"In a dramatically staged gesture from which they seek to extract the greatest propaganda value," commented editorially the New York Times on May 16, "the Soviets announce that within a year's time they will carry out a 'third arms reduction' by cutting their forces by 1,200,000 men and curtailing both their military equipment and their military expenditures. They present this announcement as their answer to the failure of the United Nations disarmament talks, for which they are responsible. If the Soviets do carry out this reduction, and if it should tend to confirm that they are veering away from the Stalinist policy of force and violence, such a step could only be welcomed. But before the free nations fall into what may be merely a propaganda trap they must weigh this announcement in the light of the following considerations:
1. As in the case of their previously claimed reductions, the Soviets not only refuse to disclose the figures from which, and to which, they promise to cut their armed forces but also reject all international verification and control of their actions, except for a ground control on the farcical Korean model.... 2. According to the best available estimates, the Soviets still have more than 4,000,000 under arms. A cut of 1,200,000 would bring this figure down to approximately 2,800,000. That is the figure to which the United States has already reduced its own forces .... Even counting all the forces of all our allies, from Britain to New Zealand, the Communist bloc with its numerous satellite armies would still retain the numerical balance in its favor. 3. There is every indication, confirmed by their own statements, that the Soviets ... are now streamlining their forces for the most modern arms, including atomic weapons. This would permit them to reduce their armed manpower while increasing their military strength.
Pointing out that by this unilateral and uncontrolled 'disarmament' the Soviets "can put free world Governments under deluded popular pressure to accept Kremlin professions at face value and disarm themselves," the paper went on to say: "Were the Soviets to succeed in this, they would attain their immediate goal, which is to put disarmament before a solution of pressing world problems that cause world tension, thereby compelling acceptance of their conquests as faits accomplis, including the partition of Germany, Korea and Vietnam. This would not only mean free world abandonment of the subjugated peoples; in would also shake the faith of the weaker nations in Western professions and compel them to seek from the Soviets the best terms they could get .... The way would then be open for a new Communist advance on all fronts, and the Soviets would attain by 'disarmament' what they have been unable to attain by force of arms. The free world should have learned enough by now to beware of Soviet wiles and to act accordingly."
"The aim is obviously to convey the impression that Moscow is benign and has no violent intentions," editorialized the New York Herald Tribune on May 16. "By purporting to cut its military strength the Soviet is in effect challenging the United States and the rest of the free world to do likewise. And, plainly enough, Mr. Khrushchev and associates are trying to make it appear before world opinion that they are truly concerned with peace. The first thing to remember is that there is a vast difference between earnestness and propaganda. Certainly there is no evidence now, nor has there ever been, of any change in the basic Soviet goal of world domination. As has been quickly pointed out in Washington, the present announcement would carry far more meaning if the Russians had acted co-operatively at the recent London disarmament conference."
Pointing out that the Moscow statement "says nothing about any reduction in nuclear weapons or any fewer long-range bombers being built," the paper observed: "From all accounts, the Soviets need more manpower to turn the new weapons of changed warfare, to develop greater material strength at home and to build up their program of economic and political infiltration in the uncommitted countries. This is the real nature of the Soviet challenge, and it was no jest when Mr. Dulles said he would rather have the Russians doing guard duty than making atomic bombs."
"If the Soviets are really intending to forgo the use of force against other nations," the paper argued, "they should be willing to join in the full exchange of blueprints. To hold back on information is scarcely an invitation to mutual confidence. The claims which Moscow has made must be taken with a handful of salt. We are up against hard and subtle maneuverers. The United States as never before, needs to be imaginative and energetic m continuing to build a lasting partnership for freedom. Above all, this country must keep up its guard."
"All this sounds fine," stated the Scripps-Howard newspapers in their editorial of May 16. "But it's only a promise. The records of the last 10 years are filled with broken Soviet promises."
With reference to Mr. Dulles' observation that the men leaving the army will be moving into an industrial system which puts major emphasis on heavy industry and armaments manufacture, the paper maintained: "The clincher in the argument this promise to cut armed forces would not impair Soviet strength-even if carried out-involves weapons. Reduction of standing armies without comparable reduction of weapons means nothing. And all evidence points to the Soviets' speeding up arms production of all types. It would be foolhardy, however, not to recognize the propaganda victory for the Soviet-whether or not they actually cut their forces. It will contribute to the tendency in the free world to become even more complacent. It could be tragic if it ends in pressure within Western nations to reduce their own woefully weak and small military establishments.
"The real test of the Soviets will come in their behavior in foreign affairs. There is no evidence of any change in this respect. Until the Soviets are willing to correct their past crimes in Eastern Europe; until they are willing to permit reunification of Germany, Korea and Viet Nam; until they are willing to tear down the Iron Curtain, there can be no justification for relaxing in the West."
"First, let's make one thing plain," editorialized the Christian Science Monitor on May 17, "The Soviet move may be an 'army cut', but it is not an 'arms cut.' So far as it appears, the Soviet arsenal will continue to contain practically as many guns as before; Russia's building of planes and submarines will continue as before-and trained men can be called back quickly to man the weapons. In fact, the manpower reduction probably means that Moscow places increasing emphasis on the production of atom and hydrogen bombs and if possible on winning the race to produce an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Declaring that the Soviet "projected cuts would bring the Red military establishment only down to about the same manpower level as the American," the paper maintained: "The evidence is strongly indicative that the Communist military and economic planners have embarked on this partial demobilization for reasons of efficiency in the Soviet Union quite apart from a motive to reduce world tensions. For a nation of under 200 million which requires more than half its population in agriculture and is drawing from the farms for a growing heavy industry, a standing army of four million is something of a luxury. To transfer a million men into more productive activity may result in more goods for 'competitive coexistence.'
"It is worth repeating that Moscow's diplomats could have used this manpower cut in the London disarmament negotiations if they had wished. But agreement there would have involved limitations on nuclear weapons and inspection against surprise, points nearer to the essence of modern military might than is massed manpower. Instead, Moscow has released the announcement in a way that has only propaganda value. And the propaganda should not induce the United States to weaken its defenses or reduce any activities which bind to it its free-world allies."
"It would be wrong to assume that the 1,200,000-man cut announced in Moscow .... is wholly a propaganda gimmick," editorialized the Washington Post on May 15. "Very probably the Soviet Union needs these men in industry and agriculture-as it seems to have needed the 640,000 men it says it took from its armed forces a year ago. Nevertheless, the Russians are playing a propaganda game when they call upon the United States and its Allies to carry out similar reductions as a contribution "toward strengthening peace."
Pointing out that even with the new cuts, the military manpower of Russia and Communist China "is far more than that of all the Western Allies combined," the paper opined: "It is reasonable to conclude that the Russians have not reduced their net military strength. Thus there is another inference to be drawn-that the Soviet Union has proceeded far in its own 'new look,' or adaptation of nuclear weapons to military requirements. And this emphasizes again that disarmament in terms of manpower totals is meaningless unless and until there is some workable inspection system to provide safeguards against surprise nuclear attack."
"We don't think the propaganda purpose will succeed," commented editorially the Hearst papers on May 17. "The peoples of the world are not the dupes the Communists suppose. They will approve, we believe, President Eisenhower's position that the crux of an efficient disarmament system is the right of inspection, which the Russians have adamantly rejected.
"On the second motivation Mr. Dulles put his finger on the heart of the matter when he said that Russia, by releasing soldiers to industry, making nuclear weapons and airplanes for example, might actually increase its war-making power. The Administration has not shut the door on Soviet intentions if supported by deeds, but it has taken the course of reality that until such deeds are manifested this nation must keep up its guard and maintain its strength."
"Give the Russians their due," commented The Economist on May 19. "Their announcement this week .... is propagandist (it was timed for the eve of the French minister's visit to Moscow. just as their announcement of 640,000 cut last August preceded Dr. Adenauer's arrival); it is impossible to verify; it is plainly intended not only to force the Western Powers, which had already made cuts, to make still more, but also to disrupt their unity."
Pointing out that the Russian announcement "makes no mention of atomic arms," the journal commented, "Any scheme that ignores these, the costliest items in modern defence budgets, misses the biggest of opportunities to ease the economic burden of arms. Moreover, as M. Moch has pointed out, nuclear arms will become relatively more and more important if the trimming of conventional forces by all parties proceeds; and the fact that smaller countries will soon know how to make atomic bombs increases the risk of their reaching completely irresponsible hands.
Stating that "the Russians' last 'official' figure of their total armed manpower was only 2 million…. yet the demobilisation now promised and the one said to have been carried out since August nominally affect 1,840,000," the paper declared: "Thus anyone who accepts all the Russians' figures as true must believe that they plan to garrison the whole area between Vladivostok and the Elbe with between 500,000 and 700,000 men-a force smaller than Britain's. This is cloud-cuckoo land. Sizable demobilisation may well be on Moscow's agenda, for farms and factories are calling out for men; but the fantastic discrepancy between the various Soviet figures points very clearly to the vital difference between what they are now doing and what the West-and, indeed, the world-wants all nations to do under an enforceable disarmament treaty. In other words, disarmament behind closed doors is no substitute for disarmament carried out in the open under international supervision."
Egypt and Red China
"About eight months ago the Soviet Union leapfrogged into the Middle East via an arms deal between its Czech satellite and Egypt," editorialized the Scripps-Howard newspapers on May 19. "Now Red China has leapfrogged into the same area via a trade deal under which the Chinese buy substantial quantities of Egypt's surplus cotton. Egypt is establishing diplomatic relations with the Peiping regime and junking its recognition of Nationalist China."
Stating that "Egypt's move probably will be followed by Arab states, especially those linked to Egypt by alliance," the paper went on to say, "These developments are outstanding examples of how cold war battles today are won by means far short of guns and bombers. Both of Egypt's new links with Moscow and Peiping were maneuvered through trade deals-not by aggression. A year ago both Russia and (Communist) China were excluded from any foothold in the Arab world. Now both countries have far more than a foot in the door. For 10 years the United States has tried to buy friendship and allies with gifts. In less than 10 months Moscow and Peiping acquire strong new positions with a key country in the strategically most important area of the world and do it with simple trade deals. This is something that should give our policy-makers much to think about."
"The announcement that the Egyptian government had decided to extend diplomatic recognition to Red China was hardly surprising," commented editorially the Oakland Tribune on May 18. "Neither should it be considered as a world-shaking event in itself. The greater significance lies in the palpably false reasons advanced for the decision, in the real motivations and in the results yet to come."
Pointing out that "Western armament of Israel is about the weakest excuse that could have been put forward by Cairo," the paper observed, "Recognition of the Peiping regime will in no way affect Western policy in affairs directly related to the tension in the Middle East. When it comes to connecting Israel to the decision, the cold truth is that Egypt in that respect is aligning itself with Tel Aviv, which long ago recognized Peiping as the legitimate government of China. In that sense the Jews and the Arabs of Egypt are as one.
"The real reason for the Cairo decision can be nothing else than that it was part of the bargain made with the Communists to get arms from behind the Iron Curtain. Recognition of Peiping first, then leadership among Arab states in joining the Communist bloc for admission of Red China to the United Nations, undoubtedly were made a part of the price for guns and planes." Admitting that "it was a loss of United States prestige in the Middle East," the paper concluded: "Our concern now is what to do about stemming the probable tide of other Arab states following the Egyptian lead, and of counteracting the prospects of the Egyptian action encouraging British supporters of Red China in the United Nations."
"Unable to blackmail the West into giving him all the arms he desired with the avowed purpose of resuming the war against Israel on a full scale," editorialized the Cleveland Plain Dealer on May 27, "Nasser accepted the Russian arms deal. Since this did not frighten the West into acceding to all his demands, the colonel has gone the whole hog in building up relations with the Communist east.
"Now he undoubtedly assumes that he can sail the Egyptian ship out of troubled domestic waters by these new alignments, but he is doomed to entangle it in the Sargaso Sea of Communism. No man or nation plays footsie with these boys without becoming entangled. The Egyptian illusion that they can continue to accept Russian and other Communist arms, employ Russian engineers and technicians, tolerate trade missions from (Communist) China and satellite countries, and come off politically stock free is another Sahara mirage."
In answering the question "How will the rest of the Arab world react?" the Washington Post & Times-Herald editorialized on May 18: "No Arab country until now has given Peiping diplomatic recognition, but Colonel Nasser's example may be contagious. At any rate it will be a test of his influence. In this respect the Russians may be counted upon to help him. For they have been putting out an intensive barrage of propaganda from the Tashkent radio directed at the Moslem countries. And in London Khrushchev is said to have warned the British that the Russians will not be content until they have broken the Baghdad Pact. Nasser's move is an item in that category."
In its editorial of May 30, the Baltimore Sun opined that Nasser's purpose "is to secure for Egypt a pool of arms which he would consider adequate for that country's safety. Beyond that, he wants arms for the Arab world, for it seems plainer and plainer that Nasser is ambitious to become the acknowledged leader of all Arabs around the eastern end of the Mediterranean, and perhaps those to the west as well. How far his ambitions will carry him, and how well he will be able to reconcile wide international activity with the urgent task of raising Egypt's standard of living, are matters at the moment unclear; but there is little doubt about the largeness of his ambitions."
"The curious aspect of Nasser's move is that he cites the religious angle," commented editorially the Gannett newspapers on May 19. "He points out that recognizing Red China means that 90 million Chinese Moslems, which is also the religion of Egypt, are being given proper status in the international relationships of nations. This is a curious appeal to religion when one remembers that while Nasser may be doing something for 90 million brethren of the faith, he is, at the same time, giving equal new status to 300 million 'atheistic' Communists.
"This curious reference to religion is another demonstration of how the church-state operates when the chips are down. The politician takes over and speaks for both the government and the church and the latter all too often go along with the political leadership. Dictators do not hesitate to assert their full power and take advantage of every opening to prove to their countrymen and to the world that they are front and center in their country."