The non-official British response to the partial test treaty signed earlier in the week in Moscow has been contradictory. The “optimists” have interpreted the treaty and the simultaneous breakdown of the Sino-Soviet ideological talks as one of those turning points in history which lead to reversals of alliances. The “pessimists’’ believe that the fundamental division of the world into two rival blocs has remained unchanged since Mr Khrushchev remains as determined as Mr Mao Tse-tung to “bury us”. They hold that Mr Khrushchev and Mr Mao Tse-tung differ only on the question of means to ensure the triumph of communism.
The optimists base their cast on the economic success of the Soviet Union. They argue that Russia is a rich country and the Russian people have a great deal to lose in a war. According to them, the real division in the world is between the ‘have’ nations and the ‘have-not’ nations and Russia is as scared as the West about the possibility of at least one of the ‘have-not’ countries, China, brandishing hydrogen bombs instead of begging bowls in not too distant a future.
Economic Facts
On the face of it this argument is not without merit. The economic facts are well known. One thousand million people, which is just about one-third of the world’s population, own 80 per cent of the total wealth. In the Afro-Asian world only Japan is included in the category of ‘have’ nations. Australia and New Zealand, though geographically part of Asia, are almost wholly inhabited by the people of European descent. The three and a half million whites in South Africa, who enjoy a standard of living comparable to that of Europe, are in the same category.
Unless the present population and economic growth trend are dramatically and unexpectedly reversed, it is estimated by the end of the century 90 per cent of the world’s wealth would go to the peoples of North America, Europe, Russia, Japan, Australia and New Zealand who would constitute about 25 per cent of the human race. Thus, with 75 per cent of the population having to make do with ten per cent of the world’s production instead of 20 per cent, the gap between the rich nations and the poor ones would become even more intolerable.
These economic facts are not a new discovery. Mr Nehru, for instance, is on record as having repeatedly said that the division between the rich and poor countries was more basic than those between the communists and the non-communists. He has often said that the differences between America and Russia were gradually narrowing as the latter was closing the gap with the former in terms of industrial output. Discerning observers saw the truth of these observations here as well. But the massive cold war propaganda with its emphasis on the ideological division of the world somehow blurred the economic facts. Economic assistance by both blocs to underdeveloped countries was conceived as an instrument of the cold war and sold as such.
Perspective
To no small extent, the manner in which the Soviet leadership has pressed its argument against the Chinese has helped to restore the correct perspective on this question of the division of the world into ‘have’ and ‘have-not’ countries. While the Russians have conveniently pressed home the advantage afforded to them by the Chinese on the issue of war and peace, experts here have noted that the Russians are in fact more upset by the Chinese attempt to take over the leadership of the Communist parties in the underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The Russians, for instance, have explicitly charged the Chinese of being racialists. Mao’s famous phrase “the east wind prevails over the west wind” has been interpreted by the Russians in that racial sense.
The pessimists on the other hand quote generously from Mr Khrushchev’s speeches to underscore their view that the Soviet Union remains fundamentally hostile to the West. Mr Khrushchev’s famous “we shall bury you” statement is quoted ad museum as also his assertions that co-existence does not mean the abandonment of the ideological struggle and the policy of extending support to Western colonies and newly emancipated countries to shake off “imperialist” domination. The introduction of Soviet arms in Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, Indonesia and Laos continue to irk. At the moment the promise of Soviet arms for India is being tolerated on account of the Chinese threat, but the basic hostility to it which developed into a fierce anti-Indian campaign at the time of the original MIG deal last year, continues to simmer.
The overall world picture is, however, seen to be favourable to the West. Moscow’s position as the home of the communist world has been challenged by China as it was bound to be and had long been anticipated. Some experts believe that Communist parties will gain a wide measure of independence by being able to play Russia against China and vice versa. There are two opposite views on whether independent Communist parties will cause a greater or smaller headache to their opponents at home and or the West. But it is clear that only a united Communist party can take advantage of the Sino-Soviet rupture and not many Communist parties in non-communist countries may be able to maintain or forge such a unity. Continuing disunity rather than clear victory of the pro-Russian factions in various Communist parties would suit the West admirably and at the moment that is precisely the prospect.
Meanwhile, little hope is entertained here of the partial test ban treaty being followed by another major agreement. Bonn is apprehensive even over the test ban agreement because it fears that the accession to the treaty by East Germany would help to raise its international status. The British Ambassador like the American Ambassador in Bonn has been attempting to reassure the West Germans, we do not know to what effect. But it is only too readily conceded here that America and Britain (that is, the Anglo-Saxons, as President de Gaulle calls them) cannot afford to ignore West German susceptibilities.
The Russians are pressing for a non-aggression pact between NATO and Warsaw pact countries. East Germany is a member of the Warsaw pact. Though the West or even West Germany has no plan or ambition to change the status quo in Central Europe through the use of force, a formal non-aggression pact is unacceptable because it advances the German Democratic Republic on the road to some kind of recognition. It is difficult to avoid the impression that the Russians have the very same end in view.
Progress
Lord Home spoke of the possibility of progress on agreement regarding non-diffusion of nuclear weapons. Such an agreement would mean the end of the American proposal for the formation of the multilateral mixed man force with West Germany as a principal partner. In the context of even the possibility of rapprochement between Moscow and Washington, such a move would tend to cement Paris-Bonn ties which America and Britain have openly been doing their best to prevent.
If the Labour party comes into power in Whitehall, it is likely to press its proposal for disengagement in Central Europe. From the overall Western point of view the proposal has certain advantages. But it will be surprising if West Germany can be persuaded to go along. It remains to be seen whether the Russians are willing to agree on measures to preclude all possibilities of a surprise attack by either side without linking it in any way with their proposal for a non-aggression pact. They have no identifiable reason to be that reasonable.
On this assessment, a middle view emerges between those of the “optimists” and the “pessimists.” The nuclear test ban treaty would help to freeze the arms race more or less at the present level. It does not necessarily mean the beginning of the process of defreezing the cold war. The East-West cold war will obviously be influenced by the second cold war that has broken out between Russia and China and the new developments in western Europe. In the case of India the old rivalry between the Soviet Union and the West will continue.
The Times of India, 10 August 1963