YouSaid · the spoken record

SHEVARDNADZE

lines on the record: 272
first: 1985-09-24
most recent: 1990-09-24
sittings or episodes: 6
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

“We regard a comprehensive system of security as a kind of interim programme for reasserting the role of the United Nations and its Charter as the primary instruments for peace. What, then, are the practical aspects of a comprehensive system? Throughout the past year the sponsors of the resolution on this question have held consultations with Members of the United Nations and discussed their proposal in international forums. As a result many things have now become clearer, our ideas have become more concrete, and an atmosphere of teamwork has arisen. The system is taking precise shape in all its four aspects: politico-military, economic, environmental and humanitarian.”
1987-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 42 (1987)
“That person is academician Andrei Sakharov, who said: "My opinion as regards this programme is different from that of the Reagan Administration... it is also wrong to assert that the existence of the SDI programme has made the Soviet Union negotiate on disarmament. To the contrary, the SDI programme impedes the negotiations." If we are to believe an academician in one area, why should we not believe him in another, in which he is really a qualified expert and a professional? Leave the ocean of space to peaceful vessels, so that future generations - our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren - will not have to build space minesweeper s. Excluding the nuclear and space component from the security equation is the only path towards real security.”
1987-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 42 (1987)
“The Charter is a great document, which even today contains all the necessary provisions to enable mankind to live and solve its problems without war. However, even the Charter cannot do the impossible. No organization, no set of rules, no code of behaviour can save the world in the few minutes between the launching of a missile and a nuclear holocaust. If and when the implementation of the "Star Wars" programme begins, the "shagreen leather" of that time interval will shrink even further. And yet that programme has been touted here once again as a way "to ensure a safer world". This is not so. And here I will refer to a person whose statements have been quoted so readily by the President of the United States - even the day before yesterday.”
1987-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 42 (1987)
“Let me remind the Assembly that the United Nations was established for a world free of nuclear weapons and that its Charter was, naturally, designed to solve the problems of such a world. Nuclear weapons gave rise to a different reality which, in the final analysis, made it impossible to use the United Nations fully as the principal mechanism for the maintenance of peace and security. It so happened that the nuclear tumour limited the scope of, and the possibilities for applying the Charter. Now the prospect of militarization of outer space threatens to erode its principles even further. There should however be no question of adapting the Charter to the realities of the nuclear and space age or, still less, of wrecking it.”
1987-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 42 (1987)
“New political thinking answers: Yes. And here again I should like to focus on a comprehensive system of international security. As emerges clearly from Mikhail Gorbachev's statements, we envision its formation as a multilinear process extending over time and implemented through collective efforts. In essence, its objective is that peace should be ensured exclusively by the United Nations and its Security Council on the basis of strict observance of the principles and provisions of its Charter. I anticipate a question here: If that is your objective, then what is the meaning of your proposal? After all, the Charter of the United Nations already exists and the universal organization for peace is functioning.”
1987-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 42 (1987)
“The fact that our Organization has been functioning for over 40 years now is testimony to the triumph of mankind's common interests over narrow-minded nationalism and great-Power attitudes. In fact, all the post-war decades have been nothing but the history of the struggle between outdated political concepts and the new political thinking that was born in the agony of war. When life on earth depends on one's ability to destroy it 20 times over, there is something wrong either with oneself and one's trust in such a guarantee of life, or with the very idea of deterrence. Most likely, it is both. New political thinking exposes the absurdity of the idea of safeguarding anyone's security with nuclear weapons. However, a question immediately arises: Is it possible to ensure peace by other methods and, indeed, do such methods exist at all?”
1987-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 42 (1987)
“New political thinking will inevitably make its way, for it is nourished by some remarkable elements: by the accumulation of progressive political experience by strictly scientific analysis, evaluation and forecasting of contemporary realities} and, ultimately, by the freedom of new political thinking from national narrow-mindedness that provokes animosity towards countries, groups of countries or social political systems. In this regard, let me say that the policy of hostility towards socialism is now bankrupt, both in theory and in practice. The very fact of the establishment of the United Nations contained the embryo of the new political thinking. Even at that time its principles were embodied in the articles of the United Nations Charter which is undoubtedly one of the greatest statutory instruments of all time and of all nations.”
1987-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 42 (1987)
“If, on the pretext that something is contrary to the interests of national security or to considerations of national prestige, one rejects everything that is born of the political thinking of the systems or governments that one does not like, then, sooner or later, this will boomerang on the genuine national interests of one's own people and State. New political thinking must put an end to that. New political thinking will put an end to it if it is put into action. And there is no doubt that it will be, for action, unity of concept and implementation, of thought and its realization, of word and deed, are crucial conditions for the existence of mankind.”
1987-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 42 (1987)
“it is even less worthy to adopt the tone of pastoral admonition and tell the Organization that "sometimes it has strayed" and "it is time for it to come home". One can say, however, that this rostrum and this Hall are the very place where new political thinking should be expressed. However much the world is split by confrontation and hatred, it is United in facing the need to preserve itself and to perpetuate mankind. Prom this objective reality there emerges another guiding light for new political thinking; in our time, the correlation between the national interest and the interest of all mankind has changed. It has changed in the sense that truly national interests cannot be opposed to common interests.”
1987-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 42 (1987)
“We thank them for their advice, but we shall conduct perestroika according to our own design, on our own socialist basis. Allow us to determine for ourselves what the Soviet Union is going to be and that will be what the Soviet people want it to be. Those who want to support us will also support the project of rebuilding international relations on a broad democratic basis. They will support the concept of a nuclear-free world and all actions to resolve the knottiest issues of world politics. For here the interests of most members of the community fully coincide. This rostrum is not a pulpit for preaching "free enterprise". This Hall is not a schoolroom or a university auditorium in which one can teach lessons in rhetoric or lecture the international community on the manners of "good political behaviour".”
1987-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 42 (1987)
“And there is no need to engage in linguistic research to try to provide listeners with an English equivalent of the word glasnost. One might go astray in a foreign language, as has indeed already happened with the same speaker, who claimed that there is no word meaning "freedom" in the Russian language. It is generally dangerous to play with words in this forum in which by no means everyone is ready to applaud insults summarily flung at entire countries and peoples. Freedom does indeed serve peace - but it is not the freedom that is interpreted as licence to interfere in the affairs of others and to finance counter-revolution as a most profitable business. As for our perestroika, no one should be a prey to illusions. We shall not turn aside from the main road or borrow from others their norms and rules of democracy.”
1987-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 42 (1987)
“In order to survive it was necessary to do the maximum within the historically minimum space of time. A chronic lack of time and unending pressure on all fronts also helped create the conditions which resulted in innocent victims and irreparable losses. We are saying this for all to hear: there is not and there cannot be any justification for that. We do more than just say it. As heirs to both victories and defeats, achievements and mistakes, we are doing our utmost to consolidate the victories and to prevent even the slightest possibility of the errors being repeated In either domestic or in foreign policies. This is a distinctive feature of our perestroika, its dominant trend, any indicator of the vigour and health of our society, a guarantee of Its future, of its profound internal democratism, openness and integrity.”
1987-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 42 (1987)
“It was set by the foreign intervention and the civil war; the ruined economy and the economic blockade; terror and the attempts to subvert the foundations of our multinational State; Nazi aggression and the cold war, which was imposed on us; nuclear blackmail and constant attempts at political diktat. Not a single day passed without our having to pay the highest price. Unlike many other revolutions, the October Revolution was almost bloodless. Unlike many others, its architects never Intended to build their temple on blood; they never thought, as had many before them, that cruelty, violence and fear were the best glue for cementing their ideal. It was the policies of conspiracy, terror and intervention against Soviet Russia that made it shut and lock its doors and cut itself off from a hostile world.”
1987-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 42 (1987)
“It is this: organizing the entire human community on the basis of recognizing peace as the supreme value of existence, human life, freedom and dignity as a general yardstick, and peaceful coexistence as a universal principle of relations among States. This concept, proclaimed in the Political Report to the 27th Congress of our Communist Party, has been substantiated by a series of practical steps taken by the Soviet Union, Perestroika has also heralded major changes in international affairs. It should not be obstructed. But, of course, unlike the position in 1917 or 1918, in 1987 no external action could halt our revolution. Today we live in different times, and it is a different country. And that could be one of the greatest achievements of the October Revolution. The price of this was enormous.”
1987-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 42 (1987)
“All this, naturally, is also part of the objectives of perestroika - our process of change - while glasnost - openness - and dialogue are, as logically, its instruments, in both domestic and foreign policies. Between these two there exists a direct and open relationship and one cannot be implemented without the other. This, and this alone, allows me, when speaking about the seventieth anniversary of our revolution, to invite you all to take thought together. If we have a concept of a world revolution, which is most closely linked with the process of revolutionary change in our country, we make no secret of it.”
1987-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 42 (1987)
“Nevertheless, I would venture to share with representatives my thoughts on some of the international implications of that date. I do not think that it can be disputed that the October Revolution was one of the major events of this century and has had a tremendous impact on the destinies of peoples, not only those of the former Russian Empire. We think that the process of renovation which is under way in our country is more than just a strictly domestic affair of the Soviet Union, It is impossible to describe as purely the concern of the Soviet Union its desire to do away with one of the products of the cold war, which is the splitting of the world into hostile alliances.”
1987-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 42 (1987)
“The possibility of a secure world is commensurate with the need for it This is the reality. As for guarantees, we see them in a comprehensive system of security. It is the natural task of the United Nations to give inspiration to and take the lead in building such a system. This, reduced to a concise formula, is the logic of that article, which develops the doctrine of a secure world. It stems from the history of our country and is the fruit of political thinking that honestly analyses the entire preceding period. In this context I would venture to remind the Assembly that its forty-second session coincides with the eve of the seventieth anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. This is our celebration and we are not imposing it on anyone. The feelings aroused by the birthday of our State are ours.”
1987-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 42 (1987)
“A long and difficult road must be traversed for human thought to become action, but it does happen sooner or later. When, in Washington, we were discussing the techniques of the destruction of nuclear warheads we were suddenly struck by the fact that only a year ago this had seemed something well beyond our grasp. Our American partners can confirm this. It is hard to find words to express this. Let us just say that the past gives a powerful impetus to the present, and the present gives guarantees to the future. "The reality and the guarantees of a secure world" is the title of Mikhail Gorbachev's article published before this session began, and it conveys the gist of our thinking today. A secure world is possible. It Is possible because anything else is too dangerous.”
1987-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 42 (1987)
“And our community is like an arch which holds up precisely because Its stones prevent each other from falling ..." One is amazed by the ability of human thought to establish the supreme ethical law for all times. "We were born to live together", so wrote Seneca to Lucillius many years ago in his Epistles, but it is only today that this idea is being understood as the imperative of our time. Today, Lenin's Decree of Peace is perceived as a message of supreme morality addressed to our time. The repudiation of secret treaties, open and public conduct of International affairs, the immediate withdrawal from the war and the rejection of War as a method of resolving conflicts reflected, even as far back as 1917, a common need, which has now become the will of the entire International community.”
1987-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 42 (1987)
“It convinces us once again that we are on the right track. Listening to the voices of approval and solidarity, which drown the morose and solitary voice of the nuclear profiteers, your Soviet colleague, without sharing the euphoria and yet without curbing the optimism keenly feel that today all of us here are truly United nations - United not merely by formal membership in this Organization but by a common destiny and a shared objective. We thank you for this wonderful feeling. It should be treasured and carried further. Thank you for the atmosphere of unity of thought, co-operation and support which alone could have produced an agreement. In this sense the agreement is yours. And the fact that it belongs to everyone is, as we see it, the best guarantee of its implementation. "We were born to live together.”
1987-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 42 (1987)
“There is a possibility of making headway because we have bold ideas and willingness to remove the remaining obstacles. An affirmative answer to the question of whether it is possible to scrap nuclear arsenals will become a reality if the international community once again helps us. There is no need to compete here for the palm of victory, which does not go well with the olive branch of peace. I could describe how the Soviet Union has worked towards the global double zero, but let others claim the credit if they wish. For that matter, if we have to compete in something it should be only in nuclear disarmament. What is important for us is that what was sought has now been achieved and the outcome is not at variance with the will of the majority. We are moved by the enthusiasm with which the world has welcomed the agreement.”
1987-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 42 (1987)
“The whole question now is whether we shall be able, proceeding from the same logical premise, to abandon the entire nuclear arsenal rather than just a part of it, to scrap all weapons of mass destruction. The Soviet Union is convinced that we shall be able to do so. The launching pad is small but it provides a boost to a great undertaking. The recent agreement may be followed by an accord on the reduction by as much as one half of strategic weapons - provided, of course, that the Treaty limiting anti-ballistic missile system is preserved. Today there is an increasingly realistic prospect of a convention on the prohibition and complete destruction of chemical weapons. We can expect a productive development of the parallel process of reduction of conventional weapons based on the concept of sufficiency.”
1987-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 42 (1987)
“Two thousand warheads are but a small part of nuclear arsenals, but that is a big enough part forbids disappearance to give to the world a new vision. The agreement on these weapons is only a small part of what has happened. Something much more important has taken place; the Soviet Union and the United states have finally spoken together the first word in a nuclear-free vocabulary. When that word becomes deed, the world will also gain new knowledge. It will become convinced that nuclear weapons and security are not synonymous and that security becomes stronger when those weapons disappear. For the present, that principle is being established in a specific case, but it is already being established in practice.”
1987-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 42 (1987)
“The Soviet delegation has instructed me Sir, to congratulate you on your election to the honourable post of President of the forty-second session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. One of the rules of procedure of this Organization reserves a minute for prayer or meditation. Each session of the United Nations General Assembly is an occasion for reflection on the future of the world. Today the world is on the threshold of great changes and our thoughts are about that. For the first time in history, the idea of nuclear disarmament is close to the beginning of fulfilment. It is not a new idea. What is new is that this is proving to be possible. Only yesterday, all we could see ahead of us was a blank wall: today we can see far ahead.”
1987-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 42 (1987)
“Yet it is the Earth that we see before us in the images of our children and grandchildren, our fathers and mothers, our sisters and brothers, all those who are close and dear to us and with whom each of us identifies the concepts of "nation," "country" and "mankind." This is the only acceptable yardstick. And one should not adjust his political telescope as though his sole interest were whether there is, indeed, life on Mars. All of us must answer one question, a question that is equally important to all: whether there will be life on Earth. We would very much like to answer, with confidence: Yes, there will be!”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“The question is, which of them will be put to use? The danger for civilization is ail-too evident. Hence the need for responsible, concerted action to prevent any possible catastrophe. We have made our choice. The Soviet Union - and I quote the words of Mikhail Gorbachev - will "continue to use every opportunity for productive dialog, for progress towards arms limitation and reduction, as well as towards the settlement of regional conflicts and the development of international co-operation in all areas of importance." We think that in our deliberations it is very important that we never lose sight of the real scale of time and of the world. The language of which some politicians are so fond obscures that scale in a fog of nebulous abstract concepts, as if what is involved were not the Earth, but some other, remote, planet.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“Let me say that we are far from regarding our relations with the United States as holding no promise particularly since we have a high regard for the American people. Lately, encouraging outlines of meaningful agreements have been emerging. A summit meeting is also a realistic possibility. We could move forward fairly smoothly, if that is what the United States side wants. We are realists, and we do not draw inspiration from Utopian ideas. At the end of the last century, people envisioned the coming twentieth century as a golden age. But reality has dashed those expectations. Today, on the threshold of the twenty-first century, the objective reality is such that it could become either the golden age of science or the age of nuclear permafrost. The material means for bringing about either outcome already exist.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“Perhaps that question should be heeded. It might be useful to hold a special debate in the United Nations on the numerous accumulated problems of the operation of the Organization. The Organization's universality implies a forward thrust towards rapprochement and towards the elimination of centrifugal forces. In light of the proposed concept of comprehensive security, the East-West, North-South polarities can and must be expunged from the political vocabulary. That is what socialism is calling for. Whatever its antagonists assert, socialism is opposed to confrontation and intransigence in the most important pursuit of mankind: the construction of a durable and guaranteed peace. We have adopted that system of priorities in our relationship with the United States as well. This question has already been addressed here yesterday.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“It slams the door and refuses to fulfill its obligations, as has been the case with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), or tries to assert the principle that whoever has the most money is right. It puts spokes in the wheels of the collective machinery with the notion that by so doing that machinery can be made to function according to its will. The United States has adopted the practice of lecturing, punishing and arbitrarily threatening the Organization as a whole and those of its members it dislikes for some reason. Lately, the States Members of the United Nations have begun to ask with increasing frequency whether the United Nations can function normally in a country whose Government shows such undisguised disrespect for them and for the Organization itself.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“Perez de Cuellar as Secretary-General of the United Nations at a difficult time for the Organization evokes deep respect, and we would like to thank him cordially. The United Nations is on the verge of serious changes. It is impossible to restructure relations among States without taking into account altered realities. The Organization could only gain were the country presiding as Chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement to participate, in one form or another, in the work of the Security Council. Recent events have once again focused attention on an odd phenomenon, the country that once offered the site for United Nations Headquarters today all-too-often shows intense hostility towards the Organization.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“The path of detente is a path towards greater openness in societies, towards a better level of objective information, towards nations' mutual familiarization with each other's life and towards the strengthening of the spirit of mutual understanding and accord in their relations. Whatever the field of international relations we turn to, the role of the United Nations can be seen as indispensable and its responsibility as great, "today, with the emergence of a new consolidation of the forces of progress and peace, the members of the Organization should have as their common concern the enhancement of United Nations authority and prestige and the increased effectiveness of its decisions. The dedicated work of Mr.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“We are strongly in favor of expanded international co-operation in implementing political, social and individual human rights, and we urge everyone to take a fresh, unbiased look at that problem. Specifically, at the Bern meeting the Soviet Union proposed that steps be taken by all States bring their domestic legislation on the whole range of humanitarian problems into conformity with international norms. Unfortunately, another approach emerged at the Bern meeting, one that ignores the consensus among most of the participants in that dialog. Here, the United States of America undermined the adoption of any agreement.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“In the early 1980s the developing world, exploited by imperialism, was pushed into a vicious circle of development via debt, and it now finds itself hung up in the noose of a trillion dollar indebtedness. This, in effect, means that regions with the world's greatest concentration of population, resources and future markets are sliding towards economic catastrophe. That is why we regard economic security as an integral part of a comprehensive system of international security. When it begins to function, it will be possible to set up a fund for assistance to the developing countries and to draw up, under United Nations auspices, a global program of scientific and technological co-operation. In our opinion, a comprehensive system of international security is inconceivable without wide-ranging and open co-operation in the humanitarian field.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“Yet the explosion with which it is fraught would be no less catastrophic than a possible malfunction in the technologies of war. Today, militarism is not only jeopardizing man's physical survival but his socio-economic progress as well. The cost of the arms race is reaching a level comparable to the material damage caused by past world wars. All of this makes disarmament imperative. Against the background of the uncontrollable crisis affecting the world economic structure we see with particular clarity the increasingly prevalent process of purging out resources from the national economies of the developing countries of Latin America, Africa and other regions.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“One should not ignore the nature of that abhorrent phenomenon: outbursts of individual and group terror are sometimes engendered by imperialist violence against entire peoples. An improvement in the overall international situation would do much to help stamp out terrorism. An obstacle to an improved international climate is posed by neo-globalism. It entails diktat and aggression; it tramples upon the independence of nations. The alternative to it is a comprehensive system of security. The arms race and regional conflicts inevitably have an adverse effect on the world economic system. And while politicians, futurologists and experts are trying somehow to model a structure of security in a world with or without weapons, no one can come even close to predicting the economic consequences of the situation as it evolves.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“Here again, the Soviet Union is in favor of seeking new solutions and a fresh approach, unobscured by prejudice, that would help to identify ways of solving the problem with due regard for the legitimate interests of the Afghan people and of its friends and neighbors. A comprehensive system of international security can give us the keys to many of the most intricate locks. We have outlawed, as most other States have, any form of terrorism. At the same time, we are prepared to contribute, and are already contributing, to fighting that plague. No sane person can live with it. Terrorism must be mercilessly eradicated, for innocent people suffer and die because of it. But to combat it effectively we also should see its causes.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“Political wisdom dictates acknowledging the established realities and not seeking to undo them arbitrarily. Describing gangs of mercenaries as "freedom fighters" - which is attempted in the war against Afghanistan - does not help. The time has come to learn to call things by their own names. With regard to Afghanistan, a national democratic revolution has taken place there. Its social base is constantly becoming broader and stronger; it relies on the support and participation of all social strata and ethnic groups in that country without any exception. They have a clear-cut program for a peaceful settlement of crisis phenomena, and all that is needed is not to hamper that positive process.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“The undeclared wars against the legitimate Governments of Afghanistan, Kampuchea, Angola, Mozambique and Ethiopia are paid for in exactly the same way. And quite often the country financing a conflict maintains diplomatic relations or conducts negotiations with the Government concerned, while at the same time seeking to overthrow it by any means. Indeed, it does not mind the cost when blacklisting Governments and countries which, for some reason or other, it finds inconvenient. Thus, the entire range of reprisals, from direct military to economic and ideological, has been used against the Republic of Cuba for more than a quarter of a century. But surely it is high time to understand that such a policy is bankrupt and that it can only be described as insane.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“The world community has just spoken out unequivocally about the situation in southern Africa, and it is up to the Security Council now to adopt binding decisions, embodying in them the will of the absolute majority of the world's nations. Recently, a new and ugly phenomenon of "prepaid" regional conflicts has appeared in international practice. A graphic example is Nicaragua, into which millions of dollars are being channeled to finance the massacre of peasants and the destruction of villages and plantations - only because that small country has dared to choose its own way of development which, in the eyes of the administration of the world's largest and most powerful capitalist nation, appears to pose a threat to its security.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“Since the very beginning of the war between Iraq and Iran, the Soviet Union has been calling for a stop to that senseless mutual extermination. Being sincere friends of both nations, we are making use of the possibilities available to us to convince the parties to the conflict that they should make peace. We shall continue to do so. It is our conviction that were it not for the racist regime of Pretoria the black, white and colored people in South Africa would have long ago found a common language - a language of equality, concord and racial peace. The dividing line is drawn not by ethnic differences but by the cruel policy of apartheid, which is hostile to everyone, irrespective of the color of the skin. To fail to see that is to encourage, wittingly or unwittingly, genocide against the majority of the South African people.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“The tragedy of the people of Cyprus has been going on for so many years now. Here as well there has been no lack of mediation efforts and plans for a settlement. Various options have been tried, but the proposal that the problem of Cyprus be settled at a representative international conference under the auspices of the United Nations has been studiously evaded. Who stands to gain from that? Only those forces which intend to use the island for their military and political plans. Raising the stick of "neo-globalism" over the Mediterranean, they would like to turn the entire region into a hotbed of tension. They sometimes use that stick without giving any thought to the consequences, as was done with barbaric cruelty in Libya.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“Their problems are as old as the United Nations. The Middle East problem is somewhat "younger". There must not be many people present in this Hall who participated in the adoption of the resolution on the division of Palestine. Today, we are once again voicing our view that along with the State of Israel, which owes its existence to, among others, the Soviet Union, an Arab Palestinian State should become part of the world's political map. We believe that the United Nations should again take the matter of a Middle East settlement into its hands. As a practical step in that direction, the Soviet Union proposes that a preparatory committee be set up within the framework of the Security Council to do the necessary work for convening an international conference on the Middle East.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“Those are, first, unconditional respect for sovereignty, independence and the right of nations themselves to choose their way of development; secondly, a respectful attitude towards legitimate Governments; thirdly, respect for the obligations and agreements concluded between States in full conformity with international law. Every regional conflict is a difficult test for the United Nations This is particularly true with regard to those territories where the emblem of the United Nations symbolizes special responsibility. Unfortunately, it is all too often darkened by the shadow of unfulfilled hopes. The time has long since come to put to effective use all the powers of this Organization, to exercise all its rights. This applies above all to the fate of the Namibian people and to the Trust Territory of Micronesia.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“The Soviet Union values good relations with many Asian States and wishes to discuss with them, in particular with the members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), ways of upgrading relations where they are as yet below the desired level. Measures to eliminate regional conflicts would form an organic part of the concept of comprehensive security. Of course, there is not, nor can there be, a uniform model for a political settlement here. Nevertheless, concrete expression must be given to some general principles.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“The constructive proposals of Kampuchea, Laos and Viet Nam open the way for resolving the region's problems on a broad political basis and stabilizing the situation in South-Bast Asia. Untying those and many other knots would undoubtedly contribute to the strengthening of peace and security in the Asian and Pacific region, and we are doing our best to promote this. The positive changes new under way in our country's relations with the People's Republic of China are important not only in terms of bilateral co-operation; they are also conducive to the improvement of the overall situation. New and increasingly rich substance is being added to our traditional friendly relations with the people of India and its Government.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“We are encouraged that this program has proved to be in harmony with the feelings of many States of the region. We are aware of all the sore spots existing in the region. First of all, there is the Korean peninsula. The people of Korea yearn for an aid to the division of their country. There is only one impediment to that, namely the presence of United States troops, which in effect occupy the southern part of the country. The situation around Kampuchea is another source of tension. Here again the fate of the entire people is being sacrificed to the geopolitical interests of certain States. To serve those interests, some are trying; to consign to oblivion the millions of human lives destroyed by the reactionary anti-national clique. This must not be allowed to happen.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“A beginning has already been made in the Stockholm forum, and all of us - not just the Europeans - can congratulate ourselves and each other on this triumph of reason and good will. It has given us something more than just a major agreement. It has demonstrated that when we really want something, we can achieve it. It has confirmed that the Helsinki process is being successfully developed and has taken deep roots in European soil. It is now extremely important that the forthcoming meeting in Vienna should become yet another milestone in Europe's advance towards reliable security and improved co-operation. The Asian and Pacific region should also be allowed to breathe freely. Our ideas in this regard are incorporated in a concrete program of action that was outlined in Mikhail Gorbachev's address in Vladivosfaock.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“A comprehensive system of international security has more than nuclear, space or chemical parameters. Security implies the non-use of any force, including conventional armaments and armed forces. The Soviet Union calls for a significant reduction in the level of military confrontation, above all between politico-military alliances. Radical proposals to that effect, based on the concept of reasonable sufficiency, have been made by the States members of the Warsaw Treaty. I shall say even more. We would certainly not want our troops to be present anywhere beyond our national borders. This question is also open for discussion and can be resolved in an atmosphere of increased trust and with the implementation of measures of military detente.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“Therefore we consider it necessary to warn everybody that if space is to remain peaceful everyone must protect it.In this, the United Nations, the only legitimate trustee of peace in outer space, should make its voice heard. We also call for the help of the United Nations in regard to a matter of extreme importance - the elimination of chemical weapons. Encouraging progress has been achieved at the Geneva Conference. The historic goal of ridding the earth of chemical weapons is new closer to attainment. The only thing that could hinder the attainment of that goal is the position of the United states, which is seeking to develop binary weapons. However, obstacles can be removed if political will is evinced - and this Organization is quite capable of stimulating it.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)
“Here everything is being very carefully calculated, for it is precisely in seven years that they plan to prepare space weapons for deployment. The question is. What for? Would it not be more sensible to work for an agreement on the complete elimination of nuclear missiles, whether strategic, medium-range or any other, as we are proposing? The answer is simple; whatever is done to disguise it, the so-called defensive space shield is being designed to carry out a first strike with impunity. The first strike could become the last one, and not just for the country being attacked. Space weapons, like nuclear arms, do not recognize national boundaries, and they do not choose whom to spare and whom to destroy. And in any circumstances they could threaten, not one country or several countries, but the entire world.”
1986-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 41 (1986)