by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
Nixon’s announced visit to Russia is part of the same context as his plan to go to China. I want to share some thoughts on these related developments in American diplomacy.
My first question is: what do these moves mean?
The President of the United States, leader of the world’s richest and most powerful nation, will visit Beijing and Moscow.
However, being President of the United States today is very different from what it was during Eisenhower’s or Johnson’s presidencies.
Today, the great American nation still holds its position as a leader in wealth. But with the dollar devalued and the economy burdened by numerous problems.
The United States remains the world’s top political power, but its influence is being undermined both internally and externally, in a decline that surprises all observers.
At home, the deterioration explodes in frenzied protests, rising crime, and shocking sexual aggression. It produces a disconcerting apathy among the public in the face of the communist threat and a desire among large segments of the country to withdraw from the rest of the world and retreat within its own borders to enjoy a prosperous life.
Deterioration in foreign policy causes defections in Vietnam, breaches of commitments to Taiwan, and a decline in American prestige in the Far East. This is why the void left by the British Empire in the Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf, and the Mediterranean is not being filled by the United States but by Russia. NATO, increasingly opposed in the Senate and House, is weakening because of this decline. It blinds millions of Americans to the fact that Russia is working to attract not only the very complacent Willy Brandt but also the very indifferent Pompidou into its sphere of influence. In Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau is gradually distancing himself from the United States (without alarming the entire nation) and strengthening his ties with Russia. In Latin America, the effort to break down ideological barriers is leading to a distancing from the U.S., a move worsened by American protectionism. Finally, with the inevitable entry of Red China into the UN Security Council, American influence diminishes further in this key global forum.
The clear military decline is another sign of this deterioration. Russia and China are quickly advancing in the arms sector, while the United States tends to stagnate and consequently decline.
Against this backdrop, Nixon is shown with his bags packed, ready to go to Beijing and Moscow. Smiling, quick-witted, and cheerful, the American leader appears prepared to enjoy pleasant picnics in both the Chinese and Russian capitals.
This cheerful demeanor suits the role he’s about to assume in his own country, specifically, as a candidate seeking re-election as president. Aiming to gain the support of the vast majority of his fellow citizens who prioritize peace above all else—the reader should notice this important detail—Nixon must present his trips as joyful pursuits in the name of peace. Politically, he needs to portray this mission to his audience as simple and positive, like a caring father who, on a Sunday afternoon, goes out to buy ice cream for his sweet-toothed children.
However, it’s not all smiles…
In fact, in both the yellow and red capitals, he will face two ambitious, enterprising, and relentless political gangs, fully aware of all the weaknesses of their American partner and eager to exploit them to their advantage. These gangs are driven not by a desire for a quiet life but by ambitions of ideological expansion and political dominance. They don’t need to worry about re-election because all the power is held by force, backed by police and weapons. They understand that if Nixon doesn’t make significant concessions in exchange for vague yet impressive promises of peace, he won’t be re-elected. Essentially, these gangs see it as a good deal to trade tangible concessions for vague promises.
This is the picture. Which one is it?
Aside from some minor insignificant differences, it is essentially the picture of Munich in 1939. France and England, driven by an obsessive desire to enjoy their peaceful daily lives, made every concession to the Rome-Berlin axis. In exchange, they asked Hitler and Mussolini for nothing more than a few promises of peace. After blindly signing the submissive Munich Agreement, Chamberlain and Daladier returned to their respective capitals to enthusiastic ovations.
In his ostracism, the great Churchill proclaimed to Chamberlain and his followers: “You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.” Perhaps the great statesman was reminded of Claudel’s thought: “There is something sadder than losing one’s life: it is losing one’s reason for living; losing one’s hope is sadder than losing one’s possessions” (Otage, Gallimard, Paris, 1951, 143).
This was how many English and French people thought as they prepared to risk their lives and achieve victory.
Here’s the core issue: Are there men in the United States who think like Churchill? If there weren’t, we wouldn’t really know how far things could fall. Luckily, as we’ll see, there are, and so it’s reasonable to hope that Nixon’s electoral strategy will fail, and that in the next presidential election, the people will choose a leader capable of replacing Nixon’s policies with others based on prudence, wisdom, and strength.
That will be the way out.
But what will that lead to? War? No, it will bring peace. I adapt Churchill’s classic words to the present situation: If, having to choose between the risk of war and a Munich-style surrender, enlightened Americans decide to take the risk, they will have peace. Is it a paradox? Maybe. But it is true because Nixon’s entire pacifist policy amounts to walking right into a trap long planned by the mentors of international communism.
Some pro-Nixon readers may be surprised by what I have just said. But the present plot has been in place since at least 1931. Forty years ago!
Consider these striking words:
Tactics will sometimes be violent, sometimes peaceful, but consistently revolutionary. The deadly war between communism and capitalism is unavoidable. Currently, we are not powerful enough to attack, but our time will come in twenty or thirty years. To win, we will need an element of surprise. The bourgeoisie must be lulled to sleep. We will start by launching the most spectacular peace movement ever seen, with electrifying proposals and extraordinary concessions. The capitalist countries, foolish and decadent, will happily cooperate in their own destruction. They will rush to seize this new opportunity for friendship. When they let their guard down, we will crush them with our clenched fist.[1]
Therefore, at least on a natural and human level, everything seems to hinge on this question: Are there still moral reserves in the United States capable of resisting the allure of Russian-inoculated “peace” to prepare for war? The answer to this must be yes.
A few days ago, the press reported that an American public opinion poll showed Nixon’s popularity rising from 40% in June to 42.6% in September, thanks to the huge publicity campaign promoting his visit to China. The increase is insignificant; it’s ridiculous.
Most Americans were unimpressed, so anything could still happen in the upcoming presidential elections.
May Providence help us!
[1] Dimitri Z. Manuilsky, lecture at the Lenin School of Political Warfare in 1931, apud Jean Ousset. El marxismo leninismo. Editorial Iction, Buenos Aires, 2nd ed., 1963, 113. Manuilsky was elected president of the UN Security Council in 1949. [Our translation]