(7 of 8)
As far as China is concerned, I believe that you know as well as I do what the policy of their present leadership is. Truly, I am sick and tired of talking about China. I can only say that there existed a pro-Peking regime in Kampuchea, a so-called Chinese model of political structure, and the mass killings of people in Kampuchea were nothing but the Chinese "Cultural Revolution" in action on foreign territory. Chinese propaganda is making a lot of noise about the intervention of Viet Nam into Kampuchean affairs. It is a gross attempt to distort the real state of affairs. It's another example of the anti-Vietnamese, chauvinistic nature of the policy of the present Chinese leadership, which also organizes other anti-Viet Nam provocations.
Q. Many Americans remain confused by the word détente, or razryadka. How do you understand its meaning in concrete policy terms and as it applies to regional problems such as those in Africa and the Middle East?
A. When we say "relaxation of tension," or simply "détente" for short, we mean a state of international relations opposite to a state which is commonly termed "cold war" and which was characterized by permanent tension threatening to develop at any moment into open conflict. In other words, detente means, above all, the overcoming of the cold war and transition to normal, smooth relations among states. Détente means a willingness to resolve differences and disputes not by force, by threats or saber rattling, but by peaceful means, at the negotiating table. Détente means a certain degree of trust and ability to reckon with each other's legitimate interests. Such, briefly, is our understanding of détente.
We, on our part, actively work toward strengthening the process of détente in every possible way and extending it to all regions of the world, including, naturally, Africa and the Middle East. But it would be unfair and unrealistic to expect the peoples of those or any other regions to give up the struggle for their legitimate rights in the name of a concept of detente that some people falsely interpret.
If we speak, for example, of the Middle East, the interests of detente are in no way contradicted by the struggle of the Arab peoples for the return of lands which belong to them but have been seized by Israel and for the right of the Palestinians to set up a state of their own, or by the actions of those who support these legitimate demands of the Arabs. It is those who support the aggressor, encouraging the expansionist cravings, that are acting contrary to the interests of detente in the Middle East.
The same applies to the situation in southern Africa as well. The source of the threat to the relaxation of international tension is to be found in the policy directed against the peoples struggling there for liberation from colonial and racist domination, against neocolonialism, for independence and social progress and not in the struggle, as such, of the peoples for their rights.
Q. The Carter Administration has cited the Helsinki Final Act as a reference point for criticism of Soviet domestic policy. What is your view of the Helsinki document's applicability to Soviet internal policies?