The cessation of nuclear tests has always been an important concern in our discussions, and will no doubt also be during this session. At this stage, I will simply recall my Government's unvarying position, which is that the proposed nuclear-test ban can only be considered in the framework of a long-term process of arms reductions leading to a balance of forces at a level considerably lower than the current one. For France, the halting of tests cannot be a condition or a prerequisite for the reduction of nuclear arsenals.

Before going any further, I would like to recall a few general points, while apologizing for the fact that they are commonplace. Firstly, Europe has just experienced a 40-year period free, not of tensions, but of war, and few other regions have been so fortunate. Secondly, there are huge areas and extensive frontiers in the world where no existing concentration of forces exists. Thirdly, a build-up of troops and weapons never occurs spontaneously: it occurs where there are problems, disputes, difficulties, concern.

The following conclusions can be drawn from these facts:

1. Attempting to reduce such a build-up, without seeking also to settle the underlying political problems, would be either a fruitless exercise doomed to failure, or a dangerous undertaking which would result in situations of precariously-balanced armed peace being replaced by still more dangerous situations of imbalance.

2. It would be just as wrong to believe that technical decisions can replace political solutions, in order to achieve progress in disarmament. Thus, to believe that the elimination of nuclear weapons could result from technical innovations-in space or otherwise or the ending of tests, may appeal to our imaginations, but would only lead us to sham solutions, like the false windows which architects used to put into their buildings.

3. In the current situation, disarmament cannot be an end in itself for any responsible Government. As the French Minister of Foreign Affairs recently stated at the Stockholm Conference, "the heart of the problem is still security". The purpose of disarmament is to increase or in any case maintain security, not reduce it. This shows us how narrow is the path along which we must carefully progress if we wish the cause of disarmament to make realistic progress: the aim must be to maintain the balance of all the forces involved, but gradually bring them down to the lowest possible level.

4. In this respect let us also take care not to rank the different categories of armaments in a way that would make some inherently bad, and the others somehow good in themselves. In a given situation all the components of security must be taken into consideration, or else security will be jeopardized. As the President of the French Republic stressed in a recent statement, "since the imbalance in Europe is basically conventional and chemical, it would be logical to start there".

This is the crux of the debate. And this is where I would like to say a few words about the recent Soviet proposals.2 The plan, whose "intellectual boldness" President Mitterrand praised, is an ambitious one. It requires thorough analysis and

2 Presumably the Soviet proposals of January 15, ante, Document 5.

attentive consideration, which, on our side, are currently under way. But at this stage, a few remarks can already be made.

This plan proposes large cuts in the nuclear arsenals of the two super-Powers, and this is obviously a step in the right direction.

However, these proposals would from the outset require my country to freeze its nuclear forces, and therefore prohibit modernizing them. This would amount to forthwith jeopardizing the credibility of our deterrence, deterrence of the strong by the weak, according to which the weaker party does not seek in any way to attain parity of means with the stronger but simply to remain in a position to persuade the stronger party not to attack it, out of fear of an "unacceptable punishment". This is still one of the main obstacles to war, as Mr. Gorbachev stated during his visit to Paris last October.3

The threat we are facing is not only a nuclear one: it is also conventional and chemical. In view of this situation, I should simply like to recall that since long ago France has, on various occasions, and especially in 1983 through its President, proclaimed its determination to participate actively in effective and verifiable nuclear disarmament but that in order for it to do so certain conditions had to be met. Those conditions are the following. Firstly, the Soviet and American nuclear arsenals should be reduced to the point where the gap between them and the other nuclear Powers has essentially changed. Secondly, defence systems should not be strengthened. It was in this spirit that, before this very Conference on Disarmament, we made the proposals concerning space to which I referred earlier. Finally, the imbalance in classical forces should have disappeared and the chemical threat should truly have been eliminated.

19. Message From Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev to the Conference on Disarmament, February 20, 19861

I extend greetings to the representatives of States who have gathered for a regular session of the Conference on Disarmament.

The Soviet Union takes a most responsible approach to its participation in the Conference on Disarmament, because it understands that disarmament is the main avenue towards establishing new and equitable international arrangements and building a safe world. It is precisely disarmament which, by releasing enormous material and intellectual resources, would permit their use for constructive purposes, for achieving economic development and prosperity.

Mankind has come to a watershed in its history, when it has to choose which road to follow: either it will overcome the inertia of the past, when security was

* Documents on Disarmament, 1985, pp. 694.

4 See Documents on Disarmament, 1984, pp. 459–461.

1 CD/PV.341, pp. 7-9. The message was read to the Conference by First Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs Korniyenko.

regarded above all in terms of a position of strength and of military and technological solutions, or it will remain hostage to a race in nuclear, chemical and, in future, other equally awesome weapons.

This choice between what is prompted by reason and what would lead to catastrophe can only be made by all States together, regardless of their social system or their level of economic development.

This should be a courageous and responsible choice, and it depends to no small degree upon the States represented at the Conference on Disarmament if it is to be so. Now it is no longer enough to devise palliative solutions that would slow down the arms race in some areas only to allow it to surge ahead at double speed in others.

In other words, the time has come for us jointly to take major strides towards ridding our planet of nuclear and other weapons so that security for each of us will also mean security for all.

Guided by these considerations, at the start of this year the Soviet Union has put forward a comprehensive plan whose central element is a step-by-step programme for the elimination of nuclear weapons. We propose that the sword of Damocles which has been hanging over the peoples since the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be definitively and irrevocably removed by the end of this century.

It is only fair that the first crucial step should be made by the Soviet Union and the United States, which possess the largest nuclear capabilities, with the other nuclear Powers following suit.

We are deeply convinced that there is only one direct way of ridding mankind of the nuclear threat to eliminate nuclear weapons themselves. Objectively, it is a fact that the development and deployment of 'Star Wars' weaponry would inevitably spur on the arms race in every area. This is why it is necessary that from the very outset an effective international ban should be imposed on space strike

arms.

The Soviet Union is also proposing that chemical weapons be completely eliminated by the end of this century. The unduly protracted negotiations to conclude a convention on this matter should be vigorously accelerated.

While advocating a world without nuclear or chemical weapons, we are also prepared to go as far as other States would be prepared to go in reducing conventional arms and armed forces.

I should like to emphasize strongly that we propose that all practical measures of arms limitation and disarmament should be buttressed by measures of effective control and verification. No less than other States, the USSR is interested in having assurance of strict compliance with agreements reached. A number of points in our plan have a direct bearing on the Conference on Disarmament.

Suffice it to say that at the top of its agenda is the test-ban issue, whose radical solution could, in our opinion, become a turning point in the efforts to eliminate the nuclear threat.

The Soviet Union, for its part, has been doing all it can to help achieve this goal. In particular, it is agreeable to the strictest control over a ban on nuclear-weapon tests, including on-site inspections and the use of all the latest developments in seismology.

As is known, last year the USSR, wishing to set a good example, unilaterally ceased all nuclear explosion;2 it has subsequently extended its moratorium until 31 March 1986.3 It now depends above all on the United States whether the moratorium will continue in effect, and whether it will become bilateral and then multilateral.

I would like to express the hope that the States participating in the Conference will speak out strongly in support of such a course and that the Conference itself will be able to proceed to businesslike negotiations which would lead to the complete cessation of nuclear-weapon tests by everyone, everywhere and for all time.

I wish the participants in the Conference success in resolving the important issues facing them.

20. Statement by the Soviet First Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs (Korniyenko) to the Conference on Disarmament [Extract], February 20, 19861

As is clear from the message of M.S. Gorbachev that I have just conveyed to you, the Soviet leadership, without needlessly dramatizing the situation, at the same time soberly considers that the period which we, all of us, are living through is extremely important: it is a turning point. Mankind has to make a choice right now, on the threshold of the third millennium, which will determine its fate.

If we simplify the terms of the choice to the extreme and ask each of us what he prefers the survival of human civilization or its destruction-it is not difficult to foresee what answer would be given by any and every sensible person. However, in reality rather than in the abstract matters are considerably more complex. Powerful forces are at work in the world, and they are pushing it further along the road of a constantly accelerating and expanding arms race in an effort to achieve military superiority for themselves so as to impose their will on others. And if we fail in our joint efforts to put an end to that insane "race to nonexistence", to break the momentum of the obsolete and vicious thinking, the course of events may become irreversible and then a grim future is in store for mankind: to be more precise, the absence of any future.

Back in 1915, 30 years prior to the explosion of the first atomic bomb, V.I. Lenin cautioned that because of the use of the most modern powerful achievements of science and technology a war "may result and that it will inevitably result in undermining the very conditions of the existence of human society".

2 Documents on Disarmament, 1985, pp. 444-445.

3 Document 5.

'CD/PV.341, pp. 9-17.

2 Supra.

That prediction of the genius who founded the Soviet State has been fully confirmed, in this case regrettably, we should say. Today mankind already has the means of its own self-destruction.

We in the Soviet Union, however, by no means consider that the situation is irreparable and that nuclear war is fatally inevitable. Through the dense screen of mistrust and through the huge stockpiles of weapons can be seen-and we are sure of that-the real possibility of making a radical turn for the better in international trends and of preventing the outbreak of the arms race with its easily predictable consequences. Naturally, that is not easy to do but we are confident that it is within the power of world public opinion. The ground for this confidence is that with every passing day people are increasingly realizing the scale and nature of the imminent threat. Millions and millions of people on Earth are coming to realize that any delay is a crime, that it is necessary to act, and to act immediately. We shall never be won over by the arguments of those who consider that the arms race is inevitable and who claim that appeals to heed wisdom for the sake of the survival of mankind are "idle talk".

There are States and politicians in the world who not only do not share such ideas but consistently translate their awareness of the danger threatening humanity into their practical policies and into weighty, tangible acts. They have sufficient good will and statesmanship to overcome the established cliches and prejudices of the period of confrontation and to be the first to embark on the road leading away from the brink of the nuclear precipice.

The new formula of an advance towards lasting peace should be based on the unconditional recognition of the necessity of ensuring equal security for all States and peoples. The facts of the nuclear and space age, which has infinitely expanded man's possibilities and at the same time has narrowed down to the minimum and condensed the space and time in which we live, have made it axiomatic—and that axiom is not yet understood by all—that it is impossible to strengthen one's own security at the expense and to the detriment of others.

The Soviet State in its policies always-both in the pre-war and post-war years-gave preference to the ideas of collective security based on the carefully verified balance of interests of all countries. However, in the past we dealt with the idea that ensuring collective security was the preferable way while today it is, we profoundly believe, the only possible way. In the nuclear age, security of States, as M.S. Gorbachev pointed out, "is possible only as security for all". From that viewpoint, a lower degree of security of, for instance, the United States in comparison with the Soviet Union would be even disadvantageous for us since that would create strategic instability and, as a result, would spur on the arms race. As you see, we do not have a double standard-one for the security of the USSR and another for other countries.

Another basic element of the new approach to ensuring international security should be the understanding and the recognition by all that this task can only be resolved by political and not by military and technological means. A search— even a sincere one--for military and technological means of ensuring security can bring about only the same endless escalation of the arms race with its fully predictable consequences. One day, in the conditions of a political crisis or simply as a result of technical faults in a computer, the entire "escalator", each