COLD WAR: The Hard Line

A notion that came to life with the death of Joseph Stalin was itself laid to rest last week. Stalin's successors made plain, so that even the most credulous could see, that they have no desire to negotiate a letup in the cold war.

One evening early in the week, ambassadors of the three Western powers were summoned to the Moscow Foreign Ministry. Each got an 18-page diplomatic note. It was Russia's answer to their proposal for a four-power ministers' conference at Lugano, Switzerland. The Russians did not even reply to the Lugano invitation, but made it clear that Moscow had reverted to—if it ever really slid away from—the truculent line of Stalin's last year.

The U.S.S.R. will not even dicker with the Western powers, said the note, unless the West abandons the European Army plan, dismantles the NATO alliance and the global network of air and naval bases. There will be no chance of bargaining, the note added, unless the West agrees to include Red China.

Keep What Stalin Took. Larded as usual with Soviet propaganda, the note was far more than that. It was a clear statement of the foreign-policy objectives sought by Russia's new leadership:

¶ To remain highly armed.

¶ To give away nothing of what Stalin took, and to capitalize on the improved Communist position in the Far East.

"This note is tough," said a U.S. diplomat. "They are telling us ... to throw away our gun and brickbat while they keep theirs. Then they will negotiate. I note references to the possibility of World War III. That is something they haven't been talking about in their notes recently."

Cold War Fanned. Later in the week, at the celebration of the 36th anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, old Marshal Kliment Voroshilov, President of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, spoke in bellicose tones. "It is known to all," said he, "that through the zealous efforts of aggressive circles in the U.S.A., the cold war continues and is being fanned briskly . . . The imperialist camp ... is conducting a policy of preparing war."

At the U.N., Andrei Vishinsky got orders to go at the West again in the old, unbridled way, and the debating in Manhattan rang once more with the Russian words for "reactionary circles," "aggressive bloc," "drown in blood."

Disheartening as this dash of cold water might be to Europe's neutralists and for-lorn-hopers, Russia's tough words were considered downright encouraging in some ways by Western diplomats. They find the Kremlin's refusal to negotiate defensive, rather than a sign of confidence and strength. In France, Russia's intransigent tone was calculated to help overcome

France's deep hesitations about ratifying EDC. Then why had Russia acted this way?