More Strength, More Peace

All over the world last week, people tested the political winds and hopefully observed that things were letting up a little. On the Kremlin organ, the peace theme swelled with a new urgency. In Germany, the Communists, trying to forestall West German rearmament, dangled the tantalizing hope of a reunified nation (see FOREIGN NEWS).

The Soviet peace talk might go on for months, or it might end tomorrow--with an all-out Communist offensive in Korea. It is already producing some of the results the Communists want. In the free world, there is wistful talk of relaxing. The timorous argue that every armament race in history has resulted in war. Optimists say that the worst danger is past; it is now time to spend more on butter.

Both arguments could lead to disaster. The timorous are arguing, in effect, that peaceful citizens should not carry guns in bandit-ridden country because possession of guns always leads to gunplay. The optimists forget the paramount fact of 1951: the reason that the West feels less pressure is not because Stalin has turned kindly, but because the West has more arms.

Last week, reviewing the last month's achievements--the Japanese Treaty, the Big Three's agreement on a new status for Germany, NATO's inclusion of Greece and Turkey--Secretary of State Dean Acheson said bluntly: "No one--and no nation--should misjudge our purpose or our method. Our purpose is peace with freedom and justice. Our method . . . is to build those situations of strength which are essential to the achievement of our purpose. This is based on our conviction that the desire for peace is not enough; the free world must also have the strength to enforce the peace."

In a world prowled by history's most malevolent predator, the choice was not between peace and strength, but between less peace and more strength.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.