The Press TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1956. Disarmament Still In The Future

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27962, 8 May 1956, Page 12

The Press TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1956. Disarmament Still In The Future

The United Nations sub-committee on disarmament has broken off its sittings without reaching any agree-' ment to report to its parent body,! the Disarmament Commission. This is not surprising, and should not be; disappointing if two solid achievements of the London discussions are considered. First, the occasion was not used for propaganda, but apparently for a genuine attempt to define, and, if possible, narrow the gap between the views of Russia and the Western Pow r ers. Second, this gap has been greatly narrowed. The progress that was made roughly corresponds to the general lowering of international heat, underlying what has been clear all along—that disarmament can come only when rival nations lose their sense of insecurity. The Russians certainly seem much less fearful of the United States and its allies than a few years ago. Russia apparently realises now that political conditions in the democracies w r ould not permit them to launch an unprovoked atom bomb attack, and was prepared at London to let the question of nuclear disarmament stand over. Russia was also ready tc go much further than the United States in cutting conventional armaments, accepting the British and French proposal of a limit of 1,500,000 men for both Russia and the United States. Although the United States rejected this limit, proposing instead 2,500,000 men, the Russians are now expected to make heavy cuts in their own forces without any corresponding action by the United States. If Russia does make these reductions, they should be viewed not so much as a contribution towards general disarmament, because the level of Russian forces may still be very high; but rather as a lessening of Russian suspicions. Indirectly, this will help to improve relations between East and West.

The real obstacle to greater progress at the sub-committee meetings, as it has always been in these discussions, was the Americans’ wish to have an effective and independent control and inspection organisation. Some years ago American sincerity in proposing international inspection could be questioned. It was suspected that American public opinion would not agree to inspection; but the question was academic because Russia under Stalin. could not have agreed American sincerity is no longer doubted, because President Eisenhower has succeeded in winning wide public support for his “ open “ skies ” plan, with aerial inspection and the exchange of military blueprints. His countrymen see this as one way of preventing another Pearl Harbour. The new Government in Russia has a little more freedom of action than its predecessor, although it can hardly have reached the stage where it would welcome foreign inspectors. The Americans also wish to make the control authority independent of the Security Council, and therefore of Russia’s veto. The differences are still substantial, probably too substantial for the Disarmament Commission itself to make much further progress, unless and until East and West can settle their more fundamental differences. Of these Germany is still the most vital. And that is where the Russians really block disarmament, not so much because they have any fear of Germany but because the German outpost helps them to control Eastern Europe. The postStalin ferment may have to settle a little before Russia will consider seriously the reunification of Germany.