YouSaid · the spoken record

GROMYKO

lines on the record: 1,518
first: 1957-09-24
most recent: 1984-09-24
sittings or episodes: 22
sources: un-general-debate

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

“The movement must be in the opposite direction, leading to the removal of these weapons and to their subsequent elimination both in Europe and throughout the world. This is the course of our policy. 88. The Soviet Union is in favour of serious talks. Not only are we prepared for such talks, but we are insisting on them. Our proposals on the limitation and reduction of strategic arms and on the limitation of nuclear arms in Europe remain valid. They neither offer advantages nor do any harm to either side. The United States must remove the obstacles it has put in the way of the talks. Unless these obstacles are removed, of course, these talks will not take place, and this is what the United States has in mind. 89.”
1984-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 39 (1984)
“84. Now they rejoice that they were able to keep the timetable and begin the deployment of their missiles in Europe, as planned. Even here in the course of the General Assembly one can meet representatives of Western European States who are rubbing their hands with pleasure over the fact that the plan for deployment is being implemented. 85. It makes no difference whether deception is crude or cleverly packaged. A good idea is being exploited for unsavoury purposes. 86. We have noticed that there are realistically minded politicians and statesmen in the West, including the United States, who realize that it is precisely in this way that the issue of negotiations is being used. 87. No, the path of stockpiling of nuclear weapons is not the right path to follow.”
1984-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 39 (1984)
“How else can one describe the fact that while negotiating the limitation of nuclear arms in Europe our partners did exactly the opposite? Beforehand—I repeat, beforehand—they set the date for deploying new United States medium range missiles on the territories of several Western European States. We were told to accept the United States position or else there would be no agreement. So there is no agreement. 82. As to the Soviet proposals paving the way to agreements, they were rejected out of hand. Anything aimed at reaching agreement on the basis of equality was opposed with hostility. 83. It was Washington's deliberate intention to wreck the negotiations on nuclear arms—both medium range and strategic. And it succeeded in this. Juggling with words ostensibly in favour of negotiations is a false propaganda ploy. Its purpose is obvious.”
1984-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 39 (1984)
“And what tremendous efforts were required to arrive at those treaties and agreements. 79. Those and other similar actions are but a few examples of the policy of the United States, whose central objective is to try to secure military superiority for itself. 80. Stories intended to mislead people are being churned out in profusion. Not that they are particularly reticent about saying that, should they eventually feel like negotiating, they would do so only from strength. To that end—they claim—the United States must first build up its military muscle. 81. It took Washington a long time to send its team to the negotiating table at Geneva. However, at the talks the United States side followed a scenario that was not designed to lead to agreement.”
1984-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 39 (1984)
“However, in the years that followed, our attempts to reduce or at least to limit nuclear arms failed to produce concrete results. The tug of war between the groups that determine United States foreign policy has been won by the militaristically minded. They attempt to devalue the existing Soviet American accords by wrecking what was achieved earlier through long and painstaking work on both sides, as was done with the SALT II Treaty. 78. They broke off and refuse to resume the trilateral talks between the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States on the complete and general prohibition of nuclear weapons tests. They stalled the ratification of the Soviet United States treaties on the limitation of underground nuclear weapons tests and on peaceful nuclear explosions that had been signed a long time ago.”
1984-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 39 (1984)
“Our country sought a ban on nuclear weapons both when it did not possess them and after it developed them. Today, as before, the Soviet Union favours prompt measures to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons altogether. This is the aim of a comprehensive set of initiatives advanced by the Soviet Union. 76. Whenever the United States side showed realism and the will to come to agreement on the basis of the principle of equality and equal security—something that did happen before—it proved possible to reach important accords. Thus, a major step forward was taken with the conclusion in 1972 by the Soviet Union and the United States of the Interim Agreement on Certain Measures with respect to the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms and the Treaty on the Limitation of Antiballistic Missile Systems. 77.”
1984-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 39 (1984)
“Indeed, as early as 1946 the Soviet Union submitted at the United Nations a draft international convention on the prohibition for all time of the production and use of nuclear weapons and on the destruction of their stockpiles. I am sure there are some present here in this Hall who witnessed the discussion of this item at that time. 73. Yet our former allies in the struggle against fascism did not have the heart to vote for that proposal. Their reaction then was bound to make the peoples apprehensive and it did cause serious apprehension. 74. And what is the situation today? Statements are being openly made at the highest official levels that the United States has the right to deliver a first nuclear strike, that is to say, to unleash a nuclear war. 75.”
1984-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 39 (1984)
“It is necessary to pinpoint the source of that threat. Clarity in this regard is not merely a matter of historical fairness. An understanding of the factors that are pushing mankind towards a nuclear abyss also determines the answer to the question whether or not this calamitous process can be stopped, and how. 71. It is of fundamental importance to compare the two political trends and the two approaches to the problem of nuclear weapons. 72. Right after Hiroshima and Nagasaki the world witnessed the inception of a policy of ever greater stockpiles of nuclear weapons and nuclear blackmail. The Soviet Union forcefully called for the outlawing of these most deadly and destructive weapons.”
1984-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 39 (1984)
“AH States represented in the United Nations should contribute to its achievement. No one and nothing can relieve them of the responsibility they have assumed under the Charter of the United Nations for the destiny of present and succeeding generations. 69. As was stressed recently by Mr. Chernenko, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: "The world has radically changed. Its problems cannot be solved by force ... it is imperative to adopt a policy of realism, reason and business-like cooperation in solving the problems that face mankind." 70. Those who truly hold dear the interests of peace cannot confine themselves merely to stating that there exists a threat of nuclear war.”
1984-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 39 (1984)
“The Soviet Union is one of them. 67. Together with other socialist countries, we shall continue to work in the interest of improving international relations. This is precisely the thrust of the documents of the meeting of the Political Consultative Committee of the States Parties to the Warsaw Treaty, held at Prague on 4 and 5 January 1983, and of the high-level Economic Conference of the member countries of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, held in Moscow from 12 to 14 June 1984. 68. The Soviet Union and the States of the socialist community are concentrating their efforts on attaining the key objective of preventing a nuclear disaster. For if the destructive potential currently amassed in the world were unleashed the human race would probably cease to exist. To prevent that from happening is a goal of overriding importance.”
1984-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 39 (1984)
“This course, which is manifest as never before in the current policies of the United States and of those who choose to be its accomplices, is opposed by a broad front of peace-loving States and forces. 66. The Soviet Union is in the vanguard of active champions of peace. It has been and remains faithful to its solemn pledge taken right after the criminal Fascist swastika was crushed and the Hitlerite war machine smashed. The essence of that pledge has not faded with the years; it is to fight resolutely to ensure that the flames of world war never flare up again. The fact that it has been possible for almost 40 years to ward it off is largely to the credit of the countries which pursue a policy of peace among nations and frustrate—by their international prestige and influence—aggressive and adventuristic designs wherever they originate.”
1984-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 39 (1984)
“They are responsible for the advent of the cold war, which for a long time froze the normal flow of international life for which the peoples of the world yearned. 64. As a result, in the post-war years the world has been in a state of fever. And whenever international relations were marked—as was the case during the period of detente—by budding cooperation between States with different social systems, no effort was spared to undermine those positive processes, which is exactly what happened at the whim of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] military bloc. It is precisely this trend in world politics that is the source of the situation that characterizes the international climate today. The threat of war has grown and the foundations of world peace have become more shaky. 65.”
1984-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 39 (1984)
“It is common knowledge, however, that as the war-ravaged earth was still smouldering and thousands of towns and villages were in ruins, the international atmosphere once again began to deteriorate and ultimately to become critical. This happened through the fault of those who, in their quest for world hegemony, began to behave contrary to their obligations as allies in the anti-Hitlerite coalition, oblivious to the lessons of the past. 63. In disregard of the lofty purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, which they too had just signed, a group of States set out to escalate their military preparations by putting together a system of aggressive military blocs with the North Atlantic Alliance as its pivot. Those States pledged themselves to a policy based on a position of strength, a policy of brinkmanship.”
1984-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 39 (1984)
“The conclusion reached by the founding Members of the United Nations was very simple indeed. It was born of the experience of the most bloody and destructive war that has ever befallen mankind. Indeed, it was precisely through united efforts that the aggressor was crushed. High was the cost of the great victory whose fortieth anniversary will be observed next year. All the peoples who fought against fascism contributed to that victory, but the Soviet Union's decisive role in it is indisputable. 61. United efforts were and are still needed today in order to build the post-war world. For it is the main lesson of the Second World War that States must stand together in the fight against war. 62.”
1984-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 39 (1984)
“Mr. Lusaka, I congratulate you on your election to the office of President of the thirty-ninth session of the General Assembly. Our congratulations also go to the representatives of Brunei Darussalam, a State which has become the 159th Member of the United Nations. 58. For almost 40 years now, the words "the United Nations" have been firmly established in the world's political vocabulary. There is virtually no major international problem in connection with which those words would not be spoken in different languages, both in this Hall and outside it. 59. The extensive involvement of the United Nations in world affairs and developments is determined by the very mission of this forum, which was brought into being in order to unite the political will and potential of States for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security. 60.”
1984-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 39 (1984)
“Everything should be done to ensure that in the remaining two decades of the twentieth century people can live in conditions of peace and can cross the threshold of the third millennium of our era, not with fear for the future of our civilization, but with confidence in the boundless prospects for its development. All nations, large and small, that work towards this end will always find the Soviet Union at their side.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“No problem, no matter what its magnitude, can or should overshadow the principal purpose for which the United Nations was created, that is, to preserve peace. It is the individual and collective duty of all States and the duty of every statesman to do for this purpose everything within the capability of human beings, of their intelligence, of their energy and of their dedication to life and its most noble ideals. 165. It is clearer now than ever before how enormous are the challenges confronting the peoples to meet the rapidly growing needs in the fields of energy, food, health and education, to explore the oceans and outer space, to preserve nature. These problems can be solved provided mankind saves itself from war. 166.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“Our country will continue to give developing States the necessary support in their struggle for economic independence and for the restructuring of international relations on a genuinely equitable and democratic basis. 162. The activities of the United Nations cannot be assessed in terms of standard units of measurement. A formal one-dimensional assessment cannot be applied to them. There are, however, grounds for saying that the United Nations has done quite a lot to enable the peoples of the world to live with greater confidence in their future. 163. Working actively with other socialist countries in all areas of international politics, the Soviet Union continues to make proposals aimed at strengthening peace. 164.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“The nonaligned movement, which has recently marked its twentieth anniversary, has become an important factor in world politics.* The Soviet Union expresses its solidarity with the anti-imperialist orientation of the nonaligned movement and supports its activities in the interest of strengthening peace. 160. Much is now being said about the problem of relations between the industrialized and the developing States. Various bodies, narrow and broad, of the North South type are being proposed. It is obvious, however, that nobody will produce positive results unless developed capitalist States radically change their approach to developing countries, cease discrimination in economic relations with them and renounce the economic plundering of those countries, 161.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“It is precisely this approach that has recently been manifested by the overwhelming majority of members of the Security Council in voting on a draft resolution submitted by Mexico and other countries.3 However, the United States has prevented the United Nations body from taking inappropriate decision, thus openly defying the African peoples and world public opinion.4 158. The United States support for South Africa constitutes direct assistance to the aggressor. Such a course must be resolutely condemned. The United Nations should do everything that is needed to put an end to the aggression and call the aggressor to order. The resolution recently adopted by the General Assembly at its emergency special session on Namibia [resolution ES8/2] is a step in the right direction. 159.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“It is a matter of honor and is the immediate duty of the United Nations to help the people of Namibia gain their freedom. The racists and all those on whom they rely must realize that the time or colonialism is past. 157. An end must be put to South Africa's aggressive gangster-like actions against the People's Republic of Angola and a number of other African countries. It is necessary to condemn those actions, to demand that South Africa cease its armed intervention and to adopt international sanctions against it.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“SovietIndian relations, which rest on the solid basis provided by the Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation, are in the interest of our two peoples and positively serve the interests of peace. 155. Political means can also be effective in settling other dangerous situations and controversial problems, including the conflict between Iraq and Iran, the Cyprus problem, the situation in Western Sahara and that in the Horn of Africa. The indispensable requirement in this regard is that nobody be allowed to pit one State against another and to capitalize on conflicts between them. There should be no room for imperialist intrigues in those areas. 156. As is well known, the South African racist regime and its accomplices are engaged in maneuvers aimed at thwarting the decolonization of Namibia.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“The Korean question still unsettled and thus an old source of tension in the Far East can and must be solved by peaceful means. In our opinion, a suitable basis for solving the problem is provided by the proposals of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea presented by its President Kim II Sung at the Sixth Congress of the Workers' Party of Korea. 153. Recently the Mongolian People's Republic has taken a timely initiative by proposing a convention on mutual nonaggression and renunciation of force in relations between the States of Asia and the Pacific [see A/36/388]. Our country supports that idea. 154. The Republic of India is making a major contribution to maintaining stability and peace in Asia and ensuring international security. We value highly its peaceful constructive policy.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“Attention is drawn to the fraudulent allegation put forward in typical Washington wrappings that someone somewhere in SouthEast Asia used toxic chemical substances said to be of Soviet make. It is quite obvious that at work here are those who are themselves guilty of such crimes. Now they are trying to cover their traces. 151. The situation in the Far East, too, offers possibilities for positive political action. One such could be an agreement on the application of confidence-building measures in the region. The implementation of such measures on a collective or a bilateral basis would make a useful contribution to the cause of detente in that region. The Soviet proposal on this question has been communicated to all the States concerned. We expect that in this regard they will display the required sense of responsibility. 152.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“4], including the proposal to hold a regional conference with the participation of the. countries of IndoChina and the States member's of the Association of SouthEast Asian Nations. 148. However, no one should assume that the maneuvers under way around the nonexistent Kampuchean question can result in anything but harm. It is inadmissible that, under the cover of some pseudo-conferences, executioners overthrown by the people of Kampuchea or former princelings should be imposed once again on that people. They have already made their choice. 149. Also doomed to failure are the attempts to cast a shadow upon the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, which extended a helping hand to the Kampuchean people in their struggle for freedom and independence. 150.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“A constructive program to this effect was set forth in the statement by the Government of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan on 24 August of this year [see AI36/457]. 146. The political settlement must ensure the termination and non-resumption of armed or other interference in the affairs of Afghanistan. Such a settlement, including reliable international guarantees, would permit the establishment, by agreement between the Afghan and Soviet sides, of modalities and timing for the withdrawal of the limited contingent of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. 147. In SouthEast Asia, too, there is no other way but negotiations to reduce tensions in the area. We support the well-known proposals by Viet Nam, the Lao People's Democratic Republic and Kampuchea [see A/36/86, annex I, para.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“Yet, who else but Islamabad should be primarily interested in establishing lasting peace in the region? 144. There has been some talk recently about the proposal by certain Western countries to convene an international conference on Afghanistan. But what is striking is that, while the conference is to be on Afghanistan, the main party concerned, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, has been forgotten. This forgetfulness conceals the attempt to have the internal affairs of Afghanistan, a sovereign nonaligned State, examined in a forum composed of other States, without even the participation of the Afghan Government. Of course that approach is unacceptable. . , 145. There is a basis for a political settlement; it is simple and, given goodwill, can be translated into reality.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“The Soviet Union consistently comes out in support of the Arabs' rights and stands for the elimination of the consequences of Israeli aggression. There is growing understanding that the path to a Middle East settlement lies through the convening of an international conference with the participation of all the parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO]. 142. A political settlement is needed for the situation created around the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, against which an undeclared war is still being waged. The principal role in this is played by the United States, and Peking is not far behind. 143. Unfortunately. Pakistan, whose territory serves as the main bridgehead for armed incursions, in effect avoids negotiations with the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“If justice has not so far been restored and the situation in the Middle East remains dangerous, it is because those in Israel's ruling circles persist in their expansionist policies and do not stop their brutal terror against the people of Lebanon, while influential forces outside that area actually encourage this policy and seek to follow the pattern of the anti Arab Camp David deal, 140. Peace and stability in the Middle East can be assured only through a comprehensive political settlement which would not infringe on the rights of any country or people of that region. Such a settlement must envisage the withdrawal of Israeli troops from all Arab territories occupied in 1967 and the exercise of the national rights of the Arab people of Palestine, including the right to establish their own State. 141.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“With reference to the need to take measures for curbing the arms race and for disarmament, special note should also be made of the importance of efforts to resolve conflict situations in various parts of the world and to prevent the emergence of new hotbeds of tension. States are capable of coping with this problem provided they strive to ensure a more durable peace. 139. The struggle of Arab peoples to defend their legitimate rights, trampled underfoot as a result of Israel's aggression, elicits understanding and support on the part of an overwhelming majority of countries.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“Under current conditions, it is becoming increasingly important to prevent military competition from extending to outer space. Each day brings new evidence that outer space can become an arena of the arms race. 137. At* the request of the Soviet Union, an item entitled "Conclusion of & treaty on the prohibition of the stationing of weapons of any kind in outer space" has been included in the agenda of the present session [item 128], The Governments of all States represented here have had an opportunity of familiarizing themselves with the Soviet draft of that treaty. The draft takes into account all major aspects of the problem. We would like the exchange of views on the basis of the Soviet Union's proposal and its outcome to be constructive. 138.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“As is known, this question is under discussion in Madrid at the meeting of representatives of the States participants in the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. 133. Wishing to contribute to success, the Soviet Union has gone far to accommodate the West and has declared its willingness to include the entire European part of its territory in the zone of confidence-building measures, provided, of course, the Western side makes a corresponding step in turn. What is required now is precisely such a step, 134. Military detente on the European continent is intended to strengthen and complement political detente. But this does not depend on us alone. 135. The Soviet Union is prepared to hold negotiations on all areas of limiting the arms race and of disarmament. 136.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“At the same time we must make it quite clear that should the other side artificially drag out the negotiations and start to deploy new medium-range nuclear weapons in Western Europe, the Soviet Union will have to take measures to restore the balance. 131. For the purpose of strengthening peace in Europe, it is also important to break the deadlock at the Vienna negotiations on the reduction of armed forces and armaments in Central Europe. The socialist countries have done a good deal to ensure progress at the Vienna negotiations. Should the Western partners show a minimum of goodwill, a solution could be found. 132. Of great significance is the question of convening a conference on military detente and disarmament in Europe.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“This proposal is based on the existing approximate parity of their respective armaments. The establishment of a moratorium would certainly exert a favorable influence on the climate of the negotiations. 129. The Soviet Union is prepared to reach agreement on limiting and, what is more, on reducing medium-range nuclear systems in Europe. As Leonid Brezhnev stated at Berlin on 6 October 1979: "We are prepared to reduce the number of medium range nuclear weapons deployed in western areas of the Soviet Union from their present level, but only, of course, in the event that no additional medium-range nuclear weapons are deployed in Western Europe." 130.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“Given mutual desire, headway in the solution of this problem can be made, relying on what has already been achieved and preserving the results achieved. 127. The SovietAmerican negotiations on the limitation of nuclear weapons in Europe will apparently be resumed unless winds start blowing again in Washington in a different direction. Of course, the question of limiting medium-range nuclear weapons and those of corresponding forward-based nuclear systems of the United States should be examined and settled concurrently and in organic interrelation, with due account of all factors determining the strategic situation on the continent. 128. Our country has proposed that the moment negotiations begin, a moratorium should be imposed on the deployment in Europe of new medium-range nuclear missile systems of NATO and the USSR.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“The Soviet Union is in favor of a dialog on all aspects of the problem of ending the arms race, on all controversial international issues, in favor of a bilateral or a multilateral dialog. 125. From time to time statements are made which seem to express willingness to negotiate. However, attached to this willingness are all sorts of conditions, linkages and unequal approaches of all sorts. If someone really intends to negotiate in this vein, we must say outright: nothing will come of it. Negotiations can be successful only if they are conducted on the basis of Compliance with the principle of equality and equal security. 126. The Soviet Union is prepared and has been prepared for a long time to resume negotiations with the United States on the limitation of strategic weapons.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“The declaration should stress that the nuclear-arms race must be stopped and reversed by joint effort, through negotiations conducted in good faith and cc the basis of equality. What is meant here is that the energy of the atom should be used not against life but for the sake of life, not for the production of weapons but for scientific progress, for improvement of the living standards of people, that is, exclusively for peaceful purposes. 122. This is the essence of the political document that we are proposing for adoption. We hope that this proposal will meet with wide support. 123. The adoption of such a document may become a major landmark on the path towards complete elimination of the threat of a nuclear conflict. No single country should stand aside from the solution of this problem. 124.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“To proclaim this in a declaration so that these words be heard in every capital, in every part of the world, would be to remind statesmen who, by virtue of their official position, are involved in making decisions on the use of nuclear weapons, that each and every one of them is personally responsible for the destinies of mankind. 119. We propose that the declaration further state loudly and clearly that any doctrines allowing for the first use of nuclear weapons are incompatible with human moral standards and the lofty ideals of the United Nations. 120. It is also most important to draw the attention, especially of leaders of nuclear-weapon States, to the fact that their supreme duty is to act in such a way as to eliminate the risk of outbreak of a nuclear conflict. 121.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“The immediate and most pressing task today is to struggle for easing world tensions, curbing the arms race, eliminating * threat of war. / 116. The Soviet Union proposes that the General Assembly, acting on behalf of all Member States of the United Nations, adopt a declaration solemnly proclaiming that States and statesmen who would be the first to use nuclear weapons would commit the gravest crime against humanity. 117. There are and can be no grounds or motives, there are and can be no circumstances or situations which would give a State the right to be the first to use nuclear weapons. It would be a crime against all the peoples, against life itself on earth. 118. It is likewise necessary to warn that there will never be any justification or pardon for statesmen who would make the decision on the first use of nuclear weapons.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“What is the conclusion that follows from all this? According to the ideologists of militarism, mankind is to expect a pitch-dark night, an endless spiraling arms race, further conflicts and clashes. 114. The Soviet Union and, we are sure, many other countries hold different views as to the prospects for world developments. Pessimism and a feeling of doom are alien to our nature. We are convinced that to prevent war is not only necessary 'but also possible if this is actively fought for. Hand in hand with all States, our country is prepared to wage the struggle for curbing the arms race, removing the threat of war, settling outstanding problems. In this respect we are not politically allergic to any partner, irrespective of differences in social systems or ideologies. 115.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“The establishment of military cooperation between the United States and China with Japan, for reasons that no one knows, getting involved in it will be duly taken into account by the Soviet Union and, we believe, by other States. 111. For its part, the Soviet Union has repeatedly expressed the conviction it was recently reiterated by Leonid Brezhnev from the rostrum of the Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union that the Chinese people's interests would best be served by a policy of peace. The Soviet Union would like to build its relations with the People's Republic of China on a good neighbor basis. We have repeatedly reaffirmed that our proposals for normalizing these relations remain valid. 112. These are the main reasons, as we see them, for the recent exacerbation of the international situation. 113.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“Other developments in international life also have their impact on the world situation. Attention is attracted to the ever-increasing closeness between Washington and Peking. 108. Who would object to the desire of two countries to have normal relations between them? Nobody would, of course. It is the basis on which this is done that matters. In this particular case the basis is openly hostile to many States, above all to the Soviet Union, and hostile to the cause of detente. 109. It has been proclaimed to the world that the United States intends to sell weapons to China and to help it build up its military potential. And this is done at a time when Peking is pursuing a policy that runs counter to the interests of peace, a policy of hegemonism and aggression. 110.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“The neutron weapon must be totally banned. A ban must be imposed on both its production and its use. 105. Washington has long been making attempts to hold back or even to wreck the negotiations initiated earlier on a number of important problems. Unfortunately, quite a lot has already been done to that end. That was the case, for example, with the talks on the Indian Ocean, on limiting conventional arms transfers, on the complete and general prohibition of nuclear-weapon tests, and on the prohibition of the production of chemical weapons and the destruction of their stockpiles. 106. It is also appropriate to mention here the current efforts to cast aside the results of many years of work by States within the framework of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. 107.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“Is it aggressive designs it) politics, greatPower expansionist ambitions, a striving to impose on the world monstrous plans for an ever greater stockpiling of weapons for the annihilation of people instead of manufacturing things of material goods, or a desire to have an inexhaustible source of excess profits for those who manufacture armaments? It is hard to say. Most likely it is a complex mixture of all these things. 103. The United States decision to start the production of the neutron weapon aroused great indignation in the world. That decision is a new step towards intensifying the arms race, towards aggravating the world situation. 104. The peoples clearly say that they strongly oppose the fiendish neutron weapon, rightly considering it to be a particularly inhuman type of mass-destruction weapon.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“Now a question arises: why smear both the treaty and the SALT process itself? Yet exceptionally reckless politicians are now saying that the entire problem is not urgent at all, at least not till the United States implements its most sweeping arms buildup plans. 101. Just think of the absurdity of such a stand. The nation which claims to be the most powerful in military terms says "Let me first increase by so many times my armaments and then perhaps I shall talk about their limitation." 102. What is the main factor in such a stand?”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“It is also obvious that, once agreement has been leached on strategic arms limitation and the initial reduction of their levels, it is easier to solve the task of their more radical redaction so that the balance reflects a lower arms level. 98. All that convincingly proves that the significance of the Treaty already agreed to and signed is as great today as at the time of its signing. 99. How numerous were the cases when talks on the limitation of armaments were held both in the period between the two world wars and after the Second World War. Yet any unbiased person will undoubtedly admit that none of those talks produced results that could be compared even to a small extent to the SALT I agreement, which is in force, and especially to the SALT II Treaty, which has not become operative. 100.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“Negotiations had been under way for many years before the Treaty was finally agreed upon and signed. Now they say that this Treaty is not to the advantage of the United States and that it is inequitable. Of course, this is not true. The balance of interests of the sides was accurately established and preserved in the Treaty. This is known to anyone familiar with its contents. Therefore, that is not the point. The point is that it is this very principle of equality and equal security reflected in the Treaty which is not to someone's liking. 96. Counting on people's ignorance, they seek to sap the Treaty by alleging that it does not envisage strategic weapons reductions. But this is not true either. The Treaty explicitly envisages such reductions, and on a substantial scale, 97.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“If the arguments of the proponents of the militaristic policy course are left free of deliberate vagueness and intricacy, and of claims to originality, there remains only one thing, namely, the urge to intensify the arms race, in breadth and in depth, without any restraint. 93. But have the authors of these militaristic doctrines asked 500 million Europeans, 470 million Africans, 360 million Latin Americans, 2.5 billion Asians and finally, their own people whether they want to perish in the flames of war? Certainly not. They just do not care. 94. The instigators of the arms race would like to discard everything that hampers their plans. If to this end it is necessary to renege on the obligations already assumed, that is what they do. Thus, the United States refuses to ratify the SALT II Treaty. 95.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“In some capitals such doctrines pop out as if rolling off the assembly line. Things may well reach the stage where any bureaucrat, especially if he is in the spotlight, will, once installed in an executive office, immediately come up with a strategic doctrine of his own concoction. Thus, quite recently, the world was presented with a "discovery" according to which nuclear war in general should not be feared too much, that it is "admissible" and "acceptable". This is a shameless deception designed to mislead the peoples and paralyze their will to struggle against the nuclear threat. 92.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)
“Indeed, what would then be left of exhortations about the need for the notorious "additional armament of the West"? Nothing would remain. That is the reason why use is made of incomparable indicators and of .falsified data on strategic arms, on medium-range nuclear systems in Europe, on armed forces strength of the two sides in Central Europe or on any other aspect of the correlation of forces. 90. If, by any chance, some NATO official happens to concede that the Soviet Union has really never overtaken the United States and that parity is still there, there immediately follows a tongue lashing from above. And then the record of "Soviet military superiority" is played again in order to support another increase in military appropriations and to substantiate some freshly baked militaristic doctrine. 91.”
1981-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 36 (1981)