The Cliche Expert Testifies on Disarmament

(Scene: a court of opinion Characters: a persecuting attorney, the Witness, Gutintent, and his silent counsel, Mr. Frank Sullivan)

Q: Mr. Gutintent, you are an authority on the cliches of disarmament?

A: That's right. I am a stalwart of the peace movement. I am trying to find new alternatives.

Q: Alternatives to what?

A: To the spiral of hostility, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the hazards of the arms race.

Q: Will you swear on this sacred issue of Daedalus that your testimony will be the whole truth?

A: Yes. I also swear on the New Leader, Commentary, Dissent, Encounter, the Partisan Review, the Progressive, and lately, the Saturday Evening Post.

Q: To show your conversance with the topic, could you tell us what is currently happening at Geneva?

A: The talks are bogging down.

Q: Why? What about the new plan?

A: It was rejected summarily.

Q: Because the Russians won't accept inspection?

A: Inspection-and-controls, try to run it together like one word, y'see? Oh no. The Russians will accept inspection-and-controls but only in principle.

Q: I see. So what is our negotiator doing?

A: The head of our negotiations team is flying home for further instructions.

Q: Let me ask you, sir: do you see any hope for...

A: The removal of this sword of Damocles? Yes.

Q: Why?

A: Because everyone is for peace.

Q: Could you explain that?

A: We all wish to avoid the nuclear holocaust, the final catastrophe, the ultimate disaster. Nobody wants an Armageddon. The great powers are 'have' nations, with fundamental commitments to the status quo. They both wish to avoid the Nth country problem.

Q: What precisely is the Nth country problem?

A: That's when China and Germany get the bomb.

Q: And they're not for peace?

A: Well, as I said, everyone's for peace but maybe China and Germany a little less.

Q: Who then is most for peace?

A: On the international level: the neutrals, the emergent nations, the smaller powers, the Bandung Pact countries, the underdeveloped and the non-aligned. Also the Afro-Asian bloc and the non-nuclear club.

Q: And on the individual level?

A: Well, there's Russell, Pauling, Erich Fromm...

Q: Just a moment. I read somewhere that Russell said...

A: No, Russell sent a telegram.

Q: Excuse me. Maybe it was Fromm who said...

A: No, no. Fromm has made yet another plea.

Q: Then it must have been Pauling who said...

A: Stop. You just cannot learn. It was Pauling who testified.

Q: Testified about what?

A: Well you might have read that the leftist chemist testified that U.S. bomb tests caused genetic harm to present and future generations; or, the Nobel-Prize winning scientist testified that Soviet bomb tests do the same thing. It depends, of course.

Q: While we're on the subject of individuals, let me ask you about Henry Kissinger?

A: Studying the complexities.

Q: Of what?

A: Of the situation.

Q: I see. And Professor Hoffmann?

A: Making the difficult distinctions.

Q: And Leo Szilard?

A: Leo Szilard is exploring new approaches.

Q: New approaches to what?

A: To reducing the tensions. I must say it's about time you got a feel for the vocabulary.

Q: Let me clear up some definitions then. Would you call yourself a unilateralist?

A: Careful now; I advocate unilateral initiatives but I thoroughly oppose unilateral disarmament.

Q: Would you care to describe unilateral initiatives?

A: A unilateral initiative puts the burden of proof on the other side by demonstrating our desire for peace. It is a dramatic gesture that does not weaken our retaliatory capabilities or our military posture.

Q: And how do you expect the Russians to act after such a gesture?

A: The Russians don't act, they reciprocate, because the cold-war proceeds according to mirror-image responses.

Q: Do you trust the Russians to reciprocate peacefully?

A: I believe that the people in both countries want peace, but the governments are unresponsive to their demands. Therefore I don't trust the Russians.

Q: That makes you a realist?

A: Yup. A hard-headed realist.

Q: As opposed to?

A: A soft-thinker. An appeaser. A Munich-seeker. A dove. A better-red-than-deader. An ill-concealed unilateralist.

Q: And where would such people lead us?

A: Right down the road to another Pearl Harbor.

Q: What is the answer, then?

A: The alternative to war or surrender? Well, the term I'm currently fond of is finite accommodation. Don't ask me what it means, please.

Q: Very well. Let me ask you a few more specific questions. Why are you opposed to bomb shelters?

A: Because they won't work and even if they did, the survivors will envy the dead. Shelters divert our attention from the real issue, which is preventing nuclear conflict. I think civil defense is no defense.

Q: Is there any defense?

A: The only defense is peace. We must find a way of safeguarding our vital interests that will not lead to nuclear conflagration. There must be concessions on both sides.

Q: Then you think it's a simple choice between war and peace?

A: Of course not. Missile diplomacy is as complicated as a chess match. We have a choice of many kinds of war, including accidental war, war by escalation, preventive and pre-emptive war, counter-insurgency, guerrilla war, police actions, invasions, limited wars, conventional, nuclear limited, nuclear-preferred... Some wars are out of style, like Holy wars and splendid little wars. Others we don't recognize, such as wars of national liberation. And some we call fiascos or abortive attempts.

Q: Do you then view disarmament as a moral issue?

A: No only people with beards or buttons do. Or dirty people. You can tell by my proper attire that I see it as a political issue.

Q: Then let me ask you again about the Geneva talks. If they fail to bring about an agreement...

A: Excuse me, sir, you mean fail to break the nuclear stalemate, bring us back from the brink, signal a turn toward peace.

Q: Uh yes, I suppose that's what I mean. What are their chances for success?

A: Before any on-site detection measures come out of Geneva, the negotiators must replace the atmosphere of mutual suspicion with an atmosphere of mutual trust. It all goes to show how far ahead science is of diplomacy.

Q: It certainly does. What are the other obstacles?

A: Obstacles! Now you're picking it up! Well, there's the Russian attitude toward secrecy.

Q: What about it?

A: It is a paranoic emphasis. The snag in the test-ban talks.

Q: And we have no equivalent paranoia?

A: Oh yes. We have a popular misconception that our prosperity rests on defense spending and arms production.

Q: Who fosters that misconception?

A: The military-industrial complex, their lobbyists in the Pentagon, and the cold warriors in Congress who want to build a Garrison state. You know: juggernaut, and all that.

Q: What is the Kennedy Administration doing in this field?

A: Working cautiously to educate the public and win support in Congress.

Q: I see our time is running out...

A: Yes, it is mankind's hour of choice. Or, more precisely, seven minutes to twelve on the Bulletin clock.

Q: Before we adjourn, may I ask you about the Berlin crisis?

A: A good example of what I've been saying. A model of cold-war antagonisms. Demonstrates the need for arms control.

Q: And the Cuban situation?

A: A case in point. There are lessons to be learned from it.

Q: And now that the Cuban crisis seems to be over...

A: You mean in the aftermath of Cubs... We have all been reminded that World War III would mean the end of civilization as we know it.

Q: That will be all. You have been a cooperative witness and I hereby grant you my seal of approval.

A: Peace be with you, Senator Dodd.