Kissinger in Moscow – Folha de S. Paulo, September 17, 1972

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

Whenever Mr. Henry Kissinger, a US official pompously titled “presidential advisor,” travels to a communist country on a “secret” mission, the surrounding propaganda creates an atmosphere of anticipation and tension.

At a certain point during the mysterious character’s stay abroad, news begins to filter out about the “secret” matter he discussed with his hosts. The news is surprising yet incomplete, and it prepares public opinion for a spectacular outcome. When that outcome is revealed, it stuns and baffles because it always involves an inconceivably “generous” favoring of the interests of the communist country Mr. Kissinger is visiting.

In short, this is the usual pattern of the “presidential advisor’s” performances: initial mystery, surprising unofficial information, and a final publicity bang after capitulation.

*    *    *

This is what is happening with Mr. Kissinger’s trip to Moscow this week. It was shrouded in dense mystery from the outset. On Thursday, unofficial Soviet news reports revealed that a wide-ranging trade agreement between Russia and the US was being finalized. According to these reports, the volume of business between the two nations was expected to rise steadily, reaching $5 billion per year by 1977. Such an agreement would include trade and bank credits for exports and imports. As a corollary, the Americans are considering the construction of a comprehensive commercial center in Moscow, with capacity for 400 company offices and hotels.

The unofficial news cleverly leaves key aspects of the matter in a gray area. For example, Russian production is far below the needs of its population. How, then, will Moscow pay for US investments and credits? In what time frame? At what interest rates? What investments will Moscow make in the US? What supplies will it provide?

Furthermore, if Russia is unwilling or unable to pay its debts, will the US have the means to compel it to do so without risking a global conflagration?

There is even more. Will the capital the US invested in Russia be the private property of the American companies that invested it? Will that be compatible with the nature of the communist regime, in which all means of production are collectivized?

Let us assume, against all expectations, that Moscow signs a treaty guaranteeing the status of private property for American investments. What assurance do investors have that, at some point, these assets will not be “nationalized” as unceremoniously as foreign companies have been confiscated in Chile, Peru, or Iraq?

These questions, or rather these concerns, are entirely justified. According to the unofficial reports I am commenting on, the agreements Kissinger is set to sign are intended to “overcome” the problem of Russia’s war debt to the US.

No one is unaware that, shortly before being attacked by the Third Reich, Russia had been engaged in an armed conflict with Finland, in which it was shamefully defeated. It would have been even more completely defeated by the powerful German army. It resisted the German onslaught largely thanks to the multiple resources provided by the Allied powers—and especially the US. Once the conflict was over, America naturally presented its bill: $2.6 billion. To this, the Soviets responded “gratefully” with a proposal to reduce the debt to $300 million!

Unsatisfied, the US left the matter at a standstill to avoid the risk of provoking a new world war by forcibly collecting what Russia owed.

And now the Americans are going to extend new credit to this terrible debtor! The unofficial Soviet source adds that the problem of Russia’s war debt to the US will thus be “overcome.”

According to breaking news, this “overcoming” refers to both parties making concessions. The US accepts a $2.1 billion discount, and Russia agrees to pay an additional $200 million…

To further reinforce Russia’s advantage, it was stipulated that this debt would be paid within 30 years. In round numbers, that means 60 years after it was incurred! Of course, they relegate this transaction to secondary importance in the flow of the immense negotiation Kissinger has just settled.

If Kissinger were asked why he made such a huge concession, he would undoubtedly reply: “What do you want? A new world war?” Therefore, the ‘honest’ Soviet debtor negotiates with a gun to the creditor’s head.

And that is called “overcoming”! Isn’t it delightful?

*    *    *

On the same day that news broke of Kissinger’s sinister dealings in favor of the Russians, it was also reported that Soviet spending on armaments was becoming increasingly massive. As a result, in recent years, Russia has transitioned from a state of overwhelming inferiority to the US to one of relative equality, which is evolving into superiority in some areas.

This information was provided by Gen. A.J. Goodpaster, Supreme Commander of NATO’s Joint Forces, during the organization’s 18th General Assembly on the 13th of this month.

*    *    *

The dishonesty of Soviet conduct is not what is most astonishing in this case. What is particularly surprising is that Mr. Kissinger is willing to help such an unscrupulous and aggressive adversary through loans and various forms of investment. Isn’t he acting like someone who lends money to a deadbeat so he can buy a gun?

*   *   *

Is that Mr. Kissinger’s responsibility? Let’s tell the whole truth: the person actually responsible for everything is not him but Mr. Nixon, whom he serves as a puppet.

Mr. Nixon is becoming the presidential candidate of all American conservatives while allowing his country’s wealth and power to slip into the hands of its adversary! This is done under the allegation that Mr. McGovern is even more leftist than the current president.

How everything serves the interests of communism in today’s world! It’s like a comedy.

Nixon is rallying the forces of the vast conservative majority around him only because the leftist minority has put forward the weak McGovern candidacy. He is using this support to negotiate with the Soviets an agreement that could be incomparably more ruinous for the free world than the Yalta agreement.

But someone might object, is Russia really that poor? Yes, and there is plenty of supporting evidence. One example was provided this week by the Moscow magazine Ekonomicheskaya Gazeta, which states that few items produced in the Soviet era meet consumption needs.

I would add that the reason for this is that the collective ownership system discourages work and, therefore, reduces production.

Russia is necessarily poor, like other communist countries; the regime is unnatural and therefore performs poorly.

Yet, Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kissinger are providing the Soviets with the means to spread communist propaganda worldwide.

With the support of American capitalists, Moscow will always feel more comfortable continuing to divert part of the Russian people’s resources to exercise patronage over developing nations, such as loans, the provision of technicians, and investments in machinery. With all this, Russia seeks to be perceived as a prosperous nation in the eyes of the developing world.

And so the Yankee locomotive rolls on, unexpectedly pulling behind it the peoples of the free world like train cars.