First Published: The Call, Vol. 8, No. 18, May 7, 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 debate is coming to a head.
With the report April 18 that virtually all major issues have been resolved in the strategic arms limitation talks (SALT) between the Soviet Union and the U.S., the current debate in the U.S. ruling class over this treaty has begun in earnest.
The debate reflects the widening rift within U.S. ruling circles over how to expand their global contention with the Soviets and deal with the growing aggressiveness of Soviet social-imperialism. The SAL T II proponents, led by the Carter administration, see the pact as a continuation of “detente,” which presumably will restrain the Russian polar bear from infringing on U.S. imperialism’s interests around the world.
The anti-SALT wing of the ruling class may not reject “detente” outright but makes a more realistic assessment of Soviet strength and motives and sees the new SALT agreement as an extension of a military imbalance in the Soviets’ favor. It favors protecting U.S. imperialism’s interests with a stronger military posture and a more aggressive stance towards the Soviets generally.
What both sides have in common is the desire to maintain U.S. imperialist might, by any means necessary, including nuclear weapons.
In other words, SALT II will not bring the peace that the people of the world are demanding. Whether the agreement is approved or rejected by the U.S. Senate, contention between the two imperialist superpowers is sure to continue and this contention leads unrelentingly toward a new world war. SALT II will not accomplish the following:
–It will not lead to an end to the arms race or significantly restrain the steadily escalating arms race between the two superpowers.
–SALT II will not prevent the Soviet Union from pursuing its aim of achieving a clear-cut military superiority over the U.S.
–Despite all the claims and counter-claims about verification of the agreement, the fact is that neither superpower will be able technically to confirm whether the other side is living up to the agreement.
–SAL T II will not lessen the Soviet military threat to Western Europe but will increase it and thereby strengthen Russia’s hand in the political arena too.
–SALT II will not restrain the Soviet Union which is the rising, aggressive superpower and the biggest hotbed of war. The arguments being advanced by pact supporters are all the more dangerous because they tend to mask superpower war preparations and try to lull people to sleep.
The opening salvoes in the SALT II debate were fired in early April when the Carter administration sent out its reputed hardliners – Defense Secretary Harold Brown and National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski –to defend the pact. The White House knows it faces a tough fight to get Senate approval. Consequently, its strategy is not to make any wild claims for SALT II and to emphasize that the pact will not stand in the way of U.S. military programs but will merely prevent the arms race from getting out of hand.
“The SALT debate, in contrast to the one in 1972 (when SALT I was negotiated), will not take place in an atmosphere of euphoria over detente,„ a White House aide told the New York Times. “Both we and the Senate are much more sober-minded about the character of American-Soviet relations and our effort to sell the treaty on Capitol Hill will reflect the new mood of realism.”
In this speech before the Council on Foreign Relations and the Foreign Policy Association in New York City, Defense Secretary Brown defined the “key question” facing the Senators as, “Will approval make the United States more secure than lack or rejection of agreement?“ Claiming that SALT II could save the U.S. $30 billion in nuclear weapon expenses that might result from an “unrestrained“ arms race, Brown said, “The answer is clear. A sound SALT agreement is in the interest of both the United States and the Soviet Union, despite the competition between our two systems that exists elsewhere.”
Similarly, in his speech last week before the nation’s newspaper editors, Pres. Carter narrowed the target of his SALT sales pitch by saying, “That is the choice we face, between an imperfect world with SALT II and an imperfect and more dangerous world without it.”
In its effort to nip the anti-SALT forces in the bud, the White House has, in effect, conceded that far from halting the superpower arms race, SALT II will permit increased military expenditures. For example, Defense Secretary Brown, citing the U.S. need to step up its spending on strategic forces, has stated that the U.S. will move ahead with the development of controversial new weapons, such as the MX mobile intercontinental missile. The already bloated U.S. defense budget will be increased even further to “modernize our own strategic forces ... improvements which are necessary even in a time of fiscal restraint,” Carter told the newspaper editors.
Despite this unsolicited confession of increased arms spending, the “detente” rhetoric of the White House and the pro-SALT forces, nevertheless, is sowing plenty of illusions about the benefits of SALT II. Pres. Carter claims that “the rejection of SALT II would result in a more perilous world” and “a dark nightmare of unrestrained arms competition.” “Without SALT,” he said last week in New York City, “we would see improved relations with the Soviet Union replaced by heightened tensions.”
The national debate under- way around SALT II is having its international repercussions, too. Already, several leaders of Western European countries are said to be uneasy over terms of the pact and the reliability of the U.S. “nuclear umbrella.”
China has already made its position known on SALT II. In his interview with Time magazine, China’s Vice Premier Deng Xiaoping stated: “We have constantly said not that we are opposed to such agreements, but that they are of no use, that they are not of much use.” Deng noted in that interview that SALT II is actually the fourth arms agreement between the U.S. and USSR, following the original 1963 test-ban treaty, and pointed out, “After the conclusion of this fourth agreement the arms race will continue. But the difference will be that the U.S. will be forced to continue the race while the Soviet Union will just further step up its development.”
The current debate within the ruling class has the advantage of alerting more people to the questions of war and peace. Marxist-Leninists must enter the debate with their own perspective of exposing both superpowers, preparing the people for the inevitable outbreak of war and showing that only the destruction of imperialism can guarantee a peaceful world.
The Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), for example, has already made clear its stand of opposition to the arms buildup being carried out by both superpowers. At the same time, The Call has pointed out that Soviet social-imperialism is today the most dangerous source of war and that the policy of appeasement, exemplified by “detente,” only encourages Soviet aggression and hastens, rather than delays, the outbreak of war.
This is the first in a series of articles on the SALT II agreement. The Call series will at- tempt to sift through the claims and counter-claims about the pact and to present a Marxist-Leninist analysis of the superpower war preparations and what this means for the people of the world.
The next article in the series will look at the question of U.S. and Soviet military strength and the controversy around verification of the SALT II pact.