The people's voice., 1957-12-13
Continued from Page One)

| preparedness uHCll disarmament can
be negotiated, but he believes fervent-
ly in the urgent need for negotiation
based on recognition of the fact
that the Russians may have legitimate
interests in areas of the world from
which we have sought to bar them.
Mr.. Pearson has said what many
Americans in public life have thought
but dared not say publicly-that the
alternatives to negotiated settlements
with the Soviet Union are (1) nuclear
war which would result in total de-
struction for all, or (2) suspension
between uneasy peace and global war
in a state of tension and fear
where peace will balance precariously
on the knife edge of terror, with the
outer spaces cluttered up with sat-
elites shot there by rockets which
could as easily be used to carry nu-
clear warheads designed not to stay
up with the stars, but to descend on
us mortals.
Zone alternative is only worse than
the other. Indeed, all history shows
that unless we do something about it,
the second will ultimately lead to the
first ID
1t is seeing the alternatives with
great clarity and responding to
their challenge with equal courage
that propels MIR. Pearson to the
urgent conclusion that we must
recognize the Soviet Union for the
power she is and negotiate with her
patiently and persistently in the
pursuit of accommodate tions that
may be achieved on a basis of mu-
tual tolerance and self-interest and
without the sacrifice of principle.
This has often not been the pattern
of past negotiations. Both sides, and
especially the Soviet Union, have been
more interested in scoring propa-
ganda points than in finding the basis
for agreement. Mostly, however, fail
ure originated in the suspicion and
fear of each side toward the other
emotions which hardened into a re-
fusal by both sides to negotiate on
give-and-take basis in the interest of
achieving world stability. Frequently,
as THE PROGRESSIVE has pointed
out over the years, American nego-
tiators, under both Democratic and
Republican Administrations, have re-
fused to recognize the facts of inter-
national life; they have carried to
the conference table take-it-or-leave-
it demands rarely grounded in the
of -
In this connection James Reston of
the New York TIMES recently wrote
words of wisdom for American policy
makers. Commenting on his celebrat-
ed interview with Nikita Khrushchev,
boss man of the Soviet Union, Reston
summarized:
''After listening to and reflecting
upon Khrushchev's harrangues, one
had the impression that the negotia-
tions of the last year or so had merely |
bred contempt on both sides and that |
seriously on the basis of historical
facts or to refuse to do so and con-
centrate our diplomacy on the streng- !
thening of the West.
"What is happening now is that the |
two sides are not negotiating but
each other, and the needing
is merely increasing the vast barrier
of distrust which lies at the heart of
the problem
Here, clearly, is the choice we face
negotiation based on his
torical facts or an intensification of
the arms race. Everything that has
since Sputniks I and II
sailed into outer space would indi-
cate that we have chosen the latter
course, for we have jeeringly rejected
new invitations to ne
gotiation and are pouring all our
fright and all our fury into a vast
effort to catch up with and surpass
the Soviets in the rocket and missile
fields.
Isn't this the moment to pause
just long enough to think through
the possibility of negotiation based
on historical facts? Isn't there
someone in Washington who can
be spared from Sputnik to ponder