East and West

Press, 17 June 1986, Page 16

East and West

Sir,—Neal Ascherson’s article (June 12) reinforces my contention that, viewed clinically and dispassionately from the perspective of history, the pieces of the U.S.-Soviet jigsaw fit neatly into place. Each country needs the other as a bogyman to keep their far-flung land empires intact by appealing to the patriotism of their respective citizens to stand together against a common foe. The Soviet is less bellicose because it realises its military inferiority and is better aware of the meaning of modern war; besides, the iron grip of tsarism or communism holds its minorities together. President Reagan and his geriatrics, by skilled propaganda and by side-stepping Soviet proposals, pander to American patriotism, which was badly knocked by Vietnam and Iran. As Ascherson says, the American Administration is concerned that peace might break out, and cleverly blames the Soviet for the breakdown of

negotiations which the Americans never intended to be successful. — Yours, etc., VERNON WILKINSON. June 12, 1986. Sir,—John Canham’s claim (June 14) of the "moral integrity still found in the West, but not in the East,” and by implication found in his reasoning, but not in that of opposing correspondents, is amusingly sanctimonious. History certainly does not support his main contention. The letter you published immediately below his, headed “History of warfare,” takes a much broader view, apportioning blame to us all, and I heartily endorse it. Sectarian attitudes and narrow nationalism are outmoded, but remain the really entrenched enemy.— Yours, etc., M. T. MOORE. June 14, 1986.