The Third World War: August 1985

THE EX-SECRETARY’S REPORT ON THE ‘RICH NORTH’, NOVEMBER 1984

The principal instabilities in the rich North of the world between 1977 and 1984 have come in old-fashioned countries or blocs which have failed to adapt in time to the new basis of survival. Soviet Russia has shown the least ability to adapt to a changing world, and Moscow is now beset by crises to its west, east and south.

Poland and Yugoslavia, for different reasons, are the two most dangerous flashpoints in the West.

Poland has diverged significantly from the norms of communist society. Comecon-decreed exports to the USSR are interfering with its standard of living, while political dogma is preventing the introduction of free enterprise systems in Polish industry. Polish workers much prefer employment by multi-national companies, when these operate in their country, to employment by the Polish state. The state, though the most powerful employer, is also the most disliked. As Poland goes tomorrow, Czechoslovakia and Hungary are liable to go the day after.

East Germany is bound to seek a greater political role, proportionate to its economic superiority in Eastern Europe. East Germany now has a gnp per head of $4,000 a year, twice European Russia’s $2,000 a year. Neighbouring West Germany has a GNP per head of $11,000 a year, and the East Germans know they could have something like this too if they could ever throw off the yoke of the USSR.

The successful participation by the Italian communists in government since 1982, and a Popular Front government in France, have frustrated further advance towards European union and have weakened NATO. But the Italian experience has also bred unexpected dangers for the Soviet Union, because it has shown in practice the success of other roads to ‘socialism’, and thus provided encouragement for Poland.

This is a model more likely to be followed than that of the weak new regime in post-Tito Yugoslavia, which has not been able to resist the establishment of pro-Soviet cells in Serbia. But Yugoslavia is another very possible flashpoint, precisely because it is so weak. If there are near-revolts in Poland or East Germany, I do not think the Soviet Union will be eager to send in its own troops to put them down. But they might well engineer (and accept) an invitation from communist cells in Serbia to put down a so-called capitalist counter-revolution in Slovenia or Croatia.

This would be the cheapest Soviet intervention, designed to show the Poles and others that the Red Army still can, and will, move quickly and aggressively when it must. It is therefore all the more dangerous that NATO has left its policy towards Yugoslavia so vague. At present the Russians probably feel that a re-assertion of their power in Poland might lead to reaction from the West (perhaps from West Germany?), but that a new assertion of power over Yugoslavia would probably bring no Western response more powerful than protests.

West Germany has been somewhat disillusioned by the disappointing progress of the EEC and of NATO. The CDU-led opposition is playing for power in Bonn by reviving hopes of reunification with East Germany. Internal revolts in Poland and East Germany might now bring a more positive response from Bonn — a prospect which fills the Soviet Union with alarm.

The Soviet Union itself is ruled by the last of the Second World War generation, believing in power for the regime, austerity for the masses and a foreign bogey to encourage obedience. The government in Moscow is said to be beginning to be somewhat worried about the possibility of disaffection in the Red Army; the present generation of educated youth has no great enthusiasm for three years’ conscripted service under arms.

Moscow is even more worried about the growth of nationalism in the Asian republics of the Soviet Union, which are looking enviously at the increasing prosperity of Japan and China.

The fastest economic growth in the years 1977-84 has occurred in Japan, China and the countries with close trading links with them. Already in 1950-73 Japan had led the industrial growth league, and it should probably have been foreseen that China would follow it. China and Japan share many characteristics. These include traditions of subordination of the individual to the group in a search for group harmony; an incredible vitality, which is very different from the attitude in India, and owes less to material incentives than that in the West; and a capacity for hierarchical self-organization. China under Chairman Mao had already provided the groundwork for economic take-off by creating almost full employment in the countryside. Chairman Hua then opened the door to the import of foreign technology. It was natural that the main technology to flow in (including that for increased production of Chinese oil) should be Japanese.

The China-Japan economic alliance is leading to a sort of political alliance as well. Although China calls itself communist, it now looks like becoming a Swedish version of Japan. This is providing a degree of security in that quarter of the world.

There is no degree of security in the other three-quarters of the world. Some part of the blame for this must be laid on continuing Soviet-US military rivalry. Strategically, after eight years of Democratic Administration in the US and the ineffectuality of SALT, your incoming Republican Administration must decide how to react to a situation of Soviet nuclear superiority and an established Soviet capability to destroy surveillance and communications satellites. The remaining US superiority is now in long distance intervention capability, in technology in general and in electronics in particular.

Mutual deterrence is further complicated and weakened by nuclear proliferation among the feuding Third World countries. Some of these are going to go nuclear anyway, and both the USSR and the US might see advantage in providing know-how and intelligence to potential clients (e.g., ‘unstable left-wing’ and ‘unstable right-wing’ governments) in order to gain new positions of strength and in the belief that this will give a better chance to control a nuclear outbreak.

I would strongly counsel the new Administration against such proliferation, and indeed against any deliberate baiting of the worried Russian bear at this juncture. It is possible that a third world war could be started by mistake, though probably only if two or more of the main points of instability around the world become critical at the same time.

Reserves of crisis management have dealt satisfactorily with Cuba in 1963 and the 1967 Arab-Israeli War in isolation, and even with the combination of Suez and Hungary in 1956, but none of these directly involved both superpowers. Our present systems for containing crises could be overstrained in a multifarious mess in which the superpowers saw their vital interests engaged on several fronts at once. Simultaneous crises in, say, the Middle East, Southern Africa and Poland (or Yugoslavia) would cause just such overstrain.

It is possible that there will be such multiple crises if the Soviet empire starts to crack under its own pressures. There might even be important developments in the eleven weeks before your Inauguration Day.