THE 13 J u ly 1974
The international Catholic weekly 15p
TABLET Argentina w ithout Perón: Michael E lm er The Seraphic Doctor: ] Eric Doy] le Reaching for the sky: ] P. E. Hodgson The P enny University: Donald N icholl N abokov’s strong opinions: P au l Chipchase Industrial conflict today: J. E. S. Fawcett
Nuclear derangement Much more revealing than the 3000 word communiqué which emerged from the Nixon-Brezhnev meeting last week was the press conference which Dr Kissinger gave before leaving Moscow. This seemed to show that the governments of both the superpowers are in the grip of an inexorable process of escalation in destructive power. It suits Mr Nixon’s book just now to convey an air of confidence about his peace-making abilities. Dr Kissinger would appear to have no illusions about them nor about those of Mr Brezhnev for that matter. “My impression from what I have observed is that both sides have to convince their military establishments of the benefits of restraint and -that is not a thought that comes naturally to military people on either side.” Plainly he believes that a struggle for strategic superiority in nuclear weapons is no formula for peace: “One of the questions which we have to ask ourselves as a country is what in the name of God is strategic superiority? What is the significance of it, politically, militarily, operationally, at these levels of numbers? What do you do with it?” Neither the White House nor the Kremlin appear to have the answer to these agonising questions. Dr Kissinger went on to say that the superpowers have a maximum of two years in which to reach a new agreement on arms limitation before the race gets out of control: “If we have not reached an agreement well before 1977, then I believe you will see an explosion of technology and an explosion of numbers [of missiles] at the end of which we will be lucky if we have the present stability; in which it will be impossible to describe what strategic superiority means.”
questions and predictions the recent missile-rattling of the smaller powers (including Britain) would appear to be singularly futile, quite apart from being morally inadmissible.
Both Mr Nixon and Mr Brezhnev would appear to be anxious to distract attention from the unimaginable horrors of the nuclear arms race and to concentrate on detente conceived— wrongly—as a more realistic form of relationship, with the usa and the USSR envisaged as the twin guardians of world peace. This is not a particularly enticing prospect. Commenting on the agreements he made with President Nixon last week, Mr Brezhnev said that if there was -not now quick progress in the 25-nation conference at Geneva on European peace and security a renewal of the cold w'ar was inevitable. The Soviet leader has all along aimed at a Geneva summit which would put its seal on the Soviet and Communist domination in Eastern Europe. Whilst the non-Communist governments have been eager to see peace and security achieved in all Europe, they have so far insisted that, to obtain this, an improvement in communications between all the countries concerned is essential. The Soviet government has repeatedly maintained that this is an unacceptable intervention in the Soviet Union’s domestic politics, an ironic position in view of its notorious record of intervention in domestic politics in every country in the world.
We note in passing that side by side with these ominous
It is very difficult to substantiate Mr Nixon’s claim that he and Mr Brezhnev had succeeded “in creating a new base on which to build peace” but for the time being the American President seems to have satisfied his nato allies by his presence at the formal signing in Brussels of the Ottawa declaration
