Here are excerpts from the text of Soviet President Yuri Andropov's statement on international affairs. The English-language version was provided by the official news agency Tass:
The Soviet leadership deems it necessary to make known . . . its assessment of the course pursued in international affairs by the present U.S. administration.
To speak briefly, this is a militarist course which poses a grave threat to peace. Its essence is to try and assure for the United States domineering positions in the world without reckoning with the interests of other states and peoples. Precisely these aims are served by the unprecedented buildup of the U.S. military potential, large-scale programs of manufacturing weapons of all types--nuclear, chemical and conventional. Now it plans to spread the unrestricted arms race into outer space too.
American military presence is expanded under invented pretexts of all sorts thousands of kilometers from U.S. territory. . . . As a result, tensions have grown worldwide--in Europe, Asia, Africa, Middle East and Central America. . . .
Peoples judge about the policy of a government first of all by its actions. That is why when the U.S. president in his grandiloquent speech from the United Nations rostrum declares about commitment to the cause of peace, self-determination and sovereignty of peoples, these mere declarations can convince no one.
Even if someone had any illusions as to the possible evolution for the better in the policy of the present American administration, the latest developments have finally dispelled them. For the sake of its imperial ambitions, it goes so far that one begins to doubt whether Washington has any brakes at all preventing it from crossing the mark before which any sober-minded person must stop.
The sophisticated provocation, masterminded by U.S. special services with the use of a South Korean plane, is also an example of extreme adventurism in politics. We have elucidated the factual aspect of the action in a thorough and authentic way. The guilt of its organizers, no matter how hard they might dodge and what false versions they might put forward, has been proved.
The Soviet leadership expressed regret over the loss of human lives due to that unprecedented, criminal subversion. It is on the conscience of those who would like to assume the right not to reckon with the sovereignty of states and inviolability of their borders, who masterminded and carried out the provocation, who literally on the following day hastily pushed through Congress colossal military spending and are now rubbing their hands with pleasure.
Thus the "humanism" of statesmen who are seeking to lay the blame for the death of people that were aboard the plane on others is turning into new heaps of weapons of mass destruction--from MX missiles to nerve gas containers.
In their striving to justify in some way their dangerous inhuman policies, the same people pile heaps of slander on the Soviet Union, on socialism as a social system, with the tone being set by the U.S. president himself. One must say bluntly--it is an unattractive sight when, with a view to smearing the Soviet people, leaders of such a country as the United States resort to what almost amounts to obscenities alternating with hypocritical preaching about morals and humanism. . . .
Now they in Washington breach along with morality also elementary norms of decency, showing disregard not only for statesmen and states, but also for the United Nations organization. A question arises: Can the international organization, called upon to maintain peace and security, remain in the country where outrageous militarist psychosis is imposed and the good name of the organization is insulted? . . .
As to the U.S. policy, its growing militarization is manifested among other things in the unwillingness to conduct serious talks of any kind, to come to agreement on questions of curbing the arms race.
The Soviet-American talks on the burning problem--reduction of nuclear armaments in Europe--have been going on for two years now. The position of the Soviet side is directed at finding mutually acceptable solutions on a fair, just basis, solutions which do not infringe anyone's legitimate interests. At the same time, these two years made it clear that our partners in the talks at Geneva are not at all there to reach an accord. Their task is different--to play for time and then start the deployment in western Europe of ballistic Pershing II and long-range cruise missiles. They do not even try to conceal this.
All they do is prattle about some flexibility of the United States at the Geneva talks. Another portion of such "flexibility" has just materialized. And the deception contained in it has become clear this time as well. To leave aside details, the essence of the so-called new move in the U.S. position, billed as superb, is reduced to the proposal to agree, as before, on how many Soviet medium-range missiles should be reduced and how many new American missiles should be deployed in Europe in addition to the nuclear potential already possessed by NATO.
In brief, we are proposed to talk on how to help the NATO bloc to upset to its advantage the balance of medium-range nuclear systems in the European zone. And this move is presented brazenfacedly as something new. . . .
The operation on stationing these American nuclear missiles in Europe is seen from Washington's control room as simple in the extreme and maximally advantageous for the United States--advantageous at the expense of Europe. The U.S. European allies are regarded as hostages. This is a frank, but cynical policy.
But here is what is not really clear: Does this thought occur to those European political figures who, disregarding the interests of their peoples, and the interests of peace, help implement the ambitious militarist plans of the U.S. administration? . . .
Mankind has not lost, nor can it lose, its reason. This is manifested with great vigor in the scope of the antimissile, antiwar movement, having mounted in the European and other continents, the movement which draws people of different social, political and religious affiliation. . . .
Our aspirations and strivings are implemented in concrete proposals directed at effecting a decisive turn for the better in the world situation. The Soviet Union will continue to do everything possible to uphold peace on earth.