On Peaceful Coexistence

On Peaceful Coexistence

(This article was written by Comrade N. S. Khrushchov at the request of the editors of the American journal, Foreign Affairs and was published in that journal)

I have been told that the question of peaceful coexiste nce of states with different social systems is uppermost today in the minds of many Americans—and not only Americans. The question of coexistence, particularly in our day, interests literally every man and woman. We all know well that tremendous changes have taken place in the world.

Gone, indeed, are the days when it took weeks to cross the ocean from one continent to the other or when a trip from Europe to America, or from Asia to Africa, was an extremely complicated undertaking. By the scale of mode rn technology our planet is not very big; in this sense, it has even become somewhat congested. And if in our daily life it is a matter of considerable importance to est ablish normal relations with our neighbours in a densely inhabited settlement, this is so much the more necessary in the relations between states, especially states belonging to different social systems.

You may like your neighbour or dislike him. You are not obliged to be friends with him or visit him. But you live side by side, and what can you do if neither you nor he has any desire to quit the old home and move to anothe r town? All the more so in relations between states. It would be unreasonable to assume that you can make it so hot for your undesirable neighbour that he will decide to move to Mars or Venus. And vice versa, of course.

What else can be done? There may be two ways out: either war -and war in the age of rocketry and H-bombs is fraught with the most dire consequences for all nations- or peaceful coexistence. Whether you like your neighb our or not, nothing can be done about it, you have to find some way of getting on with him, for we live on one planet.

But the very concept of peaceful coexistence, it is said, frightens certain people who have lost the habit of trusti ng their neighbours and who see a double bottom in every suitcase, by its alleged complexity. On hearing the word “coexistence,” people of this kind begin to juggle about with it one way and another, sizing it up and applying various yardsticks to it—could it be a fraud? or a trap? Does coexistence, perhaps, signify a division of the world into areas separated by high fences, which do not comm unicate with each other at all? And what is going to happen behind those fences?

The more such questions are piled up artificially by the “cold war” warriors, the more difficult it is for the ordin ary man to make head or tail of them. It would therefore be timely to divest the essence of this question of all superfluous elements and to attempt to look soberly at the most pressing problem of our day—the problem of peaceful coexistence.

One need not delve deeply into history to appreciate how important it is for mankind to ensure peaceful coexiste nce. And let it be said in passing that the Europeans might have benefited a great deal in their day if, instead of organizing senseless crusades which invariably ended in failure, they had established peaceful relations with the differently-minded peoples of the Moslem East.

Let us turn to the facts of the relatively recent past when the watershed between states was no longer Constit uted of distinctions in religious creeds and customs, but of much deeper differences of principle in the choice of social systems. This new situation arose on the threshold of the 1920s when, to the booming of the guns of the Russ ian cruiser Aurora which had joined the insurrectionist workers and peasants, a new and unprecedented social system, a state of workers and peasants, came into the world.

Its appearance was met with the disgruntled outcries of those who naïvely believed the capitalist system to be eternal and immutable. Some even tried to strangle the unwanted infant in the cradle. Everybody knows how this ended—our people voted with arms in hand for Soviet power, and it came to stay. And even then, in 1920, replyi ng to a question of the correspondent of the New York Evening Journal as to what basis there could be for peace between Soviet Russia and America, V. I. Lenin said: “Let the American imperialists not touch us. We won’t touch them.” 

From its very inception the Soviet state proclaimed peaceful coexistence as the basic principle of its foreign policy. The fact that the very first political act of the Soviet state was the decree on peace, the decree on stopp ing the bloody war, is not to be considered an accident.

What is the policy of peaceful coexistence?
In its simplest expression it signifies the repudiation of war as a means of solving controversial issues. Howe ver, this does not by any means exhaust the concept of peaceful coexistence. Apart from commitment to nona ggression, it also presupposes an obligation on the part of all states to desist from violating each other’s territor ial integrity and sovereignty in any form and under any pretext whatsoever. The principle of peaceful coexistence signifies a renunciation of interference in the internal aff airs of other countries with the object of altering their political system or mode of life, or for any other motives. The doctrine of peaceful coexistence also presupposes that political and economic relations between countries are to be based upon complete equality of the parties conc erned, and upon mutual benefit.

It is quite often said in the West that peaceful coexiste nce is nothing but a tactical move of the socialist states. There is not a grain of truth in such allegations.

Our desire for peace and peaceful coexistence is not prompted by any time-serving or tactical considerations. It springs from the very nature of socialist society in which there are no classes or social groups interested in profiting by means of war or by seizing and enslaving fore ign territories. The Soviet Union and the other socialist countries, thanks to their socialist system, have an unlimi ted home market and, for this reason, they have no need to pursue an expansionist policy of conquest and subord ination of other countries to their influence.

It is the people who determine the destiny of the soc ialist countries. The socialist countries are ruled by the working people themselves—the workers and the peasa nts, the people who themselves create all the material and spiritual values of society. And working people cann ot want war. For to them war spells grief and tears, death, devastation and misery. Ordinary people have no need for war.

Contrary to what certain propagandists hostile to us say, the coexistence of states with different social systems does not mean that they will only fence themselves off from one another by a high wall and undertake the mutual obligation not to throw stones over the wall and not to pour dirt upon each other. No, peaceful coexistence does not merely mean cohabiting side by side in the absence of war but with the constantly remaining threat of its breaking out in the future. Peaceful coexistence can and should develop into peaceful competition in the best poss ible satisfaction of all man’s needs.

We say to the leaders of the capitalist states: Let us try out in practice whose system is better, let us comp ete without war. That is much better than competing in who produces more arms and who smashes whom. We stand, and always will stand, for such competition as will help to raise the well-being of the peoples to a higher level.

The principle of peaceful competition does not at all demand that a country abandon its accepted system and ideology. It goes without saying that the acceptance of this principle cannot lead to the immediate end of disputes and contradictions, which are inevitable between count ries adhering to different social systems. But the main thing is ensured: the states which have decided to take the path of peaceful coexistence repudiate the use of force in any form and agree on the peaceful adjustment of possible disputes and conflicts with due regard for the mutual interests of the parties concerned. And in our age of H-bomb and atomic techniques this is the main thing of interest to every man.

Sceptical about the idea of peaceful competition, U.S. Vice-President R. Nixon, in his speech over the Soviet radio and television in August 1959, attempted to find a contradiction between the Soviet people’s professions of their readiness to coexist peacefully with the capitalist states and the slogans posted in the shops of our fact ories calling for higher labour productivity in order to ens ure the speediest victory of communism.

This is not the first time we have heard representatives of the bourgeois countries reason in this manner. They say: The Soviet leaders maintain that they are for peacef ul coexistence. At the same time they declare that they are fighting for communism, and go so far as to say that communism will be victorious in all countries. How can there be peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union if it fights for communism?

People who treat the question in this way mix things up, wilfully or not, by confusing the problems of ideologi cal struggle with the question of relations between states. Those indulging in this sort of confusion are most proba bly guided by a desire to cast aspersions upon the Communists of the Soviet Union and to represent them as the advocates of aggressive actions. This, however, is very unwise.

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union at its 20th Congress made it perfectly clear and obvious that the allegations that the Soviet Union intends to overthrow capi talism in other countries by “exporting” revolution arc absolutely groundless. I cannot refrain from reminding you of my words at the 20th Congress. They ran as foll ows: “It goes without saying that among us Communists there are no adherents of capitalism. But this does not mean at all that we have interfered or plan to interfere in the internal affairs of those countries where capitalism exists. Romain Rolland was right when he said that ‘freed om is not brought in from abroad in baggage trains like the Bourbons.’ It is ridiculous to think that revolutions are made to order.”

We Communists believe that the idea of communism will ultimately triumph throughout the world, just as it has triumphed in our country, in China, and in many other states. Many readers of Foreign Affairs will probably disa gree with us. Perhaps they think that it is the idea of capitalism that will ultimately triumph. It is their right to think so. We may argue, we may disagree with one another. The main thing is to keep to the sphere of ideologi cal struggle, without resorting to arms in order to prove that one is right. The point is that with military techn iques what they are today, there are now no spots in the world that are out of reach. Should a world war break out, no country will be able to shut itself off in any way from a crushing blow.

We believe that ultimately that system will be victoriO us on the globe which will offer the nations greater opportunities for improving their material and spiritual life. It is socialism that creates unprecedentedly great prosp ects for the inexhaustible creative enthusiasm of the masses, for a genuine flourishing of science and culture, for the realization of man’s longing for a happy life, a life without destitute and unemployed people, for happy childh ood and tranquil old age, for the realization of the most audacious and ambitious human projects, for man’s right to create in a truly free manner in the interests of the people.

But when we say that in the competition between the two systems, the capitalist and the socialist, our system will win, this does not signify by any means, of course, that we shall achieve victory by interfering in the internal affairs of the capitalist countries.

Our confidence in the victory of communism is of a diff erent kind. It is based on a knowledge of the laws governi ng the development of society. Just as in its time capit alism, as the more progressive system, took the place of feudalism, so will capitalism be inevitably replaced by communism—the more progressive and more just social system. We are confident of the victory of the socialist system because it is more progressive than the capitalist system. Soviet power has been in existence for only a little more than 40 years, and during these years we have gone through two of the worst wars, repulsing the attacks of enemies who attempted to strangle us. In the United States capitalism has been in existence for more than a century and a half, and, moreover, the history of the United States has developed in such a way that its enem ies have never once landed on American territory.

Yet the dynamics of the development of the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. are such that the 42-year-old Land of the Soviets is already able to challenge the 150-year-old capi talist state to economic competition; furthermore, the most far-sighted American leaders are admitting that the Soviet Union is fast catching up with the United States and will ultimately outstrip it. Watching the progress of this competition, anyone can judge which is the better system, and we believe that in the long run all the peoples will embark on the path of struggle for the building of soc ialist society.

You disagree with us? Prove in practice that your system is superior and more efficacious, that it is capable of ens uring a higher degree of prosperity for the people than the socialist system, that under capitalism man can be happier than under socialism. It is impossible to prove this. I have no other explanation for the fact that talk of violently “rolling back” communism never ceases in the West. Not long ago the U.S. Senate and House of Repres entatives saw fit to pass a resolution calling for the “libe ration” of the socialist countries allegedly enslaved by communism and, moreover, of a number of Union Republ ics constituting part of the Soviet Union. The authors of the resolution call for the “liberation” of the Ukraine, Byel orussia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and even some “Ural Area.”

I would not be telling the full truth if I did not say that the adoption of this ill-starred resolution was regarded by the Soviet people as an act of provocation. Personally, I agree with this appraisal.

It would be interesting to see, incidentally, how the authors of this resolution would react if the parliament of Mexico, for instance, were to pass a resolution demandi ng that Texas, Arizona and California be “liberated from American slavery”? Apparently they have never pondered such a question, which is very regrettable. Sometimes comparisons help to understand the essence of a matter.

Travelling through the Soviet Union, prominent Americ an statesmen and public leaders have had every opport unity to convince themselves that there is no hope of sowing strife between Soviet people and the Communist Party and the Soviet Government, and of influencing them to rebel against communism. But how, then, are we to explain the unceasing attempts to revive the policy of “rolling back” communism? What do they have in mind? Armed intervention in the internal affairs of the socialist countries? But in the West as well as in the East people are fully aware that under the conditions of modern milit ary techniques such actions are fraught with immediate and relentless retaliation.

So we come back to what we started with. In our day there are only two ways—peaceful coexistence or the most destructive war in history. There is no third way.

The problem of peaceful coexistence between states with different social systems has become particularly pressing in view of the fact that after the Second World War the development of relations between states has entered a new phase. Now we have approached a period in the life of mankind when there is a real chance of exc luding war once and for all from the life of society.
How can this be done?

The new alignment of international forces which has developed since the Second World War offers ground for the assertion that a new world war is no longer fatally inevitable, that it can be averted.

First, today not only all the socialist states, but many countries in Asia and Africa which have embarked upon the road of independent national statehood, and many other states outside the aggressive military groupings, are actively fighting for peace.

Secondly, the peace policy enjoys the powerful support of the broad masses of people all over the world.

Thirdly, the peaceful socialist states are in possession of very potent material means, which cannot but have a deterring effect upon the aggressors.

Prior to the Second World War, the U.S.S.R. was the only socialist country, with only about 17 per cent of the area, about 9 per cent of the population, and about 10 per cent of the output of the world. At present, the socialist countries cover about one-fourth of the area of the globe inhabited by one-third of the world population, and their industrial output accounts for about one-third of the world output.

This is precisely the explanation of the indisputable fact that throughout the recent years, seats of war arising now in one and now in another part of the globe—in the Near East and in Europe, in the Far East and in Southeast Asia —were nipped in the bud.

And what lies ahead?
As a result of the fulfilment and overfulfilment of the Seven-Year Plan of Economic Development of the U.S.S.R., and of the plans of the other socialist countries of Europe and Asia, the countries of the socialist system will account for somewhat more than half of the world output. Their economic power will grow immeasurably, and this will serve to an even greater extent to consolidate world peace:

the material might and moral influence of the peace- loving states will be so great that any bellicose militarist will have to think ten times before risking war. It is the good fortune of mankind that there has emerged a comm unity of socialist states which are not interested in new wars, because to build socialism and communism the soc ialist countries need peace. Today the community of soc ialist countries which has sprung up on the basis of complete equality holds such a position in the developm ent of all branches of economy, science and culture as to be able to exert an influence towards preventing the outbreak of new world wars.

Hence, we are already in a practical sense near to that stage in the life of humanity when nothing will prevent peop le from devoting themselves wholly to peaceful labour. when war will be wholly excluded from the life of society.

But if we say that there is no fatal inevitability of war at present. this by no means signifies that we can rest on our laurels, fold our arms and bask in the sun in the hope that an end has been put to wars once and for all. Those in the West who believe that war is to their benefit have not yet abandoned their schemes. They control conside rable material forces, military and political levers, and there is no guarantee that some tragic day they will not attempt to set theni in motion. All the more necessary is it to continue an active struggle in order that the policy of peaceful coexistence may triumph throughout the world not in words but in deeds.

Of much importance, of course, is the fact that this policy has in our day won not only the widest moral app roval but also international legal recognition. The count ries of the socialist camp in their relations with the capi talist states are guided precisely by this policy. The princ iples of peaceful coexistence are reflected in the decis ions of the Bandung Conference of Asian and African countries. Furthermore, many countries of Europe, Asia and Africa have solemnly proclaimed this principle as the basis of their foreign policy. Lastly, the idea of peaceful coexistence was unanimously supported in the decisions of the twelfth and thirteenth sessions of the United Nations General Assembly.

In our view, peaceful coexistence can become lasting only if the good declarations in favour of peace are supp orted by active measures on the part of the governments and peoples of all countries. As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, it has already done a good deal in this res pect, and I am able to share some experiences with you.

As far back as March 12, 1951, the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. adopted a “Law on the Defence of Peace,” stating:
“(1) Propaganda of war, in whatever form it may be conducted, undermines the cause of peace, creates the menace of a new war and therefore constitutes a grave crime against humanity.
“(2) Persons guilty of the propaganda of war shall he brought to court and tried as heinous criminals.”

Further, the Soviet Union has in -ecent years unilatera lly reduced its Armed Forces by more than 2,000,000 men. The funds released as a result have been used to develop the economy and further improve the living and cultural standards of the Soviet people.

The Soviet Union has shut down its bases on the territ ories of other states.
The Soviet Union unilaterally discontinued tests of atomic weapons and refrained from conducting them until it became utterly clear that the Western Powers ref used to follow our example and were continuing the exp losions.

The Soviet Union has repeatedly submitted detailed and perfectly realistic proposals for disarmament, meeti ng the positions of the Western Powers halfway. But to solve the disarmament problem it is necessary for our Western partners to agree and to show a desire to meet us halfway too. This is just what was lacking.

When it became clear that it was very difficult under these conditions to solve the complex disarmament probl em immediately, we proposed another concrete idea to our partners: Let us concentrate our attention on those problems which lend themselves most easily to a solution; let us undertake initial, partial steps on which the views of the parties concerned have been brought closer together.

It is perfectly clear that today the discofltiflUdtlofl of atomic and hydrogen weapons tests is foremost among these questions. Some progress has been achieved in this matter, and this justifies the hope that an agreement on the discontinuation of nuclear weapons tests will shortly be reached. Implementation of this measure will, of course, be an important step towards solving the disariuiament problem and the banning of nuclear weapons in general.

Attributing much importance to contacts and intercourse between statesmen of all countries, the Soviet Government a few years ago proposed that an East-West Heads of Government Conference be convened in order to come to terms—taking into account present-day realities and guided by the spirit of mutual understanding—on concrete measures, the realization of which would help to relax international tension.

We proposed that this conference consider those intern ational questions for the settlement of which realistic prerequisites already existed. As a first step toward such a settlement, we proposed to the Powers concerned that a peace treaty be concluded with Germany and that West Berlin be granted the status of a demilitarized free city. I want to emphasize particularly that we were guided prim arily by the desire to write finis to the survivals of the Second World War.

We regard the elimination of the survivals of the Seco nd World War and the conclusion of a peace treaty with the two German states—the German Democratic Republic and the German Federal Republic—as the question of questions.

Indeed, 14 years have already passed since the war ende d, but the German people are still without a peace treaty. The delay of a peace settlement with Germany has afforde d wide scope for the activities of the West-German militarists and revanchists. They have already proclaimed their aggressive plans; for instance, they are laying claim to lands in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Of course, the German revanchists are thinking not only of a march to the East; they also know the way to the West. In the Second World War, history tells us, the Hitlerites occupied Western Europe before turning against the Soviet Union.

But will the direction in which the present-day German revenge-seekers choose to strike first make things any easier for the European peoples in the event of a general war breaking out in Europe? The lessons of history must not be ignored. That often ends in tragedy.

Some say: the Soviet people are unduly sensitive. Can one assume that West Germany is now in a position to precipitate another world war?

Those who put the question thus forget that West Germ any is at present acting in the world arena within the military North-Atlantic bloc and not alone. She plays a leading role in this bloc. More than that, life has shown that the North-Atlantic Alliance is being gradually conv erted into an instrument of the German militarists, which makes it easier for them to carry out aggressive plans. It is not at all out of the question, therefore, that West Germ any, taking advantage of her position in the North- Atlantic Alliance, may provoke hostilities in order to draw her allies into them and plunge the whole world into the chasm of a devastating war.

All this indicates how timely and realistic are the prop osals of the Soviet Government for the conclusion of a peace treaty with Germany and for bringing the situation in West Berlin back to normal.

And yet, some of the Western opponents of the Soviet proposals say that if the Soviet Union really stands for peaceful coexistence it should even be asked to commit itself to the preservation of the existing status quo. Others argue that if the Western Powers agree to conclude a peace treaty with the two German states that would amount to a retreat on their part, and the Soviet Union should make some compensation for this “retreat.”

There are no grounds whatever for these assertions, in our opinion. It is a matter of doing away with the surviva ls of the Second World War and ot concluding a peace treaty. And any possibility of someone gaining and someo ne losing, of someone acquiring and of someone making concessions, is out of the question here. All the parties concerned acquire a stronger foundation in the shape of a peace treaty for the maintenance of peace in Europe and throughout the world. Does this not accord with the intere sts of all the peoples?

At times, and of late epecially, some Western spokesm en have gone so far as to allege that doing away with the survivals of the Second World War is a step which would intensify rather than ease international tension. It is hard to believe that allegations of this kind have been made without ulterior motives, when attempts are being made to present the policy of the U.S.S.R., which is int ended to secure a lasting and stable peace, in a distorted light by alleging that it all but leads to war.

It seems to us that the Soviet position on the German question corresponds most of all to reality.
Now, it seems, no sober-minded leader in the West is inclined any longer to advance the unrealistic demand for the so-called reunification of Germany before the conclus ion of a peace treaty, since more and more political leade rs are coming to understand that reunification in the cond itions now obtaining is a process which depends upon the Germans themselves and not upon any outside interf erence. We should proceed from the obvious fact that two German states exist and that the Germans themselves must decide how they want to live. Inasmuch as these two states, the German Democratic Republic and the Germ an Federal Republic, do exist, the peace treaty should be concluded with them, because any further procrastinat ion and postponement of this exceptionally important act not only sustains the abnormal situation in Europe but also leads to its further deterioration.

As for Germany’s unity, I am convinced that Germany will be united sooner or later. However, before this mom ent comes—for no one can foretell when it will come— no attempts should he made to interfere from outside in this internal process, to sustain the state of war which is fraught with many grave dangers and surprises for peace in Europe and throughout the world. The desire to preserve the peace and to prevent another war should outw eigh all other considerations of statesmen, irrespective of their mode of thinking. The Gordian knot must be cut: the peace treaty must be achieied if we do not want to play with fire—.-with the destinies of millions upon mill ions of people.

In this connection we cannot but also mention the quest ion of West Berlin. It is commonly known that the German revanchists have made West Berlin the base for their constant espionage and subversive activities directed tow ards provoking war. We resolutely reject all attempts to ascribe to the Soviet Union the intention of seizing West Berlin and infringing upon the right of the populat ion in that part of the city to preserve its present way of life. On the contrary, in demanding the normalization of the situation in West Berlin, we have proposed that it be converted into a free city and that the preservation there of the way of life and of the social order which suits the West-Berlin inhabitants, be guaranteed by ourselves jointly with the Western countries. This shows that the attitude of the Government of the Soviet Union and that of the Western Governments, judging by their statements, coincide on this question. They, and we too, stand for the independence of West Berlin and for the preservation there of the existing way of life.

It is, therefore, only necessary to overcome the difficult ies born of the “cold war” in order to find the way to an agreement on West Berlin and on the wider question of concluding a peace treaty with the two German states. This is the way to promote an easing of international tens ion and further peaceful coexistence. It would strengthen confidence between states and assist in the gradual rem oval of unfriendliness and suspicion in international relations.

Implementation of the Soviet proposals would not inj ure the interests of the Western Powers and would not give one-sided advantages to anybody. At the same time, a settlement of the German question would prevent a dang erous development of events in Europe, eliminate one of the main causes of international tension and create favourable prospects for anadjustment of other internat ional issues.

The proposals of the Soviet Union were discussed at the Foreign Ministers Conference in Geneva. The Minist ers did not succeed in reaching an agreement, but the Geneva conference did accomplish a great deal of useful work. The positions of the two sides were definitely brought closer together and the possibility of an agreem ent on some questions has become apparent.

At the same time, we still have substantial differences on a number of questions. I am deeply convinced that they are not fundamental differences, not differences on which agreement is impossible. If we still have differences and have not reached agreement on a number of important questions, it is—as we believe with adequate grounds— a result of the concessions which are being made by the Western Powers to Chancellor Adenauer, who is pursuing a militarist policy, the policy of the German revanchists. This is a case of the United States, Britain and France dangerously abetting Chancellor Adenauer. It would be far better if the NATO allies of West Germany persuaded Chancellor Adenauer in the interests of the maintenance of peace, that his policy imperils the cause of peace and that it may ultimately end in irreparable disaster for West Germany.

All this emphasizes again that the representatives of the states concerned must do still more work in order to arrive at mutually acceptable solutions.

I believe that my forthcoming trip to the United States in September and the subsequent visit of US. President Eisenhower to the Soviet Union will afford the possibility for a useful exchange of opinions, for finding a common tongue and a common understanding of the questions that have to be settled.
We are thus prepared, now as before, to do everything we possibly can in order that the relations between the Soviet Union and other countries, and, in particular, the relations between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A., should rest upon a foundation of friendship and that they should fully correspond to the principles of peaceful coexistence.

I should like to repeat what I said at a recent press conference in Moscow: “If Soviet-American relations bec ome brighter, that will not fail to bring about an improvem ent in the relations with other states and will help to scatter the gloomy clouds in other parts of the globe as well. Naturally, we want friendship not only with the U.S.A., but also with the friends of the U.S.A. At the same time, we want the U.S.A. to have good relations not only with us, but with our friends as well.”

What is still needed to make the principles of peaceful coexistence an unshakable international standard and daily practice in the relations between the West and East?

Of course, different answers may be given to this quest ion. But to be quite frank, the following still has to be said: Everybody should understand the irrevocable fact that the historic process is irreversible. It is impossible to bring back yesterday. It is time to understand that the world of the twentieth century is not the world of the nineteenth century, that two diametrically opposite social and economic systems exist side by side in the world today, and that the socialist system, in spite of all the attacks upon it, has grown so strong, has developed into such a force, as to make any return to the past impossible.

Real facts of life in the last ten years have shown conv incingly that the policy of “rolling back” communism can do no more than poison the international atmosphere, heighten the tension between states and work in favour of the “cold war.” Neither its inspirers nor those who conduct it can turn back the course of history and restore capitali sm in the socialist countries.

We have always considered the Americans realistic people. All the more are we astonished to find that U.S. leaders still number in their midst individuals who stick to the policy of ‘rolling back” communism despite its Obvious failure. But is it not high time to take a sober view of things and to draw conclusions from the lessons of the last 15 years? Is it not yet clear to everybody that consistent adherence to the policy of peaceful coexistence would make it possible to improve the international situad on, to bring about a drastic cut in military expenditures and to release vast material resources for more sensible purposes?

The well-known British scientist, J. Bernal, recently cited figures to show that average annual expenditures for military purposes throughout the world between 1950 and 1957 amount to the huge sum of about $90,000 million. How many factories, houses, schools, hospitals and librari es could have been built everywhere with the funds now spent on the preparation of another war! And how rapid could be the economic progress of the underdeveloped countries if we converted to these purposes at least some of the means which are now being spent on war purposes.

One cannot help seeing that the policy of peaceful coe xistence acquires a firm foundation only in the event of extensive and absolutely unrestricted international trade. It may be said without exaggeration that there is no good basis for improving relations between our countries other than the development of international trade.

If the principle of peaceful coexistence of states is to be adhered to not in words, but in deeds, it is perfectly obvious that no ideological differences should be an obs tacle to the development and extension of mutually adv antageous economic contacts, to the exchange of everyt hing produced by human genius in the sphere of peaceful branches of material production.

In this connection it may be recalled that soon after the birth of the Soviet state, back in the early 1920s, the Western countries, proceeding from considerations of economic interest, agreed to establish trade relations with our country despite the acutest ideological differences. Since then, excepting comparatively short periods, trade between the Soviet Union and capitalist states has kept on developing steadily. No ideological differences have prevented, for instance, a considerable extension of trade relations between the Soviet Union and Britain and other Western states in recent years.

We make no secret of our desire to establish normal commercial and business contacts without any restrict ions, without any discriminations, with the United States as well.

In June of last year the Soviet Government addressed itself to the Government of the United States with the proposal to develop economic and trade contacts between our two countries. We suggested an extensive and conc rete programme of developing Soviet-American trade on a mutually advantageous basis. The adoption of our prop osals would undoubtedly accord with the interests of both countries and their peoples. However, these proposa ls have not shown the desired development so far.

In striving to normalize trade relations with the Unite d States, the Soviet Union does not pursue any special interests. In our economic development we rely wholly on the internal forces of our country, on our own resources and possibilities. All our plans for further economic development are drawn up on the basis of our available possibilities. Just as in the past, we base these plans only on our own possibilities and forces. Irrespective of whethe r or not we shall trade with Western countries, the United States included, the implementation of our econ omic plans of peaceful construction will not in the least be delayed.

However, if we both want to improve relations between countries, all barriers in international trade must be rem oved. Those who want peaceful coexistence cannot but favour the development of commercial. economic and business contacts. Only on this basis can international aff airs develop normally.

Peaceful coexistence is the only way which is in keepi ng with the interests of all nations. To reject it would under existing conditions mean to doom the whole world to a terrible and destructive war, whereas it is quite poss ible to avoid it.

Can it be that mankind, which has advanced to a plane where it has proved capable of the greatest discoveries and has made its first steps into outer space, should not be able to use the colossal achievements of its genius for the establishment of a stable peace, for the good of man, rather than for the preparation of another war and for the destruction of all that has been created by his labour over many millenniums? Reason refuses to believe this. It protests.

Soviet people have stated, and declare again, that they do not want war. If the Soviet Union and the countries friendly to it are not attacked, we shall never use any weapons either against the United States or against any other countries. We do not want any horrors of war, des truction, suffering and death for ourselves or for any other peoples. We say this not because we fear anyone. Together with our friends, we are united and stronger than ever. But precisely because of that do we say that war can and should be prevented. Precisely because we want to rid mankind of war, do we urge the Western Powers to peacef ul and noble competition. We say to all: Let us prove to each other the advantages of one’s own system not with fists, not by war, but by peaceful economic competit ion in conditions of peaceful coexistence.

As for the social system in a country, that is the domest ic affair of its people. We have always stood, and stand today, for non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. We have always abided, and shall abide, by this standpoint. The question, for example, of what system shall exist in the United States or in other capitalist countries cannot be decided by other peoples or states. This

question can and will be decided only by the American people themselves, only by the people of each country. The existence of the Soviet Union and of the other socialist countries is a real fact. It is also a real fact that the United States of America and the other capitalist countries live in different social conditions, in the cond itions of capitalism. Then let us recognize this real sit uation and proceed from it in order not to go against rea lity, against life itself. Let us not try to change this situ ation by interference from without, by means of war -on the part of some states against other states. I repeat, there is only one road to peace, one way out of the existing tension-peaceful coexistence.