Perils of Peace

For the last seven years, the keystone of American foreign policy has been the idea of peace through strength. Although realizing that the concept has been fruitless in the past, policy strategists of both parties have thought it necessary to so prepare the West as to render impotent any new Communist aggression. From such a situation of strength, peace could then be negotiated.

Over the last three weeks have come the first substantial signs that this plan is working. It is possible to attribute the recent Communist concessions in Korea and relaxations elsewhere to the death of Stalin and the inferred "power struggle" in the Kremlin. But these are as much coincidences as causes. A month ago, some experts on Russia were saying such a struggle would surely start a war. From here, the new moves seem less a result of Stalin's death and more the result of Russia's realization that the West has been able to stymie her in cold and shooting wars while still building up its strength.

That is why it is so disturbing that, just as the peace through strength policy is beginning to pay dividends, there has been a growing desire to soft-pedal this whole policy. Scarcely two days after the Communists gave in on the prisoner issue, Congressmen began to talk up large cuts in the defense budget. At least two billion seems sure to go, with more slices in the offing. Secretary Dulles has quietly scuttled the Point Four program. The NATO countries seem to have lost the will to agree, they are certainly not meeting their manpower quotas, and the U.S. does not seem to care. If agreement were a certainty, there would be good reason for these moves. Right now they seem a dangerous intoxication from the first breaths of peace.

The desire for peace is such a natural one, you might expect such intoxication from the man in the street. But that is not where it has originated. If the polls and newspaper publishers' reports are correct, the voters are taking the Russian bids with a good deal more salt than some of their leaders. True, the President held firm to the peace-through-strength policy in his excellent speech last week. But none of the Congressional budget cutters were seen rushing to withdraw their bills after the speech was over. They loved the sermon, but went on sinning.

There are many temptations to slacken defense. The same climate of opinion that supports sacrifices for preparedness reacts against civil liberties, for fear cannot draw careful lines. But if a choice must be made, Russia is still more dangerous to liberty than McCarthy and all his followers. Moreover, a number of social reforms--in housing, power, and health--have to stew while a defense establishment is kept up. But dollar for dollar it is worth it. For the temporary relief it would give them from anxicty and taxation, America and the West cannot afford to abandon the carefully planned policy of strength that is still the best hope for real peace.