Belarus, 1982

Mr. President, please accept my warm congratulations on your election

to your high office. It is a great pleasure to see the representative

of the fraternal Hungarian People's Republic presiding over the

thirty seventh session of the General Assembly and we wish you every

success in your work.

The period since the last regular session of the Assembly has been

filled with complex and contradictory events. The peoples have

persistently demanded that the threat of nuclear war be averted, the

arms race curbed and disarmament achieved, but those in the

belligerent circles of imperialism have been accelerating the arms

race and pushing the world towards nuclear catastrophe. Mass anti war

demonstrations have gained in strength, and we have been deafened by

the explosion of the bombs of the aggressors. The national liberation

movements have broadened in scope, and the colonialists and racists

have mounted ominous plans for suppressing, those movements. Peace

loving peoples have won new and constructive victories, while the

forces of imperialism and reaction have developed monstrous doctrines

and programmes for the mass extermination of human beings and to

undermine the process of detente and co operation. In this new tense

international situation the peoples of the world are once again

realizing that there is no task more important or more urgent today

than that of defending peace and averting the threat of nuclear war.

That cannot be refuted by those whose statements at this session have

constituted merely another routine attempt to distort the real

picture of the present day world and to shift all the blame for its

troubles from themselves to innocent parties.

As has already been noted during this session of the General

Assembly, the current aggravation of the international situation and

the mounting threat of war are due to the fact that some Western

States, above all the United States, persist in policies inimical to

the interests of peace. The situation is all the more alarming in

that some of those States are permanent members of the Security

Council and their policies are totally in conflict with the

particular responsibility for international security and the

preservation of peace that the Charter places upon them.

A close analysis of statements by leading United States officials on

the substance of the military and political problems, in the world

today and a careful analysis of the goals of the intensive rearmament

programme that has been launched in the United States and of the

strategic concepts being put forward cannot but show that

Washington's present course is by no means peace oriented. We have

all heard the frank statement at the 11th meeting by the United

States Secretary of State, Mr. Shultz, that the United States is

guided in its actions by the principle of the position of force and

will be unswerving in its use of it. Is this not an express policy of

military and political confrontation, a policy of seizing dominant

positions on a global scale is it not making this all part of a

fundamental principle

It would be difficult to imagine a political credo in greater

opposition to the requirements of the Charter. The policy of

discarding in practice the principle of equality and equal security,

which, in this nuclear age, is an absolutely vital principle, erodes

the mainstays of the structure of relations between States and

contributes to the threat of war.

The United States is provoking tension and protracting conflicts; it

acts on its own behalf and through proxies in order to justify the

further buildup of arms and its growing demand that its allies toe

the line. The United States is instigating an anti communist crusade

and is spreading lies about an alleged Soviet threat and other

fabrications in order to impose its latest missiles on the

territories of others and to cause an impasse in disarmament talks.

Those provocative actions are camouflaged by demagogic utterances

about a commitment to peace through strength; to the prevention of

wars in general. But the legitimate question arises of whether the

authors of those pronouncements did not indeed have an opportunity,

for example, to prevent or halt the Israeli aggression in Lebanon.

Acting at variance with the commitment to prevent nuclear war they

entered into in the 1970s, Washington's strategists are now

proclaiming the admissibility and even the acceptability of a nuclear

conflict. The world has been subjected to cynical bombast about

first, second and subsequent nuclear strikes, about nuclear

escalation in doses, about demonstrative and selective use of nuclear

weapons, and so forth. Over the past year and a half, the United

States has put forward more different concepts of the use of force

primarily in a nuclear context than in any preceding decade. They

talk about a secured nuclear war, then they talk about limited war,

about blitzkrieg, and about protracted war.

All these statements and actions are permeated with the idea of the

first use of nuclear weapons and an insane reliance on winning a

nuclear victory. Such notions are the sheerest adventurism, fraught

with enormous dangers for mankind. They constitute nothing but naked

war propaganda. There can be no doubt that any use of nuclear weapons

will cause a chain reaction. That being so, strategic planning of

this kind, in any of its versions, represents in actual fact planning

for a nuclear catastrophe. But those so called planners ought to be

reminded that planning and preparation for of aggression are

qualified in international instruments specifically in the Charter of

the United Nations, in the judgment of the Nuremberg International

Military Tribunal, and in the Definition of Aggression and other

United Nations documents as a crime against peace and against

humanity. Military political stereotypes inherited from the time of

the former monopoly on the atom bomb are now outmoded. In his message

at the twelfth special session the second special session of the

General Assembly devoted to disarmament, the General Secretary of the

Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and

President of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, Mr.

Leonid Brezhnev, described as indisputable and determinant the fact

that nuclear war, should it break out, could, in the current

international situation, mean the destruction of human civilization

and perhaps en the end of life on Earth.

Such is the harsh imperative of this nuclear age: there can be no

security for anyone through nuclear adventurism. A nuclear Power can

be secure only if its foreign and military policies pose no threat to

any other country. As to notions that one's own security can be

strengthened by chasing the phantom of military supremacy, plans to

achieve such supremacy simply cannot be carried out, and measures

undertaken to that end can only aggravate military nations and lower

the level of security for all.

While, in this nuclear age, strategic stability based on an

approximate balance of forces is an extremely important basis for

universal security, it is no guarantee of that security. Mankind can

free itself from the deadly threat only by gradually lowering the

level of military confrontation, through the implementation of agreed

measures on the limitation and reduction of armaments and on

disarmament. There is no other way, for security and disarmament are

inseparably linked.

Today's realities demand the adoption of urgent and effective

measures for the prevention of nuclear war. Particular responsibility

for that lies with the permanent members of the Security Council

which are in addition nuclear weapon Powers. In present conditions.

the commitment by each nuclear weapon Power not to be the first to

use nuclear weapons would be of key significance for removing the

threat of nuclear war. That is the express duty of the nuclear

Powers; it is their primary responsibility towards mankind.

As is known, the USSR, which takes a. very serious view of its status

as a nuclear Power and as a permanent member of the Security Council,

has already shouldered that responsibility. The step taken by the

USSR is a powerful stimulus for the drastic of the threat of nuclear

war and for the strengthening of trust in relations between States.

The exclusion from international relations of force in all its

manifestations, both nuclear and conventional, would be fostered by

early completion of the work on a world treaty on the non use of

force in international relations, a draft of which was submitted by

the Soviet Union in 1976 for consideration by the United Nations. A

set of specific and constructive proposals set out in the memorandum

of the USSR on Averting the growing nuclear threat and curbing the

arms race, which was submitted to the Assembly at its second special

session devoted to disarmament creates possibilities for making

progress along all avenues leading to the limitation and radical

reduction of armaments, whether nuclear weapons, other weapons of

mass destruction, including chemical weapons, conventional weapons,

or naval activities. There is no kind of weapon which the Soviet

Union would not be prepared to limit or ban on a basis of

reciprocity. Further evidence of the readiness of the USSR to reduce

the nuclear threat, to curb the arms race and to make our planet

safer for life and for constructive work is provided by the proposals

aimed at the speedy cessation and total prohibition of nuclear

weapon testing; these were formulated with due regard for the views

and suggestions of many countries, including suggestions regarding

verification and regarding an appeal to all the nuclear Powers to

declare, within an agreed time frame, a moratorium on all nuclear

explosions, pending the conclusion of a treaty banning them

completely.

The USSR initiative entitled Intensification of efforts to remove the

threat of nuclear war and to ensure a safe development of nuclear

energy is also of vast significance. That proposal develops further

the work already begun on questions of preventing nuclear war and of

nuclear disarmament ranging from a simultaneous freeze on the

production and deployment of nuclear weapons and their delivery

vehicles to the elimination of existing nuclear capabilities as well

as of strengthening the security of non nuclear countries. It is

designed to ensure the safe development of nuclear energy for

constructive purposes in all countries. Any destruction of non

military nuclear facilities should unquestionably be qualified as a

nuclear attack, which, in the definition of the United Nations, is

the gravest crime against humanity.

The aggressive actions of the imperialists and their henchmen even

today are leading to bloodshed in many flashpoints on our planet. A

typical example of this reign of bloody terror a war of annihilation

which is nothing short of genocide is the aggression launched by

Israel against Lebanon and the Arab people of Palestine. The tragedy

in Lebanon has shaken the entire world and provided yet further

evidence that in this latest criminal adventure, in addition to all

the others, the strategic allies, Israel and the United States, acted

hand in hand.

Scores of thousands of human beings and the destiny of hundreds of

thousands more, have fallen victim to the most sophisticated American

military technology, tried out with the help of Israel in Lebanon. In

shamelessly arming the aggressor, which has repeatedly been condemned

by the United Nations, and overtly and covertly acting as its

accomplice, the United States contrary to its obligations as a

permanent member of the Security Council is doing everything possible

to establish in that area an order which would enable it and its

henchmen to do as they please in other people's territories.

However, they should know better than to labor under such a delusion.

Attempts to rule the destinies of the peoples of the Middle East from

Washington or Tel Aviv are inevitably doomed to failure. The selfless

struggle of the Palestinian people under the leadership of the

Palestine Liberation Organization, the courage and determination of

the Syrians and the Lebanese, have clearly demonstrated this. The new

plan for a Middle East settlement which has been announced by the

President of the United States and widely publicized does not contain

anything new. The United States proposals are flawed in their very

essence. They fail to provide for the liberation of all Arab

territories seized in 1967, deny the right of the Palestinians to

create their own State and disregard the PLO, This is nothing but a

continuance of the treacherous Camp David policy of acquiescence,

designed to enslave the peoples of that region.

Our position on the Middle East problem has always been and continues

to be crystal clear. The complex problem of the Middle East can be

resolved only by the concerted efforts of all the parties concerned,

which must certainly include the PLO, the sole legitimate

representative of the Arab people of Palestine. This problem cannot

be resolved without strict observance of the principle of the

inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by forces; the

recognition and exercise of the right of the Arab people of Palestine

to self determination and to create their own independent State on

Palestinian soil, which must be freed from Israeli occupation; and

ensuring the right of all States of the region to a secure existence

and development in conditions of mutual respect for sovereignty,

independence and territorial integrity, with appropriate

international guarantees.

This is the only course that will lead to a settlement, as envisaged

in the Soviet proposal on the convening of an international

conference on the Middle East. The results of the Twelfth Arab Summit

Conference at Fez constitute a constructive contribution to the

settlement process. We take a positive view of the principles that

were adopted at that Conference for the solution of the Palestinian

question and the Middle East problem as a whole.

Nowadays it is more necessary than ever before for political leaders

to demonstrate common sense, clear sightedness, prudence and genuine

realism in their approach to the problems that arise. We should also,

of course, be guided always by the fact that international detente

calls for peaceful co operation with other States, not military

preparations or hostility toward other States. Detente is a

conscientious observance in good faith of the norms of international

law and the principle of non intervention in the internal affairs of

others. It also implies a constant desire to contribute by practical

action to curbing the arms race in the world and strengthening

security by gradually building up mutual confidence on a just and

reciprocal basis. This is exactly what the States of the socialist

community are doing. Unfortunately, this cannot be said for the

United States and its partners in aggressive blocs.

Yet another example of the fact that the Washington Administration

adheres to diametrically opposite principles is its policy with

respect to Afghanistan, South East Asia and the Caribbean. They are

trying to achieve their aim of barring the way to social reforms by

staging military adventures against peoples seeking freedom and

progress. This is clearly demonstrated by the continuing hostile

actions of the United States of America against Cuba, Afghanistan,

the countries of Indo China; Nicaragua and other States of the world,

and this should serve as a warning. It is also shown by its support

for reactionary anti people regimes in Chile, South Korea, El

Salvador and other countries.

The long chain of irrefutable facts indicative of the dangerous

course followed by the foreign policy of the United States, which is

a threat to peace and social progress, includes the well known action

of that country against the anti colonialist struggle of the peoples

of the world. When in August 1981 the racists of Pretoria launched

their large scale aggression, which is still going on now, against

the People's Republic of Angola, the United States chose to act as a

forthright advocate of that naked act of aggression. In the Security

Council it vetoed the draft resolution strongly condemning the

aggression and calling for its immediate cessation. The veto was in

no way accidental; it constituted the implementationof what had

earlier been proclaimed the new regional strategy of the United

States regarding southern Africa.

The basic tenets of this strategy, which in its very essence is a

doctrine of recolonization, amount to nothing less than a naked

threat to use South Africa to bring about the destabilization of

independent African States. As regards the Namibian problem, the so

called new doctrine basically encourages the South African racists to

retain Namibia as a colony of South Africa and to impose on the

Namibian people conditions that are advantageous to Pretoria. The

Apartheid regime is allowed to use force in pursuing its colonial

policy, to employ the piratical methods of the Israeli militarists in

Lebanon, and to attempt to destroy the South West Africa People's

Organization and to exclude it from participating in decisions on the

future of its homeland. The task of the United Nations is to prevent

this and to work for the early attainment of independence by the

people of Namibia.

Washington is known never to have fulfilled its obligations as

regards the developing countries. When the conflict between the

United Kingdom and Argentina erupted as a result of the stubborn

opposition of the United Kingdom to the decolonization of the

Falkland Islands (Malvinas), the United States ignored its

obligations as far as Argentina was concerned, extended the North

Atlantic Treaty Organization to Latin America and took advantage of

the situation in order openly to assist in the colonialist plunder

and to penetrate the South Atlantic region.

A vivid example of the policy of force and blackmail as a means of

carrying out imperialist plans on a global scale is provided by the

actions of the United States aimed at undermining the regional

organizations of the developing countries, nullifying the United

Nations decision to convene the Conference on the Indian Ocean,

opposing the drafting of a world treaty on the non use of force in

international relations and refusing to sign the United Nations

Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The same strategy of force is being carried out by the United States

in the realm of international economic relations. It is precisely

those in the ruling circles of that country that impede by every

means available the implementation of United Nations decisions on the

establishment of a new international economic order, obstruct the

launching of global negotiations and defend in every possible way the

activities of transnational corporations, which are detrimental to

the sovereignty and the economies of the developing countries.

The policy of blackmail and threats is being employed not only

against socialist States but also against those developing countries

that have chosen the road of independent development and social

progress. Attempts are being made to split the non aligned movement,

to play down its significance as a major factor in improving the

international situation. The weapon of coercion is being used also

against the developed countries allies of the United States. One

recent example of this in addition to the constant demands for an

increase in their military budgets, is the unseemly efforts of the

United States Administration directed against a mutually advantageous

project for a gas pipeline between Siberia and Western Europe. We

almost have the impression of hearing a cowboy's lasso whistle over

some countries of Western Europe. AU this is a significant lesson for

the young developing countries, which should indeed think twice

before developing ties, especially economic ties, with the United

States.

The Soviet Union and other socialist States oppose that policy of

diktat and blackmail by a clear and unequivocal policy of developing

international economic co operation on a basis of equality and in the

interest of all the participants and with due regard for the special

interests of the developing countries, at the same time providing

them with assistance on a scale greater than that recommended by the

United Nations.

Given the deterioration in the international situation caused by the policy of imperialism,

of overriding importance for the destiny of mankind is the positive

implementation of the Leninist strategy of peace, the Peace Programme

for the 1980s worked out by the twenty sixth Congress of the

Communist Party of the Soviet Union and promoted by the Soviet Union,

which is celebrating its sixtieth anniversary. The creation and the

successful development of the Soviet Union are of undying

international significance and an important historic landmark in the

age old struggle of progressive mankind for equality, the progress of

nations and world renewal.

Faithful to the principle of peace and friendship among peoples, to

which it pledged itself at the hour of its birth, the Soviet State

takes this as the basis of all its activities in the international

arena. It underlies all its successes and achievements. Leninist

ideals and principles embodied in the decisions of the Communist

Party of the Soviet Union and the highest State bodies of the Land of

the Soviets and in the Constitution of the USSR determine the

approach of the Soviet State to all problems of relations between

countries and peoples.

The sixtieth anniversary of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

is clear testimony to the triumph of the Leninist national policy and

to the historic achievements of socialism. The workers of the

Byelorussian SSR cherish the fact that they belong to the unified

family of Soviet peoples. They realize that everything we have done

and achieved has been brought about by the concerted efforts of all

the peoples of our multinational homeland. We have every reason to be

proud of our achievements in political, economic and social

development. In this period Byelorussia has become a Republic with a

highly developed industry and intensive agriculture. At present our

industry produces 30 times more than in the pre war year, 1940,

despite the fact that it was almost totally destroyed by the Hitler

aggressors in the Second World War and that those aggressors murdered

a quarter of its population. Education, science, health care and

culture have made great strides in the Republic. We live and work in

a socialist democracy which guarantees genuine rights and freedoms

for every human being. In order to continue their successful and

constructive work the Byelorussian people, like other peoples of the

USSR and of the entire planet, need above all lasting peace.

Deadlocks in the international arena do not occur of themselves. It

is well known that they are created deliberately. This can be said

about almost every situation of conflict and outstanding problem the

continuing conflict between Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Iran,

opposition to the peaceful reunification of Korea free from outside

interference, and to the withdrawal of foreign troops from South

Korea, the refusal to take part in, or the obstruction of,

disarmament talks, the desire to put weapons into outer space and

other pressing problems.

Let us take as an example the problem of Cyprus. Here again we see

who is doing what to impede United Nations efforts to defend the

independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic

of Cyprus and to demilitarize the island by withdrawing all foreign

troops and eliminating all foreign bases; how attempts are being made

to impose on the Cypriots a solution alien to them. In those

circumstances United Nations efforts should be directed towards

making the intercommunal talks a success, while fully respecting the

sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Cypriot State and its

policy of non alignment.

Thus in the final analysis underlying all these deadlocks there are

selfish imperialist interests and a reluctance to take account of the

real situation in an evolving world and of the will of the peoples.

Today political wisdom lies in concerted, persistent and patient

efforts to solve the problems threatening universal peace. In that

way, even if not all the problems are solved at once, many will be.

It is particularly important, of course, to solve the most pressing

problems of our time: that of averting a nuclearwar, curbing the arms

race and achieving disarmament. If we do not, the wise sphinxes to

which the United States Secretary of State recently alluded in

justifying Washington's policies will no longer be there.

The delegation of the Byelorussian SSR, guided by the testament of

Lenin that the Soviet State wishes to live in peace with all peoples

and directs its efforts to the building of its own State, will

actively promote the preparation and adoption of measures designed to

avert the threat of nuclear war, strengthen peace, bring about co

operation among peoples and solve other problems on the agenda of

this session of the General Assembly in accordance with the Charter

of the United Nations.