1989, a farewell to arms: a rejoinder

Abstract

Few in the Western world are likely to argue with Sir Michael Howard when he recommends a course of action to Western governments, and the present writer is not among those few. If Sir Michael's article merely contained recommendations about the more appropriate use of the Western alliance's military potential, and questioned what may indeed be armaments superfluous to requirements, there would be no occasion to challenge his findings. But his article goes beyond such an analysis, and puts the subjects of NATO arms reductions and of changes in strategic doctrine in an historical context that some may find difficult to accept. We are asked to accept President Gorbachev's words and actions as not merely a new phase in the history of the Soviet Union's relations with the non-communist world, but as part of a transformation 'no less fundamental and far-reaching than those which occurred in France in 1789'; 'a genuine revolution (as opposed to Lenin's coup d'e'tat in 1917) in which a new, literate, educated middle class is breaking the shackles of an incompetent and obscurantist ancien re'gime'. We are, in his view, witnessing the establishment of 'a new order based upon intelligent analysis, reasoned discussion, and cooperation with its neighbours.' While giving due weight to the continuation of existing institutions and attitudes, 'fundamental and irreversible changes' are taking place. The comparison with France is hardly convincing. 1789 was only the beginning of a revolution. When the revolutionary process was halted and France came to enjoy the respite of the restoration in 1815, it was found that the major political development in the preceding century the growth in the authority of central government-had been given an even greater impetus with the disappearance of all other centres of power and influence. But the capacity of government to act as it saw fit was limited by the one enduring change brought about by the revolution-the wide diffusion of property, and in particular of landed property. In that sense the revolution was indeed irreversible. The Russian revolution can likewise not be confined to 1917 and Lenin's coup d'etat. It must be considered as having gone on through all its stages, until it culminated in Stalin's destruction of the Russian and Ukrainian peasantry through forced collectivization and famine. What Lenin and Stalin put in place was a new form of autocracy, more far-reaching and less controlled than that of the tsars, with a single class -the new bureaucracy-and its instruments of coercion replacing the former privileged and middle classes and an independent intelligentsia. No doubt, in his efforts to make the system more efficient and to mobilize support for his reforms, Gorbachev has provided opportunities for an outburst of discussion