Speech Andropov 1983 en.pdf
Vista previa de texto
Parallel History Project on Cooperative Security (PHP)
Records of the Political Consultative Committee, 1955-1991
Edited by Douglas Selvage
pushiness in no way lessens the contradictions between imperialists; on the contrary, it
U.S. relations with many Third World countries have encountered significant difficulties.
How else could it be in light of the events in the Southern Atlantic, Lebanon, parts of
Central America and the Caribbean, and southern Africa? Providing support to terrorist
regimes and rejecting fair demands for the establishment of a new international economic
order, the Americans are siding against the Non-Aligned Movement on many current
Let’s take, for example, the U.S. president’s recent statement regarding his intentions to
create an American military command for a large part of the Indian Ocean, located
thousands of miles from the USA. This is nothing other than an encroachment upon the
independence of the states of Southwest Asia. There are almost two dozen in this area.
Naturally, such a typical colonialist act, characteristic of gendarmes, cannot but arouse
suspicion and vigilance in the Third World. Reagan’s two-year hold on power has
exacted great political costs for the United States. The global outlook, with all its
contradictions, is by no means rosy for imperialism, whatever its ideologues may
proclaim. Socialism has withstood the pressure of its class enemies, we have certainly
been able to oppose their aggression, and we can ultimately expect to return international
relations to a more normal condition.
I would like to discuss a number of focal points of our foreign policy activity in greater
First of all, regarding our relations with the U.S. Through the fault of the current
administration, a kind of top soil erosion has taken place in Soviet-American relations.
When Reagan entered the White House, he said something in the vein that he, you see,
had nothing at all to discuss with the Soviet Union until the USA attained military
How did we respond to this? We could have also said that we do not want to talk to a
political boor, even if he does head the most powerful capitalist country. But the Soviet
leadership acted differently. It confirmed its readiness to conduct a serious, extensive
dialogue with the United States – but, of course, a dialogue of equals.
Today, one hears words in Washington about the benefits of more constructive relations
with the Soviet Union. But we still have no reason to speak of a change for the better in
American policy. Recent contacts, including my conversation with U.S. Vice President
Copyright 1999-2009 Parallel History Project on Cooperative Security (PHP). All rights reserved.
If cited, quoted, translated, or reproduced, acknowledgement of any document’s origin must be made as follows:
“Parallel History Project on Cooperative Security (PHP), www.php.isn.ethz.ch, by permission of the
Center for Security Studies at ETH Zurich on behalf of the PHP network.”
Funding for the translation and annotation of this document was provided by the United States National Endowment
for the Humanities (NEH) through Collaborative Research Grant Project RZ-50701-07,
“The Cold War and Human Security: Translations for the Parallel History Project on NATO and the Warsaw Pact,”
Douglas Selvage, Principal Investigator.