Appeal to Moscow
Tar: appeal sent to Mr. Khrushchev by Presi- dent Kennedy and Mr. Macmillan is evi- dently a last-minute attempt to avoid the resump- tion of nuclear testing as well as an endeavour to make clear to the neutrals where the blame for the failure to conclude a treaty on tests must lie. It also represents something of a com- promise between the British and American points of view. Washington is apparently afraid that it might enable Mr. Khrushchcv to delay the Christmas Island tests, while still refusing to con- clude a treaty containing provision for effective verification of seismic disturbances, whereas some sections of British opinion would like an agreement on those • atmospheric tests that can be detected without inspection. The argument against this latter arrangement, which was offered by the West last September and then withdrawn as a result of the unilateral Russian breach of the test moratorium, is that if the Soviet .Government were to do the ,same thing again (i.e. agree to a ban on atmospheric tests, while preparing to break the agreement when it had a new series ready), then Russia would gain a dangerous military lead. And, though it might adopt the same tactics in regard to a treaty; with verification, at least the diplomatic penalties in- curred would be severe. It is this latter cal- culation which seems the most dubious link in his chain of reasoning. The neutrals, whose education in the politics of nuclear warfare at Geneva can only be to Western advantage, would be parties to any agreement reached, whether for a ban on atmospheric testing or for a treaty with verification. Would they be less shocked by a breach of the one than of the other? It is diffi- cult to argue that they would. The Russians have made the task of appeasing neutral opinion a good deal easier for Anglo-American diplomacy.
Previous page
