May 15, 1980
Page 11433
SECRETARY MUSKIE AND FOREIGN MINISTER GROMYKO
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, tomorrow Secretary of State Muskie will be meeting in Vienna with Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko. Thus our former colleague will, for the first time, have a chance to meet his opposite number and to have discussions with him about the future of United States-Soviet relations. Secretary Muskie's hope, as he has explained, is to make progress in this relationship; but he has also warned that the progress will depend upon the nature of Soviet policies in the light of what has happened since last December.
But, of course, it is not only what the Soviets have done since December that is important. It is just as necessary to examine what the Soviets say they will do. Americans are a little bit impatient with Soviet theory and doctrine. We tend to say that no one in the Soviet Union believes in ideology any more. But we make a big mistake when we adopt that attitude. If we had followed Soviet pronouncements a little more seriously, we would not have been surprised at Afghanistan.
During the past few weeks, three Soviet spokesmen have delivered addresses intended to show the direction of Soviet policies, particularly with regard to Western Europe and Afghanistan. It is clear from the direction of these speeches that the Soviets are not on the defensive about Afghanistan; on the contrary, they have taken the offensive. Not only do they justify the armed invasion of the Afghans' territory, but they go on to enunciate a new principle. They have now extended the so-called Brezhnev doctrine — once applied only to members of the Socialist bloc — to the whole world.
The address that attracted most of the attention of the Western press seems to have been the first one chronologically. It was made by the Soviet Ambassador to France, S. V. Chervonenko, a full member of the Central Committee of the CPSU since 1961. It was Chervonenko who announced the extension of the Brezhnev doctrine in Paris at the beginning of April.
The "tough" tone of Chervonenko's address could well have been meant to set the proper climate for the brief "working visit" to Paris of Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko, who came in late April. Gromyko, of course, has been a full member of the Soviet party inner circle, the Politburo, since 1973.
The third speech was by a seldom heard figure, B. N. Ponomarev, the gray eminence of the Kremlin who is the leading ideologist in matters relating to the activities of foreign Communist
parties. Born in 1905, Ponomarev is chief of the International Affairs Department of the CPSU Central Committee. He is also chairman of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the Council of Nationalities of the Supreme Soviet. Ponomarev seldom speaks in public, but he is regarded as one of the most powerful forces in foreign policy.
The speech by Ambassador Chervonenko in Paris has startled foreign analysts. Chervonenko said that now any country, in any region "has the full right to choose its friends and allies, and, if it became necessary, to joint with them in repelling the threat of a counterrevolution or foreign intervention." Whereas the Brezhnev doctrine was enunciated in the context of Czechoslovakia and Warsaw Pact members, Chervonenko now made it clear that it applied to every nation.
Actually, the Brezhnev doctrine, and its extension, are merely the application of the principle of "Socialist internationalism," a doctrine so important to the Soviet ideologues that it has been incorporated into the new Soviet Constitution. The aim of Soviet foreign policy, says the 1977 constitution, is "insuring international conditions favorable for building communism in the U.S.S.R. and consolidating the positions of world socialism."
The Soviet conviction is that all the world is their responsibility, politically speaking, since all the world must eventually come under Communist domination. Any obstacle is to be destroyed, if possible, or at least neutralized. Thus Chervonenko strongly contested the notion that the United States had any "vital interests" in the Persian Gulf, since any such vital interests would be an obstacle to complete Soviet domination of the area.
Thus, on Afghanistan, Chervonenko was adamant. He said clearly that there was a threat: "the possible fall of the revolutionary government." He said that the Soviet Union could not permit "another Chile" in that key strategic area. The fact that the Soviet invasion aroused worldwide indignation merely convinced the Soviet Union that more diplomatic activity was necessary.
The speech of Gromyko at the Paris press conference was on the whole less somber but also no less adamant than that of Chervonenko. It was as serenely assertive of the righteousness of the Soviet cause. The whole text of the speech appeared in Pravda for April 26.
He started by stating that "France and the Soviet Union had covered a long and fruitful road in the development of mutual relations." Pursuing the policy of encouraging détente in Europe as a means of separating Europe from America, Gromyko noted that France was for detente as it had been before. France and the U.S.S.R. both admitted the presence of scores of camps in Pakistan in which rebels were trained to fight in Afghanistan. He pointed out that French President Giscard had said that nobody must interfere in the internal affairs of Afghanistan. He praised Giscard for saying that Afghanistan should be a "non-aligned country" — a term which Gromyko said he preferred to that of "neutral." He said that the French were also in favor of calling a conference on détente and disarmament, to be followed at some later date by a conference on disarmament in Europe.
Gromyko then laid all the blame for the worsening of the international situation in Europe on the United States, for insisting on rearming and on placing medium range nuclear missiles in Western Europe.
By contrast, he said the situation in Afghanistan had been "artificially blown up," since only "a limited contingent of troops" had been sent in answer to "repeated requests for help" by "the legitimate Government of Afghanistan." He was particularly irked at the presence of training camps for Afghan rebels in Pakistan, and stated categorically that removal of Soviet troops would take place only "when aggression against Afghanistan stops." He said that any talk to the contrary was "a loss of time" and "simply not realistic." He insisted that the removal of Soviet troops would be "the crowning result" of the cessation of aggression.
Speaking in Moscow, Ponomarev — who seems to spend most of his time receiving foreign Communist delegations or visiting foreign Communist headquarters all around the globe — delivered a speech that was something of a general guideline for Communists at home and abroad, where some parties appeared to have been somewhat dismayed at the Afghanistan affair.
He obviously spoke also for the benefit of the European Communist parties that were to convene in Paris at the end of April, in order to speak up together "against the danger of war" as he said during his speech.
Ponomarev spoke, of course, of Leninism in general and its glorious realizations in the Soviet Union, but he dealt at length also with the international situation. He informed his audience that the number of Communists in non-Socialist countries had increased by some 1,250,000 . . . 4,250,000 in all, of which more than 800,000 new members are in Western Europe. His speech made it clear that these Communists would be very effective in carrying out the line of Socialist internationalism. Addressing apparently all Communists everywhere he stated that "the voice of Communists must be heard by all who want peace," that is, by all leftist groups and parties.
In order to encourage his hearers abroad to action, Ponomarev laid on capitalism the blame for inflation, unemployment, and spreading terrorism, saying that it was always more an obstacle to "the solution of present problems of humanity." Capitalism-imperialism in particular was responsible for the "hunger and poverty of many peoples." That is why, he added, "class warfare within the imperialist camp and the national liberation movement of peoples grows stronger" — in other words, calling for an increase of the same.
For those who might disregard any form of abstract thought, it should be noted that there is nothing abstract about Marxism-Leninism. It is the most down-to-earth pragmatic set of flexible guidelines on the tactics most effective to use in order to achieve total power. It is only the language which is sometimes misleading, because words familiar to us have unfamiliar meanings. And so when Ponomarev called upon Communists to "fulfill the wishes of Lenin, namely to bring to its conclusion the historic mission of socialism," he was calling for world revolution, which Communists the world over now believe to be close as never before because of the disarray in the free world.
When he asked them to "cooperate with those who really want to avoid a world war, are inclined to take the realities of our times into consideration, are ready to respect the legitimate interests, independence and freedom of each people," he was talking of the carrot to be used with such peoples and individuals as for one reason or other fell into the Communist camp or at least became "nonaligned."
Thus it is that he said that the policy of peace of the Soviet Union, which "has no use for war and does not aim at war" has penetrated into the consciousness of peoples and "even of ruling circles of a circle of countries."
As to the situation in Afghanistan, Ponomarev left little doubt as to the decision of the Soviet Union to abide by the Iranian-Soviet Treaty of 1921 in which the Soviet Union committed itself to help the Iranians in case of need. He quoted the words of Lenin said in 1921 to the effect that "Russia will remain forever the first friend of the exalted Afghanistan state for the good of both
peoples."
He castigated the strategy of the United States, saying that "it calls for, intervention, including armed intervention, wherever peoples take their destiny into their own hands, where foreign oppression and dictates are liquidated." The "right of intervention, of export
counterrevolution," continued Ponomarev, "is now justified openly by the vital interests of America." It was, said: Ponomarev, "the colonizing desire to take that which does not belong to colonialism. And when peoples resist such attempts, imperialists begin to threaten with global confrontation and to shake atomic weapons."
Ponomarev thus blamed the danger of war for the world on the aggressive actions of the United States and again stressed that only the Soviet Union could save the world from catastrophe.
And so, Mr. President, the situation is this. Any Soviet act of aggression is actually a defensive act. According to their way of thinking, the dynamics of history is on their side. Any action taken to defend the direction of history is therefore, by definition, a defensive action. On the other hand, any action by the capitalist states to maintain the status quo is an action contrary to the direction of history, in the Communist's view. According to their convoluted logic, the defense of freedom by the West is therefore retrograde, and an act of aggression against the future of communism.
Mr. President, let us hope that Secretary Muskie will make progress in his.meeting with Gromyko tomorrow. But at the same time, let us be realistic about Soviet intentions and Soviet ambitions.