Equilateralism
Sir: Sentences beginning with the words: `The two superpowers . . .' should always be treated with suspicion, but I will have to search long and hard to find one which beats Phillip Knightley's effort (Books, 1 November).
As far as I can make out, Mr Knightley was writing about the destruction of a Korean airliner by the Soviet Air Force, a simple act of wickedness and stupidity, whether it was intentional or not. Yet here is his summary of the event: 'The two superpowers confronted each other in a shooting situation and both behaved appal- lingly'. This garbled formulation conceals the important fact that the Soviets shot down the aeroplane. The accusation against the USA is that, oh, horror, it made propaganda out of an enemy's blun- der. In case anyone thinks this is a hiccup in Mr Knightley's thinking, he then does it again by writing of 'Soviet incompetence and intransigence matched [my italics] only by American opportunism and manipula- tion of public opinion'. It is an odd world-view which equates mass murder with a bit of propaganda, however vil- lainous.
Mr Knightley's argument is founded on the fact that a jumbo jet can easily be confused with an RC-135 spy aircraft. His case against the Americans is that they concealed this to put about the idea that the Soviet Union deliberately and know- ingly shot down a civil airliner.
However, his own arguments make it plain that this does not really matter. If it is well-known that an RC-135 looks like a jumbo, then the Soviet pilot should have known it too. Even though he believed he had a reconnaissance plane in his sights, he should have had serious doubts. Leaving aside arguments over whether it would have been all right to shoot down a spy plane we can only assume that the man in the MiG did not suffer from such doubts. Nor did his superiors, and nor did the ultimate authorities of Soviet power.
The straightforward explanation obviously unpalatable to Mr Knightley is that they didn't much care what they shot down. It is hard for him, and for many, to acknowledge that this is what the Soviet Union is like. He seems unable to accept that anything unpleasant happens any- where that is not, is some way, the fault of the USA or Britain.
This is Mr Knightley's problem, and I can only feel sorry for him. But it does not aid the pursuit of truth. There are plenty of publications where this sort of thing is appearing all the time, and it is quite easy to avoid them. It is sad to find it in the Spectator.
Peter Hitchens
66 Hayfield Road, Oxford
Previous page
