◆ SpookStack

er weamasuie suvpied in tne name ot defense has the effect of intensifying insecurity. That chis process is madness everyone knows. And yet, when negotiation of differences is so desperately needed, spokes- men for East and West keep on blaming one another while each bloc girds for war, hoping ta “buy time,” “negotiace from strength,” or if worse comes to worst, win “the war nobody wants.” Both American and Sovict spokesmen claim success, or at least partial success, for their pulicies of rearmament, American spokesmen claim thar the threat of the atom bomb has deterred Soviet aggression in western Europe; that United States mili- tary strength, coupled with economic and military aid, has prevented Communists from coming to power in Italy, France, Greece, che Middle East and elsewhere; that prompt military action in Korea has discouraged similar aggression in other parts of the globe; and that a firm policy in Germany and Austria has kept chese countries from falling into the Soviet orbic. In time and under the pressures of a show of force on all sides, western spokesmen contend, the Sovier Union will be forced by events into a more conciliatory attitude. Spokesmen for che Ease make similar claims. According to them, their firm attitude has kept western powers from reuniting and rearming Germany and Austria. They claim to have neutralized American military and economic aid in west- ern Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere. Soviet policies are given credit for preventing che conquest of Korea and unifica- tion under auspices hostile to the Soviet Union and China, Soviet policy is also credited with diminishing and defeating western imperialise influences in China, Indo-China, Malaya, Indonesia, the Middle East and elsewhere. Is will force western powers, so the Soviets claim, ta the point of bankruptcy and constant instability. Firm resistance has made the United Nations, to Soviet eyes, less of a western tool than it would otherwise have been. Finally, it is claimed thar Communist leadership has inspired common people everywhere to demand a better life, national independence, and peace. Where the whule truth lies it is obviously impossible to tell. In an éra dominated by nation-states, with most educa- tional and propaganda media directed or deeply influenced by ] government or national patriots, cuizens everywhere are taught to “take sides,” Under these stresses, whatever the frame of government, most citizens become highly partisan and limic thei: views more and more to the bounds prescribed by othcial or majority opinion, The issues are too complex, too colored by conflicting propaganda, for dogmatic conclusions. In the final analysis, the claims and counterclaims of the opposing powers are not as important to the course of history as the tensions, promoted by competitive armamenis, that seem to lead us further down the path ta war and the decline of civilization. Bur, it is asked, did noc the United States unilacerally disarm after World War Le While i bilized our army to a much larger extent than the Russians, yee the military strength of the United Seates has never been measured exclusively by the size of its standing army. For geographic reasons we rely primarily on sea and air power, while the Sovier Union is primarily a land power. If all cate- gories of weapons are included, as they must be in any fair analysis of military strength, che theory of America’s unilateral disarmament collapses, Since the war our production of atomic weapons has proceeded without pause and at an increased tempo, a far-flung network of air bases has been developed, and we have maintained a large complement of heavy aircraft usable for atomic bombing, Our wartime navy, by far the largest in the world, has been maintained on a stand-by basis. In no postwar yeat has our military budget fallen below 1] billiun dollars. This is hardly unilateral disarmament. Burt, it is also asked, can the United States disarm in the present world? With tensions w the failure of nations co disarm after the war, ic does not seem reasonable to expect any mation to disarm unless others do also. Nor has this been proposed in the United Nations. Rather, what is sought is an international agreement to ban certaia weapons, limit and reduce armaments, and establish an effective system of international control, Indeed, those who have thought about the subject have long realized thac world peace and order depend on disarma- ment, not armaments. The first objective of the Hague Peace Conference of 1899 was to lighten the staggering burden of a ree eens thar ga dem Cis tie tat We Wem wh elo ae Baty ers ‘a0 ag Rog ope a be at daicy afe, Crusea partly oy 9