Mikhail Gorbachev, "Foreign Relations-U.S.S.R.: The Democratization of World Politics," March 16, 1988.
Gorbachev's cultural reforms proved more successful than his economic ones. The "new thinking" advocated by the Soviet leader led to a renaissance of Soviet culture, much of it critical dialogue with the history of the communist experience in the Soviet Union. In his March, 1998 address on the subject of foreign relations, Gorbachev indicated the efforts of the Soviet Union to establish warmer ties not only with its satellites, but also with the rest of Europe and the world in general. The peace initiatives of the Soviet Union loomed foremost in his arguments regarding Soviet good will. He disparaged the pursuit of low intensity conflicts and questioned the efficacy of military solutions to conflict. The democratization of international relations lay at the core of his message of universal rights and reconciliation.
THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF WORLD POLITICS
By MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
Delivered to Yugoslavia's Federal Assembly, Belgrade, Yugoslavia, March 16, 1988
OVER the past decades the world has known periods of tension and temporary relaxation, flare-ups of the cold war and relative thaws in the international climate. But one thing remained unchanged: the level of arms, most notably nuclear ones, kept rising, while that of general security kept declining.
And now, for the first time ever, it has proved possible to start moving in the opposite direction -- not to an arms buildup and not even to a mere arms freeze, but to cuts in nuclear arsenals. Although the treaty signed in Washington is still before the Soviet and American law-makers, humanity has at last got hope.
It takes more than one gulp to quench a thirst, of course. The Washington treaty provides for abolishing just four to five percent of the deadly weapons. But it is no less, and even more, important that this is the first step to a nuclear-free world and, in general, to stopping the arms race. It creates a kind of initial infrastructure for disarmament and is connected with the mastering of various instruments, forms and methods without which this process cannot make further headway. I mean first of all an effective monitoring system to check the nuclear missiles' destruction and a package of confidence-building and verification measures in general.
Officially, the treaty has been signed by two countries, namely the Soviet Union and the United States, but in fact there are all grounds for considering it a collective creation of international reason, the result of an effort involving dozens of states, both those belonging to the two military-political groups and neutral, nonaligned ones.
At every phase in its preparation, starting from its conception we have discussed all related issues constantly and in detail with our Warsaw treaty allies, taken counsel with other socialist nations, including, naturally, Yugoslavia, and con. sulted practically all European, and not only European, countries.
So it can be said safely that the technology of preparing agreements of this kind has in the main been mastered. It only remains to use it effectively, making the necessary adjustments and changes, of course, since along with nuclear ones, other kinds of weapons -- chemical and conventional ones -- will be covered as well.
Are there chances for success already in the near future?
I believe that one can answer this question with guarded optimism: There certainly are such chances, but quite a few serious hurdles are yet to be cleared in order to finally halt the arms race and throw the door to a nuclear-free and nonviolent world wide open for humanity.
A good groundwork has been laid in Washington and it has been agreed to continue vigorous work on an agreement for halving the strategic offensive arms of both sides on condition I that the ABM Treaty will be preserved, as signed in 1972. Already after the meeting in the United States, it proved possible to achieve certain results during U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz' visit to the U.S.S.R. It is of immense signif icance that the strategic nuclear arms reduction talks are taking place amid keen and well-willing attention on the part of the entire world community. I'll tell you this: I have to meet with politicians, including conservatively-minded ones, and not just one of them have often voiced doubts about the need to further the Soviet-American dialogue on disarmament.
It is another matter that heated debates are now in progress on both sides of the Atlantic on the question of exactly what the agreements that are now on the agenda should be like. We consider this to be quite normal. For each country the interests of its security are important and it stands to reason that when discussing these questions political circles and the public at large express differing points of view. In the process clearly exaggerated demands are also being set forth. But in the long run the art of politics, the art of talks, is precisely in bringing the different viewpoints to a common denominator by way of a reasonable compromise, in finding a balance of interests.
It is from these positions that we evaluate the results of the recent meeting of the leaders of NATO countries. The impression is a dual one. At first glance views were expressed in support of continuing efforts to scale down the race in nuclear and other weapons and developing the Helsinki process. But one cannot but be alerted by the fact that formulas of quite a different sort had sounded there much more frequently. Some leaders of the North Atlantic Alliance obviously tried to combine what cannot be combined: approval of the INF Treaty with demands to compensate for it by building up other armaments, in particular on NATO's southern flank; recognition of the need to reduce conventional armaments, to remove imbalances with a stubborn defense of the doctrine of 'nuclear deterrence.'
These obvious contradictions, if not to say absurdities, have quite definite political causes. Those who have ossified perceptions that were dominant before the meeting in Reykjavik and before the Washington accords are frightened by the very thought of parting with nuclear arms which they view as a symbol of power and an instrument of genuinely influencing the course of international events. But since it is awkward to admit this openly they continue to insist on the purported existence of a threat posed by the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Treaty and try to salvage at least something of the 'enemy image' that is now being eroded by the peace initiatives of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries.
All the thoughts and actions of the Soviet Union and our socialist allies are directed at finally pulling out the roots of the cold war embedded in economic relations, politics, diplomacy, culture, the consciousness and mentality of people.
We are working tirelessly for this.
Undoubtedly disarmament, first of all nuclear disarmament, is the main task.
Everybody agrees that the reduction of armed forces and armaments on the scale of the entire continent -- from the Atlantic to the Urals -- is the main avenue of strengthening peace in Europe. Systems of so called dual designation, that is, capable of carrying nuclear warheads, are no exception here. We are for serious, really businesslike, so to say, no-nonsense talks on the entire range of these issues with the participation of all European countries.
Like Yugoslavia the Soviet Union is a consistent champion of developing the Helsinki process. It comes out for greater trust between its participants, for strengthening all-European cooperation and security. In particular, this would be promoted by the implementation of various proposals to create zones of reduced concentration of armaments. There are valuable relevant initiatives of the GDR, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary concerning the center of Europe. In Murmansk we outlined our views on possible steps along the same direction as applied to the Baltic and the north of the continent. And I believe the idea to turn the Balkan peninsula into a nuclear-free zone is one of the oldest such projects.
The first ever meeting of foreign ministers of six Balkan states was held recently here in Belgrade. It showed that despite the existing differences here it is possible to find ground for cooperation in the sphere of politics, economy, ecology and culture. And this is a valuable regional contribution to improving the situation in Europe.
On our side it has been stated more than once, and I would like to reiterate, that the Soviet Union is fully for the development of cooperation on the Balkans. We support the latest initiatives of Bulgaria, Rumania, Yugoslavia and Greece directed at reducing military activity here; we come out for the withdrawal of all foreign troops and military bases from the peninsula; we will give all the necessary guarantees should it be decided to create on the Balkans a zone free of nuclear and chemical weapons.
My country is ready to interact with the Balkan states in environmental protection as well. Belonging here also is the bigger problem of protecting the great vital artery of southern Europe -the Danube. Joint measures along this direction should be linked with vigorous actions against the further pollution of the Black Sea. This is a common interest not only for European but also for a number of Asian states.
Yugoslavia is simultaneously a Balkan and a Mediterranean country. I would like to dwell particularly on the situation in this area.
The Mediterranean is regarded with full right as the cradle of European civilization. It is a crossroads of world routes, a field of the synthesis of cultures, a space populated by many peoples who are making a big and unique contribution to the development of Europe and the entire world community.
But alas there is also another aspect to it. Today the Mediterranean is one of the most explosive regions of the world, a tight knot of contradictory interests filled with huge arsenals which, moreover, continue growing. Also, in no other landlocked expanse of water is there such a concentration of naval forces.
For us the Mediterranean basin is not some remote and distant area. It is close to our southern border and passing through it is the only sea lane linking our southern ports with the world ocean. Naturally, we are interested in seeing lanes of peace and not routes of war passing here.
In this connection I would like to state first of all that we fully support the program of measures to ensure security that was set forth at the Brioni meeting of Mediterranean states who are members of the nonaligned movement. This is a good basis for an extensive and productive dialogue on the region's problems.
Along with the proposals to reduce military potentials in the Mediterranean area, made by the Soviet Union earlier, we would like to submit additional proposals for consideration by the international community.
First Confirming our readiness for the withdrawal of the navies of the U.S.S.R. and the United States from the Mediterranean, we propose not to put this off till the Greek calends and, as the first step, already beginning from July I of this year, to freeze the number of ships and the potential of the naval forces of both countries stationed there; and then to establish ceilings for them.
Second. Even before agreement on joint confidence-building measures in the spirit of the Stockholm accords the Soviet Union and the United States could notify each other and all Mediterranean countries in time about the sending of naval ships and military exercises, and to invite observers to them.
Third. The development by Mediterranean and other interested countries of principles and methods of ensuring the safety of lanes of intensive shipping, especially in international straits, will have our every support.
As we express these considerations we realize that there also exist many other initiatives that merit attention and were set forth in recent years by many states, first of all Mediterranean ones. It would be useful now to put all these proposals together, bring them to a system, determine the rational sequence and order of their implementation. I believe this task could be taken up by a conference of representatives of Mediterranean states and other interested countries. We and not only we alone have expressed this idea in the past and it is acquiring growing relevance.
The Mediterranean sea has an amazing specificity -- it serves as a link of continents and offers broad access to lands beyond Europe. In the south its waters wash the coast of Africa, in the cast -- of Asia, while the west from which the caravels of Columbus sailed out five hundred years ago retains lively ties with Latin America.
And I believe that nowhere else is the common nature of the destiny of peoples, the interdependence and integrity of the contemporary world felt with such intensity as here. There can be no real calm in Europe while violence reigns in Palestine, while the seat of war remains in the Middle East, while the South African racists perpetrate with impunity aggression against Angola, Mozambique and other frontline African states, while the Iran-Iraq war continues.
The so-called local conflicts are sometimes called 'low intensity wars.' But this lulling term is deceptive. For the peoples drawn into the armed clashes their intensity is measured by the price of big losses. Besides, these conflicts have long acquired an international character. The flames raging there can spread to other areas and become a direct or indirect cause of a global conflagration. That is why the settlement of existing conflict situations and, as far as possible, the prevention of new ones is one of the most pressing world problems. A serious and effective role here can and should belong to the United Nations Organization and the Security Council.
The practice of past decades shows the entire balefulness and barrenness of attempts to find military solutions to conflicts. It shows that the search for a political solution is the only correct approach. In other words, the creation of such a situation determined by international law around the seat of conflict which, firstly, would prevent the delivery of combustible material from the outside, secondly, would guarantee the non-spreading of this seat to other countries and regions and, thirdly, would ensure to the people itself and only to it a possibility of a socio-political choice without outside interference.
As a matter of fact exactly such an approach was put in the foundation of the far-reaching proposals to settle the situation around Afghanistan. We are prepared to fulfill the commitments which we undertook on arrangement with the leadership of the Republic of Afghanistan given, of course, that all the other interested sides will consistently observe the agreed-upon terms. If matters develop in that direction this example help advance the settlement of other regional conflicts as we eliminate hotbeds of the danger of war.
Esteemed comrades, slightly more than ten years remain before the end of a century which has changed mankind's life more than all the preceding centuries taken together. It has radically deepened the entire system of our knowledge, imparted speed and scope to social processes and brought about an unprecedented advance of science and technology. Yet at the same time it has created the possibility of mankind's self. annihilation.
But the march of time is increasing its pace. It can be said that we are physically feeling the steps of history. What has the future in store for mankind- Nuclear devastation, a gigantic ecological cataclysm, the turning of humans into robots bereft of criteria of normality and goodness- It would be unforgivable to shrug off these dangers. They are real.
But just as real is the alternative to them. An alternation rejecting war and violence. The road of progress and cooperation making it possible to preserve civilization and save life on earth will illumine still brighter man's creative predestination.
Mankind is duty bound to reach new frontiers of progress. But this can be done only by the concerted efforts of all states united by a spirit of responsibility and mutual understanding, equality and trust.
The democratization of international relations is a condition of embarking on this road. Herein lies an imperative of our time. The nuclear sword can be stopped only by peoples who have united for the sake of saving the world.
First of all democratization requires an unconditional recognition by the international community of the right of each people to shape its destiny, its right to dispose of its own resources. This is a universal, general right. It cannot belong to some 'chosen' peoples, and the more so be measured by the economic or military potential of states. Each country has its own voice in the common choir of the community of nations, each people has its interests that are not subordinated to the interests of other states but are conjugated with them.
Democratization also means the inclusion of all states in the solution of the most important problems of our time. The time has passed when a handful of great powers decided for the whole world, divided it into spheres of influence according to the principle of 'might makes right. Now nobody, be it in London or Washington, Paris or Moscow, can solve any major international issues whatsoever without heeding the multivoiced world, without taking into account the views of other countries, without identifying with one's political radar their aspirations and hopes.
The democratization of world politics and international relations is long and ripe and urgent. The 20th century, which has generated unprecedented social revolutions, the revolutionary restructuring of the old, unjust international system, the scientific and technological revolution, is now giving birth also to a new political consciousness -- the consciousness which WWI absorb the entire preceding experience of mankind, which, and we have faith in this, will draw correct, sensible, humane conclusions for the future. And one of such conclusions is the unbreakable link today of the very existence of humankind with the right of every people to socioeconomic choice, with man's right to life.
It is not by chance that the concluding quarter of our stormy century has bound together, combined in world politics, such key problems as disarmament and development, a just world economic order and a just world information order, the rights of man and the rights of peoples. These problems are seen in such an interconnection by the majority of states that are members of the nonaligned movement and of the United Nations. I stress here with satisfaction the coincidence of the principled approaches also of our two countries -- the U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia.
Last but not least, international relations are increasingly becoming the business not only of professional diplomats, leaders of states but also of the public in general. The isolation of society from world politics, the conduct of world politics in studies and lobbies, the bureaucratic manner of conducting world politics, I would say, were a source of many calamities for which the popular masses had to pay. Such a practice is impermissible today when mankind's very existence is at stake.
Using Lenin's words it can be said that today people should know everything and judge about everything consciously. Their voice is not only a backdrop for the activity of politicians and not just an expression of support or rejection of these or those international actions. Their voice stands also for new impulses, ideas and initiatives.