Hardening Line

The West hardened its positions and its tone in dealings with the Russians last week. Items:

Strategic Air Command. The U.S. mowed down in one day's U.N. Security Council debate the U.S.S.R.'s propaganda charges against "provocative" SAC flights over the Arctic (TIME, April 28), mustered up such a huge majority (possibly nine to one) that the U.S.S.R. withdrew the complaint. Then the U.S. called on the U.N. Security Council to reopen debate on the U.S. proposal, rejected by the U.S.S.R. last summer, for an Arctic "open skies" inspection zone.

The Summit. The U.S., Britain and France fired off a joint note to the Kremlin opposing the U.S.S.R.'s attempt to divide the allies in pre-summit talks by seeing Western ambassadors separately, suggested that the U.S.S.R. see the ambassadors together and start work on a summit agenda.

The U.S.S.R. hardened its line on summit talks, too. One day last week the Kremlin's Khrushchev sent a bitter letter to President Eisenhower rejecting the U.S.'s latest offer to begin joint technical studies on disarmament, adding a new attack on nuclear tests "causing an ever-present and ever-mounting danger to the health and life of the people . . . from radiation hazards." President Eisenhower prodded right back that K. really ought to begin technical studies: "I am unhappy that valuable time is now being wasted."

The hardening Western line reflected suspicions of new unrest behind the Iron Curtain in general and within the Kremlin hierarchy in particular (see FOREIGN NEWS). The hardening line also reflected sober second thought from London to Seoul about what reducing the power of the free world's deterrent might mean.

Britain's Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, committed to summit talks if diplomats can agree on an agenda, felt strong enough in terms of British public opinion to launch an attack against the Labor Party's line on nuclear tests. "What prevents war," he said, "is the balance of power. Peace has been preserved thus far not because the West has been disarmed but because the present balance is roughly equal. I would not like to be responsible for the outcome if we were to abandon the balance." Said the New York Times: "The Soviet strategy emphasizes again Moscow's real aims and exposes the naivete of those who, undaunted by the failure to win Stalin's cooperation after the last war by giving him all he wanted, now propose to win Khrushchev's cooperation by offering him nuclear disarmament, 'disengagement' and the status quo."

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