TOWARDS GLOBAL PEACE
We often talk of peace in the context of war. But this is a very narrow and restricted notion of peace. Peace is deeply linked with the entirety of human life. Peace is a complete ideology in itself. Peace is the only religion for both—man and the universe. It is the master-key that opens the doors to every success. Peace creates a favourable atmosphere for success in every endeavour. Without peace, no positive action—small or big—is possible.
A SOLUTION-ORIENTED APPROACH
PROBABLY the most important event of the year 1988 was the inception of a new spirit of accommodation between the USSR and the USA. Time magazine (May 30, 1988) aptly termed it a ‘grand compromise.’
Reckoned as superpowers, the USSR and the USA were rivals of 70 years standing, with a long history of repeated confrontations. The media of both blocs, in keeping up a steady flow of reciprocal condemnation, played a significant role in aggravating the situation. After this marathon of accusation and counteraccusation, both powers— miraculously—began to talk of peace. Instead of relentlessly pursuing the arms race, they started at last giving their much-needed attention to what appeared to be fruitful negotiations on the de-escalation of international tensions.
A Soviet official described this new policy as ‘solution-oriented’. Where, hitherto, each bloc had been out to paint the iniquities of the other in the blackest of hues, both were now glossing them over in their new fervour of finding solutions to mutual problems.
This thaw, which took place in the long-standing cold war between the USSR and the USA, has a great lesson in it for other nations. Surely, if the policy of headlong confrontation has become such a costly procedure that even the superpowers can no longer afford it, it should be obvious that the smaller nations are even less well-equipped to pursue so ultimately destructive a course.
Towards Realism
While Nikita Khrushchev was First Secretary of the Central Communist
Party of the USSR (1958-1964), he made known his, and his countrymen’s
feelings towards the capitalist world when he uttered his now wellknown threat: “We will bury you.” (Hindustan Times, June 28, 1988)
In the same vein, American President Ronald Reagan dubbed the
Soviet Union an ‘evil empire’ and American officials boasted that
they would push the Soviet Union into the sea. However, in spite of
these periodic, aggressive face-offs, and after 70 years of socialist
revolution, the countries of both blocs at last saw a change of outlook
as an overwhelming imperative, and American leaders began visiting
Moscow for negotiations. Ronald Reagan
himself visited Moscow from June 28 to July
2, 1988, despite his previous view that such a
visit was out of the question. Before his visit,
he went on record as saying that US relations
with Moscow “must be guided by realism”.
(Hindustan Times, May 26, 1988)
If the policy of headlong confrontation has become such a costly procedure that even the superpowers can no longer afford it, it should be obvious that the smaller nations are even less well-equipped to pursue so ultimately destructive a course.
The arms race had been going on between the two countries for decades. While both countries had been going all out to make the deadliest weapons in history with the avowed intention of destroying one another, today they are themselves placing curbs upon their own manufacture and acquisition of weapons, and are even destroying certain categories of weapons which are already major items in their respective stockpiles. The Times of India of August 3, 1988 reported that the Soviet Union destroyed four shorter range missiles, OTR-22, at the test range in Saryozek, 200 km north-west of Alma Ata. The dismantling was carried out in accordance with the INF treaty signed between Mr Mikhail Gorbachev and President Reagan. The missiles were destroyed in the presence of a US inspection team. Representatives from various countries, including India, and other international nongovernment organization were also present. The Soviets planned to dismantle 1752 deployed and stored missiles, having a range of 500 km to 5500 km, in three years. The US planned to eliminate 859 such missiles.
Change of Heart
We do not have to go far to find the reason for this dramatic change
in the superpowers’ policy. It is simply that in their attempt to gain
the upper hand in all that has to do with arms supremacy, they had—
wittingly or unwittingly—allowed the progress of their respective
countries to come to a standstill. After a relentless weapons race,
which a fear-ridden, blame-oriented psychology had prolonged for half
a century, they came to the conclusion, when all is said and done, that
the continued adoption of such a course could produce only negative
results. It finally dawned on them that, in attempting to destroy the
‘enemy’, they had brought their own countries to the very brink of
annihilation.
A Reversal of Policy
It is ironic that the USA’s insistence on arms superiority caused it to
fall behind its old, conquered enemy, Japan, in the economic field. In
1988, the US was the world’s largest debtor with a net foreign debt
of $400 billion, while Japan was the world’s largest creditor, with a
net foreign investment of $240 billion. That year, Japan had budgeted
for $10 billion as foreign aid, displacing the US as the world’s most
generous donor. The American dollar, which
once reigned supreme in the economic world
no longer enjoyed that position. Economists
began asking, “Can America maintain its
superpower status?”
After a relentless weapons race, the US and the USSR came to the conclusion that, in attempting to destroy the ‘enemy’, they had brought their own countries to the very brink of annihilation.
In an interview (Times of India, August 9, 1988) Mr Henry Kissinger observed that “the fundamental new fact will be the emergence of new power centres. China and India will become more powerful. Japan is daily growing stronger.... so the United States will have to adjust to having other countries that in the past it had a tendency to ignore, pursue more active policies.”
The 19th All-Union Conference of the Communist Party, held in the last week of June, 1988, in Moscow, was attended by 5000 delegates from all over the Soviet Union. On this occasion, the Soviet Prime Minister, Mikhail Gorbachev made a three and a half hour speech, which has been ably summarized by Mr Quentin Peel, a journalist who not only heard the speeches of the Soviet leaders, but also had meetings with them. Peel says, “The message seemed plain enough, the party would have to renounce its stifling role in the administration and economy of the country. Power and privilege would have to be curbed, and science and initiative given their head if the Soviet Union were to compete with the rest of the world, let alone be a superpower.” (Times of India, July 5, 1988)
Perestroika
Repeated failures to achieve, or even identify such production targets
as would satisfy the requirements of the many peoples who make up
the Soviet Union compelled Mr Gorbachev to bow to economic realities.
Setting aside notions of socialistic superiority, (the Soviets considered
themselves superior to others because of their socialistic set-up) he
launched a campaign to change the prevailing system in the USSR.
The keynotes of this policy are glasnost and perestroika, Russian words
which mean respectively ‘openness’ and ‘restructuring’. Mr Gorbachev
goes into the practical details of this policy in a book which has been
published in English under the title of Perestroika: New Thinking for Our
Country and the World.
This new movement brought about changes in the Socialist structure of the USSR, which could only be described as revolutionary. Its basic policy included everything from religious freedom to the development of friendly relations with the Soviets’ traditional arch enemy, the USA. This trend of thawing of strained relationships between age-old opponents, agreements for disarmament and settling for diplomatic solutions of international disputes is quite heartening. Roy Gutman’s account, originally published in the Los Angeles Times—Washington Post News Service, and relayed to Indian readers by the Hindustan Times (January 16, 1988) is entitled ‘Kremlin, White House Now Realistic’ (p.20).
This report reveals just how historic had been the shift in US-Soviet relations. New thinking having emerged in both countries, the Kremlin and the White House have both become more open-minded about each other’s affairs.
The extent to which attitudes softened is illustrated by Mr Bessmertnykh, a veteran diplomat who served 12 years in the United States. In an interview with Newsday he said that the American administration had been fond of making such statements as: ‘We shall draw the line, we shall go to the source, we shall stop the advance of Communism.’ “But now,” said Mr Bessmertnykh, “people have realized that the world has changed. You can’t do it any more that way. It’s impossible. Now both sides are becoming realistic. Their team and our team are both solution-oriented.”
Conclusion
This change in the relationship between the USSR and America has been
of incalculable importance. The dropping of the policy of confrontation
as being untenable from all points of view—moral, social, religious,
economic, political—is one of the best lessons modern history has to
give to humankind.
If the passing of unfavourable judgements on, and eternally remaining at loggerheads with the ‘enemy’ have ultimately been recognized as utterly futile pursuits by the world’s two superpowers, is it not the most basic common sense for the less developed countries to try to improve the general tenor of their relations with disaffected nations who could, with a more rational approach, be won over as friends?
Wisdom, in today’s global context, lies in being constructive, rather than in constantly plotting the downfall of others.
Wisdom, in today’s global context, lies in being constructive, rather than in constantly plotting the downfall of others. Raising a great hue and cry over issues which could be peaceably resolved at the negotiating table means the squandering of precious time and energy, which would be better devoted to bringing about national uplift.
It is high time we scrapped all blame-oriented policies, whether internal or international, in favour of solution-oriented policies. Herein lies the secret of success and progress.