Democratic Palestine : 21 (ص 5)
غرض
- عنوان
- Democratic Palestine : 21 (ص 5)
- المحتوى
-
Interview with Comrade Habash
In mid-December 1986, on the occasion of the PFLP’s 19th anniversary, Secretary General George
Habash gave an exclusive interview to Al Hadaf and Democratic Palestine.
The failure of the Reykjavik summit was a main
international event of 1986. What is your evalua-
tion of the summit? How dues the failure reflect
itself internationally and in the Middle East?
After the October Revolution was victorious, Lenin outlined
the policy of peaceful coexistence. He put forth the clear, cor-
rect and comprehensive considerations that determined this
policy. Among these considerations were the determination of
the Bolsheviks to stabilize the first socialist experience, and
their belief that this policy would provide the best conditions
for the development of the workers’ and revolutionary move-
ment in the capitalist countries. Since then, most events have
proved the correctness of this policy.
Today, in the nuclear age, there is an additional basic con-
sideration for the coexistence policy, which concerns the fate
of all humanity and civilization. The political report of the
Soviet Communist Party’s 27th congress, and Gorbachev’s
speech at the congress, confirmed that the fate of all humanity
today depends on asserting the policy of international
detente... One tactical mistake could lead to a nuclear disaster
that could destroy human civilization. This explains the conti-
nuous initiatives of Comrade Gorbachev’s leadership, from the
Warsaw Pact’s pledge never to initiate the use of nuclear wea-
pons, to the Soviet Union’s own moratorium, and its renewal,
stopping nuclear tests until the end of this year.
It is important to confirm that the initiatives of the Soviet
Union and the socialist community are serious and genuine. At
this historical juncture, the Soviet Union feels a responsibility
towards humanity, for protecting the world from the nuclear
threat. Some call this policy the peaceful offensive policy; they
think it aims at splitting the imperialist camp, provoking the
contradictions within it, and gathering forces around the
Soviet Union’s peaceful policies. During my last visits to a
number of the socialist countries, I felt their sincere and res-
ponsible position of protecting the world and international
peace from a nuclear disaster. I remember certain phrases that
made me feel the deep concern of the socialist countries about
the nuclear threat, and their genuine willingness to reach
agreements that protect the world from nuclear disaster and
restore detente in the international arena. This explains the
‘surprising’ proposals of Comrade Gorbachev in his meeting
with Reagan at Reykjavik. These suggestions truly surprised
various circles in the West, and were welcomed by interna-
tional public opinion.
Achieving international detente does not depend only on one
side... Two main forces are needed: the Soviet Union and the
socialist community on one side and imperialism, especially the
USA, on the other, Gorbachev’s deep feeling of responsibility
must be complemented by Reagan’s resolve to give up NATO’s
strategic military superiority, for this would not be accepted by
Gorbachev and the socialist countries, despite their deep sense
of the importance of adopting a consistent peaceful policy.
The failure of the Reykjavik summit is due to Reagan and
his administration’s particularly aggressive policy for reversing
history, in order to solve imperialism’s crisis. In the seventies,
the national liberation movements were able to achieve many
victories. The people of Vietnam were victorious, as were the
peoples of Laos, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique,
Afghanistan and Iran, where the Shah was toppled. Also in the
seventies, the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries were
able to achieve defensive strategic parity with NATO. The
socialist community continued to achieve a 4% annual growth
rate in the economy. Meanwhile, the economic crisis continued
in the capitalist camp. In the late seventies, the growth rate in
the USA was 5%, and then fell to zero.
This is the essence of the international situation at present,
which gives great weight to the peaceful offensive policy of the
Soviet Union. It is true that the Reykjavik summit failed but,
at the same time, it was successful in the sense that the results
broadened the scope of the forces, countries and international
opinion supporting this policy. This was an embarrassment for
Reagan’s administration and its aggressive policies. The
summit also succeeded in creating contradictions within the
imperialist camp and the Reagan Administration itself, to the
point where the latter had to declare that the Reykjavik summit
would not be the last, and that meetings would continue.
The main reason for the failure of the summit was Reagan’s
insistence on adhering to the SDI program through which he'
wants to deal a blow to the defensive strategic parity achieved
by the Warsaw Pact in the seventies. I don’t believe that the
failure of the Reykjavik summit will lead the Soviet Union to
reconsider the peaceful policy that was adopted at the 27th
congress. However, it is expected to lead to the continuation of
the US nuclear experiments and aggression on all levels,
against the peoples of the world. During Reagan’s term, Gre-
nada was occupied, Lebanon was invaded, Libya was bombed;
there has been ongoing aggression against Nicaragua, and
preparations to launch a major attack.
It is natural that this aggression will be applied specifically in
the Middle East, because of its oil wealth and strategic signifi-
cance. The natural resources in the area are very important for
the imperialist forces, although they pretend they could do
without them. The aggressive policy will reflect itself on the
Arab region specifically, because it represents a special market
for US goods. It is also important because the Arab world is
located on the southern borders of the Soviet Union.
The talk about dividing the world into spheres of influence is
unjustified. When applying the peaceful policy, the Soviet
Union is determined that its implementation would not lead to
reversing the course of history. Experience has proven that
there are principal issues on which the Soviet Union stands
firm. It has also proven the falsity of the allegations of the
Arab and Palestinian right wing, that peaceful coexistence and
international detente are only other terms for dividing spheres
of influence.
What are the aims of the US and Britain’s interna-
tional campaign against ‘terrorism’? How can this
campaign be confronted?
STREP eEr:
pe rees
> - هو جزء من
- Democratic Palestine : 21
- تاريخ
- يناير ١٩٨٧
- المنشئ
- الجبهة الشعبية لتحرير فلسطين
Contribute
Not viewed