|
MIKHAIL GORBACHEV BEFORE THE UNITED
NATIONS - 1988
Freedom of Choice
Go here for more about
Mikhail Gorbachev.
Go here for more about
Gorbachev's Freedom of Choice speech.
It follows the English
translation of an excerpt text transcript of
Mikhail Gorbachev's Freedom of Choice speech,
delivered at the 43rd U.N. General Assembly Session in New
York, N.Y. - December 7, 1988.
 |
Two great
revolutions, the French revolution of 1789 and
the Russian revolution of 1917, have exerted a
powerful influence on the actual nature of the
historical process and radically changed the
course of world events. |
Both of them, each
in its own way, have given a gigantic impetus to
man's progress. They are also the ones that have
formed in many respects the way of thinking
which is still prevailing in the public
consciousness.
That is a very
great spiritual wealth, but there emerges before
us today a different world, for which it is
necessary to seek different roads toward the
future, to seek -- relying, of course, on
accumulated experience -- but also seeing the
radical differences between that which was
yesterday and that which is taking place today.
The newness of the
tasks, and at the same time their difficulty,
are not limited to this. Today we have entered
an era when progress will be based on the
interests of all mankind. Consciousness of this
requires that world policy, too, should be
determined by the priority of the values of all
mankind.
The history of the
past centuries and millennia has been a history
of almost ubiquitous wars, and sometimes
desperate battles, leading to mutual
destruction. They occurred in the clash of
social and political interests and national
hostility, be it from ideological or religious
incompatibility. All that was the case, and even
now many still claim that this past -- which has
not been overcome -- is an immutable pattern.
However, parallel with the process of wars,
hostility, and alienation of peoples and
countries, another process, just as objectively
conditioned, was in motion and gaining force:
The process of the emergence of a mutually
connected and integral world.
Further world
progress is now possible only through the search
for a consensus of all mankind, in movement
toward a new world order. We have arrived at a
frontier at which controlled spontaneity leads
to a dead end. The world community must learn to
shape and direct the process in such a way as to
preserve civilization, to make it safe for all
and more pleasant for normal life. It is a
question of cooperation that could be more
accurately called cocreation and codevelopment.
The formula of development "at another's
expense" is becoming outdated. In light of
present realities, genuine progress by
infringing upon the rights and liberties of man
and peoples, or at the expense of nature, is
impossible.
The very tackling
of global problems requires a new "volume" and
"quality" of cooperation by states and
sociopolitical currents regardless of
ideological and other differences.
Of course, radical
and revolutionary changes are taking place and
will continue to take place within individual
countries and social structures. This has been
and will continue to be the case, but our times
are making corrections here, too. Internal
transformational processes cannot achieve their
national objectives merely by taking "course
parallel" with others without using the
achievements of the surrounding world and the
possibilities of equitable cooperation. In these
conditions, interference in those internal
processes with the aim of altering them
according to someone else's prescription would
be all the more destructive for the emergence of
a peaceful order. In the past, differences often
served as a factor in puling away from one
another. Now they are being given the
opportunity to be a factor in mutual enrichment
and attraction. Behind differences in social
structure, in the way of life, and in the
preference for certain values, stand interests.
There is no getting away from that, but neither
is there any getting away from the need to find
a balance of interests within an international
framework, which has become a condition for
survival and progress. As you ponder all this,
you come to the conclusion that if we wish to
take account of the lessons of the past and the
realities of the present, if we must reckon with
the objective logic of world development, it is
necessary to seek -- and the seek jointly -- an
approach toward improving the international
situation and building a new world. If that is
so, then it is also worth agreeing on the
fundamental and truly universal prerequisites
and principles for such activities. It is
evident, for example, that force and the threat
of force can no longer be, and should not be
instruments of foreign policy. [...]
The compelling
necessity of the principle of freedom of choice
is also clear to us.
The failure to
recognize this, to recognize it, is fraught with
very dire consequences, consequences for world
peace. Denying that right to the peoples, no
matter what the pretext, no matter what the
words are used to conceal it, means infringing
upon even the unstable balance that is, has been
possible to achieve.
Freedom of choice
is a universal principle to which there should
be no exceptions. We have not come to the
conclusion of the immutability of this principle
simply through good motives. We have been led to
it through impartial analysis of the objective
processes of our time. The increasing varieties
of social development in different countries are
becoming in ever more perceptible feature of
these processes. This relates to both the
capitalist and socialist systems. The variety of
sociopolitical structures which has grown over
the last decades from national liberation
movements also demonstrates this. This objective
fact presupposes respect for other people's vies
and stands, tolerance, a preparedness to see
phenomena that are different as not necessarily
bad or hostile, and an ability to learn to live
side by side while remaining different and not
agreeing with one another on every issue.
The de-ideologization
of interstate relations has become a demand of
the new stage. We are not giving up our
convictions, philosophy, or traditions. Neither
are we calling on anyone else to give up theirs.
Yet we are not going to shut ourselves up within
the range of our values. That would lead to
spiritual impoverishment, for it would mean
renouncing so powerful a source of development
as sharing all the original things created
independently by each nation. In the course of
such sharing, each should prove the advantages
of his own system, his own way of life and
values, but not through words or propaganda
alone, but through real deeds as well. That is,
indeed, an honest struggle of ideology, but it
must not be carried over into mutual relations
between states. Otherwise we simply will not be
able to solve a single world problem; arrange
broad, mutually advantageous and equitable
cooperation between peoples; manage rationally
the achievements of the scientific and technical
revolution; transform world economic relations;
protect the environment; overcome
underdevelopment; or put an end to hunger,
disease, illiteracy, and other mass ills.
Finally, in that case, we will not manage to
eliminate the nuclear threat and militarism.
Such are our
reflections on the natural order of things in
the world on the threshold of the 21st century.
We are, of course, far from claiming to have
infallible truth, but having subjected the
previous realities -- realities that have arisen
again -- to strict analysis, we have come to the
conclusion that it is by precisely such
approaches that we must search jointly for a way
to achieve the supremacy of the common human
idea over the countless multiplicity of
centrifugal forces, to preserve the vitality of
a civilization that is possible that only one in
the universe. [...]
Our country is
undergoing a truly revolutionary upsurge. The
process of restructuring is gaining pace; We
started by elaborating the theoretical concepts
of restructuring; we had to assess the nature
and scope of the problems, to interpret the
lessons of the past, and to express this in the
form of political conclusions and programs. This
was done. The theoretical work, the
re-interpretation of what had happened, the
final elaboration, enrichment, and correction of
political stances have not ended. They continue.
However, it was fundamentally important to start
from an overall concept, which is already now
being confirmed by the experience of past years,
which has turned out to be generally correct and
to which there is no alternative.
In order to
involve society in implementing the plans for
restructuring it had to be made more truly
democratic. Under the badge of democratization,
restructuring has now encompassed politics, the
economy, spiritual life, and ideology. We have
unfolded a radical economic reform, we have
accumulated experience, and from the new year we
are transferring the entire national economy to
new forms and work methods. Moreover, this means
a profound reorganization of production
relations and the realization of the immense
potential of socialist property.
In moving toward such bold revolutionary
transformations, we understood that there would
be errors, that there would be resistance, that
the novelty would bring new problems. We foresaw
the possibility of breaking in individual
sections. However, the profound democratic
reform of the entire system of power and
government is the guarantee that the overall
process of restructuring will move steadily
forward and gather strength.
We completed the
first stage of the process of political reform
with the recent decisions by the U.S.S.R.
Supreme Soviet on amendments to the Constitution
and the adoption of the Law on Elections.
Without stopping, we embarked upon the second
stage of this. At which the most important task
will be working on the interaction between the
central government and the republics, settling
relations between nationalities on the
principles of Leninist internationalism
bequeathed to us by the great revolution and, at
the same time, reorganizing the power of the
Soviets locally. We are faced with immense work.
At the same time we must resolve major problems.
We are more than
fully confident. We have both the theory, the
policy and the vanguard force of restructuring a
party which is also restructuring itself in
accordance with the new tasks and the radical
changes throughout society. And the most
important thing: all peoples and all generations
of citizens in our great country are in favor of
restructuring.
We have gone
substantially and deeply into the business of
constructing a socialist state based on the rule
of law. A whole series of new laws has been
prepared or is at a completion stage. Many of
them come into force as early as 1989, and we
trust that they will correspond to the highest
standards from the point of view of ensuring the
rights of the individual. Soviet democracy is to
acquire a firm, normative base. This means such
acts as the Law on Freedom of Conscience, on
glasnost, on public associations and
organizations, and on much else. There are now
no people in places of imprisonment in the
country who have been sentenced for their
political or religious convictions. It is
proposed to include in the drafts of the new
laws additional guarantees ruling out any form
or persecution on these bases. Of course, this
does not apply to those who have committed real
criminal or state offenses: espionage, sabotage,
terrorism, and so on, whatever political or
philosophical views they may hold.
The draft
amendments to the criminal code are ready and
waiting their turn. In particular, those
articles relating to the use of the supreme
measure of punishment are being reviewed. The
problem of exit and entry is also being resolved
in a humane spirit, including the case of
leaving the country in order to be reunited with
relatives. As you know, one of the reasons for
refusal of visas is citizens' possession of
secrets. Strictly substantiated terms for the
length of time for possessing secrets are being
introduced in advance. On starting work at a
relevant institution or enterprise, everyone
will be made aware of this regulation. Disputes
that arise can be appealed under the law. Thus
the problem of the so-called refuseniks
is being removed.
We intend to
expand the Soviet Union's participation in the
monitoring mechanism on human rights in the
United Nations and within the framework of the
pan-European process. We consider that the
jurisdiction of the International Court in The
Hague with respect to interpreting and applying
agreements in the field of human rights should
be obligatory for all states.
Within the
Helsinki process, we are also examining an end
to jamming of all the foreign radio broadcasts
to the Soviet Union. On the whole, our credo is
as follows: Political problems should be solved
only by political means, and human problems only
in a humane way. [...]
Now about the most
important topic, without which no problem of the
coming century can be resolved: disarmament.
[...]
Today I can inform
you of the following: The Soviet Union has made
a decision on reducing its armed forces. In the
next two years, their numerical strength will be
reduced by 500,000 persons, and the volume of
conventional arms will also be cut considerably.
These reductions will be made on a unilateral
basis, unconnected with negotiations on the
mandate for the Vienna meeting. By agreement
with our allies in the Warsaw Pact, we have made
the decision to withdraw six tank divisions from
the GDR, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, and to
disband them by 1991. Assault landing formations
and units, and a number of others, including
assault river-crossing forces, with their
armaments and combat equipment, will also be
withdrawn from the groups of Soviet forces
situated in those countries. The Soviet forces
situated in those countries will be cut by
50,000 persons, and their arms by 5,000 tanks.
All remaining Soviet divisions on the territory
of our allies will be reorganized. They will be
given a different structure from today's which
will become unambiguously defensive, after the
removal of a large number of their tanks. [...]
By this act, just
as by all our actions aimed at the
demilitarization of international relations, we
would also like to draw the attention of the
world community to another topical problem, the
problem of changing over from an economy of
armament to an economy of disarmament. Is the
conversion of military production realistic? I
have already had occasion to speak about this.
We believe that it is, indeed, realistic. For
its part, the Soviet Union is ready to do the
following. Within the framework of the economic
reform we are ready to draw up and submit our
internal plan for conversion, to prepare in the
course of 1989, as an experiment, the plans for
the conversion of two or three defense
enterprises, to publish our experience of job
relocation of specialists from the military
industry, and also of using its equipment,
buildings, and works in civilian industry, It is
desirable that all states, primarily the major
military powers, submit their national plans on
this issue to the United Nations.
It would be useful
to form a group of scientists, entrusting it
with a comprehensive analysis of problems of
conversion as a whole and as applied to
individual countries and regions, to be reported
to the U.N. secretary-general, and later to
examine this matter at a General Assembly
session.
Finally, being on U.S. soil, but also for other,
understandable reasons, I cannot but turn to the
subject of our relations with this great
country. ... Relations between the Soviet Union
and the United States of America span 5 1/2
decades. The world has changed, and so have the
nature, role, and place of these relations in
world politics. For too long they were built
under the banner of confrontation, and sometimes
of hostility, either open or concealed. But in
the last few years, throughout the world people
were able to heave a sigh of relief, thanks to
the changes for the better in the substance and
atmosphere of the relations between Moscow and
Washington.
No one intends to
underestimate the serious nature of the
disagreements, and the difficulties of the
problems which have not been settled. However,
we have already graduated from the primary
school of instruction in mutual understanding
and in searching for solutions in our and in the
common interests. The U.S.S.R. and the United
States created the biggest nuclear missile
arsenals, but after objectively recognizing
their responsibility, they were able to be the
first to conclude an agreement on the reduction
and physical destruction of a proportion of
these weapons, which threatened both themselves
and everyone else.
Both sides possess the biggest and the most
refined military secrets. But it is they who
have laid the basis for and are developing a
system of mutual verification with regard to
both the destruction and the limiting and
banning of armaments production. It is they who
are amassing experience for future bilateral and
multilateral agreements. We value this.
We acknowledge and
value the contribution of President Ronald
Reagan and the members of his administration,
above all Mr. George Shultz. All this is capital
that has been invested in a joint undertaking of
historic importance. It must not be wasted or
left out of circulation. The future U.S.
administration headed by newly elected President
George Bush will find in us a partner, ready --
without long pauses and backward movements -- to
continue the dialogue in a spirit of realism,
openness, and goodwill, and with a striving for
concrete results, over an agenda encompassing
the key issues of Soviet-U.S. relations and
international politics.
We are talking first and foremost about
consistent progress toward concluding a treaty
on a 50 percent reduction in strategic offensive
weapons, while retaining the ABM Treaty; about
elaborating a convention on the elimination of
chemical weapons -- here, it seems to us, we
have the preconditions for making 1989 the
decisive year; and about talks on reducing
conventional weapons and armed forces in Europe.
We are also talking about economic, ecological
and humanitarian problems in the widest possible
sense. [...]
We are not
inclined to oversimplify the situation in the
world. Yes, the tendency toward disarmament has
received a strong impetus, and this process is
gaining its own momentum, but it has not become
irreversible. Yes, the striving to give up
confrontation in favor of dialogue and
cooperation has made itself strongly felt, but
it has by no means secured its position forever
in the practice of international relations. Yes,
the movement toward a nuclear-free and
nonviolent world is capable of fundamentally
transforming the political and spiritual face of
the planet, but only the very first steps have
been taken. Moreover, in certain influential
circles, they have been greeted with mistrust,
and they are meeting resistance.
The inheritance of inertia of the past are
continuing to operate.
Profound
contradictions and the roots of many conflicts
have not disappeared. The fundamental fact
remains that the formation of the peaceful
period will take place in conditions of the
existence and rivalry of various socioeconomic
and political systems. However, the meaning of
our international efforts, and one of the key
tenets of the new thinking, is precisely to
impart to this rivalry the quality of sensible
competition in conditions of respect for freedom
of choice and a balance of interests. In this
case it will even become useful and productive
from the viewpoint of general world development;
otherwise; if the main component remains the
arms race, as it has been till now, rivalry will
be fatal. Indeed, an ever greater number of
people throughout the world, from the man in the
street to leaders, are beginning to understand
this.
Esteemed Mr.
Chairman, esteemed delegates: I finish my first
speech at the United Nations with the same
feeling with which I began it: a feeling of
responsibility to my own people and to the world
community. We have met at the end of a year that
has been so significant for the United Nations,
and on the threshold of a year from which all of
us expect so much. One would like to believe
that our joint efforts to put an end to the era
of wars, confrontation and regional conflicts,
aggression against nature, the terror of hunger
and poverty, as well as political terrorism,
will be comparable with our hopes.
This is our common
goal, and it is only by acting together that we
may attain it.
Thank you.
More History
|
|
