range nuclear weapons, or reduction of armed forces and armaments in Central Europe or others---bear out that the new principles of approaches to European security elaborated by the socialist countries are embodied in practical policies.
It is the call of our time to unite all those who do not want to put an end to mankind's development in a fight against the policy of nuclear violence pursued by the reactionary imperialist forces. It is imperative to return to the international psychological infrastructure which began to take shape in East-West relations in the early 1970s. However much it may contradict imperialist dogmas, a pattern of international relations based on the renunciation of the use of force or the threat to use force should be established not only in word, but in deed, too.
This approach would be in harmony with the principles advanced by the socialist countries. A sensible policy of peace has uncomparably better prospects for determining historical process than reckless power politics. For Europe, all this is of paramount importance.
[208] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter 13 __ALPHA_LVL2__ THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT:For more than 30 years the Middle East has been a seat of acute international tensions, which have reached an especially dangerous level today. Since the late 1940s, the region has seen six Arab-Israeli wars. The situation surrounding the wars of 1956, 1967 and 1973 was fraught with a global crisis and jeopardised peace in the world. It is owing to the firmness and the principled stand of the Soviet Union that a global crisis was staved off. At present, the Arab-Israeli confrontation is supplemented by a number of conflicts whose political, economic and military consequences go far beyond the regional boundaries. A war is on between Iran and Iraq.
A knot of many class, national, military-political and economic contradictions, the Middle East has a special role to play in contemporary international politics. It has the largest oil reserves in the capitalist world. Moreover, with its northern parts adjoining the zone where the armed forces of the two opposed military-political alliances, the NATO and the Warsaw Treaty Organisation, come into direct contact, it occupies an important political position. The anti-imperialist transformations taking place in the Middle East provoke a militaristic reaction on the part of the imperialist quarters and their allies who seek to restore or strengthen the military, political, economic and, above all, class positions of the monopoly capital and the local conservative circles in the region^ The changes in the military and political situation and the shifts in the alignment of forces in this area cannot fail to affect the interests of many states. As a result, the aggravation of tensions, conflicts and crises which have become a permanent factor in developments in the Middle East, have an extremely negative effect on the international situation and are fraught with dangerous consequences for the entire international community.
The danger of war in the Middle East stems from the __PRINTERS_P_209_COMMENT__ 14---139 209 aggressive, expansionist policy pursued by the United States and Israel. As is borne out by numerous facts, Tel-Aviv's actions are in harmony with Washington's strategic plans aimed at undermining the national liberation movement in this part of the world and establishing a military-- political diktat over the Arab countries which occupy an important strategical position and are rich in natural resources (above all, oil in the Persian Gulf) badly needed by the West. The United States has already played up the Middle East conflict in order to station its military contingents in the region, particularly in Lebanon and on the Sinai Peninsula. So far there are no signs indicating that the 30-year-long Middle East crisis will be resolved in the national interests of each of the parties involved.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. THE ISRAELI AGGRESSION AGAINST LEBANON AND ITSThe peculiarities of the complicated and dangerous military-political situation obtaining in the Middle East are in many respects a direct result of the Gamp David deal. The future course of developments in the region is largely determined by the consequences of the Israeli aggression against Lebanon which has obviously become Tel-Aviv's sixth and longest war against the Arabs.
The Camp David deal, which crowned Egypt's withdrawal from the military confrontation with Israel, enabled Tel-Aviv to use practically all its military strength against Lebanon and Syria.
The Israeli aggression against Lebanon has been spearheaded against the National-Patriotic Forces of Lebanon and the Palestinian Resistance Movement. (The Lebanese army did not participate in rebuffing the Israeli aggression, while the rightists' military contingents in fact assisted the Israeli troops.) It should be emphasised that Tel-Aviv's aggression is directed not only against the PLO military units, but also against the Arab people of Palestine as a whole. (There were more than 500,000 Palestinians or, to be more exact, Palestinian refugees, in Lebanon on the eve of Israeli aggression). The former Prime Minister of Israel Menachem Begin and the then Minister of Defence Ariel Sharon did not conceal that their main task was not only to break down the military-political structure of the PLO but also to crust all Palestinian organisations, eradicate the 210 Palestinian Resistance Movement, as a whole, and to drive Palestinian Arabs out of the country. It is to this end that 17 Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon were ruined in cold blood. The brutal massacre committed in the Sabra and Ghatila refugee camps on 16-18 September 1982, was designed to intimidate Palestinians and make them move on in the direction of Syria and Jordan.
This was the main but not the only goal of Tel-Aviv's aggression against Lebanon. Israel invaded Lebanon in a drive to turn Lebanon, by force of arms, into its partner in the so-called Camp David process. The Israeli mass media keep publishing the pronouncements of high-ranking Israeli politicians and diplomats about dividing Lebanon into five state formations on the confessional principle.
At the same time, it is planned to rout Syrian contingents, which constitute part of the inter-Arab forces in Lebanon, and to exert direct military pressure on Syria so as to make it abandon its principled stand on the Middle East problems. When the Syrian government took serious measures to strengthen national security, Washington and Tel-Aviv raised hue and cry about the so-called Syrian threat to Israel. The real aim of this propaganda campaign is to justify the possible "preventive strike" at Syria.
The Israeli war against Lebanon has demonstrated once again the aggressiveness of the ruling circles of Israel, the most bellicose state in the present-day world. The history of the Middle East conflict convincingly shows that Israel is to blame for the overwhelming majority of armed clashes and wars in the region. In order to warrant their actions and appease the world public, outraged by the policy of genocide in respect of Lebanon's peaceful civilians, a policy that can be ranked with the crimes perpetrated by the Nazis, Tel-Aviv and Washington resorted to their usual propaganda trick alleging that the Arabs' "hostile belligerency", ``intransigence'', "lack of flexibility" in the approach to the problem of granting recognition to Israel, as well as ``unwillingness'' to agree to a political settlement of disputes, pose a threat to Israel.
In November 1978, the majority of Arab states (18 out of the 22 members of the Arab League) came out against the Camp David deal. The reason for this lies not in the fact that the Arabs are unwilling to agree to a peaceful settlement in the Middle East (an allegation persistently circulated by the Israeli politicians), but in the very nature __PRINTERS_P_211_COMMENT__ 14* 211 of the Camp David deal which infringes upon the vital interests of the Arab states and the Palestinian organisations and can by no means bring peace to the Middle East nations. Israel and the United States expect the separate EgyptianIsraeli deal to make all the Arabs agree to the kind of ``peace'' which would be, in fact, tantamount to their unconditional capitulation. In their opinion, this would imply the Arabs' giving up the territories (including East Jerusalem) seized by the Israeli army, as well as their right to create a Palestinian Arab state according to the resolution of the UN General Assembly of 29 November 1947 on dividing formerly mandated Palestine. This resolution, important for the understanding of developments in the Middle East today, mentions first the Arab Palestinian state, and then the Jewish state. The declaration on creating the State of Israel was issued on 14 May 1948, before the term of the British mandate officially expired. As to the Arab Palestinian state, it has not been founded to this day. For many years now, the Israeli government has been resolutely opposing the implementation by the Arab Palestinian people of their right to an independent state. In recent years, Tel-Aviv has been pushing the idea of establishing some sort of temporary "administrative autonomy", instead of creating an independent state. This stand is absolutely groundless in terms of international law. In principle, the UN resolutions do not become null by prescription. The Palestinian Arabs, supported by the overwhelming majority of Arab countries, have by no means forefeited the right, granted to them by the international community, to create an independent nationstate of their own. However, under the provisions of the Camp David deal, the Palestinian Arabs can only be granted " administrative autonomy" (in the rest of the world administrative autonomy is granted to territories, not to peoples) for five years. According to the architects of the Camp David deal, on the expiration of this term the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria as the Zionists call it, is to be taken over by Israel. Tel-Aviv is extremely hostile to the idea of entering into negotiations with the PLO, which is recognised as the sole representative of the Arab people of Palestine by the Arab states and the majority of UN members. In July 1981, the Israeli ruling circles were forced by circumstances to conclude a ceasefire agreement in Lebanon, thereby indirectly recognising the PLO as a partner in the talks and, consequently, as an organisation representing the Arab people 212 of Palestine. However, subsequent events were to show that in actual fact the Israeli leaders meant this step to serve as a screen behind which to hide the preparations (which they had launched long before) for the aggression aimed at routing the Palestinian Resistance Movement.
For its part, the PLO scrupulously observed the abovementioned Israeli-Palestinian agreement of 1981. This created certain difficulties for the Begin government, which was by no means inclined to give up its aggressive plans as regards Lebanon, both in terms of pursuing its own policy and from the point of view of creating a propaganda backdrop for it.
It has now surfaced that Israel initially scheduled an invasion in Lebanon for 15 June 1982. The then Minister of Defence, General Ariel Sharon, interrupted his trip abroad in order to precipitate the outbreak of war. On the day following his return to Israel the Israeli troops invaded Lebanon.
It is not irrelevant to recall these facts in the present context: they show that in this case, too, in preparing a war against the Lebanese and the Palestinians, Israel had not the slightest intention to enter into any form of talks with the PLO in order to look for a peaceful settlement to the Middle East problems, above all the Palestinian issue. Instead, it committed an unprovoked military aggression against Lebanon and the Palestinians and thereby violated the ceasefire agreement in a bid to impose, by means of military force, the Camp David, solution favoured by certain US circles.
In May 1983, as a result of applying various methods of military and political blackmail and pressure, the Begin government and the US leaders succeeded in forcing Lebanon to sign the so-called agreement on peace. The latter did not help to resolve the problem of the Israeli occupation of the Lebanese territory; neither did it eliminate the possibility of armed conflicts and wars in the Middle East; nor did it ensure the independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon as a unified state. Far from it, the agreement paved the way for mounting foreign, above all American, military presence in the country.
Although the Lebanese government was compelled to sign the above one-sided agreement, the Israeli leaders failed to attain the ultimate goal of the invasion. Despite the atrocities it committed, Israel failed to destroy the Lebanese 213 National-Patriotic Forces and the Palestinian Resistance Movement. It failed to crush the PLO military-political structure. The Syrian troops and the Palestinian units continue to put up resistance to the aggressor in the Bekaa Valley, i.e. the part of the Lebanese territory adjacent to Syria. Moreover, the conclusion about Israel having suffered a political setback in Lebanon is not unwarranted. The setback has brought into sharp focus---and made it possible to predict---the deadlock and bankruptcy of the foreign-policy course pursued by the Likud government. This in turn compelled Begin's Cabinet, despite its intricate manoeuvring, to resign in September 1983.
The events that have taken place in and around Lebanon since the summer of 1982 throw light on the unseemly game played by the United States in the Middle East; When the Israeli war against Lebanon began, Washington abandoned its role of a ``mediator'' which it had assumed after the 1973 war and which manifested itself in Henry Kissinger's " shuttle diplomacy" of 1974-1975 and in Philip Habib's and Robert McFarlane's ``missions'' in Lebanon. From the very start, the United States acted as Israel's accomplice in the war against the National Patriotic Forces of Lebanon and the Palestinian Arabs. The direct participation of the US Marines and the US Sixth Fleet in the military operations against the Palestinian Resistance Movement and the National-Patriotic Forces of Lebanon provided fresh evidence of the sinister role played by the United States in the Israeli aggression.
Washington had been fully informed about the Israeli preparations for a sixth war against the Arabs before the beginning of the invasion in Lebanon. The United States provided Israel with everything necessary for this war, first of all, with the weapons of mass destruction intended for use against the civilian population. Moreover, the United States made every effort to impede effective implementation of the UN Security Council resolution on ceasing hostilities in Lebanon.
Thus, the US and Israeli leaders are responsible for numerous crimes perpetrated by Tel-Aviv in Lebanon. And this is not accidental: there is not only similarity but, in many cases, full coincidence of the interests pursued by the ruling circles in the United States and Israel. This community of interests, goals and actions manifested itself in the so-called strategic alliance which was allegedly 214 suspended (in word only) because of Israeli violating the agreement on the non-use of American weapons for the purposes other than defence. In 1982, the United States played up the tense situation in the Middle East to send to Lebanon a Marines contingent on the plea of "keeping peace" there. This was the first step to ensure long-term American military presence in that part of the Middle East.
It is along the same lines that the "multinational force" had been stationed in the Sinai before the Israeli invasion in Lebanon. The USA used the sending of French, Italian and British troops to the Sinai Peninsula and to Lebanon (which in itself is indicative of the desire of certain Western European countries to play an increasingly important role in the Mid-Eastern affairs), to station a considerable number of US Marines there, too. Characteristically, Pentagon has chosen Beirut as the seat of a CENTGOM headquarters and included in the area of its control 19 countries in the Middle East (without letting them know about it), West Asia and Africa.
The sharp aggravation of the situation in the Middle East due to the direct involvement of US troops in Lebanon's internal strife, showed that Washington's course is unequivocally aimed at expanding US interference in the country's affairs. Another US goal is to put pressure to bear on Syria and those forces in the Arab world which refuse to subordinate to the US diktat. Whatever Washington's attempts to justify its actions may be, developments in Lebanon show that the US policy there is directed against the Arabs. The TASS Statement of 20 September 1983 thus commented on the matter: "The Soviet Union strongly condemns the US actions in Lebanon. The US administration will have to bear responsibility for the crimes committed against the Lebanese people and for their adverse effect on the situation in the Middle East and international security.''^^1^^
The USA turned a blind eye to the Soviet Union's warning and started an open military intervention in Lebanon in December 1983. A succession of harrowing attacks from the air and sea demonstrated that the US imperialist quarters were set on settling the Middle East crisis only by force, which once again showed that the USA and Israel were acting in total unison. These attacks, mainly carried out against Lebanese and Palestinians, also were aimed at _-_-_
~^^1^^ Pravda, 20 September 1983.
215 Syrians located on Lebanese territory by decision of the Arab League. The aggressors, however, were to suffer a crushing setback. In October 1983, the headquarters of the American Marines in Beirut was levelled by a bomb explosion engineered by patriots. The French and Israeli headquarters, too, suffered similar fates. In December, Syrian units successfully fended off bombing raids by US carrier-based aircraft. And when US aircraft began to be shot down, Washington began to realise the danger of crossing the "red line". Consequently, the US Marines, followed by the French, Italian and British forces making up the so-called multinational forces, were pulled out of Lebanon. The Beagan Middle East policy drew stern criticism on Capitol Hill, forcing the administration to give it another look. In March 1984, Lebanon cancelled its "peace agreement" with Israel, putting an end to the affair. The defeat of the USA and Israel in the Middle East was clear for all.It should be particularly stressed that the US imperialist circles regard the Middle East as an area of their "vital interests". Certain American policy-makers, especially the head of the Pentagon Caspar Weinberger, claim that these interests are being threatened by the Soviet Union. This argument is part of the US propaganda campaign about the so-called Soviet military threat.
The sixth Israeli-Arab war is the continuation of the previous wars which caused instability in the Middle East. The Israeli-Arab wars were ruinous, although to different degrees, in their effect upon all aspects of life in Israel and in various Arab states. Yet, it is obvious that each of the wars had a negative effect upon the economic, social, and political situation in Israel and in the Arab countries opposed to it.
Thus, the Israeli war against Lebanon costs Tel-Aviv $ 1 milliona day. According to some estimates, the restoration of what has been ruined in Lebanon will cost from $ 10 to $ 15 billion, a staggering sum indeed. It goes without saying that it could be used with much greater effect to finance economic and social projects in this Arab country.
Recent events, as well as the long history of the Middle East conflict, bear out that the Israeli ruling circles are unwilling to solve the Palestinian problem---the source of the conflict in the region---by political means, on a just basis, with the participation of all parties involved, and in accordance with the numerous UN resolutions. As 216 a result, there seem to be no prospects for a comprehensive Middle East settlement in the near future.
The "longest war" waged by Israel in Lebanon has not removed the Palestinian problem from the agenda. By dragging out and aggravating the conflict as a whole, it has only delayed the just settlement of the problem. The Palestinian Resistance Movement and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation are still a military-political reality of the Middle East. The war going on in Lebanon has shown that the " peaceful process" launched at Camp David leads to ever new wars, and, consequently, to the destabilisation of the international situation that may affect other regions of the world.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. THE WASHINGTON---TEL-AVIV STRATEGIC ALLIANCEDevelopments in the Middle East prove that Israel is unable to carry out its expansionist plans without support from the outside. For many years now Washington has been rendering substantial military, economic and political assistance to Tel-Aviv.
For example, Israel was reported to possess nuclear arms, or, at least, to be about to have them. Yet, the American delegate in the International Atomic Energy Agency shuns any discussion of the question of inspecting the Israeli nuclear facility at Dimona, thereby encouraging Tel-Aviv's efforts to obstruct the Non-proliferation Treaty. Washington seeks to use Israel's nuclear potential to intimidate Arab and African countries. It is to this end that, the Tel-Aviv-- Johannesburg "nuclear axis" has been established. More importantly, the strategic interests of the ruling circles in Israel and in the United States coincide. For instance, one of the main goals of the Israeli expansion is Arab oil. Israel, which has practically no energy resources of its own, seeks to obtain a share from the sales of Arab oil. Tel-Aviv counts on getting a certain part of the oil profits in exchange for a pledge not to deal crushing military blows upon the oil-producing Persian Gulf countries. As Tel-Aviv sees it, this may stabilise the country's rickety economy.
Washington seems to believe that the United States will profit from this course of developments in the Middle East, first of all because it will make the Arab countries more vulnerable to US pressure. For its part, Israel ``guarantees'', both by its policy and its military potential, that the United States will not risk a loss in its game in the region. Moreover, Washington hopes that the US-Israeli 217 military-political alliance will obtain a more stable economic and political basis. As Washington sees it, US policy in the Middle East will thereby acquire additional long-term material backing.
In order to implement this course, in November 1981 General Sharon, then on a visit to the United States, exchanged memoranda on the US-Israeli "strategic consensus" with the US Secretary of Defense Weinberger. The purport of the ``consensus'' concept, formulated by the former US Secretary of State Alexander Haig, is to join efforts with Israel in making all or at least the overwhelming majority of the countries in the region regard the Soviet Union as the main source of danger to the Middle East. Washington expects that the implementation of this doctrine will eventually make the Arab countries capitulate and form, together with Israel, an alliance spearheaded against the Soviet Union, the other socialist countries arid the national liberation movements in the region.
In 1981, the Arab countries rejected the Haig plan. Nonetheless, despite Haig's resignation, the US military arid politicians continue to cling to it. The "Reagan plan" proposed on 1 September 1982, was allegedly aimed at reaching a Middle East settlement. The plan was expected, once it was approved, to make the Arabs prepared to accept the "strategic consensus". In the meanwhile, the United States and Israel are using all ways and means to expand their co-operation in the military area.
The Israeli government has in principle agreed to allow the United States to use Israeli territory as a strong-point for the interventionist "rapid deployment force''.
The classified Fiscal Year 1984-1988 Defense Guidance approved by President Reagan has recently been made public. Its section dealing with the Persian Gulf makes it clear that the Soviet Union's prospective invasion---imagined by the Pentagon---in Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries could lead to a nuclear conflict with the United States. It is for the first time that a presidential directive openly stresses that there is no need for Washington to wait until its oil-producing allies in the Gulf area ``invite'' US troops in case the US "vital interests" are threatened. This approach is extremely important for gaining insight in the present-day military-political situation in the Middle East. By realising this doctrine, the United States seeks to acquire additional military leverage to be applied to 218 Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf countries which are at times wary of US actions and intentions.
Thus, the United States is trying to use developments in the Middle East to substantiate its hegemonistic policy jeopardising international security. This imperial approach to the problems of war and peace is rooted in the US desire to strengthen its positions in the Persian Gulf countries. Ample evidence was provided by the Carter Doctrine formulated in January 1980.
The above-mentioned Pentagon's Defense Guidance is an elaboration of the Carter Doctrine which proclaimed the US determination to use all the necessary means, including military, to defend US "vital interests" in the Persian Gulf.
It follows that in case the United States decides, without taking account of the realities in concrete countries, that its "vital interests" in the region are threatened by alleged Soviet expansionism, the Pentagon will immediately resort to arms, nuclear not excluded. Thus, there is every reason to regard the long-drawn-out Israeli-Arab conflict, supplemented by a broader set of crisis and conflict situations in the Middle East, as a threat to international peace and security.
Seeking to justify its expansionist and militarist course, the Washington and Tel-Aviv leaders make groundless references to the situation around Afghanistan. However, the known Soviet Union's stand on the presence in Afghanistan of a limited contingent of Soviet troops disproves their insinuations. On 25 April 1983, the Soviet leadership said: "We do not keep our plans for a political settlement of the Afghan problem secret... We expect to withdraw our troops as soon as the outside interference in Afghanistan's affairs is stopped and then non-resumption of such interference is guaranteed. Our troops are present in that country on the request of the legitimate Afghan government, the government which was in office at that time, and they continue to stay there on the request of the legitimate government headed by Babrak Karmal. We do not seek anything for ourselves there. We have responded to the friendly neighbouring country's request for help. Yet, we are not at all indifferent to what is happening directly at our southern frontier.''^^1^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Pravda, 25 April 1983.
219The imperialist circles are also using the Iran-Iraq war in their mercenary interests. On the plea of defending their notorious "vital interests", allegedly jeopardised by hostilities at the Iran-Iraq frontier, the United States has deployed an enormous, even by today's standards, naval armada equipped with nuclear arms in the Western part of the Indian Ocean and is resorting to every possible means to kindle the armed conflict in question.
Washington and some of its allies in Western Europe persistently seek to drag Iran back into the sphere of Western influence, using to this end various methods, including financial blackmail and military action. A pertinent example is the unsuccessful "Carter landing" undertaken in April 1980. The actions of the same nature had been initiated by the United States in the Western part of the Indian Ocean before the legitimate Afghan government turned to the USSR for urgent help. This, too, is an undeniable fact.
The Soviet Union persistently comes out in favour of a political settlement of all international disputes. This fully applies to the situation obtaining in the Middle East and the Gulf. Indicative in this respect are the recent Soviet proposals on a Middle-East settlement (July 1984) and those to ensure peace and security in the Gulf area, advanced back in December 1980.
The Soviet government has repeatedly expressed its attitude to the Iran-Iraq war as a senseless undertaking. Whatever the justifications both countries may advance, the continuation of the war is doing irreparable harm to both. The Soviet Union is doing everything possible to urge the end of this war.
The Israeli war against Lebanon has once again shown to Arab leaders that Israel and the United States are acting jointly against the Arabs and the Palestinians. It is precisely for this reason that certain conservative Arab leaders' reaction to the Reagan plan of 1 September 1982 was lukewarm. In turn, the Fez peace initiative, advanced at the Arab summit in Morocco in September 1982, might be a realistic alternative to the US course.
The community of Israeli and US strategic goals in the Middle East has a number of implications, among them, the Israeli and US common interest in the speediest possible setting in motion of the interventionist military machine in case the West does not favour internal political changes 220 in the region, especially in the oil-producing Gulf countries.
In their actions, the US and Israeli leaders proceed from their old drive (dating hack to the times of John F. Dulles) to unite the countries in the region into an anti-Soviet military-political bloc and to guarantee, thereby, their class interests in the area.
It should be borne in mind that the implementation of large-scale interventionist and aggressive US arid Israeli plans in the Middle East may strain the tensions there to the extreme and lead to an explosion the consequences of which are hard to predict.
The US "mediator mission" advertised in the 1970s by the US State Department, led to a political impasse in the region and to the emergence of new seats of tension and war. However, the US administration is not going to change its policy. The former US Assistant Secretary of State Joseph Sisco expressed the dominant Washington sentiment when he wrote: "Developments in the area this past year have once again confirmed the centrality of the U.S. role as the only power acceptable to both sides. The strength of America's position in the Middle East and Gulf is based primarily on its capacity and ability to produce positive political results. The development and maintenance of a credible military presence there is a necessary bulwark for indispensable U. S. Diplomacy, not a substitute for it.''^^1^^
Washington's negative position as regards Moscow's new Middle-East proposals shows that the United States is determined to mount its military presence in the region and to carry on its former policy which, in the final analysis, impedes the attainment of peace between Israel and the Arabs.
Great concern is caused through the world by the reports that the United States intends to deploy neutron arms and heavy armaments in Israel, using its territory as a basis from which to dispatch the "rapid deployment force" to various places in the Arab world.
Thus, Washington's ``mediatory'' policy in the Middle East has turned into an armed intervention in Lebanon and has created material requisites for large-scale US interventionist and punitive military operations. The " _-_-_
^^1^^ Foreign Affairs, Vol. 61, No. 3, 1983, p. 638.
221 strategic consensus" conduces to a better co-ordination of actions between Washington and Tel-Aviv which seek to establish their hegemony over this strategically important region to rout the national-liberation movements and the antiimperialist forces there. The implementation of plans elaborated and co-ordinated within the framework of the "strategic consensus" spells war horrors and destruction, death of innocent people and annihilation of enormous material and unique cultural values. It should be borne in mind that it is increasingly difficult to keep the war danger within the limits of one region. There exist many potentially possible mechanisms for escalating a conflict and drawing into it ever new countries. This puts international peace and security in jeopardy.For over 15 years (since June 1967) the United States has been preventing, by pursuing a blatantly pro-Israeli, antiArab policy, the United Nations and especially the Security Council, a UN body indispensable to maintaining universal peace, from effectively carrying out their mission of saving "the succeeding generations from the scourge of war", to cite the UN Charter. By abusing its right of veto to vote down Security Council resolutions condemning US and Israeli expansionist policies, the United States undermines people's faith in the United Nations, reduces the effect of resolutions adopted by the UN governing bodies and belittles the role of the United Nations in world affairs.
What is the realistic way to peace in the Middle East? The answer is to be found in the Soviet Union's proposals for a Middle East settlement: "The Soviet Union, concerned with the continuing explosive situation in the Middle East, deeply believes that the vital interests of the people of this region, like the interests of international security in general, urgently require an early achievement of an all-embracing, just and lasting settlement of the Middle East conflict".^^1^^
The new Soviet proposals say that a truly just and lasting settlement can only be worked out and implemented through concerted efforts and with the participation of all interested parties. Instead of fruitless and harmful separate negotiations it is necessary to convene a UN-- sponsored international conference on the Middle East; instead _-_-_
^^1^^ Pravda, 30 July 1984. 222
222 of never ending conflicts negotiations are needed---here is how to bring about a settlement in the Middle East.In the Soviet Union's view, the principles for a settlement must include the impermissibility of seizing other people's land by aggression. Accordingly, all territory occupied by Israel since 1967---the Golan Heights, West Bank of the Jordan River, Gaza Strip and southern Lebanon---must be returned to the Arabs. The settlements established by Israel since 1967 on Arab territory must be torn down. The borders between Israel and its Arab neighbours must be declared inviolable.
Also, the Palestinian people, whose sole lawful representative is the PLO, must be guaranteed in practice the inalienable right to self-determination, to the creation of an independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territory to be liberated from the Israeli occupation---on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip. In accordance with UN resolutions, Palestinian refugees must be given the opportunity to return to their homes or be given appropriate compensation for their abandoned property.
The western part of Jerusalem occupied by Israel in 1967 must be returned to Arabs and become an integral part of a Palestinian state.
Real guarantees must be given of the right of all the states in the region to secure and independent existence and development, naturally, as is stressed in the Soviet proposals, on the principle of full reciprocity, since it is impossible to guarantee genuine independence of some states by trampling on the security of others. The state of war between Israel and the Arabs must be ended. Also, it is quite obvious that for an effective Middle East settlement international guarantees are needed. The permanent members of the UN Security Council could provide these guarantees, and the Soviet Union is prepared to participate.
The USSR appealed to all sides in the conflict to act on the basis of a sober accounting of each other's lawful rights and interests and to all other states to facilitate rather than hamper the search for a solution to the Middle East crisis.
[223] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter 14 __ALPHA_LVL2__ PEACE ZONE IN THE INDIAN OCEAN __ALPHA_LVL3__ [introduction.]Given the current state of international relations, which have got considerably worse as a result of the aggressive actions of the imperialist forces, the guaranteeing of firm security in the Indian Ocean and the issue of creating a peace zone in this region are attracting growing attention from the world public. It goes without saying that the countries of this region are not indifferent to whether the Indian Ocean is a zone of co-operation and good-neighbourly relations, or whether it becomes a region of constant military threat and confrontation, and, perhaps, a theatre of military actions.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. THE ADHERENTS AND FOES OF CREATING A PEACETwo distinct policies can be singled out in relation to the creation of a peace zone in the Indian Ocean. One of them is the policy consistently conducted by the Soviet Union and the other countries of the socialist community. It is directed at eliminating the danger of war, reducing the level of tension, consolidating detente, and settling international conflicts by political means. This policy was, in particular, embodied in the proposals of the Soviet government put forward on 16 March 1982, at the 17th Congress of Soviet Trade Unions.
As regards security on the seas and in the oceans---and this, needless to say, refers also to the Indian Ocean---these proposals attested to the Soviet Union's willingness to enter into a mutual agreement on limiting the operation of the fleets of the powers concerned, and also on removing the missile-carrying submarines of both parties from the vast regions which they now patrol, and on restricting their deployment to areas mutually agreed upon. Also advanced was the idea of spreading confidence-building measures to 224 the seas and oceans, especially to the regions where ship traffic is the heaviest.
The Soviet Union's peace-loving policy can be contrasted to the Reagan administration's policy of fanning international tension, entering in glohal confrontation with the Soviet Union, conducting an unrestrained arms race, and proclaiming vast regions of the world "zones of the USA's vital interests". The Reagan administration is clearly pursuing such a policy also in respect to the Indian Ocean.
The problem of ensuring the security of the Indian Ocean region is presently a topic of discussion in the United Nations, Ad Hoc Committee on the Indian Ocean, which was set up for preparing an international conference on this issue, in the non-aligned movement, at bilateral talks, and at major international public forums. One such international forum was held in Delhi, India, in 1982, and was called the "Indian Ocean---Zone of Peace". It played a significant role in the non-aligned countries' fight to normalise the situation in the Persian Gulf and to counter the militaristic plans of the USA.
The Soviet Union's position on the littoral states' proposal to create a peace zone in the Indian Ocean was clearly expressed in the message of the Chairman of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet to the participants of the conference, which stated, in part, that "in supporting these proposals, the Soviet Union is guided by the belief that their translation into life could significantly improve the situation in the Indian Ocean region...
``Moreover, it is necessary for all peace-loving states and peoples, for all democratic social forces to play an active and energetic role in the struggle for turning the Indian Ocean region into a zone of peace. There is no doubt that, with joint and determined efforts, this important task can be accomplished.''^^1^^
The issue of turning the Indian Ocean into a peace zone arose in the late sixties and the early seventies. In the period, the political influence and the direct military presence in the region of the former colonial powers were at a low point, which created favourable conditions for the establishment of a lasting peace in the Indian Ocean basin.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Pravda, 23 April 1982.
__PRINTERS_P_225_COMMENT__ 15-339 225In 1971, the 26th Session of the UN General Assembly gave its approval to a resolution (No. 2832) drafted by Sri Lanka, which contained the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace.
According to Resolution 2832, the Indian Ocean was declared to be a zone of peace. The General Assembly appealed to all the Great Powers to immediately engage in consultations in order to halt the further escalation of their military presence in the Indian Ocean, to liquidate all bases, military facilities, and military supply stations in the Indian Ocean region, to refrain from deploying nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction there, and. to eliminate from the region all signs of their military presence.
The Soviet Union was, on the whole, in favour of the idea of turning the Indian Ocean into a zone of peace, since this proposal is of a peace-loving character, has an antiimperialistic and anti-militaristic edge, and meets the purposes of spreading detente to different regions of the world.
The Report of the GPSU Central Committee to the 25th Party Congress stated: "...Pronouncements have been proliferating in many countries against any of the powers setting up military bases in the region of the Indian Ocean. We are in sympathy with these pronouncements. The Soviet Union has never had, and has no intention now of building military bases in the Indian Ocean. And we call on the United States to take the same stand.''^^1^^
The Soviet Union has never denied, and does not deny, that it has its own national interests in the region of the Indian Ocean. These interests, however, do not, in the least, contradict the idea of creating a zone of peace and do not come into conflict with the interests of the littoral states.
The Soviet Union operates on the belief that the creation of a peace zone should not affect the generally recognised norms concerning the freedom of navigation and of conducting scientific research. The USSR stands firmly for guaranteeing the safe and unhindered use of sea transportation lanes, including those passing through the Indian Ocean.
The Soviet Union is of the opinion that the creation of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Documents and Resolutions. XXVth Congress of the CPSU, Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, Moscow, 1976, p. 28.
226 a peace zone in the Indian Ocean region requires not only that corresponding measures be taken in the military sphere, but that the sovereignty of the littoral states, including over their natural resources, be respected.The Soviet Union is not indifferent to whether the Indian Ocean region is turned into an arena of peaceful cooperation between states or an area of confrontation and nuclear threat from the sea. The creation of a zone of peace in the region which is located not too far from the southern borders of the USSR would, of course, promote the strengthening of the Soviet Union's security from the southerly direction. In the opposite case, the fanning of tension in the region and an expanded military presence by the USA and its allies there would create a strategic threat to the Soviet Union from the south.
Through the Indian Ocean runs the only ice-free sea route connecting the European part of the USSR with the Soviet Far East. For the Soviet Union, this route is of enormous economic significance. Furthermore, in the Indian Ocean, the Soviet Union conducts various types of scientific research, including research pertaining to the peaceful use of outer space.
These constitute the main reasons for the Soviet Union's principled position in respect to turning the Indian Ocean into a zone of peace.
The littoral states are firmly convinced that the key to turning the Indian Ocean into a peace zone is to liquidate all foreign military bases in the region and not to allow new ones to be built. They have expressed the desire that nuclear and other types of mass destruction weapons not be deployed in the Indian Ocean, that the nuclear powers make a pledge not to use nuclear weapons against any of the littoral and mainland states, that military forces and weapons which would constitute a threat to the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of states of this region not be deployed there.
The Soviet Union supports these just demands of the Indian Ocean states. A. A. Gromyko, the USSR Minister of Foreign Affairs said during discussion at the 37th Session of the UN General Assembly: "At this very moment, without waiting for the conference to be convened, we call upon all the states whose ships use the waters of the Indian Ocean to refrain from taking any steps that might complicate the situation in this region. This means refraining from __PRINTERS_P_227_COMMENT__ 15* 227 sending into the region large naval forces, from conducting military exercises, and from expanding or modernising the military bases of those hinterland countries which possess such bases in the Indian Ocean region.''^^1^^
How has the United States, a solid enemy not only of creating a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean, but, in general, of reducing international tension, normalising relations between states, and returning to the road of detente, countered these proposals?
A peace zone would significantly hinder Washington in carrying out its plan for establishing military hegemony in the Indian Ocean. The Reagan administration's decision to further expand US military presence in the Indian Ocean is a direct challenge to the states located in this region. This plan for "strategically recolonialising" the region will last for a period of five years (1980- 1985), and is reported by the American press to have a budget of $ 30 billion. This plan calls for modernising the old bases and for building new ones in the Indian Ocean region. The US has now begun using new bases in Bahrain, Egypt, Somalia, Kenya, Oman, and a number of other countries. The Pentagon also counts on taking possession of military bases of the Republic of South Africa, enjoying the quite understandable sympathy on the part of the racist regime in Pretoria. Finally, the USA is twisting the arm of other states, too, with the desire of securing military bases on their territory.
The USA does not want to see the Indian Ocean turned into a region of good-neighbourly relations and mutually beneficial co-operation. Rather, it wished to establish its military and political supremacy over the vast expanses of the Indian Ocean, with its tremendous natural resources, especially energy resources, to turn the Persian Gulf into an "American lake". The blatantly neo-colonialistic and aggressive policy of the present US administration is clearly reflected in the doctrine, adopted by Washington, that "the '80s will be the years of war for resources". This doctrine lies at the basis of President Reagan's well-known call for "a 600-ship US Navy''.
Flag demonstrations by large naval forces off the shores of developing countries located in the Indian Ocean basin bear witness to Washington's intentions to use force against _-_-_
^^1^^ Pravda, 2 October 1982. 228
228 these countries in the event that their internal development threatens US "national interests". "Gunboat diplomacy", which disappeared with the collapse of colonial empires, has been replaced by a ``diplomacy'' involving the use of aircraft carriers and submarines carrying nuclear weapons.The Pentagon, having already checkered the shores of the Indian Ocean with military bases, has now sent a rapid deployment force there, which the non-aligned countries logically call a "rapid intervention force". The Pentagon's classified Defense Guidance, its five-year master plan, laid out the new command's marching orders: "Our principal objectives are to assure continued access to Persian Gulf oil and to prevent the Soviets from acquiring political-- military control of the oil directly or through proxies..." The document goes on to say: "Whatever the circumstances, we should be prepared to introduce American forces directly into the region should it appear that the security of access to Persian Gulf oil is threatened." In effect, this means "deploying forces before the Russians move and blocking their intended path of invasion".^^1^^ Hence, it is evident that we are not talking about "rapid deployment", but about the introduction of a large American army into this region on a permanent basis. This conclusion is confirmed by Admiral Robert Long, the Commaiider-in-Chief of US Forces in the Pacific, who announced, in the autumn of 1982, that the United States will try to maintain a continual naval presence in the Indian Ocean in the foreseeable future.
On January 1,1983, the rapid deployment force officially became a separate military formation with its own command structure, called CENTCOM. However, even in October 1982, the force consisted of 230,000 officers and men; according to press reports, this number is to be doubled. The force combines infantry, naval, and air force units, as well as marines, making it similar in its structure to the American forces deployed in Europe, and in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Included in the force's operational zone are 19 countries in Africa and in the Middle East. According to LieutenantGeneral Robert G. Kingston, commander of the deployment force, the command would have "clear authority and responsibility for United States military activity within the region of the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia".^^2^^ Attached to the _-_-_
^^1^^ The New York Times, 25 October 1982, p. 14.
^^2^^ Ibid., p. Al.
229 CENTCOM are three aircraft carriers with escort ships, five squadrons of anti-submarine aircraft, and also 14 supply ships, based on Diego Garcia Island. In addition, the American military personnel already deployed in the region, including the unit servicing the AW ACS aircraft in Saudi Arabia, are under the authority of the new command.It would be in place to recall here that, at the NATO session of May 1982, the Defence Planning Committee in its final communique announced: "Ministers stressed their common interest in the security, stability and sovereign independence of the countries outside the NATO area... In this respect, they reaffirmed that consultations on any out-of-area deployment of forces, such as envisaged in the United States Rapid Deployment Force, are intended to identify common objectives, taking full account of the political situation in the area concerned and on the effect on Alliance security and defence capability as well as the national interests of member countries.''^^1^^ This statement, intentionally muddled to hide the essence of a new aggressive move made by NATO implies, in fact, that NATO's sphere of activity has been extended to include the Indian Ocean region, which means, among other things, that the USA's NATO allies were to be involved in American war preparations in the area. Such are the military and political concepts the USA and some of its allies use as a starting basis in the UN Ad Hoc Committee on the Indian Ocean.
In opposition to this provocative course, the Soviet Union and the other socialist community countries proposed that the governing bodies of NATO and the Warsaw Treaty pledge not to extend the spheres of activity of these alliances to Asia, Africa, or Latin America. At the session of the Warsaw Treaty Committee of Foreign Ministers held on 22 October 1982, the ministers announced that the member-countries of the treaty have no intention of expanding the sphere of activity of their alliance, and called on the NATO membercountries to take the same stand. This proposal was given concrete expression in the Political Declaration of the Warsaw Treaty Member States adopted in Prague on 5 January 1983.
The proposal was serious and far-reaching. Its realisation would, no doubt, bring about a thaw in the political climate and facilitate the strengthening of security, including in the _-_-_
^^1^^ NATO Review, Vol. 30, No.3, August 1982, p. 31. 230
230 Indian Ocean, about which the USA and other Western countries on the UN Ad Hoc Committee on the Indian Ocean, are so concerned about, at least outwardly. This proposal evoked no reply from NATO.Such a response from NATO is far from new. Over the course of several years, the USA and its allies have sabotaged diplomatic initiatives aimed at turning the Indian. Ocean into a zone of peace. In the latter half of the 1970s, when the level of military presence of the hinterland states in this region was relatively low, the Soviet Union, with the intention of expanding international detente, entered negotiations with the United States on limiting, and then reducing, military activity in the Indian Ocean.
From June 1977 to February 1978, the United States and the Soviet Union held four rounds of negotiations to discuss the Indian Ocean. During the course of the talks, a certain degree of consensus was reached on a number of issues. The parties reached an agreement on the desirability of taking a step-by-step approach to the problems of military detente in the region, from an agreement not to expand the military presence there to talks on reducing it. Conditions were beginning to take shape for an agreement to be reached. However, in February 1978, the United States unilaterally broke off the talks, groundlessly charging the Soviet Union with having beefed up its naval strength in the Indian Ocean in connection with "the events on the Horn of Africa". The charge was a sheer invention, as the Soviet Union did not increase its military presence in the Indian Ocean.
And, even after a public announcement by American officials of the return of the situation in the Indian Ocean to normal, the USA said no to the Soviet offers to reinstate the talks.
On 17 June 1982, the Soviet Union submitted a memorandum to the Second Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament, in which it stated its readiness to resume at any time talks with the United States on the limitation and subsequent reduction of military activities in the Indian Ocean. This offer was clearly stated once again in the Prague Declaration of 5 January 1983. The other side has not answered it as yet.
231 __ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. UN DEBATE ON A PEACE ZONE IN THE INDIAN OCEANThe international community has given great attention to the question of turning the Indian Ocean into a zone of peace. Since 1971, this issue has perennially been a topic of debate in the UN. At the early stage of the issue's consideration--- from the 26th to the 31st sessions of the UN General Assembly (1971-1976)---the littoral states of the Indian Ocean concentrated their efforts on having practical steps taken to implement the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace. In 1972, the UN Ad Hoc Committee on the Indian Ocean was created, which, from the very beginning of its existence, was conceived as a UN body to the translation into life of the idea of creating a peace zone in the region.
In July 1979, in New York, meeting of the littoral and hinterland states of the Indian Ocean was held, in accordance with a decision of the UN General Assembly. The meeting was contemplated as a further step towards the convening of a conference on the Indian Ocean. Participating in the meeting were 44 littoral and hinterland states, with the Soviet Union attending as an observer.
The meeting resulted in the adoption of a Final Document, containing principles for the creation of a peace zone. The document stated, in particular, that the proliferation of the arms race to the Indian Ocean region adversely affects the rights of the peoples freely to determine the systems of their social and economic development, and to dispose of their own natural wealth and resources, and hinders the struggle for self-determination and the elimination of colonial rule, and racial or foreign domination. This statement showed once again that the peoples of this region firmly associate the creation of a peace zone in the Indian Ocean with the anti-imperialist struggle for their national independence and sovereignty.
The participants in the meeting pointed the need to put an end to the military presence of hinterland states in the Indian Ocean, and to liquidate all foreign military bases and to prevent the deployment of nuclear weapons in the region. They stressed that the creation of a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean would as well imply the renunciation by the states of the Indian Ocean basin of the use of force or of threatening to use force against any other state in the region, and the confirmation of their intention to settle disputes between themselves by peaceful means, without resorting to force. 232 Importantly enough, concrete expression was given in the Final Document to principles for creating a zone of peace, which could be regarded as a real basis for practical negotiations with the aim of concluding a corresponding international agreement.
In 1979, the General Assembly resolved to convene an international conference on the Indian Ocean in 1981 in Colombo, Sri Lanka, and charged the Ad Hoc Committee on the Indian Ocean with conducting preparatory work for its convening, "including consideration of appropriate arrangements for any international agreement that may ultimately be reached for the maintenance of the Indian Ocean as a zone of peace...''^^1^^ The United Nations thereby affirmed that the main task of the Committee is to make practical preparations for the conference.
Basing itself on its principled position in support of the proposal of the littoral and hinterland states for turning the Indian Ocean into a zone of peace, the Soviet Union voted in favour of the stated resolution and expressed its willingness to become a member of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Indian Ocean. The Soviet Union did become a member of the Committee at its February 1980 session, and was later joined by the United States, Great Britain, and France.
The decisions of the Meeting of the Littoral and Hinterland States of the Indian Ocean, and of the 34th Session of the UN General Assembly which followed it constituted a new stage in the struggle for turning the Indian Ocean into a zone of peace. The issue had been moved forward onto a practical plane. This marked the beginning of a caustic political battle around the issue of convening an international conference on the Indian Ocean for the purpose of working out an agreement on a peace zone in this region.
In the course of the wrangling many states expressed the fear that the cold war that had entered the Indian Ocean together with the American aircraft carriers not only compicated the realisation of the idea of a zone of peace, but might also make this idea one of its first victims. Amid an unprecedented build-up of US military forces in the region, the chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Indian Ocean, Biyagamage Fernando, of Sri Lanka, justly warned, at the opening of _-_-_
^^1^^ Resolutions and Decisions Adopted by the General Assembly during Its 34th Session, 18 September 1979-7 January 1980, United Nations, New York, 1980, p. 52.
233 the first session with an expanded membership in February 1980, that "dark shadows are cast upon" the Indian Ocean, and the very idea of a peace zone. Delegations from nonaligned countries severely criticised the military activity of the USA in the Indian Ocean. They stressed that the presence of a large American fleet in the region was completely unjustifiable during peace-time, and that it could only be viewed as a means for the intimidation and military blackmail of littoral states.A representative of the USA attempted to heap the blame on the Soviet Union, accusing it of augmenting "its already sizeable Indian Ocean fleet''.
This assertion lacks any kind of foundation. It is true that there are Soviet military vessels in the international waters of the Indian Ocean. Yet they appeared there only after the USA introduced its combat formations into the region. The Soviet Indian Ocean fleet is far inferior to that of the USA in fire power and in tonnage; it is not the purpose of the Soviet fleet to match the Americans either. Suffice it to mention that the total tonnage of all the Soviet ships in the Indian Ocean is less than one half the tonnage of just one American aircraft carrier. What is more, the Soviet warships are not equipped to conduct combat operations against littoral states, and are there merely to serve as a counter-weight to the American fleet.
A number of delegations from non-aligned and socialist states expressed their views on the practical preparations for the conference, thus giving the discussion in the Committee a fully concrete character. This, to be sure, was greatly disquieting to the foes of creating a peace zone. Therefore, the USA with the backing of Australia, Great Britain, and a number of other countries openly came out against the convening of an international conference in 1981, announcing that the presence of a limited contingent of Soviet troops in Afghanistan, introduced there at the request of the Afghan government and in conformity with international legal standards, makes it impossible to hold a conference in the time frame specified by the General Assembly.
Moreover, the US representative put forth the deliberately provocative argument that the presence of large detachments of Soviet troops in Transcaucasia and Central Asia, i.e., on Soviet territory, puts in doubt the possibility of creating a peace zone in the Indian Ocean, or, at least, demands that a "military balance" be established within 234 the limits of the peace zone. In other words, the USA is using the presence of Soviet troops on Soviet territory as an excuse for bolstering its military presence in the Indian Ocean, and in other areas, as well. After the Soviet representative demonstrated the total absurdity of this argument, the US representative attempted to justify the presence of the enormous US fleet in the Indian Ocean also by referring to the possible requests for aid by littoral states, in addition to defending the ``vital'' communication lines. The US delegation, to be sure, did not respond to the request of several delegations to present a list of the countries that had asked the American fleet to be in the Indian Ocean in order to defend them.
In light of the US attempts to link the issue of creating a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean with the events in Afghanistan, it should be recalled that, on 14 May 1980, and again on 24 August 1981, the Afghan government set forth a programme for settling the situation in and around Afghanistan. This programme constitutes a firm basis for reaching a realistic and flexible settlement, that would not infringe on anyone's interests, would bring peace to the Afghan people, and would guarantee the neighbouring countries stable relations and mutually beneficial co-operation with an independent and non-aligned Afghanistan. In the meantime, the White House is giving open support to bandits who make incursions into Afghan territory.
Thus, at the one extreme, Washington intentionally whips up tension around Afghanistan and, at the other end of the scale, openly sabotages the efforts of a large number of nonaligned states to create a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean and frustrates plans to hold an international conference on this issue, using the unsettled state of affairs around Afghanistan as a justification.
The delegations from the Soviet Union and from the other socialist countries did their best to maintain a positive air during the Committee discussion. They made a note of the fact that they understood the interest of the USA and other states in ensuring the security of the communication lines running through the Indian Ocean, and pointed out that the best way for ensuring the security of these lines is through negotiations, and not by increasing military might.
Despite the active resistance of the USA and several of its allies, the non-aligned countries, with the support of the socialist states, nevertheless, managed to return the 235 Committee discussion to a positive track. A programme was worked out for considering questions pertaining to the creation of a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean. The programme, compiled in the form of a list of questions subject to discussion in the Committee, reads: "'Preparations for the Indian Ocean Conference to implement the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace'...: geographical limits, foreign military presence, nuclear weapons, security, peaceful settlement of disputes, use of the Indian Ocean by foreign vessels and aircraft and other matters.''^^1^^
Holding a constructive position, the Soviet Union regards that the zone of peace must embrace the Indian Ocean as such, including its islands, the air space over it, and its depths,; as well as the military bases and the other means of support located along its shores. At the same time, the Soviet Union is prepared to consider an extended version, one that would include the territory of the littoral and hinterland states of the Indian Ocean.
From the practical standpoint, the first version would be more realistic, since the extended plan would require a more elaborate set of agreements between Indian Ocean states, spelling out the level of their military forces and armaments, the means for settling disputes, and so forth. The first version, as a whole, envisages duties and obligations addressed outwards^ i.e., the commitments not to grant one's territory for foreign military bases and not to allow the deployment of nuclear weapons, whereas the second one envisages the additional commitments to be assumed by the littoral and hinterland states as regards their relations with one another.
Another feature of the Soviet position vis-a-vis this region is that, although the Soviet Union does maintain a military presence in the Indian Ocean, none of its ships deployed there have carried, or now carry, nuclear weapons, and none of them were or are outfitted to carry out operations against littoral states. The steps taken by the Soviet Union in connection with the USA's colossal increase of its military presence in the region do not entail a potential threat to the littoral states. The sole purpose of these steps is to neutralise the increased threat to the Soviet Union from the direction _-_-_
~^^1^^ "Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Indian Ocean", General Assembly. Official Records, 35th Session, Suppl. No. 29 (A/35/29), United Nations, New York, 1980, p. 5.
236 of the Indian Ocean. In counterpoint to this, the dozens of aircraft based on American aircraft carriers have the potential of carrying out a nuclear strike many times more destructive than the ones conducted on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.The Soviet Union sees the reaching of an agreement on the liquidation of the foreign military bases in this region, and the sharp curtailment of the foreign military presence as the*most realistic path to the creation of a zone of peace and the abolition of military tension. This is the subject of the negotiations and must be reflected in any agreement reached.
If any of the other major powers, the USA first and foremost, agree to co-operate in the creation of a peace zone, the Soviet Union is prepared to begin the reduction of its limited military presence in this area, provided that the foreign military bases in the Indian Ocean are dismantled and that the area is kept free of strategic aircraft and nuclearcapable submarines.
The Soviet Union has never deployed, nor does it deploy now, nuclear weapons in the Indian Ocean region. The creation of a zone of peace would mean that no country could deploy nuclear weapons there. The Soviet Union is also in favour of the strict observance of a non-proliferation policy. It is willing, provided that the other nuclear powers do so, too, to offer a guarantee that it will not use nuclear weapons against the non-nuclear states in the Indian Ocean that do not have any foreign nuclear weapons on their territory.
The Soviet Union believes that there are two aspects of the problem of security within the framework of the zone of peace in the Indian Ocean. The first one has to do with the commitment of non-littoral states not to use force or threaten the use of force against the sovereignty, independence, or territorial integrity of the other states in the region. The states of the region must make similar commitments as regards the non-littoral states and in respect to one another, too. The second aspect concerns the dismantling of the foreign military bases, the non-deployment of strategic weapons, and the reduction of the military presence of non-littoral states to absolutely safe levels to be worked out during the course of the negotiations.
Despite the attempts made by the USA and its allies to block the adoption by the UN General Assembly of a resolution setting the date for holding the conference, and to put off the holding of the conference for an unspecified 237 amount of time, the 35th Session adopted a resolution in which it reaffirmed the nee,d for convening an international conference in 1981 in Colombo.
At the 1981 sessions of the Committee, the foes of convening a conference continued to block the preparations for it. However, in spite of the obstructionist efforts of the American delegation, India, Sri Lanka, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Iraq and Pakistan, on behalf of a group of non-aligned states, put forth early in March 1981, a nucleus of draft agenda for a future conference. The nucleus included: "1. Review of the political and security climate with particular reference to the continued dangers posed by the military presence of the great powers in the Indian Ocean area; 2. Principles and characteristics of the Indian Ocean as a zone of peace as contained in the Declaration in resolution 2832 (XXVI), and as considered at the Meeting of Littoral and Hinterland States of July 1979; 3. Modalities and programme of action for the implementation of the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a zone of peace.''^^1^^
So, despite US pressure, the Committee made an important step forward in its preparations for the international conference.
As a result, the USA stepped up its obstructionist role. The US delegate made known that, as long as Soviet, troops remained in Afghanistan, and as long as the Committee was not in complete agreement on all the aspects of the zone of peace, the USA considered it impossible not only to set a date for convening the conference, but also to even continue the preparations for the conference. With this announcement, he tried to push through an American version of the agenda. The Committee should not be spending its time making preparations for an international conference, he stated, but be busy with the writing of a report to the UN General Assembly explaining the reasons why, in the opinion of the USA, preparing for the conference was impossible.
This plain heavy-handedness evoked unusually stringent criticism on the part of the non-aligned states. The Indian representative remarked that it was totally inadmissible preconditions for convening the conference on the Indian Ocean and to block preparations for it. The frontal attack by the USA was beaten back by the non-aligned states, supported by the socialist countries.
_-_-_^^1^^ UN Document A/AC, 159/L, 35, 6 March 1981. 238
238During the subsequent discussion in the Committee, the United States stopped to resort to procedural subterfuges and suggested that the ten years of work done by the non-aligned states to advance the idea of creating a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean be totally scrapped. The US representative called the very concept of the zone of peace, formulated in the 1971 UN Declaration and elaborated in the Final Document of the Meeting of Littoral and Hinterland States, completely outdated and in need of radical revision. He demanded that the Committee begin working out an entirely new concept, since the existing one was unacceptable to the USA. A new concept should, in his opinion, be built on the assumption that the threat to the security of the Indian Ocean states is created by the presence of Soviet armed forces in the Caucasus, Central Asia, and Western Siberia, i.e. on Soviet territory, and not by the heavy concentration in the Indian Ocean of US naval vessels and aircraft, and the building there of a network of American military bases. That is, the peril for the Indian Ocean countries arises not from the south, from the sea, but from the north, from land. By putting forward this clearly provocative theory, the US representative announced in the form of an ultimatum that, until the American concept of a zone of peace is accepted, the Committee should not undertake preparations for the conference.
The representatives of the socialist countries on the Committee firmly resisted this diversionary tactic of the Americans. The non-aligned states, to be sure, did not support this proposal, and even several US allies were hesitant in openly supporting it. Nonetheless, taking advantage of the consensus principle, used by the Committee to make decisions, the United States forced upon it the "dictatorship of the minority", and blocked the UN General Assembly's decision on convening a conference in 1981.
At the 36th Session of the General Assembly, the US stance on the conference was rejected by the overwhelming majority of the UN member states, demonstrating their desire to see a positive outcome of this major international issue. A resolution, adopted without a vote being taken, reaffirmed the Committee's mandate and the entire basis of its work, including the 1971 Declaration, and called for an international conference to be convened not later than in the first half of 1983, thus stemming the attempts by the Americans and several of their allies to revise the 239 Committee's mandate and the entire concept of a zone of peace.
The Indian representative on the Committee noted that the Declaration retains its importance and that the Committee is unable to function independent of its mandate, underscoring that nobody is authorised to unilaterally alter, weaken, or undermine this mandate.
At subsequent Committee sessions, the adversaries of a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean once again endeavoured openly to impair the Committee's existing mandate and wreck the very concept of a zone of peace. They were going out of their way to prevent the holding of a conference within the new period established by the General Assembly, and to postpone its convening until an unspecified date, perhaps after 1985, if not to prevent its holding entirely. The representatives of a number of Western countries (France excluded) introduced a document entitled "Set of Principles Related to the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace",^^1^^ which divides the issues into three groups: political, those related to security, and economic.
In the introductory part of the document, it is written that the agreement on and the adoption of the principles, together with a substantial improvement in the political climate, would constitute a step towards the convening of a conference. It is also stated that the acceptance of these principles are necessary for the creation of a ``modern'' zone of peace in the Indian Ocean region.
The Australian representative, in introducing the proposal, on 21 May 1982, on behalf of "states having identical views", explained that a conference in Colombo should not be held until there is a full agreement on the issues of a zone of peace, and that the "set of principles" was being put forth precisely for this purpose and deserves to be considered.
The US representative was more explicit, emphasising that the "set of principles" should form the very basis of the Committee's work. Going even further, he stated that the US delegation was prepared to participate in a conference only if the conference uses the "set of principles" as a basis, and repeated the USA's well-known, plainly obstructionist, and actually simplistic, stance that no conference on the Indian Ocean should be held until a five-year strategic plan for the military intrusion of the USA into the Indian Ocean region and its periphery is completed.
_-_-_~^^1^^ UN Document A/AC, 159/L, 44, 21 May 1982. 240
240The non-aligned countries were not deceived by the West's promises to participate in a conference on its own conditions and by their offers of food aid. They noted that the political principles contained in the West's proposal were a collection of general declarative statements plucked from various UN documents. What's more, they pointed out, the principles dealing with security virtually do not contain any specific proposals for creating a zone of peace, and completely avoid the issue of limiting the military activities of states in the Indian Ocean area, and of dismantling the foreign military bases. Asked by many delegations whether the USA would give up its military bases in this region, the US representative was unable to give a persuasive answer.
As for the economic principles, many delegations noted that they represent the well-known one-sided approach of the USA, that they smack of ``reaganomics'', and that they should be examined at a corresponding forum within the framework of "global talks''.
The delegations of Sri Lanka, India, Tanzania, Madagascar, Yugoslavia, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, Ethiopia, Pakistan, and other non-aligned states, having rightly seen in this political diversionary tactic an attempt to replace the Committee's mandate with some kind of ``principles'', firmly stated the need to continue the Committee's work strictly in the context of the existing mandate. The Indian representative harshly criticised the West's proposal.
In August 1982, for the purpose of carrying out the Committee's mandate and making practical preparations for convening an international conference on the Indian Ocean, the delegations of the non-aligned countries introduced the draft of a resolution calling for the opening of the conference on 9 May 1983, in Colombo. The Soviet Union and the other socialist countries supported this proposal. The US representative, though, stated that the draft was "totally unacceptable", and insisted on a wording in which the date for the conference's convening was altogether unmentioned. Moreover, he demanded the achievement of a relative consensus and the drawing up of a "set of principles acceptable to all" as a precondition for convening the conference.
The US delegation pursued this same policy at the 37th Session of the UN General Assembly, too. During the discussion of this issue, the USA was particularly strongly opposed to the holding of the conference in 1983, and even __PRINTERS_P_241_COMMENT__ 16---889 241 threatened to reconsider its participation in the Committee's work.
Behind the scenes, at the UN, the adversaries of a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean conducted an indiscreet game. They manoeuvred back and forth, making like they were searching for compromise solutions, when, in fact, in the hope of splitting the non-aligned countries and replacing the Committee's existing mandate, they were promoting proposals for holding some kind of regional conferences on the Indian Ocean, sweetened with promises of boosting economic aid and "equitable economic co-operation"---in short, doing everything within their powers to scratch the conference and lay to rest idea of a zone of peace.
The non-aligned countries introduced well-thought-out and constructive proposals, proposals which not only set the date for holding the conference, but which also empowered the Committee to hold several sessions for concluding the preparation work, including the drawing up of a preliminary agenda for the conference, the solving of the organisational questions, the determination of the level of representation, and so forth. The USA and its allies countered these proposals with their own blatantly unconstructive draft, which puts off the holding of a conference until an undetermined date. This was an attempt on their part to overturn the 1981 Resolution of the UN General Assembly which was supported by the USA and in which the holding of the conference was planned for the first half of 1983;
Playing up the fact that the resolutions of the Committee on the Indian Ocean are to be passed by consensus, the US-led "minority dictatorship" declared that any mention of the timing of the conference would be unacceptable to it. Its reference to the ``unsuitable'' political climate in the Indian Ocean region as a factor ruling out a conference is clearly far-fetched and out of place. The experience of modern history shows that, in many instances, international conferences were held and international agreements were signed despite the tensions and wars. The representatives of Sri Lanka, the country that advanced the initiative on creating a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean region, was justified to note at the general discussion that "no international conferences or negotiations have been deferred until circumstances were ideal, or nearly ideal.''^^1^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ U~N Document A/37/PV31, 15 October 1982. 242
242It should be recalled here that the United States had already played up the above argument to torpedo the resolution of the UN General Assembly on holding the conference in 1981.
The American delegation behaved in a defiant manner, which is, in general, typical of the present US administration, giving the other delegates to understand that taking decisions on any of the matters within the Committee's competence depends solely on the US representatives. Thus, when, at a Committee session, the Iraqi representative proposed that the preamble of the draft resolution should mention that the General Assembly made a note of the considerations expressed at the highest forums of the nonaligned movement, the US representative declared, to the indignation of the other delegates, that he would not allow either this or any similar language to be included in the resolution.
In the impasse reached at the Assembly, the non-aligned countries were compelled to withdraw their proposal to open the conference on May 9, 1983. The conference was postponed to the first half of 1984.
As a result, on 13 December 1982, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 37/96 without voting. The resolution stated that the international conference on the Indian Ocean was postponed to the first half of 1984.
At the preceding discussion of the draft resolution, the Indian representative expressed his disappointment with the new postponement of the conference and charged the "like-minded states" which tried to push through with their nihilistic draft with aiming their efforts at "diverting the attention of the Ad Hoc Committee to certain extraneous issues, thus preventing the harmonization of views that would have led to the holding of the conference".^^1^^
In a joint statement, which was circulated as a General Assembly document, the representatives of the Soviet Union, the GDR, Bulgaria, and Poland voiced their dissatisfaction with the new postponement of the conference and noted that the blame for that should be put on the United States and some of its allies.^^2^^ Despite the continuous US sabotage at the 38th UN General Assembly, the non-aligned countries managed to safeguard the mandate of the Committee centred _-_-_
~^^1^^ U N Document A/CI/37/PV 47, 8 December 1982.
~^^2^^ U N Document A/CI/37/11, 1 December 1982.
__PRINTERS_P_243_COMMENT__ 16* 243 on preparing and holding the conference. Thanks to their efforts, which were backed by the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, the General Assembly resolution adopted at the end of the last year instructs the Committee "to make decisive efforts in 1984 to complete preparatory work relating to Conference on the Indian Ocean... it being understood that such preparatory work would comprise organisational measures including the provisional agenda for the conference, rules of procedure...''^^1^^Now the outcome of the fight for the conference, this key issue in turning the Indian Ocean into a peace zone depends largely on the non-aligned countries, notably the members of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Indian Ocean, on their firmness and determination, unity and consistency. As before, they can rely here on the backing of the Soviet Union, which sees the fight for a peace zone in the Indian Ocean as an important element in the general struggle for peace, detente, and disarmament, and against the imperialist policy of aggression and high-pressure arming.
_-_-_^^1^^ UN General Assembly. Resolution 38/185.
[244] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Part Three __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT ANDWhile analysing the tendencies of the world development, Lenin pointed out that even the mightiest imperialist powers cannot prevent ever new millions of people from being drawn into it.^^1^^ Since the time these words were written the world has changed beyond recognition because the scale of the masses' involvement in "big politics" has been constantly growing. In our times, the active participation of the masses in solving social and political problems has become a power factor in world developments.'
Of paramount importance in this respect is the role played by various social groups and the masses of common people in the present-day struggle against the danger of a new world war.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. A NEW STAGE IN THE POPULAR ANTI-WAR MOVEMENTThe popular anti-war movement has a long and glorious history. As early as the mid-1940s, people of various, at times opposed, ideological, political and religious views, realised the need for organised, concerted international actions as a means to prevent criminal adventurers from involving mankind in a new bloody war. This realisation emerged as a reaction of millions of people to the horrors and sufferings experienced by nations during World War II. This reaction was natural because the aggressive imperialist circles, above all those in the United States, started to prepare a new global conflict right after the victory over Nazism. People realised that this conflict might prove to be incomparably more horrible in its consequences: the nuclear bomb had just been developed and ``tested'' in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In November 1950, the Second World Congress of Defenders of Peace set up the World Peace Council charged _-_-_
~^^1^^ See V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 349.
247 with the task of urging the unity of action of various peaceloving forces on the basis of the goal they share: to avert nuclear war and rule out war from the life of society altogether. Addressing the Peace Congress, Frederic Joliot-Gurie said: "We have not gathered here to beg for peace, but to impose peace on the advocates of war.''^^1^^ These words have become the motto of the supporters of peace.This goal continues to determine the lines along which this movement is developing. Today, the peace movement has grown in its authority, its social, political, and geographical framework has broadened and its possibilities have expanded. At present, it involves, along with the Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, Labourites, Christian Democrats, representatives of other political parties and national liberation movements, scientists, cultural workers and parliamentarians.
The peace movement is persistent and purposeful in upholding the lofty ideals of peace, fighting against militarism, aggression and the arms race, urging a relaxation of international tensions and a greater security for all nations. It has thus turned into an important factor of political life and gained authority and respect in all countries of the world.
The anti-war movement has not always been what it is today. It reached a qualitatively new stage in the late 1970s and the early 1980s. This is not accidental. This period was marked by a sharp aggravation of international tensions. The aggressive imperialist circles set out to attain military superiority over the socialist countries. To this end, they began to intensify the arms race, create ever new and more lethal types and systems of weapons of mass destruction, torpedo and block the arms limitation talks. Washington has deployed in Western Europe new missiles capable of reaching targets in the remotest parts of the Soviet Union's European territory. The US administration proclaimed military strength a means of reaching the monopolists' class and political goals. The Pentagon and NATO have developed plans of ``limited'' and ``protracted'' nuclear wars against socialist countries. The imperialist powers in fact intend to make the socialist countries choose between an all-out armed conflict and a ``change'' in their social system. _-_-_
~^^1^^ Frederic Joliot-Curie, Cinq annees de lutte pour la paix. Articles, discours et documents (1949-1954). Defense de la palx, Paris, 1954, p. 15.
248 They also seek to impede the national liberation movement by kindling local conflicts and resorting to armed intervention. All this created a new, highly unstable and explosive situation in the world.At present, more and more people in all countries are becoming aware of the grave danger looming over mankind. They realise that never before has the world been so close to the brink of nuclear disaster. This, and not the "communist scheming" invented by imperialist propaganda, is why the anti-war movement in the United States and Western Europe has in recent years acquired an unprecedented scale. The Political Declaration adopted by the leaders of the Warsaw Treaty countries at their January 1983 conference in Prague stresses that "political parties, organisations and movements of different ideological orientations in the West and East, North and South are raising their voice against the arms race and the incitement of armed conflicts. Millions of ordinary people on all continents have been staging massive antiwar demonstrations to express their desire for peace.''^^1^^
The peace-loving public address their appeals to the governments of all countries and the United Nations Organisation as a representative of the international community. The anti-war movement made its stand known in an especially forceful way during the Second Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament, held in the summer of 1982. In many countries, millions of people signed appeals and messages addressed to the General Assembly Special Session and urging concrete measures to stop the arms race.
Never before had the peace-loving public been more expressive and resolute in expressing at a UN forum profound concern about the international situation and the growing danger of a world nuclear war. The Soviet Union's pledge not to be the first to use nuclear arms made known at the UN Special Session, was enthusiastically backed up by various peace organisations.
Owing to the filibuster stand taken by the United States and some of its NATO allies, the Second Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament failed to elaborate and adopt documents outlining a programme for limiting the arms race and initiating disarmament. As is known, Washington, Paris and London refuse to follow the Soviet Union's example and pledge not to be the first to use _-_-_
^^1^^ Pravda, 7 January 1983.
249 nuclear arms. This causes profound concern of the anti-war movement and---in some of its sectors---disappointment and pessimism. At the same time, the tough political line of the US administration and NATO as a whole makes millions of people understand the true cause of the growing international tensions, discard anti-communist and antiSoviet stereotypes and realise that only joint action can raise an unsurpassable barrier on the way towards a nuclear abyss into which Washington and its allies are trying to push the world.That is why the scepticism and disappointment encouraged by bourgeois propaganda among the ranks of the anti-war movement have not led to its decline. On the contrary, the movement continues to grow in scale. Thus, over the last three years the number of individual members (the ones who pay membership fees) of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, a British pacifist organisation, has grown from 3,000 to 54,000, while the number of its collective members has reached nearly a quarter of a million. One may recall that the May 1978 peace demonstration held in New York involved 15,000 participants. The action was timed to coincide with the First Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament. Four years later, on 12 June 1982, when the Second Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament was on, the anti-war rally held in New York's Central Park attracted one million people. These are impressive figures, indeed. There are many more similar examples to cite. During the last few years, demonstrations, meetings, and other actions organised by peace champions have involved hundreds of thousands of people. In June 1982, over 250,000 Parisians came out into the streets carrying slogans which read: "Stop the Arms Race!", "No to Neutron Bomb!", "No More Hiroshima and Nagasaki!" In those days, 400,000 people from all over the FRG gathered together to condemn NATO's aggressive course. By the summer of 1982, the appeal to set up a nuclear-free zone in Northern Europe had been signed by 2.5 million Danes, Finns, Swedes and Norwegians.
In 1983, the anti-war, anti-nuclear actions in the West continued to grow in scope. By the end of 1983, some five million West Germans had signed the Krefelder Appeal urging their government to refuse to deploy new US missiles in the FRG.
On the whole, the anti-war movement unfolding in the 250 developed capitalist countries involves---in various forms and to various extent---dozens of millions of people. Quantitatively, the anti-war movement of the early 1980s has already by far surpassed the mass campaigns against the US aggression in Vietnam and elsewhere in Indochina in the 1960s and the early 1970s.
The anti-war movement is improving organisationally. More and more organisations become involved in the active struggle for peace. Both at the national and international levels new forms of co-ordinating the activity of these organisations are found. Another highlight of the presentday public campaign to avert nuclear war is its constantly expanding socio-political basis and the increasing involvement of people holding different political and ideological views.
In the early 1980s, organisations based on the professional principle have started playing a significant role in the antiwar struggle. For instance, the international movement Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War has gained wide recognition. At their conference held in December 1980 in Geneva, Soviet and American medical workers set themselves the task of informing the public at large and the ruling circles in various countries of the dire consequences of nuclear war for peoples' life and health. This movement is rapidly growing in terms of its membership and strength, becoming more and more representative.
Scientists from various countries are among the active participants in the struggle to preserve peace. In addition to the international Pugwash movement of scientists which has been in existence for a long time now, there have recently appeared many new organisations involving academic circles. For instance, the Union of Concerned Scientists set up in the United States comprises many prominent scientists, including some of those who formerly held responsible posts in the US administration. The British organisation Scientists Against Nuclear Armaments enjoys broad support of university circles.
In order to intensify and co-ordinate their peace efforts, the Soviet scientists participating in the All-Union Conference of Scientists for Delivering Mankind from the Threat of Nuclear War, for Disarmament and Peace, held in Moscow on 17-19 May 1983, set up a Committee of Soviet Scientists for Peace and against Nuclear War. The Appeal adopted by the participants in the Conference says: "The Soviet 251 scientists have always been in the vanguard of the fighters for peace. As active humanists, they make public the truth about the danger of nuclear war, be it a `limited' or an allout war, a prolonged one or a blitzkrieg. They resolutely condemn those who create this danger---the bellicose imperialist forces, above all the United States, who are prepared to push mankind into the nuclear abyss in order to attain their hegemonistic goals.''^^1^^
Notably, some of the military who formerly held important posts in NATO have become involved in the anti-war movement, too. Among those who actively work towards peace and against the arms race, who expose the militaristic plans hatched up by NATO are the Italian General Nino Pasti, the West German General Gert Bastian, the Portuguese Marshal Costa Gomes, the American Admiral Gene Larocque, the French Admiral Antoine Sanguinetti, and many others. All this is but natural. Scientists, doctors, officers know more, by virtue of their profession, about the possible scale and consequences of a nuclear disaster which may take place if the US militarists and their allies or a faulty computer set in motion the enormous mechanism of destruction, if the thin thread on which the nuclear sword of Damocles is suspended is severed.
Many religious organisations which oppose and condemn the use of nuclear arms have also become active participants in the anti-war movement in the West. Despite their often being persecuted by the authorities, the more realisticallyminded clergy play an important role in the anti-war campaign.
Various ecological movements and organisations are making a weighty contribution to the struggle for peace. Five or six years ago they wittingly confined themselves to the problem of environmental protection and shunned being involved in international politics. However, the war danger has changed the nature of the activity and the world outlook of the West German Green Party and other similar organisations. They have become involved in the active struggle against NATO's nuclear policy, against militarism and war preparations.
The involvement of a great number of women in the antiwar movement in the West is another significant factor. In Great Britain, in the Scandinavian countries and elsewhere, _-_-_
^^1^^ Pravda, 20 May 1983. 252
252 women's organisations (such as Women for Peace, Women against Nuclear Arms) are often among the initiators of peace marches and demonstrations against the deployment of new US missiles in Europe.It stands to reason that the anti-war public campaigns in various regions of the capitalist world are varied in their character. In the United States, the anti-war movement has involved people from literally all walks of life, from farmers to the ruling elite. For the first time in history, many Americans have realised that a nuclear war will not leave the territory of the United States untouched, and that seas and oceans will not guard them against nuclear-capable warheads. It is not by accident that the unprecedented upsurge in the mass anti-war movement that has swept the United States in the early 1980s has been largely stimulated by the books and documents describing the consequences of a nuclear war and published in millions of copies.
The Americans have also started to realise that the larger the scale of the strategic arms race, the greater the possibility that it will become uncontrollable and the more horrible the consequences of a nuclear retaliation to be suffered by the United States in case its leaders push the fatal button in an anti-Soviet and anti-communist frenzy. It is for this reason that the idea of freezing US and Soviet nuclear potentials has become widely popular with the Americans. The nuclear freeze concept which emerged among the intellectual elite has gained the support of the majority of American people. To judge from the results of various polls, in 1982 nearly 75 per cent of the Americans supported the nuclear freeze idea. More than one hundred various US organisations have become involved in the national peace campaign. The nuclear freeze concept is supported by many soberminded representatives of the US ruling circles.
During the November 1982 elections to US Congress, the ballot-papers in nine states contained a question about the voter's attitude to the nuclear freeze. In eight of the nine states, the majority of voters gave their voices in its favour.
The pastors' message condemning the idea of nuclear war and proclaiming the first use of nuclear arms immoral was adopted---practically unanimously---by nearly 300 American bishops who represent more than 50 million American Catholics. In May 1983, the National Council of Churches, the largest US religious organisation representing 40 253 million Protestants and members of the Orthodox Church, denounced the Pentagon's insane nuclear plans. The Council supported the pastoral message of the American National Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The US anti-war movement does not, of course, confine itself to propagating the slogan of freezing strategic potentials. The US champions of peace are becoming increasingly aware of the problems facing the European continent and are more and more resolute in their protest against the deployment of new US medium-range missiles in Europe. They realise that the problems of European security are inseparable from the general problem of preserving peace.
In Western Europe, the anti-war movement concentrates its efforts on protesting against the deployment of the new US Pershing-2 missiles and Tomahawk cruise missiles. The West European public is deeply concerned about the tendency towards ``Europeanising'' NATO's nuclear strategy and about the US administration's idea of carrying on a ``limited'' nuclear war on the European continent. An increasing number of West Europeans realise that the deployment of US missiles in Europe is turning each of them into a Washington's nuclear hostage. The following figures are illustrative of the anti-nuke sentiment in Western Europe. According to Der Spiegel (January 1983), 56 per cent of the polled West Germans were of the opinion that unless progress was made at the Soviet-American talks in Geneva by the autumn of 1983, the deployment of new US missiles had to be postponed. 58 per cent of the polled believed that unless the United States treated the talks with the Soviet Union seriously, the idea of the deployment should be rejected altogether.
The polls conducted in Great Britain in the autumn of 1982 showed that 58 per cent of the British population were against the deployment of Tomahawk cruise missiles in Britain, while 56 per cent. protested against equipping British submarines with the US Trident missile system. According to the Credo magazine, 40 per cent of the British clergy came out in favour of repudiating nuclear arms.
The anti-nuke movement has swept the Netherlands, where the overwhelming majority of the population spoke against the deployment of new US missiles.
The idea of establishing nuclear-free zones in Western Europe has become popular with the anti-war movements. Their participants resolutely support various regional 254 projects, such as the plan to set up nuclear-free zones in Nordic countries and in the Balkans. It is also proposed that all European countries which do not have nuclear arms of their own should be proclaimed nuclear-free zones, while the nuclear weapons already deployed there should be withdrawn from their territory.
Along with demanding that all of Western Europe should be nuclear-free, the champions of peace favour creating nuclear-free zones at the local level, i.e. at the level of communities, municipal councils, provinces, towns and cities. In November 1980, Manchester became the first city in Western Europe to proclaim itself a nuclear-free zone. In June 1982, a similar decision was made by the Labourheaded Greater London Council. By the autumn of 1982, over 160 British town and city councils and other local authorities had proclaimed the territories in their charge nuclearfree zones. By early 1983, two Dutch provinces (Drenthe and North Holland), 150 local communes, as well as Amsterdam, Rotterdam and the Hague had proclaimed their territories nuclear-free. By the summer of 1983, more than 250 Belgian municipal councils had adopted special resolutions banning the deployment, storing and transportation of weapons of mass destruction on their territories. The campaign for establishing nuclear-free zones at the local level has taken on an exceptionally wide scale. It reflects the anti-war movement's drive to attain concrete, practical and tangible results, no matter how limited they may be.
Another highlight to today's anti-war movement is the unprecedentedly wide range of forms and methods of peace action. The most popular among them are demonstrations, rallies, and peace marches, including the territories of several countries. Dozens of organisations of different orientation unite in order to prepare and hold such actions. Parallel and joint actions are becoming increasingly widespread.
Crises phenomena inherent in the capitalist world naturally affect the anti-war movement. Ordinary people in Western countries clearly see that the intensified arms race is accompanied by growing inflation and unemployment. The squandering of vast sums on armaments brings about economic stagnation. For this reason, slogans advanced in New York, Paris, Bonn, London, Rome and Tokyo combine socio-economic and political demands.
In the early 1980s the anti-war movement has become 255 an important factor of political development. Commenting on the problems of the current anti-war movement, Konstantin Ghernenko, General Secretary of the GPSU Central Committee, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, said: "The leading statesmen in the West, as well as the influential political parties do not always approve of the adventurist policy of the US administration, either. It worries a considerable part of the US public, too... People want peace and quiet, and not war hysteria.''^^1^^
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT AND THE IDEOLOGICAL ANDThe growth of the anti-war movement in the early 1980s has brought about a negative reaction of the militaristic circles in the West. In the spring of 1981, The Washington Post expressed the opinion of at least some of the American leaders when it wrote that the expansion of the anti-war movement led "some Western officials to worry that it could become a political force strong enough to erode NATO unity".^^2^^ The reactionary circles led by the Reagan administration have launched an increasingly frantic political propaganda campaign against the anti-war movement. The British Guardian commented: "The United States Administration and its European Allies now plan to step up the political pressure on the peace movement on a number of fronts, in a determined bid to emasculate its influence before the end of December".^^3^^ Organisational centres charged with elaborating the strategy and tactics of this campaign have been set up. Special inter-departmental committees responsible for co-ordinating the efforts of various governmental agencies in the struggle against the mass anti-war movements have been established in the United States, West Germany and Great Britain.
The Western militarist circles are attacking the anti-war movement along several directions. First, Washington has hurriedly charged that the anti-war movement is `` Moscowinspired'' and led by "communist agents" seeking to mislead the public and thus frustrate the defence programmes vitally important for the West. Washington claims that the successes _-_-_
~^^1^^ Pravda, 3 March 1984.
~^^2^^ The Washington Post, 29 March 1981, p. A20.
^^3^^ The Guardian, 4 April 1983, p. 4.
256 scored by the anti-war forces are bound to cause a dangerous chaos. Peace activists are condemned as ``trouble-makers'', ``anarchists'' and ``rebels''.Based on the methods invented by the ill-famed Senator Joseph McCarthy, this frontal attack is designed to discredit peace activists in the eyes of philistines and intimidate those who are unwilling to put up with the Pentagon's policies leading to a global disaster. For all the obvious absurdity of the charges put forward by the Western media, propaganda campaign poisons the atmosphere in which the anti-war movement is unfolding, though, it has failed to impede and reverse it. Moreover, some of the results are disappointing for those who masterminded the campaign.
As has already been mentioned, the anti-war movement involves a broad spectrum of political forces, including circles which can hardly be expected to sympathise with socialism and the Soviet Union. The attempts to charge such people with being supported by Moscow can only undermine people's trust in the architects of such propaganda. It is for this reason that a more sophisticated tactics was invented. It is to mislead, split and set the anti-war movement against the socialist countries. Its authors count on the social heterogeneity of the anti-war movement in the West, and on the fact that among the peace fighters there are many who have until recently shunned active political life and have been affected by the atmosphere of slanderous anti-Soviet and anti-communist propaganda.
Above all, the ideologists of the military-industrial complex seek to isolate the communist parties from the broad peace-loving public by resorting to the most shameless forms of anti-communism. They charge the Communists with attempting to seize dominant positions in the anti-war movement and subordinate it to their own interests. They allege that the communist parties, first of all those in the socialist countries, support anti-war slogans for purely tactical reasons. There is not a grain of truth in these allegations.
The Communists' anti-war stand is not a catch. In Lenin's phrase, "It is the duty of socialists to support, extend and intensify every popular movement to end the war".^^1^^
The communist parties have never aspired for the monopoly or leadership of the anti-war movement. The _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 22, p. 176.
__PRINTERS_P_257_COMMENT__ 17-339 257 Communists regard the broad public forces sincerely seeking peace as their partners in equitable co-operation who share with them, despite all the political and ideological differences, the desire to eliminate the war danger looming over humanity. This point of view was clearly formulated, for instance, in the Appeal of the Communists to the Peoples of the European Countries for Peace and Disarmament, adopted at the April 1980 Conference of European Communist and Workers' Parties for Peace and Disarmament. The Appeal reads: "We Communists of all the European countries are ready, when it is a matter of the struggle for peace and disarmament, for any dialogue, for any talks, and for any joint action. We want all the peace forces to unite with this aim in view. Whatever our nationality, our convictions or our way of life, we say to you all---Communists, Socialists, Social Democrats, Christians, people of other religions: 'Peace is our common birthright!'.''^^1^^Commenting on the stand taken by the Soviet Communists, Boris Ponomarev, Secretary of the CC CPSU and Candidate Member of the Politburo of the CC CPSU, said that in the struggle to reach the goals "conducive to preserving peace the Communists are not at all going to shut themselves in their own shell. They do not oppose their initiatives to proposals advanced by other democratic forces. On the contrary, they seek to maintain a dialogue with them and find ways and forms of joint action, and co-operation in order to achieve the goals shared by all peace-loving forces.''^^2^^
In formulating their stand on the problems of war and peace and on the issue of joining efforts towards peace with the forces differing from the Communists in their sociopolitical nature, the latter proceed from the conviction that peace is humanity's most important asset while averting the war danger is the most urgent global problem of today. Lenin wrote that "from the standpoint of the basic ideas of Marxism, the interests of social development are higher than the interests of the proletariat".^^3^^ Today, preserving peace is essential to social development and progress. In this respect, the interests of the proletariat fully coincide with those of mankind as a whole. The world revolutionary _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Conference of European Communist and Workers' Parties for Peace and Disarmament. Paris, 28-29 April 1980, Moscow, 1980, p. 8 (in Russian).
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 42.
^^3^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 4, p. 236.
258 movement does not need war to achieve its goals. Moreover, the elimination of war is the most important factor in the new society's rapid social and economic development which reveals all its advantages.Such is the principled and firm stand taken by all Communists. This stand was confirmed in the joint statement of the leaders of seven socialist states who met in Moscow in late June 1983. On behalf of their parties they confirmed that "none of the global problems, including the historical dispute between socialism and capitalism, can be resolved by means of war".^^1^^
While advocating co-operation among all peace-loving forces, the Communists by no means conceal the differences existing within their movement on the concrete problems of the struggle for peace and disarmament. However, they put the elimination of war from the life of society at the top of the agenda. As is stressed in the Appeal to the Parliaments, Governments, Political Parties, and Peoples of the World, adopted at the joint session of the CG CPSU, the USSR Supreme Soviet and the RSFSR Supreme Soviet on 22 December 1982, "durable, dependable and lasting peace is the first and most compelling need of all people, of all nations, of all humankind".^^2^^
In a drive to mislead the anti-war public movement, the ideologists of monopoly capital make every effort to circulate among its members the idea of the "equal responsibility" of the USSR and the United States for aggravating international tensions and boosting the arms race. The Western media see to it that those anti-war organisations which uphold such ideas continue to do so. They encourage the tendency to keep such organisations at an "equal distance" from East and West, from NATO and the Warsaw Treaty Organisation.
Concrete facts, as well as everyday international politics disprove the "equal responsibility" concept and the related "equal distance" doctrine.
The United States was the first to equip its army and navy with practically all types of modern arms, including atomic weapons, strategic bombers, multiple-charge warheads and the like. The Soviet Union has been compelled to develop, for security reasons, similar systems of arms _-_-_
^^1^^ Pravda, 29 June 1983.
~^^2^^ Pravda, 23 December 1982.
__PRINTERS_P_259_COMMENT__ 17* 259 in response to the threat posed to it by the actions of the United States and NATO.The Soviet Union has consistently urged to limit the arms race on the basis of equality and equal security. As for the US leaders, they have been equally consistent in stimulating the arms race. Today, the US administration makes public and even advertises its efforts towards intensifying the arms race. For instance, Caspar Weinberger, US Secretary of Defense, declared that "President Reagan's program for strategic forces... will give us the greatest addition of modern, strengthened strategic forces planned and funded by any United States President".^^1^^ Moreover, Washington has set out, as we have repeatedly stressed, to use military force or the threat to use it as a tool of military policy.
The idea of keeping at an equal distance from the USSR and the United States thrusted on the anti-war movement by imperialist propaganda presupposes that the stands taken by the two countries are equally or almost equally different from that of the anti-war movement. Is this really so?
The idea of freezing the Soviet and US nuclear arsenals is popular with the participants in the anti-war movement. The peace-loving public's demand to freeze these arsenals is reflected in Soviet Union's official stand as formulated in many statements and speeches by Soviet leaders. "We declare that the Soviet Union is prepared to freeze, on the basis of reciprocity with the United States, its nuclear arsenals," reads the above-cited Appeal to the Parliaments, Governments, Political Parties, and Peoples of the World. As for the US leaders, they flatly reject the nuclear freeze idea.
The participants in the anti-war movement call for making all of Europe nuclear-free. The USSR is ready to agree to withdraw all its medium-range and tactical nuclear arms from Europe. Regrettably, however, the governments of the European states concerned have not responded positively to the Soviet proposal, while the United States has started deploying its new missiles in Europe.
The peace-loving public calls for setting up nuclear-free zones in Europe. The Soviet Union likewise supports the creation of zones free of nuclear weapons in the North of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Caspar W. Weinberger, Report to the Congress on the Fiscal Year 1983 Budget, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1982, p. 154.
260 Europe and in other parts of the European continent, regarding them as an important means of strengthening the security of European nations. The Soviet Union is prepared to pledge not to use nuclear arms against those countries in Europe which will participate in nuclear-free zones. As for the US administration, it rejects the nuclear-free zone concept as applied to any of the NATO member-countries.The participants in the anti-war movement, including religious organisations, condemn nuclear arms and their use from the moral point of view. The Soviet Union has advanced concrete proposals as regards a stage-by-stage process leading to the complete elimination of nuclear arms. By contrast, a Pentagon Defense Guidance states: "The United States nuclear capabilities must prevail even under the condition of a prolonged war".^^1^^
In recent years, the anti-war movements and organisations have been vigorously propagating the idea that unilateral disarmament initiatives are expedient and necessary. The Soviet Union has made a unilateral commitment not to be the first to use nuclear arms. It is hard to overestimate the importance of this pledge. The Soviet Union has also unilaterally reduced the strength of its troops stationed in the German Democratic Republic. Thus, in this area, too. a certain level of mutual understanding between the USSR and the anti-war movement has been reached. It stands to reason, however, that the Soviet Union's possibilities of taking unilateral steps in the field of disarmament are limited. The Soviet Union cannot afford to remain without the arms capable of restraining the aggressiveness of those who do not conceal their desire to change the social system obtaining in the socialist countries and who hope to use their military, including nuclear, potential in order to reach their goals in the international arena.
The above-cited facts show that the "equal distance" concept is not substantiated by reality. Many of the concrete Soviet foreign-policy initiatives concretise and inject practical meaning into the demands and slogans advanced by the anti-war movement. There is much in common between the stand of the socialist countries and that of the broad masses involved in the anti-war movement in the West on many urgent problems of the struggle for peace and disarmament. Thus, the thesis about the coincidence of the interests _-_-_
^^1^^ The New York Times, 4 June 1982, p. A10.
261 of mankind with those of the classes promoting social progress is substantiated by life. On the contrary, the policies practised by the United States and its NATO allies run counter to the demands put forward by the anti-war movements and organisations.The anti-war movements' approval of the Soviet Union's concrete foreign-policy steps and initiatives reveals the groundlessness of the "equal distance" concept. The peaceloving public in all countries support the Soviet Union's unilateral pledge not to be the first to use nuclear arms, its readiness to conclude a comprehensive treaty banning all nuclear arms tests, and the Soviet leaders' approval of the idea to freeze nuclear potentials. Small wonder. The peaceloving public judge about governments' policies by the concrete foreign-policy steps they take, rather than by a priori, speculative assumptions.
Aware of the scope of the anti-war movement, the ruling circles in the United States and other NATO countries resort to peaceful phraseology in a bid to camouflage their aggressive course and to picture it in such a way as to make it look acceptable for public opinion. As Lenin put it, "It is equally natural that the bourgeoisie and its governments are compelled to exert every effort to hoodwink the people".^^1^^ This explains why the NATO leaders are advancing the concept of "genuine detente", why the Pentagon describes the development of new systems of arms as ``modernisation'' and , President Reagan resorts to peaceful phraseology. However, none of their efforts are yielding the desired result of restraining the anti-war movement.
In a bid to split the anti-war movement, the Western mass media allege that in the Soviet Union there is no largescale peace movement and that the existing organisations of peace champions are all government, rather than mass, organisations, since they support the policy of the Soviet government.
The facts prove, however, that the Soviet people spare no effort in the struggle to avert a new world war and take active part in anti-war actions. During the Week of Action for Disarmament in 1983, more than 90,000 meetings and other gathering's attended by more than 50 million Soviet people have been held. As many as 160 million took part in anti-war _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 23, p. 180. 262
262 actions in the USSR from April to September 1983. Over 80 million Soviet people are promoting the cause of peace by making voluntary contributions to the Soviet Peace Fund.The participants in the Soviet peace movement support the policy of their government because each of its political steps embodies the people's will for peace and is aimed at preserving and strengthening it.
The present-day anti-war movement involves various social strata. For this reason, there naturally exists a broad spectrum of views and opinions on various specific problems of the struggle for peace. Respecting all those who sincerely strive to contribute to the cause of peace, the Soviet people are prepared to interact, co-operate and act conjointly or in parallel with them. At the same time, they do not keep secret their negative attitude to the efforts of those few persons and groups who try to cause, under the guise of demagogic slogans, a split in the anti-war movement and use it as a means of interference in the socialist countries' internal affairs.
The clash of political interests and ideas on the practical ways of solving the problems of war and peace prompt the social forces to carry on a dialogue. The aim of this dialogue is to find a common platform for joint action rather than to "pay off old scores". Preparedness for co-operation in the name of peace and despite ideological and political differences is a factor which multiplies the effect of the anti-war movement.
The World Assembly for Peace and Life, Against Nuclear War, held in June 1983 in Prague, showed that the anti-war movement, having set itself clearcut goals supported and shared by all its participants, is capable of successfully overcoming all internal contradictions and external influences. These goals were formulated in the Appeal issued by the Prague Assembly:
``No to new missiles in Europe!
``Yes to real negotiations on the reduction of all types of nuclear weapons in Europe!
``Stop the arms race, nuclear and conventional!
``Yes to nuclear weapon-free zones!
``Freeze all nuclear arsenals now!
``No to nuclear weapons in the West or in the East, around the world!
``For general and complete disarmament!
263``Peaceful political negotiations, not military confrontation!
``The world's resources for peace and life!
``Peace, freedom, independence and prosperity for all nations!''
__b_b_b__The Soviet public proceeds from the conviction that peace is the common asset of the peoples and the loftiest human value. Therefore, the success in the struggle for peace can only be ensured by joint action, through uniting all the peace-loving forces opposing the dangerous course which may lead mankind to a global nuclear disaster.
The developments of recent years corroborate the principles advanced by those who launched the movement for peace in the late 1940s. Life itself, as well as political developments throughout the world, disprove the imperialist propaganda concerning the problems of war and peace. Ever broader strata of the international public learn the truth about the foreign policy of peace pursued by the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries and seek to join their efforts in the struggle to frustrate the warmongers' aggressive plans.
Despite claims to the contrary by apologists of the military-industrial complex, the anti-war movement did not fold up in the autumn of 1983. Its ranks are swelling, and its scale is growing. These processes confirm the thought expressed in the USSR Supreme Soviet Resolution of 29 December 1983, that "reason can and must safeguard humanity from catastrophe".^^1^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Pravda, 30 December 1983. 264
[264] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter 16 __ALPHA_LVL2__ MYTH OF THE SOVIET MILITARY THREAT __ALPHA_LVL3__ [introduction.]Propaganda campaigns based on a non-existent military threat from the Soviet Union have always been fundamental to Washington's psychological war against the USSR and the entire socialist community. But never before have the media put out such a barrage of misinformation as in the 1980s. "The Soviet Union and the other socialist countries are today the target of psychological warfare unprecedented in scope and stridency," states the Resolution of the CPSU Central Committee's Plenary Meeting in June 1983.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. THE STRATEGY OF THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST THEThe subject of the "Soviet military threat" has become an important element in US politics. Every new military budget is pushed through Congress on a wave of statements, publications, and just rumours about all the terrible danger awaiting the United States if the required allocations are not approved and the latest weapon system is not given the green light. This aspect of anti-Soviet propaganda has not changed to this day.
At the same time, the campaign has now taken on some new features and a wider scope. It has now become the spearhead of political activity for all the forces in the United States which are fanning anti-Soviet hysteria in their consuming desire to achieve military superiority over the USSR. The anti-Soviet campaign has been given special status, as it were, and constitutes a major element of US political activity in the international arena. This is why many responsible officials, including presidents, vice-presidents, cabinet members and on down have joined in the fray.
The mechanism of this campaign is not as simple as it looks, though, operating as it does at different levels simultaneously, with its many streams finally merging into one.
265The military-industrial complex and the political organisations it has created are moving in a broad front. The strategy of these organisations consists in mixing snippets of truth about the Soviet defence programme (which actually threatens no one) with torrents of abuse aimed at the USSR. These stories are meant to make Americans apprehensive about the Soviet strategic potential, the armed forces of the USSR and other Warsaw Treaty countries in Europe, the Soviet Navy, the Soviet civil defence and other defensive measures of the socialist community, and also about Soviet aid to liberation movements and the victims of aggression. The propaganda machine of the military-industrial complex, like a battering ram, aims to stun US political circles and American public opinion and, by frightening people, deprive them of the ability to make any sober judgement of the true state of affairs.
Banking officials in the Pentagon are also busy fanning anti-Soviet hysteria. Characteristically, each branch of the armed services in the United States has its own favourite "Soviet threat" theme. The Air Force, for example, believes that the main threat comes from Soviet strategic missiles, while for the Navy it is Soviet warships, and so on. The emphasis is put on whatever type of ``threat'' the Pentagon wants to ``counter'' at any given time. Spokesmen of all the branches have had many years of experience in this sort of thing, so they can act in concert to achieve their ends.
A particularly unseemly role in this campaign is played by certain US newspapers and magazines which can and do create a psychological climate of suspicion, fear and uncertainty, making it that much easier for the politicians and the generals. The thing that these American publications are best at is working out snappy propaganda slogans in the worst traditions of the cold war. The reader gets the message that the United States is always lagging behind the Soviet Union in one sphere or another, whatever the Pentagon wants to emphasise at the moment. At one time this was a lag in bombers, then came the missile lag. Today the worst danger is the development of the Soviet strategic capability, and the alleged threat to Europe posed by the SS-20s. Special military analysts "feel out" new "Soviet threats" when the old ones lose the power to exercise the Americans.
New forms of propaganda have been invented. For example, the Pentagon published three editions (1981, 1983 and 1984) of a brochure called Soviet Military Power with a preface 266 by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger. This brochure gives a distorted picture of the Soviet armed forces and their weapons, but says nothing about the aggressive arms build-up in the United States. NATO followed suit, releasing in 1982 and 1984 just as deceptive an analysis, NATO and the Warsaw Pact: Force Comparisons.
The arbitrary and free-wheeling manner in which the Soviet ``threat'' is dealt with in these brochures can be seen in the following examples. The first edition of Soviet Military Power, speaking of the Soviet strategic weapon systems, includes all the medium-range missiles and bombers as well. The other brochure, NATO and the Warsaw Pact: Force Comparisons, arbitrarily overstates the number of Soviet carriers of strategic nuclear missiles by 200, just as arbitrarily striking 300 off the number of American strategic weapons.^^1^^ And finally, the second edition of the Pentagon's Soviet Military Power understates the number of American strategic B-52 bombers by 300.
One of the main standard procedures in the "Soviet threat" campaign is to ascribe a non-existent belligerence to the Soviet military doctrine and to Soviet policy in general. It also ascribes to the Soviet Union a desire to achieve superiority over the United States and NATO, though the leaders of the Soviet Union, both political and military, have repeatedly stressed that the Soviet military doctrine is a defence doctrine, and that the Soviet Union's genuine desire is to maintain the existing equilibrium of military and strategic power. The Soviet Union is ready for radical measures to limit and subsequently reduce armaments.
The Soviet Union has maintained a decidedly anti-nuclear war stand, and this was repeatedly confirmed by the Soviet leadership. As was emphasised at the meeting to mark the 60th anniversary of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, "Wherever and however a nuclear whirlwind arises, it will inevitably go out of control and cause a worldwide catastrophe. Our position on this issue is clear: a nuclear war---whether big or small, whether limited or total---must not be allowed to break out.''^^2^^ The Soviet Defence Minister Dmitry Ustinov said in this connection: "The Soviet Union proceeds from the idea that only with the maintenance of the _-_-_
~^^1^^ See NA TO and the Warsaw Pact: Force Comparisons, Brussels, 1982, p. 39; Whence the Threat to Peace, Second ed., p. 15.
~^^2^^ Pravda, 22 December 1982.
267 existing military and strategic balance, and the steady easing of military confrontation, the unremitting reduction of armaments and armed forces, in line with the principle of equality and equal security of the two sides, will peace be preserved.''^^1^^ The Soviet conduct of international relations is free from any desire for military superiority.It was the Soviet Union that solemnly undertook not to use nuclear weapons first. It was the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty countries that proposed to the NATO countries to sign a treaty on the mutual renunciation of the use of armed force and on the maintenance of relations of peace.
But the United States rejected the peaceful initiatives of the Soviet Union and openly started preparations for a nuclear war, with the idea that it could win such a war. What forms these preparations were going to take in the 1980s were formulated in certain American policy-making documents: the National Security Decision Directives, signed by President Reagan in 1981-1984; the Fiscal Year 1984-1988 Defense Guidance, endorsed by Weinberger in April 1982, and the strategic plan submitted by the Pentagon to the National Security Council in August 1982. These documents set forth in detail the policy for intensive preparations for a prolonged nuclear war expected to last up to six months, also intensive preparations for massive strikes at command posts, for a global conventional war, for subversive actions to be carried out by task forces in Eastern Europe. The documents point out that any future war would be "intensive electronic warfare" with the possible use of "chemical, biological and nuclear weapons".^^2^^ The main idea is to achieve military superiority over the USSR and to come out the winner in a global conflict.
Even earlier, Washington ventured the dangerous concept of a ``limited'' nuclear war. First formulated in National Security Decision Memorandum No. 242, signed by President Nixon on 17 January 1974, and enlarged upon in Presidential Directive No. 59, endorsed by President Carter on 25 July 1980, this concept was integrated into the military policy of the Reagan administration. The ``limited'' nuclear war concept was annouced to help aggressive quarters in the United States and other NATO countries to start _-_-_
^^1^^ Pravda, 23 February 1983.
~^^2^^ The New York Times, 30 May 1982, p. 12.
268 such a war with comparative ease on the plea that it would lead to less damage than a total war. But such explanations are sheer demagoguery: a nuclear war, once it is started by an aggressor, would inevitably grow into a global conflict, triggering a world-wide nuclear holocaust.Thus, the whole doctrinal armoury of the United States and NATO boils down to achieving military superiority, continuing an all-out arms drive, and fighting nuclear wars--- either ``limited'' or ``prolonged''. Meanwhile, attacking the policies of the Soviet Union is just a crude and largely absurd attempt to camouflage US intentions and draw public attention away from them for as long as possible.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. THE BIG LIE OF WASHINGTON AND NATOA prominent place in the "Soviet threat" propaganda campaign is the false thesis that the balance of strategic forces has shifted to the Soviet side. This thesis, like all the other elements of the campaign, hinges on a fairly simple trick. It is a known fact that parity between the strategic forces of the USSR and the USA is reckoned on the basis of different weapons systems, with one side having an edge in some types of weapons, and the other in others.
The Soviet Union has mostly been developing land-based IGBM's which carry about 70 per cent of all of its warheads. The United States, by contrast, has a more developed force of sea-based ballistic missiles and strategic aircraft, with more than 80 per cent of its warheads installed on submarines and heavy bombers.
Thus, ``proving'' Soviet strategic superiority is not really so hard. Out of the three existing types of strategic forces, you take just one: for example, the land-based IGBM's, then you can claim that the USSR has overall strategic superiority.
And this at a time when the United States even has a slight edge over the Soviet Union in the number of warheads. The aim of this chicanery is to help push through a colossal new programme for building up the strategic forces of the United States.^^1^^
That the United States means business when it talks about preparing for nuclear war can be seen from the fact of its nuclear weapons deployment in Western Europe. So far _-_-_
^^1^^ For more detail see Chapter 3*
269 572 of its medium-range missiles (464 cruise missiles and 108 Pershing-2 ballistic missiles) have been installed there. And the constant refrain is, of course, the "Soviet threat''.This time the ``threat'' was the modernisation of mediumrange missiles, started in the late 1970s when the old SS-4s and SS-5s were replaced by newer weapons. Significantly, the new missiles were to serve the same purpose as the old ones: they are one of the elements of the parity between the medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe: those of the USSR, on the one hand, and those of NATO (USA, Britain and France), on the other.
Before the new American missiles were deployed, each side had about 1,000 medium-range missiles. The USSR had 473 missiles and 465 aircraft, and NATO had 695 aircraft and 162 missiles. The modernisation of the missile force carried out in the USSR did not in any way upset the balance of forces that had taken shape in Europe.
The deployment of American medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe leads to radical changes in the strategic situation. This is directed primarily at achieving quantitative superiority of the USA and other NATO countries over the USSR in medium-range nuclear missiles. Still more important is the fact that the United States is considerably increasing its strategic potential because all the new American missiles can reach deep into Soviet territory. The short time (5-6 minutes) it would take Pershing-2 missiles to reach their target, and the difficulty of detection of cruise missiles in flight make both of them first-strike weapons. Also very dangerous is the decision taken by President Reagan on 6 August 1981 (the anniversary of the American atomic bombing of Hiroshima) to start full-scale production of neutron weapons.
Under cover of the "Soviet threat" campaign, the United States and its allies are carrying out a sweeping programme of rearmament in Europe and other parts of the world. Moreover, these measures are being taken in the very hot-spots about which the imperialist propaganda media have raised the biggest hue and cry.
In Central Europe, the subject of the talks in Vienna, the Soviet Union has for a number of years refrained from building up its armed forces, with 20,000 of its servicemen and 1,000 of its tanks withdrawn from the German Democratic Republic. At the same time, some of the NATO countries have enlarged their contingents in Central Europe since 270 the start of the Vienna talks. The United States, for example, has increased its forces in this area by about 40,000 men, and its tanks by 2,900.^^1^^ West Germany has increased the number of its armoured brigades by four, thus raising the total of its tanks in active service by 1,004 (figures from official reports on the existing military balance issued by the International Institute for Strategic Studies).^^2^^
The combat potential of US aircraft in Europe has also been increased considerably. For instance, the number of US fighter aircraft in Europe has increased by about 20 per cent, while the number of F-lll fighter-bombers deployed in Europe (which have an effective range of more than 4,000 km and can carry both nuclear bombs and air-to-surface missiles tipped with nuclear warheads) has been more than doubled (116 per cent). The F-lll fighter-bombers deployed in Europe could well be classed with other US strategic weapons because they can cover vast areas of the Soviet Union. And these are just the most striking examples of how NATO is building up its combat power in Europe, especially in Central Europe. This then is the true state of affairs.
As an exchange of information between the Warsaw Treaty and NATO countries showed at the Vienna talks on the reduction of armed forces and armaments in Central Europe, the two sides now have rough parity in this region. The latest moves by the NATO countries show up the illdisguised attempts to alter the qualitative balance in their favour. And this when, according to all major Western research centres studying the correlation of forces between the two blocs, NATO on the whole surpasses the Warsaw Treaty Organisation in the size of its armed forces, defence expenditures, etc.
Politicians in the United States and some other Western countries are raising an outcry over what they call "the hordes of Soviet tanks" and the modernisation of other branches of service, particularly its tactical airforce which, they say, increases the "Soviet threat" in Europe, though it is a well-known fact that the two sides maintain an _-_-_
~^^1^^ Estimated from data in Military Balance, 1973-1974, Chatto & Windus tor The International Institute for Strategic Studies, London, 1974, p. 3; Military Balance. 1982-83, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, London, 1982, p. 9.
~^^2^^ Estimated from data in Military Balance. 1973-1974, p. 21; Military Balance. 1982-83, p. 37.
271 approximately equal number of tanks. As for the size of their tactical airforce the parity here is not very symmetrical, because one side is somewhat stronger in one, and the other in another set of parameters, while on the whole they do balance each other out. At the same time, under the pretext of the "Soviet threat", the NATO countries clearly want to alter the balance in their favour.NATO, for instance, is rapidly building up its tank force in Central Europe. Since the start of the Vienna talks, the NATO countries have increased the number of their tanks in this area by more than 5,000. It should be added that the number of NATO tanks in Southern Europe has in this period increased by 5,480.^^1^^ However, this is not all, for NATO has much more ambitious plans. For example, the USA alone is planning to sharply increase its armour in the coming years by more than 7,000 new tanks, primarily by the introduction of a new generation of tanks.^^2^^ West Germany and other NATO members are also expanding their tank force. Significantly, all these measures are being taken at a time when the Soviet Union, and all the other members of the Warsaw Treaty Organisation, as has been repeatedly pointed out by most authoritative sources in these countries, are not building up their armed forces in Central Europe.
As for modernisation, it is the NATO countries that are modernising all the basic types of intermediate weapons already sited in Europe. They are making or planning to make operational newly modernised tanks, missiles, fighter planes, fighter bombers and helicopter gunships.
At present the United States is carrying out the most massive refit of its armour with a view to sharply increasing its striking force in Central Europe. The reference here is to the introduction of the new M-l Abrams tank which has qualitatively new armour plating, fire power and mobility in comparison with previous American tank models. Plans are afoot to manufacture somewhere between 60 and 150 such tanks a month. In the 1970s and early 1980s, production was started of their West German double---the Leopard-2. The Bundeswehr has already ordered some 1,500 new Leopards in addition to about 600 such tanks already _-_-_
~^^1^^ Estimated from data in Military Balance. 1973-1974, p. 90; Military Balance. 1982-83, p. 37.
~^^2^^ United States Military Posture for FY 1982, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1981, p. 515.
272 operational. France, Britain and other NATO countries are also modernising their tanks. This means that under cover of the Soviet "tanks threat" campaign, the NATO countries are fundamentally restructuring their tank forces.This process is proceeding at a still faster rate in the NATO air force, where a new generation of combat aircraft has been introduced. And again it was the United States that set the example by launching or preparing the production of four new models. These are the F-14 Tomcat fighters manufactured by Grumman to be used from aircraft carriers and armed with missiles, the most expensive fighter-plane ever manufactured in the West (the cost of one such aircraft chock-full of the latest types of electronics exceeds $20 million). These fighters have already been made operational with the US Atlantic fleet and could be used in Europe. The F-15 Eagle multipurpose fighter, manufactured by MacDonnell-Douglas, can also carry a variety of missiles. Beginning in 1977, the United States has sited these planes at its airforce bases in Europe. The United States has, besides, started using the F-16 Fighting Falcon fighterbombers manufactured by General Dynamics in its Air Force, and in the future some of the other NATO countries will follow suit. And finally, the multipurpose supersonic aircraft F-18 Hornet, manufactured by MacDonnell-- Douglas, is currently being tested and will soon be the standard weapon in the US navy and the marines corps. In addition, work is under way on a series of vertical take-off fighter aircraft to be used on aircraft carriers. Altogether, the United States and its allies are planning to have a total of about 4,500 of these new fighters. All that amounts to restructuring the backbone of NATO's tactical air force.
Other NATO countries are also busy developing new types of fighter aircraft. For example, West Germany, Britain and Italy have jointly developed the Tornado fighter which can fly at 2.2 times the speed of sound. The Tornado which can carry both missiles and bombs is already in production, with up to 1,000 new aircraft beefing up the armed forces of the three countries that have designed it. France has developed a fighter aircraft (Mirage-2000) of a new generation with a speed 2.4 times the speed of sound.
Yet the United States plays the leading role in the modernisation of the NATO fighter force and in the development of other combat aircraft for NATO armed forces in Europe, such as the A-10 fighter-bomber to be used primarily against __PRINTERS_P_273_COMMENT__ 13-339 273 tanks, and the AH-64A 'helicopter gunship which is "also meant as an anti-tank weapon. Other NATO countries are also manufacturing new types of fighter-bombers and helicopters.
Numerous technical innovations are being introduced in the other armed services, too. Modernisation has affected artillery; new armoured personnel carriers and infantry combat facilities, anti-tank missiles and various types of small arms are being developed. The new Gepard mobile air defence system manufactured in West Germany is expect-, ed to increase NATO fire power. The list could be continued.
On the whole, all these efforts to build, in the 1980s, a new generation of operational-tactical weapons (and partly strategic weapons, considering the ability of certain new systems in Europe to carry nuclear weapons to Soviet territory) show up the true reasons behind the campaign alleging that there is a ``threat'' from the Warsaw Treaty Organisation, which is "rapidly rearming''.
One of the favourite ploys used by the originators of this campaign is to hold forth about the way the American Navy is ``lagging'' behind the Soviet Navy. As soon as any new Soviet ships---for instance the anti-submarine cruisers Kiev, Minsk, Moskva, Leningrad and Novorossiysk---appear in the high seas, a great din is set up: the naval balance is being tipped in favour of the Soviet Union. Meanwhile the United States has 13 powerful big-displacement, first-strike aircraft carriers with enough space for 80 on-deck nuclear-- capable fighter-bombers (not counting other aircraft) and more than 100 nuclear charges (together with its naval reserve, the United States has 21 aircraft carriers, including one of its recently deslushed reserve aircraft carriers, Oriskany). Moreover, the present naval programme for raising the number of warships in the navy to 600 units puts special emphasis on the building of large naval vessels, such as atomic-powered aircraft carriers, cruisers, etc.
The "Soviet threat" campaign has recently been given a new twist accusing the Soviet Union of preparing for a war in outer space. This latest propaganda ploy is meant as a smokescreen to hide Washington's own "star wars" plans. In the summer of 1982, the Pentagon made a substantial addition to the President's strategic programme: the US Air Force was given five years to build a new system of anti-satellite weapons. On 21 June 1982, the Pentagon announced the creation of a special outer space command 274 within the US Air Force. The first anti-satellite system consisting of two stage missiles launched from the F-15 fighter is already under intensive development. On 4 July 1982, the President announced a new national policy with regard to outer space which outlined a still broader programme of preparations for war in outer space. And to forestall any hitch, Washington came out against the peaceful Soviet proposal to conclude an international treaty banning the stationing of weapons of any kind in outer space.
War budgets are another good source of propaganda data, with great emphasis being put on a ``rise'' in Soviet military spending. This deception got its start with a CIA operation undertaken in 1976-77. In the classical style of " psychological warfare", the CIA published in the West some figures on Soviet defence expenditure which were deliberately inflated several-fold. As was pointed out in the CIA report called "A Dollar Cost Comparison of Soviet and US Defense Activities, 1966-1976", prepared in 1977, the method chosen by the CIA analysts was "to estimate how much it would cost to produce and man in the US a military force of the same size and with the same inventory of weapons as that of the Soviets". But this approach is untenable, considering the widely differing principles guiding the development of the armed forces in the two countries. And even the CIA's analysts hedged their bets, allowing that their estimates might be wrong, too. Nevertheless, this inadmissible calculation technique was widely used to obtain fudged figures on Soviet defence expenditure, in the face of the fact that the Soviet Union had markedly reduced defence spending in the 1970s, while the USA and its NATO allies boosted their military outlays.
In the fiscal year 1985, Washington plans to spend about $300 billion on military needs in just the Department of Defense. This is another military spending record which left the fiscal "all-time bights" of the Vietnam War far behind. Altogether, the United States is intending to spend about $2,000 billion on military preparations before 1989.
The opinion is sometimes voiced in the West that the "Soviet threat" campaign is really nothing special as it is meant merely to match Soviet criticism of the military programmes of the United States and NATO. However, this comparison is faulty to the core. In the first place, Soviet policy and propaganda stress the need to limit and curtail armaments, whereas American policy and propaganda __PRINTERS_P_275_COMMENT__ 18* 275 coneentrate on the old theme of the "Soviet, threat" and the need to achieve military superiority by stepping up military preparations. Secondly, the USSR does not use fudged figures about US military programmes, whereas the entire "Soviet threat" campaign is built on such figures. And finally, the Soviet side never launches dishonest political propaganda campaigns so typical of American diplomacy (the "Soviet military threat" in this case) in order to bring pressure to bear on the other side, and particularly to obtain unilateral advantages.
It would be hard to overestimate the political and moral damage inflicted upon today's international relations by the anti-Soviet campaign, which, as one of the principal elements of psychological warfare against the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries, can only lead to further international tension and increase the threat of war.
[276] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter 17 __ALPHA_LVL2__ CRIMES AGAINST PEACE AND HUMANITY __ALPHA_LVL3__ [introduction.]In recent decades the question of crimes against peace and humanity has become more pointed. This is a consequence of the imperialist forces' preparation for thermonuclear war and their provocation of military conflicts in various regions of the world. They have declared an almost ``holy'' war against national liberation movements.
Not so long ago, Western legal experts were not paying the necessary attention to the struggle with crimes against peace and humanity, substituting this major question with individual problems of the fight against particular forms of crime---piracy, trade in women and children, the spread of pornography and the such like---which, after all, do not affect the interests of the international community so severely. After World War II it became impossible to be limited to the resolution of questions which, although important, were still quite specific. The awful crimes of Nazism affected the fundamental interests of all states and peoples without exception, irrespective of whether they directly suffered any damage or not. In the postwar years international acts of law were passed in which responsibility for individual forms of crime against peace and humanity was established. In 1947 the United Nations General Assembly charged the International Law Commission with formulating the principles of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal (at Nuremberg) as the principles of international law, and with drawing up a draft code of crimes against peace and the security of mankind. In this way the international community reacted to the demands of the peoples for the prevention of a repetition of the tragedy of World War II.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. THE CONCEPT OF CRIMES AGAINST PEACE ANDThe definition of the concept of crimes against humanity is beset with a host of difficulties. Above all, these are caused by the necessity to comprehend the whole range of deeds 277 related to crimes of this sort. Progressive forces must overcome the various legal tricks of the apologists of militarism, who are seeking to narrow the concept of crimes against humanity, or to adulterate them. Thus, there were attempts to show that infringements of the rules and customs of war affect neither peace as a whole, nor the security of mankind, although it is evident that infringements committed in the past by the Nazis, the American military in Vietnam, and the Israeli military in the Middle East represent the constituent part of a war of aggression linked with monstrous atrocities. As experience shows, the infringement in itself of the rules and customs of war leads to other crimes, in particular, to the destruction by the aggressor of the civilian population of other states. During World War II the Hitlerites made attempts at the general destruction of the population, in particular, of Poles, Gypsies and Jews. From May 1940 to December 1943"... in the camp of Auschwitz alone... 2,500,000 persons were exterminated, and ... a further 500,000 died from disease and starvation.''^^1^^ And, as is known, the total number of people tortured to death by the Nazis exceeded the colossal figure of 12 million.
The whole world knows the stunning facts about the excesses of the Zionists committed against the Palestinians in the Middle East.
A general synopsis of the positive experience of mankind's struggle against wars and violence has led to the realisation that actual crimes against peace and the rules and customs of war are not the only constituent parts of the general concept of crimes against humanity, but that calls to war, the cultivation of public opinion, and the demoralisation of people in preparation for mass murder also constitute crimes against humanity---as does war propaganda, which is dealt with in Chapter 19.
Since the 1950s, the Soviet Union and other socialist countries have passed laws on the defence of peace which declare war propaganda a crime. In the Soviet Union such a law was passed on 12 March 1951, and on 25 December 1958, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR passed the Law on Criminal Responsibility for State Crimes, where, in Article 8, provision is made, for punishment for the conducting of war propaganda in any form by deprivation of freedom for a terra of 3 1o 8 years.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, Vol. I, Nuremberg, 19/74, p. 251.
278But the governments of capitalist countries have declined to pass such laws.
Whilst discussing the legal description of crimes against humanity, it should be emphasised that they do not arise from occasional actions, but from a system of actions linked, for example, with the preparation of aggression and the such like, which requires the concerted action of many people, the cohesion of the links in the felonious system, including economic, military and propaganda establishments and, finally, the top echelons in the state apparatus.^^1^^
This was shown vividly by the Nuremberg trial at which the organs of the fascist state---the SS, SD and several others---were identified as criminal precisely as a result of their having been the organisers of Nazism's preparation for aggression and the internally unified organisations which operated for the sake of achieving a criminal goal. But the recognition of such organisations as criminal indicates their legal (and moral) evaluation, and also that they had to be disbanded and liquidated. Criminal responsibility was and can be put down to living beings alone in accordance with those concrete criminal actions of which they are guilty.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. THE POLITICAL AND LEGAL ASPECTSWe shall examine in greater detail the system of crimes against humanity and new forms of such crimes engendered by imperialism since World War II.
The current period of history is characterised by the growing struggle of the peoples against imperialism, for national independence and liberation from all forms of class oppression, and against colonialism and neocolonialism. In the postwar period new, progressive principles of interstate relations began to be established.
Imperialism in its most reactionary form---fascism---was in the dock in Nuremberg and harsh sentences were also passed on the Japanese war criminals at the trials in Tokyo and Khabarovsk. The atrocities of fascism cannot be forgotten. It was not by chance that progressive humanity acknowledged the principle of non-application of periods of limitation to the Nazi crimes, which is set out in the criminal legislation of many countries of the world. This question is one of _-_-_
~^^1^^ Trainin, A. N., The Defence of Peace and Criminal Law, Moscow, 1969, p. 316 (in Russian).
279 principle. In criminal law this measure is exceptional, for the Nazi crimes were exceptional in their terrible consequences for humanity. The principle of non-application of periods of limitation to them, on the one hand, indicates that there are crimes which threaten the very existence of life on the planet and are completely unforgettable (at the same time, this is also a moral censure of the aggressors), and, on the other, serves to deter adventurists. For this reason it is difficult to overestimate the international legal significance of this principle.The Charter of the International Military Tribunal became the universally recognised international legal norm adopted by the UN General Assembly in which the most dangerous forms of crime for humanity are defined. They are enumerated in Article 6 of the Charter:
``(a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, or initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;
"(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation riot justified by military necessity;
``(c) CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated."^^1^^
It would seem that the lessons of World War II should have served as a stern warning. However, the further the war years recede into the past, the louder are heard the voices _-_-_
~^^1^^ Trial of the Major War Criminals..., Vol. I, p. 11. 280
280 of those who are ready to excuse both the crimes perpetrated at the time and those Nazis themselves who have escaped just punishment. Moreover, attempts at the falsification of the history of World War II are characteristic of recent times, as are vindications and revivals of fascism, and the renunciation by the Soviet Union's one-time allies in the anti-Hitler coalition of the obligations they took on themselves, is borne out by the harbouring of ex-Nazis and war criminals by the authorities of some Western countries.Many young people in the West have a poor knowledge of history, and they are brought up in an anti-Soviet, anticommunist spirit. They receive distorted information about Nazism and its crimes, about the outstanding role of the Soviet Union in the rout of Nazi Germany and its allies, and about the peaceful policy of our country. In connection with this, it should once again be recalled that, in accordance with the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, the ideological cultivation of the population in a militarist spirit is nothing other than preparation for a war of aggression.
Reactionary imperialist circles, taking refuge behind the fabrications of the "Soviet threat", are building up the arms race and producing new types of nuclear missiles which they are deploying on the territory of a number of European countries. The aggressive nature of such actions is obvious.
In criminal law, distinction is made between the completed crime, attempts at it, and preparations for it. The creation of centres and bases around the Soviet Union and other peaceable countries constitutes preparatory actions to aggression. In accordance with Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, the planning of military action constitutes a crime against peace. The creation of bases manifestly pointed at a specific country (or countries), and the deployment on them of nuclear weapons and the such like fall completely into the given category of crime, which the protagonists of military adventurism would do well to remember.
In connection with the unrestrained arms race, particularly in nuclear arms, brought about by American imperialism and its allies in NATO, it should be pointed out that the International Military Tribunal emphasised the particular danger for humanity of actions connected with the mass annihilation of people, and condemned this 281 monstrous practice. Let us recall the words of Sir Hartley Shawcross, the Chief Prosecutor from Great Britain: "...the principal war crime in extent as in intensity with which these men [Nazi war criminals] are charged is the violation of the most firmly established and least controversial of all the rules of warfare, namely, that noncombatants must not be made the direct object of hostile operations.''^^1^^ It is clear that, if one applies this thesis to the present day, the international community must certainly ban nuclear weapons, for the use of them is criminal.
It should also be said that the arms race and the attempts to achieve military superiority over the supposed or future enemy constitute, in legal language, preparation for a war of aggression, or, in other words, a crime against peace. Fred Ikle, a high-ranking official and a member of the socalled Committee on the Present Danger set up by the American administration, emphasised that the USA had to turn the confrontation with the USSR into a long-term military conflict, having ideologically based this argument on the premise that the USA just cannot afford a passive and indifferent attitude to the colour of the political map of the world. This is nothing other than clear intimidation by use of the "communist threat" with the aim of preparing for a new war. Here it will not be out of place to recall that Hitler, whilst preparing a war of aggression, also brandished the bugbear of the "communist threat". The corresponding manipulation of public opinion at that time, too, was a stage in the preparation for war. This was stated at the Nuremberg trial by Robert Kempner, the Assistant Trial Counsel from the USA.
When a state madly inflates the military budget, this can also only be regarded as preparation for a war of aggression. The Reagan administration has already planned the unprecedented sum of $1.8 trillion for the next five years and intends to ``add'' a further $750,000 million to this. The legal definition of such actions is clear.
The United Nations has made considerable efforts to define the range of actions which constitute crimes against peace and humanity (in addition to those defined in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal). These efforts generalise the experience of the past and serve as a warning to the potential aggressors of the future.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Trial of the Major War Criminals..., Vol. 19, Nuremberg, 1948, p. 467.
282In one of the documents adopted by the UN as a result of long years of discussion, a definition is given of aggression as an international crime. It is set out in Resolution 3314 (XXIX), "The Definition of Aggression", approved by the 29th Session of the General Assembly in 1974.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. AGGRESSION, GENOCIDE AND APARTHEID ASIt is through many harsh ordeals that the world has arrived at a definition of the concept of aggression as an international crime against humanity: ordeals, of which the war unleashed by the Nazis was the drop which caused the patience of the peoples to overflow. The world has arrived at a definition of aggression, having overcome the injurious theoretical designs of the apologists of the exploiting society who justified the use of force and war itself. Thus, for example, as early as the end of the last century, the German lawyer August W. Heffter emphasised that "... no society can rely on eternal peace. The peoples, like individuals, sin, just as within themselves, so, too, in their relations with others. War serves as a means of redemption and moral renovation.^^1^^ And the British lawyer L. Oppenheim emphasised that "War was in law a natural function of the State and a prerogative of its uncontrolled sovereignty.''^^2^^
The victory of the Great October Revolution put an end to the justification of wars of aggression. The ideas of the Revolution undoubtedly influenced all forces which also thought that the development of the peoples is incompatible with aggression and human destruction. In 1928, for example, the Sixth Pan-American Conference passed a resolution which pointed out that "... war of aggression constitutes a crime against the human species ... all aggression is illicit and as such is declared prohibited.''^^3^^
In the same year the well-known Kellogg-Briand Pact was concluded (48 states joined it), which stipulated that the signatory countries condemned in the name of their _-_-_
~^^1^^ August Wilhelm Heffter, Das Europdische Volkerrecht der Gegenwart auf den bisherigen Grundlagen, Vorlag von H. -W. Miiller, Berlin, 1888, p. 8.
~^^2^^ L. Oppenheim, International Law. A Treatise, Vol. II, Disputes, War and Neutrality, Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1940, p. 145.
^^3^^ 3 ibid., p. 148.
283 peopies the method of resorting to war to settle international disputes, and in their mutual relations rejected war as an instrument of national policy. It is clear that, without the appearance of the Soviet Union, whose policy made progressive forces look at questions of war, aggression and peace in a new way, such a pact would have been impossible. Of course, this document, too, contained questions requiring clarification, particularly, as the Soviet Union pointed out, on the need for universal disarmament.After the hell of the war against Nazism, the peoples of the world, through the UN General Assembly, as has already been said, adopted the definition of aggression in the face of opposition from the USA and some of its allies, and declared it a crime against humanity. A logical consequence of the rejection of the use of force is found in the Soviet Union's numerous proposals on this matter and its solemn declaration at the Second Special Session of the UN General Assembly in 1982 that it would never be the first to use nuclear weapons. Those imperialist circles which have not abandoned aggressive aspirations and have not made similar declarations in response, having reserved for themselves the "right to aggression", have openly shown before the whole world that they have by no means given up gambling on aggression, that history has taught them nothing, and that they pay no heed to public opinion. But the definition of aggression exists today. There also exists criminal responsibility for aggression as a crime against peace and humanity.
In 1948 the UN approved the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which declared genocide an international crime. The legal definition of this crime is actions carried out with the aim of wholly or partly destroying a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.
The United Nations has recognised genocide as an intolerable and inhuman manifestation of barbarity. But the peoples of the world must remember: the American aggressors in Vietnam in many respects followed the path of the Nazis.
Peace-loving public opinion, indignant at the brutality of the Israeli aggressors in Lebanon, has branded them international criminals. A number of progressive international non-governmental organisations, in particular, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, have founded authoritative committees of enquiry to investigate the crime of the Israeli aggressors (and the role of their American 284 patrons). The legal definition of their crimes is simple---- genocide. It is worth noting here that genocide has already recieved the evaluation of history---in the condemnation for it of the Nazi war criminals, who destroyed the civilian population on national or racial grounds on territory captured by the fascists---and, on the part of the international community, has been given a precise definition in the relevant UN document.
However, history has taught nothing to the new pretenders to world domination. For example, the present leaders of Israel are attempting to substantiate the ``theory'' of a ``threat'' to Israel from Lebanon, Syria and other Arab countries, and of the necessity, in this connection, to physically destroy an entire people---the Palestinians. And if genocide was formerly an accomplished reality, constituting a continuation of aggression, having as its base the racist opinions and morals of the aggressor, then the current theoretical substantiation of genocide is astounding for its cynicism, inhumanity and awful practical consequences for mankind.
Analysing the concept of genocide today, it is essential to note that it has now become an act which is not linked with aggression alone. Reactionary regimes have taken it as a weapon, ruthlessly dealing both with opposition elements and with the civilian population, including old men, and women and children. Among the clearest examples of this are the crimes of the Salvadoran junta. In 1982 alone around 5,000 citizens of that country became victims of genocide. Several hundred thousand Salvadorans, fleeing from destruction and repression, have left their homeland.
The racist clique of South Africa, which elevated apartheid and genocide to the level of national policy, is engaged in the physical elimination of Namibians and Angolans.
Discussing genocide and its contemporary modifications, we must not forget also to mention the so-called "Kampuchean experiment". The Pol Pot-Ieng Sary clique murdered three million Kampuchean citizens to assert its anti-human ideology. The danger of this manifestation of genocide is not only in the fact that the criminals murdered millions of people, but also in that, because of political considerations, international reaction today defends those who annihilated millions of their countrymen, giving the impression that "nothing unusual happened", vindicating the murderers, ignoring the obvious facts proven at the trial in Kampuchea, 285 and closing its eyes to the fact that genocide is regarded by the international community as a crime against humanity. Some Western ideologists are attempting to represent the acts of the Pol Pot-Ieng Sary clique as ``communist'', although the Pol Pot clique has neither anything ideological nor political in common with communism.
During the aggression in Vietnam, American imperialism employed previously unknown means of waging war, causing the destruction of man's natural environment on massive scales. Every living thing in a number of regions of Vietnam was destroyed by herbicides and chemical agents. The danger of actions of this type is also in that the upsetting of the ecological balance in some region fatally tells on other, far-off places. In 1977 the international Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques was signed. The destruction of nature leads directly and indirectly to the deaths of people in large numbers including, maybe more than any other group, of the civilian population. Therefore, such a'ctions are tantamount to genocide for their consequences, and must have the corresponding international legal interpretation.
The conference, which took place in 1983 in Ho Chi Minh City (Socialist Republic of Vietnam), at which the actions of the aggressors, and particularly their use of herbicides and other chemical agents were subjected to detailed examination, showed with all clarity that the consequences of these actions will exert a long-term, baneful influence on Vietnamese nature.
Progressive humanity wants to impose a ban on all actions which carry a threat to peace and to the very life of people, and in this way to bind the hands of the present-day aggressors. After World War II the crime of apartheid was condemned, which consists in the forcible and calculated division of people into Whites and ``Coloureds'', and the legal deprivation of the latter of their rights. Apartheid is the result of the barbarous theory of racism and its practical legislative expression in racist regimes. The 28th Session of the General Assembly of the UN declared apartheid a crime against humanity creating a serious threat to peace and security, and adopted the Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. The 30th Session of the General Assembly called on all countries of the world to sign the Convention, to ratify it, and 286 scrupulously to implement it. In so doing, the international community condemned those states, and their regimes and leaders, who have elevated apartheid to the level of national policy.
It is clear that the question of recognition of any form of racial discrimination as an international crime stands next in line.
In connection with this it must be noted that the UN General Assembly passed a resolution On the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1963, 1965), and that the 21st Session of the General Assembly qualified colonialism as a crime against humanity and recognised the lawfulness of the struggle being waged by the peoples against neocolonialism and for national independence and freedom.
This bears witness that the whole of progressive public opinion, states, and governments of countries advocating the cause of peace and security" of the people, recognise the aforementioned acts as criminal. It is ever more difficult for reactionary forces to follow an anti-popular policy, and international agreements essentially narrow the possibilities to implement aggressive plans. Nonetheless, imperialism is out to further its heinous deeds in the international arena.
A short historical period on from the end of World War II, mankind is forced to conduct a fight against forces related to those which unleashed that, but which have altered the forms and methods of their operation. Imperialism today organises criminal activities more underhandedly and more cunningly.
We should like to emphasise two important points. The concept of a "crime against humanity" came about as a reaction to the deeds made possible in connection with wars of aggression accompanied by the destruction of the material culture of the peoples, brutal methods of conducting war, and by the torment and physical destruction of the civilian population. The peoples have condemned these crimes and those who perpetrated them. History, too, has branded them. However, we must not forget the international acts of law which have been passed, and which make provision for the punishment of international criminals. It is essential that they should operate against contemporary criminals who do not wish to remember the lessons of history.
After all, these acts are not only applicable in conditions where global conflicts are unleashed, threatening the 287 existence of all humanity, but also in other situations highly dangerous for the cause of peace. Unfortunately, there are in the world many forces wishing to balance on the brink of war, and to instigate and maintain local conflicts, although it must be clear to everyone that such conflicts, can develop into a major conflagration.
Life has shown that crimes against humanity, like other serious international crimes, can be perpetrated even in the absence of global conflicts, in a period of comparatively peaceful development of relations between states and peoples. Unfortunately, no precedents have yet been set to call to account the initiators of local conflicts for the more barbarous methods of their ``resolution''; there have only been hearings at which public opinion has condemned the criminals in absentia.
The appearance of new forms of criminal acts demands a struggle against them with the aid of laws, conventions and agreements. Some of them almost constitute a modification of the crimes of the conquerors of past centuries.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 4. MERCENARIES AND TERRORISM: INSTRUMENTSThe hiring of mercenaries is one such crime, whose origins lie in the past and with the help of which imperialism is realising its neocolonialist policy. It used to be a widespread phenomenon. In the ancient world and in the Middle Ages military leaders commanded armies made up almost entirely of mercenaries; for example, the forces of Friedrich the Great were made up almost without exception of mercenaries, and Napoleon, too, did not shun their services. The hiring of mercenaries in the 20th century has, unfortunately, been revived on a new basis, and has become even more dangerous.
An attack by a country on another with the help of mercenaries ought to be qualified as aggression and as a crime against peace. Seeing this, the reactionary circles of imperialism are even attempting to pass off the hiring of mercenaries as a form of private enterprise: it is supposedly not the state that selects mercenaries to serve in the suppression of national liberation movements, but certain enterprising private individuals. In actual fact, however, the most reactionary regimes, and those who morally and materially support them, openly recruit mercenaries. The secret services 288 of imperialist states, notably the American G.I.A., are also engaged in hiring mercenaries (this was particularly clearly revealed at the trial of mercenaries in Angola).
It has always been the dregs of society who have been hired as mercenaries---professional killers and thieves, who shrink from nothing for money. No wonder the word `` mercenary'' is always uttered with contempt.
Throughout the centuries, mercenaries have committed atrocities on territory subjugated by their hands. Moreover, those who engaged them encouraged these atrocities. The modern ``conquerors'' are not falling behind their forerunners. Nowadays they are completely mobile: from Africa they move on to the Middle East, then they fly to Latin America and so on (incidentally, mercenaries were called "Wild Geese" as early as the 18th century, just as they are today).
In many Western countries, numerous semilegal recruiting centres operate, where mercenaries are enlisted from the castoffs of society. Amongst this riffraff are Germans and Belgians, Englishmen and Australians, Canadians and South Africans. But they are all united by total immorality and a craving for profit.
There is not yet a UN covenant on the question of recognising the hiring of mercenaries as an international crime. It is not that simple to overcome the opposition of reactionary forces. However, there are already a number of documents in which the international community unambiguously characterises the hiring of mercenaries. Here is an excerpt from a special resolution of the UN: "The use of mercenaries by colonial and racist regimes against the national liberation movements struggling for their freedom and independence from the yoke of colonialism and alien domination is considered to be a criminal act and mercenaries should accordingly be punished as criminals.''^^1^^
It is clear that the defence of the national independence of the peoples who have liberated or are liberating themselves from the colonialist or the imperialist yoke urgently requires the addition of the hiring of mercenaries to the number of international crimes and crimes against humanity. As early as 1949 it was said in the Additional Protocols _-_-_
~^^1^^ Resolution No. 3103 (XXVIII) of the UN General Assembly, 12th December 1973, in: Resolutions Adopted by the General Assembly During Its 28th Session, Vol. 1, 18 September-18 December 1973, United Nations, New York, 1974, p. 143.
__PRINTERS_P_289_COMMENT__ 19---339 289 to the]Geneva Conventions that the mercenary does not possess thV rights of a soldier who served in a regular army, and that he is a war criminal.Not only mercenaries themselves must be recognised as criminals, but also those who enlist them or make use of their services. Such is the behest of the day.
Today, other criminal acts have also appeared which are rousing peoples' anxiety, creating an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, and hindering normal mutual relations between states.
Terrorism (which is often interwoven with mercenary activity) is characteristic in this respect. Arising in one or another Western country as a reflection of sharp internal conflicts, and instability and unsteadiness in society, it moves from one state to another, taking on cruel, aggressive aspects. Hundreds and thousands of people die in the fires of terrorism. Having engendered terrorism both as a political phenomenon and as a crime, the bourgeoisie is attempting to use it in the struggle against progressive forces and other political opponents. In this the ideologists of imperialism are seeking to promote the criminal nature of terrorism to the forefront and in every way possible to conceal its reactionary political nature.
The most widespread forms are the murder of and other encroachments on the life of political and social figures unwelcome to reactionary forces (in this terrorists do not spare other people who "get in their way" either). Typical methods are the hijacking of airliners, the taking of hostages, the blowing up of progressive organisations' premises, and similar violent activities.
With the help of terrorists, the USA is attempting to hinder progressive changes even in developed capitalist countries. For example, in Italy, as soon as the strengthening of the positions of leftist forces became apparent, there and then at the signal---an official US declaration on the inadmissibility of the entry of Communists into the Italian government---the country was swept by the fires of terrorism. The culmination of this was the killing of Aldo Moro, but the terrorists are even now continuing their dirty business.
Today, two courses of international terrorism have been clearly defined: the rightist, fascist type, and the ultra-- leftist, which, in the final analysis, is not really so different in essence from the former.
The theoretical basis of rightist terrorism is by no means 290 new. At its base lie the theories and ideas created by fascism. Rightist terrorism always accompanies the struggle against progress and democracy everywhere. It is the force to whose aid imperialist circles are resorting, not only within their own system, but also beyond its frontiers, particularly for the suppression of national liberation movements.
Terrorist organisations of the right operate practically with impunity. Many of them form part of the battle formations of the reborn fascist detachments. Thus, in the FRG, neo-Nazis have even conducted military training under the leadership of Heinz Hoffmann, and the authorities did not even think to hinder this. Bourgeois ideologists painstakingly circumvent this side of the problem. Of course, from time to time one of the extremists is called to account, but this occurs only in particularly scandalous situations. In the USA, for example, members of the notorious Jewish Defense League enjoy practical impunity.
It must be said that the USA is financing the more active terrorist organisations in the world. Many terrorists are trained in special secret centres under the control of the C.I.A.. Every terroristic, dictatorial regime in the world leans on the USA for help and support.
Thus, state-sponsored terrorism has flourished splendidly on the Latin American continent---in Chile, Paraguay, El Salvador, Uruguay, and in other countries. It is notable that wherever a change toward democracy begins to take shape, imperialism quickly sets rightist terrorists operating. In Jamaica, they tried to kill Prime Minister Michael Manley who had turned the country onto the path of democratic reform. In Portugal and Spain, after the overthrow of fascist dictatorships, the intrigues of terrorist groups to this day have not been curtailed.
Ultra-leftist terrorism also represents a growing danger in the modern era. In a number of cases it makes its distinctive form of protest against the orders existing in the Western world. However, this does not change the general evaluation of its nature, for even this form of terrorism is striking for its cruelty and, frequently, for its senselessness, diverting the masses from the real struggle for their rights and hindering this struggle. Apart from that, bourgeois ideologists use ultra-leftist terrorism to slander the revolutionary movement, intimidating Westerners with its extremes, which is particularly seen in the example of the so-called "Red Brigades" in Italy.
__PRINTERS_P_291_COMMENT__ 19* 291The West German terrorists Andreas Baader and Ulrika Meinhoff founded the ``ideology'' of ultra-leftist terrorism ---a distinctive mixture of anarchism, Trotskyism and fascism. Verbally condemning the capitalist order, ultra-leftist terrorists are in actual fact helping capitalism to fight revolutionary and national liberation movements. The ultraleftists' inclination of force and cruelty for the sake of a "sense of protest" not limited by anything is easily directed onto a course suitable to reactionary forces.
Imperialist circles make use of the negative attitude of world public opinion to terrorism, trying to label the national liberation movement of the peoples as terrorism, and in this way to distort the nature of this movement and to compromise it. The actions of ultra-leftist exremists are at times deliberately provoked by the rightists with the aim of discrediting the revolutionary movement.
At sessions of the General Assembly and various commissions and committees of the UN, representatives of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, and also of nonaligned states have convincingly proved the groundlessness of the charge with terrorism brought by the imperialists against national liberation movements. Revealing the real nature of terrorism and its opposition to democracy and progress, the socialist countries have exposed the terrorist methods in the national policy of a number of states. In so doing they have also constantly stressed that the demand for satisfaction of the just rights of the Palestinian people has nothing in common with the approval of terrorism.
The widening scales and the exremely dangerous nature of terrorism, the high number of its victims and its political nature, which is even more important than its inherent criminal nature----all compel us to approach this phenomenon particularly seriously.
Although terrorism is widespread today as never before, it is not in itself a new phenomenon. Lenin made an enormous contribution to the collapse of the ideas of terrorism.^^1^^
In recent years the West has tended to take regional measures against terrorism without coordinating them with the international community. The corresponding acts are formulated in such a way as to grant the authorities complete freedom of action in taking decisions to call terrorists to account.
_-_-_~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 6, pp. 189, 193; Vol. 39, p. 31. 292
292It is clear that legislation must provide for the punishment of terrorists, just as of rightist, fascist persuasion, so, too, of the ultra-leftists. But in this not even the slightest discredit of the revolutionary and national liberation movements must in any way be allowed. One must also not overlook the obviously political nature of terrorism, bearing in mind, of course, that even ordinary criminals can commit specific acts of terrorism.
In peacetime terrorism appears as a crime which has taken on the dangerous traits of many international crimes. For instance, if we are dealing with the ``state-sponsored'' terrorism committed by the US administration and Israel, then here aggression and genocide are to hand. If terrorists murder or capture diplomatic representatives or citizens of some country and go into hiding with them in a country whose leaders harbour them from accountability, then it is patently obvious that this will harm relations between the states and is fraught with complications dangerous to the cause of peace.
It is important to conclude an agreement on combatting terrorism, in which it is essential to recognise it as a crime detrimental to the cause of peace and co-operation between states, and as a crime against humanity.
In this chapter we have examined only a few dangerous crimes detrimental to the cause of peace, international cooperation and normal mutual relations between states, and which bear a threat to humanity. But there are also other crimes similar to these in nature. These include illegal broadcasting by all sorts of provocative anti-democratic radio stations calling the world to a ``crusade'' against communism; piracy, which is also used by reactionary forces to capture or transfer arms and sell them to dictatorial, fascist and semi-fascist regimes and terrorists; the spread of drug addiction and pornography as a means of dehumanising people and pushing them toward crimes; the forgery of money and securities to undermine the economy and finances of developing countries; smuggling and a host of other crimes. All these are crimes bearing a threat to humanity and peace on Earth.
At the 37th Session of the UN General Assembly (1982), a resolution was adopted on the creation of a Draft Code of Offences Against the Peace and Security of Mankind. Peaceloving public opinion can only welcome this initiative. It is clear that reactionary circles will treat both the 293 initiative itself and particularly the actual preparation of the Code without any particular enthusiasm. Here we must bear in mind that imperialism and its apologists, on the one hand, will try to emasculate what is written in the Charter of the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, which, of course, cannot be permitted, and, on the other, will try to distort and falsify the substance of the concept of an international crime, as is the case, for example, with the concept of terrorism. However, the interests of the peoples and the interests of maintaining peace on our planet require the frustration of the designs of reaction. This is the task of each person to whom the cause of peace on Earth, democracy and social progress is vital.
[294] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter 18 __ALPHA_LVL2__ HUMAN RIGHTS AND PROBLEMS OF PEACE __ALPHA_LVL3__ [introduction.]At present the problems of guaranteeing human rights in all their entirety are linked with the problems of war and peace, and international security. The practical realisation of human rights, above all of the most important right--- to life---demands the averting of thermonuclear war and the doing away with military conflicts between states. A strengthening of international security and progress in finding a solution to the disarmament problem would facilitate considerable development in the health service, the educational and social insurance systems and so on, which are a kind of material base guaranteeing the implementation of human rights. There is, however, another side to this link. Imperialist circles, distorting the concept of human rights by making them meet only the interests of the ruling clique of the capitalist world, are attempting to interfere in the internal affairs of states of the socialist community with the help of all sorts of speculation about supposed infringements of human rights in socialist countries. Moreover, the leaders of a number of Western countries are trying to torpedo efforts to improve the international political climate by making the solution of certain foreign policy problems conditional on the socialist countries' yielding to demands relating exclusively to their internal affairs. Thus, the problem of guaranteeing human rights is an object of acute class and political confrontation on the international arena.
An attempt to reveal the ideological and political nature of human rights was first undertaken in the 18th century by Rousseau, Montesquieu and Diderot> the forefathers of the theory of "natural right". The provisions of this theory, which were formalised in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, constituted a reaction by the bourgeoisie to the arbitrariness of feudal aristocracy and as a whole bore enormous significance in the advancement of humanity onto the path of social progress. However, 295 proclaiming abstract "eternal and natural" rights and freedom's which man has allegedly enjoyed ever since his inception, this Declaration consolidated the ``sacred'' and unlimited right of private property. Since then this conception has become the basis of bourgeois constitutional legislation, which serves as an official cover of the scandalous social injustice of the exploitation of man by man.
The Great October Socialist Revolution began a new period in the proclamation and practical realisation of human rights. For the first time in history working people took political power into their own hands, smashed the chains of social and national oppression and declared their goal as the establishment of a genuine democracy, international peace and friendship.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. SOCIALISM AND HUMAN RIGHTSTsarism left a harsh legacy to Russia---economic backward ness, around 80 per cent illiteracy, poverty, disease, national enmity and small, dying nationalities. This was a country of arbitrary rule which was justly called a prison of peoples. It was to be radically altered by the Great October Revolution. Looking back, Soviet people are rightly proud of their achievements gained under the guidance of the glorious Leninist party. The economy of the country has changed beyond recognition. The daily social product is now more than seventy times greater than it was in 1913. In that time the national income has grown seventy eight times. The USSR now produces one fifth of all world industrial output, as opposed to the mere 4 per cent produced by tsarist Russia.
History clearly bears out the determining role of socioeconomic conditions in the guaranteeing to the individual of a worthy place in society. Engels wrote that "the urge towards happiness thrives only to a trivial extent on ideal rights. To the greatest extent of all it thrives on material means.''^^1^^ Precisely because of this the Soviet government, from the first days of its existence, placed concern for the material well-being and spiritual growth of its people at the centre of its attention. On its banner it inscribed the _-_-_
^^1^^ Frederick Engels, "Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy", in: Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Selected Works, Vol, 3, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1970, pp. 358-59.
296 words defining the high aim of the new society: "Everything for the sake of man, for the benefit of man''.The Soviet Republic was the first country which, as far back as 50 years ago, closed the last labour exchange and excluded the very word ``unemployment'' from people's vocabulary forever. On the basis of the growth of the economy, ever new possibilities are being created for an increase in the standard of living and the satisfaction of the spiritual needs of the workers. Under Soviet power the real incomes of factory and office workers have increased tenfold, and of peasants fourteenfold. In the span of just one human life our society has moved several times to a qualitatively new level of consumption. The housing problem is being successfully solved. More living accommodation is being built every two years now than there existed in the whole of pre-Revolution urban Russia. Rent in the USSR is the very lowest, not exceeding 3 per cent of a working family's income. One of the greatest achievements of socialism is the health and social security system, set up under Soviet power and run at the expense of the state.
Socialism has opened to the people broad access to knowledge and to the riches of spiritual culture. More than three quarters of the working population have a higher or secondary (complete or incomplete) education. Today 102.8 million people are engaged in all forms of study, which is free in the USSR.
Marxism-Leninism emphasises the constant importance of guaranteeing political rights and civil freedoms in the new society. Having dedicated his life to the struggle for social justice and himself experienced the burden of repression and the arbitrariness of the tsarist authorities, Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state, paid particular attention to the realisation of the ideals of democracy and humanism in legislation and in its practical implementation. Himself educated as a lawyer, Lenin, a convinced opponent of bourgeois law, nevertheless called for the use of all that was good in the legislation of other countries. "Everything that the literature and experience of the West-European countries contain on the protection of the working people must be used.''^^1^^ These words were said in connection with the creation of a draft Civil Code of the RSFSR.
_-_-_^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 203.
297The USSR Constitution of 1977 was a major step in the enhancement, of the legal status of the Soviet man which reflected the conditions of developed socialism. For the first time in the world the whole scope of a citizen's rights and duties, and of the relations between the state and the individual was formulated in its special section entitled "The State and the Individual''.
Upholding the inviolability of the citizens' most important socio-economic rights---to work, rest and leisure, education and social security---the 1977 Constitution has taken a major new step in the broadening of the guarantees of these rights, taking into account the potentialities of developed socialism. The list of these rights is growing. In particular, the rights to health protection, to housing, and to enjoy cultural benefits are today fortified by the Soviet Constitution.
Citizens' political rights and freedoms are set out in the 1977 Constitution much more fully than they were before. In particular, the Constitution guarantees the rights of citizens to take part in the management and administration of state and public affairs; to submit proposals to state bodies and public organisations, and to criticise shortcomings in their work; to lodge a complaint against the actions of officials, state bodies and public bodies, including taking court action, etc.
The general programme for the development of our political system is also reinforced on a constitutional level. This consists of the further development of democracy, the stepping up of the work of public bodies, the consolidation of the People's Control system, the reinforcing of the legal basis of public and state life, the taking into account of public opinion, et al. The freedom of scientific, artistic and technical creativity has been reaffirmed. So has state protection of the family, and the privacy of citizens, and of their telephone conversations, and telegraphic communications. The inviolability and protection has been proclaimed of the life and health, property and personal freedom, and honour and dignity of citizens.
The substantial reinforcement of the guarantees of the rights and freedoms of Soviet citizens is a distinguishing characteristic of the current Soviet Constitution. Let us take, for example, the right of citizens to work which is enshrined in it. It is now not merely the right to work as it was before, but also guarantees choise of profession and type 298 of job. There is a guaranteed minimum wage, fixed working week and leisure time. Similar rights are also contained in other sections on socio-economic and civil rights of Soviet people.
The democratic and humane principles, which are set out in Soviet law and developed in the new Soviet Constitution, have won recognition in the world. The example of the world's first socialist country was a mighty accelerator of the world revolutionary process and liberation struggle of the peoples against imperialism. It has facilitated the progress of millions of people in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America in their active struggle for national liberation.
Trying to bring the influence of the ideas and example of socialism to naught, and fearing the rise of the working class's struggle in capitalist countries, the bourgeoisie is forced to manoeuvre, to make concessions and to introduce into legislation some democratic statutes relating to social and political life. This has a beneficial influence on the consolidation of progressive forces in the struggle for liberation of the workers from the yoke of capital. For constitutional norms in themselves serve as a legal base permitting the working class openly to come out against the extremes of dominant monopoly capital and its political power.
But, however impressive the victories of the workers are, because of the very nature of capitalism and its economic and political structure, which is used to serve and protect the privileges of the minority, personal rights and freedoms in a bourgeois society are always limited by the framework of the interests of the ruling elite. They have an unstable, shaky, and in many respects formal character, since the state often bears no obligations before its citizens. It is asserted that any citizen is ``free'' to exercise at his own discretion the rights enshrined in the constitution. However, in practice, when events take an undesirable turn the bourgeoisie attempts to curtail or to bring completely to naught the achievements of the workers and to crush democratic freedoms as, for example, happened in Chile when the fascist clique of Pinochet came to power.
On the other hand, the socialist concept of human rights has a complex nature, a broad perspective, and is firm and at the same time dynamic. It does not set off one set of human rights against another. Particular attention is drawn to the state's guarantees of human rights. It is the state which 299 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1984/PCS453/20100319/399.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2010.03.18) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ nil was and remains the main guarantor of all human rights in a socialist society.
The basis of the legal status of the individual in the USSR was developed in the first years of Soviet power, notably in the Declaration of Rights of the Peoples of Russia, the Declaration of Rights of the Working and Exploited People, and in decrees on the abolition of estates and civil ranks, on civil marriage, and on the separation of the church from the state and of the school from the church, as well as in other legislative acts. It was reflected more fully and in more detail in the first Soviet constitutions. However, this status was not to remain unchangeable. As the political position of socialism gained strength, the socio-economic programmes were fulfilled, and the spiritual and material potential of society grew, it became possible to supplement and broaden the existing rights and to establish new ones.
The domestic policy of the GPSU and the Soviet state, which is directed at improving the life of the people and broadening the democratic rights and freedoms of man, is organically complemented by an active foreign policy guaranteeing the most important of human rights---the right to life.
The Soviet government was the first to adopt a law on peace and to establish criminal responsibility for war propaganda in 1953. It was the first to proclaim the equality of races and nations and implemented this in practice. Lenin's ideas consolidated in our legislation on the right of nations to self-determination and to independent statehood received an enormous response in the world.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. THE PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSAL RESPECT FOR HUMANIn the international relations of the capitalist era there were no examples of co-operation among states on questions of universal respect for human rights and freedoms. The existence of a system of colonial oppression which deprived the peoples of their rights and was founded and defended by the capitalist states ruled out the possibility of such a task being undertaken by capitalism.
The emergence of the humane idea of the necessity for international backing for the universal respect of the individual's democratic rights and freedoms is related to the historical period when the first socialist state in the world--- 300 the Soviet Union---began to exert significant influence on international development, and there was a powerful rise in the working-class and democratic movement, and in the national liberation struggle in the colonies and dependencies, whose peoples were determined to cast off the yoke of colonialism.
Therefore, we can assert with good reason that the declaration in international relations of the principle of universal respect for basic human rights and freedoms and the affirmation of the fundamental democratic principles of international affairs constitute one of the earnest and outstanding manifestations of the progressive influence of socialism and other forces of peace and democracy.
The Soviet Union's victory over fascism played a particular role in this, making an enormous contribution to the cause of the defence of basic human rights, and above all of the right to life and to peace. The demands of the peoples enslaved by the Nazis for the restoration and subsequent defence of the individual's inalienable rights and basic freedoms, which won continual support from the USSR, were reflected in the United Nations Charter---the most important international document of our time.
In this international act of law the determination of the United Nations was proclaimed "... 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 ..." The Soviet Union also officially proposed that the United Nations Charter state unambiguously that international co-operation "...in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights, in particular of the right to work and to education, and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion" must be one of the main aims of the UN as a wordwide organisation supporting international peace and security.^^1^^ This Soviet proposal was incorporated in Chapter I of the Charter, entitled "Purposes and Principles". In order to satisfy oneself of who was the initiator and really the author of this humane provision of the UN Charter, which was supported by all the other founding states of the UN, it is sufficient to compare the text of Paragraph 3, Article 1 of the UN Charter with the Soviet proposal.
_-_-_~^^1^^ S. B. Krylov, Materials Relating to the History of the United Nations, Moscow, 1949, Book 1, p. 302 (in Russian).
301A UN study emphasises that "The Second World War proved to many the close relationship between outrageous behaviour by a Government towards its own citizens and aggression against other nations, between respect for human rights and the maintenance of peace.''^^1^^
And, indeed, the rulers of fascist Germany and Italy crushed the last remnants of bourgeois-democratic freedoms and established lawless and arbitrary rule before unleashing wars of aggression. The wars which they began led to the liquidation of the rights of the peoples of occupied countries.
The viability of the tenet advocated by socialism and reflected in the UN Charter that the maintenance of international peace and the guaranteeing of the security of the peoples are indissolubly linked with the defence of democratic rights and freedoms is once again corroborated by the events of recent years. Imperialism's foreign policy course of preparation of nuclear war and the militarisation of the economy connected with this lead to enormous economic, financial and social problems and mass unemployment for the populations of these countries. An attack on the political and civil freedoms of the people with the aim of suppressing any opposition to war preparations is an inevitable consequence of a militarist policy.
Therefore, all the work of the United Nations on human rights, all the declarations, international conventions, covenants and agreements in this area of international cooperation adopted within its framework are directed, in the final analysis, at "... the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples..." (Art. 55 of the UN Charter),
In the working out of international documents on human rights in the UN---the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international covenants which were to form the so-called charter of human rights---two different approaches were immediately apparent. The representatives of the Western bourgeois countries, making use of the automatic majority they had at that time in organs of the UN, tried to reduce the essence of the problem to the confirmation of the traditional political and civil rights and _-_-_
~^^1^^ United Nations Action in the Field of Human Rights, United Nations, New York, 1980, p. 5.
302 freedoms, at the basis of which lay the "inviolable and sacred" right of property. The Soviet Union and other socialist countries proceeded from the fact that the complete realisation of freedom and equality of rights is only possible as a result of doing away with the exploitation of man by man. Drawing on the historic achievements of socialism, they persistently strove in a complex political climate for the maximal reflection in the Declaration and international covenants on human rights of the interests of the broad working masses, the exploited part of the world's population.And if such socio-economic rights as the right to work, rest and leisure, education and social security were consolidated in the Declaration and covenants despite imperialist opposition, if the traditional bourgeois political and civil rights and freedoms were given a more democratic ring, and a condemnation, albeit indirect, of colonial orders was included in them, then credit for this goes primarily to the Soviet Union, the other socialist countries, and developing nations. The inclusion of these provisions in the Declaration and covenants was tantamount to international recognition of a number of important achievements and principles of socialism.
The Declaration, as it says in its preamble, was proclaimed "... as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations..." For the Soviet Union the rights and freedoms contained in it were already an economic, social and political reality. Many of these rights and freedoms were consolidated in the very first months of the Revolution and they were reflected in the first Soviet constitutions.
Thus the Soviet Union has already been serving the cause of defending rights and freedoms for more than six decades, above all by its example---the example of a state the whole purpose of whose existence is to serve man and create optimal conditions for the all-round development and flourishing of the individual.
Since the end of the war the Soviet Union has been promoting the realisation of the principle of universal respect for basic human rights and freedoms with all the means at its disposal. The USSR initiated the adoption of many important international documents, including the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the Declaration and International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It came out in favour of consolidating such proposals as the 303 right to work, rest and leisure, education, social security et al in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It secured the inclusion of the proposal on the right of nations to self-determination in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The USSR is a signatory of all the major international agreements on human rights. The principle of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is consolidated in the USSR Constitution as part of the basis of the USSR's relations with other states.
However, imperialism and its accomplices continue to commit barbarous acts angering the conscience of humanity in various parts of the world, threatening man's right to life. Since the end of World War II already more than 100 ``minor'' wars have occurred in the world, costing humanity around 25 million lives.
We must also not forget that tens of millions of people in the non-socialist countries are still denied the possibility of enjoying such basic human rights as the right to work, health care, social security, and to enjoy the riches of culture, without which a dignified existence is inconceivable. Flagrant violations of political, civil and individual rights are continuing in many countries, which cannot fail to rouse the anxiety of world opinion.
And even so, the principle of respect for human rights has withstood the test of time. On the whole the world has developed precisely in the direction projected in the UN Charter and later in all the UN declarations, covenants and conventions on human rights, namely, along the path of progress. Article 28 of the Universal Declaration says that "Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realised." In the last three decades the right to such a just social order has become a reality for tens of millions of people who have firmly taken the path of building socialism. Hundreds of millions of people living in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America which have freed themselves from colonial oppression have also drawn nearer to the realisation of this right. The progressive foreign policy of the countries of the socialist community of nations and of other peace forces has created real prospects for the establishment of an international order based on international detente, peaceful co-existence and the all-round co-operation of states.
304The principle of universal respect for basic human rights and freedoms has won wide recognition in international affairs. Its requirements were emphasised and elaborated in documents of the UN and other organisations and were laid at the basis of a- number of agreements, having become obligatory norms of conduct for states. This principle is set out in great detail in the important Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.
More and more countries are signing other international agreements which develop and consolidate the provisions of the UN Charter concerning human rights. These include the Convention on the Political Rights of Women, the Convention Against Discrimination in Education, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.
Ever more states are acknowledging the fairness of the proposition advanced by the socialist countries that the assumption by states of concrete obligations in the encouragement and development of universal respect for basic rights and freedoms and their scrupulous implementation can be the sole basis of international co-operation in this field.
We must note, however, that some capitalist countries, above all the USA, which is trying to present itself as an enthusiastic supporter of human rights and is lecturing other countries, have not yet ratified international covenants on human rights. Out of the 19 international agreements on human rights, the USA has ratified just three. The USA treats in a similar way the conventions worked out by the International Labour Organisation for the guaranteeing of workers' rights. This clearly confirms the hypocritical nature of the US administration's declarations of devotion to the principle of respect for basic rights.
By contrast, the Soviet Union and other socialist countries are unwavering adherents to all international agreements on human rights. The Soviet Union has already for many years had broadly ramified comprehensive legislation. Therefore, hardly any changes were needed in Soviet legislation when the USSR ratified international covenants on human rights in 1973, for all the fundamental constitutional and other normative provisions guaranteeing the rights and freedoms recognised by these covenants were established in the USSR long before their development and adoption by international organisations. And if we compare the __PRINTERS_P_305_COMMENT__ 20-339 305 legislation and practice of socialism with covenants on human rights and with those international standards in this area which are set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference, then it is easy to see that the rights and freedoms of citizens of the USSR, just as of citizens of other socialist countries, not only correspond to the given acts, but in many respects exceed their demands and recommendations.
Let us take, for example, the solution of the problem of equality and equal rights, in particular in its national aspect. In the USSR there are around 110 nations and nationalities which are united into 15 Union Republics, 20 Autonomous Republics, 5 Autonomous Regions and 10 Autonomous Areas. From the first days of the Revolution the Leninist policy aimed at achieving the actual equality of all nations and nationalities has been followed under the guidance of the Communist Party. Thus, from 1922 to 1982, the growth rate of industrial production in the Tajik SSR grew more than 890 times, in the Kirghiz SSR more than 700 times, in the Uzbek SSR almost 430 times, and in the Turkmen SSR more than 209 times. In comparison with 1940 alone the industrial production of Kazakhstan had increased 33 times by the start of 1982. In the same period the industrial production of Byelorussia grew 31 times, of Armenia 49 times and of Moldavia 57 times.^^1^^ There was not only an approximation of the economic levels of development of the Soviet peoples, but also of their cultural levels of development.
The Soviet people do not know what unemployment is. Socialism has found the correct ways and methods of achieving full emloyment on the basis of the planned economy. The substantial broadening of the right to work under the new Soviet Constitution is of fundamental significance for it facilitates the further development of emancipated labour.
All citizens of the USSR are equal, irrespective of their national and racial background, without any exceptions enjoy political and personal rights to their full, and are all equal before the law. This equality is not only consolidated on a constitutional level, but is actually guaranteed by the whole style of Soviet life and the purposeful internationalist policy of the Communist Party.
_-_-_~^^1^^ See The National Economy of the USSR. 1922-1982, p. 74
306The human rights situation in the bourgeois world is completely different. The right to work is withheld from many citizens of Western countries, the number of unemployed growing from year to year. The burden of having no rights is heavy---and it is the lot of the vast majority of workers. This is particularly clearly visible in the example of ethnic minorities. Thus, in the USA millions of Blacks, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans are subjected to the most humiliating discrimination in all areas of public life. They are the first to feel the horrors of unemployment. One third of Black children do not even finish the sixth grade of primary school. Of the 12 million Indians and Eskimos who populated America before the discovery of the New World, just 1.4 million remain.
Continual persecution by the Ku Klux Klan, the heightened ``interest'' of the law-enforcers, slums, poverty and disease---this is the lot of the coloured population of the USA. It is clear that it is not by accident that the USA stubbornly refuses to join the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. In the "free world" the right to work is included in the constitutions of just a few states. But even in them millions of people are unable to find work. In the developed capitalist countries there are more than 30 million unemployed. Indeed, it turns out that democracy in the "free enterprise society" ends at the factory gates. It is clear that the society and the state which denies its citizens the opportunity of obtaining the means of subsistence by their own labour, and thus condemns them to humiliating existence, can be considered neither free nor democratic.
- In the USSR other socio-economic and cultural rights are also guaranteed in the legislation far more fully than is prescribed in recommendations and declarations of the UN. The Soviet electoral system makes no property, educational or other such qualifications which are characteristic of many bourgeois states. Almost half of the deputies to local Soviets are women and 487 women have been elected to the highest organ of power---the Supreme Soviet>'of the USSR. This, by the way, is more than the total number of women elected to the parliaments of the USA, the United Kingdom, France, the FRG and Japan taken together.
The socialist concept of human rights includes the idea of international co-operation as a key and essential element which is linked with the main aim of the UN---the __PRINTERS_P_307_COMMENT__ 20* 307 maintenance of international peace and security. Only in conditions of peace is it possible to guarantee genuine respect for human rights and the rights of the peoples.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE PROBLEM OF WAR AND PEACEStrict observance of the provisions of the UN Charter and of international acts on human rights is incompatible with war.
Acts of aggression and war make all the requirements of the principle of human rights unrealisable and constitute a denial of one of the basic and inalienable rights of man---- the right to life.
In 1982 the Human Rights Committee, which was established on the basis of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and comprises independent experts, unanimously adopted a decision proclaiming that "... war and other acts of mass violence continue to be a scourge of humanity and take the lives of thousands of innocent human beings every year." The Committee firmly believes that "... States have the supreme duty to prevent wars, acts of genocide and other acts of mass violence causing arbitrary loss of life. Every effort they make to avert the danger of war, especially thermo-nuclear war, and strengthen international peace and security would constitute the most important condition and guarantee for the safeguarding of the right to life.''^^1^^
The CPSU and the Soviet state are consistently following a peaceable foreign policy. Socialism and peace are inseparable concepts. The Decree on Peace was one of the first passed under Soviet power. The new Constitution of the USSR convincingly shows that the Soviet state is true to the Leninist principles of friendship and peace. It contains a detailed description of the peaceful goals of Soviet foreign policy in the international arena (Article 28). The Constitution records all ten principles of relations between states which are formulated in the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference. Moreover, in Article 69, the Constitution emphasises that "It is the internationalist duty of citizens of the USSR to promote friendship and co-operation with peoples _-_-_
~^^1^^ Report of the Human Rights Committee. General Assembly. Official Records, 37th Session, Suppl. No. 40 (A/37/40), United Nations, New York, 1982, p. 93.
308 of other lands and help maintain and strengthen world peace." The peace initiatives advanced by Konstantin Chernenko, General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee and Chairman of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet, bear witness to the USSR's consistent course toward peaceful co-operation. In a severely strained political climate the Soviet Union is putting forward concrete measures to ensure disarmament and reduce the danger of a military confrontation.The administration of the USA takes a different position, as is clear from the materials and facts cited in other chapters of this book.
The arms race, above all in nuclear arms, which is being conducted by the USA is not only a dangerous road leading to the death of human civilisation. It is already quite tangible and at times tragically tells on the social make-up of countries and peoples. According to UN figures, more than 60 million people are engaged in military preparations around the world. An enormous proportion of the most highly qualified workers, engineers and other specialists and scientists is diverted into military work. The World Health Organisation was able to allocate nearly $83,000 for the elimination of smallpox in various regions of the world, i.e. less than the cost of one modern strategic bomber. For every thousand million dollars invested in arms production the opportunity is lost of creating at least 14,000 extra jobs in industry or 30,000 in the state apparatus.
In the Declaration of the World Trade Union Conference on Social and Economic Aspects of Disarmament (15-17 December 1981) it was noted that "This vast and unprecedented waste is taking place in a world where one human being in three has no access to elementary medical care, where one in five is illiterate, one in six is suffering from undernourishment, where 50 million die yearly from hunger, and where millions of others suffer from unemployment and inflation.''^^1^^
The militarisation of the economy tells not only on the socio-economic rights of man. The arms race is accompanied by the aspiration of the ruling circles of a number of Western countries to interfere in the internal affairs of other states, to dictate their will to them, and to impose sanctions on _-_-_
^^1^^ Quoted jn ffw> Times, No. 1, January 1982, p. 29,
309 those states and peoples which reject the way of life imposed on them from without.The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights categorically prohibits any kind of war propaganda (Article 20). However, the USA, Great Britain and a number of other NATO member states are conducting active war propaganda. This is accompanied by massive surveillance of their own citizens and total control over their thoughts, which inevitably leads to infringements of the universally recognised basic rights and freedoms of the individual.
In many Western countries which make up the aggressive NATO bloc, above all in the USA, spy-scare campaigns are again getting under way, there is blatant shadowing of dissidents and persecution of progressive organisations, and the state apparatus is purged for political motives.
For example, several persons were even dismissed from the American Commission on Civil Rights who supposedly did not agree with the official doctrine of the current administration concerning the problem of human rights in the USA, But to make up for it the sacked persons were replaced in the Commission by people completely faithful to the political philosophy of President Reagan. These included J. Banzel, an employee of the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace. He declared in Congress that the country had absolutely no need of legislation guaranteeing civil rights. As a result of his previous work, R. Destro, another protege of the President, came forward as a fervent opponent of granting the ethnic minorities equal electoral rights with white Americans. The total surveillance of American citizens is far from being confined to the police. In the book No Place to Hide published in 1975, the journalists Alan Le Mond and Ron Fry pointed out that "Americans as a rule have already surrendered all the information an investigator wants anyway," and next comes "thought control.''^^1^^ Back in 1973 Bill Severn, a political scientist, wrote that "Americans are scrutinized, measured, watched, counted, interrogated and tabulated more than any humans before in history.''^^2^^ The following staggering figures were _-_-_
~^^1^^ Alan Le Mond, Ron Fry, No Place to Hide. A Guide to Bugs, Wire Taps, Surveillance and Other Invasions of Privacy, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1975, pp. 75, 252.
~^^2^^ Bill Severn, The Right to Privacy, Ives Washburn, Inc., New York, 1973, p. 6.
310 released in the USA: in the middle of the 1970s various government departments had 6,723 filing centres containing a total of 3,900 million individual dossiers on American citizens. In proportion to the population this comes out at 18 dossiers for each citizen, including new-born children.Under the Reagan administration discrimination has increased in employment and education. Black unemployment is twice as high as that of Whites, and the position of the natives of America, the Indians, has worsened. Recently the Washington administration tried to pass a resolution freeing private schools practising segregation from taxes, which was seen as a slap in the face for the ethnic minorities of the USA.
In Britain hundreds of peace campaigners protesting against the transformation of the country into an American nuclear testing ground are being arrested. A new wave of escalation has begun in the FRG of the notorious "bans on professions" aimed at the suppression of opposition to militarism and revanchism.
Particular attention was drawn to these tendencies by participants in the United Nations seminar on questions of interrelationship between human rights, peace and development (New York, 3-14 August 1981).
At this seminar the prevailing opinion was that if priority attention is to be paid to any one set of human rights, then it should above all be to the right to life, since it is this guarantee which constitutes the basic condition for ensuring all other human rights.
In a resolution of the 37th Session of the UN General Assembly reference is made to the Declaration on the Preparation of Societies for Life in Peace, which proclaimed that all peoples and all individuals shall enjoy the inviolable right to live in peace, irrespective of their race, beliefs, language or sex. Respect for this right, and also for other human rights, is in the interests of all mankind and is a sine qua non of the comprehensive development of all peoples, large and small.^^1^^
World opinion is realising more and more that the whole range of human rights will lose its meaning if all the people in the world are not guaranteed the possibility to live in conditions of peace and international security.
_-_-_~^^1^^ See Resolution 37/189 of the UN General Assembly of 18th December, 1982.
311This right has already been proclaimed and recognised in a host of international documents. In 1982 the UN General Assembly and then in 1983 the UN Human Rights Committee adopted resolutions which expressed conviction that there is now no more important question for the peoples of the world than the maintenance of peace and the guaranteeing to each individual of the possibility to make use of his foremost right---the right to life.
It was confirmed on behalf of the UN that "... all peoples and all individuals have an inherent right to life, and that the safeguarding of this foremost right is an essential condition for the enjoyment of the entire range of economic, social and cultural, as well as civil and political rights". The urgent need was once again emphasised for "all possible efforts by the international community to strengthen peace, remove the threat of war, particularly nuclear war, halt the arms race and achieve general and complete disarmament under effective international control and prevent violations of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations...''^^1^^
In conditions when the imperialist circles of the USA and its allies are placing the world on the brink of destruction in the flames of a nuclear fire, the question of the struggle for disarmament and co-operation is extremely pressing.
The development of inter-state relations can only follow the path of peaceful co-existence, and not of confrontation and military conflict.
In order to make the champions of the cold war respect the Final Act adopted in Helsinki, states must make new and meaningful efforts to contribute "to the strengthening of world peace and security and to the promotion of Eunadamental rights, economic and social progress and wellbeing for all peoples...''
It is no secret that the enemies of peace and detente are trying to conceal the militarist nature of their domestic and foreign policy, and to lessen the attractiveness of real socialism. To do this the imperialist circles of the USA and of the Western countries following its lead have for a number of years now been conducting a large-scale _-_-_
~^^1^^ Resolutions and Decisions Adopted by the General Assembly During the 1st Part of Its 37th Session. From 21 September to 21 December 1982, Press Release, Ne^ York, 1983, pp. 403-4Q4,
312 psychological war against the socialist countries, groundlessly accusing them of violating human rights.Attempts are still being made to prove that the Soviet Union and other socialist countries are not observing the provisions of the Final Act, particularly of its third section, which deals with measures for the development of co-- operation among states in the humanitarian field (contacts between people, exchange of information, and co-operation in the field of education, science and culture).
Such allegations, to put it mildly, do not stand up to criticism. If we turn to solid facts, then it is not difficult to see who, in actual fact, are not fulfilling their obligations under the "third basket" of the Final Act. Thus, around 550,000 foreign citizens are studying in the USSR and more than 717,000 Soviet citizens---teachers, post-graduates, students and specialists---travel abroad on business or study each year.^^1^^
Every year the works of 300 and more American authors are translated into the languages of the peoples of the USSR as are up to 150 books each by British and French authors.^^2^^ According to UNESCO figures, six times as much literature is published in translation in the USSR as in Britain and 4.3 times as much as in the USA. Soviet theatres have run up to 130 productions of foreign plays.
The Soviet Union annually buys around 50 to 60 films from capitalist countries, which it releases on a wide scale. At the same time significantly fewer works by Soviet writers are released in the USA, Britain, France and other capitalist countries, and Soviet films are shown extremely rarely on the screens of these countries.
Accusations that restrictions exist in the USSR on marriage to foreigner and emigrations are unfounded. These questions are sorted out in complete accordance with the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which in particular permits restrictions on exit to another country if these measures are connected with the maintenance of state security, law and order, public morals or the rights and freedoms of others.
In the postwar period tens of thousands of Jews, _-_-_
~^^1^^ See The Truth About Cultural Exchange, Moscow, 1976. pp. 51-57 (in Russian).
~^^2^^ See V. A. Mazov, The Helsinki Principles and International Law, Moscow, 1980, p. 182 (in Russian).
313 Germans and other nationalities have freely left the USSR and rejoined their families. At the same time, a no smaller number of people who were living abroad have returned to their homeland. In the last ten years 15,000 Soviet citizens have married foreigners and either remained in the USSR or left the country.Such facts bear witness to who actually stands for the growth of contacts and who torpedoes the humanitarian section of the Helsinki agreements.
In recent years world opinion has periodically been confronted with sensational propaganda campaigns on "human rights violations in the USSR''.
As is known, the ruling circles of the USA come out as the organisers and inspirers of these campaigns. They try to direct them against the socialist countries and against the national liberation movement of the peoples, and they create a stir about the mythical "Soviet threat" which we have already dealt with in detail.
A frontal, hostile offensive in the spirit of the cold war is on hand, crudely infringing the letter and the spirit of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-- operation in Europe, and the universally recognised principles and standards of international law.
International co-operation in the field of human rights has nothing in common with attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of states, and does not contradict the UN Charter or the clear obligation assumed by the participant states in the European Conference Under the Final Act to "... respect each other's right freely to choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems as well as its right to determine its laws and regulations.''^^1^^
The Soviet Union has always firmly followed the spirit and letter of the international covenants and obligations. And today, when imperialist circles have pushed the international situation to the limit, the USSR is not giving in to provocations but is firmly and consistently following a course to a peaceful future for the Soviet people and all mankind.
_-_-_^^1^^ New Tines, No, 32, August 1975, p. 27,
[314] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter 19 __ALPHA_LVL2__ WAR PROPAGANDA IS A THREAT TO PEACE __ALPHA_LVL3__ [introduction.]The struggle for peace at the present stage is multiform in character. An important aspect of this struggle is the repulsion of what in the US is now called "psychological warfare", which includes the propaganda of war.
In conditions of intensified ideological struggle the ruling quarters in the West spare nothing in their bid to weaken or else erode the socialist world. "Resorting to lies and slander," the resolution of the June (1983) Plenary Meeting of the CPSU Central Committee stressed, "bourgeois propaganda is attempting to tarnish the socialist system, and to undermine the socio-political and ideological unity of our society.''^^1^^
The escalation of war propaganda should be examined together with the intensified aggressiveness of US imperialism. Forms of propaganda such as the campaign concerning a "Soviet military threat", the hullabaloo surrounding the ``dissidents'' and "human rights in the socialist countries", accusing the USSR of "international terrorism", subversive actions, which in effect signify interference in the internal affairs of other countries with the aim of impairing socialism, alternate with attempts to discredit the anti-war, above all the anti-missile movement in Western Europe, outright calls for a war against socialism and a virulent slander campaign designed to facilitate the preparation for and the launching of such a war. This propaganda is a direct consequence of the policy of the Reagan administration towards the USSR. It is based, writes The Washington Post, "on forcing a change in the Soviet system; on achieving military superiority; on name-calling and icy indifference to anything short of capitulation to American terms.''^^2^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Materials of the Plenary Meeting of the CPSU Central Committee, 14-15 June, Moscow, 1983, p. 68 (in Russian).
^^2^^ The Washington Post, 9 November 1982, p. A 21.
315Propaganda has long been used as a means of preparation for war.
The imperialists began setting up centralised state propaganda agencies during World War I.
At that time the US imperialists were already playing the leading role in the dissemination of such propaganda. "If the great generalissimo on the military front was Foch, the great generalissimo on the propaganda front was Wilson," wrote Harold Lasswell, a prominent US specialist on propaganda.^^1^^
President Woodrow Wilson's hypocritical phraseology, which masked the plunderous plans of the US imperialists, was fully disclosed by Lenin. The chief characteristic of Wilson's propaganda---its pharisaical mask which covered the rapacious aspect of militarism, its rabid hatred of the socialist country---is inherent in present-day US propaganda.
When analysing the US conception of propaganda, Lasswell emphasised that the US already during that period considered it one of the three chief means of preparing for and conducting war, along with economic and military means. ,
In the interim between the world wars the imperialist states, above all the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo axis, conducted active ideological preparation for new acts of aggression. Its chief instruments were anti-Soviet slander and the propaganda of militarism.
Hitlerite propaganda, as was established at the Nuremberg trial, which tried the chief German war criminals, greatly facilitated the creation of conditions leading to the emergence and fostering of the Hitlerites' crimes.
The propaganda of war in Italy and Japan was also conducted by a huge state apparatus and hundreds of fascist organisations.
This short excursion into the past is necessary to show how the measures now being adopted by the White House for the formation and wide-scale reconstruction of the propaganda apparatus have followed and continue to follow tendencies long in evidence, especially those typical of the period of the US-launched cold war.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Harold D. Lasswell, Propaganda Technique in the World War, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., London, 1927, p. 216,
316 __ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. WAR PROPAGANDA IS IDEOLOGICAL PREPARATION FORPreparation for a war of aggression, as borne out by history, is comprised of a series of elements.
Long before launching war, the aggressors foment in the army the spirit of militarism, attaching no less importance to it than to the creation of new weapons. Precisely this process has been in evidence in the US in the postwar period.
The ideological brainwashing of the masses conducted by the press, radio and television, special state agencies and also by rightist non-governmental political organisations, plays a significant part in the preparation for war.
The propaganda of war occupies a special place among the means with the aid of which Washington is preparing for acts of aggression. Whereas the arms race, militarisation of the economy and all other spheres of society's life, expansion of the network of military bases, naval exercises, creation of new aggressive blocs, etc., serve the aim of purely military, military-strategic, and military-economic preparation for acts of aggression, propaganda represents the chief means of its ideological preparation.
To launch a war, it is not sufficient for the imperialists to stockpile arms---for the conduct of war millions of people are required both at the front and in the rear. To make the soldiers fight and the people bear the burden of war, it is necessary to condition them in a spirit of militarism, to convince them that the US ``compelled'' to prepare for war in the face of the ``aggressiveness'' and "a growing military threat" from the USSR and the other socialist countries. This attempt to frighten its own people, and also the peoples of other countries with a nonexistent threat and other false conjectures is one of the main methods of US propaganda, with which it seeks to ``justify'' the aggressive course of the US and, sowing panic, psychologically to prepare the people for a war of aggression. Incidentally, gambling on fear is nothing new, it was a part of the Nazi strategy.
Every single step taken by ruling circles in the US which is linked with aggressive plans is accompanied by propaganda aimed at fomenting military hysteria. Discussion in Congress on the question of military spending is preceded by the organised fomenting of a military psychosis in the press and other mass media over the allegedly numerical insufficiency of the US armed forces and armaments, although they have already reached unprecedented numbers.
317Such propaganda is not limited to the US alone, it is actively conducted abroad as well: the US imperialists are intent on the ideological disarmament of those peoples who are defending their independence, and on intimidating and demoralising them.
Back in 1913 Lenin disclosed the "capitalist `mechanics' of arms manufacture" which are accompanied and ensured by false propaganda of the need to increase arms expendi - tures "in the interests of peace, for the preservation of culture, in the interests of the country, civilisation, etc." To the accompaniment of these slogans "a shower of gold is pouring straight into the pockets of bourgeois politicians, who have got together in an exclusive international gang engaged in instigating an armaments race among the peoples".^^1^^
The military-political and socio-economic objectives which the US imperialists are setting themselves today, have much in common with the goals set by the Hitlerites, who hatched delirious plans for "world domination". Hence the similarity not only of many basic ideas and slogans, but also the propaganda methods of the present-day American aspirants to "world domination" and their Nazi predecessors. It was no accident that immediately following World War II a special group of experts on "psychological warfare" was formed in the US to study the methods of German fascist propaganda. Having launched the cold war shortly after the fall of the Third Reich, the aggressive forces of the US enlisted the surviving Hitlerite propagandists directly in activity linked with ideological ``brainwashing''. Thus such ``outstanding'' Hitlerite "ideological strategists" as Hans Fritsche, Edwin Dwinger, Hans Blunk, Veit Harlan, Goebbels' assistant in cinematography, and a number of others were employed in the US propaganda service.
The US Hoover Institution makes active use of the dossiers from the Nazi propaganda archives.
The chief method used by the warmongers is misinformation of the people and slander of the USSR and world socialism. Stepping up the arms race, intensifying the expan* sionist tendencies in US foreign policy, and ignoring their commitments, the ruling circles of the US are bent on shifting on to the Soviet Union the blame for the aggravated _-_-_
^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 19, p. 106. 318
318 international situation. Flagrantly falsifying the facts, they accuse the USSR of "acts of aggression" and of launching the arms race.The war propaganda plans rely on using in a war the armies of NATO allies, and also on involving Japan in anti-Soviet schemes. Other peoples are destined, according to the plans of the US strategists, to serve as Washington's instruments in any future war. Precisely these aims are served by the deployment of medium-range missiles which has already begun in Western Europe.
In order to carry out ideological preparation for war, the aggressive forces of the US are seeking not only to inculcate in peoples' minds the idea of the unavoidability and expediency of war, but what is more, to prove that a new war has already become a reality, that it, allegedly, is already being waged indirectly---in economics and politics---in the form of local conflicts.
Characteristically, in a recently published book National Security in the 1980s: From Weakness to Strength, one of its authors, US Deputy Secretary of Defense, Fred Ikle, said: "We want an engagement" with the socialist countries. And so, the battle has already begun, declare the extremist apologists of war. True enough, so far it is a matter of a cold war, they assert, but that cannot restrict the choice of means for its conduct and its development into a ``hot'' war.
The politicians and military of the US repeatedly make bellicose statements and level threats against the USSR, all the forces of peace and, above all, public anti-war organisations.
It is quite obvious, for instance, that the persistent attempts by US Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of the Navy John Lehman, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, Bernard Rogers, and others to create an atmosphere of war psychosis in the US and elsewhere in the West have a definite purpose. They reflect, on the one hand, an attempt to poison the international atmosphere, and on the other, to frighten the man in the street and to compel him submissively to finance from his own pocket the colossal programme of military preparations, which is advantageous to the military-industrial complex.
The most extreme forms of war propaganda are expressed in open calls for the mass annihilation of human beings. Moreover, barbaric means of exterminating people are 319 broadly advertised in order to intimidate people and break their will to fight for their national independence. The lauding of such means, first of all nuclear, bacteriological and chemical, and now, neutron weapons, is acquiring threatening proportions in the US.
Despite the fact that nuclear weapons are a means of mass annihilation and hence the propaganda for their use is criminal, and the encouragement of such propaganda on the part of a state comprises an act of ideological aggression, reactionary circles are calling for the use of such weapons in a future war and brutally persecute the opponents of nuclear death. For example, physicist Edward Teller has repeatedly demanded that atomic bombs be dropped on the USSR. Representatives of the Pentagon have openly called for a nuclear war against the USSR. Analogous with this is the concept of a ``limited'' nuclear war advanced by President Reagan.
The propaganda of nuclear war, particularly the ``limited'' war, contrary to the calculations of the US imperialists, served as an incentive for the powerful surge in the anti-war movement, especially after the decision on the large-scale production of the neutron bomb and the deployment of medium-range missiles in Western Europe had been taken, for people clearly saw in this the mortal danger of a world holocaust.
While a broad public movement in defence of peace grows, Reagan stubbornly repeats the conjecture of the "arm of Moscow". In connection with the powerful demonstrations against US nuclear plans in Western Europe, Reagan has repeatedly alleged that they are the result of a sustained propaganda campaign, whicb bears the imprint of the "hand of the Soviet Union". And this at a time when US ruling circles are turning Europe into a nuclear proving ground, and the propaganda services, following Reagan, are attempting to justify the NATO decision on deploying US mediumrange missiles in Western Europe.
Relying on deceiving the peoples of the NATO countries the ``knights'' of psychological warfare justify the buildup of different types of weapons of mass destruction asserting that this is the only way of averting a total exchange of nuclear strikes. Spreading the thesis of the "inevitable destruction of world civilisation", they are out to blackmail those against whom they are preparing to wage war, nurturing the insane idea of forcing the socialist countries 320 to capitulate in the face of aggression, to intimidate the working people of their own countries, and to undermine the anti-war movement. The Pentagon's spurious pamphlet, Soviet Military Might, which contained "authentic data" on the use by the USSR of chemical weapons, etc., served the aim of mass misinformation widely used in the propaganda of war. Official US organs raised a hue and cry about the use of "Soviet lethal chemical viruses" in Laos, Kampuchea, and Afghanistan, but the affair ended in a scandal when the falsity of the accusations was exposed even in the US press, and the representative of the International Red Cross called these fabrications irresponsible twaddle.
Nevertheless, under US pressure, resolutions on the need to expand the bloc's arsenal of offensive chemical weapons were adopted at the latest NATO Council session.
The proponents of a war against communism have become convinced that to address the masses with open calls for aggression is becoming increasingly difficult, for with every passing day the movement for the preservation of peace is gaining in strength. That is why the US ruling circles are attempting to mask their aggressive policy from positions of strength with pharisaical rhetoric, presenting it as ``defensive''.
Unsurpassed masters of falsification and hypocrisy, the US imperialists combine exhortations for war with mendacious rhetoric about how they are striving for ``peace'' and ``democracy''. As noted above, enormous efforts and resources were spent on fomenting an anti-Soviet campaign on the so-called "human rights" question, which was designed to convince people of the inevitability of the most extreme measures for the solution of this ``problem''. The "human rights" campaign failed to produce the anticipated results. So Reagan introduced a new theme---that of " international terrorism". Falsifying the facts, this venture was aimed at arousing fear of socialism and the national liberation movement, linking it with the theme of the inevitability of military methods for ``defending'' Western civilisation.
In an attempt to make its propaganda more effective, the aggressive forces try to substantiate it with ``scientific'' arguments. For this they resort to the use of diverse reactionary philosophical and other theories and ideas, especially adapting them to the criminal aims of the ideological __PRINTERS_P_321_COMMENT__ 21-339 321 preparation of war. It is appropriate to recall that the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, dealing with the question of the individual guilt of the chief German war criminals, stressed that the important factor in its determination was not that the accused had used the dregs of science for their criminal purposes, but, first, that they had raised unscientific racial conceptions to the criminal bounds of racial fanaticism and, second, that they had conditioned people in that spirit. Hence, the assertions of US propaganda of the ``unpreparedness'' or even ``inferiority'' of representatives of some recently liberated nations ultimately serve the same purposes as the racist ideology of fascism.
Day by day chauvinistic propaganda is conducted on the allegedly "supreme mission" of the US implicit in the thesis of the "racial superiority" of the Americans; it comprises the leitmotif of many statements of US officials who lay claim to "world domination''.
In a bid to theoretically substantiate the ``global'' aims of the militarists, reactionary US historiographers have swamped the US and West European book market with literature that falsifies history (and above all the history of the World War II and fascism) and promotes the cult of war. This applies in particular to those military historians who are turning history into an apologetic for the racial ``theory'' of the Anglo-Saxons, the militaristic ideas of the ``perpetuity'' of wars and the "total war" strategy.
The proponents of unscientific ideas, based on the alleged ``viability'' of Americans, are out to inculcate in the American people a spirit of expansionism, hegemonism and racial hatred towards other peoples.
The ``militarised'' theoreticians make use of geopolitics--- a theory which distorts geography so as to cover up the class essence of the imperialist policy of aggrandisement and to insinuate that the geographic position of one or another imperialist power inevitably compels it to conduct a policy of expansion and wars of aggression with respect to other states and peoples. Today the most aggressive circles in the US have adopted geopolitics as an ideologibal weapon. To justify their expansionism they have invented sosailed "zones of vital interest", which lie far beyond the borders of the US and are continuously being expanded to include the territory of other states. US propaganda, based on geopolitical ideas, calls the seizure of foreign territories the creation of "zones of security". That is precisely how the 322 US ``interest'' in the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean is explained.
Other scientifically untenable theories (Social Darwinism, Freudian psychology, etc.), which provide `` arguments'' for propagandising war, have also gained currency in the US.
Yet whatever form this propaganda takes, its purpose remains unchanged---it is always designed for the ideological preparation of massive annihilation of human beings. Camouflaged war propaganda is socially no less dangerous than direct calls for war: irrespective of the form in which such propaganda is conducted, it subverts peace, impinges on the security of all peoples, threatens the lives of millions of people and the very existence of humanity.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. THE SYSTEM OF WAR PROPAGANDA AGENCIES IN THE USSteering a course of struggle, including military struggle, against existing socialism the ruling elements in the US have set up an enormous propaganda machine.
The organised character of the propaganda being conducted in the US is quite obvious. A comparison of the reports made by various mass media on any serious issue clearly shows the common interpretation of its main aspects.
The propaganda apparatus of the US is conducting a systematic, organised brainwashing of the American and other peoples with the aim of preparing for war.
This is an enormous apparatus. It includes state propaganda agencies, the mass media which is in the hands of monopolists (the press, radio, cinema, television, etc.), army propaganda, the propaganda departments of political parties, ``yellow'' trade unions, and other reactionary organisations.
A characteristic feature of the US propaganda machine is its continuous reorganisation and ``improvement''. This stems from the fundamental contradictions between the goals of this propaganda and the vital interests of the people, who are striving for a peaceful life. Hence, on the one hand, there are the constant failures of the propaganda strategists, and on the other an attempt to avoid them by setting up ever newer bodies: the National Security Council, the US Advisory Commission on Information, the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the subversive radio stations such as the Voice of America (VOA), Radio __PRINTERS_P_323_COMMENT__ 21* 323 Liberty (RL), Radio Free Europe (RFE), the Psychological Strategy Board at the State Department under the aegis of the CIA, the US Information Agency (USIA), which includes the Voice of America, and the US Information Service (USIS), which has set up bureaus in more than 125 countries.
Concerning the character of the US propaganda machine, Charles Wick, director of USIA, said outright in 1981: "We are at war [with the Soviets], whether de facto or declared.''^^1^^ And Philip Nikolaides, deputy director of VGA, added: "We must ... `destabilise' the Soviet Union ... by promoting disaffection between peoples and rulers,"^^2^^ etc., in a spirit which in effect signified the propaganda of war. The 1984 allocations for USIA amounted to $711.4 million ($113.8 million more than in 1983). In this connection the director of USIA once again declared that the "war of ideas" conducted by USIA, in particular with the aid of the Voice of America, will be primarily directed against the USSR, Poland and other socialist countries. Moreover, Wick demanded an additional$52.5 million for the 1983 fiscal year. It is significant that Tomlinson, director of the Voice of America, announced that $1 billion had been earmarked for modernisation alone in the next five years.
Simultaneously the heads of CIA subversive radio stations requested from Congress $106 million in 1984 ($21 million more than for the previous year).
The capacity and scale of activity of the US subversive radio stations is constantly being increased, and their "ideological offensive", which is primarily directed against the socialist countries, is being expanded. The Voice of America now has over one hundred radio stations, some of which are complemented by the subversive broadcasts of Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe.
A special committee headed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a notorious Sovietologist and rabid enemy of communism, coordinated the activities of the CIA, Radio Liberty, Radio Free Europe and the Voice of America.
The following example gives an idea of the organisational side of the affair: Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe broadcast to the socialist countries in 20 languages for a total of 1010 hours per day. Broadcasting to Poland, for _-_-_
~^^1^^ Newsweek, Vol. 98. No. 20, 16 November 1981, p. 36.
~^^2^^ The Washington Post, 13 November 1981, p. A2.
324 example, is conducted around the clock. It played a very significant role in aggravating the crisis in that country in the early 1980s. During the decade from 1971 to 1981, the total capacity of US subversive radio stations has more than doubled.The subversive radio station Radio Free Europe systematically incites Polish counterrevolutionaries to criminal actions, transmitting detailed instructions to them. The essence of these subversive actions was explicitly and cynically demonstrated on 31 January 1982, when on the diretet initiative of President Reagan and with his participation a so-called "day of solidarity with the people of Poland" was observed---essentially an outright provocation against the forces of peace and socialism, taking the form of a direct, flagrant interference in the internal affairs of Poland by official US agencies.
The Voice of America, which broadcasts in 42 languages, is systematically increasing its broadcasts in the Russian and Ukrainian languages; it is now broadcasting in the Uzbek language and setting up an Azerbaijanian service, while stepping up its broadcasts to Afghanistan.
Not restricting themselves to Munich, the heads of the US subversive propaganda services are planning the construction of retransmitting stations in Egypt and Israel, which have agreed to this; they are coordinating their activity with the large radio propaganda centres of the West through the NATO services, where there exists a special body engaged in co-ordinating the actions of "psychological warfare" and propaganda against the USSR and other socialist countries, with special attention to Cuba in recent years.
The propagandists of aggression try to influence the broadest possible circle of people for their criminal purposes. To this end they are using means of ideological indoctrination of public opinion that are particularly designed for mass influence.
In late 1981, at the direct instruction of President Reagan, the International Communication Agency drew up a programme, pharisaically called ``Truth''. Its chief aim was the maximum activisation and toughening of anti-Soviet and war propaganda.
In 1983 the Reagan administration began another reorganisation of its propaganda machine. For this purpose an "interdepartmental group" was created, headed by the President's former National Security Adviser William P. Clark 325 and comprised of high-level Washington officials. It was instructed to realise the goals set by President Reagan's abrasively anti-Soviet speech on 8 June 1982 in the British Parliament. There, as it is well-known, the US President called for a ``crusade'' against the Soviet Union.
In 1984, $65 million were earmarked for this "new programme".^^1^^
As has already been noted, the ruling circles of the capitalist countries motivate their refusal to ban the propaganda of war by the allegation that this would restrict " freedom of speech and the press''.
Acquaintance with the actual state of the mass media in the capitalist countries, and above all in the US, shows that there is no freedom of the press there. The rhetoric about "freedom of the press", which comprises a significant part of the general "democratic phraseology", is designed to provide a pretext for obstructing the prohibition of the propaganda of war through criminal legislation.
``In capitalist usage, freedom of the press," Lenin said, "means freedom of the rich to bribe the press, freedom to use their wealth to shape and fabricate so-called public opinion." Lenin stressed that the falsity of the "freedom of the press" is demonstrated particularly sharply and cynically in the US.^^2^^
This is confirmed by the scale of the US propaganda machine, which makes wide use of renegades and traitors for its criminal aims.
In this situation, President Reagan personally undertook the leadership of all the subversive operations against the socialist countries, including the work of Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe, stating that he would not permit any obstruction of the activity of these radio stations. Reagan and his close advisers have officially made " psychological warfare" their exclusive prerogative.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. THE PROPAGANDA OF WAR IS A GRAVE INTERNATIONALIn launching the propaganda of war, the imperialist circles are committing a grave international crime from the standpoint of international law. Already between the world wars a series of bourgeois international organisations, _-_-_
~^^1^^ Pravda, 29 January 1983.
^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 28, p. 461,
326 under pressure from the broad masses, codified this provision in their resolutions.It is important to note that already in that period wars of aggression were considered a grave crime against humanity. Thus the 1928 Briand-Kellogg Pact, which was joined by 63 states, denounced war as an instrument of national policy.
The propaganda of war was denounced by the Inter-- Parliamentary Union (1932), International Conferences on the Unification of Penal Law (Warsaw, 1927; Brussels, 1930), the International Association of Penal Law (1928, 1937).
In May 1931 a special League of Nations committee on drawing up a general convention on the development of means to avert war, proposed that the League Assembly examine the question of the possibility of struggle against the propaganda of aggression.
In 1933 the League of Nations Legal Sub-Committee of the Committee for Moral Disarmament drew up a draft text relative to the adaption of national laws to the presentday stage of the development of international life. Article 2 of the draft convention envisaged the adoption by the undersigned powers of legislative measures to combat propaganda conducted with the aim of inciting states to be the first to commit, in violation of their international commitments, acts comprising an act of aggression. This draft was drawn up largely under the influence of the 1933 Soviet proposal on the definition of aggression.
On 23 September 1936, a convention was signed in Geneva on the use of radio broadcasting in the interests of peace, which went into effect on 2 April 1938. Under this convention states were held responsible for seeing to it that their broadcasting stations did not call for war with any of the participating states or to acts which could lead to war. The Soviet Union took an active part in the drawing up of this convention. However, the situation that emerged before World War II prevented its implementation.
Thus, already in the prewar period many international organisations acknowledged in one form or another that the propaganda of war, like any other form of preparation for acts of aggression, is an international crime which must be fought by means of national criminal legislation.
However, this view was not acknowledged by the bourgeois states in the inter-war period. The Soviet Union alone consistently opposed the propaganda of war, exposing the 327 warmongers. The grave lessons of World War II caused the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, on the basis of item ``a'' of Article 6 of its Charter, to charge the accused, along with other crimes against peace, with the use of every means of preparation for war, including its "ideological preparation"---the propaganda of war.
The chief prosecutor on behalf of the USSR gave a detailed analysis of the "ideological preparation" of acts of aggression by the Hitlerites in his speech of 29-30 July 1946: "All their so-called 'ideological work' consisted in the cultivation of bestial instincts, in the installation of the absurd idea of racial superiority in the conscience of the German people, and in the practical realisation of their plans for the extermination and enslavement of peoples of `inferior' races, who were supposed only to serve for fertilizing the growth of the 'master race'. Their 'ideological work' consisted in a call to murder, to plunder, to the destruction of culture, and to the extermination of human beings.''^^1^^
Largely as a result of the position adopted by the Soviet representatives, the Nuremberg Tribunal, in accordance with the universally recognised norms of international law, acknowledged the "ideological preparation" of war---the propaganda of war---as a grave crime against humanity. The International Military Tribunal not only invested with legality the idea of the criminality of the propaganda of war, but also established a precedent by condemning the criminals.
It should be noted that the representatives of the US, Britain and France hampered the full implementation of the principle of responsibility for the propaganda of war at the Nuremberg trials. They delivered from a deserved punishment the double-dyed Hitlerite propagandist Hans Fritsche, who later continued his work in the service of the US.
The UN Charter outlawed acts of aggression, and from this authoritative document---the basis of present-day international law---it implicitly follows that any preparation made for a war of aggression, including war propaganda, is a criminal activity.
During the postwar period, when the US and its allies launched the preparation and propaganda of war, the Soviet _-_-_
~^^1^^ Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Vol. 19, Nuremberg, 1948, p. 571,
328 Union submitted to the Second Session of the UN General Assembly its historic proposals on banning the propaganda of war. A special resolution was adopted on the Soviet proposal, in which the General Assembly condemned propaganda that in any form and in any country is aimed at or capable of creating or intensifying a threat to peace, a violation of peace, or an act of aggression, and called on the governments of all member states of the United Nations to adopt the necessary measures for suppression this propaganda.In accordance with this important UN resolution the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries have adopted laws on the defence of peace. Then corresponding legislation was included in the Criminal Code of the USSR, and as Article 28 was subsequently included in the Constitution of the USSR.
At the Seventh Session of the UN General Assembly the representatives of the Soviet Union proposed that the draft convention on freedom of information should stress assistance in the implementation of the UN General Assembly resolution on the prohibition of the propaganda of war as one of the chief objectives of dissemination of information.
Unable openly to oppose these proposals, which were supported by many delegations, the leading Western countries took the road of sabotage and froze further work on the elaboration of the convention.
In 1953 the Soviet Union submitted a draft definition of the notion of aggression, which proposed that any state which encourages the propaganda of war, propaganda of the use of weapons of mass extermination, which facilitates the propagation of fascist views, racial and national exclusiveness, hatred towards and disparagement of other peoples should be deemed guilty of having committed an act of ideological aggression. In 1974, worded somewhat differently, this definition of acts of aggression was adopted by the UN General Assembly.
At present the reactionary circles place great hopes on the use of satellites for direct radio and television broadcasting to other countries. They plan to turn the latest achievements in space technology into a new channel for the propaganda of war and the kindling of hatred between peoples. This runs counter to the 1967 treaty on outer space, which on Soviet initiative included the provision that the resolution of the UN General Assembly on the 329 condemnation of war propaganda be also extented to outer space.
In 1972 the Soviet government submitted ta the UN a draft convention on the principles governing the use of man-made earth satellites by national television services (DTB).
The draft directly addresses the illegality of radio and television broadcasting with the aid of satellites, which contains material propagandising the ideas of war, militarism, Nazism, national and racial hatred and enmity between peoples. The key provision of the draft is the principle according to which states have the right to use DTB satellites only after a clearly expressed agreement has been reached with the governments of countries for whose inhabitants such broadcasts are intended.
For over a decade the UN Ad Hoc Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space has been unable to conclude the drafting of relevant principles owing to the stand taken by the representatives of the US and some of its Western allies. They advocate "full freedom" in using DTB satellites. Quite different is the position of the majority of member states of the UN Ad Hoc Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, which demand the prohibition of the use of DTB satellites to the detriment of peace and international security. It should be noted that the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe fully reflected the opinion of the socialist states to the effect that only by strengthening peace and security can opportunities be provided to develop exchanges in the sphere of information and culture.
In recent years there has been a growing tendency to suppress the propaganda of hatred between peoples and particularly the propaganda of war.
Thus, the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination condemned all propaganda that is based on the ideas and theories of racial superiority. According to the UN Declaration on the Promotion among Youth of the Ideals of Peace, Mutual Respect and Understanding between Peoples adopted on 7 December 1965, all means of upbringing, education and information should facilitate the dissemination among the younger generation of the ideals of peace, humanism, freedom and international solidarity, which help to draw peoples together.
330The 20th session of the General Conference of UNESCO, on the initiative of the USSR, adopted on 28 November 1978 a Declaration on the Fundamental Principles Concerning the Contribution of the Mass Media to Strengthening Peace and International Understanding, the Improvement of Human Rights and the Struggle against Racism, Apartheid and Propaganda of War.
The propaganda of war is detrimental to the interests of all peoples. Nevertheless, influential quarters in the Western countries allege that any limitations in this sphere would restrict the freedom of speech and of the press. Such arguments must be considered groundless. Both in the interests of individual citizens, and in the interests of preserving international peace all states should have jurisdiction over what is spoken, what is published and graphically depicted within their territory.
In the Western countries there exist numerous laws which directly regulate the activity of the press, and they are not seen as infringements on the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Noting this, a prominent US expert on international law, C. C. Hyde, points out: "It is not acknowledged that the provisions of the Constitution of the United States in relation to the freedom of speech or of the press render the nation impotent, in a domestic sense, to satisfy any requirements that international law as such lays down.''^^1^^
The flaunting of juridical norms, which prohibit the propaganda of war and hatred between peoples, provide every reason for states which are the object of such propaganda to take corresponding counter-measures. Nevertheless, the reactionary circles and cold warriors accuse the socialist countries of jamming the subversive broadcasts of some Western radio stations.
The groundlessness of such accusations is obvious. The method of jamming, or creation of technical interference, is not used with respect to all broadcasts, but only those which are clearly hostile to the cause of peace, contain slanderous statements, or direct calls to counteraction against the authorities.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Charles Ch. Hyde, International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States, Vol. I, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, 1951, p. 709.
331It is well known that jamming was first used in some West European countries during the 1930s for the purpose of suppressing the international dissemination of Nazi views by the radio stations of Hitler Germany. The activity of the subversive radio stations of the West is illegal from the point of view of universally acknowledged principles of international law and the UN Charter, it is hostile to the cause of peace and security, and is ill-intentioned, provocative, and calls for subversion of the socialist system and the ideological preparations of a new war. Hence the jamming of such radio broadcasts by the socialist countries in our day is fully legal. Let us recall in this connection that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN in 1948 also speaks of the right of each state to introduce legislatively the above-mentioned restrictions on the receipt and dissemination of information.
The struggle against the propaganda of war is an important part of the struggle for peace. International forums are called upon resolutely to demand that the US and other NATO countries put a stop to such propaganda. There is every reason to demand that the UN take decisive action to ensure that all states implement the resolution of the Second Session of the UN General Assembly on the denunciation of the propaganda of war, which was adopted thirty-six years ago but still has not been realised.
[332] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter 20 __ALPHA_LVL2__ EDUCATION AND DISARMAMENT __ALPHA_LVL3__ [introduction.]In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the West saw a notable rise in the movement for peace education. As it developed into a social force, this movement went far beyond the educational system, influencing public opinion in the West in favour of peace and disarmament. The movement calls for a peace based on something firmer than just the "balance of terror". Largely pacifist in character, this movement has not yet found its feet and is beset with internal contradictions.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. FEATURES OF THE MOVEMENT FOR PEACE EDUCATIONHaving its origins in the academic community, the movement for peace education soon spread to many non-- governmental organisations, both national and international, and has won the sympathy of various progressive and democratic movements. It is supported by school and college teachers concerned about the future of the world. Peace education is discussed at numerous anti-war conferences.
In the second half of the 1970s, the movement began to pursue more specific goals, such as education for disarmament, for social and economic development, for environmental protection, reflecting some of the global problems facing mankind. Yet among these priority was given to disarmament education, because ending the arms race and achieving disarmament are today's most urgent needs, on which most of the other problems of the world depend.
In the early 1980s, the growing anti-war movement in the West gave a fresh impetus to the idea of education for peace and disarmament. Scientists holding anti-war views are doing much to inform the peace-minded public about complex military, strategic and political problems. They formulate realistic proposals and compose rallying cries to unite supporters. They want their research to have a practical application.
333Contrary to the view prevalent in Western political science that strength, especially military strength, underlies world politics, the concept of peace education aims at the non-use of force, peaceful co-operation and disarmament.
In capitalist society, however, the peace education movement is largely eclectic and amorphous. In analysing the causes of war and the arms race, the movement's spokesmen often advance Utopian recommendations on how to reach a lasting peace.
And although the advocates of peace education criticise the most reactionary and militaristic trends in modern capitalism, the extent of their criticism differs greatly: from pointed condemnation of the military-industrial complex and aggressive military blocs, to vague protests. Besides, they often echo Western propaganda shifting half of the blame onto the socialist community, and placing equal responsibility for the arms race on the Soviet Union and the United States.
The movement for peace and disarmament education is closely associated with the Western technocratic tradition which revives the old thesis of the Renaissance Period that education is the key to social harmony. "In a real sense," say the peace educators, "we are creating our own future through the kind of education we are providing to children in the present.''^^1^^ Therefore, they believe that peace and disarmament education is the best, if not the only, way to peace and social justice, "to the ending of war and the abolition of hatred and violence".^^2^^ Some even equate the notions of ``peace'' and "global education".^^3^^
Such an exaggerated role for education would substitute pedagogy for politics. It would mean that social and economic change is brought about entirely by education, instead of the other way around. It is a typically petty-- bourgeois idea that education coupled with a few mild reforms can make an ideal society.
Adherents of such views also fail to understand that the ruling quarters in capitalist countries would never permit _-_-_
~^^1^^ Judith V. Torney, "Political Socialization Research in the United States", in Handbook of Peace Education, Ed. by Christoph Wulf, International Peace Research Association, Frankfurt/Main, 1974, p. 370.
~^^2^^ UNESCO Document SS-80/Conf. 401/37, Rev., p. 4.
~^^3^^ International Peace Studies Newsletter, Center for Peace Studies, University of Akron, Vol. 10, No. 1, Fall 1980, p. 3.
334 the schools to take a stand on war and peace dissenting from the official line.Still, all these faults in the bourgeois approach to education for peace and disarmament, and the fact that its role in the West is somewhat exaggerated, in no way diminish the importance of such education. Warmongers have always sought to militarise the social consciousness, instilling the cult of military force and cultivating in people's minds the stereotype of an enemy that constantly threatens to overrun and destroy their country. This is the picture the military-industrial complex is trying to put across. And this is why the adherents of peace education, despite their inconsistencies, make an important contribution to spreading the humane ideas of peace and disarmament. And it is evident that educating children, helping to shape their world outlook and system of values can and does have a role to play in resolving the problem of war and peace.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. PEACE EDUCATION AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONSIn spreading the ideas of education for peace and disarmament much is done by international organisations, which vary in character, influence, membership and political views.
Some of them, such as the World Federation of United Nations Associations, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, and Pax Christi, are not, strictly speaking, educational or research institutions.
Others, such as the International Peace Research Association (IPRA), the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo (PR 10), the Consortium on Peace Research, Education and Development (COPRED), and the World Future Studies Federation (WFSF), do research into problems of peace and the theory of peace education.
The International Institute for Peace (IIP) in Vienna founded on the initiative of the World Peace Council in 1953, is of special importance in promoting dialogue and co-operation between scientists belonging to different social systems, in finding ways of safeguarding and strengthening peace, and in deepening detente and reaffirming the principles of peaceful coexistence.
Such educational bodies as the International Federation of Teachers' Associations (I FT A), the International Association of Universities, the World Federation of 335 Scientific Workers, the International Federation of Free Teacher's Union (IFFTU), and others are now involved in peace education work.
In the last decade, new organisations have been set up specifically to spread education for peace and disarmament, like the World Association for the Schools as an Instrument of Peace, the World Council for Curriculum and Instruction (WCCI), the Association for World Education (AWE), and others.
A large number of universities in the West have institutes, research centers, faculties and departments that study problems of peace and try to involve students and even large sections of the public in their activities.
To a certain extent, it was these non-governmental organisations, including many democratic ones, that insisted on putting the question of education for peace and disarmament on the agenda at a number of international conferences, symposia, seminars, summer schools, etc.
With the active participation of the socialist countries UNESCO also does a lot to spread the ideas of education for peace and disarmament.
In 1974, the 18th Session of the UNESCO General Conference adopted a Recommendation Concerning Education for International Understanding, Cooperation and Peace and Education Relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
In Paris, in April 1978, UNESCO held a Seminar on the Obstacles to Disarmament and the Ways of Overcoming Them, which recommended convening a World Congress on Disarmament Education in 1980. The Tenth Special Session of the UN General Assembly approved this recommendation. The Special Session's Final Document called on UNESCO "to step up its programme aimed at the development of disarmament education as a distinct field of study through the preparation, inter alia, of teacher's guides, textbooks, readers and audio-visual materials."^^1^^ Member states were recommended to take all necessary steps for such materials to be included in their school and university curricula.
This was the first time that an official document of the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Resolutions and Decisions Adopted by the General Assembly During Its 10th Special Session, 23 May-30 June 1978. United Nations, New York, 1978, p. 11.
336 UN General Assembly recommended that governments, inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations take steps to develop curricula at all academic levels on peace and disarmament education.The 33rd Session of the UN General Assembly (1978), adopted the Declaration on the Preparation of Societies for Life in Peace proposed by the Polish People's Republic, which said that "every nation and every human being, regardless of race, conscience, language or sex, has the inherent right to life in peace".^^1^^ The Declaration called on states "to ensure that their policies relevant to the implementation of the present Declaration, including educational processes and teaching methods, as well as media information activities, incorporate contents compatible with the task of the preparation for life in peace of entire societies and, in particular, the young generations.''^^2^^ The 34th Session of the UN General Assembly adopted a Declaration on International Cooperation for Disarmament, proposed by the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. These initiatives of the socialist countries have had a wide political response.
In June 1980, in Paris, UNESCO held a World Congress on Disarmament Education. The Congress stated, in part, that disarmament education within the educational system was not developing satisfactorily, except in the socialist countries.
In capitalist countries, the problems of disarmament are to be found in virtually no school curricula, and are studied in only a limited number of universities. Most of the special courses on problems of disarmament developed to date are concentrated in a handful of research centers and colleges. Such programme receive practically no support from the government in capitalist countries.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. THE WESTERN CONCEPT OF DISARMAMENT EDUCATIONThe pacifist idea of disarmament education presupposes two processes: (1) political education, which gives the public certain information, and (2) socio-psychological education, which seeks to create a certain system of values and attitudes to disarmament and fosters certain traits of character.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Resolutions and Decisions Adopted by the General Assembly During Its 33rd Session, 19 September-21 December 1978, 15-29 January and 23-31 May 1979. United Nations, New York, 1979, p. 56.
~^^2^^ Ibid.
__PRINTERS_P_337_COMMENT__ 22-339 337The proponents of peace education consider that theirs is the only possible way, because, as they put it, the absence of political will and desire at the governmental level is keeping the problem of disarmament at a standstill.^^1^^ They claim that "the main, perhaps the only, hope for the future is that the public will learn the facts in time and that an aroused public opinion will force reluctant politicians to stop the arms race and reduce armaments".^^2^^ Those who are studying the problem of peace and disarmament education stress that information used in the process of political education must be reliable, coming from sources which are as objective as possible, and must help to convince the public that disarmament can be achieved soon, within the life time of the present generation, and not at some time in the remote future. But if attention is drawn more to the obstacles in the way of disarmament (which, of course, do exist), that, they say, will create doubts as to the possibility of curbing the arms race and achieving disarmament, and such education will yield no positive results. Information, they say, should aim at exposing such militaristic concepts as "limited nuclear war", the ``humane'' neutron bomb, etc., and at opposing attempts to revive cold war mania. This, without a doubt, is an advantage of peace education.
Spreading reliable information for disarmament in a language the broad public can understand is especially important, they say, to counter the Western propaganda machine's assertions that the arms race is uncontrollable, inevitable, necessary, and even useful. The torrent of militaristic propaganda aims to convince the public that the issues involved in limiting the arms race and in disarmament are too technical for the man in the street.^^3^^ This type of propaganda has given rise to feelings of political helplessness and fear, clearing the way for a continued arms race.
Peace educators see the development of an alternative security system as the key component of disarmament.
The word ``disarmament'', they say, sounds negative, because it suggests correcting old mistakes (just like the words ``limitation'', ``reduction'', ``de-escalation'', etc.), instead of creating something positive.^^4^^ Therefore, say the _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Elements of a Network to Educate for World Security (a booklet), Institute for World Order, New York, 1980, p. 1.
~^^2^^ Ibid., Appendix, p. 2.
^^3^^ UNESCO Document SS-80/Gonf. 401/13, pp. 4-7.
~^^4^^ UNESCO Document SS-80/Conf. 401/10, p. 14.
338 disarmament educators, a strategy for attaining world peace should concentrate less on the process of disarmament itself, and more on working out "blueprints of a peaceful world" and "images of a disarmed world", associated with the kind of security system that would be an alternative to rearmament.^^1^^ Those examining the problems of peace in the West believe it is impossible to start disarming to any effective degree now, because political leaders and the public at large are convinced that in the present world situation disarmament would allegedly undermine national security.^^2^^Very little is known about any other security systems for individuals or whole nations, they say. Neither the theory of international relations, nor the history of diplomacy say anything about an alternative approach to national security. Nations on the whole find it difficult to imagine a world without arms, where individuals and nations would not need weapons for self-defence.^^3^^ That is why, in their opinion, the general public would be suspicious of disarmament.
Of course, it is quite logical that disarmament should be accompanied by measures to ensure international security. The Soviet Union has always spoken out for effective political and legal guarantees for international security. However, according to the disarmament educators, disarmament is dependent on an alternative security system. Some scholars even go so far as to say that too much emphasis on disarmament would dampen public interest in disarmament education.
These analysts lose sight of the fact that it is precisely detente in the military sphere plus effective steps towards disarmament that could develop the mutual trust necessary for political detente and co-operation between states with different social systems. They play down the issue of disarmament as such, going off on various tangents. Many of their arguments strongly suggest that as soon as an effective alternative to armies is found, disarmament will cease to be a political issue and will become a purely technical one.
_-_-_^^1^^ UNESCO Document SS-80/Conf. 401/19, pp. 8, 12.
~^^2^^ COPRBD (Consortium on Peace Research, Education and Development) Peace Chronicle. Center for Peace Change, Kent State University, August 1980, p. 9.
^^3^^ UNESCO Document SS-78/Conf. 613/13, p. 9.
__PRINTERS_P_339_COMMENT__ 22* 339Such an approach only proves that they oversimplify the motives behind the arms race and deliberately ignore the real differences between foreign policies of different states: that some are built on peaceful co-existence, others on aggressive imperialism.
Their vague abstractions about an alternative security system in the shape of the so-called world political unity are strongly reminiscent of the federalist ideas of a "world government" with its "citizens of the world". Their Utopian plans of world organisation ignore the fact that the world today is divided into two opposing social systems.
Many of the peace researchers blame the arms race on the Soviet Union as well as on the United States, turning a blind eye to the facts. In this they are influenced by bourgeois theoreticians who ascribe to socialist countries the same socio-political mechanisms stimulating the arms build-up that exist in capitalist society. This approach tends to gloss over the differences between aggressive US-NATO policies aimed at gaining military superiority and world domination, and the peace policy of the Soviet Union and the whole socialist community, which aims at peaceful co-existence and co-operation between states with different social systems.
This dual, contradictory approach is typical of the disarmament educators. They prefer to forget that the Soviet Union has always been willing to come to a mutually acceptable agreement with the United States on any measure curbing the arms race and promoting disarmament. And this is proved by the wide range of Soviet initiatives on disarmament.
The Soviet proposals show who is really trying to stop the arms race and start the process of disarmament; they show that allegations that the Soviet Union and the United States are equally responsible for the arms race have nothing in common with the facts.
A number of the peace experts criticise any partial measures in disarmament, belittling or even denying the benefits from international arms limitation agreements already signed. They accuse the governments negotiating for disarmament of giving up the idea of general and complete disarmament and settling for partial measures. Some of them, it is true, believe that the first aim of disarmament education could be limited to acknowledging that multilateral disarmament under effective international control is better for 340 international security than continuing the arms race;^^1^^ that partial measures leading to arms reductions, and to disarmament itself, are correct and necessary in order to eventually reach a peaceful system,^^2^^ and should be based only on " parallel or mutual or symmetrical international interactions between the blocs",^^3^^ bearing in mind the interests of all, with equal initiative and equal consequences for all parties.^^4^^ At the same time they believe that if problems of disarmament are only tackled one by one, without real changes in the system of international relations as a whole, this will not promote general and complete disarmament.
This all-or-nothing approach, which underrates the use^ fulness of partial measures, is typical for bourgeois idealism and utopism because, while the world is divided into two opposite social systems, general and complete disarmament can be reached only by way of a gradual, stage-by-stage process accompanied by effective measures to guarantee international security.
And yet, disarmament education should not be judged too one-sidedly, because it definitely has a number of positive elements.
The Final Document of the World Congress on Disarmament Education says that disarmament education must take into account the principles of international law based on the UN Charter, particularly the renunciation of the use or threat of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of states, peaceful settlement of disputes, non-interference in the internal affairs and self-- determination of peoples.
Disarmament educators agree that poverty will never be overcome while such a large percentage of world resources is wasted on war preparations. Therefore, systematic reductions in military spending followed by the transition to disarmament would allow nations to rechannel these great material and scientific resources into socio-economic and cultural development. They call for scaling down war production and switching the military industry over to peaceful production, believing that this would lead not to unemployment but to economic prosperity.
_-_-_~^^1^^ UNESCO Document SS-80/Conf. 401/7, p. 1.
~^^2^^ UNESCO Document SS-78/Conf. 613/13, p. 42.
~^^3^^ Anatol Pikas, Disarmament Education Through Teacher Training (mimeo), 1980, p. 3.
~^^4^^ Ibid., p. 10.
341The anti-war essence of education for peace and disarmament is, of course, self-evident. Fear of a nuclear war, concern for the future of civilisation and of mankind itself, and a more realistic assessment of the balance of forces in the world are what make peace educators seek a new approach to the issues of war and peace, reject policies from positions of strength and the use or threat of use of force as an instrument in politics, and try to build a peaceful system of international relations.
A stable peace and a just and democratic system of international relations depend on a number of important economic, social and political factors. Peace and disarmament education could do much to turn Western public opinion in favour of peace and disarmament. And although the movement for such education in the West is heterogeneous and lacks ideological unity, it nevertheless is a great potential in the campaign for peace and disarmament and against the arms race.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 4. THE SOVIET APPROACH TO PEACE AND DISARMAMENTAlthough the campaigns for peace in the West and in the socialist countries have the same ultimate goal, they are waged in vastly different political conditions. In the Soviet Union, the public and the Government agree on the urgent need to end the arms race and eliminate the threat of a nuclear holocaust. Such conformity of views is no coincidence. Aggression and the arms race are alien to socialism; disarmament is its ideal. Socialism has always worked and will continue to work towards a lasting peace.
The 26th Party Congress emphasised that the "struggle to strengthen peace" aims "to secure the requisite external conditions for the Soviet people to carry out their constructive tasks".^^1^^
This explains why in the Soviet Union the peace movement embraces practically all social strata and groups. There is no social force in the country that would benefit from arms production, war preparation and a build-up of tension in the world.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Documents and Resolutions. The 26th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Novosti Press Agency Publishing House, Moscow, 1981, p. 8.
342That is why the question of peace education in the USSR has a different interpretation from what it has in the West. From the very foundation of the Soviet state, such education has been an integral part of its ideology, of its general policy of bringing up youth in the spirit of peace, peaceful co-existence and friendship among nations. Characteristically, the first decree of the first ever socialist state was the Decree on Peace, signed by Lenin. It condemned World War I as the greatest crime against humanity. Soviet society has always attached great importance to raising its youth in the spirit of peace and internationalism: the social, ideological and moral climate in society determines the basic values in the academic and ethical education of the youth. The essence of Soviet society, based as it is on social justice and peaceful creative labour, is inevitably reflected in the orientation of the schools and the outlook of young people.
From childhood on, Soviet people live in an atmosphere of peace and friendship among nations. The idea of peace permeates all areas of life in Soviet society: literature, art, and the whole multinational culture of our country. The Soviet nation, which lived through the horrors of World War II, losing many millions of its sons and daughters, has a deep hatred for any aggressive wars of conquest, and educates its youth in the spirit of peace and co-operation between all nations.
For the first time in history, a campaign for peace has been elevated to the rank of supreme law, and made part of the country's Constitution. Article 28 of the Soviet Constitution says: "The USSR steadfastly pursues a Leninist policy of peace and stands for strengthening the security of nations and broad international co-operation.
``The foreign policy of the USSR is aimed at ensuring international conditions favorable for building communism in the USSR, safeguarding the state interests of the Soviet Union, consolidating the positions of world socialism, supporting the struggle of peoples for national liberation and social progress, preventing wars of aggression, achieving universal and complete disarmament, and consistently implementing the principle of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems.
``In the USSR war propaganda is banned.''
According to Soviet law, war propaganda is punishable as a criminal offence. Soviet law similarly bans racial 343 discrimination, as well as propaganda of national enmity and violence.
The education of Soviet youth in the spirit of peace and understanding between nations is differentiated according to age, the level of development and the social experience accumulated by children and adolescents, at all levels of preschool, school and university education. However its main essence and orientation remain the same at all stages: the ideological and ethical basis of education are the ideals of peace, peaceful co-existence, detente and mutually advantageous co-operation, which are inseparable from the ideals of social progress and humanism, socialist internationalism and Soviet patriotism, respect for the rights and dignity of every man, and the rejection of predatory wars of aggression, colonialism, neocolonialism and racism.
The education of Soviet youth in the spirit of patriotism has nothing to do with militarism, chauvinism, or a desire to conquer other territories, or enslave or exterminate other nations. At the same time, education of our youth in the spirit of friendship, peace and disarmament includes preparing the younger generation to defend their homeland. While forces of reaction and imperialism---a constant source of aggressive, predatory wars---continue to exist, nations are obliged to defend their freedom and national independence. These principles and norms are at the very foundation of the Soviet educational system and form part of the curriculum at all stages of education.
The education of Soviet youth in the spirit of peace and international understanding is not a separate school subject; it is integrated in a whole number of academic disciplines, in secondary school and college curricula, and in general education programmes for adults; it is a many-sided process involving all areas of the life of society: study, work, and public activities.
At general secondary schools and vocational training schools, classes in history, geography, the Soviet Constitution, physics, chemistry and biology discuss problems of peace and disarmament and ways of averting war, including nuclear war.
Among school subjects, social science plays an important part in the school's complex approach to communist education.
The textbook on social science devotes much attention to the peaceful principles of Soviet foreign policy. For 344 instance, in one place it reads: "The only sensible, and at the same time realistic principle of relations between socialist and capitalist countries is the principle of peaceful coexistence established by Lenin.''
The policy of peaceful co-existence means the rejection of war as a way of solving international disputes, strict observance of the sovereignty and equality of states, noninterference in other states' internal affairs, and promotion of mutually beneficial economic and cultural ties with all countries regardless of their socio-economic and political system. Experience has shown that differences between states can be resolved by peaceful negotiations.
Today, peaceful co-existence is an objective necessity of world development and the basis for a stable system of international relations. It can be said with certainty that there is no alternative to peaceful co-existence.
The above-mentioned textbook devotes much space to problems of disarmament, to the need to ban nuclear, chemical and bacteriological weapons, stop all nuclear weapons tests, create nuclear-free zones, and start nuclear disarmament.
It also stresses the need to stop the arms race, eliminate foreign military bases and danger spots created by imperialist aggression, to work out measures lessening the possibility of a military conflict beginning by accident or by ill intent, and to renounce the use or threat of force.
At history, geography and literature lessons, schoolchildren receive unbiased information about various peoples inhabiting our planet, their history, culture, science, national features, customs and aspirations, and are taught to respect all nations and nationalities, appreciate their contribution to world culture, and understand the need for co-operation with them. Such instruction is systematic and wide-ranging, with the factual and theoretical level rising as the students mature.
The study of science in school, designed to give the background necessary for polytechnical education, teaches the application of natural and technical sciences for peaceful purposes. Thus, when final-year students learn about atomic energy in their physics lessons, they are told about the Soviet Union's efforts to ban nuclear weapons tests and about international agreements on such a ban.
Science classes discuss scientific and technical co-- operation between states with different social system to protect 345 the environment. The older students learn about the Soviet Union's part in various international conventions and agreements on the rational use and protection of the ocean's biological resources and endangered species.
The Soviet school aims to give a good understanding of the laws of and prospects for social development, explains the social causes of war and ways of eliminating them. There is nothing in Soviet school textbooks about the " inevitability of war", the "inescapable necessity of the arms race", or any war propaganda. On the contrary, they are full of confidence that common sense will win out.
Thus, young people entering Soviet colleges and universities are already convinced of the need to work for a lasting peace, general and complete disarmament, and the elimination of war from the life of society. And yet the universities continue the work of peace education, devoting special lectures and even whole courses to problems of peace and disarmament.
Topics concerning the arms race and disarmament are given prominence at social science courses: history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, philosophy, political economy, scientific communism, ethics, aesthetics, law, world history, etc.
Textbooks on the history of the Communist Party have extensive material on the struggle for peace and for general and complete disarmament, starting with the founding of the Soviet state and down to the present. Such textbooks often stress that universal and complete disarmament is the most radical way to strengthen peace in the interests of the nations.
The syllabus and textbook on Marxist-Leninist philosophy also devote attention to problems of peace and disarmament, which are treated in such chapters as: "War and Revolution", "Forms of Social Consciousness", "War and Peace Today", "The Masses and the Individual in History", "Social Progress", etc.
Problems of disarmament are also treated by MarxistLeninist ethics, in the chapters on categories of moral consciousness of the individual (good and evil, duty, conscience, meaning of life, etc.). Soviet ethics regards participation in the struggle for peace and disarmament as an indication of the high moral standard of the individual.
About half of the 25 sections of the scientific communism syllabus deal with the Soviet Union's peaceful foreign 346 policy, the theory and practice of disarmament, efforts to end the arms race, achieve peace and promote social progress.
It should be mentioned that the effectiveness of educating youth in the spirit of international understanding, peace and disarmament depends not only on the school, but also to a large extent on the family and the mass media.
Considering family education, it should be remembered that World War II took a toll of 20 million Soviet lives, leaving very few families unscathed. This fact has a great influence on the attitude of Soviet families to war and their understanding of the value of peace. Today, many young Soviet people take part in the mass youth movement to keep fresh the memory of those who died in that war, to defend and enrich the noble and humane ideals, including the ideal of peace, that inspired the Soviet people in that war.
The Soviet mass media play an enormous part in peace education, never advocating violence, aggressiveness or contempt towards other nations or races. Reflecting the USSR's peaceful foreign policy they promote the ideas of peace and friendship, and give an objective picture of all actions and agreements in the struggle to end the arms race.
The Soviet press devotes a great deal of space to the activities of the UN, UNESCO and other international organisations aimed at bringing about disarmament, a more stable peace and security for all nations. Soviet newspapers, magazines, radio and television gave wide coverage to the UN General Assembly's special sessions on disarmament and the resolutions taken at the latest sessions on strengthening peace and security and on disarmament.
Soviet education is constantly involved in the on-going campaign for peace and disarmament. One such activity is the international friendship societies set up by students at schools and colleges. In Moscow alone, there are over 700 of them. These societies find pen pals in other countries, learn about life abroad and work for better understanding between nations. Their sessions discuss issues of disarmament and peaceful, equal and mutually beneficial co-- operation among nations.
Schoolchildren take part in various international festivals, actually sponsoring some of them.
The Sputnik organisation which handles youth tourism, has links with 350 youth societies in 70 countries, promoting friendly contacts between Soviet and foreign young people.
International co-operation, understanding and detente 347 are actively supported by such public bodies as the Soviet Peace Committee, Soviet Women's Committee, Soviet Youth Committee, and others.
Soviet young people sponsor Solidarity Weeks with nations fighting for peace and national liberation, and mark such traditional events as Young Antifascist Hero Day, on the eve of which the forum Youth in the Fight for Freedom and Peace is held. Other such events are International Women's Day, Africa Liberation Day, International Children's Day, United Nations Day and Human Rights Day. Ever since 24 October 1978, Soviet young people have also marked Disarmament Week, following the decision by a Special Session on Disarmament of the UN General Assembly and the World Peace Council. For instance, in 1982, Disarmament Week was marked by a nationwide campaign called "Soviet Youth Peace March". On International Workers' Solidarity Day, 1 May, and on the anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, 7 November, tens of millions of Soviet people turn out for demonstrations calling for peace, detente and disarmament.
In many of the nation's cities, schools take part in various international confidence-building projects.
This is only a partial list of measures taken by the Soviet Union to educate its youth in the spirit of peace, international understanding and friendship.
In promoting a policy of peace among the younger generation, the educators of Soviet youth are doing their part in the peace actions of international organisations thus developing contacts between citizens of different social systems in the interests of peace and disarmament.
[348] __NUMERIC_LVL1__ Part Four __ALPHA_LVL1__ THE SOCIAL-ECONOMIC EFFECTSProblems arising from the peaceful uses of nuclear energy worry millions of people and are the subject of heated discussions since they cause concern among politicians, the scientific community and the public at large in many countries of the world.
Mastering the secrets of nuclear energy has been the greatest feat achieved by modern science, and the road to this historic event was paved with brilliant scientific discoveries and sometimes even the tragic deaths of selfless researchers.
However, the first time the tremendous energy hidden in the nucleus of an atom was used, it was for annihilating hundreds of thousands of people. The US top brass succeeded in getting their way and dropped atomic bombs on Japanese towns to prove the world that the United States possessed the weapons of colossal destructive power which, they believed, no one else had and would hardly ever obtain. Such is the nature of capitalism, where the results of scientific discoveries are not used for the people's well-being but, on the contrary, bring great dangers that can destroy human civilisation and even life itself as we know it on this planet.
Today, the peaceful uses of nuclear energy represent one of the most urgent needs since they can open up the way for solving many of the most complex global problems. However, under certain political conditions the development of nuclear energy may open the door for the extensive dissemination of nuclear weapons. Nuclear power plants must be reliably protected from any attempts by a hostile power to destroy them. There exist many links between the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and international security. This sometimes gives rise to certain public opposition in some Western countries against the development of all types of nuclear energy, even including their peaceful uses, as 351 some "absolute evil" which threatens humanity with the prospect of enormous sufferings. Such views, however, irrespective of their origins, run counter to scientific facts.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. THE IMPERATIVE OF THE PEACEFUL USE OF NUCLEARSince 1970s the world has been grappling with the most complex! problems of economic development, energy production being one of them. However, in the long term, i.e. covering several decades, it can only be solved through the wide-scale utilisation of nuclear power plants.
Indeed, in terms of calorific value, one kilo of uranium equals 3,000 tons of coal. Moreover, one has to remember that the world's reserves of fossil fuels---oil, coal, natural gas and some others---are finite. Some scientists believe that all of them, with oil and gas in the first place, will be exhausted in the next 100 years. And although some others disagree and forecast longer periods, nevertheless they disagree only on the question of time and not in principle as far as the future of energy production goes. In fact the only workable alternative to avert an energy crisis is the wide use of nuclear power plants and, sometime later, of fusion reactors or fast neutron reactors.
Nuclear energy has one great advantage, compared to all other known kinds of energy, for in nuclear reactors the chain fission of uranium atoms, while yielding tremendous amounts of heat, does not require any oxidising agent or, in other words, oxygen, whereas any fossil fuel requires oxygen for its combustion. Thus, it takes two kilos of oxygen to burn just one kilo of conventional fuel. Experts calculated that in 1975 some 15 billion tons of oxygen were used to burn 7.9 billion tons of conventional fossil fuel. As a result some 150 million tons of ash, 20 billion tons of carbon dioxide, 100 million tons of sulphur oxide, and 60 million tons of nitrogen oxide entered the environment.
Some time ago, when only relatively small amounts of fossil fuel were burnt throughout the world each year, these losses of oxygen were renewed naturally. But the amounts of burnt fuel have sky-rocketed to reach astronomical figures today. This may all result in tipping the balance between the natural production of oxygen and its consumption---- which may be fraught with adverse consequences for the whole world. Therefore, nuclear energy is fast becoming 352 the only realistic alternative to all other sources of energy.
Of course, mankind has at its disposal other sources of energy which may and should help in finding a way out at a time when the natural resources of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, gas, etc., are dwindling.
Solar energy represents the most ecologically clean type of energy. Several countries have already embarked on programmes of building pilot solar-battery power plants. Thus, the pilot T.H.E.M.I.S. solar energy plant with a capacity of 2.5 megawatt was built in the Pyrenees (France). In California (US) the building of the Solar One station has been completed.
Wind power is also ecologically clean. And although this power has been used for various purposes from time immemorial, still no large-scale projects utilising the wind power have been built. The design of wind turbines is very complex---it is sufficient to say that a two-megawatt generator should be fitted with blades 75 m in diameter.
Hydropower does not cause any environmental pollution either and for a long time water has been used for generating power. Yet, it too has its drawbacks, and quite big ones, for large water reservoirs take up large tracts of land. For instance, the Kuibyshev Hydroelectric Power Station in the Soviet Union required 20,000 sq. km for its construction.
Tidal energy looks also very promising. The Ranee Tidal Station in France has been in operation for almost 20 years. A similar power plant, the Kislogubskaya Tidal Station, exists in the Soviet Union. It is technically possible to use geothermal waters and some other kinds of sources of energy.
Unfortunately, all these kinds of renewable sources of energy, which must be used to the full, cannot meet world energy needs. In the next century their total contribution to the world energy balance would hardly exceed 8 to 10 per cent. Therefore, nuclear and fusion reactors tend to be the only reliable sources of power supplies.
Immediately after scientists became able to harness nuclear power, the Soviet Union paid special attention to the peaceful uses of atomic energy. The world's first nuclear power plant was built in the vicinity of Moscow in the late 1950s. It was constructed on the initiative of Academician Igor Kurchatov, the leading scientist in the Soviet nuclear programme.
The past years saw rapid improvements in nuclear technology which has now reached a high level of development. __PRINTERS_P_353_COMMENT__ 23-339 353 Today, electric power generated by nuclear power plants substantially contributes into the overall power output of many countries. Thus, in the early 1980s nuclear power plants accounted for some 10 to 35 per cent of the total electricity generated in the leading Western countries.
Nuclear power is going to play an increasingly important role in the near future. For instance, in France nuclear power accounted for over 40 per cent in the country's energy budget in 1983, and a figure as high as 50 per cent is expected by the year 1985.
The Soviet Union plans to raise the total output of electricity in 1985 to 1,550,000-1,600,000 million kilowatt-hours. The output of atomic power stations in 1983 was 110,000 million kilowatt-hours, that is eight per cent of the total power production in the USSR.
As one can see from the figures cited, the share of nuclear power in the Soviet Union is slightly less compared to that in some West European countries. But this can be easily explained by the fact that the Soviet Union has rich reserves of solid, liquid, and gaseous fuels. Therefore, there is no need to give first priority to the development of nuclear power plants. However, there is a certain demand for the construction of nuclear stations in the European part of the country which is noted for having the highest share of energy consumption.
In January 1984 the Soviet Union had 33 atomic power units with an installed capacity of 21,000 megawatt. The fourth unit at the Ghernobylskaya atomic power plant, the third at the Kursk plant and the first, and world's largest (1,500 megawatt), at the Ignalinsk plant were commissioned in 1983.
At present there exist many types of nuclear power plants in the world and their choice is determined by existing conditions, the level of economic development, and political considerations.
The Soviet Union has made its choice and now builds only two types of nuclear power plants with thermal neutron reactors---pressurized water reactors and more powerful boiling uranium-graphite reactors---in order to ensure adequate standardisation and unification of all reactor parts and components and, hence, their high quality.
As mentioned earlier, nuclear fuel is a million times more effective than fossil fuels but still its reserves in nature are far from being ever-lasting.
354Natural uranium contains only 0.71 per cent of uranium 235 which is the fissionable isotope. However, in practice only one or two per cent of this rare isotope is used in slowneutron reactors, which are, at present, the most popular type of reactors. Therefore, the further development of nuclear power generation runs into the serious problem of providing future nuclear plants with adequate nuclear fuel supplies.
However, nature itself stepped in to help, for in a nuclear reactor, apart from other physical reactions, the reproduction of nuclear fuel takes place and this holds great promise for the future of nuclear power production.
Fast-neutron reactors, which are a new and promising type of nuclear reactors, not only reproduce nuclear fuel but produce it in increasing amounts while using in their fuel cycle not only the fissionable uranium 235 but also the non-fissionable isotope of uranium 238 whose content in a ton of natural uranium exceeds 90 per cent.^^1^^
In several industrialised countries nuclear scientists are now intensively developing big reliable power plants utilising fast reactors. In the Soviet Union there are now three such_nuclear plants in operation. In France, after the necessary experimental data was obtained on a Rapsodie reactor, a nuclear power plant based on a Phenix fast reactor with an installed capacity of 250 megawatt was commissioned. The construction of a Super-Phenix fast reactor with a capacity of 1,200 megawatt,, the biggest nuclear plant in the world, is nearing its completion. Britain has two nuclear stations based on fast reactors. Intensive research is going on in this field in Japan and West Germany. Thus, nuclear power based on fast reactors is just around the corner.
However, it takes quite a lot of time to introduce such reactors on a wide scale, and commercial nuclear power plants on fast reactors may only appear around the year 2000.
Apart from generation of electric power, nuclear energy _-_-_
~^^1^^ When fast neutrons hit the nucleus of uranium 238, they transform it through several reactions into plutonium, a new and man-made (cannot be found in nature) nuclear fuel. These transformations are as follows: as soon as a neutron reaches the nucleus of uranium 238, it transforms into another isotope, uranium 239, which, in turn, is transformed into neptunium 239 which then finally assumes the form of plutonium 239, a stable isotope with a long half-life.
This extended reproduction or breeding of nuclear fuel, achieved in fast reactors, resolves the question of providing humanity with a source of primary energy.
__PRINTERS_P_355_COMMENT__ 23* 355 is increasingly used for various other purposes, i.e. in industry, chemistry, biology, medicine, geology, etc.A radioassay represents one of the most sensitive analyses used in analytical chemistry.
The use of gamma-ray spectrometers by field geologists in drilling wells (as deep as 1,000 m), filled with either water or mud, is very promising.
Radioactive tracers are used in steel casting to detect the admixtures appearing during the solidification of steel and alloys. They may also be used to trace the movement of mixtures and gases in metal-smelting open-hearth and electric furnaces, and cupolas.
In the chemical industry instruments utilising radioactive trace elements are used for measuring and checking the level of liquid and bulk aggressive media, for on-the-spot measurement of components in a manufactured product, checking the wall thickness in operating technological apparatus engaged in on-line production as well as for automatic control and management of production processes.
Radioactive chemistry, a new trend in the chemical industry, is fast developing. Soviet scientists have greatly contributed to world science by developing many important theoretical aspects of this new field. They have also developed some original processes which are of great practical interest.
The development of new sophisticated industries has sharply increased the demands on the quality of metals and welded joints. This, in turn, triggered the necessity of applying more stringent controls to different-thickness parts made of steel or special alloys. Gamma-ray defectoscopes successfully cope with this task. Thus, special-design gammaray defectoscopes are widely used in the construction of gas and oil pipelines and in the shipbuilding industry where they have proved to be highly efficient.
Another promising field for using the decay energy of radioactive isotopes is its application in autonomous smallpower electric generators which are badly needed for space research, oceanographic navigation instruments, and automatic weather stations. The power-intensity of such generators with a capacity up to one kilowatt is 20 to 30 times greater than that of the best chemical batteries.
The energy of the atom is widely used in agriculture. Since 1950s isotopes and ionising radiation have been extensively used in agricultural research, namely, for plant 356 breeding and raising the productivity of crops, and in radioassays of soil, plants, and animals in order to develop methods for pollution control. Radioactive tracers have provided biology and agriculture with a wide opportunity for research into plants' metabolism, nutrition and the use of fertilisers.
Ionising radiation and radioactive tracers occupy an important place in medical research and practice. Thus, radiotherapy represents one of the most effective means of controlling tumors. Pride of place in a radiotherapeutic facility belongs to remote-control gamma-ray therapy. In recent years proton-beam accelerators have been increasingly widely used in medicine and biology. A proton beam has many advantages over X-ray and gamma-ray radiation since it can be easily focused and dissipates only slightly in human tissues, although its biologic effects do not practically differ from that of the electron-photon radiation.
Three atomic ice-breakers---the Lenin, the Sibir, and the Leonid Brezhnev---were built and are now in operation in the Soviet Union. They help to maintain seafaring all year round in the Arctic Ocean and in this way contribute to the comprehensive development of the area's natural resources.
One can cite many examples that stress the need for the peaceful uses of atomic energy. However, in some countries quite sizable sections of the general public express reservations and doubts about the development of nuclear power. Such sentiments culminate sometimes in public protest campaigns and even public rallies against the building of nuclear power plants.
This may be explained by a number of reasons. Such protest campaigns are incited by oil-producing monopolies and certain reactionary political figures who are not interested in the development of a new type of energy. Besides, it is psychologically understandable that whenever people encounter something absolutely new, which they cannot compare with anything in their previous experience, they treat this new thing with suspicion and sometimes even with hostility. One can only recall the public opposition to practically all breakthroughs in technology as was the case with the introduction of steam engines, internal combustion engines, electricity, telegraphy, wireless and the like. However, all those technical novelties, no matter how great they seemed to be, just cannot be compared with all the new aspects which the use of nuclear energy brings into our life.
357In this connection the fact that nuclear energy was first used as a monstrous destructive weapon is also important. The feeling of real danger, of nuclear threat to all forms of life takes root and grows stronger because there are some reckless politicians who try to make the idea of the inevitability of a nuclear war, albeit a limited one, a household word.
However, there are no grounds whatsoever to consider nuclear engineering an evil threatening people's life and health. So far, there exist some 300 nuclear power plants in the world and for the past 30 years not a single major accident with disastrous consequences, or the radiation damage done to people or the environment, has taken place.
In March 1979 the world public was alerted by the news about the accident on the Three Mile Island nuclear station in the United States. Initially, it was even planned to evacuate several hundred thousand local residents from the area, but luckily the emergency shut-down system operated promptly and closed the reactor in a few seconds.
The reactor's air-tight containment vessel did not release the radioactive debris into the environment and the ventilation filters retained the radioactive iodine. As a result not one of the reactor personnel suffered from any effects of irradiation and the environment was not damaged.
This accident, however, sounded an alarm for all reactor operators and forced them to use additional safeguards which would ensure no such accidents in future.
Whenever people cite data about the adverse impact of nuclear power plants on the environment, they often tend to forget that all kinds of human activity, including energy generation, affect to some degree the human environment.
In contrast to thermal power stations, nuclear plants do not pollute the environment with the products of fossil fuel combustion which may sometimes be toxic or ecologically damaging. As mentioned earlier, the radiation protection systems are quite reliable and further progress in technology would, undoubtedly, enhance their reliability.
Indeed, the development of nuclear engineering does pose a number of specific problems, such as control over radioactive materials through the entire nuclear cycle and the disposal of nuclear wastes. But one thing should be clearly realised: technically all these problems have a reliable solution based on the internationally accepted standards and norms of radioactive protection.
From the very inception of nuclear industry efforts were 358 taken to develop international standards and today all forms of radioactive protection are based on them. Certain principles of limiting radiation doses have been developed, namely, the use of every irradiation source must be conditioned by its benefits; any accidental exposure should have a reasonably attained low level and the irradiation exposure of individuals must not exceed certain doses. According to the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the maximum allowable dose was established for reactor operators. The observance of this standard usually results in the mean annual dose being significantly lower, roughly by a factor of 10, than this allowable dose.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. NUCLEAR POWER AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITYThese two notions are closely interrelated. According to the forecasts of competent international organisations, the number of countries which have nuclear power plants in operation may increase from 25 in 1983 to 34 in 1990, and the total installed capacity of these stations may grow from 170 to 460 million kilowatt. This process, however, is fraught with negative international political consequences, that is, a technological opportunity is thus created for producing nuclear weapons. By 1980 countries which otherwise did not have nuclear weapons had accumulated some 78 tons of plutonium, whereas for the production of a 20-kiloton atomic bomb only several kilos of plutonium are required.^^1^^
Indeed, any spread of nuclear weapons in the areas where the international situation is not stable or its emergence in the hands of reactionary regimes may have the most grievous consequences. This explains why the world public is deeply worried by the news that both Israel and the Republic of South Africa have nuclear weapons and that they may be used by their governments against neighbouring states.
All these considerations make the development and adoption of international legal instruments which would prevent the spread of such weapons an urgent priority. These instruments, however, should not block the way to the development of peaceful nuclear energy.
_-_-_~^^1^^ International Affairs, No. 12, 1982, p. 101.
359A prominent place among such international documents belongs to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons which came into force in 1970. Now 121 countries have signed this treaty which effectively serves the interests of all countries, both developed and developing, nuclear and non-nuclear, big and small. This Treaty is based on two groups of commitments: nuclear-weapon states assumed an obligation not to hand over either nuclear weapons or nuclear explosives to any non-nuclear state, while the latter, in turn, undertook not to produce or acquire such nuclear weapons or explosives.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was entrusted to exercise control over the fulfilment of this treaty. The prime duty of the IAEA is to see that the fissionable materials produced or used in various phases of a nuclear fuel cycle are not to be diverted for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. With this aim in mind the IAEA controls nuclear reactors, reprocessing plants and the like, collects information on the movement of fissionable materials and carries out the necessary verification.
By the end of 1980 the IAEA controlled 774 nuclear plants which accounted for 98 per cent of all such plants in nonnuclear states. Life has shown the high reliability of such IAEA safeguards.
The Soviet Union has always been a staunch supporter of the non-proliferation policy. While acting in this spirit, the Soviet Union went forward to meet the requests of some non-nuclear states and, as a goodwill gesture, placed some of its nuclear power plants and research reactors under the IAEA safeguards.
The international Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, which was opened for signing in 1980, plays a definite role in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. Its aim is to block any attempts by terrorist or criminal elements to steal nuclear materials for political blackmail or extortion.
The nuclear-technology-exporting countries have come to terms on the principles of export policy in the field in order to strengthen the non-proliferation system.
On 13 January 1982 the USSR Council of Ministers adopted special instructions on exports of nuclear materials, nuclear technology, equipment, plants and of special nonnuclear materials and services. These instructions apply to Soviet exports of these items to non-nuclear countries. 360 They specify, in particular, that Soviet exports to non-- nuclear states are possible only on condition that these exported items:
---would not be used for the manufacture of nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosives, or for attaining any other military goal;
---would be placed under IAEA safeguards during the entire period of their use;
---would be provided with physical safety measures at a level not lower than the one recommended by the IAEA;
---would be re-exported only on conditions stipulated in these instructions and with the written consent of a Soviet foreign trade organisation.
Guarantees of the non-nuclear states' security are very important for strengthening the idea of the non-- proliferation of nuclear weapons. In 1978 the Soviet Union pledged that it would never use nuclear arsenals against those states which undertake neither to manufacture, possess nor use them on their territory. In this connection it should be specially mentioned that the Soviet Union unilaterally pledged not to be the first party to use nuclear weapons.
On the other hand, the fact that some 50 states have not so far signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty weakens its importance. Among those who have refused to sign there are the so-called threshold states, which possess the technical knowhow and facilities for the nuclear arms manufacture. Several such countries---South Africa, Israel and Pakistan--- do not even conceal their aspirations.
Some of these ``threshold'' states may be found in troubled areas of the world, where the level of international security is very low. Some of these states are ruled by reactionary, militarist cliques. Therefore, if such a regime gets hold of a nuclear weapon, it may trigger a sort of "chain reaction" in the form of its spread throughout the entire region.
Hence, it is absolutely clear that strengthening the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons requires strengthening international security, elimination of hotbeds of crises and conflicts and the settlement of existing contradictions through peaceful political means. Only then is it possible to get rid of the causes forcing some non-nuclear states to look for ways of acquiring nuclear arms. Only in conditions of stable international security would the development of nuclear power be deprived of its potential scourge---the technological knowhow capable of producing nuclear armaments.
361There are, of course, other aspects to the relationship between the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and international security.
In 1982 the Soviet Union tabled the Draft Resolution on Multiplying Efforts to Eliminate the Threat of Nuclear War and to Ensure the Safe Development of Nuclear Energy at a session of the UN General Assembly. This draft resolution stressed that the irreversible process of the development of nuclear-power generation is associated with the emergence of a large number of peaceful nuclear plants with a high concentration of radioactive materials. It is quite clear that the destruction of such facilities would cause a significant release of radioactive materials. If nuclear weapons are to be used against such facilities, the resulting consequences would be a global disaster. In such conditions an outbreak of nuclear war would be even more dangerous. So, while taking all this into account, the Soviet draft resolution contains an appeal to all states to multiply their efforts to eliminate the threat of a nuclear war and ensure the safe development of nuclear-power generation. Besides, it contains one more important thing, namely, that the intentional destruction of peaceful nuclear facilities by using even conventional weapons is, in fact, tantamount to a nuclear attack, that is the action which the United Nations has already named as the most grave crime against humanity.
Scientific research provides evidence to the urgency of the issue. Thus, in a letter sent of Perez de Cuellar, UN Secretary General, Andrei Gromyko, USSR Foreign Minister, wrote that "according to the experts' estimates the destruction of one nuclear power station with a capacity of one million kilowatt would be tantamount to the radioactive contamination caused by a nuclear bomb of one megaton in the short-term respect and would surpass it by several ten-folds over a period of one year and more".^^1^^
It should be mentioned that the world has already witnessed a cold-blooded attack against a nuclear facility. In 1981 the Israeli Air Force bombed the Iraqi nuclear research centre. This aggressive act was justifiably classified, apart from other things, as an infringement of the IAEA system of safeguards underlying the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
To sum up, with nuclear energy humanity has obtained _-_-_
~^^1^^ Pravda, 4 October 1982. 362
362 an enormous source of power, but the possibilities for using this energy for peaceful purposes and for the benefit of all mankind are still at the initial stage.By its capacities nuclear energy is something unique and its application control is, no doubt, the greatest achievement during man's entire life on this planet. Now people have to realise that the use of nuclear energy for military purposes is inhuman, criminal and fraught with disastrous consequences for the future. Men still have to do a lot in the interests of human society both during this and coming centuries. One thing is certain that man would make other discoveries in the surrounding world and would find ways and means to put them at his service.
[363] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter 22 __ALPHA_LVL2__ DISARMAMENT,The fates of the liberated states are in many ways affected by disarmament. It is a factor that makes itself felt in the general climate of international relations and in the distribution of resources thus determining the ability of these states to overcome the economic backwardness which they inherited from the colonial period, and to change their unequal status in the capitalist economy.
The existence of the dialectical interrelationship between disarmament and development is now a universally acknowledged fact. In the past it was claimed that detente was a matter to be settled only between "the two superpowers" and therefore did not concern the developing countries, or that these countries should concentrate first on development, and only then on detente. But these assertions have been disproved by the latest documents adopted by the developing states, including the decisions of the New Delhi Seventh Conference of Heads of State or Government of NonAligned Countries. They do not oppose the two imperative needs of present-day reality, but on the contrary stress the importance of working in both these interrelated directions. The same attitude is reflected in the Substantial New Programme of Action for the 1980s approved by the Eleventh Special Session of the UN General Assembly.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. DETENTE AND DEVELOPMENT: DIALECTICS OFThe principal statutory objective of the UN is the maintenance of peace and security. There is profound meaning in the priority given to this basic objective, enshrined in the UN Charter. Indeed, no plans for the economic restructuring of the globe, especially long-term plans, can be realised without stable peace, trust and co-operation among nations. Significantly, it was in the years of detente that the New 364 International Economic Order itself came into being as a programme of action. But the increased danger of a global nuclear holocaust and imperialism's growing aggressiveness in the late 1970s and early 1980s impeded the NIEO negotiations and stalemated the implementation of its main principles.
Undoubtedly, one of the main prerequisites of international security is the exclusion of discrimination and inequity from international economic relations. "The eradication of underdevelopment, the gradual narrowing of the gap between economic development levels, and the creation of conditions for the harmonious growth of international contacts in the economic, scientific and technological fields," the 1983 Political Declaration of the Warsaw Treaty Member States stresses, "constitute one of the basic factors of economic stability and the improvement of the international political climate.''^^1^^ It is clear why plotting against detente, as well as resisting economic decolonisation and fanning the cold war, all stem from one and the same root.
This is confirmed both at global level, and at the level of the developing world, whose collective diplomacy in the UN and in the non-aligned movement is based on the same economic problems and interests. The need to fight jointly for these interests even brought warring governments to the negotiating table for the purpose of working out developing countries' collective documents. The NIEO programme, for example, was worked out in spite of the fact that at the time, there were no less than 15 active conflicts taking place in the developing world. The Lagos Declaration on the promotion of Pan-African co-operation serves as a powerful instrument in the hands of the Organisation of African Unity for settling conflicts. The high degree of economic integration is an important factor that makes it possible for the Andean Pact countries to maintain peaceful relations, although border disputes exist among them.
On the other hand, many plans for developmental economic co-operation have been repeatedly foiled by conflicts. As an illustration of this, the conflict between Kenya and Uganda, and later between Tanzania and Uganda, resulted in the collapse of the East African Economic Community. The hostile policies of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador's junta towards Nicaragua, as well as their unfriendly _-_-_
^^1^^ Information Bulletin, No. 5, 1983, p. 15.
365 acts against Panama, brought on a serious crisis in the Central American Common Market. Interminable frictions between the Arab states paralysed the economic activity of the League of Arab States and left the plans for creating the Arab Common Market, and some other plans, unrealised. Attempts to create regional integration under the auspices of military blocs ended in a complete fiasco. Thus, the SEATO and CENTO economic bodies never carried through any serious integration ventures.But it is not only a matter of the international political atmosphere. The very dialectics of the interrelationship between disarmament and development spells for the liberated states quite concrete economic losses from international tension, and, conversely, economic gains from detente.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. PEACE IMPULSES TO DEVELOPMENT: THE INTERNATIONALOne can clearly see these losses and gains when viewing the two world systems in opposition. Indeed, a global nuclear war would not spare developing countries either. It would contaminate their environment with radioactive waste and affect those countries that have military bases on their territory. The vast expanses of the world's oceans would become a theatre of naval hostilities. All this would inflict irreparable material and genetic damage on the developing countries.
Even if we assume the improbable, i.e. that the territory of the developing countries themselves and their material and production base survive the conflagration of a nuclear war, such a war would even so be a setback to their peoples and make development impossible for the next few hundred years. It would destroy the economy, science and culture of the developed part of the world, which supplies the developing countries with almost all the technology they need, with 92 per cent of all their imported machinery, 86 per cent of the financial aid they receive, and 66 per cent of their food products.
This would completely upset the social production mechanism of the developing countries, which would, in fact, be left without its first subdivision. This role is actually played by industrial imports. Havoc would also be wreaked on the second subdivision, where imports cover a considerable part of the demand for food products and consumer goods. And, 366 lastly, there would be no realisation of the social product, which is usually implemented through exports, 83 per cent of which go to the developed capitalist and socialist countries.^^1^^ It is true that since their independence, the liberated states have done much to convert the reproduction process onto a national basis. But a sudden and total disappearance of its external links would mean large-scale economic disaster for all the developing countries. It would throw them back to a subsistence economy, obliterate all the achievements of industrialisation and give rise to vast social problems, including deurbanisation and growing unemployment, which is already as high as 500 million people, or half their labour force.^^2^^ The world's transport, communications, accounting, information, education, and health care systems would be irreversibly disrupted, and the ``surviving'' developing countries would not be able to restore them without outside help. In short, a nuclear holocaust would set the developing world back to a degree comparable to the aftermath of many centuries of colonial rule.
A global nuclear war is by no means inevitable. Peace forces have every reason to be optimistic about the success of their efforts to prevent it. However, it must be stressed that the arms race itself inflicts serious hardships on young states.
Military budgets absorb huge sums of money, part of which could be used for development. As is known, the Soviet Union has submitted a number of proposals to the UN to that effect. According to data published by the UN, world military expenditure rose from $350 billion in 1970 to $550 billion in 1980, which is almost three times the figure of the entire African GNP, half the Latin American GNP, two .thirds of the Asian GNP, and twenty times as much as all official Western development assistance. In spite of. .all-this-, the NATO countries plan to increase their military spending still further. The US alone earmarks about $1.8 trillion in military appropriations for the period up to 1988.
Which part of these resources could be rechanneled to _-_-_
~^^1^^ UNCTAD. Handbook of International Trade and Development Statistics. Supplement 1981, United Nations, New York, 1982, pp. 282, 458, 494.
~^^2^^ Fidel Castro, The World Economic and Social Crisis, Havana, 1983, p. 13.
367 take care of development needs in case of cutbacks in military budgets would depend on the relevant international accords. But in any case, the sum would add up to billions of dollars and help to solve many of the vital problems of the developing countries. For instance, the implementation of all UN programmes on health care, environmental protection, education, food, and technological aid requires only about $2 billion per year.^^1^^ The financial and material assistance to the developing countries' agriculture needed to ultimately make them self-sufficient in food products is roughly estimated at $3 billion per year. The supply of their population with pure drinking water, and the eradication of children's infectious diseases require annually about $1 billion. These, however, are not the only possible developmental benefits that the liberated states might obtain from disarmament.Many problems of the developing countries stem both from their own domestic economies, and from the external economic system in which they operate. Disarmament might play a crucial role in their improvement.
Cutbacks in military expenditures would eliminate or considerably decrease the state budget deficits of many developed countries, and this would, at last, check inflation which is continually fed by these deficits. At any rate, it might return to its ``classic'' variant of ``creeping'' price rises in the phase of economic booms alone, instead of the current ``galloping'' rises in all phases of the economic cycle.
That would keep down the growing cost of the developing countries' imports from capitalist states, the only possible increases in cost being connected with improved technical and economic characteristics of imported commodities. But as things stand now, import prices rise much faster than do export prices, and inflation has already eaten up what these countries gained from the boost in raw material prices in the 1970s. In the first few months of 1983 this process embraced oil as well.
Furthermore, the curbing of inflation might check the depreciation of the currency reserves of young states that has now reached almost 8 per cent a year. Uneven rates of inflation in individual Western countries periodically result in currency upheavals and exchange rate fluctuations, _-_-_
~^^1^^ Krieg, Militarausgaben und wirtschaftlicher Wandel, Graz, 1982, p. 105.
368 caussing additional damage to the newly-liberated states which keep their reserves in ``weak'' currencies.Besides, inflation promotes an increase in credit interest rates that reached a record high in the early 1980s. The developing countries are compelled to resort to credits extended by Western private banks at an annual interest rate of 18 to 20 per cent, or even at ``floating'' interest rates that fluctuate throughout the loan period following the changes in the credit situation. But it should be borne in mind that each additional percentage point is, on the whole, equivalent to a $2 billion annual increase in the debt of the developing countries.^^1^^
In the late 1970s and early 1980s these countries had to spend up to 25 per cent of their export revenues to pay off their debts, and they also had to reborrow funds to meet their current debt payments. As a result, by early 1983, their total debt exceeded $790 billion and became the principal economic problem of the present decade.^^2^^
The bridling of inflation would, by lowering bank rates and budget deficits, enable Western governments to redeem part of the developing countries' debts that they owe to private banks and cannot pay on time, transfer them to the category of preferential development assistance, partially reschedule and reconsolidate them, etc.
Measures designed to avert the bankruptcy of a number of debtor nations, as well as of the banks that extended credit to them, have already been worked out,^^3^^ but they cannot be implemented because of growing military expenditure.
A reduction in military spending would also help the capitalist economy to cope with the current recession. This has not yet been made possible because in view of the high interest rates and money deficit in the loan capital market, the corporations are unable to finance the necessary investments. The lion's share of resources is being pumped out of this market by governmental loan applications made to meet the cost of war preparations. Disarmament would help to lift the crushing financial pressure from the Western economy and make the economic recovery full-blooded, _-_-_
~^^1^^ Common Crisis North-South: Cooperation for World Recovery. The Brandt Commission, Pan Books, London, 1983, p. 56.
~^^2^^ Business Week, No. 2778-109, 21 February 1983, pp. 48-49; The Economist, Vol. 286, No. 7277, 19 February 1983, p. 79.
~^^3^^ Business Week, No. 2779-110, 28 February 1983, pp, 8-9.
__PRINTERS_P_369_COMMENT__ 24-339 369 instead of anaemic and unstable as it is now. This would lead to a greater demand for the developing countries' exports, and consequently, to their better general economic position. According to the estimates of experts from the American Morgan Garanty Trust Company, with the present anaemic state of the Western economy remaining unchanged, the overall debt of 21 major developing borrower-nations might reach $850 billion by 1986, whereas under conditions of even average post-recession growth rates the figure would only be $650 billion. The share of export revenues going to the payment of this debt threatens to grow up to 30-47 per cent of their total, whereas in the second case it might remain at its present level of 25 per cent.^^1^^Besides favourable cyclic changes, disarmament may animate some long-term structural factors, advantageous to the developing countries.
Until now, 75 per cent of the young states' export revenues has been accounted for by raw materials, but, as the arms race is being stepped up, this sector of demand is rapidly shrinking. Each qualitative change in weaponry generations frequently either reduces the number of their delivery means or requires the use of material whose production is impossible in the developing countries. In contrast, civilian production consumes much more materials than the war industry, and this opens up new markets for the export sector of the young states.
There is a similar situation in consumer-demand. Since much of it is met by the developing countries' output, it is very sensitive to the income level of the population, which is closely connected with the employment level. Here, again, despite the assertions of the arms race apologists, militarisation has its negative effects. It was not without reason that Kurt Waldheim, the former UN Secretary-General, sharply criticised those governments which were " propagating the alleged employment advantages, resulting from their scheduled weapons acquisitions, without explaining that the alternative civilian use of those very funds would, also create jobs, and in larger numbers, too".^^2^^ In other words, militarisation is alienating more and more potential consumers from the young states' commodities, whereas disarmament would have just the opposite effect.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Business Week, No. 2778-109, 21 February 1983, p. 48.
~^^2^^ Der Spiegel, No. 36, August 1981, p. 72.
370Keeping production running, militarisation rules out the possibility of its working for peacetime export. It reduces the range of commodities and slackens competition, which is definitely unprofitable for the developing states, because their trump card in challenging the Western monopolies is acute competition among the latter. This leads to exorbitant prices, with the ever increasing costs of military production contributing to inflation at the other end of the industrial spectrum. For example, the cost of 50 newlydeveloped US weapon systems averaged 118 per cent of what had been planned.^^1^^
The pressures of military expenditure slow down the modernisation of the civilian industrial sector and reduce its competitiveness. As an illustration of this, arming the Navy with F-18 fighter-planes is, according to the Western press, equivalent to the cost of modernising America's machine-tool stock.^^2^^ The West's "new protectionism" has resulted in the developing countries losing 27-billion-dollars worth of export revenues.^^3^^
That is what militarism means in reality, and, on the other hand, that is what the economies of the developing countries stand to gain from disarmament.
It stands to reason that positive impulses, if headway is made towards achieving disarmament, may and will come not only from the West, but from the socialist states, too. The latter are already doing more, in relative terms, to render assistance to the newly-liberated states than NATO or OEGD.
The implementation of disarmament measures would certainly enable the Soviet Union to render more economic assistance to the developing countries. The Soviet proposals are well known concerning the reduction of military budgets and the appropriation of part of the released funds for economic aid to Asian, African and Latin American states. Disarmament would also enlarge the Soviet Union's export sector and import potential, including consumer goods, which would lead to greater opportunities for co-operation with the liberated states in the interest of their development.
_-_-_~^^1^^ J. Ronald Fox, Arming America: How the U.S. Buys Weapons, Harvard University, Boston, 1974, p. 50; Time, Vol. 119, No. 8, 22 February 1982, pp. 37-38.
~^^2^^ The New York Times, 26 July 1981, p. E21.
^^3^^ UNCTAD: Document TD/B/C. 1/207/Add. 2, 14 August 1980, p. 3.
__PRINTERS_P_371_COMMENT__ 24* 371 __ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES' ECONOMIES: A THREATThe 1970sand_eariy 1980s saw the developing states accelerating their military build-up. The numher of armed conflicts in the last 40 years has reached 130. Eighty countries have found themselves involved in them, and the total number of casualties has become comparable to that of the First World War.
The developing countries' total military spending shot up from $27.8 billion in 1970 to $81 billion in 1982. It grew even faster than NATO's similar expenditures, let alone those of the Warsaw Treaty countries, and outstripped their GNP growth. As a result, in 1982, these countries' share of the world's military burden was 16 per cent, and, as a proportion of their GNP (5.9 per cent) they outstripped the developed countries. Their armies number 15 million people, which constitutes 60 per cent of the total world military personnel. Lastly, these countries now account for about 75 per cent of the world's armaments imports.^^1^^
The reasons for this may be quite diverse. A large number of countries buy weapons to be able to defend their sovereignty, and their participation in military conflicts has the nature of just wars.
Very often wars and conflicts are caused by the patchwork of state and ethnic borders, which was established as a result of haphazard colonial seizures. On top of ethnic disputes there often occur racial and religious conflicts. There is also a new type of conflict sparked off by the demarcation of the continental shelf, as a result of which territorial disputes are carried over to sea and ocean areas. All of these conflicts can certainly be settled by means of political negotiations, which is always welcomed by the non-aligned movement and the Organisation of African Unity that comes out, among other things, for the preservation of the existing state borders, no matter how artificially they might have been set in the past. However, the fact remains that at present the developing world's ethnic, racial and religious conflicts alone keep dozens of countries warring in one way or another. Besides, many of them have separatist movements. Continental shelf disputes are now going on between Indonesia and Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore, Chile and Argentina, etc.
_-_-_^^1^^ Fidel Castro, op. cil., pp. 204, 207.
372A number of developing countries are making war preparations against their neighbours on their own initiative. The reasons for this may spring from the complex processes of state formation, from internal political crises seeking a ``scapegoat'' abroad for their solution, from the leaders' ambitions, or from the readiness to assist Western " greatpower imperialism"^^1^^ by providing military bases, participating in military blocs, performing the functions of " regional gendarmes", etc. Apart from all this, reactionary regimes also use their armies for the repression of their own peoples.
These factors continually reanimate old conflicts and create new ones. They are responsible for the lion's share of arms spending by the developing countries, both on the part of the aggressor states and of their potential or actual victims defending their sovereignty. All this in turn imposes the heaviest of burdens on the economies of the developing countries, sapping their accumulation funds and currency revenue, as well as depleting the ranks of their specialists, thus decreasing the scope and rates of development.
Local wars also do a lot of material damage. For example, the absurd Iran-Iraq war has destroyed the greater part of the oil-export sector in both countries.
Development is likewise impaired by the procurement of weapons. In the middle of the 1970s, 95 developing states imported heavy armaments from abroad---tanks, warships, missiles, and planes. All in all, there are 105 developing states that buy foreign armaments, and their number is steadily increasing.^^2^^ Besides, there are important qualitative changes taking place in armament import, which make it more expensive and more and more politically dangerous.
In most cases, it is largely made up of modern armaments. Thus the US began to supply some developing countries with Lance missiles 18 years after they were developed, with F-14 fighters, 12 months later, and with AW ACS systems, at the same time as they were supplied to the US Air Force. Orders for F-18 fighter began coming in when the plane was still in blueprints. The French firm Societe des avions Marcel Dassault is even developing a new Mirage-4000 plane---jointly with Saudi Arabia. All this steeply pushes up _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 39, p. 532.
~^^2^^ A. V. Kozyrev, No to the Death Trade, Moscow, 1980, p. 6 (in Russian).
373 the cost of armament imports for the developing countries, which have to pay about as much as they pay for the imported foodstuffs.Unlike machines and equipment, armaments are hardly ever sold on credit, but, as a rule, are sold for cash, and at present the expenditures on their procurement make up about half of the young states' foreign trade deficit.
The servicing of the sophisticated military hardware, impossible without assistance of foreign advisers and instructors on account of developing states' technological weakness and lack of specialists, is becoming another, rapidly growing item of expenditure. Thus, there were tens of thousands of US military advisers in Iran under the Shah, and today there are as many in Saudi Arabia. Sometimes, even regular troops are brought in to service this military equipment, or else it is concentrated in foreign military bases.
Apart from all this, the density of weapons saturation in the developing countries has increased sharply, which is a potential source of conflict situations.
It is no wonder that Western diplomats provoke conflicts and support dictatorial regimes in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. For instance, "to make the Camp David agreements more attractive" $4.5 billion in military assistance was offered to those Arab nations that would be loyal to the agreements.^^1^^ It should be added that Latin American dictatorships, South Korea and Taiwan, and South Africa, i.e., the world's most volatile regions, export, respectively, 35, 30, and 20 per cent of their armaments from Israel.
Very often, arms are procured by the world's poorest nations, which, for these purposes, cut back on their vital economic and social needs. It has been established that for each dollar they spend on arms, they reduce domestic investment by 25 cents. Diverting 5.9 per cent of their GNP to meet their military expenses, the young states spend only 1 per cent of their GNP on health care, and 2.8 per cent, on education. There is nothing surprising in this fact, since the money spent on the tank could pay for the construction of schools for 30,000 children, and annual expenditure on one soldier is $19,300, while it is a mere $380 for one schoolchild. There is one soldier for every 250 inhabitants in these countries, but one doctor for every 3,700. Somalia, that has a per capita GNP of $130 and suffers from periodic droughts, _-_-_
^^1^^ International Herald Tribune, I February 1982, p. 3. 374
374 was incited by foreign powers to launch aggression against Ethiopia. This entailed the procurement of at least $215- million-worth of armaments (or $54 per head of population) and caused material damage, massive population migrations, internal repression, and failure to meet foreign debt payments.^^1^^Table 3
DYNAMICS OF INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT INDICES BY THE
YEAR 2000 WITH DIFFERENT VARIANTS OF WORLD
MILITARY SPENDING
Difference
Group of countries
Variant A Variant B
cent)
1. Average per capita GNP ($)
African arid zone 143.4 353.1 +146.2
Low-income Asian countries 136.1 190.4 + 39.8
Latin American countries poor 418.2 488.1 + 16.7 in resources ~
Tropical Africa 244.9 381.5 + 55.8
2. Employment in industry (mln. people)
African arid zone 20.6 48.4 +134.9
Low-income Asian countries 134.1 177.1 + 32.4
Latin American countries poor 52.8 58.3 + 10.4 in resources ~
Tropical Africa 41.6 67.9 + 63.2
3. Production funds ($ bin.)
African arid zone 57.3 135.8 +136.9
Low-income Asian countries 364.4 501.3 + 37.5
Latin American countries poor 327.5 378.3 +15.5 in resources ~
Tropical Africa 110.6 185.4 + 67.6
Variant A----If the arms race continues.
Variant B---If the military spending share in GNP is curtailed to 75 per cent by 1990 and 60 per cent by the year 2000, compared with the 1970 level.
Source material: UNCTAD. TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT REPORT, 1982, United Nations, New York, 1982, p. 124.
The latest findings, including those of UN experts, show that development prospects for the liberated countries, especially for the poorest ones, will differ considerably _-_-_
^^1^^ The Economist, Vol. 286, No. 7277, 19 February 1983, p. 54.
375 depending on whether the arms race goes on or is even partially curtailed.At the same time, a number of developing countries have actively begun building up their own war industry. According to the estimates of SIPRI experts, it already exists in at least 30 developing countries. Planes are now being produced in 16 developing states, warships in 20, missiles in 8, tanks and armoured vehicles in 5, etc. Moreover, some of these states are already beginning to export arms, accounting for about 3 per cent of all the world exports.^^1^^
The reasons for this may be either the imperative need to protect one's national sovereignty or, on the contrary, expansionist aspirations, coupled with the desire of the local bourgeoisie to capitalise on patriotic sentiments. In the latter case, certain features, also characteristic of the Western military-industrial complexes, seem to emerge, and the bourgeoisie begins acquiring imperial ambitions. But in any case, the building up of a war industry on the weak local technical and economic basis consumes a lot of capital.
The second report of the Brandt Commission experts sums up the adverse effect of militarisation on the economy in the following way: "Some think that this (arms spending.---Ed.) will help the world out of recession. In fact military expenditure is very much more a part of the world's economic problem than its solution. At any given level of public expenditure, the higher the proportion of spending devoted to weapons procurement, the smaller the amount of employment created. Military expenditure may also be more inflationary than other public spending. The alleged benefit of technological spin-off is also fallacious; technological advance can be promoted directly with far greater economy. "^^2^^
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 4. DETENTE, A BUILD-UP OF TENSION AND CONCRETEThe NIEO programme was advanced in the years of detente and was to a large extent the outcome of the resulting new world situation. Restraint in the use of armed force also spread to the Western policies with regard to many developing countries, especially after the failure of the American venture in Indochina. Therefore at that time, the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Jeune Afrique, No. 1071, 15 July 1981, p. 63.
~^^2^^ Common Crisis..., p. 43.
376 Western powers were inclined to participate in a dialogue on the New International Economic Order, although not without hesitation.This dialogue, however, came to a deadlock in the late 1970s, as soon as the general policy of the West turned to confrontation and to the threat of the use of force both in their relations with the socialist and the developing world. The imperialist powers had embarked on a road of torpedoing already negotiated agreements, including these on the NIEO. "Gunboat diplomacy is never over," claims Irving Kristol, asserting that it is "...as necessary for international order as police cars for domestic order".^^1^^
Aggressive circles in the US and NATO oppose any attempts at economic decolonisation, pursue the policy of "divide and rule" towards developing countries, and resort to a large-scale militarisation of international economic relations with a view to blocking their restructuring on a just and democratic basis.
This contradicts the principles of the NIEO programme which include the right of every state to choose its own way of development and which condemn colonialism, apartheid, and the holding of foreign territory by force. In the last five years alone the forces of imperialism and their agents have launched economic and armed acts of aggression against Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Benin, Syria, Libya, and other countries. South Africa is using force to hold Namibia. Britain used force on the Malvinas. The US, UK, West Germany, and some other countries have lifted or slackened their sanctions against the Pretoria regime by rearming it with the help of the multinational corporations. Still forcibly holding the west bank of the Jordan River and part of Syrian territory, Israel, backed by American support and weapons, launched an act of aggression against Lebanon, also claiming the annexation of part of its territory.
In militarising international economic relations, the military-strategic logic in NATO policies is beginning to drive back the logic of international division of labour. "Military presence" is taking the place of economic accords. Instead of being a tool for economic co-operation, trade is being turned into a means of economic pressure.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Quoted from Mahmood-i-Blani, Bargaining for a New International Economic Order and the Cohesion of the Group of 77, Ottawa, 1980, p. 90.
377The NIEO as a programme is being attacked in practically all the directions. Instead of normalising the raw materials markets, the Western powers are advocating intensified prospecting on their own territories and the development of the own strategic reserves of raw materials. They are also determined to diversify supply sources from the developing world, regardles of the costs. This concerns oil, gas, bauxite, nickel, manganese, chromium, platinum, etc. As a result, even OPEC, in 1982, began to produce less than 50 per cent of the oil in the capitalist world, and. in 1983, it lost control of the market. The transportation of these materials is now supervised by the rapid deployment forces.
In its Final Declaration the New Delhi Seventh Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries denounced the imperialist policies of trade sanctions, embargoes, and other forms of coercion and blackmail as a means of political pressure and of interference in the internal affairs of the developing countries. Such embargoes and sanctions have in the past few years been imposed on Cuba, Nicaragua, Grenada, Argentina, Libya, Iran, Angola, Ethiopia, India, and some other countries. The New Delhi Conference had good reason to associate this censure with the liberated states' fight for the basic principle of the NIEO programme concerning each country's sovereign right to its economic resources. It is specifically against this that imperialism directs its machine of economic pressure and aggression, which has slowed the rates of foreign property nationalisation by the young states.
The build-up of tension has done great injury to those NIEO principles which refer to trade in raw materials, financial assistance, transfer of technology, and co-operation between the developing countries themselves.
To normalise trade in raw materials and their world prices, 18 interrelated international trade agreements, affecting 75 per cent of the developing countries' raw materials exports, were to have been concluded. "Buffer reserves" of these commodities, helpful in monitoring demand-supply fluctuations, were to have served as a concrete means of keeping up prices. A "joint pool" was to have been established to finance them. Besides, the raw materials exporters set up about 30 anti-cartel bodies for individual commodities in the hope of repeating the OPEC experience.
But these plans were never carried out. The ``pool'' amounted to only $750 million instead of the projected 6 378 billion because of the Western governments' alleged lack of funds. It also appeared that there was practically no one to finance, because in most cases the scheduled trade agreements failed to be concluded. This came about because trade in raw materials had come to be regarded in the West as a politico-strategic area. The growing militarisation in the late 1970s and early 1980s devoured from 4 to 11 per cent of raw material exports.
Eventually, the NATO countries replaced the creation of international ``buffer'' stocks by their own "national strategic" reserves, which they unilaterally purchased and then put back on the market. That had an adverse effect on the equilibrium of the markets concerned and hit the raw materials producers. For example, in December 1981 and January 1982 the US government released 5,360 tons from their reserves in tin, thereby preventing Malaysia from raising its price. Britain is stockpiling large amounts of chromium, cobalt, and aluminium. France's intention is, by 1985, to have stockpiled a number of metals in quantities equalling two months' consumption. This kind of stockpiling, which goes beyond all reasonable norms, is also encouraged by Japan and West Germany in their firms. But the record in this field seems to have been established by the US administration, whose strategic reserves, intended to cover a threeyear-war period, embrace a vast range of commodities, from copper to opium, and are valued at $7 billion, i.e. more than the whole ``pool'' originally planned by the NIEO, and to which the US "had no money" to make even a partial contribution.^^1^^
When raw materials trade is militarised, its stabilisation becomes impossible. It is only natural that prices of raw materials (excluding oil) have never been so low in the past 40 years, and that only 20, out of more than 30 `` anticartels'', have survived.
The harmful effect of military spending on international development aid is still more pronounced. It is only Norway, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, and France that have conformed to the figure of 0.7 per cent of GNP in the NIEO preferential inter-governmental part, whereas the figure of all the OEGD countries remains, on the whole, as low as 0.33-0.35 per cent of GNP. The developing states were compelled either to look to foreign banks for the rest of the funds, which put them deep into debt, or to allow direct transnational _-_-_
^^1^^ The Economist, Vol. 286, No. 7277, 19 February 1983, pp. 77-78.
379 investments in their countries. In other words, militarisation in the imperialist centres was indirectly paving the way for private capital in their economic provinces. As a result, by causing state budget deficits and a shortage of funds on the money market to pay them, militarisation pushed up the cost of state preferential development assistance.The developing countries had placed their hopes on greater access to modern technology, on opportunities for a choice of technologies at their own discretion, and on creating their own R &D base. This last aim was practically not achieved at all because the Western states "lacked aid funds". As to access and choice it must be said that today about half the world's natural scientists are engaged in military research. The results of this research are usually classified, and only 10 or 15 per cent of the results are made public and can be used for civilian purposes. That sharply reduces the chances of developing countries using them for their needs. Besides, among all the licence sales to these countries, sales of arms manufacture licences seem to be constantly increasing. All this considerably impedes the adoption of a UN international code of conduct on the transfer of technology.
Concerned over the stalemate in the NIEO talks, the developing countries have lately begun to intensify their mutual economic, scientific, and technological co-operation in order to mobilise additional development resources and work out and implement their collective economic diplomacy. The NIEO programme was supplemented in 1979 by the programme of these countries' "collective self-reliance". But here again, their efforts were frustrated by the militarism-and-force-oriented policy of "divide and rule''.
The imperialist powers tried to recruit reliable agents for themselves within the "Group of 77" and the non-aligned movement, taking advantage of the military and political dependence of the countries they chose for the purpose. "Since the State is represented in world affairs by its regime," writes Stanley Hoffmann, an American political scientist, "the latter will consider its self-preservation as a matter of national security. "^^1^^ Unfortunately, this is true of a number of regimes in the developing world, and that makes it easier for the imperialist powers to find the desired ``clients'', ready to tie their destinies to them. Arms deliveries in _-_-_
~^^1^^ Cit. in Ch. Bertram (Ed.), Third-World Conflicts and International Security, Macmillan Press, London, 1982, p. 62.
380 return for sabotaging the developing states' collective actions, become a natural tool for such ties. That was exactly how the Pinochet regime carried on its subversive activity in the Andean Pact.All local and regional conflicts are being fanned in every possible way to disrupt the young states' unity of action. Thus, the conflicts in the Western Sahara, the Horn of Africa, and in Angola have more than once paralysed the actions of the OAU. The Iran-Iraq war has, to a considerable extent, poisoned the atmosphere inside OPEC, let alone the fact that in order to continue the war, both countries began to produce and sell their oil without regard for any quotas, and at prices that defied the discipline of the `` anticartel'', which eventually, in 1983, had to reduce them.
A number of imperialist states have devalued "the general system of preferences" included in the New International Economic Order, with the purpose of fostering the developing states' industrial exports to the markets of the developed states. Adopted in the early 1970s, it was undermined by the afore-mentioned "new protectionism" of the West, which tried to protect its unprofitable industries from the competition of the developing states. Under pressure from the US, the West also sabotages the NIEO "global talks". Inflation and currency upsets that have already been discussed prevented the implementation of the reform envisaged by the NIEO of the international currency system. And all this happened in spite of the fact that the NIEO programme was approved by a consensus in 1972 at the Sixth Special Session of the UN. In other words, here is another example of the same tactics as have been used in the arms limitation and disarmament talks, the tactics of undoing later what has taken so much effort to achieve, i.e. in this case---- development co-operation programmes.
All this leaves no doubt that detente and development, just as a build-up of tension and opposition to development, both at the economic and political levels, are closely interrelated.
It is clear why, in its Final Document, the New Delhi Conference came out against the arms race, against drifting into a nuclear disaster, against conflicts provoked by imperialism, such as those in Central America, the Middle East and the Indian Ocean, and for international security. In this as in many other fields the vital interests of the socialist and developing countries are essentially the same.
[381] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter 23 __ALPHA_LVL2__ ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE ARMS RACE __ALPHA_LVL3__ [introduction.]The arms race unleashed by imperialism is unprecedented in scale, duration and intensity. It exerts an increasingly negative impact on life in many countries and on the world as a whole. The wasteful arms spending, a heavy load on the shoulders of the working people, brings mounting and acutely unfavourable social and economic consequences, to say nothing of its political effects. The 1983 Political Declaration of the Warsaw Treaty countries emphasised that the huge military expenditures are more and more of an oppressive burden for the nations, irrespective of their economic development levels, and slowing down economic and social progress.
Against the background of the economic recession that has hit many countries, the aggravation of the global problems of modern times---for example, food, raw materials, ecology---solution of which demands huge expenditures, the world public is increasingly aware that even when an open military conflict is not taking place the arms race, by swallowing up such colossal resources, is becoming a major obstacle to mankind's social and economic progress. It is more than obvious that the arms build-up is not only dangerous political madness but also that it threatens economic collapse.
The economic consequences of the arms race manifest themselves in different ways in various countries, depending on a large number of factors: the scale and structure of military expenditures, the lines along which the armed forces are being expanded, the country's economic level, its social and economic system, the government's economic policy, and so on and so forth.
Furthermore, these economic consequences undergo transformations caused by the rising level of the productive forces in connection with scientific and technological progress, 382 the appearance of new and more sophisticated types and systems of weapons, the growing technological complexity of arms production and its expansion, the mounting scale of the material requirements of the armed forces, changes in the structure of these requirements, etc.
During the past decades the undesirable economic effects of the arms build-up have become more diverse, comprehensive, deep-seated and prolonged. These effects have taken on new forms, often concealed; they make themselves felt indirectly; they lend themselves with difficulty to scrutiny and to quantitative assessment.
The economic burden of the arms race is largely determined by its specific features. The arms race is today an involved and many-sided process closely linked up, directly and indirectly, with all aspects of social development. Although a result of the political decisions of governments, it is not simply "rivalry in the stockpiling of arms". It is, increasingly, a broader process of accelerated military buildup, including the development and manufacture of ever-new arms, chiefly on the basis of the latest advances in science and technology, and also measures to improve the structure of the armed forces, enlarge their military-economic base, raise the degree of mobilisation preparedness, and so on.
Aggravation of the negative impact of the arms race on subsequent overall economic development is largely explained by the nature of the military programmes adopted in the major capitalist countries, by their unprecedentedly large peacetime scale. These military programmes are oriented on an increase in arms procurements while the number of men under arms remains relatively stable. The accent is on military R&D as the chief means of gaining military-technological superiority.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. THE SQUANDERING OF MATERIAL RESOURCESOne of the main features of the present-day arms race, a feature which causes severe economic consequences, is the fact that it swallows up an increasingly large variety of resources. Non-productive military spending has reached unprecedented proportions. Peacetime arms expenditures comprise between 5 and 6 per cent of the world's GNP and approximately two-thirds of the aggregate GNP of the countries that constitute the poorer half of mankind. Besides, 383 a long-term growth trend is to be observed in the world's military spending. Some experts estimate that in 1981 the world's arms expenditures reached the level of $550,000- $600,000 million.
Four periods of a sharp upswing can clearly be seen in the postwar arms race: the early fifties, the early sixties, the second half of the sixties, and the present increase, which began at the turn of the eighties. The first upswing was connected with the war in Korea; the second with the US programme of accelerated build-up of strategic nuclear missiles; the third with escalation of the American aggression in Southeast Asia, and the current one with NATO's long-range programme of increasing its military strength, above all, with the US administration's officially proclaimed course of gaining military superiority over the Soviet Union. The four sharp increases in the level of peacetime military spending are thus primarily connected, in one way or another, with steps taken by the US administration.
Direct military spending by the NATO countries increased from $61,000 million in 1960 to $104,000 million in 1970 and $283,000 million in 1981. In the years from 1949 to 1981 total direct military allocations by the NATO countries amounted to approximately $3.3 trillion, including about $1.8 trillion during the past ten years. In May 1978 NATO passed a decision to increase arms spending by all its members by an annual 3 per cent in real terms. The US military budget is to expand much faster than that in the next few years. Under the five-year programme to expand the US armed forces between 1984 and 1988 the annual rates of real increase in US military spending are planned at 7 to 8 per cent. Total military appropriations in the 1983 to 1988 fiscal years will amount to $1.8 trillion.^^1^^
The arms race is aggravating the financial difficulties of the capitalist countries. The high levels of military expenditure lead to systematic deficits in their budgets. During his election campaign Ronald Reagan promised to balance the federal budget and wipe out the national debt by 1984. After taking up office, however, he went back on his promise. With the economic crisis and the colossal growth of military spending the budget deficit, far from _-_-_
~^^1^^ Calculated from The Budget of the United States Government. Fiscal Year 1984, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1983, pp. 9-5.
384 being reduced, has rapidly grown to huge proportions. The US federal budget plans deficits of $188,800 million in fiscal 1984 and $194,200 million in fiscal 1985. As the experience of previous years shows, the actual dificits will be much larger than that. Deficit in financing is accompanied by a rapid increase in the national debt. Thus, the debt of the US federal government rose from $383,000 million in fiscal 1970 to more than $1 trillion in 1981. According to official estimates it will be nearly $2 trillion by fiscal 1986.^^1^^Enormous production capacities are being used continuously for military purposes. Modern armaments are manufactured at plants built exclusively for this purpose, having the most up-to-date equipment and staffed by highly-qualified engineers, technicians and workers. Arms production is concentrated in the main in a relative narrow range of industries, primarily the aerospace, radioelectronics, nuclear and shipbuilding industries. The level of militarisation (the share of armaments in the total output) in the main capitalist countries amounts to between 40 and 80 per cent in the aerospace industry and between 20 and 30 per cent in radioelectronics. The range of industries and subindustries and of firms, plants and organisations that collaborate in weapons systems R&D is considerably broader today than before. The increased specialisation leads, on the one hand, to the growing sophistication of armaments, which diminishes more and more any possibility of their use in the civilian sphere, and, on the other hand, dictates a need for broader and closer co-operation between the arms manufactures and civilian companies. The growing interdependence of the military and civilian economies distorts overall economic development to an ever greater extent.
The armed forces have many installations and large areas of land. The world's land area now being used for non-- productive, military purposes is estimated at about 500,000 square kilometres. The more sophisticated arms and the growing amounts of equipment used by the armed forces demand larger areas for exercises and manoeuvres. For example, exercises involving a full armoured division are considered by the United States Army to require an area of _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Budget of the United States Government. Fiscal Year 1984, pp. 9-53.
__PRINTERS_P_335_COMMENT__ 25-338 385 at least 235 square kilometres, with up to 664 square kilometres being desirable for maximum benefit.^^1^^The war machine is a major consumer of a broad range of valuable and scarce raw materials, energy resources and other mineral resources. The technological arms race, with its continuous upgrading of the quality of arms and military techniques, is accompanied by big changes in the structure of raw materials consumption in arms production, in particular, by a reduction in the share of iron and steel and a growth in the percentage of aluminium, titanium and other rare metals. For instance, titanium accounts for approximately 20 to 25 per cent of the materials that go into the manufacture of modern war planes, as compared to between 8 and 10 per cent in models of the fifties.
In the leading capitalist countries, accord ing to experts, an average of 5 to 10 per cent of the basic raw materials is used for military purposes. In the case of many types of mineral raw materials these figures are much higher, however. In some years of the last decade more than 40 per cent of the titanium and thallium, more than 30 per cent of the germanium and thorium, and over 20 per cent of the cobalt and some other minerals consumed in the United States were used for military purposes. The scale on which raw material resources are being diverted is illustrated by the fact that the global consumption of aluminium, copper, nickel and platinum for military purposes is greater than the overall demand for them in Africa, Asia and Latin America combined.
It has been estimated that 5 to 6 per cent of the oil consumed throughout the world goes directly or indirectly for military purposes (including arms production). That amounts to nearly half of the volume of oil consumed by all the developing countries (excluding China).
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. NON-PRODUCTIVE USE OF MANPOWER ANDMilitary preparations divert huge manpower resources from productive activity. According to United Nations estimates, 70 million people throughout the world are engaged in them directly or indirectly. This refers to the most skilled _-_-_
~^^1^^ United Nations General Assembly. Thirty-sixth session. Agenda items 51 (d) and 69. Distr. General A/36/356, 5 October 1981, p. 58.
386 manpower. Tens of thousands of people take part in the manufacture of some large weapons systems.The military sphere swallows up huge intellectual resources. According to UN figures, over 500,000 qualified scientists and engineers, or approximately 20 per cent of the world's total, are engaged in military research and development. In 1980 the global expenditures on military R&D amounted to approximately $35,000 million, or about one quarter of the estimated total spent on all research and development.^^1^^
The trend towards uninterrupted perfection of arms necessitates a high level of military R&D spending. These outlays are approximately half of all government appropriations for research in the United States and Great Britain and about one third in France. The corresponding figures are 10 per cent in the Federal Republic of Germany and only 2 per cent in Japan. Especially large and rapidly mounting sums are going for military research in the United States. They were approximately $20,000 million, in 1982, will rise to nearly $30,000 million in 1984 and reach $34,000 million in 1986.^^2^^
More is being allocated in capitalist countries for military R&D than for any area of civilian research. For example, Great Britain alone spends more on military R&D than all the OECD countries combined spend on research in the fields of environment, transport and communications.
Arms production today is extremely research-intensive because of the highly complex weapons systems. According to Western experts who calculated the share of R&D outlays in overall expenditures per unit of output in the military and civilian sectors of the economy in the United States, Great Britain and the Federal Republic of Germany, military production was on an average approximately 28 times more research-intensive than civilian production.
There is a large percentage of skilled workers and a very high percentage of scientists and engineers in the employment structure of the war industry. For example, scientists and engineers often comprise between 30 and 50 per cent of the employees at arms plants in the aerospace industry.
_-_-_~^^1^^ United Nations General Aseembly. Thirty-Sixth session. Agenda items 51 (d) and 69. Distr. General A/36/356, October, 1981, pp. 60-61.
~^^2^^ The Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1984, pp. 5-8.
__PRINTERS_P_387_COMMENT__ 25* 387Inasmuch as today the arms race primarily follows the line of improving the quality of weapons systems, its distorting influence on overall scientific and technological progress is increasing. The rapid growth of military R&D expenditures is accompanied by cuts in appropriations for civilian research. This, coupled with the large-scale recruitment of scientists and engineers into the military sphere, is slowing down growth in civilian sectors of the economy.
The deformation of scientific and technological progress by the arms race is disorganising the advancement of science itself. The huge amounts of money and resources being put into the development of new weapons systems make military research one of the most dynamic spheres of scientific advancement. But this is achieved, above all, by stripping non-military research of its scientists.
Some results of military R&D are indisputably being used in one degree or another in civilian sectors too. Ever since the end of the Second World War one of the favourite arguments put forward by apologists for the arms race has been that military R&D yields spin-offs. The proponents of spin-off claimed that in the era of the scientific and technological revolution, "competition in the sphere of armaments" speeds up overall technological progress. Today, too, some economists and a number of Western political leaders continue to assert that higher arms spending stimulates the growth of non-military industries.
Of course, military R&D did, in its day, promote the development of jet engines, electronic computers and microelectronic devices, which have received wide application in the civilian sphere. However, common sense shows that purposeful development of such items for civilian use (in the absence of the arms race) would have cost society incomparably less.
Military R&D to evolve weapons systems having the highest technical specifications regardless of cost does not contribute to the development of competitive products in the corresponding non-military spheres. The rapid sophistication and specialisation of means of warfare are steadily reducing the possibilities of utilising military R&D results for civilian purposes.
Hypertrophied attention to military R&D, with the creation of more and more sophisticated and costly weapons systems, leads to other serious economic consequences as well. The steadily rising costs of practically all types of weapons 388 create a big economic problem which is growing more acute as the arms race continues. As we know, the cost of arms has become dozens, and in some cases, hundreds of times higher than during the Second World War. Each new generation of weapons, is, as a rule, much more costly than the one before it. As a result, the qualitative improvement of arms automatically stimulates growing military expenditures in the long term, and intensifies the inertial force of the arms race.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. A DESTABILISING INFLUENCE ON THE ECONOMYBy diverting a great variety of resources on a tremendous scale for military preparations, the arms race prevents their use productively for civilian purposes and acts as a brake on social and economic development in many countries. It should be emphasised that the actual economic damage caused by the arms race does not consist only, or so much, in the diversion of manpower and financial and material resources as in the loss of the economic effect which these resources could produce if rationally used. The question of "lost opportunities" is both highly important and complicated because it deals with factors that are very hard to calculate.
The arms race narrows the foundation for development investments in civilian spheres of the economy. There is a definite connection between the scales of military expenditures and new investments in the economy: the more a country spends on arms, the less resources it has left for civilian purposes. Analysing this connection and the negative influence of the arms race on economic development, the well-known American economist John Galbraith cites the following statistics: through the 1970s the United States used from 5 to 8 per cent of its GNP for military purposes, the Federal Republic of Germany between 3 and 4 per cent, and Japan less than one per cent. Fixed non-military and non-residential investment ranged from 16.9 per cent of the GNP to 19.0 per cent in the United States, between 20.6 and 26.7 per cent in Federal Republic of Germany, and between 31 and 36.6 per cent in Japan.^^1^^
According to the well-known Professor Seymour Melman of the United States the most important indicator in an _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, June-July 1981, Vol. 37, No. 6, Chicago, p. 14,
389 assessment of the effect of military expenditures on the economy is the share of these expenditures in the newly-created fixed assets.He has calculated that this share amounted to 46 per cent in the United States in 1977. In other words, the manufacture of armaments is swallowing up an enormous part of the investment funds which are essential for a normally functioning economy. Professor Melman notes, by comparison, that the respective indicators for the Federal Republic of Germany and Japan in the same year of 1977 were 18.9 per cent and 3.7 per cent, respectively.
The large deficits in the national budgets of capitalist countries, chiefly owing to the high level of arms spending, exert a negative influence on the growth of new investments. The budget deficits draw capital away from productive use and contribute to a growth in the interest rates, making it more difficult and more expensive for private companies to borrow money. Furthermore, the large deficits lead to additional money emissions, to the accumulation of superfluous currency in circulation, and this is one of the chief causes of the rapidly rising inflation in the capitalist countries. The rising inflation also has a negative influence on the economy, for it undermines the mechanism of reproduction of capital, and in particular, the accumulation of capital.
The transfer of capital and manpower to arms plants limits the possibility of expanding and modernising nonmilitary industries.
Considerable economic losses are connected with the militarisation of science. For example, the drain of capital and brains from civilian economy to the military sector has become a major factor behind the falling productivity growth and the technological stagnation in the steel, heavy machinery, ship-building and other industries in the United States.
The allocation of large amounts of capital, manpower and intellectual and material resources to expand a narrow range of war-oriented industries greatly harms the civilian economy, in particular, it slows down the growth of its efficiency. In the opinion of many bourgeois economists, including Professor Melman, the noticeable slowing down of the economic and productivity growth rates in the seventies and early eighties in the United States and other capitalist countries was largely caused by the arms race.
A report by the American Council on Economic Priorities comparing the economic indices of the 13 largest industrial 390 countries during the past two decades, declares that as a rule economic development is faster, the volume of investments larger and the effectiveness of the economy higher in countries where a smaller share of the GNP goes for military purposes. Studies conducted by the Council on Economic Priorities note that the United States and Great Britain, which have the highest levels of militarisation of the economy, experience the severest economic recessions. On the other hand, the economies of Japan, Austria and Canada, where the level of military expenditures is the lowest, are the most stable. The economic indices in the Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium and Sweden, which occupy a position half-way with respect to the percentage of the GNP that goes for military spending, have better economic indices than the United States and Great Britain. The negative influence of the arms race on growth of the productive forces can clearly be seen in the United States. The relatively high level of militarisation of the American economy is by no means one of the least factors behind the declining competitiveness of American goods on the world market and the weakening of America's economic positions, in particular, the fall of its share in the overall GNP of the capitalist world, in industrial production, in gold and foreign exchange reserves and so on. At the same time, the relatively low level of militarisation of the economy in Japan and some West European countries was one of the factors contributing to consolidation of their economic positions in the world.
The fact that the Reagan administration is stepping up the arms race leads inevitably to greater militarisation of the US economy and to its disastrous economic and social consequences. The Nobel Prize-winning economist Wassily Leontieff, assessing the possible economic consequences of President Reagan's programme, declared it would lead to a reduction of investments in production and a drop in the competitiveness of American goods on the world market and, as a result of all that, to a further decline in the economic growth rates and a rise in unemployment.^^1^^
The postwar decades have graphically disclaimed the assertions by a number of bourgeois economists, politicians and statesmen that the arms race averts economic crises. It is undeniable that the huge military-economic _-_-_
~^^1^^ U. S. News and World Report. 16 March 1981, Vol. XG, No. 10 p. 26,
391 preparations by the imperialist countries exert an influence on capitalist reproduction: the bourgeois states, by regulating arms contracts, can somewhat postpone an economic crisis or slow it down. On the whole, however, in peacetime, military spending cannot do away with the cyclical nature of capitalist reproduction. This is illustrated by the numerous economic crises in the capitalist countries in the postwar years, when an intensive arms race has been going ahead. What is more, the military-economic preparations contribute to the onset and intensification of economic crises in a number of cases. The point is that changes in military policy and strategy, and the rapid advances in war techniques and other factors, constantly cause considerable fluctuations in the scale and structure of the war industry. Military production is more dynamic and changes more sharply than the civilian economy, and in a number of cases this exacerbates the contradictions of capitalism and worsens the market conditions of the economy, especially in regions where the war industry is concentrated.The extremely unfavourable social consequences of the arms build-up are also well known. The realities of life show that far from solving unemployment, that most acute problem of modern capitalism, the arms race actually worsens it. In the United States, for example, the unprecedented build-up of arms is accompanied by a record level of unemployment. This is because the expansion of the modern war industry, which is geared to the manufacture of sophisticated weapons and is very capital-intensive, creates a demand, above all, for separate categories of skilled specialists in a narrow range of industries, and does not affect the huge mass of the jobless. Studies conducted by economists in many countries have shown, time and again, that the expenditure of the same amount of money, for example, $1,000 million, creates fewer jobs in the war industry than in the overwhelming majority of civilian industries.
Military production has become a constant and heavy ballast on the economy. It is a parasitic section of the economy, even when war preparations temporary increase the current volume of production. Production growth at the expense of military supplies is accompanied by an increase in the share of goods in the GNP that are not intended either for civilian production or for personal consumption. Military products do not add anything to a country's economic potential. They fall out of the sphere of social reproduction 392 and are one of the causes of economic imbalances in capitalist countries. The stepping up of the arms race in the capitalist countries and the growing complexity of the contacts between the military economy and the national economy as a whole will be accompanied by an increase in the disastrous economic consequences of militarisation. The burden of the new spiral in the arms race is especially heavy in the present conditions when there is a big and long-term complication of capitalist reproduction, with a sharp slowdown in the economic growth rates.
Militarisation exerts its most disastrous effect on the socio-economic position of the developing countries. The growth of military spending there is connected primarily with the policy of imperialist countries but is also determined, to a considerable degree, by such domestic factors as political and economic instability, the existence of many unresolved ethnic problems, disputed frontiers, differences in roads of development, etc.
The export of arms, one of the main channels by which the imperialist countries pump out money from developing countries, considerably intensifies the arms build-up there. Capitalist arms traffic sharply increased in volume in the seventies, with fundamental changes both in its geography and in the nature of the arms sold. The United States is the leader in this field too, accounting for about 75 per cent of the arms sales in the capitalist world. Between 1950 and 1980 the United States sold arms and material worth $110,000 million to other countries, including $98,000 million in 1971- 1980.^^1^^
In the seventies the United States supplied about half of the arms acquired by the developing countries. The lion's share of the armaments it exports goes to the Middle East, first and foremost, to Israel. The Israeli war machine is equipped mainly with arms supplied by the United States. France is also active on the world market, having sold arms and military equipment worth $40,000 million to 80 countries between 1960 and 1979, including supplies costing $24,400 million just in the years from 1975 to 1979. War industry'companies of Great Britain, the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy try to hold on to their share of the arms sales abroad. These exports are, on the whole, considerably _-_-_
~^^1^^ Foreign Military Sales and Military Assistance Facts, DSAA, Washington, December, 1980, pp. 1-2.
393 more profitable to them than domestic sales. Japanese arms manufacturers are making their initial steps in this direction and are picking up speed.Unlike ordinary commercial and economic contacts, the arms traffic is a significant factor in destabilising international relations. The spending of huge amounts of foreign exchange on arms is bleeding many developing countries white, and is raising further obstacles in the way of their social and economic progress. The rapid growth in the volume of arms imports leads to a growing balance-of-payments deficit and growing foreign indebtedness by young Asian, African and Latin American countries. The total debts of these countries went up from $324,000 million in 1979 to $430,000 million in 1981, while their balance-of-payment deficits increased, correspondingly, from $39,000 million to $61,000 million (not counting the OPEC countries). In the economic context the imperialist arms sales to the developing countries is a new form of enslaving them, a means of shifting a tangible part of the burden of the arms race onto their shoulders.
The United States and the other imperialist countries are using the rapidly growing arms exports to reduce the negative effect of the arms race on their balance of trade and balance of payments and also to compensate for their outlays on the maintenance of troops abroad. The largest NATO countries use arms exports as a means of preserving their access to sources of raw materials and oil in developing countries. They often barter arms for oil and raw materials, and regard arms deliveries as a means of recycling and utilising in their own interests petrodollars that have accumulated in the oil producing countries.
The imperialist countries also use the arms sales and other forms of arms deliveries and military aid as an important means of preserving and increasing the economic and military dependence of newly-free countries on imperialism. The fact that the developing countries are not capable of learning by themselves how to use the sophisticated imported arms contributes significantly to this. They willy-nilly, therefore, become dependent on the arms exporting countries for organising and training their military personnel, for spare parts, maintenance, the construction of roads and flying fields, etc.
Some developing countries have begun to set up and rapidly expand their own war industries. They are enlarging 394 their capacities for the manufacture of firearms and artillery, munitions and explosives. The development of arms industries in these countries is taking place, in most cases, with the direct participation of leading imperialist powers and transnational corporations, with the use of their know-how, technology and equipment.
In short, the growth of war preparations by independent young states greatly slows down their economic and social development programmes, increases the imbalances between the civilian and military spheres in favour of the latter, lowers their living standards and diminishes their overall development.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 4. THE UNDERMINING OF NORMAL INTERNATIONALThe arms race comes into contradiction with some of the objective regularities of world economic development, in particular, with the trend towards internationalisation of world economic ties. The imperialists are to blame for the fact that militarism is penetrating more and more into the sphere of the international division of labour. This damages the economic interests of many countries by preventing them from making full use of the advantages of international division of labour, by disrupting normal economic links between countries and by erecting artificial barriers to trade and scientific and technical co-operation among them.
As long ago as in 1949 the Consultative Group Go-- operation Committee (COCOM) of nations was set up to control the export of so-called strategic goods to the Soviet Union and East European countries. COCOM consists today of the 14 NATO countries and Japan. The United States prevailed upon its allies to include in the COCOM lists more than 2,000 types of products, or as much as 50 per cent of all the goods in circulation on the world market. It was largely a result of these bans that East-West commerce was practically paralysed during the Cold War years. In the fifties and seventies the lists of banned items were shortened somewhat. Now Washington is again attempting to enlarge the lists of commodities that cannot be exported to socialist countries.
The United States strives to establish stringent control over the export of American hardware and software in order to assure American military-technical superiority in various 395 spheres. To slow down Soviet electronics development the United States and other capitalist countries long ago passed strict laws prohibiting the sale to technology and equipment, especially for the manufacture of microelectronic devices, to Soviet organisations. Although these measures have clearly failed to hold back the development of the respective fields of production in the Soviet Union, they are, of course, extremely harmful from the viewpoint of normal economic relations among countries.
The arms race is closely intertwined with the campaign of whipping up international tensions. It slows down the development of mutually beneficial economic ties, and is accompanied by an economic war which a number of imperialist countries, above all, the United States, are waging against the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. This policy boomerangs against the capitalist countries. John R. Block, the US Secretary of Agriculture, wrote the following about the feed grain embargo which the Carter administration imposed against the Soviet Union in 1980: "We have to sell grain to the Soviets. The loss of each $ billion in farm export sales costs the nation 35,000 jobs."^^1^^ It involved other economic losses too.
The Reagan administration is even more zealously pursuing a course of applying economic sanctions, curtailing economic relations with socialist countries and putting strong pressure on its allies to do the same, although these relations are of no little economic importance to them.
The most glaring example was the Reagan administration's attempts to torpedo the gas-pipes agreement between the Soviet Union and West European countries. The agreement, rightly called "the deal of the century", provides for Soviet deliveries of natural gas to those countries from 1984 onwards, reaching an annual volume of up to 40,000 million cubic metres of gas over a quarter of a century, in exchange for pipes and technological equipment. Not only does the deal play a big part in solving the energy problem in the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Austria and other countries, but it creates tens of thousands of additional jobs there.
Contracts signed with socialist countries now account for a noticeable share of the exports of many industrial capitalist countries and assure hundreds of thousands of jobs _-_-_
^^1^^ The Washington Post, 5 Juno 1982, p. A13. 396
396 there. For example, orders from socialist countries provide 500,000 jobs in the Federal Republic of Germany; 300,000 of them are a result of business deals with the Soviet Union.^^1^^US policy-makers make no secret of the fact that one of their objectives in stepping up the arms race is to wear out the Soviet Union, to slow down its economic development, to prevent it from carrying out its development programmes. The imperialists are thus attempting to use the arms race, too, as a weapon in their struggle against real socialism in the sphere of the economy which, as we know, is the decisive sector of the competition between the two socio-- political systems. There is an important point to be noted in this connection. The strategy of "economic attrition" is based, in substance, on clear acknowledgement of the fact that the arms race exerts an enormous negative impact on economic development. The supporters of the "economic attrition" strategy base their calculations on the false assumption that it is easier for the United States to withstand the arms race than it is for the Soviet Union.
The high growth rates of the Soviet economy and the huge scale of its economic programmes convincingly show how groundless the calculations of wearing down the Soviet Union are. Nevertheless, the United States is continuing its attempts to organise an economic and scientific-technical war against the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries with the aim of undermining their economic and defence potentials.
The arms race also influences the economic rivalry between the United States and the other major imperialist countries, which are not only its partners in military-- political alliances but also its rivals in the economic sphere. For many years now the United States has been persistently demanding that its partners in aggressive alliances, especially in NATO, should increase their "military contribution". In so doing, the American leaders pursue not only military-political but also economic aims inasmuch as higher arms spending by their allies would weaken the latters' economies, lower their competitiveness on the world market, and intensify their foreign exchange and financial difficulties. Significantly, the American demands that Japan should substantially expand her military preparations became more insistent than ever after Japanese goods began to pour onto _-_-_
^^1^^ Unsere Zeit, 30 December 1981.
397 the world market, including the American domestic market.The negative economic consequences of the arms race are becoming more and more diverse and complex, arid their cumulative effect is steadily growing. As the arms race continues, it comes into ever greater contradiction with the regularities and requirements of normal economic development of individual countries and of the world as a whole. There is not a single country in the world today that has escaped the unfavourable economic impact of the arms race to one degree or another. Mankind's social and economic progress demands that the arms race should be curbed, that the enormous manpower, material and financial resources now being used for military purposes should be reallocated for peaceful needs.
[398] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter 24 __ALPHA_LVL2__ DISARMAMENT AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS __ALPHA_LVL3__ [introduction.]Both in scale and in consequences the new spiral of the arms race launched by Western militarist circles creates situation vastly more dangerous than any previous one in history. Besides increasing the risk of a thermonuclear catastrophe it leads to destructive, and in many cases irreversible, consequences for the economic and social development of the nations even if an actual "shooting war" does not break out.
One of its worst results is the frightful calamity of hunger which afflicts a considerable part of the world's population and annually carries off thousands of lives. In the developing countries more than a hundred million children under the age of five suffer from hunger. Undernourishment accounts for half of the child mortality there.
Another result of the aims race is the critical state of medicine and the health services in many countries and regions of the world. Efforts to control the dangerous growth of epidemic and other diseases are hindered by shortages of materials and manpower, which are being diverted to military purposes. According to the World Health Organisation, 25,000 people throughout the world die every day because they cannot be given the medicines needed to save their live?.
Meanwhile, the arms race continues to spiral. Ever larger resources are being shifted from civilian sectors of the economy to arms production, expansion of armed forces and military R&D.
Against the background of all that it is highly important to gain a clear understanding of the social and economic alternatives to the arms race. In other words, to analyse the material and intellectual potentials mankind would receive for solving the most acute social and economic problems of our time if those resources were used for peaceful purposes instead of to produce mass-destruction weapons.
399 Emacs-File-stamp: "/home/ysverdlov/leninist.biz/en/1984/PCS453/20100319/453.tx" __EMAIL__ webmaster@leninist.biz __OCR__ ABBYY 6 Professional (2010.03.18) __WHERE_PAGE_NUMBERS__ bottom __FOOTNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ [0-9]+ __ENDNOTE_MARKER_STYLE__ nil __ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. CESSATION OF THE ARMS RACE AND SOLUTION OF THEAs has been noted, hunger and disease, especially children's and contagious diseases, rank first among the most acute social problems in the developing countries. They cannot be resolved immediately or in a short time because they are linked up with overcoming the overall economic and cultural backwardness in those countries. First and foremost, with elimination of the lag in agriculture there, with a radical rise in the efficiency of crop farming, livestock raising and food production. According to United Nations statistics, more than 500 million men, women and children in Asia, Africa and Latin America are now constantly undernourished. To fully meet the food requirements of all those people would necessitate a considerable increase in the world's food production, and this would take time.
However, immediate steps could be undertaken to prevent children from starving to death and to help mothers. Scientists who are recognised experts in this field have calculated that between $5,000 million and $6,000 million of annual food aid would be needed. That would provide the necessary minimum of nourishment for 200 million children and 60 million mothers.^^1^^
Furthermore, aid in the form of funds and supplies amounting to $3,000 million annually is needed to speed up advances in agriculture in the developing countries to a level at which they could produce enough food to meet their own needs.
The population of many regions of the world suffers from a shortage of good drinking water too. The worsening ecological situation as a result of the pollution of rivers and lakes by industrial wastes makes this problem more and more acute in a number of areas in industrial countries as well. About $3,000 million would have to be spent annually---on building purification systems, desalination plants, water mains, etc.---to assure the world's population a normal supply of drinking water up until 1990, at the least.
An additional annual expenditure of approximately $2,000 million would be needed, according to the World _-_-_
~^^1^^ Disarmament. The Alternative in Our Epoch for Ensuring the Economic and Social Development of the Peoples. WFTU, Prague, 1981, p. 48.
400 Health Organisation, to control contagious diseases.^^1^^We thus see that the cost of the most urgent aid capable of yielding an immediate effect and of saving many millions of lives is estimated at approximately $14,000 million. Taking inflation into account, that would amount, at present, to about 3 per cent of the total annual military expenditures in the world. To put it differently, even a relatively small limitation of the arms race and reallocation of the released funds to solving the most acute social problems could produce a substantial positive effect.
There are also many other acute social and economic problems in the world today. Housing, for instance. According to estimates made by the World Health Organisation, more than 800 million people in the non-socialist part of the world live in slums.
The situation in the spheres of education and culture is becoming more and more intolerable. Approximately 800 million people in the world are illiterate. More than 250 million children are deprived of an education because there are not enough schools and teachers. World Health Organisation experts estimate that a sum equal to 25 per cent of the world's arms spending would be enough to wipe out the slums, teach the illiterate to read and write, and give all children an opportunity to attend school.
The acute social and economic problems mentioned above do not refer only to developing nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The population of the industrial capitalist countries, above all, the countries responsible for the arms race, are themselves paying a heavy price for the policy pursued by their governments. In the United States, the new economic course taken by the Reagan administration, ``reaganomics'', as it is called, has changed the structure of the federal budget in favour of military appropriations at the expense of cutbacks in allocations for social needs.
For example, the US federal budget for fiscal 1981-1982 slashed expenditures on social programmes by $10,100 million, benefits for the needy by $6,300 million, expenditures on public works and retraining programmes for the unemployed by $6,100 million, subsidies for bankrupt farmers by $3,300 million, expenditures on education by $1,600 million and on housing construction by $600 million.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Global Strategy for Health for All by the Year 2000, World Health Organisation, Geneva, 1981, p. 70.
__PRINTERS_P_401_COMMENT__ 26-339 401President Reagan's budget message for fiscal 1982-1983 provided for a further cut of $43,000 million in federal appropriations for social needs. On the other hand, military spending soared to the astronomical figure of $263,000 million. Expenditures on health and education in the US federal budget dropped from 14.6 per cent of the total in 1980 to 13.7 per cent in 1982 and, according to official forecasts, will go down to 13,4 per cent in 1987. Yet the share of military spending went up from 21.5 per cent in 1980 to 23.8 per cent in 1982 and are to reach 35.4 per cent by 1987.^^1^^
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF DISARMAMENTNot only does the arms race significantly narrow the possibility of solving social problems today but it undermines the foundation for future social and economic progress.
The socio-economic effect of disarmament cannot be assessed just by the reallocation of funds from military purposes to the civilian economy. Although these calculations are graphic they register only the one-time effect of conversion without fully taking into account all the economic losses caused by the arms race or all the benefits from retooling the war industry to a civilian footing. For besides the cutbacks in the civilian economy equal to the sum of the military spending, the arms race has a negative cumulative effect: the negative consequences of an unchecked expansion of the budget's military items accumulate and undermine the basis for future economic growth. We refer to such long-term trends as artificial narrowing of the fields of scientific and technological progress, inflation and a drop in production growth rates.
Today, a substantial part of the world's research personnel is working on projects directly or indirectly linked up with stepping up the arms race. Expenditures on military research account for 25 per cent of the total R&D appropriations in the world. By 1980 these expenditures amounted to more than $35,000 million. About 500,000 scientists, or approximately half of all of the world's researchers in the natural sciences, are engaged in the development of _-_-_
^^1^^ Economic Report of the President. Transmitted to the Congress February 1982, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1982, p. 83.
402 new armaments systems. Arms production is 20 times more research-intensive, on the average, than civilian production.^^1^^ As a result of the arms race scientific and technological progress takes on increasingly warped forms, concentrating more and more on the development of new systems of mass-destruction weapons.How militarisation affects the world's overall socio-- economic development is a question that arouses heated debate. Advocates of the arms race claim that an expansion of military R&D promotes economic development as a whole because it spurs scientific and technological progress. Citing instances of civilian spin-offs of technological advances and inventions made during military research, they regard arms spending as a factor that stimulates progress in science and technology.
Military research undeniably spurs the solution of perplexing scientific and technological problems by reducing the time gap between a discovery and its application. This takes place in very narrow fields, however. For example, in rocketry. The effect is achieved by the concentration, in these fields, of huge material resources and the most gifted researchers and designers. This produces a noticeable advance in one or a few narrow avenues of technology. Meanwhile, research in many lines that are promising but are not connected with armaments is cut back in the capitalist world; many technological projects that could yield a big socio-economic effect are simply pigeonholed.
According to estimates by experts on the American military economy, the expenditures on military R&D are too high a price to pay for the relatively small-scale spin-offs from the military sphere to civilian production. The economic effect from the application of military inventions in civilian industries is equivalent to only between 5 and 10 per cent of the total military expenditures, the wellknown American expert Professor Seymour Melman notes.^^2^^
Furthermore, the outlays on research in the military sphere are much less effective than those on research in the civilian economy. US statistics show that the ratio of receipts from the sale of new items of output to the R &D outlays is nine times less in the aerospace industry than in _-_-_
~^^1^^ The United Nations Disarmament Yearbook, Vol. 6, 1981, United Nations, Centre for Disarmament, New York, 1982, p. 353.
~^^2^^ Armed Forces and Society, Vol. 1, No. 4, 1975, p. 492.
__PRINTERS_P_403_COMMENT__ 26* 403 the manufacturing industry as a whole.^^1^^ The transfer of research from the military field to urgent socio-economic problems would greatly increase the effectiveness of the expenditures on science and would speed up social and economic advancement.Another important aspect of the negative socio-economic impact of the growing military expenditures in the Western countries is linked up with inflation. Present-day inflation is an involved process determined by the action of many factors. Excessive currency emission connected with budget deficits, monopoly price formation, the crisis in the Western monetary system, etc., hold an important place among them.
The arms race intensifies the inflationary process. Military spending creates an additional demand for goods and services without increasing their total amounts. The buyer of the armaments is the government, which enlarges the expenditure side of the national budget to pay for the goods delivered under military contracts. For this reason, increased military spending is the chief source of the national budget deficit. The deficit goes hand in hand with a growth of the national debt and leads, in the final analysis, to an additional currency emission, that is, to putting an excessive amount of money into circulation, and this is one of the main causes of inflation. In the United States, for instance, the federal budget deficit, amounting to $27,700 million in 1979, is growing steadily and, according to an estimate made by David A. Stockman, Director of the US Office of Management and the Budget, was expected to reach $145,000 million by 1984.^^2^^ Military items of expenditure are the main source of the deficit in the federal budget. As noted above, the share of these items in the total budget expenditures is growing rapidly in the eighties. There is every reason to believe that as the Reagan administration's programmes for the development of new weapons systems are carried out they will cost more than originally planned because inflation is growing faster in the sphere of armaments than the average rate in the economy.
The inflationary price rises annually swallow up a noticeable part of the real incomes of the population. The _-_-_
^^1^^ Calculated from 22nd Annual McGraw-Hill Survey Business Plans for R&D Expenditures. 1977-1980, McGraw-Hill Publications Company, New York, 1977, pp. 8-12.
^^2^^ Business Week, 30 November 1981.
404 hardest hit are the wage and salary earners, whose nominal pay checks lag behind the rising prices, and also persons on security and welfare. In 1978-1981 real earnings in the US manufacturing industry dropped by 13 per cent.^^1^^Reduction of the inflation level would not only substantially raise the real incomes of the working people and pensioners in the capitalist countries but would stimulate a rise in the overall economic growth rate there.
The possibility of considerably increasing the total volume of capital investments would be another significant factor in speeding up economic development if the arms race is stopped. According to estimates by UN experts, military spending constitutes from 25 to 30 per cent of the total capital investments. Moreover, part of military spending falls .under other headings. A reduction of arms expenditures and reallocation of the freed resources to investments in the civilian economy would raise the world's average annual growth rate by 1 to 2 per cent.^^2^^ This would signify, already now, an additional annual growth of the GDP in'the capitalist countries by $70,000 million to $150,000 million. Reduced military spending would open up much bigger prospects for future GDP growth.
A point to bear in mind is that the arms race is snowballing. According to UN experts, the world's total military expenditures increased (in current prices) from $200,000 million in 1970 to between $550,000 million and $600,000 million in 1981. If they rise by an average of 3 per cent annually they will amount to more than $900,000 million (in 1980 prices) by the year 2000.^^3^^ This means that the gigantic sum of $14 to $15 trillion (in 1980 prices) would be spent for military purposes in the last two decades of the 20th century. Putting an end to this senseless waste of resources and transferring them to civilian purposes would be accompanied by the cumulative effect of an accelerated rise in the world's GDP, the increase being estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars of additional growth annually. In turn, this would open up huge new reserves for funding the social sphere and lead to a considerable _-_-_
~^^1^^ Calculated from Monthly Bulletin of Statistics, United Nations, New York, Vol. 36, No. 2, 1982.
~^^2^^ Economic and Social Consequences of the Arms Race and of Military Expenditures. Updated Report of the Secretary General, United Nations, New York, 1978, p. 43.
~^^3^^ The United Nations Disarmament Yearbook, 1981, p. 354.
405 advance in the social and economic development of all mankind.The long-range socio-economic effect produced by stopping the arms race and shifting the freed resources to resolving the acute social problems of our time cannot be measured in monetary terms alone. Fundamental changes would take place in the conditions under which civilisation is developing. The concentration of material and intellectual resources in spheres of vital importance for mankind would allow it to tackle the global problems of our time and to substantially improve the quality of life.
For example, the cumulative effect of an increase in investments to expand agricultural research facilities would radically improve agricultural techniques and livestock raising and sharply increase food production in the world. This would eliminate hunger.
The accumulation of investments to develop medicine and the health services would not only considerably broaden the network of hospitals and clinics and increase the production of medicines and medical equipment but would also raise research in this field to a qualitatively new level. As a result, medicine would acquire effective new means of controlling the diseases of the century. That would make a significant step forward in improving the health of the present and future generations.
The accumulation of capital investments in civilian construction could clear all the slums and end the housing shortage. It would pave the way for solving the entire complex of economic, ecological and transport problems connected with urbanisation.
In the field of education the cumulative effect of increased appropriations would abolish illiteracy in the developing countries and considerably raise the educational and cultural level of the world's population. In turn, this would reveal people's talents and abilities more fully, significantly increase the effectiveness of their work and thus provide a weighty additional stimulus to mankind's economic and social progress.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. DISARMAMENT AND EMPLOYMENTThe impact of the arms race on employment and unemployment and the effects of disarmament acquire special relevance today because of the overall drop in economic 406 growth rates in the capitalist countries and the rising unemployment there. Economists and statesmen who support the militarist course assert that a way out of the existing economic difficulties should be sought in further intensification of the arms race which, they claim, stimulates economic growth and leads to higher employment.
In fact, spokesmen of the present US administration declare that any reduction of their country's arms spending would threaten a loss of jobs.^^1^^ A government White Paper on defence published in Great Britain in 1980 also regards the expansion of the war industry as a national boon and a means of assuring employment.
The supporters of that view proceed from the false premise that there is no alternative use of the resources that are now being put into the arms race. Not only does an alternative actually exist, however, but it is the only possible course of normal economic development. The obstacles to its implementation are not economic but purely political. They follow from the unwillingness of the imperialist policy-makers to reach agreement in a reduction of military expenditures, on limiting and stopping the arms build-up.
Let us take a look, for example, at how reallocation of resources from the military sphere to civilian sectors of the economy would affect the employment level.
Military expenditures do, of course, create new jobs in the arms industries and related spheres. As most investigators acknowledge, however, investments in the military sphere create fewer jobs than similar investments in the civilian economy, since arms production is much more capital-intensive. The creation of one job in the sphere of military production requires the expenditure of considerably more money than in the civilian economy.
According to experts, the expenditure of $1,000 million in the US war industry creates 45,800 new jobs. The same amount invested in civilian industry and in public administration creates twice as many jobs. The more sophisticated the armaments, the more it costs to develop and manufacture them and the relatively fewer the jobs created. For instance, the investment of $1,000 million in the B-l bomber programme provides only 22,000 jobs.^^2^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ Statement on the Defence Estimates 1980, House of Commons, Defence Committee, London, 1980, pp. XIV-XV.
~^^2^^ Reijo Lindroos, Disarmament and Employment. Helsinki, 1981, p. 117,
407The fact that military production is so highly capitalintensive explains why, notwithstanding the considerable growth in military spending in the main capitalist countries, employment in the war industry and in allied fields there is increasing at a relatively slow rate and continues to remain an insignificant part of the total labour force. American economists have estimated that Pentagon contracts provide about 5,000,000 jobs in the United States.^^1^^ That is about 4.7 per cent of the total labour force.
In Great Britain, according to official sources, armaments account for 20 per ,cent of the total volume of production in the electronics industry, 33 per cent in shipbuilding and 50 per cent in the aerospace industry. About 220,000 people are employed in jobs on military contracts directly in the war industry and approximately a similar number are working on such contracts in related industries.^^2^^ All told, the arms race in Great Britain provides jobs for some 440,000 people, or 1.7 per cent of the labour force.
The expenditures in the Federal Republic of Germany on domestic arms development and production increased from 7,600 million marks in 1974 to 11,200 million in 1979. In this period the labour force engaged in it went up only from 203,000 to 215,000.^^3^^ In 1979 the war industry accounted for less than 1 per cent of the Federal Republic's labour force.
Military appropriations are thus clearly not an effective means of regulating employment. No wonder unemployment has soared to record levels in the United States and Great Britain despite the big increase in military spending at the beginning of the eighties. In 1982 the number of officially registered unemployed was 12,000,000 in the United States and more than 3,000,000 in Great Britain.
The growth of military spending narrows the possibility of increasing the number of jobs. In order to assess the ratio between new jobs created in arms production and military R&D, and the number of jobs that are done away with in the civilian economy, it is necessary to take into account changes in the structure of final demand and in the structure of production and interindustry relationships. _-_-_
~^^1^^ Economic Notes, Vol. 49, Nos. 1-2, 1981, p. 7.
~^^2^^ Statement of the Defence Estimates 1981, Part 1, 1981, pp. 46, 40.
~^^3^^ Jorg Huffschmid, Rustungs---oder Sozialstaat? Pahl-Rugenstein, Cologne, 1981, p. 39.
408 Authoritative economic organisations and economists in capitalist countries have accumulated a good deal of experience in studying this problem. The authors of a big analytical study at the American Bureau of Labour Statistics called The Structure of the US Economy in 1980 and 1985 examined the impact of alternative structures of final demand on employment. As their reference point they took an estimate of the number of jobs needed to utilise $1,000 million (in 1963 prices) to assure various components of final demand. The study established that capital put into the civilian economy creates many more jobs than military spending does. _For example, the reallocation of $1,000 million from the military sphere to health protection and social security can increase the number of jobs by 24,500, while transferring the above sum to the field of education increases the number of jobs by S^OOO.^^1^^The German Institute for Economic Research in West Berlin conducted a similar survey for the Federal Republic of Germany in 1977. On the basis of an interindustry analysis, the authors of the study established that, the appropriation of 10,000 million marks (in 1976 prices) from the federal budget would create the following new jobs: 180,000 in the military sector, 196,000 in agriculture, 205,000 in health protection, 211,000 in government administration, 215,000 in the transport services and in the building industry, and 269,000 in the social security system.^^2^^ In other words, the reallocation of 10,000 million marks from the military sphere to the social security sphere would provide 89,000 additional jobs.
On the whole, the reallocation of funds from the war industry to civilian spheres of the economy assures a noticeable increase in employment. However, there is an acute question: what will happen to the arms plant workers and engineers if disarmament takes place? Some economists, advocating a cut in military spending, link it up with a reduction in the number of jobs in industry, to be offset by a growth in the number of jobs outside the sphere of material production. But that argument does not sound in the least convincing to arms factory personnel worried about _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Structure of the US Economy in 1980 and 1985, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin No. 1831, Washington, 1975, pp. 107-12.
~^^2^^ Jorg Huffschmid, op. cit., p. 99.
409 losing their jobs. These men and women employed in the war industry know that in such spheres as services, education, health protection, and so on, they will have a hard time finding jobs corresponding to their skills and pay levels. The only solution they can find acceptable is the retooling of their plants for the production of civilian goods instead of shutting them down.This can be done in a short time and without large-scale layoffs, as is shown, in particular, by the successful conversion carried out in a number of leading American armaments companies when the war in Vietnam ended. Boeing Vertol, a corporation which specialised in the manufacture of heavy transport helicopters, quickly regeared part of its capacities to making streetcars and subway cars.
The conversion of arms plants to civilian production can be done in a way that does not reduce, but actually increases, the number of jobs.
The conversion programme drawn up by the joint committee of trade union shop stewards at Lucas Aerospace, a British company which specialised in the manufacture of equipment for warplanes, demonstrated that arms plants can be regeared to civilian production in a way that increases the number of jobs. When the company management started on a policy of large-scale layoffs in the early seventies the union drafted an alternative programme for increasing the number of jobs by switching over to the manufacture of non-military goods then in much demand for economic development: wind-powered electric motors as an alternative energy source during the energy crisis, solar energy installations, medical equipment that was in short supply, and so on.
The initiative of the Lucas Aerospace workers had wide social repercussions both in Great Britain and abroad. Alternative programmes for the manufacture of civilian goods were also put forward by the union organisations at Vickers, Hawker Siddeley and other British companies closely connected with military contracts.
A substantial factor contributing to conversion is that the biggest arms corporations use part of their capacities to produce civilian goods. Their high degree of diversification gives them manouevrability in adding new items to their range of products.
Experience shows that successful conversion requires thorough preparation and planning within the framework of 410 the national economy, the drafting of government programmes with the participation of union and business representatives, and gradual transfer of arms factories to a civilian footing. Besides changing the nature of production and the lines of R&D, the programmes should include provisions for manpower retraining.
On the whole, disarmament opens up prospects for a considerable increase in the number of jobs in the economy. This is confirmed by University of Illinois scholars in their multivariant model of US economic development depending on the administration's policy goals and priorities. Interindustry analysis shows that the ``social'' variant of development (21 per cent of the federal budget for military purposes and 60 per cent for social programmes) creates about 6,700,000 more jobs, including 2,800,000 for college and university graduates,^^1^^ than the ``military'' variant (52 per cent of the budget for military purposes and 28 per cent for social needs).
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 4. DISARMAMENT AND ECONOMIC AND CULTURALThere is a fundamental difference, it should be noted, between the capitalist and socialist approaches to disarmament. Socialist society does not have any classes or social groups that want an arms race or a bigger defence contracts. Here, steps to increase the country's defence potential are dictated by the need to counter the growing military threat posed by aggressive imperialist circles.
Ending the arms race and starting on disarmament would accelerate socio-economic development in the socialist countries. This is because the aim of the socialist society is to satisfy to an ever increasing degree the growing economic and cultural requirements of the population. The spiraling arms race, with development of more and more costly nuclear missile systems, considerably narrows the possibilities of doing this. Hence the socialist countries consistently combat the whipping up of war hysteria, and strive for military detente and disarmament, for agreement on limiting the arms build-up at all levels---from strategic missiles to conventional armaments.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 5, No. 2, New York, 1973, pp. 205-13.
411The arms race imposed by the imperialist powers diverts huge resources and a sizeable contingent of skilled manpower in the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries from working on the main economic problems. The reallocation of these funds and personnel to civilian areas of the economy could yield a considerable economic effect.
However, this effect cannot be measured by a simple comparison of data on changes in the structure of capital outlays inasmuch as the defence sphere includes the most technologically advanced industries, the pacesetters in scientific and technological progress. They have the most highly skilled workers and the most talented researchers and technologists, capable of quickly solving the-- Complicated problems of developing and, producing technologically new and progressive types of goods.
In this connection, partial conversion of arms plants to civilian purposes would contribute enormously to accelerating scientific and technological progress as a whole in the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries.
Take, for example, the question of increasing the rates of automation and mechanisation to accelerate the growth of labour productivity. At present, part of the workers in industry, construction and agriculture in the Soviet Union are engaged in operations that are chiefly manual. This substantially slows down the growth of labour productivity and, at the same time, is one of the reasons behind the manpower shortage in a number of key branches of the economy. Therefore, speediest retooling of the national economy on the basis of up-to-date technology acquires exceptional importance.
The modern defence industry and design offices that work on defence projects can play an enormous part in this process. It would be hard to exaggerate the economic significance of their transfer to the development of means of automation and mechanisation. The application of defence electronics in the production of automated management and control systems for industry and other sectors of the economy would lead to a sharp rise in labour productivity and also in the quality of the output.
Considerable sums are allocated annually in the Soviet Union for the introduction of new techniques and for scientific and technological progress. These investments are a big factor in productivity growth in the national economy. Between 1971 and 1981 the Soviet Union spent 84, 300 412 million rubles on introducing new techniques. That resulted in a productivity growth equivalent to the influx of 5,900,000 additional workers into industry. The additional profits from the modernisation of civilian industries amounted to 30,300 million rubles in that period.^^1^^ According to calculations made by the Central Statistical Board, in the period from 1970 to 1981 the overall productivity growth in Soviet industry amounted to 61 per cent; moreover, 68 per cent of the growth was achieved through the introduction of new and better technology and more efficient organisation of the work.^^2^^
If the arms race had been stopped and an international agreement reached on a substantial limitation of the manufacture of mass-destruction weapons, the Soviet Union would have been able to appropriate at least twice as much as it did in 1971-1981 to introduce new, highly productive machinery into industry. This would have given Soviet industry a qualitatively new technological foundation. One could then have achieved a sharp rise in the productivity growth rates, equivalent to an increase of approximately 12,000,000 workers in the labour force in industry in 1971-1981, or by more than a third of the total 1970 industrial labour force. The additional profit would have exceeded 60,000 million rubles.
That is just a brief look at only one aspect---the introduction of new technology in industry---of the possible influence of disarmament on the Soviet economy. There is no doubt that the overall socio-economic effect of cessation of the arms race would go far beyond that. Enormous possibilities would open up for raising the living standard and cultural level of the population of the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries.
For instance, broader opportunities for young people to obtain a specialised secondary and higher education. This important factor of social progress is closely linked up with the economic requirements of the socialist countries in the transition to intensive development. A rapid rise in work skills and an increase in the percentage of research workers, engineers, and other specialists are essential for faster scientific and technological progress.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Central Statistical Board of the USSR. The National Economy of the USSR. 1922-1982, Moscow, 1982, p. 129 (in Russian).
~^^2^^ Ibid.
413Cessation of the arms race, plus disarmament and the resulting reduction of armed forces personnel would enable a sizeable contingent of young people who are now in the army to continue their specialised secondary and higher education. The opportunity for more young people to complete their education and training to a level which meets present-day demands would yield the biggest effect from the standpoint of society's socio-economic development.
For this reason a reduction in the size of the armed forces should be regarded above all as an important reserve for enlarging the system of specialised secondary and higher education in the socialist countries. The aggregate strength of the armed forces of the Warsaw Treaty countries is now 4,788,000 men.^^1^^ In 1981 these countries had 7,770,000 students in specialised secondary schools and 6,570,000 in colleges and universities.^^2^^ It is not difficult to calculate that a reduction by 4,000,000 men, for instance, in the strength of the armed forces of the Warsaw Treaty countries would mean a 28 per cent increase in the total number of students in specialised secondary schools, colleges and universities. This increase would play an important part in supplying the economies of the socialist countries with trained personnel in the fields where they are most needed.
Disarmament could thus substantially speed up the rates of socio-economic progress in the socialist countries. These countries have definite advantages over the capitalist countries in using the fruits of cessation of the arms race to improve the general living standards of the population. Socialist economic planning and the absence of political forces, in the shape of military-industrial complexes, interested in continuing the arms race would enable these countries to quickly reallocate the manpower and material resources freed from the military sphere to the main avenues: accelerated scientific and technological progress and improvement of the living standards.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Whence the Threat to Peace, Military Publishing House, Moscow, 1982, p. 70.
~^^2^^ Statistical Yearbook of the Member-Countries of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, Moscow, 1981, pp. 425-27 (in Russian).
414 __*_*_*__The following conclusions can be drawn concerning the prospects of the effect of disarmament on the living standards and cultural level of the world's population.
Continuation of the arms race leads to destructive, at times irreversible, consequences for the conditions of life on earth. Ending the senseless waste of enormous manpower and material resources for military purposes and then reallocating them to civilian spheres of the economy would immediately alleviate the most acute social and economic problems of our time.
In the long term, ending the arms race and starting on disarmament would significantly accelerate economic and social progress in both the socialist and capitalist countries. The cumulative effect of this shift in the world economy would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars and would make for a sharp rise in the living standards of the peoples of the world.
Military detente and disarmament would switch the general direction of R&D from systems of mass-destruction weapons to a civilian footing. That is essential for assuring the future normal development of civilisation.
[415] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter 25 __ALPHA_LVL2__ NATURE AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY __ALPHA_LVL3__ [introduction.]The last few decades have brought into sharp focus the alarming and at times disastrous processes in relationship between society and nature. Mankind's justified fears are caused, to quote Yuri Andropov, "by the concern about the worsening materials, energy, food, ecological and other global problems.''^^1^^
It stands to reason that these problems manifest themselves differently in various parts of the world. The prospects for and the possibility of solving them are different under socialism and under capitalism. However, since there exists a single world system of economic, ecological, political and other ties and relationships, they acquire a truly global scale and largely determine the prospects for mankind's development as a whole.
They are closely linked to the main problem facing humanity today, that of averting nuclear war and securing conditions for the survival of present and future generations.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. NEW ASPECT OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITYThe emergence of the above-mentioned, and other global problems has injected certain questions of international security with a new meaning and brought to the fore economic aspects. The UN Secretary General's study on the relationship between disarmament and development states: "Security is a wider concept than that of military security alone. Economic as well as social aspects of this problem are of great importance... The spectrum of factors which may aggravate the threat to security and their relative urgency is not static but subject to continual evolutionary change.''^^2^^
The study also stresses that "the range of contemporary challenges to security of nations is far broader than the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Kommunist, No. 3, 1983, p. 23.
~^^2^^ UN Document A/36/356, 5 October 1981, p. 19.
416 military power of potential adversaries. One can mention here the pronounced and almost universal drop in average rates of economic growth, looming scarcities of many vital raw materials and commodities, mounting concern over the long-term effects of environmental degradation and persuasive demands for a more just and equitable distribution of the world's wealth and opportunity".^^1^^The relationship between international security and global economic and ecological problems are many and varied.
The dialectics of the relationship between economy and politics in the present-day world is such that any effective action to resolve these problems on a world scale calls for a definite international political situation. Such actions will only be possible under detente, when the principles of peaceful co-existence of states of opposed social systems are translated into life, when the arms race is stopped, and broad international co-operation is attained. All this is what the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, as well as all the sober-minded and peace-loving forces throughout the world, are persistently working for.
At the same time, global energy, raw material, ecological and other similar problems, inherent in society's interaction with nature, having become a factor largely determining the foreign policy pursued by the ruling circles in the imperialist countries, aggravate international situation.
For instance, in recent years, the militarist circles in the West have been trying to warrant their interventionist policy vis-a-vis the developing countries as well as their course towards a rigid military confrontation with the socialist countries by making use of the aggravation of the energy and raw material problems. Washington's reliance on military power in safeguarding the monopoly capital's energy and raw material interests in the developing world and its ensuing interventionist policy constitute an important component of the imperialist circles' general effort towards intensifying military-political and economic confrontation with real socialism and other contingents of the world revolutionary movement.
The arms race imperialism has imposed on the world entails increasingly large-scale squandering of the material and intellectual resources which are so badly needed to _-_-_
~^^1^^ UN Document A/36/356, 5 October 1981, p. 26.
__PRINTERS_P_417_COMMENT__ 27-339 417 overcome the crisis in society's relationship with the natural environment.The understanding of the fact that the arms race involves a waste of formidable material resources essential to the solution of mankind's urgent problems had become widespread long^before the global ecological problems arose. As early as 1950s-1960s many people realised that the arms race impeded the solution of many important problems which could be coped with much quicker if the arms race was stopped. However, for all their urgency, the problems in question were not considered to be a source of crises fraught with the degradation of productive forces. The attitudes changed with the emergence of global problems, as the latter entail far-reaching and large-scale negative consequences. That is why today the arms race is not simply an obstacle on the way towards a solution to this or any other social problem, but rather a factor potentially capable of inducing regress of material culture even in the case it is not destroyed by a world war.
At the same time, the armed forces are the major consumers of non-reproducible resources. For instance, in the United States the military demand for such metals as aluminium, copper, lead and zinc is 11 to 14 per cent of the total demand. For several other metals it approaches 10 per cent and for titanium it has already reached 40 per cent.^^1^^ By extrapolating the data concerning the United States, the UN experts calculated that in the second half of the 1970s the annual world military consumption of petroleum and petroleum derivatives (excluding petroleum products used in the production of weapons and equipment) amounted to 700-750 million barrels, i.e. twice the annual consumption for the whole of Africa and approximately 3.5 per cent of world consumption.^^2^^ According to some other estimates, in the early 1970s world military consumption of petroleum reached 10 per cent of world consumption.^^3^^ As is pointed out by the American researcher Ruth L. Sivard the US Air Force consumes nearly a third of the entire US aviation fuel consumption.^^4^^ Weapons and military _-_-_
~^^1^^ Economic and Social Consequences of the Anns Race and of Military Expenditures, UN, New York, 1978, p. 31.
^^2^^ Ibid.
~^^3^^ Degradation of Natural Environment. Ecological Crisis of Imperialism, Moscow, 1981, p. 43 (in Russian).
~^^4^^ Ruth L. Sivard, World Military and Social Expenditures, 1977, Leesburg, 1977, p. 13.
418 equipment become increasingly power-intensive. This is largely due to the constantly increasing power rating of engines in tanks, aircraft, warships, etc.As is borne out by facts, international conflicts, the arms race and other forms of military activity cause great damage to the environment and threaten the uninterrupted supply of raw materials and energy. The use of the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution for the purposes of war enhances man's negative impact on the environment many times over. The prominent chemist Professor Karlheinz Lohs of the GDR wrote: "So far man has been able to interfere regionally in the complicated `workings' of our planet in only a limited way. Modern military technology has started to make changes in this field whose consequences cannot yet be foreseen. One thing is certain: mankind is confronted with the situation comparable to that which existed 30 years ago at the dawn of the atomic age.''^^1^^ Moreover, the reactionary circles in the West use the achievements of science to develop and, sometimes, use increasingly effective means of modifying the environment in order to cause damage to the adversary.
The many and varied political and social forces and movements are aware of the ever more pronounced contradiction between the arms race and the need to allocate increasingly greater sums in order to overcome the imminent stalemates in mankind's development. Thus the Final Document unanimously adopted by the Conference of Communist and Workers' Parties of Europe held in 1976 in Berlin states: "The growing arms expenditure bears down more and more heavily on the working people and the mass of the people. If these huge resources were spent on raising the living standards of the people, on overcoming economic backwardness, on aid and support for the developing countries and on environmental protection, this would immensely benefit the advance of all mankind.''^^2^^
This conclusion is increasingly shared by all sober-- minded people throughout the world. For instance, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Annual Review 1980 reads: "It can be stated without hesitation that the _-_-_
~^^1^^ Karlheinz Lohs, "Environmental Warfare: Through the Eyes of a Chemist and a Toxicologist", in: Scientific World, Vol. 20, No. 3, 1976, p. 17.
~^^2^^ World Marxist Review, Vol. 19, No. 8, August 1976, p. 3.
__PRINTERS_P_419_COMMENT__ 27* 419 questions of disarmament, development and environmental protection are closely linked and represent some of the most important issues before the international community today. Development can hardly proceed at the required pace and a healthy environment cannot be guaranteed amidst a widening and constantly escalating arms race.''^^1^^The solution ol the global problems of relationship between society and nature is possible only under the conditions of broad, constructive and mutually beneficial international co-operation. This is stated in no uncertain terms in the documents of the 26th GPSU Congress: "Life requires fruitful cooperation of all countries for solving the peaceful, constructive tasks facing every nation and all humanity. And this cooperation is no futile Utopia. Its first signs---be they ever so small so far---are already in evidence in our time. They should be noted, cherished and developed... There already exists a valid basis for the further extension of practical peaceful cooperation among states. And the need for it is increasingly apparent. It is enough to mention such problems, for example, as discover and use of new sources of energy, provision of food for the world's growing population, preservation of all the riches of Nature on Earth and exploration of outer space and the depths of the World Ocean.''^^2^^ Its policy being aimed at solving these tasks, the Soviet Union takes consistent action in international organisations and maintains bilateral co-operation to this end.
It stands to reason that co-operation projects call for a favourable international political climate. Co-operation is impossible in the context of cold war, the arms race and confrontation that undermine confidence and international stability.
Important international documents emphasise the need for international co-operation in solving ecological problems. Thus, the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe stresses that the "protection and improvement of the environment, as well as the protection of nature and the rational utilisation of its resources in the interests of present and future generations is one of _-_-_
~^^1^^ United Nations Environment Programme Annual Review 1980, UNEP, Nairobi, 1981, p. 27.
~^^2^^ Documents and Resolutions. The 26lh Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, p. 34.
420 the tasks of major importance to the well-being of peoples and the economic development of all countries and that many environmental problems, particularly in Europe, can be solved efficiently only through close international cooperation.''^^1^^ This document sets forth the jointly formulated goals, forms and methods of co-operation among the participating states in the area in question.The Global 2000 Report to the President prepared by a group of leading experts on ecological problems stresses that "the needed changes go far beyond the capability and responsibility of this or any other single nation. An era of unprecedented cooperation and commitment is essential.''^^2^^
Even the Trilateral Commission which elaborates the conceptual basis of imperialism's counteroffensive launched today against the forces of social emancipation was forced to recognise at one time, albeit with various reservations, the need for East-West co-operation in solving global problems: "Our main goal in seeking East-West cooperation is to manage the world's problems more effectively. Communist cooperation could be important in dealing with some of these problems. "^^3^^
However, the expansion of international co-operation in solving ecological problems faces serious difficulties. The Political Declaration of the Warsaw Treaty Member States adopted at the meeting of the Political Consultative Committee held in January 1983 in Prague states: "At the end of the 20th century mankind is urgently confronted with global problems of a social, economic, demographic and ecological character. The present level of development of the world productive forces, science and technology provides adequate material and intellectual resources to begin practically to resolve these immense problems. However, the development of international cooperation for these purposes is hampered by the forces of reaction, which are trying to perpetuate the backwardness of whole continents, to divide states and to set some of them in opposition to others. "^^4^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ New Times, No. 32, 1975, p. 36.
~^^2^^ Entering the Twenty-First Century. The Global 2000 Report to the President, Vol. 1, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1982, p. 4.
~^^3^^ The Triangle Papers: Collaboration with Communist Countries in Managing Global Problems, The Trilateral Commission, Washington, 1977, p. 1.
~^^4^^ Information Bulletin^ No, 5, 1983, p. 4,
421Indeed, the imperialist circles and above all the US administration set out to undermine co-operation with the socialist countries. Washington's and some of its allies' policy is based on the effort to ``link'' co-operation with the Soviet Union's unilateral concessions on certain issues of international politics. Attempts are being made to use co-operation as political leverage against the Soviet Union and other socialist countries. In this Washington proceeds from the premise that the socialist countries allegedly have a greater stake in developing East-West trade and economic relations than the capitalist states. It claims that the socialist countries are in no position to effectively develop their economies without importing advanced Western technology and techniques.
Such notions as well as reckoning based on them are illusory, to say the least. Every unbiased person knows that the Soviet Union has developed into an advanced industrial state without any serious assistance on the part of the West and despite the latter's vigorous efforts to hamper the development of its national economy by various means, including Soviet Union's involvement in the arms race which diverts resources from peaceful construction.
Such are some of the major general aspects of the interdependence of international security and global problems of relationship between society and nature. These aspects manifest themselves most dramatically in a number of specific areas.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. MILITARY ACTIVITY AND THE ENVIRONMENTThe negative impact of man's production activity on the environment is a problem of global importance. The environment pollution which has grown over the last decades sometimes leads to the disturbance of matter and energy cycles in nature. In a number of cases, pollution is approaching the dangerous margins beyond which its consequences will be irreparable. In the early 1970s, the total volume of residual wastes amounted to 40 billion tons.^^1^^ By the year 2000 the volume of contaminants may increase 2.5 times to reach 100 billion tons.^^2^^
_-_-_~^^1^^ The Environment Problem in World Economy and International Relations, Moscow, 1979, p. 24 (in Russian).
~^^2^^ Degradation of the Natural Environment. Ecological Crisis of Imperialism, p. 220,
422The world public is justly concerned about the world's shrinking forest area and the prospective shortage of fresh water. According to the leading American experts' forecasts, by the end of the 20th century the world's forest area will have shrunk by 40 per cent, with the developing countries accounting for the greater acreage of the felled areas.^^1^^
Large-scale deforestation in Asia, Africa and Latin America is primarily due to the use of more than 70 per cent of wood for fuel. The growth in oil prices further aggravates the fuel problem.
The shrinkage of the forest areas will cause fresh water shortage. According to the estimates cited in the above-- mentioned Global 2000 Report, between 1975 and 2000 the world demand for fresh water is expected to grow by 200-300 per cent. Irrigation accounts for 70 per cent of total fresh water consumption. Since this percentage is not expected to drop, by the end of the century irrigation water consumption is predicted to double as against that of the mid-1970.^^2^^
The arms race conduces to the pollution and even degradation of the environment. Especially harmful in this respect is the production and testing of nuclear and chemical weapons. It is the production of nuclear arms that accounts for the greater part of the radioactive waste released into the environment. The radioactive waste predominantly results from reprocessing spent nuclear reactor fuel which consists of plutonium used to make nuclear warheads and a mixture of various highly radioactive substances. Between 1945 and 1975 the liquid radioactive waste of the US war industry accounted for over 80 per cent, i.e. 200 million gallons (nearly 800 million litres), of the total radioactive waste.^^3^^ According to the American ecologist P. Bower, the US corporations' drive for maximum profit has repeatedly led to criminal negligence: Atlantic Richfield Company, for instance, simply poured liquid waste into an open pit.^^4^^
Nuclear arms tests are the main source of environmental contamination. Between 1945 and 1963, when the Treaty _-_-_
~^^1^^ Entering 'the Twenty-First Century. The Global 2000 Report to the President, p. 23.
~^^2^^ Ibid., p. 26.
~^^3^^ Disarmament and Environment. International Peace and Disarmament Series, No. 3, General Editorial Board for Foreign Publications, Nauka Publishers, Moscow, 1981, p. 35.
^^4^^ Ibid., pp. 35-36.
423 banning nuclear weapon tests in three media was concluded, radioactive substances released into the environment in the source of tests raised the radioactive radiation oil the earth's surface by 1 to 2 per cent of its natural radioactive background.^^1^^ This had a dramatic effect on people's healthcancer spread and an increasing number of mentally or physically retarded children was born. The effect of radioactive poisoning is enhanced by certain ecological and biological mechanisms by which strontium 90, cesium 137, iodine 131 and other radioactive agents accumulate in human organism and cause various deseases.There is an obvious ecological danger in burying the wastes of war-oriented nuclear and chemical industries in the World Ocean. According to the data cited by the Soviet expert R. Novikov, the overall ``contribution'' of military activity to general environmental contamination and other forms of violating the integrity of the environment can be estimated at 40 per cent.^^2^^
The power of modern arms, especially nuclear, is so great that its use, as is indicated by meteorological data, is fraught with the danger of climatic changes. Nuclear weapons are so far the most powerful source of destructive impact on the environment. The data obtained by the scientists in the course of nuclear weapons tests show that even their relatively limited use will have dire ecological consequences.^^3^^ Thus, a nuclear explosion of about 1 megaton on the earth's surface leaves a crater of an average size of 12 hectares, destroys all trees in the area of 13,000 hectares, destroys or damages other vegetation in the area of 21,000 hectares while the zone of ionising radiation lethal for the vertebrae covers an area of up to 36,000 hectares^^^4^^ These and many other data bear out, in particular, that the socalled ``limited'' nuclear strike at military objectives located in scarcely populated areas on which the US top brass recon would be ecologically disastrous for vast areas. Besides destroying the soil and annihilating vegetation and animals, nuclear explosions will cause strong radioactive _-_-_
~^^1^^ E. K. Fedorov, Scientific Aspects of Political Negotiation, Moscow, 1981, p. 18 (in Russian).
~^^2^^ Disarmament and Environment, ... pp. 18-19.
~^^3^^ See Chapter 1 of this book.
^^4^^ Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Environment, SIPRI, Taylor & Francis Lid., London, 1977, p. 17,
424 contamination of the atmosphere which is bound to spread beyond the initially contaminated area. By virtue of the ramified system of ecological relationship, the long-term adverse ecological after-effects of such a ``limited'' nuclear strike will spread to vast territories and entire continents.Even those conflicts and wars in which nuclear weapons are not used cause grave damage to the environment, above all to those of its mechanisms which are essential to securing natural, ecological conditions for man's vital activity, for the existence and development of agriculture. This has been dramatically corroborated by the US aggression in Vietnam and other countries in Indochina.^^1^^
It is not only the purposeful action of the belligerent parties that accounts for the negative ecological consequences of hostilities. They are inevitably caused by any kind and type of war as they are inherent in them. The growing power of technological means of warfare is fraught with increasing danger for the environment. While in World War I France had its forests destroyed in the area of 200,000 hectares, which amounts to about 1.5 per cent of all forest land area, in World War II forests were destroyed in the area of 400,000 hectares, i.e. 4 per cent of France's total forestland of the time.^^2^^
The development of military technology in the 20th century secured growing opportunities for the imperialist circles for the purposeful destruction of the foundations of agricultural production in those Asian, African and Latin American countries which have embarked on the path of struggle for independence and social progress.
In the course of the 1950-1953 aggressive war against the Korean people, the US armed forces made repeated attempts to destroy the main irrigation systems in the northern areas of Korea by heavy bombing. The American researcher A. Westing commented: "These [actions] were carried out for the expressly stated purpose of disrupting that nation's production of its staple food of rice.''^^3^^ Crops were also destroyed by the British troops in Malaya in the 1950s, by the Portuguese troops in Angola and Mozambique, etc. The large-scale destruction of irrigation systems brought _-_-_
~^^1^^ See Chapter 6 of this book.
~^^2^^ A Military Impact on the Human Environment. SIPRI, Taylor & Francis Ltd., London, 1980, pp. 52-53,
^^3^^ Ibid., p. 56,
425 about floods and the disturbance of various ecological mechanisms.The present-day level of the development of non-nuclear weaponry is sufficiently high to cause environmental damage comparable to that inflicted by nuclear weapons. This was corroborated by what happened in Vietnam where the American troops applied herbicides, defoliants and other toxic chemicals to destroy food crops and all other vegetation. Today, similar projects are known to be developed. Some of them envisage modifying biological and matter cycles in nature. Simple to manufacture and employ, these means become especially dangerous when used in armed conflicts among states in the developing world. One could add to this that even "after the war in Indochina," to quote from Soviet scholars, "the United States continued to develop and improve means of ecological warfare. A classified plan drawn up by US Army Chief of Engineers Staff in 1972 recommended to rely on the experience of using these means in Indochina whenever crisis situations arose in other regions of the world, including the European continent.''^^1^^
The danger lies not only in the immediate results of using means of ecological warfare, but also in the long-term consequences which may far exceed the boundaries of the region of their initial combat use. For instance, annihilation of vegetation in some region may, under certain conditions, cause irreversible changes in the climate, first of all, a decrease in precipitation, more frequent and severe draughts, etc. The restoration of ecological systems destroyed by war is usually a prolonged process. It takes vegetation decades and even centuries to become completely restored.
On the other hand, international experience has shown that many of the steps towards the limitation of arms race contribute to the solution of various ecological problems.
The most important of them is the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques which came into force on 5 October 1978, and has since been recognised by many countries. The Convention prohibits to disturb the ecological balance by modifying the processes in subsoil in the seas and oceans, in the atmosphere and outer space (which have long-term, large-scale and serious consequences) _-_-_
~^^1^^ Degradation of the Natural Environment, Ecological Crisis of Imperialism, p. 43,
426 in order to cause destruction or inflict damage on some other state. The Convention blocks one of the most dangerous, especially in terms of its prospects, channels of the arms race and thereby builds up confidence among nations. At the same time, it reduces harmful impact on the natural environment and conduces to its preservation and use in the interest of the whole of mankind. The importance of the Convention has become especially obvious today, when the world public has learned the facts about the actions taken by the US Army to destroy the environment in Indochina in the course of US aggression against some of the countries in the region.The above Convention is the most vivid example of the closely intertwined efforts in the area of military detente and on the international scene to preserve the environment. Among such efforts, for instance is the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water concluded in 1963. In terms of environment preservation it is important that the Treaty prohibits nuclear tests in any other medium, too, if nuclear explosion is expected to cause radioactive fallout beyond the boundaries of the state planning to carry out the explosion.
The Convention on Banning the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Chemical and Bacteriological ( Biological) Weapons and on the Destruction of These Weapons is another step to block a source of environmental contamination. Unfortunately, a relevant treaty banning chemical weapons has not yet been concluded. Until the mid1970s, one of the reasons for the American side hampering the conclusion of such a treaty was the use by the US troops of chemical weapons, including those annihilating vegetation, in Vietnam.
The implementation of the provisions of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof promotes the solution of the global ecological problem, too.
It goes without saying that international agreements limiting the geographical zones of nuclear weapons' proliferation contribute to the preservation of the environment. Among them are, above all, the Treaty on the Non-- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (Treaty of Tlatelolco) and the Antarctic Treaty.
427This set of agreements has seriously limited the possibility of destroying! the environment and disturbing ecological relationships by nuclear tests and proliferating nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
The concern for protecting the environment and people's health against the harmful consequences of various types of military activity has played an appreciable role in concluding some of the above-mentioned agreements. It was especially important in preparing the Test-Ban Treaty. This concern is equally important today when it is urgent to prohibit the development and production of new types or systems of mass destruction whose destructive effect (including the destructive effect on the environment) may prove equal to or surpass that of the means of mass destruction existing today.
Expressing the concern of the international community both about the increasingly pronounced adverse consequences of military activity, above all armed conflicts and wars among states, for the environment and the urgency of the environment preservation problem the 35th Session of the UN General Assembly held in 1980 adopted the Resolution on Historical Responsibility of States for the Preservation of Nature for Present and Future Generations whose draft was submitted to the United Nations by the Soviet Union. The Resolution states that "the prospects for solving problems as universal as the preservation of nature are closely linked to the strengthening and development of international detente and the creation of conditions which would banish war from the life of mankind.''^^1^^
However, the causes and consequences revealed by the scientists and realised by the world public are sometimes ignored by the Western policy-makers. For example, by way of explaining why the US delegation in the United Nations abstained from voting on the resolution mentioned above the US delegate declared that his government was concerned about the "obvious disarmament-oriented character of this draft resolution. "^^2^^ Having set out to step up the arms race and international tensions, the Washington ruling circles try to disprove the obvious fact that this _-_-_
^^1^^ UN Document A/Res/35/8, 49 Plenary Meeting, 30 October 1980, p. 15.
~^^2^^ United Nations General Assembly, Thirty-Fifth Session, 31 October 1980, A/35/PV, 491, p. 72,
428 policy is fraught with grave danger for mankind because in addition to] enhancing] the threat of war it impedes the solution of other global problems of today. __ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. NATURAL RESOURCES AND IMPERIALIST POLICIESIn recent years, the energy problem has had a most serious effect on international security.
In the past decade the prices of fuel in the capitalist world soared. The price of coal rose 3.4 times, the price of natural gas, six-fold and that of oil, 17-fold. It should be remembered that a handful of developing countries account for 75 per cent of oil extraction, 95 per cent of oil exports and nearly 90 percent of all prospected oil reserves in the non-socialist part of the world. The Persian Gulf countries have a special role to play in oil supplies to the West as they possess nearly 65 per cent of all workable oil reserves of the capitalist world. The countries in the area ---Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Katar, Bahrein, Oman and the United Arab Emirates account for nearly 60 per cent of the aggregate oil export of the capitalist and developing countries today. It is this area that supplies 25 per cent of the US, from 60 to 70 per cent of the West European and more than 75 per cent of the Japanese oil import.
The dependence of Western economy on the oil imported from the developing world is accompanied by tensions between the imperialist states and the oil-exporting countries which add to the increasingly complicated contradictions between the newly free and the industrially developed countries.
The energy problem is especially acute in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. According to some estimates, an adequate economic development level in these regions calls for a 30-fold increase in the average per capita energy consumption to be attained over a historically short period. It is pointed out that from 30 to 55 per cent of the requisite amount of energy in these countries can be obtained only by using nuclear or---in the future--- thermonuclear installations.
The situation calls for a radical restructuring of the world fuel-energy balance, above all by sharply reducing the share of oil which today plays the leading role in it. As scientists see it this restructuring is to take place during next few decades. In the future, the energy balance will 429 primarily depend on nuclear and thermonuclear power installations.
Already at this stage requirements in energy resources are being largely satisfied by developing deposits which are hard of access and involve high production cost.
The raw material problem is in many respects similar to the energy problem. In the world capitalist economy there emerged a sharp conflict between the geographical distribution of the raw material resources and that of the areas of their consumption. For instance, the developed capitalist countries who have only 12 per cent of the world's total reserves of tin, 18 per cent of manganese, 20 per cent of cobalt, 31 of nickel, 34 of aluminium, and 40 per cent of copper, consume from 85 to 90 per cent of the metal extracted in the non-socialist part of the world.
The largest part of the capitalist world's mineral resources is concentrated on the territory of the United States, Australia, Canada, and South Africa. Western Europe and Japan depend on imported fuel and ore to a greater extent than the rest of the capitalist world; although in a somewhat better position, the United States almost fully depends on the developing countries for the supply of chromium, aluminium, vanadium, platinum, and manganese ( particularly for military purposes).
There are several regions on which the West relies the heaviest for the supply of minerals. The southern part of Africa is often referred to as "the Persian Gulf of minerals". It account for 15 per cent of the world's reserves of asbestos, 90 per cent of chromium, 20 per cent of diamonds, 30 per cent of manganese, 53 per cent of gold, 65 per cent of platinum, 20 per cent of uranium, and 32 per cent of vanadium. It is from this area that in the mid-1970s the United States imported 55 per cent of all chromium required by its industries, nearly 20 per cent of industrial diamonds, 40 per cent of manganese, and nearly 60 per cent of vanadium.
Currently, Zaire and Zambia account for nearly 20 per cent of copper extracted in the non-socialist world. The Caribbean countries produce more than 40 per cent of the bauxites consumed by the capitalist and the developing countries. The countries in Southeast Asia---Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand---account for 65 per cent of all tin extraction in the non-socialist world.
The lack of co-ordination between the distribution of 430 the areas where raw materials are extracted and that of industrial centres is explained by two factors. First, the naturally uneven character of the distribution of mineral resources in the world. Second, the monopoly capital's persistent drive to make investments in extracting industries in developing countries where the rate of profit is much higher due to cheap labour, far smaller social expenses, lower taxes, etc.
Orientated towards the enormously profitable exploitation of the natural wealth of Asian, African and Latin American countries, monopolies are not interested in tapping the mineral resources in developed countries or in developing alternative energy sources, various substitutes, etc.
Asian, African and Latin American countries are being plundered by the monopolies on an impressively large scale. Mahbub ul-Haq, one of the managers of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), thus commented on the matter: "The developing countries remain poor... They get only $30 billion for the raw materials they export, while consumers pay $200 billion for them. Who pockets the difference of $170 billion? Those who process, distribute and transport raw materials.''^^1^^ In other words, transnational corporations get formidable profits from the neocolonialist exploitation of the developing countries' natural resources.
As the experts in the field see it, mankind is not threatened by the absolute depletion of the world's mineral resources over a long term. Yet, as time goes by, an increasing amount of minerals will be extracted from low-grade deposits and those hard of access.
Politically, the raw material problem is today characterised by the Western reactionary forces' drive to use all means at their disposal to retain or restore their dominion over the raw material and energy resources. "Imperialist circles think in terms of domination and compulsion in relation to other states and peoples. The monopolies need the oil, uranium and non-ferrous metals of other countries, and so the Middle East, Africa and the Indian Ocean are proclaimed spheres of US 'vital interests'. The US military machine is actively thrusting into these regions, and intends to entrench itself there for a long time to come...
_-_-_~^^1^^ Neue Ziiricher Zeitung, 27 May 1978, p. 15.
431``To split the expenses with others and at the same time to tie its NATO partners closer to itself, the United States is seeking to extend the functions of NATO. Washington strategists are obviously eager to involve dozens of other countries in their military preparations, and to enmesh the world in a web of US bases, airfields, and arms depots."^^1^^ In a bid to conceal their own interventionist designs, the imperialist forces are waging a frenzied propaganda campaign against the Soviet Union charging it with carrying on an expansionist policy as regards those areas in the developing world which are rich in natural resources, and seeking to seize the latter and raise a raw material blockade against the West.
The policy of the imperialist states aimed at perpetuating the monopoly capital's control over the raw material and energy resources in developing countries has become a major source of international conflicts. The aggravation of the energy problem in the 1970s and the developing countries' struggle to establish effective control over their natural resources provoked a militaristic reaction of the most influential part of the ruling circles in the West, especially in the United States. In the late 1970s, the bellicose imperialist quarters made increasingly overt efforts to resort to military power to defend the economic interests of the monopolies.
As early as the end of 1974, soon after the first major rise in oil prices, the then US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger declared: "I am not saying that there's no circumstance where we would not use force. But it is one thing to use it in the case of a dispute over price, it's another where there's some actual strangulation of the industrialised world.''^^2^^ It stands to reason that in the mid-1970s, having emerged from the war in Vietman with great losses and suffered a bitter internal political crisis caused by the war, the United States was in no position to engage in vigorous interventionist activity against the developing countries. Nonetheless, the idea of "expanding NATO's zone of action southwards" was already being elaborated and propagated. Among its authors was Alexander Haig, the US former Secretary of State.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Documents and Resolutions. The 26th Congress of the CPSU, p. 28.
~^^2^^ Business Week, 13 January 1975, p. 69.
432By the beginning of 1979, when a new major increase in oil prices had become imminent and the post-Vietnam syndrome had somewhat waned, the idea of setting up interventionist "rapid deployment force" matured. On 20 February 1978, the then US Defence Secretary Harold Brown declared: "Because the area is the world's greates^ [source] of oil, the Middle East and the Persian Gulf cannot be separated from our security and that of NATO and our allies in Asia.''^^1^^ Three weeks later, on March 17, speaking at the Wake Forest University, President Garter shared his plans with the audience: "The Secretary of Defense at my direction is improving and will maintain quickly deployable forces---air, land and sea---to defend our interests throughout the world.''^^2^^
So, the decision on setting up interventionist "rapid deployment force" had been adopted before the April Revolution in Afghanistan, before the overthrow of monarchy in Iran and before other events of the late 1970s usually referred to by the Western propagandists in a bid to justify US militarist and expansionist policy. That this policy was directed against oil-producing countries was unequivocally recognised by Harold Brown in the beginning of 1979: "Protection of the oil flow from the Middle East is clearly part of our vital interests... In protection of those vital interests, we'll take any action that's appropriate, including the use of military force.''^^3^^
The ruling circles in the West played on the aggravation of the energy and raw material problems in order to dissuade the public from favouring detente. The policy of detente was interpreted as ``inaction'' in the face of the growing ``threat'' from the anti-imperialist forces, as unwillingness to take measures to promote "vital interests", including those of ensuring the supply of fuel. James Schlesinger, Secretary of Energy in the Garter administration, commented on this in no uncertain terms: "...I think, retreat itself may be too weak a term. There is some possibility that it will become a rout. We are losing our support among our allies and our friends and natural supporters because of their perception of inaction and unwillingness _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Washington Post, 21 February 1978, p. A3.
~^^2^^ Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Vol. 14, No. 12, 27 March 1978, p. 534.
~^^3^^ U.S. News and World Report, 12 March 1979, p. 24.
__PRINTERS_P_433_COMMENT__ 28-339 433 to act on the part of the United States, the paralysis of the American will... Iran represented a very major setback to the United States... And yet this cataclysm passed without being regarded as a major event by a large segment of the American people. Indeed, a large segment of the population failed to connect the problems in Iran even with their problem of gasoline supply, which was the least of the real, important geopolitical problems.''^^1^^ The logic of this discourse is obvious: if the American people want gasoline and the American government---the backing of its allies and " natural supporters" (among whom Washington ranks rotten, corrupted terrorist dictatorships) it is essential to "put things in order" in Iran, the Persian Gulf countries, and elsewhere, as soon as possible.Washington regards the aggravation of the global problems of economic development, above all the energy and the raw material problems, as an almost disastrous dependence of the West on the regions increasingly falling under the control of ``radical'', ``anti-West'' regimes for the resources it needs so badly. In September 1980, Alexander Haig, the then US Secretary of State, told Congress that the United States was entering "an era of resources war". He dwelt especially on southern Africa which provides the United States with several kinds of essential mineral resources. In Haig's opinion the supplies from southern Africa were threatened by the emergence in that region of the anti-imperialist states. He said: "These factors have raised the specter of a resources war in which Soviet-- supported radical governments would deny essential minerals to the West in a politically motivated effort to undermine the capitalist industrial economies.''^^2^^
Such pronouncements gave rise to the concept that the United States has turned into a kind of an ``insular'' state surrounded by a hostile and unstable world threatening it with an energy and raw material blockade. The course towards the military-economic safeguarding of the monopolies' interest in the developing world, towards using force in the effort to perpetuate the system of neocolonialist exploitation of natural resources is regarded as an integral part of the endeavour to "stabilise the West" undermined, in particular, by the increasingly exacerbated global raw material and energy problems.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Ibid., pp. 62-63.
~^^2^^ The New York Times, 18 August 19S1, p. A21.
434The practical steps taken by the US are designed to translate these dangerous doctrines into life. A system of permanent US military and naval presence in the Indian Ocean zone is being set up. Military bases in Diego Garcia, Bahrein, Oman, Kenya and Egypt are being built or expanded. They contain arms depots for the "rapid deployment force" which currently number more than 200,000 men. The transport ships in the Persian Gulf carry armaments for rapid deployment forces intended to carry out landing operations against developing countries. The US naval squadron patrolling the Gulf consists of more than 40 ships, including two aircraft carriers. It is planned to transform the squadron into the Fifth Fleet to be in control of the Indian Ocean. On 1 January 1983, a new "Central Command" was set up to control 19 independent countries of the Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf, and the Middle East. Washington is increasing supplies of the most sophisticated weaponry to Pakistan in the hope of using the latter's forces in the struggle against the national liberation movement in the region.
Analysing this trend in the foreign policy pursued by the imperialist states, the Warsaw Treaty states in their Declaration of May 1980 stressed: "Force or the threat of force is more frequently used against developing countries in a drive for energy and raw material resources. This causes instability in interstate relations, creates new seats of tension.''^^1^^
The imperialist circles' policy threatens the supplies of natural resources. Indeed, a large-scale armed conflict in the area where minerals are extracted or through which they are transported may cause serious disruptions in the raw material trade.
Armed conflicts breaking out in the mineral resources-, oil-, or gas-producing areas are bound to impair their production, and destroy the infrastructure of the extracting industries, especially their transportation systems. The Iraqi-Irani conflict shows that the fuel transportation systems are vulnerable, fragile and easily destroyable during the hostilities. At the hight of hostilities both countries practically ceased exporting oil. Asia's largest oil refinery in Abadan was destroyed and Iran's main oil-exporting ports in Abadan and on the island of Khark were seriously damaged, as were also the Iraqi oil refineries in Baghdad, _-_-_
~^^1^^ New Times, No. 21, May 1980, p. 27.
435 Basra and the port of Fao. Admittedly, the developed capitalist countries did not suffer any substantial losses owing to the discontinuation of oil supplies from Iran and Iraq as they were made up for by a corresponding growth in oil production in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. One can easily imagine, however, what could happen if the conflict area in the Persian Gulf was expanded.According to the estimates provided by American economists, a reduction of 6 million barrels per. day in Persian Gulf production (about one-third of the production from that area) lasting for a year would cost the OECD countries about 7 per cent of their aggregate national product (GNP). A loss of all Persian Gulf oil for a year would result in an estimated loss of about 30 per cent of the GNP of the OEGD countries.^^1^^ This means that a large-scale armed conflict involving the entire region would spell a genuine economic catastrophe for the developed capitalist countries. Thus, by straining international tensions in the region and building up its military potential there, the US administration is laying the stage for a crushing economic disaster throughout the Western world. Once this potential is used the disaster will become inevitable.
As distinct from the adventurist policy pursued by Washington and some of its allies, the Soviet Union consistently comes out in favour of strengthening international security in Asia, Africa and Latin America and in the vast expanses of the World Ocean. Soviet proposals on the issue are designed, among other things, to lessen the threat to the production and supply of raw materials and energy.
In December 1980 the Soviet Union advanced a proposal on ensuring peace and security in the Persian Gulf area. The proposal envisages a system of measures to prevent the use of force against the states in the region and to limit the possibility of escalating interstate conflicts there. It was suggested that the parties should pledge themselves not to hamper or threaten normal trade exchanges and the use of the sea routes connecting the countries in the region with other countries in the world.
In April 1981, the USSR suggested adopting a code of _-_-_
~^^1^^ National Security in the 1980s: From Weakness to Strength, Institute for Contemporary Studies, San Francisco, California, 1980, p. 279.
436 rules regulating relations between the developed and the developing countries. Special attention was paid to the need for strict respect for the territorial integrity of the developing countries, noninterference in their internal affairs, the full and unconditional recognition of both sides' sovereignty over their natural resources and their noninvolvement in the military-political blocs set up by the great powers.In March 1982, the Soviet Union advanced a series of proposals on strengthening international security in the World Ocean. The Soviet Union supports the straggles of the Indian Ocean basin countries for turning the latter into a zone of peace.
In October 1982, the ministers of foreign affairs of the Warsaw Treaty states suggested that NATO and the Warsaw Treaty Organisation should abstain from spreading their action to new areas, i.e. Asia, Africa and Latin America. They reaffirmed that the Warsaw Treaty states do not intend to expand their alliance's sphere of action and that they expect the NATO countries to take a similar stand.
The socialist countries' proposal to the NATO states to conclude a Treaty on the mutual renunciation of the use of armed force and on the maintenance of relations of peace provides, in particular, for the parties' commitment not to use force against third countries, whether those tied up with them by bilateral relations of alliance, or nonaligned and neutral countries. It was also suggested that the members of both alliances pledge not to threaten the security of international communications in the areas beyond anybody's national jurisdiction.
Thus, in recent years there emerged two opposed approaches to the problem of natural resources in the international scene. The approach taken by the socialist countries organically combines two lines: the establishment of full and unconditional sovereignty of the developing countries over their natural resources, putting an end to the exploitation of these resources by the West's monopoly capital and, at the same time, removing the threat to the world supplies of these resources caused by outbreaks of interstate conflicts and armed interference in the internal affairs of developing countries.
The approach practised by the imperialist states implies the direct use of armed force for maintaining the 437 monopolies' positions and their possibility to exploit the natural resources of developing countries. Today, it is this approachthat gravely endangers international trade in raw materials.
__*_*_*__Only the socialist future of the world will be able to secure for the world the solution of the global ecological problems it faces today. There can be no doubt, however, that the relaxation of international tensions, greater international security, the termination of the arms race and launching disarmament will make it really possible to reduce the scale of ecological problems and thus provide for the further development of civilisation on the earth.
[438] __NUMERIC_LVL2__ Chapter 26 __ALPHA_LVL2__ INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND PEACE __ALPHA_LVL3__ [introduction.]The aggravation of the international situation in the late 1970s and the early 1980s and the escalation of the arms race and military-political confrontation by the Western militarist circles are accompanied by the efforts of the reactionary and aggressive forces, above all the Washington administration, to wreck economic co-operation between the capitalist and the socialist states. The Political Declaration of the Warsaw Treaty Member States adopted in January 1983 states: "Obstacles are being raised in the way of the normal development of economic, scientific and technical co-operation, and economic `sanctions' and embargoes are used as a political tool, which makes it even more difficult to resolve the existing economic problems.''^^1^^
The US administration's efforts are not accidental. International trade and economic co-operation based on equality and mutual benefit have always been---and will be---an important factor promoting international security, confidence and mutual understanding among nations and stimulating the search for political means of settling disputes. As for "economic warfare", it inevitably affects political relationships, builds up international tensions and poisons the international atmosphere.
Washington's "policy of linkage", i.e. of making economic co-operation dependent on the socialist countries' concessions as regards their domestic and foreign policies, impedes the process of detente. It leads to the curtailment of mutually beneficial relations among the countries of opposed social systems. All this provokes grave concern among the world public.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Information Bulletin, No. 5, 1983, p. 4.
439 __ALPHA_LVL3__ 1. PREREQUISITES FOR AND THE SCOPE OF ECONOMICThe 1970s signalled a qualitatively new stage in political, trade and economic relations between the socialist arid the capitalist countries: the cold war policy was abandoned and broad East-West co-operation was initiated in many economic areas. This period was highlighted by growing reliance on the international division of labour in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their social system and economic development level. Characteristically, the volume of Soviet foreign trade with the developed capitalist countries expanded enormously. While in 1960 it amounted to 1.9 billion rubles and in 1970, to 4.7 billion rubles, in 1980 it reached 31.6 billion rubles and in 1981, 35.3 billion rubles.
Such indices stood out in bold relief against the background of the cold war years when Western countries regarded trade with socialist countries as an impermissible means of strengthening their own potential enemy. In keeping with the vicious policy of "containing communism", the United States and its West European allies went out of their way to raise economic blockade against the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries. That led to the practically complete curtailment of the East-West economic ties.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the imperialist powers supplemented the intensified arms race with a truly all-embracing system of discriminatory measures and restrictions in the trade with the socialist countries. They were crowned with the COGOM list of "strategic goods" not to be sold to the socialist countries by the NATO states and Japan. The list, compiled on the US initiative, enumerated nearly 2,000 groups of commodities, i.e. almost 50 per cent of all goods available at international markets in those years.
Moreover, in the early 1950s the legislation adopted by US Congress banned or established state control over practically all exports to the socialist countries, prohibited or rendered unfeasible through excessive customs duties any meaningful import from the socialist countries, banned the crediting of East-West trade and refused to grant the socialist-states the most-favoured-nation treatment. In other words, these measures removed the standards and traditions generally accepted in international trade from the area of East-West relations.
440By concentrating their efforts on building up their own economic potentials, the socialist countries succeeded in restoring their war-ravaged economies in the shortest time possible and turned into an important factor of the world's economic and political development.
Meanwhile, the results yielded by the policy pursued by the capitalist countries differed radically from the expected ones. Western states forfeited, for a long time, vast and constantly growing markets for their manufactured goods and, what is even more important, stable sources of raw materials and fuel they needed so badly. Despite the imperialist circles' counteraction, the objective laws underlying the evolution of the world economic system, as well as the development level of the productive forces in the context of global scientific and technological progress, predetermined the importance of external economic ties to all countries irrespective of their social system. With the present-day variety of industrial products and the scale of scientific research, none of the world's countries is in a position to develop all fields of production, science and technology with equal success. The efforts to use foreign trade as leverage in political confrontation in defiance of the objective laws of economic development and growing internationalisation of production processes proved to be detrimental to the economic interests of the capitalist world. At the same time, they failed to impede the development of the socialist countries.
In this context, Western countries were obliged to revise their approach to the East-West trade and economic relations. Once again life has corroborated the correctness of Lenin's forecast: "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...''^^1^^
The later 1960s, when international tensions started to ease, ushered in a qualitatively new stage in economic relations between the Soviet Union and the capitalist countries.
It should be emphasised that relaxation of international tensions conduces to the international division of labour and thereby lays the stage for mutually beneficial co-- _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 155.
__PRINTERS_P_441_COMMENT__ 29---339 441 operation in all areas of the world's political and economic life.The successful completion of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe conspicuously contributed to the relaxation of international tensions. The success of the Helsinki Conference created favourable conditions for the development of all forms of international co-operation among countries with different socio-economic systems and, above all, for the expansion of their external economic ties. The Final Act of the Helsinki Conference formulates the basic principles of equitable and mutually beneficial co-operation in various spheres of social production, stresses the increasingly important role of international trade as a major factor of economic growth and social progress, expresses the participating countries' preparedness to contribute to the removal of all obstacles barring the way of trade, emphasises the important role of bilateral and multilateral intergovernmental trade and economic agreements, and lays down the basic principles of developing international economic ties among all countries irrespective of their social systems.
At present, the Soviet Union maintains trade and economic relations with 139 countries, including all the industrially advanced capitalist countries.^^1^^
Over the past decade, the Soviet Union's economic ties with Western countries acquired a long-term comprehensive, and large-scale character and took a variety of forms. The normalisation of political relations and the objective principles underlying the world's economic life were reflected in the long-term intergovernmental agreements on economic, industrial, scientific and technical co-operation with Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Great Britain, Iceland, Italy, Luxemburg, Norway, Portugal, and Sweden. For the first time ever the Soviet Union has signed ten-year programmes for the development of economic and industrial co-operation with Austria, France, the FRG, Great Britain, Italy and Sweden which specify general directions and terms of the co-signing countries' relations and set the tasks and goals of joint projects in various branches of science, technology and production.
_-_-_^^1^^ Vneshnaya torgovlya, No. 11, 1981, p. 22. 442
442As a result, the external economic ties began to covers apart from trade, joint scientific and technological projects, exchanges of technologies and the results of scientific research, the construction of large-scale industrial complexes, the development of natural resources, co-operation in production, the setting-up of mixed trade and production associationSj banks and chambers of commerce and industry, etc. A new form of relations has emerged: co-operation on a compensation basis stipulating special-purpose use of foreign credits to set up large-scale industrial complexes on the Soviet territory with the credits subsequently paid off by the supplies of finished goods manufactured at the newly-build plants. Over the last decade, nearly 100 such agreements were signed. It has become a usual practice to conclude contracts covering a period of more than ten years and stipulating mutual deliveries estimated at billions of dollars.
Western business circles have started to evince greater interest in co-operating with the Soviet Union: the USSR is a safe and promising partner with a capacious market. Soviet orders for a broad range of goods varying from individual items to complete plant, make it possible to utilise productive capacities and guarantee marketing which is especially important in the time of crisis ravaging the capitalist world. For their part, Western countries are now in a position to have their demand for Soviet industrial goods and difficult-to-obtain raw materials satisfied. The growing interest in co-operating with the Soviet Union is borne out by the fact that nearly 200 major Western firms and banks have opened their offices here. Among them are 23 American, 20 Japanese, 19 West German, 13 French, 10 Italian, 9 Finnish and 6 British including Pullman Co., General Electric, Occidental Petroleum Corp., International Harvester Co., Bank of America, Credit Lyonnais, Chase Manhatten Bank, Deutsche Bank, Mannesmann, Hoechst, BASF, and others.
In its turn, fruitful economic co-operation stimulated the process of detente and created additional material prerequisites for it.
The objective prerequisites, the favourable international situation of the 1970s, as well as the growing interest of the business circles in the West in co-operation with the socialist countries would seem to have created a firm foundation for further rapid progress in the East-West economic __PRINTERS_P_443_COMMENT__ 29* 443 relations. However, in the late 1970s and early 1980s the sharp change in the imperialist circles' policy vis-a-vis the socialist countries raised new barriers in its path.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 2. THE US POLICY TO UNDERMINE ECONOMICWhile throughout the 1970s the relations among the socialist and capitalist countries were developing on the hasis of the principles of peaceful coexistence, at the turn of the 1980s the international situation worsened through the fault of the aggressive imperialist forces, above all those in the USA. Fomenting war hysteria around the alleged Soviet threat, the United States initiated a new dangerous round in the arms race, started to seek military superiority over the USSR and effected a turnabout in its foreign policy towards a more rigid confrontation with the socialist countries in all areas of political and economic life.
Having revised its external economic policy, the United States started, in fact, to curtail its trade and economic relations with the socialist countries and focused its efforts on three major areas. The terms of trade with the USSR were made more rigid on the plea that it was used by the Soviet Union to build up its military potential; "economic sanctions" against the Soviet Union were being applied on a broad scale in the hope of inducing changes in the Soviet foreign policy course; Washington sets out to organise major capitalist powers' joint economic blockade of the Soviet Union.
Western propaganda media claim that the Soviet Union is taking advantage of its external economic ties to boost its military potential. Proceeding from this allegation, the United States unilaterally banned the supply of the so-- called high technology to the USSR and tried to hamper EastWest trade as a whole relying in this on the NATO co-- ordinating committee for trade, GOCOM. In the last few years the US administration has been insisting that its allies should radically revise the list of "strategic goods" and take a "stricter approach" to trade with the Soviet Union.
That the US ruling circles are overtly using foreign trade to promote its political interests is corroborated by the socalled economic sanctions. In principle, there is nothing new about the present US approach to economic co-- operation with the USSR. The US administration attempted to 444 use sanctions against the Soviet Union to attain its politi" cal goals on three occasions---in 1974, 1980 and 1981-1982-
The first attempt followed a number of Soviet-US sum" mits which resulted in a series of agreements of great importance for political and economic relations between the USSR and USA (SALT-1, the trade-economic treaty, the agreement on trade and credits, the agreement to facilitate economic, industrial and technical co-operation, etc.). This attempt was embodied in the 1974 Trade Act with the amendment by senators Jackson and Vanek. Banking on the provocative "human rights" campaign initiated in the West in those days, the US administration decided to link the issue of granting the Soviet Union the most favoured nation's treatment with the demand to change certain provisions in Soviet legislation. Measures to reduce the volume of credits granted to the USSR by the US Export-Import Bank and the US President's special right to impose restrictions or a complete ban on the deliveries of goods to the USSR were expected to serve as effective leverage in attaining this goal.
A second US attempt to apply economic sanctions against the Soviet Union was made in the early 1980s, in a more complicated international situation. Playing again on the "human rights" campaign, which then was in full swing, the events in Iran and the situation that had emerged around Afghanistan, the United States tried to make the Soviet Union violate the Treaty of Friendship, Good-- Neighbourliness and Go-operation between the USSR and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan by demanding to withdraw from Afghanistan the limited contingent of Soviet troops that was sent to Afghanistan to defend the Afghan revolution in December 1979 at the request of the country's government and in keeping with the norms of international law. This time the US administration's economic leverage took the form of a ban imposed on the deliveries to the Soviet Union of grain and goods classified in the United States as "high technology". Moreover, the administration did everything in its power to boycott the Olympic Games in Moscow.
A third---in one decade---US attempt to use external economic ties as leverage to modify Soviet foreign policy was made at the end of 1981. The US administration announced sanctions against the USSR in connection with the Polish government's measures to put a stop to the 445 counterrevolutionary activity of the Solidarity extremists aimed at undermining the foundations of socialism in the Polish People's Republic. This time the sanctions consisted in banning Aeroflot flights to the United States, diminishing the possibility for Soviet vessels to call at US ports, discontinuing the issue of licenses for "high technology" and equipment for the oil and gas industry, stopping the operations of the Soviet Purchasing Commission and suspending the talks on concluding a new long-term agreement on grain deliveries to the USSR.
Commenting on these sanctions, the Washington Post came to the conclusion that by applying them the administration sought to stir up tensions around Poland and put pressure to bear on the Soviet Union until it stopped supporting the government of the Polish People's Republic.^^1^^
In June 1982 the US administration announced its decision to prolong and expand the measures taken previously against the USSR; the ban on the delivery to the Soviet Union of the equipment for oil and gas production and transportation was now to cover the equipment manufactured not only by US firms, but also by their overseas branches and that produced by foreign companies under US licenses.
Another highlight of the present-day external economic strategy of the United States is its pronounced desire to involve its NATO allies and Japan in the literal "trade war" against the socialist countries. In order to organise one single front of capitalist states supporting its sanctions against and economic blockade of the Soviet Union, the US administration makes use of bilateral talks with the leaders of West European countries, the sessions of the NATO governing bodies and the annual meetings of the heads of government and states of the seven leading capitalist countries (the United States, Great Britain, France, West Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan), and uses all means at its disposal from persuasion to overt pressure and blackmail.
Taking note of this change in the foreign economic policy of the imperialist circles in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the 26th Congress of the CPSU stressed: "Not infrequently they try to use economic ties with us as a means of political pressure. Is this not made clear by all sorts of bans and _-_-_
^^1^^ The Washington Post, 11 January 1982. 446
446 discriminatory restrictions on trade with various socialist countries?''^^1^^The purport of the American sanctions is to put the Soviet economic development plans in jeopardy in the hope that the Soviet Union, trying to avoid this, will agree to political concessions demanded by the United States. That is why for all their general political orientation, each of the ``sanctions'' was aimed at a concrete ``target'' and was imbued with specific economic meaning.
So, in a bid to force the Soviet Union to make changes in its internal legislation, the United States resorted to "economic sanctions" in 1974, when it became obvious that foreign trade started to play a greater role in the Soviet economy. Indeed, external economic ties became an important area of the national economy. They were expected to conduce to the effectiveness and modernisation of social production through reliance on the international division of labour and international specialisation. The Soviet Union switched from individual contracts stipulating the supply of individual types of goods to large-scale, longterm agreements providing for the import of integrated industrial plant, technological processes, and complete plant with the object of saving time and avoiding unnecessary spending on the reorganisation of production in a number of industries. Credit relations expanded accordingly.
The Soviet state did not make a secret of all this. For instance, the report of the CPSU Central Committee to the 25th Congress said: "Like the other countries, we strive to use the advantages of foreign economic relations to utilise additional possibilities for the successful fulfilment of economic tasks and saving time, for enhancing production efficiency and speeding up scientific and technical progress.''^^2^^
In applying its sanctions, the US administration reckoned on making the Soviet Union face the threat of largescale contracts, heeded in the Soviet long-term economic development plans, being wrecked as a result of prohibiting US companies to supply the necessary equipment to the Soviet Union and reducing the size of credits to a level that renders the conclusion of major deals unfeasible. It thus expected to reach its political goals.
_-_-_~^^1^^ Documents and Resolutions. The 26th Congress of the CPSU, p. 13.
~^^2^^ Documents and Resolutions, XXVth Congress of the CPSU, p. 67.
447The pivot of the Carter administration's 1980 sanctions applied against the Soviet Union in connection with the "events in Afghanistan" was the embargo on the deliveries of grain to the USSR. In making this decision, the US administration again sought to take advantage of the changes that had taken place by that time in the Soviet economy and the consequent changes in Soviet foreign trade, specifically in the structure of the import of agricultural produce. Called upon to promote the solution of major economic tasks, Soviet foreign trade in the last few years was aimed at solving more effectively one of them: namely, to satisfy the Soviet people's demand for foodstuffs, particularly for meat and dairy products. For this reason, the purchase of fodder grain required to accelerate the growth of the number of cattle dominated the total grain import picture. This was taken into account in selecting the target of economic sanctions designed to put political pressure to bear on the Soviet Union.
The US 1981-1982 sanctions brought about by the "events in Poland" and involving a ban on the deliveries of "high technology", as well as oil and gas equipment, to the USSR were spearheaded at undermining the agreement on building the Siberia-Western Europe gas pipeline. Universally recognised as the "deal of the century", this project has ensured the laying down of a large-diameter 5,000 km long gas pipeline through which 40 billion cubic metres of natural gas from the Urengoi deposit will be annually delivered to West European countries during 20-25 years beginning in 1984.
On the one hand, Reagan administration's ``sanctions'' against the construction of the Siberia-Western Europe gas pipeline are aimed at wrecking this major project designed to expand West European countries' business co-- operation with the Soviet Union as this project does not fit in the Washington strategy of building up international tensions but, on the contrary, dashes with it; on the other hand, the sanctions are traditionally aimed at impairing certain aspects of the Soviet economy.
__ALPHA_LVL3__ 3. HOPELESSNESS OF THE "ECONOMIC SANCTIONS" POLICY __NOTE__ No _LVL Conclusion. 2010.03.20The events of the recent years have shown that the cornerstone of Washington's foreign economic policy as regards Soviet-US relations is the reliance on "economic sanctions''.
448A question therefore arises whether or not they are capable of affecting Soviet economy and foreign policy.
Guided by their anti-Sovietism and seeking to intensify international tensions and attain military superiority, the US ruling circles failed to take into account many important factors while unleashing economic warfare against the Soviet Union by applying its unilateral ``sanctions''. They failed to take into account that detente has taken fairly deep roots in Europe and created propitious conditions for mutually beneficial utilisation of the international division of labour in the relations between countries with different social systems. Moreover, they failed to take into account that their European allies are in no position to sever economic ties with the socialist countries since their economies strongly depend on foreign markets for finished goods^^1^^ and on the sources of raw material supplies. This dependence becomes especially pronounced in the context of the longest and most far-reaching economic crisis of the postwar period, accompanied by energy, raw material, monetary and financial crises. They also failed to take into account that they have largely forfeited their role of the unrivalled leader of the capitalist world. Lastly, they failed to take into account the disagreement of many capitalist countries with their foreign policy.
As a result, both in the 1970s and the early 1980s, despite all the variety of methods and approaches, "economic sanctions" against t-he Soviet Union failed to yield the desired results---either from the point of view of the possible damage to the Soviet economy, or from the point of view of reducing the scope of Soviet Union's economic ties with the capitalist countries as a whole. Moreover, no matter how paradoxically it may sound, it was the United States itself, and more specifically the US business circles, that fell victim to the ``sanctions'' against the Soviet Union.
After the 1974 Trade Act had been adopted Soviet-US trade and economic relations have been curtailed considerably. Nevertheless, none of the major Soviet economic projects requiring the delivery of equipment from the West suffered from this. All the orders which could not be fulfilled at the US market because of the ``sanctions'', (although the _-_-_
^^1^^ While the volume of export in the West European countries amounts to more than 25 per cent of their aggregate gross national product, in the United States, it hardly reaches 10 per cent.
449 agreements had already been concluded) were placed in France, West Germany, Japan, or other countries.The 1974 ``sanctions'' led to a situation where the volume of Soviet-US trade shrunk by 42 per cent as against 1973. Meanwhile, over the same period the total volume of Soviet Union's trade with Western countries grew by 49.9 per cent, from 8.3 to 12.4 billion rubles.^^1^^
In 1980, the target of the United States' "economic sanctions" was the supplies of grain and "high technology". However, this time, too, the situation of 1974 repeated itself, the only difference being that the sanctions recoiled on the United States still harder. In his memorandum about the ban on the export of grain to the Soviet Union President Garter said: "I am taking this action in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States."^^2^^ Later, the Time magazine commented, "What began as a 'powerful political statement' ended as an 'economic failure'.''^^3^^ Indeed, despite the sanctions applied by the US administration, the Soviet Union fulfilled its fodder grain import programme. The United States had largely forfeited its monopoly positions at the world market and, having lost a major solvent buyer, was literally left with 17 million tons of grain on its hands. According to the Chicago Tribune's estimates, unlike 1974, the US losses were actual rather than prospective ones, i.e. calculated in terms of future profit and invalued $3 billion directly lost by the farmers, $2.5 billion lost through diminished export revenue in the balance of payments, $1.9 billion lost due to the drop in the prices of grain exported from the United States in 1980 and 1981 and nearly $2 billion lost through compensation payments to the farmers from the Federal Budget. If one adds to this the expenses involved in storing the grain bought from the farmers and takes into account the damage caused by the reduction in the volume of transportation and the losses resulting from the general reduction in agricultural production (310,000 jobs were lost), the total loss will be estimated at nearly 22 billion dollars.
_-_-_~^^1^^ USSR Foreign Trade, Statistical Yearbook, Moscow, 1975 (in Russian).
~^^2^^ Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Vol. 16, No. 2, 14 January 1980, p. 33.
^^3^^ Time, Vol. 117, No. 2, 12 January 1981, p. 38.
450Things went bad enough with "high technology", too. As a result of the series of bans the Armco Steel Corp. and the Nippon Steel lost orders for the delivery of equipment for the Novolipetsk metallurgical plant; their loss is estimated at $350 million. Alcoa lost a 100-million-dollar order for the delivery of an aluminium plant; General Electric Co. lost a deal estimated at $175 million, and Dresser Industries, Inc., Caterpillar Tractor Co. and Ingersoll-Rand Co. missed deals estimated at $144, 80, and 9 million, respectively. Alcoa, IBM and Control Data Corporation missed profitable contracts stipulating delivery of electronic equipment for KAMAZ (the Kama automobile works). One could cite many more examples. The US Department of Trade had forecast that in 1980 US exports to the USSR would be estimated at $4.8 million. In fact, it hardly reached $1.5 billion, and that owing to the part of grain deliveries that escaped the embargo.^^1^^ This will sound especially impressive if one remembers that only two or three years before the above-mentioned developments several American firms had negotiated equipment deliveries for 28 major industrial projects then under construction in the USSR whose completion could have increased Soviet-American trade by 10 billion dollars.
So, the outcome of the ``sanctions'' proved to be similar to that of 1974. In 1980, the volume of Soviet-US trade dropped by 46.5 per cent as against 1979. It remained at the same level in 1981. As for the Soviet Union's trade with the capitalist countries as a whole, it continues to grow steadily having increased by 23 per cent in 1980 and by another 11.5 per cent in 1981 to reach, as has already been mentioned, 31.6 and 35.3 billion rubles respectively.^^2^^
The result of the attempts to use ``sanctions'' to put pressure to bear on the Soviet Union brings to mind the warning Lenin gave to the Western powers in connection with the economic blockade in the 1920s when the Soviet state was in the making: "As for the blockade, experience has shown that it is an open question as to who suffers from it most, the blockaded or the blockaders.''^^3^^
Having at its disposal a powerful economic potential, _-_-_
~^^1^^ The Economist, No. 7134, 14 June 1980, p. 72.
~^^2^^ See USSR Foreign Trade. Statistical Yearbook for the corresponding years.
^^3^^ V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 152.
451 modern science, energy and raw material base of its own, plus well-developed productive forces, the Soviet Union is in a position to solve the basic problems of its economic development without foreign help. So, all ban on the deliveries of Western technology cannot affect it to any appreciable extent, the more so as total import from the capitalist countries accounts for only about 1.5 per cent of the Soviet gross social product. The share of industrial equipment in Soviet imports does not exceed 5 to 6 per cent of Soviet Union's total investment in machinery and plant. The most that can be achieved by resorting to "economic sanctions" is to make the Soviet Union devote additional time to produce equipment similar to that covered by the ban. As a matter of fact, Western businessmen realise this only too well for they buy Soviet technology and equipment.The special report on East-West trade prepared in July 1982 by the Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the US State Department elucidates the senseless nature and the recoiling effect of the sanctions. It stresses: "If the major Western industrial countries cut their manufactured exports to the Soviet Union in half in 1982 and 1983, Soviet economic growth would be slowed by only 0.2 of 1 per cent annually, or by a total of $4.5 billion over the two years, according to the study. But that same reduction in trade would lower the gross national product of the Western exporting countries by some $30 billion...''^^1^^
Nonetheless, despite the lessons it was taught and the warnings it received from its own agencies, the US administration persists in resorting to ever new forms of " economic sanctions" in its relation with the Soviet Union.
An analysis and comparison of the action taken by Western governments in the area of economic relations with the Soviet Union reveals the successive stages in the moulding of the US present external economic policy which constitutes an integral part of its general foreign-policy course aimed at undermining detente and counteracting the Soviet Union. It is obvious that this policy was being purposefully forged throughout the entire postwar period under the influence of the most reactionary circles in the United States.
_-_-_~^^1^^ The Washington Post, 24 July 1982, p. A10. 452
452In principle, international trade and economic relations among the states belonging to the two opposed systems are a voluntary undertaking, with each of the parties willing to co-operate only when it is sure of the positive economic effect of co-operation. That is why all participants in trade rather than one party or one partner profit from co-- operation. Trade agreements promote international co-operation, alleviate tensions and conduce to international detente.
During their comparatively short history, economic relations between the socialist and the capitalist countries have traversed a rough path, passing through a number of stages, overcoming numerous barriers and hardships, including the consequences of the postwar economic blockade and the cold war launched by the imperialist forces. The history of these relations proves that Lenin was right when he noted the objective need for developing East-West economic ties and pointed out that trade, "...even if someone succeeded in forcibly interrupting it for a time, would inevitably continue to develop after the interruption".^^1^^
Experience has shown that the attempts to hamper the expansion of economic ties between the socialist and the capitalist countries are groundless and futile: "... The most urgent, pressing and practical interests that have been sharply revealed in all the capitalist countries during the past few years call for the development, regulation and expansion of trade with Russia. Since such interests exist, we may argue, we may quarrel, we may disagree on specific combinations---it is highly probable that we shall have to disagree---this fundamental economic necessity will, nevertheless, after all is said and done, make a way for itself.''^^2^^
While charting its foreign economic policy the Soviet Union takes into account the socio-economic specifics of the states it is co-operating with and their position in the world economy and the overall system of international relations. This policy is based on such objective determinative factors as the steady growth of the national economy, the Soviet Union's stronger economic and political positions in the world, the further shift in the balance of forces in the international scene in favour of socialism, positive changes in the international situation and the consolidation _-_-_
~^^1^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 266.
~^^2^^ V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 33, p. 265.
453 of friendly relations with other states. The totality of farreaching economic and political factors laid the basis for the policy forged by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and aimed at mutually beneficial utilisation of the advantages of the international division of labour and at expanding economic cooperation with all countries. Konstantin Chernenko, General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, stressed: "We are open to peaceful, mutually beneficial co-operation with states on all continents.''^^1^^ _-_-_^^1^^ Pravda, 14 February 1984.
[454] __ALPHA_LVL0__ The End. [END]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 all your comments to 17, Zubovsky Boulevard, Moscow, USSR.
[455]HE Ns 14200
PeaaKTop pyccKoro TBKCTB 3. B. Pacuiueajioea . pesaKTop C. B. IJoHomapeHKo KHHK B. B. Kyjieiuoe
peaaKrop M. A. fljiaroHoea TexHHiecKne peaaKxopbi T. H. lOpoea, H. A. JKypaeAeea
B Hafiop 01.06.84.
HoflnHcaHo B neliatb 02.10.84. OopMar 84X108V:o.
ByMara THnorpaiJicKasi Ke
1. FaptiHTypa oSbiKHoseHHaa. Oe^aTb BbicoKaa. YCJI.
nei. ji. 23,94. ycJi. Kp.
OTT. 23,94. V1.-H3R. n. 28,40. TiipajK 10.000 3K3.
3aK33 Na
339. Uena 2 p. 40 K. H3«. M> 39123.
Opa,ena TpyAosoro Kpacnoro SnaMenH naaaTeflbCTBo «nporpecc» TocyHap-
CTBeHHoro KOMHTera CCCP no RejiaM HsnarejibCTB, noJiarpajiHH H KHH>KHofl
xoproBJiH. 119847, FCn, MOCKBH, F-21, 3y6oBCKHH Syjibsap, 17.
Opaena TpyAOBoro Kpacnoro SnaMenH MocKOBCKaa runorpa^HH Ns 7 «Hcnpa peBOJiK)D;HH» «CoK)3nojiHrpa(pnpoMa» TocyAapCTBeHHoro KOMHTexa CCCP no flejiaM HSAaxejibCTB, noflHrpacjiHH H KHHJKHOH ToprosjiH. MoCKBa, 121019, nep.
AKcaKOBa, 13.
WJ
[456]