On
December 7, 1988, Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev addressed
the United Nations General Assembly. After speaking about the recent
changes in the Soviet Union, Gorbachev amazed the global community when
he announced drastic cuts in the Soviet military presence in Eastern
Europe and along the Chinese border -- a move that ultimately allowed
Soviet satellites to choose their own paths.
"
Two great revolutions, the French revolution of 1789 and the Russian
revolution of 1917, have exerted a powerful influence on the actual
nature of the historical process and radically changed the course of
world events. Both of them, each in its own way, have given a gigantic
impetus to man's progress. They are also the ones that have formed in
many respects the way of thinking which is still prevailing in the public
consciousness.
That is
a very great spiritual wealth, but there emerges before us today a different
world, for which it is necessary to seek different roads toward the
future, to seek -- relying, of course, on accumulated experience --
but also seeing the radical differences between that which was yesterday
and that which is taking place today.
The newness
of the tasks, and at the same time their difficulty, are not limited
to this. Today we have entered an era when progress will be based on
the interests of all mankind. Consciousness of this requires that world
policy, too, should be determined by the priority of the values of all
mankind.
The history
of the past centuries and millennia has been a history of almost ubiquitous
wars, and sometimes desperate battles, leading to mutual destruction.
They occurred in the clash of social and political interests and national
hostility, be it from ideological or religious incompatibility. All
that was the case, and even now many still claim that this past -- which
has not been overcome -- is an immutable pattern. However, parallel
with the process of wars, hostility, and alienation of peoples and countries,
another process, just as objectively conditioned, was in motion and
gaining force: The process of the emergence of a mutually connected
and integral world.
Further
world progress is now possible only through the search for a consensus
of all mankind, in movement toward a new world order. We have arrived
at a frontier at which controlled spontaneity leads to a dead end. The
world community must learn to shape and direct the process in such a
way as to preserve civilization, to make it safe for all and more pleasant
for normal life. It is a question of cooperation that could be more
accurately called "co-creation" and "co-development."
The formula of development "at another's expense" is becoming
outdated. In light of present realities, genuine progress by infringing
upon the rights and liberties of man and peoples, or at the expense
of nature, is impossible.
The very
tackling of global problems requires a new "volume" and "quality"
of cooperation by states and sociopolitical currents regardless of ideological
and other differences.
Of course,
radical and revolutionary changes are taking place and will continue
to take place within individual countries and social structures. This
has been and will continue to be the case, but our times are making
corrections here, too. Internal transformational processes cannot achieve
their national objectives merely by taking "course parallel"
with others without using the achievements of the surrounding world
and the possibilities of equitable cooperation. In these conditions,
interference in those internal processes with the aim of altering them
according to someone else's prescription would be all the more destructive
for the emergence of a peaceful order. In the past, differences often
served as a factor in puling away from one another. Now they are being
given the opportunity to be a factor in mutual enrichment and attraction.
Behind differences in social structure, in the way of life, and in the
preference for certain values, stand interests. There is no getting
away from that, but neither is there any getting away from the need
to find a balance of interests within an international framework, which
has become a condition for survival and progress. As you ponder all
this, you come to the conclusion that if we wish to take account of
the lessons of the past and the realities of the present, if we must
reckon with the objective logic of world development, it is necessary
to seek -- and the seek jointly -- an approach toward improving the
international situation and building a new world. If that is so, then
it is also worth agreeing on the fundamental and truly universal prerequisites
and principles for such activities. It is evident, for example, that
force and the threat of force can no longer be, and should not be instruments
of foreign policy. [...]
The compelling
necessity of the principle of freedom of choice is also clear to us.
The failure to recognize this, to recognize it, is fraught with very
dire consequences, consequences for world peace. Denying that right
to the peoples, no matter what the pretext, no matter what the words
are used to conceal it, means infringing upon even the unstable balance
that is, has been possible to achieve.
Freedom
of choice is a universal principle to which there should be no exceptions.
We have not come to the conclusion of the immutability of this principle
simply through good motives. We have been led to it through impartial
analysis of the objective processes of our time. The increasing varieties
of social development in different countries are becoming in ever more
perceptible feature of these processes. This relates to both the capitalist
and socialist systems. The variety of sociopolitical structures which
has grown over the last decades from national liberation movements also
demonstrates this. This objective fact presupposes respect for other
people's vies and stands, tolerance, a preparedness to see phenomena
that are different as not necessarily bad or hostile, and an ability
to learn to live side by side while remaining different and not agreeing
with one another on every issue.
The de-ideologization
of interstate relations has become a demand of the new stage. We are
not giving up our convictions, philosophy, or traditions. Neither are
we calling on anyone else to give up theirs. Yet we are not going to
shut ourselves up within the range of our values. That would lead to
spiritual impoverishment, for it would mean renouncing so powerful a
source of development as sharing all the original things created independently
by each nation. In the course of such sharing, each should prove the
advantages of his own system, his own way of life and values, but not
through words or propaganda alone, but through real deeds as well. That
is, indeed, an honest struggle of ideology, but it must not be carried
over into mutual relations between states. Otherwise we simply will
not be able to solve a single world problem; arrange broad, mutually
advantageous and equitable cooperation between peoples; manage rationally
the achievements of the scientific and technical revolution; transform
world economic relations; protect the environment; overcome underdevelopment;
or put an end to hunger, disease, illiteracy, and other mass ills. Finally,
in that case, we will not manage to eliminate the nuclear threat and
militarism.
Such are
our reflections on the natural order of things in the world on the threshold
of the 21st century. We are, of course, far from claiming to have infallible
truth, but having subjected the previous realities -- realities that
have arisen again -- to strict analysis, we have come to the conclusion
that it is by precisely such approaches that we must search jointly
for a way to achieve the supremacy of the common human idea over the
countless multiplicity of centrifugal forces, to preserve the vitality
of a civilization that is possible that only one in the universe. [...]
Our country
is undergoing a truly revolutionary upsurge. The process of restructuring
is gaining pace; We started by elaborating the theoretical concepts
of restructuring; we had to assess the nature and scope of the problems,
to interpret the lessons of the past, and to express this in the form
of political conclusions and programs. This was done. The theoretical
work, the re-interpretation of what had happened, the final elaboration,
enrichment, and correction of political stances have not ended. They
continue. However, it was fundamentally important to start from an overall
concept, which is already now being confirmed by the experience of past
years, which has turned out to be generally correct and to which there
is no alternative.
In order
to involve society in implementing the plans for restructuring it had
to be made more truly democratic. Under the badge of democratization,
restructuring has now encompassed politics, the economy, spiritual life,
and ideology. We have unfolded a radical economic reform, we have accumulated
experience, and from the new year we are transferring the entire national
economy to new forms and work methods. Moreover, this means a profound
reorganization of production relations and the realization of the immense
potential of socialist property.
In moving
toward such bold revolutionary transformations, we understood that there
would be errors, that there would be resistance, that the novelty would
bring new problems. We foresaw the possibility of breaking in individual
sections. However, the profound democratic reform of the entire system
of power and government is the guarantee that the overall process of
restructuring will move steadily forward and gather strength.
We completed
the first stage of the process of political reform with the recent decisions
by the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet on amendments to the Constitution and
the adoption of the Law on Elections. Without stopping, we embarked
upon the second stage of this. At which the most important task will
be working on the interaction between the central government and the
republics, settling relations between nationalities on the principles
of Leninist internationalism bequeathed to us by the great revolution
and, at the same time, reorganizing the power of the Soviets locally.
We are faced with immense work. At the same time we must resolve major
problems.
We are
more than fully confident. We have both the theory, the policy and the
vanguard force of restructuring a party which is also restructuring
itself in accordance with the new tasks and the radical changes throughout
society. And the most important thing: all peoples and all generations
of citizens in our great country are in favor of restructuring.
We have
gone substantially and deeply into the business of constructing a socialist
state based on the rule of law. A whole series of new laws has been
prepared or is at a completion stage. Many of them come into force as
early as 1989, and we trust that they will correspond to the highest
standards from the point of view of ensuring the rights of the individual.
Soviet democracy is to acquire a firm, normative base. This means such
acts as the Law on Freedom of Conscience, on glasnost, on public associations
and organizations, and on much else. There are now no people in places
of imprisonment in the country who have been sentenced for their political
or religious convictions. It is proposed to include in the drafts of
the new laws additional guarantees ruling out any form or persecution
on these bases. Of course, this does not apply to those who have committed
real criminal or state offenses: espionage, sabotage, terrorism, and
so on, whatever political or philosophical views they may hold.
The draft
amendments to the criminal code are ready and waiting their turn. In
particular, those articles relating to the use of the supreme measure
of punishment are being reviewed. The problem of exit and entry is also
being resolved in a humane spirit, including the case of leaving the
country in order to be reunited with relatives. As you know, one of
the reasons for refusal of visas is citizens' possession of secrets.
Strictly substantiated terms for the length of time for possessing secrets
are being introduced in advance. On starting work at a relevant institution
or enterprise, everyone will be made aware of this regulation. Disputes
that arise can be appealed under the law. Thus the problem of the so-called
"refuseniks" is being removed.
We intend
to expand the Soviet Union's participation in the monitoring mechanism
on human rights in the United Nations and within the framework of the
pan-European process. We consider that the jurisdiction of the International
Court in The Hague with respect to interpreting and applying agreements
in the field of human rights should be obligatory for all states.
Within
the Helsinki process, we are also examining an end to jamming of all
the foreign radio broadcasts to the Soviet Union. On the whole, our
credo is as follows: Political problems should be solved only by political
means, and human problems only in a humane way. [...]
Now about
the most important topic, without which no problem of the coming century
can be resolved: disarmament. [...]
Today I
can inform you of the following: The Soviet Union has made a decision
on reducing its armed forces. In the next two years, their numerical
strength will be reduced by 500,000 persons, and the volume of conventional
arms will also be cut considerably. These reductions will be made on
a unilateral basis, unconnected with negotiations on the mandate for
the Vienna meeting. By agreement with our allies in the Warsaw Pact,
we have made the decision to withdraw six tank divisions from the GDR,
Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, and to disband them by 1991. Assault landing
formations and units, and a number of others, including assault river-crossing
forces, with their armaments and combat equipment, will also be withdrawn
from the groups of Soviet forces situated in those countries. The Soviet
forces situated in those countries will be cut by 50,000 persons, and
their arms by 5,000 tanks. All remaining Soviet divisions on the territory
of our allies will be reorganized. They will be given a different structure
from today's which will become unambiguously defensive, after the removal
of a large number of their tanks. [...]
By this
act, just as by all our actions aimed at the demilitarization of international
relations, we would also like to draw the attention of the world community
to another topical problem, the problem of changing over from an economy
of armament to an economy of disarmament. Is the conversion of military
production realistic? I have already had occasion to speak about this.
We believe that it is, indeed, realistic. For its part, the Soviet Union
is ready to do the following. Within the framework of the economic reform
we are ready to draw up and submit our internal plan for conversion,
to prepare in the course of 1989, as an experiment, the plans for the
conversion of two or three defense enterprises, to publish our experience
of job relocation of specialists from the military industry, and also
of using its equipment, buildings, and works in civilian industry, It
is desirable that all states, primarily the major military powers, submit
their national plans on this issue to the United Nations.
It would
be useful to form a group of scientists, entrusting it with a comprehensive
analysis of problems of conversion as a whole and as applied to individual
countries and regions, to be reported to the U.N. secretary-general,
and later to examine this matter at a General Assembly session.
Finally,
being on U.S. soil, but also for other, understandable reasons, I cannot
but turn to the subject of our relations with this great country. ...
Relations between the Soviet Union and the United States of America
span 5 1/2 decades. The world has changed, and so have the nature, role,
and place of these relations in world politics. For too long they were
built under the banner of confrontation, and sometimes of hostility,
either open or concealed. But in the last few years, throughout the
world people were able to heave a sigh of relief, thanks to the changes
for the better in the substance and atmosphere of the relations between
Moscow and Washington.
No one
intends to underestimate the serious nature of the disagreements, and
the difficulties of the problems which have not been settled. However,
we have already graduated from the primary school of instruction in
mutual understanding and in searching for solutions in our and in the
common interests. The U.S.S.R. and the United States created the biggest
nuclear missile arsenals, but after objectively recognizing their responsibility,
they were able to be the first to conclude an agreement on the reduction
and physical destruction of a proportion of these weapons, which threatened
both themselves and everyone else.
Both sides
possess the biggest and the most refined military secrets. But it is
they who have laid the basis for and are developing a system of mutual
verification with regard to both the destruction and the limiting and
banning of armaments production. It is they who are amassing experience
for future bilateral and multilateral agreements. We value this.
We acknowledge
and value the contribution of President Ronald Reagan and the members
of his administration, above all Mr. George Shultz. All this is capital
that has been invested in a joint undertaking of historic importance.
It must not be wasted or left out of circulation. The future U.S. administration
headed by newly elected President George Bush will find in us a partner,
ready -- without long pauses and backward movements -- to continue the
dialogue in a spirit of realism, openness, and goodwill, and with a
striving for concrete results, over an agenda encompassing the key issues
of Soviet-U.S. relations and international politics.
We are
talking first and foremost about consistent progress toward concluding
a treaty on a 50 percent reduction in strategic offensive weapons, while
retaining the ABM Treaty; about elaborating a convention on the elimination
of chemical weapons -- here, it seems to us, we have the preconditions
for making 1989 the decisive year; and about talks on reducing conventional
weapons and armed forces in Europe. We are also talking about economic,
ecological and humanitarian problems in the widest possible sense. [...]
We are
not inclined to oversimplify the situation in the world. Yes, the tendency
toward disarmament has received a strong impetus, and this process is
gaining its own momentum, but it has not become irreversible. Yes, the
striving to give up confrontation in favor of dialogue and cooperation
has made itself strongly felt, but it has by no means secured its position
forever in the practice of international relations. Yes, the movement
toward a nuclear-free and nonviolent world is capable of fundamentally
transforming the political and spiritual face of the planet, but only
the very first steps have been taken. Moreover, in certain influential
circles, they have been greeted with mistrust, and they are meeting
resistance.
The inheritance
of inertia of the past are continuing to operate. Profound contradictions
and the roots of many conflicts have not disappeared. The fundamental
fact remains that the formation of the peaceful period will take place
in conditions of the existence and rivalry of various socioeconomic
and political systems. However, the meaning of our international efforts,
and one of the key tenets of the new thinking, is precisely to impart
to this rivalry the quality of sensible competition in conditions of
respect for freedom of choice and a balance of interests. In this case
it will even become useful and productive from the viewpoint of general
world development; otherwise; if the main component remains the arms
race, as it has been till now, rivalry will be fatal. Indeed, an ever
greater number of people throughout the world, from the man in the street
to leaders, are beginning to understand this.
Esteemed
Mr. Chairman, esteemed delegates: I finish my first speech at the United
Nations with the same feeling with which I began it: a feeling of responsibility
to my own people and to the world community. We have met at the end
of a year that has been so significant for the United Nations, and on
the threshold of a year from which all of us expect so much. One would
like to believe that our joint efforts to put an end to the era of wars,
confrontation and regional conflicts, aggression against nature, the
terror of hunger and poverty, as well as political terrorism, will be
comparable with our hopes. This is our common goal, and it is only by
acting together that we may attain it. Thank you."