JPRS 81687

1 September 1982

USSR Report


No. 5, May 1982


lj tio mtain information primarily from foreign newspap rs, reriodica! ind ks, but also from news agency transmissions and broad- ist Material trom ftoreign- languag ources are trauslated; thos:

from nglish- language uurces are transcribed or reprinted, with the original phrasing and other characteristics retained.

idlin ditorial reports, and material enclosed in brackets [] are upplied PRS Prox ing indicators such as [Text] or [Excerpt] in the first line of each item, or following the last line of a brief, indicate how the original information was processed. Where no processing indicator siven, the information was summarized or extracted Unfamiliar names rendered phonetically or transliterated are enclosed in parenth ;. Words or nanes preceded by a question mark and enclosed in parenth ; were not clear in the original but have been supplied as appropriate in context. Other unattributed parenthetical notes within the body of an item originate with the source. Times within items are as

yntents of this publication in no way represent the policies, views ir at Ltud ot the U.S. Government


RS publications may be ordered from the National Technical Information rvi (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia 2216] In ordering, it is recom- nded that the JPRS number, title, date and author, if applicable, of

Current JPRS publications are announced in Government Reports Announcements d semimonthly by the NIIS, and are listed in the Monthly Catalog of > > >. Government Publications issued by the superintendent of Documents, U.S.

overnment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

Correspondence pertaining to matters other than procurement may be addressed to Joint Publications Research Service, 1000 North Glebe Road, Arlington,

irginia 2220]

Soviet books and journal articles displaying a copyright notice are reproduced and sold by NTIS with permission of

tl pyright agency of the Soviet Union. Permission for

- »

further reproduction must be obtained from copyright owner

JPRS 81687

1 September 1982


No. 5, May 1982

Translation of the Russian-language monthly journal MIROVAYA EKONOMIKA

I MEZHDUNARODNYYE OTNOSHENIYA published in Moscow by the Institute of USSR Academy of Sciences.

World Economy and International Relations,


ae a RT OB ETT TTT TTT TT TEE EL CET TTTTerTTTerTrire l EEE DOE AOO OE “Reete ERCROEOS bisa ANTS DDD TEDSTER ER ed ddddd eee OoeddeES 3 Role of Developing Countries in World Politics Reviewed

3 es | PPT TTTI TITTLE LILI iti ierierirree 6 Iran, Pakistan, Egypt: Islam Reacts To Modern World

Pe | TT IT TTT LITLTL TLL rire 23 Soviet Journal Reviews Book on Lenin Legacy


i Pe ccenb esta esse ee seeeeeccvereieerees

‘lish title

ian title

Author (s)

Fditor (s)

Publishing House

Place of Publication

Date of Publication

Signed to press

Conie sp 1es




No 5, May 1982



: Ya. S. Khavinson

Izdatel'stvo Pravda

: Moscow

: May 1982

: 21 April 1982

: 31,000

: Izdatel'stvo "Pravda", "Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya”, 1982

CONTENTS OF 'MEMO,' No 5, May 1982

Moscow MILROVAYA EKONOMIKA I MEZHDUNARODNYYE OTNOSHENTYA in Russian No 5, May 82 (signed to press 21 Apr 82) pp 1-2

[Articles published in this report are indicated with an asterisk (*) ]

[Text] Contents

"Torchlight of Revolutionary Thought and Action"............ bbbee de peSS5% ees 3 *k'Nowly Independent Countries in International Relations"--Ye. Primakov...... 14 "United Nations and Scientific and Technological Cooperation:

Organizational Aspects"--S. Tsukanov and A. Miroshnichenko............. 30 "Complex Problems of Trade end Development"=--P. Khvoynik.........seeececeees 40 *"The Role of Islam in the Social and Political Life of the Orient"--

LT. Timofeyev..cccccces TEETTTIELILITIELETE LETT TETTLITILLAL LETT 51 "The Conserv tive Onslaught™"=-John K. Galbraith... ..cccccccccccccccsesecesses 65

Our Comments

"The EEC in the Labyrinth of Reform"--Yu. Shishkov.......ccccccccscvccccces ; 78 Criticism of Bourgeois Theories

"The Theory of Value: The Foundation of Economic Science"=--K. Val'tukh..... 86

In the Academic Council of the Institute of World Economics and International Relations, USSR Academy of Sciences

oe: nh ¢ 8 —Be oo) me ey SS errr TTT TT TP ee ee rT Tree 100

Our Foreign Correspondent

"Some Aspects of Militurization in the FRG"--V. Fedorov.....ccccccccccecsces 119 History nd Journalism a, « ©... SS Ee!) ft. MFPPPTTTTITITT TTT TTT Tr Teerrirriir?e Tree 128

Surveys and Reports

‘Problems of Construction Efficiency--the Investment Aspect"'-- fm 8 gk Perr rrr rrr eT Teer re re TUT Cre Te TTT ET iveoeds 134

Scientific Life "The Activities of Specialized Councils of the Institute of World Economics and International Relations, USSK Academy of Sciences"--


Books and Authors

*"The Tertinence of Lenin's Legacy"=-I1. Kolikov....ccccccccscccccccsece ve daee 143 "Natural Tendencies in World Socialism"--I. Dudinskiy........ TETEETEPT TTT 147 "Mexican Scholars Criticize Washington Policy"--N. Zaytsev......seeeee- veeeae 148 In Search of a "Balariced' Policy"--A. Zagorskiy....... -TEETETELELELELE TET 150

"American Institutionalism in Search of New Theories"--V. bike outs oekeeee: 152 "Plutocratic Domination"--G. Tsagolov.......eeeeeees TIETTTETTerriri iii 154 "Natural Resources and the Arms Race'"--G. Gornostayev........ TUTTE ULE 155

COPYRIGHT: Izdatel'stvo "Pravda", "Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya", 1982

8 588 CSO: 1816/8


Moscow MIROVAYA EKONOMIKA I MEZHDUNARODNYYE OTNOSHENIYA in Russian No 5, May 82 (signed to press 21 Apr 82) pp 158-159

{Text} The editorial "Torchlight of Revolutionary Thought and Action" commemorates the centenary of the first Russian translation of "The Communist Manifesto” by

K. Marx and F. Engels--the outstanding policy-planning document of Marxism that accomplished a crucial turnabout in the social consciousness of mankind.

The Russian translation of "The Communist Manifesto" played an important role in the spread of Marxism in Russia, serving as a powerful incentive for combining sci- entific socialism with the working class movement which had brought the Great October Socialist Revolution to its victorious end.

K. Marx and F. Engels traced the main tendencies in the historical process and determined the essential laws of the future communist society. The actual develop- ment of the contemporary socialist world testifies to their brilliant foresight. The main conclusion of "The Communist Manifesto," embodying its central idea, is fidelity to the principles of solidarity and internationalism and consistent strug- gle for the unity and solidarity of the international working class. This struggle is « particularly important task of today's revolutionary and liberation movements. The ideas of "The Communist Manifesto" have passed the test of time and have proved their vitality in the new era, remaining che guiding star for today's Marxist- Leninists and for all who struggle for peace, democrac, and social progress.

In his article "The Newly Independent Countries in International Relations," rvcademician Ye. M. Primakov examines the process by which the countries of Asia,

Africa and Latin America evolved from an object into the active subject of inter- national relations, the ways in which the developing countries affect the world political situation and their incerest in the present world situation. The author inalyzes the stages and components of the world system of international relations and reveils the nature of involvement and the specific role of the developing countries in this system as a result of the change in the correlation of forces between world socialism and world capitalism. The article examines in detail the place of the developing countries in the clashes and cooperation of the two oppos-

ing systems and in the policies of the USSR and United States. The article exposes the causes of destructive processes, namely the U.S.-inspired arms race and inter- state regional conflicts, which have an extremely negative effect on the position

the countries of Asia, Atrica and Latin America in the world. The article also considers the non-alignment movement as an important factor in world politics, in which the constructive and complex role ot the developing countries in the inter- national arena has been manifested.


S. Tsukanov and A. Miroshnichenko analyze UN ectivily in the field of international sclentifie and technological cooperation in their article "The United Nations and Scientifie and Technological Cooperation: Organizational Aspects." Special empha- sis is laid on the problems connected with the improvement of the workings of various UN agencies and organizations engaged in scientific and technological research and the incorporation of their achievements in economic development. The authors discuss the basic stages of UN organizctional forms of activity in science and technology and analyze some of the trends in their development. The positions of citterent groups of UN countries on the important political and economic issue of scientific and technological cooperation are discussed at length. In this con- nection, the role of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries in the efforts to strengthen UN activity in science and technology and to constantly channel this activity for peacetul and economic development is discussed in detail. The UN conference on science and technology for development, held in Vienna (Austria) in 1979, represented an important stage in UN activity. The authors analyze the results of the conference in detail and cite specific examples to demonstrate the great contribution made by the USSR and other socialist countries. The UN efforts to implement Vienna conference recommendations and the initial results of this work are discussed at length. With a view to these results, the authors review prospects for the improvement of UN participation in international scientific and technological cooperation.

P. Khvoynik analyzes the UNCTAD Secretariat 1981 report on trade and development

in his article "Complex Problems of Trade and Development." This extremely inter- esting publication has aroused attention because of its contents and because it is the first of a series of annual reports and is therefore a largely experimental document. One of the report's salient features is its comprehensive examination of current economic issues and questions of long-range development. This points up complex analytical problems that are not present when these two matters are exam- ined separately. The report reveals many of the causes of various economic diffi- culties in the developing countries, stating that the responsibility for the situa- tion rests mainly with the industrialized Western powers because the level of economic activity in the countries with a developed market economy is still the single most important factor determining the export earnings of developing countries. ‘he analysis indicates the negative consequences of the activities of transnational monopolies and of the protectionist policy of the developed capitalist countries. The author raises some questions about the methodology of the report and certain of its conclusions. In general, the author's evaluation of UNCTAD's latest report is positive. He regards it as evidence of this organization's great potential for the further improvement of research in the field of trade and development.

[In his article "The Role of Islam in the Social and Political Life of the Orient," lL. Timofeyev says that in the search for means of overcoming the acute problems generated by the contradictions of capitalist economic "modernization," different classes and social strata in some Muslim countries resort to religion in an attempt te work out an original course of development based on traditional spiritual values.

At the same time, slogans which are identical in form often have different social meanines, determined by the interests of various classes. What is the real nature of the Islamic movement? This is the focal point of modern Islamic studies. Only this kind of methodological approach can result in the objc tive evaluation of various trends in modern Islam and an understanding of the kaleidoscope of events occurring in the Middle East, Southeast and Southwest Asia and the African states. Citing numerous facts and figures, the author analyzes the political programs and actions ot radical Islamic groups and parties in such countries as Iran, Pakistan

and Ceypt. He exposes the complicated and contradictory nature of the Muslim move- went, in which progressive anti-imperialist and antifeudal trends are often combined with extreme reaction, anticommuntism and anti-Sovietism. The author describes the ideolcwical and political attitudes of the religious Iranian leadership and the

" amaat-i-islami" party in Pakistan, as well as the ideas and actions of radical

sroups in Egypt, formed along the lines of the Muslim Brotherhood ideology.

The article "The Conservative O:.slaught" in THE NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS

(22 January 1981) by John K. Galbraith, one of the leading representatives of the liberal wing of bourgeois political science, is interesting because the author criticizes the conventional brand of conservatism that has recently gained growing acceptance among monetarists and has influenced government policy in the United States and Great Britain.

in his discussion of postwar developments in the main capitalist countries, J. K. Galbraith notes that existing discrepancies and frequent contradictions have not kept the government, corporations and trade unions from reaching a compromise--or, in Galbraith's terms, a consensus--on a broad range of economic and social policies. this consensus is generally based on macroeconomic management and the implementation of certain social welfare programs to ease social tension.

The author's investigation testifies that the conservative attacks on government intervention in the economy have not affected the essence of state regulation, which serves the selfish interests of monopolies. The massive campaign for the re- establishment of the primacy of the market and the restoration of free competition has been a cover for an attack on working class interests and the achievements of the working class struggle.

Revealing the inconsistency of the monetarists' attempts to return to the era of free competition, J. K. Galbraith conveys doubt in the government's ability to cope with disorders in the capitalist economy by means of regulation. He proposes the combination of the free play of market forces with moderate government regulation in the particular spheres where the market does not work. Therefore, the tradi- tional consensus should not be rejected, but simply adjusted to fit new conditions.

COPYRIGHT: Izdatel'stvo "Pravda", "Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya", 1982

Io CS: 1S16/8


Moscow MIROVAYA EKONOMIKA I MEZHDUNARODNYYE OTNOSHENTYA in Russian No 5, May 82 (signed to press ?1 Apr 82) pp 14-29

[Article by Academician Ye. Primakov: "The Newly Independent Countries in Inter- national Relations"]

[Text] "The period of the East's awakening in the present revolution will be fol- lowed by a period during which all of the peoples of the East will take part in deciding the fate of the entire world so as to stop being only an object of enrich- ment. The peoples of the East are awakening to the realization that they must take action and that each people must take part in deciding the fate of all mankind."! V. I. Lenin's brilliant prediction is becoming a historical reality.

fhe transformation of the former colonies and semicolonies from primarily the object of history into active subjects has been accomplished mainly through structural changes in world economics. 2 During the present staze of historical development, however, changes in world politics and inte.national relations are perhaps even more important. In any case, the consequences of this transformation were manifested much more quickly and on a much greater scale in this area, particularly when the political liberation of the colonies and semicolonies was followed by a lengthy, persistent and far from finished struggle for economic independence.

The transformation of the former colonies and semicolonies into an active subject of international relations occurred, first of all, when the liberated countries began to play an independent role in the world arena and, secondly, when their views began to be given increasing consideration in global decisionmaking.

What position do the developing countries actually occupy in the present system of international relations, including relations between the states of the two systems-- socialist and capitalist? What are the main guidelines of the activity of the developing states and what kind of influence have they had on the world situation? \nswers to these questions will require an examination of specificallv political and methodological aspects of the position and role of the liberated countries in world politics.

The Newly Independent Countries in the System of International Relations

VY. I. Lenin stressed that "people live within a state, and each state lives within a system of states, which are within a system of political balance in relation to

one another."3 History has proved that this balance can be more or less stable at ditterent times and more or less vulnerable to disruption. This naturally gives it a relative character. At the same time, it never remains static and does not pre-

suppose the preservation of the social status quo in the world.

The establishment of the Asian, African and Latin American countries as part of the

worldwide system of international relations was directly connected with the develop- ment of capitalism. Prior to the formation of the world capitalist economy, inter- national relations were not of a truly global nature: [nu the political sphere they took the form of bilateral, and sometimes multilateral, ties, sporadically taking shape between states primarily in the form of military alliances, and in the eco-

nomic sphere they took the form of irregular commerical exchanges. Neither in terms of their scales nor in terms of the intensity of their development could these rela- tions be regarded as a system evolving according to its own peculiar laws.

The mechanism by which the worldwide system of international rela*“ions took shape determined the nature of the involvement of Asian, African and Latin American countries in this system and the specific position occupied by these countries in the system. This system, which was formed when the transition to capitalism acquired worldwide scales, consisted primarily of elements representing "vertical" complexes--the capitalist mother countries and their colonial and semicolonial possessions. The transition to the highest stage of capitalism marked the comple- tion of the formation of what were now imperialist colonial complexes, with natural changes in the relative importance of some of them. The chief characteristic of this system of international relations was the prevalence of conflicts between capitalist states and, after the late 19th and early 20th centuries, between imper- ialist states. The opposition to their policy by the peoples of the colonies and dependent countries could not compare at that time in terms of strength or scales to the inter-imperialist conflicts which eventually caused a world war.

The struggle between the imperialist powers did not transcend the framework of the capitalist method of production. It was a distinctive feature of capitalism and of its imperialist stage. Nevertheless, the increasing intensity of inter-imperialist conflicts created an international situation which helped to break the chain of colonial dominion.

fhe changes in the positior and ro’e of the Asian, African and Latin American countries in the international arena were not a result of the evolution of the global system of international relations in which they were originally included, but a result of its transformation and its replacement with a new system of inter- national relations, engendered by the creation of the world's first socialist state is 9 result of the Great October Socialist Revolution in Russia. When the two opposing social systems began to interact, the structure of a new system of inter- nation el relations began to be influenced by the dominant methods of production in these two social svstems and the peculiarities of their sociopolitical structure. \itiough che colonies and semicolonies remained within the capitalist part of the ystem ot international relations tor a iong time, the colonial ties that bound these countries to the mother countries began to lose their political strength after triumph of Great October. The development of the national liberation movement reached a turning point. As a result of the constantly changing balance of power between the capitalist and socialist worlds, the transformation of the newly

lependent countries trom objects to subjects of international relations began, in

cordance with Lenin's well-known definition.4 This process correiated with the chaning balance otf power between the two systems in the world arena. It is obvi- ously important to stress that the change in the halance of power passed through several stages, during each of which the weight of political, economic, military and other factors diftered.?

The original balance between the two systems, which took shape after the victory of the October Revolution in Russia, was essentially based only on the political fac- tor. At that time, socialism's only serious political advantages over capitalism stemmed from its progressive method of production and new order. In all other aspects, both in terms of basic economic indicators and in terms of the quantity and quality of weapons, the capitalist world far surpassed the first socialist state. Nevertheless, imperialism was unable to liquidate the Soviet regime in Russia, although it attempted direct military intervention against the worker and peasant state.

The political factor lying at the basis of the original balance between socialism and capitalism was reflected in an entire series of processes and phenomena. It was reflected in the unprecedented surge of revolutionary enthusiasm in Russia and the internal strength of the new regime, which mobilized and utilized the colossal historical resources and capabilities of the Russian people as no other order had been able to do. Inter-imperialist conflicts played a special role at this time, making it difficult for the imperialist powers to unite their efforts in the Struggle against the new socialist state.

The political balance between socialism and capitalism was enough to have a posi- tive effect on the ability of colonies and semicolonies to fight for their libera- tion. Soviet Russia established fundamenta’ly new and equal relations with the countries of the East. Capitalism began to lose strength--even if this was not yet completely apparent--and entered the stage of general crisis.

fhe changing balance of power between socialism and capitalism entered a new stage atter World War II and the creation of the world socialist system. Revolutionary advances in the countries of Eastern Europe resulted in the formation of the world socialist community. The common class interests of laborers in the fraternal countries acquired an intergovernmental basis. The socialist states displayed a high degree of unity and solidarity by uniting in the Warsaw Pact Organization and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CEMA). This was accompanied by the expansion of the economic and geographic basis on which socialism's advantages could be displayed more fully, particularly in the growth rate of productive forces.

Evidently, from that time on the balance of power between the two systems began to be based on military and economic factors, and not just political ones. This made the balance more stable and simultaneously afforded extensive possibilities for a nore active role for the "peripheral" countries in the international arena. The

st favorable conditions for the triumph of the national liberation struggle were established. As a result, impertalism'’s colonial system quickly disintegrated and several young sovereign states rose out of its ruins.

The ec 9) the colonial system also had a significant effect on the balance of power berweren ie socialist and capitalist worlds. After the colonial and

dependent countries acquired state sovereignty, they ceased to be imperialism's reserve. This applies to the former colonies and semicolonies which immediately embarked on the construction of socialism or adopted a socialist orientation and to the ones where the development of capitalism as the leading economic structure began or continued after the establishment of political independence.

In reference to the first group of countries this conclusion is absolutely self- evident, but in reference to the second it requires some clarification. It would seem that the development of capitalism ir the former colonies and semicolonies would strengthen the capitalist world by expanding its geographic framework. But this would only have happened if the conflicts between the young states taking the capitalist course and the imperialist states did not transcend the framework of the usual or "traditional" conflicts between various capitalist countries or groups of countries. What actually happened was that the development cf several former colonial and semicolonial countries according to capitalist patterns did not divest their policy of its anti-imperialist purpose, or at least its anti-imperialist tendencies. The existence of these tendencies in India's policy is a characteris-

tic example.

The establishment of the military-strategic parity between the USSR and the United States, which Washington had to acknowledge in the 1970's, was particularly impor- tant with regard to the entire system of international relations and, of course, with regard to the changing position of the developing countries within this system. There was a real opportunity to transfer to a policy of international detente and establish the principles of peaceful coexistence by states of the

two socioeconomic systems as the main guideline for world affairs in general.

For the newly independent countries this was of fundamental significance because it ‘ave them much more opportunity, in comparison to the period of fierce bloc con- frontation, to participate in world affairs, in the resolution of global problems ind in deciding the fate of the world. International detente also set up tangible obstacles to block the forces that had tried to take advantage of the situation of eneral tension to export counterrevolution to the liberated countries. Finally, detente also promoted tendencies and processes aiding in the growth of the economic potential of the developing countries, the improvement of their position in the ‘yetem of world economic ties and, as a result, the augmentation of their role in international relations.

Experience has proved without a doubt that peaceful coexistence does not impede the course of social processes in any way whatsoever because the development of society, prest opposing cardinal socioeconomic and political changes, is historically

oom < } Ggetermined.

formation o! the socialist community of states after World War II and the col-

lapse of the colonial and semicolonial regimes led to extremely important structural inves » the system of international relations that benefited the liberated intries The former colonies and semicolonies established broader and stronger

ties with the socialist states and this was reflected in various spheres of inter-

‘ional life. There were changes in the relations between the developed capital- ist countries and their former colonial and semicolonial possessions that had embarked on independent governmental development. The Liberated countries formed a new subsystem in the structure of international relations.

ldwide strupgle between soctalism and capitalism has always affected all ut tt international Life. The main contlict of our era--the conflict between ialism and capitalism--ultimately determines the basic processes occurring in the

hewly independent countries.

[here was absolutely no validity to the ideas and concepts of the ultra-leftist theorists who asserted that the focal point of world conflicts would move after world War II to the sphere of relations between imperialism and the oppressed peoples of Asta, Africa and Latin America, as well as to the relations between imperialist states. Obviously, it is true that conflicts between imperialism and national Liberation torces and conflicts within the imperialist camp became more intense and pervasive after World War II, but this certainly provides no grounds for the conclusion that the focal point of worid conflicts during the era of the global transition from capitalism to socialism would supposedly have no connection with the existence and struggle of the world socialist system--the main achievement of the international working class. In the first place, this assertion completely ignores the fact that the growth of the national liberation movements and their uccesstul anti-imperialist struggle would be simply inconceivable without the overall change in the balance of power between the two opposing sociopolitical sys- tems in favor of socialism and to the detriment of capitalism, or without the lirect and indirect support of these national liberation movements by the socialist states. Secondly, this is a onesided interpretation of the sicuation in the capi- talist world. Of ccurse, inter-imperialist conflicts are still a significant factor: Their exacerbation, at the basis of which lies the law of uneven development under capitalism, has created clashes between capitalist countries. The international relations within the capitalist part of the system, however, are affected by more ian just this disuniting tendency toward conflict; they are also affected by a second tendency--the tendency to unite al! of the resources and potential of the ipitalist countries, and primarily for a struggle against the socialist world. ‘The growing general crisis of capitalism has been accompanied by changes in imper- ialism's strategic priorities in the world arena. The policy of imperialism has veen determined more and more by the class goals of a common struggle against the socialist world, national liberation revolutions and the workers movement .

Disregard for the class features of the main conflict of our era led Mao Zedong and his tollowers to an anti-Marxist interpretation of the structure of international lations. According to this interpretation, one component supposedly consists of the "two superpowers"--The USSR and United States, the second consists of all other leveloped countries (both socialist and capitalist) and the third consists of all developing countries (including some socialist states). This concept differs little r not at all from the theories and models proposed by many bourgeois researchers. ‘+, their models of various systems of international relations also ignore 1% socioeconomic characteristics of the states interacting in the world arena. inplies completely to the Western theories about the "bipolar" and "multi- r’ worlds. The authors of these theories used the existence (including various of controntation and cooperat ion) of two economically and militarily strong wers--the Soviet Union and the United States--as grounds for declaring that the world was bipolar, and strictly in terms of national governments. Furthermore, the


ipo | irityv”’ nN the it Ve! t)i WO ernment | | second iry and only reflec ts the division

of today's world into two opposing sociopolitical systems.

enon of polycentrism is presented in much the same way. [It is true that thy, rosence of various "power centers" was much more apparent during the late 160)" | the 1970's than before in the capitalist subsystem of international re tions. This was one of the effects of the law of uneven development under whereas the U.S. industrial product in 1950 was more than twice as mbined products of Western Europe and Japan, by the beginning of ''.S. share of capitalist industrial production had fallen to 28.8 ire of Western Europe and Japan had risen to 47.1 percent.? The potential of the latter was not, however, accompanied by the loss dominant position in the military-political sphere, which n the leader in the capitalist subsystem of international rela- its approaches to fundamental issues on the other capital-

tendency toward polycentrism in the capitalist world creates for the developing countries to take political action in : ‘tional interests. This conclusion is also corroborated by ‘ney was reflected in the creation of "mini-centers of power |, something like "sub-imperialist centers." Many of these into support points of imperialist policy but retained their

loped capitalist states.

. olitical center" in the system of international relations 1960's and 1970's in the West in connection with the clearly in China's foreign policy. The formation of the "Chinese center" result of the supposedly universal law of polycentrism. The t China from the general line of the socialist community was not the natural development cf the world socialist system, however, tive factor--the policy of the Beijing leadership which was incon- © objective requirements of the development of the world socialist world revolutionary process. In China there was an obvious contra- en objective processes stemming from public ownership of the means of d the voluntaristic, adventuristic and hegemonistic line of the adership. This contradiction could have led to the degeneration of the | structure or to the disintegration of the line which did not agree with the objective needs of socialist development in China.

i tuite understandable that the PRC's global strategy and its alliance with rialism arc contrary to the fundamental interests of the struggle against rialism and therefore weaken the position of the newly independent countries.

Besides this, Beijing's line is reinforcing the tendency toward the proliferation onflict in the East. Newly Independent Countries in the Context of Relations Between the Two Systems

hy which the countries that freed themselves from colonial and semi-

nial dependence became an active subject of international relations took place in an atmosphere of complicated relations between th- two sociopolitical systems in international arena. ‘The liberated states were certainly not isolated from interrelations. On the one hand, the conflicts--and also the development of eration in some areas after the process of detente began--between states of the


t wi orld systems were directly and indirectly connected with the role and place of i newly independent countries in the international arena. On the other hand, ise countries have also taken a more active stand on several cardinal issues in

recent years and have been able to influence relations between states of the two

‘ystems, which has been particularly apparent in the growing significance of the

movement for non-alignment in world politics. As a result, the position of the

developing states in the system of international relations has been affected by contradictory processes: Some aspects of relations between states of the two sys- tems reinforce the position of the developing countries; others, which are the result of imperialism's aggressive foreign policy, can have a negative effect on their position. [It seems that two destructive processes have the most negative effect on their position--the tirst is the unprecedented arms race which has been instigated by American imperialists and has created the danger of thermonuclear war, and the second is the group of intergovernmental regional conflicts which can yrow into global armed confrontations.

At the turn of the decade the United States began to undermine international detente. [It escalated the arms race. The tendency toward militarization has

become distinct in U.S. policy. All of this has also affected Washington's approach to contlicts, wh ch is governed by the military-political views of the most reac- tionary circles in the nation and otten serve as a direct means of expanding American


military presence in the conflict zone.

We could say that Washington has completely "recovered" from the "Vietnam syndrome”

under the Reagan Administration. The tollowing concepts have “acquired the rights f citizenship" in the U.S. capital: "Containment" on the global level is not mnough to sateguard U.S. national interests; the range of instruments that might

be used by the United States must include "limited nuclear war"; it will be neces- ary to create the potential to fight two or two and a half wars simultaneously,

" . ' , ; - . " ~ , , . . . : 2 icluding "total war" in the Near and Middie East (this is the military doctrine innounced by Secretary o!f Detense C. Weinberger).

e Reagan Administration counted on more intense confrontation with the Soviet nion simultaneously on the global and the regional levels. The tougher American ilso reflected the desire of the country's most reactionary circles to stop


anges that were undesirable tor Washington in the sociopolitical development of


the Asian, African and Latin American countries by moving away from the process of

he U.S. line of creating anti-Soviet coalitions as a supplement to NATO was also veloped further. The policy of rapprochement with China, particularly by means the cancellation of restrictions on sales of American weapons to this country, upted a special place in this plan. Increasingly overt moves have been made for , and several American creation of an anti-Soviet "triangle" consist- ot the United States, Japan and China.


i purpose ot using Japan in confrontation with the USSR

iticians have openly proposed the

. . . . * . ° _ es , . . normalization of Washington s relations with pbeljying, which began in Nixon's

time and was continued by subseque nt idministrations, was oObv iously supposed to serve American military-political interests. [t was no incidence that this gave the United States a chance to strengthen i military preseice in Asia.

(he Reagan Administration escalated the arms race, including the production of "cruise missiles" and the improvement of all nuclear weapon delivery systems. Special attention began to be paid to conventional weapons for the purpose of equipping the forces intended for rapid deployment in various conflict situations. At the same time, U.S. officials began to discuss a new version of the strategy of "flexible response" with which the Pentagon had armed itself in the beginning of the 1960's. It presupposed, as is well known, multiple=level confrontation with the USSR and the Warsaw Pact Organization--from negotiations from a “position of strength" to the approach to the "critical thresh- old,” beyond which thermonuclear world war lay. It would probably be wrong, how- ever, to assume that the present discussion proposes a simple return to the earlier doctrine. In the beginning of the 1960's there was no international detente as such, and the strategic parity between the Soviet Union and United States was just taking shape. In the late 1970's and early 1980's, or in the last years of Carter's term in office and the first years of the Reagan Administration, the United States returned to a policy of military-political intervention in regional conflicts, the reintorcement of military presence in various parts of the world, accompanied by a departure trom the policy of detente on the global level, and attempts to disrupt the military-strategic balance with the Soviet Union. This caused the dangers inherent in American foreign policy to grow immeasurably. Sufficient proof of this

in be found just in the statements of American strategists about the alleged pos- sibility of winning a "Limited" nuclear war.

neutron and chemical weapons and

American Secretary of Defense C. Weinberger called the new American strategy a strategy of “direct confrontation" with the USSR, stressing that it should be implemented simultaneously on the global and regional scales. This strategy, which ime to light during the new round of the arms race and the new stage of relations with the USSR, places special emphasis on more active American policy in various parts of the world. The United States is assigning priority to permanent military

presence in certain zones and the creation of the necessary local conditions for the rapid deployment of American military contingents.

The connection between the modification of American military strategy and the evo- lution of the attitude toward international conflicts has been clearly illustrated in Washington's approach to the Near East and Persian Gulf zone. It has declared this entire region a "third strategic zone,"' with Europe and the Pacific represent- ing the other two. In the expectation of open intervention, the United States announced its plan to create special intervention forces in this zone, consisting ee army divisions, four air regiments with 72 planes in each, two carrier forces and 50,000 Marines.® In the beginning of the 1980's Washington tried to icgquire bases in Oman, Somalia, Kenya and Egypt for the local deployment of these

rces and to provide the U.S. Navy with the necessary facilities. There was an increase in American military aid not only to Israel, but also to several conserva-

\rab regimes. In connection with the Camp David bargain, the United States

‘ned an opportunity for permanent military presence in this region, with

ts arme’ services serving as the backbone of the so-called "multinational force" that was nposed to patrol the Egyptian-Israeli border in Sinai.

w military emphasis also appeared in U.S. policy on the settlement of the

Middle East conflict. Israel's rapprochement with conservative Arab regimes became th iin goal. For this purpose, American politicians resolved to create a situa- tion j © Middle East that would be "neither full-scale war nor a general peace."


retore, even U.S. strategic concepts, which are based on the arms race, are mtributing to the artiticial exacerbation of intergovernmental regional] conflicts. wre is also a reciprocal connection: The conflict situations, which are often

stimulated or even created by the United States on the regional level, escalate the

fhe real prospect of the dangerous spread of nuclear weapons obviously deserves special consideration in this connection. Under these conditions, the struggle for the immediate institution of the strictest measures on the national and inter- national levels to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, heighten its impact and broaden the group of its signatories to the maximum has become even more important. Now that nuclear power engineering is being developed so intensely, there is an urgent need tor che system of control envisaged in this treaty to pre- vent tissionable materials from being moved out of the civilian sphere to the sphere of nuclear arms production. Countries capable of producing nuclear weapons in secret, such as Israel, which refused to have its reactors inspected by the IAEA, ? are taking advantage of the absence of the necessary control. The United States is indirectly encouraging this stand by exempting Israel (and, in the beginning of the 1980's, Pakistan) trom the U.S. laws prohibiting the offer of aid to countries which refuse to ahide by the internaticnal regulations preventing the spread of nuclear Weapons.

As tor the USSR, it has always realized the need for equitable political settlements of international conflicts. The Soviet Union's categorical opposition to the

export of revolution was reaffirmed at the 26th CPSU Congress. V. 1. Lenin repeat- edly stressed that a revolution cannot be victorious in any country without the proper internal conditions./9 The Soviet Union is also resolutely opposed to the export of counterrevolution, believing that all people have the right to decide their own fate, the right of self-determination, and that external forces must not interfere in this process.

he Soviet Union is known to support the limitation, and later the cessation, of the arms race between the USSR and United States and between the Warsaw Pact and NATO countries. In other words, it ts primarily in favor of the stabilization of

i1irs on the global level. There is no question that regional initiatives can

i} so serve the cause of pe ace ind security.

i institution of confidence-building measures in Asia, especially the Far East,

; L. I. Brezhnev said in the accountability report of the CPSU Central Committee to the 26th party congress, could be an important