1987 – Reflections for a common European home and global disarmament

I made my first trip abroad as General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee to France in October 1985. About a year earlier, in December 1984, I visited Britain at the head of a delegation of the USSR Supreme Soviet. Both those trips set me thinking about many things and, first of all, about the role and place of Europe in the world.
  Francois Mitterrand expressed what seemed to me an important idea at that time. “Why not assume the possibility,” he said, “of gradual advance to a broader European policy?” A year later, in Moscow, he said: “It is necessary that Europe should really become the main protagonist of its own history once again so that it can play in full measure its role of a factor for equilibrium and stability in international affairs.” My thoughts went along the same track. […]

“Some in the West are trying to ‘exclude’ the Soviet Union from Europe”

Some in the West are trying to “exclude” the Soviet Union from Europe. Now and then, as if inadvertently, they equate “Europe” with “Western Europe.”
  Such ploys, however, cannot change the geographic and historical realities. Russia’s trade, cultural and political links with other European nations and states have deep roots in history. We are Europeans. Old Russia was united with Europe by Christianity, and the millennium of its arrival in the land of our ancestors will be marked next year [1988]. The history of Russia is an organic part of the great European history. The Russians, Ukrainians, Byelorussians, Moldavians, Lithuanians, Letts, Estonians, Karels and other peoples of our country have all made a sizable contribution to the development of European civilization. So they rightly regard themselves as its lawful inheritors.
  Our common European history is involved and instructive, great and tragic. It deserves to be studied and learned from.
  Since long ago, wars have been major landmarks in Europe’s history. In the twentieth century, the continent has been the seat of two world wars – the most destructive and bloody ever known by mankind. Our people laid the greatest sacrifices at the altar of the liberation struggle against Hitler’s fascism. More than twenty million Soviet people died in that terrible war. […]

“Europe is our common home”

Europe is our common home. This metaphor came to my mind in one of my discussions. Although seemingly I voiced it in passing, in my mind I had been looking for such a formula for a long time. It did not come to me all of a sudden but after much thought and, notably, after meetings with many European leaders.
  […] The continent has known more than its share of wars and tears. It has had enough. Scanning the panorama of this long-suffering land and pondering on the common roots of such a multi-form but essentially common European civilization, I felt with growing acuteness the artificiality and temporariness of the bloc-to-bloc confrontation and the archaic nature of the “iron curtain.” […]
  Europe is indeed a common home where geography and history have closely interwoven the destinies of dozens of countries and nations. Of course, each of them has its own problems, and each wants to live its own life, to follow its own traditions. Therefore, developing the metaphor, one may say: the home is common, that is true, but each family has its own apartment, and there are different entrances, too. But it is only together, collectively, and by following the sensible norms of coexistence that the Europeans can save their home, protect it against a conflagration and other calamities, make it better and safer, and maintain it in proper order.
  Europe “from the Atlantic to the Urals” is a cultural-historical entity united by the common heritage of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, of the great philosophical and social teachings of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. These are powerful magnets which help policy-makers in their search for ways to mutual understanding and cooperation at the level of interstate relations. […]
  I frankly admit that we are glad that the idea of a “common European home” finds understanding among prominent political and public figures of not only Eastern, but also Western Europe, including those whose political views are far removed from ours. Thus, Foreign Minister Genscher of Federal Germany has declared a readiness to “accept the concept of a common European home and to work together with the Soviet Union so as to make it a really common home.” Federal President Richard von Weizsaecker, Italian Foreign Minister Giulio Andreotti, and other leaders have spoken to me in the same vein. […]

“History compels us to treat each other properly”

History compels us to treat each other properly. Europe’s development is impossible without active cooperation by our two states. Solid relations between the FRG and the USSR would be of truly historic significance. While keeping their own identities, within their systems and their alliances, both states can play a major role in European and world development. The Soviet Union is interested in good security for the Federal Republic of Germany. If the FRG were unstable, there could be no hope of stability for Europe, and hence for the world. Conversely, stable relations between the FRG and the USSR would appreciably change the European situation for the better. […]
  In speaking with foreign leaders, I sometimes ask directly: “Do you believe that the Soviet Union intends to attack your country and Western Europe in general?” Almost all of them answer: “No, we do not.” But some of them immediately make a reservation, saying that the very fact of the USSR’s immense military might creates a potential threat.
  One can understand such reasoning. […] It is high time to put an end to the lies about the Soviet Union’s aggressiveness. Never, under any circumstances, will our country begin military operations against Western Europe unless we and our allies are attacked by NATO!
  In the West they talk about inequalities and imbalances. That’s right, there are imbalances and asymmetries in some kinds of armaments and armed forces on both sides in Europe, caused by historical, geographical and other factors. We stand for eliminating the inequity existing in some areas, but not through a build-up by those who lag behind but through a reduction by those who are ahead.
  In this field there are many specific issues awaiting solutions: reduction and eventual elimination of the tactical nuclear weapons, to be coupled with a drastic reduction of the armed forces and conventional weapons; withdrawal of offensive weapons from direct contact in order to rule out the possibility of a surprise attack; and a change in the entire pattern of armed forces with a view to imparting an exclusively defensive character to them. […]

Reduce armaments

We believe that armaments should be reduced to the level of reasonable sufficiency, that is, a level necessary for strictly defensive purposes. It is time the two military alliances amended their strategic concepts to gear them more to the aims of defence. Every apartment in the “European home” has the right to protect itself against burglars, but it must do so without destroying its neighbours’ property. […]
  We can see the first signs of a new outlook on international affairs sprouting in Western Europe. Certain changes are also taking place among ruling circles. Many socialist and social democratic parties of Western Europe are working out new attitudes to defence policy and security. They are led by seasoned politicians with a broad vision of the world’s problems.
  I have received the Consultative Council of the Socialist International led by Kalevi Sorsa, and have met Willy Brandt, Egon Bahr, Filipe Gonzalez and other social democratic leaders, and each time we noted that our views on the crucial issues of international security and disarmament were close or identical. […]
  Nevertheless, I think that Europe’s contribution to the cause of peace and security could be much bigger. Many West European leaders lack the political will and, perhaps, opportunities. […] It is regrettable that the governments of the NATO countries, including those who in words dissociate themselves from the dangerous extremes of American policy, eventually yield to pressure thereby assuming responsibility for the escalation in the arms race and in international tension.

“Sometimes one has the impression that the
independent policies of West European nations have been abducted”

There is an old Greek myth about the abduction of Europe. This fairy-tale subject has suddenly become very topical today. It goes without saying that Europe as a geographical notion will stay in place. Sometimes, however, one has the impression that the independent policies of West European nations have been abducted, that they are being carried off across the ocean; that national interests are farmed out under the pretext of protecting security.
  A serious threat is hovering over European culture too. The threat emanates from an onslaught of “mass culture” from across the Atlantic. […]
  Indeed, one can only wonder that a deep, profoundly intelligent and inherently humane European culture is retreating to the background before the primitive revelry of violence and pornography and the flood of cheap feelings and low thoughts.
  When we point to the importance of Europe’s independent stance, we are frequently accused of a desire to set Western Europe and the United States at loggerheads. We never had, and do not have now, any such intention whatsoever. We are far from ignoring or belittling the historic ties that exist between Western Europe and the United States. It is preposterous to interpret the Soviet Union’s European line as some expression of “anti-Americanism.” […] True, we would not like to see anyone kick in the doors of the European home and take the head of the table at somebody else’s apartment. But then, that is the concern of the owner of the apartment.

“US foreign policy is based on at least two delusions”

As far as United States foreign policy is concerned, it is based on at least two delusions. The first is the belief that the economic system of the Soviet Union is about to crumble and that the USSR will not succeed in restructuring. The second is calculated on Western superiority in equipment and technology and, eventually, in the military field. These illusions nourish a policy geared toward exhausting socialism through the arms race, so as to dictate terms later. Such is the scheme; it is naive. The USA still cherishes the hope of being the leading power of the entire world for all time: a vain hope, as many American scientists have already realised.
  We want freedom to prevail throughout the world in the dawning 21^st century. We want peaceful competition to develop between different social systems, and mutually beneficial cooperation, not confrontation and arms races, to determine relations between states. We want the people of every country to enjoy prosperity, happiness and contentment.
  The way to achieve this is through a world free of nuclear weapons, a world free of violence. We have chosen this path, and we call on other countries and nations to do the same.  •