Brussels letter

The West in retreat

Gerald Segal

How long is it going to take the peoples of the Western democracies to realise that the Wet,by which I mean western democracy, is I"„, retreat in the face of Leninist pressure applieu from without by the Soviet bloc countries and from within by the Communist parties? Deeper and worse, how long is it going to take before they realise that, partly as a result of the, confusion induced by the misuse of the WO(' `detente' to describe current East-West relations, those who still purport to lead the Western world are no longer clear where the final defence perimeter, whether defined in military-strategic or simply ideological terms, lies? Consider the situation in Portugal, a NATO member. The latest news is that the Prirne Minister, Brigadier Vasco Goncalves has formed the fourth provisional governmen` since last April's revolution, and that by it5 composition it represents a shift to the left. But note that the left in this context does not mean the Maoist or Trotskyist left which is the bitter enemy of the Communists led by Alva Cunhal. Those left-wing parties along with the right-wing Christian Democratic Party were made virtual outcasts a fortnight before. The new government simply boosts the power of the Communists by including its leading ally, more accurately perhaps adjunct' the Portuguese Democratic Movement. At the same time the Socialist Party leader Dr Mar' Soares, who until now has been Foreign Minister, has lost that position for a MinistrY without Portfolio. According to Cunha! the Armed Forces Movement should continue even after the impending April general elections as ad alliance alliance between the people and the arrne forces is essential in order to maintain libertY and to build democracy."

By traditional western definitions of delo: n

cracy the army would maintain its alliance witl; the people simply by defending the law enact by that future sovereign assembly 1'r°,111.t external and internal enemies. Neither woulu be necessary to "build democracy"; it would bv there simply because it would be allowed to* exist. But that sort of conception is not the Leninist Cunhal has in mind. Wh11,..e claiming to strive "for a regime in wh1c,4" freedom can flourish" he has already condone'_ the denial of the right of the Christiaton Democrats and his left wing challengers participate in the forthcoming elections.

His aim now must be to control (assuming he does not already control) the AFM. S°111 indication of what the AFM's future role might

be was actually hinted at by prime minister Goncalves in an interview with the special correspondent of the Soviet newspaper Pravda,

V. Yermakov. "We," said Goncalves, speaking for the AMF, "have no intention of taking on a Paternalistic role in regard to the Portuguese people. The people themselves must be the • creator of their own history." But (ay, and there's the rub; as Hamlet might have said had he been writing this news commentary) "we will not allow our history to be turned backwards." This is tantamount to an admission that the AMF is itself a political party with its own programme and aims. And if the new parliament should, after free elections, adopt policies which do not conform With the ideology of the AMF, then clearly would it not be the bounden duty of the AMF, like Cromwell's or Lenin's detachments, to abolish it in the name of the future of the Portuguese people? How it might be done may

be inferred from another report by Yerrnakov Which appeared in Pravda on March 14. He writes that, "at the present time in the country,

in conditions of confidence and calm, the Widespread mobilisation of the working masses in the defence of the democratic transformations is continuing," (and every Soviet reader knows that the Communist Party alone has the right to mobilise the masses) and in the factories Vigilance Committees are being set up." There is therefore already, in embryo, as in the Russia of 1917, an alternative governmental system which in the name of the most advanced class in society could, in a crisis situation which could itself be staged as in Czechoslovakia in

1948, move to replace the existing parliament.

In that eventuality some non-communist socialists, again the Czechoslovak experience comes to mind, could be invited to join a new government and the rest dumped along with the already dumped Christian democrats into "the dustbin of history" — to use the phrase Leninists are wont to employ.

From which it follows that any talk from Communist sources about a new 'democratic' aPProach, is in western terms nothing more than a deception. But what of the Western

response? In particular, what should NATO do in this situation?

Nato officials are in fact deeply worried about the trend in Portuguese and to a lesser. extent Greek affairs. When I first put the question, "Would NATO intervene in the event of a Cornmunist takeover of Portugal?" to NATO sPokesmen, there was the possibility of the Communists winning in a free election open to all parties. Their answer was immediate: "No, there are no contingency plans; NATO is not

the Warsaw Pact; we cannot repeat in the West the Czechoslovak 1968 experience; we have a moral commitment." The situation has now changed (although I still get the same answers) in that it is quite clear there will be no free general election in Portugal. Would the West have the right to i,ntervene in the name of democracy to protect the Portuguese people from the imposition of Leninism

or what the Leninists call Democracy?

Pursue the question further. Assume the P',Ortuguese and other Communists are aware ,o.t this potential danger to themselves and therefore move very stealthily towards the realisation of their aims. One possibility would

be to delay a revolutionary putsch until they could be sure of some Soviet protection as ..(211-ild be achieved by the grant of naval and fishing base facilities. The 1962 Cuba situation F,oines to mind, except that the US would not

"'self be directly threatened and we are ,!iloPosedly in a world of detente. But would the yyest, NATO or the US, dare to intervene? And it not, and we retreated, where to?