{The Superpowers and Regional Conflicts}[7th May 1970]

[Redbook1:152-154][19700507:1355]{The Superpowers and Regional Conflicts}[7th May 1970]

Thursday 7th May 1970 1.55pm

            There is an essential difference between the present conflicts in the Near-Middle East and the Far East, as far as the superpowers are concerned.  In the Middle East the two superpowers are concerned really only to prevent their champions losing; they are not particularly interested in having an all-out victory for their side.  The Americans know that it is impossible and the Russians know their influence will probably decrease if they did.  They are, therefore, more open to moves towards peace

and even the possibility of super-power collaboration -- if the conflict was in isolation, which it is not.

            The Far East conflict is another matter altogether. Here one superpower is directly involved, with all that implies in terms of prestige, and the other is supporting its champions (with China) for ideological reasons. For the Communists to retreat to the North would be to admit defeat, if only temporarily, for their aim is nothing less than total conquest of South Vietnam.  For the Americans to leave would also be to admit defeat -- as they are doing, or trying to do. We have just seen how difficult the Americans are finding this process of admitting defeat, because it necessarily involves the other side in winning [sic!].

            The point is this: that in the Middle East conflict, where both sides are acting largely to protect friendly but uncontrolled states, de-escalation or disarmament by one side could well lead to similar moves by the other if the exercise was organised carefully. In the Far East, where the conflict is one of basic ideology and of two forms of imperialism (of a kind), -- as far as the two and a half superpowers involved are concerned -- de-escalation (horrible word) or disarmament by one side would inevitably lead to a corresponding escalation by the other, because the motives of the two powers are much more self-interested.  If the Americans retreat we know the Communists will advance with Russian and Chinese support until they hold the whole of South Vietnam, and it seems likely after such a time that if by some fantastic chance the communists were forced to retreat the Americans would also advance to take in North Vietnam.

                        In the Middle East, Egypt would certainly like to destroy Israel but it is unlikely (though conceivable) that Russia would allow her to do so. Israel has already captured much of political Egypt but would be extremely unlikely to invade further and could not do so with[out] American support.  Similarly, it seems likely that the Americans could put pressure on Israel to withdraw from what she has conquered.

            In the Middle East superpower involvement wants to preserve the balance of stability, as is shown on one side at least by Nixon's decision not to supply more Phantoms and by Russian defensive missiles (I hope).  In the Far East superpower involvement is determined to extend its own authority at the expense of the other power.

            Of course, in the ultimate, neither side is the real loser: it is the people underneath and in between what cop it.

[PostedBlogger23022013]