Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Official Newspaper of Victoria University of Wellington Students Association. Vol 40 No. 13. June 5 1977

Detente... Never having to Say You're Sorry

page break

Detente... Never having to Say You're Sorry

In the week before Easter this year, US and Soviet leaders confronted each other across the negotiating table in Moscow for three days for negotiations on a number of issues. The most important were the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT). SALT 1 expires later this year so a new agreement needs to be signed soon if the two superpowers are to keep up the appearance of limiting their arms expansion. No progress had been made in the SALT II negotiations since 1974, when President Ford and Brezhnev made a preliminary agreement on missile limitation.

It is now history that no progress has been made in the latest round of talks either. This is hardly surprising since the proposals tabled by Secretary of State Cyrus Vance involved an actual increase in US strategic weapons coupled with substantial cuts in Soviet Weapons.

The failure of the talks has provoked considerable anxiety in the US government and press. "Is detente dead or dying?" "US-Soviet relations are the coldest for years".: These are typical comments. An agreement that Vance and Brezhnev will meet again in May, and Carter's meeting with the Soviet Ambassador in Washington has done something to ease the atmosphere, but the worried questions are still there.

In view of the current coolness in US-Soviet relations — caused by the failure of the SALT talks, Carters 'human rights' crusade against the Soviet Union and contention over the question of Soviet fishing near the US coasts — it is a good time to make an assessment of Detente What is detente? Does it in fact exist? Is the danger of war between the US and the USSR decreasing? Is the arms race being curbed? Would the signing of a new SALT agreement contribute towards the maintenance of peace?

'Detente' means, literally, a reduction in tensions; and both the US and Soviet leaders claim that it exists. If they were right, we would be seeing less political and military contention between the two superpowers around the world. In fact this is not what we see at all. Instead, there is a constant build-up in both nuclear and conventional weapons and the two superpowers confront each other in all parts of the world: in Southern Africa, in Asia, in Europe, in the Middle East and even in the South Pacific. The Soviet Union has been the most: vociferous advocate of detente while at the same time building up its arms at the fastest rate.

The History of Detente

[unclear: At the into suprenecy, they then to] cause the collapse of the Soviet State by external pressure and a substantial fraction of the US leadership expected that a 'preventative war' would be fought against the Soviet Union which at that time was the leading socialist country.

According to US secretary of State, Byrnes, in 1945, the possession of the atomic bomb 'put us in a position to dictate our terms at the end of the war'.

The US tried to carry this into effect with the Cold War initiated by President Truman.

Two important developments took place in the 1950's which affected US-Soviet relations. Firstly, the Soviet state did not collapse under US pressure. Instead the Soviet Union developed a nuclear capability sufficient to neutralise the superior American forces. It was this development that compelled a truce in the Cold War and the appearance of detente.

Secondly, as a result of internal changes in the Soviet Union (connected with the change of leadership after Stalin's death) a restoration of capitalism took place. As a result of this, the Soviet Union embarked on a phase of imperialist expansion — exporting capital around the world, bullying other countries and building up its armed forces to an unprecedented extent.

These developments have led to the situation today in which the two imperialist superpowers are contending for spheres of influence, sources of raw materials, markets and fields for capital export. This contention goes on in the military field as well as the economic and political areas. However, it is masked by the talk of detente in which both superpowers engage.

The first milestone of detente was the Partial Test Ban Treaty signed in 1963. This Treaty purported to limit the growth of nuclear weapons by banning atmospheric tests. The treaty did something to quieten the strong public demands for limitation of nuclear arms which had developed by this time. However, subsequent events have shown that the treaty was basically a fraud. At the time it was signed, technological discoveries by both the US and the Soviet Union had made atmospheric tests obsolete for them. Underground tests were quite adequate.

In the twelve years from 1963 to 1975, more nuclear tests were conducted by the superpowers than in the whole eighteen years prior to the signing of the Partial Test Ban.

Before the signing of this treaty certain other proposals for 'disarmament' had been bandied around. For instance, in 1958 the Soviet Union put forward a plan for cutting military expenditure. In 1962, a joint US-Soviet declaration was signed on putting the funds saved from 'disarmament' to peaceful purposes.

At the same time as these discussions were taking place, however, rapid increases in military expenditure were in fact occurring. According to official (Soviet) figures, in 1959, Soviet military spending was 9300 million rubles. By 1964, it had risen to 13.300 million rubles.

The US at this time maintained a bigger army than the Soviet Union, and was building up NATO strength in Central Europe.

In 1966, the Soviet Union called for a conference on European security and co-operation, saying that it stood for "measures to reduce tension, first of all military tension in Europe". The hypocrisy of these proposals were fully revealed in 1968, when Czechoslovakia was invaded by Soviet forces, and Brezhnev propounded his theory of 'limited sovereignty' which effectively allowed the Soviet Union to intervene militarily in the affairs of E European countries if it disliked their internal policies. In 1969 alone, Soviet ground forces in E. Europe were increased from 26 to 30 divisions, while every year since 1966, the Warsaw Pact has been carrying out about 10 joint military exercises.

In September 1972, when preparatory talks on the European security conference were about to begin, the Warsaw Pact Forces held exercises involving more than 100,000 men, while the more than an ironic commentary on the hard facts of continuing military competition.

In fact, while the Warsaw Pact forces were inferior to those of NATO at the beginning of the 1960s, over the last ten years the Soviet Union has initiated an arms build-up in central Europe to give it a growing military superiority in this critical area. Over the last decade, 130,000 men have been added to the central European front. Its tank force has increased by 40% and its artillery by nearly 100%.

Militarism of the USSR

Since 1971, the Soviet Union has been out spending the US on military expansion. Since 1972 it has out produced the US in tanks (by a ratio of 5.9:1), tactical aircraft (1.9:1) and artillery pieces (8:1). About three quarters of the Soviet armed forces are deployed in and around Europe, clearly showing that Europe is the focus of the contention between the two superpowers.

Just as the US twenty years ago piled up superior military forces and claimed they were for 'defence' (when in fact they were used to put pressure on the Soviet Union), so today with the changing strategic relationships in the world, the Soviet Union is doing the same thing in reverse and to a greater extent.

In the Northern and Central sector of the European front (Norway to Chechoslovakia) the Warsaw Pact has 31 armoured divisions against NATO's 11, 36 infantry, mechanized rifle and airborne divisions as against NATO's 18, a total of 910,000 troops to resist NATO's 635,000, and a mere 19,000 tanks to 'defend' themselves against NATO's 7,000!

Similarly, the Warsaw Pact has superiority in numbers of planes. NATO's only advantage is in the number of tactical nuclear warheads (7,000 as against the Pact's 3500); however, it is being increasingly recognised by the West that tactical nuclear warheads could become inoperable at an early stage in wartime. With the rapid advance of Soviet forces into West Germany, nuclear weapons would cause too much damage to NATO forces and territory to be used.

Detente: "WHAT MINE IS MINE AND WHAT'S your's is NEGOTIABLE."

The facts of the Soviet armed build-up in Europe clearly refute their claim that these forces are intended only for 'defence'. The only explanation can be that the Soviet Union is preparing for a blitz-krieg style attack on Western Europe. Indeed, this is exactly what Warsaw Pact forces practice in their exercises in East Europe.

Image of soldiers

Contention between the superpowers takes place at sea just as upon the land. After the second world war, the US navy was the unchallenged mistress of the seas. It was used repeatedly to extend US military power onto other continents — during the Korean and Vietnam wars, in the Middle East and elsewhere. Today, however, the Soviet navy is challenging US hegemony. From being a coastal defence navy in the early fifties, the Soviet navy has been built up over the last twenty years to sail all the oceans of the world. The US, Western Europe and Japan all depend to a large extent on the security of their trading routes, particularly for imports of oil, whereas the Soviet union's main supply lines are within its own borders.

The extent of rivalry at sea was demonstrated by the Soviet's Okean II exercise held in 1975. This exercise involved 200 surface ships, 100 subs as well as reconnaissance aircraft. More than half these forces were concentrated on the oil route and practised attacks on merchant shipping.

The global reach of Soviet power was demonstrated by the Soviet-Cuban intervention in Angola — a country thousands of miles from the Russian mainland.

At Helsinki in August 1975, the 'Conference on Security and Co-op eration in Europe' was convened. The final declaration covered such matters as the inviolability of frontiers, the peaceful settlement of international disputes, non-intervention in internal affairs, the right of national self-determination and so on. In view of all the facts cited above, this declaration has a very hollow ring indeed.

The same pattern of rapid arms expansion coupled with deceptive agreements is repeated in the case of nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union is building up its stockpiles at a particularly rapid rate. In 1962 it had only 75 ICBMs, but by 1975 the total was up to 1618. Similarly, its SLBMs increased from 100 in 1963 to 784 in 1975. Whereas in 1970, the US had more missiles than the Soviet Union (1710 as against about 1600) the position was reversed by 1976 with the Soviets having by then over 500 more than the US.

Against this background, the superpowers came up with a treaty on the 'Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons' in 1968. This was paraded as a great contribution to the peace and safety of the world. In fact, as the figures above show, it was merely a device by which the superpowers tried to preserve their monopoly of nuclear weapons. While it restricted the access of smaller countries to nuclear weapons it did nothing to stop the superpowers proliferating nuclear weapons to all parts of the globe in subsequent years.

Another similarly two-faced treaty was the bilateral Threshold Test Ban Treaty, signed in July 1974. This treaty prohibited test explosions over 150 kilotons in strength, but it eas not due to come into force until 31 March 1976. According to Dr Frank Barnaby of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, "The 21 month delay was to allow the completion of a number of weapons developments then underway. These include new warheads for the US Minute man III missile and the Trident submarine launched ballistic missile, and warheads for a number of new Soviet missiles. The yields of all these warheads exceed the 150 km limit. Today's main interest is the development of low-yield tactical and strategic warheads, and this would not be hindered by the proposed limit."

In other words the treaty in fact legitimised arms competition. Just as the Partial Test Ban treaty was signed when it suited the convenience of the superpowers to test underground, so the Threshold Test Ban treaty was timed to come into effect when It was convenient for them to continue testing only small bombs.

What noble sacrifices in the cause of peace)

US and USSR Strive for Domination

Facts are very stubborn things, and all the talk about 'detente' and possible, and the gross and wasteful build-up of both conventional and nuclear armanents is a bald admission that underneath, each side realises this. If the United States is forced to take a step backwards (as in South east Asia) the Soviet Union moves in. Wherever one sticks its hand, the other butts in a shoulder. The conflict deepens. Recent events in Southern Africa show this clearly. Soviet intervention in Angola is parried by intensified western efforts to get a 'peaceful solution' (favouring Anglo-US interests) in Zimbabwe The Soviet-backed invasion of Southern Zaire is matched by US and Western European support to Mobutu. And so it will continue.

Detente is not new

The mere fact that the superpowers engage in discussions, reach agreements on economic and military matters and sign pacts (such as the vaunted Helsinki declaration) does not mean at all that their contention is getting less. Historical experience clearly shows that even on the very eve of war, great powers engage in such negotiations and even reach agreements.

Between the first and second world wars, for instance, various agreements were reached on armaments questions. In 1921, the US, Britain and Japan agreed to equality of battleships. The London Naval Conference of 1930 widened the mutual limitations. In 1935, the Anglo-German Naval Agreement was signed: this permitted Germany to increase its fleet to 35% of the British fleet, including the building of a submarine fleet equal in size to the British. Debates on disarmament took place in the League of Nations in the twenties and thirties that were very similar to United Nations debates in the early sixties. The UN Special Session on Disarmament in 1978 will probably see more of the same. The most remarkable product of the interwar attempts to keep the peace was the Pact of Paris, signed in 1928 More familiarly known as the Brian-Kellog pact, this document declared that every signatory condemmed 'recourse to war for the solution of international controversies and re-nounced it as an instrument of national policy in relations with one another', and that every signatory agreed 'that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts, of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.' These terms are strikingly similar to those of the Helsinki accords. Subsequent events showed the Pact of Paris (which was signed at the time by all the major powers) to be more rhetoric for public consumption. Already we can see that the Helsinki declaration is another offspring of the same stock.

What does SALT mean?

So, having surveyed the history of 'detente' it is time to return to the point of departure and to have a further look at SALT'

SALT I was signed in May 1972 It put quantitative limits on the numbers of strategic missiles and bombers that the two superpowers could have -1710 for the US, and 2358 for the USSR. The Soviet Union was given a numerical advantage because of the technical superiority of US weapons, in particular the ability of the US to put multiple warheads on their launchers.

However, while SALT put quantitative limits on nuclear weapons it did not put any qualitative limitations on them.

Research could still go on, new weapons systems could still be developed So, it is hardly surprising that in the first month after the signing of the accords, the Soviet Union carried out 7 ICBM tests and 8 SLBM tests. At the same time, US Defence Secretary, Melvin Laird said in Congress that 'it is essential to maintain technological superiority', and that 'we must continue . . . existing deployment programmes.'

In fact the arms race continues as before with the development of such weapons as the US cruise missile, the B-1 bomber, the Trident Submarine, the suggested M-X mobile land based missile, the Soviet Backfire bomber, the Soviet Delta II submarine, new Soviet ICBM's and SLBM's (eg. the SSN-8).

Talks directed towards a SALT II agreement have stalled on the problems page break not covering these particular weapons. What use is there in an agreement that leaves unlimited two of the most recent weapons developments?

A further problem in SALT II is the question of numbers. The Soviet numerical advantage under SALT I was justified by the fact that the US could put MIRV's on their missiles whereas the Soviets could not. Since then, the Soviet Union has discovered how to MIRV missiles, so the US predictably argues that the SU should lose its numerical edge. When Vance tabled this proposal, the Soviet reply was a predictable and peremptory 'Niet'.

These, then, are the main problems facing SALT II. However, even if the superpowers somehow managed to iron them out to each other's satisfaction there would still be no end to the arms race. Each side would delve more deeply into its techno - logical Pandora's box and come up with yet another generation of weapons with which to torment mankind.

We can now answer the questions raised at the beginning of this article. No, detente does not exist. The arms race continues apace as does the political and military contention between the two superpowers around the world. The signing of a new SALT agreement would only serve to deceive some people into thinking that a genuine relaxation of tensions is taking place. It would do nothing to eliminate the conflict.

Prospects for New Zealand

New Zealand's response to the worsening international situation is a separate question, which there is not space here to go into in detail. However, in the opinion of this writer. New Zealand should adopt an independent foreign policy. We should break off our alliance with the USA and seek unity with the third world on such contentious international issues as the New International Economic Order nuclear free peace zones, 200 mile economic zones and the like.

Such a policy would extract us as much as possible from the arena of superpower contention; it would help delay the outbreak of a new world war and it would make it much harder for the US to drag us into any of its own foreign adventures.

With respect to nuclear weapons, nothing short of the complete destruction of nuclear weapons and stockpiles is necessary. New Zealand should call for a conference of all heads of state to implement this ban. This does not mean that such a ban is politically possible in the present international situation. However, as this article has shown, anything less than a compere ban leaves gaping loopholes for the arms race to continue.