Table Of ContentTitles of Related Interest
ANDROPOV, Y.V. Speeches and Writings
BREZHNEV, L.I. A Short Biography : Workers of all Countries Unite
How it was: The War and Post-war Reconstruction in the
Soviet Union
Selected Speeches and Writings on Foreign Affairs
Virgin Lands: Two Years in Kazakhstan, 1954-5
Memoirs
Socialism, Democracy and Human Rights
CHERNENKO, K. Selected Speeches and Writings
GORSHKOV, S.G. Sea Power of the State
GROMYKO, A.A. Only for Peace: Selected Speeches and Writings
KOSYGIN,A.N. Selected Speeches and Writings
LEBEDEV,N.I. A New Stage in International Relations
Great October and Today 's World
PATOLICHEV, N.S. Measures of Maturity; My Early Life
PONOMAREV, B.N. Selected Speeches and Writings
SUSLOV, M.A. Selected Speeches and Writings
TIKHONOV, N.A. Selected Speeches and Writings
USTINOV, D.F. Serving the Homeland and the Cause of Communism
Modern Diplomacy
of Capitalist Powers
With a Foreword by
ANDREI A. GROMYKO
Translated by
Y.S. SHIROKOV and Y.S. SVIRIDOV
PERGAMON PRESS
OXFORD NEW YORK · TORONTO · SYDNEY · PARIS FRANKFURT
U.K. Pergamon Press Ltd., Headington Hill Hall,
Oxford OX3 OBW, England
U.S.A. Pergamon Press Inc., Maxwell House, Fairview Park,
Elmsford, New York 10523, U.S.A.
CANADA Pergamon Press Canada Ltd., Suite 104,
150 Consumers Rd., Willowdale, Ontario M2J 1P9, Canada
AUSTRALIA Pergamon Press (Aust.) Pty. Ltd., P.O. Box 544,
Potts Point, N.S.W. 2011, Australia
FRANCE Pergamon Press SARL, 24 rue des Ecoles,
75240 Paris, Cedex 05, France
FEDERAL REPUBLIC Pergamon Press GmbH, Hammerweg 6,
OF GERMANY D-6242 Kronberg-Taunus, Federal Republic of Germany
Copyright© 1983 VAAP, Moscow
All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored
in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means; electronic,
electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without permission in writing from the copyright holders.
First English edition 1983
Previously published in the USSR by the Politizdat Publishers,
Moscow, and translated by Y. Shirokov and Y. Sviridov
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Borisov, O B
Modern diplomacy of capitalist powers.
1. Diplomacy
I. Title II. Sovremenna diplomatcya
bunzhuaznykh gosudarstv English
327.2 JX1391
ISBN 0-08-028173-7
PUBLISHER'S NOTE TO READERS
As is well known, Pergamon Press have for some time been publishing
books by senior Soviet politicians (Politbureau members) for the purpose of
enabling interested English-speaking readers to know their views and
opinions about international and domestic affairs.
The views expressed in this book are those of the author and not necessarily
those of the Publisher.
Printed in Great Britain by A. Wheaton & Co. Ltd., Exeter
Editorial Board
and
Authors:
I.N. ZEMSKOV G.M. KORNIENKO
L.S. TIKHVINSKY V.l. IVANOV
V.P. NIKHAMIN I.D. OSTOYA-OVSYANY
K.N. SVANIDZE
O.B. BORISOV Y.V. DUBININ
I.N. ZEMSKOV V.l. IVANOV
G.M. KORNIENKO K.N. MOZEL
V.P. NIKHAMIN Y.N. RAKHMANINOV
E.F. ROGOV G.L. ROZANOV
O.M. SOKOLOV G.V. URANOV
LG. USACHEV V.N. FEDOROV
Foreword
This book deals with the current problems of bourgeois diplomacy. Every
state defines the objectives and tasks of its diplomacy, which is the sum total
of all the measures, as well as the forms, ways, and means used by this state
to implement its general policy in international affairs. Priority is attached to
foreign policy; however, foreign policy and diplomacy are inseparably linked
and interlocked in an integral whole.
It follows from this fact that the foreign policy and diplomacy of a state,
which has a definite social system, stem from the very nature of this system,
or the ideology of the class or classes in power, and are called upon to secure
their interests. In short, diplomacy, just like foreign policy, has a distinctive
class character.
Seeking to shape the destinies of nations, the exploiter classes have always
regarded the planning and implementation of foreign policy and diplomatic
activity as their exclusive privilege. Today, as in the past, they take whatever
steps are necessary to bar the common people from participation in this
process in whatever form, let alone directly, through their representatives.
Bourgeois diplomacy continues its loyal service to the capitalist system,
and to the monopoly bourgeoisie, which views diplomacy as an important
instrument for preserving and consolidating its positions on the international
scene, for the struggle against world socialism, the revolutionary and
national liberation movements.
In fulfilling its purpose bourgeois diplomacy makes wide use of the
experience and facilities available in the rich arsenal of customs and
traditions, norms and methods that took shape and accumulated through
centuries of international intercourse, and activity in the foreign policy field.
As Lenin pointed out in his time, in all areas of politics, foreign policy in
particular, the proletariat which has come to power must know the methods
of its opponent and use them at least with equal skill. 1 Needless to say,
deception, blackmail, and dictation, which have become the stock-in-trade of
bourgeois diplomacy, are inapplicable in the practices of socialist diplomacy
1 V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 41, p. 81.
vii
viii Modem Diplomacy of Capitalist Powers
for reasons of principle and morality. Knowledge and consideration of these
methods as diplomatic weapons of the bourgeoisie are quite indispensable for
a timely exposure and analysis of imperialist plans and for frustrating them
effectively.
Falsehood and deception inherent in the diplomacy of capitalist powers
are strikingly manifest in the glaring discrepancy between the foreign-policy
principles and objectives they announce officially and those, they actually
pursue in real life. The ruling sections of these countries proclaiming noble
foreign-policy principles and objectives often use them as a cover-up to
substitute their own selfish interests for the general state and national
interests, to camouflage their true intentions and actions in international
affairs, concealing thereby the essence of their diplomacy alien to their
peoples.
To shroud diplomatic activity in mystery is a favourite bourgeoisie trick.
In so doing it shamelessly turns to advantage the ignorance of the common
people in matters of foreign policy. This ignorance, for which the common
people are not, of course, responsible, is being thoroughly cultivated and
hence is even greater than in matters of home policy. "The deception of the
mass of the people about the 'affairs' of foreign policy is planned with
artistry", Lenin said in his time.2 Secrets concerning the true motives and the
machinery of bourgeois diplomacy today are guarded just as jealously as in
the past.
One of the long-standing methods of diplomacy is playing on contradic
tions in the opponents' camp, and capitalist powers actively take advantage
of them. Seeking to implement their plans, they invariably try, often with
success, to provoke and foment disputes and conflicts between countries they
list among their adversaries, and whenever they see an opportunity to gain
political or other dividends, they do not scruple to sow discord among their
own allies as well.
Among the diplomatic means employed by capitalist powers, great
significance is attached to co-ordination of their foreign policy. Such
co-ordination based on the common class interests of these countries on the
international scene is largely implemented today within the framework of
military-political alliances and other exclusive associations, such as NATO,
the Common Market, etc. At the same time, such co-ordination is obviously
made less effective by the chronically unstable situation in the capitalist
world, the deep-seated antagonisms between imperialist powers, and the
grave difficulties eroding the system of blocs knocked together by the
imperialists. Indeed, time and again this system is shaken to its foundations,
as is evidenced by the recent collapse of CENTO and SEATO.
The ambition of bigger capitalist powers to dominate their smaller
2 V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 32, p. 335.
Foreword ix
partners is clearly visible in the sphere of their foreign policy co-ordination.
For instance, NATO's leading powers, and particularly the United States,
are going out of their way to entangle its junior members in "allied"
commitments on the pretext of promoting "Atlantic solidarity", to limit to a
minimum their independence in matters of foreign policy, and to usurp the
privilege of acting on their behalf on the international scene.
Champions of "Atlantic solidarity", however, increasingly often run into
difficulties, trying to harness the foreign policy of each NATO member state
to the imperialist ambitions of the United States, which is the mastermind of
the "co-ordinated" policy of this bloc. As developments over the past few
years have made it clear, a number of West European states are far from
always prone to approve of and support US behaviour in Europe and are
beginning to search for independent routes of approach to a settlement of
international issues that would best accord with their national interests.
The policy of the Soviet Union and other members of the socialist
community of nations is, and has always been, motivated by a desire for
lasting peace, and a striving to affirm the principles of peaceful coexistence,
to reduce and eventually to eliminate for good the risk of another world war.
"To safeguard peace—no task is more important now on the international
plane for our Party, for our people and, for that matter, for all the peoples of
the world", Leonid Brezhnev stated emphatically at the 26th CPSU
Congress.
The most die-hard reactionary circles in the capitalist world are bitterly
resisting all efforts to improve the international situation, just as they did
during the Cold War years. At that time imperialist policy created a vicious
circle of its own kind, in which international tensions stimulated an arms
build-up, and the latter increased in turn international tensions. To break
that circle was not a simple matter. It demanded strenuous efforts,
staunchness and dedication to principle in the struggle to ease international
tensions.
The change in the alignment of forces in the international arena due to the
growing prestige of the socialist community of nations, the dynamic foreign
policy of the Soviet Union and other Warsaw Treaty nations, the successes of
the international communist, working-class, and national liberation move
ments and, finally, the awareness of the new realities on the part of many
statesmen in the capitalist countries—all these factors in toto had laid the
groundwork for a turn towards détente in the late sixties and early seventies.
The successful implementation of the Peace Programme put forward by the
24th Congress and developed by the 25th Congress of the CPSU brought
about a tangible change for the better in the world situation.
The socialist community of nations along with other forces committed to
peace, has achieved considerable success in their consistent struggle for
peace and détente. Their greatest achievement is the disruption of the tragic
x Modern Diplomacy of Capitalist Powers
cycle: a world war—a brief period of respite—another world war.
The principle of peaceful coexistence as the only sensible alternative to this
cycle in the prevailing situation increasingly gained significance as a
practical guideline in relations between states with different social systems.
First serious political obstacles, followed up by international law constraints,
were put in the way of the war-mongering hawks.
This, of course, left its imprint on the diplomacy of the capitalist powers. It
is common knowledge that the diplomatic services of the capitalist countries,
by virtue of their social composition and the character of their functions in
defending the interests of the ruling élite on the foreign scene, belong, as a
rule, among the most conservative institutions. As in the past, they
stubbornly oppose any change put by world developments on the order of the
day.
The march of history, however, is inexorable, and whatever resistance
might have been offered by the Western diplomatic services, they were
compelled to adapt to innovation which was vigorously gaining ground in
the field of international affairs. The winds of change could no longer be
diverted by cosmetic corrections in the traditional forms and methods of
diplomacy, as had been done more than once in the past. It became
mandatory to revise the very essence of the time-honoured approach to
international problems. As is shown in this monograph, this involved the
need for more and more amendments to be made in the diplomacy of
capitalist powers and in the practical activities of their diplomatic services.
The new change was most tangible in Europe. Here the influence of
socialism and the chills of the Cold War were felt more acutely than
elsewhere. The meeting of Leonid Brezhnev and other Soviet leaders with
the French President Charles de Gaulle in June 1966 signified a major
advance towards dynamic development of Franco-Soviet ties, which was an
effective contribution to easing international tensions.
The radical improvement of relations between the Soviet Union and other
socialist countries, on the one hand, and the Federal Republic of Germany,
on the other, was an event of worldwide significance. The Soviet-West
German Treaty of 1970 became one of the corner-stones in the edifice of
détente. Changes for the better were also in evidence in Soviet relations with
a number of other capitalist countries of Europe.
The initiative of the socialist community of nations in undertaking a joint
venture in favour of security and co-operation-an all-European con
ference—was also born on European soil. Persistent efforts to carry through
this initiative culminated in spectacular success for European and world
politics—the top-level meeting at Helsinki of representatives of thirty-three
European countries, the United States and Canada.
The conferees set the seal upon the political results of the Second World
War and reaffirmed the inviolability of the state frontiers established in
Foreword xi
post-war Europe. The Final Act of the Conference is a veritable code of basic
principles of interstate relations. Thus, favourable prerequisites were created
for further efforts to strengthen peace in the European continent. The
Conference decisions, which were oriented towards the future, opened up
more favourable prospects for peaceful co-operation in many fields—
economics, science and technology, culture and information, the develop
ment of human contacts—serving to strengthen friendship among nations.
The beneficial impact of the Conference results is expressed in bilateral
relations between states in Europe assuming an increasingly stable and
comprehensive character. The significance of the Final Act, of implementing
its principles and provisions is reflected in many documents on the results of
the talks between Soviet leaders and statesmen of France, the Federal
Republic, Italy, Finland, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, and
other European countries.
The Soviet people have included in their new Constitution the principles
and provisions corresponding to the Soviet Union's commitments under
major international agreements. This is a good example of a responsible
attitude to the task of introducing the aforesaid principles of relations
between states into international intercourse.
The completion of the post-war development stage and the need for new
and more stable international relations in Europe logically followed from the
increase in the prestige of the socialist countries and their influence on the
situation in Europe, as well as a more realistic policy adopted by the Western
powers. Hence European peace has acquired greater stability. It is now
much more difficult to throw Europe back to the Cold War times than it was
some time ago.
In his speech in Prague on 31 May, 1978 Leonid Brezhnev said in
particular:
It is now for four decades that Europe has lived under peaceful skies.
This is highly significant. History seems never to have bestowed before
such a long period of peace on the peoples of Europe. And the peoples
must realize clearly that this is due to a large and even decisive extent
to the fact that half of Europe lives under socialism today. Peace in
Europe is very much the fruit of our joint efforts of the co-ordinated
foreign policy of the Warsaw Treaty member nations. 3
Indeed, the foreign policy of the socialist community of nations is a joint,
co-ordinated policy. This logically follows from the common views of the
fraternal parties on the cardinal problems of socialist and communist
construction, on the vital issues of world development.
The socialist countries do not fear rebuke for pursuing a joint policy in
3L. I. Brezhnev, Following Lenin's Course, Moscow, 1979, vol. 7, pp. 350-351.
xii Modern Diplomacy of Capitalist Powers
international affairs rather than acting "independently", so to speak, in other
words, separately, as our opponents would like us to do. This co-ordinated
policy multiplies our strength, enhances the effectiveness of socialist foreign
policy pursuing the noble aims of the struggle for peace and international
co-operation, for the freedom and independence of nations. Naturally, we
take pride in this policy, and we are determined to go ahead along this line,
as has been reaffirmed by the 26th CPSU Congress.
The foreign policy of the socialist community of nations is a thoroughly
democratic policy, meeting mankind's most vital interests. Called upon to
secure the requisite conditions abroad for coping with the constructive tasks
facing the peoples of the community at home, this policy simultaneously
settles the main issue of worldwide significance, since no problem is more
crucial to any people on earth today than that of preserving peace and
protecting the most sacred right of every human being—the right to
life—against the menace of war.
The Warsaw Treaty Organization is an influential force that plays an
effective role in this context. One eloquent evidence of this is the Declaration
adopted by the Political Consultative Committee of the Warsaw Treaty
member nations at its conference in Warsaw on 15 May, 1980. It is
distinguished by a constructive approach and a striving for mutual
understanding and co-operation. Special attention is paid in this document
to the question of perpetuating the situation in which Europe has now
enjoyed the benefits of peace for 35 years. It is emphasized at the same time
that among the problems of paramount significance pride of place belongs to
that of scaling down military confrontation and achieving disarmament in
the European continent.
Détente has withstood quite a few gruelling tests and proved its objective
necessity. This, however, certainly does not mean that détente has already
become irreversible. It is being opposed by warlike imperialist circles in the
Western countries, who have, in addition, found confederates in China's
leadership pursuing a hegemonistic foreign-policy line.
Worried by the beneficial results of the progress of détente, the steadily
growing power of the socialist community of nations and the consolidation of
its positions on the international scene, the narrowing of the sphere of
imperialist domination, the exacerbation of the internal contradictions in the
capitalist countries and rivalry among them, the most aggressive imperialist
circles and all international reactionaries are trying to erect a barrier to
progressive changes in the world, to arrogate the role of rulers of mankind's
destiny. This hopeless policy of adventurism, harking back to the power
politics of the past, led in the late seventies to a serious complication of the
world situation.
The stiffening of Western policy initiated by a United States bent on
stepping up international tensions was strikingly manifest in NATO's
