The Press MONDAY, MAY 16, 1960. The Summit

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29205, 16 May 1960, Page 10

The Press MONDAY, MAY 16, 1960. The Summit

Today in Paris the long, slow climb to the summit will end with the first meeting of President Eisenhower, Mr Macmillan, General de Gaulle, and Mr Khrushchev. To dramatise the occasion Soviet scientists have obligingly put a brand-new space station into orbit above the statesmen’s heads. Since November, 1858, when Mr Khrushchev challenged the Western position in Berlin, the world has seen a flurry of diplomatic activity that may have been unprecedented. Generally, however, the Western allies have remained sceptical about what the summit conference will achieve. Until recent weeks Mr Khrushchev and the Communist bloc displayed unwonted restraint in their attitude towards the West; and superficially it seemed that real progress was being made towards the easing of international tension. But the fundamental divergences of policy between East and West remained as wide as ever. One satisfactory outcome of this period was perhaps unexpected by Mr Khrushchev; it was the submergence of differences arpong the Western allies, so that a common front might be prepared for the summit. Nevertheless, even within the North Atlantic Alliance serious conflicts of purpose have been only moderated, not resolved. Without a spy plane crisis almost on its eve, the .summit conference would have begun in a foggy and pessimistic atmosphere. For a parallel to the latest deterioration in American-Soviet relations commentators have had to look back to the Hungarian revolt of 1956. In letters to President Eisenhower, Mr Macmillan, and General de Gaulle, Mr Khrushchev has suggested that the shooting down of the American plane should not be allowed to “ have too strong an effect ” upon the summit negotiations. But how can the Western leaders reconcile this gesture with the way in which Mr Khrushchev has exploited the propaganda value of the incident, with his threats of armed reprisals on the United States and its European allies, or with his provocative remarks about Messrs Eisenhower, Nixon, and Herter? Apparently by its own foolishness the United States Government presented Mr Khrushchev with a major propaganda victory which must embarrass Mr Eisenhower gravely at the summit conference. One of Mr Eisenhower’s objectives irf agreeing to attend the conference was to enhance, before this year’s Presidential election, the Republican Administration’s prestige as a contributor to permanent world harmony. Because of the courage and tenacity with which the 69-year-old President has devoted himself to the cause of peace it is tragic that a dis-astrously-timed reconnaissance flight should have prejudiced his chance of a supreme diplomatic success. No formal agenda has been prepared for the summit: but

the conference will probably discuss disarmament, German}’ (including the special problem of Berlin), and a general improvement of international relations. The “most urgent “ contemporary problem ”, in Mr Khrushchev’s view, is disarmament. A recent statement of this policy was contained in the communique issued in Moscow after Mr Nash’s visit to the Soviet leader. Perhaps the most "optimistic Western forecast of results at the summit has been General de Gaulle’s. He believes that if, in spite of Soviet threats, the West rejects Mr Khrushchev’s terms for a German settlement, there will be no crisis over Berlin and no move towards German reunification, but some progress towards disarmament and a better international climate. Economically Russia stands to gain as much as the Western Powers from abandonment of the arms race; and a detente in Europe would enable the Soviet Union to watch better its most problematic ally, China. There is yet no sign, however, that Russia will accept the West’s proposals for instituting effective inspection machinery before multilateral disarmament is contemplated. In its modern interpretation disarmament does not necessarily result from the demobilisation of thousands of troops, as Mr Khrushchev seems anxious for the world to believe. The single aspect of disarmament on which the summit conference may prove fruitful is the banning of nuclear weapon tests, although • the United States’ announced intention to resume underground testing this year may create an obstacle.

The plane incident has given Mr Khrushchev an opportunity to revive his familiar charges of war-mongering against the West, to warn European countries against permitting NATO. bases on their soil, and to emphasise Russia’s need of formidable defences. Already Mr Khrushchev has insisted upon maximum publicity for the summit conference. He can be expected to explain any failure in his “ peace campaign ” by accusing the Western Powers of insincerity and intransigence. The conference may end with a communique referring vaguely to advances in mutual understanding and to an agreement on future summit meetings. It will be wel] to remember that, in the words of the “ New York “Times”, “there can be no “ victory in this conference, any “ more than there cobld be in “a shooting war. We are‘not “playing for diplomatic advantage. We are playing for the “ future of civilisation ” The American plane’s trespass showed the dangerously ' inflammable atmosphere along the world’s principal frontiers; the latest Soviet space station is an unpleasant reminder of how technology may increase human fears. The -removal of this danger and these fears should be the common aim of East and West at the Paris conference and its successors.