The Ideas Of Peaceful, Coexistence Will Triumph
Comrades, the problem that interests and agitates all people today is that of ensuring world peace. It is rightly considered to be the main international problem.
What is the present-day international situation? How do we appraise it? We believe that the international situa tion, if we evaluate it by the chief factor—the preservat ion of world peace—is not so bad, or, to be more exact, even good.
But, of course, we must not forget that military blocs exist just the same and that there are still people who are trying to strengthen and extend these military blocs. And what does that actually mean? It means greater military expenditures and a stockpiling and improvement of the armaments of countries that are members of these blocs. As long as this unprecedented arms race continues, there is a serious danger that even the least miscalculation by the statesmen of one country or another may lead to the outbreak of a new war. This is why we cannot afford to be carefree. We must be vigilant and take due measures to guarantee the security of our country.
The Soviet Government has exerted great efforts to achieve an easing of international tension. In recent years we have reduced our armed forces by 2,140,000 men and have shut down our military bases in foreign countries. In doing so, we hoped other states would follow suit, but, regrettably our hopes were not justified. On the contrary, the governments of a number of Western countries ded ared that they will carry on the arms race, extend their military bases and strengthen their military blocs. In other words, they stick to their “cold war” views, and have encircled the Soviet Union with their military bases.
Despite all these negative factors, we regard the intern ational situation as not bad. Why? Is this not contradict ory? No, it is not. Although the inveterate militarists have, apparently, not relinquished their attempts to try their “luck” in a military venture against the socialist countries, the fact of the matter is that the number of the advocates of such ventures is decreasing each year. Even many diehard imperialists are coming to realize that to employ military means against the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries is now very risky, and dangerous. It cuts both ways. Some of the dyed-in-the-wool militarists acknowledge that if they unleash a war they may thems elves be destroyed in it.
What makes them draw such conclusions? It is the growing might of the socialist camp. The socialist count ries are rapidly developing their economy and culture and raising the living standard of the people.
The idea of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems is winning increasing numbers of adhere nts all over the world. The attention of the people of the whole world is now focused on the problem of relaxi ng international tension and doing away with the “cold war.” This is why the news about the exchange of visits between the heads of government of the Soviet Union and the United States has roused such a ready and broad res ponse.
We have arranged with D. Eisenhower, President of the United States, for an exchange of Visits. It won’t be long before I leave for the U.S.A. I shall arrive there on Sept ember 15. Later, the President of the U.S.A. will visit the Soviet Union. At present the Soviet Union’s relations with the US.A. and with other capitalist countries ar somewhat better than they were before.
In February our country was visited by the Prime Mini ster of Great Britain, Harold Macmillan. After his visit to the Soviet Union and the exchange of views which I had with him on different questions of interest to both our countries, Soviet-British relations began to improve perceptibly. We concluded a trade agreement with Brita in on mutually-advantageous terms, and are now trading quite successfully under the terms of this agreement. We are also doing business with other capitalist countries— Prance, Italy and West Germany—and compared with past years our trade with them has increased.
Our contacts and relations with other countries in the fields of culture, science and art are rapidly expanding. There is an active exchange of different delegations. The number of visits of business people from foreign count ries, including the U.S.A., to our country has increased.
Our country was visited by Adlai Stevenson and Averell Harriman, who are prominent American political leaders, by Mr. Cyrus Eaton, the prominent American manufact urer, a group of Governors, and many others.
On the other hand, members of the Soviet Government have been to the U.S.A. A. I. Mikoyan visited that country and F. R. Kozlov went there for the opening of the Soviet Exhibition. The leading Soviet statesmen had very frank and useful talks with American statesmen. There is every indication that these talks are yielding favourable results.
Recently, the Vice-President of the U.S.A., R. Nixon, came to the Soviet Union for the opening of the American Exhibition in Moscow. We gave Mr. Nixon every opport unity of acquainting himself with our country and its people. To our regret, he had very little time, and since our country is so vast it is impossible to acquaint oneself with it in a few days. We had rather detailed talks with Mr. Nixon. He met many Soviet people. This warrants the hope that he must now have a better understanding of us, of our people.
It is a matter of regret that in his speeches about the Soviet Union Mr. Nixon continues to adhere to an erron eous viewpoint. For example, upon his return to the U.S.A. he stated that despite the propaganda conducted against the U.S.A. in the U.S.S.R., the Soviet people were friendly to America. Mr. Nixon ostensibly arrived at this conclusion after his visit to the U.S.S.R. Probably, the purp ose of this is to impress upon the Americans that the Soviet Government has one policy with respect to the U.S.A., while the Soviet people hold a different opinion.
It is absolutely wrong to state that there has been any propaganda in the Soviet Union against the U.S.A. I say this now, and I shall say it when I come to the U.S.A. No propaganda against the U.S.A. has ever been conducte d in the U.S.S.R. We have conducted -and will conduct- propaganda only against militarists, against sabre-ratt ling generals, and against monopolists who urge continued “cold war.” In the Soviet Union the press, and the statesmen, and all Soviet people, have held forth against them. But nobody in the U.S.S.R. has ever said anything against the U.S.A. as a country, or against the American people. We have never had such propaganda, and never will. (Applause.)
Quite the contrary. We have always maintained that the American people, like our Soviet people, like all peop les, want peace. Not only the working class and the farmers, but also broad sections of businessmen and int ellectuals in the U.S.A. do not share the views of the militarists, of the “cold war” warriors, and oppose the policy “from positions of strength.” It is only these latt er people who are afraid of the least breath of fresh air that may dispel the international tension, who fear that armaments will be reduced and that this will decrease the profitable orders to the arms industry. Wasn’t it this fear that affected the stock exchange when news of the exc hange of visits between the head of the Soviet Governm ent and D. Eisenhower, the President of the U.S.A., was received?
Mr. Nixon is deeply mistaken in his reasoning about the Soviet Government and the Soviet people. He does not know our people. During his visit to the U.S.S.R. he was accorded friendly treatment and shown the respect due to the representative of a country with which the Soviet Union wants to have good relations. This does not mean at all that anyone in our country shares Mr. Nixon’s pol itical views.
It is customary for our people to receive the guests of their Government with respect. And that is what they did everywhere, in the hope that such visits enhance the possibilities of better mutual understanding, of relaxing the tension and ensuring peace between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. In our country there are no differences—nor can there be any—between the people and the Government on these or other questions. I shall not exaggerate if I say that any country can well envy the close unity that obtains in our country between the people, the Government and the Communist Party. And let no one look for any rifts between the people and the Soviet Government—it would be wasted effort! (Stormy applause.)
A few days ago I made myself familiar with the speech Mr. Nixon delivered to the Congress of the American Leg ion. it contained statements about the Soviet Union which cannot be left unanswered. When he was here in the Soviet Union, I told him frankly that the Soviet people did not recognize the former Nixon. We had known him as an advocate of MacCarthyiSm. Then his speeches began to show signs of a correct understanding of the present-day scene and of the possible ways out of the situation. Mr. Nixon expressed the same sober judgernents also during our talks in Moscow. I even told him on one occasion that we understood his present standpoint and that it coincided in many respects with what we ourselves had said about the necessity for relaxing international tension.
That was the Nixon we knew in Moscow during our talks. But what has happened after his departure? Now Mr. Nixon is apologizing, as it were, for the statements he has recently made in the U.S.S.R. and resorting to lang uage typical of the reactionary MacCarthyists, repeating timeworn phrases about the danger of “communist rule over all the people of the world.”
It seems to us that the “spirit of MacCarthyism” should not be revived if we are sincerely striving for a relaxation of tension and for an improvement in Soviet- American relations. But Mr. Nixon appears to think diff erently. He said in the same speech that “the Communist Party in the United States, like all the Communist Parties throughout the world, is directed and controlled from Moscow and has in the past and will in the future engage in espionage and subversion in order to serve the intere sts of the communist governments wherever they are opposed to those of the United States or the other free nations.”
These are old and hackneyed inventions calculated to intimidate inexperienced people and to incite them against the Soviet Union. What facts has Mr. Nixon on this score? None whatever, because there aren’t, and cannot be, any. Of course, it would be better if such statements did not recur. Their sole object is to maintain the “cold war” and preserve the tension in international affairs.
I can’t help broaching one more statement frequently repeated by many Western political leaders. Speaking of the capitalist states, these men call them “free societies” and the “free world,” and apparently they place all the countries with another way of life under the head of “nonf ree world.” These statements are made to dupe the masses. But life shows them to be false and totally groundless. Hundreds of millions of people regard the socialist way of life as the most fully corresponding to the vital interests of the peoples and, hence, as the freest. And no one will convince them of the contrary. (Applause.)
Some gentlemen apparently identify Spain with the so- called “free world.” Yet, it is very well known that the present Spanish rulers seized power by rebelling against a legitimate democratically-elected republican government. They came to power over mountains of corpses and streams of the Spanish people’s blood spilt by the fascists, and established a brutal dictatorship. Today, however, Franco is one of America’s allies. Everything is suppressed in Spain today. The people cannot even utter a sound of their own free will. That’s a far cry from freedom.
There are quite a few governments in other countries, which trample upon the rights of peoples and are based on the personal power of a brutal dictatorship.
I do not care to cite other examples, of which there are many. But if all this is the “free world,” then what is the “non-free world”? Can it be that the “free world” exists where the colonialists rule, where every human libe rty is suppressed and where there is not even a trace of democracy?
No, that is not how the peoples understand freedom. They see freedom where the governments are composed of men of labour, where the governments are accountable to the people and serve the interests of the people, where there is no exploitation of man by man and the people are—in deed and not just in word—the real masters of their fate.
Speaking of the situation in the socialist countries, it is there that the people have real freedom and democracy. Each country has its constitution, and the people elect their deputies, their representatives of power. The governm ents are accountable to the people’s parliaments, to the people themselves. The socialist countries base their entire policy on the vital interests of the people. They ensure genuine freedom, genuine equality of all citizens before the law, and a steady rise of the living standard. In these countries there are no exploiters and exploited, because all means of production belong to the people. What, then, can be loftier, more humane and freer than the socialist system? (Prolonged applause.)
We do not require the statesmen of the capitalist powe rs to think likewise. Let us rather recognize the fact that we have different ideas of freedom. If we let our feelings run away with us and keep wrangling about such matt ers on a government level, we shall only aggravate our differences and set peoples against each other.
We adhere firmly to the principles of peaceful coexiste nce. We say: Let us not interfere in each other’s internal affairs and let us not settle ideological differences and other issues by force of arms. If we come to an unders tanding on this basis, we shall easily find ways and means of ensuring peaceful coexistence. We shall then also find a common language in the controversial issues which complicate the whole situation and create the dang er of a new war. We shall then be able to come to terms on questions of disarmament, prohibition of nuclear weapo ns and all other questions which trouble the whole world. In that case we could ensure such conditions in which war would be excluded from the life of society.
Our Party, the Central Committee and the Soviet Gove rnment are firmly convinced that we have approached a period when this will become a fact. Every new achievem ent of the U.S.S.R. and the achievements of all the sociali st countries are bringing this time nearer. The idea of peaceful coexistence will triumph. As to the system— capitalist or socialist—that America, France and Britain should have, let the Americans, French and British decide this matter for themselves, it is their internal affair and we do not intend to impose our way of life on them.
All of us, and above all the statesmen of the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A., which are the strongest powers, should do their utmost to put an end to the “cold war,” the arms race and the policy “from positions of strength” with which the majority of the people in the United States and all countries are fed up. It is the duty of statesmen who appreciate the responsibility imposed upon them by the present crucial moment, to refrain from doing anything that may cast a shadow on the situation and heat it again. Reason rather than feelings should guide us forward to negotiations, to a search for mutually acceptable decis ions, to an easing of tension.
Communism has upheld its right to existence. To fight communism with guns and atomic bombs is, as 100 years of history have shown, an absolutely hopeless undertaki ng. If the Western leaders consider their philosophy viab le, let them prove it in practice. We do not want to force our philosophy or our way of life on anybody. Hence, we propose peaceful coexistence; let us compete in improvi ng the well-being of the peoples. Victory will rest with the ideology that will provide a better and freer life and ensure higher living standards and the best conditions for satisfying the people’s requirements.
If the leaders of the capitalist countries are so certain of the superiority of their philosophy, of their way of life, let them accept our challenge for peaceful competition. The U.S.A. has already attained a very high level of econ omic development. Today it has the highest production per head of population. It is under these conditions that we are challenging the U.S.A. to peaceful competition. We want to be worthy contenders in this competition. Let time, history, show what is better. Only he who is not sure that his views are right, who does not believe in his own system, will reject our challenge to peaceful compet ition. It follows that we propose peace, while those who advocate “cold war” are dragging us towards an aggravat ion of the situation, towards a continuation of the arms race. We, on the other hand, want complete disarmament, liquidation of the “cold war” and lasting peace for all mankind. (Applause.)
I have familiarized myself with the statement made by President Eisenhower at a press conference on August 25.
We are quite satisfied with this statement. It shows that Mr. Eisenhower is willing to co-operate in eliminating tension from international relations. We regard this as a good basis for the forthcoming fruitful exchange of opini ons with the President. We share his alarm and anxiety over the existence of unsolved international problems.
We attach great importance to the willingness voiced by Mr. Eisenhower “to negotiate realistically with the Soviets on any reasonable and mutually enforceable plan for general or special disarmament; to make a real beginn ing toward solving the problems of a divided Germany; and to help in reducing, otherwise, tensions in the world.”
It gives me particular pleasure to emphasize this, bec ause I believe the above statement to be deeply conside red and imbued with ideas which the President formed in preparing for the press conference. This means that the President has given these ideas ample thought and that he understands that the main thing today is to ensure world peace. In this respect we have no differences with the President, and I sincerely welcome his statement.
I must unfortunately observe that in answering journ alists’ questions the President has in some measure rep eated certain “cold war” expressions. I should like to believe that in this case the President merely gave their due to his former prejudices.
We are going to the U.S.A. with the best of intentions. I have already said this at the press conference in Mosc ow on August 5.
We want to do our best to end the state of “cold war” and thereby ease international tension and create condit ions for a quiet and peaceful life. Peaceful coexistence and charged, ready-to-be launched missiles on the territory of other states are incompatible things. When we speak of peaceful coexistence we mean creating the certainty in people that the war we do not have today, will not break out tomorrow or at any other date.
This is why we are ready to reduce armaments and to withdraw our troops from the G.D.R., Poland and Hungar y within our own borders if the Western Powers display the same willingness to withdraw their troops from foreign countries. If our Western partners are not ready yet to withdraw all their troops at once, let us agree on a gradu al withdrawal. We are ready to accept any effective control of arms reduction and withdrawal of troops if the Western Powers reciprocate and agree to closing down their military bases. But when they want to impose cont rols and place their controllers all over our country, while their bases round our country remain intact, it is not disarmament but an ultimatum. It is nothing but an attempt to impose unilateral terms which are of advant age only to those who wish to impose them, i.e., to place their controllers in our plants and factories, while encirc ling our country with bases and picking the time to attack us. Maybe they do not pursue such aims, but we cannot. regrettably, think otherwise when we are offered such terms.
Of course, we are not blind to the fact that there are quite a few differences between the Soviet Union and the United States. We do not deny this. But today the quest ion is whether we should leave these differences and do nothing to counteract their possible exacerbation, or whether we should search for ways and means of elimin ating them. The Soviet Union is ready to seek mutually- acceptable agreements on the most acute international problems. But if anybody ever laboured under the illusion that we would consent to such agreements at the price of relinquishing our state positions, of renouncing our princ iples, he would be sadly mistaken. Outstanding issues can and must be settled only with due consideration of the interests of all the states concerned, and the most urgent problems, those which impede a normalization of the international situation, should be solved first. We consider the conclusion of a German peace treaty to be at the head of the list, for it would normalize the situation in Europe, remove the barriers between the two German states and do away with the survivals of the occupation regime in West Berlin.
In the West very many people, from high-ranking statesmen of the NATO countries to persons of lower rank, speak on the one hand of wanting peace and wanting the ice to melt and a thaw to set in. Yet they say, on the other hand, that they will defend the freedom and wellb eing of the Berlin population. This is emphasized, for example, in the communiqué on the talks between the heads of government of the U.S.A. and the F.R.G. The communiqué reads that President Eisenhower confirmed “the pledge given by the United States and its allies to protect the freedom and welfare of Berlin.”
In point of fact, we are also in favour of this formula. The Soviet Union has proposed that West Berlin be made a free city, and we agree to take part in guaranteeing this free city’s freedom, well-being and independence. We agree to see to it that none of the existing conditions of life there are violated, that the population is able to choose its own form of government, that the relations of the free city of West Berlin with the Western and the Eastern countries is guaranteed, and that the city develops and prospers.
If the Western Powers sincerely wish to ensure the freedom and well-being of the Berlin population, this does not contradict our aims- it coincides with them.
Yesterday I received an answer from Herr Adenauer, Chancellor of the German Federal Republic, to my message of August 18, 1959. The first reading—and such docum ents, drawn up by experienced diplomats, have to be not only carefully read but also thoroughly studied to gain an understanding of what is written between the lines—I repeat, the first reading of this answer produces a favourable impression. To be sure, Herr Adenauer opens his message by expressing a certain discontent with our having allegedly violated our agreement and being the first to publish my message in the press. I should not like to enter upon mutual charges on this score, but in order to make things clear, to establish the truth, I deem it nece ssary to state the following:
Our message to Herr Adenauer was published in the Soviet press 8 days after it was delivered to the Governm ent of the F.R.G., and only after different newspapers in the Federal Republic began to write about it. The Soviet press did not print a single word about it, and not even about the fact that the message was sent, before the Germ an newspapers did. Hence, it was really the Governm ent of the F.R.G. and not the Government of the Soviet Union that first informed the press of our message and of its content. Since various statements concerning this message began to appear in the F.R.G. press, the Soviet Government decided to publish its full text to prevent false rumours.
Speaking about the substance of Herr Adenauer’s rep ly, we must note, in the first place, that its tone is more restrained and that in this respect it differs considerably from the previous documents of the Federal Government.
Herr Adenauer’s message broaches very important quest ions and expresses a desire for a better understanding of these acute questions in the interests of greater coo peration between our countries. If these words are foll owed by deeds, it may be assumed that we shall succeed in removing the line that divides us in the discussion of urgent questions of international relations and in making definite progress towards relaxing international tension and improving relations between the U.S.S.R. and the F.R.G.
It should be noted that in the message these questions are broached very briefly and generally, and we should like the Government of the F.R.G. to state in greater detail its proposals for the solution of such important questions as disarmament, removal of the survivals of the war, and development of co-operation between our countries. Provide d the other side is willing, these matters are not insolva ble in our opinion. They can be solved if the Western Powers sincerely want a peaceful settlement of the urgent international issues.
Of course, I shall gladly reply to Herr Adenauer’s message. I should like to believe that it is not the sort of docu ment that says one thing and means another. I am in the habit of thinking the way ordinary people think, who take the direct meaning of words in good faith, and do not look for some other meaning contained only between the lines. I should like to believe that the Government of the F.R.G. really wants to contribute to an easing of int ernational tension.
Our adversaries frequently charge that the Soviet Union does not observe international agreements. This is not true. Only those who deliberately misrepresent the facts can say so. The Soviet Union has always discharged, and will continue scrupulously to discharge its international obligations. We are deeply Conscious of the fact that unl ess the standards of international law are observed and obligations are discharged, there can be no confidence in the relations between states—and without confidence there can be no peaceful coexistence. We consistently uphold the principles of peaceful coexistence, and shall continue to defend the standards of international law in inter-state relations.
Comrades, I am concluding my speech. I want to emp hasize once more that I am going to the United States with good intentions and a fervent desire to make a fitting contribution to the matter of relaxing international tens ion and consolidating peace. We are fully determined to accept such measures as will help to melt the ice of “cold war” and enable the peoples to breathe freely. I should like to hope that the U.S. Government is also guided by the same considerations.
What is the present-day international situation? How do we appraise it? We believe that the international situa tion, if we evaluate it by the chief factor—the preservat ion of world peace—is not so bad, or, to be more exact, even good.
But, of course, we must not forget that military blocs exist just the same and that there are still people who are trying to strengthen and extend these military blocs. And what does that actually mean? It means greater military expenditures and a stockpiling and improvement of the armaments of countries that are members of these blocs. As long as this unprecedented arms race continues, there is a serious danger that even the least miscalculation by the statesmen of one country or another may lead to the outbreak of a new war. This is why we cannot afford to be carefree. We must be vigilant and take due measures to guarantee the security of our country.
The Soviet Government has exerted great efforts to achieve an easing of international tension. In recent years we have reduced our armed forces by 2,140,000 men and have shut down our military bases in foreign countries. In doing so, we hoped other states would follow suit, but, regrettably our hopes were not justified. On the contrary, the governments of a number of Western countries ded ared that they will carry on the arms race, extend their military bases and strengthen their military blocs. In other words, they stick to their “cold war” views, and have encircled the Soviet Union with their military bases.
Despite all these negative factors, we regard the intern ational situation as not bad. Why? Is this not contradict ory? No, it is not. Although the inveterate militarists have, apparently, not relinquished their attempts to try their “luck” in a military venture against the socialist countries, the fact of the matter is that the number of the advocates of such ventures is decreasing each year. Even many diehard imperialists are coming to realize that to employ military means against the Soviet Union and the other socialist countries is now very risky, and dangerous. It cuts both ways. Some of the dyed-in-the-wool militarists acknowledge that if they unleash a war they may thems elves be destroyed in it.
What makes them draw such conclusions? It is the growing might of the socialist camp. The socialist count ries are rapidly developing their economy and culture and raising the living standard of the people.
The idea of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems is winning increasing numbers of adhere nts all over the world. The attention of the people of the whole world is now focused on the problem of relaxi ng international tension and doing away with the “cold war.” This is why the news about the exchange of visits between the heads of government of the Soviet Union and the United States has roused such a ready and broad res ponse.
We have arranged with D. Eisenhower, President of the United States, for an exchange of Visits. It won’t be long before I leave for the U.S.A. I shall arrive there on Sept ember 15. Later, the President of the U.S.A. will visit the Soviet Union. At present the Soviet Union’s relations with the US.A. and with other capitalist countries ar somewhat better than they were before.
In February our country was visited by the Prime Mini ster of Great Britain, Harold Macmillan. After his visit to the Soviet Union and the exchange of views which I had with him on different questions of interest to both our countries, Soviet-British relations began to improve perceptibly. We concluded a trade agreement with Brita in on mutually-advantageous terms, and are now trading quite successfully under the terms of this agreement. We are also doing business with other capitalist countries— Prance, Italy and West Germany—and compared with past years our trade with them has increased.
Our contacts and relations with other countries in the fields of culture, science and art are rapidly expanding. There is an active exchange of different delegations. The number of visits of business people from foreign count ries, including the U.S.A., to our country has increased.
Our country was visited by Adlai Stevenson and Averell Harriman, who are prominent American political leaders, by Mr. Cyrus Eaton, the prominent American manufact urer, a group of Governors, and many others.
On the other hand, members of the Soviet Government have been to the U.S.A. A. I. Mikoyan visited that country and F. R. Kozlov went there for the opening of the Soviet Exhibition. The leading Soviet statesmen had very frank and useful talks with American statesmen. There is every indication that these talks are yielding favourable results.
Recently, the Vice-President of the U.S.A., R. Nixon, came to the Soviet Union for the opening of the American Exhibition in Moscow. We gave Mr. Nixon every opport unity of acquainting himself with our country and its people. To our regret, he had very little time, and since our country is so vast it is impossible to acquaint oneself with it in a few days. We had rather detailed talks with Mr. Nixon. He met many Soviet people. This warrants the hope that he must now have a better understanding of us, of our people.
It is a matter of regret that in his speeches about the Soviet Union Mr. Nixon continues to adhere to an erron eous viewpoint. For example, upon his return to the U.S.A. he stated that despite the propaganda conducted against the U.S.A. in the U.S.S.R., the Soviet people were friendly to America. Mr. Nixon ostensibly arrived at this conclusion after his visit to the U.S.S.R. Probably, the purp ose of this is to impress upon the Americans that the Soviet Government has one policy with respect to the U.S.A., while the Soviet people hold a different opinion.
It is absolutely wrong to state that there has been any propaganda in the Soviet Union against the U.S.A. I say this now, and I shall say it when I come to the U.S.A. No propaganda against the U.S.A. has ever been conducte d in the U.S.S.R. We have conducted -and will conduct- propaganda only against militarists, against sabre-ratt ling generals, and against monopolists who urge continued “cold war.” In the Soviet Union the press, and the statesmen, and all Soviet people, have held forth against them. But nobody in the U.S.S.R. has ever said anything against the U.S.A. as a country, or against the American people. We have never had such propaganda, and never will. (Applause.)
Quite the contrary. We have always maintained that the American people, like our Soviet people, like all peop les, want peace. Not only the working class and the farmers, but also broad sections of businessmen and int ellectuals in the U.S.A. do not share the views of the militarists, of the “cold war” warriors, and oppose the policy “from positions of strength.” It is only these latt er people who are afraid of the least breath of fresh air that may dispel the international tension, who fear that armaments will be reduced and that this will decrease the profitable orders to the arms industry. Wasn’t it this fear that affected the stock exchange when news of the exc hange of visits between the head of the Soviet Governm ent and D. Eisenhower, the President of the U.S.A., was received?
Mr. Nixon is deeply mistaken in his reasoning about the Soviet Government and the Soviet people. He does not know our people. During his visit to the U.S.S.R. he was accorded friendly treatment and shown the respect due to the representative of a country with which the Soviet Union wants to have good relations. This does not mean at all that anyone in our country shares Mr. Nixon’s pol itical views.
It is customary for our people to receive the guests of their Government with respect. And that is what they did everywhere, in the hope that such visits enhance the possibilities of better mutual understanding, of relaxing the tension and ensuring peace between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. In our country there are no differences—nor can there be any—between the people and the Government on these or other questions. I shall not exaggerate if I say that any country can well envy the close unity that obtains in our country between the people, the Government and the Communist Party. And let no one look for any rifts between the people and the Soviet Government—it would be wasted effort! (Stormy applause.)
A few days ago I made myself familiar with the speech Mr. Nixon delivered to the Congress of the American Leg ion. it contained statements about the Soviet Union which cannot be left unanswered. When he was here in the Soviet Union, I told him frankly that the Soviet people did not recognize the former Nixon. We had known him as an advocate of MacCarthyiSm. Then his speeches began to show signs of a correct understanding of the present-day scene and of the possible ways out of the situation. Mr. Nixon expressed the same sober judgernents also during our talks in Moscow. I even told him on one occasion that we understood his present standpoint and that it coincided in many respects with what we ourselves had said about the necessity for relaxing international tension.
That was the Nixon we knew in Moscow during our talks. But what has happened after his departure? Now Mr. Nixon is apologizing, as it were, for the statements he has recently made in the U.S.S.R. and resorting to lang uage typical of the reactionary MacCarthyists, repeating timeworn phrases about the danger of “communist rule over all the people of the world.”
It seems to us that the “spirit of MacCarthyism” should not be revived if we are sincerely striving for a relaxation of tension and for an improvement in Soviet- American relations. But Mr. Nixon appears to think diff erently. He said in the same speech that “the Communist Party in the United States, like all the Communist Parties throughout the world, is directed and controlled from Moscow and has in the past and will in the future engage in espionage and subversion in order to serve the intere sts of the communist governments wherever they are opposed to those of the United States or the other free nations.”
These are old and hackneyed inventions calculated to intimidate inexperienced people and to incite them against the Soviet Union. What facts has Mr. Nixon on this score? None whatever, because there aren’t, and cannot be, any. Of course, it would be better if such statements did not recur. Their sole object is to maintain the “cold war” and preserve the tension in international affairs.
I can’t help broaching one more statement frequently repeated by many Western political leaders. Speaking of the capitalist states, these men call them “free societies” and the “free world,” and apparently they place all the countries with another way of life under the head of “nonf ree world.” These statements are made to dupe the masses. But life shows them to be false and totally groundless. Hundreds of millions of people regard the socialist way of life as the most fully corresponding to the vital interests of the peoples and, hence, as the freest. And no one will convince them of the contrary. (Applause.)
Some gentlemen apparently identify Spain with the so- called “free world.” Yet, it is very well known that the present Spanish rulers seized power by rebelling against a legitimate democratically-elected republican government. They came to power over mountains of corpses and streams of the Spanish people’s blood spilt by the fascists, and established a brutal dictatorship. Today, however, Franco is one of America’s allies. Everything is suppressed in Spain today. The people cannot even utter a sound of their own free will. That’s a far cry from freedom.
There are quite a few governments in other countries, which trample upon the rights of peoples and are based on the personal power of a brutal dictatorship.
I do not care to cite other examples, of which there are many. But if all this is the “free world,” then what is the “non-free world”? Can it be that the “free world” exists where the colonialists rule, where every human libe rty is suppressed and where there is not even a trace of democracy?
No, that is not how the peoples understand freedom. They see freedom where the governments are composed of men of labour, where the governments are accountable to the people and serve the interests of the people, where there is no exploitation of man by man and the people are—in deed and not just in word—the real masters of their fate.
Speaking of the situation in the socialist countries, it is there that the people have real freedom and democracy. Each country has its constitution, and the people elect their deputies, their representatives of power. The governm ents are accountable to the people’s parliaments, to the people themselves. The socialist countries base their entire policy on the vital interests of the people. They ensure genuine freedom, genuine equality of all citizens before the law, and a steady rise of the living standard. In these countries there are no exploiters and exploited, because all means of production belong to the people. What, then, can be loftier, more humane and freer than the socialist system? (Prolonged applause.)
We do not require the statesmen of the capitalist powe rs to think likewise. Let us rather recognize the fact that we have different ideas of freedom. If we let our feelings run away with us and keep wrangling about such matt ers on a government level, we shall only aggravate our differences and set peoples against each other.
We adhere firmly to the principles of peaceful coexiste nce. We say: Let us not interfere in each other’s internal affairs and let us not settle ideological differences and other issues by force of arms. If we come to an unders tanding on this basis, we shall easily find ways and means of ensuring peaceful coexistence. We shall then also find a common language in the controversial issues which complicate the whole situation and create the dang er of a new war. We shall then be able to come to terms on questions of disarmament, prohibition of nuclear weapo ns and all other questions which trouble the whole world. In that case we could ensure such conditions in which war would be excluded from the life of society.
Our Party, the Central Committee and the Soviet Gove rnment are firmly convinced that we have approached a period when this will become a fact. Every new achievem ent of the U.S.S.R. and the achievements of all the sociali st countries are bringing this time nearer. The idea of peaceful coexistence will triumph. As to the system— capitalist or socialist—that America, France and Britain should have, let the Americans, French and British decide this matter for themselves, it is their internal affair and we do not intend to impose our way of life on them.
All of us, and above all the statesmen of the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A., which are the strongest powers, should do their utmost to put an end to the “cold war,” the arms race and the policy “from positions of strength” with which the majority of the people in the United States and all countries are fed up. It is the duty of statesmen who appreciate the responsibility imposed upon them by the present crucial moment, to refrain from doing anything that may cast a shadow on the situation and heat it again. Reason rather than feelings should guide us forward to negotiations, to a search for mutually acceptable decis ions, to an easing of tension.
Communism has upheld its right to existence. To fight communism with guns and atomic bombs is, as 100 years of history have shown, an absolutely hopeless undertaki ng. If the Western leaders consider their philosophy viab le, let them prove it in practice. We do not want to force our philosophy or our way of life on anybody. Hence, we propose peaceful coexistence; let us compete in improvi ng the well-being of the peoples. Victory will rest with the ideology that will provide a better and freer life and ensure higher living standards and the best conditions for satisfying the people’s requirements.
If the leaders of the capitalist countries are so certain of the superiority of their philosophy, of their way of life, let them accept our challenge for peaceful competition. The U.S.A. has already attained a very high level of econ omic development. Today it has the highest production per head of population. It is under these conditions that we are challenging the U.S.A. to peaceful competition. We want to be worthy contenders in this competition. Let time, history, show what is better. Only he who is not sure that his views are right, who does not believe in his own system, will reject our challenge to peaceful compet ition. It follows that we propose peace, while those who advocate “cold war” are dragging us towards an aggravat ion of the situation, towards a continuation of the arms race. We, on the other hand, want complete disarmament, liquidation of the “cold war” and lasting peace for all mankind. (Applause.)
I have familiarized myself with the statement made by President Eisenhower at a press conference on August 25.
We are quite satisfied with this statement. It shows that Mr. Eisenhower is willing to co-operate in eliminating tension from international relations. We regard this as a good basis for the forthcoming fruitful exchange of opini ons with the President. We share his alarm and anxiety over the existence of unsolved international problems.
We attach great importance to the willingness voiced by Mr. Eisenhower “to negotiate realistically with the Soviets on any reasonable and mutually enforceable plan for general or special disarmament; to make a real beginn ing toward solving the problems of a divided Germany; and to help in reducing, otherwise, tensions in the world.”
It gives me particular pleasure to emphasize this, bec ause I believe the above statement to be deeply conside red and imbued with ideas which the President formed in preparing for the press conference. This means that the President has given these ideas ample thought and that he understands that the main thing today is to ensure world peace. In this respect we have no differences with the President, and I sincerely welcome his statement.
I must unfortunately observe that in answering journ alists’ questions the President has in some measure rep eated certain “cold war” expressions. I should like to believe that in this case the President merely gave their due to his former prejudices.
We are going to the U.S.A. with the best of intentions. I have already said this at the press conference in Mosc ow on August 5.
We want to do our best to end the state of “cold war” and thereby ease international tension and create condit ions for a quiet and peaceful life. Peaceful coexistence and charged, ready-to-be launched missiles on the territory of other states are incompatible things. When we speak of peaceful coexistence we mean creating the certainty in people that the war we do not have today, will not break out tomorrow or at any other date.
This is why we are ready to reduce armaments and to withdraw our troops from the G.D.R., Poland and Hungar y within our own borders if the Western Powers display the same willingness to withdraw their troops from foreign countries. If our Western partners are not ready yet to withdraw all their troops at once, let us agree on a gradu al withdrawal. We are ready to accept any effective control of arms reduction and withdrawal of troops if the Western Powers reciprocate and agree to closing down their military bases. But when they want to impose cont rols and place their controllers all over our country, while their bases round our country remain intact, it is not disarmament but an ultimatum. It is nothing but an attempt to impose unilateral terms which are of advant age only to those who wish to impose them, i.e., to place their controllers in our plants and factories, while encirc ling our country with bases and picking the time to attack us. Maybe they do not pursue such aims, but we cannot. regrettably, think otherwise when we are offered such terms.
Of course, we are not blind to the fact that there are quite a few differences between the Soviet Union and the United States. We do not deny this. But today the quest ion is whether we should leave these differences and do nothing to counteract their possible exacerbation, or whether we should search for ways and means of elimin ating them. The Soviet Union is ready to seek mutually- acceptable agreements on the most acute international problems. But if anybody ever laboured under the illusion that we would consent to such agreements at the price of relinquishing our state positions, of renouncing our princ iples, he would be sadly mistaken. Outstanding issues can and must be settled only with due consideration of the interests of all the states concerned, and the most urgent problems, those which impede a normalization of the international situation, should be solved first. We consider the conclusion of a German peace treaty to be at the head of the list, for it would normalize the situation in Europe, remove the barriers between the two German states and do away with the survivals of the occupation regime in West Berlin.
In the West very many people, from high-ranking statesmen of the NATO countries to persons of lower rank, speak on the one hand of wanting peace and wanting the ice to melt and a thaw to set in. Yet they say, on the other hand, that they will defend the freedom and wellb eing of the Berlin population. This is emphasized, for example, in the communiqué on the talks between the heads of government of the U.S.A. and the F.R.G. The communiqué reads that President Eisenhower confirmed “the pledge given by the United States and its allies to protect the freedom and welfare of Berlin.”
In point of fact, we are also in favour of this formula. The Soviet Union has proposed that West Berlin be made a free city, and we agree to take part in guaranteeing this free city’s freedom, well-being and independence. We agree to see to it that none of the existing conditions of life there are violated, that the population is able to choose its own form of government, that the relations of the free city of West Berlin with the Western and the Eastern countries is guaranteed, and that the city develops and prospers.
If the Western Powers sincerely wish to ensure the freedom and well-being of the Berlin population, this does not contradict our aims- it coincides with them.
Yesterday I received an answer from Herr Adenauer, Chancellor of the German Federal Republic, to my message of August 18, 1959. The first reading—and such docum ents, drawn up by experienced diplomats, have to be not only carefully read but also thoroughly studied to gain an understanding of what is written between the lines—I repeat, the first reading of this answer produces a favourable impression. To be sure, Herr Adenauer opens his message by expressing a certain discontent with our having allegedly violated our agreement and being the first to publish my message in the press. I should not like to enter upon mutual charges on this score, but in order to make things clear, to establish the truth, I deem it nece ssary to state the following:
Our message to Herr Adenauer was published in the Soviet press 8 days after it was delivered to the Governm ent of the F.R.G., and only after different newspapers in the Federal Republic began to write about it. The Soviet press did not print a single word about it, and not even about the fact that the message was sent, before the Germ an newspapers did. Hence, it was really the Governm ent of the F.R.G. and not the Government of the Soviet Union that first informed the press of our message and of its content. Since various statements concerning this message began to appear in the F.R.G. press, the Soviet Government decided to publish its full text to prevent false rumours.
Speaking about the substance of Herr Adenauer’s rep ly, we must note, in the first place, that its tone is more restrained and that in this respect it differs considerably from the previous documents of the Federal Government.
Herr Adenauer’s message broaches very important quest ions and expresses a desire for a better understanding of these acute questions in the interests of greater coo peration between our countries. If these words are foll owed by deeds, it may be assumed that we shall succeed in removing the line that divides us in the discussion of urgent questions of international relations and in making definite progress towards relaxing international tension and improving relations between the U.S.S.R. and the F.R.G.
It should be noted that in the message these questions are broached very briefly and generally, and we should like the Government of the F.R.G. to state in greater detail its proposals for the solution of such important questions as disarmament, removal of the survivals of the war, and development of co-operation between our countries. Provide d the other side is willing, these matters are not insolva ble in our opinion. They can be solved if the Western Powers sincerely want a peaceful settlement of the urgent international issues.
Of course, I shall gladly reply to Herr Adenauer’s message. I should like to believe that it is not the sort of docu ment that says one thing and means another. I am in the habit of thinking the way ordinary people think, who take the direct meaning of words in good faith, and do not look for some other meaning contained only between the lines. I should like to believe that the Government of the F.R.G. really wants to contribute to an easing of int ernational tension.
Our adversaries frequently charge that the Soviet Union does not observe international agreements. This is not true. Only those who deliberately misrepresent the facts can say so. The Soviet Union has always discharged, and will continue scrupulously to discharge its international obligations. We are deeply Conscious of the fact that unl ess the standards of international law are observed and obligations are discharged, there can be no confidence in the relations between states—and without confidence there can be no peaceful coexistence. We consistently uphold the principles of peaceful coexistence, and shall continue to defend the standards of international law in inter-state relations.
Comrades, I am concluding my speech. I want to emp hasize once more that I am going to the United States with good intentions and a fervent desire to make a fitting contribution to the matter of relaxing international tens ion and consolidating peace. We are fully determined to accept such measures as will help to melt the ice of “cold war” and enable the peoples to breathe freely. I should like to hope that the U.S. Government is also guided by the same considerations.
It is clear to every sensible person that an improvement of Soviet-American relations will benefit not only the peoples of the Soviet Union and the U.S.A., but also those of all countries, large and small, since they do not want war and are yearning for a reliable and lasting peace.
I wish you, dear comrades, new and big successes for the good of our great country. (Stormy applause.)
Long live the heroic Soviet people, who are confidentl y advancing along the road to communism! (Stormy app lause.) Glory to the great Leninist Party! (Stormy applause.) Long live world peace! (Stormy, prolonged applause.)
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar