135

p An indispensable condition for the development of cooperation among states in all spheres of international relations is the immutable principle of respect for state sovereignty, the preservation by each state of its independence, and noninterference in the internal affairs of others.

p In the sphere of radio communication, officially called “telecommunication”^^1^^ (more than 120 countries are members of the International Telecommunication Union), the sovereignty of each state rests on the fact that all the air space over its lands and waters forms part of its national territory. Most nations came to this conclusion by experience; so did most experts in international law who were doing research on the international legal regulation of telecommunication.

p But certain circles in the West do not recognize these obvious facts and principles and seek to violate the sovereignty of other states. In view of this, there is an objective need for a state to defend its national frontiers not only against an invasion but also against aggressive broadcasting.

p The problem of protecting the territory of sovereign states against provocative, subversive and slanderous radio propaganda arose for the first time more than 50 years ago. In 1933 Austria and some other European states began to jam radio broadcasts from Nazi Germany. Austria jammed these broadcasts in an attempt to counter Nazi propaganda aimed at the forcible annexation of its territory to Germany. In doing so, the 136 Austrian government based itself on the resolution of the Third Congress of the International Radio Consultative Committee, held in Rome in 1928. One of the paragraphs in the resolution stipulates that each state has the right, within the framework of agreements based on treaties, to prevent the transmission of radio waves across its territory whenever it is necessary to protect its vital interests.

p In 1936 the League of Nations convened an International Conference Concerning the Use of Broadcasting in the Cause of Peace. The task of the Conference was to work out legal measures aimed at stopping subversive radio propaganda coming from Germany and Italy, which had launched propaganda of this nature against certain West ’European states on the eve of the Second World War. The Conference elaborated the International Convention Concerning the Use of Broadcasting in the Cause of Peace, which outlawed militarist, instigative and subversive radio propaganda.

p The International Convention was signed on September 23, 1936, by 28 states, including the Soviet Union. In signing the Convention a number of states issued statements affirming that they reserved the right to stop by all possible means propaganda which could cause harm to their internal order and which was being conducted in violation of the Convention.

p Here are some of the articles of that International Convention:

p Article 1

p The High Contracting Parties mutually undertake to prohibit and, if occasion arises, to stop without delay the broadcasting within their respective territories of any transmission which to the detriment of good international understanding is of such a character as to incite the population of any territory to acts incompatible with the internal order or the security of a territory of a High Contracting Party.

p Article 2

p The High Contracting Parties mutually undertake to ensure that transmissions from stations within the respective territories shall not constitute an incitement either to war against another High Contracting Party or to acts likely to lead thereto.

137

p Article 3

p The High Contracting Parties mutually undertake to prohibit and, if occasion arises, to stop without delay within their respective territories any transmission likely to harm good international understanding by statements the incorrectness of which is or ought to be known to the persons responsible for the broadcasts.

p They further mutually undertake to ensure that any transmission likely to harm good international understanding by incorrect statements shall be rectified at the earliest possible moment by the most effective means, even if the incorrectness has become apparent only after the broadcast has taken place....

p Article 6

p In order to give full effect to the obligations assumed under preceding articles, the High Contracting Parties mutually undertake to issue, for the guidance of governmental broadcasting services, appropriate instructions and regulations, and to secure their application by these services.

p With the same end in view, the High Contracting Parties mutually undertake to include appropriate clauses for the guidance of any autonomous broadcasting organizations, either in the constitutive charter of a national institution, or in the conditions imposed upon a concessionary company, or in the rules applicable to other private concerns, and to take the necessary measures to ensure the application of these clauses.^^2^^

p When ratifying the Convention the USSR made the following statement: "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics declares that it retains the right to take any measures to protect its interests in the event of non-observance by other states of the Convention’s clauses, as well as in the event of actions violating its interests.”^^3^^

p International recognition of the sovereignty of states in the sphere of broadcasting is confirmed by the fact that under an agreement between the United Nations and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) signed in August 1947, the ITU became a specialized agency of the United Nations, the Charter of which is based on the observance of the principles of the independence of states and of non-interference in their internal affairs.

p The existence of a special agreement between the ITU and 138 the United Nations is confirmed in the International Telecommunication Convention (Montreux, 1965), Chapter III of which ("Relations with the United Nations and International Organizations") reads:

p “Article 29

p Relations with the United Nations.

p 1. The relationship between the United Nations and the International Telecommunication Union is defined in the Agreement concluded between these two Organizations.”^^4^^

p This Agreement envisages the participation of representatives of the two organizations in their sessions with the right to a deliberative vote, and, if mutually requested, the inclusion on the sessions’ agenda of issues which interest both-parties. The Agreement also stipulates a rule under which, in order to coordinate the activities of the International Telecommunication Union and the general principles by which it is guided, the United Nations is obliged to- issue for the ITU recommendations which, though not binding, must be discussed by members of the ITU before they are rejected or implemented.

p The principles of unlimited sovereignty and noninterference in the internal affairs of other states with regard to telecommunication are respected by the majority of states and governments which adhere to the generally accepted rules of international cooperation. Abuse of the capabilities of radio broadcasting and television for the purpose of causing moral and material damage to other states, including direct harm to the internal situation in other countries, is perpetrated only by governments which pursue (overtly or covertly) hegemonic ambitions, and also by countries which are to a lesser or greater extent dependent on them.

p In 1934-1935 the ancient Lithuanian town of Klaipeda witnessed the trial of local National-Socialists. The fascist radio station in Konigsberg began to spread slanderous fabrications about the trial in Klaipeda. So the Klaipeda radio station began tojam broadcasts from Konigsberg. In retaliation six German radio stations headed by the Berlin radio jammed Klaipeda broadcasts to such an extent that for several days all Lithuanian broadcasting was put out of action. As is known, in 1939 Germany captured Klaipeda and carried out repressions against persons of Lithuanian nationality; the persons engaged in that radio war were not forgotten...

p Disregard for state sovereignty and for agreements in the 139 sphere of radio communication is primarily characteristic of the United States. In accordance with a decision adopted in 1947 by the International Telecommunication Conference (and US representatives were among those who adhered to it), a conference of all European nations (except Spain) convened in Copenhagen in 1948 to allocate radio frequencies. In 1950 out of the 121 channels allocated, only 19 remained free; the US occupation authorities took 38 instead of the 5 channels assigned to them, the British occupation authorities—13 instead of 4, and the Spanish stations (often used by the US authorities)—32 instead of 10. Because of a lack of order on the air millions of people in Europe could not listen to national broadcasts without interference. Numerous complaints to international organizations, including the International Telecommunication Union, compelled the telecommunication board of the US State Department to give explanations. But while admitting that nearly a third of all the frequencies allocated in Copenhagen were being used by the US occupation authorities the board intimated that they would not implement the Copenhagen plan for as long as it suited special US objectives in Europe.^^5^^

p This was the response despite the fact that the United States is a member of the International Telecommunication Union (instituted in Madrid in 1932), the Charter of which says that its aims are to maintain and expand international cooperation for the improvement and rational use of all types of telecommunication. The United States is also not only a member but one of the founders of the United Nations. The UN Charter lays down that the founders of that organization are determined "to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained," and for this purpose "to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours"^^6^^.

p Unfortunately, international cooperation in the field of broadcasting and television is regarded by certain quarters and governments in the West as an instrument of instigative and subversive propaganda, above all against countries of the socialist community.

p Subversive propaganda began to be conducted by radio in the 1930s, when the developed countries of Western Europe started broadcasting to other countries. However, subversive propaganda has at all times been regarded as a violation of international law, especially when normal diplomatic relations exist between the states concerned.

140

p International law distinguishes two categories of subversive propaganda: propaganda of war, and slanderous propaganda.

p Subversive propaganda proper is understood in international law as communications, including radio transmissions, sent from one country to another for the purpose of creating in the target country movements which intend to overthrow the existing political order there. This category of hostile propaganda is the more widespread and has always been regarded to be against the law. Since incitement to an illegal act is in itself illegal, the law plainly obliges the government to refrain in peace time from making propaganda which is hostile towards the government of another country.

p Slanderous propaganda, which is outlawed by most countries as a criminal offence, imputes to other countries or governments negative traits or actions which in reality do not exist. All these categories of subversive propaganda are illegal from the point of view of international law.

p Subversive propaganda is the illegal activity conducted by means of radio by the United States, Britain, the Federal Republic of Germany and some other NATO countries against the socialist nations and against states whose political forms of government are disagreeable to those countries.

p Such activity is conducted primarily by the Voice of America, the BBC, West Germany’s Deutsche Welle, and CIAbacked Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. In effect, this is indirect aggression perpetrated by means of radio. Encyclopaedia Britannica emphasizes that many states have recognized the need for a definition of aggression which would be universally accepted, and the need to include in it "’indirect aggression’ such as subversion, infiltration, hostile propaganda and other acts of psychological or political aggression"^^7^^. But up till now, however, the United Nations has been unable to adopt a comprehensive definition of aggression owing to the stubborn resistance of powers which are interested in or which are perpetrating "indirect aggression", thereby grossly violating the generally accepted rules of the international community.

p The definition of "indirect aggression" perfectly applies to the subversive and illegal activities of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

p Here are some facts that should form the basis of any assessment of their activities from the point of view of international law:

p —Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty differs radically from 141 other national radio centres which broadcast to other countries primarily by the nature of its programmes. A national radio station ordinarily reports events taking place in its country and its country’s assessment of overseas events of major importance, including those which have occurred in the countries to which the broadcasts are beamed. Things are different with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which concentrates on events (and commentaries on them) taking place in the target countries. Reports from the rest of the world take second place...

p It is because of this that the Legal Commission of the International Olympic Committee supported in 1977 the decision not to accredit Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reporters at the 1980 Moscow Olympics.^^8^^

p —The content of the broadcasts of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, being radio stations belonging to the United States and controlled by the US government, is determined by US policy towards Eastern Europe, especially the Soviet Union. The United States’ "Fiscal Year 1984-1988 Defense Guidance", which was worked out in accordance with instructions from the US President, sets the aim of destroying socialism as a socio-political system. The foreign-policy propaganda machine of the United States and those of some of its NATO allies today use international broadcasting to achieve the aims formulated in that official document.

p —The malicious, subversive nature of RFE/RL broadcasts becomes only too clear in the materials which, under the pretext of making a critical analysis of various aspects of life in the USSR and other socialist countries of Eastern Europe, attempt to disparage the socialist countries’ achievements in different spheres of science, industry, culture, art and social progress. It does not matter if the insinuations which are insulting to citizens of the socialist countries are made in the commentaries of a staff employee of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, or in a statement by a guest speaker who is hostile towards the socialist countries.

p Broadcasts of this nature are made by American Sovietologists and CIA agents, and also by emigres from socialist countries who have lost all contact with listeners in their home countries, and who are divorced from the real situation in which these listeners live. Their isolation grows with the years, and they become less and less able to understand the events taking place in the socialist countries. In fact, these people have entered the service of foreign intelligence and are trying to earn the money which they receive from it. All 142 researchers of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty activities point to the personal animosity and hatred which inspire the emigre staff when it prepares and broadcasts programmes; these people, because of their opposition to the social and political systems in their home countries, are waging an open struggle from abroad against the policies of the countries they have left.

p —Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is used by the US secret services as a centre that unites and directs the subversive anti-socialist activities of most of the emigre organizations in the West.

p —The RFE/RL corporation works with the intention of inculcating in the population of the target countries a negative attitude and opposition towards social and political events in these countries and towards the official policies of their legitimate governments; it is also attempting to bring about radical changes in the social and political systems of the socialist countries.

p Let us now take a look at some facts about the status, structure and activities of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty from the point of view of international law.^^9^^

p The radio corporation operates with the knowledge, approval and support of the highest state bodies (of both Congress and the Administration) of the United States. These bodies endorse and allocate funds for the maintenance of the radio corporation, receive reports on its activities, and determine its political orientation. The corporation’s directors are US citizens.

p The activities of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty are also carried on with the knowledge and approval of the West German government, some Land governments and municipal administrative bodies situated on the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. They are conducted on the basis of licences to broadcast which have been granted by the Federal Ministry of Postal Services. The Federal government is regularly informed by the Ministry of Postal Services about the activities of the radio corporation. Hence it follows that the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, as corporate legal bodies, are answerable before international law for the activities of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and they bear legal responsibility, since the existence and activities of the radio corporation violate international law.

p The existence and activities of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, from the point of view of international law and of Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, constitute a violation of the internationally binding prohibition on 143 interfering in the internal affairs of other states since these activities:

p a) serve exclusively to conduct broadcasts for listeners in other countries in their languages for the purpose of exerting an external influence by means of instigative propaganda on the internal social and political situation in the target countries so as to change it, to undermine the confidence of the population of these countries in their social and political systems, in the policies of their legitimate governments, and in the information conveyed by the national mass media, and thus to create internal opposition;

p b) are conducted with the help of employees consisting of individuals who have fled from their homelands because they opposed the policies of their governments or were under criminal investigation there, or collaborated with foreign intelligence services, or maintained contact with them.

p The principle of international law about non-interference in the internal affairs of states has been given the following interpretation and more accurate definition in the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (Resolution 2625/XXV of October 24, 1970, subsequently called in short the "Declaration on Principles") which was unanimously adopted at the 25th session of the UN General Assembly. Being true and authentic, this interpretation of the UN Charter is binding on all states. The Declaration on Principles says:

p “... No State shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in civil strife in another State....

p “Every State has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic, social and cultural systems, without interference in any form by another State.”

p At the same time, this principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states as laid down in the UN Declaration on Principles has been proclaimed as one of the fundamental principles operating in international law today, and all states must strictly comply with it.

p We have already mentioned violation by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty of the principle of non-interference. Violation of this principle consists not only of the desire to create opposition in the target countries, but also of interference in the information policy of other states, for to determine this policy is the internal affair of the state concerned.

p Literature on international law recognizes with complete 144 justification that the conduct of radio propaganda in regard to other countries in the form carried put by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty constitutes a violation of the universally accepted principle of non-interference.

p For instance, International Law (Vol. I, London, 1955, p. 292), a well-known work compiled in Britain by Oppenheim and Lauterpacht, clearly states that hostile propaganda against another state is a violation of international law.^^10^^ The American expert on international law V. O’Brien writes in his book International Propaganda and a Minimum World Public Order—International Control of Propaganda that it is perfectly clear that all states are obliged, within their jurisdiction, not to permit actions which threaten the territorial integrity and political independence of sovereign states with which they maintain peaceful relations. Since everybody knows the important role that propaganda plays in international relations today, he writes, the approval or support by a state of incitement to war, to sabotage and in certain cases to slanderous propaganda is a violation of international law.

p The so-called Harvard Principles for the International Law of the Future make it clear that for good-neighbourly relations to exist between states it is not enough merely to refrain from official interference in the internal affairs of other states. "Each State has a legal duty to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment civil strife in the territory of any other State," the Principles say.

p The Dictionary of International Law, published in West Germany and compiled by Karl Strupp and Hans-Jurgen Schlochauer, categorically points out:

p “In accordance with state practice and with the general opinion of experts on law hostile propaganda from abroad is a violation of international common law... Foreign propaganda against the existence or constitutional order of other states violates their national right to sovereignty.”^^11^^

p These appraisals of international law and the fact that the RFE/RL activities are illegal do not in any way question or infringe upon the right of every state to propagate its political views and the principles of its domestic and foreign policies through, among other means, radio. The exercise of this sovereign right is restricted only by the obligation to respect the sovereignty of other states.

p The existence and activities of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty are also illegal from the point of view of bilateral agreements existing between the states which direct the radio corporation and the states on whose territory the radio 145 corporation and its branches are situated, on the one hand, and the states to which subversive broadcasts are beamed, on the other.

p Between the United States, which directs the activities of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and the Federal Republic of Germany, on the territory of which these radio stations are situated, on the one hand, and many of the East European countries, against which RFE/RL activities are aimed, on the other, there exist bilateral treaties concerning international law with which the activities of that radio corporation are incompatible.

p With this in mind we should note the following bilateral agreements concluded between the Soviet Union and the United States.

p Paragraph 1 of the Basic Principles of Mutual Relations Between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America, concluded by the two countries on May 29, 1972, says:

p “They will proceed from the common determination that in the nuclear age there is no alternative to conducting their mutual relations on the basis of peaceful coexistence. Differences in ideology and in the social systems of the USSR and the USA are not obstacles to the bilateral development of normal relations based on the principles of sovereignty, equality, non-interference in internal affairs and mutual advantage.”

p The Preamble to the General Agreement Between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America on Contacts, Exchanges and Cooperation, signed on June 1 9, 1973, says that the two states concluded the agreement "desiring to promote better understanding between the peoples of the Soviet Union and the United States and to help improve the general state of relations between the two countries". Article 7 of the Agreement provides, in particular, for the development of contacts and exchanges in the field of broadcasting.

p In the Joint Soviet-US Communique of July 3, 1974, the two parties stated their decision to continue joint efforts to develop, in particular, "broad, mutually beneficial cooperation... on the basis of the principles of sovereignty, equality and non-interference in internal affairs with a view to promoting increased understanding and confidence between the peoples of both countries.”

p Obviously, the activities of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and of the Voice of America, which are being carried 146 out with the approval and assistance of, and with political direction and financing from, US state bodies, are incompatible with these agreements, which are legally binding.

p Similar conclusions can be drawn from the Declaration on the Principles of Relations Between the Polish People’s Republic and the United States of America, signed on October 9, 1974, since in the Declaration the two parties pledge to build their bilateral relations on the principles of the UN Charter and international law; they also confirmed, in particular, their adherence to the principles of sovereignty, noninterference in internal affairs, equality and mutual respect, emphasizing their determination to further the development of peaceful relations between states with different socioeconomic systems.

p The treaties that the Federal Republic of Germany signed with the Soviet Union (August 12, 1970), with the Polish People’s Republic (December 7, 1970), and with the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (December 11, 1973), which have been ratified by the contracting parties and are in force, oblige them to build their relationships on the principles of the UN Charter, and, consequently, on the principles of sovereignty, equality and non-interference in the internal affairs of another state (Article II of the Soviet-FRG Treaty, Article II of the Polish-FRG Treaty, and Article III of the CzechoslovakFRG Treaty).

p In these treaties the signatories expressed their determination to normalize bilateral relations and promote peaceful, equal and mutually beneficial cooperation with a view to consolidating peace and easing tension (Preamble and Article I of the Soviet-FRG Treaty, and also Paragraph 5 of the Declaration of Intentions to it; Article III of the Polish-FRG Treaty; Article I of the Czechoslovak-FRG Treaty).

p Therefore it follows that sanctioning subversive activities conducted by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty from the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany violates these international legal obligations of the Federal-Republic of Germany with respect to the USSR, Poland and Czechoslovakia.

p The activities of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and of other radio centres in the West constitute a gross violation of the accords, formalized in the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, on the exchange of information (Section III, Paragraph 2), and also infringe upon the first section of the Declaration on Principles by which the participating states should be guided in their mutual relations.

147

p The Preamble to Section III of the Final Act says: "... This cooperation should take place in full respect for the principles guiding relations among participating States as set forth in the relevant document" (i.e., in Section I of the Final Act), which means that:

p —"The participating States will respect each other’s sovereign equality and individuality as well as all the rights inherent in and encompassed by its sovereignty, including in particular the right of every State to... freedom and political independence. They will also 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" (Principle 1, paragraph 1);

p —"The participating States will refrain from any intervention, direct or indirect, individual or collective, in the internal or external affairs falling within the domestic jurisdiction of another participating State, regardless of their mutual relations..." "Accordingly, they will, inter alia, refrain from direct or indirect assistance... to subversive or other activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another participating State" (Principle 6, paragraphs 1 and 4);

p —"They will endeavour, in developing their cooperation as equals, to promote mutual understanding and confidence, friendly and good-neighbourly relations among themselves, international peace, security and justice.”

p In other words, an information policy is incompatible with the Final Act unless it observes the basic principles listed above; violation of these principles (there is no doubt whatsoever that they are violated not only by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, but also by the Voice of America and other radio centres in the West) runs counter to the letter and spirit of the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference.

p The RFE/RL activities also contradict the basic provisions of the Federal Republic of Germany’s state law.

p Thus, in accordance with Article 25 of the FRG Fundamental Law, "the general principles of international law form part of the state law of the Federal Republic of Germany. Directly on them are based the laws, and also the rights and duties of the citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany." This article of the Fundamental Law also lends to the generally accepted rules of international law the "character of constitutional norms of the Federal Republic of Germany"^^12^^.

p Linked to the "generally accepted rules of international law" are the principles of the UN Charter, Articles I and II of the Charter, which were unanimously proclaimed at the 25th 148 session of the UN General Assembly in the above-mentioned Declaration on Principles.

p Among these basic principles of international law which are currently in force is the principle of non-interference in the internal and external affairs of another state. It follows from this that the RFE/RL activities which, contradict the international-law provision prohibiting interference in the internal affairs of other states, also contradict the Constitution of the FRG (the Fundamental Law) under its Article 22. A similar conclusion can be drawn from Article 26, Paragraph 2, of the Fundamental Law, under which "actions designed and undertaken for the purpose of hampering peaceful coexistence of nations" run counter to the spirit of the Constitution and are punishable by law.

p Legal experts believe that Article 25 and Article 26 (Paragraph 1) of the Fundamental Law are equally applicable to similar actions both by state bodies and by individuals (FRG citizens as well as aliens).^^13^^

p Many apologists of aggressive broadcasting against the USSR and the countries of Eastern Europe, and certain individuals who are simply misguided, refer to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to justify interference by radio in the internal affairs of other states. Article 19, Paragraph 2, of this Covenant guarantees the right to spread information regardless of state frontiers. However (let alone the fact that this right, like all the rights enshrined in this Covenant, applies only to individuals and not to states), Paragraph 3 of the same article sets clear limits to this right and lays particular emphasis on the right of states to subordinate this freedom of exchanging information to legitimate restrictions, whenever it is necessary, for the following purposes:

p “For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

p “For the protection of national security or of rjublic order..., or of public health or morals.”

p This ruling emphasizes the responsibility that states have when exercising their right to form their own information policy.

p Apart from this, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires that states should prohibit at home not only propaganda of war, but also "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”.

p The arguments we have advanced to prove the illegality of the actions of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty are almost equally applicable (in the case of the Deutsche Welle—fully 149 applicable) to other radio centres in the West which make instigative and subversive propaganda against the USSR and Eastern Europe.

p States which are the victims of aggressive broadcasting and whose rights have been infringed upon as a result of the illegal activities of the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany are entitled to take the following legal steps:

p —To bring an action against a radio corporation, demanding an end to its activities;

p —To claim damages if the activities of a radio corporation have resulted in material losses (as was the case, for example, in 1956 in the Hungarian People’s Republic, which sustained material losses as s result of RFE/RL activity);

p —In the event of non-compliance by radio corporation with the demand to stop illegal activities (such as those conducted by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Voice of America and Deutsche Welle against the USSR and Eastern Europe), the target countries are entitled to take measures to protect themselves. They can organize a system of interference against the broadcasts of these radio stations, e.g. by jamming these and other radio stations of the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany. They have the right to limit the information-gathering facilities of other mass media of these states, or take some other appropriate measures.

p The jamming by the target countries of transmissions from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Voice of America, Deutsche Welle and other radio stations engaging in illegal subversive propaganda is in full conformity with UN Resolution 2448 (XXIII). This resolution provides for retaliatory measures, including the jamming of radio broadcasts, to prevent the spread of misinformation which is detrimental to human dignity and which whips up hatred and prejudice between states, different races, language groups, religions, social sections, etc.

p Countermoves by the socialist and other countries against foreign radio broadcasts which are illegal and slanderous, which defame the social and political systems of these countries and which affect their internal order and are designed t<j encourage mistrust between their peoples and governments— such countermoves do not in any way contradict international commitments and the constitutional norms of the states subjected to subversive propaganda.

p We must, however, distinguish subversive propaganda and psychological warfare from ideological struggle, which, unlike subversive propaganda and psychological warfare, is lawful, 150 provided it is not used for subversive purposes by secret services against other states. The battle of ideas presupposes recognition of the equal right of the various ideologies cherished by individuals, political groups or states, and is conducted on the basis of this recognition and by legal methods. The battle of ideas has nothing in common with illegal interference in the internal affairs of other states, or with the creation of obstacles to peaceful cooperation between states with different political systems, or with attacks on their independence and sovereignty.

p Subversive propaganda is against the law. It must be stopped and prohibited.

Every attempt, made with an obvious political aim, to present subversive propaganda detrimental to other states as permissible, legal and even necessary actions is a violation of international law, particularly of the ban on interference, and it endangers the accords which have already been reached in the sphere of international law. It is doubtful whether the subversive propaganda of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, made for the sake of illusory and short-lived gains, is in the interests of the countries in which that radio corporation has its transmitters.