To define concisely (though a bit pedantically) what was most essential about the Moscow meeting, one could say that relations between the communist and non-communist worlds have shifted from a polemical to a dialectical phase.
In other words, before Nixon’s visits to Beijing and Moscow, public opinion remained convinced that the two worlds were engaged in an ideological struggle: the West, grounded in certain perennial and absolute truths inherited from the Christian spiritual patrimony, and the East, affirming as dogma the relativity and mutability of all doctrines… except for that of relativism.
After the conciliatory talks in Beijing and Moscow, it was implicitly communicated to all humanity that for the superpowers, there are no absolute errors or truths, and that all ideological oppositions do not find their solution in controversy but in dialogue. Yes, dialogue, a smooth and gentle way of finding in each dispute a middle ground where the parties can meet. Each side gives up a little of its ideology, and from this bargain emerges not the truth, but the “truth,” that is, some kind of imbroglio that no one takes entirely seriously and that events will carry away in the great flood of history.
In this spirit, Kissinger reportedly exclaimed after the agreement: “Russia and the US will be able to engage in dialogue as never before.” Leonid Zamiatin, director of the Moscow press center, said much the same.
Where will this dialectical euphoria lead the world? The answer is easy. Just look at where it is leading it now.
* * *
On the Soviet side, an article in Pravda offered an interpretation of the agreement that leaves room for anything. The newspaper claims that Russia has achieved a diplomatic victory by getting the Americans to accept the end of the Cold War and the beginning of an era of peace. The newspaper notes that this Kremlin success aligns with Lenin’s strategy. For Lenin, peace is desirable whenever a stronger adversary is present. It is therefore necessary to take advantage of peace to surpass the enemy in wealth and power. Once this has been achieved, the communists must resume their aggression.
This explains the eagerness with which the Soviets seek funding and technological support from major non-communist nations such as the US, Germany, and Japan. It was agreed in Moscow that the Kremlin and the White House would immediately establish commissions to facilitate exchanges between the wealthy and the impoverished, thereby providing Russia with the advantages it seeks.
* * *
While seeking to enrich itself, Russia is taking advantage of the ‘dialogue peace’ to deliver a severe economic blow to the West. Shortly after Nixon visited Moscow, the Baghdad government, which includes communists, nationalized (read “confiscated”) the Iraq Petroleum Company, a Western-owned company that supplies much of the oil used by the Old World through pipelines passing through Syria and Lebanon.
According to reports in the mainstream media, this oil will now be exported to Russia, which will then supply Russian oil to Western nations that lack access to Iraqi oil.
Only hours after Iraq, Syria also seized the assets of that large oil company, and conservative Lebanon trembles. All this is unfolding in the already turbulent Middle East.
In Persia, shortly after visiting Russia, Nixon was greeted with bombs and symbolic attacks by agents of the very hosts who had just welcomed him in Moscow. Insurrection is brewing in the Shah’s domain to impose a pro-communist coalition government and to drain the Persian Gulf’s vast oil reserves into the Russian sphere of influence.
After carefully considering this bundle of sinister news, the reader will undoubtedly be frightened. I don’t know whether Nixon was frightened. If so, his fright was short-lived. Shortly after visiting Persia, Nixon flew to Warsaw, where he was greeted by a deliriously enthusiastic population who saw him as the possible savior of their poor country, crushed by the communists. Nixon gave a speech and could think of nothing better to do than praise Poland’s progress after World War II to Warsaw’s long-suffering residents. That is, under a communist dictatorship…
What did the families of the Danzig workers who revolted less than a year ago, driven by misery, think when they heard this?
With this blow to Poland’s hopes for liberation, Nixon abundantly demonstrated his sincerity in his dialogue with Moscow. Yet he had just received proof of the Soviets’ insincerity in Tehran.
* * *
Russia is thus taking advantage of the dialectical peace to enrich itself and impoverish its adversary. However, this is not enough to prepare for World War III. It is also necessary to get the Americans to accept the decline of their global influence and military power.
Regarding the decline of American influence, President Nixon, in his euphoric speech to the US Congress, clearly, albeit implicitly, accepted it. He said the US retained sufficient power to defend itself against Russian aggression. He said nothing about defending the rest of the free world. In other words, America is disengaging from other non-communist countries, thereby exposing them to Moscow’s wrath.
Regarding Latin America, some news wires report that Nixon tried to get the Soviets to ease their subversive activities in this part of the world. When the Soviets refused, the American president had to remove any reference to Latin American countries from the joint statement.
How far gone are the days of Monroe?
* * *
At the same time, the US began to scale back its war effort with increasing eagerness. Defense Secretary Melvin Laird immediately ordered the suspension of all military projects that violated the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty signed in Moscow.
What guarantees does Nixon have that Russia will do the same? According to Kissinger, the U.S.’s means of monitoring Russian disarmament are effective. On the contrary, James Reston, a contributor to The New York Times, acknowledges that there is no sure way to verify Russia’s compliance with the agreements.
Therefore, this absolutely essential point remains uncertain. I fear the world will pay dearly for this uncertainty!
* * *
But some may ask, has Nixon gone mad? This hypothesis is clearly unacceptable. Without directly referring to Nixon, James Reston put the problem in very clear terms. If one believes it possible that the Soviets are acting in good faith, one has reason to hope that Nixon’s policy will prevent war. If, on the contrary, one considers Soviet good faith impossible, one must admit that Nixon’s policy does not prevent war. For my part, I would add that this policy prepares for war, insofar as it gives the Soviets the means to strengthen themselves and then launch an attack against the US.
It is not surprising that Nixon, a man of little doctrine and much pragmatism, believes the Soviets’ word despite Marxism’s visceral amorality.
What remains unexplained to me is how he could have abandoned the entire free world, including Latin America, to Russian fury, even going so far as to defend the Russian occupation before the poor Poles, all of this at a time when, in the Middle East, Russia is devouring some of the world’s largest oil fields, thereby securing invaluable resources to win a new war.
Be that as it may, I now conclude my comments on the Moscow meeting.
History will one day clarify the facts and render its judgment.
Above all, God will judge them on the Day of Judgment.
