First Published: Unity, Vol. 2, No. 10, May 18-31, 1979.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
The SALT II agreement recently worked out by the U.S. and the Soviet Union is already provoking heated controversy throughout the U.S. Does SALT II favor the Soviets? Can it bring a reduction in the arms race? Will SALT II really help prevent World War III? These are some of the questions millions of people are asking.
The reality is that SALT II is no solution to the rivalry between the two superpowers nor to their arms race.
What then, can be done to halt the arms buildup and prevent war? While both Carter and the Soviets extol SALT II as the solution, the working class and other peace-minded people should see through the imperialists’ deceptive rhetoric about “peace” and “arms limitations.” SALT II masks the danger of war and lulls people into thinking that war can be averted by relying on the “good will” of the imperialists. If they want peace as much as they claim, why don’t they begin to destroy some of their vast arsenals instead of continually building them up?
The Soviets have in fact, pushed for SALT to hide their rapid military expansion. The U.S. on the other hand, wants to preserve its military might while at the same time using SALT as part of a policy of appeasing the Soviets. This policy aims at trying to defend declining U.S. imperialism by coming to agreements with the Soviets or even giving in to them in certain areas. Such a policy actually helps the Soviet superpower grow in strength and encourages its aggression.
SALT I did not prevent the Soviets from building their war machine or restrain Moscow’s aggression in Angola, Zaire, Afghanistan, or Kampuchea. The working class should oppose appeasement, which only helps hasten the outbreak of war. SALT I and II were both based on this appeasement policy. This is why the Soviets have been so enthusiastic about the treaties.
At the same, time, the U.S. ruling class forces which oppose SALT II or appeasement, do so because they wish to fight for U.S. imperialism’s interests using other means. The working class and other peace-minded people, though, have no interest in the preservation of U.S. imperialism. History has shown that the rulers of the U.S. are no lovers of peace.
The working class should support, instead, the international united front against the two superpowers. People, nations and countries around the world are opposing the two superpowers in one form or another, such as the struggle of the Iranian people for democracy and independence; the Kampuchean struggle for national liberation; and China’s efforts to build a modern, powerful, socialist country. They are the most important factor in fighting the threat of war. These struggles weaken the imperialists and hurt their war plans.
We should also oppose the war preparations of the U.S., whether in the form of the draft, weapons development, arms buildup or threats of aggression.
In the final analysis, the danger of world war can be ended only with the complete overthrow of the superpowers. As long as they are around there will be no stable world environment.
The people of the U.S. and the world want peace, but the superpowers will never agree. When the superpowers step up their talk of “peace,” it means that we must step up our opposition to imperialism.